The issue of the need for Europe to have a President is also an issue. And as far as intra-European affairs are concerned, Europe has a President — the President of the European Commission who also happens to perform his duties intelligently and with high sense of responsibility. We have witnessed the successful introduction of Euro, the Nice Treaty and the successful process of the Enlargement, which are all success stories. This is the key for success of a United Europe. To this effect, we do not see why, with such successful records, we seek solutions elsewhere. Europe has a President, the President of the European Commission and he should be extended his duties to cover foreign and defence policies.
The other side of the coin is the Council where one can see a High Commissioner working intensively to establish a 60,000-troop European army and has been so successful that after four years of futile exercises and pompous appearances in the various theatres of war, not only has he not been able to deploy 60 cops in Bosnia but he led the situation to the absurdity of having the NATO summit in Praga proposing the formation of a NATO Response Force (NRF), thus making the European Army obsolete.
The failure in this field is not due to the fact that Mr. Xavier Solana, either by incompetence or by intention, did not let a European army get off the ground. This misery comes from the mere fact that the High Representative, if not directly susceptible to transatlantic interests, is influenced in this direction by the Heads of States who deal their bilateral relations with Washington directly and such relations, in most cases, do pass through national parliaments. Thus, in one way or another, in our case in both ways, the Council dances under the sounds of NATO’s orchestra.
On the contrary if the European Army was a Commission task, it would have taken a different course and by now we would have a decent European army to take care of problems in our backyard, as we have a common currency despite the obsessive reaction of both Americans and the Britons. This would have happened because contrarily to the Heads of States who think in national terms, Commissioners, although they all come from Member States, in the great majority if not in their totality, think in European terms. (714)