Relato integral dos debates

Quarta-feira, 23 de Outubro de 2013 - Estrasburgo

15. Principais aspetos e opções fundamentais da Política Externa e de Segurança Comum e da Política Comum de Segurança e Defesa (artigo 36.º do TUE) - Relatório Anual do Conselho ao Parlamento Europeu sobre a Política Externa e de Segurança Comum em 2012 (debate)

  Elmar Brok, Berichterstatter. − Herr Präsident, Frau Vizepräsidentin, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich bin froh darüber, dass wir heute diesen Jahresbericht diskutieren können, und das in Anwesenheit der Hohen Beauftragten/Vizepräsidentin der Kommission. Wir sind jetzt in einer wichtigen Analysephase der Entwicklung der europäischen Außenpolitik nach dem Inkrafttreten des Vertrags von Lissabon, und wir wollen darauf auch eine klare Botschaft schicken, dass diese Außenpolitik demokratisch legitimiert sein muss. Nach meiner Auffassung ist es so, dass die Europäische Union mehr und mehr in der Erwartungshaltung der Welt steht, selbst ein globaler Akteur zu werden und nicht, wie wir es bisher waren, ein global payer. We want to become a global player.

Frau Hohe Beauftragte, Sie haben hier in manchen Punkten wichtige und positive Schritte erreicht. Die Rolle, die Sie gegenwärtig in der Iran-Frage spielen, bei dem, was mit Kosovo und Serbien gelaufen ist, auch bei dem, was im Zusammenhang mit Ägypten und Syrien läuft, wissen wir, dass in den Fragen, auf die wir reagieren müssen, bei denen wir zur Konfliktlösung beitragen müssen, Sie und die europäische Außenpolitik inzwischen eine wichtige und positive Rolle spielen.

Aber wir müssen auch sehen, dass das in manchen Bereichen unserer Auffassung nach noch nicht genug ist. Nach unserer Auffassung ist europäische Außenpolitik bisher zu sehr reaktiv und nicht mit einer konstruktiven Strategie nach vorne versehen. Wir sagen, wir haben zu viele Strategien, aber keine Strategie. Dies ist jetzt keine Kritik an Ihnen persönlich. Wir müssen das als eine Entwicklungsphase sehen. Sie sind jetzt seit drei Jahren im Amt, mussten in dieser Zeit einen Auswärtigen Dienst aufbauen, und in dieser Zeit kann nicht alles geleistet werden. Deswegen ist das keine Kritik, sondern eine Frage, wie wir nach vorne weitergehen und hier eine Fortentwicklung der europäischen Politik betreiben.

Ich meine, dass diese Frage, die damit zu tun hat, dass wir eine vorwärtsweisende präventive Strategie entwickeln müssen, auch bedeutet, dass die Synergieeffekte zusammengefasst werden müssen, die aus den drei Hüten entstehen – Vizepräsidentin des Rates, Hohe Beauftragte und Vorsitzende des Außenministerrates –, und dass diese Strategie weiter fortentwickelt werden muss, um diesen drei Aufgaben gerecht zu werden und Führung zu erreichen. Dabei sehen wir ja, dass es schwierig ist, denn leider Gottes ist die Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik immer noch ein Bereich, der im Wesentlichen Einstimmigkeit im Rat erfordert – daher auch die Schwierigkeit, das dann wirklich operationell zu machen. Aber ich glaube auch hier, dass dies unter Nutzung des Dienstes und der Bereitschaft zur engen Kooperation, der Synergieeffekte zwischen Auswärtigem Dienst und Kommission, wo Sie ja in der Lage sind, in beiden Institutionen führend tätig zu sein, weiter vorangebracht werden kann. Ich halte das für eine ganz entscheidende Frage, dass wir eben nicht nur reaktiv tätig sind, wo wir jetzt erfolgreich sind, sondern hier strategisch nach vorne gehen können.

Dazu gehört natürlich auch nicht nur die Aufforderung an uns oder an die Kommission und an den Auswärtigen Dienst, sondern auch eine Aufforderung an den Rat und die Mitgliedstaaten. Wenn ich sehe, in welcher Weise die Mitgliedstaaten ihrer vertraglichen Verpflichtung nachkommen, konstruktiv die Außenpolitik der Europäischen Union zu stützen und zu implementieren, habe ich die kritische Frage, ob der Rat der Außenminister und die Mitgliedstaaten dieser vertraglichen Bedingung gerecht werden, und ob Fragen des politischen Willens, gemeinsam Dinge zu tragen, hier nicht vorangehen können. Es ist wichtig, dass wir diese Frage angehen.

Wir haben hier wichtige Fragen zu lösen, die mit den externen Finanzinstrumenten und deren demokratischer Kontrolle und Entscheidungsmöglichkeiten verbunden sind. Ich hoffe, dass Sie uns helfen können, hier in den nächsten Tagen und Wochen eine Lösung zu finden.

Für uns ist es außerordentlich wichtig, dass der Verteidigungsgipfel im Dezember ein Erfolg wird. Vom SEDE-Ausschuss wird ja noch ein eigener Bericht kommen. Aber die Frage der strukturellen Kooperation und manche anderen Fragen, auch die Fragen, die mit der industriellen Basis zu tun haben, scheinen mir von großer Wichtigkeit. Wir fordern eine tiefere Integration. Wir hätten gerne ein Weißbuch, um in diesen Fragen entsprechend Fortschritte zu erreichen.

70 % der europäischen Bürger wollen eine gemeinsame europäische Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik! In keinem Bereich wollen die Bürger mehr Europa als in diesem Bereich. Gerade in diesem Bereich sind wir institutionell und aufgrund der Lage der Mitgliedstaaten nicht in der Lage, das zu lösen.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, can I begin by thanking Elmer Brok for his comments and the rapporteurs for the reports that have been put before Parliament today. I think it is very fitting, after the Lisbon Treaty in which we talk about a comprehensive approach, that we are using this opportunity to discuss CFSP and CSDP together in one debate. Our ability to use both actions at the same time and to link them with the work we do with development and with other Commission policies is a key factor in the unique way in which the European Union operates internationally.

The honourable Members have heard me say many times that over the course of my time in office I have had three broad priorities: to set up the Service; to strengthen relations with, and effect a lasting change in, our neighbourhood; and to deepen and strengthen our relations with our strategic partners. All of these are covered in the reports.

Of course I cannot cover every aspect of the report, or indeed the whole world, in the time available in the way that Mr Brok’s report does. Nor can I cover CSDP in the same depth as Ms Koppa’s report, but I will focus, if I may, on a limited number of areas. But I would like to reassure this House that this does not mean that I do not consider all of the areas covered in the reports to be of enormous importance.

I want to say a little bit about the External Action Service, because it was with the strong support of this House that we established a functioning 21st-century EU External Action Service. It represents and projects Europe’s policies and values across the world. When I was writing the EEAS Review earlier this year, I was struck by just how much we had achieved – against the odds in many cases – and by the solid basis we have now laid for the future.

The network of 141 delegations, the professional staff in Brussels with global expertise: I want to pay tribute to all of them. I believe we have the best of the Commission, Council Secretariat and Member States combined. And soon we will also have the best from the European Parliament.

This allows us to be represented collectively and to show that, in today’s world, we are better when we operate together. I have said many times that this does not mean that we seek to detract from the role of national diplomacy, but rather – as has been acknowledged by all EU Member States – there are things we can do together that we cannot do alone.

We are particularly well placed to influence events and to promote stability and democracy in our own Neighbourhood – both in the South and in the East. I have said many times before that we should be judged by the effectiveness of what we can achieve in our own neighbourhood. What we do and how we work with the people and countries around us is crucial for them, but it is also extremely important for our own economic and security interests.

In the South we have seen dramatic changes, and our response to those events has been designed to strengthen the move towards positive change and to embed deep and lasting democracy. Political and economic support has been targeted to incentivise reform, to promote inclusiveness – with particular reference to the role of women and young people – and to mobilise all forces in society, including civil society and the private sector.

As recognised in the report, I developed the idea of task forces that bring together European institutions, international financial institutions and the private sector to develop tailor-made solutions for each country, not just in the area of economics but also to give support to civil society and human rights groups, to help them develop the institutions that will enable deep democracy to take root – democracy that goes beyond elections, that is based on institutions, the rule of law and a society that gives equal chances to everyone.

That approach has been important in our cooperation with Tunisia and Jordan. Of course, I would highlight how much more we need to do in Libya. Colleagues will know that I have been in contact with the Prime Minister of Libya in New York and beyond, but there is much that our missions are currently engaged in aimed at bringing stability and security to that country.

A lot of my time in recent months has also been spent in Egypt, where I believe we have a unique role. We have built a strong reputation and we are a trusted interlocutor. I remain able to speak with all sides in Egypt, and my message remains unchanged: an inclusive process is the best guarantee of future stability, and stability is required if we are to deal with the country’s political and economic problems.

This is not only a message to take to political leaders. During my last visit I also met with the Grand Imam and the Coptic Pope to talk to them from a religious perspective. Many honourable Members have been concerned about what has happened to Christians in Egypt, so my meeting with the Coptic Pope was especially important as it allowed me to deliver those messages directly from you to him.

I should also mention, whilst on the subject of our neighbourhood, the work that is currently going on with the Middle East Peace Process, the close collaboration that I have established with US Secretary John Kerry, and the work that we are doing by engaging directly with both parties in support of these negotiations. We know that our objective is to find a lasting solution to this conflict that is based on two states. Tomorrow, President Abbas will visit me in Brussels. He and I will discuss progress. We will also continue to engage with the team that is putting together the economic programme that can help to bring a long-term economic solution to the challenges in the West Bank and beyond. Honourable Members will know that Gaza and the issues and problems there are never far from my thoughts, and that they also represent a large part of the work in which we are engaged.

We are, of course, looking now to support the process which will bring us to what we call Geneva II and the prospect of bringing together those from inside and outside Syria in support of a process that will try to bring ceasefires and, eventually, a lasting peace. Honourable Members will know too that we continue to engage with Syria. I recently sent a mission from Brussels to Damascus to meet with many of the groups with which we have continued to work. The reports from that mission were as alarming as they could be regarding what is happening in terms of malnutrition to people in the country and what needs to happen to help restore the city following the terrible destruction that has taken place there. We will continue to do all that we can to push forward, but I say now, honourable Members, that we will need to engage in the long term with Syria if we are to support the country into the future. That means remaining the largest donor in order to deal with this humanitarian emergency. EUR 2 billion in humanitarian development and stabilisation assistance has gone both to Syria and to its neighbours, and we still need to continue to do more.

We are working with the Syrian Opposition coalition to try to improve their capacity to operate, and we are working – as I have already indicated – with a wide range of people engaged in trying to support the future directly on the ground in Syria. We have worked too in helping to support OPCW as it seeks to deal with the chemical weapons in Syria. We have also provided logistical support and the vehicles that they are using. I have been in touch with the Secretary-General to make it clear that we will continue to help in any way that we can.

But I also want to talk about what is happening in our Eastern Neighbourhood. Honourable Members are very focused on the Vilnius Summit, which will take place next month. Our aim is to have a common future that will ensure prosperity and security and guarantee long-term stability, and to bring our partners as close as possible to the European Union.

In New York, together with my colleague Commissioner Füle, we hosted a meeting with the six Eastern Partnership countries to take stock of progress towards the signing or initialling of agreements. It also gave us an opportunity to reiterate the need to implement all necessary reforms and to meet the benchmarks. In recent days, I have met with the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Ukraine in order to make it clear once more what needs to happen.

With Ukraine, in particular, we have made it absolutely clear that we need to see delivery on three issues as crucial signals of Ukraine’s determination: improved legislation on the electoral process, moving to adopt ambitious reform of the General Prosecutor’s Office, and, of course, dealing with the issue of selective justice.

We need to see definitive progress in the case of Yulia Tymoshenko, and I want to welcome and fully support the efforts of Mr Cox and Mr Kwaśniewski and to pay tribute to them for the number of visits they have made and the work that they are doing.

Elsewhere, we have also continued to engage with Serbia and Kosovo. I met with the leaders for the 17th time in recent days as we prepare for the elections on 3 November. We continue to deal with the issues as they arise, working closely on the elections with the OSCE, which I want to thank for the work that it is doing. We have come an extremely long way in a very short time, and I hope that we will be able to sit down after the elections at our meeting, which will take place three days later, to work out the next stages of the agreements.

But again, as I have done many times before, I want to pay tribute to the leadership in Pristina and in Belgrade for their courage in wanting to move forward in the way that they have. I have talked many times about what I call the comprehensive approach, and this is really fundamental to answering part at least of the question that Mr Brok raised when he opened this debate. This is about how, in the future, we will do things differently to how we have done them in the past and about what makes the European Union unique, namely its ability to bring together all of the different elements that we have at our disposal, from our missions – be they military or civilian – through to the development work which we do, the political engagement at all levels, our security engagement, our work with civil society, the underpinnings of our values of the rule of law, human rights and justice. All of these are brought to bear on some of the greatest challenges that exist in the world. I think that these are important and significant ways in which we are distinct, unique and increasingly recognised across the world. I would argue that we are at the beginning of what can be, and what will be, in the years to come.

We have thought about this in particular in the context of countries which are going through transition. It was a great joy to be here yesterday to see Aung San Suu Kyi finally receive the Sakharov Prize, and in three weeks’ time I will meet her again as we go to the Task Force meeting which we have arranged in Myanmar/Burma. This country is on a journey of reform, but it needs to deal with a legacy of conflict, poverty, oppression and weak institutions, and it will take time. We are committed to demonstrating the EU’s long-term commitment to supporting that journey and to continuing to say to all those who hold positions of responsibility that there is much that they need to do. There can be no complacency if the country is to continue to move forward. Good beginnings, but by no means enough.

We are also, when we think about that region, significantly developing and strengthening our relations with Asia. I am very pleased with the positive momentum we have had in EU-ASEAN relations in the past 18 months. We have scaled up and re-directed this relationship from one focusing heavily on trade and development to a much more strategic partnership for the future. In the next few weeks, I will visit the region for the third time in seven months.

When I co-chair the next EU–ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting, which will take place in March 2014, I want us to be able to demonstrate that both sides see the strategic case for investment in this real partnership for the future.

I want to say something about the terrible events which took place in the Westgate Shopping Centre in Nairobi and to express again our horror at what happened there. What is happening in nearby Somalia, which has a direct effect on this, is really significant as the country moves from failure towards being able to show the beginnings of regaining the capacity to operate as a state. I was really pleased to co-host the Brussels Conference with the President of Somalia. This was a milestone in our efforts to reconstruct a peaceful, federal state, and in the willingness of the international community to support it.

Honourable Members, this was not only about raising money – important though money is – it was about identifying, with Somalia, the benchmarks, the milestones and the issues in which we can engage directly with them and our colleagues in countries across the world to try to help to ensure success at every level. We also have three CSDP missions operating there, and the New Deal Compact that we made in Brussels provides a framework to help with reconstruction, to really ensure that we are able to help them to develop and provide support. There is the EUR 1.8 billion, as I have indicated, but much greater than this is the genuine long-term commitment.

But of course, this is only one of the countries in Africa in which we are active. We are supporting efforts to combat insecurity, terrorism and organised crime in Western Central Africa; reducing tensions in the Great Lakes; and in Mali we continue to work with many partners, including ECOWAS, in order to provide support for MINUSMA. Our efforts are part of our broader strategy for the Sahel to ensure security and development across the region, and part of the broader concept that we have to help support peace-building in different parts of Africa. This includes in Sudan, in South Sudan and in the Central African Republic, where we are working to support the transition process and the restoration of the rule of law.

We will have the African Union/EU Summit in April, and this will be a real opportunity to set a stronger forward-looking agenda for our relations with the African Union, something that Madam Zuma and I have discussed many times and which I hope we will turn into a reality in the months between now and April, in order to make this the most successful summit ever.

This is also true of our relations with Latin America and the Caribbean. This is a region that is increasingly influential in world affairs. Last January we had the successful EU-CELAC Summit in Santiago, which was an opportunity to reinforce the partnership and to get the agenda set for the coming years. In the Caribbean, too, we have commissioned and put together a joint strategy that emphasises that our relations are about more than traditional development cooperation and trade, important though these are.

Again, it is important to develop strategic relations with regions across the world that move from traditional relationships to forward-looking strategic political partnerships. I fully agree with what Mr Brok has said: we need to operate in a world in which we forge strong partnerships with our strategic allies – the USA, of course; Brazil, India, China and Russia – and with international and regional organisations as well.

I have invested, and will continue to invest, a lot of time in those key relationships with those strategic partners across the world. This is not just because they matter bilaterally, but because they matter in terms of what we are able to do in terms of influencing and dealing with some of the issues which face us – not just far away, but in our own neighbourhood too. I agree that the relationship with the United States is vital in this. That partnership is essential for us – and, I would say, for them – and I also believe that signing the TTIP will make that even stronger.

But I also want to welcome the strong emphasis in the report on universal values. These need to be always at the core of our work. They are central to helping achieve peace and prosperity, promoting deep democracy underpinned by human rights, and ensuring that the roots of democratic freedoms are well established and cannot be removed. Our election observation missions play a vital part in doing that: seven on-going missions right now, and five completed already this year. Our promotion and protection of human rights, too, is at the centre of our policies, developing the range of instruments that we have. The Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy are designed to be a guiding reference for our action.

We have also established guidelines on the promotion and protection of the enjoyment of all human rights by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people. Let me once again stress that this is integral to our human rights efforts and a central aspect of our engagement with all our partners. But as the report says, we need to work together to improve our effectiveness. I was pleased to appoint the first ever Special Representative for Human Rights. He has made an outstanding contribution, and I want to thank him and this Parliament for your pro-active role and support and cooperation.

I would also like to say something about CSDP in the context of what it brings in terms of its unique contribution. It is an important and integral part of our policy options. We have strong relationships with the UN, NATO and the African Union. We have considerable operational expertise: 30 missions on three continents in the last 15 years, changing the fortunes of people and countries and protecting or promoting our values.

We currently deploy more than 7 000 civilian and military personnel, and this is producing results: our EU maritime operation ATALANTA has drastically reduced the problem of piracy off the Somali coast. Security in Somalia has greatly improved, thanks to the training provided by our mission to 3 000 Somali recruits and the EU funding of AMISOM. In Afghanistan, our police mission has trained 5 000 Afghan police officers, and EULEX Kosovo plays a key role in the accompanying implementation of the recent Belgrade-Pristina agreement.

Honourable Members will know that the European Council last December asked me to develop proposals and actions to further strengthen CSDP. In July 2013, I presented my interim report, and on the basis of discussions that took place from that, I issued a final report on 11 October 2013. This contains a range of proposals and actions in line with that mandate, and I have shared these reports with Parliament.

There is no question that the changing geostrategic context, rising security challenges and continuing squeeze on national defence budgets, seen in the light of increased spending in other parts of the world, make the strategic debate at the December European Council a real priority. I believe that leaders must address the crucial question of the political will to develop and deploy capabilities.

Between 2005 and 2010, European defence spending declined by almost 10 %, and it is estimated to have declined by a similar amount over the last three years. Global growth is predicted to rise by 6.8 % in the years 2011 to 2015 as we see accelerated defence spending in emerging markets, Russia and China. In 2012, Asian defence spending overtook Europe’s for the first time. We know too that the US is also expected to make changes in the region of at least 10 %.

This points, I would argue, to more European inter-dependence. We have to do more together and identify ways of using the EUR 200 billion we spend on defence each year more effectively, developing and enhancing cooperation and common approaches. When I look at the work of the Commission in its July document ‘Towards a more competitive and efficient defence and security sector’, as Vice-President of the Commission, I would say that we tried to set out the importance of working together and of seeing a joined-up and coherent effort. I thank Michel Barnier and his team, and Antonio Tajani, for the work that they have done.

We know the defence industry is a driver for jobs, growth and innovation: EUR 96 billion in 2012. It brings major contributions to the wider economy, directly employs 400 000 highly-skilled people and generates nearly 960 000 indirect jobs.

So the message of my report is clear: we need to be able to act, through the CSDP, as a security provider in the neighbourhood and, at international level, to protect our interests and project our values. The Member States’ commitment to this is required, so I hope that we will see a successful European Council where leaders can come together and make the decisions that can drive this further forward for the future.

Honourable Members, thank you for listening to what has been quite a long speech covering these reports. I would again like to thank the rapporteurs for the work that they have done and to thank you for listening to this report.

  President. − There are some privileges as the High Representative, but from that point of view your chair will be rather severe. Anyhow, for a good foreign policy we need highly-educated diplomats, a good policy – and we also need money. Therefore I now give the floor to the rapporteur from the Committee on Budgets, Ms Neynsky, for one minute.

  Nadezhda Neynsky, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. − Mr President, one minute is not really enough time to try to explain the significance of the financing of everything that the European Union is doing in this context. I will change to Bulgarian.

Целта на този дебат е да бъдат начертани действия, които максимално да защитят интересите на Съюза и позиционирането му като важен международен играч. Като докладчик за финансирането на външната политика в бюджетната комисия, няма как да не бъда обезпокоена от намаляващите средства за следващия програмен период.

Съкращенията неминуемо ще се отразят върху ангажиментите на Европейския съюз към международната сигурност, особено в съседни страни като Косово и Грузия, и съответно върху авторитета на Съюза. Поради тази причина съм на мнение, че малкото пари за външна политика трябва да бъдат изразходвани изключително ефективно.

Приоритетно е разрешаването на отдавнашните проблеми с управлението, логистиката и финансирането на мисиите за сигурност и отбрана чрез създаването на механизъм, който да анализира дали и как целите на мисиите са постигнати. Важно е чрез диалог и обмяна на идеи непрекъснато да бъдат търсени начини за подобряване изразходването на средства за външна политика в интерес, забележете, най-вече на европейските граждани.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor Presidente, señora Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante, Señorías, en primer lugar quisiera felicitar al señor Brok, al ponente, por un informe equilibrado que, sin exaltar luces ni ocultar sombras, hace una radiografía certera del estado de la política exterior y de seguridad común.

Aspectos positivos: la presencia en Ucrania, la negociación nuclear con Irán, la capacidad de interlocución con Egipto, las task forces de Túnez, Egipto, Jordania y, ahora, como se nos ha anunciado recientemente, Myanmar y, por supuesto, la ayuda humanitaria a Siria. El problema, señora Ashton, es que muchas veces damos la impresión de ser más una especie de Cruz Roja Internacional abocada a la firma del cheque de los grandes dramas internacionales que de tener una capacidad propositiva y preventiva. Yo creo que, por el momento, estamos más bien reaccionando que anticipándonos a los acontecimientos.

Señor Presidente, la Unión Europea es un gran mercado de más de 500 millones de consumidores, 300 millones de los cuales utilizan la misma moneda. Somos el principal bloque importador y exportador de bienes y servicios del mundo y el principal donante de ayuda humanitaria y es evidente que tenemos que tener la aspiración de pesar en la escena internacional con arreglo a nuestro peso económico, comercial, financiero e industrial. Y, por eso, señora Alta Representante, este Parlamento en general y mi grupo en particular la hemos venido apoyando en el ámbito de nuestras capacidades, así como al Servicio Europeo de Acción Exterior —acabamos de escuchar la intervención de la colega de presupuestos—; también les hemos apoyado en los aspectos presupuestarios y celebro que usted lo haya reconocido en su declaración al principio.

Pero ―como dice el ponente en su informe― tenemos que defender eficazmente nuestros intereses y tenemos que afirmar nuestros valores y también tenemos que hacer una cosa que en este Parlamento solemos soslayar y es pedir a los Estados miembros que tengan una actitud constructiva a la hora de coordinar la posición de la Unión Europea en los organismos internacionales. Solo así podremos construir la Europa potencia y ser un factor de estabilidad en el mundo, en un mundo globalizado en el que el viejo lema del imperio romano de que la unión hace la fuerza es más verdadero que nunca y en el que el unilateralismo, incluso el de los más prósperos o el de los más poderosos, es hoy, señora Alta Representante, un sueño imposible.

(El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul» (artículo 149, apartado 8, del Reglamento))

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), blue-card question. – Mr Salafranca, thank you for taking the intervention.

At the present time, there is no proper free movement between Spain and Gibraltar, which I have the honour to represent. This has been going on for months. Is it not clear to you that, until proper free movement between Spain and Gibraltar is reinstated by your government, any concept of the EU having weight on the international stage – to use your own phrase – is a complete impossibility?

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), respuesta de «tarjeta azul». – Quisiera decirle, querido colega, que, por la palabra, el hombre es superior al animal pero, por el silencio, se supera a sí mismo.

Ha perdido usted una excelente ocasión de superarse a sí mismo —lo cual no es muy difícil— y quiero decirle que Gibraltar es la última colonia que existe en el territorio de la Unión Europea y que es un anacronismo el hecho de que haya una colonia de un Estado miembro dentro del territorio de otro Estado miembro.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, today the EU is in a situation which is similar to that of the British Cabinet when Churchill told its Members: ‘Gentlemen, we have run out of money; now we must think’. That is exactly what Mr Brok’s report is trying to make us do: pause a little and reflect, trying to instil some order in the multitude of challenges and opportunities confronting us today. The report is correct in stating that a new world order, based on a new distribution of power, is in the making. The problem is whether we will shape it or will be shaped by it – in other words, whether it will be based on our values or on somebody else’s values.

Equally, the report is asking for a new and credible EU foreign policy provided, on the one hand, that we can rise above the mundane daily business making up the current substance of the EU’s external relations and, on the other hand, that it reflects truly European, not simply national strategic objectives dressed up as European interests. Those truly European interests are based on relative or even similar perceptions of reality which, if they exist, facilitate the political will to act which we so often complain is lacking today.

A strategic dialogue involving the Council, the Commission and Parliament, as well as the request, formulated in the report, that the High Representative / Vice-President should present her foreign policy objectives for 2014 and 2015 in the next annual report, are conducive to that aim. To that effect, the report indicates specific strategies such as strengthening cooperation, particularly with regard to policies having transnational implications, and strategic policy coordination in international bodies.

Naturally, the CFSP and CSDP get proper attention in the report. In that respect, proposals advanced by Parliament in previous reports, such as common funding and more transparency in the way money is spent on operations; more effort on the part of the Member States in developing and implementing the CSDP; strengthening the European industrial and technological base; and more democratic scrutiny involvement of Parliament, are reiterated in the report. Another contribution, which is also a step forward, is the report’s recommendation that European defence should be firmly based on the revised European Security Strategy and a White Book which should serve as a common template for concurrent national security and defence reviews – this being, after all, the case in all Member States.

In conclusion – apart from congratulating the rapporteur – I would point to the very good communication and cooperation of the author with the shadow rapporteurs and his willingness to accommodate as many views as possible and find common ground between them.

  Andrew Duff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, four years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the credibility of the EU in world affairs is at stake. I fear that, despite the great efforts of Cathy Ashton and her team, neither the European External Action Service nor the European Defence Agency are properly trusted, certainly by the larger Member States. European-NATO relations remain impaired, and the single most successful tool of the CFSP – an enlargement policy – is sadly depleted.

These things are, of course, connected. Of all the obstacles, the greatest is Cyprus, whose assimilation as a full Member State is only partial, where the acquis is suspended and which remains not recognised by our largest and most strategic candidate state, Turkey. Turkey faces a big decision. It either follows a path of European pluralist liberal democracy and becomes a normal NATO partner and a serious accession candidate, or it chooses an authoritarian Islamist democracy and an oriental foreign policy.

So I think that, if there is a single big issue which must be tackled by the European Council in December, it is Cyprus. A solution to its partition is clearly beyond the capacity of Cypriots by themselves. The entire European Union and the UN must establish and assert that the present situation can no longer be tolerated as an obstacle to our global stance.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Charles Tannock (ECR), blue-card question. – Andrew, you are a well-known friend of Turkey and you mentioned the problems with Turkey. Would you not agree that the very best thing it could do in terms of confidence-building measures would be to allow the return of Famagusta-Varosha to its rightful inhabitants, who are mainly from the Greek Cypriot community? Not only would it actually create huge numbers of jobs in a Member State – against the backdrop of the problems that it is now facing with the banking crisis – it would also allow the Kasoulides Plan – a plan formulated by our former colleague who is now Foreign Minister of Cyprus – to deliver some sweeteners, i.e. lifting the veto by Cyprus on certain Turkish chapters for negotiation. This would be win-win situation all the way round. Could you try to convince your Turkish friends to agree to that?

  Andrew Duff (ALDE), blue-card answer. – I think there are several things that could and should be achieved on each side. Perhaps the most dramatic and important thing that Turkey could do is to remove some of its occupying forces in the North. But the real problem is, I think, the occupation of the minds of Cypriots, Greeks and Turks. I think that is a graver and more complex and profound issue that will require intensive diplomacy and a considerable amount of time.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Takis Hadjigeorgiou (GUE/NGL), blue-card question. – First of all, I would like to thank Mr Duff and Mr Tannock for their contribution to Cyprus. I would like to add that Mr Duff signed the written declaration asking Turkey to return Famagusta, so I thank him once again. My question is whether Mr Tannock, Mr Duff, myself and others can work to persuade the European Council during the next meeting to do something about Turkey.

  Andrew Duff (ALDE), blue-card answer. – I trust that we can, and indeed I proposed that Prime Minister Erdoğan be invited to the meeting of the European Council. Unfortunately, the aggressive response he has displayed to the Gezi Park protests has scuppered that plan, but there is still time, and I would like this Parliament, the Commission and Catherine Ashton to concert strongly upon a solution to the Cypriot problem.

  Ulrike Lunacek, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Lady Ashton and her team for the really excellent work she has been doing over these past years, and since we last talked about the CFSP report. I know it is not an easy task all the time, especially when we know that Member States are not always very happy to give power away to the European level. Many, or at least some of them, always try at different stages to prevent more power going to the European level and being taken away from them. That is one of my concerns with our Common Foreign and Security Policy because, as Mr Brok rightly said, it is the one thing that citizens like about the European Union and of which they would like to have more.

It is a fact that the European Union is a global player. We spend more on development cooperation than any other country or group in the world, but we are not seen as much as we should be as a global player. This very often has to do – and I would like to come back to this point – with the lack of unity among Member States, and also the lack of will to give more power to the European level. Quite often it has to do with economic interests, to be very frank. If we look at trade and business lobbyists and interests on that ground, very often – I am afraid to say – these interests come before our common values. These common values of human rights, defence of democracy and the rule of law are things that are not just European values: they are universal values. It is something that makes our common foreign policy weak.

I would like to take one example: that of Russia. We all know that the situation in Russia is worsening every day. It is not just the law by which all kinds of NGOs that get money from abroad are so-called ‘foreign agents’; it is the LGBT laws that incite not just hatred but violence against people who are considered to be LGBT. They do not even have to be lesbian or gay. There have been incidents of late. And there is also the issue with Greenpeace, whose activists are now facing the threat of being tried in court as pirates, which they certainly are not. On all of these issues, I think that the European Union would be a lot stronger if we were more independent of fossil fuels and not afraid of Russia turning off the gas now when the winter is coming.

Another issue that we should tackle is that of the United States of America. I am glad that we have in the report the words ‘diverging views’. I am very glad that the European Parliament has just voted to demand the suspension of the SWIFT agreement because of the NSA scandal, and I am glad that the Parliament delegation that is going to visit Washington next week will have to take that with it.

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I am a staunch defender of national sovereignty and the right of Member States to hold the reins over their own foreign policy and defence, acting in their own national interests. But this does not mean that the United Kingdom – my country – cannot support a common foreign security policy of the EU where it adds clear value.

The European Union is a powerful bloc of liberal democracies. Although our domestic politics may differ substantially, in our dealings with the outside world our similarities are usually more evident and outweigh our differences. Lady Ashton, your recent achievement in bringing together the Kosovo and Serbian leaders in their landmark agreement demonstrates the potential for a CFSP at its best, particularly given the fact that the EULEX mission in Kosovo was very helpful in re-establishing the rule of law. The EU training missions in Uganda and Mali are also particular successes, as is the EU-NAVFOR Atalanta mission, which has done so much in the Indian Ocean to reduce piracy off the coast of Somalia.

As rapporteur both for the Horn of Africa and for the human rights report on the Sahel, which went through this week in the House, I hear first hand from regional actors how valued the EU contribution is and how effective we can be when we coordinate our soft and hard power strategies. This applies to sticks as well as carrots, as evidenced by the EU-led sanctions now forcing President Rouhani of Iran to the negotiating table, and to the blacklisting of Hezbollah, which sends the right message about terrorism internationally.

Nevertheless, one real problem that my group has with the Brok CFSP report is its continued insistence on a permanent EU seat at the UN Security Council, which the United Kingdom cannot accept. In a sense, this is the key issue. Foreign, security and defence policy can be coordinated, where appropriate, but ultimately, control must be intergovernmental. Where collective decisions are being taken, they must be taken unanimously. We can support them in that case, but we cannot allow a situation to develop whereby small – or, for that matter, large – countries, such as my own, are forced to submit to policies and interests that they do not share with the others.

We have more reservations as a group over the CSDP, given that the EU has only two major military powers – France and the UK. But, where CSDP missions can coexist effectively with NATO without duplication, we are also happy to endorse a collective and constructive approach.

  Willy Meyer, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor Presidente, saben ustedes, sobre todo la señora Ashton y el señor Brok, que mi Grupo parlamentario ha presentado una opinión minoritaria porque no compartimos —y lo hacemos año tras año— este actual sistema de seguridad, que, desde nuestro punto de vista, hace un mundo más inseguro. Ya nos gustaría a nosotros reconocer que estamos en un error y que, por lo tanto, año tras año, el mundo es más seguro, hay menos conflictos y el Derecho internacional y la Carta de las Naciones Unidas prevalecen en las relaciones internacionales. Desgraciadamente, no es así.

Y por eso hemos presentado esta opinión minoritaria. Nosotros creemos que es un error que la Unión Europea base su seguridad en el vínculo atlántico, a saber, en la OTAN y las bases norteamericanas desplegadas en la Unión Europea; un error porque la OTAN ha aprobado, desde el año 1999 y de forma reiterada, un concepto estratégico que le permite intervenir al margen de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas, del mandato expreso de que el Consejo de Seguridad tiene que autorizar el uso de la fuerza.

Desde nuestro punto de vista esto es un salto atrás de la civilización. Creo que después de la Primera y la Segunda Guerra Mundial teníamos que haber aprendido, para que el uso de la fuerza se haga siempre conforme a esta Carta de las Naciones Unidas. Y, por lo tanto, los valores de la Administración estadounidense no son los nuestros. La Administración estadounidense hace ejecuciones extrajudiciales.

Señor Presidente, creía que tenía un minuto y medio. ¿No? Pues lo siento, lo lamento.

  Bastiaan Belder, namens de EFD-Fractie. – Hoge vertegenwoordiger, ik zou u graag twee urgente kwesties willen voorleggen.

Ten eerste: de aanhoudende stroom van jihadisten uit Europa – een rechtszaak vindt nog plaats in mijn eigen land, Nederland – en uit Turkije naar het Syrische slagveld. Welke tegenmaatregelen nemen de EU en haar toetredingskandidaat Turkije daartegen?

Ten tweede, de ontduiking van het westerse sanctiebeleid door Iran op het grondgebied van de EU en ook Turkije. Opnieuw mijn vraag: welke tegenmaatregelen treffen Brussel en Ankara daartegen?

Over deze twee aangeduide kwesties en vragen aan uw adres wil ik nog enige details ter illustratie toevoegen. Turkse media meldden dat in het afgelopen jaar honderden jonge Turken zich bij de extremisten in buurland Syrië hebben aangesloten. Alleen al tweehonderd in de zuidoostelijke Turkse stad Adi Jaman. Voeg daaraan toe de verdubbeling van het aantal franse jihadisten in Syrië sinds deze lente! Typerend is de recente uitspraak van een prominent lid van de Franse inlichtingendienst. Citaat: "Zoiets hebben wij niet eerder gezien, zelfs niet met Afghanistan!".

Voor wat betreft de Iraanse ontduiking van het westerse sanctiebeleid op Europees grondgebied, daarover overhandig ik u straks graag de analyse van de expert Emanuele Ottolenghi die hij begin september publiceerde onder de titel: Iran is really good at evading sanctions. Graag verneem ik zo spoedig mogelijk een schriftelijke reactie op de belastende feiten die Ottolenghi in zijn gedetailleerde onderzoeksverslag aanbracht. Want ik mag aannemen, mevrouw de hoge vertegenwoordiger, dat u door de glimlach van de nieuwe Iraanse president Rohani heenkijkt.

  Adrian Severin (NI). - Mr President, beside all the good things that I could mention, let me say that the European Union foreign and security policy is held hostage by the dilemma of choosing between values and geostrategy. This is a false dilemma, since values are a dimension of power and part of the geopolitical endeavour.

EU interests are best protected in areas and with partners sharing the same values. However, the promotion of EU values must not be done at the expense of geopolitical interests, and vice versa. Both are about the security of European citizens. The real problem lies in our failure to understand that our values cannot prevail until we prevail in the geostrategic race. This does not mean that we should abandon our values for the sake of a geostrategic rationale. It means that first we have to create a security framework for those values to grow. The prevalence we currently give to our values does not reflect our attachment to them but our ineffectiveness in defining our geostrategic identity and therefore our long-term interest and geopolitical goals.

We are fighting an elusive crusade that gives us a false impression that we are imposing our model around the world while disguising the real reactive character of our external action. You must overcome this Messiah complex and stop behaving as a global secular priesthood. Likewise, we must admit that the more-for-more approach does not function when the countries concerned have geopolitical or geo-economic alternatives.

A foreign policy without strategic goals is a vehicle going nowhere. Like Alice in Wonderland, we fool ourselves that if we do not know the destination, all roads will lead us there. If we do not change that, we will condemn ourselves to irrelevance. A soft power, yes; but a soft power with vision and teeth. This is what we need to be.

  Michael Gahler (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Unser Auswärtiger Dienst bietet einen Mehrwert in allen Bereichen des auswärtigen Handelns, wenn wir mit einer Stimme sprechen und nationale Alleingänge vermeiden, die meist nicht einmal mehr die Heimatbasis dauerhaft beeindrucken, geschweige denn diejenigen, denen unsere Außenpolitik eigentlich gilt. Wenn wir gemeinsam auftreten, beeindrucken wir Janukowitsch in der Ukraine und Rohani im Iran und hoffentlich auch die im Hintergrund, die dort tatsächlich das Sagen haben.

Wir zeigen Serbien und Kosovo, was wir erwarten und im Gegenzug auch anbieten können. Zu unserer Toolbox gehören Instrumente wie Demokratieförderung in Form von Wahlbeobachtung, wie auch Handelsförderung in Form von GSP+. Wir sollten einem Land wie Pakistan beides gewähren. Stabilisierung sowohl durch Stärkung demokratischer Institutionen als auch durch mehr Marktzugang. Wer Soft Power sein will, muss auch Hard Power bieten können. Zur Toolbox der EU gehört auch die GSVP. Hier haben wir noch nicht das volle Potenzial des Vertrags von Lissabon ausgeschöpft, obwohl die Gefährdungen und Krisen näherkommen, obwohl die USA deutlich sagen, wir sollten uns selbst insbesondere um unsere Nachbarschaft kümmern, und obwohl alle Mitgliedstaaten unkoordiniert im Verteidigungsbereich kürzen. Ich brauche nicht zu wiederholen, was bereits von den Kollegen Brok und Paşcu zur GSVP gesagt wurde, ich unterstütze das.

Danke, Frau Hohe Beauftragte, für Ihren Beitrag zum Dezember-Gipfel. Sorgen Sie mit Herrn Van Rompuy bitte dafür, dass dort alle drei envelopes gut gefüllt sind. Der strategische Teil, der Teil, wo es um Kapazitäten und Fähigkeiten geht, und auch der Teil, wo es um den Binnenmarkt und die industrielle Basis geht. Ich denke, wir sollten den Mitgliedstaaten klarmachen, dass sie ihr knappes Geld bisher sehr verschwenden, wenn sie in der GSVP so weitermachen wie bisher. Deswegen ist dieser Gipfel ein Muss. Er darf nicht scheitern, und er darf auch nicht nur mit Lippenbekenntnissen daherkommen, sondern dort müssen wirklich Aufträge erteilt werden.

Ich hoffe, dass wir das dann vielleicht auch in der Form tun können, dass wir für das nächste Jahr einen formellen Verteidigungsministerrat einrichten, der dann sozusagen hauptamtlich die Beschlüsse in der Umsetzung begleitet.

PRESIDE: MIGUEL ÁNGEL MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vicepresidente

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - Senhor presidente, Senhora Alta Representante, o relatório do Senhor Brok é importante, mas não pode ser tão positivo como os cidadãos europeus mereceriam.

A União Europeia continua fechada sobre si mesma a braços com uma crise política, económica e financeira que nos tem deixado cegos para as mudanças teutónicas na geoestratégia mundial.

Temos permanecido quase impávidos e muito ineficazes perante as convulsões e comoções que se fazem sentir na nossa vizinhança e além dela. Espero que o Conselho ouça o debate que hoje houve aqui sobre a inação cínica face à recente tragédia de Lampedusa. (Presidente interrompe).

A União Europeia não tem conseguido escapar ao pernicioso esquema de cada um por si, em que vários Estados-Membros servem e se servem da União para as suas próprias prioridades, minando o desenvolvimento de uma robusta política externa europeia.

Falta liderança para confrontar os governos da União com o que estamos a perder e com o que podemos ganhar com uma política externa que assente os interesses estratégicos que são comuns e que atue, coordenada e eficazmente, contra os perigos e riscos para a nossa segurança e para a influência da União no mundo.

Olhemos para a nossa vizinhança: a Europa já está a sentir as consequências do desastre na Síria, a Europa já sente os perigos que emanam de uma Líbia instável e que se torna uma real ameaça para o povo líbio, em primeiro lugar, mas também para a Europa e para a estabilidade na região e além dela.

Estes são dois casos onde reina a ação autista de alguns Estados-Membros, por vezes em detrimento dos valores da Europa e dos interesses da paz e da democracia no plano global e regional.

Na Líbia, podíamos e devíamos ter feito mais pela estabilização do país, para encorajar a transição democrática e corresponder aos apelos do povo líbio e das autoridades líbias mas, pelo contrário, deixamos tudo nas mãos de outros, nomeadamente aquilo de que mais precisa a Líbia e que nos sairá muito caro com a demora: a reforma do setor da segurança, que tem de ir de par com a desmobilização e o desarmamento e a reintegração das milícias revolucionárias. Este não acontecerá sem o primeiro.

E o que se vê hoje é, por isso, uma Líbia de fraca governação, quase sem nenhuma, mais insegura, mais instável com os arsenais de Kadafi às mãos das redes terroristas que atuam, por exemplo, também em toda a região, e na Síria até, da criminalidade organizada, incluindo os traficantes de seres humanos que fabricam as tragédias como Lampedusa.

A Síria é o espelho das contradições da ação externa europeia. Deixamos as capitais conduzir o processo reduzindo a União a uma papel humanitário que, apesar de muito importante, não vai ajudar a pôr fim à guerra. A União tem de investir na solução político-diplomática da crise síria, tem de trabalhar muito mais para a mediação e agrupamento da oposição ao regime de Bashar al-Assad e trazer à mesa, a Genebra, essa oposição.

Também tem de chegar a Genebra com uma só voz, porque os desafios afetam-nos a todos na Europa, os desafios na Síria. E a Síria não pode ser apenas uma preocupação francesa ou inglesa, é vital também que nós procuremos trazer Teerão à mesa de Genebra para a resolução da guerra na Síria.

O próprio envolvimento do Irão e do Hezbollah no conflito implica que Teerão tenha de estar à mesa e eu espero que a Senhora Alta Representante, com o peso diplomático que ganhou nas negociações sobre o programa nuclear, que obviamente tem de ser uma prioridade de acordo com o NPT, com as obrigações e os direitos previstos no NPT, possa também envolver a liderança da República Islâmica do Irão na resolução do conflito da Síria.

(o Presidente interrompe)

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). - Doamnă Înalt Reprezentant, fără îndoială că şi declaraţia dumneavoastră, şi raportul domnului Brok sunt două documente care abundă de idei pozitive, care încearcă o viziune strategică şi lucrul acesta este pozitiv pentru politica noastră de apărare şi securitate comună. Toţi acceptăm să vorbim – şi chiar ne place lucrul ăsta – despre mai multă Europă, dar nivelul la care, în momentul de faţă, am ajuns în a avea o politică externă şi de securitate comună dovedeşte că suntem departe de a avea mai multă Europă. Avem, însă, din păcate, dacă privim strict la sistemul de securitate şi la ceea ce se întâmplă în abordările statelor membre în materie de politică comună, mai puţină Europă, pentru că, dincolo de strategii, dincolo de valoarea ideilor pe care le promovăm, avem o realitate care nu ne susţine în realizarea unei politici de apărare şi securitate comune.

Avem o provocare majoră în summitul de la Vilnius şi, cum spuneam ieri, îmi doresc ca domnul Putin să nu mai aibă un alt succes de talia celui de la Sankt Petersburg ci, dimpotrivă, noi să dovedim că suntem motivaţi să susţinem proiectele Uniunii. Avem un nord al Africii turbulent, în care am încercat să ne implicăm – rezultatele se văd însă, avem o Uniune pentru Mediterana ratată, avem o Asie Centrală care ne ignoră, avem o Africă dominată de alte puteri. Ca atare, cred că este momentul să trecem de la ceea ce minunat există pe hârtie la o strategie care să ne facă să lucrăm împreună într-o politică comună de apărare şi securitate.

Cred că trebuie să înţeleagă statele membre că nu este momentul individualismului, nu este momentul deciziilor individuale, pentru că numai împreună putem fi relevanţi într-un joc de securitate şi apărare global. Ceea ce s-a întâmplat, de pildă, în Libia, depozitul comun de material este un mic proiect care va avea succes şi, în opinia mea, de la acest tip de proiecte trebuie să pornim, pentru că este vital pentru Uniune să lărgească ceea ce se cheamă conceptul de „soft power".

  Tarja Cronberg (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, the report is correct in regretting that the EU does not have a clear strategy for its relations with the world. It also makes a valid point by calling the EU a reactive, rather than a proactive, international actor. Obviously the EU needs to become more proactive. However, at this juncture the best we can do may be at least to make sure that the EU reacts at the right time, with efficient instruments to hand and with a long-term vision.

In order to become more proactive, I think there is a need to review the EU delegations’ work in the world, in order to ensure that the Union’s policies, ambitions and strategic priorities are efficiently carried out. We need to look at the role played by the EU’s Special Representatives to critical regions and on thematic issues. Several mandates expire already next summer, and we need to overview their work. They are also changes in the global situation – Iran is an example – and of course it will be necessary to consider whether there is a need for EU representation at this time.

In terms of defence and security policy, I quite agree with the High Representative when she takes up the question that Europe actually has a lot of resources: EUR 200 million. We have the second-largest army in the world, and there are capacities that, when we are on missions, we cannot carry out without depending on the US. Therefore, I hope that the Vilnius Summit will take the question of pooling and sharing seriously, that the Member States will make their preparations and that we can create some of the trust that is needed for this important task. This applies also to the defence industry. This is equally fragmented, and priorities are needed. How this can be carried out will, I hope, also be discussed at the Vilnius meeting.

Finally, I want to deplore the fact that, with the ATT now being signed and the EU’s common position on the terms of arms exports being implemented, Member States have actually decided to deliver weapons to Syria.

  Ryszard Antoni Legutko (ECR). - Mr President, I would like to make a few comments on Mr Brok’s report. Firstly, ‘to establish a new and credible foreign policy’ is an indirect admission that we do not have such a policy. Indeed, we do not – and we never will, unless it is imposed by those in the EU who are more equal upon those who are less equal. Such a danger is not a figment of my imagination: the report states that the Common Foreign Policy should be used ‘to overcome the inappropriate use of the veto within the Council’. I do not know what an inappropriate use of the veto is – nobody does – but the statement is unabashed encouragement to intimidate those who dare to disagree.

Secondly, the report calls for the development of European media ‘to raise awareness of the Common Foreign Policy’. This looks like an official blessing for political propaganda. For two-thirds of my life I lived in a communist system that tried to raise my awareness. It failed. Please, Baroness and dear colleagues, do not raise awareness – either mine or anyone else’s.

Thirdly, the report calls for a permanent seat for the EU on the Security Council. Giving the EU a seat on the Security Council would make the EU a state, which it is not, and – God willing – never will be. Such a statement is, in fact, an explicit affirmation of the federalist project, which is another reason why we should look at the Common Foreign Policy with suspicion.

Fourthly, given the fact that the EU is notoriously undemocratic, a common foreign policy must mean another area of political unaccountability. Do we not have enough of that already?

  Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου (GUE/NGL). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, λυπούμαι που θα είμαι λίγο τραχύς, αλλά νομίζω ότι η Κοινή Εξωτερική Πολιτική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης είναι ίσως το πιο σύντομο ανέκδοτο σήμερα στην Ευρώπη. Κατά την άποψή μου, ούτε μπορεί να επιδιωχθεί, ούτε επιδιώκεται κοινή εξωτερική πολιτική. Αυτό που συμβαίνει στην πραγματικότητα είναι μία συνεχής εξισορρόπηση μεταξύ διαφορετικών συμφερόντων των κρατών μελών. Για να υπάρξει κοινή εξωτερική πολιτική χρειάζονται ηγέτες με ‘κότσια’ και ‘τσαγανό’ που θα υπερασπιστούν τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα πρώτα από όλα και πάνω από όλα. Δεν μπορεί να υπάρξει κοινή εξωτερική πολιτική χωρίς πλήρη σεβασμό των θέσεων όλων των κρατών μελών, ανεξάρτητα από το μέγεθος και τη δύναμή τους. Για την Τουρκία, ούτε λέξη για την κατοχή του ενός τρίτου της Κύπρου! Αποφεύγετε να πείτε ή να κάνετε κάτι. Ή δεν σας ενδιαφέρει, ή φοβάσθε το θέμα ή αγνοείτε ότι μπορείτε και οφείλετε να εργασθείτε για την πλήρη ελευθερία και ανεξαρτησία ενός κράτους μέλους, για το καλό όλων των κατοίκων της Κύπρου, Ελληνοκυπρίων και Τουρκοκυπρίων.

  Fiorello Provera (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Baronessa Ashton, so che Lei stava lavorando duramente – e mi congratulo per questa sua attività – anche in Iran.

Le elezioni del nuovo presidente Rohani hanno aperto molte speranze e molte illusioni forse, perché questa moderazione pare essere smentita da numeri precisi: dalle elezioni di Rohani in agosto ad oggi sono state eseguite 150 sentenze capitali e nell'ultimo anno 560 esecuzioni, più che nello stesso periodo del 2012.

Ma questa nuova atmosfera ha causato una grande euforia in molti colleghi, tant'è che è già stato chiesto da più parti di ridurre o abolire le sanzioni, dimenticando che forse sono proprio le sanzioni che hanno agito da deterrente e portato a un cambiamento nella politica iraniana.

Vorrei venisse evitato quanto successo nel Maghreb, dove purtroppo le nostre speranze sono state in parte disilluse e che venisse invece mantenuto quell'atteggiamento prudente nei confronti della nuova politica iraniana, da Lei riassunto in maniera magistrale con l'espressione "more for more and less for less", questo non soltanto sotto il profilo economico e finanziario, ma anche sotto il profilo politico.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). - Herr Präsident! In unserer global vernetzten Welt – das ist eine Binsenweisheit – ist kaum eine außenpolitische Aufgabe im Alleingang für ein Land lösbar. Dennoch ist die Europäische Union leider bei den meisten außenpolitischen Problemen eher ein Leichtgewicht. Selbst in eher unwichtigen außenpolitischen Fragen fällt eine Einigung der 27 Mitgliedstaaten zumeist sehr schwer. Ganz zu schweigen davon, dass es fast unmöglich ist, die großen EU-Mitgliedstaaten – Frankreich, Großbritannien oder Deutschland – auf einen Nenner zu bringen. Frankreichs Vorpreschen bei der Anerkennung der neuen Nationalen Koalition in Syrien als legitime Vertreter des syrischen Volkes zeigt einmal mehr die Hilflosigkeit der EU gegenüber dem des schiefgelaufenen arabischen Demokratisierungsprozess.

Solange sich die EU-Staaten ein Wettrennen im Erfüllen US-amerikanischer Wünsche liefern, wird die EU zum zahnlosen Zahlmeister für US-amerikanische Interessen degradiert. Brüssel sollte zu wichtigen außenpolitischen Fragen also nicht zu schweigen. Wir Europäer brauchen dringend eine eigenständige, von Washington unabhängige Außenpolitik, in der die Erfahrungen und guten Beziehungen der Mitgliedstaaten zu bestimmten Regionen optimal genutzt werden.

  Arnaud Danjean (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, Madame la Haute représentante, vous êtes la dépositaire d'une politique extérieure européenne qui est confrontée à un impossible défi.

D'un côté, une demande toujours plus forte de nos concitoyens et de nos partenaires pour une réponse collective face aux défis diplomatiques et de sécurité. Où est l'Europe? Que fait l'Europe? Voilà ce que nous entendons dans nos capitales, dans nos opinions publiques, ainsi que de Lampedusa à Nairobi, d'Alep à Bamako. De l'autre côté, des prérogatives et des capacités d'initiative prisonnières de volontés politiques nationales de plus en plus frileuses et de capacités nationales de plus en plus réduites.

Réduire cet écart, mortifère pour l'Europe, sur la scène internationale est le fil conducteur du rapport Brok que nous vous proposons aujourd'hui. Le principal danger est la dispersion, l'incapacité à nous donner collectivement des priorités réalistes, particulièrement dans un contexte de réduction budgétaire, que vous avez bien souligné.

Le but n'est pas de planter le drapeau européen partout en même temps, partout pour le principe, partout là où nous devrions aller. L'objectif est d'être là où nous avons des intérêts et des valeurs à défendre. L'objectif est d'être là où on nous attend, où on nous espère, mais surtout où nous pouvons être efficaces.

C'est incontestablement dans notre voisinage, oriental et méridional, que se joue la crédibilité de l'Europe: dans les Balkans, au Proche-Orient, en Afrique et dans le Caucase. Si nous ne jouons pas un rôle majeur dans ces régions-là, ce n'est pas la peine d'exercer la moindre influence sur la scène internationale ni, surtout, d'espérer convaincre nos concitoyens de la pertinence du projet européen.

C'est pour cela que je salue les actions que vous avez menées dans les Balkans, dans la Corne de l'Afrique, ailleurs en Afrique du Nord, notamment en Égypte, mais ces actions doivent s'amplifier et doivent surtout recueillir l'assentiment volontaire de nos États membres.

  Véronique De Keyser (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, nous avons plus que jamais besoin d'une politique étrangère et de sécurité commune. En effet, le monde d'aujourd'hui est dans une espèce de transition entre un monde bipolaire et un monde que nous voudrions multipolaire, mais la transition n'est pas achevée. Cela explique que des pays que nous considérions comme des alliés dans un monde bipolaire partent parfois en vrille. Je pense notamment au rôle que l'Arabie saoudite et le Qatar ont joué dans la déstabilisation du printemps arabe et certainement de la Syrie, allant jusqu'à financer des groupes terroristes. Et c'est parce que nous avons besoin d'un monde bipolaire qu'aujourd'hui nous avons besoin d'une politique étrangère commune et d'une Europe qui soit forte dans ce domaine.

Nous devons peser d'une seule voix, autonome, sur l'équilibre international, sinon il s'en trouvera fragilisé. Je partage tout à fait ce que M. Danjean vient de dire. Pour bien peser, il nous faut une stratégie visible et lisible. Il nous faut des priorités. Nous ne pouvons pas tout faire, mais nous devons agir là où c'est le plus efficace.

À ce titre, je suis pleinement d'accord avec la ligne qu'a suivie M. Brok dans son rapport. Et bien entendu, Madame Ashton, pourquoi vous rendre responsable des échecs que nous essuyons parfois dans un monde qui traverse de telles turbulences et de tels cataclysme, dans un monde qui vit de telles révolutions? Si nous n'avons pas réussi partout, ce n'est certainement pas de votre faute. Il y a néanmoins une seule phrase dans votre rapport, Monsieur Brok, que je n'accepte pas: c'est quand vous dites que Mme Ashton doit être l'"animatrice" de la politique étrangère: j'ai plus d'ambition pour le poste de haute représentante! Je voudrais en tout cas vous féliciter pour ce que vous avez fait dans la Corne de l'Afrique, pour ce que vous avez fait en Somalie, pour votre action en Serbie et au Kosovo, pour ce que nous avons pu éviter là-bas. Je pense qu'on ne mesure pas assez à quel point, là, l'Europe a pesé.

Je voudrais revenir à ce qui ne sont pas des échecs de notre part, mais bien des espèces de catastrophes, des espèces de génocides humanitaires. Je veux parler de la Syrie et du Moyen-Orient. En Syrie, nous n'avons pas réussi jusqu'à présent à arrêter les massacres. Vous avez dit: "il nous faut trouver de l'intérieur et de l'extérieur de quoi alimenter Genève 2". Je crois que vous avez tout à fait raison. Et pour embrayer sur ce que M. Provera a dit, je crois qu'il ne faut pas hésiter à avoir de l'audace dans la recherche mesurée et prudente de collaboration à un autre niveau. Je pense à l'Iran. Oui, Monsieur Provera, nous connaissons la situation des droits de l'homme en Iran et vous avez raison. Mais si nous réussissons les négociations sur le dossier nucléaire, si nous réussissons à avoir un Moyen-Orient dénucléarisé, l'Iran peut être un partenaire pour la stabilité régionale, pour l'Afghanistan, pour la question de la Syrie et contre le terrorisme qui, aujourd'hui, a pénétré dans ces régions.

(Le président retire la parole à l'oratrice)

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). - Mr President, I listened very carefully to the speech by the High Representative, and I think the European Union does a lot in the field of Common Foreign and Security Policy – but we definitely need to do even more. I do not want to go into small details in my short statement; rather, I would like to concentrate on some general remarks on what I see in the current Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union.

I believe that the economic recession has left its mark on several areas in the EU, including the CFSP. Therefore, I fully welcome this report by Mr Brok, and I believe it offers a clear and decisive strategy that will improve the Union’s effectiveness as a cohesive global player. There is an absolute necessity for the European Union to formulate a clear, coherent, priority-based and progressive international strategy which aims to anticipate, prevent and shape the unfolding situations around the world. Furthermore, the European Union is one of the few international actors whose foreign policy is not only informed by its economic and political interests but also anchored in fundamental values and principles that define its very normative identity. Together with the parliamentary scrutiny of the foreign policy, such a norms-based international strategy will not only increase our credibility but will also help to mobilise support from other international parties, including from NGOs.

Last but not least, it will be virtually impossible to implement any new strategy that we come up with without a coherent coordination of international actions amongst the European capitals and without a stronger role of the High Representative on Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. This has enormous importance in ensuring the unity, consistency and effectiveness of our actions, and it is vital if the EU is to make a significant difference in the international arena.

  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I would like to welcome Mr Brok’s report because, even though there is some relevant disagreement, there is much more that we have in common.

In a world in flux, Europe’s broad security environment is in flux too. The reluctance of the United States to continue directing as much effort towards unruly regions in our neighbourhood as they did in the past is an obvious fact. Therefore I believe there is just one European answer: coordinate, cooperate, pool, share. Merely by continuing with the Member States’ half-baked level of ambition to cooperate, CSDP and CFSP will not be delivering what they should.

I am afraid that the need to change the perception has not yet resonated enough in most Member States, most notably in the one that I represent here. So I would like to underline what Mr Brok wrote: ‘Member States have an interest to develop a common vision that goes beyond individual Member States’ perceptions and historical experience’. That is exactly the point. Interestingly, citizens seem to be more advanced in understanding that than some leaders because, if we listen to what Eurobarometer tells us time and time again, a huge majority of European citizens support exactly that perspective.

There is, however, one mistake we should refrain from making, and I think there is a point that we should criticise. Funding the Defence Agency via the EU budget is not going to overcome the lack of ambition and engagement by the Member States. These spend roughly EUR 200 billion on defence each year. If they cannot come up with the financing for the Defence Agency, we should not step in and say that we will squander European funds for that purpose. The problem is not a lack of funding. The problem is a lack of making the right decisions. So let us refrain from making that mistake.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR). - Mr President, I would like to address Baroness Ashton. In your introduction to your final progress report on CSDP a week ago, you were very clear about the primary reason for CSDP, and I quote: ‘it is political and it concerns fulfilling Europe’s ambitions on the world stage’. In other words, it is all about European integration. There are, of course, others, who cherished the naive hope that support for CSDP will encourage reluctant states to contribute more, militarily, and use it. I fear that they will be disappointed.

You spoke earlier of the EU’s operational expertise; this is truly smoke and mirrors. Any military assets and expertise that you draw on come from our nations; the EU adds nothing. It does not matter how you dress it up: no CSDP activities bear critical scrutiny. Two thirds of the 7 000 personnel deployed on so-called EU CSDP missions are civilians, and 23 of the 30 missions are civilian. It is not even true to say that the EU’s maritime operation has drastically reduced the scourge of piracy off the coast of Somalia, as you said. For the most part, Atalanta merely drew on the same small pool of national naval forces already providing ships for NATO’s ocean shield.

In reality, of course, the main factor in reducing pirate attacks in the Red Sea/Indian Ocean area was the introduction of on-board private armed security teams. If I thought for a moment that CSDP was designed to help the European nations become more effective and capable defence contributors and alliance partners, then there might be some merit. But the EU has no military requirements different to those of NATO. It may make sense for less-capable countries to get together to improve capabilities, provided they have the will to use them, but there is absolutely no need for the EU to be involved in any of this.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Arnaud Danjean (PPE), question "carton bleu". – Monsieur le Président, mon cher collègue, nous allons faire profiter la plénière de nos débats habituels.

En vous entendant critiquer ce que vous appelez les so-called EU missions and operations, en particulier la mission Atalante, mais aussi les missions de formation EUTM, EUTM Somalia – que vous avez pu voir sur le terrain avec moi en Ouganda, dont vous avez pu mesurer l'efficacité, le professionalisme, les mérites – mais aussi EUTM Mali, je m'interroge quand même sur le degré de mauvaise foi – pardon de vous le dire – que vous mettez dans ce jugement un peu rapide et qui contredit complètement le jugement que je viens d'entendre de notre excellent collègue, Charles Tannock, qui louait, lui, les mérites de ces missions européennes. Alors, pouvez-vous me dire où est la cohérence de votre ligne politique?

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), blue-card answer. – I am always delighted to discuss these matters with my good friend and colleague Arnaud Danjean. Yes, I did indeed visit the training mission in Somalia. What was particularly interesting about it was that all those recruits that were being trained had been recruited by the United States and were paid for by the United States, and indeed moved there by the United States. The European Commission delegation in Entebbe had not even visited the EU training mission at the time we went there – so much for joined-up EU activity and a so-called comprehensive approach.

My point is that there is no need for the European Union to be involved in this. All those personnel that we saw doing training – and doing some excellent training – were provided by nations which for the most part are NATO allies.

  Χαράλαμπος Αγγουράκης (GUE/NGL). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τόσο η έκθεση που συζητούμε όσο και η Σύνοδος Κορυφής του Δεκεμβρίου 2013 αποσκοπούν στο να γίνει η Κοινή Εξωτερική Πολιτική και Πολιτική Ασφάλειας ακόμη πιο επιθετική, ακόμη πιο ιμπεριαλιστική. Οι στρατιωτικές και άλλες αποστολές της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης αυξάνονται και επεκτείνονται, γεωγραφικά και χρονικά. Σε τούτο κυνήγι το των φυσικών πόρων και των αγορών, ολόκληρες χώρες έχουν μετατραπεί σε πραγματικά προτεκτοράτα και διοικούνται από εγκάθετες κυβερνήσεις. Εκατομμύρια άνθρωποι στις χώρες αυτές έχουν χάσει κάθε ελπίδα και αναζητούν διαφυγή στη μετανάστευση για να καταλήγουν, κατά χιλιάδες, είτε στον βυθό της Μεσογείου, είτε σε στρατόπεδα συγκέντρωσης. Αυτή η πολιτική έχει οπλίσει τους μισθοφόρους της Συρίας και τους θεωρεί συνομιλητές της, αυτή η πολιτική ευθύνεται για την αποσταθεροποίηση στην Αίγυπτο και για την κατάσταση που προέκυψε στη Λιβύη μετά τον ιμπεριαλιστικό πόλεμο. Αυτή η πολιτική καταστρέφει την αμυντική βιομηχανία και τα ναυπηγεία της Ελλάδας για χάρη των πολυεθνικών, ρίχνοντας στην ανεργία χιλιάδες εργαζόμενους.

Για αυτούς τους λόγους, οι λαοί δεν αποδέχονται να καθορίζεται από τις γεωπολιτικές επιλογές των ΗΠΑ, της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και των μονοπωλίων και από τους ανταγωνισμούς με τις ανερχόμενες καπιταλιστικές δυνάμεις η διεθνής νομιμότητα. Δεν δέχονται οι λαοί να νομιμοποιούν τα συμφέροντα και τις αξίες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και των πολυεθνικών εταιρειών.

  Νικόλαος Σαλαβράκος (EFD). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η έκθεση Brok επισημαίνει ότι οι δράσεις ΚΕΠΠΑ για το 2012 εξακολουθούν να υπολείπονται των προσδοκιών που δημιούργησε η Συνθήκη της Λισαβόνας και προτείνει, μεταξύ άλλων, τον καθορισμό σαφών προτεραιοτήτων και στρατηγικών κατευθυντήριων γραμμών για τη σύσταση πλαισίου αξιολόγησης των σχέσεων με τους στρατηγικούς εταίρους της Ένωσης και δη με τους κυριότερους εξ αυτών, τις ΗΠΑ, την Ρωσία, τη Κίνα, την Ινδία, την Ιαπωνία, την Βραζιλία, κα.. Πρέπει εντούτοις να τονίσουμε ότι η χρήση της δυνατότητας σύμπηξης ενισχυμένων συνεργασιών ώστε να παρακαμφθεί το σοβαρό πρόβλημα της αρχής της ομοφωνίας, του βέτο, είναι θέμα εξαιρετικά ευαίσθητο και πρέπει συνεπώς να είμαστε ιδιαίτερα προσεκτικοί.

Η όλη εισήγηση της Βαρώνης Ashton καταγράφει σημαντικές δράσεις διαχείρισης εξωτερικών γεγονότων αλλά δεν αναφέρεται σε καμία πρωτοβουλία η οποία να προέρχεται από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Θεωρώ ότι η Ένωσή μας πρέπει να παίζει ισχυρό πρωταγωνιστικό ρόλο στα παγκόσμια πράγματα, πρέπει να προηγείται των γεγονότων και όχι να τα ακολουθεί. Σε μια τέτοια προοπτική, θα πρότεινα στην κυρία Ashton να αναλάβει πρωτοβουλία για σχέδιο ειρήνευσης στη Μέση Ανατολή, ιδίως τώρα που η εκλογή Rouhani ως Προέδρου στο Ιράν έχει δημιουργήσει ελπίδες σε πολλούς.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). - Raportul privind politica externă şi de securitate comună e în fiecare an foarte important pentru parlamentul nostru, dar aş spune că anul acesta el are o semnificaţie specială. Am în vedere aici, sigur, perspectiva alegerilor europene de la anul şi, de asemenea, contextul politic în care consensul faţă de proiectul european pare să fie fragilizat. De aceea, cred, e nevoie de o viziune clară asupra rolului pe care trebuie să îl joace Uniunea în lume. Aş vrea să îl felicit pe colegul meu, Elmar Brok, pentru raportul redactat în Comisia AFET. E un raport care reuşeşte să propună, dincolo de recomandări concrete, o asemenea viziune, pentru o acţiune externă mai coerentă.

Pentru cetăţenii europeni e, într-adevăr, cum au spus-o şi alţi colegi, important ca Uniunea să le apere interesele într-un mod hotărât, într-un mod unitar, bazându-şi politicile pe promovarea valorilor pe care ni le-am asumat. Pentru ca lucrul acesta să fie o realitate, sigur, e nevoie de mai multe resurse decât în prezent şi nu pot decât să îmi exprim regretul faţă de reducerea cadrului financiar multianual în acest context.

Ideea cercurilor concentrice ale păcii, securităţii şi dezvoltării, concretizată prin încheierea parteneriatelor strategice ale Uniunii, e o componentă esenţială a acestei viziuni asupra rolului Europei în lume. Dar aici e nevoie, cred, de mai multă coerenţă şi de implicarea Parlamentului în luarea deciziilor privind viitoarele parteneriate.

Pe lângă obiectivul extinderii, care rămâne mereu actual, subscriu ideii că Uniunea trebuie să se angajeze mai mult în direcţia politicii europene de vecinătate. Determinarea noastră de a susţine ţările din vecinătate e pusă la încercare de evoluţiile politice din unele dintre ţările acestea. Tocmai de aceea trebuie să recompensăm ţările care înregistrează evoluţii pozitive, cum e, de pildă, cazul Moldovei, în vecinătatea estică, iar succesul tranziţiei către o democraţie durabilă trebuie să constituie prioritatea pentru vecinătatea sudică.

  Richard Howitt (S&D). - Mr President, in this, the last annual CFSP report in the lifetime of this parliamentary term, I congratulate Mr Brok, but apologise that I have to use my own contribution to warn how the global influence of my own country – the United Kingdom – would suffer, as has been demonstrated by the previous contribution, if Conservative Eurosceptics get their way and take Britain out of the European Union.

International partners, including Britain’s historic allies and friends in the world, have been clear. Japan called on the UK to maintain a strong voice and continue to play a major role in the EU. Australia told the UK that EU membership allows Britain greater leverage in our global influence, and the Obama Administration warned Britain that referendums, such as the one wanted by Prime Minister Cameron, turn countries inward. That is the real alternative. Remember, when Putin’s adviser wanted to criticise British intelligence, he called us a small island that no one listens to. In Norway, a country Eurosceptics often cite, the Head of their Institute of International Affairs said that his country’s relationship with the EU is not an alternative for Britain as it is ‘complex and costly, as well as problematic in terms of democracy and the national interest’. Even the UK Government’s own so-called Balance of Competences Review shows that foreign policy competences remain squarely with the Member States and that most of the evidence argues strongly that it is in the UK’s interest to work through the EU. Yet it is their ideology that leads them to ignore their own evidence. This year’s European foreign policy scorecard has already shown the British Government prepared to give up leadership in six out of 19 areas of European foreign policy, despite the overall finding that in only one, during the last year, has there even been minor divergence between EU and UK goals.

In this debate it is the individual merits of our High Representative, not her nationality, that allow us to celebrate what I consider to be foreign policy successes: the mediation between Serbia and Kosovo, encouraging reforms in Burma, leading the enormously important diplomacy on Iran’s nuclear programme and combating piracy off the Horn of Africa. But I am proud that the High Representative is British too, and that her personal success demonstrates how British foreign policy can sit comfortably at the heart of today’s European Union.

The British Labour Party offers a different vision. We understand that each of our countries stands taller and is able to build better alliances, win more trade deals and tackle global challenges, including climate change, by taking part in EU foreign policy and that this enhances, rather than threatens, our sovereignty. Today we punch above our weight. Tomorrow we might not even get in the ring. Labour’s shadow foreign secretary argues that the EU amplifies British power and promotes our values, not just our interests.

  Marietje Schaake (ALDE). - Mr President, Madam High Representative, this is the last time we will debate the annual CFSP in the current configuration of Parliament and with yourself as our High Representative. As we take stock, we need no reminders of the urgent need for strong, strategic, European foreign and security policy. With a confident Russia bullying not only its own citizens but also Member States of the EU and vital neighbours through politicising trade, we must stand firmly and take care not to be played apart.

The US is choosing to no longer be the world superpower as it seeks to take a step back, and perhaps this is understandable – but who takes the place of leadership in defending and promoting free societies, free markets and, most of all, free people? Especially with regard to human rights and fundamental freedoms, the US has lost credibility, and this should be Europe’s moment. We can use the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership to strengthen our alliance, but not without cementing our values.

The Middle East is more fragile than ever. With an average age of 26, the young generation needs opportunities for self-determination yet are lured by hopelessness and also extremism.

Syria, of course, represents the most horrific of examples. The horror and the suffering should not be forgotten, and while there are no easy solutions, certainly the US-Russia initiative to deal with the chemical weapons is not a solution to all problems, nor was the breaking of the European weapons embargo, under the leadership of France and the UK. I am happy with European leadership when it comes to humanitarian aid – we take our responsibility. But we must do more, because I am afraid we have not seen the worst yet.

A divided Europe is a weak Europe that is played apart, and with our basis not in order, opportunities are difficult to reap. I believe we must test the words of opening from Iran, and the EU needs its own strategy. We should not merely be a facilitator for talks between the US and Iran, as the US Congress is pushing for more sanctions. This is the moment for Europe to act independently and forcefully.

We must take our responsibility militarily. Soft power and hard power go hand in hand, and I am afraid we should push harder to put the silver thread of human rights back on top of the agenda.

  Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). - Dyskutujemy dzisiaj na temat wspólnej polityki zagranicznej i bezpieczeństwa Unii Europejskiej. W punkcie 12 rezolucji Parlamentu Europejskiego czytamy, że nasza izba wyraża ubolewanie w związku z faktem, że UE nie opracowała jeszcze jasnej strategii dotyczącej stosunków z resztą świata oraz że jej działania są określone bardziej jako reakcja niż akcja. Parlament Europejski przyznaje więc, że 4 lata od wejścia w życie traktatu lizbońskiego, który miał przecież nadać nowy impuls tzw. wspólnej polityce zagranicznej Unii, projekt ten okazał się, łagodnie rzecz ujmując, ułomny. Niektórzy na tej sali wspólną politykę zagraniczną i bezpieczeństwa określają jako żart, kosztowny dla podatników dowcip. W związku z powyższym chciałbym zapytać panią wysoką przedstawiciel Ashton, czy jej zdaniem wypracowanie takiej jednolitej i jasnej strategii przez 28 krajów członkowskich uważa w ogóle za możliwe, a jeśli tak, to w jakim horyzoncie czasowym.

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD). - Mr President, Libya was the most recent conflict directly concerning Member States, and just 11 of the Member States supported the UN resolution. From this and other examples, it is clear that, in fact and reality, there is no – and I repeat no – common foreign and security policy between Member States. What there is, is an EU Foreign Service – the External Action Service – apparently with 30 missions, and what that is, is a gigantic gravy train for EU insiders and their hangers-on.

My amendment in June proposed that External Action Service personnel be restricted to ten weeks’ paid holiday a year. Just 84 MEPs voted in favour. This is shameful, and I hope it will be very different in the next Parliament. By the way, on a previous occasion, I have made it very clear how I regard the office and office-holder of the post of High Representative.

(The speaker was then given the floor for a point of order)

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD). - Mr President, I have a point of order. Is it in order for Mr Brok – whose report this is – to ostentatiously engage in irrelevant chat between himself and his acolyte while Members of the European Parliament are speaking in the Chamber? Mr President, in your view, is this in order?

  President. − Yes, my good friend, I think it is in order.

(Applause)

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). - Señor Presidente, quisiera felicitar en primer lugar a Elmar Brok por su informe, un excelente análisis sobre la política exterior de la Unión Europea. Creo ―como el señor Brok― que es necesaria una política exterior y de seguridad europea activa, eficaz y coherente. En este mundo multipolar, cambiante y global, juntos somos más fuertes que por separado. Pero esta política europea requiere la voluntad política de actuar juntos, así como medios y liderazgo por parte de los organismos creados por el Tratado de Lisboa, cuestiones estas en las que se detiene el informe del señor Brok.

Quisiera destacar la importancia de unas relaciones estrechas con los Estados Unidos. Siento que no se haya celebrado todavía la Cumbre anual Unión Europea-Estados Unidos y también que el clima de la relación esté algo afectado por las revelaciones del llamado «caso Snowden», pero la relación estratégica más importante que tiene la Unión Europea es con los Estados Unidos. Las negociaciones del Acuerdo Transatlántico sobre Comercio e Inversión abren además una importante oportunidad para reforzar esta relación.

Me gustaría además que, en el futuro, compartiéramos una perspectiva de cooperación transatlántica más amplia, que incluyera, en determinadas áreas, a los países latinoamericanos e incluso a la orilla atlántica africana.

Señorías, en este mundo no desprovisto de riesgos y en el que el ascenso de la región Asia-Pacífico es un importante factor de cambio en la geopolítica internacional —y me estoy refiriendo, por ejemplo, al giro de los Estados Unidos hacia Asia—, también es necesario profundizar en la política europea de seguridad y defensa. Acontecimientos en zonas tan cercanas a Europa como Libia o Mali demuestran que la política exterior sigue necesitando instrumentos de defensa.

La necesaria consolidación fiscal no debe ocultar esta verdad y celebro por ello que la política de defensa sea objeto del próximo Consejo Europeo de diciembre.

  Μαρία-Ελένη Κοππά (S&D). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, Βαρώνη Ashton, όπως είπατε και εσείς, ζούμε σε μία περίοδο μεγάλων αλλαγών στο διεθνές σκηνικό ενώ την ίδια στιγμή η Ένωση αντιμετωπίζει τη μεγαλύτερη κρίση στην ιστορία της. Σε αυτό το σταυροδρόμι πρέπει να αποσαφηνίσουμε αν η Ένωση θα διαδραματίσει τον ρόλο που της αντιστοιχεί στη διεθνή σκηνή ή αν θα παραμείνει παρατηρητής. Σήμερα, χρειαζόμαστε μία εξωτερική πολιτική-εργαλείο αντιμετώπισης των μεγάλων προκλήσεων ενός κόσμου που αλλάζει με ιλιγγιώδεις ρυθμούς. Οφείλουμε όμως να καταλάβουμε ότι μόνο με κοινή, συντονισμένη, συλλογική δράση μπορούμε να πετύχουμε το μέγιστο αποτέλεσμα. Σε αυτή τη προσπάθεια, η Υπηρεσία Εξωτερικής Δράσης έχει κεντρικό ρόλο. Ξέρουμε πλέον τις αδυναμίες και τις αγκυλώσεις της και πρέπει να την κάνουμε ακόμη πιο αποτελεσματική, ώστε να μπορέσει, με διαφάνεια και λογοδοσία, να εκπληρώσει την αποστολή της, προκειμένου να υπάρξει μια πραγματική ευρωπαϊκή πολιτική που θα εκπροσωπεί συνολικά την Ένωση και θα εμποδίσει την επανεθνικοποίηση της εξωτερικής πολιτικής.

Η κρίση στον Νότο της Μεσογείου, η συριακή καταστροφή, η αλλαγή του κέντρου ενδιαφέροντος των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών προς τον Νότιο Ειρηνικό, όλα αυτά τα γεγονότα ασκούν πίεση στην Ένωση για να αναλάβει τον ρόλο που της αντιστοιχεί. Οφείλει συνεπώς η Ένωση να ορίσει με σαφήνεια τους εξωτερικούς της στόχους. Οι αλλαγές που έχει φέρει η Συνθήκη της Λισαβόνας δεν έχουν αξιοποιηθεί επαρκώς και δεν έχει αποσαφηνισθεί πλήρως ο ρόλος των θεσμικών οργάνων. Κατ' επανάληψη είχαμε την ευκαιρία να το διαπιστώσουμε αυτό, ειδικά σε περιόδους κρίσης. Η Συνθήκη δίνει στο Κοινοβούλιο σημαντικές δυνατότητες ως προς τον έλεγχο και την αξιολόγηση της εξωτερικής δράσης. Εξάλλου, το Κοινοβούλιο έχει έναν ουσιαστικό ρόλο να διαδραματίσει στη διάχυση της πληροφορίας και στην ευαισθητοποίηση των πολιτών σε σχέση με τα θέματα εξωτερικής πολιτικής.

Σήμερα, περισσότερο από ποτέ άλλοτε, μια μεγάλη μερίδα πολιτών πλήττεται από την φτώχεια και την ανεργία σε πολλές χώρες της Ένωσης και πιστεύει ότι τα ζητήματα εξωτερικής πολιτικής δεν την αφορούν. Σε δύσκολες περιόδους σαν την σημερινή χρειαζόμαστε σαφείς και αυστηρές προτεραιότητες. Δεν μπορούμε να βρισκόμαστε με την ίδια παρουσία παντού. Η γειτονιά μας, Ανατολική και Νότια, τα Βαλκάνια, η Τουρκία - αυτές οι περιοχές πρέπει να είναι η προτεραιότητά μας. Με λιγότερους πόρους καλούμαστε να κάνουμε περισσότερα και κυρίως να στείλουμε ένα σαφές και καθαρό μήνυμα προς όλες τις κατευθύνσεις που να εκφράζει τις αρχές και τις αξίες μας, κρατώντας πάντα σαν άξονα της κάθε δράσης μας στον εξωτερικό τομέα τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα - χωρίς διπλά μέτρα και σταθμά και χωρίς εκπτώσεις. Σε κάθε περίπτωση, χρειαζόμαστε και εδώ περισσότερη Ευρώπη και όχι λιγότερη.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, dobro sam upoznata s nedosljednošću vanjske i sigurnosne politike Unije jer se po ovom pitanju nismo maknuli s mjesta još od vremena srpske agresije na Hrvatsku i Bosnu i Hercegovinu. I tada je Europa bila troma i neodlučna u političkoj i vanjskoj reakciji, i vojnoj reakciji, a takva je i danas. Izvjestitelj s pravom ističe kako moramo zaštititi svoje državljane i njihove interese diljem svijeta. A kad je u pitanju Bosna i Hercegovina učinili smo malo ili ništa kako bismo zaštitili politička prava Hrvata Bosne i Hercegovine, koji su ujedno i državljani Republike Hrvatske, a time i građani Europske unije. Opstruiranje povratka hrvatskih izbjeglica u Republiku Srpsku i protuhrvatski izborni inženjering u Federaciji Bosne i Hercegovine dobar su pokazatelj onoga što Hrvati proživljavaju u vlastitoj državi. Ako želimo položiti ispit vjerodostojnosti i biti globalni politički akter, vrijeme je da počnemo čistiti u svom europskom dvorištu. Stoga tražim od institucija i političkih tijela Europske unije da konačno poduzmu konkretne korake za osiguravanje ravnopravnosti Hrvata u Bosni i Hercegovini.

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Wysoka Przedstawiciel! Zacznę, tak jak inni, od komplementów i – przepraszam panią Wysoką Przedstawiciel – zacznę od sprawozdawcy. Chciałem tylko powiedzieć, że jak pan poseł Brok pisze sprawozdanie, to zawsze jest to ważne i poważne sprawozdanie, i tym razem jest tak samo, więc przyłączam się do gratulacji, które złożyli koledzy. Gratulacje należą się także pani Wysokiej Przedstawiciel i – przy okazji tego kompleksowego sprawozdania – pani zespołowi, bo w tych trudnych warunkach – i to nie tylko trudnych warunkach związanych z różnymi konfliktami, które toczą się na świecie, ale również tych trudnych warunkach w łonie Unii Europejskiej, bo nie mamy jeszcze kompleksowej i spójnej polityki zagranicznej –udało się, myślę, bardzo wiele. Wizytując w ramach delegacji Parlamentu Europejskiego różne miejsca na świecie, widzę, że np. przedstawicielstwa Unii Europejskiej już bardzo dobrze odgrywają rolę koordynacyjną pomiędzy placówkami państw Unii Europejskiej. Czyli ta współpraca między przedstawicielstwem Unii a ambasadami państw członkowskich Unii jest w większości wypadków bardzo dobra. Jedna rzecz, na którą chciałem zwrócić uwagę, korzystając z okazji, bo mamy jeszcze kilka nierozwiązanych konfliktów również w Europie: chciałem prosić panią Wysoką Przedstawiciel, aby w najbliższym czasie zdwoiła wysiłki dotyczące sytuacji w Gruzji, a dokładnie dotyczące tego dziwnego poszerzania granic, budowania infrastruktury granicznej przez Rosjan na granicy pomiędzy okupowaną Osetią Południową a resztą Gruzji. To jest coś, co uniemożliwia ludziom przemieszczanie się, kontakty rodzin, i musimy starać się temu zaradzić.

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). - Arvoisa puhemies, kiitokset Elmar Brokille hyvästä mietinnöstä ja korkealle edustajalle Ashtonille mielenkiintoisesta avauspuheenvuorosta. Ihmettelin, kuuntelivatko monet Euroopan unionin ulko- ja turvallisuuspolitiikan arvostelijat eilistä hyvin henkilökohtaista ja puhuttelevaa Saharov-palkinnon voittajan Aung San Suu Kyin puheenvuoroa. Hänhän muistutti meitä juuri siitä, kuinka tärkeää on pehmeä valta ja kuinka tärkeä on Euroopan unioni, ja hän sanoi moneen kertaan, että ilman Euroopan unionia ja ilman kansainvälistä yhteisöä hän ei olisi täällä vastaanottamassa Saharov-palkintoa. Ja tämä pehmeä valta, joka perustuu ajattelun vapauteen, demokratiaan, solidaarisuuteen ja oikeusvaltion periaatteisiin, on se ydin Euroopan unionissa.

Aung San Suu Kyi muistutti myös siitä, että kuinka tärkeää on se, että Euroopan unioni on johdonmukainen puolustaessaan näitä arvoja. Näin valitettavasti ei ole, ja se ei johdu ulkosuhdehallinnosta eikä korkeasta edustajasta vaan jäsenvaltioista, jotka esimerkiksi Keski-Aasiassa tekevät sitä politiikkaa mitä haluavat. Ja näiden kaikkien kolmen instituution pitää tehdä todella… (Puhemies keskeytti puhujan.)

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Skuteczność i spójność polityki zagranicznej Unii Europejskiej sprawdzi się na Wschodzie. Jeśli Pani i my wszyscy będziemy skuteczni w tym, co nazywamy wymiarem wschodnim Unii Europejskiej, jeśli to wszystko zakończy się sukcesem – Pani przejdzie do historii, a my nie będziemy musieli się wstydzić przed naszymi wnukami. Jeśli Pani i my będziemy skuteczni w przeciąganiu Ukrainy na Zachód, jeśli Pani i my będziemy skuteczni w wyciąganiu więźniów politycznych z więzień na Białorusi, z więzień, które znajdują się 50 km od unijnej granicy, jeśli będzie Pani skuteczna, i my wraz z Panią, w pomocy dla Mołdawii i Gruzji, jeśli będziemy, Pani i my, skuteczni w walce o europejskie interesy i wartości, z krajem, który dzisiaj więzi działaczy Greenpeace'u tylko dlatego, że mieli trochę odwagi upomnieć się o sprawy dla nich ważne, jeśli w tym wszystkim Pani będzie skuteczna, to będzie oznaczać sukces Unii Europejskiej i sukces tych państw. Bardzo Panią proszę o to, żeby uznała Pani, że nie Azja, nie Afryka, nie Ameryka Południowa są tym testem na spójność i skuteczność europejskiej polityki, tylko wymiar wschodni. Bardzo proszę zwrócić na to uwagę, a będzie Pani miała poparcie Parlamentu Europejskiego.

  Othmar Karas (PPE). - Herr Präsident, Frau Hohe Beauftragte, meine Damen und Herren! Der Bericht ist großartig, weil er nicht nur lobt, was geschehen ist, sondern vor allem das Ziel genau definiert: Außen-, Verteidigungs- und Sicherheitsunion. Wer das Ziel nicht kennt, kann den Weg dorthin nicht planen. Und nur, wenn die Europäische Union zum Sprecher des Kontinents in der Welt werden darf, nur wenn die Europäische Union mit einer Stimme in der Welt auftritt und ihre Kräfte bündelt, können wir unser Gewicht angemessen zur Geltung bringen.

Es geht um eine Richtungsentscheidung. Nicht nur, aber auch in dieser Frage wollen wir ein globaler Akteur werden oder sind wir zum Zuschauen verdammt. Diese Richtungsentscheidung können wir selbst entscheiden, mit den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern. Ägypten, Syrien, Lampedusa zeigen, dass wir die Gemeinsame Außen-, Verteidigungs-, Sicherheits-, Außenhandels- und Entwicklungspolitik stärken müssen, um auch gegenüber unseren eigenen Bürgerinnen und Bürgern glaubwürdig zu sein und Vertrauen in unser politisches Handeln und in die Institution zurückzugewinnen.

Zusammenarbeit heißt auch Kosten senken und Effizienz erhöhen. Dazu muss die Einstimmigkeit fallen. An der Gemeinsamen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik führt kein Weg vorbei, wollen wir unsere Verantwortung gegenüber den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern Europas wirklich erfüllen können.

  Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, se guardiamo il quadro geopolitico mondiale e la sua recente evoluzione, vediamo dinanzi a noi tre scenari.

Il primo è rappresentato dal venir meno di quello che può essere definito il "missionarismo democratico americano". E questo avviene per due motivi principali: costi economici insopportabili e un'opinione pubblica stanca di guerre e di seguire modelli superati di esportazione di democrazia.

Il secondo scenario è rappresentato dal proporsi invece sulla scena mondiale di paesi che si autocertificano democratici – Cina, Russia – e che usano la loro forza economica, finanziaria ed energetica per condizionare il nuovo quadro geopolitico e per riempire gli spazi che si stanno liberando.

Il terzo scenario è rappresentato dall'Europa e caratterizzato dalla sua crisi democratica e dalla sua difficoltà attuale di proporsi come punto di riferimento per la comunità internazionale.

Dovremo essere consapevoli, quindi, che occorre giocare un ruolo importante adesso da parte della politica estera europea per diventare protagonista, perché qui ed ora c'è uno spazio da cogliere per rilanciare una nuova politica estera e costruire un nuovo approccio globale, come del resto suggerisce la relazione dell'onorevole Brok.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). - Mr President, congratulations to the rapporteur for a very good report. As his report acknowledges, the Union’s external actions need to be understood and supported by EU citizens. The European Parliament plays an important role in this process. A few issues I want to mention: in order to be a global player, the EU must keep up with the rest of the world, hence it must continue to develop and cultivate a modern, professional and competent External Action Service. Congratulations to Madam Ashton on her achievements so far. I want to encourage her to continue active personal engagement in her future activities.

The only way to achieve a strong and credible foreign security policy is with clear strategic goals; we need coherence and consistency. These must be the key principles of our external policy and must mirror the EU’s political and economic weight in the world. We can achieve this only by coordinated action among the Member States.

The other challenge for us lies just beyond our borders. Our near neighbourhood and countries with the prospects of EU membership are the real test for our external action. Developments in these countries directly affect our citizens and their interests. Therefore, we need to invest more in these relations politically, economically and physically.

  Σοφοκλής Σοφοκλέους (S&D). - Βαρώνη Ashton, πρέπει να παραδεχτούμε ότι ως προς τη Κοινή Εξωτερική Πολιτική και Πολιτική Ασφάλειας έχουμε έλλειμμα, αδυναμία, αναποτελεσματικότητα. Η Συνθήκη της Λισαβόνας δεν έχει εφαρμοστεί στην πράξη. Η κοινή πολιτική ασφάλειας και άμυνας εξακολουθεί δυστυχώς να παραμένει ζητούμενο. Ο πόλεμος της Συρίας συνεχίζεται, η Αίγυπτος δεν βρήκε την ηρεμία της, η ‘αραβική άνοιξη’ μετατρέπεται σε ‘αραβικό χειμώνα’, οι διώξεις των χριστιανών συνεχίζονται, οι κινητοποιήσεις του τουρκικού λαού καταστέλλονται βίαια και ανάλογα προβλήματα υπάρχουν σε όλες τις ηπείρους. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να μετεξελιχθεί σε μία ενιαία ισχυρή ομόσπονδη δύναμη που να επιβάλει τη σταθερότητα και την ειρήνη.

Έχω δύο παρατηρήσεις αναφορικά με την έκθεση του κυρίου Brok: καταρχάς, προϋπόθεση για να ανοίξουν τα καίρια κεφάλαια είναι να μετατραπεί η Τουρκία από δύναμη αποσταθεροποίησης σε δύναμη ειρήνης και σταθερότητας. Δεν είναι δυνατόν μια χώρα που είναι υποψήφια για ένταξη να φυλακίζει δημοσιογράφους και καλλιτέχνες, να φιμώνει τον Τύπο, να απειλεί την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, να συνεχίζει να καταπατά τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα και να περιφρονεί τον Οργανισμό των Ηνωμένων Εθνών και, βεβαίως, να μην αναγνωρίζει την Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία. Δεύτερον, επιθυμώ να χαιρετίσω τη θέση του εισηγητή που επιδοκιμάζει και ενθαρρύνει πρωτοβουλίες όπως το αίτημα χωρών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης να γίνουν μέλη της «Συνεργασίας για την Ειρήνη», θέση που εξέφρασε η Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία μέσω του αρμόδιου υπουργού, ευελπιστώντας σε στήριξη από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.

  Andrej Plenković (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, hvala puno na razumijevanju i na ovoj mogućnosti da govorim malo ranije nego što je bilo predviđeno. Ja se ubrajam u one koji su svjesni da je zajednička vanjska i sigurnosna politika Europske unije politika koja je doživjela najkvalitetniju i najsnažniju evoluciju u proteklih 20 i nešto godina. Toga smo posebno svjesni mi koji dolazimo iz Hrvatske i koji smo bili svjedoci ograničenja i institucionalnih, i financijskih, i pravnih, europske vanjske politike s početka '90-ih. Na temelju naučenih lekcija toga vremena danas imamo i mehanizme, i proračun, i politike, a gđa Ashton je u svom govoru jako dobro elaborirala koliko je danas bitna i Europska služba za vanjsko djelovanje, Europska obrambena agencija. Zato mi se čini da je izvješće našega kolege i predsjednika odbora g. Broka jako dobro u smislu identificiranja ključnih strateških postavki europske vanjske politike, a to je koherentnost, to je učinkovitost, to je učinkoviti multilateralizam, to je prije svega globalno pozicioniranje Europske unije u vezi ključnih kriznih žarišta u svijetu gdje moramo imati svoju ulogu koja je uvijek jasna i konzekventna. Isto tako smatram da moramo dotaknuti pitanje određenih paralelizama između aktivnosti Europske unije i nekih naših velikih članica, osobito u okviru G20, u okviru kvinte, u okviru Kontaktne skupine. To su oni elementi koji moraju biti komplementarni ukupnim naporima Europske unije u jačanju vanjske politike.

  Маруся Любчева (S&D). - Въпросите, които засягаме в дебата за общата външна политика се отнасят едновременно към Източното партньорство и към политиката за добросъседство. По тези приоритети се върши изключително важна работа и то в сложна геополитическа обстановка – политически и финансови кризи, усложнени отношения с наши партньори и трети страни.

Трябва да бъдем по-динамични, решителни и отговорни. По-отношение на държавите от Източното партньорство сме постигнали положително развитие – законодателни реформи, диалог с гражданското общество, укрепване на демократичните процеси. В навечерието на Вилнюс, докладът дава добри перспективи за европейската интеграция на Украйна, Молдова, Грузия. Важно е да имаме развитие по визовата либерализация с Молдова. При увеличаващ се натиск върху тези страни трябва да бъдем отговорни и да не ги оставяме сами. В случая с Армения, независимо от нейната преориентация, трябва да продължим и затвърдим своята подкрепа. Не бива да поставяме под съмнение необходимостта от диалог с Русия, която остава наш стратегически партньор. Бих желала да споделя и надеждата си за европейска подкрепа на демократичните процеси в Турция и разрешаването на някои все още нерешени въпроси с нейните съседи, включително България.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). - Mr President, our main practical task is to try to enhance cooperation and the efficiency of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) – it is a process of global transformation. The EU is poised to be a global actor. However, to perform this role, the CFSP has yet to obtain common determination and genuine credibility. That means applying conditionality and reciprocity as fundamental criteria, especially in dealing with authoritarian regimes. Iran continues to be a test case of such conditionality and reciprocity: while reacting to the so-called liberal president, one should also face the real situation there.

One credible signal is there: finally, international sanctions have started to bite. This seems to be the real cause of change in Tehran’s rhetoric. Iran’s main concern is still to get rid of sanctions first, not to open up first or stop their secret programmes. Reciprocity is crucial now, when every gain of time by Tehran could mean successful completion of their weapons of mass destruction. Tehran will not change without a strict conditionality, which means that, for every real loosening of sanctions, our partner has to answer immediately in the same hard currency, not through hints of change.

  Boris Zala (S&D). - Mr President, the EU could achieve so much on the global stage. Consider the example of the so-called ‘Strategic Partnership’, a new concept introduced in 2010 to organise our bilateral relationships with the established and emerging powers. It is a very sensible idea. It has great potential to make our engagement with key players more coherent and more effective; however, so far the potential remains unfulfilled.

What are the criteria for selecting our strategic partners? Today we have ten strategic partners: the USA, Canada, Brazil, Russia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, South Africa and Mexico. But the list seems arbitrary – why South Korea and not Australia? – and so on. Does the designation as ‘strategic partner’ have any budgetary implications?

In summary, we need more clarity on what the instrument is designed to achieve, and the European Parliament should be fully involved in this debate.

  Μαριέττα Γιαννάκου (PPE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η έκθεση του κυρίου Brok πραγματικά είναι πολύ σημαντική και πάρα πολύ καλά συγκροτημένη, με μόνη εξαίρεση το σημείο, στο οποίο προτείνει το άνοιγμα νέων κεφαλαίων για την Τουρκία, μια χώρα που δεν αναγνωρίζει όλα τα κράτη μέλη της Ένωσης. Θέλω επίσης να ευχαριστήσω την κυρία Ashton διότι δημιούργησε μια Υπηρεσία, η οποία μπορεί να μην είναι τέλεια αλλά ξεκίνησε από το μηδέν και έχει κάνει τρομερές προσπάθειες. Συμφωνώ με ό,τι σημειώνει στην έκθεσή της, ότι, δηλαδή, μας χρειάζεται το πολιτικό, το επιχειρησιακό και το οικονομικό. Στην ουσία βεβαίως, όλα εξαρτώνται από το πολιτικό. Αυτή τη στιγμή, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση στηρίζει την ανάπτυξη όπου μπορεί στις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες και οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες ασχολούνται μόνο με τα θέματα ασφάλειας. Θεωρώ ότι πρέπει να κατανεμηθούν εξίσου οι δράσεις και στο ένα πεδίο και στο άλλο, εάν θέλουμε να παίξει η Ευρώπη το ρόλο που όλος ο κόσμος επιθυμεί από αυτήν. Ας μην ξεχνούμε ότι η Ευρώπη εξακολουθεί να είναι ακόμη ελκυστική για τις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες. Κατά συνέπεια, χρειάζεται πολιτική βούληση κατ’ αρχήν, πολιτική βούληση για μία νέα Ευρώπη, για μία διαφορετική Ευρώπη, και, συγκεκριμένα στα θέματα άμυνας και εξωτερικής πολιτικής, για μια Ευρώπη που θα λάβει υπόψη της τα συμφέροντα όλων των χωρών, μεγάλων και μικρών, και θα προβεί στην αναγκαία σύνθεση που θα της δώσει την δυνατότητα να αποκτήσει μια ολοκληρωμένη πολιτική πραγματικής άμυνας και ασφάλειας και, φυσικά, μία ενιαία εξωτερική πολιτική.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Wysoka Przedstawiciel! Sprawozdanie w sprawie wspólnej polityki zagranicznej i bezpieczeństwa zajmuje się między innymi niepewnością sytuacji na świecie. Chciałbym podkreślić, że nie uda się tej niepewności trwale zmniejszyć, dopóki ponad 840 milionów ludzi na świecie cierpi z powodu głodu. Dlatego to, co nazywamy całościowym podejściem do polityki zagranicznej Unii Europejskiej, jest jak najbardziej uzasadnione. Tak samo z resztą jak lepsza koordynacja. Dzięki lepszej koordynacji moglibyśmy znacznie lepiej wykorzystać nasze zasoby, a jest to ważne, ponieważ jesteśmy największym dawcą pomocy na świecie. Istotna jest także spójność naszych polityk z celami rozwojowymi, tym bardziej, że jest ona umocowana traktatowo. Jeżeli brakuje spójności, to doprowadzamy do takiej sytuacji, w której jedną ręką coś dajemy, a drugą zabieramy. Nie da się w taki sposób budować stabilizacji. Spójna, całościowa, dobrze skoordynowana polityka rozwojowa pomoże nam uniknąć wielu problemów na świecie. Nie walczmy jedynie z objawami, walczmy z przyczynami problemów, które w perspektywie czasu zagrażają również Europie.

  Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, pozdravljam izvješće Elmara Broka koje postavlja jedan jasan okvir za promicanje i vrijednosti i interesa Europske unije na globalnoj sceni. Kada se u izvješću govori o liderstvu i koherentnosti vanjske politike Europske unije onda se na jednom istaknutom mjestu spominje uloga Europske unije u jugoistočnoj Europi. I s pravom se ističe uloga Visoke povjerenice u postizanju dogovora između Srbije i Kosova. Zato ću se fokusirati upravo na ovu regiju, naglasiti da ovdje još ima nedovršenog posla i da će se po našoj politici prema ovom kutu europskog kontinenta mjeriti uspješnost vanjske politike EU-a jer kako ćemo govoriti o Europskoj uniji kao globalnom igraču ako ne znamo pokazati vodstvo u politici prema području koje je okruženo članicama Europske unije. Stoga pozdravljam napore i Europske komisije i kolega iz Europskog parlamenta, pogotovo u odnosu na Bosnu i Hercegovinu. Posebno izdvajam BiH jer je ona u ovom trenutku najveći izazov za ostvarivanje naših ciljeva stabilnosti i prosperiteta u jugoistočnoj Europi. Napori povjerenika Fülea u postizanju dogovora u BiH i pristup koji je on izabrao ovoga puta ulijevaju nadu da se konačno prepoznalo kako su separatizam i centralizam dva jednako opasna ekstrema za stabilnost i opstojnost te višenacionalne države. Ipak apeliram da se dodatno radi na usklađenosti poteza država članica na ovom području, što će se sasvim sigurno reflektirati i na opću snagu i vjerodostojnost europske politike na globalnoj razini.

  Моника Панайотова (PPE). - Първо бих искала да поздравя докладчика г-н Брок за опита да отчете необходимостта от баланс на интереси и ценности в една нова външна политика на Европейския съюз от изграждането на нов цялостен подход, целево и ресурсно обезпечен, така че Европейският съюз да поеме ръководна роля в постоянно променящия се свят. Обсъждайки общата външна политика с оглед и на Лисабонския договор, бих искала да насоча вниманието ви върху Общата политика за сигурност и отбрана като неразделна част от нея.

В епохата на глобализация, заплахите на географски отдалечени места могат да бъдат също толкава сериозни като тези в непосредствена близост. Характерното е, че никоя не е само военна, нито може да бъде отстранена с чисто военни средства. Новите заплахи изискват комплексно използване на различни инструменти и интегриран подход. За целта е време за стратегическо преосмисляне на средата за сигурност. Нужна ни е нова обща стратегическа визия, която освен да дефинира предизвикателствата, трябва да приоритизира целите, оптимизира и консолидира способностите съгласно принципа на обединяване и споделяне. От ключово значение за Европейския съюз е хармоничното съвместяване на политиките за сигурност с тази на развитие и да прецени силите си както икономически, технологични, така и политически и отбранителни, отчитайки дефицита на ресурс, демографското "буре", което има в Северна Африка, Близкия изток и Азия, преразпределението на силите и играчите на световната сцена. Европа трябва да реши как иска да се позиционира и да бъде възприемана оттук нататък. Повече фокус и приоритетност.

  Mariya Gabriel (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, je remercie à mon tour le rapporteur pour son travail et le félicite pour la richesse de son texte.

Pour ma part, j'aimerais insister sur trois points. D'abord, la visibilité de l'action extérieure de l'Union est la grande priorité. À ce titre, je salue l'idée de renforcer la coordination entre les chefs de mission, les représentants spéciaux de l'Union et les chefs de délégation. C'est comme cela que l'Union pourra parler d'une voix forte et assurer ses ambitions.

Je voudrais ensuite insister sur le partenariat avec l'Afrique. Nous devons avoir le courage de porter nos ambitions, du courage pour avoir un partenariat donnant-donnant, du courage pour renforcer notre coopération avec l'Union africaine, mais aussi avec la SADC, la Cedeao et la CEEAC, du courage pour faire le bilan des accords de partenariat économique et pour voir comment nous abordons les questions économiques dans la politique étrangère. Nous ne devons pas oublier non plus le potentiel que recèlent la région des Grands Lacs, le Sahel, la Corne de l'Afrique et le centre du continent africain.

Troisième point, je veux insister sur le rôle de médiateur de l'Union européenne. La médiation fait partie intégrante de la diplomatie préventive de l'Union. C'est l'une des composantes de l'approche globale. C'est notre valeur ajoutée. À ce titre, je voudrais vous féliciter, Madame Ashton, pour le travail que vous menez avec l'équipe de soutien à la médiation.

Enfin, je vous félicite également pour tous les efforts que vous déployez afin de promouvoir les femmes dans la politique étrangère de l'Union. C'est très encourageant pour tous les citoyens européens.

  Vytautas Landsbergis (PPE). - Saugumas, taip pat Europos saugumas, Europos Sąjungos narių saugumas ypatingai priklauso nuo kaimynystės. Kaimynystė, kuri būtų suprantama kaip sutarimas ir bendradarbiavimas bendram gėriui, – tai yra kas kita negu kai kieno suprantama tiktai geografinė kaimynystė, buvimas greta, o iš tikrųjų – varžybos, kas kam darys įtaką ir kas ką valdys. Mes turim Vidurio Rytų Europoje tokį kaimyną iš senų laikų, kuris visada buvo ir tebėra linkęs į dominavimą. Centrinės Europos nepriklausomybė, o tuo labiau draugiški ryšiai su Rytų Europos šalimis, norinčiomis suartėjimo su Europos Sąjunga, erzina ir pykdo tą kaimyną, kuris vis dar mano, kad jisai turi valdyti ir dominuoti. Todėl Europos Sąjungos politika, kalbant ir apie Rytų kaimynystę, ir visus kitus energetinius ryšius ir santykius, turėtų būti ramiai tvirta, nes tai yra mūsų saugumo pagrindas. Su viltimi, kad tas didysis geografinis kaimynas, kuris iš tikrųjų jaučiasi varžovas ir Europos Sąjungą traktuoja kaip sau nemalonų ir pavojingą varžovą, kad tas geografinis kaimynas pradės suprasti kitokios kaimynystės naudą ir bendradarbiavimo naudą. Tam reikia kantrybės, reikia ramios ir tvirtos politikos, jokiu būdu ne pataikavimo ir bandymo nuraminti neprotingai pykstantį geografinį kaimyną.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE). - Moje iskrene čestitke poročevalcu Elmarju Broku za dobro opravljen delo.

S tem poročilom ne izraža Evropski parlament samo odnosa do kriznih žarišč, ampak jasneje precizira temeljna izhodišča skupne zunanje in varnostne politike. V tem smislu sem še posebej vesel, da vključuje poročilo prvič tudi strateško usmeritev glede zdravja.

Zdravje, ki je omenjeno skupaj z energijo, klimatskimi spremembami in oskrbo z vodo, kot eden od sodobnih izzivov, je treba v našem sporazumevanju in sodelovanju z različnimi partnerji obravnavati kot strateški element varnostne in zunanje politike.

Soglašam s pozivom k zunanjepolitični fleksibilnosti, ko gre za nove grožnje, hkrati pa poudarjam, da zdravje ni čisto nov izziv. Že dalj časa smo priča slabšanju zdravstvenih kazalcev v Evropski zvezi in globalno – to je tudi posledica napačnih politik in napačne razvojne paradigme.

Sedaj, ko Evropska zveza pripravlja strateške partnerske sporazume z vodilnimi državami sveta, je prilika, da vključi vanje zdravje kot enega od bistvenih elementov bilateralnega sodelovanja in deljene skrbi za globalni razvoj.

Intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»)

  Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Frau Außenministerin, ich möchte Ihnen meine ausdrückliche Anerkennung aussprechen für die Veränderungen im Annex X im Statut. Sie haben dafür gesorgt, dass die Zahl der Urlaubstage im Auswärtigen Dienst heruntergeschraubt wird, und zwar auf zwei Tage pro Monat von jetzt dreieinhalb. Ich halte das für eine beachtliche Leistung. Ich habe Sie für diese unverändert hohen freien Tage kritisiert. Deswegen wollte ich Sie ausdrücklich loben dafür, dass Sie sich dafür eingesetzt haben. Ich weiß, das waren Sie persönlich. Es war sicherlich keine ganz leichte Entscheidung. Es gibt Ihnen mehr Flexibilität in Sachen rest and recreation, dort freie Tage zu geben, wo sie auch wirklich dringend notwendig sind. Es wäre schön, wenn diese Entscheidung, wo es künftig freie Tage gibt in Drittstaaten, in voller Transparenz erfolgen würde, weil ich Sie hier wirklich gerne deutlich mehr loben und nicht kritisieren würde.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). - Panie Przewodniczący! Chciałbym zwrócić uwagę na fakt, że jednym z elementów polityki zagranicznej jest także polityka bezpieczeństwa. Jeśli chodzi o wdrażanie tej polityki, to czeka nas jeszcze długa droga do osiągnięcia postępu i sukcesu. Chciałbym tutaj zwrócić uwagę na jeden aspekt – na sferę polityczną. Widać bowiem, że operacje wojskowe Unii – których było kilkanaście w ostatnich latach – powodują szereg problemów, obnażają także niestety sporo słabych punktów. Proponuję, żebyśmy kładli silny nacisk na rozwiązania pragmatyczne, żeby było mniej debat, natomiast trzeba konsekwentnie tworzyć wspólny transport strategiczny, zdolności do tankowania, a także dążyć do poprawy, jeśli chodzi o jakość sprzętu teleinformatycznego. Jeżeli postępy osiągniemy w tych dziedzinach, to będzie łatwiej mówić o wspólnej polityce.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE). - Herr Präsident! Eine gemeinsame europäische Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik impliziert die Bündelung von Kräften und Ressourcen. Das könnte man angesichts der budgetären Situation in der Europäischen Union allseits befürworten. Doch am Montag wurde uns die drohende Zahlungsunfähigkeit avisiert, und vor diesem Hintergrund gedenkt man nun die Beitrittsverhandlungen mit der Türkei weiterzuführen? Abgesehen davon, dass die EU einen solchen Beitritt budgetär nicht bewältigen kann, frage ich mich, warum in diesem Bericht die Eröffnung weiterer Kapitel gefordert wird, wenn gerade die Türkei ein Mitglied der EU – nämlich Zypern – nicht anerkennt. Und last but by no means least, vielen Dank an den Berichterstatter und auch an Sie, Frau Hohe Vertreterin.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, I am sure that the High Representative will be believed when she says she wants to promote democracy and the rule of law throughout the world. I am not an enthusiast for her position, but she rightly challenges and criticises countries that imprison opposition leaders on spurious or doubtful pretexts. Of course, this does not just take place in former Soviet Republics or unstable regimes of the Middle East or Africa; it can also happen in Member States.

Only a few weeks ago we saw several MP’s of Greece’s third-strongest party arrested and detained on a ‘sovietesque’ charge of founding a criminal organisation. They are not, apparently, charged with complicity in the despicable murder of a left-wing activist, but their party has been transformed into a criminal organisation over night. I know nothing directly about Golden Dawn, and I certainly do not look at them through rose-tinted spectacles. But the rule of law cannot be observed selectively. We cannot pre-judge governments and opposition (…)

(the speaker was cut off by the President)

  Ivo Vajgl (ALDE). - Na poti do tega, kar danes je, je Evropa v več trenutkih znala odgovoriti na svoje zgodovinske izzive.

Tako je po drugi svetovni vojni nastal začetek združevanja Evrope, tako je po padcu berlinskega zidu se odprl proces širitve Evrope in deset držav je hkrati vstopilo leta 2004 v Evropsko unijo.

Zdi se mi, da bi bilo vmesno razmišljati o tem, da bi Evropska unija zmogla hrabrost in, če hočemo, tudi inovativnost in ponovila manever s tem, da bi tudi države jugovzhodne Evrope sprejeli skupaj, v paketu, da bi ponovili big bang.

Razlike med njimi izgledajo včasih velike, v resnici pa niso velike, in mislim, da bi takšen pristop sprožil sinergijo in novo energijo v vseh teh državah, ki čakajo na vstop v Evropsko unijo.

(Fin de las intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»))

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative. − Mr President, it has certainly been an interesting debate. I am not quite sure when it began, but I was expecting some of the contributions.

I think some of you see what you feel is a growing ability of the EU to act. You pointed to a number of examples – for which I thank you – of areas where you have seen the European Union develop its capacity, on behalf of all its citizens, to be able to respond to some of the crises and challenges that we face, particularly those that focus on our neighbourhood – but not only those. A number of colleagues have talked about our relationships right across the world.

For some of you, I sense a frustration that there is much more to be done. You would like to see Europe act in a more coherent way. You would like to see Europe act in a different way than that which is allowed under the Lisbon Treaty – which is, if you like, the rule book under which I operate. But not all of you: some of you are very glad that the rule book of Lisbon exists. Some of you might even want to undo it and make the relationship between all of us very different. So I am very conscious, as I listen to this debate, that it reflects the wide range of views and ideas that I see reflected on a day-to-day basis when I am in contact with many of our colleagues across the European Union.

But I am very straightforward in my view. I believe – and my colleagues in the Foreign Affairs Council, of which I am President, know – that when we decide to work together and act together, we can achieve more than we can do individually. This does not take away from the capacity of individual nations to have important and strong relationships with others. What it does is enable us to get across the messages on which we all agree, and the values which we all hold, more consistently and better when we stand together. It is the oldest thing in the book. It is the thing we have known in the European Union from the beginning, but it is the thing that we have learnt from the playground onwards: that if you stand together for what you believe, you are much more likely to be successful in achieving it. That is what this is about.

I accept that we are very often reactive, but actually it is not surprising, considering the speed of events with which we have been confronted, especially in our southern neighbourhood. Few, if any, predicted what would happen. Some, with hindsight, ‘predicted’ what would happen but few, if any, really did predict it. The journey is by no means over. So, yes, we do react to events from time to time, but we also do so by creating the momentum to demonstrate our commitment to help those nations get through difficult times so that the kind of societies that people in many cases have fought for – and in some cases have died for – can become a reality.

We are engaged all the time in conflict prevention and resolution. There are examples of it, sometimes more obvious than others, all across the world. In many cases people work tirelessly to achieve that in a deliberately very quiet way.

As well as our neighbourhood, I also pointed to the strategic relationships that we need. We need them with NATO as much as we need them with the United Nations. If the Secretary-General of NATO was standing here today, he would say the same thing. It is not ‘either/or’, it is ‘both/and’. It is about projecting what we do in collaboration with our partners across the world to achieve more than we can achieve on our own. It is about the values of human rights. It is about economics meeting politics. It is about the comprehensive approach – not words just to be thrown around, but actually representing what we uniquely do when we bring together all that we do and aim our work, very deliberately, at some of the big problems and issues that we face.

It is also the case that our missions matter, whether they are civilian or military. Of course they are made up of people from Member States: that is what Europe is. And of course they are done in partnership with others. But they really do matter. If you talk with those who are engaged in the missions, they will tell you that the collaboration they get from working with other Member States adds a new richness to the capacity they have to act as individual nations.

When it comes to how we spend EUR 200 billion, nobody can tell me that we could not spend it better. The point about collaboration between defence ministers, when I chair their meetings, is to be able to use our resources to greater effect for all our citizens. It is not about giving something up, but about gaining something by being able to use resources better, whether it is the research we have done into improvised explosive devices, the ability to do mid-air refuelling – so important for future missions – or the work we do on a regular basis with NATO to complement each other on the way in which resources are used. These are positive developments and are nothing to be frightened of.

But I would say to the honourable Members that we are not onlookers in the world. This service is three years old and this role is four years old. It will grow and develop. I hope that I have given my successors the foundations upon which they can build to make the service everything that the parliamentarians in this Parliament would wish it to be and the Member States will allow it to be.

I would like to thank Mrs Koppa and Mr Brok for their reports, and I would like to thank the honourable Members for the opportunity to respond to this debate.

  Elmar Brok, Berichterstatter. − Herr Präsident! Ich danke Ihnen für die souveräne Verhandlungsführung. Ihnen, Hohe Beauftragte und Vizepräsidentin, danke ich für Ihre Arbeit und das, was Sie zum Schluss gesagt haben. Ich danke den Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die an der Vorbereitung dieses Berichts in einem langen Prozess mitgewirkt haben, wie auch den Mitarbeitern.

Ich glaube, wir hatten heute einmal eine außenpolitische Generaldebatte, was man auch braucht. Dass es nicht bei jedem Redner immer kohärent geht, ist klar, da sind die unterschiedlichen Schwerpunkte, aber wir brauchen solche außenpolitischen Generaldebatten.

Zweitens muss ich feststellen – Frau Baroness Ashton, Sie haben Recht –, dass man oft reagieren muss, weil die Dinge in einer so hohen Geschwindigkeit kommen, aber das eine sollte das andere nicht ausschließen. Aber ich meine, das war wohl zu merken, dass wir einer Meinung sind.

Was wir unserem Bericht auch deutlich machen wollten, ist, dass es dem klassischen Auseinandergehen von Werten und Interessen zu begegnen und diese wieder miteinander zu verbinden gilt. Das ist in vielen Reden zum Ausdruck gekommen.

Außenpolitik heißt, unsere Interessen wahrzunehmen, aber dieses unter Nutzung und Durchsetzung unserer Werte. Und ich glaube, dass dieses Haus heute etwa im Bericht Panzeri/Saryusz-Wolski in der Frage der Ukraine darauf bestanden hat, dass die requirements erfüllt werden. Selective justice mit Frau Timoschenko und die Fragen von Justiz- und Wahlrechtsreform zeigen, dass man, wo wir das sowohl aus strategischen als auch aus vielen anderen Gründen wollen, den Weg findet, dass dieser Vertrag in Vilnius unterzeichnet und mit den beiden anderen Ländern paraphiert wird. Ich glaube, auch dies wird hier deutlich.

Zum Schluss möchte ich zum Ausdruck bringen, was Sie in Ihrer Rede in der Schlussbemerkung gesagt haben, Baroness Ashton. Ich glaube, wir alle miteinander, unsere Nationalstaaten müssen begreifen, dass in unserer globalen Ordnung keines unserer Länder, auch nicht die sogenannten Großen dieser Welt, noch irgendetwas durchsetzen können.

Souveränität für unsere Völker zurückzugewinnen, bedeutet nicht, zu dem alten Spiel des Nationalstaates, zu den alten Modellen des vorigen Jahrhunderts zurückzukkehren, sondern es heißt, dass wir unsere Kräfte poolen müssen, um auf dieser Welt ausgehend von der ökonomischen und sozialen Situation etwas zur Sicherung von Menschenrechten und Lebensperspektiven in Afrika und anderen Regionen und im Interesse unserer eigenen Sicherheitspolitik zu unternehmen.

Nur gemeinsam ist das möglich, und Sie, Frau Ashton, haben gesagt, zusammen schaffen wir mehr als allein. Ich glaube, das ist genau der Punkt, um den es geht, um europäische Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik zu betreiben. Herzlichen Dank!

  El Presidente. − Se cierra el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar mañana a las 12.00 horas.

Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 149 del Reglamento)

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in scris. – Conceptul „abordării cuprinzătoare”, enunțat de Înaltul Reprezentat, trebuie să capete conținut cât mai bine definit. Sunt de acord că acest lucru se poate face printr-o dezbatere extinsă cu Parlamentul European. UE are un important potențial în materie de gestionare a problematicii globale într-o lume în schimbare. Trebuie să găsim cele mai bune instrumente pentru a putea influența lucrurile care țin de interesele noastre comune. Dimensiunea militară și de securitate trebuie adaptată noilor sfidări și trebuie extinsă. Avem nevoie de o reacție mai fermă față de acțiuni precum ascultările și culegerile ilegale de informații care privesc Uniunea și țările membre. Sunt de acord cu autorii Raportului, care reclamă o politică externă activă, nu reactivă, o mai mare implicare în rezolvarea unor probleme importante. Cazuri precum facilitarea relațiilor între Serbia și Kosovo demonstrează virtuțile acțiunii. Dimensiunea estică a politicii externe comune trebuie să rămână o prioritate, alături de politica ușilor deschise. Vecinătatea imediată a Uniunii este critică din multe puncte de vedere. O altă problemă care poate trebuie ținută sub control este imigrația ilegală. Tragediile cu repetiție din zona insulei Lampedusa ne amintesc datoria pe care o avem față de acești oameni, care își riscă viața pentru un trai mai bun.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), na piśmie. – Jednym z pięciu celów wspólnej polityki zagranicznej i bezpieczeństwa Unii Europejskiej (WPBiO) jest poszanowanie praw człowieka i jego wolności. Wymaga to opracowania i stosowania jednolitych kryteriów w stosunku do wszystkich państw trzecich. Nie można ulgowo traktować łamania praw człowieka przez naszych strategicznych partnerów. Potrzebujemy przestrzegania jasnego minimum w odniesieniu do praw człowieka, aby prowadzić jakiekolwiek rozmowy z państwami trzecimi. Prawa człowieka i demokracja powinny być uwzględniane na każdym etapie procesu decyzyjnego polityki zagranicznej. Działania zewnętrzne Unii muszą być zgodne z prawami zawartymi w Karcie praw podstawowych Unii Europejskiej oraz z prawami ustanowionymi w Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka. Oczekuję również jasnego wsparcia Unii i państw członkowskich dla instytucji międzynarodowych, które promują prawa człowieka i bronią ich. W związku z planowanymi cięciami budżetowymi pojawia się ryzyko braku wystarczającego wsparcia finansowego dla realizacji unijnych celów i zobowiązań w zakresie WPBiO.

Wiarygodność Unii na arenie międzynarodowej wymaga wykorzystywania środków w sposób skoordynowany, ukierunkowany i efektywny. Dlatego popieram m.in. przygotowanie osobnych linii budżetowych dla każdej misji i operacji WPBiO.

  Valdemar Tomaševski (ECR), raštu. – Pone Pirmininke, bendra Europos Sąjungos užsienio ir saugumo politika – tai didelis iššūkis, turint omenyje audringus politinius pokyčius visame pasaulyje. Kaip pavyzdį galima pateikti Afriką arba Artimuosius Rytus. Dėl šių priežasčių Europos Sąjunga turi taikyti naują ir patikimesnę užsienio politiką siekiant užtikrinti valstybių narių interesus ir pozicijas tarptautiniu mastu. Todėl bendra tarptautinė politika neturėtų pakeisti valstybių narių politikos, o turėtų ją koordinuoti ir teikti diplomatinę paramą. Tik taikant šią taisyklę nuosekliai ir bendrai būsime pajėgūs įgyvendinti savo strateginius tikslus ir padidinsime Europos Sąjungos svarbą tarptautinėje politikoje. Dėl šių priežasčių su nerimu stebime nuolatinį aiškios strategijos dėl santykių su likusiu pasauliu trūkumą. Dėl to iki šiol šioje srityje nėra pasiekti tikslai, įrašyti Lisabonos sutartyje. Peržvelgiant Tarybos ataskaitą, verta atkreipti dėmesį į ''strateginės partnerystės'' plėtrą kaip Europos Sąjungos ir esančių bei jais tampančių pasaulinių lyderių bendradarbiavimo formą. Visgi derėtų nepamiršti, jog ši idėja reikalauja aiškių kriterijų dėl Europos Sąjungos pozicijos tarptautinėje politikoje. Yra dar vienas svarbus Europos Sąjungos tarptautinės politikos aspektas, į kurį derėtų atkreipti dėmesį. Tai yra Europos Sąjungos kaimynystės politika, kuri šiuo metu yra keblioje padėtyje. Jai reikėtų suteikti žymesnį prioritetą bei sustiprinti jos reikšmę, kadangi tai leis užtikrinti politinį stabilumą artimiausioje Europos Sąjungos kaimynystėje.