President. – I first of all want to welcome to the gallery Mr Al-Jarrah and Mr Doghmouch, who are visiting us from Syria, and Mr El-Hariri, an eminent Lebanese politician. Thank you for joining us and for listening to our debate.

We welcome you and you will have the opportunity to follow our discussions on the Syrian issue that we are examining.

The next item is the debate on the declaration by the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the situation in Syria (2012/2788(RSP)).

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, honourable Members, 18 months of fighting have seen over 25 000 people dead in Syria, with many countless more made homeless or injured by the situation. August was the bloodiest month since the conflict began, and we have all recognised the appalling human rights violations and the destruction of the infrastructure of the country and of its cultural heritage.

The situation in terms of humanitarian needs has got worse. We have over 230 000 refugees who have escaped into neighbouring countries and 2.5 million inside Syria are in need of assistance, of which 1.5 million are displaced. Still today, massacres continue and we see no end to the plight of so many innocent Syrians.

I begin by saying to you that the humanitarian track is an absolute priority. We have to work closely with the neighbouring countries to coordinate and help in the massive challenge of refugees leaving and those who are displaced internally. Over these last two or three days, I have spoken yet again to the Foreign Ministers of Turkey and Jordan. I also met the Prime Minister of Lebanon to talk about the challenges that they face and to try and offer additional support.

I think Turkey is doing a very impressive job in hosting the refugees, but they are flowing in greater numbers and that is becoming a big difficulty. As the Foreign Minister said to me, it takes a month to build a camp properly but only a very short time to fill it. Refugees, particularly those in Jordan and Lebanon, are being hosted outside camps – in families, in schools – and it is having a greater impact, too, on the services that they need to offer and there is a real need for increased support.

You have seen that Commissioner Georgieva announced over the weekend an additional EUR 50 million of humanitarian funding, which puts us at the point of a contribution from the Commission of EUR 168 million and a total of EUR 240 million across the European Union.

It is also really important, as well as providing the resources, a lot of which is going through NGOs that are providing absolutely vital support on the ground, that we have assisted the Syrian Humanitarian Forum, which exists under the leadership of the United Nations, and that we are providing support for civil society through our neighbourhood policy instruments, both internally and to those who have fled to neighbouring countries, to try and help them to develop and support the civil society needs across the country.

As I have said, we have children that we are supporting in Jordan and in Lebanon, through the UN High Commission for Refugees, to help the capacity of the institutions and local communities that are working with about 300 schools to support children who are now coming in and who need school. As I have said many times before, we should never underestimate the importance of school and education for children who are traumatised by these terrible circumstances and of helping them to have some sense of normality in their lives.

Of course, we have suspended all our work with the Syrian Government but have stepped up assistance through the human rights organisations in the fields of activists; the networking and advocacy and a number of our contracts in Syria are still in place.

So we are still preparing additional funds in order to be able to support the humanitarian relief across all the things that I mentioned – education, food, water, support for people and organisational support. But as you will be the first to say to me, that is not going to end the crisis and we face a very dangerous stalemate with each side seeming to be convinced that the war may turn to their advantage. There could be more violence and suffering and the most radical elements on all sides will become stronger, bringing further militarisation and the risk of sectarian violence. We also are aware of the threat of chemical weapons, and that is being monitored extremely closely.

But the truth is that, despite all the efforts, the international community is, in a sense, at a deadlock. The six-point plan has not been implemented, the UN Security Council has not been able to agree on a common response that could open the way for a political solution. And the opposition, in spite of some real progress which we felt was being made in Cairo at the beginning of July under the supervision of the Arab League, remains fragmented. We do not yet have a real alternative to the regime in power and an alternative that is truly inclusive, something that I know that honourable Members feel very strongly about.

It is obvious that the regime is so clearly responsible for the conflict and that the parties have to do everything possible to find a solution, but we have a collective responsibility and we cannot wait. One would argue that the Syrian people have waited for far too long and this stalemate could drag on, which would have impacts not only on the terrible things that are happening in Syria but beyond into the region.

The priority we have to have, beyond continuing to provide humanitarian aid and support, increasing it, working with Member States, working with the International Red Cross and Red Crescent and working with those who are providing support to the UN, is to find a way to reduce and stop the violence and the killing. We have to do everything we possibly can to find ways to promote this political transition and we have to be ready for the post-conflict moment, for the period of transition towards what we want to see, which is democracy. Our approach has to change in a sense; we have to make real progress on this.

I raised all this with the Foreign Ministers at the Gymnich meeting at the weekend. It was clear, of course, that we are absolutely united that Assad has to go and that we need to see this political transition move forward. We agree that, whilst the humanitarian track is an absolute priority and we must consistently urge the regime and the opposition groups to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law, we have to continue to work on a number of different tracks: political, diplomatic and support for the opposition groups to come together and plan for the future.

On the political and diplomatic track, the EU Ministers reaffirmed their support for Mr Brahimi as the UN-Arab League Joint Special Representative. I have offered him our expertise and our operational assistance in what is an extremely challenging task. He is working with the Security Council, with the neighbouring countries, with the Arab League and with us. I remind honourable Members that our delegation remains open in Damascus and is ready to assist him and his team in any way. I have made that offer very clear to him and he and I will meet for a long discussion when we meet the General Assembly in New York, where we have a meeting arranged and where we will also be meeting the Secretary-General of the Arab League together in order to look at what we can do regionally.

We have to carry on urging a political solution and we have to devote our efforts to find a way to make contact with those who are striving for a peaceful process and that means continuing our outreach on the ground, which we do through the people we have on the ground and through all the contracts that we have as well.

