REPORT on the annual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the main aspects and basic choices of CFSP, including the financial implications for the general budget of the European Communities - 2003

21.3.2005 - (8412/2004 - 2004/2172(INI))

Committee on Foreign Affairs
Rapporteur: Elmar Brok

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

On 30 April 2004, the Council submitted to the Parliament its annual report entitled on the main aspects and basic choices of CFSP, including the financial implications for the general budget of the European Communities (point H, paragraph 40, of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999) corresponding to 2003. As clearly stated by the Council the scope of the 2003 report is limited to the description of CFSP activities. In fact the report merely accounts for some 10 pages whereas the remaining 118 pages include seven annexes containing in a descriptive manner the list of the global and horizontal items, the priorities in the different geographical areas, the situation as far as the multilateral fora is concerned, some perspectives for future action and a certain number of legal acts regarding financial questions and legal acts. While recognising that such a structural presentation corresponds to a former established demand of this Parliament regarding the structure of the annual report, the real fact remains that the a posteriori presentation by the Council does not in any way correspond to the right of the Parliament to be adequately consulted rather than just informed on the main aspects and the basic choices of the CFSP. That is why the first recommendation of the rapporteur will be rejected such a posteriori approach and to ask the Council to revoke such practice and replace it by an a priori approach by which the European Parliament is consulted at the beginning of each year on the main aspects and basic choices foreseen by the Council for that year both on the global and horizontal items, as well as on the priorities planned for the different geographical areas. Further asks the Council to subsequently report on whether and, if so, how the European Parliament's contribution has been taken into account.

As stated by the Council in its report, the key political developments in 2003 were basically the adoption of the new European Security Strategy by the European Council of 12 December 2003, alongside the adoption of the EU Strategy against the proliferation of WMDs, the development of the military capabilities needed for the European Union crisis management including the declaration on the Union's operational capabilities under the Helsinki Deadline Goal (despite recognition of various shortfalls), the creation of the European Defence Agency and the launching of two civilian ESDP operations and the first two military operations (Operation Concordia and Operation Artemis). Moreover, two comprehensive frameworks for permanent relations between the European Union and the United Nations on the one side and the European Union and NATO on the other side were also agreed. However, the most significant development which took place before the presentation of the report in April 2004 was undoubtedly the preparatory work (European Convention and subsequent IGC) which would ultimately lead to the signature of the Treaty establishing the European Constitution on 29 October 2004.

Some foreseeable implications of the signing of the Constitutional Treaty on the main aspects and basic choices of CFSP for 2005

For this reason, and accordingly to the previous paragraph, rather than re-exam the past 2003 events referred to in the Council's report, the rapporteur prefers to include in the Parliament's reaction insistence on an a priori approach from now on. Thereby presenting the main aspects and basic choices of CFSP for 2005 in the aftermath of the signing of the Constitutional Treaty.

As already outlined by our Committee, the Constitutional Treaty includes a certain number of improvements in the field of CFSP, first of all by including new definitions of the principles and objectives of the Union's external action, especially those concerning compliance by the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy with international law and observance of the principles of the United Nations Charter. Secondly by grouping all the relevant articles of the current treaties covering the various aspects of the Union's external action within the new single Title V of Part III. Thirdly, by attributing a legal personality to the Union. Above all, by creating the new post of Union Minister for Foreign Affairs accountable both to the European Parliament and the European Council. Finally, by the creation of the European External Action Service.

It should now be equally noted that the Constitutional Treaty also includes a number of major improvements in the field of ESDP, including an updating of the Petersburg tasks, multinational forces set up by Member States available to the ESDP, compromise to progressively improving military capabilities and setting up a European Armaments, Research and Military Capabilities Agency, European decisions as a new instrument for the implementation of the CFSP/ESDP, execution of ESDP tasks, within the Union framework, by a group of Member States, permanent structured cooperation between Member States which fulfil higher military capabilities criteria within the Union framework for the most demanding tasks, mutual solidarity clause establishing an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means within the power of each Member State towards any other Member State that is a victim of armed aggression on its territory (without prejudice to the security and defence policy of certain Member States or the role played by NATO for certain other Member States) and a solidarity clause for mutual assistance to prevent terrorist threats or terrorist attacks or in the event of a disaster.

From the rapporteur's point of view therefore most, if not, all, of the above-mentioned improvements both in the CFSP and ESDP field should, as from now, be already taking effect, at least in political terms, without waiting for the formal ratification of the Constitutional Treaty. This should apply specifically to the main aspects and basic choices for CFSP for 2005.

Reference to some global and horizontal items for 2005

In addition to the institutional developments referred to in the previous paragraph, from the rapporteur's viewpoint, special attention should be paid to the main threats to European Security referred to in the European Security Strategy. That means terrorism, proliferation of WMDs, regional conflict, state failure and organised crime. Given the fact that this issue is already the subject of an important AFET report, it would be preferable that these questions be left for in-depth treatment in the framework of that report. It should be underlined however that the ideas of 'preventive engagement' and 'effective multilateralism' should be considered as two of the most significant contributions for European security. In particular, and contrary to the view of those who believe that this bid for multilateralism stems from weakness as opposed to the unilateral tendency of stronger powers, the rapporteur's viewpoint is that multilateral aspirations rather denote a higher level of political organisation, learned from European experience of centuries of ongoing conflict, war and human disaster. The quest for a strong international society, well-functioning international institutions and a rule-based international order sought in this strategy is a clear objective which perfectly fits such a higher level of political organisation. However, one capital issue which has not been addressed by the European Security Strategy due probably to its controversial nature is when will resorting to force be necessary and legitimate. We cannot but agree with the European Security Strategy that the fundamental framework for international relations must be the United Nations Charter and that the United Nations Security Council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It remains unclear however under which circumstances it would be legitimate to make use of force as a last resort for EU actions.

However, some reference will be given to concerted European action against terrorism. Europe is now a target as well as a base for terrorism and European countries have already been victims of attack. The Parliament shares the view that the fight against terrorism blurs the traditional distinction between foreign and domestic policy and is ready to make proposals on the full integration of the fight against terrorism into the EU's external relations policy. The EU produces 25% of Global GDP, provides more than 50% of world-wide ODA and 40 % of UN budget. It is one of the most important global economic partners and has signed agreements of various types with more than 122 countries. The Union is well placed therefore to have a decisive say in the fight against terrorism by making coherent use of the immense strength and influence derived from its economic, commercial and aid links. This report includes therefore some initial proposals as well as the recommendation to set up a joint working group integrated from AFET and LIBE Committees to undertake ongoing work on this issue.

European Parliament views on the geographical areas for 2005

An overview of the distribution by geographical areas of CFSP actions from 1993 to 2003 shows the priority which in real terms has been given to the different areas. It should be noted that the area which has been a first priority was the Western Balkans and Eastern Europe with some 120 different CFSP acts followed by sub-Saharan Africa with some 60 acts, Asia with some 25 acts, the Mediterranean and the Middle East with less than 20 acts as well as the Confederation of Independent States (CIS) with some 15 acts, the region with the least acts being Latin America and the Caribbean (with less than half a dozen acts). Should we examine the list in the light of the different horizontal issues, the question of armaments, disarmament and non-proliferation would come in first place with some 40 acts, followed by the then rising ESDP with less than 20 acts, but well before conflict prevention and the fight against terrorism which both account for less than half a dozen acts. It is clear that since then and in the perspective of 2005, this horizontal analysis has dramatically changed with terrorism and ESDP in particular being now the object of the most acts. It is of the utmost importance, therefore, as far as the geographical question is concerned, to correct the clear imbalance attached to the different geographical areas so that the CFSP becomes a real global policy for the Union and not just a simple amount of certain priorities areas. Parliament has recommended in a large number of resolutions devoted to the different areas the way in which the policy of the Union towards each area should be carried out and there is no need to repeat such an exhaustive list. Suffice to insist therefore as the current report does on the necessity of a more fair balance among regions so that the Union can eventually take advantage of its special relations with some areas to supports its views when dealing with other emerging areas and countries where there is not such established special relationship.

European Parliament views on the financing of CFSP for 2005

The European Parliament has repeatedly expressed the view that the responsibility of the Union to honour its commitments on a number of crucial issues such as the global fight against poverty, the promotion of human rights and democracy and the links with partner countries around the world require that sufficient financial means are provided. In addition, it is becoming more and more evident that the artificial distinction between military and civil expenditure is no longer tenable, especially having in mind the joint civil and military philosophy which inspires the Union conflict prevention and crisis management policy as well as the latest developments in the field of the ESDP, in particular when it comes to EU autonomous operations planned and conducted exclusively by European means.

This is in fact a key element of the European Parliament's viewpoint, in clear and particular disagreement with current formulae of setting aside funds for ESDP operations which present at least two main failures: firstly, the well known fact that such funds escape the democratic control of both national parliaments and the European Parliament; secondly, and probably worse, the evidence that these kind of funds are normally financed via different mechanisms which as a final result put the main financial strain on those Member States providing the largest number of troops with the subsequent effect that those Member States become more reluctant to engage significantly in future operations. The time has come to end this vicious circle and the present report includes therefore some proposals in this regard.

PROCEDURE

Title

Annual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the main aspects and basic choices of CFSP, including the financial implications for the general budget of the European Communities - 2003

Procedure number

2004/2172(INI)

Basis in Rules of Procedure

Rule 112.1

Committee responsible   Date authorisation announced in plenary

AFET 28.10.2004

Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)   Date announced in plenary

Not delivering opinion(s)   Date of decision

Enhanced cooperation   Date announced in plenary

Motion(s) for resolution(s) included in report

Rapporteur(s)   Date appointed

Elmar Brok 13.9.2004

Previous rapporteur(s)

Discussed in committee

18.1.2005

15.3.2005

Date adopted

16.3.2005

Result of final vote

for: against: abstentions:

47 13 0

Members present for the final vote

Bastiaan Belder, Monika Beňová, André Brie, Elmar Brok, Philip Claeys, Simon Coveney, Véronique De Keyser, Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos, Anna Elzbieta Fotyga, Maciej Marian Giertych, Ana Maria Gomes, Alfred Gomolka, Anna Ibrisagic, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, Ioannis Kasoulides, Bogdan Klich, Helmut Kuhne, Joost Lagendijk, Vytautas Landsbergis, Armin Laschet, Willy Meyer Pleite, Francisco José Millán Mon, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, Raimon Obiols i Germà, Vural Öger, Justas Vincas Paleckis, Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski, Tobias Pflüger, Bernd Posselt, Michel Rocard, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Libor Rouček, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, György Schöpflin, Gitte Seeberg, Ursula Stenzel, István Szent-Iványi, Charles Tannock, Inese Vaidere, Geoffrey Van Orden, Ari Vatanen, Paavo Väyrynen, Karl von Wogau, Jan Marinus Wiersma, Luis Yañez-Barnuevo García, Josef Zieleniec

Substitutes present for the final vote

Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Alexandra Dobolyi, Árpád Duka-Zólyomi, Michl Ebner, Milan Horáček, Jaromír Kohlíček, Jaime Mayor Oreja, Erik Meijer, Pasqualina Napoletano, Janusz Onyszkiewicz, Doris Pack, Józef Pinior, Aloyzas Sakalas, Inger Segelström

Substitutes under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote

Date tabled – A6

21.3.2005

A6-0062/2005

Comments

...