Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-233"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.5.3-233"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I apologise to Mr Morillon for not being here when he opened the debate.
This report could hardly be more timely. If – as seems likely – US and British Forces are now in control of Baghdad, then the debate on the aftermath of war and its lessons can now commence. Unlike its predecessors, the current American administration shows little interest in a strong and united Europe. Our weakness has been cruelly exposed and the onus is on the EU to develop a security strategy which may help us reshape transatlantic relations. Liberal Democrats in this House welcome the Morillon report as an important contribution to this process.
Europe's divisions over Iraq have been a stark reminder of our failure to speak with one voice on security policy, and yet we should not forget that Europe does have a single trade policy, a common development policy and an embryonic European diplomatic corps in the form of the Commission's offices around the world. These are powerful instruments and would be all the more so if combined as part of an integrated foreign policy. Our foreign policy is incoherent because it is split between three Commissioners, the Council presidency and a Council High Representative, and because some Member States deny our essential commonality of interests in foreign policy, or forbid the Commission to play a central executive role. Without a common defence policy, Europe will still lack the military muscle needed for a credible common foreign policy. With combined defence spending less than half of that of the USA, it is clear the EU is not spending enough on defence, nor would our citizens be likely to welcome much higher levels of spending. So it is not enough simply to spend more: we need to spend better, especially on key requirements such as strategic airlift, precision guided weapons and air tankers. That is why the Liberal Group supports the establishment of an armaments and research agency to coordinate defence spending. What we want is to achieve better value for money, and if EU countries agree that military equipment made outside the EU best meets our needs and provides best value for money, we should not choose a European option in a misguided attempt at protectionism. That would be to repeat the mistakes of the common agricultural policy. Better defence spending must be accompanied by stronger decision-making. By sending to the European Convention, through General Morillon's report, a clear and united message in favour of a strong and effective security and defence policy, Parliament can hope to influence its deliberations. Having one external affairs representative, based in the Commission but supplemented with resources and expertise from the Member States, will go a long way towards connecting the disparate elements of foreign and security policy.
We also need greater flexibility in launching and conducting crisis management operations, if necessary by greater recourse to constructive abstention. While there are clearly reservations about this, introducing a collective defence clause in the new Constitutional Treaty, similar to that under the Western European Union Treaty, also seems a necessary step. It may be that progress towards these goals cannot be made at once with the 15, let alone with 25 Member States. That is why I welcome the Belgian Government's initiative for a meeting later this month with France, Germany and Luxembourg, on defence policy. Progress in European integration is often only achieved by a group of determined countries pressing ahead, with others joining later. Nonetheless I insist that enhanced cooperation on defence must remain open to all governments who wish to join, and that the British Government in particular, given its military capability and experience, will do so.
In conclusion, a European security and defence policy can usefully complement the collective security provided by NATO as long as there is rationalisation of arms procurement, added value in the form of a doctrine based on conflict prevention and crisis management and backed by the credible threat of military action, and a more coherent and unified approach to security policy. Let our security and defence policy be forged on the anvil of hope from the steel of our embarrassment over Iraq."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples