23 Amendments of Kris PEETERS related to 2020/2080(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas according to Article 42(2) of the TEU, the common security and defence policy (CSDP) includes the progressive framing of a common EU defence policy, which couldwill lead to a common defence being put in place, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the consequences of the EU not having enough competence when it comes to health care; whereas, by the same analogy, it would make sense to establishvolve to an EU common integrated security and defence strategy in order to be able to respond to an attack on the EU’s borders and territories; whereas PESCO constitutes an important step towards achieving the objective of a common defence;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas PESCO creates a binding framework between the pMS, which committed themselves to jointly investing, planning, developing and operating defence capabilities within Union framework in a permanent and structured manner by subscribing to 20 binding commitments in five areas set by the TEU; whereas these commitments should constitute a move from mere defence cooperation towards the integration of Member States’ defence forces; whereas despite these binding commitments, no effective compliance mechanism for PESCO is in place are annually evaluated in the national implementation plans by the PESCO secretariat which can be consulted by the participating Member States;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the pMS do not pay enough attentionshould enhance their commitment to the 20 binding commitments to which they have subscribed, and not enough progress has been achieved with regard to significantly embedding PESCO into national d; notes that military capacity planning cycles usually take longer than 3 years; highlights that the current national military capacity planning cycles are mostly driven by the previously established NATO Defence pPlanning pProcesses;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas work on the first three waves of PESCO projects has led to the pMS proposing 47 projects; whereas the current list of projects lacks coherence, strategic ambition and does not adequately address priority shortfalls as identified by the pMS; whereas one of these projects has been stopped in order to avoid unnecessary duplication; whereas other projects did not make sufficient progress or are at risk of being stopped, and around 30 projects are still in the ideation and preparatory phase; whereas the development of ambitious military capacity projects can take up to 10 years;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas only the mostcertain strategic PESCO projects are focussed on the operational deployment, such as EUFOR Crisis Response Operation Core (EUFOR CROC) have the potential to decisively contribute to the creation of a coherent fulland other projects are more focussed on the development of military capacities; whereas both are needed to decisively contribute to evolvement to an EU common integrated spectrum force packageurity and defence strategy;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital S
Recital S
S. whereas interactions between Member States’ national priorities, EU priorities and NATO priorities should be synchronised at the earliest possible convenience; whereas PESCO can be an effective tool in order to achieveprovide military capabilities that can address EU and NATO targets simultaneously;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
V. whereas the prospect of receiving co- financing for the development capacities deriving from certain PESCO projects via the future European Defence Fund (EDF) has led pMS to multiply their proposals, and despite the fact that this has encouraged exchanges and cooperation, not all proposals necessarily have the EU’s best strategic interest in mind;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital W
Recital W
W. whereas the, in some specific cases, participation of third countries in individual PESCO projects might be in the strategic interest of the European Union, particularly in case of the United Kingdom;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b
Paragraph 1 – point b
(b) define the Union’s strategic vision, by, inter alia, implementing the level of ambition defined by the 2016 EU Global Strategy, inter alia, through the ongoing work of the Strategic Compass, which needs to be carried out in cooperation with the Commission and, strengthen PESCO’s operational dimension;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c
Paragraph 1 – point c
(c) prepare, on the basis of the results of the discussion on the Strategic Compass, a fully-fledged EU Security and Defence White Book; notes that the first results of the Strategic Compass are expected in the first half of 2022;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d
Paragraph 1 – point d
(d) encourage the pMS to switchevolve from a strictly national focus on defence to a European one and to undertake structured efforts to increase the use of European collaborative approach as a priority, as no individual pMS alone has the potential to address identified capacity shortfalls;
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point e
Paragraph 1 – point e
(e) maintainincrease the EU’s budgetary ambition for the strengthening of defence capabilities, notably throught the sufficient financing of EDF and military mobility in the upcoming MFF;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point f
Paragraph 1 – point f
(f) ensure that PESCO is effectively used as an instrument to reach a EU defence integrationcommon integrated and defence strategy as a common goal, in line with the ambition for greater EU Strategic Autonomy;
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point g
Paragraph 1 – point g
(g) ensure that the funding of capacities derived from PESCO projects by the EDF is focused on a limited set of strategic key projects, in line with the HCIG of the CDP, in order to maximise its impactigh Impact Capacity Goals (HICG) of the Capacity Development Priorities (CDP), in order to maximise its impact; ensure that the selection of PESCO project is in line with HICG of the CDP;
Amendment 250 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point i
Paragraph 1 – point i
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point j
Paragraph 1 – point j
(j) focus PESCO efforts on projects with a strategic and integrative dimension, such as EUFOR CROC, and link those to other PESCO projects in order to create additional synergies and effects of scale where appropriate;
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point k
Paragraph 1 – point k
(k) ensurcourage that future key land, sea, air and other platforms for the armed forces of the Member States are brought under PESCO or are at least closely connected to itwhere appropriate;
Amendment 280 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point l
Paragraph 1 – point l
(l) consider, as part of the reformsuggest that the study for adaptation of the EU Battleg Group system,(EU BG) as Strategic Reserve Force could advise to bring itEU BG under PESCO in order to increase its operational capacity, modularity and agility;
Amendment 286 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point m
Paragraph 1 – point m
(m) where relevant, group PESCO projects into capability clusters and make a distinction between strategically relevant and other projects;
Amendment 292 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point n
Paragraph 1 – point n
(n) promote compliance with the 20 PESCO commitments by establishing a clear and simpler definition of compliance benchmarks, and by ensuring that future project proposals must address a specific CDP pEU Capability Development Priorityies; ensure that any reviews of project progress should be based on clear and transparent criteria; ensure that such criteria serve as benchmark for all Member States participating in PESCO projects;
Amendment 296 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point o
Paragraph 1 – point o
(o) use the synergies between the PESCO project cycle and other defence capability processes such as CARD, HLGHLGP, CDP and EDFCARD in order to enable more mature and well-documented projects to be submitted; allow projects to be submitted outside the cycle in order to enable the synchronised implementation of several European initiatives, including the EDF;
Amendment 311 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point q
Paragraph 1 – point q
(q) define an effective and strong project steering committee, reaffirm the central role of the PESCO secretariat as a single point of contact for all projects and invite the secretariat to carry out regular situation points on the progress of projects for the benefit of all the stakeholders, including Parliament, via information collected from Member State(s) in charge of project coordination;