Court of Auditors Special Report No 10/2008 on 'EC Development Assistance to Health Services in Sub-Saharan Africa' (debate)
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on Court of Auditors Special Report No 10/2008 on EC Development Assistance to Health Services in Sub-Saharan Africa by Mr Borrell Fontelles, on behalf of the Committee on Development - B6-0016/2009).
author. - (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Africa is the only continent that has not made any progress to speak of when it comes to meeting the Millennium Goals, particularly in the area of health, that is, in mother and infant mortality, the fight against HIV/AIDS, TBC and malaria. This is wholly attributable to their weak healthcare systems and the human resources crisis that is sweeping that sector. It is therefore abundantly clear that investing in health systems is essential in the fight against poverty.
This is, moreover, also the Commission's view, but according to the report by the Court of Auditors, even though the Commission has claimed this for years, it has done precious little in the way of making any practical changes. The Commission is making efforts, mainly via vertical funds in the fight against AIDS, and this may well be necessary in our view, but this should not be at the expense of the overall package of investments in basic healthcare.
Commissioner, the budget for basic healthcare has not increased even proportionately since 2000 in the framework of the whole package of official development aid. There is therefore enough reason for this Parliament, on the basis of the Court of Auditors' report, to ask the Commission a few questions and make a few recommendations. I would like to make four points.
Firstly, the budget for healthcare must be increased. Clearly, a joint initiative is what is needed here from the EU along with its partner countries. The developing countries have committed to investing 15% of their budgets in the framework of the Abuja Declaration. This cannot possibly be done, though, Commissioner, if the Commission and Europe are only prepared to spend 5.5% of the European Development Fund (EDF) on this. I should therefore like to find out from you in what way the Commission would like to ensure that in the framework of the 10th EDF, the investments in health will be increased.
Secondly, better and efficient use should be made of budgetary support. Even though this is one of the Commission's showpieces, it receives low scores in the Court of Auditors' report. Nonetheless, budgetary support very much has the potential of meeting the shortcomings in southern healthcare systems. Whilst sectoral budgetary support can really target health systems, it is hardly used in sub-Saharan Africa.
General budgetary support can also prove helpful, provided the Commission can commit, and kindle enthusiasm in, the partners to select healthcare as a central sector, and we would urge the Commission to do this. My question to the Commission is: in what way will you ensure that much better and much more targeted action is taken both via sectoral support and general budgetary support?
Millennium Development Goals (MDG) contracts are one of the Commission's promising instruments. I am 100% behind them, but in all honesty, they are somewhat too insubstantial and too short-sighted because they are only meant for the good students, and so alternatives are very much needed for the others.
Thirdly, expertise must be enhanced. According to the report, the Commission has too little expertise to put its policy proposals in the healthcare sector into practice. This is why we would ask the Commission to guarantee this expertise by drafting in more health experts and also by working more effectively with the WHO and the Member States.
Fourthly, the healthcare sector must be better coordinated. Commissioner, it is absolutely vital for the European Code of Conduct on Division of Labour to be put into practice, and that the investments in, and programmes on, healthcare between the different EU countries are better coordinated. In addition, we must ensure that the so-called orphans among the needy countries can also guarantee aid in the area of health.
I should like to finish off with a word of thanks to Mr Staes who, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, supports the concern expressed by the Committee on Development, and has asked the Commission to clarify its plans with a view to the discharge procedure, and preferably before the end of 2009.
It is clear, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, that this Parliament urges the Commission finally to translate its policy priorities into reality with more conviction and with better instruments. This is more than necessary if we want to be in with a chance of achieving the Millennium Goals by 2015, because, Commissioner, basic healthcare deserves sustainable investments in the long term.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the Commission really welcomes the European Court of Auditors' special report on EC support to health services in Africa. The debate on this oral question gives us an opportunity to discuss our health support to Africa with you, the European Parliament.
I am not going to repeat here the formal reaction the Commission has already made regarding the Court of Auditors' special report, which has already been published on the Internet.
Unfortunately, this report has not received wide coverage in the press and, when it was mentioned, things were sometimes oversimplified by saying that 'Europe has not kept its promises in Africa'. Let me therefore just clarify a few essential points before we enter into the debate.
The Commission remains fully committed to supporting the Millennium Development Goals, the health-related Goals 4, 5 and 6 being an integral part of these goals: reduction of child mortality by two thirds, reduction of maternal mortality by three quarters, and halting and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS. This is what our development cooperation stands for, but our commitment must not be measured by budgetary allocations to the health sector alone.
Doubtless, child mortality will be reduced by effective health service interventions, vaccinations in particular. Therefore, we monitor vaccination coverage not only in our health programmes but also in many of our general budget support operations. However, child mortality also depends on other factors such as nutrition, housing, access to safe water, sanitation and education. Therefore our contribution can, and will, frequently be outside the healthcare sector itself.
When deciding on sectoral allocations and modalities of our development assistance, we agreed in Paris and Accra to increasingly respect basic principles of aid effectiveness. Here are just two examples. The first is leadership by partner governments. This means, after an in-depth discussion with the partner country, accepting the sectors proposed for support. It might not be the health sector but education or water and sanitation.
Second: alignment on national systems. This means channelling our aid, preferably as budget support (provided that the basic criteria are fulfilled). If the country has a sufficiently well formulated poverty strategy, our support may preferably be channelled as general budget support.
Although this support will not then be earmarked as health sector support, it is linked to targets for health, such as vaccination coverage rates or proportions of births assisted by skilled health personnel. Such targets are usually part of the poverty strategy and are monitored, and budget support disbursement is often linked to progress on them.
In addition to the global commitments on aid effectiveness made in Accra and Paris, we, the European Union, have collectively agreed on a code of conduct that foresees, for example, a reduction in the number of sectors in which each and every donor is active, in order to reduce the administrative and managerial burden on our partner countries through the multiplicity of donors. This is the meaning of the division of labour approach that EU Member States and the European Commission have agreed upon. We know that it will not always be easy to agree on this at the country level, particularly as health scores high in public opinion, and all donors and donor countries want to be present and to be seen. We will, at times, have to resist such a tendency and leave it to the other donors to do the job.
I therefore hope that our debate today will contribute to further clarifying these issues and to helping ensure that Europe fulfils its promises to Africa.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, I thank the Commissioner for that response. I am sure you are right, Commissioner, that figures can mean many things and we need to look very carefully at them. But of course, today we are looking at the Court of Auditors, so we have to look at the figures. I sometimes wish we would look at people rather than figures, but we agree 'no wealth without health'. That is not just a slogan but a reality in so many low-income countries.
We agree that the Court of Auditors says only 5.5% of EDF funding is going to health, whereas the European Union's policy - and Parliament's policy - is that 35% should be spent on health and education. There is a wrong figure there, and it may well not be as bad as that figure suggests. Nevertheless, it shows we have got to do a lot better, and that involves cooperation - if I can use that term - with the 15% pledge enshrined in the Abuja Declaration by the countries themselves.
However, Commissioner, I want to come back to the people. Go to Mali and see the diabetes out of control and look at the cost to families: over 30% of their family income spent on insulin, if they have to buy it - and they do have to buy it. Go to Chad and ask about the mental health services, and they will tell you that they used to have them before the civil war. Go anywhere in Africa and see the inhumane treatment of people with epilepsy, whereas for a few cents, we could make most of them seizure-free. Go anywhere in Africa and see the AIDS orphans and see and meet the grandparents trying to raise the grandchildren because the parents are dead.
The statistics are there. We know that in the Americas, 14% of the world's population has 10% of the global burden of disease and 42% of the health workers. Sub-Saharan Africa has 11% of the world's population, 25% of the global burden of disease and 3% of the health workers. It reflects the debate that we had earlier. But we have to look at those things because you cannot have health without health services, without health workers and without health education.
We also have to look at some of the projects that we are embarking on. It is not just TB, AIDS and malaria, but all the other diseases. It is the neglected diseases, for which the Commission stands proud with its cooperation with the pharmaceutical companies on that initiative to bring help to people in need of those medicines. We have to look at the causes of ill health, and the debates this evening have centred round those.
Only if we pull all these things together will the statistics add up - and that means the people will add up. What we do better will help people to be better, and then their economies could be better too.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report of the Court of Auditors will not be officially presented in the Committee on Budgetary Control until next week. I should therefore like to congratulate the Committee on Development and also Mrs Van Lancker, who have made sure that this debate is being held here today and that tomorrow, we will be adopting a resolution which gives a detailed account of what has gone wrong.
We should pay close attention to Mrs Van Lancker's long speech and the recommendations she has made in it. Commissioner, we should pay close attention to Mr Bowis's speech, who managed to list the shortcomings very expertly.
Anyone who reads the Court of Auditors' report cannot simply skate over the issue. The figures are there for everyone to see, and Mrs Van Lancker was right to point out that the Millennium Goals for this sector will be achieved with great difficulty, if at all. Studying the figures which the Court of Auditors quotes for each country will bring you back down to earth with a bump.
With regard to AIDS prevalence, 34% of the population is affected in Swaziland, 23% in Lesotho and 14% in Malawi. Child mortality in Swaziland was 78/1000 in 1997, compared to 86/1000 now. In Lesotho, life expectancy in the mid-90s was 60, now only 41. In Kenya, more than 1 in 10 children die before the age of five. The recommendation, the analysis of the Court of Auditors about the efficiency of EU policy has, in the last few years, been painfully disquieting.
I therefore hope, Commissioner, that the Commission will indeed succeed in answering the questions by 10 April, which I, as rapporteur of the Committee on Budgetary Control, managed to have included in this resolution, so that we can incorporate the answers in the discharge procedure that is due at the end of April.
(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, anyone visiting sub-Saharan Africa can easily see, in most countries, the enormous weakness in their health systems and the extremely negative impact that this weakness has on the lives and health of the people who should be helped by these services.
The figures regularly published at international level constantly confirm this. In this respect, the idea that simple and practical gestures, which are not particularly elaborate or even particularly expensive, might be sufficient to save many lives is extremely disturbing. European financial support can be crucial in this respect and we must always keep in mind that cooperation in the area of health is truly strategic and directly involves not just one of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) but many of them. The Court of Auditors found, and I quote, that 'EC funding to the health sector has not increased since 2000 as a proportion of its total development assistance despite the Commission's MDG commitments and the health crisis in sub-Saharan Africa'. End of quotation. It also recognised, and again I quote, that: 'The Commission contributed significant funding to help launch the Global Fund [to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria] but has not given the same attention to strengthening health systems although this was intended to be its priority'. End of quotation.
According to the Court, this will have happened, and again I quote, because 'the Commission has had insufficient health expertise to ensure the most effective use of health funding'. End of quotation.
The Court of Auditors therefore directly presents the European Commission with a huge challenge, which I endorse. For our part, I want to reiterate this challenge, based on the objectivity of this data and this assessment. Health services already form part, but must increasingly form part, of our development assistance priorities, and they therefore merit an increase in funding. Optimising how aid is given, bearing in mind the apparently opposing needs of coordination of management and proximity to the beneficiary populations, will be to provide a service that can save many lives.
The European Commission cannot fail to respond positively to this challenge and I urge it to do so. Just now, Mr Bowis made a touching speech in which he managed to put faces, human faces, to the dry coldness of these numbers from the Court of Auditors. The challenge for us, Commissioner, is to ensure that our cooperation can put a look of happiness and hope on these same faces. That is why, Commissioner, it is vital that we change the numbers in our health cooperation.
(FR) Madam President, I did not really want to speak on this report, but just to add a point that is particularly close to my heart and which I have raised on several occasions at the ACP meetings. It is the issue of health conditions for the Tuareg people in Niger. In this context, Commissioner, I should really like to raise the problem of European companies that exploit natural resources in African countries and, in particular, the French company, Areva, which is going to exploit uranium in Niger, without giving any information to the local communities, with the result that the people living there are using, for example, radioactive materials or scrap metal for cooking utensils.
Today, the authorities in Niger are not allowing serious studies to be carried out on the situation regarding radioactivity among these people, but we know that they are in an alarming situation.
We had asked, during one ACP meeting, for an epidemiological study to be carried out on these people. I am putting this request again today to the Commission.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, not only have I listened carefully to what has been said tonight, and not only have I paid attention to what was said in the report by the Court of Auditors, but also, as I said before, I have just come back from a visit to Côte d'Ivoire and Liberia and have seen with my own eyes what the needs of these countries are in the field of health. They have needs in terms of infrastructure, needs in terms of the trained health providers we have already talked about, and needs in terms of medication.
Those needs are immense, and I cannot but agree with you that we have to intensify our efforts in offering our help, in the field of health, in the poor countries of Africa.
I can assure you that I will convey your comments to my colleague, Louis Michel, and I am sure he, too, will consider all your suggestions and comments with great attention, just as I have done.
I have received one motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.


Documents received: see Minutes


Situation in the Arab world and North Africa - Situation in Yemen - Situation in Syria (debate)
The next item is the joint debate on the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the situation in the Arab world and North Africa, Syria and Yemen.
Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Mr President, the last time I spoke in this Parliament in early May, I said that statements should, and could, be made but that the priority was action.
You will remember that I announced my intention to establish a European Union office in Benghazi. The European Union flag now flies above the courthouse in the newly-named Freedom Square: a symbol not just of our solidarity with its people, but of our practical commitment.
The office is now up and running and experts are arriving each week, working to see how we can support the security needs of the people and build the capacity of civil society. Last week, my team was in New York, coordinating our work on Libya with the UN.
Outside the courthouse in Freedom Square, I met some of the people who have been bringing democracy to life in Libya. They thanked me, they thanked you and they thanked the European Union. They know that we will stay with them over time. Today, I am sure you join me in saluting again the enormous courage of the Libyan people, whether in Benghazi, Misrata, the Western Mountains, Tripoli or in the South.
We have stepped up sanctions to stop arms and money reaching the regime. We have provided almost EUR 140 million of humanitarian assistance to those most in need. We continue to work for a political resolution to the conflict, in the Contact Group - which will meet in Istanbul this week - and in the Cairo Group, where, at our instigation, we continue to work with the UN Secretary General and the Special Envoy, Mr Al Khatib, the Arab League, the African Union and the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation, where we prepare for the days, weeks and months after Gaddafi leaves.
Actions must be rooted in strategy. The EU was the first to offer a serious response to the Arab Spring, with our partnership communication in March 2011. Two months later, we launched a new and ambitious European Neighbourhood Policy. I am delighted to have Stefan Füle with me today - my close and trusted partner in conceiving this new policy and on ensuring delivery on our promises.
You know the core principles of the policy: mutual accountability; individual approaches to individual countries depending on circumstances and aspirations and offering more support for more reform. In Stefan's words: 'more for more'.
It has financial backing to match, in the form of an extra EUR 1.2 billion for the next two years, on top of the EUR 5.7 billion already pledged - so, nearly EUR 7 billion. To this we should add a sum in the region of EUR 7-8 billion, the result of the concerted efforts I initiated to unlock new investment funds from the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
The goal is clear: the promotion of what I call 'deep and sustainable democracy' and - with it - economic prosperity. We know full well that democracy is hollow without food, safety, and jobs. So now is the time for all of us - for the institutions and the Member States - to deliver on those shared objectives.
Beyond the new policy, I have taken two further regional initiatives since we last met. First, to enhance our effectiveness, presence and visibility, I have appointed an EU Special Representative for the southern Mediterranean: Bernardino León. His task will be to assist us in strengthening the EU's political influence in the region - in dialogue with governments, civil society and international organisations - and to cooperate closely with the European Parliament.
Second, I have established a Task Force to draw together our work and bring in the European Investment Bank, the EBRD, other international financial institutions and other international partners, to turn commitments into reality, to synchronise and work closely together. That reality is about the democracy and the economy we wish to see on the ground.
In Tunisia and Egypt, we see the evidence of the economic upheavals of the last months. When I was in Egypt a few days ago, I talked to shopkeepers, to people in the streets and to people running hotels. All tell me the same story: that revenues in tourism and foreign direct investment have fallen and that they need support to revive and sustain the economy.
That is why, for instance, we are supporting a major Egyptian social housing initiative, and why we are launching a major programme to support the poorest areas in the greater Cairo region, as well as a EUR 20 million programme to support Egyptian civil society. We are ready to help Egypt reform its security sector, and we have offered EU election observation and assistance and support for democracy.
I talked with Deputy Prime Minister El Gamal, who is leading the electoral process and the drafting of the constitution. An eminent lawyer, it falls to him to sort out a constitution that, in my words, will be the 'guardian for the people'.
Similarly, in Tunisia, I met with Foreign Minister Kefi on Friday. Support for civil society and for the preparation of October's Constituent Assembly elections is well under way. We have been asked to deploy an election observation mission and will do so. Security reform and regional development programmes are also in motion.
The government in Tunisia, meanwhile, advances its own reform agenda. We applaud the consensus that was reached on the date for the elections and the fact that the principle of male-female parity for the lists of candidates has been retained.
I am concerned that the voice of women should continue to be heard and their engagement certain. There is a fear, expressed to me, that, having taken part in their revolutions, their place in their future is not guaranteed. We need to support them: practically, by offering our resources, and politically by making it clear that we expect to see their engagement. A few weeks ago, we funded a conference with UN Women in Tunisia to bring together women across the region to consult and gain strength from each other.
There is, of course, more to do - and this morning I have issued a statement of concern on the recent arrests of women journalists, artists and women's rights defenders in Iran.
But perhaps our greatest concern is for the people of Syria, who are denied the right to play their part in charting their country's future. What began as small local demonstrations against corruption in the local communities has become a national outpouring, and it has been met with violence and repression.
Yesterday in Homa, 1l people died, adding to the total of over 1500 civilians and 350 security personnel who have lost their lives. Ten thousand people have been detained. We condemn without reservation those acts of violence and repression.
Since we last met, I have increased our sanctions twice. I have continued to make our voice heard, worked with our international partners and sought action at the Security Council with the objective of sending a single message: to stop the violence, create the dialogue, and prepare for change.
President Assad's promises of reform and dialogue remain weak. Just recently, he announced that a committee will meet to prepare the framework for a dialogue. But let us be clear: any dialogue has to be inclusive, and that means the opposition taking part and all participating without fear.
Our EU delegation remains on the ground in Damascus, meeting every day with individuals and groups, working with other representatives and sending out our messages.
Our delegation in Ankara has been visiting the refugees who have arrived over the border in Turkey in their thousands. I have been in close touch with Foreign Minister Davutoglu of Turkey to offer support in the future, should they need that, and to discuss with him the political situation.
That instability in Syria has echoes in Lebanon. We are following the indictments of the special tribunal and must now carry forward its work.
That brings us to the search for peace in the Middle East, between Israel and Palestine. The changes in the surrounding neighbourhood, the speech of President Obama in May, the moves towards Palestinian reconciliation, the approaching UN General Assembly: all those bring a renewed focus on the possibility of talks and a solution. I have worked tirelessly for this possibility - working closely with President Abbas, Prime Minister Fayyad and Prime Minister Netanyahu and with many others in the region, with our Quartet partners and with the Arab countries - to look for a strong and ambitious consensus, in which the EU plays the leading role this Parliament wishes us to play.
The UN, the US and Russia responded to my letter requesting a Quartet meeting, which will take place in Washington on Monday. That will build on the process that began with the Quartet meeting in Munich which I chaired earlier this year. Since then, the envoys have met intensively and, for the first time, with the negotiators from both sides.
I do not underestimate the challenge, but my objective is absolutely clear: to try to find a way to adopt a statement next week that will help the Israelis and Palestinians to bridge the gap and allow for a return to the negotiating table.
Many look to September and the prospects for a resolution. We do not yet know what a UN resolution might say and what reaction it might bring. But I am clear that my energies should focus on using this time to get the talks moving and, on that, the European Union is united. We have a strong position from which to move forward, based on the Council conclusions, a united position.
I also understand very well the concerns for the people of Gaza, having visited twice and seen the situation for myself. I have consistently stressed the need for the crossings to open, to provide what people need, and to ensure the security that Israel needs.
It is there that our energies should lie. I am encouraged that, having spoken to the Prime Minister of Israel in the last few days, meetings are now taking place on the ground. But I do not underestimate the fact that there is much more to do. I thank Greece for its offer to route humanitarian aid to Gaza, in coordination with the UN.
I now want to turn to two kingdoms, Morocco and Jordan, where the EU supports and encourages the strong commitment to reform.
On 12 June 2011, King Abdullah of Jordan outlined ambitious reform proposals concerning political parties and the electoral process. I have been in regular contact with Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh with regard to this reform agenda, most recently during my last visit to Jordan two weeks ago. Finally, this past weekend, there was good news from Morocco, with a referendum endorsing the new constitution on Saturday.
The reforms proposed are a significant response to the legitimate aspirations of the Moroccan people. I now hope that Moroccan citizens will remain at the centre of the implementation process, and that the dialogue will now widen and strengthen. We are ready to give Morocco full support in this endeavour.
In Algeria, the state of emergency has been lifted, and the President's promises of reform now need to become action - something I raised with Foreign Minister Medelci recently when we met at the EU-Algeria Association Council.
In Bahrain, we have continued to express concern at the persistence of human rights violations. Honourable Members will remember that I discussed this with the King of Bahrain in the Gulf a few weeks ago. We see trials lacking in due process, the handing down of death sentences and the disgraceful treatment of doctors who have tried to help those in need.
There may be some steps in the right direction. I saw that an independent international commission of inquiry into the events of the past few months has now been established. That is in response, in part, to the calls that we have made. But we need to remain vocal and strong in order that the national dialogue can finally get under way.
Finally, I turn to Yemen. Crippled by political stalemate and worsening humanitarian and economic conditions, the only way forward - as I discussed with the President before he was injured, and as we continue to send messages from our delegation - is a truly inclusive political transition, in line with what the Gulf Cooperation Council have put forward in their initiative.
We will continue to work closely with our partners, with the United States and with the Council, to try to unblock the situation and find a solution. As President Saleh begins to recover, he must transfer power and follow through on his commitment to the transition.
We have made it clear that we are ready, alongside our international partners, to provide further humanitarian, political and practical support. But I do not need to tell honourable Members just how difficult the situation is in Yemen and how concerned and alarmed we are by events on the ground. We are also ready to help prepare for elections and to establish a working Parliament there. But there is no question that, if Yemen is to move forward, that transition has to begin now.
I would like to close by thanking this Parliament for its steadfast support for the efforts to safeguard and promote these fundamental democratic values, rights and freedoms. Honourable Members, this Parliament is unique in what it can offer those in search of democracy. You are the representatives of democracy: you demonstrate the power of the citizen, and the qualities of open debate and freedom of expression.
Many of you know only too well the challenges of building democracy, fighting for causes and working for people. You have much to offer the people that I have met all over the region who long for greater dialogue and for the opportunity to meet with as many of you as they can. In this way, they can find out some of the practical ways in which democracy has taken root in your countries and in this European Union, and how you have overcome the challenges. I know that you will be generous in your support for those who are finding their own path to democracy and their own future.
As it was put to me in Benghazi by one of the many young people I met, a young man who had been imprisoned by Gaddafi for eight years as a political prisoner: 'we want what you have: democracy as everyday life'.
(Applause)
Mr President, they say that when the celebrated thinker, Ortega y Gasset, was asked what distance one needed to be from events in order to write history, he said, far enough not to be able to see the profile of Cleopatra's nose.
Lady Ashton, I bring this anecdote up not because Egypt is a country affected by the Arab Spring but rather because in the EU, we are experiencing an historic dilemma involving a lack of confidence in our project, debt crisis, the calling into question of the basic achievements that are most valued by our citizens, such as the Schengen area, and doubts over the ability of NATO.
