1360POLC.WAR 1360 - The enlargement of WEU (Political Com.) (Ward) Document 1360 19th April 1993 The enlargement of WEU REPORT submitted on behalf of the Political Committee by Mr. Ward, Rapporteur ______ TABLE OF CONTENTS ================= DRAFT RECOMMENDATION on the enlargement of WEU DRAFT ORDER on the enlargement of WEU EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM submitted by Mr. Ward, Rapporteur I. Introduction II. Relations between WEU and other European states A. Relations between WEU and the other European member states of the European Union or the Atlantic Alliance (a) Greece (b) Denmark and Ireland (c) Iceland, Norway and Turkey B. Relations between WEU and Central European states III. Relations between the WEU Assembly, parliaments of other European member states of the European Union or the Atlantic Alliance, and parliaments of other European states A. Preliminary remarks B. Proposals regarding different categories of European states IV. Conclusions APPENDIX Effects of enlargement on building resources and staff of the Assembly *********************************************** Draft recommendation ==================== on the enlargement of WEU The Assembly, Welcoming the Council's energetic action, which resulted in a protocol of accession to WEU with Greece, a declaration on WEU observers regarding Denmark and Ireland and a document on associate membership regarding Iceland, Norway and Turkey within a year after the WEU declaration on enlargement issued at Maastricht on 10th December 1991; Regretting that the Council has felt it necessary to declare that the field of application of Article V of the modified Brussels Treaty will be subject to certain restrictions; Noting that at an earlier stage it strongly expressed the wish for both Greece and Turkey to be admitted simultaneously as full members and regretting that the Council was not willing to accept this view; Welcoming the fact that, according to the document on associate membership of WEU, Iceland, Norway and Turkey will become associate members on the day that Greece becomes a member of WEU; Considering that Article IX of the modified Treaty is the foundation of the Assembly's role and existence; Noting the Council's reply to written questions 300, 311 and 312, where it suggests that the existence of Article IX of the modified Brussels Treaty does not preclude the Assembly retaining its full autonomy for resolving the problems of participation in the Assembly's activities of representatives from states which are associate members of, or observers in, WEU; Stressing that the enhancement of WEU's relations with Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and the Slovak Republic should also find expression in specific relations between the WEU Assembly and the parliamentarians of those states; Considering that national parliaments, when examining for ratification the protocol of Greece's accession to WEU, will have to take account of the proposed suspension of Article V of the modified Brussels Treaty and of Greece's role in European efforts to solve the crisis in the former Yugoslavia; Stressing that the participation of parliamentary representatives from new member states, associate member states and observer states in the activities of the Assembly will be a significant burden on the budget, personnel, office space and chamber required for the Assembly to perform its task properly, RECOMMENDS THAT THE COUNCIL Confirm the Assembly's full autonomy for resolving the problems of participation in its activities of representatives from states which are associate members of, or observers in, WEU and provide sufficient accommodation and financial means for the Assembly to implement the consequences of the accession of Greece, associate membership of Iceland, Norway and Turkey, and observer states of Denmark and Ireland, as decided in Rome on 20th November 1992; Indicate which countries will be asked to participate in the budget of the Assembly, and their respective contributions to the financing of this budget, so that the Assembly may keep an account of the effective participation in WEU; Indicate whether Greece, which has not signed the document on associate membership, is nevertheless committed to this text; Take no steps to promote ratification of the protocol of Greece's accession to WEU before Greece has clarified its position regarding the solution of the crisis in former Yugoslavia. *********************************************** Draft order =========== on the enlargement of WEU The Assembly, Considering the protocol of accession of Greece to WEU; the declaration on WEU observers regarding Denmark and Ireland and the document on the associate membership of WEU regarding Iceland, Norway and Turkey; Stressing the need to formalise the relationship between WEU Assembly and parliamentary representatives from Denmark and Ireland on the one hand and from Iceland, Norway and Turkey on the other, in an "observer statute" and an "associate member statute" respectively; Considering the enhancement of WEU's relations with Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and the Slovak republic at various levels; Noting that parliamentarians from the states mentioned under (iii) should be invited to the Assembly's plenary sessions on a permanent basis as guest members, without voting rights; Insisting, however, that at all times, the Assembly should retain the right to suspend parliamentary delegations from countries where the practice of parliamentary democracy is violated or where human rights are not being respected; Considering that the participation of a disproportionate number of parliamentary observers from non-WEU member states in the plenary debates of the Assembly may affect the character of the dialogue between Council and Assembly; Aware that any reasonable enlargement of the number of parliamentary delegations participating in the Assembly will be impossible without major adjustments of the Assembly's accommodation and budget; Considering that it is urgent to make a coherent examination of all political and budgetary questions, including the rules of procedure, in order to take full account of the consequences for the Assembly of WEU's enlargement; Invites its Committee on Rules of Procedure and Privileges: (a) to examine the creation of a specific "associate member" status for representatives of associate member states which will give full participation