Sudan and South Sudan (debate)
The next item is the declaration by the Vice-President of the Commission and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on Sudan and South Sudan (2011/2717 [RSP]).
I think Mr Piebalgs is standing in for her. Thank you, Mr Piebalgs. Commissioner, you have the floor on behalf of the High Representative and the Commission.
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Madam President, the six-year transition period of the Sudanese Comprehensive Peace Agreement will come to an end in about a month's time. This is a historic moment for Sudan, and indeed for the whole African continent. The people of Southern Sudan have waited a long time for this moment, when their country's independence will be declared on 9 July. The European Union will be represented at the Independence Day ceremony by the High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission.
Following a credible referendum at the beginning of this year, we commended Sudanese parties on the remarkable job they did in organising the referendum. We welcomed that President Bashir had publicly said that North Sudan would be the first to recognise an independent South Sudan. But the positive momentum of the immediate post-referendum period has vanished. There are worrying tendencies towards increased tensions and conflict. The recent violent clashes in and around Abyei could well lead to another military confrontation between North and South Sudan.
We discussed Sudan in the Foreign Affairs Council, both in January and in May, and will revert to it at the 20 June Foreign Affairs Council. At the Council, the High Representative intends to present a comprehensive EU strategic approach for Sudan, mainly focusing on an independent South Sudan, but also including elements for constructive engagement with North Sudan, including the Transitional Areas, Darfur and the East. In fact, we will be witnessing the birth of not one new state but two.
The comprehensive approach will be a political strategy document, setting out all the key strands of our policy towards Sudan. The EU's main objectives are to support peace between the two states and democratisation and prosperity within both of them. We want to see two viable states coexisting as good neighbours sharing an open border, allowing for cross-border exchanges of people, goods, capital and ideas.
South Sudan will need all our attention in terms of stabilisation, state-, institution- and capacity-building and long-term development. Our utmost concern would be to avoid state failure.
As part of a possible response strategy, we will be looking at a number of important elements: stepping up the EU presence in Juba by establishing an EU delegation; initiating comprehensive political dialogue; stabilising South Sudan and the joint border through specific measures and instruments - including the Common Security and Defence Policy and the Instrument for Stability - and increasing development assistance.
With regard to the latter, the EU has just made additional funds totalling EUR 200 million available for South Sudan, making our envelope today roughly EUR 300 million. We are working together with the Member States in a joint EU programming exercise to maximise the impact on the ground. At the same time, we will continue humanitarian assistance and we will work to ensure that trade is part of the comprehensive approach.
North Sudan, on the other hand, will suffer some losses. We need to support reform-minded elements in the North, promote an inclusive political dialogue and enhance our efforts to promote human rights. We are trying to step up our political dialogue with the government in Khartoum. My recent visit was intended to signal EU re-engagement following Khartoum's positive response to the outcome of the referendum.
We are, however, extremely concerned about the recent violence and, as I said, the military occupation of the city of Abyei, which constitutes a clear violation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). We urge the parties to abstain from any further provocation and to negotiate the conditions for the long-term peaceful coexistence of local communities living in and around Abyei.
We also continue to have concerns about the detention of human rights defenders, journalists, opposition politicians and peaceful student protestors. One of the basic principles of the CPA was the establishment of democratic governments based on respect for diversity and basic freedoms. We want to see respect for fundamental freedoms and genuinely inclusive democratic governments in both North and South Sudan.
I must also mention Darfur. The European Union remains deeply concerned about the continued violence in Darfur, leading to displacements, and the severe impact this is having on humanitarian operations.
There is positive news. The three European citizens who were held hostage in Darfur for several months have been released but, at the same time, we know the situation in Darfur is as it has been previously. We will need to continue to support efforts to achieve a comprehensive and just peace in Darfur, trying to secure a positive outcome from the peace negotiation process and create enabling conditions on the ground for a Darfur-based political process. We welcome the outcome of the recent All Stakeholders Conference in Doha and hope it will provide for such important developments towards lasting peace in Darfur.
Lastly, I must mention justice. A lasting peace in Darfur cannot be achieved without justice and reconciliation. There has to be an end to impunity. The Council has repeatedly recalled the obligation of the government of Sudan to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Court, pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1593. The Darfur people deserve to achieve what they have been longing for for so long - lasting peace and justice.
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what struck me most at the time of South Sudan's referendum on self-determination was the inhabitants' enthusiasm and joy, even exultation. People were happy because for once, they were having their say. For once, after more than 20 years of war, they felt that what they had to say would be listened to.
We must not disappoint these six million South Sudanese people, but we must not forget the inhabitants of the North either. It is important that, amid the democratic impetus brought about by the results of the referendum, negotiations should be as transparent as possible, so as to provide a solid base for the future development of each of the new states, as well as the future development of relations between them and with the international community. The viability and stability of both North and South are crucial. It is vital for solutions to be found at last to problems that have hitherto remained unresolved. I am talking about the problems of citizenship, sharing debt and oil revenues and the difficult matter of undefined borders.
In addition, the referendums must go ahead in the Abyei, South Kordofan and Blue Nile regions, within the framework of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The situation in Abyei is becoming worse every day. It is most worrying. Abyei must not reach a point of no return that would undo more than six years of negotiations. Tensions that are turning into open conflict are threatening to overshadow South Sudan's independence and plunge the region once again into chaos.
However, the situation in Abyei must not make us forget the situation in Darfur. In this respect, the conclusions of the Doha conference must be taken into consideration, as you have just said, Commissioner, and we must not lose sight of the ongoing need to channel humanitarian aid and guarantee the safety of aid workers. Transparent negotiations are a guarantee of two viable states, as are the cessation of violence and effective cooperation between the two states.
This is the framework, of course, that was already outlined during the referendum process It is important that this continues, so as to ensure that the political will of both states and of the international community is put into practice in the form of genuine development projects for citizens of both countries. It is these citizens and their well-being that should be the main focus of democratisation, political pluralism, and respect for human rights and for religious, cultural and ethnic diversity in both South and North Sudan.
Madam President, on 9 July, South Sudan will celebrate its new-found independence and dignity, and it is indeed in terms of dignity and emotion that the Sudanese people are talking about this event.
Mr Piebalgs, I had prepared a three-minute speech. However, while listening to you, I wondered if I should actually speak. I must complement you: I think Parliament has reason to be proud of the action by the whole of the European Union and of the way in which this Sudanese affair has been conducted, and like the Sudanese people, I am keeping my fingers firmly crossed that this will continue into independence and beyond.
You spoke on the main issues, that is to say, the Abyei issue, which is still unresolved, the political decisions that were supposed to have been made on citizenship, debt, currency, etc. Above all, you mentioned everything you are hoping to do in terms of development, humanitarian action, the fact that justice must be done and that we must not sell the International Criminal Court short. In fact, you covered all the most important points.
I will just add a few points. As regards the problem of development and humanitarian action, it is true that so much still remains to be done in South Sudan and that we must continue to develop the North and, most importantly, not to isolate it. So much is still to be done because the country has lived purely off oil. It has not developed a diversified economy; there is no education; there are no roads, no hospitals, and so forth. The needs and expectations of the people are huge, and if we do not want these people to be disappointed with independence, then development and humanitarian action must continue for a long time yet. We must keep this firmly in mind.
As regards the issue of human rights, women's rights and political pluralism, polygamy still exists, even in the South. Women are bought along with cows; 80% of women are illiterate; children's rights have yet to be introduced and political pluralism does not exist: there is no culture of political pluralism, as we saw during the elections and the referendum. At the same time, it is exciting and wonderful.
I met with both the South Sudanese and North Sudanese electoral commissions, though especially that of the South. They want to create laws. They want a good constitution, they want to build their country, and they are telling us, 'we will have money, don't worry, but help us - be there'. I think that in this respect, you have fulfilled their request. Your visit and that of Mrs Georgieva in the past and the probable visit of Lady Ashton for the independence celebrations are all major events.
Your wish to present a strategic plan for South Sudan is what we call for after every election. We do not want it to be a flash in the pan, but to have proper follow-up and a future for the countries we visit. I completely changed the text of my speech for all of this, Mr Piebalgs. I would like to thank you, because as I said, it is good to be able to be proud of the European Union, especially during this difficult time.
Madam President, Commissioner, when the independence of yet another African country, South Sudan, is proclaimed on 9 July, another chapter of colonial heritage on this continent will be closed. We want to believe that, once a democratic decision is taken in the referendum, South Sudan will resolve its outstanding issues with its northern neighbour by peaceful means, that is, through negotiation. We want to believe that the region will avoid the risk of disputes and clashes erupting because of the borders, demographics and migration patterns due to oil and other natural resources, which are plentiful in both countries, statistically poor though they may be.
I call your attention to the need for continued cooperation on the part of the international community, the UN, the African Union and the European Union in consolidating both countries, in securing peace and the building of institutions for a democratic and pluralistic South Sudan. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a challenge we face now, at a time when the entire wider region is experiencing a revival and opening up to the requirements and standards of modern times.
Sudan is once again facing a major historical turning point. All the agreements reached at the end of the bloody civil war have not yet become reality. The situation in the Abyei province is closer to a crisis than to peace, there is violence in Darfur, and Sudan needs our attention and generous help.
Another important fact is that the UN Security Council has renewed the mandate of the UNMIS mission in Sudan and will deploy additional peacekeepers in Sudan. Our message to the governments in Khartoum and Juba is that they should welcome the UN peacekeepers as friends and ensure their security.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, Commissioner Piebalgs is right. We also have one of the greatest challenges facing the European Union in front of us. As rapporteur for the European Parliament report on nation building, I have to say that this is an extraordinary opportunity for us to partner South Sudan, one of the poorest and newest 'countries-to-be' on 9 July, and make nation building - that we keep talking about in this Chamber - a reality on the ground.
This is a country rich in natural resources, but it is also a country with the most awful social indicators. A child born in South Sudan today has a higher chance of dying in infancy than attending primary school. What a statistic that is. Food products provided by aid agencies and intended for distribution to the poor for free are now being sold on the market. We need to build capacity from the bottom up. They do not have a civil service. They do not have trained administrators. They do not have the infrastructure that is required for a modern 'state-to-be'. They need the rule of law, they need good governance, they need transparency, they need our expertise as partners. They need to invite us and we need to provide our partnership of know-how.
Madam President, you would want to raise the flag and a glass of champagne because, when a populace is able to vote through its own independence, that is only right and proper. The unpleasant thing here is that South Sudan is actually inheriting a legacy from the past and that the raising of the flag or of a glass of champagne is possibly somewhat out of place, given the situation in which the South Sudanese find themselves. Now that Abyei has been incorporated into the North, the South Sudanese should be praised for taking a stance of refusing to be provoked. However, the question, of course, is how long that will last.
The fact that we, the international community, looked on as the issue of Abyei was left unresolved in the referendum is actually highly irresponsible and a recipe for war to start up again in future. The fact that UN troops will have to be sent again to re-establish peace is also something that we can safely assume. What I find particularly difficult is the issue of what do we talk about and what do we not? Let us consider the fact that Sudan is trying to influence the forthcoming referendum in Abyei by insisting that those herdsmen who spend part of their time there and part away from there are included in the count. Is it justified for South Sudan to argue that, no, they should not be counted, as they are not permanent residents? If that is the view you take, are you not then denying the herdsmen's right to exist? It is a Catch 22 situation for which no answer can just be plucked from the air.
There are two other factors to mention, too. Is South Sudan to be given a fair start? If so, the South Sudanese are surely, in fact, entitled to debt cancellation? The debts in question were run up by the regime in Khartoum, and no one can say that these debts served the people of the South well.
The other factor is how are we to deal with the riches beneath the ground in South Sudan? While we are at it, is South Sudan covered by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which audits freedom from corruption and examines which oil assets benefit the population? If not, how can we in Europe help? The one thing, after all, that really helps when it comes to European help for South Sudan - and, in fact, for the North - is actually trade and getting fair investments off the ground. We are all watching developments anxiously and I hope that we will once again be able to toast the liberty of South Sudan with the flag and a glass of champagne.
Madam President, we all look at this region of the world with great concern and we are well aware that the risk of a civil war is far from banished. The ultimate fragility of the peace process that has been set in motion is demonstrated by current events in Abyei.
The conflict that has broken out is dramatic. The Northern army has occupied Abyei and 15 000 people have taken flight. I believe that we, the European Union, must help in a very tangible way as we did before and that this must take the form of getting food and humanitarian aid for the refugees moving as soon as possible and preparing the emergency humanitarian aid for the refugees.
Even without this escalation of the conflict, in South Sudan, over 40% of the population are already dependent on food aid. South Sudan will be one of the poorest countries on earth, and if we want the Millennium Development Goals to also take effect here, it is urgently necessary that the funding made available by the Council - EUR 200 million - should actually be spent on food security, education and health in this part of the world.
My group advocates the immediate withdrawal of the armed units of the North and the South from Abyei, adherence to the comprehensive peace agreement and recognition of the demilitarised zone. With a view to the extension of the UN mandate, which has been discussed, we are calling for the risks and problems, such as those that came to light in connection with the MONUC mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to be taken into account and evaluated.
We are disappointed that no really strong call for debt cancellation and for an examination of foreign debts made it into this resolution. I find that regrettable.
Madam President, there are two points I would like to put to the High Representative or her substitute in relation to the current situation in Sudan. First of all, I call on the High Representative to urgently press the Sudanese authorities to release the Christian, Hawa Abdalla Muhammad Saleh, who was arrested by the security service in a refugee camp in Darfur on religious grounds on 25 May. According to reports, Saleh was tortured after arrest and then taken to an unknown location in Khartoum, a personal tragedy that requires Europe to get involved.
My second point is that, as a Member of the European Parliament, it hit me hard to read the sharp rebuke from an authority on the situation in Sudan who is an international observer in the so repeatedly troubled conflict region of Abyei that the diplomatic pressure from Europe on the murderous and war-hungry regime of President al-Bashir was 'zero and badly coordinated'. This is a crushing rebuke, in fact.
Is the international community, including Europe, giving President al-Bashir, after occupying Abyei, a feeling of invulnerability once again? At this particular point in time, it is worth pointing out how weak a position al-Bashir is in domestically and that it is a more than opportune moment to apply international pressure to the regime. I hope, therefore, for European pressure on al-Bashir.
(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, with the greatest respect for the pragmatic approach you took in your speech, I wish to make two recommendations, in which I would also like to highlight the work of monitoring the referendum that Mrs De Keyser recently carried out so thoroughly, which, in my opinion, has been invaluable for our institutions.
I refer to a very specific matter: personally, I was not at all surprised that the referendum and its result were followed by an increase in hostilities - almost - caused by the Sudanese institutions and authorities, particularly in the Abyei region. It is typical of the constant stop-and-go Khartoum politics to hint at a solution and then to withdraw it, without any warning. This is what has produced the disaster that Sudan has become.
Allow me to make a suggestion: within the European External Action Service, we have created a department which deals specifically with humanitarian crises. This department must be alerted to Abyei now and not when we are faced with a huge disaster. It must be mobilised because it is a credible department, which has proved its worth, in the Libyan crisis for example. I believe that this department should be encouraged, today, to prepare a plan and to present it to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, explaining how it intends to act, to enable us to understand how valuable European Union foreign policy can be when we all work together towards the best result.
My final recommendation concerns our relations with China; we hear from all quarters that China plays an important role in Sudan, making it sound like some kind of ghostly presence that we have to fear. Personally, at this particular moment, I advocate the need for very cautious yet favoured relations with China, through which we can assess whether, in addition to economic interests, it is also interested in getting to the heart of human rights issues.
Madam President, the EU must keep up pressure on the government of Sudan to withdraw troops from the border town of Abyei. A solution to the Abyei problem is needed urgently to prevent the escalation of armed conflict between Sudan and South Sudan. This conflict is jeopardising the peace process that should have followed the referendum of January 2011.
The firing of shots by militia men at a UN helicopter at the end of May was an outrageous and cowardly act; as outrageous as the call by the Khartoum government for UN Peacekeepers to withdraw after 9 July. The UN presence is more necessary than ever to help observe the parties and stabilise the region, thus preventing the conflict from expanding.
Ensuring a peaceful transition to independence in South Sudan also requires that the fight against impunity remains at the top of the EU agenda for both countries and for their unhelpfully meddling neighbours. The EU should not be tempted to make any potentially 'convenient deals' with President al-Bashir in exchange for forgetting that he and his henchmen must be brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC) to answer for the war crimes and the crimes against humanity committed against the Sudanese people in Darfur.
(FR) Madam President, South Sudan's recent referendum on independence has ushered in a new era for political dealings with this new state. With the creation of this young state, what was previously considered an internal matter for Sudan has become an international affair. All relations with Khartoum, especially concerning security matters, will now be international affairs and it follows that they will come under international law.
We therefore applaud the way in which various parties are carrying out their tasks and, in this respect, it is worth mentioning some of the biggest immediate challenges that the newly created state will encounter. Firstly, among these parties, I must mention former South African President and President of the African Union, Thabo Mbeki, and the mediation he performed, and I think we should also emphasise the mediation role that our own special representative to Sudan, Rosalind Marsden, has played.
Secondly, the new state's adhesion to the Cotonou Agreement opens up new prospects for development cooperation and relations with the European Union. I think this is imperative and we must do everything we can to promote speedy ratification.
Thirdly, there is the need to develop capacity to manage the mammoth problems that the new, still very fragile state is faced with. This also calls for attention from the international community.
Fourthly, there is a need to also contribute to development in North Sudan, which we must not forget, and which is preparing to draw up a new constitution.
Lastly, there is the dreadful security situation in the Darfur region and the government's unilateral wish to organise a referendum on its status on 1 July 2011.
Naturally, I welcome the personal involvement of our Commissioner for Development and his staff in this crucial phase. He has understood that this decisive period for the future of South Sudan also constitutes a test of strength for the European Union and others as well.
(NL) Madam President, the glorious date of 9 July approaches. South Sudan will officially become independent - a nation that openly stands up for the key values of the Christian faith, but also a nation that will be very tested, as the sly, old fox, Omar al-Bashir, may have almost lost his hair, but he certainly has not lost the tricks up his sleeve. In the Abyei region, he has started to massacre citizens. The ethnic cleansing of the southern Ngok Dinka people seems to have begun. The lives of United Nations staff there are not safe.
Baroness Ashton knows that she has our support in her human rights policy, and in respect of the rebels in Benghazi she made clear choices, and rightly so. Do the same now in connection with Omar al-Bashir, as the people of South Sudan deserve our strong support.
(DE) Madam President, in February, many people, including in this House, were full of both hope and concern about the future of Sudan. There were differing views on the continuing risk of violent clashes. It was clear that the people of Sudan faced major problems and need support. Now, the situation in Sudan is making the headlines again. The cause of the most recent events is the unresolved issues linked to the forthcoming independence of the South, and these problems cannot be resolved through guns. I therefore welcome the recent agreement between the North and South Sudan, brokered by the African Union, on a demilitarised zone along the future border between the two states. A 7 000 strong UN force modelled on MONUC could cause more harm than good, however. If we just look at the Congo, we can see what MONUC troops can get up to.
Aid for Sudan must be impartial and not tied to any one interest group. It must put the interests of the people of the South and of the North at its heart, and this applies to both material and diplomatic aid. In order to prevent further fuelling of the conflict, all supplying of weapons must be halted. We are calling for an end to all civil/military collaboration and to the military training mission.
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we certainly welcome the peaceful and credible manner in which South Sudan's referendum on self-determination in January was conducted. As has already been said, South Sudan will proclaim its independence on 9 July 2011. The challenges are huge, both in terms of the new State's internal organisation and in terms of its relations with Sudan at their shared borders and in the oil-rich Abyei region.
Both Sudan and South Sudan have enormous humanitarian needs to deal with. The primary challenges are security, reaching inhabitants in distress and respect for humanitarian principles. The crisis is far from over. It is vital that the international community maintains its presence and a very high level of humanitarian involvement. We must be very watchful of how the situation develops, as it is already dreadful but could get worse and pose a threat to stability in the region.
It is also vital that the development aid that is organised for South Sudan is coordinated with and complementary to humanitarian aid. The real importance of the link between urgency and development is highlighted in this context, in which state infrastructures are very weak and the humanitarian crisis is set to last. Development aid must therefore provide support for state infrastructures and increase the population's access to basic services that are organised at the moment by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and international organisations.
Lastly, the events in South Sudan and the Abyei region must not make us overlook the situation in Darfur, which is considered to be the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. The lives of millions of people still depend on outside aid.
Finally, since I have a few seconds left, I would like to applaud the work done by Mr Piebalgs, which I think has been exceptional.
Madam President, I want this afternoon to strongly emphasise the need for the EU to work with South Sudan in democratisation and institution-building. Yes, this will be a country with one of the highest infant mortality rates and lowest educational indicators in the world, necessitating fast-track accession to the Cotonou Agreement, with access to the European Development Fund and fair debt alleviation. But, just as the EU should be proud that we have contributed to a largely peaceful and credible referendum process - and I pay tribute to my colleague, Veronique De Keyser, for her personal leadership - the EU must give priority to helping South Sudan with its constitutional review process, entrenching a multi-party system and preventing corruption from taking any root from the start.
Madam President, for South Sudan, the 9 July date goes before everything else; for North Sudan, although the comprehensive peace agreement may be coming to an end, its obligations do not. The threat of violence remains, not just in South Sudan itself, but in the neighbouring Blue Nile and South Kordofan provinces of North Sudan, and still in Darfur. Indeed, I want to ask Mr Piebalgs in his reply to explain what the EU is doing to combat continuing and deteriorating human rights violations, in particular, concerning human rights defenders such as Hawa Abdulla from the AU-UN peace-keeping mission, who has been subject to arbitrary detention and beaten.
I was privileged to be present in East Timor at the birth of the world's first new state of this millennium. I hope that South Sudan can achieve its independence while averting the tragic transition suffered by the people of East Timor and providing peace and prosperity for the Sudanese people, who have suffered too much during the longest running civil war in Africa.
(IT) Madam President, it is difficult to oversee the final steps in the formation of a new country along a peaceful path. The ultimate objective - peace - must be safeguarded, but without losing significant pieces of the global agreement.
Khartoum's military action in Abyei appears to be jeopardising the good overall outcome of this journey, though not the founding of the 54th African state on 9 July.
The South must not react to provocation and not lose sight of the final objective, which is not only independence but also the constitution of credible institutions and the advancement of its population, 90% of which lives below the poverty line. The people are unlikely to benefit from foreign investment, which already promises to be transparent and not predatory.
I believe that this - the problem of foreign investment in South Sudan - will soon be a new front line that the European Union must monitor and on which it must assert the credibility it has earned in recent years in this region.
Madam President, on 9 July, South Sudan will declare independence as an English-speaking new African state. The EU has rightly supported the CPAP's process and referendum in South Sudan. However, the next few months will remain critical. South Sudan must be enabled to establish itself as a viable sovereign state. Even without a hostile neighbour to the north, South Sudan faces enormous developmental challenges. Infrastructure is largely non-existent. There is widespread intercommunal hostility. Health care indicators are amongst the worst in the world and the economy is almost completely dependent on oil exports.
It is therefore essential to increase EU developmental and humanitarian aid to South Sudan. However, South Sudan also needs the EU's unequivocal support politically. The recent seizure of the disputed border region of Abyei by the Khartoum government suggests that President Bashir is still not fully reconciled to his country's partition. Lastly, I am also hopeful that South Sudan will live up to its promise and be the first African Union country to re-recognise the stable and democratic Republic of Somaliland as an independent country also.
(EL) Madam President, recent clashes in Abyei illustrate just how unfounded celebrations by the USA and the European Union were following the referendum. Once again, we have seen that imperialist peace is as bloody as imperialist war. Obviously, North and South, which are on the imperialist route and victims to infighting and the 'divide and rule' policy, will find it hard to avoid direct conflict.
Various imperialist powers have been trying to exploit the oil and gold, copper and uranium deposits in Abyei for 20 years. This infighting is responsible for the risk of a new, even bloodier war, now that NATO, the USA and the European Union are directly involved, which is what the Euro-unifying forces seem to be seeking after the war in Libya.
We urgently need an end to any imperialist intervention in Sudan and to any act of hostility and opposition between North and South. We also believe that the people of Sudan, in both North and South, need to take their fate into their own hands. That is the only way to avoid war and the only way to control the wealth of their country and move towards a different sort of development.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I had the opportunity to experience the independence referendum in South Sudan as an electoral observer for Parliament and I was impressed by the major backing given by the South Sudanese people to the idea of deciding on the fate of their country themselves in future.
I also witnessed the major expectations of the people who decided on the liberation of their country from bondage. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of what are known as internal displaced persons, who the decades-long fighting in the South had pushed into the refugee camps of the North, set off back to their former homes in the South.
Of course, alongside the independence of their country, the people of South Sudan want, above all, to live in peace and find a way to a happier future after the decades of war in which millions of South Sudanese were forced to sacrifice their lives.
The new state of South Sudan is due to officially become independent on 9 July, extending the family of states in our world. The starting conditions are as bad as can be conceived, and much has, of course, been said about this already. 70% of the population live as nomadic cattle farmers; 80% are illiterate; the dispute over Abyei is widening into a military conflict. There have already been deaths and woundings. As if that were not enough, the rivalries between the tribes and armed groups in South Sudan are also on the rise, and observers estimate that more than a thousand people have already lost their lives since January. The wounded and violated are hardly even counted.
Sudan was a failed state. There is a danger that the state of South Sudan will be a failed state from the very outset. I am of the firm conviction that, given the colonial history of these countries, Europe has a major obligation to this region. Together with the United Nations and the African Union, this situation calls for Europe's common foreign policy, and it is also that policy's chance to prove itself. This is not only about money, but also about supporting the frail and nascent civil society. We need to negotiate hard with those who hold the future of the country in their hands, namely, the tribal chiefs and the heads of the military groups, so that they do not dash the hopes of the people of their country.
(RO) Madam President, in less than a month from now, the independence of South Sudan will be declared, which received massive approval in the January referendum. Unfortunately, during this time, the disputes relating to the delimitation of the border and sharing the income from oil extraction have not been settled. Therefore, the new state is coming into being under the shadow of conflict. This is why I believe that diplomatic efforts need to be stepped up, including by the European Union.
We welcome your visit to Sudan and that of our fellow Members, including Mrs De Keyser's activities. However, as you are aware, the situation has deteriorated drastically recently. More than 80 000 people have left their homes, which is a sign of the imminent risk of a humanitarian crisis. My question for the Commissioner is about the possibility of having a peacekeeping force present in the area, given the statement made by the UN yesterday, acknowledging the failure of its forces, which have been passive in response to the recent tensions.
(FR) Madam President, a few hours ago, the Sudanese Government informed the United Nations that the necessary conditions for the return of thousands of inhabitants who had fled the disputed Abyei region on the border between North and South Sudan would be put in place.
As we know, although displaced inhabitants always leave very quickly, their return takes time and is all too often a source of considerable humanitarian and social problems. I therefore propose that the European Union should organise a monitoring mission as quickly as possible, along the lines of the work we did in the Balkans. Naturally, this mission could be carried out with the help of the African Union, and there is no reason why third countries could not be involved also.
Lastly, a word on the rumours circulating about the possibility of 'ethnic cleansing' in the region. If what is suspected proves to be true, the international community will, of course, need to act swiftly, with impetus from the European Union. Under no circumstances must the tragedy of the former Yugoslavia be allowed to repeat itself.
(RO) Madam President, the outcome of the referendum on the independence of South Sudan was welcomed by quite a few people. It was to mean the creation of a 54th state in Africa.
However, the events taking place at the moment have sort of dampened the enthusiasm. We must be very realistic and acknowledge that, at the present juncture, the peaceful division of Sudan is in jeopardy. The occupation of the disputed Abyei region by Sudanese government forces on 21 May and the violence which continued yesterday, as well in Kadugli, show us that the civil war between north and south can reignite at any time. This must, of course, be avoided at all costs and our message must be loud and clear.
The military operations being carried out by the Sudanese Government and the militia in Abyei mark a serious violation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. I sincerely believe that we are all definite about one thing: any escalation of violence must be avoided, as it could result in further human casualties. The security situation must be resolved according to the Kadugli and Abyei agreements from the start of the year, including, in my view, through the intervention of a mixed security force commissioned by the UN.
If these obstacles are overcome, numerous question marks still remain about the viability of the two states which should coexist on the territory of the former Sudan. Political will and readiness for dialogue are needed because there is a whole series of issues which remain unresolved: common borders, citizenship, international obligations and, of course, the oil resources.
On the other hand, I want to highlight the deterioration in the human rights situation and rule of law in Sudan where we have recently seen an increase in arbitrary arrests. I cannot help but remind you that Omar al-Bashir is still subject to an international arrest warrant, a fact which the authorities in this country ignore.
I will end on a positive note. I want to welcome the release of the three Bulgarian hostages who worked for the UN Humanitarian Air Service and were abducted from Darfur in January.
(SK) Madam President, the bloody civil war which has lasted more than two decades in Sudan has devastated the country and destroyed or otherwise tragically left its mark on millions of its inhabitants. The atrocities committed during the civil war finally ended with the signing of the peace agreement, an integral part of which was the holding of a successful referendum.
Prevention is the best cure, and I therefore firmly believe that the EU resources earmarked for Sudan should be allocated not only for humanitarian and development aid, but also for supporting democratic control and the rule of law, which are fundamental preconditions for implementing the basic human rights of the war-ravaged Sudanese people.
The results of the referendum clearly show the longing of predominantly Christian South Sudan for independence. If this happens - and I believe it already is happening - South Sudan, as the youngest state in the world, will need help and support.
(SK) Madam President, I fully agree with the statement and declaration of Baroness Ashton but, at the same time, I share the concerns over the future development of this country.
The Abyei region of Sudan has been riven by conflicts for many years. The civil war ended just under six years ago, after continuing for more than 20 years. This region was the key to the conflict and, according to the statement of the International Crisis Group, developments in this part of the country will influence the fate of the whole of Sudan. Will the country remain at peace or will it sink into another war?
If the southern part secedes, it will be necessary to show support for as peaceful a transition as possible. I would therefore like to express support for the Commission, which has roundly condemned the use of force against innocent civilians, who have been, and still are, the victims of intervention by the Sudanese army occupying this region.
The EU has the opportunity to be a peacemaker, to assist stability in the region and to strengthen its position not only as the largest donor in the world, but also its political position, and, above all, to help the inhabitants of this country.
(PL) Madam President, I would like to draw attention to what is, in my opinion, a very important factor. We in this Chamber are all pleased that as a result of the referendum, a new state will soon be established - South Sudan. However, it needs to be stressed that this is only an opportunity, because that state today is lacking in basic attributes which should be a feature of every state. It lacks structures and competent officials, and does not have a judicial system. In other words, the way also lies open for the action of various forces which could undermine peace and security there. In this context, I think that as well as the very important humanitarian aid, it is also necessary to safeguard security, and that the current UN forces are still needed there.
(RO) Madam President, I, too, would like to welcome the statement made by the Vice-President of the Commission against the background of the deepening conflict between both sides. I think that the political leaders must respect the will of the people expressed through the referendum on independence. Sudan has a long history of violent internal upheaval and recent developments indicate a return to this past. I want to stress the particularly difficult situation facing the population in the conflict zones. There is the risk of triggering a humanitarian disaster if members of the international community are not going to intervene.
In addition, attacks in the areas defended by UN troops have been reported, which jeopardises the lives of soldiers and the return of the refugees. I must highlight the importance of the gradual disarming of the groups blocking the implementation of the referendum's results. Arms trafficking in the region also encourages more rebel unrest, while compromising the process of establishing independence.
Madam President, today's discussion on Sudan and South Sudan is encouraging and positive in a world where there is more bad news than good news.
The European Union has both an opportunity and a responsibility to nurture the new state along and to ensure that democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights are established in Sudan and South Sudan. Particularly, I think the record of the European Union - because of the founding principles of Schuman based on peace and prosperity - puts us in a position in which large states worldwide could not be, because they might be seen to be using Sudan to exploit it for their own internal and external policies.
We can do a great deal, working with the UN, to establish these new states, particularly South Sudan, and to ensure that they do not have civil wars, as often happens when new states occur.
(SK) Madam President, after the independence which is due to arrive in precisely one month, South Sudan will immediately have to confront a number of humanitarian and socio-economic problems. In view of these circumstances, external assistance to support South Sudan in the fight against extreme poverty, to strengthen local organisations, and to speed up the benefits of peace for its inhabitants, will be more important than ever for a long time to come.
Although it is expected that South Sudan will apply for accession to the Cotonou Agreement, the 10th European Development Fund will not be available until sometime after accession to the agreement. There is therefore a risk of a funding gap appearing in the period immediately after the referendum, when South Sudan will be very vulnerable and at considerable risk of national collapse. It is clearly necessary to prevent this because of the threat of a humanitarian catastrophe, and we should therefore do everything in our power to help the Sudanese get through this critical period and to prevent a repeat of the bloody conflicts.
(DE) Madam President, the Northern army forced out 15 000 supporters of South Sudan from the city, and then suddenly, they definitely want to hold a referendum in Abyei in double-quick time in the shadow of an army, when previously they had been unable to even agree with the South about who was entitled to vote. This is a truly grotesque undertaking.
It is not only the differing views on property and belonging that made Abyei the bone of contention of a civil war that lasted for decades; there are also the differing religions, namely the Muslim North versus the Christian and nature-based religions of the South Sudanese, who were forced together by the haphazard borders drawn up by the former colonial powers. When considering the most recent escalations, this should not be forgotten.
It would never have been possible to push the referendum through while the status of the voters of Abyei remained unresolved. Similarly, we must not forget the equally disputed regions of Blue Nile and South Kordofan with the Nuba mountains. In my opinion, to do so would be gross negligence and it must not be allowed to happen.
(SK) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I never trusted President Bashir and I do not trust him even now. It is quite clear from this that I am a pessimist regarding the chances of anything happening in Sudan. I firmly believe that this President is endeavouring, through military force, to intervene against the South, whether by occupying certain parts of the territory or important towns or sources of raw materials.
It would be very interesting from this perspective to see what preventative actions or preventative steps the Office of the High Commissioner has prepared in order to avoid this happening, perhaps in cooperation with the UN or the African Union, on the one hand, and it would be very interesting, of course, to see the method or steps the office would like to take if that does happen, and in the event that North Sudan does not comply with the peace agreement which was signed, and which I basically believe in.
(SK) Madam President, South Sudan is a country which has voted for independence, and it will be the newest member of the United Nations. It is a country which has voted for independence but which is dependent in virtually all respects. It is dependent on its northern neighbour, and it is dependent on aid, whether from Europe or from surrounding African countries. It is a country in which the men have not learned to work. The men wait for a sign that a war is beginning, in order to take up arms and begin fighting each other. It is a country where only the women and children work, where children do not go to school and are therefore not educated. It is a country which has no workers, no teachers and no doctors. It is a country where everything has to be built from scratch, and it will therefore be very difficult and very demanding to build a proper political system here and to put the country on its feet. It is a difficult task, not just for Europe, but also for the UN.
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Madam President, first of all, I am very grateful for your broad support for the strategy that was presented to you. I will just run through a couple of elements that were raised in the debate.
The people of North and South Sudan are undoubtedly the masters of their countries. We are supporting the process, but the referendum definitely represents a watershed: it is a completely new qualitative situation. It is not the same situation as before. Yes there is violence, there are difficulties, but the situation is different. Now we see a light at the end of the tunnel. So that is why I would say that it is a great victory for us because we supported the process politically, both through our own actions and in financial terms. So that is a completely new situation.
We never compromised on human rights or International Criminal Court issues. Our position is very clear with regard to both the ICC and human rights. Whenever there is a violation of human rights, the High Representative makes very strong and clear statements and puts pressure on the authorities. It has been said that there is no immediate response, but changes are being made. It is not an easy process and we will continue to deal with it.
On Abyei, the situation is difficult, but again the European Union position will be a very clear and strong condemnation of the occupation calling for the situation to be resolved immediately. It is basically up to the United Nations Security Council to decide on the situation. It will decide if there is to be another mission and if there is a United Nations Security Council resolution, we will be its greatest supporters.
But what we need to bear in mind is our strong political stance and declaration and our support for civilian operations. I believe, as I said to South Sudan, that we should not expect all the issues to be resolved by 9 July. Independence will be declared, there will be ongoing discussions, and the important element is that the African Union Panel, chaired by Thabo Mbeki, has support from both sides, North and South. We are very firmly behind the Mbeki panel. So we have every reason to believe that all the difficult questions will be answered.
With regard to the debt issue, work is under way as part of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. This takes time and the Abyei issue certainly did not help. But that issue has not been forgotten.
China, in as much as we can involve it, is a fully-fledged member of the Security Council and it would be a great help in finding solutions in the country. At this stage, I cannot claim that there has been a lot of activity with the Chinese. They are in oil, they are in the North of Sudan, but it is definitely a great help when the broader international community tries to find a solution to the issues.
Last but not least, I am very grateful for your interest in Sudan. On the one hand, it is rather far from us but, on the other, it is very close. If things go wrong, if people are dying in Africa, the European Union cannot stay on the outside saying 'well, it is too far'. Your broad interest in the issues definitely encourages both the High Representative and myself to put together efforts to help people build peaceful lives.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 9 June, at 12:00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Sudan, the largest country in sub-Saharan Africa, is a crossroads between the Arab and African worlds, as well as a mosaic of many heterogeneous ethnic groups. It has seen numerous conflicts since its independence from the United Kingdom in 1956. With the signing of the Naivasha Agreement and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) (2005), 20 years of conflict between the north and south formally came to an end. In January 2011, as provided for in the CPA, a referendum marked the last leg of the road towards the independence of the south from northern Sudan. In this extremely delicate transition phase, we must keep a balanced approach to both north and south, with particular attention to the needs of the south regarding institution building and governance. The aid given by the EU to South Sudan must be measured in terms of the effective capability of this new state to absorb it. Indeed, we must ensure that future flows of funding to Juba do not end up being used inappropriately or, worse, adding to the already widespread corruption. Europe should also increase its commitment to protect the Christian minorities in the north of the country, who are increasingly the targets of persecution and discrimination.


Request for the waiver of parliamentary immunity (developments): see Minutes


3. Financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide (amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2006) (


Facility providing mid-term financial assistance for Member States' balances of payments - Facility providing mid-term financial assistance for Member States' balances of payments (debate)
The next item is the joint debate on:
the report by Mrs Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Financial Affairs, on a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States' balance of payments - C6-0134/2009 - and
the statements by the Council and the Commission on a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States' balance of payments.
Madam President, the European Council has decided to double the 'balance of payments' facility for countries outside the euro zone, and on 8 April the Commission introduced the concrete provisions designed to turn this proposal into a reality.
Here at the European Parliament we wish to accept our responsibilities and to enable the Ecofin Council to act promptly for, as we see it, this proposal contains a sign of solidarity towards non-member countries of the euro zone that is of vital importance for tackling the root of this crisis.
Back in November, we were already doubling this 'balance of payments' facility, since it rose from EUR 12 to 25 billion, and, today, to take account not only of the reality, the severity of the crisis that we are in and that is having a particular impact on countries outside the euro zone, but also, without doubt, of the European Parliament's timetable, we propose to you that this facility be doubled, to bring it up to EUR 50 billion. This is in light of the fact that what we decided in November has already enabled support to be given to Hungary, to Latvia and, yesterday, to Romania.
We feel that this is necessary, and we have held a debate among ourselves, which I will not hide from you, to learn whether this assessment of countries outside the euro zone should be done exclusively on a case-by-case basis, or whether, in reality, there was basically a more global situation that was that of countries outside the euro zone.
That is why, in our resolution, we propose that the issue of enlargement conditions be considered and the extent to which membership of the zone can be a protective factor be confirmed.
We are also very insistent in calling for the European Parliament to be informed of the substance of the analyses of the crisis situations these countries are facing. This is because, when the Commission grants its loans to countries outside the euro zone, there is a certain transparency and substance to the information on the behaviour of private banks and on the behaviour of operators which has led to this crisis, that the European Parliament must be informed of.
Lastly, we believe that all possible mechanisms for tackling this crisis should be used and implemented by the Commission. This is particularly the case as regards Article 100 of the Treaty, which would also permit the implementation of special mechanisms for countries within the euro zone. We believe it is essential to explore these given the severity of the crisis.
There are two final elements. Firstly, as we see it, the conditionality of these loans is an element for discussion; we understand that. Generally speaking, the Commission carries out this work in harmony with the IMF. What we want is the creation of a working group to look at how these memorandums are drawn up and how they take account of the actual situation of the country in question, but also of the European Union's overall strategy, particularly as regards arbitrage between investments, purchasing power support and conditionality in terms of a strategy on environmental growth and sustainable development.
Lastly, we identify in this mechanism evidence of the ability of the European Union and of the Commission to borrow on the international markets, and we therefore believe that we have here a useful foundation on which to base a debate that we are also conducting on European borrowing and on the capacity of the European Union to finance future strategies and investments through such borrowing.
To conclude, the Commission has implemented a new mechanism to ensure that repayments will enable the European Union's budget to cope with these demands. We support this amendment to the regulation and we hope that this Parliament will give its full support to this worthwhile proposal.
Member of the Commission. - I am taking this debate on behalf of my colleague, Mr Almunia.
The proposal on the table today concerns one of the core values of the Union, namely solidarity. Against the backdrop of the international financial crisis, the Commission proposes further reinforced solidarity with the Member States that do not yet benefit from the protective umbrella of the euro. The facility for supporting Member States' balances of payments is, by definition, foreseen for exceptional circumstances and was only used on a few occasions in the past. We do, however, live in exceptional times.
As you know, the Commission proposed last year an increase in the ceiling of outstanding loans that the Community can provide to support Member States' balances of payments. The ceiling was raised from EUR 12 billion to EUR 25 billion, but a substantial part of this amount has already been earmarked. At the request of the countries concerned, the ECOFIN Council decided to provide balance of payments support to Hungary of up to EUR 6.5 billion in November. On 20 January it decided to grant up to EUR 3.1 billion to Latvia, and the decision to provide up to EUR 5 billion to Romania is in the pipeline.
Already earmarked financial assistance under the regulation thus adds up to around EUR 15 billion. There is, moreover, no immediate end in sight to either the financial crisis or global deleveraging, and ongoing financial stress in other Member States could result in further needs for financial assistance.
The European Council of 19 and 20 March therefore welcomed the announcement by President Barroso that the Commission intended to make a proposal for increasing the ceiling of the Community's balance of payments support to EUR 50 billion. The doubling of the ceiling will provide an important signal to financial markets of the European Union's strong commitment to helping Member States under financial stress. The extension of the total possible credit line to EUR 50 billion will provide a large buffer to cater for further possible needs for financial support.
Such strong signs of solidarity among Member States should also help to calm financial investors' fear of further financial market deterioration in the Member States outside the euro area. By reducing the incentive for capital withdrawal, it would decrease the probability of balance of payments problems in the concerned countries.
In this context I would like to express my gratitude and respect for the excellent spirit of cooperation at the European Parliament and, in particular, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. The Commission adopted this proposal just before the Easter holidays on 8 April and only two weeks later you are now about to vote your legislative resolution and motion for resolution in plenary.
Thanks to your swift and efficient work, the ECOFIN Council will be able to adopt the amended regulation on 5 May. The European Union will thus be well equipped to react rapidly should the need for further balance of payments support arise. This is a powerful signal to Member States that the European Union is willing and ready to help and should be turned to in the first instance in case of balance of payments problems.
This obviously does not exclude that a Member State would also ask for assistance from other international organisations such as the IMF, with which the Commission has been closely cooperating on the latest financial support packages.
I would like to conclude by saying that I agree with the statement in your draft motion for a resolution that the current international situation proves the relevance of the euro and that all Member States outside the euro area should be encouraged to fulfil the Maastricht criteria in order to join it.
The Council has announced that it will not be making a statement. The debate will therefore continue with speakers from the political groups.
I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur for compiling this report so quickly and, if Mrs Berès is listening to me, for also being sensitive to this issue, which is, in any case, a positive thing. However, this does not solve the problem of my not understanding why we should deal with this matter in such a panic-stricken manner, ignoring the views of the average MEP. After all, the EUR 25 billion available so far could comfortably cover the cost of the urgent assistance given to Romania.
This topic is being tabled for discussion for a second time within a short period. In the speech I made in November, I actually stated that the raised ceiling was inadequate, and I was right. The reason for this was not only because new Member States have presented new claims, but also because, maintaining the view I had at that time, I still think that this is a political issue. In fact, it is a disgrace that it is not the EU which is dealing with the balance of payment credits for Member States outside the euro zone which are in dire straits, but that we are handling this jointly with the IMF, somewhere between the credits for Turkey and Pakistan. This is a disgrace for Member States.
Until now, we thought that, when we joined, we would serve one god, but we now must serve several gods. On the other hand, we should also examine carefully - as we already requested the Commission to do in November, but without any success - what has led to this situation. It would have emerged then that the irresponsible economic policy pursued by the governments of the Member States affected, as in the case of Hungary, was the primary cause, which the Commission also contributed to due to the shared responsibility for economic policy or rather the lack of it. But it would also have been clear that solidarity, regarded as one of the EU's basic values, failed when it came to prevention. In actual fact, a lack of euro liquidity is also lurking behind Member States' payment problems and devaluing currencies. This is partly due to the parent companies' caution underlying the vulnerable subsidiary network at local level and partly because they did not receive any specific, practical help from the euro zone, mainly the Central Bank, unlike their fellow Member States in the euro zone which had their liquidity topped up as much as possible. But another factor making it difficult to be competitively neutral is that, because of the currencies' vulnerability, these countries outside the zone cannot benefit during the crisis from the budget incentives provided by the rest either.
I am pleased that our report raised the issue of the European Parliament's involvement. The attention of my fellow Members might mainly be drawn to the specific conditions for partial assistance agreed with the countries outside the euro zone which are in dire straits. How could it happen that, according to the agreement signed with the Hungarian Government, while completely ignoring the basic problem of European demographic trends, a drastic reduction in childcare fees was prescribed? I find it particularly disgusting that in the supplementary agreement signed in March of this year, Hungary is being forced to reduce its national top-up for direct agricultural payments. After all, this is not a social issue, but it was included in the accession treaty in order to alleviate our existing major competitive disadvantage. How did such an immoral action occur to you, together with the spineless Hungarian Government? Do you have any idea how much damage this is causing to Hungarian farmers and to the EU's reputation? We will, of course, vote for the proposal as it is a step forward, but it only marks a partial degree of solidarity. What we need to achieve is full solidarity.
Madam President, among other aspects, the crisis has not only revealed the huge gaps between countries in the euro area, which was perhaps the main conclusion of the EMU@10 report, but in particular the extreme vulnerability of those countries which, while belonging to the European Union, are not part of the euro area.
That is why boosting the EU resources available to assist with balance of payments crises is absolutely vital. That is also why we welcomed the financial assistance ceiling being raised from EUR 12 billion to EUR 25 billion, and now to EUR 50 billion.
However, it is more important to tackle the root causes of the problems, and not just their most obvious manifestations.
The enlarged Europe and the euro area must now reinterpret the sense of European solidarity and the objectives of cohesion and real convergence. In this respect we not only need to understand the capacity of Europe's cross-sectoral policies, but also revisit new financing instruments, such as Eurobonds.
Financial assistance for balances of payments is essential, but is in no way enough to guarantee the sustainability of the European project and the European single currency.
(LV) Thank you, Madam President. The increase in the European Union medium-term financial assistance mechanism to EUR 50 billion is the response that is needed to the current situation. It is an important signal to European Union Member States which are not in the euro zone, and particularly to those Member States that have joined the European Union comparatively recently. The effect of the world financial crisis on the financial and economic situation in this group of states has differed, but in all of them local and international confidence in those states' financial systems has diminished significantly. Therefore, the reinforcing of the Community assistance mechanism is a demonstration of solidarity between Member States; it will have a stabilising role on the financial markets and will serve to reduce the risk of instability in the European Union's economy as a whole. The strengthening of the medium-term assistance mechanism will also make it easier for Member States to obtain the funding they need from international financial institutions. I support the proposal by the relevant committee to instruct the Commission to inform the European Parliament about memoranda of understanding with Member States in receipt of assistance, as well as the need to carry out a check in two years' time on the conditions providing the basis for assistance. Thank you.
Mr President, Commissioner, this is the second time that we have had to increase the guarantee provided by the European Union to overcome the difficulties of its members, non-members of the euro zone. This is the second time: we already increased it in December.
Mr McCreevy has congratulated us on the promptness of our action. We already acted promptly in December, and we should like to say to Mr McCreevy, as Mrs Berès did a moment ago, that the lift ...
Yes, Mr McCreevy, please? Please? Commissioner ...
... We should like reciprocity to be applied, by which I mean that, when Parliament asks you to submit a draft on the regulation of hedge funds, you respond to us immediately, and in the same timeframe that we apply when you ask us to increase aid for the protection of the balances of payments.
We are indeed in a crisis; we may not need to sit every day, but at least let us not have to wait six months from the European Parliament's requesting a directive on hedge funds to the Commission complying!
Clearly, then, as far as this aid is concerned, we fully agree on the need to increase this credit line, and I am slightly surprised by Mr Becsey's remarks. We had exactly the same discussion in December. Commissioner Almunia explained to Mr Becsey that it was the Hungarian Government itself that had requested aid from the IMF, but not from the European Union, and that it was the European Union that said: 'But we too can help you'.
It is quite clear that the European Union has a duty to show solidarity towards countries outside the euro zone, but there is also no reason why IMF aid, to which each of us, Hungary and Romania included, contribute, should be turned down.
Thus, in the Berès report - which we shall, in any case, vote for - there are two things that bother us. Firstly, what is the point of saying in paragraph 4 that we must commit ourselves to inter-country solidarity only to then point out in paragraph 11 that under no circumstances are we bound by a country's commitments? It is true that we are not bound by a country's commitments, but there is no use in pointing this out when we say that we will show solidarity with one another.
The second problem is the assertion that there is no legal basis to increase this solidarity, but it is precisely the responsibility of the Commission to provide this legal basis. We are in a crisis, and it is high time we were given a legal basis.
(DE) Mr President, I should like to start by thanking Mrs Berès for the speed with which she produced a draft report. As you know, the procedure comprises two stages. The first is the consultation; the opinion on the Council regulation. This is not a codecision procedure. At this stage, we in the committee were unanimous in our view that the increase from EUR 12 to 25 to 50 billion was the right step to take. Three Member States have already availed themselves of funds: Hungary - whose situation Mr Becsey has just discussed along with its domestic responsibility - Latvia and Romania. These European funds enable us to provide effective assistance and thus to actively support countries that have run into payment difficulties.
Yet we should not forget that, at the same time, the international institutions have decided to increase funding from the international financial institutions - the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and development banks - by USD 1 100 billion. This means we have a dual instrument. Europe has contributed to increasing this funding whilst also assuming its own responsibility. Against this background, the draft resolution on which we in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs voted yesterday evening on the basis of compromise proposals is also suited to the adoption of Parliament's requests, requirements and demands of the Commission and of the competent Council in this regard for future legislation.
In this connection, there is a legal issue with regard to the Eurobonds and Article 100, which is binding on only the euro area. If we consider that there is no legal basis for Eurobonds in the Treaties at present, we are on the right track. On the other hand, however, the Commission must be given the task of examining the conditions required to make such measures possible in the first place. I regard this as a responsible course of action.
Therefore, our group will be supporting the proposal as a whole - both the proposal for a regulation and the motion for a resolution. We hope that this does not mean Europe embarking on some sort of additional financing responsibility that would shoot any budget to pieces. Therefore, the limit of EUR 50 billion is completely justifiable at present. If new challenges should present themselves, we shall not be able to close our eyes to them.
(PL) Mr President, I would like to express emphatic support for the Commission's proposal to double the amount of financial aid permissible for new Member States which are not in the euro zone. I would like to congratulate the Commission on its quick reaction, and also to thank our rapporteur, Mrs Berès.
The present crisis has shown beyond all doubt that new Member States which do not belong to the euro zone can be very vulnerable to fluctuations in financial markets, often through no fault of their own. It has been said here that European Union aid should originate from the principle of solidarity. I agree entirely with this, but I would like to add that it is also required by the fact that the crisis did not arise in the new Member States and they are not responsible for the turbulence in the financial markets, and so giving them aid is fully justified.
At the same time I would like to add that irrespective of whether the proposal is appreciated and supported or not, the most effective method to eliminate similar threats in the future is to allow these countries to enter the euro zone as quickly as possible. This will be less expensive and will give the European Union greater stability.
(HU) Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Berès. We are unable to predict the duration and magnitude of the crisis, but we are constantly monitoring it. Even if we are unable to tackle the crisis ex ante, we must try to keep the response time to a minimum and achieve the maximum degree of transparency, democracy and efficiency. On the subject of time, we are dealing with the crisis like the Greek god, Cronos: the time spent handling the crisis is swallowing up its own children. We will become victims of the crisis if we are unable to take quick, effective action. The European institutional system must assume the role of Rhea, Cronos's wife, which means we have to get the better of Cronos, in other words, make the most of the time for dealing with the crisis. I would like to thank the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Council for their joint decision in favour of boosting solidarity and efficiency. However, since Mr Becsey has brought up domestic political matters, I would also like, if I may, to draw attention to the fact that while tackling this crisis, it is the duty of MEPs to work together in national parliaments. What we need is not division between the government party and the opposition, but help from every party involved in managing the crisis. This applies to my country, Hungary, and to every other country too.
(RO) I would like to thank the European Commission, the Council and European Parliament for the efficiency with which they have devised this measure. Many Member States which are not part of the euro zone will benefit from this top-up to the intervention fund for balance of payment requirements, including Romania. Without this measure, the situation triggered by the economic and financial crisis would have been much more difficult in these Member States outside the euro zone. Given also that it has been shown once again that the Member States which use the euro have weathered the financial crisis better, I would suggest that in the memoranda of understanding which will be signed between the Commission and Member States to be able to use these funds, Member States should be reminded, especially the new ones, that they have an obligation to take every measure to join the euro zone.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I wholeheartedly support Mrs Berès's report, and I note that the very fact that we already have the G20 instead of the G8 is a considerable step forward.
I believe that the positions adopted in London, especially by the Europeans, are reasonable, but we must not stop there. It is not just a question of being able to monitor the markets and hedge funds better, or of supporting our balances of payments and the economy with billion-dollar cash injections.
The international monetary system is not working properly because we do not know exactly how much goods and services cost in the various countries. We therefore need to go further and to give thought to the idea of introducing an international currency or, at the very least, of creating a common political system bringing together a few main currencies.
China, Russia, many developing countries, but also the new members of the Union - we all need stability and ground rules.
However, Commissioner, that also depends on us, the Union.
- (LT) I would like to draw attention to an unpleasant fact which is hiding behind fine words. In reality, Europe is now split in two: the euro zone and the non-euro zone. An hour ago we discussed the control of financial markets; it is obvious that the aim is to ensure the movement of capital and the activities of financial groups uniformly throughout the whole of Europe. This means macroeconomic management is left in national hands and if there are problems, countries are left to solve those problems themselves. This is not the sort of attitude that will help us strengthen the common market. We need common macroeconomic management and this will be achieved if we support the proposal of the de Larosière Group. However, we need this macroeconomic management on a European scale, not just within the euro zone, and we need it now. I think that one of the European Parliament's proposals for the ECOFIN meeting should be to discuss macroeconomic management not just on the basis of the euro zone, but at European Union level.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, Mr Becsey raised the question of the conditionality attaching to loans. Let me just say that conditions are discussed with governments and with all Member States within the Council, so they are not imposed unilaterally.
A number of speakers raised the question of the legal base on which this particular provision has been made. The use of Article 100 as the basis for a new instrument on EU balance of payment assistance has been considered by the Commission. However, due to the urgency of the matter and to ensure continuity, it has been fair to stick to the current legal instruments and limit the revision of Regulation (EC) No 332/2002, establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for non-euro-area Member States to a minimum, i.e. to the increase in the ceiling as agreed by the European Council, and to some necessary technical improvements that appear necessary on the basis of the experience gained with the implementation of the balance of payments facility since last autumn. A number of speakers raised that particular point.
Let me once again thank the European Parliament for the efficient way that it has dealt with this particular file.
Mr President, it is true that we would at times like the Commission to show the same sense of responsibility and effectiveness as the European Parliament.
I would say to Mr Becsey that, in my view, the resolution on which we are going to vote in this House clearly underlines the issues involved in membership of the euro zone, as well as the importance of bringing the concept of solidarity to life within the European Union, and that is one of the reasons why we strongly support this proposal.
Commissioner, on the matter of Article 100, the problem is not one of knowing whether Article 100 is going to be used here, but of knowing whether we in the European Union are finally providing ourselves with all the tools to tackle the reality of this crisis and its potential future developments.
We believe that the Commission must implement the secondary legislation so that, in future, it may be able to use Article 100 in order to tackle problems within the euro zone for which the EUR 50 billion to be voted on today could not be used.
That is the spirit of the European Parliament's position, and I hope that the Commission will hear this message, whether it be on the arrangements, on the complete set of tools required to tackle this crisis, or on the conditions for drafting the memorandums and on the conditionality of these loans in the negotiations with the Member States concerned.
I have received a motion for a resolution pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Friday 24 April.
(The sitting was suspended at 11.20 a.m. and resumed at 12 noon)


Opening of the sitting


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes


5. Kenya (vote)
- Before the vote:
Mr President, since we formulated this resolution, some important changes have taken place in Kenya. Yesterday, the newly-elected Parliament - and according to all observers the elections to the Parliament were pretty honest - elected a new speaker. The speaker is from the opposition.
We view that as an encouraging sign, and I would therefore like to propose an oral amendment, in the form of a new paragraph reading as follows: 'Welcomes the fact that the newly-elected Parliament showed its independence by the election of Mr Kenneth Marende as its speaker, and underlines the decisive role to be played by that Parliament in restoring civil liberties in Kenya'.
(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)


3. Philippines (vote)
author. - Mr President, we would like to replace the sentence in paragraph 6 which reads: 'to release all disappeared who are still in captivity'.
Instead we would like to introduce: 'to make every effort to ensure that all who have been abducted are safety returned to their families'.


1. The humanitarian situation in Gaza (vote)
- Motion for a resolution: the humanitarian situation in Gaza
- Before the vote on paragraph 5:
Madam President, I would like to add the words 'the State of' before Israel in paragraph 5. The reason for this is that some Members, including Mr Davies, inform me that Hamas recognises Israel, but not the State of Israel. It is the State of Israel that needs recognition.
(The oral amendment was accepted)