Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 22 May 2007 - Strasbourg

19. Common Foreign and Security Policy 2005 (debate)

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0130/2007) 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 Union - 2005 (2006/2217(INI)).

  Elmar Brok (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, since we are, today, discussing the Council’s report on the CFSP in the Council’s absence, I am all the more grateful to the Commission, and to Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, for being present with us. It certainly says something about this House that the only official report produced on the Common Foreign and Security Policy ends up being discussed at night.

I believe that, in past years, and specifically in the period under consideration here, cooperation with the Commission on the Common Foreign and Security Policy went extraordinarily well, as indeed it did with the Council in many areas.

Over this time, we made considerable progress in developing the neighbourhood policy and on policy relating to the Balkans; we also became more able to take up positions in relation to the area of security and defence policy, so that the number of functions assumed by the European Union today would have been scarcely imaginable five years ago. It is for this reason that the European Union’s present and unprecedented ability – whether in the Middle East or in relation to Iran – to recruit other countries to our own strategy, which combines prevention, civil crisis management and military capacity, rather than relying on military strength alone, which I will sum up as the idea of the European Union’s ‘soft power’ as a global standard, must be accounted a triumph.

At the same time, we have to ask ourselves whether, despite the progress we have made, we are able to fully meet the challenges we face, I ask you to bear with me as I observe that it is in the fields covered by the Foreign and Security Policy that it is vital, even to our own continued existence, that the Constitutional Treaty become a reality, and so it is with this issue in mind, as also in these present days and weeks in which we are moving towards the next Intergovernmental Conference, that we must make clear that this is one of the indispensable components of the Constitutional Treaty, for what we and the Commission agree on is the need for us to put our capacities in more coherent order.

I think it important that we take certain steps even before the event; for example, I would encourage the Commission to push through the expansion of its delegations, which are present in 120 countries, in such a way that the other institutions can avail themselves of their services even before the External Service for which provision is made in the Constitutional Treaty, is in place. Since the Council is not present and cannot hear what is being said, I can also say that this would be a splendid opportunity to demonstrate that such an External Service should, both now and in the future, come under the authority of the Commission, and that it does not need to be an independent institution. We will acquire all the more capacity to act if, on this front, we adopt even now the sensible practice of the fait accompli.

The European Union is represented in 120 countries by Commission delegations, and it is the biggest trading power in the world, accounting for 20% of global trade; its gross domestic product is greater than that of the United States of America – not per capita, it must be admitted, but overall – and, if we succeed in putting that into political language, language, moreover, that speaks of a position founded less on military might alone than on ‘soft power’, then we can be in a position to equip the trans-Atlantic alliance for action, and to do so, moreover, on an equal footing, thereby exercising influence as equal partners, as we recently did with the Trans-Atlantic Economic Agreement, which signifies for us an important forward step in the continuation of relations with the United States, which is, and will continue to be in future, our ally and partner. We cannot remain equidistant from Russia and America, for, on the contrary, the USA are, in terms of their values, our primary partner, and that has to be made quite clear when talking of these things in order to prevent misunderstandings arising concerning them.

(Applause)

When matters such as these are in hand, whether one agrees or not with the current government’s policies becomes a secondary consideration.

At the same time, though, it has to be clear to us that we can achieve this level of influence only if we act together. Solidarity also means solidarity with the outside world. I would like to thank the President-in-Office and the German Presidency of the Council as a whole for joining together with the Commission in order to demonstrate that in Samara, where they really did not waste any time in making it plain that they would not allow themselves to be divided. While we must not allow the Americans to divide us into the ‘old’ Europe and the ‘new’, nor must we allow our neighbour to the East to think that the quality of security differs from one region to another and that it can have more influence over some than over others. Every state in Europe and throughout the world must be free to decide for itself to which alliance and which community it wishes to belong, and no neighbour, as big as it may be, must try to influence it to change its mind; that idea – that every country takes for itself the decision as to which community it wants to belong to – is at the heart of the 1975 Helsinki Accords. Even so, it has to be clear to us just how important this great neighbour is to us as regards energy and in relation to other issues too, and that is why we have to ensure that the strategic partnership with Russia is built on, for I would prefer to see a democratic Russia of that sort on our side rather than on that of Iran.

(The President cut off the speaker.)

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss Mr Brok’s report with you all, even though we are doing it at a time of night when we might rather be in bed.

The Common Foreign and Security Policy is a crucially important element in the EU’s foreign policy, and one in which the treaties require that the Commission be fully involved, participating in debates at every level within the Council’s structures, being a permanent member of the troika, and managing and implementing the CFSP’s budget. Through all the measures under the first pillar, we also help to work towards the European Union’s foreign policy goals, and it is of vital importance to us that the EU should have at its disposal a fully integrated foreign policy drawing not only on the Common Foreign and Security Policy but also on the Community dimension and hence on the measures taken by the Member States. We seek to be what one might describe as the cogs in a well-oiled machine.

I would now like to pick up some of the issues raised in this very comprehensive report.

Where the foreign policy dimension of the constitutional treaty is concerned, I, too, take the view that its implementation would make the CFSP more efficient, more coherent and more visible, but we should not draw from that the conclusion that things cannot be improved in the interim or that they have not been.

What counts in this context is what happens on the ground and what emerges from it, and in this respect there have been considerable improvements; only recently, we have been able to satisfy ourselves that cooperation between the Council, the Member States and the Commission had improved, as had the harmonisation of our action and measures in preparing a solution to the issue of the status of Kosovo, the promotion of the rule of law in Afghanistan through greater efforts towards measures in the areas of policing and the justice system, where policing falls within the remit of the Council and of its secretariat, while we deal with the justice system and military action is taken under NATO auspices. One might also cite as example the support for the Middle East peace process, with the EU having sent a mission to assist with border controls at the Rafah crossing point, support for the reform of the security sector in the Democratic Republic of Congo and also the funding of the peacekeeping operations in Somalia and the Sudan through the Peace Facility for Africa, not to mention the observation and monitoring operation in Aceh.

All these cost-intensive, but politically very important undertakings make it necessary that we should, in order to achieve our objectives, draw the necessary resources not only from the budget for the Common Foreign and Security Policy but also from the Community instruments, including the new stability instrument. I would like to add that the stability instrument is showing itself to be very flexible in this respect, in that it enables us to respond to crises quickly and to build up the necessary capacities.

By cooperating in crisis situations and in meeting other foreign policy challenges, we are in fact already preparing the way for the implementation of the foreign policy provisions in the constitutional treaty, thereby also enhancing the European Union’s role in the world, which is what its citizens want, and this is also, quite rightly, stressed in the report.

The European Parliament, too, plays a very considerable part in the EU’s foreign policy, and it is for that reason that I attach great importance to our regular exchanges with you, whether in meetings of the plenary or of your committees, in which we should never lose sight of the common challenge that we face, that of making our influence more effectively felt throughout the world.

As is rightly emphasised in the report, it is equally important that the Common Foreign and Security Policy be properly funded, and so the funds for the new financial period were topped up to a considerable degree, particularly in comparison to other policy areas. Turning to the 2007 Budget, we all know that 2007 will be an extraordinary year in terms of the demands that will be made on the Budget, the two most important of which will be, without a doubt, Kosovo and the peace process in the Middle East. In Kosovo, as soon as we have managed to secure agreement on its final status and the UN Security Council in New York has adopted a resolution, a major – perhaps even the biggest yet – ESDP operation will be set in motion, and the Commission and the Council are already working hard on preparing it. As regards the peace process in the Middle East, we have to ensure that the aid to the Palestinian people is maintained.

In the event of additional resources being required for the CFSP budget, we will have to work with your House to find a suitable solution, taking into account the need to respond to unforeseen crises and emergencies in other foreign policy areas.

I could, right now, go into the individual issues, but I do think you would rather I broke off for the moment now and then answered a few specific questions after the debate.

  Antonis Samaras (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – (EL) Mr President, as a member of the Committee on Budgets, I would like to express our satisfaction at the reinforcement of the Common Foreign and Security Policy chapter with almost EUR 1 800 million for the period 2007-2013, which almost triples the funding for the previous seven years.

However, we consider that, for precisely this reason, this positive development needs to be accompanied by strengthened measures for parliamentary control and improved cooperation between our committee and the Council, as provided for in Article 28 of the Treaty on European Union. Consequently, I am obliged to condemn this evening’s unwarranted absence of the Council, which sends us a very negative message.

Our position is clear; we cannot accept annual reports from the Council limited solely to an ex-post description of CFSP activities. With the signature of the new interinstitutional agreement, the moment has now come for the Council to give us information before it takes its final decisions.

Such substantial financial information was only given to us recently for Kosovo by the competent German ambassador and I must welcome the initiative of the ambassador in question, in the hope that this improvement will now continue on a regular basis.

Two other points: we are worried that it has so far been almost impossible to assess so-called ‘mixed CFSP actions’ entailing expenditure resulting from both civilian actions and actions with military and defence implications and, secondly, I wish to emphasise that we consider it necessary for the European Union Special Representatives to fall under the CFSP budget and, therefore, that there is a need to establish criteria for their appointment and evaluation.

  Bogdan Klich, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PL) Mr President, Mr Brok’s report concerns the year 2005, but we are obviously here today to discuss the future of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. What form will it take?

Clearly, if the European Union is to be an active force for international peace, stabilisation and safety, it must have the relevant tools at its disposal, in the form of appropriate political and social institutions. These tools are always underlain by the political will of the Member States or by the lack of any such will. Whether or not we have more Europe now and in the future will depend on the will of Europe’s political leaders. Similarly, the Common Foreign and Security Policy is underlain by our leaders’ political will. What, therefore, are the challenges facing our leaders in the context of the CFSP and the ESDP?

Firstly, regardless of the eventual outcome of the reform of the treaties, I believe that consideration of the Constitutional Treaty’s provisions relating directly or indirectly to the CFSP should begin as part of the reform process. The European Union should then be endowed with a legal personality and its pillar-based structure done away with. A new entity should be created, the so-called European Minister for Foreign Affairs, and a European External Action Service should be set up.

The general principle of unanimity in the area of CFSP should be retained, whilst also extending the scope of qualified majority voting.

It is very important to introduce a solidarity clause to apply in the case of a terrorist threat or act, and to retain the principle of mutual assistance in cases of armed aggression on the territory of any of the Member States (the principle laid down in Article 1(41) of the Constitutional Treaty).

In addition, it is essential for structural cooperation to remain within the scope of missions whilst at the same time doing away with their exclusive nature. A broader list of Petersberg tasks should be included in the Treaty too. The European Defence Agency should be strengthened by treaty.

Secondly, the effectiveness of peace missions should be ensured. I refer not only to current missions to Bosnia and Lebanon but also to the forthcoming mission to Kosovo.

Finally, an energy solidarity clause should be included in the new Treaty. This would be a fitting response to the threats to energy security that are having an ever-greater impact on our citizens.

  Helmut Kuhne, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, we members of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament endorse Mr Brok’s report, even though our views differ as regards certain aspects of concrete political measures; for example, we take the view that the concerns and fears felt in some of the European Union’s Member States about the stationing of the American anti-missile system triggering a new round of the arms race should be voiced. I might add that we Social Democrats are extremely pleased to note that some of the same questions that we have about this system are now also being raised in the US Congress’ House of Representatives.

Why, though, are we supporting your report? We support it because it is presented in a quite specific situation and was endorsed by a broad majority in the committee, and the situation in which we find ourselves is the final stretch leading to the creation of a new treaty basis for the European Union and for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. We social democrats want that sort of progress. I hope you will excuse my bluntness when I say that it may well turn out, tomorrow, that there will be more determined backing for it from our ranks than there will be from elements within your own group.

