TTHEHE FEDERALFEDERAL TRUSTTRUST foreducation&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 Member 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 . 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 . 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 and 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 Mediterranean 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 , another Mediterranean country, as parts of the Blair and French President Jacques Chirac, continues to have a difficult relationship and mutual assistance clause. For Belgium first proposed the creation of the role. with Turkey. The tension between the two and Luxembourg, division over the Iraq Spain is also in favour of establishing a states has often hindered closer conflict highlighted the need for the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs cooperation within NATO and between the to further develop ESDP. In the Conven- and Security Policy, hoping that Javier EU and NATO. For example, for almost two tion and the 2003/2004 IGC, both coun- Solana will be appointed to this post. years the dispute between Greece and tries were therefore supportive of the Turkey had prevented an agreement on ESDP provisions, with the exception of the Portugal is supportive of the ESDP provi- “Berlin Plus“ (an arrangement permitting creation of a European president, some- sions in the Lisbon Treaty. The Portuguese the EU access to NATO operational thing that in their view would undermine government favours particularly the ex- planning capabilities and NATO common the principle of the equal treatment of tension of the Petersberg tasks to include assets) before in December 2002 the EU all member states. disarmament operations and post-conflict and NATO were able to find a compromise. stabilisation, since it hopes that the new Given this constant tension and the fact The third Benelux state, the Netherlands, tasks will lead to the greater involvement that Turkey is a close ally of the US, Greece emphasised the need to realise a new of the EU in Sub-Saharan Africa and the has a strained relationship with NATO as treaty after its people had rejected the Southern Mediterranean - two areas with a whole. And it is therefore more Constitutional Treaty. The Dutch govern- which Portugal has close links. concerned with the EU’s military potential ment insisted that the Lisbon Treaty would than with the strengthening of NATO and have to differ from the Constitutional Although Italy is the fourth biggest EU transatlantic relations. Greece supports Treaty in terms of substance, scope and state in terms of military capabilities, the ESDP provisions in the Lisbon Treaty title. However, since very few Dutch vot- compared to the UK, France and Germany as an important step towards making ers seem to have rejected the Constitu- it has not been able to exercise much in- ESDP more coherent and efficient. It is tion because of its ESDP provisions, the fluence in ESDP. A number of factors com- unenthusiastic about the final wording of Dutch government supported the reten- bine to explain Italy’s under-representa- the solidarity clause and mutual tion of these provisions in the Lisbon tion in this respect. Italy has for example assistance clause in the Lisbon Treaty on Treaty. suffered from a succession of unstable the grounds that they lag behind similar governments, while also remaining more NATO arrangements. peripheral to EU decision-making than Neutral / Non-aligned Countries France and Germany and lacking the in- timate ties with the US that Britain en- Benelux States The developments among the six neutral joys. Nonetheless, Italy has traditionally / non-aligned EU states – Austria, Swe- been a strong supporter of further devel- den, Finland, Ireland, Malta and - Belgium and Luxembourg have tradition- opments in ESDP, with the exception of since they joined the EU, have, with re- ally strong links with France and Germany, the government of Silvio Berlusconi. gard to ESDP, been remarkable. These not only because they are neighbouring When Berlusconi came into office in 2001, countries have shown that military non- countries but also because they share a he sought to align Italy more closely to alignment is not a hindrance to a full role similar vision for the EU, including greater the US. As a consequence, during the Con- within ESDP. A good example of their ex- integration in EU defence. At the height vention and the subsequent IGC Italy re- ercising a full role in ESDP is the com- of the Iraq war, France, Germany, Belgium acted cautiously to the ESDP proposals, mitment made by Austria, Sweden, Fin- and Luxembourg held a summit in and to permanent structured cooperation land, Ireland and Cyprus to the EU Tervuren/Belgium where they agreed on and the mutual assistance clause in par- battlegroups (although the initiative re- ambitious ESDP proposals. The meeting ticular. The Berlusconi government did not mains a sensitive issue in particular in Ire- provoked resistance or even amusement want to irritate the US by supporting in- land, not least because of the use of the among other EU member states (as Denis novations which could be seen as preju- term ‘battlegroup’). Nevertheless, Cyprus, MacShane, Britain’s minister for Europe dice to existing NATO commitments. Af- Greece, Romania and Bulgaria participate said: ‘The idea of a European defence ter Romano Prodi, former President of the in the , and as of 1 based on Belgium and without the United European Commission, succeeded Mr January 2008, Sweden, together with Fin- Kingdom– I wonder if that’s particularly Berlusconi in 2006, the Italian govern- land, Norway, Estonia and Ireland, are on serious’1 ) Some of the proposals made at ment reverted to a more favourable stance standby in the . Due the summit, such as the creation of a Eu- towards ESDP and supported the inclu- to the small size of its armed forces, Malta ropean armaments agency and a commit- sion of all ESDP provisions of the Consti- has not yet committed forces to ment for mutual defence, were later in- tutional Treaty, including permanent battlegroups. In the 1990s, Austria, Sweden and Fin- Binding security guarantees between the ment in the Lisbon Treaty of the title ‘Un- land reviewed their position on neutral- member states of the Union was the line ion Minister for Foreign Affairs” contained ity. Before Austria joined the EU in 1995, these states were not willing to cross. To in the European Constitutional Treaty, the Austrian parliament added a special resolve this impasse, the member states which it considered provocative. provision to its constitution stipulating agreed at the 2003/2004 IGC to insert a that the Neutrality Act of 1955 would not passage from the Maastricht Treaty: ‘This The fact that Austria, Sweden, Finland and obstruct Austria’s participation in the shall not prejudice the specific character Ireland joined the NATO Partnership for CFSP. After the ratification of the Amster- of the security and defence policy of cer- Peace (PfP), a programme of practical bi- dam Treaty, the Austrian parliament in tain member states’. All four states are, lateral cooperation between individua 1998 adopted another constitutional meanwhile, in favour of the mutual soli- partner countries and NATO, sets them amendment, under which Austria could darity clause, since the clause asks for apart from the two other neutral/non- take part in the whole spectrum of the assistance against non-state terrorist net- aligned states in the EU – Malta and Cy- Petersberg Tasks, including combat mis- works or in the event of a natural or man- prus. The Copenhagen European Council sions in the context of crisis management made disaster and hence does not apply decided that only those member states and peace-making measures. This devel- to an attack by another state as the mu- which are members of either NATO or PfP, opment demonstrates that Austria has tual assistance clause does. Furthermore, are eligible for ESDP operations using changed its status on permanent neutral- as mentioned in a separate Declaration NATO assets and information. Malta and ity to that of a non-allied state. attached to the Lisbon Treaty: ‘[…], none Cyprus are therefore prevented from full of the provisions of [the solidarity clause] ESDP participation. Nevertheless, Malta The absence of the concept of neutrality is intended to affect the right of another supports the ESDP provisions in the Lis- in the 2004 report of Finnish security and Member State to choose the most appro- bon Treaty without reservation, its na- defence policy shows that, for Finland too, priate means to comply with its own soli- tional parliament unanimously ratifying the concept is no longer regarded as a darity obligation towards that Member the Lisbon Treaty on 29 January 2008. useful tool in policy-making. What is State.‘ Nonetheless, one could well argue Cyprus also traditionally holds a positive however left of Finnish neutrality is mili- that the solidarity clause is a new step view of ESDP. The Cypriot government tary non-alignment. The Swedish govern- for the neutral/non-aligned countries. One hopes that it can play a more construc- ment meanwhile has a policy of non-par- day, the EU might have to use military tive role in the development of ESDP, tak- ticipation in military alliances, nowadays components to fight terrorism and if the ing into consideration the country’s privi- formally excluding only binding agree- terrorist attack were sponsored by a state, leged geostrategic position in the East- ments on mutual security guarantees. then the solidarity clause would become ern Mediterranean. akin to a mutual defence clause. Perma- The peculiarity of Ireland’s military neu- nent structured cooperation as well is trality sets it apart from the likes of Aus- seen as problematic by Austria, Finland, The Three Largest Member States tria, Finland or Sweden. Ireland has kept Ireland and Sweden. Ireland in particular a part of its “true” neutrality. Irish legis- only accepted structured cooperation as 1. Germany lation requires that any decision to send part of an overall package and after fol- troops overseas on a military mission re- lowing the insertion of limiting clauses. When the Grand Coalition assumed power quires the authority of the government, Finland’s Foreign Minister Tuomioja stated in Germany in 2005, a new style in Ger- an explicit parliamentary decision and in an interview in June 2005 that he man foreign policy-making could be iden- formal authorisation from the UN (so- would not regret the failure of the Con- tified. Whereas former Chancellor called triple lock). Furthermore, when the stitutional Treaty if it resulted in the aban- Schröder had been criticised for his per- Irish people gave their approval for the donment of the permanent structured sonalised and assertive way of conduct- Nice Treaty, they also backed a govern- cooperation concept. ing foreign policy, current Chancellor ment proposal to amend the constitution Merkel has been hailed for her business- to the effect that Ireland could only take Finland opposes the post of a European like and conciliatory approach. This new part in an EU common defence initiative Council President, whereas it supports the modest tone, along with careful consul- with the specific approval of the people creation of a European Foreign Minister. tations with other EU member states as expressed in a referendum. In contrast, the Swedish government about their expectations and reservations views positively the creation of European concerning the future of the Constitu- For Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden, Council President partly because such a tional Treaty allowed the German EU the most contentious issue in the Lisbon post would limit the power of the Com- Presidency to pave the way for treaty re- Treaty is the mutual assistance clause. mission and promote the intergovernmen- form at the European Council summit in When this clause was first presented in tal elements of the EU. The Irish govern- June 2007.Before Germany took over the the Convention the governments of the ment is in favour of giving the High Rep- EU Presidency in January 2007, it was four countries vehemently opposed its resentative for the CFSP more power. At vehemently against dropping the Consti- inclusion in the Constitutional Treaty. the same time, it welcomes the abandon- tutional Treaty. While the German gov- ernment changed its position at the be- permanent structured cooperation would rejoin NATO’s military command structure. ginning of its Presidency and signalled its come under the political responsibility of In the second half of 2008, France will willingness to revert to the traditional the Council and contain reference to the take on the Presidency of the EU. One of method of an amending treaty instead of operational capacities of the participants. the main tasks of the Presidency will be a constitution, it was still able to ensure to focus on ESDP. France is eager to in- that most of the Constitutional Treaty’s Although the German government has troduce ambitious ESDP proposals such innovations, in particular the ESDP pro- always been strongly committed to the as a permanent and substantial EU plan- visions, would be saved. development of ESDP, it is still reluctant ning command and a new European se- to use its military force and deploy troops curity strategy. A revision of the French Together with France, Germany contrib- abroad. Under the Schröder government, national defence and security policy is uted several proposals for the ESDP do- German security and defence policy un- currently underway. main to the Convention. Two of these pro- derwent some far-reaching changes, such posals proved, at the Convention and at as the making legally possible the par- 3. Britain the 2003/2004 IGC to be highly contro- ticipation of German armed forces in out- versial. .The first proposal was for “closer of-areas missions. This however does not The creation of ESDP at the Franco-Brit- cooperation on mutual defence”. A mem- mean that Germany’s willingness to de- ish St Malo meeting saw the effective end ber state participating in such coopera- ploy its troops has changed. If Germany of the UK’s 50-year commitment to avoid tion, which is the victim of armed aggres- contributes troops to ESDP, NATO or UN discussing the development of defenc sion on its territory, should inform the out-of-area missions, it does so only out matters within the European framework. other participating member states of the of a sense of solidarity and the desire to Although Britain for the first time ac- situation and request assistance from accommodate the expectations of its in- cepted the legitimacy of an autonomous them. The second proposal opened up the ternational partners. EU capacity at military level, it stressed possibility for those member states which that an emerging European security and meet certain military capability criteria 2. France defence policy must never be allowed to and which wish to enter into more bind- challenge the existing structures of NATO. ing commitments, to establish “structured In 1998, French President Jacques Chirac After 9/11 and the invasion of Afghani- cooperation”. A breakthrough on these initiated with his British counterpart, Tony stan and Iraq, British attention was di- two initiatives was achieved in weeks Blair, the St Malo agreement. Though both verted away from the development of leading up to the meeting of EU Foreign states held differing views on the under- ESDP. At the Convention’s working group Ministers in Naples in November 2003, lying purpose of a European security and on defence, British representatives were when Germany, France and the UK agreed defence policy and how it should fit in at best indifferent and at worst hostile on new draft proposals which were later with NATO, this nonetheless constituted towards most of the ESDP proposals. (This approved by other member states and in- a major step towards the development of was in contrast to British behaviour in the cluded in the Constitutional Treaty. In the a credible ESDP. Since then, the French Convention’s working group on external first proposal, any reference to mutual government has sought to build up ESDP action, where British representatives ac- defence disappeared. It was now called as a counterweight to NATO. The nego- tively contributed and fully supported the the ‘mutual assistance’ clause. Two as- tiations in the Convention and the sub- appointment of a European Council Presi- sertions - that the specific character of sequent IGC confirmed however that dent and the merger of the two posts of the security and defence policy of certain France needs the support of Britain in High Representative for CFSP and Exter- member states would not be prejudiced, particular if it is to develop ESDP further. nal Affairs Commissioner.) and that NATO would remain the foun- France and Britain are the main providers dation of collective defence for member of troops and the largest producers and Britain’s hostility was in particular aimed states - were inserted. In addition, the buyers of military hardware within the at the concept of permanent structured requirement to give aid and assistance to European Union. They are the only coun- co-operation, since it feared that the US a member state under attack was quali- tries in the Union with genuinely global, might see the initiative as an alternative fied with the wording that member states strategic, expeditionary mindsets and the to NATO. Britain was also concerned that should have “an obligation of aid and as- forces to back up their ambitions. Yet under a regime of permanent structured sistance”. Although the German govern- negotiations between the two states have cooperation a small-number of self- ment agreed on the new text, it consid- seldom been easy. France, especially un- elected states could ‘short-circuit’ deci- ered the mutual assistance clause to have der President Chirac, tended to view the sion-making and as a consequence deci- been unnecessarily weakened. The new relationship between NATO and ESDP as sions on European military missions could formulation on structured cooperation a zero-sum game: what is good for one is be taken by a minority. British members (now named ‘permanent structured co- bad for the other. This position changed of the Convention also argued against the operation’) was on the other hand seen significantly when Nicholas Sarkozy came inclusion of a mutual defence agreement by Germany as a balanced compromise. into office in May 2007. Sarkozy signalled in the Constitutional Treaty, as a duplica- Germany, France and the UK agreed that that he would like French officers fully to tion of NATO structure. Britain’s position on both permanent structured co-opera- three countries are the most militarily gion. The Baltic states, Poland, Slovakia tion and a mutual defence agreement powerful of the Union, and because they and the Czech Republic on the other hand changed however, following the Franco- represent different political camps within consider NATO as essential for ensuring British-German trilateral talks in Novem- the EU on the question of ESDP, any security in their region especially in the ber 2003. At this meeting, the British gov- agreement attained between them usu- light of a resurgent Russia. These states ernment secured assurances, later ap- ally has a good chance of being endorsed also maintain a close relationship with the proved by the 2003/2004 IGC and in- by all other member states. US. They are therefore against any inno- cluded in the Constitutional Treaty, that, vation which in their view could threaten in particular, a group participating in per- the primacy of NATO. In this respect, the manent structured cooperation could not Conclusion British position resembles the Central and launch a mission on behalf of the EU with- Eastern European one. The British view of out the unanimous agreement of the Having established the positions of the ESDP is, however, by no means an entirely Council. The mutual assistance clause was member states on the five most impor- sceptical one. Every important ESDP in- also re-drafted to satisfy all EU member tant CFSP/ESDP provisions in the Lisbon novation, including the creation of ESDP states. Treaty, it is now possible to attempt to itself, has either been initiated by Britain identify whether any broad patterns of together with France and Germany or at After the rejection of the Constitutional approach are discernible (see table over- least after some debate and redrafting Treaty by France and the Netherlands, the leaf). supported by Britain. Without the UK, EU British government were one of the first defence would not have progressed so far. to declare the Constitutional Treaty dead. On the basis of the chart below, EU mem- The French-German alliance would not Later, during the so-called ‘period of re- ber states can be divided into three gen- have been enough to forge an effective flection’, they argued for a simple amend- eral groups: a pro-ESDP group, an am- ESDP. By influencing the development of ing treaty as opposed to the retention of biguous ESDP group, and a group with a ESDP Britain on the other hand ensures the Constitutional Treaty desired by other rather negative attitude towards ESDP in- that ESDP continues to proceed under the member states. Although the ESDP pro- novations. The founding member states umbrella of NATO. visions of the Constitutional Treaty were (except the Netherlands), the Mediterra- strongly influenced by British thinking, at nean states and the two newest member the June 2007 European Council summit states – Bulgaria and Romania – belong the then Prime Minister Blair demanded to the pro-ESDP group. The ambiguous the reconsideration of these provisions to group comprises four neutral/non-aligned emphasize their intergovernmental na- countries (Austria, Finland, Cyprus and ture. At the request of the British gov- Malta), two Central and Eastern European ernment, two minor changes to the ESDP countries (Slovenia and Hungary) and the provisions were therefore inserted in the Netherlands, while the negative ESDP Lisbon Treaty. The Union Minister for For- group opposing most of the ESDP provi- eign Affairs was renamed High Repre- sions in the Lisbon Treaty include the re- sentative of the Union for Foreign Affairs maining Central and Eastern European and Security Policy, and a Declaration was states (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czech attached to the Treaty to underline that Republic, Slovakia and Poland), the neu- the new ESDP provisions did not ‘preju- tral countries (Sweden and Ireland) and dice the specific character of the security the UK. The composition of the groups is and defence policy of the member states’ generally unsurprising. The five founding or ‘the primary responsibility of the Se- member states and the Mediterranean curity Council and of its members for the countries tend to favour European inte- maintenance of international peace and gration in almost every domain. The Finn- security’. ish and Austrian position on ESDP issues is conditioned by their policy of non- Considering the German, French and Brit- alignment. For this reason the two nor- ish views on the ESDP provisions, it be- mally pro-integrationist countries belong comes apparent that each of the three to the ambiguous group. The same is true states has very different geopolitical in- for Malta and Cyprus. The more positive stincts: the British are strongly Atlanticist, view of ESDP taken by Slovenia and Hun- the French stress the need for Europe to gary compared to that of the Polish and be able to act autonomously, while the the Baltic states stems, amongst other Germans are reluctant to deploy troops reasons, from the fact that Slovenia and overseas or to use force. Because these Hungary border the troubled Balkan re- High Representative Council President Perm. structured cooperation Mutual assistance clause Solidarity Clause

Est. +/- - +/- - + Lit. +/- - +/- - + Lat. ... +/- ...... - ...... +/- ...... - ...... + Pol. - + - - +/- Czch. - + - - +/- Sl’vak. ... - ...... + ...... - ...... - ...... +/- Hun. + +/- +/- +/- + SI’ven. +/- +/- + +/- + Rom. ... + ...... +/- ...... + ...... + ...... + Bulg. + +/- + + + Spain + + + +/- + Port. ... + ...... + ...... + ...... +/- ...... + Italy + + +/- +/- + Gre. + + + + + Belg. ... + ...... - ...... + ...... + ...... + Lux. + - + + + Ned. + +/- +/- +/- + Aus. ... + ...... +/- ...... +/- ...... - ...... + Fin. + +/- - - + Swe. - + - - + Ire. ... +/- ...... +/- ...... - ...... - ...... + Malta + +/- + - + Cyp. + +/- + - + Ger. ... + ...... +/- ...... + ...... + ...... + Fr. + + + + + UK +/- + - - +/-

Notes

1 Doyle, Leonard (2003), French call for military cooperation divides EU’, The Independent, April 28th.