DOCUMENT 126I 26th March l99l

ASSEMBLY OF WESTERN

THIRTY-SEVENTH ORDINARY SESSION

(First Part)

Revision of the modified Treaty

REPORT

submitted on behalf of the Political Committee by Mr. Goerens. Rapporteur ASSEMBLY OF 43, avenue du Pr6srdent-Wrlson,75775 Parrs Cedex'l 6 - Tel 41 235432 Document 1261 26th March 1991

Revision of the modified Brussels Treaty

REPORT I

submitted on behalf of the Political Committee ) by Mr. Goerens, Rapporteur

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DR,TFT RrcovurNp,qtloN

on the revrsion of the modified Brussels Treaty

Ex p l.qNeloRt' MrvoR.,\r"- ouv

submrtted by Mr. Goerens. Rapporteur I. Introduction II. Organisation of European secunty III. The political unron of (a) ltahan proposal (D) proposal (r/ and positions (d) Franco-German proposal IV. The functronrng of WEU V. Conclusions

l. Adopted rn commrttee b) 24 votes to I wrth 2 abstentions. 2. llember.t ol lhc c'ommr tte c Mr .-lhrans (Chairman); Str Geo.lJrev Finsberg, Mr. De Decker (Vrce-Charrmen) ; MM. ,4arrr, Beix (Alternate: Baumt'l), IJLthm. Rtrtrt. (-undal. Caro, Collart (Alternate: De Bondt), Cualtetans, Erth. Fabra, Forni (Alternate: Lentttne\. Foschr. Got,rciri, Hrtschler, Lord Krkhill, MM. Koehl. van der Lrnden (Alternate Etstna), Lotcl Llache, MM. Martrnez. Martrno, Milller. Natah. Plt'naux, Preralh. de Pug, Roseta, Sarlt, Srr ll'rLltarn Shalton, Mrs Staels-Dotnpas. MM. Stollalcn, Thyroud, Ward (Alternate: Rox'e). N.B. 77rc nutnas ctf tho.\( laktng part rn the rok arc pnnted in ttaln's DOCUMENT I26I

Draft Recommendation

on the revision of the modified Brussels Treaty

The Assembly,

(i) Considering that the accession of Portugal and Spain to WEU and the reunification of Germany make necessary a revision of the modified Brussels Treaty:

(ii) Considering that certain provisions of the modified Brussels Treaty no longer meet European security requirements but are obstacles to harmonious co-operation between member countries in security and defence matters,

(iii) Considering that WEU is required to take its place, together with the Community and political co-operation, in a European union whose responsibilities will be extended to include security and defence matters;

(it') Considering that the is still essential for the security of Europe as a whole;

(v) Considering that the new order of peace and security that the CSCE is in the process of estab- lishing throughout Europe calls for a demonstration of a collective European will to ensure respect for the principles set out in the Charter;

(vi) Considering that WEU is strll essential for any co-ordinated action by member countries outside the area defined by the North Atlantic Treaty,

RrcorurrragNos rHAT lrr CouNctl

l. Examine without delay the changes to be made to the modified Brussels Treaty to adapt it to the new circumstances;

2. To this end, take into consideration the draft treaty proposed by the Assembly as follows: The high contracting parties Resolved: To reaffirm their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the other ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations and in the European Convention on Human Rights;

To fortify and preserve the principles of democracy, personal freedom and political liberty, the constitutional traditions and the rule of law, which are their common heritage;

To strengthen, with these aims in view, the economic, social and cultural ties by which they are already united; To co-operate loyally and to co-ordinate their efforts to create a firm basis lor the European economy;

To afford assistance to each other, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the provisions adopted by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. in maintaining interna- tional peace and security and in resisting any policy of aggression; To promote the unity and to encourage the progressive integration of Europe;

To associate progressively in the pursuance of these aims other states inspired by the same ideals and animated by the like determination;

Determined to pursue their action to organise the integration of their economies, their eco- nomic, social and cultural co-operation, their legitimate collective defence and the organisation of security and co-operation in all European countries;

2 DOCUMENT I26I

Have agreed as follows:

Anrrcle I I

Convinced of the close community of their interests and of the necessity of uniting in order to play fully their due rdle in organising a new order of peace and security in Europe and maintaining peace and economic and social development in the world, the high contracting parties will co-ordinate their action in the various organisations helping to attain these aims. The co-operation provided for in the preceding paragraph, which will be effected through the Council referred to in Article VI, as well as through other bodies, shall not involve any duplication of, or prejudice to, the work of other organisations in which the high contracting parties are or may be represented but shall on the contrary assist the work of those organisations.

Anrrclr II 2 In the execution of the treaty, the high contracting parties and any organs established by them under the treaty shall work in close co-operation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. While retaining the right to prepare for any military operations they may deem necessary, the Council and its subordinate bodies will ensure that there is no overlapping with NATO civil and mil- itary bodies and will pursue a continuing exchange of information and opinions with them.

Anrtcln III 3

If any of the high contracting parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other high contracting parties will, in accordance with the provisions of Article 5l of the Charter of the United Nations. afford the party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power.

Anrlcle IV a All measures taken as a result of the preceding article shall be immediately reported to the Security Council. They shall be terminated as soon as the Security Council has taken the measures nec- essary to maintain or restore international peace and security. The present treaty does not prejudice in any way the obligations of the high contracting parties under the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. It shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Anrtclr V 5 The high contracting parties declare, each so far as he is concerned, that none of the interna- tional engagements now in force between him and any other of the high contracting parties or any third state is in conflict with the provisions of the present treaty. None of the high contracting parties will conclude any alliance or participate in any coalition directed against any other of the high contracting pa(ies.

AnrrcrE VI 6 1. For the purposes of strengthening peace and security and of promoting unity and of encouraging the progressive integration of Europe and closer co-operation between them and with other European organisations, the high contracting parties to the Brussels Treaty create a Council to consider matters concerning the execution of this treaty.

l. Amended text. 2. Former Article IV amended. 3. Former Article V. amended rn French. 4. Former Article VI. 5. Former Article VII. 6. Former Article VIII amended. DOCUMENT I261

2. This Council is known as the " Council of Western European Union "t it is so organised as to be able to exercise its functions continuously: it shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be considered necessary. 3. At the request of any of the high contracting parties. of the or of thc Assembly. the Council shall be immediately convened in order to permit them to concert their approach to any challenge to security and co-operation in Europe or to the application of arms limitation conventions and to any situation which may constitute a threat to peace, in whatever area this threat should arise. 4. The Council shall decide by unanimous vote questions for which no other voting procedure has been or may be agreed.

Anrrclr VII 7

The Council of Western European Union shall make an annual report on its activities to an assembly of representatives of the Brussels Treaty powers appointed in accordance with the same cri- teria as representatives to the Parliamentary Assembly of the .

Anrlcle VIII8 In pursuance of their determination to settle disputes only by peaceful means, the high contracting parties will apply to disputes between themselves the following provisions: The high contracting parties will, while the present treaty remains in force, settle all disputes falling within the scope of Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, by referring them to the court, subject only, in the case of each of them. to an1, reservation already made by that party when accepting this clause for compulsory jurisdiction to the extent that that party may maintain the reservation. In addition, the high contracting parties will submit to concihation all disputes outside the scope of Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. In the case of a mixed dispute involving both questions for which conciliation rs appropriate and other questrons for which judicial settlement is appropriate, any party to the dispute shall have the right to insist that the judicial settlement of the legal questions shall precede conciliation. The preceding provisions of this article in no way affect the application of relevant provisions or agreements prescribing some other method of pacific settlement.

Anrrclr IX e

The high contracting parties may decide, by joint agreement. after the Council has consulted the Assembly, to invite any other state to accede to the present treaty on conditions to be agreed between them and the state so invited. Any state so invited may become a party to the treaty by depositing an instrument of accession with the Belgian Government. The Belgian Government will inform each of the high contracting parties of the deposit of each instrument of accession.

Anrrclr Xro

The present treaty shall be ratified and the instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Belgian Government. It shall be considered to enter into force on the date of the deposit of the last instrument of ratifi- cation of the 1954 Paris Agreements and will remain in force for fifty years. After the expiry of the fifty years, each of the high contracting parties shall have the right to cease to be a party thereto provided that he shall have previously given one year's notice of denunciation to the Belgian Government. The Belgian Government shall inform the governments of the other high contracting parties of the deposit of each instrument of ratification and of each notice of denunciation.

'7. Former Artrcle IX amended 8. Former Artrcle X. 9. Former Article XI. 10. Former Artrcle XII. DOCUMENT 126I

Explanatory Memorandum

(submitted by Mr. Goerens, Rapporleur)

L lntroduction question was being examined of abolishing the ACA and the SAC and then the agencies created 1. The revision of the modihed Brussels in 1987, they were readily accused of ineffi- Treaty became necessary with the accession of ciency, inability and laziness. This " little Portugal and Spain. For that reason, the Council known " organisation was willingly sneered at decided to examine this question but, noting and its " discretion " was compared with the that the governments were having difficulty in " brilliance " of NATO or the European Com- reaching agreement on the tenor of a new text, munity. All these direct or indirect attacks led to progress pnldently This is no cause the idea that WEU should be wound up on the its was slow. jeopardise for criticism since ,;vents in 1989 and 1990 radi- grounds that it would NATO cally changed the facts that had to be taken into cohesion or the development of the Community. account for achieving this aim. To be fair, it should first be recalled that an intergovernmental organisation can only be 2. (l) Although the reunification of Germany what the governments of the member countries means that Germztny has now inherited all the wish it to be. The mediocrity of the SAC's work commitments enlered into by the Federal was attributable to the governments, not the Republic, including those in the Washington organisation, as was the fact that the 1987 and modified Brussels Treaties, it has elimi- agencies were allowed no initiative and nated the reasons for several of the protocols therefore made only a limited contribution to making up the 19154 Paris Agreements, which the establishment of defence Europe. Con- protocols may nov/ be considered null and void versely, if one considers the aims the signatories iogether with the provisions of the treaty itself of the Paris Agreements agreed to assign to which refer to them. WEU, one has to express a very different need revise the (ii) The decision taken by the Twelve in opinion on its action. The to 3. from December 1990 to build up, in the modified Brussels Treaty does not stem Rome in from framework of a European Council whose failure to implement it but on the contrary responsibilities ar,; already greater than those its success. devolving on the Economic Community, 6. (a) Their first aim was to ensure peace and European co-operation extending to security security in . This has been and defence matters, raises in new terms the attained in full. question of WEIJ's place in the European system. Any revision of the treaty will obviously (b) They intended to promote the unifi- have to bear thts in mind. cation of Europe, placing defence in the framework of integration. From this point of 4. (iii) The threat brought to bear by the view, the establishment of the European Eco- in the last Warsaw Pact has :;teadily diminished nomic Community, its enlargement and subse- giving great about two years, lvay to uncertainty quent confirmation are an essential part of the European coun- the future of sev,:ral Eastern implementation of the modified Brussels and the risks tries, including thr: , Treaty. they may represe'nt for peace in Europe. The countries of the Atlantic Alliance for their part (c) The Federal Republic was to be asso- have had to reerssess the way they should ciated with the organisation of European organise themselves to meet the requirements of security. This association became an undeniable the new situation tn view ofthe sharp reduction fact and the preventive measures that existed for in the American military presence in Europe Germany in 1954 have almost all disappeared. which has already started and will probably be accelerated. The modified Brussels Treaty is (d) The signatories sought to ensure strongly marked by the confrontation between United Kingdom participation in the building of NATO and the Warsaw Pact since this was the Europe. ln fact, for several years WEU was a dominating concern of Europeans at the time it bridge between the United Kingdom and the was drawn up. Although, in the main, it still EEC and the British accession in 1972 was an meets the requirelnents of European security in important step in the implementation of the a new era, its relision must take into account modified Brussels Treaty. its provisions. the obsolescence of some of (e) During the crisis in relations between 5. It was fashirtnable in recent years to make and NATO in 1967, WEU helped to calumnious attacks on WEU and its past. It has maintain co-operation between France and the been called the sleeping beauty and, when the NATO member countries in areas within its DOCUMENT 126I

purview. with the result that there is no longer provisions to be changed, but these are few and much doubt about France's effective partici- limited in scope. The governments themselves pation in a western security system, nor about noted this at the meeting of the European that of Spain. whose armed forces are not inte- Council in Rome in December 1990 and at the grated in the NATO commands either. meetings in Brussels on 4th February which led to the first steps being taken towards organising (fl t987. for ln the first time, the first war twelve-power Europe associating WEU with the in the Gulf allowed member countries to take European Community: setting aside all pro- part in concerted operations outside Europe. In posals involving the disappearance of WEU and 1990, this initiative was repeated on a new scale. the establishment of a political Europe in a strictly Community framework, par- 7. Your Rapporteur is well aware that some they paid consider it would have been better for Europe's ticular attention to a Franco-German proposal to juxtapose WEU political participation in NATO's activities not pass and co-operation in to political through an intermediary such as WEU. the framework of a union on behalf of Others which WEU would. believe the European Community alone should as Mr. Dumas said. act on embody the will of Europeans to organise them- the union's behalf in security and defence selves in security and matters and work out proposals for the union's defence matters. WEU's institutions great merit has been to achieve an acceptable in these areas. This corresponds very closely guidelines synthesis of all these aspirations. Without it, the to the laid down for WEU in the Preamble unity of Western Europe would have been and Article I of the mod- ified Brussels impossible, be it in NATO or in the Com- Treaty. munity. However important the changes that 10. Finally, if our Assembly wishes to make occurred in Europe in 1989 and 1990, they in no its voice heard, it should expless its views way affect the application of the modified without delay. The first results of the work of the Brussels Treaty but confer new importance on it. Twelve indicate that the latter will manage to However, this importance will depend largely on put in writing the architecture of political how the NATO member countries manage to Europe by the beginning ol summer 1991. This define the r61e of that organisation at the wrll be a decisive step directing everything that juncture now approaching and, on the other follows. By explaining before that date how it hand. how far the twelve Community member believes the treaty should be revised, the countries wish bodies directly connected with Assembly will be able, further to the opinion it that institution to be extended. expressed in December 1990 on the revision of Article IX when adopting the recommendation 8. These observations lead to the conclusion presented by Sir Geoffrey Finsberg on behalf of a treaty that of alliance must not include details the Political Committee (Document 1250), to too closely linked with present circumstances. It initiate a true dialogue with the governments on must provide general a framework allowing gov- the building of the European union. ernments to agree on practices that may be abandoned as and when necessary. For instance, I l. However, it is not for the Assembly to it is understandable that in 1954 the Seven replace the legal experts who will have to settle wished to put an official stamp on very detailed the terms of the future treaty. Its impetus must commitments in regard to the limitation and remain political and, although your Rapporteur control of armaments. This is the purpose of is trying to set out in the text of an article his Protocols Nos. II, III and IV of the Paris Agree- views on what the future treaty should be, the ments, which form part of the treaty. However. sole aim is to express his ideas as clearly as pos- the governments have since found them embar- sible. without impinging upon the responsibil- rassing from time to time. In the present period ities of the executive. To demonstrate the of uncertainty about the organisation of political nature of his thinking, he will conduct European security, it seems undesirable to his study under three main headings: the include in an international treaty provisions organisation of European security. the political which might better be reserved for Council deci- union of Europe and, lastly, the functioning of sions, subject to revision whenever governments WEU. so wish. Conversely, fact provi- the that some 12. Finally, your Rapporteur has tried to be sions of the modrfied Brussels Treaty are no strict naming institutions prospective longer in or applied because they no longer corre- European institutions. Noting, however, that spond to present-day realities weakens the credi- neither the press nor the governments were so the governments' bility of will to respect a most strict, he believes it useful to spell out hereafter essential part of their commitments. A first con- the meaning he attaches to the terms he uses, clusion thus will be that the text should be a without, however, necessarily committing the short one. authors of the quotations in the present doc- ument. 9. Furthermore, the main part of the text should relate to the new situation in Europe. 13. By European union he means the plan Admittedly, there seems to be a need for certain worked out by the nine members of the DOCUMENT I26I

European Communities in Paris in 1972 to Europe at the service of a dominant country and group all the organisations, associating them an expansionist ideology. It was therefore logical under a single steering body, the European for WEU to relinquish the exercise of most of its Council, which is not linked to the implemen- military responsibilities to NATO as the larger tation of a particular treaty. This was the organisation thanks to which the prospect mentioned by President Mitterrand and Canada, with the deterrent power American under the heading of European Federation, nuclear weapons gave the alliance, made a pow- whlle politic'al co-operaliorz, founded in Luxem- erful contribution to joint security, while the bourg in 1970, examines external policy matters, participation of Norway, Iceland, Greece and from which security and defence questions have Turkey extended the necessary guarantees to the hitherto been excluded. The plan for a political flanks of the system of defence. The aim of union which, since the meeting in Rome in Article IV of the modified Brussels Treaty, which December 1990. has been the aim of the inter- associates WEU closely with NATO, was to fit governmental conference, together with the eco- the military dimension of WEU's rdle into the nomic and monetary union, aims at associating NATO framework. WEU and political co-operation at an early date Developments in Europe in 1989 and in accordance with the intentions expressed in 17. 1990 raised questions in some circles about the the , adopled by the twelve maintain that association. Considering member countries of the Community in 1975. need to withdrawal of the Soviet means to defensive By European Cornmunity, he means only the the positions on Soviet territory, the disintegration organisation stemming from the Paris and Rome Warsaw Pact, progress in disarmament, Treaties creating. respectively, the European of the decline communist beliefs and the Coal and Steel Community, the European Eco- the of in the Paris Charter of nomic Community and Euratom, which have adhesion, demonstrated November 1990, of all European states to many now been merged. When he refers to the Tw,elve, of the values thitherto upheld by the West, they your Rapporteur means the member states NATO be sacrificed, at the same acting outside the institutions, just as the Nine believe should Warsaw Pact. to the abolition of mil- the member states WEU since 1988. time as the are of that the collective security of Europe of the Thirtt'-Ftve refers to the members itary blocs and Europe as a whole should be organised in the of the Conlbrence on Security and Co-operation the Conference on Security and in Europe (CSCE) who, in the Paris Charter of framework of Co-operation in Europe. The least one can say is 1990, defined the principles of their November Soviet Union's organisation in the light of events in Eastern that uncertainty about the internal and external policies and the certainty Europe in 1989 and 1990. that it has retained a large military force most of 14. Finally, it should be specified that all ref- which, both nuclear and conventional, escapes erences to the modified Brussels Treaty in this the arms limitation agreements and which is still explanatory memorandum are based on the being modernised do not allow consideration to treaty as it resulted from the 1954 Paris Agree- be given to winding up the Atlantic Alliance ments, still in force. and not the draft treaty con- which remains, and will probably remain for a tained in the draft recommendation. long time to come, the basis of European security vis-d-vis a threat that has not disap- peared. Hence there is no need to question the principle of Article IV of the modified Brussels il. Organisation of European security Treaty. 15. The first objective of the modified 18. Conversely, while the first part of that Brussels Treaty is to ensure Western European article seems to be drafted in terms which corre- security. This was the aim of the signatories of spond to both today's and tomorrow's require- the 1948 Brussels Treaty, when the Atlantic ments. i.e.: Alliance did not yet exist. The Paris Agreements " In the execution of the treaty, the high added other dimensions, but the implemen- contracting parties and any organs estab- tation of these new provisions was progressively lished by them under the treaty shall work handed over to other institutions and the in close co-operation with the North platform of The Hague which, with the Atlantic Treaty Organisation " accession of Portugal and Spain, became the second WEU charter, brings the organisation the same cannot be said of the second part, back to its initial target. This must therefore be which contains several anachronisms: the basis for any thinking about the future of WEU. " Recognising the undesirability of dupli- cating the military staffs of NATO, the 16. In the situation that prevailed from 1949 Council and its Agency will rely on the to 1989, Western Europe as a whole had to face appropriate military authorities of NATO only one threat, i. e. that of the Warsaw Pact for information and advice on military divisions deployed defensively in the centre of matters. " DOCUMENT I26I

