Situation in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen
The next item is the debate on the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Mrs Ashton, on the situation in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen.
The President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Németh, will speak on behalf of Mrs Ashton.
on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Mr President, I am here today to present to you some remarks on behalf of the High Representative, Catherine Ashton, on the situation in Bahrain, Syria and Yemen.
Events have recently taken a dramatic turn in Syria. In Yemen, an already dire situation may well get worse and the very tense atmosphere which now prevails in Bahrain is of serious concern, even if the bloodshed there has been less. The EU has been following the rapidly unfolding events in the entire region very attentively, as confirmed by numerous high-level meetings, formal statements and Council conclusions.
More than this, Baroness Ashton has been maintaining constant contact with key partners, as well as with key players in the countries themselves. This is being done every day directly by phone or through her representatives in the countries in question, in order to bring the EU's influence to bear wherever this is possible and whenever it can help. Every country's situation is unique and demands a strategic, carefully thought-out, well-tailored reaction. But when events move so fast, it is all the more crucial to build sound policy on solid fundamental principles.
Let me cite three principles: first, the rejection of violence - mass protests must always be dealt with peacefully and with full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; secondly, the promotion of dialogue - differences and grievances must be addressed in a constructive manner by the right people being ready to talk to each other, setting aside prejudices and preconditions; thirdly, fundamental political and economic reforms must come from within the countries, and the EU has made it very clear that it is ready to provide prompt support as and when requested.
Allow me now to move more specifically to the three countries before us.
In Bahrain, in spite of some return to normality on the streets, the situation remains tense. Arrests are continuing, with individuals being seized for having apparently done no more than exercise their right to freedom of expression. Just as elsewhere in the region, the EU and the High Representative herself have condemned the violence in Bahrain outright and called on the authorities and all forces present to respect fully human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as international humanitarian standards.
We have also repeatedly urged the Bahraini authorities and the opposition to start a genuine national dialogue. The High Representative has spoken with the Foreign Minister directly to this end. Without concrete steps to get all the right people to talk to each other without exclusions and without preconditions, there is an increasing risk that radical elements will prevail. This would have clear and worrying implications for regional stability. The best way to preserve and promote stability remains dialogue. This is the message that the High Representative will be taking with her when she meets the ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council very shortly this month.
In Syria, popular protests have spread over a number of cities since mid-March. The brutal repression with which they have been met is unacceptable. The High Representative and the European Union have made numerous calls on the Syrian authorities to stop the violence, respect people's right to demonstrate peacefully and to listen to their legitimate aspirations. The Syrian people deserve long-awaited political reforms, notably in relation to freedom of expression, assembly, political participation and governance.
President Assad's address to the nation on 30 March provided for neither a clear programme for reform nor a timetable for its implementation. The EU will continue to press Syria on delivering reforms without delay. They must be real, political as well as socio-economic, serious - not just cosmetic - and to be implemented without further delay. We will be monitoring very closely how the new government, still to be formed, will take reforms forward. We hope that the formation of a legal committee will result in the drawing up of new legislation to allow for the lifting of the state of emergency and guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms.
At the same time, the EU will continue to press the Syrian leadership in public and private to refrain from using force against demonstrators. Equally important is to convey that those responsible for the violence and the fatalities must be held accountable and that all political prisoners and human rights defenders must be released.
In Yemen, the situation remains of the utmost concern. The High Representative's messages, following the deplorable violence on 18 March, were crystal clear and the Foreign Affairs Council's conclusions on 21 March reiterated the EU's condemnation of the use of force against protesters. The EU also stated unequivocally that those responsible for loss of life and injuries should be held accountable for their actions and brought to justice.
Since then, the messages coming from the Yemeni leadership have been less clear. For this reason, the High Representative called President Saleh directly on the phone on 30 March urging him to do everything possible to avert further bloodshed. She stated her view that the best way to ensure this is for a credible and rapid political transition to begin without delay. That constitutional transition should be founded on substantive and consistent commitments which are properly followed through.
Time is running out and the victims will be the Yemeni people. This is why, in close concert with international partners, the EU has been, and will remain, very actively involved in trying to defuse the crisis in Yemen.
While Mr Brok is seated next to Mr Salafranca, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate him on his team's success yesterday. He is wearing the scarf of Schalke 04, a team that achieved a glorious victory, but with the help of one of the best players in the world, the Spaniard, Raúl. Now we have congratulated Mr Brok, Mr Salafranca has the floor on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) for one and a half minutes.
Mr President, I entirely agree with what you have just said.
Mr Németh, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say that we have been continuously following the flow of information provided by the High Representative, Mrs Ashton, on the developments in these countries and I think we should recognise the efforts she is making on behalf of the European Union in support of the democratic aspirations in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria. Tomorrow, Parliament will adopt a resolution supported by all the political groups in this regard.
However I would like to put forward a couple of questions, Mr President, and would ask Mr Németh to pass them on to Mrs Ashton.
First of all, in some bodies of the Union and, of course, in this Parliament, there is the feeling that we are taking a step back in the development of the Common Security and Defence Policy, and that we are being taken back to the times of political cooperation. Obviously, that is not why we established the Treaty of Lisbon.
Secondly, a contradiction has arisen, related to the growing need for a European presence in those countries, with no knowledge of what will be the end result of these transitional processes. It is clear that we have to be present, and it is also clear that the slogan used in Mrs Ashton's communication is very wise: 'more for more'
However, the question I wish to ask - and I shall conclude now, Mr President - is whether the EU Member States are willing to increase resources to meet the growing needs that are emerging in those countries.
Mr President, we are very aware of the intense diplomatic efforts that Mrs Ashton has deployed, and that she continues to deploy, and we are aware, too, of the difficulties of the situations that she is encountering. Indeed, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain are countries with which we have no agreements besides trade agreements, which do not, for example, contain clauses on human rights, and we have very few levers available to us.
Nevertheless, in spite of that, I would like to say three things. First of all, in relation to the inspirations of the people, in relation to those who are in the streets today, under fire from snipers, we must not only stand behind them, but we must also make sure that there is an end to violence at all costs. Today, I saw a Syrian dissident. What these dissidents are calling for, in the end, is an end to violence so that they can express themselves. On this topic, I would like to say that, even if we do not have an agreement with Syria, we should now make use of the entire arsenal of sanctions available to us, if necessary, to end this violence.
The second thing that I wanted to say is that in general, these are countries - and this is true of the Gulf countries as well as Libya - that we have armed, indeed overarmed. I think a minimum requirement is better arms controls, so that these countries and these governments do not become powder kegs which then turn against their populations.
Finally, there is the question of double standards. I would like to say that we have been very prudent in relation to Bahrain, and we have been very firm in relation to other countries. I know that Bahrain is a particularly sensitive situation, that Saudi Arabia has sent troops there, and that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council are helping us against Libya, but we would not want to trade the price of a barrel of oil and of the support for us against the Libyan Government for the price of silence regarding the Shi'ites who are currently being repressed by the government of Bahrain.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I am angry. At our group meeting yesterday, we heard from three witnesses from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International who were present in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria. Their stories were appalling.
It made me angry. The letter we received from Baroness Ashton is no strategy. Once again, it is another agenda. We should stop sending empty messages, as we have done for too long with Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. It is time to take action.
Firstly, the EU should call for a special session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. The UN should send a mission to the three countries in order to hold the regimes accountable for human rights violations.
Secondly, the EU should call for a ban on arms exports from all EU Member States to those three countries. It is unacceptable that EU countries are still selling arms to these regimes.
Thirdly, the EU should make clear that, if political regimes in those countries constitute an obstacle to democratisation, it is time for them to go. Meanwhile, we should introduce sanctions such as freezing assets and a travel ban.
I repeat that it is time to take action.
Mr President, it is very good news that populations are moving to reclaim their freedoms and rights, and to obtain a change of the political regime and more democracy. This is at the heart of the European Union's foreign policy and of the European project. That can only evoke our enthusiasm and our support.
The very bad news, however, is that these populations are suffering an extremely tough repression, demonstrating these values and aspirations while putting their lives at risk, and that is totally unacceptable. Thus, the imperative of protecting the populations, which has led to military action in Libya, must now take other forms to protect those who are demonstrating in these three countries.
I think that the statements are extremely important - the legitimate statements, the aspirations held by these populations - but we also need action. As part of this action, we need an assurance that all those leaders responsible for using disproportionate force against their populations will not go unpunished. In order to do that, the diplomatic convocation and activation of the Member States of the United Nations Human Rights Council must be in full swing in order to get missions, reports and resolutions so that the politicians responsible get an assurance that these acts of violence will not remain unpunished.
Finally, I think that we certainly do have methods for bypassing the 'blackout' of the press. Journalists, whether national or foreign, are facing considerable difficulties in documenting the situation. We know what to do; we have instruments for bypassing these obstacles. We absolutely must make use of them. Then, when we have the means to act, I think that we must find a way of using them.
Clearly, this is not the time to chase the Syrian President to get his signature on a readmission agreement, which could, in any case, only be envisaged under certain conditions, including a very serious, effective and relevant programme, the implementation of reforms in Syria and the freeing of all prisoners of conscience and peaceful demonstrators, not just here, but also in the other two countries.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I would like to say this to the Minister: as I sat here listening to your statement, I heard what you had to say, but it was mere words - sometimes very sweet words, but unfortunately empty words. It was all reactionary; there was nothing proactive in what you put before us. As I listened, I actually wrote the heading 'Plan' on a sheet of paper, where I intended to make notes of the information you would give us about what the EU was going to do. I still have before me a completely blank sheet. You had nothing to contribute today.
There was nothing proactive in the agenda you outlined. People throughout the Middle East are looking to Europe to come forward and help them to gain their rights, and all you have for them is empty words.
In the last action plan that was put forward, there was a core element missing throughout, and there was much press debate about the fact that Middle Eastern leaders are still able to take money from their populations and bring it into Europe, and we are doing nothing to prevent that from happening in the future.
You yourself said that time is running out. If that is the case, and I believe it to be the case, then why have you come forward with nothing but a blank sheet for us today? Please have more respect for this House.
Mr President, we are with the people of Yemen, Syria and Bahrain in their aspirations to freedom and democracy, and in the bloody repression of the demonstrations and popular protests. Therefore, we must be clear. Firstly, I call for us to please stop the sale of arms to these countries immediately. Europe continues to sell arms that are being used to kill civilians. Secondly, we should be on the side of the people, not of authoritarian or dictatorial regimes.
Having said that, in our solidarity, we should not forget that we are still applying double standards, with one set of rules for addressing peoples' democratic aspirations, and another for taking care of and conducting business. In Libya, the bombing has clearly gone beyond the mandate of the UN itself, while in Bahrain, we did nothing more than protest when the Saudi Arabian army entered the country in order to save a kleptocracy. While young people are doing whatever it takes against armies and police, putting heart and soul into confronting these forces, we limit ourselves to writing diplomatic notes.
I would like to finish, Mr President, by saying that it is as wrong to think that there are military solutions to political problems as it is for us to think that the Arab peoples have still not noticed our duplicity.
Mr President, radical regime change, in the sense of the seizure of power by radical Islamic forces in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, would be tantamount to outright disaster, both domestically and internationally.
The real winner in this unforeseen situation, at least in the Arabian Peninsula, would certainly be the Iranian ruling duo, Khamenei-Ahmadinejad, and this would put paid to the already small chance of a Persian spring for the time being. By the way, the crisis situation in Damascus, Manamah and Sana'a has offered the EU an excellent opportunity to impose, in close coordination with the United States, clear conditions for our continued backing of these regimes which are in dire straits: political and socio-economic reforms.
Mr President, a few years ago, we visited Syria with an EP delegation. Since 2003, this state, the only secular one in the region, has provided shelter to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians, which should serve as a warning sign. Let the west make every effort to ensure that the extremely bloody sectarian civil war in Iraq does not spill over into Syria.
(DE) Mr President, the jasmine revolution which started in Tunisia is unfortunately not taking such a peaceful path in Yemen, Syria and Bahrain. A dialogue between the government and the opposition is definitely the best way of agreeing on an active solution to social and economic problems, which is what is wanted by the people, and a move towards more democratic participation. Whether agreements of this kind will then be kept is another question altogether. After all, the wave of protests was triggered by broken promises of political reform. The people have been put off with promises for too long and now action is needed. The dual strategy of violently suppressing opposition demonstrations and, at the same time, promising a few small reforms without introducing any real political change could lead to an escalation of the situation in all three countries, as we are aware.
The ongoing unrest in Syria gives rise to the concern that arms bought by the government could be sold on to terrorist organisations, such as Hezbollah. In my opinion, the EU should play the role of impartial mediator in these conflicts.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the match is not won until after the second game, so let us wait for the return leg between Inter Milan and Schalke 04 to see who will go through to the next round. Meanwhile, I agree that Raul is a great footballer.
What is happening in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain is not dissimilar from what is happening in other parts of the world. Though economic reasons are usually the cause of such upheavals, in all cases, there is a deep longing for freedom. Facebook and the Internet have broken the isolation of many, too many, fake democracies which have long lingered in many regions of the world.
There is a new leadership, a new idea of politics which reflects the dreams of many young people. There is a desire for citizenship, especially where the youth of the world are more aware and educated. A few days ago, the dissident, Suhayr al-Atassi, was released and this is a signal, though slight, which points to the development of freedom of thought and political freedom. The same excitement is felt in Yemen, where protests against President Saleh mount, and much the same in Bahrain. We must act with force to stop this violence. The journey to democratisation must be assisted; we cannot allow ourselves, once again, to lag behind.
What is happening in the Mediterranean is surely a difficult signal to understand, which is why Europe must speak up and act with solidarity which would, at this time, probably help the regions exposed to increased migration pressures in the Mediterranean.
Mr President, whether it is the coordinated sniper attack or the protest camp in Sana'a, Yemen on 15 March, the crackdown on the protests by 100 000 people in Dara, Syria, on 17 March, or the sixth floor of Salmaniya Hospital, Bahrain, where injured protestors are taken by men in balaclavas wielding guns, never to return, and where the injured are forced to go because it has the only blood bank in the country, we have to show that, while the media may only concentrate on one country at a time, this Parliament will stand up for human rights everywhere where they are under threat.
Today, we must call on the Foreign Affairs Council to seek clear accountability for all those responsible for the violence, independent investigations and no impunity. This is the basic warning to prevent further violence against protestors now.
