President. – The next item is the report by Mircea Paşcu, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on EU—NATO relations (2017/2276(INI)) (A8—0188/2018).

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu, Rapporteur. – Madam President, it is no secret that in the light of a marked deterioration of Europe’s security environment, the relations between the EU and NATO have got a new increased relevance. Indeed now that internal and external security are inextricably interlinked, putting together the best abilities of the two organisations in providing security in general for the European citizens becomes imperative.

Since Crimea in 2014, the basis and substance of collaboration between the EU and NATO have accelerated and enlarged, so that today we speak about no less than 74 common actions. However, as of late, the transatlantic relationship has become strained following the recent trade disputes between the US and their allies.

Under the circumstances, besides trying to manage these disputes so that they do not get out of hand, one should also attempt on the one hand to insulate the security dimension of that relationship from its commercial one, and on the other, preserve and accelerate the existing good momentum in the EU-NATO collaboration.

In general, given the existing fragile setting, what otherwise are normal differences of opinion between the two organisations today require more sensitive management so that we can overcome the difficulties of the moment. The changing atmosphere related to the topic has been felt during the consultation and writing of the present report, a fact illustrated by comparing its first draft with the version used for the vote in the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The report is based on the premise that the EU and NATO, both confronted with the same challenges and threats, share the same values in their complementary activity devoted to preserving peace and security in a rules-based international system.

In regard to those threats and challenges, the upsurge in Russia’s military assertive behaviour and activities, political manipulation and cyberattacks, as well as direct interference in European countries’ internal affairs aiming at undermining their unity, are equally concerning to both the EU and NATO, a reality underlined by the fact that many of the 74 common activities mentioned above are directly devoted to countering exactly such actions.

The report is addressing, understandably, the transatlantic relations and is stressing that the EU’s own increased defence and security efforts, apart from responding to US previous appeals, see for instance the ‘adios’ speeches of both defence secretaries Gates and Panetta, are a concrete contribution to burden-sharing, reinforcing both NATO and the security bond with Britain after Brexit.

The EU-NATO joint declaration and the subsequent implementation actions mark a new and substantive phase of the strategic partnership. In that context, the report looks forward to the new joint declaration to be adopted at the approaching Brussels NATO summit in July. As expected, special attention is given to the collaboration between the two organisations in military mobility, recently identified as a priority area of cooperation between them, and in this respect suggest that the west-east axis should be complemented with a new one running north-south, which would confer the necessary coherence to their eastern flank.

Controlling hybrid threats, countering cyberattacks, building resilience, sharing situational awareness, increased information-sharing, fighting terrorism and continuous improvement of cooperation on mission and operations at both strategic and tactical level, represent concrete domains for collaboration between the EU and NATO that were mentioned and supported in the report.

  Federica Mogherini, Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, let me first of all thank the rapporteur for the excellent work on one of the central issues in the work we are doing for a stronger Europe of Defence. The report wishes for ‘a more substantive partnership within the European Union and NATO’. Not only do we share 22 members, we also face similar challenges and we have converging security interests. Almost 95% of citizens of the European Union live in NATO countries, so protecting these people is the first of our shared interests.

At the same time, the report is also very clear that EU—NATO cooperation should be complementary, as it is, and respectful of each other specificities, as it is. We are different organisations; we, the European Union, are not a military alliance, and we do not intend to become one. Our European way to peace and security is unique, and we are proud of the work we do and the way we do it. Our friends at NATO appreciate the specificity of what we do. Our missions, both civilian and military, carry out some very different tasks compared to NATO operations, so complementarity is in the nature of our partnership. We do different things, and this is why we are increasingly working together on the ground, taking advantage of our complementarity.

This is why the NATO leadership, starting from the Secretary—General, Jens Stoltenberg, has been so supportive of our work towards a stronger Europe of Defence. All the work we’ve done inside the European Union has always been done hand-in-hand with strong NATO support and with the deepening of the partnership with NATO.

On the one hand, we are working to strengthen the capabilities of our Member States, and in most cases these are also NATO allies. They have one set of forces that can be used in European missions and in NATO missions alike – and let me also add in UN missions – and in this way, a stronger European Union in the field of defence makes NATO stronger. On the other hand, we are also investing in our complementarity; for example, in our civilian capabilities.

As you know, last week, together with the Secretary—General of NATO, we presented to our respective councils, to the European Union Council and to NATO Council, the third progress report on the implementation of our joint declaration, which we signed during the last NATO summit in Warsaw.

Let me just highlight some key achievements that are mentioned in this progress report, which, by the way, will also constitute a good basis for our further work looking ahead to the next NATO summit in Brussels. First, the clearest progress is probably on military mobility. Today more than ever, rapid response has become an essential requirement for our security, getting our assets where they are needed, and doing so swiftly, is a necessity we need to ensure at all times.

But this is also about how efficient we are in our defence spending, because if we invest in the best military capabilities and the most advanced defence systems, but then they get stuck at the border for customs checks, obviously we have an efficiency issue. If we cannot move our assets rapidly, we will need to buy more of them to make sure that they are in the right place at the right time. This is clearly not an efficient way to invest the defence budgets, so it’s relevant for operational reasons and for budget reasons.

A big part of the work here is going on at European Union level, where obviously we have competencies and instruments to address these issues, with a project under the permanent structured cooperation, as well as with the proposed new investment from the Commission. We are working in constant coordination with NATO; experts from NATO are taking part in our work, and NATO has shared its parameters for transport infrastructure. There is no better example of how a stronger European Union in the field of defence also makes NATO stronger.

The second field that I would mention as an example is hybrid threats. After the Salisbury attack, the European Council called for increased EU engagement on cyber security, strategic communication and counter-intelligence, as well as close cooperation with NATO on chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear issues. We are currently working to respond to this task, and our proposals will be reflected in three documents that will be presented in the European Council at the end of this month: a joint communication on the follow-up to Salisbury; a joint report on the progress of the implementation of the 22 joint EU NATO actions on hybrid threats; and the 15 Security Union progress reports.

Our European and NATO staffs are working together on hybrid threats in a number of different contexts on a daily basis. I will mention not only the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats, but also our Task Force on Strategic Communications and the EU Hybrid Fusion Cell for situational awareness.

The next EU-NATO parallel and coordinated exercises are to take place next November. And similarly to last year, the exercises will be based on a hybrid scenario and will aim at synchronising our two organisations’ crisis response.

The third area of cooperation is our work to build the capacities of our partners. In particular, we have intensified the exchange of information at staff level on three pilot countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova and Tunisia, but work has also intensified on Ukraine, Georgia and Jordan. We are also working together in Ukraine on issues such as strategic communications, training and security sector reform.

Finally, the first ever EU—NATO staff-to-staff dialogue on counterterrorism took place at the end of May. It focused on cooperation against terrorist threats, collaboration on the global coalition against Daesh, capacity building of partner countries and development of scenario—based discussions. These are just few examples – still many, and I apologise for being long – that clearly demonstrate the new engagement between the two organisations. Our cooperation has never been better, it has never been wider and has never been deeper.

On our side, we Europeans have finally decided to take full responsibility for our own security, and this is also in the interest of our partners in NATO. We are autonomous, but we are partners – very good ones. We are different, but we do share the same interests and we could not afford to walk in opposite directions. It would not be efficient, it would not be safe, and it would not be smart, and this is why we do not do it and we will never do it.

As your report rightly says: it is time for a more substantial partnership between the European Union and NATO, and this is precisely what we are doing today, and we will continue to do even more in the future. Last but not least, I apologise, I just realised while I was speaking that I should have changed seats in addressing this debate. I will move to the other side of the plenary in a minute.

  President. – Thank you, Madam Vice—President. I perhaps should have spotted that too so I don’t think we are too concerned.

  Arnaud Danjean, au nom du groupe PPE. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Haute Représentante, nous n’allions pas vous tenir rigueur de ce placement.

Merci avant toute chose à Ioan Paşcu qui a fait un excellent travail, qui a construit ce rapport en s’appuyant sur les contributions de tous les groupes, et je voulais vraiment le remercier très solennellement de la qualité du travail qu’il a accompli pour faire un rapport très équilibré sur un sujet qui donne trop souvent lieu à des débats très idéologiques – j’allais presque dire théologiques – alors que nous avons besoin de concret.

Vous l’avez rappelé, Madame la Haute Représentante, le rapporteur l’a rappelé, nous avons besoin de travailler de façon pratique et pragmatique.

Pratique, parce qu’il y a depuis le sommet de Varsovie de 2016 plusieurs dizaines de points très concrets à mettre en œuvre. Vous avez rappelé les domaines dans lesquels les progrès sont déjà enregistrés, c’est cela qui compte.

Pragmatique, parce que c’est la complémentarité qui doit primer. Il y a trop d’enjeux de sécurité autour de nous en Europe pour qu’on perde du temps à se chamailler entre ces deux organisations.

Nous avons les moyens de travailler de façon complémentaire et efficace. Les deux bornes qui doivent guider l’engagement européen sont, d’un côté, la reconnaissance du rôle essentiel de l’OTAN dans la défense collective – et cela personne ne peut le contester – et, d’un autre côté, l’affirmation de notre ambition d’autonomie stratégique, parce que l’autonomie stratégique, ce n’est pas la solitude stratégique, ce n’est dirigé contre personne, mais c’est la capacité à décider avec qui nous faisons des choses et nous voulons faire des choses. C’est cela l’autonomie stratégique et nous devons aller dans cette direction, nous devons garder cette ambition.

Je crois que le rapport est parfaitement équilibré entre ces deux exigences qui doivent guider l’action européenne.

  Tonino Picula, u ime kluba S&D. – Gospođo predsjedavajuća, gospođo povjerenice, čestitam kolegi Ioanu na izvrsnom izvješću jer obuhvaća čitav katalog suradnje Europske unije, NATO-a, te onih područja kojima je tek potrebna nadogradnja. Od vojnih kapaciteta, mirovnih misija, hibridnih prijetnji do pružanja pomoći partnerskim, ali i susjednim zemljama u izgradnji njihovih mogućnosti i jačanju otporosti. Prijetnje postojećem načinu funkcioniranja NATO-a politička su realnost. Rasprave odnosa Europske unije i NATO-a obuhvaćaju čak i trgovačke povlastice. Jednako tako, izlaskom Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva čak će 80% fiskalnih kapaciteta NATO-a biti izvan Europske unije.

Europska unija je nastala zbog čuvanja mira. To treba biti njena temeljna funkcija i na globalnoj razini. Međutim, Europska unija mora prihvatiti geopolitičke promjene i biti pripravna doprinositi globanoj sigurnosti adekvatnim vlastitim kapacitetima. Iz jačanja obrambenih sposobnosti Europske unije valja razviti djelotvornije reagiranje na krize, učvrstiti transatlanske veze i doprinositi NATO-u. Izvješće kolege Paşcua dobro sažima poziciju Parlamenta o ovom važnom pitanju te kvalitetno doprinosi raspravama o budućnosti obrambene i sigurnosne suradnje na globanoj razini.

  Geoffrey Van Orden, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, there’s much in the Paşcu report on which we can agree, in particular the final paragraph which recognises the need for the EU to ensure a close security and defence partnership with the United Kingdom after Brexit. The UK is, after all, and will remain, the pre—eminent European military power.

As referred to by Ms Mogherini, it is also right that due attention be given to the ease of mobility of allied forces across Europe, not just in times of tension but also for exercise purposes when necessary. Particularly at a time when there is some friction in transatlantic relations, and as we approach July’s NATO summit, it is doubly important that European nations signal to the United States our willingness to bear more of the defence burden. The Americans, after all, have increased their European Reassurance Initiative, which further confirms US resolve to defend Europe, by some 40% to USD 4.8 billion. Just this local increase by the United States is more than the total defence spending of at least 10 European countries.

I suggest that European burden sharing is not improved by the creation of separate defence structures, by the exclusion of major third countries from defence industrial projects or from pursuit of an elusive and ill—defined EU strategic autonomy. This is all about European political integration, not defence, and is the central weakness – I’m sorry to say – of the report.

  Javier Nart, en nombre del Grupo ALDE. – Señora presidenta, el informe tiene una permanente referencia al rol estratégico fundamental de la OTAN, y es verdad. De vez en cuando aparecen algunas tímidas referencias a lo que significa la necesidad de una defensa y de un concepto de seguridad autónomo europeo, lo cual es evidente.

Si tenemos en cuenta incluso las referencias que se hacen a la CEP y que actualmente la CEP acaba de indicar que en los planes CEP de inversión no van a participar las empresas extraeuropeas, esto es, norteamericanas, está claro que el paradigma ha cambiado, y el paradigma ha cambiado porque Trump ha dejado de ser una anécdota para ser una anécdota categórica. Y la anécdota categórica se llama: la expulsión del Tratado Atlántico de Comercio, que estábamos negociando; la ruptura del Acuerdo con Irán; la ruptura del Acuerdo contra el cambio climático… y la última han sido los desprecios intolerables en el G-7, que llegan incluso a la ofensa personal.

Estamos ante el «pensamiento twitter» del señor Trump, que es fundamental porque es el principal poder en este momento en el mundo. Y esto lo que significa es que Estados Unidos ha dejado de ser el socio fiable permanente que teníamos en la Unión Europea —y estas son palabras de la señora Merkel, que me da la impresión de que no es una extremista determinante—. Respecto a ello tenemos que responder y poder responder con nuestros propios retos.

Frente a «American first» tenemos que determinar que la OTAN es un pilar fundamental en la defensa y la seguridad europeas, pero ciertamente no el único; porque un día nos despertaremos cuando el señor Trump llegue a un acuerdo con el señor Putin y estaremos como aquel chiste que decimos en España que hay un pintor pintando el techo, llega alguien, le quita la escalera y le dice «agárrate a la brocha, compañero»: así quedaremos.

  Tamás Meszerics, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Thank you, Madam President. This is certainly not the first time, and much less the last, that we have the chance to talk about the relationship between the European Union and NATO. And I fully agree with the rapporteur that this has been an important report: it offered the chance to clarify this rather complicated relationship.

However, I regret to say that we feel that at some crucial points the report itself has been more of a missed opportunity. Instead of clarifying, at some points it has indeed further complicated this relationship that was otherwise not very easy.

Despite the laudable work that went into the file on behalf of the rapporteur and the shadows, we are not able to support it, on many grounds. Let me start with the simplest, and the easiest one. The report makes reference and emphasises, rightly, the security, defence and political challenge that Russia poses for the European Union. However at almost all points of the text this sounds as if it is an exclusively eastern problem. We seriously disagree with that.

Just witness the political meddling in the Brexit process or a number of European general elections, so indeed this is not just an issue for the east to consider, and this is not an issue for NATO’s eastern flank. This is a larger concern to that we need to deal with. The second and, probably much more important, point is that the report claims that Article 42, paragraph 7 of the Treaty contributes to a stronger NATO.

I don’t think I need to remind my honourable colleagues that this particular article is not traditionally understood as an obligation for collective response. This is an obligation for a bilateral, individual response between Member States. And considered in such a way, actually many analysts think that this this further complicates the issue rather than clarifying it. Much as I would like to avoid this, we cannot simply support this file as it stands now. Thank you very much.

  Javier Couso Permuy, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señora presidenta, alta representante, estamos ante otra oda a la sumisión europea, un verdadero panegírico a las cadenas militaristas, agresivas y expansionistas de la OTAN. Este informe sobre las relaciones Unión Europea-OTAN muestra con meridiana claridad una política exterior y de defensa encuadrada en una estrategia estadounidense organizada a través de la OTAN y que es no solo ajena, sino contraria a los intereses de la propia Europa.

Es un tiro en el pie a cualquier participación como sujeto autónomo en el tránsito a la multipolaridad que vive el mundo. Es la consolidación de una Unión Europea que, sin política exterior propia, suena como una orquesta desafinada a remolque de Estados Unidos.

Se habla de las tensiones en el Este o en la vecindad meridional, pero se ocultan muchas de sus causas. Y la participación de la OTAN, claro, como en el ataque a la República Federal de Yugoslavia —fuera de la legalidad internacional—, que echó por tierra los acuerdos de Helsinki. O la expansión de la OTAN a las fronteras rusas —que también echó por tierra la Carta de París—, o las intervenciones occidentales en Irak o de la OTAN, en particular, en Libia.

La Asociación Unión Europea-OTAN no es fundamental para la política común de seguridad y defensa, es justo lo contrario: niega una política autónoma e imita la peor política que representa la OTAN.

Frente a esta propuesta de sumisión militarista, frente al rearme y la intervención, hace falta una política de defensa verdaderamente independiente y que abogue por la distensión y la paz.

  Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αποκαλυπτική και πολύ επικίνδυνη είναι η έκθεση για τις σχέσεις Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης - ΝΑΤΟ, καθώς παραθέτει την πολεμική προετοιμασία των δύο ιμπεριαλιστικών συμμαχιών. Κυρία Mogherini, μιλήσατε για τα επιτεύγματα του ΝΑΤΟ και της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Όμως η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και το ΝΑΤΟ είναι δυνάμεις ανασφάλειας για τους λαούς και αποσταθεροποίησης στα Βαλκάνια και την ευρύτερη περιοχή. Διέλυσαν τη Γιουγκοσλαβία και, μεταξύ πολλών άλλων, ευθύνονται για αλλαγές συνόρων και διάλυση κρατών, για μακελέματα λαών.

Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και το ΝΑΤΟ ενισχύουν τη στρατιωτική τους ετοιμότητα στα πλαίσια του ανταγωνισμού με τη Ρωσία και την Κίνα, ενισχύουν στρατιωτικές αποστολές και ασκήσεις με γενίκευση της λεγόμενης στρατιωτικής κινητικότητας. Τι σημαίνει αυτό δηλαδή; Άρση και των τελευταίων εμποδίων, ώστε το ΝΑΤΟ και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να αλωνίζουν ανεμπόδιστα με τα στρατεύματά τους ανά την Ευρώπη. PESCO, μηχανισμοί αξιολόγησης, ταμείο άμυνας θωρακίζουν τα αυτοτελή συμφέροντα των ευρωπαϊκών ομίλων στον ανταγωνισμό με τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες, που η έκθεση βαφτίζει με νόημα ως παρανοήσεις των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών. Οι λαοί με την πάλη τους πρέπει να είναι σε επαγρύπνηση για καμία αλλαγή συνόρων και αποδέσμευση από αυτές τις λυκοσυμμαχίες. Με τον λαό στην εξουσία είναι ο μόνος δρόμος!

  Michael Gahler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte dem Kollegen Paşcu für seinen sehr zeitgemäßen Bericht herzlich danken. Ich denke, wir stellen dort dar, wie wir die Zusammenarbeit von EU und NATO optimieren können. Es gibt Dinge, die kann die NATO besser und muss sie besser leisten, aber es gibt Dinge, die wir auf der EU-Ebene besser erledigen können.

Deswegen ist es jetzt wichtig, dass wir uns klar werden, dass wir mit einer besseren Arbeit innerhalb der EU auch den europäischen Pfeiler der NATO stärken. Wenn wir CARD, die Defence Review, jedes Jahr durchführen, dann wissen wir, was wir brauchen. Wenn wir dann anschließend im Bereich Verteidigungsforschung und Fähigkeiten-Entwicklung weitergehen, wenn wir den Defence Fund auflegen und dann auch im EU-Haushalt für Kooperationen in unseren Verteidigungsindustrien unsere Beiträge besser leisten, dann werden wir besser untereinander und auch besser im NATO-Rahmen.

Aber wichtig ist auch, dass wir dann eine strategische Autonomie dafür entwickeln, wenn andere NATO-Partner nicht wollen, dass wir agieren. Ich denke, wir müssen als Europäische Union notfalls auch unabhängig von der NATO agieren können.

  Soraya Post (S&D). – Madam President, I say ‘no’ to NATO. The EU does not need to strengthen relations with NATO, but rather the opposite. I cannot accept the continuation of old-school militaristic thinking, with priority afforded to military alliances and increased spending on defence budgets and militaries globally, leading to tensions between countries.

As a feminist and a pacifist, I call for a transformation towards a feminist security policy that puts human security, personal integrity and safety from interpersonal violence at the centre of our defence and security agenda. For a safer world we need to invest in conflict-prevention and mediation. The EU is meant to be a peace project, not a military project.

  Anna Elżbieta Fotyga (ECR). – Madam President, we hope for added value arising from cooperation between the EU and NATO. There are challenges, though, and in order to avoid them we have to fulfil certain preconditions – first to avoid duplication, and therefore well—defined modalities of cooperation that are needed. Secondly, the key importance of transatlantic cooperation, despite tensions in other areas, and cooperation with the UK after Brexit. Otherwise without these modalities we cannot fulfil the strategic autonomy of the EU. We do not have enough potential to bring greater security to the region, and therefore I am very cautious about the stressing of strategic autonomy in this report.

We look forward to cooperation in areas like cybersecurity, military mobility and tackling hybrid threats.

  Bodil Valero (Verts/ALE). – Fru talman! Det här är ett betänkande som är väldigt motsägelsefullt, å ena sidan hävdas att EU och Nato har olika uppgifter, men sedan pekar allt i riktning mot en total sammanblandning, med terrorismbekämpning, kamp mot irreguljär migration etc. Trots rubriken, ett mer konkret partnerskap, så är det mesta väldigt luddigt.

Jag kommer själv från ett land som inte är Nato-medlem och ser frågan också ur det perspektivet. I punkt 33 nämns att medlemsstater som inte är Nato-medlemmar bör ha andra skyldigheter inom ramen för den europeiska försvarsunionen. Tala gärna om vilka skyldigheter som menas. I punkt 9 står det att samarbetet även ska fördjupas vid kriser, inte krig, på den europeiska kontinenten. Vilken sorts kriser? Är det stormar och översvämningar, flyktingströmmar eller terroristattacker som menas?

Betänkandet presenterar möjligheten till gemensamma EU- och Nato-insatser på EU-territorium, men talar inte om hur och under vilka omständigheter det kan ske. I praktiken skulle det kunna betyda turkiska soldater i Grekland eller Nato-styrkor i neutrala EU-länder. Vem bestämmer vem som ska göra vad, och vad som ska göras? Texten öppnar också upp för det upp det frivilliga permanenta strukturerade samarbetet för Nato innan det ens har startat, och det är också väldigt problematiskt både rent strategiskt och politiskt för oss, men kanske också juridiskt.

  Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Pani Przewodnicząca! To jest jeszcze jedno kłopotliwe sprawozdanie. W większości jest rozsądne. Wprawdzie może niczego istotnego nie wnosi, ale przemawia przez nie świadomość rosnących zagrożeń, chociażby ze strony Rosji, i konieczności zwiększania wydatków na obronę, w przeciwieństwie do zupełnie nieodpowiedzialnych głosów jak ten, który przed chwilą słyszeliśmy ze strony pani Post. Ale zawiera ono też szalenie niebezpieczny ustęp 33, w którym podkreśla się, że państwa członkowskie UE powinny być w stanie prowadzić niezależne misje wojskowe również wówczas, gdy NATO nie chce podejmować działań lub gdy działania UE są odpowiedniejsze. To jest próba wywrócenia do góry nogami porządku bezpieczeństwa opartego na NATO. Próba ustawienia się przez Unię w kontrze do działań NATO i zapewnienia sobie swobody manewru przez mocarstwa europejskie, które starają się od Ameryki uniezależnić. Z tego powodu nie mogę poprzeć sprawozdania.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, comme mes collègues l’ont déjà fait, je voudrais saluer l’ouverture de cette nouvelle ère dans la coopération entre l’Union et l’OTAN depuis la déclaration de Varsovie de 2016.

Complémentarité, coopération opérationnelle, coordination plus efficace, ce sont des mots clés, et comme mon collègue Danjean l’a rappelé, il faut toujours avoir en tête ce couple défense collective assumée par l’OTAN et autonomie stratégique de l’Union. Je crois que c’est un bon plan à suivre. C’est comme cela d’ailleurs que l’Europe sera un partenaire crédible, surtout dans les conditions actuelles, à savoir un regain d’agressivité russe aux frontières baltes et dans les pays d’Europe de l’Est, y compris dans les Balkans occidentaux.

Je ne pouvais pas terminer sans féliciter M. Paşcu pour son rapport. Je me permets de lui suggérer aussi de transmettre ce rapport à son chef de parti à Bucarest, il a beaucoup plus à dire sur l’Union et l’OTAN que M. Dragnea, qui vient de dire que l’Union et l’OTAN ont financé ce qu’ils appellent «l’État parallèle».

  Arne Lietz (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Hohe Vertreterin! Es ist wichtig, dass das Europäische Parlament sich mit den Beziehungen zwischen EU und NATO beschäftigt, vor allem mit Blick darauf, dass die EU sich gerade in der eigenen Verteidigung neu definiert. Ich unterstütze eine gemeinsame europäische Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik, die auf das Prinzip der Zusammenlegung und gemeinsamen Nutzung von Rüstungsgütern setzt. Gleichzeitig unterstütze ich eine Politik der Konversion und europäisch abgestimmter Rüstungsexporte als Instrument einer gemeinsamen Außenpolitik.

Als Mitglied der Europa-SPD fordere ich jedoch eine Revision des 2 %-Ziels der NATO in Richtung eines angemessenen Verteidigungshaushalts der EU-Mitgliedstaaten. Eine einfache Erhöhung der Ausgaben alleine ist nicht der richtige Schritt, um die Sicherheit der europäischen Bürgerinnen und Bürger zu gewährleisten. Wir brauchen eine effizientere Europäisierung der Verteidigungsindustrien aller Mitgliedstaaten, die Hand in Hand mit einer gemeinsamen Strategie geht. Deshalb habe ich beantragt, über den entsprechenden Absatz im vorliegenden Text gesondert abzustimmen. Eine Unterstützung für das 2 %-Ziel der NATO wird es mit uns Sozialdemokraten im Europäischen Parlament nicht geben.

  Marek Jurek (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Wysoka Przedstawiciel! Planowana współpraca obronna Unii Europejskiej służyć będzie albo bezpieczeństwu naszych państw – i wówczas musimy pamiętać, że trzy czwarte naszych państw jest sprzymierzone w Sojuszu Atlantyckim – albo wyłącznie uniezależnieniu wymiaru obronnego od realnej polityki, a więc dostarczeniu władzom Unii Europejskiej kolejnego instrumentu i stopniowemu budowaniu supremacji w stosunku do naszych państw. Spytałem dzisiaj, Pani Wysoka Przedstawiciel, wiceprzewodniczącego Komisji, pana Timmermansa, o Nord Stream 2, a on długo mówił o bieżących wyzwaniach, które stoją przed Unią Europejską. Nie tylko nie odpowiedział na pytanie, ale wręcz odmówił zajęcia stanowiska, kiedy zwrócono mu uwagę. Wszyscy od czasów Clausewitza wiemy, że wymiar obronny musi służyć polityce. Jeżeli temu nie służy, to służy wyłącznie władzy.

  David McAllister (PPE). – Sehr verehrte Frau Präsidentin, Frau Hohe Vertreterin, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Mit dem Europäischen Verteidigungsfonds, mit der Ständigen Strukturierten Zusammenarbeit und mit der Koordinierten Jährlichen Überprüfung der Verteidigung hat die Europäische Union in den letzten zwei Jahren in der gemeinsamen Verteidigung vermutlich mehr erreicht als in den Jahrzehnten zuvor. Davon werden sowohl die Europäische Union als auch die NATO insgesamt profitieren.

Ich möchte ein ganz konkretes Beispiel in dieser Debatte nennen. Anfang dieses Jahres habe ich die NATO Battle Group Lithuania in Rukla besucht. Dort wurde mir berichtet, wie hoch der logistische und administrative Aufwand ist, um Gerät und Fahrzeuge ins Baltikum zu transportieren. Wochenlang im Voraus müssen Genehmigungen eingeholt werden und Dutzende verschiedene Formulare, die sich wiederum in jedem Land unterscheiden, ausgefüllt werden. Deshalb begrüße ich das PESCO-Projekt zur Verbesserung der Military Mobility ausdrücklich. Wir können es uns eben nicht leisten, dass militärische Transporte, wenn es darauf ankommt, durch bürokratische Hürden und unzureichende Transportnetze gebremst werden. Das ist ein gelungenes Beispiel für die Zusammenarbeit von Europäischer Union und NATO. Da sollten wir weitermachen.

