Situation in Côte d'Ivoire
The next item is the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the situation in Côte d'Ivoire.
on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Mr President, last Monday, the United Nations operations in Côte d'Ivoire and French Licorne troops proceeded to neutralise the heavy weaponry that was concentrated in the hands of former President Laurent Gbagbo. These weapons had, during the last weeks, frequently been used to terrorise the civilian population in Abidjan, resulting in numerous dead and wounded. The neutralisation of these weapons was thus necessary to protect civilians, and was carried out in accordance with the mandate given by the UN Security Council in its Resolution 1975.
Shortly afterwards, the Republican forces loyal to the democratically elected President Alassane Ouattara launched a ground offensive on Laurent Gbagbo's last stronghold in Abidjan in order to force him to hand over power. Due to these ongoing operations, it is our hope that the whole of Côte d'Ivoire has now been brought under the control of its legal government. I can only regret that this transfer of power could only be achieved at the price of human life and suffering, and that the verdict of the ballot boxes alone was not enough. This, however, is a victory for democracy in Africa and sends an important message to many countries undergoing political elections in this continent.
Since his defeat in the presidential elections on 28 November 2010, Mr Gbagbo has refused to hand over power despite the fact that international observers described the elections as free and fair and the entire international community, through the UN certification, recognised his opponent, Alassane Ouattara, as legally-elected President.
During the four months that have passed since, several initiatives have been made by ECOWAS, the African Union and the UN to negotiate a peaceful handover of power. I would like to commend these organisations for their efforts made in the name of peace and democracy. Unfortunately, all proposals for a peaceful handover of power were rejected by Mr Gbagbo, who insisted on clinging onto power illegally. The EU therefore holds him personally responsible for the sufferings and bloodshed that the Ivorians have endured during these last four months of post-electoral crisis. Mr Gbagbo should therefore be brought to justice to answer for his acts.
The EU, through the High Representative, Baroness Ashton, has congratulated President Ouattara on his victory, but we are aware of the numerous challenges ahead of him. He has won the war but must now win the peace. Law and order must be restored so that those hundreds of thousands of people who have fled their homes and even left the country can now feel safe to go home again. The economy must be relaunched to end the last ten years of recession and provide for growth and jobs. The administration must start functioning again so that public services can be provided.
The EU has stood by Côte d'Ivoire throughout the long years of crisis. EU cooperation has provided for humanitarian assistance but also for post-conflict aid for reconstruction and reconciliation. Some EUR 500 million has been disbursed since 2003. During the last dramatic months, the EU has taken a number of restrictive measures against individuals and entities supporting Mr Gbagbo, and this is recognised by our African partners as having substantially helped throughout the crisis. The EU should continue to accompany Côte d'Ivoire at this crucial moment. An aid package is being prepared, to be launched at the earliest possible opportunity. It is now time to start working to implement peace in Côte d'Ivoire.
Mr President, the events of the past 24 hours in Côte d'Ivoire have been bewildering. We heard that Mr Gbagbo was set to surrender, a claim that was later denied. Now, tired of waiting for the outcome of the interminable wrangling, President Ouattara's Republican forces have launched an offensive on Abidjan.
Amid all this confusion, let us not forget what brought us to the current situation. Let me remind you that over the last four months, there have been several hundred deaths and one million displaced refugees. We must not lose sight of the bigger picture. The reason that we are in this situation is that Mr Gbagbo has stubbornly refused to listen to the verdict of the ballot boxes and to accept defeat. I think that the time has finally come, as his regime is collapsing in the wake of defections by his supporters, for Mr Gbagbo to cede power to the rightful President, Alassane Ouattara.
What is more, we must not forget the human rights violations and infringements of humanitarian law that have been committed in the country, which may constitute crimes against humanity. No effort should be spared in bringing the authors of these violations to justice - and that includes international justice.
Lastly, I would like to praise the action taken by the United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI), with the support of French forces, to enforce the United Nations Security Council mandate aimed at putting an end to the use of heavy weaponry and at protecting civilians.
Mr President, the end of the struggle for power in Côte d'Ivoire is in sight, after more than 1 500 people have died, nearly one million people in the region have been made refugees, entire streets of houses have been looted and the economy has ground to a halt. The country is experiencing a catastrophe and that is the price which Laurent Gbagbo has had to pay for refusing to admit defeat. His relentless refusal to respect the voters' wishes merits strong condemnation.
Many other things also merit condemnation: all the violence of the last few months, the many human rights violations, the threats, the violence against United Nations personnel, the speeches stirring up hatred and the kidnappings. There are still some firefights going on, but Gbagbo's departure is being negotiated, and that is good news. However, there is an emergency situation in Côte d'Ivoire. Many Ivorians are now running out of food and water, because they have not dared leave their homes.
It is essential that President Alassane Ouattara receives every support during the process of return to the rule of law, under which people will be able to live in peace and without fear, and under which the freedom of the press will be restored. A return to the rule of law is now the first thing that needs to happen. In that regard, the President has a duty to prevent his troops using force against the population and it is good that Ouattara has ordered an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the shocking massacre in Duékoué. Whatever means the Ivorians choose to restore the rule of law, through the courts or through a truth and reconciliation commission, one thing is clear: there is no statute of limitation on war crimes. The International Criminal Court must be allowed to do its work.
The sanctions have had an impact: Gbagbo has been financially drained. However, we must now ensure that we rapidly begin to dismantle the sanctions as soon as Ouattara takes up his rightful office because everything has ground to a halt. Even programmes for the provision of medicines to people in Côte d'Ivoire with HIV-AIDS are now at risk. Mr President, those donating aid to Côte d'Ivoire should not leave the country in the lurch now.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FR) Mr President, as we speak, hopefully the end of the Côte d'Ivoire crisis is imminent. We would all like to hear that Mr Gbagbo has surrendered in the next few hours.
The international community has been very patient, the African Union has undertaken several rounds of mediation, and the United Nations chose not to intervene between the two sides for several months. The United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI) has now taken action, with support from the French Licorne troops and in accordance with the Security Council resolution, but it has done so in order to protect civilians from the heavy weaponry used by the incumbent regime.
The crisis in Côte d'Ivoire should now serve as an example to all those who refuse to give up power despite electoral defeat. These individuals need to understand that, from now on, the international community is determined to enforce the law. Yet in strife-torn countries, where the concept of nationhood is still evolving, we cannot be satisfied with declaring a victor. We must strive for national reconciliation. This is the message that we now need to send to Mr Ouattara, who will be responsible for establishing a national unity government.
As each camp has accused the other of massacres and crimes against humanity, investigations need to be initiated with a view to apportioning blame and dispensing justice. Justice can involve vengeance, but it can also bring peace. I would like to plead in favour of the latter option, if that will allow Côte d'Ivoire to rediscover peace and stability and to see growth and development resume.
Mr President, I am confused now. I heard the Hungarian Presidency say: Mr Ouattara has won the war; now he must win the peace. However, I have been watching television all day, keeping up with all the news, and it seems to me that Ouattara is still in the process of winning the war. It looks like it is going to happen, but it is still some way off.
When he finally manages to take up his post as President of the country, he will leave behind him four months of misery, which have left the country in a state of collapse, the economy in smithereens, people dead and population groups played off against one other. What a start to a new period of governance! If we are using expressions such as 'a victory for democracy in Africa' to describe elections which have resulted in wars, then it seems to me that we must be getting our words confused. However, what is far more serious is the fact that the country has responded to the elections in such a way.
What should we, in Europe, do now, if Mr Ouattara gets the chance to take up his position? I think that, with the cocoa boycott, we have demonstrated that we are capable of taking rapid action and that we are able to use trade to promote democracy. Côte d'Ivoire is one of the ACP countries: as such, it receives development aid from us and, thus, a political dialogue needs to be part of the picture. We have to enter into that political dialogue with a man who is able to show that he can bring all parts of the country back together. He has to show us and the rest of the world, but, above all, his own people, that he is able to move beyond this violence and that he is willing to make amends.
Mr President, it is difficult to comment on the situation in Côte d'Ivoire when it is constantly changing and incredibly uncertain.
Let me start by thanking the shadow rapporteurs, who spent this morning working on the motion for a resolution that will be presented tomorrow. We have all worked together to ensure that the motion is balanced and forward-looking. We know today that atrocities have probably been committed by both camps and that the culprits will need to be brought to justice, no matter who they are.
The Ivorian population has been the main victim of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire. The United Nations presence on the ground, in the form of the United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI), has been unable to protect civilians. What is worse, it has taken action, with support from French military forces, against one side, admittedly under the auspices of a UN resolution, but one that dates back to 1975, making it 36 years old. The Chair of the African Union, Mr Obiang Nguema, denounced it in no uncertain terms yesterday. Fortunately, the UNOCI does not seem to be involved in the final attack that is apparently now being launched by Mr Ouattara's troops.
In view of all this, we did not want to be associated with the resolution and will not be voting in favour of it. We are all aware of France's role in Africa. Françafrique has caused a lot of harm and continues to do so. What is more, the French authorities make no secret of the policy, claiming that they want to protect and maintain France's interests.
(FR) Mr President, the terrible thing about our modern societies and, in particular, European society, and, even more specifically, our Parliament, is the generalised flock mentality: our tendency to behave like sheep.
Apart from the last two speakers, everyone has simply parroted what they have read in the paper, heard on the radio or seen on the television. Everyone tells us that Mr Ouattara won the elections, which is quite possible, but it certainly was not clear-cut.
Everyone tells us that the brutal military intervention yesterday was a means of neutralising heavy arms. These things are presented in the rosiest terms. Neutralising heavy weaponry is another name for a bombardment. I myself have seen the effects of bombardments: I am a reserve officer and I can tell you that a bombardment involves killing people, burning people, blowing people up. In other words, it is military action conducted in favour of one side and against another. It may be justifiable, but here, among parliamentarians, among political representatives, we should be brave enough to tell the truth.
We are also told that these arms were to be used to terrorise the civilian population. Yet at the end of the day, in a civil war, some civilians are armed, particularly when one camp has Kalashnikovs and the backing of half of the nation's army. So I think we need to put an end to this hypocrisy. We took brutal action in favour of one camp and against another. Was that action justified? Perhaps.
Let me conclude by saying that I do not see how Mr Ouattara can be innocent of the atrocities committed by his troops while Mr Gbagbo is always blamed for the atrocities committed by his troops.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))
(FR) Mr President, I would simply like to ask Mr Gollnisch what he believes the outcome of the election signifies and whether it means that Mr Ouattara's victory must ultimately result in him taking power. This is purely a question of democratic legitimacy.
I went to Côte d'Ivoire as head of the election observation mission and I can assure you that the elections were valid and that there was a clear and unequivocal winner.
(FR) Mr President, Mr Preda, I said that Mr Ouattara might well have won the elections, but I do not think it was as clear-cut as you suggest. In any case, the Côte d'Ivoire Constitutional Court did not take that view, although the court is drawn up along political lines, just like the French Constitutional Court. For my part, I would be delighted if we were to focus on the French elections. I represent a group that has millions of voters, with a leader who reached the last round of the presidential elections, but which does not have a single member of parliament, nor yet a single senator in our national parliament. Yet you are completely impervious to this particular scandal.
(Calls of 'off the subject' from the Chamber)
(PL) Mr President, the former President of Côte d'Ivoire, Laurent Gbagbo, is said to have indicated yesterday he is ready to surrender and to have asked the United Nations for protection. Negotiations over Gbagbo's surrender are in progress. They are being conducted after forces loyal to the democratically elected President Ouattara took over the presidential residence in Abidjan. In the opinion of Prime Minister Soro, the end of Gbagbo's rule is a matter of hours away. I am not certain of this, but I hope this is how it will be. However, we do know for certain that civilians, including women and children, are also being killed in the armed conflict. In the clashes between the supporters of the two politicians, around 1 500 people have been killed, and a million have had to leave their homes. A few days ago, one of Gbagbo's advisers said that even a possible massacre in Abidjan will not convince the former President to admit defeat in the presidential election and hand over power. It is easy to foresee, therefore, what should happen in Côte d'Ivoire: a quick end to the fighting, the departure of the former President from the country, which will stabilise the situation significantly, the administration of justice to all those who have committed war crimes or murders, and stabilisation of the country. The European Union should support all these measures.
(FI) Mr President, we certainly hurried to help Libya, but with Côte d'Ivoire, we have remained inactive since November. The sanctions imposed by the Council are a step in the right direction, but when will they be lifted? Why have they been used to block the Abidjan Port Authority's export of cocoa beans and to shut down the oil refinery? If we are not helping, at least we should not cause more trouble. The innocent victims will be the Ivorian economy and, in the long term, European consumers too.
Laurent Gbagbo must give way and there should be support for the speedy return of refugees to their homes. The surrounding countries cannot cope with the current volumes of refugees. The EU must help organise elections and the construction of democratic institutions. Normal business should not, however, be prevented. Côte d'Ivoire is the most prosperous economy in West Africa. Economic recovery and access to EU markets for exported products are the real key to restabilising the country. I shall expect a response from the Commission.
(FR) Mr President, unlike Mr Gollnisch, I am of the opinion that we cannot allow civilians to die amid general indifference as they are exposed to force and violence employed by an illegitimate Head of State.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1975 authorises the international community to obstruct a regime which uses weapons against its own people. In the current case, this constitutes progress, in that we are no longer compelled to look on helplessly as civilian populations are subjected to atrocities committed by their leaders.
However, although we should welcome the fact that we can now break through the wall of indifference under international law, we must also ensure that all due precautions are taken to guarantee that military force remains a last resort. Unfortunately, in Côte d'Ivoire, President Gbagbo has not taken any action to avoid this terminal outcome.
When all is said and done, I dare to hope that Resolution 1975 on Côte d'Ivoire, together with Resolution 1973 on Libya, will serve to dissuade others from citing State sovereignty as an excuse for killing their own citizens. The combination of the International Criminal Court and the recent stance taken by the United Nations Security Council means that barbarous acts committed with impunity will soon no longer be the rule, but should hopefully become the exception.
(DE) Mr President, in a deeply divided country like Côte d'Ivoire, can a lasting peace be brought about by violent means and can the winner of the presidential election be legitimised? This seems extremely doubtful, especially as the real causes of the conflict have not been resolved. The country was destabilised as a result of economic problems brought about largely by the structural adjustment programmes of the World Bank. The sanctions which were rapidly imposed with the aim of weakening the Gbagbo government have exacerbated the situation and given rise to a humanitarian crisis in Côte d'Ivoire. The legitimacy of both claimants to the presidency is in dispute. The armies of both sides are responsible for massacring the civilian population.
Once again, the West has taken sides and now the United Nations (UN) is waging war alongside French troops to try to ensure the victory of one side in the conflict. Will European powers once again be deciding the fate of African people as they did in colonial times, but this time with the support of the UN? What has happened to the principles of international law? Is this the concept on which the UN was founded? Instead of aiming for peaceful solutions to conflicts, the UN seems to be supporting civil wars or taking sides in them. Whose interest is this in?
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to emphasise that, setting aside the political crisis in Côte d'Ivoire, we are facing a genuine humanitarian crisis that may well linger on.
The post-electoral violence has resulted in over one million internally displaced persons and refugees. What is more, the flood of refugees may reignite simmering tensions in the region. The humanitarian crisis, ladies and gentlemen, will not be resolved by the political agreement that is currently being hammered out. We must be able to respond rapidly if we are to avoid a worst-case scenario. Whatever happens, the chaos in Abidjan will last for several months.
I would like to congratulate the Commission for deciding to increase its humanitarian aid budget to five times the original amount, bringing European support to over EUR 30 million. The European Union must mobilise all the necessary resources in order to help the most vulnerable population groups and monitor how their requirements evolve.
We must also ensure that the greater media coverage devoted to the situation in Libya does not eclipse the gravity of the humanitarian crisis in Côte d'Ivoire. Furthermore, the current security situation is preventing humanitarian workers from operating and reaching the people, which is terrible.
I would like to close by saying that there must be no impunity: we must do our utmost to ensure that justice is done.
(DE) Mr President, firstly, I would like to express my surprise that Baroness Ashton is once again not here. However, I am pleased that she is being represented by my friend, Mr Németh. I would like to see him, Mr Füle or another person permanently coordinating the foreign policy of the European Union and not someone who is hardly ever here in the European Parliament.
On the matter itself, I would like to make it quite clear that Côte d'Ivoire, of course, has many problems which need to be resolved. However, President Ouattara was clearly the winner of the election and he is the person who has democratic legitimacy. This is the view of the African Union and of many other bodies. Therefore, we should be grateful that the United Nations (UN) and, above all, the UN Secretary-General and President Sarkozy, have prevented a massacre from occurring like those in other African states, such as in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. For this reason, we should not quibble over this.
Of course, this does not resolve the problems. However, when Mr Putin starts to criticise the UN and to say that the UN Secretary-General has gone beyond his mandate, this destabilises the UN at a time when it is urgently needed. The African Union should also not express its opinions so loudly, because it has completely failed to help in this crisis. The African Union should have helped to bring about democracy in Côte d'Ivoire. We Europeans have made many mistakes in the past and we are continuing to do so. However, in this case, the mistakes are someone else's responsibility.
Our services have informed me, and I think it is important to know this, that at the beginning of the year, the Vice-President/High Representative's office sent a list of the plenaries in which she would be able to attend. It was known from then that she could not be here this time, so obviously if we have a debate that involves issues like that, someone else has to represent her, and that should be clear.
We now move on to the catch-the-eye procedure. There are three speakers.
(FR) Mr President, the violence is truly escalating in Côte d'Ivoire. Political conflict between two individuals has, unfortunately, resulted in a humanitarian crisis.
Clearly, the basic democratic principle of respecting election results must be upheld. Mr Gbagbo's departure is therefore inevitable. The question is: what comes next? There is a danger that tensions between the two camps will intensify. What do we plan to do if civil war breaks out? We should work towards achieving three things.
Our first priority has to be maintaining peace and stability, which is needed so that the people of Côte d'Ivoire can resume their daily lives: eating, providing care, working and going to school. An independent commission must be established to investigate the violence perpetrated since the conflict began.
Secondly, the United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire and the African Union must continue their activities. However, we should also consider setting up a dialogue mechanism that will include all parties, both within the country and from the wider international community.
Lastly, let me remind you that the European Union sent an election observation mission. The Union must now press for the recommendations it made to be taken into account and integrated in the post-crisis process.
Mr President, with the aid of modern technology, I am watching the situation in Côte d'Ivoire unfolding as I sit here. These pieces of equipment are playing their role in Côte d'Ivoire, just as they have done in North Africa, with people texting for assistance and medical help.
Over the past six months, the patience of the friends of Côte d'Ivoire has been sorely tried: it has been like a car crash in slow motion as we have watched the country slide into the situation in which it now finds itself - and it is always the most vulnerable who suffer. We have been talking here this week about refugees coming from North Africa to Europe, but we have also heard reports of nearly a million fleeing to neighbouring countries which are almost as poor, or even poorer, than Côte d'Ivoire. Friends of that country must be on stand-by to help, as soon as we can, to restore it to normality and health and give the people there the prospect of good fortune in the future.
(PT) Mr President, the civil war situation in Côte d'Ivoire remains worrying, with the country paralysed economically, and with high levels of violence that have affected its people and turned it into a humanitarian crisis. It is time to put a stop to this. We know that there are longstanding reasons for the grave situation being experienced there, particularly the poverty and social inequality left there by former colonialism or by the structural adjustment plans imposed for years by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). However, these last four months of misery following the elections have shown how regrettable it is that the international community, including the European Union, has not made sufficient use of diplomatic channels for a peaceful and political solution to the crisis.
The role of France in this matter is also regrettable, as it preferred military intervention to persisting with diplomatic channels. We therefore call for an end to the war and to violence by all parties, and we urge the EU to act accordingly.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, to quote the words of a famous Hungarian poet: 'Among murderers, he who remains silent is an accomplice'. When we are seeing that thousands are dying and people are fleeing in their millions, we must not comfort ourselves with phrases recalling the dove of peace, but must take action. And before anyone draws parallels between the action in Libya and Côte d'Ivoire and that in Iraq, I would like to remind everyone that the current action is not reminiscent of Iraq or even Afghanistan, but of Rwanda, and of Kosovo, and it is no coincidence that we have been talking so much over the past few weeks about having, as we formulated it, a 'right and responsibility to protect' civilians, citizens.
Accordingly, I would like to repeat that yes, Mr Gbagbo has lost this fight, is alone in his bunker, and is awaiting his fate. I would also like to stress that the legal grounds for this action is indisputable in the present situation. The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1975, and this resolution provides a perfectly clear mandate for the action. Thirdly, I would also like to emphasise that the crimes committed must no longer remain shrouded in obscurity and without investigation. It is to my great satisfaction that legally elected President Ouattara, as well as the Prime Minister, have consented to and clearly support the UN conducting an international investigation of the massacres committed. The investigation of these massacres is therefore already a part, and a very clear pre-requisite, of any settlement.
As far as the European Union's contribution is concerned, ECHO has already at this point envisaged EUR 30 million in humanitarian aid and, as I have also indicated in my introductory speech, a package will be prepared by the European Union in the near future which will provide the European Union's support to the economic and institution-building goals of the legitimately elected President and government.
I have received seven motions for resolutiontabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at noon.
(The sitting was suspended at 20:35 and resumed at 21:00)


Voting time (continuation)
We shall continue with the vote.
(For the results and other details on the vote: see Minutes).


Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes


Welcome
Colleagues, I am pleased to inform you that members of a delegation of MPs and other visitors from the State Great Hural (Parliament) of Mongolia and the Mission of Mongolia to the European Union have now taken their seats in the distinguished vistors' gallery. It is a great pleasure to welcome them here today.
(Applause)
The members of the delegation are in Brussels with their counterparts in the European Parliament on the occasion of the 7th European Union-Mongolia Interparliamentary meeting. This meeting has strengthened the important and growing relationship between the European Parliament and the Mongolian Parliament. The visitors have also had an opportunity to experience, at first hand, the workings of our Parliament. I wish the delegation well for the remainder of their stay in the European Union.


Taxation of unleaded petrol and gas oil (debate)
The next item is the report by Olle Schmidt, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2003/96/EC as regards the adjustment of special tax arrangements for gas oil used as motor fuel for commercial purposes and the coordination of taxation of unleaded petrol and gas oil used as motor fuel - C6-0109/2007 -.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I very much appreciate the support of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to the Commission proposal and in particular the efforts of the rapporteur, Mr Schmidt, to find a compromise.
