Rapporti verbatim tad-dibattiti

L-Erbgħa, 15 ta' Diċembru 2010 - Strasburgu

17. L-eżitu tas-Summit tan-NATO f'Lisbona (dibattitu)

  Πρόεδρος. - Το επόμενο σημείο είναι η δήλωση της Αντιπροέδρου της Επιτροπής/Ύπατης Εκπροσώπου της Ένωσης για Θέματα Εξωτερικής Πολιτικής και Πολιτικής Ασφαλείας σχετικά με τα αποτελέσματα της συνάντησης κορυφής του ΝΑΤΟ στη Λισαβόνα

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Madam President, the NATO summit in Lisbon was a success for NATO and indeed for its Secretary-General. I was very pleased to have participated in some of its discussions.

I will outline to honourable Members what I think are the important results achieved, focusing particularly on EU-NATO relations and I will not touch on the more internal NATO issues.

In Lisbon, the Heads of State and Government agreed on a new strategic concept, a vision for the alliance for the next ten years. NATO preserved its core tasks of collective defence and deterrents and recognised the importance of crisis management and cooperative security. Lisbon also paved the way for important decisions for NATO in a number of key areas such as missile defence, cyber defence, NATO reform and NATO’s contribution to stabilisation and reconstruction.

In relation to Afghanistan, which we just discussed and which is also an important area of cooperation between the EU and NATO, decisions were taken on both transition and on long-term partnership. I am going to focus on how Lisbon will in my view improve EU-NATO relations. This was also on the agenda of the Defence Ministers’ meeting which I chaired last week and which was also attended by NATO Secretary-General Anders Rasmussen.

NATO is a key strategic partner for the European Union. I welcome the recognition by NATO Heads of State and Government of the important contribution the European Union brings to security and stability. I would like to underline the strong political commitment to the strengthening of the EU-NATO strategic partnership expressed by all, especially from President Obama.

I have been very actively engaged with Member States and allies and the NATO Secretary-General in order to reinforce EU-NATO relations. My participation in several NATO high-level meetings, including the Foreign Affairs dinner at the NATO Lisbon summit, which also focused on EU-NATO relations, has been instrumental in this regard.

Earlier this year I took the initiative of sending NATO a set of concrete measures to reinforce EU-NATO cooperation. Many of these measures have already been implemented in the European Union with the support of the Secretary-General of NATO. This generated opportunities for informal discussions on issues of common interest, as well as more EU political dialogue with all NATO allies.

My ambition is to pave the way to even more progress. I received a mandate for that at the European Council on 16 September. In Lisbon, Secretary-General Rasmussen received a similar mandate to work with me on reinforcing EU-NATO relations.

One area of progress is EU-NATO cooperation on capability development, an area where we are achieving promising results, particularly on the military capability development, which is necessary for both enhancing military capabilities and maximising cost effectiveness. More than ever we have to ensure complementarity and avoid duplication.

On 9 December, EU Ministers of Defence warmly welcomed the progress that has been achieved in strengthening cooperation with NATO. We have already worked together, for example on helicopter availability, and we have now defined the building blocks on counter improvised explosive devices and medical support. These are both vitally important areas of work with real operational consequences for our troops serving in the field.

Just to give a couple of concrete examples. In the field of helicopter availability, we already had two exercises in France and in Spain. Similar exercises are planned for the next four years. In that context, we trained a 114 crews, that is over 1 300 personnel with 58 helicopters. As an immediate result, 63 trained crews were deployed in Afghanistan. Another example, this time in the field of countering road-side bombs, is the counter improvised explosive devices, where the European Defence Agency is in the final phase of purchasing a forensic laboratory which could be deployed in Afghanistan next year.

We have also continued to improve cooperation through the productive interaction between the European Defence Agency and the allied command for transformation.

Overall, my goal remains the development of true organisation-to-organisation relationship between the European Union and NATO. The meeting of Ministers of Defence last week paved the way to move forward towards that goal.

Pending wider solutions, it is essential that we can count on solid arrangements between us when we are deployed together in the same theatre. We owe this to our personnel. It is also essential to be able to continue to work effectively to support the Member States and the allies to develop critical military capabilities, building on the successful work we have launched already. I would argue that this is even more important in the current context of the economic backdrop.

We will all need flexibility to be able to take this forward and to find solutions. I will move forward in a concrete and pragmatic way working on behalf of all 27 Member States.

  Elmar Brok, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der NATO-Gipfel hat gezeigt, dass die dort angesprochene Zusammenarbeit zwischen NATO und Europäischer Union von großer Wichtigkeit ist. Die NATO ist nach wie vor notwendig für die kollektive Sicherheit Europas, und es ist wichtig, dadurch Amerika zu binden. Der Gipfel hat auch deutlich gemacht, dass die Raketenabwehr, die in einem gemeinsamen NATO-Projekt jetzt Gesamteuropa absichert, ein wichtiger Schritt ist zur weiteren Kooperation. Es wurde aber auch deutlich – und die Afghanistan-Debatte ist ein Beispiel dafür –, dass es ein hohes Maß an ziviler und militärischer Zusammenarbeit gibt, wo gerade die Europäische Union einen wichtigen Beitrag leisten kann. Ich glaube, dass diese entsprechend ausgebaut werden soll. Aber wir müssen sehen, dass in einem entscheidenden Punkt kein Fortschritt erreicht worden ist, weil die notwendige Kooperation, die wir viel besser gestalten könnten, durch den NATO-Partner Türkei bisher mit einem Veto belegt wurde. Frau Vizepräsidentin, ich glaube, dass es außerordentlich wichtig ist, dass diese Frage, auch im Kontext der Beitrittsverhandlungen mit der Türkei angesprochen wird. Wir sollten nicht die NATO und die Zusammenarbeit von NATO und Europäischer Union zu einem Instrument machen in der Auseinandersetzung mit einem Mitgliedsland der Europäischen Union, das nicht der NATO angehört. Aus diesem Grunde meine ich, dass es zu einer entscheidenden Schwäche unserer Handlungsfähigkeit führt, dass die Türkei sich bisher den notwendigen Schritten nicht anpasst. Im Übrigen begrüße ich natürlich, dass die Frage der Rüstungskooperation auch darauf hinweist, dass es eine Zusammenarbeit mit der Europäischen Verteidigungsagentur geben kann, wobei gerade auch die Cyberspace-Frage von großer Bedeutung für die Institution ist.

  Adrian Severin, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, the NATO Summit in Lisbon has acknowledged the new realities, challenges and non-conventional threats of the post-Cold War world. On that basis it has tried to establish a new balance between the alliance’s regional and global involvement. A global NATO, or a NATO with a global role, is a must. Certain consequences are implied.

Firstly, the European Union must prepare itself to assume more responsilities as far as European security and defence are concerned. This means not only developing and updating our European security and defence concept but also developing our military capabilities. Secondly, the European Union has a duty to prepare itself to face global challenges and to behave like a truly global player. This means that we have to redefine our global interest and targets, and increase our military capacities to an extent which will allow us properly to share the burdens of global defence with our American allies. Thirdly, we have a duty to include in our strategies concerning relations with other global players ideas which will lead towards a system of partnership for defence, with capacity for aggregation within a global defensive pact.

In coping with all these duties, the European Union should not only preserve its strategic connection with NATO but should also be able to make its intellectual and political contribution with regard to maintaining NATO’s ability to deter, and its ability to defend Member States against any aggression, in a context different from the one which determined the birth of the alliance.

  Norica Nicolai, în numele grupului ALDE. – Cred că summitul de la Lisabona este primul summit din 1999 încoace care adaugă la bunurile comune în materie de viziune strategică ale Alianţei. Cred că ceea ce este mai important este că, în acest secol, ameninţările existente, interesele securitare, dar mai ales capacitatea bugetelor de apărare de a oferi soluţii militare eficiente pun în discuţie chestiunea bipolarităţii lumii.

Era timpul să se realizeze o analiză amplă a direcţiei în care se îndreaptă Alianţa şi, sigur, dacă compatibilitatea cu Rusia este un aspect, ţin să subliniez însă că pentru NATO, în opinia mea, şi compatibilitatea cu proiectul de securitate european este esenţială. Se pare că problema Afganistanului a motivat suficient de mult Alianţa şi mă bucur să constat că Rusia a fost de acord să se alăture eforturilor NATO în Afganistan. Sper ca această problemă complexă a Afganistanului să nu fie unul din motivele de îngrijorare pentru viitorul eficient al acestei alianţe.

De asemenea, salut faptul că Uniunea Europeană a pus în discuţie problema tehnologiei antirachetă. Cred că la nivelul Uniunii va trebui să avem o discuţie cu privire la eficienţa acestui scut antirachetă.

  Reinhard Bütikofer, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Vizepräsidentin! Der NATO-Gipfel in Lissabon ist sicher von großer Bedeutung für die EU und dieses Parlament, denn die Zukunft der europäischen Sicherheit wird nur dann erfolgreich gemeistert, wenn die NATO, die EU und auch andere Organisationen wie die OSZE jeweils ihren Beitrag leisten und vernünftig kooperieren. Aber die Darstellung, die bis jetzt von diesen Ergebnissen in Lissabon gegeben wurde, ist beschönigend. Ich sage es einmal etwas spöttisch: Die NATO hat zwar eine neue Strategie, aber sie weiß immer noch nicht, wohin sie will. Die ganz großmäuligen Phantasien von der NATO als Weltpolizist hat man aufgegeben, das ist sicherlich ein gewisser Fortschritt. Etwas mehr Bescheidenheit gibt es, aber noch nicht genug Klarheit.

Lassen Sie mich das an Beispielen demonstrieren:

1. Beispiel: Rüstungsausgaben. Die Mitglieder der Europäischen Union wollen durch eine dauerhafte, strukturierte Zusammenarbeit Rüstungsausgaben einsparen, aber unter der Überschrift „Raketenabwehr“ unterschreibt man bei der NATO ungedeckte Schecks. 200 Millionen sagt der Generalsekretär, alle Fachleute sagen, es seien eher 40-70 Milliarden, die dieser Raketenschirm kosten wird, und man weiß noch nicht einmal, wie er gemanagt werden soll.

2. Beispiel: atomare Abrüstung. Großartig war Obamas Vision in Prag, Global Zero, wir haben dies begrüßt. Schon bei der NPT-Konferenz war sich Europa nicht mehr einig, aber in der NATO klammert man sich jetzt an die atomare Abschreckung, wie der Blinde sich an einen Laternenmast klammert. Vor allem ehemalige Weltmächte finden offensichtlich ihre Atomwaffen viel attraktiver als eine ehrgeizige europäische Politik für atomare Abrüstung.

3. Beispiel: Friedensarbeit, zivile Konfliktlösung. Wir haben als Europäische Union da viel geleistet. Auf einmal kommt die NATO und will es auch machen. Demnächst kommt sie noch mit Entwicklungspolitik.

Man leidet unter sicherheitspolitischer Persönlichkeitsspaltung. Lassen Sie uns das beenden! Lassen Sie uns dafür sorgen, dass es in einem Jahr ein Weißbuch gibt, in dem wir klarstellen, was wir sicherheitspolitisch in Europa wollen!

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, NATO remains a fundamental element of Europe’s collective security and so does the bridge it builds with America. At the Lisbon Summit, NATO redefined its place at the heart of the Euro-Atlantic security architecture for its new strategic concept.

My role as Vice-Chair of this Parliament’s delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly has made me more convinced than ever of the value of NATO and of EU cooperation with it. I am full of admiration for the work of NATO ISAF troops in Afghanistan but regret the lack of participation by some of our allies with restrictive caveats on military engagement, in a situation where defeat, or cutting and running prematurely on the part of NATO, would have incalculable consequences for Western security and for lasting peace in the region – destabilising Pakistan in particular. Even at a time of austerity, when many Member States are cutting their defence budgets, winning in Afghanistan must be our priority.

I was also recently in Kosovo, where I saw for myself the valuable work being undertaken by NATO troops in KFOR. NATO’s operation Ocean Shield is working well off the coast of Somalia to combat piracy, although it is in danger of duplicating the work of the larger EU Common Security and Defence Policy mission Atalanta. I welcome coordination between the two.

I also support NATO enlargement to Georgia and Ukraine one day. The Cold War is now gone and the threats we face are increasingly asymmetric and global. I welcome the new approach by NATO of looking at the broader picture, from cyber security to the threats posed by climate change and food security, but the rationale for NATO is as strong today as it ever was when the organisation was first founded 61 years ago.

  Marisa Matias, em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL. – A Cimeira da NATO realizou-se em Lisboa e, portanto, permitam-me que diga algumas palavras sobre o que se passou no meu país a propósito desta Cimeira.

Nessa altura, as autoridades portuguesas proibiram a entrada no país de cidadãos europeus e apenas por um único motivo: é que estes cidadãos traziam consigo textos críticos da Aliança. Nesses dias, o mínimo que poderemos dizer é que vigorou em Portugal um regime arbitrário, uma autêntica polícia do pensamento. Um regime tão especial que levou o Governo português a comprar material anti-motim no valor de cinco milhões de euros e que nem sequer chegou a tempo da realização da Cimeira. E são estas as prioridades afinal de um governo que se depara com uma enorme crise social.

Na Europa em que sonhamos, a liberdade de expressão é um valor fundamental. A Europa que sonhamos não se verga perante organizações militares que escrevem a sua história com sangue.

Da Cimeira da NATO saiu a legitimação da sua intervenção militar em todo o planeta. Saiu também a subalternização da União Europeia à estratégia militar e aos interesses norte-americanos. Em terceiro lugar, consolidou-se a militarização do acesso às fontes energéticas. Por último, instituiu-se a defesa militar do modelo de desenvolvimento que gera desequilíbrios ambientais e que perturba a crise social.

Por isto, quero dizer-lhe, Senhora Presidente, que, no meu entender, com esta Cimeira, perdemos em democracia, perdemos em liberdade e perdemos para que alguns ganhem com a guerra.

  David Campbell Bannerman, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, thank you for using my full name! I think we should celebrate the fact that NATO’s Lisbon Summit has strengthened protection for our peace and democracy, in direct contrast to the Lisbon Treaty which is already doing quite the opposite. But NATO is threatened by the savage cuts being imposed on European armed forces.

These are deeply dangerous. It is unforgiveable that the UK Government is slashing spending to below the 2% base level every NATO member is meant to honour. It is a false economy too, because defence spending brings good jobs. Today the British Harrier jet is removed from service. This month we lost the carrier HMS Ark Royal prematurely with the loss of 6 000 dedicated personnel.

