Activities of Michael GAHLER related to 2019/2135(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Annual report on the implementation of the common foreign and security policy - Annual report on the implementation of the common security and defence policy (debate)
Amendments (34)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1
Citation 1
— having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 25 a (new)
Citation 25 a (new)
- having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 June 2014 in Case C-658/11, European Parliament, supported by the Commission, against the Council of the European Union;
Amendment 58 #
4 a. Stresses that strengthening substantial relations with East and Southeast Asia is essential to the EU's rules-based, comprehensive and sustainable Connectivity Strategy; takes note of the military build-up in the region and calls for all parties involved to respect the freedom of navigation, to solve differences through peaceful means and to refrain from taking unilateral actions to change the status quo, including in the East and South China Seas and the Taiwan Strait; expresses concern that foreign interferences from autocratic regimes through disinformation and cyber-attacks on the upcoming general elections threaten Asian democracies and regional stability; reiterates its support for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations, mechanisms and activities;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is convinced that the response to the Union’s security challenges lies primarily in defining and strengthening its strategic autonomy;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2
Subheading 2
The need to develop and strengthen European strategic autonomy
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that the ambition of achieving European strategic autonomy was posited for the first time in the Council Conclusions of 19 and 20 December 2013 and recognised for the first time in June 2016 by the 28 Heads of State and Government in the ‘Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy’, presented by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) on 28 June 2016;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that the principle of European's strategic autonomy is based on the ability of the Union to strengthen its freedom to assess, take decisions and take action on the basis of foreign and security policy considerations where circumstances so require in order to defend its common interests and values;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers, therefore, that European strategic autonomy is based, above all, on the ability of the Union to assess a crisis situation on the basis of foreign and security policy considerations and take a decision autonomously, which necessarily entailmakes an independent decision-making process, the availability of means of assessment and a freedomthe existing capacity of the European External Action Service to analyse and take action essential; considers, also, that European strategic autonomy is based on the ability of the Union to act alone when its interests are at stake (theatres of operations not considered as priorities by its European partnerthe EU Member States) or within the framework of existing cooperation arrangements; considers, lastly, that European strategic autonomy is part of a multilateral framework which respects commitments within the UN and complements the (NATO) alliances and partnerships to which most Member States are signed up; stresses that strategic autonomy does not mean that the Union will systematically act alone, everywhere and always;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that the affirmation of European strategic autonomy depends on the establishment of a comprehensive Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) supported by European defence cooperation in the technological, capability, industrial and operational fields; considers that only practical and flexible cooperation based on pragmatic initiatives will make it possible to gradually overcome the difficulties, forge a genuine common strategic culture and shape common responses tailored to the continentEU’s main security and defence issues;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that strategic autonomy can only be genuinely achieved if Member States demonstrate solidarity, which is reflected in particular in the need to prioritise the procurement of European capabilities where equipment is available and competitivmeets the highest standards, is available and competitive, in order to secure reciprocal access to highly protected armaments markets at the same time;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Considers that the principle of European's strategic autonomy is a legitimate and necessary ambition and that it must remain a priority objective of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and European defence policy; stresses that its practical and operational implementation is a common responsibility of European states;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Maintains that European strategic autonomy must take practical form in the areas of foreign and security policy, industry, capability (joint programmes, investment in defence technologies) and operations (financing of operations, capacity building for partners, capacity to plan and conduct missions);
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that Europe’s defencethe Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is based largely on the Union’sMember States' capacity to intervene militarily, in a credible manner, in external theatres of operations on the basis of security policy considerations, including as a last resort by taking military action;
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that the Union currently has a presence on three continents through the deployment of 16 civilian or military missions (10 civilian and six military, of which three are executive and three are non-executive missions); recognises the contribution made by these missions to peace and international security and stability; stresses that their implementation must be accompanied by an overhaul of theselected instruments laid down in the Lisbon Treaty and introduced in recent years, in order to make them more effective and enhance the security of EU citizens;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Stresses the Union’s comprehensive commitment in the Sahel and the Horn of Africa through six civilian (EUCAP Mali, EUCAP Niger, EUCAP Somalia) and military (EUTM Mali, EUTM Somalia, ATALANTA) missions; welcomes and encourages the efforts made to regionalise the functioning of civilian missions in the Sahel in the face of security challenges extending beyond those countries where European missions are deployed; criticises, in that connection, the fact that the EEAS laid down no suitable indicators to monitor the outcome of the EUCAP Niger and EUCAP Mali missions and that the monitoring and assessment of the mission activities were inadequate and not geared to the implications;
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls for the swift implementation of the compact on civilian missions adopted in November 2018 by the Council and the Member States with a view to enhancing civilian CSDP resources in order to reach the agreed staffing levels and make the missions more flexible and more operational, a prerequisite for the effectiveness and efficiency of Union action on the ground;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Notes with concern that the effectiveness of the most recent CSDP civilian and military operatmissions has been hampered by persistent structural weaknesses;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Deplores the lengthyfact that the need to summon up a common political will means that decision- making and implementation processes run at widely differing speeds; points out that very few recent military operations have been given an executive mandate because of the different speeds at which commitment decisions are made, and calls, in this connection, for changes todecision- making processes could not make up for the lack of political will, and calls, in this connection, on the Member States, when faced with a crisis, to find the political will needed to make active use of CSDP structures and procedures so that missions can be deployed in a more rapid, flexible and coherent manner; notes the use ofcalls on the VP/HR to explain to Parliament the thinking behind what is clearly a new crisis- management tool –, namely the launching of mini-missions under Article 28 TEU – with a view to responding to crises more quickly and flexibly;
Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Stresses the recurring problem faced by third-country armed forces of a lack of equipment, which is an obstacle to the success of training missions; notes the difficulty of supplying suitable equipment in a timely manner (binding public procurement procedures to be followed, etc.); believes that achieving positive results in terms of training and advice for third-country armies is extremely difficult in the long term without the capacity to back up such efforts with worthwhile and coordinated equipment programmes; welcomes the Capacity Building for Security and Development (CBSD) initiative, which resulted in the revision of the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (‘IcSP+’) in 2017 so as to provide funding for training and the supply of non- lethal equipment to third countries’ armed forces; notes that, to date, three projects have been carried out, in Mali, the Central African Republic and Burkina Faso; highlights the strong demand from local populations for support in the area of training and equipment supply;
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Is concerned at the problem of force generation, in particular when launching military missions; stresses that EUTM Somalia is struggling to bring together the necessary forces; notes that the last general force generation conference on 4 June 2019 raised the possibility of the mission failing owing to a lack of personnel; notes that the Union’s current military operations involve on average only a dozen or so Member States; stresses that the competence, professionalism and dedication of personnel on the ground are key to the success of a mission; calls on the Member States to make a stronger commitment as regards the quality of personnel deployed on missions, and on the EEAS and the CommissionMember States to fill more of the posts assigned to missions;
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. QuestiCalls ons the appropriateness of continuing certain missionsCouncil to explain why certain missions are continuing even though they have already achieved their limited military or civilian purpose; believes that the Union should concentrate its efforts on missions where it generates the highest added value;
Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Supports the creation of the Military Planning and Conduct Capability (MPCC) for executive missions to enable all CSDP military operations to be carried out; calls for enhanced cooperation between the MPCC and the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability; draws attention to the problems of recruitment and resource provision, which need to be overcome in order for the MPCC to be fully effective; calls on the EEAS to transform the MPCC from a virtual entity,Member States and the EEAS to end the artificial restriction of the MPCC to non-executive missions with multiple-assignment posts, and transform it into a robust civilian- military entity which can plan and conduct operations;
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Notes the failure ofat the Union’s battlegroup projects have been used only to transform European armed forces; the battlegroups have never been deployed since their creation in 2007, owing in particular to opposition on the part of all the Member States and the complexity of their implementation and funding, which is at odds with the original objective of speed and efficiency;
Amendment 279 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Notes that the mutual assistance clause (Article 42(7) TEU), which has been invoked once, demonstrates the solidarity among Member States in the common fight against terrorismresponse to an armed attack on the territory of a Member State; notes, however, that the conditions for triggering the article and the arrangements for providing the assistance required have never been clearly defined; calls for a more operational implementation of this instrument;
Amendment 292 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Expects the Union to make effective use of all existing CFSP and CSDP policy instruments in the areas of diplomacy, cooperation, development, conflict management and peacekeeping; stresses that CSDP military and civilian instruments cannot, under any circumstances, be the only solution to security issues and that a ‘comprehensive approach’ should always be adopted; considers that only the use of all these instruments on the basis of a ‘comprehensive approach’ will provide the flexibility needed to effectively achieve the most ambitious security objectives;
Amendment 309 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Welcomes the significant reversal of the trend of cutting defence budgets; calls, in that connection, on the Member States to invest the additional funding intelligently in cooperative programmes; is of the opinion that this should be supported and encouraged at Union level;
Amendment 323 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Notes with satisfaction the Commission’s proposal of 2 May 2018 to establish a EUR 13 billion budget line for defence in the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) under the heading of industrial policy; notes that this proposal, which reflects an unprecedented commitment by the Commission, remains subject to the unanimous agreement of the Member States in the next MFF and subsequently the approval of the European Parliament;
Amendment 334 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal of June 2017 to create a European Defence Fund (EDF), which would foster cooperation between Member States and cooperative arms programmes to develop capabilities, and would support the European defence industry; notes that this proposal is the first initiative for which Community funds are to be used in direct support of cooperative defence projects; recognises that this is a major step forward for European defence, from both a political and an industrial perspective; notes that the EDF could finance structural projects such as the future European aircraft or tank or a European anti-missile defence capability; welcomes the results of the EU-funded pilot projects EuroSWARM and SPIDER; notes that the 2019 work programme for the preparatory action will focus on electromagnetic spectrum dominance and future disruptive defence technologies, two key areas for maintaining Europe’s technological independence in the long term; welcomes, also, the adoption by the Commission in March 2019 of the first European Defence Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP) and the publication of nine calls for proposals for 2019, including for the Eurodrone, which is a key capability for Europe’s strategic autonomy; points out that 12 further calls for proposals will follow in 2020, covering priority areas in all domains (air, land, sea, cyber and space); notes the link between the procurement decisions taken today by the Member States and the prospects for industrial and technological cooperation under the EDF;
Amendment 342 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Welcomes the effective implementation of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) as an important step towards closer cooperation in security and defence among Member States; stresses that this provision, introduced in the 2009 Lisbon Treaty (Article 46 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), is legally binding and includes a set of ambitious commitments to enable European countries wishing to do so to move ahead faster on common defence projects; recognises the role that PESCO can play in structuring European demand; calls on the Council to explain to what extent Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2315 of 11 December 2017, which was adopted by a qualified majority, and its Article 8(2), do not conflict with Article 41(2) TEU, which requires unanimity; notes that a significant number of EDIDP- eligible projects are being developed within the PESCO framework and may also benefit from higher rates of subsidy; supports full consistency between PESCO projects and the EDF;
Amendment 348 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Highlights the close link between PESCO, with the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD) launched in 2017, and the EDF for enhancing the Member States’ defence capabilities; criticises once again the fact that, so far, there has been no strategic justification of the measures in the light of defence policy considerations; calls, in this regard, on the Council and the Commission, jointly with the European Parliament, to draw up an EU White Paper on Security and Defence as an Interinstitutional Agreement and a strategic paper on the defence industry for the period 2021- 2027; stresses that new projects should be covered by the Capability Development Plan (CDP), which will serve to foster cooperation between Member States with a view to closing the capability gap through the work of the European Defence Agency; considers that the CARD should make an effective contribution to harmonising the investments and capabilities of national armed forces in an effective manner, guaranteeing the Union’s strategic and operational autonomy and allowing Member States to invest more efficiently in defence;
Amendment 359 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Questions the slow start-up of the 34 PESCO projects and the delays to the launch of a third wave of 13 projects, given that none are as yet up and running; notes that only four projects will reach their initial operational capacity in 2019; highlights the lack of ambition and scale of some projects, which do not address the most obvious capability gaps, particularly those in the first wave, which are primarily capability projects involving as many Member States as possible; calls on the HR/VP to immediately inform the European Parliament which PESCO projects are to be terminated early and of the grounds for terminating them; notes that the desired inclusion of participation in PESCO projects should not jeopardise a high level of ambition on the part of the participating Member States; considers that third countries’ involvement should be subject to stringent conditions and based on established and effective reciprocity; draws attention, in this connection, to the rights of the European Parliament arising from the judgment in Case C-658/11; calls on the Member States to submit projects with a strategic European dimension, thereby strengthening the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB), which is an essential part of the strategic autonomisation process and relates more to the operational side in order to respond directly to the operational needs of European armed forces;
Amendment 372 #
46. Stresses the still virtual nature of the European Defence Fund; points out that that this instrument has not yet been finally approved, with only partial and political agreement having been given in April 2019; stresses the importance of maintaining Parliament’s position concerning the amount of the EDF, the involvement of third countries and the establishment of an appropriate intellectual property policy in relation to security and defence in order to protect research results; calls on the European Commission to make the participation of third countries conditional on reciprocal opening up of the arms market; draws attention, in that connection, to the highly sensitive and strategic nature of defence research, both for industrial competitiveness and for the strategic autonomy of the Union; calls for the initial lessons learned from the implementation of the EDIDP (in particular concerning the application of derogations for eligible entities), the pilot project and the preparatory action on defence research to be properly taken into account; calls on the Member States to be fully involved in the decision-making process in order to avoid bureaucratic excesses and to ensure that the programmes included address the strategic needs of the CSDP and the Member States; considers that the success of the EDF will depend on its ability to promote defence material which can be deployed and to cater for the specific defence needs of the participating states and to guarantee the availability of sufficient budgetary resources, whilst ensuring that industrial know-how is not duplicated, national defence investment is not crowded out and cooperation does not become over-complicated; considers that developing the European defence industry by regulating access for entities controlled by non-EU third parties to projects financed by the Fund is fully consistent with the European ambition of strategic autonomy;
Amendment 379 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Hopes that decisions on the participation of third parties in PESCO projects will under no circumstances undermine the conditions agreed in the negotiations on the EDF and the EDIDP, given the purely European nature of the financing of these programmesas the financing of these programmes underlines their European added value;
Amendment 480 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
Paragraph 61
61. Considers that progress in European defence will pave the way for major structural changes; notes the announcement of the creation of a Directorate-General for the Defence Industry and Space at the Commission under the responsibility of the Commissioner-designate for the Internal Market; notes that this new DG should be responsible for supporting, coordinating or complementing the Member States’ actions in the area of European defence and would thus contribute to strengthening European strategic autonomy; notes the definition of its five main tasks (implementation and oversight of the EDF, creation of an open and competitive European defence equipment market, implementation of the action plan on military mobility, enhancement of a strong and innovative space industry, implementation of the future space programme), but calls on the Commission to provide further details on the role and responsibilities of the new DG; Wonders how it will coordinate its work with that of other defence policy structures which have other responsibilities (EDA, EEAS, etc.);