A detailed reply to the letter from Weimar
« I share your vision that we need to find new momentum to "fully meet the needs of our Member States ". It is in these terms that the High Representative of the EU replied to the "letter from the 3" members of the Weimar triangle (France, Germany, Poland). But Cathy Ashton is not satisfied with a formula of acknowledgment of receipt, she gives a detailed answer which deserves a (very) attentive reading. In my opinion, this is the first time that we have had a response, rather substantial, to certain questions posed in terms of Europe of defence: the reform of crisis management structures, the military HQ, battlegroups, capabilities, CSP ...
The High Representative puts forward, in very cautious words, real proposals, which could be "swear words" for some Member States. It thus (re)says yes to a European military HQ, "that no one disputes" on condition that its effectiveness can be proven; yes to the humanitarian use of Battlegroups if member states so wish; need to reach an agreement on permanent structured cooperation which remains blocked today; urgent need to develop capacities taking into account strong budgetary constraints!
NATO tropism
What strikes at first glance is the structure of the letter. While the Weimar letter addresses a series of mainly European subjects, Cathy Ashton responds first with EU-NATO relations, then with EU-US relations and then only addresses issues relating to the ESDP. Symbolic... But sticking to this presentation would be too simplistic.
The necessary support from States to unblock the EU-NATO relationship
On the EU-NATO relationship, we are entitled to a proper defence. " You know that I attach great importance to it. And I spared no effort to improve this essential relationship “Writes Catherine Ashton who then details her efforts to arrive at solutions” concrete », the projects already started in particular on medical support and IEDs and the next one on nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical (CBRN) risks. But in order to succeed, I have need support from EU Member States and NATO she recalls. We know, in fact, that the file is blocked for high-level political reasons (the conflict between Turkey and Cyprus). And all the efforts of the High Representative of the EU as well as of the Secretary General of NATO come up against this question which has poisoned the south-eastern basin of Europe for years.
NB: it is moreover quite surprising that the Europeans do not grasp more fully this question which concerns a conflict between one of its Member States and one of its candidate countries.
On relations with the United States, the High Representative wants to allay certain fears, affirming that a " stronger CSDP cooperation with the US does not weaken (relations with) NATO »
A letter to read in detail
Reform our crisis management structure
« We need to improve our functioning in the field of crisis management. That's why I don't want to make a hasty decision explains Cathy Ashton, who thus confirms the impression of latency that we had in the current structures, with especially the CMPD (crisis planning structure), which still has no head, and the civilian General Staff which will soon have a vacant post, and the new post of director of the "crisis response" department entrusted to the Italian Miozzo. “I have asked the EEAS management to find solutions to the organization of our strategic level ».
Yes to a military HQ if...
As for having military driving ability ", basically the European military HQ, " no one disputes the need for such a structure she asserts. " The question is rather whether the current arrangements are satisfactory or need to be changed. ". She thus explains “that a cost-benefit analysis must be carried out to help us”. We are progressing, slowly, but we are progressing. We are thus from a "no what use" to "why not" and today "yes if". It will be necessary to check in the future if it is a simple posture of language or a real evolution.
Using battlegroups for humanitarian functions: why not?
Regarding the broader use of battlegroups, the High Representative is open to the possibility of using battlegroups for humanitarian assistance. The work is "in progress". She also welcomes the desire of the three Member States to increase the preparation and responsiveness of the battlegroups on stand-by in 2013. But she recalls that it is “ above all, it is up to the Member States to take a collective decision on this subject. »
Statement of disagreement on the COOpermanent structured operation
On permanent structured cooperation (PESCO), provided for by the Lisbon Treaty, she confirms that the subject is not ripe. Member States needing to reach a common agreement on the " implementation criteria and methods for reconciling flexibility and efficiency ". Basically, it's an amicable statement of disagreement.
Key role of the European Defense Agency on capabilities
But we must progress in terms of capacities, she insists. " We need to continue to exchange our views on how (...) to achieve concrete and pragmatic progress”. She also recalls how much she attaches "particular importance" to this question in particular with the " current financial constraints " and “encourages the European Defense Agency (of which it is the head) to contribute to this work ».
Read also: