Brussels – The government majority split into three, and the opposition divided. This is the rift in Strasbourg over the vote on the resolutions on the Annual Report on the Implementation of the Common European Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and the Annual Report on the Implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), both approved today by the European Parliament.
Of course, the creation of “variable geometry majorities” in the EU Parliament is almost a practice. Still, this time, it occurs on an issue as sensitive and sensitive as European defence. While it disrupts known alignments, it also shapes others. In this case, Forza Italia and the Democratic Party said yes to the two texts—with the exceptions of Cecilia Strada and Marco Taquinio, who opposed the document on defence and abstained on foreign policy—the Lega, Movimento 5 Stelle (M5S), and Alleanza Verdi Sinistra (Avs) voted no, while Fratelli d’Italia abstained.
“On common foreign and defence policy, the three governing parties have three different positions,” commented PD delegation leader Nicola Zingaretti. “In Italy, there is no political majority in foreign policy. Until now, this issue has been experienced in a daily clash between two vice presidents who, in turn, have a different position from that of the prime minister. As of today, it is also ratified by a vote in the Europarliament,” he added. For the head of the delegation, the issue is about “national security,” and the division “is harming our country not a little in terms of authority and seriousness in relations with other European states and also in relations with the United States of America. Simply because we do not exist.” While “the Democratic Party, within a lively debate and apart from the two independents, voted compactly in favour of the resolutions on these issues and in the amendatory battle we expressed our clear opposition to how Rearm Europe was presented and other points that we do not agree with.”
Of an entirely different tone is the position of the 5-Star Movement, which claims that it “voted consistently and proudly against the two reports.” The defence text “is a hymn to war that calls on member countries to prepare families and young people with exercises and initiatives that bring civil society into the war effort.” At the same time, the foreign policy report “is a masterpiece of double standards: There is never a mention of the human rights violations committed by Israeli settlers in the West Bank, let alone the violations of international law that Israel has carried out with its invasions of Gaza, Lebanon and the Golan Heights in Syria,” and “on the war in Ukraine it pretends that the latest peace talks between the U.S., Russia and Ukraine have not taken place.”
For the co-chairman of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, the MEP from Fratelli d’Italia Nicola Procaccini, on the other hand, the problem of voting diversity among the majority parties does not exist. “Zingaretti attacks the centre-right parties which, however, are not together in the majority in the European Parliament,” but “are in three different groups and vote differently according to the line of the group they belong to. Exactly as is the case with PD and M5s who, in fact, are in different groups in the European Parliament,” he commented.
In general, however, no political family compactly held one posture. For example, looking at the so-called Ursula majority, we see that the three camps of Populars, Socialists and Liberals, while massively supporting the defence resolution, recorded discordant votes: four no votes and eight abstentions in the EPP; six no votes (including Strada and Tarquinio) and three abstentions in the S&D group; only four abstentions in Renew Europe. The split within ECR was more marked, with 39 abstentions, 14 yeses and 23 nays. Among the Greens were 36 in favour, eight against, and seven abstentions. Although overwhelmingly against (74), Patriots for Europe, where the Lega sits, also counted seven abstentions. One abstention is then seen among the nays from the Europe of Sovereign Nations and one yes, from Finnish MP Merja Kyllönen, in the Left.
In the report on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), approved by 378 votes to 188 with 105 abstentions, the Parliament warns that Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine undermines European security by destabilising and threatening the neighbourhood in Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans. With respect to the situation in the Middle East, on the other hand, MEPs say they are “concerned” about what they call “growing tensions” and call on the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Policy, Kaja Kallas, to develop a comprehensive EU strategy for the region and to strengthen the European presence on the ground. In this context, it welcomes the prospect of the Palestinian Authority’s return to Gaza and expresses support for the Global Alliance to implement the two-state solution. The text, however, also highlights concern “about the speed with which the new U.S. administration is reversing established partnerships,” and MEPs say they are “baffled” by the U.S. policy “of appeasement toward Russia and of opposing traditional allies.” Despite this, MEPs believe that “engagement with the United States is more crucial today than ever before” and “encourage member states to pursue bilateral diplomatic relations with their U.S. counterparts, in line with the U.S. administration’s preferred methods of cooperation, while demonstrating unity and adherence to a common EU position.”
Also the report on the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP)—approved with 399 votes in favour, 198 against, and 71 abstentions—expresses “deep concern about the apparent change in the U.S. position on Russia’s war of aggression.” Here, the deputies “strongly condemn any attempt to blackmail the Ukrainian leadership” into surrendering “for the sole purpose of announcing a ‘peace agreement’.” According to the chamber, a possible peace agreement that respects Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity must be accompanied by “solid and credible” security guarantees to deter future aggression from Moscow. In this regard, it looks favourably on recent efforts with like-minded NATO partners.
Going into more details, the resolution emphasizes “the need for effective coordination on deterrence and collaboration between the EU and NATO to develop coherent, complementary and interoperable defence capabilities, as well as to strengthen the productive capacity of the European defence industry.” MEPs agree “with the broader goal of strengthening the European pillar within NATO,” but the development of a European Defence Union “must go hand in hand with the deepening of EU-NATO cooperation.” To take this step, the Parliament wants the Commission to increase the common debt to equip the EU with the fiscal capacity to borrow in exceptional situations and crises, both now and in the future.
“In the coming years, we will need to work closely with the United States on security and defence, but in the long run, the EU will also need to develop its own credible deterrence capabilities,” the rapporteur of the text on the Common Security and Defense Policy, Spanish People’s Party Nicolás Pascual de la Parte, commented. He pointed out, “To do so, we will need to invest much more in our security and defence while showing political unity and determination. We must also continue to provide strong support to Ukraine as it continues to defend Europe’s territorial integrity, independence, and values.”
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
