Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-15-Speech-3-266"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061115.19.3-266"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start, Mr President, by pointing out that Mr Dimitrakopoulos has passed on his two minutes’ speaking time to me, so that I am in the fortunate position of being able to speak for over seven minutes.
The European Union does, today, have troops under its command – they are serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Congo. With effect from the beginning of 2007, we will have at our disposal two units going by the fine English name of 'battle groups' every six months, which will be capable of being deployed at short notice. The European Union and this House have a particular responsibility with respect to these soldiers, whom we send to the Congo, to Bosnia-Herzegovina, and elsewhere, namely, that we do not expose them to unnecessary risks, which are, for soldiers, a fact of life whenever their equipment or the leadership structure are inadequate, and so, with that in mind, we make, in this report, proposals for the removal of the deficits in the area of reconnaissance, which I found recurring in the Congo.
Although the European Union is still performing inadequately in the field of telecommunication and in transport by land and sea, what is needed most of all is effective democratic control, but that necessarily involves information and consultation, both of which are often still lacking. We are not adequately informed concerning what the Council is planning; even though there is reference to consultation with us in the inter-institutional agreement, the Council is extremely hesitant about doing it.
Issues of security, issues of war and peace, must not be left to generals; nor, though, must they be left to the executive alone, for what is needed here is democratic control by the popularly-elected parliaments, that is to say by the national parliaments and by this one.
The topic for this debate is the European Union's security strategy, as proposed by the High Representative and adopted by the heads of state and government on 12 September 2003, the basic outlines of which are as relevant as ever they were, but it has to be said that the geopolitical situation has changed over this period of time, and that our priorities have to change, and that is why we are calling, in this report, for the Council to submit to this House, once in every legislative period, a report on the European Union’s security strategy, which could then be debated both in this House and in the national parliaments. That is what happens in the United States, where a core report of this sort is made once in each legislative period, and so a similar arrangement here could help to step up transatlantic dialogue on these matters.
We do, after all, currently put different emphases in the strategy for Europe’s security than the Americans do in respect of their own; we favour a multipolar global order, something that Mr Solana calls effective multilateralism. We do not put our trust in coalitions of the willing, but rather in the Charter of the United Nations and in international organisation. If we want this strategy to be successful, we have to be clear in our own minds that it will be that only if we manage to make international organisations more efficient.
The report also contains a new definition of the Security and Defence Union, which is the next thing we should be working towards, and which is actually wanted by the European Union’s citizens, for, according to opinion polls, 70% of them want the European Union to have powers in respect of security and defence policy and of their security; that is what the
citizens of the European Union want.
What, though, is a security and defence union? It involves a number of elements, such as, for example, the European Foreign Minister envisaged by the draft Constitution. We are also proposing a deputy Foreign Minister, who would be responsible for defence matters. Why do we need one? I am – still – the chairman of this House’s security and defence sub-committee, but I do not have an opposite number on the executive side – something reflected in the fact that none of the seats on the Council bench are occupied.
We need someone on the executive with whom to discuss these developing issues; hence our call for a deputy Foreign Minister, as well as something that is not in this report, but in which I know Mr Brok is taking an interest, namely a single foreign service and a commitment to mutual assistance, as proposed in the draft Constitution, but present already in the Treaty of Brussels, on which the Western European Union is founded.
My personal proposal would be that we should concentrate on this project for a security and defence union if we want to restart the constitutional process, for I am convinced that it is easier to persuade people of their desire for a single security and defence policy than to explain to them once more what a constitution is.
Our past experience was that we were always successful if we said first what we wanted to do, and worked out on that basis what institutions, and what institutional changes, were required, and so I do believe it makes sense to put this project at the heart of the constitutional process."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE ),"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples