Speech by José-Lluis de Puig, President of the W.E.U. Parliamentary Assembly, at the opening of the Assembly’s autumn session, Paris, Nov. 30. (Excerpts)
Dear colleagues, as you know, some weeks ago something changed in Europe. The British Prime Minister, in Portschach, in an informal EU meeting opened a great debate. The Prime Minister's comments are neither a project nor a concrete proposition. But the debate is open in all the countries. I do not know whether this marks a change in British policy, but we are debating the new proposals coming from the British. Those who attended the Assembly in Rome will understand that the debate is completely open. When we hear Mr Dini, we will understand that the debate is open in different ways. We are in the position that we were in some months before the adoption of the Amsterdam Treaty, debating European defence but, now, on a different basis. I hope that after Mr Robertson's presentation in this session matters will become clearer and that he will clarify the British position for us. The Assembly cannot stay out of the debate. We need our own proposals. First, we need a debate in order to put forward some proposals about the role of WEU and the future of European defence. To that end, I wish to propose to the Assembly and the Presidential Committee a timetable for the debate. It is important to have some proposals before the Washington Summit in April. We need concrete and clear ideas about the future of European security, which is our concern. We are discussing the future capabilities of the EU and whether WEU will continue to work as it does now or be integrated with the EU. That is our debate. (The speaker continued in French) The President said that he had proposed to the Chairman of the Committee that work should start on preparing reports on the options available to the Assembly. These reports could be adopted at the meeting of permanent members in March which would take place before the Washington Summit. The debate on the future of Europe's defence would continue both internationally and within the European countries and the Assembly must put forward its opinion. It must decide on the fate of the Assembly. A number of people thought that WEU should be wound up. This issue needed discussion because there were a number of options. For example, WEU could be subsumed into NATO or into the European Union. The President's personal opinion was that it should be subsumed into the European Union but the Assembly's decision required discussion and a consensus needed to be found. During the ministerial meeting it was noted that WEU had developed into an enormous acquis. Its history could not be wiped out. During the coming discussions it had to be remembered that WEU had a number of advantages. It had a military capability and could undertake Petersberg missions, including humanitarian missions. Thanks to WEU, a number of countries in Central and Eastern Europe had taken part in the European Defence Institute. Following the Amsterdam Treaty, WEU could intervene for the European Union. Mechanisms were in place for WEU to cooperate with NATO and WEU could operate on its own. It was the only institution which could coordinate armaments in Europe. In the last few years considerable investment has been made in WEU's operational capabilities. WEU had one foot in NATO, another in the EU, and had also maintained relations with Russia and Ukraine. Frank discussions were needed with those members of the European Parliament who wanted to absorb WEU under its democratic control. Such a development would mean changing the EU into a military alliance. Once that outcome had been made clear, people were more hesitant about the option. The history and resources of WEU needed to be recognised. Realism was needed in discussions, which had to be logical and serious-minded. The President expressed his thanks to the Director of the WEU Satellite Centre, who had always done a remarkable job and been attentive to the needs of the Assembly.

--ends--

Print this page Back to the top