• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

TTHEHE FEDERALFEDERAL TRUSTTRUST TTHEHE FEDERALFEDERALfor education TRUSTTRUST & research enlightening the debate on good governance EuropeanPolicyBrief April 2008 • The Federal Trust, 31 Jewry Street, London EC3N 2EY • www.fedtrust.co.uk The EU’s M ember States and European Defence Jeannette Ladzik, Federal Trust and Global Policy Institute This brief reviews the range of views of EU member states on the most important ESDP provisions in the Lisbon Treaty: perma- nent structured cooperation, the mutual assistance clause, the mutual solidarity clause, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and the President of the European Council. Permanent structured cooperation is intended to allow those Member States “whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework”. The purpose of the solidarity clause is to ensure mutual assistance to help countries deal with a terrorist attack, a natural or man-made disaster. By contrast, the mutual assistance clause binds all member states to provide aid and assistance “by all means in their power” in the event of another Member State becoming a victim of armed aggression, without prejudicing the neutrality or relationship to NATO that some Member States may enjoy. The roles of the High Representative and the President of the European Council are more vaguely described in the Treaty, but are in general intended to give greater coherence and continuity to the Union’s actions in the fields of external and defence policy. Member states have been grouped into five different basic categories – Central and Eastern European, Mediterranean, Benelux, neutral/non-aligned and the so-called ‘big three’. Denmark is not included in any of these groups, because of its opt-out from ESDP. Central and Eastern European States Since the end of the Cold War, Central and Eastern European countries have pursued two primary political objectives: member- ship of the EU and membership of NATO. They have achieved both these goals, but membership of NATO and the EU has sometimes placed these states in situations where their links to the US and their new obligations to fellow EU member states have come into conflict. While for the Central and Eastern European states the EU has grown in importance in many domains, the US and NATO are still seen as essential for ensuring security in the region. ESDP can and should on this analysis only complement the actions of NATO. EDITOR’s NOTE This is one in a series of regular European Policy Briefs produced by the Federal Trust. The aim of the series is to describe and analyse major controversies in the current British debate about the European Union. We welcome comments on and reactions to this policy brief. Other Policy Briefs are available on the Federal Trust’s website, www.fedtrust.co.uk . Brendan Donnelly (Director, Federal Trust) When Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia joined Among the Central and Eastern European in the Lisbon Treaty although it warns that the EU in 2004, the attitudes of ‘old’ EU states, the Visegrad countries – Poland, the post of the High Representative for member states towards ESDP had already Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia Foreign Affairs and Security Policy should been formed quite independently of the – had the most concerns over the Euro- further defined before the post is first interests of the Baltic states. The approach pean Constitution and Lisbon Treaty. The taken up. that traditional border lines and territo- Polish and Czech governments held the rial defence issues are history is far less view that the EU could function on the Bulgaria and Romania held only observer appropriate a view in the context of the basis of the current treaties. During the status in the Convention and 2003/04 IGC Baltic region, where Russia maintains Convention, Poland was in particular and so were unable to influence the de- pressure on the Baltic states. From the against the mutual assistance clause and cisions taken there as strongly as the other Baltic states’ point of view, other EU mem- the development of permanent structured 10 acceding states which had by then ber states show little interest in their cooperation as it feared they would concluded accession negotiations with problems with Russia, regarding them amount to the unnecessary duplication of the EU. Nevertheless, both Romania and merely as bilateral issues. Therefore, Es- structures and capabilities between ESDP Bulgaria have supported all ESDP inno- tonia, Lithuania and Latvia see NATO as and NATO, thus weakening NATO. Poland’s vations since the Convention, perceiving the only guarantor of Baltic security. As position softened somewhat after, in the participation in ESDP as a way of increas- any weaknesses or divisions within NATO 2003/2004 IGC negotiations, the concepts ing their foreign policy potential and re- would undermine their security, the Bal- of mutual assistance