The European Parliament,
-
having regard to the Amsterdam
Treaty and, in particular, the articles thereof which refer to the European
security and defence indentity,
-
having regard to the UN Charter
and, in particular, the articles thereof concerning peace-keeping and the
ability to intervene in the settlement of national and international conflicts,
-
having regard to its resolution
of 14 May 1997 on the formulation of perspectives for the common security
policy of the European Union(1), which contains a definition of security
that has lost none of its relevance,
-
having regard to its resolution
of 15 May 1997 on the Commission Communication on the challenges facing
the European defence-related industry, a contribution for action at European
level (COM(1996) 10 - C4-0093/1996)(2),
-
having regard to its resolution
of 14 May 1998 on the gradual establishment of a common defence policy
for the European Union(3), concentrating on the Petersberg tasks,
-
having regard to its resolution
of 28 January 1999 on the Commission Communication on implementing European
Union strategy on defence-related industries (COM(1997) 583 - C4-0223/1998)(4),
-
having regard to its recommendation
of 10 February 1999 on the European Civil Peace Corps(5),
-
having regard to the Declaration
of the Cologne European Council (3 and 4 June 1999) on strengthening the
common European policy on security and defence, and its aim to take the
necessary decisions by the end of the year 2000,
-
having regard to the Declaration
by the Helsinki European Council (10-11 December 1999) on the common European
policy on security and defence and the two Presidency reports on developing
the Union's military and non-military crisis management capability,
-
having regard to the conclusions
of the Lisbon European Council (23 and 24 March 2000), particularly those
relating to the common European security and defence policy and, in this
connection, the objectives set for the European Council in Feira,
-
having regard to its resolution
of 13 April 2000 containing its proposals for the Intergovernmental Conference(6),
-
having regard to the meeting of
the WEU Council of Ministers held in Oporto on 15 and 16 May 2000,
-
whereas Article 11 of the Treaty on
European Union has given impetus to the CFSP with a view to promoting peace,
international security and the upholding of democracy and human rights,
-
whereas, following the crises in the
Balkans, the European Union has shown its resolve to play a direct role
in the management of crises threatening its security, interests and values,
through decisions taken in application of the Cologne and Helsinki Declarations,
-
pointing out that the Kosovo war and
its aftermath highlighted the lack of a conflict-prevention policy and
the gaps and deficiencies in the outreach military and policing assets
and capabilities of the Member States of the Union, and that these gaps
and deficiencies were also revealed in the WEU audit,
-
stressing that the Common European Security
and Defence Policy (CESDP) being put in place by the European Union is
a further step towards European political integration, that it is geared
to the carrying out of Petersberg-style tasks and that it will involve
the use of a combination of civil and/or military resources, depending
on the nature of the crisis in question and the way it develops,
-
pointing out that collective defence,
which falls outside the field of the CESDP, is at present the responsibility
of NATO and that this new policy is not aimed at establishing a permanent
European army,
-
emphasising, that common security is
the prime function of CESDP and covers the entire range of responses, from
completely unarmed to the substantial deployment of forces,
-
recognising that in Kosovo alone, European
governments have had great difficulty in deploying some 4 000 of the police
that they pledged to the UN administration there,
-
stressing that it is desirable to resolve
crises first by non-military means, but not ruling out the use of armed
force in accordance with the founding principles of the European Union
and of the Member States" Constitutions and with the principles of the
United Nations Charter and of the OSCE, when the limits of diplomacy have
been reached,
-
wishing to send a message to the European
Council in Feira concerning the matters to be considered there in the context
of the CESDP, without prejudice to other aspects of this policy on which
it may subsequently adopt a position,
-
Welcomes the debate on European security
and defence policy which began in Portschach in October 1998, as well as
the guidelines set out in the Cologne and Helsinki Declarations, and notes
the Member States' determination to implement these two declarations;
-
Stresses that priority must be given
to non-military crisis management but that the availability of a military
instrument composed of well-trained and fully equipped personnel to be
deployed and able to conduct the whole range of responses (military, policing
and unarmed) will broaden the Union's options in carrying out its foreign
policy;
-
Recognises that, if it is to be able
to exercise the full range of these responses in practice, the Union, both
collectively and its Member States individually, will have to devote greater
financial resources across the entire range of these policy options in
order for CESDP to be both credible and effective and so calls on the European
Council meeting in Feira to provide the necessary political impetus;
I. Non-military crisis
management
-
Notes that the European Union already
has several instruments available for non-military crisis prevention and
management, including:
(a) financial instruments
(ECHO, PHARE, TACIS, etc.) which make it possible to carry out urgent operations
and structural or reconstruction operations,
(b) preventive diplomacy measures
(stability pacts),
(c) Policy Planning and Early
Warning Unit, which must enable crises to be identified at an early stage,
and this unit will undoubtedly need to be strengthened in terms of manpower
and resources, inter alia by bringing under its authority the WEU's Satellite
Centre and Institute for Security Studies,
(d) the committee responsible
for the civilian aspects of crisis management,
(e) democratisation measures,
which can be carried out jointly with the Council of Europe and OSCE (monitoring
of elections, legal assistance, etc..)
(f) intervention operations,
(g) operations to assist with
mine-clearing, policing, surveillance of conflict zones such as that caried
out by the European Community Monitoring Mission, monitoring of sanctions,
with the assistance of the WEU where appropriate,
(h) guaranteed access to natural
resources and the elimination of poverty as important elements of conflict
prevention;
-
Notes that the Conflict Prevention Network
has been set up to advise Parliament and the Commission with a view to
improving the European Union's capacity for an effective transition from
early warning to early action and to properly inform the Institutions about
non-military crisis prevention and management; requests that the Commission
guarantee the continuity of its activities;
-
Points out that these resources, however
useful they may be, are not always sufficient; welcomes, therefore, the
Commission's initiatives, which are designed to give it a more active role
in the field of crisis prevention and management, and also those undertaken
by the Council with a view to developing a European Union non-military
crisis management capacity based on:
(a) a rapid reaction facility
with adequate budgetary funding,
(b) appropriate bodies such
as the above-mentioned committee responsible for civilian aspects of crisis
management and a coordination mechanism established within the Council
secretariat and working closely with the Commission and the relevant departments
in the Member States,
(c) a database on the Member
States' capabilities as regards public security and maintaining law and
order,
(d) a crisis coordination unit
within the Commission, alongside the interim Situation Centre/Crisis Unit
already in existence within the Council,
(e) an understanding of the
capabilities of the non-governmental organisations in the field of conflict
prevention and management;
-
Notes that the European Union's capacity
for rapid and effective intervention, particularly in humanitarian situations
or when lives are at risk, needs to be enhanced; recommends that greater
co-ordination and coherence be introduced between all the relevant departments
within the European Commission and between the Commission and the Council;
considers that the proliferation of situation centres, crisis-management
units and committees in Brussels should be avoided and that urgent attention
should be given to the establishment of minimal structures that are designed
to facilitate decisions by the international community and meet practical
needs in a timely and efficient manner;
-
Believes that these measures could usefully
be supplemented by the setting of major common objectives (headline goals)
as a counterpart to those set in the military field;
-
Believes in particular that one of the
headline goals should be in the field of civil protection, so that the
Member States have adequate manpower and equipment and are able to coordinate
their efforts in the event of disasters;
-
Calls also on the Member States to set
a headline goal concerning the establishment of a European public security
force that can be rapidly mobilised and deployed in law and order operations
for which military units are not suited; calls on the European Council
to consider whether part of this headline goal could be met by a fully
trained, professional and permanent EU-financed public security force to
ensure that the EU always has a guaranteed minimum number of personnel
available to be deployed irrespective of the burdens on national resources
at any given time;
-
Calls on the Union to adopt a coordinated
and global approach to its interventions, which could include the involvement
of NGOs and civil society so as to forge links between its military and
non-military actions and make them as effective as possible; calls on the
Council in this connection to follow up the European Parliament's abovementioned
recommendation on the European Civil Peace Corps as a matter of urgency;
II. Developing the military assets
and capabilities of the Member States of the European Union
-
Supports the idea put forward at the
informal meeting in Sintra on 28 February 2000 that a force generation
conference could be held before the end of 2000, so as to put into effect
the undertakings given at the European Council in Helsinki to establish
by 2003 a rapid reaction force of 50 000 - 60 000 men that can be mobilised
within 60 days and deployed for a period of one year, with all the necessary
support;
-
Notes that an ambitious objective of
this kind will require a firm political commitment on the part of all Member
States, because they will have both to restructure and modernise their
armed forces; therefore supports the idea of seeking coherence indicators
for military expenditure and equipment;
-
Stresses that the credibility of the
CESDP will be measured by its ability to implement the necessary resources,
in terms of both manpower and equipment, particularly if the European Union
is to carry out operations independently, as indicated in the Cologne and
Helsinki Declarations;
-
Calls therefore on the Member States
to make provision for the necessary funds for implementing the CESDP; considers
it necessary, in particular, to strike a balance in the defence budgets
of most Member States between expenditure on research and development,
expenditure on equipment and expenditure on operation; calls on all Member
States to carry out an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of their military
spending vis-à-vis the objectives of the CFSP and the CESDP so as
to make optimum use of the funds available;
-
Calls on the Member States to base their
expenditure on research, development and equipment on the guidelines laid
down in the WEU audit and in NATO's Defence Capabilities Initiative;
-
Requests that, in their defence spending,
the Member States seek to ensure interoperability or, better still, standardisation
through joint equipment purchases, together with complementarity;
-
Believes in short that an increase in
the defence budgets of some Member States cannot be completely ruled out
and that this would be made easier by a resumption of growth in the European
Union;
-
Notes that the CESDP, by acting as a
complement to the CFSP, will enable the Union gradually to assume greater
responsibilities on the international stage and will provide a better balance
with regard to the burdens and responsibilities borne by Europe and the
United States within the Atlantic Alliance, thereby contributing also to
the development of a European Security and Defence Identity;
-
Points out that the Cologne and Helsinki
Declarations stipulate that the Union may carry out crisis management operations
using the assets and capabilities of NATO when the latter organisation
does not wish to become involved in its own right; notes that this possibility
would require the Union to negotiate an agreement with NATO on the basis
of Article 24 of the Treaty on European Union on the use of its capabilities
and assets; notes that an agreement of this kind could include arrangements
for associating European allies which are not members of the European Union
and states taking part in the Partnership for Peace;
-
Stresses that, in the context of this
EU/NATO agreement, care must be taken to preserve the European Union's
decision-making autonomy, consistent with the objectives of securing consultation,
cooperation, non-duplication and transparency between the two organisations;
-
Requests that, when undertaking the
Petersberg tasks with its own assets and capabilities, the European Union
should take account of the WEU legacy with a view to associating European
States which are members of NATO but not of the EU and the applicant countries
it deems necessary for the effective performance of the tasks concerned;
calls on it therefore to negotiate an agreement with these states based
on Article 24 of the Treaty on European Union laying down the arrangements
for them to participate in these tasks; notes that, with reference to Petersberg
tasks, the difference in status between WEU associate partner states and
associate members is no longer justified;
-
Calls on the Member States to cooperate
more closely on armaments in accordance with Article 17(1) of the EU Treaty
and recalls the objective of setting up a European Armaments Agency by
merging OCCAR and WEAO as advocated in its abovementioned resolution of
28 January 1999; calls on the Commission and Council also to create the
conditions for a single market in the defence industry, notably by making
the provisions of Article 296 of the EC Treaty more flexible;
-
Calls, furthermore, on the Council,
the Commission and the Member States to undertake to ensure that this closer
cooperation on armaments is accompanied by a determined effort in the application
of the Code of Conduct on arms exports as regards monitoring the final
destination of weapons manufactured in Europe;
III. Establishment of decision-making
structures
-
Approves the decisions taken by the
Council on 14 February 2000 setting up the interim Political and Security
Committee and interim Military Body and concerning the secondment of national
military experts to the Council Secretariat;
-
Calls for the definitive bodies (Political
and Security Committee, Military Committee and Military Staff) to be established
as soon as possible and for the capabilities still available to the WEU,
including the Satellite Centre and Institute for Security Studies, to be
swiftly transferred to the European Union; calls in addition for the creation
of a specialist body responsible for data collection and analysis;
-
Requests that the interim Political
and Security Committee be chaired by the High Representative for the CFSP/Secretary-General
of the WEU, so that he can fully exercise his political authority over
the interim Military Body and, subsequently, over the Military Committee
and Military Staff;
-
Believes it essential that the Ministers
of Defence should be able to participate in the General Affairs Council
in the event of a crisis involving the use of military assets, in order
to improve decision-making;
-
Calls on the Council to make provision
for formal meetings of the Ministers of Defence alone when the matters
discussed are technical or operational, such as the joint purchasing of
military equipment, standardisation of equipment or the establishment of
forces for carrying out Petersberg tasks decided on by the Union;
-
Suggests that, in cases where the European
Union still needs to have recourse to the WEU, the decision-making process
of the two organisations should be simplified in the way described in Decision
1999/404/CFSP(7), so as to improve the Union's ability to respond whilst
preserving the European Union's decision-making autonomy;
-
Welcomes the agreement reached by the
EU Foreign Ministers at their informal meeting on 7 May 2000 in the Azores
to back plans for joint working groups between the EU and NATO looking
at security issues, military capabilities, arrangements for the EU to use
NATO military assets and the definition of more permanent arrangements
between the EU and NATO;
-
Considers that interparliamentary contact
should be developed between the European Parliament and the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly;
IV. The Parliamentary
dimension of the CESDP
-
Regrets that the parliamentary dimension
of the CESDP is not mentioned in any of the declarations adopted since
October 1998 and stresses that the introduction of this new policy must
not be accompanied by a decline in democracy;
-
Notes therefore that there is a serious
democratic deficit with regard to the CESDP as long as European decision-making
is not being controlled by a directly-elected European people´s representation;
-
Notes in particular that the national
parliaments, which are responsible for adopting defence budgets, are not
able to obtain a global and coherent view of the CESDP;
-
Considers that, in this connection,
the existing institutional framework (and, in particular, the powers conferred
on the European Parliament under Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union)
should be clarified;
-
Calls therefore, for the parliamentary
dimension of the CESDP to be developed in the context of the European Union
and for the European Parliament, which represents the peoples of the Union,
to be fully involved at all stages in the development of this new policy
on the basis of the responsibilities assigned to it by the Treaty on European
Union with regard to the CFSP;
-
Considers it vital, nevertheless, to
maintain a link between the level at which decisions on the CESDP are taken
and the level at which the appropriations are adopted, so that democracy
can be guaranteed, in anticipation of a progressively increasing profile
of the European Parliament in the field of the CESDP;
-
Proposes, therefore, that, within the
framework of the CESDP and on the basis of the COSAC's experience, a 'European
interparliamentary body on security and defence' should be set up, comprising
European and national MPs responsible for security and defence issues and
possible also representatives from the parliaments of the applicant countries
and the WEU associate countries;
-
Proposes also that Article 21 of the
Treaty on European Union, which requires the European Parliament to hold
an annual debate on the CFSP, should be amended to include specific reference
to the CESDP;
-
Calls on the Commission, the Council
and the Member States to adopt, without delay and within the existing framework
of the Treaties, the decisions necessary to establish the CESDP, including
both its civil and military dimensions, so as to capitalise on the momentum
that has been built up;
-
Calls also on the European Council to
include in the forthcoming IGC the Treaty amendments that will still be
required to enable the CESDP to be finally established and operate efficiently;
-
Instructs its President to forward this
resolution to the European Council, the Commission, the governments and
parliaments of the Member States, the associate partners and the associate
members of the WEU, the Council, the Assembly and Secretary-General of
the WEU, the parliamentary assembly and Secretary-General of NATO, the
Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the Canadian Parliament and the United
States Congress.
(1) OJ C 167, 2.6.1997, p. 99.
(2) OJ C 167, 2.6.1997, p. 137.
(3) OJ C 167, 1.6.1998, p. 172.
(4) OJ C 128, 7.5.1999, p. 86.
(5) OJ C 150, 28.5.1999, p. 164.
(6) Texts Adopted, Item 7.
(7) OJ L 153, 19.6.1999, p. 1.
|