REPORT on the implementation of the European Security Strategy and ESDP
15.5.2008 - (2008/2003(INI))
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Rapporteur: Helmut Kuhne
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
on the implementation of the European Security Strategy and ESDP
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the European Security Strategy (ESS) adopted by the European Council on 12 December 2003,
– having regard to the Treaty of Lisbon, signed in Lisbon on 13 December 2007,
– having regard to the Conclusions of the European Council on 14 December 2007,
– having regard to the Reports on the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) by the EU Council Presidency of 18 June and 11 December 2007,
– having regard to the joint meeting of EU Defence and Development Ministers on 19-20 November 2007,
– having regard to the Conclusions on Security and Development and the Conclusions on ESDP of the EU Council meeting on 19-20 November 2007,
– having regard to the Madrid Report issued by the Human Security Study Group on 8 November 2007,
– having regard to its resolution of 14 April 2005 on the ESS[1],
– having regard to its resolution of 16 November 2006 on the implementation of the ESS in the context of the ESDP[2],
– having regard to the EU-Africa joint strategy adopted in Lisbon on 9 December 2007 and the appointment of General Pierre-Michel Joana as Special Advisor for African peacekeeping capabilities as from 1 March 2008,
– having regard to its resolution of 27 September 2007 on the ESDP operation in Chad and the Central African Republic (CAR)[3],
– having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0186/2008),
General considerations
A. whereas in 2007 and early 2008 the Council has taken important operational decisions in the field of ESDP and on the implementation of the ESS, including:
a. the launching of an ESDP police mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL Afghanistan);
b. the decision to launch an ESDP military operation in Chad/CAR;
c. the reconfiguration and reduction of EUFOR Althea troops in Bosnia;
d. the preparation for a civilian ESDP mission in Kosovo;
e. the preparation for a security sector reform mission in Guinea-Bissau,
B. whereas in 2007 and early 2008 further developments in the field of ESDP capabilities and the implementation of the ESS have been achieved, including:
a. the adoption of a new Civilian Headline Goal 2010;
b. the establishment of a Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) within the Council secretariat;
c. the reaching of operational capability by the EU Operations Centre;
d. the reaching of full operational capability to undertake rapidly and simultaneously two ESDP military operations using the Battle Groups,
C. whereas 2007 and early 2008 have also witnessed continued shortfalls in the fields of ESDP and the implementation of the ESS, including:
a. the lack of an EU Civil Peace Corps, requested by the European Parliament since 2000, and of civil protection and humanitarian relief capabilities, referred to in a number of Commission and Council documents since the 2004 tsunami catastrophe;
b. delivery delays and rising costs concerning the much needed long-range airlift capacity in the form of the Airbus A400M military transport aircraft;
c. an imbalance in the contributions from Member States as regards the staffing of ESDP missions, thus limiting EU crisis management capabilities;
d. problems in recruiting sufficient police officers for the mission in Afghanistan due to security concerns and a lack of individual career prospects on their return;
e. delays in the launching of the ESDP Mission in Chad/CAR due to unsuccessful force generation conferences, in particular as regards the lack of helicopters;
f. the failure as yet to sign the technical agreements drafted between the EU and NATO with a view to ensuring coordination in Kosovo between KFOR and the possible future ESDP mission, and in Afghanistan between EUPOL and ISAF, due to opposition by Turkey,
D. whereas the Treaty of Lisbon will introduce major innovations in the field of ESDP,
E. whereas continuous efforts need to be made to avoid duplication and to increase interoperability within the EU, and whereas the most cost-effective way of doing this is to share and pool defence assets in order to maximise Europe's defence capability,
1. Reaffirms the conclusions of Parliament's previous resolutions concerning the ESS and ESDP, and thus sees no need to repeat any of them in this resolution;
The Lisbon Treaty
2. Welcomes the signature of the Lisbon Treaty, which will introduce major innovations in the field of ESDP, in particular by strengthening the office of High Representative, establishing a European External Action Service and introducing an article on mutual defence assistance, a solidarity clause, permanent structured cooperation in the field of defence and an extension of the "Petersberg tasks"; hopes that the ratification process will be completed successfully and in a timely fashion in all Member States; congratulates those Member States that have already ratified the Lisbon Treaty; points out that Parliament will fulfil its responsibilities under the current Treaty and will closely monitor the implementation of any new innovations;
