The Liberal Democrats are firm supporters of European defence co-operation, says Paul Keetch

Co-operating with our European neighbours and allies on defence matters is not simply common sense, it is essential to Britain's security. It is essential from the point of view of maximising the return on the money European nations spend on defence and essential in maintaining a flexible security posture that allows Britain to contribute to global security operations in different ways.

The war in Iraq has reminded us of two things. Firstly, that the UK cannot conduct major combat operations at present without the United States, but also that US strategic choices are not always shared by Europe. A majority of the populations in mainland Europe and in the UK were not in favour of military action in Iraq, a stance shared by the Liberal Democrats.

Despite the different choices and sometimes harsh words between the UK and France and Germany over the Iraq conflict, co-operation on European defence has proceeded apace between these nations both during and after the war. At Naples in 2003, an agreement was reached on the setting up of a planning cell within NATO headquarters for EU operations.

In addition, Britain and France agreed on the setting up of a new rapid reaction force (RRF) for crisis stabilisation operations, to be ready at two weeks' notice. This is in addition to the larger RRF for deployment within 60 days. Under the draft proposals for the new European constitution, other nations would be able to participate in defence operations in whatever way they could, depending on their military or support capabilities. Later this year we can expect the EU to take over from NATO in Bosnia in its first fully-fledged peacekeeping operation.

Further proposals in the draft constitution include a new European Armaments and Capabilities Agency to replace OCCAR, the current co-operation agency. This would coordinate European procurement efforts, and make sure member states meet their commitments under the Helsinki Headline Goals. It promises to save money for all the states involved if standards can be harmonised across the board for munitions and other procurement contracts.

Even if heads of government fail to agree on a final text for the constitution, many of these proposals relating to defence could proceed if all states agree to them, since the only barrier to European co-operation on defence at present is the agreement of all the member states. Thus, hysterics from the right wing about a "European army" in the constitution are not only wrong but mis-directed since the basis of co-operation is not the constitution but the wishes of the member states.

Liberal Democrats are unabashed about our support for European co-operation in this area. Within NATO, UK forces have been co-operating with the French, Dutch, Germans, Norwegians and many other nations for decades. Without such co-operation, co-ordinated forces such as those that work so well together in Afghanistan or Bosnia or Kosovo would not have been possible. Setting up structures so that these same forces can co-operate together even if the US does not wish to participate - such as in the Congo - is simply common sense and need not threaten US security interests.

The US has been in favour of a European Security and Defence Policy since its inception, and has been even stricter than the UK in demanding improvements in European defence capabilities, most recently with the Prague Capabilities Commitment under NATO in 2003. If European co-operation on defence can bring about improvements in European capabilities then it should be welcomed. It is the same forces that are standing under a NATO or an EU command - the only significant difference is whether or not the US chooses to be involved.

Iraq has been a signal warning in this regard, that the United States has its own security agenda and it is willing to pursue this outside the confines of any formal alliance structures, and outside the purview of the United Nations. In such an environment, European nations must decide how to best safeguard their own security interests. Being locked into a US strategy and to participating in US actions because we have no other military choices is a weak position to be in. It is far better for the UK to be able to contribute to US operations when it agrees with US strategic choices and equally able to contribute to operations that the US might spurn in concert with our European partners.

European co-operation is therefore not simply about saving money on procurement contracts, thought it promises much in that regard. It is not simply about underwriting Europe's foreign policy ambitions on the world stage, although that is important in itself. It is also about making sure that the UK is not boxed into foreign policy choices which are manifestly not in our interest because we are unable to deploy our forces without US assistance.

Paul Keetch is Liberal Democrat MP for Hereford, and party spokesman on defence

Click here to choose another article on EU defence cooperation.