One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
The next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance (Rule 150).
(PT) The Committee on International Trade is currently assessing the global agreement on bananas reached within the World Trade Organisation. Soon, this House will be called on to decide in plenary on the lowering of customs duties on imports of bananas from Latin American countries.
It should be made quite clear that none of the outermost regions, whether it be Madeira, where I come from, or one of the other eight outermost regions, particularly the Canary Islands, which are by far the worst affected, is against the conclusion of these types of agreements. What these regions want, pure and simple, is, on the one hand, that other countries are required to comply with the same hygiene and plant health conditions and respect for workers' rights as they themselves are required to in order to enter the market. That is basic justice. On the other hand, they want to be fully compensated for the damage caused to them. Failing that, they want those in charge to at least have the decency to tell them directly that they will have to change their way of life and look for other work, because it is obvious that they cannot survive in the conditions that lie ahead and will have to abandon their livelihoods. It is clear that in these agreements, there are winners and losers. Let us take care of the losers - the winners do not need our help.
(LT) In Europe, there has been a rapid increase in the number of elderly people whose only source of livelihood is their pension. People who have worked hard and honestly all their lives, who have brought up children and paid taxes to the state, expect old age to be peaceful and dignified. Unfortunately, not all of these legitimate expectations are destined to come true. The people of Europe in particular have felt this during the economic crisis. While prices have increased, pensions have not, and concern has grown over the security of savings put aside for old age, and there has also been an increase in the number of grandparents who need to support children after they have lost their jobs. In some countries, like my country of Lithuania for example, the government is also hurting pensioners, as pensions and benefits have been cut. Currently, there is much debate about the Commission's new proposal to consider the possibility of raising the pension age. However, I am most concerned by the fact that no solutions are being offered on how to guarantee employment for elderly people. With the possibility of delaying retirement, millions of unemployed people under the pensionable age may land in the poverty trap. Not enough consideration has been given as to whether people's health will allow them to work longer. Furthermore, we must also take into account the fact that women take lower paid work more often than men, and that as a result of childbirth, motherhood and caring for children and disabled family members, they lose insurance guarantees, and ultimately receive smaller pensions. Therefore, once they have evaluated the rapid ageing of Europe's population, I call on the Commission and the Council to find other means of ensuring normal living conditions for current and future pensioners.
(BG) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, two events are marked in Bulgaria today, 10 November. Twenty-one years ago, the day after the Berlin Wall came down, the Communist regime fell to the sound of the slogans 'Glasnost, freedom, democracy'. It is no coincidence that the same date is also celebrated as Freedom of Speech Day in Bulgaria. Things have been building up which provide food for thought, both regarding totalitarianism, which I hope has left our country for good, and about another modern scourge - terrorism, which we are seeing ever more frequently.
Does democracy have mechanisms to counter such attacks? Can we fight terrorism without abandoning democratic principles or restricting human rights and media freedom?
The liberal answer is 'yes', but only if we commit regional and national networks to a European system supporting preventive measures, early warning and rapid reaction.
(ES) Mr President, at the last plenary sitting, I warned that this could happen, and it has happened: the dismantling by force of a Saharan camp in El Aaiun, which has so far left 19 people dead, more than 700 injured and more than 150 missing.
What are the European Commission and the European governments, led by the Spanish Government, saying? They are calling for calm on both sides; they are saying that it is a very complicated issue, that we should not interfere, and that we must protect European interests in Morocco.
My response is no, Baroness Ashton; no, Mrs Jiménez; no, Mr Kouchner: repression and murder are not complicated issues. They are very clear issues, and the response and position that we must adopt in reaction to them are: outright rejection, condemnation and demanding that the Moroccan regime takes responsibility for this.
Until this happens, we must cut off bilateral trade and Morocco's privileges in relation to the European Union. No more haggling over human rights.
(PL) Mr President, I am pleased that the Commissioner is still here, and I would like to take advantage of the opportunity because this matter also touches on Mrs Malmström's area of responsibility. I know this is being mentioned for the third time, but it is a very serious matter, so I would like to report that during the night of 5 to 6 November, a journalist working for the Russian newspaper Kommersant, Oleg Kashin, was badly beaten outside his home in Moscow - I am sure you know about this, Commissioner. He was taken to hospital with broken legs, a shattered jaw, severed fingers and a fractured skull.
This is not the first case of this kind which has taken place in the countries across our eastern border. I read an interview, today, with one of Poland's most outstanding analysts of Russian affairs, and he says that in the last 10 years, 300 journalists have been killed in the Russian Federation. This is extremely disturbing, because the issue of freedom of speech and civil liberties is one of the most important things which constitute us as the European Union. Therefore, I would ask very strongly that in talks with our Russian friends, we should emphasise, at all times and in every place, that incidents of this kind must not occur, because they make our dialogue together difficult, if not impossible.
(PT) I would like to draw your attention to the desperate situation in the Western Sahara. Thousands of Sahrawis have set up camps on the outskirts of some of the main cities in the territory as a form of protest against the conditions in which they are forced to live and the various forms of repression to which they are subjected, and to call for a referendum that enshrines their right to self-determination.
The violent action of the Moroccan police and army this week, seeking to dismantle these camps, resulted in an unspecified number of arrests, hundreds injured and missing, and unfortunately also fatalities. Besides this action, there is also the demeaning way in which citizens of EU Member States were prevented from visiting the Western Sahara to show their solidarity. Those expelled by the Moroccan authorities included a Member of this Parliament, the President of the World Federation of Democratic Youth, along with various journalists and members of non-governmental organisations.
The silence or equivocal statements from the EU and some of its leaders with regard to this situation are shameful and regrettable. It is also a silence of complicity with a country that benefits from the advanced status conferred upon it by the EU. This silence and complicity are unacceptable, and we wish to strongly denounce them here.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I simply wanted to call the attention of the President of the European Parliament to a judgment made several days ago. It is a matter that surely falls under the capacities of the Commissioner, to whom I extend my greetings.
In my opinion, it is a very serious judgment, because it relativises the content of a very important European Union directive on terrorism. In fact, I believe that it is not possible to support an extensive attitude to protecting citizens who request the right of asylum and the right to be recognised as a refugee to those who belong to terrorist organisations.
If this principle were to become accepted, as it did in this extremely serious decision of the European Court of Justice, we shall give many terrorists the chance to benefit from protection that they do not deserve. Too many people have died in Europe as a result of acts of terrorism to allow a situation of this type. I therefore urge the Commission to modify the directive so as to avoid extensive and indecent interpretations of the statement that the European Union rightly made in the fight against terrorism.
Mr President, last month in Strasbourg, this parliament voted through a 5.9% increase in the EU budget. This included an extra EUR 2 million for entertainment to support the champagne lifestyle to which this place has become accustomed. I found the way in which colleagues applauded themselves to be offensive within the context of an economic crisis.
Today, the victims of this crisis from my constituency in Britain's West Midlands are making a stand. Students and university lecturers have taken their concerns to the streets of London, and whilst I deplore the actions of a few, I applaud the many. Students will be hard hit by the austerity package: tuition fees in universities are set to triple, courses have been scrapped, places have been cut and infrastructure will be put under more and more pressure. Tomorrow's talent, which we rely on for our future, is being stifled and it is the younger generation that will suffer the most. Mr President, let me end with a warning: your arrogance will lead to many more people on the streets, and to many more people protesting against this failed social project. Enjoy your champagne, ladies and gentlemen.
(RO) The Danube summit, which took place on 8 November in Bucharest, was attended by the 14 delegations from the countries participating in the Danube strategy, including the Republic of Moldova, presenting it with an opportunity to move even closer to the European Union. The meeting was held at an appropriate time, given that the strategy's instruments of incorporation will be approved by the end of the year and the actual strategy will be implemented in 2011. The main success was the commitment made by the European Commission, represented by President Barroso, to support a specific plan, with the provision of EUR 95 billion in funding. In addition, it will be possible to attract additional resources from the EIB and EBRD.
I should remind you that, as a co-initiator of the idea of a European strategy for the Danube region in 2008, Romania has constantly supported the implementation of this initiative. Implementing it as soon as possible will help revitalise the social and economic situation of the counties in southern Romania which border the Danube.
(ES) Mr President, on behalf of the Spanish delegation of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, I would like to express our deep concern regarding the wave of violence that has broken out in Morocco and the Sahara.
We strongly advocate the prevalence of human rights and regret all the deaths that have taken place, both Moroccan and Saharan. The information on the situation is confused. Therefore, we welcome the fact that an investigation is going to be opened by Morocco and, of course, we advocate a policy of information transparency.
The strategic importance of Morocco for Europe requires that the European Union as a body joins the international efforts to facilitate dialogue that several Member States are involved in, including Spain. We welcome the fact that, despite the seriousness of the events, dialogue between the parties has so far been maintained and fresh rounds of negotiations are planned.
Ladies and gentlemen, this conflict is more than 30 years old, and must come to an end as soon as possible with a solution that is mutually acceptable to the parties in the context of the United Nations, which, along with the Moroccan Government, the Saharan people and their representatives, is the only body with the legitimacy to put forward such a solution.
(PL) Mr President, the European Parliament has made a stand in defence of fundamental human rights, civil liberties and political freedoms on many occasions. Therefore, it was with great surprise that I noted the fact that at the previous part-session in Strasbourg, the European Parliament, unfortunately, did not adopt a position on the forthcoming local elections in Ukraine, despite the very serious indications and credible information from reliable sources that numerous improprieties were taking place, with harassment of the opposition and restrictions on the rights of journalists to communicate freely with society in Ukraine, which is governed by the Party of the Regions.
I am even more surprised by the fact that this decision has once again been deferred and will not be voted on tomorrow. This situation is very disturbing and requires an explanation. Is it true that some representatives of the European Parliament are talking of the elections, which have now been held, with approval, when both the United States State Department and Mrs Ashton are pointing to numerous improprieties observed during the elections and to the violation of electoral law? This matter needs to be explained.
(SK) I am pleased that the European Commission, in its strategy for the years 2010 and 2011, yesterday confirmed that a policy of expansion is the best strategy for the Western Balkan region. It also confirmed that it would continue to fulfil its commitments to the region, on the understanding that the countries of the region would boost their efforts in the integration process.
I would like to applaud some of the positive steps over the previous year, for example, the ending of the visa regime for most of the inhabitants of the region, the progress of Montenegro, which has been awarded with a proposal for candidate country status, and the progress in the talks between the European Union and Serbia, which has been recommended for an avis.
However, challenges remain and they will have to be confronted. Among them are the commencement of dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo - which is expected to bring more stability to the region, and a solution as soon as possible to the issue of the name of Macedonia - a process that has already been in progress for a very long time, the question of agreeing on a vision or a new approach with regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the start of visa liberalisation with Kosovo.
In all of these questions, it is necessary to have a clear strategy and vision that will make it possible for this region to draw closer to the European Union. This is not only in their interest, but in ours as well.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 30 years ago, Morocco denied for many years that there was a war with the Sahrawi people and today, it is still denying that there is disproportional repression of these same people. Yet, in the Western Sahara, there are dead and wounded people of a population that is only claiming the right to live in freedom in its own land.
Morocco has largely closed its borders to anyone who could witness these events. No information and no members of parliament are allowed in. A member of the French parliament and our fellow Member, Mr Meyer, were denied access. Europe looks on passively. There is no news from the Commission on this matter, which makes us subordinate to United Nations mediation, which continues to fail just as it has done for the past 30 years. Baroness Ashton, who is responsible for foreign policy, has not taken a stand on the subject. We need to react by Parliament making a stand. We need to react against Morocco, curtailing all initiatives on commercial agreements, beginning with the renewal of the fishing agreements.
(RO) The spotlight has been turned recently on vitally important elements regarding the European Union of innovation. I believe that the time has come for us to support measures which allow us to carry out, at European level, the actions described by the Commission's initiative.
The development of partnerships is vital. However, we must not overlook the fact that, during the coming programming period, it is time to initiate the discussions at regional level so that partnerships can be established not only at local and regional level, but at national or transnational level as well. Similarly, we can say that the broad debate about the ways to achieve this development in the period ahead must feature on the agenda of every region. I consider the dialogue between all the relevant actors as being crucial to identifying the value added in every region and the types of innovative actions in order to utilise them. I call on local and regional authorities to get involved in creating partnerships so as to make programming as realistic and close as possible to the regions' needs and aspirations.
(DE) Mr President, the G20 summit will begin tomorrow in Seoul. The topics that will be discussed at this summit include one that is of particular importance: the limitation of exports of rare earths by the People's Republic of China. China controls 95% of the extraction of rare earths, which are desperately needed by European industry. The sectors most affected are the knowledge-intensive sectors dealing with the development of new technologies. The fact that small and medium-sized European enterprises are being put at serious risk as a result of artificial supply bottlenecks is a serious problem. The European Economic Area is world renowned for its technological expertise. Putting up with interruptions in this area is not acceptable.
I therefore call on the representatives of the European Union, together with the other states affected, such as the United States and Japan, to speak out against China's trade despotism at the G20 summit. A solution must be found to this as quickly as possible.
(RO) The EU's population is ageing, with the proportion of working people among the total population falling. The economic crisis has helped increase the unemployment rate to 10%. In this situation, the EU and Member States must adopt measures to ensure the sustainability of their pension systems. Pension system reform must offer solutions for guaranteeing retired people minimum incomes providing a decent living.
In spite of the rise in the population's life expectancy, the solution is not to raise the compulsory age of retirement. Elderly people who can and wish to remain active on the labour market can still make a contribution to the development of society without, however, feeling obliged to do so. At the same time, due to the economic crisis and the relocation of European industry to third countries, the number of jobs has fallen and people who are able to work, but cannot find a steady job, have problems achieving the minimum period for contributing to public pension systems. I wish to point out that raising the retirement age will result in a rise in youth unemployment.
(SK) Food labelling is a topic which shows that citizens are following what Europe is doing, what it is debating and to what extent it affects them. I have a good report that citizens in Slovakia, in the week from 25 to 27 October, not only took an interest in the fact that we adopted the report of my colleague, Renate Sommer, at the first reading, but also created such a powerful synergetic effect that students of Nitra University, the agri-food industry and the media and the wider public got hugely involved in these debates, organising workshops and competitions, while young people got involved in a discussion which was, I must say, given a further boost through the participation of rapporteur Renate Sommer herself, while the three Slovak MEPs also took an active part in the process.
I only want to show through this that the European Parliament and MEPs can also become involved in interesting topics which affect democracy directly, and that we cannot always criticise what we are talking about here, and that we do not solve problems that are unconnected with the real world. In this context, I would also like to applaud the activities of the Office of the European Parliament in Slovakia, which did a great job of organising the event.
Mr President, I once again wish to draw attention to the case of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani. As you may know, she was due to be executed by stoning by the Iranian authorities in July for alleged adultery, but following a resolution here in Parliament, where many people wore 'Free Sakineh' t-shirts, and an international outcry, that sentence was commuted.
It was commuted but not cancelled. Instead, it was changed to execution by hanging for alleged murder. This was due to take place on 3 November, but was again postponed, following international petitions for which there were 270 000 online signatures, and interventions from various authorities around the world, especially from the French President, Mr Sarkozy, who made a personal intervention. However, the Iranian authorities still intend to continue, and eventually to execute Sakineh.
I call again on the European authorities to redouble their efforts so that she is freed and that she can gain asylum or freedom in her own country, and to ensure that the state-sponsored murder of women and other human rights violations are ended in Iran.
That concludes the item.


European Consensus on humanitarian aid (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Mrs Striffler, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on the implementation of the European consensus on humanitarian aid: the mid-term review of its Action Plan and the way forward.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the global humanitarian context has got worse; the humanitarian challenges and needs are immense, and there are now countless areas in which intervention is required.
The European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid is a fundamental instrument which is as relevant as ever in this massively changing humanitarian context. By strictly applying the Consensus and its associated action plan, we can respond to humanitarian challenges. However, the humanitarian partners apart, too many people are still unaware of the Consensus. We should therefore make an effort to increase its visibility and to raise its profile among the Member States and the actors involved. We must ask for this Consensus to be distributed, understood and applied within the European External Action Service and by military personnel.
In 2009, the Working Party on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid was established within the Council. It has become an important forum, but its role should be strengthened in terms of coordination between Member States and the monitoring of the implementation of the Consensus, and in terms of advocating humanitarian aid in relation to the other working parties of the Political and Security Committee.
The mid-term review of the action plan is a unique opportunity to strengthen action in areas deserving more attention, such as, firstly, the promotion of humanitarian principles and international humanitarian law, because humanitarian aid is not a crisis management instrument, and we should deplore the increasing politicisation of humanitarian aid and its consequences in terms of respect for the 'humanitarian space'. A second area concerns the issues of quality, coordination and consistency in the delivery of EU humanitarian aid, and a third aspect is the clarification of the use of military and civil protection capabilities in conformity with the Humanitarian Consensus and United Nations guidelines.
A very clear distinction needs to be maintained between the remits of military and humanitarian bodies, and a dialogue between military and humanitarian bodies is necessary in order to encourage mutual understanding.
Moreover, in my report, I invite the European Commission to present some very ambitious legislative proposals for the creation of a European protection force, and I am pleased at the recent communication by the Commission on strengthening the European Union's disaster response capabilities.
Finally, we must strengthen the 'disaster risk reduction' dimension and the link between emergency aid, reconstruction and development.
The Treaty of Lisbon established the European External Action Service. We have therefore endeavoured, in the course of negotiations, to defend the independence of DG ECHO and to prevent any attempts to use humanitarian aid for foreign policy purposes. Strict and transparent rules on cooperation and coordination between the European External Action Service and the Commission in the management of large-scale crises must be introduced.
To finish, I would like to draw your attention to the proliferation of sexual violence - I am thinking in particular of the East of the Republic of the Congo, of the Kivu region - and to the importance of systematically integrating gender and reproductive health into the emergency healthcare aspect of the humanitarian response.
(FR) Mr President, I congratulate Mrs Striffler on her report. However, it fails to mention actors whose involvement is based on religion, particularly Christianity. The text of the European Consensus does mention the Red Cross, but it ignores other actors that have the same status in international law but which are based on Christianity, such as, for example, the Order of Malta.
This report thus provides new evidence of the disregard with which the European institutions greet the involvement of Christian actors in humanitarian intervention. Religions have not just the obligation, but also the competence necessary to intervene rapidly in crisis and natural disaster situations.
I invite the rapporteur to table an oral amendment to recognise the usefulness and effectiveness of actors who base their work on the Christian faith.
(SK) Mr President, the European Union and its Member States are major global donors of humanitarian aid. This is our moral obligation.
The European consensus on humanitarian aid has become a significant milestone, a fact which is confirmed by the analysis of the action plan on the implementation of humanitarian aid. The report also points out specific weak points in the system, however, and other obstacles preventing the effective and rapid movement of humanitarian goods and services for the most vulnerable people in crisis areas.
I hope that the Treaty of Lisbon, which brings a whole series of innovations in the area of EU humanitarian aid, and which is now a separate policy area, will be appropriately and promptly used to achieve tangible results in accordance with respect for human dignity, human values and adherence to human rights, as established in international law, including, for example, rapid assistance in disasters.
(CS) Mr President, the ever increasing number and scale of humanitarian disasters in third countries, which, apart from anything else, is also a result of climate change, requires increases both in the quantity and the quality of humanitarian aid. I therefore fully support the measures mentioned in the report, including the transformation of the civil defence of the Member States, so that it, too, can provide effective, coordinated EU aid. I also consider it an urgent matter, of course, to improve the safety of humanitarian workers. In my opinion, the Commission should also assign resources for disseminating information, especially in Haiti, so that the inhabitants affected can understand the causes and resulting circumstances of their disaster, and help protect the safety of humanitarian workers, instead of the opposite being the case. Otherwise, it will be necessary - and not in the least undesirable - to employ the protection of the armed forces.
Mr President, I should briefly like to ask some questions. Regarding the European Union, I know that we are wonderful for donating aid to where it is needed, but it often goes through NGOs. Are there any NGOs that have not been up to scratch, or that have been the subject of complaints in the countries in which they operate, or that the European Union itself might have reservations about? In other words, do we just give the aid and the supplements - let us put it that way - to the NGOs annually? Where is the accountability?
In the light of some programmes I have seen recently, I was rather concerned about allegations being made as to what some of the NGOs were doing and their lack of accountability. Having said that, I know that the vast majority are doing good work and are properly motivated.
(DE) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the fact that we are able to discuss this problem here in this House today. I have two further comments or questions that always concern me when it comes to humanitarian aid. Firstly, it is clearly indisputable and important that we should provide assistance if people are in need, but - as the previous speaker has already said - we must always ask the question: will these funds actually be used properly and appropriately?
Secondly, there is something else that we must not ignore. It is right to provide humanitarian aid for people in need. This could be a result of a natural disaster, but it is increasingly also a result of disasters that have been caused by people themselves. This includes, in particular, political or armed conflicts. We need to bear in mind that, although humanitarian aid provides emergency relief, at the same time, we must also eliminate the causes, namely, the political acts of violence.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I very much welcome Mrs Striffler's report, as well as Parliament's involvement in and continued strong advocacy for effective European humanitarian action.
The consensus was adopted in 2007. It provides an essential common policy framework for the EU - a common vision accompanied by an action plan. Both the Member States and the Commission have a shared responsibility to make sure that the consensus is well implemented.
I want to stress that what comes very clearly out of the report is the message that humanitarian principles, international humanitarian law and protection of the humanitarian space have to be at the centre of our action on the consensus. Four-fifths of our humanitarian aid goes to people in need in conflict-related, man-made emergencies. For us to be able to reach these people, it is critical that our aid is independent and neutral and that it is perceived in this way.
I would like to give you one example of this. I have just come back from Yemen where, together with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Gutierrez, we engaged on the humanitarian access issue with high-level government officials and representatives of the al-Houthi rebel movement. For the first time, we obtained a commitment on their part to facilitate humanitarian access and respect delivery of aid to all Yemeni people in need, in line with the humanitarian principles of neutrality and independence. Having spent a number of hours with men with Kalashnikovs, I would like to observe that we in Europe do bring this value of neutrality that is a bridge to people in need. In the Yemeni case, there are 300 000 internally displaced people and many more hundred thousands affected by six wars in six years in the north of Yemen.
Of course, for a long-lasting impact, humanitarian aid is not the right instrument. It is development that can lay the foundation for lasting peace. We in the Commission have completed a year-long review process of the European consensus action plan, in close liaison with our Member State and humanitarian partners. On 8 December, the Commission adopted a Communication on this. The review shows that over the past three years, we have made significant contributions to strengthening the humanitarian response in terms of advocacy and humanitarian action, as well as by bringing humanitarian aid and civil protection together.
We also concluded that there is scope for further improvement in three areas.
Firstly, we need to promote the quality and effectiveness of aid by good assessment, a well-coordinated response and investment in disaster risk reduction and local capacity. At a time when needs are growing and budgets are constrained, this is critical.
Let me just respond here to the question of accountability. Obviously, we need to stretch every euro to the full and deliver it with the highest possible quality and in the most effective way. In order to ensure that our partners - UN agencies and NGOs - are accountable, we review one-third of all partners and one-third of all projects every year. We have our own humanitarian aid offices in all the hotspot areas of the planet to be the ears and the eyes of our taxpayers, including in Yemen, because of increasing humanitarian needs. I recently cut the ribbon of our humanitarian aid office there.
The second issue concerning which we can see room for improvement is the strengthening of the European voice. We are the largest donor and have to make sure that we speak very clearly with one voice. We must also reach out to other donors so that we play our leadership role, vis-à-vis traditional donors, but also by engaging new donors.
Thirdly, we need to ensure coherence which means working, together with the External Action Service, with military actors to make sure that a principled humanitarian approach is safeguarded and is also promoted in Europe.
Let me finish by once again thanking Mrs Striffler for her work on this issue and calling upon Parliament to continue the discussion on this topic. The world has changed. Unfortunately, there will be more and more natural and man-made disasters. Whatever action we take will determine not only the lives of the people affected, but also the moral standing and the capacity of the EU to lead in the world.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 18 January 2011.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Humanitarian aid is an expression of universal human solidarity and is our moral obligation. Today, we are seeing a systematic growth in the need for humanitarian aid because of the growing number of natural disasters being brought to our attention. This is due in part to climate change, but is also due to the development of technology which enables us to realise that a catastrophe has occurred and to communicate the fact of its occurrence. Important criteria for the provision of humanitarian aid should be speed, responsibility and administrative costs which are as low as possible. The development of transport is a factor which facilitates the delivery of aid. This means that we can reach the victims faster and give aid to a greater number of people. This is why getting businesses involved is so important. I am thinking of corporations and concerns, but also of small enterprises, and not only those operating in the field of transport and logistics. We need to build networks of entities which work together in a particular geographical area, in order to be effective in delivering aid and to improve the system of rapid reaction to impending crises. On the basis of inter-sectoral partnerships between businesses, organisations and institutions, it would be possible to set up bases, special units and offices with funds, storage space, volunteers, food, essential materials and equipment and means of transport. Cooperation of this kind can bring measurable benefits in the face of human tragedy, particularly when it is necessary to react quickly and not to first have to start by collecting money.


Written declarations for entry in the register (Rule 116): see Minutes


Ukraine (debate)
We shall proceed to the next item on the agenda. This is the Council and Commission statements on Ukraine.
Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, we very much welcome your decision to put discussion of the current situation in Ukraine and also the European Union's relations with that country on the agenda. Ukraine's importance in terms of European stability is not to be underestimated, and so I am glad of the opportunity to express the Council Presidency's position with regard to it.
The Orange Revolution was an impressive demonstration of the power of civil society movements in Eastern Europe, and the democratic parliamentary elections in March 2006, being largely free and fair, were an example for other states in the region to follow.
This is not, however, the first time that Ukraine has found itself at a very difficult point in the course of its difficult process of transition and transformation. It has experienced the Orange Revolution, which was in itself the critical culmination of a political dispute, followed by the political wrangling and difficulties relating to the formation of a coalition and a government following the March 2006 parliamentary elections, which were a debate on the country's internal and external orientation, and now President Yushchenko's decree of 2 April 2007 dissolving the parliament, together with the refusal by the government and parliament to obey it.
The attitude of both sides is causing considerable constitutional misgivings in Ukraine itself, with the Ukrainian parliament appealing to the constitutional court to rule on the constitutionality of the President's decree dissolving it.
While the Council is of course following events in Kiev with close attention, they are also a cause of great concern to it. The European Union has been in close contact with both parties in the conflict since the crisis broke; Mr Solana has spoken with them on several occasion and has made them aware of the European Union's position, and our Presidency, on the day after the decree of dissolution was published, urged moderation and readiness for dialogue on the basis of democratic rules and the Ukrainian constitution. Our Presidency has also been in close contact with the groups involved in the crisis and with protagonists on both sides, and the European Union will build on those contacts.
The Ukrainian constitutional court has been presented with a difficult task, and will be able to perform it only if it is enabled to come to a decision on the constitutionality of the dissolution of parliament without being made subject to external pressure. If the political crisis is to have a long-term solution, however, political compromises will be necessary, and so we are glad to see that both President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yanukovych are no less willing to engage in dialogue than they were, and welcome the assurances given by both sides to the effect that violence is not even being considered as a means of settling the conflict. Our expectation is that both sides will abide by their public statements and the assurances given by them to the European Union in order to prevent any further escalation of the crisis.
Whatever changes may come about in the political environment in Kiev, democracy, free and fair elections, the free expression of opinion and the freedom of the press remain the basis underpinning political and social life, and that is one reason why we are confident that Ukraine will find a way out of this political crisis that is consistent with our shared conceptions of democracy and of the rule of law, one that will enable Ukraine to continue to be able to count on the support of the European Union.
Mr President, honourable Members, I thank you for the invitation to make a statement on relations between the European Union and Ukraine. This debate is of the utmost importance and is of greater contemporary relevance than ever for various reasons, one of which is the fact that we, on 5 March, commenced negotiations on a new and extended agreement that is intended to put our relations with Ukraine on a new footing.
Another is the way in which the domestic political situation in Ukraine is developing. It is of the utmost importance in terms of the further entrenchment of democratic conditions in that country and of the continuity of its reform process that a solution be found to the present crisis. The Commission has kept an attentive eye on the latest developments in Ukrainian domestic politics, observing with concern the way in which President Yushchenko's dissolution of parliament has resulted in deeper division between him and Mr Yanukovych, the Prime Minister.
It matters a great deal to us that Ukraine should pursue its course of reform, moving closer to complete democratisation, stability and prosperity. Ukraine, and its future in Europe, depend absolutely on stability, which is vital to the European Union too, for it, along with prosperity, is what we need in the countries around us.
What is happening at the moment is that the maturity of Ukrainian democracy is being tested. Mr Barroso, the President of the Commission said, when he met President Yushchenko last week, that there was, in a democracy, no political problem for which a political solution in harmony with the law could not be found, and the frank political debate and the - so far - largely peaceful demonstrations on the streets of Kiev are evidence of the fact that the Ukrainian people understand that internal political disputes have to be settled in a responsible and democratic manner.
What is crucial is that all the relevant political forces should work together in a constructive manner and work honestly towards a political solution, adhering completely, as they do so, to the principles of democracy and of the rule of law, and all of them must obey the democratic ground rules, take action to deal with corruption, respect the independence of the Constitutional Court and obey its rulings.
Ukraine is also in need of a long-term process - one in which everyone can take part and which will lead to a constitutional reform founded on a new-style political compromise - that will equip the political system with clear mechanisms of control and regulation. While it cannot be part of the European Union's role to intervene in this crisis by mediating directly between factions, we can and should appeal to the cautious and rational instincts of all those involved in Ukrainian politics in urging them to hammer out a compromise together.
That is the message we should be sending out in the confidence that the young Ukrainian democracy will pass this test and that its politicians will continue to work for the good of the country and for its future relations with the European Union. Since what was known as the 'orange revolution' and the adoption of the EU/Ukraine action plan, the EU and Ukraine have come much closer together, and relations between them have improved.
Ukraine is an example of just how successful the European neighbourhood policy can be; our political dialogue has deepened to an appreciable degree, and there has been a constant increase in the sectors in which we cooperate. We have decided to increase the support grant under the new European neighbourhood and partnership instrument to EUR 120 million per annum, have initialled the agreement on visa facilitation and returns, and, on the trade front, are preparing extensive measures that, taken together with the new and wider-ranging agreement, will move us closer to a free trade zone.
We have just started to do something about putting our relations on an even closer footing, for it was on 5 March that the Commission commenced negotiations with Ukraine on the new and extended agreement, which, it is intended, should, when concluded, reflect the significance of relations between us and open up new perspectives, among them the prospect of a deeper partnership in the energy sector.
A second round of negotiations followed in Kiev on 2 and 3 April. The talks progressed to our complete satisfaction, in that it proved possible to achieve substantial progress, and the Ukrainian side demonstrated considerable commitment to them. It is the Commission's intention that the negotiations on the new and extended agreement should be continued as planned, for Ukraine is a key partner for the European Union, and we continue in our firm determination to further develop and put on an even firmer footing our relations with this important neighbour.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, President-in-Office, Commissioner, the political crisis in Kiev is a matter of concern to those who welcome the political progress made since the Orange Revolution. Let me remind those here of the leading and pioneering role played by Parliament in 2004.
It is vital that today's situation be resolved in line with the rule of law and democratic principles consistent with European values and, above all, in accordance with the democratically expressed wishes of the Ukrainian people.
In my view, we could have done more to prevent this crisis from developing, notably by providing more substantial moral and financial support to help Ukraine overcome the very difficult political legacy of its Soviet past.
We must devote every effort to the task of nurturing and encouraging Ukraine's democratic gains. It is now time for Europe to engage in a more committed and consistent manner. A new enhanced agreement should establish relations between the EU and Ukraine on a new, reinforced basis commensurate with the challenges posed by reality.
The European Union must understand and acknowledge the context in which this crisis has arisen. There is little use calling for Ukraine's leaders to reach a sensible internal settlement when not all the sides in the conflict are willing to share power, and the normal constitutional mechanisms have fallen into disrepair.
Some may use the crisis in Ukraine as a pretext for not doing anything, claiming that the situation there creates an obstacle to more serious engagement on our part. That is exactly the opposite of what we should do. The difficult internal situation is a challenge to the Union to set out a practical course of engagement for resolving the crisis, which might as such have wider implications for Europe. It is high time to do more for Ukraine. Tangible progress has been made since the Orange Revolution, but may be wasted if it is not further pursued. Let us support Ukraine in its European choice.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, we too are worried about the ongoing political instability in Ukraine. The situation that has arisen out of a conflict between the President and parliament is not doing the country any favours, and will undoubtedly affect cooperation between it and the European Union. As long as the country is in a constitutional impasse, it will be difficult to hold further discussions on closer cooperation, let alone to make concrete progress.
I do not think, though, that we should be persuaded to think that this crisis could cancel out the results of the drastic events of the winter of 2005 and 2006, when the Orange Revolution brought about fundamental democratisation of Ukraine, so that it is today a considerably different country from what it was before that, and the European Union has played a major, helpful role in this. At the same time, though, it has to be said that this Orange Revolution has not managed to bridge the huge divisions in Ukraine, and there is as yet no consensus on the course that the country should take. The current conflict is an expression of discord within it. It also reflects the apparent failure, at any time, to strike a balance between the role of the different political players, the power of the different institutions and the varying views of the country's future.
It is not in the first instance up to us to choose sides now. At this moment in time, the case is already before the Constitutional Court in Kiev, and at this moment in time, I cannot see any really good reason to doubt its ability to pronounce a correct verdict about the right institutional balance, for it has proven before that it can act independently. The lion's share of the responsibility, however, lies with the political players and the political class.
Without a compromise on their part, a constitutional solution will not work either, so they will have to do everything in their power to invest in a compromise that brings the groups closer together rather than driving them further apart. This is where the European players can, and indeed must, play a mediating role, and I welcome the comment Mr Gloser made in this connection.
It is in our interest too, because muddling along as they currently are not only produces losers in Ukraine, it also turns the EU into a loser, because we can only play our role there with some difficulty. The challenge is now to overcome internal inconsistencies, so that they can carry on with the reforms needed to forge closer ties with the EU, and to flesh out Ukraine's own ambition of becoming a Member State of the European Union. This is the only credible basis on which the ambition that all political parties have in common can be achieved.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (HU) The Ukraine is a strategically important partner of the European Union. We have a fundamental interest in the Ukraine being a stable and democratic country with a functioning market economy. This is why we supported and followed with great hope the events of the Orange Revolution. Unfortunately, the period since then has proven that the country's democratic, social and economic transformation is much more complex and contradictory than we had hoped. The current crisis is another sign that this is the case. The crisis in the Ukraine is fundamentally a matter of internal politics, and therefore the solution will have to be found within the Ukrainian internal political sphere, by Ukrainian politicians, through peaceful negotiations.
We can help in this by our active neutrality. We are neutral with regard to the parties to the debate, but not with regard to the outcome of the debate. For it is in our interest that ultimately the Ukraine be a stable, democratic state governed by the rule of law and nurturing close relations with Europe.
We cannot expect much from the Ukrainian Constitutional Court by way of providing a solution to the conflict, since it is itself a part of the problem. The greatest responsibility therefore rests on the internal political forces within the Ukraine and on the country's politicians. At the moment there are discussions between the European Union and the Ukraine with a view to closer collaboration. These discussions are moving along smoothly.
Our interests are that these discussions meet with success as soon as possible, but the leaders of the Ukraine have to understand that ties between their country and the European Union will only be strong if the Ukraine finds its way back to the path from which the recent crisis has diverted it. Therefore we emphasise that a solution to the internal crisis has to be found as quickly as possible by means of peaceful negotiations, and that we are happy to be of assistance in seeking such a solution. We will assist any process that leads to the consolidation of a democratic Ukraine.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (LV) Thank you, Mr President. The development of events in Ukraine is of particular interest to the European Parliament, and not only because Ukraine is a state neighbouring Europe. Although Ukraine, at least in the near future, is not regarded as an applicant country to the European Union, nonetheless the successful development of democratic processes and the growing economic potential of the country in the medium term does not rule out such a possibility. The development of democratic processes in Ukraine, its integration into the world economy and the multi-faceted development of relations with the European Union created strong foundations for steering the country's internal political contradictions towards constructive solutions and for uniting Ukrainian society. The current political crisis is a touchstone for the degree of development of democracy in Ukraine and its resolution will determine the direction of the country's future development. The European Union must encourage the movement of Ukraine's warring political factions in the direction of compromise. Political rivals need to be able to reach an agreement on eliminating shortcomings in constitutional reform, in order for these reforms to be directed towards preserving the balance between institutions of the national government and in order to ensure the stability of the state's political system. Solutions to the political crisis should be based on democratic methods, including early elections, which would give the Ukrainian people the final word in the resolution of the political crisis. Thank you.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, if you want to judge how far Ukraine has progressed in becoming a democracy, all you have to do these days is to look at Moscow and Kiev both at the same time; a comparison between them shows that light years separate the two in terms of respect for democracy, and that, confusion and disorder notwithstanding, it is in a much more stable state in Kiev than one could have hoped three or four years ago.
It is because Europe - as everyone who has spoken so far has said - has such a great interest in Ukraine's development as a stable democracy that I do not want to take a neutral view of President Yushchenko's decision; I think he is right in his political reasoning behind the calling of new elections. If a political force such as the Party of Regions announces its desire to unite under its banner three hundred votes in the Ukrainian Parliament, then the President is perfectly entitled to declare that they, if they want that sort of majority, will have to seek it through the ballot box.
I believe that these elections are necessary, that President Yushchenko was right to bring political matters to a head, and that this is in Europe's interests too, but, when these new elections are actually held, all the parties must accept their outcome and do much more to make the constitutional reforms, which have been promised for so long and put on the back burner, actually happen.
Something I would like to add for the benefit of the Members from Poland, since Warsaw is Ukraine's principal advocate in the EU, is that Warsaw, where Ukraine is concerned, really is being very continental, very European, in its approach, and I wish that our Polish Members - with whom I share many points of agreement - would show evidence of this European approach, this continental thinking in other matters of dispute, for that would make it possible for us, once more, to pursue a good Eastern policy, not only in Ukraine, but also in other countries to the East of us.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, if the president of a state is to dissolve its parliament, it goes without saying that he has to do that in accordance with the rules laid down in that state's constitution, and, just as President Yushchenko is perfectly entitled to do that under Article 90 of the Ukrainian constitution, which lays down in clear and precise terms the conditions under which a parliament can be dissolved, in the same way, the parliament itself has the right to appeal to the Constitutional Court and say that it takes a different view, that this article is not being applied consistently with the text of the constitution. That is why democratic societies have the separation of the powers, which guarantees that, at the end of the day, it is the judicial power that determines how the text is to be interpreted. That is, then, in the first instance, a legal opinion rather than a political one.
By the same token, any member of parliament is perfectly entitled to pass moral judgment on whether or not it is a good thing when members change sides, and I would like to remind you that groups in this House, too, have been formed and reformed, that members of it have left one group and joined another; such a thing is perfectly normal in many countries within the European Union.
Members of the Ukrainian parliament do not take instructions directly from those who elect them, and, for as long as that is the case, they can be required to take moral responsibility, but cannot be pursued in the courts.
Mrs Harms is right; there is a very considerable difference between Moscow and Kiev, and I would ask her to call to mind how the late Boris Yeltsin, when he was the Russian President, had troops fire on the Russian Parliament for not doing what he wanted it to do. That sort of thing is not happening in Ukraine, where there are democratic forces to prevent it, and a good job too!
What I find intermittently disturbing in this debate is that we are in too much of a hurry to pigeon-hole the rival parties, making the assumption that President Yushchenko is the one the European Union can do business with, that the Prime Minister, Mr Yanukovych, is Russia's protégé and represents Russian interests, that it is obvious that the two are of different nationalities, the one being Ukrainian and the other Russian. The fact is, though, that they are both Ukrainian citizens and both of them represent that country's interests; that they differ in their ideas as to how they should go about that is perfectly normal and is regarded as such in every Member State of the European Union.
I think, then, that there are four things we have to do. Firstly, we have to ask that the decision from the Constitutional Court be forthcoming in the immediate future. Secondly, we should be thinking and talking about the possibility of sending a delegation to Ukraine. Thirdly, it might also be possible to invite all the groups in the Verkhovna Rada to come here and have a debate. Fourthly, we could also invite the sparring protagonists to come here on the same day in order to debate the matter together; we do not want to have Mr Yanukovych coming here on one day, with Mrs Timoshenko arriving on the next, and Mr Yushchenko turning up the day after that, when what we want instead is a joint debate.
(The President cut off the speaker.)
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, as I see it, the future of the European Union and that of Ukraine are politically intertwined. The EU of the 27 will need to nail its colours to the constitutional mast about its geographical scope and its external borders, which should, in principle, extend to include a European country such as Ukraine.
This clarity would also open up Ukraine's European future prospects, which is undoubtedly a huge incentive for the Ukrainian reform forces, and in fact, an honest choice for all Ukrainian citizens.
Given the general political crisis situation in which Ukraine is currently embroiled, all this still seems far removed from reality. Kiev's discord, however, requires at this stage a powerful and creative contribution from Brussels within the framework of European neighbourhood policy. For the sake of sustainable stability along our own eastern border, the Council and Commission cannot afford to wash their hands of the Ukrainian crisis. How would you reconcile these strategic interests of the Union with a beckoning prospect for Ukraine?
Mr President, I was privileged to observe the 2006 Ukrainian Parliamentary election, which was held in exemplary fashion. Regrettably, the outcome then produced neither a stable government nor a climate of financial probity amongst many of the Verkhovna Rada MPs, who had little interest in politics and really only a vested interest to protect their business interests or avoid prosecution by acquiring parliamentary immunity. I was therefore not surprised to hear the allegations that MPs were being bribed large sums to cross the floor in an attempt by the governing coalition to achieve the magical 300 seats, or constitutional majority, required to finally strip President Yushchenko of his remaining powers.
I personally have always championed Ukraine's intrinsic right under Article 49 of the Treaty to apply for EU membership. That is still some way off, given enlargement fatigue and the fear by some Member States of offending Russia. Nevertheless, I believe the Council missed a trick in not granting Ukraine, in the heady days of the Orange Revolution, the same status as western Balkan countries like Albania of being called a potential candidate for eventual EU accession. This would have been a great carrot to Westernising democratic reformist forces. It is very regretful that this did not happen.
I believe Ukraine will come through this most recent constitutional crisis without violence and fully respect European norms of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. I strongly condemn the alleged attempts to intimidate the Constitutional Court judges in their legal deliberations over the legitimacy of President Yushchenko's dissolution of the Verkhovna Rada. In the meantime, I welcome EU plans for a free-trade and visa-facilitated travel area after Ukraine joins the WTO. Ideally, in 2008 the expiring PCA should be replaced by an association agreement. Either way, Ukrainians must be brought closer to the European Union, where they rightfully belong. It is clear to me that the enduring legacy of the Orange Revolution, namely a free press and democratic elections, remains intact.
Mr President, the essence of the crisis in Ukraine lies in the difference between the views of the political players regarding the check and balance mechanisms and separation of powers. The crisis is fuelled by weaknesses in the interinstitutional equilibrium and how state institutions function.
The European Union should play its part and assume responsibility, since it did not do much to prevent the democratic deficit or the fragility of democracy which led to this crisis.
The good news is that parties now seem to be negotiating and there is a prospect of compromise. We should not take sides. It is wrong to view the Ukrainian people as being pro-Western or otherwise. I think that we ought to assess them not by their rhetoric but by their deeds, in accordance with our values.
At the same time, we should at all costs avoid personal initiatives which could be misleading or be misused. Likewise, we must avoid approaching the situation in Ukraine with national agendas in mind, and avoid competition within the European Union or Parliament which would be counterproductive.
On the other hand, we should not be indifferent to certain values. As I mentioned, we have particular values which we are entitled to put forward when approaching this crisis.
We have to encourage all players to show a spirit of compromise, respect for the rule of law and democracy. We should also ask them to accept the Constitutional Court's decisions, even if it is not yet fully functional.
We have to encourage them to negotiate a package of constitutional modifications and improvements, preferably to be agreed before the Constitutional Court issues its decision.
Parliament's delegation for relations between the European Union and Ukraine is in permanent contact with those concerned and is prepared to help. We made it clear that the outcome will be a test of Ukraine's ability to cooperate with the European Union and integrate with our structures.
We have also stated that one should not sacrifice the rule of law for the sake of a better institutional equilibrium or vice versa. On the other hand, we should look at ourselves. Do we have a clear vision of the future status of relations between the European Union and Ukraine? Do we really know what kind of state Ukraine should be? Did we express our expectations clearly enough? Do we have a strategy on how we ought to promote cooperation between Ukraine and the European Union? Do we have a plan on how we could draw Ukraine and its Euro-sceptics towards us? Are we interactive, not just reactive? I am afraid the answer to many of these questions could be 'no'.
If we do not change the approach, I am afraid that the prospects are dubious, to say the least.
- (PL) Mr President, the European Parliament committed itself closely to Ukraine during the Orange Revolution. We were greatly moved by the call from Kiev's Independence Square for respect for human dignity, for a democratic country based on rule of law, for a country free of financial and political corruption. It was the Ukraine we had all been waiting for.
From the platform of this House I now appeal to both sides of the conflict in Ukraine - president Yushchenko and Yulia Timoshenko, both symbols of the Orange Revolution, and to premier Yanukovich, representative of the ruling coalition - to resolve this crisis through negotiation.
Compromise is something that is greatly prized in the EU, it is a value which has repeatedly proved its worth in avoiding conflict. It is good that today both sides have sat down at the negotiating table. We hope that the negotiations will end soon, and with success. Here in the European Parliament, we would like to continue to have the grounds and the conviction for declaring that we are open to the European aspirations of the Ukrainians.
(PL) Mr President, three years ago we rightly supported democratic change in Ukraine. Today Ukraine has media freedom and more efficient democratic institutions. It is now up to the Ukrainians themselves to decide where their country will go next, and how to resolve democratic stresses and crises. But that does not mean that we should just sit idly by. By supporting the changes in Ukraine, we took on certain moral obligations, and it is our job to maintain good relations with the country.
So firstly, we must begin serious negotiations with Ukraine on closer energy cooperation. This will help us secure supplies of oil and gas to the EU via Ukraine and independently of Russia.
Secondly, some active investment is needed in Ukraine, above all in oil and gas pipelines which have been short of funding or which are incomplete.
Thirdly, we need an EU diplomatic offensive among the Caspian states which are potential suppliers of oil and gas to the EU via Ukraine.
Fourthly and most importantly, we must conduct an open-door policy to Ukraine and treat it as our closest strategic partner and a future EU member. This will be a way of providing true support for an independent, stable and democratic Ukraine with a free market. It is up to us, and it is our duty to make it work.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we agree on many points where the assessment of the situation in Ukraine is concerned, and I agree with the many of you who have said, in the course of this debate, that it is now the people in positions of political power who must have their say, that it is they who have to take the decisions, that they must do so with respect for the institutions now established in that country - of which the Constitutional Court is one - and that they must not be put under pressure when they do so.
It is not appropriate, at the present time, that the European Union should play some sort of mediating role; on the contrary, this is, in the first instance, an internal issue in which the persons responsible - the state's President and Prime Minister - must reach some sort of accommodation with one another and find a way out of the crisis. On the other hand, however - and Commissioner Špidla made this perfectly clear - the European Union has itself shown that the way to closer cooperation is through the commencement of negotiations and that Ukraine has the choice of many courses of action as it pursues its economic and political development. It is that way that we should make our own over the coming weeks.
As I have mentioned, Mr Solana is in close contact with both groups, and it is important that we should not keep our distance, but should instead, so to speak, maintain a neutral attitude as regards what others have to do in Ukraine.
I do hope, though, that the people of Ukraine will find the prospect that the European Union has held out to them acceptable. I am put in an optimistic frame of mind when I note that neither political camp has lost sight of the road that leads to Europe and that that is something on which they agree.
Madam President, honourable Members, the Commission fundamentally agrees with the assessment your House has given of the current political crisis and welcomes the prudent approach it has so far adopted to the present situation. For our own part, we will keep an eye on the further progress of the crisis and play our part by encouraging those in positions of responsibility in Ukraine to see long-term political compromise in the interests of their country.
As has already been emphasised, the Commission continues to give firm backing to negotiations on the newly-extended agreement and sees Ukraine as one of our key partners, to which we are wholeheartedly committed. We will follow with interest the ongoing debate in your House on Ukraine and now look forward to the final version of the Kamiński report.
The debate is closed.


2. Classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (amendment of Directives 76/768/EEC, 88/378/EEC, 1999/13/EC, 2000/53/EC, 2002/96/EC and 2004/42/EC) (


Democracy, Human Rights and the new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement EU/Vietnam (debate)
The next item is the debate on:
the oral question to the Council by Marco Cappato, on behalf of the ALDE Group, on Democracy, human rights and the new EU-Vietnam Partnership and Cooperation Agreement - B6-0473/2008), and
the oral question to the Commission by Marco Pannella, on behalf of the ALDE Group, on Democracy, human rights and the new EU-Vietnam Partnership and Cooperation Agreement - B6-0474/2008).
author. - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, negotiations are taking place on the new cooperation agreement with Vietnam and I believe it is important for Parliament to be informed about the substance of the negotiations, particularly with regard to respect for human rights and democracy.
We do not claim that by means of cooperation agreements we can, with a click of the fingers, miraculously achieve respect for democracy and human rights in Vietnam or elsewhere. What our European law requires us to do, however, is to refuse to accept serious, systematic infringements of human rights and democracy. We know that we do not have huge resources with which to impose this respect; we know, however, that the renegotiation of cooperation agreements can provide a good opportunity to make at least some progress on the most serious and most systematic infringements.
I hope that in the resolution that will be adopted tomorrow this Parliament can put to the Commission and the Council some especially serious points, which were also brought up at the hearing held by Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights, with figures such as Kok Ksor, Vo Van Ai and members of the non-violent radical party, among others.
Firstly, the situation of the Degar minority, who are Christians in Vietnam's central highlands: they are still being arrested in their hundreds and there is still no free access to the central highlands of Vietnam for international observers, particularly for the United Nations. Now that Vietnam is in the United Nations Security Council, this should not be happening any more: the hundreds of political prisoners currently being held must be freed.
There is a huge problem regarding religious freedom, and Vietnam must give a response on this before a new agreement is signed, particularly the failure to recognise the Unified Buddhist Church. Thich Quang Do, the leader of the church, is still being held under arrest, and the land belonging to the Catholics is still confiscated. It is time for Vietnam to repeal the laws criminalising dissent and religious activities.
Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, our request is therefore a specific one: can we ensure that these problems, at least these serious infringements of human rights, are resolved before a new cooperation agreement is entered into?
President-in-Office of the Council. -(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Cappato, I am pleased to be back here among you today.
We are following the human rights situation in Vietnam very closely, and the Presidency has just recently had the opportunity to express concern once again following the sentences handed down in particular to two journalists who had written reports on corruption cases. The Council and the Commission maintain regular dialogue with Vietnam on the subject of human rights, in talks held twice a year. The last meeting, held in Hanoi on 10 June 2008, allowed us to address, on the one hand, the general human rights situation in Vietnam, and, in particular, freedom of expression, the situation of minorities and the application of the death penalty, as well as a number of individual cases.
In addition to this dialogue, a number of more selective measures are taken with regard to individual cases, where arrests or sentences appear to us to undermine respect for civil liberties and international commitments and, in particular, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been ratified by Vietnam.
Moreover, on the occasion of the European Day against the death penalty, on 10 October, we once again explained our very clear position on this subject to the Vietnamese authorities. They seemed receptive to our message, and brought up the reform of the penal code currently under way, a reform that is expected to reduce the number of crimes subject to the death penalty. That is the very least they could do.
Ladies and gentlemen, as you can clearly see, the human rights issue is an important element of our relations with Vietnam. It is a sensitive issue. Mr Cappato, you mentioned the situation of Christians in Central Vietnam, a matter to which we are particularly attentive, and I thank you for having mentioned it. I would like to point out that the European Union is the only power to pursue such a global and purposeful policy on this matter, and this at times makes us a target for criticism by our partner. I wish to be clear about this, however: we will pursue this policy with determination.
I wish to turn now to the future Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, the debate on which is under way. A new session of talks is currently under way in Hanoi, and will continue until 22 October. Like any agreement concluded by the European Union with a third country, this agreement must contain a very important clause on human rights. This clause will constitute an essential element of the future agreement, which may be suspended or even revoked if one of the parties fails to respect it - I want to insist on this point. At this stage in the negotiations, Vietnam has not challenged the principle of such a clause. Once again, that is the least it can do. This is a positive sign by Vietnam and a practical commitment on its part to respect human rights. The European Union will thus have at its disposal a powerful legal instrument to guarantee respect for human rights as soon as the agreement has been ratified.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Cappato, we agree with you that the human rights situation in Vietnam needs to be improved. We consider that the actions we have been taking for several years now are helping to improve it, but, beyond that, it is in our view the signing of a future Partnership and Cooperation Agreement that will enable us, in this case as in others, to use the human rights clause to provide the best possible framework for addressing this issue with Vietnam. Naturally, this House will be kept fully informed of the development of the negotiations which, I would remind you, are under way.
Mr President, please forgive me for having disrupted proceedings by listening for a moment to some of your Members.
Commissioner, you are not to blame if Members come and distract you with something irrelevant, in a clear lack of solidarity with the Member who is speaking at the time. You are therefore forgiven and it is the Members who must take into account that, when one of us is speaking, they should not distract the President-in-Office of the Council or whoever is speaking on behalf of the Commission. Please continue.
Member of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen of the Council, and, of course, ladies and gentlemen of this House, Mr Cappato, the Commission is very pleased with the attention paid by Parliament to the negotiation of a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Vietnam, as well as to the human rights situation in that country.
Our debate is most timely, since, on this very day, as our President has mentioned, talks are being held in Hanoi to negotiate this agreement. I can tell you that the human rights situation is an absolutely crucial concern of the European Union in its relations with Vietnam. It is true that that country is, in spite of everything, making a certain amount of progress in this area. I am thinking in particular of the recent efforts to reduce the scope of the death penalty, to establish, for example, a legislative framework setting out the conditions for the exercise of religious freedom, and to better manage the issue of ethnic minorities who had fled to Cambodia and who are now returning to Vietnam.
Nevertheless - and you are right in this regard - it is clear that, in recent months, some worrying trends have unfortunately developed with regard, in particular, to religious freedom and to freedom of expression. These trends are illustrated more specifically by the harassment of the Catholic community in Hanoi and by the sentencing, last week, of journalists for their investigation into corruption.
As I said to the Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Khiêm, when he was in Brussels very recently, on 17 September, it would be disastrous for the long-term stability of Vietnam and for its international credibility if the current economic and social difficulties in that country led to its instinctively regressing to authoritarianism and repression.
Now more than ever, Vietnam must, on the contrary, establish mechanisms intended to allow peaceful expression of the tensions and social frustrations being felt in that country. This is a message that President Barroso will also repeat this week when he meets Prime Minister Dung on the fringe of the ASEM Summit in Beijing. This will be the European Union's message during the next session of the EU-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue, which will also take place in Hanoi, in December. The draft Partnership and Cooperation Agreement proposed by the EU to Vietnam confirms and increases the importance that we attach to human rights in our relations with this country.
Indeed, the current draft agreement, as our President said, includes a vital, suspensive clause on human rights; consolidates the regular EU-Vietnam dialogue on human rights by conferring a legal status on it; and makes provision to help Vietnam equip itself with a national action plan on human rights. It includes a whole series of detailed provisions on compliance with labour law, good governance and the promotion of the rule of law. It also contains a clause on the International Criminal Court. This agreement is thus a legal instrument and a lever for political action that I believe we need in order to increase our involvement in the areas of human rights and democratisation.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I have to say - and rather sadly - that I remain sceptical as to whether the human rights clause within the EU-Vietnam cooperation agreement is really worth the paper it is written on.
The noble intentions contained within it are a reflection, understandably, of our common European values, but I believe it is little more than window-dressing and an understandable concession to the powerful human rights lobby within the Union. After all, China is now the EU's second-largest trading partner, yet the Communist dictatorship in Beijing pays no attention to our concern about human rights. Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether it is even worth raising the issue any more.
The political repression and human rights violations in China tend to distract us from what is going on in neighbouring Vietnam, where things are every bit as brutal. Pro-democracy dissidents and religious minorities are imprisoned, journalists are intimidated into silence, and the liberties we take for granted here in Europe, such as an uncensored internet, simply do not exist.
That is why I proposed last year, with Mr Cappato and others, that Thich Quang Do should be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize. This brave Buddhist monk has suffered years of harassment and jail in his quest for religious freedom and human rights.
Vietnam encapsulates the dilemma facing the European Union. How much should human rights matter in our commercial relationships with third countries when they are formally written into trade agreements and partnership agreements? And can stronger economic ties alone be a positive force for political and human rights and democracy reforms?
These are tough questions which the new Commissioner from Britain for trade, Baroness Ashton, will have to grapple with. I believe our common values to be non-negotiable. Therefore, I urge the Commission and Council either to be honest and scrap this pretence by abolishing these human rights and democracy clauses, or genuinely and sincerely to hold third countries to account for their wanton abuse of values that we all hold sacrosanct. I pay a very special tribute to Mr Cappato and all the fine work he has done in this respect.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we in Europe have a deep understanding of, a lively interest in and a great affinity for the people of Vietnam. My group still remembers all too well the terrible suffering and devastation caused by the wars and occupations in Vietnam, not only by the United States but also by European countries.
Vietnam is now developing in a particularly dynamic and exciting region in South-East Asia. The 10 Member States of ASEAN are not all democracies as we in Europe understand the term, but things are changing. The new ASEAN Charter shows specifically that violations of human rights cannot be ignored, Mr Tannock, and the negotiations leading up to it prove that violations of human rights are very much on the agenda.
Now is a particularly good time because the negotiations have been re-opened; the cooperation agreement of 1995 is being renegotiated. It is true that, after China, the European Union is Vietnam's second-largest trading partner, and it is for precisely that reason that we will be able to make progress. Partnership agreements are certainly not pointless.
The Socialist Group in the European Parliament calls on the Commission to work to ensure that the freedom of the press, freedoms for minorities and activists for democracy, freedom of religion and, of course, the freedom of UN observers to operate are guaranteed. Then we will be able to develop an even closer friendship with this beautiful country.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (EL) Mr President, we understand perfectly that imperialism and its representatives, the European Union and the United States of America and all those who support them, are unlikely to forget Vietnam, because it was a global symbol: its people beat both French and American imperialism and won their independence.
The identical resolutions proposed today are unacceptable and call on Vietnam to comply with the suggestions of the European Union. What you failed to achieve with weapons you are now trying to achieve with economic blackmail. That is the point of the clauses which you have adopted about so-called respect for human rights and democracy.
Since you have raised the question of human rights, I ask all of you, including Mr Cappato, to answer us: there are tens of thousands of people in Vietnam suffering from agent orange, an inhumane chemical and biological weapon used by the United States of America. There are thousands of mutant births, deaths from cancer and entire areas laid waste from the use of this weapon, which was manufactured by the well-known company Monsanto.
Do these people, who are still suffering and dying, not have human rights, including the supreme human right, the right to life? Why then do you not support the demand by the Vietnam Government and the victims for compensation and for the consequences of this forbidden biochemical war to be addressed, but you do support presumed human rights for the return of ecclesiastical property which belongs to the people?
That is why it is hypocritical to cite human rights. Only the people of Vietnam have the authority to resolve their problems, not the people who, in the final analysis, should have apologised to them for murdering one million people in the war which they unleashed against them. What is needed is balanced, mutual, beneficial economic cooperation without political and economic blackmail.
Mr President, despite the past protestations from the Vietnamese Government that they guarantee religious freedom, and despite the best efforts of the last speaker to whitewash the regime in Vietnam, the reality is very different, particularly for isolated Christian groups. While confiscation of church property has been rife, those linked to unregistered evangelical house churches have been particular targets for state persecution. Just months ago, a young tribal man who refused to repudiate his Christian faith died from injuries inflicted under official interrogation; hundreds remain in prison for their faith where ill-treatment is rampant. I salute their courage, I condemn their persecutors, but above all I appeal to this EU not to put improving relations with Vietnam and trade above defending and demanding basic human rights for these human beings of very great faith. We must not, for the sake of trade or other short-term gain, sanitise the outrageous human rights record of Hanoi.
(DE) Mr President, Vietnam is a country that is becoming increasingly open to the European Union, but it has one serious stumbling block, and that is human rights and the fundamental freedoms. In this connection, I should like to turn our attention in particular to religious freedom, just as this resolution, thankfully, also does. Christians in Vietnam are persecuted, and the Bishop of Augsburg, who is particularly concerned with persecuted Christians, is here today to talk with us on the subject. Moreover, Buddhists and other religious groups are also hindered and persecuted in the practice of their religion.
We can make it quite clear that it is our duty to work to ensure that Vietnam becomes an equal partner, that it opens up, and that it draws nearer to us. This must not, however, be at the expense of fundamental human rights, but must be based on a fair partnership founded on fundamental human rights.
Mr President, our resolution today does not simply raise our concerns over freedom of expression, repression of dissent and religious discrimination in Vietnam. It calls on the European Union to account for what is being achieved through our human rights dialogue and to set clear benchmarks for improvement in moving towards a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Vietnam.
We can never accept that when a journalist uncovers evidence of embezzlement of USD 750 000 within the Transport Ministry, in part used to wage bets on English Premiership football matches, that journalist should find himself in jail.
We can never accept the use of the death penalty for 29 different offences, for us not one offence. Executions, we are told, take place at 4 a.m., without warning, which means that prisoners never sleep before six o'clock in the morning for fear that their time has come.
And we can never accept threats and intimidation against the Catholic Church such as that which followed the peaceful mass protests in Hanoi last month. Amnesty International recorded one woman leaving church to find a gang shouting 'Kill the archbishop' and 'Kill the priests'
Vietnam has been a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since 1982. The current evidence presents a clear breach of Articles 2 and 18. What is more, in July Vietnam took charge of the presidency of the UN Security Council. We call on European negotiators to make clear to the Vietnamese Government that any aspiration to uphold international law in international institutions has to be matched by respect for it at home.
(PL) I think that from the list of human rights infringements in Vietnam it is necessary to highlight state violence towards Catholics. The government in Hanoi unilaterally controls the Catholic Church's assets, in contravention of prior undertakings. Catholics who oppose the seizure of buildings in Hanoi belonging to the Apostolic Nuncia are attacked by hit squads. The number of prisoners of conscience is growing. Recently, there were further arrests in the grounds of the Redemptorist monastery in Thai Ha. The Archbishop of Hanoi, Quang Kiêt, is under house arrest and remains under surveillance, living in fear for his life. Although Vietnam has, relatively speaking, opened up in economic and social terms, it has become a country where Christians are increasingly persecuted. The new agreement between the European Union and Vietnam must address the issue of religious freedom in that country. Otherwise, it should not be signed.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say to Mr Pafilis that the war in Vietnam today is the war being carried on by the Vietnam regime against its own people, the Vietnamese people, the Khmer Krom people and the Degard people.
There will be a human rights clause in the new agreement. That is a good thing, but there is already a clause in the current agreement, and we are not managing to make sure it is abided by. So our request, which I believe is very important, is that before a new agreement is signed we obtain concessions on fundamental aspects where a systematic violation of human rights is taking place: access to Vietnam's central highlands, the release of the political prisoners and recognition of the Buddhist Church and the property of the Catholics, because if we do not achieve something before the agreement is signed, it will be impossible to subsequently demand respect for European and international law after the agreement has been signed.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Cappato, I believe, on the one hand, that we should not confuse what it means to have been a victim of imperialism with knowing, today, what it means to respect human rights. For my part, I would not compare victims of biochemical weapons with those who are victims of attacks on religious freedoms. All this forms a single, absolutely indivisible, whole.
To respond to Mr Tannock, but also to some extent to Mr Cappato, we should not underestimate the value of the suspensive clause where human rights are concerned. We have only to consider the difficulty in concluding other agreements that are often negotiated for nearly 20 years with other groups of States - I am thinking of the Gulf States here. We have only to consider, too, the role played by this clause with regard to certain countries within the framework of the Cotonou Agreement. This shows that the European Union is taken seriously in its concern to promote human rights in these agreements.
As regards the additional concessions requested by Mr Cappato, it is precisely the negotiations conducted by the Commission that must make it possible to see - and the Commissioner has emphasised this point - whether progress has been made by the Vietnamese authorities in this area. Such progress will be assessed as a whole. Once again, I believe that it is through dialogue that we are going to see progress made in these countries' relations with the European Union, and it is through such agreements and such clauses that the Union is best able to promote the values that you and we, Mr Cappato and others in this Chamber, clearly hold dear.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I think it is very clear that we all want to address the question of human rights whenever and wherever possible. As I said, I just did so a few weeks ago, and I did so when I went there two years ago. I remember then I was also able to obtain the liberation of a few prisoners, so there is indeed a possibility. What we also do is provide lists to them and say here, here and here, something has to be done.
I think this was therefore an important debate because it has re-focused our ideas on the particular issue of religious communities and, in this specific case, of Christians and Catholics. We have to focus very clearly on these questions, but at the same time I would also like to say that we know that Vietnam is also now facing a difficult economic and social situation, so, if Vietnam is not careful, investment will not come from foreign countries, particularly European countries. This is also a very good instrument that we have in addition to mere dialogue.
For instance, we will certainly ask for a gesture of clemency on the part of the Vietnamese authorities in favour of the two journalists who were recently imprisoned and have been judged in Hanoi for having used their freedom of expression. That is something that we will clearly also mention again.
Finally, I would like to say that Vietnam will next time be subject to a periodical, universal review of its human rights situation in Geneva, and that will be another excellent occasion to very clearly mark the questions and see what has been done so far.
The debate is closed.
I have received four motions for resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday.


6. Capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)
- Report: Pervenche Berès