Aid is one area where steps could be taken to lift Europe's profile in global affairs

FINANCIAL TIMES, page 12

The recent Iraqi crisis has again shown that when it comes to world affairs, the European Union has no independent existence in foreign policy terms.

Think also of the crises in Rwanda and Burundi: each of the fifteeen capitals went its own way. Think of the Middle-East peace process: the same. And the same is true in matters from the wars in the former Yugoslavia to the disputes between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean.

It is hardly surprising that public opinion thinks the much-touted common foreign and security policy is pie in the sky. Grand schemes and serious proposals abound for establishing a coherent common foreign and security policy - including those from the European Commission. I hope the intergovernmental conference will eventually take them on board.

Meanwhile, there are steps that could be taken to raise the profile of the EU in global affairs even with the present institutional framework. They could also save some money.

Here is my modest proposal. The European Community Humanitarian Office (Echo), for which I am responsible, has aid programmes in 60 different countries. They all lie outside the present EU borders, in places such as North Korea, Zaire or Nicaragua.

Such a far-flung effort entails considerable transport costs. Out of every six Ecus spent on humanitarian aid, one goes to pay the relief workers, four to buy relief goods such as food and one moving these goods to where they are needed.

Thus, transport absorbed slightly less than Ecu100m, or $120m, in 1995 - roughly the cost in the past six months of the EU's humanitarian aid to Bosnia.

Natural and man-made disasters show no sign of abating, while resources to cope with them have probably reached the upper limit of what donor countries, rightly or wrongly, deem affordable. If there were some means of delivering EU aid free of charge it would release $120m a year which would greatly increase the outreach and the effectiveness of our relief efforts.

This opportunity exists. It has been on the table since June 1992, when the Western European Union (WEU) agreed in Petersberg, near Bonn in Germany, to take a role in "humanitarian and rescue tasks".

It took three-and-a-half years to translate this pledge into action. In June the Berlin Nato Summit increased the WEU potential in the humanitarian field by releasing Nato assets for WEU-led operations.

The WEU humanitarian taskforce is designed to respond to assistance calls from a variety of bodies, including the United Nations Security Council and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. But a "leading role" is seen for the European Union - in other words, the WEU sees its humanitarian taskforce as primarily geared to the support of EU missions.

It is important to bear in mind, however, that "humanitarian operation" has a rather broad meaning in WEU parlance. It includes military missions, such as the deployment of armed units to provide protection and security to refugees and relief workers. There are two reasons why the WEU contribution to European Union humanitarian undertakings should be limited to non military logistical tasks.

First, to use WEU armed units for EU relief operations could be seen as moving from the "soft" security policies allowed by the Maastricht Treaty to the "hard" defense policies whichare planned "in time". This might be seen as prejudging what the inter-governmental conference will decide on this matter.

The UK, for example, is known to favour the status quo and would probably oppose any such move. On the other hand, the UK has played a leading role in giving substance to the Petersberg pledge on humanitarian tasks inside the WEU - perhaps as a counterweight to other members' stronger defense ambitions.

Whatever the reasons however, London strongly supports the idea of a WEU humanitarian taskforce that would provide "specialised logistic assets such as transport, engineering and communications". This much, then, seems politically uncontroversial.

A second objection to a large military role for the WEU comes from relief workers. The European Union does not in practice provide any direct humanitarian aid. It uses UN agencies, the Red Cross and non-governmental organisations in the field. All consider it essential that the provision of aid be seen in recipient countries as neutral and apolitical.

Echo shares this goal. And although security is often a problem in many conflict areas, the presence of armed troops from the donor countries may compromise their neutral image. These are good reasons to limit the role of the WEU in Echo-sponsored humanitarian operations essentially to transport, engineering (such as mine-clearing) and, possibly, communications.

To put it differently, I do not see why anybody should object to having relief goods delivered by a military carrier rather than by a civilian one - provided that other agencies and nongovernmental organisations continue to be in charge of distributing it.

Who would pay for this logistic support? If WEU member states paid for it out of their defence budgets, it would free $120m of Echo resources now tied up in transport. But even if the WEU insisted on some refund, the idea would still be worth pursuing.

First, rather than going to the private sector, often outside the Union, this money would help the public finances of several deficit-prone WEU member states. Second, it would help raise the profile of Europe's institutions and their capability to act together in a manner acceptable to all and for aims shared by all.

Four years have passed since the Petersberg pledge. That is long enough. If the pledge cannot be carried out now, when will it happen?

The author is EU commissioner for humanitarian aid