31 Amendments of Geoffrey VAN ORDEN related to 2014/2220(INI)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers the European Union and neighbourhood security environment to be increasingly unstable and volatile; regards the war in Ukraine, the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, with the rise of the terrorist organisation ISIS, the Libyan crisis and the terrorist threat in the Sahel as direct threats to the Union’s security; further considers, too, that the US ‘pivot to Asia’ and the impact of the financial crisis on Member States’ budgets and capabilities only highlight how necessary it is for the Union to shoulder more responsibility for its own security and defese multiple threats reinforce the fundamental importance of the Union's partnership with NATO and commitment to the transatlantic alliance;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the current level of instability on the borders of the EU and in its immediate neighbourhood is unprecedented in the period since the late 1990s when the ESDP/CSDP was established; is concernednotes that the Union may not be abhas failed to be key player in addressing each of these threats and that it may too often be reduced to relyings relied on initiatives by one or a few Member States, or on ad hoc alliances in which it has only a peripheral or reserve role to play;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the Union and its Member States must, as a matter of the utmost urgency, adapt to the new security challenges, in particular by making effective use of the existing CSDP tools, byand where appropriate coordinatinge national action more closely and, where appropriate, by introducing in a pragmatic and flexible way new arrangements for the expression of European solidaritywithout undermining the ability of Member States to act unilaterally when it is in their own interest;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that the Union’s strength and relevance lie in its ability to bring into play a wide range of instruments simultaneously and in full compliance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter; underscores the fact that the CSDP military and civil instruments are integral components of this overall approach;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomNotes the European Council conclusions of December 2013 recognisingwhich recommended the need to increase the effectiveness, visibility and impact of the CSDP, particularly its civil aspects, enhance the development of capabilities and strengthen Europe’s defence industryies;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers, however, that the injection of political stimulus in 2013 did not lead to the implementation of practical measures commensurate with the declared levels of ambition; considers that the Union today does not yet possess the requisite resources, operationally, industrially or in terms of capabilities, to contribute in a determining way to the management of international crises and to assert itNotes that the December 2013 European Council recognised national responsibility in military matters, the role of NATO and the need for the EU to focus own strategic autonomycivilian capabilities;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes the appointment of the new Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR), Federica Mogherini; welcomes her first statements and her decision to chair the Foreign Affairs and Defence Council meetings, an indication of her interest in the CSDP; hopes that the stances she has taken will be reflected in a boost to the development of the CSDP;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Hopes that by the time ofTrusts that the June 2015 European Council, which on defence issues will oence again deal with defence issues, the Member States and the EU institutions will be in a position to propose specific measures in line with the undertakings given in December 2013ourage recalcitrant Member States to put more resources into defence, and focus its efforts on those area of crisis management where the EU might genuinely add value, particularly in the civil field, where it might complement the role of NATO;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Takes nNotes that the most recent civilian and military operations under the CSDP have, not surprisingly, continued to be dogged by structural shortcomings as these have been evident now for several years: duplication of NATO, lengthy and inflexible decision- making processes, mission mandates unsuited to the operational environment, the problem of ‘force generation’ and logistical and financial inertia; recognises that these are inevitable consequences of wholly inappropriate ambitions for CSDP;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that too many of the civilian and military missions launched by the EU since 2009 have been about raising the Union’s crisis response profile rather than taking strategic measures on the basis of in-depth analysis and planning; believes that these missions should be nothave been merely for show, but rather should beand not genuine, effective and responsibly used policy tools forming part of an overall action strategy;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. WelcomNotes the research being conducted with a view to the establishment of a shared services centre to pool resources for CSDP civilian missions; considers that the most effective solution would be to have a single institutional structure inside the EEAS centralising and rationalising services for civilian missions (human resources, IT, logistics etc.), which are currently dispersed within the respective missions;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that CSDP military operations increasingly tend to be armed forces training missions (e.g. EUTM Mali and EUTM Somalia); while hailing the success of such operations, finds it regrettable that missions with an executive remit are rarely envisaged nowadays; considers that, given the persistent threats in our neighbourhood, the EU cannot allow itself to focus exclusively on instruments for a post-crisis context or for supporting exit from crisis, but rather must be capable of intervention across the full spectrum of crisis management;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Is dismayed by the problems of force generation encountered when military missions are being launched; notes that, with the exception of EUTM Mali to which 23 Member States are making an effective contribution, current EU military operations involve, in each case, no more than half a dozen Member States; considers that while the contribution of third countries reflects the vitality of partnerships under the CSDP, what it demonstrates most clearly is a certain disaffection on the part of Member States, effectively coalitions of the willing which do not require the involvement of the EU;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. WelcomNotes the intention of the November 2013 Council to enhance the modularity and flexibility of the EU battlegroups so that they can be deployed for crisis- management tasks of all types; notes, however, that the only progress here to date has been the very limited step of proposing that the Athena mechanism should cover the strategic transport of battlegroups into theatres of operations; insrecognistes that all the Member States should demonstrate a constructive attitude and overcome, once and for all, thethe lack of a constructive attitude amongst all Member States have been political and operational impediments to battlegroup deployment;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Welcomes the positivNotes the message sent out by the last informal Council of Defence Ministers about exploring the potential of Article 44 of the Treaty on European Union; finds it regrettable, however,recognises that, due to divisions on the subject, no progress has been made in determining how the provisions of the article could be applied; believes that the implementation of Article 44 would enable the Union to act considerably more flexibly and faster, thus enhancing its ability to address the threats around it; urges those Member States which are not interested in participating in CSDP operations or which lack the means to do so to take a constructive line by allowing others to act if they so wish;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Considers that national defence budgets have been reduced due to the effects of the 2008 economic and financial crisis and that the reductions have taken place without coordination among the Member States, thus jeopardising the Union’s strategic autonomy and the ability of its Member Sts well as lack of political will and that there is a collective failure to fully appreciate the range and intensity of the security threates to meet the capacity requirements of their armed forceswhich the democracies are increasingly exposed;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Welcomes the adoption by the November 2014 Council of the European Defence Agency (EDA) Capability Development Plan (CDP) setting out the 16 priorities for capability development; welcomes, too, the EDA’s work through the collaborative database (Codaba) identifying the scope for cooperation among Member States and thus paving the way for various forms of cooperation to be instituted; urges the Member States, in developing their military capabilities, to have regard to these tools; calls for strict avoidance of duplication of initiatives already underway elsewhere and for greater attention to identifying ways in which real value can be added;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Is surprisRemains committed thato there are as yet no European-level tax incentives to cooperation and principle that pooling; takes note of the call by the December 2013 Council for such arrangements to be explored, and finds it regrettable that, a year on, discussions have not yet produced any tangible measures in this regardcy relating to taxation is entirely a matter for individual Member States; notes that the Belgian Government already grants VAT exemptions, on an ad hoc basis, to the preparatory phases of certain EDA projects, e.g. for satellite communications; believes that such exemptions should be applied as a matter of course and should be extended to infrastructure and to specific capability- related programmes;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. WelcomNotes the existence of non-EU cooperation models such as European Airlift Transport Command (EATC) and applauds the fact that this system continues to expand to include new Member States; finds it regrettablenotes that although such a model has existed for several years it has not yet been adapted for use with other types of defence capability; calls for the EATC modelbelieves that such cooperation should continue to be negotiated and operated on a bilateral and multi-lateral basis between allies and to be applied to other spheres of operational support as a means of addressing serious capability shortfalls;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Notes that minimal progress has been made on projects for pooling and sharing; welcomnotes the advances that have been made on air-to-air refuelling with the acquisition of a fleet of multirole tanker transport aircraft; finds it regrettablenotes that only a very few Member States have so far participated in the project, and calls on those Member States which lack this type of capability to become involved;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. WelcomNotes the Council’s intention to develop projects for pooling critical technologies, e.g. remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) and Governmental Satcom; notes that a regulatory framework is needed for the initial integration of RPAS into Europe’s air traffic system by 2016, taking due account of civilian and military requirements;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. WelcomNotes the progress made on EU satellite services (Galileo, Copernicus, EGNOS); considers that such space services, particularly Copernicus, ought to be put on an operational footing to help meet the high- resolution satellite imaging needs of CSDP missions and operations; welcomes the launch of the Ariane 6 project; finds it regrettable that, for technical and commercial reasons,notes that the Union still buys Russian launch equipment despite its aim of achieving a certain level of strategic autonomy;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Considers that the Union could adopt the samealls on the Union to encourage members to meet NATO capacity targets as NATO, requiring a minimum level of defence spending of 2% of GDP and a minimum 20% share of the defence budget for major equipment needs, including for research and development;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Regards the defence markets as highly specific ones for various reasons: public purchasing is virtually the sole source of demand; the number of companies in the marketplace is limited; products spend a long time in development and then in service; and certain technologies are of a strategic nature; views with concern the ambitions to involve the European institutions, which inevitably include the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, in this area;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. BelievNotes that all the measures in question are contingent on the prior joint determination of what falls within the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) so that potential beneficiary companies or strategic activities can be targeted;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Believes that no government canMember States are entitled to embark alone on genuinely large-scale research and technology (R&T) programmes; welcomes, thereforehen it is in their national interest; notes, the Commission’s proposals for developing synergies between civilian and defence research; also welcomnotes the initiation of ‘Preparatory Actions’ and hopes that, in the realm of the CSDP, the next step will be funding, under the forthcoming multiannual financial framework, for a relevant research strand;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Calls, at the same time, for the utmost vigilance to be exercised, be it in relation to governance issues, intellectual property rights or the co-financing of, and rules for participation in, the defence Preparatory Action; calls for the Member States to be fully involved in the decision-making process with a view to avoiding bureaucratic excesses and for it to be ensured that the programmes included address the strategic needs of the CSDP and the Member StatMember States and defence allies;