THE diplomatic guns may have fallen silent and this week’s summit in Athens may have been an amicable ceasefire, but it failed to resolve the transatlantic battle over the war in Iraq and its aftermath.

As leaders of the rival pro- and anti-war camps — better known in the Pentagon as new and old Europe — papered over their divisions and smiled for the cameras, daunting new obstacles loomed.

The EU leaders agreed a joint statement which called for the United Nations to “play a central role” in Iraq, shaping the political and economic future and helping with reconstruction. They also called for the publication of the “road map” for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, hailed the “new atmosphere” of co-operation in Athens, in contrast to the rows that have plagued recent EU events. But there was precious little in the way of concrete decisions about how Europe and the UN will contribute to the future of security, politics and economics of Iraq. The new cracks are already emerging inside Europe on defence and security.

Some European states have committed themselves to providing peacekeeping forces to help to improve security in Iraq, but they were all members of the pro-war faction.

Poland said yesterday that it was ready to send 1,000 officers to work alongside American and British troops. Similar commitments have been made by Denmark, Spain and Italy as well as the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

But the offers were made in response to an appeal from Washington instead of through the EU. President Chirac said that he had not even been told about the new European military contribution to the Iraqi war effort.

Later this month the anti-war camp is likely to have its say on the matter. Belgium, one of the most outspoken opponents of the war, is hosting a summit for the leaders of France, Germany and Luxembourg. The session is supposed to discuss the EU’s future defence needs, but there are already fears that it could turn into another attempt to marginalise America’s role in Europe and reinforce the differences on the Continent. “This is not a good time to be holding this meeting,” a British official said.

The splits in Europe, however, are nothing compared with the potential battleground at the UN Security Council, where the damage from the confrontation last month over authorisation for the war has still not been repaired.

President Bush made it clear on Wednesday that he wants the UN to lift the economic sanctions still in place in Iraq. These control the country’s oil sales and the purchase and distribution of food and medicines to the people.

The request might seem obvious. Iraq is unable to sell any of its oil to pay for reconstruction until the sanctions, imposed because of its weapons of mass destruction programme, are lifted. But the manner in which the embargo is removed is key.

Under the existing arrangements agreed with the ousted regime, France, Russia and China enjoyed a virtual monopoly on developing Iraq’s oil industry. They have contracts worth billions of pounds signed with the former Government in Baghdad and are still owed billions.

The countries, which all have veto powers at the Security Council, have hinted that they will not hand over control of Iraq’s oil industry to a US-led authority, which could transfer all future contracts to American companies.

M Chirac said yesterday that it was necessary to “define the modalities of lifting sanctions”, a remark that diplomats at the UN predicted would lead to “hard debating” ahead.

The French and their allies also want to define a central role for the UN in shaping Iraq’s political future, meaning that a senior UN representative would be involved at every stage of the country’s political renaissance, to ensure that America does not have a monopoly over the way forward.

For now the debates taking place are largely abstract. Britain and other Security Council members have deliberately avoided becoming embroiled in the wording of draft resolutions.

But, as one British diplomat said: “There are already the rumblings of the debate. The focus is going to shift back to the UN. It is going to be a long, hard effort.”

As ever, the key country will be France. It has the power to block, delay and drag out the UN process, making reconstruction efforts on America’s terms more difficult.

But it is also aware that, the longer the stalemate lasts, the harder it will be for the UN, and by extension countries such as France, to have any real say in the future of Iraq.

Explore World News

• World Agenda

• Iraq News

• US & Americas News

• Europe News

• Middle East News

• Asia News

• Africa News

• Ireland News

Times Recommends

• Michael Jackson: Not the final chapter
• Indian Army spends10m rupees on golf buggies
• Brüno toned down for 15 rating