An old rule. Place greater emphasis on the difficulties and the failures than on the successes, this is an old rule of journalism, and it is applied with particular rigour to European affairs. Thus, it is not surprising that the first autonomous EU military mission, in Macedonia, has received less column inches than the umpteenth opinion from anybody on the war in Iraq. Romano Prodi himself understood that this event could only be 'relegated to the backdrop', while regretting the fact.
Nevertheless, the event is of importance. Four years ago, European security and defence policy (ESDP) did not even exist as a plan. Its creation, with initially modest aims, had been seen as a revolution in European integration, which, as a result, officially exceeded the economic dimension. Today ESDP is in its infancy, but it is beginning to act. It does not have responsibility for the territorial defence of the Member States; solidarity in this area being ensured by the Atlantic Pact (which explains the prime importance, for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, of joining NATO). ESDP, for the time being, is a force available after decision by the EU institutions. The first mission, modest (380 soldiers), in Macedonia, should be followed by a more significant mission (12,000) in Bosnia. In both cases, the European force aims, by replacing the NATO missions, to consolidate stability and security in the Balkan hotspots, which, according to President Prodi, represents the 'best way to make use of our military force'.
How many countries? The mission in Macedonia proves the extent to which the assertions, according to which the differences over Iraq signalled the end of ESDP (and CFSP), where incorrect. The opposite is happening: the Europe of defence is becoming visible. Admittedly, the core of the work remains to be done, but certain initiatives to move forward have already been taken. It would suffice to cite the two Franco-British summits, the works of the Convention and the Belgian initiative for a summit dedicated to defence, which will gather, next 29 April, the Heads of State and Government from a number of countries. The question is not of knowing whether the ESDP project will be continued, as there is little doubt of this, but to know how many countries will participate. I have the impression that, on this crucial point, ambiguities remain. I'll explain myself.
Those that refuse. Certain governments reacted negatively towards the Belgian initiative (which is in fact a joint initiative with France and Germany, see this section on 26 March), as if it aimed to divide the Member States. In reality, divisions already existed. The Convention's working group on 'defence' had noted that the EU 15 are not unanimous in their desire to develop ESDP, to such an extent that President Giscard d'Estaing announced that the projects on defence, which will be presented by the Presidium would not concern all the Member States, but would target 'enhanced cooperation' (or better: a 'more imaginative solution': see this section on 18 March). The summit on 29 April, open to all, will mainly discuss 'the method for organising the European arms industry' (according to the formula put forward by Chancellor Schröder) and the possibility of creating a 'hard core' from which the countries that refuse to participate would be excluded. Let us not reverse the responsibilities: it is not the countries that want to move forward who are rejecting the others! With regard to the core aspect, the situation is clearly outlined in paragraphs 61, 62 and 63 of the Barnier report, which summarises the results of the Convention's 'defence' group. I will recall the crucial passages (while recommending the full reading of the text, including the paragraphs dedicated to the creation of a European armaments agency): 'several members of the group have proposes a collective defence clause (…). Such a clause has been considered unacceptable by certain members of the group (…). The new treaty could then establish a form of closer cooperation in defence matters, open to participation by all Member States that would like to subscribe to such an undertaking (of collective defence) and would fulfil the conditions required for such an undertaking to be credible (…). Decisions would only be taken by the Member States participating in this form of cooperation'.
Everything may still change. However, nothing is so simple, nor set in stone. Italy invited the Greek Presidency of the Council to reintegrate the summit on 29 April into the Community bosom and France is not opposed to this. The Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Louis Michel, while confirming the aim of a Europe 'that has the ability to contribute towards its own security' added: 'we will only have this ability if Great Britain joins the game' (possibly an incorrect Belgian expression, but clear). The possibility of a true Community ESDP continues to exist. We must not assume that the Member Sates, which have decided to move forward, abandon it. For lack of agreement in the Union, they will act on the sidelines. This is the true danger.
(F.R.)