BETA


2012/2050(INI) Annual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the common foreign and security policy

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead AFET BROK Elmar (icon: PPE PPE) PAŞCU Ioan Mircea (icon: S&D S&D), DUFF Andrew (icon: ALDE ALDE), BRANTNER Franziska Katharina (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), SALAVRAKOS Nikolaos (icon: EFD EFD)
Committee Opinion BUDG NEYNSKY Nadezhda (icon: PPE PPE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 142-p1

Events

2012/09/12
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2012/09/12
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 511 votes to 73 with 78 abstentions a resolution on the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliament on the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

Assessment of the report: Members felt that the Council‘s Annual Report falls short of the ambitions of the Lisbon Treaty in important ways, which include: (i) not giving a clear sense of medium and longer term priorities or strategic guidelines for the CFSP ; (ii) not clarifying the policy mechanisms for ensuring coherence and consistency among the different components of foreign policy, including those under the responsibility of the Commission; (iii) not addressing important questions on the role of the EEAS and the Delegations in ensuring that the Union‘s resources (personnel, financial and diplomatic) are aligned with its foreign affairs priorities; (iv) avoiding a discussion, the holding of which is implied in the new strategies for the Horn of Africa and the Sahel, on how to embed ad hoc Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions and operations (their rationale and end-state) in the political-strategic framework of EU foreign policy priorities for a country or region.

Members further consider that, with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, improvements could be made on informing the competent committee on the outcome of Foreign Affairs Councils as well as in consulting Parliament , especially before deciding to mandate the Commission to negotiate and sign agreements on behalf of the Union and when it comes to frameworks for the participation of third countries in EU crisis management operations . They call on the Council, when drawing up future Annual CFSP Reports, to discuss with the Committee on Foreign Affairs the broad policy framework for the coming year, and the longer-term strategic objectives.

A new comprehensive approach to the EU’s foreign policy: Members point out that in the second decade of the twenty-first century there is a growing awareness amongst Europe‘s citizens that only comprehensive approaches that integrate diplomatic, economic, development and – in the last resort – military means are adequate for addressing global threats and challenges.

With the Lisbon Treaty the EU has all the means necessary to adopt a comprehensive approach, whereby all the Union‘s diplomatic and financial resources are used to back common strategic policy guidelines in order to have the greatest possible leverage in promoting the security and economic prosperity of European citizens and their neighbours. A comprehensive understanding of CFSP covers all areas of foreign policy, including the progressive framing of a Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) that might lead to a common defence. Members stress the need, also, to update the European Security Strategy in accordance with the current international environment.

The foreign policy architecture: Members underline the role of political leadership expected of the VP/HR in ensuring the unity, coordination, consistency, credibility and effectiveness of action by the Union.

They call on her to use to the full and in a timely manner her powers to initiate, conduct and ensure compliance with the CFSP, involving Parliament‘s relevant bodies fully in that endeavour . They welcome the important lead role, on behalf of the international community, played under difficult circumstances by the VP/HR in the negotiations with Iran, taking into account the important historical relationship between European and Iranian peoples. Parliament calls for leadership in enhancing the Union's role in support of the European Neighbourhood, in light of the Arab Spring, particularly the democratic transition processes in the Southern Mediterranean, including through the new European Endowment for Democracy, as well as in the stalled Middle East peace process.

Members recognise the essential role of the EEAS and affirm their intention to continue monitoring the geographic and gender balance of staff in the EEAS, and to assess whether the appointment of Member State diplomats as Heads of Delegation and other key positions is in the interests of the Union, not solely of their Member States. The report calls for improved reporting and access to political reports from Delegations and EUSRs in order for Parliament to receive full and timely information on developments from the ground.

They stress that the scrutiny of EU foreign policy, exercised by the European Parliament and national parliaments at their respective levels, is essential if European external action is to be understood and supported by EU citizens.

Members regret that on many occasions the bilateral relations of some Member States with third countries still overshadow or undermine the consistency of EU action , and they call for more effort by Member States to align their external policies with the CFSP.

Lastly, the VP/HR, is asked to explore the production of guidelines for the systematic consignment of specific tasks and missions to a coalition of the willing, such as a ‘core group’ of EU states, as well as to start the process that will lead to European Council conclusions on Permanent Structured Cooperation in the area of security and defence and on the implementation of the mutual defence clause.

Budgetary and financial architecture: Parliament believes that full transparency and democratic scrutiny require separate budget lines for each and every CSDP mission and operation, and for each and every EUSR, accompanied by streamlined but transparent procedures for the transfer of funds from one item to another if circumstances so require. The Athena mechanism for financing the common costs of EU-led military and defence operations does not provide a sufficient overview of all the financial implications of missions conducted under the CFSP, and Members call for a clear list of all expenditures.

They welcome the introduction of a new Partnership Instrument, as requested by Parliament, which brings important added value to the EU‘s CFSP by providing a financial framework for cooperation of the EU with third countries on objectives which arise from the Union‘s relationships but are outside of the scope of the Development Cooperation Instrument. Members feel that such an approach can be aided by the establishment of clear benchmarks, which should be monitored and evaluated by Parliament and they call for benchmarking of the EU’s foreign policy , drawing upon existing strategic programming documents or strategic policy frameworks (such as those in place for the Horn of Africa or the Sahel).

Parliament welcomes the joint policy response of the Commission and the EEAS to events in the Southern Neighbourhood, and contends that the EEAS and the Commission should explore the viability of the ENP‘s multilateral track to serve as a framework for organising political relations in the wider Europe .

Strategic priorities: concentric circles of peace, security and socio-economic development: Members believe that the strategic interests, objectives and general guidelines to be pursued through the CFSP must be founded upon delivering peace, security and prosperity for the citizens of Europe and beyond, first of all in our neighbourhood, but also further afield, guided by the principles which inspired the creation of the EU itself.

They observe that there is no clear formula for determining the Union‘s choice of a strategic partner and that, when such choices are made, Parliament is neither informed nor consulted. Future decisions on strategic partners should carefully be framed in accordance with the foreign policy priorities of the Union, and due consideration should be given to ending partnerships that become obsolete or counter-productive .

The report calls for Parliament to be regularly informed ahead of decisions on future partnerships, particularly where such partnerships receive financial support from the Union budget or entail a closer contractual relationship with the EU.

Members state also that it is important to focus the Union‘s limited resources on strategic priorities, starting from the challenges closer to home , particularly in the enlargement countries, the neighbourhood, and extending outwards in concentric circles. Respecting the commitments made in the framework of enlargement, and demonstrating a responsibility for our neighbourhood, will strengthen the credibility of the Union‘s global reach.

They go onto make a series of specific observations on: (i) the Western Balkans; (ii) Turkey; (iii) the Southern Neighbourhood and the Middle East including Iran, Libya and Syria; (iv) the Eastern Neighbourhood including Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, South Caucuses, and the Black Sea Strategy; (v) Russia; (vi) Central Asia and Afghanistan; (vii) the Americas; (viii) Africa; (ix) Asia, including China; (x) multilateral partners including the UN and NATO.

Lastly, the resolution makes specific observations on the CFSP’s thematic priorities including the Common Security and Defence Policy, the arms trade, conflict prevention and peace-building, and energy security.

Documents
2012/09/12
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2012/09/11
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2012/08/29
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Details

The Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Elmar BROK (EPP, DE) on the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliament on the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

Assessment of the report: Members felt that the Council‘s Annual Report falls short of the ambitions of the Lisbon Treaty in important ways , which include: (i) not giving a clear sense of medium and longer term priorities or strategic guidelines for the CFSP ; (ii) not clarifying the policy mechanisms for ensuring coherence and consistency among the different components of foreign policy, including those under the responsibility of the Commission; (iii) not addressing important questions on the role of the EEAS and the Delegations in ensuring that the Union‘s resources (personnel, financial and diplomatic) are aligned with its foreign affairs priorities; (iv) avoiding a discussion, the holding of which is implied in the new strategies for the Horn of Africa and the Sahel, on how to embed ad hoc Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions and operations (their rationale and end-state) in the political-strategic framework of EU foreign policy priorities for a country or region.

Members further consider that, with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, improvements could be made on informing the competent committee on the outcome of Foreign Affairs Councils as well as in consulting Parliament , especially before deciding to mandate the Commission to negotiate and sign agreements on behalf of the Union and when it comes to frameworks for the participation of third countries in EU crisis management operations . They call on the Council, when drawing up future Annual CFSP Reports, to discuss with the Committee on Foreign Affairs the broad policy framework for the coming year, and the longer-term strategic objectives.

A new comprehensive approach to the EU’s foreign policy: Members point out that in the second decade of the twenty-first century there is a growing awareness amongst Europe‘s citizens that only comprehensive approaches that integrate diplomatic, economic, development and – in the last resort – military means are adequate for addressing global threats and challenges.

With the Lisbon Treaty the EU has all the means necessary to adopt a comprehensive approach, whereby all the Union‘s diplomatic and financial resources are used to back common strategic policy guidelines in order to have the greatest possible leverage in promoting the security and economic prosperity of European citizens and their neighbours. A comprehensive understanding of CFSP covers all areas of foreign policy, including the progressive framing of a Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) that might lead to a common defence. Members stress the need, also, to update the European Security Strategy in accordance with the current international environment.

The foreign policy architecture: Members underline the role of political leadership expected of the VP/HR in ensuring the unity, coordination, consistency, credibility and effectiveness of action by the Union.

They call on her to use to the full and in a timely manner her powers to initiate, conduct and ensure compliance with the CFSP , involving Parliament‘s relevant bodies fully in that endeavour . They welcome the important lead role, on behalf of the international community, played under difficult circumstances by the VP/HR in the negotiations with Iran. They recognise the essential role of the EEAS and affirm their intention to continue monitoring the geographic and gender balance of staff in the EEAS, and to assess whether the appointment of Member State diplomats as Heads of Delegation and other key positions is in the interests of the Union, not solely of their Member States. The report calls for improved reporting and access to political reports from Delegations and EUSRs in order for Parliament to receive full and timely information on developments from the ground.

They stress that the scrutiny of EU foreign policy , exercised by the European Parliament and national parliaments at their respective levels, is essential if European external action is to be understood and supported by EU citizens.

Members regret that on many occasions the bilateral relations of some Member States with third countries still overshadow or undermine the consistency of EU action , and they call for more effort by Member States to align their external policies with the CFSP.

Lastly, the VP/HR, is asked to explore the production of guidelines for the systematic consignment of specific tasks and missions to a coalition of the willing, such as a ‘core group’ of EU states, as well as to start the process that will lead to European Council conclusions on Permanent Structured Cooperation in the area of security and defence and on the implementation of the mutual defence clause.

Budgetary and financial architecture: the committee believes that full transparency and democratic scrutiny require separate budget lines for each and every CSDP mission and operation, and for each and every EUSR, accompanied by streamlined but transparent procedures for the transfer of funds from one item to another if circumstances so require. The Athena mechanism for financing the common costs of EU-led military and defence operations does not provide a sufficient overview of all the financial implications of missions conducted under the CFSP, and Members call for a clear list of all expenditures.

They welcome the introduction of a new Partnership Instrument, as requested by Parliament, which brings important added value to the EU’s CFSP by providing a financial framework for cooperation of the EU with third countries on objectives which arise from the Union‘s relationships but are outside of the scope of the Development Cooperation Instrument. Members feel that such an approach can be aided by the establishment of clear benchmarks, which should be monitored and evaluated by Parliament and they call for benchmarking of the EU’s foreign policy , drawing upon existing strategic programming documents or strategic policy frameworks (such as those in place for the Horn of Africa or the Sahel).

The committee welcomes the joint policy response of the Commission and the EEAS to events in the Southern Neighbourhood, and contends that the EEAS and the Commission should explore the viability of the ENP’s multilateral track to serve as a framework for organising political relations in the wider Europe .

Strategic priorities: concentric circles of peace, security and socio-economic development: Members believe that the strategic interests, objectives and general guidelines to be pursued through the CFSP must be founded upon delivering peace, security and prosperity for the citizens of Europe and beyond, first of all in our neighbourhood, but also further afield, guided by the principles which inspired the creation of the EU itself. These include democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, equality and solidarity, and respect for international law and the United Nations Charter, including the exercise of the responsibility to protect.

They observe that there is no clear formula for determining the Union‘s choice of a strategic partner and that, when such choices are made, Parliament is neither informed nor consulted. Future decisions on strategic partners should carefully be framed in accordance with the foreign policy priorities of the Union, and due consideration should be given to ending partnerships that become obsolete or counter-productive . The report calls for Parliament to be regularly informed ahead of decisions on future partnerships, particularly where such partnerships receive financial support from the Union budget or entail a closer contractual relationship with the EU.

Members state also that it is important to focus the Union‘s limited resources on strategic priorities, starting from the challenges closer to home , particularly in the enlargement countries, the neighbourhood, and extending outwards in concentric circles. Respecting the commitments made in the framework of enlargement, and demonstrating a responsibility for our neighbourhood, will strengthen the credibility of the Union‘s global reach.

They go onto make a series of specific observations on: (i) the Western Balkans ; (ii) Turkey; (iii) the Southern Neighbourhood and the Middle East including Iran, Libya and Syria; (iv) the Eastern Neighbourhood including Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, South Caucuses, and the Black Sea Strategy; (v) Russia; (vi) Central Asia and Afghanistan; (vii) the Americas; (viii) Africa; (ix) Asia, including China; (x) multilateral partners including the UN and NATO.

Lastly, the report makes specific observations on the CFSP’s thematic priorities including the Common Security and Defence Policy, the arms trade, conflict prevention and peace-building, and energy security.

Documents
2012/07/10
   EP - Vote in committee
2012/06/26
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2012/06/26
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2012/06/04
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2012/05/29
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2012/04/20
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2012/03/21
   EP - NEYNSKY Nadezhda (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in BUDG
2012/01/23
   EP - BROK Elmar (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in AFET

Documents

Activities

AmendmentsDossier
398 2012/2050(INI)
2012/04/26 BUDG 2 amendments...
source: PE-487.941
2012/06/26 AFET 396 amendments...
source: PE-491.166

