Brussels, 20/12/2002 (Agence Europe) - The last plenary session of the European Convention was devoted, on Friday, to foreign and defence policy. The reports of the two working groups were rather well received, despite reservation expressed by a few countries, foremost came the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, Spain. The reservations expressed by members of the Convention of neutral or non-aligned countries, especially over defence were in stark contrast with the much more voluntarist approach of the representatives of France, Germany and the countries of the Benelux, who pleaded in favour of the establishment of a genuine common policy headed by a European foreign minister, as well as for increased capabilities and instruments for defence policy.
The recommendations of the group on external relations "do not alter the present competencies, but aim to improve the co-ordination and financing" of CFSP, stresses the group's chairman Jean-Luc Dehaene. There is "fairly broad agreement" within the group over the definition of the principles and general objectives of foreign policy, he indicated (see yesterday's EUROPE p. 4 for the details). The differences, however, mainly concern the ways and means of improving co-ordination between the Council and the future representative for foreign policy proposed by the group. According to the report's recommendations, this representative would have a "double hat", with links with both the Council and Commission, and thus a role that is "neither purely intergovernmental nor purely Communautaire", Jean-Luc Dehaene stresses. Another point that is still not the subject of consensus within the group, he noted: the possibility of developing qualified majority voting for foreign policy.
Presenting his group's report on European defence policy (see yesterday's EUROPE, P.4), Michel Barnier remarked that on these "very delicate issues, one could not expect a report in which everyone agreed. It does therefore provide indications of the different degrees of consensus", notably on the question of means and objectives. The report pleads in favour of the introduction of a "solidarity clause" that allows for the new threats of terrorism to be responded to by the placing in common of military, legal, police and civil protection means. It recommends the creation of a European Armaments Agency to rationalise European armaments policy. Difference especially concern the question of enhance co-operation around a "Euro defence zone", that allows for co-operation to be deepened in the framework of European Union structures, observed Barnier.
Alain Lamassoure (European Parliament), made a frontal attack on these reports when opening the debates. Their results "are not negligible" but much "too modest", with a leading proposal consisting in merging the tasks of Messrs. Patten and Solana, he remarked. "Is it the dual function that prevented the EU taking a hard stance over the Middle East or Iraq. Will Mr. Double hat be able to avoid divergences between the positions of Member States represented in the Unite Nations Security Council" We know the answer; it's no", he hammered home. To move forward, he pointed out, we should tackle head on all taboos of the French nuclear might, "for which nobody knows what it serves, no more than we do", and relations with the United States within the Atlantic Alliance.
Speaking on behalf of the British Government, Peter Hain considered that "communitarisation is no answer". The report is "at the limits of our ambitions. We are already touching upon the frontiers of national sovereignty", he said. He, notably, disputed the possibility of placing a single EU representative in international bodies. There can be no agreement in the Convention on the dual mandate of representative for foreign policy, as long as there is no agreement on a long-term presidency of the Council, he thought. He also insisted on defence policy "not re-going what NATO already does today".
The representative of the Swedish Government, Lena Hjelm-Wallen, also criticised the reports, opposing both the principle of a "Euro defence zone" and the merger of the roles of external representation. Speaking along the same lines, the representative of the Swedish Parliament, Soren Lekberg, opposed both the proposal for a "Euro defence zone" and enhanced co-operation for …/..
Implementation of the Petersberg tasks. Speaking on behalf of the Danish Parliament, Peter Skarup, expressed his "lack of enthusiasm", stressing that foreign policy was the independent remit of each country. He also refused to allow action by Member States to be undermined by replacing it with a single representative on the international scene. He was of the opinion that NATO had to maintain the leading role.
Although most contributions supported the Barnier and Dehane reports, a number of points on detail appeared in connection to the method for co-operation in the area of defence and extending the vote to qualified majority voting. The representative of the Finnish government, Teija Tiilikainen highlighted the risks to legitimacy posed by a policy adopted by qualified majority voting under the "European flag". Speaking for the Luxembourg government, Jacques Santer stressed that the solidarity on which the principles of the EU wee founded also applied to defence and that no country should be excluded in advance if its intervention and command capabilities allowed for intervention on the ground. Getting to the heart of the problem, Ben Fayot (Luxembourg Parliament) feared that by putting conditions on the participation of Euro-zone countries and their capability for intervention, the system excluded countries that would be able to participate but which did not have the means. He thought that there was a risk that there would be a solidarity structure that excluded those who most needed it. Speaking on behalf of the Portuguese government, Ernani Lopes, appealed for the co-operation criteria in the Euro-zone framework of defence to respect the spirit on which it has hitherto been founded, such as models of co-operation that did not exclude any of the Member States.
Voices in favour came from the Germans, Italians, French and Benelux. Gianfranco Fini speaking on behalf of the Italian government defended the idea of the "Euro-zone defence" and a representative of foreign policy that had to wear two different hats but whose role would be to outline in the framework of a debate in January the re-balancing of powers between the Commission and the Council. Safeguard clauses ought to allow a Member State to be marginalised and which had particular interests in an intervention. Belgian Foreign Affairs Minister, Louis Michel "largely" supported the report but regretted the "lack of ambition concerning the role of the European Parliament in the approval of international agreements.
French Foreign Affairs Minister, Dominique de Villepin said that the High Representative had to become a genuine European Minister of Foreign Affairs on a par with the President of the European Council, who would take up the role of the current High Representative and Commissioner. Mr de Villepin was in favour of a real common policy with common funding, including that for military interventions in crisis management. Mr de Villepin, together with Mr Joschka Fischer, were pleased that most of their proposals had been taken on board in the defence report. He also pointed to the creation of a weapons agency and the introduction of a solidarity clause. He did think, however, that this should not be limited to terrorism and that a much broader common security clause was needed for facing down the overall threats together.
German Foreign Affairs Minister, Joschka Fischer appealed for reinforced co-operation in CFSP, more flexibility for the latter, the "solidarity clause" and the rationalising of defence spending. Joschka Fischer also supported the proposals from the Deheane report, defending qualified majority voting as a "brave decision" that had to be taken. He also declared that this did not mean that any Member States would be marginalised but simply that they would be aware if they wanted to take decisions or not. The creation of a genuine Minister of Foreign Affairs (wearing two different hats) would allow for the union to be made more personal, declared Mr Fischer.
Danish government representative, Hennin Chrisophersen said that it was necessary to accept the "two hat system" because it was needed for keeping coherency and getting out of the current situation where responsibilities are divided up. He also highlighted the need to introduce provisions for guaranteeing that this person had the trust of the Commission, European Parliament and Member States. He also thought that in this context, the functions of the Secretary General of the Council and the High Representative should be separated.
French MEP, Pierre Lequiller thought that is would be clearer if a European Minister of Foreign Affairs were appointed and appealed for the creation of a "convergence pact" in CFSP in order to obtain a mechanism that would guarantee genuine commitment from Member States in the establishment of a real common foreign and defence policy with sufficient means.
German Christian Democrat, Elmar Brok pointed out that 70% of the EU population wanted strengthened CFSP. He declared that they would be able to take action if decisions were decided by the majority and appealed for the clear sharing out of tasks, with a single administration under the control of the Commission, with operational methods decided by the Council controlled by the European Parliament.
Gijs de Vries, representing the Dutch government said that "Americans came from Mars and Europeans from Venus". She also cited a recent analysis of the differences of approach in common foreign and security policy. He recognised that it was perhaps a little exaggerated but that the differences were substantial enough for justifying the need of a real common foreign and security policy. He though that proposals from the two work groups were "realistic and ambitious" and particularly appealed for a strengthening of military capability and the sharing of capability, as well as the creation of a European arms agency and an increased role for the High Representative with the right of initiative.
The representative of the Spanish Government, Alfonso Dastis, first said that the report on external action did not demonstrate the consensus regarding certain aspects of the objectives it sets out. He, notably, explained that eradication of poverty had to be a general objective and not limited to the poorest countries. He spoke in favour of retaining the roles of the Commissioners and High Representative in strengthening their respective positions and ensuring the co-ordination of their activities.
While welcoming the solidarity clause proposed by the working group on defence, Ireland's John Bruton recalled that his country would have constitutional problems faced with provisions imposing mutual assistance or a collective defence clause.
Summarising the debates, Jean-Luc Dehaene stressed that qualified majority voting would allow those State that know that they could be placed in a minority participating "more constructively in a decision which they know they cannot veto". Considering that Peter Hain's vision was close to a caricature, he said that there was no question of replacing Member States in international institutions, but of implementing the WTO system, where Member States are represented but gave way to the EU on certain subjects. He retained the suggestion in favour of planning military convergence over several years. The structure of the single external representation will naturally be refined in the framework of the global debate on institutional balance, he assured. Michel Barnier noted a broad consensus over the solidarity clause, the modernisation of Petersberg tasks and the creation of a European Armaments Agency on the model of the ECSC. He also noted "the doubts over the limited method of co-operation or flexibility. Limited co-operation will remain open to all and they have to work on the consistency of the actions of all and the actions of the few on behalf of all, he said.