PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Udenrigsudvalget 2014-15 (1. samling), Europaudvalget 2014-15 (1. samling), Det Udenrigspolitiske Nævn 2014-15 (1. samling)
URU Alm.del Bilag 87, EUU Alm.del Bilag 277, UPN Alm.del Bilag 90
Offentligt

Inter-parliamentary Conference for the Common Foreign and Security Policy

(CFSP) and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)

MINUTES

The Inter-parliamentary Conference for the Common Foreign and Security

Policy (CFSP) and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) took place at the

Italian Senate in Rome on 6-7 November 2014.

It was attended by 33 delegations from the 26 member countries plus six

candidate countries and Norway, making a total of 248 participants.

At the “Meeting

of the Heads of Delegation and the Ad-Hoc Committee on

the Rules of Procedure”,

chaired by the Chairman of the Defence Committee of the

Chamber of Deputies,

Elio VITO,

the work centred on the adoption of the Rules of

Procedure of the CFSP and CSDP Conference and on the drafting of a report on Best

Practices. An amendment to the draft rules introduced by the Spanish delegation that the

Ad-Hoc Committee had referred to the plenary in Rome for consideration was

withdrawn after the Presidency agreed to add a new paragraph to the Conclusions

thanking the Ad-Hoc Committee and declaring that the Best Practices constituted a

further refinement of the Rules of Procedure for the future work of the Conference.

OPENING OF THE CONFERENCE

The President of the Senate

Pietro GRASSO

and the Speaker of the Chamber of

Deputies,

Laura BOLDRINI

welcomed the attendees.

Senator Pietro Grasso illustrated how – following the coming into force of the

Lisbon Treaty – the Inter-parliamentary Conference for the CFSP and CSDP had

become an important part of the system of parliamentary oversight and a means to

ensure the involvement of national parliaments. Referring to the difficulties affecting

the EU, which is facing a severe economic crisis and a situation of instability on its

international borders, he underscored the importance of finding a response to Euro-

scepticism both by endowing EU institutions with new vigour and by strengthening the

external action of the Union so that it might steer geopolitical changes rather than

passively enduring them. The EU, he explained, had not yet succeeded in fully

expressing the enormous political, economic and human potential that its size and

history should warrant. As regards the “greater Mediterranean” area, he warned of the

grave repercussions of unsustainable waves of immigration, and of the need for medium

and long-term policies to achieve security in the area. With respect to the crisis in

Ukraine, he expressed fears for the safety of the most vulnerable member countries and

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

concern at the potential economic impact on the Union of the possible loss of market

and major energy supplies. He insisted on the importance of giving full backing to the

actions of the High Representative, following up on the European Council Conclusions

of December 2013 for a more integrated and sustainable European defence policy,

pressing ahead with enlargement plans, the neighbourhood policy and development

assistance, and pursuing an effective common trade policy by entering into strategic

bilateral agreements.

In her speech, the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies Laura BOLDRINI

declared that it was now time to buttress the EU’s international capabilities. She

observed that the results hitherto in the area of foreign policy and security were not

entirely satisfactory. Suggesting that an immediate change of the current arrangements

was unlikely, she proposed an approach based on ambitious realism. Europe, she

continued, had to reaffirm itself as a role model for the preservation and propagation of

democracy, the rule of law, human rights, conflict prevention, the promotion of

sustainable development, and the assistance of people in need. She argued that these are

values that Europe could not renounce as they formed part of its historical identity, and

should not be sacrificed even when the EU was facing security challenges. With respect

to the ongoing crisis in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean, she called for the

involvement of all Member States in the definition of common strategies and decisions.

Observing that security, the economy and the protection of fundamental values are

closely related, she said that a joint approach was needed when making CSDP-related

decisions.

OPENING SESSION

The opening session heard speeches from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs

Committee of the Senate,

Pier Ferdinando CASINI,

the Chair of the Foreign Affairs

Committee of the Chamber of Deputies,

Fabrizio CICCHITTO,

and the Chair of the

Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament,

Elmar BROK.

Pier Ferdinando CASINI drew attention to the opportunities for the further

integration of the European Union afforded by globalisation, as well as to the challenges

it posed. Acknowledging that Europe needed to continue gradually on the path towards

greater political union, he stressed the importance of moving forward together, with

unanimous consent. Referring to the EU’s role as an international peacemaker, he

argued that in some cases it was necessary to use force to restore stability (as the

western Balkans proved). With respect to the new High Representative, Mr Casini

affirmed the importance of her political role and said she needed to be given real powers

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

that would enable her to act effectively on the international stage. Turning to the crises

affecting Ukraine and the Mediterranean, he invited the MPs in attendance to consider

that the focus on the Mediterranean area should be renewed. He concluded his speech

by expressing deep concern at the armed fundamentalist extremism spreading through

the Middle East and North Africa, which posed a major challenge to security,

democracy and freedom, especially religious freedom.

Fabrizio CICCHITTO reflected that the serious economic and financial crisis

that has swept through Europe had been accompanied by conflict within Islam and

between part of it and the West. He noted that the Al-Qaeda and ISIS versions of

Islamic fundamentalism were in the main aimed against the Islamic world. They sought

to overrun state borders and struck at the religious, civil and political life of traditional

communities that had contributed to the wealth of the Middle East and it was therefore

necessary, he suggested, to examine the past mistakes made by the West and find

political and, if necessary, military solutions for the future. In particular, international

and regional organisations had to support the Kurds and create humanitarian and

military corridors between Syria and Turkey. Touching upon the desperate immigration

situation, he noted that the Mediterranean Sea demarcated the boundary of the entire

European Union, and that Operation Triton had to provide for the start of fresh dialogue

with the migrants’ countries of origin and seek out adequate solutions to their security

and humanitarian problems. The security of Israel and the creation of conditions leading

as soon as possible to a two-state solution were the necessary starting point for any

solution in the Middle East, he said. Touching on Ukraine, he drew attention to the

spirit that had informed the elections there and the victory of the liberal-democratic

forces supporting stronger relations with Europe.

Looking back at the history of European integration and invoking the principle

of the territorial integrity of states, Elmar BROK conducted a detailed review of the

Ukrainian crisis. He expressed his confidence that the new High Representative, with

the contribution of parliaments, would revamp the European CFSP and steer it in a new

strategic direction. He expressed the view that no single EU Member State could

manage the complex crises of the present day on its own. He reiterated the principle

enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon that Member States should operate in concert to

support the CFSP. On the question of the Mediterranean, he spoke of the immigration

crisis and suggested the EU should offer help through development aid and support for

the process of democratisation, so that humanitarian needs might be harmonised with

security demands. Regarding the religious persecution currently being perpetrated in

some Middle Eastern countries, he hoped that the major monotheistic religions might

work together.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

The Italian Minister of Defence

Roberta PINOTTI

delivered a talk entitled,

“Defence as a pillar of European integration,” in which she claimed that Europe had

been born from the need not only for economic integration, but also for common

defence, and that this had already been recognised in 1948, when the first agreements on

collective defence were signed. Many advances had been made since 1948, she said, to

the point where the EU now had a High Representative for Common Foreign and

Security Policy and had developed a common security strategy. In recent years, the

changed geopolitical context, characterised by the crisis at the European borders, had

increased the relevance of defence and security, which now rivalled the economy in

importance. She therefore reiterated her belief in greater European integration in the

field of defence. The EU needed to make the most of the instruments at its disposal,

including its military instrument, to safeguard global security, she said, and should also

be capable of developing new mechanisms to coordinate military spending and

introduce greater complementarity in the use of Member States’ military instruments.

SESSION I

The Mediterranean and the crises at the borders of the European Union.

Regional and global challenges: from the Middle East to Ukraine

The Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation,

Paolo

GENTILONI,

said that although the economic crises had contributed to a crisis of

legitimacy, Europe remained a major centre of attraction, especially for areas in a state

of constant tension such as the Mediterranean, which is going through its most profound

transformation since decolonisation. He then spoke of Libya, the source of as many as

160,000 migrants and refugees, of whom around 132,000 landed in Italy last year. He

warned that the Libyan crisis was a threat not only to Italy, but also to the entire

European Union, and that the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate in Iraq and Syria

posed a threat to all. Turning to the crisis in the Middle East, he appealed to the

conscience of Europe, and regretted that the two-state solution for Israel-Palestine,

though recognised as the only possible way forward, had not yet been attained. On the

Ukrainian crisis, he reiterated Italy’s position, which is for the respect of the territorial

integrity and independence of Ukraine. This, he explained, was the reason that Italy had

refused to recognise the elections in Donbas and supported various forms of pressure on

Moscow, including sanctions. He stressed, however, the need to leave room for a

political solution, which would require on the one hand the maintenance of a firm stance

and, on the other, a willingness to keep open all channels of dialogue with Russia,

which remained an essential interlocutor. The Minister concluded by saying that

Europe’s security could not be delegated to others, and declared his conviction that a

common foreign policy would help Europe regain its momentum and mission in the

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

world. However, he added, only by meeting the expectations that surround it could

Europe overcome the crises that currently threaten it.

In the ensuing debate, 26 delegates took the floor. The speakers generally felt

that in the face of current challenges, Europe had to assume a leading role and give

united and joint responses. According to contributors, the common defence and security

policy had to shift up a gear, possibly through the activation of those parts of the Lisbon

Treaty that provided for new instruments, such as permanent structured cooperation

activities in the area of defence. Speakers emphasised the importance of the role of the

High Representative for Foreign Policy, who had to discharge the duties assigned to her

by the Treaty and develop responses and concrete policies. Regarding the crisis in

Ukraine, members underlined the importance of dialogue with Russia, but spoke also of

the need to ensure respect for the territorial integrity of Ukraine and to oppose the

violations of the rule of law and international law by Moscow. They therefore insisted

on the need to act unambiguously so that Russia might be clear about Europe’s stance.

They also urged the adoption of a comprehensive strategy to support Ukraine in a

variety of ways. One of the points raised regarded the need for Europe to diversify its

energy supplies. In respect of the situation in the Middle East, the opinion of some of

the speakers was that in addition to contributing to reconstruction, Europe should take

on a greater role in the peace process, especially in negotiations on a two-state solution.

On the situation in the Mediterranean, it was agreed that the Mediterranean Sea marked

the border of all Europe, and not only of certain states, and that a common response was

therefore needed. On migration and the need to quell it, it was felt that action must be

taken at source both to combat lawlessness and to stop ISIS from penetrating into

Europe through the waves of migrants. Finally, the question of relations between

Cyprus and Turkey was also raised. After the contributions from the Floor, Minister

Gentiloni made a brief rejoinder.

SESSION II

Prospects for European defence:

strengthening the cooperative approach with strategic partners

The Chairman of the Defence Committee of the Chamber of Deputies,

Elio

VITO,

reaffirmed the need, already voiced by the European Council in December 2013,

of intensifying ongoing efforts to improve the effectiveness, flexibility and visibility of

the CSDP. He expressed the hope that the next meeting of the European Council in June

2015 would be decisive in presenting concrete actions and identifying tangible

advantages. He indicated a number of desirable strategic objectives, such as greater

integration of the European defence market, improvement of the rapid response capacity

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

of the EU, strengthening the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, and

channelling efforts into joint research and technology projects. With regard to

cooperation with strategic partners, he reaffirmed the validity of the transatlantic

partnership as a cornerstone of the CSDP, and reiterated the need for constant dialogue

with a number of non-NATO European states: Bosnia and Hercegovina, Serbia,

Montenegro and Croatia.

The Italian Undersecretary of State for Defence,

Domenico ROSSI,

recalled the

Conclusions of the European Council of December 2013 relating to the strategic action

of the EU in its capacity as a global player, and the “multidimensional approach” that

was first outlined in the European Security Strategy Document of December 2003.