The USA cannot be expected to carry this burden with less and less contribution from us. We should be under no illusion that the Americans could pull out of NATO, as top British General Dannatt has warned, and leave us to an emboldened Russian bear still prepared to launch cyber attacks against Estonia and to systematically probe British sea and air defences, in disturbing echoes of the Cold War.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). - Frau Präsidentin! Von einem historischen Durchbruch auf dem NATO-Gipfel war die Rede. Nun konnte zwar der deutsch-französische Streit über die nukleare Abrüstung beigelegt werden, de facto jedoch wird in Zukunft nicht auf Atomwaffen verzichtet werden können. Denn das würde die NATO-Staaten seitens Teheran oder Pjöngjang erpressbar machen. Überhaupt wird eine Welt ohne Atomwaffen, selbst ohne diktatorische Regime so lange eine Illusion bleiben, solange manche Staaten erst dann ernst genommen werden, wenn sie zur potenziellen oder auch zur tatsächlichen Atommacht aufgestiegen sind.

Bedauerlich ist auch, dass man bei diesem Gipfel ein für die Vereinigten Staaten eher unangenehmes Thema ausgespart hat, nämlich wie es im Nahen Osten nach dem beschlossenen Abzug der US-Streitkräfte aus dem Irak weitergehen soll. Auch die vielzitierte Trendwende der russischen Außenpolitik erweist sich wahrscheinlich bei näherer Betrachtung bloß als taktisch kluger Schachzug. Und für die Bereiche Terrorismus und Cyberkrieg gab es Absichtserklärungen anstatt wirklicher Konzepte. Von einem Durchbruch war dieser NATO-Gipfel meines Erachtens weit entfernt.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). - Señora Presidenta, la nueva concepción estratégica de la OTAN, nacida en Lisboa, ha sido establecida para tratar de atender y de adaptarse, en primer lugar, a un nuevo contexto, es decir, la desaparición del sistema de bloques y el final de la guerra fría y, en segundo lugar, para adaptarse a la nueva configuración de las amenazas, especialmente a la globalización y al hecho de que nuestros ejércitos no tienen enemigos aparentes y de que nuestros enemigos no tengan ejércitos.

Sobre la base de esta nueva concepción estratégica y siempre tomando en consideración el artículo 5 del Tratado de Washington en lo que se refiere a la asistencia mutua, hay tres aspectos que me interesan.

En primer lugar, cómo configurar esa alianza estratégica con Europa: me gustaría preguntarle, señora Ashton, si usted piensa que Turquía debería participar al máximo, en la medida de lo posible, en las acciones y el desarrollo de la Política Exterior y de Seguridad Común.

En segundo lugar, la ratificación del Tratado START por el nuevo Congreso de los Estados Unidos. ¿Piensa usted que, si no se produce esa ratificación, se verá afectada esta nueva concepción estratégica?

Y, en último lugar, ¿qué piensa usted, señora Ashton, en relación con el tema del escudo antimisiles? ¿Cree que esta noción compromete de alguna manera la tesis de la reducción de los arsenales nucleares? Porque parece ser que hay visiones contrapuestas entre los Estados miembros.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Alto rappresentante, il nuovo concetto strategico elaborato dalla NATO contiene importanti e positive novità, per affrontare le sfide del XXI secolo in modo coerente con i valori del Patto atlantico.

In particolare accogliamo con soddisfazione il rilancio della partnership strategica con la Russia, l'esplicita formulazione dell'obiettivo di un mondo senza armi nucleari, il riconoscimento dell'importanza di una più forte difesa europea, la riaffermazione del principio della difesa collettiva e al tempo stesso l'affermazione che la NATO non considera nessun paese come proprio avversario.

Tuttavia non mancano problemi e contraddizioni, che il non nuovo concetto non scioglie: in primo luogo manca un chiaro e univoco impegno all'eliminazione delle armi nucleari tattiche, ancora dispiegate in Europa, nonostante esse siano strategicamente anacronistiche ed economicamente sempre più insostenibili; in secondo luogo, il ruolo rivestito dall'Unione europea nel concetto strategico appare ancora insufficiente e le progettate capacità civili di gestione delle crisi rischiano di duplicare inutilmente quelle dell'UE.

Siamo consapevoli dei problemi politici che frenano una migliore cooperazione UE-NATO, ma ciò non può ostacolare lo sviluppo del punto di vista operativo, di complementarità e sinergie che siano all'altezza delle rispettive ambizioni. Gli elicotteri, il supporto medico, gli esplosivi sono progressi importanti, ma non bastano: occorrono una visione e un impegno attivo e ci aspettiamo che lei, signora Ashhton, li metta in campo entrambi con forza e chiarezza.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). - Madam President, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Secretary-General of NATO, stated that the NATO-Russia Council Summit which took place in Lisbon provided a historic impulse to improving NATO-Russia relations, which I very much welcome.

Although the NATO-Russia Council Heads of State and Government agreed on a joint ballistic missile threat assessment and decided to resume missile defence cooperation, President Medvedev announced after the summit that Russia will take part in the envisaged joint missile defence system only as an equal and fully fledged partner involved in information exchange and resolving whatever problems.

I would like to point out that equal partners must take equal responsibilities. There are some significant differences between NATO and Russia when defining security. While Russia perceives classical military threats to security, NATO on the other hand emphasises the lack of democracy and violation of human rights as a security threat. In order for Russia to be more closely involved in joint projects within the framework of NATO, I would expect Russia to mainstream democracy, human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law. To have an equal partnership, NATO and Russia must be on an equal footing on such relevant issues.

  Franziska Katharina Brantner (Verts/ALE). - Madam President, I would like to welcome Baroness Ashton here. We have been listening to her comments on other issues and I think they are very interrelated. It would seem strange now to be very specific, but I would like to mention the further development of CSDP in the framework of general cooperation with NATO. I think that we really need an outside review of what has happened so far.

You mentioned, on human rights, that it is time to take stock and move on. I think we need exactly the same with regard to the missions that we have had so far. I think you have an opportunity to start anew. You can look back and have an external expertise and a review in order to define more what our priorities really are and what capabilities we need. I would just like to mention that we have headline goals for 2010, but now we are at the end of 2010 and we are far from reaching them, including on the civilian side. The question is how we should move forward and I think it would be good to have a view.

Secondly, I really urge you to use the synergy post, which I hope will now be created in the framework of the setting up of the External Action Service, to strengthen the civilian management capabilities in your service. We have not had the chance to create new posts but at least should use them to strengthen this area.

My last point, very briefly, is that there is a debate now going on regarding crisis response and national disaster response. I think we have to be careful there to keep the neutrality of the EU humanitarian response, even if it is sometimes difficult in crisis areas. I think this is an important issue.

  Konrad Szymański (ECR). - Oczywiście NATO ze szczytu lizbońskiego wyszło wzmocnione. Art. 5 został ożywiony na nowo nie wyłączając zdolności do obrony przed atakiem balistycznym. Zapisy nowej strategii muszą być teraz wdrożone w życie. Plan działania dotyczący transatlantyckiej architektury obrony przeciwrakietowej powinien być ukończony nie później niż w połowie 2011 r. Powinny iść za nim również pieniądze, także europejskich partnerów NATO. Podpisanie przez Rosję nowego traktatu START nie może oznaczać ograniczeń w zakresie budowy natowskiej architektury antyrakietowej. Także współpraca z Rosją w tym obszarze nie może oznaczać osłabienia obrony Europy Środkowej.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). - Como se afirma nas conclusões da Cimeira da NATO realizada em Lisboa, a NATO confirma-se como uma aliança militar, uma aliança militar nuclear determinada a intervir rápida e massivamente em qualquer parte do mundo, em qualquer momento e sob qualquer pretexto, afirmando ter o único e robusto conjunto de capacidades políticas e militares, capaz de lidar com todo o tipo de crises: antes, durante e após os conflitos.

