Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2013-12-11-Speech-3-016-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20131211.3.3-016-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, we have talked about economic policy many times in this Chamber so, this morning, I want to concentrate on defence policy because, when it comes to defence in Europe, the right approach in my view should be one of cooperation, capability and compatibility.
In these challenging times we cannot afford to run two defence organisations in Brussels. We have one very successful one already. It has kept the peace for 60 years in Europe. It embodies the transatlantic security relationship and it still represents our best hope for security in the 21st century. Every step we take towards a European common defence, the USA takes one step away from NATO. In an age when rising economic powers are not always liberal democratic states, we must remain absolutely and resolutely united across the Atlantic.
The EU needs to learn the lessons of the euro crisis. We must stop rushing into creating the trappings of European statehood. Instead we should focus practically on what actually works, not on creating new bureaucracies just for the sake of it. NATO works. Let us stick with it and stop this vain attempt to create a European army through the back door. When it comes to defence in Europe, the right approach should be one of cooperation, capability and compatibility, as I said at the start.
And that is the approach that Europe has developed for over 60 years under the NATO umbrella. NATO is a tried and tested alliance, and yet many here are seeking to undermine it with more EU bureaucracy through the CSDP. They seek to duplicate its roles in order to create an EU army through the back door. And yes, of course, we all recognise that NATO needs to modernise.
When it was first formed in 1949, its first Secretary-General said, and I quote, that its role was: ʻto keep the Russians out, to keep the Americans in and the Germans downʼ. The challenges of the 21st century are, of course, very different to those in 1949. However, NATOʼs strength, ultimately, is the transatlantic security relationship that it embodies. We still need in my view to keep the Americans in.
European and North American cooperation is as relevant today as it has ever been. Unfortunately under President Obama, the so-called Pacific President, the USA in my view is in danger of turning its strategic focus to its western coast. We are pushing them away and some may argue that the only solution therefore is to form a common European defence, but such a plan is flawed on many levels.
Firstly of course, European countries simply do not have the resources. NATO spends around USD 1 trillion on defence. Two thirds of that comes from the US. Of the remaining one third spent by EU states, 70% is spent by just four: the UK, France, Germany and Italy. There would not be a European defence because so few countries are actually doing the heavy lifting. And yet even if we add up our total EU-wide spending, it pales into insignificance in comparison to that of the US.
Secondly of course, European countries are not going to hand over command and control of their assets to an EU operational headquarters. Europeʼs biggest defence power is certainly not going to do so and it has already vetoed such an HQ. So we are left with a de facto intergovernmental arrangement where countries cooperate and pledge to defend each otherʼs interests, which sounds to me an awful lot like NATO.
Yet through this duplication of effort, we reduce the resources available for already overstretched military capability. These are resources we could spend on hardware and training rather than on playing with toy soldiers. But the most important consideration lies with our troops themselves. I am sure that everyone in this House has the utmost respect for their own countryʼs armed forces and I pay tribute to those from mine. The bravery and heroism of British troops is marvellous. These people fight for their flag, for their country and, from my country, for their Queen. Do we honestly believe that those same people would have the willingness to fight and possibly pay the ultimate sacrifice for the European flag? I think not.
European countries already have a long and valuable history of bilateral and multilateral cooperation and this should be continued. Of course we have to work together wherever possible. Strategic deficiencies will be overcome through this approach which is already embodied in NATOʼs smart defence initiative. In the recent Mali mission for example, UK transport planes were deployed to assist with lifting French assets alongside UK surveillance planes. But those kinds of bilateral cooperative measures do not need a new bureaucracy at EU level in order to implement them. They just need the willpower of the states concerned.
That will power has not always been forthcoming across all EU Member States; nothing illustrated this point more forcefully than the division caused by the Iraq war a decade ago. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of that conflict, it showed very vividly why national independence is critical to so many states."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples