|
|
COMMON
FOREIGN & SECURITY POLICY
Redoubling
EU efforts to build an effective Common Foreign and Security Policy
 |
(Extracts of EU Commissionner for External Relations Chris Patten declaration
to the Europan Parliament made on 12 March 2003)
«[…] The sorry figure cut by the European Union in recent
weeks should not blind us to the real and remarkable achievements
of CFSP over the last decade: in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, and
in many other parts of the world. But it should also remind us how
far we have to go. Of course, it is possible, as some have suggested
for a small group of Member States to act as a driving force to
give Europe a coherent, high profile foreign policy. But without
better machinery to harness common political will, they are just
as likely to drive an incoherent high-profile policy. This has not
been a good time for those who believe that the way forward for
European foreign policy is to leave things to the big Member States.
Enhancing the role of the UN as unique source of international legitimacy
One lesson we can already draw from the unfolding events is the
importance of developing the role and authority of the United Nations.
It is in the interests of the whole world that power should be constrained
by global rules, and used only with international agreement. What
other source of international legitimacy but the UN exists for military
intervention? On what other basis is it possible, indeed, to address
the problem of weapons of mass destruction? I am here thinking not
just of the particular case of Iraq, but of the wider issue. America’s
refusal to press forward with ratification of the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty hardly strengthens the hand of the IAEA and others
seeking to prevent the proliferation of nuclear technology in Iran,
North Korea and beyond. I regretted, too, America’s decision
to resile so lightly from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. For
such decisions and there have been many send a dangerous signal
about the value that the US places on international commitments.
And that, surely, is a critical battle lost in what some call the
‘war against terrorism’.
For I find it hard to conceive how the terrorist threat can be confronted
effectively except through international co-operation and disciplines.
Impressive
work has already been done within the EU and through the UN Counter-terrorism
Committee. We should continue to help countries, which find it hard
to meet their counter-terrorism obligations under UN Security Council
Resolution 1373. And we should continue to work for a less unequal
world for example in the WTO Doha Development Agenda; by carrying
forward the Monterrey decisions on development financing; and by
implementing the Johannesburg decisions on sustainable development.
As a general rule, are wars not more likely to recruit terrorists
than to deter them? It is hard to build democracy at the barrel
of a gun, when history suggests that it more usually the product
of long internal development within a society.
Because of the UN’s unique role as a source of legitimacy,
it is of the greatest importance that if a war is waged in Iraq,
the UN should authorise the decision to attack. If, tragically,
the position of the UN remains ambiguous […], then it is still
likely to be desirable that the UN should provide the framework
as soon as possible for humanitarian assistance that may be necessary
thereafter; that it should oversee the emergence of the new Iraqi
polity, driven by the people of Iraq themselves; and that it should
help to co-ordinate the international reconstruction effort that
will certainly be required. But it would be better (who can seriously
dispute this) if, a huge “if” we were able to disarm
Saddam Hussein preferably by inspections.
EU humanitarian assistance and other co-operation
The EU is a massive donor in the Balkans and in Afghanistan, and
we are already the largest humanitarian donor in Iraq. If it comes
to war, we shall certainly have to step up that help, not just to
the victims of the conflict, but to those who may seek refuge from
it. The Commission has been engaged in intensive contacts with UN
organisations and with countries neighbouring Iraq about how we
might best contribute on the humanitarian front. € 15 m has already been set aside, but we may well
need to go further drawing, if necessary, on the budget’s emergency
reserve.
It will be essential that, with other international assistance agencies,
the EU should be free to give independent and impartial help. A strict
separation will need to be maintained between military action and assistance
in order to preserve the so-called ‘humanitarian space’. That
objective will be much easier to achieve if the UN is recognised, at an
early stage, as the lead assistance co-ordinator.
Minimising collateral damage
[…] We must not be disheartened by this setback [to the CFSP]. There
have been similar divisions within the United States, and even within
the US Administration, but these do not pull the country apart because
in the end the President is empowered to speak for the nation as a whole.
As a Union of independent nations we do not enjoy that luxury. But that
is reason to redouble our efforts to build an effective CFSP, not to abandon
them. As we return to the work we shall find, perhaps, a little more humility
even among the large Member States who can surely see how much they have
damaged their common enterprise and how much they have reduced their common
influence as a result of public squabbling.
A second European project that risks being hurt by recent events if we
do not work actively to sustain it, is the cause of enlargement. I think
it is particularly damaging that disagreements over Iraq have been allowed
to over-shadow the debate about enlargement. We should not call into question
the European vocation of countries simply because of their views on the
Iraq crisis. Let us assure the acceding countries that we continue to
look forward eagerly to their imminent membership.
But on the other side of the argument let us acknowledge that those who
join our Union are making an existential choice. They are not declaring
themselves for Europe and against the United States. Emphatically not.
But, in the words of the Treaty, they are accepting a responsibility to
“refrain from action…likely to impair [the effectiveness of
the Union] as a cohesive force in international relations.” The present members may have set a bad example but that does not reduce
the responsibility on all members, including the acceding states, to meet
that Treaty obligation.
Finally, I want to say a word about Israel and Palestine. What happens
if there is a war in Iraq? Let us suppose, let us pray, that it is brief.
Let us further suppose that all the worries expressed about the consequences
in terms of stability of the country prove unfounded. Let us, in short,
put all or most anxieties to one side.
I want to ask two questions. First, will the peace that breaks out drive
Palestinians and Israelis into an historic reconciliation? The state of
the Palestinians was described last week by Peter Hansen, Commissioner
General of the UN Relief and Works Agency. “The stark fact is”,
he wrote, “that almost a quarter of Palestinian children are suffering
from acute or chronic malnutrition for purely man-made reasons. No drought
has hit Gaza and the West Bank, no crops have failed and the shops are
often full of food. But the failure of the peace process and the destruction
of the economy by Israel’s closure policy have had the effect of
a terrible natural disaster”. Second, in the aftermath of a war, will America (the leader of a UN backed operation
or a more limited coalition) take a much more proactive role in forging
an Israeli-Palestinian peace? We have been told that will happen. European
leaders have been told that will happen: that the road map will see
the light of day before we all run out of road. I sincerely hope that
is so. I genuinely fear the outcome if war in Iraq is followed by another
year or more of violence in Palestine and Israel. That would further inflame
opinion in the Islamic world. To defeat terrorism, it is said by some
to be necessary to defeat Saddam Hussein. That may or may not be true
some of us are at the very least agnostic on that point. But what I am
absolutely sure about is that to invade Iraq while failing to bring peace
to the Middle East would create exactly the sort of conditions in which
terrorism would be likely to thrive. And none of us would be immune from
the consequences.»
|
