Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes


11. Environmental protection from radiation following the crash of a military aircraft in Greenland (vote)
- Report: Wallis


5. The EU priorities for the 64th Session of the UN General Assembly (


24. Health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields (


Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes


2. Excise duty on beer produced locally in Madeira (


Progress made on resettling Guantánamo detainees and on closing Guantánamo (debate)
The next item is the Council and Commission statements on progress made on resettling Guantánamo detainees and on closing Guantánamo.
Madam President, as you know, the European Union welcomed the promise made by President Obama to close the Guantánamo detention centre. He made the promise in his inauguration speech, and this was later endorsed by a joint declaration of the European Union and its Member States with the United States on 15 June last year.
We are in favour of the law being applied and human rights being respected at all times, and in this declaration, the United States of course agreed. This therefore seemed to be incompatible with maintaining the Guantánamo detention centre, which had also become one of the pretexts for propaganda most frequently used by al-Qaeda.
It is true that the timescale that was planned for closing it - one year - has now passed. It is true, however, that there are difficulties, and we can give some examples, such as former prisoners in Yemen not being able to return there immediately. We are also finding that this issue is very controversial in the United States, although we welcome the fact that President Obama is persevering with his intention to close Guantánamo despite the strong opposition that he is facing in Congress, not only among the Republicans but also among the Democrats.
However, in any case, some prisoners have now left Guantánamo and are going to be tried in ordinary US courts, such as, for example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged brains behind the 11 September attacks, despite the concern that this generated in the United States.
We have therefore always been clear about our position in our contacts with the United States as well as recently, in the visit to Brussels by the United States' special envoy on this issue, Daniel Fried, who was formerly responsible for relations between the United States and the European Union and who is now responsible for managing the closure of Guantánamo. During his visit to Brussels, and in the context of the human rights dialogue that the European Union regularly holds with the United States, concern was expressed by the European Union about the use of the so-called military commissions and prolonged detention without trial, and naturally, we expressed our opposition to the death penalty. These are very clear, firm positions that the European Union has maintained, is maintaining and will continue to maintain in its relations with the United States.
I imagine that in relations between members of the parliaments, in the transatlantic dialogue between legislators, you will also have had opportunities to uphold the same principles.
I believe that the European Union has fulfilled its agreement with the United States, an agreement that was set out in the joint declaration that I mentioned earlier. There are Member States that have already agreed to receive people who have been or are prisoners in Guantánamo, and the number that we can handle at the moment, among the European countries who have quantified the number of prisoners, along with Switzerland, which is a partner of the European Union in the Schengen area, is around 16.
In any case, you will also be aware that the decision as to whether or not to accept a prisoner from Guantánamo is naturally up to the Member States. The mechanism agreed by the Home Affairs Ministers of the European Union was the realisation of this desire to help the United States. We have always said that we wanted the Guantánamo prison to be closed, as it was clearly contrary to the most fundamental human rights. The European Union therefore needs to help to make this possible, as far as we can and in accordance with the decisions taken - I repeat - by each Member State individually and sovereignly regarding the possibility of receiving these prisoners. We can say that there were 242 prisoners in the detention centre when President Obama came to power, and that 44 of them have left the prison.
The existence of this detention centre is a serious problem, of course, for transatlantic relations. The joint declaration on the closure of the centre was made on the understanding that something similar would not happen in the future. This is, of course, the intention of the United States Government, and the position of the European Union has undoubtedly contributed to changing the position of the United States and its prison policy in relation to Guantánamo.
As we have said, we also want - and this is also part of the joint declaration by the European Union and the United States - to explore the possibility of establishing and agreeing a set of principles between the European Union and the United States of America that can be a common point of reference in the context of our effort to combat terrorism, which is also part of the joint declaration.
In the European Union, we have a strong desire for the Guantánamo Bay detention centre to be permanently closed, and we welcome the fact that President Obama is persisting in his commitment to do so.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the European Union, including the European Commission, has consistently called for the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention facility. As already mentioned by the Minister, the European Union established a two-tier framework to support the closure of Guantánamo, firstly through the Justice and Home Affairs Council conclusion of 4 June 2009 and the annexed information exchange mechanism and, secondly, through the Joint Statement of the European Union and its Member States and the United States of America on the Closure of the Guantánamo Bay Detention Facility and Future Counter-Terrorism Cooperation of 15 June 2009.
The Council conclusions and the joint statement clearly state that the decisions on the reception of former detainees and the determination of their legal status fall within the sole responsibility and competence of a receiving EU Member State or Schengen-associated country. Former detainees received under this scheme may have access to rehabilitation measures in the EU Member States under the applicable national laws.
In the context of the abovementioned statement on the closure of Guantánamo, on 16 June 2009 the President of the Council wrote to the co-chair of the US Detention Policy Task Force. In this letter, the European Union put forward a non-paper with principles of international law relevant to the fight against terrorism. It includes unequivocal statements on due process guarantees, such as access to court to challenge arrest, detention and transfer, as well as on the prohibition of torture. They have been discussed in detail in the dialogue on counter-terrorism and international law.
The Commission considers these guarantees to be important to this dialogue, as they contribute to a better understanding of how the fight against terrorism should respect the rule of law and international law, including international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law. As already mentioned, the European Union opposes the death penalty and has intervened in individual cases with third countries, including the United States, to prevent it from being carried out. The Commission will consider appropriate steps in case the death penalty is imposed on a former Guantánamo detainee tried by a US court or military commission. The European Commission appreciates the steps taken so far by President Obama to close Guantánamo and hopes to see further progress on this in the future.
Madam President, Mr López Garrido, Commissioner, I would first of all like to point out that the European Parliament has expressed its opinion on the situation of the prisoners in Guantánamo on various occasions through various resolutions.
In his inauguration speech, President Obama said that he was making a commitment to close the Guantánamo detention centre within a year. This deadline passed on 22 January and the fact that it has not been closed is proof that often in politics it is easier to make promises than to keep them.
Also, as the representative of the Presidency-in-Office of the Council said, President Obama's personal representative has visited the European Union, met with our President and with several Member States and asked for our cooperation, which has to be offered on the basis of a series of premises mentioned by the Commissioner. One of these is that this is a problem created by the previous government of the United States, and that the European Union has to cooperate, but on the basis of certain requirements, in particular, the security of our Member States.
In this respect, I would like to recall the decision made by some Member States, including the one that currently holds the Presidency of the Council, my own country. I would like to ask the representative of the Spanish Presidency if he is thinking of taking any additional measures to try to harmonise the response of the Member States to the problems that have arisen in Yemen in particular, or whether he is intending to leave this decision to the individual and sovereign context of each Member State, as decided by the Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs.
One final question, Madam President: it is indeed true that 100 out of the 190 or so prisoners that remain have been sent to their countries of origin or to third countries, and that 40 are going to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States courts. There are, however, still 50 that are not going to be released because there is not sufficient proof to take them into custody but the risk that they actually pose has forced the United States Government to decide that they should not be released. I would like to ask the Commission and the Council what they think about the situation of these 50 people who are not going to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States courts.
Guantánamo is a creation of the Bush Administration but it would not have been possible without the help of European allies and without the silence of the European Union. Hence it falls to the Union to act in accordance with its values and interests, doing everything it can to close this sordid chapter of our history.
The image of the EU in the world, the transatlantic relationship, the fight against terrorism and freedom of movement within the Schengen Area all mean that the request to receive prisoners from Guantánamo merits a collective and consistent European response. However, this response has been late in coming and is limited to bilateral understandings between the United States and some Member States.
It is shocking that large countries that were accomplices of Bush in the extraordinary renditions, in the secret prisons and in Guantánamo, such as Germany, the UK, Italy, Poland and Romania, should shirk their responsibilities by ignoring the appeals of the Obama Administration. This is a topic for the common foreign and security policy, which should be dealt with by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the European Union, in view of Article 24 of the Treaty of Lisbon, and it must be based on mutual political solidarity among the Member States.
It falls to the High Representative, now equipped with the power of initiative, under Article 30 of the treaty, to propose and lead a true European strategy to assist in the closing of Guantánamo as quickly as possible, ensuring the necessary support for the individual recovery and social reintegration of released persons, including their right to family reunification.
I must welcome the contribution of my own country, Portugal, as the first to offer this assistance to the Obama Administration, for urging its other European partners to do the same, and for already welcoming persons who have unjustly suffered years of captivity in Guantánamo.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, some European governments actively participated in illegal rendition, torture and illegal detention. Others gave background support. Others pretended not to see. So it was not something that just happened 'over there'. That is one of the reasons we have kept our continuing interests.
Of course, MEPs spent many years calling for the closure of Guantánamo, so we warmly welcome the announcement by President Obama and we understand the difficulties in unravelling the mess left by George Bush. However, it is extremely frustrating that nearly 200 men remain there. We also fully welcome the federal trials for people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but why did it not happen eight years ago? The best response to the terrorists is criminal convictions.
We will continue to push EU governments to take more detainees for resettlement, both out of transatlantic solidarity and out of guilt at their own complicity, and we will resist Chinese threats regarding the Uighurs. It does not help that the United States is unable to settle any of the 17 Uighurs in US territory.
My own constituent, Shaker Aamer, a legal UK resident whose family of a British wife and four British children live in Battersea in London, is still, after eight years, marooned in legal limbo in Guantánamo. He appears to be the victim of pass-the-parcel, whereby the US and UK governments may be colluding to bundle him off to his home country Saudi Arabia. He is a direct witness to his own and others' torture, not only by the US but by UK secret agents. This would be very convenient in preventing his testimony before UK courts.
We do, as I say, welcome the efforts to close Guantánamo, but we oppose military commissions and other continuing abuses. Europe must do more as well.
Madam President, Mr López Garrido, the US High Representatives you mentioned also met us Members of the European Parliament when they visited Brussels recently.
Parliament may, of course, be in a key position to encourage Member States to try and establish a common policy with regard to closing Guantánamo. It is very obvious that Guantánamo is still a glaring symbol of injustice and that its closure is in the interests of the European Union.
We expressed the opinion which the European Parliament also stated in its resolution in February last year. We also told them that we did not just want to talk about where to place the Guantánamo detainees, but that at the same time, we also wanted to discuss with the United States the notion that their policy on the care of the prisoners and their penal code needed to be reformed comprehensively in order for it to comply with the principles of the rule of law.
Mr López Garrido, Commissioner, I would hope that you will take this seriously and discuss these matters with the US representatives in the dialogues you mentioned.
Finally, I want to say how important it is for the European Union to render an account of its own involvement in these secret arrests and detention centres. I would like to refer to the important work done by my colleague, Mr Coelho, in the previous parliamentary term. We must continue this work because, to this day, the European Union has still not explained in any way what the role of its Member States was in these secret arrests and detention centres on EU territory.
Madam President, in reference to the statement of my respected fellow Member who spoke before me, I would like to stress that, in fact, there is no firm evidence and there are no specific facts concerning the existence of CIA detention centres and prisons in some European countries, at least, not in Poland. Once again, in the course of the last few years, we are talking about Guantánamo in the European Parliament. I would like to point out that we have also talked about this during Barack Obama's Presidency, and so it seems this problem is not something we can attribute exclusively to the dreadful and evil administration of George Bush junior. It appears this is something more complicated. I say this because the representative of the Council and the Spanish Presidency said that, in fact, the Americans still have not done everything they promised.
Finally, I would just like to add that it is very good that the European Union is speaking out on matters concerning citizens' freedoms. However, let us also remember the victims - those who are the victims of terrorists.
Mr Czarnecki, will you accept a question from Mrs Hautala?
(PL) Madam President, I was referring to the statement of the respected fellow Member of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance who spoke before me.
(FI) Madam President, Mr Czarnecki perhaps does not know that on 22 December 2009, a European government admitted for the first time that there had been such a secret detention centre on its own territory. This happened when a Lithuanian parliamentary committee stated that a CIA prison of this sort had operated in Lithuania in the war against terrorism.
I am happy to note that the Lithuanian Government has acted robustly in response to this revelation.
Madam President, I thank the honourable Member for this remark, but I would like to inform her that I am a representative of Poland, not Lithuania.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I expressly welcome the fact that the European Parliament is once again debating the subject of the immediate closure of the prison of torture in Guantánamo Bay, and I endorse the words and standpoints of all my fellow Members who have called for decisive action by the European Union and the Member States.
In reality, it is a transatlantic cooperation problem. Almost 800 people from over forty countries have been detained there in disregard of the Geneva Convention - without charge, without a lawyer and without a trial. There are numerous reports of the murder and of the most dreadful abuse and humiliation of the detainees. The fact that most Member States of the European Union have, up to now, shied away from declaring their willingness as third countries to receive detainees from Guantánamo Bay is, is, in my opinion, a disgrace and quite deplorable, and I call on the Commission to immediately bring this issue before the Council once again, including the subject of the discovery of the part played by European countries in the illegal detention of prisoners there.
I will perhaps finish with one last thought: the use of Guantánamo Bay as a torture prison constitutes a clear violation of the original lease agreement, and Baroness Ashton and the other Members of the Commission responsible for foreign policy should perhaps join with me in calling on the US Government to draw a symbolic line under this disgraceful chapter and give Guantánamo back to Cuba.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, I come from the West Midlands, the home of the so-called 'Tipton Taliban', who were detained at Guantánamo. As a UKIP MEP, I must agree that seizure and deportation of people from one country to be tried in another, without judicial oversight, and to face foreign imprisonment, is an alien process. It is an affront to liberty, democracy, accountability and natural human rights.
I can give you a list of British citizens who have been forced into imprisonment in this way, into squalid and unfit jails, not at the hands of the CIA and its rendition programme, but at the hands of the EU Member States under the European arrest warrant which this House created. It was made in the EU. So, before you condemn the USA, look in the mirror and see your own hypocrisy.
(DE) Madam President, the closure of Guantánamo is surely a sign that the US has to concede that it has violated human rights, including for the purpose of the fight against terrorism, and that it wants to put an end to it. I therefore welcome this step. Slovakia, Italy and other Member States have declared their willingness to accept detainees. In my opinion, that needs to be discussed at European level, as former prisoners could end up in any Member State as a result of the Schengen Agreement. In essence, however, we first need to clarify three points.
Firstly - and this is neither disgraceful nor deplorable, Mr Scholz - the security risk for the host country needs to be clarified. Any specific relation of the detainee to the Member State in question must also be examined. Finally and fundamentally, it should first be clarified conclusively why the prisoners in question cannot also be accommodated in the United States.
(PT) Mr López Garrido, Commissioner, Guantánamo was one of the biggest mistakes of the Bush Administration. It violated international conventions, such as the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Convention against Enforced Disappearance, and it permitted arbitrary treatment, disrespect for human rights, the imprisonment of innocent people and torture.
President Obama was entirely correct when he declared that it was essential to close Guantánamo in order to give back to the United States of America the moral authority which it lost by the use of extra-judicial instruments in the fight against terrorism. President Obama made the decision on his first day in the White House to suspend the trials before military tribunals and to announce the closure of the Guantánamo base. His task has not been easy, especially in view of the lack of cooperation on the part of the US Congress.
In this European Parliament, we have always been divided with respect to the transatlantic strategy, but we obtained a broad consensus against the prison of shame. In the Council, deeply divided by the issue of the Iraq war, it was possible for all the Ministers for Foreign Affairs to be unanimous in demanding the closure of Guantánamo. As Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra has already said, several Member States have agreed to receive ex-prisoners into their territories: France, Portugal, Ireland, Belgium, the UK, Italy and Hungary. The decision whether or not to receive prisoners from Guantánamo is a decision exclusively for each of the Member States, but it should be taken on the basis of European coordination. In a Europe without borders and with freedom of movement, information needs to be shared among the Member States.
Mr López Garrido, Commissioner, in expressing my concern at the delay in the situation in America, I should like to ask: what, in your opinion, might the European Union still do to assist? What is it that we are not doing but could still do? And what, in your opinion, is currently impeding or rendering it more difficult for the European Union to give this help?
(ES) Madam President, Guantánamo was a legal and humanitarian aberration, perhaps the most visible example of the Bush Administration's unilateral concept of international society and international relations, with complete contempt for international law. There was a great deal to repair following the Bush disaster, and President Obama is repairing it.
He started off on the right foot a year ago when he announced the closure of Guantánamo as one of his first decisions, a brave decision with which to restore the legitimacy of the United States in the world, and also a gesture towards the Muslim community. However, the self-imposed deadline of 22 January for the closure of Guantánamo has passed and there are still 192 prisoners.
If the European Union governments really want to establish a genuine strategic relationship, they must support President Obama's decision, and the best way to do so is to accept prisoners or detainees from Guantánamo. Spain and other European Union countries are doing this on the basis of the joint declaration of 15 June which has been mentioned and which established a shared framework for receiving detainees.
However, although technically these are unilateral, sovereign decisions to be made by each Member State, it should be joint action by the European Union to demonstrate its support for a shared European Union decision that Parliament has demanded on several occasions, especially the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament.
This concerns 50 prisoners: those declared to be suitable for release. This is a figure that should be manageable for the 27. In addition to the existing mechanisms for exchanging information between the Member States and the countries that are members of the Schengen area that are taking part in receiving prisoners, we need to have an exchange of information and experiences on suitable practices for socially integrating the former detainees.
(SL) First of all, I should like to thank the representatives of both the Council and the Commission for their proactive stance on Guantánamo. Guantánamo has been an anomaly and a disgrace since day one, since the day this prison opened. Its opening could perhaps be more easily understood in the wake of the shocking attacks of 11 September, but years have passed since. Yet, the disgrace of Guantánamo continues and, in fact, all of us who believe in the values of Western civilisation, such as respect for human rights and the rule of law, continue to feel ashamed of it.
This morning, I chanced upon a website of a government organisation called Joint Task Force Guantánamo. You would laugh, if their description of the situation in Guantánamo were not so sad: it is described as a five-star hotel and as a place with all the comforts you could need. It is high time we called on Mr Obama to close down this disgrace and spare us the reproach of such hypocrisy.
(FR) Madam President, I, too, hope that everything is done at European level to encourage the Member States to assume their responsibilities and accommodate those Guantánamo detainees who have been proven innocent. They are victims and must be accommodated safely on European soil.
Everyone knows, however, that the closure of Guantánamo will not stop questions being asked about human rights and counterterrorism, either in the United States or in Europe. In the United States, as you said, the antiterrorism law still permits unlimited pre-trial detention and trials before military courts. In Europe, well, the Guantánamo prisoners did not just fall out of the sky. I genuinely believe that there has been a failure to shed light on this subject.
Mrs Hautala rightly spoke of the parliamentary investigation concluded on 22 December by Lithuania. It should be praised to the skies. It is exemplary. It must serve as an example. Conclusions were not drawn from these illegal practices on European soil, and I believe that that is the job of the European Commission; that is the job of the Council.
We must draw every possible conclusion from the illegal practices which took place and which led to the opening of Guantánamo, a decision in which the Member States were fully complicit.
(FR) Madam President, first of all, we learnt very recently that the Guantánamo detention centre will close not in 2010, as scheduled, but in 2013 - in other words, at the end of President Obama's term of office. Although that closure is taking longer than planned, we can still be glad that it is under way, because it could have also been stopped. It is a response to a wish expressed by Europe. Indeed, we cannot, on the one hand, criticise the United States for years about the Guantánamo centre and, on the other, fail to show much will or ambition on our side in order to help it solve this problem.
A short time ago, I met the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, who explained the scale of the task to me, but who also made me aware of the desire and the will of the United States to benefit from the European Member States' support. This support would entail helping it to close that detention centre by accommodating some of the detainees in Europe. We must therefore help the United States, as part of a coordinated effort, to turn the page on an institution that we Europeans have been opposing for many years.
(SK) Why should the European Union have to put up with the consequences of American policies? It would be simpler to call for America and its President, who is fulfilling his pre-election promise - in which many leading politicians publicly support him, by the way - to sort out this large and unwelcome problem itself. However, the European Union has much in common with this. Terrorists have also threatened and attacked the EU and continue to threaten the entire world, of which the EU is an integral part. Have we already forgotten the London underground, Germany, Holland, Spain and the dozens of foiled terrorist attempts? We are therefore in this together with America. It affects all of us.
Our attention should rather at this stage be focused especially on the prevention and elimination of negative effects on these people, putting all possible efforts into assisting these people in their social reintegration, so that they can get back to normal life and lead a decent civilian life with the families.
(ES) Madam President, I would like to emphasise the point raised recently by Mrs Flautre. It is very important that we help President Obama to close Guantánamo. We have been asking for this for a long time, and it is essential that in the European Union, we also have the necessary support to receive all of the people that the Obama Administration is currently asking us to receive.
This should not, however, cause us to forget that this prison also existed to a large extent because it was encouraged by Europe. We therefore have an historical responsibility that we cannot, under any circumstances, conceal. We need to help to close Guantánamo because it is also essential that we assume our responsibility as Europeans, because this is a European responsibility.
For a long time, Europe has looked the other way, for example, in the case of aircraft. When he was the Portuguese Prime Minister, the current President of the European Commission authorised and allowed flights to pass above Portuguese territory en route to Guantánamo. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and the Commission, this historical responsibility cannot be allowed under any circumstances.
(EL) Madam President, we quite rightly all agree to give practical support to the decision by the United States of America to close the Guantánamo detention centre and, of course, we are urging the Member States of the Union to accept detainees.
It is commonly accepted that Guantánamo was a mistake on the part of the United States of America in their endeavour to fight terrorism. However, we must ensure that similar errors are not repeated in future, especially not in Europe. Unfortunately, however, the report to be tabled shortly before the UN Human Rights Council, in March 2010, raises serious suspicions about the practice of the secret detention of suspects in the Member States of the European Union such as Great Britain, Romania and Poland.
We cannot condemn such conduct and say that they are right to close Guantánamo, on the one hand, and tolerate similar conduct, which we perhaps believe does not constitute such a serious problem, on the other. We all need to face up to our responsibilities.
(PL) Madam President, I would like to start with what the previous speaker said here. For you said most categorically, Mr Papanikolaou, that illegal prisons existed in Europe, including in Poland and Rumania. Speaking as a Pole, I want to state clearly that there is no firm evidence that such prisons existed in Poland. That is my first comment. Now my second comment: I do not think there is any dispute among us, in this Chamber, about whether Guantánamo should cease to exist. However, it is very easy to see that closing down Guantánamo is going to be a very complicated process, and that no one wants to help with this. We have to ask what can be done about this. Well, I would like to ask the following question: have any changes been made in terms of the techniques used to house and interrogate prisoners? For many methods have been used there - from submerging prisoners' heads in water to depriving them of sleep for many nights. Are we certain these inhumane techniques are now no longer used there?
(HU) I am pleased that my fellow Members are so outraged about the heavy-handed infringements of human rights taking place in Guantánamo in the name of combating terrorism. I can take this outrage seriously, however, only if you finally make a commitment, in response to my numerous statements to this effect, to examine the matter of the Guantánamo that exists right here within the EU, in Hungary. I repeat, for the umpteenth time, that in Hungary, there are twelve individuals belonging to the political opposition who have been in pre-trial detention for nearly a year on charges of terrorism, and who are kept in the same conditions and whose criminal procedural rights are being infringed just as much as those of the prisoners at Guantánamo. I would ask that my fellow Members kindly indicate with a show of hands who among you is willing to take this case seriously and take part in a detailed investigation. I am waiting for the show of hands by Madam President and my fellow Members.
Madam President, I would like to discuss two very specific matters that have been mentioned: one by Mr Salafranca and another by Mr Scholz.
The first matter is Yemen. With regard to Yemen, I do not have any evidence that a specific decision has been made or is to be made connecting Yemen with prisoners that come from there and are in Guantánamo. The situation in Yemen was the subject of conclusions of the first Foreign Affairs Council meeting in the history of the Union. There has only been one ordinary Foreign Affairs Council meeting, on 25 January, and there was a conclusion inviting Yemen to conduct a programme of major political reforms, but no reference was made to the issue of Guantánamo. We do, of course, support these conclusions, as well as the conference that was held in London on 27 January.
With regard to an allusion made by Mr Scholz to the Guantánamo Bay situation and the possibility of its territorial status being changed, this is an issue that arises from the international treaty of 1903 between the United States and Cuba. Therefore, it is an entirely bilateral issue between Cuba and the United States.
I believe that there is a general agreement that the Guantánamo prison constitutes a series of serious human rights violations and legal aberrations that cannot be tolerated, that we do not want repeated, and that the European Union has severely criticised. It is for this very reason that we want to work with the President of the United States, who decided to put an end to Guantánamo and to close the prison. Not only this, but he also decided that there would be a review of United States prison policy.
There are therefore strong grounds for Mr Vajgl's comments about the intrinsic need to close this prison due to massive human rights violations, and for other comments that have been made. Moreover, I believe, in any case, that the fact that human rights violations take place in other countries of the world or in Europe does not mean that this situation should not be criticised or that we should not work to ensure that it does not happen again. I am saying this in relation to the speech by Mr Nattrass, because I am of course sure that he agrees that there is nothing in Europe similar to the Guantánamo prison.
The European Union and the United States have worked very thoroughly on this issue. I have mentioned the declaration made on 15 June last year in which the United States and the European Union committed to working for the consolidation of human rights and the fight against terrorism. This concerns the human rights violated in the Guantánamo prison, but also the need for the fight against terrorism to be conducted with absolute respect for freedoms, fundamental rights and legality. It is important for us to be in line with this. I therefore completely agree with what Mr Coelho said about the importance of the European Union contributing to this.
However, we are not only talking about the decision by the United States to close Guantánamo, with all the problems that brings, which I discussed in my first speech. It also has to be recognised that President Obama is genuinely breaking with the past. This means turning over a new leaf, not only with Guantánamo, but with all of the practices that have surrounded it. I think that this is very clear when we look at the measures that President Obama has adopted.
He has put an end to the secret detentions by the CIA, and has ordered that from now on, all United States prisoners be registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross. He has put an end to the 'enhanced' interrogation techniques, also by the CIA. This means that US investigators can no longer use legal opinions on torture and interrogation techniques that arose after 11 September as justification, which of course means turning over a new leaf. There has also been a re-examination of transfer policy to ensure that it is in line with international law.
This is something that we welcome, and we said so in the joint declaration. We welcome the fact that there has been a thorough review of United States policy on detention, transfer, trial, interrogation and the fight against terrorism. We therefore said explicitly in the declaration that we noted the commitment by the United States to reconsider all the issues surrounding security, and to comprehensively review the policies undertaken, thanks to the order signed by President Obama on 22 January 2009.
I believe that this is something that needs to be pointed out. In order to achieve it, we do, of course, need to cooperate, and Mrs Muñiz de Urquiza referred to this very explicitly: to cooperating with the United States. Europe has criticised the prison on many occasions, and Europe needs to cooperate as far as possible, although there are two types of limitation. There is one that affects the United States, which is that ultimately, it is United States legislation and United States sovereignty that is being applied. The other is that the Member States of the European Union also sovereignly decide whether to accept prisoners from Guantánamo.
Of course the Presidency-in-Office of the Council is clearly in favour of cooperation and of encouraging cooperation, while respecting the right to security of every country and every citizen, which is therefore another principle that needs to be taken into account. Therefore, as Mrs Gomes said, we need to promote cooperation between the United States and the European Union, but also cooperation between the Member States of the Union.
We need to cooperate among ourselves on this, we need to have dialogue among ourselves, and part of this dialogue needs to go even further than the specific subject of Guantánamo. This matter has been mentioned in some of the speeches, for example, by Mrs Hautala and Mr Czarnecki: the subject of victims. I think that this is one of the areas of dialogue that we should implement in our relations with the United States. I think that this dialogue regarding the victims of the various terrorist crimes is a matter that needs to be dealt with in the future, but in any case, there is an in-depth dialogue ongoing with the United States on this issue.
I would like to finish by saying that the European Union has a very clear position regarding the issue of Guantánamo in favour of the closure of the prison. The European Union has a very clear position that human rights and fundamental freedoms should not be violated on any grounds, and, of course, in favour of the fight against terrorism and the need to work together with the United States. This is a credible position, given that there has undeniably been a radical change, an obvious radical change from the past, in terms of the counter-terrorism policy of the United States and of President Obama and in terms of a whole series of policies relating to detention, transfer and interrogation. This is the position that we need to strengthen and help to consolidate. The Council's position is therefore one of clear cooperation with the United States in order to achieve what we all want, which is the permanent closure of the Guantánamo prison.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, first of all, I want to reiterate that we believe that it is in the interests of all of us in the European Union to close the Guantánamo detention centre, and, as I have stated before, the Commission expects further progress on closing Guantánamo in the near future to be made by the American Administration.
As a comment on Mr Scholz's intervention, I would like to underline again that we believe that the prime responsibility for Guantánamo lies with the United States. However, the Commission is of the opinion that we, the European Union, should be as helpful as possible in resolving the issue and some important steps have already been taken by the Obama Administration. They were mentioned by the Minister.
In response to Mr Zemke's question, we should indeed mention that Obama ended the use of enhanced interrogation measures and techniques, and we welcome this step.
In response to Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra's question about the 50 detainees whose fate is not decided yet, we believe that the US Administration will proceed with those 50 cases and they will achieve a state or solution similar to those achieved in the previous ones.
The Commission has not yet received the report of the task force, so we cannot give you any specific clarification, but in general, we believe that we want a due process for all.
Finally, we believe that we should continue to support a coordinated EU approach to the situation, and we will appreciate Parliament's input and efforts in this respect.
The debate is closed.


12. Hedge funds and private equity (
- Before the vote:
Madam President, I rise under Rules 9, 93 and 94, which deal with transparency, to declare that I have an interest in relation to the issues to be voted and so will not be participating in this vote. I similarly declared an interest when we considered this matter in committee and did not participate in the discussion or the vote on that occasion.


3. Administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (
Mr President, the opinion that the European Parliament will vote now on the Commission's proposal for a directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation does not prejudice the final position that the Parliament will take with regard to the implementation of Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the consequences for the procedures based on Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999, especially as regards the regulatory procedure with scrutiny or the position that the Parliament may wish to take on delegated acts in other legislation.


Amendment of the agenda
Ladies and gentlemen, this morning, a meeting of the Conference of Presidents was held. We finished the conference 10 minutes ago. We discussed very thoroughly the questions of organising the vote on the resolutions on the Europe 2020 strategy. As you very well know, it is a strategy which is intended to bring our citizens work, prosperity and stability throughout the Union for a whole decade. So it is a crucial strategy for the future situation in the European Union, and also for outside the Union, because we can only be strong if we are strong internally.
In relation to the discussion during the meeting of the Conference of Presidents, arguments were put forward for voting on our resolutions on the Europe 2020 strategy today, because we would like to have them as quickly as possible so that we can participate responsibly in the discussion being held on this subject with other European institutions. However, there were also arguments saying that we need a strategy which we will adopt by a huge majority. If we want to influence the situation in the Union, we have to organise a big majority which supports the resolutions.
There is a fear that there may not be such a majority, today. So, on the one hand, we need the strategy as quickly as possible and, on the other, we want a strong resolution. This is what we need.
In relation to this responsible discussion among the chairs of our political groups, I have decided to submit a proposal that the debate be postponed. This is in accordance with Rule 140 of our Rules of Procedure.
I will say this again: the decision is very important, because we realise the resolution is needed quickly, but we need a resolution which has strong support, and these matters are of great importance.
Mr President, thank you for your statement. I should like to add that our Hungarian friends are in the same situation as our Polish friends in terms of floods. We therefore have the same thoughts for our Hungarian fellow citizens as for our Polish fellow citizens.
(Applause)
I endorse your presentation. In a crisis situation, democratic forces must join together. It is with this in mind that I had proposed to the Conference of Presidents, before this Strasbourg session, that this decision be postponed to June, because I had noticed certain discrepancies and ambiguities. I did not obtain a majority at the Conference of Presidents - we are a democratic Parliament here - and we have therefore tried to prepare this resolution.
At lunchtime yesterday, during discussions in our respective groups, we realised that time was short. I do not want to say that the work was botched, as that would be to refuse to recognise the work done by our services, our Vice-Presidents and the people responsible for preparing this work. We thought, before all or some of the heads of delegation, that it would probably be best, for Parliament's image, to get the text withdrawn and to vote next time; the crisis, may I point out, will not be over by the month of June. We discussed the matter and we agreed to decide that the heads of the large groups would ask for the vote to be postponed until June.
Martin Schulz told me - and was the only one to do so - that first of all, I needed the majority of the group, but everyone needs the majority of the group. We did not therefore discuss amendments in our group yesterday evening, nor did we discuss the resolution today, as the group was in favour of postponement, in order to find a solution, which Parliament considers indispensable towards our fellow citizens.
In the meantime, we have received a letter from Guy Verhofstadt; that is what made us decide to request a simple three-week postponement. In this crisis situation, I am asking you to grant it so that we, Parliament, can show our fellow citizens that we are a strong body and responsible men and women.
Mr Schulz would like to speak against the proposal.
Mr President, at the beginning of his speech, Mr Daul referred to the difficult situation in Hungary. Many countries are currently experiencing problems. For example, the people of Slovakia have been hard hit by flooding. We have a strong feeling of solidarity with the citizens of all the countries affected by hardship of this kind, including Hungary, Poland and Slovakia.
Mr President, you and Mr Daul described the situation in the Conference of Presidents as well as yesterday and also this morning. I have nothing to add about procedural matters. However, on behalf of Mr Cohn-Bendit, Mr Bisky and myself, I would like to explain that we did not vote in favour of your proposal to postpone the vote this morning in the Conference of Presidents, because we believe that we should and, in fact, can vote today.
There was a desire to adopt a resolution of this kind in Parliament on a broader level and with a broader majority than was the case in February. What has happened in the last few days does not relate to procedure but to content. However, one thing is completely clear. There has been a move away from the content which enjoyed general consensus in February and, given the serious crisis, this is not surprising. There are several different solutions. There are solutions which some people believe are good, and that is legitimate in democratic terms, and there are our solutions, which differ from those and which we believe are better. We cannot bring ourselves to the point of exhaustion in the search for a consensus. Now is the time to take up firm positions. You can take up firm positions and we will do the same. We have attempted to find a consensual solution, but this did not work. Therefore, we should now try to obtain a majority for one position or the other.
If there is a majority in favour of postponement, I must say at this point that we in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament will, of course, remain open to new negotiations. However, the starting point for these negotiations will be the text which we have submitted together with our fellow Members from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. Therefore, Mr President, I am of the opinion that we should vote today.
(Parliament agreed to the request)
I would also like to thank Mr Daul and Mr Schulz for calling attention to the fact that there are also floods, today, in other parts of Europe. You are absolutely right, and expressions of solidarity are due to all the affected countries and all the people of Europe who are today facing danger.
Mr President, the water flooding into Poland is flooding from the Czech Republic, where it caused enormous damage in the first stage of these floods. The Czech Republic is also part of the European Union.
Ladies and gentlemen, I was talking about this a moment ago, when I thanked Mr Daul and Mr Schulz. Thank you, too, Mr Březina, for drawing attention to this. We have disastrous floods. Thank you very much.


11. Asthma inhalers (vote)


Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes


Agenda for the next sitting: see Minutes


Request for defence of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Witold Tomczak (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Sakalas, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Witold Tomczak.
rapporteur. - Mr President, in April 2005 Mr Tomczak requested that the European Parliament defend his immunity in criminal proceedings, but Parliament decided, a year later, not to defend his immunity.
On 21 May 2007, Mr Tomczak again requested that the European Parliament defend his immunity. In the new request, Mr Tomczak presented three new arguments concerning the same case. The first argument: Mr Tomczak complains that the Court of Ostrów did not grant him access to the files of the case. However, after examination of his complaint, it was found that Mr Tomczak was granted access to the files when he visited the court himself. He even photographed at least one of the documents.
The second argument: Mr Tomczak claims that the proceedings are not objective, as the supervisory judge made a request to the judge presiding in the case to deliver the judgment as soon as possible, even without the presence of the accused. However, this request was issued after Mr Tomczak had failed to appear at the court hearings on as many as 12 occasions.
The third argument: Mr Tomczak alleges that the Court of Ostrów is prejudiced against his person. However, the fact, declared by Mr Tomczak, that the judge presiding in the case lives in the same town as the prosecutor against whom Mr Tomczak had previously filed charges does not in itself prevent that judge from acting objectively.
In addition, Mr Tomczak has the opportunity to appeal to a higher court and to make a cassation complaint to the Polish Supreme Court. The argument put forward by Mr Tomczak, who was a member of the Polish Parliament in 1999, that his national parliamentary immunity remained a formal obstacle to the criminal proceedings should be duly considered by the Polish judicial authorities.
The problematic legal consequence that, according to Polish law, Mr Tomczak might lose his seat in this Parliament has been noted by the Committee on Legal Affairs, and its chairman put an oral question to the Commission. It was answered on 14 January 2008 by Commissioner Frattini, who promised to address the Polish authorities, with the aim of ensuring that Polish law does not discriminate between Members of the European Parliament and national parliamentarians.
After the debate with the Commission, the Committee on Legal Affairs took a decision not to recommend the defence of Mr Tomczak's parliamentary immunity on the above grounds.
It is clear that Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities are not applicable in the case of Mr Tomczak. His request should be treated as a request for a decision of the European Parliament to ask for suspension of the proceedings against him, as, for example, is possible under Article 105 of the Polish constitution.
Following its established practice, Parliament could decide to defend the immunity of one of its Members if a suspicion existed that the prosecution was based on an intention to prejudice a member's political activities (fumus persecutionis). There is no clear evidence of this kind in the case of Mr Tomczak.
In the light of the above considerations, I recommend that the immunity of Mr Tomczak should not be defended.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, the main purpose of parliamentary immunity is to protect Parliament itself as a democratically elected representative body. It ensures the collective independence of this institution against external pressure and guarantees Members freedom of speech and action whilst undertaking their parliamentary duties. The legal basis of the immunity of Members of the European Parliament is laid down in the 1965 Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities. Article 8 of the Protocol states that Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties. Similarly, Article 9 states that during sessions of the European Parliament, its Members shall enjoy in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament, and in the territory of any other Member State, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings. This immunity also applies to Members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.
Pursuant to the above, it should be noted that the charge against Mr Tomczak does not relate to opinions expressed or votes cast by him in the course of his official duties, because he was not a Member of the European Parliament at the time of the events in question. In view of the circumstances, therefore, there is no legal basis for granting Mr Tomczak parliamentary immunity. Mr Tomczak's case has, however, highlighted the lack of consistency between arrangements for election to the Polish Sejm and the European Parliament in Poland regarding conditions to be met by candidates for election, and the circumstances in which after being elected individuals may be deprived of their seat.
This matter was debated at a special sitting and when Poland joined the Union it undertook to comply with the EU legislation in force, notably regarding its direct implications for the internal legislation of a Member State. I would like to take this opportunity to call for legislation relating to the status of Members of the Polish Sejm and European Parliament to be harmonised at the earliest opportunity. As things stand at present, a Member of the European Parliament may automatically lose his or her seat as a result of certain actions, whilst a Member of the Polish Sejm may not be penalised in any way for the same actions.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, Mr Tomczak's case is an example of the Polish judicial system's failure to recognise that when Poland became a Member of the European Union it undertook to comply with the legal system in force in the latter. The European Parliament has not yet taken a decision on Mr Tomczak's immunity, but the competent court nonetheless set 15 February, last week, as the date for a sitting.
Not only does such action by the court amount to contempt of the European Parliament, but it also fails to comply with the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure and with the Polish Penal Code, pursuant to which no penal proceedings may be brought against a Member until the European Parliament has ruled on the issue of immunity. The situation I have outlined leads to the conclusion that in Mr Tomczak's case we are dealing either with an exceptionally incompetent court or, alternatively, with a court intent on convicting Mr Tomczak for a minor incident, which in his case would result in him losing his seat in the European Parliament.
Mr President, I urge all Members to vote against the lifting of immunity in the Tomczak case. We have had a very good debate in the Chamber. Everyone has agreed that we cannot allow Poland to set double standards: one for MPs at home and another, much stricter one, for MEPs here. The responsible Commissioner, Mr Frattini, promised to send a letter to the Polish Minister for Justice to insist on identical rules for waiving immunity.
I talked with Commissioner Frattini after the meeting on 14 January, and met with him again two weeks ago, when he said that he had instructed the services to send the letter. Last week I was in contact with his office. It confirmed that the letter had been sent, and that I would receive a copy of the letter the same day. Then somebody suddenly called from Commissioner Frattini's office telling me a different story, saying that the letter was still pending. So here we are, with no letter and no answer from the Polish Government.
Our rules are very clear: we have to have a vote. I would therefore ask you to vote against the waiving of immunity, and request that the case be referred back to the committee for a possible new decision once we have received the letter from Commissioner Frattini and the answer from Poland.
rapporteur. - Mr President, I think that the consequences of the issue of waiving immunity are not the same as waiving immunity. Mr Tomczak was expected and summoned to appear before a court 12 times, but he did not appear at court.
All the procedural and substantive questions raised in connection with Mr Tomczak's case, and especially the question of the alleged insulting language used against the police officers, should be resolved objectively by the Polish judicial authorities. Therefore, I would like to stress two points. The question of whether the immunity of Mr Tomczak was properly waived at the beginning of the proceedings, when he was a member of the Polish Parliament, is a question that can be verified only by the appropriate judicial authority in Poland, in this case the District Court in Ostrów Wielkopolski. There is always the possibility of appeal.
Secondly, the possibility of Mr Tomczak's losing his seat in this Parliament cannot be considered as a motive for the prosecution, as, at the time of the incident of 19 June 2004, Mr Tomczak was not a Member of the European Parliament, and the law applicable to national parliamentarians does not contain provisions for such consequences.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Committee on Legal Affairs recommends that the European Parliament should not defend the parliamentary immunity of Mr Tomczak.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes


Negotiation of an EU-Central America Association Agreement - Negotiation of an EU-Andean Community Association Agreement (debate)
The next item is the joint debate on
the report by Willy Meyer Pleite, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the negotiating mandate for an association agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the countries of Central America, of the other part, and
the report by Luis Yañez-Barnuevo García, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the European Parliament's recommendation to the Council on the negotiating mandate for an association agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Andean Community and its member countries, of the other part.
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, the Fourth European Union-Latin America and Caribbean Summit, last spring in Vienna, gave the green light to the start of negotiations of a strategic association agreement between Europe and the Andean Community. In this report I propose some thirty recommendations for the Council and the Commission to take into account when drawing up the negotiation guidelines. We want this association to be ambitious, broad and wide-ranging, in line with the association with the twins, Mercosur and Central America, because we believe it to be a strategic requirement for both regions.
In view of their history, language, culture, beliefs and values, as well as their common view of the world and their support for multilateralism and the United Nations system, Latin America and Europe are destined to become strategic allies in a globalised world. This is the case for the Andean countries in particular, where there are certain pockets of extreme poverty and the continent's greatest inequalities.
The agreement must have three pillars. A political-institutional pillar, a cooperation pillar and a trade pillar. In the political and security field, we should create a Euro-Andean Peace and Security Charter, implement a permanent political dialogue, promote the quality of democracy, social cohesion, support for governability, poverty reduction, human exchanges, combating terrorism, conflict prevention and coordination in terms of the reform of the United Nations, as well as civilian and military crisis management operations.
The second pillar is the promotion of sustainable human development and gradual access for Andean products to European markets, under competitive conditions, taking account of the immense economic imbalances and the degree of integration between Europeans and Andeans, which will require a review of the CAP and subsidies from the Union.
The third pillar is trade itself, but unlike other models with third countries, such as the Andean countries' agreements with the United States, they must not be free trade agreements in the strict sense, or free trade agreements pure and simple, but rather they must take account of the huge gulf separating the two regions. Without economic measures to provide support, cooperation and funding, purely commercial policies would not be able to play their role of contributing to development.
The inclusion of labour rights, particularly for indigenous and tribal peoples, the protection of decent working conditions, non-discrimination and equality between men and women in the workplace and the eradication of child labour must be included in the agreement. We must also stress in particular the importance of European investment as an essential factor in the development of those countries, as well as the need for European companies to apply the same standards with regard to working conditions as they do in European countries.
Immigration, as a phenomenon and as a source of opportunities, must be included in the agreement, with protection for the rights of immigrants, and transfers of money must be made easier, cheaper, more transparent and more secure.
The environmental chapter, which must have a prominent place in the agreement, must include the establishment of common policies aimed at energy saving, diversification, the promotion of alternative and renewable energy sources and the reduction of polluting emissions, in line with the approach taken by the last European Council.
In summary, Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the objective must be for us to be in a position to conclude this ambitious strategic association agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Andean Community and its Member States at the Fifth European Union-Latin America and Caribbean Summit in Lima in 2008.
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, it is clear to everybody that this debate that is going to take place in Parliament comes at a significant time for Latin America in general. It comes at a time when its people seem to be forcefully questioning the policy that has impoverished them. They are currently questioning the policy of neo-liberal formulae. President Bush's visit to Latin America is ample evidence of this.
Specifically, with regard to the Association Agreement with Central America, the European Union owes an historical debt to that region. We played a very significant role during the 1980s in Central America's process of pacification and democratisation - the San José agreements, the Esquipulas agreement - in which the European Union detached itself from the United States, adopting an autonomous position, and played a crucial role.
Central America's current situation is abundantly clear: there is very weak economic growth - currently 0.6% - rates of poverty that remain similar to those of the 1990s, and increasing inequalities.
Peace agreements have yet to be verified. The same is true in the fields of human rights, impunity and corruption, and regional integration is still very weak.
Within this context, this humble rapporteur opted for a certain kind of report with a view to determining what type of association we wanted. I based it on three fundamental pillars: political dialogue with a view to good governance, development cooperation to contribute to eliminating the structural causes of poverty and inequality, and trade under conditions of fairness and mutual benefit based on complementarity and solidarity. An agreement that seeks regional integration in order to contribute to the balanced and fair redistribution of Central America's income and wealth. That was the context. We wanted an agreement that did not turn into an agreement on a free trade area and on privatisation of public services. In short, we did not want political dialogue and cooperation to be overrun by free trade formulae.
I am convinced that a trade agreement of a pronounced neo-liberal nature between unequal regions - unequal in all senses of the word - would simply increase that inequality and promote exploitation by a business elite, leading to an even greater cycle of dependency, exclusion, poverty and extremely high social and environmental costs.
I believe that trade and cooperation must be geared towards sustainable development at regional level, benefiting the people, rather than a series of projects benefiting transnational capital, such as the Puebla-Panama Plan or the European Investment Bank.
It was with that intention that I drew up my humble report, with the cooperation of many civil society organisations from Europe and Central America. Parliament's Committee on Development and Committee on International Trade then naturally issued their opinions on the report. I would of course like to thank you for all of the contributions that improved the text from the point of view of the approach I wished to maintain throughout this process.
I would like in particular to thank Miguel Ángel Martínez for his always fair and cooperative contributions, in this case from the Committee on Development. In the opinion of the Committee on International Trade, Mr Susta presented some very significant amendments to the text which truly distort the report that I intended to present to the House.
The true intention was to produce a balanced report, based on those three pillars that I mentioned before, but, in practice, the amendments as a whole created a document that essentially sought the establishment of a free trade area.
On that point, my intention was to try to tone down that approach as far as possible. I am talking about the approach of trying to give Central America the impression that what we Europeans are seeking is essentially a free trade area. We agreed on seven compromise amendments with Mr Salafranca, of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, Mr Obiols, of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, and Mr Susta, of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, and I would like to thank them once again most warmly for their efforts to agree on a way to tone down the report and not to spoil it.
I would of course, however, like to thank Mr Obiols and Mrs De Kayser, of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, and Mr Romeva, of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, for their amendments, because they improve and provide more detail on this desire to turn the mandate into a clear mandate for an association agreement of that kind, one that does not include a free trade area.
This has been a good thing to a certain extent because, as I have said, we have managed to tone down such significant points as letter v), which explicitly recommends that the free trade area should be a priority strategic objective, and makes references to the CAFTA Plan, and we have naturally managed to tone it down, but not sufficiently so.
I do not know whether this has happened before, but I am going to recommend to my group that it abstain from the vote on this report, because I do not believe that it has achieved my intended objective, which was to produce a balanced report.
In any event, I am very interested to hear the opinion of Parlacen, the Central American Parliament, and of Central America's political organisations, and my hope is that, when the negotiation begins, the European Commission will bear in mind that what Central America is asking for is not a carbon copy of the United States' position, but an equidistant, different and autonomous position.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, let me first welcome, also on behalf of my colleague, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the remarkable work of the two rapporteurs as well the constructive analysis and comments made by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Development and the Committee on International Trade concerning the different aspects and perspectives for future agreements with these regions.
The conclusion of association agreements with Central America and the Andean Community is a long-standing strategic objective for both regions, confirmed repeatedly by the Heads of State and Government at the summits in Guadalajara and Vienna.
With the negotiation of these agreements, the EU shows its commitment to the region and its determination to reinforce its relations with all Latin American countries. Europe and Latin America are natural partners, and closer ties with Central America and the Andean Community will contribute to a stronger partnership, both politically and economically.
The agreements will be negotiated on a region-to-region basis in order to provide further impetus to the regional integration processes both in Central America and in the Andean Community. As repeatedly emphasised, also by the European Parliament, regional integration is key to political and social stability. It will also help to insert these regions more successfully into the world economy by developing larger and more stable economies able to attract investment. Nevertheless, it is worth dispelling the idea that the EU tries to 'impose' its own model: regional integration should be developed by each region on the basis of its own ambitions and agenda.
The association agreements are envisaged as comprehensive agreements, embracing the whole array of the multifaceted relations of the EU with both regions: political dialogue, cooperation and trade.
The respect and promotion of democratic principles, fundamental human rights, the rule of law and good governance will remain at the core of our relations with Central America and the Andean Community. In addition, the Commission is of the opinion that the association agreements should pay particular attention to the effective implementation of internationally-agreed standards in the human rights, social, core labour and environmental fields in order to enhance sustainable development.
Concerning political dialogue, these agreements will aim to tackle a wide range of matters, such as climate change, energy, migration and the fight against drugs. These are vital not only for both our regions but also for the entire planet. An enhanced dialogue with Central America and the Andean Community aims to seek constructive engagement towards effective multilateralism and international governance that may respond to the world challenges of the 21st century.
The political chapter of the association agreements will be accompanied by measures aiming to enhance bi-regional trade and investment in a balanced and fair way. This should be pursued not only through the progressive and reciprocal liberalisation of trade in goods and services, but also by establishing a fair and transparent regulatory framework. Asymmetries between our regions should also be taken into account. The trade part of the agreement will be fully consistent with WTO rules and obligations, while going beyond its basic rules, so as to maximise the mutual and long-term benefits of bi-regional trade liberalisation.
Cooperation between the two sides is to be deeply rooted in the global objectives and principles established by our development policy, such as the European Consensus on Development, as well as by the international agreements to which we are party, including the Millennium Development Goals, and the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Social cohesion will be a priority. The cooperation chapter should reflect the willingness to work jointly and to exchange experiences. It should also reflect solidarity towards the poorest and most excluded people.
Let me conclude with an overview on the preparation of these negotiations: the draft negotiating directives were adopted by the Commission on 6 December 2006 and are currently under discussion with Member States. The Commission hopes to have the negotiating directives adopted and, if conditions allow, actually to start negotiating with these two Latin American sub-regions within the first half of this year. If we manage to stick to this ambitious timetable, it will be largely thanks to your support and determination to enhance relations between the EU and Latin America, in particular with these two regions.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development. - (ES) Mr President, the initial report presented to us by Mr Meyer on the Association Agreement between the European Union and the countries of Central America provided the basis of the opinion that we drew up in the Committee on Development. We agreed in very general terms with his proposals and we also agreed on a series of recommendations from our Committee on Development with regard to them. Mr Meyer proved to be very receptive and we jointly signed seven amendments introducing the specific concerns of the Committee on Development.
I must point out, ladies and gentlemen, that I find the text being presented to the House to be very anaemic compared to the initial proposals. They have been reworked in a largely neo-liberal vein, perhaps reflecting the thinking of the majority of Parliament.
The truth is that we can live with these texts thanks to the compromises. We will vote for them, but we will not be voting with any enthusiasm, since they do not square with the needs of Central America or with the aspirations of its people and also because this text will not increase the European Union's standing within those societies.
Of the seven amendments proposed by the Committee on Development, three have been accepted. They stress that the Association Agreement between the European Union and Central America must include the development cooperation dimension and therefore take up the priorities defined in the European cooperation consensus, as the Commissioner has said: the eradication of poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Goals. As a result of those acknowledgements and the importance we attach to producing this agreement, the text that we will vote on contains just the minimum required for us to support it.
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank the rapporteur for a comprehensive and balanced report, which is exceptionally significant in today's world. It is a vital signpost and an aid to negotiating the Association Agreement between the European Union and the Andean Community at a crucial moment of political and economic change in the region.
The Andean Community is a productive and cohesive system integrating individual Latin American countries. Both parties - the European Union and the Andean Community - will benefit from a deepening of mutual political and economic relations. The guidelines drawn up for the Council are a cohesive and comprehensive document containing all the necessary elements for satisfactory cooperation. The rapporteur highlights the key role of political dialogue, the promotion of sustainable development, education and human rights. He also emphasises the importance of the fight against drugs, arms trafficking and organised crime, and stresses that this cooperation must be based on free trade. The Association Agreement must gradually liberalise trade and develop political relations, whilst simultaneously promoting democracy and the social and cultural rights characteristic of the region.
I am pleased that the role of small and medium-sized enterprises in the association process has been included in the negotiation guidelines, something which I stressed in my opinion for the Committee on International Trade. As we are all well aware, the SME sector is one of the main sources of economic growth, and has a key impact on living standards and poverty reduction. For that reason, I think we have to lay particular emphasis on promoting this sector by making access to loans easier for SMEs, eliminating unnecessary trade barriers, and implementing programmes aimed at innovation and development.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on International Trade. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall focus on the Meyer report, which addresses an important initiative for the European Union, which must come to view Central America as an opportunity, encourage trade and gradually reduce tariff barriers over time, but not the freedom of movement of persons, goods or services, thereby making the most of the specific characteristics of these countries.
This means increasing cooperation and development, protecting the social and individual dignity of the weakest members of society and gradually opening up our markets primarily to these countries' local farming produce, which still accounts for a large proportion of their GDP.
The Committee on International Trade has, as usual, made a contribution in line with its area of expertise, but the growth in competitiveness of the countries of Central America is undoubtedly a prerequisite for the political stabilisation of an area that is still suffering the consequences of the violent clash between the tyrannical institutions and the revolutionary forces of some years ago, a clash that caused hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of deaths and that convulsed that geopolitical area.
The report's cultural and political approach is therefore positive, and I do not believe that it has been watered down by the Committee on International Trade's proposal. Furthermore, the fact that some of its guidelines have been accepted in substance has helped to combine the issue of the creation of a free trade area with the more general set of issues linked to the development of democracy in that geopolitical area.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the reports presented by Mr Yañez and Mr Meyer respond to our Parliament's long-standing call for the Andean and Central American Communities also to have association agreements, like those that we have with other parts of the region, and hence to benefit from the most well-tuned and developed instruments that the European Union has in its relations with third countries.
These are clearly not the only areas with which the European Union is negotiating association agreements, Mr President. Since the Trade Commissioner is with us here this evening, I would like to take this opportunity to ask him to make a special effort with regard to some negotiations that have been dragging on for too long now, which are the European Union's negotiations with Mercosur.
I appreciate the difficulties facing those negotiations. They are not entirely due to the will of the European Union, of course, but I believe that we should make an effort to try to give them some impetus so that they can move forward.
Mr President, I would like to point out that, in the first and second generation agreements between the European Union and the countries of Latin America, the emphasis was placed on research and development, in the third generation the emphasis was placed on the democratic clause, and in this fourth generation of association agreements the accent is being placed on a gradual and reciprocal liberalisation of trade.
This does not mean that the commercial aspects are the most important, naturally. As the Commissioner said a moment ago, this association provides the foundations for the relationship in terms of political dialogue, respect for human rights, for democratic values, respect for the rule of law, and the fight against corruption.
It is clear, however, that we cannot ignore the importance of free trade, which is something that the Central American and Andean countries are asking for, and in that regard, my only recommendation, Mr President, is that this ambitious timetable that the Commissioner has told us about, given that the Commission has approved the negotiation guidelines and Parliament is going to approve them tomorrow as well, can be given substance as soon as possible, because we have already waited too long for the Andean and Central American Communities to have association agreements, like those with Mexico and Chile, which have produced excellent results, by the way.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Mr President, our group has been seeking a consensus with regard to the reports by our fellow Members, Mr Yañez and Mr Meyer. He has sought compromise amendments, because we believe that it is important to send a message to the Latin American sub-regions in question that what the European Union is proposing is not merely a free trade agreement, but an agreement with a broader scope that takes fundamental account of political agreement and development cooperation.
If I have understood the essential discussion that has taken place in this Parliament with regard to these two reports, it appears that the representatives of the European People's Party's position places more emphasis on the free market aspects of these negotiations, while others, including our Socialist Group, attach more importance to political agreement, solidarity, support for democratic institutions, the fight against poverty and the fight against violence.
If we consider the actual context of commercial relations between the European Union and Central America, for example, we will see that the European Union's trade with Central America represents around 0.3% of our external trade and that, in Central America too, trade with the European Union represents no more than 9 or 10% of their external trade.
If we apply the classic maxim primum vivere, deinde philosophare [live first, philosophise later], we will soon reach the conclusion that, given the situation in these countries, the most crucial aspect of our relations is not so much trade as fighting poverty, fighting lack of security, fighting violence and, in some countries, fighting the increasingly significant problem of drug-trafficking and organised crime. That is the fundamental issue.
A short while ago, a great European journalist, the Pole Kapucinski, said that we only take notice of these countries when there is bloodshed, and he added, 'this is sad, but it is the case'. We are clearly facing a situation in which, having stopped paying attention, after ten years of signing peace agreements in Central America, we must now begin to take more notice and take the greatest possible advantage of the possibilities offered by the opening up of negotiations on an association agreement which we believe must enjoy the greatest possible consensus and majority support in this Parliament.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteurs. Mr Pleite Meyer and Mr Yañez-Barnuevo García, for their fine work on the association agreements with the countries of Central America. Their reports fully address the political aims underlying expansion of cooperation.
The Central American countries, share our European and Latin culture. They are close to us, it is only natural that we should negotiate association with them. The agreement aims to strengthen the position of both parties in a globalised world. At present our assistance to this region is mainly humanitarian in nature. We are giving them a fish rather than a rod. It is China, India and world capital that are helping these countries to help themselves, by building roads, mines, factories, creating jobs and successfully selling their products there.
Our association negotiations should secure economic links that will benefit both Europe and other Central American associated countries. Only on this basis can we build a lasting system of economic and political relations between our societies. It is to be hoped that European capital will play a greater role involved in the countries with which we want to enter into an Association Agreement, alongside Chinese and Indian support.
The Association Agreements between other countries and the European Union are of great political importance and if they prove successful in securing ongoing economic cooperation, they will pass with flying colours.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (ES) Mr President, I too would like to begin by congratulating the two rapporteurs on their efforts to seek a consensus amongst the groups with regard to establishing the mandate for negotiating the association agreements with Central America and the Andean region.
Nevertheless, as has also been said, the process of drawing up these reports has revealed that there are profound and significant differences between the groups. Despite the efforts of the rapporteurs, the final text displays a real lack of balance in terms of the three fundamental elements of this agreement: political dialogue, cooperation and trade.
We do not believe that a free trade area is a realistic or appropriate objective for regions as vulnerable as the ones we are discussing here.
We therefore believe that we have missed a good opportunity to encourage bi-regional relations that make it possible to enhance the many dimensions of those relations and ensure the sustainable human development of the Andean and the Central American peoples. Our group will therefore abstain from tomorrow's vote. We regret this. We wish to point out that we want to carry on working, but we regret that a better result has not been achieved for either report.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (SV) Mr President, these reports demand that developing countries deregulate, give European companies power where public procurement is concerned, protect European and North American patents and do everything to ensure that large European companies' investments are protected. One of the reports even demands that a free-trade area be set up - in its own words, 'without excluding any sector'. Give some thought to that wording. No, it is not that particular road we should go down. The more deregulation there is, the better it perhaps is for large companies but the worse it is for workers, the environment and local small companies - all designed to be protected by the laws that are being repealed.
Allow me to give two examples. It is good for Monsanto if it succeeds in patenting crops in South America, but bad for farmers and the environment. It is good for European health care companies if the health care sector is exposed to competition, but bad for those who cannot afford to pay for health care. There is an alternative: fair trade instead of unbridled free trade, and cooperation and security instead of competition and a market free-for-all. That is what the peoples of both Europe and Latin America require. I shall now conclude by stating the position of the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, namely that we are abstaining from voting.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, what is the best way of increasing living standards and human and civil rights in Central American and the Andean Community countries? The question could equally well be applied to the whole of Central and South America and the rest of the economically developing world.
It is in the long-term self-interest of the economically developed and democratic world to use its economic strength to promote economic growth and democracy in the developing world. The best way to do this is by reducing trade barriers worldwide and by concluding trade and cooperation agreements conditional on respect for the rule of law, respect for property and contract rights and respect for human and civil rights.
We have seen how China, even while under the yoke of a dictatorial communist regime, can nevertheless achieve staggering economic development when it embraces capitalist, free-market practices. Capitalism, for all its faults, works. It delivers prosperity, choice and the conditions required for democracy and civilised values. Socialism, for all its idealism, does not work. It delivers oppression, lack of choice and material and political stagnation.
So what the developing countries of the world need is not to follow the example of the quasi-Marxist European Union. They do not need what these reports recommend, which is the export of the worst features of the European Union: economic and political integration and harmonised legislation.
The last thing that these countries need is to follow the example of the failing economic model and increasingly centralised European Union, with its increasingly undemocratic and unaccountable political institutions. These reports call for free trade - which is good - but that must not be conditional on recreating the failing structures of the European Union.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Yañez-Barnuevo García, on the report on the agreement with the Andean Community. Based as it is on the three pillars, it provides a framework that is not just limited to economic aspects. It was, in fact, the intention of all the institutions to include in the forthcoming association agreement issues such as unemployment, security, migration, social development, the environment, sustainable development and, hence, political stability.
We are concerned to uphold the protection of human, civil, political, economic and social rights and even, in line with EU policies, biodiversity and the protection of ecosystems. There is a need to combat child labour and to provide investment in education, research, science and technology. The major differences within the Andean Community require a commitment to reduce poverty. We should also all like to highlight the need to beat the scourge of narco-terrorism and to do everything possible to eradicate organised crime, corruption, impunity, terrorism, money laundering and arms trafficking. By means of this agreement, we therefore need to promote employment and, above all, the cultivation of crops other than drugs.
We also hope that the association agreement will give a new impetus to the liberalisation of the market and of trade by means of the free trade area, as well as to the controlled customs tariffs and to the simplification and harmonisation of customs procedures. Furthermore, we need to guarantee legal certainty for investors, by refusing point-blank to accept the enforced nationalisations that we have seen take place in recent times.
(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I would first like to thank Mr Meyer Pleite for preparing the report containing the European Parliament's recommendations to the Council concerning guidelines on the negotiation of an Association Agreement between the European Union and the countries of Central America, and Mr Yañez-Barnuevo García for his report on the guidelines for Association Agreement negotiations between the European Union and the Andean Community.
The recommendations of the European Parliament stress that association agreements, whilst aimed at the gradual liberalisation of trade as well as at political dialogue and collaboration, are also aimed at supporting continuous social development, social cohesion, strengthening democracy, the rule of law and respect for human, political, civil, economic and social rights, not forgetting the cultural and environmental dimensions of these rights.
The countries of the Andean Community and of Central America have in the past 20 years undergone a peaceful transition from authoritarian regimes to democracy. In the 1980s, the European Union played an important role in this process. Through its recommendations, the European Parliament is upholding this tradition.
Nowadays, trade liberalisation cannot be an end in itself. I stress, it cannot be an end in itself, but only a step towards establishing democracy and the rule of law, social development and sustainable development in Latin America. The association agreements with the countries of Central America and the Andean Community must incorporate politics, trade and development.
(PL) Mr President, in Central America, the term 'European Union' is gradually being consigned to the dictionary of rare expressions. European political influence in the region is diminishing, even though in the 1980s those same European countries were instrumental in the democratisation of the region.
Over 11 years, trade turnover between the European Union and Central America fell by 11%, to its current level of 13%, despite unilateral preferential conditions on our part. The Association Agreement should alter this situation somewhat.
The second Association Agreement with the Andean Community coincides with an intriguing political period in the region. The victory of the anti American Left in Venezuela and Bolivia and the altered balance of power in the region is a challenge for the European Union. It actually favours the process of economic and political integration for all of Latin America to a greater degree than MERCOSUR.
I would like to thank the rapporteurs Mr Meyer Pleite and Mr Yañez-Barnuevo García, and only regret that we are debating such important questions just before midnight.
- (ES) Mr President, this time I would like to use my speaking time to lay out the position of my group, the Confederal Group of the European United Left-Nordic Green Left, with regard to the report by Mr Yañez.
He will understand that we are going to vote in the way that we voted on the report that I had the pleasure of presenting to the House. We are going to abstain. We are going to do so for the same reasons, and in the knowledge that Mr Yañez has made a real effort to present a very balanced report with the emphasis on the fundamental thing that Latin America is currently calling for, which is political dialogue and cooperation. With regard to the cooperation aspect, we can play a very significant role compared to the role being played by the United States in Latin America, but unfortunately other Members, essentially those in the Committee on International Trade, have altered this approach substantially.
We are going to abstain. The truth is that our instincts sometimes urge us to go a little further. But we are going to abstain because we also believe that we must listen to the opinion of Latin America and, in this case, its social organisations as well. We are going to take care to ensure that our abstention in this case contributes to the fundamental debate on the Association Agreement with Central America, and we are going to be very critical with a view to producing an association agreement that does not mean a free trade area.
- (PL) Mr President, despite the European Union's undeniable contribution to strengthening the peace process and building democratic structures in the Central American region, its role there has diminished noticeably over the past decade.
As we have already heard, the same trend can be observed in trade, which declined from 24% to barely 13% in 2001. This situation shows clearly how important it is to sign a new Association Agreement between the European Union and the countries of Central America.
Such an agreement, in addition to its indisputable economic benefits, will also impose certain obligations on the European Union, mainly concerning support for the process of democratisation and decentralisation, and improving administrative efficiency in combating violence, corruption and infringements of human rights. These obligations are the reason why the future Association Agreement should be more than merely a trade agreement. It must also incorporate political and social cooperation. The fight against poverty and social inequality can become a very useful tool in strengthening democracy, establishing trust in public institutions and also in the political elite, that ought to be the guardian of these values.
Another very important element of a future Association Agreement would be establishing compulsory environmental protection standards. The system of incentives tested in previous cases should prove useful in this regard.
All the elements I have mentioned should become part of a future Association Agreement, and at the same time pillars of the cooperation between the European Union and the countries of Latin America. It is only by playing an active and committed role in this region that we can contribute to its genuine economic development, social and political stability, and to the establishment of democratic values.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday at 12 noon.


Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes


Voting time
The next item is the vote.
(For the results and other details on the vote: see Minutes.)