and voting rights in committees and the right to participate in the plenary sessions of the Assembly with membership of delegations on the same basis as the present Council of Europe arrangements; (b) to examine the creation of an "observer status" and a "permanent observer" or "guest member status" for representatives of observer states and of the nine central European countries assembled in the forum of consultation respectively; Invites the Political Committee to monitor the development of WEU's enlargement; Invites the Committee on Budgetary Affairs and Administration to examine in detail the consequences of enlargement for the Assembly's budget and premises; 4. Invites the Presidential Committee to co-ordinate the activities of the Political Committee, the Committee on Budgetary Affairs and Administration and the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Privileges in this matter, so as to ensure that appropriate reports and recommendations can be put to the Assembly no later than its December 1993 meeting. *********************************************** Explanatory Memorandum ====================== (submitted by Mr. Ward, Rapporteur) I. Introduction For WEU, the signing of the Treaty on European Union in Maastricht has set in motion an immensely important process of change which is already profoundly affecting its activities. Immediately after having signed the Treaty on European Union, the nine member states of WEU issued two declarations. The first declaration referred to the role of WEU and its relation with the European Union and with the Atlantic Alliance, a subject which has recently been discussed in the report on European security policy, submitted on behalf of the Political Committee by Mr. Goerens, Rapporteur.1 The second declaration concerned the enlargement of WEU. As is known, the Council of WEU worked out its intentions on enlargement in Part III of the Petersberg declaration of 19th June 1992, providing basic guidelines for relations between WEU and other European states, whether members of the European Union or of the Atlantic Alliance. On the same day, the WEU Council of Ministers held an extraordinary meeting with states of Central Europe, after which a declaration was issued on their mutual relations. The present report will first provide a concise review of the Council's activities regarding enlargement and relations with other European states. It will then examine the consequences of enlargement of WEU for the Assembly and the policy to be conducted as regards parliamentary observers. It should be emphasised here that the present accommodation and budget of the Assembly do not allow for any significant enlargement of the number of parliamentary delegations participating in the Assembly's activities. If the Assembly is obliged, through initiatives of the Council and through the considerable increase of interest in WEU's activities in general, to increase the number of parliamentary delegations engaged fully or partly in its activities, it must be granted the accommodation and financial means to meet these new legal and political obligations. (An analysis of the effects of enlargement on staff and building resources is given as an appendix to this report.) II. Relations between WEU and other European states A. Relations between WEU and the other European member states of the European Union or the Atlantic Alliance In a declaration issued on the occasion of the 46th European Council meeting in Maastricht on 9th and 10th December 1991, the WEU member states stated the following: "States which are members of the European Union are invited to accede to WEU on conditions to be agreed in accordance with Article XI of the modified Brussels Treaty, or to become observers if they so wish. Simultaneously, other European member states of NATO are invited to become associate members of WEU in a way which will give them the possibility to participate fully in the activities of WEU. The member states of WEU assume that treaties and agreements corresponding with the above proposals will be concluded before 31st December 1992." The principles decided in Maastricht in December 1991 were followed by detailed proposals set out in Part III of the Petersberg declaration in June 1992.1 Immediately after the Petersberg declaration, the German Minister for Foreign Affairs and the then Chairman-in-Office of the WEU Council, invited Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Norway and Turkey to open discussions on the detailed proposals for their relations with WEU. On 20th November 1992, and in accordance with the timetable envisaged by the Council, discussions with these states resulted in different agreements to be examined in the following paragraphs. (a) Greece A protocol of accession to WEU was signed with Greece.2 It is well known that Greece made availability of WEU membership to Greece a condition of agreeing to the Treaty on European Union. According to this protocol, Greece accepted the Petersberg declaration in full, in particular Part III, including the fundamental principles on which relations between member states and associate member states should be based. These include: settlement of their mutual differences by peaceful means and refraining from resorting to the threat or use of force. Further, the Council excluded the possibility of evoking Article V of the modified Brussels Treaty in relations between members and associate members of WEU. At an earlier stage, the Assembly had already regretted that the Council had felt obliged to declare that the field of application of Article V of the modified Brussels Treaty was subject to certain restrictions. According to the protocol of accession, "the enlargement of Western European Union to include the Hellenic Republic represents a significant step in the development of the European security and defence identity". There is no doubt about Greece's determination to participate fully in the process of European integration. On the other hand, the policy of Greece regarding the crisis in former Yugoslavia did not appear to give full support to the intentions of the other EC member states. It is recalled here that in paragraph 3 of Recommendation 525 to the Council, the Assembly's Standing Committee "insists that Greece give the necessary assurances of total compliance with the United Nations embargo before continuing the present negotiations for WEU