Doslovný záznam ze zasedání

Úterý, 12. dubna 2016 - Štrasburk

17. EU v měnícím se globálním prostředí – více propojený, zpochybňovaný a složitý svět (rozprava)

  Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia jest sprawozdanie sporządzone przez Sandrę Kalniete w imieniu Komisji Spraw Zagranicznych w sprawie UE w zmieniającym się globalnym otoczeniu – świat bardziej połączony, skonfliktowany i złożony ( HYPERLINK "http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&reference=2015/2272(INI)" 2015/2272(INI)) (A8-0069/2016).

  Sandra Kalniete, Referente. – Priekšsēdētāj, Mogherini kundze, kolēģi! 22. martā Parlamenta Ārlietu komiteja sāka ar klusuma brīdi, godinot terora akta upurus Zaventemas lidostā. Kad Ārlietu komitejā gatavojās balsot par manis sagatavoto ziņojumu par Eiropas ārpolitikas un drošības politikas stratēģiju, mēs uzzinājām, ka tikko noticis sprādziens Parlamenta ēkai vistuvākajā metro stacijā. Tā bija nereāla un dīvaina sajūta. Mēs balsojām par Eiropas ārpolitikas stratēģiskajiem mērķiem, bet dažu simtu metru attālumā mira cilvēki — daļēji dēļ Eiropas mazspējas īstenot jau pirms daudziem gadiem citos stratēģiskos dokumentos izvirzītos mērķus.

Ieskatoties 2003. gadā pieņemtajā Eiropas drošības stratēģijā, mēs redzam, ka viens no trim izvirzītajiem galvenajiem stratēģiskajiem mērķiem ir Eiropas apkaimes, tai skaitā Tuvo Austrumu, stabilizācija. Šodien, 13 gadus vēlāk, mums jākonstatē, ka šis stratēģiskais mērķis nav izpildīts un situācija kaimiņu reģionos ir kļuvusi par vienu no galvenajiem cēloņiem lielai drošības problēmai pašā Eiropas sirdī.

Man ļoti negribētos, lai pēc pieciem vai desmit gadiem mūsu pēcteči atkal konstatētu — labi dokumenti, vāji darbi. Vāji darbi tādēļ, ka mūsu Savienība sirgst ar hronisku politiskās gribas trūkumu, kas ietekmē daudzu Eiropas politiku īstenošanu.

Tāpēc viens no svarīgiem ieteikumiem rezolūcijā par ES globālo stratēģiju ir sekot tās izpildei, regulāri vērtēt un aktualizēt, saistīt mērķus ar resursiem. Ar šo rezolūciju Eiropas Parlaments vēlas dot savu ieguldījumu institūciju un dalībvalstu politiskās gribas veidošanā un koncentrēšanā. Rezolūcijā mēs aicinām uz Eiropas kopējo aizsardzības spēju būtisku nostiprināšanu, uz Eiropas aizsardzības savienības izveidi jau pārskatāmā nākotnē.

Mēs aicinām Eiropas Savienības ārējās darbības centienus koncentrēt tieši uz Eiropas plašākās apkaimes stabilizēšanu, nevis censties būt par visu visiem. Mēs aicinām Eiropu būt pasaules līmeņa dalībniecei ar reģionālu ievirzi, kura ir aktīva globālo noteikumu veidotāja, nevis to izildītāja.

Mēs uzsveram, ka tas ir iespējams tikai sadarbībā ar Savienības galveno stratēģisko partneri — ASV. Tajā pašā laikā mums jāapzinās, ka Amerikas intereses arvien lielākā mērā ir Āzijā un ka mums pašiem būs jāspēj ne tikai vārdos, bet arī darbos gādāt par Eiropas un eiropiešu drošību.

Tāpēc mēs aicinām dalībvalstis līdz 2024. gadam palielināt ieguldījumus aizsardzībā vismaz līdz 2 % no sava IKP un vienlaikus tērēt šos līdzekļus gudrāk, savietojot mūsu militārās industrijas un spējas un panākot lielāku atdevi no ieguldītajiem līdzekļiem.

Kādi, manuprāt, ir stratēģijas īstenošanas galvenie izaicinājumi un riski? Pirmais ir politiskā griba un dalībvalstu un to sabiedrību kopēja mērķa apzināšanās. Otrs — arvien pieaugošie populisma riski. Tie rada neparedzamus izaicinājumus un sekas Savienībai un tās ārpolitikai, piemēram, Nīderlandes referendums, BREXIT, prezidenta vēlēšanas Amerikas Savienotajās valstīs. Un kas zina, ko mēs vēl piedzīvosim.

Un visbeidzot, runa ir par nepietiekamiem resursiem. Pilsoņi bieži sagaida vienkāršus un ātrus risinājumus. It īpaši lēnas ekonomiskās izaugsmes apstākļos. Ir grūti izskaidrot, ka par katru eiro, ko mēs efektīvi neieguldām savā ārējā darbībā, mums var nākties daudzkārt maksāt, risinot ārēju apstākļu izraisītas iekšējas problēmas. Tāpēc nobeigumā vēlos uzsvērt, ka viens no svarīgiem uzdevumiem būs atbalsts no Eiropas pilsoņiem. Un tieši šajā skaidrošanas darbā svarīga var būt Eiropas Parlamenta un mūsu, deputātu, loma.

Tāpēc mēs aicinām jūs, augstā pārstāve, sniegt Parlamentam regulārus ziņojumus par stratēģijas īstenošanu un uzskatām, ka globālā stratēģija būtu jāpārskata ik pēc pieciem gadiem. Paldies par uzmanību!

  Federica Mogherini, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, Madam rapporteur, you know how much I care about this global strategy, and we also discussed that recently. I would like to thank you personally for your work in this Parliament and outside, in this respect. Our world has become so unstable and so dangerous that our foreign policy can simply not afford to guess and check. Our mistakes can be too costly, as impulsive reactions can lead us to very dangerous places, and we see this every single day. The security of our citizens calls for a coherent, rational and united foreign policy.

You also know how much I care about the broad discussions we are having about this strategy. It has been a clear political decision for me. This has to be a strategy not for the European institutions but for our Union, and this means it can only be the result of a collective process. All the Commissioners have contributed to it. All the Member States, in different formations of ministerial meetings, have discussed their comments and proposals. We have involved think tanks, foreign policy experts and civil society representatives. We have organised a student essay competition and have met recently with former Erasmus students – and I have to say this was one of the best meetings we have had in the process. Obviously the European Parliament and the national parliaments have a key role to play, also because you represent directly our citizens, and our citizens know today that foreign policy matters to their lives. So let me thank the rapporteur for the excellent work, as our thinking on many different issues also goes exactly in the same direction. This is also very encouraging to see because our strategy, our common work, will not stop in June when the document is ready, as you said.

In the report you ask for a review of the strategy every five years. I agree. This should be a regular exercise we will have to do – five years, or even less maybe. But I believe that the first sections of the strategy on our interests and principles could have the potential to drive our actions for many years – probably even more than five – but at the same time, the strategy will have to be a living document. We need constantly to adapt the priorities we have set with the reality that surrounds us around the world, in our region, and also in terms of implementation. I will come to the implementation in a moment. From day one we will have to work on this, especially on the implementation of the strategy, for instance with sectorial papers and action plans. This is not going to be a PhD thesis or an academic dissertation. This has to be a living document on how we achieve our objectives, and I cannot imagine Parliament not being involved in the life of this strategy after June.

Looking at your report it is clear, and I do not need to explain why we have opted for a global strategy and not simply a security strategy like the previous one. For sure, traditional security will be crucial, and security includes defence. Still, we all understand that this is not enough. ‘No security without development’ is what we always say, but also ‘no security without democracy, human rights and the rule of law’. I believe the Arab awakening should have told us something about this – that security must be sustainable, and sustainable security cannot be achieved through security and defence instruments alone. It requires development, governance, civil society support, climate action and much more. This is why I put resilience at the core of this strategy: the resilience of institutions, the resilience of societies, the resilience of people and the resilience of countries at the end of today.

If you understand this, we should also see that our European Union can truly be a global power and, I would say, a superpower. We hold in our hands a unique mix of hard and soft power that no other power in the world can use. As a Union of 28, we can mobilise public and private investments, soldiers, observers and an unparalleled diplomatic network. This includes your contacts with other parliaments and with civil society organisations worldwide. The real challenge is making the mix of all these assets truly effective with common political guidance, and this is one of the main aims of the strategy.

Such a mix already makes us incredibly interesting for our global partners. Just hours ago I got back from Indonesia and Japan, and to them – on the other side of the world – it is absolutely clear that the European Union is a global power and the partner they want to partner with.

I fully agree with the report when it says that there is no contradiction between our role in our neighbourhood and our global engagement. Of course we need to prioritise, and of course our neighbours are the top priority, but let us not forget that our neighbourhood is expanding by the day. Think of this simple fact. If we exclude Syria, the highest number of refugees in Europe comes from Afghanistan, but there are also migrants from Pakistan and refugees from Eritrea. These are faraway places and yet so close to us.

We need to be a global player because issues are global. We cannot stabilise our immediate neighbourhood if we do not look at the Sahel, the Horn of Africa and Central Asia, and our stabilisation efforts must account both for the roles played by other global players in these regions and for global causes of instability, such as climate change. We cannot build a new global order based on rules and cooperation if we do not fully engage with our partners far away in Latin America or Southeast Asia. So indeed, everything is interconnected, and the global strategy is just that: a global response to global challenges and global opportunities.

Let me mention the three principles guiding our external action, in my view. First: engagement, because turning inwards is simply not an option. It would make us more, and not less, vulnerable, as we see when we underline the link between external and internal threats. Second: responsibility – thinking of what happens the day after and what we do the day after an action is taken. Having clear ideas of why we are taking any single step, what happens next, who are our allies and how we engage with them. We have seen too many mistakes in the past, just because we did not consider the consequences of an action. Third: partnership. The days when the weakness of my neighbour was my strength are long gone. You mentioned that. Instability in our neighbourhood can only bring instability here in Europe, so we need strong neighbours and strong cooperation with our partners in their neighbourhoods. No country alone, not even our Union alone, can carry the whole world on its shoulders. Engagement, responsibility and partnership: our engagement needs to be responsible and it needs to be cooperative.

The strategy will focus on some broad priorities: the starting points for the work ahead. First, the European Union must strengthen itself. We need a stronger Union. This includes building up our defence and doing so in a cooperative manner; making our intelligence services work together; working against radicalisation in our societies; monitoring hybrid threats; strengthening our energy security, cyber capacities and strategic communications; and preserving the Schengen system with new asylum rules. In a phrase, we need a 21st-century approach to security.

Second, we need to invest in the resilience of states and societies in and around Europe, to the east and to the south. We need to support effective and democratic institutions, protect the space of civil society and promote it, address countries of transit and origin of migration, promote socio-economic development, fight climate change and promote energy transitions. This is a complex priority which will need to be fleshed out, country by country, with a targeted approach. We have all the means to make our partners more internally resilient, but we need to focus on every single one to make it happen.

Third, we must do all we can to put an end to the current crisis in which the state, far from resilient, is on the verge of collapse – from Syria to Libya, from Somalia to South Sudan – and we must prevent the next crisis from addressing problems before they boil up and get out of control. These may not get us in the headlines, but it is the most effective way to save human lives and increased collective security.

Fourth, we must strengthen regional orders, because the causes of conflicts have an increasingly transnational nature. We are seeing this every single day. More often, the key to solving or preventing a crisis lies not only inside the country but in the region. Our cooperation with the US and NATO, with the African Union, CELAC and ASEAN, are all key. In some parts of the world, like Africa, we need to strengthen existing organisations. In other cases, we need new and creative formats. I think of the talks we have on Syria that have somehow established a format that is what I call ‘minilateral’ and that is flexible enough to feed into a process like the complex one in the Security Council of the United Nations, managing to bring results in that multilateral format. We need more of that. A network of bilateral, trilateral, sub-regional and regional organisations can be the best base for a more cooperative and more effective multilateral global order. So the last priority must be better global governance that is truly fit for our age.

This was a year of important achievements for the international community, from the Iranian deal to the sustainable development goals, to COP21. We need to stick to this path and preserve a system based on rules, but we need to work on how we can be imaginative. In a world of predictable unpredictability, the international system as it is does not suffice. We do not need conservation but change if we want to preserve the principle of effective multilateralism.

There is only one way to succeed in all this and to achieve our objectives, and this is a truly united Europe. I began by saying that our environment has never been so dangerous. I will add that, perhaps for the first time in our history, the European Union faces an existential threat. But these threats do not come from outside our borders. The only existential threat against the European Union comes from our internal divisions, the petty nationalisms, the finger-pointing and the lack of forward-looking leadership. We discussed this early this afternoon when we discussed our response to terrorism inside the European Union. I still believe we can make it, and we must make it – together with this Parliament, which is the best ally in this fight – for the security and benefit of all our citizens.

  Brian Hayes, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development. – Mr President, as the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development on this report, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her excellent work in this report. I also want to congratulate the High Representative on her speech just now, where she reminded us of the need for collective action across all EU institutions so that, at the forefront of our mind, in trying to address many of these global and regional problems, we have to act decisively together.

We do need a clear sense of direction and vision as we try to deal with the complex issues that Europe now faces. We also need to be very clear about what our priorities are. In the drafting of my opinion, I set out the importance of policy coherence as a key issue. I believe it is important that we enhance coherence between our internal and external policies and improve coordination between institutions and Member States. I am particularly happy that the rapporteur continued to make reference in her report to the involvement of national parliaments in the policy coherence agenda. We have to work together, we have to work with national parliaments, and we have to work across all institutions to ensure that our objectives are met in the future.

  Cristian Dan Preda, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, tout d'abord, je tiens à dire mon admiration pour la haute représentante, qui est là, avec nous, depuis huit heures, alors qu'elle revient d'Hiroshima. Donc, sincèrement, nous apprécions beaucoup le fait que vous soyez disponible pour discuter de tous ces rapports avec nous. Ensuite, je tiens à féliciter ma collègue, Sandra Kalniete, pour l'excellent rapport qu'elle a rédigé.

Ce rapport résume très bien la vision du Parlement sur les priorités de l'Union, en termes de politique étrangère et de sécurité. Dans les débats que nous avons eus lors de nos rencontres au sein de la commission des affaires étrangères, j'ai souligné que l'Union européenne doit s'exprimer d'une voix forte dans la politique internationale et, pour cela, nous avons besoin de la solidarité des États membres et aussi, bien sûr, de ressources.

Dans les amendements que j'ai déposés, j'ai insisté sur les priorités de l'Union. J'en ai mentionné trois: tout d'abord, l'amélioration de notre capacité d'anticiper les conflits et les crises, mais aussi de réagir rapidement à ces crises. Deuxièmement, j'ai insisté sur la nécessité de contribuer à la stabilisation et à la pacification de notre voisinage à l'Est comme au Sud, sans oublier aucune de ses parties. Et, troisièmement, j'ai insisté sur le maintien de la nécessité de maintenir nos engagements pour ce qui est de l'élargissement.

Je trouve que, dans cette crise identitaire terrible qu'on vit en Europe, il faut être courageux, il faut dire des choses qui ne sont pas sympathiques pour les adversaires de l'Europe. Il ne faut pas entrer dans leur jeu et être mou. Il faut être très courageux, et notamment lorsque l'on aborde un sujet comme l'élargissement. D'ailleurs, nous allons discuter demain du rapport sur l'élargissement.

(Le président retire la parole à l'orateur)

  Ana Gomes, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Agradeço a recetividade da colega Sandra Kalniete no trabalho conjunto subjacente a este relatório. Não é fácil tornar menos "árvore de Natal" esta contribuição do Parlamento Europeu para a estratégia global que a União procura elaborar face aos desafios humanitários, económicos, políticos e de segurança que enfrenta, com origem em atores estatais e não estatais, tanto dentro como fora das fronteiras comuns. Uma união política credível exige que os europeus assumam plena responsabilidade pela segurança e defesa coletivas na vizinhança e globalmente, sem nunca perder de vista os seus interesses, bem como os valores e princípios fundadores.

A União tem que reforçar a sua autonomia estratégica em capacidades de defesa, não continuando a subutilizar o potencial da PESC e da PCSD para articular com coerência políticas internas e externas e assegurar resiliência civil e militar na resposta coletiva. Só assim não falhará aos cidadãos, aos próprios parceiros, nos quadros da NATO, Nações Unidas, Parceria UE-África e outros, como sublinhou, de resto, a Sra. Mogherini.

Mutualização e partilha de recursos militares, projetos comuns de investigação e desenvolvimento reforçando a base industrial e tecnológica da defesa europeia, incluindo na segurança CBRN e ciberdefesa, são cruciais para evitar duplicações e falhas e para assegurar economias de escala e interoperabilidade aos sistemas.

Combater o terrorismo e outras formas de criminalidade organizada é prioridade que nenhum Estado-Membro pode prosseguir sozinho: impõe partilha de capacidades nos setores da segurança interna e externa, em especial na "intelligence", na polícia e na justiça. Impõe coerência e consistência nas políticas e ações externas. Da Ucrânia ao Mediterrâneo vemos falta de coesão e de solidariedade, com resultados que nos envergonham e descredibilizam a União.

Defender os cidadãos, os princípios e interesses europeus só se consegue através de uma união política que promova segurança humana, assente em regras de governação global – como também acaba de sublinhar de novo a Sra. Mogherini – ancoradas no direito internacional, nos direitos humanos e no Estado de direito.

Apoiamos o esforço da Alta Representante, que é também Vice-Presidente da Comissão, para assegurar liderança e coerência estratégica no prosseguimento dos interesses comuns. Precisamos de mais do que nunca da União pela nossa segurança e pela paz global. Nós rejeitamos a Europa das rivalidades e dos nacionalismos, que só pode significar guerra.

  Anna Elżbieta Fotyga, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Zwracam uwagę na rolę współpracy transatlantyckiej w rozwiązywaniu wielu zarysowanych w sprawozdaniu problemów. Podkreślam nieodmiennie neoimperialną politykę Rosji i obawy o bezpieczeństwo mojego regionu. Popieram działania pokojowe i stabilizacyjne w naszym południowym sąsiedztwie, wyrażam jednak obawy o efektywność pomocy humanitarnej i rozwojowej dostarczanej w rejonach konfliktów, a jest to niezbędne działanie dla ograniczenia dotykającego nas kryzysu migracyjnego.

  Илхан Кючюк, от името на групата ALDE. – Г-н Председател, г-жо Върховен представител, колеги, повече от 20 години Европа са наслаждаваше на мир и просперитет.

Очевидно е, че днес имаме променена среда и всички трябва да си даваме сметка, че настоящите предизвикателства, както и заплахите пред Европейския съюз са комплексни, взаимосвързани и идват както от вътрешността, така и отвъд общите ни граници. За да се справим с тази усложнена ситуация се нуждаем от силна политическа воля, лидерство за решителни съвместни действия и колективна имунна система.

Европейският съюз може да се превърне в ефективен и стратегически участник, който да допринесе за сигурността на глобално равнище само, ако има ясна глобална стратегия в областта на външната политика и политиката за сигурност, която да проправи път за постигането на тази цел.

Необходимо е Европейската служба за външна дейност да консолидира външнополитическите усилия на всички 28 държави членки и да определи стратегически и оперативни цели, които могат да доведат до конкретни резултати.

Трябва да подобрим капацитета на Европейската агенция по отбрана, но да засилим европейския разузнавателен обмен. Това ще е възможно, ако бъдем единни, подготвени и поемаме по-голяма отговорност.

  Sabine Lösing, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Der Bericht zeigt, wo es lang gehen soll, wenn die EU ihre Sicherheitsstrategie neu auflegt – nicht als Konzept einer Friedensunion, sondern einer Militärunion. Mehr Geld für Waffen, Ausbau des rüstungsindustriellen Komplexes und die Ausweitung des geostrategischen Einflussbereichs in Waffenbruderschaft mit der NATO und 2 % des BIP für Verteidigungszwecke aus den Haushalten quetschen. Als Beispiel würde das für Deutschland bedeuten: von jetzt 30 Milliarden auf 60 Milliarden Euro.

Sicherheit sollte soziale Sicherheit heißen, aber dafür fehlt angeblich das Geld. Ein „Weiter so“ heißt: mehr Konflikte innerhalb und außerhalb der EU. Die Sicherheitsproblematik wird größer, und die Konsequenzen in diesem Haus werden wohl wieder sein: noch mehr Waffen und noch höhere Zäune um Europa.

Wie wäre es mal mit Umdenken? Stichwort Fluchtursachen, Kriege, Armut, Klimawandel oder Ursachen des Terrorismus. Die EU-Staaten haben diese Fluchtursachen durch ihre Politik mit ausgelöst und könnten sie somit eigentlich auch wirksam bekämpfen.

  James Carver, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, this report and the whole process of the European Security Strategy ultimately seeks to create a single and cohesive foreign policy for all 28 very different Member States within the European Union. This fundamental rebalancing of Member States’ sovereignty is completely unacceptable. Whilst cooperation is welcome, this continent has NATO, the OSCE and the UN to facilitate better understanding between European nations. Ideally, these organisations are not distracted by the political and economic baggage that comes from European Union membership.

The United Kingdom remains a global power with international interests and obligations and can never fit comfortably into such a straitjacket. Indeed, President de Gaulle himself said as much when vetoing Britain’s first two applications to join the then European Economic Community. The best way to secure British security, and indeed the security of the 27 other Member States, is through institutions away from the European Union, where genuine multilateral cooperation can place, rather than the current subservience to EU institutions who have their own – and very different – logic and designs.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señor Presidente, quiero felicitar primero a la señora Kalniete, por su informe. Contiene importantes ideas, que serán de utilidad en la elaboración de la estrategia global que ha de presentarse al Consejo Europeo de junio.

Desde la estrategia de seguridad de 2003 el contexto estratégico en el que se encuentra la Unión Europea −ya se ha dicho− ha cambiado mucho: mucho más interdependiente en lo económico, mucho más conflictivo en lo político, gravísimos retos de seguridad. Necesitamos una acción exterior común efectiva −antes lo dije−; una acción exterior con capacidad de reacción ante las crisis, sí, pero también con visión estratégica y con capacidad de anticipación. Yo creo que ya todos sabemos que el soft power no basta para proteger nuestra seguridad y para hacer de la Unión Europea un verdadero actor global. Las amenazas a las que nos enfrentamos exigen −como señala el informe− que profundicemos también en la dimensión de seguridad y defensa.

Finalmente, déjeme destacar que, en este nuevo contexto internacional, los Estados Unidos siguen siendo nuestro principal aliado. El refuerzo del vínculo transatlántico es capital, particularmente en un momento de cierta fatiga exterior americana y el pivot hacia Asia.

  Richard Howitt (S&D). – Mr President, the global strategy is meant to update and replace the European Security Strategy, and the challenge for the High Representative/Vice-President is to make it more strategic, thereby helping to make the people of Europe safer. Whilst I thank Ms Kalniete, I think this Parliament’s report, in total, only partly helps to do this. It is right to identify genuine shared foreign policy interests and the new challenges. My own Group has properly focused our amendments on the concept of human security and on the need for further arms control. We stress the international diplomacy necessary to sustain efforts for global climate action, and we reiterate that there is no solution to the challenge of international migration without the first emphasis being on conflict resolution and international development.

Tonight I want to argue that we should not fight shy of Berlin Plus defence cooperation, which cannot, and must not, be deliberately misrepresented as a European army. Those who seek more ambition for EU foreign and security policy must also recognise that this encompasses more ambitious EU security cooperation. Why shouldn’t Europe be ready to undertake peacekeeping if a permanent peace could be established in Syria or even in the Palestinian territories? Surely recent attacks have removed any excuse against greater cooperation in counter-terrorism and intelligence-sharing.

Tonight we have heard from some who insist that this can only be achieved through institutional change, and others who resist it altogether. I simply say that this can be done in full complementarity for the EU countries which are also members of NATO. But inside or outside NATO, it does require a commitment to improve capabilities, and that is an issue of political will in Europe’s national capitals to improve our individual – as well as our collective – response, not in EU institutions alone. Strategies are about words. They can be good words, but they have to be good words that lead to good action and to better outcomes. That is the ultimate test of Europe’s new global strategy.

  Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). – Er zijn wereldwijd meer conflicten die uitbreken of opflakkeren dan welke beëindigd worden. En dat is natuurlijk een sombere, onrustwekkende realiteit. De Unie moet borg staan voor de veiligheid van haar burgers en de waarden. Ik zie dit verslag dan ook als een belangrijke denkoefening met heldere analyses en aanbevelingen.

Ik heb ook enkele bedenkingen. Ik ben voorstander om het Europees Defensieagentschap te versterken àls de focus op de kerntaken komt en er - met de lidstaten - bottom up gewerkt wordt. Ik ben echter bezorgd om de bureaucratische risico's van de voluntaristische ideeën in het verslag: een Europese Defensiegemeenschap en een permanent militair hoofdkwartier voor de EU.

Wij beschikken vandaag al over het EU Militair Comité, de EU Militaire Staf en de bijeenkomsten van de Chiefs of Defense. Waarom dan extra lagen bureaucratie creëren?

Ik loop ook niet warm voor het idee om de NAVO Response Force samen te voegen met de EU Battle Groups. De Response Force werkt op het terrein, de Battle Groups zijn slechts een papieren tijger. Of hun samenvoeging een win-win wordt, is hoogst twijfelachtig.

  Paavo Väyrynen (ALDE). – Mr President, when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton started their term in the leadership of United States foreign policy, they launched a doctrine of three ‘D’s: development was lifted to an equal footing with diplomacy and defence. We have to do the same in the external policies of the European Union.

Development must be understood in the widest possible sense. We have to fight against poverty and promote ecologically, economically and socially sustainable development all over the world. In the spirit of real policy coherence, we also have to promote this cause in our internal development. In development policy we have to act in close cooperation with the United States, since in this field our basic values, goals and interests are very close to each other. This is also how we can most effectively tackle the root causes of our recent security and migration challenges.

  Andrej Plenković (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, zahvaljujem kolegici Kalniete na odličnom izvješću koje je naš doprinos globalnoj strategiji EU-a, koja se priprema pod vodstvom Visoke predstavnice Mogherini, a čije se usvajanje očekuje na Europskom Vijeću u lipnju. Strategija treba poslužiti da EU promovirajući vrijednosti slobode, demokracije, ljudskih prava, mira i solidarnosti i dalje bude predvodnik u rješavanju kriza, suočavanju s hibridnim prijetnjama i izazovima za Uniju i njene građane, a u partnerstvu s drugim organizacijama i ključnim državama poput SAD-a.

Recentno smo usvojili strategiju proširenja i susjedstva, a uskoro ćemo i razvojnu, koja će zajedno s ovom strategijom predstavljati platformu našeg djelovanja u globalnom upravljanju na temelju poštivanja međunarodnoga prava. Trebamo raditi na jačanju obrambenih sposobnosti te pametnijem zajedničkom korištenju proračunskih sredstava za obranu na razini država članica.

Cjeloviti pristup vanjskom djelovanju Unije mora učinkovito objediniti kompletan katalog dostupnih instrumenata vanjskih aktivnosti, a ukupna ocjena učinkovitosti EU-a mjerit će se kroz uspješnost našeg djelovanja u susjedstvu, pri čemu su ključni angažmani u Ukrajini, Siriji, Iranu, sjeveru Afrike te bliskoistočnom mirovnom procesu. Prioriteti su i odnosi s Rusijom, borba protiv terorizma kombinacijom mjera unutarnje i vanjske sigurnosti te zaštita vanjskih granica, koja se mora osnažiti kontroliranjem migracije i čvrstim dogovorom s Turskom.

Očekujem da će globalna strategija jasno definirati ambiciozne, ali realne ciljeve te uz osiguranje odgovarajućih proračunskih sredstava pružiti konkretne mehanizme za njihovo ostvarivanje. Time će se osnažiti i potvrditi vodstvo EU-a na globalnoj razini kao asertivnog i učinkovitog subjekta.

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). – Arvoisa puheenjohtaja, arvoisa korkea edustaja, Euroopan kansalaisten ja maiden turvallisuus alkaa kaukana Euroopan ulkopuolella, mutta kuten Te, korkea edustaja, sanoitte, tämän päivän suuret uhkat tulevat myös Euroopan sisältä nationalismina ja ääriryhmien nousuna.

Euroopan unionilla on käytössä erittäin hyviä politiikkavälineitä, mutta valitettavasti ongelmana on poliittisen tahdon puute. Solidaarisuus jäsenmaiden kesken on heikkoa, ja koherenssia täytyy vielä saada lisää. Se, mitä itse haluan vielä tähän mainioon globaalistrategiaan, on terävyyttä aseiden viennin kontrolliin ja yhteisten kantojen kiinnipitämiseen siitä, mitä me olemme itse päättäneet aseista ja aseiden viennistä ja sen kiellosta. On tärkeää todellakin pitää näistä kiinni. Nimittäin uskottavuus ja eheys ovat globaalistrategian ydinsanoja, ja ne ovat Euroopan tulevaisuuden kannalta ydinasioita.

Pytania z sali

  Georgi Pirinski (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to ask the High Representative two questions: have you been contemplating the notion of working on a new European architecture of security arrangement, and has it crossed your mind that there might be an overall relief and reconstruction plan for the Middle East/North African region? In the sense of the Marshall Plan – it will be 70 years next year since the speech of Secretary Marshall, who launched the plan – would you say that there is room for a Mogherini plan of this same scale?

I ask these questions because you have highlighted the need for an imaginative new approach built on engagement, responsibility and partnership. What would you say to these two questions?

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, στη μείζονα κρίση που ταλανίζει το περιβάλλον της, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση έχει κάνει λανθασμένες επιλογές. Στον απόηχο της αραβικής άνοιξης που ήταν στην πραγματικότητα ισλαμιστικός χειμώνας, επέλεξε να ακολουθήσει το ρεύμα αποσταθεροποίησης της Συρίας και έδωσε τροφή στο τερατούργημα του Daesh. Τώρα, προσπαθεί να αποποιηθεί των ευθυνών της στην προσφυγική κρίση που δημιούργησε, με κίνδυνο να προκαλέσει μια άνευ προηγουμένου ανθρωπιστική κρίση στην Ελλάδα.

Ταυτόχρονα, ανέχεται τα ανατολίτικα παζάρια της Τουρκίας που εκμεταλλεύεται τη συριακή κρίση για να προωθήσει τη δική της στρατηγική ενισχύοντας, ταυτόχρονα, το Daesh. Ήρθε καιρός τα κράτη μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης να πάψουν να αντιλαμβάνονται τα συμφέροντά τους με τις ιδεοληψίες του εικοστού αιώνα.

Η εξωτερική στρατηγική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης πρέπει να επιτυγχάνει συνοχή με την οικονομία και τον πολιτισμό των ευρωπαϊκών κρατών και να διακατέχεται από υπευθυνότητα και διορατικότητα. Διαφορετικά, η Ευρώπη θα παραμείνει αυτό που έχει καταστεί σήμερα: ένας αφερέγγυος εταίρος.

(Koniec pytań z sali)

  Federica Mogherini, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, I will be very brief, first of all because many of the comments are simply comments that need to be taken on board when drafting the final stage of the strategy. Secondly, because at the various types of meetings, both with this Parliament and the national parliaments, we have had occasion to discuss many of these issues raised here. Thirdly, because the rapporteur has done excellent work in somehow incorporating the different aspects of the concerns and the suggestions of the European Parliament into a single contribution that will obviously be reflected in our work.

I will comment only on two things. One is the policy coherence element: this is exactly the kind of exercise we are trying to do. This is also reflected very well in the report. We need to ensure coherence between different institutions, different instruments, different policies and sometimes even different priorities within different policies. We have an enormous amount of tools, but we do not necessarily use them in a coordinated and coherent way.

I will also comment on the last comment that was made: the need maybe to have a Mogherini plan or something similar. This would cover for the reconstruction of and support for the Middle East but also Africa, because we have seen the development of trust funds recently and because we need to mobilise resources on specific strategic targets we have as a European Union.

This strategy will not, I hope, entail extraordinary plans or measures but rather the pooling of the resources we already have, which are consistent. I hope that we manage to marshal these resources in a natural, coordinated and ordered way to serve our strategic priorities. We all know today what the priorities of tomorrow will be: the reconstruction of the Middle East, a major investment in the future of Africa. We can continue like this and the strategy will be exactly this. So if we manage to be serious on the definition of the strategy and on the implementation of the strategy, I think we will no longer need emergency measures.

  Sandra Kalniete, rapporteur. – Mr President, I thank you all very much for all the pertinent remarks you have made. I will just repeat the key words of the work we are doing together.

First of all, it is important to have the political will to build the resilience of Europe and Europeans. There is a need for a coherent internal and external policy, and what is most important is that we implement the strategic documents. To do that, we need resources for external policy. I fully agree that we have to keep our engagement and continue with enlargement and our promises. There is the importance of strategic autonomy and the strengthening of our defence capacity. We have to cooperate with NATO and we have to think about building a European intelligence agency.

Human security is at the centre of our strategy. Because of that we need to better control arms. We have to be more skilful in conflict resolution and invest more in development, because we want to be a global player with a regional focus in this connected, contested and complex world.

  Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się w środę 13 kwietnia 2016 r.