Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

 Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Wednesday, 9 April 2003 - Strasbourg OJ edition

5. Security and defence – priorities and deficiencies
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – The next item is the report (Α5-0111/03) by Mr Morillon on the new European security and defence architecture – priorities and deficiencies.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Morillon (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy began work on this report six months ago. We never imagined back then that we would publish it at such a dramatic and painful time. We have sought to update the previous report by our fellow Member Catherine Lalumière. This update was necessitated by the events of September 2001 and our desire to make our own contribution to the work undertaken by our colleagues in the Convention.

We may be attempting the impossible in assessing any kind of European security and defence architecture. At present everything leads one to believe that, for the time being at least, such an architecture has totally disintegrated. My fellow members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy took a different view however. On 25 March, at the height of the crisis, they adopted the report we will vote on tomorrow in plenary. I think there are at least three reasons for this. The first is that we have a responsibility towards our electorate. The second relates to our awareness that, on the eve of enlargement, the present crisis must serve as a lesson for us. The third stems from our desire to clarify the policy on transatlantic cooperation. We feel Member States want to continue to pursue this policy. Many of us hope that the current differences are not as serious as they might appear at first sight.

As I said, the first reason is that we have a responsibility towards our electorate. All the indicators we are aware of have shown that over two-thirds of European citizens are in favour of a common security and defence policy. The Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy is aware of this feeling. It is no surprise that a similar proportion of committee members share the view of the citizens. This was demonstrated by the committee’s vote following a fruitful debate on almost 200 amendments. In any case, the new regulation on the work of our committee would have allowed for just a vote in plenary. We all agreed however that the subject was so important it merited the debate we are having today. We also felt we had to involve the Council and the Commission.

We are holding this debate to learn the lessons of the present crisis without any further delay. This is the second reason. Europe is incapable of speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council, as it should do according to the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. President-in-Office of the Council, a great deal of upset and confusion has built up recently within the European Union. While I hope such difficulties are only temporary, do they not demonstrate that it is now time for us to reform our institutions to prevent any repetition of this in future? As I have said, we are fully aware that the citizens of Europe, and also maybe the whole world, expect Europe to takes its place in building a multi-polar world. People want to stop the future of the world being decided by the President of the United States alone.

I will now outline the third and most important reason. Is the European Union ready to take on the responsibilities we are expected to assume? I am not sure. The choice before the European Union is now clearer than ever. Member States could continue to entrust their defence to the United States Armed Forces alone, as during the Cold War. In that case, Member States could not lecture the United States on what Washington might decide to do with its troops. On the other hand, Member States could finally agree to do what the United States has always asked them to do. When it comes to sharing the burden, the United States has continually asked Member States to make a larger contribution to joint undertakings. The Secretary-General of NATO Lord Robertson referred to this the other day in your presence, Commissioner Patten. He criticised the gap between the ambitions of European governments and the means they are prepared to devote to achieving them. He called this the gap of ambition. I hope the present crisis will make them aware of this gap and that they will begin to bridge it.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Yiannitsis, Council. – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the recent crisis in Iraq demonstrated fairly clearly where Europe is lagging behind, especially on foreign policy and defence issues. However, let us not dwell on Europe's weaknesses. This crisis may also have a creative effect for European policies and, from this point of view, I think that the Morillon report has come along at just the right time, even if this was not apparent when it started.

Today, because the traditional twin superpower system has collapsed, we need to find new security strategies and measures. Within this framework, the spread of weapons of mass destruction is not the only hotbed of crisis. This is not the only danger threatening global security and stability. Extensive poverty, organised crime, institutionalised violence and serious recessions may have the same adverse impact on global stability and security as military or terrorist action. We certainly need to examine in parallel the extent to which we are developing the right policies for all these dangers and at what point in time. Along with any reaction we choose, we consider support for global security, mutual trust, cooperation, consensus in international organisations, alliances and networks to be vital. The method we use to handle threats to global security will determine our future as we build peace and safeguard a healthy economic environment and find convincing answers to global political, economic and even environmental problems.

At this point, with the occurrence of the Iraqi crisis, I should like to say how grateful I am that the extremely interesting report by General Morillon has given the presidency an opportunity to formulate the Council's opinions on as serious an issue for European integration as the European security and defence policy. Both the Morillon report and other related initiatives, such as the Barnier report, have contributed important ideas which may be especially useful in the debate to be held at the intergovernmental conference, and even at the present stage, when the competent bodies of the Council are processing texts relating to the integration of the ESDP mechanism and, of course, in the Convention.

I need to point out here, and I shall explain why in just a moment, that some of the ideas formulated in the Morillon report relate to initiatives which have already been set in motion and are being examined by the competent bodies of the Union. I shall start by dealing with the current threats to security, stability and peace that have taken a very different form from the usual threats in the past. To tell the truth, the ESDP mechanism was not designed from the start to cope with horizontal and irrational threats such as terrorism or the spread of weapons of mass destruction, which is why the mechanism needs to be carefully and gradually adapted to the present security environment.

Within this framework, the first move has been to set two specific objectives: the use of the military forces of the Union for the protection from terrorist attack of civilians on the one hand and of the military forces of the Union deployed in crisis areas on the other. Without doubt, the further development and improvement of military capabilities are the pivotal point of the security and, subsequently, the defence of the Union. We are paying particular attention to this issue and, within the framework of continuing the efforts made so far, there are plans to convene a conference of capabilities to evaluate and record progress made in applying the related action plan, the ΕCΑP, and deciding how to proceed.

The presidency has drafted a text with guidelines on what is to be done once the competent working parties, the ECAP panels, have completed their work. We hope that these initiatives will give new momentum to improving our operational capability in the military sector and, by extension, will help to strengthen the bases for the further development of the ESDP. In this respect, it is also especially important to develop the rapid reaction force, which is why this issue was already included in the basic priorities in the field of the military aspect of the ESDP by the Spanish Presidency. The operational framework which will govern the formation and operation of rapid reaction units is being examined by the competent political and military bodies and we are making every effort to complete it by the end of the Greek Presidency. It goes without saying that strengthening the Union's military capabilities will not be possible unless we extend and broaden our cooperation in the field of armaments. This enterprise should, of course, have been planned earlier, but the time has come to implement it and the Union is still breaking new ground here.

The decision taken by the European Council in Brussels had two parts: first, to instruct the Council to examine the role of defence research and development within the more general framework of the Union's related capabilities and, secondly, to examine the possible creation of a European armament agency, a European intergovernmental agency. Both these issues are very important steps towards strengthening cooperation in the defence sector. If we are forward looking, we can combine defence research with the Union's competitiveness policies, in order to feed and develop numerous sectors and move towards stronger enlargement.

The development of a global space policy for the European Union is being promoted with the same intention and will also be applied in the security sector. The Morillon report also touched on this. It is clear from developments over the last decade that there are many common dangers and we need an equally coordinated, common response. Within this framework, we need to cultivate and promote a common perception of security, which is why the creation of a system of common political and military training for crisis management is of especial interest to the presidency and we are already working on this.

The idea mentioned in the Morillon report of setting up a civilian peace corps is a very good idea and will help make the average European citizen aware of what is happening in the security sector and how we are dealing with and participating in this at a practical level. We are seriously examining this idea and the presidency will most probably submit the text with the relevant guidelines.

Without doubt, the component element of European security is the relationship between the European Union and NATO. In any case, the European option in crisis management is to appeal first to the will and action of regional and international organisations; in other words, dialogue takes priority. The recent cooperation agreement between the European Union and ΝΑΤΟ is an important step towards complementarity and mutual support between the two organisations. I should like to take this opportunity to underline the fact that the Morillon report notes that action by the two organisations and their members must be directed and governed by the principles of the United Nations Charter.

As I said earlier, ladies and gentlemen, these are both points noted in the Morillon report and aims of the presidency and that is why we are making an effort to promote them. However, there can be no doubt that the report proposes and covers a broad spectrum of ideas relating to very serious issues and institutional aspects of the ESDP, which will make a valuable contribution to our discussions from now on. I do not intend to comment further on each of the ideas in the report, despite the fact that many of them are extremely interesting, because the application of these ideas needs to be preceded by the institutional reforms which are currently being debated within the framework of the Convention and which will then be debated at the intergovernmental conference. However, I am certain that they will be useful as a valuable source of inspiration and consideration.

We have arrived at a crucial turning point. The European Union has proceeded with a bold enlargement and must take firm steps to enlarge is policies accordingly, so that it can proceed on the basis of different factors than in the past. The overwhelming majority of Europeans expect this, as Mr Morillon notes in his report. These times really do call for decisiveness and action, with the ultimate objective of promoting the defence identity of the European Union. This will allow the European Union to fortify its security and strengthen its foreign policy.

Ladies and gentlemen, the current state of affairs, despite its dark side, might mark the start of an intensive debate as to what the European Union intends to do from now on, especially now that we are in the middle of an open debate on the future of Europe. These are outstanding issues and any lessons gathered on the causes and development of the Iraqi crisis must fortify us so that we can prevent and avert similar situations in the future and give Europe a stronger profile in the global system.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Patten, Commission. – Mr President, I should first of all like to congratulate General Morillon most cordially on a very comprehensive – and certainly timely – contribution to the debate on the development of European security and defence policy. The timeliness was rightly referred to both by my honourable friend and by the Minister in the presidency.

The number of amendments that the committee considered before adopting this resolution is, in many respects, a testament to the depth of interest, but also frankly to the differences of view, on this key area of European policy. In responding today I must keep in mind the current responsibilities of the Commission in security and defence issues. I shall certainly keep them in mind and if I do not Mr Van Orden will remind me of what they are. Whatever is recommended in future by the Convention, where my colleague, Commissioner Barnier, has ably led the discussions on defence issues – and I know that he has briefed the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy in the course of the deliberations on this report – those Commission responsibilities are at the moment pretty limited when compared to the range of issues covered in the text before us.

The Commission is not involved in the purely military aspects of European security and defence policy. That is exclusively for the Member States. I shall not therefore comment on the specifically military proposals, including the establishment of a permanent standing military force, a collective defence clause or a joint military college. But the Treaty does associate the Commission with ESDP – Article 27 does that in terms – and we are actively involved in all discussions on crisis management operations in the context of ESDP, in particular in those that relate to the civilian crisis management instruments, for example policing, the rule of law, civilian administration and civil protection. In this context I am pleased to see that the resolution before us recognises the importance of civilian, as well as military, contributions to crisis management.

But it is impossible – this is a point I have made on many occasions in this Chamber – to separate purely military matters from related issues in which we in the Commission are competent, and have a real contribution to make. Military and non-military issues cannot be placed neatly in separate boxes. Nor should they be, because they need to be closely coordinated in the service of a single strategy.

The Commission, for example, may be bankrolling police support in post-conflict situations as in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where on 1 January the European Union took over the Police Mission from the United Nations; or we may be arranging for the training of border services where uncontrolled mass migration is generating conflict; or we may be helping to re-establish administrative structures in countries that are emerging from crises, as we have seen in the Balkans and as we can see in Afghanistan today.

The Commission already has an impressive range of instruments and expertise which can be used in crisis situations. New European Union instruments may be necessary in the security field, as has been suggested by General Morillon. But the most important requirement is that all available instruments should serve agreed European policy objectives in any given situation. Current events, I have to say, show that this is far from being the case.

Another area where the Commission has an important role to play relates to defence equipment policy. In my view, defence trade and production cannot and should not be treated as a chasse gardée within the Single Market. Procurement of defence equipment, competition between defence companies, research and development, exports and imports of defence equipment, internal market aspects of defence trade and dual-use goods which have civil and military applications – all these are areas in which the benefits of the Single Market are of relevance to European industry.

There is considerable scope for improvement here. The Commission recently adopted a communication to the Council and Parliament on the defence equipment industry in which it points to some areas where substantial progress is possible in giving European Union taxpayers more value for the money they invest in their security. The concerns on duplication and fragmentation in arms production and procurement and the lack of interoperability – identified in the resolution before us – are some of the key issues that we sought to address in our communication.

We hope that the work we are initiating as a follow-up to the communication will help to develop the strong and competitive defence industry, transparent market conditions and healthy climate for investments in research and development necessary for the strengthening of ESDP.

Ultimately, much of the credibility of Europe's common foreign and security policy depends on the European Union's military capacity. The creation of the 60 000-strong 'rapid reaction force' being set up under ESDP will certainly help to increase the European Union's credibility abroad. And the launch of the first ever European Union military operation in The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia last month shows that ESDP is not just a theoretical construct.

But I fully agree with my honourable friend General Morillon that it remains difficult for our allies to take Europe seriously unless we spend more on our security. It is not enough to argue that Europe is picking up its share of the bill by paying most of the world's development aid, true as this may be, or by increasing even further our humanitarian assistance.

We also need to invest more in developing our capabilities such as airlift capacity, special forces and battlefield communication equipment. If not, our allies will remain of the opinion that Europe cashed in too easily its peace dividend after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Delivery of aid should remain the prime task of the humanitarian organisations to ensure neutrality, independence and impartiality of such humanitarian operations. Respect for these principles is paramount for meeting humanitarian needs whenever there is a crisis.

The Commission therefore welcomes the reference in the report to the Guidelines on the Use of Military and Civil Defence Assets to support United Nations Humanitarian Activities in Complex Emergencies which were released by the UN on 20 March 2003. They fix clear rules regarding the relationship between military and humanitarian actors in UN humanitarian operations. The thrust of the Guidelines should apply equally to the use of European military and civil defence assets in any humanitarian operation.

I would like to say one final word about international humanitarian law, which governs the conduct of hostilities. We believe that international humanitarian law is adapted to today's conflicts, provided that warring parties and all parties to the Geneva Conventions respect their obligations. I would at this stage express the Commission's appreciation of the role of the International Committee of the Red Cross as promoter and guardian of the Conventions.

Finally, I would like to say once again to my honourable friend that this report is almost painfully timely. It raises a number of issues which will go right to the heart of our credibility in Europe as we seek to make a greater contribution to international affairs in the years ahead; but, as I have said on previous occasions in this Chamber, there comes a moment in politics where one is obliged to put one's money where one's mouth is. We have long since passed that stage when we are talking about security issues.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Oostlander (PPE-DE).(NL) Mr President, to follow on from Commissioner Patten: Mr Morillon’s report does indeed come at an exceptionally good time. After all, in recent weeks we have been facing the fact of the actual powerlessness of the European Union and even of the Member States together to count for anything in the area of defence. The reproach made against the United States that America may not be the policeman of the world actually sounds comical coming from the mouths of those who are by no means in a position to be so themselves and for that matter are often not prepared to be so. The experience in Yugoslavia in particular, where it was not ‘peacefulness’ and ‘modesty’ that led to the reserved attitude of the European states, but ‘cynicism’ and ‘indifference’, taught us this at the time.

This hypocrisy has slowly disappeared from this Parliament. I think that we have all seen very clearly that Europe has defence responsibilities and must live up to them one way or another. It is to be hoped that it will actually come to this. This responsibility can really only appear to full advantage through the organisations of the European Union and then in cooperation with our transatlantic allies. We shall always have to say these two in one breath. They are closely bound up with one another. After all, the more transatlantic trust there is, the greater the unity within the European Union will be.

Remarkably, the discord that we often see in this area in the European Union is connected with our attitude towards America, our transatlantic ally. The linking of these two is therefore a very important element, as it is in General Morillon’s report. In it, he outlines a realistic path to a European defence responsibility, knowing very well on the basis of his expertise as a general that military action is always embedded in everything that is needed by way of civil action before and after. We are very aware of this now that the mob in Baghdad is plundering and looting its way through the streets. Then you do indeed immediately need a civil arm alongside a military campaign that has reached a successful conclusion. This careful, realistic path is chosen by way for example of common research and development, a common identification of military needs from a European view. That is of course always something new and for many countries it will be difficult to change over to this, but for us it is of the greatest importance.

It is also of the greatest importance for production. In this way it is possible to make a substantial increase in the efficiency of the defence effort. If we start from the search for a European view of our defence responsibility, the trust of all the Member States can also be gained. After all, no one will be at a loss regarding the question of which big country to follow: France, Germany, the United Kingdom or the United States. It is a matter of us in the European Union together following a European view in military affairs. Mr Morillon’s report gives a very clear boost to this. In this he is actually following a method that has already been recommended by Commissioner Patten, that is exploring the limits of what the Treaties actually already make possible for us. If you do that thoroughly and at a certain point you run into a wall, then you know which one it is, what a reform must look like and how institutional changes must be formulated. I myself always find this an exceptionally practical path and General Morillon has chosen it too.

For the time being the prospects for a European defence responsibility are not yet especially good of course. Given the developments that we have recently observed, the Member States and the members of the Council itself do not have a serious view of the Council. Otherwise the Greek Presidency would for example currently be having a far greater part to play in initiatives that are being taken in this area. We must not think that the European Union could break up into two groups, each with strengthened cooperation. In short: it is incredibly important that European defence, at the request of the citizens as Mr Morillon writes, takes shape. Then the budgets can be used more efficiently and that will be an immediate benefit for all citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lalumière (PSE).(FR) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, two years after I had the honour of presenting a report on the same subject to Parliament, I am pleased to offer the Morillon report my whole-hearted support. I hope the amendments presented by our group will be adopted. Then we should be able to vote in favour of this proposal without any problem.

I will restrict myself to highlighting a number of points I feel are particularly important in the context of these turbulent times. The events of recent months have not helped the development of the new European security and defence policy (ESDP). Ever since 11 September 2001, the European Union has been largely excluded from political and military affairs, whether it is the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. We do have some involvement, but our role is limited to civil and humanitarian action. While this work is important, it is not enough. The worst thing is that the European Union became disunited during this period. Despite the laudable efforts of the Greek Presidency in pushing for the adoption of common platforms, we remain divided on the question of Iraq. We are divided on the nature of transatlantic relations and on how much autonomy we have in relation to the United States. Consequently, we are also divided on important principles such as the use of force, the role of international law or that of the United Nations.

Despite this bleak picture, I would like to make it very clear that I firmly believe we must not give up under any circumstances. A number of countries, including Belgium, Germany, France and Luxembourg, have already put forward an initiative to revive the security and defence policy. The Greek Presidency has responded positively to this. Prime Minister Simitis said as much recently. Over the last few weeks, the European Convention, chaired by Mr Giscard d'Estaing, has not arrived at a decision on the issue nor made its response known. I hope it will now forward some proposals of its own. Mr Dehaene and Mr Barnier have outlined some excellent ideas on the institutions implicated in the foreign policy, and the security and defence policy. These ideas include many of those expressed by Parliament. The Morillon report contains a whole host of interesting proposals. It includes proposals on the aims of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the European security and defence policy (ESDP) in a new international environment. There are further proposals on the new role of NATO, relations between the European Union and NATO and on the military capacity, especially in terms of the latest technology, we need just to be taken seriously.

We should not of course try to establish ourselves as a rival to the United States. That would be totally stupid, as well as impossible. We must however take account of some fairly basic facts. Given their geographical position and their common borders, the countries of Europe are, de facto, dependant on each other for their security. Given their traditions, especially their cultural traditions, the countries of Europe have important common assets and principles to defend on the international stage. Lastly, given the resources and the economic instruments they have, the countries of Europe do have the means to promote their ideas and defend their interests throughout the world when necessary. They just need to decide to do so. In short, while not seeking global domination, the countries of Europe certainly have a role to play in the world. Their role is far from being a servile or subservient one however.

President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, let us forge ahead with this! It is the wish of Parliament, and we will support you.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Watson (ELDR). – Mr President, I apologise to Mr Morillon for not being here when he opened the debate.

This report could hardly be more timely. If – as seems likely – US and British Forces are now in control of Baghdad, then the debate on the aftermath of war and its lessons can now commence. Unlike its predecessors, the current American administration shows little interest in a strong and united Europe. Our weakness has been cruelly exposed and the onus is on the EU to develop a security strategy which may help us reshape transatlantic relations. Liberal Democrats in this House welcome the Morillon report as an important contribution to this process.

Europe's divisions over Iraq have been a stark reminder of our failure to speak with one voice on security policy, and yet we should not forget that Europe does have a single trade policy, a common development policy and an embryonic European diplomatic corps in the form of the Commission's offices around the world. These are powerful instruments and would be all the more so if combined as part of an integrated foreign policy. Our foreign policy is incoherent because it is split between three Commissioners, the Council presidency and a Council High Representative, and because some Member States deny our essential commonality of interests in foreign policy, or forbid the Commission to play a central executive role. Without a common defence policy, Europe will still lack the military muscle needed for a credible common foreign policy. With combined defence spending less than half of that of the USA, it is clear the EU is not spending enough on defence, nor would our citizens be likely to welcome much higher levels of spending. So it is not enough simply to spend more: we need to spend better, especially on key requirements such as strategic airlift, precision guided weapons and air tankers. That is why the Liberal Group supports the establishment of an armaments and research agency to coordinate defence spending. What we want is to achieve better value for money, and if EU countries agree that military equipment made outside the EU best meets our needs and provides best value for money, we should not choose a European option in a misguided attempt at protectionism. That would be to repeat the mistakes of the common agricultural policy. Better defence spending must be accompanied by stronger decision-making. By sending to the European Convention, through General Morillon's report, a clear and united message in favour of a strong and effective security and defence policy, Parliament can hope to influence its deliberations. Having one external affairs representative, based in the Commission but supplemented with resources and expertise from the Member States, will go a long way towards connecting the disparate elements of foreign and security policy.

We also need greater flexibility in launching and conducting crisis management operations, if necessary by greater recourse to constructive abstention. While there are clearly reservations about this, introducing a collective defence clause in the new Constitutional Treaty, similar to that under the Western European Union Treaty, also seems a necessary step. It may be that progress towards these goals cannot be made at once with the 15, let alone with 25 Member States. That is why I welcome the Belgian Government's initiative for a meeting later this month with France, Germany and Luxembourg, on defence policy. Progress in European integration is often only achieved by a group of determined countries pressing ahead, with others joining later. Nonetheless I insist that enhanced cooperation on defence must remain open to all governments who wish to join, and that the British Government in particular, given its military capability and experience, will do so.

In conclusion, a European security and defence policy can usefully complement the collective security provided by NATO as long as there is rationalisation of arms procurement, added value in the form of a doctrine based on conflict prevention and crisis management and backed by the credible threat of military action, and a more coherent and unified approach to security policy. Let our security and defence policy be forged on the anvil of hope from the steel of our embarrassment over Iraq.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lagendijk (Verts/ALE).(NL) Mr President, I would like to begin by complimenting Mr Morillon on the fact that right at the start of his report he has indicated what the guiding principle of European foreign and security policy really ought to be. Even in his considerations he says – to my mind quite correctly – that the guiding principle should be crisis prevention. Only in emergencies, only in crisis situations must the European Union have military means at its disposal. That is precisely the order that my Group supports and that is also the reason why for example we support the action of the European Union in Macedonia and Bosnia. It shows that the European Union – finally I would say – has at its disposal almost the last in the entire spectrum of means when it comes to foreign and security policy. In addition to diplomacy, in addition to economic means, now military means too, but please in that order.

There are two parts of the report that I want to discuss. Firstly, the General – rightly in my view – has used an amendment to propose making one point even more strongly than already appears in his report, that is that we need a strategic concept. What do we want exactly with European security policy? Where do we want to act? What precisely do we need for it? When do we want to do it? This seems very good to me. I am also very much in favour of revising the Petersberg tasks – that is the official description of our strategic concept, which in my mind is far too limited. Then I am in favour of doing that first and only then to start discussing what for example I feel is some empty talk in Mr Morillon’s report, that is territorial defence. Do we suddenly have to add this to the tasks of the European Union? Do we have to adopt Article 5 of the WEU Treaty? In my opinion, this decision is coming too soon. Let us deal with the strategic concept first, then let us look at what we want to do with these European means. As far as I am concerned, it is also too soon to be saying that we must be capable of taking on a kind of Kosovo-type task in 2009. Look at the strategic concept first and then take on specific tasks of that kind.

Secondly, another good point from the report concerns the misunderstanding that often arises when we say – a little of which was apparent in Mr Patten’s and Mr Watson’s interventions – that there would be too little money to do what we ought to do. The problem is not, my fellow MEPs, that there is too little money. The problem is that we do not spend it enough and not efficiently enough and that in the past we have done too little by way of task specialisation. There’s the rub! Let us now be completely clear about this. I am glad that that is also stated very clearly in Mr Morillon’s report. If we are talking about money, then I am in favour – fortunately the rapporteur too – of gradually transferring the financial resources from in my view completely impenetrable ad hoc budgets between Member States that cannot be controlled at all democratically, to the European Union budget. There is much to be said for this, even if it is only that as a result the European Parliament also finally gains a grip on European security policy, because the money that is spent on it is in our budget.

And then finally, Mr President, I come to my biggest fear. We can probably agree in this Parliament, with the Council too, about increasing effectiveness. We must be able to act faster and better. Agreed, my fellow MEPs, but then please on the basis of a clear strategic plan. But I am afraid that what certainly goes with it, that is democratic control, is lacking. We cannot go on increasing effectiveness, improving our capabilities, without clarity as to where the democratic control of this security policy is taking place. If we are in favour of it – and I think that the majority of the Parliament is in favour of deciding by majority, even on security policy – then it cannot be the case that the European Parliament is sidelined when it comes to democratic control. We need effectiveness, but please together with democratic control, and ultimately it will have to take place here in this house.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Muscardini (UEN).(IT) Mr President, recent international events have, once again, highlighted the need for a European Union which is able to take united action both in the area of its own security and when it is necessary to protect the right of all peoples to build a democratic, pluralist system which respects human and civil rights, for a Europe which is, at last, able to combine diplomacy – the diplomatic services – and the information systems of each individual state to achieve that cooperation which clearly requires there to be constant dialogue within the Council on issues of international politics if we are to be able to come to decisions which are as representative as possible of public opinion throughout the Union.

It is of primary importance that we reroot the whole debate on foreign and defence policy and related decisions in the framework of the Council. It is also of primary importance that we create a single European representative for these two policies. This is an issue which has been addressed by the Convention too. Indeed, although still legitimate exercises, the meetings held by some of the states outside the Council are not European Union initiatives. Clearly, therefore, we support a European security and defence policy which, through a military instrument, not least, as proposed by General Morillon, can preserve peace and guarantee democracy. This European military corps will be in addition to the national armies of each Member State. It too will further boost the development of European citizenship, citizenship which is derived, inter alia, from the pride felt by each citizen at belonging to both their country and the Union: a free, independent Union which is the author of a project of peace and mutual respect with regard to the rest of the world. This project cannot just be based on the production of documents, on declarations of good intentions or on the establishment of trade relations: it must provide forces equal to the task of combating terrorism in order to protect our values, our vision of the world and our institutions of freedom.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Coûteaux (EDD).(FR) Mr President, it is always the same. When European pipe dreams are shattered by reality, the ‘Euro-enthusiasts’ and dreamers amongst us come up with more, which are even more absurd. Such a relentless pursuit in spite of all the evidence would be laughable if it were not so serious.

The pipe dream contained in the Morillon report is that of European defence, which is moreover an outdated notion. European defence has been the dream of many simple-minded individuals throughout the twentieth century but nothing has been achieved. Aristide Briand promoted the idea with the drastic result of breaking down resistance and the spirit of defence in France. The fanciful notion was taken up again in 1948, at the Congress of Europe held in The Hague, and then by Winston Churchill in 1950, following the failure of the European Defence Community, which was one of his dreams. We must be grateful that the French Government managed to put a stop to it. Fifty years later, here we are again. We have not made any progress. We have made so little progress that work on one of the key elements of a defence policy, that of creating a European defence industry, has not just stopped, but has gone into reverse. We must be aware that Member States buy around 60% of their arms not from each other, but from the United States. We must first tackle this issue if we are then to consider a defence policy.

Lastly, this defence policy is nothing but a pipe dream because we cannot establish a defence policy without a common foreign policy. This was set in stone by Title V of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. No one has however even started to implement this in any crisis, be it that of Rwanda, Afghanistan or Kosovo. We have got into this situation because we all tagged along behind the United States. This common foreign and security policy has fallen to pieces once again today.

Ladies and gentlemen, we must abandon all pipe dreams. Europe must be built on reality. It is now clearer than ever that individual Member States are that reality. Member States must not let themselves be deprived of the very core of their being: the will to defend themselves and the means to do so. I will go no further than to express my hope that, in the face of her growing global responsibilities, France will be able to strengthen her own means of defence. This is the only and the best contribution France can make to what remains of Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  de Gaulle (NI).(FR) Mr President, in the words of a French humorist, everything is in everything, and vice versa. The supposed European Union is a total failure in terms of economic growth and employment. The rapporteur is in favour of a defence architecture that would quite simply reduce France to the status of Belgium or even lower! Unfortunately, he seems to have forgotten that he is a General in the French Army.

This is of course the objective relentlessly pursued by all those who, for various different reasons, think that the concept of a ‘Europe as a Power’ can be used to re-start the process of European integration that is in such a sorry state. The Iraq war should however make all these people realise that nations are cold-hearted monsters who only care about their own interests.

Allow me to recall the recent setbacks concerning the European transport plane. It could easily have been built in a much shorter timescale and at a much reduced cost. We have witnessed the hard bargaining over the Galileo project and the huge cost of manufacturing all types of arms on a multinational basis. There are also the problems faced by the tens of thousands of workers whose jobs are under threat. All this is of no importance to politicians. They are only concerned with staying in power for as long as possible. An enlarged Europe needs to be stable. This stability will not be achieved however by establishing more legal devices, impossible cooperation, incompetent bodies, false powers and pretence. Regardless of our current differences on the situation in the Middle East, all eurosceptics will, without exception or reserve, fight against this fanciful notion of a ‘Europe as a Power’.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Brok (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, it has always been a dream of mine to speak following a de Gaulle, but not one who makes speeches like that one.

Today, as we debate the future of European security and defence policy, we watch as war rages in Iraq, a war that we had believed we could avert by diplomatic means. We failed, though, in our attempt to do so, being politically disunited and lacking any military presence. At a time when war and peace were at stake, we were – and not for the first time – not even prepared. We got there too late, just as we had in Bosnia, in Kosovo and in Afghanistan.

In none of these armed conflicts did the European Union, as an international actor, play a part in deciding the course of events. It is for that reason that the Morillon Report is summed up in the statement that the Union will count only if it has clearly-defined foreign policy objectives and interests and possesses effective military capacity. Only a Union like that can become an independent actor in global politics and have confidence in itself as a partner in transatlantic relations.

Not a few heads of government, knowing how powerless they are in the face of the war in Iraq, now think that they must now publicise the objective of a European Defence Union. I wonder: did these heads of government not play a part in the resolutions passed since Helsinki in 1999? Why did they not do more to make the EU's Rapid Reaction Force operational, making it what it was planned to be by 2003 – combat-effective, equipped with state-of-the-art technology and with command structures and logistical capacities to match? Why did the adaptation and reform of their national armed forces not keep pace with the new challenges to security? Why were military budgets cut back in this way? Why, when transporting our own troops in our own country, did we have to hire aircraft from the Ukraine?

Ever since 1999, Parliament has continuously argued in favour of the Union's foreign policy instruments being supplemented by military capabilities. This is currently being debated in the Convention too. This report is also intended to be Parliament's contribution to answering the question – one of key importance in terms of the future – of how the European Union can keep its citizens safe from new terrorist threats, and how it can contribute to the peace and stability of the world. Pre-emptive wars lacking any legitimacy must become a thing of the past!

That is why this report expresses our support for all those in the Convention who favour updating the Petersberg tasks, who are in favour of a vanguard of Member States being able to undertake military crisis missions, who support a European armaments agency in some form, who advocate a European support and solidarity clause and who, in particular, seek the introduction of majority decisions in foreign policy and enhanced cooperation in defence policy – both of which are of crucial importance.