Secondly, when we hear that Bahraini security forces have fired supposedly non-lethal pellets, at a distance of less than one metre, killing protestors by literally splitting their heads in half, we have to suspend the authorisation, supply and transfer of all arms in the region.
Finally, the principles of Commissioner Füle's communication on the southern neighbourhood must inform our approach to the process of seeking an association agreement with Syria. That has to start by our insisting on unhindered access for international human rights monitors now. The Arab world has changed with the Jasmine Revolution and we have to show that we have changed with it.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, spring has arrived in the Mediterranean, but in the Gulf and in Syria, winter still reigns. The images of violence which we are seeing are horrifying. Several hundred people have been killed and Amnesty International and the United Nations have produced alarming reports.
The calls which the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe are making are clear. We want a special session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to be held as quickly as possible. The Council of Europe and the Member States of the European Union which are represented on the UN Human Rights Council should take up this call. The UN Council is always very quick to act when it comes to taking one side in the Middle East conflict. It is now time for it to face the real challenge presented by these extreme violations of human rights. We need reform, we need a move to democracy, and we need an arms embargo. All of these things have already been mentioned here.
I watched the speech made by President Assad of Syria live. This is a medieval-style dictatorship which uses western PR agencies to present its representatives as pseudo-modernising influences in glossy magazines. The agencies and the magazines should be asking themselves whether this is really the right thing to do.
Now to Yemen. This is where there is, in my opinion, the greatest danger: the risk of a split between north and south, an active al-Qaeda cell and the danger of a failed state. We already have a failed state of this kind in the case of Somalia and our Atalanta mission is in operation in the Gulf of Aden. Europe has a direct interest in the area and we need to hear more than what the representative of the Council has said here today.
(NL) Mr President, to be honest, I must admit that my reaction was one of astonishment when I noted the three principles which the minister was putting forward: the rejection of violence, the promotion of dialogue to patch up some of the differences of opinion and address some of the grievances and, of course, the necessary political reforms.
Now, merely calling for dialogue at the moment will really make no difference, nor is it really credible. I think that the European Union should really take much stronger action to bring about those democratic reforms. We hear that the High Representative has a great number of official contacts, but what is she doing to maintain contact with civil society; what is she doing to listen to them?
The previous speakers have said it already: the European Union must stop supplying weapons to the region immediately. When I see that, for example, more than EUR 100 million worth of weapons were supplied to Yemen alone last year by no fewer than eight European countries, I wonder if the European common position on arms exports actually means anything at all. Should we not be taking urgent action on this?
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I refer to Bahrain. This little country lies in a strategic position in terms of the balance of the Gulf and energy supply distribution. The presence of a major oil refinery for Saudi crude is well known.
I would like to draw your attention to one aspect of this situation which seems particularly worrying to me. Reliable sources have identified Iranian influence on the Shi'ite population of Bahrain. This is in addition to the legitimate aspirations for more substantial reforms in the government of that country. It is difficult to determine how much weight outside influence has had on the recent events in Bahrain, but there is a risk of destabilisation of the region that could extend to eastern regions of Saudi Arabia, home to another large group of Shi'ites. Iran funds Hamas, supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and influences the internal politics of Iraq, where Shi'ite Islam is the predominant component of the government. If the disruption of balance spread to the Gulf, the impact would be obvious and there could be global repercussions.
We must be very careful in assessing what happens in the Middle East and distinguish the legitimate aspirations of peoples for greater democracy from external influences which have strategic ambitions in the area.
(NL) Mr President, we are talking today about three very different countries with very specific local conditions. In Yemen, the uprising has reached mass proportions, despite brutal violence on the part of the police and the army. In Bahrain, there is a serious risk that the whole region might become destabilised because of the involvement of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Finally, in Syria, the opposition has virtually no room for manoeuvre and the regime seems prepared to go to any lengths to put down the protests.
On the basis of those specific circumstances, I believe that the EU should conduct bilateral relations with these countries. There are a couple of principles which need to be upheld. Obviously, every citizen has a right to demonstrate and to freely express his or her opinion. However, what should we do about peaceful protests, where those very citizens simultaneously become victims of repression, because of police and army intervention? Are we going to investigate this internationally? What is the EU doing to promote that investigation?
Secondly, there is an obligation on governments to engage in dialogue with the opposition and with civil society organisations, because violence and oppression are never the solution. What is the EU doing specifically to foster this dialogue? And if, after that, the regimes in Syria and Bahrain, and also in Yemen, are still unable or unwilling to listen to their people, what will be the consequences of that in terms of our relations with those countries?
Mr President, we need to offer concrete help, as has been said many times, but that concrete help must also have real substance. How are we going to achieve that? I would have liked to have heard a plan today of how we are going to go about this.
I would just like to address a comment to the Commissioner. I think that, in the specific case of Syria, and Turkey too, we should call for pressure to be applied, amongst other means, as part of the plans which are apparently going to be put together over the coming days.
One final comment. I think that our delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries could do some excellent work here and that we should do everything to enable them to do so.
(PT) Mr President, the EU must be consistent in its statements and actions on the popular uprisings in Yemen, Syria, Bahrain and the other countries of the Arab world. More than its credibility is at stake: there is also the effectiveness of the message it is sending to the dictatorships that are the targets of the protests, along with the men and women who are risking their likes to take to the streets to call for human rights, justice and democracy.
The EU has been dismayingly ambiguous regarding Bahrain, in particular. This is a reflection of the contradictions of a foreign policy with double standards, which is concerned with oil and the supply of weapons by the Member States, not only to Bahrain, but also to Saudi Arabia, in violation of the common position on the export of military equipment.
Parliament is calling for an immediate halt to the sale of weapons, and the High Representative is calling - loud and clear - for the Bahraini authorities to account for those who have been killed or gone missing in the repression of the peaceful protests, and to stop the blackout measures being imposed on the media immediately.
Mr President, last night, I helped to organise a hearing of experts from the region who told us that in Bahrain, the deaths so far at the hands of the security forces have been at least 23; in Syria, 132; and in Yemen, at least 63. It may be asked: what can the EU do? Well, our resolution which will be adopted tomorrow makes some suggestions.
However, I have to say that in previous months, the European Parliament has passed resolutions on Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, and my office has made a comparison between those resolutions and the actions of the Commission, its blueprint for change, and it does not give me much courage. We are wasting our words here unless the Commission listens to us and unless the Council listens.
So, as I say, I am publishing this analysis on my website. I believe that the Lisbon Treaty gave the European Parliament additional responsibilities. We must be taken seriously by the other elements in the foreign policy of the European Union. Especially at a time of massive change in the Arab world, we all need to work together.
Mr President, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen are three tyrannies being challenged by their own citizens and these citizens deserve our unconditional support. Until this moment, the EU's action vis-à-vis the wave of democratisation in the region has been uncertain and lacking in strength and credibility. If we want to increase both, we should start first of all to eliminate the double standards we used in the past.
We supported these autocracies in several ways and we, the Europeans, along with Russia and the United States, sold them almost any sort of armaments. Now we are lamenting the consequences of our arms trade with the Gulf autocracies in terms of casualties, in terms of innocent victims of the weapons we sold to them.
If we want to be credible, we should cancel all contracts in armaments to these countries and to the Gulf Cooperation Council, and ask for the establishment of an arms embargo in all of the North Africa and Middle East region. The reduction of their military budget will be a dividend to invest in a fund for democratic transition.
(ES) Mr President, the historic and irreversible move towards democracy in the Arab countries did not end with the still-fragile transitions in Egypt and Tunisia, nor with the support, also historic, of the international community for the activation of the principle of responsibility to protect the Libyan population.
The change is now continuing in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain, and the European Union must be present; it must learn from what has gone before and take on the leadership of the international response, through far-reaching measures, Commissioner Füle, such as the well-defined European Neighbourhood Policy, and through concrete and immediate measures so that the population of these countries as well as the citizens of Europe know that there is no rift in the European Union's commitment to freedom, dignity, democracy and human rights.
The authorities in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain should remember that the use of violence by the state against the people has immediate repercussions; they must also realise that it is not enough to make superficial changes in their autocratic governments. Instead, they must initiate an immediate dialogue with the opposition movements and civil society; release political prisoners, journalists and human rights defenders at once; and end the state of emergency immediately.
Mr President, we should not turn a blind eye to blatant human rights violations taking place in the three countries.
The situation in Syria is very serious and its stakes the highest. In Syria, teachers, opposition activists, journalists and bloggers are being targeted. There are many people killed; many detained; foreign journalists have been kicked out of the country; an information blockade is in place; no independent press at all. So we should consider sanctions against Syria.
We should also consider policy actions in Yemen and Bahrain. As for Yemen, we have a standing agreement on arms exports; we should consider suspending this agreement.
As we debate the situation in those three countries: firstly, let us call for accountability; secondly let us have special sessions in the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I lived in Bahrain for three years, from 1987 to 1990. Then, it was considered one of the most democratic countries of the Gulf and has been considered so even in recent years. So one must say, imagine what happens in other countries given that Saudi Arabia performs a few hundred executions a year, given that terrible massacres take place in Iran, given that throughout the Gulf, killings are commonplace and there is complete denial of the rights of the press.
Today, we approved the resolution on Syria, Yemen and Bahrain, but when we will prepare a resolution for Saudi Arabia, for Algeria, for China and for the other countries which violate human rights in the world? The problem is that here in the West, I see a strange thing, on the one hand ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(FR) Mr President, what role must Europe play in countries whose regimes are being confronted by the people, but whose leaders remain deaf to repeated calls for more democracy, real structural reforms and fairer development? That is the question being put to us.
For me, there is an initial response. It is an urgent one. The Union must flex its muscles by using the entire arsenal of sanctions available to it to put a stop to the repression and to obtain the immediate release of political prisoners and journalists. It must support the introduction of an independent commission for an inquiry into the acts committed and call for a special session of the Human Rights Council.
In the medium term, I think that we must look again in depth at our relations with these countries. The European Union must, from now on, show that it is firmly on the side of public opinion, on the side of the people and not of those in power.
To this end, the Union must establish and conduct a permanent dialogue with all the forces of civil society, with all those who want to support democracy as well as the leaders of the opposition movements. This is, therefore, a profound change ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Mr President, we have heard that Parliament is now very serious about tackling the serious human rights violations in the three countries: Bahrain, Yemen and Syria. We need to hear from the European External Action Service, we need to hear from the Commission how we can show that we are no longer working on the basis of double standards.
We have been told about very many concrete measures. We need to hear how the operations in the UN Human Rights Council are proceeding. Is the European Union united in the call for special sessions on Syria, Bahrain and Yemen?
We have heard that it is time to stop exporting weapons to these countries.
We cannot wait, so please, what are the European External Action Service and the Commission going to do about these things now?
Mr President, in Syria, security forces have brutally responded to demonstrations about legitimate grievances with lethal force. President Assad's belligerence and his rhetoric towards Israel, our ally, his support for terrorists such as Hezbollah, and his friendship with Iran, all mark him out, in my view, as a dangerous autocrat.
In contrast, Bahrain is a relatively modern and progressive constitutional monarchy. Unfortunately, Shi'ite extremists, inspired and supported by Iran, continue to stoke sectarian tensions and spread propaganda against the government and the king. The king has made patient efforts to listen to protestors' concerns and enter into dialogue, but, of course, we must condemn all deaths of unarmed protestors.
Finally, it seems in Yemen that President Saleh, by his use of disproportionate force, has alienated his principal backers, including the United States, despite his firm action over many years to root out al-Qaeda terrorists. Withdrawing EU support from him now, without knowing what comes afterwards, is a high-risk strategy.
(The President cut off the speaker)
Mr President, we might ask what we should do to alleviate the political impasse and suffering of the people in these countries, but it presupposes three propositions. One, that it is within our capacity to do anything; two, that it is the proper role to do anything; and three, that the present situation is not in any way attributable to our interference.
British military personnel are, as we speak, being handed redundancy notices - often while on active duty - by the wretched UK Government. It would be absurd to expect the remaining servicemen to be stretched to engage in further adventures.
States make a solemn, but usually unwritten, covenant with their troops to send them into battle and risk their lives, but only when the vital interests of the nation or nationals are at stake. We have no vital interests in these states. There is also every reason to believe that external forces associated with the United States and its allies have a vested interest in destabilising Syria. I have no brief for the Ba'athist regime ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(DE) Mr President, I believe that many of the young people who live in these countries long for democracy, modernisation and freedom. We need to take this fact into account. We must try to win friends in these countries and not make blanket judgments. Instead, we must identify those individuals who do not follow the rules of a modern society. For this reason, we should try to organise exchange programmes for small and medium-sized businesses, for teachers, university professors and journalists. Our job is to make friends in these countries. I hope that we will soon be taking action of this kind.
Mr President, Minister, like many in this House today, I share a sense of horror at the violence and the human rights violations we have witnessed throughout the entire region. However, I could not let this moment pass without saying - particularly to you, Minister - that your statement today on behalf of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy demonstrates most ably, and perhaps better than any of us could ever do, the nonsense of this office and the millions of euro we have spent on it.
Your message today is quite right: one of rejection of violence, one of promotion of dialogue, one of reform from within the countries concerned. But, quite frankly, in these situations, it is all motherhood and apple pie. We need much, much more than the odd telephone call and a statement calling for this, that or the other; and I think that the people in the Middle East ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - (HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for the speeches. (The speech continues in English.)
Mr President, allow me first to respond specifically to a few questions relating to Bahrain.
The question of Iranian interference in Bahrain's domestic affairs was raised. There is no hard evidence so far that Iran has been meddling in the Bahraini situation by provoking radicalisation. Clearly this is a risk, and one more good reason to start a national dialogue in Bahrain as soon as possible to avoid that option.
Concerning the Saudi invasion in Bahrain, I would like to underline the fact that the six Gulf Cooperation Council states have a collective security agreement amongst themselves. The presence of Saudi and other Gulf forces in Bahrain was requested in the framework of that agreement and was provided for by more than one GCC Member State. This is not merely a legalistic consideration. We have to take the regional dimension very seriously in our evaluation of developments in this region.
Concerning Yemen, I would point out that the European Union did suspend some assistance to Yemen: for example, its assistance on civilian counter-terrorism. We thought that we needed to have a differentiated approach in this respect.
Allow me to speak now in Hungarian to respond to some questions which have been raised.
(HU) Mr Salafranca raised the question of what the result of the transition will be. In this regard, I would like to underline that we do not know what the result of the Arab Spring will be. Nobody knows, and a couple of months ago, we did not even know that such a domino effect could be set in motion. However, I believe that, for the time being, the final outcome of this Arab Spring is not set in stone. I therefore also believe that it will depend to a very great degree on us. This is how I would like to answer Mr Salafranca: the final outcome of this Arab Spring will depend to a very great degree on us, too.
I believe that the proposals put forward here have been very useful, and I believe that both the attending representatives of the Commission and the representatives of the Council and the External Action Service were very pleased to welcome all proposals put forward. We are in the process of reviewing our Neighbourhood Policy, and all proposals that have been put forward here will be integrated in the review of that policy. I therefore believe that it is a very fortunate circumstance that the Eastern Partnership summit in Budapest, which was scheduled for a few weeks from now, will not take place, because this way, we will have time to incorporate the proposals that have been put forward now into the review of the Neighbourhood Policy.
I consider it very important that this Neighbourhood Policy be unified. This Neighbourhood Policy must cover the Eastern Dimension in the same way as the Southern one. And only if we are able to create a unified, coherent, well-thought-out Neighbourhood Policy here, within the European Union, can we be credible in the eyes of our southern neighbours, who are paying keen attention to everything we say. The proposals put forward here in connection with the Neighbourhood Policy - as, for example, by the last speakers here, Mrs Dodds and Mr Rübig - stressed civilian relations. The priority treatment of civilian relations, citizen relations, and especially relations with young people, is among our Neighbourhood Policy ideas.
The creation of truly new funds and, if necessary, funds of new magnitudes, must also be a key part of this review. At the same time, we should not forget that each aspect requires an individual approach. There are countries where the introduction of sanctions or arms embargoes, or, in some cases, military action, has already been unavoidable. As you know, Libya is not the only country in our southern neighbourhood where there is an armed intervention under way; there has also been one in Côte d'Ivoire for a few days now. This will be a separate topic here tonight, and we are yet to talk about this.
However, I believe that these countries, where military intervention has become unavoidable due to civil war, must not be confused with the countries we are discussing now, even though these repressive countries, these authoritarian, repressive countries, are also toying with the use of violence. However, I believe that the High Representative has sent a very strong message to these countries as regards their attitude to violence. And the military action itself, which is taking place in Libya and Côte d'Ivoire, must be a very strong message to these countries, to all three of these countries. In the past few weeks, the European and international community has managed to form a very clear philosophy.
The 'right to protect' and 'the responsibility to protect' are new principles which have been applied by the international community recently, and which must also be a warning sign to Yemen, Bahrain and everyone, to all authoritarian regimes in the region. What is taking place now, the military interventions, is not an analogy to Iraq, but much more to Rwanda or Kosovo, where the international community had to intervene in order to protect citizens. I believe that the international community is sending out this message very strongly now to countries that use violence against their citizens.
Ladies and gentlemen, the honourable institution that is the European Parliament, allow me to only briefly respond to a few more specific proposals. I will relay your highly unanimous and general proposal for convening a special session of the UN Human Rights Council to the High Representative. This proposition has definitely been a key element in the debate here and one that should be given consideration. Likewise, I will also relay to the High Representative the similarly clear and consensual opinion about arms exports that has been expressed here. I believe that we need to be able to establish a suitable balance between cooperation and sanctions with regard to these three groups of countries.
It is definitely a particular task when it comes not to the application of sanctions and military intervention, but to cooperation and, if necessary, some degree of sanctions with regard to a group of countries. I also consider what Mrs Oomen-Ruijten stated, that the European Union must also be able to rely very strongly on Turkey when forming its policy regarding the region, to be important. Thank you very much for the debates, and thank you very much for the comments, speeches and questions.
I have received six motions for resolutiontabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at noon.
Written statements (Rule 149)
The resolution on the situation in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen rightly denounces the brutal and murderous repression whose victims are the demonstrators in Syria, as well as those in Yemen and Bahrain. The leaders of these three countries are giving orders to fire on their own people, who are legitimately demanding political freedom, human dignity and social fairness. Through this resolution, the European Parliament is strongly expressing its solidarity with the Syrian, Bahraini and Yemeni citizens, who are showing great courage in demonstrating their aspirations while faced with government forces who are opening fire on unarmed civilians.
As well as the Islamic faith, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen have one thing in common: an authoritarian regime, regardless of whether the ruler is a king, a president or the Assad clan. In Western terms, they are undoubtedly undemocratic systems. Growing revolutionary tendencies like those in Egypt or Tunisia are being nipped in the bud and democracy and human rights are being disregarded. In Yemen, for example, 37% of under-age girls undergo forced marriages. This puts Yemen in second place in the world, exceeded only by Somalia. The governments of these three countries must demonstrate that they are working for and not against their people. For decades, the EU has supported and paid court to countries like this, while this was to its economic and geopolitical advantage. The EU should fight more strongly for democracy and human rights and combat the process of radical Islamification in these countries.
in writing. - Although the situation in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen is something that ought to be addressed urgently, I would like to draw your attention to the alarming situation in Lebanon, where seven citizens of the EU from Estonia are held captive. I would like to thank Baroness Ashton for her prompt reply and her reassurance two weeks ago that the matter will be treated on the highest possible level in the EU. We have now received the information that the abductors, claiming to be members of the 'Renaissance and Reform movement' have handed in an obscure ransom note that says that they will announce their further demands at a later time. The seven Estonian citizens are told to be alive. I would like to plea to Baroness Ashton to get involved in the resolution of the hostage crisis in her capacity as the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. There are European lives at stake and this requires urgently the instant attention of the European External Action Service. This is a chance for Baroness Ashton to demonstrate what she is actually made of.


28. 2006 discharge: European Medicines Agency (


Moving the inadmissibility of a matter (homophobia in Europe): see Minutes
(The sitting was suspended at 7.35 p.m. and resumed at 9.00 p.m.)


Documents received: see Minutes


Cross-border collective copyright management (debate)
The next item is the report by Katalin Lévai, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the Commission recommendation of 18 October 2005 on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services (2005/737/EC).
rapporteur. - Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking the shadow rapporteurs and other colleagues in the Committee on Legal Affairs for the overwhelming support they have given me. The unanimous support of the Committee on Legal Affairs was a great honour and privilege for me.
Let me start by underlining the importance of the copyright sector, which represents 5-7 % of the EU's GDP. It is therefore important to ensure that copyright and neighbouring rights in this increasingly growing digital domain are managed properly to the benefit of all involved.
For this reason, I have to say that I am not at all happy with the 'soft law' approach taken by the Commission, since it failed to involve the European Parliament and the Member States in regulating this area, which is of growing economic importance and therefore absolutely relevant to the proper functioning of the internal market.
The Commission has set a precedent in a very important and sensitive domain: by failing to consult Parliament or the Council, it has bypassed the democratic process. I believe we all agree that the legislative triangle cannot be ignored.
I am fully committed to the preservation of European cultural diversity. I believe that this issue should be placed in the front line of the debate. Any potential negative effects on cultural diversity in Europe must be avoided.
The Committee on Culture and Education has done an excellent job in highlighting the undesirable implications - one could even say negative effects - for cultural diversity of the Commission's recommendation. As you may have noticed, the Culture Committee's major concerns and demands, as well as compromise suggestions from all parties, are reflected in my report before you.
Summarising my report, I would like to say that my proposal preserves the reciprocal system of collecting societies in Europe, but makes sure that they all respect the principle of good governance. We will encourage and support the introduction of competition among collecting societies in a controlled manner and not the 'big bang' approach. We would like to guarantee that individual rights holders can continue to join the collecting society of their choice. We will promote the availability of the world repertoire for all collecting societies - large and small. We will argue for solidarity and equal treatment between authors and publishers affiliated to collecting societies. We will ensure that a few large rights holders cannot place the repertoire they control exclusively in the hands of a few large collecting societies, thereby creating an oligopoly situation in Europe. We would like to ensure that users of music from online and mobile services can obtain a one-stop shop when seeking a licence for the whole of Europe, but prevent them from forcing down the level of remuneration for authors. We would like to ensure that collecting societies can continue to play an indispensable role in promoting new and minority repertoire locally.
Finally, I would like to emphasise again that, by calling for a directive that reflects these objectives, we will demonstrate our overall support for strong cultural diversity in Europe.
During the improvement of the report, I tried to cooperate as closely as possible with all the interested parties - above all, the excellent shadow rapporteurs - to find the best and most balanced solution on this culturally and economically important area. I am very grateful for their precious advice and suggestions.
My objective has been to find a good balance of interests, a balance between the necessary introduction of competition and cultural diversity, a balance between rights holders and users of music, a balance between big and small collecting societies, a balance between the big rights holders and niche authors and composers. I have tried to propose a European solution in a very difficult and sensitive domain and I hope that it has been successful for the European Union and that we all shall benefit from it.
Mr President, honourable Members, I should like, if I may, to thank Mrs Lévai for her report on the Commission recommendation of 18 October 2005 on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services. I should like to point out that the catalyst for the Commission recommendation was originally authors' fears: authors, composers and music publishers warned the Commission that they are not earning royalties from the use of their works on line.
From our analysis it is clear, however, that it is too complicated for individual countries to manage the use of copyright works on line, particularly in a digital environment. As a result of the complex relationships between the collective management organisations (CRMs) policing these rights in each individual country, it seems that royalties do not reach authors and other right-holders. The purpose of the Commission recommendation is therefore to ensure that authors, composers and music publishers do receive their fair share of online royalties.
Similarly, I believe that it is possible to improve the system of issuing licences in such a way that it facilitates the development of new online services while also protecting and providing genuine support for the interests of copyright-holders. To put it clearly, the recommendation does not propose a concrete model for issuing licences, but puts forward the principle that when it comes to managing their online rights, right-holders should be free to choose the most advantageous and efficient form of management or licensing. The aim therefore is to ensure that right-holders earn royalties from the online use of their music works. This will in turn enable us to ensure complete protection for the value of the right-holders' works. This is in no way a race to the bottom. This objective serves the interests of rights-holders and is reflected in the recommendation's regulations relating to administering transparency, resolving disputes, the responsibilities of copyright managers and the balanced representation of all categories of copyright-holders on the boards of CRMs.
The Commission welcomes Parliament's overwhelming support for this report. Even though we are still monitoring the impact of the recommendation and gathering the opinions of the interested parties, a number of initiatives have already been put in place with a view to strengthening management. In 2006, for example, the world trade association of music publishers and the umbrella organisation of European associations for the collective rights of authors adopted a joint statement establishing a set of rules for online copyright management.
Various right-holders including smaller CRMs and publishers have expressed enthusiasm for the business opportunities opened up by the recommendation of online music services. In the issuing of online service licences, the Commission sees an opportunity for the entire EU to acknowledge the value of music and to support different cultures and their musical works throughout the EU. The creation of new markets with specific music genres and the discovery of a genuine Internet public will unquestionably help support cultural diversity.
The report calls for the Commission to propose a directive on this issue. The Commission would note that the online market is developing and we must be extremely careful not to restrict its potential with an overly rigid approach. What is more, as I have said before, it is only now that we are looking into what the situation will be like after the recommendation has been adopted. I can assure everyone here that our goal is to guarantee right-holders royalties from their works and the users of rights the necessary licences in the simplest and most straightforward way. I believe it is vital to support and preserve Europe's cultural diversity. The Commission will naturally keep Parliament informed.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education. - (EL) Mr President, I should like first of all to congratulate and thank the rapporteur, Mrs Lévai, on her excellent cooperation and the outcome of her important work in the report on collective copyright management.
It is a fact that the composition of the committee is an important step towards the future convergence of the various practices in the 27 Member States. I consider that close cooperation between right managers must be maintained for the benefit of all sides. In the digital age in which we live, the effective safeguarding of copyright and related rights is exceptionally important in order to limit piracy and ensure that royalties are paid to right-holders.
In its opinion, the Committee on Culture and Education approaches the protection and collective management of copyright from the side both of musical authors or lyricists and composers and interpreters.
The present regime, as regards on-line services, is considered not to be adequately effective either for right users or for right-holders. Television and radio stations frequently fail to pay the royalties owed for the repertoire they use in their various broadcasts.
All right-holders, be they authors or composers, publishers, disc producers or performers need to be treated equally. However, the biggest problem of the music industry today is still piracy. The present system of mutual collective copyright management must, in my opinion, be maintained, so that competition can be established on the basis of the services which can be produced and the commission charged by collective right managers.
Finally, as we know, music is not a commodity. That is why we all have a duty to protect and reinforce creativity in Europe.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I am now speaking in my capacity as shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats on the Committee on Legal Affairs. The Commission's recommendation for the collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights throws up a multitude of problems, for it secures neither the rights of the artists nor the diversity of the music on offer in Europe, and there are gaps in the assessment of its potential impact. The chosen legal remedy is unacceptable; recommending three options at the same time does not really do anything to solve the problem that Mrs Lévai has set out so clearly in her report, and which the compromise before you aims to address. What that means in detail is a 'no' to territorial restrictions on use, a 'yes' to fair and controlled competition in the collective management of rights, 'yes' to the modernisation of the online music market, but not at the expense of cultural diversity and the protection of the artists, and 'yes' too to transparent rights management companies.
What is worthy of criticism about all this is that the Commission is trying, by means of a recommendation, to circumvent the rights of this House, and so we call upon it to present, through the codecision procedure, a proposal for a suitable legal instrument, founded, of course, on extensive consultation with all the interested parties.
Thinking forward to the forthcoming ruling on the CISAC case, I would like to appeal to the Commission not to use 'soft law' or agreements as means of voiding Parliament's rights of codecision, and I ask the Members of this House to give their assent to Mrs Lévai's report.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Mr President, both the main report by the rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs, Mrs Lévai, and the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education, by Mr Mavrommatis, as well as the various speeches we have heard so far, demonstrate that there is considerable consensus amongst the Members of this Parliament with regard to the Commission's recommendation.
Firstly, we object to the method being used. The use of a recommendation, of the instrument known as 'soft law' at European Union level, is always very dangerous, bearing in mind that the European Union has its own legislative instruments, such as the framework directive proposed by Mrs Lévai.
Secondly, there is an objection in terms of content. The Commission's recommendation may already be producing undesirable effects on the shape of the intellectual property market subject to certain oligopolies, that is to say, the so-called 'majors', the main organisations that control radio broadcasting.
The Commission's recommendation may encourage these 'majors' to withdraw their repertoires from the current system of collective rights management societies, which makes it possible to safeguard rights. If that happened, the result would be that the 'minors', that is to say, the small organisations protecting intellectual property, would not be able to protect intellectual rights.
When it comes to culture, to music, the market is not the most important thing. The most important thing is musical production. The culture of each of the peoples of Europe.
It is not a question of creating a great market, because in a great market the Gresham law would end up being applied, according to which bad money takes the place of good money. In other words, we are on the point of reaching a situation of an entirely unified market, in which a few 'majors' or very important organisations will end up monopolising the market, imposing their conditions on authors and ultimately preventing intellectual creativity in the European Union.
We therefore support the report by Mrs Lévai and the opinion of Mr Mavrommatis, and we do not believe that this is a time to approve any amendment to these reports.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) Mr President, I am speaking here as shadow rapporteur in the Committee on Legal Affairs on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. Whilst we support the gist of the Lévai report as it was approved, we would like to add something, because the objective of the recommendation is to break the monopolies of management societies and make them more transparent thanks to the control measures that are to be put in place.
The compromise amendments are imperfect in places, lack either clarity or consistency and even restrict the scope. Our amendments on which we will be voting tomorrow complement the approved report and aim to make it easier to break the monopolies, make the market more transparent whilst ensuring that it becomes workable and that the authors and right-holders are proven right and can collect their compensation.
In Amendment 5, we ask the Member States to put the licences out to public tender every couple of years, just to keep the monopolistic management societies under pressure. Their monopolies are not a problem per se, but there is no form of control at the moment. A study by the Dutch competition authority has shown that every country uses different guiding principles. Since they are monopolies, it is impossible to inspect them, as a result of which it cannot be verified whether the compensation requested is exorbitant or whether the government costs are exorbitant. This should nevertheless be possible. I hope that this will come off thanks to the amendments we tabled.
Moreover, we are seeking, by means of our amendments, to broaden the scope, since, for example, broadcasting - when we talk about transmission via the Internet, i-pods and suchlike - falls within the scope of copy broadcasting, which is now being restricted. We should like to reintroduce this in order to come as close to the original Commission proposal as possible. As matters stand, there has been too much in the way of listening to management societies and not enough listening to right-holders and authors.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, we are today debating a difficult and controversial issue.
As regards dealing with the common problem of cross-border management of copyright and related rights regulating legitimate services in the field of online music, I note the lack of Parliament's formal involvement. I believe this is most inappropriate particularly as the issue was already raised in the resolution of 15 January 2004. I also note a lack of consultation regarding future regulatory work in this area. It is difficult to regulate the legal situation of a particular sector without becoming familiar with the stance of those concerned.
The Commission's recommendation seeks merely to regulate the online sale of music recordings. Owing to its imprecise wording, however, it could also be applied to other online services such as broadcasting services. The aforementioned lack of precision could lead to uncertainty as to the applicability of various systems of issuing reviews. All this could result in a lack of legal certainty and detrimental effects, especially for online broadcasting services.
There is also a risk that rightholders complying with the aforementioned recommendation in respect of their interactive online rights would deprive local collective management of copyright entities of other rights such as those relating to broadcasting, thus preventing users from acquiring user rights for a broader and more diversified repertoire from the same collective management of copyright entity.
Rightholders should have the possibility of benefiting from protection of copyright and related rights wherever those rights are established for the whole period of their validity, regardless of national boundaries or of the way they are used. A multi-territorial licence system should therefore be established. This would ensure greater legal protection for commercial users in relation to their activity and support the development of legitimate online services, at the same time increasing the flow of income for copyright holders.
The freedom to provide cross-border collective management services means that rightholders have a Community-wide free choice of collective management of copyright body, which is essential for the provision of legitimate online music services. This right includes the possibility of entrusting rights to another collective management of rights body or transferring all or some of the online rights, regardless of the European Union country concerned.
I believe that increased but also controlled competition in the area of collective management of copyright and related rights in the music sector on the Internet may prove beneficial to all. Pursuant to the Committee on Culture and Education's stance, it may also serve to support cultural diversity but only on condition that fair principles and transparency are guaranteed.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is not just about lofty conceptions of competition or the free choice of artists, or about the inadequacies of the rights management company system; this is quite clearly about diversity, about the reduction of the market to mass production, or about the upholding of the European quality of diversity.
Yes, there are inadequacies, and they do have to be done away with, but I do not believe it is at all possible to do that in the way the Commission has tried to. This report has occasioned a great deal of activity on the part of the lobbyists. We got loads of letters; I am sure you got some too, perhaps from 'Writers and Composers for Choice', but, if you read that letter and look at the signatures, you cannot be sure that all the artists actually know what they are supposed to have signed. I know people whose names appear on this list, but had not the least idea that their names were being used by an organisation in a letter of this sort. That shows the efforts of a number of rights management companies that want to create a monopoly for themselves in a poor light.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission's approach, the result of which is the recommendation on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services, is unfortunately further evidence of the unacceptable, and indeed completely needless, circumvention of the democratic decision-making process as regards the role of the European Parliament. I should like to highlight a number of points in the report before us, which broadly speaking I welcome and on which I congratulate the rapporteur and those who worked with her. In particular, I wish to highlight the need for the equitable treatment of all rights-holders and the protection of the system of agreements and the free choice of licences as well as higher levels of protection for right-holders.
As regards the issue of future competition, attention should be paid to the possible misuse of monopolies when it comes to the collective management of authors' rights. The more we speak about economic competition across the whole spectrum of intellectual property rights, the more it is vital for that competition to be regulated, controlled and fair. I am highlighting this because provisions aimed at protecting economic competition in the area of intellectual property rights have been extensively applied, and in a number of cases competition is given precedence over the exercise of those rights.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (DA) Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Lévai for her constructive cooperation on the report and the EU observer for its useful conference on creative rights. I should also like to thank Pia Raug who, instead of just giving up, convinced the majority of us.
A year ago, the arts were in danger of losing out to the market. People in the Commission were used by multinational companies to implement what is known as a soft-law instrument, which would never have got by elected representatives. Tomorrow, we shall have a large majority in favour of the arts in all their diversity, and the Commission will then withdraw its threats of legal action against copyright managers and shelve its communication on the music market. Writers, composers and users are to be listened to, then. A fresh start should be made with a proposal for a directive that we in the European Parliament too are involved in negotiating.
The vast majority of Members of the European Parliament want to ensure an all-round supply of music. We shall never allow the supply to be determined by a handful of multinational companies. We also want to ensure that less visible artists can find their public. As consumers, we will not be satisfied with popular music from only the biggest countries. Nor will we let the multinationals' friends in the Commission expropriate KODA and other copyright law companies that, every day, make great efforts to ensure the accessibility and equal treatment of music intended for both a broad and a more restricted audience.
All users can now be satisfied with one contract with one agency, which then settles up with the others. The system is basically sound but requires more administrative transparency in places. As music users we are happy to pay a fair price to writers and composers, but we want to pay as little as possible to bureaucrats and multinational giants. The Lévai report is a balanced one and does Parliament credit.
(PT) I shall begin by saying that I am an associate member of the Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores (Portuguese Authors' Society), the Portuguese collective rights management society (CRM) in this area.
The report by Mrs Levai and Mr Mavrommatis deserves to be adopted. The freedom for authors and composers to be represented by the CRM of their choice is as fundamental a principle as the ban on major publishers entering into exclusive agreements with CRMs.
The mandate granted by a major publisher to a given CRM should also be able to be granted to any other CRM. That mandate should, moreover, only be able to include the centralisation of licensing for multinational companies, with the licences for national companies remaining the responsibility of local CRMs.
The availability of the global repertoire should be preserved for all collective management societies through licences issued to users. For this reason, as the report says, it is vital to prohibit any form of exclusive mandate between the major right-holders and the collective management societies for the direct collection of royalties in all Member States, given that this would lead to the rapid extinction of national societies.
The network of national societies should be preserved so that they all have access to the global repertoire and everything possible must be done to safeguard cultural diversity, in view of the indispensable contribution made by these national societies via what they do in their respective countries.
That being said, it is at least bizarre that a recommendation by the Commission has been deemed to be the right way to address the issue of CRMs, not least because, according to the Commissioner, the Commission is not yet au fait with the current state of affairs.
The Commission will hopefully welcome the call, in one of the recitals in the report, for it to draw up a proposal for a directive. After all, it is clear that given what is at stake this proposal must be implemented as quickly as possible.
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank Mrs Lévai for her report and for the hard work that she has done, but what a shame that Parliament had to grab at this report, otherwise it would have passed us by. I want to add my voice to the choir of those who have already complained about the process, about the choice of method. The Commission has the right to choose a recommendation, but it is a political choice and it has two effects.
First of all, in an area like this a soft law instrument may unfortunately give rise to uncertainty, to a lack of legal clarity, but more importantly it avoids this House. It avoids democracy. That cannot be acceptable and I think this is our biggest complaint, not so much about the content, but the way in which this has been done in an attempt avoid the legislator. It seems to me even more startling, having participated in the last mandate of this Parliament, when we had a colleague, Mercedes Echerer, who spent months, even years, working on an own-initiative report in this area. Parliament's interest in and commitment to this issue were well known, so to find ourselves coming back and being faced with a mere recommendation, with all its difficulties, faults and inconsistencies, is just not good enough. I apologise for not having addressed the substance, but it is the process which concerns me most.
(FR) Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Lévai and Mr Mavrommatis for their excellent proposals.
This report is timely because intellectual and artistic property is now being called into question in the European Union. On the undoubtedly legitimate grounds of the technology revolution, which is profoundly changing the way in which we access artistic creations and cultural assets, the Commission has been proposing for some months to reduce the pay of authors, composers, performers and all rightholders in general. It fully supports the view shared by manufacturers and consumers that online distribution can be free of charge.
I condemn this deadlock, this illusion of free online services. If creators and performers are no longer paid by copyright and related rights, one day there will no longer be any creation, any new music, or any new films. What will we put on the network then?
We were able to stop the draft Commission recommendation, which attacked the system of compensation for private copying, but it is still on the table.
In each of our countries, we have transposed the 2001 Directive and safeguarded the status of rightholders. The Commissioner for Competition has decided to put a stop to the territorial scope of national collective rights management societies. The recommendation on the collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for online music comes under the same dangerous concept. It has also had a harmful impact, since the German and British societies have created one joint society to which a very important record producer has entrusted the exclusive rights to its international catalogue.
Mrs Levai is therefore right to challenge the Commission option, which relies more on an inadequate consultation process. Her proposal, which safeguards local repertoires, does seem to us, however, to be a little too favourable to distributors and thus carries the risk of dumping, to the detriment of rightholders. However, I hope that this report, in its current form, is adopted so that the Commission knows that, where very sensitive areas are concerned, the European Parliament refuses to see European law escape the legislator and wants all points of view to be taken into consideration without bias. This is also what is meant by cultural diversity.
- (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too - just like Mrs Wallis - remember the last mandate of this Parliament, for this House has always had its problems with the rights management companies; I would refer the House back to the Echerer report, in which we demanded of the Commission a specific piece of legislation on their transparency and the regulation of them, to the Zimmerling report, in which this featured, and to the deliberations on the directive on copyright and related rights in the information society.
For those reasons alone it is perfectly right and proper that the Commission should be giving thought to how this problem should be handled, for it is not tolerable, in the long run, that there should be twenty-seven monopolies in this field and no internal market, but nor do we want these twenty-seven monopolies to be replaced by a few oligopolies, and that much became abundantly clear from the deliberations we had in committee.
I want, though, to take this opportunity to make it clear that rights management companies do not exist for their own sake alone; they are a sort of necessary evil, existing where they are needed, as mediators between those who create the product and those who use it. Where that is not required - and such a situation is indeed conceivable - no rights management company is needed.
What I have learned, though, from many discussions and hearings - and not least from these companies lobbying activities - is that this business is much more complicated than we had originally thought. In the course of the process, a lot of stakeholders changed their minds; the big management companies suddenly decided that they were all for liberalisation, because they worked out that the market would give them the chance to form an oligopoly, while many users suddenly changed their minds and decided against all-out liberalisation, in which they saw more drawbacks than benefits for themselves.
What is needed here, quite simply, is the very careful drafting of any proposal for legislation; it is self-evident that we have to do something about this, and that things cannot carry on the way they are, but our expectation is that the Commission should actually produce that proposal, and that we should then be able to get to grips with it with all the ways and means afforded by parliamentary debate. That is the crucial message that this report carries, and that is also what we expect of the Commission.
My thanks go to the rapporteur and to the shadow rapporteurs.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12.00 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure)
in writing. - (FR) As far as boosting the growth of online music services within Europe is concerned, we agree with the Commission on the fact that the development of these services hinges on a change in the systems of collective management and of the granting of copyright licences at Community level. Indeed, these improvements have become necessary as a result of the emergence of new services such as Internet radio, streaming and downloading services for which a fee must be paid. The absence of a copyright licence in the EU has been one of the obstacles preventing new Web-based music services from reaching their full potential.
However, the European institutions must legislate with caution on collective management systems, which are highly complex. In particular, they should keep a very close eye on the excesses of a system in which the freedom of rightholders to freely choose a management society within the EU would result in a concentration of rights and would undermine cultural diversity.
In this regard, we endorse the majority of the rapporteur's comments, together with the idea that a rights manager must be authorised to supply commercial users with a pan-European, multi-repertoire licence for the online use of musical repertoires, throughout the EU.
in writing. - (PL) Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Lévai, and congratulating her on her work on the European Parliament resolution before us today. Technical progress and the development of our civilisation have resulted in the emergence of a new generation of cross-border commercial copyright users. They are the suppliers of Internet music services. This shows how the market in copyright and related rights is evolving and developing, which further confirms the need for the initiatives taken in this area.
The proper development of the European music market calls for a study to be undertaken on the impact of multi-territorial and multi-range licences for online music services and of the effects related to the socio-economic situation of the rightholders. It is also important to ensure that the European market in online music services is able to develop freely without detriment to European cultural diversity.
The European Parliament resolution before us today deserves our support. Nonetheless, it is essential for the Commission to undertake an in depth study of this problem. The results of the study should be submitted to the European Parliament.
In addition, I should like to point out that as we engage in this debate we should also bear in mind how we might respond to future needs resulting from the nature of collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights.