"Future of the common foreign and security policy" - Lecture by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz at the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Berlin, March 12th 2003.

2003-03-12 14:25

Your Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me first thank the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung for the invitation to present the Polish vision of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. I am particularly thankful to Madame Praesidentin Anke Fuchs, and Mr. Hermann Bűnz, Director of the Warsaw office of the Foundation for making my visit possible. I would also like to express my gratitude to Minister Christoph Zöpel for his warm and encouraging words of welcome. It is a great honour for me to address such a distinguished audience and I find it hard to get it over how pleased I am to see such a great interest in the view of an acceding country on the future of the CFSP. I appreciate this opportunity to share with you a few thoughts and ideas.
Poland has a strong sense of belonging to the European family of nations. The forthcoming accession to the EU is regarded as the accomplishment of one of the most important objectives of the Polish foreign policy since 1989. As a newcomer with almost 50 years of communist experience /that was imposed on us/ and almost 13 years of efforts to join the Union, we highly value the EU membership, although perhaps we view it from a slightly different perspective that the EU member states.

Along with NATO, the CFSP and the wider security dimension of the EU constitute for us vital instruments providing security in Europe, in its neighbourhood and beyond. We appreciate that the CFSP enables the EU to project its values in the world, secure its interests and enhance its role in the international community. For a few years Poland has been aligning herself with the CFSP, its policies and positions.
To the extent made possible by our present status, we contribute to the CFSP, and ESDP. Polish policemen in the EU Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Polish troops in the future EU military mission in Macedonia are not the sole examples of our engagement.

Both for the European Union and for the acceding countries, this is a critical time. So it is for the rest of the world. We await the adoption of the Accession Treaty, its signing in Athens on April 16 and then its ratification by the present as well as the new member states to meet the goal of accession on May 1, 2004. In parallel the Convention is working on the draft of the new EU Treaty, which will be concluded as a result of the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference. Strengthening the EU external policy and its role in the world features high on the agenda of the Convention.

The European Security and Defence Policy is being developed and by the end of this year the EU will meet its capability headline goals. Having taken over the police mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the EU is getting ready to assume the leadership of the military mission in Macedonia and later probably also in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The EU is consolidating its relations with strategic partners. Nevertheless, it is only successful in these areas in which the member states reach consensus on the common interests, aims, policies and instruments. There seem to be far too many examples of differences that impair the CFSP, undoubtedly Iraq being the most evident one.

The problem of Iraq has, indeed, exposed the fragility of the CFSP. Some politicians have already declared the CFSP dead, suggesting that the EU should build the CFSP again, starting from scratch.

Although the problem is serious, I would rather avoid such extreme opinions and instead I would prefer a real discussion that can bring us further and closer.

It is said that due to the Balkan crisis the EU has developed the ESDP. I believe that if the EU is able to identify honestly the reasons of the present crisis and if there is enough political will to overcome them, the CFSP will emerge from this crisis stronger for the benefit of the whole Europe.

Let me explain to you that I am far from moralist lecturing or preaching. I am aware that Poland is not an EU member yet and we do not have the experience of the internal EU co-operation. On the other hand we are about to become an EU member and have a more than decade long experience of co-operation with the EU as a whole and its individual member states. This is why we feel we can make our contribution to the reflection on the CFSP.
Despite the present crisis and criticism of its effectiveness, the CFSP has achieved a lot, particularly if you take into account the past of Europe, resulting prejudices and diverse interests of the EU member states. The accomplishments of the CFSP have resulted from political will, driven by the awareness that – like in the economic area - member states acting together will be more effective and successful than if they pursue their aims separately.

Moreover the EU can use its concerted economic leverage in foreign and security policy. A strong EU, with a strong CFSP is and will be a partner for the US. Perhaps we would not have seen much progress if the EU hadn't faced challenges like those in the Balkans and if there hadn't been a “driving force” among the member states.

Poland highly values the contribution of the founding states, and particularly Germany and France to the overall development of the EU, including the CFSP. At the same time we recognise the significant contribution of all other member states. Each of them has enriched the EU and helped to shape the EU external policy. Without the UK there wouldn't be the St Malo initiative and the development of military capabilities. We owe to the Nordic states the initiative to develop civilian crisis management capability and the EU Northern Dimension. Spain was behind the development of relations with Latin America and – together with other Mediterranean member states – the Barcelona process.

Nevertheless, the CFSP is still “common”, not “single” and it will probably take a few years before it becomes truly “European”, and later probably also “single”. The Common Foreign and Security Policy is built on dialogue of partner states. No state can impose its opinion on other states.
Some recent statements could be interpreted as expressions of an underlying belief that “all states are equal, but some are more equal than others”. This is certainly far from helpful, as it fuels the actions of eurosceptics in the acceding countries in the run-up to the national referenda on accession. Therefore I appreciate so much all supportive voices which we have heard recently, several of them stemming from Germany.

The CFSP, as an integral part of the Union's constitution is built on common values, values that bring the member states together. The CFSP is developed in reference to common aims, defined in the EU Treaty. It stipulates among others that the Member states shall work together to enhance and develop their political solidarity, and they should refrain from any action that is contrary to the interests of the Union or is likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations.

I would particularly like to stress the need of mutual political solidarity, based on partnership relations and the need of strengthening the integrity of the Union. I absolutely agree with the Secretary General, High Representative for CFSP Javier Solana that political will is indispensable, even more important than institutional setting.

We understand that in some member states the domestic political situation significantly affects their stance in foreign policy. For the member states foreign policy still remains a jealously guarded area of national sovereignty, and of prestige. This has been exposed again in the discussion within the Convention, we have also witnessed it in the discussion on Iraq.

Moreover, there is a “grey” area of the European Foreign and Security Policy which allows the member states represented in various international forums to take diverging positions.
The Security Council is an evident example in that respect. The CFSP cannot be effective and move forward unless this problem which undermines the common European position is successfully resolved. This is a matter of political will. I believe that the forthcoming IGC should find a viable solution through an appropriate co-ordination mechanism.

Political leaders face a challenge to garner public support for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. This concerns the new member states as well. There should be no divisions into the “old” and “new” Europe. Such divisions are potentially dangerous and should be avoided at all cost. Poland will not spare effort to contribute to the European unity.

Although the Iraq problem has polarised the EU, I believe that we should not lose our confidence in the CFSP and the ability of Europe to act together. It is not the first time in the EU history when tensions appear.
The EU should be able to overcome them and grow even stronger. Solidarity, partnership and common values should allow the EU to create a new quality of CFSP. The EU needs to resolve this problem as soon as possible and find a viable solution for the future within the Convention and the forthcoming IGC.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The concept of the future CFSP of the enlarged EU cannot be complete without an outline of its content. As seen from the Polish perspective, the CFSP should be based on the strong transatlantic relationship. Europe and the United States share common values and heritage. It is not a coincidence that Alexis de Tocqueville went to America to study democracy. Nor is it a coincidence that the United States sent its troops to Europe during the Second World War, and assisted Europe in post war reconstruction and averting the Soviet threat. The Berliners know it better than any other Europeans.
Transatlantic co-operation with the United States remains essential for European security. Differences and problems should be discussed and successfully resolved.

After September 11, 2001 EU-US security co-operation has been very successful. Therefore, the CFSP can not be developed around anti-American sentiments. European identity can not be built on anti-Americanism. Some newspaper articles give us a flavour of risks we may face. One can find there more criticism of the US than of Saddam as well as a simplistic interpretation of the EU candidate countries' position on Iraq. Mass media together with politicians bear a great responsibility due to their influence on public opinion.

Another vital area of the EU external relations is co-operation with the countries neighbouring the EU and providing them with assistance in pursuing democratic as well as economic reforms, in adopting European standards.
Since the spring of 2002 the EU has been developing its policy towards neighbouring states, including particularly new neighbours in Eastern Europe. Relations with these countries, that is Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, are of particular interest for Poland. We welcomed the “New Neighbours” initiative and contributed to the discussion with our own proposals presented in January in the non-paper.

We have proposed stepping up co-operation with Eastern European states within a general framework of the EU Eastern Dimension, but in an individualised way. It should be based on the principle of differentiation and tailored to the progress of the states concerned in their reform processes, adopting EU values and standards. Co-operation should also address their aspirations as far as their relations with the EU are concerned, without impairing the Union's integrity.

In parallel with the conditionality principle the relations with the EU Eastern European neighbours should get a boost in the form of an Action Plan and individual road maps set in consultation with these states. They would indicate the successive steps, conditions to be met to move forward, and assistance to be provided at each stage of the process.

While supporting further development of strategic partnership with Russia, we argue that Ukraine, Moldova and even Belarus provided it enters the path towards democracy, should be given an opportunity of integration with the EU. We suggest considering the conclusion of association agreements with these countries, which should serve as an important incentive to consolidate their reforms.

In relations with all Eastern European states Poland advocates enhanced political dialogue, establishment of free trade and further economic integration. We also support the enhancement of co-operation in justice and home affairs (particularly taking into account that the EU will soon border these countries) and facilitation of people-to-people contacts as well as flow of information. We have also suggested streamlining assistance programmes for the countries concerned. We propose establishing European Democracy Fund or European Freedom Fund, European Scholarship Programme and European Internship Programme.

The Polish proposals have been received with general interest and a positive response. However, I regret to say that the possibilities to discuss the issue with the acceding states have not been fully used.

From the very beginning Poland has declared its readiness to fully participate in the CFSP. Many times in the past we stressed the need to improve the quality of the political dialogue between the EU and the candidate countries, in particular through a real and open exchange of views on the most sensitive issues. Unfortunately, even now, on the eve of its enlargement the EU prefers to work on its concept of “neighbourhood initiative” without adequate participation of new member states.


Nevertheless, I am pleased to have learned that the EU has undertaken steps that meet some of our proposals. Poland welcomes the Communication from the Commission, presented yesterday by President Prodi and Commissioner Patten to the European Parliament. I am pleased to see that among the Commission's proposals there are several which are in line with the ideas suggested in the Polish non-paper. Though the Commission has designed a framework of Neighbourhood relations both for the Eastern neighbours of the enlarged EU and the Mediterranean states, it makes a clear distinction between the regions and does not exclude an European perspective for Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus, which Poland advocates. Moreover in mid-February a new instrument within the TACIS programme was introduced. It allows for supporting projects carried out by NGOs and local authorities in border regions.

Having expressed so explicitly our interest in developing the Eastern Dimension of the EU, I would like to stress that Poland is going to engage in all other areas of the EU external relations. Although it is obvious that the member states focus on the states in their vicinity, it would not serve the coherence of the EU external policy, if its directions or dimensions were identified only with particular groups of member states. Therefore Poland is contributing to the stabilisation process in the Western Balkans and is interested in joining the Barcelona Process as well as the EU policy in the Middle East.

We also believe that Poland can contribute to the EU co-operation with non-European partners. We look forward to joining it as an active observer after April 16 this year. And last, but not least, Poland is enhancing her capability to provide development assistance and will contribute to the EU efforts in this respect.

Poland regards the developing European Security and Defence Policy as a necessary complement to the CFSP in its operational dimension, and as its integral part. Being a NATO member and regarding the Alliance as the guarantee of its members' security, Poland believes that the tasks of the Alliance and EU are complementary, to the benefit of all member states. We do not find any contradiction in developing NATO defence capabilities and an efficient ESDP. Moreover, it is only by co-operating and acting together that NATO and the EU can effectively serve our security interests.

Therefore Poland looks forward to the arrangements which are now being made, and which will establish a basis for strategic partnership of both organisations. We believe that this agreement and further co-operation offer an opportunity to strengthen both the EU and NATO. The differences on Iraq should make us aware how far interdependent the developments of the CFSP and NATO are.

As I have said before, both organisations must learn their lessons that in addressing strategic issues it is indispensable to reach common understanding of problems and agree upon the best way of solving them. Otherwise both the authority of the member states as well as of both organisations will be impaired.

