Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-22-Speech-3-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031022.5.3-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make a number of comments by way of an introduction to this annual report on the Common Foreign and Security Policy. It takes as its starting point the dramatic events of the Iraq war and the effect that had on the European Union’s internal cohesion, on transatlantic relations and also on the state of affairs within the United Nations and NATO, as well as on the international order as a whole.
Much more attention needs to be given to the Southern Caucasus, which is becoming one of the EU’s least stable neighbouring regions, and in this, relations with Russia will have a large part to play. With enlargement, the Union’s external borders are being drawn ever closer to the crisis areas to the east and south-east. It is of the utmost importance that security zones be established around Europe, and that an effective neighbourhood policy be developed; our deliberations should therefore focus much more on such ideas as a ‘European Economic Area Plus’ and others of the kind, as well as on consideration of the particular ways in which the Mediterranean region can be further stabilised.
Finally, I would like to explain our criticisms of the Council’s annual report. Anyone picking up this 200-page volume will observe that it more resembles a shop’s inventory than an annual political review. Things used not to be as bad as that. Such a report is no use when it comes to conducting dialogue between Parliament and the Council. It must become more political, as it once was, with clear evaluations and the setting of objectives. It is for that reason that we ask that the High Representative should continue, in future, to provide us with a written report on the progress made in putting Europe’s security principles into practice.
Let me finish by saying something about the work of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. This annual report will be the last in the life of this current Parliament. It shows the positions of the political groups coinciding to a remarkable degree, in a way that they have not done since this Parliament was elected. That is another fruit of the constructive collaboration in this committee, for which I wish to express my gratitude to the committee’s members and its staff. Thank you very much.
What now matters, in our view, is that we see the crisis associated with the war in Iraq as an opportunity, and accept the challenge of establishing Europe, once and for all, as a foreign policy actor of substance. Europe must cease to be an observer in global policy matters and become a participant. The constitutional convention created the institutional framework within which it can do so by creating the position of European Foreign Minister, by making enhanced cooperation possible in the defence sphere and also by establishing the European armaments agency. These proposals represent an absolute minimum, and the Intergovernmental Conference must not now be allowed to water them down.
We expected much more when it comes to the Council’s voting procedures and Parliament’s right to be informed and consulted, and so, in the light of a proactive policy of crisis prevention, we believe it to be necessary for us, in future, to be informed and involved as early as the early-warning and planning stages of crisis operations under the ESDP. Both the CFSP and the ESDP need an efficient institutional framework, but that will not be enough; it must have political content added to it. This is what the European security doctrine put forward by Mr Solana is for, and this report gives four reasons for endorsing his approach.
The first is that Europe must find its way to a clear prioritisation of its foreign and security policy interests and objectives, jointly define them and also designate them geographically, as we have done under item 8.
The second is that a European security strategy must counterpose to the narrowly military focus in current thinking by the American administration a comprehensive approach to security that includes political, economic, social and inter-cultural efforts to mitigate and resolve conflicts.
Thirdly, a European security doctrine can be developed only on the basis of effective multilateralism and within the UN system, this being in line with the historic experiences and political interests of its Member States.
Fourthly, even though the prevention and resolution of conflicts by non-military means will always be at the heart of any security strategy adopted by the European Union, the credibility of the European Foreign and Security Policy is, in the final analysis, dependent on the quality of its military capabilities and on the political willingness to deploy them in the event of any conflict.
What, in the context of a European concept of security, are our foreign policy priorities? Although transatlantic relations still have pride of place among them, Europe will carry equal weight as a partner for the USA only as and when the Member States summon up the political will to make their own specifically national interests subject to those of the Community. We will also be able to strengthen such organisations as the UN or NATO only if Europe and the USA speak with one voice. New life must be breathed into the strategic debate between Europe and the USA; that is another reason why Mr Solana’s paper is so important. It will cover such topics as the stabilisation, reconstruction and state building in Iraq, a common strategy on Iran and, generally speaking, possible ways of preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the tactics to be adopted when dealing with repressive and dictatorial regimes and dysfunctional states.
One primary task that remains is that of bringing peace to the Middle East as part of the Quartet, where it has to be clear to us that the Quartet, rather than merely being present on paper, should perhaps work together in the region. There is no doubt that Europe will continue to be committed to the Western Balkans and in Afghanistan, whatever the many problems that are evident in both of them, and even though we cannot but be openly pessimistic about our chances of success when it comes to properly building an acceptable state in the latter."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples