8 Amendments of Luis YÁÑEZ-BARNUEVO GARCÍA related to 2013/2170(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the conclusions of the most recent European Council Summit held on 19 and 20 December 2013 do not include the anti-missile shield for Europe as a priority action in the field of defence;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas AMD is not only a leading symbol of the USA’s commitment to the EU, to NATO and to its Eastern European Member States but also of allied solidarity, even if the system is not specifically intended to shield the particular country in which it is based;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Argues that the legitimate grounds for an anti- missile shield originate in the threat of a nuclear attack potentially orchestrated by actors who do not subscribe to traditional understandings of rationality. In real terms, certain ‘rogue’ states or state-like actors could be prepared to attack, even in cases where doing so would ultimately result in their inevitable self-destructionstates or other actors;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Points out that some failed or highly unstable states pose a serious threat to European and world security, since they offer perfect conditions for terrorist groups to become established in their territory or indeed to take control of the state in question;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that convincing evidence exists that a number of ‘rogue’ states are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons; notes, furthermore, some of these states have stated their preparedness to use these weapons should their interests be jeopardised; recalls, in this connection, the vast arsenal of nuclear weapons already in the possession of highly unstable states;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls therefore for a thorough and transparent cost-benefiteffectiveness analysis to be carried out regarding AMS; points out that this analysis should be conducted by an independent panel and should evaluate the cost of the AMS in relation to the potential risk of a ‘rogue’ statestate or other actor orchestrating an attack using ICBMs;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Recalls that NATO has announced its intention to actively seek cooperation on missile defence with Russia (and other Euro-Atlantic partners), thereby paving the way for greater transparency on nuclear issues and short-range nuclear weapand takes the view that this collaboration would be crucial, since it would prevent the anti-missile shield from unleashing a possible arms race with undesired repercussions on other regions;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Argues that the EU, in cooperation with NATO and possibly with Russia, is capable of pooling resources and developing the AMS, thereby defending Europe against potential attacks from ‘rogue’ states or other state-like actors; points out that this approach would likely benefit all those involved;