The Council presents its Annual report to the European\nParliament on the main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP, in\naccordance with the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May\n2006).
\nIn 2008, the work by and within the Council was\nunderpinned by the review process of the implementation of the\nEuropean Security Strategy (ESS). This report has been inspired by\nthe ESS Implementation Report both in form and substance.\nAccordingly, and resonating with the EP suggestions, it takes a\nmore strategic, theme-driven and streamlined approach than the CFSP\nreports of previous years. It does not intend to serve as an\nexhaustive catalogue of the Council's activities in 2008. Rather,\nthis CFSP report highlights the main aspects and basic choices of\nthe EU's foreign policy, illustrating those by selected examples\nfrom the foreign policy arena.
\nThe EU's global role in shaping international\ndevelopments is underpinned by the unique set of instruments at its\ndisposal. EU Special Representatives (EUSRs) and ESDP missions and\noperations have an important role in the CFSP/ESDP area. In 2008,\neleven EUSRs under twelve mandates provided the EU with an active\npolitical presence in key countries and regions, acting as a\n\"voice\" and \"face\" for the EU and its policies. Thirteen ESDP missions and\noperations - three military operations and ten civilian missions -\nwere being conducted on three continents. One new military\noperation and four new civilian missions were added to this array\nin 2008. The\nreport looks at their contribution to the promotion of the CFSP\nobjectives and priorities in the broader policy context.
\nDuring the year 2008, the Council's action consisted\nof the following :
\n1) Addressing threats and global\nchallenges: the Council further\nadvanced its continuous efforts to counter proliferation and\nterrorism, as well as to better address the security aspects\nemerging from climate change, and energy supply. Risks stemming\nfrom regional conflicts and fragile states, including piracy, and\nthe economic crisis required a multi-faceted response in order to\naddress the root causes of conflict and insecurity and to aim at\nlasting stabilisation.
\n2) Building stability in Europe and\nbeyond: the Council reaffirmed that\nthe enlargement process, conducted on the basis of the renewed\nconsensus approved by the European Council (December 2006) will\ncontinue to promote peace, democracy and stability on the\ncontinent. It confirmed the need for fair and rigorous\nconditionality, as well as the consolidation of commitments\nincluding its full support to the European perspective of the\ncandidate and potential candidate countries. The European Council\nstressed the importance of regional cooperation and good\nneighbourly relations. Last year was crucial for affirming the EU's\nrole as a key actor in tackling crisis and frozen conflicts in its\nneighbourhood. In particular, the August 2008 crisis in Georgia put\nthe efficiency and coherence of EU's response to the test before\nthe eyes of the world.
\n3) Contribution to a more effective multilateral\norder: with the increasing complexity\nof challenges that the world faces today, solutions need to be\nsought primarily in a multilateral framework. The EU has\nstrengthened partnerships in pursuit of that objective, working\nwith the United Nations,
\nNATO, OSCE and the Council of Europe, as well as\nengaging in other international coordination mechanisms.
\nThe protection of human rights has guided many CFSP\nactivities in 2008 with the launch of several new human rights\nconsultations and dialogues, continuing to attribute to human\nrights issues a solid place within the various frameworks of EU's\nrelations with third countries, adopting new guidelines, and\nconcretely advancing the human rights and gender agenda in the ESDP\ncontext.
\nMoreover, the fight against impunity is one of the\ncornerstones of the EU's approach to building and maintaining\nlasting peace, international justice and rule of law. Hence, the EU\nsupport to the International Criminal Court (ICC) remained strong\nand firm and was mainstreamed across the EU's external\npolicies. The Council and the European Parliament put strong\npressure on the Government of Sudan to cooperate on the two\nexisting arrest warrants issued by the ICC in its pursuit of ending\nthe impunity of the planners and perpetrators of the most horrific\ncrimes committed in Darfur.
\n4) Fostering partnerships across the\nworld: the ESS Implementation Report\nstated that \"globalisation is accelerating shifts in power\". This\ncan expose differences in values but can also be seen as an\nopportunity to establish or consolidate partnerships with the key\nactors on the global scene, based on shared interests and guided by\nour values (United States, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Japan,\nAfrica, Asia, Gulf and Mediterranean, Western Balkans, Latin\nAmerica and Caribbean).
\n5) More effective, capable and\ncoherent: work was pursued further to\nstrengthen conflict sensitivity and the conflict prevention\napproach, develop the necessary capabilities and capacities and\nenhance coherence between the EU's various external policy\ninstruments. The need for further capability development was\nacknowledged at the highest level when the European Council\nsubscribed to the Council's declaration on strengthening\ncapabilities. Throughout 2008, the EU on various occasions\ndemonstrated its capacity to respond to international crises with\nspeed, rigour and sensitivity to the complexities of the\nsurrounding political and security conditions. If speed is what\nefficiency is measured against, EUMM Georgia was exemplary. If\nefficiency is a matter of numbers, we need to turn our attention to\nEULEX Kosovo, the largest civilian ESDP mission ever.
\nWith regard to financing, the 2008 CFSP budget\namounted to EUR 285 million An overwhelming part of the funds was\nallocated to operations and actions related to civilian crisis\nmanagement, in particular EULEX Kosovo (EUR 120 million), EUPOL\nAfghanistan (EUR 45 million) and EUMM Georgia (EUR 35 million). the\nAthena mechanism128 continued to administer the financing of certain\ncommon costs of
\nESDP operations having military or defence\nimplications, pursuant to Article 28(3) TEU. The Athena mechanism\ncontinued to finance EUFOR ALTHEA in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with a\nbudget for common costs of almost EUR 30 million. It was also used\nto finance EUFOR Tchad/RCA, an operation with a budget for common\ncosts of nearly EUR 120 million for 2008. The Athena mechanism is\nalso being used to finance the common costs of EU NAVFOR Somalia -\noperation ATALANTA.
\nLooking ahead for 2009:\nthe report states that 2009 will continue to be a testing time in\ninternational affairs. In all these areas, the EU will continue to\nbe guided by the approach described in the ESS, and its\nImplementation Report. European foreign policy seeks to build a\nmore effective multilateral order, through a rules-based framework\nto address global problems such as human rights, international\njustice, proliferation, terrorism and climate change.
\nShared priorities: the\nUS and Europe have a renewed opportunity to work together on the\nglobal agenda, with our key partners, including through the G20.\nShared priorities include the Middle East Peace Process, Iran,\nAfghanistan, Pakistan, and climate change. In these and other\nareas, we will work in support of our common security and common\nvalues, including democracy and human rights. Closure of Guantanamo\nBay will be an important symbolic step in this regard; reflection\non concrete ways for the EU to support this process will be\nneeded.
\nRelations with Russia:\nthe Georgia conflict and the recent gas crisis have left scars. But\nboth sides should be open for discussions to move forward\ncooperation between Russia and the EU. The EU is open to\nconsider new ideas that may contribute to the enhancement of\nEuro-Atlantic security in a transparent process, bearing in mind\nthat the OSCE is the natural forum for this debate. Debate on the\nfuture shape of European Security, launched by President Medvedev,\nis a part of this. Progress on a new agreement between the EU and\nRussia will also be key. We need Russia as a reliable partner both\nwithin our common neighbourhood and further afield.
\nBalkans: the EU will\ncontinue to support the European perspective of the Western\nBalkans, which remains essential for the stability of the region.\nIt will remain committed to playing a leading role in strengthening\nthe stability of Kosovo and supporting its development.
\nEastern Partnership: the\neconomic crisis has lent a new urgency to the establishment of the\nEastern Partnership, to be launched at a summit meeting in May. The\nEU will continue to work with Ukraine in achieving greater\npolitical and economic stability. It is also open to closer ties\nwith Belarus, and is ready to help in resolving the Transnistria\nconflict. The EU remains committed to securing a UN and OSCE\npresence in Georgia. Further eastwards, Central Asia is an\nincreasingly important partner, in strengthening energy security by\ndiversification of transport routes and supply, and in addressing\ncommon security challenges.
\nMiddle East: progress on\nthe Middle East Peace Process (MEPP) is central to unlocking the\nwider vision of a comprehensive peace and stability for the region.\nThe EU will continue to work in favour of peace talks on all\noutstanding issues in support of a two-state solution, including a\nviable and contiguous Palestinian state. The international\ncommunity, including the EU, will continue to engage closely with\nthe parties of the MEPP, and to support regional efforts such as\nthe Arab Peace Initiative, with the aim of re-launching the peace\nprocess based on a the Road Map for Peace. A durable and negotiated\ntruce following the Gaza conflict remains a priority. The EU\nremains ready to play a part in supporting the path to peace,\nincluding through an ESDP presence. The Union for the Mediterranean\nalso provides a new opportunity to rebuild confidence leading to\ngreater regional cohesion.
\nIran:\n2009 will also be an important year in relations\nwith Iran, perhaps a decisive one. The readiness of the new US\nAdministration to engage directly with Iran adds a new dimension to\nthe international community's efforts to resolve the nuclear\nquestion, and significantly enhances the potential incentives on\noffer if Iran chooses to negotiate. At the same time, Iran\ncontinues to enrich uranium and develop its nuclear programme.\nThus, the need for a solution is becoming more acute just as the\nopportunity for one becomes greater. The EU will put all possible\nenergy into a collective effort of the international community for\nsuccessful negotiations. If the opportunities are taken, 2009 could\nbe a turning point; if they are not taken, the consequences could\nbe serious.
\nAfghanistanand\nPakistan: building stability in these\ntwo countries will remain a preoccupation with major implications\nfor the wider region of South Asia and for Europe. The EU will\nstrengthen its engagement in both, in particular through EUPOL\nAfghanistan and support for improved governance, as well as\nassistance in preparation of elections.
\nIndiaand\nChina: these countries are now both\nmajor partners in addressing regional and global problems, from\nproliferation to climate change. This engagement will focus on\nmatters of mutual interest, but should address values too,\nincluding the field of human rights.
\nGlobal governance: the\nsystem of global governance has come under strain on many fronts,\nin particular the challenges posed by the economic crisis, and\nneeds renewal to restore legitimacy and effectiveness. The EU has a\nresponsibility to lead the debate on how this can be done, in\npartnership with others, including the US, and the emerging global\npowers. Over the last decade, European foreign policy has increased\nin ambition but it is important to:
\nThe Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted the\nown-initiative report drawn up by Gabriele ALBERTINI (EPP, IT) on\nthe annual report from the Council to the European Parliament on\nthe main aspects and basic choices of the Common Foreign and\nSecurity Policy (CFSP) in 2008, presented to the European\nParliament in application of Part II, Section G, paragraph 43 of\nthe Interinstitutional\nAgreement of 17 May 2006.
\nDivided into several parts, the report begins by\ncalling on the Vice-President/High Representative (VP/HR) and her\nservices to develop a coherent EU foreign policy strategy based on\nthe objectives and principles established in Article 21 TEU. Such a\nstrategy should clearly identify the common security interests of\nthe EU and thereby serve as a reference framework for policy-making\nas well as for the formulation, financing, implementation and\nmonitoring of the EU's external action. Members want Parliament's\nrelevant bodies to be fully associated with such an endeavour, and\nthey believe that the concepts of Human Security, and\nResponsibility to Protect should become two of its guiding\nprinciples.
\nThe Council's 2008 annual report on the\nCFSP: noting the improvements to the\n2008 report, Members stresses that the scope of the report should\nnot be limited simply to a description of CFSP activities but\nshould provide the opportunity to establish a dialogue with the\nEuropean Parliament aimed at developing a more strategic approach\nto the CFSP. They recommend that the annual CFSP report be turned\ninto a yearly report discussing the implementation of the EU's\nforeign policy strategy, evaluating its effectiveness and outlining\nits future direction, with more references to the budgetary needs\nand financial impact of external actions in such reporting. They\nreiterate that in order to enhance the democratic legitimacy of the\nCFSP, Parliament's competent bodies should be more widely\nconsulted.
\nImplications of the Treaty\nof Lisbon: the committee\nwelcomes the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which\nprovides the EU with tools for the further enhancement of its role\nand visibility on the international scene, and also welcome the\nrole to be played by the Vice-President/High Representative in\nchairing the Foreign Affairs Council. It expects these new\nfunctions to consolidate inter-institutional contacts and foster a\nmore stable dialogue between the institutions. It invites the\nVice-President/High Representative to increase her appearances in\nParliament. The committee is of the view that the merging of the\ninter-governmental and Community pillars and functions into one\nsingle post of the Vice-President/High Representative, who is\nsubject to a collective vote of consent by the European Parliament,\ncan increase the democratic legitimacy of CFSP activities provided\na continuous strategic dialogue is established on an equal footing\nbetween Parliament, the Council and the Commission at all\nlevels.
\nMembers underline that sufficient funds need to be\nallocated in the EU budget and regret that the relevant budget\ncontinues to be underfunded and they look forward to being fully\ninvolved in the procedures for granting rapid access to\nappropriations in the Union budget for urgent financing of CFSP\ninitiatives. They reiterate their concerns about the lack of\ntransparency as regards the financing of the common costs of EU\noperations having military or defence implications, since the\nAthena mechanism clearly does not afford an overview of all the\nfinancial implications of missions conducted under the CFSP. The\nreport welcomes, therefore, the setting-up of the start-up fund\nunder the new Treaty and asks to be consulted on its management,\nnoting also that the setting-up and operation of the EEAS must\npreserve the European Parliament's rights of democratic and\nbudgetary scrutiny. It stresses, furthermore, the need to establish\ngreater clarity on the criteria for the appointment and evaluation\nof EU Special Representatives (EUSRs), calling for increased\nparliamentary scrutiny of, and control over, EUSR appointments and\nmandates. Members want to see a review and extension of existing\ninter-institutional agreements so as to ensure the smooth and\nefficient implementation of the budgetary, consultation and\nsupervision procedures for the CFSP and the CSDP and to improve\naccess to sensitive information. They express their determination\nto exercise budgetary power and democratic scrutiny with\nregard to the CFSP in connection with all institutional\ninnovations.
\nCFSP matters of a thematic\nnature: Members continue to be\nconcerned about the security of energy supply and repeated gas\ncrises such as the Russian-Ukrainian crisis of January 2009. They\nunderline the need to prevent the energy dependency of the EU on\nthird countries weakening the independence of EU foreign policy,\nand recall the urgent need implement a common European external\nenergy policy. They want the VP/HR to promote EU cohesion in\nconstructive dialogue with energy suppliers, especially with Russia\nand transit countries, by developing effective energy diplomacy and\nmore efficient mechanisms for responding to crisis situations and,\nfinally, by promoting the diversification of energy supplies,\nsustainable energy use and the development of renewable energy\nsources. Only a common EU approach could prevent any future\nshortcomings in the oil and gas supplies of the Member States and\ncould increase the energy security of the EU as a whole. The\ncommittee believes that significant potential threats and conflicts\narise from intensified competition over access to, and control of,\nnatural resources, and consequently that the EU should further\ndevelop mitigation, adaptation and energy conservation policies.\nThe EU must strengthen its leadership and further develop a\ndialogue with other key actors such as the emerging powers (China,\nBrazil, Russia, India), the United States and developing\ncountries.
\nMembers express support for strengthening the United\nNations system and according special importance to consolidating\nthe Human Rights Council and abolishing the death penalty. They\nreiterate the importance of orderly migration management, the need\nto avert illegal immigration by promoting local development in the\ncountries of origin and fighting criminal organisations that\ntraffic in human beings.
\nThey go on to stress the importance of an adequate\nbalance between civilian and military planning capabilities in the\nCouncil Secretariat and call for adequate staffing of the civilian\ncomponent . Member States are urged to use the great opportunity\nprovided by the EEAS to pool currently available resources in order\nto achieve a coherent, effective and efficient crisis management\nplanning capability. Member States are asked to redouble their\nefforts to deploy sufficient numbers of suitable, qualified and\ngender-balanced personnel to take part in CSDP civilian and\nmilitary endeavours and Members call, in this respect, for common\ntraining of the personnel of CSDP missions.
\nThe committee emphasises the need to intensify the\nEU's engagement in multilateral negotiations to reduce the salience\nof nuclear weapons, and reiterates the need for disarmament and\nstrengthened international guarantees of non-proliferation. It\ncalls the EU and its Member States to enhance their diplomatic\nefforts in order to achieve a successful revision of the Treaty on\nNon-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in May 2010. It also calls for\nthe systematic inclusion of gender equality and women's empowerment\nin the EU's political dialogue and policy discussions with partner\ncountries, and for the inclusion of human rights and good\ngovernance aspects in the mandates of EUSRs.
\nIn the second part of the report, Members set out their main priorities in the\ngeographical areas. They recommend that the EU strengthen the\npolitical dialogue with third countries and regions, particularly\nwith strategic partners with whom to coordinate positions in the\ninternational organisations and support and promote democracy, the\nrule of law and respect for human rights. It calls on the Council,\nthe Member States and the Vice-President/High Representative\nactively to seek peaceful solutions in international conflicts and\nto strengthen the EU's conflict prevention mechanisms. Other\ninitiatives suggested include strengthening the role and impact of\ninternational organisations with the United Nations as the main\nguarantor of international peace and security. The committee\nconsiders it essential that the relevant EU delegations at the UN's\nheadquarters in New York and Geneva be adequately equipped with\nmeans and staff It takes the view that the EU and NATO should\ndevelop a more intense and effective partnership, and recommends a\nreview of the Berlin-Plus arrangements and the development of a\nmore strategic dialogue on shared strategic interests. It urges the\nfacilitation of broader practical cooperation on the ground at\nmilitary or civilian level, in particular when both organisations\noperate in the same theatre of missions.
\nEU foreign policy : committee position by\ngeographical zone: Members conduct an\nanalysis of their position by geographical area, and state as\nfollows :
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 592 votes to 66,\nwith 11 abstentions a resolutionon the\nannual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the\nmain aspects and basic choices of the Common Foreign and Security\nPolicy (CFSP) in 2008, presented to the European Parliament in\napplication of Part II, Section G, paragraph 43 of the\nInterinstitutional Agreement of 17 May\n2006.
\nDivided into several parts, the resolution begins by\ncalling on the Vice-President/High Representative (VP/HR) and her\nservices to develop a coherent EU foreign policy strategy\nbased on the objectives and principles established in Article 21\nTEU. Such a strategy should clearly identify the common security\ninterests of the EU and thereby serve as a reference framework for\npolicy-making as well as for the formulation, financing,\nimplementation and monitoring of the EU's external action.\nParliament wants its relevant bodies to be fully associated with\nthis endeavour and believes that the concepts of Human Security,\nand Responsibility to Protect should become two of its guiding\nprinciples.
\nThe Council's 2008 annual report on the\nCFSP: noting the improvements to the\n2008 report, Parliament stresses that the scope of the report\nshould not be limited simply to a description of CFSP activities\nbut should provide the opportunity to establish a dialogue with the\nEuropean Parliament aimed at developing a more strategic approach\nto the CFSP. It recommends that the annual CFSP report be turned\ninto a yearly report discussing the implementation of the EU's\nforeign policy strategy, evaluating its effectiveness and outlining\nits future direction, with more references to the budgetary needs\nand financial impact of external actions in such reporting. It\nreiterates that in order to enhance the democratic legitimacy of\nthe CFSP, Parliament's competent bodies should be more widely\nconsulted.
\nImplications of the Treaty of Lisbon: Parliament welcomes the entry into force of the Treaty\nof Lisbon, which provides the EU with tools for the further\nenhancement of its role and visibility on the international scene,\nand also welcomes the role to be played by the Vice-President/High\nRepresentative in chairing the Foreign Affairs Council. It expects\nthese new functions to consolidate inter-institutional contacts and\nfoster a more stable dialogue between the institutions. It invites\nthe Vice-President/High Representative to increase her appearances\nin Parliament. It is of the view that the merging of the\ninter-governmental and Community pillars and functions into one\nsingle post of the Vice-President/High Representative, who is\nsubject to a collective vote of consent by the European Parliament,\ncan increase the democratic legitimacyof CFSP\nactivities provided a continuous strategic dialogue is established\non an equal footing between Parliament, the Council and the\nCommission at all levels. Parliament notes that, in accordance with\nthe Treaty, the President of the European Council will \"at his\nlevel and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of\nthe Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security\npolicy\". However, this must be done without prejudicing the powers\nof the Vice-President/High Representative, and in full\nacknowledgment of the key role played by the European Commission,\nnot only in establishing and maintaining the acquis\ncommunautaire in terms of external relations, but also in\nensuring the external representation of the Union, with the\nexception of the CFSP.
\nMore budget for the CFSP and greater\ntransparency: Parliament underlines that sufficient funds\nneed to be allocated in the EU budget and regrets that the relevant\nbudget continues to be under-funded. It looks forward to being\nfully involved in the procedures for granting rapid access to\nappropriations in the Union budget for urgent financing of CFSP\ninitiatives. It reiterates its concerns about the lack of\ntransparency as regards the financing of the common costs of EU\noperations having military or defence implications, since the\nAthena mechanism clearly does not afford an overview of all the\nfinancial implications of missions conducted under the CFSP. It\nwelcomes, therefore, the setting-up of the start-up fund\nunder the new Treaty and asks to be consulted on its management,\nnoting also that the setting-up and operation of the European\nExternal Action Service (EEAS) must preserve the European\nParliament's rights of democratic and budgetary\nscrutiny.
\nEU Special Representatives\n(EUSRs):\nParliament stresses the need to establish greater clarity on the\ncriteria for the appointment and evaluation of EU Special\nRepresentatives (EUSRs), calling for increased parliamentary\nscrutiny of, and control over, EUSR appointments and mandates. It\nwants to see a review and extension of existing inter-institutional\nagreements so as to ensure the smooth and efficient implementation\nof the budgetary, consultation and supervision procedures for the\nCFSP and the CSDP and to improve access to sensitive information.\nIt expresses its determination to exercise budgetary power and\ndemocratic scrutiny with regard to the CFSP in connection with all\ninstitutional innovations.
\nCFSP matters of a thematic nature: Parliament continues to be concerned about the\nsecurity of energy supply and repeated gas crises, such as the\nRussian-Ukrainian crisis of January 2009. It underlines the need to\nprevent the energy dependency of the EU on third countries\nweakening the independence of EU foreign policy, and recall the\nurgent need implement a common European external energy policy. It\nwants the VP/HR to promote EU cohesion in constructive dialogue\nwith energy suppliers, especially with Russia and transit\ncountries, by developing effective energy diplomacy and more\nefficient mechanisms for responding to crisis situations and,\nfinally, by promoting the diversification of energy supplies,\nsustainable energy use and the development of renewable energy\nsources. Only a common EU approach could prevent any future\nshortcomings in the oil and gas supplies of the Member States and\ncould increase the energy security of the EU as a whole. Parliament\nbelieves that significant potential threats and conflicts arise\nfrom intensified competition over access to, and control of,\nnatural resources, and consequently, that the EU should\nfurther develop mitigation, adaptation and energy conservation\npolicies. The EU must strengthen its leadership and further develop\na dialogue with other key actors such as the emerging powers\n(China, Brazil, Russia, India), the United States and developing\ncountries.