and structured co- alising their national interests. tic states are against the creation of struc- operation became more inclusive and tures within ESDP which would duplicate NATO- friendly. Polish representatives to NATO structures. Consequently, Estonia, the Convention had also been wary of the The M editerranean Countries Lithuania and Latvia are generally cau- inclusion of other provisions, in particu- tious about ESDP innovations in the Lis- lar the solidarity clause. They argued that In three Mediterranean countries – Spain, bon Treaty. During the Convention and the if such a clause were used in response to Portugal and Italy – a change of govern- 2003/2004 Intergovernmental Confer- a terrorist attack, its application would ments took place after the negotiations ence (IGC), they were concerned prima- have to be limited to dealing with the in the Convention and the subsequent rily with making sure that none of the effects of a given attack on the territory IGC. These newly elected governments ESDP provisions would undermine NATO. of a member state. These concerns too were more sympathetic to closer Euro- The Baltic states strongly argued against were, in the event, addressed; the draft pean cooperation on security and defence the mutual assistance clause in the Con- Constitutional Treaty of June 2003 stat- than had been their predecessors. vention as in their view it would dupli- ing of the solidarity clause that “the EU cate the work of NATO and add nothing and its member states shall assist a mem- The Spanish general election of March to the real security of European states. ber states in its territory”. 2004 occurred in the wake of the terror- At the IGC, the Baltic governments, to- ist attack in Madrid. As a reaction to the gether with Britain and the other Central Hungary is more supportive of ESDP than attack, the EU heads of states and gov- European states, insisted that the follow- its fellow Visegrad countries, thanks in ernment declared at the European Coun- ing passage be included in the mutual particular to its geographic proximity to cil summit on 25 March 2004 that they assistance clause: “Commitment and co- the Western Balkans, a region which would “act jointly against terrorist acts operation in this area shall be consistent would benefit from increased security in the spirit of the solidarity clause” con- with commitment under the North Atlan- through ESDP. tained in the draft Constitutional Treaty. tic Treaty Organisation, which, for those Due in particular to the persistence of the states which are members of it, remains Slovenia was the only Central and East- Basque terrorist organisation ETA, the the foundation of their collective defence ern European country that was against Spanish government had championed this and the forum for its implementation”. the US-led operation in Iraq. The attitude clause during the Convention. In Decem- Another provision of the Lisbon Treaty of of Slovenia towards ESDP is certainly more ber 2004, Spain issued a new National which Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia are positive than the position of the Baltic Defence Directive, which stressed that still suspicious is the non-rotating Presi- states, Poland, Czech Republic and Spanish national security is indissolubly dency of the European Council. They fear Slovakia. In Slovenia’s view, ESDP instru- linked to the security of the European that a permanent President would favour ments are necessary for the EU to live up continent. Although the Zapatero govern- the bigger EU member states. In the Con- to its potential to solve crises and to ac- ment emphasised after the publication of vention, a coalition of small and medium- cept its share of responsibility for global this directive that it wished to continue sized EU countries lobbied to retain the stability. Slovenia agrees, however, with to cooperate closely with NATO, nonethe- 6-month rotating Presidency system but the Baltic states and Poland that ESDP is less the directive itself clearly reflected was unable to resist the pressure brought not an alternative to NATO and should Spain’s increasingly European- oriented to bear by the larger member states. never become one. Slovenia supports the foreign and security policy. Ever since the provisions on ESDP as they are included Convention, the Spanish government has consistently supported the post of a Eu- structured cooperation and the mutual troduced to the Convention and after long ropean President. Indeed, it was Spanish assistance clause, in the Lisbon Treaty. discussions and a number of changes in- Prime Minister José María Aznar who, corporated into the Constitutional Treaty together with British Prime Minister Tony as parts of the European Defence Agency Greece, another Mediterranean country, Blair and French President Jacques Chirac, and mutual assistance clause. For Belgium continues to have a difficult relationship first proposed the creation of the role.

Load more

  7

Copy Link