We do believe, however, that governments must be clear in their own minds about the fact that millions of people, in the run-up to the war in Iraq, took to the streets of European cities to demonstrate their conviction that decisions on war and peace should be for parliaments rather than for cabinets. Those whose decision it is to deploy a European rapid reaction force in crisis situations need a high degree of democratic legitimacy.

Let me put forward my final contention, which is that all rapid intervention operations to be contemplated within the framework of the ESDP will possess both a civil and a military element. It is precisely in that respect that we differ from NATO. In Bosnia, we are now represented by a police mission. Next year, we may well be taking over the SFOR mission from NATO. We can best guarantee cohesion between civil and military operations if the same rules apply to both, and if the shared costs of each are borne by the European Union Budget. Although this has to do with parliamentary control, another result is democratic support and endorsement for actions by governments.

In any case, the citizens of the European Union are already saying ‘yes’ to the concept of a European defence policy as outlined in the Morillon Report. It is supported by 71% of them. It is only the cabinets on whom the truth has not yet dawned.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Wiersma (PSE).(NL) Mr President, I too would like to compliment Mr Morillon on his good report, and I can say even now that I can support most of the ambitions and the proposals that he has made in it. It has also already been said that the debate is happening at an opportune moment. The war in Iraq has divided Europe. Doubt has therefore been sown, in public opinion too, about the ability of the European Union to speak to the outside world with one voice. Today’s debate about European defence policy therefore comes at a rather strange time. Thinking does not stand still, however, and without new initiatives the damage done cannot be repaired.

The European Convention is currently deliberating on the strengthening of the decision-making structures. The Morillon report contains a whole range of practical proposals for improving the defence capability of the EU. We support the expansion of the Petersberg tasks, and this must also include the fight against terrorism. The rapid reaction force must receive more attention. If it wishes to be able to operate truly independently in the future, then the defence industry in Europe will have to be better organised as well.

The realisation of all these ambitions would actually provide the European Union with a serviceable military capability. It will not make the European Union a military superpower. Nor is that the intention. In the context of a broad security policy with crisis prevention as a priority, the European Union must be able to deploy several instruments at the same time. A credible military component is part and parcel of such an approach.

The war in Iraq has made us more aware of our weaknesses, but that is no reason to change the basic philosophy entirely. If it is a matter of maintaining the international legal order, the European Union must, together with others and within the multilateral frameworks, be able to accept its responsibility. The suggestion of accelerating the development of foreign and security policy with an advance guard of active Member States deserves support. The slowest must no longer be allowed to set the pace. I am however in favour of an open process. Anyone wishing to take part must have the opportunity to do so.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Martelli (ELDR).(IT) Mr President, the Morillon report treats European defence as part of a realistic, responsible strategy of solidarity and complementarity with the United States, and it therefore represents a substantial undertaking, involving planning, economic sacrifices and military investment. It is a necessary, urgent step forwards based on not underestimating the new terrorist and political threats. It is a coherent agenda which I had occasion to propose last year with the study ‘Una spada europea’ [A European sword].

The report avoids dangerous illusions which would not make the world safer and more democratic and certainly not make Europe more united. One of these illusions is the rekindling of unilateral pacifism, a return to the unilateral pacifism of the past of ‘Better red than dead’. Another is the illusion of a Europe which is independent, powerful and authoritative because it has broken with the United States, an illusion which resurrects the short-circuiting tactics of Gaullism, both hostile towards the United States and insensitive to European supranationality, particularly in matters of foreign and defence policy. This is an illusion which is deeply rooted in European nationalism and in ideologies which are now obsolete, an illusion which explains the strange alliance formed between right and left in the face of the war in Iraq and which, by contrast, exalts the principle of democratic intervention. This political illusion is more dangerous than imperial unilateralism or blind pacifism: while ostensibly guiding Europe it has divided it; it has divided the Fifteen, it has offended the countries of Eastern Europe at the very time of the reunification process, it has widened the gap between the Union and the United States and, before the right of veto could be exercised, it has helped to paralyse the Security Council, justifying military intervention outside the context of the UN.

Before abandoning itself to developing the institutional system, the Union must define its political vision more clearly, it must ensure the security of its people, territory and borders – which it has failed to do in the Balkans – it must take note of the erosion of arms control and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of bloody dictatorships, and it must strive resolutely to combat terrorism and to bring about security for Israel and a democratic Palestinian state.

If the Union wants to be allied with the United States rather than subordinate or hostile to it, neither resigned nor resentful, it must develop common defence and gradually assume leadership of the Atlantic Alliance, to which the United States is now only contributing 8% of its forces. To this end, it can take as a basis the Saint-Malo agreement between France and the United Kingdom and General Morillon’s report, which are the greatest achievements of European security policy and its development, which must be consolidated, built upon and extended to include the entire Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Frahm (GUE/NGL).(DA) Mr President, what we ought to talk about today is how we are to guarantee European security and how we are to secure a secure future for us all. What we have seen, particularly in recent years and on 11 September, is that security is not brought about through building up armaments. It might be said, rather, that the opposite is the case for, if there is any country on this planet that has been well equipped militarily, it is the United States which, specifically, became the victim of a terrorist action on 11 September. The military hardware it had built up did nothing to prevent that terrorist action. The swing to the right throughout the United States in this area must not, for heaven’s sake, end up infecting thinking on European security policy.

There is a complete lack of proportion, both globally and in the EU, between the investments made in military hardware and our investments in genuinely sustainable security.

The problem is that Mr Morillon’s report does not seek to alter this disproportion, and that is one of the reasons why I do not want ultimately to support it, in spite of the fact that many of the ongoing analyses concerning the need for a European identity in these areas are constructive and sound. If, however, that identity is to consist in our copying something that has already proved to be useless and powerless, then we shall have taken a wrong turning.

That is not an expression of pacifism, for I believe that a people must be entitled to defend their own rights, and I also believe there may be situations in which military power must be used in order to preserve the peace. The threat we are facing does not, however, come from something we can fight using military hardware. It comes first and foremost from the desperation of people in a very unjust world, and that should instead be the focus for our priorities.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: MRS LALUMIÈRE
Vice-President

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marset Campos (GUE/NGL).(ES) Madam President I would firstly like to thank Mr Morillon for the efforts he has made on this report in order to bring together the differing points of view. Our colleague, Mrs Frahm, has already explained that we cannot vote in favour of the report, despite its positive content, for three clear reasons.

The first reason is our dependence on NATO, which makes the European Union into a kind of dwarf next to the American giant and it is therefore essential to establish the European Union's own personality if we are to make progress. Until we do that there will be no future for the European Union.

The second reason is the need to act more firmly once the Iraq war has taken place, because we must make it abundantly clear that the danger at the moment in the world is the aggressive behaviour of the United States. The strategy document of 20 September on United States security means beginning wars all over the world. Next will be Syria, Iran, Korea, who knows? I will not give names in order not to suggest targets. This is a great threat to security.

Therefore my third point is that the European Union must play a fundamental role in the democratic strengthening of the United Nations and the Security Council. Furthermore, we must work to ensure that any conflict that takes place must inevitably pass through the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council, in accordance with international law, which is exactly what the United States are not doing.

This European Union contribution is a success. This is what many South American countries have told us, that, in the face of the pressure – which I believe was entirely unjustified – from President Aznar to sign up two Security Council countries to the war in Iraq, they have responded with dignity and courage and have shown Europe an example, saying that peace and international law are more important than the dangerous adventures of the United States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gahrton (Verts/ALE). (SV) Madam President, in his justification for an EU army, General Morillon writes: ‘if the governments of the Member States were to continue leaving it to the Americans to conduct any potential wars, contenting themselves with shouldering affairs of peace, the Union would have to resign itself to playing the part of the Athenians in Ancient Rome: acceptance of being subject, in the last resort, to the will of a new empire’. I would certainly, however, prefer Athens, the cradle of culture and democracy, to militaristic Rome, which succeeded in setting the whole world against itself and, in the end, was consumed in blood and fire, while the Greek inheritance thrives in every area from the Olympic Games to the EU Presidency.

General Morillon wants the EU to do the same as the United States did in Kosovo or perhaps Iraq or some other small country against which the United States waged a war of aggression in the last hundred years. He wants the EU to intervene militarily throughout the planet, especially in the Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia and Africa. A scenario such as this naturally has no place for neutral countries. They must all be bound by what is termed a solidarity clause, and there is to be absolutely no need of a UN mandate. If the EU goes down General Morillon’s Roman road, it is possible that an EU President might, one fine day, discuss on an equal footing with the US President which particular paupers in which particular developing country, rich in oil and minerals, are the next to be bombed back to the Stone Age.

Any attempt to keep up with the United States in terms of military technology is also, however, in danger of turning into a repeat of the Soviet Union’s fatal arms race. What is absolutely certain is that Europeans will be as hated as Americans by billions of people. Millions of demonstrators will protest outside EU embassies; the Eiffel Tower will suffer the same fate as the World Trade Centre; the UN will be undermined; the war of civilisations will escalate; and the shrinking European population will be the losers, no matter how many US-style super-weapons we may acquire.

If General Morillon gets his way, we should do well to take Oswald Spengler’s ‘The Decline of the West’ down from the book shelves in order to understand what will happen. If, in accordance with General Morillon’s wishes, we try to build a modern Rome, we shall also suffer the fate of Rome. No, the plans for a military superpower should be shelved. We should listen to our own Sakharov prize winners and take seriously the words of the Dalai Lama, who has been our guest of honour. Only as a factor for peace does the EU have a chance of survival and a justification for its existence. A civilian peace corps under the auspices of the EU should at last be set up. Instead of making fools of ourselves, we should learn from EU countries that have succeeded in staying out of wars for 200 years. It is peace that is the EU’s special characteristic. The United States should be left to wage the wars until the Americans themselves are consumed in blood and fire, just as the Romans were. Let us instead take Athenian culture and democracy as our starting point.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Van Dam (EDD).(NL) Madam President, the events of 11 September 2001 reminded the world that peace and security cannot be taken for granted. In this light it is laudable that European countries recognise the need to accept greater responsibility for this themselves. Their own credibility and security are at issue after all. This is not something you can promote half-heartedly. The Morillon report rightly states for example that NATO remains the absolutely necessary alliance for common defence, but at the same time argues passionately for the development of an independent European security and defence policy. To say nothing of the totally failing defence effort on the European side. In short, the Morillon report does not show us a clear way. What is more obvious than adequate input of the European Member States to NATO?