\nParliament expresses its support for\nstrengthening the United Nations system and according special\nimportance to consolidating the Human Rights Council and abolishing\nthe death penalty. It reiterates the importance of orderly\nmigration management, the need to avert illegal immigration by\npromoting local development in the countries of origin and fighting\ncriminal organisations that traffic in human beings.
\nThe Union's civilian and\nmissions:\nParliament stresses the importance of an adequate balance between\ncivilian and military planning capabilities in the Council\nSecretariat and calls for the adequate staffing of the civilian\ncomponent. Member States are urged to use the great opportunity\nprovided by the EEAS to pool currently available resources in order\nto achieve a coherent, effective and efficient crisis management\nplanning capability. Member States are asked to redouble their\nefforts to deploy sufficient numbers of suitable, qualified and\ngender-balanced personnel to take part in CSDP civilian and\nmilitary endeavours and Parliament calls, in this respect, for\ncommon training of the personnel of CSDP missions. Parliament is convinced that increased coherence and\ncohesion as regards staff on the ground will enhance the running of\nmissions and also facilitate the secondment of EU nationals, which,\nfrom a purely budgetary perspective, is preferable to using\ninternational contracted staff.
\nNon-proliferation:\nParliament invites the European Council and the Commission to intensify the EU's engagement in\nmultilateral negotiations to reduce the salience of nuclear\nweapons, and reiterates the need for disarmament and strengthened\ninternational guarantees of non-proliferation. It calls the EU and\nits Member States to enhance their diplomatic efforts in order to\nachieve a successful revision of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of\nNuclear Weapons in May 2010.
\nIn the second part of the\nresolution,\nParliament sets out its main priorities in the geographical\nareas. It recommends that the EU strengthens the political\ndialogue with third countries and regions, particularly with\nstrategic partners with whom to coordinate positions in the\ninternational organisations and support and promote democracy, the\nrule of law and respect for human rights. It calls on the Council,\nthe Member States and the Vice-President/High Representative\nactively to seek peaceful solutions in international conflicts and\nto strengthen the EU's conflict prevention mechanisms. Other\ninitiatives suggested include strengthening the role and impact\nof international organisations with the United Nations as the\nmain guarantor of international peace and security. Parliament\nconsiders it essential that the relevant EU delegations at the UN's\nheadquarters in New York and Geneva be adequately equipped with\nmeans and staff. It takes the view that the EU and NATO should\ndevelop a more intense and effective partnership, and recommends a\nreview of the Berlin-Plus arrangements and the development of a\nmore strategic dialogue on shared strategic interests. It urges the\nfacilitation of broader practical cooperation on the ground at\nmilitary or civilian level, in particular when both organisations\noperate in the same theatre of missions.
\nAs regards EU foreign\npolicy by geographical zone, Parliament states the\nfollowing:
\nThe Council presents its Annual report to the European\nParliament on the main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP, in\naccordance with the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May\n2006).
\nIn 2008, the work by and within the Council was\nunderpinned by the review process of the implementation of the\nEuropean Security Strategy (ESS). This report has been inspired by\nthe ESS Implementation Report both in form and substance.\nAccordingly, and resonating with the EP suggestions, it takes a\nmore strategic, theme-driven and streamlined approach than the CFSP\nreports of previous years. It does not intend to serve as an\nexhaustive catalogue of the Council's activities in 2008. Rather,\nthis CFSP report highlights the main aspects and basic choices of\nthe EU's foreign policy, illustrating those by selected examples\nfrom the foreign policy arena.
\nThe EU's global role in shaping international\ndevelopments is underpinned by the unique set of instruments at its\ndisposal. EU Special Representatives (EUSRs) and ESDP missions and\noperations have an important role in the CFSP/ESDP area. In 2008,\neleven EUSRs under twelve mandates provided the EU with an active\npolitical presence in key countries and regions, acting as a\n\"voice\" and \"face\" for the EU and its policies. Thirteen ESDP missions and\noperations - three military operations and ten civilian missions -\nwere being conducted on three continents. One new military\noperation and four new civilian missions were added to this array\nin 2008. The\nreport looks at their contribution to the promotion of the CFSP\nobjectives and priorities in the broader policy context.
\nDuring the year 2008, the Council's action consisted\nof the following :
\n1) Addressing threats and global\nchallenges: the Council further\nadvanced its continuous efforts to counter proliferation and\nterrorism, as well as to better address the security aspects\nemerging from climate change, and energy supply. Risks stemming\nfrom regional conflicts and fragile states, including piracy, and\nthe economic crisis required a multi-faceted response in order to\naddress the root causes of conflict and insecurity and to aim at\nlasting stabilisation.
\n2) Building stability in Europe and\nbeyond: the Council reaffirmed that\nthe enlargement process, conducted on the basis of the renewed\nconsensus approved by the European Council (December 2006) will\ncontinue to promote peace, democracy and stability on the\ncontinent. It confirmed the need for fair and rigorous\nconditionality, as well as the consolidation of commitments\nincluding its full support to the European perspective of the\ncandidate and potential candidate countries. The European Council\nstressed the importance of regional cooperation and good\nneighbourly relations. Last year was crucial for affirming the EU's\nrole as a key actor in tackling crisis and frozen conflicts in its\nneighbourhood. In particular, the August 2008 crisis in Georgia put\nthe efficiency and coherence of EU's response to the test before\nthe eyes of the world.
\n3) Contribution to a more effective multilateral\norder: with the increasing complexity\nof challenges that the world faces today, solutions need to be\nsought primarily in a multilateral framework. The EU has\nstrengthened partnerships in pursuit of that objective, working\nwith the United Nations,
\nNATO, OSCE and the Council of Europe, as well as\nengaging in other international coordination mechanisms.
\nThe protection of human rights has guided many CFSP\nactivities in 2008 with the launch of several new human rights\nconsultations and dialogues, continuing to attribute to human\nrights issues a solid place within the various frameworks of EU's\nrelations with third countries, adopting new guidelines, and\nconcretely advancing the human rights and gender agenda in the ESDP\ncontext.
\nMoreover, the fight against impunity is one of the\ncornerstones of the EU's approach to building and maintaining\nlasting peace, international justice and rule of law. Hence, the EU\nsupport to the International Criminal Court (ICC) remained strong\nand firm and was mainstreamed across the EU's external\npolicies. The Council and the European Parliament put strong\npressure on the Government of Sudan to cooperate on the two\nexisting arrest warrants issued by the ICC in its pursuit of ending\nthe impunity of the planners and perpetrators of the most horrific\ncrimes committed in Darfur.
\n4) Fostering partnerships across the\nworld: the ESS Implementation Report\nstated that \"globalisation is accelerating shifts in power\". This\ncan expose differences in values but can also be seen as an\nopportunity to establish or consolidate partnerships with the key\nactors on the global scene, based on shared interests and guided by\nour values (United States, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Japan,\nAfrica, Asia, Gulf and Mediterranean, Western Balkans, Latin\nAmerica and Caribbean).
\n5) More effective, capable and\ncoherent: work was pursued further to\nstrengthen conflict sensitivity and the conflict prevention\napproach, develop the necessary capabilities and capacities and\nenhance coherence between the EU's various external policy\ninstruments. The need for further capability development was\nacknowledged at the highest level when the European Council\nsubscribed to the Council's declaration on strengthening\ncapabilities. Throughout 2008, the EU on various occasions\ndemonstrated its capacity to respond to international crises with\nspeed, rigour and sensitivity to the complexities of the\nsurrounding political and security conditions. If speed is what\nefficiency is measured against, EUMM Georgia was exemplary. If\nefficiency is a matter of numbers, we need to turn our attention to\nEULEX Kosovo, the largest civilian ESDP mission ever.
\nWith regard to financing, the 2008 CFSP budget\namounted to EUR 285 million An overwhelming part of the funds was\nallocated to operations and actions related to civilian crisis\nmanagement, in particular EULEX Kosovo (EUR 120 million), EUPOL\nAfghanistan (EUR 45 million) and EUMM Georgia (EUR 35 million). the\nAthena mechanism128 continued to administer the financing of certain\ncommon costs of
\nESDP operations having military or defence\nimplications, pursuant to Article 28(3) TEU. The Athena mechanism\ncontinued to finance EUFOR ALTHEA in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with a\nbudget for common costs of almost EUR 30 million. It was also used\nto finance EUFOR Tchad/RCA, an operation with a budget for common\ncosts of nearly EUR 120 million for 2008. The Athena mechanism is\nalso being used to finance the common costs of EU NAVFOR Somalia -\noperation ATALANTA.
\nLooking ahead for 2009:\nthe report states that 2009 will continue to be a testing time in\ninternational affairs. In all these areas, the EU will continue to\nbe guided by the approach described in the ESS, and its\nImplementation Report. European foreign policy seeks to build a\nmore effective multilateral order, through a rules-based framework\nto address global problems such as human rights, international\njustice, proliferation, terrorism and climate change.
\nShared priorities: the\nUS and Europe have a renewed opportunity to work together on the\nglobal agenda, with our key partners, including through the G20.\nShared priorities include the Middle East Peace Process, Iran,\nAfghanistan, Pakistan, and climate change. In these and other\nareas, we will work in support of our common security and common\nvalues, including democracy and human rights. Closure of Guantanamo\nBay will be an important symbolic step in this regard; reflection\non concrete ways for the EU to support this process will be\nneeded.
\nRelations with Russia:\nthe Georgia conflict and the recent gas crisis have left scars. But\nboth sides should be open for discussions to move forward\ncooperation between Russia and the EU. The EU is open to\nconsider new ideas that may contribute to the enhancement of\nEuro-Atlantic security in a transparent process, bearing in mind\nthat the OSCE is the natural forum for this debate. Debate on the\nfuture shape of European Security, launched by President Medvedev,\nis a part of this. Progress on a new agreement between the EU and\nRussia will also be key. We need Russia as a reliable partner both\nwithin our common neighbourhood and further afield.
\nBalkans: the EU will\ncontinue to support the European perspective of the Western\nBalkans, which remains essential for the stability of the region.\nIt will remain committed to playing a leading role in strengthening\nthe stability of Kosovo and supporting its development.
\nEastern Partnership: the\neconomic crisis has lent a new urgency to the establishment of the\nEastern Partnership, to be launched at a summit meeting in May. The\nEU will continue to work with Ukraine in achieving greater\npolitical and economic stability. It is also open to closer ties\nwith Belarus, and is ready to help in resolving the Transnistria\nconflict. The EU remains committed to securing a UN and OSCE\npresence in Georgia. Further eastwards, Central Asia is an\nincreasingly important partner, in strengthening energy security by\ndiversification of transport routes and supply, and in addressing\ncommon security challenges.
\nMiddle East: progress on\nthe Middle East Peace Process (MEPP) is central to unlocking the\nwider vision of a comprehensive peace and stability for the region.\nThe EU will continue to work in favour of peace talks on all\noutstanding issues in support of a two-state solution, including a\nviable and contiguous Palestinian state. The international\ncommunity, including the EU, will continue to engage closely with\nthe parties of the MEPP, and to support regional efforts such as\nthe Arab Peace Initiative, with the aim of re-launching the peace\nprocess based on a the Road Map for Peace. A durable and negotiated\ntruce following the Gaza conflict remains a priority. The EU\nremains ready to play a part in supporting the path to peace,\nincluding through an ESDP presence. The Union for the Mediterranean\nalso provides a new opportunity to rebuild confidence leading to\ngreater regional cohesion.
\nIran:\n2009 will also be an important year in relations\nwith Iran, perhaps a decisive one. The readiness of the new US\nAdministration to engage directly with Iran adds a new dimension to\nthe international community's efforts to resolve the nuclear\nquestion, and significantly enhances the potential incentives on\noffer if Iran chooses to negotiate. At the same time, Iran\ncontinues to enrich uranium and develop its nuclear programme.\nThus, the need for a solution is becoming more acute just as the\nopportunity for one becomes greater. The EU will put all possible\nenergy into a collective effort of the international community for\nsuccessful negotiations. If the opportunities are taken, 2009 could\nbe a turning point; if they are not taken, the consequences could\nbe serious.
\nAfghanistanand\nPakistan: building stability in these\ntwo countries will remain a preoccupation with major implications\nfor the wider region of South Asia and for Europe. The EU will\nstrengthen its engagement in both, in particular through EUPOL\nAfghanistan and support for improved governance, as well as\nassistance in preparation of elections.
\nIndiaand\nChina: these countries are now both\nmajor partners in addressing regional and global problems, from\nproliferation to climate change. This engagement will focus on\nmatters of mutual interest, but should address values too,\nincluding the field of human rights.
\nGlobal governance: the\nsystem of global governance has come under strain on many fronts,\nin particular the challenges posed by the economic crisis, and\nneeds renewal to restore legitimacy and effectiveness. The EU has a\nresponsibility to lead the debate on how this can be done, in\npartnership with others, including the US, and the emerging global\npowers. Over the last decade, European foreign policy has increased\nin ambition but it is important to:
\nThe Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted the\nown-initiative report drawn up by Gabriele ALBERTINI (EPP, IT) on\nthe annual report from the Council to the European Parliament on\nthe main aspects and basic choices of the Common Foreign and\nSecurity Policy (CFSP) in 2008, presented to the European\nParliament in application of Part II, Section G, paragraph 43 of\nthe Interinstitutional\nAgreement of 17 May 2006.
\nDivided into several parts, the report begins by\ncalling on the Vice-President/High Representative (VP/HR) and her\nservices to develop a coherent EU foreign policy strategy based on\nthe objectives and principles established in Article 21 TEU. Such a\nstrategy should clearly identify the common security interests of\nthe EU and thereby serve as a reference framework for policy-making\nas well as for the formulation, financing, implementation and\nmonitoring of the EU's external action. Members want Parliament's\nrelevant bodies to be fully associated with such an endeavour, and\nthey believe that the concepts of Human Security, and\nResponsibility to Protect should become two of its guiding\nprinciples.
\nThe Council's 2008 annual report on the\nCFSP: noting the improvements to the\n2008 report, Members stresses that the scope of the report should\nnot be limited simply to a description of CFSP activities but\nshould provide the opportunity to establish a dialogue with the\nEuropean Parliament aimed at developing a more strategic approach\nto the CFSP. They recommend that the annual CFSP report be turned\ninto a yearly report discussing the implementation of the EU's\nforeign policy strategy, evaluating its effectiveness and outlining\nits future direction, with more references to the budgetary needs\nand financial impact of external actions in such reporting. They\nreiterate that in order to enhance the democratic legitimacy of the\nCFSP, Parliament's competent bodies should be more widely\nconsulted.
\nImplications of the Treaty\nof Lisbon: the committee\nwelcomes the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which\nprovides the EU with tools for the further enhancement of its role\nand visibility on the international scene, and also welcome the\nrole to be played by the Vice-President/High Representative in\nchairing the Foreign Affairs Council. It expects these new\nfunctions to consolidate inter-institutional contacts and foster a\nmore stable dialogue between the institutions. It invites the\nVice-President/High Representative to increase her appearances in\nParliament. The committee is of the view that the merging of the\ninter-governmental and Community pillars and functions into one\nsingle post of the Vice-President/High Representative, who is\nsubject to a collective vote of consent by the European Parliament,\ncan increase the democratic legitimacy of CFSP activities provided\na continuous strategic dialogue is established on an equal footing\nbetween Parliament, the Council and the Commission at all\nlevels.
\nMembers underline that sufficient funds need to be\nallocated in the EU budget and regret that the relevant budget\ncontinues to be underfunded and they look forward to being fully\ninvolved in the procedures for granting rapid access to\nappropriations in the Union budget for urgent financing of CFSP\ninitiatives. They reiterate their concerns about the lack of\ntransparency as regards the financing of the common costs of EU\noperations having military or defence implications, since the\nAthena mechanism clearly does not afford an overview of all the\nfinancial implications of missions conducted under the CFSP. The\nreport welcomes, therefore, the setting-up of the start-up fund\nunder the new Treaty and asks to be consulted on its management,\nnoting also that the setting-up and operation of the EEAS must\npreserve the European Parliament's rights of democratic and\nbudgetary scrutiny. It stresses, furthermore, the need to establish\ngreater clarity on the criteria for the appointment and evaluation\nof EU Special Representatives (EUSRs), calling for increased\nparliamentary scrutiny of, and control over, EUSR appointments and\nmandates. Members want to see a review and extension of existing\ninter-institutional agreements so as to ensure the smooth and\nefficient implementation of the budgetary, consultation and\nsupervision procedures for the CFSP and the CSDP and to improve\naccess to sensitive information. They express their determination\nto exercise budgetary power and democratic scrutiny with\nregard to the CFSP in connection with all institutional\ninnovations.
\nCFSP matters of a thematic\nnature: Members continue to be\nconcerned about the security of energy supply and repeated gas\ncrises such as the Russian-Ukrainian crisis of January 2009. They\nunderline the need to prevent the energy dependency of the EU on\nthird countries weakening the independence of EU foreign policy,\nand recall the urgent need implement a common European external\nenergy policy. They want the VP/HR to promote EU cohesion in\nconstructive dialogue with energy suppliers, especially with Russia\nand transit countries, by developing effective energy diplomacy and\nmore efficient mechanisms for responding to crisis situations and,\nfinally, by promoting the diversification of energy supplies,\nsustainable energy use and the development of renewable energy\nsources. Only a common EU approach could prevent any future\nshortcomings in the oil and gas supplies of the Member States and\ncould increase the energy security of the EU as a whole. The\ncommittee believes that significant potential threats and conflicts\narise from intensified competition over access to, and control of,\nnatural resources, and consequently that the EU should further\ndevelop mitigation, adaptation and energy conservation policies.\nThe EU must strengthen its leadership and further develop a\ndialogue with other key actors such as the emerging powers (China,\nBrazil, Russia, India), the United States and developing\ncountries.
\nMembers express support for strengthening the United\nNations system and according special importance to consolidating\nthe Human Rights Council and abolishing the death penalty. They\nreiterate the importance of orderly migration management, the need\nto avert illegal immigration by promoting local development in the\ncountries of origin and fighting criminal organisations that\ntraffic in human beings.
\nThey go on to stress the importance of an adequate\nbalance between civilian and military planning capabilities in the\nCouncil Secretariat and call for adequate staffing of the civilian\ncomponent . Member States are urged to use the great opportunity\nprovided by the EEAS to pool currently available resources in order\nto achieve a coherent, effective and efficient crisis management\nplanning capability. Member States are asked to redouble their\nefforts to deploy sufficient numbers of suitable, qualified and\ngender-balanced personnel to take part in CSDP civilian and\nmilitary endeavours and Members call, in this respect, for common\ntraining of the personnel of CSDP missions.
\nThe committee emphasises the need to intensify the\nEU's engagement in multilateral negotiations to reduce the salience\nof nuclear weapons, and reiterates the need for disarmament and\nstrengthened international guarantees of non-proliferation. It\ncalls the EU and its Member States to enhance their diplomatic\nefforts in order to achieve a successful revision of the Treaty on\nNon-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in May 2010. It also calls for\nthe systematic inclusion of gender equality and women's empowerment\nin the EU's political dialogue and policy discussions with partner\ncountries, and for the inclusion of human rights and good\ngovernance aspects in the mandates of EUSRs.
\nIn the second part of the report, Members set out their main priorities in the\ngeographical areas. They recommend that the EU strengthen the\npolitical dialogue with third countries and regions, particularly\nwith strategic partners with whom to coordinate positions in the\ninternational organisations and support and promote democracy, the\nrule of law and respect for human rights. It calls on the Council,\nthe Member States and the Vice-President/High Representative\nactively to seek peaceful solutions in international conflicts and\nto strengthen the EU's conflict prevention mechanisms. Other\ninitiatives suggested include strengthening the role and impact of\ninternational organisations with the United Nations as the main\nguarantor of international peace and security. The committee\nconsiders it essential that the relevant EU delegations at the UN's\nheadquarters in New York and Geneva be adequately equipped with\nmeans and staff It takes the view that the EU and NATO should\ndevelop a more intense and effective partnership, and recommends a\nreview of the Berlin-Plus arrangements and the development of a\nmore strategic dialogue on shared strategic interests. It urges the\nfacilitation of broader practical cooperation on the ground at\nmilitary or civilian level, in particular when both organisations\noperate in the same theatre of missions.
\nEU foreign policy : committee position by\ngeographical zone: Members conduct an\nanalysis of their position by geographical area, and state as\nfollows :
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 592 votes to 66,\nwith 11 abstentions a resolutionon the\nannual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the\nmain aspects and basic choices of the Common Foreign and Security\nPolicy (CFSP) in 2008, presented to the European Parliament in\napplication of Part II, Section G, paragraph 43 of the\nInterinstitutional Agreement of 17 May\n2006.
\nDivided into several parts, the resolution begins by\ncalling on the Vice-President/High Representative (VP/HR) and her\nservices to develop a coherent EU foreign policy strategy\nbased on the objectives and principles established in Article 21\nTEU. Such a strategy should clearly identify the common security\ninterests of the EU and thereby serve as a reference framework for\npolicy-making as well as for the formulation, financing,\nimplementation and monitoring of the EU's external action.\nParliament wants its relevant bodies to be fully associated with\nthis endeavour and believes that the concepts of Human Security,\nand Responsibility to Protect should become two of its guiding\nprinciples.
\nThe Council's 2008 annual report on the\nCFSP: noting the improvements to the\n2008 report, Parliament stresses that the scope of the report\nshould not be limited simply to a description of CFSP activities\nbut should provide the opportunity to establish a dialogue with the\nEuropean Parliament aimed at developing a more strategic approach\nto the CFSP. It recommends that the annual CFSP report be turned\ninto a yearly report discussing the implementation of the EU's\nforeign policy strategy, evaluating its effectiveness and outlining\nits future direction, with more references to the budgetary needs\nand financial impact of external actions in such reporting. It\nreiterates that in order to enhance the democratic legitimacy of\nthe CFSP, Parliament's competent bodies should be more widely\nconsulted.
\nImplications of the Treaty of Lisbon: Parliament welcomes the entry into force of the Treaty\nof Lisbon, which provides the EU with tools for the further\nenhancement of its role and visibility on the international scene,\nand also welcomes the role to be played by the Vice-President/High\nRepresentative in chairing the Foreign Affairs Council. It expects\nthese new functions to consolidate inter-institutional contacts and\nfoster a more stable dialogue between the institutions. It invites\nthe Vice-President/High Representative to increase her appearances\nin Parliament. It is of the view that the merging of the\ninter-governmental and Community pillars and functions into one\nsingle post of the Vice-President/High Representative, who is\nsubject to a collective vote of consent by the European Parliament,\ncan increase the democratic legitimacyof CFSP\nactivities provided a continuous strategic dialogue is established\non an equal footing between Parliament, the Council and the\nCommission at all levels. Parliament notes that, in accordance with\nthe Treaty, the President of the European Council will \"at his\nlevel and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of\nthe Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security\npolicy\". However, this must be done without prejudicing the powers\nof the Vice-President/High Representative, and in full\nacknowledgment of the key role played by the European Commission,\nnot only in establishing and maintaining the acquis\ncommunautaire in terms of external relations, but also in\nensuring the external representation of the Union, with the\nexception of the CFSP.
\nMore budget for the CFSP and greater\ntransparency: Parliament underlines that sufficient funds\nneed to be allocated in the EU budget and regrets that the relevant\nbudget continues to be under-funded. It looks forward to being\nfully involved in the procedures for granting rapid access to\nappropriations in the Union budget for urgent financing of CFSP\ninitiatives. It reiterates its concerns about the lack of\ntransparency as regards the financing of the common costs of EU\noperations having military or defence implications, since the\nAthena mechanism clearly does not afford an overview of all the\nfinancial implications of missions conducted under the CFSP. It\nwelcomes, therefore, the setting-up of the start-up fund\nunder the new Treaty and asks to be consulted on its management,\nnoting also that the setting-up and operation of the European\nExternal Action Service (EEAS) must preserve the European\nParliament's rights of democratic and budgetary\nscrutiny.
\nEU Special Representatives\n(EUSRs):\nParliament stresses the need to establish greater clarity on the\ncriteria for the appointment and evaluation of EU Special\nRepresentatives (EUSRs), calling for increased parliamentary\nscrutiny of, and control over, EUSR appointments and mandates. It\nwants to see a review and extension of existing inter-institutional\nagreements so as to ensure the smooth and efficient implementation\nof the budgetary, consultation and supervision procedures for the\nCFSP and the CSDP and to improve access to sensitive information.\nIt expresses its determination to exercise budgetary power and\ndemocratic scrutiny with regard to the CFSP in connection with all\ninstitutional innovations.
\nCFSP matters of a thematic nature: Parliament continues to be concerned about the\nsecurity of energy supply and repeated gas crises, such as the\nRussian-Ukrainian crisis of January 2009. It underlines the need to\nprevent the energy dependency of the EU on third countries\nweakening the independence of EU foreign policy, and recall the\nurgent need implement a common European external energy policy. It\nwants the VP/HR to promote EU cohesion in constructive dialogue\nwith energy suppliers, especially with Russia and transit\ncountries, by developing effective energy diplomacy and more\nefficient mechanisms for responding to crisis situations and,\nfinally, by promoting the diversification of energy supplies,\nsustainable energy use and the development of renewable energy\nsources. Only a common EU approach could prevent any future\nshortcomings in the oil and gas supplies of the Member States and\ncould increase the energy security of the EU as a whole. Parliament\nbelieves that significant potential threats and conflicts arise\nfrom intensified competition over access to, and control of,\nnatural resources, and consequently, that the EU should\nfurther develop mitigation, adaptation and energy conservation\npolicies. The EU must strengthen its leadership and further develop\na dialogue with other key actors such as the emerging powers\n(China, Brazil, Russia, India), the United States and developing\ncountries.
\nParliament expresses its support for\nstrengthening the United Nations system and according special\nimportance to consolidating the Human Rights Council and abolishing\nthe death penalty. It reiterates the importance of orderly\nmigration management, the need to avert illegal immigration by\npromoting local development in the countries of origin and fighting\ncriminal organisations that traffic in human beings.
\nThe Union's civilian and\nmissions:\nParliament stresses the importance of an adequate balance between\ncivilian and military planning capabilities in the Council\nSecretariat and calls for the adequate staffing of the civilian\ncomponent. Member States are urged to use the great opportunity\nprovided by the EEAS to pool currently available resources in order\nto achieve a coherent, effective and efficient crisis management\nplanning capability. Member States are asked to redouble their\nefforts to deploy sufficient numbers of suitable, qualified and\ngender-balanced personnel to take part in CSDP civilian and\nmilitary endeavours and Parliament calls, in this respect, for\ncommon training of the personnel of CSDP missions. Parliament is convinced that increased coherence and\ncohesion as regards staff on the ground will enhance the running of\nmissions and also facilitate the secondment of EU nationals, which,\nfrom a purely budgetary perspective, is preferable to using\ninternational contracted staff.
\nNon-proliferation:\nParliament invites the European Council and the Commission to intensify the EU's engagement in\nmultilateral negotiations to reduce the salience of nuclear\nweapons, and reiterates the need for disarmament and strengthened\ninternational guarantees of non-proliferation. It calls the EU and\nits Member States to enhance their diplomatic efforts in order to\nachieve a successful revision of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of\nNuclear Weapons in May 2010.
\nIn the second part of the\nresolution,\nParliament sets out its main priorities in the geographical\nareas. It recommends that the EU strengthens the political\ndialogue with third countries and regions, particularly with\nstrategic partners with whom to coordinate positions in the\ninternational organisations and support and promote democracy, the\nrule of law and respect for human rights. It calls on the Council,\nthe Member States and the Vice-President/High Representative\nactively to seek peaceful solutions in international conflicts and\nto strengthen the EU's conflict prevention mechanisms. Other\ninitiatives suggested include strengthening the role and impact\nof international organisations with the United Nations as the\nmain guarantor of international peace and security. Parliament\nconsiders it essential that the relevant EU delegations at the UN's\nheadquarters in New York and Geneva be adequately equipped with\nmeans and staff. It takes the view that the EU and NATO should\ndevelop a more intense and effective partnership, and recommends a\nreview of the Berlin-Plus arrangements and the development of a\nmore strategic dialogue on shared strategic interests. It urges the\nfacilitation of broader practical cooperation on the ground at\nmilitary or civilian level, in particular when both organisations\noperate in the same theatre of missions.
\nAs regards EU foreign\npolicy by geographical zone, Parliament states the\nfollowing:
\nThe Constitutional Affairs Committee adopted by 17\nvotes to 5, with 3 abstentions, a report drawn up by\nAlain LAMASSOURE (EPP-ED, FR) and Adrian SEVERIN (PES, RO) on\nthe composition of the European Parliament.
\nThe report proposes to divide the seats of the next\nParliament on the basis of 750 members. The number of\nrepresentatives in the European Parliament elected in each Member\nState will be allocated as follows, with effect from the 2009-2014\nlegislature :
\nThis division conforms to the rules established by the\nEuropean Council of June 2007 which had invited the European\nParliament to submit a draft initiative by October 2007. The\nCouncil had specified that there would be an overall limit of 750\nseats, with a maximum of 96 and a minimum of 6 per Member State,\nand the composition must be based on the principle of\n'degressive proportionality',
\nThe Committee considered that the principle of\ndegressive proportionality meant that \"the ratio between the\npopulation and the number of seats of each Member State must vary\nin relation to their respective populations in such a way that each\nMember from a more populous Member State represents more citizens\nthan each Member from a less populous Member State and\nconversely, but also that no less populous Member State has more\nseats than a more populous Member State\".
\nMembers drew attention to the political link between\nthe new composition of Parliament on the basis of the principle of\ndegressive proportionality', and the global reforms affecting the\nEuropean institutions, particularly the principle of double\nmajority in the Council and the composition of the European\nCommission and underlined the importance of ensuring that the\nreforms were coherent.
\nThe Committee asked that the division of seats be\nrevised sufficiently before the legislature of 2014-2019 so as to\nallow the re-allocation of seats between Member States in good time\nand in an objective manner, based on the principle of degressive\nproportionality, and taking account of the future increase of its\nnumber as well as demographic changes.
\nParliament considered it best at this point, not to\nconsider the impact of any future accessions which could lead to an\nincrease in the 750 limit, as took place at the time of the\naccession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU.
\nThe European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted\nby Alain LAMASSOURE (EPP-ED, FR) and Adrian SEVERIN\n(PES, RO) on the composition of the European Parliament. The report\nadopted by 378 votes in favour to 154 against, with 109\nabstentions.
\nParliament recalled that at its meeting of 21 and 22\nJune 2007, the European Council had asked the European Parliament\nto submit a draft initiative for a decision on the future\ncomposition of the European Parliament. This decision had to\nrespect the criteria laid down in TEU i.e a total number of\nrepresentatives of the citizens of the Union which did not exceed\nseven hundred and fifty members, this representation being achieved\nin a degressively proportional manner, with a minimum threshold of\nsix members per Member State, while no Member State may be\nallocated more than ninety-six seats.
\nThe report proposes to divide the seats of the next\nParliament on the basis of 750 members. The number of\nrepresentatives in the European Parliament elected in each Member\nState will be allocated as follows, with effect from the 2009-2014\nlegislature :
\nThe principle of degressive proportionality provided\nfor in the Treaty on European Union will be applied as\nfollows:
\n- the minimum and maximum numbers set by the Treaty\nmust be fully utilised to ensure that the allocation of seats in\nthe European Parliament reflects as closely as possible the range\nof populations of the Member States;
\n- the larger the population of a Member State, the\ngreater its entitlement to a large number of seats;
\n- the larger the population of a Member State, the\nmore inhabitants are represented by each of its Members of the\nEuropean Parliament.
\nThis decision must be revised sufficiently long in\nadvance of the beginning of the 2014-2019 parliamentary term with\nthe aim of establishing a system which in future will make it\npossible, before each fresh election to the European Parliament, to\nreallocate the seats between the Member States in an objective\nmanner, based on the principle of degressive proportionality,\ntaking account of any increase in their number and in demographic\ntrends in their population as duly ascertained. Parliament felt\nthat it was desirable not to take account at this stage of the\nimpact of possible future enlargements, which, in the corresponding\nacts of accession, might result in the ceiling of 750 being\ntemporarily exceeded. This was the procedure adopted at the time of\nthe accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union.\nMembers also called for an examination of the technical and\npolitical feasibility of taking account, not the number of\ninhabitants as ascertained annually by Eurostat, but of the number\nof European citizens. Following the adoption of a compromise\namendment, Parliament called on its representatives at the\nIntergovernmental Conference (IGC) to forward to the Conference a\ndraft Declaration concerning Article 2 of draft Protocol No 10 on\ntransitional provisions, and called on the IGC to annex that\nDeclaration to its Final Act. That Declaration states that\nthe Conference invites the Parliament to make a proposal for\nthe election of its members by direct universal suffrage, which\nmore precisely defines the term 'citizens' as provided for in\nArticle 9a(2) of the Treaty on European Union. That proposal should\nbe drawn up in good time before the next elections in\n2014.
\nThe Constitutional Affairs Committee adopted by 17\nvotes to 5, with 3 abstentions, a report drawn up by\nAlain LAMASSOURE (EPP-ED, FR) and Adrian SEVERIN (PES, RO) on\nthe composition of the European Parliament.
\nThe report proposes to divide the seats of the next\nParliament on the basis of 750 members. The number of\nrepresentatives in the European Parliament elected in each Member\nState will be allocated as follows, with effect from the 2009-2014\nlegislature :
\nThis division conforms to the rules established by the\nEuropean Council of June 2007 which had invited the European\nParliament to submit a draft initiative by October 2007. The\nCouncil had specified that there would be an overall limit of 750\nseats, with a maximum of 96 and a minimum of 6 per Member State,\nand the composition must be based on the principle of\n'degressive proportionality',
\nThe Committee considered that the principle of\ndegressive proportionality meant that \"the ratio between the\npopulation and the number of seats of each Member State must vary\nin relation to their respective populations in such a way that each\nMember from a more populous Member State represents more citizens\nthan each Member from a less populous Member State and\nconversely, but also that no less populous Member State has more\nseats than a more populous Member State\".
\nMembers drew attention to the political link between\nthe new composition of Parliament on the basis of the principle of\ndegressive proportionality', and the global reforms affecting the\nEuropean institutions, particularly the principle of double\nmajority in the Council and the composition of the European\nCommission and underlined the importance of ensuring that the\nreforms were coherent.
\nThe Committee asked that the division of seats be\nrevised sufficiently before the legislature of 2014-2019 so as to\nallow the re-allocation of seats between Member States in good time\nand in an objective manner, based on the principle of degressive\nproportionality, and taking account of the future increase of its\nnumber as well as demographic changes.
\nParliament considered it best at this point, not to\nconsider the impact of any future accessions which could lead to an\nincrease in the 750 limit, as took place at the time of the\naccession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU.
\nThe European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted\nby Alain LAMASSOURE (EPP-ED, FR) and Adrian SEVERIN\n(PES, RO) on the composition of the European Parliament. The report\nadopted by 378 votes in favour to 154 against, with 109\nabstentions.
\nParliament recalled that at its meeting of 21 and 22\nJune 2007, the European Council had asked the European Parliament\nto submit a draft initiative for a decision on the future\ncomposition of the European Parliament. This decision had to\nrespect the criteria laid down in TEU i.e a total number of\nrepresentatives of the citizens of the Union which did not exceed\nseven hundred and fifty members, this representation being achieved\nin a degressively proportional manner, with a minimum threshold of\nsix members per Member State, while no Member State may be\nallocated more than ninety-six seats.
\nThe report proposes to divide the seats of the next\nParliament on the basis of 750 members. The number of\nrepresentatives in the European Parliament elected in each Member\nState will be allocated as follows, with effect from the 2009-2014\nlegislature :
\nThe principle of degressive proportionality provided\nfor in the Treaty on European Union will be applied as\nfollows:
\n- the minimum and maximum numbers set by the Treaty\nmust be fully utilised to ensure that the allocation of seats in\nthe European Parliament reflects as closely as possible the range\nof populations of the Member States;
\n- the larger the population of a Member State, the\ngreater its entitlement to a large number of seats;
\n- the larger the population of a Member State, the\nmore inhabitants are represented by each of its Members of the\nEuropean Parliament.
\nThis decision must be revised sufficiently long in\nadvance of the beginning of the 2014-2019 parliamentary term with\nthe aim of establishing a system which in future will make it\npossible, before each fresh election to the European Parliament, to\nreallocate the seats between the Member States in an objective\nmanner, based on the principle of degressive proportionality,\ntaking account of any increase in their number and in demographic\ntrends in their population as duly ascertained. Parliament felt\nthat it was desirable not to take account at this stage of the\nimpact of possible future enlargements, which, in the corresponding\nacts of accession, might result in the ceiling of 750 being\ntemporarily exceeded. This was the procedure adopted at the time of\nthe accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union.\nMembers also called for an examination of the technical and\npolitical feasibility of taking account, not the number of\ninhabitants as ascertained annually by Eurostat, but of the number\nof European citizens. Following the adoption of a compromise\namendment, Parliament called on its representatives at the\nIntergovernmental Conference (IGC) to forward to the Conference a\ndraft Declaration concerning Article 2 of draft Protocol No 10 on\ntransitional provisions, and called on the IGC to annex that\nDeclaration to its Final Act. That Declaration states that\nthe Conference invites the Parliament to make a proposal for\nthe election of its members by direct universal suffrage, which\nmore precisely defines the term 'citizens' as provided for in\nArticle 9a(2) of the Treaty on European Union. That proposal should\nbe drawn up in good time before the next elections in\n2014.
\n