A4-0169/98

Resolution on the role the Union in the world: implementation of the common foreign and security policy for 1997

The European Parliament,

- having regard to Article J.7 of the Treaty on European Union,

- having regard to Rules 92(4) and 148 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to its resolution of 12 June 1997 on progress in implementing the common foreign and security policy (January to December 1996) ((OJ C 200, 30.6.1997, p. 148.)),

- having regard to the Amsterdam Treaty and its resolution of 19 November 1997 on the Amsterdam Treaty (CONF 4007/97 - C4-0538/97) ((OJ C 371, 8.12.1997, p. 99.)),

- having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on provisions regarding financing of the Common Foreign and Security Policy ((OJ C 286, 22.9.1997, p. 80. )),

- having been consulted by the Council on 30 March 1998 on the Council Document on the main aspects and basic choices of CFSP, including implications for the Communities' budget (7087/98 - C4-0216/98),

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy and the opinion of the Committee on Development and Cooperation (A4-0169/98),

A. whereas, in accordance with Article J.7, second paragraph, of the TEU, Parliament is required to hold an annual debate on progress in implementing the common foreign and security policy,

B. having regard to the objectives of that policy as set out in Article J.1 of the TEU, to the provisions of Article C relating to the consistency of the Union's external activities as a whole, and to the responsibility of the Council and Commission for this broad area,

C. having regard to the use which the European Council and the Council have made of the tools provided in the TEU, especially joint actions and common positions, and the provisions of Article J.4(1) on a future common security policy,

D. noting that the real instruments of the CFSP, joint actions and common positions, are still not very frequently used, although they are needed to back up the many declarations issued by the Council,

E. whereas important challenges have emerged and new crises have broken out requiring stronger and more effective action by the EU in the field of conflict prevention and the peaceful settlement of conflicts,

F. pointing out that new efforts should be made to give better visibility to the external actions of the EU,

G. emphasizing that the external relations of the EU should be consistent with the values on which the EU itself has been founded with a view to consolidating democracy, enhancing respect for human and minority rights and promoting the rule of law,

H. whereas there is now an interinstitutional agreement on financing the CFSP but still none on Parliament's right to be informed and consulted, which is particularly serious in the case of international negotiations, including negotiations on bilateral and multilateral trade agreements,

I. whereas Parliament must constantly review its own role and conduct with regard to the CFSP in order to maximize its impact and increase democratic control over the CFSP,

1. Considers that, while developments in the CFSP show some progress in comparison with previous years, the criticisms made in its aforementioned resolution of 12 June 1997 remain very largely valid; notes, however, that there has been progress in the wider field of foreign policy, as shown by the democratic consolidation in central and eastern Europe and the partnership agreement with Russia;

2. Notes that it remains true that

a) there was a lack of public perception of progress in developing a European foreign policy;

b) there was no interinstitutional agreement on Parliament's right to be informed and consulted;

c) the Commission still did not make full use of its right to submit proposals to the Council;

d) progress in developing a common security policy, coordinating defence policies, developing a genuine common armaments policy and incorporating the WEU into the EU remained slight;

e) mismatch between the EU's foreign policy and trading activities remained;

3. Recalls that, by virtue of the Interinstitutional Agreement on provisions regarding financing of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the Presidency of the Council is committed, on a yearly basis, to consult the European Parliament on a document established by the Council on the main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP, including the financial implications for the Communities' budget;

4. Regrets that the first such report submitted by the Presidency confines itself to a virtually entirely historical and narrative approach, providing no analysis of the efficacity of the CFSP in the previous year nor any real indication of basic choices to be made in the future and calls on the Council to ensure that next year's report is expanded to cover these issues fully;

5. Resolves to deal fully with the financial implications of the main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP in the ad hoc concertation procedure set up pursuant to the Interinstitutional Agreement;

6. Considers that proper procedures for dealing with, inter alia, the following issues must be established and enshrined in Parliament's Rules of Procedure now being revised to meet the demands of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam:

a) the undertaking by the President-in-Office of the Council (( PE 226.288 and Minutes of 11.3.1998, Part I, Item 4.)) on behalf of the Council to keep Parliament fully informed (by both Council and Commission) on the major aspects and developments concerning the accession partnerships established with countries applying for admission to the European Union and the accession negotiations themselves, to consult Parliament on any modifications to the partnerships and to take Parliament's views into account in reaching its decisions,

b) the wider and more flexible application of the conciliation procedure under the Joint Declaration of 4 March 1975 applicable to Community acts of general application which have appreciable financial implications,

c) an interinstitutional agreement, as yet to be established, providing for consultation of Parliament on all international agreements and other general acts based on the Euratom Treaty,

d) Parliament's involvement in decisions on the penalties to be imposed in the event of human rights violations in third countries;

7. Considers that the full implementation of the Amsterdam Treaty should address some of these criticisms through the creation of the policy planning and early warning unit and of the office of High Representative, which will increase the visibility of the CFSP, as well as by allowing some foreign policy decisions to be taken by majority voting;

8. Calls on the Council and the Member States to mobilize the necessary political commitment for the use and development of the instruments offered by the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam, with a view to creating a genuine common foreign and security policy;

9. Recognizes that the CFSP as it currently exists limits Europe's ability to have the influence that its political, economic and cultural weight deserves;

10. Considers it essential as a matter of urgency to create a genuine common European diplomacy, transforming the Commission representations into proper diplomatic representations of the Union in those countries where the majority of Member States are not fully represented;

11. Calls on the Council and Commission to maintain human rights as a prominent part of the CFSP;

12. Stresses that human rights and democracy clauses should be included in all agreements with third parties, to contribute to the protection of democracy and fundamental freedoms;

13. Points out that actions under the CFSP have tended to be very narrowly focussed and CFSP instruments seem to be unable to define comprehensive policies in areas of general interest such as poverty and the environment;

14. Urges the EU, in consultation with the WEU and NATO, to make all practical arrangements to ensure that in future speedy and efficient use can be made of the available instruments, including the combined joint task forces (CJTF);

15. Stresses that, in merely providing the Parliament with certain information on foreign policy issues from time to time, the Council and Commission are far from fulfilling their treaty obligations and their duties towards the citizens of the Union and calls yet again for Parliament to be formally consulted on the basic choices of all foreign policy;

16. Welcomes the fact that a code of conduct on arms exports has been approved by the Council but considers it important that it should, as soon as possible, be turned into a joint action and provide for scrutiny by the European Parliament on the basis of the consolidated annual report to the Council on the implementation of the code;

17. Points out that, when the Multilateral Agreement on Investment was being negotiated, it took the initiative of giving its opinion ex officio before the agreement was concluded; regards this as a precedent which should be frequently emulated, and enjoins the Council and Commission to abide by its recommendations;

18. Asserts its right to deliver a detailed opinion giving the Commission guidelines for the negotiation of bilateral and multilateral agreements, in accordance with the last subparagraph of Article 228(2) as amended by the Amsterdam Treaty; draws attention to the precedents for this and calls for compulsory involvement of Parliament in this way in future;

19. Considers that Parliament itself must develop the variety of mechanisms of influence at its disposal, such as recommendations, the intelligent use of hearings, the award of the Sakharov Prize and invitations to address the plenary; notes that a genuine development of parliamentary diplomacy, such as the recent European Parliament mission to Algeria, or its joint mission to Albania with representatives of the Parliamentary Assemblies of the OSCE and the Council of Europe in January 1998, could contribute significantly to the effectiveness of the Union's external policy and calls therefore for better coordination and cooperation between Council, Commission and Parliament to achieve maximum benefit from this;

20. Deplores the lack of ambition in defining an overall policy through a common position on the Balkans, which has meant that, despite its considerable financial contribution to the post-war reconstruction of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the political impact of the EU has been very limited compared to that of the USA; calls for the representation office of the European Commission to Bosnia-Herzegovina to be strengthened;

21. Deplores the lack of adequate initiatives on Kosovo at EU level during 1997, where no real efforts were made to suggest confidence-building measures or to achieve the opening of negotiations between the parties;

22. Regrets that neither the EU nor the WEU were able to take the decision to send the EUROFOR and EUROMARFOR to Albania and notes that the situation there was defused thanks to the intervention of a number of Member States, spearheaded by Italy, leading a multinational force (operation 'Alba');

23. Regrets that the important impulse given to Mediterranean policy by the European Council of Cannes and the Barcelona Conference has been slowed down by the lack of progress in the Middle East peace process and calls for a strong initiative from the Council to revitalize the Barcelona process;

24. Supports the work of the EU Special Envoy in the Middle East, and considers that the Union should play a political role in keeping with its economic weight; believes that an effective Community policy in the region calls for a serious dialogue with the USA;

25. Welcomes the adoption of a common position on the prevention and resolution of conflicts in Africa but stress that this is but the first step in working effectively with the African countries themselves to resolve outstanding problems such as those in the Great Lakes area;

26. Views as most serious the continued presence of nuclear weapons in the Indian subcontinent which poses a threat to international stability, and regrets that the lack of a genuine common EU policy on security prevents the Union from playing a political role in the establishment of a dialogue on the strategic balance between the countries in the region;

27. Deplores the absence of any common policy on human rights in China, where no significant improvement took place, clearly shown by the EU's failure to agree on a joint line to be taken at the meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva;

28. Welcomes the important role played by the Union in the San José Conferences and the Rio Group, in ministerial meetings with various Latin American countries; expresses its full support for the summit of European and Latin American heads of state and government to be held in 1999; reiterates its desire to establish a global action programme with Latin America, in line with the growing importance and influence of the region;

29. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.