Implementation of the European Security Strategy and the Common Security and Defence Policy European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2010 on the implementation of the European Security Strategy and the Common Security and Defence Policy (2009/2198(INI))
Date: 2010-03-10
Institutions: Committee on Foreign Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: EU relations, arms control, civil defence, cooperation policy, international security, military intervention, the EU's international role








CE2010349EN.01006301.xml










22.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 349/63





Wednesday 10 March 2010Implementation of the European Security Strategy and the Common Security and Defence Policy
P7_TA(2010)0061
European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2010 on the implementation of the European Security Strategy and the Common Security and Defence Policy (2009/2198(INI))
2010/C 349 E/13

The European Parliament,
having regard to Title V of the Treaty on European Union, Article 346 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Protocols 10 and 11,
having regard to the European Security Strategy (ESS) entitled ‘A Secure Europe in a Better World’, adopted by the European Council on 12 December 2003,
having regard to the report on the implementation of the ESS entitled ‘Providing Security in a Changing World’, adopted by the European Council on 12 December 2008,
having regard to the reports by the Presidency of the Council of the European Union on the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) of 9 December 2008 and 16 June 2009,
having regard to the ESDP conclusions and the declaration entitled ‘ESDP Ten Years – Challenges and Opportunities’, adopted by the Council on 17 November 2009,
having regard to its previous resolutions on the subject, including that of 14 April 2005 on the European Security Strategy (1), that of 16 November 2006 on the implementation of the European Security Strategy in the context of the ESDP (2), that of 5 June 2008 on the implementation of the European Security Strategy and ESDP (3) and that of 19 February 2009 on the European Security Strategy and ESDP (4),
having regard to its resolution of 19 February 2009 on the role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU (5),
having regard to its resolution of 26 November 2009 on a political solution to the problem of piracy off the Somali coast (6),
having regard to the exchange of letters among the European Union and the Governments of Kenya and the Republic of the Seychelles, concerning the transfer to these countries of suspected pirates and armed robbers apprehended by EUNAVFOR in the operation area,
having regard to its resolution of 22 October 2009 on institutional aspects of setting up the European External Action Service (7),
having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,
having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0026/2010),


European Security Strategy: a comprehensive approach








1.


Recalls that the European Security Strategy (ESS) and the report on its implementation highlight the key threats and challenges facing the European Union:






—


proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,










—


terrorism and organised crime,










—


regional conflicts,










—


state failure,










—


maritime piracy,










—


small arms and light weapons, cluster munitions and landmines,










—


energy security,










—


impact of climate change and natural disasters,










—


cyber-security,










—


poverty;














2.


Emphasises that, through the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), the Union is taking steps to address the challenges and threats identified in the ESS, thereby helping to improve the security of European citizens;










3.


Stresses that the Union must enhance its strategic autonomy through a strong and effective foreign, security and defence policy, so as to preserve peace, prevent conflicts, strengthen international security, protect the security of its own citizens and the citizens concerned by CSDP missions, defend its interests in the world and uphold its founding values, while contributing to effective multilateralism in support of international law and advancing respect for human rights and democratic values worldwide, in accordance with the objectives stated in Article 21(2)(e) of the TEU, with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, with the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and with the aims of the Charter of Paris, including those relating to external borders;










4.


Stresses that primary responsibility for maintaining peace and security in the world lies with the UN Security Council and reiterates the need for a reform of the United Nations Organisation in order to make it more capable of exercising its functions and providing effective solutions to global challenges and threats;










5.


Acknowledges the need for the Union to pursue these objectives by enhancing its own institutional capacity to respond to these challenges and by means of multilateral cooperation with and within international organisations – in particular the United Nations – and regional organisations – in particular the OSCE and the African Union –in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;










6.


Reiterates its support for the Union’s efforts to address these threats and challenges by developing a comprehensive and proactive approach synergising the various means of action – both civil and military – available to the Union and its Member States: conflict prevention and crisis management, financial assistance and development cooperation, social and environmental policies, diplomatic and trade policy instruments and enlargement; emphasises that such coordination of civil and military means gives genuine added-value to the Union’s crisis management policy;










7.


Calls on the Member States, in this context, to coordinate more effectively their national strategies and means of action with those of the Union with a view to ensuring coherence, effectiveness and a greater impact and a higher profile on the ground;










8.


Supports, in connection with action to combat terrorism, the pursuit of the approach based on the EU’s counter-terrorism strategy and the EU strategy for combating radicalisation and recruitment, in particular in relation to the use of the Internet for the purposes of terrorism and radicalisation; proposes to stimulate debate on the protection and promotion of human rights, with a special focus on the victims;










9.


Recognises that energy security is crucial to the functioning of EU Member States and therefore encourages Member States to cooperate closely on this element of security policy;










10.


Welcomes the efforts of Member States to counter cyber threats; urges the Council and the Commission to come forward with an analysis of the challenges of a cyber nature and measures for an efficient and coordinated response to such threats based on the best practices, resulting, in the future, in a European cyber security strategy;










11.


Reiterates its recommendation for a regular review of the ESS, every five years, coinciding with the beginning of a new parliamentary term and after due consultation with the European Parliament;










12.


Emphasises that a White Paper – providing scope for a wide-ranging public debate – would raise the profile of the CSDP and step up security and defence cooperation by defining the Union’s security and defence objectives and interests more clearly in relation to the means and resources available, thereby making the implementation of the ESS and the planning and conduct of EU crisis management operations more effective and better defined;






Lisbon Treaty and Common Security and Defence Policy Structures








13.


Calls on the Council to enter into a substantial debate with the European Parliament and the national parliaments in 2010 on the implementation of the new provisions in the Lisbon Treaty concerning the CSDP, including:






a.


the clause on mutual assistance in the event of armed aggression on the territory of a Member State,










b.


the solidarity clause in the event of a terrorist attack or a natural or man-made disaster,










c.


the role of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, coupled with the establishment of a European External Action Service (EEAS) incorporating, in a comprehensive manner, conflict prevention, civil/military crisis management and peace-building units,










d.


a broader remit for the CSDP,










e.


permanent structured cooperation for those Member States that meet higher standards in terms of military capability and have made more binding commitments in this area in preparation for the most demanding missions, as well as enhanced cooperation,










f.


the establishment of a start-up fund for preparatory activities in the lead-up to operations;














14.


Calls, after the introduction of a clause on mutual assistance, as formulated in Article 42 (7) of the Treaty on European Union, on those European Union Member States belonging to the Western European Union (WEU) to terminate the Modified Brussels Treaty of 1954, including the WEU Parliamentary Assembly;










15.


Calls, after the introduction of a solidarity clause into the new treaty, on the Council to reopen the debate on establishing a European civil protection force – inter alia on the basis of the May 2006 Barnier report – that would pool the Member States’ resources in order to generate an effective collective response in the event of natural or man-made disasters; takes the view that the military CSDP should also provide scope for responding to civilian hazards;










16.


Stresses, in the light of the progress made possible by the Treaty of Lisbon in relation to the CSDP, the legitimacy and value of setting up a Defence Council within the Foreign Affairs Council, which would comprise the defence ministers, be chaired by the Vice-President/High Representative and play a special role in stepping up cooperation and in harmonising and integrating military capabilities;










17.


Takes the view that the Vice-President/High Representative should act very rapidly to make the Union’s various external policies more coherent, and that this coherence should be reflected on the ground by special representatives/heads of delegation under her authority vested with the necessary authority vis-à-vis the parties concerned and the international community;










18.


Supports the establishment of a civil-military Crisis Management and Planning Directorate (CMPD) to take responsibility for crisis management and strategic planning of the Union’s civil and military operations and help develop the CSDP, particularly in terms of civil and military capabilities; deprecates, however, the extremely lengthy delay in setting up this new structure; calls for close coordination within the EEAS between, on the one hand, the CMPD and the other CSDP structures and, on the other hand, the crisis platform and other relevant services of the Commission, which should be included in the EEAS, in order to build up a coordinated strategic planning capacity so as to develop a comprehensive European approach;










19.


Calls on the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission, the Council and the Member States to overcome the imbalance between civilian and military planning capabilities and ensure that adequate and sufficient expertise in fields such as justice, civilian administration, customs and mediation can be provided for ECDP missions;










20.


Calls once again for the establishment of a permanent EU operations centre overseen by the Vice-President/High Representative, which would be responsible for operational planning and the conduct of military operations; calls for this operations centre to be attached to the EEAS; stresses that the division of the existing system into seven headquarters makes it less effective and responsive and generates huge costs, and that a permanent interlocutor in the military sphere is essential for civil and military coordination on the ground; takes the view that the permanent operations centre could therefore be classed as a form of military planning and conduct capability, and located in the same place as the CPCC in order to allow the necessary synergies for effective civilian and military coordination; reiterates that the EU operations centre would facilitate cooperation with NATO, without compromising the decisional autonomy of both organisations;










21.


Stresses the urgent need to put in place permanent structured cooperation based on the most inclusive criteria possible, which should enable the Member States to increase their commitments under the CSDP;










22.


Stresses that the progress and development of the CSDP must fully respect and not undermine the neutrality and non-alignment of some of the EU Member States;










23.


Stresses the importance of these reforms in order to achieve the level of ambition set for the CSDP, which was renewed in December 2008 and approved by the European Council, to boost the effectiveness and added-value of the CSDP in a context in which it is increasingly being enlisted;






Military operations and civil missions








24.


Welcomes the achievements of the ESDP/CSDP on the occasion of its tenth anniversary, and notes that the Union launches civil and military operations under the CSDP in response to threats to international and European security; notes that the majority of these missions have been in the field of civilian crisis management; commends the 70 000 or so personnel involved in the 23 missions and operations currently in progress or already completed in the context of the ESDP; commends Mr Javier Solana, hitherto Secretary-General of the Council and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, for his work on developing the ESDP; calls once again on the Member States to define the criteria for the deployment of ESDP missions and to consider the subject of national ‘caveats’;





Somalia – Horn of Africa







25.


Welcomes the successful contribution made by the European Union’s naval operation EU NAVFOR Somalia – Operation Atalanta in combating piracy in the Gulf of Aden and off the coast of Somalia, notably in an effort to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches all the people in need in this country; emphasises that Operation Atalanta has established itself as a key player in the fight against piracy, inter alia through the Maritime Security Centre (Horn of Africa); welcomes the Council decision to extend the mission for another year until December 2010 and takes note of the broadening of the mandate of this operation designed to address a security issue directly affecting the EU (security of citizens and supplies, protection of vulnerable vessels) and respond to a humanitarian and operational emergency (by escorting ships chartered by the World Food Programme to deliver food to the Somali population and ships delivering logistical support to the African Union’s military observation mission in Somalia (AMISOM)); praises, at the same time, its contribution to the reinforcement of naval cooperation in Europe and the further development of the maritime dimension of the CSDP; also welcomes the involvement of non-EU countries (Norway, Croatia and Montenegro) and the operation’s constructive cooperation with the other naval forces present in the region, particularly in the context of the SHADE (Shared Awareness and Deconfliction) processes; regrets, however, the continuing problems with the prosecution of suspected pirates and armed robbers apprehended in the operation area, which undermine the credibility of the international anti-piracy efforts;










26.


Stresses the need to address the causes of piracy, which stem from the prevailing instability and poverty in Somalia, and consequently takes the view that the Union should support the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) by means of measures aimed at restoring security, political stability and the rule of law and promoting sustainable development, in partnership with the African Union and the United Nations, and develop a joint strategy with the aim of starting a regional peace process;










27.


Calls for the EU's approach to Somalia to take into consideration that only a large-scale, long-term state-building exercise - going above and beyond the building up of the TFG's security forces - will contibute to peace and security in that country in a sustainable way; therefore calls on the Council and the Commission to propose an ambitious joint, comprehensive ‘EU strategy for Somalia’;










28.


Particularly emphasises the need for urgent action to shore up the TFG and help it extend the scope of its control on Somali territory; to this end, welcomes that the Council agreed on 25 January 2010 to set up a CSDP military mission (EU Training Mission, EUTM Somalia) to contribute to the training of the Somali security forces in Uganda, in close coordination with EU partners, including the TGF, Uganda, the African Union, the United Nations and the United States; calls on the High Representative to inform and consult the European Parliament accordingly;










29.


Also emphasises the need to improve maritime surveillance capability in the region, inter alia by providing training and setting up a network of coastguards from countries in the region, and takes the view that the Union should contribute to these efforts by endorsing the Djibouti Code of Conduct and the associated implementation plan developed by the International Maritime Organization, as approved by the countries in the region (including the establishment of an information exchange centre in Yemen and a training centre in Djibouti for ships’ crews);










30.


Regarding the situation in Yemen, recalls its resolution of 10 February 2010 and calls on the Commission and the Council, jointly with international partners, including Yemen's neighbours, to assist the government through a comprehensive approach encompassing security sector reform, counter-terrorism, as well as political dialogue, humanitarian and economic assistance and education;





Afghanistan and Pakistan







31.


Recalls the need to stabilise the security and political situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to contain the global threats directly affecting Europeans’ security (terrorism, drug trafficking and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction) and, accordingly, welcomes the EU Action Plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan adopted by the Council on 27 October 2009; reiterates the need for a comprehensive approach in dealing with these issues, linking security more closely with development, the rule of law and respect for human rights, as well as gender-related aspects; calls, therefore, on the Council and the Commission to take more tangible steps in this direction, also by increasing the EU’s contribution and ensuring that its activities are better integrated with those of the Member States and the international community;










32.


Takes the view that strengthening the institutional and administrative capacity of the Afghan State, particularly the justice system and law enforcement agencies other than the police, should be a priority in implementing a new European strategy;










33.


Urges the Council and the Commission to significantly increase resources for civilian engagement in Afghanistan in order to make the EU's civilian priority credible and more visible in the eyes of the Afghans and international partners alike; highlights the need to set up an effective and reliable civil police force to establish the rule of law in Afghanistan, and commends the work of the EUPOL Afghanistan mission; calls on the Council to remedy the ongoing problem of personnel shortages within the EUPOL mission as a matter of urgency, and to facilitate its deployment to the provinces by providing additional accommodations and adequate logistical support to the mission; calls on NATO to cooperate more closely with the mission and to coordinate its police work with EUPOL under the auspices of the International Police Coordination Board (IPCB);










34.


Supports the Council’s proposal to explore the possibility of an assistance mission to Pakistan aimed at reforming the security sector and building anti-terrorism capacity, so as to help the country develop a counter-terrorism strategy, as well as entering into dialogue on the rule of law and human rights;





Balkans







35.


Commends the successful deployment of the EULEX Kosovo mission throughout Kosovo, and emphasises the need for all its components (police, justice and customs) to be able to continue to operate unhindered throughout the territory, including in the north;










36.


In this connection, welcomes the signing of the police cooperation agreement between EULEX Kosovo and Serbia, and notes the purely technical nature of this agreement designed to facilitate the fight against organised crime;










37.


Condemns all hostile acts against EULEX Kosovo, whose mission is to work with the Kosovo authorities to establish and strengthen the rule of law for the benefit of all the communities in Kosovo;










38.


Calls on the Council to consider the possibility of deploying a military operation under the CSDP to relieve KFOR;










39.


As regards Bosnia and Herzegovina, notes that, despite the ongoing political problems, the security situation remains relatively calm and stable despite the ongoing political problems, and emphasises the contribution made by the EU’s military operation (EUFOR ALTHEA) in this respect; supports the Council’s decision to refocus the work of the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) on fighting organised crime and corruption and underlines the need for a comprehensive approach to the rule of law sector (police – justice – prisons); encourages the Council to take a decision in the near future with a view to making training for the Bosnian armed forces the new focus of EUFOR ALTHEA; deplores the lack of concerted political decision-making on the future of the international force in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is resulting in unilateral withdrawals by a number of states participating in the force and is liable to detract from the credibility and coherence of the EU’s action in Bosnia and Herzegovina; reminds the Council to uphold the prospect of accession to the EU as agreed upon in Thessaloniki in 2003;





Caucasus







40.


Recalls the Union’s decisive role in averting an escalation of the conflict between Georgia and Russia, inter alia thanks to the rapid deployment of an observation mission to supervise the implementation of the agreements of 12 August and 8 September 2008; regrets that the Russian Federation has until now not fulfilled its commitments with regard to these Agreements; emphasises that the role of the EU observation mission in Georgia has become particularly crucial following the departure of the OSCE and United Nations missions;










41.


Is in favour of extending the mission for a further year and calls for a strengthening of its observation capacity, including its technical outfit; views it as regrettable that mission personnel have been prevented by Russian and local forces from visiting the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia;





Middle East







42.


Takes the view that the Union must up-grade its activities in the Palestinian Territories; commends the work of the EUPOL COPPS police mission and calls on the Council to consider expanding the mission and to propose a new arrangement with a view to maintaining and making more effective the border assistance mission at the Rafah Crossing Point (EUBAM Rafah) and alleviating the dramatic humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip;










43.


As regards the EUJUST LEX mission for Iraq, supports the gradual commencement of activities on Iraqi territory, depending on the security situation on the ground;





Sub-Saharan Africa







44.


Acknowledges the need for EU involvement in reforming the security sector in a number of African countries, including the Democratic Republic of Congo and Guinea-Bissau, and calls on the Council to base its actions on a comprehensive approach to Security Sector Reform (SSR) and to assess the effectiveness and impact of these missions on a regular basis;





Haiti







45.


Stresses, as regards the situation in Haiti, the importance of coordination of the European support measures; welcomes, in this context, the collective EU contribution, numbering at least 300 police personnel, to provide a temporary reinforcement of the police capability of the UN Stabilisation Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) as well as the Council decision to set up a cell in Brussels (EUCO Haiti) to coordinate contributions by Member States of military and security assets to meet needs identified by the UN, thereby complementing the Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC); regrets, however, the lack of coordination on the field in Haiti among Member States and the European Union; calls the High Representative/Vice President to lead European efforts in this area;






Lessons learnt








46.


Emphasises the importance of lessons learnt processes on EU operations, and calls on the Council to give thought to a mechanism enabling it to be involved in those processes; wishes in this regard, to be informed of the first annual report on efforts to identify and act upon lessons learnt concerning civilian missions; urges the High Representative/Vice-President to initiate a thorough and transparent audit of past and present ESDP/CSDP missions in order to identify their strengths and weaknesses;










47.


Welcomes the successful handover from the EU operation in Chad and the Central African Republic (EUFOR Tchad/RCA) to the United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT), and now wishes to be kept informed about the current lessons learnt process, particularly as to how existing deficits and problems relating to practical cooperation with the United Nations and the African Union can be avoided in future missions;






Exercise policy








48.


Emphasises that the planning and conduct of EU exercises in the field of CSDP as part of a more ambitious EU exercise policy, including the possibility for the EU to conduct real-life exercises (LIVEX), would greatly contribute to a more effective coordination of the Member States’ capabilities fostering greater interoperability and exchange of experience;






Gender and human rights mainstreaming








49.


Recalls the importance of systematically addressing human rights and gender aspects in all phases of CSDP operations, during both the planning and the implementation phases; calls for UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) and 1889 (2009) on women, peace and security to be taken into account both in the training of staff and during operations and for a larger proportion of the personnel sent on operations to be women; recommends enhancing staff’s human rights training and knowledge of civil society;






Non-proliferation and disarmament








50.


Welcomes UNSC Resolution 1887 (2009) and fully supports its calls for a halt to the spread of nuclear weapons and intensified efforts to achieve disarmament under strict and effective international control; calls on the Member States to formulate a strong common position for the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference and reiterates its recommendation to the Council of 24 April 2009 on non-proliferation and the future of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (8), stressing the need to reinforce further all three pillars of the NPT, namely non-proliferation, disarmament and cooperation on the civilian use of nuclear energy; urges, furthermore, the ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT);










51.


Highlights the importance of developing an international system of safe and guaranteed supply of nuclear fuel (i.e. an international fuel bank system under the control of the IAEA) and mechanisms to better enforce the so-called WMD clause which is part of cooperation agreements of the EU with third countries;










52.


Welcomes the declarations and stated objectives of the new American administration and its commitment to take nuclear disarmament forward and calls for close EU-US cooperation in promoting nuclear non-proliferation; calls on the two European nuclear powers to express their explicit support for this commitment and to come forward with new measures to achieve it; welcomes, at the same time, the commitment of the Russian Federation and the United States to continue negotiations to conclude a new comprehensive legally binding agreement to replace the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START I), which expired in December 2009; looks forward to tangible results in this regard, at the earliest possible date;










53.


Takes note of the German coalition agreement of 24 October 2009 on the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Germany in the context of its support for President Obama’s policy for a world free of nuclear weapons, the desirability of intermediate steps in reaching this goal and the necessity of introducing new dynamics in arms control and disarmament at the 2010 NPT Review Conference; encourages other Member States with US nuclear weapons on their soil to make a similar clear commitment; welcomes, in this respect, the letter sent on 26 February 2010 by the Foreign Ministers of Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Norway to the Secretary General of NATO calling for a comprehensive discussion in the Alliance on how it can get closer to the overall political objective of a world without nuclear weapons;










54.


Reiterates its misgivings about the situation in Iran and North Korea, pointing out that the Union has undertaken to use every means at its disposal to prevent, deter, halt and, where possible, eliminate proliferation programmes, which are a source of global concern; recalls, however, that the disarmament process started by some states has no direct bearing on whether other states choose to halt or continue their proliferation programmes, meaning that a firm approach is needed in respect of states or organisations prepared to embark on, or having already embarked on, programmes for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; underlines the importance of all Member States acting accordingly, in line with the Union approach to this matter;










55.


Points out, in connection with conventional disarmament, that special attention should be paid to taking forward the discussions on an international treaty regulating the arms trade;










56.


Reiterates its full support for wider disarmament and a total ban on weapons, such as chemical and biological weapons, antipersonnel mines, cluster and depleted uranium munitions, that cause great suffering to civilians; urges, therefore, enhanced multilateral efforts to secure full implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention (APMC) and the further development of the international regime against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; welcomes, in this regard, the commitments undertaken by all EU Member States with the adoption of the EU Common Position on Arms Exports, as well as the provision of Article 28B(1) of the Lisbon Treaty, which entrusts joint disarmament operations to the EU;






Capability development








57.


Recalls that, with a view to meeting growing operational requirements and ensuring more professional crisis management, the Union needs to increase its civil and military capabilities; calls on the Council to set a new headline goal, which could encompass both civil and military dimensions and should focus first and foremost on effective capacity building;










58.


Stresses the need to seek synergies between civil and military capabilities and to identify areas in which the Member States can pool their efforts and capabilities at the EU level in a difficult economic climate, which is crucial to overcoming the combined effects of the increasing costs of defence equipment and the existing limits on defence spending, using also the opportunity provided by the setting-up of the EEAS which should have a single unit overseeing civil and military capability development;










59.


Reiterates its support for the ambitious goals set at the December 2008 European Council in terms of increased civil and military capabilities; calls on the Council to make progress in implementing proposed projects in this area, notwithstanding the current recession; calls on the Council to keep it regularly informed of the efforts made by the Member States to achieve these goals;










60.


Emphasises the numerous obstacles that have been identified to the rapid deployment of civil missions; calls on the Member States to encourage their Justice and Interior Ministries to take due responsibility in this area; supports the Council’s efforts to facilitate the secondment and deployment of qualified, appropriately trained and gender-balanced civilian personnel (through the adoption of national strategies and common standards, improvements to the force generation process and pre-deployment training, a revised concept of civilian response teams (CRTs)) and the rapid provision of equipment for new civil missions (by means of framework contracts and a permanent warehouse project); welcomes, in this connection, the decision to set up a temporary equipment warehouse as part of the EU Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina;










61.


Stresses the need to make integrated, secure communication tools compatible with military communication systems available to civil missions;










62.


Calls on the Council to give the EEAS a permanent structure centralising common support functions for civil missions and military operations (including recruitment procedures and procurement processes) so that they can concentrate on their primary task;










63.


Stresses the need for close coordination between CSDP civil missions and other EU instruments in order to ensure rational use of resources; calls on the High Representative/Vice President to coordinate with the Commission to plan its activities in similar fields in conjunction with the EEAS; calls for an ongoing exchange of information between CSDP civil missions and the bodies responsible for intra-European police and judicial cooperation, including Europol, particularly in relation to the fight against organised crime;










64.


Notes that the Battle Groups – despite the significant investment they represent – have not yet been used, partly for political reasons and partly because their deployment is subject to very stringent criteria; supports more effective and flexible use of the Battle Groups so that they can also serve as a reserve force or as a partial substitute in the event of a disappointing force generation process, subject to proper account being taken of the wishes of the countries that jointly formed the groups concerned; calls for an extension of the provisional agreement designed to cover the costs arising from strategic deployment of the Battle Groups, as well as an expansion of the common costs associated with their use; calls on the Council to deploy them as part of full-scale military exercises; commends the work undertaken at the instigation of the Swedish Presidency on flexible use of the Battle Groups and, on this basis, calls on the Member States to implement the recommendations adopted;










65.


Commends the progress made in terms of military and civil capabilities, and calls for rapid advances in respect of:






—


projects designed to allow speedier deployment of ESDP missions and EU forces namely:






—


the establishment of a European air transport fleet, the governance plan adopted by 14 Member States at the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 17 November 2009 in a defence ministers composition, the establishment of a European air transport command in Eindhoven and the creation of a multinational A400M unit, while viewing the major delays in delivery as regrettable and calling on the Member States concerned and the EADS to make a success of the A400M project so that the multinational unit can be set up rapidly; stresses the importance of the use of military transport capabilities in support of civil protection and crisis management operations;










—


helicopter modernisation, crew training and the planned heavy transport helicopter;














—


projects designed to provide better intelligence to military teams deployed by the European Union:






—


the new generation of observation satellites (MUSIS programme),










—


agreements between some Member States and the EU Satellite Centre (EUSC) with a view to facilitating access to government images (Helios II, Cosmo-Skymed and SAR-Lupe) for the EUSC,










—


the work done by the European Defence Agency (EDA) on expressing military requirements in the area of space surveillance,










—


the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) project, while viewing it as regrettable that this project does not do enough to address the specific needs of the security and defence sector, particularly in terms of image resolution; suggests that the EUSC could serve as an interface in this area;














—


projects designed to strengthen the EU’s maritime dimension, putting the CSDP’s military resources at its disposal:






—


the establishment of a maritime surveillance system based on the SUBCAS model used in the Baltic, in order to make maritime transport more secure, curb illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings and combat marine pollution;










—


the roadmap for integrated maritime surveillance scheduled for 2010; takes the view that the lack of cooperation among the various European players must on no account impede the implementation of these projects;


















66.


Welcomes the decisive role played by the EDA in developing these crucial defence capabilities, inter alia through the introduction of common programmes; calls on the Member States to make greater use of the EDA’s potential in accordance with the new treaty, to give it a budget commensurate with the expectations placed upon it and to facilitate its planning by adopting a triennial financial framework and work programme; calls on the Member States to finalise the administrative arrangement between the EDA and the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR) and the security agreement between the EU and OCCAR as soon as possible, with a view to ensuring effective cooperation between the two bodies in the armaments field;










67.


Supports the establishment of a competitive European industrial and technological defence base and an open, transparent European market for defence equipment; calls, accordingly, on the Member States to continue their research and development efforts by honouring their commitment to devote 2 % of defence spending to this area, and to transpose the defence package directives in a harmonised manner;










68.


Calls on European national defence procurement agencies to take concrete steps, with the support of the EDA, towards making more European purchases, namely by signing up to a voluntary Code of Conduct that would introduce the principle of ‘European preference’ in some areas of defence equipment where it is important to maintain strategic autonomy and operational sovereignty from a European perspective, and to sustain European industrial and technological pre-eminence;










69.


Strongly supports the establishment of synergies between civil and military capabilities; hopes that the CMPD and the EDA will rapidly define their complementary roles: under the authority of the High Representative/Vice President, the CMPD within the EEAS should play a strategic role in instigating and coordinating activities, particularly when it comes to identifying common needs, while the EDA should play an operational role in developing dual technologies and civil and military capabilities; takes the view that, inter alia, the security strand of the Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development could serve as a basis for developing such synergies;










70.


Welcomes the progress made under the Swedish Presidency with a view to setting up a pool of civilian and military experts able to be deployed in the context of reforming the security sector, while deploring the delay in implementing this measure proposed in autumn 2008, and hopes that such a pool will now be formed as a matter of urgency;










71.


With a view to making it easier for European personnel to work together, supports training projects including:






—


the development of an exchange programme for young European officers, modelled on the Erasmus programme;










—


efforts to increase training capacity at EU level; particularly stresses the need to set up the new-look European Security and Defence College, as decided by the Council in December 2008, as soon as possible;










—


efforts to increase the institutional training capacity at EU level; particularly stresses the need to set up the new-look European External Action Academy which, in close cooperation with appropriate bodies in the Member States and incorporating existing training structures such as the Defence College, would provide Union officials and officials of the Member States who are to work in external relations functions, as well as staff from CSDP missions, with training based on uniformly harmonised curricula, with comprehensive and common training for all officials and appropriate training in consular and legation procedures, diplomacy, conflict mediation and international relations, together with knowledge of the history and experience of the European Union;














72.


Takes the view that, in order to improve the training of deployed personnel and ensure optimum use of training resources, a more systematic link should be established between attendance at training courses and deployment on missions; calls on the Council to draft a common European statute for deployed personnel, governing training standards, rules of engagement or deployment and degrees of operational freedom, rights and duties, quality of equipment and medical care and social security arrangements in the event of death, injury or incapacity;










73.


Welcomes the signing of the Treaty of Strasbourg on 26 February 2009, which confers legal personality on the European Army Corps (Eurocorps); calls for the Union to use this multinational force where necessary;






Funding the CSDP








74.


Recalls that the Lisbon Treaty does not fundamentally alter the funding of missions and operations carried out under the CSDP, such that:






—


civil missions are financed from the EU budget,










—


the common costs associated with military operations are financed via the Athena mechanism;














75.


Recalls the provision in the Lisbon Treaty on the start-up fund available to the Vice-President/High Representative for the purpose of financing preparatory activities for CSDP missions which, for one reason or another, are not covered by the EU budget; emphasises the added-value of this fund, which should make it easier for the Vice-President/High Representative to prepare effectively and rapidly for action in the context of the CSDP; encourages the Member States to start the necessary implementation work in the near future;










76.


Calls on the Member States to extend the list of common costs financed via the Athena mechanism so as to generate greater mutual solidarity and encourage more Member States to participate in EU military operations;










77.


Suggests, in the context of revising the Financial Regulation, that the rules and procedures applicable to crisis management – an area subject to specific requirements such as rapid deployment and security considerations – be made more flexible;










78.


Recalls that the financial instruments administered by the Commission are crucial for crisis management, especially the Instrument for Stability and the European Development Fund (including the African Peace Facility); stresses the need to coordinate these different instruments;






Partnerships



EU/NATO







79.


Recalls the need to consolidate the strategic partnership and ensure constructive cooperation between the EU and NATO; recommends avoiding blockages and calls for a review of the present arrangements for EU-NATO operational cooperation (Berlin Plus agreement) as well as the development of a new functional framework that facilitates broader cooperation when the two organisations are present in the same theatre of operations;










80.


Insists that the Vice-President/High Representative should engage in a rigorous dialogue with the Secretary-General of NATO with respect to NATO's current review of its strategic concept, in order to ensure that NATO takes full account of the development of the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy, including the potential permanent structured cooperation in defence;










81.


Views it as regrettable that the technical agreements between the NATO and EU operations in Afghanistan and Kosovo have still not been signed; calls on the Council and Member States to bring their political influence to bear in the appropriate EU and NATO bodies to secure implementation;










82.


Emphasises the constructive cooperation between the two organisations in the fight against piracy (Operation Atalanta and NATO’s Operation Ocean Shield);










83.


Congratulates NATO’s Secretary General on wishing to involve the Union, including the European Parliament, in the discussions on a revised strategic concept for that organisation; expects this to give rise to specific initiatives in the near future;










84.


Welcomes the cooperation between the EU and NATO in the field of military capability, such as the efforts to improve operational helicopter capacity;





EU/United Nations







85.


Recalls the need for close cooperation between the EU and the United Nations in the area of crisis management, particularly in those theatres of operation in which both organisations are present and/or have to take over from one other; calls for such cooperation to be strengthened in the early stages of a crisis, particularly as regards planning;





EU/African Union







86.


Emphasises the need for constructive cooperation between the European Union and the African Union, in accordance with the commitments entered into as part of the Peace and Security Partnership associated with the Africa-EU Joint Strategy; takes the view that the European Union should, as far as is possible, support the African Union, particularly in those theatres of operation – such as Somalia – in which the latter is the sole organisation on the ground, and calls on the African Union to endeavour to develop Africa's crisis response capability and ensure that more effective use is made of assistance received from international partners; calls on the Commission and the Member States to devote special attention to the problem of the uncontrolled proliferation of small arms and light weapons, particularly in Africa, and in this context to place the emphasis on compliance with the existing rules on arms in crisis areas from all Member States;





EU/United States







87.


Calls on the Council to further the Union’s relationship with the United States in the field of peace-building and crisis management, including in respect of military issues and natural disasters; such cooperation is particularly important when it comes to the fight against piracy missions in Somalia, efforts to strengthen African peacekeeping capabilities, and operations in Kosovo and Afghanistan; particularly welcomes the United States’ participation in the EULEX Kosovo mission under European command;










88.


Takes the view that the new version of the anti-missile shield envisaged by the American administration should be studied in depth and verified, and if such system is to be developed, it should take account of a common European approach to protecting Europe against ballistic threats, in a dialogue on a continental scale, and with efforts being made to involve the European defence industry in its development;






Involvement of non-EU countries in the ESDP








89.


Recalls that 24 countries on the five continents have participated in 16 EU civil and military operations to date; emphasises that the involvement of non-EU states represents significant political and operational added-value to EU operations; takes the view that the Union should continue on this path and explore possible ways of involving these non-EU countries more fully, without undermining its decision-making autonomy;






Parliamentary prerogatives








90.


Welcomes the Council’s increased involvement in the European Parliament’s security and defence work, particularly within the specialised subcommittee; welcomes the inclusion of a section on relations with Parliament in the Council’s latest conclusions on the ESDP; encourages the Vice-President/High Representative, in the context of the Lisbon Treaty, to continue on this path with a view to conferring strong democratic legitimacy on the CSDP;










91.


Recalls that the European Parliament is the only supranational institution with a legitimate claim to exercise democratic supervision over the EU’s security and defence policy, and that this role has been strengthened by the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty; takes the view that the WEU Assembly – which owes its existence to a treaty (the Modified Brussels Treaty) that has not been signed by all the EU Member States – is neither politically equipped nor legally entitled to exercise parliamentary supervision over the CSDP;










92.


Recommends in consequence that the European Parliament and the national parliaments, bearing in mind the options available under the Lisbon Treaty, make full use of Protocol No 1 to that treaty to step up their cooperation in relation to the CFSP and the CSDP by developing closer, more structured working relationships between their respective competent committees vis-à-vis security and defence matters; emphasises that this closer cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments will replace the prerogatives misappropriated by the WEU Assembly; also emphasises the need to modify its own structures in order to supervise the CSDP more effectively; urges the Council and the High Representative/Vice-President to find ways to involve the European Parliament and its competent committee from the early stages of the setting-up of Civilian Crisis Management Concepts and Operation Plans;










93.


Calls on the Council to inform Parliament in advance of the preparation and conduct of missions and operations; suggests that the Council, out of a concern for transparency, keep it regularly informed regarding the use of the Athena mechanism and the start-up fund, as it already does in the case of the use of CFSP appropriations for civil missions; considers that in the interests of budgetary clarity first all non-military expenditure should be indicated in the EU budget and that, as an additional step, after a necessary Treaty amendment, military expenditure should also be shown in the EU budget;










94.


Calls for the revision of the 2002 interinstitutional agreements between the European Parliament and the Council concerning the European Parliament’s access to sensitive Council information relating to the ESDP and the CSDP, so that the MEPs responsible – including the Chairs of the subcommittees on security and defence and on human rights – can obtain the necessary information to exercise their prerogatives in an informed manner;




*
* *






95.


Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the Member States’ parliaments, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the Secretaries-General of the United Nations and NATO.






(1)  OJ C 33 E, 9.2.2006, p. 580.

(2)  OJ C 314 E, 21.12.2006, p. 334.

(3)  OJ C 285 E, 26.11.2009, p. 23.

(4)  Texts adopted, P6_TA(2009)0075.

(5)  Texts adopted, P6_TA(2009)0076.

(6)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2009)0099.

(7)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2009)0057.

(8)  Texts adopted, P6_TA(2009)0333.