An extraordinary breakthrough. An extraordinary breakthrough has been made in the European defence dossier recently. Just a few weeks ago, one still spoke about it as if it were a dossier to treat with extreme caution in order to avoid causing offence to one country or another. Caution still remains, given the nature of the subject, but we can now discuss it in an open way. It is becoming clearer that a certain number of Member States and not the minority of them, are prepared to act. We can now safely say that the birth of the "European Security and Defence" is certain; if by misfortune it is not born in the Community context, it will be situated on its margins.
But we're not yet there. The Convention has provided the debate with a Community framework and all hope is allowed. This evolution can be located in the proof of the weight that the Convention is currently assuming in the history of Europe. It is not because European defence is a new subject, we've been speaking about it for a long time but discussions were almost secret, limited to contacts or initiatives between Member States and a few confidential exchanges of views at the Council. On the other hand, at the debate at the Convention, it is not only governments which are taking part but also national and European parliamentarians, as well as the EU institutions. The specialised work group has met up more than a dozen times and has heard Javier Solana, Chris Patten, Lord Robertson and the different military authorities speak. On 10 December, it will approve its report and proposals. Its President, Michel Barnier is hoping, in compliance with the Convention's work method, to announce the "consensus" of his group but if this turns out to be impossible, he will not hesitate to provide an insight into the positions of the majority. He will be presenting the definitive result n 20 December at the Convention plenary.
Three levels of ambitions. The procedure has therefore been established. As for the details, in accordance with available indications, three levels of ambitions can be discussed:
a) consolidating what exists. This means the ESDP provisions (European Security and Defence Policy) featured in the Maastricht Treaty, which calls for a non-minimalist interpretation of the "Petersburg Missions" allowing for military intervention to guarantee peace;
b) strengthening and broadening solidarity in the face of new threats; in first place, terrorism. These threats call for the use of a whole range of Union instruments (legal and police co-operation, civil defence etc.) including the military means and structures created for the "Petersburg Missions" in view of preparing for the terrorist threat, protecting the civilian population and democratic institutions and assisting countries that are attacked.
c) introducing a "territorial integrity clause" for Member States alongside that which already exists in the WEU Treaty, together with appropriate provisions.
If the work of the group reflects the attitude of the different countries, the most ambitious are Germany, France, Netherlands and Belgium. The positions of Italy, Spain and Greece are tentatively in favour but need to be clarified. Neutral countries (Austria, Finland, Ireland ad Sweden) and Denmark want their status to remain the same for the most part. A debate is possible for the United Kingdom. Candidate countries generally regard NATO as a priority. We know, nevertheless, that they don't have the possibility of becoming an obstacle to consensus at the Convention.
Civilian aftermath to a common arms policy. After the ambitions, the methods and means. The principle of close collaboration in weapons and the creation of a "European agency" in this area have received considerable support. Neutral countries are wary but with one important exception, Sweden. In ongoing reflections the civilian considerations are also very significant, which impact on jobs, competitiveness of European industry in sectors such as information technology, telematics, airospace etc.
Structured co-operation? The ultimate essential point is that of the institutional structure of European defence. Basing their hypothesis on the possibility that some Member States will not want to participate, France and Germany proposed in their joint document, which gave a boost to all co-operation, to use a "strengthened co-operation" instrument by adapting the provisions of the Treaty of Nice. Mr Barnier was thinking more of "structured co-operation" that would use the model of the single currency in the sense that countries that met certain criteria and wanted to join could do so. Defence budgets and the operations character of the forces would also need to be taken into account. The institutional aspect is important because it could determine a generalised response to the problem of "differentiation" between Member States that have different ambitions for the future Europe. (F.R.)