Numa inquietante ameaça global, a NATO afirma que é afectada e pode afectar desenvolvimentos políticos e de segurança para lá das suas fronteiras e que, portanto, se irá envolver activamente para melhorar a segurança internacional através de parcerias com países relevantes e outras organizações internacionais. É uma afirmação que revela dois objectivos: por um lado, auto-afirmar-se como uma espécie de centro emanador de onde irradiam relações de dependência que permitam a presença, pressão e intervenção das suas forças em todo o globo. E, por outro, aprofundar o caminho do intervencionismo e da fusão entre segurança internacional e segurança interna dos Estados, visando, assim, a destruição do direito internacional, numa afronta directa ao papel da Organização das Nações Unidas na abordagem das questões da segurança internacional.

Comandada por uma potência, os Estados Unidos, procura também fortalecer o seu pilar europeu, a União Europeia, considerada um parceiro único e essencial da NATO, e, por isso, a NATO que sai de Lisboa é maior, mais poderosa, mais perigosa e mais dissimulada, mas a ameaça é grande e a resposta do povo português também o foi com o desfile de mais de trinta mil pessoas nas ruas de Lisboa, lutando contra esta organização, exigindo a sua dissolução, considerada essencial para a defesa da paz.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). - Aj keď sa na rokovaní predstaviteľov členských krajín NATO v Lisabone riešili viaceré vážne témy bezpečnostných rizík súčasného sveta, niektoré závery a rozhodnutia svojím významom predsa len zanechávajú výraznejšiu stopu v súčasnom politickom svete.

Nový opatrný pokus o spoluprácu NATO s Ruskom pri budovaní systému protiraketovej obrany v Európe totiž predstavuje takú zmenu v bezpečnostnej politike, ktorá naznačuje, že tak Spojené štáty americké, ako aj Európa môžu nájsť v Rusku nového silného partnera, ktorý si možno tiež uvedomuje, že najväčšou hrozbou pre pokojný a dôstojný život civilizovanej demokratickej spoločnosti sa stali teroristické zoskupenia a militantné režimy budované na extrémistických ideológiách.

Vážená pani barónka Ashton, bolo by dobré, keby sme slová amerického prezidenta Baracka Obamu, ktorý povedal, že vidí Rusko ako partnera, nie ako nepriateľa, dokázali efektívne premietnuť ako nový pozitívny impulz aj do sféry hospodárskej spolupráce. Veď v čase, keď európsky priemysel zápasí s problémami nedostatočného odbytu svojej produkcie, môže otvorený a solventný trhový priestor Ruskej federácie ponúknuť také možnosti, ktoré obidvom partnerom – Rusku aj Európe – dokážu pomôcť v ich vnútorných ekonomických problémoch.

  Michael Gahler (PPE). - Frau Präsidentin! Welche Aufgaben stellen sich der EU im Bereich der Sicherheit und Verteidigung im Lichte der Vorlage eines neuen strategischen Konzepts der NATO? Die EU-Verteidigungsminister haben den Finger in die Wunde gelegt: Der EU mangelt es an adäquaten Kapazitäten und Fähigkeiten. Finanzkrise und Sparzwänge erhöhen aber in der EU und in der NATO den Zwang zur Konzentration der militärischen Fähigkeiten. Die Stichworte sharing und pooling beschreiben, was jetzt notwendig ist. Sobald die Staaten geprüft haben werden, was hier möglich ist, muss die Europäische Verteidigungsagentur ins Zentrum der gemeinsamen Entwicklung von Fähigkeiten gestellt werden. Auch die Kommission muss ihre Kooperation mit der Europäischen Verteidigungsagentur ausweiten, was auch gemeinschaftsfinanzierte Forschungs- und Entwicklungsprojekte umfassen sollte. Teilen Sie diese Auffassung?

Weil ich vorhin keine Redezeit zu dem anderen Thema hatte, will ich noch eine Frage zum Thema Demokratieförderung stellen. Ich möchte gerne von Ihnen wissen, wie viel Geld beim Demokratie- und Menschenrechtsinstrument ohne Zustimmung der Regierungen der betreffenden Länder tatsächlich ausgegeben wurde.

Ich habe auch noch ein Stichwort zur Wahlbeobachtung: Da sind wir teilweise inkonsequent, um nicht zu sagen feige. Nachdem Teile der Kommission und einige Mitgliedstaaten zu einer Wahlbeobachtung in Äthiopien gedrängt hatten und der Bericht des Chefs der Wahlbeobachtungsmission dann in Addis Abeba nicht präsentiert werden konnte, wurde das in Brüssel totgeschwiegen. Meine Frage ist: Wo bleibt Ihr öffentlicher Protest? Sie haben hier die Gelegenheit, zu diesem Thema noch etwas zu sagen.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D). - Madam President, indeed both the new strategy concept and the summit declaration recognise loudly and clearly that the EU is a major, and therefore indispensible, partner of the Alliance. The current international challenges confronting NATO and the EU, their simultaneous presence in a number of theatres of action and, moreover, the increasing complementarity between their respective roles require that the relations between the two organisations be strengthened.

In that regard, and taking into account the necessary collaboration in theatres of action and – inevitably – the revision of the Berlin Plus agreements, both organisations expect more concrete results from the discussions between the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative and the Secretary-General, in accordance with their respective mandates and, in that respect, the time has come to be imaginative in finding the right political compromise to allow for an unblocking of the current mechanical deadlock and permit both organisations to achieve their truly collaborative potential.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL). - Señora Presidenta, señora Ashton, sabe usted perfectamente que mi grupo parlamentario es contrario a la existencia de la OTAN.

Es totalmente contrario, entre otras cosas, porque no somos partidarios de que ningún Estado del mundo —o grupo de Estados, como es la alianza militar de la OTAN— pueda hacer uso de la fuerza sin el mandato expreso del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas.

Desde 1999, en su Cumbre de Washington, la OTAN aprobó en ese concepto estratégico la posibilidad de utilizar la fuerza sin el mandato del Consejo de Seguridad. Es un retroceso y es un ataque frontal al Derecho internacional que tanto costó construir después de las dos guerras mundiales.

Por lo tanto, no estamos de acuerdo con esa filosofía, no la compartimos ni con la OTAN, ni con ningún Estado que pretenda arrogarse el uso de la fuerza sin ese mandato expreso.

Y, además, entra de lleno en lo que eran respuestas civiles a problemas que generan inseguridad: el crimen organizado, el terrorismo... Nunca había sido una materia de respuesta militar, siempre civil, del espacio policial internacional, del espacio judicial y, por lo tanto, no consideramos que necesite una respuesta militar, como tampoco el riesgo asociado a los recursos naturales o los movimientos migratorios masivos descontrolados. No son materia de respuesta militar.

Lo que crea más muerte en el mundo son el hambre y la pobreza —la principal arma de destrucción masiva—, y a eso no se le puede oponer una fuerza militar de las características de la OTAN.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE). - Madam President, the question is whether we are happy with the Lisbon outcome and I have a very mixed answer. It is insufficient, although it goes in the right direction. Could we have expected more? I think yes, but if you compare it to where we were two, three or four years ago, it is much better.

Clearly there is unused potential in relations between the two, but there are more words than deeds and we need more deeds than words. For the moment, there is a lot of talk about rapprochement, but these are declarations rather than concrete steps.

