EU: Most European Union member-states are backing a "solidarity clause" committing themselves to assist one another in tackling terrorist threats. But the EU is deeply divided over a proposal to adopt a mutual defence commitment that would require each member-state to act in defence of the territorial integrity of any other EU country.
A report by the working group on defence at the Convention on the Future of Europe acknowledges that some of its members, particularly those from neutral member-states such as Ireland, have misgivings about the solidarity clause. But it said that most of the group were "inclined" in favour of it.
"That clause would enable all the instruments available to the Union to be mobilised, including the military resources and the structures originally set up for the Petersberg tasks, and also police and judicial co-operation, civil protection, etc., in order to avert the terrorist threat, protect the civilian population and democratic institutions and to assist a member-state within its territory in dealing with the consequences of a possible terrorist attack," the report says.
The report suggests that, in planning military operations, the EU should move away from the need for unanimity towards a principle of "assent". This would not mean the strict abolition of national vetoes but would suggest that those who do not wish to participate in operations should simply step aside.
"Member-states not wishing to participate in an operation would be encouraged not to oppose it, but to abstain, although political support and solidarity would always be required," the report says.
"Once the operation was launched, the abstaining states would not participate in decision-making concerning the implementation of the operation as originally decided on, but could join in at a later stage. They would, however, take part in decision-making that had political consequences or required military action going beyond the terms of reference of the mission as originally decided on," it adds.
The Green TD, Mr John Gormley, who is a member of the convention's working group on defence, has expressed concern at the report's tone.
He believes that it does not adequately reflect the divisions within the group.
Britain has joined the EU's four neutral countries in rejecting the idea of a mutual defence clause, arguing that the EU should leave such matters to NATO. And the British government's representative at the convention, Mr Peter Hain, has dismissed the proposed "solidarity clause" as an irrelevance.
"If it carries real obligations to offer military assistance it's duplicating the NATO guarantee. If it does not offer such assistance, it's empty rhetoric," he said.
France and Germany proposed last month that groups of EU member-states should be allowed to co-operate more closely on defence matters if they choose. This week's report to the convention makes a similar proposal and also calls for closer co-operation on arms production and procurement.
The report stresses that it is not proposing a militarisation of the EU and it states explicitly that any decision to take part in a military operation must involve national authorities.
"Defence policy is a special policy both at national and at European level. It is one which goes to the very heart of sovereignty and which essentially calls upon national resources," it says.
"Decisions to take part in operations are for national authorities, which will always wish to be involved in any decision to conduct an operation, as, in addition to having national security implications, they are also likely to endanger the lives of their soldiers," it adds.