We have to bring the efforts together because without the support for Mr Brahimi, it will be impossible for him to be able to coordinate and find the tangible results. We did everything we could to support Kofi Annan in what he sought to do to try and work to get the Security Council to be able to come together. We need to continue our diplomatic efforts involving all the key partners. I remain in regular touch with Russia, with China, with all the neighbours of Syria, with all the regional organisations I have already described and, of course, with Ban Ki-moon, with whom I talked about this a few days ago.

I will meet again with all of them as well as with Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary Clinton in 10 days’ time in New York. It is absolutely going to be the focus of the UN General Assembly, where I hope we will take the opportunity to seriously discuss and make some progress across the United Nations on this. I believe the Security Council has to work tirelessly to find common ground to support Mr Brahimi. It is absolutely essential that he gets that full support and is able to work in Syria and develop the mission.

One of the issues that I have already touched upon is the need to make sure that we work to support the opposition parties. I have said that we need to find ways of bringing them together and to help and support them to be able to find a transitional government that is ready to move forward. That means bringing all the efforts that are currently going on to do that together so that there is a common approach and a general move forward in that direction.

So, we have the humanitarian aid support, which needs to increase, needs to be tangible, needs to reach people and communities. We have the support from Mr Brahimi in the efforts that he is making to try and find a political solution with the support of everyone, so that the United Nations works together to find the common ground to push forward on this and that we work with the opposition groups, both inside and outside, to find the common ground that can bring together the transitional government-in-waiting and push forward in support of the people.

We have facilitated a dialogue with the opposition groups and we ask them again to set aside their differences and agree on this shared platform of principles, particularly where we can see that they can work together in support of the people of Syria and, of course, building on our approach on human rights to ensure that all are included regardless of faith, gender and so on.

We also have to keep up the economic pressure as well. We have had 17 rounds of sanctions. We discussed at the weekend the need to see what more we can do and, as we do in all our sanctions, to make sure that they are being as effective as possible. We will move without further delay; the work has already started to see what more now could be done.

As honourable Members will be aware, accountability for the crimes that have taken place requires our full attention. These atrocities cannot go unpunished and we have been prominent in calling for a strong response to the systematic and widespread violations of human rights, to combat impunity and hold accountable those responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Syria. Through the current human rights council session, we will push this forward. We have proposed to provide support to enhance that accountability, the efforts of the independent commission of inquiry, which we want to see extended, and other UN bodies and mechanisms.

It is, of course, incredibly difficult to predict the end of this crisis. We have started the planning for the transition, preparing the set of actions at EU level in which we can add value from day one and to coordinate that with our Member States and international organisations. That means ensuring that we have the capacity to increase our presence inside Syria as soon as the situation allows. It means leading on and working towards effective donor coordination and starting to prepare for a very rapid post-conflict needs assessment. All these things need to be done as well and are being done now. It means setting aside the funds that we are going to need to be able to do this because, as well as the additional support for humanitarian aid, we have to find the resources to be able to support the people and to support the transition that is going to be moving forward.

All I can say to end is that we have to begin with the principles that we hold dear, that the future of Syria belongs to the Syrian people, and we have to help them in every possible way that we can. We have engaged in every aspect of trying to find solutions – diplomatic, political – working with Member States to ensure that we are absolutely determined in supporting the efforts of the Security Council, the efforts to bring a common position that will enable the United Nations to move forward and efforts to see what can be done to support the countries of the region, which are, as we speak, dealing with the impact in every possible way and, in doing so, to be able to put the resources behind the words and actually try and help find a solution for the people of Syria.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, in the previous debate, Baroness Ashton said that you were appalled by the situation in Syria, and I think we have run out of words to describe it, as has been said in other debates. Indignation, frustration, impotence, and meanwhile, the bloodbath continues in Syria.

We should look at events, too: Kofi Annan’s resignation in a plan that was doomed to failure from the very beginning. And statements, so many statements: a statement by the new Special Envoy, saying that this is an almost impossible mission, which makes me wonder why he accepted it; a statement by the minister of the Presidency-in-Office of the Council, saying that new sanctions are to be imposed on Syria; statements by the Swedish minister, saying that he does not believe sanctions are going to have any impact; statements by the French minister, saying that we need to put more pressure on Syria. In short, a lot of words and not much action.

As you rightly said, Baroness Ashton, the situation is continuing as it has done for months, but with even more deaths. The regime is sheltering behind the complicity of Russia and China in the United Nations Security Council, and the opposition is winning support across the regional sphere, hoping that sooner or later, there will be international intervention.

In the meantime, Baroness Ashton, I believe the time has come for the EU and regional actors to make a decision. I would like to ask you to answer some specific questions. Do you agree with the statement made by the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, who said the time has come to do something if the Security Council does not make any progress? Do you believe it is viable to establish humanitarian corridors? Do you think it is possible to establish a no-fly zone? Do you believe it is desirable and advisable to arm, support and help the opposition?

Baroness Ashton, more than 20 000 dead people are looking to us, and we have to turn our words into actions. You have done a very good job of providing humanitarian aid, and continue to do so, but our purpose is not to be an International Red Cross. We want to have political leverage, with other actors, in order to stop this carnage.

  Véronique De Keyser, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, I think that we probably all have the same questions, that is to say, you are in front of parliamentarians who firmly believe that the solution is a political solution, without which the problems could spread throughout the region and destabilise it. We can see it today: if there is no political decision, the region will become unstable. We are starting to see it in Lebanon. We can imagine what would happen if there were such a response from Iran. We feel very strongly that we have come to the point where a choice has to be made. I am not asking you to respond but, for us, there is no doubt that it is the major issue today.

We went to Washington on Friday: I visited the State Department and everyone talked to me about the next steps. They are looking at the transition for ‘the day after’. Are we already there? I thought that we were still in the thick of it. I see that there are plans for the future. We know how to neutralise chemical weapons, we know how to provide humanitarian aid, and so on, and we are all preparing for after the transition because that is an area where our hands are free. However, it is surreal, in my opinion, to be talking about the post-transition period when people are dying today.

I am not asking you for a response that you cannot give, but I would perhaps ask you one last thing, Baroness Ashton. I am obsessed about the risk of this spreading and I know that you are working to reduce this risk, but we need to put more emphasis on that.

You have talked about your conversations and your dialogue with Iran. I know that you put a lot of emphasis on the Lebanese issue, but perhaps reducing the risk of this spreading would already be a very concrete response to what we are terribly concerned about today and what is, in fact, discouraging us.

IN THE CHAIR: ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to say to Ms Ashton that I think her approach is completely unrealistic: to talk here in the plenary about political transition at a time when there are 25 000 deaths and 70 000 people missing in Syria and 250 000 refugees outside Syria.

No, let us recognise that it is the attitude of the international community – which is doing nothing at all – that is a scandal. We know why they are doing nothing: because there are American elections. It is impossible at the moment for the candidate who will be elected – or for the candidate who will be re-elected – to have an operation in Syria. That is the reality.

So tell us the truth and do not tell us we are waiting for a political transition. There will not be a political transition unless, first of all, the problem of the violence of Assad is tackled and an end put to his regime. You know it very well: end the Assad regime. It will only be done by the international community taking a number of measures – a no-fly zone, for example. If you do not start with a no-fly zone, he can continue to use his planes against the population, against Aleppo, against other cities in Syria.

If you do not create safe zones near the borders with Jordan and Turkey, it is impossible to have a safe haven for refugees. If you do not create humanitarian corridors so that the people can go there, the problems will continue. If you do not give weapons to the Free Syrian Army, then it will be the Jihad that continues to enter. This is what I hear: ‘Syria is a problem. The Jihad fighters are there now’.

It is our responsibility. If the western democracies do not shoulder their responsibilities – which we are not doing now – then automatically it is warriors of the Jihad who will be carrying out violence inside Syria, as is happening at the moment. So my question to you is: Will you simply continue this? Keep repeating this message? Then there will be 30 000 deaths, maybe 40 000 deaths in the future, half a million refugees. It is time that the international community recognises that neither the Kofi Annan plan, nor its successor, are able to do it.

It is time also to overcome the deadlock in the Security Council. I think that we have an obligation to protect these people and this obligation to protect these people is not, in my opinion, a value that is dependent on the attitude of the Russians and the attitude of the Chinese.

A coalition of the willing was possible for bad causes – we did it in the past. Why not for a good cause here in Syria to end the bloodshed that is happening today? That is your task: to lead us. If the Americans do not have the courage, maybe you have and the Europeans have the courage.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Véronique De Keyser (S&D), Blue-card question. – (FR) Do you really believe, Mr Verhofstadt, that it is simply a question of the US election, when, at the Democratic Convention, President Obama just boasted, and rightly so, about ending two wars? Do you think that if he is elected, he is going to start another war that could be even more dangerous than the Iraq war or the Afghanistan war? If, as you suggest, we end the deadlock in the Security Council, which would obviously be ‘the’ solution, that would mean that Russia is in agreement to some extent. If Russia is in agreement, however, that would mean that Bashar would be gone straight away, and there would be no need for war.

  Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE), Blue-card answer. – (FR) If the Americans or the Europeans do not have the courage to intervene, it is going to continue; that we know. Assad is not going to leave of his own volition. As we know, all of the sanctions have already been applied. Increasing the number of sanctions will change nothing at all. The only thing that can change anything is for the Americans and the Europeans to establish a no-fly zone in Syria, as they have done in the past. This would automatically lead to the liberation of territories, which, for some, are already liberated. At the moment, however, there is a civil war over there. I hear people saying: ‘Yes but, you know, your attitude is very dangerous; that could start a war’. There is already a war in Syria, however. There is a civil war in which many tens of thousands of people have died.

We should be asking ourselves the following question instead: for how long are we going to allow this situation to continue? If we had intervened six or nine months ago, 10 000 or 15 000 fewer people would have died.

(The speaker agreed to take another blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Bernd Posselt (PPE), Blue-card question. – (DE) Mr President, I have a question for Mr Verhofstadt. He speaks here of war and civil war, and I would like to ask him to what extent he knows which forces are actually fighting against the regime in Syria, and whether or not there is a danger that the situation will be abused by Islamist and totalitarian forces, particularly with regard to minorities in Syria, Christians in Syria and other groups. Is it not necessary to speed up the process of finding a political solution, particularly given the possible existence of the extremist wing within the Syrian opposition?

  Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE), Blue-card answer. – In my opinion, the extremists are coming in more and more at this moment because the western democracies are not taking on their responsibilities. The only help that the Syrian people are receiving for the moment is from extremists coming in who have weapons, while the Free Syrian Army has no weapons and no possibility to fight against Assad’s army. I think that is the reason why we are partly responsible for the fact that more and more Jihad warriors are entering Syria, coming from Jordan and other neighbouring countries into Syria. The only way to stop that is for the international community to shoulder its responsibilities. It should decide on a free no-fly zone and on the other elements that I have listed. Otherwise, we are responsible for the radicalisation of the conflict.

  Rui Tavares, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are, once again, in one of those debates typical of this Parliament: a debate about a real dilemma. The situation in Syria is complex. The situation in Syria is problematic. We do not know whether to intervene or not. It is, in fact, very easy to know what to do, so let us start with the simple things.

It is simple that 200 000 refugees have left Syria. We have the tools to handle this; it is not true to say that we do not. The European Refugee Fund has not been completely spent: we have millions of euro for resettling the refugees in those camps and for improving conditions in the camps. Moreover, we have the refugees who are inside Syria itself, who are the result of the EU’s past blunders because there are still hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Iraq War in the town of Jaramana, near Damascus, mainly from minorities: Christians, Sabaeans, Mandeans, Yazidi and Zoroastrians. They are 70 kilometres from the Lebanese border and a humanitarian corridor could be opened. However, there are 200 ... 200 Palestinian refugees in the camp of Al Hol, whom we have promised to resettle; they are 10 kilometres from the border. We could also establish a humanitarian corridor 10 kilometres from the Iraqi border or 30 kilometres from the Turkish border.

However, what I should like to say to Lady Ashton, above all, is that we do not need a humanitarian corridor because the EU has a border with Syria. An EU Member State – which currently holds the Presidency of the Council – has a maritime border. Lady Ashton only has to talk to the Cypriot Presidency and say that, instead of Cyprus allowing arms through to al-Assad, as it has already done, what it must do is open its maritime border to receive refugees there and then, using a European distribution key, as has already been suggested here, distribute these refugees around the EU, and prepare them and help them, so that we can support democratic transition in Syria. All she has to do is talk to the Cypriot Presidency, which has not been doing anything.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (NL) Mr President, at the end of last week, Jacques Beres, co-founder of Médecins Sans Frontières, returned to Paris after a fortnight of providing intensive medical treatment in a hospital in Aleppo, which is on the front line.

In a candid interview, he said he had predominantly treated rebel fighters, of whom at least half were of foreign origin. Among Mr Beres’ patients, there were dozens of fanatical jihadists – as we have already heard during this debate – including young French citizens. They are seeking to establish an Islamic state in Syria, based on Sharia law.

Madam High Representative, I would like to put two questions to you: do you share the findings of Jacques Beres on the presence of many jihadis on Syrian territory and, if so, what consequences does that have for the European strategy in Syria?

Secondly, how do you intend to deal in the near future with the return of European jihadists from the Syrian battlefield?

  Willy Meyer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (ES) Mr President, these four walls have already witnessed heated debates on other occasions in favour of the war, in favour of military intervention, allegedly as a means of resolving conflicts.

Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. In no way whatsoever do I share people’s need to turn Syria into another Iraq or Afghanistan, where insecurity has increased, where death and destruction have been caused, and the Taliban have taken control of Afghanistan. Yes, the Taliban. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, al-Qaeda was not responsible, and yet intervention took place. All to create a more unjust world.

In Syria, we have to condemn Mr Assad’s crimes and repression, but also those of the opposition, as well as the opposition’s terrorist acts, jihad and links with al-Qaeda. The only possible solution is peace. Therefore, we should support the United Nations special envoy and make all the states in the region, including Iran, commit to a ceasefire so that the Syrian people can decide their own future, but not in order to establish a government of one colour or another according to whatever most suits each particular state, as the United States and Saudi Arabia do. Absolutely not. We should do so in order for the Syrian people to be free to decide their own future, and to put an end to this horrendous civil war.

This is no time to be adding fuel to the fire, Mr Verhofstadt. That is not the point, and we should not push for a foreign military intervention that will lead to chaos in the region – nothing but chaos.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I would like to begin by condemning the repression of the opposition using extreme violence and the deliberate attacks perpetrated against civilians by the Assad regime and its supporters. These acts of violence have also affected the Romanian community in Syria which was formed at the start of the crisis, numbering roughly 14 000. Many Romanian citizens have chosen not to leave Syria and are therefore suffering from the barbarity of the Syrian regime.

Apart from providing humanitarian aid to victims, our main concern must remain, in my view, diplomatic action, aimed at persuading Bashar al-Assad to withdraw from Syrian politics in order to allow a cessation to the clashes to be negotiated. In this regard, I welcome the decision made by the Foreign Affairs Council to impose even harsher sanctions against the Syrian regime. I believe that every possible measure needs to be devised and applied to contain the actions of the dictator in Damascus, for example, restricting Syria’s financial and commercial activities, as was also decided in the case of Iran.

On the other hand, I am deeply concerned about the current deadlock in the UN Security Council and am appalled that some permanent members are tolerating the massacre in Syria in order to protect their commercial interests in the region. In the wake of the renewed refusal by Russia and China to negotiate a new resolution on the Syrian problem, I think that the European Union should join forces with its strategic partners to support a united Syrian opposition.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – Mr President, I share the feelings of frustration and shame for the inaction of the international community in exercising its responsibility to protect the people of Syria, towards whom I feel a great solidarity. However, I understand that this is one area where the High Representative cannot move along if our Member States are not moving along. The equipment which is necessary to implement a no-fly zone cannot be made by simple statements.

Therefore, I support working with Brahimi, with the OIC and with the Arab League now to try to find a solution. I am also in favour of supporting and encouraging the opposition to get together so that they will be able to deal with the situation after Assad. It is, of course, crucial that Assad and his henchmen and women are brought in front of the ICC – out of Syria and in front of the ICC. Of course, humanitarian support is crucial, but that alone is not enough. We need to send a very clear message to Russia, China, Brazil, India, and so on – and to their public opinion – that it is outrageous the way their countries are behaving, obstructing the work of the Security Council and preventing the international community from exercising its responsibility to protect the people of Syria.

  Marietje Schaake (ALDE). – Mr President, after so many debates on Syria, I already know what we are going to be hearing from you: it is a terrible tragedy; human rights have to be respected; Assad has lost his legitimacy; the EU has imposed sanctions and provided humanitarian aid in cooperation with our partners, etc. etc. But this means nothing any more for the Syrian people who are being slaughtered every day, caught between a murderous regime and foreign fighters ranging from Hizbollah to al-Qaeda.

I do not think Assad is losing sleep over EU sanctions. The options are not easy, but doing nothing is no longer one of them. Let us at least enforce our own embargoes effectively. You will understand the shock I experienced at reading the Council conclusions on 23 July, one year and two months after EU sanctions and an arms embargo were imposed. I quote: ‘EU countries will be obliged to inspect vessels and aircraft heading to Syria if they suspect they contain weapons or equipment for internal repression’. Is this what we are coming up with as a result of a Council, one year and two months after the imposition of an EU arms embargo? I do not think this does any justice to the EU as a global player. Words are no longer enough for the Syrian people.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE), Blue-card question. – (PT) Ms Schaake, I agree with most of your speech, but I should like to ask you a question, partly because I do not believe Lady Ashton had the opportunity to hear me a moment ago. You are, I suppose, aware that the main suspect in transporting arms – in particular, Russian arms – to al-Assad is an EU government, which currently holds the Presidency of the Council? It is the government of Cyprus which, moreover, has a maritime border with Syria. The fact is that we do not need humanitarian corridors on land if we share a maritime border with Syria which could, instead of allowing arms into Syria, be used to resettle refugees.

I would ask you if you agree with this analysis?

  Marietje Schaake (ALDE), Blue-card answer. – Indeed, the role of Cyprus is very important here. There have been ships which have docked in Cyprus that have later continued on with weapons on board to Syria. That is a disgrace. I am surprised, and confused, about what a weapons embargo even means if this can continue to happen.

If we are not capable of at least enforcing our own actions and words, such as on a weapons embargo and the export of repressive technologies, then we are losing our credibility. I appreciate the complexity of the international reality around Syria but I do think that doing nothing – the way we have for the past year and a half – is no longer an option.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, Baroness Ashton, it is obvious that we all accept one thing: the actions of the al-Assad regime are indefensible, in Syria or any other part of the world; the way in which it has used military force on the population is absolutely indefensible.

What I cannot understand from a number of speeches here is that people are saying we need more robust foreign military intervention. Let us agree on one thing: foreign military intervention has been going on in Syria for a long time. In fact, what is happening is that we are all jointly responsible for this situation, since we are exacerbating a domestic conflict between Sunni and Shia. The solution for Syria is a political solution: there can be no other. In this regard, I completely support what the High Representative said.

We cannot say that there are good wars and bad wars. All wars are bad. All the parties involved in this process want to win, but – please consider – the losers here are Syria’s civilian population. It is they who are losing. We will therefore attempt to reach a solution by means of politics and of supporting that which can be supported, not with an intervention that will not be any kind of miracle cure for a region that is – let us agree – in the midst of the most problematic situation currently being experienced in the Middle East.

  Mário David (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, we continue to stand by powerlessly as a people is massacred by murderers in the pay of a regime that is cornered, has no future, and insists on keeping a grip on power at the expense of the blood of its own citizens. This situation is untenable and intolerable. Legally and institutionally, al-Assad is responsible, but is that really the case? In the end, who is in charge in Syria? Is it him or is it his father’s entourage? Is he here lying to his people too?

To make the situation even more tragic, the strange patchwork comprising the opposition does not suggest that the al-Assad era will be followed by a solution that is simultaneously democratic, tolerant and representative of Syria’s various religious, ethnic, social and cultural realities. A solution will also be impossible without a vehement repudiation of some of the forms of struggle used by the opposition in this fratricidal and irrational war that brings into conflict dark forms of idealism mixed with genuine cries for freedom from a regime fighting solely for its survival. They should also know that war crimes will not be tolerated.

Once again, High Representative, the EU is demonstrating its sensitivity to the tragedy of the more than 250 000 refugees in neighbouring countries, as the largest donor of humanitarian aid. I hope it is being correctly channelled. I should like to get something off my chest, however: the international community has been acting so hypocritically that it is just discrediting itself. I am one of those who refuse to accept that a Syrian life is not worth the same as any other life.

  Saïd El Khadraoui (S&D). – (NL) Mr President, every month, we come together here in order to condemn repeatedly the horrific violence in Syria and, every time, our words prove inadequate. A regime that sacrifices its own population in such a way will be overthrown, that is for sure. We also need to repeat that message to the supporters of President Assad – those who still have doubts. Our message has to be: there is no future with him and his regime. Change your allegiance and join us in building a new Syria.

We need to make much more effort than we are currently making to take action that will lead to the further crumbling of the regime and its isolation. Of course, arms deliveries must be discontinued. A military intervention might sound enticing, but I agree with those who say that that could cause even more chaos. We could only consider such a course of action if a unanimous Syrian opposition make a demand to that effect.

In the meantime, we have to provide effective humanitarian aid, increase pressure on China and Russia in every possible way to turn their backs on the regime and to do everything possible to help the opposition organise, unite and develop a credible alternative.

  Sari Essayah (PPE). – (FI) Mr President, various scenarios can certainly be proposed for a solution to the crisis, but none of them would be easy, because the international community is so divided on this issue. We had an example of this recently, when on Sunday, Hillary Clinton dismissed Russia’s proposal for a UN resolution, calling it pointless and ‘without teeth’. Russia, on the other hand, still disagrees with the West’s call for al-Assad to relinquish power, and it also opposes additional sanctions against Syria, and Iran too.

Here, many of the Members have stated that extremist movements, jihadists, have become entangled in this war, and it is also possible that this crisis will spread very quickly to neighbouring countries. In a way, however, it is outsiders that should become involved and bring about a ceasefire, during which it would be possible to start to solve this crisis politically.

It is good that Baroness Ashton mentioned here how Syria’s neighbouring countries, Turkey, and Jordan too, have taken in growing streams of refugees. We must also do something to deliver humanitarian aid to the region.

  Maria Eleni Koppa (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, Lady Ashton, we are all extremely disappointed today. We need more than findings; we need decisions on Syria. The country is still drowning in blood and the West is standing by helpless. Our inability and the inability of the Security Council to send a strict message is allowing Assad to believe that he can still win. That is our failure. Neighbouring countries, specifically Lebanon and Jordan and, primarily, Turkey, are under huge pressure from the massive influx of refugees. According to UN data, one hundred thousand Syrians abandoned their country in August alone, in quest of refuge in neighbouring Turkey. Turkey objectively cannot handle such numbers alone. The search for security and survival will bring these people to European host countries, such as Greece, Italy and, ultimately, the other EU Member States. The consequences of this exodus will be huge. Even at this eleventh hour, we must join forces and find a way of putting an immediate end to the violence and strengthening humanitarian efforts, in order to give some prospects and some hope to these people.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, over 250 000 refugees and over 20 000 people killed – this is the drama that is playing itself out right now in Syria, with no end in sight. It is going on now, while we are debating. The conflict has, of course, resulted in the fact that we support the opposition but we must be aware that, day by day, this conflict is becoming less black and white, as there are growing numbers of people there whose objective is war, whose only aim is for the conflict to continue.

Minorities, and this includes Christian minorities, are also under threat in Syria. If the UN security resolution had not been blocked by, inter alia, Russia, then perhaps we would have been much closer to resolving this conflict. However, in this Chamber, we will be speaking about the accession of Russia to the World Trade Organisation. It may be the time when we should say that a country that wishes to join the WTO should not block peace initiatives, including ones relating to Syria. We are conscious of the fact that here, in this Chamber, we are not able to resolve this situation, but our concern should, so to speak, be communicated to those who have the power to take decisions.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Sophocles Sophocleous (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, may I express my delight at the support for the Syrian people. The European Union has given a total of EUR 240 million, including EUR 168 million from the European Commission. It has been said, however, that the priority is to keep sending humanitarian aid. In my opinion, the priority should be for the dictator Assad to go. The dead will not come back and certainly do not need our help. Of course, humanitarian aid still needs to be sent at the same time and in parallel. I should like to put a question to Lady Ashton: is there any removal plan and, if so, what is it? Political accountability is not enough nor, of course, is ex post accountability through the courts.

  Ivo Vajgl (ALDE). – (SL) Mr President, I think we are all now well aware of what is happening in Syria. There is a civil and religious war going on there, as well as a global conflict for influence, with many interests at stake.

This is not a game that involves just people who are represented here in the gallery by brave and heroic freedom fighters; it also involves countries and their political interests. These are countries to whom democratic principles are totally alien and who are yet to be taught such principles.

Lady Ashton, I believe that the direction you are advocating is the right one. It is the journey towards a political solution, which must include an end to the regime in Damascus. However, a political solution is always much cheaper and much cleverer than war.

  Sajjad Karim (ECR). – Mr President, several months ago, I raised the issue of journalists and media personnel being detained and their services being hacked by the Syrian authorities to thwart information reaching the outside world. The pace of that has increased and it now encompasses many other professions as well. Their numbers are well into the thousands. We have no knowledge about where these people are or how they are being kept. They are incommunicado.

What steps are we, as a European Union, taking to monitor and investigate this? It is quite clear that, as an international community, we are demonstrating a very limp-wristed approach. Commissioner, do you have a single European leader who is willing to establish either a no-fly zone or to arm the Free Syrian Army? If you do, who? If you do not, is it within the power of your office to encourage them to come to that position?

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD). – (EL) Mr President, Baroness Ashton, we talk about Syria, but it is all findings and wishes. That is all we can do. We find that a civil war is under way in which thousands of people are being sacrificed every day. We stand by their families and hope that this war will, at some point, come to an end. I cannot say that we are making superhuman efforts and I cannot ask you to assume responsibility for what we are and are not doing in Syria, when the UN has failed to find a solution to the problem, because the situation is complicated by the ties between that country and Russia and Iran. The point I want to make is that we must ‘beware of Danaans bearing gifts’. We must beware of Turkey, which is trying to address an issue that comes within the Davutoğlu doctrine. I ask you, firstly, what are the opposition forces in Syria and who controls them; secondly, is there a refugee admittance plan and, thirdly, what are we going to do about the Christians in Syria?

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, the video which emerged in Russia early this week, in which the Syrian President declares his willingness to step down, will probably only serve to keep Moscow in line with Assad. We know, of course, that the Russian veto prevents the adoption of a UN resolution, the consequences of which are palpable. The situation is not likely to change any time soon.

The Assad regime’s willingness to cling on to power using all available means was universally underestimated. This brutality could be linked to the multi-religious tensions which have been simmering in the region for a long time and which are known to be exacerbated by ethnic conflicts. Nothing else remains to be done save exerting more pressure on the regime by imposing sanctions. Direct military intervention, however, should probably be ruled out. The divided opposition and the fact that the rebels do not shy away from committing human rights violations, arbitrary executions and torture either are reason enough not to do this. We are also aware that there is a serious risk of militant Islamists using the chaos to consolidate their influence. We cannot allow that to happen.

  Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in reality, this debate is merely recording our powerlessness in the face of the tragedy that is unfolding in Syria, and I would like to know whether we are simply acknowledging this state of affairs or whether we intend to implement an appropriate, strong political initiative to try and restart diplomatic activity and adopt the necessary choices in the field, starting with the humanitarian corridor.

Europe cannot be a passive bystander to the events taking place. Those who think that this situation should be prolonged must be aware that they are taking on a major political and moral responsibility. Is it true, Baroness Ashton, that you feel conditioned by the divisions and inconclusiveness of the Member State chancelleries? If so, this must be said.

We need to call loudly upon all the European governments to support your work and your European action consistently, and I would like to hear this call clearly from yourself, Baroness Ashton, here today in the European Parliament.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, I think that we should condemn open intervention by major imperialist powers, such as the present intervention against the Syrian people, in the most categorical terms. This sort of intervention is hugely responsible for perpetuating and exacerbating the situation. I wish to mention something that no one has mentioned in this Chamber: the fact that the US President has approved CIA action against the Syrian people. I wish to mention something reported in the newspapers: the fact that France has already sent ‘humanitarian’ aid to five cities in Syria. We know full well that military aid has been sent under cover of humanitarian aid to Libya and elsewhere. I also wish to refute in the most categorical terms the brazen accusation made in this House that the Republic of Cyprus is in favour of sending arms to Syria. Unfounded statements such as this pave the way for new crimes against the nations in the area, as happened in Libya, as happened in Afghanistan, and as happened in Iraq.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, the methods used by the Syrian Government have been appalling and indefensible. However, this civil war is not a simple conflict between right and wrong. The Ba’ath Party is a secular party and had a reputation before the conflict for tolerance of religious minorities including Christians. Furthermore, the opposition includes Jihadists with links to al-Qaeda, and what is more, members of the Syrian army captured by the Free Syrian Army have been subjected to summary executions and torture.

We must not think that a government of Syria based on the opposition will be democratic, observant of human rights and the rule of law. When the West in future asks itself whether or not a regime should be removed and replaced, it should ask itself a second question: replaced by what or by whom? And would it be an improvement? We might then ask a third question: which countries and interest groups stood to gain by regime change in Syria?

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, let me begin by making something very clear. We are not doing nothing. I think sometimes some honourable Members have the mistaken idea that if you have a military activity, that is action, and that somehow diplomatic activity is not. On behalf of the tireless work that our delegation does every day in Damascus in Syria, and in the United Nations and elsewhere, I must ask them to remember the efforts they make.

I paid tribute to our Head of Delegation for Syria at the Heads of Delegation Conference because I know how much he does and the challenges and risks he has to take. It would be wrong of this House not to recognise those activities. We are not doing nothing. There is a huge amount going on. What I tried to point out were the areas of activity where we have been able to show real progress.

Honourable Members will appreciate that we have looked at every single idea that they have put forward – and many others. There are people in Brussels and across the European Union – military experts and others – who look at every possible way in which we could engage with Syria. They also look at the way in which we have engaged historically and they look at the political needs that we have in so doing.

Syria is not Libya and you should not mix them up. They are completely different in every possible way and we have to recognise that. A Security Council resolution led the way in Libya. We knew that a no-fly zone was a military action. It is not a benign activity. It is something you do using military assets. If you move in and decide you are going to take military action, you have to recognise the size and scale of what is being asked and ask how to do that, what one can be sure about when one goes in and how many countries are willing to put young men and women on the line to do that.

I believe a political solution is what we have to work towards. The situation on the ground is very difficult. Yes, there are Jihad fighters. Yes, there are people from different groups on the ground. No, it is not our fault that they are there, but yes, it is true. The situation has become more difficult and more confused, and because we cannot get the Opposition groups to come together with a coherent and comprehensive view of what the transition would be in support of all the people, it is even more difficult to establish a way in which we can do this, but we have to keep trying and we do.

Every single day we work on these issues, every single day we work with the neighbouring countries. Every single day we work with the Security Council members. Every day we work with our delegation on the ground, with the international NGOs and with the Red Cross and others. Do not accuse us of inactivity please.

In terms of what I think you want to see happen, I understand your frustrations. I really do. I understand the passion. I share it. It is a horrendous situation, but we have to be careful and clear about what we can do to engage with it. When I met with the 27 Foreign Ministers, that is what we talked about. We talked about all the possibilities. We talked about what we felt we could do and we came to the conclusions that you have seen in the Council conclusions.

Let me just add, by the way, the reason for the Council conclusion on getting Member States to check what is going through their countries is precisely because this Parliament asked us to. That is why we did it. Now I find, perhaps, that that has not been accepted for what it was. But it was you who asked us, and I did it, and that is why it matters that we continue to insist that Member States ensure that what is going through their ports is checked whenever they have reason to believe it is necessary.

It is also why we continue to look for more sanctions that we can place on the regime, not least to send the strongest and clearest message to everyone else that we want to see Assad go and we want to see a solution inclusive of the people of Syria, and born of the people of Syria, that will help them get the kind of society that we think most people want, because the truth is most people in Syria want Assad to go and want a solution.

That is what we have to build on and that is what we have to support, and to do it in a way that we believe can be effective. We have worked really hard with the Security Council Members. I spent eleven hours in Geneva talking with members of the Security Council and others to try and get the Geneva discussion to bring in everyone. I work hard in the core group of the Friends of Syria. We attend and discuss many meetings all the time to try and find a way through this. We are not inactive. The European Union is respected for what we try to do in supporting the people of Syria and trying to find a way through this incredibly difficult challenge.

Frankly, honourable Members, if it was easy to find a solution to this, we would have done so already. It is not hiding under a cushion somewhere; it is amazingly difficult. People across the world are trying to engage and find that solution. So, before we leap to the conclusion that unless you have military activity you are inactive, let us really consider what we mean by that. Let us really consider the implications of the big words translated into action on the ground and start thinking properly and comprehensively about what we do, including in the days after.

Because if we do not start preparing for that now – and the State Department are right to prepare for it – we will not be ready for what could be a situation which crumbles very quickly and where we will have to be ready with assets to move in, to support people in all the places we have been unable to reach. To get the infrastructure working and to get people into a future is going to need an enormous amount of effort. If we do not get the planning done for that now, we will not be in a position to help people. So I encourage you to support the US and us and everybody else in doing so.

Honourable Members, I hope I have given you a sense of the passion I feel about this issue. I take my responsibilities seriously, but we have to find solutions which we know are going to work, that we can engage with members of the international community to achieve and, most of all, that we believe will bring peace as quickly as possible and not an escalation of violence.

  President. – I have received six motions for resolutions⁽¹⁾tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday, 13 September 2012, at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) We have been counting the death toll from the domestic conflict seriously afflicting the Syrian people for 18 months. Diplomatic efforts, political pressure and international sanctions have not produced any result. In addition, August was the bloodiest month since the outbreak of the revolt in March 2011. The deterioration in the situation in Syria complicates the regional balance. The attacks on the Kurdish rebels along the Turkish-Syrian border are threatening to globalise the conflict in a Middle East which is overshadowed by war and at a time of growing tension between Iran and Israel.

Against the backdrop of the continuing deadlock in the Security Council on Syria, the new UN envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, replacing Kofi Annan who has stepped down, feels that military intervention would signify the failure of the political process. In these circumstances, I would like to know what the European Union’s position is on the Egyptian President’s initiative to call a meeting of the representatives of a group of states in the region with the aim of finding solutions to the Syrian crisis. I believe that regional dialogue may be more effective than other options, some of which have already been used up, but only if there is also the necessary desire to find a solution on the part of the major powers whose lack of support has been criticised by the previous UN mediator, Kofi Annan.

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Some months ago, I asked the High Representative about her views on the possibility of changing the positions of Russia and China regarding intervention in Syria. We cannot just watch President Assad killing his opponents and not do anything. Over 20 000 people have now died in this conflict. The lack of any effective involvement by Western democratic countries has also permitted extremist groupings to become stronger. We should do everything we can to convince China and Russia to stop blocking UN Security Council decisions. Every day that this decision is postponed condemns Syria to move ever further from introducing peace, stability, development, respect for law and respect for human rights. We are condemning the whole country to slow annihilation.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I add my voice to that of my fellow Members who have signed the joint resolution on Syria, in calling on the international community to intervene to try and stop the massacre that we can see from the media is taking place on a daily basis. Since the unrest first began in March 2011, almost 20 000 people have died, many of whom were defenceless women and children targeted in attacks organised by the men of President Assad’s regime. The number of refugees is even higher. Hundreds of people are continuing to flow into neighbouring countries, creating instability in areas of the world which are already very politically unstable. In addition, in Syria, around 3 million people need urgent aid, because the Syrian Government has cut their access to food, water and medicines. I am sorry to have to acknowledge that so far, the United Nations has been unable to satisfactorily manage the situation, which seems to be getting more and more out of hand every day, leading to the resignation of Kofi Annan. The Syrian regime has at this point lost all credibility and legitimacy in its role as representative of the Syrian people, and it is to be hoped that President Assad will step down.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. – I agree with the President of the ALDE Group, Guy Verhofstadt, that the prolonged hesitation of the international community to take action is scandalous. It has already cost the lives of far too many Syrian people and unless the violence is brought to an end, the death toll may exceed that in Libya. It is just tragic that the blocking members of the UN Security Council will have the blood of many Syrians on their hands now as well. Yet the reluctance of the Member States to make further efforts to end the conflict in the immediate neighbourhood is also difficult to understand, since tensions in this region bear direct consequences for the European Union. The Middle East is a powder keg that will do much better without the naked flame in Syria. I encourage the High Representative to call on the Member States to support and provide means for establishing a no-fly zone over Syria and taking further measures to end the massacre in the country.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Last week, the Commission announced an increase in European humanitarian aid to Syria. Between the contributions from the Member States and the sums allocated from the EU budget, almost EUR 200 million have been released. I wish to congratulate the EU on its financial efforts and underline the difficulties encountered on the ground in getting the aid to its destination. We urgently need ‘humanitarian pauses’ to help the 2.5 million Syrians who have been displaced and/or trapped in urban confrontations (mainly in Damascus and Aleppo). The ‘regional protection programme’ soon to be launched by the EU must receive the unanimous support of the international community. The complicit diplomacy of Russia, China and other emerging countries towards the al-Assad regime is intolerable: in the face of a civil war that is growing worse by the day, it is essential to establish a responsible international scenario that results in effective action. The repercussions of that action on neighbouring countries, notably Lebanon and Jordan, must be taken into account.

  Boris Zala (S&D), in writing. – (SK) We are in a typical trap: on the one hand, we want to do all we can to stop the war in Syria. Humanitarian reasons lead us there. The only possible way is intervention. Nevertheless, on the other hand, we want to respect international law, and that means acting under a UN mandate. We do not have one, however – Russia and China are blocking it. How to proceed: bypass the UN and intervene on the principle of a ‘coalition of the willing’? We must decide whether to leave Syria to its own devices or to intervene, even with the consequences for the global legal system and the position of the UN. If we decide against intervention, we shall have to bear the moral responsibility. If we do intervene, we will have to bear the consequences of a military operation.