6. An EU Strategy for the Black Sea (
Before the vote on paragraph 13:
Mr President, I would like to move an oral amendment to paragraph 13. After the second sentence, which reads, 'is convinced that an institutional dialogue bringing together the EU and the BSEC could constitute a step towards creating a genuine partnership in the region', I would suggest including the following sentence: 'to this end, calls for a joint working group between the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Parliamentary Assembly of the BSEC to be established'. This would provide us with a proper instrument with which to put in place the general idea, which apparently is agreed. I have talked to the rapporteur, who seems to support and accept this amendment.


Approval of the minutes of the previous sittings: see Minutes


2. Human rights in Syria
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on human rights in Syria.
author. - (FR) Mr President, my interest in Syrian affairs is common knowledge; I have always taken the view that isolating that country would do no good at the international level and would do nothing to advance peace in the region, and it is for that reason that I am a supporter of the plan for an association agreement, which has been put on ice ever since the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. Commitment to Syria and friendship with it also imply, however, that we do not mince our words when fundamental rights are violated, and that is why I take a critical line on, and indeed denounce, the political repression under which all the opposition, of whatever tendency, currently labour.
Most of the prisoners for whose release we are calling today are people we have met; they are almost friends, and none of them, when speaking with us, talked in terms of recourse to any means other than legal and peaceful ones in democratising the country that they all love passionately. When a country turns on those who love it passionately, when it stifles freedom of expression, it puts itself in danger, and I would not want to see Syria doing that to itself.
Today, we are calling for the release of Michel Kilo, Mahmoud Issa, Suleiman Achmar, Faek El Mir, Aref Dalila, Kamal al-Labwani and Anouar Bunni, who must be set at liberty. I would therefore appreciate it if the Council and the Commission were to pass this message on to the Syrian Government and if that body were to give it a very great deal of attention, for the message is a serious one.
Moreover, it would be good if Syria were to firmly declare itself in favour of there being an international criminal tribunal under Chapter 6 to try Hariri's assassins; the international community would appreciate such a gesture, which would facilitate an exit from the political stalemate with which Lebanon is struggling, a stalemate that encourages recurrent bloody conflicts and offers forebodings of a period of violence and instability. It is common knowledge that Syria's adopting such a position, far from being an interference in Lebanese affairs, would, on the contrary, make it possible to break the deadlock and, above all, to put a stop to the rumours that give people cause to think that Syrian could, in an underhand way, frustrate the establishment of such a criminal tribunal.
author. - (NL) Syria is a permanently recurring item on our agenda. The European Union is keen to strike up good and intense relations with that country in the framework of the Neighbourhood Policy involving countries around the Mediterranean. The chaos in its neighbour, Iraq, is yet another reason why stability in Syria would be valuable.
Syria, however, is a dictatorship that does not tolerate internal opposition. For Christians and Kurds, it is, to say the least, an unpleasant place to be. Although it is not a theocratic state with sympathies towards Muslim fundamentalism, it does consider Iran - which is a theocratic dictatorship - as an ally.
In Lebanon, it gives its backing to Lebanese and Palestinian Muslim fundamentalists, as long as they help to build up Syrian influence in its small neighbour. Lebanon is considered - albeit wrongly so - as an area that has been cut off from Syria as a result of European intervention. The conflict with Israel is being carefully nourished, because the tension that this brings with it means that the Syrians could well consider the continued existence of the regime as the lesser of two evils.
There is no improvement in sight. Both an aggressive attitude towards Syria and friendly relations with this regime are counterproductive. The only thing that can contribute to long-term improvement is support for Syrian refugees and Syrian opponents in prison and in exile.
I would like to finish off by saying that those who have recently become the victims of restrictions on freedom, like Michel Kilo who has been to visit this Parliament before, need our undivided attention.
author. - Mr President, the annual report on the human rights situation in Syria for 2006 makes very grim reading indeed. Scores of arbitrary arrests and detentions of political opposition figures, reformists and human rights and civil society activists have taken place. In addition, documented reports of torture used as a routine and systematic interrogation method of extracting confessions are found in abundance. Furthermore, corrupt members of the Syrian judiciary, both civil and military, have been passing draconian sentences, including life incarceration and death sentences, influenced mainly by political motives.
We call upon the Syrian Government, in the face of international condemnation, to at last make a serious effort to improve respect for the human rights of its citizens or face the consequences, which I hope, with some reservation, will be forthcoming and drastic.
author. - (DE) Mr President, Damascus is one of the oldest cities in the world, and present-day Syria is an ancient cultural area in which several peoples and religions have coexisted - peacefully, for the most part - for centuries, and where close cooperation between Muslims and Christians still exists. Mr Dess and I are particularly involved with the dialogue between these religions, which certainly has a good chance of success in that country - being an Arab country that is not Islamist and is very important throughout the region. All the more regrettable, then, that a regime has established itself there that, under Ba'athist national socialism, is victimising, persecuting and repressing people, subjecting them to show trials and taking political prisoners - and this at a time when our need for Syria's help in achieving peace in the region is more pressing than ever.
I am not one of those who believe in the complete isolation of Syria. The country has an ancient tradition; one that should be harnessed to build peace. Without Syria there can be no peace in the Middle East, no peace in Lebanon and no resolution of the Iraq problem. For this very reason, however, we cannot accept violations of human rights, such as the repression of Kurds and others on the flimsiest grounds, and so we would appeal to Syria to return to a policy of dialogue and cooperation. We are prepared to engage in this, but not with a regime that lacks the fundamental will to respect democracy and the rule of law. It is impossible to conduct a reasonable foreign and security policy and reasonable economic relations with a country that shows contempt for fundamental human rights. This should be a clear signal to Syria, therefore, to change its course and return to the path of cooperation.
author. - (PL) Mr President, the ongoing human rights abuses in Syria are reaching a frightening scale. The Syrian Government is drastically restricting freedom of speech, assembly and association of any kind. The Syrian authorities continue to pursue a policy of intimidation and imprisonment when dealing with human rights defenders and peaceful critics of the policies of the current government.
Following the Beirut-Damascus declaration, which was signed in May of 2006, and which appealed for improved relations between Lebanon and Syria, the Syrian security forces arrested a dozen or so people for expressing views in this declaration that were different to the those of the Syrian Government. Those arrested included the brilliant writer Michel Kilo and the human rights campaigner Anwar al-Bunni. Thousands of political prisoners remain in prison without ever having been sentenced. The year 2006 passed without the Syrian authorities providing any information on the fate of 17 000 people arrested by the Syrian security forces. They were mainly members of the banned organisation Muslim Brotherhood, Syrian activists arrested in the 1980s and a few hundred Lebanese and Palestinian citizens arrested in Syria and Lebanon by the Syrian security forces, as well as by the Syrian-controlled Lebanese and Palestinian military police.
As representatives of the European Union, we have to decisively oppose further repression and human rights abuses in Syria, as we jointly stated in today's resolution.
Mr President, the Commission, together with Member States, is following the situation in Syria very closely.
Since our last debate at the June 2006 part-session there have been a few positive developments. I would like to point out that a human rights contact was appointed in January 2007 in the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We also consider it positive that the EU is granted regular access to trials at the High State Security Court, the Military Court and the Criminal Court.
However, we regret that none of the promises of political openness have been transformed into action - for instance, the relaxation of the emergency law, the adoption of a multi-party law, the granting of citizenship to stateless Kurds or the declaration of the National Council for Human Rights. We also deplore the disproportionate sentences pronounced against prominent civil society activists in recent weeks. We cannot accept that they are jailed only because they have expressed themselves freely.
We call again for the release of all political prisoners in Syria. To give an example, all our attempts to help Mr Anwar al-Bunni have led to a dead end. Today Mr al-Bunni was sentenced to five years in prison merely for denouncing torture and poor prison conditions in Syria and fined EUR 1500 for allegedly not respecting Syria's law when setting up the training centre, also financed by European Funds.
For several years the Commission has been supporting the modernisation process in Syria through a range of activities. We have seen very encouraging results in the economic field. We sincerely hope that these will spread to the political sphere. We will continue to encourage Syria to respect this obligation and the UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights and Torture. I am sure that the European Parliament will give its support to these efforts by the Commission.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the debates.


Statements by the President
Ladies and gentlemen, your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. Today is not just the International Day against the Death Penalty. The Council of Europe, with its 47 Member States, and with the support of the European Parliament and the European Commission, has also declared 10 October the European Day against the Death Penalty.
We are very happy that the nurses from Bulgaria and the doctors who escaped the death penalty in Libya a short time ago are with us on this day.
(Sustained applause)
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome very warmly on behalf of the entire House the nurses, Nasya Nenova, Kristiyana Valcheva, Snezhana Dimitrova, Valya Chervenyashka, Valya Siropulo, and the doctors, Ashraf Ahmed Gomma El Hagous and Zdravko Gueorguiev.
Since February 1999 they were forced to spend eight years in detention while awaiting trial in Libya, falsely accused of having deliberately infected hundreds of Libyan children with HIV.
We are opposed to the death penalty. In the past we have therefore repeatedly called upon the Libyan authorities to release the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctors.
The death penalty is a severe violation of human rights and first and foremost the right to life. On behalf of the European Parliament, I would therefore like to emphasise our unflinching commitment here to the campaign against the death penalty. We set great store by it in relations with our neighbours and partners throughout the world.
We thank those states which have just recently abolished the death penalty, particularly Rwanda. This example shows that even states whose citizens have suffered the most appalling crimes have dispensed with the death penalty as a means of justice. Another opportunity for promoting the worldwide abolition of the death penalty is the Olympic Games, taking place in Beijing this coming year. They provide an opportunity to break through the walls of silence, with which China surrounds the exercise of the death penalty.
The European Union has submitted a draft resolution on the death penalty to the United Nations General Assembly. This initiative, praised on numerous occasions by the European Parliament, is an important step towards the abolition of the death penalty and we appeal in this respect to the Portuguese Presidency of the Council to promote this subject actively at the United Nations in New York.
The European Parliament has held many debates on this issue and only this year adopted three resolutions on the death penalty. There has been such intensive consultation in the European Parliament on this subject as on no other issue. We resolutely reject the death penalty, in whatever form and on whatever grounds.
The Member States of the European Union have, on the basis of our common values, succeeded in becoming a community without any death penalty. The commitment to this is also enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Once the Charter becomes legally binding under the Reform Treaty, we will even be able to say that the death penalty has been abolished in the European Union at all levels. I am happy and grateful that no Member State of the European Union has questioned the abolition of the death penalty in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights or has ever seriously contemplated re-introducing it. The European Union, as a global player ,is also thereby able to point to this extraordinary achievement in the area of human rights and defend it.
In remembrance of the victims, I would ask you now to observe a minute's silence.
Today, on the European and International Day against the Death Penalty, we, the European Parliament, ask all those states that continue to carry out death sentences to follow our example and abolish the death penalty. The European Union is ready and willing to offer you its help in doing so.
(Applause)
(DE) Mr President, I would like to make an announcement and ask for your support. As you know, our group had decided to hold an Enlarged Bureau meeting in Moscow to discuss the various problems connected with relations between Russia and the European Union with different Russian players - from the government as well as from the opposition. Unfortunately we discovered that the Russian Government would not be issuing visas to our colleagues and this meeting was not therefore able to take place. This happened a week after the Subcommittee on Human Rights wanted to hold a similar meeting in Moscow and had likewise not received any visas and therefore this meeting could not take place either.
We find it intolerable that a government described by some Heads of State as a flawless democracy does not allow us to organise a flawless democratic event there in Moscow. We would ask Parliament to review this and you, Mr President, to support this with a written declaration both to the local ambassadors and to the Russian Government.
(Applause)
Many thanks, Mr Cohn-Bendit. Out of a sense of conviction and duty I will respond to what you have requested.


Order of business
The final version of the draft agenda as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of Friday, 17 September 2009, pursuant to Rules 130 and 131 of the Rules of Procedure, has been distributed.
Monday:
The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has made a request to remove from the agenda the short presentation of Mrs Gallo's report on enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market.
Mr President, our group already pointed out in the Conference of Presidents last week that the Gallo report - an own-initiative report that is very controversial in this House - ought to be reassessed in terms of our continued debating of it. The fact of the matter is that, under the new Rules of Procedure, this report was introduced and voted on very quickly. However, we already have several alternative resolutions that are also being put to the vote. The situation as we see it today is a very confusing one. I would even dare to predict that none of the specified drafts that are to be put to the vote here will ultimately receive a majority vote. That is my first point.
The second is that, in the meantime, we have discovered that the Commission's initiatives in the area of copyright will be presented in the next few days. The Commission has decided on a legislative approach and there will be draft directives in the legislative pipeline. This means that, at a time when we are drawing up legislation, we will be voting on an own-initiative report that will surely be overtaken by this legislation.
Therefore, we are requesting that this item be removed from the agenda.
Mr President, we cannot accept a further request for a postponement of the vote on this report.
With regard to substance, it is wrong to say that there is no consensus, because this report is the result of numerous compromises which have been debated and discussed over a period of several months.
With regard to form, I should like to remind the Chamber that it was voted on in the Committee on Legal Affairs at the beginning of June and that further discussions took place when the three postponements were agreed. This time, there is no reason why the vote on this report should be postponed other than to simply allow certain parties, certain political groups, to reach a consensus. However, this is not in the general interest.
The general interest is precisely that we take a position on this own-initiative report, which will never contradict any future legislative provisions, since it merely calls for existing legislative texts to be applied and not to be rejected.
Mrs Gallo supports keeping this item on the agenda, but I was asking for somebody who would like to support Mr Martin Schulz and his proposal.
Mr President, Mrs Gallo, ladies and gentlemen, I think that my fellow Member, Mr Schulz, has said exactly what needed to be said, which is that you do not have a majority. Furthermore, the liberal group will vote against your report. I do not see any point today in proving that none of the reports has a majority.
Discussions need to be held in virtually all the groups. I know that in your group, you are unanimous - I doubt this, but let us imagine that you are unanimous - but in the other groups, discussions are still taking place, and there is no clear majority on one side or the other. I therefore think that, for once, Mr Schulz is being extremely sensible in calling for this initiative to be postponed.
(Parliament rejected the request)
Thursday:
I have received a request from the European Conservatives and Reformists to postpone the vote on motions for resolutions on failures in protection of human rights and justice in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, yes, on behalf of the ECR Group, I would like formally to move postponement of the vote on Thursday. I want to make it clear it is only the vote that we are referring to, and not the rest of the order of business.
I do so because, as you yourself described in detail at the outset of this meeting, Members will face potential problems on Thursday travelling back to their home countries; indeed, I know of many Members from across the House who are actually planning to leave Strasbourg on Wednesday. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to ask for a delay of what will be about two weeks in taking the vote on this particular item, and for it to be deferred to the mini-plenary session in Brussels.
Mr President, although this is an unusual form of cooperation, my group already proposed last week that we should not have any votes on Thursday because we had no intention whatsoever of undermining the right of the French to strike, as Mr Daul feared, but we would like to ensure that a great number of workers from France or Germany are not used to provide very expensive transport for staff, in particular, of the European Parliament, thus bypassing the strike. As far as I can see, there is definite support in the European Parliament for this sensible approach. My group is also in favour of postponing this vote.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it will not be a vote on a legislative act, so, in my opinion, it has a different level of importance.
I think this strike will affect all the political forces present in Parliament roughly equally. It is not the case that it will primarily affect those on the left or those on the right, so in any case, there will be representativeness - though possibly reduced - and so we can vote with confidence.
(Parliament agreed to the request)
(The order of business was thus adopted)
(FR) Mr President, I did not understand the situation with regard to the vote.
Did we vote for or against the agenda that was decided on at the Conference of Presidents?
Against? So there will be no sitting on Thursday?
There is no vote? So you want to sign in and be paid without voting? Very well.
Mr Daul, we have adopted only one item, namely, that there will be no vote on one specific issue on Thursday. The rest remains unchanged. There will be no vote on failures in protection of human rights and justice in the Democratic Republic of Congo. There will be a debate on that issue, and all other items remain unchanged. It is only that vote which will not take place.


Announcement by the President
Dear colleagues, today I would like to inform you about the action I have taken following the serious disruption of the formal sitting held here in Strasbourg on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 to mark the signing of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, incidents which I am sure you all remember.
After the Conference of Presidents had considered the incidents in question, on the basis of Rule 147 of the Rules of Procedure I invited a number of Members for discussions with a view to hearing their version of events before taking any decision on possible disciplinary action. I informed each of the Members concerned of the reason for the invitation.
The basis of parliamentarianism is freedom of speech. In a democratic parliament, no speaker may be prevented from expressing his or her views by means of systematic heckling by colleagues who hold differing views. Naturally enough, this applies all the more to speakers who address the plenary as guests and representatives of other institutions. I made clear that I had invited the Members concerned for discussions because, despite my calls for order in plenary, they continued, by means of their heckling, their attempts to prevent speakers from addressing Parliament. Disciplinary action is not being taken because they held up posters and banners. The issue at stake here is the attempt to restrict freedom of speech.
Following the discussions I referred to above, I decided, pursuant to Rule 147(3) of the Rules of Procedure, to take the following measures:
In nine cases forfeiture of the entitlement to the subsistence allowance for periods of between two and five days, in one case five days, in six cases three days and in two cases two days, and in a further case the issuing of a reprimand.
With a view to explaining why I imposed these penalties, I should like to read to you what I wrote to the Members concerned when I informed them about the disciplinary action taken against them. I quote: 'I fully accept your right, and the right of any Member, to be opposed to the Charter of Fundamental Rights or the Treaty of Lisbon and to express that view in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Procedure. I also have a degree of understanding for the very emotional responses which such matters sometimes elicit.
However, I consider that a distinction has to be made between conduct which is legitimate in the light of the Rules of Procedure and disruption of the kind which occurred on 12 December. We cannot permit any actions which have the result of preventing other Members or official guests - in this case the Presidents of other European Union Institutions - from speaking in a dignified manner and without deliberate interruption, after they have been given the floor pursuant to Rule 9(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and moreover in accordance with the agenda adopted by Parliament itself. It is a core principle of parliamentarianism and democracy that, in exercising freedom of opinion, the freedom of others must also be respected - in this case the freedom of those who have been given the floor to speak in plenary.'
Pursuant to Rule 147 of the Rules of Procedure, the ten Members concerned were informed of the decision relating to them. The following have forfeited their entitlement to the subsistence allowance: Jim Allister for 3 days, Godfrey Blum for 2 days, Sylwester Chruszcz for 2 days, Paul Marie Coûteaux for 5 days, Maciej Marian Giertych for 3 days, Roger Helmer for 3 days, Roger Knapman for 3 days, Hans-Peter Martin for 3 days and Philippe de Villiers for 3 days. Vladimír Železný is reprimanded.
In addition, the chairmen of the bodies, delegations and committees to which the Members belong have been informed.
In three cases I have refrained from applying Rule 147, because, after having discussed the matter with the Members concerned, I arrived at the conclusion that these colleagues did not take part in the action.
Colleagues, this is my decision. I felt obliged to announce it to you officially and publicly here, so that Parliament would be informed about what I had to do. I hope that we shall not witness any further incidents similar to that which occurred here in the European Parliament on 12 December 2007.
(Applause)


Action taken on Parliament's resolutions: see Minutes


Award of the Sakharov Prize (Formal sitting)
Honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen, for almost two decades the European Parliament has been awarding the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to men and women from all parts of the world who campaign for human rights, freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
I am delighted to bid a very warm welcome today, here in the European Parliament, to the winner of the Sakharov Prize for 2007, Salih Mahmoud Osman.
(Applause)
It also gives me great pleasure to extend my warmest greetings to his wife, Salwa Ahmed Faragalla Ali, who has always stood by his side at difficult times in his life. We welcome you among us.
(Applause)
The decision to award the 2007 Sakharov Prize to Salih Mahmoud Osman was taken unanimously by the Conference of Presidents, which comprises the chairs of the political groups, on the basis of a proposal adopted by a large number of Members of the European Parliament from various groups. The European Parliament has thereby reaffirmed its solidarity with the people in Darfur and its conviction that a sustainable solution for that region can only be achieved through justice, democracy and respect for human rights.
The conflict that has plagued Darfur since 2003 is exacerbating the plight of a country devastated by more than twenty years of civil war. As with most conflicts, it is the civilian population who have suffered most from militia raids, the destruction of villages, scorched-earth policies and forcible displacements.
The conflict has claimed at least 400 000 lives and has been responsible for more than two and a half million displaced persons and refugees, notwithstanding the signing of the peace agreement in Darfur in 2006.
Just like the European Parliament, the winner of the 2007 Sakharov Prize does not simply accept this unjust situation but protests against the impunity of those who caused it. For years Salih Mahmoud Osman has been defending the rights of victims of the conflict in Darfur. Thousands of people who have been imprisoned without trial, tortured and exposed to death threats, who have been driven from their homes, displaced or subjected to sexual violence are familiar with the name of Salih Mahmoud Osman.
His commitment is remarkable in several respects. In a country where violence is constantly on the increase, Salih Osman risks his life on a daily basis in the cause of human dignity and justice.
In the name of human dignity, Salih Osman reassures those destitute, defenceless and intimidated men and women who have sunk into oblivion that the world is aware of their suffering, that they have not been forgotten and that they have reason to hope for a return to a perfectly normal and simply human life.
Since 2004, Salih Osman has been committing himself to the establishment and administration of the Amal Centre in Nyala, amal being Arabic for 'hope', for the rehabilitation of victims of violence and sexual abuse. In a predominantly Muslim country, Salih Osman is one of the few men who campaign actively in support of women's rights and especially for recognition of the right to compensation for victims of sexual violence.
In the name of justice, Salih Osman strives, day after day, to ensure that those responsible for war crimes are held to account both nationally and internationally. While the Sudanese judicial system still has many defects that make it unable to put an end to the prevailing climate of lawlessness within the country, international jurisdiction seems to offer an alternative.
The fact that the Sudanese authorities are refusing to hand over alleged war criminals to the International Criminal Court, however, highlights the limits of international justice and shows how much progress is still needed before the rule of law can be established in Darfur and throughout Sudan.
That is why Salih Osman's work is not confined to the legal aid he gives the victims. As a member of the Opposition in the Sudanese Parliament since 2005, he does not hesitate to affirm his convictions in the Sudanese political arena and to engage in efforts to bring about genuine reform of the legal system.
At the meeting between the European Parliament and the Pan-African Parliament on the eve of last weekend's EU-Africa Summit in Lisbon, I had the opportunity and the great pleasure to meet Salih Osman. I was immediately impressed by his strong personality and his unbending will to fight for human rights in spite of all the persecution and hostility to which he and his family have been subjected. I learned a short while ago that Ali and you have three children, who are also very much in our thoughts today.
In 2004 Salih Osman himself was imprisoned for seven months without being charged, and it was only when he went on hunger strike that he was released. Members of his family have been tortured and murdered or have had their houses set on fire by the militias.
The great German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once wrote, 'Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do'. Salih Osman embodies that kind of will and determination, showing his courage in his daily struggle on behalf of his fellow human beings. He is an exemplary campaigner for greater respect for the rule of law in his region. Salih Mahmoud Osman, you have our firm support and our warm acclaim.
As you know, the European Parliament has always been particularly receptive to the suffering of the African peoples. Salih Osman is one of a number of African prizewinners to whom Parliament has given its support in past years and whom it continues to support. Nelson Mandela was awarded the Sakharov Prize in 1988, Salima Ghezali in 1997, Dom Zacarias Kamwenho in 2001 and Hauwa Ibrahim in 2005.
Salih Osman, we congratulate you on your untiring work in this cause, in this spirit, and we hope that the recognition this prize brings might grant you strength and protection from year to year for as long as your struggle continues. We are at your side.
(Applause)
Sudanese lawyer acting for the victims of the war in Darfur. - Mr President, thank you for this tremendous honour. This prize is awarded as a unanimous vote of the European Parliament - a fact which gives me great satisfaction, but more importantly one which gives me the opportunity to speak to you today.
I am a native of Darfur, born in Jebel Marra, which is a mountainous region located in the centre of Darfur State. I have worked as a lawyer in Darfur in Sudan for many years. I have been a victim of detention and torture because of my work. Members of my own family have been tortured and displaced by the militia in Darfur. For many years, in my work, I have represented thousands of people who needed my help in front of the Courts. I have seen thousands of people who have been tortured; I have seen hundreds of women and young girls who have been victims of sexual abuse; I have seen the four million who have been forcibly displaced from their homes and those two and a half million who are confined, as we speak now, in the camps around the cities of Darfur: Nyala, Al Fashir, Zalingi and Al Geneina.
The UN Security Council has adopted several resolutions related to the situation in Darfur. Unfortunately, none of these has been implemented effectively. The victims feel disappointed. They are waiting to hear from you; from the people of Europe. Your leaders have been talking tough about the policies of the Sudanese Government in Darfur. But so far we have not seen any concrete steps to address the situation in a strong and targeted manner.
As a representative of the victims of the conflict, today I have an unprecedented opportunity to speak directly to the leaders of Europe. The people of Darfur need the European Union to show a strong, united position regarding protection of innocent civilians. The people of Darfur ask you to protect them from the violence, killings and abuse they are forced to face on a daily basis. The people of Darfur want you to protect their children and women from acts of rape and sexual violence, which are being used as 'weapons of war'. This protection can be made possible through the deployment of the UN-AU hybrid force. The involvement of international, and especially European, forces is imperative, even though the Government of Sudan may be unwilling to accept that at the present moment. But Europe has a role to play in putting more pressure on the Government of Sudan to facilitate the deployment of these troops and the protection of the people of Darfur.
Now, in Darfur, and in Sudan, I tell you there will be no peace without justice and without protection.
Peace can also be facilitated by Europe. The European Union has a great responsibility to promote peace internationally. The leaders of Europe have the ability to lead the peace process also in Sudan. I ask you to increase your efforts in bringing the rebel groups and the Government of Sudan to the table of peace negotiations as a matter of urgency.
But the fact is that rebel groups are splitting among themselves, and this does not help the situation in Darfur. I want you to think about taking on board other stakeholders: the millions of victims who are voiceless in the camps and other, directly affected people of Darfur. Take on board also the civil society movement, NGOs and community leaders. That would help the situation in Darfur.
Even if we can provide protection and promote peace in Darfur, justice and accountability must not be compromised by any political deal. Presently, none of the victims can return to their houses or homes, because of the absence or lack of security. Not only are our communities being attacked by militias, but even helicopter gunships of the Government of Sudan are destroying our villages in aerial bombardments. Despite these serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, none of the perpetrators has been brought to justice, because the Sudanese judicial system is incapable, incompetent and unwilling to provide justice. All the perpetrators are beyond the reach of our domestic justice. This conflict is one which is marked by a culture of total impunity.
As a lawyer, and a native of Darfur, I know that there can never be a lasting peace in the region without justice. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has made some important and significant steps in promoting accountability. Yet, the cycle of impunity has not yet been broken. The people of Darfur ask you to support the work of the ICC. The ICC is the most competent international criminal tribunal which can make the many notorious perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity accountable for their actions.
Right now, the two identified suspects Kosheib and Haroun are still beyond the reach of justice. The Government of Sudan is insisting that it will never hand them over to the ICC.
Darfur is not the only region of Sudan which suffers from abuses of human rights. Indeed, citizens from every part of Sudan face daily restrictions on their freedom of expression, freedom of association and other basic rights that many people in Europe take for granted. I urge you, also, to encourage and promote the rule of law in my country, so that all citizens of Sudan can enjoy their individual and collective rights. In the light of the upcoming elections in 2009, we must ensure that free and fair elections take place, and that a free and fair result will be respected by all sides.
Lastly, I would like to thank you, the Members of the European Parliament, who came to Sudan in June of this year to see with your own eyes what I have described. This was a visit coordinated by the office of the European Commission in Khartoum. The office of the European Commission has been a source of great support and a partner to me in my work for many years now. The recognition of the European Commission and of you, the European Parliament, for the work of human rights defenders in Sudan gives us the courage and determination to continue to speak for the victims, and relieve some of their suffering.
In conclusion, I am proud to accept this honour on behalf of the other candidates to this prize: the Russian journalist assassinated last year, Anna Politkovskaya; the Chinese dissidents, Zeng Jinyan and Hu Jia; and the Afghani MP and women's rights activist, Joya Malalai, and also on behalf of so many Sudanese who believe - as I do - in human dignity and the pursuit of justice.
Thank you so much.
(The House rose and accorded the speaker a standing ovation)
Ladies and gentlemen, may I ask you to stand, or remain standing, for the European anthem in honour of Salih Osman.


Formal sitting - Jordan
Honourable Members, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, ladies and gentlemen, it is a particular honour for the European Parliament to welcome to Strasbourg today His Majesty Abdullah II, King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. We bid Your Majesty a warm welcome to the European Parliament.
(Applause)
I also welcome the high-ranking delegation accompanying King Abdullah, particularly the Speakers of both Houses of the Jordanian Parliament.
(Applause)
Today's visit by the King of Jordan is the third since 2002, when His Majesty first addressed the European Parliament. In November 2004 the King visited the Conference of Presidents in Brussels. His visit and his speech in the European Parliament today are both a sign of the strong partnership between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the European Parliament and an encouraging signal for our common future in the Mediterranean region.
Your Majesty, I had prepared a far longer speech, but since we had to ask you to wait for a while, I shall cut my speech short and simply say that it is wonderful to have you here with us, and it now gives me great pleasure to invite you to address us.
(Applause)
King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. - Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim, Mr President, Members of Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your warm welcome and, on behalf of the people of Jordan, I am honoured to come before this distinguished institution again.
My friends, a changing Europe and a changing Middle East are here today. A Europe of expanding membership and a visionary mission: for cooperation across borders and growth without barriers. A Middle East of new horizons and growing hope: for peace among neighbours, opportunities for our people and a future for our youth.
These trends do not take place in isolation. The achievement of the hopes of our regions will advance stability and create new possibilities for security and prosperity worldwide. It is deeply in our interest to succeed. And a critical opportunity is before us.
Two weeks ago, with the support of the European Union and nations from both our regions, Israelis and Palestinians met at Annapolis. They pledged all-out negotiations toward a peace treaty in 2008 and immediate steps to implement their obligations under the Road Map. For the first time in years, we see movement towards a permanent settlement and an independent, sovereign, viable Palestinian state.
(Applause)
This progress is the work of many friends of peace, including leaders in Europe and the Arab states. We believed that, after years of worsening crisis, a change of strategy was required. We urged a new commitment to the two-state goal and a targeted process that could achieve it - with tight timelines, measurable requirements and milestones for action.
Second chances are rare, but I believe we have come to one. Very real challenges lie ahead, but Annapolis has created a new spark of hope. We can and must fan that spark into a blaze of confidence, action and tangible results.
As our near neighbour, Europe shares our interest in solving this, the central crisis of our age. All sides respect Europe's neutral role and model of regional progress and peace. For years, you have been our partner in the search for solutions. And you will be our partner, too, in the benefits of success: a vibrant zone of peace and prosperity throughout our shared hemisphere.
These realities give Europe an important and prominent role in the future of peace. I speak especially of the European Union, and you, the voices of Europe, here in the European Parliament. And I have come here today to urge your active engagement, to seek your specific, practical skills and investment in the future, and to offer Jordan's own commitment in the days of work that lie ahead.
My friends, there are major areas where action must begin now. The first is to support the negotiations and their goal: a final settlement creating an end to conflict, security for both Palestine and Israel, and at long last, a sovereign, independent and viable Palestinian state.
(Applause)
We must not underestimate the difficult days ahead. The issues are complex and decades old. Real grievances must be faced - and left behind. On the positive side, Israelis and Palestinians understand their deep, shared stake in ending the conflict. And a great amount of work has already been done. From Oslo, through the Road Map, through the Geneva Accords, and other initiatives, the parameters of the solutions are in focus. I believe the parties can get to the endgame.
But for this to happen, it is vital that the international community be engaged. Europe has a unique experience of the mechanisms and process of post-conflict recovery and reconciliation. This includes creating a security framework that can offer assurance to both sides. European peacekeeping forces have played a constructive role in Lebanon. Your commitment can help bring great trust to a Palestinian-Israeli settlement.
On the ground, there is a need, not only for resources but for partnership - to boost economic opportunities, create confidence that the political process works, and help create the conditions that will sustain peace. Both Palestinians and Israelis need to see tangible results, and quickly. That means security from violence and an end to occupation; but it also means better conditions of life. In the occupied territories, the humanitarian situation for Palestinians remains dire. People need access to jobs and education, effective public services and more. Such action will provide a major infusion of hope and be a powerful counter-argument to extremist predictions that nothing can change.
Next week, donor nations and institutions will meet in Paris to make commitments and plan the way forward. European nations and the European Union are already providing help, a commitment respected by people throughout the region.
A second and related imperative is to understand and articulate the potential of peace. We must begin now to re-envision the future: a region where conflict has given way to cooperation, where a regional economy brings together the capabilities and resources of 22 countries - more than 300 million people, from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean - and where cross-border partnerships advance development, health, the environment and more.
It is a future that empowers people to be full participants in global progress. And it will unleash a new scope of partnership with our European neighbours, in science, technology and trade.
This promising future is why we must move swiftly on a comprehensive settlement, with action on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. Indeed, the entire Arab world has recognized the importance of moving forward. The Arab peace initiative was affirmed, unanimously, last spring. And it has received the support of Muslim countries beyond the region. The opportunity is here, at long last, for a sovereign, independent, and viable Palestinian state and full, normal relations between Israel and 57 Arab and Muslim nations. This means acceptance; acceptance by key countries, with billions of citizens, representing almost a third of the membership of the United Nations. And that opens a shared future of security, peace and new partnerships.
Achieving such a peace will also make a substantial impact on other issues. Within the region, it will create new strategic space, allowing the resolution of other serious issues, from poverty to proliferation. Aggressive forces will no longer be able to exploit the Palestinian cause to serve their own ambitions and interests.
(Applause)
Resources and attention will be freed to advance the region's potential through development and reform.
We in Jordan are ready to meet that future. We have pressed forward with our reform programme, despite regional instability. In the last decade, we have achieved significant gains: strong economic growth, rising per capita incomes, and a model education system. And Europe has been an important partner, through private-sector investments, as well as official assistance. Allow me to say that we deeply appreciate the support and friendship of this Parliament and the European Union.
(Applause)
And we believe that in the days after peace, our partnership can only soar higher.
My friends, today we can think of a larger neighbourhood, one that stretches from north of the Baltic Sea to south of the Mediterranean, one that is shared by Europe and the Middle East. It is the basis of the Euromed partnership, our region-to-region platform for cooperation and development. It is a relationship with great shared interests and unlimited potential. And it is up to us to develop our partnership to its fullest.
Today, young Europeans are coming to adulthood who never knew a divided Europe. Their young counterparts, Palestinian and Israeli, have no such positive experience. They have grown up in a world of division and conflict. Now, together, we have an opportunity to remove the barriers to their future, and leave the past behind.
Today, the European Parliament represents significantly more Member States than when I spoke before Parliament only five years ago. That is the result of a region-wide commitment to increase the zone of partnership and progress. The Middle East is tackling the same important task. Now, together, we can help that work succeed.
Today, a renewed peace process has begun. We have seen such beginnings fail in the past. But this time, a unique confluence of events has created new openings for success. Now, together, we can and we must, fulfil the promise of peace.
(Applause)
My friends, we in Jordan know that when an olive tree takes life, planting is only the first step. A hundred processes are then activated to create the cells and structures of life. Roots emerge, growth occurs, and a core of strength ensures survival. From outside comes water and support to sustain life and create new fruit.
In the arena of the Middle East, a new olive branch has just been planted. Now the real work must begin. It is in our hands to create the process and structures that will give peace roots, help it grow and sustain it into the future.
I urge you to share in this effort. Our partnership can create an historic transformation and a rich harvest - years of peace and prosperity that will benefit our peoples and our world.
(The House rose and accorded the speaker a standing ovation)
Your Majesty, we thank you for your visit to the European Parliament. We thank you for this great speech. We are all - and the applause showed this - deeply touched by your convictions. There are few personalities, few leaders, who are as committed as you to peace in the Middle East. You call us friends, and I say to you, on behalf of the European Parliament: We are at your side to create a Palestinian State that can live in safety...
(Applause)
... and to have a State of Israel that can live in safety. We in the European Parliament believe in the dignity of the human being, and the dignity of the human being applies to each human being in this world.
(Applause)
Your Majesty, we want close cooperation with your country and you are one of the very few who have visited the European Parliament more than once. We in the European Parliament and the European Union want a strong partnership, relationship and, if possible, friendship with all countries in the Middle East. We are at your side. Let us work together.
Shukran jazilan. Thank you, Your Majesty.
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in consideration of the formal sitting with the King of Jordan, all my fellow chairs of the political groups have no doubt been unable to take the opportunity to make a statement under our Rules of Procedure about the preceding occurrences. I should like to do that now.
I believe I speak on behalf of many Members when I express my thanks first of all to the President of this House, to Mr Barroso and to Mr Sócrates for the dignified way in which they defended this solemn act, the signing of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. They had the overwhelming majority of this House behind them.
(Applause)
There are, however, two things I wish to say to the House, and I say them entirely in a personal capacity and not on behalf of my group. I speak for myself.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to a matter to which I am privy as chair of a political group. It is not normal practice to report on the deliberations of the Conference of Presidents, but you should certainly know, ladies and gentlemen, that the only group chairman who asked at the meeting of the Conference of Presidents for an invitation to attend the formal signing of the Treaty in Lisbon was Mr Bonde. I believe the House should know that. No other group chair made that request. Mr Bonde, who makes such a racket here, was determined to be there at the signing of the Treaty. These are the kind of double standards we have to live with here.
Another comment I wish to make is that I learned at grammar school in Germany about the way in which the tactic of collective chanting was used to shout down political opponents in the Reichstag of the Weimar Republic. The political group that introduced the practice was the one led by Adolf Hitler. Today's occurrences reminded me of that. Thank you.
(Loud applause)
(FR) I shall be quite brief. I too was extremely shocked earlier today. This is a debating chamber where democracy rules, and there is no need for a carry-on such as we witnessed this morning for the benefit of the TV cameras. Communication is something to which all of us here are entitled. To those responsible for this morning's commotion in a chamber dedicated to democracy and freedom, I would simply say that they behaved disgracefully. We will discuss it again this afternoon in the Conference of Presidents, with a view to preventing any deterioration of the situation.
(Loud applause)
(FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to express - both in a personal capacity and I hope, given what we witnessed, on behalf of my entire group - the strongest possible condemnation of the disgraceful, chauvinist, anti-European demonstration that was staged here earlier today.
(Applause)
My group is certainly in favour of a referendum on the new treaty and it has questions and misgivings about certain articles of the Charter. But all that is quite unrelated to what took place here this morning and it is important that there should be no confusion. For our part, we support a Community of values, we support the promotion of fundamental rights, we support a Europe of democracy and there is no place in our vision for chauvinism and bad behaviour!
(Loud applause)
Madam President, on a point of order, I wish to make a formal request to safeguard the dignity of our House. The behaviour of certain Members of this House in shouting down representatives of Parliament, the Commission and the Council during the signing ceremony was intolerable and must not be tolerated. It brings the worst of the football stadium into Europe's highest Chamber and recalls the actions of the Communists in the Russian Diet and the National Socialists in the German Reichstag.
(Applause)
My formal request, Madam President, is this: my group demands that in future the Presidency use the powers granted to it under our Rules of Procedure to evict from the Chamber Members behaving in that fashion.
(Loud applause)
(FR) Ladies and gentlemen, I think I need hardly add that we, like all our colleagues, were quite appalled by the demonstration earlier. I would say this, however: 'Do not over-dramatise! There may be 50 nutcases in the chamber but there are 700 Members who oppose them, so do not inflate the fact that 50 lame-brains disrupted the signing ceremony into an affair of state. Let us calm down and, Graham, let us not insist that those responsible be thrown out. In my view, a free Parliament is a Parliament that can tolerate a few nutcases, irksome though they might be.
(Applause)
Madam President, on behalf of my own Group, whilst we all welcome the opportunity of a robust engagement, which should be allowed within any parliamentary assembly, what happened this morning went beyond what should be allowed to take place in any democratic institution. However, rather than prolong this argument, could we please get on with the vote and get to our lunch as soon as possible as well.
Madam President, I was attacked personally by Mr Schulz; therefore, I think we should go to the vote. I took part in a peaceful manifestation against a celebration of a Charter which was part of a Constitution where I cannot even get the consolidated text and see the relevance and the meaning, and you cannot either. What you are going to sign tomorrow is a Treaty none of you has read it, simply because it is not possible to read it. You take over our voting time to celebrate a victory over democracy, and, therefore, I will not attack my colleagues, but I have to say to Mr Schulz that I did not take part in a crime.
I understand it entirely, but we have a different tradition in Denmark, so I was there with my T-shirt, calling for a referendum, and I think all of us should call for a referendum. This is the democratic norm you are defending.
(BG) I am taking the floor pursuant to that provision of the rules which gives me the right to personal explanation because Mr. Cohn-Bendit insulted people in this hall. These are personal insults for which, Mr. Cohn-Bendit, you have no right to hide behind your parliamentary immunity. Say that you relinquish your immunity and then insult Members of Parliament! As to what happened here, it is only the freedom of expression which every Member of this Parliament has.
I would like to address Mr. Daul. Mr. Daul, if you want Members of Parliament to be forcibly taken out of this hall, aren't you like Hitler who did exactly the same in the German Reichstag?
The greatest democracy is direct democracy. And we raised our voice, we exercised out right to free expression, to direct democracy rather than circumvent the European nations as you did. What is going on here is the dictatorship of the new proletariat taking shape in the new Union. Which, this time, is not Soviet but European.
(FR) Madam President, my name was cited in the call for the lifting of parliamentary immunity and expulsion from the Chamber. May I suggest, ladies and gentlemen, that you begin by getting Members' names right before you address the House.
I am now going to move to the vote, but I would just make one comment before I do so.
On 29 November 2007 this House approved the Charter of Fundamental Rights by 534 votes to 85, with 21 abstentions.
(Loud applause)


5. Rising food prices in the European Union and developing countries (vote)
- After the vote on paragraph 6:
, on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Mr President, I will read verbatim the oral amendment proposed by my group, the PSE Group:
'Recalls that the primary goal of the CAP is to guarantee market stabilisation, supply security and reasonable prices for consumers and underlines the need for a CAP post-2013, in order to ensure the sustainable food policy of the EU, while respecting the sustainability, the security and the quality of agricultural products;
I would like to say that we withdraw the final part of the amendment, as requested by the PPE Group, in exchange for their support for this amendment.
(The oral amendment was adopted)
- Before the vote on Amendment 31:
, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I wish to delete the words 'free and' from this amendment. The rest stands.
(The oral amendment was adopted)


Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes