7. Burma (vote)
- Before the vote:
Mr President, I am not responsible for this report but I would like the colleagues who have been dealing with this issue to note that we are voting today on two reports, one on China and one on Burma, dealing with a disaster and the different reactions to it. The report on China starts with a sentence that says that Parliament 'expresses its sincere condolences and solidarity to the people of China and to the numerous victims; expresses sorrow to all those who are suffering the consequences of the earthquake', but, in the report on Burma, there are only political considerations.
(The President cut the speaker off.)
Mr Guardans Cambó, you know how much I like and respect you, but I have to follow the procedure here. I am sorry but I cannot reopen the debate on a comparative analysis of two resolutions. You will understand that.
(FR) I am tabling an oral amendment, which should be accepted or not by the Assembly, expressing sympathy for the people in the same terms, in exactly the same wording, as for China. That is the oral amendment: sympathy for the people.
(Applause)
Here is what I propose, since you spoke before we had reached the item concerned: if I understand you rightly, you wish to insert that remark before paragraph 4. Can you specify the exact point?
(FR) The oral amendment would be a first point, worded as follows:
'Expresses its sincere condolences and solidarity to the people of Burma and to the numerous victims; expresses sorrow to all those who are suffering the consequences of the catastrophe;'.
(Applause)
(The oral amendment was adopted)
Before the vote on paragraph 10:
(DE) Mr President, in our voting lists there are no amendments at all to the resolution on Burma. The only vote is on the resolution in its entirety.
This is not on an amendment but on a split vote, requested by the ALDE Group.


Draft amending budget No 7/2010: guarantee provided by the European Union in accordance with the provisions of Article 122 of the TFEU - financial assistance to Member States (debate)
The next item is the report by László Surján, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the Council's position on Draft amending budget No 7/2010 of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section III - Commission (13476/2010 - C7-0261/2010 -.
Honourable Council representatives, Commissioner Lewandowski, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposed and the Council adopted the seventh amendment to the 2010 budget. What is the essence of this amendment?
Well, if we wanted to joke around, this would be a good topic. We have created a blank line, a new line in the budget, into which we will not put a single cent, let alone billions. At the same time, journalists revel in reporting that this involves EUR 60 billion. This EUR 60 billion, as the caption indicates, is none other than a guarantee, and the Commission believes that the chance of it being called in, of having to actually pay it up, is zero.
Well, the worst case scenario is not always to our liking, but the main point is that there is very little likelihood of having to move actual sums of money through this row. So why have it at all? And why as early as now, in the 2010 budget? Because what we are talking about is, in fact, part of the plan designed by the European Union to resolve the financial crisis of countries getting into difficulties in the future.
This is the item that refers primarily to the Parliament and the European Union's budget, and has an upper limit which cannot exceed EUR 60 billion for the period ending in 2014. This 60 billion is a fixed upper limit. Why must we do this now? We must do it because this is a message. A message to the market. A message to those who doubt that we want to rescue countries which may get into difficulties in the future. At the moment, there is no need for this, so there is no point filling it up with money, but it is worth adding the line to enable us to act promptly if it is needed in the future.
This blank line is also a message to Member States concerned that we are taking more money away from them, to reassure them that this is not the case here. This story is not about Greece. It is, first of all, about the future. This is why it is not right for a Member State to try to evade the duty of solidarity by referring to the Greeks' supposed or actual errors. The proposal before us is a plan for solidarity among Member States, and without solidarity, ladies and gentlemen, there is no European Union.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, Draft amending budget No 7 is a follow-up to the decision to establish the European financial stabilisation mechanism, which is, in turn, the response to the dramatic developments of March, April and May in the financial markets. Therefore, the European financial stabilisation mechanism - up to EUR 60 billion - has been established in addition to the already existing balance of payments facility, with more or less the same philosophy.
In response to the question from László Surján, under the normal desired circumstances, even if a European financial stabilisation mechanism is mobilised, this should not have an impact on the EU budget. Under normal circumstances, that is, where the beneficiary state taking the loans repays the loans, it is activated as a guarantee but without a financial impact upon the budget.
In the highly unlikely scenario - not zero probability, unfortunately, but very unlikely scenario - that a Member State defaults on its obligations, we have to ensure that the European Union is ready in time to fulfil its legal obligations towards the lenders.
So we should be ready for this unlikely bad scenario. Put simply, that is, in a sense, what is behind Draft budget No 7. Therefore, as with the balance of payments facility, we proposed creating a structure for the new budget item on the expenditure side of the budget and a corresponding new budget article on the revenue side of the budget. These are token entries - as happened with the balance of payments facilities - and have the same logic behind them. The philosophy behind this is that we should be ready in case.
I am therefore happy that Draft amending budget No 7 has been discussed and has already been formally adopted by the Council on 13 September. Now we hope for the same decision from Parliament.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the amending budget we are discussing today and will be voting on in the coming days is an important document. It marks the last step for implementation of the European financial stabilisation mechanism, which was sorely needed in May to calm the severe storm that hit the euro and, therefore, the EU.
One certainty came out of that storm: there are no individual Member State problems any more, because the individual problems inevitably become the problems of them all, and so a common response is required. Europe has found the courage and the strength to provide this common response that we are, in fact, discussing here today.
This new budget line marks a clear boundary. It is the first step towards a new common approach to the financial policies and also, in the future, to the economic policies of Member States with regard to the European budget. It is the first step towards that integrated semester in which the budget decisions of the individual Member States and the EU budget will be compared more closely.
The budget is therefore once again an instrument - which has always been the fundamental implementation of EU policies - that is taking centre stage and proving to be a fundamental vehicle for building Europe after the Treaty of Lisbon as well. Above all, it draws our attention to the importance of sound and responsible management of public resources as a prerequisite for real development and for a future of real European growth.
Madam President, it is true that we are talking here quite calmly about an adjustment to the 2010 budget and about the insertion of one line for the record, an amending budget said to be 'technical'. We all know, however, that the calmness of this debate when compared to the previous one - which was a little less calm - is also due to a courageous and mutually supportive decision that was taken when tension was at its peak in the euro area last May.
In fact, that was a weekend when the Heads of State or Government created the first-rate European financial stabilisation mechanism, which allows the Union to borrow on the capital markets in order to provide loans to Member States that are in difficulty, subject to certain conditions.
It is truly this spirit of solidarity that allows guarantees to be provided in the interests of Europe as a whole, and which confers true added value on the European budget. There is the good example.
Unfortunately, the current own-resources ceiling, which is set at 1.23% of gross domestic product, has not been enough to create a self-sufficient mechanism. The budget's share accounts for no more than EUR 60 billion, and the rest - EUR 444 billion - is supplied by an intergovernmental system called the 'special purpose vehicle', which is guaranteed by the Member States in the euro area; a system from which, by the way, Slovakia has recently withdrawn.
Today's calm therefore certainly allows us to have a discussion, but it obliges us, above all, to go further and to do more within the framework of the future financial perspective. It is in this sense that I think we must raise the own-resources ceiling so that we can create a genuine macro-economic role for the European budget, which would, at the same time, provide a buffer or European investment plans and/or more guarantee mechanisms, depending on the state of the European economy.
We ought also to design new financial instruments. In this context, for example, Eurobonds, in partnership with the European Investment Bank, would be a very good tool.
Finally, we must, as a matter of urgency, introduce new own resources, such as the financial transactions tax, the carbon tax or a tax on businesses, which would, at one and the same time, allow us to reduce the GDP-based contributions from Member States and dispense with the infamous debate over net contributors.
So that is the enormous task that awaits us, especially in the Special Committee, but, Commissioner, these are also matters with which we must all be ready to engage.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, tomorrow we will be voting on Draft amending budget No 7, which covers the guarantee that the EU has been asked to provide for the European financial stabilisation mechanism. This mechanism, which makes it possible for the Union to borrow funds in the capital market and then loan to Member States in financial difficulties, implies that if a Member State is not able to reimburse the loan, the European budget would be used to cover the debt.
Colleagues, I call your attention to the fact that the guarantors of this financial stabilisation package are actually the Member States, many of which are themselves in the midst of a financial crisis. We are talking about EUR 60 billion. This is not a token. Where are we planning to find the money if the guarantee has to be honoured?
How can we vote in favour of such an amending budget when the Commission has not established priorities for spending from the budget in case the European Union is called to honour the guarantee? If we act responsibly in defence of constituents' interests - even if we are being told that the risk is low - we should vote against this resolution.
(DE) Madam President, the assistance given to Greece was sold to us as an exception from the bail-out ban, on the basis of Article 136. However, Article 136 does not provide a basis for giving credit to Greece since it only allows measures in accordance with the relevant provisions of the treaties. Not only are these not provided for in the TFEU; they are actually explicitly banned. The provision therefore does not authorise further measures, and this was also the conclusion reached by the Centre for European Politics, or CEP for short, in its relevant report. The finance ministers of the euro area decided to assist Greece by providing credit at an average interest rate of 5%. However, the CEP experts have proven that credit provided at a politically motivated interest rate that is below the market rate represents an illegal subsidy. The assistance given to Greece was thus extremely controversial from a legal point of view, if not downright unlawful.
As far as the actual implications are concerned, Commissioner, I would like to pass on to you the assessment made by the German economics expert Joachim Starbatty, which I fear is sadly correct: if the euro area countries continue to be answerable for the debts of other Member States, then in 10 years' time, the euro will no longer exist. We have to eradicate the disease, not simply put ointment on the wound. Euro area countries that can no longer service their debt need to become competitive again by leaving the monetary union. Otherwise, I believe the euro has no future.
(DE) Madam President, the Council has already taken flight - possibly because of the fierce criticism it met with on the previous item, although the content of the Surján report has done something to repair what was decided by the European Council during this difficult, long night on the stabilisation package. Now the Commissioner has spoken of the unlikely event of these guarantees being used in respect of the European budget. If we are optimists, then we will accept this basic assumption for the time being.
Nonetheless, we must bear in mind that where guarantees are concerned, we already have three unlikely cases in the European budget: a loan fund for the investment bank with guarantees of just over EUR 100 million. Before the euro was launched, we had a situation in which all the Member States were able to obtain assistance with supporting their balance of payments, at that time with a ceiling of EUR 16 billion. Following the introduction of the euro, this arrangement was restricted to non-euro countries, and in the wake of the 2009 financial crisis, the ceiling for non-euro Member States was expanded to EUR 50 billion, of which around EUR 9-10 billion is currently utilised as guarantees.
Now, with the Treaty of Lisbon, we have the situation that Article 143 explicitly refers to the non-euro countries. Undoubtedly, Article 352 would have been the most appropriate legal basis, but that would have meant getting Parliament involved - as well as some national parliaments - and therefore it was probably difficult to make recourse to it in the difficult circumstances of this decision. In this respect, then, Article 122 was certainly not the most correct legal basis, but it was the most politically expedient legal basis and the simplest without involving Parliament.
Clearly, there was a gap in our regulations here, but this did not result in the European Union being unable to act in a time of crisis. I can accept that. Nonetheless, the decision by the European Council on this tricky legal basis means making recourse - if necessary - to the margin between the limit of the Union's own resources and the maximum level of the multiannual financial framework.
Article 310 of the treaty clearly states that no legislative acts shall be adopted that exceed the limit of the Union's own resources or the multiannual financial framework. If need be, then, a revision is required. In this respect, the Council itself took a huge step without involving the budgetary authority as regards the future debate on the issue 'What is the upper limit of a financial perspective?'. So let me say that the future upper limit of the multiannual financial framework will be the limit of the Union's own resources, and nothing else.
We should approve the report on the grounds of political judiciousness, but we should encourage and fight to ensure that in future, we debate properly with each other the gaps in regulation that clearly exist as well as how to involve Parliament and how to close these gaps. This, too, should form part of the common interinstitutional agreement on the budget based on the Treaty of Lisbon.
(PL) We are speaking, today, of a mechanism for financial stabilisation in Europe, and we are speaking about an amending budget. These are steps which are certainly intended to increase the security and reliability of the financial system in Europe. These measures certainly are necessary at the moment, so that we do not get into even greater financial difficulties in the future. I hope that the measures we are talking about, today, will be effective and will be, as it were, a medicine and will treat the symptoms. However, this medicine certainly will not remove the causes, and it is they which have been the main problem of recent months. Without fundamental changes to the European finance system, the measures we are now considering can only be of temporary help.
Therefore, we have to begin by making fundamental changes, so that Europe's finances will be more stable and transparent, and so that we, as Parliament, are not used every so often as fire fighters who are called to come and put out a fire. Such measures can only be a help and not the basis for permanent future action.
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, to ensure the financial stability of the euro area, a package of measures is now being launched. The question that concerns me in connection with this line is where this money is actually to come from in the event that, contrary to expectation, a Member State should make such an application.
You mention caution, Commissioner. In order that this event remains merely a hypothetical situation, I would really urge the Commission to pass measures that provide sufficient deterrent to ensure that the Member States genuinely do everything in their power to ensure they never find themselves in this situation.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, some small clarifications for Mrs Andreasen on this very issue. Draft amending budget No 7 does not involve the Member States' guarantees; that is for the other part. What is guaranteed by the Member States is EUR 440 billion of bilateral loans. As for the structure of the budget, this is the copy of a balance-of-payments facility, and again, this is a question which has been asked already.
This is a typical arrangement for budgetary items which concern lending operations without a specific quantified guarantee fund. This is therefore a token entry. If the need arises for fresh money - so far activated in the balance-of-payments facility for Hungary, Latvia and Romania up to an amount of EUR 14.6 billion - then the Commission will put forward a proposal on the appropriations needed by means of a transfer or an amending budget.
That is the machinery, but it is nothing new - merely an extension of an existing balance-of-payments facility to the eurozone member countries - and I agree with Reimer that this is a very flexible interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty.
First of all, I owe thanks to the political groups supporting this report, and I believe that the report truly serves the interests of security. However, the critical remarks pointing out that we have an EUR 800 billion package out of which Parliament can consider or deal with 60 billion are also justified.
To some extent, this gives the impression that Parliament is not operating within the framework of the Treaty of Lisbon, or does not even exist yet. However, our job is to work with this EUR 60 billion and, in that respect, I would like to make it clear again that obligations are incumbent only upon euro area Member States. Therefore, if the words of a speaker who says no, protecting his or her constituents' interests, may be taken to mean that the UK will soon join the euro area, then this day deserves to be joyfully celebrated and written with red letters in the annals of the European Union.
Because I, unlike many others, do believe in the euro area and would like to see that my country, as well, will soon be required to take financial responsibility in this rescue plan. I do hope that the probability of this pledge being called in is zero or almost zero, since the Member State runs an enormous risk if it does not comply with its financial obligations after the rescue.
If I remember correctly, the Treaty of Lisbon even invokes the possibility of expulsion in certain circumstances. Non-compliance with financial obligations would be such a serious mistake that even this sanction would have to be given consideration. I think this is the guarantee that another speaker requested. In closing I wish to thank you once again for your attention, and I ask my fellow Members to support this report tomorrow. Let this be another source of security for the citizens of Europe!
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at midday tomorrow (Wednesday, 22 September 2010).
(The sitting was suspended at 18:35 and resumed at 19:00)


3. Somalia (vote)
- (EL) Joint motion for a resolution Β6-0454/2007


15. Development of the Community's railways (vote)
- Report: Jarzembowski


Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes


EU partnership in the Horn of Africa (debate)
The next item is the report by Filip Kaczmarek, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on the Horn of Africa: EU Regional political partnership for peace, security and development.
rapporteur. - (PL) Madam President, this report on the strategy of the European Union in Africa, and the EU political partnership in the horn of Africa will be the European Parliament's response to the European Commission's communiqué of last November. The purpose of that communiqué was to create a regional political partnership in the Somalian peninsula as the basis for a comprehensive approach to preventing conflict in the region. It is based on the assumption that without lasting peace there can be no development, and without development there can be no lasting peace.
There were two reasons for selecting this region as a test case for EU regional strategy in Africa. The first was the strategic importance of the region for the EU, and the second was the great political complexity of the three main conflicts in the region, which are interlinked; the conflicts in Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia, where a regional approach is probably the only way of resolving the conflicts. In other words, nothing can be resolved until everything has been resolved.
The strategy proposed by the Commission is based on a comprehensive approach to preventing conflicts in the horn of Africa aiming to tackle the underlying causes of the instability in the short and medium term both at national and at regional level, and to bring about closer regional cooperation. You may, however, justifiably wonder whether this is possible in a region where five out of seven states are in conflict with their neighbours, where each conflict spawns another, where one country has been incapable of functioning normally in the last 15 years, and where an extremely high percentage of the population lives in poverty. Is cooperation through regional partnership the cure to all the ills of such complex and mutually interlinked problems? It is my firm belief that it is worth trying, and that despite certain shortcomings in the Commission's communiqué, some of which were difficult to avoid, and which we address in the report (an example is greater involvement of MEPs and of the Africans themselves in drawing up the common strategy), we should agree on the four main legs of this strategy, which are that sustainable development is impossible without peace and vice-versa, that without the effective participation of African regional institutions there can be no lasting peace, that the regional perspective - that is, regional understanding - is necessary to resolve particular local conflicts, and that regional integration initiatives will be successful if they focus on common challenges rather than on a list of present conflicts. Regional integration must concentrate on issues such as water resources, desertification, food security, and not simply on ethnic divisions and conflicts. Furthermore, the European Union has a key role to play by importing its own tried-and-tested model of integration which has effectively brought lasting peace and which, in the context of the present 50th anniversary of the EU, is, in my view, particularly important.
I am clearly aware that both the communiqué of the Commission and the present report of the European Parliament is only the beginning of the process, and that the ultimate aim is to develop a regional strategy for the region. It should also be borne in mind that specific Member States are conducting their own activities in the horn of Africa, and the report is therefore directed not just at the European Commission, but at Member States as well.
The aim of the report is to flesh out the ideas of the Commission's communiqué, and I would like to stress particularly that it is important to avoid wishful thinking and cobbling together institutions. In my opinion, we should rely on existing initiatives and tested ideas. We need to appoint a special representative of the European Union for the horn of Africa to deal with the major questions that the report raises. This will help avoid duplication, allow deeper analysis and make it possible to pursue minimum political aims in individual countries. We must make full use of dialogue based on Article 8 of the Cotonou Memorandum, cooperation between Parliament and the Commission on creating a common strategy with the involvement of Africa, and searching for African solutions and strengthened African organisations.
I would also like to thank all those who contributed to this report: the MEP from the Committee on Development, the secretariat of the Committee on Development, the shadow rapporteur, the German presidency and the experts and non-governmental organisations with which we were in constant dialogue.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in his report, Mr Kaczmarek shares for the most part the Commission's analysis concerning the need for a comprehensive regional approach. The ideas put forward by Mr Kaczmarek concerning the path to be followed confirms most of the priorities proposed by the Commission, especially with regard to functional cooperation and regional cooperation.
The resolution and prevention of conflicts in the Horn of Africa is not, from our point of view, possible except by means of action at two levels. The first level concerns the standard way of mediation and diplomatic action. The current situation in the Horn quite obviously demands far more vigorous and, I might add, far more unanimous, action, from the entire international community. The second level concerns a structuring action for the prevention of conflicts in the medium term. The aim is to tackle from the root the problems that affect the countries in the region by addressing common development problems that also have an impact in terms of security and stability.
It is this second way that is proposed in the regional strategy for the Horn of Africa, which the Commission presented in its communication of October 2006. I wish to make it clear that the primary aim of the communication is to provide a political framework that recognises the nature of the challenges posed in the region of the Horn and identifies the main routes possible for action by the European Union.
The communication identifies three priorities for intervention. Firstly, to act on the national problems that have regional ramifications; secondly, to tackle regional and transversal problems that are sources of conflicts and instability; and, finally, to foster regional integration. Precisely as the report emphasises, it is important for there to be genuine ownership, a proper political ownership of this strategy not only on the part of the countries of the Horn, but also at European level. That is why we appreciate for its true value the involvement of the European Parliament on this issue and the report by Mr Kaczmarek.
Since the Commission communication was presented last October, I have followed with great interest Parliament's debates on the regional strategy for the Horn and I also personally took part, last February, in the debate within the Committee on Development. Positive discussions have also taken place at the level of Council working parties since October.
