BETA

30 Amendments of Geoffrey VAN ORDEN related to 2010/2299(INI)

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Recognises that, in a turbulent global context and at a time of economic and financial crisis, the EU is being called upon to become an autonomous strategic actor to uphold its values, pursue its interests, and protect its citizens by developing a shared vision of the main challenges and threats and aligning its resources to respond to themact in a fiscally responsible manner, avoiding duplication and supporting trusted security organisations such as NATO, thereby contributing to the preservation of international peace and stability, including by pursuing effective multilateralism;

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that strategic autonomy in security affairs entails, for the EU, the capacity to agree common political objectives and strategic guidelines, to establish strategic partnerships with a wide range of international organisations and states, to collect adequate information and generate joint analyses and assessments, to harness and where necessary pool financial, military, and civilian resources, to plan and run effective crisis management operations across the entire range of the Petersberg tasks, and to frame and implement a common defence policy, laying the first tangible foundations on which to build common defence;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Regrets that, in the context of recent events in Libya, there is no robust mindset within the EU Council for strong action to give timely and practical support to those opposing tyranny, and considers that every support should be given to Member States that wish to consider military action and that the most appropriate forum for the positive discussion of such action is NATO;

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Underlines that the duty of consistency as defined by the Treaty, the new wording of Article 40 TEU (which states that the implementation of both the CFSP and the other EU policies shall not affect the application of the respective procedures), and recent ECJ case law (see the SALW case) protect both the primacy of the Community method and the distinguishing features and prerogatives of the CFSP, while encouraging the convergence of different policies, instruments, resources, and legal bases in a holistic, comprehensive approach, whereby security becomes a cross-cutting objective of EU external and internal action and the CSDP is one of its instruments; in this context, notes that civilian and military assets ~~can be deployed in situations other than CSDP missions, a~~of European countries hasve been ~~shown in practice by the EU Military Staff coordination of military capabilities during the Pakistan floods in summer 2010~~deployed more effectively in situations other than CSDP missions;

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Regrets, therefore, that, more than one year after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, there are not yet clear signs of a post-Lisbon EU holistic approach enabling traditional procedural and institutional barriers to be overcome, while preserving the respective legal prerogatives when European citizens' security is at stake;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Is convinced that a credible external security policy requires deepened interdependence between the Member States and improved internal cohesion and mutual trust and solidarity, similar to what has been achieved in the internal security sphere through Schengen cooperation (whereby Schengen countries, by protecting their own borders, protect the borders of the other Member States, national rules acquire continental scope, and tasks related to the protection of national security can also be performed on the territory of another state or in joint teams operating in accordance with European standards);a common strategic vision among European Countries which does not exist,

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Calls on the European Council and its President to set about this task by engaging in political dialogue with the European Parliament and to discuss Parliament's recommendations; maintains that such a dialogue is required in the light of the new Treaty provisions and of the need to lay down and implement the foreign policy strategy, proceeding from an effective comprehensive approach;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Considers the termination of the WEU Treaty and the disbandment of the WEU Assembly to be consistent with the new legal framework created by the Lisbon Treaty, and does not believe that disbandment of the Assembly will leave any form of vacuum in which the VP/HR, the Council, and the Commission could act outside of parliamentary control; declares its willingness to enhance cooperation with EU nIs concerned by the inevitable decline of National pParliament~~s in exercising democratic~~ary scrutiny over ~~the~~ CFSP ~~and the CSDP, with the goal of mutually reinforcing their respective influence~~following the termination onf the ~~political choices made by the other European institutions and by the Member States~~WEU Treaty and the disbandment of the WEU Assembly;

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Considers that the EEAS has a key role to play in bringing about an effective comprehensive approach based on full integration of the CSDP, the CFSP, and the other dimensions of EU external action, starting with development cooperation policy; welcomes the outcome of the negotiations, which has served to establish the EEAS as a structure to assist the EU institutions and the various dimensions of EU external action and conferred a wide range of powers and responsibilities on it while providing a solid link to the Commission without in any way encroaching on the Commission's prerogatives; and hopes that the responsibility assigned to the EEAS for strategic planning of the main financial instruments related to EU external action will translate into genuinely coherent use thereof to further EU principles and objectives;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Deplores the fact that the provisional organisation chart of the EEAS does not include the ‘appropriate structure’ which, under the Madrid accords, is to integrate the various units dealing with crisis response planning and programming, conflict prevention, and peace-building with the CSDP structures; calls for a crisis management board to be set up, to be staffed by the CMPD, the CCPC, the EUMS, the EU SITCEN, the peace- building, conflict prevention, mediation, and security policy units, the Chair of the PSC, the geographical desks and other policy departments concerned, according to the circumstances, and the Commission humanitarian aid and civil protection structures, placed under the authority of the HR and the executive Secretary-General, and coordinated by the Managing Director for Crisis Response; calls on the High Representative and the Commission to equip the board with an efficient alert and emergency system and a large unified operations room, located within the EEAS, so as to enable surveillance to be carried out 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, hence avoiding the present operational overlapping (seven operations rooms), which hardly squares with the need for a proper surveillance and rapid reaction system to deal with crises;

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. ~~Regret~~Acknowledges the sharp contrast between the EUR 200 billion per year spent by the Member States on defence, the lack of means at the EU's disposal, and the painfully protracted force generation conferences for EU military operations at a time when there are redundant capabilities and personnel;

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Notes ~~with anxiety~~ that the current economic austerity could lead to cuts that were not concerted at European level and t~~o continuing overlapping that might call~~hat unnecessary distractions such as the CSDP as such might be called into question, whereas the end effect should be to ~~push th~~encourage Member States towards smarter defence spending whereby they would ~~pool and share a larger proportion of~~achieve synergies to address gaps in their defence capabilities, budget, and requirements while achieving more security for their citizens;

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Maintains that all of the above points should be tackled by means of a clear-cut long-term political resolve, making full use of the potential offered by the Lisbon Treaty, and that any common defence policy intended to move gradually towards common defence must serve to strengthen the EU's ability to respond to crises and long-term peace-building, and above all guarantee Europe's strategic autonomy, averting the danger that its standing might decline on the world stage; calls on the national parliaments to embark on an appropriate joint initiative in relation to their institutional partners and calls for a special European Council meeting to be given over to European defence; renews its call for a European defence White Paper under the NATO umbrella, averting the danger that its standing might decline on the world stage;

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Notes that, in addition to being a political necessity, Permanent Structural Cooperation (PESCO), as provided for in the Treaty, takes the form of a legal obligation and not an option (i.e. Member States ‘shall establish’ and not ‘may establish’); calls on the Council and the Member States to remedy their failure hitherto to act in this area by determining the aims and substance of PESCO without further delay, involving the Member States on as broad a basis as possible and, not least, assessing the advisability of implementation based on variable geometry;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Recognises that within the CSDP development process, ~~the time has now come for~~despite the political achievement and the institutional achievement t~~o b~~he fpol~~lowed by a genuin~~itical will does not exist to ensure concrete achievement as regards military capabilities; points out that the provisions introduced by the Lisbon Treaty offer great potential for promoting the development of those capabilities and laying down a progressive framework for the EU's defence policy and maintains that they need to be put to effective use as a matter of urgency at an EU level;

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Points to the need to overcome the current imbalance in terms of planning capabilities and the conduct of civilian and military operations by providing the EU with a permanent military-strategic level of command or Operational Headquarters (OHQ) to serve as a counterpart to the CPCC; points outRegrets that the Berlin Plus arrangements have been put to only limited use, having been confined to date to takeovers of pre-existing NATO missions, and draws attention to the problems connected with the framework nation track, which is based on the use of five national OHQs, and in particular to the fragmented nature of political and strategic operations planning (Crisis Management Concept, Military Strategic Options, Initiating Military Directive), adding to the difficulty of force generation, as well as making the use of civilian and military capabilities more complex to coordinate;

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. Considers that the existing Operation Centre, though constituting a welcome first step, falls short of the requirements (it is no coincidence that it has never been used) and that it must instead be made permanent and put in a position to manage missions beyond the present limited size (some 2 000 troops), the ways to do so being to increase its staff substantially and deal with the unreliability of the EU's communications and information systems infrastructure, the main reason for which is that there is no permanent C2 structure (or corresponding legal framework), a fact which can also adversely affect situational awareness; maintains that the military OHQ should be set up alongside the civilian HQ, thus making it possible to carry out the whole range of military and civilian operations, exploiting potential synergistic effects to the full while respecting the distinctive civilian and military chains of command and the different decision-making procedures and financing arrangements;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36

36. Welcomes the fact that, in her reply to the Weimar initiative, the HR recognised the need for an EU military conduct capability; maintains that the cost efficiency analysis called for by the HR should also factor in the costs arising because the EU has no OHQ; declares its intention of promoting a study on that point and on the possible cost of, and financing arrangements for, the new structure;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37

37. Recognises the soundness of the Battlegroups, but calls for the concept and the structure of the groups, which have so far never been deployed, to be carefully reviewed; believes that – for every six-month rotation period there should be one Battlegroup in the form approved to date and one smaller group, which should, however, be specialised (niche capability) and/or suited to low-intensity conflicts entailing mixed civilian- military tasks; – the operating costs should be charged to the ATHENA mechanism, which is due to be reviewed under the Polish Presidency;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. Urges the participating Member States to treat participation in the EDA as a permanent commitment and provide the Agency with the necessary human and economic resources; calls for the expenditure earmarked for operational projects and studies (which has hitherto accounted – on average – for about 25% of the budget) to be raised in the unwelcome event that vetoes on budget increases were to continue for a lengthy period;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. Calls on the EDA's participating Member States to ~~give loyal and cooperative support to~~scrutinise the work and initiatives presented by the VP/HR in her capacity as head of the Agency in terms of cost-effectiveness and urges the VP/HR to establish working methods allowing the participating Member States invariably to play an active role in decision-taking, consistent with the intergovernmental nature of the Agency and the provisions of the Treaty, the idea being to build a political consensus;

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52

52. Is of the view that logic will then imply that, when the same threat requires the activation of external and internal security measures, the EU should give priority to the more efficient – and legally sound – measures available, the latter being those arising from internal competence; ~~considers that Parliament's role should also be decisive as regards the related specific CFSP strategies and measures;~~

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54

54. Recognises that since 2003 the EU has undertaken numerous missions (24) in three continents involving different types of intervention, the bulk being accounted for by civilian missions specialising in policing, security sector reform (SSR), and consolidation of the rule of law; Calls on the council and commission to establish an independent assessment of these missions in terms of impact and value for money

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59

59. Points out that clear-cut progress is needed urgently as regards technical, legal, operational, and above all political and strategic aspects; maintains in particular that every mission should be encompassed within a clear (medium- and long-term) political strategy; considers such linkage to be essential in order to ensure the operational success of interventions and, more generally, break the vicious circle in which the CSDP, rather than being a tool of the CFSP, is tending to replace it, with all the inconsistencies which that entails;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 64

64. Calls for the establishment, as provided for in the Lisbon Treaty, of the start-up fund for preparatory activities in the lead-up to military operations to speed up the disbursement of funds, and for this measure to be covered by the ATHENA mechanism review proposal;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 66

66. Recommends~~, as regards gender mainstreaming in line with UNSCR 1325 and~~ that the most capable people are employed in order to make civilian ~~and military~~ missions more effectives, ~~that female personnel be involved in the appropriate manner at every level of crisis management~~regardless of race or gender;

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67

67. Calls on the HR/VP to ~~take the steps required to optimise the potential use of European resources and capabilities for civili~~assess whether the EUJUST LEX Iraq and EUPOL Afghanistan missions can~~d notes with concern that high costs are being incurred for the~~ be justified when huge resources have been dedicated to providing security ofor the ~~EUJUST LEX Iraq and EUPOL Afghanistan~~se missions, the measures in question having been entrusted to private security companies;

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71

71. Acknowledges that, on a legal basis, the Lisbon Treaty has overcome the previous dichotomy between Union and Community policies by conferring a unique legal personality and by strengthening the autonomy of the EU legal order in terms of international law, even when international security is at stake, as already stated by the Court of Justice case law in the Kadi case (according to which ‘international law can permeate the EU legal order only under the conditions set by the constitutional principles of the Community’);deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72

72. Calls on those Member States which have seats on the UN Security Council to defend the positions and interests of ~~the EU and to ask the HR/VP to speak for the EU in that forum, in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty~~other European allies;

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 74

74. Recognises that NATO still constitutes the bedrock of collective defence for those Member States which belong to it; welcomes France's return to the integrated command structure of the Atlantic Alliance and considers that this should help to ~~dispel any resistance to~~finally halt momentum towards the development of a common defence policy at EU level;

2011/03/22
Committee: AFET