The US National Missile Defence and the world strategic balance

Written question by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL)
to the  Council of the European Union

As reported by the international press, US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's statements at the Werhkunde Conference in Munich on 2nd, 3rd and 4th of February, have marked a dramatic turning point in the relations between the Bush Administration and the European Union confronting the latter with decisions already finalised veritable faits accomplis on the issues of National Missile Defence and a de facto cancellation of the 1972 ABM treaty.

Advocating a "moral and constitutional duty" of President George W. Bush to defend his own people, Secretary Rumsfeld has pre-empted to all effects his own proclaimed intention to consult the European Allies on a futuristic and unjustified high-technology defensive system which runs the risk to destabilise the precarious geo-political balances of the moment with a further militarisation of space and with the projection into the future of an overwhelming strategic hegemony of the USA on the whole planet.

Other highly critical statements by Donald Rumsfeld and by members of the US delegation on the Common European Security and Defence Policy, on some European reservation on the role of Turkey and on further NATO enlargement have outlined unacceptable vetoes on firm policies formulated by the Council, by the Commission and approved by the European Parliament.


  1. Doesn't the Council believe that such a dramatic turning point in transatlantic relations requires an immediate examination with the aim to co-ordinate a common European position on the US diktats set out at the Werhkunde Conference in Munich?
  2. Doesn't the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, Mr Javier Solana, believe to be his duty to report immediately to the European Parliament on all official and unofficial exchanges taking place in Munich and on possible diplomatic and political responses by the Union?