Arguing that it was fundamentally important for the EU to use all the tools at its

disposal, ranging from non-coercive persuasion to hard power. He advocated close

global, regional and transatlantic cooperation between the EU and its partners in a spirit

of mutual reinforcement and complementarity. The new crises required an integrated

approach and a rapid decision-making capacity that would enable the prompt

deployment of forces. He cited the EUFOR-RCA mission as a good example of EU-UN

cooperation. He also emphasised the importance of being able to combine the broad

range of instruments of the European Union with the far-reaching capabilities of NATO

for defence intervention.

In the course of the ensuing discussions, in which 15 MPs took the floor, a

general consensus emerged on the need for the effective implementation of a common

European defence system, even though several questions were raised about the tools and

resources actually available for use. Delegates voiced general support for strengthening

the strategic partnership with NATO and for the activation of concrete structures such

as battlegroups.

SESSION III

The EU as a global player: priorities and strategies within the CFSP and CSDP

In her address, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and

Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission,

Federica

MOGHERINI,

declared that owing to the severity and gravity of the crises taking

place in the regions to the south and east of the European Union, according them equal

attention was a matter of necessity. She then reviewed the short-term challenges facing

the European Union. With respect to Ukraine, she said supporting its democratic

transition to a united country under the rule of a central government was essential. She

called for a dialogue with Russia conducive to real action. She expressed deep concern

at the risk of civil war in Libya and its aftermath on the entire European Union, and

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

proposed that parliamentary diplomacy would be a particularly useful way of

contributing to the process of national reconciliation. Ms Mogherini warned that in the

absence of a political plan, the fight against IS might be jeopardised and that the

European Union would have to exercise its proper responsibilities in this matter along

with the United Nations. On the Ebola epidemic, she stressed the importance of the time

factor and advised that the challenge had to be tackled through the coordinated

management of the various different components of the European Union. Finally, with

regard to the tensions in the Middle East, she noted the deterioration of Israeli-

Palestinian relations, but suggested that the common threat posed by IS might pave the

way to a different scenario that was more open to dialogue.

Looking at the past, she cited Tunisia and the Balkans as examples of how crises

had been resolved with the European Union helping to create situations of stability.

Looking ahead, she cautioned that the EU could not become an effective global player

unless it first became an effective regional player, and that it therefore needed to act to

promote political transition in Ukraine and to prevent civil war in Libya. The long-term

challenges for the EU, she said, were international terrorism, arms proliferation, human

trafficking, human rights violations and energy security. Dealing with these challenges

would necessitate bringing the enormous untapped potential of the EU to bear, which

would also entail applying to the letter the provisions of the treaties in respect of the

CSDP and the coordinated deployment of all the instruments at the disposal of the

Union.

With respect to the foregoing, she announced her commitment to working with

the European Defence Agency. She concluded with the hope that the goals she had

outlined would be espoused by European parliaments and national governments, the

European Parliament and the EU Council.

The ensuing discussions saw contributions from thirty-four MPs, who were

almost unanimous in supporting a more proactive role for the EU and greater cohesion

in its external dimension, and in favouring the exploitation of the full potential of the

Treaties also to stabilise EU borders. The themes touched on by the speakers regarded

mainly: the crisis in Ukraine and relations with Russia (with calls to recognise errors

made, resume dialogue and maintain a resolute stance); the Middle East and the Israelo-

Palestinian issue (the priorities indicated by the High Representative were well received,

and calls were made to support moderate Palestinian forces and recognise the

Palestinian state); the crisis in Syria and the challenge of IS (members advised that the

European Union had to accept its responsibilities, including by supplying weapons to

the Kurds, and should coordinate its efforts with the United Nations); Libya (it was

suggested that once a situation of greater stability had been reached – which should be

pursued by means of urgent political dialogue for the reconciliation of the parties –

requests for asylum might be managed by the delegations of the European Union). On

European defence, there was general consensus on the need to launch the battlegroups

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

(with the exception of some, who felt it would be more useful to commit present scarce

resources to strengthening the partnership with NATO). The implementation of articles

42, 44 and 46 of the Treaty was also strongly urged. On a new European security

strategy, many delegates stressed the urgent need for an updated analysis and the

development of a common approach. Finally, speakers agreed on the need to diversify

energy resources and the need for prompt coordination to combat the Ebola outburst.

With regard to relations with the United States, particular emphasis was placed on the

importance of the negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Treaty.

In her reply to the contributions from the Floor, the High Representative

promised to pursue a political programme characterised by ambition, decision and

determination. Accepting that the European Union needed credibility and coherence,

she announced her intention to innovate.

SESSION IV

The Libyan crisis

The opening speech was delivered by the Chairman of the Defence Committee of the

Italian Senate,

Nicola LATORRE.

After explaining that the Special Representative and

Head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya, Bernardino Léon, was unable to

attend the Conference owing to the worsening of the situation in Libya, he called upon

European parliaments to support Mr Léon’s work. He expressed the view that in the

wake of the Libyan Supreme Court ruling voiding the elections of 25 June 2014, the

attempt to reconcile the warring parties had become more difficult, and therefore

required even greater effort by the international community, especially the European

Union. With UN Security Council Resolution 2174 of 27 August 2014 and the joint

statement of the governments of France, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom and the

United States for the immediate cessation of hostilities serving as a legal framework,

action by the international community was, he argued, of the essence if there was to be

any hope of success. He concluded with the observation that the stabilisation of the

political situation in Libya was an absolute priority for Europe, just as peace and

security in Libya were a prerequisite for the stability of North Africa and the

Mediterranean.

In the discussions that followed, eight MPs took the floor. They concurred on the

need for a greater presence of the European Union in Libya to find a solution that

should not be military but, rather, based on political and economic pressure (through,

for example, measures to limit oil revenues). Calls were also made for increased

cooperation with the countries of North Africa.

Breakout Sessions

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

The first breakout session on “Parliamentary

perspectives on the future of

European Battlegroups”

was moderated by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on

Security and Defence of the European Parliament,

Anna FOTYGA.

The Deputy Chairperson of the Defence Committee of the Chamber of Deputies,

Massimo ARTINI,

served as the rapporteur.

The panellists were

Juan Francisco MARTÍNEZ NÚÑEZ,

Director General of

Defence Policy at the Ministry of Defence of the Kingdom of Spain,

Wolfgang

WOSOLSOBE,

Director General of the European Union Military Staff, and

Nicoletta

PIROZZI,

Senior Fellow in European Affairs at Italy’s International Affairs Institute

(IAI).

In the course of his speech, MARTÍNEZ NÚÑEZ explained that battlegroups

were a mechanism for the prompt, efficient and consistent deployment of forces and

constituted a tool that could be used in all crisis-management operations demanding

rapid response. He pointed out, however, that battlegroups are formed by infantry

battalions, and that the greater modularity called for by so many parties, might preclude

their use, since modularity required time and more complex decision-making

procedures. He approved of the proposal to use one of the two battalions on standby for

training purposes on the grounds that it might increase the use of the same. On the

question of funding, he felt the Athena mechanism was unfit for the purpose, and called

for a revision of the decision-making process, which drew too sharp a distinction

between civil and military mission funding. As for the “political will” for the

deployment of battlegroups, he was hopeful that what he referred to as “Afghan fatigue”

and the subsequent political unwillingness to commit “boots on the ground”, especially

for operations not regarded as vital for European interests, could be superseded. He was

cautiously optimistic about the change of perception that could be brought about once

the European Union had shown its capacity to deploy successfully and effectively

military missions to crisis areas.

In the address that followed, Wolfgang WOSOLSOBE focused on the broader

concept of the rapid response mechanism and the time required for the marshalling of

forces. He noted that battlegroups are currently the only available facility for rapid

response and that they had to be endowed with greater capabilities to achieve an

adequate level of modularity and flexibility. After explaining the decision-making

process for military operations, he cited the EUFOR-RCA mission as a good example of

how the European Union could make an assessment and come to a rapid decision. In

conclusion, he agreed with the usefulness of extending the capabilities of the

battlegroups through training.

In her speech, Nicoletta PIROZZI spoke of the close parallel between the

evolution of the battlegroups, small military units with fast intervention times, and the

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

development of an overall CSDP. Noting that articles 41, 44 and 46 of the Lisbon

Treaty provided an appropriate legal framework for the development of an EU defence

policy, he recalled that the concept of battlegroups had arisen from the commitment

made at the Anglo-French Summit of Saint Malo in December 1998 to develop an

independent response capability based on credible military forces in order to respond to

international crises. Even so, every year since 2007 when the battlegroups acquired full

operational capability, the European Union had come face to face with international

crises without ever being able to find the necessary consensus to use them: Chad in

2007; the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2008; South Sudan in 2010; Libya in 2011;

Mali in 2012; and the Central African Republic in 2013. He argued that the battlegroups

were particularly suited to dealing with the current crises, being deployable both as a

single force for small-scale operations and as an advance force for particular tasks

(conflict prevention, stabilisation, humanitarian assistance, etc.). Their use, he

maintained, required a radical revision of cost-sharing arrangements for military

missions and a strategic reflection by Member States on their common foreign, security

and defence policy goals.

***

The second breakout session focused on “Strengthening

EU-Africa relations”.

The moderator was the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the

Parliament of Latvia, Ojars Ēriks Kalnins.

The rapporteur was

Dimitrios SALTOUROS,

member of the Greek

Parliament’s National Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee.

The panellists were

Giovanni CARBONE,

associate professor at the University

of Milan and researcher at ISPI, and

Koen VERVAEKE,

director and senior

coordinator for the Great Lakes Region of the European External Action Service

(EEAS).

Giovanni CARBONE provided an analysis of the sustained economic growth in

sub-Saharan Africa, especially Nigeria. He noted, however, that economic growth had

had limited success in reducing the poverty of ordinary citizens. The new economic

partners in the region, he explained, had often followed a “country-continent

conference” approach in which politics and trade with Africa were determined only by

ad-hoc multilateral meetings. In this regard, he said, Europe needed to restructure its

relations with an emergent Africa, whose importance is recognised by European and

national leaders. He spoke of the coming massive population surge as being the result of

high fertility rates that were falling only gradually, and longer life expectancy, and

warned it might lead to conflict over access to resources, massive urbanization and

migration. He acknowledged that in the medium term there had been gradual political

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

stabilisation in the continent, although some areas remained in crisis. He identified the

geopolitical “arc of instability” as running from most of the Sahel to Somalia, and

therefore encompassing the Central African Republic, and extending into the eastern

Congo. He advised that the problems were attributable to the political fragility of the

relevant countries, and therefore needed to be dealt with by means of specific strategies,

while also keeping in mind that economic growth may help strengthen states.

Koen VERVAEKE illustrated the collaboration between the two continents,

focusing not so much on development aid as on political cooperation, and referred in

this respect to the Europe-Africa Joint Strategy and the summit held in Brussels in 2014.

He spoke of the economic opportunities afforded by some African countries, but also of

the risks for businesses operating locally caused by the political fragility of the countries

in question. He disclosed that Europe remained the leading economic partner of Africa

and that trade was continuing to grow. He gave a detailed account of the first economic

partnership agreements between the EU and Africa. The high quality of the negotiations

leading up to the agreements boded well, he suggested, for their future application

within the framework of a balanced relationship between equals. The question of

development, he argued, was less important than economy and governance. He then

mentioned specific areas of collaboration: rule of law and democratisation, in regard to

which the EU is working alongside the African Union; security, an area in which events

in Africa have such significance for the EU that they might well qualify for treatment as

part of an “almost neighbourhood” policy; and migration, on which Africa and Europe

are developing a common agenda. Finally, he offered a review of the many important

military operations the European Union is carrying out on the African continent.

***

The third breakout session, on “Regional

Stability and enlargement to the

Western Balkans”,

was moderated by

Giorgio TONINI,

member of the Foreign

Affairs and Emigration Committee of the Senate.

The rapporteur was

Afzanl KHAN,

member of the Foreign Affairs Committee

of the European Parliament.

The presentations were by

Fernando GENTILINI,

Director for the Western

Balkans of the European External Action Service (EEAS),

Tsrdjan MAJSTOROVIĆ,

Deputy Director of the Office for European Integration of the Government of the

Republic of Serbia, and

Gerald KNAUS,

Chairman of the European Stability Initiative

(ESI).

In his presentation, Fernando GENTILINI gave prominence to the connection

between the process of enlargement towards the Western Balkans and the European

Union’s foreign policy. He pointed out that since the break-up of Yugoslavia, the

European Union had progressed from the deploying defence and policing to providing

instruments for the enlargement. He noted that in the Western Balkans all available

enlargement instruments had been used, and invoked the need for more cooperation at

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

regional level so that relations might be established not just between the EU and

individual countries, but also among the countries of the region themselves in

accordance with the principle that “integration begins at home”. Entering into the

particulars, he illustrated the situation of each country in relation to its progress on the

path to reform. He focused on Bosnia, whose progress is currently stalled, and praised

the progress made by Serbia and Kosovo, as well as Albania. Whereas the new

European Commission had declared its intention not to proceed with any further

enlargement over the next five years, this period, he argued, should be used by applicant

countries to make headway towards their goals. He then justified the European

Commission’s revised approach to enlargement, explaining that whereas in the previous

enlargement rounds, countries had been allowed to “adjust” even after joining the

European Union, this leeway was no longer allowed, with the result that applicants must

now comply in full with all the criteria and bring the necessary reforms to completion if

they want to gain access. Finally, he highlighted the importance of inter-parliamentary

exchanges as a way of ensuring that all available tools are used in support of

enlargement.

Tsrdjan MAJSTOROVIĆ focused on two important issues for the stability of the

Western Balkans. The first concerned the coming into office of the new European

Commission and its decision not to proceed with any enlargement over the next five

years. While he agreed that this approach was realistic, he felt that it also sent a negative

message to the people of the western Balkans where public support is vital to the

arduous process of reform. The second question concerned the new rules of EU

accession, which place greater emphasis on the rule of law, economic governance and

reform of the public administration. These rules, he observed, created additional

challenges that the western Balkans would have to face together. Even so, he remarked,

accession to the EU was now the common goal of these countries, though success

depended on “more Europe”. He suggested that reforms had to be associated with

enlargement, as this would oblige the leadership of the countries of the region to assume

responsibility for them, and lend legitimacy to the process as a whole. Europe would

also have to think “out of the box” and introduce new initiatives, such as the bilateral

process promoted by Germany and the United Kingdom for Bosnia and Hercegovina.

Finally, recalling the Enlargement Strategy of 2005 that was based on the three “C’s”,

namely Consolidation of the Union, Conditions for accession and the Communication

of the benefits of enlargement, he proposed that this last point had not been successful.

He concluded by saying that what was needed for the enlargement process was a fourth

“C”: Credibility.

In his speech, Gerald KNAUS looked at why the public was opposed to

enlargement. In the first place, he surmised, the enlargement process suffered from a

perception problem. The criteria adopted by the European Union were not perceived as

merit-based or fair and, at the same time, were regarded as not stringent enough.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Further, the process is difficult to understand, does not seem to lead to real changes, and

entails lengthy and complicated procedures. For instance, decisions need to be

unanimous, so that the veto of a single country is all it takes to block the whole process.

Mr Knaus submitted that to overcome the credibility gap, more substance needed to be

given to the enlargement process. He proposed an alternative method, according to

which the Commission should prepare a roadmap of all the technical objectives, specify

what an applicant country needed to do in order to achieve them, and set a given

number of reform goals. In the monitoring phase, very clear language should be used

when assessing results. He recommended a restructuring of the progress reports, so that

the results achieved by each country might be more easily comprehended, and

suggested applicant countries should be compared with each other with a view to

making it easier to see what progress had been made by each and encouraging the

process of reform. The annual progress reports should therefore aim to achieve the

following: measure progress, highlight what remains to be done, motivate government

employees, educate the public, and be credible to all those Member States that question

the veracity of the transformation brought about by enlargement.

CLOSING SESSION

At the closing session, the rapporteurs acquainted the Conference with the

discussions of the breakout sessions whose findings were in line with its Conclusions.

For the first breakout session,

“Parliamentary perspectives on the future of

European Battlegroups”,

the rapporteur was Massimo ARTINI. After giving account

of the debate on battlegroups undertaken in the context of the “European parliamentary

system” (a network made up of the European Parliament, the fora of inter-parliamentary

cooperation and the parliaments of Member States), the rapporteur presented the

discussions held in the breakout group, whose participants had registered a keen interest

in seeing further exploration of the links between EU and NATO forces, with particular

reference to rapid response mechanisms, also as a way of improving interoperability

among Member States. A broad consensus also emerged on the need to encourage

strong political will for the effective use of battlegroups and the other instruments

envisaged in the Treaty of Lisbon (in particular, the cooperation referred to in article 44

of the TEU). Questions were raised about the effective and rapid deployability of

battlegroups, their use for crisis prevention, the civil dimension of their use, the

possibility of changing their name, the revision of the Athena mechanism, and the

possible extension of their scope of operation to include training and supervision.

Winding up his report, Mr ARTINI reiterated that the battlegroups were an

indispensable means for responding promptly to crises, and expressed the wish that they

be developed for integrated civil and military purposes.

For breakout session two, “Strengthening

EU-Africa relations”,

the rapporteur

was Dimitrios SALTOUROS, who reaffirmed his conviction that the future belongs to

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Africa and focused his report on conflict prevention, crisis management, and the

positive aspects of legal immigration. He hoped that cooperation between the two

continents would be both total and effective. He then summarised the main themes dealt

with at the breakout session, which included the phenomenon of corruption in many

African countries, the values embodied by Europe, migration, the need to ensure

citizens in Africa to benefit from the economic growth of the continent, and the need to

fine-tune European policy on Africa and the South.

In reporting on the work of the third session “Regional

stability and

enlargement to the western Balkans,”

the rapporteur Afzanl KHAN gave an account

of the themes that emerged during the discussions. First, in spite of the European

Commission’s decision not to proceed with further enlargement, it was important, he

said, for the countries of the western Balkans to step up their efforts at giving effect to

the reforms they have undertaken, and for the EU to maintain its focus on the region.

Second, the discussions had revealed that Europe needed to adopt measures that would

allow the governments of the region to comprehend the political, economic and social

strength that enlargement will bring, spur them on the path to reform, and ensure that

they are not left feeling as if their membership is forever being deferred. He also

highlighted the importance of not leaving candidates and potential candidates behind

lest this further divide the region, and declared that responsibility in this matter lay not

only with the Balkan countries but also with the European Union. Finally, he reported

that his session had resolved that there was a need for greater regional cooperation

through neighbourly relations, which are the cornerstone of European integration. This

latter objective could be achieved, he argued, only if all the reforms were perceived by

the countries of the European Union and by the countries of the western Balkans as

elements of social and economic progress.

The Conference approved the amendments to its

Rules of Procedure

and

Best

Practices,

as set forth in the white paper prepared by the working group that met in

Athens.

Finally, the Conference approved the

Conclusions,

adopting a text that included

the amendments submitted by delegations during the meeting. The Austrian delegation

did not take part in the vote, having protested in writing at the working methods of the

Conference and declaring its preference for far briefer Conclusions that refer only to

such matters as emerged during the sessions. The German delegation, taking note of the

complete opposition of the United Kingdom delegation, withdrew its amendment for the

creation of a permanent European Union military headquarters, while at the same time

expressing the hope, endorsed by the Presidency, that the matter might be discussed in

depth at the next meeting of the Conference.