B2 Brussels2 The Blog

Political and defence Europe (by Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)

Blog AnalysisEU Defense (Doctrine)

Should the WEU be abolished?

(BRUSSELS2) Eliminate the WEU. In the European Defense Landerneau, this question immediately arouses (a little) embarrassment, tinged with reserve and even regret.

"Yes, but" or "later" is often the answer when the question is asked (if it is asked). But outside this circle of "specialists", the WEU generally arouses incomprehension with a question like " it still exists "even" what is that thing". Proof that there is still a catch!

Seldom Asked, Never Answered

If the Western European Union created to compensate for the lack of a defense policy of the EEC was justified even 10 or 15 years ago, since the creation of the European Union, of the ESDP, of the institution from a high representative, from the connection of the WEU agencies (the Torrejon satellite center and the Paris Institute for Security Studies), we could really ask the question: what is it for? No one dared to address this issue head-on. Because dismantling an international organization is rather rare, especially when its role is to ensure the representation of elected officials... When it has its headquarters in France, even more so. The question asked here and there, very discreetly, had therefore always remained unanswered. The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, however, calls for an update of this question.

The first to shoot… Arnaud Danjean

In this new context, the first to have put his foot in the dish was Arnaud Danjean, the president of the Defense subcommittee of the European Parliament. Before the representatives of the National Assembly in Paris, on December 22, Arnaud Danjean did not didn’t beat around the bush: “ If I stick stricto sensu to the treaties, my spontaneous answer concerning the WEU will be pithy: suppression! This is the final stage to be reached according to the Treaty of Lisbon. » And to justify his position: It seems more logical to me, in order to rationalize and make European defense efforts more coherent, for us to be the only representatives in matters of security and defense at parliamentary level. If we stick to the spirit and the letter of the Treaty, the WEU, which indeed produces quality analyses, is doomed to be abolished. But it will have to be done gradually and intelligently..” But apparently the relationship between the two assemblies is tense: “ However, the activism of the President of the WEU Assembly, Mr Robert Walter, does not help matters. It attributes to itself a great deal of competence in the area of ​​European defence, which irritates many of my European parliamentary colleagues and risks accelerating the abolition of this body. »

Can we share this opinion?

Yes, to the extent that it seems incongruous today to have an assembly which meets, which produces reports (in my opinion very interesting, even more than those of the European Parliament) but which has no other power or legitimacy . The WEU Treaty has, in fact, been completely emptied of its substance, most recently by the Lisbon Treaty. By proclaiming an EU solidarity clause, he has, in fact, removed the last remaining originality.

The only advantage of the WEU is to closely involve national parliamentarians in European discussions. A fairly avant-garde position on the Lisbon Treaty. An undeniable advantage when we know that defense policy remains, and will remain for many years, a prerogative where the weight of States and national decisions will be essential. What's more, some of these deputies have become, over time, real specialists in defense issues. Which, despite the quality of a few MEPs, is not yet the doing of the European Parliament (when they do not desert the sessions of the defense subcommittee, read below). Certain transition and compensation measures will therefore be useful.

Two “compensation” measures : involving national deputies

If we abolish the WEU, we would then have to find a way to involve these national deputies in the work of the European Parliament. We could very well establish observer status for at least two national deputies per Member State, either systematically or more solemnly, for one or two sessions per semester: when the representative of the presidency, for example, comes to present this program (by holding open sessions – as with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly).

And transform the EP Defense sub-committee into a full-fledged committee

It is also necessary. For several reasons. Basically, the existence of a committee seems obligatory given the number of industrial, capacity, operational and political issues at stake. The establishment of the new High Representative, of a future permanent structured cooperation, or even of reinforced cooperation, the rise in power of industrial issues in the long term (with the 2 directives published in 2008) and the slow rise in power of the European Defence Agency, requires this transformation. This provision would allow MEPs to devote themselves full-time to this committee (1) and give their reports their full weight. The committee could thus be associated with the legislative work of the other committees (budgetary for the budget, internal market for industrial issues, etc.).

Of course, some members of parliament will argue that the assembly's rules limit the number of committees, while others will bring up pseudo-rational arguments. It must be seen that behind this gnashing of teeth lie some more corporatist sentiments. To be frank, some members of the Foreign Affairs Committee do not want to lose this "baby", which allows them to delve into "heavy" and often media-high-profile subjects: such as the intervention in Afghanistan...

This provision would have the advantage of putting an end to the chronic absenteeism of a clear majority of deputies on the defense subcommittee (2). Humiliating absenteeism, observed on several occasions, when only three to four deputies are present in session while five to six high-ranking experts, even ministerial, are on the podium. There is – in my opinion – a clear problem not of democratic representation, but of democratic delivery (3).

It would also confront the political groups of the European Parliament with their responsibilities. As Arnaud Danjean rightly pointed out to French deputies, one of the " difficulty(s) that the “Security and Defense” sub-committee has to face stems from its very composition. Some very minority political groups use it much more as a platform than as a constructive tool. Following the example of Karl von Wogau, one of my objectives is to make the main political groups its backbone, enabling it to give its work real credibility and to be taken seriously when it challenges the Commission or the Advice. Today, our views are too often perceived as tribunician, knowing that in our discussions the British Conservatives do not support the term "Europe" being attached to that of "defence", while the German extreme left does not want hear the terms "defense" or "military". Nevertheless, a collaboration between the groups of the European People's Party, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe should, by advancing the ideas of European defence, give more credibility to our sub-committee. »

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)

  1. A deputy can only be a member of one committee and a substitute for another. Sub-committees are not counted towards this limit.
  2. According to my calculations, we can estimate that there are about ten deputies who regularly attend the sessions out of 36 incumbents and 36 substitutes, that is not much!
  3. Not to mention the moral obligation: the contract that the deputy has made with the people to represent them.

Nicolas Gros Verheyde

Chief editor of the B2 site. Graduated in European law from the University of Paris I Pantheon Sorbonne and listener to the 65th session of the IHEDN (Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Défense Nationale. Journalist since 1989, founded B2 - Bruxelles2 in 2008. EU/NATO correspondent in Brussels for Sud-Ouest (previously West-France and France-Soir).

One thought on “Should the WEU be abolished?"

  • The answer to your question seems to me, unequivocally, to be YES!… This structure, totally moribund for years, seems to me like a so-called forum, where politicians who are more concerned with coming to a few comfortable days, and at the expense of the Republic, in Brussels or Paris, to advance the ESDP..
    We should, all the same, ask ourselves the question… Have the Lisbon Treaty and its methods of application been adopted by the States?… If the answer is positive… The conclusion is YES to dissolution… and without waiting! …

Comments closed.