Visas tekstas 
Procedūra : 2013/2146(INI)
Procedūros eiga plenarinėje sesijoje
Dokumento priėmimo eiga : A7-0138/2014

Pateikti tekstai :


Debatai :

PV 03/04/2014 - 4
CRE 03/04/2014 - 4

Balsavimas :

PV 03/04/2014 - 7.10
Balsavimo rezultatų paaiškinimas

Priimti tekstai :


Posėdžio stenograma
Ketvirtadienis, 2014 m. balandžio 3 d. - Briuselis Atnaujinta informacija

4. Pagrindiniai bendros užsienio ir saugumo politikos ir bendros saugumo ir gynybos politikos aspektai ir esminiai pasirinkimai (ES sutarties 36 straipsnis) - Visapusiškas ES požiūris ir jo padariniai ES išorės veiksmų darnai (diskusijos)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

  Der Präsident. - Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die gemeinsame Aussprache über

– die Erklärung der Vizepräsidentin der Kommission / Hohen Vertreterin der Union für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik über die wichtigsten Aspekte und grundlegenden Weichenstellungen der Gemeinsamen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik und der Gemeinsamen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik (Artikel 36 EUV) (2013/2633(RSP)) und

– den Bericht von Arnaud Danjean im Namen des Ausschusses für auswärtige Angelegenheiten über das umfassende Konzept der EU und seine Auswirkungen auf die Kohärenz des auswärtigen Handelns der EU (2013/2146(INI)) (A7-0138/2014).


  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Mr President, this is the last time in my mandate that I will address Parliament on this annual Article 36 debate, which covers common foreign and security policy and of course common security and defence policy. So as well as looking – as the requirement is – at ‘the main aspects and basic choices’, I wanted to take the opportunity in my remarks to reflect a little on what we have achieved and built in the last four years, and perhaps say something about what we might aim for in the next mandate. I know that I cannot cover all the different aspects of foreign policy in one speech, so I am going to take my original priorities as a framework and talk about those, while reflecting too on the European Council’s discussions in December on our common security and defence policy.

Looking back, four years ago I set three priorities: we had to establish a European External Action Service; we had to focus on the neighbourhood – both south and east – as the places where, if you like, European action should be judged; and our strategic partnerships. I did this because we had to create some structure to what was by definition a new and undefined role. The Lisbon arrangements for external policy, as honourable Members know very well, were conceived in better economic times. So my job was to turn those aspirations into reality in the midst of the worst economic crisis the EU had ever faced.

The merger of three jobs into one required some strategic focus. My reasoning was to try and deal with the tasks that had been clearly defined within the Treaties, and I think that together – and I do mean together because I acknowledge very much the role of this Parliament – we have made some achievements. We do have a European External Action Service. We do have strong relationships and a clear role in our neighbourhood and we have deep political strategic relationships with key international partners. In other words, we have in place the core components for a comprehensive and coherent EU external policy.

For my part, I can say that my successor will inherit a fully-functioning External Action Service. We have 140 Delegations across the world and 1[nbsp ]800 full-time staff. All of that has been achieved by bringing together existing resources within difficult but important budgetary constraints. I confess that in an ideal world I would like to see us represented worldwide. I would want to see us bid to open new delegations, particularly in Panama, in the Gulf countries where we are not represented, and in Mongolia, but there are other places too.

I am also proud that we have reached the staffing targets that were set for the Service. I was asked to create a service where we had one third of national diplomats, and that meant, of course, at least two thirds of permanent officials. I have dramatically improved the number of female Heads of Delegation from the frankly abysmal level I inherited. It is now one in five: 20[nbsp ]%. It is still not enough and there are still far fewer female candidates applying for jobs than their male counterparts. But when they do apply they do well.

Not everything is complete and there is still plenty of work for my successor to do. I made a series of recommendations in last summer’s EEAS Review, many of which I know were shared by Parliament. I hope that some of these will be implemented in the transition to, or near to the start of, the next mandate, because the EU External Service must be more than the sum total of its parts. It is a genuine asset whose professionalism and expertise is widely respected around the world and I am very proud to have played a part in establishing it.

The second priority I identified was the neighbourhood, both east and south, and there is no question but that in these last four years our neighbourhood policy has been tested as never before. First, in the events that happened in what has become known as the Arab Spring, or Arab Awakening, in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria and, of course, most recently in the events in the east with Ukraine.

Let me say something about some of these areas of work that we have been engaged in. When you think about our Eastern Neighbourhood, we showed the real possibilities of what EU diplomacy could do, in helping to resolve the long-standing issues between Serbia and Kosovo. From the beginning of this dialogue, I have facilitated 23 rounds – and a total of over 230 hours – of negotiation. I give all credit to the courageous leaders on both sides.

In concrete terms, we have seen the successful holding of local elections across the whole of Kosovo, and the integration of security and justice structures into the Kosovo legal framework. This step forward has allowed the EU to respond by opening accession negotiations with Serbia, and by launching Stabilisation and Association Agreement negotiations with Kosovo.

The dialogue will become more and more a part of both parties’ integration paths. I, and the European Union, remain fully committed and engaged in that process, the latest discussions on which took place only this week on Monday when the Prime Ministers and Deputy Prime Ministers and Justice Ministers came back together to finalise some of their discussions.

I really hope that what has been achieved between Pristina and Belgrade will serve as inspiration and give momentum to others in the Western Balkans. It will be particularly important to help Bosnia and Herzegovina embark on a similar journey. On my recent visit there, that was the message I gave them.

But the Eastern Neighbourhood has also seen the combination of economic and political challenges. We are ready very shortly to sign Stabilisation and Association Agreements with Moldova and Georgia. The prospect of signing the Agreement with Ukraine, as everyone knows, triggered a series of events that mean that today we are facing the most tense and difficult situation in our neighbourhood since the end of the Cold War.

It is only four months since people took to Maidan, the square in Kiev, to express their disappointment at commitments made and broken by their President. I visited Maidan; I met the people. Many Members of this House did so too. The events that have unfolded have raised challenges for the European Union and its Member States, I would argue, for years to come, and our first priority continues to be to work to de-escalate the situation and to call upon Russia to take clear steps in that respect.

We have been clear about Russia’s violation of Ukraineʼs sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is just unacceptable. It is a contravention of international law and Russia’s own international commitments. We will not recognise the annexation of the Crimea or the referendum that took place as being legitimate. Honourable Members will have seen that the UN General Assembly has also agreed on a resolution calling the Moscow-backed referendum that led to this annexation illegal.

Together with our colleagues in Member States we will continue to engage and use all diplomatic and political means to stabilise the situation, and to arrive at a negotiated way through. It is important not to underestimate our economic strength and the potential of our economic response. But in addition, I want to focus on three key issues of our response to this crisis.

First, the solution is political but it is also economic. We will only succeed if we act at the same time on the needs of the short term and the objectives of the long term. The top priority is to support Ukraine to be a viable economic and democratic state that can respond to the aspirations of its people.

In order to support that, in my role as Vice-President of the Commission, I convened a meeting of Commissioners and Cabinets, bringing together both the President of the Commission and of the Council to begin drawing up a comprehensive EU response. Honourable Members will have seen that Commissioners Füle and Lewandowski led a high-level visit to Kiev last week as part of this overall strategy: that is to allow us to translate the promise of support into concrete practical action for urgently needed reforms after last week’s signature of the political provisions of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement.

We very much welcome the USD[nbsp ]15 billion IMF rescue package and the staff level agreement on an IMF Stand-By Arrangement which was agreed on 27[nbsp ]March. Following last Tuesday’s presentation in the Committee on International Trade (INTA), we will be able to start implementing our overall support of EUR[nbsp ]1.6 billion this month, with significant disbursements, hopefully before the Ukrainian presidential elections on 25[nbsp ]May. But I stress again the urgency and importance of supporting the economy of Ukraine to enable it to fulfil the aspirations of its people.

In the meantime, with the support of this Parliament today, we will frontload, by the end of this month, the trade benefits of the agreement and temporarily remove customs duties on Ukrainian exports to the EU.

The second issue is about the role of the Rada, the parliament, and the importance of the democratic process. I, like so many Members of this House, commend the measured response shown by Ukraine throughout this crisis. The Rada has worked, voted, decided and led and I have sat in the Rada and seen the way that parliamentarians have tried throughout to work on the issues of concern. As you will have seen, the Party of the Regions still exists and has chosen to be in opposition, but in my discussions with them they have pointed out that they do not oppose this democratic process that will lead to presidential elections.

Third, as I have made clear to our Russian counterparts many, many times, our relations with our Eastern partners are not exclusive: these countries must be allowed to decide their own futures, and for all of them it is about good relations with their own neighbours as well. So these three elements, as well as the response that we have to make, are the areas of work that we continue to deal with on a day-by-day basis.

If I turn to the Southern Neighbourhood I would say that it has been no less challenging. Following the Arab Awakening, we have played a key role in supporting Tunisia on the road to a stable and democratic future. It is a real success story. It has huge potential and we will continue to work tirelessly with them on that, as we do with other nations of the region, particularly at the moment Egypt, where we have a strong relationship with the people of Egypt. You know the particular role that the European Union has played and I have played, especially when we think of the events of last summer and my visit to the by then former President Morsi.

I will shortly be returning to Egypt as it prepares for presidential elections. I do not have to tell honourable Members what concern we felt that the court in Minya in southern Egypt has sentenced 529 Muslim Brotherhood supporters to death. I have made this perfectly clear to Egyptians this week, and to the Egyptian Foreign Minister. We call upon the interim authorities to make sure, in line with international standards, that there is a right to a fair and timely trial based on clear charges and proper and independent investigations, as well as the right of access and contact for lawyers and family members.

I also take the opportunity to condemn, of course, the bombings that took place in Egypt yesterday. We have sent our condolences to those who were affected.

It is really important that Egypt move to a stable and inclusive society that will enable it to move forward. These are the clear messages we will continue to give. Again, I do not have to tell honourable Members how worrying the situation is in Libya, and yesterday I met with some representatives from Libya who were here for the Summit.

The knock-on effects of the civil war are, of course, fuelling the crisis in Mali. We need to try and again deliver support to the Libyan authorities to allow them to cement their democracy and create a functioning state. We cannot allow terrorists to gain a foothold in that territory. That is why I will shortly be appointing a personal Special Envoy to engage specifically with the Libyan authorities and to focus again on bringing international attention and bringing international actors together to try and support the needs of the Libyan people.

The situation in Syria remains terrible. The failure of international cohesion has prevented serious pressure being brought to bear on Assad to bring this conflict to an end. We continue to remain determined to support the work of the UN. In my discussions with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon yesterday we talked about the continuing importance of trying to get a political solution and we continue to support the difficult work of Lakdar Brahimi. I share with him the appeal for all parties to return to the negotiating table.

But we must also continue to urge dialogue and highlight the deteriorating humanitarian situation. The plight of 9.3[nbsp ]million vulnerable Syrians remains terrible. The risk of regional instability – in particular the impact on Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq – and the growth of terrorist and extremist groups such as al-Qaida is an ever present problem. We will carry on our work to provide humanitarian assistance. It currently stands at EUR[nbsp ]2.6 billion and we will continue to press all parties to allow unhindered access for humanitarian aid. We will continue to push for that in our discussions with all countries that have something to do with this and a role to play.

Coming back to the priorities that I began with, I identified our strategic partners. These are the core of the work that we do. All the challenges that we face internationally when you think about peace and security, they all require us to meet them by joining forces and cooperating closely with international, regional and local partners.

We are unique in foreign policy terms – I do not just say this, you can hear this said across the world – because we bring together economic, diplomatic, development, and occasionally military, assets in support of a comprehensive approach to complex crises. This approach did not exist four years ago but it exists now, and that increasingly makes us the partner of choice.

Foremost amongst those strategic partnerships is the one we have built with the United Nations. We work closely on all major crises. It is on behalf of the UN Security Council that I lead the E3+3 Iran nuclear negotiations. Honourable Members will know that after the successful agreement on the Geneva Joint Plan of Action last November, implementation began on 20[nbsp ]January. We are now working towards a comprehensive and final settlement. After the weekend Gymnich meeting I will travel to Vienna for a further round of our talks.

All relevant issues that need to be addressed in the final agreement have been put on the table and, as honourable Members will know, we have experts meeting regularly to examine technical details. Honourable Members also know that I can say little about this process at this very delicate stage.

But our strength and credibility derive from the unity that we have in the E3+3, from the support of all European Member States, especially those which are directly engaged, to whom I pay tribute, as well as from the international community as a whole. This is the subject most talked about in my travels across the world, and with whom we engage so many other countries which have an interest and a stake in the outcome. I want to thank this House for its continuous support to me in the negotiations I have taken over the last three and a half years.

I think too that the EU-US Summit last week was an opportunity to reaffirm our strong partnership with the United States. Our cooperation is unparalleled because of its depth and breadth. We work closely together across the entire spectrum of foreign policy issues, especially Ukraine, Afghanistan and the Middle East where we continue to support the ongoing efforts by US Secretary of State Kerry, who was with us yesterday for the EU-US Energy Council which he and I jointly chair. We stand ready in the Middle East to support and make an unprecedented package of support to the parties in the context of a final status agreement.

I pay tribute to all Member States which have worked so closely to ensure that what we will be able to offer will really and significantly make a difference. It will help in post-settlement arrangements to ensure that this can go forward for both, and this is of enormous importance.

We also saw this in the last few days. The EU-China relationship was recognised in the visit by the Chinese President, the first ever visit of a Chinese President to the European Union, and our discussions showed the importance which China attaches to developing relations with Europe as part of a multipolar world. We have differences but we share many common concerns not only economically, but also as regards issues of peace and security. Again, China is part of the team that I lead with the Iran nuclear negotiations.

After my discussions with Defence Secretary Chang last year, we also held a joint naval exercise off the coast of Somalia as part of the international efforts to combat piracy at sea. This is a really important case in point because this exercise enabled us to collaborate. It was led by Operation Atalanta out of Northwood in the UK, and it was led by the Chinese. Together, we looked at ways of collaborating further on what is a successful enterprise to try and end piracy, but still an exercise that will need to be ongoing, especially when we think about the consequences not just in the Horn of Africa, but also with what is happening in the Gulf of Guinea.

The other evening I held a meeting here to discuss with key African countries and our military staff how we can now support them further as they consider how to deal not only with piracy at sea, but also to collaborate again on a comprehensive approach to dealing with the causes of piracy on land.

I do want to turn for a moment to our issues of security and defence because I think the situation in Ukraine has cast fresh light on this. In my final report ahead of the December 2013 European Council that was on security and defence I said: ‘The peace and security of Europe has always been a prerequisite for its economic welfare. For the EU to live up to its role as a security provider means that European citizens and the international community need to be able to trust and rely on the European Union to deliver when the situation demands. We must move from discussion to delivery.’

This was never more true. The question of how we square the circle of the spiralling cost of complex military systems with the reduction of budgets is best answered through forms of cooperation. The European Commission also has its role to play: we have to reverse the trend of fragmentation and move towards consolidation and increased competitiveness of the defence equipment market.

The European Council, all Member States, endorsed the defence cooperation. I think we now need to move further and faster. The maxim of ‘pool it or lose it’ has never been truer. We have to deliver. Therefore I shall be using the upcoming Defence Ministerial meeting – where I will also be joined by Secretary-General Rasmussen of NATO, as he usually joins us – to talk about how we can now best use cooperation to ensure that we are able to deliver for all Member States their defence needs, in what I believe are circumstances that many will see have changed. This needs a renewed sense of urgency but we have the backing of the European Council to actually help us to implement this, which is going to be extremely important.

One of the elements that was specifically mentioned at that Council was making CSDP more effective and more efficient, and that was the comprehensive approach. Mr Danjean’s report correctly stresses the importance of effective coordination and coherence in external action. This is what I have been trying to do since the day I took office.

In conclusion, the last year was one, I hope, of delivery for our common foreign and security policy and one where the groundwork that we have sought to lay in terms of building the Service, building our relationships and building trust and credibility has begun to deliver results. It was also a year when the full potential of what we could do began to emerge.

I am delighted that I will be handing over to the next High Representative a service on which they can build, relationships on which they can build and the strength and support of this Parliament. I thank you for it and I am sure you will offer the same level of support to the next High Representative that you have offered to me.


  Arnaud Danjean, rapporteur. - Monsieur le Président, Madame la haute représentante, chers collègues, vous l'avez signalé vous-même, c'est la dernière apparition solennelle devant cette Assemblée, au cours de cette mandature, et il est naturellement tentant de faire une ébauche de bilan de ces cinq années de politique extérieure de l'Union européenne.

Il faut bien reconnaître –[nbsp ]et cela est largement indépendant de votre personne[nbsp ]– que la même complainte émane trop souvent de nos concitoyens. Face aux crises qui nous entourent, la même critique: où est l'Europe? Que fait l'Europe? En Syrie, en Libye, au Mali, en Centrafrique, en Ukraine, la même critique –[nbsp ]ingrate et souvent injuste, je vous le concède bien volontiers[nbsp ]– revient toujours.

Il y a aussi des succès. Vous les avez soulignés et ils sont malheureusement trop méconnus. L'Europe reste le principal pourvoyeur d'aides publiques au développement et le principal pourvoyeur d'aide humanitaire. L'Europe joue un rôle –[nbsp ]et vous-même jouez un rôle[nbsp ]– fondamental dans la réconciliation entre la Serbie et le Kosovo. L'Europe conduit des négociations intéressantes et constructives avec l'Iran. L'Europe a joué aussi un rôle –[nbsp ]fait beaucoup moins connu[nbsp ]– dans l'ouverture du régime birman. Voilà des succès qui sont à votre actif et qui sont malheureusement trop méconnus.

Il restera en tout cas, au-delà des échecs et des succès, un chantier majeur, toujours à reconstruire, qui consiste à donner de la cohérence à l'action extérieure de l'Union européenne. De la cohérence institutionnelle –[nbsp ]et là, vous avez un rôle clé à jouer[nbsp ]– et de la cohérence opérationnelle sur le terrain.

Cela nous amène, bien sûr, à l'objet de ce rapport: l'approche globale. Comment faire pour que cette approche globale, qui est une formule magique, ne soit pas, justement, qu'une formule magique? Qu'un concept un peu attrape-tout, un peu fourre-tout? Comment faire pour que cette approche globale ne soit pas qu'une belle rhétorique, déconnectée des réalités –[nbsp ]qui sont souvent plus complexes et malheureusement souvent plus éclatées[nbsp ]– de notre action extérieure?

L'approche globale, tout le monde la prône, aujourd'hui. Toutes les organisations veulent adopter l'approche globale pour faire face aux défis et aux crises: l'ONU, l'OTAN, l'Union européenne. Pour l'Union européenne, il s'agit d'une évidence, car elle est la seule organisation qui dispose d'une gamme aussi vaste d'instruments pour mener à bien cette politique: humanitaire, développement, commerce, missions civiles de la politique de sécurité, missions militaires. Nous avons tous les instruments à notre disposition, cette ambition est donc légitime.

Mais l'approche globale est trop souvent constatée a posteriori plus qu'elle n'est construite a priori. J'en veux pour exemple ce qui se passe dans la Corne de l'Afrique, qui est un exemple que vous mettez souvent en avant. En ce qui concerne la Corne de l'Afrique, toutes les cases sont cochées: nous y menons des opérations militaires, nous y avons des missions civiles, nous y pourvoyons du développement et de l'aide humanitaire. Bref, nous sommes présents à tous les étages. Nous avons aussi un bon envoyé spécial. Tout est là, toutes les cases sont cochées.

Tout cela procède-t-il pour autant d'une vraie stratégie? Je n'en suis pas si certain. La stratégie est sur le papier. Est-elle vraiment effective sur le terrain, dans une seule direction? Tout cela reste quand même largement à prouver.

Pour que l'approche globale fonctionne, il faut trois choses: premièrement, une stratégie en amont, définie avec tous les acteurs. Et même quand on en dispose, la stratégie ne suffit pas toujours. On l'avait pour le Sahel, en 2011, mais sa mise en œuvre a été beaucoup plus compliquée et les résultats ont été très lacunaires, pour ne pas dire plus.

Deuxièmement, il faut de la coordination, beaucoup de coordination. Sur ce point, votre rôle est central parce que vous avez une triple casquette: haute représentante, présidente du Conseil des affaires étrangères et vice-présidente de la Commission. On sait très bien que c'est souvent au sein de la Commission que chacun est très jaloux des prérogatives, de l'autonomie et des budgets d'autrui. Là, il faut que vous jouiez pleinement votre rôle de vice-présidente de la Commission pour amener tout le monde à travailler ensemble.

Il faut enfin établir des priorités parce que l'approche globale ne doit pas être une approche globale géographique. L'Union européenne ne peut pas tout faire, partout, avec la même intensité et la même efficacité.

Voilà donc les conditions dans lesquelles vous devez conduire ce mandat, dont nous avons bien conscience qu'il est extrêmement compliqué. Pour ma part, je souhaitais rendre hommage à votre action car, comme je vous l'ai dit en introduction, je trouve que, bien trop souvent, les critiques sont ingrates. Les critiques oublient qu'en matière de politique étrangère, de diplomatie et d'action militaire, la prérogative essentielle reste dévolue aux États membres.


  Ricardo Cortés Lastra, Ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Desarrollo. - Señor Presidente, señora Ashton, no quiero dejar pasar este momento sin felicitarla por el excelente trabajo al frente de la política exterior de la Unión Europea durante todos estos años. Sé que no han sido años fáciles, han sido años complicados, y creo que la labor ha sido excelente, sinceramente.

Y, entrando en materia, probablemente esta primera frase sea una obviedad, pero es necesario comenzar diciendo que la seguridad y su vínculo con el desarrollo son una cuestión clave para el futuro de la Unión. Pero es una certeza, y las respuestas que demos —la gestión, la recuperación de las crisis, así como la propia estabilización y la construcción de la paz— han de ser pilares fundamentales de la estrategia de la Unión Europea.

Sin embargo, y apoyando la idea de una acción más coherente y coordinada, no debemos permitir que los objetivos de la política exterior lleguen a dominar los principios del desarrollo y de la acción humanitaria, así como de su carácter civil. Por tanto, es esencial que el objetivo de la lucha contra la pobreza permanezca al margen de la política exterior de la Unión Europea y que el enfoque global no erosione el carácter civil de la cooperación al desarrollo.

Termino, Presidente. La acción humanitaria: debemos vigilar que la lucha contra el terrorismo y los programas de seguridad no socaven la capacidad...

(El Presidente interrumpe al orador)


  Minodora Cliveti, Raportoare pentru aviz, Comisia pentru drepturile femeii şi egalitatea între sexe. - Domnule președinte, în contextul internațional actual, când evenimente importante se petrec la granița Uniunii, acțiunea europeană externă trebuie intensificată pentru respectarea și păstrarea valorilor fundamentale ale Uniunii, în special respectarea drepturilor omului, promovarea egalității între oameni, prevenirea discriminării multiple. De aceea, este necesară găsirea de soluții, pentru ca Europa însăși să aibă soluții comune și să transmită mesaje coerente.

Trebuie păstrată forța Uniunii și potențate scopurile pentru care aceasta a fost creată. Importanța și credibilitatea acțiunii externe a Uniunii depind de respectarea principiului coerenței dintre politicile interne, obiectivele sale în materie de dezvoltare și politica de vecinătate.

Totodată, trebuie intensificate conștientizarea și consolidarea rolului femeilor în promovarea politicilor de dezvoltare, în respectarea drepturilor omului, în sprijinirea prevenirii conflictelor și consolidarea păcii.

Îi mulțumesc doamnei comisar Ashton pentru susținerea sa față de acest subiect și pentru exemplul său personal.


  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor Presidente, señora Alta Representante, Señorías, quisiera, en primer lugar, felicitar al ponente, el señor Danjean, por el riguroso informe que nos ha presentado: un informe que, como decía la Alta Representante, nos brinda la oportunidad de hacer un examen de lo que ha sido en esta legislatura, de lo que es y de lo que debería ser esta visión integral de la política exterior y de seguridad común y, como ella decía, en un momento muy particular de nuestro calendario, coincidiendo con la más profunda crisis que hemos vivido, lo cual, lógicamente, ha detraído esfuerzos en lo que se refiere a la acción exterior.

Siguiendo su esquema, los principales desafíos se han producido en nuestro escenario más próximo, en la vecindad meridional, con las crisis de Libia, Egipto y Siria y sus consecuencias regionales e internacionales y, por supuesto, después de la Cumbre de Vilna, con la crisis de Ucrania.

Como el ponente es francés, me gustaría citar la opinión emitida recientemente por un profesor del Instituto de Ciencias Políticas de París, que dice que la crisis de Ucrania podría hacer que la Unión Europea encuentre la narrativa y el nuevo impulso que está buscando desde la caída del muro de Berlín.

Pero, para ello, necesitamos revisar nuestra política energética en el sentido de una menor dependencia; tenemos que progresar hacia mayores espacios en el ámbito de la política de seguridad y defensa para que nuestro poder blando se complemente con una fuerza que sea capaz de responder a una nueva configuración de las amenazas; tenemos que trabajar por una revisión del sistema de las Naciones Unidas, en el que una de las potencias con derecho a veto ha venido imponiendo su voluntad, y, señora Ashton, en un ámbito en el que usted ha venido trabajando: que la Unión Europea, para ser creíble, tiene que hablar en la escena internacional con una sola voz. Si no, nos vamos a limitar a ser realmente la organización que firma el cheque de los grandes dramas contemporáneos.

Solamente sobre estas premisas podremos tener un enfoque integrado en el que las nociones de seguridad, de defensa, de diplomacia, de ayuda al desarrollo, de comercio, de cultura o incluso de civilización se articulen entre sí, se complementen entre sí, para responder a los nuevos retos y amenazas que se configuran a nivel mundial.

Y solamente así, señora Ashton, podremos conseguir lo que propone el señor Danjean en su informe, en el sentido de tener un orden multipolar que sea justo, que sea creíble, que sea razonable, que permita defender los principios que nosotros sostenemos de la soberanía, de la integridad territorial de los Estados y, por supuesto, del respeto a los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales.

Permítame, señor Presidente ―antes de terminar― reconocer en esta última comparecencia de la Alta Representante[nbsp ]/[nbsp ]Vicepresidenta de la Comisión todos los esfuerzos que ha desplegado en aras de una política de la Unión Europea más creíble, más coherente y más eficaz en lo que al principio parecía una tarea absolutamente imposible. Quisiera, aparte de expresar este reconocimiento, señor Presidente, trasladarle todo mi agradecimiento por su disposición permanente al diálogo, así como la de todos sus colaboradores, disposición que hago extensiva no solo a este diputado, sino también a mi grupo político. ¡Mis mejores deseos, señora Alta Representante, para su futuro!


  Ana Gomes, em nome do Grupo S&D. – O Serviço Europeu para a Ação Externa e a Comissão Europeia estarão, com certeza, alerta para a situação calamitosa na Líbia, como de resto a Senhora Alta Representante já hoje aqui notou. Estão, mas a verdade é que a União Europeia tem feito pouco para intervir de forma coerente, institucional e operacionalmente num país que está na nossa vizinhança mais próxima, no qual se desenvolve uma dinâmica perigosíssima de vazio de poder combinada com a presença de melícias armadas, infiltrações terroristas, armas, petróleo e violação sistemática dos direitos humanos. A Líbia é hoje um país em risco de se tornar um estado falhado e de provocar um desastre securitário e até ecológico no Mediterrâneo.

Eu podia também falar da Síria, do Egito, da Ucrânia, da Rússia, enfim... Mas a Líbia espelha bem o estado da nossa política externa e de segurança comum, apesar dos esforços que eu reconheço e que saúdo da parte da Senhora Alta Representante.

Como pretende a União afirmar-se como fornecedor de segurança global, força promotora dos direitos humanos, the rule of law, da democracia e da paz no mundo se não consegue sequer contribuir de forma coerente para estabilizar a sua vizinhança? Na Líbia, nas relações com outros vizinhos onde há recursos como o petróleo, infelizmente os interesses nacionais míopes continuam a prevalecer sobre aquilo que os nossos Estados-Membros estão dispostos a dar pela coerência e a unidade europeias. Quem sofre é o povo líbio antes de mais mas, em segunda análise, quem perde somos todos nós, a Europa e a segurança dos cidadãos europeus, porque uma Líbia desgovernada à mercê de grupos terroristas vai transbordar para a Europa alguns dos seus mais graves problemas e a migração ilegal é apenas um deles.

A verdade é que perdemos tempo e oportunidades na Líbia. Uma contribuição efetiva para a capacitação de governação passa pela questão central da reforma do setor de segurança. Ela é urgente e é preciso compromisso, cooperação, coordenação, focos por parte das hierarquias comunitárias em Bruxelas mas também das nossas capitais. Se não continuaremos a jogar no lixo as vantagens e as inovações que o Tratado de Lisboa trouxe à política comum externa e de segurança e defesa.


  Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, as you know, I am one of the High Representative’s staunch supporters and I remain so. As this is her last appearance before this Parliament during this legislature, I believe that she is quite right in highlighting the successes of her tenure. It has almost been a mission impossible but she has achieved remarkable successes. The establishment of the European External Action Service is in itself a success and the fact that it has started functioning reasonably well is a success.

High Representative, you have had successes in Kosovo and especially in Iran, which was extremely difficult to achieve. Nothing is definite yet, but we are nevertheless on the way. All of these are remarkable achievements. Therefore, I regret all the more that I have missed you dearly in the most recent developments concerning Ukraine and the Crimea. I know – and I trust – that you have been very present and very active, but I am sorry to say that you have not been very visible. When I saw the meetings between Mr Lavrov and Mr Kerry, I almost moaned ‘Where is Cathy?’ as it seemed that you were absent. I believe you were certainly in the wings, but please reassure us, because I missed you.


  Reinhard Bütikofer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, as this is our last discussion with Baroness Ashton, I would like to congratulate her for her service and her contributions and to thank her very much.

Baroness Ashton, you are in charge of a CFSP budget of around EUR 300 million annually. You are also in charge of the budget for the Instrument for Stability and Peace (ISP). Those two budget lines form the context of what you can do with the External Action Service. Here I want to sound an alarm about the implementation of the comprehensive approach that you have made your trademark.

I want to raise one important issue in my capacity as the standing rapporteur for the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the Instrument for Stability and Peace. This Instrument is in danger of running out of money by the middle of this year. Under your direction, the External Action Service is doing its utmost to do its job and it does it brilliantly. It is planning to support the presidential elections in Ukraine. At the same time it is working on helping the countries neighbouring Syria with the issues of the refugees. The Service is dealing with the outbreak of violence in South Sudan with a peacebuilding mission. In the Central African Republic, the Instrument for Stability and Peace will also contribute with an action focusing on communities at risk and policing.

But, as I said, while the ISP is where it should be, the money is not there to fund all these activities. If this situation does not change, this will deal a heavy blow to the credibility of the EU. In addition to what it has, the ISP needs EUR 58[nbsp ]million this year. I know that Commissioner Georgieva has been successful in securing EUR[nbsp ]150[nbsp ]million in extra money for her budget. I would urge you to engage in a similar effort in favour of the ISP. I can assure you that this Parliament will support it, but time is running short. The last meeting of the Committee on Budgets that can deal with this issue is on Thursday 10 April. Please act to help make it clear that the ISP is a core concern that we want to prop up together.


  Geoffrey Van Orden, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, my concern is with EU defence policy. Would the High Representative agree that the crisis over Russia’s land grab in Ukraine underlines the need for NATO solidarity and revitalisation, while the EU should focus on its financial and economic crisis management instruments? Would she also agree, as further evidence that the European Union should stop its military posturing, that the latest EU CSDP mission in the Central African Republic has failed to generate any serious support from European countries other than France, and that the conclusion from this is also that the EU should stop trying to play soldiers?

The United States is being misled into thinking that the way to get European allies to share more of the defence burden is by involving the EU. The reality is that it will merely lead to a weakened, and increasingly binary, alliance.

Lady Ashton, I would just like to say, as this will be your last meeting, that I will miss having the opportunity to spar with you and I wish you well for the future.

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


  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), blue-card question. – Brigadier Van Orden, in Turkey the AKP Government puts journalists in prison, blocks the internet and interferes with the judiciary, yet the AKP Party has recently joined your pan-European party, the AECR. I have to ask you, as a prominent member of the AECR, whether you support the values of the AKP Party in Turkey.


  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), blue-card answer. – That has absolutely nothing to do with the debate in hand. If you are asking me whether I think it is important that Turkey, as a strong NATO ally, should play a full part in the NATO Alliance, then I would agree completely. The other business is not for this discussion. It is for discussion elsewhere.


  Sabine Lösing, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Der Bericht zum umfassenden Ansatz zeigt deutlich, dass die EU durchaus ein positiver Akteur mit gutem Einfluss auf den Weltfrieden sein könnte – er verweist etwa auf die große Bedeutung der Armutsbekämpfung und effektiver Maßnahmen für den Klimaschutz, wenn – ja, wenn – einiges in dem Bericht bzw. in der Politik gestrichen würde und wenn es nicht einzig darum ginge, die Interessen der Wirtschaft – dieser unserer Region – zum Maßstab des Handelns zu machen, wenn geopolitische Machtambitionen nicht die Leitlinien wären und wenn man das Militärische in der Außenpolitik streichen würde.

Der viel beschworene so umfassende Ansatz – stets unter Einbeziehung der militärischen Komponente – wird im Bericht als die Stärke der EU beschrieben. Alle zur Verfügung stehenden Ressourcen und Instrumente im Bereich Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik, Wirtschaft, Handel sowie humanitäre und entwicklungspolitische Hilfe sollen wirkungsvoll miteinander verbunden werden.

Denn vor dem Hintergrund der Wirtschaftskrise und sinkender Militärhaushalte soll insbesondere das zivile EU-Budget für sicherheitsrelevante und militärische Zwecke nutzbar gemacht werden. So ist es bereits normal, dass aus dem europäischen Entwicklungsfonds über die sogenannte „afrikanische Friedenfazilität“ Ausbildungs- und Militäreinsätze unter anderem in Somalia, Mali und der Zentralafrikanischen Republik finanziert werden. Das sind Entwicklungshilfegelder, das ist keine Kriegskasse!

Wir lehnen diesen Bericht ab und haben eine Minderheitenansicht eingereicht.


  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, I am going to focus on paragraph 46 of the report. This says, and I quote, ‘an EU seat in an enlarged UN Security Council remains a central, long-term goal of the European Union’. Later, it calls for – and I quote again – ‘the introduction of new members of the UN Security Council and reform of the UN Security Council’s decision-making towards the possible use of a super-qualified majority’.

In the European Union, the United Kingdom has very little influence. We have just 8.24[nbsp ]% of the weighted votes in the Council of Ministers, less than 10[nbsp ]% of MEPs and the ability to appoint just one of 28 Commissioners. However, the UK is represented in its own right in international organisations. Perhaps the most significant is the UK’s permanent seat on the UN Security Council and the veto that goes with it. This report, and the thinking behind it, puts at risk the UK’s seat on the UN Security Council and also the UK’s veto.

Let us be crystal clear. The UK’s continuing membership of the European Union does not enhance our influence in the world. It is in fact exactly the other way round. Our influence is thereby, and inevitably, diminished.

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


  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – Did I get you right that the British veto is even more important than the British seat on the Security Council?


  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), blue-card answer. – With the greatest possible respect you actually got it wrong. There is a seat on the UN Security Council. That seat has a veto. What the report proposes is that the EU should have a seat. It also proposes that the method of voting, and I quote, ‘should make use of a super-qualified majority’, which would have the effect of losing the veto. So, therefore, it diminishes the position of the UK and, incidentally, of France, on two counts, not just one.

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


  Charles Goerens (ALDE), question "carton bleu". – Monsieur le Président, je voudrais demander à l'honorable député s'il se rend compte du fait que c'est une Britannique qui dirige le Service européen pour l'action extérieure depuis cinq ans et que lorsque l'on aborde la question des affaires étrangères et de l'influence du Royaume-Uni, on ne peut laisser de côté cet aspect.


  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), blue-card answer. – Well I do not want to spoil the happy atmosphere, but it is also true that the UK appointed the current holder of the post of High Representative and, as we have heard in the first 20 minutes of self-indulgence with which this debate was opened, that was a complete waste. What a waste of an appointment and what a waste of five years.


  Der Präsident. - Herr Kollege! Ich würde Ihnen sagen, dass diese Wortmeldung dem Benehmen und dem Respekt, die wir uns gegenüber hier an den Tag legen, nicht entsprochen hat.


  Nick Griffin (NI). - Mr President, what is the main aspect of EU foreign policy? To help the USA meddle around the world in places that have nothing to do with us – Iraq, Serbia, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria. You have acted as cheerleaders for aggressive neo-con interference which has benefited only radical Islamists but has destroyed societies, while costing British taxpayers billions of pounds. Now the target is Russia.

Members know full well that the so-called Ukrainian revolution was manufactured with everything from the agitprop to the snipers provided from the USA and the EU. We all know the root of the tough Russian reaction is aggressive NATO expansionism, first into Poland, next into Ukraine. Yet you persist in irresponsible sabre-rattling in someone else’s natural sphere of influence. It is said that in 1914, Europe sleepwalked into war. This time you are heading there with eyes wide open. The basic choice is war or peace. You seem hell-bent on war, so remember: whatever excuses you manufacture, plotting an aggressive war is itself a crime.


  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Wysoka Przedstawiciel! Miałem zacząć od gratulacji i podziękowań dla Pani, ale pozwoli Pani Wysoka Przedstawiciel, że skieruję jedno zdanie do kolegi, który przede mną mówił, a siedzi za mną. Drogi Panie Kolego! Chciałem powiedzieć, że obchodzimy właśnie w Polsce 15 lat od wstąpienia Polski do Paktu Północnoatlantyckiego, i chciałem powiedzieć, że obywatele polscy są dumni z tego, że jesteśmy w Pakcie Północnoatlantyckim, i obywatele polscy czują się dzięki temu faktowi bezpieczni. Jesteśmy aktywnym członkiem NATO i dzieje się to z poparciem nie tylko bardzo znacznej części polskiego społeczeństwa, ale również z poparciem wszystkich polskich sił politycznych. Nie ma żadnej poważnej partii politycznej w Polsce, która kwestionuje potrzebę naszego funkcjonowania w ramach NATO i również w ramach oczywiście Unii Europejskiej, bo 10 rocznicę członkostwa obchodzimy w tej chwili.

Co do polityki – jedno zdanie – polityki pani Catherine Ashton. Chciałem powiedzieć, że rozumiem, jak trudne jest to przy wszystkich ambicjach państw członkowskich, prowadzić wspólną politykę Unii Europejskiej, ale Pani się to udało i, tak jak kiedyś mówił Henry Kissinger, że potrzebuje telefonu do Europy, przez te pięć lat to był na pewno telefon do Pani.


  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D). - Mr President, ... (beginning of speech inaudible). I will now address the military situation in Ukraine. Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine and the subsequent military occupation of Crimea have dealt a powerful blow to the current security system in Europe, based on the Helsinki Final Act and the CFE Treaty, from which Russia suspended itself roughly a year before the war in Georgia. The probability of a large-scale conventional attack in Europe is no longer low. Following Russia’s military occupation of Crimea, it has exponentially increased overnight. The West, challenged by Russia in an attempt to recover the so-called losses incurred at the end of the Cold War, should speak with one voice in rebuffing Russia’s actions.

This means that the EU should elaborate a new European security strategy; strengthen cooperation with NATO, rapidly finding a solution to the existing blockage; seriously consider the possibility of invoking the mutual assistance clause in Article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty by those members who are not in NATO, if such members are the victims of armed aggression against their territory; revise its current stand on defence, proving in practice that defence really matters; rapidly initiate the strategic measures to reduce its energy dependency on Russia, and prove that it is ready to accept losses in order to substantiate the seriousness of the message sent to Russia. That would instil credibility into the EU’s CFSP.

Unfortunately, our first round of efforts to positively integrate Russia in the international system has failed. However, we should not be discouraged, and we should hope for a responsible Russia in the international community.

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


  Franz Obermayr (NI), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Präsident! (Der Redner spricht ohne Mikrofon) … des Vorredners, der ja Angehöriger der sozialdemokratischen Fraktion ist, ist nicht ganz nachzuvollziehen.

Vielleicht kann er es ein bisschen präzisieren und erläutern. Er spricht sich für eine wehrhafte Politik Europas aus. Spricht er sich auch für eine einheitliche europäische Armee aus? Und das Zweite: Er spricht sich auch für mehr energiepolitische Unabhängigkeit aus. Heißt das, dass man die Sanktionen gegen den Iran ein bisschen überdenken sollte und allfällig auch über den Import von Gas und Erdöl aus dem Iran nachdenken sollte.


  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D), blue-card answer. – I have not mentioned anything about Iran, but if you think you know that I (really) did, that is your problem. Essentially, I would say that we should revise our stance on defence and we have to look at the decisions we took in December to see whether or not they hold water under the new conditions, and demonstrate that defence really matters, because that was the slogan of the December Council on defence.


  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). - Domnule președinte, doamnă înalt reprezentant, sperăm ca această dezbatere despre politica externă și politica de securitate și apărare să nu fie doar o dezbatere teoretică, ci să fie dezbaterea care marchează o acțiune clară în acest domeniu. Prea multă vreme PESC a rămas un instrument vag, slab finanțat și sprijinit, care a intervenit doar acolo unde statele membre terminaseră deja treaba, precum în Mali și Republica Centrafricană.

Doamnă înalt reprezentant, nu știu dacă dumneavoastră ați lipsit de la soluționarea problemei ucrainene dar, cu siguranță, Uniunea Europeană nu a prea fost acasă în acest domeniu și asta dovedește cât de puțin am făcut pentru o politică concretă.

Poate că mulți dintre noi am ignorat lecțiile istoriei, poate că mulți dintre noi am crezut că nu se mai poate reveni la ambiții arhaice naționaliste, dar s-a revenit, cu invadarea Crimeii. Lucrul acesta nu trebuie ignorat. Poate că mulți dintre noi am greșit.

Vorbim astăzi despre frontierele estice și – fac o paranteză – ce mult am greșit când am amânat artificial aderarea României și a Bulgariei la spațiul Schengen! Poate reușim cu Moldova, să facem proiectul de aderare al Moldovei la Uniunea Europeană mult mai rapid, spre binele nostru și al cetățenilor moldoveni.


  Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, against the background of the aggression in Crimea, a particular irony is hidden in the fact that France is continuing with the sale of two Mistral helicopter carriers to Putinist Russia. It reminds me of the 16th Century chronicle writer Balthasar Russow in Tallinn, who warned the Dutch against selling weapons to Russia: sooner or later they will be turned against the West, he wrote. There is a solution though, through our CFSP. The EU should purchase those vessels from France for its naval force. Germany and the Netherlands should provide the missing helicopters; Nordic countries, for instance, the crews. Mistrals could be sent to a war that is close to the Horn of Africa, where exactly that kind of capacity is needed to help the Somalian build-up. Besides, we will have a double game: a reduction of aggressionary pressures on Ukraine and Georgia, let alone Poland and the Baltic States. I am not kidding. I am dead serious about it.


  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). - Gospodine predsjedniče, prijedlog naglašava važnost posredništva i dijaloga u sprečavanju i mirnom rješavanju sukoba te ističe da je sudjelovanje Parlamenta u posredovanju u Ukrajini pokazalo da parlamentarci mogu imati važnu ulogu na tom području.

S obzirom na ishod ukrajinske krize ne vidim da je Parlament odigrao neku posebno važnu ulogu i sama sam potpisnica zajedničke rezolucije o invaziji Rusije na Ukrajinu u kojoj smo Krim prepoznali i jasno definirali kao neodvojivi dio Ukrajine, no Unija nije učinila ništa da Krim doista ostane neodvojivi dio te zemlje. Opet puno priče i busanja u europska prsa, ali nažalost europsko srce je zastalo. Samo ne znam da li radi straha ili nekih partikularnih interesa.

Od početka 90-ih i srpske agresije na Hrvatsku i BIH, do danas, institucionalni okvir vanjskog djelovanja Unije je znatno napredovao, ali kao što vidimo, učinkovitost baš i nije.


  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL). - Señor Presidente, señora Ashton, en esta intervención de despedida en primer lugar quería desearle lo mejor, pero desde la postura crítica que hemos mantenido durante estos años desde mi grupo y que vamos a seguir manteniendo mientras no se modifique la política exterior y de seguridad.

Nos encontramos ante un fracaso estrepitoso de este proyecto de integración regional, que no tiene en cuenta el interés general, a los trabajadores y las trabajadoras, el empleo y la calidad de vida de la gente. Es un proyecto, por eso, fallido. Hace falta otro proyecto de integración regional, que sitúe de nuevo en el centro de la atención a la gente, a las personas. Y, dentro de este proyecto fallido, indudablemente, mantener una política de seguridad subordinada a la política norteamericana no nos lleva a ningún lado, a ninguna situación en la que se plantee con claridad la necesidad de liderar en el mundo una política diferente, que apueste por el desarme, que apueste por la paz y que apueste por la superación de los conflictos, desde el punto de vista de la prevención.

El patrón Obama vino a Bruselas y nos dio las órdenes: incrementar el gasto militar y desplegar la OTAN alrededor de Rusia. Todo un error.


  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). - Domnule președinte, discutăm astăzi raportul foarte bun al colegului meu, Arnaud Danjean, privind abordarea cuprinzătoare a Uniunii Europene și coerența acțiunii sale externe, în contextul în care suntem aproape de sfârșitul mandatului actual și încercăm să vedem cum anume am reușit sau nu să obținem o coerență la nivelul acțiunii externe a Uniunii.

Primul lucru pe care aș vrea să îl spun în această privință e legat de cele câteva amendamente pe care le-am depus în Comisia pentru dezvoltare, care mă bucur că se regăsesc în textul final. În special, voi insista asupra referințelor la abordarea globală – Comunicarea comună adoptată în decembrie 2013, care pune, în contextul post-Lisabona, accentul pe relația dintre securitate și dezvoltare. Insist, în special, asupra acestui aspect, care spune că abordarea trebuie să înglobeze toate etapele conflictelor, punând accentul pe prevenție și pe consolidarea sistemelor de alertă timpurie.

Pe de altă parte, și asta e a doua mea observație, cred că în politica noastră externă trebuie să luăm în seamă lecțiile experiențelor prin care trecem și, în particular, voi da un exemplu. Consider că, în acest moment, Uniunea Europeană nu poate rămâne observator în formatul 5+2 referitor la Transnistria. De douăzeci de ani asistăm neputincioși la o consolidare a poziției Rusiei, care afectează profund interesele Moldovei, inclusiv în perspectiva integrării sale europene.


  María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D). - Señor Presidente, señora Ashton, yo no voy a insistir en la descripción del escenario internacional multipolar y complejo, con amenazas asimétricas, con conflictos sobre la energía, la seguridad, los recursos o las migraciones masivas, pero sí quiero subrayar que es muy desalentador que cinco años después de que nos hayamos dotado de los instrumentos necesarios para ello —instrumentos de los que usted es cabeza visible—, estemos planteando lo obvio: que en este entorno geopolítico la Unión Europea tiene que proyectar una estrategia integrada de su papel en el mundo.

Es muy desalentador que solamente en diciembre de 2013 se haya puesto usted de acuerdo consigo misma —en sus múltiples cualidades de Alta Representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad, de Vicepresidenta de la Comisión y de Presidenta del Consejo de Asuntos Exteriores— para decirnos que hay que avanzar en la coherencia de la acción exterior de la Unión Europea en los ámbitos relativos al desarrollo, al comercio, a la energía, al medio ambiente, a las migraciones o a la gobernanza económica mundial y otras cuestiones de alcance global.

Pues avance, señora Ashton, y presente al Parlamento resultados en lugar de peticiones de mayor coherencia. Es usted la responsable de dar coherencia a todas estas políticas. Porque también es muy desalentador que, mientras se dice usted en la comunicación ―a sí misma y al Parlamento Europeo― que sin desarrollo no hay seguridad, esté comprometiendo ―para apoyar a Ucrania― tres mil millones de euros que van a afectar al presupuesto de la Unión Europea, concretamente a la gestión civil de crisis y a la construcción de capacidades en África. Y ya se están pidiendo presupuestos rectificativos en la Comisión de Presupuestos.

La ayuda a Ucrania es una decisión política compartida, pero no debe ser a costa de otras políticas, particularmente de la política de desarrollo, ni de hipotecar presupuestos futuros de la Unión Europea, para el año 2016 concretamente.

Y un aspecto fundamental sobre el que la comunicación pasa de puntillas es el de la energía: la política exterior de la Unión Europea tendrá la oportunidad de ser independiente y unificada si hay una estrategia para la diversificación del suministro energético y una infraestructura que permita un uso más amplio de fuentes de energías renovables, pero también de fuentes autóctonas y de recursos...

(El Presidente interrumpe a la oradora)


  Andrew Duff (ALDE). - Mr President, enlargement remains our single most successful part of CFSP, but it is a blunt instrument, and I have come to the conclusion that in this next mandate we must calibrate a new form of affiliation to the Union, short of full membership. Europe to the East is unstable and fractious, and for us to maintain our leverage, our pull, the capacity to project our values and secure the interests of the Union, we have to be continually inventive. On a personal note, Lady Ashton, it is not mission impossible but it is mission improbable, and well done on that.


  Mark Demesmaeker (Verts/ALE). - Mevrouw de hoge vertegenwoordiger, wij reflecteren hier vandaag over de erfenis van uw beleid en daar zitten heel veel goede kanten aan. U verdient daarvoor ook alle lof.

Er zijn ook minder goede kanten. Wat mij vooral opvalt met mijn bijzondere interesse voor Oekraïne en voor Rusland is dat wij de afgelopen vijf jaar als EU te weinig strategisch hebben leren denken. Als Eurorealist geloof ik dat de Europese Unie zich het beste kan concentreren op zaken waar samenwerking echt een meerwaarde kan bieden. Een van die hoofdlijnen is een gemeenschappelijk buitenlands beleid.

Wat Poetin recentelijk heeft gedaan is Oekraïne respectloos behandelen en de Unie in haar gezicht uitlachen, goed wetende dat wij zelfs economisch niet echt een vuist kunnen maken. Dat hebben wij vooral aan onszelf te danken. Wij hebben onze buren veel te bieden, maar dan moeten wij intern wel eerst sterker staan. Ik hoop dat uw opvolger die strategische bakens verder kan uitzetten en daartoe ook echt de kans krijgt, want als dat niet lukt zullen wij helaas nog meer Oekraïenes krijgen.


  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). - Señor Presidente, quisiera, en primer lugar, dar la enhorabuena al señor Danjean por su informe y agradecerle, señora Ashton, sus esfuerzos de estos años.

Estamos en un mundo global, interconectado, interdependiente. Es necesario que tengamos, que la Unión tenga, una acción exterior más coherente y eficaz y ello exige, cada vez más, que tengamos una sola voz y una sola dirección. La coherencia debe ser asegurada por su doble, o triple, sombrero, señora Ashton.

La Unión Europea, por muchas razones, intereses y valores, situación geográfica, características de su economía y comercio, su dependencia energética, vínculos históricos y sociales, requiere un mundo estable y en paz, al que debemos contribuir cooperando estrechamente con las Naciones Unidas y otros socios, entre los que destacaría a los Estados Unidos.

Lógicamente, nuestra primera área de atención debiera ser nuestra compleja vecindad, en la que se ha puesto a prueba la eficacia de nuestra acción. Dada la variedad y complejidad de los desafíos y de las crisis, el enfoque de nuestra acción exterior debe ser integral. Las crisis requieren respuestas integrales, en las que debe haber ingredientes no solo políticos, económicos, de cooperación, humanitarios o alimentarios. Necesitamos a menudo elementos de seguridad, elementos militares también, como hemos visto en Libia o Mali recientemente.

Señorías, ni la historia ha terminado, ni han desaparecido los conflictos en los que se utilizan medios militares. Acabamos de comprobarlo en el lamentable caso de Crimea. Debemos profundizar, por consiguiente, en el componente de seguridad y de defensa.


  Marek Siwiec (S&D). - Pani Wysoka Przedstawiciel! Moja partia „Twój Ruch” prowadzi kampanię do Parlamentu Europejskiego pod hasłem: „Więcej Europy, więcej polityki europejskiej, więcej polityki europejskiej w dziedzinie bezpieczeństwa i obrony!”. Pani sprawozdanie pokazuje, ile zostało zrobione, ale też, ile można było więcej zrobić, ile można było więcej zrobić, gdyby była zgoda państw członkowskich, ile można byłoby więcej zrobić, gdyby nie było oporu biurokracji brukselskiej. Pamiętamy te trudne bóle porodowe, gdy rodziła się Europejska Służba Działań Zewnętrznych.

Jeszcze jedno: ta instytucja wymaga, potrzebuje nowych kadr. Ciągle mało ludzi doświadczonych, doskonałych dyplomatów z nowych krajów członkowskich, ciągle nie jesteśmy odpowiednio reprezentowani. Były obietnice, były opowieści o tym, że ci ludzie się znajdą. Ci, którzy trafili do służby zagranicznej, spisują się znakomicie, ale jest ich za mało i to jest wielkie zobowiązanie na przyszłą kadencję, aby ten brak nadrobić.


  Marietje Schaake (ALDE). - Mr President, this is the last time this Parliament will have a debate with the High Representative and I cannot help thinking that she must feel a slight relief. I hope her successor will consider this Parliament an ally and work with us closely to make sure we develop stronger European leadership in a world with an increasing amount of major challenges.

In our own neighbourhood – from Ukraine to Turkey, from Egypt to Syria – cynical power politics are back and the EU has barely begun to shape up and act as a global player. For too long the euro crisis has overshadowed the other crisis – that of Europe’s position in the world – but it is, more than ever, clear that from trade to defence, from human rights to development, we must act strongly together or we stand divided on the sidelines. We must rethink and rebalance interests and values and choose the side – and the rights, freedoms and opportunities – of a global young generation.

European leadership begins in our neighbourhood. I hope this leadership will become stronger, more tangible and comprehensive. We have no time to lose.


  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE). - Herr talman! Även jag vill inleda med att tacka Cathrine Ashton för allt som hon har gjort, både under utbyggnaden och under ledandet av utrikestjänsten.

Hela idén om gemensam utrikes- och säkerhetspolitik kom efter att vi under 90-talet blev tvungna att hantera krisen och krigen på Balkan. På den tiden hade vi inte några gemensamma lösningar. Vi var tvungna att hantera och mobilisera våra resurser inte bara inom diplomati utan också inom ekonomi och humanitär hjälp. Sen kom andra kriser och andra lärdomar och medlemsstaterna var bättre på att koordinera. Europeiska utrikestjänsten är ett resultat av dessa lärdomar.

Men den senaste krisen i Ukraina har visat att EU måste vara ännu bättre på att koordinera sina intressen och sin utrikes- och försvarspolitik.

Lissabonfördraget har gett Europaparlamentet mer insyn även när det gäller EU:s externa relationer, men det är till syvende och sist medlemsstaterna som bestämmer om olika konkreta åtgärder, t.ex. sanktioner.

Men vi måste också vara bättre på att föra en aktiv dialog med våra medborgare och det civila samhället. Utan denna dialog blir det svårt att förklara och försvara våra värderingar.

Utvecklingen i vårt grannskap borde inte vara någon överraskning. Vi har fått signaler under ganska lång tid, men vi måste bli bättre på att reagera snabbare och agera på ett preventivt sätt. Vår gemensamma utrikes- och säkerhetspolitik måste vara just politik, med tydliga prioriteringar, och inte krishantering så som det hittills ofta har varit.


  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). - Arvoisa puhemies, Euroopan unionin perustajaisää Robert Schumania on usein siteerattu, kun hän sanoi, että Euroopan unioni kehittyy kriisien kautta. Tällä hetkellä Euroopan naapurustossa palaa ja talouskriisi ei ota lientyäkseen. Eli nämä kriisit antavat mahdollisuuden myös siihen, että Euroopan unionin yhteinen ulko- ja turvallisuuspolitiikka kehittyy.

Lady Ashton, te sanoitte aivan oikein, että kaikki isot haasteet vaativat yhteistyötä, ja te sanoitte oikein myös, että Euroopan unionin ulkopolitiikan vahvuus riippuu myös jäsenvaltioista, ei lady Ashtonista tai neuvostosta, vaan jäsenvaltioista ja Euroopan parlamentista. Se, mistä olen huolestunut, on se, mihin ette tekään syventynyt, eli mikä on Euroopan unionin yhteinen Venäjä-politiikka. Niin kuin täällä on sanottu, presidentti Putin itse asiassa nauraa tällä hetkellä Euroopan unionille. Meidän täytyy kehittää yhteinen Venäjä-politiikka.


  Charles Goerens (ALDE). - Monsieur le Président, tout a été dit et redit sur les crises actuelles. Mon point, cependant, a trait à l'autorité et au respect qui doivent revenir tout naturellement à la haute représentante de l'Union pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité.

Les autorités des États membres pourraient bien contribuer au renforcement du respect de la fonction de la haute représentante en refusant d'interférer dans l'action de Mme Ashton et en se rangeant derrière elle et sa politique, plutôt que d'essayer de l'éclipser du devant de la scène.

C'est à nous qu'il revient de défendre l'autorité de sa fonction en signalant, le cas échéant, aux puissances étrangères que c'est la haute représentante qui s'exprime en notre nom et non pas celui ou celle que leurs dirigeants veulent bien nous imposer. Si l'on pouvait au moins s'entendre sur cela, on aurait déjà fait un grand pas en avant, en commençant, par exemple, par adopter cette attitude dans le cadre de la crise ukrainienne.


  Alojz Peterle (PPE). - Trdim, da je v tem mandatu na podlagi Lizbonske pogodbe pod vašim vodstvom prišlo do večje enotnosti skupne zunanje in varnostne politike Evropske zveze. Med uspehi pa vam čestitam posebej k napredku v odnosih med Srbijo in Kosovom, kar pomeni odličen in nujen dosežek znotraj same Evrope.

Če hočemo zaključiti projekt združene Evrope v jugovzhodni Evropi, je nujen tudi napredek glede Makedonije in Bosne in Hercegovine. Izzivi, ki smo jih doživeli v Afriki, na Bližnjem vzhodu in drugod v sosedstvu kažejo, da stabilnost v demokratičnih okvirih ni povsod zagotovljena.

Z dvemi izredno pomembnimi strateškimi partnerji, z Rusijo in Turčijo, pa imamo pomembne razlike v pogledih na demokracijo in partnerstvo samo. K temu je povsem jasno, da bo več držav v sosedstvu v demokratični tranziciji dolgo soočenih z vprašanjem dobrega vladanja. Temu vprašanju je treba v bodoče posvetiti več pozornosti, ne samo v Ukrajini.

Gospa podpredsednica, visoka predstavnica, ob koncu bi se vam rad zahvalil za zaupanje, ki ste mi ga izkazali z imenovanji za opazovalne misije v Afriki.


  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). - W trakcie debaty padło stwierdzenie, że po Ukrainie mamy podobną sytuację, psychologicznie podobną sytuację, jak po upadku muru berlińskiego. Jest w tym dużo prawdy. Dzisiaj, mówiąc na temat polityki zagranicznej i bezpieczeństwa, pytamy się, jaka ma być dynamika tejże polityki, po tym, co się stało na Ukrainie, po tym doświadczeniu. Jak zapobiec fragmentaryzacji Europy? Jak poradzić sobie z obroną, zadbać o integralność terytorialną również naszych sąsiadów? Próbą dla Unii jest skuteczna pomoc dla Ukrainy, zarówno ta polityczna, jak i gospodarcza. Niezwłoczne podpisanie umowy o strefie wolnego handlu, również zrealizowanie tego dobrze przyjętego pakietu pomocy finansowej, ale również przyspieszenie – i to podkreślam – przyspieszenie umów o stowarzyszeniu z Gruzją i podpisanie umów o stowarzyszeniu z Gruzją i Mołdawią. To jest bardzo zasadne.

Pytanie, czy będziemy zjednoczeni w swej różnorodności, bo przecież obok aneksji Krymu, zagrożenia militarnego, mamy również problem bezpieczeństwa energetycznego i relacji gospodarczych. Mamy przykłady, że różnie definiujemy interesy, odchodzimy od wspólnego stanowiska Unii jako całości. Pytanie, czy jesteśmy gotowi na przykład na wspólnotę energetyczną? Gratulując sprawozdania koledze Danjeanowi, zgadzam się, że konieczne jest zdefiniowanie strategii, wyłonienie priorytetów oraz dobra koordynacja.


  Inese Vaidere (PPE). - Lai varētu runāt par kopējās ārējas un drošības politikas attīstību, jāizvērtē Eiropas Savienības reakcija uz notikumiem Ukrainā un Krievijas agresiju Krimā. Uzskatu, ka reakcija ir bijusi novēlota un neefektīva.

Pirmkārt, laika faktors. Eštones kundze, Jums jānodrošina, ka ārlietu ministri nekavējoties saskaņo savu pozīciju, neraugoties uz to, ka krīze izceļas brīvdienās vai ārpus darba laika. Nav pieņemama situācija, kad Krimā krīze sākās sestdien, taču dalībvalstu ārlietu ministri uz sanāksmi Briselē sanāca tikai pirmdienas vēlā pēcpusdienā. Arī 2008.[nbsp ]gadā, kad Krievija iebruka Gruzijā, tas notika brīvdienās — Olimpisko spēļu laikā, un Eiropas Savienības reakcija bija tikpat gausa.

Otrkārt, efektivitāte. Uzskatu, ka, ja krīzes pašā sākumā būtu vismaz piedraudēts ar stingrām sankcijām Krievijas prezidenta administrācijai, Krievijas domes deputātiem, Gazprom un Rosneft vadītājiem un viņu ģimenēm, iespējams, tas būtu varējis atturēt Krieviju no tālākas eskalācijas Krimā.

Labi zināms, cik labprāt Krievijas elite mūsu dalībvalstīs atpūšas, iepērkas, studē. Bez šādām sankcijām, ko valdošās aprindas sajustu ikdienā, mūsu rīcība nepanāks nekādas izmaiņas Maskavas politikā. Ne velti Ukrainas vēstnieks Eiropas Savienībā līdzšinējās sankcijas ir nodēvējis par „oda kodienu”. Vai mēs tiešām arī turpmāk vēlamies tikt pielīdzināti odiem, kuru dīkšanā neieklausās? Mums ir straujāk jāvirzās uz patiešām efektīvu ārējo un drošības politiku. Paldies!


  Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). - Gospodine predsjedniče, gospođo Ashton napravili ste racconto vaših 5 godina mandata. Ja ću se samo usredotočiti na događaje u jugoistočnoj Europi. Želim naravno ovdje spomenuti dogovor između Srbije i Kosova. Ovdje je Europska unija pokazala da može imati jedan leadership, da može ostvariti uspjeh, za razliku od situacije od prije 25 godina. U tom smislu naravno želim i pozdraviti Vašu ključnu ulogu u tome.

No, s druge strane i sami ste spomenuli kako Bosna i Hercegovina ostaje najveći izazov i tu isto tako treba reći da je vakuum zadnjih 5 godina, nepostojanje jedne artikulirane zajedničke europske politike dovelo po meni do dvije stvari. S jedne strane da je ojačao utjecaj onih država izvan Europske unije na samu situaciju u Bosni i Hercegovini, što nije uvijek bilo i pozitivno. Vidjeli smo i sada oko stajališta Europske unije prema situaciji na Krimu da se, na primjer, i Bosna i Hercegovina i Srbija nisu pridružile takvom stavu Europske unije.

S druge strane, vidjeli smo da je taj vakuum doveo do toga da su se nastavile, sada naravno političkim metodama, borbe iz devedesetih između onih snaga separatizma i snaga centralizma. Zato je za Bosnu i Hercegovinu potreban novi pristup, ne koji će smanjiti kriterije, ali da koji će ići smjernicama koje je ovaj Parlament usuglasio i izglasao velikom većinom 4. veljače.


  Eduard Kukan (PPE). - V[nbsp ]predchádzajúcich rokoch sme sa snažili posilniť úlohu nie ako rešpektovaného globálneho hráča. Nedávne udalosti najmä na Ukrajine a[nbsp ]na Kryme však ukázali, že naša vonkajšia politika má ešte slabiny. Princípy ako sloboda, ľudské práva, presadzovanie demokracie či teritoriálna suverenita sú podkopávané zvonka expanzívnou politikou Ruska, ale tiež zvnútra našou častou nerozhodnosťou. Vieme, čo by sme mali robiť. Musíme stáť za princípmi a[nbsp ]hodnotami, ktoré reprezentuje naša spoločnosť. Nie je to vždy jednoduché, ale našou povinnosťou je tieto hodnoty brániť v[nbsp ]Únii, ako aj za jej hranicami. Musíme reagovať rýchlejšie a[nbsp ]pružnejšie, pretože dnes zmeny často nastávajú zo dňa na deň. V[nbsp ]jednote by mala byť naša sila. Správa Arnauda Danjeana podčiarkuje hlavne túto časť. Plne s[nbsp ]ním súhlasím. Musíme lepšie a[nbsp ]efektívnejšie využívať zdroje, ktoré máme. Diplomatické, ekonomické, ľudské, finančné a v[nbsp ]neposlednom rade náš politický kapitál. Čiže kľúčom je lepšie využitie toho, čo máme k[nbsp ]dispozícii, iba tak môžeme byť dôležitým globálnym hráčom. Chcel by som sa tiež poďakovať Baronesse Ashtonovej za výkon jej funkcie v[nbsp ]predchádzajúcom období.




  Tonino Picula (S&D). - Gospodine predsjedniče, zajedničku vanjsku i sigurnosnu politiku doista je nemoguće analizirati odvojeno od drugih politika Unije budući da je one često snažno uvjetuju. Podržavam stoga provođenje cjelovitog pristupa u vanjskim odnosima Unije.

Ključni su instrumenti koji povezuju sprečavanje sukoba, upravljanje u kriznim situacijama, izgradnju mira, razvojnu suradnju i jačanje strateških partnerstava. Žalim što ovakav pristup nije podržan dovoljno ambicioznim proračunom u narednom sedmogodišnjem razdoblju. Premda Lisabonski sporazum sadrži brojne novine, uočljiv je izostanak napretka u dosljednosti vanjskog djelovanja Unije u područjima koji se odnose na razvoj, trgovinu, energetiku, okoliš, migracije i druga globalna pitanja. Lisabonski sporazum bio je prilika za stvarnu provedbenu reformu zajedničke vanjske i sigurnosne politike.

Međutim, ostaje činjenica da se bilo koja EU politika može nasukati na interese pojedine države, često pod pritiskom mehanizma veta. A to ozbiljno limitira Europsku uniju u odnosima prema drugim koherentnim globalnim igračima. Dilemma remains: EU soft power vs. global hard choices.


  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, the External Action Service seeks to develop a common policy and only then persuade or cajole Member States to adhere to it. I am in favour of joint action, but only when it is necessary. This must be based on prior agreement on objectives and a genuine commonality of interests, not a shared desire for aggressive adventurism.

Paragraph[nbsp ]25 states that there is a strong link between development and conflict prevention. European States should therefore stop fomenting conflict in other countries that can cause devastating recession and dire poverty. Of course, the greatest reason for stagnation in the poorest of countries is a dearth of talent. This is made worse by northern countries looting what talent they have, generation after generation. We must reverse the brain drain and encourage their brightest and best to reinvest their abilities in the countries of their birth or descent.


  Nikola Vuljanić (GUE/NGL). - Gospodine predsjedniče, zajednička vanjska politika Europske unije nejasan je i pomalo maglovit pojam. A riječ koherentnost sigurno se na nju ne može primijeniti. Zajednička stajališta rijetko postoje, osim na deklaratornoj razini, a stavovi se definiraju uglavnom tako da tzv. velike države članice zastupaju svoje ekonomske interese i s vremenom manje ih slijede.

Stoga nema poštenja. A ni snage. Pa nas tako i vide. Situacija u Bosni, položaj Makedonije, a posebno ruska invazija Ukrajine ovo potvrđuju. Nemamo rješenje. Koristimo diplomaciju kao jedino oružje, a ekonomska snaga Europske unije – naše jedino pravo oružje naše divizije ostaje uvijek u rezervi.

Zajedno, sasvim sigurno ima Europska unija mogućnost ozbiljnog utjecaja na svijet oko sebe. Ovako, partikularno postajemo neozbiljni i nevjerodostojni i tako se i osjećamo.


(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)


  Arnaud Danjean, rapporteur. - Monsieur le Président, Madame la Haute Représentante, je crois que le débat qui vient de se dérouler a bien illustré deux choses.

La première, c'est que tout le monde, dans cet hémicycle, reconnaît la vertu de l'approche globale et le fait que l'Union européenne est parfaitement armée pour conduire cette approche globale, sans doute mieux que quiconque sur la scène internationale.

Le deuxième constat est que, malgré tout, on voit bien à quel point il est difficile d'articuler et de coordonner correctement les différentes composantes de cette approche globale: les personnes qui s'occupent de développement trouvent qu'on n'en fait jamais assez pour le développement, les personnes qui font de l'humanitaire trouvent qu'il ne faut pas subordonner l'humanitaire au politique, les personnes qui veulent plus de sécurité trouvent que l'on n'en fait pas assez.

Permettez-moi, à cet égard, juste une réflexion. J'ai commencé ma carrière il y a vingt ans, dans une ville qui s'appelle Sarajevo, qui était assiégée, qui était en guerre. Nous vivions de l'humanitaire, à cette époque, à Sarajevo. Permettez-moi de vous dire que l'humanitaire, bien trop souvent, est une potion un peu amère quand il se substitue à la politique étrangère. Je crois que nous ne devons pas perdre cela de vue. Permettez-moi également de vous dire, Madame la Haute Représentante, que votre mission est un peu une mission impossible, prise entre deux tentations qui sont toujours présentes: d'une part, le péché d'orgueil des États membres, qui continuent de croire qu'ils peuvent, seuls, faire face à tous les défis qui nous entourent; d'autre part, le péché d'idéalisme de ceux qui pensent que, très vite, on pourra arriver à une seule politique à vingt-huit. C'est très compliqué de naviguer entre ces deux tentations. Je crois que c'était votre honneur...

(Le Président retire la parole à l'orateur)


  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Mr[nbsp ]President, I would like to thank everyone who has taken the trouble to participate in this debate. Can I begin by again thanking Mr Danjean very much for his report. It is extremely important that this debate continues.

I want to just pick up a few of the comments that have been made, beginning with this concept of a comprehensive approach, because I agree that if it becomes simply a catchword, it is waste of time. I recall that when I started four and a half years ago, that actually, in this city alone, it was practically impossible to bring together people working on the same geographical area or indeed, I would argue, on the same set of issues. People did not know each other. They had never met. The institutional framework provided opportunities for people to develop their individual approach or their institutional approach, but not a European Union approach. If you add into that the work going on in the Member States, you can imagine the fragmentation that existed.

So this approach was specifically designed to try to make sure that, in using our resources, we used them properly and well to bring together the work that we did, and to have a greater and better impact on the range of challenges. The Horn of Africa is often cited as the best example of that, and it is. If you speak to the Somali President or the Foreign Minister, and you speak to the people running the Atalanta military missions, to the colleagues working on development, to the African Union or to our international partners, they will all tell you that we have come a long way since the days when it was impossible to work out which bit of the Union was operating at any one time. But I would be the first to tell you that it is the beginning and not the end. There is much, much more to be done to consolidate and develop this approach and bring the instruments together. I have to tell you that, without the support of Parliament, it is not by any means a guaranteed approach.

I also want to say that I agree with those who talked about security and development going together. If you had sat, as I did, with many of the members from the African Union nations, who have been in Brussels for the Summit, they will all tell you from their own experiences that unless you have security, you cannot do development. They have to go hand in hand. That means thinking more creatively and, in a sense, more strategically, about what it is we are trying to do. You can pour money into a problem. That is easy. We can throw money at it, but if you do not get the results, it is a waste of time and resources. So you have to think about how elements of our strategy interact with each other. I think that is going to be even more important in the future.

A number of colleagues talked about energy, and it also applies there. When we were holding the US-EU Energy Council, which Secretary of State Kerry and I chair, we were making exactly the same points that have been made in this debate: the need Member States to work more closely together in an interconnected way and to think about energy supply, energy diversity, diversification in the context of climate change and environmental needs, and the impact that can be made by Member States not being reliant on individual sources of energy.

Energy policy is also about foreign policy, because we get our energy from many countries, some of which are going through extremely difficult times. The supply of sweet oil from Libya, which is used by some countries for certain parts of their work for which they need oil supplies, was badly disrupted. The only other source of that same supply is Nigeria, which itself has challenges and difficulties. So there are many ways in which we need to think about energy policy in the context of our foreign policy. Just think of the north of Iraq as another example of that.

When we think about our neighbourhood, we know that we have had dramatic change and that countries are still hugely at risk from what could happen. Nowhere is that more true than in Libya. Libya is going through terrible difficulties and actually one of the problems, in terms of the structure of Libya and how they are trying to develop their institutional framework, is that it is very difficult to support Libya in the ways that we normally do – by which I mean trying to find the people who are in the right place, with the right authority to do things. That means we have to rethink, to some extent, in a creative way, both how we collaborate with the Libyan people and the Libyan authorities, and how we work together internationally. That is exactly what we are doing now and it is why I am appointing a personal envoy to do that, because it has proved incredibly challenging.

In terms of the point that was made about the budgets, the future and the question about humanitarian aid and the Instrument for Stability, I come back to my point about comprehensiveness. The point about the Instrument for Stability is that it is designed to try to create stability. If you do not have stability and countries collapse, then you have a greater need for humanitarian aid. So these are not in competition with each other and should not be. I will be the first to support Kristalina Georgieva in the magnificent work she has done to try to get humanitarian aid and support for those in greatest need. Nowhere is that more evident than in Syria today. But we also need to have support from this Parliament to ensure what we do have, that can help create stability, or maintain stability, is able to be put to good use. I hope that this will be taken into account in the Committee on Budgets.

On defence, there are some Members of this House who I will never convince on aspects of defence, so let me just say two or three things. We are not in competition with NATO. I attend meetings of the Foreign Ministers and Defence Ministers of NATO. We work closely with NATO to do two or three things. One is that our membership is slightly different, so there are ways in which we can engage countries to enable us to think more strategically about defence and security matters. Secondly, there are times when NATO would not wish to be in the front line because of its very specific role, and here it can look to the European Union to help fulfil obligations. The Central African Republic initiative will be launched this week. There are places where it is better to have an EU presence than a NATO presence. That is not me saying that. That is what NATO would say. Thirdly, there is work to be done in support of what NATO does and what we do. When I think about the lessons we have learned in these last three or four years about the way in which we need collaboration, this is not about loss of sovereignty, but about collaboration to ensure that we have the assets that are going to be needed in times of conflict – times that are changing and yet seem now to remain the same. So they are different, but they are complementary. One of the most important elements of this is complementarity. I may not convince everybody, but that is what the purpose of all this has been. We are not weakening NATO. Our purpose is to strengthen all that we do on defence. I think this going to be an important part of the Defence Ministers’ meeting which I will chair the week after next, but also in the build-up to the NATO summit which will take place in Wales in September.

I also agree with what has been said about Moldova, and I would mention Georgia. It is very important that we get these agreements in place for them. I also agree about Bosnia Herzegovina, because I have spent a lot of time talking with political leaders in Bosnia Herzegovina to develop a broader approach and a growth and jobs compact for them, as they are looking at record levels of unemployment. It was 38% – and over 50% for young people – when I was last there a couple of weeks ago.

That brings me to the point made about employment and workers. One of the biggest challenges we face in our neighbourhood is the number of young people. Think about the communities that we are working with, where there are huge numbers of young people who want a future and are looking for good educational opportunities, employment prospects, and the future development of their lives. They are now more and more interconnected with each other and, unless we have good and strong policies to support those young people across our neighbourhood, I think our societies are going to find it much tougher to be able to develop in the way that we would wish, with peace and security at the heart of them.

For those who are worried about how many people are in the Service, I have checked. Twenty-one per cent of posts as officials in the External Action Service are held by people from Member States who joined after 2004 and, at higher levels, it is 23%, which is more than the population percentage of those countries. I am not saying that I am complacent about that, but actually the record is pretty good.

Let me finish by making a couple of points that I think are really important. At the heart of everything that we do, we have to keep the values that we hold dear. If we do not do that, we will have failed. The promotion of democracy, respect for all individuals and the right of people to have their voices heard is a fundamental and crucial element of what all the nations that have become part of the European Union stand for and of the aspirations of so many people who see the EU as a valuable force for the future.

The Treaty gives this position certain powers. It does not give it powers to do things that I sometimes hear Members of this Parliament suggest that we should do. It is an intergovernmental Foreign Affairs Council. It is an intergovernmental process at one level, linked to a Community method and developing and strengthening what that means for the roles that can be played, not just by an individual, but by a service and an approach that has been part of a Treaty. It is work in progress, with a long way to go. I hope that, as this develops, you will see the potential for what it can be, supported by all Member States, because they are crucial – and I am very proud of the support I get from the Foreign Affairs Council and from the Member States – but also linked to the aspirations of what this could be.

This is not about loss. This is about gain. Every Member State participating in the EU process gains from it. They are able to better project their power and their strength. It is true for the one that I know best; it is true for every single one represented here. I wish you good luck and all the best for the future. For myself, the first thing I will wish for will be a holiday.





  El Presidente. - Se cierra el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar hoy a las 11.30 horas.

Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 149 del Reglamento)


  Marino Baldini (S&D), napisan. – Razvitak nove multipolarne međunarodne scene s novim akterima dovodi nas do potrebe da primjenjujemo drugačije, poboljšane pristupe djelovanja prema vanjskoj politici. Vjerujem da s adekvatnim načinom komunikacije i promicanja interesa EU-a, s naglaskom na održavanje stabilnosti na globalnoj sceni, možemo se primjereno suočiti s novim poretkom i sporovima koji se pojavljuju na međunarodnoj sceni.

Drugim riječima, jačanjem suradnje i usklađenosti relevantnih partnera želimo uspostaviti transparentniju razmjenu informacija i uvelike ukorijeniti koncept integriranog cjelovitog pristupa u vanjskom djelovanju. Prisutna međuzavisnost među državama pokazuje nam izuzetnu važnost kooperacije i da jedino zajedničkim naporom i suradnjom možemo dostići željeni cilj. Humanitarno djelovanje također je određena odgovornost koje moramo biti svjesni i nužno je da pripomognemo u kriznim situacijama onima kojima je potrebno. Stoga ne smijemo izostaviti važnost ove uloge i da je analiza ranog upozorenja neizostavna stavka potrebna za napredak.

Sve u svemu, vjerujem da je navedeni prijedlog korak prema naprijed i da će nam omogućiti koherentnost vanjskog djelovanja koja nam je trenutno potrebna.


  Слави Бинев (EFD), в писмена форма. Уважаеми колеги, напълно подкрепям ефективната координация и последователността във външната дейност на Европейския съюз. За тази цел е нужно да се подбри настоящият механизъм, защото за всички ни тази нужда е видна. Обръщам внимание, че освен координирана, тази политика трябва задължително да бъде и своевременна. Тези два фактора – съгласуваност и своевременност – са решаващи при създаване на впечатление за цялост и правилно функциониране на ЕС пред нашите международни партньори. Ще подкрепя думите си с един антипример. Правителството на България закъсня изклчюително много с позицията си спрямо ситуацията в Крим. Докато се чудеха каква позиция да заемат, президентът, доказвайки за пореден път своята некомпетентност, изказа становище по темата пред европейските медии. А едва след това свика националния съвет по сигурност да решат относно позицията на България за Крим. Пожелавам подобни некоординирани действия никога да не се случват на ЕС.


  Ioan Enciu (S&D), în scris. Strategia europeană în materie de securitate și politică de apărare comună trebuie să vizeze toate vulnerabilitățile UE în actualul context global – de la reducerea dependenței energetice, până la combaterea tendințelor antieuropene și a decalajelor îngrijorătoare dintre statele membre. Criza economică a provocat tensiuni social-politice, care riscă să compromită valorile ce stau la baza proiectului european, cum este dreptul la liberă circulație. O Europă divizată riscă să nu facă față provocărilor geopolitice, iar criza ucraineană este un avertisment sever în acest sens.

Sărăcia din țările flancului estic al UE este o amenințare directă la adresa securității europene. Subdezvoltarea permanentizată în unele din noile țări membre are consecințe grave asupra solidarității și încrederii în proiectul european. Politica ușilor închise unor categorii de cetățeni europeni, promovată tot mai agresiv de forțele extremiste din țările fondatoare ale Uniunii, riscă să amplifice discriminarea și frustrările social-economice ale cetățenilor din noile state membre. Aceste tensiuni pot șubrezi grav Uniunea Europeană în fața potențialelor amenințări externe. De aceea, solicit un sprijin masiv și urgent al UE pentru lansarea unui proces de dezvoltare economică a României, Bulgariei și a celorlalte state fragile din estul UE.


  Valdemar Tomaševski (ECR), raštu. – Gerbiamas pirmininke, Europos Sąjungos požiūris į išorės veiksmus yra svarbus kuriant bendrą tarptautinės pagalbos politiką. Daugelyje pasaulio šalių vyksta dideli geostrateginiai pokyčiai, ypač siekiant sukurti daugiapoliškumą tarptautiniu mastu, kuris didina šalių ir žemynų tarpusavio priklausomybę. Europos Sąjunga, vyraujant tokioms geopolitinėms nuotaikoms, turi išsaugoti savo vertybes ir skatinti jas tarptautiniu mastu. Šalys narės privalo geriau vykdyti savo įsipareigojimus aktyviai remdamos išorės santykius su trečiosiomis šalimis, reikalaujančiomis paramos bei pagalbos. Tai turi ypatingai didelę reikšmę teikiant humanitarinę pagalbą. Būtina prisiminti, kad humanitarinės pagalbos taisyklių laikymasis (nepriklausomybė, nešališkumas, neutralumas) reikalauja ypatingo mūsų dėmesio. Saugus priėjimas prie krizės apimtos liaudies ir humanitarinę pagalbą teikiančios organizacijos darbuotojų saugumas visų pirma priklauso nuo valdančiųjų pagalbos apimtoje srityje. Dėl tos priežasties jie turi būti nepriklausomi nuo šališkų politinių įtakų. Humanitarinės organizacijos gebėjimas teikti pagalbą ir pati humanitarinė pagalba jokiais būdais negali būti naudojama politiniais tikslais. Norint pasiekti liaudį, ji turi būti ne tik neutrali, bet ir pastebima. Tik integruotas požiūris gali užtikrinti reikalingą pagalbą šalims ir palaikyti kovą su skurdu.

Teisinė informacija - Privatumo politika