25 Amendments of Malik AZMANI related to 2020/2080(INI)
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas Article 1(b) of Protocol 10 states that the Member States are to ‘have the capacity to supply by 2010 at the latest either at national level or as a component of multinational force groups, targeted combat units for the missions planned, structured at a tactical level as a battle group, with support elements including transport and logistics, capable of carrying out the tasks referred to in Article 43 of the Treaty on European Union, within a period of five to 30 days, in particular in response to requests from the United Nations Organisation, and which can be sustained for an initial period of 30 days and be extended up to at least 120 days’; whereas Article 1(b) needs to be revised in order to adequately respond to the challenging geopolitical environment; whereas the Member States are still far from achieving this goal;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the three-fold level of ambition under the EU Global Strategy in the field of security and defence covers securing external borders, countering hybrid threats and fighting against terrorism; whereas no Member State can protect itself alone, since security and defence threats faced by the EU, and which are targeted againstthe EU, its citizens and its territory faces, are a joint threat and cannot be addressed by onea single Member State on its own; whereas an effective EU system for addressing burden-sharing would be advantageous for the EU’s overall level of security and defence;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas PESCO’s long-term vision is to achievecontribute to a coherent full-spectrum force package available to the Member States; whereas PESCO should enhance the EU’s capacity to act as an international security provider in order to protect EU citizens and maximise the effectiveness of defence spending; whereas the cost of non-Europedue to doubling, overcapacity and obstructions for joint procurement in security and defence is, the costs are estimated to be more than EURbetween 25 and 100 billion EUR per year; 8a; _________________ 8a https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta -political/files/budget-may2018-eu- defence-fund_en_0.pdf
Amendment 47 #
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 establish an EU common defence strategy in order to be able to respond to an attack on the EU’s borders and territories; whereas PESCO constitutPESCO constitutes an important step towards achieving the objective of strengthening European defence capabilities and important step towards achieving the objective of a common defencenteroperability;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas according to Council decision 2017/2315, establishing PESCO enhanced defence capabilities of the Member States will also benefit NATO, while strengthening the European pillar within the alliance and responding to repeated calls for strongermore balanced transatlantic burden-sharing; whereas NATO remains the cornerstone of many MS’s security architecture;
Amendment 76 #
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 through bilateral mutual beneficial partnerships; whereas despite these binding commitments, no effective compliance mechanism for PESCO is in place;
Amendment 99 #
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 vast majority of PESCO projects coincide with EDF and NATO shortfalls;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas only some of the most strategic PESCO projects, such as EUFOR Crisis Response Operation Core (EUFOR CROC) have the potential to decisively contribute to the creation of a coherent full spectrum force packageUnion’s strategic sovereignty;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital R
Recital R
R. whereas the NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP) drives defence national planning processes in most casMember States;
Amendment 143 #
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, where appropriate and relevant; whereas PESCO canshould be an effective tool in order toand a complimentary tool in achieveing EU and NATO targets simultaneously;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital U
Recital U
U. whereas currently, PESCO projects are dependent on the 25 participating Member States’ financial contributions; whereas it is expected that, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, national defence budgets will suffer reductions; whereas paradoxically, several of the currently 47 PESCO projects, if funded accordingly, could strengthen Member States’ preparedness, should another massive public health crisis occur: military mobility – a flagship PESCO project –, the European Medical Command and many other projects in areas related to logistics and transportation, health care, disaster relief and, the fight against malicious cyber activities and hostile disinformation campaigns; whereas cutting funding for the strategic capabilities that the EU and its Member States currently lack would also weaken their ability to jointly act against future pandemics;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
V. whereas the prospect of co- financing 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 common strategic interest in mind;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Y
Recital Y
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d
Paragraph 1 – point d
(d) encourage the pMS to switch from a strictly national focus on defence to a more prominent 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 alone;
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point f
Paragraph 1 – point f
(f) ensure that PESCO is effectively used as an instrument to reach EU defence integrationstrengthen pMS defence capabilities and interoperability as a common goal, in line with the ambition for greater EU Strategic AutonomSovereignty;
Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point h
Paragraph 1 – point h
Amendment 257 #
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 CROCdimension and to those projects that contribute to the remedy of important capability and operational shortfalls, and link those to other PESCO projects in order to create additional synergies and effects of scale;
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point k
Paragraph 1 – point k
(k) ensure the possibility that future key land, sea, air, cyber and other platforms for the armed forces of the Member States arcan be brought under PESCO or are at least closely connected to it;
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point l
Paragraph 1 – point l
Amendment 285 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point m
Paragraph 1 – point m
(m) group PESCO projects into capability clusters and make a distinction between strategically relevant and other projectsdesignated projects; review the current list of 47 projects and either cluster or cancel projects which are making insufficient progress or present insufficient mutually beneficial gain to the European Union;
Amendment 307 #
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 Member State(s) in charge of project coordination;
Amendment 320 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point t
Paragraph 1 – point t
(t) examine the establishment of an EU Council on Defence based on the existing EDA ministerial Steering Board and the PESCO format of EU Defence Ministers, in order to guarantee the prioritisation of resources, and the effective cooperation and integration among the Member States;
Amendment 327 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point u
Paragraph 1 – point u
(u) clarify or define the link between the governance of PESCO and that of the EDF and to involveinform Parliament in the ex- post control process when it comes to EDF funding of PESCO projects;
Amendment 336 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point w a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point w a (new)
Amendment 338 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point w b (new)
Paragraph 1 – point w b (new)
(wb) ensure that in all relevant aspects of PESCO projects, involvement and inclusion of SME’s is ensured;