EU weighs up options for NATO-style mutual defence commitment

Date: 21/11/02

By Dana Spinant

While the eyes of the world will be on the NATO summit in Prague this week, an EU Convention working group is busy formulating proposals to develop Europe's defence identity.

SHOULD the European Union be in charge of defending its territory rather than individual member states? That's the €64,000 question for members of the Convention on the future of the EU tasked with formulating proposals to improve European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).

Against the background of this week's NATO summit in Prague, where the Alliance is set to announce the creation of a new fast response force (NRF), the Union's efforts to develop its own defence identity without encroaching upon member state powers and NATO primacy are beset with problems.

The essential question for the Convention group, chaired by Commissioner Michel Barnier, is how the EU can take quick, effective decisions in times of crisis, to ensure coordinatedmissions and swift release of funds. The group is due to come up with the answer before it presents its conclusions to the Convention's plenary on 21 December. That's a tall order.

The group, which meets behind closed doors, is split over whether the present tasks of the EU's embryonic 'rapid' reaction force (RRF) - it will take twice as long to assemble as the NRF - should be broadened to include new challenges such as terrorism, and the protection of the EU's population.

The present mandate of the RRF, the so-called the Petersberg tasks, predominantly envisage peacekeeping, rescue and humanitarian operations, but members of the group claim counter-terrorism should be a chief concern for the force. By failing to address terrorism the RRF would become irrelevant, they warn.

Other Convention members retort that 'asymmetric' threats cannot be fought by military means alone, and that intelligence-gathering and sharing, for example, is far more important.

Several members question the relevance of a force which is solely tasked with acting outside the EU's territory. 'I think it will look a bit strange in the eyes of the population if the EU force will only exist to help others but not EU citizens,' a senior Convention official said. During emergency situations like the summer's massive floods in Germany, the RRF could boost national forces by helping to rescue or protect the population, he commented.

However, other Convention members believe that threats to the EU should be fought either by civilian means, or, where appropriate, dealt with by NATO.

One of the most divisive aspects of the debate centres on whether ESDP should include a mutual defence commitment, similar to Article V in the NATO charter, whereby an attack on one member is seen as an attack on all.

Although some see mutual defence as part and parcel of the EU Treaty's principle of solidarity, many Convention members reject the idea. Gisela Stuart, representing the UK House of Commons on the Convention, points out that a mutual assistance clause would be a political declaration because of a lack of military capability in several member states. Moreover, neutral member states, such as Ireland, would never accept such a clause.

Jacques Santer, the former European Commission president who represents Luxembourg on the Convention, backs the inclusion of an 'opt-in' clause on mutual defence, open to those that want to join it.

However, NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson has warned that without the help of the United States, Europe would not be able to protect itself. 'Political will must be matched by capabilities,' the former UK defence minister told the convention working group recently. He insists Europe should ask itself whether it would be able to guarantee credible security for 25 countries and whether it would be able to replace the US presence.

Alain Richard, the former French defence minister, believes that the insertion of a mutual defence clause in an EU constitution would present difficulties. However, these would not be insurmountable provided the clause was merely symbolic and the EU continued to look to NATO for dealing with a military crisis.

But Richard, who was one of the promoters of the Anglo-French Saint Malo declaration on European defence in 1998, believes that the protection of citizens and infrastructure in case of aggression or catastrophe could be added to the present missions of the RRF.

He also calls for the most committed member states to be allowed to constitute a 'European defence group'. This would carry out joint planning on equipment procurement, share information on airlift capacity and promote officer exchanges between forces to boost interoperability and cohesion in the field.

Although the mutual defence issue presents a potential minefield of problems, senior Convention sources say that the more important question for the working group is how best to set up a decision-making system that enables the Union to act quickly in a crisis situation.

'Effective decision-making for crisis management is the key for the EU's credibility in external relations. The group will primarily have to put forward proposals in this respect,' he explained.

An 'introductory note' prepared by the Convention's secretariat points out that 'the traditional business of the EU has been largely in legislative fields, where speed has not been a particularly important factor. The development of Common Foreign and Security Policy has begun to introduce more of a culture of quick reaction - but reacting to crises in real time with the deployment of concrete instruments remains a challenge'.

Several ideas have been mooted to improve and speed-up decision-making, but the question is highly sensitive because it touches on member states' sovereignty.

The defence working group is divided over whether the role of the EU High Representative (Javier Solana) in crisis management needs to be strengthened, or whether a Deputy High Representative for defence should be created. Many member states are adamant that no powers over military matters should be given to Brussels. 'Can you imagine Solana or his successor deciding over sending German troops to a conflict zone? I think this is science fiction,' a Council of Ministers' official told European Voice. 'Over my dead body', was the view of one British commanding officer.

However, there is growing acknowledgement that if the High Representative is not given a proper coordination role and the right to present initiatives, the European response to a crisis will never be timely and efficient.

Richard says that lengthy negotiations between EU states would hinder decision-making at a critical time. He backs giving the High Representative a better intelligence capability and the right to put proposals to foreign affairs ministers and the Council's Political and Security Committee, which is responsible for 'political control and strategic direction'. He believes Solana and his successors should have a deputy in charge of capabilities development.

Although the ambassador-rank diplomats who serve on the PSC technically have the job of coordinating crisis management operations, it is still unclear whether they, the European Council or the EU Military Committee, led by Finnish four-star general Gustav Hägglund, would ensure the political control of military operations.

The working group on defence certainly has its work cut out to answer these nagging questions and to avoid a damaging rift.

Major feature. While the eyes of the world are on the NATO summit in Prague, 21-22 November 2002, an EU Convention working group is busy formulating proposals to develop Europe's defence identity.