Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy began work on this report six months ago. We never imagined back then that we would publish it at such a dramatic and painful time. We have sought to update the previous report by our fellow Member Catherine Lalumière. This update was necessitated by the events of September 2001 and our desire to make our own contribution to the work undertaken by our colleagues in the Convention. We may be attempting the impossible in assessing any kind of European security and defence architecture. At present everything leads one to believe that, for the time being at least, such an architecture has totally disintegrated. My fellow members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy took a different view however. On 25 March, at the height of the crisis, they adopted the report we will vote on tomorrow in plenary. I think there are at least three reasons for this. The first is that we have a responsibility towards our electorate. The second relates to our awareness that, on the eve of enlargement, the present crisis must serve as a lesson for us. The third stems from our desire to clarify the policy on transatlantic cooperation. We feel Member States want to continue to pursue this policy. Many of us hope that the current differences are not as serious as they might appear at first sight. As I said, the first reason is that we have a responsibility towards our electorate. All the indicators we are aware of have shown that over two-thirds of European citizens are in favour of a common security and defence policy. The Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy is aware of this feeling. It is no surprise that a similar proportion of committee members share the view of the citizens. This was demonstrated by the committee’s vote following a fruitful debate on almost 200 amendments. In any case, the new regulation on the work of our committee would have allowed for just a vote in plenary. We all agreed however that the subject was so important it merited the debate we are having today. We also felt we had to involve the Council and the Commission. We are holding this debate to learn the lessons of the present crisis without any further delay. This is the second reason. Europe is incapable of speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council, as it should do according to the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. President-in-Office of the Council, a great deal of upset and confusion has built up recently within the European Union. While I hope such difficulties are only temporary, do they not demonstrate that it is now time for us to reform our institutions to prevent any repetition of this in future? As I have said, we are fully aware that the citizens of Europe, and also maybe the whole world, expect Europe to takes its place in building a multi-polar world. People want to stop the future of the world being decided by the President of the United States alone. I will now outline the third and most important reason. Is the European Union ready to take on the responsibilities we are expected to assume? I am not sure. The choice before the European Union is now clearer than ever. Member States could continue to entrust their defence to the United States Armed Forces alone, as during the Cold War. In that case, Member States could not lecture the United States on what Washington might decide to do with its troops. On the other hand, Member States could finally agree to do what the United States has always asked them to do. When it comes to sharing the burden, the United States has continually asked Member States to make a larger contribution to joint undertakings. The Secretary-General of NATO Lord Robertson referred to this the other day in your presence, Commissioner Patten. He criticised the gap between the ambitions of European governments and the means they are prepared to devote to achieving them. He called this the gap of ambition. I hope the present crisis will make them aware of this gap and that they will begin to bridge it. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE