One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
The next item is one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.
- (SL) Allow me, first of all, to extend a warm welcome to Romania and Bulgaria on their entry to the European Union. I would, however, like to mention one of the conditions for the accession of Bulgaria to the European Union, namely the closure of the Kozloduj nuclear power plant. Despite the modernised safety system and the positive safety assessment by the relevant European institutions, Bulgaria must close reactors 3 and 4 by the end of 2006.
Bulgaria exports electricity to all its neighbouring countries, and numerous Members of this House have repeatedly drawn attention to the enormous social, economic and environmental damage that would be caused, and to the problems that would ensue, in the form of an increased dependence on imports and of problems in obtaining a reliable energy supply, should both reactors be closed. Given the nature of the problem, I hope that the Council will react flexibly and make arrangements with the Bulgarian Government to defer the closure of both reactors. At a time when we have been placing so much emphasis on the importance of competitiveness, safety and a sustainable energy supply, calls for the closure of Kozloduj are downright ridiculous.
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some members of the World Trade Organization do not comply with fundamental social standards and use the violation of social rights to compete unfairly and to distort the rules of competition. Besides the European Communication on promoting decent work for all, how is the Union using its influence in the WTO to ensure respect for the fundamental rights of workers in member countries?
There are 200 million children in paid employment in the world, 12 million people perform forced labour, more than two million employees die every year from the consequences of accidents at work or of occupational diseases, and 145 trade unionists were assassinated last year. In the light of these facts, it is not surprising that globalisation frightens our fellow citizens.
Declaring good intentions is laudable, but it is not enough. The time has come to penalise all countries that benefit from the opening of markets but refuse to comply with the International Labour Conventions. Europe must organise itself and use its collective influence in the WTO to ensure that the requirements of the International Labour Organization are respected.
(LT) The European Parliament often discusses issues that are topical to all countries as well as issues that are only of interest to representatives of certain countries. However, the European Parliament Press Service does not reflect this distinction, and the national press services attached to the European Parliament (like Lithuania's for example) state that they cannot designate issues in their summaries as priority issues if they have not been designated as such for the European Parliament Press Service. Therefore, matters of importance to Lithuania, such as the Baltic Sea Strategy or relations with Russia, are not reflected in the Lithuanian press reports. They are relegated to secondary importance. I strongly request that the European Parliament Bureau looks into the activities of the European Parliament Press Service to ensure that attention is given not only to issues of general European interest, but also to issues of interest to individual countries, whose concerns are also discussed in Parliament.
(NL) Mr President, tomorrow, this House will be voting on a proposal to liberalise the European fireworks market, something desired by nobody in Europe except the fireworks industry, which obviously has a hand in both the Commission document and the report.
There are major discrepancies in fireworks legislation in European countries. In my own country, the Netherlands, we have exercised extreme caution ever since a terrible disaster in a fireworks factory in Enschede. We are not waiting for Europe to hand down to us a harmonisation proposal preventing us from imposing our own stricter fireworks requirements.
Since I take the view that public safety should always prevail over the profits made by the fireworks industry, I shall be advising everyone to vote against this report tomorrow.
(PL) Mr President, the draft report on alleged CIA detention centres on European territory was presented yesterday by Mr Fava. In this report Poland is singled out as the only European Union Member State where such secret CIA detention centres could have been located. No evidence is provided in support of this statement. It is mere supposition.
This attempt to compromise a new Member State by accusing it of cooperating in torturing terrorists is nothing short of scandalous. One might well wonder if this is not a punishment meted out to Poland by certain Member States of the Union because of Poland's close military cooperation with the United States. It could be interpreted as an attempt to bring Poland back into line. I should like to emphasise that we are paying undue attention to these allegations instead of putting more efforts into countering the terrorist threat in Europe.
Mr President, colleagues will recall last week's exhibition in Parliament showing the multilingual attainment of the Babeş-Bolyai University in Cluj, Romania.
A wholly regrettable incident cast serious doubts over the commitment of the university to genuine multilingualism. In 2005, the university's senate passed a resolution that notices in the university should be displayed in all its three languages: Romanian, Hungarian and German. Yet attempts to introduce Hungarian language notices in the university building last week were prevented by force, and those involved were sacked by the university on Monday.
There is a far-reaching contradiction here. Either the university is indeed multilingual, meaning that it must accept the full equality of the Hungarian language, or it is not, in which case it should stop pretending that it is.
Mr President, in Ireland we are in the middle of a 16-day campaign to highlight the issue of domestic violence. It is essential that domestic violence is confronted and the proper services put in place, because domestic violence destroys millions of lives - those of women, children and sometimes men - right across Europe.
Awareness-raising is the first step. Yesterday I had the opportunity to launch an exhibition of artwork and poetry, run by the Donegal Women's Domestic Violence Service, with contributions from three local schools: St Columba's, the Vocational School and Loreto Convent in Letterkenny in north-west Ireland.
A related issue, and an important one for Ireland, is human trafficking. I call on our Taoiseach, who was here in Parliament today, to ratify immediately both the Council of Europe Convention on Trafficking in Human Beings and the United Nations Protocol on Trafficking in Persons. It has been assessed that Ireland is a transit and destination country for trafficking in women and children, and evidence suggests that organised criminal gangs are helping international traffickers establish trafficking routes in Ireland.
Mr President, I should like to pay tribute to my constituent, Mr Alexander Litvinenko. Alexander was fearless in exposing the political gangsters that now run Russia, and the creatures of the KGB and FSB that still hold political office in Europe. For his bravery, he paid the ultimate price.
In April, I made two speeches in this Parliament repeating allegations made to me by Alexander that Romano Prodi had been an agent of some kind of the KGB. Alexander told me that the key figure to understanding Mr Prodi's alleged relationship with the KGB in the 1970s was a man named Sokolov, also known as Konopkine, who worked for TASS in Italy.
Since Alexander can no longer testify to this effect, as he was ready, willing and able to do, I am pleased to provide this service for him posthumously.
(PL) Mr President, Poland would like any decision on replacing our national currency with the euro to be taken on the basis of a referendum, as was the case in Sweden.
Pursuant to the 1994 Treaty on Accession laying down the conditions for the accession of Sweden, the Swedish authorities were required to replace the Swedish krona with the euro. Nonetheless, a referendum on the issue was held in Sweden in 2003. The result was a victory for those in favour of retaining the krona, so no action was taken to introduce the euro.
The people of Poland are also entitled to a say on an issue of such vital importance for them. At present, as many as 36% of my fellow citizens consider that bringing in the euro would lead to price rises and lower living standards. They feel that introduction of the euro would amount to a political experiment with dubious benefits. We do not wish to hand Polish monetary policy over to the European Central Bank at Frankfurt.
(CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the discussion on raising consumer taxes on beer in yesterday's EU finance ministers' Council meeting does not only affect the Czech Republic. Beer and alcohol taxation should be viewed in context. We Czechs treat beer as an integral part of our national cuisine; beer has the same significance for us as fine wine does for the French. Just as many of my French-speaking colleagues would not think of having lunch without a glass of red wine, our traditional Czech lunch without a half-litre of high-quality Czech beer would, for me, be unthinkable. Yesterday's Czech veto on increasing consumer tax on beer should therefore be interpreted not only as a call for a comprehensive solution to the problem of taxation on alcoholic drinks but also as a call for all of Europe's problems to be addressed on the basis of equality.
Ladies and gentlemen, if we want to fight against the negative effects of alcohol, we should establish the same taxation arrangements for all alcoholic drinks. If we want to revive European agriculture, we should reform the common agricultural policy and support all farmers equally. If we want to fight against terrorism, we must make sure that all Member States participate equally in that fight.
(PL) Mr President, a year ago Russia imposed an embargo on certain Polish products of plant and animal origin. This was one of the reasons why Poland blocked negotiations between the European Union and Russia on a new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which was the subject of today's debate.
Poland used its veto to defend its interests. The veto was a test of European unity against Russia and an expression of a strong spirit of EU solidarity. The European Union came through that test with flying colours. It showed that it cared about the interests of individual Member States. It was unfortunate, however, that it was only after the embargo had been in place for a year that Mr Barroso, the President of the European Commission called on Russia to lift it, insisting that the ban on imports was unjustified.
The effect of the Polish veto was to put on hold discussion on a new agreement with Russia, a matter of great importance to the whole European Union. The existing agreement dates back 10 years and is no longer relevant to current problems. A new agreement is essential to developing a common trade and energy policy with Russia, which is vital for the whole European Union. We can but hope that in future, the European Commission will help in resolving such unilateral bans imposed on Member States of the European Union by third countries as a matter of urgency, and that it will not be necessary to hold up key negotiations such as these, which involve common European Union policy towards Russia.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it seems to me, on the very day when we are facing the decision to slow down the negotiations for Turkey's accession to the European Union that we are greatly mistaken in telling our public that the reason for this slowing down is the Cyprus question - the details of which are probably known to one European citizen in 1 000, or one in 10 000.
The truth is that this Europe of ours is frightened and is riding the wave of fear of those who put illegal immigration, fundamentalism and terrorism on the same plane and try to exorcise these enemies as if they were outside our frontiers. They thus use Turkey as a scapegoat. These are fears that should not be indulged. Instead they should be vanquished by a European political leadership that is capable of offering us a grand dream: a noble vision of a Europe that is secular, tolerant, modern and courageous, and thus capable of opening up so as to conquer the external enemies and above all the enemies within that cause ever-increasing worry.
(PL) Mr President, Poland's refusal to sanction the Union's negotiating mandate on talks with Russia should not be understood as action against Russia, and certainly not as opposition to negotiating a sound partnership agreement with that country.
We were forced to take that position, and we were aware that it is best to prevent matters from reaching such a stage. We would wish to avoid similar situations arising in the future. But I would appeal to the EU side, and in particular to the Council and to the Commission, and ask them to examine their consciences and review their response to this issue.
I personally approached at least three Commissioners, those responsible for trade, agriculture and food safety. I raised the matter during plenary sittings, and also at the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. I can confirm that there was a lack of cooperation between the relevant Directorates-General and Commissioners on the matter. Should similar situations arise in the future, support and joint action by all Member States will be of vital importance, in combination with the stance adopted by European Union institutions.
Mr President, hard drug abuse is a worldwide disease for which there is no significant cure. People suffering from this serious illness must get their daily drug dose irrespective of cost or danger to themselves. They will steal, prostitute themselves or kill if necessary in order to obtain their required drug. In satisfying their dependency, they are providing life support for the flourishing drug-trafficking criminals. Many will die from the consequences of their addiction; others will suffer severe complications.
Our society has been trying to deal with this problem using expensive police methods, partly due to ignorance and partly due to desperation. These methods have failed conclusively because drug addicts need the help of a doctor, not a policeman. Recently, some courageous senior police officers, including a deputy chief constable in the UK, have called for a change in tactics. They are right! Let us consider taking the brave step of beginning to treat drug abuse victims by providing them with their required drug in a controlled medical environment, free of charge, free of complications, free of police and the law and free of crime. Let us at last start treating them like patients, not criminals.
(DE) Mr President, I would like to say something about the transmission of our sittings. I think it is intolerable, when this House meets together in plenary session, as it is doing now, when we have various things to discuss, such as - as we are about to do - the Seventh Research Framework Programme, that, for those who run this place, everything is more important than having this meeting transmitted via a proper system of cameras to the Internet and then to the media by way of the relevant interfaces. I would be much obliged to you if you were to give your attention to this matter, which affects the work done in this House.
(LT) Events in the past few months in the area of European Union-Russian relations have shown that Europe is starting to recognise the reality. The strategic partner with so-called 'common values' has already been downgraded to a pragmatic partner, and it will not be long before Iran, with all of its energy resources, is also recognised as Europe's pragmatic partner. Support for terrorists will be no obstacle. We have already accepted that Russia's 'sovereign' statutes allow its agents to go around killing enemies of the regime anywhere in the world. We accept it when the Kremlin openly tells Europe that the values we cherish are artificial and warns against spreading the colonialism of European democracy. We keep silent and hope for that price to gain an Energy Charter, even though Russia has repeatedly said that it will rewrite the document in its own way and force Europeans to back down. Recently Poland tried to defend the principle of European solidarity, and the EU was displeased with that. We pushed aside the energy problem raised by the Poles and talked only about meat. Therefore, talk about a Constitutional consensus is futile while we have no consensus of solidarity in our minds and hearts, and while Russia can buy not only a gas pipeline, but also European politicians.
That concludes the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.


The factors favouring support for terrorism and the recruitment of terrorists (debate)
The next item is the report by Gérard Deprez, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, with a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the factors favouring support for terrorism and the recruitment of terrorists.
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, the report that I have the honour of presenting to you today on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has its beginnings in a proposal that was tabled at the end of 2005 by our colleague Mr Duquesne, to whom I now pay tribute.
I also wish to point out that the bulk of the work relating to this report was carried out by our colleague Mr Mayor Oreja, who for reasons that I cannot comment on here decided to withdraw his name following the vote that was held in committee.
As regards the content of the report that has been presented to Parliament, I believe that it can be summarised by structuring the numerous elements it contains around four main themes.
Theme one is the gravity and permanence of the threat. It is an undeniable fact that terrorism in general, and Jihadist terrorism in particular, is now one of the most serious threats to the security of the citizens of the European Union. The bloody attacks on Madrid in 2004 and on London in 2005, and let us also not forget all the other attempts that have been foiled since then, all testify to the permanent and serious nature of this threat. From this it follows - and the report is fairly emphatic on this point - that the fight against terrorism must remain one of the priorities of the European Union and its Member States.
However, and this is the report's second theme, this determined fight against terrorism has to be waged in a certain way. There are fundamental principles to be respected; otherwise, we shall distort the basic values that govern our societies. The fight against terrorism has to be carried out on the basis of scrupulous respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially freedom of religion and the right to a fair trial.
At the same time, and especially where Jihadist terrorism is concerned, it is important to draw a distinction between cultures and religions, on the one hand, and terrorism, on the other. The vast majority of Muslims, and here it must not be forgotten that it is they who have been the main victims of terrorism in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, have nothing whatsoever to do with the extremists; it is these groups, who distort the religion they claim to follow, that we have to combat.
Finally, setting out from the principle that hatred and frustration are two of the factors that drive radicalisation, the report reminds the Member States that combating all forms of discrimination, and in particular those measures that seek to integrate minority groups, are priority policies to be implemented in order to promote calm, tolerance and good relations in our society.
The third theme relates to the measures specifically aimed at preventing terrorist activities. While there is a long list of recommendations for Member States in this area, the report emphasises the need for greater vigilance against propaganda sites, especially via the Internet, places where preaching sessions are held and the audiovisual media in general.
The fourth theme concerns repressive measures. Here there is obviously one action that needs to be highlighted above all others, for it will certainly cause no shortage of controversy. It is presented in paragraph 10 of the report and proposes extending the scope of the definition for acts of terrorism to the justification of terrorism. Now while I am not sure whether the term 'justification' is adequate here - and personally I think that in French it would have been preferable to use the term 'praise' or 'apologia' for terrorism - and whether it would not have been better to change it, I will be interested to see how this House reacts tomorrow to this somewhat delicate point, which goes to the very heart of the debate, namely where to draw the line between security, fundamental rights and freedom of expression.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, addressing radicalisation into violence is at the core of the Commission's counter-terrorism policy, and I therefore welcome the report being discussed today and the very vital issues it tackles. I also welcome the progress in interinstitutional cooperation in the area of recognition of the enormous challenge we face in developing a coherent EU policy that prevents, interrupts or reverses radicalisation processes.
After a series of initiatives in recent years, since my first communication on the subject in September 2005, a communication will be presented to the Council and Parliament in July this year, identifying good practices in the Member States and making concrete recommendations for the way forward. I notice that the report makes a recommendation to the Commission in this regard.
We have devoted time and resources in the last three years to better understanding this phenomenon, its trends, its manifestations and its dynamics. We have commissioned four separate comparative studies which are now being completed. We have sent a questionnaire to all the Member States and are currently analysing the answers received. We have organised a conference on the role of education in preventing radicalisation, which brought together educators, religious leaders and policy-makers to brainstorm new ideas.
We are working on drafting the communication at the moment. The first three studies - on trigger factors, narrative and mobilisation tactics - are to be approved in the coming month. A fourth study on civil society engagement (best practices) is likely to be published around the time of the communication's adoption in July. Its main results will by that stage already have been incorporated into the communication. Analysis of the questionnaire sent to the Member States is ongoing and will also feed into the reflection on the communication.
We can therefore now formulate our policy with much deeper insight into the problem. Our communication will deal with important issues like the narrative used by violent radicals and radicalisation in prisons and in other places of vulnerability. We will also be talking about the role of education, and civil society engagement in countering radicalisation.
Members will be aware that, in relation to incitement, we have presented a proposal for the amendment of the Framework Decision on combating terrorism that is one part of the 'terrorism package' introduced last November. That instrument aims to introduce into the Framework Decision offences parallel to those covered in the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism: public provocation, recruitment and training for terrorism - including via the internet - and in particular internet instructions on how to produce home-made bombs.
The Commission is strongly committed to supporting the victims of terrorism. We have, since 2004, demonstrated our support through financial assistance to numerous projects intended to help associations of victims of terrorism and to promote solidarity among European citizens. We envisage creating, in 2008, a European Network of Associations of Victims of Terrorism, in order to represent victims' interests at European level and to strengthen European citizens' solidarity with victims of terrorism.
In conclusion, in order to tackle the terrorist threat at European level, it is absolutely necessary to implement a global prevention policy on the factors leading to radicalisation and recruitment, in order to explore its deep roots, while never justifying terrorist behaviour. Jihadist terrorism remains the biggest threat to democratic societies, including thousands of millions of honest Muslim people in the EU and in many other parts of the world.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is sad that we have to hold yet another debate about terrorism. Radicalisation and terrorism do not fit with Europe. The Europe which we are building is a Europe of tolerance, so it is always sad when we have to discuss this issue.
There is a great deal that unites us. Terrorism is recognised as a major threat. Recruitment must be stopped. We must respect fundamental rights. Dialogue is the key to tolerance. We must be particularly aware of the Internet, particularly its significance in communication.
In our foreign policy we view anti-terrorism as being particularly important. In Europe we need better networking of services to ensure that we can combat radicalisation and terrorism. I would particularly like to thank the Vice-President of the Commission for his suggestions here and for his summary.
For my group, therefore, it is a great pity that the outstretched hand of our own rapporteur, Mr Mayor Oreja, was not taken and that we could not reach a compromise at the end of the process. The EPP-ED therefore has a number of key points which we have defined for tomorrow's vote: for example, when there are motions for deletions which state that the violation of individual rights and the rule of law lead to terrorism; when there are motions for deletions which put school and religious centres under special surveillance; and when there are motions to delete references to Jihadist terror.
If we want to combat a threat, we need to know where the threat comes from. That is why we must identify Jihadist terror as the key challenge and state this in the report. If it is deleted, we will not be able to vote in favour of the report. We will not support any further watering-down of the report. I therefore hope that we can achieve a good result in tomorrow's vote.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank my colleagues and say immediately that we were, quite frankly, obliged to work on a report that got off to a bad start, sent out mixed messages and contained shaky proposals. I believe that the Committee on Civil Liberties did a remarkable job of restoring a meaningful, tangible political profile to this report.
The basic premise was of course shared by us all. The violent radicalisation of individuals and groups in recent years has shown up one of the greatest weaknesses in our legal system and represented one of the greatest onslaughts on our democratic institutions. It is essential to combat this phenomenon. In this sense, European Union action offers added value since it provides harmonisation, because if we pool our instruments we shall have a sum of instruments, each of which will have its own intrinsic weakness.
However, this is a new challenge which calls for well-balanced efforts without giving way to the natural human temptation - inevitable, given the attacks we have suffered in the years since 11 September - to generalise or to build a Fortress Europe, or to sideline a priority that is central to the process of EU integration, namely the safeguarding of fundamental rights.
That is why we believe it is essential to move in the three directions set out by this report. The first step is to uphold fundamental rights and the rule of law, particularly - as Mr Frattini said - religious freedom and freedom of expression. Unless these rights are guaranteed, the very idea of Europe will be a failure, as will an integration process predicated above all else on the fundamental rights of European citizens.
We need to strengthen judicial cooperation so as to strike at radical, violent, organised fringe groups. We need full harmonisation of terrorist crimes at European Union level, and that of condoning criminal activity should be added to the proposal of the Committee on Civil Liberties. Of course we also need careful prevention work: we must attack the causes and factors - which are numerous, and it is pointless to pretend otherwise - leading to the radicalisation of various population groups within our societies. This entails expanding the rights of citizenship, active citizenship, in other words a form of citizenship comprising responsibilities and participation in political life, as well as dialogue with religious movements.
As the Vice-President has said, we must also fight in favour of, and protect, the millions - tens of millions - of European citizens who profess a religion different from our own, as well as the Muslim non-Community citizens who have always lived by the rules of our democracy and complied with our laws, which makes them worthy of our full respect.
Lastly, we need to build a dialogue which genuinely represents an alliance of civilisations and not a clash of civilisations. 'Alliance of civilisations' - I am concluding now, Mr President - Is not a term we have borrowed from a political polemic; it is the term coined by the United Nations Security Council. It expresses a major responsibility and a strong commitment for this House and our communities. I believe it is vital to keep this term in tomorrow's resolution.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (ES) I feel, Mr President, that beyond its actual format the report is balanced, extremely important, and deals with an issue that is all too familiar to us nowadays.
There can be no doubt that terrorism is a policing phenomenon and we are all aware that it has a policing dimension. Nevertheless, the reasons behind terrorism, or rather the reasons that lead certain people to become terrorists, lie well beyond this. Jaime Mayor Oreja set this out in his first report, in an extremely debatable fashion at the outset, but after many meetings and many amendments he produced a result that was fully acceptable, including to his own Group.
I wish to testify before this House, as one might testify in court, that it is not true that Jaime Mayor Oreja's outstretched hand was rejected. I would testify to this under oath if it were the practice of Parliament. This is not true. The reasons why stumbling blocks are now being produced for this report are best known to the European People's Party and the Group. I can testify to meetings in Mr Mayor Oreja's office at which we accepted 99% of what is to be put to the vote tomorrow. They cannot tell us that certain items have been rejected or that the offer has been rejected, since this is purely and simply their misrepresentation of the truth.
The position to be adopted by the Partido Popular tomorrow, therefore, remains a mystery, and doubtless this will serve to weaken the joint political message we wish to convey. I therefore wish to express my regret at this attitude. I feel that to say the problem is that the word 'Jihad' must disappear in one section, when it subsequently appears in three sections, and again in recital H that Jihadism is doubtless the main focus of the type of terrorism we are dealing with, is looking for excuses that do not hold water.
In any case, this report talks of freedom, religious freedom, freedom of thought and even freedom to reject a social model, but makes it clear that Europe cannot accept incitement to violence, incitement to hatred or the destruction of the very pillars of society under the cloak of religion.
The State is entitled to instruments to be used in its own defence, instruments to defend its citizens. It may, in fact, fully implement this right in terms of the police and the judiciary, while simultaneously maintaining dialogue, participation, and working towards the full integration of people who may one day become such fanatics that they could attack their own society, the society into which they have integrated, or simply their own society, since in many cases these people were actually born among us.
It is debatable, and my Group has debated this, to what extent current legislation is or is not sufficient; concepts such as apology and justification for terrorist acts are necessary for some, while they are rejected by others as potential excessive curtailment of freedom of expression. This, then, is the position of my Group: to go no further in modifying the law and to reject the concept of apologia.
At any rate, and I am finishing up now, Mr President, I welcome this report. I hope that the European People's Party reconsiders and reflects on the support it could lend to the contents. As a guideline towards a global policy, I welcome a Commission policy whereby police forces act in close cooperation throughout Europe and measures are adopted that, beyond the polish, produce a result which respects the rights of one and all.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, paraphrasing Ernest Hemingway I would say: 'Do not ask for whom the terrorist bell tolls, it tolls for thee'. Following the attacks in Spain four years ago and those in England three years ago, this is a very relevant message. If Oriana Fallaci, a fellow-countryman of Commissioner Frattini, could read the document we are debating, she would most probably be shocked. Mrs Fallaci was a distinguished Italian intellectual renowned for being uncompromising and controversial She believed Islamic terrorists essentially represent Islam in a nutshell, and are the quintessence of Islam.
Clearly, the European Parliament may have a different view on the matter. It is worth considering, however, why Muslim terrorists are able to garner so much support amongst young people of Arab descent born in Member States of the European Union.
I fully support the statements that the war on terror will remain a priority for the European Union. It is very important for us to focus on terrorist propaganda conducted over the Internet. I would add that satellite television broadcasts in Arabic can also be used to promote radical Islam.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (EL) Mr President, time is of the essence. I must, however, tell you that I received the report favourably, as I understood that it was limited mainly to detection, on the one hand, and to suppression, on the other.
I should like to stress that we should have been concerned primarily with the recruitment of terrorists.
Next door to us, in the Middle East, there is an 'academy' that produces terrorists. Why is this? For 60 years we in Europe did not try to solve their problem, nor did we have any reason to do so.
Today a similar situation is emerging, and I am glad that I have been given the floor now, one day after the declaration of Kosovo's independence.
You know that something untoward may well happen there again. What if tomorrow the Serbs of Mitrovica put on a show of resistance or, if you prefer, disaffection? Shall we call them terrorists?
We must examine the reasons for the emergence of terrorists who are willing to attack our European system, which does not support them.
Mr President, I represent Northern Ireland in this House, a region which, as everyone will know, has suffered decades of vicious terrorism. And from that experience, I have two points to make in this debate.
Firstly, terrorism should never be appeased; it has to be defeated. Start treating with terrorism, giving its prisoners special status and, ultimately, early release, and soon you will end up like Northern Ireland has ended up: with unrepentant terrorists at the heart of our Government. Appeasement only whets the appetite - the insatiable appetite - of terrorists.
The second point I want to make is this: whereas state abuse is wrong, the naive belief, such as I find in this report, that lavishing so-called 'human rights' on terrorists will neutralise them will, in fact, only strengthen their cause as they expertly exploit and misuse every such right to their own advantage, while they go on denying their victims the most basic right of them all: the right to life.
Because of the excesses of their murderous strategy, sometimes the defence of society requires a choice between the uninhibited rights of terrorists and the rights of the innocent. In such circumstances, I have no difficulty in choosing the right of society to defend itself over the supposed human rights of the terrorist. The battle against terrorism is a battle of good against evil, and, if needs be, the right of the terrorist is secondary to that of society.
(PT) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I must start by reiterating that the unrelenting fight against terrorism must be pursued within the law, with respect for the rule of law and without infringing fundamental rights. I am not sure whether terrorism is, as the report states, the main threat to the security of the citizens of the Union, but I agree with Mr Deprez that it is definitely one of the main threats. I believe that underestimating this threat will prevent us from fighting it effectively and increasing the security of our citizens. I will therefore vote against the proposed amendments.
Terrorism does not just affect the citizens of those countries which have suffered attacks; it also threatens the security of everyone else. It spreads the fear and threat of terror. Terrorism is an irrational manifestation of fanaticism which disregards the value of life and the dignity of human beings. The Union and also Commissioner Frattini have placed the fight against terrorism at the top of their priorities. We need a global strategy that can dismantle the terrorist networks. This strategy must recognise the value of prevention, including the fight against the recruitment of terrorists and all factors favouring violent radicalisation.
It is important to analyse and understand the reasons, grounds and processes leading to radicalisation and terrorism, particularly among young people living in our Member States. There have definitely been failures in the integration processes. I agree that, within the law and with respect for the freedom of expression, the terrorist propaganda aimed at encouraging terrorist acts must be prevented.
To end, I must agree with Mr Mayor that a European initiative, particularly in this area, cannot and must not be used as a platform for the promotion of national electoral strategies.
(SV) Mr President, let me begin by thanking Mr Deprez for the report and the much needed discussion on terrorism. I also think that it has come at the right time, as we are now in the European Year for Intercultural Dialogue.
What I do not think the report conveys sufficiently well is the reason why people, mainly young men, become or are lured into becoming terrorists and place themselves outside democratic society. If we look around us, we cannot ignore the poverty that is there and injustices that are manifest. There are many young people to whom we cannot offer training, jobs, housing or hope for the future. This is a breeding ground for fanaticism and the conditioning of young people into acting to secure more rights for their group or people. An analysis of this is lacking in the report.
I urge you especially to vote for Amendment 12, since terrorist propaganda today is usually spread on the internet, something which too few of us here see or can control. It is a generation question, and we must increase and improve our knowledge of recruitment and become better at preventing it. Otherwise I support the amendments of the PSE Group.
(DE) Mr President, many thanks to Mr Deprez and Mr Guardans Cambó for their comments. I think they are very much in line with our group's position.
The report is entitled 'The factors favouring support for terrorism and the recruitment of terrorists'. Other speakers have welcomed the fact that we are talking about this issue, and they are right to do so. However, we are not discussing it for the first time. The European Parliament and the Union as a whole have talked about the preachers of hate and have taken preventive measures to cut off the flow of funds to terrorist organisations. These are certainly useful measures.
In that respect, I think that the report largely hits the right note. I think it would be slightly overstating the case to view the Internet as the root of all evil or as a safe haven. It is undoubtedly a space which reflects social trends just as much as real life does, and I do not believe that we should be focusing all our efforts on quelling it once and for all. We simply will not manage it.
The question, then, is what can we do instead? We have talked about audiovisual services, and the question which arises here is: why does the European Union not take action if certain channels are broadcasting hate programmes on EU territory that are aimed directly at children?
In one of Hezbollah's programmes, for example, a figure disguised as Mickey Mouse - in whatever form - attacks Jewish settlers. This is intended to teach small Palestinian children about their history. It is not the case that a Member State intervened to put an end to this problem. Instead, the Walt Disney company asserted its rights over Mickey Mouse, and at the end of the series, Mickey Mouse was killed off by a Jewish settler.
This was broadcast on European territory! Why is Hezbollah still not on the EU's list of terrorist organisations? We have just had an interesting discussion with Dick Marty on this issue. I believe that, in general, more building blocks are needed to curb terrorism as a whole. This must certainly include tackling the roots of terrorism in the countries concerned, for example by creating healthcare systems, infrastructure and education systems. We should not leave it to terrorist organisations like Hamas in the Gaza Strip or Hezbollah to provide these services, for these havens within society are the very places where these organisations recruit their supporters.
- (ES) Mr President, our proposal for a recommendation to the Council and the Commission today wishes to make a contribution to the efforts of the institutions and civil society to eliminate the factors encourage support for terrorism and the recruitment of terrorists.
Mr Frattini, the process to bring this to the House has been long and laborious, but there can be no doubt it will be well worth voting for the final result tomorrow. The proposal focuses on the fight against Islamist extremism, a new phenomenon within the EU that requires a certain amount of reflection and the means to oppose it.
It may, however, be easily extrapolated to any other terrorist cause that may be invoked amid patriotism and flags. We therefore wish to ask the Council to consider apologia as such as a crime in the framework decision against terrorism. It would be desirable to extend harmonisation of this crime to the 27 Member States, although always, I repeat, always, with the most scrupulous respect for freedom of expression.
Repression and prevention of radicalisation must act in parallel. If we wish to prevent radicalisation, we must provide education and integration for the 13 million Muslims living in the EU, and refrain from stigmatising this 3.5% of the population. In terms of the EU's external relations, we call for dialogue and not a clash between civilisations. It is for this reason that we refer to the 'alliance of civilisations' adopted by the UN, and we fail to understand the gut rejection of certain Members.
This is the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. We have no wish to assist in the perversion of religion: we must encourage social participation and dialogue. These are some of the achievements of the recommendation. Are its suggestions so destructive that the speaker simply could not face them?
Mr Weber, I must say that Mr Mayor Oreja showed a lack of parliamentary courtesy by not explaining to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs why he voted against and subsequently rejected the report. His obsession with conveying to Parliament the systematic opposition at national level says a great deal about the previous speaker's democratic stance. This kind of attitude will be of little use to us if we wish to make progress in terms of democracy, and this House operates with consensus, not blinkered postures.
Mr President, I believe that this is a good report and I subscribe almost entirely to the remarks of my chairman and political colleague, Mr Deprez. But I disagree with him and others on the proper scope of the anti-terrorist laws.
I do not believe it is helpful to criminalise glorification of, or apologia for, terrorism. I think the term 'justification' is also problematic. As many of us were earlier discussing with Dick Marty on the subject of terrorist blacklists and asset freezing, the law needs to be both just and effective if it is to remain credible and sustainable and have public support. There is a profound risk that extending the criminal law as proposed, beyond actions and intentions and into the realm of opinion, commentary, and even fantasy, carries the danger of creating thought-crimes.
This would have a potentially chilling effect on free speech. If I say I understand that the Kurds in Turkey have felt anger and disaffection at the suppression of their culture, language and identity and denial of their political aspirations, am I justifying PKK bombs?
There is hardly a person in the House - unfortunately, there are maybe a few - who would not glorify Nelson Mandela. But the ANC committed terrorist acts in fighting the utterly repressive apartheid state. There are people, now statesmen, who have been honoured guests in this Chamber, who have a past as freedom fighters.
So am I just a woolly liberal, concerned only with free speech? No, because the law has to be effective. We already properly criminalise incitement to commit terrorism. And that gives wide scope to target behaviour and speech that has, as its purpose, the instigation of a terrorist offence.
Last week, the UK's second highest court, the Court of Appeal, quashed the convictions of five men for possession of jihadist material precisely because there was no evidence of intention to encourage terrorism. The original convictions in this case created resentment among those - mainly young Muslims - who wanted to discuss, debate and criticise the foreign policies of Europe and the United States. That does not help combat radicalism. But these cases have also, by their collapse, left the law in a state of confusion and disarray, and that is good for terrorists.
Let us stick to getting convictions on the basis of incitement. Let us not stray into glorification and apologia.
- (NL) Mr President, I would also like to express my appreciation of the report now before us and also of the Commissioner's words and of what he wants to do. In my country too, the Netherlands, a lot of attention is being given to radicalisation and its tragic consequences. We ourselves in the Netherlands were faced with a horrific murder of a Dutch TV producer committed by young people who came from these radicalised circles. We are only talking about a small group, but what they do can have major consequences. It is very important that we work together and that every effort is made to track down and isolate groups and individual young people who may turn to terrorist attacks.
However, as others here have said already, the prevention of radicalisation is also vitally important. The point is to keep the group who may turn to violence as small as possible. Nor does radicalisation always end in violence. It is a bad thing in any case if young people feel totally isolated from society and do not want to have anything more to do with it. In our experience it also comes down to the fact that the policy on tackling radicalisation is directed at local authorities. Of course it is important to look at what you can do in the prisons and, more generally, in the area of education to look at what you can do to prevent misuse of the Internet. However, it is still mainly the local authorities who are able to be active in the communities to tackle the causes of radicalisation and to trace the youngsters who are susceptible to it. I think that the European Union, and the Commissioner in particular, can play an important role in bringing together the experience we have gained in various cities. Last week our group made a working visit to Rotterdam, a city where a great deal is being done to tackle and prevent radicalisation and to reach groups that are susceptible to it.
It is also important to engage in a broader dialogue with the Muslim communities in our countries. Some of the young people involved come from those larger communities and if we isolate that large group we will never be able to reach that small group. It is important, therefore, to enter into the dialogue with the assumption that the vast majority of the Muslim communities who live in our society want nothing to do with what is a perverse interpretation of their faith, and that we invest a great deal in that broad dialogue of my group, this year too, the year of cultural dialogue.
(SV) Thank you Mr President, Commissioner. The EU needs to show clearly that the fight against terrorism is, both symbolically and practically, a demonstration of solidarity. More resources are needed to enable Europol to cooperate with our national security services and achieve results. This is shown, in particular, by the recent unrest following the rekindling of antagonism over the Muhammad cartoons.
As has been said here, the fight against terrorism must always be waged by legal and proportionate means. The CIA flights in Europe, the use of torture, mock executions and waterboarding, which the CIA now acknowledges did happen, and the establishment of special secret jails must be vigorously condemned. In these cases, Mr Frattini, the EU should have acted much more firmly than it did.
It is good that the report adopts a broader approach and addresses the factors which contribute to increased support for and renewed recruitment to groups which reject our models of society in favour of violence and sectarianism.
The fact that the perpetrators of the terrible outrages we have witnessed in recent years were born or grew up in Europe is a shrill wake-up call urging us also to look at our own societies with more critical eyes. We need a dialogue and an honest discussion on our integration and visa policy. Here we cannot and must not avoid difficult questions. But, to me, one thing is self-evident. It is our thinking on what should be the basis of our common legislation. The current debate on sharia law in Britain shows that good intentions can often be more of a hindrance than a help.
We must also ensure that Community legislation does not jeopardise or set aside important constitutional principles, such as those governing freedom of expression. The report speaks of introducing a new concept in the Framework Decision: 'justification of terrorism'. I believe that this is unfortunate. Not because it is not a good idea to ensure that all Member States have good laws against incitement but because it is difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at a definition which could be applied uniformly and which would not lead to thorny problems of interpretation. On the one hand, there is the important task of devising ways of combating terrorism and saving lives. On the other hand, there is the principle of freedom of expression and the concern to maintain a high level of legal certainty in Europe. It is a question of finding the right balance.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, by the time the fanatics have snuffed out innocent lives and carried out bomb attacks on democratic societies, it is already too late. For that reason, no effort must be spared, especially - as Commissioner Frattini says - when it comes to prevention. Dialogue, as the key to tolerance, must be at the forefront of our attention. However, we also need better police cooperation and exchange of data; indeed, all the tools which can be used both within and beyond the European Union should be reinforced.
I particularly welcome the fact that the Commissioner has drawn attention to the importance of helping victims. It is not just about tolerance, it is also about practical measures. Let me stress that there must be surveillance of the preachers of hate: that is a necessity. However, the information must then be acted on. Glorification of terrorism is never acceptable, so we need a zero-tolerance strategy towards crimes against our society.
I think it is most regrettable that on an issue which has always been a very serious topic of discussion in this House, the national polemic has once again loomed so large in relation to this report.
(DE) Mr President, I have been asked by fellow Members from the ALDE group how the PPE-DE intends to vote. Let me say again that the PPE-DE Group supports 95% of what is in the report. I would also like to underscore that I think it is very sad that both the ALDE representative and the PSE representative, Spanish colleagues, have attacked the PPE-DE today. I think it is a great pity that domestic issues are preventing us from finding common ground in this Parliament.
Anyone who wants this House as a whole to achieve a major decision tomorrow should please vote for the PPE-DE amendments. We are not changing anything of the substance of the motion, but we are removing the domestic policy aspect. Anyone who wants to grasp the outstretched hand of the PPE-DE Group can do so tomorrow.
(DE) Mr President, I am delighted that you have given us leave to speak again, as that has been handled differently in another debate. Nonetheless, although Mr Pirker and I may not always see eye to eye - we often argue, and do so with great enjoyment and fervour - he is quite right to say that such debates should not be abused for national purposes. It disrupts everything and it simply leads to false compromises.
I am sure that the Spanish colleagues here in the House will give a different answer. I simply know from my own experience that this type of thing is very often dragged into the national debate. I am also getting rather tired of the fact that - not for the first time - we are being used as a ping pong ball between the PPE-DE and the PSE on these matters. However, I am glad that the Liberals have been able to mediate and are still up to the challenge.
Our colleague from Northern Ireland is unfortunately no longer present. I find that rather galling because he said something that I view as quite incredible: he said that terrorists do not have the same basic human rights as everyone else. However, that is precisely what distinguishes us from terrorists: the fact that we regard human rights as universal. We should never give the impression that this House could ever take a different view.
Mr President, owing to the importance of this debate, I have a question for the PPE-DE Group. The issue was raised that if the PPE-DE Group was to support the report, it would withdraw, and ask the other groups to withdraw, any element relating to internal Spanish politics. I would ask the PPE-DE Group's representative which amendment tabled by that group is linked to Spanish politics. It would be very interesting to know, and then it could be made public which of the amendments of the PPE-DE Group concern internal politics. Is it the reference to the United Nations in Amendment 1 which they want to delete? Do they want to delete a reference to the United Nations? Is that Spanish internal politics? One has to be coherent. The only person who is trying to introduce internal politics is Mr Mayor Oreja, who did not even have the courtesy to attend this part-session.
Mr President, I would be extremely grateful if anyone who is supporting the amendments to criminalise glorification could be so kind as to try and answer the points that I raised, which are, first of all, that I fear a chilling effect on free speech and, secondly, that I do not know how they can be made operational.
What is the connection between glorifying an act of terrorism and another terrorist act being committed? It seems to me that there are legal problems, as was found in the UK Court of Appeal last week, because there is no direct connection between glorification and a new terrorist act, which there obviously is when there is incitement, or encouragement at least. If you just 'glorify' a terrorist act, then what is the straight-line connection between that and another act being committed?
If you cannot establish that connection, you risk being undercut in the courts and then end up in a much worse position than before you started. I would be very grateful if anyone who actually supports the criminalisation of glorification or apologia could perhaps educate me, because this is something I do not quite understand.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too believe that this evening's debate has been of considerable political significance. I also believe that we must jointly come up with a widely shared political solution that will form the subject of a report acceptable to all of humanity or, if not, to a large majority of parliamentary groups.
I have no doubt that today's terrorists are seeking to establish a new form of global dictatorship. We experienced powerful dictatorships in the last century, but this one is a dictatorship based on violating the primary fundamental right, namely the right to life. It is clear, in addition, that this strategy, along with violence and hatred, has regrettably become a global strategy.
That is why our reaction must consist not merely of cooperation among police forces and information services, but of a political response to avert and remove the causes that lead to terrorism. I believe, and many of you have emphasised, that prevention means eradicating hatred and eliminating the reasons for hatred, without ever justifying violence, since the gravest risk we run is to begin justifying violence. We must eradicate hatred without justifying violence.
Someone spoke of a conflict of civilisations. In my view, that theory leaves a lot to be desired. Personally I am not convinced that a clash of civilisations is underway. I am convinced that an internal conflict is going on within the Islamic world, that is, a conflict between a minority which misappropriates the religious message and the vast majority of Muslims who, I believe, are absolutely peace-loving and want to live in a spirit of peace and tolerance. If we are to provide a political response, ladies and gentlemen, I think the only option is to strengthen reformist, peace-loving Islam against that minority which is neither reformist nor peace-loving.
All of these are political measures; they are not police or security measures. I have referred to the rights of victims and I believe that more work is needed in this area. Victims' rights must be given greater consideration than in the past, so as to offer them practical help which - believe me, I am convinced of this - means not just financial help but in many cases assistance for them or their survivors, for the relatives of victims of attacks and murders, to help them reintegrate into society after the terrible trauma they have suffered. Another right of victims is not to be left alone after having survived an attack or having lost a relative or loved one.
Someone said that we need to understand the causes of terrorism. I agree, and have said so myself, but I believe that terrorist groups, organisations and methods must not be given legitimacy by our attempt to understand them. Understanding is one thing; lending legitimacy is another: there is a fundamental difference.
I should like to recall one last point. The European Union would play a significant political role in the world, in my opinion, if it could achieve something that has not yet been achieved. That something is to encourage the United Nations to adopt at long last the international convention on the definition of terrorism. That definition still does not exist, which causes us a number of difficulties outside Europe. Europe has its own definition of terrorism, but as you know some member countries of the UN General Assembly have still not endorsed either the substance or the procedure of a UN convention on terrorism.
I believe that if Europe really is united in this area, it could do something akin to what we did concerning the moratorium on the death penalty: make the United Nations take a stance on an important, consolidated European position, thereby giving global legitimacy to the response to terrorism. If terrorism is global, our response must be absolutely firm but likewise global.
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, I would like to make three comments at the conclusion of this debate.
The first is that if we listen to the Commissioner and then listen to most of the contributors the first thing that really strikes us is that - as regards the analysis of the phenomenon, the seriousness of the threat and the balance that has to be drawn between measures aimed at prevention and those aimed at suppression - there is a great deal of common ground between us all once we start to discuss the operational side of things: what we need to analyse, what we need to prevent and what we need to suppress.
Secondly, and regrettably, I have the feeling that when it comes to certain elements that are more symbolic than anything else we shall not be able tomorrow to reach the consensus that is needed and I would regret this because after having examined the list of amendments it seems to me that most of the differences are symbolic rather than substantive in nature. The problem is that these symbolic conflicts of interest could be alleviated if the parties decided to make a gesture, something that is not always a defining characteristic of the political groups that make up this Parliament.
Thirdly, there are several comments that I would like to direct at some of those present in this House, especially - and Mr Alvaro feels the same way - with regard to my fellow Member from Ireland, who considers that respect for human rights is not needed in the fight against terrorism. I find that this attitude poses a risk, and a serious one at that, to the values on which our society is based. There is a certain Head of State, and I heard him talk on the television one day, a European Head of State who said that he would take a knife to the terrorists and do for every last one of them. Well that particular regime is now one that poisons its opponents, allows its journalists to be murdered and holds elections that may be free but may also be fraudulent. To play with human rights in the fight against terrorism is to run the risk of an unacceptable slide in our democratic societies.
We have also been questioned directly by Mrs Ludford on the problem of apologia for terrorism. I am unable to respond to her in any great depth but would simply say that I am the rapporteur for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the terms of which are known to her, and that when I presented my views just now I was basing them on paragraph 10 of the report that was adopted by the committee, which states quite clearly, Mrs Ludford, that the committee, and hence Parliament, calls for open discussions on amending Framework Decision such and such in order to include the justification of terrorism within its scope, and so on.
I was not therefore making any kind of plea, I was simply expressing what had been agreed by the Committee on Civil Liberties; nevertheless, I will respond to her directly. When I speak of apologia for terrorism, apologia means incitement and I believe that incitement is a criminal offence.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 19 February 2008.
Written Statements (Article 142)
in writing. - (SV) The fight against terrorism must only be fought in a way which is appropriate to an open, democratic and just society. It is absolutely essential that threats to an open society are countered by the methods of an open society.
We must balance our action and the measures we take by safeguarding human rights and the rule of law and must not resort to measures which jeopardise personal integrity.
I have therefore decided to vote against Mr Deprez's proposal for a recommendation to the Council on the factors favouring support for terrorism and the recruitment of terrorists.
, in writing. - (RO) The cooperation between the EU institutions on the fight against terrorism should be perfected, taking into consideration that this phenomenon has increased.
I believe terrorism has become the main enemy of European values, global stability and peace. If we remember the events of 11 September 2001 or those in Madrid a few years ago, we have the perfect configuration of a picture expressing horror, fear and suffering.
The European institutions should have developed a strategy for becoming acquainted with, reducing and eliminating this phenomenon ever since that time. It is necessary for us to start a study as thorough as possible in this regard: to show its causes, what keeps the terrorists so fierce and capable of giving up their lives in order to become martyrs, whose martyrs they are, how the recruitment is done, who finances it and how we can intervene in any way to discourage this phenomenon.
Therefore, in order to find out all these things and to control them in the EU's interest, the European institutions should be concerned with drawing up this strategy.
In this way, the EU will give a signal of unity and strength to the entire world.


Forest fires in the summer of 2009 (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes


6. Future of the European Common Asylum System (


Dates for next sittings: see Minutes


6. Single Euro Payments Area (vote)


Fourth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries
The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on the Fourth United Nations conference on the least developed countries.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, the European Union is fully committed to the success of the Fourth United Nations conference on the least developed countries, which will take place in Istanbul on 9-13 May 2011. It believes that this conference provides a major opportunity to enhance support for the least developed countries (LDCs).
The Council has very recently adopted conclusions to be used as guidelines by the EU negotiators in the preparatory process and during the conference. Prioritising LDCs is a necessity in our common endeavour to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). We therefore remain firmly committed to supporting the inclusive and sustainable development of all LDCs, which represent the poorest and weakest segment of the international community, and which are also characterised by their acute susceptibility to external economic shocks, natural and man-made disasters and communicable diseases.
We strongly support an outcome focusing on areas and measures that can add value with regard to the specific needs of LDCs and which should reflect the lessons learned from the 2001 Brussels Programme of Action, by maintaining coherence with the MDGs and setting specific goals and targets for LDCs. A long-term commitment through a renewed partnership with LDCs containing suitable measures is fundamental in a rapidly changing world.
In particular, the European Union considers that the outcome of the Istanbul conference should address three main objectives: firstly, combating the vulnerability and fragility of LDCs and further enhancing their resilience to shocks; secondly, creating a favourable environment for the sustainable development of LDCs; thirdly, promoting inclusive and sustainable economic growth for LDCs. These objectives will continue to guide the European Union's discussions with the LDCs throughout the preparatory process and during the conference itself.
The European Union has always led the international community's efforts to support the LDCs, and is their largest donor. It has been the most successful development partner at fulfilling its commitments, notably in terms of market access, rules of origin and debt alleviation. It has made significant progress on official development assistance (ODA) as well as on policy coherence for development.
Some LDCs have achieved good economic growth and progress in development during the last decade, yet we recognise that overall, progress has been uneven. Considerable work remains to be done, notably in sub-Saharan Africa and in countries that are in both conflict and fragile situations. For that reason, the EU has recently reaffirmed its commitment, in the context of the overall ODA commitment, to meet collectively the target of providing 0.15-0.20 of GNP to the LDCs.
The LDCs have primary responsibility for their own development, and assistance by the donor community ought to be based on the initiative and full ownership of the recipient countries. The European Union also stresses the interdependence of overall progress in the LDCs with the improvement of good governance, democracy, human rights and gender equality.
Finally, at the same time, we are firmly convinced that all countries have the responsibility to help developing countries to lift themselves out of poverty and achieve progress towards the MDGs. Progress in the LDCs is interconnected with the quality and coherence of development partner policies. Strong efforts should therefore be directed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of aid mechanisms and to fulfilling existing commitments. On several occasions, the EU has called on other donors to meet these commitments. Emerging economies should also provide their fair share of assistance to LDCs.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission is committed to the success of the Fourth United Nations conference on the least developed countries in Istanbul, creating a renewed political momentum for inclusive growth, sustainable development and poverty reduction in the least developed countries. This conviction and commitment of ours is expressed in the Council conclusions, adopted last week on 31 March, on Guidelines for the participation of the EU in the upcoming conference on the least developed countries. I am also very happy to note that Parliament will be strongly represented in the delegation that will be attending this conference.
Many least developed countries have made progress in their development, but progress has been uneven and considerable work remains to be done. Too few of the least developed countries are graduating from the category and most are lagging behind in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. We, both donors and least developed countries, need to learn important lessons from the success of some of the least developed countries, as well as from the implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action.
Global partnership and mutual responsibility are vital for the success of the conference. Development is a joint challenge. The developing countries have primary responsibility for their own development by designing and implementing appropriate policies and achieving good governance.
As regards the least developed countries, the European Union has been their most successful development partner in fulfilling its commitments, notably in terms of market access, rules of origin and debt alleviation. The European Union is the largest donor to the least developed countries and has made significant progress concerning Official Development Assistance, tripling its aid to these countries in the past decade.
In Istanbul, the European Union will call upon other donors and development partners to match its commitment and ambition. Developed countries have a responsibility to help developing countries to lift themselves out of poverty. In this context of global partnership, the emerging economies should also do their share.
Sustainable development and long-term equitable and inclusive growth are essential for each of these countries. The private sector has a crucial role to play in this regard and can have a huge impact on people's lives through generating wealth and employment.
The potential of trade as an engine for growth and employment is considerable. Nevertheless, the European Union wants to underline the interdependence of progress in the least developed countries with human rights, gender equality, democracy, good governance, peace and security.
Progress in the least developed countries is interconnected with equality and coherence of development partners' policies. Therefore, strenuous efforts should be directed towards improving the efficiency and effectiveness of aid mechanisms, as well as policy coherence for development.
The Presidency has already announced three priorities, so let me just add that the conference should address the issue of graduation also. The European Union will be calling for a more systematic mechanism for granting time-sensitive concession and support to graduating countries. The Commission is convinced that this new momentum will result in a significant increase in the number of countries graduating from the category of the least developed countries in the next decade.
Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, as you quite rightly said Mr Németh, the Council conclusions, in conjunction with the commitments made by the European Union, need to be accompanied by effective measures to support the overall endeavour. Of course, the European Parliament representation at the UN conference on the least developed countries in Istanbul will be 'armed' with a good resolution expressing satisfactory positions. However, there is a problem with the representation's status because, as observers, they will not be able to intervene directly and I think that the Commission and President Barroso could make an important intervention in order to change this situation. Growth and security in the European Union and control of migration flows cannot be achieved with approximately one billion citizens living in misery and poverty.
It would appear that efforts to develop the least developed countries need to be revised because, although the least developed countries are also to blame, the mechanisms used to break the vicious circle of poverty appear to be ineffective.
I would point out that the wealth of under-developed countries is being exploited by outsiders and that the democratic deficit, corruption and insecurity are the overriding characteristics of these countries. All this results in a lack of basic infrastructures in the education, health, transport, communications, primary production, agricultural, banking and public administration sectors. I think that mechanisms could be adopted in Istanbul to improve the approach to the problem of poverty.
Mr President, economic growth of 7%, a large increase in the number of children attending primary school, more countries whose people are demanding democracy: in the least developed countries in Africa, much progress has been made in the past 10 years. These countries have worked for better governance and mobilised their own financial resources. The rich countries' particular contribution has been debt relief and ensuring the availability of vaccines. However, we are not there yet, because rapid economic growth in the poorest countries has not gone hand in hand with a proportional reduction in poverty.
The list of the poorest countries has remained virtually unchanged for decades. The number of people living on less than USD 1 a day has decreased, but the number of people living on less than USD 2 a day remains the same. The rich countries have kept corrupt regimes in place, rather than considering a fair sharing of resources. It is therefore absurd and cynical to say that development is not working. We have not given it enough of a chance.
The UN conference in Istanbul will have to draw some conclusions from this. Much more attention needs to be given to the equitable distribution of wealth within the poorest countries themselves. This will provide stability and a fair distribution. This will eliminate tensions and bring peace. Social justice will also do much more to bring about economic development than the inequality of dictatorships ruled by a small clique at the top. Countries with democracy achieve fair distribution much faster than dictatorships. Good governance will bring us closer to achieving the Millennium Development Goals.
We also need to do more for public health. For a family in a poor country, disease is a financial disaster. Disease is a luxury which no one can afford. We must therefore work towards financing healthcare through health insurance, so that not only vaccines are available, but also good hospitals and clinics.
Mr President, between 1980 and 2011, global GDP increased by USD 19 000 billion. This increase should mean that we have sufficient means to eradicate extreme poverty. So much for the arithmetic.
With regard to policy, improving the lot of the poorest is not as straightforward. We must therefore make some clear choices. Firstly, we must target the poorest countries in our cooperation programmes.
Secondly, and this is a corollary of the first point, we must withdraw gradually from emerging countries. China, the main creditor of the United States, has sufficient means at its disposal to deal with the poverty prevailing within its borders.
The third point is that we need strong partnerships with the least developed countries. They need to do the bulk of the work. All we can do is assist them with our know-how, our expertise and our political will. We can do nothing more and nothing less than that.
I would make one last point: as we are the largest donor, it is also up to us, as the European Union, to assume a leadership role at this conference.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I want to thank Mrs Theocharous for raising the issue of the status of the European Parliament at international conferences: we are one of the three sister institutions of the EU and we need to have a look at this very quickly or there is going to be trouble. We are the largest donor to the least developed countries in the world; we have trebled aid in the last few years, but poverty has increased, not decreased.
Some ten years ago, Pascal Lamy and the Development Committee introduced 'Everything but Arms'. Gradually, this Parliament turned it into 'Anything but Farms'. Now the least developed countries in the world do not have industrial capacity, they have agriculture capacity. If you are really interested in eliminating poverty and helping these people, we need to increase their capacity to trade. It is not aid but trade that is going to reduce poverty. But in order to reduce poverty and to increase trade, we need to increase their capacity to export what they can export, which is agricultural produce, fisheries produce and so on. But we do not do that.
We have introduced stringent standards, which is very important for the health of the European consumer, but we do not help to increase the capacity of these least developed countries. So, out of 51, only three have matriculated from being a least developed country to not being a least developed country. We have got to increase that effort otherwise we are just fooling ourselves and those countries.
Mr President, I would like to ask the representatives of the Council and the Commission why they believe that they have to address this subject using speech bubbles. I do not think that we are helping anyone by not making a specific statement to the effect that in the run-up to the Istanbul conference, the Member States and the European Union must finally meet their obligations in full and that we cannot tolerate Member States increasingly shirking their responsibilities.
It is unacceptable that one billion people still live in hunger, most of them in the least developed countries (LDCs), in other words, the poorest countries in the world. It is also unacceptable that the majority of our development aid does not go to support and develop agriculture. The proportion used for this purpose has fallen rapidly in recent years, while one billion people go hungry. I am slowly beginning to think that saying that we hope the LDCs will become more resistant to shocks is a cynical approach.
I am calling on you to take specific measures to address the problems and to make concrete commitments to provide the LDCs with real help.
(NL) Mr President, the forthcoming UN summit on the least developed countries is a good opportunity for a debate on whether development aid makes sense or if it is, in fact, nonsensical. The aid quantity argument, as it is generally known - that is, the proposition that the more aid you grant, the more economic development there will be - has been totally discredited.
I would like to use my speaking time to quote what the Kenyan economist James Shikwati said to Der Spiegel online on 7 April 2005. Quote: 'Development aid serves to keep large bureaucracies in place, encourages corruption and complacency and teaches Africans to beg, rather than be independent', unquote.
In addition, development aid weakens the local markets and it causes the spirit of enterprise, the very spirit that we so badly need, to evaporate. Regardless of how absurd it may sound, development aid is one of the causes of Africa's problems. If the west stopped these payments, normal Africans would not even notice. It is only government officials who would be hard hit. So, instead of us handing out more money, what is needed is less corruption, more entrepreneurship and more self-reliance.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))
(NL) Mr Claeys, would you agree with me that the foreign interests of the rich Western European countries and of the United States have led to dictators being kept in power and, consequently, to development aid often failing to work, because that aid has ended up in the wrong pockets and because we have never done anything to tackle that, in the interests of maintaining a 'stability' which has not, in fact, been worth the name, as has been demonstrated in North Africa and the Middle East? Standing up for democracy means standing up for democrats in developing countries and letting dictators fall, whilst keeping development aid flowing.
(NL) Mr Berman, yes, I do partly agree with what you have said. Indeed, we are to blame for the fact that some dictators have been able to remain in power. I am thinking, for example, of the European policy towards Cuba, where we have seen that Fidel Castro has been considered a partner with whom we can do business. That sort of thing should, indeed, be consigned to the past and we should only talk to people who have been democratically elected and who also have the power to establish democracy in their own country.
(PL) Mr President, the term 'least developed countries' arose 40 years ago to help developed countries and other donors identify those communities around the world which are most in need of aid. The definition of 'least developed country' used by the United Nations is not based exclusively on per capita income levels, but also takes account of human capital and problems with economic development. The geographical distribution of these countries is very distinctive, because the great majority of them are found in Africa. The European Union is right, therefore, in giving particular attention to this continent.
A fundamental problem is the fact that the number of countries identified as LDCs is growing, while the number of countries which have developed sufficiently to be able to graduate from the group is as low as three. This, therefore, is why the UN conference should give serious consideration to how to introduce an effective, measurable and easy-to-monitor strategy for countries to leave the LDC. I am pleased that the European Commission and the Council have proposals which might help in this process. One of these is the promotion of inclusive growth. I know that some fellow Members are worried by this term because they are not sure if the growth will be truly inclusive. On the other hand, however, without growth, we will not build developing countries' economic potential.
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, we need a tangible objective, which can be adopted at the conference in Istanbul, and this objective should be to reduce the number of least developed countries to half of what they are today. This sounds self-evident but, over the last 30 years, just 3 of these countries have managed to rise above the category of least developed countries.
In order to achieve this, we need to honour our commitments and contribute 0.15 to 0.20% of our annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to development aid for these countries. It is equally important to safeguard policy coherence for development. We cannot give money to these countries, on the one hand, and basically steal from them through unfair trade agreements between them and the EU, on the other. We need to pay our monetary debt and that also means investing in these countries, both in order to adapt them and to combat climate change and to pay off our debt that has accumulated from our unfair common agricultural policy. In order to do so, we need to promote the food sovereignty of these countries by supporting traditional agricultural policies, local resources, local crops and local markets, and preventing speculative attacks, land capture and seed monopolies, which threaten all of us, especially these weak countries.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))
Mr President, I wonder whether the honourable gentleman will agree with me - because he used a very strong word 'steal' - that we steal from developing countries. Such an example could be that we give EUR 2 million to a small island off the Atlantic coast for their fisheries, for 7 000 tonnes of tuna, and we sell that on the streets of Europe for EUR 235 million. So we convert EUR 2 million to EUR 235 million. That is what we do with our fisheries policies.
(EL) Mr President, Mr Deva is right. Fisheries agreements between the European Union and third countries are, to a large degree, an issue that needs to be re-examined in depth. Agreements are necessary, but the European Union also needs, when entering into these fisheries agreements with the countries in question, to do so in the most viable way possible. However, we also need to check if the money we pay in return for fishing is enough and if it is being used as development aid, to ultimately strengthen these countries so that they can get out of the category of least developed countries.
(PL) Mr President, Mr Németh is not right in his optimism over countries graduating from least developed country status, whereas Mr Deva, Mr Kaczmarek and Mr Arsenis are right in saying that in the last 10 years, only three countries - Botswana, Cape Verde and Maldives - have graduated from this group. This means that in fact, the chief cause of the poverty is politics, for there are very wealthy countries which do not possess any natural resources, such as Switzerland and Japan, and, on the other hand, there are countries which are rich in natural resources but which are nevertheless poor. This means that the cause of the poverty is politics, and not vice versa. Therefore, alongside aid to the LDC countries and trading with them, the role of the European Union should be to give political assistance leading to stabilisation and democracy in these countries. This is what we have to do.
(RO) Mr President, the Fourth UN conference on the least developed countries provides a good opportunity to review the international Aid for Trade policy. This group of countries is facing financial difficulties against the background of the global economic changes in the wake of the financial crisis. The steady rise in basic food prices is an acute problem which cannot be ignored.
The main aim of Aid for Trade is to boost the 48 states' domestic and international competitiveness. In this regard, I should stress the importance of eradicating poverty and making effective use of the financial aid provided as part of achieving the Millennium Development Goals. I think that it is useful getting developing countries involved in this process as a result of the experience they have in the area of reforming trade facilities.
(FR) Mr President, progress in least developed countries reflects our own development policies and those of the international community. The rise in the number of countries classified as least developed is a clear indication that it is time to review our policies, our instruments and our resources. The poorest countries are very susceptible to war, crises and widespread poverty. Hence, it is vital that we continue to work to establish peace, stability, democracy and human rights.
Three other elements should be taken into account. Firstly, we need to re-examine internal factors such as corruption, the lack of democratic safeguards and property rights loopholes, which cause these countries to remain underdeveloped.
Secondly, we need to enhance our economic approach by providing greater support for farmers, for SMEs and for good use of State resources with a view to creating new instruments.
Lastly, we need to make our aid instruments more targeted and ensure that they are consistent with the Millennium Development Goals. If we adjust global development policies to reflect the real needs in each country and greater participation by the private sector and civil society, we will be better able to rise to the challenges of the next decade.
(ES) Mr President, 10 years ago in Brussels, donor countries agreed on a Programme of Action for least developed countries (LDCs). We set targets for eliminating extreme poverty in those countries.
It is clear to all of us that LDCs are suffering most from the effects of the global crisis, whether economic, financial, or environmental, or caused by rising food prices.
However, 10 years later, we have not achieved the goals we set and only two of the 48 countries that make up the LDC block have managed to graduate from LDC status.
We are at a pivotal moment. At the upcoming Fourth United Nations conference in Istanbul, the work carried out so far will be reviewed and a new Programme of Action will be established.
We should renew our commitment to LDCs and show that in 10 years, we have learned the lessons of the previous period and are in a position to provide effective, quality support that will enable us to meet our objectives, not in 2021 but in 2015, by fulfilling the Millennium Development Goals.
Mr President, the three key areas - the vulnerability of LDCs, sustainable development and the promotion of economic growth - are all welcome. However, I wanted to ask whether food security will be part of the discussions.
There was mention of sub-Saharan Africa; currently 80% of sub-Saharan African farmers are female. If we can help with the development of better agricultural methods, investing in those who are the most vulnerable in our world, helping them to feed themselves, we can make a huge contribution to the health and the wellbeing of the poorest in our world.
I wish the delegation well as they go from this Parliament to the conference, but I also look forward to the report back that we will hear from all those who will attend.
(RO) Mr President, I firmly believe that this Parliament takes responsibility for the results achieved by the European Union as part of the project promoting global solidarity in the fight against poverty. At the same time, it is my strong conviction that we are a Parliament which takes responsibility for using European taxpayers' money. I would like to try to acknowledge the idea that this conference must provide, including us, with an opportunity to assess the solidarity model which we have promoted. This is because, if we look at what we call less developed countries, we will see that the poor countries still remain poor, while the rich countries maintain a certain standard of living.
We need to reassess the model we use for making donations and the support we give because we are at risk of this aid becoming detrimental to the recipient countries.
(PT) Mr President, in this debate, we have been discussing the poorest and weakest countries in the world. These include almost 50 countries whose people are suffering from the effects of successive failures to implement the recommendations of successive United Nations conferences. It is not the inevitability of fate, nor inescapable natural limitations or constraints that make these countries poor; on the contrary, several of them are very rich indeed in natural resources.
Rather, it is the injustice and inhumanity of a system that is the world's dominant mode of economic and social organisation, and that is sustained by asymmetrical relationships, which create and replicate inequalities. It is the result of free trade, of financial deregulation, of the illicit but permitted flight of capital to tax havens, and of war and conflicts fed by disputes over natural resources. It is in breaking with the foundations of this system, and in a genuine and solidarity-based policy of cooperation and development aid, that the possibility of these peoples' emancipation and their countries' development lies.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I think that this interesting debate shows that we all share the same objectives. This is also reflected in the joint motion for a resolution presented by the political groups. In particular, I would like to mention the following main objectives that we all share: first of all, that the conference should be results-oriented and that the European Union should fulfil its commitments.
The object of this is to support countries, so that they can graduate from least developed country status. We have undertaken commitments in terms of market access and debt alleviation, as well as reserving a share of official development assistance for the least developed countries. Clearly, policy coherence for development should contribute to all policy areas in support of the least developed countries' fight against poverty and priority should be given, as Ms Stihler quite rightly highlighted, to food security, agriculture and infrastructure. Indeed, as Mr Deva suggested, trade plays a very important role.
We have all recognised the least developed countries' primary responsibility for their own development, which is why a more efficient tax system and good governance in tax matters are needed to enhance their domestic resources.
Finally, even if they bear practically no responsibility for climate change, the least developed countries will be hit the hardest by it and we have an obligation to help them adapt to this.
In conclusion, this House has always given great support for the cause of the least developed countries and I am sure that this will continue.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, concerning the sum total of the ODA, I would like to underline that, since 2002 when establishing its commitment for the Monterey conference, the Council has reiterated the need to mobilise all other available sources of financing for development - primarily domestic resources complemented by viable innovative financing mechanisms - and support from developed countries, the private sector and emerging economies.
In the latest conclusions of April 2011, the Council pointed out that the EU is seriously considering proposals for innovative financing mechanisms with significant revenue generation potential, with a view to ensuring predictable financing for development, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable countries. I agree with Commissioner Füle's opinion concerning the relevance of keeping to our commitments in the European Union and also his comments concerning the importance of increasing the possibility of trade between LDCs and the European Union.
I have received six motions for resolutiontabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 7 April 2011, at noon.