To limit this "short chronicle" to what goes on within the Convention itself would be inadequate. Indeed, the Convention is being constantly fuelled by a flow of external contributions and initiatives that will influence its work to different degrees. I would like to underline three.
The EuroDefence project. The drawing up of a European defence policy paper by EuroDefence, independent body bringing together prominent people (see our bulletin of 23 April, p.6), is all the more significant in that, according to some indications, Convention President Valery Giscard d'Estaing is said himself to have expressed the desire that it should be drawn up. The presence in EuroDefence of two members of the Convention, Jacques Santer and Willem van Eekelen, may facilitate a kind of "direct line".
The text, which will soon be forwarded to the Convention, will, according to available indications, be fairly precise, both regarding the content of the provisions to take and the institutions and procedures to implement. Instead of speaking of the general principles and guidelines for CFSP, the new Treaty should provide for a "strategic Union concept", covering European interests in all fields of foreign, external security and defence policy. Sectoral "Common strategies" are already provided for in the Amsterdam Treaty; they should become an operational instrument, comprising precise and manageable goals, binding for all actions led by the Union and Member States (the January 2000 Solana Report, document that, at the time, that had struck a nerve by its frankness, had already underpinned the need to review the current "strategies", too diluted and practically ineffective). CFSP and ESDP must be closely linked, as the latter is only the instrument for implementing the former; those who blame the weakness of the EU's political decision-making, for example in the Middle East, and at the same time reject any strengthening of ESDP, are strangely incoherent.
From an organisational point of view, EuroDefence recommends the creation of a European Armaments Agency (body that would mark a stage in the history of European construction, being responsible for preparing, launching and managing armaments programmes, as well as conducting the European military research and technology programme), and a European Intelligence Agency, being added to the two bodies already transferred from WEU to the EU (Satellite Centre and the Institute for Security Studies). As for institutional procedures, the main element suggested would be the possibility of "enhanced co-operation" in the military field, enabling States so wishing to move forward towards the joint exercise of their policies in these areas, and towards the integration of their instruments.
Whatever the Convention does with this paper, the subject of CFSP and ESDP, with a common armaments policy as essential corollary, is now on the table.
The sincerity of the Eurosceptics. The Members Jens-Peter Bonde and David Heathcoat-Amory, backed by other external "Eurosceptics", have formalised their request for an analysis of the acquis communautaire, so as to examine "how to reduce, and possibly abandon it". They cannot be accused of a lack of clarity! Yet, to simplify European legislation, rid it of what is over-abundant or unnecessary, eliminate whatever does not respect the principle of subsidiarity, is a worthy and useful exercise, especially if accompanied by an exercise at codification, eliminating the successive stages that have overlapped and that render a good number of regulations or directive practically illegible. But is that a task for the Convention? I doubt it, both from a political point of view and a technical one (the Members are neither legal experts of specialists). The Convention must define Europe of the future and mot get bogged down in a mire of 85,000 legal pages, the simplification and education of which is already an ongoing process. It's thus at political level that their request of creating a working party responsible for reducing the acquis must be assessed.
The Laenders stick to their guns. The Bundesrat, Germany's second chamber, supports the stances taken by the Member Erwin Teufel: it considers him as representative of the Laenders and thus held to reflect its stances. This is what the minister of Baden-Wurtemberg, Christophe Palmer, told the Stuttgarter Zeitung. Mr. Teufel (see this section in yesterday's bulletin) defended, notably, with some nuances, two hypotheses: the reduction of the EU's current powers and the creation of a parliamentary body responsible for controlling the respect of subsidiarity. The first hypothesis received a cool reception, the second amounts to denying the controlling role of the Court of Justice. But the Laenders are sticking to their guns; and one has not to forget that the future treaty will need ratifying by the Bundesrat.. (F.R.)
European Parliament Plenary Session