Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 13 April 2005 - Strasbourg

20. Foreign policy / Security

  President. The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:

- A6-0062/2005 by Mr Brok, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 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 [8412/2004 – 2004/2172(INI)],

- A6-0072/2005 by Mr Kuhne, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the implementation of the European Security Strategy [2004/2167(INI)].

  Brok (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the aim of our annual report is to set out a proposal regarding the ways in which cooperation between the Council and Parliament, or between the Commission and Parliament, could be altered and improved. This is particularly important in view of the fact that we are currently in the first year of a new parliamentary term.

We are well aware that the main responsibility for the foreign, security and defence policy rests with the executive. Parliament’s role in this respect is largely confined to the exercising of control, although its budgetary powers allow it to exert a certain amount of influence. Particularly as far as the latter are concerned, it would be useful if the Commission and the Council could avoid presenting Parliament with faits accomplis in the future, and involve it at an earlier stage of proceedings. It should not be the case that Parliament is only informed after the event; instead, it should be involved in the planning and development of strategies, in order to ensure that consideration is given to its wishes. This would then make matters simpler for all parties concerned, as we would already have identified an approach that would allow us to make good progress.

This House believes that it is important for the same priorities to apply in foreign policy as have done to date. There is an old saying that war is the failure of politics, and it is true that war should always be a last resort. This is why we believe that it is essential to strengthen the preventive aspect of our foreign policy, and to ensure that our prevention and crisis management capabilities are greatly extended. This is the same line as that followed by the European Union as a whole, as prevention is clearly identified as an objective in the draft Constitution. We should make our position on this matter quite clear, not only to gain public support, but also to develop strategic positions.

This leads us to very practical considerations regarding the question of where our priorities should lie. The answer must be the Middle East conflict, as a result of which we are cooperating more closely with the Americans, the Russians and the UN within the Quartet. The aim of this cooperation is not only to provide support to the Palestinians and Israelis and to bring about peace, but also to gain better control over cover-up activities for terrorism in the broadest sense, which is in fact our second main priority.

The solidarity provisions in the Constitutional Treaty relating to mutual assistance are also of major importance in this respect, and we must ask ourselves how the European Union can use a combination of new instruments to respond to external and internal security threats, and how we can make further progress in this field. We must ensure that priority is given to matters relating to the non-proliferation of atomic weapons, for example in Iran and North Korea, if we are to succeed in gaining any credibility at all where this issue is concerned.

We must also ensure, however, that greater space is given to this instrument in the neighbourhood policy of the European Union, which is after all a security concept in itself, as it creates links between countries in order to ensure that they never wage war against each other again. At the same time, we must ensure that we move on from the traditional model of neighbourhood policy that we have pursued in recent years.

The European Union’s capacity to act also depends on its borders, and so we must ensure that neighbouring countries, which we wish to have on our side and are important to us, and which we wish to help in developing and stabilising democracy, are offered an alternative to full membership, whether this be called a European Economic Area Plus or given another name.

We must find a multilateral starting point of this kind in order to ensure that we can provide countries such as Ukraine with an answer now, and not in 15 or 20 years’ time, when they ask us how they can improve. We hope that the Council and the Commission will be more imaginative in this respect, and not rely on tried and tested political methods, as they frequently have in the past. The Commissioner is in fact adopting a new approach by seeking to find such a starting point.

There are two final issues I should like to touch upon. I am delighted that the vast majority of Members are in favour of upholding the arms embargo against China until the country improves its human rights record and stops adopting laws that legitimise war. We must reach an agreement on this issue before transatlantic relations are put at risk.

(Applause)

Multilateral approaches, as adopted in our relations with the United States, should be complemented by a partnership that follows clearly defined objectives and is aimed at setting up a transatlantic marketplace by 2015. I should like to make it quite clear to those Members who tabled amendments that I support the proposals by various groups to call for the European Union to be given a seat in the Security Council, and I say so speaking particularly as a German.

(Applause)

  Kuhne (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, I should like to start by considering two different scenarios. When we discussed this issue in committee, Mr Ilves asked what would happen if another terrorist attack on the same scale as the Madrid bombings were to take place in an EU Member State, and if, in the aftermath of such an attack, it were to emerge that the security services in another Member State had been aware that preparations were underway for the attack, but had been unable to inform the authorities in the country in question. In all likelihood, this would trigger a real crisis of legitimacy for the European Union.

I will now move on to my second example. The European Union has taken command of the NATO-led troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is the first time that the European Union has had an opportunity to prove that it is capable of conducting security policy in this area, and to gain practical experience in such matters. I know from talking to my constituents that many people believe that the EU would be delivered from evil, as it were, if it kept its involvement in other people’s business to a minimum.

This kind of attitude can turn out to be fatally flawed, and the European Union does in fact need a security strategy. It is for this reason that the vast majority of committee members welcomed the document which was drafted by Javier Solana during his term in office, and which the committee has continued to work on. We also welcomed the support shown by the governments of the Member States for the document.

There are, however, a number of issues that must be given particular consideration, as they reveal the unique nature of the European Security Strategy. The first of these is the need to understand security problems and their many and diverse possible causes, which include human rights violations, poverty and disease, in a broad context, and not to reduce the Strategy to its military aspects. The Security Strategy is primarily a political concept, and as such transcends military considerations.

The second issue is the need for a commitment to international law and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

The third issue relates to the need to strengthen international order by means of effective multilateral structures and to safeguard citizens’ fundamental rights within the EU, whilst taking all measures necessary to combat terrorist threats.

In view of these factors, we should not be ashamed to say that the European Union does indeed wish to acquire military decision-making structures and capabilities. The greatest benefit of the Security Strategy is that it enables us to tailor the combination of civilian and military crisis management capabilities to each individual situation.

Opposition to this approach came from two deeply opposed camps within the committee; on the one hand, some members find it impossible to envisage the European Union as anything other than a subsidiary of NATO, whereas on the other hand some members condemn militarisation in the shape of new organisational forms and capacities. Both of these camps represent polar opposites, yet what they have in common is that they use their arguments to oppose and campaign against the European Constitution.

In spite of this opposition, however, a broad consensus was reached within the committee in favour of the Security Strategy, which involves the establishment of various instruments such as a situation centre, a civilian/military planning cell and the setting up of battle groups or the Defence Agency. These are not alternatives to NATO, and indeed most EU Member States are also NATO Member States. Instead, they provide the European Union with new options it has not had in the past. This is the only way it can become an equal partner, for example of countries on the other side of the Atlantic like the United States.

A great deal remains to be done, however; for example, we still have no coherent plan of how civilian crisis management forces should be organised. There is a lack of permanent air transport capacity and of permanently available deployable troops, as well as of adequate communications and reconnaissance capacities. The aim of this report is to ensure that the European Parliament – also in view of what Mr Brok said in his introductory speech – can exert an influence on the future development and practical implementation of the European Security Strategy within the framework of dialogue with the Council.

(Applause)

  Schmit, President-in-Office of the Council. (FR) Mr President, first of all I should like to thank, and also congratulate, Parliament, and especially the two rapporteurs, for the work they have accomplished, and for the ambitious but also realistic approach which they have developed in these two reports.

Somewhere you quote two figures, the 60% and 70% of support which, according to public opinion, is given to the development of a common foreign and security policy. This is probably one of the areas which receive the highest level of support, according to public opinion. You are the representatives of the European citizens, and that means that this policy can only be developed together with the citizens, which also means together with your support, in the dialogue, as the rapporteur Mr Kuhne has just said.

The European Council adopted the European Security Strategy on 11 December 2003. The fifteen months which have passed since then obviously do not allow us to draw up a complete and exhaustive report on its implementation, but they do at least enable us to evaluate the impact which the strategy has already had, and to discuss the path we need to follow in its future application.

The year 2004 was a crucial year for the political development of the Union, whose ambitions and responsibilities in the world have been increasing. The citizens of the Union, like their international partners, have also been demanding a stronger presence for Europe on the international scene. The Union has responded to this appeal by trying to pursue a more active, more consistent and more effective foreign policy based, in particular, on the principles of the United Nations Charter.

The European Union is a player on the world stage, and it is based on political, economic and other achievements. The fact that the ‘European model’ that we talk about so much in the context of the European Constitution is highly thought of throughout the world is something that gives us cause for satisfaction, but it should also be, for us Europeans, a strong motive force encouraging us to do more.

The European Security Strategy to some extent sets out the broad guidelines for the day-to-day running of our common foreign and security policy. It defines the challenges and threats which we have to face, as well as the tools that we need to use to tackle the problems.

Reference has been made to the war on terrorism. This is certainly one of the crucial problems. We have put in place a certain number of mechanisms, and more intensive cooperation between Europol and Eurojust. Therefore the war on terrorism is a good illustration of the fact that the concept of security does not consist solely of a foreign-policy dimension, a military dimension, but that it goes much further than that. There is also a development dimension, and a dimension of defending and promoting human rights. There is also, of course, a dimension which is concerned with solving major conflicts, in particular the conflict in the Middle East, not forgetting a presence in the regions which we spoke about earlier, in particular Bosnia and Herzegovina and other parts of the Western Balkans.

Taking into account the principal threats identified in this strategy, in December 2003 the European Council adopted an EU Strategy against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and this constitutes a supplementary measure. This is also an area in which Europe has shown that it knows how to act, particularly in relation to Iran. I believe that in doing this we have achieved an important milestone in the quest to find political solutions to questions which are extremely sensitive and at the same time extremely dangerous to international peace.

The European Security Strategy is based on the idea that most problems can only be solved in a multilateral context. On this point too we agree with the two rapporteurs. The European Union clearly needs to pursue its objectives in this multilateral context, in partnership with all those involved, in particular with the United Nations. Consequently, it is in the European Union’s own interests to see the UN, the multilateral system, strengthened. We must support the Secretary-General’s efforts to modernise the UN system and to make it more effective. The reform of the United Nations is actually a very important aspect of the European Union’s security policy and a very important aspect of its foreign policy. I congratulate Mr Brok on what he has said on this subject, especially in connection with one particular point.

I shall just mention briefly the importance of the transatlantic partnership, since it is only a few weeks ago that we held a debate on that subject here in Parliament. This partnership has also been relaunched, in particular since the visit of President Bush to Brussels, and we must ensure that this relaunching is followed up. We have many interests in common – I would go so far as to say an enormous number of interests. We have an enormous number of opportunities for greater cooperation, but on an equal footing. We, together with the Americans, can find solutions to major problems, in particular, as has already been mentioned, to one priority problem, namely the conflict in the Middle East.

The European Union is also busy developing its economic, political and cultural cooperation with its traditional principal partners such as the United States and Canada, but also with partners such as Russia and Japan. I believe that cooperation with Russia, despite the problems, is important to the European Union and to stability and peace in our continent. Having said that, I should also mention that there are also new players on the world scene, such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa. There are also regional bodies, such as the African Union, with which we held talks a few days ago with a view, as the Commission has said, to strengthening our policy towards Africa, the objective being to promote peace and development – two things which are closely connected – on that continent, which is particularly close to the European Union.

The strategy also serves to further our relationship with other neighbours to the East and South. We have just held a debate on the Balkans. The Euro-Mediterranean partnership and European policy on neighbouring regions are of fundamental importance in promoting stability in the countries concerned, but they are also in our own interests, both economic and political. I remember precisely what was said. It is not enough to close our eyes in the hope of avoiding contamination by the problems. The problems of these countries very quickly become our problems, either through uncontrolled, illegal immigration or through terrorism or the threat of terrorism.

The importance of human rights from the security point of view also lies at the heart of solving the conflicts, and this aspect has been particularly emphasised by the latest report by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Without respect for human rights there can be neither development nor peace. It was in this spirit that the High Representative recently appointed a personal representative for human rights, with the aim of improving the consistency and effectiveness of our policy in this area within the CFSP.

As far as the more military aspect is concerned, the strategy suggests that the European Union needs to be more operational in the various areas where it has to play a role. We must provide solutions to the conflicts. We must act, and we must play a more active role in maintaining and restoring peace. We must ensure better consistency between the civil and the military aspects. We must, first of all, have an approach which is based on the prevention of conflicts. In this context, it is important that 7 000 European soldiers are currently deployed, under the flag of the European Union, with the task of safeguarding peace and encouraging the pursuit of reforms and of reconciliation. We have discussed, in particular, the subject of the Balkans, but the European Union has also accepted responsibility for major operations elsewhere, for example in the Southern Caucasus, in Africa and in Afghanistan.

Significant progress has been made in the area of military capacities. The first of the thirteen tactical units has been created as part of the European Rapid Reaction Force. The European Union has also set up the European Defence Agency in order to rationalise the costs linked to defence purchases and in order to increase the quality and the quantity of the military capacities at the disposal of European States. Cooperation between civilian and military circles has been raised to a higher operational level, in particular by the creation of a civil-military cell. All these measures should enable the Union to increase its crisis-management capacities so as to be able to deal successfully with the complex security crises of the 21st century. Cooperation with NATO has been highlighted in particular. I believe that we need to think about developing the ‘Berlin plus’ provisions in a spirit of partnership rather than a spirit of submission. I think that, in this respect too, the role of the European Union is very important.

Thus the European foreign and security policy has strengthened its consistency and its operational capacities, but we cannot afford to relax our efforts. We need institutional back-up, clear commitments, particularly as regards solidarity in the face of potential threats, and greater visibility of the European Union on the international scene. In this respect I think that the future Constitution, once again, will lead to considerable progress in the development of the CFSP and of our policy on external security. The creation of an EU Minister for Foreign Affairs is a major innovation which will allow greater coherence in the Union’s external relations. The fact that the Minister in question will chair the External Relations Council will provide the coherence which we are all so anxious to ensure, and it will also give us greater visibility and at the same time better continuity.

Another important aspect which I should just like to mention – and I know it is something close to the heart of Mr Brok among others – is the creation of the European External Action Service, the practical details of which are still under discussion.

The Luxembourg Presidency is paying close attention to the progress achieved in setting up this European External Action Service, and to the views of the European Parliament on this subject. We do not want the creation of this service to dismantle surreptitiously certain Community mechanisms by giving preference to intergovernmental mechanisms.

This service was designed to signal major progress in the conduct and implementation of the Union’s foreign policy, in particular in the form of greater effectiveness, greater coherence, an increased presence of the European Union, and the better use of all the resources available. We want the institutional rules and respective powers to be observed. The national diplomatic services must become more widely involved. We must make them, as it were, more European, but without producing a sort of renationalisation or intergovernmentalisation of what currently operates in accordance with Community rules. That is the broad outline of what we are defending in creating this service.

I should like to say a final word about the information aspect. I believe that the current Presidency, like previous presidencies, wants to have an exchange of views with the European Parliament about the major options and important dates in relation to foreign policy. We want to have this dialogue, and it is important, as I said at the beginning of this speech. On behalf of this Presidency, I can give an undertaking that efforts will continue in this direction and that there will be the contacts and the meetings which you want to see happen in order to achieve precisely this kind of coherent common foreign and security policy, which will have the real support of all the people involved and all the institutions of the Union.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MR MAURO
Vice-President

  Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. (DE) Mr President, honourable Members and rapporteurs, let me start by thanking you most warmly for your weighty and even-handed reports, most of which leave little to be desired where clarity is concerned.

I would like to pick up three specific things that enhance Europe’s global role. One of them is effective multilateralism. I see this as being beyond doubt the right response to our being ever more closely connected internationally. This year, 2005, will be decisive in terms of reform and the reinforcement of multilateralism, of international law, and, in particular, of the United Nations. The UN Summit in September will take the latest report by its Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, as a basis for essential decision-making in this area.

I believe it to be essential that Europe should make a contribution to this debate on reform. This is an area in which it has a leadership role, one that it must actually play. It is for that reason that the Commission is currently engaged in producing detailed proposals on the issues to which I have referred. As you will be aware, I am currently pressing for the EU to have a seat on the UN Security Council. The details of how this will work out are a matter for discussion, but what matters is that the EU should, in important international bodies, carry the weight that is rightly its due.

As Mr Schmit has just said, multilateralism can be effective only if it is founded upon a strong transatlantic partnership. Effective solutions to the world’s problems can be found only if the United States of America and Europe are really singing from the same hymn sheet. President Bush’s visit to Brussels clearly showed that the United States of America is very much aware of the ever-expanding and ever more important role of the EU.

It is with this ever-broader agenda that our common structures must be able to cope, while at the same time remaining flexible. The Commission is currently examining whether, and if so to what extent, our institutions need to amend the New Transatlantic Agenda. What emerges from our deliberations will then form a contribution to the EU-US Summit in June. I believe – as do others, both individuals and groups, in this House – that closer relations between it and the US Congress are essential in this regard.

The reports rightly reflect the fact that Europe’s foreign policy is already underpinned by a comprehensive concept of security. I believe that guaranteeing Europe’s security is not just about defence policy or military operations; today, above all, it has to do with conflict prevention, with civilian crisis management and common policies on trade, the economy, energy, justice, health and the environment.

The European Security Strategy already takes account of these complex potential threats. The Commission is making an important contribution, not least to its implementation, in our day-to-day close relations with third countries and, most recently, also through various communications, not only on such issues as anti-terrorism and improved civil protection, but also in terms of the reform of development policy, concerning which we, in the Commission, put out important communications yesterday.

I believe that the broader concept of security must, ultimately, focus on the safety of people, which has been a constant theme in my own work. Behind structural security risks, there are often offences against the freedom and dignity of individuals. To sum up, the actions referred to in the Security Strategy in respect of such things as the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or defences against terrorism, the ways in which we deal with failed states and regional conflicts can be successful only if they form part of a wider policy of conflict prevention and conflict resolution. One example of this is Afghanistan, and we hope that Iraq will one day be an example of how such an approach can bear fruit.

This is where the EU’s unique collection of instruments puts it at a comparative advantage, but, if we are to work efficiently, we need to deploy them all – civil, military and sectoral – in a coherent way. We have to make long-term plans for crisis regions, targeting and deploying as an integral whole our Community instruments – not only overseas aid, but also the prospect of closer relations with the EU. In addition to that, there is the help we give with nuclear non-proliferation, in the shape, for example, of the enormous amount of aid the EU has given for nuclear safety and non-proliferation since the beginning of the 1990s, not to mention our commitment to fighting terrorism, the spread of small arms and landmines, and drugs.

I mentioned earlier another key instrument for implementing the European Security Strategy, by which I mean, of course, our development policy. Here we are again trying to move forward, not least with the UN’s Millennium Goals in mind, for it is here too – as I said earlier – that we Europeans must set the pace.

Let me now also draw your attention to the Commission’s forthcoming proposals for reform of European crisis management and civilian protection, which we will be presenting next week in a communication to the Council and to your House, the details of which you will of course have an opportunity to debate. I will also take this opportunity to thank Parliament for its support for the European Security Research Programme, on which the Commission is working very closely with the European Defence Agency.

I also want to stress that I attach importance to Parliament’s proposal for a regular debate on the Security Strategy, which would also involve the parliaments of the Member States. We are right to cite democracy and the rule of law as essential values underpinning Europe, and hence also as integral parts of our foreign policy.

The European Union can, however, be strong on the international stage only if its actions really are coherent, and so, if it is to face up to the new challenges, it needs more than just the common foreign and security policy in the strict sense of the term. The common foreign and security policy is one among several instruments that the EU possesses in the foreign policy sphere and complements our other policies. The success of this broad-based approach is, I believe, demonstrated by the concept of the European Neighbourhood Policy, which illustrates one of my own particular priorities; the export of security, stability and prosperity to our neighbours and facilitation of structural reforms, all of which clearly has a security policy dimension to it. The European Neighbourhood Policy parallels exactly our European development policy in being a long-term and intelligent security policy in the regional context.

We have already made a start on implementing this. It is being used to gradually deepen our relationships with our partner states, above all through the detailed joint action plans, which give them clear prospects for drawing closer to Europe. Parliament’s forthright support for the neighbourhood policy was very important to me, and it still is. I therefore look forward with interest to Mr Laschet’s report.

One can – and I will – describe the European Neighbourhood Policy as our security policy on a regional scale. It helps to promote stability and reform in regions with a crucial geopolitical impact through their long-term association with Europe and through specific joint activities, such as anti-terrorist cooperation. This makes it an essential instrument in implementing the European Security Strategy. We have already concluded detailed and ambitious plans of action with seven partner countries, of which Ukraine is one, and five more are in the pipeline.

One of the last things I would like to say is that the reports also put a great deal of emphasis on the need for institutional reforms. This is something that our new Constitutional Treaty will renew in fundamental and positive ways, and these the Commission very much endorses. I am therefore very interested in your detailed proposals and will take note of them. We have for some time been making preparations for the Treaty’s implementation, in order that it may become operational at once following what we hope will be its successful ratification. This will be accomplished not least through the establishment of a Joint Foreign Service, concerning which very profound discussions are going on between the Council and the Commission. These reforms really are important. Even more effective collaboration between the EU institutions is indispensable.

Mr Kuhne’s report rightly highlights the obvious need for the EU, as an actor on the global stage, to be endowed with the financial resources it needs. For that reason, I, too, am confident that we will soon be able to come to an agreement on the reform of our foreign aid instruments that the Commission has proposed. At the same time, though, it is also clear that institutional reform and improved finances can be no substitute for the political will that we need. It follows that Europe needs even more to think of itself as a global player. As the forum for a broad, transparent and democratic debate, your House plays a crucial role in articulating that political will.

(Applause)

  Lambrinidis (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. – (EL) Mr President, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the Kuhne report, I should like to take this opportunity to offer Mr Kuhne my warmest congratulations on the exceptionally difficult process which he has been through in order to be able to find a compromise between so many opinions in such a strong and excellent report.

I wish to touch on four points: security policy, in its present form, quite rightly focuses not on military means, but on all the other means which the European Union can use in order to promote the fight against all the causes of insecurity in Europe. One of these is terrorism, but it is not the only one. We have to be very careful, when preparing such a strategy, not to get carried away with the danger of the day and ignore so many others. Within this framework, it is very important, when we act abroad, that we act with respect for human rights. Guantanamo-type phenomena cannot be tolerated by the European Union. I emphasise this, because even the United States did not imagine a few years ago that it would be able to tolerate them, but we can see what is happening. I would prefer that we start applying the brakes now, rather than deal with this later, when we are not ready.

My second point is that, as Europeans, we need to promote democracy. Both the rapporteurs and the Commission quite rightly emphasised that the way in which democracy is promoted in Europe is very different from the way in which it is promoted by other major powers on Earth. Let us keep it that way, with the UN always with us. We cannot act outside its framework.

My third point is that Parliament must be kept informed of and must debate questions of foreign policy. It cannot keep being ignored in procedures which touch on fundamental rights, such as, for example, the famous PNR, the information given to the United States allegedly in order to fight terrorism. Parliament has instituted proceedings against the Commission on this and will, I hope, win its case.

My fourth and final point concerns the famous SITCEN, which is an important service. My committee does not know exactly how it acts, what the boundaries on its action are or how it collects information, but information and the collection of information and personal data are equally sensitive as far as this Parliament is concerned, irrespective of whether they are collected by SITCEN or by anyone else. The question of the principle of availability of information and its exchange are being discussed in my committee at this very moment. It has not reached a decision and I thank and congratulate Mr Kuhne for the importance which he attaches in his report to cooperation between our committees. The need to combat terrorism does not sanctify any means. We need to take serious account of this in this Chamber and in this Parliament.

  von Wogau, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking Mr Kuhne most warmly for his wide-ranging report. I believe it to be of the utmost importance that Parliament’s line on this Security Strategy is supported by four major political families in this House – the Greens, the Social Democrats, the Liberals and the group to which I belong, thereby putting us on a footing unheard of 10 years ago.

The report discusses the Security Strategy devised by Javier Solana, and this House shares his view of the threats. The three major ones are, without a doubt, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and conflicts among our neighbours with direct effects on the European Union as a result of floods of refugees having a direct impact on the public in it. What is absent from his analysis, in my view and that of many others, is homeland security, which is normally at the heart of all defence policy. If we consider the attention given to homeland security in the United States in comparison to how little we hear about it here in the European Union, then I think there is a deficit here that must be made good.

There is also, I believe, a need to add to the conclusions drawn as to what must be done. As the conclusion put forward in this report cannot be turned into practical actions, I believe it important that the next thing we need is a White Paper on European security and defence policy containing perfectly clear specifications of substance and timescale – rather clearer than what we have been given to date.

It is important that the crisis intervention force, which was very much virtual in nature when it was decided on in 1999, has today become active in reality: in Macedonia, in the Congo and now in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I was there on a visit with the defence sub-committee when, for the first time, a British general, bearing on his sleeve the European emblem with its stars, introduced himself to me as a European soldier, I realised that something had happened here that would reverberate throughout history; you, Mr Schmit, may mention ‘European troops’ or the ‘forces of the European Union’, only in passing, but there is no doubt that this is a development with historic significance.

It is in Macedonia that the general approach of relying on more than merely military action to deal with a crisis is proving itself; the European Union’s strength lies in the civilian aspect of peacekeeping, where we are doing more than the United States. It is a good concept. On the other hand – as we have seen in the sudden emergence of unrest in Kosovo – it is vitally important that we should not lose sight of the fact that our troops must remain capable of intervening and also of taking robust action if it is necessary to protect minorities. These are two of the tasks that our troops have to cope with there, and they are equally important and difficult.

Among the things we learned from our visit to Bosnia-Herzegovina was that the combat troops that are currently being mustered, some of whom – we hope – will be capable, as soon as possible, of short-term intervention and deployment, need the best equipment. What they are being called upon to undertake there are peacekeeping missions, but, should they need to carry out peacemaking missions or combat operations, the very diverse equipment that our troops there have will prove very much a disadvantage. We demand that what are being termed the European battle groups, which are currently being assembled, should be equipped as uniformly as possible, that they should be the first to get the latest equipment and should get it without delay, and that this be made a matter of priority. As we were also told when we were there, there is also a need for helicopters if large areas are to be secured, and also for additional mine-proof vehicles. We were told that it would take until 2010 for Bosnia-Herzegovina to become free of mines, so mine clearance is proceeding too slowly, and this needs to be made an additional financial priority for our work.

  Wiersma, on behalf of the PSE Group.– (NL) We are today discussing the report on the external performance of the European Union in 2003. I am especially pleased that the rapporteur, Mr Brok, has stressed that the involvement of the European Parliament should not be limited to a discussion after the event. I am therefore taking the liberty of considering in particular some matters that have been on the agenda in the past year and of taking a look at the future. The development of the European security strategy, which is also up for discussion here, will have an important part to play in this. The Kuhne report – and I commend the rapporteur – gives an excellent evaluation of the concrete impact of this security strategy to date. I would like to ask the Commission but also the Council and of course the High Representative to take these recommendations very seriously. There are two points I would like to highlight.

Firstly, there is the military dimension. Europe can only play a central role if we are also willing and able, if necessary, to take military action. The prevention of conflict escalation to the point where military intervention is necessary is and remains the prime concern, while when it comes to the actual use of military means the emphasis must continue to be placed on interaction with other tools: humanitarian intervention, the guaranteeing of legal order, the institutional structure, democratisation and economic development. In the first major European military mission, the Althea mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina, an abundance of experience is currently being acquired with such a combination of civil and military capacity. Apart from a material side, the development of the European defence arm also and in particular has a political side. The European Union must develop a political framework that allows us to use military means where this is considered necessary.

My second point is about the interfaces between internal and external security, which come very much to the fore in the struggle against terrorism in particular. The connection between them is insufficiently developed in European policy at the moment. The Council has rightly asked the High Representative to bring forward proposals in this area and I urge him to involve Parliament in this. Attention to this is sought in the Brok report but also in the Kuhne report. The implementation of the common foreign and security policy is not unfortunately always as common as I would like. Nevertheless, my evaluation of the past few years is not all that negative. The European Union has played an important part in the revolution in Ukraine. The prompt reaction of the Presidency and the good coordination between Parliament and Council, and the action of the High Representative and the Heads of State of Poland and Lithuania made a significant contribution to the positive outcome of that political crisis.

The efforts of France, Germany and the United Kingdom within the EU in the conflict involving the Iranian nuclear programme has in my view so far been a good example of how things can be tackled in a European way. The outcome is uncertain but the diplomatic approach, the model that is being used in this process, is very important in our view. The basic principles of European common foreign and security policy, multilateralism, preventive involvement, a broad approach in which democracy and social and economic development take centre stage, conflict resolution and a halt to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction have our full support in the rank and file. We cannot emphasise enough, though, that collectiveness is a condition, because only by acting collectively can Europe bring its political weight to bear.

  Lambsdorff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I congratulate Mr Kuhne on his report, which has turned out to be really outstanding. I also want to say how very grateful I am to him for his constant and frank cooperation, the result of which has been broad support from the relevant groups in this House.

The European Security Strategy is the timetable for European foreign policy for the coming years and decades, albeit one containing very many questions as well as good answers. A common foreign and security policy worthy of the name may well be a European goal, but it is not yet a European reality. What this report spells out is that Parliament supports the Council and the Commission in their efforts to overcome the self-seeking attitudes that the nation states still have in this area.

At the heart of the report is the statement that the traditional concepts of security no longer hold water. What do we mean by internal or external security? Which crises can we effectively prevent by civil means? At what stage in a conflict we have been unable to prevent are we obliged to deal with it by military means, as opposed to the civil means we had used previously? When, following the end of a conflict, can we again consider going back whence we came without jeopardising people’s safety, and what instruments do we need to that end?

Such are the questions that we Europeans must answer; this report does so, whenever it is able to, by reference to the great significance of civil and military cooperation. That is why we endorse this report and will be voting in favour of it.

In deliberating all these questions, it is clear to us in the Liberal Group that the principles of the UN Charter remain the central benchmark. That is why it is so absurd for the Communists to make assertions about the alleged militarisation of the EU. Having had so much experience of military build-up, though, they surely ought to know what they are talking about.

This report is an intermediate step; it spells out the fact that, at the beginning of the third millennium, we have to develop not only the instruments of our foreign policy, but also the thinking underlying it. It is precisely for that reason that I am glad that the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs have been mandated to join together in thinking about how, at a time when terrorism is being fought, the protection of citizens’ rights can be ensured and, where necessary, improved. If we are to defend our values, we must also treat them with respect. I might add that I believe that we should be having this debate in Brussels rather than in Strasbourg.

  Beer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, to which I belong, I would like to give a warm welcome to both these reports and, above all, to express my gratitude for the constructive cooperation. There is one item in the Council’s Common Position that I would like to highlight.

Mr Brok’s report is most emphatic in demanding active cooperation with Parliament. It will not be enough for us to be merely informed, and that after the event. I say that in advance of the debate on the Constitution. The European Security Strategy is not a matter of statistics. As threats change, we will be required, again and again, to ascertain where there are deficits – as there are today in the civil sector – or where we need to change direction, but we will be able to get it across to people that European security policy is credible, and communicate to them the positive aspects of it that the Constitution will strengthen, only if you work together with Parliament. If Parliament opposes you, you will not manage it.

