Mr President, first of all, I should, also on behalf of my group, like to express my appreciation for the Commission communication and for the report and attendant resolution by Mr Fava. I welcome the fact that the European Commission has screened the EU policy on election assistance and observation and has come up with proposals for a better approach towards this policy, and for updating the same. Too often, this policy has been referred to as ad hoc and has been associated with last-minute delegations, with little impact and visibility on the part of the Union. In those cases where impact and visibility did form part of the package, most of the time, it was because the European Parliament had been handed the helm from a delegation – a case in point being the sterling work by Mr Gahler in Zimbabwe and by Mr Cushnahan recently. That is why the report by Mr Fava is so significant: among other things, it draws on the European Parliament’s extensive experience, and is receiving a great deal of support from our group, partly for that reason. All our amendments have already been approved in the Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, and that is why we have not tabled any fresh amendments. Despite this, I should like to emphasise a number of points in order to bring our position more into focus. We support the setting up of separate election observation units at the European Commission and Parliament. Not only should the units focus on the elections themselves, but also the period in the run-up to the elections, because it is often important to know whether candidates and parties are given fair chances before the elections. I would in this connection refer to the recent re-election of President Museveni in Uganda: it is now no longer a secret that his rivals did not get a fair chance at all to run a campaign. In fact, it is beyond me why, in Amendment No 1, the rapporteur and Mrs Kinnock propose to delete the phrase “whereas the election period is a democratic expression of political pluralism and must be organised in accordance with internationally recognised standards”. I really cannot see the point of this, and we therefore oppose it. My second point is that observers must be well prepared, so that all participants are aware of the potential problems they could run into in the country they are visiting. This can, of course, be done by e-mail and internet, but it would be good if preparatory discussions were held in addition. Furthermore, the delegations should preferably consist of MEPs mainly, and be sufficiently large in order to be able to gain a sound insight into the elections locally. The members of the delegations must leave for the countries in question in good time in order to observe the electoral preparations. They should preferably be headed by a prominent MEP or ex-MEP with sufficient clout to be able to stand up to people like President Carter, for it occasionally seems as if he is the only one who matters. In addition, it is of course useful and necessary for the delegations to establish good working relations with other organisations, such as the Council of Europe and the OSCE. Finally, the European Union should consider mixed observation delegations, for example involving members of parliament from the ACP countries, especially if ACP countries are at issue. That can only benefit the strength and credibility of a delegation, and that is what it is all about. Mr President, I should like to express our appreciation for the Commission and the rapporteur’s report, and we hope that, thanks to that report, policy in this area will really improve in the short term.

Political group: PPE-DE