Brussels, 07/04/2003 (Agence Europe) - European Commissioners Michel Barnier and Antonio Vitorino, both of whom are on the European Convention's Praesidium (seconded by David O'Sullivan and Paolo Ponzano) told reporters on Monday that the Commission is broadly satisfied with the draft articles tabled by the Praesidium to date. Barnier and Vitorino shrugged off the contradictory criticisms of the Commission's work at the Convention being, in Barnier's words, "too active or too secretly active", wanting to "hold up the Convention" or, on the contrary, "too discreet".
"So far, so good", summed up Vitorino, saying that they had achieved Operation Truth, attempting to ensure texts matched reality and distancing themselves from linguistic euphemisms (as shown by the reference to the "primacy of Community law" and the "federal mode"). The tone of the texts matches the Commission's objective to maintain and renovate the Community Method and expresses a strong integrationist force, said Vitorino, adding that they were satisfied that the Convention has made progress to date, although some people feel the Iraq war should have meant it stopping work. Asked about the timetable, Vitorino said the June deadline should be kept since proposing other timetables cuts the necessary pressure. In terms of defining "consensus" on the whole text, Vitorino said the Praesidium had not yet addressed the issue, adding that when the word consensus is used to describe the existence of a large majority within each Convention component, this is using the last Convention's definition (the Convention that prepared the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Ed), he pointed out. We are beginning an important phase at the Convention, he said, where we will address institutional issues and the Common Foreign and Defence Policy and where we will have to demonstrate an "audacious spirit and creative capacity" (CFSP and CFDP will be discussed in plenary on 24/25 April, Ed).
On these sensitive issues we have to decide whether to be spectators of our own divisions or become actors capable of weighing on the organisation of the world affairs, said Michel Barnier, acknowledging that the Iraq crisis had put their backs up against the wall, demonstrating the distance separating speeches on world governance and their incapacity as Europeans to be at the main negotiating table and make themselves heard. The true divide is not between the current and future EU Member States, the North and South, or large and small countries, but between those which have a genuine political ambition for Europe and those that do not, asserted Barnier, highlighting the ideas that we hold to: 1) the idea of creating a Foreign Secretary with resources and initiative to become the location of a common diplomatic culture (which requires both a location and "time"), "This idea seems much better, frankly, than others to me", said Barnier, alluding to the suggestion of having a full time President of the European Council (see below); 2) incorporating into the treaty a clause to allow an avant-garde to make progress in terms of defence (see below); and 3) preserving the balance between the three big institutions by improving their efficiency and legitimacy and, "in some cases, decentralisation".
Barnier highlights idea of new "President of the Union" in new Treaty
Michel Barnier said more audacity was needed and that one day, political Europe would need a real President, a President of the Union/ Valéry Giscard d'Estaing has discussed his own dreams, said the Commissioner, adding that since one is allowed to have dreams, let's dream about a President of the Union, even though this day has not come yet, we can foresee such a step in the future in a flexible clause in the treaty. Barnier favours such a clause and has already spoken about it. He explained that a President of the Union was not the same as the full-time President of the European Council some people were suggesting,, adding that while the latter was a good idea, what was needed was more like a foreign minister at the heart of the institutions who would be a member of the European Commission.
Barnier: European defence would not be credible without the British - CFSP and
CFDP must move forward together
Asked about the defence summit in Brussels on 29 April of Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg, Barnier called for bilateral or multilateral meetings to be "dedramatised" in the final run-up, a phase of a "bubbling of ideas". He went on to say that he found it "quite legitimate" that four countries should meet, countries which, in his working group (on the Convention on Defence of which he was Chair), were in the forefront, especially with regards the idea of a collective defence, all the more as these countries included Belgium, whose Head of Government Guy Verhofstadt was the first to write to his colleagues suggesting an initiative in this field from last year on (see EUROPE of 24 July 2002 and EUROPE/Documents 2300, dated 27 November 2002). This is toned down, however, by the fact that such a meeting can be useful if it "participates" in the work of proposal at and around the Convention, if the four meet to make a proposal on specific provisions to be included it the treaty so that a "vanguard group" can leave in the field of defence. The Commissioner said he believed such a clause should be included in the treaty otherwise there is the risk that the vanguard would leave outside the treaty. He warned, however, that such a vanguard must include a "sufficient number of countries" (seven or eight today, perhaps more later, seem to be ready to move forward along this track in his view). Mr Barnier admitted in response to a question that he does not believe "European defence is credible without the United Kingdom …. The United Kingdom must be in common foreign and defence policy".
In the future treaty a term other than "enhanced cooperation" must be found for defence, Mr Barnier said. He himself uses expressions such as "specific cooperation" or "ad hoc cooperation" in turn. It is a means of "respecting the diversity" of Member States, he said. In his view, such differentiation is also conceivable within a future European Armaments Agency. Thus, "one can imagine that everyone is in it, even neutral or unaligned countries such as Sweden which have an interest in the defence industry, whereas other countries can go further on any specific programme".
Why should Defence Europe be accelerated now when there is no real common foreign policy? In Mr Barnier's view, "they go together" as a credible foreign policy is hardly possible if "credible defence tools" are not put in place. All in all, the lack of credibility of one has an impact on the other, Mr Barnier insisted, recalling that the European Commission is preparing its proposals on these two subjects "at the same time".
Mr Barnier recalled that, in his working group, all accepted an idea that appeared "new and improbable", that of a solidarity clause allowing both civilian and military means to be mobilised in the event of terrorist threat, "something that NATO cannot do" (Ed.: the Praesidium must, during its meeting of 10 April, discuss a series of draft articles mainly bearing on such a clause, on enhanced cooperation for defence, on the creation of the post of European Foreign Minister and also that of a European military capabilities agency)