DOCUMENT A/1854

2 June 2004

---

Parliamentary scrutiny of the ESDP and CFSP - debates and replies to parliamentary questions

---

Document A/1854

2 June 2004

Parliamentary scrutiny of the ESDP and CFSP -
debates and replies to parliamentary questions

REPORT¹

submitted on behalf of the Committee for Parliamentary and Public Relations²
by Lord Russell-Johnston, Rapporteur (United Kingdom,
Liberal Group)

^{________________}

¹ Adopted unanimously by the Committee on 6 May 2004.

² Members of the Committee: Mr Debarge (Chairman); Mrs Castro Masaveu, Lord Russell-Johnston (Vice-Chairmen); Mr Adam, Mrs Agudo Cadarso, Mr Banks (Alternate: Mrs McCafferty), Baroness Billingham, Mrs Bousakla, MM Budin, Duivesteijn, Mrs Eymer, Mrs Fernández Capel Baños, Mr Graas, Ms Jäger, Mrs Katseli, MM Legendre, Loncle, Martins, Masson, Naro, Occhetto (Alternate: Crema), Ramoudt, Selva (Alternate: Ianuzzi), Mrs Smith, MM Vieira, van Winsen, Wodarg.

Associate members: MM Gawlowski, Gülçiçek, Gündüz Irfan, Gündüz Süleyman, Mrs Hlödversdottir, MM 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.

---

RESOLUTION 119¹

(i) Recalling its earlier Resolution 118 of 2 December 2003 and Resolution 116 of 3 June 2003 which called on the national parliaments to pursue their debates on the European Security and Defence Policy in order to keep up interest in this issue at national level;

(ii) Noting that, notwithstanding procedural delay, parliamentarians are stepping up their efforts to make a stronger contribution to the scrutiny of foreign and defence policy and that greater heed should be paid to them despite the competing claims of the media, which are able to react more quickly to events;

(iii) Welcoming initiatives that have contributed to focusing the debate on the problem of parliamentary scrutiny of future security and defence policy decisions,

1. To continue their efforts to arrange foreign policy, security and defence debates before the European summits and ministerial meetings where important decisions are to be taken in those areas;
2. To make the necessary changes to procedures that now seem too cumbersome in the light of demands for greater parliamentary efficiency;
3. To support initiatives taken by international fora to enable parliamentarians to exchange ideas and work together in a wider framework;
4. To step up their efforts to inform the general public so that the latter can follow and better understand the various stages involved in political decision-making, and to ensure that in implementing such initiatives security and defence expectations are met.

---

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. The Committee for Parliamentary and Public Relations is continuing its task of keeping the members of the Assembly informed about the systems of parliamentary scrutiny of the ESDP and CFSP set up by our colleagues in the national parliaments of the WEU member countries. This report therefore flows directly from those by Mr Budin and Mr Arnau Navarro, and gives us an insight into the real influence and effects decisions taken at European level have on our countries' domestic policies. Our parliamentarians' efforts are often praiseworthy, as foreign and defence policy in the European framework is an area that gives the impression of having been taken over entirely by a network of government mandarins and those in the know. Decisions are frequently not announced in parliament until well after the news has broken elsewhere, via press releases or television appearances by ministers, outlining the gist of their policies or view of the international situation. The task of parliamentarians is undeniably becoming increasingly difficult as the slow pace of national parliamentary procedures does not sit at all well with a rapidly changing international scene. In most parliaments, with the notable exception of one or two where the tradition of parliamentary "question time" is still alive and kicking, questions addressed to the government are a dull affair and debates are put on the agenda so late in the day that the decisions have already been taken (unofficially), and governments are simply looking to parliaments to rubberstamp them. Notwithstanding the above difficulties with parliamentary work, it is nevertheless interesting to know how debates are progressing and the way members vote on subjects of interest, so that everyone can learn from them and see which ideas are worth pursuing.

2. The report by Mr Budin traced parliamentary activity in this sphere up to the end of November 2003. Virtually all the national parliaments were by then engaged in examining their countries' defence budgets and some had already approved them.
3. Governments' concern to move in step with regard to their budgets - given that some countries' efforts could be limited in scope by their partners dragging their feet over spending - is apparent from remarks made by France's Defence Minister, Michelle Alliot-Marie, before the French National Assembly, on 9 December 2003:

4. This difficulty was also raised at the 78^th session of the German Bundestag on 26 November 2003, by FDP member Helga Daub, who made the point that from 1999 onwards, defence spending had been out of step with the commitments undertaken by the country's armed forces. "We are at the bottom of the international league" she stated. While other countries allocate up to 2.5% of GDP to their defence budgets, the figure for Germany is just 1.3%."
5. The debate on the draft 2004 budget continued throughout the 78th session, and members went on to discuss foreign affairs and defence spending. Like some of its European neighbours Germany has been hit by the current economic downturn, and this has had major repercussions on spending in general, and defence spending in particular, as part of necessary efforts to hold down the cost of the 2004 federal budget. This came out clearly in the remarks made by one member, Elke Leonard (SPD):

6. Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU/CSU) noted that the share of total government spending allocated to the foreign affairs, defence and economic cooperation budgets had fallen sharply:

7. Following on from him, Hans Raidel (CDU/CSU) expressed the view that changes in the structure and tasks of the federal armed forces should be in line with thinking on an overall foreign and security policy concept. Given that the demarcation between internal and external security was becoming increasingly blurred, he put the case for an integrated security system in which internal and external security forces would complement one another:

8. Italy's defence spending has suffered from the country's difficulties with its budget and this has meant a halt in the upward trend of recent years. Thus, as the report from the Senate Defence Committee, discussed on 18 December 2003, notes: "defence spending as a percentage of GDP rose from 1999 to 2001 but fell away again over the period 2002-2004. The figure currently stands at 1.04% as against 1.59% in 2003 and 1.86% in 2002. The government itself admitted in its introduction to the draft budget that "the reduction in essential defence spending is such as to make it difficult to pursue fully our stated commitment to reform (...)".
9. A range of topics were discussed in the UK parliament in relation to defence finance and detailed questions were put on the current estimates for specific equipment such as the Future Aircraft Carrier, the Eurofighter aircraft, armoured vehicles, Challenger II tanks and artillery weapons. The latest National Audit Office report was also discussed in this context. The estimates of the cost of UK military operations, especially in Iraq, were also a subject for discussion.
10. Members welcomed the basic thrust of the Defence White Paper², which anticipates very considerable change in the conduct of armed forces business, and repeatedly asked for clarification about specific types of equipment and financial or budgetary matters. Some had reservations about the Government's ability to sustain its current ambitions and equipment programmes. On 11 December, Lord Bach reminded the House of Lords that the previous year's spending review represented the largest sustained increase in defence spending plans for 20 years, adding over three billion pounds to defence spending over the three years covered by it.
11. On 27 January 2004 the CDU/CSU group in the German Bundestag asked the German Government to increase "substantially" the country's defence budget as from 2005. Calling for "modern armed forces as a pillar of reliable security and defence policy for the nation", it requested that a White Paper be published at an early date affirming the government's "commitment to the defence of Germany and its people and to contributing to international crisis management in the NATO and EU frameworks". It also asked the government to take steps to preserve and enhance the strategic importance of the North Atlantic Alliance and to deepen the European Security and Defence Policy. Lastly, it urged that "in the framework of a common defence concept in which internal and external security forces work increasingly closely together" there should be "closer civilian and military cooperation at all levels - national, regional and local".

12. Involvement in international missions is a growing trend in nations' policies. Alongside the traditional types of crisis, new ones are emerging and seem likely to go on doing so. For the WEU nations, this means a corresponding increase in the defence budgets which their parliaments scrutinise through a variety of procedures that give them differing degrees of influence over government decisions.
13. In Germany, Bundestag member Christian Schmidt CDU/CSU deplored the fact that parliamentarians were not sufficiently consulted on military intervention abroad and asked that a law be passed entitling the parliament to have a say:

14. Nevertheless the German Parliament kept a close eye on developments relating to international missions, especially in view of the current reorganisation of Germany's armed forces. During the present session there were many debates in which the need was stressed for a strong, efficient army, commensurate with Germany's commitments to its European partners and NATO. The Bundestag Defence Committee's visit to Brussels on 10 March 2004 - a record of which was not published - provided the opportunity for discussion, in the presence of CFSP High Representative Javier Solana, on the new conception of the German army and commitment abroad of German troops. The presence in ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) in Afghanistan, of some 2 000 German army troops, and, above all, the reconstruction team based at Kunduz in the north of the country, deployment of which was approved by the Bundestag on 23 October 2003, were topics regularly raised in parliament, especially in March, because of the international conference on Afghanistan held in Berlin on 31 March and 1 April. Thus a motion on "The Conference on Afghanistan - a new opportunity for better coherence and coordination in reconstruction" was tabled by members on 2 March 2004 and the outcome of the Conference is to be debated in the Bundestag on 30 April.
15. Over the last few months, the UK Parliament has frequently and thoroughly aired topical issues such as humanitarian and reconstruction work in Iraq, the security situation there, intelligence and the assessment of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Another subject discussed extensively was the presence of British troops in the Gulf and in Afghanistan, their equipment and operational logistic support. Another issue of concern has been the fight against terrorism.
16. On 11 December 2003, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence, Lord Bach, made a statement in the House of Lords on the Defence White Paper, and a report entitled Operations in Iraq: Lessons for the Future. He emphasised that since 1998, the ability of UK armed forces to conduct the full spectrum of operations had been amply demonstrated:

17. But in order to deliver security in a changing world and to face new threats, changes were necessary:

18. Early this year, the Italian Government brought in a draft decree extending the country's current involvement in international military operations and providing funding. This form of legislation allows the government to enact provisional measures which become final if the instrument is approved by parliament within a period of 60 days. As a measure, it is rapid and politically effective, since it constitutes a form of fait accompli that is difficult for Parliament to challenge. However, it is quite customary for parliamentarians to take the opportunity, when they can, to reopen a political debate that sanctions or supports the country's involvement in multilateral missions in which the army is already engaged. The government for its part takes advantage of the position to report on Italy's international commitments, and shift the responsibility for their funding on to Parliament's shoulders, while conveying its concern at the lack of resources available for the purpose. Although a reserve fund was set up in the 2004 budget and the amounts allocated are higher than last year, it has become clear that, as anticipated, operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are likely to be long-term commitments and costs will continue to rise. Involvement in Iraq in particular tends to have monopolised the debate, which has continued over a period of several months, since the opposition demanded the separation of the articles concerned with financing the war in Iraq from those relating to the funding of other international missions. Every attempt to "kill" the legislation involved the majority in lengthy procedural blocking tactics. This went on until 10 March 2004 when it was approved, opening up deep political divisions between the pacifist left and the moderate wing.
19. One new development in the field of international operations has been the two EU-led missions, "Concordia" which replaces the NATO operation in FYROM, and "Artemis" in the Congo, pending follow-on from the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo - MONUC 3.
20. During a hearing of the EU Delegation of the French Senate on 14 January 2004, Senator Hubert Haenel made a statement on the shared costs of European Union operations with military or defence implications. This highlights a weakness that still exists with regard to Europe's intentions in this sphere. Operations of this nature continue to be funded from the budgets of individual nations while at the same time the parliaments of the member states have no oversight of how they are implemented - a fact borne out by the general lack of information on the subject.

21. The second Defence Congress, held in Berlin on 9 December 2003, offered an opportunity for German Defence Minister Peter Struck to refer to the growing importance of EU military operations, which made it possible to assess the ESDP's prospects looking ahead to the end of 2004. Given the number of conflicts to contend with, he stressed the need for Europe to be able to speak with a single voice and act as one politically. European nations had learned from the war in Kosovo and developed the EU European Security and Defence Policy, but Europe had not been as united in every case, particularly over the crucial issue of the war on Iraq. Still, although Europe's nations had not taken a firm, coordinated position the experience had nevertheless "helped drive the ESDP forward". Dr Struck illustrated his remarks with one or two specific examples:

22. In the UK House of Commons on 1 December 2003, Mike Hancock, put a question to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, asking whether he would make it his policy to support (a) the appending of the modified Brussels Treaty to the EU Constitutional Treaty as an optional protocol and (b) the amendment of the Treaty to oblige the EU Council to make an annual report on its activities in the fields of security and defence to the Assembly created by the modified Brussels Treaty and to the European Parliament.
23. On 8 December 2003, the UK Minister of State for Europe, Denis MacShane, stated:

24. On 16 December 2003 the following exchange took place on the floor of the House of Commons between the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Michael Ancram, and Mr MacShane. Mr Ancram asked:

25. On 12 December 2003, in the UK House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, (which is part of the select committee system) a report was prepared on the Italian Presidency's achievements in security and defence policy. The parliamentarians thus reviewed progress on work in hand and the completion of the two EU-led missions (Artemis in the Congo and Concordia in FYROM) and a mandate for the Irish Presidency was approved. In respect of the latter it was noted:

26. On 17 December 2003, the French National Assembly's Committee on National Defence and Armed Forces held a round table discussion on European defence, at which experts gave presentations to parliamentarians on the various stages and challenges involved in building a common defence. While the institutional and logistic aspects were moving forward at a pace that was encouraging, the same could not be said of the political debate. Deputy François Lamy regretted that little thought had been given to the reasons for having a European defence, in sharp contrast to the rapid progress towards that goal. He referred to publication of a "white paper" setting out the threats facing the continent of Europe and strategies for intervention. He also wondered about the role of the French and British nuclear deterrents in a European defence.
27. Defence policy is gradually assuming an important role in the foreign policy framework of individual nations and the ESDP is progressing at a steadier pace than the CFSP, as the Chairman of the French Delegation to the EU, Pierre Lequiller, was quick to point out, when underlining the importance of initiatives on European defence "the development of which will lead to the definition of a common foreign policy, in a reversal of the expected order of events".
28. The French Defence Minister, Michelle Alliot-Marie, addressing the EU delegation of the Senate and National Assembly, on 9 December 2003, also referred to the progress on European defence. She underlined the fact that Europe had been able to withstand the period of crisis caused by the war in Iraq, repeatedly described as the cause of insurmountable divisions between Europeans and as marking the death knell of a European defence. And yet, at a time when disagreements ran high, Europeans had done all they could to ensure that there could be no turning back as far as European defence was concerned.
29. The ensuing debate highlighted the unquestionable progress achieved with the European security strategy document, submitted by Mr Solana and adopted at the Brussels European Council meeting on 12 December 2003. In this, the European Union for the first time developed an assessment of threats and a distinctively European policy which differed from that of the United States in its emphasis on multilateralism and regional stabilisation policies and a thinking geared more towards preventive than pre-emptive strategies. As to the role of nuclear deterrence in European defence, it was noted that to debate this subject at the present time would almost certainly lead to divisions. Producing a "white paper" on European defence might also cause dissent since threat perceptions might differ from one country to another. It seemed preferable, in the first instance, to concentrate on the capabilities the European Union hoped to acquire for operations in which it might become involved. Moreover, with the exception of France and the United Kingdom, European countries' capacity for intervention was very limited and their only possible route for doing so was by way of the European Union. The Union's increasing security role was a reflection of a marked preference among the general public, which also supported an EU action capability that was not reliant on the United States.
30. The President of the WEU Assembly, Armand De Decker, attended a hearing at the French Senate on 14 January 2004, when the French delegation to the European Union held a joint meeting with the foreign affairs and defence committees, to which members of the delegation to the WEU Assembly were also invited. Here, the President of the Assembly went over the course of events in the progression towards a European defence from the time of the signature of the modified Brussels Treaty - Article V of which still provided the only legal basis for Europe's security and defence autonomy, pending the approval of the current plans for reform and specifically the new European Constitution, by the EU member states. Regarding the matter of democratic scrutiny, the President did not mince words:

31. There tends to be agreement on principle, but opinions differ as to form. Thus Senator Haenel stated that he was entirely in agreement with arrangements suggested by Mr De Decker for organising the ESDP and its parliamentary dimension, while Robert Del Picchia was more inclined towards the solution adopted for the new Euromediterrean Parliamentary Assembly of a more direct form of cooperation between national parliaments and the European Parliament. Daniel Goulet felt that the lack of enthusiasm for WEU stemmed from the number of overlapping institutions dealing with the same areas, while Mr De Decker pointed out that the matters under discussion might be dealt with by different institutions from different angles. The Council of Europe played a major part in the inculcation of common values, it had contributed to training officials in the central and eastern European countries which were members of the Europe of 45. As for WEU, its inclusion in the European Union necessarily implied the hoped for coordination [with the European Parliament].
32. At the same hearing, an explanation was given to French parliamentarians by Rapporteur Serge Vinçon of another innovation in European defence - the establishment of a European armaments agency. First, he first summarised the background to the proposals that had led to the decision to create this institution, which could be set up in advance of other treaties being approved. The Agency's remit was, in point of fact, based largely on the wording of WEAO and OCCAR's terms of reference. All that needed to be done was to bring the new body into the Union and provide coordination between it and the existing research, armaments and defence planning structures. The Rapporteur highlighted the problem areas:

33. Harmonisation of defence procurement and cooperation between armament industries raises another difficulty, that of either creating a network, or bringing together in a centralised structure, the military training schools in the various countries. Our Committee had earlier asked Eleonore Katseli to prepare a report on the subject, which gave rise to Recommendation 724, adopted unanimously by the Assembly on 3 June 2003. The Assembly's plea struck a chord and is still being actively considered. In Belgium's Chamber of Deputies, at a meeting of the National Defence Committee on 17 December 2003, Josée Lejeune, put the following question to Belgium's Defence Minister, André Flahaut:

34. In his opening address to the 2^nd Defence Congress in Berlin, Germany's Defence Minister, Peter Struck, also stressed the importance of the setting up of the EU defence agency, which was agreed in November 2003. This was one of the instruments enabling "groups of member states to cooperate, if they were willing and able to contribute some of their military know-how to improving Europe's ability to resolve conflicts". As far as the terms of any defence assistance clause were concerned, it was important that it should bind States in solidarity. The new EU Agency, which if all went well "would begin work in January 2004, would have a key role as far as EU military capabilities and optimisation of armaments activities were concerned". It would inter alia make it possible to define capability goals, harmonise operational needs and thus undertake appropriate procurement projects, promote research, strengthen the defence industrial and technological base and support the creation of a competitive European armaments market. Within the Agency, nations could form groups for working on common projects. Mr Struck concluded with the following remark:34. "We don't need some overarching authority, we need an operational agency linked up to a network".
35. Topics such as reserve forces and ground-based air defence and armed forces supplies have been discussed, and also defence research and development. On 2 February 2004, Denis MacShane, the UK Minister for European Affairs, answered a question from Mr Cousins as to whether it was government policy to support defence research and development expenditure by the European Commission. Mr MacShane replied that:

36. Finally, at the plenary session of the Belgian Senate on 4 March 2004, Mr Karim Van Overmeire (Vlams Blok) put a number of questions to the Defence Minister on the Franco-British proposal for creating a rapid intervention force, which had been hammered out at the Le Touquet summit on 10 February. Prime Minister Blair and President Chirac had in fact given to understand that there would be a new initiative, involving the creation of a number of combat units or tactical groups. Each combat unit would number approximately 1 500 men, deployable both inside or outside in Europe within 15 days of a political decision, particularly in cases of acute crisis. The divisions have to be trained and equipped to be able to undertake operations lasting between 30 and 120 days, essentially under United Nations mandate. Referring to this structure of seven to nine tactical groupings, to be operational by 2007, Mr Van Overmeire asked whether this was a completely new idea, compatible with what was there already; what was the attitude of the minister towards this initiative by the three largest nations; who - the member states or European Union - would direct operations and take political decisions; where would the military staff be set up and what would be Belgium's role in the operational phase of the proposal? To this Mr Flahaut replied very briefly, that he considered the initiative by the three large states to be "positive". There would be no new headquarters, the operation would be directed from the existing one, and Eurocorps' existence was in no way under threat. He stressed that "the proposal is seen in the NATO framework as a supplementary instrument and that Belgium had a positive contribution to make towards implementing the proposal as a smaller driving force of European defence.

37. Just at the time when our Committee was taking its decision to submit the present report to the Assembly's June 2004 session, the discussions on the draft Constitution were hitting the headlines and dominating the politics of the day. During the first week of December, a general debate took place in virtually every parliament: on 1 December, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference held a debate on the Future of Europe. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Jack Straw, reported on the IGC conclave of European Foreign Ministers, held in Naples at the end of November 2003. He confirmed that there was no formal agreement on any single point in Naples since "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". Mr Straw also gave a detailed explanation of the UK position on the CFSP and ESDP as presented in the draft EU Constitutional Treaty. He set out the UK's opposition to the revised proposals from the Italian Presidency for an extension of qualified majority voting in common foreign and security policy matters and made it very clear that these were not acceptable. On defence, he believed that a way forward could be found that was compatible with the UK's key interests. The arrangements for structured cooperation and mutual assistance in the face of armed aggression "should be open, flexible, militarily robust and, crucially, entirely consistent with strong and continuing commitment to NATO of all the partners". He maintained that considerable advances had been made on mutual defence. Commitments and cooperation in this field would remain "consistent with commitments" undertaken within NATO, which remained for those states who were members. That was the basis of their collective defence and the instrument for its implementation. "It makes it clear that the European Union is not a collective defence organisation". On structured cooperation, the suggestion that member states would have to fulfil higher military capability criteria had been dropped. Smaller member states, or those with lower levels of spending as a proportion of their GDP, could still become members of the structured cooperation arrangements if there were "things they could bring to the party".
38. Mr Straw made the point that:

39. In the matter of the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, UK concerns about the title had not been met. Mr Straw argued strongly that the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs had to be answerable to the Council rather than to the Commission on matters relating to CFSP.
40. In Belgium, on 3 December 2003, Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt spoke before the Federal Advisory Committee on European Affairs and the Foreign Affairs Committee. WEU Assembly member Jean-Pol Henry raised the issue of defence as follows:

41. Also on 3 December 2003, at a hearing before the Cortes⁴, Spain's Foreign Minister, Mrs Ana Palacio Vellelersundi, took part in an exchange on the subject of the topics scheduled for discussion some days later at the Brussels European Council meeting on 12 and 13 December 2003. She set out Spain's position on these in the following statement:

42. With regard to the matter of the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mrs Palacio observed:

43. As far as the CFSP and the ESDP went, Mrs Palacio noted that the Italian Presidency "has made proposals for reforms to the draft that came out of the Convention. As far foreign policy properly speaking is concerned the Presidency is proposing that decisions be taken by qualified majority in all cases where there is a proposal from the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Presidency is insisting on the present wording of the "emergency brake" clause. This is in line with the approach we took in the Convention but it also should be said that there is no consensus on the proposal. In the framework of the European Security and Defence Policy, the de facto elimination of the mutual defence clause is being proposed and its replacement by a reference to the legitimate self-defence provision under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, while structured cooperation in regard to defence capabilities is presented as a permanent cooperation requiring Council authorisation by qualified majority of all its members. That cooperation - and this is the important point - becomes more open, with the elimination of the requirement for consensus among all the participating states as regards new states joining, and its substitution by qualified majority voting. Moreover, the Presidency proposes that enhanced cooperation on CFSP matters should be authorised by the Council unanimously and not by qualified majority".
44. Spokespersons for the Socialist Group (Mr Estrella Pedrola) the Convergència I Unió (Mr Guardans I Cambó, Member of the Assembly of WEU) and of the joint parliamentary group (Mrs Lasagabaster Olazabal) intervened in succession, acknowledging the importance and justification of the EU Security Strategy. Mr Martínez Casañ, the spokesperson for the Grupo Popular and Chairman of the Political Committee of the WEU Assembly, noted that "there seemed to be a consensus about defence - and a very welcome one as the Minister has observed. Nevertheless the consensus was different from the one in the text of the Convention".
45. Mrs Palacio replied to the previous speakers in the following terms:

46. She also noted that "as far as the CFSP is concerned, Spain has never insisted there should be unanimity. I don't know why anyone should think it has but it is a matter I want to clear up immediately. We have never held that view. Lastly "in regard to structured cooperation over defence policy, we maintained that the "passerelle" clause should be deleted. That is not to say that we want unanimity. We want to avoid structured cooperation becoming closed. The minute a structured cooperation is allowed to dictate its own terms, it might become closed. That is the point of our argument. It is not a matter of our having insisted upon unanimity per se".
47. Furthermore, on 4 December 2003, the Cortes's joint committee for Europe approved a "non-legislative motion" on European integration and the future of Europe, submitted by the Popular Party parliamentary group and published under the auspices of the sub-committee monitoring the work of the 2004 IGC on the future of the European Union. The text appeared in the official journal of the Cortes on 16 December 2003⁵.
48. In regard to external action and defence, it was proposed to:

49. In the institutional sphere, it is advocated that "instruments be simplified" and integration take place of the three `pillars' of the Union, but that specific aspects be retained in some areas, such as foreign and security policy" (point 5.4).
50. This "non legislative motion" also supports the idea of "a greater involvement of national parliaments" in the EU legislative process (paragraph 1.5). It underlines the fact that "the national parliaments, representing their respective sovereign nations, are a primary source of legitimacy and hence of democratic scrutiny. National legislative chambers need to play an active part in the work of the European Union, in particular through effective scrutiny of the actions of their respective national governments. They should therefore have an essential role in ensuring that the principle of subsidiarity is adhered to, through an "early warning" procedure to ensure compliance with that principle on the part of the Commission when the latter proposes legislation (paragraph 5.11). It is proposed "to set out the national Parliaments' tasks in relation to the decision-making process in a Protocol annexed to the Constitutional Treaty, which would constitute a genuine Charter for the legislative chambers of individual nations" (paragraph 5.12). Lastly, the motion observes that the adoption of a "Charter for National Parliaments" could strengthen and help institutionalise the latter's role within the Union. It must, inter alia, stipulate that the approval of the various houses of parliaments of the Member States is required for the Union to take on areas of responsibility not hitherto referred to in the Treaties (paragraph 5.12).
51. During the discussions preceding the approval of this draft motion at the Palacio del Congreso de los Diputados on 16 December 2003, the Socialist parliamentary group stated:

52. In the UK Parliament, on 4 December 2003, Mr Hancock, a member of the Assembly of WEU and Vice-Chairman of its Political Committee, asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs' representative, Mr MacShane, what his assessment was of the effect of "dissolving" Western European Union. Mr MacShane noted that:

53. During debates in the House of Commons on 15 December 2003, George Foulkes, a member of the Assembly of WEU, put a question to the Secretary of State for Defence, Geoffrey Hoon, about the future of Western European Union. Mr Hoon answered that: "In November 2000, the Council of the Western European Union at Marseilles agreed a number of measures designed to address the consequences for the WEU of the changes under way, particularly the evolution of European security and defence policy". Mr Foulkes further asked whether he or one of his Ministers would agree to meet the British delegation to WEU to discuss further a greater and expanding role for that important institution". Mr Hoon emphasised that the Government "entirely accepted the need to consider further how to improve the arrangements for collective oversight of areas of EU activity, including ESDP".
54. On 11 December 2003, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence, Lord Bach, speaking in the House of Lords on the subject of EU/NATO relations, stated that:

55. An oral evidence session on the "Italian European Council" took place, also on 11 December 2003, before the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, with Jack Straw, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and other members of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The question of an independent EU military operational planning capability was also discussed.
56. During the debates in the House of Commons, on 15 December 2003, the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, made a statement giving details of the intergovernmental conference and going on to highlight the fact "that the European Council welcomed the proposals put forward by the United Kingdom, France and Germany on the future of European Defence, which is limited of course to peacekeeping and humanitarian issues. Those will strengthen the European Union's collective planning capacity while in no way duplicating or conflicting with NATO which remains the basis of Europe's territorial defence".
57. At the 82^nd session of the Plenary Assembly held in the Bundestag on 11 December 2003, the Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, Joschka Fischer, made a statement on behalf of the government regarding the Brussels European Council meeting due to be held on 12-13 December. Speaking about foreign policy and the European common security and defence policy, he first underlined the importance of the function of the Union's Foreign Minister which meant that Europe would no longer be "faceless" in its foreign policy dealings. "The creation of the post of Union Foreign Minster and his Ministry at European level represents a major advance for the Common Foreign and Security Policy". He recalled the achievements that had taken place in the area of the common security policy since the 1999 Cologne European Council: "Military and civil capabilities have been developed, the Berlin-plus agreements between the EU and NATO have been finalised. The Union has undertaken three crisis-management operations in the Balkans and another in the Congo and announced its readiness to take command of a military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina". He also highlighted the need to continue developing and strengthening the European Security and Defence Policy and said he would be in favour of the form of structured cooperation in the security and defence area as provided under the Constitution. He went on:

In his view:

Mr Fischer felt that security policy was not simply something that concerned the military sphere:

He also wanted to impress on everyone that strengthening the European Security and Defence Policy in no way ran counter to NATO and the transatlantic partnership.

58. The period that has ensued has been one for mulling things over, and parliamentary debate on this issue has died down for the time being, pending further concrete initiatives from governments. This probably accounts for why little has been heard about the only real step forward achieved at the Naples foreign ministers "conclave" on 26 November 2003, which dealt specifically with common defence. The agreement of principle in this area reached by the Union member states was an achievement for the WEU parliamentarians and the culmination of the work of an Organisation which for 50 years has painstakingly wrought the unity of thinking and attitude among Europeans and European governments that led to the rapid emergence of last December's consensus. Without WEU's experience, this would very likely have remained an area of controversy and, without the practical achievements of the various parts of WEU, a project that carried little credibility. It is perhaps opportune here to quote as an illustration, the text of Article 1-40 paragraph 7 of the EU draft Constitutional Treaty, proposed by the Italian Presidency:

59. The implications of these provisions were examined and discussed on 14 January 2004 at the meeting of the EU delegation of the French Senate. Hubert Haenel, the Rapporteur, drew a comparison between the results of the Convention's work in this area and draft Article I-40:

60. In the ensuing debate, there was no shortage of confusion over the meaning of words. Mr Didier Boulaud was the first to complain: "The whole idea of structured cooperation does not seem clear to me. What with structured cooperation, enhanced cooperation, closer cooperation and so on, we are hard put to know where we stand". Even Senator Xavier de Villepin, was forced to admit that he too "could not really see what the point of structured cooperation was" and continued: "We need a Constitution as soon as possible. The idea of a multi-speed Europe gives rise to a lot of suspicion, where it is not rejected out of hand. Many nations, particularly among the new entrants are worried about being left out of some aspects of European integration. They need reassuring. At the same time, we must avoid treaties we promised we would simplify being made even more complicated".
61. Mr Haenel then asked President De Decker what he looked for most from the IGC, to which the President of the WEU Assembly replied:

62. There were a number of comments critical of the lack of any reference to parliamentary oversight in the proposals on the new Constitution. There were rumours in the press from time to time which suggested forward movement on a number of issues of which there was no mention in political debates. Feelings ran highest in the countries not invited to the "mini-summits" between three or four heads of state and government, which tended to give the impression of decisions being taken by fewer and fewer people. Valdo Spini pointedly remarked when raising a question in the Italian parliament on 21 January 2004: "I would like to inform this Assembly of yet another incident of grave concern and one which is by no means an isolated occurrence. On 18 February a summit will take place in Berlin, which is to be attended by France, Germany and the United Kingdom. This will deal with economic issues, ostensibly in preparation for the spring meeting of the European Council. The three countries concerned had earlier reached an agreement on defence issues and delivered it to the Intergovernmental Conference, of which Italy held the presidency. Minister, would you care to look again at government policy, or are you happy to go on sending expressions of our appreciation after the event"?
63. On 6 February 2004, Sir Menzies Campbell asked the UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Jack Straw, what steps had been taken in relation to the establishment of a cell with civil and military components in line with the European Council's decision of 12 December 2003. Mr Straw replied that the European Council had invited the EU Secretary-General/High Representative, Javier Solana, to propose measures for the improvement of the preparation of European Union operations having recourse to NATO assets and capabilities and for the establishment of a cell with civil and military components. The European Council had concluded that these measures should enter into force as early as possible in 2004. He added that the UK Government supported the strengthening of NATO/EU planning links and of ESDP planning capacity, particularly in the civilian/military area.
64. Sir Menzies Campbell further asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he expected to take in regard to implementing the recommendations of the Solana paper adopted at the European Council on 12 December 2003. Mr Straw answered that the Government expected initial implementation of the European Security Strategy to concentrate on four priority areas identified by the European Council: effective multilateralism with the UN at its core, the fight against terrorism, a strategy towards the Middle East region and a comprehensive policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. He said the UK Government was committed to the full implementation of the Strategy to help bring coherence and greater robustness to the EU's external policies.
65. On 15 February 2004, under pressure from Mr Manzella, Mr Martino, the Italian Defence Minister, addressed the Italian Senate Defence Committee, summarising broad trends in European defence policy at the close of the six-month EU presidency. Parliamentarians were thus informed of developments in progress and the results achieved. The minister first referred to the Union's capabilities, where by and large the Helsinki Headline Goal had been met by end 2003, and which, despite some shortcomings, constituted an operational potential, as the crisis-management missions already undertaken had shown. Artemis and Concordia had revealed a degree of capability that was very encouraging. The minister went on to summarise progress in defence reform through the IGC's work on the Constitution for Europe, stating that:

66. During the ensuing question-time, Mr Gubert put the following question to the minister:

67. To which Mr Martino replied:

68. During a debate on the outcome of the European summit on 25 and 26 March 2004, which took place in the Bundestag, on 1 ApriL 2004, Hans Martin Bury, Germany's Minister for Europe, informed parliamentarians of the decision by the European Council "from now on to apply Article 42 of the draft Constitution in the event of a member state falling victim to a terrorist attack. This solidarity clause means that should such a thing occur, all member countries will mobilise the means at their disposal to support the state concerned". He told members that although that clause had given rise to much controversy during the debates on the draft Constitution "the EU had today given proof of its solidarity and determination".

---

¹ Adopted unanimously and without amendment by the Assembly on 2 June 2004 (2^nd sitting).

² "Delivering Security in a changing World - Defence White Paper" (Cm 6041 I) and Supporting Essays (Cm 6041 II), presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Defence by Command of Her Majesty, December 2003, Ministry of Defence, http://www.mod.uk .

³ Cf. Briefing by Dr Ernst A. van Hoek, Chairman, WEAG Netherlands Chairmanship, 2003-2004, Meetings of the Presidential, Defence, Political, Technological and Aerospace and Parliamentary and Public Relations Committees, Brussels, 21 January 2004.

⁴ Diario de sesiones de las Cortes generales - Comisiones mixtas - VII Legislatura Núm. 159. 3 de diciembre 2003, Sesión Núm. 59.

⁵ Cf : Boletín oficial de las Cortes generales - sección Cortes generales - VII legislatura - serie a: actividades parliamentarias - 19 December 2003 - Num. 516.