Current Developments in European Foreign Policy

HOUSE OF LORDS European Union Committee 26th Report of Session 2005–06 Current Developments in European Foreign Policy Report with Evidence Ordered to be printed 14 February and published 3 March 2006 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords London : The Stationery Office Limited £price HL Paper 124 The European Union Committee The European Union Committee is appointed by the House of Lords “to consider European Union documents and other matters relating to the European Union”. The Committee has seven Sub-Committees which are: Economic and Financial Affairs, and International Trade (Sub-Committee A) Internal Market (Sub-Committee B) Foreign Affairs, Defence and Development Policy (Sub-Committee C) Environment and Agriculture (Sub-Committee D) Law and Institutions (Sub-Committee E) Home Affairs (Sub-Committee F) Social and Consumer Affairs (Sub-Committee G) Our Membership The Members of the European Union Committee are: Lord Blackwell Lord Bowness Lord Maclennan of Rogart Lord Marlesford Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Lord Dubs Lord Neill of Bladen Lord Radice Lord Geddes Lord Goodhart Lord Grenfell (Chairman) Lord Hannay of Chiswick Lord Harrison Lord Renton of Mount Harry Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Lord Tomlinson Lord Woolmer of Leeds Lord Wright of Richmond The Members of the Sub-Committee which carried out this inquiry (Foreign Affairs, Defence and Development Policy, Sub-Committee C) are: Lord Bowness (Chairman) Lord Boyce Lord Dykes Baroness Falkner of Margravine Lord Freeman Lord Hannay of Chiswick Lord Lea of Crondall Lord King of Bridgwater Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Lord Tomlinson Lord Truscott Information about the Committee The reports and evidence of the Committee are published by and available from The Stationery Office. For information freely available on the web, our homepage is: <a href="/goto?url=http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_eu_select_committee.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_eu_select_committee.cfm </a>There you will find many of our publications, along with press notices, details of membership and forthcoming meetings, and other information about the ongoing work of the Committee and its Sub-Committees, each of which has its own homepage. General Information General information about the House of Lords and its Committees, including guidance to witnesses, details of current inquiries and forthcoming meetings is on the internet at <a href="/goto?url=http://www.parliament.uk/about_lords/about_lords.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.parliament.uk/about_lords/about_lords.cfm </a>Contacts for the European Union Committee Contact details for individual Sub-Committees are given on the website. General correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the European Union Committee, Committee Office, House of Lords, London, SW1A OPW The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5791. The Committee’s email address is [email protected] CONTENTS Report Paragraph Page 15Appendix 1: Sub-Committee C (Foreign Affairs, Defence and Development Policy) 67Appendix 2: Reports Oral Evidence The Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP, Minister for Europe; Mr Tim Barrow, Deputy Political Director and Assistant Director, EU External; and Mr Hugh Powell, Head of Security Policy Group, Foreign and Commonwealth Office <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Oral evidence, 2 February 2006 </li><li style="flex:1">1</li></ul>NOTE: References in the text of the report are as follows: (Q) refers to a question in oral evidence (p) refers to a page of written evidence Current Developments in European Foreign Policy 1. 2. The Committee asked the Minister for Europe, Mr Douglas Alexander MP, to give evidence on the most recent developments in European Foreign Policy. We thank the Minister for his time. In this Report we make available, for the information of the House, the oral evidence given to Sub-Committee C (Foreign Affairs, Defence and Development Policy) by the Minister for Europe, accompanied by Mr Tim Barrow and Mr Hugh Powell, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 2 February 2006. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">3. </li><li style="flex:1">Key topics in the evidence are: </li></ul>•••••••••••Key developments of the United Kingdom Presidency. (Q 1) Financing of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. (QQ 5–8) Scrutiny of CFSP. (QQ 9–10) The presentation of CFSP. (QQ 37–39) Non-proliferation of WMD and small arms. (QQ 11–16) ESDP missions in Africa. (QQ 17–23) The future of the Western Balkans. (QQ 24–27) The possibility of a visa-free regime with Ukraine. (QQ 2–4) The Middle East Peace Process. (QQ 28–36) The future of the Barcelona Process. (Q 55) EU assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan. (QQ 40–54) <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">6</li><li style="flex:1">CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPEAN FOREIGN POLICY </li></ul>APPENDIX 1: SUB-COMMITTEE C (FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY) The members of the Sub-Committee which conducted this inquiry were: Lord Bowness (Chairman) Lord Boyce Lord Dykes Baroness Falkner of Margravine Lord Freeman Lord Hannay of Chiswick Lord King of Bridgwater Lord Lea of Crondall Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Lord Tomlinson Lord Truscott Declarations of Interest Please also see the Register of Members Interests Lord Dykes Chairman, The European Atlantic Group (19 September 2005). Visit with British-Italian parliamentary group to Portofino, Italy (5–6 November 2005). Hospitality and accommodation (but not travel) paid by Italian Government and corporate donors. Discussion on Defence and Security. Lord Hannay of Chiswick Chair, United Nations Association of the UK. Member, Advisory Board, Centre for European Reform. Member, Advisory Board, European Foreign Affairs Review. Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Council of Ditchley Foundation. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPEAN FOREIGN POLICY </li><li style="flex:1">7</li></ul>APPENDIX 2: REPORTS Recent Reports from the Select Committee Review of Scrutiny of European Legislation (1st Report session 2002–03, HL Paper 15) Annual Report 2004 (32nd Report session 2003–04, HL Paper 186) The Draft Constitutional Treaty (41st Report session 2002–03, HL Paper 169) Session 2005–2006 Reports prepared by Sub-Committee C The European Union’s Role At the Millennium Review Summit (11th Report session 2005–2006, HL Paper 35) Review of Scrutiny: Common Foreign & Security Policy (19th Report session 2005–2006, HL Paper 100) Session 2004–2005 Reports prepared by Sub-Committee C Current Developments in European Foreign Policy (2nd Report session 2004–05, HL Paper 44) European Defence Agency (9th Report session 2004–05, HL Paper 76) Preventing Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: The EU Contribution (13th Report session 2004–2005, HL Paper 96) Session 2003–2004 Reports prepared by Sub-Committee C Current Developments in European Foreign Policy (4th Report session 2003–04, HL Paper 28) EU Development Aid in Transition (12th Report session 2003–04, HL Paper 75) Current Developments in European Foreign Policy (19th Report session 2003–04, HL Paper 118) EU Security Strategy (31st Report session 2003–04, HL Paper180) Session 2002–2003 Reports prepared by Sub-Committee C EU Russia Relations (3rd Report session 2002–03, HL Paper 29) EU—Effective in a Crisis? (7th Report session 2002–03, HL Paper 53) The Future of Europe: Convention Working Group—Reports on Defence and External Action (15th Report session 2002–03, HL Paper 80) Evidence by the Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on European Security and Defence Policy Scrutiny, the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 18–19 March 2003 and the Current State of Common Foreign and Security Policy (19th Report session 2002–03, HL Paper 94) The Future of Europe: Constitutional Treaty—Draft Articles on External Action (23rd Report session 2002–03, HL Paper 107) A Fractured Partnership? Relations Between the European Union and the United States of America (30th Report session 2002–03, HL Paper 134) Current Developments in European Foreign Policy (37th Report session 2002–03, HL Paper 152) Minutes of Evidence TAKEN BEFORE THE EUROPEAN UNION (SUB-COMMITTEE C) THURSDAY 2 FEBRUARY 2006 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Present </li><li style="flex:1">Bowness, L (Chairman) </li></ul>Boyce, L Dykes, L King of Bridgwater, L Lea of Crondall, L Tomlinson, L <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Hannay of Chiswick, L </li><li style="flex:1">Truscott, L </li></ul>Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Rt Hon Douglas Alexander, a Member of the House of Commons, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr Tim Barrow, Deputy Political Director and Assistant Director, EU External, and Mr Hugh Powell, Head of Security Policy Group, examined. Q1 Chairman: Minister, good afternoon to you and in relation to the noted Ukraine Summit, which took to all your oYcials. Thank you very much for being able to arrange this date. We entirely understood why you could not come last week. We are very grateful that you are able to come so soon after nevertheless. Is there anything that you would like to say to us before we move to questions? place during our Presidency, and a revised counterterrorism strategy which necessarily, and perhaps inevitably, received widespread currency after the tragic events in London here on 7 July. We welcome the opportunity to be in front of the Committee today. I just also take this opportunity to introduce the two oYcials supporting me today. We have Tim Barrow on my right, Deputy Political Director and Assistant for the European team, and also Hugh Powell, who is the Head of Security Policy Group. I hope, with your permission, if there are specific subjects on which they could assist the Committee, they would also be able to join in answering your questions. Mr Alexander: Perhaps it might be helpful, with your permission, Chairman, to make a brief introductory statement to contextualise some of the specific questions that the clerk has intimated to us. Of course, we are grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Common Foreign and Security Policy. As you are aware, ensuring an eVective and active CFSP was a priority during the Presidency that has just past, and I would highlight one or two of the key successes by way of introduction. We have launched a successful civilian ESDP mission in Ache—the first time there has been such a mission in Asia with the European Union beyond our borders—and, indeed, one at the Rafah border crossing in the Middle East, and also the integrated rule of law mission in Iraq, about which we will no doubt comment. We judge these to be crucial contributions and demonstrate that missions can be launched rapidly, although there have been specific challenges we have faced with rapidity, which will be the subject of one of the questions, but also, we judge, eVectively during our Presidency. The opening of accession talks both with Turkey and also with Croatia