The true cleavage. We must not trust simplistic interpretations. What I wrote over the last three days concerning the progress of works (and on the stances of the protagonists) with regards to Defence Europe must not lead to the conclusion that there exists a group of countries favourable, lead by the 'Four' from the minim-Summit on 29 April, and a group of countries against, lead by the United Kingdom. Nothing would be further fro the truth. The cleavage is between those who desire a 'Community' achievement, and those who only see a future on the sidelines of the Union. We must nevertheless not forget that London has been, with Paris, at the heart of the new impetus for European cooperation in this area, and that the texts to emerge from the two Franco-British summits are ambitious and at the time gave a crucial new drive to old ambitions, which had lain dormant so long. At the same time, the Four who took over (Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg in addition to France), continue to repeat one after another that Defence Europe needs the United Kingdom, for obvious reasons of effectiveness and credibility.
In the meantime, the British understanding has been sharpened, notably thanks to statements by Tony Blair on the ''single pole' United States/Europe and the straight talking of his Minister for European Affairs, Denis MacShane. The latter did not restrain himself to talking of the 'ground to ground' Europe and inviting the Convention to put forward proposals susceptible of pleasing all governments (see this section yesterday); he also spoke on foreign policy and European defence, asserting that shared positions are possible on several important aspects, but that the path to reach them is that of contacts between ministers concerned and debates between French, British and German national parliamentarians, outside any Community procedure (see this section 13 March). The small countries, including those of Central and Eastern Europe, may thus assess what their role will be in an anglicised CFSP and ESDP. And for Europe's level of autonomy, talk to Tony Blair. Is a joint venture with the United Kingdom possible if the Prime Minister confirms his 'unipolar power' doctrine?'
Task of the Convention members. It is for the Convention to speak. If it accepts the conclusions of the Dehaene report (CFSP) and the Barnier report (ESDP), the European framework is saved, even if the construction is in three levels, according to the different degrees of engagement, and the decision-making procedures are, for the foreseeable future, intergovernmental. If the Convention rejects this plan, Defence Europe will not be abandoned, but it will be born outside the Treaty, between the countries that have chosen to participate, excluding those who do not accept all the elements (while the Barnier/Dehaene draft has a shared base of 25). And that those excluded from the intergovernmental project do not then complain if the European Parliament and the Commission remain entirely outside not only the decisions, but also the debates.
Four's initiative was necessary. The exchange of views with 25 on the Greek island of Kastellorizo, allowed nearly all the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of an enlarged EU to show their strong interest for a Defence Europe (see our Bulletin of 6 May page 6). After the controversy, the tone was of appeasement, and I renounce the malicious pleasure of recalling one or other hard hitting statement made on the eve defining the meeting of the Four as a 'provocation' and accusing them of having broken Europe. A few pointed questions where asked, notably with regards to the time needed for the European military force to become credible. What does the EU common defence clause add to that of NATO?, wondered the Polish Minister (who well knows which of the two, for the time being, is the most reassuring). The Portuguese Minister noted that it will require ten years at least for the EU to have an autonomous defence capability, and while waiting, there is a clear need to hold onto NATO capabilities. The answer is very simple: if we want to get there, it is necessary to start! The Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt already said so before the European Parliament (when speaking to Hans-Gert Pöttering): 'you say its not the right time, but it is never the right time,' adding that we must not wait for the Convention and the IGC to say 'no' to enhanced defence cooperation, as was the case in Nice (see our Bulletin of 1 May, page 4).
Must we conclude that the initiative by the Four is useless, given that, at present, nearly all seem interested in ESDP? Not at all. The Kastellorizo debate would not have been what is was without this initiative, and, in particular, the debate with 25, while being positive, did not lead and could not lead to operational conclusions, while the Four tabled proposals and decisions. Without the mini-Summit, we would still be stuck with general decisions. (F.R.)