Пълен протокол на разискванията

Сряда, 8 юли 2015 г. - Страсбург

16. Преглед на европейската политика за съседство (разискване)

  Presidente. – La seduta è ripresa. Ringrazio ancora il Commissario Hahn per il gran lavoro svolto in questa giornata. È presente in Aula da oltre cinque ore, per cui veramente grazie.

L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione di Eduard Kukan, a nome della commissione per gli affari esteri, sulla revisione della politica europea di vicinato ((2015/2002(INI)) (A8-0194/2015).

  Eduard Kukan, rapporteur. – Mr President, the European Union needs a more strategic, ambitious and forward-looking neighbourhood policy. Setting this policy right is currently one of the greatest challenges in the EU’s external relations. It is in our interest to have a stable, secure, prosperous and democratic neighbourhood. I call therefore in my report for us to go back to basics, to reinforce the creation of an area of prosperity, stability and good neighbourliness.

We are facing new challenges in our neighbourhood: the crisis in Ukraine, developments in the southern and eastern neighbourhood, migration, terrorism, energy security. In a situation like that, the EU needs to be able to react promptly to changing realities. More than ever, we need a politically- driven neighbourhood policy. The EU needs to show leadership and vision. We need to be aware of the diversity of our neighbourhood but, at the same time, keep the single policy framework.

It is understandable that countries in our neighbourhood have different ambitions and expectations. We need to be ready to differentiate between the partners but expect results in the shape of reforms from those who show a clear interest in closer relations with the EU.

Faced with numerous crises, we need to use our foreign policy instruments in a more flexible way. We should be able to mobilise sufficient resources through our financing instruments. I call, therefore, for this policy review to be reflected in the mid-term review of the external financing instruments. More importantly, our know-how may often be more important than money. We need to look at the possibility of using it more efficiently in processes of state-building, transformation, democratisation or conflict resolution.

Support for democracy, human rights and the rule of law needs to stay at the heart of the reviewed policy. We need to strengthen partnership with the societies in neighbourhood countries and promote the values which are at the core of the Union. The reviewed policy needs to include numerous aspects of security. Therefore, I propose including support for capacity-building and state structures able to deal with the security threats in countries affected.

We also need to strengthen our partners economically. The EU is the model for economic development but also provides the opportunities for neighbouring countries to broaden their markets. Therefore, we have to be open to closer economic integration with our neighbourhood partners.

The EU is a successful project of regional integration and as such should be at the forefront of supporting regional cooperation. We have a great deal of experience which can help our neighbours to work and come closer together. I support strengthening the platforms for such cooperation like the Eastern Partnership and the Union for the Mediterranean, but also cooperation at the lower level of local and regional authorities. As the saying goes, we do not choose our neighbours but we can choose the relations we build with them, so let us do just that.

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you once again for giving me a break; this is old collegiality between Commissioners. I would also like to thank all of you for the opportunity to come and discuss with you the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and I am particularly grateful to Eduard Kukan and also to the shadow rapporteurs for their hard work in bringing together the views of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on such an important issue.

We have just come to the end of our public consultation on the ENP review based on the joint communication we published in March. The Vice-President/High Representative, myself and our teams have held consultations with Member States, national parliaments, partner countries, civil society, social partners, local and regional government, businesses, think tanks and academia. It is not often that Europe’s foreign policy is opened up to such a widespread debate. Of course, consultation, views and advice from Parliament have been a key part of this process, and I have greatly appreciated the opportunity for me and also my officials to meet you on several occasions to share information and ideas.

In the consultation there has been a great consensus that events in the eastern neighbourhood and in the southern Mediterranean demand a new approach to the ENP. We need to rethink our approach and put our partnership on a new footing. Your own reflections have underlined the need for greater differentiation in the way we work with partners. This is a principle that has found a positive echo among our partners and with Member States. We need to find the right formula for each of our partners in a way that serves our own interests and theirs. It is clearer now even than it was at the start of the review that we need to work closely with our neighbours on common challenges such as migration, terrorism, extremism and energy security.

This year, 2015, has given us ample proof that this partnership cannot be a one-way street but must be one based on mutual interests and need. Some of these partners are seeking a close integration with us and some do not currently have this aspiration. This is the reality to which we must adapt our policy. We need to identify how we can show our relevance to this diverse range of partners while at the same time remaining true to our fundamentals. Our aim is a prosperous stable neighbourhood. We will continue to support democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and efficient and accountable public institutions as essential ingredients for the neighbourhood we want to see.

When I visit our partner countries I make a point of ensuring that I visit civil society organisations. I believe that they play an essential role both in ensuring accountability and the fair development of their societies and in providing vital advice to the European Union. Where we have successful cooperation in place we should pursue it, but we will aim to be more responsive and more flexible in how we can support those wrestling with painful reforms. We will work harder to make sure that our support is coordinated so that each country can draw maximum benefit from the help on offer from the EU and its Member States.

Where partner countries want a more focused agenda of cooperation, we should be ready to offer this. I believe there are some key areas that are emerging as the natural focus for some of our partners: economic growth and decent job opportunities, particularly for the young; promoting business links in targeted sectors; circular migration that offers opportunity without draining talent permanently away from home, alongside the continuing efforts to tackle the challenges of irregular migration. We must do all we can to make sure that all our foreign policy and security tools are brought together to help resolve conflict and develop the resilience of our partners. Where we can, we must reach out for partners beyond the neighbourhood who share the EU’s interest in stability and development. So I am looking forward to hearing your views on these and other key elements of the review.

  Cristian Dan Preda, în numele grupului PPE. – Domnule președinte, aș vrea să încep prin a-l felicita pe colegul meu, Eduard Kukan, pentru un raport excelent! E un raport care analizează limitele politicii europene de vecinătate, cea pe care o avem azi la dispoziție, și propune, de asemenea, o viziune despre ceea ce politica europeană de vecinătate ar trebui să fie. Și cred că aici e principala noastră problemă - avem nevoie de o viziune strategică asupra relației Uniunii cu vecinătatea atât sudică, cât și estică. Ambele se confruntă cu provocări excepționale în termeni economici, politici, de securitate și, pentru a putea răspunde acestor provocări, politica de vecinătate trebuie să fie strategică, focalizată, flexibilă, coerentă și să aibă o clară direcție politică.

În particular, cred că trebuie să avem o coordonare foarte bună între politica noastră externă și de securitate și, respectiv, politica de vecinătate. Avem nevoie, altfel spus, de un calibraj fin al principiilor diferențierii și, respectiv, more for more. Partenerii noștri care își doresc un nivel avansat de angajare cu Uniunea și care fac eforturi pe calea reformelor – asemenea Moldovei – trebuie să fie răsplătiți. Perspectiva de a deveni membru al Uniunii e cel mai important catalizator al reformelor. Nu trebuie să uităm acest lucru.

Pe de altă parte, susținerea democrației, a statului de drept, a bunei guvernări trebuie să fie nucleul de forță al politicii europene revizuite. A avea o viziune despre politica europeană de vecinătate nu e suficient. E nevoie de resurse care să corespundă ambițiilor noastre pentru a ne angaja cu adevărat mai mult în politica de vecinătate. Numai în acest fel vom avea o politică eficace – în fond, un lucru indispensabil pentru politica externă credibilă pe care ne-o dorim.

  Andi Cristea, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, our neighbourhood is less stable than ever before, and the divergence of aspirations of our partners has never been greater. It is clear that we need to rethink our policy. Looking at the security dimension today, conflicts are a reality to both the east and the south. So far we have decoupled the security issue from everything else, but security – even if outside the remit of the ENP – has an impact on the building of a well-functioning state and associated reforms. We need closer coordination between the ENP, the CFCP, the CSDP and development policy. The EU needs an approach which mobilises all available instruments and resources in a coherent way.

On the issue of ambitions and membership perspectives, countries to the east have made radically different choices on their relations with the EU. We have to acknowledge this important change, and this can only mean one thing: we need to do more for those which have real and tangible European ambitions and have decided on the European path.

This report also establishes a strong position on the false dilemma between values and interests. Democracy, the rule of law and human rights are in the interest of neighbouring societies as much as our own in terms of stability, security and prosperity. The social, labour and gender dimensions of the ENP have a crucial role to play in this regard.

Let me conclude by thanking the rapporteur and colleagues. We were able to build convergence on the way ahead, and I am confident that, with tomorrow’s vote, we will be sending to the Commission a strong and ambitious text.

  Marek Jurek, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Wielki polski pisarz polityczny i premier naszego rządu Stanisław Mackiewicz mówił, że polityka to jest sztuka odróżniania rzeczy ważnych od nieważnych. Zasadniczym priorytetem naszej polityki sąsiedztwa musi być umacnianie niepodległości i narodowego charakteru państw, które powstały na wschodzie Europy po rozpadzie Związku Sowieckiego. Oczywiście ktoś powie, że to jest jeden z dwóch głównych, a nie jedyny kierunek polityki sąsiedztwa, ale polityka, która nie potrafi wybrać i wskazać priorytetu, w ogóle polityką nie jest.

Mamy wiele do zrobienia nie tylko w sferze politycznej; umocnienie niepodległości Ukrainy to również problem odrodzenia jej kultury, umocnienie niepodległości Gruzji to problem rządów prawa, nie mówiąc o Białorusi, gdzie w ogóle toczy się walka o język narodowy. Jeżeli nie będziemy potrafili podjąć się tych zadań, tak naprawdę nie wypełnimy celów, które stawiamy przed sobą, mówiąc o polityce sąsiedztwa.

  Petras Auštrevičius, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate our colleague, Eduard Kukan, on his report and thank him for his work. I really enjoyed working as co-shadow from the ALDE Group. As a result, we now have serious input from Parliament into the review process to be finalised by the Commission and the External Action Service.

The European Union’s neighbourhood today is more complex, challenging and fragmented than ever. It would not be fair to blame the Neighbourhood Policy for all this. The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) was the right and timely response after the EU enlargement and accomplished a lot, in Eastern Europe in particular. Equally, we need a right and solid response at this stage.

With all the positive things that I have to say regarding our joint work on the report, I must say, however, that I had wished for a more clear conceptual split into two dimensions of the European Neighbourhood Policy – the Eastern Partnership and the Southern Neighbourhood. I remain convinced that these two dimensions should be separated and allowed to develop in their own distinct direction and with no rivalry whatsoever. This split is dictated by reality on the ground and the processes that take place.

Nevertheless, when it comes to the main principles of our new neighbourhood policy and our report, I believe that the ENP has to be ambitious, proactive and policy-driven in the first place. Anything else would be seen as the EU’s withdrawal, and this area would be used as a playing field for third countries, the neighbours of our neighbours right on our doorstep – the doorstep where our security, as well as insecurity, is placed. As we all agree, the differentiation principle is becoming key in the ENP.

For countries in conflict, the EU should focus on conflict resolution, humanitarian work, migration and refugee challenges.

The second group of our neighbours is those which currently have less interest in closer relations or in making long-term reforms. Here I believe the EU should place greater emphasis on better governance and building sustainable, democratic and stable countries.

The third group of our partners are those seeking an advanced level of engagement with the EU. These are Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, our associated members. It is clear that they are far from ready for membership today and that they need to focus very seriously on implementation of the Association Agreements. We cannot deny their membership perspective in the long term. The Association Agreements are clearly not the final step in relations between the EU and these advanced neighbours. This is certainly in the EU’s interest.

  Helmut Scholz, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Mit ihrem Diskussionspapier zur Neuausrichtung der Nachbarschaftspolitik hat die Kommission richtige Fragen aufgeworfen, zum Beispiel die nach der Berücksichtigung der gesellschaftlichen Bedingungen und Interessen der Partnerländer oder die nach der Einbindung der Nachbarn der Nachbarn. Sie konstatiert mit ihrem Papier auch indirekt das Scheitern des bisherigen Konzepts der EU-Politik in der unmittelbaren Nachbarschaft – in beide Richtungen, nach Süden wie nach Osten. Zweifellos ein Stück Realpolitik in der Fragestellung, vor deren schlüssiger Beantwortung sich allerdings der AFET-Ausschuss entgegen dem Ausgangspunkt des Berichterstatters im Arbeitsdokument des Herrn Kollegen Kukan weggeduckt hat, als sähe die Mehrheit des Ausschusses das bisherige Scheitern der Nachbarschaftspolitik nicht oder unzureichend und wolle in der geliebten Routine von Standardberichten und —debatten verharren.

Ich bin für ein Anknüpfen an die konkreten gesellschaftlichen Bedingungen der Partner an die dortigen Entwicklungen, die begleitet sind von enormen gesellschaftlichen und kulturellen Herausforderungen. Begleitet von nationalen, ethnischen, religiösen und ideologischen Widersprüchen, von gravierenden sozialen Problemen, Arbeitslosigkeit und Armut, von erheblicher Abwanderung qualifizierter Menschen aus den Nachbarländern.

Die unverändert weitverbreitete Korruption, die das Wirtschafts- und gesellschaftliche Zusammenleben der Staaten zerfrisst und das letzte Vertrauen der Menschen in staatliche Strukturen nur weiter aushöhlt, sowie die anderen Menschenrechtsverletzungen erfordern den grundlegenden Strategiewechsel der europäischen Nachbarschaftspolitik.

Als Beispiel sei genannt im Osten die Situation in der und um die Ukraine, die eingefrorenen Konflikte zum Beispiel in Transnistrien, Abchasien und Bergkarabach. Damit erübrigen sich aber genau die Politikstandards und ihre Konditionalisierung, wie sie im Bericht mantrahaft fortgedacht sind.

Ich bin auch für den Ansatz eines Interessenausgleichs mit den Ländern der Nachbarschaft als Grundlage der ENP sowie für die Einbeziehung von deren Nachbarn. Das wiederum würde uns zurückführen zu den in der Schlussakte von Helsinki verabredeten Völkerrechtsnormen der Zusammenarbeit, und zwar in ihrer Komplexität der politischen, wirtschaftlichen, kulturellen und menschenrechtlichen Dimension.

Als Antwort auf Ihre Fragen in der Konsultation, Herr Kommissar, meine ich, sollten wir auch im Rahmen der ENP entschlossen den Weg in Richtung einer KSZE beziehungsweise OSZE 2.0 einschlagen und dafür konstruktive und gegenseitig annehmbare Vorschläge unterbreiten. Warum nicht endlich konsequent einen Neuanfang wagen?

Die Politik gegenüber der Nachbarschaft muss Teil des auswärtigen Wirkens der EU sein, das sich an dem Erfordernis einer Zusammenarbeit zum gegenseitigen Vorteil ausrichtet und nicht nach der Logik allein eines Binnenmarkts abgewickelt wird.

  Tamás Meszerics, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Kukan for the exemplary collegial and cooperative attitude with which he steered through a difficult and wide-ranging report. I personally enjoyed our work immensely and I thank you for that, Mr Kukan, together with the shadow rapporteurs.

I rarely enjoy the luxury of two-and-a-half minutes’ leisurely time, but nevertheless I want to concentrate on one aspect which unfortunately was left out of the report. I would like to try to convince those who are still with me on the merits of it. We are all supportive of differentiation, flexibility, efficacy and coherence in our policies towards our neighbours. This is natural for us as well. We offer our full support for all measures that could strengthen our common policies. However, the valued principle of ‘more for more’ squares badly with conditionality and coherence once we observe that some of our neighbours happen to backtrack on development towards democracy.

What are the options that we are left with if one of the neighbouring countries happens to imprison some political opponents or threaten them with the death penalty? As much as we like soft power – and its best expression is ‘more for more’, and we agree on that – unless we are able to say that we are going to offer less for less if backtracking takes place, then our policies are not going to be highly coherent. This is very important because our neighbourhood policies, as the report itself shows, have produced mixed results at best in the last couple of years. The failed state of Libya and the less-than-half success of the Eastern Partnership show that the new challenges in our immediate environment need new responses. These new responses are enumerated in the report and we offer support for all those measures. I would like to end by asking colleagues to support this report with their votes.

  James Carver, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), on the surface, claims to have aims of fostering peace, democracy and human rights in the European Union’s neighbouring countries. Whilst this is a noble aim, western intervention, as we already know, has hardly worked wonders in either the Middle East, Ukraine or North Africa. The ENP essentially amounts to the European Union using hard-pressed taxpayers’ money to foster – or, as some might even say, buy – influence to move countries closer to European Union membership.

With a cost of EUR 15.4 billion, might I respectfully suggest that, rather than looking outwards – and bearing in mind the current situation in Greece, which we have all heard about with vested interest today in Parliament – instead, the European Union would do better to put its own house in order first before seeking to expand its tentacles further.

  Andrej Plenković (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, gospodine povjereniče Johannes, prije svega hvala vam na uvodnom izlaganju i na predstavljanju politike susjedstva, reforme koju radite, rekao bih, cijelu ovu godinu. Ali za cijeli vaš mandat i za naslijeđe vašeg mandata na dužnosti povjerenika za proširenje i susjedstvo još jednom ću ponoviti: vjerodostojnost vanjske politike Europske unije kao globalnog aktera doslovno se lomi na našoj učinkovitosti u našem najbližem susjedstvu, bilo da je riječ o istočnom susjedstvu ili Sredozemlju pa evo i Bliskom istoku, kao što smo malo prije govorili na točci ranije.

Zahvaljujem mom prijatelju i kolegi Eduardu Kukanu na predanom radu u izradi ovoga izvješća, koje je glavni dokument kojim mi, Parlament, dajemo doprinos vašem procesu konzultacije i reviziji politike susjedstva koju radite i koja će, nadam se, biti završena ove jeseni.

Ono što mi se čini ključnim i za što možemo reći da smo naučili svojevrsne lekcije u proteklih 10-15 godina, individualni je pristup svakoj od zemalja koje su uključene u susjedsku politiku Europske unije. Vrlo su specifične krize koje danas pogađaju i istok i Mediteran. Glede Istočnog partnerstva čini mi se da je diferencijacija vrlo jasna. Moramo podržati ambiciju onih zemalja koje žele prema Europskoj uniji i razumjeti da druge zemlje u ovom trenutku taj izbor nisu napravile. Ali to ne znači da ne trebamo staviti na raspolaganje naše instrumente, ugovorne ili financijske, da se ti odnosi i povjerenje poboljšaju.

Kada je riječ o južnom susjedstvu vrlo sam sklon tome da pokušamo, unatoč teškim okolnostima, reaktivirati na određeni način Uniju za Mediteran, koja je bila jedna kvalitetna i dobra ideja, ali u smislu zastoja bliskoistočnog mirovnog procesa ili nove krize, nije joj omogućeno da se razvije. U tom pogledu, povjereniče Hahn, uz ovo izvješće kolege Kukana, imat ćete našu potporu da ova politika postane snažan alat vanjske politike Europske unije.

  Richard Howitt (S&D). – Mr President, announcing the review of neighbourhood policy, High Representative/Vice-President Mogherini said ‘our region is in flames’. In this debate, we are saying that we must not only continue trying to extinguish the flames, but we must also be better at stopping the fire from starting in the first place.

It is true to say that, in the past, Europe has too often made the assumption that there would be steady, if sometimes slow, trends towards modernisation, reform and democratic development in our neighbourhood. But what we have seen, whether in Ukraine or in the stalled Arab uprisings, are sudden shocks and reverses which require Europe’s neighbourhood policy to have a much greater emphasis on and capacity for fast—moving political intervention and diplomacy. We also recognise that five of the six eastern partners are now confronted with unresolved or frozen conflicts, which require such intervention too.

I support some of the principles emerging from the review. For countries which themselves choose to come closer to the EU – Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Tunisia and Morocco – yes, let us intensify our relations in a more differentiated approach, recognising the challenges that they still face. We say we want more people-to-people contact, more public diplomacy and more civil society dialogue. Frankly, we also need a sea change to massively increase this element of the policy compared to the past.

‘More for more’ is a good policy which should be maintained, but let us recognise that the incentives which we offered were insufficient. And, as we have just heard, the revised policy must also address the challenge of ‘less for less’. We need to be self-aware when we say at the same time that we want more partnership and local ownership but also that we want a better, more focused, defence of European interests and values.

But I do have some fears that the journey from Vilnius to Riga means that this review is actually cover for reducing the ambition behind our European Neighbourhood Policy, and that so-called enlargement fatigue means there is a retrenchment of membership prospects for the countries in our neighbourhood. Both of these dangers must be resisted.

So often I hear colleagues in this Chamber advocate a strong European common foreign and security policy, with Europe as a global player. The truth is that there can never be true respect for Europe’s global role if we cannot play a more dynamic and effective role in dealing with the problems of our very own neighbourhood. That is an argument for a more ambitious neighbourhood policy. Commissioner, you will have our support if this is the choice you make.

Finally, we have let down those brave protesters on the Maidan. There are people in that country, and across the neighbourhood, who look to us in Europe. We should have the same high expectations of ourselves as those people have of us.

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Kiedy tworzona była europejska polityka sąsiedztwa, sytuacja na wschodzie czy południu Europy była zupełnie inna niż dzisiaj. Na Wschodzie mamy do czynienia z wojną hybrydową prowadzoną przez Rosję przeciwko Ukrainie oraz byliśmy świadkami aneksji Krymu. Rosjanie również aktywnie grają na konflikty w przypadku Gruzji i Mołdawii, gdzie są albo czynną stroną, albo prowadzą taką politykę, którą wykorzystują do własnych politycznych celów. A na Południu mamy do czynienia z konfliktem w Syrii oraz ofensywą ISIS -- barbarzyńskiej organizacji opanowującej coraz większe terytoria.

Dlatego dzisiaj, kiedy debatujemy o reformie polityki sąsiedztwa, powinniśmy robić wszystko, aby utrzymać po pierwsze zdecydowane spójne i asertywne stanowisko Unii Europejskiej wobec Moskwy i bronić naszych interesów, zarówno na Wschodzie, jak i na Południu, ale aby tak się stało potrzebna jest znacznie bardziej aktywna i skuteczniejsza unijna dyplomacja, działalność unijnej dyplomacji, o co z tego miejsca apeluję i o co z tego miejsca proszę.

  Javier Couso Permuy (GUE/NGL). – Señor Presidente, era necesaria una revisión de la política de vecindad. Su fracaso es evidente. Hubo momentos en los cuales pensábamos que iba en una gran dirección, pero creemos que, al final, no ha sido así. Seguimos con una visión eurocéntrica y asimétrica. Nuestro modelo de democracia es el mejor y el que hay que imponer, y seguimos manteniendo ausencia de autocrítica sobre el papel de la Unión Europea. Por no hablar del enfoque de los incentivos, la recompensa a nuestros socios eficaces o a aquellos que hagan las reformas que nosotros queremos. Tiene un tufillo neocolonial.

La Unión Europea sigue buscando una estabilidad basada en las relaciones con las élites políticas, a las que perdonamos cualquier cosa con tal de mantener esa estabilidad. Muchas veces esa estabilidad es la pax romana, la paz de los cementerios. Tenemos una política europea de seguridad común subordinada a las políticas de los Estados Unidos y de la OTAN, y sí, se habla de desestabilización en nuestra vecindad, pero no llegamos a referirnos a nuestra responsabilidad. Y la tenemos, por desgracia: las intervenciones o la venta de armas a determinados regímenes. Podemos hablar de Libia: acción unilateral, improvisada y que ha contribuido a crear un caos total en la región. ¿Qué tenemos ahora mismo? Tenemos un Estado fallido, dos Gobiernos. Y queremos tirar por los atajos, los atajos bélicos, los atajos represivos. Y nosotros pensamos que se debe seguir con los esfuerzos regionales. Hay que contar con los vecinos, con Argelia y con Túnez, para apoyar un diálogo nacional y seguir apoyando también al Enviado Especial de las Naciones Unidas.

Siria: jugamos a ser dioses, otra vez. Desestabilizamos el país y contribuimos al surgimiento del mayor grupo terrorista que amenaza no solo a toda la región, sino también a nosotros: el Daesh, que ocupa partes de Siria y partes de Irak. Ya es hora de trabajar con el Gobierno sirio y en clave regional. Hay que hacer caso al señor de Mistura y presionar a nuestros aliados, esos de los que hablábamos antes, Arabia Saudí o Turquía, por desgracia, demasiado laxos con estos terroristas. No se puede acabar con ningún grupo terrorista solo con bombardeos.

Y, por último lugar, para ir acabando, nos da mucha pena que haya desaparecido el Sáhara Occidental y, por contra, se hable de Marruecos en estos términos. Porque Marruecos es el principal receptor de fondos de la política europea de vecindad de la Unión Europea, pero, en cambio, no se habla de la ocupación del Sáhara Occidental. Ningún Estado del mundo reconoce la soberanía de Marruecos sobre el Sáhara Occidental y la Unión Europea, por desgracia, sigue siendo de facto cómplice y colaboradora de la ocupación marroquí.

  Ernest Urtasun (Verts/ALE). – Señor Presidente, yo creo que es muy evidente que los instrumentos de vecindad de los cuales se había dotado la Unión Europea no eran suficientes y no funcionaban bien, y no fuimos capaces de reaccionar cuando en el sur se produjeron las revoluciones árabes. Yo creo que eso es muy evidente.

También debemos hacer una reflexión acerca de cómo han ido a lo largo de todos estos años nuestras relaciones, y yo creo que hay un pilar que debemos abordar de forma absolutamente crucial, que es el hecho de que tenemos unos acuerdos comerciales con estos países que han dañado el desarrollo económico de todo el sur del Mediterráneo. Yo creo que eso es una cosa sobre la que como europeos debemos hacer absolutamente autocrítica.

La revisión de la política europea de vecindad yo creo que es crucial. Debemos ver todas estas cosas. A nosotros, evidentemente, nos preocupa, por ejemplo, que no dejemos abandonados a todos aquellos jóvenes que durante tantos meses y durante incluso años han estado en la calle. A mí me preocupa particularmente que en Egipto haya una regresión de lo que había sido una aspiración democrática, una cierta vuelta de un régimen totalitario, y que no seamos capaces de reaccionar ante eso, que nos acomodemos y que no lo afrontemos.

Y también quiero decir que me preocupa la situación en Túnez. Yo creo que debemos ser capaces de hacer una política en estos momentos que permita que la transición democrática y que la consolidación democrática de Túnez funcione.

Y, finalmente, termino diciendo que debemos ver un poco también cómo funcionan nuestros instrumentos, ser capaces de mejorar esos instrumentos, y, desde este punto de vista, quiero remarcar el papel que debe jugar, sin duda, la Secretaría de la UPM —en Barcelona— y que examinemos todos los proyectos que está desarrollando, ya sea en materia de energía o en materia de apoyo a la sociedad civil, y cómo pueden encajar con la dimensión regional de la política de vecindad. Porque tenemos en estos momentos demasiada duplicación de instrumentos y este es uno muy central, por el cual yo creo que debemos apostar y trabajar. Con esta última reflexión desearía terminar mi intervención.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señor Presidente, yo quiero destacar la importancia de la política de vecindad y lo oportuno de este informe del señor Kukan, a quien quiero felicitar. Porque en él podrá encontrar, señor Comisario —como la señora Mogherini también—, respuestas a los interrogantes que plantearon en la comunicación o cuestionario que lanzaron hace unos meses con vistas a la actualización de la política de vecindad.

Creo que es necesaria una política de vecindad ambiciosa, entendida como un compromiso estratégico a largo y medio plazo, no una mera gestión de crisis; una política de vecindad realista, diferenciada según los países, en diálogo con ellos, no impuesta. En este sentido, por ejemplo, celebro la reciente reunión en Barcelona —si recuerdo bien, fue en abril— de los Ministros de Exteriores de los países de la vecindad sur con los países de la Unión Europea. Lo lamentable es que haya tardado siete años. Necesitamos también una política de vecindad que tenga en cuenta los intereses de las partes implicadas, sus necesidades, sin olvidar, desde luego, ni nuestros valores ni, lógicamente, nuestros intereses.

Estamos en un momento crucial de nuestra vecindad. Ya se ha dicho: tanto en el este como en el sur tenemos escenarios muy complejos. Tenemos que ser activos, disponer de instrumentos y medios suficientes, dialogar —insisto— con los países vecinos y ayudarles, a menudo, en el plano institucional, pues sus estructuras, generalmente, sus estructuras institucionales o políticas, son débiles o insuficientes.

Yo creo que tenemos que tener una visión no puramente defensiva de la vecindad. Somos interdependientes, su seguridad y su prosperidad también es la nuestra. Muchos de estos países disponen de una población joven y abundan en recursos, también energéticos. Los necesitamos. Y, por ende, soy partidario de una visión también positiva de la vecindad. No nos podemos dejar llevar ni por el pesimismo ni por los graves problemas que afectan ahora a estas regiones vecinas.

Finalmente, debemos fortalecer las instituciones de las que nos hemos dotado. Me estoy refiriendo a la Unión para el Mediterráneo, a la Asociación Oriental y a otras estructuras regionales y subregionales. Afortunadamente, muchas de estas ideas están en el informe, en el buen informe de mi buen amigo y compañero, el señor Kukan, y, por eso, quiero felicitarlo de nuevo.

  Kati Piri (S&D). – Graag wil ik eerst de rapporteur, de heer Kukan, bedanken voor een resolutie die veel terechte punten bevat, waaronder de hard nodige differentiatie, de noodzaak van een meer politieke en minder technocratische visie op het Europees nabuurschapsbeleid en het centraal stellen van de Europese waarden van democratie, rechtsstatelijkheid en mensenrechten, zonder dubbele standaarden.

Het belangrijkste is dat deze resolutie bekrachtigt dat het EU-beleid ten goede moet komen aan de bevolkingen van onze buurlanden en niet aan de politieke elite aldaar. Het mag evenmin alleen maar ingegeven zijn door eigenbelang, zoals het tegenhouden van vluchtelingen. We eisen hervormingen van de rechtsstaat en garanties voor mensenrechten om de simpele reden dat de bevolking beter af is in een rechtvaardig en goed bestuurd land. Voor de landen Oekraïne, Georgië en Moldavië, waarmee we associatieovereenkomsten hebben getekend, is dit zelfs een plicht. Deze akkoorden gaan verder dan alleen handel drijven. Ze hebben ook een belangrijke politieke component.

Sommige politici pleiten ervoor om het nabuurschapsbeleid alleen als een geopolitiek instrument in te zetten. Zij willen foute regimes een hand boven het hoofd houden en wegkijken als fundamentele rechten geschonden worden. Zij zijn niet zo streng met het eisen van afgesproken hervormingen. Het geopolitieke doel van stabiliteit in een onrustige regio, het bestrijden van terrorisme of het terugdringen van Russische invloed heiligt in deze visie het middel, namelijk een oogje dichtknijpen voor misstanden zoals selectieve rechtspraak, nepotisme of mensenrechtenschendingen. Voor een geloofwaardig nabuurschapsbeleid is een politieke visie nodig die niet louter door geopolitiek wordt ingegeven en niet louter van invloedssferen uitgaat.

Neem Oekraïne, een land dat onze steun volop verdient en waar ook de bevolking te kennen gegeven heeft zich naar EU-maatstaven te willen hervormen. In deze moeilijke tijden voor het land is het belangrijk dat de Europese Unie klaar staat om te helpen. Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat dit niet per se het best gebeurt met enorme sommen geld, met spierballentaal jegens Rusland of met onrealistische beloften over toetreding tot de EU of de NAVO. Het beste wat Europa kan doen, is de regering in Kiev bij de les houden, ervoor zorgen dat gemaakte afspraken worden nagekomen, en eindelijk die hervormingen erdoor krijgen die het land zo hard nodig heeft en waar ook de Oekraïense bevolking naar verlangt. Het nieuwe beleid moet dus ambitieus zijn.

Wat ik commissaris Hahn vanavond wil meegeven, is dit: de gemeenschappelijke waarden waar het Europees nabuurschapsbeleid op gebouwd is, namelijk respect voor mensenrechten en de rechtsstaat, mogen niet ondersneeuwen onder druk van geopolitieke belangen.

  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, уважаеми г-н Комисар, уважаеми колеги, както е известно, създадената през 2004 година Европейска политика за съседство има за цел да предотврати появата на нови разделителни линии между разширения Европейски съюз и съседните му държави. Тук е редът и мястото да поздравя и докладчика Кукан за начинанието и за положения труд по този доклад.

За съжаление обаче можем да кажем, че не това се случва в момента. На изток и на юг от Европа има пълен разпад на държавите, като типични примери за това са Либия, Египет, Сирия, Ирак. Там се създават нови разделителни линии, при които става въпрос за ценности. На християнските ценности на европейските нации, или да речем европейските ценности, се противопоставя все по-агресивният и набиращ сила радикален салафистки ислямизъм.

Не може да бъде пропусната и огромната мигрантска вълна, която залива Гърция, Испания, Италия и България. Тази вълна от нелегални имигранти ще възпрепятства икономическия просперитет и заплашва стабилността и сигурността на държавите членки.

На североизток наблюдаваме същия процес: държавата Украйна е в тежка политическа, икономическа и хуманитарна криза. На нейната територия се изгражда нова разделителна линия, която отново ни връща в годините на студената война. По този начин стои въпросът и с държавите Грузия, Армения, Молдова, изобщо Черноморския басейн.

В тази ситуация смятам, че Европейският съюз трябва да преосмисли своята политика на съседство. Важното е Съюзът да вземе активно участие и активна роля в разпадналите се държави от арабската пролет и по този начин ще осигури и мира, и благоденствието на държавите членки в Европейския съюз и съседните държави.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, há um provérbio português no meu país que diz o seguinte: a quem quer mal ao vizinho o seu vem pelo caminho. Ou seja, quando fazemos mal aos nossos vizinhos, sofremos consequências com isso. E, de facto, a União Europeia não pode ser considerada uma vizinha desejável para ninguém. Porque um vizinho que olha para o outro apenas na perspetiva do próprio interesse não pode ser um bom vizinho.

Como seria de esperar, este relatório defende o reforço da associação entre a política de vizinhança da União Europeia e a política externa e de segurança comum e a política de segurança e defesa comum. A perspetiva desta política é cada vez mais a intervenção militarista. Curiosamente, e cito: "em nome de um papel mais ativo na resolução pacífica dos conflitos em curso". O que não pode deixar de ter a sua piada, não fosse a própria intervenção militar da União Europeia, e as intervenções ingerencistas da União Europeia, a própria causa de tantos conflitos em curso. Ou não foram os países da União Europeia que forneceram material de guerra e apoios e financiamento ao denominado Exército Livre Sírio, quando neste Parlamento nos lembramos se dizia em histeria que tudo se deveria fazer, tudo, para acabar com Assad? Exato, foi com esse apoio que se criou um monstro hoje conhecido por Estado Islâmico, uma ameaça terrorista para esses países, mas também para os países da União Europeia. Ou não foi também a preciosa ajuda da União Europeia ao povo líbio para acabar com o regime, através de uma intervenção armada externa, que acabou não só com a vida de muitos líbios, mas também com a estabilidade do país, que criou um não-Estado dominado por mercenários sem leis, no caos e na violência mais atroz? Ou não foi a mais recente ajuda da União Europeia ao povo ucraniano através do instigamento do conflito que provocou a divisão de um país?

Uma política de vizinhança que tivesse um real interesse no outro criava condições para que esse outro se desenvolvesse. Nestes países certamente se pensará que, com vizinhos destes, mais vale estarmos sozinhos.

  Bronis Ropė (Verts/ALE). – Europos kaimynystės politika buvo sukurta tikslu, įvardintu dar 2002 m. kaip saugumo ir stabilumo zonos aplink Europos Sąjungą sukūrimas. Pranešime pažymėta, kad kaimynystės politikai skiriame labai mažai lėšų palyginus su pinigais, leidžiamais trečiosiose šalyse. Ar mes jau sukūrėme saugumo, stabilumo ir gero valdymo zoną aplink Europos Sąjungą? Peržiūrėtoji kaimynystės politika turi pasiūlyti plačias bendradarbiavimo galimybes visoms kaimynėms. Tai turi būti ir finansinė parama, ir galimybės naudotis Europos Sąjungos mokslinių tyrimų, pramonės pasiekimais, ir atvirumas žmogiškiesiems ryšiams. Na, svarbiausia, žinoma, palengvintas vizų režimas, ypatingai jaunimui, menininkams, mokslininkams. Siūlau greičiau spręsti bevizį režimą Ukrainos ir Gruzijos žmonėms. Žinoma, Europos Sąjungos atvirumas turi priklausyti nuo politinio sąlygiškumo – kuo labiau kaimyninė valstybė bus demokratinė, laisva, kuo labiau joje veikia rinkos ekonomika, tuo didesnes galimybes mes jai turime atverti. Tačiau svarbiausia nepamirškime, kad kaimynystės politika yra sukurta mūsų kaimynėms. Yra posakis, kad geras kaimynas svarbiau už gimines. Todėl kaimynystės politika turi būti deramai finansuojama, priešingu atveju mes rizikuojame ir toliau sukti galvas, kaip spręsti konfliktus kaimyninėse šalyse ar kur dėti vis didėjančius pabėgėlių srautus.

  David McAllister (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Herr Tajani, meine sehr verehrten Damen, meine sehr geehrten Herren! Ich möchte zunächst auch meinem Fraktionskollegen und Freund Eduard Kukan sehr herzlich für diesen herausragenden Bericht danken.

Wie viele meiner Vorredner bin auch ich der Meinung, dass die Nachbarschaftspolitik der Europäischen Union dem ehrgeizigen Anspruch des Artikels 8 des Vertrages noch nicht gerecht wird. Gleichzeitig zeigen die Probleme an den Grenzen der Europäischen Union, wie richtig und zugleich wichtig es hier bleibt, weiterhin auf eine gute und vor allem friedliche Nachbarschaft hinzuarbeiten. Um die ehrgeizigen Ziele des Artikels 8 zu erreichen, sind nach meiner Auffassung drei Punkte von besonderer Bedeutung, und darauf geht der Bericht ja auch ausdrücklich ein.

Erstens: Die unmittelbare Nachbarschaft der Europäischen Union muss in unserem ureigenen Interesse ein strategischer Schwerpunkt der auswärtigen Politik der Europäischen Union bleiben.

Zweitens: Die Zusammenarbeit mit der Zivilgesellschaft in den Partnerländern der Nachbarschaftspolitik hat einen ganz zentralen Stellenwert, denn ihre Vertreter und Organisationen sind mitentscheidend für den Aufbau demokratischer und rechtsstaatlicher Strukturen.

Drittens: Jedes Land erfordert ein maßgeschneidertes Konzept. Nicht alle Partnerstaaten der ENP wollen oder können sich in der gleichen Geschwindigkeit und in den gleichen Politikfeldern an die Europäische Union annähern.

Dieser Bericht des Kollegen Kukan leistet einen wertvollen Beitrag, dass die europäische Nachbarschaftspolitik Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit in unseren Partnerländern weiterhin unterstützen kann.

  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Priekšsēdētaja kungs, godātais komisār, kolēģi! Pirmkārt, es arī gribu pateikties kolēģim Kukan kungam par sagatavoto ziņojumu, bet arī gribu vērst jūsu uzmanību uz to, ka pēdējā laikā ir kļuvis acīmredzams, ka esošā Eiropas kaimiņattiecību politika nespēj adekvāti un ātri reaģēt uz strauji mainīgajiem apstākļiem. Tieši tāpēc ir nepieciešama diferencēta pieeja un katras valsts vajadzībām pielāgota politika. Es uzskatu, ka jāmaina arī attieksme. Mēs sadarbojamies ar līdzvērtīgiem partneriem, un dažreiz tonis un attieksme aizvaino mūsu partnerus. Dažreiz rodas tāds priekšstats, ka šī programma ir vajadzīga tikai mūsu partneriem, bet Eiropa Savienība nodarbojas ar labdarību. Tā tas nav. Piemēram, kas visvairāk ieinteresēts, lai būtu sadarbība robežu jautājumā — lai ES teritorijā neiebrauktu nelegālie migranti un neievestu kontrabandu, — mēs vai viņi? Sadarbība ekoloģijas jautājumā — vai tiešām varam uzskatīt, ka mūsu stiprās robežas pasargās mūs no ekoloģiskas katastrofas, kas varētu notikt kaimiņu valstī? Tāpēc es uzskatu, kolēģi, ka vajadzētu Eiropas kaimiņattiecību politikas ietvaros sadarboties ar visiem kaimiņiem, diferencējot šīs attiecības gan resursu, gan citu paredzētu stimulu veidā. Paldies!

  László Tőkés (PPE). – Elnök Úr, ifjúkori, politikai természetű emlékeim közé tartozik az 1975-ös helsinki konferencia, mely útjára indította az európai enyhülés folyamatát, és szinte forradalminak nevezhető változások elindítója lett az emberi és kisebbségi jogok területén. A 40 éve kezdődött helsinki folyamat egyenes úton vezetett a szovjet kommunizmus bukásához, ennek nyomán pedig a vasfüggöny lebontásához és a demokratikus Európa mai egységének a kialakulásához. Furcsa fintora a sorsnak, hogy a korszakos helsinki záróokmány mostani évfordulóján az EBESZ-alapítók közé tartozó Oroszország nem ünnepelhet együtt a többi alapítóval. A béke, a biztonság, a párbeszéd és az együttműködés terén súlyos visszaesést tapasztalunk, mint ahogyan időközben az európai szomszédság politika kezdeti, biztató eredményei is visszájukra fordultak. A visszahúzó szovjet birodalmi örökség következtében főképpen a keleti partnerség uniós politikája került tartós válságba. A kialakult helyzet teljes mértékben indokolttá teszi európai szomszédság politikánk stratégiai igényű felülvizsgálatát. Az Európai Unió és az európai partnerség országainak érdekei egyaránt megkövetelik az alapvető emberi jogok, a jogállamiság, a demokrácia, a szabadság és az emberi méltóság európai értékein alapuló szomszédsági politikánk megújítását. Engedjék meg végül, hogy gratuláljak Kukan előadó úrnak nagyszerű munkájáért.

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Úr, az időben picit visszatekintve 2012 jut eszembe, amikor az Európai Unió béke Nobel-díjat kapott. És aztán eltelt három év, és a békés Európa, a béke Nobel-díjas Európa szomszédságában lángokat látunk. Ezek közül talán a ma legtöbbet említett ukrán válság érdemli a legtöbb szót, bár azért azt hozzá kell tenni, hogy ezek a válságok szomszédságunk bármely pontján nem csak úgy önmagukban vannak, nem azért vannak, mert egy-egy országban megborult volna valami, hanem, én azt hiszem, hogy bővebb kontextusaik vannak, úgyhogy nagyon itt az ideje, hogy átfogó és koncepcionális felülvizsgálat alá vegyük a szomszédságpolitikát. Én azt hiszem, Elnök Úr, hogy ez a szomszédságpolitika nem lehet sikeres akkor, ha Európa nincs egységben.

Én kicsit rossz szemmel nézem, hogy van két nagyon-nagyon felkészült biztosunk, Hahn úr és Mogherini asszony, akik ezekkel a kérdésekkel foglalkoznak, és helyettük más európai vezetők tárgyalnak a legtöbb esetben, bár nyilván nem haszontalan az sem, amit ők tesznek. De egység kell ide, és ebbe beleértendő az is, hogy ne barátkozzanak az ellenfeleinkkel bizonyos európai uniós tagországok – itt akár az Orbán–Putyin barátságra is gondolhatok. Úgyhogy én azt hiszem, hogy a szomszédságpolitikának az igazi tétje az, hogy Európa miként tudja kezelni, és tartok tőle, hogy másodszor is meg kell dolgoznunk azért a béke Nobel-díjért, ezúttal itt a szomszédságban.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE). – Jaz zelo cenim prizadevanja gospoda komisarja, njegove ekipe in cele Komisije, da v spremenjenih okoliščinah uveljavimo naše vrednote, naša načela in naše interese v širšem sosedstvu, zavedajoč se, da je treba preseči nekdanji strateški pristop, ki je baziral na enotnem gledanju na naše sosedstvo.

V spremenjenih okoliščinah moramo biti veliko bolj pozorni na pragmatični vidik, storiti moramo vse, da pridemo do napredka, kjerkoli je mogoče, in pri upoštevanju realnih okvirov ne smo pozabiti na naša načela.

Jaz sem vesel, ko gledam komisarja na delu, ki razume naše sosedstvo in to razumevanje tudi praktično uporablja.

Mislim, da bomo še dolgo priče zelo zahtevnim izzivom, ki bodo zahtevali še marsikatero prilagoditev na nove razmere, vem pa, da bomo skupaj delali na tak način, da bomo krepili mir, krepili območje, ki deli skupne vrednote, skupna načela, pa tudi v perspektivi skupna pravila.

  Michał Boni (PPE). – Mr President, this report is very important for the consultation on the new European neighbourhood policy as a strategic tool. It is not possible to develop Europe without active policies oriented towards our neighbours – eastern and southern partners. They have different capacities. We must distinguish between European neighbours and the neighbours of Europe: countries which may one day join the EU and those which cannot for geographical reasons. We should divide the processes of enlargement and of building neighbourhood relations. They require different activities.

Neighbourhood policy tools should develop connections in some key areas, such as energy security, trade development, the common digital revolution, transportation solutions and fighting terrorism. All of those fields are crucial for growth. European neighbourhood instruments will have an impact on economic changes and also on improvements in the states’ functioning based on democratic rules, the rule of law, capacities for transparent administration and the development of civic society. All those measures and cooperation should change the quality of life of many people.

These activities should be understood as an investment, not only in the future of the neighbouring countries but also as an investment in our European future, with a clear rate of return when peaceful development will change the life of societies and, in addition, reduce the waves of immigration.

  Андрей Ковачев (PPE). – Г-н Председател, г-н Комисар, искам първо да поздравя колегата Кукан за добрия резултат от работата му по доклада. Огромните предизвикателства и на изток, и на юг ни задължават да преосмислим политиката по съседство. Една нова политика трябва да отчита промените-заплахи в региона. За съжаление не само че не се намира решение на замразени конфликти, като Карабах и Абхазия, но се създават нови и то горещи, като Крим и източна Украйна.

Наред с конвенционалните военни конфликти и тероризма, наблюдаваме и хибридни, информационни и пропагандни войни, външно финансиране на антиевропейски екстремни политически партии. Такива фактори експлоатират нашите вътрешни слабости. Европейският съюз се състои от демократични държави, които не инвестират в пропаганда, но които имат право да отговорят с истината.

Страни като Русия използват икономиката и енергетиката като инструмент за натиск и създаване на зависимости, а не за взаимноизгодно сътрудничество, каквото би трябвало да бъде. Например предложението за разширяване на Северен поток и обсъжданите Турски и Гръцки поток създават политическо разединение вътре в Европейския съюз. Целта е да се създаде противоречие между Брюксел и страните членки, както и между самите страни членки и между компаниите и правителствата.

Съединението прави силата, а не разединението и "Разделяй и владей" трябва да бъде нашата основна цел. Ние трябва твърдо да защитим правата на съседните държави за независим избор на регионални и международни партньорства, да засилим сътрудничеството с държавните организации, с неправителствения сектор от този регион.

Трябва да използваме всички възможни инструменти за подпомагане на гражданското общество, като например новия Европейски фонд за демокрация. Подкрепям идеята за неформалните срещи на министрите на външните работи от региона и от Европейския съюз, но също така смятам, че е добре да има срещи и на министрите на вътрешните работи, както и на службите за сигурност.

(Ораторът приема да отговори на въпрос, зададен чрез вдигане на синя карта (член 162, параграф 8 от Правилника за дейността)).

  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D), zilās kartītes jautājums. – Liels paldies, Kovatchev kungs, par to, ka Jūs pieņēmāt manu zilo kartīti! Jūs teicāt par iesaldētiem konfliktiem, bet sakiet, lūdzu, tikai godīgi, vai jums ir tā gatavā recepte, kā mēs vienā brīdī varam šos iesaldētos konfliktus, tai skaitā Gruzijā, Piedņestras republikā un citās vietās, momentā atrisināt? Paldies!

  Андрей Ковачев (PPE), отговор на въпрос, зададен чрез вдигане на синя карта. – Ако имах рецептата, уважаеми господин колега, щях да я кажа. Знаете, това са конфликти, някои от тях са с десетилетия на сцената, както например в Нагорни Карабах. Минската група работи незадоволително, няма резултат и ние се опитваме по някакъв начин да дадем нашите предложения за решаване на тези проблеми. Но те не само че не се решават, а и се увеличават. Това казах, че освен тези конфликти имаме и нови, като например в Крим и източна Украйна. Няма рецепта. Това, което се опитваме, е да помогнем, но явно засега не можем да намерим правилния път.

Procedura "catch-the-eye".

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospodine predsjedniče, europsko susjedstvo danas je vrlo nestabilno pa je brzo i učinkovito gašenje tih kriznih žarišta u našem najvećem interesu.

Vjerujem stoga da je svaka pomoć s naše strane zemljama u susjedstvu prijeko potrebna i dobrodošla. No, ona ne smije biti bezuvjetna i to izvjestitelj dobro prepoznaje te predlaže model nagrađivanja napretka tih država koji nazivamo „više za više”.

Slažem se da pomoć onima koji odvažnije i brže provode reforme treba biti izdašnija i konkretnija, ali isto tako smatram da bismo morali biti puno kritičniji prema pogrešnim politikama i propustima naših partnera te za manje davati manje.

Događalo se u prošlosti da se novcem europskih poreznih obveznika kupovala naklonost neodgovornih, pa i autokratskih vlasti u trećim zemljama zbog nečijih geopolitičkih interesa. Nadam se da su ta vremena iza nas jer nijedan političar nema mandat za tako neodgovorno trošenje novca poreznih obveznika na politike koje se naposljetku upravo njima najviše obiju o glavu.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, čestitajući g. Kukanu na njegovom izvješću, želim reći nekoliko rečenica o Istočnom partnerstvu.

Mi zemljama istočne Europe moramo osigurati europsku perspektivu. To je najbolji način da u tim zemljama, pa čak i onima koje danas ne žele biti dio Europske unije, kao npr. Bjelorusija, ipak stvaramo snage koje će biti za Europsku uniju. Moj je osobni primjer, moja zemlja Hrvatska – 1990-ih sam bio jedan od rijetkih koji je uopće govorio o Europskoj uniji i potrebi da Hrvatska uđe u EU. Danas sam ovdje u Europskom parlamentu i velika mi je čast što sam zajedno s vama.

Dakle, stvarajmo europsku perspektivu za one vlade koje žele ući u Europsku uniju. Stvarajmo i otvarajmo te mogućnosti, ali stvarajmo i za one koji danas to možda ne žele, jer u svakoj zemlji ima ljudi koji svoju zemlju žele vidjeti u Europskoj uniji. Režimi prolaze, države ostaju.

Europska unija, uvjeren sam, neće propasti. Dapače, ostat će i širit će se.

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Ευρωπαϊκή Πολιτική Γειτονίας αποτελεί μέρος της εξωτερικής πολιτικής της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, ως εκ τούτου πρέπει να είναι συνεκτική. Αυτό αφορά και την ανατολική Ευρωπαϊκή Πολιτική Γειτονίας και τη νότια. Ταυτόχρονα θα πρέπει να στηρίζεται σε συγκεκριμένες αρχές όπως είναι o σεβασμός της δημοκρατίας, του κράτους δικαίου και των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων.

Θέλω να επικεντρωθώ λίγο στην Ένωση για τη Μεσόγειο, διότι αυτή τη στιγμή, όπως είπαμε και σε προηγούμενη συζήτηση, επικρατεί τεράστια αστάθεια. Τεράστια κύματα προσφύγων, χιλιάδων προσφύγων, έρχονται πλέον στην Ελλάδα και στην Ιταλία. Θα πρέπει να υπάρξει μια πολύ συγκεκριμένη πολιτική για την αντιμετώπιση αυτού του φαινομένου. Κυρίως πρέπει να υπάρξει σταθερότητα και ειρήνη στην περιοχή. Δεύτερον, πρέπει να δημιουργηθεί ένας χώρος οικονομικής ανάπτυξης, να γίνουν επενδύσεις, να δημιουργηθούν θέσεις εργασίας, ιδίως για τη νέα γενιά αυτών των περιοχών· να υπάρξει πολιτιστική συνεργασία, να υπάρξει διάλογος των θρησκειών. Με αυτές τις προϋποθέσεις μπορούμε να έχουμε μια σοβαρή πολιτική γειτονίας και στον Νότο.

(Fine della procedura "catch-the-eye")

  Johannes Hahn, Mitglied der Kommission. – Herr Präsident! Ich möchte umgekehrt all jenen danken, die bis jetzt ausgeharrt und damit zum Ausdruck gebracht haben, dass es sich in der Tat um eine wichtige Politik handelt. Ich kann Ihnen auch berichten: Wir haben bis zum Ende der öffentlichen Begutachtung ungefähr 250 schriftliche Stellungnahmen aus ganz Europa und aus der Nachbarschaft bekommen. Das zeigt also das große Interesse, das dieser Politik gegeben ist.

Ich teile vollkommen die Auffassung all jener, die sagen: Die Nachbarschaftspolitik ist Teil der Außenpolitik. Außenpolitik heißt auch immer, die Interessen des Landes wahrzunehmen, für das man Außenpolitik macht. Und wir machen hier Außenpolitik für die Europäische Union. Da gilt es, unsere Interessen ganz klar zum Ausdruck zu bringen. Wenn Sie sich die gegenwärtige Situation anschauen – und das wurde ja auch hinreichend angesprochen –, dann haben wir in der Tat eine Situation in unserer Nachbarschaft, die von uns verlangt, dass wir die Interessen wahrnehmen, dass wir uns vor allen Dingen auch federführend auf die Lösung bzw. – und darauf würde ich Wert legen – auf die Stabilisierung der Situation konzentrieren. Denn wir haben in unserer Nachbarschaft eine Situation, dass in 11 unserer 16 Nachbarländer ein territorialer Konflikt gegeben ist, dass in unserer Nachbarschaft insgesamt rund 20 Millionen Flüchtlinge leben und dass es eben hier eine auch in wirtschaftlicher Hinsicht sehr schwach entwickelte Struktur gibt, also alles Dinge, die dazu geeignet sind, dass eben Europa ein Adressat sein kann und tatsächlich auch ist – wie wir wissen –, dass Menschen versuchen, aus dieser Nachbarschaft nach Europa zu kommen, oder dass es hier zumindest ganz intensive Aspirationen einer verstärkten Zusammenarbeit mit Europa gibt. Das ist auch okay, das wird von uns auch akzeptiert, und das wird sogar willkommen geheißen. Daher ist es wichtig, dass wir die Fähigkeit und die Fertigkeit entwickeln, auf unsere Nachbarn individuell zu reagieren, dass wir den gemeinsamen Nenner der Interessen identifizieren und auf Basis dessen dann schlussendlich auch zu maßgeschneiderten Lösungen kommen.

Ich denke aber auch, dass wir zum Beispiel im Zuge unserer Revision der Nachbarschaftspolitik etwas vielleicht noch viel stärker herausarbeiten müssen, was jetzt schon im Entwurf steht und was auch reflektiert wurde in dem Bericht des Herrn Abgeordneten Kukan. Es geht um die regionale Dimension, um die subregionale Dimension. Auch das ist etwas, was wir ansprechen müssen, dass wir hier eine stärkere Zusammenarbeit einzelner Länder in unserer Nachbarschaft untereinander forcieren. Denn die Gründungsidee der Europäischen Union war, durch eine verstärkte wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit sicherzustellen, dass es zu keinen weiteren bewaffneten und militärischen Auseinandersetzungen kommt. Dieses Friedenskonzept der Europäischen Union hat sich bewährt, und es ist wert, das auch auf unsere Nachbarn zu übertragen.

Insgesamt, glaube ich, müssen wir einem pragmatischen Ansatz folgen. Das heißt aber nicht, dass wir unsere Grundwerte, unsere fundamentals, aufgeben beziehungsweise außer Acht lassen. Hier denke ich, dass in vielen Ländern die Zivilgesellschaft unser natürlicher Partner ist. Das ist auch der Grund, weshalb wir die entsprechenden Budgets erhöht haben, weil wir glauben, dass das eigentlich der Weg ist, wo unsere fundamentals fundiert werden können, speziell in jenen Ländern, wo vonseiten der Regierenden das möglicherweise nicht jenes Augenmerk hat, das wir uns wünschen.

Abschließend möchte ich nochmals den Gedanken der Stabilisierung in den Vordergrund stellen. Angesichts dessen, was ich beschrieben habe, muss die Stabilisierung der Situation unsere vordringliche Aufgabe sein. Um das zu erreichen, brauchen wir eine maximale Flexibilität in unseren institutionellen, in unseren regulativen und schlussendlich auch in unseren finanziellen Möglichkeiten, um hier entsprechend reagieren zu können. Ich erwähne das deshalb, weil ich nicht ausschließe, dass ich in dieser Hinsicht gemeinsam mit der Hohen Vertreterin und Vizepräsidentin gelegentlich auf Sie zukommen werde. Denn, wie gesagt, Flexibilität heißt eben, auf neue Herausforderungen zu reagieren und hier vielleicht schon Beschlossenes zu revidieren, um auf neue Notwendigkeiten besser reagieren zu können und auch entsprechend zu agieren.

Nochmals vielen Dank für Ihre bisherige Unterstützung, auch für die freundlichen Worte, die Sie heute für unsere Arbeit gefunden haben. Ich bin sicher, es ist das sozusagen nur ein Zwischenschritt für eine weitere intensive Beschäftigung mit dem Thema. Selbst wenn wir schlussendlich eine communication haben werden, ist das nichts anderes als ein Festschreiben des Status. Aber die Arbeit wird dadurch nicht beendet, sondern im Gegenteil, sie hat fortgesetzt zu werden.

  Eduard Kukan, rapporteur. – Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank all of the nine colleagues who stayed this long and contributed to the discussion. I did not mention it in the beginning, but I would also like to say that it was a very nice project to be rapporteur for this report, and to work with the shadow rapporteurs who came from different political groups but were a team guided by the principle that everybody wanted to contribute positively in order to achieve results in the future, because everybody agrees that the European Neighbourhood Policy is a very important part of EU external policy. It was really a very interesting cooperation.

I would like to offer my thanks and appreciation to Commissioner Hahn for the many discussions which we had with the representatives of the Commission and for his consultation paper, which really focused on the most important issues of the European Neighbourhood Policy. I think this was a very interesting and good debate; there were many views expressed in it. Thank you for your appreciation of my work. Some of the criticism was levelled especially at the fact that there are not many results which the ENP has achieved since its inception in 2004. I can agree with that, but we learned our lessons, and that is why this report is very timely. It contains many issues and principles which could be used in order not to repeat the mistakes which we committed and to be more prepared for the fast-developing situation in the neighbourhood countries.

There was only one statement from which I have to distance myself fully. It was the one which portrayed the EU as the military threat to its neighbours and the institution which causes all bad things in the neighbourhood. Nothing is more divorced from life, and I think this I have to reject very adamantly.

I think this debate also showed that we are all interested in having an efficient, pragmatic European neighbourhood policy which would serve all the EU countries’ interests and also the interests of our neighbours. So let us hope that this will be the final achievement of this report and of the directive which is being prepared by Commissioner Hahn for this autumn.

  Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà domani, giovedì 9 luglio 2015.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 162)

  Andrea Bocskor (PPE), in writing. – Recent events call for immediate solutions, and intensive communications are needed between EU and neighbourhood countries. The EU has to implement appropriate treatment of the neighbourhood countries’ claims, take common responsibility, inspire the judicial, economic, social reforms, the fight against corruption, and pay attention to the rights of the national minorities in the partner countries.

For example, as a first step of the administration reform in Ukraine, the law ‘on voluntary association of local authorities/communities’ was adopted in which point 4, article 4 states that during the administrative reforms the historical, linguistic and ethnic characteristics have to be taken into account.

The related article of the regulation provides an opportunity for the national minorities to organise at the municipal level. However the 11th article of the Government’s resolution containing the implementation of the law does not include directives considering the ethnic aspects as it is in the law, which can affect detrimentally the national minorities. It is very important to modify the Government’s resolution as soon as possible according to the law and considering the rights of the national minorities living in Ukraine. I therefore call on the EU to pay necessary attention to the necessary reforms in Ukraine and other neighbourhood countries.

  Fernando Maura Barandiarán (ALDE), por escrito. – Creo que la seguridad, la estabilidad y la prosperidad no deberían constituir en exclusiva la aproximación a esta nueva política de vecindad de la Unión Europea; esta, necesariamente, tendrá que ir de la mano de los valores de la democracia y el respeto a los derechos humanos, consustanciales al proyecto europeo. En este contexto, la cultura puede tener un papel fundamental y dinámico como soft power del que la UE y sus Estados miembros pueden beneficiarse en sus relaciones con los países fronterizos. En esta casa se suele decir que la cultura fomenta la democratización, la consolidación de la paz y el respeto de los derechos humanos. Ha llegado el momento de poner en práctica estas palabras tan acertadas. La política de vecindad tendría que abrir un diálogo cultural y político para ofrecer incentivos y proveer de instrumentos adecuados que faciliten las reformas internas en esos países, apoyando a la sociedad civil y a los grupos y partidos democráticos para favorecer el diálogo y el pluralismo.

  Remo Sernagiotto (ECR), per iscritto. – È giunto il momento che la politica europea di vicinato (PEV) si riallinei agli attuali scenari geopolitici. La revisione in corso da parte della Commissione pone le basi appropriate per riesaminare i principi, la portata e gli strumenti della PEV, rilevandone al contempo le nuove sfide dettate dai recenti sviluppi della situazione politica nei paesi del Partenariato orientale e della sponda sud del Mediterraneo. Dobbiamo mettere a frutto gli insegnamenti tratti dall'esperienza maturata negli ultimi dieci anni al fine di rafforzare le politiche di partenariato e cooperazione con i paesi vicini e promuovere così la stabilità, lo sviluppo economico e la sicurezza ai confini dell'Europa.

Ritengo però che il riesame della PEV debba essere accompagnato da una discussione a più ampio raggio sulla politica estera generale dell'UE. Le pressioni economiche, i rischi della tenuta geopolitica in ampie aree a noi vicine, i flussi migratori così come le minacce rappresentate dal terrorismo internazionale necessitano di una risposta forte e di una strategia condivisa a livello europeo. Mi auguro quindi che si possa avviare una discussione approfondita per assicurare che in futuro le relazioni dell'UE con i paesi del vicinato siano più fruttuose e veicolo di sviluppo e stabilità a livello globale.

  Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – As the political situations along our borders continue to become more volatile, the coherence and strength of the European Neighbourhood remains one of the most important priorities for the security of this Union. Relations between the EU and ENP partners continue to help promote prosperity, stability, security, and good neighbourliness, based on the values of democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights.

The ENP has achieved success; with the one-year anniversary this past June of the signing of the EU Association Agreements with ENP partners Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine, citizens from these states are noticing already the opportunities presented by further integration into the European Neighbourhood. Nonetheless, the reforms proposed in the Report on the Review of the ENP, especially with regard to increasing security cooperation between the EU and ENP partners, should be regarded with utmost importance.

As the neighbours of our neighbours continue to exert unwonted pressure on the partnership, the EU must ensure the rights of our neighbours to make independent and sovereign choices on foreign and security policy and economy, free from external pressure and coercion. I look forward to a strengthened ENP that will be mutually beneficial to all parties involved.