SCRUTINY OF ESDP: ATHENA, EUFOR, CONGO
AND EUSEC CONGO
Letter from Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, Minister
for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman
I should like to inform the Committee of the
progress being made in the review of the ATHENA Mechanism. This
is the mechanism used to administer the financing of common costs
of EU operations which have military or defence implications.
The original Council Decision (2004/197/CFSP) mandates the Council
to undertake a review after every operation and at least every
18 months.
Discussion on the review is continuing at Working
Group level. No substantive text is yet available. However, the
Finnish Presidency are keen to see this review completed under
their auspices and have listed an amending Council Decision as
an item for consideration at the 11 December General Affairs and
External Relations Council (GAERC).
The review has been informed by the experience
of operations ALTHEA and EU Mission in the Democratic Republic
of Congo (EUFOR RD Congo) as well as the military part of the
EU supporting action to African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS)
in Darfur. The debate has focussed on three main areas: technical
issues, supporting actions and common funding for operational
deployments.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
The UK supports proposals to:
— Draw up a timetable, auditing and
submitting ATHENA's accounts to the Special Committee.
— Alter the mechanism for the election
of chairman of the College of Auditors from amongst the members
of the College.
— Make the mandate of members of the
College renewable (once only).
— Align appointments with the financial
year.
— Make in-year, on-the-spot checks
of missions mandatory by the College of Auditors (to ensure Auditors
conduct audit visits to Operational Head Quarters (OHQs) and Forces
Head Quarters (FHQs) in theatre).
— Establish monthly reporting by the
Operation Commander to the ATHENA Special Committee during the
period prior to the adoption of a budget for an operation.
Following the EU's experience in the Supporting
Action to the AMIS the review is also considering how best to
ensure that funding for such Actions can be financed through ATHENA
where the Council so decides. The third area the review focused
on essential elements required for operational deployments aimed
at bringing the EU in to line with NATO.
NATO recently reached agreement on the common
funding of strategic lift for short-notice deployments of the
NATO Reaction Force for an interim period of two years. We expect
the EU will introduce similar funding arrangements for short notice
deployments of EU Battlegroups. Although this will not form part
of the ATHENA review it will be attached to the Council Decision
and handled as an I/A point. The UK position is that any new arrangements
in the EU should mirror closely the agreement in NATO.
The Presidency aims to adopt the amending Council
Decision at the General Affairs and External Relations Council
on 11 December. However, given the lack of a depositable text
and the speed at which this will progress over the next week,
it will not be possible to submit an Explanatory Memorandum to
your Committee ahead of the Council meeting. I hope therefore
that the Committee will understand if I decide to approve the
Council Decision before Scrutiny has been completed. An Explanatory
Memorandum will be prepared and forwarded to the Scrutiny Committees
once we have more clarity on the precise nature of the proposals.
7 December 2006
Letter from Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP to the
Chairman
When I wrote to you on 7 December 2006 to inform
the Committee of progress on the review of the ATHENA Mechanism
and alert you to the possibility that I would have to override
scrutiny I undertook to provide the Committee with an Explanatory
Memorandum, this is enclosed. (not printed)
When I wrote previously negotiations were ongoing.
As it turned out, the UK was able to accept either of the two
texts under consideration before the General Affairs and External
Relations Council or any compromise negotiated between them. I
did not make these texts available to the Committee, as it was
not clear how the negotiations would end.
The key alterations from the Government's point
of view were the introduction of common funding for strategic
airlift of EU Battlegroups, the inclusion of EU supporting actions
in activities covered by Athena and the creation of a new Annex
which provides for a set list of items to be funded in common
when requested by the Operation Commander and approved by the
ATHENA Special Committee.
The changes described above broaden the range
of items available for common funding and so will potentially
increase the financial costs to the UK. Equally, the effect could
be to render the UK a net beneficiary of these changes in certain
circumstances when UK assets are deployed.
The February General Affairs and External Relations
Council will formally adopt the text as agreed at the 11 December
Council. A consolidated text will then be finalised by the Secretariat.
This will incorporate the 11 December decision and previous, amendments.
A copy of this text will be made available to the Committee when
it issues.
31 January 2007
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Geoff
Hoon MP
Thank you for your letters of 7 December and
31 January about the negotiating process for the above document.
The Sub-Committee considered the document at its meeting on 8
February 2007, and decided to clear it from scrutiny. However
we would like to make two points, concerning respectively procedure
and substance.
Firstly, we regret that we have only received
this proposal at the last minute. This is particularly unsatisfactory
given the long lead-up phase in this case. In your letter of 30
January 2007, you explained that the reason for not submitting
the draft texts to the Sub-Committee prior to your letter of 7
December was that negotiations were "ongoing".
However, you confirmed on 30 January that two
draft texts were available, and that the UK Government would have
been ready to accept either of these, or a compromise between
them. We would welcome a commitment from the Government that in
future it will submit such texts to the Sub-Committee, or, at
the very least, that it will submit any draft Council decision
at an early stage, in line with the principle of upstream scrutiny.
I refer to my letter of 31 January on export controls of military
technology.
The point of substance relates to amended Article
1, which, for the purposes of the Athena mechanism, defines "military
supporting actions" (MSAs) as a sub-category of operations
"which are not under the authority of EU headquarters".
You cite the EU supporting action to the African Union mission
in Sudan as an example.
The Sub-Committee notes the new definition of
a sub-category of EU operation, and is concerned to understand
its full implications, particularly the scope of amended Article
1(d). Specifically, what is meant by "which are not under
the authority of EU headquarters?", and what are the financial
or other implications of this definition for the functioning of
the Athena mechanism? Does this wording imply that Athena will
be used to fund missions which are not under the command or authority
of the EU (or its representative in the mission area, eg the Force
Commander)? The Sub-Committee would be grateful for clarification
of these points.
19 February 2007
Letter from Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP to the
Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 19 February in
which you raised the scrutiny procedure and amendments to the
ATHENA funding mechanism. I thought you might also like to be
aware of recent developments on ESDP issues in the Democratic
Republic of Congo.
COUNCIL DECISION
AMENDING THE
ATHENA FUNDING MECHANISM
Firstly, on the point of procedure, I would
like to assure you that the Government remains committed to providing
the European Scrutiny Committees with appropriate documents and
time to fully scrutinise all EU decisions. We take this commitment
very seriously, and I regret that this was not possible with the
review of the ATHENA funding mechanism last December. We will
endeavour to make sure in the future that the Committees have
ample time to scrutinise relevant documents.
I should clarify that by 7 December 2006 we
had not received either of the alternate texts. The Foreign and
Commonwealth Office did have the latest version of the Council
Secretariat paper, though it was clear from our discussions with
Member States that this was not likely to survive the negotiations.
I felt that to provide this text to the Committees when we were
aware that it was highly unlikely to be the final document would
have been misleading. Although we had yet to receive any alternate
texts we were fully aware of the anticipated content of one and
certain of the negotiating position to be adopted in the other.
I regret not making these points clear in my letter of 31 January
and for not providing, in my original letter, more detail of our
expectations of how the negotiations would unfold.
Your second point addressed the change in the
ATHENA mechanism to allow funding for Military Supporting Actions.
This addition was made to address a weakness in the mechanism,
made apparent during the establishment of the EU Supporting Action
to the AU mission in Sudan. This had to be funded entirely by
Member State contributions because ATHENA could not be used. Supporting
Actions in this context are EU activities in support of a military
or defence-related mission which is led by another organisation.
I can reassure you that in the case of these supporting actions,
EU common funding will now be available for EU activities—which
are under the authority of the EU—but which are in support
of a mission commanded by another organisation.
EUFOR RD CONGO
As I mentioned in my letter of 7 December 2006
the EU military mission to support the UN peacekeeping mission
(MONUC) in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been completed.
In order to formalise this the General Affairs and External Relations
Council has agreed the attached Joint Action that formally closes
the mission. The Joint Action specifies that the ATHENA mechanism
will be used to meet any outstanding common costs incurred by
the mission.
EUSEC RD CONGO
The EU is in the process of finalising a small
expansion of the EUSEC role and staffing. Two new slots—subject
to Congolese approval—will be created to work in an advisory
capacity alongside the staff of the newly appointed Prime Minister.
Although EUSEC's focus has been primarily on military reform these
two experts will help lay the foundations for the broader EU SSR
work scheduled to begin this summer.
7 March 2007
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Geoff Hoon
MP
Thank you for your letter of 7 March responding
to my letter of 19 February with the clarification of events surrounding
the Council Decision amending the ATHENA funding mechanism.
I am writing about an issue which arises in
your paragraph on EUFOR RD Congo. You mention that the General
Affairs and External Relations Council agreed a Joint Action to
close formally the ED military mission to support the UN peacekeeping
mission in the DRC. The Joint Action was not (as stated) attached
to your letter though your officials provided the document readily
when requested. It appears that this document should have been
deposited for scrutiny by the Sub-Committee and will therefore
constitute an override.
I know that efforts are made to ensure documents
are deposited properly and to keep us informed in your letters.
I understand, too, that this is probably an unintentional lapse,
which only became apparent to us because it was referred to in
your letter. It is however unfortunate that this has occurred.
Since drafting this letter we have received
your letter of 20 March and thank you for your apology for the
delay in depositing the document in Parliament. We note that the
document has been agreed in Brussels and that this now constitutes
an override.
We are glad to hear that you are amending your
guidelines in order to prevent this from re-occurring. The Clerk
to the Sub-Committee will be in touch with FCO officials to discuss
the lessons learned.
28 March 2007
| 