During the first Capabilities Conference Poland declared its contribution to the EU Headline Goal which will probably be modified along the lines of the conclusions of ECAP Panels.
Poland regards the takeover of the operations in the Balkans by the EU as natural and desirable for the accomplishment of the Union's aspirations. EU's comprehensive involvement in the region in the years to come will undoubtedly pose a challenge to the CFSP.



Ladies and Gentlemen,

I consider the discussion within the Convention on the EU external relations and European defence to be of utmost importance. Taking into account diverse positions and expectations of the participating present and future member states, this is also one of the most difficult areas of discussion on the future of the EU. The decision to postpone drafting the relevant Treaty articles until late April supports my opinion. It should also allow for calming down emotions and for choosing the best possible wording. I would like to address the still unresolved issues of the date of the IGC and the formula of the participation of acceding states.

As to the latter, it is of vital importance for us to participate in the IGC and in drafting the new EU Treaty on an equal footing with the present member states. I find it inconceivable that the acceding states could be excluded from the decision making within the IGC on the future Union, just before their accession. Nobody would be able to explain such a decision to the public.

Poland has been very active in the discussion within the Convention and has presented several papers, some together with other countries. Polish representatives strongly advocate the adoption of institutional measures that would strengthen the international position of the EU and the efficiency of its external actions. One of the proposed ideas is the achievement of synergy between the CFSP and the instruments that are at the disposal of the European Commission (commercial policy, development assistance and humanitarian assistance) by the so-called “double hatting”.

It would allow the EU High Representative for CFSP, or the EU Foreign Minister as some prefer, to co-ordinate the Commission's activities in the area of external relations without changes of institutional balance. He or she would also chair the General Affairs and External Relations Council in the external relations setting. Further improvements in CFSP efficiency can be achieved by extending the scope of Qualified Majority Voting. However, due to sensibilities which have emerged recently, this will probably be done on a case by case basis.

The ESDP area, due to the indivisibility of security and the most sensitive character of issues at stake, should at least in the near future remain subject to unanimity decision making. The implementation decisions could be an exception. They could be taken by QMV.

In order to allow the EU a margin of flexibility without the need to recourse to the following IGC, the European Council could be empowered to decide unanimously on the further extension of the QMV. Giving the EU a legal personality would contribute to strengthening its international position. It should be supported by enhancing the role of the EU representations in third countries (without prejudice to bilateral diplomatic embassies of the member states) and ensuring a synergy between the EU CFSP and external relations services.

As far as the ESDP is concerned, Poland would accept a solidarity clause in the Treaty, in case of a terrorist attack, nevertheless limited to dealing with its effects on the territory of a member state. Finding the security of all member states indivisible, Poland has serious reservations about the idea of closer co-operation in ESDP.

On the other hand we support the gradual establishment of a European Armaments Agency that would be open to all states ready to develop specific capabilities.

It should also be open to transatlantic armaments co-operation. The EAG should among others support joint R&D programmes with the EU assistance funds. It should also support joint multinational projects as well as monitor the process of meeting the European Headline Goal. Such Agency would stimulate the reform of military forces in the member states. It should also assist harmonisation of procurements as well as facilitate technological progress, which should benefit the economies of all member states.

In conclusion I would like to emphasise the main factors that will determine the future CFSP. These are:

• Political will to act together and pursue common EU interests.
• Sense of solidarity and respect for other partners, their sensitivities.
• Establishment of the EU internal crisis resolution mechanism, otherwise the positions of the EU and its member states will be undermined.
• The European identity can not be built on anti-American sentiments. The US should remain the most important partner for the EU.
• The acceding states are willing to join co-operation within the CFSP and ESDP, contribute to it and to develop their capabilities. This potential should be used to the benefit of the CFSP, and not only as far as the EU Eastern Policy is concerned.
• When drafting the future EU Treaty, let's be imaginative, ambitious and seek the best possible solution that will serve the interests of the whole EU and its member states.

Thank you for your attention.