Should a country reject ESDP… The mandate that Michel Barnier secured for the "defence" working group which he chairs within the Convention is broad and explicit: it must not only set out the contents of the military chapter of the new treaty, but also examine the provisions to envisage for Member States not agreeing to take part in ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy).
Questions on content are simple and obvious: what missions, beyond the Petersberg tasks, may be envisaged for the Union in matters of defence? How to guarantee a rapid decision-making process in "crises management" operations? The problem of a common armaments policy has also to be raised: should the creation be envisaged of a European armaments agency to ensure efficiency and "economies of scale" for research, manufacture and purchases?
Regarding participation in ESDP, there are two essential questions: a) should "admission criteria" be envisaged, and a pact with which participating countries would then have to comply, as in Monetay Union? Those who have in mind the "Maastricht criteria" and the Stability Pact, will immediately understand the significance and importance of this question. Admission criteria could, in particular, involve a minimum budgetary level of "defence", and that it should be maintained; b) should the possibility be envisaged of extending the "enhanced co-operation" mechanism to the field of defence? This question implies the possibility that certain Member states will refuse to participate in ESDP. The scope of the answer will exceed the defence sector, as it raises a general problem of the future Europe. In a constitutional Treaty, all citizens must have the same rights; would this equality be guaranteed if exceptions or derogation's relate to fundamental areas?
For a certain number of EU countries, including all the "large" ones, ESDP is not only indispensable but must also represent one of the essential aspects of the new Treaty. French Minister for European Affairs Noelle Lenoir has spoken of a "power Europe" that "needs the means to weigh on the affairs of the world, align the foreign policies of Member states to have them converge towards identical goals, conduct a strong common security and defence policy". That's "the mission demanded of Europe in this beginning of the 21st century", so that it "has its own voice heard in the management of major world affairs". Is this opinion shared by all Member states? The last Franco-German summit (30 July) affirmed the need for the EU to "rapidly pursue the strengthening of its assets regarding security and defence policy" and took measures to "contribute to the creation of an independent EU satellite reconnaissance capability". A Spanish declaration states that "a Europe without defence would be non-existent in the world". The Benelux countries, headed by Belgium, as well as Greece, seem to agree; the position of other countries (Denmark, Ireland, Austria, Sweden and possibly Finland) is more doubtful.
A choice that does not exist. The specific nature of this sector is that there is no choice: should, let's imagine, the Convention lead to a weakening of ESDP, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain and most likely Italy would move ahead breathing life into a construction outside the Union. And in an intergovernmental structure, the weight of small countries would practically be nought. It is probably this consideration that lies at the root of the approach, late July, of Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt to Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair (instigators of the rekindling of ESDP) frankly asking: a) the guarantee of mutual security between EU countries; b) a European headquarters to a certain extent playing the role of an integrated command for the existing multinational groups; c) a convergent restructuring of European armies "in view of better doing together what we are increasingly unable to do separately"; the creation of a "European armaments agency", involving the European Commission. As we see, the Belgian effort along these lines renders ESDP as Community-oriented as possible. For now, the response from Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair has not much exceeded the stage of a simple acknowledgement of receipt. But it is easily predictable that the "small countries" wanting to actively participate in ESDP will have their say in the Convention. Germany observed that it had not been very wise, on the part of Verhofstadt, to raise these problems only with Chirac and Blair. Now, within the Convention, everyone has a word, including on the "financing" aspect of ESDP. France considers that all Member states should assume their share of the burden and that spending on defence should not come into the calculation of the budget deficit under EMU. That's a new unexpected chapter of this problem.
(F.R.)