*** NICOLAI VON ONDARZA, RODERICK PARKES: The EU in the face of disaster. Implementing the Lisbon Treaty's Solidarity Clause. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik / German Institute for International and Security Affairs (3-4 Ludwigkirchplatz, D-10719 Berlin. Tel: (49-30) 88007-0 - Fax: 88007-100 - email: swp@swp-berlin.org - Internet: http://www.swp-berlin.org ). « SWP Comments” series, No. 9. 2010, 8 pp.
Now that the European External Action Service (diplomatic corps) is being set up, another highly controversial political issue needs to be decided upon by the 27 EU Member States and the European institutions, namely a solidarity clause that will kick in if a Member State 'is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster'. This commentary by researchers at the German Institute for International Affairs and Security provides very useful explanations of the major challenges awaiting negotiators given that the solidarity clause goes further than the Civil Protection Mechanism (introduced by the EU shortly after 11 September 2001) by making it possible to bring in the military.
In fact, the solidarity clause mentioned in the Lisbon Treaty 'touches on core attributes of national sovereignty' that are not considered in any way by the Civil Protection Mechanism, which leaves Member States completely free to decide who and where they want to help in the manner they themselves see fit without outside intervention. In theory, the system to be introduced under the aegis of the solidarity clause should be far more binding on the Member States and will necessitate getting over the tension between solidarity and sovereignty. How can this be achieved? As far as Nicolai von Ondarza and Roderick Parkes are concerned, it will firstly require deciding how and through the agency of whom the solidarity system can be brought into play, because not all Member States are equal in this respect. There are the 'good' ones, which have earmarked some of their budget for sorting out their own problems, and the others which prefer to rely on the cheaper option of other European countries stepping in to help... To get round this problem, the authors recommend introducing a 'subsidiarity threshold' whereby Member States would not be allowed to call on the solidarity clause until a particularly severe crisis has set in and they would therefore be required to deal with their own crises themselves. Today's 'good' countries will in this way be less reluctant to agree to a binding solidarity system. Similarly, the authors suggest that the good countries be reassured by the compiling of 'an enticing catalogue of disasters' which would, in theory, restrict application of the solidarity clause to terrorist attacks or disasters affecting several Member States. It is argued that such a catalogue would also reduce the danger of the system being monopolised by a small number of Member States (like the abuse seen in the control of immigrants on the EU's external borders). The problem is that the 'loose wording' of Article 222 opens up the option of the solidarity clause being used to muster aid in the event of 'cyber-attacks or fuel shortages,' which certainly does not facilitate the task of the people responsible for making the clause operational and should encourage the European Council to 'regularly conduct a threat assessment'. The authors suggest that the decision to put the solidarity clause into operation should be 'neutralised,' taking inspiration from the Frontex agency.
In the same spirit, Nicolai von Ondarza and Roderick Parkes examine the challenges to be dealt with, like the involvement of the military for a country like Germany where there are strict limitations laid down in the constitution on what the military can and cannot do. They also explain the decision that will have to be taken about the institutional location of the structures required to put the solidarity clause into operation. This will be a major problem because it will involve both 'Community' and 'intergovernmental' aspects. Not easy to describe such a complex issue so comprehensively and in such detail in so few pages!
Michel Theys
*** ELISABETH GUIGOU, YVES BUR: La réforme de la gouvernance de la politique extérieure de l'Union européenne. Commission des Affaires européennes de l'Assemblée nationale (Boutique de l'Assemblée nationale, 7 rue Aristide Briand, F-75007 Paris. Tel: (33-1) 40630033 - Internet: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr ). "Rapport d'information" series, No. 2631. 2010, 105 pp, €5. ISBN 978-2-11-128280-3.
' In Copenhagen, Europe learned that the soft power of a fragmented normative power was not enough to influence a world of hard, global powers…' In this newsletter, published in June 2010 and therefore covering much of the foundation of the EU's new diplomatic corps (European External Action Service)), a former French secretary of state for European affairs under President Mitterand and a colleague from the French National Assembly refuse to countenance the idea of the EU gradually being sidelined on the international stage due to 'contradictions' among the Member States. Member States are therefore urged to learn from the Greek debt crisis and fill the gap between the economic and monetary arms of the euro, fill the gaps in the 'semi-failure of the Lisbon Strategy' and fully learn from the EU's loss of international influence. On the latter point, they argue that four factors are required to help the EU gain influence, namely putting a halt to the controversy between federalists and intergovernmentalists to avoid spoiling the progress made by the Lisbon Treaty in the field of EU foreign policy. Secondly, the new common diplomatic corps should be organised in such a manner that Caroline Ashton can fully exercise the powers conferred upon her by the new job she is taking up. Thirdly, a convergence process should be started among the Member States on a small number of EU foreign policy priorities. Fourthly and most importantly, the two politicians argue for overarching and joined-up scrutiny of European foreign policy to be organised by national parliaments and the European Parliament and for a system of annual meetings to be organised on the future of the European Union among all the EU institutions and ordinary Europeans.
(MT)
*** JULIA LIEB, MARTIN KREMER: Empowering EU Diplomacy. The European External Action Service as an opportunity for EU foreign policy. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik / German Institute for International and Security Affairs (3-4 Ludwigkirchplatz, D-10719 Berlin. Tel: (49-30) 88007-0 - Fax: 88007-100 - email: swp@swp-berlin.org - Internet: http://www.swp-berlin.org ). "SWP Comments" series, No. 2. 2010, 4 pp.
Finalised in February 2010, this commentary by researchers at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs explains the pitfalls to be avoided to ensure the new EU diplomatic corps (European External Action Service) can really have a joined-up, effective presence on the global stage. The authors argue that nothing guarantees this yet because the Member States' varying sensitivities to foreign policy issues can continue to diverge noticeably in certain areas and for this reason, it would be a good idea for foreign ministers to meet up informally on a more frequent basis to try and reach strategic agreement on the EU's aims and priorities as a player on the world stage.
(MT)
*** GILLES ROUET, PETER TEREM (Eds.): L'Ukraine, entre intégration et partenariat / Ukraine, between integration and partnership. Etablissements Bruylant (67 rue de la Régence, B-1000 Brussels. Tel: (32-2) 5129842 - Fax: 5119477 - Courriel: jean@bruylant.be - Internet: http://www.bruylant.be ). "Voisinages européens" series, No. 4. 2010, 389 pp, €60. ISBN 978-2-8027-2867-2.
This book emerged from a conference organised by no fewer than four universities two years ago, namely the history, politics and international relations faculty at Tchernivtsi University, its alter ego at Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, the 'Mouvements Internationaux et Gouvernance' research centre at Reims Champagne-Ardenne University in France and the 'Groupe de Recherche et d'Action sur la Politique Européenne de Voisinage'. This fact should inspire readers to trust the information provided in the book about a country that very few Europeans in the EU actually know. Readers can rely on information provided in scientific explanations giving an overview of political changes in the Ukraine since its gained independence, and a history of its relations with the EU. Readers can rest assured, of course, in general but their confidence might be rather shaken by the fact that in the first pages of the book, an academic holding the Jean Monnet Chair no less, talks about Mrs Olli Rehn (the then EU Enlargement Commissioner), saying that s/he was called upon to hold back the formal lodging of a request from Ukraine to join the EU, preferring an Association Agreement instead. The error casts what is no doubt an unjustified shadow on the other essays…(PBo)