78 Amendments of Javi LÓPEZ related to 2022/2145(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 a (new)
Citation 2 a (new)
— having regard to the Council conclusions of 19 November 2018 on the establishment of a Civilian CSDP Compact,
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5
Citation 5
— having regard to the action plan entitled ‘Strategic Compass for Security and Defence – For a European Union that protects its citizens, values and interests and contributes to international peace and security’, which was approvdopted by the Council on 21 March 2022 and endorsed by the European Council on 25 March 2022,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8
Citation 8
— having regard to the Response Force of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Response Force (NRF),
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European Union has extensive experience in deploying multinational missions abroad in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world; whereas these common security and defence policy (CSDP) missions regularly operate alongside and complement missions of the Member States, United Nations, international organisations and third countries; whereas the simultaneous presence of various actors as well as missions and operations in one conflict area underlines the importance of coordination and division of labour with a view to improving coherence and effectiveness of efforts;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European Union has extensive experience in deploying multinational missions abroad in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world; whereas these common security and defence policy (CSDP) missions regularly operate alongside and complement missions of the Member States, United Nations, NATO, international organisations and third countries;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European Union has extensive experience in deploying multinational mississions and operations abroad in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world; whereas these common security and defence policy (CSDP) missions regularly operate alongside and complement missions of the Member States, United Nations, international organisations and third countries;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European Union has extensive experience in deploying multinational missions abroad in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world; whereas these common security and defence policy (CSDP) missions regularly operate alongside and complement missions of the Member States, United Nations, and other international organisations and third countries;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas CSDP missions regularly depend on the effective performance of third-party missions, reliable cooperation, timely information sharing and sincere host nation support and ownership; whereas the lack of any of these can jeopardise the implementation of a CSDP mission’s mandate and could ultimately lead to the withdrawal of EU forces; whereas mandates should set clearly defined objectives for EU missions and operations, including a timetable for their attainment, as well as a comprehensive exit strategy;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the premature termination of CSDP missions leaves populations unprotected and makes weak host nation authorities vulnerable, thereby opening up opportunities for state and non-state actors, including terrorists and extremists, and including those sponsored by our global competitors; whereas consideration for controlled phasing out of missions and operations or for transfer to other EU instruments is therefore crucial for the achievement of sustainable and comprehensive results in host countries;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the European Union and its Member States should strive for autonomy when preparing, conducting and sustaining their CSDP missions; whereas the Union should be capable of rapidly deploying multidimensional and modular forces, swiftly reinforcing them where needed and sustaining them as long as required and without depending on third-party support;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas candidate and association countries have also contributed to CSDP missions;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas building capabilities and adapting them to military needs requires a common strategic culture and threat perception as well as solutions to be developed and combined in doctrine and concepts, the organisation and structure of forces, regular individual, collective and multinational training, defence materiel development, procurement and life-cycle management, military leadership development, staff recruitment and development, defence infrastructures, installations and facilities, interoperability and standardisation;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the Strategic Compass sets out EU-level action in many of these areas; whereas the European Defence Fund and the European Peace Facility are EU instruments which have already been deployed and that are designed to improve military capabilities and foster operational cooperation and burden- sharing abroad;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas the European Defence Fund is an EU instrument which has already been deployed and is designed to improve military capabilities including regarding the industrial base;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H b (new)
Recital H b (new)
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the Battlegroup Concept has helped develop multinational defence cooperation and interoperability, as well as transformation for rapid deployment and force modernisation, yet, despite these benefits, the non-use of this asset over a period of 15 years has been politically embarrassing given the EU’s aspirations in this area, and raises questions over the justifiability of its costs;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas problems related to decision making and political will have structurally hampered the deployment of the EU Battlegroups since their creation in 2007;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas in cases when EU battlegroups have not been used, individual EU Member States have often acted outside the EU framework instead, either on their own or with other EU or non-EU states, inevitably constraining, if not undermining, the EU’s stated aspiration for ‘integration’ across policy tools, institutions and actors in pursuit of common interests and values also in foreign policy, and also excluding both formal and informal democratic oversight and scrutiny through the European Parliament;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas in cases when EU bBattlegroups have not been usdeployed, individual EU Member States have oftenccasionally acted outside the EU framework instead, either on their own or with other EU or non-EU states;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. whereas there has been confusion about the list of tasks for the Battlegroups;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J b (new)
Recital J b (new)
Jb. whereas the Battlegroups’ format has appeared insufficient to operate successfully in hostile environments and has also been considered not sufficiently adaptable to meet the variable needs of a range of crisis situations, while also the pace of political decision making and potential deployment have been criticised, particularly when compared with alternative national options to address quickly evolving problems on the ground;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J c (new)
Recital J c (new)
Jc. whereas the ‘costs lie were they fall' principle for Battlegroup funding provides no incentive for troop contributing Member States to actually deploy them during their standby period; whereas this has been an underlying reason for vetoes in troop contribution by Member States; whereas the additional costs for the use of a Battlegroup are also not covered largely, if not wholly, by common funding, yet giving further reasons to Member States on why the Battlegroup should not be used during their rotation turn;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J d (new)
Recital J d (new)
Jd. whereas the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the European Council have formally recognised financing of the Battlegroups as ‘the most significant obstacle; whereas evidence and previous examples suggest that it appeared to be much easier to come to a decision if there are no additional costs for nations involved;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J e (new)
Recital J e (new)
Je. whereas whenever Member States were unwilling to authorise the use of their Battlegroups despite a clear need, opportunity and feasibility to do so, they were not publicly called out and were allowed to save face; whereas this meant that each time the use of Battlegroups was discussed but did not materialise, a negative precedent was created that undermined the spirit of solidarity and cooperation; whereas instead of creating a virtuous circle whereby the successful use of the Battlegroup in one case would create political incentives and mutual obligations for their future use, a vicious circle emerged that eroded political willingness to use such asset;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J f (new)
Recital J f (new)
Jf. whereas the early years of the Battlegroups’ existence were marked by declining momentum for EU CSDP, particularly due to defence cuts after the 2008 financial crisis;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J g (new)
Recital J g (new)
Jg. whereas actual convergence among Member States in terms of threat priorities faced by the European Union and the need to be able to rapidly respond to them remained relatively limited; whereas the Strategic Compass considerably advances in this area through the common threat analysis, significantly addressing this issue;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas a comprehensive approach is a prerequisite for achieving sustainable results in enhancing security and stability in conflict areas; whereas the EU’s integrated approach provides for the coherent use of different instruments at various stages of conflicts; whereas the integrated approach is also meant to prioritise prevention and promote the human security of local populations over narrow self-interests;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas the Strategic Compass sets out a clear roadmap for implementing EU- level actions, in particular for transforming the EU battlegroup system,by establishing a rRapid dDeployment cCapacity (RDC) building on substantially modified EU Battlegroups and paving the way towards entrusting the implementation of specific CSDP tasks to a group of Member States within the Union framework in accordance with Articles 42(5) and 44 of the TEU;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas Article 44 has never been used, and is ambiguous in terms of how it would work in practice in specific cases; whereas Article 44 provides for possibilities to react within an EU framework in a more rapid and flexible manner to various crises with the aim of safeguarding the Union’s values and interests;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas the practicalossible implementation of Article 44 of the TEU, as well as the establishment and operation of the EU RDC, should be considered among the main aspects of the CSDP on which the Vice- President of the European Commission / High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) needs to regularly consult Parliament;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O a (new)
Recital O a (new)
Oa. whereas potential participants in such coalitions of the willing apparently feared that the cost-benefit calculation is not favourable enough to justify the expected loss of control over the key parameters of an operation;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas financing of the battlegroups has contributed towards disincentivising their use; whereas the scope of common costs for the rapid deployment capacity should therefore be extended; whereas, in line with Article 41 of the TEU, the administrative and operating expenditure for the RDC should be charged to the Union budget except for expenditure that is covered by the European Peace Facility, notwithstanding the possibility for participating Member States to make free- of-charge contributions to the RDC;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas, in line with Article 41 of the TEU and previous practice building on the experience of the European security and defence college, the administrative and operating expenditure for the RDC should be charged to the Union budget except for expenditure that is covered by the European Peace Facility, notwithstanding the possibility for participating Member States to make free- of-charge contributions to the RDC;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the VP/HR’s proposal, enshrined in the Strategic Compass, to establish an RDC; stresses the importance of the EU having the necessary capabilities and structures to take action rapidly and decisively during crises in order to serve and protect the Union’s citizens, interests and values across the world; underlines, in this regard, the EU Threat Analysis as a starting point for shaping the RDC; calls for needs identified within the regularly updated Threat Analysis and developments in the operating environment to be taken into account in the RDC;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the VP/HR’s proposal, enshrined in the Strategic Compass, to establish anthe EU RDC; stresses the importance of the EU having the necessary capabilities and structures to take action rapidly and decisively during crises in order to serve and protect the Union’s citizens, interests and values across the world;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1 a (new)
Subheading 1 a (new)
Highlights that the RDC is a key element for the European Union's strategic autonomy and will represent a significant improvement of our capacities in security and defence; Highlights that the establishment of the RDC will create new security synergies and strengthen collective defence also in the relations with our partners;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – introductory part
Paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Strongly encourages the VP/HR to propose a Council Decision onthe establishing an EU RDC to protect the Union’s values and serve its interests along the following lines:
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
(aa) The conceptual planning for the RDC should be focused, but not limited to, on crisis management tasks laid in TEU Article 43, but precepts of Article 42 and Solidarity Clause 222 should not be excluded;
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point b
Paragraph 2 – point b
(b) The RDC’s tasks should include, but not be limited to, rescue and evacuation operations, initial entry and initial phase of stabilisation operations, temporary reinforcement of other missions, and acting as a reserve force to secure exit; the Council could assign further tasks as referred to under Article 44 of the TEU, and the duration and scope of the assignments should be consistent with resources allocated to the RDC; notes that flexibility should be introduced in task and scenario planning in order to be prepared to address all possible crisis situations;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point b
Paragraph 2 – point b
(b) The RDC’s tasks should reflect the needs identified in the EU Threat Analysis and should include, but not be limited to, rescue and evacuation operations, initial entry and initial phase of stabilisation operations, temporary reinforcement of other missions, and acting as a reserve force to secure exit; the Council could assign further tasks as referred to under Article 44 of the TEU, and the duration and scope of the assignments should be consistent with resources allocated to the RDC;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point c
Paragraph 2 – point c
(c) The RDC should number at least 5 000 troops, excluding strategic enablers such as air and sea lift personnel, intelligence assets, special operations forces and medical evacuation and care units; the target number for the RDC should be at least between 7 000 and 10 000 troops in total; notes that an exact number of minimum troops can only be given after conceptual planners have analysed the potential scenarios;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point d
Paragraph 2 – point d
(d) The RDC should frequently simulate scenarios and hold joint exercises following uniform training and certification standards such as those in NATO; further notes that the term ‘non- permissive environment’ can refer to a terrorist or a conventional threat, but could also include all kinds of hybrid threats, such as cyber-attacks, information warfare or even weapons of mass destruction; notes that the RDC is not limited to use in such environment but also in so-called permissive environments if decided to;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point d
Paragraph 2 – point d
(d) The RDC should frequently simulate scenarios and hold joint exercises following uniform training and certification standards such as those in NATO; notes that the scenarios should cover, among others, two guidelines in the Strategic Compass: a) operations in a ‘non-permissive environment’, and b) the suggested role division with NATO and the related most likely geographical areas for the RDC to focus on;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point d
Paragraph 2 – point d
(d) The RDC should frequently simulate scenarios and hold regular joint live exercises in an EU framework and coordinated by the Military Planning and Conduct Capability to increase readiness and interoperability, following uniform training and certification standards such as those in NATO;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point d
Paragraph 2 – point d
(d) The RDC should frequently simulate scenarios and hold joint exercises at the strategic, joint forces and tactical level, to be scheduled by the HR/VP, following uniform training and certification standards such as those in NATO;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
Paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
(da) The Commander of the RDC should the Director General of the EU Military Staff (EUMS) or a commanding officer with the same rank and it should be organised according to the common scheme of European multinational joint staffs;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point g
Paragraph 2 – point g
(g) Similarly, its operating expenditure should be funded from the Union budget with the exception of expenditure that is charged to the European Peace Facility; notes that EPF budget rules permit it, ‘if the Council so decides’; encourages the Council to decide positively in such cases;
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point g a (new)
Paragraph 2 – point g a (new)
(ga) Since the RDC will be constituted of up to 10000 troops that will train and ultimately go into action together, the soldiers should be able to enjoy the same working and social rights;
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Member States to transform the EU battlegroup system to match the needs of the RDC; calls for an extended scope of common costs for the RDC; considers that the EU battlegroups should be funded from the Union budget during their stand-up, stand-by and stand- down phases;
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes that the increase in ambition of the RDC compared to Battlegroups is primarily in quality because it solves the shortfall of the Battlegroups, which lacked high readiness air and sea components and strategic enablers; considers that the RDC has great potential to substantially improve on the Battlegroups, strengthen the EU’s strategic autonomy, and positively contribute to the EU’s integrated approach to security and peace;
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Considers that the EU Battlegroup Concept suffers from structural design flaws as Battlegroup contributor nations on standby are supposed to act in relation to needs on the ground, and to protect the Union’s values and serve its interests as laid down in the EU’s Treaties, EU strategic documents and concrete policies, while in practice, Battlegroup contributor states still undertook national cost-benefit calculations each time a request for deployment was made, and did not hesitate to cast their veto even if they preferred to provide alternative justifications; calls on the Member States to transform the EU Battlegroup System to match the needs of the Capacity; considers that the EU Battlegroups should be funded from the Union budget during their stand-up, stand-by and stand-down phases;
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Acknowledges that it is only natural that Member States have their own strategic cultures that may differ in important aspects, like perception of the most salient threats, willingness to use lethal force and accept risks, authorisation requirements and scrutiny by parliaments and public opinion, and attitudes towards key partners, but yet there needs to be further steps towards greater convergence over this issues given the common challenges the EU and its Member States face;
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Calls for, insofar the EU RDC relies on rotating units and reformed Battlegroups, the rotation period of six months for Member States be extended to remove incentives on Member States to delay decision making when it is ‘their turn’, keeping in mind that smaller countries may not be able to maintain those long periods and should be allowed to rotate faster;
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 e (new)
Paragraph 3 e (new)
3e. Points out that more than 50% of the seven years budget of the EPF has already been spent towards assisting Ukraine counter the Russian invasion, with five more years to go, which can significantly frustrate the development and use of the RDC; notes therefore that decisions need to be taken on how to increase the budget in order to come back to the agreed levels for the remaining years while maintaining the necessary assistance to Ukraine;
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 f (new)
Paragraph 3 f (new)
3f. Calls on the Member States and EEAS to urgently address structural gaps in strategic enablers through utilising the EU Military Committee’s, European Defence Agency’s and EDF’s expertise and capacities in combination with coordinated efforts through the Permanent Structured Cooperation framework; stresses that these strategic enablers need to be tailor-made for the RDC’s needs and will be prioritised for its use; calls on the Commission and the HR/VP to also identify the financial needs to address those gaps;
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 g (new)
Paragraph 3 g (new)
3g. Highlights that the VP/HR should have a major role in synchronising actions with NATO such that the EU ambition is not frustrated by NATO and vice versa;
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Considers that the bulk of the RDC modules should need to stay at a standard readiness level, except those for high urgency tasks; notes that, depending on the security situation, the MPCC could decide to increase the readiness of modules which might be necessary for a specific mission;
Amendment 274 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Notes that the EU RDC should also serve as a driver for capability development, in particular with regard to solving European shortfalls in the area of strategic enablers;
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Points out that the EU should interact and coordinate with NATO in order to create synergies between the readiness categories of the EU RDC and the NATO Response Force;
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 d (new)
Paragraph 4 d (new)
4d. Notes that given that the EU RDC deployment depends on the short notice availability of Communication and Information Structures (CIS), development of integrated CIS structures at the European level is advisable, including drawing on the EU's secure connectivity programme;
Amendment 277 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 e (new)
Paragraph 4 e (new)
4e. Considers that the EU Satellite Centre should provide their services and expertise to the EU RDC and calls for the future necessary arrangements to be made, including ensuring that adequate funding is made available to EUSatCen under the relevant headings of the Multiannual Financial Framework;
Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 f (new)
Paragraph 4 f (new)
4f. Recalls that sustained investment in solving Europe’s military shortfalls should be sought by European collaboration also, instead of by only seeking national solutions, as it is a basic requirement to effectively realise the EU RDC and therefore to successfully contributing in developing the EU as a serious and credible geopolitical actor;
Amendment 279 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 g (new)
Paragraph 4 g (new)
4g. Highlights that the aspirations expressed in the SC will only be met if Member States are able to increase their national defence capabilities;
Amendment 282 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that the RDC should have permanent operational headquarters under the Military Planning and Conduct Capability in order to ensure its effectiveness; (MPCC), to ensure its effectiveness; stresses the need to bring the MPCC to full operational capacity and improve its capabilities through increasing the number of its permanent staff up to 350, relocating it to larger premises jointly with other CSDP-related structures such as the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability, the EU Intelligence and Situation Centre and the EUMS, and urgently develop a dedicated communication and information system for its needs; notes that is advisable to keep one or more national ‘High Readiness’ OHQs as a fall-back option to anticipate a scenario in which multiple crises present themselves at the same time;
Amendment 285 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that the RDC should have permanent operational headquarters under the Military Planning and Conduct Capability in order to ensure its effectiveness; calls, in this regard, for the development of the MPCC into a full command and control structure, capable of planning, controlling and commanding non-executive and executive tasks and operations, as well as joint live exercises;
Amendment 292 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Points out that ultimately, the RDC should build-up on the Military Planning and Conduct Capability (MPCC) towards a full architecture of Operation Headquarters (OHQ), able to conduct all EU military operations by offering the opportunity to centralise military and strategic command and control in Brussels, and allowing to coordinate also with actors responsible for civilian crisis management as well as having fluid interlocution with the EEAS and the European Commission;
Amendment 293 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Underlines the importance of close coordination between military and civilian structures; calls, in this regard, for coordination between the MPCC and the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) in order to ensure the best synergies and sustainable results following the EU’s integrated approach to external conflicts and crises;
Amendment 295 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Considers that, in order to avoid the risk of decisions about the creation and design of the RDC becoming disconnected from the core aspirations of the EU’s integrated approach, the HR/VP should regularly inform the European Parliament as stated in TEU Article 36, and the European Parliament should check and demand that all EU actions are sufficiently coordinated to maximise coherence and effectiveness;
Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for the EU RDC to have the possibility tof being deployed and act ing in case of emergenciesy, natural disasters such as floods or wildfires, or other significant civil- protection criseis inside EU territory, where possible, at the proposal of the VP/HRHR/VP, in close coordination with the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and following the pertinent authorisation procedures;
Amendment 309 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Highlights the potential of the EU RDC to positively contribute to the Commission's RESCEU approach, especially in matters such as forest fire fighting inside EU territory;
Amendment 310 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Highlights the positive contribution of the European aerospace industry to our defence and civil protection capabilities, and in particular Airbus’ success in equipping the A400M as a firefighter tank plane, and the future FCAS system led by France, Germany and Spain;
Amendment 314 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 – introductory part
Paragraph 7 – introductory part
7. Calls on the Member States participating in the RDC to agree to act in the name of the European Union as mandated by the Council under Article 44 of the TEU and to thereby use all the tools in the Treaty to increase credibility, flexibility, and efficiency of the EU’s crisis management:
Amendment 329 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that the political and economic incentives need to change in order to improve the prospects for using Article 44; calls for greater access to common funding for additional costs to Member States utilising Article 44 and greater flexibility concerning operational decisions and the drafting of the Crisis Management Concept and Operational Plan; suggests the use of scenarios to simulate potential use of Article 44 in advance and to clarify associated modalities;
Amendment 332 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Considers that incentives for the use of the RDC need to change in order to allow greater proportion of the costs to be carried from the EU common budget, or at least the costs which cannot be planned for; for the Council to provide more freedom to these coalitions for instance, by letting them write the operating plan, especially in situations when speed is essential; in making oversight requirements for operations proportionate and reasonable, rather than requiring such coalitions to seek a unanimous agreement for every small operational change; and ensuring that Article 44 covers the whole operation, not just parts of it;
Amendment 334 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights that the use of Article 44 offers significant benefits compared to Member States acting outside the EU framework in situations where troop deployment needs to be rapid to prevent further escalation and where the risks to combat troops are at the higher end;
Amendment 337 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights that the use of Article 44 offers significant benefits such as speed, flexibility and freedom of action, whilst preserving joint EU action compared to Member States acting outside the EU framework;
Amendment 339 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Calls on the Member States and the RDC to follow the EU’s integrated approach to ensure effective coordination of an EU response throughout the different phases of a crisis or conflict, combining defence and security activities with development and diplomatic actions;