19. NATO is in fact no longer the sole source lantic dimension of security, providing of information on military matters that concern effective defence for all the allies, and Europe's security. Each member of the alliance contributing to an environment of sta- participates in its own specific way and many bility in which democratic institutions aspects of these questions are outside the can be firmly rooted. " purview of NATO. NATO for its part complains of being insufficiently informed about the activ- 21. If one accepts that the nine WEU coun- ities of WEU. tries are bound by North Atlantic Council deci- sions and by those of the European Council to 20. At the close of its ministerial meeting on associate WEU with the European union that l8th December, the North Atlantic Council the Twelve intend to set up, it would appear issued a communiqu6 setting out in paragraphs that: 5 and 7 its views on the future of relations (i) their governments have no intention between NATO and the future European whatsoever of sideJining NATO and security organisation, as follows: entrusting to a solely European organisation responsibility for their " 5. The adaptation of our alliance to new defence arrangements or even their circumstances will include enhancing the policy on disarmament, security and r6le of the European allies with a view to co-operation in Europe; ensuring a full and equitable sharing of Ieadership and responsibilities between (ii) on the contrary, they are anxious to Europe and . All allies build a European pillar of the alliance agree that the foundation ofEuropean sta- to consolidate it at both political and bility and security will continue to be a military level; strong and viable North Atlantic Alliance (iii) this implies the development of new which requires the continuing active relations between NATO and WEU political engagement and significant mil- based on greater cohesion of the itary presence of the North American European members of the alliance in democracies in Europe. A European secu- defence and other matters and on rity identity and defence r6le, reflected in mutual openness on the part of both the construction of a European pillar organisations, a steady exchange of within the alliance, will not only serve the information, continuing co-operation, interests of the European states but also not only at government level but also help to strengthen Atlantic solidarity. In the level of secretariats and process at this context, and as this evolves, specialised bodies. we will consider how the political and mil- itary structures of the alliance must be Your Rapporteur therefore proposes that the adapted accordingly. second part of Article IV be redrafted as follows: We support current efforts strengthen to " the security dimension in the process of The Council and its subordinate bodies overlapping European political integration, and will ensure that there is no with NATO civil and military bodies and recognise the importance of the recent pursue decisions the European Council in will a continuing exchange of of and opinions with them. " Rome. We emphasise, in this regard, the information importance of safeguarding complemen- 22. Such wording would not prejudge the tarity and transparency between the two sharing out of military responsibilities between processes of the adaptation of the alliance NATO and WEU. While it seems evident that, and of the development of European in any event, NATO's main task will continue to security co-operation. be to organise the defence of member countries agarnst any form of attack, the new circum- stances mean planning for cases in which, inside 7. Security and co-operation in the or outside Europe, deterrence or limited Europe of tomorrow can best be achieved recourse to force may become necessary to by a framework of interlocking institu- maintain or restore peace, without the partici- tions in which the interests of all pation of the great powers being possible or European states can be accommodated. desired by the WEU countries or required by the The three key elements of the European Washington Treaty. The principle that action architecture are the alliance, the process must be taken by the largest possible of and the CSCE. organisation would allow it to be decided to Each has its own purpose but comple- what extent it was for NATO or for WEU to ments the others. Our alliance will intervene in accordance with decision-taking provide an essential underpinning to this procedures specific to each of the two architecture, guaranteeing the transat- organisations. DOCUMENT I26I

23. In order to take account of WEU's ability On llth January 1991, your Rapporteur put to act in areas denied to NATO, your Written Question 289 to the Council: Rapporteur therefore proposes redrafting the " Paragraph 4 of the reply to Recommen- beginning of the second paragraph of Article IV dation 479 indicates that the modified as follows: Brussels Treaty 'provides no legal basis' " While retaining the right to prepare for for 'the presence of the forces of one state any military operations they may deem on the territory of other WEU states'. necessary, the Council and its subsidiary Does the Council mean that Protocol bodies... " No. II is no longer in force? If so, when and why was such a decision taken? " As for the methods laid down in Article 24. information on this VIII, it is clear that this article corresponds to in order to obtain detailed point. waiting the answer. When two separate intentions: to ensure application of He is for Committee 5th Protocols Nos. and .Itrl concerning the speaking to the Political on II, III held that of member coun- March 1991, the Secretary-General levels of forces and armaments only for tries and to extend allied solidarity beyond the Protocol No. II implied commitments Kingdom but that it remained fully case of an attack on one of the member coun- the United reply to Recommen- tries. However, the first of these aims is appar- in force, thus correcting the be seen whether the ently no longer that of member countries today. dation 4'79. lt remains to protocol were effectively Moreover, forty years of WEU history show that commitments in that why Assembly implementation of the protocols, after having fulfilled in summer 1990 and the has not been notified of any Council deci- made a major contribution to the creation of the still in British Army of the Europeans' feeling of belonging to a community sions relating to cuts the meet the Gulf crisis. Your Rapporteur in which there was solidarity in security matters, Rhine to quite the circum- subsequently harmed the proper functioning considers it normal that, in taken, the treaty because it created inequalities stances, such a decision should have been of know whether the rules laid between commitments imposed on signatories but he still does not were effectively and finally these texts have now either lost their down in Protocol No. II that the importance or they are incorrectly applied. respected and he considers it abnormal Assembly was not duly informed. 25. (i) The Federal Republic's renunciation (iv) Portugal and Spain are subject to production conventional 28. of the of certain none of the obligations laid down in Protocols progressively by weapons was abolished Nos. II, III and IV since their forces were not coun- agreement between the seven signatory included in the " Special Agreement annexed to of Protocol No. tries in application of Article II the Treaty on the Establishment of a European weapons was III. The one concerning nuclear Defence Community " signed in Paris on 27th accession to renewed by the Federal Republic's May 1952, referred to in Article I of Protocol the non-proliferation treaty and then, again, in No. II. 1990 by the so-called two-plus-four treaty on the final settlement of the German question. Under 29. (vj Since France's withdrawal from the this treaty, Germany also confirms its renunci- NATO integrated military structures, all French ation of the production of chemical and bio- armed forces have been assimilated to " internal logical weapons - regarding which a new treaty defence and police forces " in accordance with to ban them is now being negotiated in Geneva, Article V of Protocol No. II which makes no and accepts limits for the level of forces in the provision for national armed forces other than . The entire system set up by Pro- those assigned to NATO. This is obviously a tocols Nos. III and IV is therefore pointless point on which the 1954 Paris Agreements are where Germany is concerned. no longer adequate. 26. (/il While the United Kingdom was not 30. (vr) Overall, the maximum force levels compelled to submit its weapons deployed laid down in the treaty of 27th May 1952 no outside the mainland of Europe to control, longer correspond to Europe's possibilities or to France refused, since its nuclear weapons its needs today. No one in Western Europe is entered the effective production stage, to accept reproaching its neighbours for having too many the provisions of Article III of Protocol No. III arms but each country would like the others to play greater because it considered that a commitment which have more arms so that they may a applied to it alone was discrimination. part in joint security. The limits laid down in Protocol No. II are therefore now pointless. (iii) The obligations under Article I of 27. Your Rapporteur therefore proposes that Protocol No. II have been a heavy burden on the 31. Protocols and IV be deleted and, United Kingdom since it abolished military Nos. II, III consequently, the parts of Article VIII of the service; now has only a professional army, it treaty that refer to them, i.e.: with limited levels, which has had to be used several times for operations outside Europe. It - in paragraph l: " and of its protocols then had to anticipate a WEU Council decision. and their annexes "; DOCUMENT 1261

- in paragraph 2: " in particular it shall tries either to NATO or to the Community. It is establish immediately an Agency for to be hoped that decisions in this sense will be the Control of Armaments whose func- taken before the treaty is revised. tions are defined in Protocol No. IV "; 34. The question will immediately arise of - in paragraph 4: the second and third whether the permanent representations of sentences. member countries to NATO or the Commu- 32. These proposals do not take account of nities will have to form the WEU Permanent two possibilities that have sometimes been Council. Such a decision naturally means envisaged: choosing WEU's future course and not only at symbolic level because in some cases (a) no. .longer_ fixing^ maximum but co-ordination will be better ensured in one mlnrmum levels of armaments that organisation or the other and the governments member countries would undertake to will presumably find it difficult to agree on this place at the service of European point. An easy way out would be for each of security. This does not rule out the them to decide the matter in its own way, which idea that member states might agree, would have the serious disadvantage of intro- in the framework of the Council, to fix ducing into the WEU Council, in addition to the maximum levels, but your Rapporteur usual divergences between government policies, juncture believes that at the present differences stemming from the approaches there can only be decisions linked of their respective representations. Your with changing circumstances and that Rapporteur believes twofold co-ordination member states should not therefore be would be better ensured, at least until an overall bound by a treaty article; decision is taken by the nine governments on (b/ introducing procedure for majority relations between the three organisations, if the decisions on important matters Council were formed of specific permanent gov- relating to European security. Your ernment representatives to WEU who would Rapporteur would not be against the obviously be responsible for maintaining close introduction of such procedure but he relations with the representations to NATO and believes that member states are not to the Community. yet ready accept is better not to it. It 35. In the same way, due to its vagueness, the to create new commitments than to notion of a subsidiary body seems particularly have to close one's eyes to their non- appropriate: it means a body introduced to help application, as was too often the case a principal organ and, while the treaty made the parts Article is for the of VIII that it Agency for the Control of Armaments such a proposed to delete. body, the Council announced, when setting up 33. The other aspect of Article VIII, which the WEU Institute for Security Studies, that it makes WEU the instrument of European was acting in application of Article VIII, security, on the contrary corresponds to today's paragraph 2. There is no doubt that the Standing requirements, probably even better than to those Armaments Committee, set up by a Council of 1954. In particular, it should be underlined decision, was covered by the same article, like that, in paragraph /, it is stated that the Council the three agencies which operated from 1987 to was created " for the purposes of strengthening 1990. It may also be considered that the Coun- peace and security and of promoting unity and cil's working groups and also the Committee of of encouraging the progressive integration of Chiefs of Staff set up on the occasion of the Gulf Europe and closer co-operation between [the crisis are subsidiary bodies of the Council, as high contracting partiesl and with other would be the WEU satellite centre that the European organisatrons ", thus fully justifying Council seems to be in favour of creating, if the the approach adopted by the Twelve since their reply to Recommendation 482 rs to be believed. Rome meeting to associate WEU more closely The fact that the IEPG now submits an annual with European political co-operation with a report on its activities to our Assembly also view to preparing the future European union. places it, wirh , in the family of WEU Similarly, paragraph 2, laying down that the subsidiary bodies. In practice, the vagueness of Council " shall be so organised as to be able to this notion has the advantage of allowing non- exercise its functions continuously " and that member countries of WEU which, on certain " it shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be matters, pursue similar aims, to be associated considered necessary " leaves the way clear for with a specific activity without necessarily the Council to take all the decisions necessary having to accede to the treaty. Already, the SAC for adapting it to the new situation. It is agreements were open to NATO countries that therefore empowered to decide, as soon as gov- were not members of WEU. During the Gulf ernments agree, to move closer to NATO or to crisis, as from 20th August 1990, the the European Community by moving its seat or Chairmanship-in-Office of the Council invited appointing, as part of the Permanent Council, certain member countries of the Community or the permanent representatives of member coun- of NATO which were not members of WEU to l0 DOCUMENT I26I attend ministerial meetings on this subject. In threat should arise ". Neither is set within a spe- the uncertain days ahead, particularly now that cific area but it was logical, on the occasion of some countries which are still members of the the Gulf crisis, for the same countries to support Warsaw Pact are thinking of tightening their Turkey against a possible Iraqi aggression in links with Western Europe, it seems desirable accordance with Article 4 of the North Atlantic for possibilities of this kind to remain open, as is Treaty because this was a threat to the security the case with the present wording of paragraph 2 of a NATO member country but to take part in of Article VIIL To some extent this also meets operations co-ordinated by WEU in the Gulf the wishes of member countries of NATO or of because this was to meet a threat to interna- the EEC which have applied to join WEU but in tional peace. In fact, Article 4 of the Washington respect of which member countries would not Treaty leaves room for discussion on the places wish to subscribe to the commitments in Article and cases for consultation, which is not the case V of the treaty. Whenever necessary, it may also of the modified Brussels Treaty. allow representatives of the European Com- In paragraph 8 of its reply to Recommen- mission to be associated with the activities of 38. dation 489. the Council gave a useful pointer to level. Finally, the such bodies at the appropriate the new meaning it intends to give to Article Political Committee decided to draft paragraphs VIII and which corresponds perfectly to the and 2 of Article VIII in the present, and not I wishes expressed by the Assembly: the future. tense. " Defence solidarity is the fundamental Paragraph J of Article VIII is of particular 36. link binding WEU member states. In importance since gives the WEU Council a it adapting the modified Brussels Treaty, worldwide mandate encouraging high by the the aim will be to update its provisions contracting parties " to consult with regard to and to take advantage of the prospects any situation which may constitute a threat to offered by the new European context. The peace, in whatever area this threat should arise, changes to be made to the treaty at the or a danger to economic stability ". It should be appropriate time will inevitably stress the noted, however, that the English text this of responsibilities assumed member paragraph differs slightly from the French text by states in the defence of their common since uses the expression " to consult " while it security interests. " the French says " se concerter ". It may be accepted that in the two languages the meaning 39. The purpose is obviously to use WEU to of " to consult " and " to concert with each strengthen the order of peace and security in other " is fairly close. To concert means " union Europe that the CSCE is in the process of estab- or agreement in any undertaking ", which natu- lishing and whose most recent definition is given rally includes consultation, but goes further in in the Paris Charter of November 1990. The the sense of preparing for joint action. In any governments may also have in mind the appli- revision of the treaty, the two texts should natu- cation of the CFE agreement and, more gen- rally be aligned and there are two reasons for erally, arms limitation agreements. However, it proposing that the English text should be lined does not seem very desirable to introduce into up with the French: " to concert " is more the text of the treaty too specific an allusion to a binding on governments, without going so far as particular text or institution which may soon be to create the obligation to take joint action, and, overtaken by events or replaced. Conversely, it above all, the governments have already under- no longer seems necessary to ask the WEU taken to do this in paragraph lll (a) 4 of the Council to concert their approach to situations platform of The Hague, which specifies that they which are " a danger to economic stability ", will " concert our policies on crises outside since such responsibilities are already exercised Europe insofar as they may affect our security by the Twelve in other forums. interests ". In this case, the English text corre- Finally, your Rapporteur considers the sponds exactly to the French. 40. treaty should take account, in that paragraph, of 37. It is worth noting that the obligations of the links that the Twelve wish to establish members of the Atlantic Alliance and of WEU between the European Community, political are rather different in the Washington Treaty co-operation and WEU. It might lead to the and in the modified Brussels Treaty, but there is Chairmanship-in-Office of the European some ambiguity about the interpretation of the Council, which may, as matters now stand. be former whereas the latter has the merit of held by a non-member country of WEU, and the greater clarity. Article 4 of the North Atlantic Chairman of the European Commission being Treaty provides that " The parties will consult given the right to ask for the WEU Council to be together whenever, in the opinion of any of convened and, possibly, to attend such meetings them, the territorial integrity, political indepen- for matters of concern to both organisations. dence or security of any of the parties is Furthermore, the Political Committee decided threatened ", whereas Article VIII of the mod- to ask for the inclusion in the treaty ofthe right ified Brussels Treaty justifies such consultations for the Assembly to call for the convening of the by " a threat to peace, in whatever area this Council. ll DOCUMENT I26I

41. In the light of these remarks, paragraph 3 III. The political union of Europe of Article VIII might be drafted as follows: " At the request of any of the high con- 45. It is remarkable that, prior to the creation tracting parties. of the European Council of the European Economic Community. the sig- or of the Assembly, the Council shall be natories of the modified Brussels Treaty endeav- immediately convened in order to permit oured to place WEU in the framework of " the them to concert their approach to any unity " and " the progressive integration of challenge to security and co-operation in Europe ", as laid down in the sixth paragraph of Europe or to the application of arms limi- the preamble to the treaty. Article I refers to the tation conventions and to any situation economic dimension of the treaty, indicating which may constitute a threat to peace, in that economic co-operation " will be effected whatever area this threat should arise. " through the [WEU] Council " but that the latter " shall not involve any duplication of ... the 42. Paragraph 4 of Article VIII would be con- work of other economic organisations in which siderably lightened by the removal of Protocols the high contracting parties are or may be repre- Nos. II, III and IV since all the cases in which sented ". Article II extends WEU's responsibil- the Council had to take decisions by a majority, ities to social matters, while relying on qualified or not, would have disappeared. Any " specialised agencies " to define a social policy attempt to extend such decisions to other areas and conventions between them on its appli- does not seem to correspond to what member cation to social security. Article III also leaves states are now prepared to accept, but the possi- the definition of a European cultural policy to bility might be kept open by drafting the such conventions. It should be noted that, while paragraph as follows: A(icle I and the preamble were amended in " The Council shall decide by unanimous 1954, Artrcles II and III in their present form vote questions for which no other voting date back to 1948. It is therefore quite logical procedure may be agreed. " that the Council should have relinquished the exercise of its cultural and social responsibilities 43. Naturally, the essential provision the of to the Council of Europe and, after the accession modified Brussels Treaty is the one contained in of the United Kingdom to the Rome Treaty, the Article tr{ completed by Articles VI VII. and exercise of its economic responsibilities to the Because this article provides for mutual " aid Community. It cannot therefore be claimed that and assistance " in the event of an armed attack the modified Brussels Treaty was due to any on any of the high contracting parties in Europe, special initiative ofthe seven signatory countries it gives the treaty special value, par- deterrent in of the Paris Agreements. On the contrary, it ticular because it stipulates that this assistance reflects a vast European policy of which the cre- shall be afforded with " all the military and ation of the Council of Europe was a first stage other aid and assistance power'i in their thrrs various communities now associating nuclear weapons WEU and that of the the of grouped in the European Economic Community member countries with joint while defence, an essential part. leaving each one free to decide how to use the means at its disposal, and this should of course 46. However, it should be noted that the pre- be maintained, together with the two articles amble refers to " the progressive integration of drawing the consequences of that solidarity. Europe " and not to Western Europe alone. This means 44. Here again, the only rectification that that the enlargement of the Council of Europe and extension Conference on should be made is due to a difference between the of the Security and Co-operation in Europe also corre- the English and French texts. The former lays spond the aims signatories and that down that this assistance is guaranteed in the to of the only insofar as shows its openness towards event of an " armed attack ", while the second it Europe as a whole does the Community live up refers to an " agression arm6e ". In this case, too, intentions. Those not want the two languages distinguish between an attack, to their countries did WEU to be just a pillar the Atlantic Alliance which is a fact, and an aggression, which implies of instrument peaceful a political decision on this fact, since is an but also an of the it whole. unprovoked attack. It might therefore, in certain organisation of Europe as a Some states, cases, be argued that an attack member hitherto members of the Warsaw Pact, therefore on a quite country is not an aggression. Hence, your rightly consider that their rapprochement with the European Community, now under way, Rapporteur proposes that the French text be with brought into line with the English because there also implies developing their relations Assembly part has are no loopholes the latter. He feels WEU. Moreover, the for its in that the parliamentary level of mutual confidence between member opened its sessions to observers non-member WEU, states, their consistent policies in international from countries of as the has done in cases. affairs and the development of consultations Council certain allow them all to subscribe to a commitment 47. Hence there is no reason to consider that thus worded. Moreover, he sees no reason to the atmosphere of d6tente, understanding and touch Articles VI and VII. co-operation that has prevailed in Europe since t2 DOCUMENT I26I

1989 calls in question the existence or vocation they link the new organisation of European of WEU. On the contrary, it encourages them. In security with the possibility of member coun- this area, the revision of the Brussels Treaty tries withdrawing from WEU on a date which, should therefore not take WEU along new paths as it will moreover be seen, is debatable. It but merely terminate certain archaisms and, would then be rebuilt round a new treaty of above all, spell out the relationship between mutual assistance between countries which, in a WEU and the other organisations leading to new context, would probably not be prepared to European union. undertake or repeat commitments such as were accepted in the 1954 Paris Agreements. Security Since the meeting of the Twelve in Rome 48. policy proce- in December 1990, the question of relations would then be subject to different between principles and imple- between WEU and the European Community dures divided a separation which seems dif- has effectively been studied by the governments mentation, to it give a jurrdical political basis. The in the intergovernmental conference on political ficult to or measures foreseen in the Italian pro- union whose first meeting at ministerial level immediate posals WEU has been han- was held in Brussels on 4th February. The include some which long time, sometimes question was also studied by the WEU Council dling, sometimes for a being the control of at its ministerial meeting in Paris on 22nd Feb- only recently, an exception which member governments have According information obtained by arms exports ruary. to joint In your Rapporteur, while the Twelve seem to always excluded from their discussions. any event, there would have to be an agreement agree that there should be some degree of rap- what controlled. prochement between WEU and the Community, defining exactly should be governments be prepared to go about nature such a rap- Would twelve they differ the of governments? moot prochement. further than nine This is a question. In fact, the Italian proposal amounts to the delayed - but not for long - absorption of (a) Italiaa proposal WEU by the Community, a solution which our Assembly has always rejected both for itself and 49. On 4th February, presented a doc- for WEU as a whole. ument proposing that the member states of the Community undertake to ensure close co-ordination and harmonisation with the activ- (b) European Commission proposal ities of WEU with a view to the latter's enlargement and strengthening and its pro- 5l. The European Commission published a gressive integration in the Community, possibly proposal at the beginning of March. It is too in 1998, the date on which, according to the long to reproduce in full here, particularly as, Italian document, individual member states apart from foreign and joint security policy, it may cease to be parties to the modified Brussels deals with two other matters which are outside Treaty. To that end, WEU might be placed the scope of the present report, i.e. external eco- under the aegis and authority of the European nomic policy and development co-operation Council. At the same time, the secretariat of the policy. The text is in three parts: an explanatory European Council for foreign policy would be notice, an appendix (which is in fact a draft entrusted to the Secretariat-General of the Com- treaty) and comments. Your Rapporteur will mission of the Community. The latter would be examine that part of the appendix dealing with closely associated with defining and imple- foreign and joint security policy. menting joint foreign and security policy for 52. The text seeks solutions to the problems which it would have a right of initiative, while raised the coexistence of a twelve-power given by the European Parliament would be wide- European union based on Community prin- The ranging responsibilities in these areas. ciples and nine-power co-operation based on a would taken by consensus Council's decisions be treaty of alliance between sovereign states. As a principles in security matters when they relate to result, the Commission: and by qualified majority when it is a matter of implementing them. Finally, the Italian doc- (il is quite vague about what it means by ument says a joint security policy should be security since it refrains from claiming responsi- developed in all these sectors with a view to bility for defence matters but in fact admits such achieving a joint defence policy based on a responsibilities for the union. as emerges inter mutual assistance undertaking. Such a policy alia from the inclusion of Article V of the mod- might be applied here and now to industrial ified Brussels Treaty in the draft treaty; co-operation, transfers of military technology, (ii) includes in the draft treaty the major part negotiations on arms limitation and confidence- of the modified Brussels Treaty, and in par- building measures and participation in co- ticular Article V, taken up in full in Article Yl2. ordinated military operations, in particular by The substance of Article X is included in Article mandate from the United Nations. Yl0, whereas a more detailed adaptation of that 50. These proposals raise a series of problems. of Article VIII is included in many articles of the They are tantamount to abolishing WEU, since draft treaty, especially Articles Y4 and Yl4. The l3 DOCUMENT I26I substance of Article IX is also included in might play an indirect part in the North Atlantic Article Y5, which replaces the WEU Assembly Council's decision-taking process; by the European Parliament. Conversely, Article IV, defining relations between WEU and (vr) gives itself a r6le of initiation, represen- NATO, is included only vaguely in Articles Y7 tation and implementation far exceeding what it and Yl5, so as to make it theoretically possible is granted by the treaties in force and making it a for non-member countries of NATO to take part true federal government of Europe. Naturally. it in a joint security policy: might be possible to give the Commission such prerogatives but this would require a funda- (iii) distinguishes two areas of external and mental revision of those treaties in order to give joint security policy (Article Y2): it democratic legitimacy and policy responsi- bility that are now totally lacking. (a) " malters that are deemed to be of vital interest for the union " by (vii) Where WEU is concerned, its relations decision of the European Council, for with the European union are referred to in which the Commission provides for a Articles Yll and Yl5. as follows: qualified majority decision-taking procedure for defining " the principles " The common security policy shall con- of the common policy " and deciding stitute an integral part of the union's on " action to be taken. whether it is foreign policy. Its purpose shall be to to be implemented by the union or by strengthen security in Europe and to the member states " (Article Y3); maintain peace in the world in accordance with the United Nations Charter. It shall (b) " matters that have not been declared rest on co-operation within the WEU. Its to be of vital common interest " for long-term objectrve shall be to establish a which it advocates procedures for con- common European defence in full com- sultation which, by the use of wording pliance with commitments entered into in not very binding on member states, is the Atlantic Alliance. largely the same as that referred to in Article VIII of the modified Brussels Treaty (Article Y4) but with the fol- l. When deciding on action to be taken lowing provision: " Member states pursuant to Article Y l3(3), the Council shall refrain from hindering consensus shall also decide whether to refer imple- and joint action that may flow from mentation of the guidelines it has estab- it ". which would be a significant Iished to the WEU Council. relinquishment of sovereignty for pos- sible signatories: 2. For the application of paragraph I the union shall establish with the wEU such (iv) works out procedures that are, to say the arrangements as may be necessary to least, complicated in order to allow at one and enable member states which are not the same time co-operation with NATO and the members of the WEU and the Com- participation of non-member countries of mission to attend meetings of the WEU NATO. the maintenance of the fiction of neu- bodies. trality and a military assistance clause, abstention in taking decisions and implementing them and participation in a union capable of 4 The union shall endeavour to make use taking decisions and acting (Article Yl3); of the provisions of Article XII of the Treaty of Brussels l Tth provrdes participation of to (v) both for the of promote the gradual integration the (and of non-member countries of NATO WEU) in WEU into the union. " the union and the presentation to NATO and WEU bodies of joint union positions stemming 53. It can be seen that there is a flagrant con- from decisions taken by qualified majority, tradiction between the will expressed in the first which, moreover, does not necessarily imply of these paragraphs to co-operate with WEU and that there was such a majority among members that expressed in veiled terms in Article Y15.4 of the union who are members of NATO or to bring about the early disbandment of WEU, WEU (Articles Y7 and Yl5. 3). This procedure i.e. to base the European union not on an associ- would in fact raise few problems in the ation of WEU, political co-operation and the framework of WEU all of whose members are Community but on the disbandment of WEU members of the community, but the United and the inclusion of the contents of the modified States and NATO have always been extremely Brussels Treaty in a new twelve-power treaty. reserved about the formation of a bloc of certain This approach is contrary to the doctrine con- European countries in the North Atlantic stantly upheld by our Assembly and implies a Council. These reservations would probably be risk of destroying a firmly-based European even stronger if such a bloc were to be defence organisation without offering any real institutionalised so that non-member countries replacement. t4 DOCI]MENT I261

54. To sum up, your Rapporteur's opinion on (d) Franco-German proposal the Commission's proposal is that it tries to use institutional procedures that are complicated 57. Finally, at the meeting on 4th Februarl', and, in his view. very fragile from both a legal Mr. Dumas and Mr. Genscher submitted a joint and a practical standpoint in order to remedy Franco-German proposal which is in many the fundamental political problem that defence respects half way between the Italian proposal or is an essential part of the sovereignty of states that of the Commission which is more detarled that they do not wish to relinquish. The superi- and the views of Mr. Hurd and Mr. van den ority of the modified Brussels Treaty over this Broek. The text, which seems authentic fol- plan is due to the fact that, starting from reality, lowing the publication of several shortened or it establishes European co-operation based on erroneous verslons. reads as follows: the will of states whereas the Commission's pro- " I. General aims and concepts posal jeopardises sovereignty to an ill-defined extent and does not produce a Community will (a) Political union and its member states capable of replacing the will of states. It con- are to develop a common foreign and demns the union to paralysis because it would security policy (CFSP). The mission of the be based on procedure liable to stifle any initi- CFSP will be to extend to all areas of ative and not on political will. external relations. 55. If it is borne in mind that, in the last fbl CFSP will have as its objective the fifteen years. WEU member states have resorted defence of the fundamental interests and to force to defend international law or endan- common values of political union in its gered populations or to restore peace in Zaire, external relations. It should in particular Chad, Lebanon, the Falklands, Beirut and twice, reinforce the security of member states, in a co-ordinated manner, in the Guli not to contribute to maintaining peace and inter- speak of their permanent deterrent action in national stability, develop friendly rela- Europe in the context of the Atlantic Alliance, it tions with other countries. and promote may be wondered to what extent the procedure democracy, primacy of law and human proposed by the Commission, if it had been in rights as well as the economic devel- force at that time, would have allowed such opment of all nations. rapid and - except in the case of Beirut - (c) A common security policy implies the effective action. following: l. Within the framework of CFSP, political union should implement a (c) Llnited Kingdom and Netherlands positions common security policy in the aim of setting up a common European 56. The United Kingdom Secretary of State defence system in due course for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. without which the construction of Douglas Hurd, expressed a diametrically European union would remain opposite position to the press on 4th February, incomplete. the same day as the Italian document was pre- 2. This implies suppression of the sented. He believes WEU should not be swal- restrictive indication'political and lowed up in another organisation but, on the economic aspects of security' under contrary, strengthened so as to be a bridge Article 30, paragraph 6 (a) of the between the Community and NATO, the bases Single European Act. of the collective defence of Europe. The excluded any procedure other than a 3. The validity of the commitments consensus for taking decisions in security policy that the partners have undertaken matters and refused to conceal the disagreement in the framework of the Atlantic behind institutional changes. Some may find Alliance and the objectives con- this concept of WEU's r6le a minimalist one, nected to them should not be ques- but Mr. van den Broek, in an interview in Le tioned. Monde Sth February, spoke about relations of 4. The Atlantic Alliance, and notably a between WEU and NATO in similar terms to permanent United States military those of his United Kingdom colleague. He presence in Europe, remains indis- added: " I object to the fact that the EEC wishes jornt pensable for European security and to define a security policy without taking stability. account of countries which are not members of the Community but which help to protect it, for 5. The possibilities given by the instance Norway and Turkey. Furthermore, Western European Union should be three EEC countries are not members of WEU. put to use. WEU would become the The Twelve cannot monopolise European co-operation channel between security policy. " political union and NATO with

15 DOCUMENT I26I

a view to ensuring mutual rein- include the definition of common forcement of European or trans- positions in the debates on disarm- Atlantic security structures. As ament and the control of arms common European security policy within the United Nations. develops, the formal link estab- lished between the WEU treaty and 3. Nuclear non-proliferation. The deci- the alliance should be adapted in sion should be taken, on the base of accordance. results obtained in this field in the EPC context, to intensify efforts to 6. WEU acquisitions should be pre- implement a common non-proli- served: WEU is founded on a treaty feration policy dealing with all the which includes a specific commit- aspects examined in the general ment for mutual defence and insti- debate on non-proliferation policy. tutes an adequate organisation which associates foreign affairs and 4. Economic aspects of security, defence representatives. The 1987 namely co-operation concerning platform underscores the fact that armaments (including questions WEU activities, as a European relating to the arms market and defence organisation, are carried competition) as well as the control out in the perspective of European of arms exports (notably for dual- unlon. purpose products, precursors of chemical and biological arms, 7. Alliance such The Atlantic as installations and equipment, and should be strengthened by a more ballistic technology) should, important r6le and greater responsi- because of their link with external bilities for Europeans as regards policy, be dealt with in the context policies. security and defence In this of CFSP. The question of knowing perspective, European a identity for to what extent these subjects should security and defence should be also come into the areas of Com- reflected in the development of a munity policy in the framework of European pillar within the alliance. Community responsibilities, in is hence necessary into It to take relation to the achievement of the account the interaction between the European internal market and development of the security factor common commercial policy, should of the union and the transformation also be examined. Adequate that the alliance undertakes further political co-ordination with the work of to changes in Europe. international bodies having juris- diction in this field, and in par- II. Proposals ticular the IEPG, should be (a) On these bases, the provisions relating studied. to co-operation as regards security policy (c) within political union should be progres- As regards the r6le of the WEU, it could be stipulated that the WEU makes sively established. To this end, the an integral part European European Council should have the juris- up ofthe unifi- process. The following points diction to decide what areas of security cation could be approved concerning this: policy should be the subject of a common policy. l. The work of WEU should be (b) As an example, the following elements organised in order to establish could already be listed which should be organisational relations between tackled within the union framework. political union and WEU, thus ena- bling the WEU, with a view to l. Disarmament and control of arma- being part of political union in ments in Europe. Work in this field course, to progressively develop the will take on particular importance European common security policy after the CSCE summit in 1992. on behalf of the union. Co-operation between the Twelve should make it possible for Euro- 2. The obligation of aid and assistance peans to put forward common in accordance with the Treaty of positions as a contribution to the Brussels should be maintained for co-ordination taking place within as long as no other equivalent com- NATO. mitment exists between political union member states. 2. Security questions, including peace- keeping measures in the context of 3. The different forms of co-operation the United Nations. This should which exist within WEU on security l6 DOCUMENT I26I

and defence matters will be con- (/) ln order to promote co-operation tinued. After a certain period of between the various bodies of the union time - during which it will be pos- and WEU, and given the links between sible to put the link between the WEU and NATO, it could be desirable to union and WEU to the test - it will transfer WEU administrative divisions to be possible to examine, by 1996 at Brussels. the latest, while taking into account the development of the European III. Relations with the European states security structure, to what extent which are not WEU members the pertinent stipulations of the (a/ Relations between the WEU and treaty should be revised. the EC member states which are not members WEU be progressively 4. Co-operation within the WEU will of will strengthened with a view to possible WEU be made more operational in the membership of the above states. politico-military areas as well as in the purely military field, and the (b) Co-operation between WEU and the appropriate operational and institu- European members of the alliance which tional consequences will be drawn. are not EC members should also be increased. Specific contacts or specilic (d) progressively ln order to bring WEU forms of co-operation could also be closer to political union, a co-operation in approved with European members of the the sense of co-ordination of work and alliance not belonging to political complementarity in the distribution of union. " tasks between the union (CFSP) and WEU should be sought by using the fol- 58. This proposal corresponds better than the lowing methods: other three to our Assembly's concerns. It is obviously far less detailed than the proposal for l. European Council decisions on a treaty presented by the Commission but it is the principles and guidelines of basically far clearer in that it lays down rela- common foreign and security tively clear limits between the responsibilities of policy should serve as a guideline the various organisations that will have a part to for co-operation in the framework play in the future European union. It thus pro- of the Treaty of Brussels. vides a framework within which it is possible to consider a revision of the modified Brussels 2. The order and duration of the terms Treaty that takes account of a probable future. presidents political of office for of The fact that France appears to have endorsed union and Western European the proposal to move the seat of the WEU will be harmonised as far as Union Council to Brussels is a major concession by that possible (by adjusting the transi- give provisions country. It is likely to considerable encour- tional in the case of agement to exchanges with bodies of the Twelve Ireland). Denmark, Greece and and NATO, which everyone believes desirable. 3. The dates and places of political Furthermore, the text defers the revision of the union council and Western Euro- modified Brussels Treaty until after the modifi- pean Union meetings at ministerial cation of European security structures. This level, as well as certain meetings of might mean the task would take longer than the governments high-ranking officials will be now expect. Moreover, measures synchronised. will probably be taken progressively. However, revision of the modified Brussels Treaty is now 4. The Secretariat-General of the necessary and urgent and your Rapporteur con- Council and the Secretariat-General siders it useless and hardly desirable to set out in of the Western European Union will the text of the treaty itself provisions which may finalise appropriate provisions in be adopted by the governments by other means. order to ensure mutual informa- What he proposes is a treaty which opens the tion. way to such provisions.

5. Links should be established between 59. In any event, compared with the Italian the European Parliament and the proposal, the Franco-German proposal has the WEU Assembly. twofold advantage of great flexibility and stricter wording: it expresses similar aims but (e) The modified Treaty of Brussels subordinates them to what governments might should be revised in due course in order actually be prepared to accept. Far from advo- to take into account the changes that have cating the abolition of WEU, it makes it, as an occurred in the European security struc- " integral part of the European unification tures, mentioned in the present doc- process ", the forum for working out joint ument. security policy under the direction of the t7 DOCUMENT 126I

European Council, thanks to the progressive 61. It should also be borne in mind that there development of an " organic relationship is no guarantee that the European Community between the political union and WEU ", leading will be limited indefinitely to twelve members. to WEU being integrated in the political union It has decided to postpone until 1992 consider- after re-examination of the matter. Without ation of the candidatures of certain countries, anticipating the governments' decision, it may including Austria. but will be unable to delay a be thought this proposal will be positive. Your decision indefinitely. Moreover, certain members Rapporteur therefore feels it might be used to and non-members of the Communrty have guide the revision of the modified Brussels applied for membership of WEU and the Coun- Treaty. cil's decision has been postponed, but the sig- natory countries' undertaking to work for the 60. However, a difficulty stems from the fact progressive integration of Europe makes it dif- that the European Council has twelve member ficult for them to leave these candidatures unan- countries, three of which do not belong to WEU, swered for much longer. In response to and, in these circumstances, it is hard to see how Assembly questions on this point, the former twelve countries could take decisions for imple- Secretary-General of WEU, Alfred Cahen, said mentation by nine of them. Naturally, the he believed WEU should open its doors swiftly accession to WEU of the three non-member to the countries which were already members of countries would solve the problem, provi- both the EEC and NATO but not to others. sionally at least, if it were not decided at the which probably corresponded perfectly to the same time to merge the Rome and modified requirements of the pre- 1989 situation but Brussels Treaties. However, your Rapporteur perhaps not to the same degree in the Europe of wonders whether, at the present juncture, this today or tomorrow. In fact, the question of the merger would be desirable for Europe. Would it enlargement of WEU is linked with that of the not be better, even for quite a long time, to direction it will take. geometrical view of Europe in which renounce a (i) Those who consider WEU to be pri- any progress one area is necessarily accom- 62. in marily a European pillar of the Atlantic Alliance panied equivalent progress in other sectors by are encouraging it to open its doors to all the a pragmatic concept by which and adopt more European member countries of NATO without progress might be con- any in one direction exception not create inequalities progress without havrng to so as to sidered as by Europe, between these countries. This is the view worry too much about what is happening in the expressed by Mr. van den Broek and by the your a others? Here Rapporteur is thinking of United States Permanent Representative to form of Community " integrism " whtch, certain Mr. Taft, when addressing the Interna- preconceived view what NATO, in the light of a of tional Institute for Strategic Studies in be, refuses enlargement of Europe should the on 4th February. He insisted that countries that involved in the unification of any organisation were not members of WEU should not be left on Europe is not accompanied by the parallel if it one side in NATO. enlargement of the other European organisa- tions. At the present juncture, he feels it would 63. (ii) Those who wish it to be quickly better for the Europe ofthe next few years to be merged with the Community are very logically a nebula round which various stars orbit without pressing for the accession of the three Com- their link with the whole necessarily being munity countries which are not members, which clearly seen rather than a constellation whose is far from certain and would not necessarily image reflects one or other figure, designed a strengthen European cohesion in security priori in terms of a specific point in time. He matters. Conversely, they are reserved about the believes the procedure adopted for the Gulf principle of non-member countries of the EEC crisis, when European political co-operation joining WEU. In this connection, it might be took all the decisions it could before the WEU considered that membership of WEU rvould Council met to examine the military implica- prepare for accession to the EEC, as was the case tions of these decisions, non-member countries for the United Kingdom, and that the EEC being invited to take part if they so wished, is should examine candidatures only from coun- the best solution to this problem. Thus, tries that have acceded to the modified Brussels depending on its agenda, the European Council Treaty. meet a twelve- or a nine-power basis might on (rlri Those who intend to give priority to depending on what the governments wish to do. 64. the establishment of a new European order of whether was a matter for the Depending on it peace and security will obviously be more in Rome Treaty the modified Brussels or for favour of countries not belonging to the Atlantic known as the European Treaty, the body Alliance becoming associated with WEU and the would therefore not necessarily be com- Council Community. posed in the same way, but in any event it would be the council of European countries deter- 65. While, as your Rapporteur thinks, it is not mined to take action on the questions on its desirable to take unanimous. final decisions here agenda. and now, on which the governments are far from l8 DOCUMENT I26I agreed, -4rticle IX of the treaty should be kept as and the provisions adopted by it is because it makes invitations to other coun- the Conference on Security and tries subject to the unaninrous agreement of all Co-operation in Europe. in main- the contracting parties. Obviously, the notion of taining international peace and invitation does not prevent some countries from security and in resisting any applying for membership, but requires a unan- policy of aggression. " imous reaction to such applications before they (iii) its eighth paragraph, which can be transformed formal invitation into a by should be adapted to the new sit- the Council following negotiations, inter alia, on uation in Europe and whrch Article and the platform VII application of the might be drafted as follows: of The Hague. The precedents of Portugal and Spain show that this procedure creates no " Determined to pursue their serious difficulties. Since, in any event, Article action to organise the integration XI leaves no room for an enlargement of WEU of their economies, their eco- that is not accepted by all member countries, nomic. social and cultural co- there is no point in tying oneself down with operation, their legitimate col- principles which. one day or another, ffidy lective defence and the hamper a development that member states want; organisation of security and it is better for the treaty to keep to the una- co-operation in all European nimity requirement for any decision relating to countries. " enlargement. The Political Committee asked the 68. (b) -4rttcle 1 should then be drafted as Council, however, to consult the Assembly follows: before inviting any new states to accede to the First paragraph: treaty. " Convinced of the close community 66. Your Rapporteur draws the following of their interests and of the necessity conclusions from these various considerations of uniting in order to play fully their where the wording of the treaty is concerned: due r6le in organising a new order of 67. (a) The Prearnble would be maintained, peace and security in Europe and with the exception of: maintaining peace and economic and social development in the world. the paragraph, " O its .lburth where in high contracting parties will co- Western Europe " should be ordinate their action in the various deleted to show that WEU's organisations helping to attain these action may cover the whole of the aims. " Europe of the CSCE and " European economic recovery " Second paragraph: replaced by " the European Only the word " economic " should be economy " so that the treaty is a deleted. better reflection of the Europe of 69. (c) Article II and Article III on matters today. This paragraph would which are effectively handled by other therefore read as follows: organisations and the exercise of " To co-operate loyally and to which WEU relinquished to the co-ordinate their efforts to create Council of Europe might usefully be a firm basis for the European deleted. economy. " 70. These various amendments to the treaty This wording would have the should bring out more clearly the respective advantage of showing the link responsibilities and the nature of relations between the economic building of between WEU, on the one hand, and the Com- Europe round the Community munity, the Council of Europe and the CSCE, and Europeans' efforts to ensure on the other. They should also make it easier. if their security on the one hand and when necessary. to include the modified and this undertaking and that of Brussels Treaty in a wider contractual whole, in the economic development of the which the Rome Treaty would also be included, whole of Europe on the other. which would become the charter of a future European union. (ii) its paragraph, where it ./i.fih At the committee's meeting in Madrid on should be recalled that the Paris 71. 5th March 1991. the Secretary-General WEU Charter is a basis for organising of whether greater European security fol- asked stress should not be laid in the membership Iowing words: on WEU's of the family of the Twelve by replacing the International Court of " To afford assistance to each Justice referred to in Article X by the Court of other, in accordance with the Justice set up under Article IV of the Rome Charter of the United Nations Treaty. Close study of the texts leads your l9 DOCUMENT I261

Rapporteur to rule out this proposal which he those states. Today there is naturally no believes does not correspond to the possibilities question of deciding what should be the institu- offered by present international law. The Rome tions of a European union based on a federal Treaty would first have to be revised in order to principle. However, the wording the Assembly extend the responsrbrlities of the European proposes for Article IX paves the way for a Court to include matters raised by Article X of rational divisron of European parliamentary the modified Brussels Treaty. Only in the event responsibilities. of the Twelve having previously carried out such 'l Furthermore, avoid misunder- a revision could the modified Brussels Treaty 4. to any standing, should recalled that parlia- refer to that court matters which, in present cir- it be a mentary assembly must derive its powers from a cumstances, are within the purview of the Inter- single source and that it does not seem desirable national Court alone. It should be noted that the assembly parliamen- Commission's proposal the intergovern- to associate in a single to tarians elected by direct universal suffrage and mental conference expressly rules out, in Article delegations from national parliaments. This in Yl0, jurisdictional control by the European no way prevents two separate assemblies from Court over areas covered by common external policy. voting on texts on the same subject. 75. Conversely, Article XII, as drafted, has opened the door to discussions and mistaken IY. The functioning of WEU interpretations that your Rapporteur feels it essential to clarify here. First, many commen- 72. Since your Rapporteur dealt in Chapter tators, some of whom claimed to have been II, in connection with Article VIII of the treaty, speaking on behalf of the governments of with the functioning of the Council and its sub- member countries, have read Article XII as lim- sidiary bodies, he willingly takes note of Recom- iting to fifty years the period of validity of the mendation 490 in which the Assembly, on a modified Brussels Treaty. This is quite clearly report presented by Sir Geoffrey Finsberg on an error since, by declaring that " each of the behalf of the Political Committee, proposed that high contracting parties shall have the right to the Councrl draft Article IX as follows: cease to be a party thereto " after the expiry of period, article implies beyond any " The Council Western European this this of the treaty will remain valid for the Union shall make an annual report on its doubt that signatory countries. The duration the activities an assembly of representa- other of to and, far your tives of the Brussels Treaty powers treaty is not specified as as Rapporteur knows, no signatory country has appointed in accordance with the same expressed the intention to denounce it once the criteria as representatives to the Parlia- period mentary Assembly of the Council of fifty-year expires. Europe. " 76. A more delicate question is that of the which fifty-year '73. While welcoming this wording, which cor- operative date started the period during which the treaty will in any event responds perfectly to his proposals concerning remain force for contracting parties. Article VIII and the protocols, your Rapporteur in all the Article X1I specifies that the treaty " shall enter wishes to underline that this is wholly com- of the last patible with WEU's present position and with into force on the date of the deposit instrument ratification and shall thereafter that future European union covering of of a remain in force for fifty years ". This text was security questions as well as economics and Article 1948 Brussels Treaty. political co-operation. Any democratic federal that of X of the organisation includes dual representation of Should it be inferred, therefore, that the count starts in 1948 or in 1954? Several members of nations, on the one hand at federal level, such as Assembly have questioned their govern- the Community now has with a European Par- the ments on this subject and, if the latter answered, liament elected by direct universal suffrage, and, far as your Rapporteur knows, on the other hand, at the level of the federated they always, as into force 1948. Inter entities thanks to an assembly in which those said the treaty came in alia, this is what emerges from the Italian pro- entities are represented, thus implying an posal interministerial con- indirect form of representation. The case of submitted to the ference February 1991. However, none Europe of course differs from those to be found on l2th has provided any arguments in support history since external policy and defence have of them in your main responsibilities of this view. On llth January 1991, always been among the of Written federations whereas economic affairs have very Rapporteur therefore addressed 288 to the Council, as follows: often remained under the control of the fede- Question rated states. However, this does not affect the " Article I of Protocol No. I provides that principle that the federal assembly has prime the Federal Republic of Germany and the responsibility for federal affairs, the assembly Italian Republic 'accede to the treaty as representing the federated states having, as its modified and completed by the present main task, to co-ordinate matters handled by protocol'. This protocol thereby set a new 20 DOCTJMENT I26I

course for the Brussels Treaty (Articles II withdrawn, making it impossible for the and III). created WEU with its Council remaining members to attain them. (Article IV) and Assembly' (Article V) and gave it new aims and methods (Protocols As for the date as from which each con- Nos. II, III and IV). All these modifica- tracting party would be entitled to tions and additrons therefore made the withdrarv from the treaty, I believe that 1954 treaty a new treaty that included examination of Protocol No. I shows that only a few of the major common elements Article XII of the modified Brussels of the 1948 treaty. Treaty (formerly Article X) was not mod- ified on the occasion of the 1954 Paris Moreover. Article VI of Protocol No. I Agreements; hence the instruments of rat- specifies that it shall enter into force when ification to which it refers cannot be those the instrument of accession of the Federal ratifying the initial Brussels Treaty (the Republic o1' Germany to the North modified Brussels Treaty being the result Atlantic Treaty has been deposited which of the ratification of Protocol No. I and of was done on 6th May 1955. Finalll'. Pro- the other protocols referred to in tocol No. I specifies that Article X of the Article I). Brussels Treaty shall become Article XII of the new treaty. This article provides Hence it is as from the date of deposit of that the treatl' shall 'remain in force for the last instrument of ratification of the fifty years' after which 'each of the high initial Brussels Treaty that the fifty-year contracting parties shall have the right to period should be counted. " cease be a party with one year's to thereto' 78. The first paragraph is particularly rnter- notice. estrng because it clearly suggests that the Can the Council say on what basis some Council has little intention of tackhng the governments have declared that 1998 is question from a legal standpoint but merely the date as from which each signatory from that ofexpediency, since it has interrupted country would be entitled to cease to be a its examination of the question " pending deci- party to the treaty whereas an analysis of sions on political union and the restructuring of the texts indicates that the date should be NATO ". It is evident that it is not juridical con- 2005? " siderations that it is expecting of meetings outside WEU. Your Rapporteur well under- has yet received He not an answer. stands why the Council is waiting for these deci- 17. For his part. the President of the sions before redrafting the modified Brussels Assembly wrote to the Secretary-General on Treaty but he does not understand the need to l9th December 1990 asking him for his opinion wait in order to interpret the existing text unless on this point. The answer. dated l5th January it is based on a juridical relativism that he con- 1991, is worth quoting in full: demns. " In answer to the question you put to me 79. The second paragraph corresponds in your letter of 19th December 1990 exactly with your Rapporteur's views. about the Council's views on the problem paragraph of the duration of the modified Brussels 80. The third does not claim to Treaty. I am able to inform you that, in reflect any views other than those of the Secre- the framework of the exchanges of l'iews tary-General, but there is every reason to think that his views are based on those expressed by on the revision of the treaty. the government representatives. However, his Secretariat-General proposed to the the Council inter alia, following the publi- argument is far from convincing. There seems to cation of various hypotheses in the press, be little reason for distinguishing between that it discuss the interpretation of articles of the initial Brussels Treaty taken up b1, the Paris Agreements and those added mod- Article XII of the treaty. These exchanges or The modified took of views have for the trme being been ified. authors of the treaty Brussels as which interrupted pending the the Treaty a document out of decisions on parts political union and the restructuring of they used any they needed. In fact, the is new which includes, NATO and the Council has not yet had an modified treaty a treaty Protocol opportunity to discuss the matter. as specified in Article I of No. I, all four protocols making up the Paris Agreements. In my opinion, you are perfectly right If one reads what was writtten by alI those who about the mistaken use in the press of the took part in the negotiations, it is clear that at term 'expiry' of the treaty. In reality, the that time they intended to retain for fifty years modified Brussels Treaty is a treaty of the arms limitations that they had accepted on indefinite duration which will 'expire' that occasion. Moreover. it is difficult to con- only when the objectives for which it was sider as one and the same treaty two agreements signed hal'e been attarned or, at worst. with totally different aims since the first was when the majority of its members have clearly directed against Germany, its preamble 2t DOCUMENT I26I specifying that the high contracting parties were bases the integration of WEU in the union on resolved " to take such steps as may be held to the former's disbandment, vrhich is just the be necessary in the event of a renewal by opposite of the doctrine constantly defined by Germany of a policy of aggression " while the our Assembly. While the Comrnission's proposal second was signed by the Federal Republic. mentions relations between WEU and the However, it is above all the arguments advanced European Council, these rel:rtions are placed in Written Question 288 quoted above that under the exclusive control of the European Par- should lead to the conclusion that the modified liament and no reference is nlade to the WEU Brussels Treaty is a new treaty that came into Assembly, thus clearly indical.ing that a merger force on 5th May 1955 whose signatories are implies the disappearance of WEU in 1998. entitled to announce their withdrawal. after one year's notice, only as from 6th May 2005. 83. Where the drafting of r\rticle XII is con- Finally. the fact that the governments decided to cerned, your Rapporteur had proposed to call the text resulting from the Paris Agreements sidestep the juridical discur;sion by deleting " a " modified treaty " and not a " revised treaty " from the second paragraph the phrase and is a clear indication. in semantic terms, of their shall thereafter remain in for,;e for fifty years " intention not to rectify a text but to change its and from the third paragraph the phrase " After form, substance and sense, in a word to change the expiry ofthe period offiftv years ". replacing it into something new. " shall have " by " has " in bo'th cases. However, the Political Committee decided not to follow its 81. Everything indicates that it is for reasons Rapporteur but to specify that in its opinion the of expediency that most governments intend to treaty could not be denounced by any of its sig- subscribe to the tendentious interpretation natories for fifty years starting from the entry according to whrch the date is 1998. In some into force of the Paris Agreements. It therefore cases, it is a matter of terminating as soon as adopted the following wording for the second possible any clauses that bother them and that and third sentences of Article XII: they no longer respect. In other cases, they are " shall be considered to enter probably motivated by more general reasons, [The treaty] particularly the idea that WEU's activities into force on the date of the deposit of the last instrument of ratification of the 1954 should be brought to an end and handed over to rvill in force the European Community in conditions which Paris Agreements and remain are still unclear. However legally questionable for fifty years. After thr: expiry of the fifty years, each of the high contracting parties may be the grounds for this approach, it shows have cease... " that it is urgent to revise the treaty and that thrs shall the right to revision must include the removal of provisions which are no longer applied and make it possible to establish closer links between WEU and the Y. Conclusic,ns organs of the Twelve. This is the twofold aim of the proposals made here. 84. Your Rapporteur's proposed drafting of a 82. Finally, Article YI5.4 of the draft treaty new text of the treaty meets two aims: drawn up by the Commission and its relevant (i) to ensure that member countries con- comment should be recalled: tinue to have the means necessary for joint " Paragraph confirms long-term their security, while respecting 4 the particular objective of integrating the WEU into the each one's concernsl union and for this purpose uses Article (ii) to allow the integration of the treaty XII of the revised 1948 Treaty of Brussels. itself and the organs it created. i.e. At the end of the fifty-year time limit set WEU. in the framework of a more in that article, the contracting parties each complete organisation of Europe have the right to withdraw. subject to one such as the European union whose year's notice. This will give a chance to establishment is the declared aim of take stock of security co-operation with a all the member countries. view to the eventual integration of the WEU into the union. " 85. A question arose as to whether the new text should be more explicit in four respects: It should first be noted that the 1948 Brussels Treaty contained no Article XII but that it is the (, relations between WEU and NATO; former Article which Article X became XII of (ii) relations between WEU and the the 1954 modified Brussels Treaty. The Com- organs associating the Twelve, or mission thus confuses the two treaties even even the future integration of WEU more than does, thus strengthening the Council among these organs; the position that member countries may withdraw from the modified Brussels Treaty on (iii) relations between WEU and the the earlier date. What is more serious is that it CSCE: 22 DOCUMENT I26I

(it) inlegration into the treaty of the prin- between WEU and NATO. on the one hand, and ciples of the platform of The Hague WEU and the Community. on the other. the relating to the organisation of Brussels Treaty must give them the juridical European security. basis for doing so. It cannot determine what these bridges will be. 86. Your Rapporteur reached a negative con- clusion on all four points for the following (iv) Finally, with the adoption of the platform reasons: of The Hague. the governments showed that they were capable, in case of need, of defining (i) While all the governments agree that the the new requirements European on new circumstances in Europe have made it of security the basis of the modified Brussels Treaty. To necessary to reorganise NATO, present uncer- what these tainty about how these circumstances will specify, in changing circumstances, requirements will be in the future would be to develop make it extremely difficult to hold a take the risk of proposing a treaty which might debate in WEU that should be held in NATO. be out of date by the time it was ratified. This As proposed, the treaty makes it binding on does not mean that as long as it is useful the member countries to do their utmost to platform should not remain the basis for WEU's maintain and ensure the smooth running of that work to which any new candidate countries will organisation. It cannot be more precise. have to accede. as did Portugal and Spain. (ii) Where the CSCE is concerned, there is Thus, the text your Rapporteur is pro- similar uncertainty about how it will be able to 81. posing has eliminated everything which he con- organise a new order of peace and security in sidered archaic has added or Europe. One cannot commit member countries in the treaty. It been more few new on the basis of guesses about its future. specific about a directions, without linking WEU too strictly with organisa- (iii) In regard to the institutions of the Twelve, tions which are, in spite of everything, outside the Nine must place no obstacles in the way of it. He has, however, attempted to make the most WEU's possible integration in a European of what he believes to be essential: the com- union, but it is not for them to say what this pulsory mutual assistance clause and the clause union should be. Ii as it appears, the govern- which opens the door to all forms of co-operation ments wish here and now to build " bridges " with a view to organising joint security.

23 IMPRINlERIE O ALENCONNAISE Rue Edouard-Bclin: 2c trrmcstre l99l No d'ordre : 20887

PRINTED IN FR,.\NCE