membership". In its reply, the Council stated that it "takes due note of the suggestion", which in the Assembly's view reflects the Council's reluctant attitude in this matter. Greece's traditional good relations with Serbia have led to friction over the application of the United Nations embargo. Moreover, Greece has used its veto to block the EC's recognition of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as an independent state, notwithstanding the fact that in January 1992 a committee of legal experts under the chairmanship of Mr. Badinter had concluded that Macedonia met all the conditions for recognition by the EC. Greece has expressed fears that a new independent Republic of Macedonia may become a threat to peace in that region alleging in its constitution of 17th November 1991 that there are references to the possibility of changing existing borders and intervening in the internal affairs of neighbouring states on the pretext of issues concerning the status and the rights of alleged minorities.1 Meanwhile, on 7th April 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution which cleared the way for the admission of Macedonia, to be referred to provisionally as the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" to the United Nations. The question of both the name and the flag of the new state should be left to be settled under the auspices of the international mediators in the Balkans, Cyrus R. Vance and Lord Owen. Considering the conceivable risks of a further extension of armed conflicts on the territory of former Yugoslavia up to a point where even neighbouring states may get involved, WEU member states might postpone ratification of the protocol of accession of Greece until an agreement on the Macedonian question has been reached which would provide enough guarantees for the inviolability of existing borders and for the protection of the rights of minorities. Failing this, WEU member states may face the application of Article V of the modified Brussels Treaty, obliging its member states to afford "all the military and other aid and assistance in their power ... if any of the High Contracting parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe". Greek membership should enhance the mutual coherence and security which is the objective of the WEU alliance and not be a source of additional security risks. (b) Denmark and Ireland Also on 20th November 1992, the WEU Council of Ministers issued a declaration on WEU observers.1 In preceding discussions, both Denmark and Ireland had indicated their interest in becoming WEU observers, and their status has now been formalised in the abovementioned declaration. After Danish voters narrowly rejected the Maastricht Treaty in a referendum in June 1992, Denmark was granted the possibility of opting out on monetary union, common defence policy and European citizenship and a second referendum on the Treaty on European Union is to be held on 18th May 1993. (c) Iceland, Norway and Turkey On 20th November 1992, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the WEU member states and the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Iceland, Norway and Turkey issued a document on associate membership of Iceland, Norway and Turkey.2 Paragraph 5 of this document stipulates: "The Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Turkey will become associate members of WEU on the day the Hellenic Republic becomes a member of WEU. In the meantime, the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Turkey will be considered as active observers to WEU." A full discussion of Turkey's position in the European and Atlantic Alliance's security framework is provided in the report on Turkey prepared on behalf of the Political Committee by Mr. Moya (Document 1341). B. Relations between WEU and Central European states In an official declaration issued after an extraordinary meeting of the WEU Council with states of Central Europe in Bonn on 19th June 1992, it was stated that: "The enhancement of WEU's relations with Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania should reflect the specific relations which exist and are developing between these countries and the European Union and its member states." This declaration clearly confirms the existence of a parallel development in economic and security relations of the EC/European Union and WEU with third countries. The ministers also decided that the foreign and defence ministers of WEU member states and of the abovementioned Central European states would meet once a year, while additional meetings at ministerial level might be convened if circumstances require. Furthermore, a forum of consultation was established between the WEU Permanent Council and the ambassadors of the countries concerned which will meet at the seat of the WEU Council at least twice a year. The first meeting of the WEU forum of consultation was held in London on 14th October 1992. In the Petersberg declaration it was also stated that: "Ministers advocated the development of relations between the WEU Assembly and the parliaments of the states concerned." The Assembly could play a useful role in building bridges with these countries through various kinds of activities which will be examined in the second part of this report.1 III. Relations between the WEU Assembly, parliaments of other European member states of the European Union or the Atlantic Alliance, and parliaments of other European states A. Preliminary remarks The declarations, decisions and agreements referred to in Chapter II of the present report oblige the Assembly to adopt and revise its policy regarding its relations with parliaments of other European states. The objective is to develop a logical and consistent line of conduct in order to prevent ambiguities. It should be noted, however, that with regard to observers the basic principle as embodied in Rule 17 should remain intact.2 Before discussing the Assembly's policy in more detail, it may be useful to specify some principles which should always be observed: - - Apart from the obligations laid down in the Charter of the Assembly and the modified Brussels Treaty as regards full members of WEU, the WEU Assembly also has certain obligations as regards the parliamentary delegations of states which will have the status of associate member or observer in WEU as mentioned in Chapter II A of the present report. It has full autonomy to take decisions regarding its relations with the parliaments of other states. In this respect there is no compulsion to follow exactly the line of conduct of the Council. On the other hand, there should be no misunderstanding that the Assembly's granting of special status to a parliamentary delegation does not necessarily lead to similar actions being taken by the Council. - The Assembly will have to create a special status for parliamentary representatives from associate member states and observer states which will be unambiguous and easy to understand for everyone concerned. The status for these two categories of representatives should not bring a heavy burden to bear on the functioning of the Assembly. - Major changes in the Rules of Procedure should be avoided, while those changes deemed inevitable should not affect the specific character of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure and its activities. - An increase in the number of delegations participating fully or partly in the Assembly's activities, which is a direct consequence of decisions taken by the WEU Council, should be accompanied by a proportional increase in the budget of the Assembly. - The number of members and observers attending committee meetings and taking part in other committee activities may have to be reviewed in order to maintain the effectiveness of such meetings and activities. - If the Assembly creates a status of parliamentary observer which could also be granted to parliamentarians from European states not members of the EC/European Union or the Atlantic Alliance, it should take into account (a) the truly democratic and parliamentary nature of the country from which parliamentarians are invited; to this end, the Assembly might follow the decisions taken by the Council of Europe; (b) the determination of the country concerned to play an effective role in a European security organisation. - At all times, the Assembly should retain the right to suspend the permanent observer status of parliamentary delegations from countries where the practice of parliamentary democracy is violated or where human rights are not being respected. - The Assembly invites parliamentary observers with the aim of establishing a political dialogue that takes into account the various opinions of both government and opposition in the nation concerned. In principle it should invite not more than two parliamentary observers from a given country, in the hope that one of them will represent the opposition. In some instances, it might issue an invitation to more than two observers for a particular meeting in order to hear a broader spectrum of opinions. - The Assembly should retain the ability to invite, whenever it deems necessary, parliamentary observers from any country without this constituting an obligation to renew such invitations. - Any reasonable enlargement of the number of parliamentary delegations participating in the Assembly's activities will be impossible in the present accommodation. B. Proposals regarding different categories of European States (i) Member states of the EC which will be full members of or observers in WEU (a) Greece After admission, Greece will be entitled to send a full parliamentary delegation, i.e. its delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. As regards Greek parliamentary representation in the Assembly, during the period between 20th November 1992, when the Protocol of Accession of Greece was signed and the entry into force of the Protocol, Greece would like the Assembly to adopt the same procedure as it adopted for delegations from Spain and Portugal. It is recalled here that in an early stage of preliminary talks between Spain, Portugal and WEU, the Assembly had invited parliamentary observers from Portugal and Spain to participate in all committee meetings and plenary Assembly sessions with a right to speak but without the right to vote. It should also be noted, however, that these invitations were inspired by the Assembly's desire to see both countries to accede to WEU as soon as possible. In the case of Greece, it is Greece itself which has exerted maximum pressure on the European Council and on the Council of WEU to be admitted to WEU. The Assembly has never seen any specific advantage in early Greek accession to WEU and, as a consequence, there would be no reason at the moment to provide preferential treatment for Greek parliamentary observers as long as the protocol of accession of Greece to WEU has not been ratified in the signatory countries. The proposal is to continue inviting Greek parliamentary observers to Assembly sessions with a right to speak until the accession protocol has been ratified, after which date the members of the Greek parliamentary delegation to the Assembly of the Council of Europe may assume their rights as a full parliamentary delegation to the Assembly of WEU. The consequences of full Greek participation in the Assembly's activities as regards the provision of office space, interpretation facilities and personnel should be worked out as soon as the Council has provided the necessary financial means. As regards these financial consequences, reference is made here to paragraph 15 of the draft budget of the administrative expenditure of the Assembly for the financial year 1993.1 In view of the process of ratification of the Protocol of Accession, it is now clear that Greece's accession to WEU will not take place before 1994, but the document referred to here still provides an order of magnitude of additional costs for the Assembly. (b) Ireland and Denmark With Ireland having become an observer in WEU, representatives from Ireland should be invited to be observers in the Assembly. Denmark has also responded positively to the invitation to become an observer in WEU. For several years now, observers from the Danish Parliament have attended sessions of the Assembly with the right tospeak. It seems logical to grant representatives of both observer states the right to be observers, including the right to speak in committee meetings and at plenary sessions of the Assembly. As regards the size of parliamentary observer delegations from Denmark and Ireland, reference should be made to the size of their delegations to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, i.e. 5 and 4 representatives respectively. The number of representatives to be observers in meetings of the various committees may then be deduced from the breakdown given in Rule 40 of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure. It is known that, for several years now, parliamentary observers from Denmark have attended sessions of the Assembly. By inviting parliamentary observers from both Ireland and Denmark, the Assembly can act as a bridge to enable parliamentarians from these countries to familiarise themselves with discussions in WEU. (ii) European member states of the Atlantic Alliance which will be associate members of WEU: Iceland, Norway and Turkey These countries may participate fully in the meetings of the WEU Council - without prejudice to the provisions of Article VIII of the modified Brussels Treaty - subject to certain conditions, which are listed in the Document on Associate Membership.2 Turkey expressed very clearly its wishes about the status of its parliamentary representatives in the Assembly. The Turkish authorities consider that the following essential principles should be retained in determining Turkey's associate member status in the WEU Assembly: - as the Charter and Rules of Procedure of the WEU Assembly at present make no provision for the status of associate member, these texts should be revised and modified accordingly; - it should be made possible for Turkey to participate fully in all the Assembly's activities; - in this context, Turkish parliamentarians participating in the WEU Assembly should be given the right to speak, vote and originate documents; - in the same context, Turkish parliamentarians should be represented at all levels in all the Assembly's committees and assume corresponding responsibilities. In fact, the WEU Council has strongly encouraged the Assembly to grant as many rights as possible to parliamentary representatives from states which are associate members of, or observers in, WEU in order to enable them to participate fully in the Assembly's activities. In order to clarify a number of legal problems in connection with associate membership, members of the Political Committee submitted Written Questions 300, 311 and 312 to the Council. In its answers, the Council confirmed the Assembly's view that, in accordance with Article IX of the modified Brussels Treaty, only representatives of the Brussels Treaty powers can be full members of the WEU Assembly. However, it added that "In the Council's view ... this does not preclude full participation in the Assembly's activities of representatives from states which are associate members of, or observers in WEU, on a basis to be decided by the Assembly." The Council continued, saying that "the Assembly therefore retains its full autonomy for resolving the problems in question." In the Assembly's view it is indeed fully autonomous to resolve the problems in question, but only within the limits of the modified Brussels Treaty. It can therefore grant full participation in its activities to representatives from associate member states within the limits of Article IX of the modified Brussels Treaty, which reads: "The Council of Western European Union shall make an annual report on its activities and in particular concerning the control of armaments to an Assembly composed of representatives of the Brussels Treaty powers to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe." This article does not prohibit full participation in the activities of the Assembly by representatives of associate member states. However, they cannot be full members of the Assembly. What then should be the difference between full members and the representatives of associate member states? There is a clue in Article IX, here to be seen in connection with the Council's answer to Written Question 300. In this question, it was asked whether associate members took part in the drafting and adoption of the annual report of the Council. In its answer, the Council stated: "As regards the drafting and adoption of the Council's annual report, the modified Brussels Treaty clearly states that a Council created by the High Contracting Parties (Article VIII, paragraph 1) "shall make an annual report on its activities ..." (Article IX). It is pointed out that Part III of the Petersberg declaration specified that neither associate members nor observers are parties to the modified Brussels Treaty." Since associate members are clearly not entitled to participate in the drafting and adoption of the Council's annual report, it would be odd and even contrary to the intention of Article IX and the democratic principle which is the basis of this article to allow representatives from a given state to vote on a recommendation regarding an annual report for which the government of that same state is not responsible. As a consequence, representatives of associate member states can be granted the right to participate and vote in committee meetings and to participate in the plenary sessions of the Assembly with the right to vote on all matters except the Annual Report of the High Contracting Parties of the modified Brussels Treaty. As regards the number of representatives from associate member states which should be allowed to participate in the Assembly's activities, reference should be made to the size of the parliamentary delegations from Iceland, Norway and Turkey to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, i.e. 3, 5 and 12 representatives respectively. The number of representatives participating in meetings of the various committees can then be deduced from the breakdown given in Rule 40 of the Assembly's Rules of Procedures. A number of formal details regarding the participation of representatives of associate member states will have to be worked out by the Assembly's Committee on Rules of Procedure and Privileges in an "associate member status". In that framework, many questions may arise, such as whether associate members should participate in meetings of the Presidential Committee and whether they would have an influence on the quorum required in committee meetings. It seems, however, that the "associate member status" can be regulated in a limited set of rules. In order to provide normal working conditions for these associate member delegations, each of them should have a delegation office at its disposal in the Assembly's premises. (iii) Central European states participating in the forum of consultation: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and the Slovak Republic As set out in the declaration issued after the extraordinary meeting of the WEU Council of Ministers with states of Central Europe on 19th June 1992, ministers have decided to strengthen existing relations by restructuring the dialogue, consultations and co-operation in order to enable the Central European nations to acquaint themselves with the future security and defence policy of the European Union and find new opportunities to co-operate with WEU. It should also be recalled here that the ministers advocated the development of relations between the WEU Assembly and the parliaments of the states concerned. It is in the Assembly's interest to continue to intensify the political dialogue with parliamentary delegations from these countries that had been established in previous years. But the question could be asked whether they should be given a status of permanent observer or whether they should be invited each time by special decision. Taking into account the standing practice and the opinion of the Assembly as expressed in several previous recommmendations, it would be logical to grant delegations from these countries a status of permanent observer at the Assembly's plenary sessions with a right to speak if there is sufficient evidence that the members of the parliaments concerned have been elected democratically. Moreover, a status of permanent observer would also, albeit partly, accommodate the strong desire of these countries to be included in discussions on European security and defence at all possible levels. Finally, it should be said that any other decision would be contrary to expectations raised earlier. (iv) Neutral and other European states which have applied for membership of the European Union or which are considering doing so: Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Malta, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. Most of these countries have shown an interest in the activities of WEU, and in particular of its Assembly, and an increasing number of them are asking for parliamentary observers to be invited. Although public opinion in the countries which are neutral or have adopted a policy of neutrality is only changing gradually, their governments are mostly aware that after the cold war the concept of neutrality makes much less sense. As an indication of the changing atmosphere it should be mentioned that at the Assembly's December 1992 session, Mr. Fasslabend, Austria's Federal Minister of Defence, said that accession to the European Community had become the key to Austria's security and that his country accepted the objective of a common defence policy as included in the Treaty on European Union. The Minister also wished WEU to take steps to institutionalise its relations with countries that had applied for accession to the European Union. Sooner or later, the Assembly will have to invite parliamentary observers from all these states. Accession negotiations have started with Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden and the Commission hopes to achieve EC membership by 1993 if their governments win public approval. The Commission's opinion on the Cyprus and Malta applications is expected this year. For the time being, the Swiss Government is not in a position to apply for Swiss membership since, in a December 1992 referendum, the Swiss rejected accession to the European Economic Area. It should be noted here that, when the EC approved Norway's application for membership, the EC Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and Security, Mr. Hans van de Broek, stressed that all the applicants had to accept existing EC rules and laws and the Maastricht Treaty. He also restated the EC policy that there was no prospect of granting the applicants the possibility of opting out on monetary union, common defence policy and European citizenship. (v) The Russian Federation and other independent republics on the territory of the former Soviet Union, Albania and the new independent republics on the territory of former Yugoslavia The states mentioned in this section do not constitute a homogeneous group. The Russian Federation is by far the most important power in Eastern Europe and it will certainly try to reaffirm its position as a leading nation once it has overcome the present crisis. However, the mere fact that the Russian Federation has special guest status in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe cannot be a reason for giving it similar or comparable status in the Assembly. On the other hand, it should be kept in mind that Russia is recognised as the legal successor to the former USSR, with which the Assembly established relations as early as 1987. The Assembly should therefore try to pursue the existing dialogue with representatives of the Russian Federation in a way which is satisfactory to both sides. As regards the other independent republics on the territory of the former Soviet Union, it seems too early for the Assembly to invite representatives from all these new states as observers, knowing that their participation in NACC and CSCE meetings is already causing problems for them in many ways. An exception may have to be made for Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, each of which has borders with states having closer links with WEU. The Chairman of the Supreme Rada of Ukraine, the Ukrainian parliament, recently requested the WEU Assembly to consider the possibility of granting Ukraine observer status in the Assembly, the objective being to initiate a step-by-step development of special relations between WEU and Ukraine. It seems unwise to think of inviting observers from the new republics of the territory of former Yugoslavia and from Albania on a regular basis before a balanced and lasting peace agreement has been reached which would also guarantee the existence of parliamentary democracies. (vi) The European Parliament The invitation to observers from the European Parliament must be the subject of a joint agreement between the two assemblies, giving equal and reciprocal status to the observers of both assemblies. As there is no observer status in the European Parliament, there is no reason for the WEU Assembly to offer such status to members of the European Parliament. Relations therefore have to be considered on a different basis. On 23rd September 1992, the Presidents of the WEU Assembly and of the European Parliament met in Brussels. The two Presidents have now: (a) decided to