ple, can give place, once and for all, to orderly and transparent monitoring by a European Parliament that takes its foreign and security policy responsibilities seriously. 
Goudin, Lundgren and Wohlin (IND/DEM ),
     Peacemaking and confidence-building measures in Bosnia and Herzegovina are extremely desirable. We nonetheless object to some of what is written in the motion for a resolution from the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
We do wish, as the committee proposes, to regret this military operation’s being financed from outside the EU’s normal Budget (paragraph 2).
Nor do we support the wording to the effect that ‘this operation should establish further the collective capacity for planning and management of European military operations at EU level’(paragraph 11).
The above wordings, together with the general spirit of the motion for a resolution for an increased military capacity for the EU, are the reasons why we are voting against this resolution. 
Meijer (GUE/NGL ),
   . The EU is treating Bosnia-Herzegovina as a protectorate, prescribing how the government should be organised, how the police and border control must function and even what the tax system should be like.
Unfortunately, the opportunity to carry out a critical assessment of how nine years of foreign military presence have affected that country has not been taken. Meanwhile, huge billboards across the country are advertising the fact that the EU is, in December, taking over NATO’s responsibility for foreign troops.
According to the billboards, this is the EU’s contribution to the country’s integration into the EU, and this creates the impression that Bosnia-Herzegovina is being annexed to the EU by means of occupation. This will undoubtedly engender negative reactions among the Serbs who may view this as a means whereby they will be cut off from Serbia for good. I argue in favour of an EU policy that particularly takes account of the different wishes of the three peoples in that country and that restricts itself to helping them