Posėdžio stenograma

Antradienis, 2019 m. kovo 12 d. - Strasbūras

15. Europos sankcijų už žmogaus teisių pažeidimus sistema (diskusijos)

  Președintele. – Următorul punct de pe ordinea de zi este dezbaterea privind Declarația Vicepreședintelui Comisiei și Înaltului Reprezentant al Uniunii pentru afaceri externe și politica de securitate, referitoare la un regim european de sancționare a încălcării drepturilor omului (2019/2580(RSP)).

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, I very much agree with colleagues that human rights are under attack worldwide and on the need to continue to do all we can to prevent gross human rights violations. A major challenge for us is always to focus even more on the day—to—day implementation of our extensive toolbox and convince partners to deliver on existing commitments and obligations.

Our current EU human rights toolbox is already quite comprehensive, encompassing a strong multilateral and bilateral dimension. The Union will continue to denounce human rights violations and abuses wherever they are committed, to call on state and non-state actors to prevent them, and to seek justice and accountability. There is no doubt about that. It’s true that the global landscape is rapidly evolving and we need to ensure that the European Union is adequately equipped to remain a leader in the field of human rights.

In this context, a targeted assessment is ongoing as to how a European Union horizontal human rights sanction regime might bring added value in our collective efforts to further realise human rights and prevent gross violations or abuses of human rights. Here the issue of the scope of a possible future regime will be particularly important and the need to define which type of violations would fall under such a regime. Should such a regime, for example, focus on gross and systematic human rights violations? Should it cover violations of international humanitarian law? Should it address corruption cases?

Another important question is the interplay between such a potential regime and other existing EU sanctions regimes, but also regimes established at UN and national level. Human rights violations are already addressed in a number of geographical sanction regimes, for example, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Iran and Myanmar. Here we should consider whether the potential of integrating human rights into geographical regimes has been fully exploited. Obviously, there are some existing gaps, since geographical sanction regimes by definition are limited in focus. Could a horizontal human rights sanction regime usefully fill such a gap and offer a more flexible approach?

Last but not least, sanctions listings must be underpinned by robust, open—source evidence in order to be upheld in court. Listings are reviewed regularly and listed persons have the right to have their delisting requests considered. Respecting due process is an overarching principle underpinning all sanction regimes, but even more so in the context of a potential human rights regime. Given these multiple important issues, I am therefore pleased that expert discussions are taking place in the Council to look in detail at all these elements. Once the experts have finalised their discussions, more political discussions can take place. The creation of any new regime is a matter for the 28 Member States to agree by unanimity, as is the imposition of concrete sanctions.

Thank you for your attention and your interest. I am looking forward to our discussion.

  Sandra Kalniete, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, sometimes a name means a lot. To name a European human rights violations sanctions regime after Sergei Magnitsky would send an unambiguous message to the human rights abusers in our closest neighbourhood that Europe is going to create serious consequences for them and around the world. Magnitsky stood up to the corruption of the Putin regime. The way in which the Russian Government tried to cover up his murder and exonerate the people involved became a symbol of impunity worldwide. That is why Magnitsky’s name speaks to people everywhere.

I believe that the repeated calls of this House to adopt a European Magnitsky Act mean creating a legal basis for imposing visa sanctions and asset freezes on human rights violators around the world. There should be no impunity for killers of Rohingya in Myanmar, the rapists in the Central African Republic or the killers of the Saudi journalist. We will once again urge the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) to come up with a proposal for an EU Magnitsky Act before the end of the current parliamentary term. The Council has so far failed to act, but now this initiative is gaining momentum.

  Ana Gomes, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, em 2013, este Parlamento adotou por esmagadora maioria o relatório “Corrupção nos setores público e privado, impacto nos direitos humanos em países terceiros” de que eu fui relatora, que diz no ponto 3: “É de opinião que a UE deve seguir o exemplo dos Estados Unidos da América no que se refere à adoção do «Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act» de 2012 e adotar legislação semelhante a nível da UE, enquanto quadro simbólico e operacional que estabeleça a ligação entre corrupção e violações dos direitos humanos; exorta o Conselho a estabelecer uma lista comum a toda a UE dos funcionários implicados na morte de Sergei Magnitsky, pelo subsequente encobrimento do caso e insta a Comissão a elaborar um plano de ação para impor sanções específicas semelhantes contra agentes de países terceiros envolvidos em violações graves dos direitos humanos e em «manipulações» judiciais contra os autores de denúncias, jornalistas que investigam casos de corrupção e ativistas dos direitos humanos”.

Ora, é exatamente isso que, volvidos seis anos, é reforçado pela resolução que o Parlamento Europeu amanhã votará. O mecanismo que especificamos tem o nome Magnitsky com ele, porque tem origem neste assassinato perpetrado na Rússia de Putin, mas tem aplicação universal onde quer que semelhantes crimes ocorram. Listamos os critérios de base, exigindo ação e coerência aos Estados-Membros na aplicação de sanções, exigência crucial numa altura em que muitos dos nossos governos parecem reféns de governos oligárquicos, corruptos e violadores dos direitos humanos, de Moscovo a Pequim e de Riade a Washington, na era Trump.

A propósito, se os responsáveis dos assassinatos de Daphne Caruana Galizia e Jan Kuciak e parceira não forem a julgamento deveremos estudar a aplicação de semelhantes sanções aos responsáveis pelo encobrimento nesses países da União Europeia.

  Amjad Bashir, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, Milton Friedman argues that one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results.

From Ancient Greece’s Peloponnesian War, to modern-day Belarus, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea and Russia, evidence suggests that sanctions targeted at entire countries rarely achieve the intended foreign-policy objectives. Very often, collective punishments result in further collectivism. Innocent citizens in sanctioned countries become even more dependent on their domestic oppressors for the straight provision of basic goods in return for further encroachment on their political and social freedoms.

As a free marketeer, I have always believed in individual responsibility. We should, therefore, promote a smarter sanctions policy to ensure that sanctions are both legally robust and effective against those individuals committing abuses around the world.

  Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, it’s hard to believe that it’s been almost nine years since I first submitted amendments for a European Magnitsky Act, and the urgency for us of having an EU-wide smart mechanism to hold human rights violators individually to account has only become more pressing since then. Given that the UN Security Council and the UN generally is often paralysed and blocked by vetoes, the EU should show leadership and join the coalition of the willing – if you want to look at it that way – between the USA, the UK, Canada and the Baltic states, which already have ‘Magnitsky’ laws.

Targeted human rights sanctions, including asset freezes, entry bans and also the calling out by name of perpetrators of the worst human rights violations, whether they be state or non-state actors, can make a huge difference, including in terms of differentiating between the punishment of individuals versus hitting entire populations. It is the elites who often participate in these human rights violations who enjoy buying real estate in Europe, sending their children to our top universities or going shopping in our wonderful capitals. We cannot allow such ‘business as usual’ to continue for the murderers of journalists or the rapists of women.

When we talk about sanctions regimes, let us also look at ourselves critically because, despite sanctions being in place, Ali Mamlouk from Syria, on our blacklist, visited Italy, companies from the EU built the Kerch Strait Bridge, chemicals were exported from Belgium to Syria – and the list goes on. Clearly we’re only as credible as the weakest link in our own behaviour.

Concluding, a horizontal human rights sanction regime is essential, but it can never replace the need to hold perpetrators to account through criminal prosecution in domestic and international courts. It is high time to end impunity and, if we adopt this regulation, it would also be a small step towards justice for Sergei Magnitsky.

  Barbara Lochbihler, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Mit der Schaffung eines EU-weiten Sanktionsmechanismus gegen Verantwortliche von Menschenrechtsverletzungen senden wir ein sehr deutliches Signal, dass Menschenrechtsverletzungen immer geahndet werden müssen. Priorität muss dabei immer die strafrechtliche Verfolgung der Täter haben, aber es muss auch in den Fällen geahndet werden, bei denen sich die Täter einer Anklage entziehen können. Die EU wendet bereits seit langem personenbezogene Sanktionen an. Eines der ersten EU-Einreiseverbote aufgrund von Menschenrechtsverletzungen wurde im Kontext der Hinrichtung des nigerianischen Umweltaktivisten Ken Saro-Wiwa im Jahre 1995 verhängt.

Heute kommt es darauf an, dass wir die Anwendung von Einreiseverboten und das Einfrieren von Konten gegen Täter effizient, transparent und in einem ordnungsgemäßen Verfahren umsetzen. Daher ist es richtig, dass Sanktionsentscheidungen gerichtlich angefochten werden können. Erforderlich ist, dass belastbare Beweise vorliegen, die auch der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich sind. Einen wichtigen Beitrag hierzu, dass es besser gelingt, können zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen leisten.

(Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE), blue-card question. – I want to raise the question as to why the Green Group would not support naming this legislation the ‘Magnitsky Act’ – not only because it has a symbolic meaning, which is obvious, but because it’s a way of defining why we need to have this legislation in place, and to send a signal to those who use criminality to make themselves rich at the expense of their own people. Why couldn’t your group support giving this legislation the proper name?

  Barbara Lochbihler (Verts/ALE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der “blauen Karte”. – Auf Ihre Frage: Wir haben auch im Unterausschuss Menschenrechte sehr ausführlich mit allen politischen Gruppen diskutiert. Also, es gibt nur einen Fall weltweit, nämlich das entsprechende US-Gesetz, das den Fall Magnitski im Titel hat. Alle anderen Gesetze, die genauso und sehr qualifiziert und gut sind, zum Beispiel in Kanada, haben eine fachliche Terminologie. Ich glaube, Herr Preda liegt falsch in der Annahme, dass er sagt, dieses Gesetz wäre weniger wichtig oder würde weniger wahrgenommen, wenn es nicht diesen Titel hätte. Und ich bedaure es sehr, dass er in der Ausschusssitzung nicht darauf eingegangen ist, dass wir selbstverständlich im Entschließungstext selber auf den Magnitski-Fall verweisen können, der sehr entscheidend war in der ganzen Entwicklung so einer Art von Sanktionsregime.

  Mylène Troszczynski, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, s’il est évidemment vital de sanctionner sévèrement toute atteinte aux droits de l’homme, ce n’est certainement pas à l’Union européenne d’en imposer les sanctions.

Vous brandissez cet anathème contre les États, et notamment les États membres, qui n’approuvent pas vos politiques en matière migratoire ou au sujet de l’idéologie du genre – je pense évidemment à la Pologne, ou encore à la Hongrie. Vous utilisez cet argument pour tenter d’abattre vos adversaires politiques, ce qui est doublement condamnable, d’abord parce que vous instrumentalisez la cause des droits de l’homme, si noble soit-elle, à des fins bassement politiciennes, mais aussi parce qu’en agissant de la sorte, vous masquez les réelles menaces qui pèsent sur les citoyens européens, notamment celle de l’islamisme radical, qui fait, entre autres, reculer le droit des femmes. Je pourrais aussi évoquer les 372 victimes du terrorisme islamique en France depuis 20 ans. Voici ce qui menace réellement les droits de l’homme.

Et comment ne pas évoquer la Cour européenne chargée d’assurer le respect de ces mêmes droits – je veux parler de la CEDH – qui protège, justement, à l’inverse, ces terroristes. Dernièrement, elle a même interdit l’expulsion de Kamel Daoudi, terroriste algérien déchu de sa nationalité française, désormais logé aux frais de la princesse à Aurillac. Elle interdit aussi la fouille systématique des visiteurs en prison, ce qui a permis l’attaque par un autre terroriste de deux gardiens de prison à Condé-sur-Sarthe la semaine dernière. Vos ingérences et celles de structures supranationales deviennent insupportables et sont dangereuses pour nos concitoyens.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). – Mr President, we are all well aware of the context of the draft resolution we are debating today. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the United Kingdom, Canada and the USA have their Magnitsky laws in action, enabling their governments to impose targeted sanctions on perpetrators and beneficiaries of serious human rights violations. We, the European Parliament, have repeatedly called for the establishment of an EU-wide equivalent. I am convinced that this has to be done at EU level, and without further postponement or delay.

I call on High Representative Mogherini and I urge the Commission and the European External Action Service to bring forward a legislative proposal for an EU Magnitsky Act before – and I stress before – the end of the current parliamentary term. I firmly believe we have had enough of differing interpretation and differing implementation of the EU sanctions, and we should stop this practice.

  Francisco Assis (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, a União Europeia é hoje uma grande referência, senão a principal referência mundial, no que toca à proteção dos direitos humanos. Em nenhuma outra parte do mundo encontramos o mesmo grau de preocupação, vigilância e respeito no campo destes direitos.

Cidadãos e organizações da sociedade civil de todos os cantos do mundo dirigem-se à União Europeia quando os seus direitos humanos são postos em causa porque sabem que serão ouvidos e que serão, na medida do possível, defendidos. Mas esta autoridade moral e política só é verdadeiramente credível se for acompanhada por instrumentos que não deixem impunes aqueles que desrespeitam os direitos humanos e que corroem o Estado de direito por via da corrupção.

A condenação política ou institucional, sendo imprescindível, não é, porém, suficiente. Uma dissuasão eficaz tem de ir além da pressão diplomática e passar em muitos casos pela aplicação de sanções.

É por isso que o reforço do regime de sanções da União Europeia, tornando-as mais consequentes e mais direcionadas, é um passo muito importante para a consolidação da União Europeia como o posto avançado da causa dos direitos humanos no mundo.

  Marek Jurek (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie i Panowie Posłowie! Nasza polityka praw człowieka powinna się opierać na paru prostych zasadach.

Po pierwsze – wierność tym, którzy wspierają nasze prawa. Po drugie – uznanie dla tych, którzy życzą nam pokoju. Po trzecie – szacunek dla tych, którzy chronią tych, za których szczególnie odpowiadamy – na przykład chrześcijan w krajach, gdzie są zagrożeni.

W centrum tej polityki powinni być zawsze ludzie – prawo ludzi do życia w pokoju i bezpieczeństwie, co jest podstawą wszystkich ludzkich praw, a na pewno nie animowanie konfliktów politycznych. Oczywiście – Europa powinna podejmować interwencje humanitarne, powinna reagować na niesprawiedliwość, ale zawsze pamiętając, że nie chodzi o szerzenie jakiegoś uniwersalizmu politycznego, tylko obronę konkretnych ludzi ze świadomością co nasze działania oznaczają.

Mamy dziś problem Algierii, być może jutro będziemy o tym decydować. Pamiętajmy o tych zasadach.

  Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE). – Voorzitter, in mijn vorige leven en ook als lid van het Europees Parlement ben ik zo'n 18 jaar bezig geweest met sancties tegen Zimbabwe, tegen de regering in Zimbabwe. Dat waren zogenaamde smart sanctions. Toch was het elk jaar opnieuw in februari een gevecht in de Raad tussen de Europese lidstaten om die sancties nog weer een jaar door te zetten.

Als ik luister naar de collegae hier lijkt het alsof het een makkie is om nu eindelijk een nieuw Europees sanctieregime te beginnen dat zich richt op individuen en het debat over landensancties wat eenvoudiger maakt. Zo eenvoudig is het niet! Als we zien dat de Nederlandse regering afgelopen november een initiatief genomen heeft, zeer low profile, zonder er ruchtbaarheid aan te geven, om lidstaten op één lijn te krijgen om tot zo'n regime van gerichte sancties te komen, dan kunnen we zien hoe moeilijk het is.

U kunt nu allemaal suggereren dat het eenvoudig is en dat als we het maar een naam geven, dat het dan extra rechten doet gelden. Dat is niet zo!

  Marie-Christine Arnautu (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, ô droits de l’homme, que de tartufferies ne commet-on pas en ton nom...

Une fois encore, nous voilà amenés à copier-coller une loi américaine, le Magnitsky Act. Son seul but était de faire peser sur les dirigeants russes des menaces de sanctions financières et de limitation de circulation, afin de les forcer à accepter pour leur pays les ingérences étrangères, en particulier américaines, et, in fine, empêcher la Russie de reprendre sa position régionale.

Sous prétexte de faire respecter les droits de l’homme partout dans le monde et de sanctionner les dirigeants qui ne s’y soumettraient pas, vous désirez acquérir une influence que seuls certains États membres de l’Union détiennent encore résiduellement. Assez d’hypocrisie! Il ne faut pas être grand clerc pour deviner que les dirigeants de certains pays seront épargnés quand l’économie de l’Union aurait plus à y perdre qu’à y gagner. Car, en vérité, dans l’Union, aujourd’hui, seuls les profits sont considérés comme primordiaux. Dirigeants du monde, selon que vos pays seront puissants ou faibles, les jugements de l’Union vous rendront blancs ou noirs.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). – Señor presidente, desde el año 1990 en que por primera vez se incluyó en el Acuerdo Unión Europea-Argentina la cláusula democrática, esta constituye un elemento esencial de los acuerdos que la Unión Europea suscribe con terceros países. Esta cláusula democrática está en el código genético de la Unión y supone una prueba tangible del compromiso irrenunciable que la Unión Europea tiene con el respeto de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales.

Sin embargo, hay dos problemas. Primero, la aplicación, que no es inmediata. Y, en segundo lugar, la tardanza en la toma de decisiones. Mientras nosotros estamos implicados en largos procedimientos —el comisario hablaba de la regla de la unanimidad—, hay otros que toman decisiones de la noche a la mañana.

Es importante, por tanto, que la Unión Europea se dote de un código ágil y eficaz de sanciones por violaciones de los derechos humanos —la señora Kalniete pedía que esto se adopte en la presente legislatura—. Eso contribuirá, señor presidente, a que la Unión Europea sea más coherente con sus principios, a que sea más respetada en la escena internacional y a que tenga mayor credibilidad.

  Kati Piri (S&D). – Voorzitter, ik juicht dit voorstel toe. De bescherming van mensenrechten is een van de belangrijkste kernwaarden van de Europese Unie. Helaas laat de EU niet altijd meer zien onvoorwaardelijk een gezamenlijk front te vormen tegen de individuele personen die deze rechten schenden.

Het huidige voorstel waarin personen die grove schendingen van de rechten van de mens begaan de toegang tot de EU wordt ontzegd en hun tegoeden worden bevroren, is een effectief instrument. Dit voorstel heeft twee grote voordelen: de onschuldige bevolking van het land blijft buiten schot en de mensenrechtenschenders worden aangepakt waar het hun het meest pijn doet. Bovendien waarborgt dit nieuwe plan de neutraliteit van onze gezamenlijke sancties door het sanctieproces te depolitiseren. Dat maakt de Europese Unie slagvaardiger.

Daarom zie ik uit naar het definitieve voorstel van de Commissie, zodat onze Unie nog beter dan nu in staat zal zijn de universele rechten van de mens te verdedigen.

  Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, today the world has seen a sweeping wave of autocratic governments and strongmen, and our human rights toolbox needs to respond to these changes. By the way, we need only to listen to the debates in this Parliament, this very week, to understand that the situations in countries like Russia, China, Turkey, Nicaragua and Kazakhstan are totally anti-democratic and put the international human rights obligations of those countries into question.

So the EU human rights toolbox must adapt. The global sanctions regime is one of the best tools for doing just that. The EU comprehensive sanctions regime for human rights violations is long overdue. To make it a success, it is vitally important that the new regime is legally sound and complies in full with the highest standards of due process. The listings should be based on hard evidence and on open source information and should be strictly rights based, as opposed to geostrategic, financial or other bases: that is the only way to guarantee political legitimacy.

We do not wish to see symmetry with the US sanctions regime, as it does not have adequate judicial safeguards. I’m very grateful that the High Representative and the Council have undertaken an open approach to this possible new instrument, understanding that it’s a complex system that must be put in place. We cannot afford to fail.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Mr President, finally EU ministers have decided to establish an EU global human rights sanctions regime. But, to be efficient and credible, it needs joint efforts and rigorous and consistent implementation by all Member States. I welcome the move to drop the unanimity rule in this area, but on the condition that it must not lead to selective implementation by those who don’t agree. Implementation has to be mandatory for all. So far, progress since the 2014 European Parliament decision to establish an EU Magnitsky list has been alarmingly slow. Only five more states have followed the US Congress resolution and I think it is very important to maintain the name Magnitsky, which has symbolic and universal meaning.

Finally, it is shameful that Russia is so far not included in the money—laundering and terrorist—financing blacklist.

  Νίκος Ανδρουλάκης (S&D). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση παραμένει η κύρια δύναμη υπεράσπισης των ευρωπαϊκών δικαιωμάτων σε ολόκληρο τον κόσμο. Η συζήτηση για να δημιουργήσουμε έναν ευρωπαϊκό μηχανισμό επιβολής στοχευμένων κυρώσεων σε ανθρώπους ή κυβερνήσεις παγκοσμίως που παραβιάζουν τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα είναι μια μεγάλη πρόκληση και πρέπει όλοι σήμερα απαντήσουμε θετικά για να ενισχύσουμε την αξιοπιστία μας ανάμεσα στους λαούς που επιζητούν την Ευρώπη της αλληλεγγύης, της δημοκρατίας και του ανθρωπισμού.

Για να είναι όμως αποτελεσματικό, θα πρέπει να βασίζεται σε αντικειμενικά κριτήρια και να μην λειτουργεί με την αρχή της ομοφωνίας. Δεν μπορούμε να είμαστε έρμαιοι πολιτικών και εθνικών συμφερόντων, όπως συμβαίνει πολλές φορές στο Κοινοβούλιο, όσο και στο Συμβούλιο. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Λαϊκό Κόμμα και κόμματα της ευρωπαϊκής ακροδεξιάς κάνουν ότι δεν βλέπουν τις παραβιάσεις ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων σε χώρες της Μέσης Ανατολής. Όπως, από την άλλη πλευρά, η ευρωπαϊκή αριστερά δεν πιστεύει ότι υπάρχει ευρωπαϊκή και ανθρωπιστική κρίση στη Βενεζουέλα των τριών εκατομμυρίων προσφύγων και της έλλειψης βασικών αγαθών. Τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα όμως δεν είναι πεδίο μικροπολιτικών σκοπιμοτήτων. Η υπεράσπισή τους πρέπει να είναι αδιαπραγμάτευτη.

  Jaromír Štětina (PPE). – Pane předsedající, není to poprvé, co náš Parlament volá po globálním režimu sankcí v souvislosti s lidskými právy, který by po vzoru Spojených států amerických, Kanady a dalších zemí, například Litvy, Lotyšska, Estonska, nesl jméno pana Magnitského.

Dnes jsme naši výzvu ve zprávě o vztazích Evropské unie a Ruska zopakovali, zpráva naléhavě žádá Komisi a Evropskou službu pro vnější činnost, aby neprodleně připravily legislativní návrh celounijní verze Magnitského zákon, který by umožnil ukládat zákazy udělování víz a cílené osobní sankce, jako je zablokování vlastnictví a zájmu v oblasti majetku a tak dále a tak dále. Plně podporuji celounijní mechanismus, který by měl účinněji postihovat jednotlivce, kteří jsou implikováni v závažném porušování lidských práv.

Pokud má Evropa zůstat věrná svým hodnotám, nemůže k okolnímu bezpráví jen vzhlížet. Bezzubost našich reakcí na vykonstruované procesy, na mučení politických vězňů snižuje naši autoritu a posiluje rozpínavost a troufalost autoritářských režimů.

  Liliana Rodrigues (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, não pode haver qualquer espécie de impunidade para aqueles que perseguem povos, para aqueles que exterminam em nome da religião, para os traficantes de pessoas e de armas, para os exploradores sexuais ou para os assassinos de jornalistas.

Por muito dinheiro que tenham, por muita proteção que possuam determinados regimes não democráticos, a União Europeia nunca poderá dar abrigo aos violadores dos direitos humanos. Nós ainda somos uma esperança no mundo.

Precisamos de mostrar determinação e estabelecer uma lei à escala da União que não compactue com aqueles que não respeitam a dignidade humana. Imponham a proibição de concessão de vistos, congelem os ativos dos infratores e proíbam-nos de entrar na nossa casa. É altura de nos juntarmos aos países que já o fizeram. A Europa precisa urgentemente de uma proposta concreta para punir estes violadores. Precisamos de o fazer se não queremos que os nossos discursos sejam cheios de conteúdo, mas vazios de ação. Até lá, as armas que compramos e os acordos que fazemos estarão sempre manchados do sangue daqueles que se batem pela liberdade.

Intervenții la cerere

  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Już na wstępie zaznaczę, że nie wierzę w sankcje. Nie wierzę w sankcje jako jedyne, wyłączne narzędzie, a nie jako jeden z elementów wywierania określonej presji. Podobnie zresztą jak z rezolucjami. Im więcej jest rezolucji, tym bardziej podlegają inflacji i stają się nieskuteczne. Jestem przewodniczącym Delegacji ds. Białorusi i wiem, jak ważne jest stosowanie wielu narzędzi po to, aby wywrzeć określoną presję, określony efekt. Przede wszystkim trzeba rozmawiać. Trzeba utrzymywać kanały komunikacji. Trzeba zwracać uwagę także na pewne swoistości państw, wobec których stosujemy różnego rodzaju narzędzia. W każdym razie chciałbym się opowiedzieć przede wszystkim przeciw inflacji w rezolucjach i w naszych wystąpieniach, za sankcjami, które połączone są z innymi elementami, elementami innych presji, elementami edukacyjnymi, elementami utrzymania komunikacji, bo dopiero wówczas uzyskamy rzeczywisty efekt.

  Κώστας Μαυρίδης (S&D). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θέλω κι εγώ με τη σειρά μου να τονίσω πόσο σημαντικό είναι να δημιουργήσουμε έναν μηχανισμό επιβολής κυρώσεων, ο οποίος να στοχεύει και σε άτομα εγκληματίες, όσο και σε κυβερνήσεις κρατών. Το ζητούμενο όμως είναι ο μηχανισμός αυτός να είναι αποτελεσματικός και αμερόληπτος, είτε τα εγκλήματα διαπράττονται εντός Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, είτε εκτός Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, είτε ο παραβάτης είναι στη Ρωσία, είτε είναι στην Τουρκία. Δυστυχώς, η συμπεριφορά μας μέχρι σήμερα θα δείξει στην πορεία αν θα αλλάξει και θα αντιμετωπίσουμε, επιτέλους, όλους αυτούς τους παραβάτες με τον ίδιο τρόπο.

Πάντως, οι ευρωπαϊκοί θεσμοί έχει καταφανεί ότι δεν αντιμετωπίζουν τους παραβάτες και εγκληματίες με τον ίδιο τρόπο. Για παράδειγμα – και τελειώνω – το έγκλημα της εξαφάνισης του χριστιανικού και ευρωπαϊκού πολιτισμού στο βόρειο τουρκοκατεχόμενο μέρος της Κύπρου είναι έγκλημα για το οποίο σιωπάτε, κύριε Επίτροπε.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, ljudska prava kršile su i još uvijek krše brojne treće države s kojima imamo diplomatske i trgovinske odnose, neke naše saveznice, kao i neke države članice. Iako europski lideri često govore o tome da je Europska unija „zajednica vrijednosti”, moram priznati da smo ljudskim pravima često trgovali.

Određene sankcije za sustavno kršenje ljudskih prava unutar Unije moraju postojati jer ono predstavlja jasno kršenje ugovora. Zato imamo Sud Europske unije i tu nam novi mehanizmi nisu potrebni. Bojim se da bi bili iskorišteni za discipliniranje država članica koje s Bruxellesom ne dijele istu viziju Unije, dok bi se nekim drugima, koji dijele federalističku viziju, kao i dosad gledalo kroz prste.

Prema trećim zemljama, s druge strane, tek trebamo razviti učinkovite mehanizme koji bi bili vezani uz naše trgovinske i druge sporazume s tim zemljama.

  Jordi Solé (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, for the EU to be credible when standing for the protection of human rights worldwide, we need more than just words. We also need instruments. In this regard, the European regime to impose sanctions on individuals from both state and non—state actors responsible for human rights violations is imperative. It places the EU as the front—runner for the protection of human rights worldwide. It enhances the visibility of the EU as a responsible international actor. It sends a strong signal to those many existing dictatorships and authoritarian regimes which systematically disregard the right and the duty to preserve human dignity. It would be a tool to make life a bit more difficult for those responsible for – or involved – in grave human rights violations and abuses. It would be a way to support the victims of those abuses as well as human rights defenders and a step towards fighting against impunity. For all these reasons, I call on the Council to reach a prompt agreement on this much—needed regime.

  Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, δεν μπορεί να υπάρξει αποτέλεσμα στον τομέα των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων χωρίς κάποιου είδους κυρώσεις. Οι κυρώσεις όμως αυτές πρέπει να υλοποιούνται μετά από μια ενδελεχή και δημοκρατική συζήτηση με το κράτος κατά του οποίου επιβάλλονται. Σε μια τέτοια περίπτωση, μπορεί να μην πείσουμε το υπό συζήτηση κράτος ή τους αξιωματούχους του, αλλά χωρίς αμφιβολία θα έχουμε καταφέρει να αναπτυχθεί η αναγκαία συζήτηση μέσα στον πληθυσμό αυτού του κράτους. Χωρίς αυτή τη δημόσια συζήτηση, μπορεί εύκολα οι κυρώσεις να εκλαμβάνονται από αυτό το κράτος ως εχθρική κίνηση κι αυτό δεν θα είναι καθόλου εποικοδομητικό.

  Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, today, the global trend leans towards undermining international law, in particular when it comes to human rights. Multilateralism is under attack by a number of countries, with the US leading the way. In this context, it’s essential that the EU’s foreign policy continues to focus on human rights, democracy and the rule of law, so I’m happy that the idea of a European human rights sanction regime is progressing. Sanctions can be a powerful tool, but it’s important to make them as efficient and as targeted as possible. A coherent European sanctions regime is therefore a step in the right direction.

Seeing this progress being made at European level reminds me that that if Brexit happens, the UK will not be able to participate in such positive policies. Since the Brexit negotiations began, the Conservative Government has shown increasing cynicism in its foreign policy, with Theresa May holding hands with Presidents Trump and Erdoğan, while Liam Fox went on a trade crusade with the self-confessed murderer Duterte, now the President of the Philippines. So, 28 countries working together in a sensible sanctions regime is far more effective than one desperate lonely island.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, un sistema de sanciones europeo para la violación de los derechos humanos contaría con nuestro apoyo, sin duda. Sería muy necesario. Pero, sobre todo, también sería muy necesario no continuar con una visión, con cierta complicidad hacia la impunidad. Y voy a ponerle tres ejemplos, señor comisario, tres países.

Marruecos, el caso del Rif. Ayer mismo condenaban a varios activistas del Rif precisamente por haber defendido derechos sociales, por haber defendido la libertad de expresión.

Le seguiré poniendo ejemplos, señor comisario. El caso del Sáhara Occidental, donde, en estos momentos, hay prisioneros políticos en huelga de hambre y, por supuesto, el caso de Turquía. Hablaremos más tarde de Turquía, pero tenemos líderes políticos en la cárcel, académicos, periodistas.

Y, ¿qué decir de Israel, señor comisario? ¿Qué decir de Israel?

Por eso, nos gustaría mucho que se deje de tener cierta complicidad, porque la influencia política también está en no hacer acuerdos comerciales paralelos.

Las Naciones Unidas acaban de afirmar que los ataques de Israel en Gaza, en la marcha del retorno, pueden constituir crímenes contra la humanidad y que han matado a 189 personas —35 de ellas, niños— en esas marchas desde el año 2018

(Încheierea intervențiilor la cerere)

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice—President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, allow me first of all to thank you for this extremely valuable, useful and timely exchange of views. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you again for all your speeches, comments and suggestions.

Today’s debate illustrates again that the possible EU global human rights sanctions regime is an interesting and necessary issue, but also a complex one meriting careful further study. As already mentioned, the current discussions are focusing on the various open questions that should be considered in order to allow for an informed political decision on the feasibility of such a proposal. Discussions will continue in the Council, and we stand ready to contribute to the debate constructively. A final decision will have to be taken unanimously. Allow me, therefore, to express my appreciation for your attention to this highly important topic.

  Președintele. – Propunerile de rezoluție, care urmează să fie depuse în conformitate cu articolul 123 alineatul (2) din Regulamentul de procedură, vor fi anunțate ulterior.

Dezbaterea a fost închisă.

Votul va avea loc joi, 14 martie 2019.

Declarații scrise (articolul 162)

  Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar (PPE), por escrito. – Já por várias vezes a Alta Representante instou à criação de um mecanismo à escala da UE para a imposição de sanções específicas contra pessoas envolvidas em violações graves dos direitos humanos. Na verdade, ao longo das duas últimas décadas, as sanções da UE tornaram-se parte integrante do conjunto dos seus instrumentos em matéria de relações externas, e foram impostas no sentido de apoiar objetivos em matéria de respeito pelos direitos humanos e pelas liberdades fundamentais. A existência de um regime próprio à escala da UE viria a tornar a aplicação de sansões mais eficaz, não limitando a sua aplicação às pessoas de determinados países ou envolvidas em determinados crimes, mas que abrangesse todos os autores de graves violações dos direitos humanos que gozam de impunidade, intervenientes estatais e não estatais, tais como os terroristas e os grupos terroristas. Esta eficácia na imposição de sanções representaria um valioso instrumento que reforçaria o papel da UE enquanto interveniente à escala global no domínio dos direitos humanos.

  Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE), kirjalikult. – Käesolev resolutsioon on ilmekas näide järjekordsest Euroopa Liidu tõhusast töövahendist ühtse välispoliitika teostamiseks. Meie idanaabri õõnestustegevus ning sekkumine liikmesriikide siseriiklikusse poliitikasse on olnud võimalik tänu lihtsakoelise narratiivi levitamisele läbi kasulike idiootide. Liidu kodanike tähelepanu hajutamine läbi infooperatsioonide on ka osa Kremli laiemast strateegiast, mille kohaselt ei tohiks ei Venemaa kodanikud ega ka ülejäänud maailm näha neid õudusi, mida selle autoritaarse riigi vähesed inimõiguste eest seisjad peavad läbi elama. Kõnealune Magnitski seadus, nagu ka sanktsioonid üldiselt, on parim meede Vene võimude agressiooni vastaseks võitluseks ning tähelepanu juhtimiseks asjaolule, et Venemaal piiratakse isikuvabadusi. Seda demonstreerib Putini närvilisus ning pealetükkiv käitumine tema Euroopa Liidus pesitsevate partnerite suunal, kelle kaudu ta on üritanud sanktsioone tühistada või juriidilistest tekstidest nimelisi viiteid Magnitskile eemaldada. Aga tulemuseta – ning nii tulebki seda hoida! Mõistagi omab Magnitski nimi antud instrumendis olulist sümboolset tähtsust, kuid samas ei takista see kuidagi instrumendi kasutamist teiste riikide puhul.