35 Amendments of Luke Ming FLANAGAN related to 2019/2135(INI)
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 25 a (new)
Citation 25 a (new)
- having regard to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter,
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes the lasting deterioration in the Union’s strategic environment in the face of multiple challenges directly or indirectly affecting the security of its Member States and citizens: armed conflicts immediately to the east and south of the European continent, jihadist terrorism, cyber attacks, uncontrolled migration, increasing threats to natural resourcescyber attacks, terrorism, climate change, etc.;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that instability and unpredictability on the Union’s borders and in its immediate neighbourhood (north Africa, the Middle East, Ukraine, the Caucasus, the Balkans, etc.) pose a direct threat to the security of the continent; stresses the inextricable link between internal and external security; stresses the role played by a number of EU states in undermining the external security situation through EU foreign and trade policy;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that global actors (the US, China, Russia) and an increasing number of regional actors (Turkey, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) are seeking to assert power through a combination of unilateral diplomatic posturing and increasing military military build-ups;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Deplores the fact that, in this context, these actors are deliberately circumventing or attempting to destroy the multilateral mechanisms essential to maintaining peace; also deplores the fact that EU countries are facilitating the increasing military build up through continued arms sales to some of the most agressive actors in the region;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that the Union has been slow to react and adaptcontributing – politically, diplomatically and militarily – to new crises and to this new international context; considers that, in the specific area of defence, insufficient investment, differences in capabilities and a lack of interoperability, but also, and above all, a political reluctance to implement the robust provisions provided for in the European treaties and the numerous cooperation arrangements between Member States have weakened the Union’s ability to play a decisive role in external crises; recognises, further, that no country is able by itself to address the security challenges on the European continent and in its immediate environment;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that the principle of European strategic autonomy is based on the ability of the Union to strengthen its freedom to assess, take decisions and take action where circumstances so require in order to defend its interests and valuesthe financial interests of some of its member states abroad;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers, therefore, that European strategic autonomy is based, above all, on the ability of the Union to assess a crisis situation and take a decision autonomously, which necessarily entails an independent decision-making process, the availability of means of assessment and a freedom to analyse and take action; considers, also, that European strategic autonomy is based on the ability of the Union to act alone when its interests are at stake (theatres of operations not considered as priorities by its European partners) or within the framework of existing cooperation arrangements; considers, lastly, that European strategic autonomy is part of a multilateral framework which respects commitments within the UN and complements the (NATO) alliances and partnerships to which most, but not all Member States are signed up; stresses that strategic autonomy does not mean that the Union will systematically act alone, everywhere and always;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that the affirmaRejects the notion of European strategic autonomy being dependsent on the establishment of European defence cooperation in the technological, capability, industrial and operational fields; considers that only practical and, flexible, strictly peaceful and civil cooperation based on pragmatic initiatives will make it possible to gradually overcome the difficulties, forge a genuine common strategic culture and shape common responses tailored to the continent’s main security and defence issues;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that strategic autonomy can only be genuinely achieved if Member States demonstrate solidarity, which is reflected in particular in the need to prioritise the procurement of European capabilities where equipment is available and competitive;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Considers that the principle of European strategic autonomy is a legitimate and necessary ambition and that it must remain a priority objective of European defence policy; stresses that its practical and operational implementation is a common responsibility of European statesformulated as an ambition to increase military spending and futher the militarisation of the EU is an ethically illegitimate concern;
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that Europe’s defence is based largely on the Union’s capacity to intervene militarily, in a credible manner, in external theatres of operationsecurity is best defended by focusing on poverty eradication, unconditional humanitarian aid, sustainable and fair economic development, stopping global tax regimes from facilitating corruption, peaceful and diplomatic conflict resolution, disarmament, demobilisation of troops and reintegration programmes;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that the Union currently has a presence on three continents through the deployment of 16 civilian or military missions (10 civilian and six military, of which three are executive and three are non-executive missions); recognises the contribution made by these missions to peace and international security and stability; stresses that their implementation must be accompanied by an overhaul of the instruments laid down in the Lisbon Treaty and introduced in recent years, in order to make them more effectiveat none of these missions have contributed substantially to peace, international security, and stability;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls on the Member States and European bodies to prioritise and maintain a high level of commitment in Africa; welcomes, thereforeregrets, the Council’s decision of July 2018 to extend the mandate of the EUTM RCA military training mission for two years and its intention to launch a civilian mission to complement the military component; notes that these recent developments are a positive sign of re-engagement on the part of the Member States;
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Questions whether missions sach as EUTM MAli are helping the region or aggravating the situation; notes that there have been multiple attacks on EUTM Mali soldiers, UN MINUSMA soldiers, MAlian soldiers, and Operation Barkhane since 2013;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Is concerned at the deteriorating situation in Burkina Faso; wonders whether it would be appropriate to deploy a civilian and/or military mission in order to strengthen security sector governance, human rights and the restoration of people’s trust in their security forces;
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. DeplorNotes the lengthy decision- making and implementation processes; points out that very few recent military operations have been given an executive mandate because of the different speeds at which commitment decisions are made, and calls, in this connection, for changes to CSDP structures and procedures so that missions can be deployed in a more rapid, flexible and coherent manner; notes the use of a new crisis management tool – the launching of mini-missions under Article 28 TEU – with a view to responding to crises more quickly and flexibly;
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Recalls the importance of organising joint training and exercises between European armed forces, thereby promoting interoperability, with a view to maximising mission preparedness and addressing a broad range of threats, both conventional and non-conventional; stresses that these joint training and exercises should never be conducted in the service of the development of the much mooted 'EU Army';
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Considers that the issue ofe financing for military CSDP missions and operations is crucial to the sustainability of the policy; highlights the importance of reviewing the Athena mechanism so that it covers the full costs of CSDP military operations and missions; supporexcuded from possibility in line with Article 41(2) TEU which outlines that expenditure arising from operations having military or defence implications shall not be funded by the UNion budget; regrets, in this connection, the proposal by the VP/HR, backed by the Commission, to create a European Peace Facility, which would finance part of the costs of EU defence activities, including the joint costs of CSDP military operations and those relating to military capacity-building for partners; hopes that the Member States will reach an agreement quickly so that this instrument can be introduced; stresses the importance of making the Union’s financial rules more flexible in order to enhance its ability to respond to crises and facilitate the implementation of Lisbon Treaty provisions; calls on the Member States and the Commission to consider a flexible mechanism to help Member States wishing to participate in a CSDP mission to bear the cost of doing so, thereby facilitating their decision to launch or strengthen a mission; notes that this instrument would be wholly consistent with the Union’s strategic autonomy objectives in the operational fieldweaponry and military equipment; calls on the Member States and the Commission to consider a flexible mechanism to help Member States wishing to participate in a CSDP mission to bear the cost of doing so, thereby facilitating their decision to launch or strengthen a mission; emphasises that it is empirically proven that the most effective method of preserving and promoting peace and stability is to focus on poverty eradication, unconditional humanitarian aid, sustainable and fair economic development, stopping global tax regimes from facilitating corruption, peaceful and diplomatic conflict resolution, disarmament, demobilisation of troops and reintegration programmes;
Amendment 263 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. SuOpportses the creation of the Military Planning and Conduct Capability (MPCC) for executive missions to enable all CSDP military operations to be carried out; calls for enhanced cooperation between the MPCC and the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability; draws attention to the problems of recruitment and resource provision, which need to be overcome in order for the MPCC to be fully effective; calls on the EEAS to transform the MPCC from a virtual entity, with multiple-assignment posts, into a robust civilian-military entity which can plan and conduct operationsrejectsany any military-civilian operations and any subordiantion of areas of civilian competence to the military;
Amendment 271 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Notes the failure of the Union’s battlegroup project; the battlegroups have never been deployed since their creation in 2007, owing in particular to opposition on the part of all the Member States and the complexity of their implementation and funding, which is at odds with the original objective of speed and efficiency; stresses that the battlegroups be dismantled immediate effect;
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Notes that the mutual assistance clause (Article 42(7) TEU), which has been invoked once, demonstrates the solidarity among Member States in the common fight against terrorism; notes, however, that the conditions for triggering the article and the arrangements for providing the assistance required have never been clearly defined; calls for a more operinsists that any measures taken against terrorist activities should be treated within the rule of law, and purely by means of police investigation and enforcement as well as multifaceted preventive measures; opposes therefore the activational and implementation of this instrumentArticle 42(7) of the TEU;
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Expects the Union to make effective use of all existing CSDP policy instruments in the areas of diplomacy, cooperation, development, civil and peaceful conflict management and peacekeepingrevention; stresses that CSDP military and civilian instruments cannot, under any circumstances, be the only solution to security issues and; strongly regrets therefore that athe ‘comprehensive approach’ should always be adopted; considers that only the use of all these instruments on the basis of a ‘comprehensive approach’ will provide the flexibility needed to effectively achieve the most ambitious security objectivin its current formualtaion and implementation is de facto the subordination of all relevant policy areas and options under CSDP which at present principally represents the geostrategic and economic interests of certain EU entities and member states;
Amendment 312 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. WelcomeRegrets the significant reversal of the trend of cuttincreases ing defence budgets; is of the opinion that this should be not be supported andor encouraged at Union level; adds that military personnel should be guaranteed a living wage;
Amendment 317 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. WelcomeRegrets the recent efforts by the European institutions and the Member States, following on from the publication of the ‘EU Global Strategy’, to breathe new life into the hitherto virtual instruments of the CSDP and to fully implement the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty; stresses that these promising ambitions must nowt be consolidated and followed up with practical action so that they make an effective contribution to security on the European continent;
Amendment 325 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Notes with satisfactionDeeply regrets the Commission’s proposal of 2 May 2018 to establish a EUR 13 billion budget line for defence in the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) under the heading of industrial policy; notes that this proposal, which reflects an unprecedented commitment by the Commission, remains subject to the unanimous agreement of the Member States in the next MFF;
Amendment 329 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. WelcomeRejects the Commission’s proposal of June 2017 to create a European Defence Fund (EDF), which would foster cooperation between Member States and support the European defence industry; notes that this proposal is the first initiative for which Community funds are to be used in direct support of defence projects; recognises that this is a major step forward for European defence, from both a political and an industrial perspective; notes that the EDF could finance structural projects such as the future European aircraft or tank or a European anti-missile defence capability; notes that the 2019 work programme for the preparatory action will focus on electromagnetic spectrum dominance and future disruptive defence technologies, two key areas for maintaining Europe’s technological independence in the long term; welcome; rejects, also, the adoption by the Commission in March 2019 of the first European Defence Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP) and the publication of nine calls for proposals for 2019, including for the Eurodrone, which is a key capability for Europe’s strategic autonomy; points out that 12 further calls for proposals will follow in 2020, covering priority areas in all domains (air, land, sea, cyber and space); notes the link between the procurement decisions taken today by the Member States and the prospects for industrial and technological cooperation under the EDF; recalls that the setting-up of the new heading V on Security and Defence, the EU defence research programme, European Defence Fund and Military Mobility clearly violate the provisions laid down in Article 41(2)TEU which states that any expenditure arising from actions having military or defence implications must not be charged to the Union budget; denounces and deeply deplores the unprecedented speed with which the EU is being militarised; emphasises that it is empirically proven that the most effective method of preserving and promoting peace and stability is to focus on poverty eradication, unconditional humanitarian aid, sustainable and fair economic development, stopping global tax regimes from facilitating corruption, peaceful and diplomatic conflict resolution, disarmament, demobilisation of troops and reintegration programmes;
Amendment 343 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Welcomes the effectivStrongly rejects the implementation of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) as an important step towards closer cooperation in security and defence among Member Statesthe founding of the EU defence Union; stresses that this provision, introduced in the 2009 Lisbon Treaty (Article 46 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), is legally binding and includes a set of ambitious commitments to enable European countries wishing to do so to move ahead faster on common defence projects; recognises the rolewhich will further militarise the EU; warns in this regard that with PESCO can play in structuring European demand; notes that a significant number of EDIDP-eligible projects are being developed within the PESCO framework and may also benefit from higher rates of subsidy; supports full consistency between PESCO projects and the EDFthe existing unanimity rule in the Council concerning CSDP decisions will be annulled;
Amendment 355 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. NoteRejects the Commission’s proposal to allocate EUR 6.5 billion to military mobility projects in the next MFF; Recalls Article 41(2) of the TEU prohibiting the use of the EU Budget for military or defence operations;
Amendment 360 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Questions the slow start-up of the 34 projects and the delays to the launch of a third wave of 13 projects, given that none are as yet up and running; notes that only four projects will reach their initial operational capacity in 2019; highlights the lack of ambition and scale of some projects, which do not address the most obvious capability gaps, particularly those in the first wave, which are primarily capability projects involving as many Member States as possible; notes that the desired inclusion of participation in PESCO projects should not jeopardise a high level of ambition on the part of the participating Member States; considers that third countries’ involvement should be subject to stringent conditions and based on established and effective reciprocity; calls on the Member States to submit projects with a strategic European dimension, thereby strengthening the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB), which is an essential part of the strategic autonomisation process and relates more to the operational side in order to respond directly to the operational needs of European armed forces;
Amendment 383 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Stresses the strategic dimension for Europe of the space sector, and emphasises the need to make progress in developing technologies with both civilian and military uses which are capable of ensuring European strategic autonomy; welcomat Europe should not contribute to the militarisation of Space; notes the inclusion in the next MFF of the Commission’s EUR 16 billion space programme proposal to boost EU space leadership; welcomes the progress made on EU satellite services (Galileo, Copernicus, EGNOS); emphasises that, if it is to enjoy decision-making and operational autonomy, the Union must have adequate satellite resources in the fields of space imagery, intelligence-gathering, communications and space surveillance; considers that space-based services should be fully operationalised in order to provide high-resolution satellite imaging in support of CSDP missions and operations; stresses the need to finance, through the EDF, industrial projects with a space dimension where the Union can generate real added value;
Amendment 408 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Welcomes efforts to strengthen the Union’s capacity to address ‘hybrid’ threats, which are combinations of ambiguous posturing, direct and indirect pressure and the involvement of military and non-military capabilities, and are just some of the range of internal and external security challenges facing the Union; notes the reflections on the triggering of the mutual assistance clause with regard to hybrid threats in order to provide the Union with an effective common response;
Amendment 446 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
Paragraph 57
57. Draws attention to NATO’s fundamental role in collective defence, as explicitly recognised in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; believes that the EU-NATO partnership is essential for addressing the security challenges facing Europe and its neighbourhood; believes that EU-NATO cooperation should be complementary and takes full account of each of the two institution’s specific features and roles; affirms that not all EU Member States are members of NATO;
Amendment 460 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60
Paragraph 60
60. Supports, in parallel with institutional cooperation and partnerships, the combining of different forms of flexible, multifaceted, open and, at the same time, operational, ambitious and demanding cooperation, both within and outside EU, NATO and UN structures, which could facilitate joint commitments in operations, thereby strengthening the Union’s operational strategic autonomy; stresses, in this connection, that examples of cooperation such as the European Intervention Initiative, the Nordic Defence Cooperation (NORDEFCO) and the increasing integration of the German and Dutch armed forces refelct this drive for closer military cooperation between Member States;