69 Amendments of Manu PINEDA related to 2020/2080(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)
Citation 13 a (new)
- having regard to the European Court of Auditors Review No 09/2019: European defence,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 b (new)
Citation 13 b (new)
- having regard to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter,
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 c (new)
Citation 13 c (new)
- having regard to the Arms Trade Treaty,
Amendment 9 #
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 could lead to common defence being put in place, but does not require such a common EU defence policy;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas Article 41(2) of the TEU prohibits the use of the EU Budget for military or defence operations;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas PESCO is incompatible with a state policy of neutrality, as in the case of Ireland;
Amendment 16 #
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 revisthe Battlegroups have never been deployed sin order to respond to the challenging geoce their establishment in 2007, owing to oppolsitical environment; whereas the Member States are still far from achieving this goalon on the part of Member States and the complexity of their implementation and funding, which is at odds with the original objective of speed and efficiency;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas PESCO’s long-term vision is to achieve 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-Europe in security and defence is estimated to be more than EUR 100 billion per year;
Amendment 50 #
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 need for the EU to urgently focus on resourcing and supporting healthe same analogy, it would make sense to establish an EU common defence strategy in order to bystems across the 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 defenceoc which have been undermined by years of neoliberal policy;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas the Commission established the Group of Personalities on Defence Research in 2015 as an advisory body to set out the agenda for an EU military research programme; whereas the group was heavily dominated by the arms industry and included the CEOs of arms companies MBDA, Indra, Saab Airbus, BAE Systems, Leonardo S.p.A (formerly Finmeccanica), and the Chair of ASD, the European arms industry lobbying group; whereas the Commission’s directorate for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW) had 37 meetings between 2013 and 2016 with the arms industry to discuss the Preparatory Action on Defence Research; and whereas the Commission proposes to mobilise tens of billions from the EU budget and Member State contributions through the European Defence Fund for the research and development of weapons and military equipment;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)
Recital G b (new)
Gb. whereas the European Defence Fund creates a self-fulfilling and continuous loop between supply and demand for security and defence hardware, funded with public money; and whereas this creates the spectre of a permanent European war economy and entrenched military industrial complex;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
Amendment 78 #
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 comunder the PESCO framework will further militarise the EU; whereas the enthusiasm of many pMS for PESCO is limited, as exemplified by the lack of progress to date in significantly embedding PESCO into national defence pliance mechanism for PESCO is in placening processes;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas PESCO is only the most egregious example of a broader strategy to normalise militarism in the EU; whereas militarism that is normalised will be transferred to other domains such as migration or development; whereas this is already happening, in particular at Europe’s borders;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I b (new)
Recital I b (new)
Ib. whereas militarism reduces the resources available for other public investments like health and social security, hinders the capacity to examine or address the structural causes of insecurity and risk, and in this way produces new insecurities and deepens existing ones;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I c (new)
Recital I c (new)
Ic. whereas according to the European Court of Auditors Review No 09/2019: European defence, the key PESCO concept of ‘strategic autonomy’ is overly vague and broad, lacks a clear military translation, and is unhelpfully used in various contexts and meanings; whereas the same Review points out that there are clear strategic differences between EU Member States in terms of defence, no common perception of threats nor a common vision of the EU’s role, as well as different rules of engagement and a wide range of views on the use of military force;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
Amendment 100 #
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 sufficientmuch progress or are at risk of being stopped, and around 30 projects are still in the ideation and preparatory phase;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas only the most strategicfar-reaching 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 packagebeen driven by certain Member States, and whereas many other Member States have serious doubts about the desirability of both the PESCO project and the goal of creating a European army;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital R
Recital R
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital S
Recital S
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital T
Recital T
T. whereas in conjunction with the EU Global Strategy, a specific defence and security strategy, such as the EU Security and Defence White Book suggested in numerous Parliament reports, could facilitate a shared understanding of current and future challenges and provide important guidance to PESCO and the CDP deriving from an understanding of strategic ambitions and actions to be taken in the long ruwill face resistance from Member States suspicious of further defence integration;
Amendment 152 #
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, rightly, 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; 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 as public funds are directed to where they are needed; whereas a joint and coordinated approach to a second wave or to future pandemics will not be best achieved through defence strategy, projects or funding;
Amendment 161 #
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 strategic interest in mind; whereas this is evidence that many pMS are already chafing against the PESCO straitjacket;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital V a (new)
Recital V a (new)
Va. whereas according to the European Court of Auditors Review No 09/2019, without US capabilities, the EU members of NATO would need to spend several hundred billion euros to overcome the capabilities gap;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital W
Recital W
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital X
Recital X
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Y
Recital Y
Y. whereas the governance of PESCO is led by pMS, and therefore eventually leads to the insufficient coordination and overall consistency of the projects; whereas this should constitute grounds for the extension of the mandate of the PESCO secretariaquestioning the wisdom and utility of the entire project;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b
Paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c
Paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d
Paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point e
Paragraph 1 – point e
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point f
Paragraph 1 – point f
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point g
Paragraph 1 – point g
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point h
Paragraph 1 – point h
Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point i
Paragraph 1 – point i
Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point j
Paragraph 1 – point j
Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point k
Paragraph 1 – point k
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point l
Paragraph 1 – point l
Amendment 283 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point m
Paragraph 1 – point m
Amendment 288 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point n
Paragraph 1 – point n
Amendment 294 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point o