It is, in fact, a progressive process that we want to create, and not to impose. The important thing is that the process has now been started, with the support of the Heads of State or Government in the region. The Commission already organised, on 23 April, a conference with the personal representatives of the Heads of State or Government. This meeting was very positive and promising.
This wide-ranging and intense consultation process enables us to enter confidently and in good order into the realisation phase. We are therefore on the right track. The report that you will adopt tomorrow will be a very important support and, of course, a source of inspiration and direction when it comes to conducting the dialogue that will take place over the next few months.
I should like to point out that the regional programming for the 10th European Development Fund for the Horn will naturally be largely determined by the results of this process of identifying priority actions. I should also like to point out that the strategy for the Horn proposed by the Commission is not intended to supplant the strategies prepared in the context of the 10th European Development Fund. It is there, in a way, to supplement them. Likewise, it will not replace the necessary parallel action for resolving crises and conflicts, which must continue at the political and diplomatic level, as I stressed at the beginning of my speech.
I therefore fully subscribe to the report's recommendations in relation to governance and to the strengthening of the political dialogue. There are two points in the report that also seem to me very important but that go beyond the regional framework of the Horn and of the proposed strategy: the Joint European Union-Africa strategy and the African peace and security architecture.
I could respond on these two points also, as well as tackle other subjects relating to the Horn of Africa and to the actions that we could take there, but the speaking time prevents me from doing so. However, I shall perhaps have the opportunity to return to these subjects later, when I respond to your comments.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, thank you very much to Mr Kaczmarek and to the Commissioner for his response to the report.
In the Horn of Africa, one hardly knows where to begin, because what we see is a lethal cocktail of conflict and poverty, where the rule of law barely exists, where there is no concept of democracy and human rights and where five out of seven of the countries of the region are in conflict with their neighbours. So, as the rapporteur says, there can be no real security and there can be no developments without peace. The key issues are related to building peace, preventing conflict and resolving conflict. Those are the central elements in the report.
It is very important to point out that, as the Commissioner is very well aware, in other regions of Africa, for example West Africa - I was recently in Côte d'Ivoire - and in the Great Lakes area, we are now seeing peace breaking out. But the Horn of Africa stands out as the one region where we have not been able to grapple with conflict management and prevention. Certainly, the idea of an envoy and other suggestions are very welcome indeed.
What we see are the worst examples of conflict. In Darfur, the UN says that some 200 000 people have died and two million have been displaced since that conflict began in 2003. The Government of Sudan continues to ignore efforts at mediation, including from the UN Secretary-General. The border disputes between Eritrea and Ethiopia remain unresolved. The Government of Ethiopia continues to break international law as far as that is concerned. The leaders of Eritrea and Ethiopia refuse to give the people the right to choose their own government and to respect elections, as has been the case in Ethiopia. Now we see intense fighting in Somalia, where about a thousand people have died and where Ethiopian troops have been very active, fighting on behalf of the transitional government in Somalia, but of course - as we all have to acknowledge - with covert assistance from the United States. The Eritreans, meanwhile, back the Islamist militias.
I have written to the Commissioner on this subject and would still like to ask him why it is that we have offered such support to the transitional government in Somalia and why we are not asking serious questions about the bloody process which we are apparently continuing in many ways to tolerate. There is a humanitarian catastrophe looming in Somalia and we are still not holding those responsible in the transitional government accountable for their actions. Why, Commissioner, are we not asking questions? Is it political expediency that prevents us from doing that? Why is it that the Ethiopians do not leave? Why is it that security cannot be established? Why is there no genuine power sharing, and is the EU insisting that moderates in the Islamic courts must be involved in any possible solution in Somalia?
Finally, I have to ask whether the EU is serious about state-building in the Horn of Africa or whether we are actually focusing on other priorities. May I suggest that the other priorities in the Horn of Africa are the so-called war against terror?
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (LT) In its communiqué 'EU strategy for Africa: EU regional policy of partnership for peace, security and development in the Horn of Africa', which appeared in 2006, the Commission shows its inability to find ways to solve the problems in the Horn of Africa when it states that without long-term peace there will be no development, and without development there will be no long-term peace. This is a vicious circle. Both factors need to occur at once; but as we see, in reality, this is not plausible. In the Horn of Africa, neither the African Strategy nor Articles 8 and 11 of the Kotonu Agreement are working. Regional instability and military conflicts, in which more than one country is taking part, particularly the savage situation in Darfur, show that a special crisis management model is needed for the Horn of Africa, which would include the elimination of military conflict hotspots and the creation of peaceful economic, social and political life.
The EU provides more than 55% of the world's development cooperation humanitarian aid. With military activities taking place in the Horn of Africa, it is not really possible to assess what humanitarian aid is needed, when it should start and when it should end, and when it will be possible to get on with achieving the true goals of development cooperation policy, namely the implementation of the Millennium Goals and the reduction of poverty in the countries of the Horn of Africa. I would like to emphasise that the EU must coordinate its support and actions in the Horn of Africa with other countries such as, for example, China, India and the USA, which have economic interests in the countries of the Horn of Africa. Otherwise, there is little likelihood of any real progress in the creation of peace and security in this region. These countries, likewise the United Nations and other organisations, together with the EU, must create a special model of crisis management for the Horn of Africa.
(PL) Madam President, first of all I would like to congratulate Mr Kaczmarek for preparing this report. It is quite a difficult and important report, about an area where the European Union has not yet promoted itself much. The area in question is the Somali peninsula, whose countries are in a constant state of conflict, a territory where it is difficult to talk of rule of law, democratic institutions or human rights. It is one of the least developed regions in the whole world.
The most important thing for the European Union at the present time is to build institutions that would guarantee an end to armed conflict in the peninsula, that would protect a minimum of human rights and would lead to governments based on rule of law.
Madam President, I would like to recall the great political traditions, the great traditions of the model of development that followed World War II, which accompanied the fight against colonialism by the countries of Europe and the United States in the establishment of new states and democracies in areas that had previously been colonised. Perhaps issues such as nation-building, establishing national institutions and strong governments capable of guaranteeing rule of law are the underlying response that the European Union should be making.
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Kaczmarek's proposals such as setting up a special representative of the European Union for the Somali peninsula, and EU assistance to African countries to establish regional institutions of cooperation.
Madam President, honourable Members, my reply will be a relatively brief one, although a whole debate would be needed, of course, to deal with the question.
While I do, of course, endorse the analyses and judgments that I have heard on the subject of the democratic credentials of certain countries in the Horn of Africa, I am a little bit more cautious about the involvement of the Commission and of the European Union.
Today, the Horn of Africa is a region of which it can be said that the Commission is wholly committed to it, and it is without doubt the region to which I myself devote most time. Mrs Kinnock was, of course, talking about Ethiopia, and she was quite right to do so, for there is a problem with it in international law, one that, I might add, I am continually raising with its prime minister when I am in contact with him in the course of my work on bilateral relations, one on which, indeed, I am working on a virtually daily basis. I carry the messages that have to be carried, particularly where political prisoners are concerned. I also know that efforts are being made by people at a very high level to move this issue forward.
Turning to Somalia, let me say that I am astonished that it should be said that we were not saying anything to the transitional government, and I would point out that I was literally obliged to make available EUR 15 million to the Ugandan stabilisation force in Somalia, virtually without conditions attached, even though I had been completely opposed to this if the principle of inclusivity were not adhered to from the outset. After we had made our position clear, and I had imposed that condition, President Youssouf promised us that he would organise a national congress of reconciliation. We are still waiting for it. Since, then, a debate such as this one is suited to this purpose, I have to tell you that if, in Somalia, things are not going well, or moving forward at a good pace, it is for two essential reasons.
The first is that the conflict in Somalia, and the issue of Somalia, are not being considered in the context of the Horn of Africa as a whole, and that Somalia, in a number of cases, has become a battlefield for conflicts between outsiders, and that is indeed the case; the difference between Ethiopia and Eritrea touches upon the Somalia question.
Failure to move forward, failure to find a solution, is also for a second reason, of which Mrs Kinnock has given examples. In the international community, there are two points of view. Try as one might to pretend that there is only one, the fact of the matter is that there are two points of view to be found in the international community, the first of which tends to be held by the European Union, and the second by the United States. Whenever one of the big players in the international community chooses, as a matter of preference, what we shall call a strategy of privileged partnership with another, and when we are invited by our own Member States to match it exactly with the other international partners - as someone has just done - we do find ourselves, in a number of cases, following behind, and so I would say that we are thus not in a position to act in a truly autonomous manner, on the basis of how we ourselves see things and relying on our own judgment. That is the truth of the matter. I no longer want that state of affairs to be tolerated, since it really is too easy to say to someone, 'you are not doing enough, you have to organise coordination with our partner, that is to say, with the United States.' I am not criticising the United States - who have the right to their own strategy - but I do think that if the European Union were able, from time to time, to have greater strategic autonomy and more independence in these matters, we would, without a doubt, be much more effective.
This is what I wanted to tell you; perhaps I might also tell you that what I have been doing over the past few months, particularly where political dialogue is concerned, has been, in essence, devoted to the Horn of Africa. The reason why I present this strategy - by means of a report that applies it and is excellent by the way - is precisely because I think that the European Union is not entitled to refrain from taking the initiative in this matter and because I tell myself that the situation is so complex and so difficult that we have to start by trying to get all the stakeholders around one negotiating table in order to sort out the problems that they have in common, and to find common solutions, all with the object of putting them in a position where there is a prospect of dialogue - a dialogue that is something different from discussing without calling a halt to the conflicts between them. In other words, let us open up the prospect of something being done about infrastructure, about food safety, about drought, about pastoralism, about water, about all these issues in which they have a common interest, and then, perhaps, there might be a chance of doing something about political matters.
This is what I wanted to say; it is true that we have to coordinate our actions with the other major decision-makers. I think that very sincerely, but I also think that we need, from time to time, to take up our own position on such matters as Somalia. I do think that, if we had been able to take our ideas to their logical conclusion and say 'we will not give a cent for this stabilisation force until such time as the National Reconciliation Congress is up and running', we would have been in a much stronger position.
I will also say - and it is on this point that I will finish - that I have also sent a letter, couched in extremely precise and strong terms, to President Youssouf in order to remind him of his commitment to inclusivity in resolving this conflict.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday.


Opening of the sitting
(The sitting was opened at 9 a.m.)


Composition of committees and delegations: see minutes


Tribute
Ladies and gentlemen, last night we received some sad news. At the end of the day we heard that Loyola de Palacio, Vice-President of the European Commission, Minister in the Spanish Government, head of the People's Party's list in the 1999 elections, had died.
During the final months of her life, she faced her illness with a courage that should serve as an example to all of us.
Loyola de Palacio, who was responsible for relations with the European Parliament as Vice-President of the Commission and who was an MEP before that, was a forthright person, a determined and strong negotiator, who was always true to her values and the values of Europe.
A tireless worker, who dealt with the people around her in a straightforward and open way, it was easy to appreciate Loyola's firmness and direct language, in her office and in the corridors of this House. I can say this because I had many contacts with her. I was a Minister in the Spanish Government, and she was the opposition whip. We argued hard, but our arguments were always full of content and we related well as people.
Her death is sad news for all of us who knew her. I would like to say that my feelings today go much further than the institutional and political. Please believe me when I say that they are also personal. I am sure that all of us who knew her mourn her death. I am sure, moreover, that the Commission will wish to add to what I have said.
Mr President, on behalf of the President of our Commission, Mr Barroso, and on behalf of the Commission and of Mrs Grybauskaitė, who is here beside me, I should like to thank you for the tribute you have paid to Mrs de Palacio and to join Parliament in mourning her loss.
Like many Europeans, I was very saddened to hear of Mrs de Palacio's sudden death. All those who had the opportunity to know her admired her energy, her courage to the end, Mr President.
A woman of conviction, a committed European, Mrs de Palacio left her mark on the European Commission, of which she was vice-president between 1999 and 2004. In particular, she worked to promote European transport and European energy. Responsible as she was for relations with the European Parliament, she was able to establish trusting, fruitful cooperation with the institution and with all the MEPs, for the benefit of the Union.
Right up to the end, she worked tirelessly to help Europe. She continued to work in this way with me, coordinating the completion of the trans-European networks and their extension to neighbouring countries of the Union.
Like many of you, I have lost in Mrs de Palacio a friend from whom I could always seek good advice and unfailing support. I thank Parliament for joining in this tribute.
(Applause)
Times of bereavement put our problems and differences into their proper perspective. Let us observe a minute's silence in memory of our colleague.
(Applause)
(The House rose and observed a minute's silence)


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
(The sitting was suspended at 2.25 p.m. and resumed at 3.05 p.m.)


Communication of Council common positions: see Minutes


9. Suspension of the WTO Doha Round (vote)


Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes


Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes


Voting time


Order of business
Τhe final version of the draft agenda, as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its last meeting pursuant to Rules 140 and 155 of the Rules of Procedure, has been distributed. In agreement with the political groups, I propose the following amendments to the agenda for this week's plenary:
Wednesday, 5 May 2010:
Firstly, the joint debate on the two reports by Íñigo Méndez de Vigo on the composition of Parliament will be the first item.
Secondly, a new item entitled 'Council and Commission statements on preparation of the Summit of Heads of State or Government of the euro area (7 May 2010)', with no vote, has been added to the agenda. This item will be the second item and there will be just one round of speakers from the political groups and no 'catch-the-eye' procedure.
Thirdly, the title 'Council and Commission statements on the standardisation of electric cars' has been amended to 'Council and Commission statements on electric cars'.
Fourthly, the report by Vittorio Prodi, a brief presentation of which was scheduled for today, has been moved to Question Time on Thursday, 6 May 2010, for an immediate vote.
Thursday, 6 May 2010:
Firstly, the vote on the report by Vital Moreira on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council providing macro-economic financial assistance to Ukraine has been postponed to the second part-session in May.
Secondly, the vote on the motion for a resolution on the draft Commission regulation on guidelines for setting up a compensatory mechanism between transmission system managers and on a common approach to the electricity transmission prices has been withdrawn from the agenda.
Are there any comments?
(Parliament approved the amendments)
(The order of business was adopted thus amended)


12. Discharge 2005: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (vote)
- Report: Herczog


Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes