The President's intentions. The dilemma of political Europe and the possibility of achieving that "among 25" was certainly present at the Convention's plenary session last Thursday and Friday, even though it was not officially on the programme (the "CFSP" issue having been taken off the agenda). After the initial declaration by Valery Giscard d'Estaing and at the invitation of the French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin to the Convention to "engage in in-depth reflection on the European Union's place in the world" (see our bulletin of 27 February, page 5), VGE set out, at the end of work, the way in which this issue would be broached in the Convention (see our bulletin of 1 March, p.6).
Early May, the presidium will present its projects that:
- concerning the common foreign and security policy (CFSP), will take up the terms of the Maastricht treaty (that have not been respected in the case of Iraq) over the co-ordination of the stances of Member States and the search for common positions, and will indicate that the point of arrival will, when the time comes, be that of majority deliberations, the outcome of which will commit all Member States taking part in the CFSP. The draft will refer to the necessary gradual pace to achieve that. It will obviously be proposed for all; if then the debate reveals some "very negative reactions", the Convention could move towards a form to be found of "enhanced co-operation" between Member States so willing;
- concerning defence policy (ESDP), the President is already suggesting that the Presidium's draft not be addressed to all, as the reactions already observed to the outcome of the "defence" working group show that there is no unanimity on the group's suggestions. VGE thus considers as taken for granted that the "defence" chapter of the constitutional treaty will not cover all Member States, stipulating that he is not considering "enhanced co-operation" under the current Treaty but a "more imaginative formula". He did not go into details, but those who know him well assure that this presentation means that he has a very clear idea of what the major outline of the project will be. He has already said that the "solidarity" he is envisaging between Member States will not be limited to cases of terrorism and "new threats" (as in the proposal of the Barnier group) but will have a general nature, guaranteeing countries participating in the project against any external aggression.
Three members of the Security Council spoke out. It is, moreover, significant that VGE places great importance on the fact that three members in office of the UN Security Council (Ana de Palacio, Joschka Fischer and Dominique de Villepin) spoke at this session of the Convention, as members, avoiding any polemics or aggressiveness but, on the contrary, showing a firm resolve to consolidate and strengthen the Union's principles and functioning. As for the reasons Member States (present and future) did not, in the case of Iraq, respect obligations stemming from the Maastricht Treaty, Valery Giscard d'Estaing no longer insisted, as on the eve, on the lack of political will but rather on the instability of the Presidency of the European Council. The current President (Costas Simitis) cannot be accused of not having organised appropriate consultations between the Fifteen as early as November, as … the President at the time was someone else, and the latter (Anders Fogh Rasmussen) could not engage in an effort of dialogue that he would have had to have abandoned few weeks later. Whence, according to VGE, the need for a stable Presidency of the European Council.
Have the "two Europes" already been programmed? We thus note that Valery Giscard d'Estaing has already his stance as to the possibility of a "political Europe" amongst 25 (or more). His response is very dubious for CFSP, negative for defence, and he is prepared, in all serenity, for a draft Constitution that, on these aspects, would introduce differentiation between Member States and, therefore, in substance, the creation of "two Europes" (for other stances along these lines, see this section of 27 February). Remains open the question as to whether "space" Europe, limited to the economic field, could conserve its chapters that already have a federal nature, and especially the two chapters that have obvious financial implications: regional policy with its instruments, and the Community functioning of agriculture. Those who reject the very term "federal" to define the nature of these Community actions may find it difficult to reject the word but demand the substance. But that's another problem that deserves specific treatment. (F.R.)