PERSONAL VIEW EMMA BONINO

A SINGLE EUROPEAN ARMY

New Europe has Emu, it should try for DMU - defence and military union. The smooth launch of the euro shows how it can be done

The Financial Times, Wednesday, February 3, 1999

The Yugoslav army has again been "on the offensive" - i.e.

killing unarmed civilians - in Kosovo, and another humanitarian crisis is looming. The US and Europe are once again pondering whether anything short of military Intervention can make Slobodan Milosevic, the Serb president, relent. But what If the US and Europe came to different conclusions? What If this time the Europeans, but not the Americans, wanted to intervene? Science fiction, some may say. But Imagine it came true. Would Europe have the capability to go alone? Probably not. As Kosovo shows, the main problems facing European defence are two sorts of "out-of-area" operations: the soft kind (humanitarian aid, peacekeeping) and the hard (peacekeeping). It makes political and operational sense for Europeans to count on Nato for both kinds. AS Tony Blair the British prime minister, has said: "To speak with authority, the European Union needs to be able to act militarily on its own when the United States Is not engaged." This is what Nato meant when it defined its military assets as "separable but not separa

te". But Nato can be only a part of the solution. Sure, it would allow the Europeans to avoid duplicating many assets, Infrastructures and command chains. Many, but not all. Others, such as long-range transport and satellite reconnaissance, the Europeans have to build almost from scratch, And they can afford to do it only by pooling their resources. Hence the urgency of a European defence Identity. If all then looks so reasonable and feasible, are we on the verge of a major reshaping of Europe's defence Identity? The answer Is no. For no similar reform has ever been achieved on the old continent without the following three things: a firm commitment to a final goal, however distant In the future; the attendant sense of direction to guide successive generations of political leaders, diplomats and bureaucrats; the appropriate Institutional

framework to work toward that goal. Europe's economic and monetary union is a case in point. Ten years ago, the very idea of Emu was still under the scrutiny of a committee made up of 12 central bankers and three independent experts, all under the chairmanship of Jacques Delors, the then president of the Commission. The committee came up with a threestage plan for Emu, adopted by the June 1989 European Council in Madrid; the first stage started on July 1 1990. The ultimate goal of full monetary union was enshrined two years later in the Maastricht Treaty. But European governments remained firmly in control throughout the whole process, and from one stage to another. This process needs to be re-run in the realm of EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (PESC, from its French acronym). Under the EU's Amsterdam treaty, the European Council could provide a mandate to the newly appointed Mr or Ms PESC and to the president of the European Commission to oversee a replay of the Delors committee on Emu.The committee w

ould include the 15 military chiefs of staff and senior diplomats from member states and independent experts. If the committee chose to follow the Delors model it could recommend a similar multistage plan, stretching over several years to achieve Diplomatic and Military Union, or DMU. Like the Emu model, the first phase could be devoted to the strengthening of diplomatic and military cooperation, making use of the instruments already contained in the new EU treaty - such as the policy planning and early warning cell. In the second phase something similar to the European Monetary Institute (the precursor to the European Central Bank) could be set up, both in the military and in the diplomatic realms. In the third and last phase, DMU would be achieved and both a European army and a European diplomatic corps would see the light. As with Emu, the process would be overseen at all stages, and ultimately be decided upon, by member governments. In this sense, the British idea of creating a council of defence ministe

rs is particularly useful, as there is yet no military counterpart to the role played by the council of finance ministers in Emu. The whole idea will surely be met with a deluge of scepticism. But so was Emu until a few months ago. Many will say that before setting on the course of DMU, interested EU members need to agree on every detail of the foreign and security policy they want to pursue. But again, look at Emu: it led to the creation of a European Central Bank around just one policy prescription, price stability. And when the bank was only weeks away from taking over the monetary policy of its 11 members, crucial policy decisions had still to be worked out. To meet a central British concern, national armies and diplomatic corps need not disappear. As is the case with the relationship between national central banks and the ECB, a practical division of labour as well as synergies may be worked out. There will be considerable wrangling over the length of the multi-staged period to phase in a full DMU. But

from the Delors committee to the actual circulation of euro notes and coins, it will have taken Europe 14 years to achieve a full Emu. In between we had referendums and opt-outs, all sorts of doubts and second thoughts. They will certainly recur with DMU. But then again: in spite of everything, the cure is now flying. Finally, many will object that once you have a military and diplomatic union cum economic and monetary union, voila!, you also have a federal Europe. I studiously avoid the term, since it evokes a host of other institutional dilemmas, first of all the powers of the parliament, the executive role of the Commission, and on and on along an endless list on which tons of very controversial pages have been written. Whatever one wants to call such a Europe, though, two things are sure: that on the global scene it would have the authority all its member states presently lack and that Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, is rightly calling for; that no one could honestly claim to have been rushed to such

union. Imagine 2015 as the deadline for a full DMU: It will be 70 years from the end of the second world war. No rush Indeed.

The author is commissioner for fisheries, consumer policy and the European Community Humanitarian Office.