meet regularly. Some members of the Political Committee have asked that representatives of each political group be invited to attend these meetings; (b) examined the possibility of exchanges of ideas and documents between rapporteurs from the two assemblies dealing with matters of joint interest. Such exchanges were obviously desirable provided they did not allow a representative of one assembly to have a prior view of the work of the other, thus respecting Rule 42, paragraph 10, of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly; (c) examined the possibility of meetings between committees or subcommittees of the two assemblies. Moreover, a proposal has been made in the Political Committee for delegations of not more than six members of the Assembly's Presidential Committee and the European Parliament's Bureau to meet in the future in order to make sure that the agreement between both Presidents is implemented. Conclusions As a consequence of the WEU Council's decisions on enlargement, the creation of the status of associate member state and observer state and the establishment of a forum of consultation, the Assembly is obliged to revise its policy regarding parliamentary representatives from non-WEU member states having a specific relationship with WEU. Notwithstanding the abovementioned, the existing Rule 17 of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure should be maintained since it offers a satisfactory framework for inviting observers of any kind from any state. While working out a status for different categories of representatives, a clear distinction should be made between, (a) a provisional situation, lasting until the ratification of the Protocol of Accession of Greece and during which no new status can be introduced, and (b) the new situation after ratification of the Protocol of Accession of Greece when a newly established status can be launched. Once the principles set out in this report have been adopted by the Assembly, the Assembly's committees should take the following action: - the Political Committee should monitor the development of WEU's enlargement; - the Committee on Budgetary Affairs and Administration should consider the consequences of enlargement for the Assembly's budget and premises. - the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Privileges should prepare the necessary changes in the Rules of Procedure. APPENDIX Effects of enlargement on building resources and staff of the Assembly (a) Chamber At present the Assembly has 108 members and an equal number of substitutes representing the nine countries. There will be 115 members when the accession of Greece is ratified. If observer and associate members were to be represented by their delegation to the Council of Europe, there would be 144 members and an equal number of substitutes. Nine other countries belong to the WEU forum of consultation. If they were to be represented permanently by two observers at each session, 162 parliamentarians from 24 countries would be convened to sessions. The Assembly has shown its intention to continue inviting observers from non-member countries to attend sessions. If it were to do this for the eleven countries likely to wish to send observers here and now,with two observers per country, invitations would have to be sent to about twenty observers, making in all 184 parliamentarians from 35 countries. The Council has already asked for representatives from governments of observer countries and associate members to be invited to sit in the Chamber during sessions, which, with two representatives per country, four for the Secretariat-General and four reserved for ministers and their advisers, would mean reserving 38 seats for governments, which would make a total of 222 seats. In view of the need to reserve a few seats for substitutes, secretaries of groups or of delegations, interpreters for countries without simultaneous interpretation, etc., it would be necessary to have 250 seats. Since the Chamber of the Economic and Social Council has 238 seats, it would still be possible to use it provided there was not a full attendance. Any increase in these figures, however, would make it necessary for the Assembly to hold its sessions elsewhere, which would involve considerable expenditure (the excess cost of holding a session in Strasbourg has been assessed at between F 1 million and 1.5). For any session held in Paris, the Assembly, for its part, would have to take a number of essential but hardly satisfactory steps,such as: - terminating the right of honorary members to sit in the Chamber; - reserving the galleries for honorary members and the press, as long as the installation of a Greek interpretation booth has not been decided upon. After that, a televised system would have to be installed in the press room. - restricting access to sessions for the public which would have to follow the debates by television in the lobby and extending the area for viewing by increasing the number of television sets. If the Assembly decides to keep its seat in Paris, it would have to examine, together with the Economic and Social Council and with the association of interpreters, the possibility of installing permanent interpretation equipment and, to this end, using television sets in the interpreters' booths, which would no longer be placed on the balcony. (b) Committee rooms The Assembly has two fully-equipped committee rooms. They each have forty seats around the table and twenty seats at the side. It is clearly essential to provide a seat at the table and to leave a certain number of seats for alternates at the side. The two largest committees now have thirty-four members. There will be thirty-seven with the accession of Greece. Three places have to be reserved for the Office of the Clerk. In these conditions, if delegations from observer and associate member countries are to be invited to attend committee meetings, they would have to be limited to twelve, i.e., four for Turkey and two for each other country. They would then have to sit at the side. Should these limits not be respected, it would become impossible to use the committee rooms at the seat of the Assembly in normal conditions and the Assembly would have to have new premises. (c) Delegation offices It would seem essential to provide the parliamentary delegations of observer or associate member countries with premises adapted to their requirements. It would also seem desirable to provide other delegations of observers with a certain number of offices. If nine delegations are planned for the countries of the forum and about ten others for neutral or former members of the Soviet Union, i.e., about twenty delegations, it would seem necessary to make ten offices available in a manner yet to be determined. The Assembly should therefore have at least twenty-five more offices. Furthermore, if new posts are to be created in the Office of the Clerk, more offices would be necessary. (d) Use of languages Present rules allow parliamentarians of each member country to use the official language of their country at both committee meetings and during sessions and to have simultaneous interpretation into that language at sessions. This application would mean installing a Greek booth for sessions and recruiting interpreters for Greek during committee meetings once the accession of Greece is ratified. The installation of a Greek booth would preclude the use of the gallery for the public during sessions due to the weight and the space occupied by eight interpretation booths. The use of an additional language would make it impossible to use the Chamber of the Economic and Social Council. Conversely, limiting the number of languages used would make it possible to continue using that Chamber. An initial consultation of the Presidential Committee on this matter gave the impression that there might be strong opposition to any limitation of the number of languages used and that the Assembly would ask for Greek to be given the same advantages as the other official languages. It would then become very difficult to oppose the acceptance of the language of any further country joining WEU. If this were so, it would have to be expected that any new country joining WEU, or even here and now certain associate members, would wish their official language to have the same advantages as the official languages of the present member states. There are therefore firm grounds for fearing a proliferation of official languages which would be a heavy burden on the budget of the Assembly, would exclude the use of the Chamber of the Economic and Social Council, would make extremely complicated any travelling by the committees and would take more time for translations. Clearly, any increase in the number of languages used would mean increasing the staff of the Office of the Clerk, particularly in the translation and sittings services (verbatim and summary reporters) and also throughout the other services. This would also mean additional offices being made available for the new staff during the sessions and there is little hope of obtaining them in the premises of the Economic and Social Council. A wise course would certainly be to adopt the rules of the Council of Europe which limit the number of languages authorised. The legal grounds for this ruling are dubious, however, and it is not certain that parliamentarians will agree, nor even that the Council of Europe will be able to maintain its position for very long. There is reason to fear that the Assembly will quickly be obliged to adopt a practice similar to that of the European Parliament where all the languages of the member countries are accepted. (e) Officials in the Office of the Clerk When Spain and Portugal joined, the parliamentary delegations of these two countries strongly insisted on having at least one grade A official of their nationality in the Office of the Clerk. The Council, which refused to create posts to correspond to the increase in the workload of the Office of the Clerk, agreed to the creation of posts for one Spanish and one Portuguese national. There are grounds for thinking that the accession of Greece will lead to similar claims with a like response. At the same time, it is not excluded that associate members, and in particular Turkey, will claim the same right. Furthermore, the management of relations with an increasing number of countries, their governments, parliaments and various institutes would require a significant increase in the number of officials in the Office of the Clerk who can no longer meet all the obligations devolving from the development of WEU's activities and its external relations. (f) Budget of the Assembly The development of WEU's activities in 1993 led to an increase in the budget of the Secretariat-General that can be estimated at about 75%, whereas the Assembly's budget has been kept to the principle of zero growth. A significant increase in the budget of the Assembly is still, therefore, essential. Its magnitude will depend on whether the seat of the Assembly stays the same or whether another will have to be found. Even if the Assembly stays in its present premises, it will have to be given the means necessary for holding sessions or meetings elsewhere as and when necessary. Should the seat of the Assembly be maintained, it is expected that expenditure would have to be increased from 30 to 50%. If the seat is changed, the increase will depend on factors that cannot be assessed at present but, in any event, it would be much greater. The Petersberg declaration said that associate members would be invited to make a financial contribution to the budgets of WEU. Consequently, it would seem normal for countries with the status of associate member of the Assembly of WEU to contribute to its budget in accordance with a cost-sharing formula on which the governments concerned should reach agreement. According to the Petersberg declaration, this might be the case for associate members but nothing is said about observers. Clearly, the countries concerned will wish to limit their contributions in a manner commensurate with the advantages of the status the Assembly grants them. Conversely, it is not possible to ask for contributions from countries without the benefit of a status, even if expenditure is incurred by the presence of their parliamentary delegation. ------- For information, please contact: Yves ROBINS, Press Counsellor _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/| ASSEMBLY OF WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ | 43, avenue du President WILSON _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ | F-75775 Paris cedex 16 FRANCE _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ | Tel 331-47235432; _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ | Fax 331-47204543 | E-mail: | 100315.240@Compuserve.com