Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-01-Speech-3-060"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000301.5.3-060"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"(NL) Mr President, first of all, I would like to warmly congratulate Mr Solana on this first day of March, for a number of frameworks have been put in place today which have a bearing on European security and defence policy. But I do wonder what his own view is on this.
According to the documents, cooperation with the High Representative was fruitful. You said yourself just now that you talked to them over lunch. You have to admit, it would be a rather odd if you were not on speaking terms with them and if there was a lack of cooperation between you and the new frameworks. But do you not regret the fact that you do not preside over them yourself and are not their leading light? I – and I believe many with me in Parliament – would like you to be the driving force behind them and would not want you to run the risk of being sidelined to some extent.
Over the past couple of months, High Representative Solana and Commissioner Patten have, during discussions, among other things, with members of the NATO Assembly, tried to separate the defence policies of the EU and NATO. One gets the impression in fact that they both think that the Petersberg tasks are ideally suited for inclusion in the EU defence policy in due course. The Treaties also point in that direction, although they allow for a more general defence policy which ties in more with the traditional line of thought of incorporating our policy into a European pillar. We would then have a voice in NATO through this European pillar. Actually, I hear less and less about this.
I am under the impression that the European Union has pared its ambitions down to the Petersberg tasks, with Mr Patten taking responsibility for civil affairs, which would include a police and diplomatic corps capable of being swiftly deployed, about which he has talked with enthusiasm, and rightly so, and Mr Solana taking care of the deployment of military troops and military equipment. It seems evident that they would do this in joint cooperation, which would work very well.
But is there not more to it than that? I cannot shake off the impression that in terms of defence policy, NATO’s role is actually very much emphasised with regard to collective defence. The European pillar does not really function any more as such. Europe is not venturing beyond the Petersberg tasks. Is this actually how we want things done?
Moreover, whilst there may be talk of integrating the Western European Union into the European Union, there is no longer any mention of Article V, which is, of course, of direct concern to us. Article V touches upon the wider defence tasks and not just Petersberg. Will it be omitted?
At the same time, an appeal has also been made in broad terms to increase the defence budgets. I think that this is to be welcomed, but this appeal does not really distinguish very clearly between Petersberg tasks and wider, collective defence tasks. I wonder how this will develop. I would like to ask both gentlemen how they view the long-term future. Is it necessary to give further attention to this during the IGC or will the Treaties inevitably set the ball rolling?
I am pleased that this has opened a few matters up in relation to defence policy. I do wonder, if Turkey were to bring in a brigade, would we also have to grant it codecision rights concerning that policy? The fabric of Turkey’s government contains a few Haider-type personalities. That would seem odd to me. Secondly, the Baltic States are also knocking on our door. Will they also take part in our defence policy? It is a very interesting position to be in, to say the least."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples