The real text. The progress made by the Europe of Defence, progress underlined by all political personalities and also (for once!) by the press as a whole, is set out in the Italian Presidency's revised draft published in issue number 2342 of our series EUROPE/Documents. Why, you say, am I giving the reader such details, which at first sight seem rather pointless? Well, it is to dissipate all confusion over this text. In Naples, ministers did not yet have the text as it was not diffused until after the end of their conclave. They had expressed their pleasure at progress made based on the contribution made by the Three (France, Germany and United Kingdom), seemingly fundamental, on the unfolding of the conclave debate and on the oral conclusions of the Presidency. At that stage, journalists only had the first compromise, distributed several days earlier, to go on. And it was to this first text that European Commissioner Michel Barnier referred in his preliminary criticism (cited in our bulletin of 29 November, p.4) whereas his final judgement on the second draft was clearly patent and positive (see our bulletin of 2 December, p.8).
The main changes introduced in the second text concern:
A. Permanent structured cooperation. Three points are to be stressed:
Autonomy of countries taking part in structured cooperation, including when relating to admission of new members. Community procedure is foreseen, first of all through Council as a whole and through the opinion of the European Foreign Minster (and Commission Vice-President), but the final decision is up to the cooperation member countries. This decision is not, however, subjective, as "every State which respects the criteria and commitments set out in the protocol" (the text of which also appears in the document - see our bulletin of 6 November page 5) is entitled to admission.
Abolition of the requirement of a minimal number of States for creating cooperation.
Possibility for a participant state to suspend its participation, if it so wishes, and the possibility of suspending the participation of a State if it is not able to comply with the commitments taken.
B. Mutual Defence Clause. Contrary to what part of the British press was saying (see our column of 4 November), this clause has not been abandoned but simply reworded in order to highlight its complementary nature to the similar NATO clause by doing away with any doubtful interpretation. As Jean-Claude Juncker said, the mutual support between Member States in the event of aggression is "already present in minds - so why not put it down in the texts". Its credibility will be gradual as operational progress of the Defence Europe is made, and it is understood that, for Poland and other countries of the same area, only the NATO clause counts. But situations change, and even the American interest for Eastern Europe can go through fluctuations. Europe must from now on state its solidarity against possible aggression.
The texts cited still have to be fine-tuned in the context of the IGC, but the essential part does not have to be changed, although some Ministers have expressed reservation (the ministers of Finland and Ireland were vigorously reticent when speaking before the WEU Assembly - see our bulletin of 5 December, p.7). If any Member State voices opposition, then we would slide toward the formula of a "Defence Europe" created on the fringe of the EU, as the Member State that considers it to be indispensable will not give up.
The two ideas of the WEU Assembly. The reader who hopes to have an overall view of the changes under way should read the pages of our bulletins dated 4 and 5 December devoted to the work of what is perhaps the least well known of the European organisations: the WEU Assembly (Western European Union). This Assembly expressed two powerful ideas last week:
a) The Europe of Defence should be subject to parliamentary control. If it keeps an intergovernmental character, then control should be by an Assembly composed of deputies from participant States, as the national parliaments are responsible for military spending, the quality of armaments and, at the end of the day, decisions regarding military intervention. Luxembourg's Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker declared that he will take this issue (hitherto neglected) of parliamentary control over the European of Defence before the EU bodies and that he does not see how it is inappropriate to entrust it to the WEU Assembly. What does the European Parliament think of this?
b) In the event of failure of the Constitution, if a group of Member States confirms the will to create the Europe of Defence outside the EU framework, the Assembly considers it should be developed in the context of the WEU (amended Treaty of Brussels), which already had the appropriate structures and competencies. I do not know if it is any good, but it is an idea worth looking into. (F.R.)