European Security & Defence Policy

European Parliament, Strasbourg

17 November 1999

I am very pleased to be taking part for the first time in a debate in the European Parliament with the High Representative. I think we are all fortunate that he is the man charged with the key responsibility for developing a more effective and coherent European Security and Defence Policy. He has a huge and wholly deserved international reputation for standing up for the values which have been responsible for the best of European history in this Century and whose absence has been responsible for the worst of our history as well. The High Representative and I have spent a good deal of our first weeks in our respective jobs considering together the terrestrial problems thirty thousand feet below our aircraft seats. It reminds me that Lord Grey the British Foreign Secretary for ten years at the

beginning of the Century only ever went abroad once. And I guess he was regarded as well travelled. Perhaps we are all better informed than he was; but perhaps we’re not.

I don’t wish to repeat all the points so well made by the High Representative. But since you’ve invited me to take part in this debate – something I greatly welcome - perhaps I can say a few words about the Commission’s view of the building of a European Security and Defence Policy.

Security and defence which are at the heart of the common foreign and security policy are also properly and inevitably close to the hearts of Member States. As was clearly apparent at the historic meeting at the beginning of this week of the General Affairs Council attended by Defence Ministers Member States believe that enhanced cooperation in the security and defence area in the European Union will bring two major benefits. First, it will enable everyone to make better use of their resources, and secondly it will mean that everyone packs a bigger punch precisely because Member States are working more closely together. These benefits are needed more than ever in the security field because more is expected of Europe today. More is expected of us by the rest of the world because of our economic success and our success too in building peaceful and stable democracies. And more is expected of us by our own citizens who do not think of Europe just in terms of balance sheets and GDP figures. How could they possible do so given the tumultuous political events of the last few years ever since an American political scientist told us that history had ended?

The European Union has to rise to the level of events. It’s as simple as that – as simple and as difficult.

The Amsterdam Treaty and the Cologne Declaration represent a formidable challenge. But we in the Commission want to play our part in meeting it. Of course we have no military role and the sight on Monday evening of so many military uniforms in the margins of the GAC came as an interesting cultural development. But what we do have in the Commission is the means and the experience to make an important contribution to the non-military dimension of security. The so-called Petersburg tasks suggest a comprehensive package of crisis management measures where community instruments can interact with traditional diplomacy and if necessary the use of military force.

Here we come to a crucial point. Sometimes the military dimension is essential and decisive. But the non-military dimension can also be crucial. The nature of conflict has changed so radically during this bloody Century. Eighty-five percent of the victims of the First World War were soldiers. Only fifteen percent were civilians. The situation in conflicts today is almost the opposite. It’s equally the case that with the increasing sophistication and interdependence of our societies, economic measures, the free flow of information and so on have become ever more important in conflict and in its prevention. So the European Union has to envisage action right across the whole range of the instruments at its disposal – military and non-military.

If you want to know just what we can contribute as a Community look at the multitude of our operations in the Balkans. We’re involved in obvious areas like humanitarian assistance, rehabilitation and reconstruction. But the measures we can take with the aim of preventing conflict and human suffering include other things as well, like law enforcement, institution building and trade policy. Those are the sort of things that we are supporting in Kosovo, to which we will be pledging 500 million euros at the Donor’s Conference in Brussels today.

So what I want to make clear is you don’t have to strain or stretch your imagination let alone the Treaties which determine our activities to see the clear roles that can be played by the Commission and the Parliament.

It’s not just in South East Europe that we have seen the need for coordinated military and civil crisis management both at the Union level and between Member States. We can also see that in East Timor. We have to improve our ability as a Union and as Member States to manage crises and to contribute to those international organisations which are also active in this alas all too necessary area.

The Helsinki European Council will discuss an integrated approach to conflict management and we are, as a Commission, making a full contribution to that discussion. Let me make a point that some may regard as rather prosaic. In conflict prevention and crisis management time is of the essence. The new Commission has begun work to try to improve the effectiveness and speed of response of instruments in crisis situations. That’s something that the Parliament has frequently requested us to do. It’s a big job. In many respects I think that any progress here would represent the biggest contribution that I could make to our rather more heroic objectives. I do hope that we can count on the continued support of the Parliament in developing more flexible and rapid procedures. And as the High Representative would I’m sure readily agree, I lose no opportunity to make the same point to the Council.

The Commission’s role in crisis management is clear. But our role goes beyond crisis management. A European security and defence policy can’t be developed in the absence of a competitive and open European defence industrial and technological base. This is also in the interests of the European Union’s partners. We in the Commission can contribute to this with a range of instruments in areas like public procurement, internal market, research and competition.

I want to make one final point. Sometimes people talk about the potential institutional conflicts in the foreign and security tasks which lie ahead. I think the issues that we’re talking about are too important to get mangled by diplomatic lawyers. Plainly we have to build on the institutional framework of the Union. Plainly military and non-military matters cannot be neatly compartmentalised. Plainly the Commission must play its full part in crisis management even when there is a military component, because there will also be a non-military component. Plainly the new structures must enable the Commission to exercise its full right of initiative. Plainly the Commission is not a college of amateur chiefs of staff and plainly we want to work successfully with the High Representative and with the Parliament to ensure that Europe has the security and defence policy that it needs.

And if there is another plainly left in the dictionary it is that - so long as I have my present responsibilities - no cigarette paper (or perhaps I should say after David Byrne’s announcement on tobacco yesterday) no piece of tissue paper is going to separate the Commissioner for External Relations from the High Representative.