Genval, 10/09/2001 (Agence Europe) - European diplomatic efforts will be launched with gusto on Monday morning to persuade the Macedonians, NATO and the UN Security Council to accept that NATO and partner countries' troops (Scandinavia and possibly Russia and the Ukraine) stay in Macedonia after the end of the Essential Harvest operation on 26 September, under a UN mandate. At their meeting in Genval, the EU's Foreign Ministers felt that this position was the "most realistic option", but negotiations were continuing between the Member States since various issues had not yet been completely settled (the exact role of this force, the UN's role, etc). Javier Solana was due to speak with Macedonian President Boris Trajkovski on Monday morning over the phone to try and persuade him to accept the validity of this position, since unlike the Macedonian Albanians, Mr Trajkovski opposes the idea of NATO remaining in Macedonia. All the Ministers in Genval insisted that a military force would have to be accepted, requested even, by Macedonia herself, but felt that Skopje could not refuse such a presence. Mr Trajkovski said on Saturday that NATO was not needed to keep peace since Macedonian security forces would be the only guarantors of peace, as the native Albanians would understand.
All the Ministers agreed in Genval on the need to keep an EU presence, but also that it would be impossible to follow the European Emissary François Léotard's idea of sending EU troops since the future Rapid Reaction Force was not yet operational. All agreed in principle that more civil observers should be sent (58 rather than 29) and that a Special EU Representative should be maintained. Hubert Védrine said that the EU could not simply leave after NATO's operation and Mr Léotard's mission. Everyone was well aware that they were committing themselves to Macedonia for more than three weeks. He added that it would be "very good" if the European defence forces were already operational but since they are not, it would be easier to use the framework of NATO with a United Nations Resolution. It was vital to avoid a security vacuum, he said.
After long negotiations, the EU finally rallied round Germany's suggestion to call for a NATO presence (and a few other countries) under a United Nations mandate. The United Kingdom felt that trying to get a UN mandate would simply add further complications, but British sources stressed that they did not oppose the idea, but simply felt it was too complicated and would take too long. Spain and the Netherlands are reported to support this view, but the vast majority of Member States followed the German position. The 26 September deadline is fast approaching, but diplomatic sources suggested that as there were already troops on the ground, there would not be any problem with an operational deadline - this was a political issue. Joschka Fisher presented a document in which he argued that a military presence would still be needed after Essential Harvest but that it must not be used to draw a line between the different ethnic groups. He said that the main security problems were the return of Macedonian armed forces to Albanian regions, the return of refugees, and protecting observers. The military presence should be smaller than the Essential Harvest operation (with 4,500 men) and for a limited time period. One issue to be settled was the mandate of such a force - whether should it only be restricted to protecting civil observers? Sources close to Mr Michel stressed that the very presence of such a force would itself be a source of stability.
Over and above military issues, we would lose all credibility if aid did not arrive
Everyone at Genval stressed that over and above the military issues, the EU's presence was economic and political (although this was subordinated to pursuing reform and working towards peace). The European Commission warned that more than military issues were at stake since the EU would lose all credibility if aid did not arrive and that EU had to make every possible effort to persuade the Macedonians, most of whom have no confidence in the agreement which they feel has been imposed on them by the international community. At the final press conference, Commissioner Patten said that the EU had promised EUR 42 million for reconstruction and development, to which an extra EUR 30 million should be added; at least EUR 2.5 million via the Rapid Reaction mechanism; EUR 4-5 million for ECHO; and probably EUR 50 million in macrofinancial aid. He also said that a Donor Conference for Macedonia would be held on 15 October. In his document on Macedonia, Germany has calculated that it will need Euro 250 million in the years to come (the Commission, however, believes that this figure is not backed up by any current studies). Mr Michel pointed out that any non-humanitarian economic assistance would depend on progress in resolving the political crisis in the country. Mr Michel was keen to stress the necessity of keeping up the pressure on the parties to respect the parallelism set out in the agreement between disarmament and constitutional reforms. He also mentioned the idea of a regional conference. Mr Michel also referred to the encouragement given to the different sides (Macedonia, FYROM and Greece) by the Member States to find an agreement on the name of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia.
Who must do what in Macedonia: text by Javier Solana
Javier Solana also presented a text, based on the main guidelines of the Framework Agreement signed on 13 August by the different sides, to the Member States. This outlined his idea of how the sharing out of roles in Macedonia should be done, when the military presence is no longer there. Mr Solana considers that the main responsibility for implementing the agreement rests with the Macedonian authorities. He also regards a strong commitment on the part of the international community as being necessary for keeping the process on the right track but not for dominating it. He was adamant that the Bosnia-Herzegovina scenario be avoided. Mr Solana referred to the EU's role for co-ordinating the efforts of the international community, but explained that this role would have to change according to the particular tasks it faced. He explained that the Secretary General/High Representative in Brussels, together with the Commission, would continue to direct the general co-ordination relating to political questions, namely, the follow-up of the peace and reform process, contact with the different sides and keep the Council informed of any developments. The High Representative explained that a strong commitment on the part of the Commission would be essential for assistance, reconstruction and humanitarian aid, as well as implementing the Stability and Association Agreement. For reconstruction, the Commission will work with the World Bank. In another sphere, the EU would always need a High Representative in Skopje because co-ordination on the ground was essential. The UN would be responsible for the return of refugees and humanitarian aid, supported by the European Office for Emergency Humanitarian Aid (it is necessary to discuss the return of refugees much earlier on and quickly begin the defusing of mines in Tetovo) etc. The OECD and the US will be in charge of the selection and training of the first 100 Albanian police officers, but the EU could contribute in helping with this task. The Commission, the Council of Europe and the OECD will help in drafting laws on local communities and local finance, as well as the follow-up in registering the population and elections. Monitoring and security will be the domain of European Union (EUMM) and OECD observers.