on 3 October, and the granting of candidate status for Macedonia, we also judge to be significant successes in this regard, along with the opening of SAE negotiations both for Bosnia and Herzegovina and also for Serbia and Montenegro, which took place respectively in November and October. There was also in the area of CFSP agreement on a long-term European Union strategy for Africa at the December European Council. Progress in relation to the European neighbourhood policy and, in particular, the first Q2 Chairman: We would be very pleased. Can I ask you one question arising out of your introduction? You referred to the Ukraine and the negotiations with them. For a long time there has been talk of negotiating a visa-free regime. What is the position on that? Mr Alexander: I think—taking up the opportunity— given the next job to which Mr Barrow is moving, he is probably uniquely qualified to answer that point as our man in Kiev! Mr Barrow: We have started a process of talks on visa facilitation with the Ukrainians at the EU level. Of course, this is slightly diVerent for us as an EU Member State who is not part of the Schengen area, but we made sure that by the time of the summit we were in a position to get those talks started. We are hoping to make rapid progress, and there are related issues, not just to the question of visa facilitation but also to questions of a readmission agreement, which will be part of those negotiations as well. Q3 Chairman: Do you expect something to come wave of action plans saw real progress, for example, forward fairly soon? 2current developments in european foreign policy: evidence 2 February 2006 Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP, Mr Tim Barrow and Mr Hugh Powell Mr Barrow: It slightly depends upon the level of tasked to take forward the lead, covered both the ambition of the Ukrainians themselves. They are issue of streamlining procedures itself and also pretty busy heading up towards parliamentary looking at possible alternative mechanisms to elections as well, but I think there is a prospect of achieve the same end, for example, oV-budget <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">fairly rapid movement, yes. </li><li style="flex:1">financing by Member States. There were already </li></ul>questions being raised by Javier Solana at the December Council meeting, and we will certainly be very interested in being informed of the progress that he makes. On your second point, in terms of is the uplift significant enough to cope with the potential demands that CFSP will face, I suppose the first point to make as a matter of record is that we were delighted by the uplift that was secured after considerable eVorts under the British Presidency. My recollection was the previous figure was approximately 62 million euros and we took the figure up to 102.6 million euros. Candidly, however, there can be no certainty, given the area of work that we are discussing, as to what any budget figure provides in terms of adequacy. We judge that this is a very significant uplift and one that we are pleased with, but we cannot sit with a crystal ball and predict every potential call on the CFSP budget at this stage. We would be much more relaxed in the Foreign OYce if we could anticipate every problem we were going to potentially confront over the next 12 months, but that is just an honest admission of the world in which we operate. In terms of where we find ourselves, I think the budget for this year is significant. The second point that I would make would be that we also will be working in terms of the future financial perspective to make sure that this is actually a sustained uplift, because while there have been a number of missions, which I mentioned, launched during the British Presidency, we anticipate that this should not be a one-oV uplift but rather a reflection of the importance that we attach. I suppose the only other point that I would make in my initial answer to your question would be, while the oYcial briefing that you get from the Foreign OYce on this point says that we want to have the capacity to take forward this work, I am sure if I was sitting next to my Treasury colleagues they would oblige me to say that this must be constrained within the necessary budgetary controls of the European Union, and in that sense there is always a balance to be struck between making sure that there is in general a sustainable and appropriate size of budget for the European Union and, clearly, from our national interest also recognising that within that there should be a CFSP budget which is adequate to the scale of challenges that potentially we face. Q4 Lord Tomlinson: But after the elections on 26 March? Mr Barrow: Not necessarily, but possibly. We understand that might be the case, but it is not inevitable. Mr Alexander: My next meeting at four o’clock is with Mrs Tymoshenko, so I will have a clearer idea as to the opposition I will have in view of the progress slightly later this afternoon. Q5 Lord Tomlinson: Minister, you are aware that Javier Solana prepared this paper for the December European Council meeting. In it he warned that, while the funding mechanism for military operations was working smoothly, there were problems with the civil operation and fact-finding missions suVering from delays in releasing funding. Do you believe or have the Council considered whether there is a need <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">for </li><li style="flex:1">a</li><li style="flex:1">streamlined financing and procurement </li></ul>procedure for crisis management operations? With it, as it arose from the same paper, could I raise the budgetary resource question. Javier Solana estimated in that paper a need for 120 million euros with additional funding required if new operations were launched, and yet the EU institutions agreed in December 2005 to set the CFSP budget at 102.6 million euros. Is this suYcient and how would we meet a shortfall if there were the demand? Mr Alexander: Thank you for both questions. Let me answer them in turn. Firstly, are we supportive of the work that Javier Solana has been tasked at Hampton Court with taking forward? Yes, in short, absolutely. We are in a curious position where, although we recognise that this is an issue, given that it is often, in terms of the management, administered by the Commission, while as a Council we can have a view on this matter, and as a member of the Council it is not entirely within our gift to resolve the challenge that has been identified, but I can assure you we are very supportive of the eVorts, not least on the basis of our own experience during the Presidency, where at times there needed to be a degree of creativity and genuine leadership shown by the United Kingdom to ensure that, in the necessarily constrained timescales under which we were operating, there was a capacity to be eVective and move quickly, so we are very supportive. Indeed, his initial report to the December Council when there was the first opportunity post Hampton Court for there to be a factual update of the Council on the progress on the six work-streams Q6 Lord Tomlinson: If we take a pessimistic view that there is a demand that exceeds the capacity of the 102.6 million euros in the budget, do you believe that which were identified at Hampton Court, of which there is suYcient both quantum of funds and ability CFSP was one and one where Javier Solana was to access them in relation to any reserve that exists in current developments in european foreign policy: evidence 32 February 2006 Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP, Mr Tim Barrow and Mr Hugh Powell the European Union budget to meet a serious crisis Mr Barrow: The discussion was such that this was an where there was a common view that there was an imperative need? estimate by Javier which did not have a detailed breakdown to say that this specifically will come in at this much, because, as we found during our Presidency, as we looked at the missions some costs came down. Lord King of Bridgwater: I think I have got the answer. The answer is, no, there was not anything specific, just do it for less or get other people to pay. Fair enough. Mr Alexander: Common sense dictates that you will find a way to address whatever challenge that you face. You would expect me to say that. I suppose the other points that I would make would be, firstly, we did secure agreement, as I mentioned, from other Member States at the December Council that we would see sustained uplifts in the future during the current financial perspective, which I think is significant. I also think there is a balance to be struck here between continuing to recognise and uphold the fact that CFSP is essentially inter-governmental and not being in a position where the need to secure funds compromises the present balance that is struck between the oversight of the European Parliament and the legitimate and appropriate role for the European Council. Q9 Lord Lea of Crondall: I have got a couple of questions about CFSP procedure. The first is that in recent years the Council has agreed a number of strategies, notably the security strategy and then the strategy for Africa, which you may know we are doing a separate inquiry into which Hilary Benn and Lord Triesman have eVectively come and given us some evidence on, and a strategy against the proliferation of small arms and light weapons. Have we understood correctly why none of these strategies has been adopted as legally binding common strategies? May I illustrate the confusion perhaps just in my own mind, is this because, for example, the strategy for Africa is headed towards an AU/EU pact, and it is contingent on other people getting ownership of it? Could you comment? Mr Alexander: It is a more general point than the specific one you raise in terms of the Africa mission. The standard starting point in this area is to recognise that CFSP is often implemented through nonbinding instruments as a general position, and so to suggest that there has somehow been a specific decision not to use common strategies reflects, first of all, the area of work in which declaration statements have a significance in and of themselves. When I probed oYcials on this prior to the hearing today, and enquired as to on what basis we had seen a reduction in the number of common strategies with legal eVect, I came upon, and oYcials were helpful in providing me with, a statement from Javier Solana which is drawn from the EU’s external projection Improving the E Y ciency of our Collective Resources, which was a document produced back in 2000, in which the High Representative himself indicated that a thorough evaluation of such action, speaking specifically of common strategies, should follow before proceeding to table new common strategy proposals. To go back to 2000, there was a recommendation from Javier Solana himself that we should not actually be using, unless there was a fundamental review, the legally binding method of the common strategy. The Council conclusions of February 2001 saw that report by Javier Solana welcomed and the fact that there have been other instruments used rather than common strategies, in fact, therefore, reflects back both an initial report

Current Developments in European Foreign Policy

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support