# CE2004084EN.01084002.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/840 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/840

---

(2004/C 84 E/0934)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0685/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Contrast between a common foreign policy and the varying treatment of EU Member States by countries such as America and Russia

Subject:

| 1. | What is the Commission's view of the repeated indications that the US Administration does not regard the EU as a federation of states with which to make uniform agreements on international relations, trade and aviation but as a loose collection of individual states that are to be treated differently according to the extent to which they agree with American views and interests, as shown not least by America's attempts to make agreements with individual current and future Member States over a boycott of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, and by the varying status awarded to individual EU Member States when public works contracts in Iraq are granted to companies located in EU Member States (see ‘inter alia’ the reply to my Written Question E-3948/03 (1))? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the Commission's view of the repeated indications that the US Administration does not regard the EU as a federation of states with which to make uniform agreements on international relations, trade and aviation but as a loose collection of individual states that are to be treated differently according to the extent to which they agree with American views and interests, as shown not least by America's attempts to make agreements with individual current and future Member States over a boycott of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, and by the varying status awarded to individual EU Member States when public works contracts in Iraq are granted to companies located in EU Member States (see ‘inter alia’ the reply to my Written Question E-3948/03 (1))?

1

| 2. | What is the Commission's view of the fact that it would appear that the example set by the USA is now being followed by Russia, as evidenced by Russia's refusal to extend the 1997 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the EU to cover the ten new Member States joining the EU on 1 May 2004 because of the economic disadvantages that Russia perceives would result from its treating all EU Member States equally? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What is the Commission's view of the fact that it would appear that the example set by the USA is now being followed by Russia, as evidenced by Russia's refusal to extend the 1997 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the EU to cover the ten new Member States joining the EU on 1 May 2004 because of the economic disadvantages that Russia perceives would result from its treating all EU Member States equally?

| 3. | To what extent does the fact that certain EU Member States are permanent members of the UN Security Council, are nuclear powers and include in their territory areas geographically not part of the continent of Europe, play a role in the conduct of third countries towards the EU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

To what extent does the fact that certain EU Member States are permanent members of the UN Security Council, are nuclear powers and include in their territory areas geographically not part of the continent of Europe, play a role in the conduct of third countries towards the EU?

| 4. | Under what conditions does the Commission expect states outside the EU, including large countries such as the USA, Russia, China, India and Brazil, to take more seriously the EU's efforts to adopt a common position on international affairs? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Under what conditions does the Commission expect states outside the EU, including large countries such as the USA, Russia, China, India and Brazil, to take more seriously the EU's efforts to adopt a common position on international affairs?

| 5. | Does the Commission consider that, under such conditions, efforts towards the establishment of a common EU foreign policy and the securing of recognition by others of the EU as a major power in world politics are still realistic? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission consider that, under such conditions, efforts towards the establishment of a common EU foreign policy and the securing of recognition by others of the EU as a major power in world politics are still realistic?

Source: The Netherlands newspaper De Volkskrant, edition dated 21 February 2004.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

(26 April 2004)

The Commission shares the view that the EU can only make progress when it takes united positions and defends them consistently in its dealings with its partners in the world. This conviction was already at the basis of the Commission's various contributions to the European Convention, and in particular its Communication ‘A project for the European Union’ of 22 May 2002 (2). In its opinion, the Community method certainly is the best way to propose, shape and finally make united decisions, and to represent them in international fora. This is already the case in the trade field where the Commission's role as spokesman for the Member States has greatly reinforced the EU as a negotiating partner — even when major trading partners seek to play off the Commission against the Member States.

2

However, even outside the sole competence of the Community the EU has adopted clear and consistent positions on a number of important matters, including the question of the ICC and the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia. As of today, the EU has not modified its position on any of these issues. It will speak even more authoritatively on these matters when enlargement has taken place.

Inevitably, the military strength of some Member States is a major factor in international affairs. So is the role of those Member States who are permanent members of the United Nations (UN) Security Council and of the group of eight most industrialised countries (G8). But these Member States are also among those who are most ready to construct, for the first time, a European Security and Defence Policy. All Members States share the view that the ongoing work in this field, and on security matters generally, is central if the EU as such is to play a role in world affairs, to reinforce the rule of law on an international level, and to play its full role in conflict prevention and crisis management.

The Commission is encouraged that the European Convention has included in the draft Constitution a variety of elements that will enhance the Union's capacities. Streamlined decision-making procedures, a more powerful role for the Parliament, the appointment of a double-hatted ‘Foreign Ministers’/Vice-President of the Commission in charge of external relations and the creation of a Union legal personality arena. It will also help improve internal coordination. The Commission hopes that the Constitution will be adopted and enter into force as soon as possible.

As with trade, competition and the implementation of the European Monetary Union (EMU) and the introduction of the Euro this will have a strong effect on the EU's visibility and its ability to act as a worldwide player. Internally, the fact that the Foreign Minister will chair the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs will make coordination easier to organise. This said, the Constitution will not constitute a panacea. In legal terms it still leaves room for Member States to follow a differentiated approach on Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) matters, as does Common Position 03/444/CFSP of 16 June 2003 on the ICC. Much will therefore depend on the ability of the Foreign Minister and the willingness of Member States to implement not only the letter but also the spirit of the draft Constitution, and in particular Article III-206 (1):

| | Member States shall coordinate their action in international organisations and at international conferences. They shall uphold the Union's positions in such fora. The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall organise this coordination. |
| --- | --- |

Member States shall coordinate their action in international organisations and at international conferences. They shall uphold the Union's positions in such fora. The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall organise this coordination.

A single ‘Minister’ who is able to coordinate both the input into CFSP of Community external action and the contributions of Member States, supported by a single Joint External Action Service will contribute to the capacity of the Union, its Member States and its institutions to formulate and implement solid and united foreign policy positions more coherently and consistently.

---

(1)  See page 744.

1

(2)  COM(2002) 247 final.

2

---