Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-230"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.5.3-230"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I should first of all like to congratulate General Morillon most cordially on a very comprehensive – and certainly timely – contribution to the debate on the development of European security and defence policy. The timeliness was rightly referred to both by my honourable friend and by the Minister in the presidency.
Ultimately, much of the credibility of Europe's common foreign and security policy depends on the European Union's military capacity. The creation of the 60 000-strong 'rapid reaction force' being set up under ESDP will certainly help to increase the European Union's credibility abroad. And the launch of the first ever European Union military operation in The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia last month shows that ESDP is not just a theoretical construct.
But I fully agree with my honourable friend General Morillon that it remains difficult for our allies to take Europe seriously unless we spend more on our security. It is not enough to argue that Europe is picking up its share of the bill by paying most of the world's development aid, true as this may be, or by increasing even further our humanitarian assistance.
We also need to invest more in developing our capabilities such as airlift capacity, special forces and battlefield communication equipment. If not, our allies will remain of the opinion that Europe cashed in too easily its peace dividend after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Delivery of aid should remain the prime task of the humanitarian organisations to ensure neutrality, independence and impartiality of such humanitarian operations. Respect for these principles is paramount for meeting humanitarian needs whenever there is a crisis.
The Commission therefore welcomes the reference in the report to the Guidelines on the Use of Military and Civil Defence Assets to support United Nations Humanitarian Activities in Complex Emergencies which were released by the UN on 20 March 2003. They fix clear rules regarding the relationship between military and humanitarian actors in UN humanitarian operations. The thrust of the Guidelines should apply equally to the use of European military and civil defence assets in any humanitarian operation.
I would like to say one final word about international humanitarian law, which governs the conduct of hostilities. We believe that international humanitarian law is adapted to today's conflicts, provided that warring parties and all parties to the Geneva Conventions respect their obligations. I would at this stage express the Commission's appreciation of the role of the International Committee of the Red Cross as promoter and guardian of the Conventions.
Finally, I would like to say once again to my honourable friend that this report is almost painfully timely. It raises a number of issues which will go right to the heart of our credibility in Europe as we seek to make a greater contribution to international affairs in the years ahead; but, as I have said on previous occasions in this Chamber, there comes a moment in politics where one is obliged to put one's money where one's mouth is. We have long since passed that stage when we are talking about security issues.
The number of amendments that the committee considered before adopting this resolution is, in many respects, a testament to the depth of interest, but also frankly to the differences of view, on this key area of European policy. In responding today I must keep in mind the current responsibilities of the Commission in security and defence issues. I shall certainly keep them in mind and if I do not Mr Van Orden will remind me of what they are. Whatever is recommended in future by the Convention, where my colleague, Commissioner Barnier, has ably led the discussions on defence issues – and I know that he has briefed the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy in the course of the deliberations on this report – those Commission responsibilities are at the moment pretty limited when compared to the range of issues covered in the text before us.
The Commission is
involved in the purely military aspects of European security and defence policy. That is exclusively for the Member States. I shall not therefore comment on the specifically military proposals, including the establishment of a permanent standing military force, a collective defence clause or a joint military college. But the Treaty does associate the Commission with ESDP – Article 27 does that in terms – and we are actively involved in all discussions on crisis management operations in the context of ESDP, in particular in those that relate to the civilian crisis management instruments, for example policing, the rule of law, civilian administration and civil protection. In this context I am pleased to see that the resolution before us recognises the importance of civilian, as well as military, contributions to crisis management.
But it is impossible – this is a point I have made on many occasions in this Chamber – to separate purely military matters from related issues in which we in the Commission are competent, and have a real contribution to make. Military and non-military issues cannot be placed neatly in separate boxes. Nor should they be, because they need to be closely coordinated in the service of a single strategy.
The Commission, for example, may be bankrolling police support in post-conflict situations as in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where on 1 January the European Union took over the Police Mission from the United Nations; or we may be arranging for the training of border services where uncontrolled mass migration is generating conflict; or we may be helping to re-establish administrative structures in countries that are emerging from crises, as we have seen in the Balkans and as we can see in Afghanistan today.
The Commission already has an impressive range of instruments and expertise which can be used in crisis situations. New European Union instruments may be necessary in the security field, as has been suggested by General Morillon. But the most important requirement is that all available instruments should serve agreed European policy objectives in any given situation. Current events, I have to say, show that this is far from being the case.
Another area where the Commission has an important role to play relates to defence equipment policy. In my view, defence trade and production cannot and should not be treated as a
within the Single Market. Procurement of defence equipment, competition between defence companies, research and development, exports and imports of defence equipment, internal market aspects of defence trade and dual-use goods which have civil and military applications – all these are areas in which the benefits of the Single Market are of relevance to European industry.
There is considerable scope for improvement here. The Commission recently adopted a communication to the Council and Parliament on the defence equipment industry in which it points to some areas where substantial progress is possible in giving European Union taxpayers more value for the money they invest in their security. The concerns on duplication and fragmentation in arms production and procurement and the lack of interoperability – identified in the resolution before us – are some of the key issues that we sought to address in our communication.
We hope that the work we are initiating as a follow-up to the communication will help to develop the strong and competitive defence industry, transparent market conditions and healthy climate for investments in research and development necessary for the strengthening of ESDP."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"chasse gardée"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples