Why treaty talks won’t affect security and defence

As negotiations on a new treaty to replace the rejected EU constitution move up a gear, it is the parts dealing with security and defence which are proving least controversial.

While many governments want to delete the Charter of Fundamental Rights, deprive the Union of a single legal personality and re-open the system of allocation of votes, there is broad consensus for keeping the key parts of the constitution dealing with the foreign and security policy.

The key innovation was the creation of a foreign minister for the Union who would be ‘double-hatted’ - combining the role of the current high representative for common foreign and security policy with that of the European commissioner for external relations. Some governments, such as the UK and the Czech Republic, do not like the name "foreign minister", arguing that only governments have ministers and that it will increase pressure for referenda because it is linked to the constitution. The new position may be called ‘secretary of state’. But there is little or no opposition to the double-hatting aspect as governments agree that the combination of the two posts will greatly enhance the coherence of EU foreign and security policy.

Replacing the six-month rotating presidency of the EU with a fixed president of the European Council will also help boost coherence in foreign and security policy as it will end the sudden change in policy priorities as a new presidency tries to refocus attention on its geographical region such as Finland’s emphasis on the Northern Dimension or Spain’s focus on the Mediterranean and Latin America.

The constitution would have introduced a solidarity clause under which member states agreed to assist each other in the event of terrorist attack or natural disasters. This clause, similar to the Article V commitment of NATO’s charger, does not appear to be contested. It may even be supplemented by an energy solidarity clause where member states promise to help each other in the event of energy shortages. This has been requested by Poland and the Baltic states which fear Russia cutting off energy supplies as happened with Ukraine in January 2006.

The constitution would also have opened the door to enhanced co-operation in the field of defence, which had previously been excluded from earlier treaties, allowing countries with superior military capabilities to team up to take on "the most demanding missions".

The constitution envisaged setting up the institutional framework for co-operation on defence procurement, but this work has gone ahead anyway through a decision by EU leaders to set up the European Defence Agency and moves to break down protection of national defence industries.

As negotiations on a new treaty to replace the rejected EU constitution move up a gear, it is the parts dealing with security and defence which are proving least controversial.

• Primary Source