Strasbourg, 15/06/2000 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament, following its debate on European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) in view of the European Council in Feira, adopted a resolution presented by Catherine Lalumiére (Socialist group, France) through which it welcomes the developments in the field since the informal summit in Portschach in October 1998. The priority must be to the non-military management of crisis, but that "the fact of having a military instrument capable of executing all types of responses" extends the options available to the EU in the execution of its foreign policy.
In terms of civil management of crisis, the Parliament outlines numerous instruments (which already exist including the committee responsible for civil aspects of crisis management that has just been created), it underlined the need to ensure the co-ordination and coherence between all the Commission services and between these and the Council, in avoiding "the proliferation of crisis centres, crisis management units and committees in Brussels." In particular, the EP is in favour of establishing, in this area, "broad common objectives" that would be the basis of the "headline goals" set in the military domain, and notably: - a broad common objective in terms of civil protection in cases of catastrophes; - broad common objective on "the setting up of a European Public Security Force (EPSF), rapidly deployable and mobilised, which can intervene in operations to maintain order for which military units are not suitable."
With regard to the military capacities of EU countries, the Parliament poses the particular problem of defence budgets, i.e. invited the Member States of draw from the guidelines within the WEU Inventory (presented to the Council in November 1999 in Luxembourg) and the Initiative on Defence Capacities that is underway within NATO, but it feels that one "cannot completely exclude an increase in military budgets in certain Member States." The Parliament also recalls the undertaking to create a European Armaments Agency and the need for "rigorous efforts in the enforcement of the code of conduct in terms of armaments exports."
As for decision-making structures, the Parliament, in particular, calls for the Interim Political and Security Committee to be chaired by the High Representative for CFSP so that he may fully excise his political authority over the body and "in the future, on the Military Committee and the Chiefs of Staff" of the EU. He welcomed the decision (which will be confirmed in the report by the Portuguese Presidency for the Summit in Feira: Ed.) by the EU to establish joint EU/NATO working groups on issues related the security, military capabilities. The provisions should enable the EU to resort to the means available within NATO, as well as the drafting of provisions of a more permanent character guiding the relations between the EU and the Atlantic alliance.
As for the parliamentary dimension of ESDP, the resolution: a) called on the European Parliament, "which represents the people of the EU, to be full implicated in all the stages of the development of this new policy, on the basis of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaty on European Union in terms of CFSP"; b) propose to establish in the framework of ESDP, and basing itself on the example of COSAC (body that gathers, twice yearly, delegations from the European Parliament and national parliamentary committees responsible for European affairs) an inter-parliamentary body for security and defence made up of EP MEPs and MPs from national parliaments, to which could be added representatives from candidate countries and countries associated to the WEU.
Council President feels that ESDP does not yet require a revision of Treaty, Mr. Patten feels necessary a "European Commission crisis management unit"
In the debate taking place on Wednesday (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.4), the Council President Mr. Seixas da Costa in particular said that the Presidency - as, according to him all the Member States - feels that a revision of the Treaty is not immediately needed to implement ESDP. The existing instruments are enough, he said, while awaiting future developments. Mr. Seixas da Costa also underlined the need to co-ordinate the two dimensions of EU action - military and civil - in this field, pointing out that the crisis management committee, which was created during the Portuguese Presidency has just held its first meeting.
In Feira, the summit will discuss the "headline goal" of a European force of about 60,000 men to be set in place by 2003. This will not necessarily imply an increase in defence budgets and will not have any impact on the Community budget, but it will require rationalisation and better use of means available in the Member States. Regarding the future role of the WEU, the transfer of certain of its functions to the EU "does not imply the end of WEU". Above all, the amended Brussels Treaty with its article V, and the WEU Assembly remain, as well as WEAG (Western European Armaments Group). Regarding EU/NATO relations, the Presidency Report for Feira will indicate the principles and modalities for cooperation, comprising above all: - a) four interim EU/NATO ad hoc groups (to which others may be added, if necessary) on ESDP, on European military capabilities, NATO's contribution to EU-led operations, and on permanent arrangements for the future; b) regular consultation with NATO member countries that are not members of the EU and with countries applying for EU membership. The European NATO members could, in principle, take part in the Petersberg operations. The Feira Summit will also discuss Canada's interest in taking part in such operations and awaits proposals from the French Presidency on consultation procedure with Russia and Ukraine.
The European Commission contributed to the non-military dimension of crisis prevention and management well before the summits of Cologne and Helsinki, recalled External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten, who stressed that the current priority is not the creation of additional instruments or extra funding. Rapid decision-making "is one of my obsessions", he said, saying that he really does think the European Commission should have its own "crisis management unit". He specified that "we should keep it small" and ensure that it has "no intention of duplicating" at the Commission structures created in Council. In his opinion, the suggestion of the European Parliament to set up a European Civilian Corps to keep law and order deserves reflection.
Parliament minority regrets or rejects evolution towards "Defence Europe"
During the debate, General Morillon (EPP, French) felt that "Europe has woken up" and that this "start" was mainly caused by the "awareness of independence" towards the Americans. But it will take time and money. For the finalisation of an arms programme it will take at least 10-15 years. Ms Lalumière (Socialist Group, France) said in substance that acceleration of the implementation of ESDP is expected from the Feira summit. She mainly stressed that, in the civil management of crises, the Commission has an "essential role to play". Ms Lalumière also insisted on the parliamentary dimension of ESDP. Several left-wing MEPs or from neutral countries expressed more or less clear reservation about the road taken by the European Union with ESDP. Ms Stenzel, elected ÖVP member, felt that the inclusion in Article V of the WEU Treaty into the protocol of the EU Treaty would be a good point of departure. Mr Väyrynen, Finnish member of the Liberal Group, recalled that the neutral and non-aligned countries are opposed to the creation of a European army. This must be taken into account and, he says, the solution would be the establishment of a "variable geometry" in this field, with a group of countries which could create a "defence community" between them. "We want to keep the Helsinki commitments, but we are opposed to those who wish to exaggerate the military role of the European Union", said Mr Schori, Social Democrat from Sweden. The Greens Group affirmed that the EU must avoid giving preference to the military dimension of crisis management (this was the reproach made by Mr Lagendijk, and the United Left Group was highly critical: German PDS member Mr Brie reproached the EU with dealing with the management of "imaginary crises" and accelerating the military aspects of ESDP, whereas, in his view, it should insist more on the role of the UN and OSCE, and on "radical" disarmament measures. Speaking on behalf of the Europe of Nations, French national Mr Souchet also said he was in favour of "variable geometry" in this field. National Front elected member Mr Gollnisch (Technical Group of Independent Members) affirmed that the "personality of Javier Solana illustrates that European defence is becoming increasingly under NATO" and that the results of Feira are known in advance. It will be "alignment of CFSP on what Washington wants through NATO". Finally, British Conservative Mr Newton-Dunn reacted to information whereby "some people" in London would like to block European developments in this field.