Mr President, I should like to concur with the observations made a moment ago by the central proponent of conflict prevention, Mr Lagendijk. I very often share his views in areas of this kind, for indeed – and we should credit him for this – particularly the green sector has very often put forward the idea of conflict prevention by non-military means with great clarity. One could also say that this is very topical in this day and age. The European Union is weak as far as its military contribution to international security and national law and order in countries surrounding us are concerned. This was clear from the difficulties in setting up this rapid reaction force. We got off to a good start, but it is often still in doubt, maybe with good reason, whether this will lead to early results. All the more opportunities present themselves to the Union in terms of non-military means. And it appears to me that this also falls more within the competences of the Commission. We have competences in this area. That is why the civil instrument is gaining in importance, notably for the European Union, in the light of the Union’s military weakness and of the topicality of the civil means in controlling and preventing conflicts alike. The cold war is over and the entire security context has changed. Large-scale threats have given way to smaller, sometimes persistent, wars with ideological, Mafia-related and ethnic facets. The flaring up of such conflicts can be prevented very effectively by civil means, certainly when these conflicts recur. This explains the flurry of activity which is also especially being generated by the European Union at the moment in areas of tension or precisely where tension has been averted. Situations of lawlessness require a completely different approach and involve the police, government officials, aid organisations, technicians, observers, economists and people who know how the civil society develops. In other words, these situations require a comprehensive approach. I therefore agree with the provoking statement “It should be removed from the remit of foreign affairs”. As far as I am concerned, this means that it requires a comprehensive approach from society. This is what matters in conflict control, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy will probably continue to play an important role, but so will other sections of this Parliament. Indeed, a country’s development as a whole also very much relies on averting violent conflict. And I have to say that Mr Lagendijk has listed the options very eloquently. He is right in saying that we, for example, should not simply accept the existence of this two-pillar structure, that we should put them back on the agenda and that there should be a budget for the things we intend to do in this field. In my view, the unity of the European Union, particularly in this field, is a direct security interest. We must speak with one voice, even in this field of conflict prevention. We must therefore keep our own activities as governments and as industry in our countries well under control. I appreciate the rapporteur’s preference for a peace corps, but I would like to point out that the erratum that I received, which concerns Article 17, is an erratum that is ineffective. Article 17 is still an excellent article and I said with good reason that the peace corps must be developed within the framework of the rapid reaction facility. We have this framework, and I hope that it is maintained.

Political group: PPE-DE