Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


Explanations of vote
Our aim is not to issue an opinion on the validity or otherwise of this decision to repeal Directive 68/89/EEC, although, as a rule, we have our reservations as regards the Commission's harmonising tendencies. Our view is indeed shared by most businesses and Member States in stating that they do not apply this Directive. It is important, on the other hand, to issue an opinion on the process of which this forms part, namely the 'better lawmaking' initiative, which, under the guise of simplification, is in practice a policy of market deregulation at national and Community level.
The Commission's justification leaves no room for doubt: 'better lawmaking is vital to improving the competitiveness of European businesses and to achieving the objectives of the Lisbon Agenda'. The objective, for the Commission, is to cut 'unnecessary costs and obstacles that block adaptation and innovation' and to put into 'practice the right incentives and the basic market conditions for businesses to develop.' In other words, the purpose of 'better lawmaking' is to benefit business rather than to protect the consumer's labour, social and environmental rights. This is what we object to. We do not want this process to lead to the repeal of any legislation that undermines the notion that competition and the profits of business are of prime importance, above all other considerations.
in writing. (PL) I am voting in favour of the report on Decision No 804/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 establishing a Community action programme to promote activities in the field of the protection of the Community's financial interests (Hercule II programme).
Mr Bösch has tabled a good report. The changes in the preamble are a better reflection of the criteria and purpose of this regulation. The proposed change provides improved tools for implementing the action programme and strengthens supervision of its correct implementation. Allocating an additional EUR 67 million to the Hercule II programme annually will have a significant effect on combating smuggling and fraud.
in writing. I support the Hercule II programme and the work it is carrying out for the prevention, detection and combating of activities damaging the Community's financial interests. The type of fraud combated under the programme must be tackled in order to retain the tax base of Member States.
in writing. (PL) I am voting for the report on the proposal on the Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
Mrs Gräßle and Mr Pahor, the rapporteurs, have compiled an excellent report which includes a number of amendments. Implementing the regulation will provide greater flexibility and transparency in the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities. It will better secure the Community's financial interests, while at the same time giving the Committee on Budgetary Control more transparent opportunities to assess the proper implementation of the Community budget in the relevant section.
in writing. I support the amendments put forward by this report as the European Parliament's budgetary function is vital to maintaining democratic scrutiny at the European level. I especially support the amendments aimed at improving the comparison between the political will expressed in Parliament's remarks on the budget and the actual implementation.
(DE) Mr President, the INSPIRE data system is a considerable gain for us in Europe, since, for every policy, particularly in the environmental sphere, we need mutually comparable data on space, and so I would like to thank Mrs Brepoels, the rapporteur, for negotiating an outstandingly good compromise, which is the only way in which we can enable the public to inform themselves on the environmental hazards in store for them and to participate in the systems that we are setting up in Europe. INSPIRE is making an essential contribution to this.
in writing. I voted in favour of this report as it will create a waste management policy that will help us meet our objective of reducing waste and protecting our environment. We need to protect the environment at an EU level and this report represents an attempt to do this. The report meets the priorities I feel we should have for our environment of reducing the production of non-reusable or non-recyclable waste, making producers and importers responsible for waste, avoiding the reclassification of energy recovery incinerators for waste disposal and introducing a requirement to develop national waste prevention programmes.
(DE) Mr President, two things were of particular importance to us Austrians when it came to the revision of this framework directive on waste. One was the special rule for organic waste, since both we and Germany have systems for dealing with this, which work very well and need to be maintained. At the same time, though, we urge the Commission to keep working on this in order to establish a Europe-wide system for it. The second thing we were concerned about was catering waste and waste from guesthouses, which can, after appropriate treatment, be reused in the husbandry of pigs. That is quite essential if those and similar food flows are to be properly reprocessed.
(DE) Mr President, slowly, but surely, society is rethinking its approach to waste, but, since more and more countries want to reprocess old waste and the owners of plant want to spare them overload, the consequence is that waste is transported from one end of Europe to the other. Even if we are now paying attention to the environment, we become aware from time to time of black sheep quietly or blatantly disposing of waste in an illegal manner or claiming money for costly reprocessing that they have not actually carried out.
Not only does that do harm to the living space we all share, but it also costs the state and municipalities a lot of money, and we need to be more vigorous in dealing with this. We also need to do more work on informing people, since some members of the public, out of ignorance, dispose of such things as medicines in the wrong way. It also goes without saying that we have to do more about recycling, and that the EU and its Member States need to set us a good example in this respect. Over and above that, too, we must not forget that the issue of the storage of nuclear waste has still not yet been resolved, and that is yet another reason to refrain from building more nuclear power stations.
in writing. We and the Fianna Fail Delegation in the EP have voted in favour of a stronger Commission proposal on waste favouring the five-stage hierarchy with the essential emphasis on Prevention and Reduction of waste, followed by reuse, recycling, recovery and then the safe and environmentally sound disposal of waste in this order of priority.
We have voted in favour of calling for binding targets for Member States to stabilise waste production at anticipated 2008 levels by 2012 and support the EP call for greater reuse and recycling to reduce pressure on landfill sites, for Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that, where practicable, all waste undergoes recovery operations, to take measures to promote recycling and to set up collection schemes of different streams, to move towards a Recycling Society by 2020 where 50 % of our municipal solid waste should be recycled in addition to biowaste and industrial waste.
The issue of the distinction between Recovery and Disposal is a very important one. We have voted in favour of amendments that clearly distinguish between recovery and disposal and have voted against amendments that would reclassify units from disposal to recovery.
in writing. - (FR) I should like to congratulate the rapporteur and Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on the excellent work that they have done.
We do indeed need to take action, as waste management policies do not always advance the cause of recycling and composting. Unfortunately, dumping and incineration are still the most widespread ways of dealing with waste.
I am in favour of the five-level hierarchy applicable to waste management (prevention, re-use, recycling, recovery and dumping) as, in my view, the objective of reducing waste must be given priority, and precedence must therefore be given to a policy of waste prevention. I am in favour, for example, of introducing product labelling designed to develop eco-consumption.
I am pleased that, for purposes of simplification, excavated land has been excluded from the list of forms of waste. However, I think it necessary to make a clear distinction between recycling and recovery, and to manage incineration practices, with a view to creating genuine energy recovery, which must not constitute a risk to human health and the environment.
I support the proposal whereby, in accordance with the 'polluter pays' principle, those who produce waste would, as a matter of general practice, be held responsible for it.
This report raises a number of points that are, in some cases, inconsistent. The report proposes priorities regarding, on the one hand, waste management, with the emphasis on prevention, reuse, recycling and other recovery operations, and, on the other, regarding waste disposal. This is something we welcome, and we hope that the final text will eventually reflect this proposal.
Unfortunately, however, some of the positive amendments that were tabled - aimed at removing incineration from classification as a recovery process, and at ensuring that using this method would automatically be null and void - were not adopted, whereas others, much more limited in scope, were adopted. Therein lie some of the inconsistencies.
Consequently, at the forthcoming negotiation stage, all our attention must be focused on the process, in order to monitor the development of the definitions and the content thereof.
Hence at this first reading we have prioritised the aspects that improved on the Commission's original proposal. The final vote at second reading, however, will depend on clarification of the existing inconsistencies.
in writing. I will be voting in favour of the Jackson report on waste. It is important that we avoid burying ourselves under the proliferation of packaging consumer society imposes on us. I am in favour of recycling to the maximum practical level, but that is not enough. We must limit the amount of waste generated before recycling. However much we try, there will be material requiring disposal. Provided that it is kept to the minimum practical level, I have no problem if some of that material is burnt. I have visited in Germany CHP schemes based on waste incineration which are to be commended. We will help our planet and our future by utilising a variety of measures and not by making one scheme fit all.
in writing. I supported the Jackson report today because it encompassed the thrust of the Environment Committee's progressive stance on waste prevention and management. I am particularly satisfied that the European Parliament has rejected the Commission's proposal to re-brand municipal waste incinerators based on certain criteria. Sinn Féin supports those communities in Ireland fighting against the imposition of dangerous incinerators onto their communities.
The Jackson report sends out a clear signal that the European Parliament supports the principles of a recycling society - Member States should do so too. The inclusion of the five-step waste hierarchy plan and the insistence on obliging Member States to provide waste prevention plans are also welcome. I regret that clearer and more ambitious targets were not included, however.
The issue of waste treatment is extremely important. The debate should focus on the idea that the excesses of those championing the environment will result in unrealistic, unworkable legislation. Such legislative inadequacy will in turn lead to environmental negligence and to an avoidable legacy for future generations.
One must, on the other hand, be mindful of the fact that, for all our good intentions on reducing pollution, the truth is that the ongoing increase in standards of living in the EU, and indeed throughout the world, will always lead to higher consumption and inevitably to more waste. We must therefore be realistic and, more importantly, seek to obtain a positive return, as suggested here, on waste treatment, in terms of energy.
in writing. - (FR) Prevention is better than cure. This adage, which ringingly endorses the desire to tackle the root causes of problems, applies perfectly to European waste policy.
What, then, are the facts? Between 1995 and 2003, global waste production has increased by 19% an average of 3.5 tonnes per person per year.
If we add to this the fact that less than 20% of waste is recycled, that - in 50% of cases end-of-life materials are not recycled and end up scattered throughout the countryside and that, moreover, allowing incinerators and waste that is dangerous to the environment and to public health to proliferate is not a tenable policy, what we have is a whole waste management philosophy that needs to be re-thought, and to be re-thought along three main axes: eco-design as a priority of waste prevention policy, given that 80% of the environmental impact occurs at the time that a product is manufactured and processed; the implementation of green taxation, which is intended to have a deterrent effect and which discourages excess packaging and energy-guzzling products; and the closure of Europe's 10 000 illicit rubbish dumps or the modification of these dumps to bring them into line with the 2001 EU Landfill Directive.
in writing. I welcome this report in tackling the EU waste problem. I am pleased that a legally binding stabilisation target has been introduced for waste prevention. I am also pleased that there has been no weakening of the principle of the five-stage 'hierarchy of waste': prevention and reduction of waste, re-use of waste, recycling of waste (less than a third of waste is recycled today), other recovery operations and, finally, the safe and environmentally sound disposal of waste.
As we know, one of the problems of modern society is waste production. We therefore endorse the adoption of this document, which places the accent on the primary objective of waste management, namely the protection of the environment and human health.
We would also highlight the adoption of what is referred to as the 'waste hierarchy', that is to say, the establishment of the following action priorities, in order: prevention, reuse, recycling, other recovery operations such as energy recovery and lastly disposal. With the higher importance attached to the issue of prevention, the intention is to reduce as far as possible the waste created.
Let us not forget, however, that given the enormous amount of waste currently produced, measures aimed at reuse, recycling and disposal that could be implemented remain inadequate and incapable of meeting our needs.
Waste reduction is therefore a crucial issue. To achieve this, however, entails a change in standards of production and consumption. It also involves clarifying the problem and raising awareness among the entire population. Consequently, it must be clarified how waste management is to be paid for, and guarantees must be put in place to ensure that it is not the 'weakest link in the chain', namely the consumers, who have to carry the can. We therefore feel that reference to the application of the 'polluter pays' principle is dangerous.
in writing. - (EL) In Greece, there are now 3 500 uncontrolled dumps. About half incinerate, with serious repercussions on the environment and public health. The volume of waste is increasing and most of it is dumped in landfills. On the other hand, the re-use and recycling of waste are still at excessively low levels and illegal cross-border transportation of waste is increasing. All this applies to most of the Member States and is rightly pointed out in the report entitled 'Thematic Strategy on the recycling of waste'".
Unfortunately, instead of finding solutions to these social problems, the Commission is using confusing targets and phoney definitions and a lack of qualitative and quantitative targets to promote the interests of the manufacturers and operators of incineration plants, which are major economic interests, at a time when we know that incineration produces gaseous pollution, dangerous solids and toxic liquid waste which contribute to the greenhouse effect. At the same time, incineration acts as a counterincentive to recycling.
This confirms that the capitalist ΕU cannot by its very nature apply a waste management policy based on the criterion of environmental protection and public health, because this is incompatible with unhampered action by capital to generate profits.
We also express our disagreement with the principle of 'the polluter pays' and the principle of the 'waste generator's responsibility', as they are tools for shifting blame from the polluter, who can basically pollute with impunity and just pay a financial price.
in writing. I voted in favour of this report as I believe we should create a waste management policy that will reduce waste and protect our environment. I believe the basis of the EU waste policy should be the protection of the environment and not to facilitate the trade of waste. The 'polluter pays' principle, the principle of producer responsibility in the EU waste legislation as well as the implementation of concrete targets for prevention are important aspects of this report that I favour.
in writing. The proposal for a separate directive on sewage sludge, a revision of the waste incinerator directive and proposals on waste prevention should be welcomed.
(NL) Mr President, I voted against the Bozkurt report. Whilst a number of necessary conclusions have been drawn, we in this House are passing up an opportunity to bring real pressure to bear on the Turkish Government. The accession negotiations with Turkey could be used as a lever to make progress in the area of human rights, in this case women's rights, but it would appear that we have made a conscious decision not to do this. In this House, there is a majority that assumes that Turkey must be able to join the European Union at all costs. The official line is, of course, that negotiations with Turkey can be suspended at any time if it transpires that that country is clearly flouting the human rights conditions. It has, though, become evident to us, time and time again, that the negotiations will never be suspended. It is a stipulation that serves one purpose and one purpose only: to pacify the majority of the voting public in Europe who are opposed to Turkey joining.
in writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report by Mrs Bozkurt on women's role in social, economic and political life in Turkey.
Although the legal framework for women's rights appears to be generally satisfactory, its actual implementation is still deficient, in my opinion: violence against women - and, in particular, honour crimes and forced marriages - must be systematically condemned.
I welcome the proposal in the report inviting Turkish institutions to build alliances with all groupings - civil and social - in society so as to initiate campaigns to spread awareness of violence committed against women and children.
I am also delighted by the adoption of the recommendation addressed to the Turkish political parties to include more female candidates on election lists as from the next elections in 2007.
Finally, I am very pleased about the request to the Turkish Government to make it mandatory for girls prevented by their families from attending school to have access to knowledge.
I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Bozkurt because it reinforces the idea that the Turkish Government must adopt measures enabling women to play a more prominent role in Turkey's social, economic and political life, despite progress that has already been made.
This report illustrates that there is a long way to go when it comes to protecting Turkish women against domestic violence and honour crimes. It also calls on the Turkish Government to build more shelters for women who are victims of violence.
By voting for this report we only wanted to endorse protection of the rights of all Turkish women, including in accession negotiations between Turkey and the EU, high on the agenda of which is the crucial issue of respect for human rights, including women's rights. Yet we do not consider this to be the only issue to take into account in the negotiations with Turkey. Our opposition to accession negotiations while Turkey continues its unacceptable occupation of Northern Cyprus is well known. We therefore object to a number of points in the report before us.
As the adopted report says, although the new Criminal Code, which entered into force in June 2005, has substantially improved the fundamental rights of Turkish women, the European Directives on gender equality have yet to be transposed in full. We also deplore the fact that, in some parts of South-East Turkey, girls are not registered when they are born, which hampers the fight against forced marriages and honour crimes, as the victims have no official identity. We also join in calling on the Turkish Government to guarantee women from the Kurdish minority equal involvement in women's rights programmes.
in writing. (SV) We fully share the view that Turkey, like other candidate countries, must establish a democratic constitutional state with full human rights and gender equality.
However, we are critical of quite a few individual points in the report. For example, it is absurd for the European Parliament to propose that a mandatory quota system be adopted, ensuring fair representation of women on election lists (paragraph 41), that the Turkish political parties adopt internal rules guaranteeing the presence of women in their management bodies at all levels (paragraph 43) and that the political parties in Turkey include more female candidates on election lists (paragraph 44). The EU does not impose this type of requirement on other candidate countries or on existing Member States. It is self-evidently absurd for a candidate country to be treated differently through the formulation of special requirements. Moreover, it is, in the end, for individual countries to decide what type of measures are to be taken to strengthen the role of women in society.
On the basis of the above reasoning, we have each chosen to abstain in the final vote.
in writing. I and my British Conservative colleagues support the accession of Turkey to the European Union. We also believe it is important that Turkey, as with all other candidate countries, must fulfil the Copenhagen criteria.
However, this report seems to set the barrier of membership of Turkey at a higher level than other states. We cannot support treating Turkey differently and less favourably than other candidate states. Of course, Turkey must also ensure it will abide by the Copenhagen criteria with regard to the rights of women and girls.
We have decided to abstain on this report as we are concerned that the long list of demands in it will be used politically by those opposed to Turkey's membership of the EU. By the same token, we want to make clear that we are supportive of genuine attempts to improve the position of women in Turkey.
We MEPs of the New Democracy party voted in favour of the Bozkurt report, which refers not only to the problematic situation of women in Turkey in all sectors, but also to the measures that need to be taken in order for the acquis communautaire to be adopted and applied in the candidate country.
Constant, multilateral efforts by Turkey must continue in order to defend women's human rights, by eliminating violence, crimes of honour and polygamy, and in order to eliminate discrimination in the family, in economic and social life and in general.
We abstained from Amendment 15. We believe that this amendment gives no added value to the resolution.
It is a fact that the dimension of equality forms part of the acquis communautaire, which must be adopted and applied by the candidate country. Thus, freezing negotiations, as called for in the amendment in question, would delay the application of equality between the two sexes. We should not forget that there is already leverage in this direction at the current stage of negotiations. We would remind the House that opening negotiations on Chapter 19 on social policy and employment, which relates directly to discrimination against women, requires compulsory developments in and compliance by Turkey, with specific targets to promote equality.
in writing. I have voted in favour of this report as it seeks to evaluate and suggest measures to evolve women's rights in Turkey. Cooperation with Turkish authorities and civil society is needed in order to improve women's rights and the report suggests this. In particular, in light of the country's candidacy for EU membership, respecting human rights, including women's rights must be made a priority. There are persistent problems with women's rights such as: Violence against women, including honour crimes; lack of education for women and girls; the decrease in women's participation in the labour market. I am pleased to support a report which recognises the need to address these issues and gives concrete suggestions for how we can achieve this.
Forced marriages, domestic violence, honour crimes, illiteracy, etc: the situation of women in Turkey is not a bed of roses. According to Unicef, 700 000 girls are prevented from attending school by their families every year. The employment rate among women is less than 25%, way below the 55% in the European Union.
These are worrying figures when Turkey's accession to the EU is arousing controversy. That is why Parliament is proposing constructive measures: an assessment of Turkey's progress according to benchmarks; the creation of refuges for women who are victims of violence; the obligation to register all girls at birth in order to prevent forced marriage; training the police and judiciary in the prevention of honour crimes, to encourage the systematic opening of inquiries and the necessary sentences; a mandatory quota system for the involvement of women in political life.
I am not a fundamentalist when it comes to positive discrimination, but I am convinced that temporary measures will be useful in Turkey. The country is crying out for women in positions of power, who will serve as models and bring about a change in traditional ways of thinking.
in writing. (SV) In the vote on Mrs Bozkurt's report on women's role in social, economic and political life in Turkey, I chose to vote in favour of the amendment designed to delete paragraph 41 on the subject of a quota system. I think it a great problem that there are not more women in Turkish politics, but, for me, a quota system is not the right solution to this problem.
in writing. The start of talks with Turkey on EU accession should be welcomed. However, the rights of women need to be closely monitored. The case of girls in south-east Turkey not being registered at birth needs to be challenged. All births should be officially registered regardless of gender. As for women in politics, more work could be done to encourage, nurture and help women into elected office. However, we should remember that in the EU there are still countries whose female representation in national politics falls short of the mark. In the UK, it will take 200 years before women are equally represented in the House of Commons. We must do all that we can to address gender inequalities where they occur.
in writing. (SV) Present circumstances show that the membership negotiations with Turkey have been embarked on too early. The report highlights a number of serious problems, especially the occurrence of honour killings and violence against women.
Quite apart from whether or not it becomes a Member State, Turkey is on the EU's doorstep and will constitute an important trading partner for the EU. It is therefore important for the EU to continue to put political pressure on Turkey with a view to the country's constructive development. However, it would be extremely unfortunate if the European Parliament were to go so far as to propose a mandatory quota system for the representation of women on various election lists. The EU does not have the power to interfere in nomination proceedings that comply with democratic ground rules.


Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes


1. Recent repression of demonstrations in Russia (vote)
- Joint motion for a resolution: RC B6-0172/2007


Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes


Welcome
I would like to point out, ladies and gentlemen, that on the rostrum we have a delegation from the Republic of South Africa, led by Mr D. Obed Bapela, Chairman of the International Relations Committee, who is known to all of us for his friendship towards Europe and for his involvement in the fight against apartheid.
(Applause)
I would like to extend a welcome to our guests, to this the twelfth European Parliament/ Parliament of South Africa interparliamentary meeting. This is a very important visit. The frequency of these visits is enhancing political dialogue, which is a vital element of the joint action plan, which we adopted in May last year, for the implementation of the European Union/South Africa Strategic Partnership.
Heightening our cooperation with a view to increasing international security and stability is without a doubt more necessary now than ever before, in view of the current tense regional situation in southern Africa and, especially, the crisis in Zimbabwe with which we are all familiar.
I would therefore like to welcome our friends from South Africa.


2. Southern Neighbourhood, and Libya in particular, including humanitarian aspects (
(PT) Mr President, there is a new supervening element that is not reflected in the resolution, and I call upon Parliament to join me in expressing our indignation and concern. This concerns what happened to the team of BBC journalists who were illegally detained and tortured, and also subjected to mock executions, and who saw many other Libyans detained in prison in totally inhumane conditions.
This also shows that journalists are not being allowed to carry out their work freely in Libya. This is an important matter, and I call upon Parliament to join us in expressing our indignation and concern, which we must convey to the Council.
Mrs Gomes, do you have a specific amendment in mind? We can only give consideration to a specific amendment, not a general appeal.
(PT) Mr President, the information I have is that the Liberal Group should like to propose the oral amendment, which has been agreed, but if this is not the case, I will be more than happy to pass it on.
All right, I understand. It is a general comment. Thank you.
(PL) Mr President, with respect, we heard you say that the resolution has been adopted, but I did not see the result, at least not on my screen or on the one in the seat in front of me. I think we should also be given the results, by which I mean the particular result of this vote.
Here is the result: 316 people voted in favour, 264 voted against and 33 people abstained.
Mr President, I would like to remind the House of the double standards which we are applying. In the case of the Hungarian media law, an event which took place on Monday was not reflected in our resolution.
Now we are trying to include something which happened only yesterday. This is a clear double standard which this House is applying, which is deplorable and unacceptable.
Mr President, I do this in the name of all the Group leaders and also of most of the coordinators because yesterday, after the debate, there was a general feeling that there is a need to strengthen paragraph 11. The oral amendment I am presenting is the following: 'Calls on the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to establish relations with the Interim Transitional National Council and to start the process of making them official, so as to encourage transition towards democracy, ensuring the involvement of a wide spectrum of representatives of the Libyan society and empower women and minorities in the transitional process, and to support it in the liberated area so as to relieve the population and to meet its basic humanitarian needs, including medical assistance'.
That is the oral amendment in the name of the seven Group leaders and also of all the coordinators, with whom it has been agreed.


9. Rise in food prices (vote)
- Joint motion for a resolution:


1. The case of Gilad Shalit
The next item is the debate about cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (Rule 122 of the Rules of Procedure), initially the case of Gilad Shalit (four motions for resolutions).
author. - (NL) Mr President, at around 8 o'clock this morning, here in Parliament, I visited the website dedicated to Gilad Shalit and a painful fact immediately caught my eye: for 1355 days, 3 hours, 12 minutes and 37 seconds, Gilad, who has been abducted, has been denied any contact with his father, mother, brother and sister. However, on the same website I also came across a passage from the Book of Jeremiah: 'So there is hope for your descendants, declares the Lord. Your children will return to their own land'. Noam Shalit, who is with us here today, is placing his hope and confidence in you, as well as in the God of Israel, to obtain the release of his precious son.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating the case of Gilad Shalit. During a special meeting with the Israeli delegation yesterday afternoon, I already assured Noam Shalit that his cause - the release of Gilad Shalit - is our cause, too. Let this debate and this resolution be clear signs of that, which obviously call for follow-up by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs. Yesterday morning, I spoke to Baroness Ashton personally about this. The case of Shalit is our cause, a European cause.
Ladies and gentlemen, please remain loyal to this cause in the coming period as well. I am counting on you. Let Europe make a difference in the Middle East. Together with Noam Shalit and his family, we are looking forward to the fulfilment of the rabbinic prayer for Shalit, psalm 126, verse 1: 'When the Lord brought back the captives to Zion, we were like men who dreamed'.
Mr President, Commissioner, Gilad Shalit was 19 years old when he was kidnapped in a Hamas attack near Gaza. Not in Gaza, but in Israel, in a kibbutz where his unit was stationed.
For nearly four years, this young man has been living in a cellar; there is no right to receive visitors, no doctor, no lawyer, no mail, no trial and no Geneva Convention for Gilad, nothing. He who is known - wrongly, in fact - as soldier Gilad Shalit was carrying out his military service like all young people in his country.
He is a rather shy young man - like his father for that matter, whom we have met on several occasions and whom we have the pleasure of welcoming today again in this Chamber - a young man who loved maths, who loved football and who would have returned to civilian life, of course, had he not been living, for four years now, in a hole, cut off from the world and cut off from his family.
Commissioner, I do not want to talk to you about politics this afternoon; I do not want to talk to you about the Middle East, conflicts, bargaining or prisoner exchanges. Our Parliament is unanimous today in calling for you to help a young man - a young Israeli, a young Frenchman, a young European - return home.
That is why I, together with my fellow authors of this resolution and members of six political groups, Mrs Essayah, Mr CohnBendit, Mr Howitt, Mr Tannock and Mr Belder, who spoke just now, am writing today to Baroness Ashton.
We call very strongly for Baroness Ashton, who will travel to Israel and Gaza next Wednesday, to exert all her influence in order to demand the release of Gilad Shalit, the influence with which she is endowed by the mandate of our resolution today, the influence of 500 million European citizens whom we represent in this House.
(Applause)
author. - Mr President, I welcome this cross-party resolution calling for the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit held captive since 2006 by the military wing of Hamas. I agree with Gilad's father, who has asked that his son's case be addressed as a humanitarian issue and not be turned into a political football. In the cut and thrust of political debate we must never lose sight of the suffering of both Israeli and Palestinian families whose loved ones have been taken from them in this conflict.
The Geneva Conventions must be respected by all sides. It is totally unacceptable that Gilad Shalit has been denied his rights as a prisoner of war to which the Goldstone Report categorically states he is entitled. His family have no information on the state of his health, either physical health or mental health.
At the same time, amongst the 7 200 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, also held in breach of the Geneva Conventions, 1 500 are held for an indefinite period and 13 have already served 25 years. Forty-four are children while 23 members of the Palestinian Legislative Council are detained in retaliation for the capture of Gilad Shalit. Again, Goldstone is clear: these detentions of PLC members are contrary to international law.
I will raise these issues at the Euromed Parliamentary Assembly in Jordan this weekend. I urge Catherine Ashton during her upcoming visit to the region to press the Israeli and Palestinian authorities, including those in Gaza, for the release of Gilad Shalit and of Palestinian children and PLC members and to ensure their safe and early return to their families.
author. - Mr President, Staff Sergeant Gilad Shalit has now been held hostage by the Jihadi fanatics of Hamas for over three years. Hamas claims it is a legal actor observing the Geneva Conventions and therefore he is a prisoner of war, but Israel, in my view rightly, regards him as an abductee from the moment he was seized. Irrespective of his legal status and international law, he has been cruelly kept incommunicado in Gaza, deprived of any contact with the outside world and even denied Red Cross access, which the Geneva Conventions mandate. His family has no information about his well-being beyond one video and sporadic indication from Hamas that he is still alive and well.
If Hamas has any claim to be taken seriously by the international community, it should at least now show unequivocally that the conditions of his incarceration adhere to international humanitarian laws.
But we demand more than that. We demand his immediate and unconditional release. I make no secret of my opposition to dialogue with the terrorists of Hamas, an organisation committed to Israel's annihilation, but, if we are ever to deal with Hamas, it must only be after Gilad Shalit has been liberated from his squalid captivity.
author. - Mr President, usually when this House makes a resolution which has even a slight connection with the situation in the Middle East, it is hard to find mutual understanding. That is not so in this case, thanks to the colleagues who have made it possible.
The situation of Gilad Shalit is a humanitarian issue and our joint resolution underlines the fact that, since being taken hostage nearly four years ago, he has been kept in an unknown place in Gaza, where he does not enjoy basic rights according to any humanitarian standards, including the third Geneva Convention. It is from this humanitarian perspective that we demand the immediate release of Gilad Shalit. Meanwhile, the minimum requirement is that the Red Cross and Shalit's parents may be allowed to be in contact with him.
The value of a human person cannot be measured. It is immeasurable. Gilad Shalit should not be made a bargaining chip by the terrorist organisation Hamas but should be released immediately. This is the message that we would like the High Representative, Baroness Ashton, to take with her to Gaza during her forthcoming visit.
author. - (EL) Mr President, yesterday I and other members attended a meeting at which Shalit's father was present and I should like to say that it is impossible not to be affected by this family's tragedy. That is why our position is that Gilad Shalit, a member of the Israeli armed forces arrested in Israeli territory on 24 June 2006, meets the criteria for him to be considered a prisoner-of-war under the Third Geneva Convention.
As such, he should be given humanitarian treatment and be allowed to communicate. The International Red Cross should be allowed to visit him and his family should have every right to be informed of his situation and, of course, to visit him. At the same time, we express our belief and our desire that this person will be released.
However, without wishing in any way to detract from what I have said so far, I believe that our position that this issue can be differentiated from a series of other Palestinians in gaol is somewhat apolitical. Their presence in these gaols is also a humanitarian issue. I believe that we are giving false hopes to this family if we think that, by focusing, as a Parliament, solely on the release of this particular person, for whom I repeat our demand that he be released, we shall achieve something.
Is the fact that dozens of 16-year-old Palestinian children are in gaol not a humanitarian issue? How can you differentiate between these two issues? We cannot not mention the fact that Gaza itself - as someone said earlier that he is living in a hovel and indeed he is living in a hovel - that Gaza itself, I repeat, is an immense hovel. One-and-a-half million Palestinians living there are living in a collective hovel. There are 7 200 Palestinians in Israeli prisons; they include 270 children aged between 16 and 18 and 44 children below the age of 16. Seven hundred and fifty thousand Palestinians have been arrested and put in prison since 1967.
So we are calling for the release of Shalit, but our position that we believe that this can be achieved by divorcing it from the overall picture in Palestine is apolitical.
To close, I should like to add that the only area in the world with a minister for prisoners is Palestine. I would like to express once again our love and sympathy for the family and I trust that this problem will be resolved shortly.
Mr President, the resolution on Corporal Gilad Shalit, which we are examining today, supplements the many resolutions previously adopted by the European Parliament on the human rights situation in the Middle East.
Corporal Gilad Shalit, who has been held hostage for 1 355 days, must be released as soon as possible. We demand and we hope very sincerely that he will be released. The young Franco-Palestinian, Salah Hamouri, who has been detained by the Israeli authorities since 13 March 2005, must be released. The children imprisoned in Israel, in violation of the provisions of international law and the conventions on the rights of the child, must be released. The militants of the NonViolent Popular Resistance Against the Occupation, such as Abdallah Abu Rahmah from Bil'in, must be released. The elected representatives, the members of the Palestinian Legislative Council - including Marwan Barghouti - must be released.
It is time for the European Union to insist strongly that human rights and international law be respected in the Middle East. The solutions do not lie in oneupmanship, exercised under repressive and violent conditions, an example of which was the assassination of a Hamas leader in Dubai, which we condemn, not least because it makes securing the release of Gilad Shalit even more difficult.
This is the second occasion in the last two weeks that I have spoken about Gilad Shalit in plenary, and I am pleased that the joint efforts made with my fellow Members have resulted in this resolution. 'The case of Gilad Shalit' demonstrates the particular concern the European Union has for the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Gilad's rights, which are set out in the Geneva Convention, should not be made conditional upon the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, Gilad Shalit's father Noam has repeatedly confirmed that neither he nor his family is involved in politics. They have not chosen to be in this situation at the moment. The ideal scenario for us Europeans would be two states coexisting in peace and security.
Negotiations for Gilad's release have been going on right since 2006 via different intermediaries, with, in actual fact, one highly controversial proposal being put forward for him to be handed over in exchange for 1 000 Palestinian prisoners. Gilad and his family need our help.
Thank you very much.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - (CS) The case of Gilad Shalit has become a symbol of the endless desperation and frustration in the Middle East. This is true both for the people living there and for the international community, which is engaged there. Gilad Shalit is a hostage with a name, whose eventful fate we follow with sympathy and concern. The people of the Middle East are the nameless hostages of this never-ending conflict. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Or is there another hope for Gilad and all the other victims?
All of the standards of international law will not make up for what we hear so desperately little of in this conflict - an appeal for humaneness. To try and abandon the geopolitical view of the world, where human beings and their fates are manipulated like playing cards. To try and put ourselves in the position of the families of victims and of all innocent detainees and destitute people.
What then prevents the release of Gilad Shalit and all those whose guilt has not been established beyond doubt by the courts? Not to mention the encouragement of those who want to live in peace.The key to peace is trust, compromise and the courage to defend peace against all those who are implacable. I would like to ask you to take the first step.
Mr President, the purpose of our debate today is, in all earnestness, to put a name and a face to human suffering, and in that way expand our compassion and our empathy. In this regard, it is very valuable indeed that we have chosen Gilad Shalit as a topic for our debate today. This will lead us to extend our empathy to others, so that we can identify with their suffering and their families' suffering. There are thousands of Palestinians who are being detained under totally unacceptable conditions, something that is contrary to international rules in every respect, and that is just as difficult a situation for them as it is for Gilad Shalit and his family. We must do our utmost to take this problem seriously, and my feeling is that all of us in this House are prepared to do so. The issue here is not just one prisoner, but thousands of prisoners who are victims of this major conflict.
I would also add a further point: it is important that we face up squarely to the cause of this suffering and that we realise that, if we do not do something, not only about the siege of Gaza, but also about the occupation of Palestine as a whole, and if we do not create a two-state solution which I believe all of us are calling for and want, there will be no future for these people. I think this is a really productive way to go about finding a common solution, and I hope that Baroness Ashton will put the EU in a position where it does not only have to pay, pay and pay, but where it can also make its voice heard every now and then.
- (NL) Mr President, on 25 June 2006, an Israeli Army conscript, Corporal Gilad Shalit, was abducted following a terrorist infiltration from the Gaza Strip. He has since been held hostage by Hamas. Hamas has kept Shalit completely cut off from the outside world. He has been incarcerated in deepest darkness and not even the Red Cross is allowed access to him.
The Shalit case proves once again that Europe and Israel are on the same side. Barbaric Islamic forces are waging an all-out war against Western civilisation. Israel is in the frontline of that war. In Israel and Europe, every human life counts. For Islamic terrorists, human life counts for nothing, or rather, one human life is worth a thousand lives, because Hamas is demanding that, in exchange for Shalit, Israel release 1000 prisoners, including a large number of terrorist murderers.
It is important that we obtain Shalit's release, but without Israel having to release terrorists in return. After all, we have seen where exchanges like this have led in the past: the euphoria of victory for the terrorists, for their followers and leaders, and inevitably more terror. We cannot allow people to profit from terrorism, and it would be irresponsible if we encouraged Israel to respond to such hostage-taking with an exchange, because the next Hamas hostage could be somebody from Paris, Amsterdam or Brussels. And what kind of a position will we be in then?
The boot must be put on the other foot immediately: it is Hamas, not Israel, that must pay for taking Gilad Shalit, a European, hostage. The price should be so high that they release him of their own free will. In this regard, we ask that a complete ban on travel to and through Europe be imposed on all officials of the Hamas regime, including those who are not formally allied with Hamas and those who are not on the European terror list.
- Mr President, this young man has been kept in captivity for almost 1 400 days with absolute disrespect for any international norms and no access to him even by the Red Cross. I think this case should be seen and solved exclusively as a human tragedy. I am encouraged by the wide support in the European Parliament for this debate and by the warm reception our colleagues expressed yesterday to Shalit's father.
Shalit's case should not become a bargaining chip. Instead it will be in the interests of Hamas if they want to gain legitimacy in the peace process. To conclude, the best proof for their credibility would be to release Gilad Shalit unconditionally and to abstain from further kidnappings.
(PL) The resolution we are discussing, today, is not of a political nature, and we are not trying to solve the Middle East conflict. All we want is that an innocent son be allowed to return to his father and to his family. I do not know if fellow Members know of the existence of an organisation called the Parents Circle. It is an organisation of Israeli and Palestinian families who have lost relatives in the conflict. We are talking, today, about an individual case precisely because we do not want Gilad Shalit's father to join those who have lost the closest of loved ones - their own children.
We are appealing for the release of a hostage, because we do not agree with the idea that the end justifies the means. Fighting in a just cause does not excuse actions which are universally considered to be wrong or acts of terrorism. Organisations which want to gain our approval, our respect, must not hold hostages.
(Applause)
(RO) I too wish to add my support to those who have called in this Chamber, both today and yesterday, for the release of Gilad Shalit, and I also wish to express my sympathy to his family.
I would like to address my speech to those who are perhaps asking themselves the question: 'Why have a resolution on the Gilad Shalit case, and why now?' Other fellow Members have reminded us that it will soon be four years that young Gilad Shalit has been held hostage in brutal conditions and in breach of the international standards recognised by the Third Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. As every one of us can imagine, every extra day in captivity means awful suffering for Shalit and his family.
I would also give another reason for support, namely that Gilad Shalit is a European citizen, he is a European victim of terrorism, and on this day, which is European Day for the Victims of Terrorism, I can think of no more symbolic gesture than this resolution.
- Mr President, first of all I would like to salute the efforts made by Gilad Shalit's family to seek his release, which we wholeheartedly support. That is the message we want to convey through this resolution. We believe, as the Goldstone Report highlights, that he is indeed entitled to the status of prisoner of war, as the prisoners kept by Israel, including many children, should be.
We want all of them to be released. We want Gilad Shalit and all the Palestinian young men and women to be released. Indeed this is only way for peace to be achieved in that region. We urge Baroness Ashton to spare no effort to press for the release of Gilad Shalit and all the other Palestinian prisoners of war, especially those young people who are enduring this captivity.
(PL) The case of Gilad Shalit has a particular, personal dimension. It is the tragic case of a very young man the same age as my son, and it is also the tragic case of his family. However, let us not pretend that the case does not also have a broader political context. It does, in fact, make us aware that the black and white film which is often very one-sidedly presented also in this Chamber, the film which speaks of victims only on the Palestinian side, is something which is, really, not very objective.
I think that, today, we should demand very clearly the release of this young man, but let us also remember that those who are firing missiles at Sderot are responsible for the fact that he is still a prisoner.
- (FI) Mr President, as we know, the background to this resolution was a very politically sensitive set of circumstances, but that ought not to prevent us from passing a clearly humanitarian resolution that is not watered down by general political remarks on the situation as a whole.
I am pleased that this resolution has kept to the point. I intend to vote in favour of it. It stresses the idea that all parties involved in the crisis in the Middle East must comply with international humanitarian law and human rights legislation. I hope that it receives the firm support of this House.
(Applause)
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the case of the abducted Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, is of great concern to the European Union.
My former colleague Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner called urgently for Mr Shalit's release in this very House already on 5 July 2006, less than two weeks after his capture. Over the years and on a number of occasions, including at the latest Association Council with Israel last June and in the Foreign Affairs Council conclusions of December 2009, the EU has consistently called on those holding Mr Shalit to release him without delay. Therefore we join with today's Parliament motions calling for his release.
It is our opinion, in line with the assessment of many human rights organisations, that the terms and conditions of Mr Shalit's detention are contrary to international humanitarian law. Therefore we urge his captors to respect such obligations and in particular to allow delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit him. Finally, we are aware that mediation activities have been ongoing, aimed at the release of Gilad Shalit. We encourage all efforts made in this direction and we express our hope that they will soon be successful. I will also personally pass on a clear message from you to my colleague Cathy Ashton.
Of course our thoughts are with the family of Gilad Shalit. I know that his father has been in this House this week and I understand that he is at this very moment sitting here with us.
(Applause)
I want to reassure him that our thoughts and efforts are with him and, of course, with all the others who are suffering the consequences of this long lasting conflict.
(Applause)
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the debate.
Written Statements (Rule 149)
in writing. - I wish to express my regret in view of the imprisonment of Gilad Shalit. His abduction alongside the detention of the rest of the prisoners in the area is unacceptable. This situation needs to be amended as soon as possible. I believe that release of Shalit would contribute to the Middle East peace process in general.
(FR) For the rest, France has just decided to sell a Mistral class warship to Russia; we believe that it will sincerely regret its action.


Resumption of the session
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday, 17 September 2009.


4. Situation in Nigeria (vote)
- Motion for a resolution


Composition of Parliament: see Minutes


9. Veterinary checks in intra-Community trade (codified version) (


Situation in Burma (debate)
The next item is the statements by the Council and the Commission on the situation in Burma.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (SL) The European Union is closely following the situation in Burma, or Myanmar. We are actively supporting efforts, made primarily by the United Nations, to accelerate the transition to democracy, reconciliation and the country's development. We are also consulting our Asian partners about all these issues. The special envoy, Mr Fassino, reported to the European Parliament on the situation in Burma/Myanmar. He also informed Parliament about the alignments taking place with Burma's neighbours and other ASEAN members.
As we know, the United Nations Special Envoy, Mr Gambari, visited the country at the beginning of March. I must stress our disappointment that his visit did not have any obvious results. Most of all, we had the impression that the Burmese authorities were not prepared to cooperate with the international community. The European Union would like to see the authorities accept Mr Gambari's proposals for a further political process. The entire international community agrees with these proposals, which are not too far-reaching.
The EU and Mr Gambari are pointing to similar problems. In addition, the EU regularly sends key political communications to Burma/Myanmar. One of those key communications is the recent European Parliament resolution regarding the situation in that country. Our central joint message is principally that national reconciliation, stability and prosperity will only be possible through a credible and inclusive process of democratisation. This is why the European Union is keenly following the response of the opposition to the coming referendum on the constitution.
We are calling on the authorities to allow an unimpeded and open debate about the constitution before the referendum, to stop persecuting political activists and to repeal laws that limit the freedom of expression. Regardless of the current situation, the European Union has not lost hope that the Burmese authorities will guarantee a free and fair referendum and allow the presence of international observers. It is prepared to support observers from ASEAN countries.
In addition to allowing correct conduct of the referendum, we are calling on Burma to release political prisoners and cease arrests. The Council joins the European Parliament in appealing to Burma not to extend Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest. We hope that China and ASEAN countries will also continue to support Mr Gambari's mission and the position of the United Nations Security Council in the future. We sent this message through diplomatic channels and via our special envoy.
At the session of the General Affairs and External Relations Council to be held next week, the European Union intends to extend the validity of the Common Position on Burma. In this way humanitarian activities, albeit limited, will still be possible while sanctions remain in force. We are calling on international partners to secure more aid, which the citizens of Burma urgently need. The European Union will continue to provide such aid.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner is unable to attend this meeting. On her behalf and on behalf of the Commission, I would like to say a few things about Burma.
In a couple of weeks, on 10 May, the Burmese people will be asked to approve or reject a constitution. The European Union and its partners believe that in the preparation of the draft constitution there was insufficient involvement of the various political forces and ethnic groups that exist in the country. The ruling junta has done exactly as it pleases in this process.
As a consequence, the constitution stipulates that 25% of the members of parliament will be appointed from the military while the remaining 75% will be elected. It is possible that Aung San Suu Kyi may be able to vote in the elections scheduled for 2010, and perhaps even stand as a candidate, but the regime seems to want to prevent her from becoming President of the Union of Myanmar some day. China, India and ASEAN have some influence: their main concerns are the country's stability as well as trade relations and investment.
With the assistance of discreet Chinese diplomacy, Mr Gambari, the UN Special Envoy, was unable to open up the political process any further and he stated that he was going to concentrate on economic, social and humanitarian issues.
Given the absence of tangible projects, on 29 April the General Affairs Council will discuss all the possible operations the European Union could carry out to influence the situation in Burma. I would like to stress that the European Union's aim is to promote a balanced approach to the Burmese issue; above all we want objective results. On 19 November 2007 the Council adopted a version of the common position which introduced new sanctions. The EC Regulation entered into force on 10 March and its annual review is due to take place at the end of this month.
The European Union's sanctions reflect our dissatisfaction with the slow rate of progress towards democracy, the persistent detention of numerous political prisoners and the violation of fundamental freedoms. Nevertheless, the impact of the sanctions must be examined regularly to ensure that they are having a direct impact on the members of the regime and their resources. The Commission has established assistance programmes under the general cooperation policy and these focus on health and education. I am pleased to note that the European Parliament has expressed its support for these measures under its right of scrutiny.
This is in addition to ECHO's humanitarian aid to assist neighbouring countries and the Burmese refugees in the region. We continue to support Mr Gambari's mission. The European Union is part of the 'Group of Friends', which brings together in New York the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the ASEAN Chair, India, Japan and Norway, which are all involved in monitoring the situation in Burma. The EU Special Envoy for Burma, Mr Fassino, plays a key role in supporting Mr Gambari's mission. That is the information I wanted to pass on to you on behalf of Mrs Ferrero-Waldner.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, we are discussing Burma today, because the European Union's targeted sanctions are due for renewal in five days' time and the Burmese authorities are pressing ahead with a referendum on their sham constitution in just over two weeks.
We want to make a sincere appeal to the Burmese regime to take a step that is very much in its own interest as well as the interests of the Burmese people: to take the necessary action to rejoin the international community of nations. The policy of suspicious isolation has been tried for almost the whole of Burma's life as an independent state and it has failed. It has harmed Burma and it has harmed the Burmese people.
In 1948, Burma was the world's largest exporter of rice, the producer of 75% of the world's teak and the wealthiest country in south-east Asia. It was believed to be on the fast track to development. Today, it has a GDP per capita lower than Rwanda or Bangladesh.
The Burmese economy urgently needs assistance from international financial organisations, yet, ever since Burma turned in upon itself and away from democracy, the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have all, quite rightly, refused to extend any further financial help. The refusal of the Burmese regime to engage with external realities has led countries across the world to impose economic sanctions.
Burma needs friends to help protect its national interests on the global stage, but even ASEAN has now declared, again quite rightly, that it will no longer defend the Burmese authorities in any international forum.
We say to the Burmese Government: the world is not against you if only you will stop turning your back against the world. You do not need to be frightened of the international community any more than you need to fear your own people. You do not need the ninth largest army and the fifteenth largest military budget in the world. You do not need to live in a bunker. Recognise the democratic aspirations of your people, cease the political repression and enable opposition forces to engage fully and freely in a fresh constitutional process.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, first of all we want to call on the Burmese regime: to release political opponents and the more than 1 800 political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, the leaders of the '88 Generation Students and the leaders of the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy arrested in 2005; to account for all the casualties and missing persons from last September's crackdown on protests by Buddhist monks and democracy activists, including the whereabouts of missing monks and nuns; to secure access to Burma for the incoming UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burma and to permit opposition political parties to meet with the Special Envoy.
There are real concerns about the so-called referendum: there is a danger that the referendum under current repressive conditions will only cement in place continued military rule. Since announcing the referendum, the government issued Law No 1/2008, which denies voting rights to members of religious orders, including monks and nuns. It also imposes a three-year prison sentence on anyone found 'lecturing, distributing papers, using posters or disturbing the voting in any other manner in the polling booths or at a public or private place to destroy the referendum'.
We seek guarantees from the Government to convene independent election commissions, compile a proper voter registration list, lift longstanding restrictions on the media, permit freedom of association, expression and assembly in Burma, and revoke new regulations that criminalise legitimate debate about the referendum.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Barrot, you referred to a balanced approach. I must say that I fear the approach is overly timid, first and foremost because there is information that this House needs to know, namely that the EU possesses instruments for the promotion of democracy and human rights.
These are new instruments, and now it is not even mandatory to have authorisation from a country's dictatorship to be able to disburse the funds. Therefore, either we discuss what is happening as onlookers or, alternatively, we discuss it as people who are wondering what can be done. If that is the case, we need to know - today - how we are disbursing these funds, whom we are able to help, and how we are managing to get information into and out of the country. For example, we need to consider how money is being spent in the so-called war on drugs, money which in Burma goes straight into the Burmese regime's coffers so as to be better able to repress its own people, courtesy of the United Nations Office. We in the European Union should also confront this problem. As for the referendum, it is not so much that it did not sufficiently involve all parties, as you said: the referendum is a cover-up so that the regime is better able to carry on wantonly flouting human and civil rights in Burma.
I wished to say to the Council representative, Mr Lenarčič, that since the monks were heavily involved in the non-violent struggle and even paid with their lives for that struggle, I think your announcement that you intend not to invite the Dalai Lama to Brussels for much-needed political dialogue with the EU countries will symbolically have - and has already had - a negative impact on the non-violent struggle of the Burmese people, especially the monks.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (GA) Mr President, in October last year, the world was witness to thousands of Buddhist monks and members of the public marching through the streets of Rangoon demanding freedom and reform from Burma's unjust and violent military regime. This was the largest anti-government demonstration since the bloody suppression of the first democracy movement in 1988.
If anybody thinks that the situation could have been worse than it was last year, all we have to do is look at the evidence: poverty, food shortages, continuing oppression, the elimination of political opponents, the continuing incarceration of a Sakharov and Nobel Peace Prize winner, the continuing oppression and suppression of any alternative viewpoint being brought forward.
It is incumbent on us within the European Union to continue the strong messages of support that we gave in September 2007 to the people who are campaigning in Burma. Now we are being faced with a situation whereby a new constitution is being put to a referendum and this constitution is being labelled by some as the next step towards the restoration of democracy, yet it allocates a quarter of the seats in the parliament to the military; it forbids Ms Aung San Suu Kyi from standing as a candidate for that election because she is married to a foreigner, and it forces those to abide totally by the diktat of the junta.
China must now be involved in bringing pressure to bear on the junta in Burma to ensure that proper representation is given to the people, but Bangladesh and Thailand must also be given support to allow them to encourage the Burmese authorities to look anew. We must redouble our efforts in sanctions and in taking strong political action, not just at European level, but throughout the world, and in particular at the United Nations. All Member States of the European Union should be speaking with one voice at the United Nations to put pressure on the authorities to take action at that level.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FR) Mr President, as has just been pointed out, the humanitarian and human rights situation in Burma is deteriorating and it is up to the next General Affairs and External Relations Council to acknowledge this loud and clear and to redefine the action implemented under the European policy.
What seemed initially to be a positive sign, the famous constitutional reform, quickly became an utterly Machiavellian project. The presence of military personnel in government is thus going to be included formally in the constitution, in violation of all international standards and in the absence of any observers, while all those who oppose the current regime are excluded from electoral representation. This is a complete farce and it will plunge Burma even further under the junta's iron rule.
It has to be said that this represents a failure of the inclusive strategy, within Burma itself and at regional level, implemented by the European Union and the United Nations. Our Envoy has not even managed to set foot in Burma. Today our double-sided strategy - sanctions/incentives - therefore has to become more effective and more focused. In other words, we need better, more insightful and more regular implementation of the criteria already laid down in accordance with the stated objectives.
Our financial measures must isolate completely the companies that are linked to the junta or that, in one way or another, help to fund it, as well as the people in power who can swan off to other countries to go shopping and send their children to schools abroad. The same applies to the banking sanctions imposed on them, which at present do not prohibit transfers via European banks.
As far as ASEAN is concerned, the negotiations on the free trade agreement must be seen as an opportunity to ensure that the neighbouring states refrain from implementing any strategy that might offset the sanctions against Burma.
The second aspect relates to incentives. At the same time, we must support the life blood of the country: on a humanitarian level, which goes with saying of course, but also on a political level. That means publicly condemning the Burmese authorities, denouncing the content of the referendum and the procedures used, and promoting with conviction the rule of law and fundamental freedoms via EIDHR projects. It also means supporting and protecting human rights activities, combating the impressment of children into armed factions and protecting children from violence.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, please do not think me Chinaphobic because I often criticise China's position in my speeches. However, I think there can be no doubt when it comes to the situation in Burma and the well-known responsibilities of the Chinese Government, which backs the Burmese Council of State. These are moreover the same responsibilities that China has in Darfur, in Tibet and in many other parts of the world where human rights violations are being perpetrated, not least in China itself.
Obviously, then, I can join in with and endorse the expression of indignation, abhorrence and condemnation customarily contained in our resolutions, but I remain sceptical as to how effective it can be. I back the clear condemnation and deplore the fact that in 45 years the Burmese regime has made no progress on respect for human rights and freedom of conscience.
How could I fail to condemn the political and ethnic repression of the Burmese people? Indeed, I would take this opportunity to recall in particular the case of the Karen people who have been proudly holding out for decades in defence of their identity, and I would just as resolutely condemn the referendum mechanism enshrined in the constitution which the regime is seeking to impose on Burma. Of course, ladies and gentlemen, on a sentimental level I agree with everything stated in the resolution, but given that - as usual - everything emanating from EU acts remains at the level of sentiment I think it is utterly useless. As the resolution says, not even the renewed targeted sanctions have had the desired impact.
Consequently, it is certainly worth calling for the sanctions to be tightened, but similar pressure should above all be used against states such as China, Russia and India, in order that, by virtue of their economic and political influence over the Burmese regime, they cooperate with the European Union in this area and stop supplying weapons and strategic resources. Basically I also agree with the points put very cogently by Mrs Flautre.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in a few days' time, the Council will decide whether to maintain its common position on Burma and whether to maintain sanctions. In Burma, there have been no substantive changes with regard to democracy, the rule of law or respect for human rights. Almost 2 000 political prisoners are being detained there. Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for years. In short, there is not the slightest reason to ease the sanctions.
Admittedly, a constitutional referendum has been announced and a draft constitution has been published, but this lacks any democratic legitimacy. The public has not been consulted, and neither has the democratic opposition. The draft constitution is full of democratic shortcomings. It is absurd that a quarter of the seats in parliament will go to the military. It is absurd to exclude candidates who are married to a foreigner or have children who are foreign nationals. All this testifies to a lack of democratic progress.
What is to be done? I endorse the appeals voiced by previous speakers, especially the measured comments of my colleague Geoffrey van Orden. However, we cannot address the issue of Burma on our own. Without the support of the Chinese, the junta would not survive. That is why the Chinese also have a responsibility for what is happening there. China has moved in to fill the economic vacuum created by the West's sanctions and is reaping the benefits. That is why an approach must be made to China if we want to see any change in the situation in Burma.
I would also like to appeal to my friends in ASEAN. I know that my ASEAN friends regard any comment about Myanmar as interference in their domestic affairs, but I am also aware that the situation in Myanmar makes them uneasy. My message to them is that Myanmar is blighting ASEAN's image in the world, so ASEAN too must bring pressure to bear.
Mr President, I welcome the statements of the Council and of the Commission this afternoon, but with 700 political prisoners detained following last year's demonstrations and General Than Shwe having refused to meet UN Special Envoy Gambari, renewing our common position six months later is necessary - but it is not enough. Why not extend sanctions to oil and gas, where the regime is making its core funding? If the United States imposes sanctions on finance and banking, denying foreign currency to the regime, why does the European Union not do so? What steps can be taken to enable humanitarian access to eastern Burma, where 3 000 villages are reported razed to the ground and where European aid agencies are ready to act? Buddhist monks have written 'no' on their monastery walls to send their message to Burmese civilians for the constitutional referendum in May. Europe's message to Burma must also be a resounding 'no' to dictatorship and 'yes' to democracy.
(FR) Mr President, it is now six months since the demonstrations in Rangoon revealed to the world the serious human rights violations taking place on a regular basis in Burma.
It seems, unfortunately, that international public opinion has already forgotten about this country in crisis. The reality is that we must provide unfailing support for the people of Burma and adopt a coherent long-term strategy to guarantee, finally, respect for democracy, for the freedom of the press and for the freedom of religion, expression and association.
In spite of the diplomatic pressure, in spite of the exemplary action of Aung San Suu Kyi, who, I must remind you, was awarded the Sakharov Prize in 1990, and in spite of the efforts of international civil society, the situation has not improved: because they do not have the right to vote, 400 000 Buddhist monks will not be able to take part in the referendum.
This unacceptable situation is proof that the pressure applied to date has been inadequate. The sanctions against the Burmese regime must be extended and must target the political elite rather than the population.
Above all, I hope that the EU's action will be strengthened. In order to raise awareness among the public, I ask, we ask, that Aung San Suu Kyi - who embodies this fight - be given the freedom of all the European capitals, thereby demonstrating our determination to see to it that human rights and freedom in Burma are promoted effectively.
(ET) When I enter the Parliament building in Brussels in the mornings, Aung San Suu Kyi looks down at me with her sad eyes from a great placard and I must confess that every morning I feel embarrassingly powerless.
The resolutions which we have adopted almost unanimously have had no effect whatever. Today when I heard both the Commission and the Council representatives speaking here I noticed the rhetoric: 'We hope, we wish, we consider, we are concerned'. Is this not too demure an attitude to take in respect of a regime like this? We must clearly speak with one voice, and do so much more forcefully.
How do we move forward? We always come back to economic sanctions. In my view this is clearly, however, the only way to influence this regime; we must of course monitor very carefully where our development aid goes. Our money must be conditional upon very specific reforms in this society.
Mr President, I have been in Burma and seen the misery and the oppression under which the Burmese people live. Disgracefully, Europe has not done enough to help the Burmese - their courageous monks, their political prisoners, their brave leader Aung San Suu Kyi - to get freedom and to get rid of the junta oppressors.
Europe has not done enough to mobilise influential neighbours such as Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and especially Indonesia to come in support for those who fight for human rights and democracy in Burma.
Europe has not done enough to press China and India to stop supporting in one way or another the Burmese oppressors. Europe has not done enough to prevent and punish European companies such as the French Total who keep doing business in Burma, thus helping pay the drug mafia and the oppressors who form the Burmese junta. Europe must act now and refuse to accept the farce of a referendum.
Mr Barroso and his Commissioners heading to Beijing today must talk firmly and clearly about Burma and Beijing's responsibilities and its sad state. The current and the next Council presidency must act decisively to make a difference for the people of Burma, namely by strictly implementing the sanctions decided and by pushing the UN Security Council to act against the Burmese oppressors.
Mr President, this House is becoming habitual in passing resolutions, resolutions which are totally ineffective to a very large extent. Also, we are used to applying sanctions, which are also totally ineffective, because they are not directed at those who are responsible for really changing things, but are, as in this case, directed at the ordinary people of Burma, whose lives we are making even more miserable.
It has already been mentioned that the real culprit in this case is China. Are we directing any sanctions against China? No! The EU market is flooded with defective goods that we are purchasing from China. Why are we not applying any sanctions to China in order to see how that affects the situation in Burma?
Mr President, I agree with my colleagues on this matter. It is not only a case of there being no change over the last number of months, but of there being no change for 50 years.
There are breaches of human rights on a daily basis. Religious communities do not come onto the streets unless they believe that there is something radically wrong with a country. We saw that a number of months ago, when the monks came onto the streets, because they felt that they could get their message across. The reaction of the junta was otherwise: it made sure that their protests on the streets were immediately stopped and quelled, and the murders that occurred immediately thereafter are outrageous. And this government has continued to remain in power.
The main culprits here are the companies and the countries that deal with Burma: those that are supplying arms and buying its products. I agree with my colleagues that we should be more proactive in forcing China to take a very different course of action in dealing with Burma. That is the only way we can get change. We also need to take action and talk to those European companies that are helping this junta. Unless we take action ourselves, it is going to be very difficult for us to force change on other countries. I support this motion for a resolution.
Mr President, Burma is one of those issues which quite properly generates considerable input into MEPs' mailboxes.
I see parallels between Burma and Zimbabwe. Both were once thriving economies. Both then turned from democracy to oppression and all that goes with it: the denial of basic freedoms, extreme poverty and oppressive militarism.
But I also see a parallel in the EU's response to both Burma and Zimbabwe. Both, frankly, are far too timid in that regard. We heard from the Commission and the Council today, but what really had they got to say to us? Very, very little.
I say we must be much more robust. We must step up the economic and the other sanctions and we must put in place a proper and total arms embargo. We must apply pressure where maybe it will have the most effect: on those regimes, those sympathisers, like China, who are propping up this junta. Only then, particularly when we deal with those who have an attitude of ambivalence to the military junta, can it change.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (SL) I have already mentioned that at its next session the General Affairs and External Relations Council will debate the question of Burma and is likely to adopt some conclusions. I will address this matter later, but first I would like to respond to some comments.
Firstly, Mr Cappato. I would like to stress that so far the Council has not at any time debated the possibility of inviting the Dalai Lama to a meeting with the General Affairs and External Relations Council. Nor do I believe that such a meeting could ever happen. If it did happen, it would revolve around Tibet and not Burma, which is the topic of debate at this moment. However, I would like to say this: What is needed to improve the situation in Tibet is not so much a dialogue between the European Union and the Dalai Lama, but more a dialogue between the Chinese authorities and the Dalai Lama. The Slovenian Presidency has already called for that several times.
Now something about the next session of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. We expect the Council to reach conclusions and decide that it will reiterate its deep concern about the situation in Burma and call on the Burmese authorities to act urgently to bring about a transition to legitimate civilian rule and national reconciliation. We also expect the Council to call for an open debate on the referendum, which should be conducted freely and fairly. In addition, as Mrs Flautre mentioned, we expect the Burmese authorities to invite international monitors to oversee the referendum.
I am in no doubt that the Council will call for the immediate release of all political detainees, as pointed out by Mr Howitt. Nor do I doubt that at the same time it will appeal for the release of Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi. We also expect sanctions, which, as Mr Van Orden correctly remarked, are due to end, to be extended for a further 12 months with the possibility of modifying them, that is to say tightening or relaxing them, at any given time according to the situation.
As regards weapons, and in response to Mr Romagnoli, the European Union has prohibited the export of any kind of weapons or associated materials to Burma. That is part of the European Union's sanctions and we expect that to be extended together with the sanction system or mechanism. We are trying to get other Member States to join us in this.
Finally, I should add that one could say, as Mrs Flautre said, that the United Nations' strategy towards Burma has failed. However, one could also say that it has not yet borne fruit. My inclination is towards the latter.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, I have listened carefully to all the comments, which reflect the fact that Burma still has a long way to go before it finds the road to democracy, and we are all too aware of that. We must continue to strengthen our policy, and in this regard I would like to point out that we recently stepped up the sanctions targeting the regime and the leaders in particular. The Council is currently looking into the possibility of broader financial sanctions.
I would add that, as far as the political prisoners are concerned, the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 29 April will be an opportunity to send a message to the regime once again to ask it to put an end to the intimidation and imprisonment. We are extremely committed to maintaining solidarity with Aung San Suu Kyi. I should point out that we cannot contact her directly but we are in contact with members of her party.
Over and above the sanctions, some of you obviously mentioned cooperation with neighbouring countries, which must help us to influence the Burmese regime, and Mrs Ferrero-Waldner will raise the Burmese issue in China this week. The Commission has also made approaches to the Thai Government while Indonesia appears to be preparing a new initiative. However, you are entirely right to emphasise the importance of action by the other countries in the region.
I now come to the problem of assisting the population. The Burmese people must not pay the price for the political stagnation the leaders have brought about in the country. As far as Europe is concerned, condemnation and the simple isolation of Myanmar are not enough. I want to point out that when providing assistance we endeavour to take every opportunity to stress that it is only through better governance by the regime that this assistance will be as effective as we hope.
Mr Cappato, in particular, expressed concern about the way in which the international aid is monitored. I must point out that the international aid is provided via the UN agencies and NGO partners, and I can tell you that we monitor it very closely. However, you were right to raise this issue.
Therefore, I believe that what we want is to apply as much pressure as possible to ensure that Burma moves towards democracy at a faster pace. At the same time, we must see to it that the people of Burma do not have to suffer even more as a result of total isolation, as this would probably not be the appropriate response.
To conclude the debate I have received six motions for a resolution pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 24 April 2008.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - I sincerely welcome this resolution which demonstrates Parliament's continued concern with the situation in Burma. We have a responsibility to ensure that events in this country do not 'fall off the radar'.
It is a well known fact that despite plentiful resources and fertile land, Burma remains one of world's poorest countries. It is also widely accepted that the military junta are responsible for a catalogue of human rights abuses, including the brutal treatment of Buddhist monks who protested against the regime.
In light of recent developments, notably the military junta's intention to force through a wholly undemocratic and illegitimate constitution, it is high time that the European Union exercises all its influence in order to attempt to improve the situation.
The time for simply debating the situation in Burma within the international arena is over. Negotiations between the UN and the Burmese authorities have proved to be entirely ineffective. Targeted sanctions on the junta and businesses connected to it are now urgently required.
I fully support this resolution which calls on Council to put into force broader and tougher sanctions on the Burmese military regime. In this regard, I sincerely hope that our words are followed by actions.