  Neena Gill (S&D). – Madam President, NATO is facing unprecedented challenges. It is forced to expand its operations for the first time since the Cold War, to extend its actions into domains of counter-terrorism and cybersecurity. Transatlantic unity is vital to NATO, but it’s crumbling, as we evidenced at G7 earlier this week. That’s why next month’s NATO summit has to sustain the momentum in the creation of the European Defence Union. We cannot waste over EUR 25 billion a year on inefficiencies.

My questions to the High Representative are: whilst Russia is clearly a top priority, what about the world’s second largest defence spender, increasingly aggressive in the South and East China Sea and spectacularly growing its military footprint in Africa – China? I do recognise that there have been talks at staff level with China that have resumed, but the EU and NATO need to engage more actively in this part of the world to avoid being behind the curve.

Secondly, regardless of Brexit, UK and EU security will remain closely entwined. What is the architecture of our future cooperation? How do we ensure unity remains the watchword for our security?

  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Позволете ми в началото да изразя своите съболезнования на семействата на двама български военни пилоти, които загинаха в катастрофа с военен хеликоптер вчера вечерта при изпълнение на тренировъчна задача.

Тази катастрофа показва колко се нуждаят нашите държави от по-тясно сътрудничество помежду си, от закупуване на нова бойна техника, която да бъде съвместима и която да изпълнява натовските стандарти. Няма съмнение, всеки един отбранителен съюз, включително НАТО, трябва да има ясна командна линия.

Да, необходимо е партньорство между Европейския съюз и НАТО. Да, необходимо е европейските държави да осъществяват засилено взаимодействие в закупуването на оръжие, във влагането на 2% от брутния си вътрешен продукт в това да обновят своите оръжейни системи и да бъдат адекватни, и да бъдат готови да отговорят на всякаква външна заплаха. Това е още по-важно за държави като България и Румъния, които се намират в черноморския регион, регион с изключително голяма несигурност.

  Андрей Ковачев (PPE). – И аз искам да се присъединя към съболезнованията за близките на загиналите пилоти в България. Това показва още веднъж колко е важно да имаме надеждна техника, която да бъде съвместима в НАТО.

Първо искам да заявя, че НАТО е нашият отбранителен съюз. От нас зависи колко ефективен и силен е НАТО и затова Европейският съюз трябва да бъде ефективният и силен стълб на НАТО в Европа. Европейската отбранителна структура не може да бъде дублираща, а трябва да бъде допълваща към НАТО. Предизвикателствата пред нас са огромни, както тероризъм, екстремизъм, така и кибертероризъм, несигурно съседство, както от юг, така и от изток.

Общата ни цел е гарантирането на сигурността за европейските граждани. Никой няма право да разделя света на сфери, особено без да пита тези, които ще бъдат разделени. Такова нещо сме виждали след Втората световна война и това никога повече не трябва да бъде допускано. След Брексит 80% от разходите за отбрана на НАТО ще бъда от страни извън Европейския съюз и три от четирите батальона на изток ще бъдат ръководени от държави, които не са членки на Европейския съюз.

В тази връзка наистина ние тук, в Европейския съюз, трябва да инвестираме много повече в отбранителната област, както в закупуване, така и в разходите за иновативни дейности и технологии.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señora presidenta, la Unión Europea y la OTAN son las dos grandes organizaciones internacionales que han asegurado la paz y la prosperidad en Europa después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Obviamente, la cooperación entre ambas, cada vez más dinámica desde 2014, es muy beneficiosa, y quiero felicitar al señor Paşcu por su informe.

Por otra parte, en la etapa actual de la construcción europea, uno de los grandes objetivos es el fortalecimiento de la Unión en el ámbito de la seguridad y defensa. Este desarrollo será también muy útil para la cooperación con la OTAN y reforzará el llamado pilar europeo.

Además, la Unión Europea y la OTAN se complementan. Esto es conveniente, por ejemplo, para las amenazas nuevas, como las híbridas, los atentados a la ciberseguridad, las crisis humanitarias y también frente al propio terrorismo. Estos desafíos y otros no se pueden afrontar solamente con medios militares. La variedad de recursos de la Unión Europea puede ser muy adecuada para afrontarlos.

Seamos pragmáticos. Estamos en un mundo complejo, interconectado, crecientemente multipolar. Por eso resulta necesario reforzar nuestras alianzas, aunque resulte difícil, y fortalecer también las relaciones entre las dos grandes organizaciones. Espero que a ello contribuya a la declaración conjunta que está prevista para el mes próximo con ocasión de la próxima cumbre de la OTAN en Bruselas.

  Elmar Brok (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Hohe Vertreterin, meine Damen und Herren! Frau Präsidentin, herzlichen Dank für die Möglichkeit, noch einmal sprechen zu können. Ich möchte sagen: Die NATO ist trotz aller Krisen, die wir haben, eine höchst erfolgreiche Verteidigungsgemeinschaft, die wir für die kollektive Sicherheit Europas brauchen. Wir sollten das nicht vermischen mit Ärger über einen bestimmten amerikanischen Präsidenten. Aber wir sollten auch deutlich machen, dass wir ein Pfeiler, ein gleichberechtigter Pfeiler der NATO sein wollen und nicht Vasallen. Aber das bedeutet, dass wir stärker sein müssen. Und deswegen sollten wir uns nicht allein auf diese 2 %-Diskussion einlassen, sondern wir sollten deutlich machen, dass die Europäische Union die Synergieeffekte schaffen muss, die in der Verteidigungsunion vom Dezember angedeutet worden sind. Wenn wir diese Synergieeffekte schaffen, werden wir mit erträglich viel Geld militärisch stärker und können eine große Rolle spielen. Deswegen ist die Frage der Europäisierung unserer Verteidigungspolitik auch ein entscheidender Ansatzpunkt, die NATO glaubwürdig zu stärken.

  Jaromír Štětina (PPE). – Paní předsedající, svět kolem nás se mění. Pro zajištění bezpečnosti našich občanů musí Unie podstatně více spolupracovat s NATO. Navíc EU musí zvýšit svoji vlastní odpovědnost za svou bezpečnost a obranu. Stálá spolupráce v oblasti obrany PESCO by měla být jen prvním krokem.

NATO a EU v současnosti pojí více než 40 opatření, ve kterých rozvíjí vzájemnou spolupráci. Musíme se např. společně naučit, jak čelit hybridním hrozbám nebo spolupracovat v oblasti kybernetické obrany. Další možnost spolupráce vidím v diverzifikaci zbrojního průmyslu. Zjednodušeně řečeno, EU zbraně vyrábí, NATO zbraně v případě nutnosti obrany používá.

V současnosti je státním aktérem, který nejvíce ohrožuje mezinárodní mírové soužití, Ruská federace. Proto vítám posílení předsunuté přítomnosti NATO na východní hranici aliance a rozmístění čtyř nadnárodních bojových skupin v Estonsku, Lotyšsku, Litvě a Polsku. Jsem rád, že zpráva říká, že je třeba posílit společný strategický přístup obou organizací vůči Rusku.

  Lars Adaktusson (PPE). – Madam President, with developing instability around the world, EU cooperation on defence and security is a necessity. With this in mind, we should welcome increased European cohesion on research and development. Projects like Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund are really significant. At the same time, some EU representatives consider this the first step towards a common EU army. Therefore, let me stress that the EU is not a military alliance. The relevant and credible military structure of Europe is NATO. Since 1949 NATO has been an effective, powerful instrument for security, stability and peace. So let’s spend our time and our resources efficiently. Let’s not contribute to a parallel military structure in Europe.

  Željana Zovko (PPE). – Gospođo predsjedavajuća, visoka povjerenice, moje čestitke izvjestitelju na odlično pripremljenom izvješću koje ima za cilj naglasiti važnost strateškog partnerstva između Europske unije i NATO-a u suzbijanju zajedničkih prijetnji i izazova na globalnoj sceni. Hibridne prijetnje, terorizam, migracijski pritisci koje danas vidimo putem balkanske rute, kibernetički napadi kao i dezinformacijske neprijateljske kampanje, samo su neki od izazova s kojima se suočavaju države članice Europske unije i NATO-a, pa sukladno tome oni zahtijevaju zajednički odgovor s ciljem njihova uklanjanja.

Isto tako, suradnja Europske unije s NATO-om predstavlja integralni stup europske stabilnosti i sigurnosti, a kao dio globalne strategije Europske unije, ta suradnja pridonosi postizanju mira i stabilnosti na globalnoj razini. Međutim, moram naglasiti važnost donošenja daljih koraka ka stvaranju vlastitih snaga Europske unije s ciljem održavanja mira, stabilnosti i sigurnosti na vlastitim granicama i u susjedstvu.

Ako uzmemo u obzir činjenicu da neke države članice NATO-a imaju ozbiljnih problema u poštivanju temeljnih ljudskih prava, onda mislim da bi slijedeći logičan korak bio stvaranje europskih kapaciteta koji bi bili garant miru i stabilnosti u regiji, a posebice na zapadnom Balkanu, uz poštivanje temeljnih ljudskih prava koja se danas tako lako gaze u nekim našim partnerskim državama.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). – Madam President, in the past years, the EU and NATO have achieved a remarkable degree of cooperation. With many shared members, common interests and challenges, we were working in close cooperation and have stepped up in such areas as hybrid and cyber threats, military operations and exercises, and the fight against terrorism.

Especially we, the EU, have lately shown extensive efforts on defence, with concrete steps: for example, additional investments and better capabilities to share the burden of peace, security and defence equally. The launch of PESCO shows further the potential of how we can strengthen the European contribution within NATO.

EU-NATO cooperation should be further enhanced against hybrid and conventional threats in the East and South of the EU, with NATO remaining the keystone of collective defence in Europe. I welcome these steps brought forward and included in this report. They are timely and aimed in the right direction.

  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Współczuję koledze Paşcu. Prowadzi jednocześnie dwa ważne sprawozdania w sprawie PESCO i w sprawie dzisiejszej debaty i muszę powiedzieć, że te 360 poprawek zgłoszonych do tego sprawozdania, wiele, wiele poprawek zgłoszonych do tego drugiego dokumentu i pojawiające się elementy sabotażu na skrajnych częściach tej sali to nie jest sabotaż pracy naszego kolegi, ale warunków bezpieczeństwa Europy w trudnych okolicznościach, w trudnych kontekstach finansowych, gospodarczych, ekonomicznych, politycznych. Z jednej strony chcę podziękować za te wypracowane kompromisy, nie jeżeli chodzi o optymalne rozwiązania bezpieczeństwa, ale o kompromisy przede wszystkim do pewnej politycznej zgody, aby na tej sali uznać stosunki Unii Europejskiej i NATO za ważne, wymagające pracy, wymagające modyfikacji, wymagające wzmocnienia. Jestem oczywiście zwolennikiem tego sprawozdania i dziękuję za wykonaną pracę.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já velmi vítám tuto zprávu a jsem připraven pro ni hlasovat.

Jsem velmi rád, že zde hovoříme o spolupráci NATO a EU a že zde se nepokoušíme hovořit o alternativních vojenských strukturách, které bychom vytvářeli a které by vůči NATO měly být konkurencí. Pro nás v ČR je toto mimořádně důležité. My, EU, nejsme vojenský obranný spolek. Máme jaksi jiná pravidla a je třeba tedy, aby ta obranná složka, obranná část byla primárně na úrovni NATO.

To nebrání tomu, abychom my, členské státy EU, více spolupracovaly v oblasti vojenského výzkumu, v oblasti vojenských zakázek, aby zde případně byla další forma spolupráce, ale neměla by zde vznikat evropská armáda. To je myslím velmi důležité a ta zpráva jde správným směrem. NATO je partnerem, nikoliv konkurentem a já ji velmi podporuji.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjedavajuća, NATO je ključni okvir za europsku sigurnost. Iako postoji potreba za reformom kako bismo učinkovitije odgovarali na nove sigurnosne izazove, važno je da i Europska unija i Sjedinjene Države ostanu posvećeni ovom savezu.

Legitimna je želja članica Unije za ostvarivanjem europske posebnosti u odgovorima na sigurnosne izazove. Prirodno je da svatko želi svoju sudbinu držati prvenstveno u svojim rukama i krojiti sustav za obranu prema svojim potrebama.

Suradnja s globalnim partnerima u okviru NATO-a nije prepreka tome. Dapače, poziv američkog predsjednika Trumpa na veće izdvajanje europskih država za obranu otvara priliku za jačanje europskog političkog utjecaja i naših obrambenih kapaciteta unutar saveza.

  Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE). – Madam President, NATO is, and will remain for years to come, the most vital security partnership framework. In this phase of multifaceted security challenges coming both from east and south, the EU and NATO have been deepening their cooperation during recent years.

I’m very glad to see that many European Union countries, including my home country – Lithuania – have met and even exceeded their obligation to allocate 2% of GDP for national defence this year. I believe we have to ensure even better coordination of our capabilities and resources, as well as coordination at the strategic level.

However, despite these achievements of deeper integration, we still lack today tools at our disposal to guarantee the most efficient, collective defence of European citizens and NATO allies.

EU budget spending on the Union’s and its partners’ security must be regarded positively and will lead to an increase in public confidence.

  Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου (GUE/NGL). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κατά την άποψή μου, εάν η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ήθελε πραγματικά να γίνει ένας πόλος ειρήνης, ανεξάρτητος και διαφορετικός από άλλους στρατιωτικούς άξονες, θα έπρεπε να αναπτύξει την τάση της προς την κατεύθυνση της ειρήνης και των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων, μακριά από στρατιωτικούς εξοπλισμούς.

