Proposition 54K2655

Proposition de résolution relative à une politique de défense intégrée au sein de l'Union européenne.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Hendrik Bogaert, Veli Yüksel
MR Richard Miller, Damien Thiéry

Submission date

Sept. 5, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

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

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

PVDA | PTB VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP ∉ N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

Feb. 28, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs, Mrs Bellens and Mr Vandenput, refer to the written report.

I give the floor to Mr Chabot.

Mr. Speaker, my group will abstain from this text, as it did in the committee. For many years, the PS Group has defended a Europe of defence, effective on the human, material, industrial and strategic levels. My colleague Mr. Christophe Lacroix had already passed a law in this sense by our assembly in May 2013.

The text goes in the right direction, notably point 3, which calls for the full and as much as possible inclusion of Belgian Defence, and all its strategic decisions, in particular within PESCO and the European Defence Fund. I thank all my colleagues for adopting several of my amendments, which reinforce the voluntarism of this text on the subject.

However, with this abstinence, my group wants to denounce the abyss gap that exists between the good intentions contained in the text and the concrete acts put forward by the majority. These actions weaken the emergence, in the long run, of a European defence. European strategic independence has never been a priority for this government. The former majority has shown itself to be atlanticist at 99%, and this parliamentary text, alone, will unfortunately not allow to overturn the steam.

Under this government, Belgium purchased U.S. fighter jets, without any European criteria. A market of the century granted without a European criterion. This is also the case with the entire law of programming.

For my group, the voice and positions of the European Union must be strengthened within NATO. We are not calling for unhealthy competition, but for a constructive and complementary approach between the European Union and NATO, based on our democratic values of the rule of law and on the absolute principle that the use of force can be made only in the last resort and within the UN framework.

This should enable the emergence of a real European defence strategy, as part of a comprehensive approach that combines diplomacy and development. PESCO thus opens up a unique opportunity. Unique ⁇ means historical, but also and above all, that we only have one chance to grasp it. Time presses if we do not want our country to miss the train.

For us, such cooperation will also be able to have positive impacts on EU employment, growth, innovation and industrial competitiveness.

There too, the Belgian industry has a card to play, as long as the federal finally involves the federated entities.

For my group, this European cooperation must also continue to encourage synergies, economies of scale and the common purchase of European military equipment and thus further promote a common base for military training at European level, and the full compatibility of equipment, which is currently lacking.

We have an important resolution here for us. It is an integrated defence policy within the European Union. For the colleagues who followed it: this resolution dates from one and a half years ago, September 2017. We had long discussions and an interesting hearing with seven interesting speakers. We discussed and approved this resolution in the committee two weeks ago.

Meanwhile, we have determined that there have been a number of major weapons incidents at the European level. The permanent, structured cooperation in the field of security and defence, PESCO, was established. The first projects are underway. A European Defence Fund was also established, for which 90 million euros were allocated for the period 2017-2019. From next year, one and a half billion euros will be put aside.

I welcome these steps that were announced and made on the European echelon. However, this resolution remains up-to-date. We need to increase the acceleration. Many of the proposals in this resolution aim to improve the coordination and efficiency of the EU Member States. The resolution calls for a better functioning of the European defence industry. EU member states still play too much cavalier solo. They all invest in the same material, while we often have to look to America for more expensive weapons systems. You remember with me the debates about the replacement of our F-16 fighter jets. The European initiatives were not a party to the American F-35. It must be different, colleagues, and that can only be done if we join forces.

In the case of investments, we should ideally prefer more and more European technology and European companies. Our Belgian industry will also be involved in this. The fact that German Chancellor Merkel and French President Macron reached an agreement last month is a good sign that the defense industries of both countries are growing together. Other EU member states should take this signal. We have the technology in the house and we have the industry. Let us join forces to become a competitive player in the global market.

This is a huge sum of money that we could save. The European Parliament calculated that an integrated defence policy could ⁇ a cost-efficiency of 26 to 130 billion euros per year. These are numbers we cannot look at.

Mr. Speaker, in this resolution I advocate the creation of an operational military headquarters. I also advocate a Council of EU Defence Ministers. It does not exist today. A strengthened European security and defense policy will also lead to a more efficient and reliable NATO. In fact, many EU Member States are members of that alliance that will celebrate its 70th birthday within two months. I see no contradiction between a closer defence cooperation within the EU and our loyalty to NATO. Of both organizations, Belgium is a founding member.

In the committee, this proposal was amended by the colleagues of N-VA. However, after the fall of the government, they have also somewhat pulled out of this draft resolution. Colleague Buysrogge, I think I can say that. I regret that, but I welcome the support of other parties in this hemisphere. I therefore call on you to support this proposal for a more and safer Europe.

Mr. President, colleagues, Mr. Yüksel just started saying that we have pulled out the plug. We would like to reiterate that, as a group, we fully agree with the spirit of this resolution when it comes to increased cooperation within Europe in the field of defence, the start of building a European army and a European cooperation that is not in conflict with good cooperation within NATO. Our group supports this for the full hundred percent. This is important to emphasize.

This resolution contains many good intentions. Until some point, we have also been able to join the texts as they are presented here today. There are constructive and positive elements in the texts, for which I would like to congratulate colleague Yüksel and others.

However, it must be said that the context has since changed somewhat. I will therefore explain the two reasons why our group will not support this resolution.

First, in the current context with a minority government in ongoing affairs, for principled reasons, our group is not in favour of adopting a resolution calling for action from the government. Regardless of the content and noble objectives of this resolution, for us that is an argument in itself to not vote for this resolution.

Secondly, we also have objections in terms of content. We have talked a lot in the committee about the requesting part 8d, in connection with the study of the European preference for military contracts. Colleague Yüksel also mentioned this in his presentation. We have a lot of questions here. We have already asked a number of questions in the committee, but we have never been fully clarified.

I will ask my questions again. Per ⁇ I will still get an answer? Are these procurements explicitly stipulating that European bidders can get more points than non-European bidders? Can it lead to a situation where better devices from non-European biders get fewer points than a less good bidder from the European Union?

Is it a preference for offers from the European Union or a preference for offers within the European continent? In other words, why would a bid from Norway, and possibly soon from the United Kingdom, be less valued than a French bid? This question we also ask ourselves.

Another question is why there is no distinction between allies, including Canada and the United States of America, and non-allies. Now Europe is emphasized as an ally, but there are other allies with whom we work well.

A final question is whether an economic return for the three regions in our country is not more important than a European contract.

In short, for all these reasons, it seemed reasonable for us to remove that one specific element, point 8d, from the resolution. In the committee there was no agreement on this, as colleague Yüksel already said. Therefore, we give the plenary session the opportunity, through an amendment we submit, to extract that element of the requesting part from the resolution. We hope that our amendment will be approved.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, we are going to adopt today this resolution proposal submitted by our colleague, Mr. Yüksel, which the MR has co-signed with enthusiasm.

For our country, the common security and defense policy is resolutely part of building a strong and responsible European pillar within NATO. This European pillar within NATO is already – you know – from 1996. It was implemented by the “Berlin Plus” agreements of 2002.

In our view, ensuring our security requires this double approach: the European Pillar and NATO. One must strengthen the other. We need this strong alliance with our American and Canadian allies.

As a result, the NATO 70th anniversary summit, as Yüksel recalled, which will take place at the end of 2019 in London will be an opportunity to appreciate the solidity of the American engagement in European security and the legitimate expectations of Washington regarding the effective contribution of Europe to be able to assume its security and the stability of its environment.

I am convinced that today, through our debate and the vote on this proposal for a resolution, we are fulfilling our role as parliamentarians by exercising control over the actions of the government in intergovernmental European matters, matters where the role of the European Parliament or ad hoc structures is, by the way, relatively limited.

The MR has already expressed itself on the deficit of parliamentary control over the PSDC. The exercise we are conducting seems to me to contribute positively to this obligation of transparency and democratic control. In the resolution, we also called for strengthening this parliamentary control.

I think two points are important.

The first point, the industrial aspect and the planning of needs – a topic that we have long addressed through the acquisition of the various weapons programs included in the law of military programming voted under this legislature; a very large integration of the acquisition processes of European states – what equipment is needed and according to what timetable? - involving at the outset a greater integration of research and development and, at the outset, training, training and joint maintenance of equipment, would mechanically have a direct effect on arms companies in Europe.

To this end, we must strengthen the political steering of restructuring, mergers and cooperation between European arms companies. Staying inactive on this matter already leads to an unnecessary multiplication of offers and companies, as well as a lack of critical size in relation to non-European competitors and will lead tomorrow to forced restructuring with significant social costs.

The political power must be proactive, in partnership with the sector, even though we are well aware – which has appeared once again during our debates, but also through the intervention of our colleague Mr. Buysrogge – of the sensitive nature of this dossier.

In fact, 40,000 direct jobs and 560,000 indirect jobs are concerned in Europe, or ⁇ one million workers in cutting-edge professions in a highly competitive sector where new Chinese, Indian and Brazilian producers are looking for new markets against confirmed European, Russian and American producers. In other words, dear colleagues, this is an industrial sector towards which we have responsibilities.

This will also have an implication in favoring the joint financing of these military equipment. This is all the subject of the European Defence Fund and the European budget post-2021 and a possible European preference. This is also the whole meaning of this resolution for the acquisition of these. The MR knows the difficulties of implementing such a provision but, in a competitive world, it is necessary to work on the emergence of this European preference. This resolution goes in this direction and opens the door.

The second point I would like to address is the concept of a European army. First, I will advocate for the full implementation of the mechanisms of the Lisbon Treaty. Yes, we have established a structured and permanent cooperation, but with 25 members. Was this the exact nature of the mechanism? I think no. Since then, without a treaty, France has developed the European Intervention Initiative. Belgium participates in these two hard nuclei that symbolize the revival of the European project, even beyond the question of defence.

I am convinced that the CSDP will not be a European policy in which all member countries will be on the same line. It is obvious. As has been done for the euro, a hard core in the common security and defence policy must therefore be promoted.

The European Defence Fund is an achievement. The EU budget will be increased at the level of its multiannual framework. Yes, the command of planning and conducting external operations exists but it remains underdimensional, as does the European Defence Agency.

The Launch Fund for Emergency Financing of the Early Phases of External Operations is theoretically set up, but when will we move to the operational phase? The tactical groupings are not yet, the reform of the Athena mechanism remains at a dead point; the Council of European Defence Ministers does not yet exist. Not to mention that in case of no-deal or hard Brexit, we will necessarily have to address the future of our military relations with the United Kingdom. The Common Security and Defence Policy cannot be without London.

So, if we talk about a European army, we should consider a greater political integration as well as a common analysis of risks and responses to them, allowing in the end a greater strategic autonomy. If this goal is ambitious, it can only be a very long-term goal, knowing the issues of national sovereignty that are hidden within this common security and defence policy.

A European army is a plan, a common budget, common acquisitions, common support, common command, common industrial market, and a common political authority. Some points can be achieved today, others not.

With this resolution, we deliver a message that we think very strongly: to maintain the momentum of progress and above all to continue the progress on this issue. A European defense, a pillar of NATO, is the foundation of our vision to ensure the security of the continent, our security and that of our fellow citizens.

Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, in the vote on this resolution of CD&V, we will abstain because there are several contradictions.

First, the resolution calls on the federal government not to further reduce the defence budget and to gradually increase it in the long term. However, the 2019 policy note shows that the budget for 2019 will be lower than the defense budget for 2017 and 2018. Until now, we have not been able to answer the question of where the savings will be felt. In any case, it is strange that a majority party calls for an increase in the defense budget through a resolution, while at the discussion of the 2019 policy note it did not comment on the clearly falling budget.

Second, the resolution calls on the federal government to make the necessary military investments to ensure sustainable and efficient interoperability and complementarity of military equipment between the Member States of the European Union. That is also strange, because the largest military investment was just approved.

We will buy U.S. combat aircraft for a few billion euros and we choose to invest minimal in European air capacity. This investment is not EU-sustainable and ⁇ not complementary. There are a lot of fighter aircraft in Europe. Germany chose a few weeks ago to keep the F-35 out of the competition for the replacement of its fighter aircraft. According to the Germans, a choice for the US aircraft, which will be deployed for the next 40 years, could hinder a European defence story. Germany clearly chooses the EU option, CD&V apparently does not. Now still advocating for EU purchases are figs after Easter. The biggest purchase has just been made.

Third, the resolution calls on the federal government to work within the EU to optimise the operational impact force of the EU, which is of course right, but in the meantime we buy the same material with all Member States, at the expense of the impact force.

Overall, there are also proposals that we support, of course, such as more pooling and sharing, removing capacity gaps and further deepening a European defence, but the opposite is that the resolution in a number of points completely contradicts the decisions of this government.

We have written a more comprehensive and concrete resolution and have called for support for our proposal, hence our abstinence at the vote on this resolution.