10 minute read
Interview with Ioan M. Paşcu MEP, Brussels/Strasbourg Adapting the EU’s security and defence structures Time for organisational changes
Adapting the EU’s security and defence structures
Interview with Ioan Mircea Paşcu MEP, Vice-President of the European Parliament, Brussels/Strasbourg
Among the Members of the European Parliament, one of the best-informed politicians on security and defence issues is without any doubt Ioan Mircea Pas¸cu, Vice-President of the European Parliament and former Defence Minister of Romania. We wanted to learn more about this expert and his vision of European security and defence in today’s unstable security environment. In order to find out, Nannette Cazaubon travelled to Mr Pas¸cu’s home region Transylvania, near the Hungarian and Ukrainian border, to meet with him and discuss current European developments.
The European: Mr Pas ˛ cu, we are meeting here in the county of Satu Mare where you were born and where you started your political career. Today, and since 2007, you are a Member of the European Parliament (EP). In addition to your role as EP Vice-President and member of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE), you have been the Coordinator for Security and Defence of the Socialists and Democrats political group (S&D) since 2014. What are your ambitions in tackling all these tasks? Ioan M. Pas¸cu: Indeed, alas, I am all that!? Well, in my previous “incarnation” as defence minister of Romania at the time of NATO admission (2000-2004), it was simply natural that I wished to become a member of SEDE. Having then become Vice-Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee (AFET) in 2007, when Romania became an EU Member State, I have witnessed how far defence has come to reach where we are now, and I have tried to bring a contribution through my expertise. If my work within AFET and SEDE capitalises on my professional background, as Vice-President of the Parliament my mission is more related to running, together with my colleagues, the administrative activity of the Parliament and giving it political direction.
The European: And what about your activities as the rapporteur of the S&D Group? Ioan M. Pas¸cu: Indeed, among other reports on the situation in the Black Sea after the Russian illegal annexation of Crimea, I developed the EP Report on CSDP 2016 and I am now working on the 2018 CSDP Report.
The European: A fascinating range of tasks indeed! But, when you became a MEP in 2007, security and defence were issues that the European Commission preferred not to talk about. The only EU body dealing with these issues was the SEDE Subcommittee of the EP, led at that time by Karl von Wogau. What was the reason for the lack of interest in this area? Ioan M. Pas¸cu: To my mind, the reason was two-fold: on the one hand, Europe was enjoying the serene dream of being “prosperous, secure and free, like never before” as mentioned in its first Security Strategy of 2003, on the other hand, defence and security were then (as they continue to remain today) firmly an exclusive prerogative of the Member States. Consequently, the EP did not need more than a Subcommittee dedicated to these matters. The merit of Karl von Wogau was indeed that he kept the fire alive, grouping together a handful of people – myself included – who felt that defence and security needed more attention than they were getting at the time. The European: Even after the signature of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, Article 42 dealing with progress on the Common Security
and Defence Policy (CSDP) and its protocol on Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) were interpreted very restrictively, as if to say “hands off”. And then suddenly, at the Bratislava summit in September 2016, there was a radical change. Ioan M. Pas¸cu: Indeed, at a time when the Union was divided by the refugee crisis and the result of the pro-Brexit vote in the UK, the idea of a meaningful Common Security and Defence Policy was suddenly spotlighted, and Europe started to reflect on its defence capabilities.
The European: What happened to bring about that “change of the heart”? Ioan M. Pas¸cu: In Bratislava, Member States have responded to the increasing preoccupation with security and defence of European citizens following the spill over generated by the neglected accumulation of conflicts around Europe through terrorism and refugees. Besides, Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and the subsequent military destabilisation of Eastern Ukraine have played a role, as did the statements questioning the validity of the US commitment to NATO voiced during the US electoral campaign in 2016. I think that all of them have played a role in changing the hearts and minds of both Europeans and their leaders with respect to security and defence, thus contributing to the decision in Bratislava.
The European: However, if the EU is now forging ahead on security and defence, isn’t it legitimate to ask whether its structures and organisation are not a little out of date? Parliament still does not have a full Plenary Committee on security and defence! It is also striking that there is no centralised management on security and defence at the Commission level. Ioan M. Pas¸cu: It is true, we have not been “prepared” for the increased role of security and defence in response to the recent challenges and threats. We have reacted by trying to adjust the existing structures through improvisation rather than intentional planning. For instance, the support provided by the EU Commission to the defence industry through the CARD (Coordinated Annual Review on Defence), EDIDP (European defence indus
Dr Ioan Mircea Paşcu MEP is Vice-President of the European Parliament. He is member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Subcommittee on Security & Defence. He is also CSDP coordinator for the S&D Groupe in the European Parliament. Born in 1949 in Satu Mare, Romania, he obtained a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Institute of Political Science in Bucharest in 1980. From 1990 to 1992, Mr Pascu was presidential councilor and afterwards became State Secretary in the Ministry of Defence in Bucharest (1993). He then became Member of Parliament in 1996 and Minister of Defence in 2004. In 2007 he joined the EP as a member of the Social Democratic Party (PSD).
trial development programme) and EDF (European Defence Fund) has become, naturally, a task for the Commission’s DG Industry. I personally think that the time for a serious organisational evaluation is rapidly approaching.
