WRITTEN QUESTION E-0633/03 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council. Kosovo, Iraq and the authority of the UN Security Council.
Date: 2003-03-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Iraq, Kosovo, NATO, UN Security Council, United States, disarmament, humanitarian aid, international security, military intervention, the EU's international role

C 280 E/74

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

(2003/C 280 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0633/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(4 March 2003)

Subject: Kosovo, Iraq and the authority of the UN Security Council

On 18 February 2003 at a Meeting of the Conference of Presidents open to all Members of the European
Parliament, Mr Costas Simitis, the Greek Prime-Minister, while explaining the Conclusions of the European
Council of the previous day, contrasted the situation in Iraq with the situation in Kosovo where he
suggested that the use of force had been authorised by the United Nations.

In fact, although Resolution 1203 (October 1998) demanded compliance by Yugoslavia and the Kosovan
Liberation Army with the terms of Resolution 1199, and also that both parties co-operate with
international efforts to improve the humanitarian situation and avert humanitarian catastrophe, none of
the United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Kosovo (1160, 1199, 1203 or 1239) which preceded
NATO’s bombing of The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia authorised the use of force. Despite this lack of
authorisation, the bombing of Yugoslavia was supported by all EU Member States, as well as many of
those most critical of the current American administration’s stance over Iraq, despite the far greater scale
of humanitarian tragedy that has afflicted Iraq over the last twenty years as well as the much greater threat
posed by the regime to neighbouring states.

Was Mr Simitis speaking on behalf of the Council when he made this comparison, and, if so, to which UN
Resolution was he referring? Were Mr Simitis’ remarks intended as a criticism of the Bush administration’s
approach to the United Nations? If so, would the Council accept that although Secretary Albright’s
response to the impending conflict in Kosovo was to effectively ignore the Security Council and instead try
to impose her own solution at Rambouillet, (such that a contributor to The New York Times was able to
write in March, 1999: ‘In Kosovo, the Security Council has been sidelined as NATO has essentially taken
over management of the conflict and efforts to find a solution. Any peacekeeping operation there would
be run by NATO, as well as any decision to use force. Although some European nations want the Security
Council to have a say, it has been cut out of any such role, primarily by the United States.’) Secretary
Powell, by contrast, has been assiduous in his efforts to involve the United Nations and to persuade it to
discharge its responsibilities in disarming Iraq as demanded by both the Security Council and the European
Union?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

The question raised by the Honourable Member of
the European Parliament about similarities or
differences between the Kosovo and the Iraqi crisis and the way in which the US responded to them in the
Security Council has not been debated by the Council.

As to the European Council conclusions of 17 February, which the Presidency presented to the European
Parliament on 18 February, and which the Honourable Parliamentarian refers to, the European Council
committed itself to the UN remaining the centre of international order. It also recognised that the primary
responsibility for dealing with Iraqi disarmament lies with the Security Council.

On 21 March, the European Council again discussed Iraq. It noted that with the beginning of the military
conflict, it faced a new situation. The European Council expressed the hope that the conflict would end
with the minimum loss of human life and suffering and committed itself to be actively involved in
humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. The proposal by General Secretary Kofi Annan that the
humanitarian needs can continue to be met by the UN’s ‘Oil for Food’ programme was supported by the
Council. The Council furthermore expressed the belief that the UN must continue to play a central role
during and after the current crisis and it reiterated its commitment to the fundamental role of the UN in
the international system and to the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of
international peace and stability.