Mr President, Mr Richard, Commissioner, I would like to restrict my contribution to two important sections of the report by Mrs Lalumière. The first section I am referring to is the one on conflict prevention and crisis management. I am delighted that this constitutes such an important part of her report because it is based on the analysis – which, if I am honest, has been made by the before now, and on more than one occasion – that the European Union’s strength resides in its ability to prevent conflicts, and that we will only have to be able to seek recourse to military means – sadly – as a last resort. I think the Stability Pact for the Balkans is a good example of this. As I see it, it sets an example of how things should be done in the European Union, and it demonstrates that by taking various measures, for example in the field of democracy, support for the free press, and in the field of education, conflict prevention policy can help us to keep the lid on the situation. What I am hoping, and I would like to echo the sentiments of Mr Wiersma in this respect, is that what the report has to say on conflict prevention is not just paying lip service but will actually be translated into concrete goals, in which money and political will are to be invested. Otherwise we will be even worse off, i.e. by promising great things but not living up to them. The second section I would like to come back to is the military section. This contains two points of criticism put forward by my group, which, to our satisfaction, have ended up in Mrs Lalumière’s report. The first point concerns the role of the European Parliament, which is something several other speakers have already touched on. It is still completely unclear in the current proposals as to what that role should be. As I see it, the European Parliament should be directly involved in drawing up the much-needed strategic concept in the future, and also, if it comes to it, in the decision on whether to deploy the European peacekeeping force. I have a very specific question for Mr Richard on that score. Reports are constantly appearing in the Dutch press to the effect that there is a secret protocol appended to the Saint Malo Agreement – which his country concluded with England early this year – in which both countries, France and England, say, and promise each other that the European Parliament will never have any authority over any aspect of the security policy. I would like to hear what Mr Richard has to say to this and ask him what he thinks Parliament’s role ought to be if there is no such secret protocol. The second point of criticism, which is also included in the report by Mrs Lalumière, concerns the lack of any strategic concept. Quite simply: where, when and how is this European intervention force expected to take action in the future? It is a complete mystery to me. I was therefore slightly perplexed, if I am honest, last week, when Mr Solana’s answer to the question as to whether we have a strategic concept or not, was a straightforward ‘yes’. He said: ‘yes, we do have a strategic concept, now all we need is the troops’. I would like to ask Mr Richard if he agrees with Mr Solana on that point. Is there a strategic concept? And if there is one, could he show me where it is written down as I would very much like to read it. Lastly, one point of criticism, which is not, I am sorry to say, included in Mrs Lalumière’s report, is the financial aspect. I think Parliament’s message must be crystal-clear: we support this development but it will entail making cutbacks in the current standing armies, so as to allow for investment in new methods which we too consider to be necessary.

Political group: Verts-ALE