As you know, the Commission proposal was presented in March 2007. Our objective was to raise and approximate the minimum levels of excise duty on diesel and unleaded petrol in order to maintain the real value of the minima, and to approximate the national rates in order to significantly reduce what is known as 'fuel tourism'.
The reduction of fuel tourism would not only ensure the proper functioning of the internal market for the hauliers, but would reduce the extra kilometres and consequently the extra greenhouse gas emissions, which are detrimental to the environment.
I should stress that, during the Council discussions, a large number of Member States have underlined the positive effect of the Commission proposal on the environment, particularly on climate change and global warming and the proper functioning of the internal market.
As regards Mr Schmidt's report, I appreciate very much the positive attitude to the Commission proposal taken in the report and the efforts made by the rapporteur to find a compromise position acceptable to all. However, the Commission cannot accept most of the amendments suggested in the report. Let me elaborate on it.
The Commission is opposed to any suggestion that would undermine finding a long-term solution to the problem of fuel tourism - which is detrimental to the environment - and to the distortions of competition in the internal market.
As regards the transitional periods suggested in our proposal, this approach is based on the principle of equal treatment of the old and new Member States and is, therefore, well-balanced in our view. The Commission, however, recognises that this is a political issue which will have to be discussed further in Council.
I would also like to explain that the proposal takes into account the competitiveness aspect of the EU through the suggested modest rate increases. They simply maintain the real value of the minimum levels of taxation by keeping up with expected inflation until 2017. The Commission considers that its own proposal takes all relevant factors into account. It does not consider it appropriate to endorse a less ambitious plan or a more far-reaching one to increase minimum levels of taxation as suggested in Amendments 18 and 25.
As regards Amendments 4 and 10 introducing a new definition of commercial diesel for motor vehicles not less than 3.5 t, I would like to clarify that the suggestion was not included in the original proposal. However, it is one of the main points of discussions in the Council where the Commission will follow the debate, bearing in mind the opinion expressed by the Parliament.
The Commission can accept in principle Amendments 7 and 27 supporting the objective of reducing CO2 emissions. However, it should be remembered that according to the principle of subsidiarity, it is a matter for each Member State to decide the way in which they wish to distribute their tax revenue.
In conclusion, I sincerely hope that Parliament can deliver a supportive opinion on the Commission proposal sending a positive signal to the Council to give a response to the concerns of Member States having problems with fuel tourism and, at the same time, achieving environmental objectives.
rapporteur. - (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, the fact that taxes at EU level are a sensitive subject is demonstrated by the work on this report. I thought that the broad consensus on the need to do something radical in order to cope with the demands of climate change would make it easier to gain sympathy for some really tough proposals. That was not how things turned out.
Of course I can understand Mrs Rühle's criticism of the level of ambition, but at the same time the work in our Parliament focuses on reaching reasonable compromises - something the Commissioner also mentioned - which can be implemented throughout our Union. Here I yielded to arguments regarding both the scale of the tax increases and the period of implementation.
Excellent cooperation from my colleagues, Mr Becsey and Mr Rosati, led me to realise that, if we were to get a report through at all, I had to adjust the level without the purpose of my original proposals being entirely frustrated. The Commission's proposal was rejected in its entirety. I did not gain everything, but nor did I lose everything. Navigating between the rocks of Luxembourg and the Greens was not an altogether simple matter.
Emissions from transport are increasing substantially. We must do something about that. The fact that the EU Member States are competing with different levels of tax on diesel is therefore neither reasonable nor right, as the Commissioner correctly indicates. No one can think that it is good for the internal market that giant lorries should make long detours in order to fill up with cheap diesel in places such as Luxembourg. This so-called fuel tourism is not only bad for the environment, it distorts competition as well. Besides, it leads to losses of tax revenue. Moreover, there is no reason to have separate taxes on unleaded petrol and diesel.
So a compromise was reached here, which got more or less unanimous support in the committee. The minimum taxes on diesel are raised more slowly than proposed by the Commission, from 302 euros per 1 000 litres at present to the same level as the tax on unleaded petrol, 359 euros per 1 000 litres, by 2015. The Commission wanted to see an increase already in 2012.
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Bulgaria and Romania would be given until 1 January 2016 to introduce the higher minimum tax. The Commission wants to raise the minimum tax to 380 euros per 1 000 litres by 2014. In order to avoid further distortion of competition, the committee considers that those countries which have tax rates of over 400 euros per 1 000 litres on diesel and 500 euros per 1 000 litres on unleaded petrol should not raise their tax rates on these fuels before 2015.
Mr President, Commissioner, clearly this is a very sensitive question, in particular having regard to subsidiarity. Nevertheless it is a possible way forward towards increased convergence of tax levels. At the same time, we know that inevitable environmental demands will exert an influence on future assessments of the use of financial controls.
To those who do not think I have been sufficiently tough in my demands and that I have chipped away at the level of ambition I will say: in substance, I am with you. We should have agreed on higher levels and shorter implementation periods, as the Commission and the Commissioner have said, but the EU today is not the same EU as it was only five years ago - happily, I would add.
The economic preconditions for harmonising taxes are not the same as they were. If we are to tackle cross-border emissions, we must find reasonable compromises with which everyone can live. We must all realise that.
Besides, I would add that many of the old Member States merit criticism since they have not followed decisions on tax increases taken previously. Purchasing power and inflation considerations have also been taken into account in the committee's conclusions.
The price of oil is currently hitting new records. I last heard on the news that it was close to 110 dollars a barrel.
Now there is broad agreement on gradual tax convergence which I also hope the Commissioner sees - at least in the committee - and I hope to get the support of my colleagues in the House tomorrow, broad support so that we can get a report that can serve as a basis for further work.
on behalf of the PPE-DE group. - (HU) Thank you, Mr President. I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Schmidt, on his excellent work. I believe today represents a breakthrough, as we have managed to hammer out a common parliamentary position on a broad consensual basis. I think it is important to preserve here in plenary the common voice we found in our committee. It is a success because we managed to set a minimum and maximum rate of excise duty to meet anti-inflationary objectives but ignored the idea of abolishing regulation in its entirety. It is better to have an opinion than not to provide one at all, which would leave only the Commission proposal on the table. It is a success because everyone is sacrificing something. Countries with high rates of taxation are ready to freeze their current high rates in the interests of convergence, while low-rate countries are willing to accept some increase relative to the legislation currently in force in relation to diesel.
The biggest sacrifice in this regard is being made by the newly acceded Baltic and Balkan states, as prices and incomes in these countries are lower and they have taken on a huge challenge in terms of inflation and competitiveness, and also in the social sphere, particularly in the run-up to introducing the euro. It is a success because it would halt Parliament's request show, its 'cherry-picking'. By the end of 2015 everyone would fall within the proposed band, and there would no longer be a whole series of inexplicable individual exceptions. This will enable us to reinforce the gravitas of European legislation. I think discipline is important, and we therefore ask the Commission to provide an interim report on compliance in 2010, to check whether the adjusters are actually adjusting or merely dissembling. It is a success because the Council will see that there is a way to achieve the desired convergence, while the Commission will grasp Parliament's philosophy, namely minimum and maximum rates, with the key point being to reduce rather than induce inflation. It can reflect on this in future, too, when putting forward the scheduled Commission proposal on excise duties. Thank you for your attention, Mr President.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, the Commission's proposal on taxation of unleaded petrol and diesel oil is aimed at limiting the excessive use of fuel in transport and thus reducing environmental pollution.
The Commission also hopes that its proposal will assist in reducing the differences in the excise duty rates imposed by individual Member States, thus contributing to creating more equal conditions for competition on the single market. In general, these aims are desirable and merit support. At the same time, however, the Commission's proposal contains solutions that may have negative implications for the economies of the Member States. The former include: additional increases in the cost of fuel and increased inflation, higher costs and a reduction in the competitiveness of European enterprises, and a reduction of the purchasing power of households. These implications may be particularly noticeable when oil prices on the world markets are exceptionally high, as is the case at present. In addition, the Commission's proposals are such that the main burden of adjustment to the new rates would have to be borne by the least developed Member States of the Union, which is a matter of great concern: hence the amendments proposed in Mr Schmidt's report, which are aimed at minimising such negative implications, whilst not undermining the main aims of the Commission's proposals.
In the framework of the compromise reached between the main groups, we call for the introduction of three main changes to the Commission's initial draft. Firstly, we propose reducing the target minimum rate of excise duty on fuel from EUR 380 per 1 000 litres to EUR 359 per 1 000 litres. Secondly, we propose a two-year extension of the transitional period for introduction of the new rates in the new Member States, taking it to 2016. Thirdly, we propose imposing a requirement whereby the Member States that currently impose the highest excise duty rates on fuel would undertake not to raise them before 2015, thus facilitating the process of harmonising excise duty rates.
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to emphasise that reaching a compromise was no easy task. It called for concessions and a display of good will on the part of all those who participated in discussions within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I should like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Schmidt for his hard work on this compromise and congratulate him on the successful outcome. Clearly this compromise does not fully satisfy everyone involved, but it does represent an attempt to reconcile a range of aims and points of view. It also represents a step forward along the way to reducing differences in rates of excise duty within the Union. I call on the Members of the House to support this compromise and adopt the Schmidt report.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, the President-in-Office of the European Union and the Commissioners tend to begin their interventions with declarations on the protection and support of economic freedoms, freedom of competition and SMEs. The transition from declarations to details generally involves reports similar to the one we are debating today, however.
The report proposes imposing a single rate of excise duty on all Member States and harmonisation of prices, on the pretext of making things more straightforward, easier and fairer. This is taking place against the background of a premise considered a priori to be correct, namely that the best solution for the Member States of the European Union is a single tax system, a single monetary system, a single system for certification and marketing, a single regulatory production limits system and so on.
The proposal states that there are no differences in the cost of fuel supply within the Union, regardless of distance from sources of supply or labour costs. All this is simply untrue. I should like to pose the question as to what economic freedom and freedom of competition within the European Union actually mean. Should we not be referring instead to economic compulsion and force? Is it not the case that a single fuel price eliminating all competition is the ideal solution for multinational fuel enterprises to the detriment of consumers and small enterprises? Is it not the case that a single fuel price favours highly developed countries over less developed ones? Finally, if the Union adopts the aforementioned report, harmonising fuel prices under the slogan of unshackling enterprises and countries, will this not amount in fact to shackling them anew by way of taxation? Worse, will it not simultaneously drive them barefoot into poverty? We shall be voting against the report.
(NL) Mr President, this is the first time that I have spoken in plenary. I hope to be able to represent the interests of the Dutch citizens of Europe here both now and in the future.
There was much negotiation before the drafting of this in-depth report by Mr Schmidt. I am glad that the rapporteur and the other groups have finally reached this compromise. The Commission proposal seeks to raise the excise tariffs in stages and so reduce the difference between the Member States.
The environmental argument has a role to play, but I believe that the increase in fuel prices is already a sufficiently motivating factor. Moreover, the Commission uses distortion of competition as an argument for raising the minimum excise rate on diesel for professional use. I am astonished that fuel tourism is used as an argument for raising the minimum excise on diesel for professional use, as this argument is excessively strong. Fuel tourism is a marginal phenomenon in the transport industry, with little influence on mutual competitive positions and the functioning of the internal market.
The Commission proposes a sharp increase in the minimum rate, to 380 euro per 1 000 litres. I believe that such an increase in conjunction with the already extremely high fuel prices will have too great an impact on the consumer's purse and on inflation. The EP's committee eventually settled on an increase to 359 euro per 1 000 litres by 1 January 2015. The Netherlands is already over this target.
There is one more thing. The transport sector is rightly complaining that the steadily increasing excise is driving fuel prices steeply upwards. The Commission proposal on the harmonisation of diesel excise has no upper limit. Differences would thus continue to exist. Parliament believes that the Member States must freeze the excise tariff on diesel at 400 euro per 1 000 litres until 1 January 2015.
Finally, I hope that when the finance ministers make their decision they will give priority to the interests of the consumer as regards purchasing power and limiting inflation.
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, this report deals with a highly sensitive matter of European economic policy, namely taxation, as it covers special taxes on petrol and gas oil used in commercial transport. These taxes are an important source of tax revenue for many Member States. However, the lack of viable alternatives for fuelling the commercial goods transport fleet means that fuel prices are a strategic factor in the competitiveness of many countries.
The recognition of Member States' freedom to impose special consumption taxes is not in doubt. However, as these taxes directly affect the prices of goods sold, excessive differences have a direct impact on the functioning of the internal market. As has already been mentioned, they also lead to cross-border movements and environmental impacts caused by these movements.
The compromise reached in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is truly a compromise and I should like, in that regard, to praise the work of all the shadow rapporteurs, and in particular the main rapporteur, Mr Schmidt. I cannot ignore the fact that some would like the minimum level to more clearly reflect our prevailing environmental concerns. However, I personally doubt that, given the current level of oil prices, the reinforcement of this kind of message by means of taxation is necessary. The choice has therefore been made to bring the minimum and maximum levels of taxation closer, which, by partly sacrificing these environmental concerns in the opinion of some people, will allow the distortions of competition due to taxation to be reduced. A major effort has been made and we hope that this will receive due recognition from the Commission and the Council and that it will allow further progress to be made on taxation within the European Union.
(FR) Mr President, if Mrs Kauppi does not arrive she is allowing me to use her two minutes, since she is hosting an important dinner-debate.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report by our Liberal colleague Olle Schmidt relates to a new confrontation between the House and the European Commission, which has proposed an unjustifiable increase in indirect taxes. This proposal was made by a Commissioner that I feel has completely lost touch with economic reality. Mr Kovács suggests a considerable increase in the minimum rates for unleaded petrol and gas oil. In view of the record inflation, a cause of great concern to the European Central Bank, and the economic downturn we are currently witnessing, it seems to me that this is a particularly bad time to increase the excise duty rate on gas oil and fuel oil.
Personally, I must say that I would simply have rejected this uninspiring proposal by the Commission, but majority situations being what they are in the House I was unable to do so. I support the compromise reached by the EP's main political groups as I feel it constitutes an exercise in damage limitation.
The gradual increase of minimum rates for diesel to 359 euro for 1 000 litres until 2015 and a freeze on minimum rates for the same amount of unleaded petrol, as stipulated in the compromise, are clearly below the levels proposed by the Commission. The Commission was, in fact, suggesting 380 euro for both diesel and unleaded petrol by 2014. The rapporteur wanted to go even further in his report and was seeking minimum levels of 400 euro. I welcome the willingness to compromise on the part of our rapporteur, who brought the rates down during the discussions on his report in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.
The real meat of this report is to be found in Amendment 19, in my opinion. Here we require the Member States, now applying exorbitant excise duty of over 400 euro for 1 000 litres of diesel and 500 euro for 1 000 litres of unleaded petrol, not to increase these rates any further until 2015. Therefore, without going so far as to introduce maximum rates in the proposal, for the Commission has never had the courage to propose these, we are at the very least expressing the desire for price alignment.
Mr President, there is only one way to ensure harmonisation of excise duty rates in Europe: introducing maximum and minimum rates at the same time. It serves no purpose to continue to increase minimum rates and make no effort to curtail the enthusiasm of the Member States that insist on applying extremely high rates.
Finally, if you will allow me, Mr President, I would like to make a point of order. I want to ask the Commissioner, who claimed we support his proposal, whether he lives on another planet, because we do not in fact support his proposal.
(EL) Mr President, now that inflation in the euro area is at its highest historical point and the price of oil has reached USD 110 dollars a barrel, the European Parliament will tomorrow raise indirect tax on fuel. If this is not a joke, it is certainly aimed at making the readers of Friday's papers smile. I think that we are sending the wrong message at the wrong time. We are demonstrating that we do not understand how society operates.
Furthermore, my delegation will not support the compromise; we are opposed to the bully-boy tactics of six Member States that already have high taxation, forcing all the others, through the Commissioner, Mr Kovács, to raise prices on the pretext of petrol tourism. I cannot justify that to my voters. Instead of carrying out such experiments, let us turn to other policies that benefit the environment. We must avoid such tax-raising acrobatics.
(BG) My country has made great efforts to increase the excise tax over the recent years and the taxes rates for lead-free gasolene have grown from EUR 254 in 2004 to EUR 350, while those for diesel fuel from EUR 203 to EUR 307 respectively. We have been guided by the willingness to rapidly increase tax rates so that to reduce the inflationary effect in the years to come.
The new proposal of the Commission puts our strategy to question. Therefore the proposal put forward in the report of the Economic Committee sounds reasonable and penalizes countries like Bulgaria and Romania to a less extent.
I hope that the Commission will accept this compromise, although even this proposal generates a serious effort for the Bulgarian economy and it would be an inflationary factor, without producing any effect for the environment because gasolene and fuel oil are not elastic products and they depend on many other economic factors rather than excise taxes.
(NL) Very briefly, Commissioner, it seems to me that it would be useful to point out that we need to be cautious in relation to this issue. The public needs to be informed about what is at stake here, because the critics will of course be ready to paint this as a straightforward tax increase, whereas Parliament's proposal is a very modest measure: a real tax increase would be disastrous at a time when prices are so high.
This proposal, which we will hopefully adopt tomorrow, is a good start towards finally putting an end to the distortion of competition that has existed for many years, particularly in the border regions; it is also good for the environment. Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my second comment is that we are counting on ourselves, and the European Commission in particular, to continue playing a very proactive role in the development and promotion of environmentally-friendly fuels, in other words implementing policies that will help us to get rid of fossil fuels, petrol and diesel.
(PL) Mr President, I should like to draw attention to three issues. Firstly, it seems that the price of oil will not fall below USD 100 per barrel in the future, which will result in a continuous rise in the price of fuel. It is only thanks to the weakness of the American dollar that drastic rises in fuel prices in Europe have been avoided. We cannot, however, expect the United States to wish its currency to be weak forever. In the light of this situation, the proposal to increase excise duty rates in the European Union over the coming years seems to take no account whatsoever of economic reality.
Secondly, per capita GDP in the new Member States is lower than in the older ones, as is the level of personal income. It will therefore only be possible for the new Member States to harmonise the tax burden once a comparable level of personal income has been attained.
Finally, pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity, the Member States should enjoy greater freedom as regards reducing the tax burden on fuels that are not derived from oil. Such measures would stimulate interest in the use of renewable fuels. They would also help us to reduce CO2 emissions and to fulfil our international obligations regarding environmental protection.
(FR) Mr President, I only wish to take the floor briefly to point out that not all Members from Luxembourg are not all cheap petrol junkies. I think that Mr Belet has set things out very well. We must find a compromise with the policies on the problems concerning oil resources and climate change, and strike a balance between the countries and the regions too.
I would just like to inform you that on Tuesday the Luxembourg Parliament debated climate change, and it held a discussion on petrol pump tourism. The vast majority of Members of the Luxembourg Parliament, including members of Mrs Lulling's own party, agree that this phenomenon must stopped locally at least. I thus merely wish to say that Luxembourg as a whole has a completely different stance to that of Mrs Lulling, who represents a minority on this issue, and a very small minority at that.
(PL) Mr President, it would appear that a single market, along with free movement of goods and services equates to full competitiveness. This is not quite the case, though, as the cost of the means of production, which includes the cost of fuel, has a significant impact on the profitability of production. In fact, at present the taxes on fuel differ even between neighbouring countries, giving rise to so-called fuel tourism in border regions. This activity is not very widespread, however.
It appears reasonable to approximate the rates of excise duty, but the process should be slow and be spread over many stages. Harmonisation of the minimum excise duty rates for diesel fuel and unleaded petrol should also be staggered. We should be guided by the general principle of striving to ensure that taxes and excise duties on fuel are kept as low as possible, to avoid driving up inflation and production costs and increasing household expenditure. This is particularly relevant in relation to the new Member States, where earnings are significantly lower.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all I would like to thank you for the comments and views expressed during the debate.
Obtaining a positive opinion from Parliament on the Commission's proposal for special tax arrangements for commercial diesel is very important. However, we have taken note that your report is less ambitious compared to the Commission proposal, in particular by not endorsing the revalorisation of the overall minimum tax levels applicable to diesel and unleaded petrol.
I have not lost sight of economic rationale. On the contrary: economic rationale speaks against the extra millions of kilometres and also the extra tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which are the result of fuel tourism. I have to take into consideration - and we all have to take into consideration - the growing threat of what climate change and global warming mean for mankind. This threat is even much more alarming than inflation. As far as the proposed increase of excise duty is concerned, it will not generate inflation. It will just keep up with the expected inflation of 2.2% a year until 2017.
While the Commission can accept Amendment 1 in part and Amendments 7 and 27 in principle, we have to formally reject the other amendments. The Commission will not formally amend this proposal. We will, however, endeavour to take the amendments suggested by Parliament into consideration as much as possible during deliberations in the Council. A positive opinion from Parliament will be an important signal of the increasing awareness of the growing negative impact on the environment of transport, which we have to address through fuel taxation.
rapporteur. - (SV) Mr President, thank you for your kind words. I think that thanks are also due to the Commission and our committee secretariat.
I thought at first that the Commissioner did not seem really to accept the committee's views. I can understand that on formal grounds. Now, when I heard the Commission again, I thought I detected an understanding of the notion that politics is politics. I recognise that we could have been more ambitious. The Commissioner uses the phrase 'less ambitious'. Yes, but listen to this debate from left to right and upwards and downwards. All points of view were expressed, and then we had Mrs Lulling sitting in the middle. Commissioner, it is on the basis of political reality, as you are indeed aware, that we had to formulate a report and a proposal which will land on your desk. Now a report from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs will arrive, let us hope tomorrow, which will not go entirely your way and which you cannot accept in all respects, but it will be a report.
Finally, I would like to say to the Commissioner that I nevertheless believe we have made progress - if we get a positive result tomorrow - in ending the confrontation which has taken place on these matters between the committee, Parliament and the Commission, and the Council too. Just as you say, we need to take action on fuel tourism for the sake of the internal market. That is quite correct, but we must also prepare drastic and forceful measures for the environment. There must be an understanding of such measures throughout our Union, and I believe that we have succeeded in finding the right balance.
(FR) Mr President, I wish to ask for the floor on a personal matter. Mr Turmes called me a junkie. I feel this is an insult to me and I call on him to withdraw his remark.
In relation to the matter in hand, I can firmly state that my party and my government fully support the compromise proposed by our rapporteur, to which I made a substantial contribution. Mr Turmes, moreover, seems to forget that gas oil is currently less expensive in Belgium than in Luxembourg and that any petrol pump tourists there may be are not heading for Luxembourg, but for Belgium at this point in time.
Very well. We note what Mrs Lulling has said, and I am sure that the statements made in this House will be clarified.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 13 March 2008.


3. Burma - conduct of elections and the release of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi
The next item is the debate on seven motions for resolutions on Burma - conduct of elections and the release of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
Madam President, we sometimes have good news, even in emergency situations. I would therefore like everyone to remember the emotion that overcame us when we saw the liberation of Aung San Suu Kyi on the television. It is true that we have a particular link with this remarkable woman, who won one of the first Sakharov Prizes here, in 1990, and who, over 20 or 21 years of her life, spent nearly 15 years in prison. She is the symbol of a political woman who can remain in a tough country like Burma, free and always showing resistance. It is absolutely extraordinary.
However, this event must not make us forget, first of all, that her freedom is fragile. She has already been freed before and then put under house arrest again. Second, let us not forget that the elections that have just taken place in Burma were really a farce, a travesty of democracy. Before the elections, laws were voted in to repress freedom of expression. Some people, such as monks, were prevented from being able to vote. There are still 22 000 prisoners of conscience in Burma today, and it remains one of the worst dictatorships in the world.
We therefore ask the Burmese authorities to respect rights of association and freedom of expression and to free political prisoners, and we trust this remarkable woman, whom we are awaiting in the European Parliament, or whom we will visit if she cannot receive her Sakharov Prize, to maintain a spirit of freedom in this shattered country.
author. - Madam President, on 13 November, less than a week after the disputed national elections had been held, Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest after spending 15 of the last 21 years effectively imprisoned for her pro-democracy thoughts.
As an Iranian woman said in the movie The Green Wave, after being released from Evin prison in Tehran: 'The moment I stepped outside I realised I had just moved from a small prison to a bigger one: that prison is called Iran'.
People should not live in small or big prisons for their thoughts. The EU will see to and encourage further freedoms for all Burmese citizens and remains concerned about Aung San Suu Kyi's wellbeing and safety, as she is being kept under surveillance by state security services.
The welcome move of her release needs to be reflected in further expansions of freedoms to all citizens, which are systematically curbed through the 2008 constitution and the military junta. Elections such as those which took place in Burma this month, even if held in a climate of fear and repression, are often used by regimes to claim legitimacy and to suggest that a democracy is in place. However, any government derives its legitimacy from providing for the wellbeing of its citizens, and democracy is always more than 'one man, one vote'. It is enshrined in democratic institutions, good governance, the rule of law and respect for human rights.
Madam President, all those who deluded themselves that the so-called elections organised on 7 November - which were a farce - would bring us closer to democracy in Burma must feel disappointed. It is true that a week after the elections, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi, was released. However, nothing suggests that the same fate will meet the other political prisoners in the country, numbering over two thousand. In fact, several days ago, we received information that the military junta ruling Burma had suspended the publication of a further nine journals, restricting the already limited freedom of speech in that country.
For this reason, further pressure is needed from the international community. First and foremost, the European Union should concentrate on putting pressure on China, as without China, the ruling junta in Burma could not hold on to its power. Finally, I would like to thank Parliament's President, Mr Buzek, for inviting Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi to the Sakharov Prize award ceremony next month in Strasbourg.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the images of the Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi following her release from house arrest are still fresh in our minds. They show a person who is unbowed by years of isolation, leaving us in no doubt that she will continue to campaign for democratic change in her country. Any step in the direction of democratisation and an improvement in the extremely problematical human rights situation is to be welcomed.
However, this is not going to be an easy process. The constitution now in place in Burma, following the undemocratic elections, puts the president above the law and guarantees an amnesty for past human rights violations. This must be criticised in the sharpest terms by the European Union, as must the continued serious human rights violations against ethnic minorities, who are frequently driven from their lands and forced into slave labour, many of their children being recruited as child soldiers.
We must redouble our efforts to bring on board countries that have a significant influence on the government in Burma, such as China and India. We must persuade them to exert their influence in the interests of the people of Burma. They need to implement the undertakings they gave in respect of human rights by ratifying the ASEAN Charter; this charter calls on Member States to take action to combat systematic human rights violations.
Madam President, let us begin with the elections. As we know, and as has already been mentioned here in Parliament, the elections have taken place in a climate of fear and intimidation. They were an utter farce and served no purpose other than to give a civilian gloss to the military junta. Many people were barred from voting. Thousands of Burmese - 1 000 according to the very generals of the military junta - have taken refuge in Thailand, where 100 000 Burmese are already living, and where there are now greater risks of armed conflict along the Burmese border. This serves to remind us that while the release of Aung San Suu Kyi obviously fills us with joy and hope now that we will be able to meet this remarkable woman, as has already been mentioned, and receive her here in Parliament, we cannot divert our attention from the most important matter for Burma, namely, the liberation of an entire people and the more than 2 000 political prisoners, along with the lifting of a general climate of intimidation and fear.
The European Union should not, therefore, lower its guard. We need a great deal of focus, of concentration and of stubbornness: we absolutely must not allow ourselves to be complacent. At this juncture, I believe that it is worth saying that certain Member States need to be firmer and, above all, more consistent in advocating human rights. The businesses that many Member States are continuing to maintain in Burma must be brought into line with the EU's human rights commitments. I recall, for instance, that the oil company TOTAL has holdings in Burma that make up 7% of the Burmese junta's budget. Parliament will continue to be focused and united on this issue, and I hope that the Commission and the Member States will also continue to take this approach.
Madam President, speaking for myself and my colleague, Mrs Andrikienė, we are very pleased to learn that our Sakharov laureate has been released. However, we must not forget that there are still at least 2 200 other political prisoners being held in terrible conditions under the Burmese military dictatorship. As was stated earlier, the whole country is like an open prison. That is why we now need to be very critical and vigilant. Was this all just a cosmetic operation or have the brutally manipulated elections exposed the true nature of the regime? We must now use all the mechanisms available to us to press for change. This change can be regarded as an acid test. We must press for our Sakharov laureate to be allowed to travel here in December to collect her prize after a delay of 20 years and for her to be permitted to return to her homeland unmolested. Only then will we have the slightest cause for hope that things are changing for a people who have been suffering under a corrupt socialist dictatorship for decades.
Madam President, first of all of course, I, too, want to welcome the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposition leader in Burma, after so many years under house arrest. I would also like to express the hope that this release will be followed by the release of more than 2 000 political prisoners because, as Mr Posselt mentioned, we will otherwise view this as just a token gesture.
I must also tell you that I want us to support Aung San Suu Kyi in rebuilding her party, the National League for Democracy, which was illegally disbanded in May. She certainly has a huge job to do. This is why I believe that international pressure must continue because the military junta has not committed to a process of democratisation, but is going in the exact opposite direction to this process, given that the elections held in November were neither free nor fair. This is why I believe that we must not diminish our focus on this area.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Madam President, I am delighted at the level of European Union unity that has been shown on the matter of Burma. I have read the Council statement, Baroness Ashton's statement and indeed our own President's statement. No one has been fooled by these deeply flawed elections in Burma; everyone has welcomed the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest; but everyone has also condemned the lack of other freedoms that is still imposed.
However, Madam President, if we play our cards right, these elections could - and it is a big 'could' - be a new start in Burma. If, as other colleagues have said, we can now persuade the junta to release all political prisoners, if we can persuade the junta to allow Aung San Suu Kyi complete freedom, both in terms of movement and in terms of political public statements, and, finally, if the new Burmese parliament and government start to improve human and fundamental rights in the country, and to improve the social and economic conditions of the people of Burma, then perhaps, in a few years time, there will be grounds for our institutions to start negotiating and engaging with the Burmese regime and to see a better future for that country.
Madam President, what has happened is that the authorities have released one very well-known person, as if to show the world that the country is democratic, that it has become a convert to human rights, while behind the façade, there is nothing; no real, concrete changes. We are dealing with a theatre - and thank God that that noble woman regained her freedom. However, behind this theatre lies a tragedy, as we said; several thousand people who are still in prison. The slogan 'release the political prisoners' therefore still stands in Burma.
I think that the message from the most well-known political prisoner in the region, who has just been released, is so important that it radiates across the whole of Asia. It is to her that Chinese dissidents are already appealing. I think this is worth underlining. For this reason, Parliament must fight for human rights and for the freedom of political refugees in the region.
(RO) Madam President, the European Parliament already requested in February 2010 the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, who had been living under house arrest since 1990. The Burmese authorities' decision to release her a few months after this vital request was made by MEPs marks a first step in the right direction. However, we cannot regard this particular situation as marking a restoration of human rights in Burma, given that there are numerous pro-democracy activists still in prison.
The Treaty of Lisbon stipulates that the European Union strives to promote peace, its values and the wellbeing of its peoples. We understand common values to mean respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy and human rights. It is the European Union's duty not to restrict itself to promoting these values only within its own territory. This is why I urge a message to be conveyed of solidarity with Burma's citizens who are suffering repression from government authorities and fighting a daily battle for respect for their fundamental rights.
(FR) Madam President, on 7 November, the first elections for 20 years took place in Burma. At a time when we should have been able to rejoice at seeing such a process finally implemented, we are once again forced today to condemn this country, in which there should be human rights and freedom of expression, among other things. Elections must be synonymous with the choice that one expresses through a vote.
How can we speak of choice when the opposition parties are not allowed to speak, when they cannot express themselves freely or accurately represent whole populations?
We are talking once again about Burma here, a country which is not free, but which has been in the hands of the military junta for many, many years. As the whole world knows, this is about a fossilised power which will stay that way as long as no genuine free and fair elections are organised.
The liberation of Aung San Suu Kyi is a step in the right direction. We must recognise it and praise it. Let us hope that it can be followed by other actions, as has been said here previously, particularly with regard to the many other political prisoners.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, at the moment, we are all still celebrating the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and we all have in our minds the images of the crowd that enthusiastically welcomed her on her return home, where she met children whom she had left when they were little and who are now more than grown up.
It is a time of great enthusiasm, a celebration for the people and the opposition in Burma, but one fact will certainly emerge from all this. Our interlocutor today is undoubtedly the military junta, which can no longer delay explaining whether the release of Aung San Suu Kyi was an act of propaganda, a stalking horse or, conversely, the first step on the way to recognising her right, and therefore the right of all other Burmese political prisoners, to freedom of expression, and a step towards free and democratic elections.
That is what Europe must request and demand. To our delight at Aung San Suu Kyi's release, we must necessarily add a strong request to that effect.
(PL) Madam President, we all remember the years when Lech Wałęsa was released from prison and when Nelson Mandela was released after so many years. It gave hope; hope for a free world, that all the pressure on those governments had had an effect. The release of the Burmese opposition leader, Mrs San Suu Kyi, is also a great challenge for us. Without the efforts of the international community, without pressure being exerted on the ruling junta in Burma, democracy will not reign there. I remember the times when the leaders of the free world came to Poland during the Communist dictatorship, and all of them, alongside official visits, also visited the leader of the underground movement, Lech Wałęsa. This policy should also be followed now. I am pleased that Mrs Ashton will soon go to Burma and meet Mrs San Suu Kyi. I also hope that a European Parliament delegation will soon be able to speak with her in Burma and Strasbourg.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, like all of us, I would like to pay homage to Aung San Suu Kyi, whose freedom has just been restored. Awarded the Nobel Prize and Parliament's Sakharov Prize, she remains a symbol of fortitude and hope for the better future which the people of her country deserve.
It is essential that Aung San Suu Kyi has unrestricted freedom of movement and speech. It is equally essential that all remaining political prisoners be set free - more than 2 000 of them, according to Mr Posselt and Mr Preda. This would allow for a credible transition to a more inclusive system of government.
Burma/Myanmar has seen elections which were not up to international standards, notably as far as conditions for competing opposition parties were concerned. However, the fact that civil society could partially organise itself politically is welcome, notwithstanding the difficulties. We acknowledge the decision of certain opposition parties not to participate, but also the fact that some other parties, including from ethnic groups, did participate. Their resolve to seize what they saw as an opportunity was commendable.
Elections in themselves do not make a country democratic. Nevertheless, they can offer the opportunity for a new beginning and they do, at least, introduce a degree of pluralism into the system. In spite of the evident flaws, if the elections mark the beginning of a positive process, this will be a welcome development.
We have repeatedly said that the EU was willing to engage with the government in order to use the opportunity of elections to begin a new and positive phase in the history of the country. From now on, we need to observe closely how accountable the new parliament and government will be to society; whether the new institutions will ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and whether they will deliver better policies to improve the economic and social situation of the citizens.
To improve the human rights situation in the country, a meaningful dialogue between all stakeholders must be established. Such a dialogue should usher in - apart from the long overdue transition to a civilian, legitimate and accountable system of government - a political system based on the rule of law and on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The EU has repeatedly stated that it stands ready to support such a process.
We will continue to use all the means at our disposal - dialogue and engagement, United Nations channels and restrictive measures, but also assistance - to help persuade the new government to improve its record. Human rights aspects are built into our aid programmes. Moreover, we seek links with civil society and parts of the administration and we will try to engage with the government on its responsibilities for attaining the Millennium Development Goals. Promoting our values - namely human rights, development and dialogue - is, and will remain, the cornerstone of our policy.
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 149)
in writing. - I welcome the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest by the Burmese authorities. However, we should not ease our stance against the military junta. Instead, we should continue addressing the violations of human rights and civil liberties as vigorously as ever. The fact that there are 2 200 political prisoners lingering in appalling conditions in detention facilities and that the Burmese military is responsible for continuing extrajudicial killings, forced labour, sexual violence and other human rights violations cannot be undone by releasing one political activist, no matter how prominent. Aung San Suu Kyi, recipient of the Sakharov Prize in 1990, has famously asked us to use our liberty to promote theirs. I would like to use this opportunity to call on the EU and its Member States to use its full economic and political influence to speed up the regime transition in Burma.
in writing. - The situation in Burma has come to a critical juncture. It is important that the European Parliament stays the course with its relations with Burma. We need to focus on the government's treatment of the citizens when 40% of the population belongs to an ethnic minority that was forced to flee to Thailand after the recent election. The release of Aung San Suu Kyi is a positive. However, history has shown us that the Burmese Government has a habit of reverting back to its old ways where any or all opposition is imprisoned. Currently, more than 1 000 'political prisoners' are still being held. The blatant disregard for free elections is a clear indication that the new government has little or no interest in providing a true democracy for the people of Burma. The UN proposal for further dialogue with Burma should be supported by this Parliament and we should continue our efforts to protect all the citizens of Burma from future injustices. It is my belief that our steady vigilance and open dialogue is crucial to the people of Burma and a clear signal of unity among this Parliament and other global organisations must be sent.


Resumption of the session
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday, 20 January 2011.


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes