Triple challenge for EU

Date: 23/11/1995

By Rory Watson

NEXT month's Madrid summit will be told the EU must find answers to three central questions when it reviews the Maastricht Treaty next year.

The triple challenge has been identified by Spanish European Affairs Minister Carlos Westendorp as his Reflection Group brings its preparatory work on the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) to a close.

He says the IGC will have to find ways to involve citizens in EU business, provide the Union with a stronger ability to act internationally and improve the way it functions.

The issues at stake are highlighted in a draft political introduction which the Reflection Group intends to finalise early next month.

As the IGC draws nearer, the Commission has vowed to learn from the mistakes it made during the run-up to Maastricht and avoid any rigid dogmatism at the outset of the negotiations.

“At the last IGC, the Commission adopted a very firm, closed position. This time we need a margin of flexibility,” Institutional Affairs Commissioner Marcelino Oreja said in an interview with European Voice this week.

Oreja insists this can be achieved “without upsetting basic principles which enable the Commission to play its role and show what is the common interest”.

The Commission in general, and Oreja in particular, have adopted a low profile in the Reflection Group exercise. Unlike other members of Westendorp's group, Oreja has forsaken press conferences and has only briefed his Commission colleagues orally.

This contrasts with the hefty institutional and foreign policy blueprints which the previous Commission of Jacques Delors produced. These were seen by many member states as a direct challenge to their authority and led to the Commission being outflanked in the intergovernmental negotiations.

Now, almost five years on, the Commission is playing a less expansionist game. But despite the intergovernmental nature of the negotiations, Oreja insists: “I feel the Commission should be present in the negotiations, making proposals and helping to reach an agreement - a role it plays now.”

While keeping as many options open as possible, the Commission has firmly set its face against the idea of a single foreign policy supremo personifying the Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

In uncharacteristically blunt terms, Commission spokesman, Nikolaus van der Pas explained: “It would cause confusion, friction and all kinds of misunderstandings. This is something we must avoid at all costs.”

France has argued that a Mr or Mrs CFSP would give the EU's international partners a focal point of contact. But the Commission believes its president Jacques Santer fulfils that role and fears it could be usurped or become confused by creating another personality.

The Commission is not alone in its opposition. Recently the Irish member of the Reflection Group Gay Mitchell retorted: “People keep quoting Kissinger saying whom should he ring in Europe. But whom do we ring? The US President, the Secretary of State, the National Security Council? We should not develop Europe in the light of whom the United States should ring.”

The Commission's public hostility to the idea emerged after a special meeting to prepare its stance before Westendorp finalises both parts of his report for the Madrid summit which is due to formally convene the IGC.

Oreja firmly believes the brief political introduction to the Westendorp report must “set the political tone and present options, direction and a philosophy”.

He added: “We need two approaches: one to the European summit, the other to the public. The big question is how do we explain to the citizen the changes we are proposing and how we intend to do it? One part of the report is technical, the other political. It is like a song where you have words and music. If you read only the words, it is fine, but not enough. You need the music to get the full effect.”