European Foundation Intelligence Digest, 18th

Four EU states discuss common military policy

The leaders of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg have concluded their mini-summit to discuss reinforcing European military policy. They all insisted they were not trying to set up a structure to compete with Nato. President Chirac in particular repeatedly stressed that the idea was not to dissociate the EU from Nato. On the contrary, he said, the idea was to strengthen the European pillar of Nato. Chancellor Schröder said, “It is not that there is too much America in Nato, but too little Europe.” The four leaders also emphasised that all EU states were being invited to join their initiative. The Belgian prime minister said explicitly that he hoped for “positive signals” from Britain and Italy, countries which have expressed severe reservations about the proposal to create what they see as a euro-army. [Andreas Middel, Die Welt, 30^th April 2003] The four states said they want the existing Franco-German brigade to form the core of the new euro-army, and a common staff office to be opened by 2004. The Belgian government has already earmarked a property in Tervuren for the purpose. [Der Spiegel, 29^th April 2003]

Many in Europe have been irritated by the timing of the proposal, coming as it does after the ructions over Iraq, and especially because it is organised by the chief European opponents of the Iraq war. The Italian foreign minister, Franco Frattini, warned that the initiative would lead to new splits within the EU, and said that Europe should not start to create an alternative to Nato. Tony Blair was one of the harshest critics of the initiative, telling the Financial Times on Monday that he wanted a unipolar world and that the EU should not try to compete with the USA. But there seems little doubt that any moves by the four will indeed be interpreted as an attempt to de-couple themselves from Nato. [Andreas Middel, Die Welt, 29^th April 2003] Criticism has come from Hans-Gert Pöttering, the chairman of the European People’s Party in the European Parliament. He says that only an initiative which includes all EU states can advance the cause of European military policy. Pöttering criticised above all Belgium, which he said normally favoured the communitarian approach but which he said was adopting this initiative for internal political reasons. Elections are being held in Belgium on 18^th May. [Katja Riddersbusch, Die Welt, 29^th April 2003]

German commissar calls for EU military budget

The German budget commissar has said that the EU budget should in future contain finance for common military actions. The EU treaties currently forbid the EU budget being used for military purposes, the original intention of the EU having been to prevent war, not pay for it. Mrs Schreyer has said, “This clause excluding military finance should be dropped.” She says that funds should be made available for military intervention for the so-called Petersberg tasks, a list of military undertakings which were agreed in 1992. “This is not the militarisation of the EU,” Schreyer has also illogically insisted. She says it is simply more efficient to manage the budget this way, instead of using an extra-budgetary fund, as is currently the case for the mission in Macedonia. Currently the EU spends a modest €47 million on its “common foreign and security policy” - pretty impressive, when you consider that it doesn’t even have one - out of a total budget of some €100 billion. If military actions were to be financed centrally, the first figure would doubtless rise considerably. Schreyer expects that the Constitution will drop the clause, a suggestion which the European Parliament would definitely welcome. It has recently voted to change the treaties to allow military actions to be financed from the EU budget. [Andreas Middel, Die Welt, 23rd April 2003]

German-American rapprochement

The German Chancellor has said that Berlin is trying to normalise its relations with the Americans following the Iraq war. Speaking on the occasion of a visit to Germany by the Japanese prime minister, Chancellor Schröder said he did not want differences over Iraq to damage the German-American friendship. General Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, is expected to visit Berlin soon, maybe on 12^th or 13^th May, but rumours in the press about this have not yet been confirmed officially. A government spokesman said that the Chancellor would do everything to facilitate a meeting when General Powell asks for one. On Sunday the German defence minister, Peter Struck, travels to Washington for a Nato summit, where he is expecting to meet Donald Rumsfeld bilaterally. Schröder and Koizumi both said they wanted the North Korea issue to be solved, but “not in the same way as the Iraq crisis had been dealt with”. [Handelsblatt, 30^th April 2003]

Giscard’s draft constitution – ruse or ridicule?

Seldom has a new EU proposal been greeted so negatively by insiders as Giscard’s draft constitution. “Autistic”, “disappointing”, “unacceptable” are some of the epithets which were heard in response to it. Many of its key proposals were rejected by the presidium of the Convention which is charged with drawing up the new Constitution. Giscard’s proposal tends to strengthen the role of the Council of Ministers, which has led to the joke that Giscard, like the early Bolsheviks, wants “all power to the Councils (Soviets)”. The Commission and the Parliament would see their powers concomitantly reduced, at least according to the Parliament and the Commission themselves. Giscard wants there to be a president of Europe, elected for two and a half years with the option of extending his mandate once. He would be elected, at least at the beginning, by the heads of state and government. Later he might be elected by an electoral college composed of members of the European Parliament and members of national parliaments. His role would be to prepare the meetings of the European Council (summits), which he would chair. He would also represent the EU’s foreign policy. There would also be a European foreign minister, who would also be a vice-president of the Commission. The “Council office” would be composed of the EU president, the vice-president, the foreign minister, two EU heads of government, and the chairman of the EU finance Council and the Justice & Home Affairs Council. This creation is already being dubbed “the Politburo”.

Romano Prodi, the president of the Commission, said he was “disappointed” by Giscard’s proposal, which he says will add more bureaucracy (!). The veteran German MEP, Elmar Brok, also attacked Giscard’s plan as dividing power ad absurdum, and of ignoring the advice of the European Convention which has been working on the Constitution for over a year. For instance, Giscard has included the Congress of Peoples even though everyone in the Convention rejected the idea. Johannes Voggenhuber, who represents the Greens in the Convention, accused Giscard of creating an “authoritarian” constitution for Europe. He said that Giscard’s plans would mean “the victory of nationalism over the idea of Europe”. He said that the system for electing the president of Europe reminded him of the “17^th century model of electors in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation”. The president suggested by Giscard would, he said, not be responsible to any parliament. Smaller states are also opposed to the idea of a European president, as well as to the Congress of Peoples. [Andreas Middel, Die Welt, 24^th April 2003] A Finnish member of the Convention, Kimmo Kiljunen, said, “You want to put at the head of the EU a superpower, as in the American presidential regime, in the Congress of the Communist Party of China, as in the Politburo of the old USSR.” [Marco Marozzi, La Republlica, 25^th April 2003]

The members of the European Convention’s presidium lost no time in plucking bits off his plan “as off a Gallic chicken”. The Congress of Peoples has been excised; the vice-president clipped. The idea of a “Council office” has just about survived. Consequently the plan submitted to the 105 members of the Convention retained little of Giscard’s original suggestion. The presidium has retained the idea of a European president and of a reduction in the size of the Commission to 15 commissars, although the smaller states are still unhappy with this downgrading of the Commission. [Andreas Middel, Die Welt, 25^th April 2003]

But was the whole thing a deliberate set-up? That is certainly the opinion of one commentator. Giscard has managed to save the essential part of his proposal, namely that there should be a European “president”. Le Figaro suggests that Giscard deliberately included his outlandish suggestions in order that people could feel they had scored a victory by taking them out, leaving the bits he really wants. A source close to VGE said that it was a bit like ballooning: one had to have plenty of ballast to jettison. The ten hours or so spent in conclave with the presidium, which led to important suggestions being excised, created the psychological effect necessary for the remaining text to be welcomed as “a good basis for discussions”, to quote a Commission source. [Pierre Bocev, Le Figaro, 25^th April 2003]

Debate on “exit clause” contains hidden dangers

The Convention has started to debate whether or not an “exit clause” should be included in the new Constitution, which would allow a state to leave the EU if it wanted. The idea is mainly symbolic, and is intended to reassure candidate states. The governments of the Baltic states are lobbying hard for this, calling on memories of the Soviet “prison of peoples” into which they were incorporated in 1939. The presidency of the Convention has proposed that a state which wanted to leave the EU would negotiate with other member states on how to go about this. The other states would vote by qualified majority; but if there were no agreement within two years, then the state would leave anyway. Members of the Convention seemed generally favourable to this idea but one Belgian MEP undoubtedly spoke for many when she said that very strict conditions should be imposed on states wishing to leave, because their decision could have a negative impact on the euro zone. Anne Van Lancker said, “Withdrawal should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances.” Belgian and French representatives have said that withdrawal should be allowed only when the treaties are revised, and that it must be negotiated with other member states. A Spanish deputy said, “Divorce yes, but freedom to abandon the home – No.” [Le Monde, 25th April 2003] All this underlines the undesirability of having such a clause in the new Convention. In the present circumstances, states belong to the EU for as long as their parliaments approve the accession treaties. If a state decides to rescind its signature on an accession treaty, it can leave at will. The insertion of a clause governing withdrawal would make the decision to leave justiciable by the European Court of Justice. Paradoxically, indeed, the insertion of this clause would spell the definitive end of national sovereignty because membership of the EU would no longer depend on member states but on the common organs of the EU.

Berlusconi suggests getting rid of the Commission altogether

The Italian prime minister has caused considerable ruffled feathers by making the suggestion that the new Constitution get rid of the Commission completely. “I am happy to take this proposal as a joke,” said the Commission President, Romano Prodi, “but the best jokes are the shortest ones.” Berlusconi’s suggestion is all the more extraordinary since Italy is to take over the presidency of the EU on 1^st July and the plan is to sign the Convention in Rome in December. His proposal, made in Athens on 16^th April, is the first contribution Italy has made to the debate on the institutional structure of the EU: Greece was, until then, the only other country not to have put in its pennyworth. It had been assumed that these two states were keeping mum in order to be able to step in and reconcile the different views which have been expressed by big and small states. But the Greek prime minister has said he is opposed to the creation of a European presidency, while Mr. Berlusconi has suggested that the Commission be dropped completely and that the EU be governed by representatives of member states. Berlusconi later said he was joking; his joke, he said, was a reply to Jacques Chirac who had said that the rotating Council presidency could not work with 25 members and that therefore it should be dropped. But it was not clear whether Mr. Berlusconi was also joking when he suggested that the EU be enlarged to include Russia and Israel. [Thomas Ferenczi, Le Monde, 21^st April 2003]

Germany to exceed 3% deficit again

Volker Halsch, the State Secretary in the German Finance Ministry (the number two after the minister himself), has said that it is “pretty unlikely” that Germany’s budget deficit will be under 3% of GDP in 2003, as it was in 2002. This would mean that Germany had broken the Maastricht rules for two years running. The announcement that the deficit will be over 3% in 2003 follows earlier predictions by the German Finance Ministry that it would be 2.9% in 2003. The OECD, meanwhile, is predicting that it will be above 3% in 2003 and also in 2004. Halsch claims that it is still the government’s aim to have no budget deficit at all by 2006. [Handelsblatt, 30^th April 2003]

Plavsić to serve “sentence” in Sweden

Last week’s newspapers in Serbia reported that Biljana Plavsić, the successor to Radovan Karadžić as president of the Bosnian Serb Republic, is to serve her 11-year sentence for war crimes in Sweden. Mrs Plavsić was initially indicted for genocide but the greater charges were dropped, most probably in return for her agreement to give information for the prosecution of Slobodan Milošević. Swedish law does not allow people over the age of 70 to be imprisoned so Mrs. Plavsić will be accommodated in a house. It is said that people there are looking forward to her cooking up a few tasty palatschinken (pancakes). [B92 News, 25^th April 2003; Danas, 25^th April 2003]

Serbia presses charges for Djindjić assassination

After detaining some 8,000 people, two thousand of whom are still in custody without charge and without access to a lawyer, the Serbian government has formally charged forty-five people with the murder of the prime minister, Zoran Djindjić. They include people who were in prison at the time of the assassination, such as Vojislav Šešelj, the leader of the Radical Party, who is now accused of belonging to a “Stop The Hague” conspiracy to undermine the court and extraditions to it. Rade Bulatović, a former aide to the former president of Yugoslavia, Voljislav Koštunica, the man who replaced Milošević, has also been charged with the murder. The Interior Minister also announced that eight people have been charged with trying to assassinate the leader of the Serbian Renewal Party, Vuk Drašković in June 2000. The eight suspects are: Slobodan Milošević, Nebojša Pavković, the former chief of the general staff, Rade Marković, the head of the secret services under Milošević, and five others. [Radio Free Europe Newsline, 30^th April 2003]

Duisenberg says he will go within a year

The president of the European Central Bank has given an assurance that he will not be in his job by this time next year. Duisenberg had intended to leave office in July, but he has been asked to stay until a successor is found. The original agreement had been that his successor would be Jean-Claude Trichet, the governor of the Bank of France, but Trichet is currently facing trial for complicity in the Crédit Lyonnais fraud. His verdict is expected on 18^th June, the prosecution having asked for 10 months in prison for Mr. Trichet who was Director of the French Treasury at the time of his alleged crimes. Christian Noyer, currently Vice-President of the ECB, is now being mooted instead of Trichet. Other candidates, all French, include Jean Lemierre, the current head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the deputy governor of the Bank of France, Hervé Hannoun. [Le Monde, 29^th April 2003]

Council of Europe expresses concern about Guantanamo prisoners

Parliamentarians from the Council of Europe have voted a resolution in Berlin calling on the USA to observe recognised laws and international humanitarian standards at Guantanamo Bay. The organisation has also called on the US to give the 600 inmates there, among which there are some between the ages of 13 and 15, the status of prisoners of war. The Council of Europe has asked for them to be granted access to lawyers, which is denied them by the US courts, as well as visits by the Red Cross. [Handelsblatt, 30^th April 2003]

Leuna sale ‘used to finance German ministers’

The trial in Paris of Alfred Sirven, former right hand man of the then head of Elf, Loik Le Floch-Pringent, has heard how a businessman close to the German Christian Democrats used the sale of the East German oil refinery at Leuna to Elf to pay the equivalent of €39 million in “commissions”, most of which went to “finance two former German ministers”. The purpose of these “commissions” was allegedly to convince the ministers that the sale should go ahead. Le Floch-Pringent has admitted in the mammoth trial that Elf had secret accounts for its worldwide deals. The trial is seeking to ascertain what happened to some €183 million; there are 30 defendants. Elf received €1 billion in subsidies for buying Leuna. The German authorities have found no proof that any money flowed into the coffers of the CDU. [Handelsblatt, 29^th April 2003]

Polish parties raise issue of German land claims

One of the most sensitive issues in the Polish debate on the EU is the issue of Germans buying up Polish land. Three conservative movements have signed an appeal to the president and the prime minister, asking them to state publicly what their position is on the property restitution claims which have been filed by Germans for land in Western and Northern Poland (the parts which used to be Germany). According to Jan Olszewski, the leader of the Reconstruction of Poland movement, some 600,000 German former property owners have filed property restitution claims against Poland. He warned against Poland joining the EU without a guarantee that these claims would be settled in Polish courts. The fear is that jurisdiction over such claims may pass to the institutions of the EU, in particular to the European Court of Justice and/or the European Court of Human Rights.

Accession countries prepare to shut down their nuclear power stations

One of the main conditions imposed by the EU on accession countries has been that they must shut down their nuclear power stations: Ignalina in Lithuania, Bohunice in Slovakia, and Kozloduy in Bulgaria. The EU has said it will pay Lithuania 210 million euros and Slovakia 60 million euros in compensation: no sum has yet been fixed for Bulgaria. It seems highly unlikely that Euratom will finance the construction of new nuclear power stations to replace the old ones, as these countries say they would like, since Germany is strongly opposed to such a move. [Hervé Kempf, Le Monde, 27^th April 2003]

President Klaus in euro-row

A row has erupted between Václav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic, and the Czech Foreign Minister Cyril Svoboda. In Athens on 17^th April, Mr. Klaus said that the Czech Republic had lost some of its sovereignty by signing the accession treaty. Svoboda said, “If a student of law said that, he would certainly not pass the exam. We are certainly not losing sovereignty, we have voluntarily decided to exercise our sovereignty jointly with other EU members.” [RFE Newsline, 18^th April 2003] Klaus said in a letter to Svoboda that his remarks about him were “unjustified, incorrect and misleading” and he invited him to Prague castle to explain his “defamatory statements”, an invitation Svoboda initially turned down but later accepted. The disagreement turns not only on the interpretation of the EU treaties, but also on the President’s prerogatives in foreign policy. [RFE, 23^rd April 2003]