It is when we are discussing matters such as these that someone should speak out about what it is all about; you were right to do just that, and I want to underline once more what you said. The day will come when it will no longer affect those of us who sit here, but it may well be that it will affect our grandchildren, who will, one day, read in their history books that, in 2007, Europeans once again had an opportunity to help determine the fate of the world, that they threw the chance away, and influence over the world was thereafter shared out between the United States and China.

If that is not to happen, then this House, in the situation in which we find ourselves, must endorse this report and give its backing to these measures, many of which Mr Klich has enumerated, and I agree with his description of them, which should, by tomorrow, be the common position of the great majority in this House.

  Cem Özdemir, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, you will probably be amazed that my own group, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, is another that not only welcomes the Brok report, but positively endorses it. I am not only interested but also overjoyed to note Mr Brok’s newly-discovered passion for ‘soft power’, which is something else in which I can rejoice while looking forward with keen anticipation to seeing to what degree he transposes that onto the European Union’s enlargement policy in relation not only to the Western Balkans but also to Turkey. I do not propose to go into that in any greater depth right now, but what can certainly not be acceptable any longer is the Council’s attitude towards this House where the CFSP and the ESDP are concerned, for it informs us at some point after the event depending on what it feels like doing and how it assesses the situation, a practice that comes in for justified criticism and must be changed. It has to be said too, though, that what has hitherto gone under the name of Common Foreign and Security Policy does not often merit the name that it bears.

Let me try to show that by reference to the example of Kosovo. Over recent years, the Member States of the European Union have sent many soldiers and aid workers, together with a lot of money, to the crisis-torn regions and are now planning to be involved with policing on a broad scale and to have a civil presence too. Considering not only the quality, but also the quantity, of the services we provide together, one might think that the European Union had an unambiguous, unitary and common Kosovo policy to follow, but – as we are all aware – the reality is somewhat different, even though the issue has already been discussed at the level of the UN Security Council, and the question arises as to whether we must once more wait for the Americans to intervene, or whether we are in a position to resolve the problem ourselves.

  Tobias Pflüger, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, for once, today, I would like to start with the points on which we are in agreement. It is an impertinence to have this debate held at a time such as this. The subject-matter really is far too important for that, and – as the report states with surprising clarity, very much so in paragraphs 41, 42 and 43, and also in many others – Parliament has no real control over the European Union’s military policy.

The Council really should get round to taking note of the very real and complete unity that prevails within this House on this point. We want parliament to monitor what is going on, and we also want it to be consulted on military decisions.

Let me now, though, for fear that I should ladle consensus sauce over this report, list the main points on which we disagree. As Mr Brok said earlier, it really is the constitutional treaty that is at the heart of all this, and, as the Commissioner said, it really will bring in real ‘advances’ in terms of military policy. It is for precisely that reason, among others, that we repudiate this constitutional treaty, and hope that such passages as Article I-41 (3) will no longer feature in the fundamental treaty that is now being planned, although I am not very confident on that score. It really does look as if we are going to end up with practically the same treaty, but no longer under the name of ‘Constitutional Treaty’; instead, it will be adopted by the various governments under another form.

Let me say something about certain points within this report. The centrality of structural cooperation is set out in very clear terms. Yes, it really is central – if you want the European Union to be a military power. We do not, and so we do not want this structured cooperation either, and there are very clear references to the Athena machinery whereby devious means are used to fund military actions by the European Union; for example, through what are termed ‘returns’ from the European Development Fund, and that we regard as a scandal. This sort of gamesmanship really does need to have a stop put to it, and the European Union really must not be allowed to become a military power.

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, this report calls for an EU foreign minister, a common foreign policy, a common EU seat on the UN Security Council and much more and, of course, for the all too predictable full ratification of the rejected European Constitution in order to make it all possible. The parts that amused me the most were those calling for a foreign policy to be decided by qualified majority voting and for national security services to be subject to democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament.

The justification for all this is that this is what the people of Europe want from the European Union. I do not know which people Mr Brok has been speaking to, but they certainly were not British. The idea that they would want to hand over control of their foreign policy, defences and security services to the European Union is laughable. The frightening thing is that Mr Brok is serious.

  Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE). – La numai două săptămâni de la serbarea zilei Europei, la 9 mai, dezbaterea pe marginea raportului domnului Elmar Brok, consacrat politicii europene de securitate comună, este actuală şi necesară. Îi mulţumesc în acest sens raportorului pentru abordarea cuprinzătoare a acestei tematici, indisolubil legate de prezentul şi viitorul Uniunii Europene, precum şi pentru stabilirea, în interiorul raportului, a unor priorităţi necesare unei acţiuni eficiente în contextul european şi internaţional de astăzi.

În calitatea mea de raportor la subiectul cooperării cu şi în cadrul Mării Negre, am apreciat în primul rând poziţionarea tematicii consolidării relaţiei Uniunii Europene cu ţările acestei zone ca o prioritate pentru anul 2007. Nu mai puţin importantă este şi sublinierea necesităţii de a dezvolta dimensiunea cooperării regionale în cadrul politicii externe a Uniunii. Regiunea Mării Negre dispune, fără îndoială, de un potenţial bogat de dezvoltare; în egală măsură, ţările din zonă se confruntă şi cu provocări serioase în mai multe domenii. Stabilitatea, dezvoltarea şi prosperitatea în zona de vecinătate a Uniunii Europene, consolidarea relaţiilor Uniunii Europene cu ţările acestei regiuni, precum şi încurajarea cooperării intra-regionale este, în acest context, de o importanţă majoră. Reunind în cadrul său state membre ale Uniunii Europene şi vecini ai acesteia, regiunea Mării Negre poate şi trebuie să devină un spaţiu al cooperării pe baza valorilor şi principiilor europene. Trebuie însă să trecem de la vorbe la fapte, din plan teoretic în cel al măsurilor concrete şi eficiente, care să demonstreze implicarea Uniunii Europene în această regiune.

  Libor Rouček (PSE). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, at the start of the 21st century, European countries face a whole series of new challenges. These include globalisation, international terrorism, arms control and disarmament, stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction, uncontrolled migration, energy dependency and the safety of energy supplies, climate change, the prevention of the spread of poverty in the world and many others. All are problems and issues that affect all European countries regardless of their size or geographical location. They are all challenges, problems and issues that no European country, even the largest, is able to solve or resolve on its own.

We therefore need a joint foreign and security policy, and we have to strengthen it, at least to the extent proposed in the Constitutional Treaty. Above all, we need to create the post of European minister for foreign affairs, who would be a Commissioner and would chair the Committee on Foreign Affairs. In this way the Union would finally be able to speak with one voice. Among many proposals contained in the EU’s draft Constitutional Treaty are the need to create genuine European external action, the need to strengthen structural cooperation, and the need for a provision on aid, all of which are much needed.

Similarly significant is the fact that the process on the constitution should be completed by 2008. I feel that this is important, not only in respect of further enlargement, in this case involving Croatia, but also, as previous speakers have said, from the standpoint of making the common foreign, security and defence policy as effective as possible. I feel that without this Europe will become politically – and in time also economically – stunted in its development.

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM). – (SV) Mr Brok preaches the importance of the EU having a foreign minister and its own ambassadors around the world. He observes that only 18 countries have so far ratified the Constitutional Treaty and that ‘full ratification … needs to be pursued’. Consider that wording carefully: ‘full ratification … needs to be pursued’. This means, then, that the will of the people in two of the EU’s founding Member States is not being accepted. That is the way things happen here in Strasbourg and Brussels. As always, the same old mantra to the effect that Europe must be able to speak with one voice is heard again. That means that 27 voices have to be silenced. What, then, will the remaining voice say? Allow me to give an example. The invasion of Iraq was supported by a coalition of the willing involving the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Poland, the Netherlands, Denmark and other countries. An EU with one voice would probably have approved the invasion, and German soldiers would have been forced to go to war, against the express will of the German Parliament. Think about it, and think again. Speaking with one voice necessarily implies one people with a single identity, but we Europeans have different identities.

  Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Brok, and the draftsman of the opinion, Mr Samaras, for their comments on the weaknesses and shortcomings of the CFSP and for their proposals for more action, better funding and better use of our capabilities, so that we can play an international role and address the problems.

It is time, however, for us to ask once again: is all this enough? Will we get the anticipated results every time? It is a question being put to us by the citizens of the European Union and citizens in other areas of the world, mainly in areas where we are present but not effective enough.

I should like to refer to the Middle East, as referred to in the Brok report, which has been experiencing a particularly abnormal situation over recent days. This situation is indeed a huge challenge for us. We offer coordinated and permanent humanitarian and development aid. We maintain peacekeeping forces, such as in Lebanon, and police forces, such as in Rafa, and we are waiting for the problems to resolve themselves or to be resolved by others or to go down roads dictated by others.

We recognise that the heart of the problem is the Palestinian problem and yet we rely on temporary solutions and do not take fate into our own hands in order to arrive at radical solutions which will also be viable.

It is time for us to see that there is a need for a more independent and autonomous European strategy, which will see things more clearly and call them by their name. That is the only way for us to be effective.

Commissioner, I recognise your efforts and I see they are alive and effective wherever I am in this area and elsewhere, but I believe that, before the Constitutional Treaty, which will give us a more cohesive and responsible framework, we can make sure there is better cooperation with the Council. Parliament can contribute to this more political and deeper approach to the issues and lay down a strategy.

  Marianne Mikko (PSE). – (ET) Ladies and gentlemen, the threefold increase in the budget for the Common Foreign and Security Policy is a step forward. Nevertheless, the nearly EUR 2 billion spread out over the next seven years is not enough to satisfy even the most urgent necessities.

The situation whereby the European Union’s influence in international relations is clearly inferior to that of some Member States is intolerable. The careless classification of matters that are important to Member States as bilateral issues is dealing a deathblow to the credibility of the European Union’s foreign policy. At the same time, we weaken ourselves by permitting Russia’s ‘near abroad’ doctrine to close the door to potential future Member States.

It would be beneficial for both ourselves and our partners if we were to speak with one voice in the world and with the world. This must be a voice of common interest, not one of convenience for the great powers. The decline in the influence of the United States, the unbridled ambitions of Russia and new lines of force in the world economy compel us to show and implement the potential of the European Union. I also support the rapporteur’s call to involve more women in executive positions.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM). – (SV) I just want to address the issue of exceeding speaking time. All speakers must be treated in the same way. If everyone else is allowed to have their say, my fellow Member here on my left ought also to be allowed to, even though he does not have the same view as the President.

  Jamila Madeira (PSE). – (PT) I wish to congratulate Mr Brok warmly on the clear-sightedness with which he put these issues to the House and on his political approach. As a confirmed federalist and staunch advocate of the Constitution, he did not shy away from the difficult issues and described the EU’s responsibilities in today’s world.

I should like, however, to touch on a point in this report directly related to the Middle East conflict and the EU’s passivity in the face of the disastrous state of affairs - a passivity that emerged from the debate this afternoon on the situation in Palestine. This year, the EU’s focus should be on the Palestine situation. I therefore disagree with the EU’s position. The crux of the world’s problems and instability is known to be in the Middle East. Of all its foreign policy responsibilities, the EU must give top priority to taking on these challenges if we want to live more safely, in a society characterised by democracy and peace.

As regards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the international community, and indeed all of us, must champion the solution of two States living side by side in the region within the borders defined in 1967.

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Mr President, let me begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Brok, for this important report. It comes at a very crucial moment, when the German Presidency is trying to revive the Constitutional Treaty, perhaps without its title. The important thing is greater efficiency.

How can we achieve greater efficiency in the future? Not only via the institutions but also through the political will of the Member States. Only if there is unanimity in our actual way of voting will there be the possibility of an effective common foreign and security policy. Therefore, we should go forward with more qualified majority voting on common foreign policy. This is very complicated, but I think it would make a real difference.

I should also like to thank our rapporteur, particularly with regard to his remarks on the delegations. I have started to work very closely with our people on more training, on better political reporting, on public diplomacy and on exchange programmes between the Member States, the Council, the Council Secretariat and ourselves in order to achieve – via osmosis, as I always say – a better understanding of each other and to prepare a cohesive approach in the future.

Let me just make a couple of further remarks, one about Kosovo. Kosovo is indeed a European problem, which needs a European solution with the agreement of the international community. The European Union is to take responsibility for post-status Kosovo. How can we achieve this? I think this can be done by setting up an international civilian office, by establishing a very significant rule of law mission and by continuing capacity-building on a large scale on the basis of, hopefully, a Security Council resolution.

I should also like to say that today we have already had quite a long debate on the Middle East. We know how difficult the situation is, but I think the European Union has played quite an important role and wants to continue to play an important role, particularly in conjunction with other members of the Quartet. Even if the situation seems to be rather bleak today, we hope that we can still bring the two sides together for a positive approach in the future.

I should like to mention that the Black Sea is one of those new areas where we have focused our efforts with regard to our Neighbourhood Policy, because we think this is a new area with new Member States, like Romania and Bulgaria, we have reached out and we would like to work together with Turkey and with Russia on this region, trying to address many of the important issues.

Finally, with regard to contacts between the Council and the European Parliament, there is now an interinstitutional agreement, there is more contact between the Council and Parliament on CFSP issues, and I think the special representative of the Secretary-General, Mr Matthiessen, who is here today, will certainly also mention that.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday 23 May.

Written statements (Article 142)

  Glyn Ford (PSE), (in writing). – This report by Mr Brok is an important step forward in European common foreign and security policy. With the successive development of European Industrial Union, Social Union – as part of the European social model – Economic and Monetary Union and the adoption of the single currency, Europe is now ready and must move to develop and project a united stance on foreign policy issues.

This is beginning to happen. Europe has adopted a distinct stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict, Iran and the Korean Peninsula, all in my opinion with their commitment to dialogue and critical engagement far more appropriate than the confrontational and one-sided unbalanced approach of the Bush Administration.

Our first CFSP venture into Asia has been a resounding success with the EU-brokered peace deal in Aceh being overseen by the joint EU-ASEAN Aceh Monitoring Mission, which observed the decommissioning of arms, the resettlement of combatants – on both sides – and the removal of non-organic troops, all of which led to the historic elections last December that saw the former GAM combatant and prisoner of the Government in Indonesia in Banda Aceh elected Governor. We will continue to aid and assist this peace process to consolidate this success.

Now it is time for Europe to express itself more strongly in the Korean Peninsula. (...)

(Written statement abbreviated pursuant to Rule 142(7))

  Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE), in writing. – Colleagues, I would like to thank my colleague and friend Elmar Brok for his excellent report on CFSP. I should especially like to emphasise three points.

Firstly, the report expresses the need for a common approach to foreign policy issues in times of globalisation. The report mentions climate change, dependency on energy, failing states and international terrorism, just to mention a few examples.

Secondly, the report underlines that the Constitutional Treaty provides the necessary institutional innovations, for example the double-hatted foreign minister, to coordinate mutual foreign policy more efficiently.

Thirdly, effective policy needs funds. The report sees ‘the total amount of EUR 1740 billion allocated to the CFSP for the period from 2007 to 2013 as insufficient to achieve the ambitions of the Union as a global actor’. I agree.

I should therefore like to express my support for this report.