Ταυτόχρονα υποτίθεται ότι υπάρχει αλληλεγγύη μεταξύ των κρατών που είναι ενταγμένα στο ΝΑΤΟ. Θα ήθελα όμως να σας διαβάσω μια δήλωση του κυρίου Μπαχτσελί, βασικού υποστηρικτή του Ερντογάν, απέναντι στην Ελλάδα. Στη δήλωση αναφέρονται τα εξής: «Η Ελλάδα παίζει παιχνίδια με τα νησιά του Αιγαίου και πρέπει να γνωρίζει τα όριά της. Να μην ξεχνάνε τι πέρασαν οι παππούδες τους στον βυθό του Αιγαίου. Η θέληση του λαού της Τουρκίας, δόξα σοι ο Θεός, εξακολουθεί να υφίσταται και το Αιγαίο θα αποτελέσει τάφο των Ελλήνων». Δεν πρέπει να καταγγελθεί αυτή τοξική δήλωση;

Επιπρόσθετα ερωτηθείς γιατί παρουσιάζει την Κύπρο σε προεκλογικό σποτ ως τουρκική είπε: «Ναι. Είναι και θα παραμείνει τουρκική». Του λέω λοιπόν ότι η Κύπρος είναι πατρίδα Ελληνοκυπρίων και Τουρκοκυπρίων και, αν σήμερα η Κύπρος είναι αιχμάλωτη της Τουρκίας, κάποια στιγμή η πολιτική της Τουρκίας θα καταστεί αιχμάλωτη της Κύπρου.

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli collegi, gentile Alto rappresentante, un'importante relazione sulla cooperazione e complementarietà tra UE e NATO dovrebbe esprimersi con realismo e pragmatismo piuttosto che con approcci ideologici o dogmatici.

Una NATO che guarda quasi esclusivamente ad Est, dimenticandosi del lato balcanico dove ha operato per vent'anni, è una NATO senz'altro miope. Una relazione che accoglie con favore la continua tendenza ad aumentare la spesa per la difesa tra i membri della NATO non va in una direzione positiva, anzi. Un'eccessiva insistenza sul fianco orientale piuttosto che sul Mediterraneo è errata, dal momento che proprio in quest'area si nascondono diversi attori potenzialmente destabilizzanti per molti Stati membri, senza dimenticare le palesi criticità della Turchia che in alcun modo sono state sottolineate.

Avere un approccio bilanciato nei rapporti UE-NATO significa chiedere che in futuro i rapporti bilaterali siano a favore di alcuni obiettivi comuni e non necessariamente rivolti contro terzi. Serve un approccio bilanciato, serve un approccio che sappia valorizzare le necessità di sicurezza dei vari Stati membri delle due organizzazioni, un approccio che però sembra mancare in questa relazione e noi ci asterremo.

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το ΝΑΤΟ και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση είναι οι δύο μεγάλοι Οργανισμοί της Δύσεως που έχουν το κοινό χαρακτηριστικό ότι πολλά κράτη μέλη του ενός είναι και μέλη του άλλου. Αυτό το δεδομένο συνηγορεί υπέρ της μεταξύ τους συνεργασίας, στους τομείς όμως εκείνους που δικαιολογείται μια τέτοια συνεργασία. Το ΝΑΤΟ είναι στρατιωτική συμμαχία και έχει ως αποστολή τη διεξαγωγή της συλλογικής άμυνας και έτσι πρέπει να παραμείνει. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση έχει να αντιμετωπίσει απειλές από την τρομοκρατία, επιθέσεις στον κυβερνοχώρο και υβριδικές επιθέσεις και η αντιμετώπιση αυτών των προβλημάτων αποτελεί κυρίως αρμοδιότητα των κρατών μελών, σε συνεργασία με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση γενικότερα.

Αυτή τη στιγμή κανένα κράτος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως δεν αντιμετωπίζει κίνδυνο απειλής και επιθέσεως από τρίτη δύναμη, με εξαίρεση την Ελλάδα και την Κύπρο που απειλούνται ευθέως από την Τουρκία. Συνεπώς δεν υπάρχει λόγος να μεταβληθεί η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση σε στρατιωτική συμμαχία. Εάν συμβεί κάτι τέτοιο, οι σχέσεις με το ΝΑΤΟ θα είναι αλληλοσυγκρουόμενες, αλλά θα πρέπει να εξηγηθεί εναντίον τίνος θα στρέφεται αυτή η συμμαχία.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, συζητούμε για τις σχέσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και του ΝΑΤΟ, αλλά δεν άκουσα τίποτε ούτε από τον εισηγητή ούτε από την κυρία Mogherini σε σχέση με την επιθετικότητα της Τουρκίας απέναντι στην Ελλάδα. Διότι είναι γνωστό ότι η Τουρκία απειλεί την πατρίδα μου συνεχώς. Έχουμε δηλώσεις Τούρκων αξιωματούχων ότι θα διεξάγουν και πόλεμο κατά της Ελλάδος, έχουμε συνεχείς παραβιάσεις του ελληνικού εναέριου χώρου και των χωρικών μας υδάτων από την Τουρκία και κυρίως έχουμε δύο Έλληνες στρατιωτικούς, οι οποίοι συμπλήρωσαν πάνω από 100 ημέρες φυλακισμένοι παράνομα στις τουρκικές φυλακές υψίστης ασφαλείας. Και η Τουρκία συνεχίζει αυτή την πολιτική. Πρέπει να απαιτήσουμε την άμεση απελευθέρωση των δύο Ελλήνων στρατιωτικών και να καταγγελθεί η Τουρκία για αυτό. Σας καλώ, κυρία Mogherini, να κάνετε εδώ μια δήλωση επί του θέματος αυτού για άμεση απελευθέρωση των δύο στρατιωτικών.

  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης (GUE/NGL). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε θα ήθελα, όπως έκανε και η Αντιπρόεδρος της Επιτροπής Federica Mogherini, να ανακοινώσω στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο μια σημαντική συμφωνία που έγινε πριν από λίγες ώρες. Ο Πρωθυπουργός της Ελλάδας Αλέξης Τσίπρας και ο Πρωθυπουργός της Πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβικής Δημοκρατίας της Μακεδονίας Zoran Zaev με ρεαλισμό, διορατικότητα και τόλμη έκαναν μια συμφωνία που ανοίγει θετικούς δρόμους και για την Ελλάδα και για τη FΥRΟΜ και για τα Βαλκάνια και για ολόκληρη την Ευρώπη. Και είμαι βέβαιος ότι και το Συμβούλιο και η Επιτροπή και το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, στη συντριπτική του πλειοψηφία από όλες τις πολιτικές ομάδες, θα χαιρετίσει και θα στηρίξει τη συμφωνία, όχι μόνο με θετικές δηλώσεις, όπως έκανε ήδη η Αντιπρόεδρος Federica Mogherini, αλλά και με έμπρακτη στήριξη των δύο λαών. Έγινε σήμερα ένα σημαντικό θετικό βήμα.

  Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). – De NAVO en de Europese Unie blijven de twee hoekstenen van de Europese veiligheidsarchitectuur. Wij steunen voluit de nauwere samenwerking tussen de EU en de NAVO. Door onze defensie-inspanningen internationaal beter op elkaar af te stemmen ontwikkelen we een meer efficiënte en slagvaardige defensie. De huidige hybride bedreigingen, cyberaanvallen, terrorisme enzovoort, zijn maar enkele van de uitdagingen die ons daartoe nopen.

Mijn delegatie is ook gewonnen voor de uitbouw van een Europese defensiegemeenschap. Specifieke samenwerkingsverbanden tussen bepaalde EU-lidstaten zijn daartoe een eerste stap. Zo werken België en Nederland nauw samen bij gezamenlijke aankopen en het onderhoud van fregatten en mijnenjagers of bij luchtbewakingsopdrachten. De permanente gestructureerde samenwerking op het vlak van defensie (PESCO) moet daarin een centrale rol spelen. Maar de verdere invulling laten we graag over aan de lidstaten, die op dat vlak exclusief bevoegd zijn.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Federica Mogherini, Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, first of all, let me thank Mr Paşcu for an excellent report and all of you for the good support that you have provided to the work we have done in these years. Many of you reminded us of the crucial steps we’ve made, both in strengthening the European Union defence but also in cooperation with NATO.

I would like to use these few minutes just to reassure you on the fact that, first, we will continue having a pragmatic, realistic approach as Mr Danjean mentioned. I believe we are beyond the ideological debate and we are focusing on the practical things we can and we have an interest in doing, and that the work will continue on the European way to defence and security, which is a particular one and which sometimes implies a military component but is never exclusively military.

We will continue doing this, obviously, in the Council. Just in a couple of weeks from now, we will have another session of the Foreign and Defence Ministers together in the Council to prepare the European Council at the end of June, with further progress, especially on the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) but also on the EU-NATO partnership. That, I believe, will contribute also to the good preparation of the NATO summit for what concerns NATO issues. Then there might be other issues coming up on the agenda that do not relate to defence and security, strictly speaking.

I would also like to say that I believe that work will continue also in strong cooperation with other European institutions. I am thinking of the European Commission that is supporting this work for the first time ever, with especially the European Defence Fund and the proposed Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), but also with the European Defence Agency, which is doing a fantastic job in supporting technically all this work.

So, thank you for the support. Thank you also for the indications. Last point: some of you mentioned the future relations with the UK. Let me say very clearly this will have nothing to do with relations between the European Union and NATO; clearly so. It has something to do with our work in the Permanent Structured Cooperation. Member States will come to that point later this year to define ways in which third countries might be invited to join some PESCO projects, but is not for now and it is not for NATO. I believe that, including our strong EU-NATO cooperation, we will find ways to have constructive work between the European Union and the UK after Brexit happens, because we share the same security objectives, and I believe that in this field we will manage to build strong cooperation in the future.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu, Rapporteur. – Madam President, I would like to start by thanking the High Representative, Ms Mogherini, because she gave us a lot of extra information in the beginning, so we now know more about the collaboration, but also because she responded to some of the problems raised by my colleagues here and makes my task easier from this point of view.

Our debate has been another example of the classical paradigm in which a bunch of blindfolded men are touching an elephant, and everyone is touching one part of that elephant and is describing a totally different animal. So although we have the same report in front of us, you saw how differently we present it.

To Mr Van Orden and I would say that, instead of still using the old the image of a half-empty and a half-full glass, I would say that we have a glass which we fill from the two faucets at the same time. This probably better indicates the reality. I did not know that I have to bring something new in this report, because I did not know that this should be considered a PhD thesis. Some colleagues would like to see the novelty and when they don’t, they don’t like it.

I am not a good Samaritan. My life experience up until now indicated to me that practically turning the cheek for another slap is not always the right thing to do, and that’s why I support the EU’s efforts in the field of security and defence. I would also say thank you to Mr Preda for his congratulations, but I’m also regretting the fact that he could not isolate himself from bringing internal politics into our discussion today.

I would like to conclude by saying thanks to all the rapporteurs. Indeed we worked very, very well. There were many amendments. We found the compromises, which are reflected in the report. At the same time I’m thanking everybody who has said good words about the report but also the critics, because it indicates that they took the effort to read the report.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday, 13 June 2018.

Written statements (Rule 162)

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), písomne. – Základom spolupráce medzi EÚ a NATO musia aj do budúcnosti zostať hodnoty demokracie, mieru, ľudských práv, slobôd a rešpektovanie suverenity a nezávislosti členských štátov oboch subjektov. Spolupráca a koordinácia dotknutých zložiek, posilnenie taktickej a operačnej spolupráce v oblasti bezpečnosti, obrany a ochrany pred vojenskými útokmi spolu s budovaním náležitej vojenskej techniky a nových technológií však musia zohľadňovať aj nové formy hrozieb a útokov spojené najmä s digitalizáciou a kybernetickými útokmi. Treba dbať na to, aby táto podpora nebola zneužívaná napr. na podporu terorizmu alebo na činnosti a útoky vyvolávajúce konflikty. Okrem toho netreba zabúdať, že samotné navyšovanie výdavkov na zbrojenie a koordinácia výdavkov nestačí. Je potrebné vyzvať našich partnerov, predovšetkým USA, aby viac zdrojov smerovali na rozvojovú pomoc. Bez financovania vzdelávania nedokážeme riešiť chudobu a nezamestnanosť napríklad v Afrike, ani obrovský demografický boom na tomto kontinente, ktorý v spojení s chudobou je rizikom nielen pre Afriku, ale pre nás všetkých.

  Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE), na piśmie. – Współpraca Unii Europejskiej z innymi międzynarodowymi organizacjami jest istotnym aspektem jej polityki zagranicznej. Na marginesie szczytu NATO, który odbył się w Warszawie w 2016 r., została podpisana wspólna deklaracja UE–NATO. W sprawozdaniu przeprowadzona została szczegółowa analiza podobieństw i różnic obu organizacji, a także zakres ich adaptacji do nowego i wciąż wymagającego ewaluacji środowiska geopolitycznego. Sprawozdanie podkreśla szeroką gamę narzędzi (twardych i miękkich), które w celu wzmocnienia wzajemnej komplementarności obu organizacji mogą zostać wdrożone w razie, gdy zajdzie taka potrzeba.

Skuteczniejsza i wydajniejsza współpraca między UE a NATO nie jest celem samym w sobie, ale oznacza osiąganie wspólnych priorytetów związanych z bezpieczeństwem, a także wzmacnianie wzajemnych wartości, takich jak liberalna demokracja, multilateralizm, ochrona praw człowieka i praworządność. Kooperacja pomiędzy obiema organizacjami musi być komplementarna i respektować wzajemne specyfikę, rolę i autonomię podejmowania decyzji.

W sprawozdaniu podsumowano także postęp osiągnięty w dwustronnej współpracy między UE a NATO od 2016 r. Należy podkreślić jednak, że jest to proces ciągły, który wciąż trwa. Główne obszary współpracy obejmują: bezpieczeństwo i ochronę cyberprzestrzeni, poszerzanie możliwości rozwoju dla przemysłu i badań, wysiłki na rzecz budowania solidniejszego wzajemnego partnerstwa, analizę i przeciwdziałanie zagrożeniom hybrydowym, kwestie bezpieczeństwa morskiego, walkę z terroryzmem, mobilność wojskową, pomoc dla obszarów dotkniętych konfliktami, utrzymanie pokoju i bezpieczeństwa państw członkowskich i stowarzyszonych.