Paris, 20 December 2006 – André Flauhaut, Belgian Defence Minister, called on Wednesday for a European security and defence policy in favour of “concrete” developments that were visible to the public and based on close collaboration with national and European parliaments. Making the case for a European military academy, he stated that “we have to continue to fight to revolutionise hearts and minds, our general staffs and make our countries less insular, and train our pilots and our naval forces jointly”.

Speaking at the WEU Assembly and representing WEU’s rotating Presidency, Mr Flahaut advocated a Defence Europe “moving in a clear direction and on the ground”, as had been the case in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the EUFOR mission was winding up after the elections there had been successfully conducted. The “special role” that the ESDP had played in the Congo meant that the policy enjoyed undeniable public visibility and was perceived positively. He welcomed the fact that the EUFOR mission had been extended as an “advisory and assistance mission”. This had to be strengthened to complete the consolidation of the country’s Congolese army at the service of the Congolese people.

He then went on to say that the majority of European citizens supported the idea of European defence and set out the advantages of good cooperation between willing defence ministers and parliamentarians from the various national and European assemblies. He felt that this would be more useful in moving the ESDP forward in real terms than any dogmatic debate. In its role as an interparliamentary forum for consultation, discussion and exchange of views on security and defence matters, the WEU Assembly should continue to inform and educate public opinion in a “debate essential to Europe’s future”. WEU was still strictly speaking the only European organisation to enshrine a defence clause that was both collective and automatic. By contrast, NATO’s Article 5, less binding, stipulated that each ally would assist a party under attack by taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force. It was left to the individual member state to assess what assistance it would provide after joint consultation on needs and capabilities. The WEU collective defence clause therefore embodied a commitment to solidarity that bound European nations together.

Mr Flahaut mentioned the role devolved to the European Defence Agency (EDA) to reduce duplication and excessive fragmentation of the European defence industry market. He described the EDA as a nice car without a powerful enough engine, because it did not have a budget commensurate with its ambitions. Despite this handicap, he felt that the EDA could now set itself “modest”, high visibility objectives, through cooperation between two, three or more countries. If this happened, Eurocorps could be the EDA’s first customer, defining its own requirements with a view to one day undertaking a mission using EDA-specified equipment.

During the debate, the minister was asked questions about pulling out of or staying in Afghanistan, a country “on the verge of chaos”. He replied that Afghanistan was already in chaos, that Europe should stay but change the form its presence took. The military side of the international intervention should be reduced. What was needed was a global policy that covered agriculture, health and development aid. The objective of achieving “national coherence” in Afghanistan was almost “impossible”. The first mistake had been to envisage a Western-style reconstruction. A “one size fits all” policy was not always possible.

Finally, Mr Flahaut called for the question of Darfur to be handled at UN level so that decisions could be taken to make real change happen, warning that a situation was being allowed to develop there that was perhaps already irretrievable.