European Parliament resolution on the European Security Strategy (2004/2167(INI))
Date: 2005-04-13
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: EU relations, European Constitution, European Defence Agency, European security, NATO, United States, common security and defence policy, export monitoring, interinstitutional relations, military equipment, terrorism

C 33 E/580

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.2.2006

Thursday 14 April 2005

nevertheless the exemption granted to nationals from states that are not party to the Rome Statute from the
jurisdiction of the ICC and calls on the Council to continue its firm support for the ICC;

Parliament's view on the financing of CFSP for 2005

45.
Reiterates that responding to the five main threats to European security, as set out in the European
Security Strategy (terrorism, WMD proliferation, regional conflicts, State failure, organised crime), will
require long-term external commitment using all available instruments, including a serious investment in
security research and conflict prevention, involving the identification of concrete, sustained budgetary com-
promises to be explicitly made in the future Financial Perspectives for 2007-2013;

Insists it is no longer possible to distinguish between the financing of civil or military expenses in
46.
the context, in particular, of ESDP operations, and more specifically those undertaken solely by the Union
and planned and conducted through its Civil/Military Cell;

Stresses once again, therefore, that joint costs for military operations within the framework of ESDP
47.
should be funded from the Community budget (as already occurs in the civil sphere in the case of police
operations) and not from a subsidiary budget or a start-up fund of the Member States, as currently provided
for;

48.
To that end, recalls the new possibilities offered by the financing of future interventions by the
planned ‘Humanitarian Battle Groups’ in cases of natural disasters in which a mixture of military and civil
means of assistance are necessary, as was recently the case with the tsunami disaster in South Asia; calls, in
this regard, on the Council and the Commission to draw up a new proposal which also takes into account
the proposal of the European Parliament for a European Civil Peace Corps and the setting-up of a European
Voluntary Aid Corps as provided for in Article III-321 of the Constitution;

49.
Asks the Council to consider, in the event of any future ESDP operation in the fight against terror-
ism, and in opposition to existing rules such as the principle that ‘costs lie where they fall’ or any other ad
hoc arrangements such as the so-called ‘Athena mechanism’, the possibility of funding the joint cost of such
operations from the Community budget;

*

*

*

50.
Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the parliaments of
the Member States, the Secretary-General of the UN, the Secretary General of NATO and the Secretary
General of the Council of Europe.

P6_TA(2005)0133

European Security Strategy

European Parliament resolution on the European Security Strategy (2004/2167(INI))

The European Parliament,

— having regard to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, signed in Rome on 29 October

2004,

— having regard to the European Security Strategy adopted by the European Council on 12 December
2003, following an initiative in this connection by the Greek Presidency, the informal Council of
Foreign Ministers (Kastellorizon, May 2003) and the conclusions of the Thessaloniki European Council
(19-20 June 2003),

9.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/581

Thursday 14 April 2005

— having regard to its resolution of 30 November 2000 on the establishment of a common European

security and defence policy after Cologne and Helsinki (1),

— having regard to its resolution of 10 April 2003 on the new European security and defence architec-

ture — priorities and deficiencies (2),

— having regard to its resolution of 10 March 2005 on the Non-Proliferation Treaty 2005 Review Con-

ference — Nuclear arms in North Korea and Iran (3),

— having regard to the Proposal for a White Paper on European defence as presented by the EU Institute

for Security Studies in May 2004,

— having regard to the report on a Human Security Doctrine for Europe as presented to the EU High

Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy on 15 September 2004 (4),

— having regard to the various programmes on conflict prevention as made public by all the European

Institutions,

— having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

— having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0072/2005),

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

considering the milestone reached in the evolutionary development of European Security and Defence
Policy (ESDP) as set out in the Franco-British St Malo Declaration of 3-4 December 1998,

considering the subsequent ESDP development agenda as expressed during the European Council
Summits in Cologne (3-4 June 1999), Helsinki (10-11 December 1999) and Göteborg (15-16 June
2001),

considering the need to strengthen arms exports control in and from the EU and at global level,

recognising the important role played by various EU assistance programmes and the indispensable
contribution they make to economic development, to supporting the growth of democratic institu-
tions, to the implementation of reconstruction measures, to drawing up macro-economic programmes
and to promoting human rights,

acknowledging that the comprehensive approach advocated in the European Security Strategy is
already being actively pursued in the Balkans, as demonstrated by the scale of EU instruments cur-
rently being applied to bring stability to the region: the CARDS assistance programme; the civilian
missions Proxima and EUPM; and the military mission Althea,

