1. What do you see as the committee’s main achievements in the first half of the current mandate - and what do you see as its principle priorities for the remaining two and a half years?
During the first half of this mandate, Parliament’s security and defence subcommittee mainly focused on the challenges to our common security, fostering debate on these challenges and trying to find a common position.
This was not an easy task - some MEPs were predominantly focused on the security situation in the southern neighbourhood, while others looked to threats in our eastern neighbourhood. My role was to tackle all these problems impartially.
In the first part of the mandate, subcommittee missions were present in Mali, the Central African Republic, Georgia and eastern Ukraine. We also visited operational headquarters - the European Union naval force’s Atalanta in Northwood and operation Sophia in Rome - and institutional HQs like the European space agency, Eurocontrol and the European defence agency.
MEPs also visited Nato headquarters and listened to presentations by Nato officials. We also exchanged views with renowned and distinguished experts representing well-known think tanks and universities.
It is still our aim to agree to a common perception of threats among member states and MEPs. Therefore, my priorities for the second half of the legislature remain the same.
Additionally, many MEPs have openly advocated deepening integration within the common security and defence policy (CSDP), an ambition that is clear to see.
Although this subcommittee is not a legislative body, we plan on focusing a lot of attention on policy proposals on CSDP presented by EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini.
2. What do you Believe are the main challenges and issues facing the committee for the remainder of the current legislature?
I think that finding a common denominator on integration within CSDP among MEPs of various political groups and member states is most probably the main challenge we face.
We usually speak about challenges created by Russia’s aggression on Ukraine as well as threats in the southern neighbourhood. However, when it comes to deploying CSDP missions, Ukraine’s constant request to establish a CSDP mission there seems out of the question.
The Union must take into account concerns voiced by a number of governments in central and eastern Europe, as well as by our Nordic members - Kaliningrad Crimea, Georgia, Moldova and the western Balkans are places where Russia’s aggressive policy threatens the stability of the region.
3. What, if any, impact will Brexit and other events such as national elections in France, the Netherlands and Germany, have on the committee’s work?
The UK is the most important contributor to European defence and security and an active player in many stabilisation and peacekeeping missions. It dedicates more than two per cent of its GDP to defence. We need to find legal ways to maintain close ties with Britain in terms of security. It’s difficult to compare Brexit to general elections in other countries.
Parts of our societies are very critical of the current political elites and are trying to find new leaders by supporting the unknown. This is a risk of democracy, which we should face by bringing the EU closer to the people and addressing their real concerns.
4. How can citizens become more engaged in what your committee does and how can you better communicate the work of the committee to voters and stakeholders?
I know that people who are interested in security and defence, as well as diplomats and certain journalists, monitor our debates. I think that individual MEPs have to be very active in approaching their constituencies on security issues.
5. Are you concerned by the apparent reduction in recent weeks and months in the legislative output of the commission due to the refit exercise and do you expect this to continue? Will this impact on your committee’s workload and, if so, how?
Security and defence is still predominantly the area of intergovernmental cooperation. Therefore, this subcommittee serves more as a platform for debate than a legislative body. The legislative process must be agreed upon by the member states, and we must await their decision. We must address these issues. Additionally, the subcommittee acknowledges the importance of Nato to European security and defence - we will discuss this in Washington and Norfolk.