Verbatim report of proceedings of 14 March 2019
Date: 2019-03-14
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202403819EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














20.6.2024







            14 March 2019
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 14 MARCH 2019
            
         
(C/2024/3819)

Contents







1.

Opening of the sitting
4










2.

Documents received: see Minutes
4










3.

Petitions: see Minutes
4










4.

Gender balance in EU economic and monetary affairs' nominations (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes
4










5.

A European human rights violations sanctions regime (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes
4










6.

Annual strategic report on the implementation and delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals (debate)
4










7.

Implementation of the Generalised Scheme Preferences (GSP) Regulation (debate)
14










8.

Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)
19










8.1.

Human rights situation in Kazakhstan
19










8.2.

Iran, notably the case of human rights defenders
24










8.3.

Situation of human rights in Guatemala
30










9.

Resumption of the sitting
36










10.

Welcome
36










11.

Voting time
41










11.1.

Human rights situation in Kazakhstan (RC-B8-0204/2019, B8-0204/2019, B8-0205/2019, B8-0206/2019, B8-0207/2019, B8-0208/2019, B8-0209/2019) (vote)
41










11.2.

Iran, notably the case of human rights defenders (RC-B8-0186/2019, B8-0186/2019, B8-0187/2019, B8-0190/2019, B8-0191/2019, B8-0193/2019, B8-0194/2019) (vote)
41










11.3.

Situation of human rights in Guatemala (RC-B8-0182/2019, B8-0182/2019, B8-0183/2019, B8-0185/2019, B8-0189/2019, B8-0192/2019, B8-0196/2019, B8-0197/2019) (vote)
41










11.4.

Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, and international child abduction (A8-0056/2019 - Tadeusz Zwiefka) (vote)
41










11.5.

Implementation of the Generalised Scheme Preferences (GSP) Regulation (A8-0090/2019 - Christofer Fjellner) (vote)
41










11.6.

Minimum loss coverage for non-performing exposures (A8-0440/2018 - Esther de Lange, Roberto Gualtieri) (vote)
42










11.7.

Safeguarding competition in air transport (A8-0125/2018 - Markus Pieper) (vote)
42










11.8.

Guidelines for the 2020 Budget – Section III (A8-0172/2019 - Monika Hohlmeier) (vote)
42










11.9.

Gender balance in EU economic and monetary affairs' nominations (RC-B8-0171/2019, B8-0171/2019, B8-0172/2019, B8-0173/2019, B8-0174/2019, B8-0175/2019) (vote)
42










11.10.

Appointment of Sebastiano Laviola as a new member of the Single Resolution Board (A8-0148/2019 - Roberto Gualtieri) (vote)
42










11.11.

Appointment of a Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (A8-0144/2019 - Roberto Gualtieri) (vote)
43










11.12.

Appointment of the Chairperson of the European Banking Authority (A8-0146/2019 - Roberto Gualtieri) (vote)
43










11.13.

A European human rights violations sanctions regime (RC-B8-0177/2019, B8-0177/2019, B8-0178/2019, B8-0179/2019, B8-0180/2019, B8-0181/2019) (vote)
43










11.14.

Urgency for an EU blacklist of third countries in line with the Anti-Money Laundering Directive (B8-0176/2019) (vote)
43










11.15.

Climate change (B8-0184/2019, B8-0188/2019, RC-B8-0195/2019, B8-0195/2019, B8-0198/2019, B8-0199/2019, B8-0200/2019, B8-0201/2019, B8-0202/2019, B8-0203/2019) (vote)
43










11.16.

Recommendations for the opening of negotiations between the EU and the US (B8-0163/2019) (vote)
43










11.17.

Establishment of the European Monetary Fund (A8-0087/2019 - Pedro Silva Pereira, Vladimír Maňka) (vote)
44










11.18.

Situation in Nicaragua (RC-B8-0165/2019, B8-0165/2019, B8-0166/2019, B8-0167/2019, B8-0168/2019, B8-0169/2019, B8-0170/2019) (vote)
44










11.19.

Annual strategic report on the implementation and delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals (A8-0160/2019 - Eleni Theocharous, Francesc Gambús) (vote)
44










12.

Explanations of vote
44










12.1.

European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Competence Centre and Network of National Coordination Centres (A8-0084/2019 - Julia Reda)
44










12.2.

2018 Report on Turkey (A8-0091/2019 - Kati Piri)
44










12.3.

European Semester for economic policy coordination: employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2019 (A8-0162/2019 - Marian Harkin)
45










12.4.

Implementation of the Generalised Scheme Preferences (GSP) Regulation (A8-0090/2019 - Christofer Fjellner)
45










12.5.

Gender balance in EU economic and monetary affairs' nominations (RC-B8-0171/2019, B8-0171/2019, B8-0172/2019, B8-0173/2019, B8-0174/2019, B8-0175/2019)
46










12.6.

A European human rights violations sanctions regime (RC-B8-0177/2019, B8-0177/2019, B8-0178/2019, B8-0179/2019, B8-0180/2019, B8-0181/2019)
47










12.7.

Climate change (B8-0184/2019, B8-0188/2019, RC-B8-0195/2019, B8-0195/2019, B8-0198/2019, B8-0199/2019, B8-0200/2019, B8-0201/2019, B8-0202/2019, B8-0203/2019)
47










12.8.

Recommendations for the opening of negotiations between the EU and the US (B8-0163/2019)
49










12.9.

Situation in Nicaragua (RC-B8-0165/2019, B8-0165/2019, B8-0166/2019, B8-0167/2019, B8-0168/2019, B8-0169/2019, B8-0170/2019)
49










12.10.

Annual strategic report on the implementation and delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals (A8-0160/2019 - Eleni Theocharous, Francesc Gambús)
50










13.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions
50










14.

Resumption of the sitting
50










15.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes
50










16.

Animal welfare rules in aquaculture (debate)
50










17.

Fundamental Rights of People of African Descent (debate)
56










18.

Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes
61










19.

Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting : see Minutes
62










20.

Dates of forthcoming sittings : see Minutes
62










21.

Closure of the sitting
62










22.

Adjournment of the session
62




Verbatim report of proceedings of 14 March 2019
                  


PRÉSIDENCE: SYLVIE GUILLAUME


Vice-présidente

1.   Opening of the sitting

(La séance est ouverte à 9 h 01)

2.   Documents received: see Minutes
3.   Petitions: see Minutes
4.   Gender balance in EU economic and monetary affairs' nominations (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes
5.   A European human rights violations sanctions regime (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes
6.   Annual strategic report on the implementation and delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals (debate)

La Présidente. – L'ordre du jour appelle le débat sur le rapport stratégique annuel de Eleni Theocharous et Francesc Gambús, au nom de la commission du développement et de la commission de l'environnement, de la santé publique et de la sécurité alimentaire, sur la mise en œuvre et la réalisation des objectifs de développement durable (ODD) (2018/2279(INI)) (A8-0160/2019).
               

Ελένη Θεοχάρους,
Εισηγήτρια. –Κυρία Πρόεδρε, Κύριε Επίτροπε, θέλουμε η φωνή του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου να ακούγεται δυνατά σε μια εποχή κατά την οποία η πολυμερής συνεργασία για την ευημερία των ανθρώπων και για το καλό του πλανήτη, τόσο στο πλαίσιο των δράσεων για την κλιματική αλλαγή όσο και για την αλληλεγγύη και την ειρήνη, δεν μπορεί να θεωρείται δεδομένη.
               

                  Ως εκ τούτου, είναι σημαντικό να συνεχίσουμε την πρακτική της ετήσιας έκθεσης στρατηγικής σχετικά με την εφαρμογή και την υλοποίηση των στόχων για την αειφόρο ανάπτυξη και για να εκπροσωπείται το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο κάθε χρόνο στο υψηλού επιπέδου πολιτικό fόρουμ. Σήμερα, η έκθεση στρατηγικής είναι ακόμη πιο επίκαιρη δεδομένου ότι η Επιτροπή ετοιμάζει την κοινή συγκεφαλαιωτική έκθεση, την οποία αναμένουμε σύντομα, σχετικά με τη στήριξη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης προς τις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες κατά την εφαρμογή της ατζέντας του 2030, με τη συμβολή και των κρατών μελών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
               

                  Είμαστε πεπεισμένοι ότι απαιτείται η προσέγγιση πραγματικά πολυεπίπεδης διακυβέρνησης με ενεργό εμπλοκή του κοινού, της κοινωνίας των πολιτών και του ιδιωτικού τομέα σε ευρεία βάση για την αποτελεσματική εφαρμογή των στόχων για την αειφόρο ανάπτυξη. Η στενή παρακολούθηση, η αναλογική υποχρέωση λογοδοσίας και οι αποτελεσματικοί μηχανισμοί επανεξέτασης που θα αξιολογούν την επιτευχθείσα πρόοδο είναι ουσιαστικής σημασίας για τη βελτίωση των εθνικών στρατηγικών και την αποτελεσματική εφαρμογή των στόχων σε όλα τα επίπεδα.
               

                  Η έκθεσή μας σκοπεύει να συμβάλει στην προετοιμασία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για την επίτευξη μιας συνολικής στρατηγικής της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για το 2030, προς εφαρμογή των στόχων για την αειφόρο ανάπτυξη και για την βελτίωση της ενσωμάτωσής τους στις πολιτικές και τους μηχανισμούς διακυβέρνησης της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης· μιας στρατηγικής με αναπτυξιακό χαρακτήρα με βάση την παιδεία, την εξειδίκευση επαγγελματιών και τη δημιουργία βασικών υποδομών. Μια τέτοια ευρείας κλίμακας ευρωπαϊκή πολιτική για βιώσιμη ανάπτυξη πρέπει να βασίζεται σε ανάλυση των πολιτικών ελλειμμάτων και σε εκτίμηση της απόστασης προς τους στόχους. Πρέπει να καθορίζει σαφείς και διακριτές στοχεύσεις, δείκτες και δράσεις που απαιτούνται για βελτίωση του πολιτικού συντονισμού και της πολιτικής συνοχής για βιώσιμη ανάπτυξη σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο.
               

                  Προς τον σκοπό αυτό, καλούμε την Επιτροπή να προβεί σε μια εις βάθος ανάλυση της ανισότητας και ανεπάρκειας των υφισταμένων πολιτικών, προκειμένου να εντοπίσει κρίσιμους τομείς σε επίπεδο συνεργιών και ασυνεπειών. Κύριε Επίτροπε, βασικά θα θέλαμε να γνωρίζουμε ποιοι είναι οι σχεδιασμοί σας που θα εφαρμοστούν μέχρι το 2030, όσον αφορά πολιτικές και νομοθετικές ρυθμίσεις, στατιστικές και συλλογή αναλυτικών στοιχείων, διακυβέρνηση και βέλτιστες πρακτικές, με στόχο την εφαρμογή μιας ολοκληρωμένης στρατηγικής για την επιτυχία της ατζέντας 2030 ή δυνατόν πριν από το τέλος του 2019.
               

                  Το γεγονός ότι πολλά κράτη μέλη και κράτη εταίροι πέραν της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης έχουν καταβάλει σημαντικές προσπάθειες για τον σχεδιασμό μηχανισμών και στρατηγικών για την επιτυχή εφαρμογή των στόχων για την αειφόρο ανάπτυξη και την ενσωμάτωσή του στις πολιτικές και στην διακυβέρνηση τους είναι ένα πολύ πολύ θετικό βήμα. Εντούτοις, πρέπει να κάνουμε και άλλες βελτιώσεις σε επίπεδο Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και επιπλέον είναι πολύ σημαντικό να ενθαρρύνουμε και να στηρίξουμε τις τρίτες χώρες να ακολουθήσουν ανάλογες πρακτικές.
               

                  Θα ήθελα να ολοκληρώσω την παρέμβασή μου λέγοντας ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να είναι παγκόσμιος πρωτοπόρος στην εφαρμογή της ατζέντας 2030 και των στόχων για την αειφόρο ανάπτυξη σε συνεργασία με τα κράτη μέλη της. Ο στόχος μας πρέπει να είναι πάντα σταθερός: η κατάκτηση της βιώσιμης ανάπτυξης και η ευρύτερη ευημερία όλων χωρίς διακρίσεις, χωρίς ουραγούς χωρίς να μένει κανείς πίσω.
               

Francesc Gambús,
ponente. – Señora presidenta, señor vicepresidente, en primer lugar, déjenme que agradezca a la coponente, la señora Theocharous y a los ponentes alternativos de las Comisiones de Desarrollo y de Comisión de Medio Ambiente, Salud Pública y Seguridad Alimentaria, la facilidad y la comprensión que han hecho posible que lleguemos a un acuerdo en un tema que nos interpela a todos nosotros, como son los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible.
               

                  Ayer debatimos sobre el cambio climático y, precisamente, la acción por el clima es uno de los objetivos que se revisarán este próximo verano en el foro político de alto nivel organizado por las Naciones Unidas.
               

                  Las nuevas generaciones de europeos nos están demandando acciones concretas, y nuestra responsabilidad es darles respuesta y debemos ser claros. Debemos explicar qué hemos hecho hasta ahora. Debemos explicar el éxito europeo que supuso la COP 21, el primer tratado internacional para llegar a ser neutros medioambientalmente. Debemos explicar que durante este mandato, bajo la Comisión Juncker —y con el comisario Arias Cañete a la cabeza, ambos del Partido Popular Europeo, ambos de mi Grupo político— y con la ambición de esta casa, hemos avanzado más que nunca en la lucha contra el cambio climático.
               

                  Hemos aprobado el paquete de economía circular. Hemos revisado el paquete de energía y la actualización de energías renovables. Hemos revisado el Reglamento común de electricidad, incluyendo por primera vez la pobreza energética en dicho Reglamento. Hemos renovado el mercado de emisiones europeo. Hemos aprobado el Reglamento de los límites nacionales. La Comisión acaba de enviarnos nuevos actos de implementación y actos delegados en relación con el ecodiseño, del que también hemos elaborado un informe. Hemos presentado un paquete de aire limpio. Hemos aprobado una Directiva de plásticos de un solo uso. En definitiva, hemos puesto la semilla de la transformación económica de la Unión. Hemos sembrado la revolución industrial europea del siglo XXI.
               

                  Y no podemos engañar a la gente. La naturaleza no la podemos cambiar de la noche al día, aunque esto sea difícil de asumir en la era de la inmediatez. El cambio climático no se mitiga colgando la foto de una manifestación en Instagram, aunque nos gustaría que fuera así. Debemos actuar siendo conscientes de lo que podemos asumir e ir revisando periódicamente en nuestro progreso en investigación y desarrollo, para ir actualizando nuestros objetivos y ser cada vez más ambiciosos. Sino, si nuestra industria se deslocaliza, no conseguiremos ser sostenibles de ningún modo, ni ambiental, ni social, ni económicamente.
               

                  Por ello, debemos ver los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible como una oportunidad. Debemos ser ambiciosos; sí, pero con los pies en el suelo. Debemos aprovechar la oportunidad que se nos presenta para renovar los puestos de trabajo, para acabar con las desigualdades en el seno de la Unión, para establecer salarios justos que permitan a los trabajadores mantener una vida digna y progresar, como decía León XIII.
               

                  Debemos utilizar los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible para reinventarnos, no para crear más estructuras. Nos equivocamos si pensamos que poniendo un policía de los ODS en cada dirección general o creando un equipo conseguiremos transformarlo. No se trata de más estructuras, sino de un cambio de mentalidad; de mejorar los instrumentos de redistribución de la riqueza; de profundizar y reforzar la economía social de mercado que tenemos integrada en la Unión, creando puestos de trabajo que coticen y con empresas e industrias que estén basadas en Europa, no deslocalizadas; de crear puestos de trabajo de alto valor añadido y de transformar nuestra economía para no quedar anclados en el pasado. Parafraseando a Julio Verne, ‘la tierra no necesita nuevos continentes, necesita mujeres y hombres nuevos’.
               

Frans Timmermans,
First Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, the Commission welcomes Parliament's annual strategic report on the implementation and delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This comprehensive and detailed report strongly encourages the EU to lead the implementation of the 2030 agenda and ensure that SDGs guide EU action for the years to come. The report is timely. The European Parliament elections are around the corner. The preparation of the EU's strategic agenda for 2019-2024 and the institutional priority setting for the next EU policy cycle are on the horizon. The EU has fully committed itself to delivering on the SDGs and it is time to decide how we implement these global goals during the next EU policy cycle so that we can live up to our commitments.
The Commission published the Reflection Paper Towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030 to inspire this debate. We put on the table three indicative scenarios to lead the discussion on how the implementation of the SDGs in Europe could best be achieved and what the most effective division of roles would be between the EU level and the Member States when moving forward. Let me underline that these three scenarios all rely on a shared premise in the Commission that we need enhanced commitment in Europe if we are to secure a sustainable future and achieve the SDGs by 2030 and beyond.
We are in the midst of the fourth industrial revolution. The question is whether we are a victim of change or whether we will embrace and guide it. It starts by diagnosing the situation and facing up to the reality, and undeniability of the facts. I want to be very clear. These facts should not instil in us worry and fear, but inspire us to act with expedience and determination. The core sustainability challenge for Europe, as well as for other most developed parts of the world, is to find the way to increase our prosperity and to improve our wellbeing without destroying our natural habitat and exceeding the boundaries of our planet. We only have one planet. In order to address this challenge, we must move quickly from a linear to a circular economy. We have to put our food system onto a fully sustainable path and we have to green our energy, mobility and built environment. To do this, we also have to gear all our key enabling policies and tools towards the SDGs. These include education, science, research, innovation, digitisation. They also include finance, taxation, pricing and responsible business conduct, new business models. And our trade policy as well, obviously. Any transition must be socially fair and leave no one behind. There is no sustainability without social sustainability and being who we are in Europe all our actions need to fully respect the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights, as well as inclusiveness, facts, evidence.
Let us now move forward with confidence and optimism, for Europe is the best place in the world to lead the way to sustainability transition. We have it all. We have the skills, we have the brains, we have the people, we are the best connected continent and sustainability is deeply rooted in the European project. In the months ahead, we need to reach an agreement on what and how should be done specifically at the EU level in the next EU policy cycle.
The European Parliament's report clearly favours the first scenario presented in the Commission's Reflection Paper which proposes an overarching SDG strategy to guide all actions of the EU and its Member States. The Member States too will have to make up their mind. This will help the next Commission plotting a clear course for the development of a comprehensive EU SDG implementation strategy, a strategy that the European Council has called for. I said earlier this week in the informal General Affairs Council that, in both the way we should organise the Commission and our work, the SDGs could be a perfect framework for how we distribute the work and how we make sure that we take the right steps towards a sustainable future for Europe.
The collective contribution conclusion of the SDG high-level multitask platform, ranging from birdlife to business Europe, has made very clear that our people are expecting ambitious action from the EU and its Member States. I want to end by saying, let's not turn this into a left–right issue. This is an issue that is important to the full political spectrum in this House, and that's how I've always felt the support of this House for the SDGs and this is the way forward. I strongly believe in that.

Alojz Peterle,
v imenu skupine PPE. – Tole minuto bi rad uporabil samo za en poudarek in ta zadeva zdravje.
               

                  Ne more biti trajnostnega razvoja brez večje pozornosti na zdravje in oba poročevalca, ena od njiju je zdravnica, sta govorila o celovitosti. Zdravje ni samo vidik ali sektor, je dimenzija, ki zadeva številne delne cilje naše strategije trajnostnega razvoja.
               

                  Zdravstveni trendi so zaskrbljujoči, zato je treba sektorske strategije za dosego ciljev povezati v tako integralno strategijo, v kateri bo zdravje ključen element.
               

                  Ne moremo biti vodilna sila trajnega razvoja na svetu z več raka, z več diabetesa, z več drugimi boleznimi, katerih statistiko poznamo. Torej, želim si ambicije v smeri močnejšega zdravja za vso Evropo.
               

Elly Schlein,
a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, c'è una grande contraddizione tra quest'Aula (in cui siamo così pochi) e le piazze in tutta Europa, in cui domani migliaia di giovani scenderanno per scioperare, per protestare, per attirare la nostra attenzione sul clima, contro i cambiamenti climatici che minacciano il nostro futuro e contro le diseguaglianze che continuano ad avere un effetto devastante sulla coesione e sul benessere della società europea. Loro hanno capito che la battaglia per la giustizia ambientale si fa insieme a quella per la giustizia sociale. Quest'Aula e la politica devono essere all'altezza della richiesta di Greta Thunberg e di quei giovani.
               

                  Quello che serve per attuare gli obiettivi di sviluppo sostenibile al 2030 sono tre cose, che qui dentro ancora non vedo: coraggio, volontà politica e risorse adeguate. Servirebbe un grande Green New Deal di investimenti per riuscire ad accompagnare la transizione ecologica indispensabile per la nostra economia. Non si tratta solo di salvare il pianeta, ma anche di creare occupazione di qualità e in quantità, perché le due cose devono stare insieme.
               

                  Da quando eravamo a New York per l'approvazione dell'agenda per lo sviluppo sostenibile, noi chiediamo – e chiediamo anche con la relazione di oggi – che ci sia finalmente una strategia europea di attuazione degli obiettivi di sviluppo sostenibile, con un meccanismo di coordinamento tra gli Stati membri e con adeguato monitoraggio sul raggiungimento di questi obiettivi.
               

                  Con il reflection paper la Commissione ha perso l'occasione di fare un passo avanti, indicando questo tipo di direzione e limitandosi a presentare tre scenari, come se fossero gli uni uguali agli altri. Se vogliamo davvero mantenere i nostri impegni non abbiamo più tempo, dobbiamo finalmente avere questa strategia. L'UE dovrebbe guidare l'attuazione di questi obiettivi a livello globale e dimostrare coerenza nelle sue politiche interne come esterne, a partire dal bilancio, dal quadro finanziario pluriennale e anche nell'ambito del semestre economico.
               

                  Abbiamo un'enorme responsabilità verso i giovani che domani e in questi mesi sono stati nelle piazze. Non possiamo essere da meno.
               

Czesław Hoc,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! W strategii realizacji celów zrównoważonego rozwoju musimy przyjąć ogólną zasadę: musi być to rozwój w celu podniesienia jakości życia społeczeństwa dla obecnego i przyszłego pokolenia, a nie dla maksymalizacji zysku dla jednostki za wszelką cenę. Jednakże należy dodać obowiązkową klauzulę, że nikt nie zostanie pominięty. Muszą zatem zaistnieć harmonia i porządek w polityce społecznej, gospodarczej i ekologicznej z utrzymaniem efektywności ekonomicznej. Priorytetem ma być ochrona fundamentalnych wartości, tj. człowieka i szacunku dla przyrody.
               

                  Zatem w globalnym zrównoważonym rozwoju konieczne są: rozwój i utrwalanie demokracji oraz praw człowieka, promowanie dobrego zarządzania, pomocy humanitarnej, rozwoju kapitału ludzkiego, przedsiębiorczości i sektora prywatnego, promowanie zrównoważonego rolnictwa, rozwoju obszarów wiejskich i ochrony środowiska, wzmacnianie opieki zdrowotnej, zrównoważonego zarządzania zasobami naturalnymi i odpadami, zmniejszenie poziomu bezrobocia oraz ubóstwa społeczeństwa.
               

                  Musimy stale pamiętać, że środowisko naturalne i środowisko cywilizowanego człowieka funkcjonują na zasadzie naczyń połączonych, w związku z czym naczynia po obu stronach muszą być wypełnione wartościami.
               

Mirja Vehkaperä,
ALDE-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, kestävän kehityksen tavoitteista sovittiin jo neljä vuotta sitten. Paljon on niiden eteen tehty töitä, mutta työ on vielä kesken.
               

                  EU-maista vain kourallinen pääsee tavoitteeseen 0,7 prosentin kehitysrahoituksesta. EU-maat sijoittuvat huonosti kulutus- ja tuotantotapojen kestävyydessä. Yli 22 prosenttia EU-kansalaisista elää köyhyydessä tai sosiaalisen syrjäytymisen vaarassa, ja eriarvoisuus on lisääntynyt.
               

                  EU:n tulee erityisesti ymmärtää kestävän kehityksen tavoitteiden universaalisuus. Niiden saavuttaminen vaatii johdonmukaisuutta kaikkien politiikan alojen välillä. Esimerkiksi siirtymä ilmastoneutraaliuteen, resurssitehokkuuteen ja kiertotalouteen ovat avainasemassa EU:n kasvun ja kilpailukyvyn vahvistamisessa.
               

                  Komissio laahaa perässä kokonaisvaltaisen strategian tekemisessä. Pohdinta-asiakirja, jossa strategiaa ehdotetaan, onkin varsin tervetullut. Strategian laatimiseksi tarvitaan kunnianhimoa ja johtajuutta. Parhaillaan neuvotellaan EU:n seuraavasta rahoituskehyksestä, pian valitaan uusi komissio ja parlamenttikin. Meillä on siis arvokas tilaisuus ankkuroida kestävän kehityksen tavoitteet keskeiseksi osaksi EU:n politiikkaa.
               

                  Toivon, että toukokuun Sibiun huippukokouksessa Romaniassa EU näyttää johtajuutta ja tuo kestävän kehityksen vahvaksi osaksi keskustelua Euroopan tulevaisuudesta.
               

Benedek Jávor,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteurs for this strategic INI report which serves as an input from the Parliament ahead of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) summit of September 2019, and also as a reaction to the recent Commission reflection paper.
But Parliament stresses that more efforts are required from the Member States and the Commission. We need finally an all-encompassing, transformative EU 2030 strategy that integrates SDGs into all EU policies and applies a multi-level approach in governance in line with the recent Think 2030 work. It is not enough to use our existing policies, tools or indicators. We need a real paradigm shift, mainstreaming, and concrete tangible actions, targets and deadlines, including a robust sustainability proofing, consistent indicators and an effective monitoring framework. All EU infrastructure decisions, all EU revenues and expenditures must be aligned with the SDGs and the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) should reflect this to the fullest. In order to safeguard these principles, the EU still has a long way to go.

Anja Hazekamp,
namens de GUE/NGL-Fractie. – Voorzitter, onze maatschappij, onze economie, en onze consumptie- en productiepatronen moeten fundamenteel veranderen om de aarde leefbaar te houden. Het is goed dat hierover wereldwijde afspraken zijn gemaakt in de duurzame ontwikkelingsdoelen van de VN.
               

                  Het mag echter niet bij mooie woorden blijven. We moeten daadwerkelijk in actie komen. Nu. Er is geen andere optie. Er is geen planeet B. Dat het klimaatbeleid zo tekortschiet dat duizenden jongeren zich genoodzaakt zien om de schoolbanken te verruilen voor de straat, dat moet tot diepe, diepe schaamte leiden, maar vooral tot betekenisvolle actie.
               

                  Ik hoor de commissaris spreken over een mooi en allesomvattend plan. Maar dat het landbouw-, visserij- en handelsbeleid op de oude voet kunnen blijven doorgaan ten koste van klimaat, biodiversiteit, voedselzekerheid, het welzijn van miljoenen mensen en miljarden dieren, dat ondermijnt alle mooie woorden die hier in dit Huis gezegd worden.
               

                  Tolstoj die zei al eens: ‘Iedereen denkt wel aan het veranderen van de wereld, maar bijna niemand denkt aan het veranderen van zichzelf.’ En hij had gelijk.
               

                  Om de duurzame ontwikkelingsdoelen daadwerkelijk te halen, moeten we ook naar onszelf kijken, en moeten we minder vlees en zuivel produceren, maar ook dus minder consumeren. Om de duurzame ontwikkelingsdoelen daadwerkelijk te halen moet het destructieve EU-beleid grondig veranderen. Nu. Ook daarom ben ik voorts van mening dat de Europese landbouwsubsidies moeten worden afgeschaft.
               

Olaf Stuger,
namens de ENF-Fractie. – Voorzitter, als het over duurzaamheid gaat in dit Huis, dan hebben we het altijd over de milieuaspecten. Ik wil het met u echter hebben over de duurzaamheid van maatschappij en cultuur. Want die staat ontegenzeglijk onder druk.
               

                  Van buitenaf door de migratie van grote groepen mensen uit voornamelijk islamitische landen die niets met onze cultuur hebben, die zich niet wensen aan te passen, die hun eigen cultuur superieur vinden en zichzelf tegen onze cultuur keren.
               

                  Maar ook van binnenuit. Ook van binnenuit. Voorzitter, de linkse partijen die zoveel mogelijk cultuur en identiteit uit de maatschappij willen slopen. En cultuur en identiteit, dat zijn de wortels van onze samenleving. Als je die wortels vergiftigt, als je die wortels aantast, dan zal het organisme afsterven.
               

                  Dus de volgende keer als we het hier over duurzaamheid hebben, dan ook graag over duurzaamheid van maatschappij en duurzaamheid van cultuur. Het voortbestaan van onze westerse samenleving. Het voortbestaan van onze westerse samenleving – dat is ook duurzaamheid – gebaseerd op de joods-christelijke en humanistische tradities, zoals we die kennen en zoals we die willen behouden.
               

Bogusław Sonik (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Sprawozdanie o wdrażaniu celów zrównoważonego rozwoju stanowi wkład Parlamentu Europejskiego do pierwszego w historii Wspólnoty sprawozdania dla ONZ w zakresie monitorowania i przeglądu postępów w osiąganiu celów zrównoważonego rozwoju przez Unię Europejską i jej państwa członkowskie w uzupełnieniu do dobrowolnych przeglądów krajowych.
               

                  Cele te można osiągnąć tylko poprzez kompleksową strategię Unii Europejskiej oraz ich uwzględnienie w unijnych politykach wewnętrznych i zewnętrznych oraz w mechanizmach zarządzania zgodnie ze scenariuszem numer jeden przedstawionym przez Komisję Europejską w dokumencie refleksyjnym ze stycznia bieżącego roku.
               

                  Dlatego tak istotne jest przeprowadzenie przez Komisję analizy luk w istniejących strategiach politycznych, ich realizacji, w celu określenia najważniejszych obszarów, w których występują niespójności, a także opracowanie ram monitorowania oraz przeglądu poszczególnych celów z perspektywy Unii Europejskiej i państw członkowskich.
               

Miriam Dalli (S&D). – Madam President, we are on the eve of another march against climate change, including in my own home country, Malta. Youths and students are getting mobilised, but this is not only about the younger generation, this is not just about the future, this is about all of us, it is about now.
A UN report stated that temperatures are set to rise by at least 1.5o by 2030 if the world does not take drastic measures. An increase of 1.5o in temperature can result in an increase in the sea level of 3.45 m. Just ask yourselves what it means for coastal areas, for people and islands like mine that live next to the sea, for low-lying countries.
This is the challenge that we are facing today and we are at a time where we are speaking about industry 4.0, the fourth industrial revolution. We are told it is about digitisation and it is about automation. I tend to differ. It has to also be about ecological economies and about sustainable development and this is the moment for an economic paradigm shift. Being sustainable in everything we do does not jam our economies, it will give our economies a chance to thrive and grow. What will jam our economies is the traditional model of doing things where sustainable development is not a priority. Change requires ambition, ambition requires aspiration, an aspiration that we want to do better, to move to the next level in everything we do, to ensure a future for our children and our economies.
This positive transformation has to start from our countries but needs to find momentum at an EU level. It is about ensuring health, eradicating poverty, providing quality jobs and guaranteeing food security. The Sustainable Development Goals address precisely this. It is about ensuring a climate-proof, environment-proof, social-proof and economic-proof future. The discussions have started and the momentum is there. We need to make sure that we act in a decisive way that helps us future proof our societies.

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE). – Voorzitter, ik dank de commissaris voor zijn mooie woorden. Zo vaak als hij hier gesproken heeft, zijn dat ook echt hele mooie woorden. Maar woorden, en zeker mooie woorden, krijgen pas echt waarde als daar ook naar gehandeld wordt. En daar heb ik toch wel helaas vraagtekens bij, bij deze doelstellingen voor duurzame ontwikkeling.
               

                  Ik wou er graag twee uitpakken om het duidelijk te maken: nummer 14 en nummer 15. Leven onder water en leven op land. Oftewel natuurbiodiversiteit. Daar gaat het om. Wij hebben een Europese biodiversiteitstrategie. En die hadden we al lang voordat we doelstellingen voor duurzame ontwikkeling hadden. Die strategie, die vinden wij zo verschrikkelijk belangrijk dat de Europese Commissie die ook de naam had gegeven ‘Onze levensverzekering, ons natuurlijk kapitaal’.
               

                  Miljarden mensen op de wereld, en zeker ook in Europa, zijn afhankelijk van dat natuurlijk kapitaal, van de natuur. We weten ook al jaren dat we bij lange na de doelen niet gaan halen van onze eigen zelf geformuleerde biodiversiteitstrategie. Die loopt dit jaar af. In 2015 hebben we het ‘State-of-Nature’-verslag gekregen van het Europees Milieuagentschap waaruit bleek dat alle indicatoren op rood staan. Er zijn studies gepubliceerd over het massaal verdwijnen van insecten.
               

                  Wat heeft de Commissie, maar wat hebben ook de lidstaten gedaan? Helemaal niks. Sterker nog, wij moesten in dit Huis het vuur uit de schoenen lopen en tongen op de blaren spreken om te voorkomen dat de natuurwetgeving verder verzwakt zou worden.
               

                  Dus, mevrouw de voorzitter, een hele simpele vraag aan de Europese Commissie: wat gaat de Commissie nog doen, om alsnog veel dichter bij het behalen van de doelen van onze eigen biodiversiteit …?
               

(De spreker wordt door de voorzitter onderbroken.)


Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, the Commission's reflection paper shows that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) must guide all the EU's policy work as a matter of urgency. We need an overarching EU sustainability strategy and, likewise, concrete and time-bound deliverables for 2030. The SDGs also require a new way of policy making, which must be cross-sectoral and not embedded in silence. All the policies and all the institutions of the EU must be geared towards achieving the SDGs.
In the European Parliament, we also need strong mechanisms which involve all policy sectors, from agriculture to industry, from transport to employment, and everything in between. The European Parliament, with this report, shows that it wants to achieve this new way of making policy and Parliament is going to send a delegation to the high-level political forum and it is crucial that the European Parliament will be present this year, as the EU itself will report on its progress.
We need to look at global supply chains and I thank you very much, Vice-President Timmermans, for mentioning responsible business conduct, it's a key to achieving our goals.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))


Olaf Stuger (ENF),

                        ‘blauwe kaart’-vraag. – Voorzitter, ik zou graag aan mevrouw Hautala willen vragen wat zij zelf persoonlijk doet voor het milieu. Dus wat zij echt opoffert. Ik heb het dus niet over gesubsidieerde elektrische auto's of ledlampjes. Nee, wat u echt opoffert. Doucht u elke dag koud bijvoorbeeld? Neemt u het vliegtuig niet meer? Hebt u sowieso alle elektrische apparaten? Hebt u geen huisdieren? Eet u geen vlees? Wat offert u nu echt op wat echt pijn doet, wat echt pijn doet?
               

Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE),
blue-card answer. – This is a wonderful question. I can tell you, young man, that I was a co-founder of a vegetarian restaurant in 1974 when I was just a kid, and I have followed that path all my life.

Lola Sánchez Caldentey (GUE/NGL). – Señora presidenta, en septiembre se celebrará la primera reunión de jefes de Estado para evaluar los progresos de la Agenda 2030 y será el momento de subsanar los vacíos en la implementación de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. La coherencia política para el desarrollo debe imponerse en todos los ámbitos y en todos los niveles, pero el elefante en la habitación se llama política comercial.
               

                  Debemos dotar a los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible de una perspectiva de género transversal, y también deben ser los principios rectores de nuestras políticas agrícolas, pesqueras y de consumo, y, por supuesto, debemos alinear el marco financiero plurianual con los objetivos de la Agenda.
               

                  Los progresos que se están dando son insuficientes —eso es evidente— y lo seguirán siendo mientras algunas preguntas clave sigan siendo tabú, porque, a pesar de invertir millones en desarrollo sostenible, nunca oímos hablar de algunas cuestiones fundamentales. Cuando debatimos sobre el objetivo de ‘hambre cero’, tenemos que atrevernos a hablar de soberanía alimentaria y restringir la especulación bursátil de alimentos; cuando hablamos sobre el ‘fin de la pobreza’, hablemos de acabar con la riqueza extrema; al tratar sobre ‘salud y bienestar’, preguntémonos por la privatización de la salud y las patentes; y, en lugar de rendir pleitesía dogmática al objetivo del crecimiento económico, busquemos el equilibrio en un planeta que es finito.
               

                  Señor Timmermans, salvar a los oprimidos ha sido siempre romántico pero, desde aquí, propongo que empecemos por identificar a las fuerzas que los oprimen y a ponerles coto.
               

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, the 2030 Agenda is based on the Union's core values of democracy, participation, good governance, social justice, solidarity, sustainability and respect for the rule of law and human rights within the EU, its Member States, and around the globe.
The 2030 agenda is vital to achieving greater wellbeing for all and a fair world, leaving no one behind. The four essential pillars of sustainable development – social, environmental, economic and governance – must be put into practice. The fair transition to a sustainable low-carbon economy that is inclusive for all is an essential part of this. I strongly welcome this report's call on the Commission to draw up an ambitious strategy for the implementation of the 2030 agenda and I think it's important to emphasise the importance of sustainable food production.
Finally, I want to say that every Member State should commit to giving 0.7% to development aid as we've asked. I'm delighted that my Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, has indicated that Ireland is going to do so.

Interventions à la demande


Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, analiza de astăzi ne arată că obiectivele de dezvoltare durabilă trebuie să fie și să rămână scopul principal al Uniunii Europene. Trebuie să facem o analiză amănunțită a politicilor pe care le-am avut. Avem sau nu avem rezultatele așteptate de cetățeni legate de coeziune. Trebuie să vedem care sunt rezultatele politicilor și trebuie să vedem dacă, într-adevăr, efortul financiar și munca desfășurată de noi, de parlamentele naționale și guvernele naționale au dus la eradicarea sărăciei, au dus la o situație a veniturilor cetățenilor mai bună. Nu trebuie să rămână nimeni în urmă, s-a mai spus aici.
               

                  Atunci trebuie să înțelegem că, în management, analiza ne impune să facem corecții politicilor noastre și, de aceea, cred că trebuie să să ținem cont, domnule comisar, în politicile pe care le vom face în viitor, 2030 nu este foarte departe, de situațiile concrete din teren, de zonele mai îndepărtate, de zonele mai sărace și, evident, să ținem cont de subsidiaritate și proporționalitate.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, καλωσορίζουμε την έκθεση για την εφαρμογή των στόχων της βιώσιμης ανάπτυξης και είναι σημαντικό το ότι υπάρχει η ετήσια έκθεση για να μπορούμε να παρακολουθούμε την πρόοδο και, κυρίως, να διαπιστώνουμε κατά πόσο οι στόχοι οι οποίοι έχουν τεθεί μπορούν πραγματικά να δρομολογηθούν. Και νομίζω ότι οι στόχοι, όπως αναφέρθηκαν, είναι σημαντικοί, στηρίζονται κυρίως στην δημοκρατία, στην αλληλεγγύη, στην προστασία των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων. Και το βασικό στοιχείο, φυσικά, για τη βιώσιμη ανάπτυξη πρώτα από όλα είναι να δημιουργηθούν θέσεις εργασίας. Γιατί είναι δυνατόν να έχουμε ανάπτυξη χωρίς θέσεις εργασίας. Εμείς θέλουμε ανάπτυξη με θέσεις εργασίας. Και, κυρίως, πρέπει να γίνει η ανάπτυξη αυτή με τέτοιο τρόπο που να αξιοποιηθούν οι πόροι, να αξιοποιηθούν οι πόροι για τους ίδιους τους λαούς, ιδίως για τους λαούς του αναπτυσσόμενου κόσμου, προκειμένου να χτυπηθεί η φτώχεια και να υπάρξει κοινωνική δικαιοσύνη. Με αυτό τον τρόπο, θα μειωθούν είναι και οι μεταναστευτικές ροές από τον αναπτυσσόμενο κόσμο προς την Ευρώπη και θα μπορέσει έτσι να εμπεδωθεί η δημοκρατία και στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και στον αναπτυσσόμενο κόσμο.
               

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la sostenibilità e la transizione verso un'economia ad impatto climatico neutro, circolare e socialmente inclusiva, sono fondamentali per garantire la crescita e la competitività a lungo termine dell'Unione europea.
               

                  L'Agenda 2030 ha il potenziale di determinare ciò, stabilendo obiettivi universali ambiziosi, globali, indivisibili e interconnessi. Tuttavia allo stato attuale la Commissione non ha ancora definito una strategia globale per l'attuazione dell'Agenda 2030 che includa i settori strategici interni ed esterni dell'Unione europea, con scadenze dettagliate fino al 2030, né ha incluso gli obiettivi di sviluppo sostenibile come quadro generale negli orientamenti riveduti per il 2017.
               

                  Ci vogliono più sforzi da parte degli Stati membri e della Commissione. Abbiamo bisogno di una strategia generale che attraversi tutte le politiche ed una impostazione multilivello della governance. Non bastano gli strumenti attualmente a disposizione: occorrono un cambio di paradigma, verifica della sostenibilità ed un quadro di monitoraggio efficace. Le entrate del prossimo quadro finanziario pluriennale dovranno essere maggiormente orientate agli obiettivi di sviluppo sostenibile. La strada da fare non è semplice, ma dobbiamo farlo per le nuove generazioni.
               

(Fin des interventions à la demande)


Frans Timmermans,
First Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, just to react to a few things that were said. I think we have a huge opportunity to do exactly what Mr Caputo has just said, to organise this paradigm change. I sensed also, when I spoke to the ministers in the General Affairs Council earlier this week, that in the Member States things are shifting as well in this direction. So, I think after the European election this Parliament with the new Commission could have a huge opportunity to frame the activities of the next five years using the Strategic Development Goals (SDGs). I think we have this opportunity now and I think there is growing consensus also in Member States to do that. That would be my first remark.
My second remark is this: those who, in general terms, deny climate change – you even have people who deny all the scientific evidence – those who want to say that if you want to have a sustainable society we all will have to live in caves munching on grass, should understand that this project fear is not going to fly, because there is a way, if we are consistent and if we move quickly, to have high levels of well-being and still not use the planet as though we have two more planets waiting for us. There is a way to do that. But the issue is, the longer you wait, the more difficult it's going to be and I believe the only way we can get our societies to embrace the idea is to put social sustainability front and centre. There, I fully agree with Mr Marias when he says you have to make sure you can convince the people there is a sustainable future for them in this, with a decent job, with decent salaries, with decent social protection. If they have the feeling that they're going to be the ones living in caves munching on grass, they will stop. They will not give the political support we need to go in that direction. So I think we need to put this front and centre.
To Mr Gerbrandy, I would say, well, Sir, if you think that's the fact, what this Commission has done is because of your tenacity I grant you that with pleasure. But I have to say the way Ms Ska Keller recently said somewhere that better regulation has led to lowering of standards, I think better regulation has given us the possibility to have the European's view, for instance on the nature directives. We could not have protected the nature directives if we did not have this public consultation, which said very clearly that the vast, vast majority of Europeans want the nature directives to protect nature. So, in that sense, better regulation helped and it helped us to move with lightning speed on the plastic strategy, which is unique in the world and Mr Gerbrandy knows this very well. It also helped us move with lightning speed on the first steps of the circular economy, which is something also Commissioner Jyrki Katainen has done a lot of work on and which is very good for our collective future. So, you know, all the fears we had at the beginning that this would lead to lower ambitions and a lowering of standards, this did not happen. This is not what this Commission did. I think we really moved forward.
Finally, one remark on cultural sustainability. Isn't it ironic, isn't it ironic that the political movements who do everything to cut cultural subsidies and say this is for the elite, are the same movements who are pleading for us to safeguard our culture and foster our culture. For me, culture is not an exclusive thing. For me, culture is not a weapon to exclude other people. For me, culture is the way to develop pride in who we are and curiosity in who we are not, and curiosity is the way forward for our development. Without curiosity, without critical thinking, we will not be able to go forward and those who want to make us prisoner of a culture in fear of other cultures will kill curiosity, will kill creativity and will not help us move forward.

Ελένη Θεοχάρους,
Εισηγήτρια. – Κύρια Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα και εγώ με τη σειρά μου να ευχαριστήσω τον Επίτροπο Timmermans για την εμπνευσμένη πρώτη ομιλία του και για τις απαντήσεις, καθώς επίσης και τον συνάδελφο Gambús και τους σκιώδεις εισηγητές για τη συνεισφορά τους. Θα συμφωνήσω ιδιαίτερα με τον κύριο Peterle ότι η υγεία είναι βασική παράμετρος της ανάπτυξης. Δεν μπορεί να υπάρξει ανάπτυξη χωρίς υποδομές υγείας και δεν μπορεί να υπάρξουν υποδομές υγείας χωρίς εκπαίδευση γιατρών, μαιών, νοσηλευτών, τεχνιτών και δασκάλων.
               

                  Η παιδεία, συνεπώς, είναι ο ισχυρότερος μοχλός για την ανάπτυξη. Νομίζω ότι πολλά από όσα έχουν λεχθεί από τους συναδέλφους είναι ενσωματωμένα στις προοπτικές αυτής της έκθεσης. Εμείς θα προσπαθήσουμε να υλοποιήσουμε τους στόχους βιώσιμης ανάπτυξης χωρίς υπαναχωρήσεις και παλινωδίες. Βασική, βέβαια, προϋπόθεση είναι η διάθεση του 0,7 του ακαθάριστου εθνικού προϊόντος των κρατών μελών προς τον σκοπό αυτό.
               

Francesc Gambús,
ponente. – Señora presidenta, señor vicepresidente, agradezco de nuevo las palabras escuchadas en el debate de esta mañana. Espero que el debate que hemos tenido aquí y la votación que tendremos este mediodía nos sirvan para animar y renovar esfuerzos para conseguir cuanto antes una sociedad neutra en emisiones. Pero que Europa sea neutra en emisiones, si no conseguimos que otros actores principales nos acompañen, de poco servirá.
               

                  La Unión está preparada para liderar —y, de hecho, lidera— el proceso de consecución de los Objetivos marcados en la Agenda 2030, pero como en la fábula de la tortuga y la liebre ‘no por ser los más rápidos llegaremos antes a la meta’. Mantengamos el sendero, no nos durmamos y conseguiremos los objetivos que nos hemos marcado. Por eso —como dijo ayer el comisario Arias Cañete—, el Parlamento y la Comisión que surjan de las próximas elecciones serán claves para ello —también lo ha dicho usted hoy, señor Timmermans—. Serán los responsables del marco financiero 2021-2027. Serán responsables de revisiones tan importantes como por ejemplo la Directiva marco del agua vinculada al Objetivo 6 de la Agenda 2030.
               

                  Pero no es solo el trabajo de la Comisión, ni solo el trabajo del Parlamento Europeo. Debemos asegurar la colaboración y gobernanza multinivel porque las competencias que tenemos en Europa son limitadas. Debemos organizar diálogos y contar con la participación de los niveles local, regional, estatal y europeo para, junto con la política exterior común, liderar la consecución de estos Objetivos. Hay que preservar la Unión, garantizar su diversidad, escuchar todas las voces, por pequeñas que sean, para que todos nos sintamos partícipes de esta Unión.
               

                  Los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible son la clave para ampliar el sentimiento de pertenencia a este proyecto de paz que es Europa y para dejar atrás el habitual comentario de ‘qué hacéis en Europa’ para pasar al de ‘qué hemos hecho en Europa’. Y lo que hagamos, señor vicepresidente —tiene usted toda la razón—, no es una cuestión de derechas o de izquierdas, es una cuestión de ser europeos y de querer liderar al mundo y en eso debemos ser uno. Somos responsables de ello.
               

La Présidente. – Le débat est clos.
               

                  Le vote aura lieu jeudi 14 mars 2019.
               


Déclarations écrites (article 162)



Ádám Kósa (PPE),
írásban. – Sajnálatos, hogy még mindig jelentős különbségek vannak a 10. fenntartható fejlődési cél elérése tekintetében, ami a jövedelmi egyenlőtlenségek, valamint az életkoron, nemen, fogyatékosságon, etnikai hovatartozáson, származáson, valláson és gazdasági helyzeten alapuló egyenlőtlenségek csökkentését illeti. Bizonyos vagyok abban, hogy az inkluzív és méltányos oktatás, a tudomány, a technika és az innováció révén az esélyegyenlőség növekedhet, a társadalmi kirekesztettség pedig ezzel párhuzamosan csökkenhet, ezért ennek sokkal nagyobb szerepet kell kapnia a jövőben.
               

                  A fejlődő országok közül sajnos sok helyen nem lehet megfelelően mérni a fenntartható fejlesztési célok tekintetében tett előrehaladást, de sajnos még így is világos, hogy a gyermekek körében a szegénység kockázata túlontúl magas. A gyermekek képzésébe való korai befektetés jelentős mértékben megtérül mind a gyermekek mind a társadalom egésze számára, ezért kulcsfontosságú ahhoz, hogy a korai években meg lehessen törni a hátrányos helyzet ördögi körét.
               
7.   Implementation of the Generalised Scheme Preferences (GSP) Regulation (debate)

La Présidente. – L'ordre du jour appelle le débat sur le rapport de Christofer Fjellner, au nom de la commission du commerce international, sur la mise en œuvre du règlement (UE) no 978/2012 relatif au système de préférences généralisées (SPG) (2018/2107(INI)) (A8-0090/2019).
               

Christofer Fjellner,
Rapporteur. – Madam President, free trade is one of the best ways to lift countries out of poverty: history proves that with all accuracy.
Let's take the Netherlands, for example, which developed when its citizens became freer to trade in the 17th century; and my own country, Sweden, started 100 years of growth in the 1870s when we opened up for trade. And growth miracles are not just a thing of the past: in Korea and, right now, China, they would not have happened if those countries had integrated into the world economy, and that is actually what is the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) is all about. I would call it the crown jewel of European trade policy because it tries to link poor countries into the world economy and lift them out of poverty.
Many countries in the world have GSP programmes, but I believe that we in the European Union should be extra proud of our programme. It's a very generous programme, in its terms, giving value and meaningful tariff cuts to the beneficiaries. It's also extra generous to the poorest countries of the world that get duty-free, quota-free access to the European markets for everything but arms.
The best part of GSP, though, is the GSP+, which grants additional preferences to those countries that strive a little more and try to behave better by implementing, ratifying and making a reality of 27 international conventions on everything from governance to environment and labour rights. It is a tool to extra-incentivise countries, to make sure that they grow and develop in a way that is sustainable and from which all their citizens can benefit. It's a way to make sure that good governance is respected.
We are now reaching the mid term of this programme and we are starting to see what can and should be improved, and this report reflects that.
Firstly, it needs to become easier for beneficiary countries to source inputs from other countries, and that will require changing rules of origin to get away from the ‘spaghetti bowl’ effect. This programme is about making it easier for countries to integrate into global value chains, not more difficult – as can sometimes be the effect of the current rules of origin.
Secondly, we should continually improve monitoring on the ground, and here everybody can help – civil society, the International Labour Organisation, relevant UN bodies, the Commission, Member States, embassies and others.
Thirdly, we should consider introducing services into the GSP, so that countries can diversify into those areas as well. There is a precedent for this with the Least-Developed Countries (LDC) Services Waiver.
This report represents the priorities for the programme – indicating how it should be even more development orientated – but there are voices which threaten that. The first such voices, I would say, are those seeking to place too many requirements on beneficiary countries. If we place too many requirements – on, for example, labour rights or environmental protection – on these countries they could risk facing the entire EU tariff wall, and that would harm the poorest. These countries are not Norway: if they were Norway they wouldn't need this tool. After all, it's better to be less poor and oppressed than being even poorer and more oppressed.
The second type of voice is a classic example of protectionism: of the fact that we are afraid of imports from poorer countries. And, sadly, I think the Commission's decision to impose safeguard duties on rice from Cambodia and Myanmar is a step in that direction. This report does not reflect any of those fears and I sincerely hope that the next Parliament will deal with the next GSP programme without listening to the voices who threaten trade for development.

Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, let me first thank the European Parliament, the Committee on International Trade (INTA), the rapporteur, Mr Christofer Fjellner, and all the shadow rapporteurs for the attention, work and time that you have invested into this report on the implementation of the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) Regulation. It is a welcome initiative, as it comes at a moment when we are assessing the impact and effectiveness of the current GSP Regulation and what possible improvements we can bring to a successor GSP scheme.
The EU has had the GSP scheme since 1971. The primary objective, as set out in the WTO Enabling Clause, has always been to assist vulnerable developing countries in their efforts to reduce poverty and integrate into the world economy. The European Union's GSP has undergone several transformations over the decades. A major reform of the GSP took place in 2012, with three main objectives: first, to contribute to poverty eradication by expanding exports from the countries most in need. This was done by substantially reducing the number of beneficiaries and focusing GSP preferences on the most vulnerable economies. Secondly, to promote sustainable development and good governance. We increased the attractiveness of GSP+ and enhanced the GSP+ monitoring of effective implementation of core international conventions related to human rights, labour rights, protection of the environment and good governance. Thirdly, to better protect the EU's financial and economic interests. In this respect, the safeguard mechanism was overhauled to make it more accessible to EU industry.
We are now five years into the implementation of the GSP Regulation and I am pleased to note that overall, the European Parliament and the Commission share the assessment that the GSP Regulation is successful in meeting its objectives. Exports from the more vulnerable economies have expanded substantially, which can contribute to poverty eradication. GSP, and in particular GSP+, is also contributing positively to furthering human and labour rights in beneficiary countries. We agree with your view that trade policy, including GSP, must also be part of EU efforts to fight for values enshrined in the EU treaties, such as democracy, rule of law and human rights. Trade policy does not and cannot do this on its own or in isolation. We take great care to ensure coherence between all EU external policies. For example, we ensure that GSP+ dialogues and bilateral human rights dialogues with beneficiary countries reinforce each other, thus increasing the EU's leverage to push for progress. As the Commission's biannual reports on GSP+ implementation attest, we are seeing progress in all beneficiary countries. However, many problematic issues remain and we will continue to engage closely and firmly with beneficiary countries.
I would like to touch on an issue that is very important to us, namely, transparency in trade policy. In the implementation of the GSP Regulation, we make considerable efforts to ensure a transparent and inclusive process. We consult civil society in the European Union and in beneficiary countries on a very regular basis and we are always open to their input, which we greatly value. We do not always share their views on what course of action should be taken at a specific point in time, but this should not be taken to mean that we do not listen to civil society. Let me be very clear: the Commission will not hesitate to take its responsibilities when it comes to warranted cases of serious and systematic violation of fundamental rights. Our actions in relation to Cambodia and Myanmar clearly demonstrate this. In this respect, I agree with you that withdrawing GSP must be a last-resort measure.
We must now start work on the new GSP scheme that will take effect when the current one expires on 31 December 2023. As we have seen in the mid-term evaluation of the GSP Regulation, it is working well overall and this should be the starting point. Your report and resolution contains several proposals that we will examine carefully. The next immediate step in this process is to launch an impact assessment to help guide our work on a new GSP Regulation. This will include a wide-ranging public consultation. We count on working closely with you on this important endeavour.

Brando Benifei,
relatore per parere della commissione per gli affari esteri. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il rispetto dei diritti umani e della democrazia non può essere dato per scontato, ma va rafforzato con ogni mezzo a disposizione. L'Unione europea è il principale promotore dei diritti umani nel mondo e le sue politiche commerciali devono a loro volta garantirne l'affermazione.
               

                  Attraverso l'SPG+ l'UE consente ai paesi vulnerabili di esportare in Europa senza dazi doganali. In cambio, richiede il rispetto di 27 convenzioni internazionali su diritti umani, lavoro e ambiente. Credo che questo schema commerciale costituisca una leva importante per sostenere la democrazia e per migliorare la situazione dei diritti umani nei paesi beneficiari. In alcuni casi però, nonostante gravi violazioni, l'Unione europea non ha sospeso il trattamento preferenziale.
               

                  Risulta quindi necessario intensificare il processo di consultazione in merito al regolare monitoraggio dell'Unione europea degli Stati beneficiari e definire in maniera chiara quali sono le linee rosse dello schema che, se superate, comportano la sospensione dell'SPG.
               

Santiago Fisas Ayxelà,
en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señora presidenta, la política comercial de la Unión Europea, a través del Sistema de Preferencias Generalizadas, fomenta el desarrollo sostenible y el respeto de los derechos humanos en los países con las economías más vulnerables del mundo.
               

                  Como refleja el informe de mi colega Fjellner, el SPG ha aportado beneficios económicos a los países beneficiarios, al aumentar sus exportaciones, y también a la Unión Europea. En general, se ha demostrado que el SPG desempeña un papel importante en la promoción de los derechos laborales internacionales, los derechos humanos, la buena gobernanza y las normas de protección del medio ambiente en los países beneficiarios.
               

                  Pero no debemos olvidar que, en algunos casos, este aumento de las exportaciones ha generado efectos no deseados para los derechos fundamentales y el desarrollo social. En ese sentido, me gustaría señalar que las preferencias comerciales deben ir acompañadas de la aplicación de los convenios internacionales y de reformas, a fin de evitar que los programas del SPG conlleven un aumento de los niveles de dumping ambiental y social.
               

Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. –Señora presidenta, gracias, señor comisario, y también quiero felicitar al ponente por su excelente trabajo. Defiendo profundamente el sistema de preferencias generalizadas porque es una herramienta fundamental de la política comercial para la promoción del desarrollo sostenible en los países menos avanzados.
               

                  Suprimir aranceles en estos países a cambio de promover la protección de los derechos humanos, laborales y medioambientales, así como el buen gobierno, sin duda alguna ha fomentado un empleo mejor y nos ha permitido luchar contra la lacra de la explotación infantil y contra la corrupción y ayudar a combatir la pobreza.
               

                  Pero, aun así, los avances no son suficientes y desgraciadamente estamos observando graves retrocesos en algunos países. Por ello, es fundamental la reforma y me congratulo de que vaya a ser receptivo a las propuestas que se incorporan en este informe. Porque es necesario reforzar la eficacia del sistema, el control de su implementación y asegurarse de que se retiran las concesiones como última solución en caso de violaciones graves de los compromisos asumidos.
               

                  También es necesario establecer obligaciones de diligencia debida y de transparencia a nuestras empresas porque no podemos permitir que se produzca en otros países menos avanzados —aprovechando las menores protecciones laborales y medioambientales— y luego se vendan esos productos en nuestros países a un arancel cero.
               

                  Y también creo que es muy importante incentivar a las empresas que (palabra inaudible) producen de manera sostenible. Mejoremos la regulación y profundicemos en un sistema que ha funcionado pero que necesita mejorar su implementación.
               

Marietje Schaake,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, our GSP system is a key example of how we use our economic power to leverage our weight and to bring about positive change for people in third countries, and the report that we're adopting today illustrates how GSP beneficiaries have, over the course of six years, substantially increased their exports to the EU. But this kind of preferential access should not be taken for granted. It is attached to clear conditions, for example when it comes to improving democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and following the increasingly repressive behaviour of Cambodian leader Hun Sen, Commissioner Malmström initiated a procedure to temporarily withdraw Cambodia's trade preferences, under the Everything but Arms scheme, and this is a very welcome move, that should be echoed by all Member States' Commissioners, as well as the High Representative in all their dealings with Cambodia. And at the same time we cannot wait another second to initiate a similar procedure for Myanmar. The ongoing killings, systematic human rights violations and the imprisonment of journalists, do not warrant the trade preferences that Myanmar currently does enjoy.
So, I believe it is very important that we use GSP in a good, but also principled, way and thereby maximise our global impact.

Heidi Hautala,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) instrument has a great potential to ensure that trade and sustainable development are intrinsically linked. But the effectiveness of the GSP system has been put into question. It does not necessarily improve social and environmental conditions, it does not necessarily promote human rights. I believe that a black and white approach of withdrawing tariff preferences from a whole country also has not proved effective. We have examples such as Myanmar and Cambodia and I think the options have to be increased.
I believe that instead of a whole economy, the EU should be able to target certain economic sectors with GSP instruments. Moreover, it should be able to use targeted sanctions against companies that breach human rights or other obligations. So, we should be able to blacklist companies or exporters that are found guilty of abusing human rights. I'd like to ask the Commissioner: are you ready to establish a complaint mechanism for victims of European Union enterprises in the context of the GSP+?

Helmut Scholz,
im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Lieber Kollege Fjellner, es geht nicht um Feihandel, es geht um fairen und ethischen Handel. Und ich denke, da malt Ihr Bericht zum APS doch ein zu positives Bild. Vor fünf Jahren waren bei der letzten großen Reform des APS-Systems trotz starker Kritik von meiner Fraktion und aus der Zivilgesellschaft alle Länder von der Präferenzliste gestrichen worden, die laut Weltbank ein mittleres Einkommen erreicht hatten. Vom APS+ profitieren heute gerade mal acht Länder. Das Flaggschiff unseres Präferenzsystems kommt also kaum zur Anwendung. So machen wir die Welt nicht besser.
               

                  Wir müssen das Kriterium ‘Armut’ ersetzen durch das Kriterium ‘Einhaltung der Menschenrechte’ für die Gewährung von Handelspräferenzen. Die Kommission muss zeigen, dass sie die Zollvergünstigungen auch entzieht, wenn gegen Menschenrechte verstoßen wird. Handeln Sie jetzt also, liebe Kommission, auch in den Fällen von Kambodscha und Myanmar. Beginnen Sie das Verfahren zu den Philippinen. Das Jahr 2022 ist das Verfallsdatum der aktuellen APS-Verordnung. Das heißt, die Reform gehört nach den Europawahlen für das neue Parlament und die neue Kommission ganz vorne auf die Liste der wichtigsten Aufgaben im Handelsbereich.
               

Tiziana Beghin,
a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è essenziale usare il commercio per aiutare i paesi in via di sviluppo, ma dobbiamo anche proteggere le sensibilità europee ed impedire che si verifichi un nuovo caso come quello del riso asiatico.
               

                  Non è accettabile utilizzare i paesi poveri come enormi piantagioni agricole. Bisogna differenziare e creare lavoro locale, sviluppando servizi ed industria. Inoltre servono clausole sociali, perché non possiamo più permettere alle multinazionali europee di delocalizzare fuori dall'Europa per produrre dove si sfruttano i lavoratori per pochi euro al giorno.
               

                  Per questo, io sostengo l'idea di misure di salvaguardia non solo per i prodotti agricoli o industriali, ma anche per il rispetto dei diritti sociali ed ambientali. Dobbiamo però fare in modo che l'attivazione delle salvaguardie sia immediata. Nel caso del riso, ci sono voluti cinque anni. In futuro dovremo essere molto, ma molto, più veloci, oppure anche gli europei ne pagheranno le conseguenze.
               

France Jamet,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, cela fait 40 ans que nous accordons des préférences tarifaires aux pays en développement depuis la conférence de Lomé, soi-disant pour faciliter le développement par l'insertion des pays les plus pauvres dans le commerce mondial.
               

                  Quarante ans plus tard, l'échec est patent. Tous les indicateurs de développement montrent une stagnation, voire une régression sur tous les plans. Ce dispositif sert en fait de caution morale aux esclavagistes qui sévissent dans les pays en développement. Lors d'une réunion avec l'ambassade du Bangladesh, avec un étonnant relativisme, on nous a très sérieusement dit – après un énième incendie dans une usine chimique ayant occasionné des dizaines de morts – qu'il y avait des incendies partout dans le monde, y compris dans les pays les plus développés. Sur 1000 usines et entrepôts chimiques dans la capitale du Bangladesh, 850 sont illégaux et ne respectent aucune norme.
               

                  Les dirigeants peu scrupuleux de nombreux pays se jouent de nous et ne voient de ce système que l'argent qu'ils peuvent en soutirer. Ce système est donc coûteux, inefficace, quelquefois désastreux pour des hommes, des femmes et des enfants et leurs droits, et surtout économiquement absurde.
               

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFDD). – Madam President, the Generalised Scheme of Preferences is one of three schemes that the EU offers to developing countries. It's entirely sensible to encourage developing countries to integrate into world trade. I myself have stood on a manifesto calling for ‘trade, not aid’, and certainly the benefits that derive from trade are likely to last much longer than those that derive from aid. But – and it is a big but – the EU uses these schemes to advance its own political agenda.
This is not just me saying this. The EU itself, the Trade Commissioner and MEP colleagues, have been very clear, indeed transparent, about it. They have even been rather proud of it, as was Ms Schaake earlier, in a very good speech.
To give one example, Sri Lanka, never a rich country, suffered badly from the 2004 tsunami. Notwithstanding, the EU shortly afterwards withdrew the GSP+ scheme from Sri Lanka for entirely political reasons. In a word, that action was spiteful. It must not happen again.

Danilo Oscar Lancini (ENF). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, le SPG rappresentano un abbattimento tariffario per i paesi in via di sviluppo, un aiuto che è concesso in cambio dell'impegno al raggiungimento di standard relativi a diritti umani e sviluppo sostenibile, poi spesso disattesi. Sono note le gravi mancanze dei meccanismi di gestione ambientale dei rifiuti provenienti dal comparto produttivo – soprattutto quello tessile – di questi paesi.
               

                  Mi preme sottolineare inoltre i danni e la distorsione che il mercato dell'Unione europea può subire dal riconoscimento di questi benefici. Infatti, benché esista una clausola di salvaguardia, questa risulta lenta e farraginosa da attivare. Ricordo il caso del riso proveniente da Myanmar e Cambogia, dove tale procedura è costata all'Italia danni ed un lavoro molto lungo: 5 anni.
               

                  Risultano inoltre molto complesse e poco trasparenti le procedure con cui l'elenco degli Stati che beneficiano di queste preferenze può subire variazioni, con aggiunte o espulsioni. Se l'Europa ha veramente intenzione di migliorare le condizioni dei suoi partner vicini e lontani e di supportarne lo sviluppo, ha bisogno di trovare coerenza. Non si possono imporre regole sempre più stringenti e penalizzanti per le nostre imprese e premiare chi non rispetta nemmeno i minimi standard ambientali e i diritti civili fuori dai confini dell'Europa.
               

Interventions à la demande


Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το σύστημα των γενικευμένων προτιμήσεων, με τη μείωση δασμών, προχώρησε προκειμένου, υποτίθεται, να στηριχθεί ο αναπτυσσόμενος κόσμος. Όμως, αυτό που είδαμε ήταν ότι κατά κύριο λόγο αξιοποιήθηκε από τις πολυεθνικές, οι οποίες με το outsourcing βρήκαν φτηνά εργατικά χέρια στον αναπτυσσόμενο κόσμο, εκεί όπου δεν τηρείται καμία προδιαγρaφή, ούτε για την προστασία της υγιεινής και της ασφάλειας των εργαζομένων, ούτε για μισθούς, ούτε, βέβαια, και τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα. Κι αυτό που πρακτικά συμβαίνει είναι να υπάρχει ένα κοινωνικό ντάμπινγκ. Ουσιαστικά παράγονται φτηνά προϊόντα μέσα στις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες, τα οποία εισάγονται χωρίς δασμούς στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και στους υπόλοιπους, με αποτέλεσμα να δημιουργείται έτσι και ένας αθέμιτος ανταγωνισμός. Άρα, επί του πρακτέου, όλο αυτό το σύστημα αντί να βοηθήσει τους ίδιους τους εργαζομένους, επί της ουσίας τους έχει μετατρέψει σε ακόμα σε πιο φτωχούς στις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες και το μόνο που έχει κάνει είναι να αυξάνει τα κέρδη των πολυεθνικών εις βάρος και των εργαζομένων και των μικρομεσαίων επιχειρήσεων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
               

(Fin des interventions à la demande)


Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you for the comments and input during this debate. We remain firmly committed to trade policy contributing, together with other EU policies, to championing respect for universal and fundamental values. In this respect, GSP is an important trade policy tool, designed for developing countries. By helping to expand exports from beneficiary countries, it has contributed to bringing millions out of poverty. It is also contributing to furthering human rights and sustainable development. The Commission, together with the European External Action Service, will continue to monitor closely, and engage firmly, with beneficiary countries. We will also start examining what improvements can be brought to a new GSP Regulation, including many of your clear proposals and requests, so that it can continue to be a force for good. We look forward to working with the European Parliament on this high-priority EU trade policy file.

Christofer Fjellner,
Rapporteur. – Madam President, I'd like to thank the Commissioner and to thank my colleagues for a good debate. I see two main trends in this debate.
First, we have those who say we are not seeing the kind of development we want. I urge them – those who claim that we have stagnation, that we don't have development of poor countries – actually to read the statistics. The fact of the matter is that we've never, ever in the history of mankind, had so few people in absolute poverty And there is no causal link to aid, should anybody look for that. The only causal link we can find is with integration into the world economy and, to some extent, with governance. Both of these are things we are addressing with precisely this tool.
The second area, on which we have had long discussions, time and time again, in the committee, is the question of what we do with those that don't behave. There are people here who give the impression that we don't do anything, but that's not true. First of all, Sri Lanka is one example of the fact that that you do actually lose your preference if you don't behave, and what we now are doing with Myanmar is also a proof of that.
However, we have to remember one thing: when countries are kicked out of the system, the system doesn't deliver anymore. This is, to some extent, a question about what we see and what we don't see. We see, in the history books, things that happen, but we never see things that do not happen – as the result of dialogue, of pressure or of this tool. I would claim that we've improved livelihoods, and the situation in terms of observance of human rights, for millions throughout this world by stopping things from happening, because people want to stay in the system. If we kick people out too quickly we lose that possibility.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues, let's be tough, let's strengthen monitoring, but let's not punish those already oppressed by making them poorer and kicking them out before we've used every trick in this regulation to pressure those governments that are behaving badly into behaving better.

La Présidente. – Le débat est clos.
               

                  Le vote aura lieu jeudi 14 mars 2019.
               
8.   Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)
8.1.   Human rights situation in Kazakhstan

La Présidente. – L'ordre du jour appelle le débat sur six propositions de résolution concernant la situation des droits de l'homme au Kazakhstan (2019/2610(RSP)).
                  

Heidi Hautala,
author. – Madam President, it's very important that the European Parliament now addresses the worsening human rights and democratic standards situation in Kazakhstan. This is a country which has signed an enhanced partnership and cooperation agreement with the European Union and this agreement aims at providing a broad framework for reinforced political dialogue. There is no doubt that the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms and principles of market economy and sustainable development must be at the core of the negotiations.
Now we know that there are many victims of politically motivated charges. There are many political prisoners, there is torture in the prisons and we, as the European Union, must react to the worsening of the situation. We must also address the situation of trade union activists – I'm mentioning two names, there are more in our common resolution – Nurbek Kushakbaev and Amin Eleusinov were released on parole in May 2018, but they remain banned from trade union activities. This is not possible, with a country which has an enhanced partnership …

(The President cut off the speaker)


Mark Demesmaeker,
Auteur. – Ja, we zijn tevreden dat het Europees Parlement de mensenrechtenschendingen in Kazachstan aansnijdt. We hebben inderdaad met Kazachstan in 2015 een versterkt samenwerkingsakkoord gesloten waarin respect voor de rechtsstaat en de mensenrechten een fundamenteel onderdeel zijn. Maar toch word ik als Europees Parlementslid te pas en te onpas geconfronteerd met getuigenissen van Kazakse burgers die beknot worden in hun grondrechten.
                  

                     Dat gebeurt op tal van manieren, al zijn die niet altijd zichtbaar voor de buitenwereld. Intimidatie, juridische pesterijen, foltering, onwillekeurige arrestatie en preventieve opsluiting. Het vrije leven wordt beknot om het regime van president Nazarbayev te beschermen.
                  

                     Ik noem nadrukkelijk de namen van politieke gevangenen: Maks Bokayev, Iskander Yerimbetov of Mukhtar Dzhakishev. Zij worden het zwijgen opgelegd.
                  

                     Ook wij, het Europees Parlement, zijn het slachtoffer. Activisten die in september vorig jaar hun bezorgdheden wilden meedelen aan een AFET-delegatie van dit Huis, werden vakkundig afgeschermd en monddood gemaakt door Kazachse autoriteiten.
                  

                     Ik vraag aan de EDEO en aan de Commissie om niet alleen oog te hebben voor – ontegensprekelijk interessante – zakelijke en economische banden met Kazachstan, maar vooral in de gesprekken aan te dringen op respect voor fundamentele waarden die wij in Europa hooghouden.
                  

Helmut Scholz,
Verfasser. – Frau Präsidentin! Es ist eine der zentralen Lehren des Zusammenbruchs der realsozialistischen Gesellschaften vor 30 Jahren, dass soziale und politische Menschenrechte untrennbar miteinander verbunden sind. Zur Garantierung dessen bedarf es der Stärkung von Rechtsstaatlichkeit, Demokratie und Freiheit. Das gilt überall, denn Demokratie und die Teilnahme- und Teilhabemöglichkeit von Menschen an gesellschaftlichen Entwicklungsprozessen muss überall möglich sein. Es ist deshalb bedauerlich, dass sich in den letzten Jahren die Situation der Menschenrechte und bürgerlichen Freiheiten in Kasachstan verschlechtert hat, insbesondere seitdem die Gesetzgebung gegen Extremismus zur Verfolgung politischer Gegner genutzt wird. Die jüngsten Äußerungen von Unzufriedenheit der Bevölkerung – wir haben davon zahlreiche Berichte – zeigen die Bereitschaft und das Bedürfnis der Bürgerinnen und Bürger nach einer demokratischeren Mitgestaltung ihrer Gesellschaft. Deshalb müssen die politisch motivierten Fälle von Verfolgung auch schnell beendet werden.
                  

Wolf Klinz,
Verfasser. – Frau Präsidentin, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Nach dem Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion wurde Kasachstan ein unabhängiger Staat. Mit dieser Entwicklung haben die Bürger des Landes die Hoffnung verbunden, dass sich dieses Land nach vielen Jahren autoritären Herrschens nun endlich zu einem demokratischen Land entwickeln würde – zu einem Land, in dem die Freiheits- und Grundrechte Gültigkeit haben, in dem es freie Meinungsäußerung gibt, in dem das Rechtsstaatsprinzip und die Regeln der Marktwirtschaft gelten und in dem alle Bürger sicher und frei leben können und sich einen Wohlstand erarbeiten können.
                  

                     Leider hat sich diese Hoffnung nicht erfüllt. Die EU ist der größte Handelspartner Kasachstans und hat im Partnerschafts- und Kooperationsabkommen im Dezember 2015 noch einmal deutlich unterstrichen, wie wichtig es für die Zusammenarbeit zwischen der EU und Kasachstan ist, dass Menschenrechte, demokratische Grundrechte und das Prinzip der Rechtsstaatlichkeit gewahrt und eingehalten werden. Leider müssen wir heute mehr als drei Jahre nach diesem Abkommen feststellen, dass sich immer noch nichts verbessert hat, im Gegenteil, zum Teil ist die Situation noch schlechter geworden.
                  

                     Unschuldige Menschen werden eingesperrt, gefoltert, es gibt keine freie Meinungsäußerung, und politische Gegner werden verfolgt. Deshalb bin ich froh, dass sich Mitglieder dieses Hauses parteiübergreifend zu diesem Entschließungsantrag zusammengefunden haben, um die Regierung zu ermahnen, etwas zu tun.
                  

Ana Gomes,
Autora. – Senhora Presidente, a visita de uma missão da AFET ao Cazaquistão, em setembro último, que integrei, pôs a nu a estupidez repressiva do regime de Nursultan Nazarbayev que vive do culto da personalidade delirante, à cabeça de um sistema totalitário e cleptocrático.
                  

                     À frente da nossa delegação, em Almaty, a polícia cazaque prendeu ativistas que nos queriam contactar. Exigimos, na altura, a libertação imediata dessas vítimas e de todos os outros cidadãos presos e torturados por um regime que restringe a Internet, reprime ativistas de direitos humanos e todo e qualquer opositor. Exigimos isso, hoje, de novo, nesta resolução, a libertação de todos os que como Mukhtar Dzhakishev, que está a ponto de perder a vista, Iskander Yerimbetov, Aset Abishev, e tantos outros que estão listados, incluindo apoiantes do movimento Escolha Democrática do Cazaquistão, ou todos os que saiam à rua com as cores desse movimento.
                  

                     Na semana que vem, Nazarbayev vai outorgar indultos presidenciais. É a altura de a União Europeia fazer valer os compromissos do acordo de parceria com o Cazaquistão e mostrar que precisa de reformas, que não é possível continuar com este dinossauro que já não tem mais tempo à frente e oprimindo um país em que precisamos absolutamente de estabilidade e de reformas democráticas.
                  

Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski,
autor. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Trwają właśnie rozmowy trójstronne, z tego też powodu jestem w pewnym zastępstwie Róży Thun, która była współautorką dzisiejszej rezolucji.
                  

                     Mamy szesnaście zaleceń, nie jestem w stanie w tak krótkim czasie przytoczyć wszystkich, natomiast zwrócę uwagę na te najważniejsze. Po pierwsze – rezolucja wzywa rząd Kazachstanu do wdrożenia zaleceń specjalnego sprawozdawcy ONZ do spraw wolności, pokojowych zgromadzeń i stowarzyszeń. Wzywa rząd Kazachstanu do zaprzestania wszelkich form arbitralnych zatrzymań, represji i nękania wobec działaczy na rzecz praw człowieka i organizacji społeczeństwa obywatelskiego. Wzywa także rząd Kazachstanu do dokonania przeglądu zmian w prawie medialnym i informacyjnym, które weszły w tym roku.
                  

                     Na koniec – bardzo istotne jest – na co zwraca uwagę ta rezolucja – stosowanie artykułu 174 kodeksu karnego w sprawie tak zwanego podżegania do niezgody społecznej, narodowej czy klanowej. Zwracam uwagę na nadużywanie tego artykułu.
                  

PRZEWODNICTWO: BOGUSŁAW LIBERADZKI


Wiceprzewodniczący


Julie Ward,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, for the past five years I have engaged extensively with Kazakhstani civil society. Standing in solidarity with persecuted human rights defenders, I've become familiar with the bleak human rights situation in the country. There are many worrying cases. I will highlight a few of them.
Ablovas Dzhumayev was sentenced to three years simply for posting online his criticism of the Government. Aigul Akberdiyeva, a mother of four, is being persecuted in the same case – and I'm very disappointed that the final resolution we will vote on does not include her name, as her case is still pending and is just as relevant as the others.
International observers who monitor such cases are expelled by the authorities without justification, as happened to Lyudmyla Voloshyna and Valeriy Yavtushenko. Judges such as the Chair of Aqtau City Court, Malik Kenzhaliev, can be punished when they do not follow orders. Similarly, others, like Aset Abishev, sentenced to four years in prison, and Almat Zhumagulov and Kenzhebek Abishev, sentenced respectively to eight and seven years, are punished under the pretext of the fight against extremism. They must all receive justice.

Nathan Gill,
on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, this Parliament has a specific mandate and responsibility to its citizens and must be a beacon to Kazakhstan and our neighbours. The mechanism to allow these debates, bizarrely, is in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and although human rights of the people of Kazakhstan cannot be belittled, we have a much more pressing human rights issue right on our doorstep. With the presidential elections in Ukraine at the end of this month, the security and prosperity of the EU relies on EU standards being adhered to in countries that have an association agreement with the EU, countries that will potentially join the EU.
Reliable reports from human rights watchdogs warn of serious challenges to democracy when the current government, before an election, is putting undue pressure on independent TV channels like News One and Channel 112. If you do not have a free press, you cannot have a free and fair election. I put forward a resolution on freedom of the press in Ukraine, which was signed by 43 MEPs from all groups in this Parliament. The European People's Party (EPP) bureaucracy blocked this. I hope they do not do this when it is represented next Strasbourg. We need to send an unequivocal message to Ukraine and the world on the need for freedom of the press.

Zgłoszenia z sali


José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Caros Colegas, o Cazaquistão, que foi o primeiro país da Ásia Central a conseguir um lugar entre os membros não permanentes do Conselho de Segurança da ONU, não é capaz de garantir internamente a paz e a segurança dos seus próprios cidadãos. Nesta antiga república soviética, continua sem existir liberdade de associação, os ativistas de direitos humanos e a comunidade LGBTI e as vozes dissidentes são perseguidas, detidas e muitas vezes sujeitas a tortura e a tratamentos cruéis, desumanos e degradantes.
                     

                        O regime do Presidente Nazarbayev persegue judicialmente líderes sindicais, incluindo os que denunciam as condições de trabalho absolutamente degradantes de milhares de imigrantes quirguizes, incluindo crianças, e a ameaça do islamismo militante é usada como desculpa para restringir a liberdade religiosa das minorias, incluindo a cristã, que vive vigiada quase constantemente e é multada por orar sem a permissão do Governo.
                     

                        A União Europeia, no âmbito do acordo de parceria e cooperação reforçada, deve instar as autoridades cazaques, enquanto membros da Comissão de Veneza, a cumprirem as obrigações internacionais assumidas em matéria de direitos humanos e apelar ao Governo de Astana a libertação dos presos políticos e respeito pela liberdade que religião e crença.
                     

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, comisario Mimica, creo que es un caso muy especial el que nos ocupa cuando hablamos de violaciones de los derechos humanos en Kazajistán, teniendo en cuenta que Kazajistán disfruta de una relación privilegiada con la Unión Europea, un importante acuerdo de asociación que lo distingue como un gigante en Asia Central en sus relaciones estratégicas con la Unión Europea.
                     

                        Pero en Kazajistán ha habido un retroceso democrático pavoroso. Un presidente vitalicio, Nursultán Nazarbáyev, cuyo liderazgo en Kazajistán se remonta a los tiempos de la Unión Soviética, y persecución de los opositores a la concentración de poder en la familia y el clan Nazarbáyev, entre ellos Mukhtar Dzhakishev, que ha sido objeto de una especial atención por el Comité de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas y por las autoridades españolas, porque ha habido presión diplomática para intentar la extradición de oponentes kazajos residentes en países de la Unión Europea.
                     

                        Este caso de Mukhtar Dzhakishev es especialmente sangrante porque padece torturas y se han violado sistemáticamente sus derechos fundamentales en prisión, y ha recibido, por tanto, un mensaje claro del Comité de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas que la Unión Europea debiera respaldar diplomáticamente.
                     

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, νομίζω ότι από τη συζήτηση αναδείχθηκε ότι υπάρχει ένα σοβαρό θέμα προστασίας δημοκρατικών δικαιωμάτων στο Καζαχστάν. Οι χώρες αυτές, οι οποίες κατάφεραν ή ήθελαν, εν πάση περιπτώσει, έφυγαν από τον σοβιετικό εναγκαλισμό, δεν πέρασαν όμως δυστυχώς στη δημοκρατία. Δεν στήριξαν την δημιουργία μιας κοινωνίας των πολιτών, έναν χώρο όπου πραγματικά να λειτουργούν τα δημοκρατικά δικαιώματα. Από την άλλη πλευρά, όμως, και η Δύση θώπευσε αυτές τις χώρες. Και τις θώπευσε διότι είχε οικονομικά συμφέροντα, διότι εκεί βρήκαν μια μεγάλη ευκαιρία οι πολυεθνικές της Ευρώπης αλλά και της Αμερικής να κάνουν επενδύσεις, να εκμεταλλευτούν τις πλουτοπαραγωγικές πηγές και, φυσικά, να βγάλουν υπερκέρδη.
                     

                        Στη βάση αυτή, λοιπόν, παρέμειναν τα καθεστώτα, δεν έγιναν δημοκρατικές αλλαγές, και τώρα έρχονται όλοι να διαμαρτύρονται. Αυτή είναι η πραγματικότητα, όταν κανείς κοιτάζει μόνο όπως κάνουν οι πολυεθνικές το να κερδίζουν χωρίς να ενδιαφέρονται, φυσικά, για την ανάπτυξη της δημοκρατίας. Εμείς στηριζόμαστε και θέλουμε να στηρίξουμε τη δημοκρατία, γι' αυτό στηρίζουμε και το συγκεκριμένο ψήφισμα.
                     

Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il Kazakhstan non è solo uno dei paesi più vasti del mondo, ma anche uno dei più ricchi per cultura, storia e tradizioni. Certamente la coesistenza pacifica tra diverse comunità etniche e religiose rende questo paese un modello dal quale imparare. Oggi, però, tutta questa diversità e ricchezza culturale sono fortemente minacciate da leggi anacronistiche e azioni repressive contro chiunque la pensi diversamente dalla linea del governo.
                     

                        Sono sempre più numerosi gli attivisti, i membri della comunità LGBTI, i giornalisti e i membri dei sindacati che sono presi di mira senza alcuna giustificazione. Pensiamo alle proteste del 2016, quando mille persone vennero arrestate solo per aver pacificamente partecipato al corteo; pensiamo alle violenze perpetrate dalle autorità il 10 maggio scorso contro un gruppo di manifestanti in occasione di una visita di una delegazione del Parlamento europeo; pensiamo ad Ardak Ashim, la blogger detenuta in un ospedale psichiatrico per aver incitato alla discordia, attraverso i suoi post, sulla base dell'articolo 174 del codice penale, articolo non ancora riformato.
                     

                        Allora chiedo: a cosa serve avere un accordo di partenariato e di cooperazione rafforzata che pone l'accento sulla democrazia e sullo Stato di diritto, se poi si viene sempre meno alla parte più importante, quella del rispetto della libertà e dei diritti fondamentali?
                     

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, this resolution is about the troublesome situation regarding human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Kazakhstan. The new Criminal Code has tightened the criminal laws being used to prosecute journalists, activists and opposition politicians. Freedom of expression is being restricted, with many receiving long-term prison sentences and being subjected to torture, ill treatment and psychological pressure in the detention facilities. The use of social networks is controlled and restricted by the authorities and social network users are being sentenced to imprisonment, while religious beliefs are being used by authorities as a pretext for arbitrary detention.
Therefore, I call on Kazakhstan to amend its legislation, in particular, the articles on criminal liability from the Criminal Code, which are overtly political in nature and I would recommend Kazakhstan apply the standards of the Council of Europe in its legal system.

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to discuss the human rights situation in Kazakhstan. As you know, the EU-Kazakhstan Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which has now been ratified by 25 EU Member States, provides the EU and Kazakhstan with a solid framework to advance our cooperation. It's full ratification will enable us to further strengthen our cooperation, also on human rights, building on the existing regular dialogue with Kazakhstan. The human rights dialogue and the Justice and Home Affairs Subcommittee, last November, discussed, among other issues, the importance of an independent judiciary and legislative powers to ensure the effectiveness of the constitutional mechanisms of checks and balances, as well as zero tolerance to torture and ensuring independent monitoring of detention facilities.
On that occasion, the European Union also raised concerns in relation to an independent media, freedom of expression and freedom of association and peaceful assembly. It remains important for Kazakhstan to continue to take steps to foster an enabling environment for civil society, human rights defenders, lawyers, trade unionists and journalists.
We are closely monitoring the human rights related developments in Kazakhstan, including in relation to the updated law on trade unions and its compatibility with ILO conventions, with international human rights standards and the impact on civil society of the law on the financing of NGOs. The EU-Kazakhstan Cooperation Committee in January agreed that the EU delegation and the Kazakh authorities would follow up on specific concerns raised and this is what we are doing.
The rule of law will remain a key priority sector of the EU support in Kazakhstan through the new regional EU–Central Asia rule of law programme, which will begin in 2019.

Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.
                     

                        Głosowanie odbędzie się po zakończeniu debat.
                     
8.2.   Iran, notably the case of human rights defenders

Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest debata nad sześcioma projektami rezolucji w sprawie Iranu, w szczególności sytuacji obrońców praw człowieka (2019/2611(RSP)).
                  

Bodil Valero,
författare. – Herr talman! Det är väl känt att den persiska regimen i Iran inte respekterar mänskliga rättigheter, yttrandefrihet, religionsfrihet, föreningsfrihet, miljöengagemang, som är självklarheter för oss men som kan bli synonym till tortyr och dödsstraff. Under 2018 avrättades 273 personer i Iran.
                  

                     År 2018 var också ett svårt år för kvinnorna i Iran. Bilder och filmklipp spreds över hela världen, där kvinnor över hela landet hade tagit av sig slöjan, satt den på en pinne och viftade med den som en flagga i protest mot att det är obligatoriskt för kvinnor att bära hijab. Det är en fråga som har blivit en symbol för kvinnors rättigheter över lag. Många greps och flera har blivit dömda till fängelse. Enligt Amnesty har 112 kvinnliga aktivister spärrats in. Många av dem vittnar om misshandel och tortyr.
                  

                     Det är ofta kvinnorna som går i täten för protester och krav på förändringar i landet. Det är en kamp som för en del slutar i fängelse eller värre. Därför är det omvärldens skyldighet att ge stöd åt de kvinnor som kämpar för att få kunna leva fria. Vi kan inte stillatigande se på när detta sker. Nasrin Sotoudeh har dömts till 33 års fängelse och 148 piskrapp. Med de fem år som hon tidigare dömts till blir den totala längden på fängelsestraffet chockerande 38 år.
                  

Cornelia Ernst,
Verfasserin. – Herr Präsident! Ich habe Nasrin Sotudeh 2013 in Teheran nach ihrer Freilassung kennengelernt, zusammen mit Jafar Panahi – beide Sacharow-Preisträger 2012. Damals wurde sie freigelassen. Jetzt sitzt sie seit Juni 2018 wieder hinter Gittern, wie viele andere auch. 38 Jahre Haft, 148 Peitschenhiebe – das ist nicht nur ein archaisches Urteil, sondern ein Riesenskandal und im Grunde genommen auch ein Angriff auf unsere persönlichen Interessen und auf Menschen wie Nasrin Sotudeh, die zu uns gehören, die sich für Freiheitsrechte einsetzen. Deswegen ist das Erste, was wir fordern, die Freilassung von Nasrin Sotudeh, aber nicht nur von ihr, sondern auch von Umweltaktivisten, von Leuten, die wegen sozialer Fragen auf die Straße gegangen sind, von Menschen, die aus ethnischen Gründen oder aus religiösen Gründen hinter Gittern sitzen oder Journalisten und Blogger sind. Die müssen raus aus dem Gefängnis! Wir müssen diese Frage immer wieder stellen und dürfen da auch nicht nachlassen.
                  

                     Und jetzt sage ich noch eins: In dieser Situation, wo es mit den Menschenrechtsverletzungen wieder eskaliert, eine interparlamentarische EU-Delegation mit dem Iran praktisch außer Kraft zu setzen – denn seit Ende 2018 tagt die Iran-Delegation nicht mehr –, das finde ich ziemlich skandalös und auch beschämend für unser Haus.
                  

Marietje Schaake,
author. – Mr President, we in the European Parliament awarded the Sakharov Prize to human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh, and she continues to work tirelessly, and with immense courage, to defend ordinary Iranians in the many instances – the too many instances – where their human rights are not respected.
In particular, she was the lawyer of the many women protesting against the compulsory wearing of the hijab, before she herself was arrested again, and imprisoned again, and handed the preposterous sentence of 38 years in prison and 148 lashes. This is inhumane and unacceptable, and High Representative Mogherini should publicly join our call for the immediate release of Nasrin Sotoudeh.
The obsession with Nasrin Sotoudeh on the part of the Islamic Republic's judiciary and other authorities, and their insistence on silencing her, should only encourage us to hear what she is standing for – the universal human rights of all Iranians – and she deserves our unequivocal support.

Wajid Khan,
author. – Mr President, human rights defenders and trade union activists are arrested every day. They are arrested simply for campaigning for workers' rights, for environmental standards and against the death penalty. The Iranian government is harassing BBC Persian journalists and their families. EU-Iranian dual nationals remain detained after a lack of due process and under vague charges. We heard this week that the prominent human rights lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, was given a long prison sentence for defending dissidents and those brave woman who removed their hijab in public. By inflicting such a harsh sentence, the regime is making an example out of Nasrin and sending out a clear message that freedom of expression is not accepted.
I have a message for the Iranian authorities: we will not stop calling for the release of Nasrin Sotoudeh, Taher Ghadirian, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and all those who are unfairly detained and have been sentenced without a fair trial.
You cannot silence civil society. You cannot repress ideas, especially with the whole world watching. For our part, we will continue to support Iranians who want democracy and freedom for their country.

Charles Tannock,
author. – Mr President, the atrocious record of human rights in Iran is all too familiar to us in this House. Journalists and NGOs that do not conform to the wishes of the Government regime face routine harassment and repression, a pattern that extends to all groups and individuals that seek peacefully to oppose or protest against the actions of that brutal Government. These actions amount to a breach of all fundamental rights of assembly and expression.
Freedom of religion is also vigorously repressed, as is demonstrated by the ongoing persecution of Christians, Baha'is and other minorities. In recent months, we have seen an intensification of the systematic campaign of house-church raids as Christians are arrested, and often violently interrogated, merely for the fact of peacefully exercising their religious beliefs. Several hundred Christians have been detained in recent months alone.
Women's rights are also severely curtailed in Iran, with even the most limited forms of dissent still being punished. In 2018, 39 women were arrested for protesting against the mandatory wearing of the hijab. Executions in the country continue to remain extremely high, with a figure standing at 273 for 2018. It does appear, however, that the November 2017 revision of the anti-narcotics law represents a significant improvement, with a dramatic reduction in death sentences.
This is a fundamentalist regime that has robbed its people of their rights through its domestic policies, and has all too often impoverished them via its international isolation. So, clearly, this House must condemn that regime. It has done so for years, but so far, sadly, there has been little change to witness.

Tunne Kelam,
author. – Mr President, Iran is one of the worst countries into the world for considering the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Last year Iran ranked second for the number executions – 273 of them. One may add numerous cases when a detained person was officially said to have committed suicide. Also last year tens of thousands of people all over Iran stood up against the rising costs of living, unpaid wages, corruption, political repressions and minority rights. They blamed the regime for wasting money on military and missiles, continuing costly expansion outside Iran, while ordinary people suffered more than ever. Our special concern is the fate of Nasrin Sotoudeh and her husband Reza Khandan, who just in January were sentenced to six years because of his peaceful protest against the forced wearing of hijabs, the fate of arrested environmental and trade union activists, and the fate of Maryam Akbari Monfared, who has already spent nine years in prison for so-called anti-God activities.
We call on the Iranian Government to release unconditionally all human rights defenders, prisoners of conscience, journalists and others. Yes, we once again call, urge and ask the Iranian authorities to behave and change. Can we really believe that Tehran's rulers will change their behaviour, knowing very well that the regime cannot survive in conditions of free expression and an independent press? Therefore we urge our High Representative to publicly reaffirm that respect for human rights will be a core component and condition for any further development …

(The President cut off the speaker)


Cristian Dan Preda,
au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, la condamnation de la lauréate du prix Sakharov a suscité la révolte de l'opinion publique internationale. Mes collègues ont évoqué les peines vraiment incroyables qui lui sont infligées.
                  

                     Cette condamnation montre que le gouvernement iranien accroît la répression des activistes et des défenseurs des droits. Mon groupe a d'ailleurs organisé récemment une audition au sein de la sous-commission DROI au sujet de huit militants environnementalistes emprisonnés en Iran, également mentionnés dans notre résolution.
                  

                     Ces dérives nous préoccupent fortement et je voudrais insister, comme je l'ai déjà fait dans cet hémicycle, sur le fait que le respect des droits de l'homme doit être véritablement au centre de nos relations avec l'Iran. J'espère que le commissaire Mimica transmettra ce message à la haute représentante.
                  

                     Enfin, je voudrais insister sur un point: nous avons demandé l'envoi en urgence d'une mission ad hoc de la sous-commission DROI en Iran, et j'espère que cette mission sera autorisée.
                  

Bas Belder,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, veertig jaar Islamitische Republiek Iran plaatst ons voor absurde vragen. Welk nationaal veiligheidsgevaar voor Iran brengt het lezen van het Evangelie, van de Bijbel immers met zich mee? Let wel, het Woord van de ware geestelijke vrede in en door God. De echtgenote van een Iraanse predikant werd echter wegens deze valse aanklacht tot een dubbele gevangenisstraf van maar liefst tien jaar veroordeeld.
                  

                     Als christen gaat mij de verscherpte vervolging van de christelijke gemeenschap in Iran zeer aan het hart. Vraag ik teveel als ik de Europese Unie vraag dat ook duidelijk te communiceren en te veroordelen richting het Iraanse bewind? In mijn woonplaats Apeldoorn, in Nederland, komt een Perzische kerk in alle vrijheid samen. In Iran kunnen christenen zelfs niet meer in eigen huis onbevreesd hun geloof praktiseren.
                  

                     Momenteel heeft het publieke gezag van de Iraanse clerus sterk ingeboet. Het resultaat van veertig jaar regeren met harde geloofsdwang. De EU dient niet dit Iraanse schrikbewind te steunen, maar juist alle vrijheidslievende Iraanse burgers, zoals die moedige mevrouw Nasrin Sotoudeh en haar echtgenoot.
                  

Jaromír Štětina (PPE). – Pane předsedající, svévolné zatýkání, mučení, trestní stíhání, vykonstruované procesy, to je dnešní Írán. Írán drží světové prvenství v počtu poprav na počet obyvatel, to je šokující. V roce 2015 to bylo 977 poprav, v roce 2016 567 poprav, v roce 2017 507 poprav, v roce 2018 273 poprav. Popravováni jsou i mladiství a ženy, často veřejně i známým drastickým způsobem – oběšením na stavebních jeřábech.
                  

                     Světem nově otřásl případ Nasrín Sotúdeové, íránské právničky a obhájkyně mnohých oponentů režimu, zejména žen. Mimo dlouholetý trest za mřížemi byla odsouzena i k 148 ranám bičem. Jméno Nasrín, nositelky Sacharovovy ceny, známe. Chci se však poklonit i všem, kteří jsou nespravedlivě odsouzeni a jejichž jména nikdo nezná. Některé z nich se snažíme vyjmenovat v našem usnesení. Nazývejme věci pravými jmény – teheránský režim je režim zločinný.
                  

Anders Primdahl Vistisen (ECR). – Hr. Formand! Iran er en terrorstat. En stat, der promoverer terror her i Europa og i deres eget nærområde, men først og fremmest en stat, der udøver terror mod sin egen befolkning. Det være sig mod aktivister, der kæmper for miljørettigheder, arbejdstagerrettigheder, religiøse eller etniske mindretal eller generelt bare folk, der tillader sig at være kritiske over for regimet. Iran er desværre et af de lande på kloden, der kæmper om førstepladsen i at begå flest overtrædelser af menneskerettighederne. Derfor er det også på tide, at vi fra EU's side – hvis vi virkelig mener, vi fører en værdibaseret udenrigspolitik – begynder at tage det alvorligt i vores behandling af landet. Der synes jeg, at Kommissionen i alt for høj grad har lagt vægt på at komme Iran i møde, når det kommer til atomforhandlingerne, og give dem et fripas, når det kommer til den terror, de spreder både her i EU og i deres eget hjemland. Lad os nu benytte sanktioner som et effektivt våben mod iranerne, også for deres menneskerettighedsovertrædelser.
                  

Zgłoszenia z sali


Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem velmi pozorně poslouchal tuto debatu a jsem za ni rád, protože když jsme před několika měsíci s paní Mogheriniovou zde debatovali o dohodě o jaderném programu, tak zvláště ze strany paní Mogheriniové jsem cítil relativizaci hrůz, které teheránský režim realizuje. Jsem velmi rád, že dnes nazýváme íránský režim tak, jak ho nazývat máme. Je to totalitní zločinný režim, který absolutně nerespektuje lidská práva, a je dobře, že je zde zástupce Komise, a doufám, že paní Mogheriniové vyřídí atmosféru, která je zde na půdě Evropského parlamentu, a že ekonomické a jiné zájmy nelze měnit za ochranu lidských práv. Já se připojuji k tomu usnesení, sám jsem tam přispěl dílem týkajícím se potlačování etnických a náboženských menšin v Íránu. Myslím si, že je velmi dobře, když vyšleme jasný signál, že kvůli jaderné dohodě s Íránem nejsme ochotni tolerovat prohřešky a zločiny tohoto režimu, zločiny proti lidským právům.
                  

Ana Gomes (S&D). – Mr President, the more I defend the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and the more I defend the need to engage with Iran in all areas, the more I also contend that the EU must be vocal about human rights in Iran, about supporting all the brave men and women in Iran fighting for basic rights – like the women who gather every day, with white scarves, to fight the compulsory hijab.
When the Committee on Foreign Affairs visited Iran in February of last year, we were confronted afterwards with the death in custody of environmental activist Kavous Seyed-Emami. Outrageous, outrageous!
An affront against us – because she is a Sakharov Prize laureate – is the sentence against Nasrin Sotoudeh. And, as many speakers have mentioned here, many others are also suffering in Iran and we can't tolerate that. The sentence against Nasrin Sotoudeh is also, and primarily, an affront against the Iranian civilisation. It's outrageous.
We cannot accept it and High Representative Federica Mogherini has to be absolutely vocal about that.

(Applause)


Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). – Wie kent Nasrin Sotoudeh nog? Die Iraanse mensenrechtenadvocaat was in 2012 onze laureaat voor de Sacharovprijs. Die kon Nasrin niet zelf in ontvangst nemen, want ze mocht het land niet uit. Iran was één grote gevangenis, en dat is het nog altijd.
                  

                     Nasrin moet voor 33 jaar naar de gevangenis en krijgt daarbovenop 148 zweepslagen. 33 jaar gevangenis en 148 zweepslagen omdat ze het opnam voor vrouwen die protesteerden tegen de verplichting om een hoofddoek te dragen. De strengste straf voor een activist in jaren. Het bevestigt wat mensen uit het Iraanse middenveld mij wel vaker vertellen. Teheran voert de repressie op. De processen zijn veelal een lachertje, maar de straffen zijn dat allerminst.
                  

                     Weet u waarom Iran steeds driester te werk gaat? Omdat het er mee wegkomt. Teheran voelt zich volledig vrij om tegenstanders op te sluiten en ongemeen hard te behandelen. Zolang wij Teheran niet duidelijk maken dat dit gevolgen zal hebben, commissaris, zal er daaraan niets veranderen.
                  

Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli, Nasrin Sotoudeh è stata condannata a 38 anni di carcere e a 148 frustate. Nasrin è una donna meravigliosa, premio Sacharov, ed incarna perfettamente la definizione di difensore dei diritti umani. La sua incarcerazione è avvenuta proprio mentre stava portando avanti questa attività, con un arresto lo scorso giugno.
                  

                     Questo verdetto, così come tutto il processo che ha prima portato all'arresto e poi alla condanna di Nasrin, sono inaccettabili e sono solo spiegabili alla luce del continuo harassment verso giornalisti, avvocati, attivisti e difensori dei diritti umani, che sono stati condannati solamente per aver osato parlare contro il governo. Esorto l'Iran a liberare immediatamente Nasrin, così come tutti coloro che sono imprigionati per motivi politici.
                  

                     Colleghi, come tutti sappiamo con l'Iran abbiamo un importante lavoro da fare sul piano politico, inclusa la difesa dell'accordo nucleare, faticosamente raggiunto. Ma di fronte a violazioni tanto eclatanti dei diritti umani, si deve obbligatoriamente suonare un campanello d'allarme. La necessità di avere una cooperazione politica di alto livello con Teheran non deve impedirci di dire chiaramente e a voce alta che certe violazioni non possono e non devono essere accettate.
                  

Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Nie zajmuję się Iranem, ale zajmuje się problematyką bezpieczeństwa – z tego też powodu udział w misji obserwacyjnej podczas wyborów w Pakistanie czy udział w debacie dotyczącej Afganistanu.
                  

                     To, co mnie dziś najbardziej martwi, to brak koherencji pomiędzy rozmaitymi dokumentami i debatami. Przypomnę, że we wtorek rozmawialiśmy o Afganistanie, mówiliśmy przy tej okazji i o Iranie, i o wspomnianym Pakistanie. Z jednej strony zagrożenie dotyczące bezpieczeństwa, z drugiej strony – ze strony Pakistanu – procesy migracyjne.
                  

                     Rozmawiamy dziś o prawach człowieka, o nadużywaniu rozmaitych przepisów prawa karnego wobec obywateli Iranu, wobec dziennikarzy, wobec kobiet. Mówimy o dramacie tych osób. Chcę podkreślić, że po to, aby polityka Unii Europejskiej, polityka Parlamentu była skuteczna, musimy wykazać się większą determinacją, większą spójnością w dokumentach przekazywanych do rozmaitych rządów, jak i również zwracać uwagę na współzależności występujące w tych częściach geograficznych, o których rozmawiamy. Apeluję więc o większą konsekwencję, większą determinację, większą spójność.
                  

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, the situation of press freedom in Iran is very concerning. I am particularly worried about the BBC Persian Service journalists who have become a target of the Iranian authorities. The persecution against BBC journalists started in 2009 when the service launched satellite television. However, recent measures have escalated this persecution against the journalists and their families. The persecution includes a gender dimension, as it is directed primarily against women staff and their families.
Iran's record on the treatment of women is infamously poor. The recent sentencing of the human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh to148 lashes and 38 years in prison is particularly despicable. It comes shortly after the appointment of a new hard-line head of judiciary. As the UN investigator on human rights in Iran, Javaid Rehman, said, patterns of intimidation, arrest, prosecution and ill-treatment of human rights defenders, lawyers and labour rights activists signal an increasingly severe state response.

José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, são já incontáveis as vezes que aqui, neste plenário, tenho intervindo para denunciar a falta de democracia, o desrespeito pelos direitos humanos e as atrocidades e crimes contra a humanidade cometidos pelo regime dos Ayatollahs aos seus próprios cidadãos.
                  

                     A verdade é que o regime repressivo iraniano já não consegue esconder o facto de o Irão ser o país mais repressivo no Médio Oriente e que executa mais pessoas per capita do que qualquer outro no mundo. Os defensores dos direitos humanos não são exceção a esta ânsia sanguinária do regime de Teerão, com o corpo dos guardas revolucionários a assassinar dezenas e a apreender milhares, incluindo aquelas bravas mulheres que enfrentam a prisão, tortura e violações por apenas pedirem, de forma pacífica, a democracia e a igualdade de género no seu país.
                  

                     O regime iraniano é uma mancha de vergonha para a sociedade internacional e para toda a humanidade. Até quando iremos nós aceitar este regime monstruoso que se comporta com os seus dirigentes e seguidores como verdadeiros animais da pior espécie?
                  

                     Caros Colegas, depois de quarenta anos de uma ditadura clerical e brutal, hoje 80 milhões de iranianos já estão fartos e dizem, como nós: chega!
                  

Jude Kirton-Darling (S&D). – Mr President, there are very many human rights violations being committed by the Iranian regime, as we've heard this morning, but I'd like to focus on one group of people. The Iranian authorities have been systematically targeting BBC Persian staff, and are moving on to the staff of other European broadcasters as well.
Most of those staff are based in London, and their families in Iran have also been targeted. Many of those affected are EU-Iranian dual nationals, mostly British Iranians. One hundred and fifty-two staff have been subjected to an unfair asset-freezing injunction since 2017, and their families have been subjected to arbitrary arrest, travel bans and harassment. I would particularly like to raise awareness about the sexualised defamation campaigns being waged against brave female journalists at BBC Persian. I would call on the EU no longer to be silent about this attack on European women, European journalists.
We have a duty and a responsibility to defend free journalism. I welcome today's resolution, coming as it does in the same week that these concerns are being raised in Geneva at the UN Human Rights Council.

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já bych se chtěl připojit ke svým kolegům, pokud jde o dosouzení režimu v Íránu. Je to skutečně režim teroru, který drtí své občany, který je popravuje, vězní a mučí. Jakýkoliv odpor proti tomuto režimu je ihned trestán, lidská práva prakticky neexistují. My se opakovaně věnujeme Íránu a myslím si, že se musíme postavit za svobodné Íránce, kteří si přejí změnu režimu. My je musíme podpořit a já bych Vás chtěl poprosit, pane komisaři, abyste vzkázal paní Mogheriniové, že názor Evropského parlamentu je jiný, než je její názor shovívavosti vůči íránskému režimu. My se jednoznačně stavíme na odpor vůči politice tohoto režimu teroru a chceme poprosit Vás, pane komisaři, abyste i takto měnil pozici Evropské komise. Evropský parlament má názor jiný.
                  

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, just a few months ago, on 10 December 2018, the international community marked the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On the occasion, High Representative Federica Mogherini, published a declaration on behalf of the European Union, in which she emphasised that support for human rights defenders, including women human rights defenders, is at the core of the EU external human rights policy, and one of its major priorities. A few days later, this commitment was underlined by Honourable Members of the European Parliament during a debate on the Iranian human rights defender Nasrin Sotoudeh, who just a few days earlier, at the time, was convicted and sentenced in connection with her work to promote universally recognised rights. Our deep concern at her conviction was expressed immediately in a statement.
Our commitment to support human rights defenders is there 365 days, throughout the year, and not only on 10 December. Indeed, as part of our diplomacy, we closely follow the human rights situation in countries around the world, including Iran. A cardinal aspect of this task is working to support the work of human rights defenders and ensure, as far as possible, that they are not subjected to harassment or detention.
With respect to Iran, this extends to closely following the situation of Ms Sotoudeh and other individuals, including, for example, the group of eight environmentalists who were detained in January last year and who are facing extremely serious charges.
In Iran and in other countries, human rights defenders, including human rights lawyers, do invaluable work. This includes providing legal representation to members of vulnerable groups, representing juvenile offenders facing the death penalty, working to protect women or members of ethnic and religious minorities. All too often, however, this work is met with repression or convictions and imprisonment on security-related charges. This is inconsistent with the Universal Declaration and with the International Covenant on civil and political rights, which Iran ratified in 1975 and which commits Iran to ensure that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrests or detention, no one shall be deprived of his liberty, except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law.
As clearly reflected in the latest conclusions on Iran, adopted by the Council on 4 February, while we are committed to the full and effective implementation of the joint comprehensive plan of action, the European Union policy on Iran is based on a balanced and comprehensive approach, critical when there are these divergences and cooperative in case of shared interests. In line with this approach, the European Union has repeatedly called on Iran to provide human rights defenders with an open, stable environment in which to conduct their work. The European Union has also consistently raised individual human rights cases with the Iranian authorities at all levels, including in the framework of the EU–Iran a high-level dialogue.
We are strong supporters of the mandate of the UN special rapporteur for the situation of human rights in Iran and encourage the Iranian authorities to grant him access to the country.
Finally, our Member States have also raised the case during their own bilateral contacts with the Iranian authorities. We strongly believe that these efforts have contributed to certain positive developments that we have noted in recent years, including the decision to amend Iran's anti-narcotics legislation in November 2017, which has resulted in a dramatic reduction in drug-related executions and which, in itself, is a positive step forward in human rights. We are continuing to advocate for further improvements in this regard, including an immediate moratorium on the execution of juvenile offenders. We continue to call for the release of all Iranian human rights defenders. Those who are detained should be afforded timely access to a lawyer of their own choosing, be allowed to communicate with their family members, have access to adequate medical care and not be subject to any form of mistreatment.
We are encouraged by the attention paid to this issue by Members of the European Parliament and we will continue our effort to work together with you in order to promote a better environment for human rights defenders across the world, including in Iran.

Przewodniczący. – Dziękuję bardzo panie komisarzu Mimica. Dziękuję, że głos posłów i Pana głos brzmią tak samo.
                  

                     Zamykam debatę.
                  

                     Głosowanie odbędzie się po zakończeniu debat.
                  
8.3.   Situation of human rights in Guatemala

Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest debata nad siedmioma projektami rezolucji w sprawie sytuacji w zakresie praw człowieka w Gwatemali (2019/2618(RSP).
                  

Molly Scott Cato,
author. – Mr President, this urgency was called because of our concern about threats posed by the Guatemalan Government to the protection of human rights and specifically its decision to withdraw support for the International Commission against Impunity (CICIG). CICIG has played a vital role in supporting Guatemalan legal and judicial institutions that are crucial to upholding the rule of law and to ensuring the legal and physical safety of human rights defenders, including Sakharov finalist Lolita Chávez.
It is deeply concerning that the Guatemalan Government is showing contempt for its own people by colluding in acts of intimidation. We are also convinced that changes proposed to the national reconciliation law pose a significant threat to the rule of law in Guatemala, and would drastically undermine the important progress achieved by CICIG.
We urge the Commission to swiftly disburse the EUR 5 million already earmarked for CICIG and stand ready for further support.
Our negotiations were conducted in a good cooperative spirit, so it's disappointing and somewhat mystifying, if I'm honest, to hear that the EPP will now abstain on this resolution. But we still expect a wide majority to support it and its strong wording of condemnation for democratic and human rights breaches in Guatemala.

Ignazio Corrao,
autore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la democrazia e lo Stato di diritto sono sotto attacco in Guatemala. Da una parte i difensori dei diritti umani continuano ad essere perseguitati, sia fisicamente che per mezzo di nuove leggi restrittive e processi farsa, e spesso ci sono gli interessi delle multinazionali a manovrare questi vili attacchi, e dall'altra parte abbiamo – o meglio, avevamo – la commissione internazionale contro l'impunità in Guatemala, protagonista di un lavoro cruciale nella lotta alla corruzione e nel rafforzamento dello Stato di diritto.
                  

                     Purtroppo però, dopo aver presentato nuove indagini sui finanziamenti illeciti del partito del governo alla campagna elettorale, la commissione è finita anch'essa sotto attacco ed esautorata. Tempismo perfetto: proprio a ridosso delle elezioni. Per aggiungere al danno la beffa, il Congresso sta approvando una legge che estenderebbe l'amnistia per crimini come il genocidio e la tortura perpetrati durante il conflitto armato. Qualora il Congresso approvasse questa legge, i criminali di guerra tornerebbero immediatamente a seminare violenza in tutto il paese, per non parlare delle rappresaglie.
                  

                     È pertanto nostro compito usare i mezzi in nostro potere per dissuadere il Congresso dall'adottare questo atto di amnistia, fare in modo che la commissione contro l'impunità sia ripristinata e proteggere i difensori dei diritti umani dagli attacchi delle multinazionali.
                  

Xabier Benito Ziluaga,
autor. – Señor presidente, por segunda vez este Parlamento va a emitir una Resolución de urgencia sobre la grave situación de los derechos humanos en Guatemala.
                  

                     La Unión Europea está haciendo grandes esfuerzos en cooperación internacional con este país centroamericano. Sin embargo, el retroceso en derechos fundamentales y en el Estado de Derecho es cada día más preocupante.
                  

                     El papel creciente de los militares en el Gobierno está impulsando reformas como la Ley de Reconciliación Nacional que va a acabar amnistiando a criminales.
                  

                     La persecución contra la CICIG aumenta a medida que las acusaciones de la Fiscalía están llegando a altos funcionarios e incluso al propio presidente del Gobierno.
                  

                     En 2018 fueron veintiséis los defensores y defensoras de derechos humanos asesinados en el país, a los que hay que añadir también cuatro periodistas. Son crímenes que en su mayoría quedan posteriormente impunes.
                  

                     Y, a pesar del apoyo internacional, personas como Lolita Chávez sigue sin poder volver a su país y Bernardo Caal sigue en prisión sin un juicio justo.
                  

                     Solo queda recordar al Gobierno de Guatemala que, como dice esta Resolución que vamos a aprobar, habrá que valorar su suspensión como miembro del Acuerdo Unión Europea-América Central si no se respetan las cláusulas de salvaguarda de los derechos humanos.
                  

Beatriz Becerra Basterrechea,
autora. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, la Comisión Internacional Contra la Impunidad en Guatemala ha hecho un trabajo excelente en sus once años de funcionamiento, ha contribuido a investigar más de cien casos, a condenar a más de trescientas personas y a presentar treinta y cuatro reformas legales.
                  

                     Todo iba bien hasta que la comisión implicó a familiares del presidente Jimmy Morales. Cuando puso el foco en los suyos, la comisión dejó de ser útil.
                  

                     Morales se envuelve en una retórica nacionalista que ya conocemos y demuestra que, aunque no llegue a los niveles criminales del régimen venezolano, el populismo reaccionario puede ser tan nocivo para las instituciones como el bolivariano.
                  

                     El caso de Guatemala nos recuerda los beneficios de la cooperación y la gobernanza internacional, con los derechos humanos y la democracia como principios básicos.
                  

                     La Unión Europea debe presionar para que cesen las violaciones de derechos humanos, para que se siga investigando la corrupción y para que la impunidad no regrese nunca a Guatemala.
                  

Ramón Jáuregui Atondo,
autor. –Señor presidente, gracias por el esfuerzo en la pronunciación. Hablamos de un país, Guatemala, que es un país extremadamente pobre y con enormes desigualdades; un país con una subcultura de la violencia muy grande y con una presencia del narcotráfico muy peligrosa. Hablamos de un país con demasiada corrupción y hablamos de un país que tiene —sí, es verdad, todos ustedes lo han dicho— graves quiebras del Estado de Derecho y de los derechos humanos.
                  

                     Pero hablamos de un país amigo, de un país con el que cooperamos, de un país al que queremos y al que queremos ayudar, que va a celebrar unas elecciones muy importantes el próximo mes de junio y que tiene grandes esperanzas en que ese cambio político alumbre verdaderamente un país mejor.
                  

                     Europa quiere ayudar a ese pueblo. Europa quiere ayudar a ese país. Y lo hace hoy, sí, condenando a un Gobierno que está actuando en graves quiebras de los derechos humanos, especialmente con la expulsión de la Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad, que es el organismo de las Naciones Unidas más importante. Y lo hacemos también advirtiéndole de que habrá sanciones para ese país si no avanza en la línea de la libertad y de la democracia.
                  

Tomáš Zdechovský,
Autor. – Pane předsedající, já myslím, že to největší štěstí, které Evropská unie má, jsou principy. Principy, na kterých je vybudována a stojí. To je princip demokracie a princip právního státu. A tyto dva principy bohužel Guatemala nezažila a nezažívá, a pokud se nezmění něco s tamním režimem, tak je nebude zažívat ani do budoucna.
                  

                     Mezinárodní mise, která tam působí, dlouhodobě upozorňuje na problémy s korupcí a nejčastěji s korupcí spojenou s vládou a s tamním režimem. Je naprosto nemyslitelné, že řada lidskoprávních aktivistů, kteří v posledních letech upozorňují na korupci spojenou s tamní vládní diktaturou, buď zemřela, nebo za záhadných okolností zmizela.
                  

                     Ano, tato země je chudá, tato země má velké množství sociálních problémů, tato země je společensky, řekl bych, rozdělená. Nepanuje tam jednota a právě to, že v posledních letech tamní představitelé staví svou politiku na nacionalismu a na snaze vyvolat nenávist vůči těm, kteří je kritizují, tak je utvrzuje v tom, že se lidé málo bouří právě proti tomu, že jsou porušována lidská práva. A proto chceme touto rezolucí vyzvat Evropskou komisi i mezinárodní společenství, aby se za ně více zasazovala a snažila se o změnu tamní politické situace.
                  

José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra,
en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, señorías, tuve el privilegio de representar a este Parlamento en la firma de los Acuerdos de Paz en Guatemala y todos deseamos que Guatemala avance en lo que se refiere al respeto de los derechos humanos, las libertades fundamentales y la lucha contra la impunidad.
                  

                     Sin embargo, no estoy convencido de que esta Resolución represente de forma fidedigna la situación real del país.
                  

                     En todo caso, me interesa, señor presidente, subrayar uno de los aspectos que están contenidos en esta Resolución, y es el que se refiere a la necesidad de que se haga una verdadera evaluación sobre el impacto de su trabajo en lo que se refiere al ámbito judicial, en lo que se refiere a los aspectos político, económico e institucional, y, sobre todo, señor presidente, indagar acerca del hecho de por qué una institución que contaba desde el principio con un amplio apoyo mayoritario, tanto en el interior como en el exterior del país, ha ido poco a poco debilitándose.
                  

(El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la ‘tarjeta azul’ (artículo 162, apartado 8, del Reglamento interno)).


Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE),
pregunta de ‘tarjeta azul’. – Señor Salafranca, yo, la verdad, me quedo estupefacta. Cuando se habla de los derechos humanos en lugares fuera de Venezuela ustedes cambian de criterio. ¿Cómo es posible que haya habido una propuesta de Resolución común firmada con el Grupo del PPE, que haya habido intervenciones hiperimportantes del Grupo del PPE hoy aquí, y que usted diga que se van a abstener o diga que no es una solución tan profunda? A mí, francamente, me sorprende esta hipocresía. Por lo tanto, ¿estarían ustedes dispuestos a votar en favor de esta propuesta de Resolución común?
                  

José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE),
respuesta de ‘tarjeta azul’
                        . – Señora Miranda, me parece que la palabra hipocresía es una palabra que no es compatible con el respeto y con la cortesía parlamentaria. Aquí hacemos uso de la libertad de expresión.
                  

                     Y, señora Miranda, le digo que, por la palabra, el hombre es superior al animal, pero por el silencio se supera a sí mismo. Ha perdido usted una ocasión muy notable de superarse a sí misma, lo cual no es muy difícil.
                  

(El orador se niega a que Xabier Benito Ziluaga le formule una pregunta con arreglo al procedimiento de la ‘tarjeta azul’).


Francisco Assis,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, infelizmente estamos de novo, hoje, aqui, a falar de uma situação de recuo do Estado de Direito num país da América Latina. Ontem, tivemos oportunidade de debater aqui uma resolução sobre a Nicarágua, e foram aqui feitas declarações incisivas condenando aquilo que tem sido uma evolução muito negativa do regime na Nicarágua, e hoje confrontamo-nos com uma situação distinta, mas que aponta para situações muito próximas.
                  

                     Na verdade, o que se tem verificado progressivamente na Guatemala é uma evolução negativa no sentido do progressivo desrespeito por regras fundamentais do Estado de Direito e que se traduzem, e que já se traduziram, na decisão de pôr em causa a permanência de uma Comissão internacional contra a impunidade que tinha garantido avanços muito significativos, entre outras coisas, no combate à corrupção, e agora nesta perspetiva de se avançar para uma amnistia que é incompatível com princípios fundamentais do direito.
                  

                     Quero aqui fazer uma referência muito específica aos povos indígenas que, na Guatemala, foram historicamente vilipendiados dos seus direitos fundamentais e que nos devem merecer uma especial palavra de atenção por parte deste Parlamento Europeu.
                  

Ana Miranda,
en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señor presidente, estamos muy preocupados por la situación de Guatemala: los ataques a defensores de los derechos humanos, a pueblos indígenas y a organizaciones sociales no paran. Además, condenamos la cancelación del mandato de la Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad. Por eso, nuestro apoyo a su director —que ha sido criticado por denunciar casos de corrupción del hermano del presidente y del hijo del presidente— y a las Embajadas europeas, en especial a la Embajada sueca.
                  

                     Y ¿cómo admitir la Ley de Reconciliación, que significaría sacar de la cárcel a los peores violadores de los derechos humanos en la guerra civil? Es como una llamada a la violencia y a la guerra. O la proposición de Ley de las ONG, que lo único que pretende es restringir su libertad de expresión y reunión.
                  

                     Guatemala es un país militarizado donde desaparece el Estado de Derecho día tras día. Y nuestra preocupación también es por los defensores de los derechos humanos: por nuestra querida Lolita, por los defensores que están en la cárcel, para que puedan volver a su país en paz. Ella y todos los defensores deben ser protegidos, porque lamentablemente lo que quiere el Gobierno de Guatemala es seguir preservando los privilegios de unas cuantas familias ricas que se creen las dueñas del país.
                  

Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Obsesyjny seksizm jest chyba najbardziej uciążliwą chorobą tego Parlamentu, która psuje nieliczne sensowne inicjatywy, a pogarsza jeszcze sprawę w przypadku kiepskich i szkodliwych.
                  

                     W punkcie pierwszym czytamy, mianowicie, że Parlament Europejski wyraża zaniepokojenie rosnącą liczbą zabójstw, w szczególności wobec kobiet. Ale w Gwatemali przygniatająca większość zabójstw dotyczy mężczyzn. Piszecie Państwo o ponad sześciuset zabójstwach kobiet, nie piszecie o ponad pięciu tysiącach zabójstw mężczyzn. Piszecie, że o 8% wzrosła liczba zabójstw kobiet, ale liczba zabójstw mężczyzna wzrosła podobnie.
                  

                     Po raz kolejny wyrywacie sobie dane z kontekstu i żonglujecie nimi tak, żeby pasowały do waszej z góry założonej tezy – nawet w odniesieniu do obrońców praw człowieka Parlament Europejski wyżej sobie ceni życie kobiet, bo czytamy: ‘ponawia postulat ochrony obrońców praw człowieka – w szczególności kobiet’. Jak to w szczególności kobiet? Co to ma znaczyć?
                  

                     Cieszę się, że ta kadencja dobiega końca i mam nadzieję, że w kolejnej kadencji feminaziści, którzy wyżej cenią życie jednych ludzi od drugich, tylko dlatego że są innej płci, nie będą już większości.
                  

Krzysztof Hetman (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Nie ulega wątpliwości, że sytuacja związana z łamaniem praw człowieka w Gwatemali jest alarmująca, zwłaszcza w odniesieniu do ataków na obrońców praw człowieka i dziennikarzy oraz przemocy wobec kobiet, która na przestrzeni ostatnich kilku lat systematycznie rośnie.
                  

                     Z mojego punktu widzenia szczególnie niepokojące są plany kongresu gwatemalskiego dotyczące przyjęcia nowego prawa ustanawiającego ogólną amnestię wobec osób, które dopuściły się poważnych naruszeń praw człowieka podczas minionego konfliktu zbrojnego. Uważam, że takie prawo w sposób istotny mogłoby zagrozić bezpieczeństwu ofiar, jak również zaangażowanych w te sprawy świadków, sędziów czy ekspertów. Uważam, że proponowane prawo stanowi nie tylko poważne naruszenie praw człowieka, ale również może być próbą torowania drogi dla szerszej strategii bezkarności wobec przypadków łamania praw człowieka w Gwatemali.
                  

                     Chciałbym z całą stanowczością podkreślić, że takie działania spotykają się ze zdecydowanym i ostrym sprzeciwem ze strony Unii Europejskiej, i dlatego apeluję do kongresu Gwatemali o odrzucenie proponowanego prawa.
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, Guatemala was making progress in prosecuting human rights and corruption cases due in significant part to the collaboration of the Attorney General's Office with the United Nations-backed International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). However, that collaboration is now suspended, further to the decision of President Jimmy Morales not to renew the mandate of CICIG at the expiration in September 2019, and the prohibition on CICIG Commissioner Velásquez from re-entering the country.
I want to highlight the progress that has been made in the fight against impunity in Guatemala, thanks to the efforts of CICIG. I now ask President Morales to reconsider his decision to deny a visa to lead prosecutor Iván Velásquez.
Guatemala's gang-related violence is a primary factor prompting people to leave the country. Guatemala suffers from high levels of impunity, partly because criminal proceedings against powerful actors often suffer unreasonably long delays, and intimidation against judges and prosecutors and corruption within the justice system continues to be a problem.

Zgłoszenia z sali


Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já se připojuji k těm kolegům, kteří volají po tvrdém jednání vůči Guatemale. Je zřejmé, že situace v této zemi se zhoršuje. Mě jako bývalého ministra spravedlnosti zajímá to, jak se zde bojuje proti korupci. Musím konstatovat, že to, co už ostatní kolegové zde řekli, že Mezinárodní komise proti beztrestnosti v Guatemale, takzvaný CICIG, je fakticky likvidována současnou vládou, je mimořádně špatně. Je to mimořádně nebezpečný signál a my bychom proti tomu měli tvrdě vystoupit.
                  

                     Země, kde bují korupce, kde dochází k násilí na obyvatelstvu, kde dochází k nevysvětleným vraždám, potřebuje orgán, který má mezinárodní prestiž a který bojuje proti závažným formám trestné činnosti a proti korupci. Pokud budeme pouze přihlížet tomu, jak současná vláda likviduje CICIG, tak si myslím, že to bude velmi špatně, a mělo by se v našich jednáních, pane komisaři, vůči této zemi promítnout to, že jsme velmi nespokojeni s tím, jak se vláda staví k právnímu státu, k boji proti korupci a k této komisi.
                  

Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, fin dall'adolescenza María Magdalena Cuc Choc, oggi trentanovenne, lotta per la difesa di El Estor, un luogo magico, terra di comunità Maya Q'eqchi'. Da molti anni è diventata teatro di un intenso conflitto tra le aziende petrolifere e minerarie e la popolazione indigena per il controllo delle risorse naturali.
                  

                     Come il caso di El Estor, molti altri sono i conflitti per le risorse naturali in Guatemala, dove a pagare con la vita sono sempre i difensori dei diritti umani: 26 uccisi solo nel 2018, un incremento del 136 % rispetto al 2017. A destabilizzare ancora di più il paese, l'annuncio unilaterale del governo della cessazione del mandato della Commissione internazionale contro l'impunità, nata da un accordo con le Nazioni Unite nel 2006. E soprattutto l'assurda proposta di emendare la legge di riconciliazione nazionale, che estenderebbe l'amnistia per tutti i crimini commessi dalle autorità di governo, anche quelli contro l'umanità.
                  

                     Alla luce di questi eventi, il rischio che la situazione precipiti è altissimo, soprattutto in vista delle elezioni presidenziali di quest'estate. Chiedo al governo del Guatemala di cessare immediatamente gli abusi contro gli attivisti e le comunità indigene e all'Unione europea di esigere il rispetto della clausola sui diritti umani presente nell'Accordo di associazione, altrimenti non saremo mai credibili nei confronti dei cittadini del Guatemala.
                  

Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Mr President, as a human rights lawyer, my heart is always deeply touched by the kind of stories we heard today about people who, for political reasons, are subjected to arbitrary criminal proceedings, and about political prisoners in detention being abused or even tortured.
These stories today took us to Kazakhstan, to Iran and to Guatemala. But, Commissioner, could you please brief us on the situation of political prisoners in France and in Spain? What is happening to those hundreds of people, or thousands maybe, who, during the mass demonstrations, were detained by Macron's authorities? How are they doing? What do we know about their legal situation?
And what about those political prisoners who were detained because they were fighting for the self-determination of Catalonia? I wonder if you could give us a brief or detailed introduction to their situation?

José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, depois de ter estado na Nicarágua, há dois meses atrás, para verificar no terreno as denúncias de violações dos direitos humanos, a repressão da oposição orteguista ao povo nicaraguense, eis que agora um país vizinho seu, a Guatemala, que, aparentemente, seguia de alguma forma o caminho do progresso e o restabelecimento da vida democrática no país, inverte o seu caminho e decide, através do seu parlamento, aprovar uma lei que poderá pôr em perigo a própria lei da Reconciliação Nacional aprovada há 23 anos e que permitiu selar a paz e pacificar a sociedade.
                  

                     Trata-se, Senhor Presidente, da aprovação, no mês passado, de uma lei de amnistia para crimes contra a humanidade cometidos durante a guerra civil guatemalteca e a possível aprovação da reforma da Lei das ONG que irá limitar o trabalho destas organizações no país.
                  

                     A União Europeia não pode apenas condenar o ataque aos defensores dos direitos humanos e das populações indígenas, mas deve demonstrar, clara e inequivocamente, a sua preocupação pela aprovação destas leis, designadamente colocando em causa a própria manutenção do acordo de associação com a América Central e do acordo de diálogo político e de cooperação relativamente à Guatemala, até que seja restabelecido o respeito dos direitos humanos naquele país.
                  

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, Guatemala je chudá země, která má ohromný potenciál, ale bohužel ho příliš nevyužívá. Myslím si, že tato země se vydala správným směrem, ale bohužel poté sešla z cesty a situace se skutečně radikálně zhoršuje. Dodržování lidských práv má vážné trhliny a beztrestnost, kterou měla vymýtit právě ta komise, se opět dostává do popředí. Myslím si, že musíme tuto situaci náležitě odsoudit, rovněž porušování lidských práv, o kterém jsem hovořil, ale i páchání násilí na ženách. Pokud tady pan kolega Sośnierz hovořil o tom, že se zvyšuje i násilí na mužích, tak si nemyslím, že to násilí na mužích v Guatemale páchají ženy. Myslím, že takto nemůžeme relativizovat určité pojmy. Je důležité, abychom využívali nástrojů, které máme, ať je to mezinárodní tlak nebo samozřejmě i ekonomická role, kterou můžeme spatřovat v evropské rozvojové pomoci. Rozhodně bychom měli vůči orgánům v Guatemale přitlačit.
                  

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this House on the political and human rights situation in Guatemala. The European Union and Guatemala have a solid bilateral relationship based on mutual commitment and trust. That is precisely why it is important to say that we are concerned by the weakening of the rule of law materialised by the recent attacks on the fight against corruption, notably the decision by the Government to terminate the activity of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) and also by recent parliamentary initiatives that could reduce the democratic space as well as generate impunity for crimes against humanity committed during the civil war.
The European Union has been a staunch supporter of the CICIG both financially and politically. Over the last ten years, the European Union has provided EUR 22 million to the anti-corruption UN body. For 2019, the last year of the current mandate and in very difficult conditions, our contribution amounts to EUR 5 million. Achievements in the fight against corruption and impunity have been impressive, also contributing to the reduction of criminality in Guatemala. Despite constant attacks, CICIG is very popular, admired and respected in Guatemala as the people know that corruption severely undermines the institutions, the rule of law and ultimately the country's democracy.
So let me repeat this: the European Union stands by Guatemala; the European Union stands by its commitment to the fight against corruption; the European Union stands by CICIG. We do of course continue to support all efforts against corruption by the Guatemalan judicial institutions. They play a crucial role in the fight against impunity. The separation of powers and respect for judicial rulings is paramount as it is a cornerstone of the rule of law. The overall security situation in Guatemala has recently improved. However, ensuring the protection of human rights defenders and other activists and avoiding any further deaths and attacks is urgent and essential. Human rights defenders paid a heavy toll last year with a doubling in the number of casualties according to human rights organisations. People from vulnerable groups, such as indigenous community leaders, environmentalists or LGBTIs, have been particularly targeted.
Finally, and while fully respecting the country's democratic process, we want to express our concerns about two bills currently being discussed in Guatemala's Parliament, as Mr Ignazio Corrao rightly pointed out. The first would reduce the space for civil society organisations by restricting their conditions for registration and operation, and undermining the democratic role played by a free and open civil society. The second draft bill would reform the national reconciliation law adopted after the Civil War and give absolute impunity for crimes against humanity. Yesterday our EU delegation in Guatemala, along with Embassies of the European Union Member States present in the country and together with the US and Canada, spoke out publicly against that bill. I'm glad to see that yesterday, Congress did not find a quorum to discuss that project for an amnesty, but we must remain vigilant as it is not totally off the table.
The country will have elections later this year in June and we have the highest respect for the electoral period Guatemala is entering. Elections are an important moment, where the people unite to debate, compare visions and ultimately elect their leadership. They should be used to enhance democracy and the rule of law and not to put in question the basic tenets or all the hard-gained advances over the last decades.

Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.
                  

                     Głosowanie odbędzie się po zakończeniu debat.
                  

(Posiedzenie zostało zawieszone o godz. 11.47 w oczekiwaniu na rozpoczęcie głosowania)



Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)



Marijana Petir (PPE),
napisan. – Uzimajući u obzir prethodne rezolucije o Iranu, posebice u slučaju Nasrin Sotoudeh od prosinca 2018. te o zatvorenim građanima EU-a i Irana od svibnja 2018. potrebno je promptno reagirati s ciljem bezuvjetnog oslobađanja nedužnih ljudi koji su stali u obranu demokracije u Iranu.
                  

                     Prijedlog rezolucije odnosi se na branitelje ljudskih prava, uključujući Nasrin Sotoudeh, Rezu Khandana i aktivisticu za prava žena Farhadu Meysami te sve zatvorenike koji su pritvoreni i osuđeni zbog izražavanja prava na slobodu govora i mirnog prosvjedovanja za ljudska prava i ukidanje smrtne kazne.
                  

                     Nadalje, od iranskih vlasti se očekuje izmjena članka 48. Zakona o kaznenom postupku u zemlji kako bi se svima uhićenima omogućio pristup odvjetniku prema vlastitom izboru tijekom cijelog sudskog procesa kako bi se moglo osigurati transparentno i pravično suđenje. Također pozivamo Iran da prestane kriminalizirati i neutemeljeno optuživati žene koje su aktivistice za promicanje ženskih prava i koje mirno prosvjeduju protiv obveznog nošenja hidžaba. Iranske vlasti moraju osigurati nesmetano obavljanje aktivnosti onih koji se zalažu za ljudska prava bez prijetnji i zastrašivanja. Nedopustivo je da se branitelji ljudskih prava, novinari te ostali djelatnici koji promiču osobnu i političku slobodu demokratskim instrumentima, odnosno mirnim prosvjedima suočavaju s uznemiravanjem, neosnovanim uhićenjima i pritvaranjem.
                  

VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND


Vizepräsident

9.   Resumption of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 12.00 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)

10.   Welcome

Der Präsident. – Ich habe zunächst zwei Ankündigungen.
               

                  Wir haben die Freude, eine Delegation des Parlaments von Kanada unter dem Vorsitz von Scott Simms zu begrüßen. Die Delegation ist in Straßburg, um am vierzigsten Ausschuss für parlamentarische Kooperation zwischen der Europäischen Union und Kanada teilzunehmen.
               

                  Die Beziehungen zwischen der Europäischen Union und Kanada wurden in den vergangenen Jahren dank des Abschlusses des Abkommens über eine strategische Partnerschaft und des umfassenden Wirtschafts- und Handelsabkommens und durch die Ansprache im Plenum von Premiermister Trudeau im Jahr 2017 wesentlich gestärkt.
               

                  Diese wegweisenden Abkommen sind nicht nur ein Ausdruck der gemeinsamen Werte Kanadas und der Europäischen Union, sondern haben darüber hinaus zur Zusammenarbeit in einer Vielzahl an Bereichen und zu zahlreichen gemeinsamen Initiativen für die Förderung der multilateralen Zusammenarbeit, des Friedens, der Demokratie und der Rechtstaatlichkeit geführt.
               

                  Ihre Anwesenheit in diesem Haus symbolisiert auch die Vertiefung der interparlamentarischen Beziehungen zwischen unseren Parlamenten, die bereits in einer Gemeinsamen Erklärung des Jahres 2017 zum Ausdruck gebracht wurde. Es ist uns somit eine große Ehre, Sie in unserem Parlament auf das herzlichste willkommen zu heißen. Ich hoffe, dass Sie erfolgreiche Treffen hatten und wünsche Ihnen alles Gute für Ihren weiteren Aufenthalt.
               

(Beifall)


                  Bevor wir zur Abstimmung kommen, möchte ich ebenfalls noch im Namen von uns allen die Delegation ukrainischer Abgeordneter begrüßen, die gekommen ist, um am neunten Treffen des Parlamentarischen Assoziationsausschusses EU-Ukraine teilzunehmen. Dieses Treffen ist gleichzeitig das letzte dieser Legislaturperiode.
               

                  Liebe Freunde aus der Ukraine, wie Sie sehr gut wissen, hat dieses Parlament in den vergangenen fünf Jahren der Lage in ihrem Land besondere Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt.
               

(Beifall)


                  Dies haben wir sowohl getan, um den Reformprozess im Sinne der Bestrebungen der Menschen auf dem Majdan-Platz zu unterstützen, als auch um Ihre territoriale Unversehrtheit und Souveränität zu verteidigen.
               

                  Unsere Unterstützung wurde zuletzt auch durch die Verleihung des Sacharow-Preises 2018 an Oleg Sentzow zum Ausdruck gebracht.
               

                  Wir freuen uns sehr, dass Sie hier und heute bei uns sind, und hoffen, dass Sie eine sehr erfolgreiche Sitzung hatten! Nochmals herzlich willkommen!
               

(Beifall)


                  Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich habe, als ich zuletzt die Abstimmung geleitet habe, angekündigt, dass ich gerade jetzt vor der Wahl nur Wortmeldungen entgegennehme, die sich wirklich auf die Geschäftsordnung konzentrieren. Ich werde deshalb jeden bitten, die Geschäftsordnung zu nennen. Sie können versichert sein, dass ich für alle Ihre Anliegen – jedenfalls für die meisten – große Sympathie habe, aber dass es damit nichts zu tun hat. Ich werde diesen Grundsatz beibehalten.
               

(Beifall und Zwischenrufe im Saal)


                  Ich will allerdings eine Ausnahme machen, und zwar deshalb, weil heute keine Konferenz der Präsidenten stattgefunden hat. Deshalb will ich Herrn Kollegen Lamberts die Gelegenheit geben, etwas, das er heute in der Konferenz der Präsidenten vorbringen wollte, vorzubringen. Ansonsten werde ich keine Wortmeldungen, die sich nicht auf die Geschäftsordnung beziehen, zulassen.
               

Philippe Lamberts,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, en vertu de l'article 11, paragraphe 1, de notre règlement intérieur, je voudrais attirer l'attention de toute l'assemblée sur cet article qui dit que le comportement des députés est inspiré par le respect mutuel, repose sur les valeurs et principes inscrits dans les traités, en particulier dans la charte des droits fondamentaux. Les députés, y compris notre Président, préservent la dignité du Parlement et ne portent pas atteinte à sa réputation.
               

                  Le Président de ce Parlement, Antonio Tajani, a fait hier des déclarations dans les médias italiens, dans lesquelles il trouve des éléments positifs au régime fasciste de Benito Mussolini en Italie. De la sorte, il accrédite la thèse que, finalement, il peut y avoir du bon dans des régimes qui anéantissent la démocratie. Je pense que de telles déclarations sont indignes, indignes du président d'un parlement!
               

                  Ces déclarations, chers collègues, sont indignes du président du premier parlement transnational de l'histoire de l'humanité, le Parlement d'une Union européenne qui a été précisément mise sur les rails pour que plus jamais en Europe nous ne revivions les régimes fascistes qui ont entaché l'histoire de ce continent. Je demande donc au Président du Parlement de retirer ses déclarations, sinon il doit se retirer lui-même.
               

Der Präsident. – Sie werden verstehen, dass wir hierüber keine Aussprache führen.
               

                  Es hat sich noch Frau Zimmer zu Wort gemeldet unter Bezug auf meine Aussage, dass heute keine Sitzung der Konferenz der Präsidenten stattgefunden hat.
               

Gabriele Zimmer,
im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Leider wurde gestern entschieden, dass die Konferenz der Präsidenten heute abgesagt wird. Gestern Nachmittag habe ich Kenntnis von diesem Radiointerview erhalten, das mein Kollege Lamberts bereits angesprochen hat, und ich hätte es auf jeden Fall heute Morgen in einer stattfindenden Konferenz der Präsidenten angesprochen. Ich habe heute früh im Namen meiner Fraktion deshalb auch eine Erklärung und eine Pressemeldung abgegeben, dass wir als Fraktion den Rücktritt des Präsidenten des Europäischen Parlamentes fordern, weil es nicht möglich ist,
               






 



(Beifall)











 



                        dass an der Spitze dieses demokratisch gewählten Parlaments, das einen ganz konkreten Auftrag hat, nämlich zu verhindern, dass jemals wieder Hass, Faschismus, Antisemitismus die Atmosphäre im Verhältnis zwischen unseren Ländern prägen, ein Mann steht, der die Zeit von Mussolini verharmlost, der so tut, als sei Mussolini jemand, der erst ab einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt ein Faschist geworden ist. Ich möchte daran erinnern, dass hier in diesem Parlament Menschen sitzen,
                     










 



(Zwischenrufe)






                  deren Eltern – Väter, Mütter – bereits im ersten Jahr von Mussolinis Herrschaft eingesperrt worden sind. Dass wir uns hier im Parlament immer wieder auf Spinelli und andere beziehen, die mit dem Manifest von Ventotene die Grundlage für die Gründung der Europäischen Union gelegt haben und für den Vertrag von Rom ….
               

(Tumult im Saal)


(Der Präsident entzieht der Rednerin das Wort.)


Der Präsident. – Frau Zimmer, Sie haben nicht mehr das Wort.
               

(Tumult im Saal.)


                  Frau Zimmer, ich rufe Sie zur Ordnung.
               

                  Fraktionsvorsitzende sind dafür gewählt, weil sie besondere Fähigkeiten haben. Das bedeutet auch, dass man sich an eine gewisse Redezeit halten kann. Sie haben fast zwei Minuten gesprochen.
               

                  In Vertretung von Herrn Fraktionsvorsitzenden Bullmann spricht jetzt Herr Weidenholzer.
               

Josef Weidenholzer,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Präsident Tajani hat gestern irritierende Aussagen zur Rolle Mussolinis geäußert. Von vielen Menschen in Europa wurden sie als Verharmlosung und Relativierung dieser dunklen Periode in der italienischen und der europäischen Geschichte empfunden. Und es ist leider nicht zum ersten Mal, dass unser Präsident durch eigenwillige Interpretationen der Geschichte öffentlich in Erscheinung tritt. Das alles steht nicht im Einklang mit unserem Grundverständnis und widerspricht dem Verständnis der Überparteilichkeit dieses Amtes. Kollege Bullmann hat gestern bereits die Aussagen Tajanis kritisiert und unsere Besorgnis ausgedrückt. Namens unserer Fraktion fordern wir den Präsidenten auf, unverzüglich und detailliert Stellung zu seinen Aussagen zu beziehen, und wir behalten uns weitere Schritte vor.
               

(Beifall)


Der Präsident. – Für die EVP-Fraktion jetzt Herr González Pons.
               

Esteban González Pons,
en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, hay una ley del político en campaña electoral que dice: ‘No dejes que la verdad te estropee un buen debate’. La verdad es…
               

Der Präsident. – Frau Forenza, ich fordere Sie auf, diesen Platz zu verlassen.
               

Esteban González Pons,
en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, decía que hay una ley del político en campaña electoral que dice: ‘No dejes que la verdad te estropee un buen debate’. Hay una ley del político populista en campaña que dice: ‘No dejes que la verdad te estropee un buen espectáculo’. Mi grupo parlamentario, el Grupo popular, condena sin ningún tipo de reserva el fascismo, el franquismo, el nazismo y el comunismo. No tengan absolutamente ninguna duda sobre la posición de nuestro grupo parlamentario.
               

                  Antonio Tajani es un demócrata, lo ha sido hasta el día de ayer, lo es hoy y lo será mañana. Todos lo conocemos. La mayoría de los aquí presentes lo hemos votado y todos lo hemos tenido como presidente, atendiendo a nuestros debates y dirigiendo nuestras deliberaciones. Y Antonio Tajani comparte, como ha dicho públicamente, con mi grupo parlamentario, la condena del fascismo, la condena del franquismo, la condena del nazismo y la condena del comunismo.
               

                  Señor Lamberts, yo le he escuchado a usted y no me he puesto nervioso. Y le escuché el lunes pasado oponerse a que debatiéramos sobre los presos políticos en Venezuela y después defender los derechos de los peces en las piscifactorías, y lo hice con el mismo respeto con el que le he escuchado esta mañana.
               

                  Dicho esto, señor presidente, todos podemos cometer un error en los medios de comunicación y a todos se nos puede tergiversar lo que decimos en los medios de comunicación. Antonio Tajani ha dado explicaciones sobre en qué circunstancias se produjeron esas palabras que él no defiende, así que mi grupo parlamentario entiende —y así lo digo— que no tenemos ningún derecho a traer la campaña electoral a esta Cámara… (el presidente retira la palabra al orador).


President. – Mr González Pons, you do not have the floor any more. It has been almost three minutes, and I asked Ms Zimmer to end. We cannot have a long discussion on that point.

                  Ich habe diese kurze Debatte zugelassen, weil heute die Konferenz der Präsidenten entfallen ist. Für alle anderen gilt jetzt, dass ich sie bitte – Frau Forenza, ich bringe Sie nicht um Ihre Rechte, keine Sorgen. Aber benennen Sie bitte die Norm der Geschäftsordnung, auf die Sie sich beziehen. Andernfalls werde ich Ihnen das Wort entziehen.
               

Eleonora Forenza,
a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL. – Signor Presidente, ex articolo 21. Io vorrei dirLe, però, che anche Lei fa torto alla Sua carica di Presidente dell'Aula, in questo momento, perché la gravità di quello che è accaduto ieri esula ben oltre dalla citazione di un regolamento del Parlamento europeo.
               

                  Io vorrei soltanto ricordare che il regime fascista ha esordito in Italia con il famoso discorso del bivacco, in cui si diceva di voler trasformare il Parlamento in un bivacco di manipoli…
               

(Il Presidente toglie la parola all'oratrice)


Der Präsident. – Frau Forenza, Sie haben nicht mehr das Wort. Ich entziehe Ihnen das Wort. Ihr Mikrofon ist abgeschaltet, und durch Lautstärke wird es nicht besser.
               

                  Ich habe die Regeln, die ich abgewandelt habe, klar dargestellt. Es steht im Ermessen des Präsidenten, und ich habe darauf rekurriert, dass heute die Konferenz der Präsidenten ausgefallen ist und dass ich deshalb Raum gebe. Ansonsten werde ich das Wort nur zur Geschäftsordnung erteilen und nicht zur Fortsetzung dieser kurzen Debatte, die wir jetzt haben.
               

                  Es hat sich noch Frau Miranda zur Geschäftsordnung gemeldet. Für Sie gilt aber das Gleiche.
               

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, exijo respeto y silencio, por favor. Las palabras del presidente Tajani contravienen, por supuesto, el artículo …
               

(El presidente retira la palabra a la oradora)


President. – No, Ms Miranda, this is exactly what we will not do. It is not a question of respect. You do not have the floor any more. Please sit down.

                  Frau Kollegin Miranda! Es ist nicht eine Frage des Respekts. Ich habe großen Respekt für alle Anliegen. Aber hier geht es nur um die Geschäftsordnung.
               

                  Wer möchte sich jetzt noch zur Geschäftsordnung melden? Herr Kollege Carver, bitte!
               

James Carver (EFDD). – Mr President, I rise under Rule 1 on behalf of all colleagues in this Parliament. Please can we get on with the vote.

Der Präsident. – Herr Carver! Das war eindeutig zur Geschäftsordnung. Trotzdem muss ich weitere Wortmeldungen zur Geschäftsordnung zulassen. Herr Sośnierz!
               

Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Ja tylko krótko chciałem się do tego odnieść. Jeśli mowa jest o demokracji i Altiero Spinellim, to, w jednym zdaniu, nie możemy tego łączyć. Altiero Spinelli mówi w swoim manifeście z Ventotene o dyktaturze partii rewolucyjnej, więc na co się powołujecie? Jeśli ktoś ma prawo mówić o demokra…
               

(Przewodniczący odebrał mówcy głos)


Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege Sośnierz! Es geht hier nicht um Interpretationen von Politik, sondern um die Geschäftsordnung.
               

                  Ich werde Herrn Verhofstadt, der sich noch zu dieser Debatte ‘Konferenz der Präsidenten’ gemeldet hatte, das Wort erteilen, wenn ich die übrigen Wortmeldungen zur Geschäftsordnung abgewickelt habe.
               

                  Wer möchte sich noch zur Geschäftsordnung melden? Frau Kollegin Jamet!
               

France Jamet (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, plus sérieusement, solennellement et brièvement, je voudrais vous informer qu'aujourd'hui nous allons voter sur la résolution relative aux négociations avec les États-Unis…
               

(le Président retire la parole à l'oratrice)


Der Präsident. – Frau Kollegin Jamet! Es geht hier nicht um einzelne Inhalte. Ich entziehe Ihnen das Wort. Sie haben sich nicht zur Geschäftsordnung gemeldet.
               

                  Herr Kollege Viotti!
               

Daniele Viotti (S&D). – Signor Presidente, intervengo sulla base dell'articolo 21 e La prego di lasciarmi la parola, perché il Presidente Tajani è un italiano e ieri ha offeso il popolo europeo e il popolo italiano!
               

(Il Presidente toglie la parola all'oratore)


Der Präsident. – Nein, Herr Kollege Viotti! Auch das werde ich nicht zulassen. Es genügt nicht, hier den Artikel 21 als Sesam-öffne-dich zu benutzen. Das ist keine Wortmeldung zur Geschäftsordnung.
               

(Tumult im Saal)


                  Wer möchte sich noch zur Geschäftsordnung melden? Frau Kollegin Agea!
               

Laura Agea (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, vorrei ricordare che il regime fascista in Italia ha lasciato…
               

(Il Presidente toglie la parola all'oratrice)


Der Präsident. – Frau Kollegin! Auch diese Wortmeldung lasse ich nicht zu. Sie haben nicht das Wort, Sie haben kein Mikrofon mehr. Setzen Sie sich bitte, andernfalls muss ich Sie zur Ordnung rufen.
               

(Tumult im Saal)


                  Frau Kollegin Agea, setzen Sie sich bitte. Sie haben nicht das Wort.
               

                  Nachdem nun ganz offensichtlich keine Wortmeldung mehr da ist, die sich wirklich auf die Geschäftsordnung bezieht, erteile ich jetzt Herrn Verhofstadt nochmals das Wort.
               

Guy Verhofstadt,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I think that Esteban Pons was fully right when he said, a few moments ago, that it is absolutely stupid from all sides to have this debate here and for us to mix this with the start of an electoral campaign which for some of us already seems to have started. But I have to tell you the first person who has to respect this is the President of the Parliament not to start his Italian campaign, because that is the problem that we are facing for the moment.
For that reason (and I will finish with this) – you are chairing our plenary today – I ask you, based on our Rules of Procedure, to ask the President to take back these words; to apologise for them. And secondly, let's start our work as plenary immediately. And that's your task to do so, Mr President.

Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege Verhofstadt! Ich habe Ihre Aufforderung zur Kenntnis genommen. Von allem, was hier passiert, wird der Präsident selbstverständlich Kenntnis erlangen. Aber wie über alles, was hier passiert, wird diese Kenntnis nicht öffentlich hergestellt.
               
11.   Voting time

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Abstimmung.
               

(Abstimmungsergebnisse und sonstige Einzelheiten der Abstimmung: siehe Protokoll.)

11.1.   Human rights situation in Kazakhstan (RC-B8-0204/2019, B8-0204/2019, B8-0205/2019, B8-0206/2019, B8-0207/2019, B8-0208/2019, B8-0209/2019) (vote)
11.2.   Iran, notably the case of human rights defenders (RC-B8-0186/2019, B8-0186/2019, B8-0187/2019, B8-0190/2019, B8-0191/2019, B8-0193/2019, B8-0194/2019) (vote)
11.3.   Situation of human rights in Guatemala (RC-B8-0182/2019, B8-0182/2019, B8-0183/2019, B8-0185/2019, B8-0189/2019, B8-0192/2019, B8-0196/2019, B8-0197/2019) (vote)
11.4.   Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, and international child abduction (A8-0056/2019 - Tadeusz Zwiefka) (vote)
11.5.   Implementation of the Generalised Scheme Preferences (GSP) Regulation (A8-0090/2019 - Christofer Fjellner) (vote)
11.6.   Minimum loss coverage for non-performing exposures (A8-0440/2018 - Esther de Lange, Roberto Gualtieri) (vote)

— Vor der Abstimmung:


Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, in line with Rule 59(3), I'd like to request that the House proceed to vote on the amendments. Unfortunately, the PPE and S&D Groups have colluded in the negotiations to prevent other political groups from having a meaningful say in this package, which will hurt borrowers and give a free rein to vultures. So we are asking that a vote be taken by roll call to allow our amendments to protect European homeowners from evictions.

Roberto Gualtieri,
Rapporteur. – Mr President, the text adopted in the committee has been voted for by a very broad majority. We were accused, the last time I discussed this with Mr Giegold, of producing a text that is too soft and not sufficiently strong on NPLs. Now we have the opposite accusation. The reality is that this is a very balanced text that would prevent precisely those things about which concern has been raised. So I would encourage the House to vote as the committee did and adopt it by a broad majority.

(Das Parlament lehnt den Antrag ab.)

11.7.   Safeguarding competition in air transport (A8-0125/2018 - Markus Pieper) (vote)
11.8.   Guidelines for the 2020 Budget – Section III (A8-0172/2019 - Monika Hohlmeier) (vote)
11.9.   Gender balance in EU economic and monetary affairs' nominations (RC-B8-0171/2019, B8-0171/2019, B8-0172/2019, B8-0173/2019, B8-0174/2019, B8-0175/2019) (vote)
11.10.   Appointment of Sebastiano Laviola as a new member of the Single Resolution Board (A8-0148/2019 - Roberto Gualtieri) (vote)

— Vor der Abstimmung:


Sven Giegold,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group and with reference to Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure, I would like to request the postponement of the votes on the following two reports.
The fact is that – for many years and again in the latest resolution a few seconds ago – we have been asking for more gender equality in top EU financial posts. But the situation is: on the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB) we have one woman and five men; on the General Council of the ECB we have one woman and 22 men; on the Single Resolution Board we have one woman and five men. And the same pattern is repeated in the other institutions.
Therefore, the question is: how long shall women wait for a European Parliament which ensures their equal opportunities, rather than waving through one appointment after another?

(Applause)

Our Conference of Presidents has written two letters to the Commission and the Council, and they have received extremely evasive answers. Therefore, it is now time …

(The President cut off the speaker)


Roberto Gualtieri,
Rapporteur. – Mr President I could easily say that in the vote we just had on the resolution, with 407 Members against and 114 for, we already decided on the issue that Sven Giegold proposed – i.e. to postpone. Why did such a broad majority decide not to postpone the vote? Because postponing the vote, in my view, is the wrong answer to the right issue, because the issue you are signalling is absolutely right.
And then the reason why we, in this resolution, have defined an action plan to increase the number of women in top financial positions, and that's the reason why we have been engaging with the Council and the Commission to have answers, letters and clear commitments for the future on our questions.
But, if you look to the specific requests that Mr Giegold is asking, they are wrong, and I can explain to you why if you just give me five seconds. Why should we postpone the appointment of Mr Laviola, which has been adopted by 88% of the Members of this committee? He is qualified. He is a member of a body chaired by a woman and in all the election procedure of this body, women have been on the shortlist.

(Das Parlament lehnt den Antrag ab.)

11.11.   Appointment of a Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (A8-0144/2019 - Roberto Gualtieri) (vote)
11.12.   Appointment of the Chairperson of the European Banking Authority (A8-0146/2019 - Roberto Gualtieri) (vote)
11.13.   A European human rights violations sanctions regime (RC-B8-0177/2019, B8-0177/2019, B8-0178/2019, B8-0179/2019, B8-0180/2019, B8-0181/2019) (vote)
11.14.   Urgency for an EU blacklist of third countries in line with the Anti-Money Laundering Directive (B8-0176/2019) (vote)
11.15.   Climate change (B8-0184/2019, B8-0188/2019, RC-B8-0195/2019, B8-0195/2019, B8-0198/2019, B8-0199/2019, B8-0200/2019, B8-0201/2019, B8-0202/2019, B8-0203/2019) (vote)
11.16.   Recommendations for the opening of negotiations between the EU and the US (B8-0163/2019) (vote)

— Vor der Abstimmung:


France Jamet (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, conformément à l'article 108 concernant les accords commerciaux et au sujet de la relance de ces négociations avec les États-Unis, je souhaiterais informer mes collègues que le représentant du commerce américain a indiqué qu'un tel accord est absolument impossible sans que l'agriculture soit incluse dans les négociations. Je voulais vous dire cela solennelle…
                  

(le Président retire la parole à l'oratrice)


Der Präsident. – Frau Kollegin Jamet! Das war keine Wortmeldung zur Geschäftsordnung. Und wenn sich das wiederholt, werde ich Sie dafür auch zur Ordnung rufen.
                  
11.17.   Establishment of the European Monetary Fund (A8-0087/2019 - Pedro Silva Pereira, Vladimír Maňka) (vote)
11.18.   Situation in Nicaragua (RC-B8-0165/2019, B8-0165/2019, B8-0166/2019, B8-0167/2019, B8-0168/2019, B8-0169/2019, B8-0170/2019) (vote)
11.19.   Annual strategic report on the implementation and delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals (A8-0160/2019 - Eleni Theocharous, Francesc Gambús) (vote)

Der Präsident. – Damit ist die Abstimmungsstunde geschlossen.
                  
12.   Explanations of vote
12.1.   European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Competence Centre and Network of National Coordination Centres (A8-0084/2019 - Julia Reda)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! To, co proponuje to rozporządzenie, to jest krok w kierunku upaństwawiania internetu. Mam żal do sprawozdawczyni, która miała w tym Parlamencie reprezentować Partię Piratów, a rzeczywistości okazuje się raczej korsarzem na usługach superpaństwa europejskiego.
                  

                     Zapraszanie władz Unii Europejskiej do stymulowania badań skończy się tym, że te badania będą służyły usprawiedliwianiu ingerencji rządu, usprawiedliwianiu wtrącania się rządów i Unii Europejskiej do internetu. Kto płaci, ten wymaga po prostu. Dotowanie infrastruktury spowoduje, że Unia będzie miała pretekst do wydawania nakazów, zakazów w interesie ochrony tej infrastruktury, którą za własne pieniądze buduje.
                  

                     Wspieranie finansowe nowych firm uzależni je tylko od władzy i spowoduje, że długoterminowe inwestycje nie będą się opłacać, skoro państwo ciągle subsydiuje nowe podmioty. Siłą internetu jest jego niezależność – nie potrzebujemy Unii Europejskiej, żeby żeby się obronić. Tak że łapy precz od internetu!
                  
12.2.   2018 Report on Turkey (A8-0091/2019 - Kati Piri)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Monica Macovei (ECR). – Domnule președinte, Cihan Özkan, Hüseyin Günakan, Kahraman Demirez, Mustafa Erdem, Osman Karakaya, Yusuf Karabina și mulți alții sunt jurnaliștii sau profesori de origine turcă care anul trecut în august și septembrie au fost răpiți din Kosovo, din Republica Moldova și din alte state. În total, numai anul trecut, în 2018, sunt 12. Evident, toate aceste răpirii au fost făcute la ordinul lui Erdogan, cu complicitatea autorităților din aceste țări.
                  

                     Am văzut imaginile în care profesorii erau arestați în mod brutal, chiar în fața școlii, chiar în fața casei, chiar pe stradă, chiar din clasă. Au fost răpiți și duși la aeroport, urcați într-un avion și trimiși, automat, în Turcia, fără nici un proces de extrădare și fără nici o cerere de extrădare, pur și simplu, răpire.
                  

                     Mulțumesc tuturor celor care au semnat scrisori alături de mine pentru salvarea acestor oameni.
                  

Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem podpořil tuto zprávu, protože považuji za důležité, že Evropský parlament jasně řekl, že za současné situace v Turecku není možné pokračovat ve vyjednávacím a asociačním procesu Turecka k Evropské unii. Situace tamní společnosti a hlavně vedení státu se natolik liší od evropského vnímání demokracie a ochrany lidských práv, že není možné o Turecku hovořit jako o zemi, která se by se v nějakém horizontu mohla stát členem Evropské unie. Na druhou stranu je třeba s Tureckem mít dobré vztahy, je to země, která je součástí obranného společenství NATO, ale je třeba si přiznat, že zkrátka z hlediska členství v Evropské unii to v tuto chvíli není reálné. A to usnesení obsahuje, a proto jsem jej podpořil.
                  

Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! W czasie tej jednej sesji miesięcznej – choć w tym miesiącu mamy dwie sesje miesięczne, żeby dać upust naszej wzmożonej pod koniec kadencji biegunce legislacyjnej – zdążyliśmy już pouczyć Wietnam, Rosję, Iran, Gwatemalę, Kazachstan, Turkmenistan, Wenezuelę, Afganistan i Nikaraguę. Mam nadzieję, że niczego nie pominąłem.
                  

                     Teraz pora oczywiście na Turcję. Czy naprawdę sądzą Państwo, że ktoś to czyta? Rezolucje miały jakiś sens, kiedy były stosowane wyjątkowo, w wyjątkowych okolicznościach, rzadko. Kiedy wydajemy ich dziesięć miesięcznie, na nikim to już chyba, poza członkami tej Izby, nie robi żadnego wrażenia. W dodatku nawet najsłuszniejsze uwagi i najsłuszniejsze odezwy topicie w takim ideologicznym, lewackim syfie, że po prostu nie da się tego poprzeć. W tym przypadku mamy znowu prawa socjalne, prawa pracownicze, wtrącanie się w podział kompetencji między władzami w Turcji, zakaz budowania elektrowni atomowej, integrację Romów za pieniądze podatnika i walkę z antycyganizmem, więc non possumus. Nie mogłem tego poprzeć.
                  

Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Mr President, I appreciate that this report sums up a lot of ongoing issues with Turkey. Without any doubt, we are dealing with a very unpredictable and precarious neighbour.
Turkey's administration and its armies symbolise suffering and misery to those living nearby, including Christians, Kurds, Turkmens and Armenians. As a flagship of democracy, the EU should be able to have a clear position on Turkey. That is why the European Christian Political Movement, which I chair, initiated a petition to end accession talks definitively. Otherwise, we will keep the door open and communicate to minorities living under oppression in the Middle East that we do not care.
But we do care and we have to tell them so.
The ending of accession talks is a strong political gesture but the current state of affairs in Turkey makes it deserved. There is no time simply for suspension, as referred to in the report.
12.3.   European Semester for economic policy coordination: employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2019 (A8-0162/2019 - Marian Harkin)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem podpořila zprávu Evropského parlamentu o evropskému semestru pro koordinaci hospodářských politik, zejména proto, že téma zaměstnanosti nesmíme opustit. Přesto, že máme ekonomický růst, tak problémy na evropském trhu práce přetrvávají. Jde zejména o velké rozdíly jak v zaměstnanosti, tak ve výši odměňování mezi jednotlivými evropskými zeměmi. Můžeme očekávat i možnost určité krize, případně zvýšení nezaměstnanosti. Budeme čelit výzvám, jako je nárůst robotizace, možný příchod nové krize, případně stárnutí populace. Proto si myslím, že je třeba myslet do budoucna. Zároveň je pro mne nepřijatelná stále vysoká úroveň chudoby pracujících, která dosahuje úrovně 9,6 %. Je třeba také usilovat o to, aby se rozdíly v odměňování žen a mužů snížily.
                  
12.4.   Implementation of the Generalised Scheme Preferences (GSP) Regulation (A8-0090/2019 - Christofer Fjellner)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, podpořila jsem zprávu o systému všeobecných celních preferencí. Souhlasím s významem tohoto systému, který je nástrojem k podpoře snižování chudoby v méně rozvinutých zemích skrze mezinárodní obchod. Souhlasím s doporučením pro budoucí revizi stávajícího systému. Oblastí, na kterou bychom se měli zaměřit, je postavení žen v zemích, které podporu skrze systém všeobecných celních preferencí získávají. Zdůraznila bych situaci žen a také lidských práv. Navzdory tomu, že tento systém již přispěl ke zlepšení ekonomického postavení žen, mnoho žen je stále ještě terčem diskriminace a pracovní podmínky nejsou vyhovující. Proto důležitým doporučením, které zpráva obsahuje, je rovněž podpora a důraz na ochranu životního prostředí v těchto zemích.
                  

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, the EU is continuously improving its policies on human rights and trade agreements. Our Generalised Scheme of Preferences for Trade Tariffs sits within a broader human rights policy. It underlines the potential of GSP+ schemes to promote human rights, equality and sustainable development and the eradication of child and forced labour.
The European Parliament's report on GSP recognises the potential of the scheme and highlights the shortcomings of the GSP+ schemes and calls for improvements. This is in line with our support for the UN's binding mechanism on human rights in trade agreements, as voted in this Parliament last October.
Whilst the EU could and should do so much more to promote respect for human rights in trade agreements, this will not be made easier by a weakening of the Union. Equally, outside of the EU, the UK will be toothless in its negotiations for fair trade. And as we already know, the hard Brexiteers want trade at any price.
I and millions of British citizens would…

(The President cut off the speaker)

12.5.   Gender balance in EU economic and monetary affairs' nominations (RC-B8-0171/2019, B8-0171/2019, B8-0172/2019, B8-0173/2019, B8-0174/2019, B8-0175/2019)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D). – Arvoisa puhemies, eurooppalaiset ovat valinneet tänne Euroopan parlamenttiin lähes 37 prosenttia naisia, ja kun me teemme nimityksiä silloin Euroopan kansalaiset eivät voi suoraan osallistua, joten vastuu on meillä.
                  

                     On valitettavaa, että tässäkin istunnossa tänään olemme kyenneet nimittämään vain kolme miestä, mutta sitä ennen kävimme hyvän keskustelun naisten nimityksistä. Vetoamme jälleen Euroopan parlamenttina, että kun jäsenmaat ehdottavat nimiä, he esittäisivät aina miehen ja naisen, mutta sitäkin pidemmälle pitäisi mennä ja ottaa naisia myös nimitykseen ja tällä hetkellä tilanne ei ole hyvä.
                  

                     Euroopan instituutioita on 11, niitä kahta johtaa nainen. Se on kaukana kansalaisten tahdosta. Tärkeimmillä tuoleilla yleensäkin – viime viikolla laskemani mukaan – on vain 25 prosenttia naisia. Komissaareista yhdeksän, mutta komission puheenjohtajana ei koskaan ole ollut nainen.
                  

                     Tilanne muuttuu kovin hitaasti, ja siksi lasikatteen rikkomiseksi on ryhdyttävä todellisiin toimiin ja katsoa tulevissa nimityksissä myös sukupuolten tasa-arvoa paremmin.
                  

Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Ostatecznie zagłosowałem za tą rezolucją, chociaż, tak jak podkreślałem w swoim wystąpieniu w debacie na jej temat, która dotyczyła, przypomnę, trzech kandydatów na ważne stanowiska w instytucjach gospodarczo-monetarnych Unii Europejskiej i tej tak zwanej ‘krótkiej listy’, podkreślałem, że moja Grupa Europejskich Konserwatystów i Reformatorów wspiera zachowanie równowagi płci w procederze wyłaniania tych kandydatów. Ale – co bardzo ważne i co podkreśliłem – chcielibyśmy też, aby zachowano równowagę geograficzną, żeby nie preferować kandydatów z tak zwanej ‘starej Unii’ kosztem kandydatów tak zwanej ‘nowej Unii’ z Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej.
                  

                     Zauważyłem też ten proces musi dotyczyć wyłaniania kandydatów także Komisji Europejskiej, bo na dwudziestu ośmiu kandydatów komisarzy obecnie mamy dziewiętnastu mężczyzn i tylko dziewięć kobiet w Komisji Europejskiej, ale ostatecznie, jak mówię, poparłem tę rezolucję.
                  
12.6.   A European human rights violations sanctions regime (RC-B8-0177/2019, B8-0177/2019, B8-0178/2019, B8-0179/2019, B8-0180/2019, B8-0181/2019)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Parlament Europejski przyjął wspólny projekt rezolucji dotyczący przyszłego unijnego systemu sankcji za naruszanie praw człowieka na świecie. W rezolucji domagamy się między innymi zamrożenia aktywów i zakazu wjazdu do Unii wobec dowolnych osób fizycznych lub podmiotów, które są odpowiedzialne za planowanie rażących naruszeń praw człowieka, nadużyć i korupcji o charakterze systemowym. Spodziewamy się, że nowy system będzie działał odstraszająco, choć osobiście nie jestem co do tego przekonany.
                  

                     Niepokój budzi wskazany w dokumencie postulat, że w tym celu państwa członkowskie Unii muszą w taki sam spójny sposób interpretować, wyjaśniać i egzekwować stosowanie sankcji. Mimo tych zastrzeżeń zdecydowałem się poprzeć tę rezolucję.
                  
12.7.   Climate change (B8-0184/2019, B8-0188/2019, RC-B8-0195/2019, B8-0195/2019, B8-0198/2019, B8-0199/2019, B8-0200/2019, B8-0201/2019, B8-0202/2019, B8-0203/2019)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente, esta semana o Parlamento Europeu recebeu aqui muitos adolescentes que lutam contra as alterações climáticas. Bem-vinda essa luta que amanhã também nas nossas ruas vai estar a dizer alto e claro: lutar contra as alterações climáticas em toda a Europa.
                  

                     Junto-me a essa luta por um ar limpo, por uma terra limpa. Junto-me a essa luta por um país que possa dividir com total proteção do meio ambiente. E quero, ademais, trazer um problema muito importante do meu país, a Galiza: o problema dos incêndios, os incêndios que afetam também o ar, e trazer o problema do eucalipto. O eucalipto medra, o Governo favorece a sua plantação e criam-se planos florestais que vão contra o meio ambiente.
                  

                     Disso falaremos amanhã, em Santiago de Compostela, e disso falaremos também, na semana que vem, numa conferência que organizaremos sobre a água no Parlamento Europeu.
                  

Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL). – Monsieur le Président, entendez la jeunesse du monde et d'Europe, devenue notre espoir salvateur quand tout s'aggrave pour le climat. Entendez cette jeunesse consciente qui intime aux adultes et aux puissants d'agir maintenant pour le climat, pour les espèces, pour un avenir possible sur Terre. Cette jeunesse nous dit qu'il n'est plus urgent d'attendre, mais qu'il est urgent d'agir et de tout changer de fond en comble. Ce qui se passe est historique! C'est la jeunesse qui nous guide et nous montre le chemin, elle qui ne veut pas se laisser entraîner dans cette marche aveugle, conduite par des aveugles et qui nous précipite tous vers un précipice. Cette jeunesse a tout compris. Le temps de la justice climatique a sonné. Un, deux, trois degrés, dit-elle, c'est un crime contre l'humanité.
                  

Miguel Urbán Crespo (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, la huelga estudiantil denuncia cómo la Unión Europea no está a la altura del reto que supone el cambio climático. Su mensaje es claro. Debemos asumir que estamos ante una emergencia climática y que se necesita una reducción drástica de las emisiones de efecto invernadero.
                  

                     Con nuestro voto queremos mostrar nuestro apoyo a la juventud que se moviliza en defensa de la existencia de un futuro digno y también denunciar la hipocresía y la inacción de la Unión Europea frente al reto del cambio climático.
                  

                     Necesitamos gobiernos e instituciones valientes para acabar con unas políticas depredadoras del medio ambiente y depredadoras de derechos sociales. No podemos seguir como hasta ahora. Tenemos que acelerar la transición energética y el cambio de sistema económico y social, porque nuestras vidas y nuestro planeta valen más que sus beneficios y nada puede justificar que nos roben el futuro.
                  

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D). – Arvoisa puhemies, komissio on esittänyt kaksi mahdollista tiekarttaa siitä, miten pääsisimme nollanettopäästöihin viimeistään vuonna 2050, mutta tuo päämäärä tarkoittaa sitä, että meidän tulee kiristää tavoitteita jo vuodelle 2030.
                  

                     Tänään jälleen parlamentti on hyväksynyt äänestyksessään tavoitteen, että vuonna 2030 päästövähennykset tulee asettaa 55 prosenttiin, leikata siis 55 prosenttia vuoden 90 tasosta. Tuota tavoitetta tukee myös useampi jäsenmaa, ja on erittäin toivottavaa, että oma kotimaani Suomi, kun se astuu EU:n puheenjohtajaksi ensi heinäkuussa, kykenee kokoamaan myös neuvoston puolelta enemmistön sen taakse, että toimimme nopeasti.
                  

                     Uuden komission on välittömästi aloitettava toimenpiteet myös konkreettisten esitysten tekemiseksi, jolla tuohon tavoitteeseen päästään. Koululaisia on Suomessakin menossa ilmastolakkoon tulevana perjantaina, koska haluavat, että me aikuiset päättäjät toimimme.
                  

Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! W rezolucji naszej grupy Europejskich Konserwatystów i Reformatorów odnotowujemy, że Unia Europejska odpowiada za mniej niż 10% globalnych emisji gazów cieplarnianych i że Unia nie może sama osiągnąć celów porozumienia paryskiego bez udziału największych gospodarek świata.
                  

                     W przegłosowanej wspólnej rezolucji brak jest odniesienia do wykorzystania surowców własnych Unii, a – co za tym idzie – zapewnienia bezpieczeństwa energetycznego Wspólnoty poprzez na przykład wsparcie technologii czystego węgla, a konkretnie zgazowanie węgla ukierunkowanego na otrzymywanie wodoru jako czystego nośnika energii. Dlatego głosowałem przeciwko tej wspólnej rezolucji.
                  

Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Gospodarka zeroemisyjna jest polityczną mrzonką. Czegoś takiego nie ma, nie było i prawdopodobnie długo jeszcze nie będzie. Nie mamy takiej technologii i bez względu na to, ile by tutaj Państwo z lewej strony nie walili pięścią w stół, to się nie zmieni. Możecie sobie palcem w bucie kiwać, napisać można wszystko – papier jest cierpliwy, ale nie zmieni to faktów. Możemy napisać, że Ziemia od jutra będzie kręcić się w drugą stronę, ale nie będzie. I nie będzie też takiej technologii, która pozwoli nam nie emitować gazów cieplarnianych w dającej się przewidzieć przyszłości . Jedynym efektem takiego stawiania nierealistycznych celów jest to, że nie osiąga się niczego. Jedynym efektem będzie zarżnięcie – tradycyjne dla socjalistów – europejskiej gospodarki, nie osiągając żadnego postępu w dziedzinie klimatu.
                  

                     Poza tym piszecie o stabilnych i przewidywalnych ramach polityki energetycznej. W ciągu roku, odkąd jestem w tym Parlamencie, głosowaliśmy już nad kilkunastoma zmianami polityki klimatycznej. Nazwa nie jest stabilna i nie jest przewidywalna, nikt nie może inwestować, czując się bezpiecznym, że jutro Parlament nie zmieni swojej dotychczasowej polityki.
                  

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, climate change is a global phenomenon that knows no borders. We in Europe have a huge responsibility to the rest of the world, particularly those living in fragile countries. We also have a huge responsibility for the world that we bequeath to future generations.
I've been supporting the young people, inspired by Greta Thunberg, who are participating in the Friday school strikes, demanding urgent action to ensure that life on earth in all its diversity will continue. But are we listening?
As a co-founder of the European Parliament's Child Rights Intergroup, it is disappointing to see conservative forces ignore and belittle these concerned youth, denying them opportunities to participate in our policy-making.
I particularly want to draw attention to an amazing youth group in my constituency in a school in Accrington, called the Eco Group, who came to the European Parliament to present their ideas about the environment. They are the leaders of the future.

José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, votei favoravelmente a resolução comum sobre alterações climáticas porque não quero que cheguemos a um ponto sem retorno, a um ponto em que sucessivas catástrofes ambientais farão perigar a nossa permanência no planeta Terra.
                  

                     A classe política tem de mostrar união sobre o assunto e não pode desvalorizar os sinais que são por demais evidentes, como o agravamento de episódios climáticos extremos e o aquecimento global.
                  

                     É essencial a otimização de recursos para evitar a sobre-exploração e, para isso, precisamos de um esforço colaborativo entre os setores da agricultura e da indústria, em sintonia com os consumidores mais conscientes e responsáveis.
                  

                     Com os avanços científicos e tecnológicos temos já a capacidade de reproduzir energia limpa e utilizar fontes renováveis. Por isso, não faz sentido perpetuar o erro da utilização de combustíveis fósseis. Mas, para esta transição, precisamos de um compromisso alargado e de um consenso político e executivo aos diversos níveis de governação: europeu, nacional e local.
                  

                     Temos de financiar a transição para uma economia ecológica e sustentável de uma forma mais definitiva e ambiciosa, sem nos perdemos em medidas de cosmética e em falsas melhorias trazidas pela ganância de alguns setores do negócio.
                  

                     Proteger o ambiente é proteger o futuro construtivo da humanidade. Só espero que não seja é tarde de mais.
                  
12.8.   Recommendations for the opening of negotiations between the EU and the US (B8-0163/2019)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Emmanuel Maurel (GUE/NGL). – Monsieur le Président, les dirigeants de l'Union européenne craignent-ils davantage les coups de menton et les tweets rageurs de M. Donald Trump que la colère des peuples européens? C'est la question qu'on se pose quand on voit que la Commission s'est précipitée pour négocier à nouveau un accord commercial avec les États-Unis. Et que font les États-Unis? Ils augmentent leurs droits de douane, ils nous interdisent de commercer avec l'Iran, ils ne respectent pas l'accord de Paris. Quelle est la riposte que la Commission propose pour l'Union européenne? Ressusciter le TAFTA. C'est le retour du TAFTA zombie, avec les mêmes inquiétudes, les mêmes incertitudes sur l'agriculture, sur la coopération réglementaire, sur l'importation de gaz de schiste…
                  

                     Bref, ce sont toujours les mêmes problèmes et on nous propose une solution que les peuples ont rejetée massivement. Nous avons rejeté le TAFTA par la porte, on essaie de le faire rentrer par la fenêtre. Nous nous opposons à cette tentative et à ces politiques néfastes!
                  
12.9.   Situation in Nicaragua (RC-B8-0165/2019, B8-0165/2019, B8-0166/2019, B8-0167/2019, B8-0168/2019, B8-0169/2019, B8-0170/2019)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Miguel Urbán Crespo (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, desde que se iniciaron las protestas en Nicaragua se han registrado más de setenta y seis muertes, ochocientas personas heridas y cientos de detenidos.
                  

                     Condenamos la violencia contra los movimientos populares y reclamamos una investigación independiente para que los responsables rindan cuentas ante los tribunales por violaciones severas de los derechos humanos.
                  

                     Apoyamos un diálogo que incluya a todas las voces y que permita una salida dialogada a este conflicto, una solución que pasa por la libertad de todos los presos políticos, el desarme de las bandas paramilitares y asegurar las libertades sociales y políticas más básicas, como son la manifestación, la reunión, la protesta, la participación y el derecho a la información.
                  

                     Como nos ha demostrado la historia nicaragüense, el ejercicio de la protesta debe servir para avanzar en las transformaciones políticas y sociales del país. El futuro de Nicaragua, en definitiva, deben decidirlo los y las nicaragüenses con plena autonomía y libertad, libres de violencia y represión y asegurando la vuelta de todos los exiliados.
                  
12.10.   Annual strategic report on the implementation and delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals (A8-0160/2019 - Eleni Theocharous, Francesc Gambús)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Alex Mayer (S&D). – Mr President, a key principle of the SDGs is that they are universal and that all countries must do their bit, at home as well as abroad, to meet the targets, but I fear that we are failing. I brought with me a shopping list today. Tinned veg, tinned fruit, long-life milk, fruit juice and pasta sauce. That's the current list of the top five items needed at the Luton Food Bank. The UKSSD Measuring Up report looked at the zero-hunger goal with a green, amber and red scoring system. Britain didn't score green for a single target. It is frankly shocking that this government is content to watch one in five children in Britain live in homes that are severely food insecure, making it the worst for child hunger in all of Europe. We have had four years to think about how to address the sustainable development goals. Now it is time to act.

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a commitment to transform our world so that future generations can live in harmony and peace in a much more equal world without poverty and with respect for the environment. All 17 goals identify urgent matters that must be addressed and I applaud the European Parliament's work to stress the legitimacy of the SDGs as a standard for our economies. Economic and sustainable development must go hand in hand and growth cannot be understood simply in terms of GDP. In particular, with regard to Goal 4, quality education, I must condemn the damage that austerity has inflicted on our education services. Quality education is the best investment a government can make and yet education is one of the sectors worst affected by austerity measures. The SDGs are now included in the EU countries' broader economic strategies. However, the UK's departure from the EU allows the Conservative government to ignore current EU economic policy, which calls for substantial investment in public services including education.
13.   Corrections to votes and voting intentions

(Die Sitzung wird um 13.44 Uhr unterbrochen.)


VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND


Vizepräsident

14.   Resumption of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 15.00 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)

15.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes
16.   Animal welfare rules in aquaculture (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung an die Kommission über Vorschriften bezüglich des Wohlergehens von Tieren in der Aquakultur von John Flack, Fabio Massimo Castaldo, Arne Gericke, Fredrick Federley, Ivo Vajgl, Karin Kadenbach, Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner, Julie Ward, Marco Zullo, Eleonora Evi, Michèle Rivasi, Stelios Kouloglou, Sven Giegold, Bart Staes, Keith Taylor, Michela Giuffrida, Paul Brannen, Pavel Poc, David Martin, Stefan Eck, Sirpa Pietikäinen, Jacqueline Foster, Tilly Metz, Davor Škrlec, Georgi Pirinski, Tonino Picula, Jiří Pospíšil, Tunne Kelam, Zdzisław Krasnodębski, Kosma Złotowski, Isabella De Monte, Anja Hazekamp, Kostas Chrysogonos, Klaus Buchner, Pascal Durand, Younous Omarjee, Jill Evans, Guillaume Balas, Dominique Bilde (O-000001/2019 - B8-0015/2019) - (2019/2616(RSP)).
               

Eleonora Evi,
autrice. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, i recenti risultati degli studi scientifici ci indicano che i pesci sono animali senzienti: hanno una natura complessa e un ricco mondo sensoriale e possono provare emozioni, ma non solo, hanno anche importanti abilità cognitive. Purtroppo però, forse proprio per la loro complessità e misteriosità, i pesci sono stati sempre sottovalutati, addirittura spesso ignorati ed esclusi dalla protezione garantita invece ad altre categorie di animali.
               

                  I pesci rappresentano anche la tipologia di animali più sfruttata e utilizzata in assoluto. Per dare l'idea del fenomeno, secondo alcune stime sarebbero 111 miliardi i pesci catturati e 1,7 miliardi i pesci allevati in acquacoltura. Questi sono dati riferiti solo all'Unione europea. Personalmente io mi trovo quasi in difficoltà ad assimilare e razionalizzare l'entità di queste cifre. Alla luce di tutto ciò, abbiamo una forte responsabilità nei loro confronti, la stessa che abbiamo verso gli altri animali.
               

                  Tuttavia la normativa sul benessere dei pesci è minima, e siamo ben lontani dall'attuare le misure necessarie per garantire il rispetto degli standard internazionali ed europei sul benessere animale. Lo confermano i numerosi pareri dell'EFSA (pareri scientifici che la nostra Agenzia ha redatto), le ripetute prove dell'inadeguatezza dell'attuazione del regolamento (CE) n. 1/2005 sul trasporto degli animali vivi e del regolamento (CE) n. 1099/2009 relativo alla protezione degli animali durante l'abbattimento, e anche uno studio della stessa Commissione europea realizzato l'anno scorso.
               

                  A fronte di quanto appena illustrato la non azione della Commissione non è più giustificabile. Abbiamo bisogno di standard oggettivi e basati sulla scienza, abbiamo bisogno di elevati standard europei. La possibilità di stabilire dei requisiti minimi attraverso misure volontarie a livello degli Stati membri e su iniziativa dell'industria stessa ha finora portato a ben pochi passi avanti e quel poco che è stato fatto a tratti è anche deludente.
               

                  Sulla base di queste riflessioni, noi invitiamo quindi la Commissione europea ad introdurre degli standard uniformi sul benessere animale dei pesci e a vegliare affinché le normative europee vengano effettivamente rispettate ed attuate.
               

Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, fish are sentient beings indeed. It is true that they are quite different from other farm species, but they are also able to suffer and feel pain.
That is our starting point for this discussion. I understand that there is a growing concern for the welfare of farmed fish in the European Union. In recent years, to meet an increasing consumer demand, fish farming has intensified for some species in Europe. As the production process is intensified, it has the potential to generate new issues relating to animal welfare, notwithstanding the fact that the public also wants healthy and ethically-produced food.
In this context, you wonder why the Commission has not yet proposed specific pieces of legislation on the welfare of farmed fish. Firstly, I should clarify that the European Union animal welfare legislation already covers farmed fish at different stages of production — farming, transport and slaughter.
Secondly, I want to assure you that the Commission takes the welfare of farmed fish seriously. Let me outline some of the steps we have taken, particularly under the current Commission's mandate to promote farmed fish welfare.
Based on the 2012 EU strategy for the protection and welfare of animals, the Commission mandated a comprehensive study on the welfare of fish during transport and at the time of slaughter. The study was published in November 2017 and led to today's oral question.
The study concluded that in the countries analysed, the transport of fish was in line with the international standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), and as you know, the OIE is the international standard-setting organisation for animal welfare. The study also acknowledged that there was room for improvement when it comes to the slaughter of certain fish species.
In March 2018, based on this study, the Commission adopted a report on the possibility of introducing certain requirements regarding the protection of fish at the time of killing. The 2018 report concludes that, at this stage, it is not appropriate to propose specific requirements on the welfare of fish at the time of killing. The report indeed considers that improving the welfare of farmed fish could be more easily achieved by voluntary measures.
This conclusion is reached on the basis of the consideration that in recent years the industry has introduced improvements in this regard. We are moving in the right direction. In particular, I would like to highlight a number of important points which we should keep in mind when debating the issue.
Firstly, EU aquaculture is relatively new compared to other animal products and systems. Technology to improve the welfare of farmed fish is still developing.
Secondly, the sector is a very diverse. The main farmed species — salmon, trout, carp, sea bass and sea bream — are biologically very different. Each species requires important effort in research and development.
Thirdly, furthermore the sector differs in size and geographical coverage, with a variety of practices across Member States. In this context, having a harmonised approach might be more complex than it appears.
In light of these considerations, I think that Member States might be more suited to developing good practices in their national context. Nevertheless, the Commission continues to work on the welfare of farmed fish. Allow me to give you some practical examples of these efforts.
In 2018, the issue of fish welfare was put on the agenda of the two meetings of the EU animal welfare platform, which gather all key EU stakeholders related to animal welfare. In November 2018, the European Court of Auditors published a special report on animal welfare. They recommend in particular performing an evaluation of the strategy. Later this year, the Commission will launch an evaluation of the strategy.
I can assure you that the issue of farm fish will be part of the evaluation. In the meantime, the Commission will continue to monitor the situation and promote dialogue between stakeholders on this issue.

Jiří Pospíšil,
za skupinu PPE. – Pane komisaři, já jsem také spolupodepsal tuto ústní otázku o stavu akvakultury a ochraně ryb. Musím říci, že Vaše odpověď mě příliš neuspokojila. Byla velmi obecná a alibistická. Já si myslím, že praxe začíná ukazovat, že nám zde chybí určitá právní regulace nakládání s rybami jako s živými tvory. Podobná debata se zde vedla před několika týdny na téma transportu zvířat po Evropě. Podobné téma se bude řešit také pravděpodobně na podzim tohoto roku, kdy iniciativa občanů sesbírá milion podpisů pro to, aby Komise začala řešit otázku klecových chovů v Evropě. Jinými slovy, tato Komise bohužel pro postavení a ochranu zvířat, ať již savců nebo ryb, mnoho neudělala. Budu doufat, že Komise, která vzejde po příštích volbách, tomuto tématu bude věnovat větší pozornost, protože zvířata jsou živé bytosti a my bychom při jejich transportu, nakládání a usmrcování měli toto respektovat a měli bychom s nimi humánně nakládat. Takže odpověď byla obecná, doufám, že příště bude lepší.
               

Andrejs Mamikins,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, the morality of human beings is judged on how they treat animals. It is disappointing that, in the European Union, we still do not have a mechanism to protect fish welfare in a coherent way throughout all the Member States. At the same time, we have good practices that may serve the Commission's efforts in identifying improvements.
Europe is still a place where numerous compromising aquaculture practices take place – handling, transport, genetic manipulation, predation, stress provocation and inhuman slaughter. At the same time, I believe that EU consumers have the right to be guaranteed that the fish reaching their tables is the product of high-quality aquaculture. I sincerely hope that the Commission is going to close the knowledge gaps related to fish welfare, organise a consultation with stakeholders and develop a reliable road map. In the light of developing techniques of fish breeding, regulations adopted in 2005 and 2009 can no longer guarantee a high level of fish welfare, and I join the signatories of this oral question in asking for EU-wide legislative requirements in aquaculture.
Guaranteeing fish welfare implies certain challenges and requires flexibility. Some practices that result in positive welfare for one type of fish may negatively affect other species. That is why we cannot expect to improve welfare for aquaculture species with prescriptive standards. We must apply different criteria to small farmers and to huge aquaculture companies. For example, small producers observe fish better and are much more attentive to signs of stress. Negligence towards stress of fish can lead to outbreaks of disease and serious losses.
Per capita, the yearly consumption of fish in Europe is 27 kg, and this predicted to increase. Over the past decade, aquaculture has become the fastest-growing food production sector in the world, and we must take that into account.

Ivan Jakovčić,
u ime kluba ALDE. – Gospodine predsjedavajući, poštovani gospodine povjereniče, i Hrvatska je jedna od onih zemalja koja ima dugotrajna iskustva u uzgoju riba, u akvakulturi. Desetljećima se to čini u Hrvatskoj i u regiji u kojoj sam ja bio, u Istri, postoje uzgajališta brancina, postoje uzgajališta školjaka i dobro mi je poznato što sve kompanije čine da bi zaista pokazale da im je stalo do dobrobiti riba, do dobrobiti životinja koje uzgajaju. Naime, treba reći da nema nikakve sumnje da će upravo uzgajališta biti mjesta odakle ćemo sve više dobivati ribu na naš stol. Sve manje će biti izlovljene ribe, sve više će biti ribe iz uzgajališta, a djelomično smo i sami krivi jer imamo plastično more oko nas, plastične oceane oko nas i očito je da ćemo se morati potruditi napraviti takva uzgajališta u kojima ćemo zaista moći uzgajati ta čuvstvena bića, te ribe koje svi volimo, na način primjeren današnjem vremenu. Zato vjerujem da i sve ove napore koje želimo ovdje uložiti ovim pitanjem, upozoriti na uzgoj, klanje, prijevoz i sve one elemente koji čine život ribe, mislim da je vrlo važno da Komisija zaista stvori jedinstveni sustav, jedinstveni zakon koji će omogućiti onda cijeloj Europskoj uniji, a i onima koji surađuju s nama da uzgajaju ribe na način na koji mi mislimo da to treba biti.
               

Tilly Metz,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, le plus grand défi à ce sujet, ce ne sont ni les poissons, ni les pratiques cruelles qu'on leur inflige. En effet, il existe déjà des solutions. Le défi, c'est de sensibiliser notre Parlement, les décideurs politiques, mais aussi tous ceux et toutes celles qui m'écoutent en ce moment, car il s'agit de redécouvrir les poissons, de les voir dans leur complexité, qui a longtemps été niée.
               

                  Aujourd'hui, nous savons que les poissons sont, eux aussi, sensibles à la douleur, établissent des liens entre eux et collaborent pour se protéger et se nourrir. Mais voilà, dans l'aquaculture, ils sont traités par millions comme des objets. Ils sont entassés dans des eaux de mauvaise qualité, ils contractent des maladies et sont infectés par des parasites, ils manquent d'oxygène, ils sont traités avec des médicaments et des hormones, ils sont stressés et manipulés. Dans ces espaces restreints, ils se blessent et s'agressent. Ces prisons ne leur permettent pas de se comporter normalement. Le jour de leur mort, on les retire brutalement de l'eau, ils suffoquent, on leur ouvre le ventre, alors que leur cœur bat encore.
               

                  Ces êtres sensibles et bien plus complexes que nous l'imaginions, quand allons-nous les traiter plus dignement? Je prie vivement la Commission de proposer de nouveaux textes qui tiennent compte des réalités cruelles, actuelles, constatées dans l'aquaculture et des découvertes des scientifiques sur ces êtres fantastiques que sont les poissons.
               

Stefan Eck,
im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Obwohl in der EU pro Jahr bis zu 1,7 Milliarden Fische in Aquafarmen geschlachtet werden, existieren keine vernünftigen Rechtsvorschriften zum Schutz dieser Tiere. Fische werden immer noch auf grausame Weise ohne ausreichende oder gar keine Betäubung geschlachtet. In den Hirnen der meisten empathielosen Politikern in diesem Hause, in der Kommission und im Rat wurden und werden sie als empfindungslose und niedere Lebensform angesehen.
               

                  Anscheinend sind alle Erkenntnisse der Biologie am Denkorgan dieser Damen und Herren spurlos vorübergezogen. In Anbetracht meiner Erfahrungen habe ich wenig Hoffnung, dass überhaupt ein politischer Wille für greifende Rechtsvorschriften vorhanden ist. Wenn es um Tiere geht, stellt sich die Kommission doch blind und taub. Aber Tierquälerei ist in allen Mitgliedstaaten zumindest auf dem Papier ein Straftatbestand. Somit ist es kriminell, wie die Kommission, die offensichtlich am Gängelband der Fischereiindustrie geht, diese Tierart bis heute behandelt. Ich appelliere an Sie, nun endlich Gehirn und Herz, sofern vorhanden, einzuschalten und einen Vorstoß zu wagen, damit Fische wenigstens Mindeststandards zu ihrem Schutz erhalten.
               

Eleonora Evi,
a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, riprendo la parola questa volta a nome del mio gruppo politico e del Movimento 5 stelle. Riporto le opinioni dei cittadini europei, perché il 79 % dei cittadini vuole che i pesci siano meglio protetti di quanto lo siano attualmente e che venga loro esteso almeno il livello di protezione che già garantiamo ad altri animali di cui molti si nutrono.
               

                  Inoltre ben nove persone su dieci ritengono che l'abbattimento in assenza di dolore sia un aspetto essenziale del benessere dei pesci e quindi questi mi sembrano dei dati inequivocabili che la Commissione non può più ignorare.
               

                  In secondo luogo, ci sono altre cose che non devono essere ignorate: ci sono delle considerazioni di salute pubblica. Gli animali che sono tenuti in condizioni insoddisfacenti in strutture sovraffollate sono animali stressati, che si ammalano più facilmente, e tutto ciò porta ad un uso maggiore di sostanze chimiche, di antibiotici, per affrontare e contenere i focolai delle malattie.
               

                  In terzo luogo, la mancanza di standard sul benessere animale ha anche diverse conseguenze dal punto di vista ambientale. Mi riferisco, ad esempio, alle fioriture algali, alla creazione delle cosiddette zone morte, delle vere e proprie zone morte vicino ai siti di acquacoltura, quindi con possibili effetti sulle risorse ittiche naturali e sulla biodiversità.
               

                  Insomma, è ora di attivarsi. Io credo che la Commissione europea dovrebbe fare di più. La risposta che ci ha dato il Commissario è insoddisfacente. Ci sono molte cose che si possono fare, oltre ovviamente a inserire delle norme più rigorose e applicare quelle esistenti: si potrebbe anche, ad esempio, incaricare l'EFSA di elaborare pareri sullo stress e sulla salute e la produttività dei pesci, si potrebbe finanziare la ricerca per sviluppare degli indicatori di benessere per le specie usate in acquacoltura e si potrebbe stabilire, ad esempio, anche un centro di riferimento per il benessere degli animali e dei pesci.
               

                  In conclusione, non posso che essere anche molto insoddisfatta e rattristata dal fatto che questa stessa Aula ha deciso di non fare neanche una risoluzione politica per mettere nero su bianco quello che oggi ci stiamo dicendo.
               

André Elissen,
namens de ENF-Fractie. – Voorzitter, dank voor het woord. Op initiatief van mijn partij werd er in Nederland vanaf 2010 een begin gemaakt met de oprichting van een dierenpolitie. De dierenpolitie treedt op tegen mensen die dieren verwaarlozen en mishandelen, en proberen ook dierenleed te voorkomen. Ook de straffen voor dierenmishandeling, stroperij en vergelijkbare overtredingen en misdaden zijn de afgelopen jaren verhoogd. Daarnaast is er een speciaal telefoonnummer geopend, genaamd ‘1 4 4’, om dierenleed te kunnen melden. De mensen achter dit meldpunt zorgen ervoor dat de melding bij de juiste instantie terechtkomt. In totaal zijn er enkele honderden agenten actief in het bestrijden van dierenleed. Na enkele jaren is gebleken dat het aantal meldingen van dierenmishandeling is toegenomen, en dat meer en meer overtreders worden aangepakt. Kortom, een goede zaak.
               

                  De indieners van de vragen aan de Europese Commissie geven dus terecht aan dat er in verschillende lidstaten voorbeelden zijn van effectief dierenwelzijnsbeleid. Zoals ik zojuist vertelde is Nederland wat dat betreft op de goede weg. Natuurlijk zijn er altijd verbeteringen mogelijk. Maar de basis staat.
               

                  Het gebeurt niet vaak, maar ik moet hier toch een compliment maken aan de Commissie. Kennelijk heeft men eindelijk het licht gezien en daalt het besef in dat niet alles in Brussel of hier in Straatsburg moet worden geregeld. En dat, Voorzitter, is precies hoe het zou moeten gaan. De Nederlandse kiezer bepaalt hoe het beleid ten aanzien van dierenwelzijn zou moeten zijn. Het is een bevoegdheid van de nationale parlementen en daar moet de Europese Unie zich absoluut niet mee bemoeien. Nationale parlementen zijn heel goed in staat om dit zelf te regelen. Natuurlijk kunnen landen onderling uitstekend, goede ideeën en praktijken delen. Daar hebben ze de EU niet voor nodig. Respecteer de soevereiniteit van de lidstaten. Laat landen zelf bepalen welke maatregelen ze al dan niet willen invoeren. Laat het over aan de mensen zelf, zelfregulering en de brancheorganisaties.
               

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente, no meu país, o peixe é mais que um alimento, é um símbolo nacional. Por isso, eu estou muito preocupada com esta questão porque um dos problemas de fundo é que a Europa tem que decidir entre que modelos de pesca quer, seja pesca sustentável ou aquacultura intensiva ou extensiva.
               

                  Eu sou a favor da aquacultura extensiva porque as instalações na aquacultura intensiva não cumprem muitas vezes condições adequadas para ter peixes saudáveis. Pela produtividade, fomentam-se modelos de aquicultura intensiva que usam antibióticos e hormonas que stressam os peixes. O abate dos peixes faz-se com rapidez para obter benefícios e esses benefícios estão muitas vezes concentrados em poucas mãos, ao contrário da aquacultura extensiva, Senhor Comissário, que é a apanha de marisco ou as instalações de aquicultura de pequena escala, que dão, além disso, muito trabalho.
               

                  Entre os dois modelos, creio também que a Comissão deveria, nos futuros fundos europeus, no futuro Fundo Europeu Marítimo de Pesca, lutar pelo bem-estar animal dos peixes, mas também proteger um outro modelo de aquicultura extensiva alternativo a este modelo stressante, a este modelo que usa antibióticos, a este modelo que faz este tipo de abate dos peixes e que provoca perguntas como estas.
               

Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL). – Voorzitter, vissen hebben bewustzijn en gevoel. Ze kunnen pijn lijden, en angst en stress ervaren. En lijden, dat doen ze volop in de Europese aquacultuur, wat natuurlijk niets anders is dan intensieve vissenhouderij.
               

                  Europese visfokkerijen slachten jaarlijks ruim anderhalf miljard vissen. Op zee leggen nog eens drie triljoen vissen het loodje. En de manier waarop is gruwelijk. Vrijwel alle vissen worden onverdoofd geslacht en voeren een lange, lange doodstrijd. Kabeljauwen kunnen urenlang bij bewustzijn blijven op ijs of in de lucht. Palingen laten we creperen in zoutbaden.
               

                  De Commissie zou al in 2014 met voorstellen komen om hier een einde aan te maken. Dat is niet gebeurd. Er kwamen wel wat rapportjes waarin u zegt dat het slecht gesteld is met het welzijn van vissen in Europa. Daar blijft het echter bij. Wanneer kunnen wij concrete maatregelen verwachten?
               

                  Aan uw rapporten en uw evaluaties hebben deze dieren namelijk helemaal niets. Ook daarom vind ik dat de Europese landbouw- én visserijsubsidies moeten worden afgeschaft.
               

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, is dóigh liom gur fiú an cheist seo a phlé. Agus tugaim moladh do na Feisirí Flack agus Evi as ucht an cheist a chur, agus mar a dúirt an Coimisinéir, bunaithe ar thaighde agus staidéar atá déanta acu le cúig bliana anuas. Agus is dócha go raibh baint ag mo chomhghleacaí Éireannach thíos ansin, an tréadlia Kilgallen, leis an taighde sin.
               

                  Gan dabht ar bith, tá éileamh níos mó, bliain i ndiaidh bliana, ar éisc agus níl siad ar fáil go fiáin. Dá bhrí sin, tá na feirmeacha éisc ag fás gach uile bhliain agus is saghas tionscadal nua é, mar a dúirt an Coimisinéir. Dá bhrí sin, caithfimid a bheith an-chúramach go mbeidh an caighdeán is airde in sna feirmeacha sin. Níl an dara rogha againn, agus freisin, mar a dúirt an Coimisinéir, cúramach freisin nuair a bhíonn siad ag taisteal nó á n-iompar ó fheirmeacha go monarchana, agus go háirithe agus iad á gcur chun báis, go ndéanfar é gan fulaingt rómhór orthu.
               

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, уважаеми колеги, нека да поздравим колегата за повдигнатия много важен въпрос. Той ни дава много отговори. В залата на Европейския парламент дебатираме, обсъждаме за чувствата, емоциите, нараняването на рибите. И после се питаме защо има и така сериозен скептицизъм в част от гражданите на Европейския съюз.
               

                  Когато те наблюдават този дебат, за тях може би ще бъде изключително интересно и важно да научат какви са точно емоциите на рибите в даден момент. И тогава те си задават въпроса защо плащат данъци и с техните данъци какво правим ние в тази зала – занимаваме се с чувства, емоции на риби. Сигурно е полезно. Аз бих наблегнал повече на интересите, на правата, на очакванията на нашите съграждани да работим за тяхното благосъстояние и за техния начин на живот, а не толкова да се интересуваме от емоции на риби.
               

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I have listened with great interest to this discussion and I am grateful for your valuable insights. It is clear that the welfare of farm fish presents many challenges and I am thankful we had the opportunity to discuss this issue. So where do we go from here?
Firstly, we need to develop scientific knowledge to better understand the needs of the different species at various stages of production. Secondly, we need to take into account the variety of the production systems in the European Union, which range from big industrial farms to small or medium sized companies.Thirdly, we need to engage with the industry, NGOs and the scientific community, in a constructive dialogue.
The goal here is to find sustainable and coherent solutions to the issues facing EU aquaculture today, including those relating to the environment, animal health, the use of antibiotics and animal welfare.
I agree wholeheartedly that animal welfare is one issue that has to be integrated into the long-term strategy of the EU aquaculture sector. Next year we should have the results of the evaluation of the EU animal welfare strategy. This will outline the starting point of future initiatives on animal welfare, including for farmed fish.
Let me finish by assuring you that the Commission will maintain a high interest in the welfare of fish and will persist in encouraging stakeholders to work together for further improvements.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
               
17.   Fundamental Rights of People of African Descent (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung an die Kommission über die Grundrechte von Menschen afrikanischer Abstammung von Claude Moraes im Namen des Ausschusses für bürgerliche Freiheiten, Justiz und Inneres (O-000022/2019 - B8-0016/2019) - (2018/2899(RSP)).
               

Cécile Kashetu Kyenge,
autrice. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi apriamo questo dibattito sulla situazione dei cittadini europei di origine africana cogliendo l'occasione per accendere i riflettori sulla specifica forma di esclusione sociale a cui vanno incontro.
               

                  In questo intervento di presentazione, è mio compito illustrare alla Presidenza della nostra Assemblea, ai componenti della Commissione, destinataria dell'interrogazione, ai colleghi presenti e alla cittadinanza tutta il senso dell'interrogazione stessa e il modo in cui bisognerà inserire l'argomento nei nostri futuri lavori parlamentari.
               

                  In tal senso, signor Presidente, mi preme sottolineare il buon clima prevalso all'interno della commissione LIBE quando si è trattato di accordarci per la versione definitiva della risoluzione che dovrà approdare in plenaria durante la prossima tornata. Grazie alla mediazione efficace e competente di Claude Moraes abbiamo largamente condiviso il contenuto della risoluzione, con una partecipazione convincente, in particolare, dei gruppi ALDE, GUE, Verts/ALE e PPE. Certo, non sono mancate le controversie.
               

                  Il riconoscimento ufficiale della specifica storia degli afro-discendenti, la possibilità di istituire delle riparazioni, la questione delle scuse pubbliche, ma anche quella della restituzione dei beni artistici ai paesi africani, un tempo depredati dalle nazioni europee colonizzatrici, nonché la questione della declassificazione degli archivi coloniali meriterebbero l'istituzione di un'unità della Commissione europea che si occupi in modo specifico di questi argomenti e della promozione della piena cittadinanza degli europei afro-discendenti.
               

                  Queste sono state, grosso modo, le questioni che hanno animato la nostra discussione all'interno della commissione, e possiamo ritenerci abbastanza soddisfatti della versione finale della risoluzione, frutto di una mediazione seria e competente.
               

                  Ora occorre tornare un attimo sull'importanza generale della questione, per riaffermare alcuni principi che ci hanno portato al suo trattamento. L'integrazione sociale paritaria dei cittadini europei di discendenza africana deve, a mio parere, essere inquadrata nelle necessità di rispetto dei diritti umani fondamentali.
               

                  Si tratta nell'insieme di garantire ai portatori della diversità, l'integrità della dignità umana di cui sono indiscutibili titolari. Queste affermazioni, che partono fin dai livelli elementari della nostra riflessione politica, sono motivate dal fatto che nell'odierna Europa, nonostante secoli di teorizzazione della razionalità e dell'evoluzione sociale, vigono ancora dei disvalori, che minano la vita degli afro-discendenti.
               

                  Spesso lo si dice con mezzi termini, perché la cosa pare impensabile: eppure, una specifica ricerca dell'Agenza europea per i diritti fondamentali ci ha dato l'evidenza dell'esistenza, all'interno della società europea, di fenomeni ricorsivi di razzismo anti-neri.
               

                  Del resto, in diversi paesi membri, la cronaca quotidiana è spesso dominata da episodi di razzismo e di xenofobia, che colpiscono indifferentemente i cittadini europei afro-discendenti e tende a spinger loro ai margini della società.
               

                  L'ampiezza del fenomeno è tale per cui nessun settore sociale può ritenersi immune. Appaiono particolarmente violati i diritti alla casa, la possibilità di accedere al lavoro dignitoso, il diritto all'istruzione. In alcuni paesi europei, abbiamo persino assistito al tentato ritorno dell'apartheid, con l'esclusione discriminatoria di bambini afro-discendenti dalle mense scolastiche, nonché il tentativo di istituire per loro le classi separate.
               

                  Quando riferivo delle controversie in commissione LIBE, ho accennato alla questione dei rapporti storici tra i paesi europei, oggi membri dell'Unione, ed i paesi africani, luogo di provenienza ultima degli afro-europei. Tale relazione storica ha visto succedersi, tra l'altro, le esplorazioni post-medievali, la tratta degli schiavi neri, la colonizzazione, lo sfruttamento economico totale dell'Africa e le forme appena velate di neocolonialismo che vigono nei nostri tempi.
               

                  Spesso, all'interno di questa Assemblea, così come all'interno delle nostre società, la questione migratoria, componente essenziale della globalizzazione, ha elettrizzato le nostre discussioni, inasprendo anche i nostri contrasti di vedute.
               

                  Io credo che la questione della piena cittadinanza dei neri europei, afro-discendenti, debba essere inserita in questo complesso di argomenti, per poterne capire la profondità, ma anche per poterci porre rimedio.
               

                  Spesso, anche tra di noi, ho visto alcuni dei nostri colleghi stupirsi nel sentirmi affermare che c'è del razzismo in Europa, ritenendolo un fenomeno quasi esclusivamente americano. Eppure, nella culla della cultura umanista, non solo pullulano atti razzisti e xenofobi, ma in alcuni contesti, essi diventano parte di una teoria di governo…
               

(Il Presidente ritira la parola all'oratrice)


Valdis Dombrovskis,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs for drawing attention to this matter. The Commission is concerned about the high rates of discrimination and the manifestations of hatred reported to be seriously affecting people of African descent and black people in Europe, as recently shown by Fundamental Rights Agency research.
Preventing and fighting afrophobia and other forms of racism are fully embedded in the Commission's policies against discrimination and racism, which remain a clear priority for us. EU action in this area comprises a variety of measures and tools, including the continuing monitoring of the transposition and implementation of relevant EU legislation and, in particular, the Race Equality Directive and the Framework Decision on combating racism.
In the past years, we have been working hard to provide national authorities with guidance on how to ensure the effective implementation of legislation. We have focused on data on equality and hate crime, victim support and improving investigation into, and the prosecution of, hate speech and hate crime. Last November, we published a new guidance note on the practical application of the EU Framework Decision on combating racism, which will serve as a useful tool to prompt and assist national law-enforcement and judicial authorities in better enforcing national legislation on hate crime and hate speech on the ground.
Flagship policy initiatives, such as a code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online, and the work on diversity chapters, are also providing a key contribution to concrete progress on the ground. All these horizontal initiatives play a key role in terms of preventing and countering afrophobia and anti-black racism. But, indeed, the recognition of afrophobia and anti-black racism as a specific form of racism is important.
Following thematic discussion in the EU High Level Group on combating racism and other forms of intolerance, we published last November a policy paper which provides an overview of the main issues raised by stakeholders on the specific barriers, prejudices and obstacles facing people of African descent and black people across Europe. On this basis, targeted measures are identified, in order effectively to address discrimination, exclusion and intolerance directed against those communities. We hope this policy paper can be a useful tool both for policymakers at EU and national level and for NGOs and other stakeholders.
I look forward to this debate and to the ideas of the European Parliament, which will be reflected in the resolution.

José Inácio Faria,
em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, no contexto do combate ao racismo institucional, pessoal e interiorizado, a ONU decretou o período de 2015 a 2024 como a década internacional dos afrodescendentes.
               

                  Apesar desta proclamação, a verdade é que nos Estados-Membros da União Europeia os afrodescendentes continuam a ser racial, social e juridicamente discriminados, mais vulneráveis ao desemprego e, devido à sua sub-representação política nas instituições europeias, impedidos de contribuir para a eliminação dessas formas de discriminação de que são alvo.
               

                  Este triste panorama é uma vergonha que se verifica um pouco por toda a Europa, incluindo no meu país, onde os afrodescendentes são particularmente vulneráveis social e economicamente e onde infelizmente persistem os relatos de violência policial baseada na discriminação racial, onde inúmeros afrodescendentes portugueses continuam a ser tratados como imigrantes e os afrodescendentes imigrantes vêm o direito à nacionalidade ser-lhes restringido e os seus direitos a ela inerentes ser-lhes negado por um racismo institucional que persiste em manter-se em pleno século XXI.
               

                  Urge, pois, criar um quadro da União Europeia para as estratégias nacionais de inclusão e integração social dos afrodescendentes que inclua a promoção do empoderamento político, o combate à afrofobia e aos crimes de ódio.
               

                  No século XXI, não podemos continuar impassíveis a assistir a tratamentos discriminatórios entre cidadãos, seja com base na cor, na religião ou nas opções sexuais. A Europa é, e deve continuar a ser, um espaço de liberdade, de solidariedade e de igualdade de oportunidades para todos e não-discriminação no acesso ao emprego, no salário e até no acesso aos cuidados de saúde.
               

Cécile Kashetu Kyenge,
a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, volevo ricordare da qui che è esclusivo compito dell'Istituzione ricordare che il razzismo è vietato. Parto da qui per parlare di un concetto che molto spesso attraversa la nostra società. Si tratta della presunzione di colpevolezza, ecco dunque la denominazione orribile di un dato di fatto che si sparge in modo pandemico nella nostra società europea, trovando nell'esistenza degli stereotipi le ragioni del suo mantenimento.
               

                  In ragione della presunzione di colpevolezza, numerosi cittadini europei afro-discendenti sono esposti a soprusi e maltrattamenti. A volte è difficile parlarne in prima persona, per chi subisce il razzismo e la xenofobia. Risulta difficile parlarne perché, proprio in virtù della presunzione di colpevolezza, si è subito tacciati di vittimismo e di simulazione.
               

                  Eppure, signor Presidente, non vi è un solo europeo afro-discendete che non possa riconoscere il fatto di essersi spesso sentito escluso, o semplicemente mirato, per il motivo dell'evidenza della propria differenza di pelle.
               

                  Certo, può anche trattarsi di un'illusione collettiva, che però colpisce in modo selettivo ed espone i neri europei ad una profilazione discriminatoria da parte anche delle forze dell'ordine; a subire il razzismo istituzionale, come abbiamo sentito; a vedersi rifiutare la propria candidatura per le case in affitto, senza che nessuno abbia preventivamente esaminato la pratica. Per dirvi la profondità della questione, pensate che spesso, durante i controlli di routine della polizia, accade che il cittadino europeo afro-discendente, titolare di regolare carta d'identità che riporta la menzione chiara della sua cittadinanza, si senta rivolgere l'inaspettata domanda: ‘Dove è il permesso di soggiorno?’. Ci sono molti di questi episodi.
               

                  Devo però ringraziare questo Parlamento per il regolamento avanguardista che abbiamo contro il razzismo verbale degli eletti. È una buona pratica, che va diffusa in tutta Europa e nel mondo, a tutela dell'umanità di tutti gli uomini e le donne.
               

Marek Jurek,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Dzisiaj ideologią panującą w Unii Europejskiej jest marksizm kulturowy, który od klasycznego marksizmu różni się tym, że w miejsce starych pojęć wyzysku wprowadził pojęcie dyskryminacji i tropi kolejne grupy dyskryminowane, ale przede wszystkim wykorzystuje je dlatego, że piętnowanie bez przerwy społeczeństwa jako struktury dyskryminacyjnej, pokazywanie ‘dyskryminuje tych, tamtych, jeszcze innych’ tak naprawdę powoduje antagonizmy społeczne godzące nawzajem w ludzi. Z tym naprawdę nie powinniśmy iść tą drogą.
               

                  Ustanawianie policji myśli, ustanawianie specjalnych przepisów prawnych – to wszystko nie jest drogą do budowy solidarnego społeczeństwa. Jeżeli kogokolwiek w naszych państwach spotyka krzywda, to po to powinno działać zdecydowane, konsekwentnie egzekwowane prawo chroniące każdego skrzywdzonego człowieka.
               

                  Narzędziem budowy solidarności jest po prostu wychowanie, kultura chrześcijańska, w której zostaliśmy wychowani, a na pewno nie policja myśli, która będzie tylko eskalować kolejne konflikty społeczne.
               

Ivan Jakovčić,
u ime kluba ALDE. – Gospodine predsjedavajući, svi znamo da živimo u vrijeme kada populizam raste, kada mržnja raste, kada je plasiranje neistina potpuno prirodna stvar, kada imamo snažan rast nacionalizma, kada imamo odnose gdje upravo izlazi na vidjelo homofobija, izlazi na vidjelo afrofobija. I gledajte, naš predsjednik Europskog parlamenta u ovo vrijeme relativizira ono što je činio Mussolini, koji je donio rasističke zakone. Dakle, živimo u vrijeme kada zaista moramo biti zabrinuti za društvo koje stvaramo. Da li zaista želimo društvo u kojem će se ljudi mrziti zato što pripadaju raznim vjerama, nacijama ili su različite boje kože (kao što je u ovom slučaju postavljeno pitanje od kolegice Kyenge na odličan način)?
               

                  Ja želim vjerovati, želim biti naivan, želim biti isto tako iluzionist, ali želim vjerovati da ovaj naš planet ima šansu. Ima šansu u onome zbog čega sam se ja borio da uđem u ovaj Europski parlament: u europskim vrijednostima. U onom što znači međusobna tolerancija, međusobno razumijevanje i međusobna želja za kulturom življenja.
               

Marie-Christine Vergiat,
au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Monsieur le Président, pour la première fois, nous avons, dans cet hémicycle, un débat sur l'afrophobie, ce racisme essentiellement fondé sur la couleur de la peau.
               

                  Les afro-descendants sont immigrés, descendants d'immigrés mais aussi européens, certains, depuis plusieurs générations, tels nos concitoyens ultramarins.
               

                  Il y a un impensé, un racisme spécifique vis-à-vis des personnes noires, lié à l'histoire du continent européen, à un refus d'affronter notre histoire et sa violence vis-à-vis de l'Afrique, via l'esclavage, le trafic d'êtres humains, le colonialisme et le néocolonialisme. On le retrouve même dans certains discours politiques, notamment à l'égard des migrants subsahariens.
               

                  Alors, oui, il faut parler de cette histoire sans tabou, dénouer les préjugés, reconnaître les faits et ce qu'il faut appeler des ‘crimes contre l'humanité’, comprendre les spécificités de ce racisme pour éviter qu'il ne se perpétue, y compris dans nos institutions, éduquer, et condamner les discriminations et les violences, y compris policières. Il faut accepter l'altérité et faire vivre l'article 1er de la déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme et dire, avec Aimé Césaire, il y a là un fait essentiel, on est noir et cela compte.
               

Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já se chci také přihlásit k této otázce, která byla položena Komisi k zodpovězení. Jak už řekli moji kolegové, je to mimořádně důležité téma – boj proti rasismu, xenofobii, ochrana našich občanů Evropské unie, kteří mají své předky z Afriky a jsou často kvůli barvě pleti diskriminováni. Je to mimořádně důležité téma. Škoda, že se probírá takto zde ve čtvrtek na konci plenární schůze.
               

                  Ale je to současně dobrá výzva pro příští Evropskou komisi a příští Evropský parlament, aby tomuto tématu věnovaly mnohem větší pozornost. Je mi jasné, že tato Komise, byť zde pan komisař přečetl určité aktivity, už asi příliš práce na tomto důležitém tématu neodvede, ale je důležité, aby příští Komise vzala za své tvrdší boj proti rasismu a xenofobii a větší snahu začlenit do evropských společností ty naše spoluobčany, kteří z určitého důvodu jsou zranitelní a jsou zkrátka diskriminováni anebo jsou postiženi rasismem.
               

                  Je velmi důležité, že si toto dokážeme přiznat, že si dokážeme říci, že v evropských společnostech je rasismus, že potomci Afričanů, naši afričtí spoluobčané, jsou často diskriminováni a že je třeba, aby nejen národní státy, ale i Evropská komise tomu věnovala pozornost jak institucionální, o tom zde bylo hovořeno, tak hlavně finanční. Toto je otázka pro finanční politiku Evropské unie v dalším plánovacím období.
               

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Уважаеми г-н Председател, уважаеми колеги, интересен е въпросът за основните права на хората от Африка в Европа. Това сигурно е много важен въпрос. Засяга теми, които много трябва да бъдат дискутирани. Само че за мен като представител на българската нация в Европейския парламент са много важни и много видими правата и законните интереси, например, на българските граждани, 500 хиляди от тях, които ще бъдат принудени да мигрират в Западна Европа, ако се случи пакетът ‘Мобилност’ или пакетът ‘Макрон’.
               

                  Така че аз не възразявам левичарите в цяла Европа и в този Европарламент да си намират проблеми и да се борят с тях. Живеем в свободни общества. Всеки има право да води своите политически битки. Но в края на краищата, въпросите на гражданите на държавите от Африка трябва да бъдат въпроси на държавите от Африка. Ние, представителите на европейски държави, трябва да се грижим за правата и законните интереси на своите граждани.
               

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I think this is a very important topic and I'm delighted to see it being highlighted here today. As people become more and more sophisticated and well-off across Europe, are they becoming more tolerant? It's a good question. It's not easy to answer it. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that that's not the case, and therefore it's fundamental that the European Parliament would be aware of these issues to try and get fairness and equality across Europe for everybody, and particularly for people of African descent. They should have the same opportunity to get employment. They shouldn't be subjected to hate speech or hate crime, and that should apply in every walk of life. I've seen in recent times, especially in sports, where even people of African descent and others, are abused simply because of their race. We have to stop this and I think the European Parliament and the European institutions can play a leading role because in this day and age we have to have equality for everybody, male and female, African and non-African alike. That is what we have to aspire to in the next Parliament.

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, unfortunately, racism is still a reality in Europe with widespread discrimination against people of African descent. Black women and LGBTIQ+ people face a particularly bleak situation as they find themselves at the intersection of discrimination based on race and gender. Access to employment, housing, education and other opportunities remains much more difficult for people of African descent. This is made worse when it comes, for instance, to trans women of colour who are also the target of unparalleled levels of violence.
Racism in Europe is rooted in centuries of colonisation and the bullying of African countries by the West. We need to address these historical trends and accept that they are still at play today, as we have seen in this very debate. However, as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination approaches, I know that thousands of anti-racist activists will march on the streets, calling for a world against racism. It's time to stop ignoring the daily reality of life for Europeans of African descent and Mr Dzhambazki needs to understand that we all are from the same DNA.

Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Przyszedłem na tę debatę z ciekawości przysłuchać się, o co wam tutaj chodzi i szczerze mówiąc na koniec nadal nie wiem. Wszyscy po kolei, oprócz dwóch przedmówców, mówili właśnie te same ogólniki.
               

                  Nie wiem, skąd macie Państwo dane, że to jest stale rosnący problem. Chciałem zadać to pytanie panu Jakovčiciovi, ale już i tak wyszedł, więc mi nie odpowie. Skąd ma dane, że ten problem jest rosnący? Jakie obserwacje uzasadniają takie przekonanie, że mamy coraz większy problem z rasizmem, homofobią – jak to nazwał.
               

                  Myślę, że mamy problem z homolatrią, jeśli już – z takim wychwalaniem dewiacji w tym Parlamencie, a nie z homofobią. Więc z czym jest problem? Gdzie macie te dane? Gdzie są te konkrety? Na jakiej podstawie w ogóle zawracacie głowę takimi dziwnymi dyskusjami?
               

                  Wydaje mi się, że to jest problem zupełnie marginalny i być może tylko w związku z nadchodzącymi wyborami chcecie zdobyć jakieś kilka kolejnych głosów osób, które są tym zainteresowane, ale ja nie widzę powodu, żebyśmy się tym zajmowali.
               

(Mówca zgodził się odpowiedzieć na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki (art. 162 ust. 8 Regulaminu))


Cécile Kashetu Kyenge (S&D),
Domanda ‘cartellino blu’
                     . – La mia domanda è molto breve. Vorrei che il collega dichiarasse qui che le persone nere di origine africana non fanno parte dell'Europa, che non lo riconosce. Se è così com'è, allora hanno diritto a far parte di questo dibattito. Vorrei sentire la sua risposta.
               

Dobromir Sośnierz (NI),
odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Pani posłanko Kyenge, oczywiście że stanowią i mają prawo brać udział w debacie. Wolałbym, żeby mówili do rzeczy, a nie takimi ogólnikami, ale prawo oczywiście mają. Nic innego przecież nie powiedziałem.
               

Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL). – Monsieur le Président, ce n'est pas un ‘carton bleu’, c'est un rappel au règlement.
               

                  Je voudrais qu'on réécoute ce qu'a dit notre collègue. Selon moi, il a assimilé la question des discriminations, du racisme et de l'homophobie à des perversions. Ce sont des propos scandaleux et indignes de ce Parlement européen.
               

                  Voulez-vous bien prendre la peine de réécouter ce qu'il a dit et prendre les sanctions nécessaires, si j'ai correctement entendu ce qui a été dit. Je n'attends pas de réponse, c'est un rappel au règlement.
               

Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege Sośnierz, das war keine blaue Karte.
               

                  Wir werden das hier nicht wieder vorspielen, Frau Vergiat. Aber ich nehme Ihre Beschwerde zur Kenntnis. Wir werden dem nachgehen.
               

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Valdis Dombrovskis,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for their contributions which the Commission will take into account in its discussions. Let me reiterate that the Commission is committed to strengthen and make better use of all existing tools and measures to tackle discrimination, racism and intolerance, targeting people of African descent and black people in the EU.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
               

                  Die Abstimmung findet während der nächsten Tagung statt.
               
18.   Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes
19.   Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting : see Minutes
20.   Dates of forthcoming sittings : see Minutes
21.   Closure of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 15.59 Uhr geschlossen.)

22.   Adjournment of the session

Der Präsident. – Ich möchte allen Kollegen, die so lange ausgehalten haben, herzlich danken, vor allem den Diensten, und unter den Diensten insbesondere den Dolmetschern.
               

                  Ich erkläre die Sitzungsperiode des Europäischen Parlaments für unterbrochen.
               


ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)