BETA

47 Amendments of Michael GAHLER related to 2010/2299(INI)

Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4
– having regard to the outcome of the UK- France Summit on security and defence cooperation on 2 November 2010,
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that strategic autonomy in security affairs entails, for the EU, the capacity to agree common political objectives and strategic guidelines, to establish strategic partnerships with a wide range of international organisations and trustful states, to collect adequate information and generate joint analyses and assessments, to harness and where necessary pool financial, military, and civilian resources, to plan and run effective crisis management operations across the entire range of the Petersberg tasks, and to frame and implement a common defence policy, laying the first tangible foundations on which to build common defence;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point a
(a) the CFSP and the CSDP, which is an integral part of the formerthereof, have been placed within the legally binding institutional framework of EU principles (democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations and the charter of international law), and their objectives have been merged with the general objectives of the EU's external action;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point c
(c) the HRVP/HR, in close cooperation with the Member States, conducts the CFSP, proposes CSDP decisions, missions, and the use of national resources and Union instruments together with the Commission, and, where appropriate, coordinates their civilian and military aspects, and chairs the Foreign Affairs Council, serving also as the Commission Vice-President in charge both of the Commission's external relations responsibilities and of coordinating, and providing consistency in, EU external action as a whole;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that the duty of consistency as defined by the Treaty, the new wording of Article 40 TEU (which states that the implementation of both the CFSP and the other EU policies shall not affect the application of the respective procedures), and recent ECJ case law (see the SALW case) protect both the primacy of the Community method and the distinguishing features and prerogatives of the CFSP, while encouraging the convergence of different policies, instruments, resources, and legal bases in a holistic, comprehensive approach, whereby security becomes a cross-cutting objective of EU external and internal action and the CSDP is one of its instruments; in this context, notes that civilian and military assets can be deployed in situations other than CSDP missions, as has been shown in practice by the EU Military Staff coordination of military capabilities during the Pakistan floods in summer and after the Haiti earthquake in 2010;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. RegretsExpresses concern, therefore, that, more than one year after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, there are not yet clear signs of a post-Lisbon EU holisticcomprehensive approach enabling traditional procedural and institutional barriers to be overcome, while preserving the respective legal prerogatives when European citizens' security is at stake;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Points out that the fact of transcending the pillar-based institutional structure, the full integration of the CFSP/CSDP into the framework of EU objectives and principles, and the role conferred onrole conferred to the European Parliament as the body directly representing EU citizens make Parliament a vital source of democratic legitimacy for the CFSP/CSDP and lend weight to its right to expect that its opinions and recommendations will be taken properly into consideration;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Points out in addition that, by virtue of the Treaty, the High Representative is subject to a vote of consent by the European Parliament and Parliament participates in the decision-taking on the EU external action budget, including CFSP and CSDP civilian missions and the administrative costs arising from EU military coordination, and that its consent is essential in order to translate EU strategies into laws and to conclude international agreements, including agreements relating mainly to the CFSP, the one exception being agreements relating solely to the CFSP;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. insists that a common response to the developments in Libya is essential to formulate a credible new approach for our southern neighbourhood policy thereafter underlines that the elaboration of a strategy for the Sahel region and the Horn of Africa is yet another concrete opportunity to demonstrate the ability of the EU to act both on security and development challenges;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Security and defence (This is a subheading after the paragraph 16 and before paragraph 17)
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Deplores the fact that the provisional organisation chart of the EEAS does not include the ‘appropriate structure’ which, under the Madrid accords, is to integrate the various units dealing with crisis response planning and programming, conflict prevention, and peace-building with the CSDP structures; calls for a crisis management board to be set up, to be staffed by the CMPD, the CCPC, the EUMS, the EU SITCEN, the peace- building, conflict prevention, mediation, and security policy units, the Chair of the PSC, the geographical desks and other policy departments concerned, according to the circumstances, and the Commission humanitarian aid and civil protection structures, placed under the authority of the HR and the executive Secretary- General, and coordinated by the Managing Director for Crisis Response; calls on the High Representative and the Commission to equip the board with an efficient alert and emergency system and a large unified operations room, located within the EEAS, so as to enable surveillance to be carried out 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, hence avoiding the present operational overlapping (seven operations rooms), which hardly squares with the need for a proper surveillance and rapid reaction system to deal with crises;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Calls for a permanent civil-military headquarter to be set up, to be composed of the CMPD, the CCPC, the EUMS, the EU SITCEN, the peace-building, conflict prevention, mediation, and security policy units, the Chair of the PSC, the relevant geographical desks and other policy departments concerned, and the Commission humanitarian aid and civil protection structures, placed under the authority of the VP/HR and the executive Secretary-General; calls on the VP/HR, the EEAS and the Commission to have an efficient alert and emergency system and a large unified operations room, located within the EEAS, so as to enable surveillance to be carried out 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, hence avoiding the present operational overlapping (seven operations rooms), which hardly squares with the need for a proper surveillance and rapid reaction system to deal with crises;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Believes that the Crisis Management Board should be responsible on the one hand for forward planning in relation to potential theatres and crisis scenarios and secondly for practical crisis response management, working both in Brussels and on the ground to coordinate the use of the various financial instruments and deployment of capabilities available to the EU, without undermining the specific decision-making procedures and legal bases applying to the deployment of civilian and military capabilities under the CFSP/CSDP or to the use of Community instruments;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 – introductory part
20. Points to the need to strengthen the civilian and military crisis response structures, departments, and units within the EEAS and the Commission, spreading them out and organising them in a more rational way, and in particular:
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 – point b
(b) renews its call for the Commission staff who have in the pastForeign Policy Instruments Service (FPIS) in charge of planneding and programmeding the Instrument for Stability Article 3 crisis response measures to be integrated into the EEAS crisis management and peacebuilding structures and specifically for the former Relex/A2 posts assigned to Unit 2 of the new foreign policy instruments (12 AD and 5 AST) to be transferred to the EEAS;, and points out that this transfer is a condition which has to be satisfied in order to release the reserve under the corresponding heading in the Commission budget;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Deplores the scant results achieved by the Civilian Headline Goal 2010 process regarding civilian capabilities, and in particular the discrepancy between the personnel assigned by Member States on paper and the numbers actually available for missions, the modest progress as regards the training of human resources (no common standards, limited number of training programmes uploaded to the Schoolmaster training opportunities programme within the Goalkeeper software environment); calls on the High Representative, the Council, and the Member States to take coordinated steps to reactivate the development of civilian capabilities, especially where recruitment, training, and deployment are concerned; calls on establishing a community mechanism for enhancing civilian capabilities, especially training and increasing the civil part of the European Security and Defence college;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2
Security and defencedeleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Notes with anxiety that the current economic austerity could lead to cuts that were not concerted at European level and to continuing overlapping that might call the CSDP as such into question, whereas the end effect should be to push the Member States towards smarter defence spending whereby they would pool and share a larger proportion of their defence capabilities, budget, and requirements while achieving more security for their citizens; calls on Member States to develop greater transparency regarding their respective defence budgets;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Deplores the widespread overlapping of defence programmes in the EU, such as the more than 20 armoured vehicles programmes, the 6 different attack submarine programmes, the 5 ground-to-air missile programmes, and the 3 combat aircraft programmes, and its consequences, namely that economies of scale are not achieved, limited economic resources are wasted, and the prices for European defence equipment are over-inflated; moreover this leads to a maintained fragmentation of the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB), hampers the competitiveness of the whole security related industrial sector in Europe and in this regard directly endangers technological leadership and employment.
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. MaintainReaffirms that all of the above points should be tackled by means of a clear-cut long-term common political resolve, making full use of the potential offered by the Lisbon Treaty, and that any common defence policy intended to move gradually towards common defence must serve to strengthen the EU's ability to respond to crises and to provide for long-term peace- building, and above all guarantee Europe's strategic autonomy, averting the danger that its standing might decline on the world stage; calls on the national parliaments to embark on an appropriate joint initiative in relation to their respective institutional partners and calls for a specialn extraordinary European Council meeting to be given over to European security and defence; renews its call for a Europeanthe drafting of a European security and defence White Paper;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Takes note of the Franco-British initiative of 2 November 2010 on security and defence cooperation and hopes that it can act as a springboardcatalyst for further progress at European level in line with the institutional framework and the requirements of rationalisation and technological, industrial, and operational rationalisation and integration from which it stemmed; underlines that the EDA could play a support role in this context;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Notes that, in addition to being a political necessity, Permanent Structuraled Cooperation (PESCO), as provided for in the Treaty, takes the form of a legal obligation and not an option (i.e. Member States ‘shall establish’ and not ‘may establish’); calls on the Council and the Member States to remedy their failure hitherto to act in this area by determining is also an instrument to promote a better use of CSDP assets and to overcome a lack of consensus among the Member States; calls on the Council and the Member States to determine the aims and substance of PESCO without further delay, involving the Member States on as broad a basis as possible and, not least, assessing the advisability of implementations based on variable geometry;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
29. Believes that the role of the Defence Ministers needs to be strengthened both within the Council's Foreign Affairs Council configuration and within the EDA; maintains that the number of meetings should be higher than at present;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
32. Recommends that Member States commit themselves fully to the provision and sustainability of military capabilities, matching the trend towards growing emphasis on the qualitative aspects; endorses the requests made at the Ghent informal Defence Ministers' meeting and in the German-Swedish paper and the Weimar initiative and calls for the operative phase to begin without delay, in line with the December 2010 Council conclusions, in which the Defence Ministers agreed that EDA should intensify its work to facilitate the identification of areas for pooling and sharing military capabilities, including through the support of a team of wise men; calls on the Agency to list new potential new cooperation projects (for instance in areas such as satellite communications, medical support, and naval logistics) so as to avoid overlapping of costs and increase interoperability;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
34. Points toReaffirms the need to overcome the current imbalance in terms of planning and conduct capabilities and the conduct of civilian and military operations by providing the EU with a permanent civil-military-strategic level of command planning and conduct capacity or Operational Headquarters (OHQ) to serve as a counterpart to the CPCCwhich will allow for a more reactive and cost-effective EU response; points out that the Berlin Plus arrangements have been put to only limited use, having been confined to date to takeovers of pre-existing NATO missions, and draws attention to the problems connected with the framework nation track, which is based on the use of five national OHQs, and in particular to the fragmented nature of political and strategic operations planning (Crisis Management Concept, Military Strategic Options, Initiating Military Directive), adddding the lack of pre-planning to the difficulty ofies in force generation, as well as making the use ofnd increased complexity of coordinating civilian and military capabilities more complex to coordinate;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
35. Considers that the existing Operation Centre, though constituting a welcome first step, falls short of the requirements, is inadequate with the level of ambition of a permanent OHQ (it is no coincidence that it has never been used) and that it must instead be made permanent and put in a position to manage missions beyond the present limited size (some 2 000 troops), the ways to do so being to increase its staff substantially and, to grant it with adequate operational infrastructures and to deal with the unreliability of the EU's communications and information systems infrastructure, the main reason for which is that there is no permanent command and control (C2) structure (or correspondingand relevant legal framework), a fact which can also adversely affect situational awareness; maintains that the military OHQ should be set up alongside the civilian HQ, thus making it possible to carry outadvocates co-location of the military OHQ with the civilian HQ, in order to allow the whole range of military and civilian operations to be carried out, exploiting potential synergistic effects to the full while respecting the distinctive civilian and military chains of command and the different decision-making procedures and financing arrangements;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 – indent 1
– for every six-month rotation period there should be one Battlegroup in the form approved to date and one smaller group, which should, however, be specialised (niche capability) and/or suited to low-intensity conflicts entailing mixed civilian- military tasks;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
38. Encourages the head of the AgencyEDA/VP/HR and the Commission to seek strong cooperation between the EDAAgency and the Commission with a view to enhancing dual-use capabilityies in order to find the most comprehensive approach to security related research and to make for better synergistic management of civilian- military resources, in particular through the security chaptertheme of the fFramework pProgramme for rResearch and tTechnological dDevelopment; accordingly welcomes the prospect of the eEighth fFramework pProgramme, which will also cover external security; and calls on the Commission to acknowledge the reality of the civil-military nature of crisis management and consider the financing of security and defence research having civilian applications with community funds;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)
38a. Urges the head of the EDA (HR/VP) as well as the Council to deliver timely a new Council Joint Action on Establishing EDA based on EDA's new role as described in the Treaty of Lisbon; questions the current legal basis of the EDA dating back to 2004 in view of the Treaty of Lisbon and its implications on EDA; calls on the Council to inform the European Parliament on the necessary changes to the Council Joint Action on Establishing EDA resulting from EDA's inclusion in the Treaty of Lisbon;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
39. Calls for a constructive dialoguethe establishment of a strong partnership between the Commission, Parliament, the EDA, and the participating Member States on the preparations for the eEighth fFramework pProgramme with a view to investments in technology areas of common interest at EU level, bearing in mind not least that the amount spent in Europe on investment in defence-related R & &D is currently equivalent to about 10% of the US figure;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39a. Calls for a strong cooperation between EDA and the Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en matière d'ARmement (OCCAR); requests information from the head of the EDA (HR/VP) on the results of the negotiations on an Administrative Arrangement for their cooperation which started in April 2009;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
40. MaintainReaffirms that one of the prerequisites for a self-containedn autonomous CSDP is the establishment of a competitive European defence and security market, with an enhanced European dDefence tTechnological and iIndustrial bBase (EDTIB) (including identification ofthat takes into account key industrial capabilities, security of supply between countries, increasadapted competition in the defence equipment market, a deepening and diversifying supplier base, and increased armaments cooperation);
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
recommends that Member States comply strictly with the deadlines, under the Commission's supervision, and that they draw up the necessary implementing regulations and train the relevant staff to enforce the new rules; calls upon Member States to take the respective Guidance Notes issued by the Commission into account;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
42. MaintaUnderlines that, in order to foster the emerging European security and defence market, a remedy needs to be found for the vacuum in terms of regulations and standards, since this situation limits market opportunities for both large players and SMEs and prevents security system interoperability among security systems; fully supports the work of the EDA in keeping withthe framework of the new legal basis provided by the Lisbon Treaty; advocates close collaboration with the Commission, which is legally competent as regards regulbetween the EDA and the Commission to create a European defence market; calls for the Commission to launch, in cooperation ofwith the defence and security marketEDA, a first reflection on an European industrial policy in the field of security and defence;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
44. Calls on the EDA's participating Member States to give loyal and cooperative supportadd to the work and initiatives to be presented by the VP/HR in her capacity as head of the Agency and urges the VP/HR to establish working methods allowimproving the capacity of the participating Member States invariably to play an active role in decision-taking,to take responsibility as decision makers, and consistent with the intergovernmental nature of the Agency and the provisions of the Treaty, the idea being to build a political consensus;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50 – indent 2
– a security information model will be developed by connecting the Schengen Information System to all the other relevant Europe-wide networks such as the VIS and Eurodac using the model developed by the US, which interconnects the US State Department and the DHS information networks linked to the prevention of terrorismexperience and best practice from other countries;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
54. RecognisesWelcomes the fact that since 2003 the EU has undertaken numerous missoperations (24) in three continents involving different types of intervention, the bulk being accounted for by civilian missions specialising in policing, security sector reform (SSR), and consolidation of the rule of law;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
56. Welcomes the ongoing revision of the existing civilian CSDP concepts; notes in particular that the rule of law will be considered as an overarching conceptseen as a central concept for civilian missions covering police, justice, civilian administration, customs, border monitoring, and other relevant areas of use to planners and experts on the ground in setting up and conducting missions with strengthening and/or substitution (executive) tasks; endorses the work being done to develop the concept of CSDP justice missions, while observing that needless overlapping with possible Community programmes has to be avoided; doubts whether the kinds of tasks carried out to date in the EULEX Iraq mission conform to the characteristics of a CSDP mission;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 1
EUPOL Afghanistan is having very little impact because there is no clear strategy and the mission is inevitably being absorbonly a targeted impact concentrating only on high level officials and was only recently embedded into the EUS AFPAK strategyaction plan;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 2
EULEX Kosovo has been undermined by, among other things, disagreements among the Member States about recognition of the territory's independence and the logical and expedient takeover of the NATO KFOR mission;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 5
-in spite of its high profile and the successes which it has achieved the EU has successfully taken the lead of international efforts in the fight against piracy through operation Atlanta but that the issue of judicial treatment of pirates needs to be urgently solved, notably based on the Lang report recently submitted to the UN Security Council ;, EU NAVFOR SomaliAtlanta is being hampered by the lack of implementation of a clear regional strategy to tackle the root causes of piracy and deal effectively with the chronic instability in the Horn of Africa ; actions enhancing regional maritime surveillance capabilities should be taken urgently;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 2 a (new)
- between development cooperation projects and CSDP missions as a part of CFSP;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67
67. Calls on the HR/VP to take the steps required to optimise the potential use of European resources and capabilities for civilian missions and notes with concern that high costs are being incurred for the security of the EUJUST LEX Iraq and EUPOL Afghanistan missions, the measures in question having been entrusted to private security companies since no other alternative was available;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 73
73. Stresses the need to strengthen the cooperation between UEU and UN in the area of crisis management, notably during the early stages of a crisis and post-conflict reconstruction, in close connection towith the appropriate structures of the newly established EEAS;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 74
74. Recognises that NATO still constitutes the bedrock of collective defence for those Member States which belong to it; welcomes France's return to the integrated command structure of the Atlantic Alliance and considersrecalls the need for constructive cooperation between the EU and NATO, particularly where the two organisations are active in the same theat this should help to dispel any resistance to the development of a common defence policy at EU levelres of operation; looks forward to the proposals of the High representative as tasked by the European Council conclusions of September 2010 referring to EU-NATO cooperation in crisis management;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78
78. Recalls that, in addition to partnerships with other international organisations such as the UN, NATO, and the AU, cooperation with individual third countries should be enhanced in the context of the CSDP; notes that experience shows that third countries can bring important assets, human resources, and expertise to CSDP missions, such as in the context of EUFOR Chad/CAR, for which Russia provided much-needed helicopters, and EUFOR Althea, to which countries like Turkey and Morocco contributed substantial contingents of troops; believes, furthermore, that the involvement of third countries can enhance the legitimacy of CSDP operations and help set up a broader security dialogue with important partners while remaining committed to promoting respect of human rights and rule of law;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET
Amendment 283 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 79 a (new)
79a. Underlines the importance of cooperation on CSDP with our neighbours, it should be regionally balanced and provide a broad range of opportunities that would catalyze security sector reforms in the partner states; it would not only help generate civilian and military capabilities to enable our Eastern and Southern partners to participate in CSDP missions but also give us stronger support in managing regional security;
2011/03/22
Committee: AFET