Pilns teksts 
Procedūra : 2016/2052(INI)
Dokumenta lietošanas cikls sēdē
Dokumenta lietošanas cikls : A8-0316/2016

Iesniegtie teksti :


Debates :

PV 21/11/2016 - 15
CRE 21/11/2016 - 15

Balsojumi :

PV 22/11/2016 - 5.8
CRE 22/11/2016 - 5.8
Balsojumu skaidrojumi

Pieņemtie teksti :


Debašu stenogramma
Pirmdiena, 2016. gada 21. novembris - Strasbūra Pārskatītā redakcija

15. Eiropas aizsardzības savienība (īss izklāsts)
Visu runu video

  La Présidente. – L'ordre du jour appelle le rapport de Urmas Paet sur l'Union européenne de la défense (2016/2052(INI)) (A8-0316/2016).


  Urmas Paet, rapporteur. – Madam President, the state of European security has grown increasingly fragile. The surge of instability and unpredictability around the Union borders is a reality and a cause of concern to all European citizens. In order to defend itself and increase its security, the European Union must do more and must be consistent. Our Union is not equipped to face overwhelming defence challenges. For almost 30 years, the majority of the Member States applied cuts in their defence budgets, leading to smaller armed forces. Cooperation among Member States is occasional, and Europe continues to rely heavily on NATO capabilities and on US solidarity.

Many Member States have called, over the past year, for effective and increased cooperation on defence. Let us be clear: the momentum to move towards a working European defence policy is here. Tomorrow, Parliament is voting on the European Defence Union report. As rapporteur, my main recommendations included the goal for EU countries to spend 2% of their GDP on defence, helping to finance infrastructure in Member States at the Union’s eastern border, and establishing a military Schengen area.

The role of NATO has been, is and will continue to be paramount. There is also no reason to say that EU defence cooperation is weakening NATO. This is simply not true. On the contrary, for years NATO has wished to see the EU as a partner complementing it.

There are several issues on which the EU could improve its security cooperation internally as well as with NATO. At the moment, movement of the allies’ defence forces personnel is troublesome, bureaucratic and time consuming. The EU must create a system to change this reality: in other words, the so-called military Schengen should be established. We can talk endlessly about increasing the efficiency of defence costs – and that is necessary – but in order to reach a certain level of quality we need also quantity. The EU Member States must set themselves the goal of spending 2% of their GDP on defence, as the NATO countries have done. This would give a clear signal of the joint positions of the EU and NATO. In order to carry out the EU defence policy we must contribute additionally from our common EU budget. The right way to do this will be through the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework.

The EU can financially support, for example, the placement of international NATO battalions in the EU Member States by backing the building of necessary infrastructure such as roads, barracks and other facilities. At the moment, most of this burden falls on a few specific Member States who, due to their geopolitical location, need an increased NATO presence. At the same time, the increased presence serves as a protection for all the EU and NATO countries.

The EU must also gear up the defence research programme and start developing a common European policy on capabilities and armament. We need to strengthen the industrial and technological base of our defence sector in order to decrease dependency on third parties. The practical steps also require a political framework in order to ensure sufficient political attention. Therefore, it would be reasonable to create the position of European Commissioner for Defence and to set up regular meetings of the EU defence ministers. Furthermore, it is necessary to establish the headquarters for the EU military operations.

The Member States that are ready to undertake more binding commitments could set up permanent structured cooperation arrangements so that it would be possible to establish multinational forces. An option would be to further develop the EU battle group system. And, lastly, Europe can and must enable a real defence dimension without further delay. The Union must become proactive, especially in the security field.


Interventions à la demande


  Michael Gahler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Vielen Dank insbesondere an unseren Berichterstatter Urmas Paet für seinen Bericht. Wir brauchten in der Tat nicht erst den Weckruf der amerikanischen Präsidentenwahl, um uns mit den Herausforderungen im Bereich Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik zu beschäftigen. Letztlich ist seit Inkrafttreten des Lissabon-Vertrags eine neue Möglichkeit geschaffen, die Zusammenarbeit deutlich zu verstärken. Die ständige strukturierte Zusammenarbeit muss jetzt von den Mitgliedstaaten angegangen werden, und wir als Parlament haben das seit Langem unterstützt. Ich unterstütze insbesondere auch die Überlegungen, die der Berichterstatter angestellt hat, zum Beispiel zum Thema battle groups, oder auch – was ich für wichtig halte – zur künftigen Finanzierung unserer Aktivitäten. Da brauchen wir eine grundlegende Reform des Athener Mechanismus. Wir können nicht wie bisher weitermachen, dass weiter das Konzept costs lie where they fall gilt. Das müssen wir auch gemeinschaftlich angehen.


  Tonino Picula (S&D). – Gospođo predsjednice, ovaj izvještaj doprinosi traženju djelotvornijih odgovora Europske unije u području obrane. Naš svijet postaje sve nestabilniji, nesigurniji i nepredvidljiviji. Moramo na rastuće izazove odgovoriti jer su ugroženi ne samo naš integritet nego i naše vrijednosti. Da bi to postigli, zemlje članice moraju bliže surađivati.

Sigurnost i obrana ne smiju ostati najslabije karike europskih integracija. Trebamo slušati građane. Njih dvije trećine želi veću suradnju. Neuspjeh da građanima omogućimo sigurnost dovest će do daljnjeg udaljavanja od europskog projekta i okretanja nacionalnim sigurnosnim rješenjima.

Europska obrambena unija nije paralelna struktura NATO-u. Ona će se razvijati u potpunoj koordinaciji s NATO-om kao našim primarnim partnerom i stupom europske obrane. Izvješće to naglašava. Pozivam vas da ga podržimo jer Europski parlament mora biti uključen u proces koji je odmakao u ostalim institucijama. Izvješćem bi poslali snažnu poruku o temi koja je postala prvorazredno političko pitanje i kriterij kojim građani ocjenjuju vjerodostojnost europskog projekta.


  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjednice, Europa teško odgovara na sigurnosne izazove koje pred nas stavljaju ova turbulentna vremena u kojima živimo. Činjenica je da većina država članica premalo izdvaja za obranu i da su vremena kada je Europa bila sigurna, bez prevelikog izdvajanja za vojsku, daleko iza nas. No povratak rješenjima starima više od šezdeset godina neće nam donijeti sigurnost. Ono što se pedesetih godina prošlog stoljeća zvalo Europska obrambena zajednica sad se naziva Europskom obrambenom unijom. Nije zaživjelo ni onda, a neće ni sada. A nema ni potrebe da zaživi.

Temelj obrane Europe i naše civilizacije općenito je NATO. I njemu se moramo više posvetiti. Nakon predsjedničkih izbora u SAD-u postalo je jasno da će doći do redefinicije odnosa unutar NATO-a i Europa tu mora pokazati spremnost za dijalog s Amerikom i ostalim ključnim partnerima te odlučnost da predvodi obranu zapadne civilizacije i njezinih vrijednosti.


  Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Madam President, in recent years the security situation in and around Europe has significantly worsened and has created challenges that no single country or organisation is able to face alone. These challenges therefore require the EU to act together with our allies.

However, our current efforts to build the European Defence Union must also take into account the impact and constraints of the EU relationship with NATO. Twenty-two European Member States belong to both the EU and NATO and we do have common values, historically shared by both institutions. I firmly believe that an increase in European military capability, which I support, must be conducted in cooperation with NATO: not as a supplement to NATO but as a complement to it. Europe must focus energy and resources on fixing those tasks that NATO cannot do and is not equipped to do. That way, we will create both the security needed and the ability to deal with new tasks.


  Javier Couso Permuy (GUE/NGL). – Señora Presidenta, este informe ahonda en dos errores: se centra en la dimensión securitaria y en la perspectiva militarista, es decir, busca soluciones a la seguridad obviando un enfoque holístico que combata las asimetrías económicas, culturales y sociales. Así, no hay más seguridad.

Además, propone el despliegue militar en el exterior, algo peligroso viendo la actitud agresiva que la Unión Europea y algunos Estados mantienen con nuestra vecindad oriental y mediterránea. Además, pide un aumento del gasto armamentístico, algo obsceno cuando esta Unión Europea de la desigualdad impone recortes draconianos en salud, educación y servicios.

Y, como colofón, amparándose en una supuesta Unión Europea de la defensa propone reforzar la labor de la OTAN: es una contradicción evidente. Nosotros queremos una defensa que busque la paz y no a mayor gloria de los designios agresivos o las cuentas de resultados de las empresas de armamento.


  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Dass die EU mehr für ihre eigene Sicherheit tun muss, steht außer Zweifel. Aber zu dem Bericht und der Strategie, die da vorgeschlagen wird, habe ich Fragen:

Wie viel mehr Effizienz schafft es, wenn wir die Rüstungsausgaben auf zwei Prozent anheben? Derzeit gibt die EU dreimal so viel für Rüstung aus wie Russland, aber wir haben deutlich weniger Fähigkeiten. Geht es um mehr Geld oder geht es um mehr Effizienz?

Zweitens: Wieso trägt es zur Sicherheit bei, wenn wir mit einem Verteidigungs-Schengen Zonen unterschiedlicher Sicherheit in der EU schaffen?

Drittens: Wieso soll die EU durch Präsenz – militärische Präsenz – im Osten bestimmte Begrenzungen, die die NATO für sich aus guten Gründen vorgenommen hat, über den Haufen werfen?

Und viertens: Wieso wollen wir mehr Geld für den Haushalt, ohne klarzustellen, dass der Rüstungshaushalt nicht in die Forschungsinvestitionen der EU hineinfressen darf?


  Jean-Luc Schaffhauser (ENF). – Madame la Présidente, la défense européenne n'a aucun sens si elle ne s'appuie pas sur l'indépendance de l'Europe et sa politique propre extérieure.

Indépendance veut dire autonomie et souveraineté. Pour le moment, il n'y avait qu'un seul pays qui se situait dans cette politique en Europe, c'était la France, et la Russie.

Vouloir aligner la politique européenne sur celle de l'OTAN signifie vouloir partager une politique agressive et insensée qui nous a conduits là où nous sommes. D'ailleurs, cette politique a changé. Il faudrait donc que, nous aussi, nous changions. Il n'est pas sérieux de ne pas vouloir une Europe indépendante et souveraine et dans ce cas-là, il n'y a qu'un seul pays qui continue à vouloir cette indépendance et cette souveraineté, c'est mon pays.

Je tiens à dire que jamais, dans la construction européenne, nous ne sommes arrivés à partager un tel objectif. C'est l'échec de la défense européenne pour raison d'alignement sur la politique otanienne.


  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος ( NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η άμυνα και η ασφάλεια είναι δύο σημαντικοί παράγοντες για την επιβίωση και την ευημερία μιας χώρας. Υπό την έννοια αυτή είναι εύλογη η συζήτηση που κάνουμε για τη δημιουργία μιας Ευρωπαϊκής Αμυντικής Ενώσεως. Όμως, η έκθεση κινείται προς εντελώς εσφαλμένη κατεύθυνση.

Την ανάγκη για συλλογική άμυνα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως την καλύπτει το ΝΑΤΟ. Τα περισσότερα κράτη της Ενώσεως είναι και μέλη του ΝΑΤΟ και διαθέτουν δυνάμεις σε αυτό. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δεν αντιμετωπίζει κίνδυνο επιθέσεως από κάποια μεγάλη και ισχυρή στρατιωτική δύναμη, ούτως ώστε να αυξήσει υπέρμετρα τις αμυντικές της δυνατότητες.

Από την άλλη πλευρά, δεν νοείται να γίνει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση χωροφύλακας της περιοχής και να εισβάλει, όπως αναφέρεται στην έκθεση, με δυνάμεις στα γειτονικά κράτη. Την ασφάλεια κάθε χώρας την αναλαμβάνουν οι εθνικοί στρατοί της χώρας, οι οποίοι εξοπλίζονται και οργανώνονται, ενώ οι χώρες διαθέτουν αμυντικές δαπάνες ανάλογα με τις υποχρεώσεις και τις ανάγκες που έχουν. Η πατρίδα μου, η Ελλάδα, δέχεται απειλές από την Τουρκία και σας πληροφορώ ότι διαθέτει περισσότερο από το 2% του ΑΕΠ για τις αμυντικές δαπάνες.


  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Já jsem opačného názoru než můj předřečník i než někteří moji kolegové. Jsem přesvědčený, že EU musí zaručit svým občanům pocit bezpečí, že nemůžeme rezignovat na tuto základní hodnotu. Souhlasím s panem zpravodajem i z mé politické frakce, že zabezpečení právě obranné politiky je jedna z těch základních úloh EU, která třeba není úplně jasně popsaná v primárním právu, ale měli bychom se o to snažit.

Já vnímám tyto síly a složky jako komplementární k tomu, co vykonává NATO, a je naší zodpovědností nejen zapojit EP, jak se o tom zde hovořilo, do tvorby této politiky, ale především volat k odpovědnosti i členské státy EU, protože ony by měly zabezpečit minimálně alespoň ten finanční rámec, který dlouhodobě mnohé státy nesplňují. Dvě procenta do obrany nevěnuje ani má země a já to vnímám jako náš dluh vůči společné obraně. EU na ni nesmí rezignovat.


  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, în calitate de raportor alternativ din partea Grupului S&D la Comisia pentru piața internă, am sugerat comisiei de fond câteva lucruri din perspectiva Comisiei pentru piața internă și protecția consumatorilor. Am luat în calcul situația fragmentării pieței din industria apărării și, evident, ne-am gând și la problemele pe care le întâmpină IMM-urile în accesarea unor contracte în această industrie care asigură, de fapt, o mai bună apărare. Am solicitat comisiei să evalueze dacă obiectivele Directivei 2009/81 privind atribuirea unor contracte în domeniul securității și apărării au fost atinse și să ia măsurile necesare în scopul unei posibile adaptării a acesteia la nevoile reale ale pieței din domeniu apărării.

De asemenea, am sugerat și am încurajat comisia pentru consolidarea cercetării prin finanțarea în sectorul apărării. Este necesar pentru că suntem îngrijorați de scăderea bugetului pentru cercetare și inovare în acest domeniu. Și, sigur, ne gândim la decalajul de competențe care poate apărea datorită forței de muncă îmbătrânite și încurajăm tinerii să meargă în acest domeniu pentru a asigura o mai bună apărare a Uniunii Europene.


  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η προσπάθεια φυγής προς τα εμπρός που επιχειρούν οι κυρίαρχοι κύκλοι της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης συνεχίζεται παρά το Brexit. Είναι εμφανής πλέον η καταστρατήγηση των διατάξεων των Συνθηκών με στόχο να δρομολογηθεί ένας ευρωστρατός.

Τα αποτελέσματα των εκλογών στις ΗΠΑ, που καθιστούν αβέβαιο το μέλλον του ίδιου του ΝΑΤΟ, και οι ανησυχίες κάποιων κρατών μελών σχετικά με τη συνέχιση των επεμβατικών τους σχεδίων στη Μέση Ανατολή και στην Αφρική οδηγούν σε αποφάσεις οι οποίες δεν έχουν καμιά δημοκρατική δικαιοδοσία.

Ο υπό ίδρυση ευρωστρατός δεν πρόκειται να προστατεύσει τα ελληνικά σύνορα από τις επιθετικές ενέργειες της Τουρκίας και θα ακολουθήσει την πεπατημένη του ΝΑΤΟ που παριστάνει τον Πόντιο Πιλάτο στις τουρκικές απειλές έναντι της Ελλάδος. Ο τομέας της άμυνας είναι τομέας αρμοδιότητας των εθνικών αρχών. Ο ελληνικός λαός δεν θα αποδεχθεί τα τελεσίγραφα και τις πολιτικές κανονιοφόρων που επιχειρούν να επιβάλουν οι Βρυξέλλες και το Βερολίνο.


  João Pimenta Lopes (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, este relatório não nos traz novidades, apenas confirma o cariz militarista e bélico da União Europeia. As justificações são as de sempre: a insegurança em solo europeu ou a pretensa luta contra o terrorismo, sem qualquer referência ao absoluto falhanço das políticas de integração ou ao que foram e são as responsabilidades da União Europeia nas agressões a países do norte da África e Médio Oriente, bem como na promoção, financiamento, treino e armamento de grupos extremistas.

Tão-pouco faltam as supostas ameaças de leste para justificar o cerco à Federação Russa. A subserviência à NATO e aos seus objetivos, como o aumento para 2 % do PIB dos orçamentos militares dos Estados-Membros e o reforço do financiamento para investigação militar e para a indústria militar em solo europeu, não esconde as pretensões de ter na UE um grande bloco militar, com capacidades operacionais próprias, nomeadamente por via de um exército europeu.

Quem faz a guerra e alimenta a sua indústria não quer nem defende a paz.


  Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδάκης ( NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η δημιουργία Ευρωπαϊκής Αμυντικής Ένωσης με ευρωστρατηγείο, ευρωστρατό, πολυεθνικά τμήματα του ΝΑΤΟ, αποστολές στρατευμάτων, στη βάση της παγκόσμιας στρατηγικής της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, συνιστούν πολύ επικίνδυνη εξέλιξη για τους λαούς.

Το στρατιωτικό Σένγκεν, όπως το αποκαλείτε, συνιστά μια επικίνδυνη εξέλιξη, γιατί αποτελεί πολεμική προετοιμασία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης με ταυτόχρονη ενίσχυση της συμπληρωματικότητας με το ΝΑΤΟ. Εκφράζεται έτσι η επιθετικότητα και οι ανταγωνισμοί των μονοπωλίων.

Στα κριτήρια του σχεδιαζόμενου Ευρωπαϊκού Εξάμηνου Άμυνας και της Λευκής Βίβλου για την άμυνα η ελληνική κυβέρνηση έχει σπεύσει ήδη να ανταποκριθεί και με το παραπάνω. Χωμένη μέχρι τα μπούνια στα ιμπεριαλιστικά σχέδια λαμβάνει ήδη επαίνους από τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες, το ΝΑΤΟ και την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση για τους εξοπλισμούς της, που ξεπερνούν το 2% του ΑΕΠ, και διαθέτει τη βάση της Σούδας ως αναβαθμισμένο ορμητήριο των νέων ιμπεριαλιστικών πολέμων.

Οι λαοί δεν πρέπει να χύσουν το αίμα τους για τα συμφέροντα των ιμπεριαλιστών. Πρέπει να δυναμώσουν την πάλη τους ενάντια στους ιμπεριαλιστικούς πολέμους και στις επεμβάσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και του ΝΑΤΟ, ενάντια στα βρώμικα σχέδιά τους.


  Marek Jurek (ECR). – Europa potrzebuje dzisiaj elementarnej solidarności, a nie armii europejskiej, no bo w końcu o to chodzi. Przewodniczący Juncker powiedział parę dni temu, że chodzi po prostu utworzenie armii europejskiej. Przecież po to, żeby każdy z naszych krajów wydawał po dwa procent dochodu narodowego na swoją obronę, my nie musimy tworzyć wspólnej armii. Przecież po to, żeby w ramach polityki sankcji, traktując sankcje serio, zatrzymać budowę Nord Stream 2, my nie potrzebujemy żadnej wspólnej armii. Nawet po to, żeby na forum Przymierza Atlantyckiego udzielić większej obrony państwom bałtyckim, my nie potrzebujemy do tego tworzyć wspólnego wojska.

Tak naprawdę można tworzyć nowe instytucje wtedy, kiedy rośnie nasza solidarność. Dzisiaj nie ma na to dowodów, co więcej mamy do czynienia w Unii Europejskiej z nieodpowiedzialną władzą, która wywołała kryzys imigracyjny. Nie daje się nowych instrumentów tym, którzy nie wiedzą, co zrobić z tą władzą, którą dzisiaj dysponują.


  Maria Lidia Senra Rodríguez (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Vice—Presidente, não é pela via da militarização nem das medidas repressivas que haverá mais segurança na Europa. Com um aumento da despesa militar pretendem reforçar uma aparato repressivo e militar para defender os interesses das corporações transnacionais, das empresas de segurança e de armamento e também para continuar a impor as políticas neoliberais que concentram ainda mais riqueza nos já mais ricos e continuam a despojar as classes populares dos seus direitos e do direito a uma vida digna e também os pobres dos seus recursos naturais, dos bens comuns e do direito ao desenvolvimento.

Contra o aumento da despesa militar e as políticas repressivas, contra a União Europeia da defesa, queremos mais educação pública e mais saúde pública para todas e para todos em todo o mundo. Queremos que devolvam aos povos o direito de decidir, de trabalhar e de se desenvolver com base nos seus recursos, em harmonia com a conservação do meio ambiente.


(Fin des interventions à la demande)


  Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, as you know on 14 November the High Representative, Vice-President Mogherini, presented to foreign and defence ministers the implementation plan on security and defence. This is part of the wider package, together with the Commission’s European Defence Action Plan and concrete proposals for the implementation of a joint declaration on EU/NATO cooperation, signed in Warsaw.

The adoption of the related Council conclusions last Monday is a major step forward for the EU, as it opens a new chapter for all the security and defence efforts in the union. A stronger Europe is what we need now more than ever, in view of the unprecedented security challenges we are facing. This is what our citizens and our partners expect from us.

I would like to welcome Mr Urmas Paet’s report on the European Defence Union. Our views coincide in most of the areas, and the report addresses many critical issues that we have been working on in the security and defence implementation plan for the EU global strategy. The objective is to define our security and defence strategic priorities and to see how common security and defence policy, being part of wider EU efforts, can contribute to tackling today’s and tomorrow’s multifaceted security challenges, as European citizens demand.

From this point of view, I am also grateful to Mr Paet for drawing political attention to priority policy areas and issues that need the Member States’ and the European Parliament’s support. I would like to mention in particular capacity building on security and development, permanent structured cooperation, deployability of the battle groups and the strengthening of the defence industry. Mr Paet’s report is a useful asset to our future work and to thinking ahead on how and in what direction should we move in policy issues and also in terms of structures if and when Member States decide that the time has come for a European Defence Union.

The three strategic priorities drawn from global strategy are clear: responding to crisis, building capacities of partners, and protecting the Union and its citizens. It is around these three strategic priorities that the Council has defined a new, comprehensive level of ambition for the EU and identified a number of actions to be undertaken in order to implement this level of a mission.

Let me mention some of them: setting military and civilian capacity deployment development priorities; deepening defence cooperation, including setting up a coordinated annual review on defence; exploring the possibility of permanent structured cooperation; adjusting European External Action Service structures to improve our planning and conduct capability for Common Security Defence Policy missions and operations; strengthening the EU rapid response toolbox; looking into financing in the area of security and defence, including revision of internal mechanism.

I would like to underline a few key principles on which there was broader agreement. First, the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) remains an important instrument for external action. Second, cooperation with our partners is essential, but the EU needs to be able to act autonomously when necessary. And third, collective defence is NATO’s task so ensure full complementarity here. Particularly appreciated is the report’s reference to improving our structures for planning, conduct and situational awareness. In the short-term we will address the gaps we have in the operational planning and conduct for non-executive military options. We will present a proposal as soon as possible on this. It is important to know that we are not creating big new structures, but addressing shortcomings or streamlining the present components.

We welcome the report’s strong statements about the need for a fair functioning and transparent internal market and for the Commission’s involvement in supporting defence research. We share the report’s statement that the current fragmentation of the market represents a weakness for the competitiveness of the European defence industry. So the European Defence Action Plan will set out proposals to strengthen the internal market, support the competitiveness of Europe’s industry and foster cooperation.

The Council last week encouraged the Commission to support the Member States in implementing the identified capacity priorities, notably through the Action Plan. In particular, the Action Plan will propose ways to ensure an effective implementation of the two defence directives: procurement and transfers. We also welcome the strong support the Parliament has given to launching and providing a significant budget for preparatory action for defence research to be launched next year with a view to a substantial future defence research program under the next multiannual financial framework.

We think the main message is that today’s complex security challenges can only be tackled together. Therefore, we need a shared vision, a strategic framework and common actions. Cooperation in the field of security and defence is a must.


  La Présidente. – Le point est clos.

Le vote aura lieu le mercredi 23 novembre 2016.

Declarations ecrites (article 162)


  Ivo Belet (PPE), schriftelijk. – Het is met de komst van Trump almaar duidelijker dat we voor onze veiligheid niet meer automatisch zullen kunnen rekenen op de steun van de V.S. We staan stilaan voor het moment waarop we werk moeten maken van een opgedreven inzet en coördinatie van onze politie- en militaire diensten om de terreurdreiging doeltreffend te bekampen en onze buitengrenzen efficiënt te bewaken. Bilaterale samenwerkingsprojecten moeten de opstap worden naar programma’s waarbij we de defensie-inspanningen Europees nog veel meer coördineren. De Belgisch-Nederlandse vernieuwing van de defensievloot geeft al het goede voorbeeld.

De EU-28 geven elk jaar 195 miljard euro uit aan defensie. Als we die uitgaven beter op elkaar afstemmen, kunnen we tot 26 miljard euro besparen en dus verstandiger inzetten. De battle groups moeten evolueren naar permanente multinationale korpsen onder één Europees commando. Die moeten niet alleen voor operaties met betrekking tot vredeshandhaving worden ingezet, maar binnen de NAVO één blok vormen dat kan optreden als de NAVO dat niet wil of kan. Europa is nog steeds een vredesproject en lost conflicten in de eerste plaats op aan de onderhandelingstafel. In grimmige tijden moeten we echter een duidelijk signaal geven dat we klaarstaan om als één blok op te treden. Don’t mess with Europe.


  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), în scris. – UE trebuie să acționeze urgent pentru a-și consolida atât securitatea internă, cât și apărarea externă în contextul problemelor legate de imigrație, terorism și noua administrație a SUA. Cetățenii europeni au nevoie de o concretizare a acțiunilor europene printr-o revizuire substanțială a Politicii de Securitate și Apărare Comune pentru a permite UE să acționeze acolo unde NATO nu o face.

Consider că, în cadrul următorului summit UE din decembrie, care va aborda consolidarea cooperării UE în materie de securitate externă și de apărare, trebuie să se țină cont de viitoarea strategie europeană spațială.

UE trebuie să devină o putere spațială reală, iar tehnologia joacă un rol-cheie deoarece condiționează accesul la spațiu și la competitivitate. Suntem încă foarte dependenți de surse de bază non-europene atunci când este vorba de tehnologiile spațiale primordiale. Pentru moment, nu putem spune că Europa este o „putere spațială”. Pentru moment, accesul european la tehnologiile spațiale primordiale este asigurat dacă există acordul autorităților americane.

De aceea, viitoarea Politică de Securitate și Apărare Comună trebuie să fie mai eficace și mai vizibilă, cu atât mai mult cu cât capacitățile spațiale au devenit o parte esențială a politicilor de securitate și apărare ale statelor membre și, prin urmare, a suveranității lor.


  Csaba Molnár (S&D), írásban. – Nincs az rendben, hogy az európai állampolgár nem érzi magát biztonságban az EU-n belül. Az orosz agresszió, a terrorfenyegetettség, a közös uniós határőrizet és az európai hadsereg hiánya erősítik ezt az érzést. Nem ördögtől való ötlet ezért az, hogy ha az EU-nak van központi költségvetése, közös külpolitikája – és a sor még hosszan folytatható –, akkor uniós katonák védjék külső határainkat, feleljenek az európai állampolgárok biztonságáért. A sokkoló Brexit-szavazás, illetve az Észak-Atlanti Katonai Szövetség súlyának csökkentése csak felerősíti ezt az európai védelmi közösség igényét. Ideje, hogy Európa felelősséget vállaljon saját biztonságáért.

Közös uniós hadsereggel, európai katonai főhadiszállással, gyorsreagálású nemzetközi hadtestekkel, védelmi miniszterekből álló védelmi tanács megalakításával Európa sokkal magabiztosabb nagyhatalom lehet. A közös hadsereggel meg tudjuk mutatni az agresszív szomszédos hatalmaknak, mint amilyen Putyin Oroszországa is az elmúlt években, hogy komolyan gondoljuk az uniós értékek és határok védelmét. Ha van uniós hadsereg, két dolgot kőbe vésünk: az EU hangja sokkal erősebb lesz a nemzetközi színtéren, illetve soha nem törhet ki háború európai nemzetek között.


  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), írásban. – Az Európai Védelmi Unió létrehozásának politikai és katonai szükségszerűségét az új típusú biztonsági kihívások mellett az EU évek óta romló biztonsági környezete, a déli és keleti szomszédságunkban jelentkező fenyegetés teremtette meg. Támogatom a gyors uniós döntéshozatalt ennek érdekében, hiszen az európai védelmi autonómia kialakításának fő értelme az EU-tagállamok biztonságáért való felelősségvállalás, főleg a putyini Oroszország gátlástalan és – az ukrajnai agresszió példáján okulva – nem alaptalan fenyegetései tükrében.

A szükséges politikai akarat kialakításában fontos az EP szerepe, mert az uniós szolidaritás érvényesülésében a védelem terén sem lehet kizárólag a tagállami kormányokra számítani. A szolidaritás egyirányú, önző felfogása, a saját védelmi képességek elhanyagolása ugyanis eddig sem akadályozta meg egyes országok vezetőit abban, hogy szövetségeseik védelmi garanciáit adottnak tekintsék.

Van olyan tagállam is – például az Orbán-rezsim által uralt Magyarország –, ahol a meglévő honvédelmi kapacitásokat az EU értékeivel ellentétes, antidemokratikus belpolitikai célok érdekében (tömegkontrollra, rendészeti feladatokra, határzár építésére) vetik be. Holott az Európai Védelmi Uniótól közös európai értékeink védelmét, valamint az Unió, mint a demokrácia és az emberi jogok nemzetközi zászlóvivője tekintélyének megőrzését is várjuk. Ezért szorgalmazom, hogy már a Védelmi Unió előkészítési szakaszában megfelelő politikai és jogi garanciákat építsünk be a rendszerbe az ilyen „potyautas” tagállami magatartás megelőzése érdekében.


  Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – Madam President, the EU security environment is deteriorating considerably, which coincides paradoxically with flagging defence investments in the Union. That is why I welcome Mr Urmas Paet’s report on the European Defence Union (EDU), whose establishment is indeed a matter of urgency. I strongly agree with the report that the Lisbon Treaty provides already a solid basis for the EDU. One of the remarkable examples of that is Article 42(6) on permanent structured cooperation which has never been used. Therefore, I am very glad that the report calls finally for the creation of a permanent council of defence ministers. In addition, it is important that the report brings to life Article 41(3) on creating the military start-up fund. It does so through establishing a preparatory action for a future EU defence research programme. This can become a first crucial step in overcoming the obstacles among Member States regarding the collective procurement of defence resources which should be at level of 35%, according to the European Defence Agency benchmark. Consequently, I hope that this time Member States will take their obligations seriously and a fully-fledged EDU will become a reality sooner rather than later.

Juridisks paziņojums - Privātuma politika