The initiative on European defence and security taken by France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg yesterday usefully emphasises the importance of these issues and brings them centre stage in the debate on Europe's future.
They were at pains to emphasise that this complements NATO structures and is not anti-American, after the recent deep divisions over the war in Iraq which provoked their decision to call the meeting. Much of what they propose is already being implemented or under active consideration in the EU. In that sense the four countries are a vanguard group rather than a divisive one. Many of the military tasks they identify are increasingly seen as necessary if the EU is to play a credible and effective regional and international role, irrespective of whether all member-states participate in them. The principal issue of contention is whether they are unnecessarily duplicating existing NATO structures.
The meeting agreed on seven points "to bring our national defence instruments together", with target dates identified. The development of a rapid reaction capability is already agreed, to create a 60,000-strong force by the end of this year. A European command for strategic air, sea and land transport is already being actively discussed. So are the creation of a protection capability to guard troops and civilians against the risk of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons attacks; the capacity to dispatch emergency humanitarian aid within 24 hours of disasters; and training for pilots and naval personnel. That leaves two issues which are more contentious with other EU and NATO partners: setting up a crisis planning nucleus and a "multinational deployable force headquarters" in Belgium next year. Critics say this will duplicate NATO structures.
Their proposals for the creation of a European Security and Defence Union open to all EU member-states and for a solidarity clause in the event of terrorist attacks are under discussion at the Convention on the Future of Europe. So is the plan to create a European arms agency to co-ordinate arms expenditure and make it more effective.
The Iraq war has heightened public awareness of these issues. Many Europeans are now more convinced of the need to organise defence and security in such a way as to service agreed EU values and objectives, which may increasingly diverge from those of the United States. This will require a lot more debate about how that can best be done. Britain, Spain and Italy have criticised yesterday's meeting for jeopardising relations with the United States and NATO; but they all have an interest in developing supplementary EU structures if the EU is to be a credible player in international affairs.
Ireland is already committed to develop the EU's Rapid Reaction Force and has an interest in seeing it operational and effectively serviced. We too need more political debate on how far these developments should go.