Letter: Nato's role in European defence

Sir: Michael Howard is wrong to assert that a common European foreign and security policy (CFSP) poses a threat to the role of the US and Nato ("Howard says Brussels is threat to Nato", 9 September).

Prior to the Amsterdam summit earlier this year, both Tony Blair and Robin Cook stressed the continuing importance of Nato and its role in European defence. The subsequent Amsterdam treaty clearly specifies that any common European defence policy must both respect the obligations of member states towards Nato, and be compatible with the Nato framework.

Nor is the special relationship between Britain and the US threatened by a common foreign and security policy. Stuart Eizenstat, speaking in 1995 as US Ambassador to the EU, outined the American Administration's backing for a European CFSP, saying that the US "fully support(s) the European defence identity and the Western European Union as the European pillar of Nato".

Mr Howard also fails to recognise that the Amsterdam treaty safeguards the right of member states to take an independent foreign policy line. Under the process of constructive abstention, all member states retain the right to opt out from a collective foreign policy decision.

A common European foreign and security policy will widen the capacity for EU member states to work together to prevent future conflict breaking out in the central European states. Mr Howard mentions the Gulf War but neglects to say that the EU countries acted together to apply sanctions on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. The uniform application of sanctions aptly illustrates how a CFSP can enable member states to act in concert.

As Mr Howard says, many Europeans still see Nato as the basis of their defence and cherish their links with the US. What he fails to state is that a CFSP effectively ensures that the EU has an extra leg to stand on, without having to sacrifice the security provided by the US and Nato.

STEPHEN WOODARD

Director

European Movement

UK

London SW1