However, over the last two and a half years, we have experienced tangible progress in the form of your own duties as Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the birth of the European External Action Service and the Joint Communication on a renewed European Neighbourhood Policy.
You said yesterday that our neighbours will always be there and I share that view. The question is about us, whether we will rise to the occasion, whether we will live up to the expectations of our citizens, who regard foreign policy as a barometer for the state of the EU, whether we will be able to accompany these transition processes effectively in the countries that are the subject of the resolution that we will adopt tomorrow.
Lady Ashton, we are clearly backing that. We believe and hope that you will succeed in your work, but in order to do so, you must act with the highest profile. Not a physical profile, like in Ortega's response, but rather a political profile, with particular emphasis on finding the greatest common denominator and not the lowest common multiple.
Mr President, Baroness Ashton, you have worked extremely hard, and you have our full support.
However, Parliament's resolution today relates to countries that are somewhat forgotten: Syria, Bahrain and Yemen. By calling for this specific focus, we are addressing a dual objective: the first is to break the silence and avoid practising double standards in the region, while these countries undergo cruel repression. The second is, while remaining firm in our condemnation of the atrocities that are being committed in these countries, to make political room for possible negotiations, which is something that you are going to look into.
This resolution has very wide support among the political groups, and I will simply make two or three points. The first, which may seem a little trifling, is of a linguistic nature. I do not like the idea of the expression 'Arab world' in the title of the report. This has somewhat post-colonial connotations, as if there were actually a single Arab world. As the resolution illustrates, and as you say yourself, there are many different countries, each with its own separate identity. There are also different regions, such as the Maghreb or the Mashreq region; therefore, I think we need to forget about this concept of an Arab world.
My second point concerns Syria. The repression that is rife today in these countries is bitter, cruel and ruthless. Even children are not being spared. The resolution denounces these crimes, which cannot continue to go unpunished. It expresses concern over the waves of refugees now crossing the border from Syria into Turkey. It calls for humanitarian corridors and the intervention of the United Nations, and supports the emerging opposition both outside and inside the country. However, the resolution stops there.
Why? Why have we not gone further? Why did we not say, for example, that we want Bashar al-Assad to leave power, as he has disappointed all those who believed he would change the repressive system he inherited from his father? This president seems to have crossed a line from which there is no going back. It is because we wanted to leave room for political negotiations in the corridors of the EU.
Baroness Ashton, Syria is heading into a state of violence. Religious minorities, especially Christians, feel threatened today by extremists. Please visit Damascus as soon as you can. Unlike my fellow Member, I would ask you not to keep your distance. What we need is strong political action and a high-level European presence on the ground. There may still be an opportunity, and I call upon you to seize it.
My third point is more general. I am going to go over my time, but I wanted to say that we support the External Action Service, and our relationship with it is much improved. However, there are overlaps at the moment between the structures surrounding the High Representative, and other bodies such as the task force, which has yet to prove its worth. Our help for these countries is a test for us, today, and naturally, I hope that these structures and the External Action Service will succeed with flying colours in the task before them. Our credibility depends on it.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I would like to ask Baroness Ashton whether she has seen the shocking images on YouTube in the past two days that show a man in Syria filming demonstrations in a street full of homes. At one moment, he sees a sniper from the presidential militia and is killed by this very same man, live, as he is filming. That is what you see on YouTube: his own death.
That man - and there are many cases like that - was killed because he was trying to make one thing clear: he was taking these pictures to put them on the Internet. He wanted everybody outside Syria to see what is happening in Syria, what continues to happen: a massacre of citizens with more than 1 500 deaths for the moment. In the outside world - let us be honest - we are watching and doing nothing, or almost nothing, to prevent it.
I know Syria is not Libya, so there is no front line to defend. What is happening there is completely different from what is happening in Libya. In that sense, Libya is maybe more difficult to tackle, but that does not mean we cannot do more than we are currently doing. We are waiting for a UN Security Council resolution, and that has been the case now for weeks and weeks. We are hoping for a breakthrough with Brazil, with Russia and with China on this issue, and it has not been forthcoming.
When we see, on the one hand, dramatic scenes taking place on the ground, live, and, on the other hand, Brazil, China and Russia blocking the Security Council, we have to imagine another way and ask further questions. We have to do more on our side and not wait for a Security Council resolution which will not come in the next few days or even weeks.
I have a proposal. I think two things can be done in addition to what we have discussed up to now. First of all, we can extend the list of the people covered under sanctions. There is currently a list of 30 people, which has had to meet with the approval of the international community, or at least of the US and the European Union.
We have to extend sanctions to all the 200 families who are currently in power in Syria, and who still support Assad by earning money thanks to the regime. It is thanks to these 200 families that Assad is still there. It is thanks to these 200 families that the massacre is still going on, and it is thanks to these 200 families that - as we can see on the Internet - snipers are killing innocent people on the streets.
We can do more than waiting; waiting for weeks and weeks for a resolution that is not forthcoming in the Security Council. What we can do is target these people and extend the travel ban and asset freezing to these 200 families, who are very well known, and extend the list of 30. That is the first thing to do.
I have a second proposal: we should finally face up to reality. There is no front line to defend, so we cannot do the same thing as in Libya, but we should at least consider the possibility of creating a safe zone, what we call a 'demilitarised zone', on Syrian territory.
This is not wishful thinking, because it is currently under consideration in Ankara. This has already been done, in 1991 in Iraq - with the support of the US, you will remember - to protect the people living in the north of the country.
This is what we should do; otherwise, we will continue to see what is happening now: more killings. We should do this as fast as possible. My proposal is: please stop waiting for unanimity - which will not come in the UN - and take the lead on these two additional initiatives.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, six months after the start of the Arab Spring, the countries in the Middle East and North Africa remain in flux.
Egypt deserves credit for prosecuting former President Mubarak and his family for corruption. Its military has generally shown wisdom and restraint in its handling of the political vacuum in the country. The ECR hopes to see a new president emerge in September who can restore Egypt's rightful place as leader of the Arab world. By the way, Ms De Keyser, there is an Arab world, there is also an Arab League, and that is the face for the Arab world.
After the elections, I hope that the Muslim Brotherhood will stick to their pledge to honour the concept of democratic pluralism and that Egypt will maintain the peace accords with Israel. These are vital for regional security. Egypt needs massive EU direct aid and loan finance now from the EIB and EBRD. I welcome Baroness Ashton's initiatives in this area; we must help stabilise this key country's economy.
Tunisia is also beginning to make tangible progress towards a more stable future, but remains destabilised by the ongoing upheavals in neighbouring Libya. It is essential for the credibility of the EU and for NATO - which is enforcing the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 - to end Gaddafi's grip on power in Libya.
Having invaded Iraq in the name of banishing tyranny and championing democracy, we in the West can hardly leave the job half done in Libya; a wounded Gaddafi being allowed to stay in power would be a disaster as he would plot revenge against his own people and also Western targets.
In this context, I also call on Algeria to cease helping the Tripoli regime with supplies and free passage for mercenaries.
In Yemen, the uncertainty about the succession to President Ali Abdullah Saleh risks emboldening the al-Qaeda terrorists in the country. He is now part of the problem and not the solution and he should stay in Saudi Arabia and sign the GCC-brokered agreement and pave the way for free elections and a successor.
The situation in Bahrain is also worrying, and I hope that the Sunni monarchy makes reformist concessions towards the opposition, mainly from the Bahraini Shia majority.
In Syria, President Bashar seeks to brutally crush all resistance to his autocratic Ba'athist rule. We cannot forget the principled stand by courageous unarmed protesters calling for a democratic post-Bashar Syria free of the malevolent influence of Iran and its support for Hezbollah and Hamas. The arrest and torture of children is particularly sickening in Syria and, although I, too, am concerned by reports of Salafist jihadi groups now joining the protesters, this cannot be used by the regime as an excuse to murder innocent protesters. I particularly fear now for the Christians and the Iraqi refugees on that territory.
I also welcome the constitutional reforms in Morocco to diminish the King's powers, but hope the situation in Western Sahara can also be settled peacefully with the referendum for independence.
I welcome this week the independence of South Sudan, and hope that Khartoum, also a member of the Arab League, will not try to destabilise Africa's newest nation, which needs all the help it can get from the European Union.
Lastly, I thank the High Representative and her staff for all their good work and commitment to supporting the Arab Spring and stabilising the EU southern neighbourhood.
Mr President, all these populations are putting a colossal amount of energy into overthrowing regimes that are enemies of freedom and are oppressing them. We cannot help but admire this energy, and it puts paid to the prejudices held in various quarters about the supposed backwardness of the Arab world.
As has already been said, it requires a good deal of the European Union to rise to the challenge of these aspirations. For us to condemn the violence, support those who promote change, impose sanctions on the dictators, start again from scratch the deals we had negotiated with fallen powers, take on board the human, political and economic consequences of the upheaval that is going on, prevent counter-revolutionary attempts, mitigate the causes of destabilisation and rebuild our relationship as one of partnership, is a revolution in itself for the European Union.
Who now seriously believes that Bashar al-Assad is capable of beginning a political process that would involve those who promote democracy and change, and would establish the rule of law? I certainly do not, and I do not think many people do. And yet, there is no appeal to President al-Assad to leave power in our resolution. Nor is there a majority, unless we see proof to the contrary, willing to call the atrocities committed by this regime against peaceful citizens crimes against humanity, which is what they are, and to bring a case before the International Criminal Court through a Security Council resolution.
I do not think we have exhausted all the possibilities for diplomacy. Turkey could provide valuable help on this, if it can persuade the hesitant countries that have been mentioned, especially Russia and Brazil, but also China.
Taking responsibility also means protecting. It means resettling refugees, activating temporary protection, rescuing people at sea. These are the concrete steps that the European Union should be proposing for refugees, instead of organising top-level crisis meetings to discuss EU law. If the EU wants to be consistent, it needs a system that will allow civil society to be involved at every stage in defining objectives and indicators and in implementing and evaluating the EU's agreements with its future partners. This will represent real change for the European Union. Our partners are now accountable to their people, and their people are eagerly expressing their democratic demands.
Baroness Ashton, you were correct in your intuition and your analysis, well before the revolutions began. At the beginning of your mandate, you said that the validity of the EU's external policy would be tested in its own neighbourhood. How true that is! If the Union rises to the challenge of these peoples' democratic aspirations, its role on the new world scene will no longer hang as a question mark over the suffering that is piling up. In the situation as it stands today, it is the status of the European Union in this 21st century world taking shape before our eyes that is at stake.
Mr President, Lady Ashton, I shall start by saying that it is obvious we need to continue supporting the democratic revolutions taking place in these countries. I do not have much time, so I only want to make a few observations. First and foremost, we cannot forget that the conditions for negotiating must be set by the peoples of these countries if we want a democratic transition and not civil war.
The situation in Syria is serious, and that is true for Syria, but also for Yemen and Bahrain. If we want to prevent civil war, the last thing these countries need is Europe interfering in their internal affairs, above all else, by presenting military or paramilitary solutions. If I say this, it is because we must totally reject what is happening in Libya. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the United Nations (UN) have exceeded all resolutions, even those voted for by the UN Security Council. It is this silence in relation to Libya, and this rejection that we should be making and that is absent from this resolution, that I cannot support.
Mr President, in the early 1950s, the founding father of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, hoped that regime change in Egypt would pave the way for peace with the Arab world. He even stuck his neck out for this idea in public, although it turned out to be in vain. The Nasser regime and other new military rulers in the region turned out to actually be more anti-Israel than the monarchs they had replaced.
Baroness Ashton, Israeli politicians and analysts fear that the current 'Arabellion' (another, more accurate term for the Arab Spring) will come to an end in the 'gift of the Nile', in a historical parallel to the 1950s. The political influence of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood will strongly boost their influential Palestinian allies and block any peaceful reconciliation with the Jewish State. High Representative, do you view the change of regime in Egypt, by any chance, as a positive change for Arab-Israeli relations? I ask this because not only the Muslim Brotherhood, but also secular figureheads such as ElBaradei and Amr Moussa fill Israeli observers with little confidence for future relations between Cairo and Jerusalem.
Meanwhile, the real winner of this partial 'Arabellion' threatens to be the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is a real spectre, above all for the region, but potentially also for the world as a whole. Baroness Ashton, how can Europe, together with the United States, still prevent this scenario from coming about?
(DE) Mr President, many Arab countries will not be able to return to the old days, but in most cases, it is not clear where their journey is leading. However, the people of Yemen, for example, give cause for hope, with groups which have never spoken to one another before sitting the situation out side by side.
Simply replacing the president, as proposed by the Gulf Cooperation Council agreement, would not really bring about changes in the system. The situation in Egypt, where there are increasing numbers of attacks on Christians, shows that a coup by no means guarantees the introduction of democracy or religious freedom for minorities.
Following the euphoria of the Arab Spring in Egypt and Tunisia, it is clear that disillusionment has set in, given the ongoing security problems, the economic difficulties and the tough rearguard action being fought by the old regime. With the exception of Morocco, where the king is clearly popular, the protests in other Arab countries have simply led to empty promises and violence.
In my opinion, we should not underestimate the strategic importance of Syria. If the Iranian bloc were to be responsible for slowing down the Arab Spring, this would send out a devastating signal. Perhaps, at long last, it is time for the West to call for the departure of President Assad and to withdraw its diplomats.
The EU must also not ignore the risk of new influxes of refugees, even if there is radical democratic change in the Arab world. We must begin making preparations now, so that we are genuinely ready for the problems that will face us in future.


9. Rights of passengers in bus and coach transport (


Closure of the sitting


25. European Small Claims Procedure (vote)
- Before the vote on block 1:
rapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I applied to speak for two minutes but will not need that long. All the same, I would like to emphasise several points in particular regarding the introduction of the European Small Claims Procedure. First of all, it is important that in case of doubt, the law is interpreted in the German language version since this was generally the working language of the European Parliament as well as being used exclusively by the Council and Commission for orientation purposes in the many trilogues. Furthermore, it is important that the Member States utilise all the opportunities afforded by this procedure and therefore use the possibilities offered by modern means of communication. Member States should authorise and promote telephone, e-mail and video conferencing as means of communication.
A further important simplification is that form D must be translated by one person who is authorised to do translations in one of the Member States. This expressly precludes expensive authentications and the need for certification, for instance, by a notary. I wish to emphasise that with regard to all decisions made by the Court within the Small Claims Procedure, it should always be remembered that the procedure is economical, quick, simple and citizen-friendly. Anything which constitutes an obstacle to this is therefore inconsistent with the aim of this Regulation.
I therefore call on all my fellow Members to give their approval to this new and citizen-friendly civil law procedure which is the same across the whole of Europe.
(The oral amendment was accepted)


Selection process of a new Managing Director for the IMF and external representation of the euro (debate)
The next item is the Commission statement on the selection process of a new Managing Director for the IMF and external representation of the euro.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, honourable Members, many thanks for your very pertinent questions. The Commission welcomes the decision of the Executive Board of the IMF on 20 May this year, which clarifies the selection process for the next Managing Director of the IMF.
The Commission agrees that the selection process has to be open, transparent and merit-based. This will enable candidates from all IMF member countries to compete on the basis of their merits, taking into account all relevant aspects.
The EU Member States have agreed that they will back the best qualified candidate who is able to meet the high standards required to fulfil the responsibilities attached to this very important position. Such a candidate will, in particular, need to have demonstrated strong capabilities, a commitment to multilateral coordination, and a great knowledge of international economic, financial and monetary affairs. The Commission supports this agreement.
The Commission fully supports the candidacy of Minister Christine Lagarde. She is a competent and experienced candidate, who has gained the respect of our partners in the international community. She not only has a very good knowledge of the European economy and EU decision making, which is a merit in these times, but also very strong experience in global economic governance - through her successful management of the G20 Presidency, for instance.
Let me also add that last year, an agreement was reached at the G20 summit in Seoul in Korea to reduce European representation in relative terms on the IMF Board by two seats, so as to increase the voice and representation of emerging market economies.
The issue of the external representation of the euro area, while related to the general reform of the International Monetary Fund, is not directly linked to the selection of the Managing Director of the IMF. The Commission is of the view that it is in the common interest of Europe, the Union and its Member States, to move progressively towards a single seat for the European Union, or at least the euro area, in the IMF. Gradually and progressively.
Mr President, honourable Members, as you know, I am fully committed to the reform and reinforcement of EU economic governance, both internally and externally. In achieving this, I prefer to apply the tested method of Jean Monnet: Europe is built through concrete progress in real life, one step at a time, taking larger and smaller steps.
Therefore, let us first conclude the reform of our internal governance, which is urgently needed and which will be a huge step forward once implemented. Then let us tackle the challenge of external representation which will be another major step forward once agreed and implemented. One big step at a time.
Madam President, when the former Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) came into office, there were major question marks against the relevance and effectiveness of the IMF. We now know better, after finding out the hard way during the crisis just how interlinked we are internationally. It is precisely in such times of crisis that you also learn to better seek each other out, and we experienced just how crucial the role and the expertise of the IMF are, even for us here in Europe. It is thus also important that, in the coming years, the IMF should play a key role in terms of global governance and better financial and monetary stability in the world.
Sadly, in this euro crisis, we have learned from experience in a very painful way. You can tell where I am going with this. Today, we are discussing the new candidate for the future position of Managing Director of the IMF. You quite rightly say that this must be an open process, but we do not need to hide under a bushel the fact that we, Europe, have an outstanding candidate. I am happy that we, in Parliament, are also able, through this debate, to give our express support to that candidate.
In a time of crisis, it is important to have an outstandingly qualified woman in this top role as, in a crisis, female qualities could provide real added value, topped off with quality. Mrs Lagarde also has experience on both sides of the Atlantic and in multilateral governance. Viewed from this angle, too, she is an outstanding candidate. I hope that, with this backing, we are able to give you a little extra push to put forward Mrs Lagarde's case as the next occupant of the role of Managing Director of the IMF.
Madam President, Commissioner, basically, I am wondering why you wanted to make that statement. Indeed, you ended your speech by saying: 'All our time is essentially taken up today by the reform of economic governance; the issue of the external representation of the euro area will be discussed at a later date'.
Please forgive me if I disagree with your approach, because one of the main problems in the European Union today is the issue of the external representation of the euro area. It is clear today how the currency war could easily destroy all the efforts that citizens in the euro area are being asked to make in the name of austerity and of an improved sovereign debt situation. Therefore, Europeans cannot be completely demanding internally and, at the same time, fail to show any interest in how their currency, tossed about as it is by the markets on the international stage, is faring externally. There will be no internal protection without external protection.
Please forgive me, then, if I disagree with your approach on this point. I know that the task is a difficult one, but the European Parliament has, for several years now, supported the idea of moving towards an external representation of the euro area, especially within the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
We must admit that, when Dominique Strauss-Kahn was appointed as the Managing Director of the IMF, the situation was very different: there was talk of people taking it in turns to manage the organisation. Mr Strauss-Kahn himself said that he may be the last European to head the IMF. Since then, however, the situation has changed considerably. The region in which IMF intervention is crucial today is Europe. We can see that, behind the IMF's intervention, the intervention of the large US investment banks has a significant role to play. We can also see that, sooner or later, the issue of the US economic situation could be raised and could legitimately be debated within the IMF.
All that paints a much more complex picture than simply deciding whether this person or that person should preside over the future of the IMF. Of course Europeans should be represented - they should rightly play a part in what is one of the major institutions - but, more fundamentally, what I want to know from you is: what kind of policy do we want to conduct on the international stage? What kind of mandate should a European carry out on the international stage, given the efforts we are making internally, given the influence of the markets outside the European Union and the impact they have on investment, speculation and employment in Europe?
We also think that whoever manages the IMF in the future will face a huge task: he or she must not destroy the progress made by Dominique Strauss-Kahn when he shifted ever so slightly the boundaries of what was the Washington Consensus. We can already see a hardening of attitudes today within the institution; we think that this is the wrong approach.
Finally, the issue of the IMF's place within the United Nations system will also have to be raised, and if the Europeans do put forward a candidate, they must ensure that the mandate that they give to that person is structured in such a way as to enable him or her to push for a form of global governance that rises to the post-crisis challenges that we face.
Madam President, thank you for your response, Mr Rehn. By the end of June, we are expecting a new Managing Director to have been appointed for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to succeed Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who has, as we all know, been accused of a very serious crime that, unfortunately, has probably also damaged the reputation of the IMF. Now, in these turbulent times, a new competent Managing Director must therefore be appointed for an important global institution such as this and the process must be open.
Like my fellow Members, I welcome the candidacy of France's finance minister, Christine Lagarde. I believe we have all found her to be a very competent person. She also has the support of several Member States and the European Commission. However, why have we not been able to agree on a common nomination procedure? It would have increased Europe's influence. That is something that we lack. If we had had a common procedure and if the Commission had taken overall responsibility, it would also have strengthened the reputation of the EU, the euro and Europe.
Article 138 of the Treaty of Lisbon states that the euro's place in the international monetary system must be strengthened. Why, therefore, has this opportunity not been taken? The Commissioner spoke of taking one step at a time, but sometimes we may have to make a little leap forward in order to strengthen our position, particularly in turbulent times. I also think it is important to point out that the IMF is in need of extensive reform, something that Mrs Berès also makes clear in her report. The work on this reform has begun. However, the EU's representation in the IMF also needs to be discussed and strengthened.
We need a stronger IMF that operates as a global lender. To summarise: we need a stronger and more representative IMF in our new global world and we need a stronger EU with a clearer voice. Finally, Mr Rehn, sometimes we need to make a leap forward.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, in today's uncertain economic climate, it is more important than ever that the global institutions set up to ensure financial and economic stability, which many countries around the world are dependent upon, are not used to make symbolic political statements.
The IMF is not a symbol but a working institution that needs someone at the head of it who has a strong understanding of the financial markets, the necessary skills gained from managing a large economy and the ability to communicate tough decisions to the general public. The strength of Christine Lagarde's candidacy is not that she is a European, but that she is a hugely competent individual who has shown remarkable leadership qualities throughout the financial crisis. As the primary role of the IMF is to work on conditional structural reform packages to accompany the distribution of funds to members when they are in dire straits, I believe that Ms Lagarde has shown that she is well able to broker complex agreements on controversial issues, successfully bringing together disparate parties to reach a beneficial solution.
We must not get caught up in the prism of today's eurozone crisis but look to what problems the IMF may face in the future. I believe that Ms Lagarde has the necessary skills and track record to lead the IMF during this period of economic turbulence and to steer a path of reform at the IMF to ensure its continued relevance for generations to come.
Turning to the matter of eurozone representation on international bodies, as financial markets do not respect national boundaries, it is hugely important that global institutions work effectively to coordinate national policy. While I am in favour of more coordination, efficiency and the linking up of policies to avoid regulatory gaps, I believe that the EU must not lose its diverse set of voices in international institutions. The crisis has shown the huge differences between the economies of the EU even within the eurozone, let alone the differences between non-eurozone countries as well. All of our countries have been affected in different ways in the current crisis and we have different experiences. A single voice is not as strong as a multitude of voices singing in harmony.
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have four comments that I should like to make. Firstly, I should like to come back to Mr Schmidt's speech so as to discuss the process again. Given that a role as important as the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund is at stake, I think that, compared to the energy that is at times put into recruiting third-level managers in companies, the way in which this process is being handled shows a lack of professionalism.
Instead of a relatively open, transparent and criteria-based process, what do we have? A series of caucuses bringing together Heads of State or Government who say to each other, 'I would definitely put forward such and such a person'. That does nothing to enhance the European Union's credibility. The fact is, after the Dominique Strauss-Kahn episode, Europe cannot afford to cut corners when deciding who its candidate is going to be.
This is a missed opportunity as far as I am concerned. I do not hold you responsible for this - you are not the one calling the shots on this issue - but we would most certainly benefit from taking a much more organised, concerted and professional approach.
Secondly, I should like to respond to Mrs Swinburne. It is time to respond frankly to those who, like you, Mrs Swinburne, and you, Mr Farage, continue to peddle the mistaken idea that we Europeans will be able to influence world affairs - which affect us too - by speaking with a multitude of voices.
Mrs Swinburne, it is all well and good talking about voices singing in harmony, but you know very well that it does not work like that. If, at some point, we have something other than a democratic federation, the voices will not sing in harmony, because everyone will look after the interests of his or her electorate. That is how it works.
Furthermore, if you think, Mr Farage and Mrs Swinburne, that you are going to defend the so-called sovereignty of the United Kingdom - and that applies to all the Member States, be they small States like my own, or large States such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom - if you think that, alone, you will still be able to exert some influence in the world, then I think you are sadly mistaken.
My third comment concerns the IMF's attitude during the crisis, when compared to that of the European Union. On this issue, Commissioner, I do hold you responsible. After all, we recall that, in all the discussions held by the Troikas travelling to the various Member States that we are trying to help, ultimately, it is the IMF - and it almost pains me to say this after everything that we Greens said about the IMF in the 1980s and 1990s - that is the most reasonable today, while the Commission and the Central Bank are the ones setting the toughest conditions.
We cannot permit this state of affairs as Europeans. I cannot understand why you are trying to act like a bigger Catholic than the Pope - I am not sure whether I can say that to a Finn but, there, I have said it anyway!
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is not so much about individual people; it is, first and foremost, about a selection process. Surprisingly, anyone who searches for information on the selection process for the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on the Internet will essentially only discover that the United States and Europe share the two leading positions. That means that the economically strongest nations, as a minority, share control of the global economy among themselves, so to speak.
That is feudalism and has nothing to do with democracy, and that is why we cannot accept this. In our view, Dominique Strauss-Kahn stepping down presents a major opportunity to make fundamental changes at this point to the nomination and selection process and to make it an open, transparent and, above all, merit- and qualification-based selection process, as some NGOs have been calling for recently.
This should also include a combination of majority votes from the members of the IMF and a majority of voting shares in the IMF. Up to now, only the voting shares in the IMF have been taken into account, which ensures a structural majority for the economically strong nations. This sort of reform and change to the selection process would correspond to the reform of the IMF, which would also correspond to the changes in global economic relations and would give the developing countries a chance to bring their experience with the IMF to bear in the further development of the IMF.
In closing, I would just like to say that the IMF must be placed under an obligation to work in the interests of reducing global imbalances and poverty.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, I would like to say to Commissioner Rehn that I have been looking at the IMF Charter. There is nothing here that will surprise you; it is there to promote balance, growth, exchange rate stability, to lessen disequilibrium and to help countries that are in trouble. The classic method uses is to shore up the finances and organise a competitive devaluation.
Nowhere in here does it say that the IMF is there to support political experiments and, in so many ways, that is what Dominique Strauss-Kahn did. He used the IMF to help bail out the failing euro project and, as such, he was a very poor choice of candidate. Now you want to compound that by approving Christine Lagarde - another member of the European political elite, another euro fanatic, somebody else who believes in propping up this euro project - and I would have thought that, as she has got a vested interest, she is, in fact, a highly unsuitable candidate.
It is as if the EU has hijacked the IMF, that it is now there as part of the support mechanism for the euro, so that it is not just the taxpayers of the eurozone and the non-eurozone EU members, but the whole world that now has to help prop up the euro as the Greek problem compounds by the day.
Well, I suppose in some ways, you may well need Mrs Lagarde because not only is Greece going bust, not only are we heading for the fourth bail-out, but as I have warned before in this Assembly, the validity of the European Central Bank itself will very shortly be called into question. I have warned that you cannot go on buying your own bad debt, but we have reached the point where, within weeks, we may well see that the ECB itself is not solvent, so perhaps your friend Mrs Lagarde can help bail that out as well.
I would have thought this is a very poor choice. The international community at some point will tell you where to get off - perhaps not just quite yet.
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I rise on behalf of Mrs Lulling and Mr Langen, too; they had their own speaking time, but I assure you that I will not use it all up.
I would just like to point out, as every one of you has done here, that the process of selecting a new Managing Director of the IMF has begun.
It is important for the European Union to express a unanimous and strong position that is conveyed not only by the various Member States, but also by the Commission, and you have pledged to do that, Commissioner.
Many of us in this House, with the exception of Mr Farage, are very keen to see the balance - a popular one until now - between the United States and Europe maintained during the process of appointing the Managing Director of the IMF and the President of the World Bank.
We fully understand that emerging countries - particularly the largest ones - would like more of a say in the IMF's decision making. It is important, therefore, to continue the reforms under way regarding the governance of that international institution, and particularly the ones that you also mentioned, Commissioner. However, it is definitely too soon for any radical changes to the balance achieved as a result of the Member States' respective financial contributions to the Fund.
Only one European candidate has launched a proper campaign by making contact with the various Member States. That candidate - who, by the way, is a woman - has the qualities required. Her skills, political experience, moral authority and perfect command of English, coupled with her experience of working across the globe, make her the ideal candidate for the post of Managing Director of the IMF.
As has been said, the Managing Director must be someone who seeks consensus and is effective at a time when the institution has a vital role to play in helping to redress the economic and financial balance with a great sense of purpose. Our Union must therefore do whatever it takes to secure Christine Lagarde's appointment.
(FR) Madam President, I believe there is, nonetheless, a great paradox in this debate. Basically, it is vital that nothing changes between the World Bank and the IMF. We Europeans are the ones who stand to gain from multilateralism working, but multilateralism will not work if emerging countries are involved only to a limited extent, at the G20 or elsewhere. We really must approach this issue dynamically and with a sense of perspective. Furthermore, I find it rather paradoxical that, now that we are launching an urgent campaign to see a European appointed as the head of the IMF, we are not setting an example as Europeans by saying, Commissioner, that this is a step in the direction of the external representation of the euro area.
What explains your great impatience and determination to see a European appointed if not your desire to take this step, which you tell us is not urgent and can keep for another day? If we want to make a go of multilateralism, then we ourselves need to set an example, be consistent and show how well it can work in the future, because the IMF has an absolutely crucial role to play in the field of global governance, a role that transcends the issue of European debt and of the sovereign debt situations of the European countries that are struggling. This is a crucial task, but the IMF's role, beyond stabilising the markets, is also to help correct the global imbalances that caused this crisis.
It is clear today that you are not taking this absolutely crucial governance issue into account in the way in which you promote, or otherwise, a given candidate. Yet this is what interests us socialists: seeing the IMF play a part in global governance so as to correct the imbalances that caused this crisis.
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, like everyone else in this House, I am not disregarding the method used to select the future Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, but what matters most to the people is knowing what new role that international institution plans to carry out in order to help end today's serious economic, financial, budgetary and monetary crises.
The International Monetary Fund needs to become much more democratic and focused on human development, education and employment. The United States' blocking minority should, in my view, be lifted. The voting rights of emerging countries should be significantly increased.
The IMF should be a tool against speculation, which is suffocating populations today, an effective tool for stabilising agricultural and commodities markets, in order to combat the tax havens that people often talk about. Instead of a currency war, the IMF should launch a major new project: that of a common world currency for cooperation instead of a war of economics and competition.
That is what we should be discussing as a matter of priority, so that people's quality of life improves and bankers stop enriching themselves by plundering nations.
(PL) Madam President, it is unfortunate that the IMF has recently been discussed only in the context of the affair concerning its former head, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. It is not only the prestige of this important position and the whole institution which has suffered, but also the prestige of a European politician occupying such an important position. I think that if, as a result of this, we finally stop tolerating behaviour which everyone knew about and which is far too widely accepted, this would be the one positive thing to come out of the whole terrible affair. However, now we have to fight to rebuild the reputation of this position and the institution of the IMF. For this to happen, we need to propose a competent person for this position who will be able to maintain calm on the markets, in the media and in general public opinion in what is, today, a very difficult situation. It is important that the candidate should be credible, and Christine Lagarde has been acknowledged by the Financial Times as being the best Minister for Finance in the euro area in 2009. The Commissioner has already mentioned how well she led the presidency at the G20. She is a person whose credibility cannot be called into question. We cannot underestimate the role of the IMF, particularly now when there is a financial and economic crisis which is affecting many countries in Europe. European thinking should therefore be present in this institution. We need someone in this position who understands the significance of the present crisis. While dealing with global finances at the IMF and using the skills and international experience she gained in the European Union, I know that Christine Lagarde will not lose sight of European interests. She said herself that if she were to be chosen for the post, she would bring all her experience as a lawyer, managing director, minister and woman to the Fund. Let us pay particular attention to the final element, which is very important in this situation.
(PT) Madam President, the process of replacing the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is inseparable from the difficulties and contradictions which the capitalist system is facing today in the light of its worsening crisis. The ongoing change to one of the institutions at the system's apex is inextricably linked to the disputes between the various factions of big capital, where conflicts are emerging between the major powers. It is also inseparable from the unresolved issue of reforming the monetary system and, with it, the currency war over the dollar's hegemony at global level. This is a war whose consequences are dumped onto the backs of the workers and peoples of the periphery, as we can see in the European Union.
Without hiding for one moment the enormous extent to which the centre left and its longstanding ties with neoliberalism are responsible for this process, it is also inseparable from the conflict between those who have been accepting the need to restructure debts within the euro area and those who are pushing to rush blindly on ahead towards new means of institutionalised and openly colonial intervention.
In any case, both seem committed to taking the exploitation and oppression of the workers and peoples to new levels.
(EL) Madam President, Commissioner, it would appear that the 21st century will be remembered for the war between political power and the power of the financial institutions. There are countries on the planet which are literally governed by anonymous financial institutions and the citizens of those countries are led hither and thither and their fate is determined by what the markets are doing.
I believe that Mrs Lagarde will be a worthy and able representative of the European Union; she is well qualified for the job thanks to the experience which she acquired during this stormy period of economic crisis and I believe that she will be a worthy representative of the European economy within the framework of global economic governance.
(DE) Madam President, I think it is important that Mrs Lagarde is appointed to this leading role. In France, she has proven that she understands the economy, that she also promotes small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, and that she has regard for those who actually work and make a contribution. It is surely also a principle of the International Monetary Fund to work to improve people's standard of living. Redistribution is only possible if there is actually something produced to be redistributed.
Therefore, the reform of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank is an absolutely priority. We must ensure that those countries with financial problems receive the necessary instruction and that the appropriate knowledge is passed on with regard to the way that we are trying hard to solve these problems in the European Union.
(PT) Madam President, the debate we are having here is ducking the most important issues. In other words, it is not tackling the serious problem posed by international capitalism: the problem of the financial markets that are controlling our economies; that are trying to impose their rules on countries themselves; that are continuing to exacerbate inequality, discrimination, and attacks on workers' rights and essential public services; and that are contributing to an increase in poverty and social exclusion, not only internationally, in less developed countries, but also here in the European Union and in many of our Member States.
Therefore, what was needed was for the Commission to adopt a strong position in order to change the situation; to bring an end to tax havens; to control the financial markets; and to prevent the exacerbation of inequality and exploitation.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, honourable Members, let me first thank you for a very substantive debate. I believe that there is a broad consensus in this House - not a full but a broad consensus - on the selection process of the next Managing Director of the IMF. It has to be open, transparent and merit-based.
I also sense that there is broad support - maybe not full but broad support - for Mrs Lagarde, who has already been endorsed by the EU Member States and by the Commission as their candidate for Managing Director of the IMF.
I want to make three points to respond to some of the views expressed in the course of the debate. First, the IMF has played a key role, in cooperation with the European Union, in overcoming the sovereign debt crisis in Europe, for which Dominique Strauss-Kahn made a major contribution as the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund.
While we still face considerable turbulence in some segments of the sovereign debt markets of certain countries, we have been able to contain the sovereign debt crisis and protect the ongoing economic recovery in Europe. Of course the work has to go on, and we still have difficult decisions ahead of us, not least in the coming weeks in June. But let us recall that there has been no Lehman Brothers catastrophe on European soil, and we have to make sure that there will not be. That would be detrimental to economic growth and improving employment in Europe.
Secondly, we have had very good cooperation between the Commission, the ECB and the IMF, which was not self-evident when we started about a year and a half ago in terms of fire-fighting the financial turmoil. Each of these three institutions has its own rules, its own philosophy and its own independence, and it was not self-evident that they could work together in order to overcome these challenges. However, I dare to say that a pragmatic sense of crisis-awareness has prevailed and helped us to cooperate in order to contain the sovereign debt crisis and protect economic recovery.
Thirdly, I do agree that we need to reform our external representation. As I said in my opening remarks, we now have a huge task, firstly to conclude the internal economic governance reform. We are just about to do this, and I count on you to enable us to do it in the course of June, before the summer break. This is extremely important for the credibility of the European Union in these times of crisis. So let us all do our best in order to ensure that we will complete this indispensable reform of EU economic governance.
In the long term, our goal is a single seat, at least for the euro area. In the short term, we need better practical and pragmatic policy coordination among the EU Member States that are represented in the G20 or G7 or in the IMF. I must say that I have seen plenty of concrete improvement in that regard, so that the EU Member States that are represented in the G20, or in the IMF or in the G7, mostly share common goals and are mostly working together as an orchestra and not with different voices.
Yes, we have plenty of room for improvement and we have to discuss this thoroughly. But, as I said, let us first conclude the internal governance reform and then we can come back to the issue of how to improve our external representation. The rights of the emerging economies mean that it is in the fundamental interest of the European Union, its citizens and its Member States for us to be more united and thus more effective in advancing our causes and our interests on the global scene.
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 149)
in writing. - Whoever the next Managing Director of the IMF is, he or she will have a huge task. The coming years are likely to be dominated by major international financial and economic governance reforms. There are many excellent candidates, and I hope the selection is based on merit, not politics. The reality is that the EU punches below its weight at global level, be it at the G20, IMF or WTO. It does not speak with one coherent voice, but with many voices. This is a serious shortcoming that particularly affects smaller Member States, who lack the diplomatic muscle of the larger nations. Provided policy positions were agreed transparently and democratically, we would benefit from the EU playing a more active role in reshaping the international monetary and financial system. The Committee on Economic Affairs is currently working on a report on global economic governance, which I hope will lead to Commission proposals on improvements to the EU's external representation in this field. The EU is an economic bloc representing over 450 million people, with a currency that is the world's second international reserve currency. But if we do not take it seriously, neither will the rest of the world.


6. Common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (vote)


4. Authorisation to ratify the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007, of the International Labour Organisation (Convention 188) (


3. Exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (
Before the vote:
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the Commission welcomes the report by Ms Frassoni, which approves the conclusion of the bilateral agreement between Parliament and the Commission on procedures for implementing Council Decision 1999/468/EC, as amended by Decision 2006/512/EC. In this context, the Commission underlines that paragraph 11 of the agreement covers extremely urgent cases in general.
The Commission would like to thank Parliament and in particular Mr Galeote and Mr Corbett for the excellent spirit of cooperation which prevailed during the negotiation of this agreement. Yesterday the Commission approved the agreement and President Barroso will sign it in the coming days.


16. United Nations Convention on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences (repeal of Council Regulation (EEC) No 954/79) (vote)
Report: Corien Wortmann-Kool