DOCUMENT A/1816

3 June 2003

---

Developing a security and defence culture in the ESDP

---

Document A/1816

3 June 2003

Developing a security and defence culture in the ESDP

REPORT¹

submitted on behalf of the Committee for Parliamentary and Public Relations²
by Mrs Katseli, Rapporteur

___________

¹ Adopted unanimously by the Committee on 12 May 2003.

² Members of the Committee: Mr Debarge (Chairman); Mrs Castro Masaveu, Lord Russell-Johnston (Vice-Chairmen); Mr Adam, Mrs Agudo Cadarso, Mr Banks (Alternate: Vis), Baroness Billingham, MM Budin, Çorüz, Duivesteijn, Mrs Eymer, Mrs Fernández Capel Baños, Mr Graas, Ms Jäger, Mrs Katseli, Mrs Kestelijn-Sierens, MM Legendre, Loncle, Martins, Masson, Naro, Occhetto (Alternate: Crema), Pavlidis, Selva, Ms Smith, MM Van den Brande, Vieira, Wodarg .

Associate members: MM Bergvinsson, Gawlowski, Gülçiçek, Gündüz Irfan, Gündüz Süleyman, Kaminski, Kelemen, Mrs Kosa Kovacs, Mr Lorenz, Mrs Novakova, Mr Reikvam, Mrs Roithova, N....

N.B. The names of those taking part in the vote are printed in italics.

---

RECOMMENDATION 724¹

(i) Noting that the citizens of Europe want to build a political Europe that is both independent and credible on the world stage and that, to this end, a European security and defence policy worthy of the name needs to be established;

(ii) Aware that future military training institutions in Europe must be founded on shared values and a convergent concept as to ways and means;

(iii) Fearing that the training of staff responsible for the management of the institutions of the future may be neglected in favour of spending and plans for harmonising military systems;

(iv) Observing that there is difficulty in developing major common training programmes in a systematic and organised way in all member countries,

1. To invest more financial and human resources in developing a security and defence culture in Europe by supporting the present initiatives, which are not particularly adventurous, and undertaking to promote practical solutions;
2. To strengthen existing exchange programmes between military institutions and make compulsory some joint training courses that focus on the new tasks troops have to deal with;
3. To encourage the formation of a core coordinating body for organising exchanges between national military training schools, by setting up a permanent network between institutions and involving them in European military training programmes;
4. To support therefore the proposal to create a European security and defence college the purpose of which would be to develop a real security and defence culture and form ties with the institutions of civil society.

---

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. The report the Committee is submitting to the Assembly falls within the framework of an analysis, already in progress, of the underlying notion of the European security and defence dimension in the consciousness of the wider public, since the impression often gained is that political and technical decisions taken in this sphere are running far ahead of both public debate on the subject and wider consensus-building across society. The fact that foreign policy and common defence have moved forward by leaps and bounds in the short space of time marked by the Helsinki, Laeken and Nice Summits has led to the risk of institutions being set up that are detached from public understanding, itself already shaken by the speed of the changes wrought in Europe in recent years. As a result of the introduction of a single currency, the accession of new partners and terrorist threats, Europe has had to respond quickly and bring its systems and institutions up to speed. Security and defence have probably acquired priority status just when least anticipated, and European nations are all trying to make up for the time lost during the years when defence budgets marked time or were cut back to make way for other priorities.
2. As far as collective security policy in particular is concerned, the tasks of parliamentarians and their role as intermediary between decision-makers in government and the electorate is being challenged by competition from the media and "spin doctors". There is a serious risk of political mediation being whittled away to next to nothing. The relatively vaster resources the media have at their command and the speed of events make "educating" public opinion and maintaining contact by means of debate and representations through democratic institutions an uphill struggle. The different methods the press and television use to assess levels of agreement and satisfaction with government policy, while falling outside the normal constitutional channels, are increasingly used, especially when it comes to choices over foreign policy and defence. Decisions are taken within an extremely narrow circle of influence at the highest level and legitimated by the swell of public opinion. A proper discussion therefore needs to take place on the part parliaments should play in the present situation, which is very different to the one in which parliamentary democracy was first hatched.
3. It is also apparent that during the cold war period, European citizens shelved the problem of collective security as being something remote from their immediate concerns, and there was no form of initiation into a modern defence culture for the post-world war two generations. If anything, personal commitment to defence was less highly regarded, so that a whole range of social behaviour and intellectual, cultural and moral values relating to the idea of national solidarity came to be frowned on politically.
4. Globalisation of the crises the world has experienced in recent years, hitherto unknown threats and the international response that followed have all refocused our attention on the need for a different security and defence model with a far wider reach. Thus, at a time when regional alliances have replaced national defence, Europe has found it necessary to spearhead the attempt to revive people's confidence in building a collective security and defence system. The public at large in Europe now regards collective investment and a common endeavour as preferable and more readily justifiable than an increased commitment to national defence. And yet they are actually two sides of the same coin - the collective result being no more than the sum of the various national contributions - a state of affairs our governments have taken on board in their recent attempts to rationalise military cooperation. Some countries have caught up on years of defence cut-backs, while others are trying to organise existing potential better, in conjunction with their European partners. However, public opinion remains unenthusiastic about military spending programmes, this being an area in relation to which countries tend to have their own views and where spending is regarded as excessive.
5. Therefore, where do programmes that set themselves the goal of creating shared values and a modern defence culture in both a national and European framework stand in a context such as this, and how are they being sold both to the wider public and to the armed forces personnel whose task it is to carry out the new defence tasks?
6. The Committee for Parliamentary and Public Relations submitted a report in June 2002 on "The trend in European public opinion on security and defence in the wake of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks"², which summarised the results of statistical analyses and the debate organised by the WEU Assembly in the French Senate on 5 November 2001 ("Building security and defence Europe with the support of public opinion"). On 4 June 2002 the Assembly endorsed the report's conclusions by adopting Recommendation 710 which enjoined the WEU Council to "propose to the European Union and to the 28 countries of WEU (...) to endeavour to promote discussion and develop communications so as to maintain the focus of public attention on issues connected with the building of European security and defence structures" and to ensure "that the public at large at all times receives all the information and explanations it requires". The Council's reply was to reassure the Assembly that "those involved in the multifarious efforts to meet the challenge of consolidating public support for the ongoing endeavours of the European Union in the field of security and defence are particularly keen to mobilise all suitable means to ensure convergence of views amongst Europeans".
7. Setting aside for the time being the question of how to rehabilitate a defence culture among the general public, the focus of our discussion will this time be on how to develop a European dimension to the security and defence culture of the armed forces themselves. There are already a number of joint initiatives in Europe in this direction, in the form of bi- or trilateral army corps like the European Corps, Eurofor, Euromarfor, or the Spanish and Italian and Anglo-Dutch amphibious forces. However, in order to establish a common basis, a shared perspective of Europe's security and defence in the third millennium, we need to look further than such operational units to staff training programmes, to enable us to tackle new kinds of deployment and carry out tasks very different to those performed as part of a traditional defence strategy.

8. Each country organises training for its armed forces along similar lines: officer schools, and military and staff academies. In addition, a number of "lay" institutes supplement this training, one example being the IHEDN (Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Défense Nationale) in France, whose purpose is to provide top civil servants and those involved in the world of trade and industry with a thorough grounding in national defence, in the belief that society as a whole must subscribe to the social values underpinning the nation's major interests.
9. How much interchange is there between them in the new European framework? Which new doctrines and ideas have replaced the old ones? Which institutions have changed in order to make sure that the training of military personnel takes a wider perspective than the national context? The report will examine a number of recent initiatives, either involving bilateral cooperation or for bringing national institutions within one centralised network.

1. Bilateral exchanges

10. In preparing the report, a questionnaire was sent to those responsible for organising military exchanges, specifically the military attachés in the embassies in the various countries of Europe. This was to find out what programmes exist at present or are likely to be introduced in the near future. The replies reflect the somewhat ad hoc and provisional character of those currently on offer, and their rather limited objectives, generally speaking. There was reluctance in some quarters to provide a list of joint training programmes, since such exchanges as take place are organised on an informal basis and therefore not advertised. All the countries have naturally established a wide range of contacts of varying degrees of closeness, in regard to a wide variety of bilateral exchange programmes and training. These cover areas of military instruction of both a specialist and general nature, either in a joint service framework or confined to one branch of the armed forces, and covering all ranks.
11. In Germany, in certain specific areas with a strong internationalist ethos, some training programmes are already provided internationally. For example, the curriculum offered to army, navy and air force staff officers by the Bundeswehr Joint Staff College includes a European joint exercise, a part of which is taught in conjunction with the national staff colleges of France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom. The Netherlands and Portugal to date have supplied instructors. Another association has been set up, comprising other training schools (in the Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden), offering a curriculum based on existing training programmes. Poland has also shown interest in this area. The training provided by the United Nations, which has become much more international in character as a result of instructor and student exchanges, also reflects this trend. Within the Bundesakademie für Sicherheitspolitik (Federal Institute for Advanced Political and Security Studies) present and future senior management staff drawn from political and government circles, the armed forces, business and other civilian walks of life concerned with security policy receive training through general seminars. These are also open to a limited number of foreign participants by invitation of the Federal Chancellery. The Institute also hosts other seminars and colloquies like those on the European Security and Defence Policy, which are attended by EU officers.
12. Among those countries that have given bilateral cooperation a more formal structure are France and Germany. This dates back to the signature of the Elysée Treaty in 1963. In the security and defence sphere, the Treaty provided for numerous exchanges of armed forces personnel, convergence of doctrines to produce common concepts, and joint work on armaments projects from the development stage. These provisions were supplemented by the setting up in 1988 of the Franco-German Defence and Security Council, a coordinating body, joint think-tank and politico-military decision-making authority, which meets at least twice a year, at the level of Heads of State and Government.
13. Recently, in January 2003, the year of the 40^th Anniversary of the Elysée Treaty, the achievements of such cooperation were summed up by Hervé Giraud and Michael Schaefer, Secretary-General and Deputy Secretary-General of the Council, who spoke of a tightly woven network of ties and direct contacts having been built up over the years between the two countries' armies at all levels. They referred to the foundation in 1988 of the Franco-German Brigade as constituting, in this context, further progress towards strengthening forces' interoperability. The European Corps, born out of a Franco-German initiative in 1991, has also been tried and tested during crisis-management exercises. Approval by the Heads of State and Government at Nuremberg, in 1996, of the joint Franco-German security and defence concept was an important milestone in the move towards convergent doctrines.
14. The programmes currently in progress were set out in a report from the Commission of the Franco-German Defence and Security Council to its Council (Mainz, 9 June 2000) and take account of the Cologne and Helsinki decisions on civilian and military aspects of crisis management and in regard to military and armaments cooperation and consideration of the possibility of joint, complementary use of existing capabilities or those yet to be provided.
15. The report first sets out the measures being taken to strengthen exchanges between officers from both countries, from both the army and navy and naval aircraft pilots, and points to the continued expansion and development of educational exchanges and secondments in all the armed forces. On the French side, the Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Défense Nationale (IHEDN) systematically makes provision for secondments for German candidates and following the reorganisation of COSSAT (Cours supérieur des systèmes des armes terrestres - Advanced course on land-based weapons systems) German officers can attend the course, as from the 2002 academic year. French senior officers attend training courses run by the Bundeswehr High Command and fill posts in the area of international cooperation. The joint training programmes for army commissioned officers are run on a large scale and the budget provides funding for some 80 training placements a year. Establishment of a joint advanced air traffic control training school at Toul (in France) began with the deployment of a German detachment and setting up the first training courses, and with courses for submariners at the Toulon naval base. At the same time, French and German language courses are run at Hürth (Germany), each catering for several dozens of senior officers each year.
16. The report, moreover, draws attention to the fact that such exchanges imply mutual and unqualified recognition of studies undertaken and certificates awarded in the various countries, and in this connection it stresses the need for the involvement of the relevant ministries in decision-making.
17. Convinced that all forms of joint practical training must necessarily be based on the aim of convergence of concepts and doctrines, the report identified four new fields of action: cooperation in regard to simulation and combat training centres, logistic cooperation in operations, harmonisation of the operational responsibilities of HQs during engagement and protection against irregular forces in a peacekeeping context. These areas have been analysed to identify possible areas for cooperation, with the emphasis on developing shared concepts and doctrines. A body of historical literature has been compiled under the title "Principles of forces' command in the light of four centuries of military history" (Principes de base du commandement des troupes à la lumière de quatre siècles d'histoire militaire) to assist commissioned officers develop their understanding of strategy and tactics during their training in school, and in their work with their units. It is hoped to make similar documentation available to the navies and air forces.

