Insufficient democratic control? The European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) is, we might say, in fashion. Surveys confirm that citizens want it and it is often perceived as the “new frontier” of European construction. When a political figure wants to give an example of something that works in Europe, the ESDP is regularly highlighted (with other subjects having a variety of different results). This confidence and expectation strengthens the demand for effective democratic control over the ESDP and over the institutions and bodies that manage it. The Western European Union (WEU) was right to have included this point on the agenda at last week's session and to have invited French Senator Hubert Haenel to speak on the subject (EUROPE 9362). The success of the European construction is underpinned by a consensus among citizens. This consensus will only be won back on a sustainable basis if Europe is seen and understood to be functioning in a democratic way.
Mr Haenel, president of the French Senate's delegation to Europe explained in no uncertain terms that it was impossible to advance in as sensitive an area as defence without “complete democratic legitimacy. These conditions are not yet fully in place”. According to his analysis:
a) control over military action is the responsibility of each member state when all the different parliaments decide on whether to participate in a military operation. National control, however, is not enough, as it lacks the European dimension, namely, control over the collective action of governments in the Union;
b) the European Parliament scarcely has the legitimacy to intervene in this area. Haenel does not believe that the EP has to remain on the sidelines but military decisions are up to the governments of the member states concerned and “the European Parliament is not able to control national governments”. It is the national parliaments that vote on defence budgets and which decide whether to authorise the deployment of forces in a conflict, control is therefore up to them.
c) control by the EU Assembly (consisting, as we are aware, of national parliamentarians) exists but according to Mr Haenel, the situation at this Assembly remains precarious. The WEU Assembly's status is not directly linked to the European Union. Member states of the European Union are not all full WEU members.
Haenel also pointed out that in another context, the European Union has taken up the activities of the WEU and its operational structures and that “this complex situation means that identifying with the WEU Assembly is something that does not come easily to citizens”.
Mr Haenel suggests a mixed system. The French Senator believes that a solution can be found in bringing the WEU Assembly and the Conference of bodies specialised in European Affairs (COSAC) closer together. The latter is based in Amsterdam. This would be done with a view to “having a single body in the long term” that would take charge of the competencies and means at the disposal of the WEU Assembly. Given that this body would be tackling security and defence questions, it would be made up of specialist parliamentarians. Mr Haenel pointed out that the European Parliament is on a totally equal footing with national parliaments at COSAC (six members each) and would therefore also participate in the work of the new entity. Mr Haenel's conclusion in Berlin was clear, “for any deepening to take place, the European construction has to expand its legitimacy. The association of national parliaments is an essential question in the development of the Europe of defence”.
A message to the European Council. The WEU Assembly in Berlin did not mention the French Senator's formula but did call (as a message to the European Council) for, “increased democratic control of ESDP by national parliamentarians”, explaining that, “in this respect, the WEU Assembly plays a decisive role. This already existing parliamentary forum should be strengthened as an essential democratic bridge towards citizens and public opinion”, and concluded: “We strongly urge the European Council to urgently tackle this issue” (see our specialist publication, “Europe Diplomacy and Defence” on 8 February). On another occasion, the president of the WEU Assembly, Jean-Pierre Masseret, criticised the European Parliament for “a sort of imperialism: it is seeking to exercise democratic control in areas or treaties where it does not have competency”, whereas “the association of national parliaments is indispensable to the long term development of the ESDP”.
Prevent rivalries and jealousies. The European Parliament could clarify its position, particularly via its “security and defence” sub committee, chaired by Karl von Wogau. ESDP bodies are obviously not intervening in this debate.
A member of the Political and Security Committee (COPS) at the ESDP pointed out that “the WEU reference reveals a clear image problem because the WEU is from the past; democratic control is necessary, and the fact is that resources remain in the national remit”. The same source explained that a sort of COSAC for defence questions could prove a valuable formula.
It would obviously be sensible to avoid creating the impression of rivalry or jealousy existing between parliamentary institutions. At present, the WEU's essential importance resides in its famous Article V, which commits signatories of the Treaty of Brussels to provide mutual military assistance in the event of aggression. This text would have been replaced by the “mutual defence clause” in Article I-41, paragraph 7 of the constitutional treaty and through the permanent structured cooperation as mentioned in paragraph 6. Paragraph 8 of the same Article explains that the European Parliament should be regularly consulted on the main aspects and fundamental choices of the ESDP. But any plans about the future of the Constitutional Treaty are currently quite risky, and the indications I've provided would suggest that national parliaments will maintain their demands in the next round of negotiations on the project.
Appeal by Javier Solana. Another aspect that I would like to highlight in the context of ESDP is the solemn, almost anguished character of the appeal made by Javier Solana to consolidate the industrial and technological base underpinning this policy. In an address to representatives from EU defence departments and the defence industry on 1 February, the high representative said that no European country would able to create or maintain a valid base of this nature at a national level. He stated that, “the survival of the European defence industry needs a European approach and European strategy” (EUROPE 9358).
Significant progress has been achieved in the direction indicated by Mr Solana but is obviously insufficient and fragile. Almost all European Union countries have agreed to open calls for tender for defence equipment from providers from other member states on a reciprocal basis. A code of conduct was defined to this effect and for the past seven months this outline for the European market has existed. In his contribution to the first edition of our specialist Europe Diplomacy and Defence, already mentioned, Nick Witney, director the European Defence Agency (EDA) was able to announce that proposed contracts worth €6bn had just been published in his agency's electronic newsletter. This is a beginning but for the newborn European market to function independently and compete at a world level, the governments concerned have to define an industrial strategy for defence. An initial draft is currently being drawn up, and will be submitted to European ministers responsible for this subject on 12 May. Javier Solana stressed that it is only at a European level that economies of scale are possible.
At the same time, the EDA is continuing its efforts in research. In a detailed interview published in the first issue of EDD, the director for the EDA's Research & Development, Bertrand de Cordoue, examined this essential aspect: progress accomplished in 2006, prospects for 2007. This publication can be consulted for further information.
Readers of this column know that military questions are not usually within my remit. My generation has always seen European construction as a peaceful endeavour, which has put an end to centuries of “civil wars”, Europeans against Europeans. But we should also point out that peaceful objectives imply at the same time (in a world as it is), the capacity to intervene militarily to protect those who are attacked and defend peace and democracy. If the EU had already had the CFSP and the ESDP when the war in the former Yugoslavia broke out, it would have been able to directly intervene and avoid having destroyed so many bridges on the Danube. Participants at the EDA conference included the vice president of the European Commission, Günter Verheugen, in charge of European industrial policy, who recalled the European Parliament's study on “the cost of non-Europe” and the duplication of jobs, high spending and low efficiency that this created. Verheugen pointed out that with current structures, Europe would be unable to “maintain an independent decision-making capability” (No. 2 EDD, 6 February). At the same time, the conference affirmed the need for the European defence industry to be “the best” and that if this did not happen, “European preference” would only remain at a theoretical level. Political decision and industrial capacity go together.
(FR)