Proposition 54K1063

Proposition de résolution sur le suivi du Conseil européen de décembre 2013 sur la Politique de Sécurité et de Défense Commune ainsi que du Conseil européen de juin 2015.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Veli Yüksel
MR Denis Ducarme, Damien Thiéry, Sophie Wilmès
N-VA Peter Buysrogge, Karolien Grosemans
Open Vld Tim Vandenput

Submission date

May 4, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European Council common foreign and security policy common security and defence policy resolution of parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

June 18, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur is Mr Van Mechelen, who refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, voted this Tuesday in the Defence Committee, majority against opposition, this resolution was already on the agenda of the committee of the previous week, the Open Vld however co-signatory of the text having requested the postponement of the debate due to the lack of consensus within the majority.

The very Atlanticist N-VA partner, which is obviously its strictest right, did not want to see black on white as a European preference in terms of military purchases, which, for our group, is inconceivable in view of the upcoming debates on the potential replacement of F-16 in terms of jobs and economic and technological impacts.

Furthermore, for us, this debate should have taken place within the framework of the broader on Defence Europe, a debate that, for reminder, had already illustrated the difficulty for the majority to agree on the future of Defence and results in the adoption of a resolution with little scope, despite the hearings, the opposition texts and amendments concerning in particular the defence industry.

At the time, the weakness of this text on these points and its absence even in the resolution put forward by the N-VA on the future of the army already illustrated the divergence of views within the majority.

With regard to this resolution, we do not oppose the general idea of the text, namely that we support all considerations, even though it is a shame that no reference is made to the PS text adopted during the previous legislature and which talked about the importance of the European defence industry. We support an increasingly integrated Europe of Defence, both material, human, strategic command and industrial. We hope, therefore, that this will be the position defended by the Minister at the next European summits.

We support the need to aim towards a standardization of Belgian military equipment with our strategic partners such as France. We support the need for coordination with federal entities on industrial materials and research and development. We also support the idea of expanding the European Air Transport Command (EATC) which is a beautiful example of defence embryo.

On the industrial question, point on which the majority has so hard to agree, because between an industrial atlanticism of principle and blind in view of the changes in American foreign policy, increasingly oriented towards Asia-Pacific and less and less towards Europe, and returns for our jobs, our strategic and technological independence, one day we will have to choose.

For our group, the European defense industry is a key aspect for the future of our Defense and the future strategic plan facing the potential replacement of several major equipment. We call for a real ambition to consolidate the industrial and technological base of the European Defence, which creates jobs and is rich in innovative know-how, as the F-16 demonstrated in its time.

Therefore, the requirement number 8 satisfies us very little. It even disappoints us when it is read: "to study the relevance and legal feasibility of the implementation of a European preferential clause on the arms market." For our group, we should not study it, but assure it, and that, without questioning, of course, our commitment to NATO.

It is only around this Belgian and European industrial tool preserved and strengthened by the European network of SMEs in the defence sector that the Defence Europe will have to be reactivated with the willing European partners and within the framework of synergies between both civil and military research and development. Furthermore, this cooperation must continue to encourage the joint purchase of European military equipment and thus further promote a common basis for military training at European level and the full compatibility of the equipment in operation, which is currently lacking.

Above all, we must not miss the European train and undermine this dynamic and all the potential positive impacts for the Belgian and European industries. These include, for example, the MUSIS project and the question of long-term replacement of major equipment or the possible exceptions to defend in the debate on the negotiating mandate for a potential EU-U.S. free trade agreement.

Finally, it is a matter of emphasizing the benefits such cooperation can have for jobs, growth, innovation and industrial competitiveness in the European Union, as well as for our technological and strategic independence, which is not possible a priori, inter alia, with the F-35, while fully respecting public procurement legislation and the transparency, including parliamentary, that such markets involve.

To do this, federal entities must be fully consulted for the preparation of the future strategic plan. It would indeed be inconceivable for the PS Group that the strategic plan does not provide for anything on the European industrial level and does not highlight such a preference. So why does the majority want to adopt such a resolution when it is at the control of the strategic plan? Would there be difficulties within the government to ensure the relevance of the Belgian and European industry?

A start of response will be offered in the coming weeks with the question of ⁇ ining or not the capacity for Belgian aircraft to carry nuclear weapons. This will determine whether the market for the possible replacement of the F-16 is open to European manufacturers or, on the contrary, already won by the American F-35.

For all the reasons I have just mentioned, the PS Group will reject this text and once again highlights its concern in the context of the potential future replacement and returns for our SMEs and the European industry in general.

In conclusion, it is a shame that this initiative of the liberal family has ultimately collided with the opposition of the partner N-VA. This transformed a resolution that could have been noble in view of the initial objectives pursued into a sweetened text, with blurred contours and without any concrete scope, as evidenced by Amendment No. 17, which transforms the initial phrase "to open the EATC" to "to study the possibility of opening the EATC". “It would be appropriate, where appropriate and to the extent possible, as long as potential partners potentially agree, to consider, in search of a unanimous consensus, probably impossible to ⁇ but nevertheless necessary, to consider the possibility of conducting a study determining the conditions under which, or not, discussions could be opened to a likely, but yet uncertain, future enlargement of the EATC.”

You will have understood, dear colleagues, the PS group will not only vote against this text, but, in addition, will not submit any amendment because, and you will agree as I do, it is impossible to amend the vacuum.

I also find that neither the Minister of Defense nor most of the authors of the resolution are there, which proves well that we are talking to say nothing.

I thank you.

The European Security Strategy dates back to 2003. Since then, a lot has changed in the world. The draft resolution outlines some of the main geopolitical changes and also indicates the new challenges in the field of security and defence.

In recent years we have been able to see the increased deployment of the Belgian armed forces in Afghanistan, Libya, Mali, Iraq, the Horn of Africa and the Baltic states. We also see in our own country the impact of new threats, such as cyber attacks, radicalization and terrorism. Therefore, the proposal calls on the government to actively engage in the European context from next week for a redefinition of the European strategy.

At the federal level, we have not been sitting waiting for that European awareness, as evidenced by the call in the government agreement to give Defence again the necessary resources to properly perform its tasks, including with a view to strengthening the European security and defence policy and the credibility of Defence within Europe and within NATO.

The government is currently dealing with the future of defence, based on a strategic vision developed by the Minister of Defence and which will also give rise to a new medium-term strategic plan. For us, it is obvious that all this is closely connected. Without a vision of the future, including investment in defense, the European security strategy remains a dead letter and our country will not be able to continue to fulfill its status as a reliable partner in NATO and in Europe.

Therefore, our group will enthusiastically approve the draft resolution.

Mr. Speaker, this proposal for a resolution clearly aims to support the creation of a European army. The European Union, which received the Nobel Peace Prize, is now developing a military strategy that is not really exemplary in terms of peace.

This text thus considers as obvious that the Union must intervene somewhat everywhere in the world: in the Middle East, in Africa, or even – even if it is less clear in the text – in Asia. In the name of this so-called obvious, increasing investments would be inevitable. In fact, financially, the resolution proposal calls for more investment in the field of defence. To whom would this money be destined? To the multinational arms companies, which should develop. It reads, for example, in point 12: "continue pragmatically but voluntarily, in consultation with the sector, the grouping of European companies". It is therefore an explicit call to form a military-industrial complex, somewhat like what is happening in the United States.

I am somewhat surprised. Generally, the European Union and its arsenal of antisocial measures are sold to us on the grounds that it has saved us from war. What does this text show? We need to follow this bellicist trend! To anti-social measures, war measures are added. So the picture would be complete. Moreover, this trend would be linked to the arms business. It is not a virtue in itself.

I can only say that the PTB is against such a proposal for a resolution. And I will conclude by quoting these words of Jean Jaurès: “Capitalism carries in itself war like the cloud, the storm.

The Belgian defence must be incorporated into a European context. Everyone, every group, all parties agree on this, including ours. Nevertheless, we cannot agree with this resolution, as it is, in our opinion, too vague. A key aspect of a common security and defence policy should focus on cooperation with countries to avoid overlapping and gaps. Only in this way can we, together with the other 28 EU countries, spend our defence budget in a smart way.

If each of those countries wants to maintain a national army, we will spend a lot of money twice. So we must evolve to a European continent that truly cooperates, not to a European defense that is the sum of 28 individual Member States. To do so correctly, Member States should be able to specialise in certain tasks so that, in the long run, no overcapacity of one task or undercapacity of another task will result. Therefore, a clear top-down action is needed from the European Council of Ministers for Defense, the European External Action Service and the European Defence Agency.

For us, it needs to be a step further. We also want national defence planning to be coordinated in advance at European level within the European Defence Agency. Defence in the 21st century will be European or will no longer be.

Small and medium-sized countries, given the price tag, can no longer raise the resources to finance a nationally versatile army. Militarily speaking, Europe consists of small countries with small armies and even smaller budgets. Even the French and British defence budgets are under heavy pressure. Their ambition level has been greatly reduced. Germany has no ambitions at all.

Nevertheless, we all want to continue doing our own thing necessarily and without real coordination.

In practice, many of those countries maintain capacity, while there is already a surplus at European level. Take as an example tanks or combat aircraft, which are often not even deployable in certain interventions.

This is pure waste. At the same time, the serious gaps in our arsenal are not addressed. Satellites, unmanned drones, tanker planes and precision ammunition are needed to carry out high-tech operations with less risk of dead and civilian casualties.

The European security and defence policy is not just about defence. Nowhere in the proposed resolution we see a call to the government to address our security policy in a civilian way. There is no military solution. The military aspect can only be a part of the solution.

We must continue to focus on diplomacy, prevention, development aid and disarmament. Prevention is still much better than cure and, in addition, so much cheaper. We must also address the new challenges of the 21st century. Cyber defence is becoming the problem of the 21st century. We also need to work better together at the European level.

In order to evolve towards further integration, we would like to agree with the EU partners for specialization. We want to use the Belgian budget to build a full-fledged European defense together with the other Member States. This should lead to more and better defence for every euro invested.

This vision is lacking in the proposal for a resolution that is now on the table.

The importance of European defence is increasing every day. Looking at the eastern and southern borders of the European Union, we find that the situation there is evolving very quickly. In addition, the United States is increasingly focusing its attention on Asia and its surroundings.

The European Union needs to be more at the forefront, but the European motor is still a little splashing. We find that European defence is still too fragmented across the Member States and that we are not able to respond effectively to concrete situations in recent times.

Our strategic vision of Europe’s defence must therefore be made more efficient. I think we agree on this. We need more Europe in defence. This is also the objective of the resolution proposal.

We must, of course, also see the reality in which we must work. Unlike some groups, we do not see military cooperation across European borders as the miracle solution to all the problems and challenges that Defence currently faces.

Such bilateral and multinational cooperation does not mean that large budgets should not be released for new investments in the future, nor that the costs of deploying military personnel in foreign operations will disappear. Furthermore, it must be recognised that most other European countries have a strong national reflex in relation to their own defence which makes the idea of a fully integrated and unified European army ⁇ not a realistic short-term goal.

The European defence industry needs to be strengthened. Capacity development and maintenance in Europe must be developed efficiently. Our objective is, therefore, a more competitive, innovative and integrated European industrial defence policy and a defence strategy to ensure the capacity of the European defence and to better place in sight. In addition, the European defence industry must have a positive impact on related economic sectors in the EU and in our country.

I believe that this resolution is an important step in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, you have already read the resolution in its content. It ⁇ won’t surprise you that I want to explain the liberal values in this resolution in particular.

Our tandem MR/Open Vld sees the creation of jobs as the project of this government-Michel. The defence and security sectors currently provide employment for more than one million European citizens.

We must continue to invest in innovation and play out our specialized industry and SMEs as an asset. Believe me, there are many hidden talents and hidden treasures in SMEs and SMEs. Whoever wants to move forward must know history. Since the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community, our continent has had many milestones in terms of European integration. The liberal thought is always the avant-garde of the pro-European parties.

Progress takes place in a post-crisis period. This is another constant in history. A period like this is finally coming. Anno 2015 it is illogical to keep 28 separate armies standing in 28 separate countries and to draw out different defence and security strategies. As liberals, we strongly advocate for far-reaching integration. We realize that this is not obvious.

For the Benelux we see a specific role played. Belgium, together with Luxembourg and the Netherlands, can play a leading role and concrete cooperation. In this way, we demonstrate the advantages and can step by step join other countries. The European Air Transport Command, EATC, is a good example of how cooperation brings a military, financial and logistical return. All EATC participants use the so-called ATARES system. While the partner countries could present each other’s invoice after each order, instead of the invoices, the number of flight hours is recorded in a common accounting. Cooperation and mutual services have become the passport in this success story.

Sovereignty is also an important element in this discussion. When I talk to people from the defense world about one command, I hear that our military is ready for it. However, the legislation needs to be adapted. There are still taboos on the water surface.

This week, the Admiral of the Belgian Navy made clear that national interests will always prevail.

While further European military integration will remain a difficult task, the Benelux also shows how sovereignty can be transcended. Our three countries will be jointly responsible for the surveillance of our airspace. If the Dutch airspace is ever threatened by a hijacked aircraft, the Dutch government will give instructions to Belgian pilots and vice versa.

I am convinced that the benefits of cooperation are greater than giving up any sovereignty. That does not mean that we no longer want to participate, but that cooperation and consultation must just be the foundations to come to a more uniform European front on the military stage. It illustrates what we want to ⁇ from the political world with this resolution, namely throwing taboo overboard and striving for more European defense to guarantee our security.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to start my speech by thanking the services for working quickly to enable us to debate this proposal for a resolution in the plenary session today, after it was voted on Tuesday in the committee.

We are therefore perfectly in time to give a very clear mandate to our Prime Minister, Charles Michel, so that he may present our intentions before the European Council next week. The heads of state and government will discuss an important issue for the construction of Europe: the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Mr. Pirlot, you seem to regret my absence, but I am here because the topic is important. I was told that you were as convincing as you were in the committee on Tuesday. I will be able to answer a number of your questions.

We really fulfill our role here. We give the government a mandate to defend the option that our country will have in terms of PSDC. The Parliament therefore plays its full role and is associated with a voluntary approach in this area. It is clear that in the field of European defense, we are witnessing a real deficit in parliamentary control over the PSDC. The exercise related to this motion for a resolution seems to me to contribute positively to this obligation of transparency, democratic control and parliamentary action in this matter.

In the same sense, Mrs. Speaker of the Defence Committee, we will have to go back on this issue in committees in the coming months because the question of building European defence is not done in a day. Constantly, we must bear in mind to produce and reproduce a number of proposals and exchanges on the subject in our national commissions.

I will therefore take the initiative to propose to the Commission to invite our ambassador to the COPS (Political and Security Committee) so that he can give us all the useful clarifications on the follow-up of the European Council but also, and that is very important to me, on the industrial part of the PSDC. Not enough is said or ignored, but 400,000 direct jobs and 560,000 indirect jobs are concerned in Europe, or ⁇ one million workers in cutting-edge professions, in an extremely competitive sector where new Chinese, Indian, Brazilian producers are eager for new markets over confirmed European, Russian and American producers.

In other words, we have political responsibilities towards this sector. The defence minister is politically responsible. As we pointed out in our proposal for a resolution, the Regions also have their responsibilities.

I have also taken the initiative to write to the new President of the European Defence Agency to have more clarifications from him, in particular on the legal framework that is in place.

I would like to point out to Mr. Ducarme that he should be more convincing because it has been five minutes that he talks and not Mr. Neither the Minister nor the President of the Commission pay attention to his remarks. He will still have to continue trying to convince his partner.

Is it true? (The Hilarity)

I can’t believe you, Mr. Pirlot.

Because of a personal fact, I will answer this.

Mr. Ducarme, take it from me, you will not tell me, but I have a female quality: I can multitask. So I have heard everything you said. I also agree with it.

If that is not good!

I also would like to point out that, as part of the reflections that we need to have in our European Defence Committee, I have taken the freedom to gather a number of additional information, in particular on the legal framework that applies to the European defence market, and to work on the most appropriate way to protect our industrial interests and, thereby, our jobs (one million).

Mr. Speaker, the European Council of 25 and 26 June is an opportunity to review the eighteen-month progress made in the PSDC and to try to deliver, through our government, a political message that has some European defence content. This is a novelty. The initiative was taken by Mr. Herman Van Rompuy in December 2012. The aim is to make a political dimension, a political steering of the European defence dossier.

However, we need to be honest. After a decade that could be called a “doree”. Javier Solana, it is clear that Catherine Ashton did not, in my view, use European defence and the CSDP as the tools at her disposal enabled her, such as the Lisbon Treaty and the way Mr. Ashton had prepared the ground. by Javier Solana.

Therefore, few operations have been set up since the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon. They have been discussed as an option, to then be discarded in Libya, in Mali, in favor of ad hoc actions.

Eleven civilian missions and five military operations are currently deployed. But who knows? Who talks about it? This lack of visibility is due to the fact that these missions are mainly advisory missions to reform security sectors in Ukraine, Mali and the border with Niger.

However, it is not enough to say that not all the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty of December 2009 have been implemented. There is always reference to some structural blockages, which is not the case. The Lisbon Treaty allowed us to develop a permanent structured cooperation, but we did not.

A launch fund is also planned to fund the initial phase of the PSDC operations; €50 million is planned and even €100 million could be unlocked at the request of France.

A great disappointment is the lack of progress in mobilizing the means of rapid reaction of tactical groups. The lack of political will at this level is clear. So far, we have not been able to resort to the 1,500 men planned, which are a priority option in case of response to be provided in a crisis situation.

This resolution, initiated with the Open Vld and supported by the majority, was intended to try, at our level, to get out of European defence political frilance and to address more frankly European security issues such as cyber attacks, the situation in Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, the migration issues in the Mediterranean, the absence of a state in Libya, the terrorist threats in the Sahel or Nigeria or the return to talks recalling the Cold War in Russia.

We also know that Washington wants Europeans to invest more in their security.

Our answer, in the face of this strategic equation, is to establish a better political follow-up through this resolution.

by Mr. Pirlot spoke in the committee, but I regret that he did not participate fundamentally in the debate. On the contrary, mr Germany has submitted numerous high-quality amendments and even though it was held in another committee, its amendments were defended.

They were very many. Some, of very high quality, were approved by the majority.

As for you, the Socialist Party, do you no longer care about European defence? There was a time when – I ⁇ ’t say we were happy together, Mr. Pirlot – we worked together.

It is nostalgia!

We had a meeting with mr. Lacroix, who is now Wallonian Minister of Budget and with whom I was working on defence files, a resolution proposal in which we called for the strengthening of the European Defence Agency. This is what we demand today.

Faith staff

Personal Fact