One thing is sure: the obvious discord within European ranks on Iraq and also a controversial group initiative with regard to a European defence policy do not currently make the common foreign and security policy and the European security and defence policy a credible basis for the security of the citizens in the states of Europe. You serve these citizens with a strong, united NATO.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Souchet (NI).(FR) Madam President, important international events have occurred between the drafting of the Morillon report and now. As a consequence, the issues surrounding the defence of Europe can no longer be tackled in a global and uniform manner. We cannot pretend that it is still a question of defining a common defence policy to implement a common foreign and security policy in all Member States. There have been confrontations within the United Nations Security Council on fundamental issues. Following the war in Kosovo, yet another war is being waged, this time against Iraq, in violation of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. These developments have brought the deep divisions on foreign policy issues between the present and future Members of the European Union into sharp relief. We can see quite clearly that there are two concepts of Europe and the role of Europe, two kinds of foreign policy and two visions of international order. We must act on this. It would be wrong to insist on maintaining that this is nothing but a crisis of circumstances. It would be wrong to think that, once the crisis had passed, we could go back to our old concepts and reengage in the familiar, essentially semantic games concerning the CFSP and the EPSD.

In future, a flexible approach will have to be adopted for everything relating to foreign affairs and defence at European Union level. Previously it was optional, now it is essential. There is no other way forward. Furthermore, it will lead to greater efficiency and fewer empty words. The European Convention should now put all its efforts into pursuing this path. We need to separate the proposals contained in the Morillon report rendered obsolete by recent developments, from those which are still relevant. I would categorise as obsolete paragraph 54, which proposes allocating the European Union one permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. This proposal clearly runs counter to our current needs. The European Union must continue to have two permanent seats. The countries of Europe support two different concepts and two different directions. Having two seats allows both to be expressed. I would categorise as relevant the proposals on the need for cooperation on the fight against terrorism and on arms production and procurement. The consequences of the war in Iraq have made the fight against terrorism even more important. Present events also clearly indicate the damage caused in Europe by the ideology of the dividends of peace. I therefore welcome the opportune re-emergence of the principle of ‘Community preferences’ in the Morillon report. I only regret that this coincides with the disappearance of the principle from another area of strategic importance, namely the Common Agricultural Policy. The CAP stands for autonomy of food supply, or, to use the American terminology, the food weapon. ‘Security of supply’, as mentioned in the Morillon report, must apply to food as well as to armaments. We must ensure that Commissioner Lamy remembers this within the framework of the Doha round of negotiations.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE).(ES) Madam President, I would firstly like to acknowledge the French General, as others have done, but also the rapporteur for this report, Mr Morillon, an exemplary citizen and Member of the European Parliament.

This Parliament has today established the foundations which will allow the Council of Ministers next week to go ahead with the fifth enlargement of our political project, which is surely the most historic enlargement, since it has allowed us to overcome the division between Europeans represented by the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain, which was quite simply the ultimate indignity and which fortunately now belongs to ancient history. This also comes at a time characterised by the 11 September attacks and the Iraq crisis.

The enlarged European Union today has a greater population than the United States, it has a similar gross domestic product to the United States and greater commercial and industrial power. However, it is weaker in terms of the latest technology and control of the financial markets and, of course, in the military field where the differences are immense.

My belief, Madam President, is that we must accept the fact that these insufficiencies – whether we like it or not – are the result of our own incapacity and that at the moment there is no effective alternative in the field of security and defence to the Euro-Atlantic alliance.

Yesterday the President of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia visited this Parliament, and this visit coincided with the entry into force of a European Union mission to that Republic. These are small steps, Madam President, which demonstrate the European Union's desire to establish itself as a strong Europe and as a player on the international stage which is able to shine in the military, economic and cultural fields, amongst others.

In the field of security and defence, Mr Morillon’s report responds to this objective by trying to establish a series of procedures which improve the decision-making process, which promote compatibility between military weapons, which consolidate the formation of the Council of Defence Ministers and which provides this policy with the financial resources necessary to implement it.

I would like to stress, Madam President, that it is very odd that the people who have complained most about the insufficient role played by the European Union in relation to the Iraq crisis are the ones who are most reticent when it comes to consulting their public and asking them to provide this policy with sufficient financial resources.

Finally, Madam President, President Aznar has not put pressure on anybody and neither would the dignity of the Presidents of Mexico or Chile have tolerated any type of pressure. Madam President, I would refer those people who have made these statements to the words of the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs yesterday, when he said that relations between Spain and Mexico have never been better at any point in history.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carrilho (PSE).(PT) Madam President, we know that talking about a common security and defence policy at the moment is, for the followers of the realist or even hyper-realist school, a type of wishful thinking. It is, however, precisely in the current context that this report, with the dose of proactive thinking that it provides, becomes even more relevant.

The substance of this report warrants our support, because it is based on fundamental points on which there is consensus in the European Parliament and amongst the Union’s citizens, specifically respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law, a framework of common external policy guidelines encompassing security and defence policy, the need to accept joint European responsibilities in the field of security and defence policy, starting with military support for humanitarian aid missions, conflict prevention and resolution and maintaining both transatlantic relations and a multilateral approach.

I wish to sound a critical note, however, by stating that the report does, perhaps, go into too much detail, and even includes some details that are less than clear. Where item G discusses the laws of war, for example, it is not clear whether or not it is criticising the Geneva Convention. Furthermore, at this present initial stage, I would ask: should we not be attaching greater importance to streamlining existing resources, by combining efforts, avoiding duplication and promoting interoperability between the armed forces of our various countries? For example, the sectoral distribution of appropriations earmarked for defence in each country could be improved. Some countries are spending as much as 70% or more on personnel and maintenance. They could perhaps make a joint contribution to a priority such as scientific and technological research into sophisticated systems and which generally produces results that can benefit both industry and the economy. Nevertheless, this is a discussion about extremely practical matters, which can only really start now.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Väyrynen (ELDR).(FI) Madam President, recent events show that the EU Member States cannot now and will not in the future agree on the organisation of a common defence policy. The EU Member States that belong to NATO have also been sharply divided in their views on the Iraq war, which reflects their general attitude to the new international order that is taking shape. This makes it difficult to establish a common defence policy.

The neutral Member States have not wanted and do not want to have the Union become a military alliance or military superpower. In these circumstances it would be wise if the EU just kept to crisis management tasks, with NATO continuing to function as an arrangement for collective security for those EU Member States that wish to belong to such an organisation. Germany, France, Belgium and other like-minded countries could embark on a programme of close and mutual military cooperation within the framework of NATO and establish a Defence Community that would act as a strong European pillar of NATO. This arrangement would strengthen the partnership between Europe and North America, which is important to us all. Europe would have its own defence identity within the framework of NATO, but the Defence Community would cooperate closely with the United States of America. The other EU Member States, both those that belong to NATO and the neutral countries, would play a role in ensuring that the transatlantic relationship is preserved and strengthened.

The creation of a Defence Community could lead to even more universal internal differentiation in the Union on the basis of the ideas that leading French and German experts and politicians have been proposing for years. The core of the Union would thus have separate institutions, as, for example, Germany’s Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, has proposed.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alavanos (GUE/NGL).(EL) Madam President, I think that all the members of the European Parliament are over 18 years of age, our average age is 40 or 50, so surely we should be playing with toy soldiers. I am not a general and am not therefore in a position to judge; I simply did my military service without even becoming a non-commissioned officer. However, as I speak to you now, I cannot erase from my mind's eye the photograph on the front page of The Guardian, showing where these preventive wars lead. Nor can I erase from my mind's eye what I saw on the television five minutes ago; a nation which has not only been bombed for days on end, but which has been driven to the very extreme of indignity, with looting, thieving and everything else that we are seeing on our televisions. This being so, are we really going to sit here, in front of visitors, in front of journalists, in front of the interpreters, debating armaments and mechanisms, instead of looking at where we stand? Can we ever accept paragraph 17, which talks of the ‘crisis prevention character’ of military action, when a preventive war is what Bush and Blair have waged in Iraq? Can we accept paragraph 9, which says that terrorism has made the notion of geographical limitations for military engagement obsolete and that the traditional distinction between foreign and domestic security policy has been blurred? What are we doing? We ourselves are throwing open the gates for war in Syria, Iran, North Korea and, later on, in France, Mr Morillon.

In this sense, this is a useful debate. To see where we stand. Not to say it is wrong for us to disagree. To say which of the two sides in the European Union was right. The side which violated the principles of the Charter in the UN Security Council or the side which accepted and supported action under the auspices of the UN? To examine the political basis on which we shall ground a European Union which will not be a caricature of the United States, but a pole of peace, diplomacy and calm action in the 21st century, which must not in any way resemble the 20th century.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ortuondo Larrea (Verts/ALE).(ES) Madam President, Commissioner, once we became aware that, even if it were the main commercial power, Europe could not play any important role in the international order unless it had a common foreign and security policy, the so-called third pillar was adopted in the Treaty of Maastricht and the objective was set of creating an operative military capacity in order to guarantee the maintenance of peace.

In an increasingly global and interdependent world, until now our policy has been to establish international law, above all through the United Nations, but also through other world organisations, and we have therefore drawn up a regulatory framework for international relations, because we are convinced that that is the best way to prevent and deal with any possible conflicts. And we believe that, within this world order, the European Union should act with a common voice which will allow it to be seen as a commercial, economic and social power and also as a great defender of human rights, multiculturalism and the environment.

However, the reality of our current situation is disappointing. Once again, internal division has won out over the great Community declarations made at summits of Heads of State and Government. I am referring to the differing positions maintained by the governments of the 15 countries within the United Nations Security Council with regard to the conflict in Iraq. The actions of Mr Aznar, Head of the Spanish Government, as well as those of certain others, would be reprehensible enough if only because they have caused this division, because, without waiting for the Council of the European Union to adopt a common position on the issue, they were quick to blindly follow the orders from the emperor who is attempting to establish a new unilateral world order. The bad thing is that Mr Aznar and his colleagues have promoted an illegal war, a humanitarian disaster with thousands of children, women and civilians killed, mutilated and injured, or suffering terror, hunger and disease. The worst is that Mr Aznar has done so by bypassing the Constitution, without the approval of Parliament nor the sanction of the King of Spain and, together with his minions, going against world opinion and the opinion of the weapons inspectors, and without the support of the United Nations Security Council, has dealt a fatal blow to international law and institutions and has put the world at the mercy of the strongest, giving way to force and failing to make use of reason and justice.

To sum up, it is due to them that the world has returned to the law of the jungle and that the third pillar of the European Union has been broken up.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  von Wogau (PPE-DE).(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by congratulating Mr Morillon on his excellent report. His ability to achieve very broad consensus in this House on this extremely important issue is demonstrated not only by this debate, but also by the relatively few amendments that have been tabled. Comparing that with the situation in similar debates as recently as five years ago, we see that there is today in this House very broad consensus on the need for a European defence contribution. On that I congratulate Mr Morillon.

His report is an important building block in the development of a security strategy for the European Union. Why is that necessary? We took note last September of the United States' new security strategy. Week in and week out, we are at present seeing how systematically the United States implements it. What we Europeans need is a European security strategy to be a response to that. We Europeans need, as the first building block in our common foreign policy, to start by together defining what our security interests are. I believe this to be perfectly possible.

Firstly, there is broad consensus about the European Union's ability, within the NATO framework, to defend itself against any conceivable aggressor, whether this be done together with our allies, or, if need be, independently. I would very much welcome a decision by the Convention to propose a mutual support clause for the new constitution of the European Union.

We should, secondly, be developing our capacities, so we still need time to make necessary contributions to crisis management in the area around the European Union, which must be both civil and military. That is not yet the case today, and we have not yet been able to do that independently, but it is a capacity that we must develop.

Thirdly, we in the European Union should be in a position to carry out rescue operations anywhere in the world and at any time, where the safety of European citizens is involved. Those are three more building blocks towards a security strategy for the European Union.

If we develop one, we must take into account the experiences we have had of comparable major projects, such as the internal market or the European currency. These were successful only because we had specific requirements on content and time, because we were clear about what we want to do and when we wanted to be able to do it. The Morillon Report deals with this issue in a number of ways.

What the public expects of the European Union is peace, security and stability. We in the European Parliament must do our bit to ensure that the European Union does, as a whole, live up to these expectations.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  De Rossa (PSE). – Madam President, in relation to Iraq I have swung from anger, through despondency, to determination. I am angry at the arrogance and the hubris of the UK and the US in launching this war. I am despondent that the European Union has been so impotent in its efforts at seeking to stop this war and to achieve a peaceful disarmament of the Iraqis. But I am also determined to ensure, insofar as I can in my small way, that we have a united, coherent, cohesive, common European foreign and defence policy.

I am convinced that a united European Union could have stopped this war, could have disarmed Saddam Hussein, and indeed could have played an important role in bringing peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That possibility is still there and we should do everything we can to put aside our relatively petty differences, based on national egotism in many cases, to reach a common position for Europe. We have an important role to play in the world and we should seek to play that role now of all times. Faced with the biggest security crisis since the end of the Cold War we have failed as a Union to address that crisis in a serious and effective way. That is quite appalling.

We would be foolish too to assume that the Iraqi war is a one-off war plan. It is obvious that Syria, Iran, Cuba indeed, and North Korea are also on the agenda. It is time the European Union got its act together and made it clear that we will not stand for the kind of actions that have been taken in relation to Iraq, that we will unite to put in place serious peaceful conflict-prevention mechanisms to achieve what the world needs, that is, stability and peace.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Van den Bos (ELDR).(NL) The current European leaders only want to speak with one voice when it comes out of their own mouths. The common foreign and security policy is evidently not important enough to make concessions for it. As long as the renationalisation of foreign policy continues in the European Union, common defence will remain up in the air like a rudderless bomber with bickering pilots. Both the extremely stretched British loyalty to Washington and continuing French anti-Americanism are a poor guide for European policy. We must be absolutely sure to prevent an enlarged Union breaking up into pro and anti-American camps.

Good Atlantic relations are of fundamental importance for Europe, for America and also for the rest of the world. If the United States can impose their Pax Americana, this is partly the fault of the current European leaders. As long as they blatantly adhere to what they feel is right and invest too little Europe as a whole in defence, we are condemned to a supporting role on the world stage. The European Union must certainly be capable of acting militarily on its own continent, preferably in a NATO context, but if it must independently too. The telescoping and strengthening of military resources lays a foundation for a common and strong security policy. The development of a European strategic concept with the emphasis on crisis prevention is a splendid objective. Something will only come of it if European leaders speak exclusively with one voice. Otherwise they will do better to remain silent.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Caudron (GUE/NGL).(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, I do of course share many of the concerns held by the majority of my group. Like them, I am particularly concerned by one question. How can we possibly develop a defence structure when we have not yet established a common foreign policy?

I would like to add that I am also vehemently opposed to the very principle of a pre-emptive war like the one underway in Iraq. I deplore the disagreement between the countries of Europe on this important issue. Clearly NATO is already dominated by the United States. I have to say that if Europe does not wish to reinforce this monopoly, and if we in Europe want to be able to settle conflicts through effective and strong European diplomacy, we must establish a European defence architecture. We must ensure such a European defence has clear objectives and principles. It must fulfil specific missions using appropriate capacities and arms. It must depend on a legitimate and democratic decision-making process.

In my opinion, conflicts throughout the world should be settled through diplomatic means, within the framework of the United Nations in particular. In order to have sufficient diplomatic clout to be able to solve these problems through diplomacy, Europe needs to have the ability to take military action. I think we in Europe should not deny ourselves this capacity. In short, if Europe no longer wishes to leave its future in the hands of the United States, it must provide itself with the necessary means so that a European defence architecture can at last be established.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Stenzel (PPE-DE).(DE) Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon's on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise?

The idea of the European Union's foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia.

Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO's establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take.

Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon's concept.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Iivari (PSE).(FI) Madam President, serious international crises have a habit of highlighting national differences between the EU Member States. Although the Union played a key and successful role in the wake of the conflicts in the Balkans and Afghanistan we were unable to act in time and effectively to prevent, for example, the tragedy that occurred in the former Yugoslavia. The Iraq war has also highlighted differences between the Member States resulting from their history, geopolitics and political priorities. The internal political situation in the different Member States makes the dispute an even more heated one. You do not have to be especially cynical to think that the objective of guaranteeing common European security is still a utopian one.

It would nevertheless seem at present that NATO’s importance is dwindling and that Europe should take more responsibility for its own security and defence policy. General Morillon’s creditable report therefore comes at a very good time. Perhaps the global political crisis that is going on and the threatening images it conjures up will inspire us to make a real effort to strengthen Europe’s voice and its capacity for action.

It is not enough that we should set ambitious goals. We must also be resolved and practical. That is why the European Convention should strengthen the Commission’s role in foreign policy. Unfortunately, however, things appear to be moving in the opposite direction and the intergovernmental option has gained strength. Once again there is a clash between speech and action.

As the work of the Convention continues, at the same time there is visibly increased activity on the part of certain Member States in outlining a common defence policy. It is realistic to work on the assumption that there will be differences within the Union with regard to how quickly things progress, as has also been the case with Schengen and Economic and Monetary Union. It is important, however, to make sure that there are no closed clubs created that not all have access to.

It would furthermore be a good idea to become more familiar with the aims and needs of the foreign and security policies of different Member States. The Greek Foreign Minister, Mr Papandreou, has put forward a proposal for such a scheme. I think it should be put into effect. As, for example, we know the differences that result from geopolitics, we will also be able to identify the potential for cooperation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nordmann (ELDR).(FR) Madam President, ‘Argos did inspire him in his search for the Other’, to quote Péguy on Homer. I would refer the detractors of the Morillon report to this. The Morillon report is not a pipedream. It is without doubt the most interesting and best-devised document on the subject I have been given to read for several years. I would like to explain why I am so pleased with this report. I see merit both in its ambitious objectives and in its realistic pathway.

Others have explained that the timing of this report is opportune. Previous speakers have also highlighted its comprehensive nature. I would like to point to its sense of perspective and its excellent account of the institutional tools that need to be taken into account. I would also like to underline the very creative way in which it uses the notion of enhanced cooperation. It applies this to defence in a realistic and pragmatic way with the aim of establishing a genuine Community defence structure. In some ways, this report is a step-by-step guide to building a European defence architecture capable of adjusting to meet present and future challenges, especially terrorism.

Madam President, too often we say that Generals prepare for yesterday’s wars. I do not want the future to herald more wars but we know that there will be many more conflicts. One particular General has urged us to prepare for current and future conflicts. He deserves our thanks.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Cossutta (GUE/NGL).(IT) I do not know whether this terrible war of neocolonial aggression against Iraq will soon come to an end. What I do know for certain is that I will not be one of those celebrating the victory of the imperialist United States in the war to which the whole world was opposed but which it has been unable to prevent.

I believe that, if Europe had succeeded in adopting an unambiguous position, that would have been a barrier to George Bush’s war, but the European Union was divided when it came onto the scene and was therefore impotent and ineffective. It was not enough for Europe not to endorse the United States’ action: Europe as such needed to display explicit opposition. Never has the lack of an unambiguous, united voice been felt so much as in this tragic situation. Never has the need for a European seat on the United Nations Security Council been so keenly felt. Europe can and must carry weight in the world only if it has its own independent foreign and defence policy, with its own independent economic, political forces and military forces too. These forces must by no means be in opposition to the United States but independent from it. Most importantly, Europe must formally confirm its calling and its undertaking to ensure peace, through a simple, clear statement such as that we propose in our amendment: ‘The European Union should reject war as a means of settling international disputes’.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Van Orden (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I can report that, at this moment, joyful Baghdad citizens are toppling a massive statue of Saddam Hussein in the centre of Baghdad, along with unarmed American troops.

British Conservatives have consistently regarded the pursuit of an autonomous European security and defence policy as one of the most ill-advised policy ambitions of the European Union. Others have been confused into imagining that ESDP is primarily about encouraging European countries to make a greater contribution to defence. If this were the case, it might be a worthy ambition. In fact, it complicates the Transatlantic Alliance, produces no additional troops and has no real purpose, except to shift defence and security decision-making responsibilities away from NATO headquarters – where European countries sit around the same table as our American allies – to the European Union, from which Americans are specifically excluded. As the presidency has again confirmed this afternoon, ESDP is all about European integration.

The splits that occurred in NATO and elsewhere in the lead-up to the Iraq war were a deliberate consequence of this policy. ESDP is not only a threat to NATO – which is a supremely intergovernmental organisation. The report of my gallant friend, General Morillon, exposes very clearly the ambition to communitarise defence within the European Union. I note Commissioner Patten's reservations about this aspect.

British Conservatives oppose this report, which is a recipe for an EU army and a massive extension of Community power into the defence and security arena. It proposes that the European Commission should have widespread responsibilities for military operations, including the right of initiative in crisis-management matters; that the Community budget should cover the common costs of military operations; that there should be a common procurement and production policy, which would be based on 'the military needs of the European Union as such'; the establishment of an EU joint military college; a collective defence clause, as a protocol to the EU Treaty; a common EU police force and coastguard corps, along with a permanent EU seat in the UN Security Council.

With the experience of the Iraq crisis behind him, I sincerely hope that the British Prime Minister will realise the folly and indeed mischief of creating defence institutions which will merely exacerbate divisions between European countries and the United States. I hope also, in spite of the great Anglo-American solidarity over Iraq, that the United States will no longer merely take on trust Mr Blair's promotion of ESDP. Both should now know better and work to consolidate a new Atlantic alliance.

The European Union is putting its political pretensions before the real security interests of the citizens of its Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Souladakis (PSE).(EL) Madam President, the crisis in Iraq placed the crucial issue of the common foreign, defence and security policy of the European Union centre stage in a most dramatic manner. The report by Mr Morillon and the older report by Mrs Lalumière express the anxieties and findings of the European Parliament. However, they also express its political correlations. A positive example is the recent presence of the European Union in the FYROM. However, the problem persists. Findings, findings, proposals, and when some decisions are taken, they drag their heels applying them. I ask you, where does the application of the Galileo programme stand? Where do the famous Petersberg-type force and missions stand? Where does the Eurofighter stand? Where does the programme of large heavy air transporters stand, despite the fact that the last two are not European Union programmes? I sometimes wonder, are we, in fact, carrying water in the Danaïds' jars?

Europe is a force for peace; however, it also needs to become a force for security and international cooperation. Europe needs to shape its own personality and to operate as an equal partner and associate. Europe needs to take its decisions at both an institutional and material level. The initiative by Germany and the other three countries is positive in principle. We are watching this space.

We have often referred here to ancient Athens and Rome; however, we have also recently seen various kings and chiefs of varying colours from old, bygone colonial empires parading around the capitals of certain countries in Europe in gold-trimmed cars. I do not know if there is any similarity with certain European political leaders in a divided Europe who submit their credentials to Camp David or the seat of the new Rome every once in a while.

Finally, I should like to propose, Commissioner, Minister, that we examine whether it would perhaps be better, if only for symbolic reasons, for some of the serious meetings of a political nature to be held in future at the seat of the European Union in order to symbolise our equality, potential and prospects.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rutelli (ELDR).(IT) Madam President, in my opinion, the issues addressed in this report are extremely important in strategic terms and also the most urgent of the European priorities: giving the Union the ability to act in the field of security and defence as well as in the field of combating terrorism, within the framework of a unified, coherent foreign policy. I therefore support the Morillon report and I will uphold all the proposals that give these policies more credibility and more weight: increasing national defence budgets within this Union perspective; allocating a proportion of the Union’s budget to supporting research and development; an integration programme to stop duplication and fragmentation; ad hoc cooperation or enhanced cooperation, should some Member states have legitimate grounds for not taking part in this undertaking; the transparent, effective integration of European defence into a renewed NATO and into the consolidated Atlantic Alliance, which must be preserved.

After the very serious Iraq crisis, even those who did not support these goals before must stop burying their heads in the sand. A roadmap which is both practical and visionary must be proposed, as in the case of Monetary Union. The Convention, Madam President, must listen to the views of the majority of Europeans who, together with Parliament, are calling for a return to effective multilateralism and to a Europe which is capable of taking action.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Seppänen (GUE/NGL).(FI) Madam President, according to General Morillon’s report, there is a desire for the European Union to militarise and furthermore let the advocates of peace pay for it. The fact that the report has been drafted in parallel with the EU Constitution has made it possible to call for measures that it is known will be implemented anyway.

A special Article on the issue of solidarity is being written into the Constitution, according to which the Member States undertake, among other things, to combat the threat of terrorism. As a result, the EU will embrace the principle of pre-emptive war. The forward line of troops will be given the opportunity to engage in still higher levels of cooperation: when the EU’s crisis management is extended to include the work of combat forces this may be done illegally without a mandate from the United Nations and irrespective of geographical borders. The most militaristic countries will be able to give one another guarantees of security in the form of a declaration or protocol in the spirit of Article 5 of the WEU.

It is a good thing that the Council has the power in military matters, and that there has to be unanimity. It is better that way than if it were up to the Commission whether to launch an attack or not. I would like to remind everyone that there are countries in the EU that do not want to be part of any military alliance.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gawronski (PPE-DE).(IT) Madam President, in view of the current tensions and divisions, General Morillon’s report has come at just the right time. It tells us that, if Europe wants to be a credible leader on the world stage, it must be united and strengthen its military capabilities.

The war in Iraq is such a tragic event that we cannot be surprised if it has caused major divisions between the Member States, but the first signs of repentance already seem to be appearing and there is already a strong temptation to join the winning side – the United States – once the battle is over, so to speak. The countries which were opposed to the war are already getting into position to gather up any crumbs that fall and to be involved in reconstruction. However, as General Morillon – a French general but a leading player in Europe – said, one cannot expect to take part in the decision-making process if one does not share the burdens too. I hope that the fantasy political views – which I have just heard expressed in the House – regarding the United States, which will invade Syria, Cuba and who knows what other countries after Iraq, will soon cease to be expressed.

European public opinion was not divided in the same way as the Member States: for the most part, it was opposed to US military action. I am glad to say that there were Heads of State and Government in Europe who were capable of challenging public opinion and asserting their own vision of world peace: peace which, regrettably, in this case, could only come about through a war which was necessary in order to avoid even greater tragedies in the coming years.

I believe that when Europe has its own military capabilities – as the Morillon report calls for – and its own foreign policy, it will become a world leader, and I only hope that it will then prove capable of making the right decisions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Theorin (PSE). (SV) Madam President, two thousand years ago, the Roman, Cicero, said that there are two ways of solving conflicts: either through negotiations or through violence. The first way is intended for human beings and the second way for wild beasts. Cicero’s words still apply today. Are we to solve conflicts like human beings, through negotiation, or like animals, through violence? Is the EU to put its faith in the work of active, preventive conflict resolution or in increased resources for waging conflict, that is to say more resources for the use of military methods? Can the conflicts of today and tomorrow really be resolved using military methods? I do not think so.

What can we learn from the war that is going on in Iraq and from the division in the EU’s common foreign and security policy? As I see it, the EU should step up its international work, strengthen the United Nations and reinforce its capacity to prevent and resolve conflicts, rather than stake more power and resources on a common military defence which, as Commissioner Patten said, still ultimately revolves around national issues. The EU should state that the reconstruction of Iraq must take place under the auspices of the UN. A belligerent party is not impartial and cannot be entrusted with such reconstruction and take responsibility for it.

My own country, Sweden, is heavily committed to conflict prevention, peacekeeping and crisis management. Neither Sweden nor I support a common defence, or common funding of such a defence. Nor do we support the idea of certain countries’ being able to take the lead in common defence work, or the introduction of a collective defence clause. War is far too serious to be entrusted either to the military or to my esteemed fellow MEP, General Morillon.

What must now be crucial is to stand up for international law, strengthen the UN and its work and develop a considerable capacity on the part of the EU to identify, prevent and bring an end to conflicts. It is in that area that the EU can make considerable efforts in the cause of peace. As long as two thousand years ago, Cicero knew that only wild beasts try to resolve conflicts through violence. It is high time that the EU focused upon resolving conflicts rather than prosecuting them.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vallvé (ELDR).(ES) Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Morillon on his report and on the timeliness of that report, in two regards: the common defence policy is an issue under discussion in the European Union and the interim situation which other Members have already mentioned.

At the moment, the Iraq crisis is a problem which affects all of us. But in the European Union, although the problem is a common one, the solutions have been different, because the Union has neither a common foreign policy nor a common defence policy.

Perhaps we should remember that the fathers of Europe, in 1954, tried to create the European Defence Community, and that it did not work. This report is a positive step, as was the report presented in this House a few years ago by the President.

This is a long process which we must work on, so that Europe may have a common defence policy, which is not in opposition to anybody, but in cooperation with our allies and also with the alliance with the other side of the Atlantic. It is not a policy against NATO, but it must be created with their cooperation as well.

Just as in 2002 we have managed to establish a single currency, which does not so far involve everybody, but which is expected to do so, we must create a common security and defence policy, in the knowledge that it will cost money and with the conviction that the European Union will have the resources necessary to achieve it. The Convention must take this into account when drawing up the Union’s Treaty.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Korakas (GUE/NGL).(EL) Madam President, following the collapse of socialism and the break up of the Soviet Union, a race is on to divide up the new markets and wealth of the former socialist countries and to redistribute the markets already divided up. So there is acute competition both between the Member States of the European Union and with the USA. At the same time, an all-out attack has been launched within the European Union on the rights acquired by the workers. In order to achieve these objectives, the European defence and security policy, which the Morillon report deals with, is being promoted. Naturally there are pretexts: conflict prevention, crisis management and so on. The truth is that a European army is being created, with mercenaries with modern training and weapons, whose mission is to defend the interests of big business wherever it has put down roots and wherever ΝΑΤΟ orders it to intervene.

Of course, as the Morillon report clarifies, there is no question of cutting off relations between the European Union and ΝΑΤΟ and the USA. On the contrary, it talks of mutual reinforcement and close cooperation with ΝΑΤΟ, which is considered to be the indispensable bond that links the USA to European security interests. It also says that this could not be otherwise because, among other things, the majority of the Member States of the European Union accounts for the majority of the members of ΝΑΤΟ which, however, is ruled and guided by the USA. These bonds alone would be enough to prove the real nature and mission of the famous ESDP.

The people, we can be sure, harbour no illusions. They have bitter experience of ΝΑΤΟ and have already experienced the policy of the European Union on security and defence issues. The proclamations made after September 11 – ‘we are all Americans’ – are still ringing in their ears. The people recently watched the Member States of the European Union sign the new aggressive NATO policy in Prague on preventive attack, which is precisely what the American and British imperialists are doing in Iraq today and will do anywhere else, if the people let them. Besides, they know that, although the proposals to step up armaments by increasing military forces may guarantee the future profitability of the European arms industry, it bodes no good whatsoever for their security, for people's incomes or for peace. It is shameful that these proposals have been and are being made by the Greek Government, which shamelessly prides itself on the fact that the war machine will be ready before the end of the Greek Presidency. This is not a defence and security policy, it is a policy of aggression and insecurity, which is precisely why this policy is contrary to the vision of our people, who are fighting against it. The crime being perpetrated in Iraq as we speak again gives us a picture, after Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, of the purpose of these policies.

Our people are demanding a diametrically opposed policy, a policy of peace, of peaceful coexistence of nations, of differences resolved without resorting to violence and war, a policy of disarmament and peace. It is certain that they will impose this policy, however much their opponents react.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Laschet (PPE-DE).(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, like a number of those that preceded it, the last intervention makes me doubt, for example, the source of a Communist's information – which is so precise – on what the peoples want. Others in this House have said this is about dividing up the riches of socialism. I wish the public could hear these debates more often. A Social Democrat spoke in terms of a colonial Camp David. I really do wonder about the sort of arguments people are coming up with in this debate, and I ask myself whether they would say these things in public in their own countries. Take Kosovo, for example. In Kosovo, the citizens wanted the European Union to ….

(Interruption)

…. Mr Korakas, what the European public wanted was no more mass rapes and expulsions on the continent of Europe in the twenty-first century. That is what gave rise to the European Security and Defence Policy! We saw in 1999 – at the Helsinki Summit – that we Europeans could no longer act without American help. As the Morillon Report so excellently describes, the institutions we have built up have brought us a long way. On 1 April, we took over for the first time a small mandate in Macedonia, the intention of which is to pacify the country rather than – as some in this House suggest – to engage in armed conflict. Here, I think, Europe is sending out the right message, and that is what the public expect of us.

We are discussing this report at a very significant time, for what now matters is that the two sides at opposite ends of the spectrum – the German and British Governments – find their way back into European institutions and that they should again attempt to find European solutions, rather than going it alone. This armed conflict has brought it home to all of us that none of us count for anything on the world stage, and that we can make no contribution to world peace if we work against each other.

We need a common European approach. What this report proposes is preferable to what came out of the recent Brussels summit, when, as so often before, only four Member States came together, so that the suspicion again arises that this is more of a political act against other allies. We need Great Britain at the table, too, for without Great Britain no success will come of this venture.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Swoboda (PSE).(DE) Madam President, I would like to begin by congratulating Mr Morillon on his report, which is the usual balanced blend of imagination and realism, vision and pragmatism. Indeed, I wish for his sake that even our fellow Member Mr Korakas would actually read it, for then he would arrive at a different view.

The real question facing us, of course – to put it in provocative terms – is this: should the European Union become a military power? I agree with the previous speaker, Mr Laschet: in recent weeks or months, Europe has, unfortunately, not played any global role at all. That is a fact. Of course, it is primarily a matter of will, as Commissioner Patten always says. Are we actually willing to take on a role? I believe – and the Morillon report, which has after all been adopted by a large majority, bears this out – that here in this House, we do have the will to play a proper role in world affairs.

Can a military capability help us? The answer, in my view, is ‘yes’. A military capability can help us if there is a common foreign and security policy. It cannot be a substitute for the common foreign and security policy, but it can certainly support and underpin it. I too, however, am sceptical about an arms race. It would be quite grotesque to argue that in the past, we were involved in the arms race because we had to keep pace with an opponent, and now we have to compete in the arms race because we have to keep pace with a partner, namely the United States of America. But if we read it correctly, the Morillon report states primarily – not exclusively, but primarily – that the task must be to coordinate our defence spending so that, initially, we achieve a far greater impact and more efficiency with the same amount of money. Secondly, it is certainly also important to identify where there are gaps which we Europeans can close.

In reality, there are two alternative options to be considered. To my mind, leaving things as they are is not an option. The first option is for us to become a military power like the USA, albeit rather less powerful, less imperialist and less efficient. I see that as unacceptable. The other option is to acquire a military capability to underpin a common foreign and security policy, just as Mr Morillon outlines in his report, so that we have the capacity to act efficiently within the framework of a multilateral policy. We do not have this capacity at present. The Morillon Report identifies ways for us to act efficiently in a multilateral framework. That is why we are clear and unequivocal in our endorsement of the Morillon Report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Cederschiöld (PPE-DE). (SV) Madam President, General Morillon has written an interesting and credible report. Certain parts of it are likely to influence the Convention. Europe’s defence industries are the key to the development of the common European defence policy, which is to be part and parcel of transatlantic cooperation. A vigorous European defence industry, based on advanced research and healthy competition, must be preserved and developed. We should try to abolish protectionism in all trade, including the trade in arms, and get the United States fully to open up its arms market.

The current system is inefficient and expensive. Taxpayers are entitled to demand that every euro be used in the most effective way possible. That, in turn, requires us to think European. A common bureau for defence equipment and resources is an absolute necessity. Do European taxpayers really think that having to pay for the development of three new ultra-modern war planes is rational and efficient? European defence industries are in danger of becoming assembly plants instead of places of high-tech research. Europe would in that case become weaker and more dependent. I cannot under any circumstances believe, however, that we should become stronger without Great Britain.

Let us now focus upon what is constructive and build upon common definitions and methods. Only with a larger budget for defence equipment and a European research-oriented defence industry within the framework of a common defence policy can we become a credible, effective and reliable partner of the United States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Cushnahan (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I would like to congratulate my respected colleague General Morillon on his report. As previous speakers have already said, it is being considered at an opportune time. I am a strong supporter of the establishment of an EU defence policy because I believe it is as much a fundamental part of European integration as the single currency. Additionally, if we are to learn any lessons from the current debacle and disarray in which the European Union finds itself, then the European Convention and the subsequent IGC have to consider the arguments advanced at the heart of this report.

I strongly support the EU-US transatlantic alliance, but not in its present form, where we are simply expected to endorse US foreign policy objectives, even when we disagree with them. A new equilibrium must be established on the basis of a true partnership in which both parties shape the agreed policy objectives.

However, we have to accept that there is absolutely no chance of influencing the United States when we are so dependent on them. We have, as General Morrillon suggests, to 'share the burden' also.

We must also acknowledge that an EU defence policy must be underpinned by a coherent common foreign and security policy. I do not believe that our current difficulties over our divided response to the Iraq crisis should give rise to pessimism and paralysis. If anything, it should provide the political imperative to ensure that it never happens again.

If we really want to exercise influence on the world stage, then EU leaders must agree on merging the functions of the High Representative and the Commissioner for External Relations, served by a single administration, adequately resourced, and using all our instruments in the policy areas – such as trade, development, environment, justice and home affairs – to support clear political objectives at the heart of our foreign policy.

It is to be hoped that as we move towards the creation of defence structures, we will not forget the importance of conflict prevention, and also of continued investment in our policy on democratisation and human rights, because it is abuses in those areas that give rise to conflict in many parts of the world.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Posselt (PPE-DE).(DE) Madam President, I too support the excellent report by our colleague Mr Morillon, which integrates Atlanticism and Euro-Gaullism magnificently. As someone who is far more of a Euro-Gaullist than Mr Morillon, I concede that he has managed to combine these two elements of European foreign and security policy quite outstandingly. We cannot discuss the issue of European defence as if we were debating the need for a European directive on jam. What is at stake here is the very raison d'être of European integration. I am not the only one who thinks so; many of our citizens share this view, as the opinion polls bear out.

The real purpose of European integration is peace and security, both internally and externally. For this reason, the time has come for us to make progress on the European foreign and security policy, and I am not as pessimistic about this as many others in this House. Yes, it is true that our governments have presented a pathetic picture. But if you look at public opinion in the various nations, it is apparent that on the key issues – including the Iraq war – there is far greater unanimity among the nations than among the governments. In my view, we need mechanisms and institutions which do not only capture the nations' common will but actively influence and shape it, for we cannot simply be led by the current mood. We need a responsible, long-term strategy as the basis for a common foreign and security policy.

I think the Convention is the final opportunity, in the broad community of fifteen – soon to be twenty-five or thirty – Member States, to achieve a common foreign and security policy. I hope this will be successful. I do not want a core Europe. I do not want a fragmented Europe. Yet if this wider circle of Member States fails to make progress, there must be a development towards a core Europe. However, this means a core Europe which is open to all those who are willing to participate in a common foreign and security policy.

Let me make one more thing clear: I believe that we need the Atlantic Alliance. However, as Franz-Josef Strauss, my party's late chairman, once said: ‘The Atlantic Alliance will only have a future if it is based on two equally strong and lasting pillars: an American pillar and a European pillar’. The fact that this European pillar does not exist is not the Americans' fault. It is our fault as Europeans. In the wake of the enlargement which we have agreed today, we will have more citizens than Russia and the USA put together. So it is high time we did something about our foreign and security policy, and that includes spending more and creating the appropriate structures. This does not mean structures of aggression, but structures which actively build peace. Painfully, we failed to do this in advance of the Iraq war, but it has been the European Union's mission since our founding fathers started it up in 1952.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Arvidsson (PPE-DE). (SV) Madam President, no one has to convince us Swedish Democrats of the need for a common foreign and security policy. If the EU wishes to have influence, the EU Member States must cooperate. The common policy is particularly important for small countries within the EU. Unfortunately, the common foreign and security policy has been in ruins in recent months. Hopefully, it will be possible to unite the EU in devising the common policy now that the people in the centre of Baghdad are rejoicing at Saddam Hussein’s fall and also trying to bring his giant statue crashing to the ground.

Some hours ago, the vast majority of us voted in favour of a major enlargement of the EU. This was probably the most important political decision most us have ever been involved in making. Many of the new EU Member States have given high priority to NATO membership as a solution to their security requirements. Following the period of the Cold War, NATO has been developed into a pan-European security organisation. That is a fact of which we must take account in developing the common security policy for the EU. The EU’s common security policy must not be opposed to NATO’s. On the contrary, cooperation needs to be deepened. It is my hope that my own country too will choose the same security solution as, for example, our Baltic neighbours, that is to say membership of NATO.

I do not believe that the purpose of the EU’s security policy should, in the first place, be to develop strong, joint military power. The EU’s military resources must be seen as complementing efforts to promote peace and to protect people in war-torn areas and as complementing joint efforts to combat terrorism and to respond urgently to disasters. Cooperation with the global community must of course be central in this connection.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Martin, Hugues (PPE-DE).(FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the immense difficulties that we are experiencing reveal existing trends which we should not overlook. The historic and privileged links between Great Britain and the United States are nothing new. The Atlanticist attitude of the candidate countries is based on our own weaknesses and on the fact that they do not believe that Europe is capable of defending them. Unfortunately they are right.

It is high time that conclusions were drawn from this crisis, which is perhaps a salutary one, like the ones which preceded it and which allowed us to move forward. Perhaps we shall finally find an answer to the question of what we want to do together. There are, in fact, two opposing visions of Europe. The first is the vision of those who are in favour simply of a large area of economic freedom, while foreign and defence policies are aligned with those of the United States and NATO. The second is the vision of a Europe which is powerful not only economically but politically as well, and which plays a full role in the world, in partnership with its allies and not under their tutelage. For the latter Europe, which is the one that I would like to see, a common foreign and defence policy is essential. If we have the political will to achieve it, this common defence will constitute a formidable potential for union and will finally enable us to harmonise our human and material resources in every field, and particularly in research, weapons systems and information, which will have inestimable civil, economic and social repercussions. This is why I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusions of the work carried out by Commissioner Barnier in connection with the Convention, and also, above all, with the excellent report by General Morillon. He has treated this highly sensitive subject with the competence for which he is famous, but also with tact and sensitivity. We must now come together again and move forward, if possible. I have not forgotten the Saint-Malo summit, which some people try to pretend never happened. If those people continue to prefer to take to the high seas, I hope they will use a big sail. One day, I am convinced of it, they will return to our shores. We, the others, who constitute by far the greater majority, prefer a Europe which is free, solidarity-based and credible, a Europe which also makes its influence felt in matters involving peace and the destiny of the world. This is the desire of many countries in the world, countries which expect Europe to play its role. It is also, I know, the desire of the people of Europe, as so many of them have been demonstrating in the last few weeks.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Thank you, Mr Martin.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTA
Vice-President

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy