EU mutual defence plan may challenge Nato role

NATO's role as guarantor of Europe's security was challenged yesterday when Valéry Giscard d'Estaing proposed a mutual defence clause as part of a new EU constitution.

M. Giscard, who is chairing a convention on the future of Europe, said he would put forward the idea as part of efforts to bolster the EU's common foreign and security policy.

Britain has always been suspicious of such moves, believing they could undermine its transatlantic relationship, and has preferred to keep security guarantees in Nato. Under M. Giscard's proposal, nations that want to opt into a defence guarantee would be able to do so, but no country would be obliged to participate.

The issue is sensitive because of the implications for Nato, the sole guarantor of collective defence. After objections from Britain and neutral countries, a working party failed to reach a decision on the subject, agreeing only on a "solidarity clause" in case of terrorist attack.

But M. Giscard said after a meeting of the convention yesterday that several countries wanted to go further. He might propose a clause outlining a mutual defence pact to "see how various states respond".

EU officials argue that, if there is no scope within the new constitution, nations such as France and Germany will make their decisions outside the auspices of the EU.

Britain and Spain also launched a joint document on the constitution voicing opposition to a Franco-German plan for MEPs to elect the president of the European Commission.

London and Madrid want to strengthen the European Council, where member states are represented, by creating a supreme leader to co-ordinate its work. However, after criticism of this idea from many in the convention, the document describes the post not as president, but chair, of the council.

Meanwhile, M. Giscard published more draft articles for the constitution, which include a British-backed plan for a "yellow card" system in which national parliaments could raise objections if they thought proposed EU legislation was encroaching on their powers. The text does not, though, state that parliaments could force the Commission to make changes, something Britain will try to tighten up.

Less welcome for London was a rejection from M. Giscard of attempts to purge the draft text of a passage saying that certain powers should be exercised "on a federal basis". M. Giscard said the balance of opinion was that "this wording should be maintained".