2. Proposals for setting up common training

18. Even before it began its term of office as the EU Presidency, during the period when it stood in for Denmark in regard to security and defence questions, Greece had already put forward a plan for Europe to create common training for the armed forces. The initiative was designed to make the future European Rapid Reaction Force achieve interoperability more quickly and to inculcate common standards, reflexes and a shared military culture.
19. During the informal Defence Ministers meeting in Crete (Rethymnon) on 4-5 October 2002, the Greek Defence Minister, Yannos Papantoniou, explained that the aim of his country's initiative for developing a Common Training Policy was to put in place appropriate procedures and structures to prepare the military and civilian staffs of EU Member States for dealing with military issues in the context of the ESDP.
20. This initiative covered the training of staff at all levels of responsibility in the EU and other national and international organisations and also in organisations which had links with the EU.
21. The Minister felt that that common training in the ESDP context obviously could not be restricted to the second pillar only as the issue was one that spanned a number of pillars. He did not think that that the existing European Commission programme for Common Training in Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management posed problems in regard to the ESDP Common Training Programme and might be used as a guide for the design of the latter. The two programmes should therefore be developed in parallel and converge in future. The ultimate objective was to develop a common European security culture as a collective contribution to strengthening the ESDP.
22. Mr Papantoniou said, on the subject of joint training, that it was:

23. According to Rear-Admiral Panagiotis Chinofotis of the Greek Navy, common training was essential as a preparation for Europe's militaries to work together efficiently during EU and EU-related operations. The development of "a common European security culture" was "the desired end state"³.
24. European common training, he maintained, "should be built on existing national and international training structures, preventing unnecessary duplications," though some modification would be necessary. Common training should include all levels of the military, from operational headquarters to the highest decision-makers, but did not mean "the establishment of a [NATO Defense College] look-alike".
25. Greece launched its initiative to promote European Union-wide common military training in early 2002, with the identification by Rear-Admiral Chinofotis's division of five objectives. These were:

26. Preparing plans to implement those initiatives was the job of the division's EU section, also established in early 2002. The EU section prepared two introductory texts on European common training, "EU Common Training within the ESDP Context" and "Process for the Elaboration of EU Common Training within the ESDP Context." Both were presented to the EU Military Committee⁴ at its regular meeting on 24 July 2002.
27. The two Greek texts, together with comments submitted to the Military Committee by national representatives at its 4 September 2002 meeting, formed the basis of a new text on common training written by the EU Military Staff in cooperation with the ESDP Greek Presidency. After discussing the new text on 4 September 2002, the Military Committee referred the matter to a working group, which tasked the EU Military Staff with drawing up a paper outlining the relevance of European Common Training to the ESDP.
28. This paper, which was presented to the working group on 9 October 2002, put forward proposals for achieving manageable common training goals, in a logical sequence, within a suitable timeframe. It brought together all the proposals, suggestions and comments received, and existing work in this field, to provide a definition for common training; identify guiding principles; confirm the target audience; identify general training requirements (including types of training); look into networking and propose possible solutions (including any financial implications) and took other similar EU initiatives into consideration. It also put forward proposals for an orientation course on EU crisis management.
29. Care was taken in the proposed design of the orientation course to include some topics for new EU member nations as well as for existing members. The target audience for the course would comprise both civilian and military personnel from the new member states, including people selected to serve on EU bodies or in EU-related national appointments.
30. The EU Military Staff was also tasked with preparing a questionnaire for member states in which they were asked to volunteer information on national and cooperative military ventures under way that could contribute to common training goals.
31. The European Common Training initiative is evolving in parallel with the European Commission's project on the Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management.
32. Referring to the European Union structure, where the European Commission deals with economic and social issues while security and defence come under the ESDP, Greece's Rear-Admiral Chinofotis has put on record his firm belief that the ECT (European Common Training) issue could not be confined to either the first or second EU pillars "It is an overarching issue and we should address it from that perspective".
33. For the time being, Greece is to allow parallel development of the two projects, and as the European Commission project is under way, it can be used as a model for the European Common Training initiative, but in the long term, the view is that there is no alternative other than the convergence of the two European Common Training projects so as to encompass all aspects of crisis management and ESDP.

34. The idea of a joint training organisation is not a new one. For some years now the secretariat of the Franco-German Defence and Security Council has also been working on common training and has produced proposals for harmonising the concept of European defence in the present context of the new tasks assigned to troops engaged in the Petersberg missions.
35. In June 2000, the Franco-German Defence and Security Council recommended that the:

36. With the Mainz Declaration, adopted on 9 June 2000, a decision of principle was taken as follows:

37. Since then, the declarations issued after each Franco-German Council meeting have referred to the establishment of the College. At Vittel, on 10 November 2000, section II of the approved document set the initiative in motion:

38. As part of the report drawn up by the Commission⁵ in preparation for the Freiburg summit, the two countries defined the elements of the "concept" on which the entire machinery for developing the European security and defence culture would depend. The broad principles were first laid down, with, as their point of departure, the conviction that the European Security and Defence Policy should go hand in hand with a European security culture.

39. There then followed a statement of aims:

40. Course content was defined as follows: "the European Security and Defence Policy and civilian and military capabilities (including early warning) for crisis-prevention and management; the study of EU institutions and procedures and European instruments and legal aspects of the EU; induction into the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy; coordination and cooperation over crisis prevention and management between the EU and regional and international organisations; cooperation with non-governmental organisations." (Unofficial translation)
41. Lastly, the tasks and funding proposals for the College were set out:

42. The proposal was further refined by the Freiburg Declaration (of 12 June 2001):

43. Point 6) of the 23 January 2003 Declaration of the Franco-German Council takes up the theme of joint staff training, with both countries proposing to their European Union partners "the creation of a European Security and Defence College", designed to promote a common culture for senior civilian officials and military officers of the European Union Member States in this sphere. They also stress their determination to develop joint officer training schemes in order to encourage the formulation of common concepts. Specific reference is made to the idea of setting up a European Union centre for combat search and rescue (CSAR), and commitments are given to stepping up exchanges of fully integrated personnel between their respective Foreign and Defence Ministries.

44. It was General Dwight D. Eisenhower who first perceived the need to identify officers and officials in the then embryonic NATO who were capable of adapting to the new security environment in Europe.
45. On 25 April 1951, General Eisenhower wrote:

46. In 1966, President de Gaulle directed that France would take no further part in the military structure of NATO, and the College was required to move. Italy offered temporary accommodation in an office block in the EUR area of Rome, and these premises served NATO for more than 30 years. In the 1990s it became increasingly clear that a new building would be required which did adequate justice to the status that the College had acquired within NATO and the international academic environment. Once again, Italy offered to provide such premises, and work was put in hand to construct a purpose-built College in the Military City of Cecchignola. The NDC moved in during summer 1999 and the inauguration of the new facilities took place on 10 September 1999.
47. Over its 50-year history some 7 000 Senior Officers, Diplomats and Officials have passed through the College in their quest to prepare themselves for the security challenges of their day, and for the role of the Alliance within that environment. The College is designed to fulfil the needs of the present and the future and is flexible enough to adapt to future changes. No longer is the student body comprised only of NATO Members but also of those from Partnership for Peace (PfP) nations, Mediterranean Dialogue (MD) countries and members of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Courses range from the Senior Course of 6 months' duration at Colonel/Lt. Colonel level/Civilian equivalent, to General and Flag Officer Courses and Reserve Officer Courses. Research Seminars and other outreach activities complete the picture.
48. The new College will ensure that the Alliance's premier academic institution can properly serve the needs of a transformed, rejuvenated NATO. Like NATO itself, it has the capacity to respond to a fundamentally changed security environment and to take on the new tasks appropriate for its new missions and partners. In particular, it is well equipped to support the PfP Training and Education Enhancement Programme endorsed at the 1999 Washington Summit and increasing involvement in the Mediterranean Dialogue Programme.
49. The NATO Defense College (NDC) offers four Fellowships each year in the field of social and political sciences. This offer is open to all Partnership for Peace (PfP) and NATO Mediterranean Dialogue countries. The object is to promote scholarly research in areas of particular interest to the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) and the PfP, primarily dealing with Euro-Atlantic security issues, and in areas of particular interest to NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue Partners, primarily dealing with Mediterranean security issues. The recipient of the fellowship receives a grant, and the duration of the fellowship is four months. The recipient conducts his/her research at the NATO Defense College in Rome.
50. Each year, the NATO Defense College issues the relevant application forms for this Fellowship Programme. The forms are forwarded to the respective contact points in the PfP and NATO Mediterranean Dialogue countries (Contact Embassies, Ministries, inter alia). The College Fellowship Selection Board will appoint four candidates each year, two from PfP and two from NATO Mediterranean Dialogue countries. Since the Programme's inception in 1993, a total of 22 fellowships have been awarded, including four to NATO Mediterranean Dialogue countries that joined the programme in 2000.
51. To contribute to the effectiveness and cohesion of the Alliance, the NATO Defense College (NDC) started to hold International Research Seminars (IRS) in 1992. These Seminars aim to bring together researchers, senior officers and officials from the universities, institutes and agencies of various countries, NATO HQ and NATO Member States, to exchange views and ideas on the broader aspects of security-related issues. The Seminars provide a unique opportunity to raise the profiles of areas that are important to NATO and the countries involved. The Seminars are held annually and organised by the NDC in cooperation with the institutions of the various countries. The College started these International Research Seminars in conjunction with institutions from Partnership for Peace (PfP) countries. Up to now, the NATO Defense College has held 11 PfP IRS. Starting in 1998, these Seminars have taken place each year in a different PfP country (Switzerland in 1998; Sweden in 1999; Slovenia in 2000; Estonia in 2001). The 2002 PfP IRS was held in Ukraine, in June. The theme was "Ukraine and Regional Cooperation in Security: Looking Ahead". Also in 1998, the NDC started to conduct International Research Seminars in cooperation with institutions from countries that had joined the NATO Mediterranean Dialogue Programme. Up to now, the NDC has held four IRS with Mediterranean countries (IRS Med) which take place each year in Rome (in 1998 with Jordan; in 1999 with Tunisia; in 2000 with Egypt; in 2001 with Morocco). The 2002 Med IRS will be organised in conjunction with Algeria.

52. On 26 March 2003, the Defence Committee of the French National Assembly examined an information paper on officer training in military academies. In Italy, the Senate Defence Committee is currently in the process of carrying out a survey on the training of army personnel in the context of the start of that country's move to a fully professional army. The legislative authority, alerted to the fact that the quality of a country's armed forces depends mainly on that of its staff, is thus showing interest in problems relating to training as an essential investment. There is an almost universal receptiveness towards a more international approach, both in basic training and at higher levels. It is, however, clear that spending is needed to carry through projects and there has to be the political will to overcome the many obstacles created by national differences.
53. While the finishing touches were being put to the present report, the idea of creating a European security and defence college was raised once again. Indeed, during the recent mini-summit of heads of state and government held in Brussels on 29 April 2003, the four participating states signed a declaration stating, inter alia, that:

54. The recommendation submitted by the Committee is thus perfectly in line with the logic behind those proposals. The Committee will pursue its efforts to promote awareness of these issues among the EU member states and our parliamentary colleagues, in order to ensure that such declarations of intent are followed up by practical measures. Indeed, if there is a consensus on developing a common European security and defence culture, then at a time when the future European institutions are in the process of being built it is important to give tangible effect to that consensus.

---

¹ Adopted unanimously by the Assembly without amendment on 3 June 2003 (3^rd sitting).

² See "The trend in European public opinion on security and defence in the wake of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks", report submitted on behalf of the Committee for Parliamentary and Public Relations by
Mr Crema, Rapporteur, Assembly Document 1781, 4 June 2004;

(http://www.assembly-weu.org/en/documents/sessions_ordinaires/rpt/2002/1781.pdf).

³ Interview published in Defense News on 15 November 2002.

⁴ The EU Military Committee, made up of the Chiefs of the General Staffs of the EU national armed forces, is supported by the EU Military Staff, a permanent staff based in Brussels.

⁵ Committee's Report to the Franco-German Council, 25^th Session, Freiburg, 2001.

⁶ The Rapporteur is indebted to the NATO Defense College authorities for permission to reproduce information from the College's website: http://www.ndc.nato.int/about/about.html