Strasbourg, 18/01/2001 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday, the European Parliament took a stance in favour of the rapid funding mechanism proposed by the European Commission for non-military crisis management, adopting amendments proposed by the rapporteur, British Liberal Democrat (former Conservative) William Newton-Dunn (see EUROPE of 12 January, page 13). Almost all the amendments can be accepted by the Commission, stated Chris Patten. With these amendments, the Parliament requests that: - the mechanism be supported by fixing priority civil objectives and (at this point the Commission says this goes beyond its sphere of competence) by establishing a European public security force; - spending be financed under Heading 4 of the financial perspectives, or, if this is not possible, through adequate revision of financial perspectives. The budgetary authority each year fixes a global ceiling for the financing of intervention under the regulation. Mr Patten specified that the Commission has agreed, for the time being, to limit each intervention at EUR 12 million, in a spirit of compromise towards the Council; - the provisions concerning the establishment of a "crisis committee" are removed from the regulation.
In this proposal it is not a matter of setting a military provision in place, stressed the rapporteur, but rather a financial facility allowing the Commission to intervene rapidly, and those who have rightly criticised the Commission in the past for the time it takes to intervene can but agree with this proposal. The budgets committee, stated German Social-Democrat Jutta Haug, approves the proposal, while calling on the Council and Commission to indicate how they plan to share responsibilities in this field and finance the necessary activities, also stating where they plan to find the resources. The majority of MEPs is, with some slight differences, in favour of the Commission's proposal: Arie Oostlander (EPP, NL) insists on the importance of Union intervention in the stabilisation phases after a violent conflict; Jan Marinus Wiersma, (Socialist Group, NL) welcomes the choice of simple procedures, avoiding committee procedures; Bob van den Bos (Liberal Group, NL) considers, however, that the funds earmarked for now are ridiculously inadequate compared to needs. In the same spirit, German national Elisabeth Schroedter (Greens/ALE) regretted that the "fireman" (i.e. the Union) only receives buckets of water for fighting the flames. The United Left/Nordic Greens Left is not unanimous, admitted Spanish national Pedro Marset Campos, but a majority is in favour of the proposal, although requesting that greater insistence be place on prevention and the coordination between different programmes. Bastiaan Belder (Europe of Democracies and Diversities, NL) agrees with the rapporteur but would like to maintain the "crisis committee" envisaged by the European Commission. Bureaucratic discussions should not make this initiative fail, affirmed Austrian FPÖ member Peter Sichrovsky, who recalled the experience of small neutral countries like his own in the field of mediation and crisis prevention. The only really discordant voice was that of Geoffrey Van Orden (British Conservative), who first of all insisted on the need for clearer wording of the proposal (possible confusion with a military reaction mechanism was exploited by a certain British paper to fuel anti-European sentiment), to conclude that he could not approve the proposal because of the request for establishment of a European public security force.
Commissioner Chris Patten gave Mr Van Orden the following response: If there is confusion, it is precisely because of what some Conservatives like Mr Van Orden have been saying, and if they do not agree with the rapid reaction mechanism "what the hell will they ever approve of?", he asked. He said that when he held a position of responsibility in the Conservative Party, it was precisely something of this kind that they wanted: the ability to act fast, and to cut the redtape. On the substance of the matter, Mr Patten affirmed that the Union is, with this proposal, making a step in the right direction. Regarding budgetary aspects, he recalled that the Commission has financing authorised by the budgetary authority, but, he exclaimed with some impatience, the Commission has for too long "allowed others to get away without fixing priorities".