The Union’s 27 heads of state and government, meeting for an extraordinary summit on 11 March in Brussels to discuss the Libyan crisis and the situation in the Mediterranean, opted clearly for a concerted solution with the Arab League and the African Union by exploring the possibility of a tripartite summit. They asked High Representative Catherine Ashton to attend the Arab League meeting, on 12 March, to take stock of Arab requests and possible European Union responses.

This common position by the 27 prevailed over the diverging European views that had emerged late during the week over the Franco-British proposal for a military intervention. Chancellor Angela Merkel, opposed to any intervention at this stage, along with Belgium, Italy, Sweden and other countries, explained at a press conference that there was “no reason to discuss” the Franco-British proposal and “no reason to adopt decisions” on this subject.

European Council President Herman van Rompuy confirmed that the leaders had “all” backed the immediate departure of Colonel Gaddafi and had agreed “to ensure the population’s security by all means”.

British Prime Minister David Cameron denied, in response to journalists’ questions, being “frustrated” over rejection of the Franco-British proposal, saying on the contrary that he was “pleased” with the debates that “took all necessary options into consideration”.

“David Cameron and I expressed our availability” for a possible military action to protect the Libyan population, declared French President Nicolas Sarkozy early in the day, “to prevent air attacks”. The two leaders had surprised fellow heads of state and government with their joint letter to President Van Rompuy, sent on the eve of the summit.

For the Franco-British tandem, a military intervention would have to respect two conditions: a legal basis adopted by the United Nations Security Council and the political support of the Arab countries. Such an intervention should be decided “only in the event that Mr Gaddafi uses chemical weapons or aviation against peacefully demonstrating populations,” added Sarkozy early in the day.

The Franco-British proposal irritated most of the member states, which prefer to adopt a much more cautious position.

“I would like for us to send a signal of unity, because a ‘divide and conquer’ approach would merely serve Gaddafi’s purposes,” said Merkel upon arriving in Brussels.

Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt also publicly rejected the idea proposed by London and Paris. “Any discussion of a military intervention is an issue for the UN, NATO and the Arab League,” he said.

On the sensitive issue of recognition of the Libyan National Transition Council, Merkel asserted that the EU agrees to make this Council an “interlocutor”. This is not equivalent to formal recognition, as requested on 10 March by President Sarkozy, without any prior consultation. A consensus was built around cautious wording in the summit conclusions: “The European Union salutes and encourages the National Transition Council based in Benghazi, which it considers to be a political interlocutor”.

Council supports EIB

The initial draft conclusions of the European Council, previewed by Europoliticson 10 March, mentioned the possibility of extending the mandate of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to the Southern neighbourhood. However, only the European Investment Bank (EIB) is mentioned in the final text.

The Council essentially requests a review of the possibilities of stepping up the EIB’s total financial support.

The EBRD, founded in 1991 to provide support for democratic transition in the Central and Eastern European countries, belongs to 61 states, including the United States, the European Union and the EIB.