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

committees/0/shadows/3
name
MEYER Willy
group
European United Left - Nordic Green Left
abbr
GUE/NGL
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE487.809
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFET-PR-487809_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE486.134&secondRef=02
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/BUDG-AD-486134_EN.html
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE491.166
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFET-AM-491166_EN.html
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE492.653
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFET-AM-492653_EN.html
events/0/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/1/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/2
date
2012-08-29T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2012-0252_EN.html title: A7-0252/2012
summary
events/2
date
2012-08-29T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2012-0252_EN.html title: A7-0252/2012
summary
events/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20120911&type=CRE
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-7-2012-09-11-TOC_EN.html
events/5
date
2012-09-12T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2012-0334_EN.html title: T7-0334/2012
summary
events/5
date
2012-09-12T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2012-0334_EN.html title: T7-0334/2012
summary
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 142-p1
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 132-p1
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
committee
AFET
rapporteur
name: BROK Elmar date: 2012-01-23T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
committee
AFET
date
2012-01-23T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: BROK Elmar group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
rapporteur
name: NEYNSKY Nadezhda date: 2012-03-21T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
date
2012-03-21T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: NEYNSKY Nadezhda group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-252&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2012-0252_EN.html
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-334
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2012-0334_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2012-04-20T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: PAŞCU Ioan Mircea group: ALDE name: DUFF Andrew group: Verts/ALE name: BRANTNER Franziska Katharina group: GUE/NGL name: MEYER Willy group: EFD name: SALAVRAKOS Nikolaos responsible: True committee: AFET date: 2012-01-23T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE name: BROK Elmar body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2012-03-21T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: PPE name: NEYNSKY Nadezhda
  • date: 2012-07-10T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: PAŞCU Ioan Mircea group: ALDE name: DUFF Andrew group: Verts/ALE name: BRANTNER Franziska Katharina group: GUE/NGL name: MEYER Willy group: EFD name: SALAVRAKOS Nikolaos responsible: True committee: AFET date: 2012-01-23T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE name: BROK Elmar body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2012-03-21T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: PPE name: NEYNSKY Nadezhda
  • date: 2012-08-29T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-252&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0252/2012 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2012-09-11T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20120911&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2012-09-12T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=21912&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-334 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0334/2012 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
committee
AFET
date
2012-01-23T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: BROK Elmar group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
AFET
date
2012-01-23T00:00:00
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
rapporteur
group: PPE name: BROK Elmar
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
date
2012-03-21T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: NEYNSKY Nadezhda group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
BUDG
date
2012-03-21T00:00:00
committee_full
Budgets
rapporteur
group: PPE name: NEYNSKY Nadezhda
docs
  • date: 2012-05-29T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE487.809 title: PE487.809 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2012-06-04T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE486.134&secondRef=02 title: PE486.134 committee: BUDG type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2012-06-26T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE491.166 title: PE491.166 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2012-06-26T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE492.653 title: PE492.653 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
events
  • date: 2012-04-20T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2012-07-10T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2012-08-29T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-252&language=EN title: A7-0252/2012 summary: The Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Elmar BROK (EPP, DE) on the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliament on the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Assessment of the report: Members felt that the Council‘s Annual Report falls short of the ambitions of the Lisbon Treaty in important ways , which include: (i) not giving a clear sense of medium and longer term priorities or strategic guidelines for the CFSP ; (ii) not clarifying the policy mechanisms for ensuring coherence and consistency among the different components of foreign policy, including those under the responsibility of the Commission; (iii) not addressing important questions on the role of the EEAS and the Delegations in ensuring that the Union‘s resources (personnel, financial and diplomatic) are aligned with its foreign affairs priorities; (iv) avoiding a discussion, the holding of which is implied in the new strategies for the Horn of Africa and the Sahel, on how to embed ad hoc Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions and operations (their rationale and end-state) in the political-strategic framework of EU foreign policy priorities for a country or region. Members further consider that, with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, improvements could be made on informing the competent committee on the outcome of Foreign Affairs Councils as well as in consulting Parliament , especially before deciding to mandate the Commission to negotiate and sign agreements on behalf of the Union and when it comes to frameworks for the participation of third countries in EU crisis management operations . They call on the Council, when drawing up future Annual CFSP Reports, to discuss with the Committee on Foreign Affairs the broad policy framework for the coming year, and the longer-term strategic objectives. A new comprehensive approach to the EU’s foreign policy: Members point out that in the second decade of the twenty-first century there is a growing awareness amongst Europe‘s citizens that only comprehensive approaches that integrate diplomatic, economic, development and – in the last resort – military means are adequate for addressing global threats and challenges. With the Lisbon Treaty the EU has all the means necessary to adopt a comprehensive approach, whereby all the Union‘s diplomatic and financial resources are used to back common strategic policy guidelines in order to have the greatest possible leverage in promoting the security and economic prosperity of European citizens and their neighbours. A comprehensive understanding of CFSP covers all areas of foreign policy, including the progressive framing of a Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) that might lead to a common defence. Members stress the need, also, to update the European Security Strategy in accordance with the current international environment. The foreign policy architecture: Members underline the role of political leadership expected of the VP/HR in ensuring the unity, coordination, consistency, credibility and effectiveness of action by the Union. They call on her to use to the full and in a timely manner her powers to initiate, conduct and ensure compliance with the CFSP , involving Parliament‘s relevant bodies fully in that endeavour . They welcome the important lead role, on behalf of the international community, played under difficult circumstances by the VP/HR in the negotiations with Iran. They recognise the essential role of the EEAS and affirm their intention to continue monitoring the geographic and gender balance of staff in the EEAS, and to assess whether the appointment of Member State diplomats as Heads of Delegation and other key positions is in the interests of the Union, not solely of their Member States. The report calls for improved reporting and access to political reports from Delegations and EUSRs in order for Parliament to receive full and timely information on developments from the ground. They stress that the scrutiny of EU foreign policy , exercised by the European Parliament and national parliaments at their respective levels, is essential if European external action is to be understood and supported by EU citizens. Members regret that on many occasions the bilateral relations of some Member States with third countries still overshadow or undermine the consistency of EU action , and they call for more effort by Member States to align their external policies with the CFSP. Lastly, the VP/HR, is asked to explore the production of guidelines for the systematic consignment of specific tasks and missions to a coalition of the willing, such as a ‘core group’ of EU states, as well as to start the process that will lead to European Council conclusions on Permanent Structured Cooperation in the area of security and defence and on the implementation of the mutual defence clause. Budgetary and financial architecture: the committee believes that full transparency and democratic scrutiny require separate budget lines for each and every CSDP mission and operation, and for each and every EUSR, accompanied by streamlined but transparent procedures for the transfer of funds from one item to another if circumstances so require. The Athena mechanism for financing the common costs of EU-led military and defence operations does not provide a sufficient overview of all the financial implications of missions conducted under the CFSP, and Members call for a clear list of all expenditures. They welcome the introduction of a new Partnership Instrument, as requested by Parliament, which brings important added value to the EU’s CFSP by providing a financial framework for cooperation of the EU with third countries on objectives which arise from the Union‘s relationships but are outside of the scope of the Development Cooperation Instrument. Members feel that such an approach can be aided by the establishment of clear benchmarks, which should be monitored and evaluated by Parliament and they call for benchmarking of the EU’s foreign policy , drawing upon existing strategic programming documents or strategic policy frameworks (such as those in place for the Horn of Africa or the Sahel). The committee welcomes the joint policy response of the Commission and the EEAS to events in the Southern Neighbourhood, and contends that the EEAS and the Commission should explore the viability of the ENP’s multilateral track to serve as a framework for organising political relations in the wider Europe . Strategic priorities: concentric circles of peace, security and socio-economic development: Members believe that the strategic interests, objectives and general guidelines to be pursued through the CFSP must be founded upon delivering peace, security and prosperity for the citizens of Europe and beyond, first of all in our neighbourhood, but also further afield, guided by the principles which inspired the creation of the EU itself. These include democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, equality and solidarity, and respect for international law and the United Nations Charter, including the exercise of the responsibility to protect. They observe that there is no clear formula for determining the Union‘s choice of a strategic partner and that, when such choices are made, Parliament is neither informed nor consulted. Future decisions on strategic partners should carefully be framed in accordance with the foreign policy priorities of the Union, and due consideration should be given to ending partnerships that become obsolete or counter-productive . The report calls for Parliament to be regularly informed ahead of decisions on future partnerships, particularly where such partnerships receive financial support from the Union budget or entail a closer contractual relationship with the EU. Members state also that it is important to focus the Union‘s limited resources on strategic priorities, starting from the challenges closer to home , particularly in the enlargement countries, the neighbourhood, and extending outwards in concentric circles. Respecting the commitments made in the framework of enlargement, and demonstrating a responsibility for our neighbourhood, will strengthen the credibility of the Union‘s global reach. They go onto make a series of specific observations on: (i) the Western Balkans ; (ii) Turkey; (iii) the Southern Neighbourhood and the Middle East including Iran, Libya and Syria; (iv) the Eastern Neighbourhood including Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, South Caucuses, and the Black Sea Strategy; (v) Russia; (vi) Central Asia and Afghanistan; (vii) the Americas; (viii) Africa; (ix) Asia, including China; (x) multilateral partners including the UN and NATO. Lastly, the report makes specific observations on the CFSP’s thematic priorities including the Common Security and Defence Policy, the arms trade, conflict prevention and peace-building, and energy security.
  • date: 2012-09-11T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20120911&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2012-09-12T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=21912&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2012-09-12T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-334 title: T7-0334/2012 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 511 votes to 73 with 78 abstentions a resolution on the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliament on the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Assessment of the report: Members felt that the Council‘s Annual Report falls short of the ambitions of the Lisbon Treaty in important ways, which include: (i) not giving a clear sense of medium and longer term priorities or strategic guidelines for the CFSP ; (ii) not clarifying the policy mechanisms for ensuring coherence and consistency among the different components of foreign policy, including those under the responsibility of the Commission; (iii) not addressing important questions on the role of the EEAS and the Delegations in ensuring that the Union‘s resources (personnel, financial and diplomatic) are aligned with its foreign affairs priorities; (iv) avoiding a discussion, the holding of which is implied in the new strategies for the Horn of Africa and the Sahel, on how to embed ad hoc Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions and operations (their rationale and end-state) in the political-strategic framework of EU foreign policy priorities for a country or region. Members further consider that, with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, improvements could be made on informing the competent committee on the outcome of Foreign Affairs Councils as well as in consulting Parliament , especially before deciding to mandate the Commission to negotiate and sign agreements on behalf of the Union and when it comes to frameworks for the participation of third countries in EU crisis management operations . They call on the Council, when drawing up future Annual CFSP Reports, to discuss with the Committee on Foreign Affairs the broad policy framework for the coming year, and the longer-term strategic objectives. A new comprehensive approach to the EU’s foreign policy: Members point out that in the second decade of the twenty-first century there is a growing awareness amongst Europe‘s citizens that only comprehensive approaches that integrate diplomatic, economic, development and – in the last resort – military means are adequate for addressing global threats and challenges. With the Lisbon Treaty the EU has all the means necessary to adopt a comprehensive approach, whereby all the Union‘s diplomatic and financial resources are used to back common strategic policy guidelines in order to have the greatest possible leverage in promoting the security and economic prosperity of European citizens and their neighbours. A comprehensive understanding of CFSP covers all areas of foreign policy, including the progressive framing of a Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) that might lead to a common defence. Members stress the need, also, to update the European Security Strategy in accordance with the current international environment. The foreign policy architecture: Members underline the role of political leadership expected of the VP/HR in ensuring the unity, coordination, consistency, credibility and effectiveness of action by the Union. They call on her to use to the full and in a timely manner her powers to initiate, conduct and ensure compliance with the CFSP, involving Parliament‘s relevant bodies fully in that endeavour . They welcome the important lead role, on behalf of the international community, played under difficult circumstances by the VP/HR in the negotiations with Iran, taking into account the important historical relationship between European and Iranian peoples. Parliament calls for leadership in enhancing the Union's role in support of the European Neighbourhood, in light of the Arab Spring, particularly the democratic transition processes in the Southern Mediterranean, including through the new European Endowment for Democracy, as well as in the stalled Middle East peace process. Members recognise the essential role of the EEAS and affirm their intention to continue monitoring the geographic and gender balance of staff in the EEAS, and to assess whether the appointment of Member State diplomats as Heads of Delegation and other key positions is in the interests of the Union, not solely of their Member States. The report calls for improved reporting and access to political reports from Delegations and EUSRs in order for Parliament to receive full and timely information on developments from the ground. They stress that the scrutiny of EU foreign policy, exercised by the European Parliament and national parliaments at their respective levels, is essential if European external action is to be understood and supported by EU citizens. Members regret that on many occasions the bilateral relations of some Member States with third countries still overshadow or undermine the consistency of EU action , and they call for more effort by Member States to align their external policies with the CFSP. Lastly, the VP/HR, is asked to explore the production of guidelines for the systematic consignment of specific tasks and missions to a coalition of the willing, such as a ‘core group’ of EU states, as well as to start the process that will lead to European Council conclusions on Permanent Structured Cooperation in the area of security and defence and on the implementation of the mutual defence clause. Budgetary and financial architecture: Parliament believes that full transparency and democratic scrutiny require separate budget lines for each and every CSDP mission and operation, and for each and every EUSR, accompanied by streamlined but transparent procedures for the transfer of funds from one item to another if circumstances so require. The Athena mechanism for financing the common costs of EU-led military and defence operations does not provide a sufficient overview of all the financial implications of missions conducted under the CFSP, and Members call for a clear list of all expenditures. They welcome the introduction of a new Partnership Instrument, as requested by Parliament, which brings important added value to the EU‘s CFSP by providing a financial framework for cooperation of the EU with third countries on objectives which arise from the Union‘s relationships but are outside of the scope of the Development Cooperation Instrument. Members feel that such an approach can be aided by the establishment of clear benchmarks, which should be monitored and evaluated by Parliament and they call for benchmarking of the EU’s foreign policy , drawing upon existing strategic programming documents or strategic policy frameworks (such as those in place for the Horn of Africa or the Sahel). Parliament welcomes the joint policy response of the Commission and the EEAS to events in the Southern Neighbourhood, and contends that the EEAS and the Commission should explore the viability of the ENP‘s multilateral track to serve as a framework for organising political relations in the wider Europe . Strategic priorities: concentric circles of peace, security and socio-economic development: Members believe that the strategic interests, objectives and general guidelines to be pursued through the CFSP must be founded upon delivering peace, security and prosperity for the citizens of Europe and beyond, first of all in our neighbourhood, but also further afield, guided by the principles which inspired the creation of the EU itself. They observe that there is no clear formula for determining the Union‘s choice of a strategic partner and that, when such choices are made, Parliament is neither informed nor consulted. Future decisions on strategic partners should carefully be framed in accordance with the foreign policy priorities of the Union, and due consideration should be given to ending partnerships that become obsolete or counter-productive . The report calls for Parliament to be regularly informed ahead of decisions on future partnerships, particularly where such partnerships receive financial support from the Union budget or entail a closer contractual relationship with the EU. Members state also that it is important to focus the Union‘s limited resources on strategic priorities, starting from the challenges closer to home , particularly in the enlargement countries, the neighbourhood, and extending outwards in concentric circles. Respecting the commitments made in the framework of enlargement, and demonstrating a responsibility for our neighbourhood, will strengthen the credibility of the Union‘s global reach. They go onto make a series of specific observations on: (i) the Western Balkans; (ii) Turkey; (iii) the Southern Neighbourhood and the Middle East including Iran, Libya and Syria; (iv) the Eastern Neighbourhood including Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, South Caucuses, and the Black Sea Strategy; (v) Russia; (vi) Central Asia and Afghanistan; (vii) the Americas; (viii) Africa; (ix) Asia, including China; (x) multilateral partners including the UN and NATO. Lastly, the resolution makes specific observations on the CFSP’s thematic priorities including the Common Security and Defence Policy, the arms trade, conflict prevention and peace-building, and energy security.
  • date: 2012-09-12T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
    procedure/Modified legal basis
    Old
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
    New
    Rules of Procedure EP 150
    procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
    Old
    AFET/7/09131
    New
    • AFET/7/09131
    procedure/legal_basis/0
    Rules of Procedure EP 132-p1
    procedure/legal_basis/0
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 132-p1
    procedure/subject
    Old
    • 6.10 Common foreign and security policy (CFSP)
    New
    6.10
    Common foreign and security policy (CFSP)
    procedure/title
    Old
    Annual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the Common Foreign and Security Policy
    New
    Annual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the common foreign and security policy
    activities/0/committees
    • body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: PAŞCU Ioan Mircea group: ALDE name: DUFF Andrew group: Verts/ALE name: BRANTNER Franziska Katharina group: GUE/NGL name: MEYER Willy group: EFD name: SALAVRAKOS Nikolaos responsible: True committee: AFET date: 2012-01-23T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE name: BROK Elmar
    • body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2012-03-21T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: PPE name: NEYNSKY Nadezhda
    activities/0/date
    Old
    2012-06-07T00:00:00
    New
    2012-04-20T00:00:00
    activities/0/type
    Old
    Deadline Amendments
    New
    Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
    activities/1/committees
    • body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: PAŞCU Ioan Mircea group: ALDE name: DUFF Andrew group: Verts/ALE name: BRANTNER Franziska Katharina group: GUE/NGL name: MEYER Willy group: EFD name: SALAVRAKOS Nikolaos responsible: True committee: AFET date: 2012-01-23T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE name: BROK Elmar
    • body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2012-03-21T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: PPE name: NEYNSKY Nadezhda
    activities/1/date
    Old
    2012-09-12T00:00:00
    New
    2012-07-10T00:00:00
    activities/1/docs
    • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-334 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0334/2012
    activities/1/type
    Old
    Text adopted by Parliament, single reading
    New
    Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
    activities/2
    date
    2012-05-29T00:00:00
    docs
    url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE487.809 type: Committee draft report title: PE487.809
    body
    EP
    type
    Committee draft report
    activities/2/date
    Old
    2012-03-13T00:00:00
    New
    2012-08-29T00:00:00
    activities/2/docs
    • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-252&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0252/2012
    activities/2/type
    Old
    EP officialisation
    New
    Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
    activities/3/committees
    • body: EP responsible: True committee: AFET date: 2012-01-23T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: EPP name: BROK Elmar
    • body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2012-03-21T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: EPP name: NEYNSKY Nadezhda
    activities/3/date
    Old
    2012-04-20T00:00:00
    New
    2012-09-11T00:00:00
    activities/3/docs
    • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20120911&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament
    activities/3/type
    Old
    Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
    New
    Debate in Parliament
    activities/4
    body
    EP
    date
    2012-07-02T00:00:00
    type
    Prev Adopt in Cte
    activities/4/committees
    • body: EP responsible: True committee: AFET date: 2012-01-23T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: EPP name: BROK Elmar
    • body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2012-03-21T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: EPP name: NEYNSKY Nadezhda
    activities/4/date
    Old
    2012-07-10T00:00:00
    New
    2012-09-12T00:00:00
    activities/4/docs
    • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=21912&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament
    • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-334 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0334/2012
    activities/4/type
    Old
    Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
    New
    Results of vote in Parliament
    activities/6
    date
    2012-08-29T00:00:00
    docs
    url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-252&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0252/2012
    body
    EP
    type
    Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
    activities/7
    date
    2012-09-11T00:00:00
    body
    EP
    type
    Debate in Parliament
    committees/0/rapporteur/0/group
    Old
    EPP
    New
    PPE
    committees/0/rapporteur/0/mepref
    Old
    4de1830d0fb8127435bdbb84
    New
    4f1ac695b819f25efd00004d
    committees/0/shadows
    • group: S&D name: PAŞCU Ioan Mircea
    • group: ALDE name: DUFF Andrew
    • group: Verts/ALE name: BRANTNER Franziska Katharina
    • group: GUE/NGL name: MEYER Willy
    • group: EFD name: SALAVRAKOS Nikolaos
    committees/1/rapporteur/0/group
    Old
    EPP
    New
    PPE
    committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref
    Old
    4de187230fb8127435bdc15e
    New
    4f1ad9f2b819f207b3000045
    procedure/Modified legal basis
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
    procedure/legal_basis/0
    Old
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 119-p1
    New
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 132-p1
    activities/6
    date
    2012-08-29T00:00:00
    docs
    url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-252&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0252/2012
    body
    EP
    type
    Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
    activities/6/date
    Old
    2012-09-11T00:00:00
    New
    2012-08-29T00:00:00
    activities/6/docs
    • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-252&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0252/2012
    activities/6/type
    Old
    Debate scheduled
    New
    Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
    activities/7/body
    Old
    EC
    New
    EP
    activities/7/commission
      activities/7/type
      Old
      Prev DG PRES
      New
      Debate in Parliament
      activities/8/docs
      • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-334 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0334/2012
      activities/8/type
      Old
      Vote scheduled
      New
      Text adopted by Parliament, single reading
      procedure/stage_reached
      Old
      Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
      New
      Procedure completed
      activities/8/date
      Old
      2012-09-12T00:00:00
      New
      2012-09-11T00:00:00
      activities/6/docs/0/text
      • The Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Elmar BROK (EPP, DE) on the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliament on the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

        Assessment of the report: Members felt that the Council‘s Annual Report falls short of the ambitions of the Lisbon Treaty in important ways, which include: (i) not giving a clear sense of medium and longer term priorities or strategic guidelines for the CFSP; (ii) not clarifying the policy mechanisms for ensuring coherence and consistency among the different components of foreign policy, including those under the responsibility of the Commission; (iii) not addressing important questions on the role of the EEAS and the Delegations in ensuring that the Union‘s resources (personnel, financial and diplomatic) are aligned with its foreign affairs priorities; (iv) avoiding a discussion, the holding of which is implied in the new strategies for the Horn of Africa and the Sahel, on how to embed ad hoc Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions and operations (their rationale and end-state) in the political-strategic framework of EU foreign policy priorities for a country or region.

        Members further consider that, with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, improvements could be made on informing the competent committee on the outcome of Foreign Affairs Councils as well as in consulting Parliament, especially before deciding to mandate the Commission to negotiate and sign agreements on behalf of the Union and when it comes to frameworks for the participation of third countries in EU crisis management operations. They call on the Council, when drawing up future Annual CFSP Reports, to discuss with the Committee on Foreign Affairs the broad policy framework for the coming year, and the longer-term strategic objectives.

        A new comprehensive approach to the EU’s foreign policy: Members point out that in the second decade of the twenty-first century there is a growing awareness amongst Europe‘s citizens that only comprehensive approaches that integrate diplomatic, economic, development and – in the last resort – military means are adequate for addressing global threats and challenges.

        With the Lisbon Treaty the EU has all the means necessary to adopt a comprehensive approach, whereby all the Union‘s diplomatic and financial resources are used to back common strategic policy guidelines in order to have the greatest possible leverage in promoting the security and economic prosperity of European citizens and their neighbours. A comprehensive understanding of CFSP covers all areas of foreign policy, including the progressive framing of a Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) that might lead to a common defence. Members stress the need, also, to update the European Security Strategy in accordance with the current international environment.

        The foreign policy architecture: Members underline the role of political leadership expected of the VP/HR in ensuring the unity, coordination, consistency, credibility and effectiveness of action by the Union.

        They call on her to use to the full and in a timely manner her powers to initiate, conduct and ensure compliance with the CFSP, involving Parliament‘s relevant bodies fully in that endeavour. They welcome the important lead role, on behalf of the international community, played under difficult circumstances by the VP/HR in the negotiations with Iran. They recognise the essential role of the EEAS and affirm their intention to continue monitoring the geographic and gender balance of staff in the EEAS, and to assess whether the appointment of Member State diplomats as Heads of Delegation and other key positions is in the interests of the Union, not solely of their Member States. The report calls for improved reporting and access to political reports from Delegations and EUSRs in order for Parliament to receive full and timely information on developments from the ground.

        They stress that the scrutiny of EU foreign policy, exercised by the European Parliament and national parliaments at their respective levels, is essential if European external action is to be understood and supported by EU citizens.

        Members regret that on many occasions the bilateral relations of some Member States with third countries still overshadow or undermine the consistency of EU action, and they call for more effort by Member States to align their external policies with the CFSP.

        Lastly, the VP/HR, is asked to explore the production of guidelines for the systematic consignment of specific tasks and missions to a coalition of the willing, such as a ‘core group’ of EU states, as well as to start the process that will lead to European Council conclusions on Permanent Structured Cooperation in the area of security and defence and on the implementation of the mutual defence clause.

        Budgetary and financial architecture: the committee believes that full transparency and democratic scrutiny require separate budget lines for each and every CSDP mission and operation, and for each and every EUSR, accompanied by streamlined but transparent procedures for the transfer of funds from one item to another if circumstances so require. The Athena mechanism for financing the common costs of EU-led military and defence operations does not provide a sufficient overview of all the financial implications of missions conducted under the CFSP, and Members call for a clear list of all expenditures.

        They welcome the introduction of a new Partnership Instrument, as requested by Parliament, which brings important added value to the EU’s CFSP by providing a financial framework for cooperation of the EU with third countries on objectives which arise from the Union‘s relationships but are outside of the scope of the Development Cooperation Instrument. Members feel that such an approach can be aided by the establishment of clear benchmarks, which should be monitored and evaluated by Parliament and they call for benchmarking of the EU’s foreign policy, drawing upon existing strategic programming documents or strategic policy frameworks (such as those in place for the Horn of Africa or the Sahel).

        The committee welcomes the joint policy response of the Commission and the EEAS to events in the Southern Neighbourhood, and contends that the EEAS and the Commission should explore the viability of the ENP’s multilateral track to serve as a framework for organising political relations in the wider Europe.

        Strategic priorities: concentric circles of peace, security and socio-economic development: Members believe that the strategic interests, objectives and general guidelines to be pursued through the CFSP must be founded upon delivering peace, security and prosperity for the citizens of Europe and beyond, first of all in our neighbourhood, but also further afield, guided by the principles which inspired the creation of the EU itself. These include democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, equality and solidarity, and respect for international law and the United Nations Charter, including the exercise of the responsibility to protect.

        They observe that there is no clear formula for determining the Union‘s choice of a strategic partner and that, when such choices are made, Parliament is neither informed nor consulted. Future decisions on strategic partners should carefully be framed in accordance with the foreign policy priorities of the Union, and due consideration should be given to ending partnerships that become obsolete or counter-productive. The report calls for Parliament to be regularly informed ahead of decisions on future partnerships, particularly where such partnerships receive financial support from the Union budget or entail a closer contractual relationship with the EU.

        Members state also that it is important to focus the Union‘s limited resources on strategic priorities, starting from the challenges closer to home, particularly in the enlargement countries, the neighbourhood, and extending outwards in concentric circles. Respecting the commitments made in the framework of enlargement, and demonstrating a responsibility for our neighbourhood, will strengthen the credibility of the Union‘s global reach.

        They go onto make a series of specific observations on: (i) the Western Balkans ; (ii) Turkey; (iii) the Southern Neighbourhood and the Middle East  including Iran, Libya and Syria; (iv) the Eastern Neighbourhood including Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, South Caucuses, and the Black Sea Strategy; (v) Russia; (vi) Central Asia and Afghanistan; (vii) the Americas; (viii) Africa; (ix) Asia, including China; (x) multilateral partners including the UN and NATO.

        Lastly, the report makes specific observations on the CFSP’s thematic priorities including the Common Security and Defence Policy, the arms trade, conflict prevention and peace-building, and energy security.

      activities/7/date
      Old
      2012-09-12T00:00:00
      New
      2012-09-11T00:00:00
      activities/8/date
      Old
      2012-09-13T00:00:00
      New
      2012-09-12T00:00:00
      activities/6/docs/0/url
      http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-252&language=EN
      activities/6
      date
      2012-08-29T00:00:00
      docs
      type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0252/2012
      body
      EP
      type
      Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
      activities/2
      date
      2012-05-29T00:00:00
      docs
      url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE487.809 type: Committee draft report title: PE487.809
      body
      EP
      type
      Committee draft report
      activities/2/date
      Old
      2012-07-23T00:00:00
      New
      2012-05-29T00:00:00
      activities/2/docs/0/title
      Old
      A7-0252/2012
      New
      PE487.809
      activities/2/docs/0/type
      Old
      Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
      New
      Committee draft report
      activities/2/docs/0/url
      http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE487.809
      activities/2/type
      Old
      Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
      New
      Committee draft report
      activities/6
      date
      2012-07-23T00:00:00
      docs
      type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0252/2012
      body
      EP
      type
      Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
      activities/5
      date
      2012-07-10T00:00:00
      body
      EP
      type
      Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
      committees
      activities/5/type
      Old
      Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
      New
      Debate scheduled
      activities/6
      body
      EC
      date
      2012-09-12T00:00:00
      type
      Prev DG PRES
      commission
      activities/7
      date
      2012-09-13T00:00:00
      body
      EP
      type
      Vote scheduled
      procedure/legal_basis
      • Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 119-p1
      activities/2/date
      Old
      2012-05-14T00:00:00
      New
      2012-05-29T00:00:00
      activities/3/date
      Old
      2012-06-06T00:00:00
      New
      2012-06-07T00:00:00
      activities/5/date
      Old
      2012-09-10T00:00:00
      New
      2012-09-12T00:00:00
      activities/2/docs/0/url
      http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE487.809
      activities/3/date
      Old
      2012-05-31T00:00:00
      New
      2012-06-06T00:00:00
      activities/2
      date
      2012-05-14T00:00:00
      docs
      type: Committee draft report title: PE487.809
      body
      EP
      type
      Committee draft report
      procedure/legal_basis
      • Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 119-p1
      activities
      • body: EP date: 2012-03-13T00:00:00 type: EP officialisation
      • date: 2012-04-20T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: AFET date: 2012-01-23T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: EPP name: BROK Elmar body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2012-03-21T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: EPP name: NEYNSKY Nadezhda
      • body: EP date: 2012-05-31T00:00:00 type: Deadline Amendments
      • body: EP date: 2012-07-02T00:00:00 type: Prev Adopt in Cte
      • date: 2012-09-10T00:00:00 body: EP type: Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
      committees
      • body: EP responsible: True committee: AFET date: 2012-01-23T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs rapporteur: group: EPP name: BROK Elmar
      • body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2012-03-21T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: EPP name: NEYNSKY Nadezhda
      links
      other
        procedure
        dossier_of_the_committee
        AFET/7/09131
        reference
        2012/2050(INI)
        title
        Annual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the Common Foreign and Security Policy
        legal_basis
        Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 119-p1
        stage_reached
        Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
        type
        INI - Own-initiative procedure
        subject
        6.10 Common foreign and security policy (CFSP)