The European army is being prepared” “” “

Yesterday, 24 October, in the course of the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, Elmar Brok presented, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Commission, the report on the progress made in the implementation of EU foreign policy and common security. The report affirms that the fight against terrorism must be a central element of this policy. To review the progress of European foreign policy and common security (PESC) and European security and defence policy (PESD) we interviewed Nicole Gnesotto , the French director of the Institute of Studies on Security of the Western European Union (WEU, see the fact file on the following page). What is the current situation of European security and defence policy and common security, especially in the light of the conclusions of the extraordinary Summit of 21 September? Can one speak of a “European model of defence”? “The war in the countries of the former Yugoslavia, and in particular the conflict in Kossovo, caused a real revolution in EU defence and security policy. From 1999 to the Nice Summit at the end of 2000, steps were taken to implement a European defence policy. It should be recalled, however, that this policy remains part of European foreign policy and common security. Since there has been no limitation of national sovereignty in the field of defence, we cannot therefore strictly speak of a European Union model. There exists only a European (continental) intergovernmental model that, with the end of the Cold War and after the terrorist attacks of 11 September, has been consolidated with strategies of reinforcement of the consensus between governments, based on means and capabilities always at the service of common foreign policy”. Without wishing to place alliances in question, do there exist aspects that may differentiate the position of the EU from that of the USA and NATO? “The terrorist attacks of 11 September delivered a shock that has led to forms of “instinctive” solidarity. The USA was directly struck, and is therefore leading the response. But Europe too was violated; we too feel ourselves more vulnerable today and this reinforces our feeling of solidarity. If you like, the Fifteen feel a sense of alignment precisely due to fear and the consciousness of being as vulnerable as America, or even more so, as testified by progress on issues of justice and internal affairs within the EU unthinkable until just a few weeks ago. But it would be mistaken to believe that Europe should be constructed on the basis of differentiation with America: the criterion of the EU is not difference with the USA. With regard to the Afghan problem, there are, however, important, though perhaps little visible, differences in nuance, that concern the long-term political management of the anti-terrorism campaign”. We are apparently heading towards specialized, independent armies that increasingly assume the role of an international police force. Are there risks for democratic control and respect for the will of the people? “I wouldn’t say that armies are becoming increasingly specialized. However, it’s true that since the time of the conflict in Yugoslavia the confines between army and international police forces have become blurred. Rather, what we are seeing is an extension of mandate, a fusion of roles between army and police that generates a symbiosis of tasks and responsibilities. As far as the democratic control of military action is concerned, in the countries of the EU that still remains the task of the national Parliaments. The fact that the defence policy is not yet a Community policy means that it is responsibilities alone, and not sovereignties, that are pooled. The question of the assignment to the European Parliament of competencies on matters of PESC and PESD will however be discussed during the preparatory work for the intergovernmental Conference in 2004”. Gian Andrea Garancini – Brussels