3. Asks the Member States concerned to investigate the possibilities and possible impact of bringing under permanent structured cooperation, as envisaged in the Lisbon Treaty, existing multinational forces such as Eurocorps, Eurofor, Euromarfor, the European Gendarmerie Force, the Spanish-Italian amphibious force, the European Air Group, the European Air Coordination cell in Eindhoven, the Athens Multinational Sealift Coordination Centre and all relevant forces and structures for ESDP operations;
Assessing and complementing the ESS
4. Invites the High Representative to assess in a White Paper the progress made, and any shortcomings, in the implementation of the ESS since 2003, including lessons learned from ESDP operations; the link between external and internal aspects of security (fight against terrorism); the protection of borders and critical infrastructure including protection against cyber-attacks; the security of energy supply as a challenge for civilian, economic, technical and diplomatic efforts; unresolved regional disputes in the EU's neighbourhood, i.e. Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh; humanitarian and security challenges on the African continent; the consequences of climate change and natural disasters for civil protection and human security as well as proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; invites him further to evaluate whether those threats, risks and challenges are directly relevant to a broad understanding of European security or whether they merely possess a security dimension;
5. Invites the High Representative to include in that White Paper proposals for improving and complementing the ESS, such as the definition of common European security interests and criteria for the launching of ESDP missions; invites him further to define new targets for civilian and military capabilities (including structures for command and control, and transportation for all European actors in crisis management for both ESDP and disaster relief purposes) and to reflect on the implications of the Lisbon Treaty with regard to ESDP and proposals for a new EU-NATO partnership;
6. Also urges the High Representative to tackle the issue of the ‘caveats’ in the White Paper; although this is a matter for the national sovereignty of each Member State, considers that they should be harmonised to protect the safety of the various Member States’ forces deployed on the ground;
7. Is of the opinion that such a White Paper should be the basis for a wider political debate conducted in public, mainly because the ESS defines the Union's fundamental values and objectives and illustrates what it stands for; underlines that a future assessment of the ESS has to be carried out with greater democratic accountability and therefore made in close consultation with all EU institutions including the European Parliament and national parliaments;
Civilian crisis management and civil protection
8. Welcomes the new Civilian Headline Goal 2010 launched on 1 January 2008, which takes account of lessons learned from previous civilian ESDP missions;
9. Welcomes the establishment within the Council secretariat of the CPCC, which will serve as the civilian equivalent of an EU Operational Headquarters and will provide assistance and support in the planning and implementation of civilian ESPD missions, thus ensuring a civilian chain of command; calls for such a balance to be reflected in the role and administrative structure of the Civil-Military Cell;
10. Calls on the Commission to examine the possibilities for a more appropriate organisational setting, such as a specialised unit within the European External Action Service, so as to ensure a more coherent and comprehensive approach to civilian crisis management, bridging institutional divides and thus allowing for better coordination of internal EU instruments as well as cooperation between the EU and external organisations and non-governmental organisations;
11. Requests the Council, against the background of unsatisfactory planning and deployment of EUPOL Afghanistan, to carry out an immediate review of the decision-making, financing and deployment aspects of civilian ESDP missions and to put forward concrete proposals designed to avoid any repetition of this situation in the future;
12. Acknowledges Member States’ efforts to make personnel available for civilian ESDP missions in the areas of civil protection, monitoring, EUSR support and mission support; notes, however, continued shortfalls in the areas of police, the rule of law and civilian administration; stresses the importance of providing competent and highly skilled staff for ESDP missions;
13. Calls on the Commission and the Council to increase their cooperation in the area of ESDP civilian missions and EU border missions where the division of competences between the two institutions is blurred; is of the view that the European External Action Service envisaged in the Lisbon Treaty should facilitate this task; believes, however, that conflicts in respect of competences could still occur even under the Lisbon Treaty, thus necessitating decisions by the High Representative;
14. Urges the Member States to regularly review the availability of personnel for civilian ESDP missions and to bring their competent national authorities together in order to set up national action plans with regard to possible contributions, as is the case in Finland, including the creation of procedures to secure the career prospects of participants in such missions and appropriate consideration of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) concerning the representation of women in mechanisms for the prevention, management and resolution of conflict; further urges that specific training be devised with regard to the protection of children, in line with the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict;
15. Regards it as important to strengthen the conflict resolution civil capacity; therefore calls on the Commission and the Council to establish an EU Civil Peace Corps for crisis management and conflict prevention as requested by the European Parliament;
16. Notes the lack of use of the valuable Civilian Response Team (CRT) instrument and regrets that the CRT experts have been deployed almost exclusively on an individual basis rather than, as envisaged, in the team format for which they were trained;
17. Welcomes the revision of the Council's Decision of 8 November 2007 and the Commission Communication of 5 March 2008 aimed at establishing a Community Civil Protection Mechanism and the new Civil Protection Financial Instrument, which is designed to improve the mobilisation and coordination of civil protection assistance in the event of major emergencies inside or outside the EU;
Human security and the security dimension of development policy
18. Reminds the Council of its responsibility under international law to ensure that all civilian and military personnel are fully trained in accordance with international humanitarian standards and that adequate guidelines are reviewed and developed to ensure respect for local populations, cultures and gender;
19. Recalls the importance of human rights and gender mainstreaming, and calls for the nomination of more female candidates for CFSP/ESDP senior management positions, including for positions as EU Special Representatives as well as for ESDP operations in general;
20. Calls on the Member States to continue working towards the goal of an international ban on cluster munitions, to further develop ways to detect and destroy unexploded ordnance, to provide financial and technical assistance to the countries concerned and to continue to work towards the conclusion of the ongoing negotiations on strengthening the global ban on landmines, a global ban on uranium weapons and global control of conventional arms transfers; in this light, finds it embarrassing that, despite the fact that the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports will celebrate its tenth anniversary in 2008 it is not yet legally binding and uncontrolled arms exports from EU Member States seem to be continuing without much hindrance, even to governments in countries where the EU is launching or considering an ESDP operation; further notes the danger that weapons may be transferred through the EU via those Member States with less strict export controls to third countries and/or by an irresponsibly flexible use of the International Import Certificate; stresses, therefore, that it is important for all Member States to apply the highest standards in terms of arms export controls, so as to prevent EU weapons from fuelling conflicts;
21. Reaffirms its concern about the ongoing proliferation of small arms and light weapons (SALW), which cause unnecessary human suffering, exacerbate armed conflict and instability, facilitate terrorism, undermine sustainable development, good governance and the rule of law, and contribute to grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law; is of the opinion that the appropriate integration of SALW reduction and control strategies must become an integral part of international programmes aimed at conflict prevention and post-conflict peace building; calls on the Member States, the Council and the Commission to get governments to agree on binding provisions to control SALW (including brokering and transfers) through international, regional and national legislation;
22. Emphasises the need for the European Union to take over the initiative of strengthening the international arms control regime, thereby contributing to the reinforcement given to effective multilateralism within the international order; notes further the congruence of efforts to integrate aspects of non-proliferation within the EU Neighbourhood Policy with that of the overall strategic objective of building security within the Union’s neighbourhood;
23. Is of the opinion that disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration should be an integral part of ESDP operations, and calls on the Council whenever appropriate to include in the mandate of ESDP operations the destruction or safe storage of decommissioned arms and to avoid their illegal transfer as a lesson learnt from the NATO SFOR/EUFOR Althea experience in Bosnia;
24. Welcomes the first ever EU joint meeting of Defence and Development Ministers on 19 November 2007, which was an important step in reviewing the problems faced by the developing world, thus enhancing coherence and consistency in the EU’s short-term actions on security and long-term actions on development vis-à-vis the countries concerned; also welcomes the Council Conclusions on Security and Development dated 19 November 2007, particularly the emphasis placed therein on conflict analysis and conflict sensitivity, and strongly encourages the Commission and the Council to implement those conclusions;
25. Calls on the Council to examine options for the setting-up of an integrated civil-military "Human Security Response Force" to carry out human security operations, composed of about 15 000 personnel, of whom at least one third would be civilian specialists (such as police officers, human rights monitors, development and humanitarian specialists and administrators); considers that the Force, building on already existing ESDP structures, could be drawn from dedicated troops and civilian capabilities already made available by Member States (such as the capabilities made available under the military and civilian Headline Goals, the Battle Groups and the Civilian Response Teams) and could also include a "Humanitarian Security Volunteer Service" that would combine a Civil Peace Corps as proposed by Parliament and the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps envisaged in the Lisbon Treaty;
26. Is of the opinion that the 40th anniversary of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on 1 July 2008 must be seen as an opportunity for the EU to promote the need for nuclear disarmament in its Strategy for Weapons of Mass Destruction, with a view to the Preparatory Committees for the forthcoming NPT review conference; reiterates its view that this includes the need for the "recognised" nuclear weapons powers to put forward disarmament initiatives, to make Europe a nuclear-weapon-free zone, and to conclude a global convention banning nuclear weapons;
The EU's diplomatic role regarding Iran's nuclear programme
27. Stresses the leading diplomatic role played by the EU with regard to the Iranian nuclear programme, which not only involves the High Representative speaking on behalf of the EU and the EU3 (France, Germany and the U.K.), but also the U.S., Russia and China bringing together different interests and approaches in pursuit of a common goal; reaffirms that the proliferation risks attaching to the Iranian nuclear programme remain a source of serious concern to the EU and the international community; highlights in this regard its resolution of 31 January 2008 on Iran[4] and supports the UN Security Council's Resolution 1803 (2008) of 3 March 2008;
28. In the light of the diplomatic success in the negotiations with North Korea, calls on the U.S. to join the EU-3 in direct negotiations with Iran, since the U.S. is in a position to offer additional incentives such as security guarantees;
Transport, communication and intelligence
29. Deplores the delay in delivery and rising costs of the A400M aircraft for long-range transport and the lack of available and operational helicopters for short-range transport;
30. Endorses the work of the European Defence Agency (EDA) on strategic transport, and calls on the Member Sates to do more to make up for the shortfalls; welcomes interim measures such as SALIS (Strategic Air Lift Interim Solutions) and encourages the development of an operational concept for pooling of capabilities;
31. Welcomes the British proposal that information about the availability of helicopters for EU missions be shared, with a view to better coordinating fleets;
32. Welcomes the Franco-German heavy transport helicopter project, but is also aware of the complex reasons for the shortage of available and operational helicopters, mostly related to the high costs of flight hours and maintenance; invites the Council to explore possibilities designed to bridge the gap for the near future, either by a joint action or by supporting Member States in the refurbishing and upgrading of Russian-built helicopters as well as establishing a helicopter training centre; reiterates that, generally, one of the principal obstacles to modernising and transforming European forces so as to enable them to cope effectively with the security challenges of the 21st century is not the level of defence expenditure but rather the lack of cooperation, the absence of a clear division of labour and specialisation, and the duplication and fragmentation in arms production and procurement, which increase the risk of non-interoperability between armies; however, urges the Member States to envisage an increase in defence expenditure for the concrete purpose of being able to make efficient use of acquired helicopters;
33. Calls on the Council and the Commission to keep Parliament informed of current initiatives to address capability gaps in key areas such as helicopters and medical support units, and to put forward joint financial proposals for guaranteed access to such capabilities for both humanitarian and ESDP purposes;
34. Welcomes the EDA project on software-defined radio, which has the potential to improve communication between civil and military authorities in the event of an emergency;
35. Calls on the Member States to increase their exchange of intelligence through the EU Joint Situation Centre; believes that special measures need to be taken into account concerning new threats not covered in the ESS, such as the security of energy supply and the security consequences of climate change;
Military capabilities
36. Is of the opinion that the Battle Groups are an instrument which is helping the Member States to transform their armed forces, to strengthen interoperability and to establish a common strategic culture on defence; notes that the Battle Groups have so far not been used, due inter alia to narrowly defined terms of deployment, and deplores the fact that the present Battle Group concept has therefore not solved the force generation problem for concrete operations; is of the view that, in order to avoid a wasteful overlapping of military structure-building, urgent clarification is needed;
37. Is aware of the fact that force generation is primarily a question of political will and joint assessment; calls on the Council to examine options to improve force generation, for example through the further development of the Battle Group concept, leading to a larger permanent joint EU Task Force, or through a more extensive catalogue of available capabilities within the framework of the Headline Goal, so as to be in a position to swiftly generate a force adequate to a mission’s circumstances;
38. Calls for the creation within the EU Operations Centre of a permanent planning and operational capability to conduct ESDP military operations;
39. Proposes to place Eurocorps as a standing force under EU command and invites all Member States to contribute to it;
40. Calls for continued improvement in interoperability between EU national armed forces; deplores the existing heterogeneity in training and equipment among various armed forces of the Member States and calls for a military 'Erasmus' programme that would include common training for military personnel that could be deployed in operations;
41. Recalls that the success of ESDP operations depends on military personnel being adequately equipped and provided for; calls on the Council to develop common standards in medical care and operational welfare; is of the opinion that such common standards and a regular exchange of best practices, coordinated for example by the EU Military Staff, would support the individual Member States in their capability development work and thus help them to provide capable forces over time;
42. Regrets that the establishment of the EDA came too late to prevent the emergence of three different national programmes on the unmanned air vehicle instead of a single European one, thus enabling some companies to engage in more than one project and thereby to pocket taxpayers’ money several times over, leaving the EDA with no option but to work on the insertion of unmanned aerial vehicles into the regulated airspace; expresses its preference for a single European satellite project, whether in the field of intelligence or communication;
43. Welcomes the Commission's defence package, in particular its proposals for a directive in the field of defence procurement and for a directive in the field of intra-Community defence equipment transfers; is of the opinion that these are necessary steps in order to provide national and EU military personnel with the best possible interoperable equipment;
44. Welcomes the conclusions of the EDA steering board of 14 May 2007, especially those calling for a reduction of dependence on non-European sources for key defence technologies and underlining the need for the EU to enjoy autonomy and operational sovereignty;
Financing the ESDP – missions
45. Points out that the growing role of the EU, in particular through ESDP civilian missions, is creating a demand for an ever-increasing CFSP budget, and hence demands a greater and more timely flow of information from the Council, so as to enable Parliament to prepare its decisions on the annual budget;
46. Invites the Council and the Commission to develop proposals enabling flexible procurement procedures appropriate for ESDP civilian missions – which very often require rapid decisions – to be examined and agreed upon by Parliament, the Council and the Commission; welcomes the fact that the Commission has recently opened its training on procurement and financial procedures to staff from ESDP missions;
47. Regrets the unnecessary complexity of the arrangements laid down in Article 28 of the EU Treaty with regard to the rapid financing of ESDP activities outside the EU budget; insists that the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management of 17 May 2006, and the structured dialogue between the Council and Parliament envisaged therein, be fully implemented; in the longer term, calls for the Athena mechanism to be transferred to the CFSP budget while retaining its flexibility;
48. Calls for a mid-term review under the Financial Perspective 2007-2013 regarding the coherence and complementarities of the use of EU external instruments (the CFSP budget, the Instrument for Stability, the Development Cooperation Instrument and the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument) across the range of EU crisis-management (military and civilian) actions;
The ESDP and parliamentary scrutiny
49. Points out that the European Parliament, through its contacts with the national parliaments (Conference of Foreign Affairs Committee Chairs, Conference of Defence Committee Chairs, NATO Parliamentary Assembly) and through the future implementation of the Protocol to the Lisbon Treaty on the role of national parliaments, is the legitimate body at European level in which parliamentary scrutiny, monitoring and control of ESDP should take place;
50. In the light of the new potential in CFSP and ESDP afforded by the Treaty of Lisbon, wishes to foster closer collaboration between the relevant committees of the European and national parliaments and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly;
51. Invites the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to establish, together with the European Parliament, a mechanism of confidential information on emerging crises or international security events comparable to existing mechanisms in several national parliaments of EU Member States which would – according to the degree of confidentiality – range from closed committee meetings to meetings between the PSC and appointed members of the relevant committees and subcommittees;
52. Stresses that Parliament should continue to adopt a recommendation or resolution prior to the launch of any ESDP operation (including the launch of a Battle Group), in close consultation with national parliaments, in order to have a European Parliament position available before an ESDP operation; is of the opinion that, in order to ensure flexibility when Parliament is not in plenary session or rapid deployment is deemed necessary, its Rules should be adapted with a view to authorising its responsible committee to adopt that recommendation or resolution on its behalf;
53. Asks the Council to include a reference to the recommendation or resolution adopted by Parliament in the Joint Action authorising an ESDP operation, thus demonstrating that the Council is seeking additional democratic legitimacy for its external actions through parliamentary decisions;
EU-NATO relations
54. Regrets Turkey’s objections to the implementation of the EU-NATO strategic cooperation based on and going beyond the Berlin Plus Agreement; is concerned about their negative consequences for the protection of the EU personnel deployed, notably EUPOL in Afghanistan and the EULEX Mission in Kosovo, and calls for the lifting of those objections by Turkey at the earliest possible date;
55. Regards the European Union and NATO as mutually reinforcing, and urges close cooperation between them;
°
° °
56. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the parliaments of the Member States, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the Secretaries-General of the United Nations, NATO, the African Union, the OSCE, the OECD and the Council of Europe.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
On 14 December 2007, the European Council invited the EU High Representative on CFSP, in full association with the European Commission and in close cooperation with the EU member states, to examine the implementation of the European Security Strategy (ESS) with a view to proposing elements on how to improve the implementation and, as appropriate, elements to complement it, for adoption by the European Council in December 2008.
Your Rapporteur concurs on the importance of this task and puts forward the idea of launching an EU White Paper which would assess the progress made and the shortcomings concerning the implementation of the ESS, including proposals to improve and complement the ESS, such as taking stock of the lessons learnt from ESDP operations, making the link between external and internal aspects of security (fight against terrorism), the protection of borders and critical infrastructure, the security of energy supply, the consequences of climate change and natural disasters for civil protection and the concept of Human Security. The White Paper should include as well the definition of common European security interests and criteria for the launching of ESDP missions, the set up of new targets for civilian and military capabilities, including control and command structures, the implications of the reform treaty on ESDP and proposals for a new EU-NATO partnership.
The Lisbon treaty
The Lisbon Treaty signed on 13 December 2007 brings major innovations in the field of ESDP, in particular through strengthening the High Representative, introducing an article on mutual defence assistance and a solidarity clause and the possibility to establish permanent structured cooperation. Without interfering with the national ratification processes, the European Parliament has the endeavour to closely monitor the implementation of these innovations and should jointly debate them with EU national parliaments.
European multinational forces that already exist, such as Eurocorps, Eurofor, Euromarfor, the European Gendarmerie Force, the Spanish-Italian amphibious force, the European Air Group, the European Air Coordination cell in Eindhoven, the Athens Multinational Sealift Coordination Centre and all the forces and structures that can be used for ESDP operations could be brought under the EU umbrella through the permanent structured cooperation envisaged in the Lisbon Treaty.
Civilian crisis management and civil protection
On 1 January 2008, the new Civilian Headline Goal (CHG 2010) was launched in view to take account of lessons learned from the launched ESDP civilian missions and as a tool to improve on qualitative terms the national staff and means put at the disposal of ESDP civilian missions.