recognising the consistent support levels established over a ten-year period of public opinion surveys,
which have shown that more than 60 % of EU citizens are in favour of a common EU foreign policy
and more than 70 % in favour of a common defence policy; noting, however, other opinion surveys
which do not show support for increased military spending,

noting and regretting that the level to which the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) is
subject to scrutiny by the European Parliament in accordance with Article III-304 of the Treaty estab-
lishing a Constitution for Europe has not significantly been increased and that Parliament is not and
has never been consulted on numerous Council decisions and actions; recognising nevertheless the
goodwill demonstrated by the High Representative and his services in keeping Parliament informed
and engaging in dialogue with Parliament; urging the High Representative and his services to continue
to strengthen this transparent dialogue with Parliament,

H.

observing, without prejudice to the previous point, the continued accountability of actions undertaken
within the Union's CFSP framework to the national parliaments, particularly with regard to those
Member States where parliamentary approval is required in order to undertake any military action,

(1) OJ C 228, 13.8.2001, p. 173.
(2) OJ C 64 E, 12.3.2004, p. 599.
(3) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2005)0075.
(4) The Barcelona Report of the Study Group on Europe's Security Capabilities.

C 33 E/582

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.2.2006

Thursday 14 April 2005

I.

J.

K.

L.

acknowledging that all actions and measures undertaken within the framework of the Union's CFSP
are to be exercised in strict adherence to international law and with respect for the principles of the
UN Charter, as stated clearly in Articles I-3 and III-292 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for
Europe,

whereas many EU Member States (including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Italy and Greece)
have had, and in some cases are still having, their own experiences with various forms of terrorism
and the philosophies which underlie them,

whereas, for the foreseeable future, Islamist terrorism represents the greatest challenge to the EU, as to
other regions, particularly in the event that terrorists succeed in gaining control of weapons of mass
destruction,

whereas the European Security Strategy forms part of the comprehensive CFSP and ESDP, in which the
whole spectrum of political activities available to the EU, including those of a diplomatic, economic or
development nature, may come into play,

The European security environment

Emphasises that only a comprehensive understanding of the concept of ‘security’ can properly take
1.
into account both the influence of issues of political democratic concern (e.g. violation of human rights,
wilful discrimination against particular groups of citizens, the existence of repressive regimes) and the wide
range of social, economic and environmental factors (e.g. poverty, famine, disease,
illiteracy, scarcity of
natural resources, environmental degradation, inequitable trade relations, etc.) in contributing to existing
regional conflicts, the failure of states and the emergence of criminal and terrorist networks, though the
actions of the latter may not be seen as being justified in any way, shape or form by the above-mentioned
factors;

2. Welcomes, therefore, the comprehensive understanding of the concept of ‘security’ as expressed in the
European Security Strategy (ESS); shares the view expressed within the ESS that key threats to our global
security presently include terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), unresolved
regional conflicts, failed and failing states and organised crime; emphasises that these threats can neither be
primarily addressed nor exclusively resolved by military means;

3.
Draws, therefore, the same conclusion as that expressed within the ESS that a combination of the
various assistance programmes and instruments, including those of development policy, at both EU and
Member State level, in conjunction with diplomatic, civilian and military capabilities and expertise can best
serve to contribute to a more secure world;

4.
Consequently stresses the urgent need for the practical transposition of this concept of the security
environment within the existing structures of the Union, so as to enable the Union to detect crises suffi-
ciently far in advance to act in a pro-active manner; in that connection, recommends greater efforts to
establish an early-warning system for threats using innovative technologies from the civilian IT sector to
carry out news analysis and assessment; expresses its view in this regard that the establishment of ‘tension
detection centres’ in regions particularly susceptible to crises, centres which may be set up under the aus-
pices both of the future European External Action Service and of services outside the European Union, such
as those of the African Union, would be one of many sensible ways of identifying, reporting on and helping
to eradicate the roots of conflicts and thus preventing any violent escalations; stresses further in this regard
the importance which it attaches to the integration of conflict prevention and the fight against terrorism as
components within all EU policy areas;

Strategic objectives for the EU

5.
Agrees fully with the strategic objectives for the Union as expressed in the ESS: addressing the threats;
building security in the Union's neighbourhood; and strengthening the international order via effective
action through effective multilateral structures; emphasises that the objectives of the ESS go well beyond
the military aspects of the European Security and Defence Policy;

9.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/583

Thursday 14 April 2005

6.
Notes that, in addressing the threats, it will be necessary to determine those of a regional and/or those
of a global nature, so that the Union can effectively mobilise its available instruments and resources in order
to address the problem; notes that the establishment of security in the Union's neighbourhood will serve in
large measure to counter threats of a regional nature, whereas those of a global nature must be tackled
through effective multilateral international structures in which the EU is a driving force; notes, however,
that multilateral organisations and structures may also be called upon to address regional threats;

7.
Shares fully the view expressed in the Union's New Neighbourhood Policy and the ESS that the
Union's neighbourhood should be understood in more far-reaching terms, covering not only those eastern
European countries sharing borders with the EU but also regions further east and south, such as the Cau-
casus, the Middle East and northern Africa; notes the congruency of this policy with the continuing activ-
ities of the Union in seeking a resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict also through the Barcelona process;
stresses that democracy and the rule of law are the most important preconditions for the peaceful coexist-
ence of peoples;

8.
Emphasises the primacy of the UN within the multilateral institutional framework and the need for the
EU to play a leading role in re-invigorating the structures and capabilities of this indispensable institution;
takes note in this connection of the report presented by the Secretary-General of the UN entitled ‘In larger
freedom: towards development, security, and human rights for all’ on 21 March 2005; welcomes this report
— without prejudice to any future detailed assessment by the Parliament — as the starting point for an
open discussion on reforming the UN so that it may face the challenges of the 21st century; urges the EU
and the Member States to coordinate their position within the framework of these discussions in full aware-
ness of the consistent support demonstrated by public opinion surveys for a stronger representation of
CFSP/ESDP through the EU than that which currently exists;

Underlines, further, the need for the Union to play a leading role in cooperating with other inter-
9.
national and regional organisations that foster peace and security in the world; emphasises in particular
the need for full cooperation with the OSCE;

Stresses that it is important for the EU to pursue a firm and fair development policy in order to

10.
contribute efficiently to the universally agreed Millennium Development Goals;

Recent ESDP milestones

11.
Notes the valuable experience gained in civilian and police missions over the course of the last two
years, including: the assumption of control by the International Police Task Force (now EUPM) in Bosnia-
Herzegovina since 2003; Proxima in The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and Eujust
Themis in Georgia; welcomes also the forthcoming deployment of a European Union police force in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUPOL Kinshasa);

12.
Recognises the significant progress made in expanding the military capabilities of the Union; at the
same time notes the importance of the Berlin Plus Framework agreed with NATO, which made the first EU
military mission Concordia in FYROM and the Althea mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina possible; acknowl-
edges the advantageous flexibility of the Union's ESDP framework in further allowing the execution of
Operation Artemis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo;

13.
Emphasises the positive contributions already made by the EU Situation Centre (Sitcen) in combining
all available civil, military and diplomatic intelligence to produce cogent background analyses of any given
situation; urges the Member States to further intensify their information-sharing with the Sitcen, so as not
to unduly hinder the fulfilment of ambitions expressed in the ESS;

14.
Emphasises that the defining characteristic and the additional value of the ESDP lie in the com-
bination of civilian and military components and notes, in observance of the aforementioned accomplish-
ments, that the EU will in future be increasingly faced with the challenge of striking a good and proper
balance between military and civilian components in order to fulfil the objectives and the spirit of the ESS;
takes the view that the Althea mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina will provide valuable experience in this regard,
in so far as the Union will be able to coordinate its military efforts with the civilian operations and pro-
grammes currently under way;

C 33 E/584

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.2.2006

Thursday 14 April 2005

Progress towards Headline Goal 2010 and towards a Civilian Headline Goal 2008

Agrees with the targets set out in the Headline Goal 2010 as formally adopted by the General Affairs
15.
and External Relations Council (GAERC) on 17 May 2004 and the agreement to work out a Civilian Head-
line Goal 2008 as approved by the GAERC on 13 December 2004 as a means of concentrating efforts to
empower the EU with the necessary capabilities to pursue the ESS strategic objectives; considers that these
substantive and time-related targets should be given concrete form in a White Paper;

16.
Recognises in this connection the progress made at the GAERC meeting on 22 November 2004
concerning the further development of the rapid deployment ‘Battle Groups’ concept for high-intensity
military operations; notes that these Battle Groups are to be primarily derived from the bi-national and
multinational forces already existing within the EU; also notes the agreement to work out a Civilian Headline
Goal 2008, as approved by the GAERC, and welcomes the intention expressed therein of making the exist-
ing civilian instruments more comprehensive and effective, so that the combination of various integrated
contingents can take place on the basis of specific needs on the ground; recognises, therefore, that future
civilian crisis management within the framework of the ESDP will in effect go beyond the four priority areas
set out in Feira (police, rule of law, civil administration and civil protection);

Underscores, in particular with respect to achieving the full operational mobility of the Battle Groups
17.
by 2007, the importance of the Global Approach on Deployability and,
in this context, welcomes the
contributions made by the coordinating centres of Athens and Eindhoven in the military transport sector;

18. Welcomes further in this regard the formal adoption by the European Council of the proposal for a
Civilian/Military Cell (Civ/Mil) within the European Union Military Staff; notes that Civ/Mil will play a
particularly crucial role in the strategic planning of all operations (i.e. civil, military and joint civil/military)
and — as of 2006 — in setting up an operations centre for autonomous EU missions in cases where no
national HQ has been designated; emphasises further the importance of Civ/Mil in developing principles and
models for the management of the civilian/military interface; acknowledges, however, that many of these
principles and models will be derived as a result of ongoing and future operations;

Draws attention, as regards the planning for future EU mixed civil/military missions, to the proposals
19.
and ideas contained in the report entitled ‘A Human Security Doctrine for Europe’; welcomes in this regard
not only the current developments in the field of ESDP, such as the establishment of Civ/Mil, which are in
congruence with the general direction of this report, but also the future creation of a European Voluntary
Humanitarian Aid Corps as provided for in Article III-321(5) of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for
Europe; notes, however, that the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps is primarily envisaged, in that
article, as ‘a framework for joint contributions from young Europeans’; demands therefore that the frame-
work of this be either expanded or complemented by the setting-up of a complementary ‘Corps’ drawing
upon the experience and expertise of mid- and post-career professionals, so as to create a functional corps
more along the lines of the European Civil Peace Corps — as proposed on several occasions by the Parlia-
ment;

Notes that on 7 January 2005 the GEARC also — partly on the basis of provisional proposals put
20.
forward by the Foreign Affairs Commissioner — called on its competent subsidiary bodies and on the
Commission to assess the scope for boosting the EU's crisis reaction capabilities as regards disaster aid;

Urges the Council and the Commission to guarantee the complementarity and cohesion of existing
21.
instruments and capabilities as well as those of new proposals, particularly regarding the close link between
conflict protection and crisis management; considers that measurable success in this as yet uncompleted
task may be regarded as progress with a view to the future establishment of the European Foreign Service;

22. Welcomes the initiative by certain Member States to establish a European Gendarmerie Force and
their readiness to make it available for ESDP purposes; highlights the particular usefulness of this force in
ensuring the transition from an essentially purely military phase of operations to a mixed or purely civilian
phase;

9.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/585

Thursday 14 April 2005

23.
Emphasises the need to develop a European security culture through an effective implementation of
the EU Training Concept in ESDP which increases interoperability among all actors involved in EU crisis
management; stresses in this context the need for the establishment of a European Security and Defence
College (ESDC) which will provide EU bodies and Member States with knowledgeable personnel able to
work efficiently on all ESDP matters; considers that this College must be based on sound organisational
and financial modalities;

Notes with satisfaction the rapid action taken in creating the European Defence Agency (EDA) in
24.
advance of the formal adoption of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe; notes that the activities
of the EDA should benefit the Union, not only in further developing defence capabilities in crisis manage-
ment, but also in bringing about a rationalisation of research and development costs within the Member
States and, in the long run, helping to contribute to the creation of a European armaments market; con-
siders that the Armaments Agency should pay particular attention to the arming and equipping of Battle
Groups and should ensure their compatibility; calls for the Battle Groups to be supplied as a first priority
with new, common equipment; cautions, however, that any future achievements of the EDA will, in large
measure, be dependent on the (political) goodwill of the Member States; calls for the availability of sufficient
budgetary means to permit the realisation of EDA-led armaments initiatives; notes further in this connection
that the EDA must not be hindered from pursuing longer term capability goals — goals beyond the Head-
line Goal 2010 — in order that the Union may benefit from pursuing the ESS objectives;

Regards a European Space Policy as one of the most important strategic challenges facing the EU in
25.
the 21st century; notes that, in the field of telecommunications and intelligence, many projects have been
developed in parallel, reducing efficiency and increasing costs; calls for these projects, such as the French
Helios satellite system and the German SAR-Lupe system, to be merged within the framework of European
security research;

26. Welcomes the Commission's efforts to promote security research within the EU in the near future;
advocates, therefore, the establishment within the next framework programme for research of an indepen-
dent European security research programme endowed with instruments, rules and funding models tailored
to the work of researching security issues, in keeping with the recommendations of the Group of Eminent
Persons; points out, however, the risk of duplication with research initiatives of the EDA; calls, therefore, on
the Commission, the Council and the Member States to maintain close working relations with a view to
avoiding this risk; recommends, in this connection — parallel to technology-driven research — that the
emphasis should be placed on the development of joint modelling and simulation capabilities and the ability
to analyse threats and security concepts, exploiting the respective comparative benefits they offer;

Capability deficiencies

27.
Takes note of the following three categories of material deficiencies, which could seriously affect the
Union's ability to conduct both civilian crisis management operations and humanitarian intervention oper-
ations of high-intensity dimensions using mainly military means, such as halting humanitarian catastrophes
of similar dimensions to that in Rwanda:

(a)

lack of deployable forces required for maintaining the rotation needed (1/3 on deployment, 1/3 on
training, 1/3 resting) in such long-term/high-intensity operations;

(b)

lack of permanent large-scale airlift capabilities for transporting forces abroad;

(c)

lack of sufficient deployable command, control and communications capabilities as well as intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance resources within the collective framework of ESDP;

Notes that the continuing development of the Battle Groups will address the first deficiency in large
28.
measure; notes that the planned construction of the A400 M transport aircraft will not resolve the second
deficiency completely and urges that measures be taken to address the deficiency further; urges, nonetheless,
that consideration be given to establishing a rotation scheme for the deployment of forces; demands, in view
of a rotation scheme of this kind, common standards in training, for instance as regards helicopters; con-
siders that operational capability could be increased and costs reduced by a joint training system; urges

C 33 E/586

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.2.2006

Thursday 14 April 2005

strongly, as regards the final deficiency, that measures be taken to enable the EU to conduct missions requi-
ring the assistance of military forces without recourse to NATO or to any single Member State's resources;
points out that such measures could realistically entail the pooling of existing resources and capabilities
within the Member States with the goal of establishing a dual-use communications base or network at the
service of the ESDP;

29.
Emphasises further that the goals and aims expressed in the Headline Goal 2010 would not be
sufficient to allow missions of a more intense nature or of a duration of more than one year; therefore
urges the Commission, in close cooperation with the Council, to submit a White Paper on the practical
requirements for the development of the ESDP and the ESS, so that a debate concerning the development of
a future European Defence Strategy can also be further promoted;

Arms export control and non-proliferation of WMDs and light weapons

30.
Acknowledges, within the framework of the Union's CFSP, the overall coherence of the European
Strategy against the proliferation of WMDs, as formally adopted by the European Council in December
2003, with the strategic objectives of the European Security Strategy; notes with satisfaction the work
undertaken by the Personal Representative of the High Representative in pursuing the implementation of
Chapter III of this Strategy, particularly as expressed in the priority list endorsed by the European Council in
December 2004;

31.
Agrees with the European Security Strategy that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is
potentially the greatest threat to our security and urges, in accordance with the provisions of the European
Security Strategy, that the EU use the full panoply of instruments at its disposal in defeating the WMD
threat, noting in this regard that the possible combination of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction
requires prompt and appropriate action;

32.
Stresses the need for the European Union to take over the initiative of strengthening the international
arms control regime, thereby contributing to the reinforcement given to effective multilateralism within the
international order; notes further the congruence of efforts to integrate aspects of non-proliferation within
the EU Neighbourhood Policy with the overall strategic objective of building security within the Union's
neighbourhood;

33. Welcomes the intended inclusion of WMD non-proliferation clauses in all future partnership and
cooperation agreements between the EU and third countries, as exemplified by the Partnership and Coop-
eration Agreement with Tajikistan of 11 October 2004 (1) as well as the draft Association Agreement with
Syria now awaiting approval;

34. Welcomes the fact that the EU's negotiations with Iran as a regional power, aimed at preventing the
proliferation of nuclear weapons, were carried out in connection with legitimate economic and regional
security interests; notes that this policy is an expression of foreign and security policy based on the prin-
ciples of international law and multilateralism in the best interests of the international community; wel-
comes the fact that the EU and US positions on Iran have come significantly closer;

35.
Takes note of the Peer Review currently being undertaken of the EU export control system; notes
that the main finding derived from the first stage of this review, conducted in Spring 2004, was the need
for Member States to collectively (i.e. the EU) and individually adopt a more pro-active approach in con-
trolling the export of dual-use items; urges the Member States to follow up without delay the recommen-
dations based on this finding and to make more use of Sitcen in this regard, as well as in general, as a base
for exchanging information; welcomes the efforts made by the EU to coordinate and organise as far as
possible a common EU position within the various export control regimes and, further, the efforts made
by the EU to include the new Member States in the various export control regimes;

36.
Takes note of the current practical difficulties in implementing the strategy against the proliferation
of WMDs, due in particular to the various sources and procedures through which budgetary means are to
be mobilised; urges the Council and the Commission to engage, together with Parliament, in a dialogue on
streamlining and simplifying these procedures with a view to adopting such changes within the framework
of the relevant new financial instrument for the budgetary period 2007-2013;

(1) OJ L 340, 16.11.2004, p. 21.

9.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/587

Thursday 14 April 2005

37.
Stresses the need to further strengthen the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports as well as to
maximise the EU's contribution to countering the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, notably
by the establishment of an international arms trade treaty;

38.
Calls on the countries defined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty as nuclear-weapon states, in particular
the USA, China and Russia, in view of the uncontrollably spreading danger of terrorism and the prolife-
ration of weapons of mass destruction, to review their own nuclear policies in the spirit of the Non-Prolife-
ration Treaty; regrets, therefore, the efforts made by the US administration over the last four years to pro-
to ratify the
mote research into, and the development of, new nuclear weapons and its refusal
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; expresses concern at Russia's inadequate efforts to protect its nuclear stocks;
is alarmed at China's massive increase in military spending (12,6 %), its comprehensive modernisation of its
nuclear armed forces and the increase in its imports of modern weapons technologies;

Budgetary challenges

39.
Notes that the greatest threat to the coherence and success of the ESS remains the possible lack of
sufficient budgetary resources made available across the entire spectrum of EU policies and instruments;
notes in this connection the particular importance of EU assistance programmes and their substantial con-
tribution to the pro-active comprehensive approach expressed within the ESS; demands that this point be
borne in mind within the framework of the current negotiations concerning the Future Financial Perspective
for 2007-2013;

40.
Notes further that the effectiveness of the ESS, and in particular that of the ESDP, is dependent to a
large extent on the expenditure of the Member States outside the framework of the EU; recommends in this
connection, first, a more sensible and more effective use of national expenditure in the defence field, which
might be achieved in certain Member States, for example by a speedier modernisation and restructuring of
their armed forces, and, second, the establishment of a mechanism for assessing the proportion of a
Member State's GDP spent on defence; urges the Member States, therefore, to cooperate with the EDA to
that end;

41.
Regrets that Article III-313 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe has maintained the
status quo of dual budgeting for CFSP operations; notes the Council's efforts to ensure greater transparency
of the mechanism (Athena) by which common costs for operations of a military or defence nature are to be
administered outside the Union's budget (1); emphasises, none the less, its strongly held view that the con-
tinued separation of financing for common costs in civil operations through the budget of the Union from
those with military or defence implications outside the Union's budget will prove increasingly untenable
given that missions conducted within the framework of CFSP will be increasingly mixed in nature, as evi-
denced by the establishment of the Civil/Military Cell;

42.
Points out in this connection the substantial problems that current tendering procedures create
regarding organisation of rapid actions within the ESDP; therefore urges the Council and the Commission
to conclude as soon as possible their thorough examination regarding special procedures or exemptions for
future ESDP measures and operations within the Financial Regulation (2);

Transatlantic relations

Takes note of the substantive congruity in the global threat assessments presented in both the ESS
43.
and the US National Security Strategy; takes the view that this congruity should be seen as a basis upon
which both the EU and the United States can re-establish a dialogue of equal partners in attaining a com-
mon understanding for the resolution of particular issues of concern, such as the authorisation and use of
military force in relation to the relevant provisions of the UN's Founding Charter and its legitimising role,
and for the re-invigoration of Transatlantic security cooperation in general;

(1) Council Decision 2004/197/CFSP of 23 February 2004 establishing a mechanism to administer the common costs of

European Union operations having military or defence implications (OJ L 63, 28.2.2004, p. 68).

(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the

general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1).

C 33 E/588

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.2.2006

Thursday 14 April 2005

44.
Stresses that a major element of the Transatlantic security dialogue must be focused on empowering
other international organisations such as the OSCE and, in particular, the African Union to make their own
contribution to global security; emphasises in this regard the utility of informal multilateral formations such
as the Quartet in achieving a lasting resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict;

45.
Expresses its wish for a stronger cooperation with the United States in the fields of non-proliferation
and the fight against terrorism; urges the EU and the US none the less to continue with their positive
dialogue in these areas and to fully pursue an action plan for further cooperation as reflected in the EU-
US Declarations on combating terrorism and on the non-proliferation of WMDs adopted at the EU-US
Summit on 26 June 2004; considers that these points should be addressed in the context of all EU-US
meetings relevant to security policy;

NATO

46.
Notes the continued recognition by many Member States of NATO as the cornerstone of their
security in the event of an armed aggression; takes the view that cooperation and complementarity should
be the key elements upon which EU/NATO relations are based; proposes in this vein discussions — taking
into account the different character of each organisation — concerning improved coordination of national
contributions to the NATO Response Force and those of the EU Headline Goals in order to avoid any
duplication; urges Member States to continue to reform their armed forces with a view to making those
forces more deployable, transportable and sustainable; notes in this regard that for the foreseeable future
most Member States will continue to commit the same units to both NATO and the EU owing to the lack
of units possessing the right skills and capabilities; urges Member States to continue to enlarge their pool of
readily available forces so that in the future the operational needs of both the EU and NATO can be readily
satisfied;

47.
Notes that the current problems, which are regrettably hampering the necessary cooperation between
the EU Military Committee and NATO, can be very speedily resolved given political goodwill on the part of
the decision-makers involved;

Calls on Turkey, in the context of NATO, to create the conditions to promote better cooperation —

48.
which is urgently needed — between the EU Military Committee and the relevant NATO bodies;

49.
Encourages the new European Defence Agency to examine the possibilities for cooperation with
NATO in the area of armaments and to explicitly provide for the possibility of such co-operation within
the framework of the Administrative Agreement to be signed in due course between the two as provided for
in Article 25 of Council
the European Defence
Joint Action 2004/551/CFSP on the establishment of
Agency (1);

50.
Takes note of the complementary nature of certain policies and programmes of NATO (Partnership
for Peace and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and Mediterranean Dialogue) and the EU (Neighbourhood
Policy and the Barcelona Process); encourages both parties to examine how these programmes and policies
can more effectively serve to mutually reinforce each other;

Homeland security and combating terrorism

51.
Observes that the ESS draws significant attention to the blurring of previously static boundaries
existing in the traditional conceptions of internal and external security; notes, however, the sparsity of
content within the ESS on linking the two concepts so as to address threats coherently; is nevertheless
aware,
in spite of this conceptual omission, of the many and varied efforts made by the Council, the
Commission and the Member States in the fields of home and foreign affairs;

Takes note, in the field of prevention of terrorism, consequence management and protection of criti-
52.
cal infrastructures, of the proposals put forward by the Commission for the ARGUS system, which would
be capable of circulating information and coordinating action responses, and its possible linkage both with a
crisis centre and with an alarm network (CIWIN) for the protection of critical infrastructures within the EU;

(1) OJ L 245, 17.7.2004, p. 17.

9.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/589

Notes in the same connection the European Council's call, in the ‘Hague Programme’ of 4-5 Nov-
53.
ember 2004, for the Council and the Commission to set up, while fully respecting national competences,
integrated and coordinated EU crisis-management arrangements for crises with cross-border effects within
the EU, to be implemented at the latest by 1 July 2006;

Thursday 14 April 2005

54. Welcomes the work accomplished or initiated so far on the basis of the above-mentioned proposals
and calls, as well as a number of other measures and proposals which traditionally form part of national
internal policy; also welcomes in this connection the special role which Sitcen will have in producing risk
assessments and analyses in connection with potential terrorist targets; calls in this connection for unre-
stricted cooperation between all intelligence departments attached to national defence ministries so as to
create a corresponding capability within Sitcen;

55. Welcomes in particular the objective of arranging for the cross-border exchange of intelligence and
security service information in accordance with the principle of availability set out in the Hague Programme
— where it relates to the future exchange of law-enforcement information — a principle whereby, taking
into account the special nature of these services' methods (e.g. the need to protect the information-gathering
procedure, information sources and the continued confidentiality of data after exchange), information avail-
able to a service in one Member State should be made available to the corresponding services in another
Member State;

56.
As regards internal security policy, is deeply concerned by the inadequate implementation by the
Member States of all of the measures and instruments listed within the original anti-terrorism plan adopted
in October 2001;

57.
Takes note of the report submitted by the EU High Representative to the European Council on
16-17 December 2004 on integrating the fight against terrorism into EU External Relations Policy; notes
the conclusion in that report that the capabilities in the context of the Headline Goal 2010 and the Civilian
Headline Goal 2008 should be adapted to the requirements of the various possible terrorist threats and
scenarios — including a possible intervention under the Solidarity Clause (Article I-43 of the Constitution);

58.
Calls, within the framework of the New Neighbourhood Policy and in the context of EU foreign
relations in general, for an enhanced political dialogue with third countries on terrorism, to cover not
only the need for their unrestricted cooperation with international and regional organisations but also the
strict application of the clause on combating terrorism contained in agreements with third countries where
there is evidence of terrorist threats or specific terrorist activities;

in particular, the degree to which democratic freedoms and the rule of

Is however concerned — with all due respect for the work accomplished so far in seeking to draw a
59.
line between the two fields of home and foreign affairs — about the coherence and coordination of this
work and,
law are taken into
account; therefore urges its Committees on Foreign Affairs and on Civil Liberties, Jusice and Home Affairs
to find an appropriate procedure for the preparation of recommendations on the matter to be addressed to
both the Council and the Commission, in order not only to check the coherence and coordination of such
work but also to ensure that the civil and political rights of citizens and organisations are not compromised
in any way and thus, where appropriate, to make recommendations to Parliament's relevant committees, for
forwarding to both the Council and the Commission;

External Action Service

60.
Salutes the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe as an important basis for pursuing the ESS
and its ongoing development; considers that the creation of the new External Action Service will be a vitally
important instrument for external action under the CFSP and therefore for the ESS; emphasises that an
effective ESS must fully utilise available diplomatic capabilities (i.e. the EU Minister for Foreign Affairs
and the European External Action Service (Articles I-28 and III-296(3)) and, if necessary, military capabilities
(i.e. permanent structured cooperation between Member States for the fulfilment of high-intensity missions
demanding higher military capabilities (Articles I-41(6), III-312 and the Specific Protocol));

C 33 E/590

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.2.2006

Thursday 14 April 2005

61.
Urges the Council and the Commission forthwith to take the necessary steps to integrate their activ-
ities in a spirit of cooperation prior to the final ratification of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for
Europe; emphasises that Parliament will seek to assess those steps in a positive and constructive manner and
will judge all proposed actions and measures during the transitional period on the basis of their quality
rather than their origin, with a view to setting up a functioning and effective European External Action
Service; stresses that Parliament will also judge these efforts in the light of whether they respect the political
will, expressed in the Constitution, to formulate a common policy so that Europe may speak with a single
voice in the world;

*

*

*

62.
Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Parliaments of
the Member States and the Secretaries General of the United Nations, NATO, the OSCE and the Council of
Europe.

P6_TA(2005)0134

Doping in sport

European Parliament resolution on combating doping in sport

The European Parliament,

— having regard to Declaration No 29 on sport, annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty, and to Article III-282

of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe,

— having regard to its resolution of 7 September 2000 (1) on the Commission communication on a

Community support plan to combat doping in sport,

— having regard to the conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the

Member States, meeting within the Council, of 4 December 2000 on combating doping (2),

— having regard to its resolution of 7 September 2000 on the Commission report to the European
Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures and maintaining the social function of
sport within the Community framework — the Helsinki Report on Sport (3),

— having regard to the World Anti-Doping Code adopted in Copenhagen on 5 March 2003,

— having regard to the public hearing of its Committee on Culture and Education of 29 November 2004

on ‘Drug-taking in sport: obstacle to the ideal of athleticism’,

— having regard to Rule 108(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas the number of doping incidents during the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens again demon-

strated that doping in sport is, unfortunately, still a reality which must be combated,

B.

C.

whereas public health and the protection of minors are priorities of the European Union,

whereas doping is a genuine public health problem and concerns everyone involved in sport, including
young people and amateurs who obtain illegal substances in, for example, fitness centres and, increas-
ingly, via the Internet,

D. whereas the success of the European Year of Education through Sport should be followed through by

the European Union taking action to tackle all aspects of doping in sport,

(1) OJ C 135, 7.5.2001, p. 270.
(2) OJ C 356, 12.12.2000, p. 1.
(3) OJ C 135, 7.5.2001, p. 274.