Activities of Jean-Luc SCHAFFHAUSER related to 2018/2099(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Annual report on the implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy - Annual report on the implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy (debate) FR
Amendments (39)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1
Citation 1
— having regard to the Treaty of Lisbon, which entirely removes the EU's independence in security and defence policy and makes it subject to NATO policies (Article 42 of the EU Treaty (consolidated version) and Protocol 11),
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the rules-based world order is being increasingly challenged both at the political-military level and, more recently, athas often been violated by EU Member States, in particular through the so-called Kosovo War against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999, which was an illegal and criminal war of aggression according to the jurisprudence of the Nuremberg Tribunal, as well as according to the definition of aggression adopted by the UN General Assembly in its Resolution 3314 of 14 December 1974, the terms of which were recently incorporated into the cRommercial- economic one; notes that these systemic challenges are being accompanied by the continuous deterioration of the international environment confronted with interstate conflicts, natural disasters, terrorism, state failure and hybrid attacks on the foundational pillars of our societiese Statute of the International Criminal Court in its new Article 8(a), which several European states have not ratified; points out that European states also acted illegally when they attacked Libya in 2011 with the aim of bringing about regime change, in spite of the fact that Security Council Resolution 1973 only gave a mandate to protect civilians; notes that the EU Member States endorsed the illegal and violent coup d'état in Ukraine on 22 February 2014, thus violating the UN General Assembly Resolution of 9 December 1981 on the inadmissibility of intervention and interference in the internal affairs of states, and that these acts, among others, had an extremely deleterious effect on the international climate, increasing tensions in an unnecessary and counter-productive manner, in particular with Russia;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that these challenges are too vast to be successfully met by any single country; emphasises that it is vital for the EU to respond to these challenges, consistently, effectively and with one voice; notes that the CSDP is a useful tool for addressing many of these challengesonly nation states acting alone or in consultation with their allies, without being subject to any obligation to demonstrate a priori European solidarity, are able to avoid the warmongering and self-serving irresponsibility of certain members of the Union and thus avoid being caught up in a spiral of war;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recognises that the complex nature of these challenges, with different threats affecting different Member States to varying degrees, provides room for agreement on how to deal with the challenges collectively, in a spirit of solidarity;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that this need for cooperation on an ad-hoc and case-by-case basis has been increasingly recognised in recent years and welcomes the advances that have been made in this direction;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines the importance of the transatlantic bond for the security and defence of the Western democracies; expresses, however, concern about the current state ofdanger of permanent military alliances, which lead, inter alia, to the problem of the 'stowaway', with thise relationship sult that Europeand calls on all responsible political and societal forces to further strengthen rather than to undermine this crucial relationship; stresses the need to avoid spill overs from recent difficulties in the trade relationship to the transatlantic security bondountries' defence is subcontracted to NATO while the United States does not share the same interests as European countries and pursues its own agenda in Europe;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that appropriate and strong investment in security and defence is a matter of urgency for the Member States and the EU and, but that defence cooperation should become the norm, as outlin based ion the EU Global Strategy (EUGS); welcomes the progress achieved so far in the implementation of tha case-by- case assessment of each country's national interests and the resulting collective security, and defence provisions of the EU Global Strategy; believes that these achievements open the perspective for important structural changes in the futures any other path leads to a weakening of Europe's collective will;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. WelcomeDeeply regrets the creation of a dedicated title for defence in the Commission’s MFF proposal, and in particular the establishment of a budget line from which the European Defence Fund and Military Mobility projects will be funded if such funds are not granted directly to the states; is of the opinion that these decisions will, most probably, call for a the decentralizsed management onf defence at Commissnational level; underlpoinets out that funding from that budget lno defence fundineg should be exclusively spent for defence purposes without politicization as security is indivisible and should be coherent with the capability and infrastructure needs of Member States and in line with the EU’s aspirations for strategic autonomyallocated to the Commission, which has no competence in this field, and that the Commission, which is already unable to solve the problems for which it is responsible, is rushing forward in a way that is harmful to Europe;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes the increasing prominence of military mobility on the European defence agenda of European states; underlines that military mobility is a central strategic tool in the current threat environment, vital for both the CSDP and Member States other multilateral obligations, including NATO; welcomes therefore its inclusion not only in the proposal for the new Connecting Europe Facility but also its in PESCO and its prominent role in EU-NATO cooperation; emphasises that these different projects need to be properly coordinated to ensure that they yield the desired results; welcomes the Commission proposal to allocate 6.5 billion Euro to coordinated military mobility projects through the Connecting Europe Facility in the next Multiannual Financial Framework (2021-2027);
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes the increasing prominence of military mobility on the European defence agenda of European states; underlines that military mobility is a central strategic tool in the current threat environment, vital for both the CSDP and Member States other multilateral obligations, including NATO; welcomes therefore its inclusion not only in the proposal for the new Connecting Europe Facility but also its in PESCO and its prominent role in EU-NATO cooperation; emphasises that these different projects need to be properly coordinated to ensure that they yield the desired results; welcomes the Commission proposal to allocate 6.5 billion Euro to coordinated military mobility projects through the Connecting Europe Facility in the next Multiannual Financial Framework (2021-2027);
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes, however, that for all these different elements to fit together, it will be of essential importanceis by no means necessary to develop a well- defined overarching strategic approach to European defence that could best be defined through a EU Security and Defence White Book, as this could be evolve in accordance with the interests of European states, and that no comprehensive strategy is able to ensure the security of countries that have retained their sovereignty and do not wish to delegate it to the Union in any way;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls, therefore, forRejects the conceptualization and adoption of a EU Security and Defence White Book that will guarantee that future capability build, since the EU´s strategic interests can only be those of European states, which have an evolving approcesses will be based on EU´s strategic security interests in accordance with military and industrial necessitieach to their interests and cannot be linked to an irresponsible European strategy consisting of aggression and following foreign interests in contravention of international law; points out that this uniform European conception is being imposed on states which want to maintain their sovereignty, such as France, and that this sovereignty cannot be delegated to the Union without committing the crime of high treason within the framework of the current national institutions;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Also welcomecondemns the proposal by the HR/VP, with the support of the Commission, for a European Peace Facility, which will finance the parts of the costs of EU if it were to be enacted without direct support to states that cooperate together or decide to do so; recalls that this facility may finance the costs of European states' defence activities that are currently excluded from the budgetary funding by aunder Article 41(2) TEU; notes in particular the ambitious inclusion, and expansion, of the Athena mechanism for the financing of CSDP missions, which has been a long- st and that, under these circumstances, it would grant budget allocations to states that are operational and that provide security and defence to the community of European states so that they do not have to bear the financial burden alone; is also concerned about the ambitious inclusion, and expansion, of the Athena mechanism, should this be done in contradiction of this logic by integrating finandcing demand of the Parliamentand missions at EU level, which would doom them to failure;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Reaffirms the importance of developing the necessary military capabilities to deal with the comprehensive security challenges in and around Europe outlined by the EU Global Strategy; recalls that European Union´s Global Strategy encourages the realization of deep defence cooperation; recalls that such cooperation must be between the States and not under the supervision of the Commission or the EEAS;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that EU Member States jointly must cover the full-spectrum of land, air, space, maritime and cyber capabilities, including strategic enablers, to defend themselves and contribute to EU´s Common Security and Defence Policyit desirable to strengthen the Union's security and defence capabilities only if the Union is able to identify the same analyses and priorities for all states in the field of security and defence; notes that this situation is very far from being resolved and that it is therefore impossible to make better use of existing defence and military cooperation frameworks, such as the European multinational high readiness corps HQ and the EU Battlegroups; notes that if priorities are not shared, with some placing the Russian threat above the fight against terrorism or, more seriously, placing the Russian threat at the same level as the terrorist threat, it is impossible to make better use of the above-mentioned frameworks that would contribute to the further transformation of national armed forces and to the continuous improvement of their interoperability, viability and flexibility as well as their ability to be deployed; encourages the Council, therefore, to reject the idea of creating a permanent European 'spearhead' force, especially since the European corps is totally misguided in this context, with the exception of specific missions remaining within the initiative of the states; feels that the EU Battlegroups should under no circumstances evolve into fully-fledged brigades, and that these operations should be left within states' purview and outside the Union's competence;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that EU Member States jointly must cover the full-spectrum of land, air, space, maritime and cyber capabilities, including strategic enablers,wishing to retain the sovereignty enshrined in their constitutions must, under penalty of high treason and immediate dismissal for those in violation, cover the full-spectrum of land, air, space, maritime and cyber capabilities, so as not to depend on external, including European, choices imposed on them in this sovereign field, in order to defend themselves and contribute to EU´s Commouropean Ssecurity and Ddefence Ppolicy; through national efforts that are independent, free and effective;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. WelcomesSupports, as the second best solution, the establishment of the European Defence Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP), provided that it aimings at supporting the competitiveness and innovation capacity of the EUstates' defence industryies with EUR 500 million until 2020, while relying on the Member States' leading companies and not asking them to cooperate at European level if this approach would weaken their security or their national leadership, which already serves Europe;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Believes that EDIDP will help to foster the competitiveness, efficiency and innovation capacity of the EU's defence industry by eligible actions involving inter alia designing, prototyping, testing, qualification and certification of defence products as well as the development of technologies within a consortium including SMEs and middle capitalisation companies (mid-caps), research centres and universities, and collaboration between Member States, which contributes to the EU´s strategic autonomy; advocates, under these conditions, starting with national companies that are already leaders and allowing them full organisational freedom to strengthen and increase their leadership, without forcing them to cooperate with companies from different states, especially if this cooperation would facilitate espionage and the destruction of these leaders through this necessary step of interstate cooperation;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. WelcomeRejects the proposal for a regulation establishing a European Defence Fund aunder the substantial funding proposcurrent circumstances because the logic of this fund lies within the federal framework of the Union and is doomed to failure; proposes, on the contrary, enhanced cooperation between states on clear and shared objectives that can currently be financed by the European Commission for the next Multiannual Financial Framework; notes that the outcomes of the EDIDP discussions were not taken duly into consideration and expresses hope that the proposalbecause those with experience in this field are politically in the minority; regrets that, once more, the Europeanist ideology has prevailed over actual operational practice; expresses hope that a different European approach to cooperation between states can be agreed as soon as possible following the European elections;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that EU´s strategic security and defence objectives can only be achieved through the closest coordination ofby giving more national independence to the states as regards the needs and long-term capability building requirements of both the armed forces and defence industries of the Member States while promoting the cooperation of European states on shared objectives, provided that relevant agreements are reached; notes that both the Capability Development Plan (CDP) and the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD) can make important contributions to the achievement of this goal;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Emphasises again that the EDA should be the implementing agency for Union actionReiterates its calls for the EDA to remain a purely inter-state instrument, as it was originally conceived, that does not come under the authority of the Union, but of the states, so that it may become the implementing agency for state actions in an evolving manner and in accordance with the mutually agreed tasks under the European Cstates’ capabilities and Aarmaments policy, where foreseen by the Lisbon Treaties; rejects the Lisbon Treaty as an ideological coup d'état by the pro-Europeans against the Europe of states and democracy; stresses that the administrative and operational expenditure of the EDA should be funded fromby the Union budget; welcomes the minor adjustments of EDA's budget that have taken place but emphasises that EDA's increased responsibilities in the context of, among other things, PESCO and CARD require adequate fundingstates and that they must in no way be funded from the Union budget;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. WelcomesStresses the importance of the implementation of an inclusive Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) as an important stepbetween states as the only path towards a closer cooperation in security and defence among the Member States; acknowledges the character of PESCO as a legally binding long-term project, including a set of highly ambitious commitments as well as an array of cooperative projects, and that it is necessary to leave the states free to organise this cooperation without bringing it within a Community or Union framework; stresses the need for full alignment between PESCO activities and other CSDP activities by the states themselves;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Acknowledges the fact only a few of the initial PESCO projects can be considered as having a strategic European dimension and that most other projects merely reflect particular national preferences; calls on the Member States participating in PESCO to show more ambition and to fully take into account the extent of European added value when submitting proposals , which clearly shows that the forced integration at EU level is based on an irrelevant ideological approach; calls on the Member States participating in PESCO to continue to think in terms of national independence and the cooperation of free and independent nation states, because this is the precondition for European independence, the EU being currently subject to NATO policy and therefore further PESCO projectsoreign to Europe;
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Highlights the close connection of PESCO with the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD) and the European Defence Fund (EDF) and the need to rethink them in the context of the exclusive competence of states and their free and non-obligatory cooperation for enhancing Member States' defence capabilities;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Welcomes the Council decision on establishing governance rules for PESCO projects, clarifying many of the lingering open questions about the details of PESCO implementation; notes, however, that some questions about the financial aspects of the Council Decision still remain open, in particular as regards the correct implementation of Article 41(2) TEU and the possible additional financial needs of the EEAS and EDA to fulfil their functions as PESCO secretariat;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Strongly believes that the EU’s long-standing and largest CSDP mission, EUFOR BiH / Operation Althea, still plays an important role of deterrence as a visible sign of EU commitment to the country; considers it therefore essential to continue its executive mandate and sustain its current force strength (600 staff) as the safe and secure environment has still the potential to deteriorate with increased tensions and current ethno- nationalist centred politicsis totally useless and should be abandoned, as Bosnia and Herzegovina is responsible, as a sovereign state, for its internal affairs, including security and defence, and the Union has not contributed anything, but has instead destabilised this state, in contrast to a policy of European states, which would have been more responsible and independent;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Notes that the geopolitical situation at the Horn of Africa is increasingly marked by competition in the light of its importance for global trade and regional stability; thus welcomes the continuing presence of Operation Atalanta, EUCAP Somalia and EUTM Somalia as contributors to a stabilisation of the region; emphasises however, that CSDP can only be a part of any solution to the manifold challenges the region is facing and notes the continuing importance of a comprehensive approach; feels that this approach can only be taken by European states and can in no way be integrated at EU level, as this would run the risk of inefficiency and irresponsibility, with the Union at this point only having to finance, as a stopgap measure, states already involved in joint cooperation policies;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Also welcomes the activities of the EUuropean states' missions and operations in the Sahel region, EUCAP Sahel Mali and Niger as well as EUTM Mali and the contributions they are making to regional stability, the fight against terrorism and human trafficking, and the security of the local population; notes that integration at EU level or involvement of the Union beyond funding is detrimental to efficiency and accountability, and that the Union must fulfil its role of supporting states, without wishing to replace them, in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and efficiency, while bearing in mind that defence is exclusively a matter for states;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Notes, with concern, however, the results of the recent report by the European Court of Auditors on EUCAP Sahel Niger and Mali, which flagged up substantial problems with staff training, vacancies, sustainability and performance indicators, problems that are likely to also affect other civilians missions; urges the EEAS andnotes that all these difficulties are due to the fact that the Union wanted to act without leaving full responsibility with the states already involved; urges the EEAS to be a simple agency at the service of the Member States to address the issues raised as fast as possible to ensure the effectiveness of the civilian CSDP; welcomes the European Court of Auditors involvement in auditing CSDP missions and operations and encourages the production of further special reports on other missions and operations in order to show that only the cooperation of states implementing joint actions without a federalist and Community approach can be effective;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Welcomes the establishment and full operational capability of the Military Planning and Conduct Capacity (MPCC) for non-executive EU missions and operations and the removal of obstacles to the deployment of EU Battlegroupinterstate cooperation operations; calls for enhanced cooperation and coordination between the MPCC and