Select Committee on European Scrutiny Tenth Report


9 Participation of third States in EU crisis management

(25326)

Draft framework agreement for the participation of third States in European Union crisis management operations

Legal baseArticle 24 EU; unanimity
DepartmentForeign and Commonwealth Office
Basis of considerationEM of 4 February 2004
Previous Committee ReportNone
To be discussed in Council26 February 2004
Committee's assessmentLegally and politically important
Committee's decisionCleared

Background

9.1 Article 24 of the Treaty on European Union provides for the conclusion of agreements with third States and international organisations where these are necessary for the implementation of the Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy.

9.2 All civilian and military crisis management operations within the European security and defence policy (ESDP) have so far involved the participation of third States. For example, the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia-Herzegovina involves the participation of police officers from 18 non-EU States. The 'Concordia' mission in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which patrols the ethnic Albanian regions of Macedonia bordering Albania, Serbia and Kosovo, includes troops from 14 non-EU States, with a significant contribution by Poland and Turkey. The 'Artemis' mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which lasted from June to September 2003, included troops from South Africa, Canada and Brazil.

9.3 Agreements governing the participation of third States have hitherto been drawn up on an ad hoc basis. This has involved separate negotiations for each mission, and has sometimes meant that the agreements were not concluded before the commencement of operations.

The draft framework participation agreement

9.4 The proposal consists of an agreement in standard form which would address such issues as the status of personnel and forces, the handling of classified information, the chain of command and financial contributions. The agreement covers civil and military crisis management operations and is intended to last for five years. Such an agreement would be concluded with particular third State participants but would not prejudge the issue of whether a particular third State will participate in any particular operation. This latter question would be determined by a separate exchange of letters between the EU Presidency and the government of the third State in question.

9.5 With regard to the chain of command, personnel seconded by a third State to civilian or military crisis management operations are to remain under the command of their national authorities, but the latter agree to transfer operational control to the EU civilian crisis management Head of Mission or (in military operations) to the EU Operation Commander.

9.6 The cost of its participation is to be borne by each third State, and provision is also made for a contribution to the operational budget (in the case of civilian crisis management) or to common costs (in the case of military crisis management).

The Government's view

9.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 4 February 2004 the Minister for Europe (Mr Denis MacShane) welcomes this initiative, as the Government considers that the framework agreement will enable the EU to improve the speed with which it can launch operations, which is in line with the Government's goal of enabling the ESDP to react quickly to emerging crises.

9.8 The Minister explains that the framework agreement is based on existing agreements adopted under Article 24 EU and sets out the legal and financial parameters of a third country's participation in an ESDP operation. The Minister considers that the framework will streamline mission-planning and indicates that the EU hopes to negotiate such an agreement with key third State contributors such as Norway, Iceland, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Canada, Russia and Ukraine. The Minister points out that these countries have been selected either because they are non-EU European States which are members of NATO or because (in the case of Canada, Russia and Ukraine) they are countries the terms and conditions of whose participation have been set out by the European Council in Seville in June 2002.

9.9 The Minister further explains that for each mission the EU will still decide which countries to invite and that the existence of the long-term framework agreement does not pre-suppose that a particular country will automatically participate in an operation. (The Minister nevertheless recalls that in the case of operations which are carried out using NATO assets[15] non-EU NATO countries have the right to participate and do not need to be specifically invited.)

9.10 The Minister explains that the financial provisions of the framework agreement clarify the existing arrangements whereby third countries pay the cost of their participation in the mission and also, unless the EU decides otherwise, a contribution towards the common costs. The framework agreement requests the third country to contribute towards common costs calculated by reference to the ratio of that country's GNP to that of contributing Member States or by reference to the ratio of its personnel to those of participating Member States, whichever produces the lower figure. In the case of countries with a GNP per capita lower than that of any Member State or which provide vital equipment, such as heavy lift aircraft, no contribution to common costs will be required.

Conclusion

9.11 We are grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation of the framework agreement. We agree with the Minister that this initiative is welcome and we clear the document.


15   Known as 'Berlin Plus' operations. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 3 March 2004