Several majority guidelines. The last session of the Convention on the Future of Europe before the summer break gave rise to the first true debate on one of the key issues of institutional reform: foreign and defence policy. For the first time, options were put on the table and discussed. Views quite naturally differed and it would have been foolish to expect conclusions to be reached, but some majority guidelines did take shape. For example:
1. Europe's role must be strengthened. There was a very clear majority along these lines. It insisted not only on the need for the EU to be present at international level but also on what the public wants (as reflected by polls). The new Spanish Foreign Minister, Ana de Palacio, was particularly firm about this. Opposition or reservation was expressed by Scandinavian countries and by "French separatists". The latter are in such a small minority in their own country that they will not have much weight when it comes down to decisions. But, although one or another northern countries may confirm its opposition at governmental level, the problem will be to bring all Member States together on CFSP and ESDP (Mr Bonde does not wish Europe to be a great power, as all major powers are involved in wars) and the institutional structure that this implies (see under the same heading yesterday for Jacques Delors' opinion in favour of "strengthened cooperation" in these areas).
2. The two methods. The most controversial aspect concerns, as predicted, the balance that must be sought between application of the Community method and the intergovernmental method. No-one asks for CFSP and ESDP to be totally governed by the Community method, no-one (or almost no-one) calls for it to be totally excluded. British Minister Peter Hain has a clear view of the solution that his country recommends: neither the involvement of armies (on this point, all agree) nor diplomacy may come under the Community institutions.
Commissioner Michel Barnier then recalled that the "Community method" does not mean entrusting more powers to the Commission but founding it on a balance of powers between the institutions, and that developments should be progressive and prudent. He cited, for example, trade policy which is a fundamental aspect of the Union's external relations and goes beyond the field of trade as it allows European values to be made concrete (solidarity with the Third World, social progress) and to control globalisation. In this field, Europe has acquired the status of super-power (without becoming a super-State) thanks to the institutional mechanisms implemented: the Commission proposes, the Council decides (mainly by qualified majority), the Parliament is involved in strategic debates and the Commission negotiates on behalf of all as a guarantor of general European interest. This is a model to be used as an example, as it presupposes a common stance, a single voice, EU representation in international bodies and appropriate budgetary means.
Commissioner Antonio Vitorino insisted on the need for the CFSP and ESDP to be able to mobilise "all available instruments, whether civilian or military: these instruments exist but they are dispersed" (and he cited arms policy which is "today fragmented"). He affirmed: "all instruments must be included in a coherent common strategy, involving credible industrial and strategic preparation for eventual military action when this proves necessary", given that any decision for the use of military forces must come under the responsibility of Member States "as cooperation in the context of the Union".
3. Powers concentrated. Most Convention Members took a stance in favour of bringing the powers currently held by Mr Solana and Mr Patten under one and the same person (27 out of 59 speakers, according to the calculation made by my colleague, Pierre Bocev), preferably within the European Commission and with special status. Peter Hain suggested a different solution for concentrating the available means of action: the High Representative for CFSP would have right of own initiative and would take part in the European Commission meetings devoted to foreign policy, with his word to say on budgetary aspects, while continuing to function in the context of the Council.
The problem of democratic control, essentially by the European Parliament, CFSP and ESDP was also evoked by several Convention Members. That of European embassies in third countries, of a European diplomatic corps, was also raised (Mr Lamassoure suggesting symbolic abolition of bilateral embassies between Member States). (F.R.)