At the same time, there is increasing complementarity between the two. There is a certain expertise and there are capabilities on the Union side. The Union specialises more on soft power, NATO more on hard, military power, but both sides evolve. The EU has gone a long way since St Malo to affirm its role in security and defence, and NATO in turn has acknowledged the need to broaden its purely military domain by a softer dimension and has already taken the decisions. Hence both are coming closer, hence complementarity is growing. Why not use it?

The real stumbling block is the relationship between Turkey and Cyprus and the unsolved problem of Cyprus. The role of the Union is to take the lead, to undertake initiatives, to suggest to NATO means of closer cooperation, to pass from words to deeds, and I take the example of the recent letter by the Polish, German and French Foreign Ministers, to which Lady Ashton did react, as a good starting point in the right direction.

Closer EU-NATO cooperation via political will on both sides and the strengthening of CSDP, but there is also a role for, and a job to be done in, the capitals of both NATO and EU Member States.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - O Conselho Estratégico da NATO, adoptado em Lisboa, no que respeita à doutrina de dissuasão nuclear não é novo, é velho. A Aliança decidiu manter a arma nuclear como poder dissuasor último. Ironicamente, contradiz assim os apelos do Presidente Obama para um mundo livre de armas nucleares e o desarmamento prometido na última conferência de revisão do NPT.

A Aliança devia liderar pelo exemplo, mas assim não vai deter a proliferação nuclear, tragicamente vai encorajá-la. E em tempos de crise financeira desvia recursos necessários para outras ameaças com que estamos confrontados. De que servem bombas nucleares contra o terrorismo sem endereço e remetente, contra a pirataria no Índico, contra o crime organizado, ciber-ataques ou ataques químicos e biológicos?

O Conselho da União Europeia alertou esta semana para a necessidade de aumentarmos os esforços contra a proliferação nuclear. Senhora Alta Representante, que planos tem para jogar esta carta na NATO onde 21 dos 28 aliados são também membros da União Europeia? E o que é que tem a dizer às duas potências nucleares que são membros da União Europeia e que foram quem mais resistiu às tentativas de mudança do Conselho Estratégico da NATO nesta questão existencial para toda a Humanidade?

  Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου (GUE/NGL). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κυρία Ashton, νομίζω ότι ζούμε σε έναν κόσμο παρανοϊκό και εσείς έχετε κληθεί να παίξετε ένα ρόλο σε αυτό, για την άμβλυνση, εννοώ, αυτής της παράνοιας. Όπως καταγράφεται από όλους, το κόστος του πολέμου στο Αφγανιστάν ξεπέρασε τα τριακόσια δισεκατομμύρια δολάρια. Το κόστος για την εξάλειψη της φτώχειας στη χώρα αυτή αντιστοιχεί στο κόστος πέντε ημερών πολέμου. Το κόστος των επιχειρήσεων μιας και μόνον εβδομάδας αρκεί για να λειτουργήσουν έξι χιλιάδες σχολεία. Με τα τριακόσια δισεκατομμύρια δολάρια μπορούσαν να κτιστούν διακόσιες χιλιάδες σχολεία. Με τα ίδια λεφτά μπορούσαν να κτιστούν τριάντα χιλιάδες νοσοκομεία. Κάντε το λογαριασμό και θα δείτε! Μιλώ για νοσοκομεία των δέκα εκατομμυρίων δολαρίων έκαστο.

Χρειαζόμαστε άλλα στοιχεία για να κατανοήσουμε ότι ζούμε σε ένα κόσμο παρανοϊκό; Αν μοιράζαμε αυτά τα λεφτά σε όλες τις οικογένειες στην Ευρώπη που ζουν κάτω από το όριο της φτώχειας, θα δίναμε σε κάθε οικογένεια . Το πιστεύει κανείς αυτό; Σε είκοσι επτά εκατομμύρια οικογένειες, είκοσι χιλιάδες τριακόσια πενήντα πέντε ευρώ έκαστη.

Ποιος οδηγεί αυτή την παρανοϊκή κούρσα; Την οδηγεί το ΝΑΤΟ. Καλώ λοιπόν την κ. Ashton να παίξει ένα ρόλο καταλυτικό όντας σε ένα ηγετικό πόστο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, για να καταλυθεί εκ των έσω αυτός ο Οργανισμός!

  Arnaud Danjean (PPE). - Madame la Présidente, Madame la Haute représentante, je partage votre avis sur le sommet de Lisbonne qui a accouché d'un nouveau concept stratégique globalement satisfaisant, mais il faut quand même reconnaître, en toute honnêteté, que le parent pauvre de ce texte, c'est la relation Union européenne-OTAN, au regard du potentiel qu'a ce partenariat stratégique, qui devrait être beaucoup plus ambitieux.

Vous avez noté, avec raison, des succès et des avancées sur le mode capacitaire. Vous avez noté des succès, évidemment, sur l'Afghanistan, où nous parvenons à faire des compromis sur le terrain. Mais il n'est pas satisfaisant que nous n'ayons pas de dialogue politique structuré avec l'OTAN au-delà du seul cas de la Bosnie. Nous savons tous que le problème, c'est le problème turc. Il va falloir le traiter sérieusement, pragmatiquement sans doute, et j'espère que les efforts que vous faites avec le Secrétaire général Rasmussen porteront leurs fruits.

Un mot pour dire que le problème de la duplication est souvent avancé pour mettre en avant les faiblesses de l'Union européenne et limiter la volonté des ambitions de l'Union européenne. C'est un faux problème parce qu'il n'y pas, dans nos États membres, deux armées, une armée de l'OTAN et une armée de l'Union européenne. Il y a une force armée par pays et c'est le pays qui choisit de mettre ses forces armées à disposition de la bannière OTAN ou de la bannière Union européenne. Arrêtons donc de nous faire peur avec cette duplication.

Un mot sur la complémentarité: elle est essentielle et elle doit être intelligente. Je ne voudrais pas que la complémentarité devienne un absolu dans lequel l'Union européenne deviendrait la Croix-Rouge d'une force armée qui serait l'OTAN. L'Union européenne doit garder des capacités militaires, doit garder des ambitions militaires et doit garder une ambition en matière de PSDC, comme l'a rappelé la lettre tripartie franco-allemande et polonaise.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D). - Señora Presidenta, ciertamente, Señorías, la Cumbre de Lisboa ha servido para modernizar la OTAN y adaptarla a los nuevos retos de seguridad.

Debemos elogiar que el nuevo concepto estratégico añada nuevos desafíos, como el terrorismo, la lucha contra la proliferación de armas de destrucción masiva, la ciberdefensa y la seguridad energética.

Hay que celebrar también que el nuevo concepto señale la necesidad de fortalecer la relación estratégica entre la OTAN y la Unión Europea. Falta determinar, sin embargo, un reparto del trabajo claro, para ser eficientes y no duplicar esfuerzos en tiempo de crisis.

El Tratado de Lisboa ha supuesto un avance en la política común de seguridad y defensa, que ahora debemos consolidar. El objetivo es claro: la Unión Europea debe ser capaz de movilizar las capacidades civiles y militares necesarias para poder asumir sus responsabilidades internacionales, y la política común de seguridad y defensa debe suponer una importante contribución a la seguridad atlántica.

Pero lo que no ha quedado claro es cómo se va a organizar esta colaboración con la Alianza para que sea realmente eficaz. Sería importante, señora Ashton, que nos pudiera decir algo más al respecto.

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE). - Szanowna Pani Wysoka Przedstawiciel! Padło dziś de facto w tej dyskusji pytanie, dlaczego rozmawiamy w Parlamencie Europejskim, unijnej instytucji, o szczycie NATO. Odpowiedź jest oczywista. Większość państw członkowskich Unii Europejskiej to członkowie NATO, czyli Unia Europejska to my i w większości NATO to również my.

Warto więc zauważyć, że dla NATO rozwój współpracy Unia Europejska-NATO był jednym z najważniejszych spraw podczas szczytu w Lizbonie. Decyzje szczytu NATO i także deklaracje np. prezydenta Stanów Zjednoczonych potwierdzają, że sojusz nie zwalcza wspólnej polityki bezpieczeństwa i obrony, a stara się raczej znaleźć sposób na korzystną dla obu instytucji współpracę. Tak więc my również musimy szukać współpracy i współdziałania zamiast bezsensownej konkurencji i kosztownego dublowania struktur, szczególnie dziś w czasach kryzysu finansowego. Mam nadzieję, że wnioski ze szczytu NATO oraz wspomniany tu list ministrów spraw zagranicznych Francji, Niemiec i Polski skłoni nas – Unię Europejską do poważnej debaty na temat wspólnej polityki bezpieczeństwa i obrony.

Polska, jestem posłem z Polski, będzie na pewno wspierać Panią, Pani Wysoka Przedstawiciel w tych działaniach w czasie polskiej prezydencji. Musimy wykorzystać mechanizmy i szanse, jakie daje nam traktat lizboński. To wielkie wyzwanie dla nas. Na koniec chciałem powiedzieć, że z zadowoleniem przyjmuję deklarację sojuszu o otwartości na współpracę z Rosją, przy jednoczesnym podkreśleniu gotowości sojuszu do otwartości i przyjęcia nowych państw takich jak np. Gruzja.

  Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D). - Madam President, the European Union is a unique and essential partner for NATO. As a document of the new strategy concept puts it, NATO and the European Union can and should play complementary and mutually reinforcing roles in supporting international peace and security.

An active and effective European Union contributes to the overall security of the Euro-Atlantic area. Therefore, more favourable circumstances should be developed by strengthening the strategic partnership in the spirit of full mutual openness, transparency, complementarity and respect for the autonomy and institutional integrity of both organisations.

We should also point out that close cooperation between the EU and NATO is of vital importance, and this should be developed without prejudice to the principle of decision-making autonomy and with due respect for the nuclear status of some EU Member States.

  Ernst Strasser (PPE). - Frau Präsidentin, Hohe Vertreterin, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Der NATO-Gipfel war ein klarer Fortschritt. Es ist gut, dass das hier so herausgearbeitet wird. Neue strategische Elemente wie das zivile Krisenmanagement und die Cyberverteidigung führen in die richtige Richtung. Gerade für kleine und auch neutrale Länder wie Österreich ist die Stärkung der strategischen Partnerschaft zwischen NATO und Europäischer Union von entscheidender Bedeutung. Die Entwicklung von militärischen Kapazitäten durch mehr Synergie, durch Abbau von Doppelgleisigkeiten, durch Rüstungskooperation hilft allen, aber besonders kleinen Mitgliedsländern.

Es gibt aber noch einiges zu tun, es gibt vieles zu tun, vor allem bei uns. Europa muss sich den Hausaufgaben stellen und sie machen. Die Initiative des französischen, deutschen und polnischen Außenministers führt in die richtige Richtung. Wir brauchen auf mittlere Sicht eine europäische Verteidigungsarchitektur, die militärische Kooperationen zwischen EU-Staaten fördert, die zivile und militärische Kooperationen zwischen EU, UNO und NATO verbindet, die eigene europäische Verteidigungsstrukturen schrittweise aufbaut. Es muss unser Ziel sein, ein relevanter Sicherheitspartner in dieser Welt zu werden. Daran sollten wir arbeiten.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - Summitul de la Lisabona a trasat o nouă perspectivă asupra strategiei de securitate a Alianţei. Practic, au fost îndeplinite cele trei obiective majore: adoptarea noului concept strategic, formularea unei noi abordări privind Afganistanul, dar şi relansarea raporturilor cu Federaţia Rusă.

Consider că cel mai important rezultat a fost integrarea scutului antirachetă în noul concept strategic. România a promovat amplasarea scutului începând cu summitul de la Bucureşti din anul 2008. Asta demonstrează că ţara mea a avut o viziune corectă şi va contribui semnificativ la implementarea sistemului de apărare. Totodată, România a susţinut politica uşilor deschise, orientată mai ales spre consolidarea relaţiilor NATO cu Georgia şi Ucraina.

Salut de asemenea faptul că NATO a reafirmat importanţa strategică a regiunii Mării Negre, având în vedere riscurile de securitate care domină această zonă. Ele constau mai ales în existenţa conflictelor îngheţate din Transnistria şi Georgia. În acest sens, consider necesară menţinerea unităţii Alianţei în mesajele adresate Rusiei. Federaţia Rusă trebuie să probeze în fapte declaraţiile de bune intenţii, având o responsabilitate consistentă la frontiera de est a României şi a NATO. Subliniez că, prin declaraţia politică adoptată, NATO şi-a asumat angajamentul pentru integritatea teritorială a Republicii Moldova şi a Georgiei.

  Γεώργιος Κουμουτσάκος (PPE). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η ιστορική σύνοδος του ΝΑΤΟ στη Λισαβόνα αποτέλεσε σημείο καμπής για την περαιτέρω πορεία της συμμαχίας. Είκοσι οκτώ σύμμαχες χώρες πήραν σημαντικές αποφάσεις, υιοθέτησαν νέο αμυντικό δόγμα, έβαλαν θεμέλια για πιο στενή συνεργασία με τη Ρωσία, ξεκαθάρισαν το ζήτημα της αντιπυραυλικής ασπίδας, ενέκριναν σχέδιο δράσης για το Αφγανιστάν, επιβεβαίωσαν τη σπουδαιότητα της συνεργασίας με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.

Αυτή όμως είναι η γενική και αισιόδοξη εικόνα. Δεν θα πρέπει να λησμονούμε ότι τα κείμενα αυτά ως αποτέλεσμα consensus εκφράζουν τον ελάχιστο κοινό παρανομαστή θέσεων και απόψεων. Είναι γνωστό ότι στο μεταψυχροπολεμικό περιβάλλον υπάρχουν αποκλίσεις και διαφορετικές διαβαθμίσεις στην αντίληψη της απειλής, π.χ. διαφορετικά βλέπουν τα κράτη της Ανατολικής Ευρώπης τις σχέσεις με τη Ρωσία, διαφορετικά αντιμετωπίζει η Τουρκία το πυρηνικό πρόγραμμα του Ιράν. Eίναι γνωστό άλλωστε ότι η Άγκυρα έδωσε διπλωματική μάχη για να μην υπάρχει σχετική αναφορά στα κείμενα της Λισαβόνας. Διαφορετικά αντιμετωπίζει επίσης η Άγκυρα τη συνεργασία με την Ευρωπαϊκή Άμυνα και Ασφάλεια, αφού θέλει να αποκλείσει τη συνεργασία με έναν Ευρωπαίο εταίρο, κράτος μέλος της Ένωσης. Όλα αυτά καθιστούν ακόμα πιο κρίσιμο, ακόμα πιο σημαντικό το ρόλο της Ευρωπαϊκής Πολιτικής Άμυνας και Ασφάλειας στο πλαίσιο πάντα της ευρωατλαντικής συνεργασίας.

Γι’ αυτό πιστεύω ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση οφείλει να αξιοποιήσει πλήρως τις νέες δυνατότητες που μας δίνει η Συνθήκη της Λισαβόνας διατηρώντας την αυτονομία της στη λήψη των αποφάσεων. Πρέπει να ενισχύσουμε τη βαρύτητα και την αποτελεσματικότητα της διεθνούς παρουσίας της Ένωσης. Χρειαζόμαστε ισχυρότερη Ευρώπη για να έχουμε ισχυρότερη Ατλαντική Συμμαχία.

  Μαριεττα Γιαννάκου (PPE). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, συμφωνώ με την εκτίμηση της Υπάτης Εκπροσώπου για τη συνάντηση στη Λισαβόνα. Πράγματι είναι μια σημαντική καμπή και μια σημαντική στιγμή. Οι διατλαντικές σχέσεις θέλω να τονίσω ότι αποτελούν το σημείο κλειδί για την ασφάλεια του κόσμου αλλά και για την ανάπτυξη αλλά από την άλλη πλευρά η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση οφείλει να έχει δική της φωνή και δικές της δομές, όταν αυτό χρειαστεί. Άλλωστε η μείωση του κόστους που αναφέρθηκε και προηγουμένως θα προκύψει από μια τέτοια συνεργασία και στο εξοπλιστικό επίπεδο αλλά και στις πολιτικές αποφάσεις, χωρίς αυτό να χρειάζεται ή να μπορεί να παραλλάξει τη συμμαχία του ΝΑΤΟ. Η Ευρώπη πρέπει να έχει το δικό της αμυντικό σύστημα και σύστημα ασφάλειας και τη δική της φωνή, γιατί τότε μόνο θα μπορέσει να αντιμετωπίσει προβλήματα, όπως αυτά π.χ. με την Τουρκία ή άλλα προβλήματα που προκύπτουν από τις χώρες μέλη ή μη μέλη του ΝΑΤΟ που αντιμετωπίζουν διαφορετικά τη Ρωσία. Άλλωστε η υπόθεση με τη Ρωσία νομίζω ότι δεν είναι μια δύσκολη υπόθεση. Είναι νομίζω μια υπόθεση την οποία μπορεί η Ευρώπη να χειριστεί συνολικά την ίδια στιγμή που τη χειρίζεται και η αμερικανική πλευρά. Ίσως μάλιστα η Ευρώπη μπορεί να τη χειριστεί αποτελεσματικότερα.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). - Madam President, enlargement of NATO could be seen as one of the few true post-Cold War success stories. However, the momentum of enlargement has weakened. NATO has remained rather hesitant in opening up to Georgia or Macedonia. Military contributions have decreased alarmingly. Very few NATO members meet the 2% criteria for defence expenditure and the Alliance has not conducted serious military exercises for more than one decade. The last such big exercise to prove that the US could move troops rapidly into Europe took place 17 years ago. True, the Soviet Union has collapsed. However, NATO’s credibility and potential still relies on US military might. It is vitally important that NATO’s military institutions remain well integrated and that military commanders from America and Europe have the possibility to practice together.

Only under conditions of much closer and more determined transatlantic cooperation will the EU and NATO be able to set a democratic international agenda over the next decade against the challenges of a multilateral world.

I would also like to comment on the conclusions of the NATO-Russia Council. It calls for a modernised partnership based on reciprocal confidence, transparency and predictability. It may be taken as a declaration of goodwill. However, we know that Russia’s military doctrine still views NATO expansion into Russia’s neighbourhood as an aggression and justifies preventive military strikes and landings on foreign territories.

Big military exercises in autumn 2009 in north-west Russia close to the territories of the Baltic States prepared for invasion of these states as a counter-attack, presumably against NATO actions. What is positive is that the Baltic States finally got NATO contingency plans for their defence, as exposed also by WikiLeaks.

Georgia was invaded by Russia and two of its autonomous territories practically annexed. Just recently, Russia’s missiles were deployed in these breakaway entities and Russia continues massive spying in all Western countries. When these spies are exposed, it is the West that feels embarrassment, not Russia, which decorates its spies openly with the highest state awards.

Therefore, Russian insistence on equality in relations with NATO and some sort of joint decision-making is premature and carries a risk of a Russian veto on NATO’s decisions and further enlargement.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D). - Na samite v Lisabone NATO potvrdilo úlohu garanta bezpečnosti v euroatlantickom priestore a zároveň priznalo, že musí čeliť novým výzvam.

Najlepším nástrojom na vykonávanie tejto úlohy je široká sieť strategických partnerstiev, či už so štátmi alebo s medzinárodnými organizáciami. NATO preto musí byť pripravené nadviazať politický dialóg s každým potenciálnym partnerom, ktorý zdieľa naše spoločné úsilie o mier a bezpečné medzinárodné vzťahy.

Za kľúčové strategické partnerstvo považujem kooperáciu s Ruskom, kde NATO potrebuje prehĺbiť praktickú spoluprácu, aby mohlo čeliť moderným hrozbám medzinárodného terorizmu, pirátstva, obchodovaniu s ľuďmi či drogami. NATO potrebuje dostatok finančných, vojenských a ľudských zdrojov, aby mohlo spĺňať svoje poslanie. Ale je nutné, aby tieto zdroje boli využité v čo najefektívnejšej možnej miere a hlavne na zabezpečovanie mieru.

  Ivo Vajgl (ALDE). - Dobro, da sem dobil besedo pred mojim kolegom iz Luksemburga Goerensom, ker bi drugače podrl mojo osnovno tezo, da že pol ure govorimo tukaj poslanci iz v glavnem jugovzhodne Evrope. To pomeni, da je pri nas problem varnosti, problem Nata in njegovega odnosa do Evropske unije nekoliko bolj občuten kot drugod.

In ravno zaradi tega bi rad rekel: vrh v Lizboni je izpustil priložnost, da zavzame bolj načelno, bolj jasno in bolj odločno stališče do želje dveh držav v jugovzhodni Evropi, do Makedonije in Bosne in Hercegovine, da svojo varnost okrepita z včlanjenjem v vsaj eno evroatlantsko integracijo.

Mi smo takrat, ko smo se v Sloveniji približevali integracijam, rekli katero koli integracijo. Nato ima priložnost, da popravi napake, ki se dogajajo v Evropski uniji. Mislim, da je treba o tem voditi računa.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). - Chciałbym bardzo podziękować za możliwość zabrania głosu. Ta dzisiejsza dyskusja dotyczy współdziałania NATO i Unii. Pani Ashton przedstawiła tutaj opinię pozytywną, ale ja chcę powiedzieć, że moim zdaniem jest to opinia dalece na wyrost. Przede mną zabierali głos inni moi koledzy z Polski, pan poseł Saryusz-Wolski czy pan poseł Lisek, i ja chcę wyraźnie stwierdzić, że się zgadzam z ich oceną.

To dopiero początek, ale początek bardzo długiej drogi. Chciałbym w związku z tym zwrócić uwagę na trzy aspekty pragmatyczne, gdzie możemy odnotować wspólny postęp. Obszar pierwszy dotyczy wspólnego planowania obronnego NATO i Unii Europejskiej – tutaj można zrobić ewidentnie więcej. Obszar drugi powinien dotyczyć współdziałania służb wywiadowczych – także można osiągnąć postęp. I wreszcie sprawa trzecia dotyczy funkcjonowania grup bojowych – trzeba sobie odpowiedzieć na pytanie, czy dają one dzisiaj wartość dodaną?

  Charles Goerens (ALDE). - Madame la Présidente, j'aimerais poser une question à Lady Ashton concernant l'Europe de la défense mais aussi l'OTAN.

Le traité de Lisbonne permet aux États membres de l'Union européenne de coopérer plus étroitement en matière de défense, s'ils le souhaitent, bien entendu. Cela s'appelle "coopération structurée" ou "coopération renforcée", peu importe.

Madame la haute représentante peut-elle me dire si une coopération de ce type est d'ores et déjà envisagée par un groupe de pays et, si oui, le cas échéant, pouvez-vous m'indiquer les critères requis pour être admis à cette forme de coopération?

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Madam President, thank you again to all those who have contributed to a very wide-ranging debate. I will, if I may, try and pick up some of the key points that were made and at least begin to give you responses to that.

The first thing to say is that I am committed to trying to find ways forward in the relationship between the European Union and NATO, but I do not underestimate the political issues that sit at the heart of this question. My objective is to find practical and pragmatic ways in which increased collaboration can help support our people on the ground. The people in theatre, the people in operations, are those who are most in my thoughts when I look at how we can collaborate together. But I do so with the knowledge that Turkey has an important role to play, and I do so in the knowledge that I represent 27 Member States, and I work closely with the Member States who are most interested and affected by the issues at hand.

We are moving forward to try and achieve that as swiftly as we possibly can. But I do not underestimate the challenges, and I am always looking at and interested in ideas for how we might do that.

I accept that we want also to look very carefully at what we do ourselves and make sure that what we do is complementary and not duplicating other work. Actually the areas that we are working in are indeed very complementary. The example that was given earlier was of Ocean Shield off the coast of Somalia and the work we are doing with Operation Atalanta.

Honourable Members who have visited the area will know it is a huge expanse of sea, where there is plenty of room for complementary activity and very little risk of duplication, and indeed the services work very well together. Commander Howes who is in charge of Operation Atalanta at the present time was speaking with the defence ministers, making this very point that indeed there was a lot of connectivity in communication, but an awful lot of work that can be done satisfactorily together.

Mr Gahler raised a number of points which were not connected to this debate and I would just like to suggest to him that if he writes me a quick note about those issues I am happy to come back to him, but I did not want to take Parliament’s time this evening on issues that were not on this debate itself.

Concerning questions about missile defence, as far as I can see what happened was that a balance was found during those negotiations on NATO’s new strategic concept between the issues of missile defence and NATO’s nuclear posture. It is clear that NATO will want to retain its nuclear deterrents while keeping with the objective that it set itself on a nuclear-free world.

That is the approach we are taking today but of course we do not participate in all aspects of NATO for exactly the reasons that have been well understood in this House. We were not participating, for example, in the NATO-Russia Council meetings so it is not possible for me to comment on what happened there, only, as I have already done, to comment on the issues that came out of it.

In terms of START, the progress we have seen between the United States and Russia on demilitarisation is to be welcomed and I believe will pave the way for better coordination with NATO, which was certainly the objective that the Secretary-General has set himself.

Finally, structured cooperation: will it happen, what is being done? It is indeed for Member States to come forward with ideas. There are already examples where Member States, such as the UK and France, or in the letter that has come to me from the Weimar Triangle Group, have been looking at ways in which they can enhance that collaboration, partly through the European Defence Agency as well, where we have opportunities to try and develop those synergies as appropriate.

I hope and expect to see more of that in the future. Particularly I expect this with the forthcoming presidencies, especially with Poland which has made defence issues something they wish to focus on. There are no examples I can give the honourable Member that would suggest there is an opportunity to join in, but I hope that we will see objectives coming forward that enhance the possibilities of being able, in this economic crisis, to use our resources most effectively.

  Πρόεδρος. - Η συζήτηση έληξε.

Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 149)

  Ágnes Hankiss (PPE), írásban. – A NATO-tagállamok minisztereinek tanácskozásán, 2008 októberében John Craddock, a NATO európai erőinek vezetője kijelentette: „Oroszország grúziai behatolása arra késztette a NATO-t, hogy felülvizsgálja a tagállamok biztonságával kapcsolatos feltevéseit.” Most, a lisszaboni csúcs után vajon érvényes-e még ez a kijelentés? A megállapodás Oroszországgal célszerű politikai lépés, amely biztonságunk megszilárdítását szolgálhatja. Óhatatlanul felvet azonban komoly erkölcsi és stratégiai kérdéseket is. Kíván-e engedni a NATO az együttműködés érdekében azoknak a demokratikus eszméknek a képviseletéből és védelméből, amelyekre az euroatlanti szövetség épül, és amelyek számos ponton éles ellentétben állnak az orosz demokráciafelfogással?

Talán felesleges is külön emlékeztetnünk emberek megfélemlítésére és bántalmazására, újságírók és ügyvédek halálának tisztázatlan körülményeire Oroszországban. Vagy nehéz volna nem provokatív gesztusként értékelni legújabban a Wikileaks-alapító Assange felterjesztését orosz részről Nobel-békedíjra. Hátrányosan érinti-e majd a belépni szándékozó országok esélyeit, ha Oroszország rossz szemmel nézi leendő NATO-tagságukat? Felmerül a kérdés: tekintetbe veszik-e a NATO vezetői bizonyos tagországok sérülékenységét és mai napig nyitott, rendezésre váró ügyeit Oroszországgal kapcsolatban? A megbékélés és a megállapodás történelmi iránya mindenképpen üdvözlendő. Ugyanakkor világosan kell látnunk a NATO történelmi felelősségét abban, hogy a rakétavédelmi program érdekében kötött megállapodás hozadékaként milyen nagyhatalmi erőt legitimál, illetve hűen közös európai értékeinkhez, mire mond határozott nemet.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. – A Cimeira da Nato, realizada em Lisboa, pôs fim ao conceito estratégico de segurança que vigorava desde o período da Guerra Fria. A consagração desta nova estratégia de segurança representa a passagem da tradicional defesa dos países membros da Aliança atlântica para um conceito de segurança global do século XXI.

Os desafios que o novo conceito estratégico de segurança sublinha implicam uma colaboração estreita com as diversas instituições internacionais, sejam elas governamentais ou não-governamentais, e o reforço de parcerias, em particular com a Rússia. Para além do estabelecimento dos vectores políticos, as questões operacionais referentes às capacidades e à estrutura da própria NATO foram adaptadas às novas ameaças globais. Importa ainda sublinhar a adopção de um plano de transição da missão da NATO no Afeganistão, com o objectivo de as autoridades afegãs tomarem a dianteira em matéria de segurança nacional. Considero de extrema importância esta nova visão estratégica que cria as directrizes que devem envolver as relações internacionais dos Estados-Membros.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD), in writing. – For the first time since the Second World War, Russia has been invited to join the missile shield effort, something which can only be marked as a milestone for the Alliance. Russia’s answer remains to be seen, and there is potentially a real partnership with the US, whereby both would have to come to the table committed. Furthermore, this project needs major European financing, and this is not going to be easy with European defence cuts.

Lastly, Afghanistan will be the big political test for NATO in the years to come. The US acted quickly to reassure Russia that the missiles were in fact not targeted at them. It was crucial for the US not to aggravate Russia, and they proved they had no such intention by also inviting Russia to take part in the missile shield scheme. Secondly, the US was wise enough not to mention the name of Iran or, to put it correctly, granted the wishes of Turkey, which threatened to back out if its neighbour (Iran) was mentioned. The problem is that only 21 of the 27 EU Member States are in NATO, posing a threat to the development of European defence.