I can tell you that there are substantial indications that we are on the right road, such as the attempt by three European states to join with Iran in finding a peaceful solution to the proliferation issue, and the endeavour to reinforce the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, for it is on these things that our multilateral policy depends.

The second of these indications – and one to which reference has already been made – is that international law is being applied. Those in this House who oppose the Constitution on the grounds of alleged militarisation are thereby ignoring the fact that it incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which will therefore form part of Europe’s foreign and security policy; they are also negating all the progress we have made, throwing us back to Nice, throwing us back to the sort of renationalisation that we are currently seeing in Germany, which believes it will be given its own seat on the UN Security Council, or that it will, on its own, be able to get the China embargo lifted. That is not a common European security policy; it is a reversion to a policy that we, in our motions for resolution, criticise rather than endorse.

We Europeans are stepping out in new directions by taking on civil and military responsibilities. The decisive moment will come, in the foreseeable future, in Kosovo. We will be able to make use of these instruments, which will ultimately help to reconcile societies to some degree and to stabilise Europe, only if we, along with our societies and the European public, carry on in the same direction towards the one peaceful and multilateral objective with the help of transatlantic cooperation, an objective that our people expect of us. You, who represent the Council, will have to pay attention to what this House says; without its support, the peoples of Europe will not be behind you either.

  Agnoletto, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I find the Kuhne report extremely worrying and dangerous, because it does not recognise the primacy of the United Nations and international law in European security and defence policy. The report places the UN on the same level as NATO and other organisations and institutions, clears the way for approval of the theory of preventive military intervention, which violates international law, and lumps military intervention together with humanitarian action, implicitly relegating humanitarian development aid to a functional role subordinated to military and security policies. It also claims that NATO and the European Union are complementary, ignoring the subordinate role of the European Union within NATO and the need to promote an independent and non-aggressive European foreign policy.

Lastly, it fails to say that the application of international law and UN resolutions and the end of military occupations are the only conditions for a fair and lasting peace in the Middle East. EU support for non-proliferation should also include calling on Israel to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Batten, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, this report clearly shows where the European Union is heading. It calls for the common foreign security and defence policies contained in the European Constitution to be initiated without waiting for the inconvenient and unpredictable matter of its ratification by the Member States.

The report contains the telling line that the fight against terrorism blurs the traditional distinction between foreign and domestic policy. This is another example of how any argument will be used in order to promote European integration in any and all spheres of policy.

The threat from terrorism makes national borders and national interests all the more vital, not less so. This report is another step in the process of the European Union attempting to further its foreign policy and military ambitions in order eventually to rival the United States of America on the world stage. Meanwhile, all talk of an ethical foreign policy is put into perspective by the European Council’s intention to lift the embargo on arms sales to China, which Mr Brok rightly criticises and which is driven by the requirements of the French arms industry.

Parliament’s opposition to the lifting of the arms embargo on China will, of course, be ignored by the Council, demonstrating once again the irrelevance of this Parliament.

Britain should regain control of its own foreign, security and defence policies. The only way to do that is through the UK Independence Party’s policy of unconditional withdrawal from the European Union.

  Kristovskis, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (LV) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of myself and the Europe of the Nations Group I would like to express our recognition to the honourable Member Mr Kuhne for his well-executed report on the European Security Strategy. This includes the extension of the concept of security in line with the current situation, offers a reasonable opinion concerning current events in the field of European security, and points out deficiencies. I will deal with just one aspect. I think that in his report Mr Kuhne has demonstrated in a wholly justified fashion to the European Parliament the need to promote participation in implementing the European Security Strategy. Fulfilling this objective is a comparatively complex task for European Members of Parliament, and, of course, also for the European institutions. We must, however, admit that we do not have the requisite security of information and specialist back-up within the European Parliament to be able to discuss thoroughly and with a solid grounding the activities of the relevant Directorate-General within the Commission and of the Council in implementing the European Security Strategy, not to mention the possibility of more or less understanding measures taken by national governments, with their mutually reciprocal actions, in implementing security and defence measures.

Ladies and gentlemen, we must acknowledge that that is a serious problem. In fact, there are various problems relating to aspects of joint security in the European Union. At the basis of them are shortages of a financial nature, as well as of the development of military capabilities, a lack of security of information and deficiencies of other kinds. During the past months, during which I have been a European Member of Parliament for the first time, I have had the opportunity to gradually understand how security policy in Europe is formed, and who the most important players are. Therefore it seems to me that I am fully justified in saying that the report is of a sufficiently high quality. Since 70% of European Union citizens support the need for a single European defence policy, we should agree that monitoring the implementation of the European Security Strategy ought to be one of the priorities for the widening of the scope of the European Parliament’s activities. The threats of the 21st century – trans-national terrorism, the unlawful proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts and Islamic fundamentalism – impose a duty on everyone to understand our global challenges, and the European Parliament must play an active part in preventing them.

  Claeys (NI).– (NL) Mr President, the common foreign and security policy covers a great many primary and secondary aspects and it is of course impossible to be exhaustive in this short space of time. Two points nonetheless.

First and foremost I would like to point to a gap in the list of priorities and that is the support for Europeans or people of European origin in other parts of the world. Above all I am talking about southern Africa, not just South Africa itself but also Zimbabwe. It is high time that the European Union started to take strong measures to bring an end to the attacks on farms and the systematic expropriations of farms run by Europeans. Such action would for that matter be in the interest of the whole population there. I refer for example to Zimbabwe, the country that used to be known as the granary of Africa and that is now ravaged by starvation, in part and in the main because of the mismanagement of dictator Mugabe.

Another problem that deserves more attention is nuclear disarmament. The report places the emphasis on compliance with the non-proliferation treaty, but overlooks the colossal security risk posed by poorly guarded or semi-abandoned nuclear facilities in former Soviet states and a number of other countries, and the misuse that can be made of them by terror organisations such as Al-Qaida. We must as the European Union sit down urgently with the countries and international organisations concerned and ensure that the necessary resources are released to defuse this ticking time bomb.

  Klich (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, this House feels very strongly that significant progress was made last year regarding the European Security and Defence Policy, and that it was therefore possible to break the impasse following the Iraq conflict. We welcome the establishment of the European Defence Agency and believe it will play an important role with regard to the supply of new equipment. We also welcome the inclusion in the Constitutional Treaty of provisions creating a future for the ESDP, in particular on the subject of structural cooperation, that is, the solidarity clause. Another very significant development was the Commission’s announcement of the European Programme for Security Research that will be operating with a budget of at least EUR 1 billion as of 2007. Finally, probably the most important event of last year was taking the stabilisation mission in Bosnia over from NATO. This is actually the European Union’s first major military operation.

In this context, we also feel very strongly that the four questions raised over six years ago, when the notion of a European Security and Defence Policy was first floated in Cologne, remain relevant. Firstly, what action is required to ensure that our defence capabilities are in line with our aspirations and challenges, the challenges that have now been enshrined in the European Security Policy? Secondly, how can the cohesion of the European Security and Defence Policy be assured? Thirdly, how can the ESDP be developed without detriment to the defence commitments of the majority of Member States that are also members of NATO? Fourthly, how can financial resources be managed wisely at both national and Community level?

These questions are addressed primarily to the Commission and the Council, because Parliament, the Commission and the Council will have to work together to come up with the answers. If we fail to do so, the ESDP will be simply a paper policy, and we shall be powerless.

  D'Alema (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to join many of my fellow Members in thanking the rapporteurs for two important reports that present a thorough overview of Europe’s foreign, security and defence policy and the progress made, and propose highly convincing guidelines for Europe to have an effective presence as a global actor on the world stage.

The Constitutional Treaty may strengthen Europe’s role with innovations that will ensure closer integration and cooperation, and right now I believe it is fair to bring forward – as they say – a collaboration between Parliament, the Commission and the Council.

Europe’s central objective is to promote effective multilateralism, which means ensuring security and also the expansion of democracy, human rights and opportunities for development and growth. In short, it means controlling globalisation by prioritising political, civil and economic methods but not ruling out military methods as a last resort, and consequently keeping open the option to use force in legitimate circumstances.

In order to have legitimacy, however, the authority of the United Nations system needs to be restored, as the Brok report quite rightly points out. That authority has been shaken and weakened partly by the theory and practice of preventive and unilateral war. Europe has no choice but to condemn that theory and practice, and I believe the resumption of cooperation between Europe and the United States has to take this matter of principle into account.

In this context, I believe there is great value in the demand made by many Members – and Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner as well – that Europe should have a seat at the United Nations, as it would represent a quality leap in the relationship between the European Union and the United Nations.

I should like to underline one priority in this picture, which is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the crisis in the Middle East. We have quite rightly pointed out the new opportunities and hopes. I should like to add a word of concern, however: the meeting between George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon itself revealed a fairly sharp disagreement over the Israeli policy of expanding the settlements, which in practice means the annexation of East Jerusalem and part of the West Bank. If this policy were to go ahead, any hopes for peace would soon be cast aside. If even the US Administration is now voicing its criticism, Europe needs to do so too, strongly and clearly, in order to prevent decisions that might jeopardise any hope of peace and détente.

  Neyts-Uyttebroeck, Annemie (ALDE).– (NL) First and most of all I would like to congratulate Mr Elmar Brok on his excellent report that provides a coherent, forward-looking and realistic view of common foreign and security policy.

All too often we forget how young this policy actually still is. I can remember quite vividly that 20 years ago the words security, foreign policy and least of all defence policy were not even allowed to appear in European texts or in programmes of European political parties. Ten years ago there was an embryonic common foreign and security policy, but it was carefully wrapped up in a separate, almost exclusively intergovernmental pillar. Today we have our own separate vision and strategy – still in the making it is true – but whose originality cannot be denied. This originality is above all that we want to take responsibility for both the civil and the diplomatic and military aspects of such a policy. I would like to underline that the constitutional treaty contains a number of especially important demands in this area, which for that matter is also one of the main reasons why this constitutional treaty deserves to be ratified.

In this annual report there are calls to involve the European Parliament and the national parliaments more closely in the preparation and implementation of common foreign and security policy and not to limit this involvement to post factum discussions. The three-monthly exchange of views with the High Representative and with the Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy in which representatives of the national parliaments will be able to take part offers an excellent opportunity for this. That is one aspect of the proposals that we are glad to support.

  Pflüger (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, for the sake of avoiding excessive sameness, here comes a different position. The European Security Strategy states that ‘the first line of defence against new threats will often be abroad’. In no way does the Kuhne report dissent from this.

The European Security Strategy is meant to be binding on all EU Member States. It is meant to commit EU military policy more and more to planning for pre-emptive warfare. The Kuhne report calls for even more rearmament in order to ensure that the EU, relying on NATO capacities, can intervene militarily across the globe. According to what we have heard, the EU is meant to become a global player, and primarily in military terms.

It is for precisely this reason that my group has produced a minority opinion. On the one hand, it is asserted that there is no military build-up in the European Union; on the other, as we have heard, everything is being done to rearm, including drawing up plans for the EU to wage ‘regional wars to secure raw materials’. The EU’s Constitutional Treaty, which I hope the French will scupper, its Security Strategy and the ‘European Defence Paper’ stand for a Europe characterised by rearmament and the prospect of future wars.

Take a serious look at these criticisms. Polemics have had their day. As you will see in France, they only trip you up.

  Coûteaux (IND/DEM). – (FR) Mr President, one minute and thirty seconds is much more than I need, given that the vast subjects dealt with in this portmanteau report presuppose the existence of a Minister for Foreign Affairs, a diplomatic service and a common foreign policy. Yet as far as the common foreign policy is concerned, we have only the vaguest of vague outlines, given that it was decreed in 1992 by Title Five of the Treaty of Maastricht. Moreover, there is no common policy and there cannot be a common policy, for the very good reason that there is no agreement between the principles, the traditions, and interests and, therefore, the policies of our different nations, starting, moreover, with the vital issue of our relations with the United States of America.

As for this minimum condition, the creation of a common diplomatic instrument, it presupposes the adoption of the European Constitution. Well I am very sorry to have to tell you – though to most people it is no secret – that it is highly likely that this project will never see the light of day and that all your scaffolding, constructed as it is on the complete absence of popular legitimacy, will collapse of its own accord.

I could, therefore, stop there and not exhaust my speaking time and your nerves, but I should not like to prevent you from dreaming, because your dreams are of great interest to the advocates of sovereignty who are currently campaigning in France and elsewhere. When, at our meeting, we tell French people that in Washington there is a person who is known by the pompous title of Ambassador of the European Union to the United States, they are highly amused. When we tell French people that the said Constitution will bring with it a so-called Minister for Foreign Affairs, and that the holder of that office will be, as if by chance, a former Secretary-General of NATO, then the French people are even more amused, or intrigued, or scandalised.

By all means then, ladies and gentlemen, you Europhiles and Euromaniacs of all kinds, please carry on supplying us with such amusing arguments.

  Czarnecki, Ryszard (NI). – (PL) Mr President, the Union’s common foreign and security policy may not be a virtual policy, as sceptics maintain, but it certainly looks far better on paper than it does in practice. If, like the authors of the draft resolution, we look to public opinion surveys for the will to implement this policy, its future seems distinctly uncertain. If the 60% of Union citizens that support the common foreign policy is in future reduced to 45%, and the 70% support for the common defence policy is reduced to say 47%, should we suddenly abandon this notion? We should guard against relying on public opinion surveys. The House is divided on the issue of the degree of support for the idea of a common security policy and a common foreign policy. We need to face up to that fact. Nonetheless, we are all of one mind on a number of issues. The first is that Islamic terrorism is a real threat. The second is that military action cannot be the first course of action when it comes to dealing with certain problems. The third is that we must follow the joint EUFOR activities in Bosnia-Herzegovina carefully. True, the Union did previously undertake the Concordia mission in Macedonia, but that was relatively minor, as were the police activities we were involved in, for example in Bosnia-Herzegovina or, more recently, in Africa

Finally, we can speak with one voice when it comes to insisting that the Council complies with Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union concerning consultation on the main foreign policy actions for the coming year. It is not a question of the Council deigning to provide the information. It is actually bound to do so.

  Zieleniec (PPE-DE). – (CS) As a major international player, the European Union bears a global responsibility. In view of this fact, I should like to emphasise that the success of EU foreign policy depends upon our partnership with the United States. In spite of the differences that exist between us, the United States, of all the global players, is the closest to Europe, and it is not only common values that unite us. The partnership is a natural result of our common interest in achieving stability throughout the world, in strengthening the rule of law and democracy and in ensuring that global markets operate properly and that raw material resources throughout the world remain available.

The North Atlantic Alliance continues to act as a fundamental guarantee of European and US security, yet the challenges we are currently facing are by no means only security-related. I would therefore like to call on the Commission and the Council at this point to present an action plan for a strategic partnership between the European Union and the United States, which would put our dialogue on a broad range of global issues on an institutional footing. The partnership would tackle matters ranging from the functioning of financial services to the stabilising of international order, as well as global agriculture, the fight against Aids, water availability, global climate change and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. One of its aims should be the establishment of an EU-US free trade area, which could potentially act as a driving force for the global economy.

We learnt from President Bush’s visit in February that the Americans are aware of the need for a strong partner on the other side of the Atlantic. It is therefore my belief that the European Union should seize this opportunity to strengthen a partnership that could act as a key to world order and stability.

  Gomes (PSE). – (PT) The European security strategy challenges us to consider the Union’s role in world governance, and the reports by Mr Kuhne and Mr Brok make excellent contributions towards addressing this challenge. If they are to be effective and coherent, Europe’s foreign security and defence policies must place the accent firmly on the citizens, promoting human rights, international and humanitarian law and multilateralism in international relations. In other words, they must be rooted in the concept of human security, as emphasised in the Kuhne report, in line with the Barcelona report on the Human Security Doctrine.

The importance of this area is all the greater given that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the fight against terrorism must continue to be at the forefront of Europe’s priorities in terms of security. We must incorporate these concerns into every aspect of external relations, in particular the new neighbourhood policy, and in this context the Union must have a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, as has previously been said.

The EU must also strive to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament treaties and to tighten controls on exports of nuclear material and arms in general. The Union must also ensure that its action plan to combat terrorism works closely in tandem with its foreign and security and defence policies, as part of the integrated global strategy for fighting terrorism recently announced by Kofi Annan.

The development commitments made by the European governments in the Millennium Declaration must also be honoured. Poverty and injustice are fertile breeding grounds for terrorism. If we are to achieve a security and defence policy resulting in greater strategic independence for Europe, greater capacity and greater integration of defence resources, and a genuine internal market, the European Defence Agency must provide us, for our debates, with information on policies relating to the procurement, development and research of equipment. It is now up to the Member State governments to lay the groundwork for this new agency to work. The next financial perspectives must demonstrate that our governments are committed to the success of European security, which largely depends on the resources at its disposal in the Union.

I shall conclude by relating that last week in Sarajevo, along with Mr Von Wogau and other Members of this House, I witnessed the proud British General in charge of EUFOR actually handing out national honours. I could not help thinking that, had there been a foreign policy and a European security and defence policy in place 15 years ago, Europe might have prevented the war in the former Yugoslavia or might have stopped it at an earlier stage. The important work of the Althea mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina is proof that, with the appropriate resources, Europe can and must take on more responsibilities in European and worldwide security.

  Pafilis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, both the reports being debated today clearly present the identity and the aggressive imperialist character of the European Union. They confirm the joint strategy of the European Union with the United States of America against peoples and countries which, apart from anything else, will be founded on the ferocious doctrine of preventive war, which is mentioned in the reports and clearly referred to in the Constitutional Treaty. They set as an immediate priority better preparation of the European Union for new strategic interventions, jointly with ΝΑΤΟ and the United States of America or independently.

In the name of the security of the European Union, countries and areas for new interventions are being photographed, starting with the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Middle East and extending over almost the entire planet, on the pretext of strengthening the international order.

The philosophy behind the common foreign policy and defence policy and the European security strategy is the European version of the imperialist doctrine of the United States of America on protecting US interests, in the name of which hundreds of interventions have taken place and have spread death and destruction to all the corners of the planet.

We believe that the peoples are waking up. They will resist and they will not allow the implementation of this policy. We ultimately ask the following question: who is threatening whom? The European Union has forces in a great many countries in the world. It participates in an endless network of bases, has participated in three wars and, moreover ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, critical though I may be of individual aspects of Europe’s Constitutional Treaty, it does strike me as important that the common foreign and security policy be strengthened. If Europe is to assert itself as a power for global peace, it will need to speak to the outside world with a single voice, as well as possessing the capacity to get its way in matters of military and security policy.

Although I believe that every tendency leading towards the development of a centralised European state must be energetically repudiated, I do think it is right that there should be a single EU foreign minister with extensive powers and responsibilities and a strong position within the EU. This leads me to welcome the development of a European Foreign Service.

It is unacceptable, though, that such a foreign service for the European Union should be dominated and sustained only by the larger Member States of the EU. Smaller Member States, Austria among them, must be involved in the shaping of European foreign policy, just as the European Parliament must have equal rights with the Council in deciding what that policy should be.

If the smaller Member States are to contribute in the same way as the larger ones to the common European defence policy and to the operation of the single European rapid reaction force, they must also be guaranteed the same right to be consulted.

  Jarzembowski (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, there are two of Parliament’s statements in this report that I would like to revisit, and they have to do with the foreign and security policy situation in the Far East. It is my belief that the People’s Republic of China, by passing its Anti-Secession Law, has put the region in a much more precarious position. The Anti-Secession Law is something that we should firmly repudiate; by enacting it, the People’s Republic of China is attempting, without any justification, to legitimise its military threats against Taiwan and to acquire the right to attack it. This is in breach of international law, and completely unacceptable. Taiwan’s 23 million citizens have the inalienable right to take their own democratic decisions on their future: on whether they want to be reunited with the mainland or to continue as an independent and sovereign state.

We should all be calling on the People’s Republic of China to stop making threatening gestures and instead begin direct dialogue with Taiwan on the basis of mutual recognition in order to bring about détente between the two countries and secure peace in the Far East. I am addressing the representatives of the Council when I say that, if this is to happen, the arms embargo on China must not be lifted. The European Council was right to impose it in 1989, and we can see that the position as regards human rights and the rights of minorities has indeed improved, although these are as yet far from adequate. This House has observed on many occasions that the situation in China as regards fundamental civil, cultural, religious and political rights does not even meet the international standards that China itself recognises.

I hope that the President-in-Office will take some note of that. Particularly at the present time, and in view of China’s ongoing infringements of human rights, lifting the arms embargo would send completely the wrong message and would also appear to be a reward for the Anti-Secession Law.

  Siwiec (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, we have received a document describing European policy in the area of security, which is the most difficult policy for any country or international organisation to tackle. This document will constitute a basis or a point of reference when it comes to establishing how best to consolidate the policies of Member States, and to ensure that foreign policy is more effective. We would do well to remember that the costliest way of conducting foreign policy is not to have one. The Union is failing to take advantage of the opportunities open to it in many areas, precisely because it lacks policies. Allow me to mention another plain truism, and now I am addressing in particular those who have been pontificating on militarisation in the House for some time. Defence capacity is a sine qua non of an effective policy. Military capacity is essential. We would also do well to remember that the principles drafted concerning the safeguarding of our security in the broadest sense can constitute an excellent starting point for dialogue with our American partner, and a basis for the creation of a new kind of transatlantic relationship. On the one side there would be the United States, uncertain as to the difference between leadership and hegemony, and on the other the European Union which is just starting to develop its role in this particular area. We shall need to bring patience and creativity to this process, but expertise will also be required. In this connection, I believe that Mr Kuhne’s report represents a good commitment for all the European institutions, helping them to consider European security. In addition, it is significant that Mr Kuhne’s report is being debated at the same time as the annual report on the European Union’s foreign policy. This represents good input and a fine contribution by Parliament, helping to ensure that we can at long last speak of a real European policy rather than a virtual one.

  Van Orden (PPE-DE). – Mr President, if you take the view that the European Union should evolve into some sort of integrated European State, then it is both logical and necessary that it should have its own currency, its own police and judicial system, its own diplomatic representation, its own army and defence budget and all the rest of the panoply of statehood brought together under the legal framework of a constitution.

The two reports before us today derive their inspiration precisely from this impulse. I have to say that British Conservatives take a rather different view. We are fundamentally opposed to further European political integration. In fact, we would seek to unwind and repatriate many of the excessive powers that Brussels has accrued. Not surprisingly, therefore, we oppose the very idea of a European constitution as well as its detailed ingredients.

The reports focus particularly on security and defence policy. They seek to enhance the EU’s military credentials by distorting the nature and role of NATO and then sidelining that organisation while wastefully duplicating its structures, seeking to displace the nations as actors in the transatlantic security relationship while claiming ownership of their capabilities, and subscribing to misplaced ideas of socially engineering our armed forces.

I do not believe that the European nations have strategic security interests that should be separated from those of its transatlantic and other allies. There may be times when Europeans should bear primary responsibility for provision of military forces in their own region. That is precisely what has happened in the past ten years or more in the former Yugoslavia, where it is mere sleight of hand to imply that the EUFOR military operation in Bosnia is fundamentally different to that which was there before. Of the 7 000 troops in NATO’s SFOR, over 6 000 were European. It is dishonest, therefore, to pretend that the EU is contributing to any enhancement of security when most of its Member States are reducing rather than increasing their defence expenditure and the EU itself is merely replicating the planning, decision-making and command and control systems of the highly successful organisation that is NATO.

  Rouček (PSE). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, new security threats have emerged since the end of the Cold War. These include international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, organised crime and a whole range of regional conflicts. It is becoming apparent that no country, no matter how large, is in a position to deal with these security threats on its own, and it is for this reason that the EU’s common foreign, security and defence policy should be extended and strengthened. This is a belief held not only by the majority of Members of this House, and not only by Council or Commission representatives, but also, and above all, by the European public. This is a point that has already been made in this House.

Something else that is becoming apparent is that we cannot overcome any of these threats by military means alone; instead, we need to make use of a combination of both military and civilian means. Both the reports tabled today and both the rapporteurs provide clear and detailed answers to the question of how this could be achieved. The success and future development of the common foreign, security and defence policy depend on two conditions being met; the European Constitution must be ratified, and appropriate funding must be set aside. You cannot have more European security for less money.

  Kauppi (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I will focus on two key issues. I wish to begin by saying a few words about the European External Action Service. It is of the utmost importance that the service be situated in the Commission. We must avoid all attempts to water down the new service by placing it primarily in the Council. Under no circumstances should the service be allowed to develop into an uncontrollable intergovernmental agency which starts to live a life of its own.

Only with maximum parliamentary accountability can we be assured that Europe’s noble goals for the rest of the world are achieved. Fighting poverty, defending democracy and advocating human rights are all issues in which we can, and must, cooperate based on common values. An intergovernmental service would be at risk of falling prey to many and more sectoral and strategic interests, and our common values and goals would be lost in the mix.

Secondly, we need to take both an ambitious and realistic approach to European foreign policy under the new Constitution, if and when we get it. The Constitution advances European foreign and security policy in many key respects and we must ensure that these commitments are upheld. Even though the developments embodied in the Constitution’s clauses of mutual solidarity – as well as in increased rapid reaction capability – are reflections of current practice rather than being innovations, we have to ensure that they are interpreted in an ambitious, concrete and binding fashion when they take effect.

The inclusion of mutual security guarantees in the Constitution should also be welcomed and consolidated. The opposition of some Member States can be countered with a few simple arguments. NATO is, and will remain, the backbone of European defence, there is no doubt about that. We proposed European guarantees simply to complement NATO provisions with a much-needed European dimension. They also support and consolidate decades of European political and security cooperation, which has existed outside the scope of the EU. They do not constitute a radical rewriting of Europe’s foreign and security ambitions: they simply establish that Europe must finally be mature enough to begin matching its economic muscle with some political voice and commitment.

  Pinior (PSE). – (PL) Ladies and gentlemen, in recent times the European Union has increasingly become a driving force in the creation of a new international order. This has particularly been the case since last year’s enlargement. The success of European integration means that the European political system is becoming more attractive to the people of countries beyond the Union. Certain US analysts are now referring to so-called European soft power and to the European dream that is coming true before our very eyes.

Terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, the collapse of nations and organised crime all call for a global dimension in the Union’s external actions. In addition, they call for greater democratic accountability concerning those actions. To this end, we should be referring to the letter and the spirit of the Constitutional Treaty regarding matters with a bearing on the common foreign and security policy. The future European Foreign Service must play a crucial role in this area, assisting the European Union’s foreign ministers. As soon as the Constitutional Treaty comes into force, it will be essential to make every effort to invest the solidarity clause with real meaning as regards the defence matters provided for in the Treaty.

  Landsbergis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the report by Mr Brok contains many fresh, visionary and encouraging ideas. I want to add some remarks on the problems of the new, non-state terrorism. First, what more could we recommend than what Mr Brok does?

The fight against so-called terrorism calls for a clear description of political terrorism. Its aim is to achieve concrete political goals, and what are those goals? A distinction needs to be drawn between the new, political, non-state terrorism, which allegedly has no exact state address, and the traditional state terrorism, which is found mainly where democracy fails. That sort of political terrorism tends to provoke revengeful responses by certain groups and organisations, as is now happening with Russia’s terrorist – or terrorising – war in Chechnya.

The democratic community cannot successfully confront any abstract concept of terrorism per se, as it would be rooted only in ideology or fanaticism. No, the real enemies to be fought are terrorist organisations and states that use such methods and support such organisations. Two fresh efforts have been made to find addresses in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are now the only places where terrorist organisations appear to be on the defensive. In the field of defence, this would more than fulfil Europe’s desire to compete with the United States.

Finally, there is a sort of diabolical profit to be made from this phenomenon of non-state terror, as democracies may now perhaps realise more clearly what their endangered values are. When creating the concepts and structures of the European security and defence policy, we should concentrate more and more on the question: for the sake of what, for what Europe are we working? Surely not for a consumerist and suicidal Europe that is losing its identity and sense of values, despite talking so much about it? That is defending the indefensible.

  Schmit, President-in-Office of the Council. (FR) Mr President, I think that this debate has once again demonstrated the extremely valuable contribution which Parliament is making towards the broad lines, the broad concepts, of the common foreign and security policy. It has also demonstrated that this dialogue, which Parliament wanted so much, exists in a very practical form, and I understand why Parliament is seeking this contact, this dialogue with the Council and the Commission. The debate has shown that this dialogue exists not only a posteriori, so that we can talk about the past, but also in relation to present and future policies.

Moreover, I believe – as someone has said – that we should not pursue a foreign policy which is against the wishes of Parliament. Since I have had the pleasure of representing the Presidency, I have never had the impression that the Council was pursuing a policy against the wishes of Parliament. On the contrary, I have had the impression that the policy was pursued entirely together and, moreover, today’s debates and also those during previous sittings on the Middle East, Lebanon, and a few hours ago the Balkans, show that Parliament is involved not only in the analysis of our policy, but also in the conception and future directions of that policy.

I cannot help but notice that there is a broad consensus on the general lines of this policy, on all its facets, and on the idea that Europe must have security, on the fact that that security is not merely security in political and military terms but rather an overall security which includes aspects such as the environment or human rights. I am also particularly sensitive to what has been said on the value of symbols and on what goes far beyond symbols, in other words the fact that an encounter with military personnel who wear the European stars on their epaulettes is something to send a shiver down your spine, and effectively demonstrates that Europe is on the move, that the unification of Europe is on the move, and that we have just completed a further stage, in particular by means of our security and defence policy.

I should like to make just one final comment, on the subject of China. At the meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr Jarzembowski, I adopted a position, and I see that gradually the position I adopted is being confirmed. I believe that we should face up to reality: we must develop a relationship with China, because it is a country which is increasing in importance. We must therefore engage with China in a general dialogue which covers all aspects.

Thank you very much for your contributions. I think that this has been a fruitful debate, a useful debate and a debate which demonstrates that the dialogue between the various institutions of the Union is working.

  Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Mr President, like my colleague I think it was an interesting and comprehensive debate because it has shown that many specific questions have been tackled under banners of the CFSP and EDSP. Many of the individual issues will resurface in other debates we hold. Of course we have not forgotten human rights. Human rights have been mentioned by many of you and I think they are already intrinsic to our whole policy. It is very important that we become a global player with a European Charter of Human Rights and, hopefully very soon, a Constitution.

There is an issue that was not mentioned in this debate, but I would like to mention it because it is so important for security and development. This is the gender issue that is being so well promoted in Europe, including as part of our development and neighbourhood policies. This is part of the overall policy we want.

I would also like to agree with the comment that the European Union needs to work with partners to avoid nuclear and other sensitive materials coming into the hands of terrorists. This is a key objective in our joint work action plan.

I also agree with Mr von Wogau and others who said that there is a very important link between internal and external security. This is also key for close cooperation between the different directorates in the Commission and DG External Relations.

Finally, there was a very specific question on demining. It is not only a problem in Bosnia. It is an issue throughout the world and we are therefore very happy that the Review Conference of the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines was held in Kenya, where we saw that this issue that has been promoted by the European Union has come forward very strongly. There are many more things to be done, but we have a good, comprehensive basis. Let us work together on that basis.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.