Food Safety
20. Calls for a ban on animal feed production and farm breeding practices that involve recycling animal
remains to cattle, sheep, goats and any other animals, including poultry and fish, as long as Member Statescannot guarantee the implementation of existing EU laws concerning BSE prevention, and as long as theseparation of fallen animals as proposed by the Commission has not come into force;
21. Reiterates its call for the rapid introduction of compulsory testing for BSE in all cattle, sheep and
goats destined for slaughter, starting with all those above 18 months of age, in all Member States in orderto obtain a clear picture of the epidemiological situation throughout the EU;
22. Welcomes in this respect the creation of the European Food Authority which will be instrumental
in reassuring EU consumers as regards the safety of food in Member States and should strengthen theposition of the European food industry on the world stage;
Social Agenda
23. Calls on the European Council to adopt an ambitious Social Agenda along the lines of the Commis-
sion Communication as already endorsed by the European Parliament, with clear objectives, proposals forspecific instruments and precise deadlines;
*
**
24. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the IGC.
9. CFSP
A5-0340/2000
European Parliament resolution on the progress achievedin the implementation of the common
foreign andsecurity policy (C5-0255/2000 /dash 2000/2038 (INI))
The European Parliament,
Gdash having regard to Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union and Rules 103(3) and 163 of its Rules of
Procedure,
Gdash having regard to the Council’s annual report for 1999, submitted to Parliament on 15 May 2000 in
application of section H (paragraph 40) of the interinstitutional agreement of 6 May 1999, on the
main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP, including the financial implications for the general budget
of the European Communities (C5-0255/2000)(1),
Gdash having regard to its resolution of 5 May 1999 on the role of the Union in the world: implementation
of the CFSP in 1998(2),
Gdash having regard to its resolution of 5 September 2000 on a common Community diplomacy(3),
Gdash having regard to its resolution of 6 September 2000 on the Union’s priorities as regards external
activities(4),
Gdash having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security
and Defence Policy and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A5-0340/2000),
(1) OJ C 172, 18.6.1999, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 279, 1.10.1999, p. 218.
(3) ‘Texts Adopted’, Item 4.
(4) ‘Texts Adopted’, Item 9.13.8.2001 EN C 228/165 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000
A. whereas 1999 marked a turning-point for the affirmation of the European Union’s role in the world,
in view of the following:
Gdash the single currency (the euro) came into being on 1 January;
Gdash the Treaty on European Union (Treaty of Amsterdam), with its new provisions concerning the
CFSP, entered into force on 1 May;
Gdash the High Representative for the CFSP took office on 18 October, conferring a visible face on the
European Union’s external policy;
Gdash the Kosovo crisis (25 March to 10 June) gave rise to a heightened degree of awareness, as
reflected in the declarations of Cologne (4/5 June) and Helsinki (10/11 December) and in the
first decisions instituting a common European security and defence policy (CESDP) with bothcivilian and military dimensions;
Gdash the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations with those countries which
had not been included on the list by the Luxembourg European Council, and gave Turkey appli-cant country status,
B. whereas the European Union is committed to defending common interests and values, developing and
consolidating democracy and the rule of law, and ensuring respect for human rights, minority rightsand fundamental freedoms, these being the guiding principles of its common foreign and securitypolicy,
C. whereas, in order to make the CFSP more credible and more effective, the Union has created a com-
mon security and defence policy (CESDP), enabling it to draw on the full range of civilian and militaryinstruments so as to protect its fundamental values and interests; whereas this means that in all cir-cumstances its decisions to intervene in the framework of the Petersberg tasks must receive democraticlegitimation from both the European Parliament and the national parliaments,
D. recalling that collective defence falls outside the field of the CESDP and is instead the responsibility of
NATO,
E. whereas the common strategies introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam, enabling the Union to act in
areas where the Member States have important common interests, are an embodiment of the Union’sforeign policy priorities,
F. whereas, in addition, the common strategies introduce an element of flexibility into the CFSP, since
decisions taken in implementation of those strategies are reached by qualified majority voting,
G. whereas a further element of flexibility introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam is constructive absten-
tion, whereby decisions may be taken enabling actions in which certain Member States, for internal
reasons, do not wish to participate,
H. whereas the CFSP is only one of the policies enabling the Union to act in the sphere of external
relations; whereas the Union is obliged under Article 3 of the TEU to ensure the consistency of itsexternal activities considered as a whole,
I. whereas the Council and Commission are responsible under the Treaty for ensuring such consistency;
whereas, however, the chosen solution, namely to divide responsibility for the Union’s external activ-ities between the CFSP’s High Representative and the Commission, could lead to interinstitutional ten-sions,
J. whereas the democratic deficit must be eliminated as a matter of urgency in the development of the
CFSP and the CESDP,
K. whereas the IGC now under way should be used to introduce improvements to the CFSP and the
CESDP, especially as regards the participation of the European Parliament in both policies, with aview to bringing them closer to citizens and making their operations more democratic,C 228/166 EN 13.8.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000
L. whereas the decisions of the Helsinki European Council on the enlargement of the Union Gdash without
doubt the most important element of foreign policy Gdash have contributed to reanimating the debate onthe objectives of European integration, the intrinsic nature of Europe and the European Union, theUnion’s geographical limits and the future shape of its institutions,
Ensuring peace and defending the interests and fundamental values of the EU: the CFSP’s guiding
principles
1. Notes that ensuring peace and freedom and protecting the EU’s constituent values and its interests in
Europe and in the world are the cornerstones of the CFSP;
2. Stresses that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, the promotion of democracy and
the rule of law, and the protection of minority rights therefore contribute towards achieving those objec-
tives and are principles which lie at the heart of the European Union’s foreign policy; this is evident in its
agreements with third countries (democracy clauses), its common strategies, its enlargement policy andnow also in its common European security and defence policy;
3. Believes that the democratisation of state and society contributes to the Union’s security and is also a
necessary condition for economic development, since a social market economy is not compatible in thelong term with restrictions on political and civil liberties;
4. Stresses that resolving economic and social problems is an important way of contributing to security
and that the European Union bears a great responsibility in this area both in Europe and the world;
5. Welcomes the publication by the Council of the first report on human rights, which sets out the
Union’s policy in this field;
6. Salutes the Union’s efforts both to obtain a universal moratorium on capital punishment leading to
its abolition at world level and the elimination of other degrading practices such as torture; stresses thatthis imperative forms part of the platform of values inherent to Europe;
Enlargement as a key objective of the CFSP
7. Stresses that the enlargement negotiations with twelve countries, and also the Euro-Mediterranean
Partnership and the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe, have proved to be the most effective foreignpolicy instrument for the stabilisation of the Mediterranean region and Central and Eastern Europe;
8. Emphasises that enlargement also serves Europe’s security and foreign policy interests;
9. Stresses that the EU should press harder for cooperation with other European countries in conjunc-
tion with the enlargement process;
10. Notes, however, that the enlargement in process Gdash even without considering prospects further in
the future Gdash may affect the Union’s cohesion and, therefore, its stabilising role on the international stage,unless the Union carries out the necessary reforms, in particular the reform of its institutions, and unless itaddresses the challenges of more openness towards the public and reflecting the public’s interests to a
greater extent;
The CESDP
11. Notes that the CESDP, established by the Cologne and Helsinki declarations, is also a fundamental
element of the CFSP; stresses that this new policy marks an important step forward for European integra-tion;
12. Stresses that the CESDP enables the Union to increase its options regarding the promotion of inter-
national cooperation, peace, and conflict prevention and, where necessary, the management of crises,allowing it to resort to the entire spectrum of civilian and military instruments available to it; stressesthat this calls for a Union capable of defining clear and precise foreign policy objectives;13.8.2001 EN C 228/167 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000
13. Welcomes, accordingly, the progress made in the field of the CESDP at the European Councils of
Lisbon (23/24 March 2000) and Santa Maria da Feira (19/20 June 2000), and hopes that this impetus willbe maintained after the capacity engagement conference of 20/21 November 2000 and at the Nice Eur-opean Council of 7/8 December 2000;
14. Reiterates that civil conflict prevention and crisis management should be the priority and that mili-
tary means should only be used as a last resort;
15. Calls on the EU Member States, following the WEU ministerial meeting held in Oporto on
15/16 May 2000, to draw up a calendar for the abolition of the WEU; calls on the EU Council, in parallel,to determine the arrangements whereby the residual functions of the WEU can be absorbed by the newinstitutional framework of the EU that emerges from the IGC, without affecting the neutrality and non-alignment of some Member States;
Main aspects of the CFSP in 1999 and current trends
16. Recalls that the various crises in the Balkans culminated in military confrontation during the
Kosovo crisis of spring 1999;
17. Welcomes, therefore, the new course pursued by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and calls on
the Commission and Council to monitor carefully both the democratisation process in Belgrade and thehumanitarian crisis in the country and to support it politically and financially;
18. Appeals in this regard to President Kotunica to review as a matter of urgency all cases of political
prisoners in Serbia with regard, in particular, to the Kosovo Albanian ones and to release all those arrestedor convicted on unsubstantiated political charges and those detained for months without charge;
19. Reaffirms the view that the new foreign policy priorities should not be financed at the expense of
other important tasks of the European Union and calls for the ceiling on heading 4 of the financial per-spective to be raised to meet the new financial challenges involved in supporting the reconstruction of theFederal Republic of Yugoslavia;
20. Notes, however, that the situation in Kosovo remains tense, due in part to the ambiguous nature of
UN Security Council resolution 1244; hopes that the municipal elections which were held on 28 October2000 can promote peaceful dialogue between the newly elected President of the FRY and the leader of theDemocratic League of Kosovo in order to implement this UN resolution; notes that President Kotunica’sdesire to reform the structure of the Federation gives scope for a political compromise which could helpthe Federation as a whole to move closer to the European Union;
21. Expresses its appreciation of the work carried out in particularly difficult conditions by the UNIMK,
the KFOR and the European Agency for Reconstruction; encourages the various ethnic communities inKosovo to cooperate fully with those bodies; calls on the European Union, its Member States and theother international organisations to coordinate their initiatives in the area more effectively and to agreeon more effective rules governing the allocation of responsibilities among them;
22. Endorses the regional initiative launched by the European Union with the Stability Pact for South-
Eastern Europe, with the aim of overcoming the crisis in the western Balkans, and welcomes the participa-tion of the FRY, as of 26 October 2000, in this Stability Pact, which will contribute to peace, security andstability in this region;
23. Endorses the new policy of stabilisation and association agreements being developed for Croatia and
for the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, which is integrating those countries into a European con-text;
24. Wishes to see further consolidation of the state apparatus in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in Albania, in
the interests of stabilising the region and establishing conditions making it possible to conclude stabilisa-tion and association agreements with those countries; wishes, furthermore, to see this political initiative ofstabilisation and association agreements embrace all countries in the western Balkans, once they meet thenecessary conditions;C 228/168 EN 13.8.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000
25. Welcomes the EU-western Balkans summit held on 24 November 2000, and emphasises that this
summit sent out a clear message to the peoples of the region, Serbia included, concerning their Europeanidentity;
26. Calls on the Council to use that occasion to clarify its policy for the western Balkans, on the basis
of a common strategy which could help orient the democratic forces in the region, notably by offeringthem a coherent vision of its future and its relations with the EU;
27. Welcomes, therefore, the conclusions of the Feira European Council which has given a long-term
EU membership perspective to South-East European countries;
28. Welcomes the common strategy for Russia adopted at the Cologne European Council, aimed at
Russia becoming a strategic partner of the Union; wishes to see further progress towards democracy andthe rule of law in Russia, but expresses its concern at certain discouraging internal developments (Chech-nya, curbs on certain sections of the media), while also recognising the need to counter centrifugal ten-dencies in the Russian state;
29. Considers, at all events, that the Chechnya conflict can only be resolved by political means and that
any solution must respect the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation;
30. Considers, furthermore, that the human rights violations and other abuses which occurred during
the conflict in Chechnya must be fully investigated and calls on the Russian authorities to do all they canin this field;
31. Stresses the need, for the democratic legitimacy of Russia and given its political union with Belarus,
for Russia’s president and government to reiterate unequivocally the urgent need for democratic reforms inBelarus, particularly in the light of the report delivered in Minsk on 16 October 2000 by the parliamentarytroika from the European Union, the Council of Europe and the OSCE;
32. Welcomes the common strategy for Ukraine adopted at the Helsinki European Council, reinforcing
the strategic partnership between the two parties; notes that Ukraine, like Belarus and Moldova, will be adirect neighbour of the European Union once the enlargement under way is completed, and that this will
create a new context for bilateral relations between the Union and those countries; stresses, however, that
the development of these countries with regard to democracy and the rule of law will be the basis for therelationship with the European Union;
33. Notes the results of the most recent EU/Ukraine summit held in Paris on 15 September 2000, and
regrets that the closer cooperation between the two parties announced at the summit has not been givengreater substance, for instance in the field of foreign and security policy;
34. Hopes that, as regards the highly sensitive issue of the construction of a new gas pipeline, the
European Union will give clear priority to reaching an agreement between Russia, Ukraine, Poland andthe other countries concerned
35. Hopes that the Union will utilise its partnership and cooperation agreements with the three coun-
tries of the southern Caucasus to develop its political and economic relations with them and to promotetheir economic development and ‘good neighbourliness’ between them, by contributing to resolving out-standing conflicts; believes that closer consideration should be given to the idea of a stability pact for theCaucasus bringing together all the parties concerned (including the European Union, Russia, the US, Tur-key and Iran);
36. Calls on the Union to support the reform movement in Iran with a view to consolidating the posi-
tive developments noted at the last elections; believes that the Union should, to this end, normalise itsrelations with Iran;
37. Urges the Council and the Member States to take the initiative at the United Nations to propose the
formation of an ad-hoc International Tribunal on Iraq to investigate the responsibility of Saddam Hussein’sregime in crimes of war, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide;13.8.2001 EN C 228/169 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000
38. Welcomes the common position adopted by the European Union on Afghanistan; wishes to see the
Union adopt a tougher stand on the Taliban, whose policy disregards human rights and the desire of theAfghan people for peace;
39. Stresses that Asia is a zone marked by instability and risk from Afghanistan to the China sea due to
conflicts between peoples, ideological divisions and territorial demands on the part of certain countries,
while weapons of mass destruction exist and missiles are being developed to transport them; calls on theUnion to keep a close watch on developments in Asia, especially in the context of the Petersberg tasks;
40. Is particularly concerned at the conflict over the issue of Kashmir between two nuclear powers,
India and Pakistan, and considers that a political commitment on the part of the European Union andthe international community is needed in order to reduce tensions in the area;
41. Considers that, in general terms, the Union should extend its commitments in Asia and promote the
message of stability and human rights; welcomes, in this connection, the Asia-Europe meetings (ASEM),organised as a counterpart to the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economy Conference) meetings;
42. Regrets the fact that the recent ASEM Summit led to the public expression, at the highest level, of
the Member States’ contradictory views regarding North Korea;
43. Underlines the increasing importance of EU-China relations, but deplores the lack of any substantial
progress as to the EU-China dialogue on human rights; urges the Council and the Commission to makeclear once more to the Chinese authorities that present and future relations depend on concrete improve-ments in this field;
44. Urges, in this respect, the Council to find ways to strengthen political ties with Taiwan with a view
to fostering dialogue between Taipei and China and supporting the Taiwanese democracy; urges onceagain the Commission to open a representation office in Taipei;
45. Welcomes the settlement to the East Timor question reached in 1999, which has enabled the nor-
malisation of relations with Indonesia; at the same time, deplores the recent acts of violence by the Islamistmilitias against the people of East Timor and calls on the Indonesian government to dissolve those militias;
46. Calls on the European Union to give greater importance to Africa; welcomes the Africa-Europe
summit held on 3/4 April 2000 under the auspices of the OAU and the European Union; calls on theEuropean Union to reflect the Cairo Declaration adopted on that occasion in a common strategy;
47. Welcomes the results of the presidential election which was held in Côte d’Ivoire on 22 October
2000 and which marked the return to civilian government; regrets, however, the outburst of violencewhich followed this election and calls on the political leaders to show their sense of responsibility inorder to allow the country to return to constitutional legality in an atmosphere of civil peace;
48. Draws attention to the extent of the AIDS epidemic in Africa and the potential threat it represents
to the internal stability of the African countries most affected, and calls for firm international action on thematter;
49. Reiterates its full support for the Euro-Mediterranean partnership policy and endorses the conclu-
sions of the Fourth Euro-Mediterranean Conference held in Marseilles on 13/14 November 2000;
50. Regrets that the Fourth Euro-Mediterranean Conference was unable to adopt the Euro-Mediterra-
nean Charter for Peace and Stability because of the development of the political situation in the Middle
East;
51. Welcomes the improvement in relations with Libya; remains, however, concerned at the situation in
Algeria and the continued massacres despite the ‘civil concord’ referendum held on 16 September 1999;C 228/170 EN 13.8.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000
52. Reiterates its support for the Middle East peace process; regrets the lack of results from the Camp
David Israel-Palestine negotiations of July 2000; is deeply concerned to see further provocation and out-breaks of violence jeopardising the peace process; calls on the UN, the European Union, the United States,the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council to persuade both sides that all use of force can only becounterproductive and that there is no alternative to a resumption of talks; hopes, therefore, that futuretalks will make it possible to create a viable Palestinian state, to guarantee Israel’s legitimate desire forsecurity and to settle the status of Jerusalem;
53. Deplores the persistent inability of the Union to play a constructive role in bringing peace to the
Middle East whenever severe tensions emerge, and expresses its dismay at the impression of total disarray
given by the Member States during the voting at the UN Extraordinary General Assembly held on 21 Octo-ber 2000;
54. Welcomes the adoption by the Feira European Council of a common strategy for the Mediterranean
region;
55. Calls on the Commission and Council to assess the risks to international security arising from the
unequal distribution of water resources and to contribute, where relevant with other interested countries,to actions to avoid crises, thereby preventing the outbreak of ‘water wars’;
56. Expresses its endorsement of the Rio summit of 28/29 June 1999, which for the first time brought
together the heads of state and government of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean and thoseof the European Union; welcomes the closer relations developed with Mercosur and Chile; calls for thefurther development of cooperation between the European Union and all the countries mentioned;
57. Supports the intention of the European Union to back, according to its own priorities and through
a substantial European programme, the peace process engaged in by President Pastrana in Colombia;
58. Believes that the Union’s actions relating to the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean
should be reflected in a common strategy;
59. Welcomes the Union’s efforts in the sphere of conventional disarmament, in particular as regards
the outlawing of anti-personnel mines and illegal trafficking in light and small-calibre weapons;
60. Welcomes the publication in 1999 of the Union’s first annual report on arms exports, adopted
under paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct of 8 June 1998;
61. Welcomes, in addition, the Union’s efforts in favour of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation,
in particular its common positions in the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT) andthe Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT); welcomes the ratification by the Duma of the START II Treatyand the CTBT, and regrets the failure of the US Senate to ratify the latter;
62. Encourages the Union to continue its efforts to ensure that negotiations for a treaty outlawing fissile
material production are launched at the Disarmament Conference; welcomes the declaration adopted bythe five permanent members of the UN Security Council at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Confer-ence, which opened on 24 April 2000, reiterating their commitment to achieving the total elimination ofnuclear weapons;
63. Encourages the Union to continue its efforts to strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons Con-
vention (BTWC) outlawing such weapons, so that a legally binding protocol can be adopted before thefifth treaty review conference, due to be held no later than 2001;
64. Expresses its deepest concern at the possibility of the US deploying a limited missile defence system
(NMD), in view of the risks this initiative would represent for strategic equilibrium; calls for intensivetransatlantic dialogue on this subject and for other interested countries, such as Russia, to be invited totake part in the ongoing discussions, in view of the proliferation of ballistic missiles worldwide;13.8.2001 EN C 228/171 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000
The new mechanisms introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam
65. Notes that the Treaty of Amsterdam has introduced certain improvements to the CFSP by compar-
ison with the Treaty of Maastricht: it has enhanced its effectiveness via the common strategies, improvedits visibility by creating the office of CFSP High Representative, and reinforced its flexibility through theconstructive abstention mechanism;
66. Calls for Member States not to make systematic use of the constructive abstention mechanism,
which brings a crucial dose of flexibility to the decision-making process of the CFSP and the CESDP, in
order not to undermine mutual solidarity between Member States within the Union;
67. Considers that the creation of the office of CFSP High Representative, while certainly helping
enhance the Union’s visibility, inevitably generates conflicts of responsibilities with the Commissioner forexternal relations, thus showing up the unsuitable nature of the existing ‘pillar’ structure of the EuropeanUnion;
68. Calls for account to be taken of these circumstances in the discussions on the Union’s institutional
future; proposes that the tasks of the High Representative be entrusted to a Commission vice-president,whose brief would cover external relations and the CFSP and who would be accountable to both theCouncil and Parliament;
69. Calls, pending further clarification, for further action to develop the policy planning and early warn-
ing unit in cooperation with the Commission, and for the WEU’s Satellite Centre and Security StudiesInstitute to be attached to it, thus enabling it to fully exercise its role of prevention, analysis and planning,as described in Annex No 6 to the Treaty of Amsterdam;
The organisation of external relations
70. Welcomes the reorganisation of the external relations departments following the installation of the
new Commission, which has ended the geographical division of responsibilities among several Commis-sioners; repeats, however, that the office of CFSP High Representative should be integrated into the Com-mission;
71. Stresses the need for close cooperation between Council and Commission, on the basis of respect
for the competences of both institutions, especially when implementing conflict-prevention or crisis-man-
agement actions, given that what is at stake is the credibility of the Union’s foreign policy;
72. Recalls the crucial contribution made by Community instruments to realising the objectives of the
CFSP; considers that, in the interests of consistency and effectiveness, greater substance should be given tothe new troika, whose shape is adumbrated in the Treaty of Amsterdam; believes, therefore, that the Pre-sidency-in-Office of the Council should involve systematically the High Representative and the Commis-
sioner responsible for external relations as partners in the troika in its CFSP initiatives and activities, pend-
ing an eventual merger of their respective functions;
73. Notes the reorganisation of the Commission’s external services, whereby its officials and other staff
are given more responsibility, and supports the Commission’s proposed reform of foreign aid;
74. Calls on the Commission, with a view to the annual debate on the Union’s foreign policy, to pro-
vide Parliament with a document setting out the breakdown by country of the total granted by the Eur-opean Union in aid, clearly distinguishing Community aid from Member States’ contributions and estab-lishing a comparison with other third-country donors; considers that this document should emphasise theconcrete results of Community aid and draw attention to the problems encountered;
75. Notes that the Member States, as was pointed out at the informal Council held in Evian, employ
40000 diplomats divided between 1500 embassies; considers that this huge number of staff is not beingadequately used to serve the common interest;
76. Calls on the Member States, accordingly, to improve the coordination of the activities of their
embassies in third countries, which should also work in close cooperation with the Commission’s delega-tions; considers that those delegations should increasingly take on the character of embassies of the Unionand should have a coordinating role for the diplomatic and consular missions of the Member States;believes that pilot schemes could be implemented to this end;C 228/172 EN 13.8.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000
77. Considers, finally, that the creation of a European diplomatic academy, as proposed in Parliament’s
above-mentioned resolution of 5 September 2000 on a common Community diplomacy, would be a posi-tive step in the direction of creating a common diplomacy at the service of the CFSP;
The European Parliament, the CFSP and the CESDP
78. Stresses the need for the Union’s activities in the area of crisis management using civilian and
military resources, notably in the context of the Petersberg tasks, to be subject to greater parliamentarycontrol;
79. Notes that there is a clear division of responsibilities in this connection between the European
Parliament and national parliaments;
80. Recalls, in this context, Parliament’s resolution of 15 June 2000 on the establishment of the CESDP,
with a view to the European Council meeting in Feira(
1), and proposes, in the context of the CFSP and the
CESDP, the regular holding of a meeting bringing together representatives of the competent committees of
national parliaments and the European Parliament, with a view to examining the development of the two
policies jointly with the Council Presidency, the High Representative for the CFSP and the Commissionerresponsible for external relations; considers that it would be desirable, subject to certain conditions, toinvolve the parliaments of the applicant countries and those of non-EU countries which are members ofNATO, under the same conditions;
81. Places great importance on cooperation between the European Parliament and the NATO Parlia-
mentary Assembly;
82. Welcomes the Council document on the main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP, as an instru-
ment for guidance and dialogue concerning the CFSP; regrets, nonetheless, the fact that this is the only
document on which Parliament is consulted under Article 21 of the TEU, and asks to be consulted, in
particular, on the common strategies at the preparatory stage, to ensure that its views are properly takeninto consideration;
*
**
83. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the parlia-
ments of the Member States.
(1) ‘Texts Adopted’, Item 5.
10. A common European security andd efence policy after Cologne andHelsinki
A5-0339/2000
European Parliament resolution on the establishment of a common European security andd efence
policy after Cologne andHelsinki (2000/2005(INI))
The European Parliament,
Gdash having regard to the motions for resolutions tabled by:
(a) Salvador Garriga Polledo on the creation of a European Civilian Peace Corps (B5-0361/1999),
(b) Jorge Salvador Hernández Mollar on promoting relations with the Maghreb region in the interests
of European security and defence (B5-0114/2000),
Gdash having regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 17 thereof,
Gdash having regard to the decisions on the European security and defence identity (ESDI) adopted at the
1996 Berlin North Atlantic Council and at the Atlantic Alliance Summits held in Madrid (1997) andWashington (1999),13.8.2001 EN C 228/173 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000