Paris, 19 November 2001: The success of ESDP and its ambitions to turn the EU into a global player in a number of areas including military crisis management depend largely on substantial increases in the European Union’s military capabilities. With the Headline Goal, these capacity improvements are scheduled to be achieved by 2003. However, member states, which are already starting to say that 2003 may be an ambitious target, are struggling to catch up with events. Neither the Headline Goal nor the Petersberg missions cater for the implications of 11 September 2001. 
 
The Petersberg concept of ESDP is largely influenced by the Balkan experience. It is geared to search and rescue operations, humanitarian aid missions and military crisis management in the context of UN peacekeeping and peacemaking. But does it include the fight against terrorism in the form in which it is now taking in Afghanistan? ESDP has to be adapted, and with it the Headline Goal. However, even in the Balkans the situation has changed considerably since 11 September 2001 because the US may soon withdraw its troops and ask the Europeans to step in and replace them in that region. EU-countries already have about 40 000 soldiers operating in the area. This is not far off the 60 000 limit set by the Headline Goal. However, we will have to deploy more troops than we thought and probably much earlier than expected and we have to equip and train them. 
 
With regard to the necessary capability improvements, there has been some progress since the first Capabilities Commitment Conference last year. However, this has mainly been limited to less pressing shortcomings and should not be presented as a major achievement. We still have not seen any progress on precision-guided missiles, anti-air defence or forces protection. Concerning airlift capacities, the first steps towards establishing a joint European Air Transport Command have been taken. But this makes little sense if governments do not modernise their transport fleets through the European Airbus 400M project. If the Italians decide to pull out, this would be a serious setback. We also need to move forward in the field of satellite surveillance. We have to build up our mobile command and control capacities. But there is no sign of the increase in national defence budgets that is necessary for all this. And I cannot see on what basis the EU is going to declare ESDP operational at the Laeken Summit. 
 
Above all, what we need is a better information flow between governments and parliaments on these questions as we are the necessary link to public opinion. To that end, I also support the Belgian proposal to establish a permanent Council of Defence ministers. 
 
There is also a need for more cooperation in the field of intelligence. This is true not only of the fight against terrorism but also applies if we have to replace the US in the Balkans. Ministers should make a clear commitment to a much more comprehensive system of sharing intelligence information. 
 
Another important question concerns the involvement of non-EU countries in the capabilities enhancement process. While all EU candidate countries pledged forces at the first conference, they were at a later stage discouraged from continuing because the EU is seeking to overcome its shortfalls in equipment rather than in numbers of troops and heavy weaponry. Why not include our non-European NATO partner Canada, as was the case until recently when WEU was responsible for crisis management? Why not open cooperation to Russia? Especially after its recent constructive role in the fight against terrorism. I believe that Europeans, too, must react to Russia’s new positive attitude in foreign and security policy and benefit from it. 
 
Download the Meale-Report on “Defence equipment for European crisis management” and the Wilkinson-Report on "European strategic lift capabilities" at our web-site: http://assembly.weu.int