Monday, 5 June 2000
_________
The sitting was opened at 15.00 with Mr Bühler, President of the Assembly, in the Chair.
The PRESIDENT - The sitting is open.
The PRESIDENT - The names of the substitutes attending this sitting which have been notified to the President will be published with the list of representatives appended to the minutes of proceedings.
The PRESIDENT - In accordance with Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure, the minutes of proceedings of the previous sitting have been distributed.
Are there any comments on the minutes? ...
The minutes are adopted.
The PRESIDENT - In accordance with Rule 40.3 of the Rules of Procedure, I invite the Assembly to approve the proposed changes in membership of committees contained in Notice No. 2, which has already been distributed.
Are there any objections? ...
The changes are approved.
4. Communication about the assassination of Mr Jesús Maria Pedrosa
The PRESIDENT - I have received a communication from members of the Spanish Delegation about the assassination yesterday of Mr Jesús Maria Pedrosa.
I give the floor to Mr Martínez Casañ.
Mr MARTÍNEZ CASAÑ (Spain) - The Federated Group of Christian Democrats and European Democrats discussed this matter this morning and it has been discussed in the Socialist Group. Both groups support our proposal to take some measure in response to the brutal assassination by ETA of one of our local councillors. Our proposal is supported by many members of the Assembly from all political groups and of all nationalities. I propose to colleagues a text that I shall read out in French so that everyone can understand properly what we propose. We would like the support of the Assembly for the text.
(The speaker read the text in French) (Translation) -
"The Assembly,
Dismayed by the brutal assassination of the local councillor for Durango (Spain), Mr Jesús Maria Pedrosa, by ETA terrorists;
Outraged by this violent attack on a person's right to life, the most fundamental of human rights;
Convinced that in a free and democratic society, the assassination of a representative of the citizens has no justification whatsoever;
Alarmed by the fact that attitudes and actions such as these are unfortunately continuing to disrupt the peaceful way of life in our countries and pervert the fundamental values inherent in democracy by giving our young people the wrong message and thereby endangering democratic institutions,
1. Firmly condemns all terrorist activity and in particular the assassination of Mr Jesús Maria Pedrosa;
2. Expresses its condolences to the victim's family;
3. Supports the Spanish Government, democratic institutions, his colleges in the People's Party and Spanish society as a whole."
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Martínez Casañ. I think that the Assembly agrees with what you have read out. There are no objections. The Assembly will act accordingly.
I will now put the text to the vote.
The text was adopted unanimously.
(Motion for a resolution with a request for urgent procedure, Doc. 1702)
The PRESIDENT - I have received a request from Mr Behrendt and several of his colleagues for an urgent debate on the United States National Missile Defence programme. The motion for a resolution has been circulated as Document 1702.
Under Rule 44.2 of the Rules of Procedure, the Assembly will decide on this request at the end of today's sitting, after the votes on the reports by Mr Martínez Casañ and Mr de Puig.
(Resumed joint debate on the reports of the Political Committee, Doc. 1689 and amendments and Doc. 1690)
The PRESIDENT - The next order of the day is the resumed joint debate on the reports of the Political Committee, Document 1689 and amendments and Document 1690.
The next speaker is Mr Behrendt.
Mr BEHRENDT (Germany) (Translation) - May I first of all thank and congratulate the Rapporteurs for these two well-informed reports, which in my view give us an excellent basis for our debate and ensuing conclusions.
These reports highlight once again that Europe has reached a crossroads in the field of defence policy. The trouble is that it is not a straightforward T-junction but a roundabout with numerous exits. It is no longer enough to drive around the roundabout pointing out to each other that there are various exit options. The time has now come to decide which direction to take.
I am very grateful to our colleague Mr de Puig for having raised some very specific questions in his report. The following ones strike me as being particularly important: what role does Europe wish to play in the field of crisis management and crisis prevention? Will the WEU mutual assistance clause be transferred to the EU in the medium or long term by means of a protocol to the Treaty on European Union? Should geographic limits be set to European intervention in the event of a crisis? On what criteria should a decision to intervene in a conflict be based? And above all: which states will participate in the decision-making process and what will be the extent of that involvement?
I would like first of all to address the issue of Europe's future role. The intention is not to develop a European Security and Defence Policy in competition with NATO. I believe we all agree on that. However, the times in which conflicts with all their repercussions were confined to small geographic areas are over. To that extent I believe it would be a mistake to consider that Europe's focus on the continent of Europe in any way takes priority over the aim set out in Cologne of Europe playing its full role on the international stage. I think that the latter depends on the former.
This leads us to another decisive question: Where do the limits for European intervention in the security area lie? When we talk about crisis management in Europe, are we talking about the territory of the 41 member states of the Council of Europe or that of the 15 EU members? Or that of the EU members plus the candidate countries? Is any delimitation possible at all from the outset, or must the decision to intervene in a conflict be taken on a case-by-case basis? I take the view that some kind of geographic delimitation is necessary for autonomous intervention by the EU.
I also believe that sooner or later it will become essential to incorporate the mutual assistance obligation contained in Article V of the modified Brussels Treaty into a protocol to the Treaty on European Union, whereby the possibility for the states which are currently observers in WEU not to sign up to that protocol can and indeed must be guaranteed.
The German Foreign Affairs Minister a few weeks ago depicted a Europe in which some states with a stronger desire and capacity for integration should form a centre of gravity. At the same time he stressed the force of attraction and openness that this centre of gravity must have for the other states of the European Union. I think that such a scenario would also be feasible in the field of security and defence policy, whereby the 10 full members of WEU could possibly form a core of states committed to mutual assistance in accordance with Article V of the modified Brussels Treaty. All observers, associate members and associate partners should have the possibility of subscribing to that protocol.
In the Cologne, Helsinki and Oporto Declarations the references to the parliamentary dimension of the European Security and Defence Policy and to arrangements for participation by the associate countries are exceedingly vague. We have already discussed and deplored that state of affairs with particular reference to the Oporto Declaration. It is a welcome development that the EU has now stated its intention to draw up a multilateral agreement on such participation, particularly in view of the fact that the EU's interim bodies have existed since 1 March, while the scope of the associate countries' involvement has still not been clarified.
That hesitant attitude makes one wonder. Indeed, one might ask whether this delay in defining the practical arrangements for participation by the non-EU members in the ESDP denotes a reluctance to let them be closely involved. We should counter that by coming out clearly in support of participation by the associate members and associate partners. WEU's positive experience in the field of security cooperation in Europe shows that fears of the decision-making process being hindered by too large a number of participants are unfounded. This model should continue to guide us in the future. We should all strive to ensure that our ideas and practical experience are integrated in the future European Security and Defence Policy.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Blaauw.
Mr BLAAUW (Netherlands) (Translation) - Up until 1989 we lived in a rather compartmentalised world: East-West, NATO, WEU, European Parliament, where representation in the military field, in any case for the members of Western European Union, took place in this building, in this very Chamber. The North Atlantic Assembly did not, and still does not have, a legal basis in any treaty. We emanate from the modified Brussels Treaty. A lot has changed, as was rapidly realised. As fully emphasised by the two Rapporteurs in their introduction, there has been quite some considerable change in the composition of assemblies, in the approach to security policy, in our dealings with one another and with the transition to a new world order. Let us recall the arrival of Turkey, Iceland and Norway in 1991, and of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in 1999, and before them of course, all the other countries which are now part of the WEU family.
We have now reached a turning point. Following the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties and the many summit declarations made in the meantime, we find ourselves in a situation in which the institutions of Western European Union are being transferred to, taken over or usurped by the European Union. From the outset we in the WEU Assembly have had the impression that there might be problems along the way with the parliamentary dimension, even though there is no real parliamentary control. I can see the limits of the powers of this Assembly. Looking back over the events of the recent past, at the Lisbon Initiative and my subsequent talks with the European Parliament, I do not feel too happy. I asked how many countries would have parliamentary involvement in EP business relating to security and defence. The answer was clear: 15 countries, we 15 members of the EU. I then asked how things stood with all the other countries which up to now have had their say and indeed invested in European security. Once we have taken a decision, they can join us, was the answer given by the European Parliament committee. What this means is that they will organise it all and then the others can come along with a battalion or a company and naturally foot the bill. I have said this before, including in Lisbon: this is taxation without representation. We are trying to fill that gap with our various reports, the Lisbon Initiative and now the report by Mr de Puig. In particular the six countries which are members of NATO and are not yet members of the EU, and perhaps never wish to join it, must be able to preserve their position in any European security and defence platform, or whatever else one wishes to call it.
I agree with Mr de Puig when he says that there must be no differentiation among the different member states in a future European Security and Defence Assembly, giving different prerogatives to different members. All are all-field players. We cannot have a situation in which some get a bit of this, others get a bit of that, while the rest of us get it all. Hence we should move towards an assembly in which the member parliamentarians, notwithstanding the fact that they have somewhat different backgrounds because of the treaty situation, are able to talk to each other on an equal footing in order to give shape to the new European security architecture. That architecture needs to be considerably developed, not only in terms of continually trying to reach agreements on armaments procurements, but above all in terms of developing a philosophy for European security, which need not run counter to that of the North Atlantic Assembly.
My colleagues in that Assembly, which is now called the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, claim that our Assembly serves no purpose at all, since all countries that are members of our Assembly are also members of theirs. The NATO PA can adopt all the measures it likes, but it has a different position from ours as regards the modified Brussels Treaty and the European Union. It is a highly expert platform, but it has a different approach to the creation, development and fleshing-out of a European security architecture. That architecture does not have to diverge from the NATO security structures, but it must have a somewhat more open position, for example with regard to Ukraine and the Russian Federation, notwithstanding all the questions we currently have with regard to the latter, since we do not know in which direction it is heading.
Mr President, in your opening address you said: no revolution. If parliamentarians or delegated representatives had not risen up at the end of the 18th century, the Bastille would never have been taken. I believe that we must persevere with our approach. The Nice Intergovernmental Conference lies ahead of us. The European Parliament has put all its demands on the table, but not all its demands will be met. I think this is an area in which the demands will not be met. In the meeting we had with the Permanent Representatives, various Ambassadors stated clearly that security and defence policy is a matter of national sovereignty. So let us as an Assembly be the link. I think that with our background in the national parliaments we hold the best cards. I hope that the different governments will listen carefully to what is being said here and that they will fall in with this movement. Perhaps not 100%, but whatever happens the current members of the WEU family must not end up with less than they have now. Not only that, you will have grasped from my comments that I want take things even further, so that we can play a full part in the creation and development of the new European security architecture, which must have clearly defined and cordial relations with NATO.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Maass.
Mr MAASS (Germany) (Translation) - I would like to thank the two Rapporteurs whose reports today make it clear that we not only have had the courage to raise a whole series of questions, but that we also have some answers.
With regard to the previous speaker, may I say that it is not just a matter of self-esteem when we say with regard to the work we've been doing for the past 35 years: "Friends, this is not something we can give away at cut-price". We must clearly state our ideas on how to build a bridge between the national parliaments and the EU. Let me briefly dwell on a number of points which in my view are necessary for us to take a step forward, rather than moving backwards.
First point: I take the view that the parliamentary scrutiny of the whole process must be guaranteed in the future. We must develop a political view of the way in which Article V of the modified Brussels Treaty sets out the commitment to a collective defence. We must not allow any problems to arise in the transitional phase which might call into question the work within the Alliance. Moreover efforts are required - we must bring our influence to bear here - to ensure that there is meaningful cooperation between the EU and NATO when it comes to carrying out the functions transferred from WEU.
Second point: National parliaments are of course giving thought during this restructuring phase to the need for considerable savings. Restructuring generally calls for more money. Just look in your own parliaments at how the cuts are being made!
Third point: The usefulness of our work must be made obvious. We simply cannot let the participation rights of our associate members and partners be curtailed. Any falling short of the status quo would be a step backwards.
Finally, allow me to make a brief personal comment. It is up to us to send out the right signals. I am not very keen on the term "interim". Neither am I fond of the notion of a "rump" or "residual" WEU. I believe we have a sufficient sense of our own worth to clearly formulate our demands and to get them accepted. I wish us all luck.
The PRESIDENT - The next speaker is Mr Pastusiak.
Mr PASTUSIAK (Poland, associate member) - I congratulate the three Rapporteurs on raising in their reports the most topical issues for the future functioning of the European security system.
We often say, and we often hear, that post-cold war Europe is a different Europe; that it is a Europe which has overcome divisions and which is cooperating, integrating and unifying. It was supposed to be a Europe with full rights and obligations for every country, particularly in the areas of defence and security.
We speak about the European security architecture, as suggested by the title of the report submitted by Mr Martínez Casañ and Mr Adamczyck. Everybody knows that any architectural structure is solid provided that all the elements in that structure are solid and fit well into the whole construction. However, that obvious principle does not seem to be applied in the construction of the new European security architecture by the European Union.
When, in 1991, WEU associate membership status was created, it was clearly stated that it would give associate members the possibility "of participating fully" - I repeat that - "fully" in the activities of WEU. When certain WEU structures are transferred to the EU, it is important that all the acquis which the associate members enjoy within WEU should also be maintained within EU defence structures. However, the Cologne and Helsinki decisions, as the report of Mr Martínez Casañ and Mr Adamczyck states, have left vague matters such as the participation of associate members in EU decisions and actions.
In February this year, a colloquy in Oslo was specifically devoted to the issue that is the subject of this debate - safeguarding the role of the WEU associate members in the European Security and Defence Policy.
In the final declaration issued in Oslo, the heads of six associate delegations, including myself, put forward those requirements that are essential to the new security architecture. We stressed three elements. First, we said that the European Security and Defence Policy has to be conducted in a way that ensures full transparency for the setting-up of the new security bodies and their future work. The efforts and activities of the European Security and Defence Policy have to be inclusive, so that all non-EU European allies can fully participate in the planning, decision-shaping and decision-making for future Petersberg operations of the EU.
Secondly, we Europeans must ensure that the transatlantic link remains the cornerstone of peace and stability in Europe. The North Atlantic Alliance will continue to be the bedrock of collective security in Europe. Consequently, all commitments in the field of Petersberg tasks must be strictly separated from any collective defence obligation.
Thirdly, the new European security structures must be subject to a continued democratic scrutiny that is based on the sovereign rights of national parliaments. Such democratic scrutiny must also reflect full participation by the associate member countries.
In conclusion, I express the support of the Polish Delegation for the recommendations submitted in both reports.
The PRESIDENT - The next speaker is Mr Taylor.
Mr TAYLOR (United Kingdom) - European security and defence policy is in a state of confusion and disarray. It is not understood by many politicians, and certainly not by the public. Decisions so far have been inconclusive. I congratulate the three Rapporteurs on their excellent reports. Document 1690 is a rearguard action to remove doubts about the role of WEU associate members.
The whole background to this debate - one of the most important debates for decades on the security and defence of Europe - has been the European desire to make a contribution to security and defence which is not dependent or reliant on the United States of America. That objective was given an impetus by the Saint Malo Franco-British summit in 1998, referred to in paragraph 19 of the report. That summit provided the impetus for the end of WEU as an institution, and I am afraid to say that we, as an assembly, have acted in collusion with the demise of WEU.
That was further emphasised this week by the decision of the Presidency of WEU not to send a senior politician to address the Assembly.
Paragraph 35 of the report emphasises the important role of associate members: "At present the associate members not only take part in operations but also in drawing up WEU's defence policy". The next paragraph states that "the European Union's intention is not to guarantee to preserve WEU associate members' existing rights". That in turn will inevitably lead to the "loss of part of their present entitlement and, more important still, to a de facto division of Europe into several "classes" of country, leading to a decrease, rather than an increase in the security of our continent."
In other words, we are approving a system that reduces countries such as Norway and Turkey to second-class status.
Paragraph 40 states that the EU will maintain the autonomy of decision-making: "appropriate arrangements will be defined that would allow, while respecting the Union's decision-making autonomy, non-EU European NATO members and other interested states to contribute to EU military crisis management". That means that the EU will make the decisions and other countries not involved in making the decisions will then be invited to make a contribution to their implementation.
Paragraph 42 underlines the limited role of non-EU European NATO members: "Upon a decision by the Council to launch an operation, the non-EU European NATO members will participate if they so wish". So the decision by the EU, including five neutral nations that may not contribute to its implementation, would appear a contradiction of what is required. Associate members will then be invited to implement policy decisions even though they have not been involved in making those decisions. Then, excluding countries that are members of NATO but not members of the EU, the EU will decide when to bring an operation to an end.
The whole thing is unreal. It would have been better if we had strengthened and enhanced WEU as the European arm of NATO. That would have prevented the current confusion. We in this Assembly should have been much more robust about defending WEU and our Assembly.
The PRESIDENT - The next speaker is Mr Pálsson.
Mr PÁLSSON (Iceland, associate member) - I begin by thanking the Rapporteurs for their excellent reports. Iceland has consistently and constructively supported the development of ESDI within NATO and the aspirations of the EU member states regarding the development of the ESDP. Increased European initiative and a capability for enhanced European security are the common goals of both endeavours, which we all welcome.
The ambition of the EU member states to develop an autonomous capability in European security and defence will affect all our countries. That is one reason why Iceland and other non-EU European allies have a fundamental and legitimate interest in being involved at every stage in the design as well as the execution of the new European security architecture.
Another important element of the new ESDP is a strong parliamentary dimension as part of WEU's legacy. By transforming the WEU Assembly into a European Security and Defence Assembly, parliamentary experience from the sole European treaty-based assembly for security and defence questions will be carried forward.
I call on the governments of the 15 EU member states to confirm the legal and material basis for the new assembly as the parliamentary dimension of the ESDP. Building on the WEU European family of 28, the European Security and Defence Assembly could gradually develop into a genuinely pan-European assembly of national parliamentarians promoting peace and stability throughout the continent.
The WEU Assembly has been a devoted ally of the associate member states in the development of a more independent European security and defence capability. Time and again the Assembly has passed recommendations stressing the necessity of preserving, if not the enforcing, the involvement of current associate members, most recently at our special session in Lisbon last March.
Both draft recommendations are no exception to this fine tradition, emphasising as they do the need to secure for non-EU European NATO allies participation rights at least comparable with their current rights.
I express my support for the draft recommendations and extend my gratitude and compliments to the distinguished Rapporteurs for a job well done.
The PRESIDENT - I now call Mr Gürkan.
Mr GÜRKAN (Turkey, associate member) - I thank both Rapporteurs for their thought-provoking speeches on the new European security architecture and the place of WEU associate members in that structure. I support the draft recommendations prepared on that subject. The rights and responsibilities of non-EU NATO members in any future structure of the EU are of the utmost importance to the Turkish Parliament.
In that regard, the WEU Parliamentary Assembly has proved to be a useful and productive institution to deal with European security and defence matters. However, as far as I am aware, the new cooperation scheme to be established within the European Union will replace the inclusive participatory framework that exists in WEU with parallel but distinct structures between EU member countries and third states. That change will affect participatory rights that have been gained over a decade of full cooperation. Furthermore, it would bring with it many questions: for example, how non-EU NATO members would be linked to the Common European Security and Defence Policy, and even how the EU would be linked to NATO.
Basically, non-NATO EU members should not have more rights and a better status than non-EU NATO allies. If non-NATO EU members "participate" in NATO affairs, the same should apply to non-EU NATO members. If non-EU NATO members are involved in EU affairs, non-NATO EU members should also be involved.
In particular, in comparison with non-NATO, non-EU candidate nations, non-EU NATO nations deserve greater rights and more privileges because of their acquis and their contribution to the present European security arrangements. Furthermore, where do we put countries such as Malta and southern Cyprus, which are not even part of the Partnership for Peace?
I would also draw the Assembly's attention to the shortcomings of the parliamentary dimension of the new European security architecture. At the moment, the only link between NATO and the EU is informal contacts between the two Secretaries-General. That is one of the most important issues and it needs to be resolved as soon as possible if we are really serious about parliamentary scrutiny of security matters and defence affairs.
EU partners must do more and do it better. They should take into account the basic considerations and thus take steps to accommodate better the interests of non-EU NATO members.
Turkey is seeking to ensure that its responsibilities and the role that we are assuming nationally and as an ally in European security and defence are fully recognised and to translate those into workable and acceptable participation parameters within the European Union.
I hope that the European acquis that we have developed in WEU over the past decade will not be forsaken solely for institutional reasons. If that were to be the case, the new initiative would not contribute to the reinforcement of stability in our continent.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Saglam.
Mr SAGLAM (Turkey, associate member) - I should like to thank almost all those who spoke this morning. Almost all of them, including you, Mr President, supported the rights of associate members of WEU.
I thank the three Rapporteurs, Mr Martínez Casañ, Mr Adamczyk and Mr de Puig for the important contributions they made to the ongoing discussion of the new European security architecture and the place of WEU associate members in that structure. I want to express my support for the draft recommendations on the subject.
The rights and responsibilities of non-EU European allies in the future structure of the EU are matters of the utmost importance for us. In particular, on the parliamentary dimension, as highlighted in the comprehensive report prepared by Mr Behrendt and approved unanimously at our session in Lisbon, democratic scrutiny could best be achieved by an institutional body composed of national parliamentarians. As parliamentarians, we have to support the idea behind the existing system. Necessary, inclusive, transparent and satisfactory arrangements still have to be made for the participation of non-EU European NATO allies - WEU associate members - and WEU partners in European security and defence. Therefore, the preservation of this treaty-based Assembly, which is composed of national parliamentarians and represents all European countries, would be the most appropriate solution to ensure democratic scrutiny of ESDI and the ESDP.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Kanerva.
Mr KANERVA (Finland, observer) - First of all, I should like to thank you for your extremely good address, Mr President, and I also thank speakers this morning for their analytical contributions and the Rapporteurs for their excellent reports.
At the special session in Lisbon, this Assembly decided to transform WEU into an interim European Security and Defence Assembly with responsibility for monitoring the development of the Common European Security and Defence Policy within the European Union. The EU has already taken the first measures to implement that policy, based on decisions taken by the European Council in Cologne and Helsinki. All the essential implications for the Parliamentary Assembly of WEU were analysed in an excellent report, which was adopted by the Assembly in Lisbon. The good work has continued with the report that we are debating.
I would like to comment in particular on the parliamentary dimension of the Common European Security and Defence Policy. Our discussions in the Parliamentary Assembly have not so far focused very much on the parliamentary control exercised by national parliaments in the countries concerned. This is without doubt the most direct channel for parliamentarians to influence the decision-making process. In Finland, we are pleased with the way in which our parliament can follow and take part in the EU process. Therefore, it is also a question of how to organise national security scrutiny and debate in every country. On a national level, we are already in a good position in Finland. In making decisions on the foreign and security policy of the EU, the foreign affairs committee of our parliament has the clear right to receive advance information and to express the views of the parliament.
EU decision-making is a complex procedure involving several actors on both the European and the national level. Involving national parliaments as much as possible in the scrutiny of the EU process increases democratic influence. When final decisions are made on the new framework, it is important to bear that aspect of parliamentary scrutiny in mind.
In the new situation, the WEU Council retains full responsibility for meeting the obligations that arise from the Brussels Treaty, even if responsibility for Petersberg tasks is transferred to the European Union. Therefore, it is logical for the Assembly to continue to exercise its treaty-based responsibilities as long as those obligations remain in force. That was confirmed in the discussion that took place in the WEU Council a few weeks ago. It remains to be seen whether the political will exists to accept the new European security and defence architecture as part of the formal structure of the EU.
As, to a large degree, the member countries of the EU and WEU are the same, coordination of positions on this issue should not be too difficult. Unfortunately, we still do not have a clear picture of what the governments will decide or in what direction parliaments will influence them. However, Finland - with its current observer status - will take an active interest in how parliamentary scrutiny of security and defence policy is organised not only at European level but at national level to make sure that national parliaments retain their opportunities to oversee and influence the process both separately and in conjunction with other nations.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Malat.
Mr MALAT (Czech Republic, associate member) - Let me first thank Mr Taylor from the United Kingdom and members of other EU countries for what they have said about the role of our country as an associate member and the benefit this brings us.
I want to make some brief remarks on the role of all - I underline all - associate member countries in the new security and defence architecture, as referred to in recital (i) of the preamble to the draft recommendation to the WEU Council. There are a number of issues to be addressed, such as democratic scrutiny and relations between the EU and NATO. There are also a number areas of concern, such as the role of associate members and the role of the residual WEU.
I am convinced that this role cannot be fulfilled successfully without the right for all - again, I underline all - associate member countries to be members of the various institutions, especially the Western European Armaments Organisation and similar bodies.
As far as I know, the attitude of WEAO to the three former communist countries that are associate members - the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland - differs from its attitude to three other countries, which are neutral - Austria, Finland and Sweden. Strictly speaking - excuse me for being so strict - we fear that we are being treated less well. Therefore, it is a pity that the Assembly's recommendations to the Council are not more concrete in the sense of recommending full membership of the armaments institutions for the non-EU associate member countries.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Yañez Barnuevo.
Mr YAÑEZ BARNUEVO (Spain) (Translation) - I would like, first, to add my own thanks to Mr de Puig and Mr Martínez Casañ for their enlightening reports on a subject which is vitally important for European security and defence and hence for the future of WEU and this Assembly. I have also noted the comments of the speakers before me, many of whom represent the parliaments of associate member, associate partner or observer countries, and their views are greatly to be welcomed by those of us who represent the parliaments of member states of the European Union.
It is less than a year now since I joined this parliamentary Assembly of Western European Union and these topics of transition, evolution, the future of WEU, and hence the question of European security and defence and its parliamentary scrutiny, have been the subject of debate, discussion and proposals from this Assembly to the Council of Ministers since well before I became involved, and yet there is confusion due to the complexity of the issues which we are trying to resolve.
But I think we must not lose sight of the basic aim that has drawn us here and which should draw any European with an interest in an effective security and defence policy, in terms either of collective security or crisis management. That is that efficiency, quality and the guarantees offered under such a security and defence policy must be paramount. Other issues although secondary, are also important - for example those pertaining to a wider Europe, not just the narrower Europe of the European Union, important though that is. Thirdly, in regard to countries that today fortunately have their freedom, and systems based on the sovereignty of the people and human rights, democratic scrutiny must be preserved by hook or by crook. I feel that the recommendations the reports submitted to us have achieved are on the right lines and represent a new way forward.
I believe, firstly, that we must not fail to take advantage of or underrate the experience of the institutions and individuals that have made a contribution to the progress of European security and defence over the last 30 years, and first and foremost WEU, which was and continues to be the defence institution with expertise in such matters.
Secondly, I feel we should look seriously at the European Union's idea that this process should include another 20 countries that are not yet EU members, for whom we need to find imaginative arrangements - the shape of which is just beginning to emerge.
Lastly, I feel that democratic scrutiny is exercised by parliaments on behalf of their peoples, that the public should be widely informed about what is going on and that basically the Treaties will need to be reworked or amended to allow national parliaments and the European Parliament itself to play their part. I think it is important for the European Parliament to do so - and the new European Security and Defence Assembly. Paragraph 3 of the recommendation proper in Mr de Puig's report contains a most ingenious formula whereby a Consultative Council for the CESDP of the European Union signs a protocol, to be annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the effect that a European Security and Defence Assembly made up of representatives of the 15 European Union member parliaments and the 15 parliaments of the EU applicant states and non-EU NATO member states, and the European Parliament or representatives thereof, receives an annual report of those activities under the CFSP which have defence implications.
This then, I believe, is the way forward - the direction, in which we must go. There are still many obstacles to be overcome but I believe that light is appearing, I will not say at the end of the tunnel, because it has not been quite that, but certainly through an amount of procedural fog which we are now managing to dispel, to the benefit, and here I come back to my original thought, of sound, efficient European security and defence.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Eyskens.
Mr EYSKENS (Belgium) (Translation) - I in turn would like to pay a tribute to the Rapporteurs Mr de Puig and Mr Martínez Casañ. In this particularly important debate on the future of our institutions, we must adopt a constructive approach. First of all we must under no circumstances create the impression that the continued existence of our institutions is an end in itself. Moaning and groaning that nobody understands us will get us nowhere at all. It is just a waste of time. Neither must we head for a collision with the European Union and the European Parliament, because I fear that we would get the worse end of the stick. No, our constructive attitude must consist in saying that our institution, and this Assembly in particular, is complementary, and is becoming increasingly more so, that it is specific and therefore irreplaceable in the future.
What does the future hold in store? Europe's future is one of enlargement. In the future, time the EU will number 28, 30 or 32 members. At the same time it is to be deepened, otherwise it will be diluted. The deepening is to be brought about by a process of concentric circles and variable geometry. It is precisely in this architecture with its concentric circles and variable geometry that Western European Union must find its specific and complementary place. It is there that we have our future place. We must make the most of that in the forthcoming debate. Moreover we should concern ourselves more as an institution with security policy and less with military defence policy. This is something we must give thought to. It is obvious that as Europe - the EU - develops its defence identity, and as defence questions are transferred to the EU, we as an Assembly of 28 countries must deal more with security policy than with defence policy proper. Within NATO there is an absolute need for a European defence pillar. That European pillar does not consist solely of EU member states, but also of a number of countries which are not - or not yet - members of the EU. Western European Union is precisely the appropriate structure for that European pillar.
Mr de Puig said something very important this morning. He was referring to the rumour that the development of a European defence identity will cause the US to distance itself from Europe. Just like him, I am opposed to that. Therefore we must strive for a certain Euro-Atlanticism, but that can only be brought about by Western European Union, much more than the EU. Mr President, you were so kind this morning as to pay tribute to an eminent Belgian diplomat, Ambassador Cahen, the one-time Secretary-General of this institution who launched the doctrine that bears his name. Perhaps the Cahen doctrine has once again become significant and relevant. That is a matter we must also give thought to.
My last comment concerns Russia. The security of Europe, both today's small Europe and the pan-European area of tomorrow, depends quite naturally on good relations with Russia. However, this does not mean that we must adopt a low profile and put up with just any whims from any country. Russia has a new President who I believe is an excellent chess player. Many things are possible with Mr Putin. I don't go in for political science fiction, but what, ladies and gentlemen, if the Russian President should one day propose that his country become a member of NATO? What would we say then? This is pure speculation, a purely hypothetical exercise, but just supposing that there was question of a totally new situation developing. In that case the old WEU, if it still more or less existed, could be of great use for building a new security architecture in what would then be a truly greater Europe.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Roseta.
Mr ROSETA (Portugal) (Translation) - Let me begin by congratulating the Rapporteurs, Mr de Puig, Mr Martínez Casañ and Mr Adamczyk, for their most interesting and topical reports, as I am sure we all agree.
The discussions in the Political Committee went into them in depth and, as you know, the proposals they contain were approved unanimously, the Rapporteurs having agreed amendments to the draft recommendations which improved them radically.
On the subject of including certain functions of WEU in the European Union, I should like to make the following observations: it is very important that parliamentary scrutiny should be maintained over all those areas that are to be transferred. Although the European Parliament clearly can have oversight of those functions that are to be included in the European Union, such as the Petersberg missions, it is unthinkable that it should do so with regard to responsibilities that remain with WEU or fall within the purview of national parliaments. In relation to WEU I am thinking primarily of the mutual defence guarantee under Article V of the modified Brussels Treaty and all the other matters relating to maintaining the Article V guarantee.
The Council and our Assembly will continue in being, under one name or another, and will be required to discharge their responsibilities for as long as the Treaty remains in force. Moreover, I cannot see how it could be otherwise. Under international law, the Treaty could only be amended in line with its own provisions and the wishes of the national parliaments. It could not happen as a result of decisions taken at summit meetings - however laudable these were and no matter how much consensus they attracted. Nor could the status quo be altered through ministerial meetings. Were this the case, democracy and the rule of law, which we ourselves stand for, would no longer apply, which as far as I can see would be as unacceptable as it is unthinkable.
Our Assembly is and will continue to form a vital part of the total European security and defence edifice - or architecture as it is usually referred to. Furthermore it stands as guarantor for closer involvement on the part of national parliaments in providing scrutiny over a common defence policy. As we are all aware, it is the national parliaments that have the duty, indeed on whom the onus falls, of approving and overseeing the implementation of defence budgets, which is a major responsibility falling within their remit. Consequently their role cannot be called into question. And it is through our own Assembly, made up of the delegates of national parliaments, that that role is strengthened and enhanced.
Thus security and defence Europe must necessarily have a composite parliamentary dimension made up of the national parliaments, the European Parliament and the WEU Assembly. This Assembly of ours has been an effective institution to date, one that has been productive, stimulating, creative and innovative, which gave impetus to the Council and the member governments. Many innovative initiatives are attributable to it which need to be preserved and developed further and although I do not propose to refer to all those that have marked our Organisation's history, especially those of recent date, I shall mention some of them.
One has been cooperation and the pivotal role played by the Organisation between the European Union and NATO. Maintaining Europe's transatlantic links is essential and this is the position taken by virtually all our colleagues as well as being my own and that of my country as regards that vital relationship.
NATO's continuing importance for the security and defence of such a significant part of the world, consisting essentially of Europe, although extending beyond its borders, is something that must not be forgotten or called into question; nor can one overlook initiatives taken by WEU in other areas which have received less attention here today, although one of them at least is mentioned in Mr de Puig's report.
The security dialogue with the southern and eastern Mediterranean countries has been a very productive and interesting process evaluated in successive reports to this Assembly. I should like to mention the reports by Mr Martínez, Mr de Lipkowski and others - indeed I too had the honour of submitting a report on this subject - which were very influential in persuading the Council to pursue the dialogue with the southern and eastern Mediterranean countries in relation, naturally, to security issues, alongside those being conducted in other fora in relation to economic and social issues and the environment. I should therefore like to call to mind the recommendations on security in other parts of the world, especially sub-Saharan Africa still riven with strife, that European countries must take note of and initiate and support action, through the United Nations, the OAU or other bodies. There can be no security for Europe without good relations with the Mediterranean countries and sub-Saharan Africa and these should encompass human rights, democracy and security in addition, of course, to economic and social issues.
One area in which our Assembly has been very innovative indeed and which has been widely discussed today is the way in which it has thrown open its doors to the associate member, associate partner and observer countries. This has been such a positive and worthwhile experience for all of us that there is no way that it can be allowed to disappear. It was an unprecedented historic initiative. Rarely does an assembly have the courage to promote the common good and universal peace by opening its doors and offering voting rights to countries other than member states.
I do not want to make extravagant comparisons, but there have really been very few precedents - although I am fully aware that those of us here are not really authorities on the subject. In the first century AD, the Roman Senate for the first time admitted senators from the provinces who were not citizens of Rome: from Gaul first, then from Hispania, north Africa and Asia (modern-day Turkey). Since then, in short, there have been few instances until the present one.
This aspect of our Assembly's experience has been truly innovative and consequently I am in full agreement with the recommendation we are about to vote on. Participation rights for European non-NATO or non-EU countries at least equivalent to those they enjoyed in the WEU Assembly is a demand which is non-negotiable. Their loss would be incalculable and I want to assure my counterparts from those countries that I and my Portuguese colleagues will certainly fight to ensure that those rights to participate always and everywhere hold good both in the bodies that take the decisions and for missions, and this also applies to activities that are transferred to the European Union.
I shall save my views on the Lisbon Initiative for the debate we are to hold on the subject during the week.
For the time being, as a provisional conclusion of sorts, I want to mention, as the previous speaker has just done, that this is not a matter of our own collective survival or that of our Assembly. We have a major task ahead of us, but what matters is that we stand up for cooperation, with the shared aim of promoting our system of values based on freedom, peace and security and democracy. It should be remembered that this was the reason why WEU was set up in the first place, this was why it mattered, and was supported by all the associate countries - because of the major step it represented in building a security and defence Europe. It is still essential to that process and the survival of those values, which are universal and immutable, demands that our Assembly, and the national parliaments, should in future take part and lend full support to the development of the CFSP. For only by going down that road, setting aside all vestiges of national or collective self-interest, can we ensure that future decisions will continue to have the wide democratic legitimacy they require for them to be as effective as we all wish them to be.
The PRESIDENT - The next speaker is Mr Marthinsen.
Mr MARTHINSEN (Norway, associate member) - First, let me express the positive feelings that we Norwegians have about the two reports. Of course, we fully support what was said by the two Rapporteurs concerning the associate members and the new European security architecture.
We know for certain that we cannot demand to be recognised and treated by the EU as if we were members. Nevertheless, dare we focus on Norwegian participation in European defence and in peacekeeping and peace-making tasks in different parts of the world since the last world war? I think we have proved that we are trustworthy and do not desert friends at crucial times. We are not thinking of abandoning our obligations to NATO nor to our friends in Europe.
Therefore, when Europe thinks in future in peacekeeping and peace-making terms, it will be wise to include Norway, allowing us to play our part to the best of our ability. We are willing to be as constructive a participant in the future as we have been in the past, but, of course, it is not easy to participate fully if we are not given the chance to be heard and taken seriously in the building of the new structures and the inclusion of WEU in the EU. We ask only for the same possibilities in the future as we have today.
I also underline the importance of and need for democratic scrutiny in the organisation to come. We Norwegians fully support the views and perspectives on that matter presented by Mr de Puig and Mr Martínez Casañ, and in previous papers and reports to the Assembly.
I conclude by expressing great satisfaction with the open and inclusive attitude towards associate members demonstrated in many of the speeches in this Assembly both today and in the past. May we succeed in our efforts to secure the various important points in the future security architecture.
The PRESIDENT - The next speaker is Mrs Kalantzakou.
Mrs KALANTZAKOU (Greece ) - We listened carefully to the reports of our distinguished colleagues this morning, and we completely agree with the key conclusion concerning the important role of associate members in the ongoing work of WEU, as well as their valuable contribution to security and stability in Europe.
We all share the belief that WEU has been developed as an organisation in which a constructive dialogue has been promoted by all the member states. Ten full members, that are also members of NATO and the EU, six European allies that are not members of the EU, five members of the EU, of which four are non-members of NATO, and seven eastern European countries have been meeting regularly, exchanging their views and experience.
This great achievement must be safeguarded, regardless of any possible institutional changes. Great importance must also be ascribed to WEU's relations with third countries. In that context, I must stress that the objections raised by our Turkish colleague in respect of Cyprus are wholly unacceptable, not just to my country but to the international community, including the EU, with which Cyprus is negotiating membership. We strongly support that procedure with all our European partners.
Following the decisions taken by the European Council at Cologne and Helsinki, the EU is facing new challenges: to create the necessary means to assume its responsibilities as regards a Common European Security and Defence Policy. The first steps by the interim bodies- the interim Political and Security Committee and the interim Military Body - are crucial to the future of the whole effort, and should be based on a stable constitutional framework in which decision-making procedures are clear. Moreover, the decisions taken at Cologne and Helsinki, as well as the relevant NATO decisions in Washington, highlight the way ahead and the need to include all European countries in constructing the European Security and Defence Identity.
(The speaker continued in Greek) (Translation) - In taking a series of important decisions our Assembly has recorded its satisfaction with the progress the development of the common security and defence policy in the framework of the European Union does indeed represent. However, at the same time it voiced all of our concern over the vacuum that appears to surround the future exercise of effective democratic scrutiny on the part of elected representatives of the Union member states and from national parliaments.
The national governments of the member states of the Union have not yet addressed this extremely significant difficulty. The form of democratic scrutiny exercised to date by the WEU Assembly on the basis of Article IX of the modified Brussels Treaty seems unable to cover European security and defence aspects as effectively in future, while the European Parliament's competences in that area remain extremely limited.
The decision taken by our Assembly in Lisbon, last March, was the very expression of that unease and underlines the need for a radical and urgent review of the entire issue. Deep-seated change in the European Union, the transfer of essential crisis-management functions from Western European Union to the European Union. The crucial discussions at the Intergovernmental Conference justify our vigilance and involvement, in fact make them necessary.
WEU's contribution, and that of our Assembly, to the advancement of European security and defence is an established fact. For that reason, we insist that the utmost be done, by the WEU Council too, to ensure these considerable achievements are used to greatest advantage in the European Union. Our effort should be a common one, undertaken in full knowledge of the facts and with a calm and collected mind, while acknowledging the profound differences that characterise the political and institutional dimensions of the European Union and WEU.
Lastly I should like to point out that, notwithstanding WEU's political experience, a number of gaps and deficiencies have prevented our Organisation from playing a more important part in crisis management. Without wanting to enter into a long debate on this point - is one that we shall, I hope, have at a future session of this Assembly - I believe that as far as new structures go we must avoid any solution not able to guarantee of effective and utterly reliable decision-making procedures, based on a sound legal status.
The PRESIDENT- The last speaker in the debate is Mr Tepelea.
Mr TEPELEA (Romania) (associate partner) (Translation) - I represent an associate partner, Romania. I should like to share with you some of my thoughts about the role of these associate partners. I followed with great interest the arguments put forward by Mr Bühler in Le Figaro and listened carefully to the case Mr de Puig and Mr Martínez Casañ have made for maintaining the role of the associate members and associate partners.
The enlargement of Europe to include a military dimension and the strengthening of the Torrejón Satellite Centre and the Institute for Security Studies speak for Western European Union and its contribution.
As Mr Martínez Casañ said, the main question is whether we want collective security or limited security. If the associate countries are left out, it will mean limited security. In our view, therefore, Article V on mutual assistance must be maintained because the associate countries will be exposed to reprisals if they participate in humanitarian and police operations. So I consider that those countries have a right to protection and assistance.
I should like to add some further points to the legal discussions that have taken place, notably in Brussels and Petersberg, on some articles of the Treaty. The associate countries will feel a sense of frustration if they are obliged to give up certain rights they enjoy within the framework of WEU. Won't this loss of rights lead to reservations about the European institutions? Won't the parties advocating closer rapprochement with the European institutions lose influence among the electorate? Thus, in Romania, where we are currently in the throes of elections, what am I to say to my constituents, who know we have made military and economic sacrifices in participating in the blockade on the Danube, if our country loses its rights and status vis-à-vis the European institutions as a result?
That is one point we need to consider.
Clearly, acquired rights must be taken into account in the construction of Europe. An open breach must be avoided, as it would be damaging if these acquired rights and the contribution made by certain countries in the category I have just mentioned were not taken into account.
Lastly, it is essential to consider the political dimension in discussions with other parliamentary colleagues in the European Union and in all future debates. Wherever considerations of European unity, mutual assistance and economic and military aid have been neglected or delayed, nostalgia for extremism gains ground. We are here to safeguard the peace, freedom and well-being of our peoples.
The PRESIDENT - The debate is closed.
I call the Rapporteur to reply to speakers on the first report, Document 1689.
Mr de PUIG (Spain) (Translation) - I should like, first of all, to thank all those who have taken part in the debate. Their contributions have enriched the discussion, substantially in some cases, and our draft recommendations may be the better for them. I note that most of the fears expressed were concerned, first, with the future role of the associate partners, second, with the new European defence structure's future relations with NATO and, third and last - a point raised by most of you - the continuity of the Assembly, the parliamentary dimension, and WEU as a whole.
Allow me to emphasise that I share the general view expressed by speakers. As Mr Eyskens said, we are in confusion and must avoid becoming lost in it.
We must realise that we are caught up in a process that ebbs and flows. A great debate is under way in our governments and our national parliaments. There are differences of opinion within the European Union, within WEU, and throughout Europe. We cannot demand, straightaway, solutions that will be chosen only after numerous debates, after agreements to be reached and decisions to be taken to that end.
In this connection, I fully agree with Mr Eyskens when he says we must be constructive. Despite our concern, which must be expressed, and our disappointment over decisions that might not suit us, we must continue to be constructive. Any other attitude would be disastrous. We cannot afford confrontation, either with our governments or with the European Union. So we may not be pleased with the decisions that have been taken, but we must accept them and go on making constructive proposals.
Mr Behrendt asked me for my views on the future of crisis prevention and the management of WEU. We shall see what remains of WEU when the process has run its course. I think it will keep some of its powers and we, as WEU, will continue to deploy our efforts in the area of crisis management.
I entirely agree with Mr Eyskens when he says that WEU must be concerned above all with security. What does crisis prevention actually mean? It means security policy, not defence or crisis-management policy. We may need to make an effort to ensure that we have the deterrent capability to prevent crises and the political authority to sanction preventive action, in other words a genuine security policy. That means we must have articulate policies, not only on security but also on defence. And WEU, in its new form, will have to consider this matter in addition, I repeat, to crisis management or military policy proper, which will also have to be addressed.
On the role of the associate members or associate partners, I refer you to Mr Martínez Casañ. I would like the European Union to have a certain vision of the future in this area. I ask the European Union, governments, the Council and the Secretary-General not to get bogged down in institutional problems. In this connection, Mr Eyskens has reminded us that in a few years' time the European Union will comprise 25, 28, perhaps 30 countries. We ought to consider the process of constructing our defence with that prospect in mind. The European Union will not always consist of 15 countries. It is absolutely essential that the new structure include today's twenty-eight WEU countries and all the other countries that will inevitably join the European Union in the course of time. I must emphasise that it would be a mistake, it would be absurd, to exclude the associate members. It would be stupid not to treat those countries properly, not only on their account but also with regard to NATO and our relations with the United States. Remember the fears Madeleine Albright expressed about the development of a European defence structure and the need to keep the members of NATO. If we do not give the associate countries their due, it may well cause problems both for NATO and for our American friends.
On the subject of the associate partners, while it is true that associate members also belong to NATO, one of you noted that we were really talking about associates in general. That is a fact and a decision will have to be taken in this connection. But our intention, the parliamentary Assembly's intention, has always been to treat associate partners in the same way as associate members.
On the subject of NATO, as I said this morning, I hope common sense will prevail and that we shall have good relations with that institution too when the present process has been completed. Any other outcome would be mad and, to me, incomprehensible. Who could possibly accept the idea that the present process might lead to conflict with our friends on the other side of the Atlantic? I certainly cannot and I hope our governments will unite to prevent any such act of folly.
As regards the continuity of the Assembly, I repeat that - as some of you said this morning - we are on the right road. The parliamentary dimension, like parliamentary and democratic scrutiny, must not be lost. Democratic scrutiny is freedom, it is the voice of the people, the voices of the national parliaments. It is unthinkable that it should all be cancelled one day, at the stroke of a pen. We put the European Parliament and all the governments on notice. We shall not cease our efforts to prevent the disappearance of democratic scrutiny and the increase in Europe's democratic deficit that would entail.
Lastly, these two reports reflect our intentions, namely to contribute to stability in Europe and to ensure that the new European defence structure guarantees peace on the continent of Europe and elsewhere.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Martínez Casañ, Rapporteur, to reply to speakers on the Political Committee' second report, Document 1690.
Mr MARTINEZ CASAÑ (Spain) (Translation) - There is little left for me to say after Mr de Puig's address but I should nevertheless like to clear up three essential points.
The first is in connection with collective security. I should like to remind all our colleagues in the Assembly that before the European Union had given a thought to a European security policy, Western European Union had opted for collective security. This was at a time when the possibility of enlargement and the development of the European Union into what it will become in a few years time, what we all hope will be a much wider Union consisting of all the countries that geographically ought logically to be part of the European Union, was remote indeed.
And when I say opted for collective security that is precisely what I mean. Now is the time, when the lines of the debate are drawn and we are in the throes of enlargement, at the time when this fledgling European security policy has started to grow, now is the right time for the debate to surface about whether certain Western European Union structures and procedures are useful and worth preserving or not. I would emphatically say yes, they are useful and should be preserved. Because while Europe as a whole has no real security and defence policy - and I mean Europe as a whole, the Europe we all envision, not present-day Europe - while it does not have a true security and defence policy, if it ever has one day, our methods and structures will be the ones that prove useful.
Of course I agree with what my colleague Mr Eyskens had said, that this is a means not an end. The day, if it ever comes, when Europe as a whole is an institution, a form of organisation with a real security and defence policy - when that moment comes - possibly we are looking at a different situation entirely. However we have not reached that point yet, we are still moving towards it and there are some structures, methods and ways of achieving our objectives that we still need to hang on to.
What concerns us all is not whether integration will apply to us or not. We are worried about it being done by halves, done badly, taking one thing from here another from there and perhaps dismantling a system that has proved useful up to now and will probably continue to have its uses for many years to come.
This is my point, that our way of doing things, of going about things, which has served us well up to now, deserves to be respected and continues to be useful. So I also agree with what Mr Taylor said. The point is that the associate countries can continue to be involved, as they have been up to now, in taking decisions, in framing security policy and strategy, in all the fora to which they have been able down the years to bring their vision and experience from the other side of Europe.
Mr Pastusiak mentioned that in Oslo we fixed ourselves certain criteria. These are still valid - the three criteria of transparency, continuity of the transatlantic link and democratic scrutiny or answerability. Not long ago, my dear sir, within the memory of all of us, it used to be said that Western European Union should be NATO's European arm. That wasn't long ago at all and we all agreed that this was how it should be. And now that Western European Union is being integrated into the EU, or rather the attempt is being made to integrate it gradually, to absorb certain parts of it, we are discussing whether that basically transatlantic dimension of WEU represented by the associate member countries should continue being involved to the same degree or not. Of course they should and why would they not? Mr de Puig has also just said that this is exactly the point - whether we are all agreed that a European security and defence structure cannot be organised without that transatlantic link. That being so, let us defend that transatlantic link and the transatlantic element that is to be found in Western European Union in the form of the NATO member countries, which are not yet EU members because their time has not yet come, but probably will be three or four years from now, we need look no further than that. It would be absolutely ridiculous then to leave them out.
I therefore believe that the message we must convey is in fact a constructive one: this is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end. We are going down a different road, where the aim is to ensure complementarity and continue to deepen those structures and working arrangements that have proved effective in the past and have been at the leading edge of the defence and security part of this major European integration process; to ensure that their benefit continues to be felt and that the associate member countries have a place in the new European security structures.
This is the reason why the report to which I speak on behalf of this Assembly and the Political Committee is entitled: "The WEU associate members and the new European security architecture". We are not talking about the survival of anything. We are talking about the benefits of past experience and how to apply them to the future, so that we can continue to make progress towards what we are all interested in achieving: a wider, more progressive safe and secure Europe. Thank you.
The PRESIDENT - I call the co-Rapporteur, Mr Adamczyk, to reply.
Mr ADAMCZYK (Poland, associate member) - I welcome the report on behalf of parliamentarians from Poland and from other central and eastern European countries and thank representatives of almost all European countries who supported us on security and defence. We all remember that our countries became involved in western European defence and security through WEU just 10 years ago. Having listened to the discussions that have taken place throughout Europe, it seems to me that only WEU parliamentarians understand us.
If there is to be a fight between the voices of parliamentarians and the bureaucrats in Brussels, I should like to know who will win. I hope that it will be us.
The PRESIDENT - I understand that Mr Solana is arriving; I therefore propose to adjourn the sitting for a few minutes.
(The sitting was suspended at 16.50 and resumed at 17.00 with Mr Bühler, President of the Assembly, in the Chair)
The PRESIDENT - The next order of the day is the address by Mr Solana, Secretary-General of WEU and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union.
Mr Secretary-General, we are very happy to welcome you back today. In view of the fast-moving developments in security and defence, we are waiting all the more expectantly to hear what you have to say. Immediately after our last session, at which you spoke, major decisions were taken at the Helsinki European Council followed by the setting-up of the CFSP internal structures on 1 March and then by our special session in Lisbon on 21 March.
At the WEU ministerial meeting in Oporto on 15 and 16 May, you referred to the lightning developments within the European Union and to the complex and exhilarating contribution by WEU. We now find ourselves approaching another crucial milestone in the run-up to the Feira European Council. We are on the threshold of the second half of 2000, when we understand that decisions will be taken about WEU. You know that the members of the Assembly welcome the progress that has been made to establish the Common European Security and Defence Policy in the European Union. We feel, however, that it is our responsibility to draw your attention and that of our governments to a number of open questions.
They include how to safeguard participation by non-EU European NATO countries and EU candidate countries; how to continue the close cooperation that has been established between WEU and NATO when the EU takes over WEU's functions; how to guarantee collective parliamentary scrutiny by representatives of national parliaments; and what solutions can be found for WEU staff in Brussels, Torrejón and Paris.
We know that you are resolved that the EU should have means commensurate with its security and defence ambitions and that you will lend an attentive ear to our suggestions. We pay tribute to your perseverance and energy in the service of the European cause, one to which we too, as members of this Assembly, have been fervently committed for the past 45 years. We shall therefore be listening to you with the greatest of interest.
Secretary-General, you have the floor.
Mr SOLANA (Secretary-General of WEU and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the Council of the European Union) (Translation) - Let me begin by thanking President Bühler for his words of welcome and pay tribute to him for his sterling efforts to continue this Assembly's long tradition of fostering thought-provoking debate on European security and defence.
The last six months have been hectic in the defence field. The European Union has pressed on quickly with its work on developing an effective ESDP. This reflects the commitment of heads of state and government and ministers to equip the Union with the tools necessary to promote its values, to defend its interests and to make a contribution to international security consistent with its standing in the world.
The aim is to give the Union all the instruments it needs, backing its diplomatic, economic and trade tools, if and when necessary, with the ability to use force when it is the appropriate response to a crisis. The Union has established quickly the necessary political and military bodies for the interim phase and is beginning now to focus on the improvements needed in military capabilities.
In this respect, I welcome the almost constant flow of announcements of change, be they new procurements or restructuring. Only a few months ago, President Chirac suggested that the European contribution to stability in the Balkans could be enhanced by deploying the Eurocorps there. Now it is providing the backbone of KFOR. Only a few days ago, the United Kingdom decided to procure 25 military Airbus aircraft as strategic lift and reports indicated the government in Germany will recommend a large increase in the number of troops available for crisis-management operations. These examples show the determination of Europe to translate its political commitment into concrete progress.
In my first address to you as Secretary-General six months ago, I stressed the important role which WEU would play in this work. And I am glad to be able today to tell you that WEU has indeed made a significant contribution over the past six months.
It has remained fully operational. In particular, it has continued running the Multinational Advisory Police Element in Albania - set to be extended to the end of the year - and the Demining Assistance Mission in Croatia now extended to May next year. It has satisfactorily conducted the professionally demanding exercise CMX/Crisex 2000 and more generally has also continued to inform and support the European Union in preparing the full implementation of CESDP. Let me emphasise that this has been greatly facilitated by the spirit of close, pragmatic cooperation between the staffs of the Union and WEU which my double-hatted position allows me to witness and encourage.
Let me give you some examples of WEU's contribution in this transitional phase.
Over recent years, WEU has produced a varied and comprehensive range of procedures, policies and concepts on European crisis management. A package of these has now been transmitted to the EU. It represents a store of lessons and experiences which the Union can draw upon, while staying free to decide where, when and how to build on these foundations.
The joint WEU-NATO exercise CMX/Crisex 2000 held in February was an excellent opportunity to test the arrangements worked out between the two organisations over recent years, including the use by WEU of NATO assets and capabilities, and to assess WEU's own crisis-management procedures. All who took part or observed the exercise, including the European Union representatives, were able to draw some important lessons for the future: for future real-life crisis-management and for future exercise programmes.
More generally, one of the larger lessons to be learned from WEU's experience in crisis-management is the importance of close, pragmatic and complementary relations between Europe's politico-military decision-makers and the Atlantic Alliance. The two organisations have made a great and honest effort to develop the Berlin arrangements, including the practicalities of NATO support for European-led operations. I believe these arrangements should serve as a good starting point for developing the future relationship, although it must of course be borne in mind that the Union is a different organisation from WEU.
During these months WEU has also continued to be an enlarged forum for consultation and cooperation among all of its 21 and 28 nations. Indeed, at Oporto we agreed that the role of a wide range of countries in WEU's crisis-management work had been an important contribution to transparency and stability, and thus to European security itself.
Finally, WEU's experience in politico-military relations with third countries should not be overlooked. WEU has maintained excellent relations with Russia and Ukraine and the countries of the southern Mediterranean as well as countries and institutions involved in supporting efforts to enhance African peacekeeping capabilities. Documents assessing WEU's reflections in the context of its Mediterranean dialogue and on African peacekeeping have also been transmitted to the EU.
(The speaker continued in English) Now, however, WEU is working in profoundly changed conditions. We look forward with interest and confidence to the day when the EU's interim structures become definitive and the other building blocks of the CESDP are complete. A big step in that direction will be taken at the Feira European Council later this month. Feira will also adopt the principles that will govern the relationship between the Union and NATO, and between the Union and non-EU European allies and candidates. The EU will then be ready to start working with the Atlantic Alliance on a number of clearly identified issues crucial to the creation of an effective and pragmatic EU/NATO relationship. The Union will also propose arrangements for an enlarged structure of consultation and cooperation with third countries.
Finally, I also expect further progress on enhancing the resources and instruments needed for the non-military aspects of crisis management. These issues are important, but governments and parliaments alike know that capabilities are the key. The new structures and procedures will serve for little if there is no significant improvement in military capability. Success in this area is central to the success of the overall enterprise; and greater European capabilities will also reinforce the Alliance.
We must therefore push forward on the implementation of the so-called headline goal. The Feira European Council will take stock of how far we have come and of what we still need to do before the conference on pledging capabilities takes place this autumn. To be successful, we will need to draw on a wide range of resources and expertise in member states, in WEU and in NATO.
As the Union comes closer to completing the work needed for it to fulfil its crisis-management responsibilities, our Organisation must start to plan its own reconfiguration. It will gradually lose the function it has in relation to the Petersberg missions, and the goal will then be to provide a smooth handover to the EU in the operational field. WEU ministers recognised in Oporto the need to adapt in the light of pending EU decisions.
We will have to address the future of the Institute for Security Studies and the Satellite Centre. We will have to plan for the conclusion of WEU military staff activities as EU military staff become operational. We will need to define clearly WEU's residual tasks and decide on the structures needed to support them. We shall need to continue to support the armaments cooperation activities of the Western European Armaments Group and Organisation in the light of ongoing discussions between defence ministers.
Most importantly, we shall need to find solutions for the international staff of WEU - an issue to which the Assembly rightly attaches considerably great importance. I for one consider our staff an important part of WEU's crisis-management legacy.
I emphasise how loyally WEU staff have worked in recent months for the success of the very institutional reforms that put their own jobs at risk. On the basis of the mandate I received from ministers in Oporto, I shall work with the nations concerned to do my utmost to find fair solutions that take into account the qualities of WEU staff and respond to the EU's requirements.
Lastly, let me address the future parliamentary dimension to European security and defence - a question at the very centre of this Assembly's deliberations. I am fully aware of the Assembly's substantial work on this in recent months. The Council of Ministers, moreover, formally noted the Lisbon Initiative in its Oporto Declaration.
The Council will continue to follow with great interest the Assembly's consultation with national parliaments and with the European Parliament. I assure the Assembly that I will continue to work for open and honest dialogue between Council and Assembly over the coming months, as consideration is given to the future role of the latter and its relations with the former.
We are approaching a new phase in the long process of Europeans taking greater responsibility for their security and defence. WEU is playing a key role in ensuring that we enter that phase on solid foundations. It has passed on its politico-military procedures and practices. It has developed and tested the Berlin ESDI arrangements with NATO. It has established a culture of European crisis-management dialogue and cooperation with 28 European countries. The Assembly has also ensured that this inclusive approach has been well understood and put into practice at parliamentary level.
It is true that much work remains to be done in the months ahead by governments and parliaments at national and European level. I welcome this opportunity to discuss the tasks that lie ahead on the way to achieving our common objective.
The PRESIDENT - Many thanks, Secretary-General, for your interesting remarks and for emphasising the parliamentary dimension involved in building up a Common European Security and Defence Policy. Thank you, too, for praising the work done by our staff. We accept your offer of open, fair dialogue in the coming months.
As many members wish to ask questions, it will be a matter of courtesy for those questions to be short to allow as many colleagues as possible the opportunity to ask a question or to comment. I will allow groups of five questions, if you will agree to that, Secretary-General.
First, I call Mr Davis.
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom) - We were all pleased to hear your comments about the loyalty and hard work of WEU staff during the transition and the transfer of responsibilities to the European Union. We were also pleased to hear that you accept personal responsibility for the future of those staff. However, is it correct that at present it is intended that when WEU responsibilities are transferred to the EU, WEU staff doing that work will not be transferred with it and will lose their jobs? If that is correct, is it not extraordinary that the European Union should contemplate throwing away the expertise and experience of the staff you described as loyal? Is it not extraordinary that the EU should contemplate spending the money of European taxpayers on compensation for people who lose their jobs and on training other people to do that work? Is it not also extraordinary that the European Union should set that example of 19th century employment practices in the 21st century to private sector employers, EU member states and to the rest of Europe?
Since you have accepted personal responsibility, may we ask in the spirit of open dialogue how often you have met representatives of the WEU staff and of European Union staff, either separately or together, to discuss that issue?
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Schloten.
Mr SCHLOTEN (Germany) (Translation) - Secretary-General, the order of speakers is purely a matter of timing. So forgive me for broaching a completely different subject.
This week we are not only discussing matters concerning WEU itself, but also questions which go above and beyond that. One of those questions will certainly be that of NMD, perhaps as early as tomorrow afternoon, but at any rate there will be an in-depth discussion of this issue during the December session at the latest.
You went to Washington and presented the concerns of the European states there. Following the US President's visit to Moscow there may have been a new development. Do you still hold the same opinion on the issue of NMD or have new elements come along to change it? Have you already come to an agreement on your position with the WEU Council of Ministers?
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Pastusiak.
Mr PASTUSIAK (Poland, associate member) - In relations between the European Union and NATO, one problem is the lack of active consultation and talks between the two organisations. What is the state of your talks with your successor, the Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Robertson? We have heard much about your breakfasts. Frankly, we have heard more about what you consumed than what you talked about. I have the following question. Is there a chance that your breakfasts will soon be upgraded to lunches and dinners, not in terms of food consumed but of substance?
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Blaauw.
Mr BLAAUW (Netherlands) - I side strongly with Mr Davis in his remarks about the staff of WEU. We are very concerned about their future because we know how much work they do and how loyal they are. Whenever one asks them a question, there is support from their side to help.
However, my real question concerns something else. The world goes on - life is going on in that big neighbouring country of ours, the Russian Federation. Can you give your analysis of the approach at present of the Russian Federation vis-à-vis NATO and European security? Before the election of Mr Putin, not much was known about the direction that would be taken. Have you had new information that we can tie in? Perhaps we can share our thoughts with our friends in the Duma.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Pálsson.
Mr PÁLSSON (Iceland, associate member) - At the NATO Washington Summit, 19 heads of state and government affirmed the utmost importance of ensuring the fullest possible involvement of non-EU European allies in EU-led crisis-response operations, building on existing consultation arrangements with the EU. Do you agree that, just over one year later, the Washington communiqué has lost none of its relevance in this regard?
The PRESIDENT - I call the Secretary-General to reply.
Mr SOLANA (Secretary-General of WEU and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the Council of the European Union) - Two of the five questions were similar, but I will try to answer them separately. First, on WEU staff, I am very happy to see the passion aroused in distinguished members of this Assembly when defending the staff and their rights. I would not wish to speak with any less passion. However, I would like WEU members to speak to their own governments with that same passion. We are talking about practically the same governments in both regards and, therefore, it is not for the Secretary-General to solve the problem; it is a problem to be solved by your governments. I note your concerns and their good and open spirit and I hope that I will receive from you and your governments the support that has been expressed here.
I periodically meet representatives of WEU and EU staff. Furthermore, we have meetings together. We have tried to analyse the situation with trade unions in the EU and WEU. We will do our best so that your countries do not have to waste any money - not a single penny. Indeed, I am sure that you would not allow that as members of your parliaments. We will try to ensure that all the capabilities and the spirit that have accumulated are not wasted - this is one of the most important legacies that we can leave to the security and defence identity of the European Union. I assure you that I will do this in a manner that is compatible with the wishes of your countries when they speak in the EU and also when they speak as members of WEU. I will do my best to be the catalyst for the process so that the people in WEU who so deserve a future get a future that is commensurate and compatible with what they would have expected.
On the Russian position, I cannot convey to you a precise and detailed version of what has happened in Moscow since the meeting there is about to finish. If today's meeting had taken place tomorrow, I would have been able to do so. Tomorrow morning at breakfast I will have a meeting with the person who has been representing the United States at the talks in Moscow. I cannot convey any more information to you at this point than I gathered after spending more than five hours with President Putin on Sunday and Monday. What is the position of the Russians on NATO? I think that you know it well. It has been expressed in public in speeches, lectures, and press conferences by President Putin.
They do not want any change in the ABM Treaty because they understand that it has been the cornerstone of deterrence of conflict between Russia and the United States and, therefore, the world for many years.
The position of the European Union does not exist as such. The EU has not taken a formal position on NMD, but you know very well the position of individual countries. In general terms, we do not think that NMD can work without a cooperative approach to transformation of the ABM Treaty or a cooperative approach to the same risks it is intended to avoid by deploying NMD. That position has been stated by leaders of various European countries and was placed on the table at the meeting that I had the pleasure of attending last week.
It is my conviction that if NMD is to be deployed, it will be done after a consensus has been reached among allies. I hope that it will also be done with the consent of Russia especially on the specific point of the adaptation of the ABM Treaty, which has been the cornerstone of deterrence for many years and has maintained the security of the world and of Europe. I cannot go further today. No position has been taken and President Clinton has stated that clearly. We continue talking about the possibility, but it is not a reality.
The third question was about lunches, breakfasts and dinners. You remember that at the lunch that I had with you here we were frugal in what we ate. Lord Robertson and I eat very little. Lord Robertson is a splendid Secretary-General of NATO and we have a good relationship. We share many experiences and a commitment to security and defence. We talk a lot not only at breakfasts, lunches and dinners. We have already created through the Portuguese Presidency of the EU, which is represented here by the ambassador, a scheme that will be approved at the Feira Summit to establish four groups to conduct work between NATO and the EU. The first group will look into security arrangements between NATO and the EU. As you know, WEU already has one such arrangement. Let me remind you that I am fully acquainted with the content of the document because I was one of those who negotiated on the NATO side. It will not be difficult to reach a positive solution in the coming months.
Within NATO and the EU there exists a wish to create a good, solid but fluid relationship based on communication and cooperation between the EU and NATO in matters pertaining to security and defence. We should not duplicate, but we should have due respect for the personality of both organisations. NATO and the EU have different objectives. NATO deals only with security and defence whereas the EU goes beyond that. I guarantee that we will be positive and constructive as long as I am Secretary-General of WEU. I am sure that that will be the case whoever is Secretary-General and whichever country holds the Presidency of the EU.
In response to the fourth question, I repeat my guarantee that we shall do our best to ensure that the staff of WEU get the treatment they deserve and that that treatment will be not only fair but generous. I was also asked about Russia's understanding of European security. A permanent structure exists between NATO and Russia. The Permanent Joint Council is based on the Final Act that I had the privilege to negotiate and sign on behalf of NATO with the then Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr Primakov. There was a period of about six or seven months in which the Permanent Joint Council did not meet following the Kosovo crisis. In Florence last week the PJC resumed its activities. Mr Ivanov met the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of NATO countries. That body has resumed its normal work, which has been important in the past and, I am sure, will continue to be important.
I was asked about the European Security and Defence Policy. I have met twice with Mr Putin and both times I found that he had a profound interest in the ESDP - not only a rhetorical interest but an interest in being engaged in its development. The ESDP means that we should be able to engage Russia in operations. The Russians are working with KFOR in Kosovo under the NATO structure and with SFOR in Bosnia under a United Nations mandate. I do not see why we should close the door to Russian participation in any future crisis-management operations. It is too early to establish the details because we are still constructing the building, but we must keep the Russians involved so that they feel comfortable and the door is open for them to participate.
The last question was on the Washington Summit. I know the Washington Treaty by heart. We worked hard on it and every single word will be complied with by EU countries that participated in the summit. I would ask you not to put under the microscope what was said in Washington, in Cologne during the German Presidency, in Helsinki during the Finnish Presidency and what has already been said under the Portuguese Presidency. You should not scrutinise every comma, semicolon or capital letter, because the spirit is the same. The political will of all the countries is the same. Whatever was said in Washington has been repeated in Cologne and Helsinki and will be repeated in Feira. We want to work in a spirit of openness, transparency and cooperation.
The PRESIDENT - The next question comes from Lord Russell-Johnston.
Lord RUSSELL-JOHNSTON (United Kingdom) - Mr Solana, yours is a difficult and exacting task. As has been said, as the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union, you were in Moscow last week to meet President Putin and on 29 May a joint statement was issued, which I have seen. It made only the briefest reference to Chechnya and none to the deep concern of the Council of Europe about the human rights violations there. There has been a savage conflict in which Grozny, a city the size of Edinburgh, was reduced to rubble. What is the present European Union standpoint? Many think that it seems to be, "It is over now, so let's forget it". Is that unfair?
The PRESIDENT - I see the Secretary-General wishes to reply.
Mr SOLANA (Secretary-General of WEU and High Representative for the Common Foreign Security Policy of the Council of the European Union) - I shall answer that question immediately so that members of the Assembly are in no doubt. As I said earlier, I met President Putin twice when he was Prime Minister and I have met him three times since he became President. We have spent more than 20 hours together and some 70% of that time was devoted to Chechnya. When I met President Putin in my office, we spent 99% of the time discussing Chechnya and only 1% of the time on other matters. We listened and we put our views.
As I have said many times, we have two objectives. First, we want to speak our minds and tell the truth to a friendly country; secondly, we want to construct a deep bilateral relationship with that friendly country as it would be in the interests of the countries represented here in WEU and of the security of Europe. Those two objectives have to be compatible. We must try to construct a solid relationship with Russia and at the same time to speak up when we disagree and to act accordingly.
The final document mentions no other organisations. It does not mention the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which plays an important role, or the Council of Europe, but, as you can imagine, the relevant attitude and the important decisions that have been taken by the Council of Europe featured greatly in our discussions. The OSCE, which is also undertaking important activities in the region, was not mentioned in the report, but members of the Assembly must have no doubt that whoever represents the Council of the European Union will place any issues on which we disagree at the top of the agenda. I guarantee that a week ago on Sunday and Monday the Presidency of the European Union made the situation in Chechnya the first item on the agenda.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Bianchi.
Mr BIANCHI (Italy) (Translation) - Secretary-General, you quoted President Chirac in your address. The Italian press, taking up a point made in an article in Le Monde, has given some prominence to a possible agreement between France and Germany on the reform of the European Union.
I should like to know whether such an agreement - neither confirmed nor denied, incidentally, by the two countries concerned - also includes measures on common European security and defence.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Mota Amaral.
Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) - My question concerns a problem on which you are indeed an expert. The situation in Bosnia and in Kosovo is far from stable and there are thousands of international troops on the ground. However, there have been recent proposals to reduce American military involvement in the area. What do you think should be the position of WEU and the European Union if the Americans withdraw from the Balkans, and how long do you think foreign involvement there will be maintained? I have heard mention of 20 years. Do you think that that will be enough?
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Brunetti.
Mr BRUNETTI (Italy) (Translation) - Secretary-General, we cannot deny that the most difficult and delicate conflicts in Europe have shown that WEU is impotent and that there is no common European security policy - the Balkans being, to my mind, a perfect example.
In those circumstances, I wonder - and I should like to know what you think - whether there is any sense in talking about tools, new structures, the process of enlargement and integration, if Europe has not worked out its own common defence policy or found a way of extricating itself from NATO. We discussed this point this morning and you also mentioned it in your address but, in my view, all this may appear to be no more than lofty talk about organisational problems to conceal a political vacuum and the absence of any independent idea and any independent proposal from Europe.
I should like, I repeat, to know what you think about these points, although we are very familiar with many of the problems.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Baumel.
Mr BAUMEL (France) (Translation) - Secretary-General, I should like to return for a moment to the problem that is troubling most of us. I understand that you cannot tell us anything about the outcome of the Moscow summit, as it is still in progress. It seems, however, to have been disappointing as far as the expected agreement on NMD is concerned.
On the other hand, I have read a number of press reports that the Americans and Russians have agreed to establish an early-warning centre to identify nuclear developments that may occur in future. Is this good news, to offset the disappointment over NMD?
Also, since you say you spoke at length with President Putin about Chechnya - almost 99% of the time, you said - do you think, now that the tragedy of Chechnya has unfortunately moved on, that Russia will agree to produce a genuine report on respect for human rights in its territory, with the participation of international authorities? This would certainly be a desirable and necessary measure, after so many mistakes.
The PRESIDENT - I call the Secretary-General to reply.
Mr SOLANA (Secretary-General of WEU and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the Council of the European Union) - I shall answer the question about reports in the press about a potential agreement between France and Germany and the current Intergovernmental Conference that will be concluded by the end of the year. I have no information other than that given in the press.
At this point, such information comes only from the press. We have had the Franco-German Government summit, but at this point I cannot elaborate further on the meaning of some reports that have appeared in the press. We shall have to wait and see what is the reality of the leaks that have appeared in the European media. I would only say that I hope that the IGC will be an important element in all areas of European construction, including security and defence. I can go no further than that at this point.
It is true that we have a good contingent of European soldiers on the ground in Kosovo and Bosnia. I emphasise that the majority of the soldiers on the ground in Kosovo and Bosnia are European. The three commanders of the forces deployed in Kosovo have been Europeans, and the headquarters now in Pristina is a Eurocorps HQ. Therefore, the military commitment and engagement of the Europeans on the ground in Kosovo is total.
I have been asked what Europeans will do if the Americans decide to leave, and how long we will be engaged in the Balkans. I shall start with the second question, which is easier than the first. I shall not give a date. We have to be there as long as is necessary, and that is as long as we are a component of the stabilisation of the region. That is my position. I would not say a week, a month or a year. We have to be there for as long as we can play a role in the stability of this part of our continent. It would be crazy to abandon that part of the continent and the mission. It would be much more expensive, economically, politically and from a human point of view, to leave and to see the return of violence and destruction.
We would be dreaming if we were to imagine that in six or 12 months wounds that were created a long time ago in history will have healed. That is not sensible. The healing of such profound wounds will take time and we must continue do our utmost for the people in that part of our continent who want to heal those wounds and construct the future. In Bosnia and Kosovo, and in general in the Balkans, we need a change of leadership. We need leaders who are prepared to look forward, to look to the future, not to keep looking back to the past. In accepting that, slowly but surely we are moving in that direction.
Every day, we have good news and bad news. Yesterday, we had the bad news - very bad politically - that the Kosovo Serbs have left the UNMIK administration. As soon as I finish here, I will go to the region because I want to talk to people to try to reverse that decision which I think is a mistake, for the region, for Kosovo and for the Serbs.
Every day, we have good and bad news, but, on average, we are slowly moving in the right direction. However, we must be prepared to stay as long as necessary, with or without the United States. I am sure that the United States leaders will think as we do. We must be committed to what we have started until we can leave with the satisfaction that stability has returned to this part of Europe.
The next question is difficult to answer, but I shall try. Since 1945, the security and defence of our continent have been linked to the transatlantic relationship. Important events have taken place in Europe since 1985. Let me mention two. One is that the security challenges facing the EU are different. We do not need to prepare for defence against a massive attack from the East. That is over. Therefore, we have won the possibility of arranging our security in a different manner, facing the challenges of today and not the challenges of yesterday, and at the same time trying to build a new balance between the transatlantic countries - the United States and Canada and the European countries - and within NATO in the same manner.
Secondly, the EU has taken important steps, for example, in economic and monetary union. There is no question but that the EU was to be an integrated structure, not only economically and with a single market, but politically. Therefore, the moment is right for taking the steps that we are taking and constructing within the EU a military capability for crisis management. Once we have that capability, the EU will have all the elements for crisis management ranging from humanitarian, political and diplomatic aspects to trade and military aspects if necessary. Therefore, it will be able to play a role in the international arena which is more commensurate with our economic might. Therefore, this is the right time to think in terms of maintaining and strengthening the transatlantic relationship while at the same time assuming more responsibility as Europeans.
(The speaker continued in French) (Translation) - I have been asked about the communiqué issued by President Clinton and President Putin. As you know, it has proved impossible at present to reach agreement on some points but the progress on the idea of establishing an early-warning centre is indeed good news and should be welcomed as a step in the right direction.
The same member of the Assembly also asked about Chechnya. I have spoken to the European Union representatives and the political leaders of the various member states of the Union, and I can tell you that President Putin's position is more open. He is going to allow OSCE and Council of Europe representatives to visit the region. He has appointed a commission which, though not international, is independent in Russian terms, and I hope its work will represent a move towards the protection of human rights in the spirit in which we understand it. That is what we want to see.
We shall not relax our efforts in this area but we cannot guarantee that they will be crowned with success. We must continue to show tenacity and perseverance because much is at stake in the changing situation in Chechnya, for the Chechnyans themselves, for Russia and President Putin, and also for security in Europe and the values we cherish. Rest assured that we are all pressing the Russian authorities to move in the same direction.
I believe, Mr President, that I have now answered the first set of questions that were put to me.
The PRESIDENT - The next question is from Mr Turini.
Mr TURINI (Italy) (Translation) - Mr President, I should like to return to a question about the Star Wars shield, which the Secretary-General has already partly answered.
My question is this: Secretary-General, what can WEU do to stem the flow of organised crime from Albania to the Adriatic coast of Italy, where boat-loads of - if you will pardon the expression - prostitutes, drugs and illegal immigrants land every day, spreading from Italy to the rest of Europe? The Italian Government cannot deal with this on its own.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Eyskens.
Mr EYSKENS (Belgium) (Translation) - Secretary-General, the enlargement of the European Union must clearly be accompanied by a process of deepening, absolutely essential if inconsistency is to be avoided. The Treaty of Amsterdam has forged a highly original instrument which may serve the purpose, namely closer cooperation. Monetary union may be regarded as one form of closer cooperation and our European Defence Identity will probably prove to be another.
Is it not time we gave some thought to another concept, complementary cooperation? The legal aspects of this new concept could perhaps be developed and included in the Treaty of Nice, which will probably be concluded at the close of the French Presidency. Complementary cooperation could, for example, cover the future of our institution, WEU, in appropriate areas such as the management of Article V, the structure of the European pillar within NATO and, thirdly, the maintenance and development of synergy in security policy matters between the 28 countries represented in this Assembly.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Yañez Barnuevo.
Mr YAÑEZ BARNUEVO (Spain) (Translation) - Mr Solana, I would first like to congratulate you on your address and for your replies, which to my mind were most cogent.
I am going to ask you a question on a different matter, which may or may not be appropriate. We all know that the risks and threats to our collective security are no longer, or not to the same extent, those of a decade ago. However, there are serious and threatening new problems which are causing a blot on Europe's landscape, such as terrorism, organised crime and drug trafficking, to mention but a few. I am not sure, and this is my question, whether, as part of your remit - or in the field of coordination between the governments in the European Union, you feel that something can be done to link the fields of information and intelligence to the coordination of policies to counter the risks and threats which these scourges pose to European security.
The PRESIDENT - I call Lord Ponsonby.
Lord PONSONBY (United Kingdom) - My question concerns the capabilities pledging conference in the autumn. Will it be a political objective of that conference that all member states should make a contribution to those capabilities; and will it be a further objective that the 60 000 troops to which you referred should be sustainable? We have been advised in our parliament that that would entail about 180 000 troops in total.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Cherribi.
Mr CHERRIBI (Netherlands) (Translation) - Mr Solana mentioned the security dimension in Africa. I would like the Secretary-General to elaborate on the question of Africa's future security in connection with WEU.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mrs Squarcialupi.
Mrs SQUARCIALUPI (Italy) (Translation) - Secretary-General, as WEU's remit shrinks and its cap becomes smaller and while the European Union waits for Eurocorps to become operational, organised crime in the Balkans is on the increase. Mr Turini referred in fact to the influx of organised crime into Italy which then disperses throughout Europe.
I would like to know what is the real threat posed by organised crime to the rather fragile democracy of those countries and whether Eurocorps has been given an operational mandate to allow it to combat organised crime.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mrs Kanelli.
Mrs KANELLI (Greece) - It is perfectly clear, Secretary-General, that since NATO invaded Kosovo it has been destroying the independence of parts of the Balkans, including the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Do you really envisage the future security of Europe as lying in cutting off Kosovo, giving it independence and turning it into another Vojvodina or Sandjak? It is a simple question but very difficult to answer.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr de Puig.
Mr de PUIG (Spain) (Translation) - I am horrified at a notion which has been cropping up recently when the subject of restructuring defence is raised, which is that WEU will become a "residual" body. To me that is a terrible formula. At any rate, I would like to ask you how you see this "residual" WEU, this WEU which is on the way out with the European Union setting up new defence structures, but yet which is also to continue to exist, either on the basis of Article V of the modified Brussels Treaty, as Mr Eyskens said, or as part of arms cooperation. Do we have any idea yet of the form that WEU will take, alongside the organisation of European defence within the European Union?
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Gören.
Mr GÖREN (Turkey, associate member) - Secretary-General, thank you for your impressive speech. My national parliament will await the detailed results of the Feira Summit on participation, but given the Cologne and Helsinki decisions and other information that we have collected, we have the impression that the EU is considering the participation of non-EU European allies mainly from the perspective of preserving its own institutional hegemony. To balance such an approach, do you agree that the EU would benefit from the spirit and content of the procedures that satisfactorily govern the participation issue in WEU?
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Valleix.
Mr VALLEIX (France) (Translation) - You mentioned the Torrejón Satellite Centre, near Madrid, Secretary-General. You know, as well as I do, that it has three urgent matters to address. One is the speeding up of satellite data processing in order to facilitate the passage from strategic to tactical considerations. The second concerns the recent debate about how the Centre should be opened up to the civilian sector, in view of technological progress. There is a difficult choice to make between military, civilian or mixed operation. The third concerns the importance to be attributed to the satellite facility during this transitional period, given that the Centre exists and must not be sacrificed on the altar of rapprochement with the European Union, especially if, as Mr de Puig was intimating, WEU were to become a "residual" body.
What is your suggestion, Secretary-General, for enabling this Centre to continue its development?
The PRESIDENT - I call the Secretary-General to reply.
Mr SOLANA (Secretary-General of WEU and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the Council of the European Union) - On Mr Turini's question about what we can do about criminal activities, as far as WEU is concerned, this question relates to Albania. We are doing a lot to train the police there - that is one mission that we have already developed positively. I had the privilege to visit the headquarters of your police force. You should not forget that something is being done to train police in Tirana. Without doubt, that is one of the most important components of helping the country to fight organised crime - helping the police so that they are capable of carrying out their duties.
(The speaker continued in French) (Translation) - In reply to Mr Eyskens, I would say that it is very interesting to discuss this concept of complementary cooperation. I do not know whether the various countries will be willing to expand the vocabulary of enhanced cooperation to include this concept of complementary cooperation. At any rate, even if the concept does not exist, this is what we need to do in practice, what we are already doing with the Alliance, with certain NATO countries which are not members of the Union, and with a few third countries. I will say it again: even if the concept is not clearly defined in a treaty, this is a path that we are already treading.
(The speaker continued in Spanish) (Translation) - I would say the same to you, Mr Yañez, in answer to your question about organised crime. What WEU is doing in Albania is giving very serious training to the organised police, and this I believe we are doing very actively and well. In another area we have a lesser role to play. As someone has already pointed out, by using intelligence and the Satellite Centre, etc, we can to some extent monitor what is happening is these countries but I do not really think that this is part of WEU's specific remit. It is a competence of the third pillar of the European Union and as you all know, the work that is currently being done on the third pillar is extraordinarily useful and positive and is being done extremely quickly. It is absolutely clear that, following the summit held during the Finnish Presidency and with the new decisions being taken during the Portuguese Presidency, we are going to make substantial progress under third pillar cooperation. The EU third pillar will continue to be an increasingly important one because the issues and challenges of today and those of tomorrow will in many respects be linked to third pillar issues.
(The speaker continued in English) Two questions concerned the capabilities pledging conference. One question was about which countries would participate. There is no doubt that the 15 countries have to participate. They have to pledge and commit themselves. This is not a dream but a real conference in which everyone must commit their forces if we are to achieve the headline goal that was set of 60 000 troops to be sustained over a year and to be ready in two months. We must not forget what that means. Being ready in two months means training together and organising to a certain standard together. It is not merely the position of forces. Troops must be prepared in such a manner, by training and exercising together, so that they can be deployed in two months. In NATO, it is not that easy to deploy that many troops at two months' notice. The rapid reaction force can do it, but not many other forces.
Countries have to think about what it means to translate into military terms the headline goal, which was a political statement produced in Helsinki. It probably will not mean 180 000 troops, but it will mean more than 60 000 and there is no question about that. With that statement, I think that I have answered both questions: yes, it will have to be all the countries and, for the goal to be sustainable it will mean more than 60 000 troops deployed at a given time.
I have not said this before, but we are also beginning to work on how non-EU countries that belong to NATO will participate in the capabilities pledging conference. We have to think about that and work on it and the Portuguese Presidency is doing so. We have not yet come to any specific conclusions, but that will be an important matter for agreement in the future.
(The speaker continued in French) (Translation) - With regard to the question of Africa, it is difficult to be very precise. I think that Europeans should get together on this subject. If we consider the peacekeeping activities undertaken in Africa, I think the time has come to talk about cooperation and the contribution of the European countries. If we want to enable the United Nations to fulfil its true peacekeeping and crisis-management role, we must be ready, as Europeans, to take a more active part in crisis management and not just adopt a political stance. Portugal, the United Kingdom and France are already making generous contributions, as you know, but not in a united way under a WEU or EU umbrella.
Using the capabilities of the rapid reaction force, we shall be able to assist the United Nations in the future. I hope that we will be able to do so frequently. We must be ready to accept responsibilities within the United Nations, not only as country a, b or c, but as European countries. But that is a matter for the future. Today, as Europeans, we do not possess that capability.
(The speaker continued in English) I have already answered the question on organised crime and do not have much to add to that answer.
The question posed by Mrs Kanelli of Greece is a difficult one to answer. If we already had the answer, then we would have implemented it. The philosophy of countries that belong to this Organisation is clear. We are not for the independence of any territory in Europe and we are not for changing borders in Europe. What we want to do is to construct a system under which people can live together and have values that we share and cherish. Those are the values of tolerance - WEU and the EU are built on them. Therefore, we must export not only money and goods, but values. We must support tolerance. It is not easy; we know that. Many participating countries know how difficult it is even for sophisticated European countries to maintain tolerance. We must be tenacious and persevering and construct a Europe in which tolerance is a value which everyone shares.
That is the only answer that I can give. How do we achieve that aim? We do so with patience, tolerance, goodwill and, sometimes, with a heavy hand if necessary. We must not merely proclaim principles; we must be ready to defend them if necessary, not merely on our own behalf but on behalf of others. That is what we are trying to do. We may not be 100% in agreement, but, with due respect, NATO has not invaded any country. I do not know of any NATO invasion. If you can tell me of one, I shall be happy to take note.
(The speaker continued in Spanish) (Translation) - As for WEU becoming a "residual" body, perhaps the term "residual" is a pejorative, ugly term to use. What do you mean when you use it, what do I mean? "Residual" covers the functions which cannot be transferred to the European Union and some of these are very clear. Western European Union is a juridical body but it has also been an organisation which is capable of crisis management. It will retain its juridical element which is linked to the Treaty and I do not foresee any changes to the Treaty in the near future. At this juncture, I do not think that any future member countries outside the current ten are prepared to accept Article V of the modified Brussels Treaty and so WEU will have to remain at the edge of the European Union. Perhaps the term "residual" is not the most felicitous one to use and we ought to change it, but that is the idea behind it.
(The speaker continued in English) I should like to answer our Turkish friend. I know very well, because I was in Ankara on Thursday and I talked to your President and your government, that Turkey is apprehensive about a matter that we are trying to solve, namely, the involvement of third countries, in particular countries that belong to NATO and not to the EU. I can give a guarantee, as I did to your President and your government, that countries that belong to the EU believe that the security of Europe is important and goes beyond the responsibility of the 15 member states of the EU. However, at the same time we have to realise that the organisation exists. Today it has 15 members; tomorrow it may have many more. It has responsibilities and it wants to take on more responsibility for crisis management. We want to do so in cooperation with Turkey and other countries like yours.
Some countries complain that there are not enough meetings at ministerial level. The Portuguese Presidency has decided, and the decision has been accepted by the EU's Political Committee, that we will have more than one such meeting every six months. However, such countries are happy with one meeting every half year in NATO while they complain that the EU has only one - or probably two. If we maintain a good spirit and goodwill, I am sure that every member country or candidate member will feel comfortable. That is what we want.
(The speaker continued in French) (Translation) - As for the future of the Satellite Centre, I entirely agree with Mr Valleix. We must see that it is transferred and ensure its continued operation. We need that facility. The European Union will continue to cooperate with its director in order to develop the Centre's capabilities, which will be very important for us all and for Europe as a whole.
(The speaker continued in English) It has been a real pleasure for me to spend this time with you. You can be sure that I will do my best to continue working with you. We are in a difficult transition. It will be worked through with intelligence and common sense and for the benefit of those whom we represent, no matter what is ahead of us in the coming months. Thank you very much, Mr President, and good luck for the work of the Assembly.
The PRESIDENT - Mr Secretary-General, on behalf of my colleagues, I thank you most warmly not only for your speech but for your readiness to answer all our questions. We did not find solutions to all the questions, but no-one expected that. We have continued to have a good dialogue and we accept your offer to continue that dialogue and maintain our good cooperation. I hope to meet you at the Council meeting in Brussels in September to continue our cooperation on behalf of the Assembly.
(Votes on the draft recommendations, Doc. 1689 and amendments and Doc. 1690)
The PRESIDENT - Following the debate of the Political Committee's reports, I give the floor to the Committee Chairman.
Mr MARSHALL (United Kingdom) - The number of speakers who have participated in the debate today indicates the high standard of the two reports that we have had before us. That reflects great credit on Mr de Puig, the Rapporteur of one report, and on Mr Martínez Casañ and his co-Rapporteur, who wrote the second report. It also reflects credit on the various members of the secretariat who assisted in compiling the two reports. The work that we have been doing on the reports demonstrates the continuing concern not only of the Political Committee but of the Parliamentary Assembly and you yourself, Mr President, about the continuing need to highlight the consequences of the EU's decision to acquire the ability to undertake crisis-management operations.
Our concerns can be briefly expressed in relation to three concepts. First, we need to be assured that the institutions that the European Union intends to create and has already created on an interim basis represent an improvement on the institutions that exist at present. Some of us have grave doubts about the efficacy of the way in which the EU decided to go. Our doubts hinge on whether the successor institutions will be an improvement on the existing ones. I know that some members of the Assembly still have doubts, but I believe that our governments, being the rational governments that we know them to be, would not seek to jeopardise European security on a madcap scramble to form defence institutions within the European Union which did not represent an improvement, so I am sure that many members of the Assembly are now assured on that aspect of the changeover.
Secondly, it is important to point up the continuing need for parliamentary supervision on a Europe-wide level. This is not a desire on the part of parliamentarians to continue to come to Paris and meet at the WEU Assembly, commendable though that feeling may be. We want the WEU Assembly to continue not for personal reasons, but because we believe sincerely that it has done a great deal of good work in the past. We believe just as passionately that the Lisbon proposals, which you espoused with such fervour, Mr President, will continue to provide parliamentary scrutiny on a European level which would not exist had we not proposed a European Security and Defence Assembly.
We all accept that national parliaments will continue to play a big role - the biggest role - in defence and security matters. Clearly, only national parliaments can exert the degree of control over their national governments that is required to continue the scrutiny on a day-to-day basis of a nation's defence and security requirements. So we are not seeking to replace that or to usurp that position. We also accept that the European Parliament, despite what some of its most fervent supporters would claim, will not be in a position to exercise democratic control over European security for many decades to come. So if we leave it to national parliaments and the European Parliament, there will be a grave democratic deficit which I think the de Puig proposals and the Behrendt proposals go a long way towards eliminating. I regret that, despite the fine words of the Secretary-General, he was unable to give us a little more hope as regards a parliamentary assembly.
The third aspect that concerned us and which also gives rise to concern in the light of the Secretary-General's comments was mentioned in the report by Mr Martínez Casañ - the position of associate members. We are keen to ensure that the new institutions do not lead to new divisions within European security. We believe that associate members - and safeguards will have to be introduced for associate partners too - have to be there not only when decisions are shaped, but when decisions are made. Although we have been given guarantees of their presence when decisions are being shaped, we have been given no guarantees whatsoever and very little hope that they will be there when decisions are made. So we have to continue to push in that regard.
Finally, we still have work to do. The Political Committee will continue its work in the next six months, as will you, Mr President, and the Assembly.
Both reports were overwhelmingly accepted by the Political Committee. There are amendments to the de Puig report. All those amendments have been discussed and voted on in the Political Committee and they were approved unanimously.
(Mr Henry, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair)
The PRESIDENT (Translation) - We will vote first on the draft recommendation contained in Document 1690 on the WEU associate members and the new European security architecture. No amendments have been tabled.
Under Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure, if five or more representatives or substitutes present in the Chamber so desire, the Assembly shall vote by roll-call on a draft recommendation.
Does any member wish to propose a vote by roll-call?...
That is not the case. We shall vote by show of hands.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
The draft recommendation is adopted unanimously.
We will now vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 1689 on the consequences of including certain functions of WEU in the European Union - reply to the annual report of the Council, to which five amendments have been tabled. They will be dealt with in the order in which they affect the text, namely, 1 to 5.
Amendment 1, which has been tabled by Mr de Puig, reads as follows:
1. After paragraph 2 of the draft recommendation proper, add a new paragraph as follows:
"Propose to the European Union that, on the basis of the work undertaken by the Portuguese Presidency and joint proposals put forward by Britain and France, it establish a Consultative Council for the CESDP bringing together European Union member states, EU applicant countries and non-EU European members of NATO, which would meet at least twice a year at ministerial level;".
I call Mr de Puig to move the amendment.
Mr de PUIG (Spain) (Translation) - With your permission, Mr President, I should like to move Amendments 1 to 3 together.
The PRESIDENT (Translation) - Amendment 2, which has been tabled by Mr de Puig, reads as follows:
2. After paragraph 2 of the draft recommendation proper, add a new paragraph as follows:
"Ensure, while respecting the European Union's decision-making autonomy, that the delegations of the non-EU European members of NATO and of the EU applicant countries have participation rights in the Consultative Council for the CESDP at least equivalent to those they have acquired in the WEU Council as associate members and associate partners;".
Amendment 3, which has been tabled by Mr de Puig, reads as follows:
3. In paragraph 3 of the draft recommendation proper, replace "the Council of the European Union" with "the Consultative Council for the CESDP;".
I call Mr de Puig to move the amendments.
Mr de PUIG (Spain) (Translation) - I have tabled these three amendments simply to comply with decisions taken by the Portuguese Presidency. The idea of establishing a Consultative Council for the Common European Security and Defence Policy grew out of that presidency's work and was based on Franco-British proposals. But as paragraph 3 referred to the Council of the European Union, the form of words used might lead to confusion with the European Council and the status of our own Assembly.
Amendment 1, which adds a new paragraph after paragraph 2 of the draft recommendation, therefore proposes to establish a Consultative Council for the Common European Security and Defence Policy that would bring together member states of the European Union, states applying for membership of the European Union and the European members of NATO. That is to say, the body would include representatives of the 28 countries comprising our Organisation at least.
Amendment 2, which follows from Amendment 1, is designed to ensure that all the members of the Consultative Council have rights of participation at least equal to the rights they have acquired in WEU and thus to preserve the rights of associate members and associate partners.
The PRESIDENT (Translation) - Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 1?...
What is the opinion of the Committee?
Mr MARSHALL (United Kingdom) - The amendment was accepted unanimously.
The PRESIDENT (Translation) - I will now put Amendment 1 to the vote.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
Amendment 1 is adopted unanimously.
Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 2?...
What is the opinion of the Committee?
Mr MARSHALL (United Kingdom) - The amendment was adopted unanimously.
The PRESIDENT (Translation) - I will now put the amendment to the vote.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
Amendment 2 is adopted unanimously.
Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 3?...
What is the opinion of the Committee?
Mr MARSHALL (United Kingdom) - The amendment was adopted unanimously.
The PRESIDENT (Translation) - I will now put Amendment 3 to the vote.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
Amendment 3 is adopted unanimously.
Amendment 4, which has been tabled by Mr de Puig, reads as follows:
4. Replace paragraph 18 of the draft recommendation proper with the following:
"From now on, give the National Armaments Directors, and WEAG and WEAO which the Council has decided should for the time being remain WEU's responsibility, more specific guidance and a more positive political impetus, so as to strengthen European cooperation in this connection, and consult the Assembly before taking any decision on the future tasks and institutional position of such organisations,".
I call Mr de Puig to move the amendment.
Mr de PUIG (Spain) (Translation) - Paragraph 18 recommends that the Council "Take steps to ensure that WEU retains overall responsibility for armaments cooperation and consult the Assembly before taking a decision on the future tasks and institutional position of such organisations". The governments decided, at the meeting at Oporto, to keep that armaments cooperation within WEU for the time being. The purpose of this amendment is to take account of that decision.
The PRESIDENT (Translation) - Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
What is the opinion of the Committee?
Mr MARSHALL (United Kingdom) - The Committee discussed the amendment and, again, accepted it unanimously.
The PRESIDENT (Translation) -- I will now put the amendment to the vote.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
Amendment 4 is adopted unanimously.
Amendment 5, which has been tabled by Mr de Puig, reads as follows:
5. Replace paragraph 19 of the draft recommendation proper with the following:
"Take a decision on the future of the Transatlantic Forum, ensuring that the European Union is able to take advantage of the Forum's acquis to help it organise security cooperation with the transatlantic allies;".
I call Mr de Puig to move the amendment.
Mr de PUIG (Spain) (Translation) - Paragraph 19 recommends inter alia that the Council "ensure that WEU is represented at the next summit between the EU and the United States". As that summit has already taken place, paragraph 19 should be amended accordingly.
The PRESIDENT (Translation) - Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?...
What is the opinion of the Committee?
Mr MARSHALL (United Kingdom) - As on the four previous occasions, the Committee accepted the amendment unanimously.
The PRESIDENT (Translation) -- I will now put the amendment to the vote.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
Amendment 5 is adopted unanimously.
We shall now vote on the draft recommendation, as amended, contained in Document 1689.
Under Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure, if five or more representatives or substitutes present in the Chamber so desire, the Assembly shall vote by roll-call on a draft recommendation.
Does any member wish to propose a vote by roll-call?...
That is not the case. We will vote by show of hands.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
The draft recommendation, as amended, is adopted unanimously..
(Motion for a resolution with a request for urgent procedure, Doc. 1702)
The PRESIDENT (Translation) - In accordance with Rule 44.3 of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure, we will now consider the request for urgent procedure on a motion for a resolution relating to the United States Missile Defence programme, Document 1702.
In accordance with Rule 44.1 of the Rules of Procedure, this request has been presented by ten or more representatives.
I remind the Assembly that the following only may be heard: one speaker for the request, one speaker against, the chairman of the Committee concerned and one representative of the Bureau speaking in its name. Under Rule 32.7, speaking time is limited to five minutes.
I call Mr Behrendt to speak in favour of the request.
I would also remind your that under Rule 44.3 the debate on a request for urgent procedure shall not enter into the substance of the question other than to justify the request or to reject the urgent procedure.
Mr BEHRENDT (Germany) (Translation) - I believe that this issue is so important and has such major implications for Europe, that we cannot fail to adopt a position on it in our Assembly. We know that the United States has taken a clear position and that the various options are being discussed, certainly with good arguments. But I think it is important that we appeal to the governments in Europe to take a stance on this issue. Indeed, it is not only European countries which are affected, but also other parts of the world. There are implications for the efforts in connection with disarmament treaties. I would therefore urge you to follow this recommendation.
The PRESIDENT (Translation) - Does anyone wish to speak against the request?...
Does the Chairman of the Defence Committee wish to speak?
Mr SCHLOTEN (Germany ) (Translation) - Certainly this is a topical issue which is of the utmost importance not only for the United States, but also Europe, Russia and China, and indeed the whole world. The armaments/disarmament implications could trigger another arms race.
The Defence Committee - even though it will not have much time - will certainly gladly accept the task of drawing up a position during its meeting tomorrow morning. As Chairman - I should point out that I have not had time to discuss this with the Committee - I would have preferred to have a report or underlying document, and to be able to incorporate in it the results of the Moscow summit. However, as we were told by the Secretary-General in reply to my question, we do not yet know those results.
Nevertheless I think it is important for the Assembly to take a stance on this issue. The Secretary-General also told us that the EU governments have not yet agreed on a common position. We should therefore take it upon ourselves to urge the governments to take a common stance so that the EU and WEU speak to the Americans with one voice, notwithstanding all the difficulties regarding the shortness of the time available.
The PRESIDENT (Translation) - Does a representative of the Bureau wish to speak?...
As that is not the case, we will vote on the request for urgent procedure.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
The request for urgent procedure is approved.
The motion for a resolution is referred to the Defence Committee.
I propose that the Assembly discuss the substance of the text at the end of the sitting tomorrow afternoon.
Are there any objections?...
That is agreed.
The PRESIDENT (Translation) - I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10.00 with the following orders of the day:
1. Draft revised budget of the expenditure of the Assembly for 2000 and Opinion of the Council (Presentation of and debate on the report of the Committee on Budgetary Affairs and Administration and vote on the draft opinion, Doc. 1693).
2. Opinion on the budgets of the ministerial organs of WEU for the financial year 2000 (Presentation of and debate on the report of the Committee on Budgetary Affairs and Administration and vote on the draft recommendation, Doc. 1694).
3. New missions for European armed forces and the collective capabilities required for their implementation - reply to the annual report of the Council (Presentation of and debate on the report of the Defence Committee and vote on the draft recommendation, Doc. 1687).
4. New tasks for the WEU Satellite Centre - reply to the annual report of the Council (Presentation of and debate on the report of the Technological and Aerospace Committee and vote on the draft recommendation, Doc. 1692 and amendment).
Are there any objections?...
The orders of the day for the next sitting are approved.
Does anyone wish to speak?...
The sitting is closed.
(The sitting was closed at 18.50)
