Paris, 4 June 2008 - The Assembly said on Tuesday that the European Security Strategy was a most compelling document, but had certain weaknesses and should therefore be updated.

It said little about the EU’s relations with NATO and with third countries, and there were significant omissions, in particular regarding the role of nuclear weapons and space in European security, according to Daniel Ducarme (Belgium, Liberal Group). Presenting his report, Mr Ducarme said that moreover, given the new threats such as terrorism and cybercrime, the new strategy should be based more on a concept of security that recognised the link between internal and external security.

On 14 December 2007, the European Council decided it was time to reassess the European Security Strategy that had been adopted four years earlier. The report, submitted to the Assembly on behalf of the Political Committee, reviews the Strategy and the impact of the relevant provisions of the Lisbon Treaty.

This year is a crucial one, especially as the current mandate of the European Council calls for the adoption of the new European Security Strategy by December 2008. According to Mr Ducarme, “Europe needs a clear and concise framework for foreign and security policy action. Such a framework should be based on five ‘pillars’: to give a doctrinal value to the Lisbon Treaty, to reconcile mutual assistance and mutual defence, to move on from enhanced cooperation to permanent structured cooperation, to define a clear partnership between the EU and NATO, and to speed up the introduction of a European defence equipment market”.

The first of these pillars develops the thesis that the Treaty of Lisbon must have a clear doctrinal character in the area of the ESDP. The new High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission should be asked to draw up a White Paper on external, security and defence policy with a view to providing clear directives for the new EU leadership that will take over in 2009 when the Lisbon Treaty comes into force. A military sub-strategy detailing the means for the EU to attain its objectives is also necessary, to permit a thorough revision of the Strategy.

The second pillar raises the importance of reconciling mutual assistance and defence. The Lisbon Treaty refers to mutual assistance between member states, while the WEU founding Brussels Treaty speaks of mutual defence. But the notion of mutual defence implies that intervention follows automatically in the event of aggression or terrorist attack. This was not so of the term “assistance”, Mr Ducarme asserted.

The third pillar makes reference to the importance of permanent structured cooperation. Member states are encouraged to make use of all the possibilities offered by permanent structured cooperation. These provisions enable members of the Union who are determined to move ahead establish in-depth cooperation and facilitate capacity-building for states wishing to commit higher levels of resources.

The fourth pillar emphasises the need for a clearer partnership with NATO. This would give the Union better control over information and intelligence and enable it to respond independently to security threats and develop permanent planning and decision-making capabilities for carrying out civil and military operations. Europe needs to evolve a framework whereby it can act independently to defend its common interests and shared values, while working hand-in-hand with NATO.

The fifth pillar deals with the essential requirement of establishing an open, competitive European defence equipment market. Europe’s political “clout” had to be underpinned by an industrial capacity that formed the bedrock of the EU’s strength to defend itself, Mr Ducarme said.

During the debate on the report, Mike Hancock (United Kingdom, Liberal Group) said that if the European Union failed to heed the report and listen to the representatives of national parliaments, it would “fall, and fall very hard”, causing “substantial damage to the cause of Europe and accountability”. Since there was no format to replace the Assembly, it should neither be changed nor “forced out of business”, Mr Hancock added. The European Parliament should respond positively to the Assembly’s overtures towards it.

Birgen Keles (Turkey) said that although her country had contributed substantially to NATO and the ESDP, it was always sidelined. João Mota Amaral (Portugal, Federated Group) said that the Portuguese Government believed the Lisbon Treaty should not replace the Modified Brussels Treaty and John Greenway (United Kingdom, Federated Group) said that he had “many questions and many reservations” about the Lisbon Treaty, in particular with respect to the unclear roles of the Union President and the new High Representative. Parliamentarians had to remain vigilant.  Zmago Plemeniti Jelinčič (Slovenia) called for the issue of energy to be taken up in a future strategy and Odd Einar Dørum (Norway) warned against the dangers of bureaucratic mind-sets within the EU and the lack of consideration for the citizens’ points of view as expressed through this Assembly.