Germany Backs Britain's Refusal to Call for Ceasefire

Britain and Germany today watered down a strong European Union call for an immediate ceasefire in the Israel-Lebanon conflict as foreign ministers clashed in Brussels.

Instead of calling for an immediate ceasefire a convoluted statement issued by the 25 member states called for "an immediate end to hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire".

The move by Britain and Germany backs the stance of the United States which believes a ceasefire call should only be made if it was "sustainable".

It will be also interpreted as a snub to Jacques Chirac, the French president, who has been demanding an immediate ceasefire.

Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, was joined by her German, Czech and Polish counterparts in resisting a challenge by the Finns and the French to unite behind a stronger statement which also warned of breaches of international law in the three-week old conflict.

But Mrs Beckett said that Israel could not interpret the EU statement as a "green light" to continue its military actions in Lebanon.

"I would be surprised and dismayed if anyone interpreted it that way and they can't," she told reporters after the meeting. "It explicitly calls on all parties to cease the violence."

After the four-hour discussions Erkki Tuomioja, the Finnish foreign minister, whose country holds the EU presidency, admitted the session had been "intense" with drafts and redrafts issued but insisted there were now "no divisions in the EU".

He also claimed that the there was no difference in meaning between "immediate ceasefire" and "immediate end to hostilities" for the people in Lebanon and Israel threatened by military action, a view disputed by the German foreign minister.

"Cessation of hostilities is not the same as a ceasefire," Frank-Walter Steinmeier said "A ceasefire can perhaps be achieved later ... We can now only ask the UN security council and put pressure on it and not to waste any more time."

The earlier draft stated: "The council called for an immediate ceasefire. Disregard for necessary precautions to avoid loss of civilian life constitutes a severe breach of international humanitarian law."

Britain, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland said the original draft - including a warning to Israel that disregard for precautions to avoid loss of civilian life in Lebanon "constitutes a severe breach of international humanitarian law" - was unacceptable.

It was altered by Britain, Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic to an appeal to all parties "do everything possible to protect populations and to refrain from actions in violation of international law".

Nicholas Watt, the Guardian's Europe editor, said that Finland's first draft closely resembled the position argued for by the French government, which has demanded a ceasefire before any discussion of longer-term political solutions, including an international stabilisation force.

The diplomatic argument Watt reports centred around "sequencing", with the British refusing to call for a ceasefire without the other two elements of the diplomatic plan - political negotiations and the stabilisation force - also in place. Critics of the US-UK position argue that the loss of civilian life in Lebanon and the damage to its civil infrastructure is so great as to make an immediate cessation a greater necessity.

Diplomatic attempts to bring peace to the region now move to New York where a new UN resolution creating an international stabilisation force with a new mandate is expected to be signed later in the week.

With five member states on the UN security council and two permanent members in France and Germany the EU was determined to send a strong and unified signal today which also included a promise of 50 million euros of humanitarian aid for Lebanon.