The establishment of a Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) within the Council secretariat will serve as the civilian equivalent to an EU Operations Headquarters and will be essential to provide assistance and support in the planning and implementation of civilian ESPD missions.
Indeed, there has been a shift in the EU from an integrated civ-mil approach to crisis management that would result in joint civ-mil operations towards a compatible but separate line of decision-making and accountability for ESDP military operations and civilian missions. Your Rapporteur agrees with this new approach as it avoids fears that EU civilian missions would be under the military chain of command and maintains a balanced civil-military approach to EU Crisis Management.
Following the example set by Finland, member states should bring their competent national authorities together in order to set up national action plans with regard to possible contributions to civilian ESDP missions, including the creation of procedures to secure career perspectives of participants in such missions.
On civil protection, the revision of Council Decision establishing a Community civil protection mechanism and the new civil protection Financial Instrument, will improve mobilisation and coordination of civil protection assistance in the event of major emergencies inside or outside the EU. Nevertheless, your Rapporteur calls for an increased attention and dedication from the Commission and Council to this area in the edges of civil protection, humanitarian relief, security policy and environment.
Human Security and the security dimension of development policy
On 19 November 2007, the first ever EU joint meeting of Defence and Development Ministers took place, which was an important step in tackling the problems faced by the developing world, and enhancing coherence and consistency in the EU short-term actions on security and EU long-term actions on development towards the countries concerned.
The Human Security concept is a core principle at the heart of the ESS, which - when combined with the principle of "responsibility to protect" - provides the EU with a strong political guideline to decide whether an intervention should take place, and with a robust political mandate to intervene effectively in crises.
The Council is responsible under international law to ensure all civilian and military personnel are fully trained in accordance with international humanitarian standards and that adequate guidelines are reviewed and developed to ensure respect for local populations, cultures and gender. More female candidates should be nominated for all levels of CFSP/ESDP positions, including ESDP missions.
Disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration should be an integral part of ESDP operations. Whenever possible, the destruction or safe storage of arms decommissioned should be included in the mandate of ESDP operations in view of avoiding their illegal transfer as a lesson learnt from NATO SFOR/EUFOR Althea in Bosnia.
Transport, communication and intelligence
The delay in delivery of the A400M for long range humanitarian and military transport and the lack of available and operational helicopters for short range transport is a serious hindrance to the success of ESDP operations and humanitarian actions. Initiatives such as SALIS (Strategic Air Lift Interim Solutions) and the work of the European Defence Agency (EDA) on strategic transport shall be encouraged.
The Franco-German heavy transport helicopter project, if extended to other interested European nations, could be valuable for the EU as well. Your Rapporteur is aware of the complex reasons for the shortage of available and operational helicopters, mostly related to the high costs of flight hours and maintenance. Consequently, your Rapporteur is of the view that member states could envisage an increase in defence expenditure for the purpose of being able to make efficient use of acquired helicopters.
On communications, the EDA project on software defined radio, will potentially improve communication between civil as well as military authorities in the case of an emergency.
On intelligence, Member States could increase their exchange of intelligence through the EU joint Situation Centre in particular on new threats not covered in the ESS, such as the security of energy supply and the security consequences of climate change.
Military capabilities
The Battle Groups are an instrument which is helping the member states to transform their armed forces, to strengthen interoperability and to start establishing a common strategic culture on defence. However, the Battle Groups have been never used for an ESDP operation. At the same time, ESDP operations are preceded by complex force generation process which often creates delays in the deployment of force. Therefore, the Council should examine possibilities to avoid inefficient and conflictive force generation processes.
The existing heterogeneity in training, equipment among various armed forces of the EU Member States is an additional handicap and efforts should be devoted for an increasing harmonisation at EU level to the benefit of ESDP. A military 'Erasmus' programme that would include common training for military personnel which could be deployed in ESDP operations would be a positive step forward.
On military structures, a permanent EU planning and operational capability should be created within the EU Operation Centre to conduct ESDP military operations in order to improve effectiveness.
Financing ESDP - Missions
ESDP operations may demand quick decisions by the EU. For ESDP civilian missions, financed under EU CFSP budget, the Council and the Commission could make to the European Parliament proposals for flexible procurement procedures appropriate for ESDP missions, which could combine flexibility and parliamentary scrutiny. In addition, the Council could initiate a dialogue with the European Parliament on the possibility to transfer the Athena mechanism to the CFSP budget while retaining the flexibility provided by Athena.
ESDP and parliamentary scrutiny
Scrutiny of the European Parliament over ESDP operations is important and should be in addition, and not in detriment, to the scrutiny exercised by EU national parliaments.
The European Parliament shall continue to adopt a recommendation or resolution before the launching of an ESDP operation (including the launch of a Battle Group) in close consultation with national parliaments, in view of providing democratic legitimacy to the operation.
In order to be flexible and when it is not in session, its Rules could be adapted in order to authorise its responsible committee to adopt on its behalf that recommendation or resolution. The Council could then make a reference to the recommendation or resolution adopted by the European Parliament in the Joint Action authorising an ESDP operation, thus demonstrating that the Council is seeking additional democratic legitimacy for its external actions.
MINORITY OPINION
pursuant to Rule 48(3) of the Rules of Procedure
Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left
The report propagates numerous developments in the field of European military politics that mean a further militarisation of EU.
It is based on false assumptions, for example it:
- emphasises a very close EU-NATO cooperation in all fields, one example is ISAF/EUPOL in Afghanistan;
- refers positively to the Lisbon Treaty, which introduces numerous further developments in the military field, whilst ignoring that the Lisbon Treaty has not been ratified;
- points in a report on ESDP to Iran, which is not the right context; presumes that it develops atomic weapons and welcomes an intensification of counterproductive UN-sanctions;
- encourages several military projects and refers positively to the European armaments Agency (EDA);
- describes the EU-battle groups in a way, encouraging their use;
- wants to establish the Eurocorps as permanent troops under EU-command;
- points positively to the "defence package" of the Commission, which will mean increasing armament and arms export ;
- propagates de facto an own EU military budget;
- subsumes police missions under civil missions;
- propagates the "human security concept", which is more and more used to legitimise military interventions.
Jaromír Kohlíček, Erik Meijer, Willy Meyer Pleite, Athanasios Pafilis, Tobias Pflüger
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE
|
Date adopted |
6.5.2008 |
|
|
|
||
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
48 4 0 |
||||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Christopher Beazley, Angelika Beer, Colm Burke, Véronique De Keyser, Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos, Bronisław Geremek, Maciej Marian Giertych, Ana Maria Gomes, Klaus Hänsch, Richard Howitt, Anna Ibrisagic, Jelko Kacin, Ioannis Kasoulides, Maria Eleni Koppa, Helmut Kuhne, Vytautas Landsbergis, Johannes Lebech, Willy Meyer Pleite, Francisco José Millán Mon, Raimon Obiols i Germà, Vural Öger, Justas Vincas Paleckis, Ioan Mircea Paşcu, Alojz Peterle, Tobias Pflüger, João de Deus Pinheiro, Samuli Pohjamo, Libor Rouček, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, György Schöpflin, István Szent-Iványi, Konrad Szymański, Inese Vaidere, Ari Vatanen, Kristian Vigenin, Jan Marinus Wiersma, Luis Yañez-Barnuevo García, Zbigniew Zaleski, Josef Zieleniec |
|||||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Alexandra Dobolyi, Árpád Duka-Zólyomi, Carlo Fatuzzo, Marie Anne Isler Béguin, Erik Meijer, Rihards Pīks, Wojciech Roszkowski, Inger Segelström, Adrian Severin, Jean Spautz, Karl von Wogau |
|||||
- [1] OJ C 33 E, 9.2.2006, p. 580.
- [2] OJ C 314 E, 21.12.2006, p. 334.
- [3] Texts adopted, P6_TA(2007)0419.
- [4] Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0031.