Key Nato countries played down prospects of the alliance spearheading a peace force for south Lebanon on Wednesday, with France dismissing the idea outright and Germany expressing doubts.
World diplomats agreed at Lebanon crisis talks in Rome on Wednesday that an international force under a United Nations mandate was needed to bring peace to the nation, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a news conference.
In Brussels, Nato Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said Nato involvement could not be ruled out, but said talk of a role was premature until international players had worked out key details for the force, notably its mandate and mission.
"This is not the moment," he told reporters of indications by Israeli officials they would welcome a Nato role within a robust multinational force on its border with Lebanon.
"I see many suggestions, each with a question mark ... I do not include anything, I do not exclude anything," de Hoop Scheffer said. President Jacques Chirac said that France could play a major part in an international force for Lebanon under certain circumstances, but said he saw no role for Nato.
"Nato is perceived, whether we like it or not, as the armed wing of the West in these regions, and consequently, in terms of its image, Nato is not the right organisation here," told Le Monde newspaper in an interview. Germany was less categorical but said its ruling coalition was sceptical about using the 26-member military alliance as the backbone for any multinational force.
"For the members of the cabinet, I think you can say that Nato does not have priority for a possible stabilisation force," government spokesman Thomas Steg told reporters.
Steg threw cold water over speculation Nato could deploy its fledgling rapid-reaction unit, saying the Nato Response Force (NRF) was "clearly unsuitable" for such a mission. The NRF, due to be fully operational with 25,000 troops this October, is designed to deploy into troublespots around the world at a few days' notice. So far, it has been used for humanitarian missions and protecting polls in Afghanistan.
John Bolton, US ambassador to the United Nations, said earlier this week that Washington was open to Nato leading a security force but added that the Bush administration had not yet contemplated any US troops being involved. Britain, normally a big contributor to Nato operations, has said its forces are too stretched in missions such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Others such as the Netherlands are also unwilling, raising doubts over which nations could actually participate.
"Nato's ability to do something always depends on the willingness of its allies," said a Nato official who requested anonymity.
The prospect of any imminent deployment of a force grew more distant when the Rome meeting ended without clear agreement on how to end the 15-day-old conflict between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas. "That is the question that has to be answered first," de Hoop Scheffer said, adding that it was also important to consider how a force would be received in the region.