Activities of Bodil VALERO 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) SV
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the Annual report on the implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy PDF (495 KB) DOC (71 KB)
Amendments (29)
Amendment 11 #
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, at the commercial-economic one; notes that these systemic challenges are being accompanied by the continuous deterioration of the international environment confronted with interstate conflicts, the effects of climate change, natural disasters, terrorism, state failure and hybrid attacks on the foundational pillars of our societies;
Amendment 17 #
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 challenges; stresses that the Union's first answer to current challenges should be preventive, civilian and diplomatic and only as last resort use the military component of CSDP;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises, however, that to this date cooperation is still in a developing stage and much more needs to be done to ensure that the EU and Member States reap the rewards of deep, sustained, long-term cooperation on defencecivilian and military CSDP;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines the importance of the transatlantic bond for the security and defence of the WesterEuropean democracies; expresses, however, concern about the current state of this relationship and 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 bond;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that appropriate investment in security and defence is a matter of urgency for the Member States and the EU and that defence cooperationcooperation on defence between Member States should become the norm, as outlined in the EU Global Strategy (EUGS); welcomes the progress achieved so far in thenotes implementation of some of the security and defence provisions of the EU Global Strategy; believes that these first achievements may open the perspective for important structural changes in the future;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Believes that the Union's preferred policy response to emerging risks, conflicts and threats should remain civilian; reminds that economic sanctions, if well-designed, targeted, and implemented in a uniform manner, are a powerful tool of coercive diplomacy, in particular as regards the trade in fossil fuels from states with aggressive foreign policies;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. WelcomNotes 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; is of the opinion that these decisions will, most probably, call for a centralized management on defence at Commission level; underlines that funding from that budget line 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 autonomy;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes the increasing prominence of military mobility on the European defence agenda; 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 military mobility projects through the Connecting Europe Facility in the next Multiannual Financial Framework (2021-2027)territorial defence policy and in particular NATO;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Recalls that, besides air and sea lift, legally and politically, military mobility on European territory is a national and a NATO task of national and collective territorial defence; underlines that as long as the European Council, in compliance with Article 42 (2) TEU, acting unanimously, did not decide to establish a common defence, there is no political and legal basis for the use of Union budget funded programmes, such as the Connecting Europe Facility, large parts of the European Defence Fund; reminds that Article 42 (2) TEU requires that after such a European Council decision, Member States need to ratify that decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements; underlines that neither such a European Council decision nor ratification in Member States have taken place yet;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls, therefore, for the conceptualization and adoption of a EU Security and Defence White Book that will guarantee that current and future capability building processes will be solely based on EU´s strategic security interests in accordance with military and industrial necessitiesecurity and defence tasks of Articles 42 (1) and 43 (1) of the Treaty of Lisbon;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Also welcomes the proposal by the HR/VP, with the support of the Commission, for a European Peace Facility, which will finance the parcosts of the costs of EU defence activities such as African Union peacekeeping missions, common costs of own military CSDP operations, and military capacity building of partners, that are excluded from budgetary funding by 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- standing demand of the Parliament; proposes to change the facility’s title as it might mislead the wider public and to call this new fund European Facility for Military Cooperation; encourages to further enlarge its scope and to also include in-depth cooperation on research, development, procurement, supply, and maintenance of military technology needed to fulfill Article 42(1) and 43(1) military tasks;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3
Subheading 3
Capabilities for the Union’s security and defencecivilian and military CSDP
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Reaffirms the importance of developing the necessary civilian and 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 both, the realization of deep defence cooperation and the strengthening of civilian capacities for CSDP;
Amendment 119 #
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 Policy;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that the capabilities for the Union`s security and defencemilitary CSDP could be improved by making better use of the existing frameworks of defence and military cooperation such as the European multinational high readiness corps HQs and the EU battlegroups; believes that this will contribute to the continuous transformation of national armed forces, towards the goal of being more interoperable, more sustainable, more flexible and more deployable; invites the Council to investigate, for example, the feasibility of potentially setting-up a permanent Spearhead Europe Forcecapacities, which could be drawing on the European multinational high readiness corps HQ in Strasbourg, Szczecin and Münster; considers that the EU battle groups should be transformed into permanent multinational units carrying out peacekeeping and other tasks of Article 43(1) TEU and grow into full- scale brigades and should be assigned to the corps HQ on a permanent basis;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. WelcomNotes the establishment of the European Defence Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP), aiming at supporting the competitiveness and innovation capacity of the EU defence industry with EUR 500 million until 2020;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. WelcomNotes the proposal for a regulation establishing a European Defence Fund and the substantial funding proposed by the European Commission for the next Multiannual Financial Framework; notes that the outcomes of the EDIDP discussions were taken duly into consideration and expresses hope that the proposal can be agreed as soon as possibleEP’s position on non-eligibility of inhumane weapons such as lethal autonomous weapons systems, and on the need for delegated acts for the EDF's seven years’ work programme will be sustained;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that EU´s strategic security and defence objectivesobjectives of Articles 21 TEU and relevant tasks of Articles 42(1) and 43(1) TEU can only be achieved through the closest coordination of the needs and long-term capability building requirements of both the armed forces and defence industries of the Member States; 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 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Emphasises again that the EDA should be the implementing agency for Union actions under the European Capabilities and Armaments policy, where foreseen by the Lisbon Treaty; stresses that the administrative and operational expenditure of the EDA should be funded from 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 fundingBelieves that the Commission should regulate the defence sectors, offering its services and long experience with significantly increasing efficiency and transparency of industrial processes and cooperation projects;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20 a. Deeply deplores the significant decrease of funds available for civilian conflict prevention and peacebuilding of around two thirds for the 2021-2027 MFF compared to the current financial perspective; urges the Council and the Commission to review this position and to triple investments in civilian conflict prevention for the upcoming MFF;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)
Paragraph 20 b (new)
20 b. Calls for an initiative to significantly strengthen civilian CSDP, be it via a Civilian CSDP Compact or other means; reminds that according to the treaty, civilian CSDP has the task to manage crisis, stabilise institutions in fragile post-conflict countries, and not to manage migration;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. WelcomNotes the implementation of an inclusive Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) as an important step towards a closer, but voluntary, 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; stresses the need for full alignment between PESCO activities and other CSDP activities, in particular with the objectives of Article 42(1) TEU and the military tasks of Article 43(1) TEU;
Amendment 191 #
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 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27 a. Is deeply concerned about UN/MINUSMA investigated and reported cases of dozens of very serious human rights abuses committed by Malian security forces which might amount to war crimes under humanitarian law; urges the HR/VP to make sure that the EU’s partners strictly comply with international humanitarian and human rights law, and legally binding EU regulations and that those cases are brought to justice without delay; calls on the EEAS to report to Parliament about these cases as a matter of urgency;
Amendment 210 #
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 Battlegroups(training missions) and underlines the need to soon give MPCC the mandate to plan and conduct all military CSDP operations in the future; 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 conflicts, but insists on the principles that civilian and military chains of command need to remain separate;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. WelcomNotes the new EU-NATO declaration adopted at 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 practical implementation of the many commitments already made; notes in particular the involvement of the European Defence Agency (EDA) in the implementation of 30 actions;
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Stresses that efforts on military mobilityair and sea lift 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, legislation;
Amendment 260 #
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 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 longer adequate to provide the necessary parliamentary oversight of a rapidly evolving policy area, in particular in the field of military capacity building of third countries; therefore, reiterates its previous call to upgraprovide the Subcommittee of Security and Defence to a full-fledged committee and to provide iParliament 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 managed;