the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capacity (CPCC) as part of an integrated, comprehensive approach to crises and conflictapproach based on coordination between states;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Underlines that EU-NATO cooperation should be complementary and respectful of each other’s specificities and roles; is convinced that a stronger EU and NATO reinforce each other, creating more synergies and effectiveness for the security and defence of all partners; stresses that the EU-NATO strategic partnership is equally fundamental for the EU’s evolving CSDP and for the future of the Alliance, as well as for EU-UK relations after Brexitdeplores Protocol 11 of the TEU, which subordinates the EU's foreign and defence policy to NATO's and declares that such an approach is unconstitutional in France;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Welcomes the new EU-NATO declaration adoptTakes note of the statement made by Chancellor Merkel on 28 May 2018 that Europe, in view of US foreign policy, must take its destiny into its own hands; is surprised that the NATO Summit in Brussels on 12 July 2018; while recognising the tangible results in the implementation of the 74 common actions, believes that further efforts are needed with regard to the is independence has only been discovered in response to Trump's America, which nevertheless favours a national patriotic approach; recalls that this taking of our destinies into our own hands is the responsibility of the states cooperating together, where applicable, on shared objectives and not on a comprehensive EU approach, the independence of the European states being a prerequisite for a coordinated approactical implementation of the many commitments already made; notes in particular the involvement of h; notes that with 28 members, this approach cannot be reduced to a few states that wish to retain their sovereignty because they have that culture, unlike other European Defence Agency (EDA) in the implementation of 30 actionstates that have always lived under foreign subjugation and consider submission as an attribute of freedom, and whose arrogance exists only in the shadow of the umbrella of security provided by others;
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Stresses that efforts on military mobility should contribute to the effective implementation of CSDP missions and operations and to the Alliance’s defence posture and therefore encourages both organisations to continue working together on military mobility in the closest possible manner; calls on the Commission to underpin these efforts with the necessary investments and, where appropriate, legislationin order to ensure defence outside the Alliance; encourages, nevertheless, both organisations to continue working together, but outside the Union, given that European defence is solely a matter for European states, and no external power can interfere in it;
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Highlights, in this context, PESCO’s complementarity to NATO, provided that NATO understands that its field of intervention is not in Europe, and the need to ensure that the multinational initiatives in capability development of both the EU and NATO are complementary and mutually reinforcingexcluded from European territory;
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Stresses that partnerships and cooperation with countries and organisations that share the EU’s values contribute to a more effective CSDP; welcomes the contributions made by CSDP partners to ongoing EU missions and operations that contribute to enhancing regional security and stabil Member States' national interests enhance Member States' security;
Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Considers it vital to further enhance cooperation with institutional prespect the Chartners, including the UN, NATO, the African Un of the United Nations, and the OSCE, as well as strategic bilateral partners, such as the US; recommends taking forward CSDP partnerships in the fields of strengthening partners’ resilience and Security Sector Reform (SSR)in particular its prohibition of wars of aggression and interference in the internal affairs of third countries;
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Underlines the importance of comprehensive parliamentary oversight of CDSP at national and European level as a constitutive element for any further progress in this policy area and in this context; encourages national parliamentary actors to cooperate more closely on security and defence matters, possibly looking for new or improved forms of cooperation, in order to ensure seamless parliamentary oversight at all levels;
Amendment 263 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Notes, while welcoming the overall progress made in CSDP since the presentation of the Global Strategy, that the national parliamentary structures at EU level which have been established at a time when the EU’s level of ambition and level of activity regarding security and defence matters was rather limited, are no longerealistic, are still adequate to provide the necessary parliamentary oversight of a rapidly evolving policy area; therefore, reiterates its previous call to upgrade the Subcommittee of Security and Defence to a full-fledged committee of the parliamentary leaders of national parliaments and to provide it with the competences necessary in order to contribute to a comprehensive parliamentary oversight of CSDP; the upgrade from subcommittee to committee should be the consequence of replacing the ad-hoc management of defence and security at Commission level with a more specialized model taking into account the increasing complexity of the effort to be manageddel of interstate cooperation that therefore involves the national parliaments;