Considerations and proposals about the European Constitution

February 2005

Inside the long and complex text of the European Constitution, a large space is dedicated to the topic of foreign and common defence policy, about which the Peace and Nonviolence Secretary expresses the following considerations and proposals.

1. Role of the European Parliament

The European Parliament shall be regularly consulted on the main aspects and basic choices of the common security and defence policy. It shall be kept informed of how it evolves. (article I – 41, par.8)
The European Parliament, elected by the citizens, is reduced to a merely consulting role, as a spectator who can sometimes give his opinion, but without any power to decide.
The foreign and common defence policy is defined by the European Council, composed by the Heads od State or Government of the Member States. “The Council appoints the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, who conducts the Union’s foreign and security policy” (article I – 28).

2. Military interventions

Who decides a possible military intervention? No national parliament. The article III – 297, par. 1 and 2 says :”Where the international situation requires operational action by the Union, the Council shall adopt the necessary European decisions. Such decisions shall lay down the objectives, the scope, the means to be made available to the Union, if necessary the duration, and the conditions for implementation of the action.
The European decisions referred to in paragraph 1 shall commit the Member States in the positions they adopt and in the conduct of their activity.”

At this point no one will we able to oppose an intervention, even if the public opinion of a country, or of all Europe, is against it.
The European army is not created only to defend Europe, but will be able to act all over the world: The Union may use these assets (civil and military) on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security (article I – 41, par.1).
The article III – 309 says: “The tasks referred to in Article I-41(1), in the course of which the Union may use civilian and military means, shall include joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making and post-conflict stabilisation. All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories.”
This last part, in its vagueness, seems a clear support to Bush’s policy, with its horrible consequences of preventive war, violation of basic human rights (see Guantanamo and the scandal of tortures in Iraq and Afghanistan) and military interventions disguised as humanitarian missions.

3. Relations with Nato

Regarding the relations with Nato (not all European countries are part of it), it says that “The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States, it shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, under the North Atlantic Treaty, and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework (article I – 41, par.2).
Indeed nowhere is written that the states members are "forced" to remain in Nato, but at the same time a constitutional text that expressly quotes the affiliation of the countries to the Nato, instead of pointing out a generic compatibility between the European common defence and previously ratified defense treaties, practically strengthens the adhesion to the Nato of the countries at a constitutional level.
Actually, it is said that the EU wants to make a common defence policy, but at the same time binds that could create difficulties to the Nato countries of the Union in case of conflict of opinions between Nato and UE are mantained, therefore pushing the whole EU towards the decisions of the Nato.
Besides, Nato imposes to its members the principle of mutual defence, that has been invoked to justify for example the intervention in Afghanistan. According to this principle, the EU Nato countries could enter in a direct conflict with third countries and be therefore attached. At this point the principle of mutual help, enacted by the European Constitution and expressed in the article I - 41- par.7 comes into play (“If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power”.)
This allows an uncontrollable spiral of attacks and counterattacks, with the obligation to intervene to defend a state even if its foreing policy is not shared.

4. European Defence Agency

And the obligations are not ended: according to the article I – 41, par.3, “Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. An Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (European Defence Agency) shall be established to identify operational requirements, to promote measures to
satisfy those requirements, to contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, to participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and to assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.”
The article III – 311 specifies among the tasks of this Agency “to support defence technology research” and “to contribute to identifying the Member States' military capability objectives and evaluating observance of the capability commitments given by the Member States”.
A wonderful present to the multinationals of weapons, many of which are European and a heavy mortgage on the future: the increased funds allocated to improve military capabilities will be subtracted from the ones previously destined to education and healthcare, fighting unemployment and poverty as well as financing international cooperation.

B. Synthesis

Instead of clearly rejecting war as a mean to resolve conflicts, this European Constitution considers military interventions as acceptable political instruments.
It does not promote disarmament, reconversion of arms factories and the research of dialogue and of non-military solutions, but instead it supports the military industry and the research to create more and more lethal weapons.
It declares its will to elaborate a common and indipendent defence policy, but practically it complies with the US militarist policy, with alarming consequences for peace and respect of human rights all over the world.
This Constitution therefore turns into a way that is opposed to the sensibility of millions of European citizens, who in the last years have clearly expressed their opposition to war and any kind of violence.

C. Proposals for a different European policy

The total EU defence budget is 160 billions euros. The military expenses in the world get to 956 billions dollars, half of which used by United States. The expense for weapons traffic in one year is more than what would be enough to meet the millenium objectives, signed by 189 countries members of United Nations (to halve before 2015 hunger, poverty and child mortality, to give to everyone the possibility of a primary education, to promote gender equality, to give more authority to women, to improve the mothers’ condition, to overcome plagues as Aids, malaria and other desease and to assure environmental supportability).
If 10% of military expenses was destined to development funds, the pressing needs that torment the world would be satisfied. These interventions are much more effective for a real fight against terrorism than the military policy outlined in the above mentioned articles.

Our proposals therefore take a direction that is opposed to the actual European Constituion’s one:

- to introduce in the Constitution text the refusal of war as a mean to resolve international conflicts and the recognition of peace as a basic right of people and individuals.
- to exit NATO, as it is clearly a tool for U.S. imperial plans
- to define an European foreign policy based on:
the pullout of all invading troops form occupied territories
the research of dialogue and diplomatic mediation to resolve conflicts.
the progressive disarmament
the reconversion of arms factories
the cancellation of foreign debt and destination of 3% of gross domestic product to development aid interventions, on condition that the countries that receive these resources allocate them to the fields of health, education and environment.
the fulfilment of the commitments to the Global Fund.
the reduction of funds for the European Defence Agency and its use as an instrument of coordination to support and implement UN resolutions.
the starting up of mechanisms of pressure to assure the respect of UN resolutions.



www.humanisteurope.org