Airstrip One

The Report of the European Convention Working Party on defence - 19th December 2002, 23.44

This slipped out on the 16th December with little fanfare and went unnoticed apart from the Daily Telegraph.The paper gives a succinct overview of the EU's security policy. The EU favours multinational action, international law, conflict prevention and disarmament through multinational bodies, thus falling into the moral trap of confusing their interests with the ideal of international law.

The EU has already established a Political and Security Committee, a Military Committee and a Military Staff to provide the structure and expertise necessary to deploy force. The working paper (pdf format) also stated that these structures had to complement NATO for those EU members who belonged to the organisation and noted the limitations on European defence. It is not subject to qualified majority voting and it is not paid for out of the Commission's budget.

The paper also highlights the military co-operation that the UK undertakes with other EU states through the European Air Group, the Multinational Division Centre, the General Staff of the German-Netherlands First Corps and the British-Netherlands Amphibious Force. I must ask why we are in the second to last. Are we Dutch?

The working party concluded that there was a strong public opinion in favour of European defence (no figures cited). The High Representative would have the power to initiate a proposal for 'defence outreach' (including the ability to combat terrorism in a non-EU country at their request). This would be agreed or rejected by the European Council and then overseen by the Political and Security Committee. Such operations would be financed from a common defence budget outside of the budget of the Commission.

Since these operations could not always be subjected to QMV (this was suggested!), the working party suggested that countries could abstain from the proposals (though not financially) and that a "defence Euro-Zone" may be established for those states that favoured deeper military integration. This closer co-operation was linked to the arguments over inclusion of clauses for Solidarity and collective defence in the Constitution. The non-aligned nations were opposed to collective defence but solidarity towards threats, especially from non-state terrorism proved more persuasive, including the capapbility of civil defence units (internal security) to intervene in any country at their request.

The working party proposed the establishment of a common defence procurement body. If defence co-operation were to be enhanced, the progress in integrating defence capabilities could be passed to a Capabilities Agency, who would report to a Council of Defence Ministers and the High Representative.

The working party laid out various proposals for integrating defence at the EU level, extending its capabilities and allowing particular countries to deepen their security relationships. It is also clear that EU defence policy would only function in tandem with NATO or the UN and that there was no capacity for pre-emptive action. A state has to invite you in before you can combat terrorism.

The MOD made no comment.