Solidarity is strength for defence of member states – but NATO will still call the shots

Date: 12/12/02

Dina Spinant reports on the implications of Commissioner Michel Barnier's proposals for EU defence

MEMBER states must protect each other in case of attack but NATO will still be in charge of defending their territory, a report drafted by Commissioner Michel Barnier for the Convention on the future on the EU is set to conclude.

The report will urge that a solidarity and mutual assistance clause be inserted in the constitutional treaty that the Convention is preparing. However, it stops short of proposing a mutual defence commitment, similar to Article V in the NATO treaty, whereby an attack on one member is seen as an attack on all.

The Convention's working group on defence has been split over whether the EU should take the defence of its territory into its own hands or whether it should still rely on NATO.

While France and Germany want the EU to be responsible for its own defence, the UK insists that European defence policy must remain complementary to NATO, which should be in charge of territorial defence.

The UK claims an Article V-like clause would undermine the North Atlantic Alliance. In addition, the four neutral member states - Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden - object to such a commitment on the grounds that it would transform the Union into a military alliance.

"I want to avoid the ideological rivalry," Barnier told European Voice. "But it is important that we have not only economic but also political solidarity. The EU is not a supermarket, and we must be able to protect each other."

The regional policy commissioner anticipates that the constitutional treaty being drafted by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's forum will contain a clause providing for mutual assistance among EU countries in the event of a terrorist attack.

However, if the territorial integrity of a member state is threatened by a country, NATO will be called to defend it.

"A new clause should be inserted into the treaty enabling all the instruments available to the Union to be mobilised, including the military resources and the structures originally set up for the Petersberg [humanitarian] missions, in order to avert the terrorist threat, protect the civilian population and democratic institutions and to assist a member state within its territory in dealing with the consequences of a possible attack," the report states.

"Such a clause would not be a clause on the defence of territorial integrity, but would apply to threats from non-state entities," it adds.

However, Barnier hopes the treaty will leave open the possibility for heads of state and government to decide to add a mutual defence clause at a later date.

Key members of the working group on defence are disappointed that the report does not plead for such a clause. They warn that NATO may stagnate or even disappear in the future.

"The events over the last two years, including NATO's lack of involvement in the important front in Afghanistan, have indicated that, despite its recent enlargement to seven countries, the North Atlantic Alliance is condemned to become irrelevant. It is the moment to think of taking our defence in our hands," one member said.

In a paper submitted to the Convention by the French and German foreign ministers, Dominique de Villepin and Joschka Fischer, the two countries propose the inclusion of a clause on "solidarity and common security" in the constitutional treaty. A senior Greek official said his country supports such a clause. "NATO is undergoing a severe crisis," he said. "I think it does not have much of a future and Europe would be well advised to develop a common defence."

That view was shared by a French official in Brussels. "I find it normal that the EU takes care of its own defence. Who knows whether NATO will still exist in five or ten years?" he said.

"The only time in history when Article V was invoked, on 12 September 2001, and NATO could have played a role in the fight against terrorism, the Americans politely declined the offer. They preferred to go their way and carry out their war. It's hard to imagine that NATO will ever strike," the French official added.

For non-Atlanticists, last month's decision by the Prague summit to invite seven new members from eastern Europe to join NATO was the last straw.

By increasing NATO's membership from 19 to 26, while keeping the unanimity rule for taking decisions, the Alliance is guaranteed to stagnate, they argue.

The UK, and France and Germany are also split over arms purchases, with London rejecting plans by Paris and Berlin for a European Union defence procurement agency. Tony Blair's government fears such an agency would spark criticism in the UK that powers over defence spending were being ceded to Brussels. It also fears the move would be seen as protectionism and result in industrial retaliation from the US.

A boycott of European defence firms by Washington would impact hardest on Britain, where firms such as BAE Systems have been successful in making inroads into the lucrative US market.

However, Convention members have called for allowing more ambitious member states to go further via closer cooperation. Barnier envisages that a "defence Eurogroup" made up of like-minded countries could together set up an armaments agency.

"Countries that will want to join the agency will need an entry ticket," the commissioner explained, insisting that EU states would need to fulfil criteria in terms of capabilities and military spending in order to join.

Such a move would be similar to membership to the monetary union, whereby member states must not only be willing but also meet criteria in order to adopt the euro. Although more ambitious members of the Convention deplore the lack of progress over a mutual defence clause and a common armaments agency, they admit the issues are politically explosive.

"Defence used to be a taboo area in Europe, for reasons linked to the existence of NATO or of neutral countries. The first task of this working group has been to break the taboos. We succeeded in doing that," Barnier said. Although divided on some issues, his working group did agree on jointly organising civil protection in EU countries in the event of natural or humanitarian disasters.

A "civil protection pool" consisting of specialised units identified by the member states would be set up to facilitate more effective intervention in such events.

Article reports on the implications of Commissioner Michel Barnier's proposals for EU defence.