Diverting funding towards military capacity building would be a backwards step and incompatible with EU law

The European Parliament will today debate the outcome of trilogues on the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP). The Greens/EFA group has consistently argued against the reform of the regulation which aims at introducing a military capacity building program to the EU's only instrument for civilian conflict prevention. As the regulation is based on Article 209 TFEU, the development cooperation article of the Treaty, this reform is also to be seen as militarisation of development policy, and is incompatible with EU law. The final vote will follow tomorrow.

Greens/EFA shadow rapporteur Bodil Valero comments:

"It is unacceptable for the precious resources the EU has for civilian conflict prevention to be diverted towards bolstering foreign armies. If Member States want a new, dedicated instrument for security and military cooperation and capacity building with third countries, they should be prepared to commit the finance to make it happen, not cut other much-needed civilian budgets.

"Sacrificing the EU's only instrument for civilian conflict prevention to meet security policy requirements is dangerously short-sighted. The neighbourhood policy, the police missions and the buffer for unforeseen crises will be reduced. There is a clear need for these budget lines to be not only maintained but increased due to the instability surrounding Europe. This could have devastating consequences for millions of people in need of EU aid."

Greens/EFA MEP Heidi Hautala adds:

"Not only is this policy deeply flawed, it is at odds with EU law. The legal services of at least two EU institutions have called into question its legal soundness and it is incompatible with European Court of Justice case law. The aim of this reform is military capacity building, something that quite clearly falls outside the scope of a regulation based on the development policy legal base. If MEPs approve this instrument, they will be inviting future legal challenges and undermining the credibility of EU law."