Das Organigramm des Europäischen Auswärtigen Diensts in der aktuellen Fassung finden Sie hier:
Zum Vergrößern Bild anklicken,
Bei der NATO hat das EU-Parlament “den gleichen Status wie der Iran”, echauffierte sich Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, der Vorsitzende der NATO-Delegation im EU-Parlament, Ende Juni im Ausschuss für Sicherheitspolitik. Der redselige Pole löste mit seiner zynischen Wortmeldung beim Meinungsaustausch mit den NATO-Vertretern Jamie Shea (Direktor für Politikplanung) und Jean-François Bureau (beigeordneter Generalsekretär) allgemeine Verwunderung aus. Nicht zuletzt bei Verfechtern der österreichischen Neutralität: Wir müssen die NATO “unionisieren” und die EU “NATOisieren”, so seine Forderung. “Das sollte zu einer neuen Geisteshaltung in der NATO führen.” Die EU könnte damit der NATO auch bei ihrer “acute impotence” in Afghanistan helfen.
Mit der österreichischen Neutralität lässt sich diese Forderung nicht vereinbaren. Schon jetzt ist der Verschmelzungsgrad kritisch fortgeschritten. 21 der insgesamt 27 EU-Mitgliedstaaten sind gleichzeitig Mitglieder der vermeintlichen Verteidigungsorganisation. 94 Prozent der EU-Bevölkerung sind somit auch Bürger von NATO-Ländern. Auch ein ehemaliger NATO-Generalsekretär, der Spanier Javier Solana, war als Hoher Vertreter treibende Kraft für die EU-Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik der vergangenen Jahre. Im Rahmen der sogenannten “Berlin-Plus“-Vereinbarung kann die EU bei ihren ESVP-Operationen auch auf Kapazitäten der NATO zurückgreifen. Dass beide internationalen Organisationen ihren Hauptsitz in Brüssel haben, ist dabei nur ein technisches Detail.
Der Konservative Jacek Saryusz-Wolski vertritt mit seiner Meinung die Mehrheit im EU-Parlament. Denn der Bericht von Ari Vatanen, der unter anderem dauerhafte Strukturen der Zusammenarbeit forderte, wurde vom Plenum angenommen. Auch mit den Stimmen der ÖVP-Europaabgeordneten. Selbst für Saryusz-Wolski wird die Zusammenarbeit jedoch zu einseitig vorrangetrieben: “Es war nicht die NATO, die ihre Hand zu einer engeren Partnerschaft ausgestreckt hat.” Man habe den damaligen NATO-Generalsekretär Jaap de Hoop Scheffer eingeladen, doch “er ist nie gekommen”. “Wir warten jetzt, dass Herr Rasmussen uns einen Besuch abstattet.” Jedoch kann er sich “kaum erinnern, dass es hier (in Brüssel) zu Treffen von Schlüsselpersönlichkeiten gekommen wäre.” Selbst er sehe die NATO nur, wenn er mit dem Taxi zum Flughafen fahre. Und der Bericht von Ari Vatanen: “Niemand innerhalb der NATO hat sich mit diesem Bericht auseinandergesetzt oder wusste, dass sich das Parlament überhaupt mit diesem Thema beschäftigt und sogar Papier dazu produziert.”
Martin Ehrenhauser kritisiert in der Kronen Zeitung die Sicherheitskosten des Europäischen Parlaments: “Die Kosten stehen in keinem Verhältnis zur erbrachten Leistung.”
Ernst Strasser also proves the fact that the Austrian neutrality is not worth anything for many politicians from the Alps. The lobbyist disguised as an EU MEP voted against all the neutrality amendments to the Danjean report on the implementation of the European Security Strategy in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. An amendment that passed by majority vote despite Strassers “no” reads as follows: “The European Parliament stresses that the progress and development of the CSDP must fully respect and not undermine the neutrality and non-alignment of some of the EU Member States.”
This report was debated and voted on in the Strasbourg plenary session today. (My speech can be found in this video.) The voting behaviour of the colleagues was interesting inter alia in the case of 2 amendments proposed by the GUE/NGL – the left political group in the European Parliament. The first amendment demanded a more thorough parliamentary control of the CFSP and the entire CSDP missions both by the European Parliament and the national parliaments. This reasonable amendment received the support of only 103 Members of the Parliament. 493 MEPs voted against it, 56 abstained. From the Austrians the two green MEPs, the right-wing MEP Mölzer and we voted for the amendment. Obermayr did not vote.
The second amendment demanded that the European Union strictly and thoroughly complies with the Charter of the United Nations and international law during all the CFSP activities. This amendment was also widely objected in the plenary. From the Austrian MEPs we voted for it, also the Green MEPs and the blue right wing MEPs. All the SPÖ and ÖVP MEPs voted against it. I often reconstruct a plenary session based on the amendments. The result is that the voting behaviour of the citizens has never coincided with that of the Austrian EU MEPs. Is it not representative?
Tomorrow, on Thursday the body scanners in the European Parliament are undergoing a public inspection in the parking deck P1D in the underground garage of the European Parliament. In 2005 the European Parliament bought 6 body scanners following the recommendation of an “external advisor” and paid 120.995 Euros for each scanner. Three of the scanners were intended for Brussels and three for Strassbourg. Now the “Rapiscan Secure 1000” are put on sale not having been used even once and are displayed to interested parties. Bids of not less than 65.000 euros per scanner can be submitted until March 1. The public ceremonial opening of the tenders takes place on March 12.
A scanning process with these scanners lasts less than 8 seconds. This is probably more time than it took to decide on the purchase of the scanners at a total price of 725.730 euros. When the body scanners were bought, the European Parliament had not decided yet whether or not it makes sense to invest in body scanners. Three years later in October 2008 the European Parliament adopted a resolution, according to which “the conditions for taking a decision have not been met yet.” Afterwards the regulation on the Europe-wide use of body scanners, that had been amended in March 2008, was cancelled.
The EU is still looking for a common legal basis. In a number of countries such as England or the Netherlands body scanners are in use. The transport commissioner Siim Kallas is going to put forward a report in April which will facilitate the decision-making at the meeting of the EU ministers in June. According to the European Data Protection Supervisor, body scanners cause “a humiliating experience”. To me they are just another proof of a disproportional fight against terrorism. The only correct way of using these scanners would be to put them in popular public places as a memorial to the fundamental human rights.
The debate over terrorism is driven by dangerous hysteria. 1200 people were killed in terrorist attacks in 2000. Eight years later the death toll was 16,000. 44 percent of them were killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In comparison, annually 2.1 million people die of HIV/AIDS and 600.000 in traffic accidents. Still young panty bombers or “Sauerland boys” (Sauerlandbuben) drive the West to hysteria. Approximately 400,000 soldiers fight in Afghanistan. According to Joseph Stiglitz the cost of the war in Iraq (hyperlink) amounts to 3 trillion US dollars.
There is no proportionality in the legislation, the media attention, the costs and the reaction to this phenomenon any more. As a reaction to terrorist attacks people get tortured and civil right are being violated. This spiral is rotating from just one side. Jiménez-Becerril Barrio Teresa, a conservative MEP from Spain held a speech against this in the plenary session on Wednesday. When it comes to terrorism “we should not wait for facts, we must act preventively but we do not do this.” For this very reason body scanner in the airports are to her a “responsibility that we cannot shirk”.
The current methods of combating terrorism have failed. The cost-intensive methods of fighting terrorism led solely to the increase in the number of terrorism victims. With the same money one could have successfully fought against diseases and could have thus saved the lives of countless people. Terrorism as a danger should be reassessed and the fight against it should be redefined. The unease between cultures should be calmed down and not fuelled. Otherwise where can this hysteria lead to?
“It is a fact, that space research is a symbol of power and prestige worldwide. All nations with global ambitions therefore carry out such research,” answered the EU-Commissioner Günther Verheugen to a user question. Initiating the 3.4 billion euro project Galileo – the GPS competing project – the EU saddled itself with a space prestige project. It is under pressure to succeed. Due to the annually rising demand of 25 percent in this sector and with an estimated 236 billion euro civilian market volume in 2025 success should not be a problem.
Nevertheless the industry was afraid to pre-finance the 30 satellites in advance. The hitherto biggest cooperation project between state and industry failed. As was the case with the banks, the European tax payers had to cover the expenses. Agriculture aids were channelled into the Galileo budget. Further sources of financing had to be found. Promises did not hold any more. Because the military demand covers almost 50 percent of the overall demand in the satellite navigation market, the initially agreed civilian use of Galileo turned into a “necessity” to “use Galileo for independent ESDP missions in an unrestricted fashion.” This is what a current lobbyist of the defence industry and the former chair of the SEDE subcommittee Karl von Wogau demanded in his parliamentary report.
The EU “cow” Galileo stands on thin ice not only because of the pressure to succeed. The industry is aware of this and is therefore calmly milking the full “udder” of the tax payers. In the Committee on Budgetary Control the Italian EU-Commissioner Antonio Tajani announced a further “increase of 60 to 80 percent in the price, especially for launching ramps”. But he “does not intend to give in to blackmail attempts.” According to his calculations one saves 90 billion euros due to Galileo for some inexplicable reasons. Even the conservative EU MEP Ingeborg Grässle does not believe this: “If the calculations are correct, I will buy you all a drink”.
Arnaud Danjean is a charming Frenchman. Since last summer he has been the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence. As a young man he worked for the French intelligence service DGSE in Sarajevo. His opinion represents not only the EPP, die largest group in the European Parliament but also that of the mainstream of the politicians in Brussels. In his new parliamentary report he states: “The European Parliament … views it as regrettable that the Battlegroups (BGs) – despite the significant investment they represent – have not yet been used, partly for political reasons and partly because their deployment is subject to very stringent criteria”.
The report on the implementation of the European Security Strategy and the Common Security and Defence Policy is currently of great significance. Since the Lisbon Treaty came into force many things still remain unclear. What will the new External Actions Service look like? What are the criteria of the start-up funds? How about the mutual assistance clause? Now it is essential to set limits on the interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty.
That is why we are going to put forward 24 amendments to this report within the next few days. For a neutral country such as Austria it is important to insist that the mutual assistance clause is legally non-binding, does not imply a compulsory implementation of military means and provides each member state with the right to decide on the content of the assistance to be provided. The passage from the report quoted above needs to be different: “The European Parliament welcomes the fact that the conditions for the deployment of the Battlegroups are stringent and that they did not have to be deployed yet.” It is necessary to oppose the Brussels mainstream.
Gastkommentar von Martin Ehrenhauser zur EU-Mission Atalanta auf derstandard.at
Zum Vergrößern Bild anklicken.
Zum Vergrößern Bild anklicken.
Zum Vergrößern Bild anklicken.
Zum Vergrößern Bild anklicken.
Das EU-Parlament stimmte heute für einen Entschließungsantrag zum Stockholm-Programm. Der unabhängige EU-Abgeordnete Martin Ehrenhauser lehnte diesen ab und zeigt sich besorgt “über den mutlosen Text des EU-Parlaments, der den Rat zu keinem wesentlichen Kurswechsel zwingen wird. In einer rechtlich unklaren Situation, aufgrund des Inkrafttretens des Lissabonner Vertrages und des derzeitigen Konflikts zwischen den Institutionen um Kompetenzen, ist dieser Entschließungsantrag ein Ausdruck der realpolitischen Schwäche des EU-Parlaments.”
Dem Kommissionsvorschlag zum Programm von Stockholm “fehlt eine ausdrückliche Regelung zur Einbeziehung des Europäischen Parlaments sowie der nationalen Parlamente in dieses sensible Themenfeld.”
Nach der Richtlinie zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung sowie dem SWIFT-Abkommen entwickle sich die EU mit dem Stockholm-Programm immer weiter zu einem “Europäischen Datenbank- und Überwachungsstaat.”
“Bereits mit der Vorratsdatenspeicherung werden verdachtsunabhängig und flächendeckend die Bürger überwacht. Die Persönlichkeitsrechte der Bürger werden weiter zurückgedrängt und anstelle der Stärkung der Grundrechte werden vor allem die Ermittlungsbefugnisse erweitert.” Den Aufbau einer Agentur “zum Betriebsmanagement von IT-Großsystemen”, in der alle Datenbanken zusammenlaufen sollen, sieht Ehrenhauser äußerst skeptisch.
Außerdem zeigt sich der unabhängige EU-Abgeordnete besorgt über “die zunehmende Praxis der Erstellung von Persönlichkeitsprofilen auf der Grundlage von Data Mining und eine präventive und massenhafte Erfassung von Daten unschuldiger Bürger” und fügt hinzu „die Freiheit stirbt mit Sicherheit“.
Nach Beschlussfassung der Justiz- und Innenminister am 1. Dezember wollen die EU-Regierungschefs das Stockholm Programm beim Ratsgipfel am 10. und 11. Dezember in Brüssel endgültig verabschieden. Die zuvor 1999 und 2004 formulierten Mehrjahresprogramme (”Tampere Programm” und das “Haager Programm”) sind Absichtserklärungen und definieren den “Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts”. Bereits in Richtlinien umgesetzte Vorhaben der letzten beiden Fünfjahrespläne sind etwa die Vorratsdatenspeicherung, die Schaffung der Grenzschutzagentur Frontex, die Aufwertung der Polizeibehörde Europol, eine einheitliche Terrorismus-Gesetzgebung und biometrische Merkmale in Reisepässen.
Press Releases
You need to be logged in to be able to vote.
Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.
