Úplné znenie 
Postup : 2018/2099(INI)
Postup v rámci schôdze
Postupy dokumentov :

Predkladané texty :


Rozpravy :

PV 11/12/2018 - 16
CRE 11/12/2018 - 16

Hlasovanie :

PV 12/12/2018 - 12.16

Prijaté texty :


Doslovný zápis z rozpráv
Utorok, 11. decembra 2018 - Štrasburg Revidované vydanie

16. Výročná správa o vykonávaní spoločnej zahraničnej a bezpečnostnej politiky - Výročná správa o vykonávaní spoločnej bezpečnostnej a obrannej politiky (rozprava)
Videozáznamy z vystúpení

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

– den Bericht von David McAllister im Namen des Ausschusses für auswärtige Angelegenheiten über den Jahresbericht über die Umsetzung der Gemeinsamen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik (2018/2097(INI)) (A8-0392/2018) und

– den Bericht von Ioan Mircea Paşcu im Namen des Ausschusses für auswärtige Angelegenheiten über den Jahresbericht über die Umsetzung der Gemeinsamen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik (2018/2099(INI)) (A8-0375/2018).


  David McAllister, Rapporteur. – Mr President, with this year’s Annual Report on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, we have identified the major issues our Union faces and we also outline possible ways forward. The EU security environment is today more volatile, more unpredictable, more complex and more ambiguous than at any time since the end of the Cold War. We have often heard the High Representative telling us about this in this plenary.

We all know that we are confronted with a number of interstate conflicts, also in our immediate neighbourhood, with terrorism, failed states, cyber attacks and hybrid warfare. The European Union has a growing responsibility to safeguard its own security, while, on the other hand, defending its interests and values in the world. The time indeed has come for the EU to take its destiny into its own hands and embrace its role as a fully-fledged sovereign, political and economic power in international relations.

Colleagues, we all know that no single EU Member State can respond effectively to today’s global challenges on its own. We must continue to promote our European values while staying committed to multilateralism, a rule-based international order and economic cooperation.

I would like to highlight two very important aspects that should shape the EU’s foreign policy in the future. The first aspect is the so-called integrated approach to external conflicts and crisis as a framework for a more coherent and holistic engagement by the EU. The European Union is a major player when it comes to diplomacy, trade, development cooperation, humanitarian aid and – step-by-step – also in the field of security and defence. However, our Union should act strategically by using its wide array of policies and instruments to respond to the challenges in our direct neighbourhood and beyond. The second aspect concerns the effectiveness of the EU’s decision-making process in foreign policy. As a Union, I believe we should be able to reach positions by qualified majority voting in the Council; the need for unanimity keeps us from being able to act credibly on the global stage. Would this entail amendments to the Treaty? I believe not, because Article 31 already allows the European Council to determine which decisions may in the future be taken by a qualified majority.

Colleagues, as this is a joint debate on both reports, a short remark on the European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy by my colleague Mr Paşcu. Soft power and institution- building alone cannot be sufficient to exert influence in a world where power politics is increasingly significant. The effectiveness of the EU’s foreign policy will depend on an adequate combination of soft and hard power tools. Looking to the left of the plenary, becoming a credible hard power does not mean militarising the European Union; we should rather become more autonomous and live up to our global responsibilities.

Yes, Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy is on track. PESCO has been launched to strengthen our security and defence, with 25 Member States participating. Moreover, the European Commission has proposed an EUR 13 billion European Defence Fund for the years 2021 to 2027 to increase our strategic autonomy, to bolster our ability to protect our citizens and to make the EU a stronger global actor. With today’s debate and tomorrow’s vote on the EDF, this Parliament can send out a strong signal in support of the Fund.

Finally, I would like to thank my shadow rapporteurs for their good and fruitful cooperation. It was, and is a pleasure, to witness that at least the larger political groups in this House act in concert towards a stronger Common Foreign and Security Policy of our Union.


  Ioan Mircea Paşcu, Rapporteur. – Mr President, Madam High Representative, I think you know that the old order is over. The post—Second World War order is ending. We are confronted with systemic challenges in which multilateralism stands to be substituted by unilateralism, free trade by protectionism and solidarity by self-interest, and the problem is that the kind of global challenges we stand confronted with require global answers, which are difficult to get in an increasingly fragmented international system.

The report starts with an analysis of the strategic environment and underlines the importance of the transatlantic bond. I think you know that, here, it’s an appeal to everybody to try to preserve the functioning of the transatlantic bond, trying to separate the influences coming from the commercial area into the security area.

We also mention the recent activities and policies of Russia, which have reduced stability and changed the security environment. In all this picture, common security and defence policy is one of the useful tools for addressing many of these challenges. It would be used more efficiently and in coherence with other external and internal instruments. The security of EU Member States is deeply interconnected, and the need for cooperation – although recognised – requires more to be done in that the respect.

Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is reflecting an increased investment in security and defence as a matter of urgency, as it is requested in the global strategy, and we are asking you now to look seriously for the 2% to be allotted from the GDP for defence. We welcome the creation of a dedicated heading for defence in the Commission’s Multiannual Financial Framework proposal and, in particular, the establishment of a budget line from which the European Defence Fund and military mobility projects should be funded. This will require also the development of a well—defined overarching strategic approach to European defence, and here we reiterate our call for an EU security and defence white book.

With respect to the capabilities of the Union, we underline – like our colleagues – that the EU needs to apply the entire toolbox of available policy instruments from soft to hard power and from short-term measures to long—term policies, developing the necessary civilian and military capabilities as outlined in the global strategy. We consider that the EU Member States must endeavour to improve military capabilities to cover the full spectrum of land, air, space, maritime and cyber capabilities, including strategic enablers to make the EU CSDP a credible force. In this respect, we recognise the strategic dimension of the space sector, and we encourage movement in that respect.

We consider that the capabilities of Union security and defence could be improved by making better use of the existing frameworks of defence and military cooperation, such as the European multinational High Readiness Corps’ headquarters and the EU Battlegroups, reinforcing but not duplicating similar initiatives with NATO, and we are asking for the transformation of national armed forces into forces that are more interoperable, more sustainable, more flexible and more deployable.

I would conclude by saying that we support the array of missions which are undertaken already and we also ask for a parliamentary oversight of an increasing attention paid to security and defence.


  Federica Mogherini, Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, this is a debate that I am taking as High Representative, so this is the right side of the Chamber.

Let me start by thanking David McAllister and Ioan Mircea Paşcu for their excellent work. Looking at your reports, I see very clearly a shared understanding of our world and of our joint place in this world as Europeans. We all agree that no single European country can respond effectively to any of the challenges of our times and that we, the European Union, have a responsibility to embrace our role as a global power, working together for peace, security and human development worldwide, and in some cases even filling a gap. And yet, we also have an interest in doing so, because together we have unparalleled leverage in shaping global rules, peace processes or trade agreements.

Let me say this very clearly: I believe there is no contradiction at all between European interests and national interests, in particular in this field. The European Union is the most powerful instrument we have, as Europeans, to serve our national interests on the global scene. None of our Member States is big enough in the world of today to pursue their own national interests all alone, and this is why some in the world might cherish divisions among us. It might be in their interest, but never in ours.

Likewise, there is no contradiction between our support for multilateralism and the work to advance our European and national interests. We know from experience that our national and collective interests are best served through multilateral institutions, and the European Union is in itself the most successful multilateral institution that was ever built.

We need multilateral institutions to promote rights, to protect the environment and to govern globalisation. We need multilateral institutions to build peace and security worldwide. We couldn’t do this without them in our multipolar, disordered world. When we join forces, as Europeans, and take part in global negotiations, we are not giving up on our sovereignty. On the contrary, we are exerting our sovereignty more fully and more powerfully on the global stage.

This is why we have chosen the United Nations as our fundamental partner. We are the first economic contributor to the UN system, and we support Guterres’ work to reform the UN system and make it more effective. We are also exploring new ways of working together, for instance by ensuring full complementarity and compatibility between all our new projects on the ground.

Our foreign policy is cooperative by definition. The McAllister report rightly points out that the transatlantic partnership remains indispensable for Europe, for America and for the rest of the world. In spite of substantial disagreements with the current administration on certain issues, we continue to work together on the great majority of issues, from Ukraine to Afghanistan, and from the Balkans to North Korea.

In these years, we have also deepened our cooperation with other traditional partners – the African Union: our cooperation with them is now closer than ever – and the same can be said about a great number of partners, from our eastern partners to ASEAN, and from Canada to Japan or Central Asia.

I also very much agree with your idea to work on issues—based coalitions of likeminded countries and regional organisations, but also with other global powers. This idea has already driven our foreign policy in these years, successfully, I believe. Our work on climate change or the work to preserve the nuclear deal with Iran are both examples of our readiness to engage selectively and with ad hoc coalitions.

I will not go through all the geographical priorities and the current conflicts, but let me just mention three points as a matter of priority: first, the Western Balkans. David, I couldn’t agree more with the report. Our common goal is to bring all the Balkans inside the European Union, and we have two urgent tasks ahead of us now: to continue to work tirelessly with our friends in Belgrade and Pristina so that they can reach a legally binding comprehensive agreement to fully normalise their relations, and finally to open accession negotiations with Tirana and Skopje.

Let me mention two other priorities: Ukraine – we will have a specific debate on this later this evening so I will keep it for later. The third priority I would mention is the conflicts in the Mediterranean and, in particular, Syria, Yemen – the beginning of a dialogue on Yemen and with the Yemeni parties in Sweden is also part of the diplomatic work we have done to bring some of these parties to the table – but also Libya and the conflict in Israel and Palestine. I believe the European Union has had and continues to have a unique, even though difficult, role to play, but I am sure that we will continue to work together to support a sustainable political solution to each one of these crises.

The McAllister report underlines that we Europeans have an unparalleled potential as a force for peace and security with a unique set of foreign policy tools. In these years, we have invested to strengthen and to multiply these tools. Our work on security and defence is not a separate chapter from this, but it has constantly been part of this broader engagement for peace, security and human development.

I would like once again to be very clear on this, as you have been, David. Our work on security and defence is not a way to militarise our Union and will never be. For instance, it is not at all in contradiction with our work for non—proliferation and disarmament. On the contrary, as you all know, we are engaged on a daily basis against nuclear proliferation as well as to prevent new arms races here in Europe and all around the world. Our work on defence stays true to this approach. There is a unique European way to security and defence – a way that is very much needed in the world of today, that is very much appreciated, and for which I see a lot of demand.

We have somehow the responsibility of exercising this special European way to peace and security. When we send a military mission abroad, it is to save lives, to protect peace or to help rebuild a country. When we invest in military capabilities, it is to defend our citizens from attacks or to put the best technologies to the service of peace. Yes, we are investing in Europe’s hard power – finally – and we would all prefer that we lived in a world where this was not necessary, but our work on defence is always – and will always be – at the service of peace. This is why it is so important to strengthen it at this time.

It is also for this reason that I wanted a new compact on civilian missions to be an integral part of our work on a Europe of defence. I talked about this in this Chamber exactly one year ago, and last month the Council approved our Civilian CSDP compact. The civilian dimension of our international missions is already a source of European pride today, from Mali to Ukraine, from Iraq to Somalia. We now want to expand our civilian action even more, with new capacities and shorter reaction time.

The Paşcu report calls for closer cooperation between our civilian and military initiatives. I totally agree with this, and it is one of the goals that we want to achieve with the civilian compact and with the reform of our command structures in Brussels. Our two command centres – civilian and military – will now work more closely together. On the military side, our command centre should also be ready by 2020 to run small—scale executive operations, so going beyond what it is doing now, which is commanding training and advisory missions.

Last month, together with Member States, we also decided to double the number of cooperation projects in the framework of the Permanent Structured Cooperation on Defence (PESCO) from 17 to 34. The new projects cover many capabilities that we collectively need, from drones to a European School of Intelligence, from cybersecurity to aerospace. By investing together, we will invest our resources more efficiently and we will make it easier for national defence forces to work together.

In the coming weeks, we will also finalise the general conditions for third states to be exceptionally invited to join PESCO projects. The Paşcu report also asks to move forward on military mobility and, as you know, work is going well on a project within the Permanent Structured Cooperation, as well as at the European Defence Agency, and in full coordination with NATO. Let me add that this is not an investment done at the expense of civilian projects but, on the contrary, a clear dual-use investment.

One of the main goals of all our work on security and defence is to help Member States spend their resources more effectively. It is not up to the European Union to define how much of the national budget is spent on defence, but we can help Member States invest more efficiently and better.

We can have an impact on the output of the investments. That is to say that, with the same investment, we will be able to achieve more for our citizens’ security. This is also the objective of the Coordinated Annual Review of national defence budgets. We have concluded its trial run, and the review will become a standing activity as of next year. This will help coordinate defence planning among national governments to find new opportunities for cooperation and joint investments.

Finally, in support of this work, we have proposed a very substantive defence package for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). We want to address the fragmentation that has hampered Europe’s defence sector for decades, again to make national defence investments more effective and efficient than they are today.

I am particularly glad that the Paşcu report supports my proposal to establish a European Peace Facility. Our goal is to be more strategic in how we plan our missions and to work more closely with our partners to prevent new crises or to stabilise a country after a conflict. The facility would fully respect the legal parameters provided by the Treaty, and it would avoid duplications with its existing instruments, as called for in your report.

We all acknowledge the fact that security today is much more complex than it ever was. It is military, but it is also civilian. It is about defence, but also about development, artificial intelligence, climate change, crisis management and also reconciliation. It is about our own capabilities, but it also requires us to work to strengthen our partners and their capabilities around the world.

I believe the two reports we are discussing today highlight this very well. There is no contradiction between investing in Europe’s strategic autonomy and cooperating even more closely with our partners. On the contrary, we Europeans are taking more responsibility for our own security and for the world around us, and we are doing this together – together with the United Nations, together with NATO, together with the African Union, and with all our partners around the word.

Rather than discussing whether we have to choose between strategic autonomy or cooperation, I would say that we have chosen the path of cooperative autonomy and we’ve taken this path together, joining forces among the Council, the Commission, all our agencies and, of course, the European Parliament, which has accompanied this process from the very beginning. This is a legacy that you can share with the Council and the Commission as the mandate comes to an end.

We still have a few months of common work ahead of us. They will be important months for many of the issues we have discussed, so my appeal to you is that we can still continue our fruitful cooperation and make the most of these few months ahead of us. Let me thank you again for all the cooperation and all the support in these four years of working together in this field.


  Paulo Rangel, relator de parecer da Comissão dos Assuntos Constitucionais. – Senhor Presidente, naturalmente em nome da Comissão de Assuntos Constitucionais, saudamos quer o relatório McAllister quer o Paşcu e a declaração que acaba de fazer a Senhora Vice-Presidente e Alta Representante.

Devemos dizer que, do nosso ponto de vista, é muito importante o reforço do Fundo Europeu de Defesa. É muito bem-vinda também a cooperação estruturada permanente nesta área. São duas grandes conquistas destes anos de trabalho. Para além disso, consideramos muito importante a cooperação na área da intelligence e, nomeadamente, do INCENT, também um avanço muito importante, e, finalmente, a criação do mercado único de defesa que possa também dar algumas diretivas quanto à política de exportação de armamento e que, por outro lado, possa ser integrado também com o mecanismo de proteção civil e com a guarda costeira e de fronteiras.

Dito isto, queríamos reforçar dois pontos. Primeiro ponto, do ponto de vista institucional, é importante que haja um conselho de ministros da Defesa, presidido pela Alta Representante. É importante que haja um comité no Parlamento Europeu de Segurança e Defesa e é importante que haja escrutínio do Parlamento e...

(O presidente retira a palavra ao orador.)


  Arnaud Danjean, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, comme l’ont souligné David McAllister et Ioan Paşcu de façon très pertinente, nous sommes en train de vivre une mutation totale de l’ordre international, et cela devrait conduire tous les Européens à en tirer la leçon logique, naturelle et automatique qu’ils doivent enfin se prendre en main sur le plan de la sécurité. Malheureusement, nous n’en sommes pas encore là, même si des progrès existent, et je pense que nous avons encore un certain nombre d’obstacles devant nous.

Il y a un obstacle qui consiste à croire que d’autres vont continuer de s’occuper de notre sécurité, notamment à travers l’OTAN, qui est une organisation qui a sans doute beaucoup de mérites, mais dont on voit bien que la fiabilité des alliances n’est pas totalement garantie, et, de toute façon, elle n’épuise pas l’ensemble du travail qu’il y a à faire en matière de gestion de crise dans notre environnement.

Le deuxième obstacle, c’est aussi un excès d’euphorie, si vous pouvez me permettre. Je trouve notamment que les déclarations récentes de certains dirigeants européens, dont le président français, qui appellent de leurs vœux une armée européenne, n’aident pas à faire des progrès pragmatiques vers, j’allais dire, une politique de défense commune qui demande déjà beaucoup beaucoup d’efforts, et nous voyons que nous sommes loin du compte.

Donc il faut persévérer. Je crois que, de ce point de vue-là, le rapport de M. Paşcu explore les bonnes pistes et je pense que le travail que vous faites conduit aussi dans la bonne direction.


  Knut Fleckenstein, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Mogherini, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Auch von unserer Fraktion Dank an beide Berichterstatter, auch wenn ich mich in meinem Redebeitrag mehr um den Bericht McAllister bemühe, weil ich dort als Schattenberichterstatter mitgearbeitet habe.

Der Bericht hat eine klare Botschaft: Die Herausforderungen unserer Zeit bedrohen auch die Sicherheit Europas und fordern stärkere diplomatische europäische Antworten und entschlossene Reaktionen. Dazu gehört auch, dass Entscheidungen schneller gefällt werden müssen. Deshalb rufen wir zu einem Wechsel zu mehr qualifizierten Mehrheitsentscheidungen im Rat auf, insbesondere bei zivilen EU-Missionen oder im Bereich der Menschenrechte.

Europa braucht eine stärkere und besser koordinierte Außenpolitik. Das ist keine Kritik an der Hohen Vertreterin, sondern eher ein Aufruf an die Mitgliedstaaten, in dieser Richtung weiterzuarbeiten. Einer der Gründe ist ganz klar: Die Vereinigten Staaten haben in den letzten Monaten der multilateralen Weltordnung mehrfach den Rücken gekehrt, zum Beispiel durch den Austritt beim Iran-Deal. Dieser Deal liegt in unserem europäischen Sicherheitsinteresse.

Bei allem Interesse, Gemeinsamkeiten wieder zu entwickeln und auch zu behalten, müssen wir sehen, dass der amerikanische Präsident sich von einem Sicherheitsgaranten für Europa auch zu einem Sicherheitsrisiko entwickeln kann. Darauf kann es für uns nur eine Antwort geben, nämlich ein vereinigtes Europa und einen effektiven Multilateralismus.

Nun geht es nicht nur um soft power. Wir müssen auch bei der hard power mehr tun, als wir bisher getan haben. Denn es wäre naiv zu behaupten, man könne mit soft power alleine die Probleme unserer Zeit lösen.

Lassen Sie mich einen letzten Punkt sagen: Wir haben einen Änderungsantrag eingebracht, weil wir der Meinung waren, dass die Situation im Jemen zur Sprache kommen muss. ...

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)


  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I would like to say to Madam High Representative that the McAllister report seeks to examine the very difficult foreign and security choices that lie ahead for Europe at a time of real authoritarian threats to the multilateral rules-based post-Second World War order. By 2050, Europe will constitute a much smaller part of the world’s population, economy and military prowess, and Brexit tragically removes a big player from the EU security equation, weakening both parties.

Therefore, in future the EU needs to act together in projecting its external policies, but of course, there are real national sovereignty concerns about moving towards QMV in CFSP and CSDP. Nevertheless, I personally strongly support the EU priorities, including maintaining the JCPOA after US withdrawal, containing Russian expansionism, understanding Chinese global ambitions, fighting international terrorism, finding a peaceful solution in Syria and Yemen, and making PESCO a political reality. I also welcome some of the innovative thinking in foreign and security policy from President Macron and Chancellor Merkel for the future.


  Urmas Paet, fraktsiooni ALDE nimel. – Head kolleegid! On selge, et Euroopa peab oma julgeoleku ja kaitse heaks tegema palju rohkem. Ja ta peab seda tegema koostöös NATOga, et ei oleks asjatut konkurentsi või dubleerimist. Ja sealhulgas siiski ka koostöö Ameerika Ühendriikidega on Euroopa julgeoleku seisukohalt ka tulevikus jätkuvalt väga oluline.

Meil on oluline süsteemsesse koostöösse kaasata neid riike, kes ei ole NATOs, nt Soome, Rootsi, aga ka teised Euroopa Liidu riigid. Ja oluline on, et Euroopa Liit suudaks panustada efektiivselt tegelemisse uute julgeolekuohtudega, nagu küberjulgeolek, nagu kõikvõimalikud hübriidohud, sh ka näiteks valeuudiste või fake news´ide kampaania, millega manipuleeritakse mitmeid Euroopa ühiskondi ja mis töötavad Euroopa koostöö vastu. Samuti terrorismivastane võitlus või ka valmisolek efektiivselt tegeleda nn roheliste mehikestega, nagu nähti mõni aasta tagasi Krimmis.

Summa summarum: Euroopa peab lõpuks iseenda julgeoleku ja kaitse jaoks tegema senisest palju rohkem, aga mitte ka tegema seda isoleeritult, vaid tegema seda ikkagi koostöös NATO ja teiste liitlastega.


  Sabine Lösing, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Vieles in der Welt ist in der Tat besorgniserregend, besonders die Tatsache, dass ein Viertel der Weltbevölkerung in instabilen und bedrohten Staaten lebt. Herr Juncker sagte mal: Wir müssen unsere Art zu leben verteidigen – auch militärisch. Müssen wir das wirklich, und sollten wir das?

Wenn zwei Züge aufeinander zu fahren, dann hilft es nicht, den einen zu bewaffnen; man muss ein anderes Gleis benutzen. Für uns hieße dieses Gleis eine andere Politik – eine Wirtschaftspolitik, die auf Ausgleich setzt, auf Gerechtigkeit im globalen Kontext. Leider folgen diese beiden Berichte einer anderen Philosophie, einer anderen Logik. Sie setzen auf Abschottung und Militarisierung, auf ein militärisches Kerneuropa, das ohne Konsensprinzip über Krieg und Frieden entscheidet.

EU-Rüstungsprogramm, Verteidigungsfonds, military mobility, PESCO, Kampfgruppen aller Art – all diese Projekte werden in den Berichten gepriesen. Doch wir meinen, sie sind gefährlich, und einige – speziell der Verteidigungsfonds – sind zudem illegal. Denn laut Artikel 41 Absatz 2 des EU-Vertrags verstoßen sie gegen geltendes Recht. Nach diesem Recht dürfen keine Mittel aus dem EU-Haushalt für Militärisches verwendet werden, was ein neues Rechtsgutachten eindeutig belegt. Dieses Rechtsgutachten werden wir morgen der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich machen.


  Der Präsident. – Dialoge ohne Mikrofon bleiben der Nachwelt leider vorenthalten, wenn ich das mal sagen darf.


  Bodil Valero, för Verts/ALE-gruppen. – Herr talman! Tack så mycket. Jag tänker tala om årsrapporten om den gemensamma säkerhets- och försvarspolitiken som jag följer för min grupps räkning. Tyvärr måste jag säga att den är väldigt obalanserad, precis som det allra mesta som handlar om säkerhet och försvar som vi diskuterar här i parlamentet nu för tiden, och även när det gäller långtidsbudgeten.

Årsrapporten bortser i princip totalt från att de civila insatserna är lika eller mer relevanta att diskutera som de militära. Särskilt när vi jämför det antal civila och militära insatser och uppdrag som vi faktiskt utför. Fokus i årsrapporten är militärt, trots att de civila insatserna är nästan dubbelt så många, 11 av totalt 17. Jag förnekar inte att vi står inför många säkerhetshot: militära, klimatet, terrorism, cyberhot och naturkatastrofer för att bara ta några exempel. Men vi kan inte lösa alla med militära medel eller med ett tvåprocentsmål i budgeten.

Vi behöver en ny säkerhetspolitik som är anpassad till det 21:a århundradet, en säkerhetspolitik som bygger på mänsklig säkerhet i första hand. Ett av mina ändringsförslag innebär att vi dubblerar medlen till civilt konfliktförebyggande arbete. Ett annat innebär att vi måste undvika att våra civila insatser används till att stoppa migranter i framtiden och jag hoppas få stöd för dem voteringen i morgon. Tack.


  Jean-Luc Schaffhauser, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, cher collègue David Mc Allister, vous nous dites que l’Europe doit devenir une puissance souveraine. Mais prenez le traité de Lisbonne: notre souveraineté y est déjà limitée, comme dans l’ancienne Union soviétique, ici par la politique étrangère de l’Union européenne liée à l’OTAN, là par l’ouverture systématique, qui laisse les marchands gouverner et la finance décider.

Par ailleurs, il ne peut y avoir de souveraineté européenne sans peuple européen, et donc la souveraineté européenne est une illusion car je ne connais que des peuples, des Allemands, des Français et des Italiens. Ce qui nous relie d’ailleurs dans nos différences, c’est la chrétienté, que s’empresse de nier l’Union européenne par son relativisme, son laïcisme et son humanisme athée.

Mon collègue Paşcu dit que les États européens doivent mener une politique de défense commune pour renforcer l’identité européenne. Pour cela, il agite l’épouvantail extérieur, la Russie, qui pourtant a retrouvé son identité européenne en sortant du communisme et en retrouvant son héritage orthodoxe.

Il pousse à la guerre contre la Russie pour nous unir, nous, Occidentaux, justement contre cette identité européenne qu’il veut pourtant défendre, identité faite des deux poumons de l’Europe avec la Russie.


  James Carver (NI). – Mr President, these reports underline the EU’s truly frightening military aspirations. The description of the European Union as a sovereign entity flies in the face of reality and public opinion, and talk of the projection of power is, frankly, ludicrous. How can 27 States, some of whom are neutral, ever come to a joint decision to send their young to war?

This place must never have the moral ability or authority to order troops into battle. We already have an organisation in NATO that has kept the peace through the most testing times. NATO has the expertise and is an alliance of mutual interest. If you must spend money in this area, then invest in that successful and well-run organisation. And let’s leave the UN alone. Your naked ambition for a Security Council seat must not happen. Rather than reforming the EU, you should instead reform your aspirations by remembering the primacy of a nation state. It is a nation state that protects its citizens, and we must ignore this call to arms.


  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, je pense qu’avant les élections européennes, il est bon de rappeler aux citoyens que la politique étrangère et de sécurité commune n’est pas une politique accessoire mais bel et bien une politique qui a une incidence sur leur vie et leur sécurité.

La PESC, effectivement, est fondamentale pour l’avenir même de l’Union européenne et, comme le dit très bien le rapport de M. McAllister, il est grand temps que l’Europe prenne son destin en main et assume son rôle de puissance politique et économique sur la scène mondiale.

Mon groupe a toujours défendu une Europe politique forte et présente sur la scène internationale, à la fois pour sauvegarder ses intérêts et promouvoir les valeurs sur lesquelles elle est fondée. Je n’ai eu de cesse de soutenir l’unité, la cohérence et l’efficacité de l’Union dans la politique étrangère et de sécurité.

Une plus grande solidarité et une plus grande coordination entre les États membres et l’attribution de moyens financiers suffisants sont à cette fin indispensables. Enfin, je mentionnerai les Balkans occidentaux et notre voisinage comme grande priorité politique.


  Victor Boştinaru (S&D). – Mr President, in today’s world, all that seemed to be a certainty not long ago is not anymore. The European Union means peace, but peace needs the tools to guarantee it. We are finally moving in the right direction with PESCO, and I strongly advocate for the adoption of the provisions on the European Defence Fund and on defence mobility for the next MFF.

However, there is no doubt that we need more. The EU needs strategic autonomy and the integration of its defence capabilities to face its many challenges, from conventional ones to hybrid and cyber threats, and to effectively pursue our foreign policy objectives. I want to be clear that defence integration should under no circumstances be seen as an alternative to NATO. NATO is fundamental for the protection of the EU and for the protection of the European citizens today and in the future. We must rather reinforce and complement it in line with the EU-NATO declaration.


  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR). – Mr President, legitimate concerns about military capabilities are not resolved by the Europeanisation of defence, which is an aspect of the process of European political integration. It was in my second speech in Parliament, in November 1999, that I issued that warning. At the time, people said it was just scare mongering, or else I was told it was never going to happen. Now Mr McAllister is calling for removal of the national veto in foreign policy, and the main thrust of Mr Paşcu’s report, which at least has the sense to refer to NATO and the need for more investment in defence, is EU strategic autonomy, the so-called EU defence industry and the development of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO). In other words, advancing an EU army.

An EU army, what’s wrong with that?

It wastes resources. It sends the wrong signals. It’s divisive and it pretends the world is flat: that it’s possible to increase the scope and efficiency of defence spending without increasing defence spending itself. It will end in tears.


  Jozo Radoš (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, gospođo visoka povjerenice, htio bih zahvaliti kolegama Paşcu i McAllisteru na dobroj suradnji i dobrom izvješću koje spominje niz novih izazova s kojima se Europska unija suočava i jednako tako konstatira da ćemo i u godinama pred nama biti suočeni s tim novim izazovima. Zato je vrlo logično da smo razvili neke nove politike u okviru zajedničke politike i podržavam uključenje i Europske obrambene agencije i Europskog obrambenog fonda i vojne mobilnosti i europskog obrambenog i industrijskog razvojnog programa u proračun Europske unije, ali još uvijek ostaje pitanje kako će funkcionirati te nove politike. One su veliki korak nakon dugog zastoja europske sigurnosne i obrambene politike, ali ostaje za vidjeti kakvi će biti njihovi praktični rezultati i što uopće znači tvrda ili oštra snaga Europske unije koja se spominje u ovim izvješćima.


  Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η ταχύτατη υλοποίηση της στρατιωτικοποίησης της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης προμηνύει τον κίνδυνο γενικευμένης αναμέτρησης με θύματα τους λαούς για τα συμφέροντα των ιμπεριαλιστών. Μετά την PESCO, τη μόνιμη στρατιωτική συνεργασία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, προωθείτε τώρα τη στρατιωτική κινητικότητα, τη στρατιωτική Σένγκεν για άμεσες ιμπεριαλιστικές επεμβάσεις, με κράτη μέλη να γίνονται ξέφραγο αμπέλι των ευρωνατοϊκών στρατευμάτων για πολεμικές επιχειρήσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, αυτοτελώς, σε ανταγωνισμό ή και σε συνεργασία με άλλους ιμπεριαλιστές, για να αυξήσει τη λεία των δικών της μονοπωλίων. Στόχος είναι να παραμεριστεί κάθε εμπόδιο με κατάργηση της ομοφωνίας στην εξωτερική πολιτική, με μηχανισμούς της βιομηχανίας όπλων και χρηματοδότησή της, και ταυτόχρονα όλοι αυτοί οι μηχανισμοί φυτρώνουν σαν τα μανιτάρια και αναβαθμίζονται. Η κυβέρνηση ΣΥΡΙΖΑ-ΑΝΕΛ, σημαιοφόρος των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών, του ΝΑΤΟ και της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στην περιοχή, πρωτοστατεί στους πολεμικούς σχεδιασμούς με βάσεις-ορμητήρια, βάζοντας στο στόχαστρο τον ελληνικό λαό και τη χώρα. Οι λαοί μπορούν παλεύοντας ενάντια στον ιμπεριαλιστικό πόλεμο να εμποδίσουν τα αιματοβαμμένο σχέδια της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και του ΝΑΤΟ.


  Elmar Brok (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Hohe Vertreterin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Europäische Union ist die bedeutendste soft power dieser Erde. 60 % der Entwicklungshilfe, 70 % der humanitären Hilfe für den Mittleren Osten – dies sind Beweise dafür. Aber wir sehen, dass das allein nicht ausreicht. Wenn soft power nicht verbunden ist mit hard power, hat sie nur beschränkte Wirkung. Aus dem Grunde möchte ich den beiden Berichterstattern danken, dass sie das so vorgetragen haben, was sie vorgetragen haben.

Hier müssen wir stärker werden: mit mehr Mehrheitsentscheidungen, mehr Führung. Wir müssen die Koalition der Willigen nutzen, um auf die Art und Weise zu schnelleren Entscheidungen zu kommen, um ein Faktor zu werden. Und wir müssen das, was wir mit der Verteidigungsunion im letzten Dezember zuwege gebracht haben, schneller mit Mitteln ausfüllen, wo die Mitgliedstaaten noch zu zurückhaltend sind. Das mit dem Verteidigungsfonds und der Verteidigungsunion muss alles gemacht werden. Aber das Tempo ist zu langsam, weil 230 Mrd. Euro in Europa ausgegeben werden für Verteidigung mit einem zu geringen Ergebnis.

Frau Lösing möchte allein den russischen Zug bewaffnet nach Europa fahren lassen und nicht aufhalten. Das Christliche, was der Herr Schaffhauser .....

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)


  Ana Gomes (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, na Subcomissão SEDE, desde 2004, vi avançar com hesitações a política de segurança e de defesa europeia. Mas o que já alcançámos não basta, pois neste mundo interligado e irreversivelmente dependente da tecnologia digital os perigos e desafios cresceram e multiplicaram-se.

Com a ofensiva russa contra a Ucrânia, os trolls de Putin a interferirem em eleições, instigando o Brexit e financiando a extrema-direita nazi-fascista, com Trump a pôr em causa o multilateralismo e a segurança coletiva, nenhum Estado-Membro da União pode hoje fazer face a estas ameaças, isoladamente, desenquadrado de uma estratégia comum europeia com uma visão política integrada.

Sim, precisamos de forças armadas europeias, compostas por contingentes de todos os Estados-Membros, integradas na formação, treino, capacidades, interoperabilidade, com um investimento europeu em investigação e tecnologia. Forças bem equipadas sob controlo democrático deste Parlamento e dos parlamentos nacionais, que contribuam para a paz e respeitam e façam respeitar o Estado de Direito e os direitos humanos nos planos nacional e internacional. O que muitos dos nossos Estados-Membros hoje não fazem quando vendem armas à Arábia Saudita, fornecem tecnologia de repressão digital a ditadores e cedem portos, aeroportos, redes de energia e redes G5 ao Partido Comunista Chinês.

Precisamos de...

(O presidente tira a palavra à oradora.)


  Anders Primdahl Vistisen (ECR). – Hr. Formand! Det vi hører om I dag, altså Kommissionens og Parlamentets vision for fremtidens udenrigs-, sikkerheds- og forsvarspolitik får det til at løbe koldt ned ad ryggen.

Vi taler om udenrigspolitik der nu skal afgøres med flertalsafgørelser. Vi taler åbent om en såkaldt EU-hær og man taler om strategisk anatomi, hvilket jo bare er et andet ord for at sige, at vi ikke længere skal være venner og allierede med vores kollegaer i NATO fra USA og Canada, men derimod stå helt alene i verden. Det mest skræmmende set ud fra et dansk perspektiv er, at regeringspartiet Venstre nu taler om et opgør med vores forsvarsforbehold, der beskytter os mod alle de her tosserier fra dansk side. Og Venstres argument om, at vi netop skal gå ind i EU’s forsvarssamarbejde for at undgå en EU-hær, står jo nærmest lattervækkende tilbage, når vi her i Parlamentet hører, at ambitionen jo netop er en egen hær med anatomi fra vores NATO allierede, så venstre skylder danskerne svar: Vil I EU-hæren eller vil I den ikke?


  Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Unia Europejska od dłuższego czasu skrada się wokół tematu wspólnej armii. I znów te podchody w kolejnych sprawozdaniach widać. Wprost o tym nie ma tutaj mowy, ale widać że sprawa postępuje do przodu. Już w tej chwili Unia Europejska chce konkurować z NATO. Oczywiście pisze tutaj o synergii, ale w rzeczywistości mamy do czynienia z konfliktem, z konfliktem lojalności. W przypadku odrębnych działań NATO i Unii Europejskiej państwa członkowskie obu tych bloków będą musiały wybierać, komu chciałyby się podporządkować bardziej. Więc jest to bardzo niebezpieczna reguła. Widać, że Unia Europejska już teraz nie szanuje suwerenności państw członkowskich. Już teraz pomiata państwami członkowskimi. A co to będzie, kiedy będzie miała do dyspozycji czołgi? Teraz czołgów nie ma. Jeśli jakieś państwo jej się nie podoba, może je najwyżej straszyć sankcjami albo wyrzucić z Unii. Zresztą Franz Timmermans na tej sali powiedział kiedyś, że Karta praw podstawowych stoi dla niego ponad demokracją, więc jeśli w jakimś kraju obywatele będą chcieli zmienić Kartę praw podstawowych, to zobaczą unijne czołgi pod swoimi oknami. Tym się to skończy. Dlatego jestem przeciwko temu.


  Michael Gahler (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Ich konzentriere mich auf den GSVP-Bericht des Kollegen Paşcu und möchte ihm herzlich für die gute Zusammenarbeit in dem Zusammenhang danken.

Ich denke, wir können als Parlament stolz sein, dass wir das nicht nur begleitet, sondern auch gepusht haben, was sich in den letzten ein, zwei Jahren im Bereich der GSVP entwickelt hat. Wir unterstützen in dem Zusammenhang auch den Kurs, den die Hohe Vertreterin beschrieben hat.

Ich freue mich, dass wir feststellen können, dass zum Beispiel die Military Planning and Conduct Capability bis 2020 nicht nur die Missionen im Bereich der Ausbildung führen kann, sondern auch kleinere Exekutivmissionen. Das sieht man an solchen Entwicklungen: Es geht Schritt für Schritt voran. Ich unterstütze auch ausdrücklich die European Peace Facility, die angedacht ist. Ich glaube, das ermöglicht uns, auch dann in Drittstaaten diejenigen zu unterstützen, die nicht darauf angewiesen sein wollen, dass wir selber dann vor Ort erscheinen müssen.


  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, με την εφαρμογή της κοινής πολιτικής ασφάλειας και άμυνας δεν δύνανται να αντιμετωπιστούν οι υφιστάμενες και μελλοντικές απειλές. Τα κράτη μέλη που καλούνται να την υλοποιήσουν είτε έχουν αντικρουόμενες προτεραιότητες είτε δεν διαθέτουν κατάλληλα ή επαρκή μέσα. Βεβαίως, η σύγκλιση και οι συνέργειες των δράσεων μεταξύ κυρίαρχων κρατών και των εκάστοτε συμμάχων είναι απολύτως θεμιτή στον βαθμό που αντιμετωπίζονται κοινές προκλήσεις υπό τη σύμπνοια συμφερόντων, επιδιώξεων και προτεραιοτήτων μεταξύ των συμμετεχόντων. Όμως δεν πρέπει να ταυτίζεται η πιθανή συνεργασία ή η εναρμόνιση ενεργειών με μια υπερεθνική ομοσπονδοποίηση των μελών της Ένωσης. Μια στρατιωτική συμμαχία με στόχο τη συλλογική ασφάλεια δεν υφίσταται όσο δεν διασαφηνίζεται ο ρόλος της Ένωσης στην περίπτωση σοβαρότατων διαφορών μεταξύ μελών της και δεν υπάρχει δέσμευση συλλογικής άμυνας στην περίπτωση επίθεσης εις βάρος ενός εκ των συμμάχων από τρίτο κράτος. Αντίθετα, είναι κατάφωρη αδικία η δημιουργία ενός υβριδικού εκτρώματος το οποίο στο όνομα της ασφάλειας και άμυνας θα εξυπηρετεί συγκεκριμένα συμφέροντα χωρών που δεν βρίσκονται στα εξωτερικά σύνορα της Ένωσης.


  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). – Señor presidente, señora alta representante, señorías, quisiera en primer lugar felicitar a los ponentes, al señor McAllister y al señor Paşcu, y decir que la credibilidad de la política exterior y de seguridad de la Unión Europea, así como la salvaguardia de nuestros principios, va a depender en gran medida de que seamos capaces de dotarnos de las herramientas necesarias para completar —como decía el señor McAllister— el poder blando que tenemos con las demandas de seguridad que piden nuestros ciudadanos.

En los dos últimos años hemos avanzado claramente en el marco de la estrategia común, buscando nuestra autonomía estratégica, buscando la cooperación de los Estados miembros a través de la cooperación estructurada permanente con nuestros aliados y en el marco de la Alianza Atlántica, y lanzando el Fondo Europeo de Defensa y el Fondo Europeo de Apoyo a la Paz. Está claro que vamos en la buena dirección, que tenemos razones para sentirnos satisfechos, pero es mucho lo que nos queda por hacer.

Señora alta representante, la animo a seguir en esta línea y a trabajar en los mecanismos de toma de decisiones. Mientras nuestros aliados actúan y toman decisiones de la noche a la mañana, nosotros estamos bloqueados por el principio de unanimidad y es evidente que tenemos que avanzar en la resolución de los plazos que la inmediatez y la celeridad nos imponen.


  Eduard Kukan (PPE). – Mr President, thanks and congratulations to the rapporteurs. This year showed once again that we face many challenges on the international scene, yet we can hardly fulfil our ambitions if we do not have control over our closest neighbourhoods. This goes for our strategies and actions in the eastern and southern neighbourhood and also for our relations and influence on the countries of the Western Balkans.

It is imperative for the EU to be surrounded by stable and like-minded partners. We need to stand behind the values of democracy, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, as the core of our external policies. Be it in the Balkans where the situation might deteriorate, be it in our eastern neighbourhood where the situation is already tense, or be it in the south where we are facing constant challenges, we need to bring more credibility and confidence to our EU external policy.


  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Mr President, faced with global challenges, the existing EU policies remain clearly inadequate. It is high time to realise this, but the task remains of developing really new policies to address the multiple challenges. In doing this, we cannot dismiss one crucial fact: our security is and will be based primarily on transatlantic relationships. Therefore, we need to be careful not to overreact to temporary changes and not undermine the strategic balance on which our collective security is being built.

The key is to focus on strategic priorities, and I would just mention two of them. Firstly, to enforce and fully integrate the East StratCom Task Force. Secondly, the military mobility adopted today by Parliament will become a reality check for our commitment to credible mutual assistance.


  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señor presidente, la Unión Europea se encuentra en un contexto exterior y de seguridad complejo, difícil, cambiante. Solo en nuestra vecindad tenemos conflictos interestatales, Estados fallidos, terrorismo, violaciones abiertas del Derecho internacional, guerras híbridas, etcétera. Y, en el plano global, el multilateralismo y el orden internacional de las últimas décadas son cuestionados crecientemente.

La globalización nos ha hecho más interdependientes a todos. La opción del repliegue o la inacción no tiene sentido. Los europeos tenemos que ser activos en el plano internacional y juntos somos más fuertes que por separado. Necesitamos una política exterior europea cada vez más sólida, determinada y eficaz, que combine el poder blando con el llamado poder duro.

Por todo ello, apoyo el informe del señor McAllister, que también recoge la necesidad de progresar precisamente en la política de seguridad y defensa común, en la que se centra precisamente el informe del señor Paşcu. El informe del señor McAllister, a quien quiero felicitar, se refiere a las relaciones transatlánticas y a la política de vecindad, en especial en relación con los países del sur del Mediterráneo, de tanta relevancia para la Unión Europea.

Pero, afortunadamente, también se refiere a las relaciones con América Latina, esos países que me gusta llamar aliados naturales de la Unión Europea. Termino con esto: ojalá concluyan prontamente las negociaciones con Mercosur.


  Der Präsident. – Es folgen nun die spontanen Wortmeldungen. Und auch hier habe ich wesentlich mehr Wortmeldungen, als die Tagesordnung vorsieht. Auch hier bitte ich um Nachsicht, wenn ich nicht jeden berücksichtigen kann.

Spontane Wortmeldungen


  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Zacznę od elementu krytycznego: mamy dwa bardzo duże sprawozdania, które zostały połączone w ramach jednej debaty. I już w tym momencie mogę i Ioanowi Paşcu, i Davidowi McAllisterowi tylko współczuć, bo jak sobie poradzić z tak ogromną problematyką w ramach jednej, mocno skróconej debaty.

Zwrócę uwagę natomiast tylko na jedną kluczową rzecz: na zawartość. W dzisiejszej debacie poruszamy, po pierwsze diagnozę, czyli środowisko strategiczne Unii, po drugie finanse, które są mocno zniszczone, zarówno we wspólnej polityce bezpieczeństwa i obrony, jak i we wspólnej polityce zagranicznej i bezpieczeństwa, zdolności do zapewnienia bezpieczeństwa i obrony Unii, czyli walka o kondycję przemysłu walczącego na rzecz obronności, ale także PESCO – nowy projekt – misje i operacje w ramach WPBiO, ale także stosunki Unii Europejskiej i NATO i partnerstwa. Po prostu za dużo jak na jedną debatę, ale obu sprawozdawcom gratuluję i dziękuję.


  Arne Lietz (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Ich werde morgen gegen den Jahresbericht über die Umsetzung der Gemeinsamen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik und gegen den Europäischen Verteidigungsfonds stimmen, der in diesem Jahresbericht ausdrücklich willkommen geheißen wird. Warum? Ja, als deutscher Sozialdemokrat stehe ich hinter dem Grundsatz, dass eine europäische Armee für eine auf Frieden ausgerichtete Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik unverzichtbar ist. Dafür bedarf es auch zwingend einer europäischen Rüstungsindustrie. Diese müsste aber wirklich nach dem Prinzip „pooling and sharing“ die notwendigen Rüstungskapazitäten neu aufsetzen. Das würde aus sozialdemokratischer Sicht bedeuten, dass der Fonds sich auch das Ziel setzt, dass es durch wirkliche Zusammenarbeit zu wirklichen europaweiten Budgeteinsparungen kommt, zudem, dass der Prozess der damit notwendig einhergehenden Konversion von militärischer und ziviler Produktion auch industriepolitisch unterstützt wird. Darüber hinaus fehlt eine ausreichende parlamentarische Kontrolle über den Fonds, die in diesem Bericht leider so nicht eingefordert wird.


  Marek Jurek (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Instytucje powinniśmy tworzyć dla polityki, a nie dla demonstracji próżności czy próżnej siły. Pan poseł Fleckenstein mówił o tym, jak to Stany Zjednoczone stają się siłą nieprzewidywalną. Zastanawiał się, jaki mają wpływ na nasze bezpieczeństwo. Na bezpieczeństwo jednej czwartej państw Unii Europejskiej leżących w Europie Środkowej bardzo destrukcyjny wpływ ma budowa Nordstream II. Ja jestem bardzo ciekaw, co pan poseł Fleckenstein, reprezentujący SPD – partię, która jest filarem tej budowy, która gwarantuje to, że ona będzie kontynuowana, mógłby odpowiedzieć na ten temat. W tym tygodniu Komitet Regionów reprezentujący nasze europejskie samorządy powiedział, jak bardzo ten projekt zagraża polityce bezpieczeństwa energetycznego Europy, jak bardzo jest niebezpieczny ekologicznie, jak bardzo szkodzi konkretnym interesom konkretnych państw. Naprawdę zastanówmy się nad tym, co jest naszym bezpieczeństwem i najpierw o nie się troszczmy, a potem budujmy różne… (Przewodniczący odebrał mówcy głos)


  Javier Couso Permuy (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, señora Mogherini, cuando observamos estos dos informes, nos damos cuenta del gran pecado original que tienen en un momento en que la Unión Europea está desnortada y vive, además, un momento desintegrador. Y me estoy refiriendo a la defensa a ultranza del sacrosanto vínculo transatlántico, que lo que afirma claramente es una Unión Europea sin autonomía estratégica.

A Estados Unidos no le interesa una Unión Europea coherente, fuerte, con voz propia y buena vecindad. Y lo vemos todos los días: las diferencias en cuestión de clima, en cuestión de comercio, en cuestión, por ejemplo, de las relaciones con Irán o China. Y en el campo militar vemos que ocurre exactamente lo mismo. Hay que hacer caso a lo que nos manda la OTAN: un 2 %, a mayor gloria de las empresas de armamento, y una movilidad que va en contra de nuestra vecindad, una movilidad militar. Será otro canto al sol en este proceso desintegrador de la Unión Europea.


  Željana Zovko (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, zahvaljujem i zahvaljujem izvjestitelju McAllisteru i izvjestitelju Paşcu i visokoj povjerenici na izlaganju prioriteta u europskoj vanjskoj sigurnosnoj i obrambenoj politici. Mislim da je izvanredno urađeno izvješće, a isto tako izlaganje, čestitam na izlaganju visoke povjerenice.

Samo bih željela da dodam i da ukažem na neophodnost obraćanja pozornosti na ono što se dešava na jugoistočnoj granici Europske unije, a to je situacija u Bosni i Hercegovini, gdje će biti izuzetno teško formirati u ovom trenutku vlast na svim nivoima zbog trenutne krize. Želim upozoriti da Europska unija, zajedno s gospođom Mogherini, ulaže sve napore da zajedno s drugim svjetskim akterima koji su uključeni u ove procese nađe jedan srednji put i nađe jednu neutralnu poziciju i pomogne da se mir i sigurnost uspostavi u ovom dijelu Europe.


  Javi López (S&D). – Señor presidente, señora alta representante, hoy hablamos de la política de seguridad y de defensa y de la política exterior de la Unión Europea, porque realmente Europa afronta un mundo que le es más hostil y que habla un lenguaje al que no estamos tan acostumbrados. Un mundo más hostil, con unas relaciones trasatlánticas que ya no son fiables como antes, con una vecindad realmente conflictiva y con una ascendencia de Asia que va a cambiarlo absolutamente todo. Y un lenguaje, el del poder duro, el de la competencia entre grandes poderes, al que no estamos acostumbrados.

Por eso, el mensaje es claro desde el Parlamento y desde el resto de instituciones: necesitamos una mejor y una mayor cooperación en materia de defensa para ganar autonomía estratégica, para tener una posición fuerte en el mundo en defensa de nuestros valores y para ser capaces de acompañar al enorme poder blando en materia de diplomacia y de comercio que hoy sustenta la Unión. Debemos poder ser flexibles y autónomos para defender nuestra posición, nuestros valores y nuestros intereses en el mundo.


(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


  Federica Mogherini, Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, I will be brief. First of all I want stress the fact that it is exactly to strengthen the autonomy, but also a cooperative autonomy that the Union has on foreign and security and defence policy, that we have done together with the support of the European Parliament in this last couple of years a big work on the Europe of security and defence and on strengthening our global role – exactly in a moment when the word is looking towards the European Union, looking at us in search of leadership in many different fields. We feel the responsibility – I think rightly so – to respond to this demand in a positive manner. It is a demand from our citizens and it is a demand from our partners.

I would like only to underline three points. First, some of you mentioned the issue of human security, and this is a principle guiding our action. I fully agree, for our security is never purely a military concept. The European way to peace and security is a way that comes from our history. We know perfectly well that there is no threat, no challenge, no crisis, that can be addressed only through military means. Sometimes it is needed, and this is why we’re working on strengthening our defence work, but no threat can be addressed with military means alone. This is why we are strengthening our civilian and military cooperation in a way that has never been done before.

The second point I would like to underline: it is not by coincidence that a strengthening, as never before, of the European Union work on security and defence has gone hand—in—hand in these last years with a strengthening of EU—NATO cooperation. It is exactly because we believe that strategic autonomy doesn’t mean going it alone, but means strengthening cooperation with our partners – starting from NATO, but also with the United Nations and other regional organisations that for us are key partners and allies.

The third point I would like to underline that came up in the debate on the Europe of security and defence: now, in these remaining few months of work this Parliament has in front of it, I think we have some relevant work to do. First of all, consolidating the work that has been done so far on security and defence. And secondly, ensuring that there are adequate financial resources and instruments to sustain the work that has been envisaged so far.

Finally, let me thank the two rapporteurs, Mr McAllister and Mr Paşcu, and I sincerely thank the European Parliament for the support and the impulse it has given to our work in this field of foreign, security and defence policy. Without the support and input of Parliament we would probably have not got so far in our common work, so a sincere thank—you to all of you.


  David McAllister, Rapporteur. – Mr President, I listened very carefully to what our colleagues had to say and I would like to thank everyone for an open and honest debate. Special thanks go to the shadow rapporteurs and the speakers of the groups, but also to the High Representative for her very constructive cooperation and her clear words and, in general, I would like to thank you, Federica Mogherini, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for the good cooperation we enjoy.

I would like to make one remark. This is also about what the High Representative had to say at the end of the debate. This is the last Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) report in this term. However, a lot of work lies ahead of us, in particular the ongoing negotiations of the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), and I believe that with this next MFF, adequate financial resources should be made available for our Union’s external action, because this is a direct investment in the security of our continent. In these upcoming negotiations, we don’t only have to ensure adequate financing, but also the coherence, the effectiveness, the responsiveness and the flexibility of our external financing instruments and, most importantly, we shouldn’t get tired of stressing the need to adequately involve our Parliament in the scrutiny and in the strategic steering of these instruments.


  Ioan Mircea Paşcu, Rapporteur. – Mr President, I would also like to thank Federica for all the support we are receiving. I would also like to thank all my colleagues, the shadow rapporteurs who have been supportive. I think you know that it is evident that we live in interesting times and I am very happy for those who believe that we can still afford conversion, disarmament and these good things, but I am afraid that we are beyond that and we have to really continue what we have started to do. We are moving in the right direction. Perhaps the pace is not, shall we say, the most appropriate. But we are moving in the right direction, and I am convinced that our colleagues who would follow us in this Parliament would continue our work. It will probably be more difficult to get the acceptance but I am sure that if they are really conscious enough they will push in the direction which has already been started.


  Der Präsident. – Die gemeinsame Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet morgen, Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2018, statt.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162)


  Ignazio Corrao (EFDD), per iscritto. – L'attuale contesto di sicurezza nell'Unione non è mai stato più complesso, instabile e imprevedibile, dai tempi della guerra fredda, facendo registrare conflitti tra Stati, attacchi informatici, terrorismo, disastri naturali e guerre ibride. Troppo spesso infatti, gli Stati membri mettono al primo posto i propri interessi nazionali, indipendentemente dalle possibili conseguenze a livello europeo, e questo compromette la coerenza e l'efficacia dell'UE, rischiando di minare la sua credibilità come attore globale. Nella relazione purtroppo i toni utilizzati sono risultati troppo forti ed è stato più volte usato un linguaggio che propende verso la possibilità di formare un esercito europeo, cosa a cui ci siamo sempre opposti. Tutti questi motivi mi hanno portato a esprimere un voto negativo.

Posledná úprava: 22. mája 2019Právne upozornenie - Politika ochrany súkromia