Paragraph 1 – point o
Amendment 298 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point p
Paragraph 1 – point p
Amendment 305 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point q
Paragraph 1 – point q
Amendment 313 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point r
Paragraph 1 – point r
Amendment 316 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point s
Paragraph 1 – point s
Amendment 318 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point t
Paragraph 1 – point t
Amendment 324 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point u
Paragraph 1 – point u
Amendment 328 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point v
Paragraph 1 – point v
Amendment 329 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point w
Paragraph 1 – point w
Amendment 339 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 340 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Rejects the Commission’s proposal of June 2017 to create a European Defence Fund (EDF), which would foster cooperation between Member States and support the European defence industry; notes that this proposal is the first initiative for which Union funds are to be used in direct support of defence projects; rejects, 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; rejects also the recent announcement of 16 pan-European defence industrial projects and three disruptive technology projects that will benefit from €205 million financing through the two precursor programmes of a fully-fledged European Defence Fund: the Preparatory Action on Defence Research (PADR) and the European Defence Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP); notes the link between the procurement decisions taken today by the Member States and the prospects for industrial and technological cooperation under the EDF; recalls that the setting-up of the new heading V on Security and Defence, the EU defence research programme, European Defence Fund and Military Mobility clearly violate the provisions laid down in Article 41(2)TEU which states that any expenditure arising from actions having military or defence implications must not be charged to the Union budget; denounces and deeply deplores the unprecedented speed with which the EU is being militarised; emphasises that the evidence is overwhelming that the most effective method of preserving and promoting peace and stability is to focus on poverty eradication, sustainable and fair economic development and an end to the facilitation of tax evasion, corruption and capital flight by the global financial system, peaceful and diplomatic conflict resolution, disarmament, demobilisation of troops and reintegration programmes;
Amendment 341 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Notes the cuts to the European Defence Fund proposed by both the Finnish Presidency of the Council of the EU in December 2019 and in the draft European Council conclusions for the MFF and own resources for the 2021- 2027 period in February 2020; welcomes the proposed cuts in the allocation to the European Defence Fund in the new MFF from €13 billion to €8 billion; calls for the Fund to be abolished;
Amendment 342 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Deplores the PESCO commitment from participating Member States to increase defence spending to 2% of GDP and to earmark 20% of that sum for investment in defence capabilities;
Amendment 343 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 e (new)
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1e. Rejects the notion of European strategic autonomy being dependent on the establishment of European defence cooperation in the technological, capability, industrial and operational fields; considers that only practical, flexible, strictly peaceful and civil cooperation based on pragmatic initiatives will make it possible to face common challenges, forge a genuine common strategic culture, and shape common responses tailored to the continent’s main security issues; stresses that strategic autonomy can only be genuinely achieved if Member States demonstrate solidarity with each other; considers that the principle of European strategic autonomy formulated as an ambition to increase military spending and to further the militarisation of the EU is ethically and morally illegitimate;
Amendment 344 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 f (new)
Paragraph 1 f (new)
1f. Deeply regrets the recent significant increases in defence budgets across the bloc and the increase in defence expenditure across the EU for the sixth year in a row in 2019; is of the opinion that this should be not be supported or encouraged at Union level; adds that military personnel should be guaranteed a living wage;
Amendment 345 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 g (new)
Paragraph 1 g (new)
1g. Regrets the efforts by the European institutions and some Member States, following on from the publication of the EU Global Strategy, to breathe new life into the hitherto virtual instruments of the CSDP and to fully implement the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty; stresses that these ambitions must not be consolidated and followed up with any further practical action;
Amendment 346 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 h (new)
Paragraph 1 h (new)
1h. Considers that Europe’s security is best defended by focusing on poverty eradication, sustainable and fair economic development, an end to the facilitation of tax evasion, corruption and capital flight by the global financial system, peaceful and diplomatic conflict resolution, disarmament, demobilisation of troops and reintegration programmes;
Amendment 347 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 i (new)
Paragraph 1 i (new)
1i. Notes that the Union currently has a presence on three continents through the deployment of 17 civilian or military missions (11 civilian and six military); recognises that none of these missions have contributed substantially to peace, international security, and stability;
Amendment 348 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 j (new)
Paragraph 1 j (new)
1j. Stresses the importance of pursuing conflict resolution as a priority and a decisive shift away from security and defence, and in particular away from security and defence strategies predicated on increased military spending;
Amendment 349 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 k (new)
Paragraph 1 k (new)
1k. Considers Union financing for military CSDP missions prohibited in line with Article 41(2) TEU, which outlines that expenditure arising from operations having military or defence implications shall not be funded by the Union budget; regrets, in this regard, the proposal by the VP/HR, backed by the Commission, to create a European Peace Facility, which would finance part of the costs of EU defence activities, including the joint costs of CSDP military operations and weaponry and military equipment; deplores the fact that the EPF will enable the transfer of billions of euro of public money to arms companies to produce arms for export to states in Africa and elsewhere, where they will inevitably perpetuate existing conflicts and almost certainly spark others; recognises that the concept of military peace support operations proposed as part of the Facility is a contradiction in terms; emphasises that the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the most effective method of preserving and promoting peace and stability is to focus on poverty eradication, sustainable and fair economic development and an end to the facilitation of tax evasion, corruption and capital flight by the global financial system, peaceful and diplomatic conflict resolution, disarmament, demobilisation of troops and reintegration programmes;
Amendment 350 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 l (new)
Paragraph 1 l (new)
1l. Notes the failure of the Union’s Battlegroup project and the fact that Battlegroups have never been deployed, owing in particular to opposition on the part of Member States and the complexity of their implementation and funding, which is at odds with the original objective of speed and efficiency; stresses that the battlegroups must be dismantled immediate effect;
Amendment 351 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 m (new)
Paragraph 1 m (new)
1m. Opposes the creation of the Military Planning and Conduct Capability (MPCC) for the operational planning and conduct of the EU’s non-executive military missions; rejects any military- civilian operations and any subordination of areas of civilian competence to the military;