Volledig verslag van de vergaderingen

Woensdag 11 maart 2015 - Straatsburg

14. Jaarverslag van de hoge vertegenwoordiger van de Unie voor buitenlandse zaken en veiligheidsbeleid aan het Europees Parlement (debat)

  Elnök asszony. – Most pedig folytatjuk a vitát az Európai Unió külügyi és biztonságpolitikai főképviselőjének éves jelentéséről az Európai Parlament számára (A8-0039/2015).

  Elmar Brok, Berichterstatter. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Vizepräsidentin, Hohe Vertreterin, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir befinden uns seit etwa zwölf Monaten in einer außen- und sicherheitspolitischen Position – es ist gerade der Jahrestag der Annexion der Krim –, wie wir sie vorher nicht gehabt haben. Das ist eine völlig neue Lage – im Osten unseres Kontinents, in Nordafrika, in Syrien und Irak –, eine Entwicklung, die es notwendig macht, dass wir eine neue Debatte über unsere Schwerpunkte führen. Deswegen unterstützen wir auch die Idee der Hohen Vertreterinfür eine europäische Sicherheitsstrategie und möchten daran teilhaben.

Das Europäische Parlament sieht vier neue Prioritäten der gemeinsamen Außenpolitik: Unsere erste Priorität ist die Erhaltung und Stärkung der europäischen Friedensordnung. Dies ist notwendig, nachdem Russland internationales Recht gebrochen hat. Wir müssen herausfinden, wie dieses internationale Recht in Europa wieder zur Geltung kommt. Dies müssen wir klarmachen: Es geht nicht nur um die Ukraine, sondern um die Sicherheit insgesamt. Deswegen müssen die Sanktionen auch aufrechterhalten bleiben, solange das Minsker Abkommen nicht eingehalten und umgesetzt wird und die Ukraine ihre eigenen Grenzen nicht wieder wirksam kontrollieren kann. Wir haben dabei auch insgesamt die Nachbarschaftspolitik, so wie das vorgesehen ist, zu überprüfen, um sie operationeller zu machen und auch politische Schwerpunkte zu setzen.

Wir sehen zweitens, dass auch die Stabilisierung unserer südlichen Nachbarschaft von großer Bedeutung ist. Ich finde die Idee richtig, dass das nicht eins sein muss, weil dies unterschiedliche Methoden braucht, unterschiedliche Ziele hat, aber wir müssen die regionalen Akteure mit ins Boot holen. Wenn wir sehen, dass das insbesondere bedeutet, dass auch die islamischen Staaten hier eigenständige Verantwortung zu übernehmen haben, um ihre Region in Ordnung zu bringen, und wir dabei helfen können, scheint mir das eine wichtige Aufgabe zu sein, wie König Abdullah das gestern in diesem Hause sehr überzeugend vorgetragen hat.

Als Drittes müssen wir die internationale Ordnung stärken: die Frage des Klimaschutzes, die Reform des UN-Sicherheitsrats, die Einhaltung des Nichtverbreitungspakts – dazu gehören beispielsweise die Iran-Verhandlungen, die wichtiger Bestandteil einer solchen Strategie sind. Aber auch andere Akteure müssen Verantwortung übernehmen, wie China und Russland, um eine stabile und sichere globale Ordnung zuwege zu bringen.

Wir müssen viertens auch unsere internen Arbeitsweisen und Strukturen noch verändern. Ich glaube, dass wir eine größere Kohärenz zwischen den verschiedenen Politikbereichen, Akteuren und Ebenen erreichen können– der Aufbau des Auswärtigen Dienstes ist ein großer Schritt, aber da gibt es immer noch die Notwendigkeit von Verbesserungen. Ich finde es aber gut, dass die Hohe Vertreterin ihre Rolle als Vizepräsidentin der Kommission ernst nimmt und wir jetzt die Chance haben, durch eine Clusterbildung die Hybridsituation der unterschiedlichen Zuständigkeiten der Außenbeziehungen der Europäischen Union in sinnvoller Weise zu nutzen und unserem Ziel näherzukommen.

Aber das heißt auch, dass wir hier die Abkommen einhalten müssen. Das sind nicht nur die Informationsstrukturen, sondern beispielsweise auch die Zusammensetzung des Personals – ein Drittel, zwei Drittel, auch bei den höheren Positionen, auch bei den Botschaftern, das scheint in den letzten Jahren nicht eingehalten worden zu sein.

Aber ich meine, es ist auch wichtig, eine Stärkung unserer Gemeinsamen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik voranzubringen. Der Vorschlag, eine europäische Armee aufzustellen, ist ein gutes visionäres Ziel. Aber wir müssen jetzt dafür Sorge tragen, etwa im Hinblick auf den Gipfel, dass wir die im Vertrag von Lissabon vorgesehenen Möglichkeiten nutzen und endlich eine permanente strukturelle Kooperation in die Wege leiten. Die Fragen, die mit der Stärkung des EAD zu tun haben, Fragen, die mit Beschaffung und Forschung zu tun haben, scheinen mir wichtige Punkte zu sein, um unsere Möglichkeiten zu verbessern. Die Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union geben dreimal so viel Geld wie Russland für Verteidigung aus und haben mehr Soldaten als die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, aber mit weit weniger operationellen Ergebnissen. Unsere Steuerzahler haben ein Anrecht darauf, dass über die Schaffung europäischer Synergieeffekte mehr Ergebnis für weniger Geld zustande kommt. Deswegen bitten wir Sie, Frau Hohe Vertreterin, dieses im Juni beim Gipfel vorzutragen und mit konkreten Vorschlägen zu kommen.

  Federica Mogherini, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, first of all let me take the opportunity to pay tribute to the long-standing support of this Parliament for a strong European Union in the world. I also want to commend the vision and the perseverance of the rapporteur Elmar Brok. I know he has called for many years for the European Union to develop a more proactive, forward-looking approach to its foreign policy – in other words to develop a more strategic view of its role in the world, and let me say that I could not agree more with this kind of approach.

Today’s debate is for me mainly a good opportunity to listen to good ideas, to learn from your insight. In the spirit of your report I also take it as a chance to look above and beyond the immediate crises that garner our attention and frustrations as well. Indeed, the breadth, depth and complexity of the challenges we face is such that we cannot afford other than to do many things, and rather fast, at the same time.

First, obviously, we must tackle decisively and with all our instruments together the immediate and urgent crises we face on our doorsteps, from Ukraine to Libya. I would say that we have the opportunity every month to discuss – not just in plenary but also in the Commission, in the committee – many of those, and we will have a debate on Libya further on in the afternoon.

This crisis requires a sort of 24/7 attention. We have just had an informal foreign affairs meeting in Riga last Friday and Saturday, which I debriefed the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) on, and we are going to have a Foreign Affairs Council on Monday on, in particular, the crisis in Ukraine and the situation in Libya. This was also the core of my talks on Monday with the UN Secretary-General in New York, and the content of my briefing to the UN Security Council, also on Monday.

I guess most of your interventions will also come back to the crisis issue so I might be relatively briefer on that and pay a little bit more attention at this stage to the rest of it because, secondly, while we do everything possible to solve the tragic situations in our Neighbourhood, we must also work to strengthen our partnerships with other regions and key players which, distant as they may seem, are also essential to build the rules—based global order that is advocated by your report. This is essential to manage the emergencies of today, to prevent the crises of tomorrow, and to shape the order of the future, as we cannot really say we have a world order today.

I can mention TTIP and its crucial economic and geopolitical importance; or Latin America and the Caribbean which we will discuss in April at the Foreign Affairs Council as a strategic item ahead of the summit CELAC will hold in June; Asia, rightly highlighted by your report, or indeed Africa, where we must build a new relationship based on the logic of a true partnership among equals. We will have a full discussion on Africa next Monday with the Foreign Ministers.

Our relations with international and regional organisations, be it the UN, the League of Arab States, the African Union, ASEAN, or CELAC, are of paramount importance in this regard and, as recommended in your report, they take a significant amount of my energy.

In this context, I also want to mention two international negotiations that will shape the contours of the future in a decisive way and where we are engaging diplomatically, but also politically, at all levels with our partners: climate change and post-2015.

We have a special responsibility and a special role to play as Europeans, and we will discuss mainly the issue of post-2015 with the Development Ministers tomorrow but, as you might know, I decided to work on a diplomatic action plan at the beginning of last January to make sure that we get to the Climate Conference in Paris in December with not only good and concrete results, but also a clear leadership role for the European Union. This is what the world expects from us, and our citizens, too.

Third, while we do all that, which means tackling the crises, developing partnerships and negotiating the agreements that should underpin a better world, we must also think further to develop the kind of strategic ammunition that will enable the European Union to be more effective and influential in the future. We cannot hide behind the routines of the past. The biggest risk in these risky times is, I think, not to take any risk, because the European Union can and must do more and better than that, better than developing partnerships, negotiating agreements, managing crises and hopefully solving them.

This is necessary but it is not sufficient and it would certainly be enough already for a 24/7 commitment. But in these times of turbulence and often unprecedented changes – as you rightly said – we need to develop a new, broader and more ambitious approach. We need to start thinking in a really strategic way.

As part of this strategic work, I should of course mention the work I have launched on the future of the European Security Strategy – or rather the European Security and Foreign Policy Strategy, as we might possibly find we need to do – but also the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and the preparation of the June European Council on Defence which we will have the chance to debate in May on the basis of the Danjean report.

Our duties do not, of course, end here and, as your report rightly underlines, the European Union must be a credible actor if it is to succeed in any of these challenges. So we must make the European Union, including its policies and tools, faster, flexible and more effective.

I would like to thank the rapporteur for the many ideas included in this report. I have to say that I agree with most of them and I am actually already implementing many of them, including three very important ones to me.

First of all, playing my role as Vice—President to the full to improve the coherence and consistency of our internal and external policies: not just the group of external Commissioners that meets regularly every month – and more than once a month sometimes – but also the work we are doing together with other Commissioners and Vice—Presidents on energy, counter—terrorism and security, and migration, just to mention a few. Migration will be tackled at the next Foreign Affairs Council, together with Commissioner Avramopoulos, as we need to cross the lines between the internal and external instruments we have.

Second, the work to increase coordination between the European Union and the European Union Member States, looking for synergies and common action – I think the work we have undertaken on Bosnia and Herzegovina is a perfect example of that – and ensuring that initiatives of the European Union Member States are developed into a broader and more effective European Union framework, as was the case for the Minsk Agreement and the negotiations that were conducted in the Normandy Format.

Third, to make the Foreign Affairs Council more strategic and operational in its working methods. Here let me, maybe, try to make a suggestion also about the working methods of this Parliament; maybe we could find ways of having a more strategic and focused way of working in plenary for our sessions too.

This work is big, your report is very comprehensive and time is short, but I will try to address some elements that are key to me. First, the European Security Strategy. Eleven years ago Javier Solana did some excellent work which is still very inspiring, still referring to an endeavour that was putting the European Union in the condition of being the most prosperous and secure which, I am afraid, is definitely not the case anymore. Everything has changed and we have changed very much as well.

It is important to take stock of the dramatic changes in the landscape surrounding us, changes affecting both our more immediate proximity and the world at large and, in fact, in Europe as well. This is why, as I announced in Parliament some time ago, I have launched a process of strategic reflection to guide European Union foreign security policy. The new strategy will give us a sense of direction and the ability to set priorities and to make choices. It should also help us determine how best to mobilise all our instruments and develop partnerships to serve our common goals.

My intention is go through successive steps. As a first step, I intend to identify the changes which have occurred and the challenges and opportunities they present the European Union with. At the same time, I intend to assess the performance of the European Union policies – CFSP and CSDP as well as external EU policies – against this challenging backdrop. Is the European Union up to the task? This is the big question we have to answer.

The next step should be the strategy itself: a common vision identifying the ground for common actions. A common European interest identifying our role in the world should also help develop a narrative to communicate our foreign policy to a wider audience and make it a collective, common tool. This is why, although it is a task that I am honoured to take on myself as a responsibility, I see it as a collective effort.

European policy and even more than that, European foreign policy, is first of all about effective teamwork. Sometimes I am accused of being naïve on that, but I really do think working together is the key to successful diplomatic and political work when it comes to foreign security policy.

I am reaching out, even in these weeks and days, not only to governments, but also to think tanks, NGOs, the foreign policy community at large, and certainly to parliaments: national parliaments, as well as the European Parliament. Such an engagement with the European Parliament is for me a real added value and I am certain it will continue throughout the process.

Anyway, today we are expected to discuss not just the Strategic Review, because we will have opportunities to do so in the months that will come, but the report which Parliament has prepared on the basis of the report adopted by the Council. I took the liberty of introducing the discussion with some remarks on our strategic approach to foreign policy to underline the convergence of views between what I am personally trying to do and the course of action which is advocated in Parliamentʼs report in this specific respect.

The Neighbourhood is the first and more immediate test of this ambition. If Europe does not succeed in addressing the difficult crises and challenges it faces in the immediate proximity of its borders, it cannot be the credible international actor which Parliamentʼs report rightly calls for the European Union to be.

Thinking and acting more strategically in our neighbourhood is an imperative. We have launched the review of the European neighbourhood policy (ENP). It was about one decade ago that the European Union adopted our neighbourhood policy. It was meant to bring stability and prosperity all around us and, I can say, 10 years afterwards, that reality has severely tested this noble aspiration.

In all fairness, there are a few qualified success stories in our Neighbourhood. I could cite Georgia and Moldova to the east, Tunisia and Morocco to the south or the way in which Lebanon and Jordan, whose strategic importance is rightly emphasised in the report, are coping with the daunting challenge of accommodating millions of refugees, and I would like here to thank his Majesty the King of Jordan for the excellent words he addressed to this Chamber yesterday.

To be sure, a reviewed ENP would not alone solve the crises; not for sure in Ukraine, in Libya or in Syria. But it might equip countries like Moldova, Georgia, Tunisia, Morocco, and perhaps Jordan and Lebanon, with state structures and resources to resist external and internal pressures more effectively, and also provide us Europeans with the truly equal political partnership we need to work effectively in our region, to make common interests, as we have common challenges, emerge and to develop partnerships that are able to make us more effective in the region.

We need to reflect on what has gone right and wrong in the ENP and we should not shy away from the challenge of revisiting the scope of the neighbourhood itself, so as to take into proper account, for example, the link with Africa, as suggested by the report itself.

We also need to look further into differentiation which Parliamentʼs report identifies as a key ingredient for future policies. We are conducting a deep and wide consultation and we need to strengthen local ownership of the policy by our partners and make sure that their views on the policy become central too.

We need to be more strategic on all our policies, all of them. We need to broaden our understanding of development. 2015 is a crucial year for us – it is the European Year for Development. It is also the year where we negotiate the post-2015 Development Agenda and the Millennium Development Goals have shown us that setting goals for ourselves helps us in advancing, but we have also seen some of the limits. We did not sufficiently take into account the interconnections between development, human rights, and peace and security.

The European Union is uniquely placed to make a contribution to a more comprehensive, effective, development policy. We need to connect the dots to make the difference: by focusing on all dimensions of development, by working with all partners around the globe, including the new players, and by addressing shortcomings in our own societies for the sake of equality, but also for our own credibility.

Another policy where we need more strategic thinking is, for sure, our policy on defence. We have to finally build a common European political will that will make it possible for us to use all the tools we already have in the Treaty, as the rapporteur just mentioned. I know I can count not only on my personal efforts and conviction but also on the commitment, in this respect, of all of you. I know how this Parliament is strongly committed to developing such a policy.

We will devote a specific debate to this issue in May, but let me say that the European Council on defence in June is first of all very important: it is on defence; secondly, it should be more than a stocktaking exercise. To be credible, our words must be matched with deeds and the narrative is clear. If defence, as the European Council has established, matters now even more than ever, and the European Union has to act as a provider of security, it needs to be backed with proper capabilities and a stronger defence industry. And here, let me recall the words of Mr Brok about the role of the European Defence Agency and I am personally committed to increasing its role.

Parliamentʼs report rightly reminds us that the full potential of the Treaty has still to be fully used: for example, the provisions on permanent structured corporation. Let me assure you about my personal commitment to building a political space for a European defence to be developed. And here we will need to work together to make sure that the Member States, public opinion, and national parliaments will be on board in this exercise.

The next debate we have on the agenda will allow us to discuss another important element on which we will need to be more strategic – our human rights policy, which I consider to be essential – as well as others which I will refer to very quickly but which we can come back to in the debate on this, be it energy, counterterrorism or migration. These are fields where we need to work not only inside the Commission in a cross—sectorial way, but also among these different institutions – the Commission, the Council and Parliament – in a more coordinated way.

I know I have been too long, so let me stop here. I just would like to finish with two general remarks, or rather reminders. First, the old dividing lines between foreign and domestic policies are, I think, a thing of the past. The European Unionʼs best answer to the new reality we are facing is to cross the lines between foreign and domestic policies. We will only be able to project our power, be it soft or hard, outside if we are strong inside. A strong CFSP needs a powerful European Union in the first place and this is a task that concerns all of us.

Second, let us not be confused or naive. If our Member States want to master their fate in today’s fast changing and difficult world they can only do it by thinking and acting together. We can persist in the illusory satisfaction of multiple national strategies that might sound very good on paper but lead, as we have painfully learned in our history, to unavoidable deception. Or, we can be truthful to ourselves and to each other and invest in our collective power as the only reasonable path to a future where our views and aspirations matter.

The old narrative about a clash between national and European interests is simply wrong, is simply out of time. Strong policy does not call for Member States to give up their foreign policies; on the contrary each country would serve better its national interest by maximising our common action with their strength and expertise.

Strong European Union, what I have not hesitated to call in this very same Chamber a superpower, is simply the only alternative to the mistakes of the past or the fortress of the future. Some have forgotten the tragic and repeated mistakes of our European history and let me say: I have not. Others resort to the politics of fear and the illusion that we can lock ourselves into a fortress Europe: I do not. If we do not tackle the problems of the world, the problems of the world will come to us.

Common foreign and security policy is not just about diplomacy or security. It is above all, as you know very well in this House, about political will. We face tough choices and Europe needs to be pragmatic and ambitious at once: we need high ambitions; we need common sense and collective action. I know I can count on you to overcome the temptation of the old way of thinking because in the next few years our choices will matter more than we can already imagine today. Thank you very much for the report and for the debate which I will be listening to.

  Indrek Tarand, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for her speech.

As usual, it has been a great honour and pleasure to work with Mr Brok, not only because of his great sense of humour but also because of his expertise and his knowledge of foreign policy. My task is more complicated because I have to tackle the budget side of foreign policy and, as you know, that is not always easy.

Every policy area, including that of common security and foreign policy, must have proper financial back—up. That is why, Ms Mogherini, I would like to ask you to become a true, specific, strategic and forceful ally to Ms Georgieva in the Commission’s effort to overcome the payment problems, because in 2013 we were short EUR 80 million for foreign policy goals. Last year was no better, so we have to do something about that, and I urge you to apply all the pressure you can on the Member States’ governments to address this issue.

If you put up a good fight on the issue of the budget, I would like to offer you the icing on the cake by transferring special representatives’ monies from the Commission’s hands to those of the European External Action Service. I am not someone who accuses you of being naïve – au contraire, I can easily envisage you standing in front of us within a year and explaining to us the way to move towards a united European defence force.

  Andrej Plenković, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, I would like to thank the High Representative for her exposé, which was always succinct and to the point. High Representative, to paraphrase Henry Kissinger, if there was a question about who one should call in Europe on a general level, we have solved it with your function.

I think we always knew that for foreign policy in the European Parliament we should ring Elmar Brok, who has been a long-standing chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) and a guarantor of continuity in our strategic foreign policy thinking. Therefore, I thank him for a very good report which suggests the main aspects we should work towards – namely the credibility of our international action, the comprehensive character of using all aspects of our work, including political, security, defence, economic, trade, development, humanitarian leverage, and especially trying to have the flexibility on a budgetary level to use the global actor role for the European Union that we are all working for. I very much welcome the fact that you are going in the direction of a strategic review because doing this in an open manner will be your legacy as the High Representative in looking at how the EU should function on the foreign, security and defence policy in the years to come.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), Kékkártyás kérdés. – Képviselő úrhoz szeretném intézni azt a kérdést, hogy bár ugye közös külpolitikáról beszélünk, valahogy mindig kicsit szégyenlősek vagyunk akkor, amikor ezt az egységet valamelyik tagország kormánya gyengíti vagy sérti. Én tisztelettel kérdezném, hogy ezen aspektusban tud-e Ön szerint ez a Parlament vagy az Ön pártja valamit tenni, hogy egységet tudjunk produkálni Mogherini asszony mögé?

  Andrej Plenković (PPE), blue-card answer. – Mr Szanyi, I think that the message of European solidarity and unity in terms of foreign policy credibility is essential. Therefore, I regard the work that Ms Mogherini is doing with a cluster of foreign—policy—oriented Commissioners as a first step, and the close dialogue that she has with the foreign ministers, with us in Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, and also with all the delegations involved in foreign policy, is an important signal – and an incentive – indicating that all the Member States should be fully aligned with the main strategic tracks of our foreign policy.

  Ioan Mircea Pașcu, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, this year’s report is a welcome departure from the usual pattern of the last few years, primarily because it places the global order under an increasing challenge to the centre of its discourse.

Mr Brok’s report starts correctly with a thorough analysis of the current strategic environment, noting that our neighbourhood – both east and south – is in turmoil, while the EU has become inward—looking.

Defence, where the latest developments indicate a change of security paradigm in Europe, is another field of attention. Through the illegal annexation of Crimea, Russia gets a new Kaliningrad—type of outpost, this time on the Black Sea. The author considers that the EU could and should do more with respect to defence – exemplifying with territorial defence relations with NATO, the fight against cyber-attacks and the response to new phenomena, such as the hybrid war employed by Russia against Ukraine. Under the new circumstances created by the illegal annexation of Crimea and the subsequent destabilisation of Ukraine, relations with Russia, including in the energy sector, require a revisitation.

With respect to the southern neighbourhood, the report is asking for a thorough revision of the policy instruments and methods employed by the EU, unequivocally condemning ISIS, what it represents, its ruthless, inhuman tactics and illegal dealings generating important financial resources.

The usual references to other countries and regions of interest to the EU, the backbone of the previous reports, are now placed in the larger perspective of the global world order. In that context, Mr Brok underlines the importance of strengthening Transatlantic relations, particularly through the signing of the TTIP, the strategic answer of the West to all challenges in the current world order, allowing for the continuation of Western centrality to the current international system.

In conclusion, this report is a new, substantive and therefore valuable approach by the Parliament to the High Representative/Vice-President’s external activity on behalf of the EU. Mr Brok deserves praise for the serious work done and his extremely good cooperation with the shadow rapporteurs.

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, as war engulfs the Middle East with the emergence of terrorist ISIS, and Ukraine is being destabilised by an aggressive Russia, the global status quo that we had all become familiar with has radically changed. These are both foreign and domestic threats, as the High Representative has pointed out, common to all EU Member States, and our governments understand this phenomenon and seek CFSP common policies only when appropriate – such as tough economic sanctions against Russia and Iran.

My Group, the ECR, is particularly delighted by the strong wording shown in solidarity with Ukraine. The emerging threats now seen in the European neighbourhood region increase the importance of diversifying our Member States’ energy supplies away from the exclusive sourcing from Russian gas in particular. I welcome this emphasis and the emphasis being placed on an EU future energy union.

I also welcome the Brok report underlining the vital importance of NATO in our collective defence and, as a friend of Taiwan, the improvement in the Far East of Cross—Strait relations. Calls for more efficiency and value for money in the External Action Service are also welcomed, as is the push for better language skills for EU diplomats, particularly in Arabic and Russian.

We need nevertheless to find a CFSP approach that respects the national sovereignty and interests of our Member States, but also one that is able to identify common threats when necessary, to seek the coordination which is more effective than 28 Member States acting unilaterally or alone.

  Elnök asszony. – Tájékoztatom képviselőtársaimat, hogy a lista rendkívül hosszú. Éppen ezért, minekután a lista hosszú és csúszásban vagyunk, a képviselőtársaim „kékkártyás” kérdéseinek nem adok a későbbiekben helyt.

  Marine Le Pen (NI). – Madame la Présidente, cette explication se justifie totalement mais notre règlement nous permet, même lorsque nous sommes inscrits sur la liste des orateurs, d'user des cartons bleus.

Donc, si vous me répondez que je ne peux pas user d'un carton bleu parce que je suis sur la liste des orateurs, cela ne me paraît pas être une justification légitime.

Si vous considérez qu'à partir du moment où j'en réclame un, plus personne n'aura le droit d'en présenter, alors j'entends, bien entendu, votre justification.

  Elnök asszony. – Köszönöm szépen képviselő asszony megértését a tekintetben, hogy ez egy hosszú lista és így kék kártyás kérdéseknek, hozzászólásoknak nem tudok lehetőséget adni. Rá is térünk a következő hozzászólóra. Radoš képviselő úrnak adom meg a szót az ALDE nevében.

  Jozo Radoš, u ime kluba ALDE. – Gospođo predsjednice, gospođo Visoka predstavnice, kolegice i kolege, najprije bih želio zahvaliti gospodinu Broku na odličnom izvješću i dobroj suradnji između političkih grupa prilikom njegove izrade.

Zajednička vanjska i sigurnosna politika Europske unije stara je već petnaest godina i možda je to već samo po sebi dovoljan razlog da se pokrenu strateška promišljanja te politike. Međutim, postoje i dva vrlo sadržajna razloga za to. Prvi je poteškoće s kojima se suočava Europska unija u provođenju vanjske i sigurnosne politike što je vrlo jasno naznačeno u ovom izvješću, što naravno u mnogim aspektima uništava vjerodostojnost Europske unije i postizanje onih ciljeva koje bi ona mogla. Najvažnije poteškoće koje su spomenute u ovom izvješću, koje ja ovdje ponavljam i pozdravljam da su spomenuta jer je važno suočiti se s problemom da bi ga se moglo riješiti, izostanak je jedinstvenosti i koordinacije pojedinih politika Europske unije, pogotovo vanjskih i unutarnjih politika Europske unije i politike Europske unije i njenih država članica. Drugi, jednako važan razlog za novo strateško promišljanje vanjske i sigurnosne politike Europske unije, osobito je pogoršano stanje u okolišu Europske unije, nezapamćeno, kao što piše u izvješću, od samoga početka europskih integracija. Zbog toga Europska unija nije u stanju ostvariti ciljeve i imati onaj utjecaj na kreiranje mira i stabilnosti u svijetu, a pogotovo u svom neposrednom okružju, koji može s obzirom na svoju snagu.

Zato pozivam Visoku predstavnicu zajedno s Vijećem, Komisijom, Europskim parlamentom, da krenu u promišljanje nove strateške politike Europske unije na vanjskom i sigurnosnom području.

  Sabine Lösing, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Ich wiederhole hier noch mal die Worte von Papst Franziskus: Wir stecken mitten im Dritten Weltkrieg, allerdings in einem Krieg in Raten. Es gibt Wirtschaftssysteme, die, um überleben zu können, Krieg führen müssen. Also produzieren und verkaufen sie Waffen. Nun will Herr Juncker Zähne zeigen und fordert die Bereitschaft, die sogenannten europäischen Werte mit einer europäischen Armee zu schützen.

Ich will hier gar nicht debattieren, ob so eine Armee überhaupt realistisch wäre. Doch es ist die Frage, welche europäischen Werte denn hier gemeint sind. Aus meiner Sicht geht es um das Erkämpfen und die Umsetzung neoliberaler Politik. Diese verbessert aber nicht das Leben der Menschen in den Ländern z. B. der südlichen oder der östlichen Nachbarschaft. Für die südlichen Nachbarländer bedeutete das nämlich, dass das Handelsbilanzdefizit zwischen 2006 und 2010 sprunghaft auf mehr als das Zwanzigfache anstieg. Die damit einhergehende Verarmung war auch ein Auslöser der arabischen Aufstände 2011.

Die Schwerindustrie in den östlichen Regionen der Ukraine wird wohl zugrunde gehen, die Menschen dort werden nicht alle von der Freihandelszone profitieren. Auch dies sind Gründe für Konflikte, sicher nicht die einzigen. Aber in dem Bericht fehlt jegliche Kritik an der eigenen Politik. Armut ist und bleibt eine der wesentlichen Konfliktursachen in der Welt. In dem Bericht wird eine Verschlechterung des sicherheitsrelevanten Umfeldes beklagt. Militär aber ist als Reparaturbetrieb einer verfehlten Außenpolitik ungeeignet.

  Tamás Meszerics, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, first of all, let me thank the rapporteur, Mr Brok, who was very thoughtful and careful in the formulations of this report. I think it is a very strong text, and of course, he was also very generous as a negotiating partner and I welcome very much that approach, which should be exemplary to all other negotiations within this House.

I believe personally that this text could serve in the future as an anchor in our debate. This could be a point to which we can return to work out future agreements in our discussions, be it about the European foreign and security policy, be it about defence or be it about neighbourhood policy. This can serve as a basic text to which we can return in order to find the minimum common ground on which we can work out the necessary broad consensus, without which a European common and foreign policy might not work.

Of course, as a Green Group, we welcome the mainstreaming of our most important priorities in the text. We welcome the emphasis given to climate protection and disarmament, which has been a long-standing request from the Green Group. It found its way into the report and we appreciate that.

The most important part of the common foreign and security policy is, of course, in the first objective. Whether it is common or not is not tested very well in peaceful times, but it is seriously tested in crises, and we are surrounded with crises which cannot be resolved or solved by any of the Member States but through common action, and that common action presupposes a common understanding and a common voice.

That common voice being the most important, I very much hope that the next Council meetings will be able to come up with that necessary common voice to serve as the foundation for future common action. We are certainly not at the limit of our capacities in foreign policy either, but there is room for improvement and this is a good starting point for that.

  James Carver, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Madam President, foreign defence and security policy is one of the few remaining bastions of sovereignty for the 28 Member States, but for how much longer? We have a High Representative, an External Action Service, a military staff, a defence agency, EU battle groups and Eurocorps – the list goes on. Now President Juncker calls for an EU army at the very moment that this report calls for a more ambitious foreign and security policy.

To whom would you expect these troops to swear their allegiance? An EU foreign policy is unworkable at best, and irresponsibly dangerous at worst. Member States have very different foreign policy needs and concerns. Do you people honestly think that Britain and Spain can ever share a foreign policy while Spain continues its blatant aggression around Gibraltar? Do you people really think that it is sensible for Spanish military planes to deliberately spook civilian airliners landing in Gibraltar? You have a civilised duty to chastise Spain for such aggression, but – of course – you won’t and that is just one of the many reasons why Britain will withdraw from this place and thrive as an independent nation state, free from the shackles that EU membership places upon us.

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος ( NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ένας από τους κύριους στόχους της Κοινής Εξωτερικής Πολιτικής και Πολιτικής Άμυνας και Ασφάλειας είναι η βελτίωση της συμβολής της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως στην προάσπιση της εδαφικής ακεραιότητας των κρατών μελών. Ο καλύτερος τρόπος για να επιτευχθεί αυτός ο στόχος είναι να ενισχυθούν οι στρατιωτικές δυνατότητες των ενόπλων δυνάμεων των χωρών μελών. Έτσι, αφενός μεν θα ικανοποιηθούν οι επιχειρησιακές απαιτήσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως και, αφετέρου, θα μπορούν οι δυνάμεις αυτές να αποκτήσουν την απαιτουμένη επιχειρησιακή ετοιμότητα για να εκτελούν αποστολές τύπου Petersberg, δηλαδή ανθρωπιστικές και ειρηνευτικές αποστολές.

Επιπλέον θα μπορούν να αντιδρούν ταχέως σε μία κρίση και να μετακινούν στον προβλεπόμενο χρόνο των 72 ωρών τα battle groups, τους σχηματισμούς μάχης. Δεν πρέπει να πέσουμε στην παγίδα να καταργήσουμε τις εθνικές δυνάμεις και να δημιουργήσουμε κοινές ευρωπαϊκές δυνάμεις, όπως - απ' ό,τι αντιλαμβάνομαι - ισχυρίζεται ο κύριος Juncker για να αντιμετωπίσουμε, δήθεν, τη Ρωσία. Τα οποιαδήποτε προβλήματα με τη Ρωσία μπορούν να αντιμετωπιστούν με έναν ειλικρινή πολιτικό διάλογο και όχι με στρατιωτικά μέσα.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señora Presidenta, yo también quiero empezar felicitando a Elmar Brok por su excelente informe, que tiene muchas y buenas ideas. También yo deseo una política exterior europea, en la que debe ocupar un lugar fundamental la política de vecindad. Es difícil ser un actor mundial si no se es, también, un actor regional. Y nuestra vecindad está viviendo un momento muy difícil. Necesitamos una política de vecindad ambiciosa, con compromiso a medio y largo plazo —no puede ser una mera gestión de crisis diaria— y también, desde luego, realista.

Quisiera destacar, por otra parte, la importancia de las relaciones con los Estados Unidos. Estamos en un momento esperanzador. Y poco tengo que añadir a los párrafos que a este tema le dedica el informe del señor Brok, muy atinados. Vivimos un momento esperanzador, digo, de la negociación sobre el ATCI.

Terminaré con una referencia a América Latina, una región muy cercana a la Unión Europea, por muchas razones sabidas. Una región que, con excepciones conocidas y algunas desgraciadamente muy de actualidad, como Venezuela, disfruta, en general, de democracias cada vez más consolidadas y respetuosas de los derechos humanos, que han aprovechado bien la última década para su desarrollo económico.

Señora Mogherini, la próxima Cumbre UE-CELAC, que se celebrará en Bruselas en junio, debe ser una ocasión para reforzar las relaciones con América Latina.

  Victor Boștinaru (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, Parlamentul European adoptă în această săptămână un raport cu adevărat strategic și vreau să îl felicit pe raportor și să îi mulțumesc pentru deschiderea pe care a arătat-o, dovedind prin votul nostru că va obține un suport politic impresionant. Este un raport strategic într-un moment în care contextul geostrategic este în schimbare.

Acest raport este important pentru că este momentul în care se reiterează angajamentul nostru de a susține în mod consistent efortul Uniunii Europene pe arena internațională. Pentru aceasta, trebuie să revenim la utilizarea integrală a instrumentelor oferite de Tratatul de la Lisabona și să menținem o abordare proactivă, unitară și coerentă a politicii externe și de securitate a Uniunii. Coerența Uniunii noastre este esențială: aceasta implică o coordonare și cooperare strânse între acordurile comerciale și asigurarea resurselor energetice, pe de o parte, și obiectivele politicii externe, de securitate și de apărare.

A venit timpul ca Uniunea Europeană să aibă o contribuție efectivă și recunoscută în Orientul Apropiat și în Africa: în calitate de promotor și facilitator al unei soluții pentru două state egale, Israel și Palestina, în calitate de partener credibil în lupta împotriva Da'esh și a celorlalte grupări aparținând amenințării teroriste globale, ca lider în ajutorul umanitar pentru milioane de victime. Este timpul, de asemenea, să fim severi și uniți la adresa Rusiei, să condamnăm fără ezitare războiul comandat și susținut de Rusia în estul Ucrainei, să reacționăm la propaganda rusească și să utilizăm acest moment pentru a lua toate măsurile necesare pentru asigurarea securității energetice.

  Anna Elżbieta Fotyga (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Podczas spotkania w grupie ECR Jean-Claude Juncker przed swoim wyborem powiedział, że chciałby silnego komponentu unijnego, europejskiego w ramach NATO. Wydaje się, że po wyborze ta koncepcja jest już nieaktualna. Mój niepokój budzi fakt, że nieaktualna okazuje się również koncepcja jednego numeru europejskiego we wspólnej polityce zagranicznej i bezpieczeństwa. Mamy format normandzki, koncert mocarstw. Co się stanie, jeśli zrealizujemy wszystkie zapisane zamierzenia w ramach wspólnej polityki bezpieczeństwa i obrony? Czy nie będzie tak, że w odpowiedzi na hybrydową wojnę będziemy mieli hybrydowe dowództwo?

  Urmas Paet (ALDE). – Hea proua Mogherini, head kolleegid! Euroopa Liidu välis- ja julgeolekupoliitika ühtsus on, arvestades pingete kasvu Euroopa Liidu vahetus naabruses nii lõunas kui ka idas, äärmiselt oluline. Praegune Venemaa ja Ukraina konflikt on Euroopa Liidu ühtsusele tõsine väljakutse, millega on seni küll päris hästi hakkama saadud, kuid seda joont tuleb suuta hoida ka edaspidi.

Samuti konfliktid Euroopa Liidu lõunanaabruses nõuavad meilt ühtsust ja tugevust. Me peame püüdma julgemalt sekkuda nendele konfliktidele lahenduste pakkumisse ja otsimisse. Euroopa Liidul on hea kogemus Serbia ja Kosovo vahendamisest ning seda jõudu ja kogemust tuleb kasutada ka teistes piirkondades lahenduste otsimisel. Euroopa Liidu välisteenistusele tuleks siiski lisada ka konsulaarfunktsioon, vähemalt suuremate kriiside puhuks, et Euroopa Liidu riikide kodanikud saaksid abi ka Euroopa Liidu esinduste võrgustikult kõikjal maailmas.

Euroopa Liidu välise julgeolekupoliitika suurim väljakutse on praegu siiski see, kuidas tulla toime olukorraga, kus Euroopa Liidu pehme jõud on põrkunud Vene relvadega. Demokraatlike vabaduste tagamise eest seismine ja inimõiguste kaitse on hoovad, mis mõjutavad positiivselt nii riike, kellel on sellega probleeme, kui ka Euroopat ennast. Ennekõike on Euroopa huvi, et meie vahetu naabrus rahuneks ja demokratiseeruks ning selleks peab Euroopa Liit jätkama selge laienemispoliitikaga ja naabruspoliitikaga. Kui Euroopa Liit on edukas oma lähinaabruses, siis saab eeldada edukust ka kaugemal. Kindlasti peab Euroopa Liit tugevdama koostööd NATOga ja nende riikidega, kes jagavad meiega samu väärtusi, sest tänapäeva maailmas ei saa sõpru olla liiga palju.

  Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου ( GUE/NGL). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, εμείς θα καταψηφίσουμε την έκθεση. Είναι μια έκθεση που αποτελεί έναν ύμνο υπέρ του ΝΑΤΟ, παρά την προσπάθεια να πείσει ότι θέλει την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρωταγωνιστή των διεθνών εξελίξεων. Αναγνωρίζει την ίδια ώρα ότι το ΝΑΤΟ είναι εγγύηση της συλλογικής άμυνας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Παρά το γεγονός ότι λεκτικά τονίζεται η ασφάλεια, η σταθερότητα και η ειρήνη, κύριος στόχος είναι η περαιτέρω στρατιωτικοποίηση, η ενδυνάμωση των δυνατοτήτων επέμβασης της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, πάντα σε πλήρη συντονισμό με το ΝΑΤΟ.

Δεν είναι αυτή η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση που οραματιζόμαστε εμείς. Εμείς θέλουμε μια Ευρώπη που να προωθεί την ειρήνη, τη συνεργασία και την αλληλεγγύη μεταξύ των λαών. Μια Ευρώπη πρεσβευτή των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων που να αντιπαλεύει τον πόλεμο και τις συγκρούσεις, και όχι με τις πολιτικές της να τα προξενεί. Ζητούμε μεταξύ άλλων, καμία χρηματοδότηση στρατιωτικών αποστολών από τον προϋπολογισμό της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης καθώς και σαφή διαχωρισμό της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης από το ΝΑΤΟ.

Δυστυχώς οι προτεραιότητες της εξωτερικής πολιτικής της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, όπως παρουσιάζονται στην έκθεση του κ. Brok, αποτελούν εργαλείο ενάντια στην ευημερία της ανθρωπότητας.

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, una relazione veramente interessante da affrontare, specialmente con una situazione di instabilità globale così profonda da non avere precedenti negli ultimi settant'anni. Parlando del partenariato, non finirò mai di ricordare a tutti i colleghi che durante la revisione della Politica europea di vicinato si deve ribadire in ogni aspetto – giuridico, politico e finanziario – la completa e totale parità di dignità tra quello meridionale e quello settentrionale.

Parlando invece dell'idea di esercito europeo rilanciata dal Presidente Juncker qualche giorno fa, direi che questi due mesi di riflessione saranno importanti per riflettere non solo sulle sue possibili modalità ma soprattutto sulle sue finalità: il punto è infatti quale ruolo noi vogliamo ritagliare per questo strumento.

Vogliamo farne un alfiere della difesa dei diritti umani al servizio dell'ONU? Vogliamo fare in modo che funga da modello per gli interventi di mantenimento della pace? Vogliamo cogliere l'occasione per rafforzarci con una sola voce moderata in seno alla NATO e stemperare le spinte aggressive sostenute in passato da certi governi sulle due sponde dell'Atlantico? Bene: noi ci siamo e saremo pronti a discuterne.

Se gli obiettivi sono invece degli interessi meramente economici, non dobbiamo e non possiamo….

(Il Presidente ritira la parola all'oratore)

  Marine Le Pen (NI). – Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, dans la résolution du Parlement européen sur la politique de Catherine Ashton, alors haute représentante de l'Union pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité, vous vous félicitez des accords d'association signés avec la Moldavie, la Géorgie et surtout avec l'Ukraine.

Votre projet est, d'ailleurs, d'intégrer certains de ces pays à l'OTAN en contradiction avec les engagements pris par les Européens et les Américains avec Mikhaïl Gorbatchev. OTAN, OTAN, OTAN, c'est pathétique! À aucun moment n'est envisagée une stratégie pour l'Union européenne pensée de manière autonome. Avec la bénédiction de Washington, vous chatouillez l'ours russe et tentez d'éliminer son influence dans son voisinage immédiat. D'ailleurs, vous avez à cette fin dangereusement soutenu un gouvernement comprenant des néo-nazis, qui, comme par hasard, ont mené une politique contre la minorité russophone en Ukraine. Vous avez ainsi favorisé l'éclosion d'une véritable guerre civile dans ce pays. Cette situation ne doit pas dégénérer en une nouvelle guerre sur le sol européen.

Changer de stratégie est absolument nécessaire pour que l'Europe reste en paix. Aucune puissance de ce continent ne doit avoir de visée impérialiste, aucune ne doit être diabolisée!

  Mariya Gabriel (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, je tiens à féliciter et à remercier M. Brok pour son excellent rapport, qui propose à la fois une véritable vision stratégique de la politique étrangère et de sécurité de l'Union et des mesures concrètes pour améliorer cette politique.

J'insisterai sur trois éléments. D'abord, je vous remercie, Madame Mogherini, de grandement contribuer à renforcer la visibilité de notre action. Continuons dans cette voie. Et pour cela, les représentants spéciaux ont aussi un rôle clé à jouer. Nous devons mieux valoriser leur travail. Au niveau opérationnel aussi, nous devons continuer de chercher à nous doter de moyens adéquats pour renforcer cette visibilité.

Ensuite, la cohérence entre nos politiques internes et nos politiques externes. Nous renforcer sur le plan externe apportera des bénéfices sur le plan interne. Pensons à des exemples, notamment parmi des sujets sensibles comme la migration. La cohérence doit également être assurée aussi bien au niveau du Conseil que dans les pays tiers entre les délégations de l'Union et les ambassades. C'est une question de crédibilité.

Enfin, la coopération avec les organisations régionales. Travailler avec l'Union africaine, la Ligue arabe et les pays du Golfe, c'est nous donner des chances de mieux lutter contre le terrorisme, de mieux coopérer, au profit de tous les citoyens.

  Vincent Peillon (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Haute Représentante, oui, ce rapport établit bien ce que peut être une ambition de politique étrangère et de sécurité commune, sachant que pour la construction de l'Union européenne, c'est sans doute un test, et le plus difficile.

Nous l'avons, d'ailleurs, encore entendu tout à l'heure. Qu'auraient imaginé les fondateurs en entendant certains s'inquiéter de l'avenir à propos des querelles concernant Gibraltar entre les Anglais et les Espagnols, dans un continent qui a vécu deux siècles de drames et qui a réussi à les surmonter par la construction de l'Union?

Je voudrais attirer votre attention sur trois ou quatre conditions de la réussite du travail que vous menez et de l'obtention de notre plein soutien.

D'abord, il faut, effectivement, à la fois mettre en cohérence nos politiques européennes et demander aux États de dépasser leurs réticences, leur politique de "cavalier seul" et leurs égoïsmes. Certains ne mesurent pas qu'en affaiblissant l'Europe, ils s'affaiblissent aujourd'hui, eux-mêmes, sur la scène internationale. De ce point de vue, vous nous trouverez à vos côtés si vous avez besoin d'aide face à un certain nombre d'États membres qui considèrent toujours que la politique étrangère et de sécurité commune est une affaire nationale.

Deuxièmement, nous devons, bien entendu, mieux coordonner notre action avec celle de nos alliés. Mais il est important d'entendre – parce que nous sommes l'Europe et que nous avons des valeurs culturelles et sociales différentes – que cette meilleure coordination ne doit pas nous empêcher de marquer notre indépendance et notre autonomie dans toutes les zones du monde, là où nous intervenons, vis-à-vis de certains de nos alliés.

Troisièmement, bien entendu, il n'y a pas de droit sans force. On le sait depuis des siècles et le président de la Commission a eu raison de dire que l'objectif est de renforcer les moyens opérationnels.

Quatrième point, il faut accentuer encore davantage notre présence dans notre Sud.

  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). – Madam President, this week we had the Commission President, Mr Juncker, blatantly calling for a common European army to, and I quote: ʽallow Europe to take on responsibility in the world and to send a clear message to Russiaʼ. I have no doubt that if we had an EU army now it would be losing thousands of troops in Ukraine in a futile exercise to prove that the EU is a powerful empire.

It is always a bad military tactic to divide your army, but this report would divide NATO and the EU. The Brok report calls for coordination of defence budgets, an EU arms trade authority, common EU defence attachés and a permanent EU headquarters – the very headquarters proposal that was voted down in the Council just over a year ago. Nor is it, I fear, a coincidence that all our national armed forces are being slashed. The true purpose is to destroy our national ability to act independently so we have no alternative but to pool and share our armed forces. These European defence moves are profoundly dangerous and must be stopped in their tracks.

  Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδάκης ( NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η δήλωση Γιούνκερ για τη μετατροπή του ευρωστρατού σε μόνιμο σώμα, ο ακόμα μεγαλύτερος συντονισμός και η κοινή δράση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης με το ΝΑΤΟ είναι προανάκρουσμα έντασης της επιθετικότητας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης ενάντια στους λαούς και καταστολής των αγώνων τους. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και οι κυβερνήσεις της “κόβουν”, το ΝΑΤΟ “ράβει”, οι λαοί σφαγιάζονται και χώρες διαμελίζονται για τα ιμπεριαλιστικά συμφέροντα, όπως "στην Ουκρανία, τη Λιβύη, το Ιράκ, την Αφρική.

Καμία ασφάλεια δεν έχουν οι λαοί εντός της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και του ΝΑΤΟ. Η επιθετικότητα της Τουρκίας σε βάρος της Ελλάδας και της Κύπρου αυτές τις μέρες είναι απόδειξη. Μόνο αυταπάτες σπέρνουν όσοι υποκριτικά εμφανίζουν την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ως, τάχα, το περιστέρι της ειρήνης. Καμία αυταπάτη. Οι λαοί να είναι σε επαγρύπνηση και με την πάλη τους ενάντια στα ιμπεριαλιστικά σχέδια να αποτινάξουν τα δεσμά της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και του ΝΑΤΟ με ανατροπή του συστήματος εκμετάλλευσης με τη δική τους εξουσία.

  Jo Leinen (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Frau Mogherini, Sie haben gesagt, die EU kann und muss in der Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik mehr tun. Dem kann man nur zustimmen. Präsident Juncker hat am Wochenende in einem Interview vermerkt, die EU würde wohl in der Welt nicht ernst genommen. Wenn man außerhalb Europas reist, dann stimmt das zum Teil auch. Ob in Peking oder in Neu-Delhi oder in Johannesburg oder in Brasilia: Die EU ist nicht sichtbar, und sie ist auch nicht effektiv.

Sie haben auch gesagt: Neben den ökonomischen Beziehungen brauchen wir eine umfassende politische Agenda mit unseren strategischen Partnern. Wir brauchen Dialoge und Verhandlungen für diese Weltordnung nach festen Regeln, sei es hinsichtlich der Bewahrung des Friedens, der Bewahrung der Menschenrechte, und in diesem Jahr auch hinsichtlich der Bewahrung des Klimas auf dem Weg nach Paris. Ich würde Sie auch ermuntern, neben all den Krisen vor der Haustür die Boomregion Asien nicht zu vergessen. Seit zehn Jahren haben wir keine China-Strategie. Wir brauchen für dieses große Land eine neue Strategie, um mit diesem Land auch zusammenzuarbeiten.

  Udo Voigt (NI). – Frau Präsidentin! In diesem Bericht höre ich als ehemaliger Luftwaffenoffizier die Stimme des Kalten Krieges wieder, und ich wundere mich doch sehr, denn diese Zeit liegt dreißig Jahre zurück.

Der Bericht lässt vermissen, dass sich die geostrategische Lage in den letzten dreißig Jahren völlig verändert hat. Vor dreißig Jahren war es noch der Warschauer Pakt, der die NATO und das EU-Europa umklammerte. Doch dreißig Jahre später ist es die NATO, die Russland umklammert, und den Warschauer Pakt gibt es nicht mehr. Hieraus muss doch ganz zweifellos ein Sicherheitsbedürfnis Russlands entstehen. Das vermisse ich in diesem Haus, dass darüber überhaupt debattiert wird.

Die Sprache von Herrn Brok ist die des Kalten Kriegers und Atlantikers. Ich verstehe es überhaupt nicht, wie man hier fordern kann, dass die EU auch künftig weiterhin mit der NATO eng zusammenarbeiten sollte, denn dadurch wird eine raumfremde Macht, nämlich die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, über Europa bestimmen.

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (PPE). – Madam President, the security situation around the EU is increasingly grave, both to the east with regard to Ukraine and Russia and to the south where terrorism is spiralling out of control. This is a serious challenge for EU foreign policy, since we must respond effectively and strategically without for one second losing sight of our core European values. Everything we do must foster democracy and the rule of law as well as human rights for all. I would like to underline the need to focus our attention on our vital role in bringing peace and stability to the Middle East, and also the need to rethink the common foreign and security policy, with a stronger foreign policy role for the Union.

Religious extremism and terror are not only costing thousands of lives in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere but also increasingly pose a threat to our own national security. Therefore, I welcome Ms Mogherini’s decision to cooperate closely with the EU Counter-terrorism Coordinator because I believe that the better the coordination among us, the more effective European foreign and security policy will be.

  Richard Howitt (S&D). – Madam President, I support Mr Brok’s report, but Parliament will understand if I use this short speech to warn how the security threats facing Europe underline how much my own country needs Europe and how dangerous is the domestic debate which threatens Britain’s future in the EU. How can the British Prime Minister call for tougher European action on Russia, then himself threaten European unity to achieve it? What if we want to resolve the conflict between Israel and Palestine, but seek to undermine the EU’s role as a member of the Quartet to achieve that? Or walk away from the negotiating table for nuclear non—proliferation in Iran, where Britain has negotiated on behalf of the EU? Or promote a trade agreement between Europe and the United States, then threaten to remove British business from its benefits? How can the British Government allow my country’s only aircraft carrier to be retired and rely on a French carrier, but then resist the development of common security and defence policy missions, which are both badly needed and which could help problems of overstretched defence resources? When in this debate we talk about common European values which underline our external policy, which is of these precisely is not a British value too?

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Zoltán Balczó (NI). – Elnök Asszony, az Európai Unió számára 2014-ben a legnagyobb külpolitikai kihívás az ukrán konfliktus megoldásában való eredményes részvétel lett volna, de kudarcot vallott. Az Unió a kezdetektől teljesen egyoldalúan értékelte a helyzetet. Mindenben és kritikátlanul támogatta az Egyesült Államok segítségével hatalomra került új kormányt, és az önrendelkezésükért küzdőket egyszerűen szakadár terroristáknak minősítette. Nem vette figyelembe, hogy ebben a konfliktusban Oroszországnak megvannak az érthető, nemzetbiztonsági érdekei is. Ukrajna egy globális hatalmi játszma áldozata. Az Egyesült Államok az egypólusú világrend visszaállítására törekszik. Az EU nem válhat ebben a játszmában csatlóssá, önálló, új alapokra helyezett külpolitikát kell folytatnia a tagországai és Ukrajna népei érdekében.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Madam President, I welcome the High Representative’s statement that the EU has to start thinking in a strategic way. But now that we are facing the biggest instability in our neighbourhood, I am wondering whether we also need to act in a strategic and global way. Our security situation has worsened dramatically, and thus it is possible that different crucibles of conflict will spread contagion and develop synergies.

This requires stronger and more coherent EU common policies. First of all, we need to increase coherence of CFSP with other policies of external dimension. I call on you, High Representative, to develop strategic priorities for applying the external energy policy in a more coordinated way, and to achieve clarity and unity on the practical use of solidarity mechanisms.

Lastly, mainstreaming cyber defence into common foreign and security policy and providing political impetus to the EDA is enforcing cyber defence cooperation between Member States.

  Eugen Freund (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Auch ich möchte meinem Kollegen Elmar Brok für den umfassenden Bericht danken. Ich stimme im Wesentlichen mit den darin enthaltenen Ausführungen überein. Meine Einschränkung bezieht sich auf die Prämisse des Berichts. Die EU, heißt es hier, war aufgrund ihrer internen Krise nicht in der Lage, ihr Potenzial voll auszuschöpfen.

In Abwandlung eines Zitats aus den epochalen „Letzten Tagen der Menschheit“ von Karl Kraus lassen Sie mich sagen: Hören wir auf mit der Krisenwinselei! Europa ist die größte Wirtschaftsmacht der Welt, Europa ist sich einiger denn je – denken wir nur an den Ukraine-Konflikt. Vieles könnte besser gehen, aber zeigen wir doch mehr Selbstbewusstsein, zeigen wir mehr Optimismus! Lassen Sie mich das mit einem weiteren Zitat begründen. Unlängst stellten in der Wochenzeitschrift Die Zeit die Autoren die Frage: „Warum fällt es der EU so schwer, ihre eigenen Erfolge zu erkennen?“ Und die Autoren geben die Antwort: „In den Think Tanks und Abgeordnetenbüros wird in einem fort daran gearbeitet, alles Große klein, alles Schöne hässlich und alles Saftige fad zu reden.“ Das sollten wir uns ins Stammbuch schreiben!

  Gerolf Annemans (NI). – Voorzitter, collega’s, u hebt in uw waan om een grote Europese eenheidsstaat te creëren, nu kennelijk ook besloten om naast de euro-eenheidsmunt ook de kers van een buitenlands en zelfs militair beleid bovenop de taart van uw eenheidsstaat te plaatsen. Langzaam verschuiven we hier het voornemen om een wat minder kakofonisch buitenlands beleid te voeren in de richting van een militarisering van een in principe civiele Europese Unie.

Ik was als jonge man een felle Atlantisch gerichte voorstander van de NAVO en ik streed zij aan zij met Ronald Reagan voor de plaatsing van kernraketten tegen de Sovjetunie en dit tegen de toenmalige hier overheersende linkse en anti-Amerikaanse elite in. Maar de eurocrisis heeft mij geleerd dat de eenheidsmaniakken van de Europese Unie gevaarlijke tegenstellingen binnen Europa aanwakkeren in plaats van eenheid en rust te brengen. Om dezelfde reden, de groeiende oorlogsdreiging, ben ik tegenstander geworden van uw gevaarlijke eenheidswaan inzake militair en buitenlands beleid, dat veel te verwijderd is van de Europese burgers.

  Ελένη Θεοχάρους ( PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, Υπάτη Εκπρόσωπε, η έκθεση Brok είναι μια ολοκληρωμένη προσέγγιση των ζητημάτων Εξωτερικής Πολιτικής, Άμυνας και Ασφάλειας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και του ρόλου της ως περιφερειακής παγκόσμιας δύναμης σταθερότητας και ειρήνης. Συναφώς, όμως, αναφύονται δύο σημαντικά ζητήματα.

Πρώτο, η αναγκαιότητα ενίσχυσης των παραμέτρων cybersecurity και cyber deterrence, που έχουν πολλαπλές διαστάσεις και περιλαμβάνουν την προστασία κρατών, επιχειρήσεων και πολιτών. Στην περίπτωση του πολέμου της Ουκρανίας η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση βίωσε την τραυματική εμπειρία του ρωσικού cyberwar και του malware με την ελληνική κωδική ονομασία «Ουροβόρος», το μυθικό φίδι το οποίο τρώει την ουρά του, που παρέλυσε τις ένοπλες δυνάμεις και υπηρεσίες της Ουκρανίας, διευκολύνοντας το έργο των ρωσικών ενόπλων δυνάμεων. Αναπόσπαστο τμήμα της σύγχρονης στρατηγικής είναι το cyber deterrence.

Το δεύτερο ζήτημα που θέλω να θίξω είναι ο πόλεμος εναντίον της τρομοκρατίας που μας απειλεί από παντού. Απαιτείται γι' αυτό μια ενιαία και συγκροτημένη πολιτική στην οποία η Κύπρος μπορεί να διαδραματίσει καθοριστικό ρόλο, ως ένα προκεχωρημένο φυλάκιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για την ασφάλεια, τόσο της Ευρώπης όσο και της Μέσης Ανατολής.

  Javi López (S&D). – Señora Presidenta, durante los últimos años, mientras la Unión Europea mejoraba sustancialmente sus herramientas, sus instrumentos en materia de política exterior, nuestros desafíos y nuestras amenazas aumentaban en materia de seguridad, se acercaban como nunca, tanto a la Vecindad Oriental como a la Sur, y se agravaban por la aparición de nuevos Estados fallidos a nuestro alrededor.

Ante esta realidad, debemos, primero, mejorar nuestra coordinación interna, por parte de los Estados, la inteligencia, las diplomacias o el Servicio Europeo de Acción Exterior. Y segundo, reforzar la cooperación con el exterior, ganando en influencia resolutiva. Para ello, necesitamos elaborar una nueva política de vecindad, más práctica y ambiciosa, pero recordando que la Unión Europea ha decidido deliberadamente no poner énfasis en el uso de la fuerza. Nosotros no queremos combatir. Preferimos convencer y cooperar. Y eso no nos hace más débiles. Nos hace más fuertes.

Por eso, de la mano del Parlamento, de Federica Mogherini, pongamos nuestra legitimidad democrática y nuestros instrumentos de política exterior al servicio de la conquista de la razón.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). – Madam President, the EU’s international environment is volatile, with dire security challenges that range from long—lasting conflicts to the steady rise of authoritarianism and extremism. The current developments are unprecedented in the period since the end of the Cold War, and the situation is all the more pressing in that most of them are occurring in our immediate neighbourhood, both in the south and in the east.

We need to react to this demanding international situation. The EU needs to step up its international role and to speak with one voice. We need to be strategic, consistent, coherent and efficient. Strong EU action is the only way forward in tackling the myriad of threats on our doorstep. In our response to challenges we should not lose sight of our values, which are directly linked to democracy, respect for human rights, the rule of law and, ultimately, peace.

My utmost appreciation to Elmar Brok for preparing a very good, objective report.

  Jeppe Kofod (S&D). – Fru Formand! I den tekst, vi vedtager i morgen, nævner vi Rusland hele 22 gange. Vi nævner deres ulovlige annektering af Krim, deres aggressive fremfærd, vores sanktioner og vores energiafhængighed af dem. Jeg vil også tilføje og nævne de provokationsflyvninger, som russiske militærfly laver helt tæt på for eksempel dansk og svensk luftrum, og som også er til fare for civil luftfart. Når vi om et år igen står i denne sal og taler om en fælles udenrigstjenestes årlige bedrifter, så bør vi have en samlet Ruslandsstrategi. En strategi, der samtænker sikkerheds-, udenrigs-, handels- og energipolitik. En strategi, der fordømmer de farlige russiske provokationsflyvninger. En strategi, der tydeligt definerer roller og ansvarsfordelinger mellem EU, medlemslandene og NATO eksempelvis som verden stærkeste militære forsvarsorganisation. En strategi, hvor vi koordinerer med de øvrige internationale samarbejdspartnere i FN, OSCE, Europarådet og så videre. Kort sagt skal vi have en strategi, hvor vi samlet sætter ind over for Rusland og sikrer, at vi også i fremtiden kan være sikre i Europa.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, tá máistreacht ar an ábhar seo léirithe arís ag an Uasal Brok sa tuarascáil seo agus dar ndóigh nuair a fhéachaimid ar an scéal tá béim i bhfad níos difriúla ar an tuarascáil seo ón Ardionadaí i mbliana ná mar a bhí le cúpla bliain anuas. Tuigimid go bhfuil cúrsaí cosanta agus slándála i bhfad níos tábhachtaí ná mar a cheapamar b’fhéidir agus ní gá dúinn ach féachaint ar cad a tharla i bPáras agus san oirthear – san Úcráin – chun é sin a thuiscint.

Agus nuair a théimid isteach i bParlaimint na hEorpa anois, ní póilíní i ngluaisteáin in aice leis an bParlaimint a fheicimid ach saighdiúirí le gunnaí taobh amuigh den Pharlaimint. B’fhéidir nach leor sin ach sin an saol agus caithfimid bheith ar an airdeall mar a dúirt a lán cainteoirí roimis sin agus cinnte b’fhéidir nach n-aontaíonn a lán daoine gur ghá arm Eorpach a bheith againn faoi láthair ach gan dabht ar bith caithfimid labhairt le haon ghuth. Caithfimid bheith aontaithe agus mar a dúirt an Coimisinéir Mogherini, caithfimid obair le chéile. Dúirt sí gurb é sin an eochair chun dul ar aghaidh agus an ceart aici sa mhéid sin. Rud amháin ba mhaith liom a rá freisin, tá dóchas againn tar éis na hóráide breá a thug an Rí Abdulladh II dúinn inné agus má bhíonn gach duine cosúil leis beidh an saol níos fearr.

  Francisco Assis (S&D). – Senhora Mogherini, caros Colegas, quero começar por saudar o relatório e o relator e a minha intervenção visa apenas salientar a importância das dimensões mediterrânica e atlântica da União Europeia. E, em relação à questão mediterrânica, e no âmbito da política de vizinhança, quero salientar a importância crucial do relacionamento com os países da margem sul do Mediterrâneo, por razões que tem que ver com as migrações, que tem que ver com a energia e que tem que ver com a questão da segurança. Ainda por cima quando esses países estão a atravessar uma fase de grande transformação e, nalguns casos, como é particularmente o caso da Tunísia, se está a assistir a um esforço muito sério tendo em vista a consolidação de uma solução democrática.

E, na componente atlântica, saúdo, como já aqui foi dito, todo o esforço que se está a fazer de aproximação aos Estados Unidos, mas queria chamar também muito especialmente a atenção para a importância de apostarmos num novo e mais profundo relacionamento com os países da América Latina. A América Latina está a atravessar uma fase difícil, alguns países estão a passar por um período conturbado mas é fundamental reforçar a presença europeia da América Latina e eu julgo que esse também deve ser um desígnio da União Europeia.

Președinte: IOAN MIRCEA PAȘCU
Vicepreședinte

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Eu queria naturalmente saudar o Colega Elmar Brok pelo excelente relatório que produziu nesta área da política externa, mas queria sublinhar aqui essencialmente dois aspetos. O primeiro é que eu acho que nós tínhamos de falar numa única política de vizinhança. Não devíamos estar a separar a vizinhança de leste da vizinhança mediterrânica. Devíamos olhar para a ideia de uma vizinhança global, até porque nós temos uma zona charneira que é simultaneamente leste e é simultaneamente mediterrânica, e, portanto, em que estas duas componentes se podem misturar. Portanto, acho que valia a pena era olharmos para cada Estado individualmente e para a política de vizinhança porque essas situações são diferentes.

E, depois, gostava de sublinhar isto que o Colega Assis acaba de sublinhar, que é a ideia de que a parceria com os Estados Unidos é tão estratégica para a nossa política externa e para a nossa política de segurança como é a política de vizinhança e que ela implica um alargamento ao Atlântico Sul e, nomeadamente, ao Brasil, que precisa de grande atenção neste momento, à Venezuela e à Argentina, que estão em grande risco.

  Boris Zala (S&D). – Mr President, Europe needs to start thinking of itself as a serious geopolitical and security actor. It must treat its common external action in strategic terms. Take frozen conflicts, from Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh to Cyprus. These are serious security challenges in our backyard, but the EU simply choses to neglect them, ostensibly because it was imprudent to meddle because each conflict has its own history and established resolution format which, by the way, has done nothing to resolve them.

If the EU wants to be taken seriously as a security actor, it must assume a much more active role in conflict resolution, especially in Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh and potentially in Ukraine.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – A guerra voltou ao continente europeu com a agressão da Rússia de Putin à Ucrânia, quando a Europa defronta um arco de conflitos a leste e a sul. Talvez o perigo ressuscite a ideia de o exército europeu, muito desejável aos olhos de uma federalista como eu, mas longe de se realizar pela continuada relutância dos Estados—Membros em investirem na política externa e de segurança comum e na política comum de segurança e defesa, coordenando e conjugando recursos e capacidades civis e militares.

Os nossos governos não podem continuar a malbaratar o dinheiro dos contribuintes e a comprometer a segurança das nossas sociedades face a ameaças transfronteiras, que nenhum Estado-Membro pode enfrentar sozinho, como o terrorismo. Como se sublinha no relatório do Colega Brok, é hoje impossível separar segurança interna da externa. Exige-se investimento estratégico e coordenado nas necessárias capacidades.

Temos os instrumentos mas tem-nos faltado orientação estratégica e ambição. Basta olhar para a quase Somália à nossa porta na Líbia, por omissão da Europa depois da queda de Kadhafi. Se a União quer defender os seus cidadãos e os seus interesses e afirmar-se como prestador global de segurança, então, tem de arrumar a casa e de pôr em prática a política externa e a política comum de segurança e defesa, articulando estrategicamente todo o espectro de políticas internas e externas.

Tem de rever imediatamente o financiamento da ação externa, em particular as missões militares no quadro da política comum de segurança e defesa. Tem de tratar, antes de acenar com o exército europeu, de estabelecer um quartel-general permanente e de reforçar a base industrial e tecnológica de defesa que tem estado a destruir com as políticas de austeridade. E tem de desencadear a reforma do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas, onde a União Europeia tem de ter assento permanente e conseguir restringir o incapacitante direito de veto.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Andrea Bocskor (PPE). – Elnök Úr, Elmar Brok képviselőtársunk alapos munkát végzett az európai külügyi és biztonságpolitikai képviselőknek az Európai Parlament számára készített éves jelentésével kapcsolatban. Nagyra értékelem munkáját. Helytálló az a megállapítása, hogy az Európai Unió közvetlen szomszédságában drámai módon súlyossá vált a biztonsági helyzet. Ennek következtében gyors és hatékony erőfeszítésekre van szükség az európai értékek és érdekek védelme, a béke és a stabilitás helyreállítása és megőrzése érdekében. Ez fokozottan érvényes a több mint egy éve zajló orosz–ukrán konfliktus fényében, mely az Európai Unió szomszédságában zajlik. Ennek kapcsán fontos, hogy az Ukrajna elleni orosz agresszióra válaszul elfogadott uniós szankciók mindkét minszki tűzszüneti megállapodás végrehajtásának Oroszország nemzetközi kötelezettségei, például a fegyverszünet betartása, a nehézfegyverek és katonák kivonása, teljesítése függvényében egységes uniós álláspont kialakítása során módosítók legyenek.

  Silvia Costa (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Alto rappresentante Mogherini, relatore, credo che abbiamo oggi una importante relazione nella quale, penso, dobbiamo accogliere maggiormente l'appello accorato rivoltoci ieri qui in Aula dal re di Giordania, quando ci ha ricordato che l'Europa ha una missione fondamentale nel tormentato scenario del Mediterraneo: quello della cooperazione e mediazione culturale, della solidarietà interreligiosa e del dialogo.

Credo che questa sia la premessa di una politica estera e di sicurezza, perché sappiamo che dobbiamo vincere insieme – come ci ha chiesto il monarca hashemita – insieme anche ai popoli arabi, non solo i fondamentalismi, che minacciano i musulmani soprattutto e perseguono le comunità cristiane ma anche quei fondamentalisti che anche in Europa non rispettano il significato e il dialogo interreligioso.

Per questo penso che anche in Parlamento, oltre che nella politica estera mi auguro – e so dell'interesse di Federica Mogherini per la politica culturale – dobbiamo lavorare di più per una diplomazia culturale, per un coordinamento di queste politiche, anche attraverso gli istituti culturali degli Stati membri nei paesi terzi e riflettere sulle politiche educative delle politiche migratorie.

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κυρία Mogherini, τα Σκόπια εντείνουν την προκλητική τους στάση κατά της Ελλάδας. Παραχαράσσουν την ιστορία, καπηλεύονται το όνομα της Μακεδονίας και αναπτύσσουν αλυτρωτική δράση προκειμένου να αλλάξουν τα σύνορα στα Βαλκάνια διεκδικώντας εδάφη της Ελλάδας. Δυστυχώς, παρά την εμπειρία σας, και εσείς πέσατε θύμα της προπαγάνδας των Σκοπίων και έτσι πριν λίγες ημέρες στις Βρυξέλλες, σε συνέντευξη Τύπου, αποκαλέσατε τα Σκόπια 'Μακεδονία', κατά παράβαση των αποφάσεων του ΟΗΕ και της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Έπρεπε λοιπόν να αναφερθείτε στα Σκόπια ως FYROM, όπως το όνομα αυτό αναγνωρίζεται από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.

Επομένως, θα ήθελα να σας ακούσω να δώσετε μια εξήγηση για το ατόπημά σας αυτό. Σας καλώ επίσης, εδώ στην ολομέλεια του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, να ανακαλέσετε και να επανορθώσετε, διότι τα όσα είπατε στη συνέντευξή σας έχουν προκαλέσει ένα τεράστιο κύμα διαμαρτυρίας εναντίον σας στην Ελλάδα. Καθώς λοιπόν «οι καλοί λογαριασμοί κάνουν τους καλούς φίλους» αναμένω την απάντησή σας στο ζήτημα που σας έθεσα.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjednice, iznimno mi je drago što ste spomenuli, poštovana Visoka povjerenice, govor Njegove Ekscelencije jordanskog kralja Abdulaha II. ovdje u Parlamentu. Iznimno mi je drago da sam to čuo od mnogih mojih kolegica i kolega jer želim istaknuti da Europa treba takve saveznike. Europa sa svojom politikom takvog savezništva građenja mostova može ostati lider u stvaranju demokratskog ozračja u nama najbližim zemljama, može pomoći tim najbližim zemljama od kojih su mnoge u velikim katastrofalnim stanjima i zato podržavam politiku koju vodite jer sam uvjeren da samo takva otvorena politika gradnje mostova, ali i upozoravanja na probleme koji postoje u pojedinim zemljama može biti uspješna politika.

Vjerujem da ćete u ovom mandatu to učiniti i da nećete zaboraviti Balkan, neovisno o mom dragom prijatelju iz Grčke, vjerujem da Balkan ne treba više nemira i očekujem da ćete podržati mir i na tom području.

  Tatjana Ždanoka (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I think the report of Mr Brok advocates the policy giving the High Representative a negative role regarding the current conflicts in its neighbourhood. This role is to be urgently corrected, and if not, this collation of conflicts, global and multiregional as well, will take place.

Which mistake needs to be corrected first? It is a myth that there is constant equality of geopolitical and national interests of the EU Member States and the United States. The unipolar world is over. Strategic partnership of the EU and Russia, especially with the participation of China, Brazil and India, is a nightmare for American policy. The EU position towards Russia, which makes us economically and politically weaker than before, has become a hostage of anti—Russian sentiments, not only of Neocon circles in the United States but also in the Baltic countries and Poland, and the debates in this Chamber clearly prove this. A united Europe should be autonomous in its decisions.

  President. – According to the rule established by my predecessor, there are no blue cards. I am sorry about this.

  Bill Etheridge (EFDD). – Mr President, you said that you would take one ‘catch—the—eye’ from each group and I do not think EFDD has had a ‘catch—the—eye’. I asked an hour and a half ago if I could be considered, and no one from our group has spoken in catch—the—eye.

  President. – You are right. Therefore you have one minute to speak.

  Bill Etheridge (EFDD). – Mr President, thank you for this very generous ruling. It is dangerous to play games of bluff when one does not have a card in one’s hand. One has to able to back up strong words with action, otherwise one looks foolish. The spirit of Margaret Thatcher was referred to earlier on today in the debate on foreign policy. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan came from a position of economic and military strength – they could back up their words. The EU and its foreign policy cannot back up its words. Margaret Thatcher is not replaced by David Cameron – he is no kind of replacement – and Mr Juncker is no Ronald Reagan. It needs to be pointed out, although I know you should understand this, that the EU is not a nation. You do not need to be doing these things. A foreign policy and – God forbid! – an EU army is folly of the highest order.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Federica Mogherini, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, honourable Members, I will take some of the points that were raised, starting with some difficulties in our common foreign and security policy, which some of you mentioned.

First of all, as in the report, many of you came back on the issue of lack of coordination. On the European Union level and internal-external policies among different European Union institutions: some of you might remember that at the beginning of October I started my hearing in the Committee on Foreign Affairs by saying that I would be satisfied if at the end of my five years in office I could hear that services were working with me as the European Union, instead of as the Commission, the Council, the EAS and so on. I think that is still very much a challenge.

I cannot pretend that I have changed that after four months in office. It will need much more time, much more effort, but I can tell you that, when it comes to a stronger coordination between the work we do in the Council, the work we do in the Commission, the work we do with the European Parliament, we are making very relevant steps. I would not call it a revolution but it is something that is close to it in cultural terms.

Think of the work we have done on the internal—external coordination. I think that it will be the first time that foreign ministers are going to discuss migration – that will be on Monday – with Commissioner Avramopoulos. If you see the innovation that the report calls for – this Commissioners’ Group on External Action – you see the core group that was established as something already ambitious. It has five Commissioners as a starting point, but at the last meeting on 4 March (last week) and the previous one, and the previous previous one we had ten Commissioners around the table. This included vice-presidents: Vice—President Georgieva when we discussed the budget, on how we prioritise inside the Commission and the proposal on how we use the budget on Heading 4; and Vice-President Šefčovič when we discussed energy or climate.

If I could list all the different elements we have started to work on together on the Commission side in these four months, which is not an enormous amount of time, I can mention climate, energy, research, economic cooperation and development, culture – that was mentioned by Silvia Costa – security and counter-terrorism – here again we have been putting together all the different aspects and the tools available – migration, trade, and obviously development, humanitarian aid and our enlargement policies.

Obviously this is a start. Obviously we still have a lot of difficulties and obviously we will still be fighting against a lot of difficulties but I think if I see these first four months in the light of the next four and a half years I can say I am encouraged by the steps that we have been able to take.

When it comes to another difficulty that some of you have mentioned – some people in this room have said that Member States do not and cannot share a common policy. Well, you will be surprised to see how much Member States are sharing when it comes to deciding together. I always give this example: take the doorstep statements that the ministers make when they go to the Foreign Affairs Council and you will see all shades of different positions but the important thing to me is that we go through a process, not only in the meetings themselves but actually an everyday process, so that when it comes to take decisions we are all united. All the 28.

Obviously I know very well we still have a long way to go. In October, I said in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee that my challenge is to shape a common foreign and security policy, one that is felt to be owned by everyone in Europe, because I know we are not there yet. I know that very well. What I see is that crises around us, starting from the crisis in Ukraine, are telling us, are telling our Member States, are telling the governments, are telling the national parliaments, are telling your fellow parliamentarians in your respective Member States that, yes, we do have an added value when we manage to decide and to act together as Europeans. If we did not have a European common reaction on the Ukrainian crisis, think of that. Think of where we would be here today. Even the Member States that are traditionally, historically more reluctant to see the added value of the common foreign and security policy at European level, I think after this past year have realised very well that a European common foreign and security policy is an added value also for their own national interests.

Obviously we have to make this emerge more and more. It is not only but it is also a matter of narrative and visibility, as someone has mentioned. It is a matter of making the common interest and the common added value emerge. This will take time. This will take respect and I am fully ready to go through this process, taking the time and taking the respect we will need to have everybody on board. Everybody! I would not exclude anyone from the exercise because I see in everyday work that there is a need for that and there is also the willingness for that. Then obviously we all have internal national debates, we all have internal national electoral constraints and I understand that sometimes this reflects also in the debates in this room, which is natural. The real substance of the process is that we know, all of us, that without common real foreign policy each of our Member States will not have the means to respond to the challenges we have in front of us.

Many of you mentioned, and this comes up also when we talk about security and defence, a sentence that was used by President Juncker in an interview a couple of days ago, which is something I think he has said in front of this Parliament in July. I was still a minister at the time, but that was something that I think he has always said throughout his whole life. What I think – and what I have also discussed not only with him but with many others – is something that I know this Parliament shares: that finally we have to use the tools that we have when it comes to common defence policy. Use the treaties, use the articles of the treaties that we are currently not using because we still need to build the political will that will allow us to use our full potential.

I think that here we have a space to develop and to use in the coming years. This will be difficult in some national endeavours for sure but, again, crises around us tell us very clearly that the provisions that are there in the Lisbon Treaty are not there by chance. They are there because we need to use them, in strong cooperation with NATO, and not only with NATO but with other international organisations, starting with the UN and regional organisations.

Many of you mentioned a series of issues that it would probably be too long to go into but I will just underline a couple of them. Starting from the Balkans, I will take this opportunity to correct myself. I always refer to fYROM. It happens sometimes, especially when you deal 24/7 with crises and jetlag, that you make a mistake, and I apologise for that because I always stick to the formal, official recognised name and I discussed that with the Greek authorities as well.

Starting from the Balkans, where we now tend not think of it as a foreign policy dimension because it is part of our family somehow, this is the success story we can tell. Exactly 20 years after Srebrenica, look how much the investment in peace and European integration and regional integration can bring in terms of good results to the region. I share the view that somebody expressed: we also need to be self-confident and highlight the positive results of our policies.

I will underline Latin America. Some of you asked for a relaunch of relations. I am fully committed to that. I started working with CELAC in view of the first summit in June. I have been to the CELAC summit in January and I will be visiting Latin America again before June. This is an area where a little bit of our serious, committed cooperation can develop a huge potential for both. We have to do the same in Africa and in Asia. There is not a single place in the word where we can afford not to invest politically. We have the time, the energy and the resources to do so.

Another two elements I would like to underline. Yes, on cyber security. Many of you mentioned the need to give more attention to cyber security in our strategies and in our work, something we are already doing, in cooperation with NATO as well, and on strategic communication. We had that discussion just before we took this issue onto the agenda on Russia.

Working on strategic communication, not only on Russian but on Arabic, is key to our policy. This might sound a small element but to me it is a very important element as a sign of strategic thinking and acting, in view of the cultural outreach that we need so much and of which His Majesty the King of Jordan was reminding us yesterday. If we want to build partnerships and cooperation and tools of partnership and cooperation we have to start from this very natural basis, which is also the mutual cultural respect that is at the basis of a partnership among equals.

(Applause)

  Elmar Brok, Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident, Frau Hohe Vertreterin! Ich bedanke mich sehr für Ihre beiden statements. Ich glaube, dass auch der weitere Blick auf strategische Herausforderungen, den Herr Millán Mon angesprochen hat, mit den Amerikas, der Intensivierung der China-Politik und einem stärkeren Fokus auf Indien – was bisher unterblieben ist – sowie dem Zusammenhang aller Politiken, sehr wichtig ist. Wie auch die Migration. Wir können nicht mehr innere und äußere Sicherheit voneinander trennen. Wie es zu einem comprehensive approach kommen kann, wie diese zusammengefügt werden können, ist von großer Bedeutung. Wir werden unsere Sorgen hinsichtlich der Migration in unseren Ländern mit den schwerwiegenden Konsequenzen, die sie für politische Entwicklungen mit sich bringen, sowie die falschen Ängste davor und die Bedenken hinsichtlich der inneren Sicherheit nicht ausräumen können, wenn es uns nicht gelingt, die Ursachen zu bekämpfen. Die Menschen in Afrika müssen eine Zukunftschance haben, Bürgerkriege müssen verhindert werden. Wenn dies nicht gelöst ist, werden wir die Flüchtlingsfluten nicht beenden, das sollten wir sehen. Und das in einer Region der Welt, die als Paradies des Reichtums angesehen wird.

Aber lassen Sie mich einen letzten Punkt ansprechen – und Sie wiesen darauf auch in Ihrer Eingangsbemerkung bereits hin –, nämlich die Definition von Interessen. Welche Interessen können im Zusammenhang mit dem Kampf gegen Terror und für Frieden, hinsichtlich unserer friedensstiftenden Rolle in der Welt und der Frage unseres Handels sowie der Konsequenzen der Migration und auch des Klimawandels von einem unserer Nationalstaaten noch allein durchgesetzt werden? Viele unserer Mitgliedstaaten geben zu Hause immer noch vor, das tun zu können. Sie führen einen rein nationalen Diskurs, handeln auch nach außen so, bei ihren Reisetätigkeiten. Wenn wir nicht begreifen, dass wir gemeinsame Interessen entwickeln müssen, und einsehen, dass man manchmal ein bisschen von seinem Nationalen abgeben muss, um zu gemeinsamen Positionen zu kommen, sind wir auch nicht mehr in der Lage, die Souveränität für unsere Völker zurückzugewinnen. Souveränität gibt es nur, wenn man Stärke hat, für sie einzutreten. Kein einziges europäisches Land hat die wirkliche Fähigkeit, solche Krisen allein zu bewältigen. Deswegen sind die Mitgliedstaaten nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon zur Loyalität bei der Förderung der gemeinsamen Außensicherheit aufgefordert. Es gibt einen Vertragsartikel, der darauf hinweist. Daran sollten wir uns erinnern, und daran sollten wir auch manchmal die Regierungen der Europäischen Union erinnern, damit auf diese Art und Weise eine bessere Interessenvertretung für unsere Bürger wahrgenommen werden kann.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 12 March 2015.

(The sitting was suspended for five minutes)

   Written statements (Rule 162)

  Mireille D'Ornano (NI), par écrit. – Le rapport annuel de la haute représentante de l'Union européenne pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité au Parlement européen est une preuve que les tentatives de politique diplomatique de l'Union sont vouées à l'échec, car elles sont fondées sur une attitude idéaliste et compromise dans la soumission à des organisations internationales et des puissances étrangères. Le texte qui nous est présenté vise très clairement la Russie, contre laquelle certains souhaitent élaborer un cordon sanitaire en formant des partenariats de revers avec ses voisins. Cette vision est à l'évidence inféodée à l'OTAN et à l'alliance transatlantique et va à l'encontre des intérêts des États-nations d'Europe. Une dimension tout aussi inquiétante pour l'indépendance des nations européennes est celle de volonté affichée de créer un ordre mondial concrètement indéfini mais idéologiquement marqué. Les moyens pour parvenir à cette étape funeste pour les peuples et leurs libertés sont en partie décrits au travers du rêve de marché unique des produits de cybersécurité. Enfin, la volonté d'agréger toujours plus d'États autour d'une structure supranationale révèle que l'Union n'a pas trouvé les outils de puissance qu'elle prétendait détenir et que seule l'intégration économique permettrait de poursuivre ces buts.

  Krystyna Łybacka (S&D), na piśmie. – W kontekście sprawozdania dotyczącego spraw zagranicznych i polityki bezpieczeństwa w pełni zgadzam się z opinią sprawozdawcy, iż potrzebujemy nowej europejskiej strategii bezpieczeństwa. Strategia ta musi być oparta na ochronie praw człowieka, podstawowych wartości oraz zawierać aspekt edukacyjny w kontekście współczesnych zagrożeń. Podobnie europejskie działania zewnętrzne muszą być realizowane według kompleksowej strategii, której głównymi filarami – oprócz ochrony praw człowieka – powinny być inwestycje w edukację, będące częścią unijnej polityki humanitarnej. W kontekście przyszłych wyzwań dla polityki zagranicznej znajduje się również reforma polityki migracyjnej, tak aby w jak największym stopniu zapobiegać tragediom nielegalnych imigrantów próbujących przedostać się na terytorium Unii oraz wzmacniać politykę integracyjną. W pilnych rezolucjach dotyczących praw człowieka wielokrotnie apelowaliśmy również o wsparcie humanitarne dla uchodźców oraz krajów ich przyjmujących. Uważam ten aspekt za kluczowy w kontekście ochrony ludności cywilnej oraz zapewnienia bezpieczeństwa i pokoju. Popieram wzmocnienie regionalnych programów ochrony prowadzonych we współpracy z UNHCR.

  Dubravka Šuica (PPE), napisan. – Nakon rasplamsavanja sukoba u Ukrajini sigurnosno okruženje Europske unije se značajno pogoršalo, dok su odnosi između Bruxellesa i Moskve na najnižoj razini još od kraja Hladnog rata. Nakon terorističkih napada u Parizu na redakciju satiričkog magazina Charlie Hebdo sigurnosno pitanje je visoko na dnevnom redu EU-a s obzirom da smo dužni građanima osigurati visoku razinu sigurnosti unutar prostora slobode, sigurnosti i pravde, a da bi to postigli potrebne su odgovarajuće reforme. Smatram kako je krajnje vrijeme da se Europa ponovno ujedini, ali ovaj put na temelju bolje suradnje među nacionalnim vlastima, obavještajnim službama, ovdje mislim na Direktivu o razmjeni podataka o putnicima u zračnom prometu koja će omogućiti nesmetanu razmjenu privatnih podataka o putnicima u zrakoplovu koji slijeću ili polijeću bilo kamo u EU. Vanjska i sigurnosna politika Unije treba prije svega biti u funkciji očuvanja temeljnih europskih vrijednosti i interesa s ciljem jačanja političkog i pravnog poretka što će doprinijeti očuvanju mira i stabilnosti te sigurnosti građana. Unija mora u svakom trenutku biti spremna efikasno odgovoriti prijetnjama poput terorizma i trgovanjem oružjem, drogom i ljudima, a za to je potrebno poboljšati pojedine unutarnje strukture, ali i stvarati partnerstva s tzv. trećim zemljama.