The European: So, how do you see things developing in the future? Ioan M. Pas¸cu: Things should be seen in their logical succession: as the EU Commission’s commitment to security and defence through common funds is becoming more and more substantial ( 13 billion in the next Financial Framework), the need for an integrated management will become more and more pressing, both at the managing and political levels of the Commission, asking for constant consultation with the HR/ VP and, consequently, the Council. As more common money is involved, the need for the European Parliament to exercise control will increase, calling for the elevation of SEDE into a fully-fledged committee.
The European: Let me ask bluntly: does this mean that we need a Commissioner with security and defence in their portfolio? Ioan M. Pas¸cu: The creation of a special position of Commissioner for security and defence would only be a logical consequence of the need for centralisation of the management of security and defence at the Commission level. He/she would continue to share responsibilities with Commissioner colleagues, since a monopoly would be neither possible, nor desirable. The relationship with the HR/VP will be indispensable for political guidance, as it would be his/her position vis-a-vis the defence ministerials chaired by the HR/VP.
The European: This means that a good, personal chemistry between the two would be desirable for the good functioning of the new mechanism… Ioan M. Pas¸cu: … yes, particularly in initial phases.
The European: As regards the EP, would a reinforced influence in security and defence matters change the relations with national Parliaments? Ioan M. Pas¸cu: Inevitably, the role of the EP in relation to national Parliaments would have more importance and visibility. But it is equally true that this would not mean a role reversal: national Parliaments will continue to decide the security and defence of their respective countries, as this prerogative will remain national, while the EP will get more say when common funds are involved.
The European: The 2018 Annual report on the implementation of the CSDP, which you drafted, stresses the importance of developing a well-designed overarching strategic approach to European defence that could be best defined by an EU Security and Defence White Book. The former Chair of SEDE Arnaud Danjean already called more than a decade ago for such a White Book. Is at present something more concrete being shaped?
Ioan Mircea Paşcu MEP
Ioan M. Pas¸cu: The call for a White Book on EU Security and Defence has been indeed a constant request of the EP. I am encouraged that now, after so long, it appears that the idea is starting to gain some traction with Member States. That White Book, together with the European Global Strategy, would only complete the framework for EU action in these matters, bringing both coherence and efficiency to that action.
The European: One of the recent initiatives that has gained a high profile is the PESCO initiative signed by 25 EU Member States last year. Some years ago, you referred to PESCO as a “sleeping beauty”, which could get grumpy if awoken! Are you satisfied with the new efforts? Ioan M. Pas¸cu: In our Eastern countries, there was a fear that, once activated, PESCO would lead to a two-tier defence of the Union: a central core better defended and an outer area, less defended. The fact that such a vision was not completely unrealistic is made obvious by the relative disappointment when 25 Member States signed up, transforming PESCO from the expected “elite” club it into a rather “popular” one.
The European: Another recent initiative, imagined by French President Emmanuel Macron is the project of a European Intervention Force (EI2) that was signed by nine Member States in June 2018. Is EI2, which is not part of the CSDP, a valuable tool in your eyes?
The Vice-President and Nannette Cazaubon on their way to a conversation with the mayor of Racs¸ a in the region of Tara Oas¸ ului
Ioan M. Pas¸cu: The aim is both to prepare a coalition of willing countries for joint European action in crises, and to tie the UK into the continent’s future military co-operation after Brexit. The idea to keep the British involved is sound and one should try to find the proper ways to implement it. My only concern would be that the initiative should not interfere with the EU’s own efforts in that field...
The European: …this is also my concern! But there is another fundamental tool for EU-UK relations after Brexit: the EU-NATO strategic partnership on which you reported this year. Ioan M. Pas¸cu: Indeed, this spring I have written a report on EU-NATO relations, adopted with a rather large majority by the EP, praising the achievements and stressing the need for more cooperation between the two differring organisations (while NATO is a political-military alliance, the EU is not), but performing complementary tasks. Indeed, if the EU concentrates on internal security, NATO is responsible for external defence, both contributing, thus, to the overall security of the European citizens. A good illustration is the joint work on hybrid threats, cyber defence and military mobility.
The European: But haven’t you expressed concerns of a spill over from recent difficulties in the EU-US trade relationship to the transatlantic security bond? Ioan M. Pas¸cu: Yes it is true. My concern is the tendency of the current US Administration to view the Europeans less and less as political-military allies and more and more as commercial and economic competitors, hoping that the increasing commercial competition will not negatively impact the political-military cooperation between the two sides of the Atlantic. But only time will tell...
The European: And Trump’s intention to leave the INF Treaty? Ioan M. Pas¸cu: It is certainly a grave decision that matters to our European security, because we lose the “final” protection. I would rather say that we hope both sides will do their duty, the Russians responding to the accusations that they were already in breach of the Treaty, the Americans evaluating all the implications of their withdrawal. On the other hand, one cannot completely exclude that leaving the Treaty would confer both sides political and geo-strategic liberty.
The European: Indeed world is changing… Mr Pas ˛ cu, I thank you for this insightful conversation you accorded me in your beautiful country which I was honoured to discover.
