77. Considers,finally, thatthe creation ofa European diplomatic academy, as proposedin Parliament’s
above-mentionedresolutionof5September2000onacommonCommunitydiplomacy,wouldbeaposi-tive stepin the direction ofcreating a commondiplomacyat the service ofthe 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 andnationalparliaments;
80. Recalls,inthiscontext,Parliament’sresolutionof15June2000ontheestablishmentoftheCESDP,
withaviewtotheEuropeanCouncilmeetinginFeira(
1),andproposes,inthecontextoftheCFSPandthe
CESDP,theregularholdingofameetingbringingtogetherrepresentativesofthecompetentcommitteesof
national parliaments and the European Parliament, with a view to examining the development ofthe 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 sameconditions;
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 commonstrategies 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-
mentsofthe Member States.
(1) ‘Texts Adopted’,Item5.
10. A common European security and defence policy after Cologne and Helsinki
A5-0339/2000
European Parliament resolution on the establishment of a common European security and defence
policy after Cologne and Helsinki (2000/2005(INI))
The European Parliament,
(dash having regard tothe motionsforresolutionstabledby:
(a) SalvadorGarriga Polledoonthe creation ofa European Civilian Peace Corps(B5-0361/1999),
(b) JorgeSalvadorHernándezMollaronpromotingrelationswiththeMaghrebregionintheinterests
ofEuropean security anddefence (B5-0114/2000),
(dash having regard tothe Treaty onEuropean Union andin particular Article 17thereof,
(dash 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 C228/173 Official Journal ofthe European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000
(dash having regard to the declarations adoptedat the European Councilsat Cologne(3/4 June 1999),Hel-
sinki(10/11December1999),Lisbon(23/24March2000)andFeira (19/20June2000)ontheestab-lishment of the Common European Security and Defence Policy (CESDP) in its civilian and militarydimensions,
(dash havingregardtothemeetingsoftheWEUCouncilofMinistersinOporto(15and16May2000)and
Marseille(13November2000)preparing forthetransferofsomeoftheWEU’staskstotheEuropeanUnion,
(dash having regard to the contributions announced by the European Union Member States at the Capabil-
itiesCommitmentConferenceheldinBrusselson20November2000andtheadditionalcontributionsannounced on the following day by a number of countries seeking to join the Union and the Eur-
opean NATO member countries that donotbelongtothe Union,
(dash having regard to the current Intergovernmental Conference and its discussionson enhanced coopera-
tion,
(dash having regard tothe Council Decisionsof10May 1999concerning
(a) the arrangements for enhanced cooperation between the European Union and the Western Eur-
opean Union(1999/404/CFSP)(
1),
(b) the practical arrangements for the participation of all the Member States in tasks pursuant to
Article 17(2) of the Treaty on European Union for which the Union avails itself of the WEU(1999/321/CFSP)(
2),
(dash having regard tothe Council Decisionsof14February 2000,
(a) setting up the Interim PoliticalandSecurity Committee(2000/143/CFSP)(3),
(b) setting up the Interim Military Body (2000/144/CFSP)(4),
(c) onthesecondmentofnationalexpertsinthemilitaryfieldtotheGeneralSecretariatoftheCoun-
cil during an interim period (2000/145/CFSP)(5),
(dash having regard totheCouncilDecisionof22May2000settingupaCommitteeforcivilian aspectsof
crisis management (2000/354/CFSP)(6),
(dash havingregardtotheCommissionproposaltotheCouncilforaregulationcreatingtheRapidReaction
Facility (COM(2000)119(dashC5-0272/2000(dash2000/0081(CNS))(7),
(dash havingregardtoitsresolutionof15May1997ontheCommissionCommunicationonthechallenges
facing the European defence-related industry, a contribution for action at European level
(COM(1996)10(dashC4-0093/1996)(8),
(dash having regard to its resolution of 28 January 1999 on the Commission Communication on imple-
menting European Union strategy on defence-related industries (COM(1997) 583 (dash C4-0223/1998)(
9),
(dash havingregardtoitsresolutionof15June2000ontheestablishmentofacommonEuropeanSecurity
andDefence policy with a view tothe European Council in Feira(10),
(dash having regard toits resolutionof6September 2000onEU external action priorities(11),
(1) OJ L 153,19.6.1999,p. 1.
(2) OJ L 123,13.5.1999,p. 14.
(3) OJ L 49,22.2.2000,p. 1.
(4) OJ L 49,22.2.2000,p. 2.
(5) OJ L 49,22.2.2000,p. 3.
(6) OJ L 127,27.5.2000,p. 1.
(7) OJ C 311E, 31.10.2000,p. 213.
(8) OJ C 167,2.6.1997,p.99.
(9) OJ C 128,7.5.1999,p.86.
(10) Texts Adopted,Item5.
(11) ‘Texts Adopted’,Item9.C228/174 EN13.8.2001 Official Journal ofthe European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000
(dash having regard to the amendments adopted by Parliament on 16 November 2000(1) to the proposal
for a European Parliament and Council Regulation regarding public access to European Parliament,CouncilandCommissiondocuments(COM(2000)30(dashC5-0057/2000(dash2000/0032(COD)),
(dash having regard toRule 163ofits Rules ofProcedure,
(dash having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security
andDefence Policyandthe opinionofthe CommitteeonConstitutionalAffairs (A5-0339/2000),
A. whereas the European Union and its Member States have a platform of shared values and interests,
which they are dutyboundtoprotect in a spirit ofmutualsolidarity,
B. whereas, with the end of the Cold War, the distinction between security and defence has tended to
becomeblurred,andasecurityanddefencepolicyimpliestheuseofcivilianaswellasmilitarymeansofdivertingandmanagingcrisesthreateningtheinterestsandvaluesofaStateorgroupofStatessuch
as the European Union,
C. stating again that, as regards defence in the conventional sense, i.e. territorial defence, the common
European Security and Defence policy (CESDP) does not seek to compete with the Atlantic Alliance,which todayremains the foundationofthe collective defence ofits members, or toset up a standingEuropean army,
D. noting nevertheless that Member States are linked by mutual political solidarity (Article 11(2) TEU),
which in itself already contributes to security, and, when the time comes, will lead to a position inwhich the CFSPwillalsoguarantee its Member States’bordersasthe external bordersofthe Union,
E. whereas the CESDP does not affect the individual nature of the Member States’ security and defence
policy northe obligationsarising forsomeofthemfromtheir membership ofNATO orthe WEU,
F. whereas the debate on European security and defence, which began in Pörtschach, has gathered
impetus with the NATO military intervention in Kosovo, by making the people of the EuropeanUnionaware oftheir inability toresolve large-scale crises,
G. noting that this conflicthighlighted the gaps anddeficiencies in the European Union andits Member
States, firstly in crisis prevention by civilian means and then in their military crisis-managementresources andcapabilities,
H. welcoming, therefore, the European Union’sprompt action which, in the form of the declarations by
theCologne,Helsinki,LisbonandFeiraEuropeanCouncils,establishedtheprinciplesandmodalitiesofacommonEuropean security anddefence policy(CESDP)concentrating mainlyonpreventing, mana-ging andfinding the way outofcrises threatening international stability andsecurity,
I. pointing out that the efforts of the Union and its Member States to establish a credible common
European security and defence policy are intended to strengthen the CFSP, enabling the Union todeploy the full gamut of financial, diplomatic, civilian and military instruments at its disposal toachieve its aims and to exercise a more effective influence on the outcome of international crises,given that recourse tomilitary meansisonlya lastresort solution,
J. whereastheEuropeanUnion’sdeclaredintentionofusingtheCFSPandtheCESDPtotakeitsplaceas
a major player in international politics will help revitalise and ensure fairer burden and responsibilitysharing within the Atlantic Alliance, will lend substance to the concept of the European security anddefence identity (ESDI)andwillplay an importantpart in preserving international security,
(1) ‘Texts Adopted’,Item5.13.8.2001 EN C228/175 Official Journal ofthe European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000
K. welcoming the decisions already taken by a number of Member States to restructure their armed
forcesandacquire effectiveand,insomecases,commonequipment,withaviewtotheestablishmentof the European Rapid Reaction Force, as decided at the Cologne and Helsinki European Councils, inrespect ofwhich the Capabilities CommitmentConference is the first practical step,
L. insistingthatMemberStatesshoulddevotethesameefforttoachieving thegoalstheyhave setthem-
selves regarding civilian crisis management, in particular to establish a rapidly deployable Europeanpolice force, and to introduce comprehensive crisis-prevention and (dash management measures whichare adequately financed anddesigned tosupportcivil society in areas oftension,
M. notingthattherearestillgapswhichneedtobestopped,inbothinstitutionalandequipmentterms,if
theUnionistohaveacredibleconflict-preventionandcrisis-managementcapabilitybytheyear2003,
N. regretting that the CESDP is being set up without control by the European Parliament, which is not
involved in its formulation; insisting also on the need for parliamentary scrutiny and democraticaccountability of CESDP, involving national parliaments vis-à-vis the governments of the MemberStates,
O. noting in particular that the national parliaments, which are responsible for adopting the defence
budgetsofthe Member States, are notyet able toobtaina globalandcoherent viewofthe CESDP,
P. stressing the importance of the principles of transparency and accountability in the field of security
anddefence policy,
Q. recallingthatanagreementbetweentheEuropeanParliamentandtheCouncilisrequired toauthorise
access tothe documentsspecified in CouncilDecision 2000/527/ECof14August 2000(
1),
1. Believes that a common European security and defence policy is not an end in itself but an instru-
menttofurtherthegoalsoftheUnion’sforeignpolicyandmaybeusedonlytoattainspecificgoalsclearlydefined by the Councilin liaisonwith the Commissionandwith the supportofthe European Parliament;
2. Reaffirms therefore that the CESDP will broaden the Union’s options for conducting its foreign pol-
icy;
3. WelcomesthelatestPresidency report onstrengthening the commonEuropean security anddefence
policyadoptedattheFeiraEuropeanCouncil,andurgestheEuropeanUnionnottorelaxitseffortsbutto
continue developing the civilian and military aspects of the CESDP, inter aliaby taking the political and
institutionaldecisions required tomakeit fullyoperational;
4. NotesthattheCESDPwillbefullyeffectiveonlywhenitisdirectedbyaclearlydesignatedauthority,
which is able to coordinate all available resources, both civilian and military; considers it is necessary toevaluate ona regular basisthe newstructures once they are put in place;
5. Calls therefore on the forthcoming European Councils to take the decisions required to make the
CESDPfullyoperational in 2003,asdecided at the CologneEuropean Council;
6. Restates its belief that crises shouldbe resolvedinitially by civilian means,but doesnotrule out the
use offorce when diplomaticmeanshave been exhausted, provided thatthe use offorce isin accordance
with the founding principles of the European Union and the constitutions of its Member States and with
the principles ofthe United NationsCharter andthe OSCE;
7. Underlines the fact that, in accordance with international law, there should be an appropriate man-
datefromtheUNSecurityCouncilauthorisingtheuseofmilitaryforce;aware,however,ofthepossibilityof a deadlock in the Security Council, stresses the need for reform of the UN institutions; considers that,pending these reforms, andin the absence ofa mandateas a result ofa deadlockin the Security Council,the international community, of which the European Union is a part, should only be able to intervenemilitarily in urgent casesat the express request ofthe Secretary-General ofthe UnitedNations;
(1) OJ L 212,23.8.2000,p. 9.C228/176 EN13.8.2001 Official Journal ofthe European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000
8. Emphasises finally the need for the European Union to drawup the principles and legal basesfor it
to act either by civilian or military means or a combination of both on the territory of non-Communitystatesin which a crisis is occurring;
I. Developing the civilian instruments of conflict prevention and crisis management
9. Approves the guidelines contained in the report drawn up at Feira for strengthening the European
Union’scapabilities in the civilian aspectsofconflictprevention as well ascrisis management soas to:
(a) prevent the eruption or escalationofconflicts,(b) consolidatepeace andinternal stability in periodsoftransition, and(c) ensure complementarity between the civilian and military aspects of crisis management in order to
cover the full range of Petersberg tasks(humanitarian missions, including rescue tasks; peace-keepingmissions,tasksofcombatforces in crisis management, including peace-making);
10. Supportsthe objective setbythe Member StatesatFeira ofsupplying by2003byvoluntary coop-
eration a 5000-strong European police force for conflict prevention or crisis management, military unitsnot being suitable for lawand order operations; notes also that Member States have undertaken, w ithinthat global target, to meet emergencies by deploying an initial contingent of 1000 police officers within30days;
11. Welcomes also the Commission’s proposal to set up a Rapid Reaction (financial) Facility to allow
the Union to take emergency action and urges the Council to adoptthe Regulation to that effect withoutdelay;
12. EmphasisesthatthisdiversificationandstrengtheningoftheEuropeanUnion’sinterventioncapabil-
ityincrisisareasmustgohandinhandwithactiontorestoreandconsolidatetheruleoflaw,democracy,civilsociety,anindependentjudicialsystem,localadministrationandtheeconomyinthoseareas,toallowareturntonormallifeattheearliestopportunityandtoensuredemocraticsecurityintheareaconcerned;
13. Callsonthe CommissionandCouncil togive their attention to conflictprevention anddeveloping
an operational concept calling on the resources of the European Union, of its Member States, of NATO,andofotherplayerssuchastheUN,theOSCEandotherregionalorganisations,aswellasthemediaand
civil society;
14. Underlines in this contextthat the EU shouldcooperate alsowith the specialised NGO forums;
15. Considersthatthefirststageinestablishingaconflict-preventionpolicyistodeveloptheEuropean
Union’sintelligence-gathering and(dashanalysiscapacities soastodetect the earliest signsofany crisis;
16. Stressesthatthis policywill rely on:
(a) the loyalcooperation ofallMember States, whowill have tomakealltheir resources available tothe
Union,
(b) thestrengtheningofthePPEWU(PolicyPlanningandEarlyWarningUnit)which,atpresent,doesnot
have the manpower or resources toperform its early warning task,letaloneits other tasks,and
(c) the strengthening of the appropriate departments in the Council and the Commission, which must
pooltheir informationandanalyses;
17. Emphasises that preventive intervention should be tailored to the nature of the crisis in question
andmayinvolvetheuseofarange ofmeasuresfromdiplomaticpressuretopositiveactiontostrengthencivil society, without ruling out coercive action, ranging from political and economic sanctions to threatsofthe use offorce;13.8.2001 EN C228/177 Official Journal ofthe European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000
18. Believes that there must be a clear distinction in non-military crisis management between purely
civilian operations (humanitarian, observation, mediation, reconstruction etc.), which could be carried outbyaEuropean civilian peacecorps,andpoliceoperations,whichcouldbethepreludetoescalationintheuse ofcoercion or takeplace after a conflict;
19. Considersit vitalthattheappropriate Councilbodies(Committeeforcivilian aspectsofcrisisman-
agement,theSituationCentreandtheCrisiscell(s))shouldcooperatecloselywiththeircounterpartsattheCommission(inparticulartheCrisisCoordinationUnitandECHO)underaclearlydesignatedauthoritysoas toavoidthe duplicationofeffortandensure the effectiveness ofUnion action;
20. Repeats its request in its above-mentioned resolution of 15 June 2000 to set other headline goals
than thoserelating tothe police force, in respect, forexample, ofgroups ofspecialists in the fieldsoftherule oflaw, the monitoring ofelections, observationofsituations,humanitarian aid andcivil protection;
21. Calls on the Commission to list the civilian instruments nowexisting or yet to be set up, w ith a
viewtopreventing andmanaging crises andemerging fromthemonthe bestterms;
22. Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the Council, to produce a public annual report on
EU conflict prevention, which lists the policies adopted, instruments used and programmes supported;proposesthatcriteriabeestablishedfortheirevaluationaswellasforthelessonstobelearnedfromthem;
II. Developing the Union’s military assets and capacities
23. Notes that the Kosovo conflict revealed the weakness of European countries in crisis intervention,
notonlyin their civilian but alsoin their military capacities;
24. Restates its support for the headline goal set at Cologne and Helsinki of establishing a 50-60 000
strong Rapid Reaction Force by 2003 to be mobilised within 60 days and deployable for a year with thenecessary air and maritime support and which should have its own command, intelligence and opera-tional-planning capabilities;
25. Welcomes the contributions announced by the Member States, the candidate countries, and the
European NATO allies that do not belong to the EU at the Capabilities Commitment Conference held on20/21 November 2000 with a view to attaining the above goal; calls on the High Representative for theCFSP to report regularly to Parliament on the manner in which the countries concerned are honouringthosecommitments,soastoenable MEPsandmembersofthenationalparliamentstooversee themovestosetup the European Rapid Reaction Force;
26. Welcomes the Member States’ stated willingness to attain this ambitious objective by reorganising
their armed forces asappropriate;
27. Calls on the Member States in their procurement policies to drawon the lessons of the NATO
interventioninKosovo,theWEUaudit,theNATODefenceCapabilitiesInitiative(DCI)andtheconclusionsofthe Capabilities CommitmentConference;
28. Draws attention to the weaknesses or failures of European countries in the fields of communica-
tions, command,controland information(C
3I), strategic mobility (heavy airlift, in-flight refuelling), intelli-
gence gathering, penetrationofenemyair defences,all-weather, dayandnightattackcapability,precision-guided munitionsandcruise missiles,asrevealed bythe Kosovoconflict;
29. Proposes therefore that, following the Capabilities Commitment Conference, Member States should
seektoremedythedeficiencies, astheyhave justdoneinthestrategic air transportfield(AirbusA400M),for air-to-air missiles (Meteor), cruise missiles (Scalp/Storm Shadow) and reconnaissance and navigationsatellites;C228/178 EN13.8.2001 Official Journal ofthe European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000
30. ConsidershoweverthattheconsolidationofthemilitaryequipmentprocurementprocessinEurope
cannot be undertaken on the sole basis of individual or multilateral projects and that a substantial, jointlong-range planning effortisstillneeded;
31. Proposestherefore thatthe Member Statesassesstheir long-termneeds,distinguishing between the
short (2003/2005), medium (2010/2012) and long term (2020/2025), so that the necessary strategic,industrial andbudgetary optionsmay be taken when appropriate;
32. NotesthattheestablishmentofaEuropeanUnionrapidreactioncapabilitywillraisetheproblemof
the professionalisation of the Member States’ armed forces, a process on which some have alreadyembarked, and maintains that each State must take its own decisions on this matter, in the light of itspolitical andsocial traditionsandthe role it wishes toplay in crisis management;
33. Believes it essential for EU Member States to increase their naval aviation intervention capabilities
basedontheaircraftcarrierspossessedbyfourofthem,inviewoftheimportanceofseacommunicationsfor the Union’s trade and the scope they offer for performing Petersberg tasks, as the operations overformer Yugoslavia have shown; calls on the Member States concerned, when replacing their aircraft car-riers, to seek to achieve interoperability with a view to having available, in case of need, a homogeneous
naval aviation intervention force;
34. Calls also for the countries of Europe to pool their carrier escort and support assets either in the
formofspecialtaskforcesoraspartofEuromarfor,which isduetobeopentoalltheMember States,inorder togive proper protection toEuropean aircraft carriers;
35. Supports the idea of developing adequate capacity for air and sea transport, in-flight refuelling,
CSAR(
1) operations, control of airspace (AEW&C(2)) and, at a later stage, battlefield control and satellite,
aircraft anddroneintelligence gathering;
36. NotesthattheforcesatpresentanswerabletotheWEU(FAWEU)andtheEuropeanAirGroupwill
beamongtheforcesavailabletotheEuropeanUnionandthatitwillbepossibletocalluponthemfortheEuropean Rapid Reaction Force; calls for these various forces, which in themselves are instruments forstrengthened cooperation, tobe open toMember Stateswishing toparticipate in them;
37. Calls on the European Union to take over the long-haul air transport agreement concluded on
30 June 1997 between the WEU and Ukraine and considers that a similar agreement could be concludedwith Russia in order tobolsterthe Member States’transport andforce projection capabilities;
38. Refers to its resolutions of 15 May 1997 and 28 January 1999 on European defence industry
cooperation and notes with satisfaction the framework agreement signed at Farnborough on 27 July2000 between six European countries, which will facilitate the restructuring of the defence industries inEurope, ascalled forin thoseresolutions;
39. Callsforcandidate countries tobe allowedwherever possibletoplayafullpartin European arma-
mentscooperation;
40. Reminds nevertheless defence industries as well as EU Member States and the candidate countries
that, in the interest ofthe CESDP,arms exportsmustbe controlledandrestricted;
41. Calls for the European Union to acquire a genuine space policy covering the civilian and military
aspects of the use of space and for it to combine its national and multinational military resources in aCommon European Union Space Command (CEUSC); considers, however, that the objective of this newpolicy should not be to put weapons in orbit but rather to develop observation, listening and navigationsystems;
(1) CombatSearch andRescue.
(2) Airborne Early Warning & ControlSystems.13.8.2001 EN C228/179 Official Journal ofthe European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000
42. Welcomes, from that point of view, the fact that the European Union and the European Space
Agency moved closer together on 16 November 2000 with a view to laying down a two-pronged Eur-opean space strategy focusing on navigation (Galileo) and observation systems (GMES initiative, or globalmonitoring ofenvironmental security);
43. Points out that establishing an operational CESDP will require adherence to acommon political
vision and the identification of common interests, but emphasises at the same time that its effectivenesswill rely on the acquisition by Member States of homogeneous intervention capabilities and the develop-ment of advanced technologies; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a common defence research pol-icy; considers that European research centres should take defence aspects into account in their pro-grammes;
44. Points out that all these efforts to improve the Union’s military capacity and assets will remain
inadequate if the Union does not adopt a strategy for the use of force, as part of its common foreign
policy, andif its Institutionshave notundergone the necessary adaptation;
III. Institutional questions arising from the establishment of a common european security and defence
policy
45. Refers,asregardsthedecision-makingstructuresoftheCESDP,toitsabove-mentionedresolutionof
15 June 2000 and hopes that the COPS will be chaired by the High Representative for the CFSP, that aCouncil of Ministers of Defence will be set up and that the latter, should the need arise, will take part inthe General Affairs Council;
46. Again expresses its concern over the effectiveness of the interim bodies set up on 1 March 2000
and over the coherence, in the present situation, between civilian and military operations the EuropeanUnion might decide upon;
47. Pointsoutthatthesettingupofthenewbodieswasnotaccompaniedbyanystrengthenedpowers
ofcoordinationandinitiative forthe High Representative fortheCFSP,byanyclear demarcationoffunc-tions between him and the Commissioner responsible for external relations, or full coordination with all
otherpartiesinvolved,soastoestablishaclearchainofcommandfromthelevelatwhichpoliticalinitia-
tives are taken tothat ofaction onthe ground;
48. Reiterates thereforethedemand,expressedinitsresolutionof13April2000settingoutitspropo-
sals for the IGC(
1), that the positions of High Representative for the CFSP and Commissioner responsible
for External Relations be merged in due course into a specially appointed Vice-President of the Commis-sion;
49. Believes furthermore that the effectiveness of the CESDP will be closely linked to improving the
operationoftheCFSPandthat,forthispurpose,theUnionmustalsohavethecapacitynotonlytogatherbutalsotoanalyseintelligence;notesthat,underthedecisionstakenbytheWEUCouncilon13November2000, the Torrejon Satellite Centre and the WEU Security Studies Institute are to be transferred to theEuropean Union in 2001 in the form of agencies; believes that, when that happens, the future role ofthese two bodies will need to be clearly defined to ensure not least that they work in support of thePPEWU, which will have to be provided with increased human resources to enable it completely to per-formitsplanning andanalysis tasks;
50. Hopes that the Nice European Council will set up the definitive CESDP bodies (COPS, Military
Committee and Military Staff), will clearly define their respective responsibilities and decision-makingpowers, and give the impetus required for improving the operation of the CFSP in general and theCESDPin particular, with regard tospeeding up andclarifying the decision-makingprocess;
51. Calls, in addition to the establishment of these permanent CESDP bodies, for the Nice European
Council to establish the principle, on the basis of the WEAG, the WEAO or the OCCAR, of a EuropeanArmaments Agency attached to the Military Committee, responsible for devising and managing commonresearch programmes andplanning investmentandjointprocurement spending;
(1) ‘Texts Adopted’,Item7.C228/180 EN13.8.2001 Official Journal ofthe European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000
52. Believes that the Council should consider the budgetary aspects of the CESDP, in particular by
providing for the cost of transferring the WEU functions required for the performance of Petersbergtasks; also believes that the cost of Petersberg tasks should be apportioned between the Member Statesaccording to the GNP scale; calls for each Member State’s contribution in civilian and military resourcestothe performance ofthosetaskstobe takeninto account in the apportionmentprocess;
53. Calls, at all events, for any Member State not wishing to take part in a task to be required, by
reason of the mutual solidarity linking the Member States, to make a financial contribution to be dividedbetween the participating States;
54. Considers that Petersberg tasks should in the long term be funded from the general budget of the
EuropeanUnion,whichwouldrequirearevisionofArticle28oftheTEUandoftheFinancialPerspective;
55. Asks, in viewof the inherent cost of establishing the CESDP, the Council and the Member States
not to rule out a priorithe possibility of increasing budgetary appropriations, given the need for such a
measure to ensure the credibility of the Union, provided that it does not cast doubt on the social andeconomic priorities ofthe Unionandits Member States;
56. HopesthattheeffortstopoolthemilitaryresourcesandcapabilitiesoftheMemberStatesunderthe
CESDP will serve to rationalise military spending, thus affording an opportunity for possible budget sav-ings;
57. Underlines that further development of military tasks should in no way lead to a reduction by
Member States of Community spending in non-military areas, in particular those areas which deal withcivil crisis management, human rightsanddemocracy, developmentassistanceandhumanitarian aid;
58. Notes that cooperation between the European Union and NATO is working well, as instanced by
the first jointmeeting ofCOPSandthe NorthAtlantic Councilheld on19 September 2000;
59. Supportsthe guiding principles anddetailed procedures forthe involvement ofcandidate countries
and European members of NATO which are not members of the EU in crisis-management tasks under-
taken bythe European Union,as agreed at the Feira European Council;
60. Recalls in this connection that:
(a) in the case of operations decided upon by the Council of the European Union which require the use
ofNATOassetsandcapabilities,EuropeanStateswhicharemembersofNATObutnotoftheEUmaytake part if they so wish and will then have the same rights and obligations as the Member States ofthe European Union,fromthe planning tothe day-to-dayconductofthoseoperations;
(b) in the case of operations decided upon by the Council of the European Union not making use of
NATO assets and capabilities, European States which are members of NATO but not of the EU maybe invited to take part in such operations with the same rights and obligations as Member States oftheEuropeanUnion,asstatedabove;notesthatthesamewillapplytoanycandidatecountryandanyother State, such as Russia orthe Ukraine, which are invited totake part bythe Council;
61. Welcomes, in that context, the additional capacity commitments which several European member
countries ofNATO who are notmembers ofthe European Union undertook,at the Capabilities Commit-mentConference, tomakeavailable tothe Unionfor its Petersberg tasks;
62. Points out that the Washington Declaration adopted on 23 April 1999 at the Atlantic Alliance
summit established the principle that the European Union should have easy access to NATO collectiveassets and capabilities for operations in which NATO was not militarily engaged as an alliance, which inparticularimpliesguaranteedaccesstoNATOplanningcapabilitiesandapresumptionoftheavailabilityofNATO assetsandcapabilities which wouldbe identified in advance foruse by the European Union;13.8.2001 EN C228/181 Official Journal ofthe European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000
63. NotesthatanydeclarationwhichcalledintoquestiontheEuropeanUnion’sabilitytocallonNATO
assetsandcapabilitiesincaseofneedcouldonlyencourageittoduplicatesomeofthem,whichwouldnotbe in the interestsofany ofthe partners;
64. NotesthattheOportomeeting oftheCouncilofMinistersoftheWEUandthatinMarseille paved
thewayforthetransfertotheEuropeanUnionoftheWEU’sfunctionsrequiredforperformingPetersbergtasks,thatthishasimplicationsforthestructureofthatorganisationanditsfuture,andthatthisraisesthequestion of the future of its founding Treaty; notes the ‘transition plan’ adopted by the WEU militarycommittee on 17 October 2000 which seeks, while the permanent structures of the European Uniontakeshape, toensurecontinuityincrisismanagement;notesthattheWEUMilitaryStaffwithitsPlanning
CellandSituation Centre will disappear once its counterpart issetup in its finalformwithin the EU;
65. NotesthattwooftheresidualtasksoftheWEU,mutualassistance(ArticleV)andarmscooperation
viatheWEAG,couldbethesubjectofstrengthenedcooperationif,aftertheIGC,theyalsocoveredsecur-ity anddefence;
66. NotesthattheUnionisbeginningtoassumethelastresidualtaskoftheWEU,toprovideabroader
security forum, as the former has decided to undertake regular contacts with the candidate countries andthe European membersofNATO which are notmembersofthe EU;
67. Proposes, therefore, that the modified Brussels Treaty, which was concluded for a 50 year period,
should be denounced under the procedure laid downin Article XII thereof, once the residual tasksof the
WEU are performed bythe European Union,which shouldlead tothe dissolutionofthe WEU in 2004;
68. CallsontheUnion’sinstitutions,withaviewtodevelopingthecivilian,politico-militaryandparlia-
mentaryaspectsoftheCESDPandtotherun-downoftheWEU,torecruitthelatter’sstaff(dashthosework-ing bothin its secretariat andforthe Assembly,in order tobenefit fromtheir professionalskills;
IV. The parliamentary dimension of the CESDP
69. Refers to its resolution of 15 June 2000 mentioned above on the parliamentary dimension of the
CESDP,andstronglyregrets the absence ofthis dimensionfromthe Council’sdeliberations;
70. Refers in particular to its proposal that, within the framework of the CESDP and on the basis of
experience with COSAC, a European parliamentary body for security and defence should be set up tocorrespondtothe broader framework ofEuropean security;
71. Believes that this parliamentary dimension must, at all events, be developed within the European
Unionframeworkand,withitscurrent powers, beable toassumethesupervisory functioncarried outbythe WEU Assembly;
72. ProposesthatArticle21oftheTreatyonEuropeanUnion,whichrequirestheEuropeanParliament
to hold an annual debate on the CFSP, should be amended specifically to include the CESDP and that, inthat context, the Council shouldreport to it on the progress made in implementing this policy, includingthe effortsofthe Member Statestohelp achieve the target for2003;
73. Believes ingeneral thatitwouldbeusefuliftheIGCamendedtherelevantprovisionsoftheTreaty
to take account of the existence of the CESDP alongside the CFSP, which would better demarcate thepowers ofthe Union andthoseofits institutions;
74. RegretstheunilateraldecisiontakenbytheCouncilon14August2000establishingveryrestrictive
accesstodocuments,andinsiststhatanagreementonthisquestionshouldbereachedbetweenParliamentand the Council in order to enable the CESDP to function properly, and at the same time guaranteeingParliament the possibilityofexercising the rights conferred onit by the Treaty;
75. Welcomesthe cooperationwhich hasbegun with the NATO Parliamentary Assemblyandprovides
a European andtransatlanticforumfordiscussing security anddefence matters;C228/182 EN13.8.2001 Official Journal ofthe European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000
76. Believes thatitwouldbedesirable,atthepresentstage,toadaptitsownstructures totakeaccount
ofthe existence ofthe CESDPandbetter controlits development;
77. Proposes, therefore, to set up a special administrative unit of its own to assist its Committee on
Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy in its work concerning the CESDP
and to facilitate the work of the Delegation for relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which
will have tobecome a permanent delegation;
V. Transatlantic relations
78. EmphasisesthattheEuropeanUnion’seffortstoestablishtheCESDParecompatiblewiththedevel-
opment ofthe European Security and Defence Identity (ESDI)within NATO and aim to establish genuine
partnership in allfields(dashpolitical, economic andmilitary (dashwith the UnitedStatesandCanada;
79. Is aware that the establishment of a balanced partnership between the European Union and the
United States in security and defence and hence in foreign policy requires a reappraisal of each side’sposition in order to meet this new challenge which will alter the roles that each of the partners has heldsince 1945;
80. Regrets to note that the developments set in train at Cologne and Helsinki have not always been
seen in their proper light in the United States and that an information effort is required to avoid anymisunderstanding; proposes therefore that the Commission Delegation to Washington, in close coordina-tionwiththePresidencyoftheUnionandtheHighRepresentative fortheCFSP,shouldconductaninfor-mationeffortdirectedtowardsUSpoliticalleaders;alsocallsonitsDelegationforrelationswiththeUnitedStatesCongresstoraise the matter regularly with membersofthe US Congress;
81. ConsidersthattheEuropean UnionandtheUnitedStates,aspartnerswithsharedvaluesandinter-
ests, need to conduct a sustained dialogue on the great strategic questions, such as the balance of powerafter the disarmamenttreaties, andonthe major international policyandsecurity issues;
*
**
82. Hopes that specialist European institutes will be used to provide Members of Parliament and Eur-
opean officialsassignedtothe CESDPwith the training they will need tocarry outtheir duties;
83. Callson the Commissionand Council to examine the possibility ofsetting up a European Security
College at Unionlevel toprovide commonEuropean training for civilian andmilitary leaders in the insti-tutions of the European Union and its Member States, which would thus foster a common culture in thesecurity anddefence fields;
84. ConsidersitvitalfortheEuropeanUniontoadoptaninformationpolicytoexplaintothepublicin
theMemberStatesandneighbouringnon-CommunitycountriestheaimsoftheCommonEuropeanSecur-ityandDefencePolicythatitisseekingtoestablish;believesthatthistaskshouldbeundertakenjointlybythe European Parliament, the Council Presidency, the High Representative for the CFSP and the Commis-sion;
85. Callsfor a wide-ranging democratic debate to be organised on the issues of European security and
defence, and for the European Parliament and national parliaments to participate; invites the Council andthe Commission, within their respective spheres of competence, to draw up a White Paper on Europeansecurity, to enable them to pool their thoughts on the short and medium term dangers threatening ourcontinentandtosetoutguidelines forpoliticalactiononEuropean Unioncivilandmilitaryinterventions;
86. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments
and parliaments of the Member States, of the candidate countries and the European members of NATOwhich are notmembers ofthe EU andofthe United StatesandCanada, the WEU Council, AssemblyandSecretary-General,theNATOSecretary-GeneralandParliamentaryAssemblyandtheEuro-AtlanticPartner-ship Council.13.8.2001 EN C228/183 Official Journal ofthe European Communities
Thursday 30 November 2000