Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-168"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.7.2-168"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I agree with the last comments by the honourable Member, Professor Medina Ortega. I must confess frankly that I have been surprised by the degree of support from the European Parliament, which I imagine none of my Defence colleagues have enjoyed – given all the shades of opinion its legitimate plurality implies – for the European security and defence policy and the many possibilities and variations suggested in each and every intervention, and I thank you for them and have noted them very carefully.
Mr Patten pointed out firstly – and later many Members also pointed out – that the security and defence policy should be considered on an interpillar basis. Undoubtedly, I would like to say to Parliament – I did not do so before – that the Torrejón satellite centre, which has been incorporated into the context of the Western European Union, already has this status, and the Institute of Security Studies in Paris should also have it, and that, in fact, it is currently carrying out a study – promoted firstly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish Presidency – on the European Defence White Paper. This White Paper may be of great interest, since so far I believe we all agree on the same goal, but we have a different vision in relation to our understanding of what the objective of the European security and defence policy should be.
You spoke of the institutional reform which is being developed through the study of the PSC and the High Representative. I will end, Mr President, by making some brief comments in response to the questions by Mr Salafranca on what my strictly personal and humble vision may be of the near future of the European security and defence policy: firstly, the Convention must reconsider the institutional structure of this pillar, bearing in mind the interpillar aspect. Therefore, we will have to rethink the bodies whose nature has rapidly changed from transitional to permanent, but they will have to be reconsidered nonetheless. Secondly, missions. There is no doubt that we have to increase missions. In fact, the Seville Declaration that we prepared on the problem of terrorist attack from outside the Union only would mean an increase in Helsinki Petersberg tasks. We also have to think of strengthened cooperation mechanisms which have been mentioned here. In some countries we already have Eurofor, Euromarfor and certain other forms of cooperation under way in the amphibious field. And finally we will have to think – and why not? – of certain convergence criteria, which – although I am not the person to point out what they are – should prioritise quality over quantity and competition for certain requirements.
I think that Mrs Lalumière is right when she says that we can forecast following this sitting, and the opinion polls she has mentioned – which basically agree with those in my country – a good future for the European security and defence policy.
I would like to organise my replies according to whether they are considerations for the immediate future or those for the hopefully near, but rather more remote, future.
I was enormously interested in Commissioner Patten’s approach on the budgetary issues and also the reply he received, amongst others, from Mr Souchet. If only such things could be heard every day and in every parliament. We Defence Ministers of the Member States can only be grateful for any progress in the European Parliament and hope that it sets an example.
I would like to take up Mr von Wogau’s argument in relation to employing synergies. Ladies and gentlemen, it is not just a question of creating an additional budget within the Union. It is also a question of making an effort to harmonise our arms policies, because if we harmonise our requirements, programmes and management by means of a European agency which coordinates marketing and, of course, funding, we will be saving money. We will not just be increasing our efficiency, which is our obligation, but we will also be saving money. I confess that the gap that has been mentioned resulting from the 14% increase in the United States is unavoidable, but what can and must be avoided, are all those differences between our programmes, which must become common programmes. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, this does not hinder the SMEs, because every country has examples of small and medium-sized businesses being able to link their production to large programmes and to participate by means of their involvement with large European consortia, which are no doubt inevitably, and perhaps in a transatlantic sense, the future of companies. But I cannot go any further into this issue.
I wanted to reassure Mr Marset in relation to the law. Our Union, if I may put it this way, is based on law. This has obviously been the concern of the Presidency in scheduling the Salamanca meeting. We believe it is essential, and no less urgent, that amongst all of us – and with the completely indispensable cooperation of this Parliament of course – we start creating this law for Petersberg tasks, which can be applied from the start of any mission.
You ask about relations with NATO. Mr Marset called into question the principle of subsidiarity, and this was taken up by Mr Katiforis. It is a fact that NATO is currently completely irreplaceable as an instrument for collective defence. Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot even talk about a European army for the moment. I am sure that, just as so far there has been agreement, there could be serious discrepancies. Today, the task of collective defence is conferred on NATO by means of the Washington Treaty. As Mr Duff pointed out in his speech, we have a vision which is complementary to the Atlantic Alliance, which does not prevent us – quite the opposite – from having to make progress on this European security and defence policy by increasing missions, integration, arms policy and institutions.
Mrs Lalumière asks what changes are taking place within NATO following 11 September. I am obliged to speak very much in summary: firstly, constant meetings are taking place with Russia, which were unthinkable before 11 September. I must confirm here that without the cooperation of Russia, the operations carried out by the international coalition in Afghanistan would have been impossible and would not have achieved the results that some people say they have had in two months, although they are not yet over. Russia’s relations with the Atlantic Alliance are currently so excellent that it would be madness not to take this opportunity to establish stable mechanisms through the necessary institutional reforms.
With regard to the enlargement of the Alliance, I believe that 11 September has left all of us with the feeling – certainly in the case of the Presidency and the Spanish Government – that enlargement should be oriented towards the ideological community rather than strict compliance with military requirements, because we have discovered that those common values we advocate and which are precisely those which underpin the European Union are not universally accepted, and they are at stake. Therefore, we must be particularly sensitive to those countries which have recently embraced democracy and the defence of those values and which wish to contribute to their common defence."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples