2. Az Európai Unió és Irak - Az Európai Unió szerepvállalásának kerete
El Presidente. Procedemos al debate del informe del señor Dimitrakopoulos, en nombre de la Comisíón de Asuntos Exteriores, sobre la Unión Europea e Iraq: un marco para la acción [2004/2168(INI)] (A6-0198/2005).
Γιώργος Δημητρακόπουλος (PPE-DE), Εισηγητής.– Κύριε Προεδρεύοντα του Συμβουλίου, κυρία Επίτροπε, κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι, θα ήθελα κατ' αρχήν να εκφράσω τις ευχαριστίες μου προς τους συναδέλφους και τις συναδέλφους της Επιτροπής Εξωτερικών Υποθέσεων για τη συνεργασία την οποία είχαμε, ώστε σήμερα να έχετε μπροστά σας μία έκθεση, που πιστεύω ότι είναι ολοκληρωμένη και δίνει κάποιες ουσιαστικές κατευθυντήριες γραμμές για το πού πρέπει να κινούνται στο μέλλον οι σχέσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης με το Ιράκ.
Δεν υπάρχει καμία αμφιβολία ότι η κατάσταση στο Ιράκ από την ώρα που τελείωσαν οι στρατιωτικές επιχειρήσεις είναι δύσκολη και δυστυχώς κάθε μέρα γίνεται δυσκολότερη. Έτσι η πρώτη παρατήρηση την οποία έχω να κάνω αφορά στον χαρακτηρισμό της ασφάλειας ως του πιο σημαντικού προβλήματος που διαπιστώνεται σήμερα στο Ιράκ. Και είναι σημαντικό όχι μόνο γιατί καθημερινά στοιχίζει χιλιάδες ανθρώπινες ζωές αλλά γιατί η αντιμετώπιση του προβλήματος της ασφάλειας είναι προϋπόθεση για να γίνει οτιδήποτε άλλο.
Βεβαίως δεν αρκεί η διαπίστωση αυτή. Πρέπει να ληφθούν και πολύ συγκεκριμένα μέτρα. Ένα από αυτά βεβαίως είναι η επανασύσταση των ιρακινών δυνάμεων ασφαλείας και από την άλλη πλευρά η επανασύσταση του ιρακινού στρατού, ζήτημα όχι εύκολο. Ταυτόχρονα, επειδή ορισμένα προβλήματα ασφαλείας έχουν την αφετηρία τους στην παρουσία εκεί ξένων στρατιωτικών δυνάμεων, θεωρώ ότι θα ήταν ένα σημαντικό βήμα η αντικατάσταση των στρατιωτικών δυνάμεων με μία ειρηνευτική δύναμη των Ηνωμένων Εθνών. Και αυτό είναι μία από τις βασικές προτάσεις της έκθε�!
�ής μου. Βεβαίως είναι κάτι το οποίο δεν μπορεί να γίνει μέσα σε 48 ώρες, βεβαίως είναι μία απόφαση που οπωσδήποτε θέλει συζήτηση, βεβαίως είναι μια απόφαση που πρέπει να βασίζεται σε απόφαση του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας των Ηνωμένων Εθνών. Όμως κατά την άποψή μου είναι απαραίτητη.
Η τρίτη παρατήρηση που έχω να κάνω αφορά την ανοικοδόμηση. Μετά τον πόλεμο το Ιράκ είναι ένα κράτος στο οποίο όλοι οι κοινωνικοί ιστοί έχουν διαλυθεί. Έτσι η ανοικοδόμηση δεν πρέπει να εξετάζεται σαν μία απλή λογιστική κατασκευαστική διαδικασία, υπάρχει βεβαίως και θέμα κατασκευών, υπάρχει όμως και θέμα ανάπλασης και προσανατολισμού μιας κοινωνίας, και η ανάπλαση και ο προσανατολισμός μιας κοινωνίας περιλαμβάνει πολιτική, περιλαμβάνει οικονομία, περιλαμβάνει κοινωνικά ζητήματα, περιλαμβάνει τον πολιτισμό.
Κομβικό σημείο στη διαδικασία της σφαιρικής ανοικοδόμησης είναι οπωσδήποτε μια διαδικασία που μόλις τώρα άρχισε, δηλαδή η εκπόνηση του νέου συντάγματος. Είναι σαφές, και πρέπει να είναι σαφές σε όλους μας, ότι το μέλλον του Ιράκ βρίσκεται κατά κύριο λόγο στα χέρια του ιρακινού λαού· και έτσι πρέπει να είναι. Από την άλλη όμως πλευρά είναι πολύ σημαντικό η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση με την παράδοση που έχει στη δημοκρατία να προτείνει, φυσικά μέσα από τη διαδικασία εκπόνησης του συντάγματος, να είναι βέβαιο ότι θα υπάρχει μια δημοκρατική κοινωνία !
προοδευτική, με κοινωνικές ευαισθησίες, μια κοινωνία στην οποία θα αντικατοπτρίζεται ο πλουραλισμός του Ιράκ.
Τέλος - και τελειώνω με αυτό - η παρουσία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και στην ανοικοδόμηση αλλά και σε όλη τη διαδρομή του Ιράκ, μιας χώρας με σημαντική ιστορία, είναι κάτι το οποίο προβλέπεται σε αυτή την έκθεση και κάτι το οποίο πρέπει να στηριχθεί.
(Χειροκροτήματα)
Jack Straw,President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, it is a very great honour for me to be here today. It is the first occasion on which I have addressed this great body. Thank you very much for the opportunity to do so, first to make a brief speech now in respect of Iraq and later in the morning at greater length on Africa and globalisation.
I begin by thanking the Committee on Foreign Affairs, particularly its chairman, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, for its report and for the presentation this morning. Apologies for my pronunciation. I did Ancient Greek at school, but of course that was written rather than oral. The disagreements within the European Union over military action against Saddam's regime in Iraq are a matter of record and we all acknowledge that strongly held views remain on both sides. Given the strength of feeling, I am particularly grateful to your Committee for the way in which it has looked forward for a future for Iraq rather than backwards to rehearse the arguments over it.
Since the end of military action, the European Union has recognised its strong and common interest in supporting the new Iraq that is now emerging. I think we all condemn those who want to determine Iraq's future through extremism and violence. We condemn all killings and kidnappings, but, given the nature of this body, we particularly condemn the recent kidnapping of the Egyptian Ambassador in Iraq, Mr Ihab al-Sherif, and the attacks on other diplomats from Arab countries.
We are determined to see the success of a peaceful, stable and democratic Iraq, which responds to the needs of all its citizens. Just over a year ago, the European Council endorsed the Commission's communication setting out medium-term objectives for the development of the EU's relationship with Iraq. That strategy is bearing fruit.
Last November, the Council presented a package of European Union assistance to Iraq's then Prime Minister, Dr Allawi. That included a longer-term commitment to starting negotiations on a third country agreement and to promoting EU trade and political cooperation with Iraq; a reminder of the Commission's offer to implement the generalised system of preferences and financial support. Experts from the Commission worked with the United Nations and the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, and helped to make a success of Iraq's first democratic elections on 30 January this year. Several Members of the European Parliament also observed those elections.
The General Affairs and External Relations Council in February agreed to build on this package of assistance with further support for Iraq's political process, including the drafting of a new constitution. It agreed on a new Community aid package of EUR 200 million and the launch of an EU integrated Rule of Law and Police Training Mission for Iraq with offices in Baghdad and Brussels. That mission began training Iraqi police, judiciary and penitentiary officials yesterday and is making a valuable contribution to the Iraqi Government's efforts to increase its authority and to entrench the rule of law.
Overall, the European Union is today delivering an impressive and comprehensive programme of assistance to the Government and people of Iraq as they seek to build a peaceful and democratic future. Last month, along with Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, the High Representative, Javier Solana, and the President of the General Affairs Council, Jean Asselborn, I visited Baghdad. In my view, and I hope Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner shares this view, it was a very important visit, symbolising the European Union's commitment to the new Iraq.
There the Commissioner reiterated the Commission's intention to open an office in Baghdad as soon as possible, so as to strengthen the EU's dialogue and technical assistance. At the International Conference on Iraq in Brussels a fortnight ago, hosted jointly by the United States and the European Union, representatives from 87 countries and international organisations gave a similar and strong message of support to the new Iraq.
Let me just respond in opening to one absolutely key point. I will make my first apology for referring to the rapporteur as the chairman. If this is regarded as a slight on my very good friend Elmar Brok, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I apologise to him too. Mr Dimitrakopoulos rightly said that the security situation was the key to everything else and the security situation is serious. There is no disguising that. He also intimated that the sooner the Iraqis were able to take control of their own security the better. Let me say, as one of what were the two formal occupying powers in Iraq, the United States and the United Kingdom, and someone with his own personal responsibility for the war, we share this aspiration. Leave aside the arguments of the past. All of us believe that the quicker the Iraqis are able to take responsibility for their own security the better and the quicker the coalition forces will then be able to leave.
The security situation is poor. The better news is the increase in the training and ability of the Iraqi security forces. Now there are 168 000 individuals in the Iraqi security forces overall. More and more of them have a proper capability and are being used. We are well aware that under Security Council Resolution 1546 the mandate for the foreign forces in Iraq will come to an end in December this year, unless it is renewed in some way, and that in any event, as 1546 makes clear, we the coalition forces are only there at the invitation of the Iraqi Government. Were the Iraqi government to ask us to leave, we would leave immediately.
On the issue of whether there could be a United Nations 'blue-hatted' force, I have no difficulty with that in principle. The only issue is encouraging other countries to come forward. Whether we can achieve that remains to be seen. However, on the overall objective of coalition forces being reduced and then leaving and the Iraqis taking full control for themselves, we are absolutely in agreement.
To sum up, the United Kingdom will look during its presidency to pursue a growing relationship between the EU and Iraq, building on what we have already achieved. I welcome the Committee's endorsement of the goal and particularly their call for the Commission to open its office in Baghdad and for the EU to send an observer mission to the elections to be held in Iraq in December.
I greatly welcome the Committee's suggestion that the European Parliament should build on its relationship with the Iraqi Transitional National Assembly.
I look forward to today's debate
Benita Ferrero-Waldner,Member of the Commission. Mr President, I should like to start by welcoming Mr Straw to the Presidency. I congratulate Mr Dimitrakopoulos warmly on his report. It is an excellent and timely report and gives us a good opportunity for an update on the intensive developments over the last few months. Iraq is still a huge and multiple challenge to all of us. It really is ‘work in progress’ and we have a lot to do there.
Significant events have taken place, one of which was the troika visit to Iraq on 9 June, because we, the 25, showed that we are all united now in reconstructing and assisting Iraq. It was not easy, because there have been times when we have not been united. It was also very well received by the Iraqis themselves.
I also think it was very important that we had the international conference in Brussels. Many members of the Iraqi Government were present and they were able to present their ideas and wishes and suggest where we could assist them. The deplorable abduction of the Egyptian diplomat and other recent kidnappings have driven home to all of us the conditions under which people are living.
I decided, therefore, that the Commission should also have a presence in Baghdad and, as Mr Straw has already mentioned, we will be setting up a delegation. We will, of course, do that under the protection of the British and we hope that safety can be guaranteed as far as possible. We know it is not an easy undertaking, but I think it is important that politically we also show our flag and help the Iraqi people.
The situation in that country is still very difficult and I agree with Mr Dimitrakopoulos that ensuring military and civilian security must be the main priority of the new Iraqi administration. The only way to establish security is to address the underlying causes of the violent attacks by some sections of the Iraqi population. I see two concrete prerequisites for this. The first is an inclusive and broad-based constitution and the second is an environment in which reconstruction can bring visible improvements to the daily lives of the Iraqi people. I would even add that, thirdly, it is very important that neighbouring countries also contribute to more unity in the country and less conflict.
I shall say a few words about the new constitution. This must represent the interests of all Iraqis and was a central topic of our Iraq Conference in Brussels. It must be a product of inclusive, broad-based consultation and all Iraqis must feel it belongs to them, can protect them and guarantee their rights. The inclusion of Sunnis in the main drafting body is therefore a promising start, but, as we know, the process will not be easy. We in Europe know from our recent experience the myriad difficulties a constitution can pose and, by the way, we also discussed that very frankly with the Iraqis.
We are also ready to offer technical expertise if requested. We already provided technical expertise in the last elections, especially for the United Nations, and we have said that we will assist the United Nations experts again this time, especially with funding, but also by providing some of our own experts. Of course that always depends on whether the Iraqis want us to help.
We rely very much on the United Nations to advise the Iraqis on compliance with the principles of international law. Once the Constitution has been drafted and elections are scheduled, we also intend in principle to offer the Iraqis an election observation mission to oversee them, but it depends on the security situation. We have not yet taken a final decision on that.
The Iraqi people need to see concrete improvements in their everyday lives. Since 2003 we in the Commission have been working on health, education, basic needs, sanitation and water, and also on creating jobs, because what is most important is that people themselves are able to feed their families. Of the EUR 200 million committed we will soon have finalised EUR 145 million, to be channelled through the World Bank’s International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq to meet basic needs.
The forthcoming donor conference in Amman will then offer an opportunity for the Iraqis themselves to take the lead, based on the last conference in Brussels, in setting up a real donor coordination mechanism. They already announced it at the conference and we would like to work with them.
In addition to reconstruction aid, the international community also needs to do more to reduce or reschedule Iraq’s debts. The Commission will be pushing EU Member States on this, because we think it is fundamental.
It is a prerequisite that neighbouring countries especially contribute more and more, because they will really play a central role in shifting the balance in the region. These countries need the assistance and cooperation of their neighbours. The neighbours have made this commitment in principle, but now we have to see whether it can be put into practice.
Iraq is an extraordinary country with a great but turbulent past. It is now the inspiration for a new era of international cooperation. We know that the agenda that we have set out is very ambitious, but I think we can deliver if we just stay the course. The Iraqi people have shown tremendous courage and resilience, particularly in turning out in such large numbers to vote, but also in their everyday lives against a background of violence and intimidation. They deserve compassion, but also solidarity and financial and other assistance. That is what we have to do on moral and also political grounds.
(Applause)
El Presidente. Puedo comunicar al Consejo y a la Comisión que el Parlamento ofrece cursos de griego moderno, en caso de necesidad, para pronunciar con más facilidad el nombre del señor Dimitrakopoulos.
Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL), relatrice per parere della commissione per lo sviluppo. Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, mi trovo in una posizione un po' buffa, essendo stata l'unica ad astenersi dal parere espresso dalla commissione per lo sviluppo. Non vi sono stati voti contrari. Dichiaro con franchezza che la mia astensione è dipesa dal respingimento di due paragrafi che ritengo importanti, vale a dire il riferimento all'occupazione militare e al rifiuto della guerra con il conseguente ritiro delle truppe di occupazione, nonché la critica della sovranità e della sottrazione di sovranità economica connessa alla gestione corrotta e negativa di Bremen.
Caro Ministro Straw, il presente è storia. Lo testimoniano i morti quotidiani e l'assassinio dell'agente Calipari.
Ieri sono stati ospiti rappresentanti della città civile irachena, che oggi sono presenti in tribuna e che saluto con grande rispetto. Si tratta di persone che vivono ogni giorno nell'insicurezza, ma che non rinunciano all'impegno di agire per un Iraq libero dall'occupazione militare, da azioni terroristiche o di resistenza armata. Vivono a Falluja, Bassora e Baghdad, credono nella giustizia e nella partecipazione popolare e sono state vittime della dittatura di Saddam Hussein.
Ieri ho capito quanto sia importante dare forza a queste persone. Come afferma il nostro parere, è necessario che il processo di ricostruzione preveda il loro coinvolgimento e il sostegno economico dei loro progetti.
Il nostro parere pone inoltre un forte accento sulla promozione di azioni di sviluppo a favore delle donne, le quali devono acquisire e non perdere diritti, e dei giovani traumatizzati dalla dittatura, dall'embargo e dalla guerra, nonché di azioni mirate ad aiutare il paese a liberarsi dalle mine e dalla bombe a grappolo e a riaffidare il controllo e i progetti di ricostruzione del paese alle autorità irachene.
Il nostro parere chiede inoltre il coinvolgimento dalle Nazioni Unite. Soprattutto, chiede il rispetto dei diritti umani, tragicamente e vergognosamente violati, e la continuità, espressa qui anche dal Consiglio e dalla Commissione, dell'impegno dell'Unione europea con la presenza sul territorio iracheno.
Infine, essendo terminato il tempo a mia disposizione, chiedo che la cancellazione del debito, che il Commissario signora Waldner ritiene necessaria, non venga considerata sostitutiva agli aiuti.
Daniel Caspary (PPE-DE), Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für internationalen Handel.– Herr Präsident, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Nach Jahren der Unterdrückung und Unfreiheit haben die Menschen im Irak heute trotz aller bestehenden Schwierigkeiten eine Chance auf eine Zukunft in Frieden und Freiheit. Wir müssen alles daran setzen, diese Chance zu nutzen!
Was bedeutet dies aus handelspolitischer Sicht?
Erstens: Mein Ausschuss begrüßt die von der Kommission vorgeschlagene Strategie für ein Engagement im Irak und fordert alle Beteiligten auf, die Umwandlung des Irak in eine diversifizierte Marktwirtschaft zu unterstützen.
Zweitens: Die geplante Aufnahme in die WTO ist ein entscheidender Schritt zur Eingliederung des Irak in die Weltwirtschaft. Hierfür müssen jedoch die entsprechenden Strukturen in Wirtschaft und Verwaltung geschaffen werden.
Drittens: Den Vereinten Nationen muss bei der Koordinierung des Wiederaufbaus eine führende Rolle zukommen.
Viertens: Mit seinen Erdölvorkommen verfügt der Irak über viele natürliche Ressourcen. Die Wiederaufnahme des Öl- und Erdgashandels liegt auch in unserem Interesse und wird einen beträchtlichen Beitrag zur Sicherheit unserer Energieversorgung liefern. Es ist deshalb für beide Seiten wichtig, dass auch im Energiesektor die Rechtsvorschriften angeglichen und adäquate Voraussetzungen für Investitionen geschaffen werden. Die Erlöse müssen jedoch wieder im Irak investiert werden. Sonst ist ein nachhaltiger Wiederaufbau nicht denkbar.
Fünftens: Wir brauchen eine enge Zusammenarbeit der beteiligten Partner, was internationale Finanzhilfen oder einen Schuldenerlass anbelangt.
Und wir brauchen, sechstens, eine enge regionale Zusammenarbeit des Irak mit seinen Nachbarn, denn nur so kann ein fruchtbares Klima für Investitionen in der gesamten Region entstehen.
Abschließend danke ich den Mitgliedern des federführenden Ausschusses für auswärtige Angelegenheiten, der unsere Stellungnahme fast vollständig übernommen hat.
Meine Damen und Herren, das Zeitfenster für Veränderungen im Irak wird nicht unbegrenzt offen stehen. Lassen Sie es uns im Interesse der Menschen nutzen!
José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, en nombre del Grupo PPE-DE.– Señor Presidente, quisiera en primer lugar felicitar al señor Dimitrakopoulos por el excelente trabajo realizado en una materia dura, compleja y difícil como es la relativa a Iraq, tal como podemos ver por los acontecimientos que recientemente se han producido: el asesinato de más de 40 personas este fin de semana, el secuestro del jefe de la misión diplomática de Egipto en la calle, a plena luz del día, el estancamiento de la producción del petróleo y el espectacular recrudecimiento de la violencia que se ha producido en el curso del último año.
Sin embargo, señor Presidente, en mi opinión, la tarea de rehabilitación, reconstrucción, democratización y pacificación de Iraq no es una tarea que deba corresponder a los más implicados —y miro al Ministro Straw, que está hoy con nosotros, al que damos también la bienvenida—, sino que es una tarea que debe corresponder al conjunto de la comunidad democrática internacional.
Y la Unión Europea tiene que apoyar de forma muy decidida las tareas que tiene pendientes Iraq en estos momentos: una Constitución en la que habrá que ponderar con prudencia y con tino el factor nacionalista y el factor religioso, la celebración de nuevas elecciones, la constitución de un nuevo gobierno y el proceso a Sadam Husein. Y todo ello, señor Presidente, dando cabida y una mayor participación en las estructuras de poder a la comunidad suní.
Si tuviese que poner el acento en un aspecto del informe del señor Dimitrakopoulos, lo pondría en la apuesta de futuro que este informe presenta, porque no se puede construir el futuro solamente narrando y evocando el pretérito. Si no tenemos ante nuestros ojos el horizonte de nuestras ambiciones y de nuestros proyectos para este país, ni podremos construir el futuro, ni podremos, siquiera, comprender el pasado.
Por eso es muy importante, señor Presidente, que la Unión Europea apueste claramente en favor de la paz, de la comprensión, de la concordia y de la reconciliación en ese país, como ha manifestado la Comisaria Ferrero-Waldner y como nos ha dicho también el Presidente en ejercicio del Consejo de Ministros de la Unión Europea. Pero creo, señor Presidente, que tendremos que intentar entre todos transformar las discordias del pasado en las armonías del presente, como nos sugiere el ponente, señor Dimitrakopoulos.
Véronique De Keyser, au nom du groupe PSE.– Monsieur le Président, on m'a dit "il faut tourner la page". Je la tourne. Je ne parlerai pas des charniers de Faludja, je ne parlerai pas des dizaines de victimes chaque jour, je ne donnerai pas de chiffres. Je ne parlerai pas du ghetto où sont enfermés les ressortissants étrangers. Je ne parlerai pas des journalistes kidnappés ni de mes amis irakiens assassinés. Je ne parlerai pas de cet Irak chaotique et libre qui ressemble souvent à un enfer. Je ne parlerai pas de l'effroyable corruption et du détournement des richesses pétrolières. Et, surtout, je ne dirai pas que, du début à la fin, cette guerre a été une tragique erreur. Je tourne la page.
Mais, ne me demandez pas de dire que tout le peuple irakien qui résiste s'est transformé en terroristes. Des terroristes il y en a, oui, hélas! Mais il y a aussi une insurrection populaire. Ne me demandez pas de fermer les yeux sur la gestion lamentable du conflit alors que Bush lui-même se fait attaquer sur ce point au sein de son propre parti. Ne me demandez pas de taire que de l'argent de l'Union européenne dort sans être dépensé dans le trust de la Banque mondiale, dirigée par Wolfowitz, alors que dans sa résolution de septembre 2003, le Parlement réclamait que tous ses dons soient gérés par les Nations unies. Ne me demandez pas, Monsieur Dimitrakopoulos, vous qui avez été un excellent rapporteur, de faire encore un petit effort et d'oublier nos amendements 11, 12 et 13. C'est notre ligne rouge.
Pourquoi? Mais tout simplement parce que les Irakiens nous regardent et nous lisent et qu'ils attendent de l'Europe de l'espoir mais aussi de la vérité. Madame le Commissaire, vous avez eu des mots très justes et pleins de compassion et nous vous soutenons. Nous voulons reconstruire l'Irak, mais avec les Irakiens, pour les Irakiens et seulement pour eux.
Cecilia Malmström, för ALDE-gruppen.– Herr talman, fru kommissionär! Utrikesminister Straw, på den liberala gruppen gruppens vägnar vill jag välkomna er hit och önska er lycka till med ert arbete.
Det går knappast en dag utan att det rapporteras om nya attacker i Irak. Självmordsattentat, terrordåd, kidnappningar och andra övergrepp mot irakiska och utländska civila, journalister och militärer håller tyvärr på att bli vardagsmat. De flesta av oss behöver bara se det på tv, men det irakiska folket lever mitt i denna situation. Det är en prioriterad uppgift för hela världssamfundet att stötta de irakiska myndigheterna för att få slut på våldet, bygga upp landet och införa demokrati, fred och stabilitet. Europa har ett stort ansvar att stödja denna process med pengar, handel, bistånd, närvaro och all annan möjlig hjälp, t.ex. polisutbildning och valutbildning.
Vi har här många gånger grälat om den amerikanska invasionen, men nu måste vi se framåt. Jag vill på min grupps vägnar gratulera föredraganden, Dimitrakopoulos, för hans arbete med betänkandet och för att han försöker vara så konstruktiv och framåtsyftande. Vi behöver inte gräva ner oss i skyttegravar. Vi behöver inte älta det gamla. Jag vill vädja till alla grupper att försöka se framåt.
Att nu kräva att alla trupper drar sig tillbaka vore en katastrof för det irakiska folket. Det behövs fler människor i Irak, och vi stöder verkligen uppmaningen att försöka få till stånd en FN-ledd trupp med europeisk närvaro om det är möjligt.
Det irakiska folket är modigt och tåligt. Det visade de under valet, och det visar de varje dag. Den irakiska regeringen har ambitiösa mål med sin författning. Vi stöder naturligtvis arbetet med att få fram demokratiska institutioner, ett kraftfullt skydd för kvinnor och minoriteter samt ett stöd för rättssamhället. Vi vill också vädja till Irak att på sikt avskaffa dödsstraffet.
EU kan vara behjälpligt om så krävs för att tillhandahålla expertis i det konstitutionella arbetet. Vägen framåt mot demokrati och säkerhet är svår och kommer att bli lång. Om man lyckas, kommer Irak att bli ett fantastiskt föredöme i hela regionen, men då krävs ett ökat stöd från Europa och från oss här i Europaparlamentet med kontakter med de valda irakiska ledamöterna.
Joost Lagendijk, namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie.– Voorzitter, collega's, laat ik beginnen de rapporteur een compliment te maken voor de sterke punten in zijn verslag. Bijvoorbeeld het op termijn vervangen van de Amerikaanse en Britse troepen door VN-veiligheidstroepen. Dat zal een belangrijke verbetering van de veiligheidssituatie teweegbrengen. Ik ben dat met de rapporteur eens en ik zou de heer Straw ertoe willen oproepen zich daar sterker voor in te zetten. Niet alleen hier in het Parlement zeggen dat hij het hiermee eens is, maar bijvoorbeeld ook door er zich harder voor te maken in de Veiligheidsraad.
Een ander sterk punt is de noodzaak van nationale verzoening en het bestraffen van alle vormen van straffeloosheid. Ik waardeer het dat de rapporteur in zijn verslag wil aansluiten bij een aantal positieve ontwikkelingen in Irak, zoals de verkiezingen in januari 2005. Dat gezegd zijnde, kan ik echter niet heen om twee belangrijke minpunten in het verslag.
1. De verslechterende veiligheidssituatie. Het is waar dat op termijn de vervanging van die troepen de situatie zal verbeteren, maar op dit moment is het tempo simpelweg te laag en de richting te onduidelijk. Ik ben er ten diepste van overtuigd dat de veiligheidssituatie alleen maar structureel zal verbeteren als de overdracht van bevoegdheden radicaler en sneller plaatsvindt.
2. Ik moet erop terugkomen, de dubbelzinnigheid over het begin van de oorlog, met name in de eerste overwegingen. Ik ben het met de rapporteur eens dat de Europese Unie en ook het Europees Parlement zich zullen moeten richten op de toekomst, de toekomstige samenwerking tussen de Europese Unie en Irak. Echter, zonder een evenwichtige beoordeling van het verleden is een effectief en eensgezind optreden niet mogelijk, ook niet in het Parlement. Daarom heeft mijn fractie een aantal amendementen ingediend, o.a. over het gebrek aan legitimering door de VN, die dat nog eens onderstrepen. Voor het overgrote deel van mijn fractie is de aanneming van die amendementen van cruciaal belang voor hun steun voor het verslag.
Voorzitter, collega's, wie niet leert van fouten uit het verleden loopt het gevaar ze opnieuw te maken. En dat moeten we ten koste van alles voorkomen.
Francis Wurtz, au nom du groupe GUE/NGL.– Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, Monsieur le Président du Conseil, le rapport qui nous est soumis sur l'engagement de l'Union européenne en Irak estime, dès son article 1, je cite, que: "il faut se détacher des événements passés pour se tourner vers l'avenir". Autrement dit, motus sur la guerre, ses responsables et ses conséquences. Cette démarche me paraît éthiquement désinvolte, politiquement douteuse et stratégiquement illusoire.
Elle est éthiquement désinvolte. De quel droit pourrions-nous décider de passer par pertes et profits les indicibles souffrances que cette guerre a déjà imposées au peuple irakien, les 100 000 morts innocents, les destructions, l'insécurité absolue, les pénuries, l'humiliation de l'occupation? Rappelons une fois encore que cette guerre a été engagée contre la volonté de la communauté internationale et sur la base d'un double mensonge: l'existence en Irak de stocks d'armes de destruction massive et la présence d'Al-Qaida dans le pays avant 2003. Nous ne pouvons pas davantage tenir pour négligeable la légitime colère de nombre d'Américains, de Britanniques et d'autres contre leurs dirigeants, à qui ils n'entendent pas pardonner de les avoir trompés en les entraînant dans cette sanglante et peu glorieuse aventure.
Occulter les origines du fiasco d'aujourd'hui serait en outre politiquement douteux. Les premiers responsables actuels de la Commission et du Conseil sont précisément ceux qui furent parmi les plus fervents soutiens du Président américain. Imaginons que, par les hasards du calendrier, le récent sommet transatlantique ait dû être retardé de deux semaines. Nous aurions eu une photo saisissante de la rencontre: MM. Bush, Blair et Barroso, la quasi-reproduction du Sommet des Açores de 2003. Et ils n'auraient rien à nous dire sur l'évaluation des conséquences pour l'Europe de leurs décisions d'alors et sur les leçons qu'ils en tirent aujourd'hui? Ce serait trop facile, Monsieur Straw, de saluer l'esprit nouveau pour solder au passage un aussi lourd passif. Loin d'avoir permis d'éradiquer le terrorisme, cette guerre a transformé l'Irak, pour reprendre l'analyse de la CIA elle-même - je cite - en un laboratoire terroriste où les djihadistes viennent s'ex!
ercer au combat de rue, et ce pour peut-être douze ans encore, selon M. Rumsfeld. Vous avez des comptes à nous rendre!
Enfin, il me paraît illusoire de croire à la réussite durable d'une solution politique en Irak, qui ferait l'économie d'une condamnation de cette guerre. Ni l'Europe, ni l'ONU n'ont vocation à jouer les supplétifs d'occupants embourbés. C'est le moment d'adresser à toute cette région meurtrie des signaux positifs forts, par exemple la décision de proscrire dans l'avenir tout recours à la guerre pour régler les problèmes du monde, ou encore la mise en œuvre effective des engagements du quartet jamais tenus en faveur des droits fondamentaux du peuple palestinien, ou encore une aide substantielle à l'émergence d'une société civile - et je salue les représentants de la société civile que mon groupe avait accueillis hier - et d'une autorité, pleinement libre et souveraine, en Irak. L'Europe, Monsieur le Président, nous dit-on, a besoin de s'atteler d'urgence à un grand dessein et bien en voici un.
Bastiaan Belder, namens de IND/DEM-Fractie.– Voorzitter, aanhoudende zelfmoordaanslagen belemmeren de wederopbouw van Irak. De Europese instellingen kunnen een wezenlijke bijdrage leveren tot de indamming van dit nagenoeg exclusief Arabische jihadisme. Hoe? Door Iraks naaste buurland Syrië eindelijk eens duidelijk de wacht aan te zeggen, want tot op heden fungeert Syrië als dé springplank voor islamistische terroristen uit het tweestromenland. Onder deze omstandigheden, Raad en Commissie, kan er toch geen sprake zijn van een associatie-akkoord met Damascus? Daarnaast zou ik graag van de Raad vernemen in hoeverre er sprake is van rekrutering van Al Quaeda-jihadisten binnen de Europese Unie, alsmede van financiering van tegen Irak gericht terrorisme door in Europa gevestigde moskeeën.
Duidelijke taal over de ontwrichtende Arabische invloed op Iraks algehele reconstructieproces mis ik nu ten enen male in het verslag-Dimitrakopoulos. Veel beter kan ik uit de voeten met zijn heldere verzoek aan de Commissie om een zorgvuldige verantwoording over alle EU-projecten in Irak. Daar hebben de belastingbetalers in de EU-lidstaten immers alle recht op. Bovendien snijdt collega Dimitrakopoulos hier een tweede groot obstakel voor Iraks wederopbouw aan. Het wijdverbreide kwaad van de corruptie binnen 's lands bestuurlijke apparaat. Ook hier kan de Europese Unie een waardevolle bijdrage leveren tot het toekomstperspectief voor het tweestromenland. Corruptie en veiligheid hangen nauw samen. "Alleen transparantie kan ons uit dit moeras trekken", constateerde de Koerdische politicus Mohammed Toufik terecht. Schone hulptaken in Irak voor de Europese Unie.
Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik wil hieraan nog toevoegen dat ik veel respect heb voor en alle sterkte toewens aan de troepen van de Verenigde Staten, Groot-Brittanië en andere internationale troepen in hun streven te komen tot een beter ...
(spreker wordt onderbroken door de Voorzitter).
IN THE CHAIR: MR McMILLAN-SCOTT Vice-President
Ryszard Czarnecki (NI).– Panie Przewodniczący! W czasach komunizmu w Polsce krążyła taka anegdota o rzekomym sloganie reklamowym jednego z biur podróży: "odwiedź Związek Sowiecki, zanim Związek Sowiecki odwiedzi Ciebie". Frazesując ten dowcip, można dziś powiedzieć: zajmijmy się Irakiem, zanim iraccy terroryści zajmą się nami.
Ostatnio przedstawiciel Unii w Afganistanie powiedział, że nasza polityczna obecność tam i spore zagrożenie finansowe jest konieczne, ponieważ Unia zrobiła błąd w ogóle, nie interesując się tym krajem w latach 1990-2001. Nie powtarzajmy tego błędu z Irakiem, nie zostawiajmy Iraku Amerykanom. Sądzę, że sprawa stabilizacyjnej roli Europy w tym kraju i w tym regionie połączy, bo połączyć powinna, zarówno zwolenników amerykańskiej interwencji w Iraku, jak i jej przeciwników, w tym np. mnie.
Popełniliśmy duży błąd, jako Unia niewysyłając obserwatorów na wybory w Iraku w styczniu 2005 roku. Nieobecni nie mają racji, nieobecni nie mają też wpływu na pożądany rozwój wydarzeń.
Kończąc, chciałem podziękować panu Ministrowi Straw za spotkanie w ostatni czwartek w Londynie i powiedzieć, że od tego czasu nie zmieniliśmy szefa Komisji, nadal jest nim Elmar Brok.
Elmar Brok (PPE-DE).– Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, Herr Ratspräsident, meine Damen und Herren! Wir hatten vor vierzehn Tagen im Ausschuss eine Delegation des provisorischen Parlaments des Irak, unter Leitung des Parlamentspräsidenten und seiner Stellvertreter. Es waren alle Gruppen vertreten, Schiiten, Sunniten und Kurden. Ich war angenehm überrascht, als ich sah, in welcher Weise diese Spitzenvertreter ihrer Gruppen daran interessiert sind, eine Lösung zu finden, die eine Versöhnung umfasst und die religiösen und ethnischen Gruppen miteinander verbindet, und dass dies in einer ernsthaften Diskussion versucht wird. Der Vorsitzende des Verfassungsausschusses war auch dort. Ich glaube, dass eine entscheidende Voraussetzung für die dauerhafte Befriedung dieses Landes ist, dass man eine Machtbalance in einer Art föderaler Struktur findet, die durach die Verfassung – auch für schlechte Zeiten – abgesichert ist. Auf diese Art ließe sich eine Praxis erreichen, bei der jeder das Gef!
ühl hat, dass seine Interessen gewahrt sind, dass aber auch seine religiöse und ethnische Identität gewahrt wird, und dass dies auch in den kulturellen Bereich einfließt.
Ich glaube, das ist eine entscheidende Voraussetzung für das Gelingen. Oft war es ja so, dass in diesen Staaten, die früher unter Kolonialherrschaft standen, eine kleine Gruppe die Herrschaft innehatte, in diesem Falle waren das die Sunniten. Ich glaube, dass darin auch eine Hauptursache des Terrorismus liegt. Es muss uns gelingen, dies deutlich zu machen – so wie Sie, Frau Kommissarin, das auch sagten –, damit der Nutzen für die Bevölkerung sichtbar wird. Sie muss erkennen, dass die Terroristen versuchen, Demokratie und Machtteilung unmöglich zu machen, dass sie keine Stabilität wollen, weil Stabilität Voraussetzung für Investitionen ist, die die Lage des Landes verbessern würden. Auf diese Art und Weise wollen sie ihre alten Machtpositionen wiedererlangen oder aus ideologischen Gründen überhaupt keine demokratische Entwicklung zulassen.
Ich war damals gegen den Krieg, aber das spielt jetzt keine Rolle. Jetzt geht es darum, gemeinsam Frieden und Demokratie zu gewinnen. Die alten Trenngräben, die wir bei uns hatten, müssen überwunden werden, um in einem multilateralen Ansatz die Möglichkeit zu schaffen, dass dieses Land Stabilität und Demokratie bekommt, und dass auf dieser Grundlage in der gesamten Region auch für uns Nutzen entsteht.
Lilli Gruber (PSE).– Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questa relazione poteva e doveva essere più coraggiosa, perché stiamo parlando di questioni di vita e di morte e del futuro strategico della nostra Unione.
Sicuramente il testo è stato migliorato, ma in troppe parti è superato dalla realtà sul campo. Questa guerra è ormai persa e ha aiutato molto i terroristi jihadisti, anziché indebolirli. Se Bush fosse saggio, annuncerebbe un ritiro integrale, senza mantenere basi strategiche, e lo attuerebbe con un calendario preciso.
Come sempre, nei conflitti asimmetrici non c'è una soluzione militare, ma solo una soluzione politica. Il nuovo governo iracheno ci sta provando. Infatti, non sta trattando con i terroristi, ma con i resistenti, includendoli nel processo di ricostruzione. Per questo, collega Dimitrakopoulos, sarà importante inserire la parola "resistenza" nella relazione, perché oggi in Iraq ci sono sia gli insorti contro l'occupazione, sia i terroristi, e i loro obiettivi sono diversi.
Inoltre, era altrettanto importante ricordare che la guerra contro l'Iraq è stata freddamente voluta da Bush e deliberatamente sostenuta da un turbine di menzogne. L'Iraq, infatti, non possedeva armi di distruzioni di massa, né aveva legami con Al Qaida. A invasione compiuta c'era il dovere morale di ricostruire almeno materialmente l'Iraq, ma l'arroganza, l'incompetenza, la corruzione e l'inettitudine politico-militare lo hanno impedito. Così, anche passando attraverso l'onta di Abu Grahib, hanno perso senza conquistare il cuore e le menti degli iracheni.
Mi rivolgo pertanto anche ai rappresentanti del Consiglio e della Commissione, affermando che è il momento di uscire dalla debolezza delle passate divisioni, puntando ancora di più su una politica comune per uscire dalla situazione di impotenza tipica dei coalizzati minori.
L'Europa vale se pensa, decide e lavora insieme. Altrimenti è solo una simpatica collezione di bonsai schiacciati dal primo elefante di passaggio.
Lapo Pistelli (ALDE).– Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sulla guerra in Iraq l'Europa ha conosciuto uno dei punti di massima divisione, per cui la relazione Dimitrakopoulos compie un mezzo miracolo nel cercare un equilibrio possibile. Tuttavia, vi sono ancora molte carenze.
Le reale situazione sul campo conferma purtroppo tutti i dubbi espressi da coloro che si erano detti contrari all'intervento militare. Abbiamo atteso la svolta con la caduta e la cattura di Saddam Hussein e successivamente abbiamo sperato che tale svolta arrivasse dopo le elezioni del gennaio scorso e con l'effettiva capacità del governo Allawi di stabilizzare il paese. In realtà, sappiamo che le cose vanno in modo diverso. Se si considerando le vittime civili dei kamicaze, gli atti di violenza non censiti degli iracheni sugli iracheni e l'aumento degli attacchi settimanali alle truppe occupanti, l'Iraq è il più grande campo di addestramento terrorista del pianeta.
Ora però non dobbiamo guardare al passato ma dobbiamo concentrarci sul futuro, per cui abbiamo dato il nostro endorsement al governo Allawi, ci siamo impegnati nella ricostruzione e abbiamo sostenuto le recenti risoluzioni. A tale riguardo ci siamo prefissi tre obiettivi, vale a dire l'impegno preventivo - come dice la dottrina Solana - con i paesi dell'area, i quali ci possono dare una mano, non soltanto a non esportare terroristi ma anche ad aiutare l'Iraq a uscire dal tunnel, l'addestramento delle forze di sicurezza, che sono indispensabili a programmare l'uscita delle truppe occupanti, e infine l'accordo costituzionale.
Questo è davvero l'ultimo punto di svolta. O siamo capaci di tenere unito il paese con l'accordo costituzionale o deflagrerà un'inesorabile guerra civile. I segni di tensione presenti anche nel Kurdistan ci fanno pensare che questa è davvero l'ultima chance che l'Europa ha per uscire con una situazione migliore nei prossimi mesi.
Vittorio Agnoletto (GUE/NGL).– Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, collega Dimitrakopoulos, le vie dell'inferno sono lastricate di buone intenzioni. Intendo dire che se non si fanno i conti con il passato, il passato prima o poi si ripresenterà, con un conto estremamente salato e drammatico.
Se oggi non si condanna la guerra, non si può comprendere quello che accade in questo momento in Iraq. La guerra e il terrorismo continuano ad alimentarsi a vicenda. Prima della guerra in Iraq non c'era il terrorismo. Bisogna avere il coraggio di dire che gli eserciti occupanti sono un elemento che produce insicurezza e non sicurezza. Bisogna avere il coraggio di dire che gli Stati Uniti e i loro alleati sono andati in Iraq perché in Iraq c'è il petrolio e perché volevano impadronirsene, non certo per propagandare la democrazia.
Ieri abbiamo incontrato i rappresentanti della società civile, delle organizzazioni dei diritti umani, dei sindacati e delle donne, che ci hanno spiegato che questa società è attiva e vuole essere protagonista del suo futuro. L'Europa deve guardare anche a questo e non solo al rapporto con un governo eletto in elezioni che si sono svolte sotto un'occupazione militare straniera.
Γεώργιος Καρατζαφέρης (IND/DEM).– Κύριε Πρόεδρε, την αλήθεια τη φοβόμαστε ή τη ντρεπόμαστε; Τη φοβόμαστε ή τη ντρεπόμαστε, Γιώργο; Η αλήθεια είναι μία: ότι έχουμε στρατό κατοχής και έχουμε αναίτια εισβολή Αμερικάνων, Άγγλων και Ισπανών. Αυτή είναι η αλήθεια!
Και στην κατοχή την οποία εμείς δοκιμάσαμε και εσείς δοκιμάσατε το '40 με τους Γερμανούς είχαμε και εκτελέσεις και απαγωγές. Αυτό κάναμε στον κατακτητή. Και αυτό κάνει σήμερα και ο λαός του Ιράκ. Και καλώς το κάνει!
Να φύγουν οι δυνάμεις κατοχής! Να αφήσουν ελεύθερο αυτό το κράτος να βρει το δρόμο του! Να αποζημιώσουν για το κακό που έκαναν! Να τους αφήσουν το πετρέλαιο και με 60 δολάρια το πετρέλαιο θα βρουν το δρόμο τους!
Όσο υπάρχει στρατός κατοχής θα υπάρχουν και εγκλήματα. Ας το καταλάβουν! Είναι μια μεγάλη αλήθεια. Το ζήσαμε εμείς. Όταν ο Στάλιν μπήκε στα εσωτερικά της Ελλάδος το '44 με '49, σκοτωνόμαστε για πολλά χρόνια. Πρέπει να φύγει ο στρατός κατοχής. Αυτό είναι το δίκαιο.
Να πούμε την αλήθεια! Να μην ντρεπόμαστε! Μην ερχόμαστε εδώ και να νομοθετούμε από τη σιγουριά του Στρασβούργου και των Βρυξελλών! Να πάμε να πούμε αυτά που λέμε στη Βασόρα! Να πάμε να πούμε αυτά που λέμε στη Βαγδάτη! Εκεί είναι ο λαός, εκεί είναι η αλήθεια, εκεί είναι το πρόβλημα. Ζήτω η δημοκρατία! Ζήτω η ελευθερία! Ζήτω η αυτοδιάθεση των λαών!
Andreas Mölzer (NI).– Herr Präsident! Unter dem Vorwand der Existenz von Massenvernichtungswaffen sind die USA bekanntlich in den Irak eingedrungen und versuchen nun, dem irakischen Volk ihre Vorstellung von Demokratie aufzuzwingen. Nicht nur die Dauer dieser Intervention, sondern auch ihre Kosten und Auswirkungen wurden unterschätzt. Der nun rechtsfreie Raum des Irak bietet Extremisten die ideale Gelegenheit, sich neu zu gruppieren und Kampferfahrung zu sammeln. Durch die US-Invasion hat sich das Land in ein Ausbildungslager für Terroristen aus aller Welt gewandelt, die nun nur darauf warten, ihre neuen Erkenntnisse auch bei uns einsetzen zu können.
Bereits jetzt müssen wir also alle für die amerikanischen Fehler büßen, sei es in Form verstärkter Terrorismusaktivitäten, sei es durch immer neuen Zulauf zu islamisch-extremistischen Gruppierungen. Es geht nicht an, dass Europa womöglich noch mehr für diesen Irrweg der USA in Form von Truppenentsendungen zahlt. Frieden im Irak und eine Lösung der Probleme können nur von innen kommen. Deshalb sollten wir eher den Wiederaufbau der Bildung, die Wirtschaft und die Bekämpfung der blühenden Korruption unterstützen. Das wäre eine lohnende Aufgabe für Europa.
Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE).– Herr talman! Jag skulle vilja börja med att gratulera Dimitrakopoulos till det enorma arbete som han lagt ned på denna komplicerade men ytterst viktiga fråga.
Efter åtal av Saddam Husseins regim har det irakiska folket nu fått möjlighet att bygga upp sitt land fritt och på ett demokratiskt sätt. Parlamentsvalet som genomfördes under stort tryck från krafter som inte var intresserade av vare sig demokrati eller fria val var det första steget i demokratiseringsprocessen. Det var också en chans för politiken att vinna över terrorn och våldet, men så blev det inte.
Även om en övergångsregering har bildats och utarbetandet av den nya konstitutionen har påbörjats, har inte säkerhetssituationen i Irak stabiliserats så som den borde ha gjort. Tvärtom är situationen sådan att det under lång tid framöver kommer att krävas ansträngningar och en stark internationell närvaro.
Det är självklart bättre ju tidigare Irak självt tryggar säkerheten i landet. Lärda av andra konflikter i vår närhet, t.ex. krigen på Balkan som jag själv har upplevt, kan vi dock inte förvänta oss några snabba resultat. Att bygga upp fred och demokrati tar tid, även om alla krafter i landet vore positiva. Ännu mer tid krävs det i länder som Irak eller Bosnien där det finns olika grupperingar som motarbetar demokratiseringsprocessen. Vi måste dock ha tid och tålamod. Att inte visa tillräckligt stöd för Iraks politiska demokratiseringssträvanden eller att för hastigt dra tillbaka de internationella styrkorna från Irak, skulle nämligen inte bara äventyra freden i själva Irak utan även i dess omgivning, och det har vi inte råd med. Därför är det enda alternativet för oss att fortsätta stödja Irak, både politiskt och genom en stark internationell närvaro så länge det krävs.
Ferrero-Waldner påpekade mycket riktigt att Europa i dag står enat i sina ansträngningar att återuppbygga Irak. Enligt min mening är just enandet det som skulle leda till att situationen i Irak kan stabiliseras och att de problem som vi har i dag övervinnas.
Marek Maciej Siwiec (PSE).– Panie Przewodniczący! Stoimy w obliczu trudnego, wydyskutowanego przez wiele tygodni kompromisu. Chciałbym zaapelować do tych wszystkich, którzy na tej sali uprawiają wiecową demagogię, dla których czas zatrzymał się dwa lata temu, którzy ciągle używają języka historycznego, aby pochylili się nad tym kompromisem i zastanowili się, co jest produktywne dla Irakijczyków - ten kompromis czy ich wiecowa demagogia?
Jeżeli nie odróżniają anonimowych zbrodniarzy, którzy zabijają cywilów, od wojsk koalicyjnych - żołnierzy, którzy ryzykują swoje życie tam w Iraku, po prostu są kłamcami. Protestuję przeciwko temu.
Dwa postulaty do Rady i do Komisji. Po pierwsze: trzeba aktywizować presję na sąsiadów w Iraku, ponieważ to, co wydarzyło się ostatnio w Iranie (mówiono tutaj o Syrii), to są zjawiska, za które te kraje muszą czuć odpowiedzialność, muszą czuć presję wspólnoty międzynarodowej i część odpowiedzialności za to, co dzieje się w Iraku. Nie mogą uprawiać anonimowej polityki wysyłając mylne sygnały. Po drugie: dialog polityczny, który prowadzony jest ze społecznością polityczną Iraku musi być intensyfikowany. To te podziały etniczne i religijne są utrwalone w przejściowym parlamencie, ale my musimy z tymi ludźmi rozmawiać. Ci, którzy nie walczą, są naszymi partnerami.
Na koniec, postulat wysłania sił pokojowych jest piękny, ale naiwny. Jaka to armia, jakie to wojsko pojedzie w błękitnych hełmach i będzie chronić Irakijczyków? To muszą być dobrze uzbrojone, przygotowane wojska irackie, bo tylko one są w stanie chronić Irakijczyków.
Gerard Batten (IND/DEM).– Mr President, reports before this Parliament seldom contain jokes, but there is some humour, if unintentional, in this one. Paragraph 43 suggests that the European Union ‘offers its expertise and assistance with a view to the drafting of the Iraqi Constitution’. Iraqis might think that the European Union’s expertise and experience in this field leaves something to be desired. Its last attempt produced a Constitution that was opaque and confused and ran to almost 500 pages. On the other hand, the United States of America has a clear and concise Constitution that runs to just a few pages of paper, with only about 27 amendments needed over the past 200 years. If the Iraqis need some help, they might prefer to ask the Americans to lend a hand. If the EU becomes involved it might even offer to organise the constitutional referendum for the Iraqis, and that could lead to all kinds of unwanted problems.
Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE).– Panie Przewodniczący! Irak jest polem bitwy z terrorystami. Terroryści jasno określili swój cel - zmusimy siły międzynarodowe do wycofania się z Iraku, a następnie zdławimy rodzącą się w tym kraju demokrację. Świat nie może dopuścić do realizacji tych celów, tych planów, a państwa Unii Europejskiej nie mogą sobie na taki scenariusz pozwolić.
Walka z terroryzmem jest globalnym wyzwaniem, przed jakim stanął nasz świat w pierwszych latach XXI wieku i tę walkę musimy wygrać, gdyż przeciwnik nie zna pojęć: umowa, porozumienie, kompromis, dialog, pokój. Współczesny terroryzm chce zniszczyć cywilizację w której żyjemy. Teraz celem są Stany Zjednoczone, ale za parę miesięcy będzie Europa. Dlatego Unia powinna zdecydować o podjęciu wspólnych, śmiałych i konkretnych decyzji, gdyż udzielenie wsparcia w wysokości 200 milionów euro już nie wystarcza.
Unia powinna przede wszystkim odpowiedzieć na podstawowe problemy ludności, a są nimi: brak wody - 2 miliony mieszkańców pozbawionych jest wody, brak żywności - według najnowszego raportu ONZ, co czwarte dziecko głoduje, brak pracy - bezrobocie sięga 70%, brak poczucia bezpieczeństwa i strach przed atakami terrorystycznymi. Sabotażyści niszczący rurociągi i inne obiekty naftowe narazili Irak w ciągu minionych 2 lat na straty w wysokości 11 miliardów dolarów. To są kwestie, które winny znaleźć się na liście priorytetów określających cele wsparcia Unii Europejskiej dla Iraku.
Nie może być tak, by najbardziej spektakularnym wysiłkiem z naszej strony w procesie odbudowy Iraku była zapowiedź otwarcia przedstawicielstwa Komisji Europejskiej w Bagdadzie, lub wysłanie misji obserwacyjnej na grudniowe wybory. Na tę konkretną pomoc oczekują przede wszystkim zwykli Irakijczycy. Konieczne jest większe i bardziej systematyczne zaangażowanie się w Iraku. Trzeba wizji na miarę wspólnoty zrzeszającej 25 krajów.
Porażka będzie nas drogo kosztować. Jeśli siły demokratyczne poniosą klęskę, to terroryści się wzmocnią i konsekwencje tego będzie można odczuć nie tylko w Iraku, ale i na całym świecie, w postaci nowej fali terroryzmu. Pokój będzie miał znaczenie dla rozwoju stosunków transatlantyckich oraz pokoju w całym regionie. Trzeba wywierać presję na Syrię i Iran, by zaprzestali wspierania terrorystów w Iraku.
Monika Beňová (PSE).– Už dlhšie počúvame, že sa netreba vracať do minulosti a že nie je dôležité hovoriť o opodstatnenosti invázie Spojených štátov amerických a ich ad hoc koalície alebo spojencov do Iraku. Prepáčte, ale ja hlboko nesúhlasím s takýmto názorom, pretože Američanmi vytvorená a riadená ad hoc koalícia napadla suverénny štát bez akéhokoľvek medzinárodného a právne akceptovateľného mandátu.
Dámy a páni, pán minister Straw, história nám už mnohokrát v minulosti dokázala, že mnohým chybám sa ľudstvo mohlo vyhnúť, ak by bolo dôsledne analyzovalo vlastné omyly a morálne zlyhania. Žiaľ, asi sme v tomto nepoučiteľní.
Pán Dimitrakopoulos, ja nielenže viem vysloviť vaše meno, ja si vás vážim aj ako kolegu zo zahraničného výboru. Napriek tomu nemôžem podporiť uznesenie, ktoré ste predložili, aj keď viem, akú veľkú prácu ste mu venovali a súhlasím s kolegyňou pani De Keyser, že bez toho, aby prešli naše pozmeňujúce a doplňujúce návrhy, nebude mať toto uznesenie vôbec žiadnu vážnosť.
Simon Coveney (PPE-DE).– Mr President, first I want to pay tribute to Mr Dimitrakopoulos, a name which I have become familiar with in recent months. He has worked extremely hard to get this report right, seeking compromise from all sides to create a report that I think represents the views and aspirations of the vast majority of this Parliament. That is not an easy job when it comes to Iraq.
One of the positive aspects of this report is the recurring theme of the need for us all to look forward with Iraq; concentrating on what can be achieved as Iraq moves ahead into the future and not constantly referring to mistakes and decisions made in the past. The rapporteur has not allowed this report to be hijacked by those who want to rehash the debate on the basis for war in Iraq and the legalities surrounding that decision, or lack of them. This is a valid debate but it adds nothing positive to this report at this stage. Instead, the report concentrates on what the EU's role will and should be in the future, assisting the new authorities in Iraq. Many issues are dealt with; I want to refer to three of them.
First, in relation to political support, I was glad to hear Mr Brok referring to the visit of representatives from the transitional National Assembly to this Parliament recently, and it was a welcome event. They called for assistance, support and help in relation to the drafting of the new constitution in Iraq, which is something I think we should do wholeheartedly and enthusiastically. Primarily, we need to ensure that there is full participation of all groups in the drafting of that constitution.
Second, in relation to security, we should not forget that, as we speak, there are European citizens in Iraq trying to provide security in difficult circumstances. We need to look forward to see what the EU can do collectively. To that end, I welcome the fact that we are going to see an EU delegation in Baghdad in the near future. I also welcome the Rule of Law and Police Training Mission, which will add considerably to the security situation in Iraq, and the new call for a new UN Security Council Resolution on Iraq, which is outlined in detail in the report. That is a brave new call.
Finally, we should not forget our human rights principles, despite the very difficult and extreme circumstances that continue in Iraq, particularly in relation to the death penalty.
Richard Howitt (PSE).– Mr President, I welcome the emphasis of the rapporteur and of Amendment 12, by the PSE Group, in supporting the EU’s positive commitment to the social, economic and political reconstruction of Iraq, to the success of the January elections, to the doubling of international partners for Iraq, as represented at the Brussels Conference, and to our united condemnation of all violence, kidnappings and human rights abuses within Iraq.
The European Parliamentary Labour Party cannot support those amendments that seek to rekindle the divisions of the past. In that context, I note that Amendment 3, by the Verts/ALE Group, seeks to delete this Parliament’s commitment to fighting both terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Everyone should vote against that amendment.
Finally, there is a link between this debate and the next on development. Twenty years under Saddam Hussein left five million Iraqis suffering from chronic poverty, the fastest increase in child mortality of any country in the world, access to safe water for less than half the people in rural areas and 60% wholly dependent on food handouts. Today the European Parliament reaffirms its commitment to the right for development for the Iraqi people, as well as their right to peace.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner,Member of the Commission. Mr President, the post-Iraq-war phase can be compared to some degree with the period after the Second World War, even if it is not on the same scale. However, we have to get over all our past differences and quarrels and look to the future. That is the only solution. We cannot just talk about the situation, we have to take action, we have to turn the page. That is why the Commission has been seeking over the past two years to contribute, through its support for reconstruction, to promote reconciliation within Iraq and in the international community.
As Mr Brok and Mrs Morgantini pointed out, we must also ensure that the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iraq produce benefits for all Iraqis. That must be an inclusive approach. Of course we have to look to the constitution. It has to be a constitution that gives ownership to the Iraqis, that really protects the territorial integrity of Iraq but, at the same time, looks to the federal possibilities. That is the only way to secure the right balance between the different ethnic elements. It also has to look to the future, creating a modern society in which women and religious communities must be given an appropriate stake. Therefore, the constitution is of the greatest importance.
It is also very important to build the institutions of the new Iraq. There has been a great deal of talk about energy and trade. I believe that, in order to restore the possibility for Iraqis to develop themselves, there has to be capacity-building with the Ministries of Trade and Energy.
We supported the elections and we will support the next elections if the security situation will allow it. It is also very important to ensure the further development of the Iraqi police and judiciary. The ‘Eujustlex’ mission that began on 1 July will be of great importance and will hopefully make a significant contribution. This involves the training of 770 policemen and judiciary members. We also have to refocus on the social services, such as education, health and sanitation. People must be allowed to live their lives. At the moment they only have electricity for a few hours per day, in a climate where temperatures reach 50 degrees centigrade.
We know how difficult it is. Conditions on the ground are exceedingly difficult. We are also aware of delays in some implementation because of the difficult situation. We therefore have ongoing discussions with the World Bank, the UN and the Iraqis themselves. It is clear that the main responsibility lies with them, but we must give them all our assistance.
I agree that it is very important that the international community encourage Iraq’s neighbours to adopt the same approach, striving towards reconciliation and unity in Iraq. That is the clear message we gave in the international conference.
We support the WTO proposals regarding Iraq. Trade and cooperation agreements could be the next step, subject to negotiations with the Iraqis. There is a chance for them to build – in a new way – on the current situation in which we are providing them with assistance, but this must be done in a much more orderly way.
I am very grateful for the support of the European Parliament. I congratulate Mr Dimitrakopoulos for the excellent work he has done. You see, I can learn and will do better next time.
Jack Straw,President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, may I through you thank all Members of the European Parliament for a very constructive debate, which has been very interesting for me as well. Of course, it is right in one sense to say you cannot discuss the future without understanding the past, and there are different analyses of the past. I happen to think that war was justified at the time. I still do. I respect those who take a different view.
What I would say, however, is this: we can argue – and we will argue for a long time – about the legitimacy of the military action, but please do not now argue about the legitimacy of what is a democratically elected Iraqi Government. There were some speakers who challenged the legitimacy of the current government. With respect, that is wrong. The elections that took place on 30 January took place under a United Nations mandate, under intense international scrutiny. They were fair elections: 8.6 million Iraqis voted, and they produced a representative assembly which now has instructions from the United Nations to bring forward a draft constitution in August and to have it ratified in a referendum in October for there to be further elections leading to a more permanent national government in December. I suggest that it is responsibility of the whole of the international community, in support of that unanimous United Nations mandate, to ensure that this process works and !
works effectively. I am deeply grateful to the Commission and to the Parliament for the support that they are giving to that process.
Yes, the situation in Iraq today is serious. Yes, too many are being killed, but I would remind those who describe it simply as some kind of legitimate resistance that the overwhelming majority of the victims of this terrorism are not coalition forces, they are ordinary Iraqis. I would also remind colleagues here that in many – not all – areas of Iraq there is a fair degree of normality. There have been very few incidents. Why? Because the terrorism there has been defeated. Where there is abnormality, it is because of the terrorism. I am not naive. I accept that, where there is this level of terrorism, there has to be a political process to try to bring people in as well as an immediate security response. It is a matter of great regret that most Sunnis decided not to participate in the elections in January.
What has happened since – and Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner and I met representatives of the Sunni community and discussed the matter with members of the Shia and Kurdish communities – is an effort by the Iraqi Government to bring Sunnis in. It has been difficult but, just two days ago, the National Assembly decided to confirm the representation of 15 Sunnis on the constitutional committee. That is of profound importance, a first step in reaching out to the Sunni community. There have to be other steps taken as well, so you end up with an Iraq that represents all the communities.
The other thing I would say is that any analysis of opinion in Iraq suggests that, despite the violence today, most Iraqis prefer what has happened and is happening today to what was going on before. And yes, there was terrorism before the war: it was state terrorism that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqis. And no – hundreds of thousands have not been killed since the war, some scores of thousands have been. It is too many, but at least now the Iraqis can look forward to a democratic, peaceful future in which they control their destiny, which they never could under Saddam.
There have been arguments within Europe as elsewhere about this situation in Iraq. Given those, we greatly welcome the very constructive approach adopted by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and his committee. I thank you very much for that. I know, given the range of opinions, that it was a very hard task to bring together a sense of this and of action for the future. It is well illustrated by today’s debate. I am grateful to Mr Dimitrakopoulos and also to the Commission.
For our part, in the Presidency, we will do all we can over the next six months actively to support the work of the European Union as well as accepting our own responsibilities within Iraq as one of the contributors to the Coalition.
President. The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at noon today.
PRESIDENCIA DEL SR. BORRELL FONTELLES Presidente
3. Afrika, globalizáció, szegénység
El Presidente. Vamos a proceder al debate conjunto sobre la base de:
- las declaraciones del Consejo y de la Comisión sobre África y los retos de la globalización,
- así como de la pregunta oral al Consejo, presentada por la señora Morgantini en nombre de la Comisión de Desarrollo: "Llamamiento Mundial a la Acción contra la Pobreza: Que la Pobreza pase a la Historia" (B6-0248/2005)
- y la pregunta oral a la Comisión, presentada por la señora Morgantini en nombre de la Comisión de Desarrollo: "Llamamiento Mundial a la Acción contra la Pobreza: Que la Pobreza pase a la Historia" (B6-0249/2005).
Jack Straw,President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, I wish to say, for the second time this morning, what an honour it is to address the European Parliament. I greatly value the dialogue I have had with Parliament and its committees, not just over the last four years as Britain’s Foreign Minister but over the previous four years as Britain’s Home Secretary. Indeed, I have been serving in the British Government long enough to recall our previous Presidency, seven and a half years ago, when I had the privilege of chairing the Justice and Home Affairs Council.
I also wish to congratulate Parliament on its initiative today to support the ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign. It is a sign of your strong commitment to global development in what is a vital year for Africa and for the poorest nations worldwide.
Mrs Morgantini has submitted to me some detailed questions. I have already sent her a detailed answer to those questions and I shall make sure they are more widely available. In my speech I shall be answering many of the points she raised.
Over the last few months, the headlines in Europe have often been about disagreement and difficulty. The voters in two founder Member States have brought into sharp relief questions of profound concern to all Europe’s citizens. How can the European Union better deliver to them the prosperity and security which we all seek in a rapidly changing world?
Some of the answers to that question will concern the European Union’s internal policies, including future financing. The United Kingdom, as Tony Blair said to Parliament just two weeks ago, takes its responsibilities as EU President very seriously. We will work hard to reach agreement on the Financial Perspective by the end of the year. Alongside this, we will seek to conduct the wider debate on Europe’s future direction and priorities in an open and inclusive way, respectful of the different viewpoints in this Parliament and amongst Europe’s governments and citizens. Yet if we are to respond fully to people’s hopes and fears for the future, it is just as important that the EU strengthen its actions in the wider world. One of the most striking developments of the last few years has been how much we have done already in the European Union to rise to that challenge, on a basis of very broad agreement.
A few years ago, Europe’s nations were severely divided, as we were reminded in the previous debate over Iraq. Yet today we are taking strong common action in support of peace in the Middle East, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We have a comprehensive programme of engagement with the new Iraq. We are leading the international community in the difficult but vital process of engagement with Iran.
The story is the same on security and defence. Just a few years ago the debate on ESDP revolved around the location and staffing of a small planning cell in a suburb of Brussels. But today an EU force is working with NATO in Bosnia on the ground. EU missions there and in Macedonia are training police. We are also training Iraqi police and judiciary. We have two European missions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We are assisting the African Union force in Sudan.
So, today, the European Security and Defence Policy is not a piece of paper: it is making a real difference to thousands of lives across the globe. I want the United Kingdom’s Presidency – and the years ahead – to be a time in which we build on these achievements and further strengthen the European Union’s influence and power as a force for good in the world. Nowhere is that more important than in Africa. Africa today is poorer than it was 25 years ago. Half of the population south of the Sahara lives on less than a dollar a day. Africa’s share of world trade is one third of its level in 1980. The total national income of sub-Saharan African countries is less than the developed world – the EU, the United States, Japan and a few other countries – spend on farming subsidies. A major breakthrough is needed if we are to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. At the current pace, it will take Sub-Saharan Africa more than 100 years to meet the targets for primary!
education or reducing infant mortality. For three of the goals – those for hunger, poverty and sanitation – the situation in sub-Saharan Africa is getting worse day by day.
Meanwhile, life expectancy in Africa today is just 42, less than the age of most people in this Chamber. It is predicted that in some African countries life expectancy will be under 30 in five years’ time. Twenty million Africans have already died of AIDS, now the continent’s biggest killer. Three-quarters of those living with HIV worldwide are in Africa.
Nelson Mandela said: ‘Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings’. Mandela was right. Africa has all too many examples of how the actions of human beings prevent other human beings from building better lives for themselves.
In Darfur – as Hilary Benn, my colleague and friend, the Secretary of State for International Development in the United Kingdom – and I have both seen for ourselves, the government-backed militia has killed many thousands of people. Millions have had to flee their homes.
In Zimbabwe, the government has already trampled over democracy and basic human rights and has ruined an economy that was once amongst the strongest in the whole of Africa. The government in Zimbabwe has now turned on the poorest and the most vulnerable in that country, driving hundreds of thousands from their homes and destroying their livelihoods. The problem of Zimbabwe is not one of intrinsic lack of resources or of climate but one of very bad governance. The European Union has been right to send a firm message that the government of Zimbabwe’s behaviour is wholly unacceptable. We have done so through new extended and restrictive measures against the Mugabe regime, and through a firm condemnation of the latest abuses.
But amongst all this gloom, let us remember that the picture in Africa is far more complex than it at first appears. In the 1970s you could count the democracies of Africa on the fingers of one hand and still have two fingers left: there were three. Today there are more than thirty democratically elected governments across the continent.
Only a few years ago, armed conflicts were ablaze across Africa, but today sustainable peace is taking root in countries such as Burundi, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Angola. The Organisation of African Unity used to preach non-interference in its members’ internal affairs. In contrast, its successor, the new African Union, is founded not on non-interference but on non-indifference. It is taking as its inspiration what the European Union has been able to achieve in a continent that was once itself characterised not by the peace and stability we now enjoy, but by conflict, war and bloodshed.
Through the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, NEPAD, African leaders have agreed to a peer review mechanism which many developed world governments, many governments in Europe, would find uncomfortably intrusive. Nor is the economic situation in Africa as uniformly negative as it sometimes seems. Some countries, such as Mozambique and Ethiopia, have achieved growth rates of around 7%, a level sufficient to lift large numbers of people out of poverty.
The continent has enormous resources, both physical and human, and these positive factors should give us real cause for hope. Africans want a better future and we in Europe, with our international partners, must continue to deliver the support to enable reform in Africa to take root and in turn help Africans to change the situation for the better.
So we have made this year a year of action and we have already achieved a great deal. Last month’s European Council is currently famous for its disagreements on the European Union budget, but I suggest that our children will better remember it as the Council which decided to double European aid to Africa over the next five years. That was the enduring legacy of that Council and, with luck and work, the temporary problems over the European budget will indeed be temporary.
We are also resolved to make that aid better coordinated and more effective, building on the agreements made at the OECD meeting in Paris this spring. We have to ensure that the aid does not compound bad governance and enrich the corrupt, but rather that it is used to drive up standards of governance and help the poorest, for whom it is intended.
The G8 has agreed 100% debt relief for all highly indebted poor countries and the G8 leaders who assemble today in Gleneagles and meet today and tomorrow will discuss further support. At the United Nations Summit in September, we are going to review the Millennium Development Goals and strengthen international action to achieve them. However, we have to do more. Under our Presidency, the United Kingdom will work to deliver a European strategy to support Africa’s successful development. The strategy needs to be comprehensive and ambitious; it should go beyond financial support and show how Africa will invest in people, in good governance, in growth, peace and security. As part of this strategy, we have to deliver better access to developed markets for the world’s poorest countries, so as to make the Doha development agenda a reality, and we should start with this December’s meeting in Hong Kong.
The European Union, the United States and other rich countries must honour their commitments to abolish export subsidies and do so to a clear and explicit timetable. We have to recognise, too, the central importance of peace and stability in Africa. Already there are thousands of refugees in Darfur who are safer. Why? Thanks to financing from the European Union Peace Facility for the African Union’s mission there. Through the facility, we can increase our support further by supporting the African Union and organisations like the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, which itself has played such an important role in tackling conflict in West Africa.
The Peace Facility really has been a success, but the money allocated to it is running out and we need to agree adequate long-term funding for it. As Africa’s leaders themselves have recognised, Europe can help by promoting better and more democratic governance in Africa.
To return to the issue of Zimbabwe, I greatly welcome the European Parliament’s calls for action on elections and rigorous enforcement of European Union sanctions. The Joint EU-ACP Parliamentary Assembly has been a strong supporter of better governance in African states, as well as those in the Caribbean and Pacific. The Cotonou Agreement allows us to suspend aid in the worst cases. We should not only remain prepared to use that provision but, I suggest, be far more proactive in monitoring progress on democracy and on governance. It is the people who have most to gain from democracy and better governance, the ordinary people in the ACP countries in Africa, who themselves are wanting us to make use of these mechanisms within agreements like the Cotonou Agreement.
The great Live 8 concerts that took place across Europe and across the globe last weekend are still echoing in our ears. They and the wider interest generated by the G8 Gleneagles meeting have hugely raised expectations in Africa and in Europe and across the developed world that this time the aid effort to Africa will work. Let us hope that it will. Let us hope that the developed nations actually deliver the aid they are promising, but let us also understand this: the process will only work if governance in Africa is improved and corruption there is cut down.
In our action in Africa and across the world, the European Union can draw on three great strengths. Firstly, the EU’s intrinsic power and influence. When we speak together we can set the international agenda. We are doing so on world trade, but I have seen that too in leading with Javier Solana, with Joschka Fischer and now with Philippe Douste-Blazy in the difficult Iran dossier. The strength of the European Union when it is united is phenomenal. The strength we have is the strength of our global connections. There is hardly a country anywhere in the world that does not have some special tie of history or friendship with one or other of the European Union’s Member States. The latest enlargement, last May, added further to that network of partnership and trust and our global reach is mirrored in this Parliament and in your strong international engagement.
The EU is today building stronger relationships with neighbours such as Russia and new strategic partners such as China and India, which are going to hold such important summits with the EU during our Presidency. Obviously we will wield greater influence with such strategic partners when we act together.
The third, and perhaps most important, strength is the strength of the European Union’s values. Soft power in foreign policy has been defined as making others want what we want. The European Union’s enlargement is one of the most striking and powerful examples of that soft power in action. The magnetic pull of the EU’s success, its values and institutions, have helped to transform first southern, then central and eastern Europe and the prospect of EU membership is now spreading reform and stability to Turkey and across the Western Balkans.
Others here perhaps know the Western Balkans better than I do, but all of us who know the Western Balkans know that in reality the only thing that is helping to push those divided communities towards some prospect of peace and security is the European Union, its values and its strength. The June European Union Council recognised this in reaffirming its intention that the EU should fully implement its existing commitments on enlargement, including opening negotiations with Turkey on 3 October.
Meanwhile, our neighbourhood policy is helping to promote our values further to the east and to the south, including to Ukraine and to the Mediterranean countries, with which we will also host summits during the UK Presidency. Those values are the bedrock of the transatlantic relationship, the world’s greatest alliances of liberal democracies, essential in tackling the global challenges of the future from terrorism and proliferation to poverty and climate change.
Through these assets – our own strength, our global connections and the power of our values – the European Union today has even greater potential to increase its strength as a force for good across the world. I look forward to working with you all towards that goal during our Presidency.
(Applause)
Louis Michel,membre de la Commission. Monsieur le Président du Parlement européen, Monsieur le Président du Conseil, Mesdames, Messieurs, en sollicitant le portefeuille du développement et de l'aide humanitaire, je savais que l'Afrique serait au cœur de mon action et de mon engagement.
Un engagement suscité par un sentiment d'indignation et d'urgence: l'Afrique reste, aujourd'hui encore, en retrait du monde, en marge de nos consciences et à l'écart des avantages de la mondialisation.
Un engagement basé aussi sur le constat rationnel que le contexte a changé et que se dessine aujourd'hui l'opportunité, sans doute unique, de faire de l'Afrique un continent plus prospère, plus stable et mieux gouverné. Dans ce contexte, l'Europe peut et doit faire la différence étant donné qu'on peut aujourd'hui créer des conditions favorables à l'éradication de la pauvreté et qu'on n'a plus aucune excuse pour ne pas le faire.
L'Afrique a changé. Les Africains eux-mêmes ont décidé de tourner le dos à la fatalité et de prendre en main leur destin. L'action énergique et performante de l'Union africaine au Darfour, au Togo, en Côte-d'Ivoire, par exemple, a donné une nouvelle dimension au principe qu'il faut trouver des réponses africaines aux crises africaines. Cette action, basée sur des organisations régionales solides, ouvre de nouvelles perspectives, jusque là inespérées, pour la paix, la stabilité et la sécurité. De plus, l'Union africaine est soutenue par un leadership fort qui aujourd'hui trace les contours d'une vision prometteuse.
Si l'Afrique a changé, l'Europe aussi a changé. L'Europe s'affirme de plus en plus comme le porte-parole d'un monde plus solidaire, plus juste, d'un système plus multilatéral. En cette année 2005, année du développement, l'Europe doit faire entendre sa voix en tant que premier donateur d'aide au développement et peut, à ce titre, pousser la communauté internationale dans une démarche concrète et volontariste qui permettrait d'éviter que les objectifs du Millénaire pour le développement ne soient pas bientôt synonyme de promesses non tenues. Je suis d'ailleurs très heureux de prendre acte que le Conseil européen – comme cela vient d'être dit –, a suivi la proposition de la Commission, ce qui permettra effectivement de doubler d'ici à 2015 l'aide publique au développement et d'ici à 2010 de doubler l'aide à l'Afrique.
Enfin, le monde a changé. Les événements des dernières années nous ont montré combien l'existence d'États défaillants pouvait être source d'instabilité, pouvait créer des refuges sans risques pour les terroristes et les criminels. L'intensification de la mondialisation à tous les niveaux rend indispensable, aussi, une intensification de la solidarité. La politique de développement me semble aujourd'hui l'instrument privilégié d'humanisation de la mondialisation. Je n'en vois en tout cas pas de meilleur. La mondialisation a ceci de spécifique qu'elle n'est pas née, comme certains voulaient le faire croire, d'une décision politique quelque part cachée dans un abri. La mondialisation n'a pas été véritablement orchestrée; elle est un processus spontané, salué par d'aucuns, appréhendé par d'autres, mais sur lequel, et c'est bien là le hic, aucune autorité, qu'elle soit nationale ou internationale, ne semble avoir d'emprise directe. Je suis bien sûr!
de ceux qui croient qu'elle peut apporter beaucoup et qu'elle présente en tout cas beaucoup plus d'avantages que d'inconvénients.
À l'intensification de la mondialisation à tous les niveaux il faut évidemment répondre par l'intensification de la solidarité à tous les niveaux. Que peut, en effet, signifier la mondialisation pour des populations qui n'ont pas accès à l'eau, pour des jeunes qui n'ont pas accès à l'éducation, pour des enfants qui meurent de maladies que pourtant nous pourrions soigner. Même si d'aucuns rêvent d'un retour à des modèles qui fleurent malheureusement le déjà-vu, je crois qu'il serait erroné de croire que les gens ne veulent pas de la mondialisation ou qu'ils veulent revenir en arrière. Ce que nous voulons, nous, en tant qu'Européens, c'est une mondialisation qui profite à tout le monde, qui soit un levier positif pour l'humanité tout entière, sans exclusion. Dans ce contexte, rien n'est plus urgent que de faire en sorte que la mondialisation puisse fonctionner en Afrique et pour l'Afrique.
Certes, la libéralisation des marchés, dans ce cadre, n'est vertueuse que là où l'État a la capacité d'édicter des règles pour en contenir les dérives et pour faire respecter l'intérêt général. Vous le savez, pour profiter des opportunités offertes par la mondialisation, les gouvernements doivent garantir un cadre macro-économique. Ils doivent aussi créer les conditions efficaces et prévisibles de ce cadre macro-économique et doivent évidemment aussi assurer une gouvernance dans un cadre favorable à l'activité économique. Ils doivent aussi encourager et soutenir une société civile vigilante, qui garantisse une redistribution équitable et équilibrée de la richesse et d'autres services comme, par exemple, l'accès à la justice, à l'administration, à la santé, à l'éducation. De ce point de vue là, et particulièrement pour l'Afrique, je crois qu'un effort tout à fait spécial, focalisé, doit être porté sur la lutte en faveur de l'égalité!
entre les hommes et les femmes.
C'est pour toutes ces raisons qu'il me semble utile de définir une stratégie européenne commune. Pas seulement pour le développement, mais aussi pour l'Afrique, une stratégie qui puisse répondre à la nouvelle donne géopolitique en Afrique; une stratégie que nous voulons élaborer avec nos partenaires africains pour capitaliser ce nouvel élan au niveau mondial. Très vite, cela a été dit, l'Union africaine est devenue un interlocuteur politique incontournable, un véritable moteur de changement pour le continent.
En même temps, je crois qu'il est bon de souligner que cette construction ne pourra pas tenir toute seule. La maison de l'union africaine doit être bâtie sur de solides building blocks régionaux. Il n'y aura pas d'intégration continentale sans organisation régionale forte, ambitieuse et reconnue. Un partenariat politique et ambitieux entre l'Union européenne et l'Union africaine est donc plus que jamais nécessaire. Sur quoi devrait porter ce mariage? Je n'ai pas de réponse exhaustive, mais je me limite quand même à donner quatre pistes que je souhaite proposer comme hypothèses de travail en commun. Vous savez que je viendrais à la fin de l'année avec non seulement une déclaration sur le développement, une réactualisation de la politique de développement que nous aurons évidemment débattue et que nous débattrons ensemble, ainsi qu'un véritable masterplan pour l'Afrique.
Premier axe: la gouvernance. La primauté de la gouvernance qui n'est évidemment contestée par personne, comme on l'a dit, l'Afrique n'est pas pauvre, elle est malheureusement mal gouvernée. Et pourtant, l'Afrique commence à bouger. Des efforts de gouvernance sont faits à différents niveaux. Au cours des cinq dernières années, plus des deux tiers des pays d'Afrique subsaharienne ont connu des élections multipartites, certaines plus libres et plus justes que d'autres et plusieurs changements de gouvernements se sont déroulés de manière démocratique et pacifique: encore tout récemment, les élections au Burundi. J'espère qu'en RDC, au mois de mars, on pourra aussi enregistrer des progrès significatifs. Je veux aussi rappeler que vingt-trois pays africains ont ratifié le Statut créant la Cour pénale internationale. Il est bon de le dire alors que certaines puissances occidentales démocratiques ne l'ont toujours pas fait. Le fait le plus marquant de ces der!
nières années, c'est que l'Afrique s'est dotée elle-même d'une vision, d'une mission et de principes. En matière de gouvernance, ce fait intégré par l'institution de l'Union africaine et reflété par la vision du NEPAD constitue une rupture avec le passé et les pratiques d'antan. Cette vision et ces principes ne sont pas restés au stade des déclarations d'intention puisqu'avec le mécanisme africain d'évaluation par les pairs, l'Afrique dispose désormais d'un outil unique d'accompagnement des Africains par des Africains. Ce mécanisme mérite tout notre soutien.
Deuxième axe: les infrastructures et les réseaux. Nous conviendrons tous que sans réseaux transafricains, sans infrastructures, il n'y aura pas de développement possible. L'Union européenne elle-même en apporte la preuve. L'Union européenne a montré la pertinence de cette réalité. Il est indispensable d'intensifier les efforts actuels pour améliorer et assurer la durabilité des réseaux d'infrastructure et pour accélérer la croissance et promouvoir le commerce. C'est pourquoi la Commission se propose de développer un plan de partenariat Europe-Afrique sur les infrastructures et les réseaux. À travers ce partenariat, nous allons appuyer le développement des réseaux transafricains qui sont essentiels pour l'interconnectivité et la circulation des connaissances sur le continent, réseaux transeuropéens en télécommunications, voies de chemins de fer, lignes aériennes, infrastructures de désenclavement, qui sont aussi très importantes: les ports, les a�!
�roports, les voies navigables, tout ce qui a trait à l'énergie et à l'eau.
Parallèlement à ce partenariat sur les infrastructures, nous devrions innover en termes de mécanismes de financement basés sur la participation du secteur privé et d'autres bailleurs de fonds. J'y reviendrai d'ailleurs dans la déclaration sur le FED d'ici quelques mois.
Troisième axe: évidemment le commerce. Tous les acteurs reconnaissent le rôle central du commerce dans la croissance économique. La part de l'Afrique dans les exportations mondiales a chuté de presque 60%, ce qui correspond à une perte de 70 milliards de dollars par an, c'est-à-dire l'équivalent de 21% du GDP de la région, plus de cinq fois les 13 milliards de dollars qui rentrent en Afrique chaque année par le biais de l'aide au développement. Nous devons évidemment inverser cette tendance. Comme vous le savez, nous négocions actuellement les accords de partenariat économique avec six régions, dont quatre en Afrique subsaharienne. Peter Mandelson, responsable du commerce, négocie ces accords. Il s'agit sans aucun doute du processus commercial le plus ambitieux jamais négocié entre le Nord et le Sud. Pour la première fois, l'Union européenne soutient financièrement l'effort de négociation de ses partenaires. Pour la première fois, des accords comm!
erciaux sont négociés avec comme seul objectif le développement de nos partenaires. Pour la première fois, ces accords sont fondés sur, et pour, l'intégration régionale de nos partenaires et pour la première fois, notre coopération financière et technique peut être utilisée pour les réformes, l'appui budgétaire, les actions d'amélioration de la capacité d'accroissement de l'offre, la construction d'un environnement attractif pour les investissements et les échanges.
Enfin, dernier axe: la culture. La culture est une dimension-clé du développement qui, de mon point de vue, a jusqu'à présent été beaucoup trop souvent oubliée. Pourtant, elle est vitale. La culture est l'âme et l'expression d'un peuple; elle détermine le fonctionnement d'une société et donc aussi sa structure économique. C'est pourquoi la prise en compte de la spécificité sociétale et culturelle de l'Afrique dans sa richesse et sa diversité me semble seule à même d'inscrire notre aide au développement dans la réalité du terrain et de renforcer ainsi son efficacité.
Je terminerai, Monsieur le Président, en lançant un certain nombre de questions dont il serait souhaitable de débattre. J'ai entendu parler de sanctions. Il me semble que les sanctions ne sont vertueuses que lorsqu'elles touchent les auteurs, les responsables. Par contre, je ne crois pas aux sanctions quant elles touchent les populations directement ou indirectement. Il serait utile d'ouvrir ce débat.
Je pense qu'on doit aussi débattre de la fameuse question de l'ownership ou appropriation. Comment au mieux assurer l'appropriation du destin et du développement par les populations elles-mêmes? L'appropriation va de pair avec le principe de pérennisation. Comment faire pour pérenniser les effets des programmes et des projets en cours quand les opérateurs extérieurs quittent le terrain? Se pose aussi la question du choix ou de la priorité à donner plutôt à l'aide budgétaire, et dans quelles conditions, qu'à l'aide par projet. Cette question fera sans doute l'objet d'un débat à la fin de l'année, de même que la cohérence et la coordination.
Monsieur le Président, Mesdames, Messieurs, voici rapidement dressé le cadre dans lequel on peut apporter des réponses à un sujet aussi vaste et aussi important que celui que vous avez mis à l'ordre du jour. Nous aurons évidemment l'occasion de revenir sur ces questions avant la fin de l'année dans le cadre de la nouvelle politique et dans le cadre de cette focalisation sur l'Afrique. Je voudrais, pour ce qui me concerne, vous dire mon optimisme. Optimisme d'abord parce qu'un certain nombre d'atouts sont réunis: le fait que la Présidence britannique ait mis l'Afrique véritablement tout en haut de l'agenda de l'Union européenne, qu'elle l'ait mis aussi tout en haut de l'agenda du G8; le fait qu'aujourd'hui, un consensus fort se développe pour considérer qu'on n'atteindra pas les objectifs du Millénaire ni globalement, ni individuellement, si on ne fait pas un effort très grand sur l'Afrique et rapidement. Je dirais qu'il faut faire plus, qu'il faut faire mieux!
et qu'il faut faire plus vite. Pour ce qui nous concerne, nous nous y efforcerons. Je ne doute pas que le Parlement sera le gardien vigilant de ces promesses.
(Applaudissements)
Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL), Autore.– Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, desidero ringraziare il Commissario Michel e il Ministro Straw. Nella nostra commissione terremo sicuramente conto delle valutazioni e delle risposte scritte che ci sono state trasmesse. Non faremo solo i guardiani, ma intendiamo agire per una politica comune.
Il 2 luglio ho partecipato, insieme a centinaia di migliaia di persone, alla marcia che ha attraversato Edimburgo per chiedere di escludere la povertà dalla storia e per chiedere ai paesi del G8 una politica di commercio equo, più aiuti allo sviluppo, un controllo severo sulla vendita delle armi, nonché una politica di pace e giustizia e non di guerre infinite.
E' stata una manifestazione grandiosa, alla quale hanno partecipato bambini, donne, uomini, anziani e giovani, consapevoli del loro agire. Queste persone rappresentano una ricchezza per la nostra democrazia, sono voci da ascoltare. Noi al Parlamento europeo lo abbiamo fatto, circondando simbolicamente l'emiciclo con una banda bianca e chiedendo ai parlamentari di apporvi la propria firma a sostegno della campagna organizzata da centinaia di organizzazioni in tutto il mondo. Le firme raccolte verranno consegnate dal Presidente Borrell al Ministro Straw per farle avere ai leader del G8. Questa è già un'azione, è un'assunzione di responsabilità.
Nelson Mandela, nel suo messaggio al G8, ha detto esplicitamente che la fame è anche fame di giustizia e ha aggiunto - e faccio mie le sue parole - che la povertà, come anche la schiavitù, non sono un fatto naturale, ma sono determinate dalle azioni degli uomini e possono essere sradicate dall'agire degli esseri umani. Inoltre, ha aggiunto che fino a quando esisterà la povertà, non vi sarà una vera libertà. Combattere la povertà non è un atto di carità ma di giustizia e di difesa di un diritto umano fondamentale, vale a dire il diritto di vivere con dignità.
La povertà non è una fatalità, ma è il risultato di scelte politiche ed economiche a livello regionale, nazionale e internazionale, e deve essere considerata illegale. Lo scandalo maggiore non è l'esistenza del problema della fame e della povertà, quanto piuttosto la persistenza di tale problema nonostante esistano le risorse umane e materiali necessarie per fronteggiarla con decisione e risolutezza.
E' con queste parole che si conclude la dichiarazione di New York, firmata da 111 governi guidati dal Presidente Lula, che hanno indicato gli strumenti di finanziamento a favore dello sviluppo, tra cui tassazioni, transazioni, lotta all'evasione fiscale, riduzione dei costi e responsabilità sociale delle imprese. Si tratta di strumenti che vanno considerati aggiuntivi e non assolutamente sostitutivi di quelli già esistenti.
Vincere la povertà nei paesi poveri, ma anche in strati di paesi cosiddetti ricchi, non significa solo rispettare il diritto alla vita E' la migliore arma contro i fondamentalismi, i conflitti brutali e il terrorismo. Negli ultimi anni abbiamo visto come i programmi di aggiustamento strutturale, le privatizzazioni selvagge e la liberalizzazione sfrenata dei mercati e dei servizi - e non lo dico perché sono contro il commercio - hanno contribuito ad aggravare il problema della fame e della povertà.
Io credo che dobbiamo dimostrare coerenza nelle scelte e affrontare con coraggio e visione le contraddizioni generate dalle politiche di commercio internazionale. Quando si parla di commercio equo, bisogna essere coerenti. Non possiamo invadere i mercati dei paesi africani con i nostri prodotti sussidiati e distruggere le economie locali. Ha ragione il Ministro Staw, quando afferma che non si può essere partner se non si tiene conto delle condizioni diseguali. Per questo motivo, credo che dobbiamo guardare con molta attenzione anche alle riforme come quella dello zucchero, che danneggiano i paesi in via di sviluppo. Anche la proposta di legare gli aiuti al condizionamento è un passo importante che noi stiamo intraprendendo, che crea le condizioni per un partenariato reale.
Mi auguro che questa consapevolezza presente tra la gente e tra di noi sia portata anche al prossimo round dell'OMC a Hong Kong e che gli Obiettivi del Millennio, che sono una tappa intermedia fondamentale, possano essere raggiunti.
Gli sforzi del Commissario Michel e della Presidenza lussemburghese nei confronti del Consiglio dei Ministri sono stati positivi e hanno ottenuto un aumento degli aiuti. Si tratta di un passo importante da non sottovalutare, ma che non è tuttavia sufficiente per raggiungere gli obiettivi che ci siamo prefissati. Mi auguro che la Presidenza inglese, che esprime tanta consapevolezza, possa fare molto di più. Lo 0,7 per cento dichiarato dal 1970 dovrà finalmente diventare reale.
Vi sono poi molti altri interventi utili. Per esempio, da tempo si discute in Parlamento di incrementare le spese per lo sviluppo e per l'educazione. Per debellare l'AIDS e per aiutare i malati non sono necessari solamente maggiori fondi e una politica di accesso ai farmaci, ma anche un controllo e una visione di liberalizzazione delle licenze.
Un altro tema importante è la cancellazione del debito, chiesta ieri dal summit dell'Unione africana. Noi abbiamo fatto qualcosa, ma non basta Non possiamo considerare la cancellazione del debito come parte del bilancio degli aiuti allo sviluppo, come avviene per l'Iraq.
C'è ancora molto da fare se il 2005 deve davvero segnare una svolta storica per la lotta contro la povertà. L'Africa possiede risorse forti che noi possiamo utilizzare.
(Applausi)
Maria Martens, namens de PPE-DE-Fractie.– Voorzitter, geachte heren Straw en Michel. Allereerst wil ik de organisatoren van de campagne "Global call to action against poverty" van harte feliciteren met hun initiatief. Het is een goed initiatief op een belangrijk moment, nu dit najaar besprekingen plaatsvinden in de WTO en de G8, maar ook over de millenniumontwikkelingsdoelstellingen.
Armoede blijft een onaanvaardbaar probleem. Centraal in het beleid voor de millenniumontwikkelingsdoelstellingen is armoedebestrijding. Zoals bekend is de armoedeproblematiek het grootst in Afrika, met name in de sub-Sahara. Als rapporteur voor de ontwikkelingsstrategie voor Afrika ben ik blij dat Afrika zowel door de Commissaris als door het Britse voorzitterschap als prioriteit is gekozen. Ik ben ook blij met de indicatie van de aanpak zoals vandaag door hen verwoord.
Naar aanleiding van de resolutie het volgende. Natuurlijk is het goed om meer geld vrij te maken voor de bestrijding van armoede, maar zoals zojuist ook al is gezegd, ligt de oplossing voor effectieve armoedebestrijding niet alleen in geld. Belangrijker is dat de oorzaken van armoede worden aangepakt. Daarbij denk ik aan wanbeheer, corruptie, handelsbelemmeringen en dergelijke.
Volgens mij kan de Europese Unie via ten minste twee wegen iets doen. Ten eerste in haar eigen contacten met de arme landen en ten tweede in haar eigen interne beleid. Noodhulp zal soms nodig blijven, maar met het oog op stabiele samenlevingen moeten we in onze contacten met arme landen vooral goed bestuur, capaciteitsopbouw en economische empowerment, met name van het midden- en kleinbedrijf, bevorderen, evenals een goede sociale infrastructuur, goed onderwijs en goede gezondheidszorg. In ons eigen beleid moeten we vooral werken aan het verbeteren van de coherentie, coördinatie en effectiviteit van beleid.
Wat de schuldenlast betreft, geldt dat schuldenverlichting geen panacee is voor armoede. Schuldenverlichting garandeert op zichzelf nog geen ontwikkeling, is op zichzelf geen oplossing voor problemen als corruptie, gebrek aan rechtsstaat, schendingen van mensenrechten en instabiele economische situaties en komt bovendien niet automatisch de armsten ten goede. Uiteindelijk zijn de landen zelf verantwoordelijk voor de toekomst van hun land. Wij kunnen hen daarbij slechts helpen, maar dan moeten we wel iets doen aan de kwaliteit en effectieve ...
(spreker wordt onderbroken door de voorzitter)
PRÉSIDENCE DE M. MOSCOVICI Vice-président
Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, en nombre del Grupo PSE.– Señor Presidente, para los socialistas, la erradicación de la pobreza en el mundo constituye una prioridad absoluta, porque es una cuestión de justicia y de solidaridad, valores ambos consustanciales con nuestra identidad ideológica y política.
Justicia y solidaridad son parte de nuestra contribución al proceso que nos ha llevado a la Unión Europea, pero en el mundo globalizado en que la Unión debe operar la justicia y la solidaridad no pueden entenderse en beneficio exclusivo de nuestra ciudadanía y de nuestro territorio. Al contrario: es hora de que justicia y solidaridad trasciendan nuestras fronteras y marquen todas las políticas y actuaciones europeas en el escenario internacional, tal como recoge el Tratado constitucional.
Los socialistas de la Comisión de Desarrollo nos felicitamos por dos hechos que responden a lo que, desde esta comisión, hemos venido reivindicando. El primero es que el Consejo de Ministros sobre Desarrollo de mayo confirmara compromisos importantes con vistas a hacer realidad los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio, manteniendo éstos en los términos fijados hace cinco años. El segundo es la prioridad concedida por la Presidencia británica a la erradicación de la pobreza, con especial acento en África.
Esto nos parece justificado, pero no puede excluir la lucha contra la pobreza en otras zonas del planeta en las que existen tremendas bolsas de miseria y en las que desigualdades incluso mayores que en el continente africano requieren también nuestra acción prioritaria.
Con el happening de la pulsera, con este debate y con la resolución que aprobaremos, estamos sintonizando con lo que hacen en estos días millones de europeas y europeos en toda la Unión.
Recientemente hemos comentado el desencuentro existente entre responsables y organismos europeos y nuestra ciudadanía. Ahora esta movilización contra la pobreza es una excelente oportunidad para la coincidencia, la cercanía y la reconciliación, pero, ¡atención! El efecto será positivo sólo si no defraudamos la confianza que se deposita en nosotros, más allá de palabras y de buenas intenciones. Por lo que respecta a la erradicación de la pobreza, se nos juzgará más por lo que hagamos en adelante, y más pronto que tarde, que por lo que digamos aquí y ahora.
(Aplausos)
Fiona Hall, on behalf of the ALDE Group.– Mr President, those of us who were in Edinburgh on Saturday were left in no doubt about the strength of popular support for making poverty history. I hope that the G8 meeting this week keeps faith with that passion.
I welcome Mr Straw’s comments on the Doha agenda, but the fight against poverty will be won or lost not in headline talks between world leaders but in the anonymous rooms where civil servants hammer out the detail of trade agreements. Therefore, could the Commission and the Council give us an assurance today that, when it comes to nitty-gritty trade discussions in the months ahead, making poverty history will still be top of the agenda, away from the world’s media and away from parliamentary scrutiny? In the detailed backroom discussions on agriculture production, export subsidies, sugar reform, imports of processed goods, rules of origin, the contentious economic partnership agreements, will poverty reduction still be the Commission’s and the Council’s priority, even when European agriculture and big businesses are lobbying heavily?
We must go one step further than trade agreements and support developing countries in building their capacity for trade through things like microcredit and better transport links, as Commissioner Michel mentioned, so that both regional and world markets can be accessed to the full. Some trade-related technical assistance already exists: for example, the Commission’s pesticide initiative programme, which helps African farmers meet European food safety standards. However, that initiative is a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed.
Liberals and Democrats have always stressed the importance of fighting corruption and fostering good governance. Part of that is a duty of respect to democratically-elected governments, whether we agree with them politically or not. Indeed, in its report, the Commission for Africa stressed the importance of pragmatism, of having a programme of action based not on ideology but on sound evidence about what works and what does not.
Marie-Hélène Aubert, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE.– Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, "l'Afrique est mal partie", disait l'écologiste René Dumont, il y a plus de 30 ans. Aujourd'hui, la voilà de retour sur le devant de la scène dans un état encore plus dramatique. Et vous devez à présent le reconnaître: la libéralisation dogmatique des échanges commerciaux, les plans d'ajustement structurel, les privatisations à outrance et, bien sûr, les promesses non tenues n'ont fait qu'aggraver une situation déjà très difficile au détriment de politiques d'éducation et de santé notamment.
Cela dit, la question essentielle se pose au Nord, à nous-mêmes. Sommes-nous prêts à revoir en profondeur notre modèle de développement, nos modes de production et de consommation, de déplacement et à repenser l'organisation elle-même et le sens de nos sociétés? Ce qui est nécessaire aujourd'hui, c'est bien de s'atteler à résoudre, au Nord comme au Sud, des problèmes aussi essentiels que les trois que je souhaiterais vous énumérer ici. Premièrement, concernant l'accès aux ressources énergétiques, pétrolières, minières, dont nous sommes beaucoup trop dépendants et qui n'ont pas profité au développement de l'Afrique, sommes-nous prêts à mettre en œuvre, oui ou non, une tout autre politique énergétique durable, équitable et écologique?
Deuxièmement, concernant l'accès à la terre, à la nourriture, à l'alimentation, dans le respect des territoires et des cultures rurales locales, sommes-nous prêts à revoir nos politiques agricoles intensives, hyperindustrialisées, nos politiques commerciales subventionnées et déloyales, à maîtriser le marché et le cours des produits du Sud de façon à ce qu'ils soient rémunérateurs?
Troisièmement, concernant l'accès à la démocratie, à l'État de droit, à la paix, au niveau local comme au niveau global, sommes-nous prêts à démocratiser les instances internationales, à soutenir les démocrates en Afrique, au risque de perdre une partie des pouvoirs exorbitants du Nord sur la planète, des pouvoirs que symbolise le G8 retiré aujourd'hui comme dans une forteresse à Gleneagle?
Si nous ne sommes pas capables de répondre clairement oui a ces trois questions au moins, alors ce grand show mobilisateur, médiatique de chevalier blanc et généreux au secours de l'Afrique ne serait, une fois de plus, qu'une foire aux illusions. L'Union européenne ne peut plus se permettre de décevoir. À présent et pour notre part, nous sommes prêts à prendre nos responsabilités.
Gabriele Zimmer, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion.– Herr Präsident! Es geht heute um nicht mehr und nicht weniger als die Sicherung des Menschenrechts auf ein Leben in Würde.
Anlässlich des bevorstehenden G8-Gipfels bekräftige ich die Grundforderungen vor allem auch vieler afrikanischer Bewegungen: Gerechten Handel gewährleisten, die Schuldenkrise der armen Länder beenden, wesentlich mehr Ressourcen für Hilfe aufbringen und sicherstellen, dass diese Hilfe von höchster Qualität ist. Ich verlange, dass die Europäische Union diese Forderungen als an sich selbst gerichtet betrachtet und konsequent um eine gerechte Weltwirtschaftsordnung ringt.
Ich verlange offenzulegen, inwieweit die ODA, die offizielle Entwicklungshilfe, und die Partnerschaftsvereinbarungen eine Art Entwicklungshilfe für europäische Konzerne und Unternehmen sind. Vor dem EU-Gipfel zur Entwicklungspolitik soll die Antwort auf die Frage auf dem Tisch liegen, wie die EU sicherstellt, dass eine solch skandalöse Wirtschaftsförderung unterbleibt.
Nigel Farage, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group.– Mr President, the British Presidency, the Commission, the President of Parliament, Bob Geldof: everybody is talking about it. And we are all slapping ourselves on the back; there is a mood of self-congratulation over our giving more money to Africa, as if, somehow, money will solve the whole problem. Well, I am afraid that I remain a bit of a cynic and I see foreign aid as poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries. Frankly, I think the atmosphere here on Monday, when we discussed this, and again today, smacks of rank hypocrisy: all the while we have the common agricultural policy; all the while we have high tariff barriers against agricultural goods; all the while we have the sugar regime and the export credit system.
I know that Mr Blair wants to reform the common agricultural policy. I suspect he is going to struggle, but there is one thing the British Presidency could do over the course of the next six months to really help Africa. We have spent over EUR 2 billion of European taxpayers’ money bribing poor black African governments to allow the Spanish fleet in to fish. It has had environmentally disastrous consequences, we have taken away the livelihoods of tens of thousands of indigenous poor black Africans, and we have actually killed hundreds of them into the bargain.
Starting with the Comoros deal, renewable in September, will you in the British Presidency please stop these appalling fisheries deals and do something to really help Africa?
Eoin Ryan, on behalf of the UEN Group.– Mr President, in the words of Nelson Mandela, ‘Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man made and can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings’. Thirty thousand children a day die as a result of extreme poverty. We must look into our hearts and pose the question that is on everyone’s lips at present: do I, do we, have the will to make poverty history? We have the cash, we have the drugs, we have the science, but do we have the will? That is the main question to be posed here today.
Millions of people all over the world are trapped in bitter, unrelenting poverty because of largely man-made factors: a questionable global trade system, demands from prosperous countries for large amounts of money to service debts. The gap between the rich and the poor has never been wider. Malnutrition, corruption, AIDS, malaria, conflict, illiteracy and suffocating bad debts are crippling the poorer nations of this world. As the Commissioner outlined, progress is being made in Africa and we must remember that, but a lot more needs to be done.
A recent G8 meeting agreed that debts owed by the world’s poorest countries to the World Bank, the IMF and the African Development Bank would be partially cancelled – USD 1 billion over ten years. It is a small amount, but it is a step in the right direction. However, an awful lot more needs to be done. It is imperative that bad debt relief be organised so as to ensure that corrupt African leaders do not rearm themselves to bolster highly questionable regimes. We must make sure that we in Europe do not rearm them.
The cancellation of all debt can only be effective if international aid is continued at a sustainable level. The European Union donates the most aid at present and it remains at the forefront in guaranteeing the full implementation of the Millennium Development Goals, including the commitment to contribute 0.7% of GNP per annum. I would urge all wealthy nations to affirm their commitment to fulfilling their aid obligation within a reasonable and realistic time frame.
The recent worldwide Live 8 concert spearheaded by Bob Geldof displayed global support for making poverty history, as did the 200 000 people who took to the streets of Edinburgh in advance of the G8 Summit that starts today. We witnessed both young and old expressing a very strong view. This Parliament, other parliaments and politicians are often accused of ignoring what people really want. The people have spoken on this issue and we must act – and act decisively.
As the G8 Summit gets under way at Gleneagles in Scotland today, let us bear in mind some words of wisdom from the much respected Nelson Mandela: ‘[...] overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life’.
Alessandro Battilocchio (NI).– Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, parlo a nome dei socialisti del nuovo PSI e come membro della commissione per lo sviluppo.
In base alle graduatorie e ai criteri di valutazione di organizzazioni come la Banca mondiale, Freedom House e Transparency International, un numero crescente di paesi africani ha ormai la leadership e la qualità di governo per poter ottenere risultati economici, ma non ha i mezzi necessari.
Anche i paesi governati relativamente bene restano infatti prigionieri della trappola della povertà. Sono troppo poveri per riuscire ad innescare processi di sviluppo economico o anche solo per raggiungere una crescita di base. Con un risparmio interno estremamente basso e con flussi di investimenti esteri altrettanto bassi, le attuali dinamiche dell'Africa non offrono speranze di uscita dalla povertà.
I paesi ricchi devono impegnarsi a raddoppiare gli aiuti nel periodo 2005-2015, in modo da raggiungere almeno lo 0,5 per cento del PIL entro il 2010 e lo 0,7 per cento entro il 2015. Questo aumento appare ben poca cosa se confrontato con la ricchezza dei paesi ad alto reddito o con la spesa militare a livello mondiale, che ammonta a novecento miliardi di dollari l'anno.
E' in gioco la credibilità e il funzionamento del sistema internazionale. Se nel 2005 non si faranno passi decisivi, i paesi poveri, per quanto ben governati, non riusciranno a realizzare una strategia mirata al raggiungimento dei Millennium goals e la già debole fiducia nelle promesse della comunità internazionale in materia di lotta alla povertà svanirà del tutto.
John Bowis (PPE-DE).– Mr President, last Sunday my mother celebrated her 100th birthday, a century which has seen wars, famines and pandemics, but also enormous strides in scientific knowledge and capacity. When she was 69, the World Food Conference pledged a world free from hunger. When she was 91, the World Food Summit abandoned that pledge and aimed only to halve the number to 400 million by 2015. Now that pledge has slipped to 2030. The last century saw millions killed in wars. The last 50 years have seen 400 million die of hunger: three times the cull of a century’s wars. In health, the year 2000 saw, as we know, three million die from AIDS. But, as we probably do not know, 2.9 million died from diabetes.
When we were in Mali recently I saw the consequences of the inability to afford medicines, insulin, specialists and nurses: amputations, blindness and early death. So many diseases are untreated or poorly treated and the result is millions incapacitated, with enormous costs to families and to nations. It really is a case of no health, no wealth.
Those are the challenges, and the answers are capacity-building aid, untied aid, micro-credit schemes to build economies from the bottom upwards; avoiding putting money into the pockets of corrupt officials and politicians; avoiding making aid millionaires; helping to end tyrannies in countries like Zimbabwe; avoiding waste on consultancies and top-heavy charities; cutting subsidies in Europe and removing the obstacles to trade from developing countries. Often when we set new standards for Europe, we do not help the developing countries to meet those standards so that they can meet our import requirements.
Lastly, on debt, let us not make the developing countries uncreditworthy. Let us find ways of repaying the debt repayments into those countries, into the Millennium Development Goals, into the country strategy papers, and then debt can be a benefit rather than a burden.
Margrietus van den Berg (PSE).– Voorzitter, ik citeer even mijn favoriete Nederlandse artiest, Thé Lau van The Scene: "Iedereen is van de wereld en de wereld is van iedereen". Dat was de boodschap van Live Aid op 140 televisiestations. Nu is de opdracht aan ons, politici. Wij hebben 6 maanden, met Gleneagles, de VN-milleniumtop en Hongkong, om een keerpunt te bereiken. 2015 in de millenniumgoals beweegt op dit moment van ons weg. We doen het verkeerde, maar we hebben nu drie bijeenkomsten waar we een keerpunt zouden kunnen maken. Ik noem voor het EU-voorzitterschap vier belangrijke handelingen.
Op de eerste plaats, wat Jack Straw zei: "Schaf de exportsubsidies af". Ik hoop van harte dat hij namens de Raad sprak. A round for free.
Op de tweede plaats, schuldenkwijtschelding, op voorwaarde dat we die gebruiken voor ontwikkeling. Maar niet uit de bestaande hulpbudgetten, want dan is het een sigaar uit eigen doos.
Op de derde plaats, vijf van de acht millenniumdoelstellingen gaan over twee van de belangrijkste voorwaarden voor ontwikkeling: basisonderwijs en gezondheidszorg. 35% van het beschikbare EU-budget zouden we daarvoor gebruiken en 20% voor basisonderwijs en basisgezondheidszorg. De beschamende werkelijkheid is dat we slechts 9% besteden. Op dat punt kunnen Tony Benn en onze Commissaris samen een groot verschil maken.
Op de vierde plaats, inzetten op goed bestuur. Daarbij moet dan wel gebruikgemaakt worden van de lokale bevolking. Gebruik en investeer in hen om goed bestuur in Afrika te bereiken.
Een citaat: "There comes a time when we hear a certain call, when the world must come together as one". Twintig jaar geleden, USA for Africa. Ik hoop dat deze roep de komende zes maanden in de drie bijeenkomsten zal doorklinken. Ik wens u succes.
Thierry Cornillet (ALDE).– Monsieur le Président, je pense que nous pourrons faire nôtre la position de M. Michel, qui propose de faire plus, mieux et plus vite. Pour être bref, je dirai qu'il y a deux augmentations auxquelles nous n'échapperons pas, la première étant l'augmentation du volume de l'aide. On voit bien que pour réaliser les objectifs du Millénaire, le monde devra leur consacrer au moins 0,7% de sa richesse: on en est encore loin.
Pour ce qui concerne l'Union européenne, nos objectifs sont pour l'instant un peu en deçà puisque nous passerons de 0,38% à 0,50%. Je voulais cependant attirer votre attention sur le volume considérable d'argent que cela suppose: 20 milliards d'euros par an. Cet argent ne vient pas de nulle part, il vient de la poche de nos contribuables. Voilà qui m'amène à la deuxième augmentation annoncée: celle de la qualité et de l'efficience de l'aide, une augmentation que nous devons à nos contribuables. Continuons à avoir nos exigences de bonne gouvernance et aidons les dirigeants, notamment africains, qui font preuve de lucidité concernant les conditions de l'appropriation. Souvenons-nous que le commerce international apportera toujours plus, via le privé, que ce que l'aide publique pourra apporter. Évitons par ailleurs les solutions faciles qui donnent bonne conscience, comme un support budgétaire sans conditions qui nuit au travail des ONG sur les projets, ou l'!
annulation de la dette comme solution miracle, sans se poser des problèmes de structures ultérieures, ou encore l'inanité des sanctions qui ne seraient pas ciblées.
Surtout, il existe un lien entre la deuxième augmentation et la multiplication des signes que nous devons envoyer à notre opinion publique. Notre action doit être lisible. C'est pour cela que j'ai proposé la prise en charge directe par l'Union d'objectifs tels que les campagnes de vaccination d'enfants ou la lutte contre la malaria, parce que, sur ces actions, la comptabilisation est possible même si elle est macabre. Alors là nous serions une Union ouverte, solidaire et surtout efficace.
Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE).– Mr President, I have just come back from the civil society alternative G8 meetings in Edinburgh, where thousands of people debated how to make poverty history. I want to highlight two important conclusions.
First, free trade is not the answer to Africa’s problems. While moves to cancel some African countries’ debts are welcome and long overdue, the policy conditionality in the package on offer, the enforced liberalisation and privatisation, are as onerous as the debt it relieves.
Second, poverty in Africa is not the result of some kind of accident of nature. I was very happy to hear Jack Straw agree that poverty is man-made, but amazed that the men he had in mind were ones that lived in Africa alone, not in the G8. Poverty in Africa is largely the direct and logical consequence of the policies of the G8 nations and their corporations, which have been driving Africa’s accumulation of debt, which have been selling weapons, which have been stealing Africa’s resources, which have been enforcing neo-liberal economics, which have been privatising public services and which have collectively impoverished so many millions of people. Until that changes, until we have an approach based on ...
(The President cut the speaker off)
Jean-Claude Martinez (NI).– Monsieur le Président, comme un Martinez peut en cacher un autre, après un demi-siècle d'aide au développement, de concerts de rock planétaires, de remise de dettes, de commerce équitable et de sanglots un peu hypocrites de l'homme blanc un peu pharisien, l'Afrique est toujours enfermée dans sa pauvreté.
Alors que faire? Premièrement: proclamer l'eau, l'instruction, la santé et l'alimentation biens publics mondiaux. Deuxièmement: garantir l'accès à ces biens grâce à quatre services publics planétaires. Troisièmement: confier la gestion de ces services à un conseil de sécurité économique symétrique du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU. Quatrièmement: leur affecter pour ressource une TVA sur les services rendus par les satellites géostationnaires. Enfin, cinquièmement: appliquer à l'Afrique le moyen que tous les pays occidentaux ont utilisé pour se développer, à savoir, une protection douanière, mais cette fois-ci, intelligente, sous forme de droits de douane remboursables. Et je vous fais cadeau de trois secondes, Monsieur le Président.
Filip Andrzej Kaczmarek (PPE-DE).– Panie Przewodniczący! Niektórzy dziennikarze ironizują, że skoro politycy mogliby położyć kres ubóstwu, to niby dlaczego tego jeszcze nie zrobili? Nie sądzę, aby temat ubóstwa na świecie nadawał się do żartów i wyszukiwania językowych paradoksów.
Można powiedzieć, że walka z ubóstwem na świecie jest miarą naszego człowieczeństwa, naszej europejskości. Jednym z efektów rozszerzenia Unii Europejskiej jest to, że zwiększono grono państw zajmujących się współpracą rozwojową. Nowe Państwa Członkowskie Unii włączają się coraz aktywniej w walkę z ubóstwem. W ramach inicjatywy oddłużeniowej HIPC, Polska podjęła decyzję o anulowaniu całości długów trzem państwom, w tym dwóm afrykańskim: Tanzanii, Mozambikowi i Nikaragui. Łączne zadłużenie tych państw wynosiło ponad 53 mln dolarów, spośród pozostałych dłużników Polski, potencjalnym beneficjentem oddłużenia może być Sudan.
Wydaje mi się, że oddłużenie jest szczególnie ważne dla takich krajów jak Mozambik, którego budżet państwowy jest w całości zależny od pomocy zewnętrznej. Oddłużenie może być początkiem drogi, która umożliwi Afrykanom, aby pomagali sami sobie. Zambijski ekonomista mieszkający w Polsce Richard Mbewe mówi: "Afrykanie to nie są dzieci, nie wolno im dawać ryba, im trzeba dać wędka".
Doświadczenie Polski wskazuje na to, że skuteczne i trwałe reformowanie gospodarki może się rozpocząć dopiero po przemianach politycznych. Pomoc kredytowa dla Polski w latach 70. była w dużej mierze marnowana, a redukcja długów okazała się sensowna dopiero po przemianach w roku 1989. Dlatego tak ważne jest to, co mówił i pan Minister Straw i pan Komisarz Michel, że dla Afryki najważniejsza jest walka z korupcją i dobre zarządzanie.
Drugim, obok polityki rozwojowej, filarem jest zrozumienie społeczne, i takie akcje jak "uczynić z ubóstwa historię", przyczyniają się do rozwoju świadomości społecznej.
Glenys Kinnock (PSE).– Mr President, I will begin by saying how proud I am of the UK Presidency’s very strong commitment to making poverty history. This is a time of unprecedented opportunity in the world. And I believe that, for every obstacle we might face, there is a solution.
The world must at last be ready to keep its promises to Africa: on aid, on unpayable debts, and on fair trade. African leaders, as others have said, must deal with governmental issues and with corruption. We must also understand that poor governance is as much a result of pervasive poverty as it is a cause.
There are now no ifs or buts or whens. We can work together to invest in better crops, to improve malaria control, to get medicines to the sick, to develop an AIDS vaccine, to protect fragile eco-systems. We can get millions of children into school and we can save precious mothers’ and babies’ lives. We can speed up developments by empowering women, who in Africa are 50 % of the population but 70 % of its poor. Conflicts can be resolved, the arms trade can be controlled, and companies can and should be made to trade openly and ethically.
Africa’s route out of poverty has now been very clearly charted and we need, as Gordon Brown has said, to have a new relationship with Africa. We can be the generation that makes history by transforming the life chances of millions of Africa’s people.
Emma Bonino (ALDE).– Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è una buona notizia che l'Africa sia di nuovo in primo piano all'attenzione politica. Tuttavia, mi sembra che vi sia ancora confusione in merito a quale politica adottare e le ricette proposte sono molto diverse e alcune anche molto scontate.
Per noi radicali è invece assolutamente prioritario che la democrazia, i diritti civili, lo Stato di diritto e regole certe rappresentino il prerequisito di qualsiasi approccio politico decideremo di adottare, perché non esiste nessun tipo di commercio, né privato, né interno, né internazionale, che possa funzionare senza regole, senza leggi e senza Stato di diritto.
Tuttavia, i temi della democrazia e dello Stato di diritto vengono semplicemente aggiunti alla lista delle tante cose da fare. Noi siamo invece convinti che questi due temi rappresentino la priorità delle priorità e credo anzi che dovremmo essere un po' meno ipocriti e ammettere che anche l'aiuto pubblico può essere legato ad un progresso dei paesi su questa strada.
Personalmente non capisco come possiamo essere in un certo senso così razzisti da pensare che gli africani siano forse troppo poveri, troppo analfabeti, troppo neri per godere degli stessi diritti democratici di cui noi godiamo. Stiamo tutti spingendo la democrazia nel mondo arabo, ma non in Africa. Io credo che se non seguiamo questa strada sarà l'ennesimo spreco di fondi pubblici con miseri o scarsi risultati.
Bernat Joan i Marí (Verts/ALE).– Herr Präsident! Die prekäre Lage vieler afrikanischer Staaten sollte zu großer Scham im Bewusstsein der Allgemeinheit führen. Sicherlich müssen wir es schaffen, dass der Hunger in der Welt endlich der Vergangenheit angehört. Nur wie? In den letzten Jahren ist klar geworden, dass das Problem oft nicht in der Quantität der Entwicklungshilfe liegt, sondern darin, wie man diese Hilfe kanalisiert, um die besten Ergebnisse zu erzielen.
Wir sollten systematisch für mehr Transparenz und mehr Demokratie in so vielen afrikanischen Ländern wie möglich arbeiten. Wir sollten nach einer Öffentlichkeit streben, in der die Meinungsfreiheit ganz oben auf der Tagesordnung steht, und diese Länder sollten ganz entschieden in Bildung investieren. Ohne diese Maßnahmen besteht die Gefahr, dass die Entwicklungshilfe moralischen Kriterien genügt, aber praktisch wirkungslos wird. Wir alle können ...
(Der Präsident unterbricht den Redner.)
Anna Záborská (PPE-DE).– Monsieur le Président, je voudrais remercier mon amie Luisa Morgantini de son excellente initiative de mettre à l'ordre du jour la question de la pauvreté en Afrique. Deux points fondamentaux: oui à une aide efficace, mais également en termes qualitatifs, oui à l'aide internationale, mais en respectant avant tout la dignité des pays pauvres.
Pour vaincre la misère, les chefs d'États et les spécialistes ont adopté une approche purement quantitative, laquelle vise les résultats économiques mesurables, mais ignore le travail informel non rémunéré des familles les plus pauvres, y compris le travail intergénérationnel. La fierté des parents qui élèvent leurs enfants, même dans une pauvreté extrême, ne se mesure pas quantitativement.
Pour vaincre la misère en Afrique, il faut - c'est une condition déontologique - développer au niveau international le sens de la justice sociale et du bien commun. De nombreux pays pauvres sur le plan économique, mais riches en sagesse, pourraient fortement nous inspirer. Chaque peuple hérite de ses ancêtres d'une civilisation qu'il doit conserver. En font partie les institutions nécessaires à la vie en société, qu'elles soient politiques ou qu'elles soient témoins de la vie de l'esprit. Lorsque ces dernières s'enracinent dans de vraies valeurs humaines, ce serait une grave erreur de les sacrifier. Encore plus grave serait une ingérence européenne obligeant un peuple à sacrifier ses valeurs, qu'elles soient religieuses ou éthiques, son patrimoine culturel ou les convictions philosophiques des individus et des communautés qui en font partie intégrante. Ce peuple perdrait par-là, le meilleur de lui-même. Il sacrifierait pour vivre, de ce fait, sa rais!
on de vivre.
Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE).– Monsieur le Président, et si après ces dernières semaines, assez tristes pour l'Union européenne, celle-ci arrivait à rebondir, justement sur les questions de développement et prouvait qu'elle est à l'avant-garde du combat contre la pauvreté. L'Union est sur la bonne voie avec un double engagement: 0,7% de sa richesse pour l'aide au développement d'ici à 2015 et 50% de cette augmentation pour l'Afrique. Je me réjouis que la présidence britannique mette l'Afrique au cœur de ses préoccupations.
Tony Blair doit profiter également de sa présidence du G8 pour obtenir autre chose que des déclarations d'intention de la part des riches: le seul chèque qu'il doit défendre est celui promis à Monterrey. Pour l'annulation de la dette, il faut aller plus loin, mais en instaurant une prime à la démocratie et il faut trouver, de façon urgente, de nouvelles sources de financement: taxes sur les mouvements de capitaux, sur le commerce des armes, sur les émissions de CO2, peu importe, tout a été évoqué. Il faut désormais conclure car, pour reprendre le slogan de la campagne mondiale contre la pauvreté, "après 2005 nous n'aurons plus d'excuses".
Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE).– Señor Presidente, se ha cumplido un cuarto de siglo desde que Willy Brandt presentó su informe sobre las relaciones Norte-Sur. Desde entonces, el problema de la pobreza no sólo no se ha resuelto, sino que, en muchos casos, se ha agravado.
En realidad, el último informe sobre la pobreza en el mundo demuestra que sólo hay ciertos progresos en China, en algunos países del sudeste asiático y en algún caso concreto de América Latina.
En África los datos son desconsoladores, por lo que hay que saludar esta iniciativa británica, que no es oportunista a mi juicio —ya había sido anunciada, hace al menos dos años, por el Ministro Straw y por su Primer Ministro—. Después de 40 años, decenas de guerras y millones de muertos han dejado exhausto al continente africano.
En la lucha contra la pobreza no hay recetas mágicas y sólo tenemos dos hechos ciertos: en primer lugar, la pobreza, en contra de lo que piensan algunos, no es un problema económico, sino político, y su solución exige, prioritariamente, decisiones políticas; en segundo lugar, para tener éxito hay que asegurar un crecimiento económico —sin crecimiento, no hay riqueza para repartir—.
A partir de ahí, estos días escuchamos a millones de voces pidiendo, a lo largo del mundo, la aplicación de recetas clásicas: aumentar la ayuda oficial al desarrollo, condonación de la deuda y comercio justo. Son tres medidas necesarias pero insuficientes. Los líderes políticos y sociales de los países víctimas de la pobreza deben exigirse mucho más, especialmente en materia de fortalecimiento de la sociedad civil —de sus sociedades—, de transparencia y de buen gobierno, pudiendo así aumentar las inversiones en salud, educación y políticas de género.
En África hay más de 100 000 niños armados, cuyas caras hemos conocido algunos de nosotros. Si queremos avanzar en el objetivo de reducir la pobreza a la mitad antes de 2015, estos puntos que he señalado están en la línea que nos deberá conducir al éxito.
Mauro Zani (PSE).– Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, se si vuole consegnare la povertà alla storia, va chiuso il divario tra le parole e i fatti. Per questo è giunto il momento di scegliere una strada almeno in parte nuova rispetto al passato. Le ricette neoliberiste hanno fallito e l'impegno positivo dell'Europa come principale donatore non ha finora inciso in modo decisivo.
Se si vogliono raggiungere gli Obiettivi del Millennio vanno create le condizioni per lo sviluppo, tra cui la democrazia e il buon governo, ma anche l'apertura del mercato ai prodotti agricoli dei paesi poveri e la cancellazione del debito.
A tale proposito, ricordo che la cancellazione del debito del solo Iraq corrisponde a quanto l'Africa sudsahariana ha ricevuto negli ultimi dieci anni. Pertanto, ciò che conta sono la volontà politica e gli interessi in gioco. Spero che sia chiaro che il nostro interesse generale è quello di creare sviluppo per ricevere in cambio stabilità e sicurezza.
Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE).– Mr President, Mr Bowis made reference to his 100-year-old mother. I would like to make reference to my British mother-in-law and father-in-law, who are substantially younger. I am very proud of the fact that they were in Edinburgh on the march. I should add that this was on Saturday, not two days ago. They were not among the hooligans!
I would like to make three points. Firstly, on making poverty history. I think it is a great subject for the British Presidency. It revolves around three things: debt, which should be forgiven; aid, of which there should be more; and finally trade, which should be much freer and fairer. It seems that we have made the least progress on trade. We need to work on infrastructure and on access.
What should we do in the short term? Three things. First, we should stop dumping agricultural products on the African markets at cheap prices. Second, we need to change the conditions on the basis of which we give aid. It is wrong that the World Bank and the IMF make non-agricultural subsidies a precondition when we do exactly the opposite. Third, for a short time, they should be able to protect their markets much like we have done.
My third and final point is a proposal to the British Presidency, namely that we should establish an all-encompassing Africa strategy. Just as we have a Mediterranean strategy, and just as we had a Russia strategy, we need an Africa strategy. That Africa strategy should lend our African policies coherence and consistency in the common foreign and security policy and in trade and development.
A final suggestion in order to help the British Presidency, especially the Foreign Minister, Jack Straw, get out of the tangle in the budgetary negotiations, is to think about including the European Development Fund in the real budget of the European Union.
Józef Pinior (PSE).– Wysoka Izbo! W ubiegłym roku kraje bogate wydały 80 miliardów dolarów na pomoc zagraniczną, 600 miliardów na wydatki militarne i 300 miliardów na dotacje dla rolnictwa we własnych krajach. Kraje bogate posiadają wszystkie środki, aby uporać się z głodem, z ubóstwem i z wieloma chorobami, takimi jak malaria, które obecnie uśmiercają miliony ludzi. Polityka rozwojowa musi stać się posłannictwem Unii Europejskiej w nowej epoce globalnej, tym, co będzie tworzyło tożsamość Europy i co będzie wyróżniało Unię Europejską we współczesnym świecie.
Najważniejsze zadania obecnie, przede wszystkim w stosunku do Afryki to anulowanie długów, podniesienie wielkości i jakości pomocy zagranicznej, sprawiedliwy handel, wsparcie dla zróżnicowania produkcji i eksportu, wytępienie chorób, przeciwko którym posiadamy efektywne szczepionki, działania na rzecz powszechnej edukacji oraz równości, szczególnie położenia kobiet.
Chciałbym przywołać dzisiaj w Parlamencie Europejskim słowa Nelsona Mandeli, które powinny stać się drogowskazem moralnym dla polityki europejskiej:
‘Make poverty history in 2005. Then we can all stand with our heads held high’.
Ιωάννης Βαρβιτσιώτης (PPE-DE).– Κύριε Πρόεδρε, χαιρετίζω τη βρετανική πρωτοβουλία και ελπίζω ότι η πρωτοβουλία αυτή θα έχει ουσιαστικά αποτελέσματα, διότι είναι αλήθεια ότι παρά τις μέχρι σήμερα εξαγγελίες από τους ηγέτες των ισχυρών κρατών ελάχιστη πρόοδος έχει σημειωθεί και αυτό διότι η ανθρωπιστική βοήθεια από μόνη της μπορεί να ανακουφίζει προσωρινά, δεν μπορεί όμως να φέρει ουσιαστικά αποτελέσματα. Η βοήθεια τότε μόνο μπορεί να είναι αποτελεσματική, αν συνδυασθεί με συστηματική προσπάθεια για την ανάπτυξη του εμπορίου και αν εστιασθεί στη δημιουργία υποδομ!
ών στην εκπαίδευση και στην υγειονομική κάλυψη. Ακόμη, η βοήθεια πρέπει να γίνει το όχημα ώστε να καταπολεμηθεί η πολιτική διαφθορά που σήμερα αποτελεί μόνιμο καθεστώς στα περισσότερα δυστυχώς αφρικανικά κράτη, διότι σήμερα στην Αφρική η λεηλασία γίνεται κυρίως από διεφθαρμένους Αφρικανούς πολιτικούς ή από αντάρτες με την υποστήριξη συχνά διεθνών οικονομικών συμφερόντων.
Ιδιαίτερη όμως σημασία πρέπει να δοθεί στη διαχείριση των πόρων μέσω στενής συνεργασίας και εποπτείας των διαφόρων διεθνών οργανισμών καθώς και των μη κυβερνητικών οργανώσεων. Μόνον μια τέτοια προσπάθεια θα καταστήσει εφικτή τη σωστή διανομή και χρήση της παρεχόμενης βοήθειας με μακροπρόθεσμο σκοπό και στόχο την ανάπτυξη των χωρών αυτών, η οποία θα τις βοηθήσει στην εξάλειψη του φαινομένου της φτώχιας.
Όλα τα άλλα που ακούγονται νομίζω ότι καλύπτουν επιφανειακά το θέμα και δεν μπαίνουν στο βάθος του.
Erika Mann (PSE).– Mr President, I strongly support the proposal made by our colleague Mr Stubb. He is quite right. We need a comprehensive Africa strategy. The Presidency representative just spoke about soft power, where the European Union is successful. I think he is absolutely right, but we still need to translate this into positive action. Talking about action against poverty is wonderful, but it is certainly not enough, especially if you consider that we have been putting so much aid into Africa for many years and the outcome is not always very positive.
The same applies when we talk about trade and poverty reduction. There is a strong connection. We know this, but do we really understand it? I am speaking on behalf of the Committee on International Trade. I would recommend an Africa strategy, which should be the subject of renewed debate by the end of the UK Presidency, taking all aspects into consideration. It would be great if the UK Presidency could reflect on this.
Martin Schulz (PSE).– Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich habe als Vorsitzender unserer Fraktion ganz bewusst zum Schluss dieser Debatte das Wort ergriffen. Ich bin ein wenig enttäuscht darüber, dass ich der einzige Vorsitzende einer parlamentarischen Fraktion bin, der zu diesem Thema das Wort ergreift. Das ist ein Thema, bei dem sich eigentlich die Führung einer Fraktion hinter die Kolleginnen und Kollegen stellen muss, die bei der Armutsbekämpfung die Arbeit in unseren Reihen leisten.
Ich will den Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die nicht nur wegen der britischen Ratspräsidentschaft und ihrer Initiative, sondern generell immer an diesem Thema arbeiten, ausdrücklich sagen: Die sozialdemokratische Fraktion betrachtet die Armutsbekämpfung in Afrika und in der Welt als zentrales Element ihrer Arbeit.
Ich will einen Moment meiner Redezeit einer unbekannten Person widmen: der Mutter vor ihrem toten Kind. In der kleinen Stadt, in der ich Bürgermeister war, gab es ganz viele Männer und Frauen, aber vor allem ganz viele Frauen, die während des Krieges Kinder verloren hatten. Wenn ich bei einem Altersjubiläum zu Besuch war, war immer das schlimmste Ereignis, über das ich mit Frauen der Kriegsgeneration sprechen musste, der Verlust eines geliebten Kindes. Diese Wunde vernarbt nie.
Wenn wir nach Afrika schauen, sehen wir jeden Tag unzählige Mütter – jeden Tag ungezählte –, die vor ihren toten Kindern sitzen, fassungslos, trauernd und alleine gelassen. Ich wünschte mir für uns alle, dass wir uns dieses Bild einprägen, denn nichts muss uns mehr ermuntern, uns mehr verpflichten, den Kampf für die Armutsbekämpfung, den die britische Ratspräsidentschaft in den Mittelpunkt ihres Handelns gestellt hat, ernster zu nehmen als das kleine menschliche Gefühl, dass man eine Frau, die ihr Kind verloren hat, in dieser Welt nicht alleine lassen darf, wenn man für sich den Anspruch erhebt, eine humanitäre Welt schaffen zu wollen.
Vor diesem Bild, Herr Präsident, verneigen wir uns als Sozialdemokraten und sagen: Diese Initiative ist das Minimum dessen, was wir leisten können. Und ich will einen konkreten Vorschlag machen: Lassen Sie uns diesen Frauen und vielen, vielen anderen, die unsere Solidarität nötig haben, doch helfen, indem wir eine kleine Maßnahme ergreifen. Wenn die großen multinationalen und globalen Unternehmen 0,25 % – also ein Viertel Prozent – ihrer Gebühren für Währungstransaktionen, in einen Afrikafonds stiften, wenn wir hier im Parlament ein Viertel Prozent der Aufwendungen für unsere internationalen Währungsoperationen im Haushalt sperren und in einen Fonds für die Hilfe für Afrika einzahlen, haben wir einen großen Betrag, den die Wirtschaft und zum Beispiel auch wir in der Europäischen Union gemeinsam mobilisieren können, um ganz konkret, auch durch einen individuellen Beitrag eines jeden Einzelnen, zur Armutsbekämpfung beizutragen. Das wäre ein Schritt, üb!
er den wir vielleicht gemeinsam diskutieren könnten.
PRESIDENCIA DEL SR. BORRELL FONTELLES Presidente
Hilary Benn,President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking you for giving me this opportunity to respond to the debate that my colleague Jack Straw opened this morning.
Nobody listening to this debate could fail to hear the great expertise, knowledge, passion and commitment of all the Members who have spoken. It seems to me that your voices represent the voices of those that we together have the honour to represent.
I am very much looking forward, through the UK Presidency, to working with the Committee on Development and to addressing the committee next week. Mrs Morgantini was right: this is not about charity but justice. It is a cry for justice that is symbolised – as Mr Martínez Martínez pointed out – by the white band. The white tide that marched in Edinburgh last weekend is a symbol. The people who attended the Live 8 concerts and the people who write to us, their elected representatives, and demand that we do more are all expressing the feeling that now is the time to act – a point made by Mrs Martens and by Mr Bowis. I congratulate his mother on her 100th birthday. He is right: she has lived a long time; she has seen a lot of change happen.
We simply cannot afford to allow Africa to continue to drift away from the rest of the world. Mr Schulz, who has spoken just now with such passion, reminds us that it is the responsibility of every single one of us.
There has never been a time, in my political experience, when this debate about Africa, poverty, its causes and what we can do about it has been so much at the centre of our politics. It seems to me that the message that we are being sent by those we represent is very simple: they look to us to act and they want to have faith in the capacity of the political process to deliver real change on behalf of Africa and of development. It is morally unacceptable that this great continent of 54 countries, only a few miles from Europe, should drift away from us and should be the only part of the world to become poorer in the last 25 years. Now we have the means to do something about it. The challenge that Europe faces will be to turn the passion, commitment and anger – the feelings people have – into practical action that will make a difference. I agree with all those who have called for the EU strategy on Africa to be the means by which we use our politics to make a real differe!
nce. I look forward to working with Mr Michel, as he draws that up. I hope very much that we can make progress on it.
(Applause)
I would now like to turn to the practical steps we need to take. What are the issues we need to address in the EU Africa strategy? The first point to make – if I may disagree with one of the speakers, Mr Farage – is that aid works, aid saves children’s lives.
(Applause)
That is why we need more of it. That is why the leadership that Europe showed, when we met as development ministers over a month ago, in agreeing to double Europe’s aid to Africa, was Europe at its best. This was Europe demonstrating its leadership in the world and that we are prepared and willing and will do the things that we know will make a difference. That is the first point.
The second point is debt relief, which many speakers have referred to. The real importance of debt relief is that it means that poor countries no longer have to make that terrible choice between, on the one hand, making the monthly repayments that they cannot afford and, on the other, spending the money they want to on doctors, on nurses, on getting children into school, on buying the drugs that will save children’s and adults’ lives.
Thirdly, every one of us recognises that it is ultimately trade, economic development and economic growth that will enable Africa and the rest of the developing world to transform the lives of their people. It is how we did it here in Europe. It is how we transformed our societies from 500 years ago, when life expectancy was very short, when there was enormous poverty and when very few people went to school.
The people of Africa want exactly the same opportunity: to earn and to trade their way out of poverty to a better future.
(Applause)
There are two other truths that we have to tell in this debate. Two-and-a-half weeks ago I was in Sudan, first of all in Rumbek, in the south of Sudan, where one in four children die before they are five years of age and three-quarters of the adults cannot read. The experience in Darfur and southern Sudan has taught us one very important lesson: unless there is peace and stability, there will be no development; unless people stop fighting each other, the people of Africa will not have a better future. That is why Europe must continue to show leadership and provide support to the African Union, building the capacity of Africa to tackle its own conflicts. As my friend Jack Straw said in opening this debate, there are now fewer conflicts in Africa than there were a decade ago and, where there is peace and stability, there is a real prospect of hope for a better future.
The final thing that needs to happen, Mr President, if progress is to be made, is that there should be good governance because if, in the end, governments are to deliver for their people ...
(The President interrupted the speaker)
El Presidente. Señor Ministro, su tiempo no está limitado. Puede usted hablar todo el tiempo que desee. El problema es que estaba llamando la atención a los señores diputados para que, por favor, se incorporen al Pleno en silencio.
Bien está que no hayan asistido ustedes al debate, pero, por favor, cuando se incorporen a él, les ruego que lo hagan de manera que no lo perturbe.
Hilary Benn,President-in-Office of the Council. Thank you very much, Mr President, for your concern. It is less important that you hear my voice, but it is important that the world outside hears all of our voices. If we speak as one and we speak loudly, we have a better chance of making progress in this great global fight.
(Loud applause)
In the end, people look to governments to do things for them. We look to our governments to provide us with peace and security, to educate our children, to look after us when we are sick, to give us the opportunity to build a living for ourselves and our families. In developing countries the real challenge is to build the capacity of societies to do for them and their communities exactly what we look to government to do in Europe.
In the end it is about governments with a capacity to deliver and about people who have the expectation that government might be able to improve their lives. When those two things come together – when the voices of the people are heard – then societies have a better chance of making real progress. In the end, it is about political will and political choice. That is what politics is for: how we decide what kind of world it is that we want to live in; where we are going to spend the money; what decisions we are going to make on trade to allow developing countries to have a better future.
We happen to be the generation on whom this responsibility has now fallen. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair said at the launch of the Commission for Africa: ‘If not us, then who? If not now, then when?’
We are the generation that has the capacity to act. Now is the time to act. Let us work together; let us seize this opportunity and, by our action as Europe, assist Africa to build a better future that it can pass on to the generation to come.
(Loud and sustained applause)
El Presidente. Muchas gracias, señor Benn. Le pido disculpas por haber tenido que interrumpirle.
Martin Schulz (PSE).– Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Ich habe einen Antrag zur Geschäftsordnung. Ich beziehe mich dabei auf die Artikel 146 und 148 der Geschäftsordnung.
Herr Präsident! Ich will Ihnen ganz persönlich sagen, dass ich Ihnen sehr zu Dank verpflichtet bin für die Bemühungen, die Sie in jeder Plenarsitzung vor den Abstimmungen unternehmen, um einen halbwegs würdigen Ablauf der letzten zehn Minuten vor den Abstimmungen herzustellen. Bedauerlicherweise ist das nicht möglich. Die Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die aus ihren Büros zur Abstimmung in den Saal kommen, treten ein und verstehen überhaupt nicht was Sie sagen, weil es keine Dolmetschung gibt. Die Kolleginnen und Kollegen unterhalten sich, stehen in Gruppen vor dem Anwesenheitsregister, gehen zu ihren Plätzen, haben irgendetwas mit Kolleginnen und Kollegen zu regeln. Alles verständlich, alles akzeptabel. Aber völlig inakzeptabel ist es für die Vertreter des Rates und der Kommission, unter solchen Bedingungen hier reden zu müssen. Das geht nicht, und ich schäme mich dafür. Ich finde das nicht korrekt.
(Beifall)
Ich habe auch keine Lust, das in jeder Plenarsitzung aufs Neue zu erleben. Das ist nicht das Bild eines würdigen Parlaments. Deshalb beantrage ich Folgendes: Weil einerseits die Rechte der Kollegen respektiert werden müssen, andererseits aber auch die Rechte der anderen Institutionen, beantrage ich, dass wir zwischen dem Ende der Aussprache und dem Beginn der Abstimmung eine Pause ....
(Unruhe)
(Der Redner bricht seine Rede ab.)
El Presidente. Gracias, señor Schulz, por ayudar a la Presidencia. Antes de dar la palabra a la Comisión, voy a rogar a todo el mundo que se siente. Los diputados que sigan en el pasillo tratando sus cuestiones personales, serán invitados por los ujieres a abandonar el hemiciclo.
Señores ujieres, ¡inviten a los diputados que siguen en los pasillos a abandonar el hemiciclo!
Señor Tannock, ¿sobre la base de qué artículo pide usted la palabra?
¿Serían tan amables de sentarse y callarse, por favor?
Charles Tannock (PPE-DE).– Mr President, I am privileged. I understand Spanish without the headphones. If you speak in Spanish to those standing up at the back of the Chamber, how can they possibly understand you without their headphones on? Could you use French or English so they can understand you?
(Applause)
El Presidente. Están ustedes extraordinariamente revoltosos hoy. Permítanme que les diga que su actitud es vergonzosa con respecto al tema que estamos tratando esta mañana.
(Aplausos)
¿Puedo pedir a todos los diputados que andan deambulando por los pasillos que se sienten o, por lo menos, no mantengan conversaciones que perturban el orden de los trabajos?
Louis Michel,membre de la Commission. Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, je voudrais tout d'abord remercier Mme Morgantini aussi pour le débat qu'elle a eu le bon goût d'organiser aujourd'hui.
Ce débat a mis en évidence une première chose: un consensus et un soutien extrêmement forts au choix de l'Afrique comme point central de la politique de développement. Cela me semble extrêmement important puisque, aussi bien le Parlement que la Commission et que le Conseil ont fait ce choix. Ça ne veux évidemment pas dire que les autres pauvres du monde ne nous intéressent plus. Pas du tout. Ça veut simplement dire que plus de la moitié de l'augmentation de l'aide au développement sera consacrée en réalité à l'Afrique, pour opérer le rattrapage nécessaire.
Le deuxième élément que je retire de ce débat est que tout concourt à ce que l'on développe, à ce que l'on définisse, à ce que l'on mette au point une véritable stratégie européenne pour le développement, et pour l'Afrique en particulier, une stratégie articulée sur les grandes questions du développement: gouvernance, infrastructures, dette. Quelqu'un a dit, par exemple, que la question de la dette ne réglerait pas tout. Nous le savons. La question de la dette est certes importante, mais ce n'est pas à proprement parler un outil de développement. La question de la dette, régler la dette, ne permet évidemment pas de garantir l'efficacité du développement. Il n'empêche que c'est un préalable intéressant.
La mise en place de politiques sociales dans la foulée de l'émergence d'une société civile dynamique, la mise en place de politiques sociales d'accès à la justice, d'accès à l'enseignement, d'accès à la santé, à la culture aussi - je l'ai dit tantôt - est un élément important. Je crois que tout ça doit nourrir une stratégie globale, un plan global et un programme concret que nous devrons mettre en œuvre. Je dis d'emblée que je mesure parfaitement la difficulté que nous allons avoir. Et la difficulté est qu'une fois qu'on aura ce programme, il faudra exercer un leadership extrêmement fort sur les bureaucraties qui devront mettre ce programme en œuvre. Pour cela, je compte sur l'appui à la fois du Parlement et du Conseil et, au niveau de la Commission, nous ferons tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour faire avancer les dossiers. Je crois qu'il est extrêmement important que nous puissions enregistrer des résultats concrets. Je pense qu'après tout!
es les promesses qui ont été faites, toutes les perspectives, aussi, extrêmement crédibles qui s'offrent, tous les atouts qui concourent aujourd'hui à cette forte espérance, il sera nécessaire d'apporter rapidement et concrètement la preuve que les choses progressent par rapport à ce qui a été prévu.
Un autre élément que je voudrais mettre en évidence, concernant notamment l'Afrique, c'est le rôle particulièrement important de toutes les politiques d'égalité hommes-femmes sur ce continent. C'est un aspect du problème que nous n'abordons pas assez souvent et je voudrais vraiment lui donner une dimension transversale, parce qu'il y a là des solutions à trouver, des possibilités à exploiter. Disant cela, je songe aux entreprises, au commerce. Je songe au microcrédit, à l'autonomisation des femmes que permet cette forme de crédit: c'est un élément culturel important.
Voilà ce que je voulais, chers collègues, vous dire en quelques mots. Je voulais vous dire, comme l'ont fait Hilary Benn et Jack Straw, que c'est maintenant qu'il faut agir. C'est nous qui devons le faire. Je pense que nous n'avons plus aucune excuse. Cela a été dit et redit, et je crois qu'on ne pourra plus postposer cet enjeu et la rencontre, en fait, entre l'action et cette forte espérance qui vit au cœur des populations. Quelqu'un l'a dit tantôt: il serait peut-être bien que, se fondant sur cette politique de développement, sur ce nouvel élan, on donne un nouvel élan au sens magique de l'idée européenne. Je pense que l'Europe peut faire du développement, fait déjà du développement la projection la plus concrète de ses valeurs et c'est la raison pour laquelle je suis résolument optimiste.
(Applaudissements)
Alessandra Mussolini (NI).– Signor Presidente, ieri è accaduto un fatto molto grave, è stata offesa l'Italia ...
(Il Presidente interrompe l'oratore)
El Presidente. Si desea usted plantear una cuestión de orden, tiene que empezar citando el artículo al que se acoge.
Alessandra Mussolini (NI).–(A microfono spento l'onorevole Mussolini cita l'articolo 90 del Regolamento)
El Presidente. Sobre la base del artículo 90 no puede usted intervenir.
Para cerrar este debate, hemos recibido seis propuestas de resolución(1).
Queda cerrado el debate.
La votación tendrá lugar a continuación.
Declaración por escrito (artículo 142)
Luciana Sbarbati (ALDE).– I vostri primi doveri, primi non per tempo ma per importanza e perché senza intendere quelli non potete compiere se non imperfettamente gli altri, sono verso l’umanità”, diceva Mazzini.
Così esprimo solidarietà a quei paesi ai quali abbiamo immaginato di poter elargire elemosina e fondi senza preoccuparci del loro reale sviluppo e dello sradicamento della povertà.
Cancellare il loro debito non eliminerà il problema degli aiuti allo sviluppo, che pure la comunità internazionale dovrà garantire, e delle cure sanitarie urgentissime di cui hanno bisogno; non ci esimerà dagli accordi di associazione con i loro governi e dal promuovere programmi d’istruzione e formazione per integrarli a sistemi sociali, economici e politici complessi; a scegliere forme di governo democratico, ad avere un futuro. Cioè un’opportunità, anche fuori del loro paese, ma nella consapevolezza che vi possano tornare e che si possano sentire cittadini, liberi.
La classe politica deve governare i processi della globalizzazione con scelte che equivalgano a garantire loro acqua, energia, cibo, salute, libertà e istruzione.
L’ultimo Consiglio europeo ha deciso entro il 2010 di aumentare gli aiuti a 20 miliardi di euro/anno e questo è un segnale di speranza per molti milioni di persone. Possiamo sconfiggere la povertà, siamo la prima generazione che può farlo perché ne ha i mezzi.
Le Président. – Chers collègues, nous entamons une des séances de votes les plus longues de notre histoire avec 972 amendements.
(Pour les résultats et les autres détails du vote: voir procès-verbal)
5. Utasok védelme ütközés esetén
6. Elekromos és elektronikus készülékekben lévő veszélyes anyagok
⁂
- Après le vote:
Alfonso Andria (ALDE).– Signor Presidente, intervengo per una mozione di procedura con riferimento all'articolo 152.
Ieri pomeriggio durante la discussione in Aula abbiamo esaminato l'intero pacchetto sulle politiche regionali. Poiché la votazione prevede un ordine diverso proporrei di porre in votazione, dopo la relazione dell'onorevole Hatzidakis, la mia relazione sul Fondo di coesione e la relazione dell'onorevole Casa, in modo tale che l'intero pacchetto sia votato unitariamente secondo lo stesso ordine seguito ieri durante la discussione. Ritengo sia più giusto e la invito a valutare questa proposta.
Le Président. – Si l'Assemblée n'y voit pas d'inconvénient, nous modifierons l'ordre de nos votes. Mais, je vous invite, chers collègues, lorsque ce cas se présente, à prévenir le service de la séance plus tôt, pour que nos listes de votes puissent être établies en conséquence.
Michel Rocard (PSE), rapporteur.– Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, selon toute vraisemblance, cette Assemblée va dans deux à trois minutes, rejeter le projet de directive concernant la brevetabilité des inventions assistées par ordinateur. Tous nos grands groupes, et même les petits d'ailleurs, pardonnez-moi, ont pris cette décision mais pour des raisons contradictoires. Je n'ai ici ni mandat ni qualité pour commenter ces raisons. Mais il est à cette convergence une signification commune. Sur le fonds du sujet, nous sommes partagés à peu près moitié/moitié avec une imprévisibilité totale du résultat en majorité relative et une impossibilité bilatérale d'arriver à la majorité qualifiée. Chacun de nos blocs d'opinion préfère le rejet du texte à l'adoption des opinions de l'autre. Mais il y a surtout ici une colère collective, unanime, de tout le Parlement, contre la manière inadmissible dont il a été traité par la Commission et le Conseil.
(Applaudissements)
Mépris total, voire sarcastique, des choix faits par ce Parlement en première lecture. Absence totale de toute consultation de la part de la Commission dans la rédaction du projet de texte pour la deuxième lecture. Tentatives répétées d'empêcher même le débat entre gouvernements au sein même du Conseil. Dans le principe, c'est déjà scandaleux. La crise que l'Europe traverse aujourd'hui comporte largement sa part d'insuffisance démocratique, le Conseil a là une responsabilité écrasante, il en a apporté la preuve manifeste dans ce dossier. Que ce rejet lui serve de leçon!
(Applaudissements)
Pour la substance, l'état de l'opinion telle que nous la représentons ici montre bien que le problème n'est pas mûr. C'est l'approfondissement du débat qui aurait permis d'arriver par maturation à plus de consensus. Sur ce sujet essentiel – quelques dizaines de milliards de dollars annuels d'enjeu – et très difficile, une prise de conscience collective est à l'évidence en train de naître. Le rejet constitue à cet égard, un message à l'intention de l'Office européen des brevets. Le Parlement européen a refusé de légaliser les récentes dérives de jurisprudence pour élargir le champ de la brevetabilité à certains logiciels. Si ces dérives devaient continuer, il paraît clair alors qu'une majorité parlementaire émergerait pour les endiguer.
- Après le vote sur la position commune:
Hans-Gert Poettering (PPE-DE).– Herr Präsident! Wir haben von der Kommission immer gehört, dass sie nicht bereit sei, einen neuen Vorschlag vorzulegen, wenn der Gemeinsame Standpunkt abgelehnt wird. Ich möchte an die Interinstitutionelle Vereinbarung erinnern, die wir am 15. September 1999 mit Herrn Präsident Prodi getroffen haben, nach der sich die Kommission verpflichtet hat, Initiativen zu ergreifen, wenn das Parlament sie dazu auffordert. Ich habe keinen Zweifel daran, dass das Parlament eine Aufforderung an die Kommission richten wird, einen neuen Vorschlag vorzulegen. Ich erinnere die Kommission daran, dass sie die Pflicht hat, einen solchen Vorschlag vorzulegen, und daran, dass das dann auch geschehen muss.
(lebhafter Beifall)
Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE).– Signor Presidente, io non penso che possiamo interpretare questo voto necessariamente come un invito alla Commissione a presentare una nuova proposta magari simile a quella che è stata respinta. Ritengo pertanto che la questione vada discussa e definita assieme alla Commissione.
Le Président. – Chers collègues, conformément à la procédure et par pure courtoisie, je propose à la Commission de s'exprimer si elle le souhaite.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner,Member of the Commission. Mr President, the rejection of the Council common position is the democratic right of Parliament as co-legislator with the Council. Many speakers during the debate yesterday mentioned the voice of the people and the role of democracy.
Without this directive, patents for computer-implemented inventions will continue to be issued by national patent offices and the European Patent Office under existing law. There will be no harmonisation at EU level.
(Applause)
This means that different interpretations as to what is patentable or not will continue without any judicial control by the European Court of Justice.
Since the adoption of the common position, the Commission has maintained the view that, should Parliament decide to reject the common position, the Commission would respect this and would not present a new proposal but, if Parliament invites us to do so, we will speak with the various parliamentary committees and then consider the next procedures.
Various Members have expressed the view that the Commission should present a non-sector-specific instrument and that it should seek the adoption of the Community patent.
A large amount of national patent law is already aligned with the European Patent Convention and the Community Patent Convention of 1989. Again, Commissioner McCreevy will be happy to debate these matters with you. You have already said you would invite us to the relevant committee meetings and also to the plenary sittings if you wish to do this.
On the future of the Community patent, the key to agreement on this lies in the hands of the Council. Many options have already been explored formally and informally.
Le Président. – Le Parlement remercie la Commission et, une fois encore, son rapporteur, M. Rocard pour tout le travail accompli.
8. Szennyező anyagok kibocsátására és szállítására vonatkozó európai nyilvántartás létrehozása
- Avant le vote, le rapporteur intervient conformément à l'article 131, paragraphe 4, du règlement:
Johannes Blokland (IND/DEM), rapporteur.– Voorzitter, uiteraard is dit onderwerp niet zo spannend als het voorgaande, maar het is toch belangrijk. Hartelijk dank voor de gelegenheid om nog kort even mijn verslag toe te lichten. De afgelopen weken hebben we hard onderhandeld met de Raad om tot een akkoord in eerste lezing te komen en uiteindelijk hebben we een compromis bereikt dat volgens mij goed verdedigbaar is. Van de 24 amendementen die in de milieucommissie zijn aangenomen, zijn er 20 geheel of gedeeltelijk terug te vinden in de compromistekst.
Toch wil ik een kanttekening maken bij de wijze waarop de onderhandelingen zijn verlopen. Ik ben van mening dat we hier op het randje hebben geopereerd van wat nog aanvaardbaar is. De Raad kwam steeds weer met nieuwe wijzigingen en stelde zich zeer terughoudend op bij wijzigingen die de parlementsdelegatie voorstelde. Dat vind ik jammer en ik hoop in komende onderhandelingen over andere dossiers toch een wat meer coöperatieve houding te ontmoeten bij de vertegenwoordigers van de Raad.
Een laatste opmerking die ik graag wil maken, betreft amendement 53. Dit is ook onderdeel van het compromispakket, maar helaas konden niet alle fracties zich hier in vinden. Toch wil ik u erop wijzen dat er alleen sprake is van een akkoord in eerste lezing als ook dit amendement wordt aanvaard. Ik reken dan ook op ieders steun op dit punt en ik wil graag ook nog de schaduwrapporteurs bedanken voor hun bijdrage tot de totstandkoming van dit akkoord.
9. Európai Regionális Fejlesztési Alap, Európai Szociális Alap és Kohéziós Alap
- Avant le vote sur l'amendement 27:
Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE), rapporteur.– Mr President, the oral amendment is this: at the end of the amendment tabled by the Green Group, we have to add the words 'within the programme'.
I think the Green Group agrees with this proposal, as do all the other political groups.
(Le Président constate qu'il n'y a pas d'opposition à la prise en compte de l'amendement oral)
- Avant le vote sur l'amendement 39:
Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE), rapporteur.– Mr President, I want to delete the word ‘ERDF’ in Amendment 39, tabled by the Socialist Group, and replace it with the word ‘funds’, in order to cover all the structural funds and, of course the Cohesion Fund.
(Le Président constate qu'il n'y pas d'opposition à la prise en compte de l'amendement oral)
10. Kohéziós Alap
11. Európai Regionális Fejlesztési Alap
12. Európai határokon átnyúló együttműködési csoportosulás (GECT) létrehozása
13. Európai Szociális Alap
- Au cours du vote, pour une motion de procédure:
Graham Booth (IND/DEM).– Mr President, on a point of order, since I became an old-age pensioner three months ago, I am finding it very difficult to raise my hand fully into the voting position in the one-tenth of a second you are giving us!
Le Président. – Nous avons un challenge olympique, chers collègues: 972 amendements. Tout ce que nous ne ferons pas aujourd'hui, nous devrons le faire demain, sous la présidence de mon collègue grec, ce qui sera une autre façon de faire de l'olympisme. Cela dit, je vous invite à garder un rythme soutenu.
14. A férfiak és nők közötti esélyegyenlőség és egyenlő bánásmód a foglalkoztatás és munkavállalás terén
- Avant le vote:
Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE).– Señor Presidente, en buena lógica, si hemos agrupado todos los Fondos Estructurales, deberíamos votar ahora el informe Casa sobre el Fondo Europeo de la Pesca.
15. Európai Halászati Alap
16. A férfiak és nők közötti esélyegyenlőség és egyenlő bánásmód a foglalkoztatás és munkavállalás terén
17. Szerződésen kívüli kötelezettségekre alkalmazandó jog ("Róma II")
- Avant le vote sur les articles 26 et 27:
Diana Wallis (ALDE), rapporteur.– Mr President, it is quite simple really: there are two dates in Articles 26 and 27 regarding the implementation of this regulation. Those dates have already passed, so it would probably be a good idea to delete them. I hope the House will consent to that.
(Le Président constate qu'il n'y a pas d'opposition à la prise en compte de l'amendement oral)
18. Az ENSZ-EGB jegyzőkönyve a szennyezőanyag-kibocsátás és szállítás nyilvántartásairól
19. Egyeztető eljárás (2006-os költségvetés)
20. A nők szerepe Törökországban
- Avant le vote sur le paragraphe 28:
Emine Bozkurt (PSE), rapporteur.– Voorzitter, inderdaad bij paragraaf 28 is er sprake van een compromisamendement tussen de liberalen en de PPE. Wij kunnen met dat amendement akkoord gaan als er een toevoeging komt die luidt:
‘and calls on the Turkish Government to support this;’
Het hele amendement luidt nu:
‘Suggests that the political parties should review their party structures and adopt adequate strategies to reach a better balance on women and men in elected assemblies, including positive measures such as quotas, and calls on the Turkish Government to support this;’
(Trente-sept membres au moins ayant marqué leur opposition, l'amendement oral n'est pas mis aux voix)
21. Az Európai Unió és Irak - Az Európai Unió szerepvállalásának kerete
- Avant le vote sur l'amendement 4:
Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos (PPE-DE), rapporteur.– Monsieur le Président, j'ai le texte en anglais et je m'adresse au groupe des Verts.
I would like to change the figures, because the number of victims is changing every day. I suggest that '100 000' and '1 700' are changed to 'thousands'. That is one suggestion.
The second suggestion is that 'US troops' should be replaced by 'foreign troops', because there are troops from other countries as well as the United States.
(Le Président constate qu'il n'y a pas d'opposition à la prise en compte de l'amendement oral)
- Après le vote sur l'amendement 4, 2ème partie:
Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE).– Vielen Dank, Herr Präsident! Der Herr Präsident hat uns vorhin lange und sehr ausführlich erklärt, wie unhöflich es ist, sich nicht rechtzeitig innerhalb der Redezeiten rechtzeitig zu melden bzw. zur Abstimmung da zu sein. Wir haben in diesem Haus einen Beschluss, der besagt, dass um 13.30 Uhr das Ende der Abstimmungen ist. Wir halten uns in diesem Haus grundsätzlich an das, was wir vereinbaren und nicht an das, was wir jeweils ad hoc von dem jeweiligen Präsidenten hören.
Le Président. – Chers collègues nous avons commencé le rapport Dimitrakopoulos et, de toute manière, nous devons le terminer. Ensuite, je vous demanderai si vous voulez que nous poursuivions aujourd'hui avec l'important dossier, pour lequel le vote sera assez court, sur la lutte contre la pauvreté, mais nous finissons d'abord le rapport Dimitrakopoulos.
- Après le vote sur le considérant B:
Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos (PPE-DE), rapporteur.– Monsieur le Président, encore une fois je lis le texte anglais. Il s'agit d'un ajout: un nouveau considérant.
‘whereas the war in Iraq, its various aspects and its consequences continue to be a sensitive issue for public opinion and governments in Europe and the United States’.
(Le Président constate qu'il n'y a pas d'opposition à la prise en compte de l'amendement oral)
Le Président. – Avant de poursuivre les votes, j'ai une communication à vous faire.
Je regrette que le Conseil ne soit pas présent, j'aurais demandé au représentant de la Présidence britannique d'éventuellement commenter ce que je vais vous dire: la ville qui a été désignée pour organiser les Jeux olympiques en 2012 est Londres.
(Applaudissements)
Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE).– Mr President, I should just like to speak from the point of view of Britain concerning that announcement. May I first of all pay a compliment to the hard work and the very combative way other European cities have fought for the Olympic Games, particularly our colleagues in Madrid and Paris. There had to be one winner. From a London point of view, I hope everybody here will attend those Games and we will fight at those Games in a competitive spirit to show Europe at its very best.
(Applause)
Le Président. – Nous souhaitons que l'équipe d'Europe se couvre de médailles en 2012.
22. Világméretű felhívás a szegénység elleni fellépésre: a szegénység legyen a múltté
- Avant le vote sur l'amendement 2:
Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez (PSE).– Señor Presidente, yo creo que se explica solo. Querría que los amigos del Grupo de los Verdes aceptaran esta enmienda, que, sencillamente, toma nota de una declaración y no la endosa plenamente sin que tengamos un conocimiento preciso y detallado de cuál es el informe al que ellos se refieren.
(Le Président constate qu'il n'y a pas d'opposition à la prise en compte de l'amendement oral)
- sur le considérant A:
Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez (PSE).– Señor Presidente, se trata de recoger una preocupación de otro Grupo: en vez de hablar de 300 millones, o de 315, o de 400 millones de personas que pasan hambre en el mundo, podemos decir «más de 300 millones». Creo que, con eso, evitamos dar una cifra precisa, como querían otros colegas.
(Le Président constate qu'il n'y a pas d'opposition à la prise en compte de l'amendement oral)
Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE).– Herr Präsident! Ich habe ein ernstes Anliegen. Der Kollege Rack hatte Recht: Wir hatten im Haus einmal eine feste Regel bezüglich der Abstimmungsstunden. Es geht nicht um essen oder nicht essen. Aber ich habe z.B. Besucher hier, die 1 000 km angereist sind, um mit mir zu sprechen. Um 15.00 Uhr muss ich schon wieder im Plenum sein.
Ich bitte wirklich darum, in Zukunft die Regeln einzuhalten, die wir einmal eingeführt haben. Wir können nicht am Mittwoch über alles abstimmen, nur weil es Faulpelze gibt, die meinen, sie müssten am Mittwoch schon abreisen. Wir hätten über die letzten fünf Berichte genauso gut am Donnerstag Mittag abstimmen können.
Ich bitte das Präsidium, ordentlich zu organisieren und zu planen, so wie dies früher der Fall war.
VORSITZ: SYLVIA-YVONNE KAUFMANN Vizepräsidentin
Die Präsidentin. Vielen Dank, Herr Kollege! Wir nehmen Ihre Wortmeldung zur Kenntnis und leiten das entsprechend an die Dienststellen weiter.
Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM),skriftlig. Betänkandet syftar till att ansluta EU till FN:s ekonomiska kommission för Europa föreskrift nummer 94 och 95. Syftet är att ta bort tekniska handelshinder vad gäller godkännande av fordon med avseende på skydd för passagerare vid fontalkollisioner och sidokollisioner.
Vi väljer att stödja förslaget eftersom vi stödjer EU:s gemensamma handelspolitik och anser det nödvändigt att vidta åtgärder för att avlägsna handelshinder. Vi ser det också som positivt att detta sker inom FN:s ram.
Gefährliche Stoffe in Elektro- und Elektronik geräten (B6-0392/2005)
David Martin, David (PSE),in writing. One of the objectives of Directive 2002/95/EC is to contribute to the protection of human health and the environmentally sound recovery and disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment. The Directive restricts the use of certain hazardous substances in new electrical and electronic equipment put on the market from 1 July unless exempted under the Annex.
I regret the Commission's decision to add DecaBDE to the annex against the advice of its scientific advisors. I call on the Council to oppose this proposal.
Frédérique Ries (ALDE),par écrit. – Le décabromodiphenylether est un retardateur de flamme bromé familier de notre Parlement: en février 2003, il était mis "sous haute surveillance" dans le même temps où dans un rapport dont je fus l'auteur, l'Union européenne interdisait ses deux substances "soeurs" le penta et l'octaBDE.
Le decaBDE est un produit chimique bioaccumulatif, que l'on retrouve dans le lait maternel et pour lequel le Comité scientifique européen de référence recommande une réduction des risques encore plus importante. Une substance, par ailleurs, que l'Union européenne s'est engagée à interdire à partir du 1er juillet 2006 dans les équipements électriques et électroniques.
Alors, il est tout de même surprenant que la Commission européenne nous propose un retour au point de départ en souhaitant, par la comitologie, c'est à dire en catimini, revenir sur cette interdiction. Sur le fond, comme sur la forme, ce passage en force est inacceptable. La Commission n'a donné aucun argument, elle en aurait d'ailleurs été bien incapable, pour justifier ce virage à 180 degrés!
Je soutiens donc cette résolution et demande à la Commission de revenir sur sa décision. Au cas contraire, je n'hésiterai pas, avec certains de mes collègues, à saisir la Cour de Justice.
Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE).– Arvoisa puhemies, kolme lyhyttä huomiota ohjelmistopatenttidirektiiviin:
Ensinnäkin on parempi, että meillä ei ole direktiiviä kuin että meillä on huono direktiivi. Toiseksi tämä oli selvä osoitus toimielinten välisestä valtakamppailusta, jossa komission ja neuvoston olisi pitänyt kuunnella ja seurata parlamentin toimintaa. Kolmanneksi koko keskustelu oli täynnä väärinkäsityksiä ja toivon, että komissio ei tässä vaiheessa pistä pillejä pussiin vaan pistää pöydälle uuden ehdotuksen, koska jossain vaiheessa me tarvitsemme myös eurooppalaisen ohjelmistopatenttidirektiivin.
Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE).– Frau Präsidentin! Ich habe mich der großen Mehrheit hier angeschlossen und gegen diesen Richtlinienentwurf gestimmt. Ich denke, das war heute auch ein Sieg der Vernunft im Europäischen Parlament, ein Sieg der Vernunft gegen die Lobby-Interessen weniger großer IT-Produzenten. Damit haben wir ein Zeichen gesetzt für mehr Wahlfreiheit der Verbraucher.
Wir haben auch deutlich gemacht, dass es in Europa eine Zukunft für die Informationstechnologie-Unternehmen gibt, denn auf dem Spiel standen die Innovation und die Freiheit zu eigenen Entwicklungen der kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen. Ich freue mich außerordentlich, dass es uns heute gelungen ist, den Plänen zur Legalisierung von Patenten auf Software eine klare rote Karte zu zeigen. Damit haben wir auch diejenigen unterstützt, die für Open Source sind, die für freie Softwareentwicklung stehen. Wir haben ganz besonders auch die mittelständischen Softwareunternehmen unterstützt, denn denen wäre durch diese Patentierungsrichtlinie immenser Schaden zugefügt worden.
Ich freue mich, dass wir diesen Erfolg errungen haben. Ich hoffe, wir können Ähnliches für die Revision der Biopatentrichtlinie erreichen.
Paul Rübig (PPE-DE).– Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte nur anmerken, dass es leider Herrn Rocard nicht gelungen ist, auch nur einen einzigen Änderungsantrag durchzubringen, und dass das Europäische Parlament nicht in der Lage war, eine dementsprechende Stellungnahme abzugeben. Wir stehen jetzt vor dem Problem, dass die nationalen Rechtsvorschriften unverändert weiter gelten, und dass die Entscheidungen der Gerichte sehr unterschiedlich sein werden. Das wird für die Großbetriebe eine enorme Kostenbelastung sein und deshalb den Lissabon-Zielen widersprechen. Für die kleinen Betriebe wird es völlig unübersichtlich, weil sie sich in Zukunft mit 27 verschiedenen Patentrechten auseinandersetzen müssen.
Ich fordere die Kommission auf, einen neuen Vorschlag für ein Gemeinschaftspatent vorzulegen und ihn vorher mit den fachkundigen Personen zu diskutieren. Außerdem ersuche ich die Kommission, mit der Ausarbeitung eines Vorschlags so schnell wie möglich zu beginnen.
Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE).– Jsem přesvědčena, že Evropa potřebuje společná, jednoznačná a také moderní patentová pravidla. Je to klíčové pro odstranění bariér na vnitřním trhu Unie, pro podporu investic do výzkumu, pro ochranu před pirátstvím a pro ochranu celé Evropy. Oceňuji vůli poslanců ze všech politických stran včetně Evropské lidové strany, kteří přispěli k nalezení toho našeho společného kompromisu o našich dvaceti změnách směrnice, jež měly za cíl patentovou ochranou pouze pro funwary jen jako součást technického zařízení umožnit interoperabilitu a zamezit patentování čistých softwarových patentů.
V závěru politických jednání jsem podpořila zamítnutí směrnice proto, že věřím, že je to jasné, silné gesto Evropského parlamentu, které bude vnímáno Evropskou radou a Evropskou komisí jako signál pro zintenzivnění úsilí na dosažení společného návrhu všeobecného evropského patentu, nikoliv specifické patentové směrnice.
Gilles Savary (PSE).– Madame la Présidente, je voudrais dire ma satisfaction du rejet de cette position commune, à défaut de faire pouvoir faire mieux, c'est-à-dire à défaut de pouvoir adopter un par un les amendements que Michel Rocard avait déposés et qui devaient ramener à la première lecture du Parlement européen.
Je ne crois pas, comme mes collègues, que ceci entretient une insécurité juridique car des événements ont eu lieu depuis trois ans. En première lecture, le Parlement européen a adopté un texte sans ambiguïté. Il vient aujourd'hui de rejeter la brevetabilité des logiciels. Je crois que l'on doit s'en tenir là et en revenir à la lettre de l'article 52 de la Convention européenne de Munich car, en réalité, il ne s'agissait pas tant de sécuriser la brevetabilité du logiciel que de faire une offensive pour qu'il soit brevetable. Cette offensive vient d'être stoppée aujourd'hui par une très grande victoire de la démocratie parlementaire européenne vis-à-vis des lobbies et vis-à-vis des manœuvres de la Commission.
Sarah Ludford (ALDE).– Madam President, I want to explain why I voted not to reject the computer-related implemented inventions directive. Rejection prolongs the uncertainty about patentability of software-related inventions and is running away from the need to take a decision.
I regret that MEPs have proved incapable of coming up with a sensible version of the text, one which could ensure support for innovation but also reassure software writers and users that we are not going down an American-style route of allowing patents for pure software.
The process has displayed all the defects in the way we legislate at EU level, and these failings must be addressed if MEPs are to avoid portraying themselves as incapable of legislating on complex but vital subjects.
First, secrecy in the Council of Ministers: it is impossible to be well informed on its reasoning.
Second, obstacles to understanding because of its impenetrable website.
Third, the wrong choice of European Parliament rapporteur. The convention that a report is the property of a group and it is ‘not done’ to query its allocation to a particular member must be junked.
Fourth, the stupidity of using a misleading shorthand description like ‘software patents’, which is deeply misleading.
Fifth, the absence of ‘parliamentary draftsmen’ similar to those at Westminster, who can give MEPs guidance on the precise meaning of terminology.
James Hugh Allister (NI),in writing. Today I voted against the Common Position on the Directive on Computer Implemented Inventions (CII) in view of the increased control and over-powering dominance it would give to large software companies and the consequential harmful effects that it would impose on small and medium sized enterprises. I see the proposed legislation of making software patentable as a threat to an industry which requires creativity and innovation in order to thrive. This directive would simply reduce competition hence leading to higher prices and lower quality for software consumers and non-technology businesses. In my opinion, the anti-innovative behaviour that this directive would undoubtedly create would result in nothing but ruinous consequences to democracy, competition and employment.
Andrew Duff (ALDE),par écrit. – L'Europe a besoin de règles claires. Il ne peut être question de breveter des logiciels par ailleurs bien protégés par les droits d'auteur. Ce serait stériliser l'innovation au détriment de la recherche, des PME, de l'Europe.
La Position Commune allait dans le bons sens mais laissait subsister des zones d'ombre qu'il fallait supprimer en votant les amendements Rocard. Je les aurais votés s'ils avaient été soumis au vote. Une coalition contre nature s'est formée pour rejeter purement et simplement la Position Commune sans essayer de l'amender. Ceux qui trouvaient la Position Commune insuffisante se sont alliés à ceux qui craignaient qu'avec les amendements l'interdiction de breveter des logiciels l'emporte.
Le rejet pur et simple de la proposition a comme effet de leur donner raison, l'Office européen des Brevets pourrait ainsi continuer à développer une jurisprudence favorisant la brevetabilité des logiciels "en tant que tels." Tout cela au détriment de la liberté des idées et donc du progrès. Je me suis abstenu parce que, d'une part je ne peux approuver la Position Commune, et d'autre part que j'aurais préféré amender la proposition et ne pas laisser subsister le vide et la confusion actuelle ...
(Explication de vote écourtée en application de l'article 163 du Règlement)
Lena Ek, Cecilia Malmström och Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE),skriftlig. Vi har valt att rösta för att hela förslaget om datorrelaterade uppfinningar ska dras tillbaka. Vi motsätter oss patent på ren mjukvara och vill skydda klassiskt patenträtt och har haft som ambition att förbättra ministerrådets gemensamma ståndpunkt. Tyvärr har det visat sig svårt och vi riskerar att få en otydlig lagtext som inte uppfyller våra krav på rättsäkerhet. Detta gynnar varken stora företag, små företag eller programutvecklare. De enda som tjänar på en rörig lagstiftning är patentjuristerna. Konsekvensen av vissa skrivningar har också varit svår att överblicka. Det är önskvärt med en harmonisering på området men vi är hellre utan direktivet än medverkar till en dålig lagstiftning. Därför är det bra att parlamentet vill förkasta förslaget.
Vi tycker istället att kommissionen återigen bör ta upp frågan om gemenskapspatent, som ska gälla för hela EU. Ett huvudproblem i detta sammanhang är att European Patent Office (EPO) har utfärdat en del triviala patent och patent för ren mjukvara. EPO lyder dock inte under EU utan styrs av en större specialkonvention. Vill EU ta ledartröjan i frågan om ett rättssäkert och transparent patentsystem där patent endast meddelas för riktiga uppfinningar bör vi införa ett gemenskapsspatent som berör alla områden, inte bara datorrelaterade uppfinningar.
Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL),por escrito. Congratulamo-nos com a aprovaçãoda nossa proposta de rejeição da Posição Comum do Conselho, de Março de 2005, sobre a patenteabilidade das invenções implementadas por computador.
Como temos denunciado desde a apresentação, em 2002, da proposta de directiva pela Comissão Europeia, denunciámos que, com a implementação de patentes de software, estaria em causa a liberdade intelectual, a inovação tecnológica e o desenvolvimento da economia da Europa, como muito bem têm referido cientistas, professores universitários, a comunidade estudantil, muitas organizações e PME's. Os elevados custos das patentes iriam ser prejudiciais às pequenas e médias empresas, as quais não só não teriam recursos para pagar as patentes das suas criações, como poderiam, inclusive, correr o risco de verem as suas ideias patenteadas por terceiros. As patentes de software podiam ainda ser utilizadas pelas grandes empresas como forma de bloquear a entrada no mercado de novas empresas.
Não se pode admitir que se passe a atribuir patentes a ideias e ao conhecimento. Quem sabe, à própria vida. Por isso, tal como já o tínhamos feito no passado, assinámos a proposta de rejeição da posição comum do Conselho, que hoje foi aprovada. É uma vitória do conhecimento, da inovação e da liberdade de criação ...
(Declaração de voto encurtada nos termos do nº 1 do artigo 163º do Regimento)
Richard Howitt (PSE),in writing. I welcome today's rejection of the draft legislation on the patenting of software. I joined this rejection after careful consideration and discussions on its implications with small and medium sized company directors from my constituency, which includes 1,500 technology companies with around 40,000 employees based around the hubs of Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire. One small businessman told me that the proposed legislation was akin to patenting tomatoes in a recipe, so that no new recipe could ever be produced again which contained tomatoes. Today's vote is a clear victory for creativity, entrepreneurship and common sense.
Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE),in writing. As the spokesperson for this issue in the Parliament's largest group and head of the Finnish EPP-ED delegation, I think that the decision to reject the common position was the right one. According to my estimation, the resulting directive would not have been good enough. Rejecting the whole proposal was a smaller setback than it would have been to adopt bad legislation.
However, I regret that the attempt to harmonise varying patent practises in different Member States was rejected. Therefore I'll urge Commission to rapidly reintroduce the Community Patent proposal that was not adopted by the past legislature. Commission should also take the initiative to renovate the European patent system.
I also consider that today's decision is a major victory for the Parliament as an institution. The Council Common Position did not take into account at all the view of the majority of the Parliament. The Parliament showed that the Member States in the Council cannot walk all over the Parliament's view - whatever the matter in question.
Toine Manders (ALDE),schriftelijk. De VVD is verheugd dat een overdonderende meerderheid van dit huis het ALDE amendement heeft gesteund tot verwerping van het Gemeenschappelijke Standpunt. De VVD is tegen een sectorale benadering van het Europese octrooirecht. De VVD ziet liever een integrale benadering en roept de Europese Commissie dan ook op om met een voorstel voor één enkel Gemeenschapsoctrooi te komen. Dit biedt meer juridische zekerheid.
Het huidige omslachtige en kostbare systeem van patentverlening kan zo vervangen worden door een effectiever regime. Wij roepen de Europese Commissie op om zo snel mogelijk in de Juridische Commissie het debat te starten ter harmonisering van de bestaande Europese octrooi wetgeving op grond van art 95 waardoor ook het Parlement co-decisie heeft in deze, waardoor ook een democratische controle kan plaatsvinden op het EPO.
Tevens roepen wij alle lobby organisaties op, om hetzelfde zware geschut in te zetten om de Franse regering ervan te overtuigen hun verzet te staken tegen één officiële voertaal bij het gemeenschaps-octrooi om zo ook voor de Franse jeugd een concurrerende en innovatieve toekomst te bieden.
Zo wordt de Lissabon-doelstelling niet alleen met de mond beleden, maar wordt de daad bij het woord gevoegd.
David Martin, David (PSE),in writing. I voted to reject the Common position, not because I am against the idea of a European wide patent but because this specific proposal was badly drafted and left some vital definitions of what could be patented clouded in confusion.
Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE),písomne. Z dôvodu , že v súčasnosti sú veľké rozdiely v národných legislatívach patentového práva uvedomujem si ,že je nutné prijať smernicu, ktorá zabezpečí ich zosúladenie. Teda podporujem dôslednú ochranu softwarov prostredníctvom ochrany vlastného inovačného riešenia celého programu alebo jeho častí, ale nie udelenie patentu na jednotlivú myšlienku. Veď už Einstein povedal, že nie je možné patentovať matematické vzorce.
Naopak patentovateľným vynálezom je také riešenie, ktoré spojí myšlienku s technickým účinkom napr. softwarové vybavenie pre mobily, ABS v automobiloch. Patentovanie zabezpečí firmám návratnosť ich vynaložených nákladov na vývoj vynálezu a dodá im impulz pre ďalšie investície do výskumu a vývoja.
V smernici, navrhovanou Radou, sú nejasné formulácie, na základe ktorých nie je možné presne stanoviť deliacu čiaru medzi softwarom a technickým prínosom.
Nejasnosť definície pre patentovanie softwaru môže zapríčiniť, že súťaž medzi firmami sa nebude odohrávať na trhu ale v súdnych sieňach. Ak by sa software stal patentovateľným, náklady na patentový proces by zruinoval malých a stredných podnikateľov zaoberajúcich sa vývojom softwaru. Pozmeňovacie návrhy Roithová - Buzek, ktoré sa usilujú o zúženie pôsobnosti smernice tak, aby nedovoľovali patentovateľnosť samotného softwaru som svojím podpisom podporila a sú kompromisným riešením zabraňujúcim nejasnému výkladu smernice. V prípade ich schválenia podporím v hlasovaní takto upravený text navrhnutý Radou v rámci tzv. spoločnej pozície zo 7. marca 2005.
Luís Queiró (PPE-DE),por escrito. Apesar de ter sido co-autor de um conjunto de emendas que visavam melhorar a versão final da posição comum, na eventualidade desta ser aprovada pelo Parlamento Europeu, foi com satisfação que votei e vi ser aprovada a sua rejeição, conforme tinha sido proposta ao Parlamento Europeu, por entender que essa foi a melhor solução para evitar que fosse aprovado um documento que claramente prejudicava os interesses das pequenas e médias empresas de software, bem como os interesses dos consumidores. Acresce que a proposta de posição comum não ia de encontro os princípios mais correctos em matéria de criatividade e propriedade intelectual e sua defesa.
José Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE),por escrito. A questão subjacente a este relatório e respectiva resolução é saber quais os limites da patenteabilidade de invenções implementadas por computador.
É sabido que a forma de protecção de software mais comum na Europa tem-se baseado na aplicação do regime de direitos de autor/copyright, constituindo o método proposto uma cedência ao modelo americano. Esta importação não se me afigura benéfica nem susceptível de introduzir qualquer clarificação positiva no mercado, antes contribuindo para aumentar as dificuldades das empresas de pequena/média dimensão que, não obstante, produzem a maioria das inovações e representam 70% do emprego do sector.
No processo parlamentar, tornou-se claro que grandes empresas europeias têm procurado garantir a exclusiva utilização de programas que controlam invenções por via dos computadores ao arrepio do disposto na Convenção de Munique e da Jurisprudência do Instituto Europeu de Patentes. Ora, conforme bem sublinha o relator, "um programa de computador não é mais susceptível de ser protegido por uma patente que um acorde musical ou uma associação de palavras. Enquanto agrupamento de fórmulas matemáticas interligadas, é uma produção da mente humana da ordem das ideias. E a livre circulação das ideias é um princípio fundador da nossa civilização". É esse também o meu entendimento.
(Declaração de voto encurtada nos termos do nº 1 do artigo 163º do Regimento)
Frédérique Ries (ALDE),par écrit. – En votant ce midi pour le rejet de la position commune du Conseil, j'ai souhaité exprimer un vote clair et défavorable à toute forme de brevetabilité sur les logiciels. Et a contrario, j'ai estimé que le logiciel, en tant qu'oeuvre de l'esprit humain, est suffisamment protégé par le droit d'auteur.
J'ai voté aussi et surtout pour la primauté du politique sur la technique, pour faire vivre l'esprit de Lisbonne!
En tant que libérale, viscéralement attachée aux valeurs de la liberté d'entreprendre et d'une concurrence économique saine et loyale, je ne pouvais accepter un texte "cousu main" pour certaines grandes sociétés, déjà en position de quasi monopole dans leur secteur respectif. Une proposition de directive visant à terme à tuer dans l'oeuf l'esprit créatif des jeunes informaticiens et l'indépendance de nombreuses PME et micro entreprises européennes.
Un texte qui, disons le franchement, n'avait pas grand chose à voir avec l'Europe citoyenne que nous appelons tous de nos voeux.
Au cours des deux années qu'aura duré ce débat, je n'ai d'ailleurs pas rencontré un informaticien, un chercheur d'université, un simple utilisateur, ou un patron d'une PME fabricant des logiciels qui soient favorables à cette directive. Cela ne pouvait pas être un hasard!
Konrad Szymański (UEN),na piśmie. Jako jeden z nielicznych posłów głosowałem przeciwko wnioskowi o odrzucenie projektu tzw. dyrektywy patentowej (patentability of computer-implemented inventions).
Parlament w procesie kodecyzyjnym miał możliwość wypowiedzieć się w sprawie tego projektu dowolnie kształtując jego brzmienie. Niemal jednogłośna decyzja Parlamentu by odrzucić projekt jest tylko (nie całkiem odpowiedzialnym) unikaniem podjęcia decyzji.
Szeroka koalicja posłów składała się z bardzo różnych frakcji. Po długim namyśle nie odnalazłem się w żadnej z nich.
Przeciwko rozpatrywaniu dyrektywy głosowali przeciwnicy skutecznej ochrony własności intelektualnej jako takiej (skrajna lewica). Nie należę do nich.
Przeciwko głosowali przeciwnicy europejskiego systemu takiej ochrony (skrajna prawica). I tego poglądu nie podzielam. Rejestracja wynalazków w wielu krajach jest kosztowna.
Przeciwko głosowali zwolennicy poszerzania politycznego wpływu Parlamentu na proces legislacyjny (obecni w każdym klubie). Nie podzielam i tego stanowiska.
Przeciwko w końcu głosowali Ci wszyscy, którzy uznali, że projekt dyrektywy zagraża narodowym, polskim interesom (polscy MEPowie). Pomijając nieograniczoną możliwość wprowadzania zmian, jest to błędne założenie.
Ochrona patentowa - szeroko lub wąsko zakreślona - sprzyja prywatnym inwestycjom w innowacje a tym samym zatrudnieniu naukowców. Europa ma prawie dwa razy mniejszy wskaźnik takich nakładów niż USA. Jednym z ważnych powodów jest szeroka ochrona patentowa charakterystyczna dla tego kraju, często przywoływana jako zły przykład i straszak w tej debacie.
Richard Howitt (PSE),in writing. I welcome the recommendations given in the report, in particular the acceptance of my opposition to arbitrary limits on maritime borders eligible for cross border cooperation, which would have left Norfolk and other parts of my constituency without the possibility to access funding, despite strong historical and cultural ties across the North Sea. My region has participated fully in inter-regional cooperation and Parliament's insistence that an independent strand is maintained for such cooperation is good for the East of England, Britain and all those who want to benefit by joint working and exchanges across European borders.
David Martin, David (PSE),in writing. I believe it is essential that we have a better understanding of the amounts of polluting substances omitted by installations and for this information to be made easily available to the public by requiring operators to report their emissions.
These objectives are contained in this legislation which aims at establishing a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register and is linked to the proposed decision for the EU to accede to the EN-ECE protocol of 21 May 2003 and to incorporate its relevant parts into European Law.
Luís Queiró (PPE-DE),por escrito. As questões ambientais estão no cerne das políticas para o futuro da Europa. Assim, considero que é fundamental a criação de ferramentas para garantir a sensibilização de todos para estas questões e ainda, promover uma melhor aplicação da legislação ambiental. O relatório do colega Blokland visa incorporar as partes relevantes do Protocolo da UNECE de 21 de Maio de 2003 na legislação comunitária.
O resultado deste relatório proporcionará melhorias na disponibilização de informações ao público e uma melhor compreensão das quantidades de substâncias poluentes emitidas por estabelecimentos.
Votei assim favoravelmente o relatório do nosso colega Blokland.
Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL),por escrito. O grande problema desta resolução é que se encontra condicionada pela resolução do Parlamento Europeu referente às Perspectivas Financeiras para 2007-2013, aceitando para os Fundos Estruturais e de Coesão um envelope financeiro de 0,41% do RNB comunitário para este período, quando as necessidades acrescidas de coesão face ao alargamento e aos aumentos das disparidades económicas e sociais apontariam para mais.
Por isso, entre outros aspectos, e mais uma vez, propusemos o aumento dos montantes para os fundos estruturais, com vista, nomeadamente, a garantir a compensação integral para as regiões afectados pelo "efeito estatístico" e garantir mecanismos de phasing out para o Fundo de Coesão. Propostas que, contra nossa vontade, foram rejeitadas pela maioria do Parlamento Europeu.
Lamentamos ainda a rejeição das nossas propostas que visavam a eliminação de mecanismos que afectam a execução dos Fundos Estruturais, nomeadamente os níveis de co-finaciamento e pré-financiamento, ou o condicionamento do Fundo de Coesão ao Pacto de Estabilidade, ou ainda, mecanismos que colocam em causa o objectivo de despesa dos Fundos Estruturais (regra "n+2").
Consideramos ainda que deveria ter sido reforçado o condicionamento da ajuda pública a empresas a compromissos de longo prazo, nomeadamente em termos de emprego, como propusemos.
Carl Lang (NI),par écrit. – La réforme des fonds structurels ne résoudra pas les problèmes posés par l'élargissement à l'Est mais pénalisera la France.
Bruxelles n'ayant pas mesuré le coût de l'élargissement à l'Europe de l'Est, ruinée par quatre décennies de communisme, versera aux nouveaux Etats membres 190 milliards d'euros d'aides régionales. Ces sommes faciliteront-elles leur intégration économique dans l'Union européenne ? L'échec allemand dans les länder orientaux de l'ancienne RDA communiste permet d'en douter.
Cette orientation de la politique régionale en faveur des pays de l'Est aura en revanche deux conséquences fâcheuses pour notre pays :
- Elle réduira la part déjà modeste allouée à la France. Ainsi la Corse et le Hainaut français dans le Nord Pas de Calais ne reçoivent plus depuis cinq ans les fonds structurels destinés aux régions pauvres de l'Europe.
- L'augmentation des dépenses régionales, devenues le premier budget de l'Europe, entraînera une diminution des dépenses agricoles, dont bénéficiaient nos agriculteurs, et la croissance du budget de Bruxelles, donc l'alourdissement de la contribution française à ce budget.
Plus que jamais la politique régionale européenne présentée par les eurofédéralistes de l'UMP et du PS comme une manne pour nos régions, se révèle être une imposture économique et sociale.
Jamila Madeira (PSE),por escrito. Congratulo-me com a aprovação deste relatório intercalar sobre o Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional, o Fundo Social Europeu e o Fundo de Coesão, nomeadamente com a aprovação de um novo parágrafo no artigo 3° prevendo que as regiões afectadas pelo efeito estatístico, como é o caso do Algarve, devem receber um apoio financeiro suficiente que lhes permita continuar com o processo de convergência e que não deve existir qualquer diferenciação entre elas em função de parâmetros populacionais.
Este parâmetro populacional, que constava do pacote negocial da Presidência luxemburguesa para as Perspectivas Financeiras 2007-2013 padece de qualquer sustentação objectiva e deve, por isso, deixar de servir de base a diferenciações injustas e desproporcionadas, que mais não fazem que marcar um "antes" e um "depois" na solidariedade entre as regiões da União Europeia.
David Martin, David (PSE),in writing. I voted in favour of this Report which should guarantee a continuation of European money to the Highlands and Islands in Scotland and offers hope that other parts of Scotland will continue to benefit from access to EU structural funds.
Of course until we have a budget settlement it is impossible to know the extent of the funding flow.
I welcome proposed reforms that should enhance the quality of EU structural funds expenditure such as more simplification, better strategic planning, cutting bureaucracy and more transparency and accountability.
Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης (GUE/NGL),γραπτώς. – Υποστήριξα όπως και η μεγάλη πλειοψηφία της πολιτικής μου ομάδας την έκθεση Χατζηδάκη γιατί:
· Υποστηρίζει τις περιφέρειες, οι οποίες κινδυνεύουν να πληγούν από το "στατιστικό αποτέλεσμα" που προκαλεί η διεύρυνση.
· Ζητά να αντιμετωπίζονται οι αποκεντρωμένες περιοχές ως ειδικές περιπτώσεις ως προς την πρόσβασή τους στα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία.
· Προτείνει την αναδιανομή των μη δαπανηθέντων πόρων εξαιτίας του κανόνα ν+2 σε όσες περιοχές μπορούν να τους αξιοποιήσουν.
· Απορρίπτει κάθε επανεθνικοποίηση των εξόδων περιφερειακής πολιτικής.
· Ζητά δίκαιη μεταχείριση των νησιωτικών και αραιοκατοικημένων περιοχών.
· Αναδεικνύει τα δικαιώματα των ατόμων με ειδικές ανάγκες σε πρωταρχική προτεραιότητα της πολιτικής συνοχής.
Οι τροπολογίες που είχα καταθέσει με άλλους ευρωβουλευτές της Ομάδας της Ενωτικής Αριστεράς:
· Ενισχύουν το κείμενο και κάνουν σαφές στην Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή και το Συμβούλιο ότι η προώθηση της ανταγωνιστικότητας και της επιχειρηματικότητας δεν μπορούν να γίνουν εις βάρος της αειφόρου ανάπτυξης και της συνοχής.
· Απαιτούν αύξηση των πόρων για τα διαρθρωτικά Ταμεία και το Ταμείο Συνοχής γιατί μια άνιση Ευρώπη δεν μπορεί να είναι βιώσιμη.
· Ζητούν καλύτερο έλεγχο της δημόσιας βοήθειας ώστε να μην αποτελεί κίνητρο για μετεγκαταστάσεις επιχειρήσεων στο εσωτερικό της Ένωσης εις βάρος των εργαζομένων στις διάφορες περιφέρειες."
Luís Queiró (PPE-DE),por escrito. Votei favoravelmente este relatório por considerar que inclui um conjunto de aspectos que são da maior importância para Portugal. Para além de os considerar igualmente positivos para a União Europeia em que acredito. O Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional, o Fundo Social Europeu e o Fundo de Coesão são três fundos que assumem uma importância máxima e estratégica na defesa dos objectivos de crescimento económico, promovendo a competitividade, a capacidade de criação de riqueza e a diminuição das enormes disparidades regionais. Assim, foi com apreço que verifiquei que o relator defendia aspectos que considero essenciais, como seja a rejeição de qualquer tentativa de renacionalização das políticas regionais, bem como a rejeição de qualquer tentativa de reduzir os limites de ajudas estatais às regiões mais desfavorecidas, a par de defesa da proposta da Comissão no sentido de serem penalizadas as empresas beneficiárias de fundos europeus que se !
deslocalizem.
Catherine Stihler (PSE),in writing. The Hatzidakis report sets out the European Parliament’s perspective on the future reform of structural funds. The inclusion of ‘statistical effect’, the recognition of natural effect regions, the rejection of the 150 km limit for defining maritime regions, the emphasis on equality issues and the strengthening of environmental concerns should all be welcomed. On Amendment 42 and original paragraph 13 the EPLP abstained due to the language of the text.
Γεώργιος Τούσσας (GUE/NGL),γραπτώς. – Το ΚΚΕ καταψηφίζει τις εκθέσεις για τα Διαρθρωτικά Ταμεία του Δ' ΚΠΣ 2007-2013, γιατί υπηρετούν την αντιλαϊκή πολιτική της ΕΕ, τη διασφάλιση και αύξηση των κερδών του κεφαλαίου.
Τα Διαρθρωτικά Ταμεία αξιοποιούνται από τις κυβερνήσεις για την ενίσχυση της πλουτοκρατίας των κρατών μελών, των ιμπεριαλιστικών σχεδιασμών της ΕΕ, της συγκέντρωσης και συγκεντροποίησης του κεφαλαίου, τη γιγάντωση των μονοπωλίων.
Για την προώθηση των καπιταλιστικών αναδιαρθρώσεων στο χτύπημα των μισθολογικών και κοινωνικών δικαιωμάτων των εργαζομένων, στην υγεία, στην πρόνοια, στην παιδεία, σαρωτικών αλλαγών στην αγροτική οικονομία και σε άλλους τομείς. Χρησιμοποιούνται για ιδεολογική τρομοκρατία, στρατιωτικές δαπάνες της ιμπεριαλιστικής επιθετικότητας της ΕΕ και του ΝΑΤΟ, φθορά και εξαγορά συνειδήσεων για τη χειραγώγηση του εργατικού λαϊκού κινήματος.
Ο νόμος της ανισόμετρης ανάπτυξης είναι αδυσώπητος. Οι αντιθέσεις, κοινωνικές και περιφερειακές, αντί να αμβλύνονται οξύνονται. Μεγάλα προβλήματα αντιμετωπίζουν οι εργαζόμενοι και ιδιαίτερα οι κάτοικοι των νησιών, των μεθοριακών και ορεινών περιοχών της Ελλάδας.
Οι ισχυρισμοί για την προώθηση της πολιτικής σύγκλισης και συνοχής της ΕΕ μέσα από τα Διαρθρωτικά Ταμεία αποτελεί τη μεγαλύτερη απάτη σε βάρος των εργαζομένων, των γυναικών, των αγροτών, των λαϊκών στρωμάτων.
Η Ελλάδα αποτελεί χαρακτηριστικό παράδειγμα, γιατί βάσει των στατιστικών επτά ελληνικές περιφέρειες, το 80% του λαού, κινδυνεύουν να βρεθούν εκτός του στόχου 1 της χρηματοδότησης από τα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία.
Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL),por escrito. Entre outros aspectos, consideramos que uma das questões centrais referentes à actual proposta de regulamento para o Fundo de Coesão - e que já se encontrava no anterior regulamento -, é a condicionalidade do Fundo de Coesão ao Pacto de Estabilidade. Ou seja, a possibilidade de suspensão total ou parcial de ajuda financeira do Fundo a um dos países da Coesão - como Portugal -, se for adoptada a decisão prevista no nº 8 do artigo 104º do Tratado da UE. Esta condicionalidade é uma dupla penalização para o país visado. A proposta do relator, no sentido de transformar esta decisão automática, numa decisão política do Conselho, não resolve o problema.
Discordamos igualmente que a denominada regra "n+2" passe a ser aplicada ao Fundo de Coesão, o que irá colocar novos constrangimentos à utilização destas verbas pelos países que deverão ter como objectivo a sua aproximação aos níveis de desenvolvimento económico e social da média comunitária.
Consideramos ainda insuficientes os montantes previstos para este Fundo para o período de 2007 a 2013, nomeadamente tendo em conta o alargamento da União Europeia.
Tendo em conta a rejeição das nossas propostas que visavam alterar estes e outros aspectos que consideramos negativos, votámos contra esta resolução
Luís Queiró (PPE-DE),por escrito. Uma das questões mais relevantes no debate sobre o futuro do Fundo de Coesão é, evidentemente, aquela que se prende com o "enriquecimento estatístico". Para lá de todos os outros aspectos relativos a este fundo, e que são da maior importância, aquilo que mais me preocupa - tal como certamente às autoridades nacionais - é evitar que uma aparência de enriquecimento resulte num efectivo empobrecimento por efeito da perda de apoios interrompendo um ciclo de crescimento ainda não terminado. É esse o problema central para Portugal nas discussões sobre o futuro deste fundo, é essa a minha maior preocupação e, apropriadamente, o relatório teve presente a necessidade de ser encontrada uma resposta política adequada a esta questão.
Emanuel Jardim Fernandes (PSE),por escrito. A adesão de 10 novos países colocou um dos maiores desafios à coesão interna da UE: os desníveis de desenvolvimento económico no espaço da União aumentaram e agravaram-se as disparidades económico-sociais regionais. O que implica um maior esforço por parte da Política de Coesão da UE. Actualmente, esta sofre uma profunda reforma com vista a tomar em consideração as consequências do alargamento.
Numa União alargada a 25, impõe-se que os instrumentos da Política de Coesão reformada sejam dotados dos recursos financeiros adequados e repartidos equitativamente entre as regiões menos desenvolvidas não só dos novos como também dos “velhos” Estados-membros, para que se prossiga a redução das disparidades entre os níveis de desenvolvimento e do atraso das diversas regiões da UE (o agora Objectivo “Convergência”), bem como se atenda ao novo Objectivo “Competitividade regional e emprego”.
As recomendações apresentadas nos diferentes relatórios hoje a votação, em particular no do meu colega Claudio Fava sobre o FEDER, visam essas preocupações.
Quanto à dotação desses Fundos, estamos suspensos do acordo do Conselho Europeu sobre as Perspectivas Financeiras para 2007-2013. Esperamos que estas sejam à altura dos novos desafios da política de coesão da U
Richard Howitt (PSE),in writing. I strongly welcome the adoption of my key amendments to the ERDF regulation, which will ensure full access to the funds, without discrimination, and will also seek to use the fund to tackle the particular social, economic and environmental problems faced by predominantly rural areas, such as my own constituency, particularly through diversification measures, entrepreneurship and through stimulating local employment. I also welcome the adoption of my amendments to mitigate the environmental impact of business and domestic activity, and prioritise climate change, biodiversity, environmental management, and sustainable energy production in the use of funding - growth areas of massive potential in the East of England
Luís Queiró (PPE-DE),por escrito. Portugal beneficiou substancialmente, durante os últimos anos, do Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional. É certo que podemos objectar, a nível nacional, a algumas - ou várias mesmo - das prioridades dos diferentes governos para a utilização desses fundos, assim como podemos manifestar o nosso lamento quanto aos efeitos produzidos, já que desejávamos mais e melhor. Isto dito, ainda assim devemos reconhecer o enorme efeito positivo que este Fundo teve para Portugal. Assim como nos devemos preocupar com as regras que se lhe vão aplicar nos próximos tempos. Deste modo, concordo com as preocupações manifestadas neste relatório, nomeadamente tendo em vista garantir uma equilibrada distribuição destes fundos, tendo presente a necessidade de fazer face ao alargamento já realizado - e aos futuros - sem com isso prejudicar os países e regiões menos favorecidas da UE, tendo particular atenção ao "enriquecimento estatístico" que não é enriquecimento e que, p!
ortanto, não pode ser entendido como tal.
David Martin, David (PSE),in writing. I welcome this report in general but am particularly pleased with the overwhelming support given to proposals to ensure non-discrimination and accessibility for 50 million disabled persons to goods and services, infrastructures, buildings and ICT funded by the new regulations for 2007-13.
The position adopted on Article 2 of the ERDF promoting social inclusion and recognising the need to remove barriers faced by disabled people in accessing goods and services in built up areas is particularly welcome.
Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PSE).– Madame la Présidente, c'est une journée dramatique et noire pour les nouveaux pays membres, qui fait l'objet d'une nouvelle discrimination.
En ce qui concerne les rapports Hatzidakis, Fava et Andria, on a changé les règles du jeu. On a changé et fortement restreint les possibilités d'utiliser les Fonds structurels pour les nouveaux pays membres avec le changement direct de la règle du jeu en ce qui concerne la règle N+2 pour le Fonds de cohésion, avec le refus de participation du secteur privé. C'est une discrimination à l'égard des autorités locales et des organisations civiles dans les nouveaux pays membres. Tous les députés des nouveaux pays membres ont voté unanimement pour défendre leur intérêt et c'est une discrimination, et un manque de solidarité du Parlement. C'est un très mauvais message à l'intention des nouveaux pays membres.
Luís Queiró (PPE-DE),por escrito. Entre os objectivos de base da União encontramos o reforço da coesão económica, social e territorial através da cooperação transfronteiriça, transnacional e inter-regional. Estas acções de cooperação favorecem simultaneamente a integração e o desenvolvimento equilibrado e harmonioso do território europeu.
Assim, a União tem vindo a criar instrumentos internos e externos para a cooperação transfronteiriça no interior da UE. São portanto, fundamentais as acções tomadas no âmbito da redução das dificuldades encontradas na gestão das acções de cooperação transfronteiriça, transnacional e inter-regional.
Apoio, assim, o relatório do colega OLBRYCHT para a introdução de um instrumento financeiro a nível comunitário que apoie a constituição, no território da UE, de agrupamentos cooperativos dotados de personalidade jurídica designados "agrupamento europeu de cooperação territorial" (AECT), por considerar que este instrumento poderá servir de forma relevante para o equilíbrio da coesão territorial na Europa.
Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE),in writing. The British Conservative party support the European Social Fund and in general the amendments made to the report by the rapporteur. In particular, the initial block vote of 80 amendments contained positive modifications looking to promote womens' participation in the labour market and promoting work-life balance. However, Conservatives do not support amendment 58 which looked to specifically promote capacity-building and the networking activities of NGOs.
Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL),por escrito. A resolução aprovada pelo Parlamento Europeu sobre o Fundo Social Europeu segue de perto a proposta da Comissão Europeia, com insistência na estratégia Estratégia Europeia para o Emprego e a Estratégia de Lisboa, embora num ou noutro aspecto tenha introduzido algumas alterações para incluir a experiência da Programa Equal, a igualdade de géneros, a luta contra a pobreza e maior atenção às questões da deficiência.
Mas, lamentavelmente não foram aprovadas quatro propostas que apresentámos, e que pretendiam, designadamente:
- promover a qualidade de trabalho em todas as vertentes para além da questão da formação e da aquisição de novas competências, nomeadamente promovendo a melhoria das condições de trabalho( da higiene e segurança, à saúde e ritmos de trabalho), relações contratuais estáveis, níveis salariais adequados, horários de trabalho compatíveis com a vida familiar;
- a necessidade de , tendo em conta a situação sócio-económica de cada Estado-membro e os desafios no domínio social que a União Europeia enfrenta, garantir uma ampla base de apoio, concentrando-se, em especial, no aumento das qualificações dos trabalhadores, na melhoria das condições de trabalho, no objectivo do pleno emprego de qualidade e com direitos e na luta contra a pobreza e a exclusão social.
Duarte Freitas (PPE-DE),por escrito. O Fundo Social Europeu tem desde sempre assumido um papel determinante no desenvolvimento da Europa, tendo-se no entanto verificado alguns redireccionamentos, ao longo do tempo, relativamente às suas áreas de intervenção.
A última proposta apresentada pela Comissão Europeia pode ser dividida em duas partes: Uma que propõe a modernização do modelo social europeu, através do investimento nas pessoas e outra que prevê a simplificação de textos e procedimentos.
Apesar de considerar a proposta da Comissão, uma boa proposta partilho da ideia que as acções do FSE não se devem apenas cingir às regiões pertencentes ao objectivo de convergência. Pelo contrário, julgo de que o apoio às pessoas deverá ser feito de forma não discriminatória. Desta forma apoio a emenda ao artigo 3°, ponto 1 que pretende alargar o âmbito de aplicação deste fundo, assim como o relatório do Deputado Silva Peneda no seu todo.
Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM),skriftlig. Många av betänkandets målsättningar om hållbar integration, social trygghet och ökad jämställdhet är eftersträvansvärda. Men dessa frågor sköts bäst på lägre beslutsnivåer, inte på EU-nivå.
För att kunna kontrollera EU:s tilltagande centralisering- och regleringsiver måste unionens uppgifter avgränsas och budgeten begränsas. Mot denna bakgrund kan vi inte stödja förslaget att tilldela Europeiska Socialfonden 336,2 miljarder euro från 2007 till 2013.
Richard Howitt (PSE),in writing. I strongly welcome a majority of the amendments adopted to the ESF regulation, aimed at using ESF funding to reinforce social inclusion and sustainable inclusion in the labour market. In particular, my own amendments which seek to improve accessibility for disabled persons in the workplace, and to train employers in equal opportunities recruitment, disability awareness and non-discrimination. I also welcome the adoption of my amendments that prioritise the involvement of local communities and enterprises and promoting local development initiatives, such as urban social projects, lifelong learning and active citizenship. Voluntary organisations at the grassroots level must be enabled to take part in our funding programmes. Finally, the emphasis on my amendments to supplement employment and growth criteria with social indicators such as skills deficits, numbers of elderly persons and lone parents - mean that pockets of poverty in otherwise relatively more prosperous regions !
like my own in the East of England can continue to have their needs heard at the European level.
Luís Queiró (PPE-DE),por escrito. O Fundo Social Europeu tem sido, ao longo de mais de quarenta anos, o instrumento financeiro da política social europeia, e tem sido, reconhecidamente, um instrumento com assinalável sucesso. De resto, Portugal é testemunha privilegiada desse facto.
Neste momento, quando os nossos esforços se devem concentrar para a realização efectiva dos objectivos da Estratégia de Lisboa, este Fundo assume uma muito especial importância. Portugal tem o maior interesse em que esta Estratégia definida em Lisboa seja levada a cabo, não por declarações de intenções sucessivas, mas sim por acções concretas, por uma definição realística de prioridades e por uma acção consequente. Nesse sentido, o que foi aqui proposto, quer pela Comissão quer pelo relator, merece o meu substancial apoio, por entender que ambos têm claramente presentes estas preocupações.
Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark och Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE),skriftlig. Vi moderater har idag förkastat Europaparlamentets förslag om den europeiska fiskerifonden. Vi anser att den europeiska fiskerifonden behöver en ordentlig omstrukturering vilket kommissionen föreslår. Däremot anser vi inte att fiskepolitiken behöver ökade anslag.
Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL),por escrito. Apesar de aspectos que consideramos positivos, dois factos levam a não votar favoravelmente esta resolução:
- a proposta de regulamento da Comissão para um Fundo Europeu para as Pescas traduz, do ponto de vista financeiro, as orientações da última revisão da Política Comum de Pescas em 2002, a qual mereceu a nossa oposição;
- o envelope financeiro proposto para o período de 2007-2013, de 4,9 mil milhões de euros (quase equivalente ao previsto na Agenda 2000 para uma UE a 15) é manifestamente insuficiente para responder aos desafios que se colocam ao sector da pesca e às regiões dependentes deste sector.
O aumento das verbas dedicadas a este Fundo é importante para garantir apoios à pequena pesca costeira e artesanal, investimentos na renovação e modernização da frota, medidas socio-económicas que acompanhem a redução do esforço da pesca, o financiamento dos planos de recuperação, apoios às actividade industrial, comercial e de aquicultura, assim como para garantir a participação dos pescadores e suas associações, em conexão com o princípio co-gestão.
Por último, lamentamos que as nossas propostas referentes ao financiamento das compensações à perda dos rendimentos dos pescadores afectados por um plano de recuperação e a equiparação para aos auxílios públicos à cessação definitiva entre proprietários e trabalhadores, tenham sido rejeitadas.
Carl Lang (NI),par écrit. – Ce n'est pas d'un nouvel instrument financier, hier IFOP, aujourd'hui fonds européen pour la pêche dont ont besoin les pêcheurs européens et français mais de perspectives d'avenir.
Le développement durable et le principe de précaution, principes généraux appliqués à la politique commune de la pêche, ne servent qu'à masquer une politique restrictive en matière de pêche, de zones et de jours de pêche et d'accords avec les pays tiers.
Sous prétexte de protéger la ressource, on supprime le pêcheur, telle est globalement la philosophie de la Commission européenne qui, par ailleurs, n'impose pas aux flottes non communautaires les mêmes contraintes et les mêmes charges qu'aux pêcheurs européens.
A rebours de cette politique, nous entendons favoriser le développement de la pêche française qui fait vivre indirectement 100 000 personnes afin de réduire notre déficit commercial et permettre aux pêcheurs de vivre de leur métier dans des conditions de travail et de sécurité optimum.
Luís Queiró (PPE-DE),por escrito. As autoridades portuguesas, tal como os representantes políticos portugueses nas instituições comunitárias, devem ter uma especial atenção à matéria das pescas. O mar voltou a ser, felizmente, compreendido como um dos vectores principais do desenvolvimento nacional, nele se incluindo, como é manifestamente óbvio, a questão das pescas. Nesse sentido, impunha-se que o relatório aqui em causa merecesse uma particular atenção da nossa parte, de forma a defender aqueles que são os nossos legítimos interesses, nomeadamente no que diz respeito à substituição das embarcações antigas, à extensão do âmbito das medidas destinadas à modernização da frota pesqueira, à protecção da pequena pesca, à aquicultura e à comercialização, e mesmo quanto ao âmbito geográfico, já que Portugal tem de ter presente o facto de que há grandes núcleos urbanos na zona costeira - pela natureza da nossa história e geografia - que nada justifica que sejam excluídos !
das ajudas comunitárias.
Como disse, foi em função destas principais preocupações que orientei o meu de voto.
Catherine Stihler (PSE),in writing. The Casa report reopens the CFP reforms negotiated in 2002. The EPLP cannot back the report due to the report's inclusion of issues such as boat modernisation and renewal and joint ventures. The use of public money to build new boats and therefore to increase capacity cannot be acceptable at a time when so many fish stocks are under threat. If the European Parliament is serious about sustainability then it is a sad day that so many have backed this report.
Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. A resolução aprovada, embora insatisfatória em alguns aspectos, procura actualizar o princípio da igualdade de direitos e oportunidades entre homens e mulheres na actividade profissional. Estas desigualdades de tratamento podem ocorrer, não só no local de trabalho, mas também no quadro do acesso ao emprego, à formação e à promoção profissionais, pelo que o acompanhamento das práticas deve englobar todos estes domínios.
É certo que os Estados-Membros deveriam, em colaboração com os parceiros sociais, lutar, contra o problema das persistentes diferenças salariais em razão do género e a segregação em razão do género no mercado de trabalho, através de medidas regulamentares que permitam, tanto aos homens como às mulheres, conciliar mais facilmente a vida familiar e vida profissional. Sabemos que tal implica medidas regulamentares adequadas em matéria de licença parental, de que possam beneficiar cada um dos progenitores, bem como a criação de serviços acessíveis e económicos para o acolhimento de crianças e a prestação de cuidados a pessoas dependentes.
Sabemos, igualmente, que a exigência de igualdade entre mulheres e homens pressupõe modificações aplicáveis a ambos, tanto às mulheres como aos homens. Torna-se, por isso, importante que os Estados-Membros, em colaboração com os parceiros sociais, garantam estratégias para tornarem a igualdade entre homens e mulheres uma realidade.
Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM),skriftlig. Vi stödjer fullt ut att kvinnor och män skall likabehandlas i arbetslivet. Detta är ett centralt område som internationella organisationer såsom ILO behandlar på ett förtjänstfullt sätt. Vi anser inte att EU skall reglera denna typ av frågor i långtgående betänkanden, som har karaktären av politiska program. Arbetstidsbestämmelser, föräldraledighet och andra betydelsefulla nationella frågor skall EU inte styra över. Detta sköter medlemsstaterna med fördel självständigt, i överrensstämmelse med redan antagna internationella avtal.
Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE),par écrit. – "Quand la Commission européenne prend des initiatives pour simplifier, renforcer la base juridique et codifier une législation communautaire, elle peut compter sur nous.
Cette initiative est pour moi réjouissante car il s'agit de la législation communautaire sur l'égalité de traitement et de chances des femmes et des hommes, développée depuis 1975. Malgré imperfections et applications défectueuses, cette législation a grandement contribué à réduire les discriminations dont les femmes ont été victimes, notamment sur le lieu de travail.
Appartenant à une génération qui a souffert de toutes les discriminations possibles et impossibles, j'apprécie à sa juste valeur les bienfaits de la politique communautaire d'égalité de traitement.
Bien sûr, en plus de la codification, elle pourrait faire l'objet d'innovations. Nos revendications pour l'améliorer ont été exposées ici, aussi en ce qui concerne les travailleurs indépendants et les conjoints aidants.
Notre rapporteur et moi-même avec d'autres collègues de mon groupe, avons eu un mal fou à contrecarrer des revendications abracadabrantes de certaines extrémistes, revendications qui sont contre-productives pour l'emploi et l'égalité des chances des femmes qu'elles prétendent vouloir promouvoir.
Nos amendements visent à ne pas retarder outre mesure l'adoption de cette importante législation en deuxième lecture en l'alignant sur l'orientation générale du Conseil."
Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE),por escrito. O princípio de igualdade de tratamento já está há décadas consagrado na legislação comunitária. No entanto, não foi possível, até à data, pôr efectivamente termo à desigualdade de tratamento entre homens e mulheres. O diferencial salarial entre homens e mulheres na União Europeia permanece, nos últimos anos, preocupantemente elevado, ainda que a taxa de emprego das mulheres tenha aumentado. O diferencial salarial específico do género na União Europeia continua a ser em média de 16%. Tal situação está, com frequência, directamente ligada à possibilidade de conciliar a vida familiar e profissional
Por isso, dou o meu apoio a este relatório sobre a proposta da Comissão que visa modernizar e simplificar a legislação comunitária no domínio da igualdade de tratamento ente homens e mulheres em matéria de emprego e de trabalho.
Saliento que os Estados-membros devem progredir na aplicação do direito comunitário, nomeadamente fomentando campanhas de informação para mudar as mentalidades na vida profissional. Por outro lado, os parceiros sociais podem desempenhar um papel decisivo promovendo regulamentação laboral flexível que permita tanto às mulheres como aos homens melhor conciliar a vida profissional e familiar.
Luís Queiró (PPE-DE),por escrito. A colega Niebler subscreve e apoia o objectivo fundamental estabelecido pela Comissão, isto é, simplificar e clarificar com a presente directiva o direito vigente. Concordo com a colega que esta nova versão da directiva constitui um desenvolvimento do direito comunitário em matéria de igualdade de tratamento entre homens e mulheres.
Apoio o relatório da colega Niebler que chama a atenção para a necessidade de se cumprir o objectivo de modernizar e simplificar a legislação comunitária no domínio da igualdade de tratamento entre homens e mulheres em matéria de emprego e de trabalho, a fim de garantir maior clareza e segurança jurídica.
Observa com acuidade a relatora que não foi possível, até à data, pôr efectivamente termo à desigualdade de tratamento entre homens e mulheres. As condições jurídicas existem no papel e ainda aguardamos, por conseguinte, os resultados que são fundamentais para os objectivos sociais da nossa Europa.
Bruno Gollnisch (NI),par écrit. – S'il est un domaine où les règles doivent être claires et sûres c'est bien le domaine juridique en matière d'obligations contractuelles. Et c'est tout le mérite du rapport de madame Wallis qui contribue à améliorer la sécurité juridique dans ce domaine.
Plutôt que de rechercher une unification artificielle de toutes les règles de droit, elle le fait en proposant d'harmoniser les règles de conflits de lois et de juridiction, ce qui est la bonne méthode, afin de déterminer quel droit doit s'appliquer, ce qui permet de combiner le paquet des règles nationales avec les exigences de la sécurité juridique.
En ce qui concerne les dommages résultant des atteintes portées par les médias à la réputation ou à la vie privée, il convient de souligner qu'en obtenir réparation est devenu extrêmement difficile. Le nécessaire droit de réponse en particulier tend à être violé de sa substance à cause des difficultés procédurales qu'il rencontre, au nom d'une interprétation abusive de la liberté de la presse. Dans ce contexte les solutions proposées sont raisonnables mais ne doivent pas restreindre le droit des personnes mises en cause. Nous voterons ce rapport.
Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM),skriftlig. Vi ställer oss i princip positiva till förslaget att skapa enhetliga lagvalsregler för förpliktelser som uppstår utanför avtalsförhållanden. Förslaget skulle komplettera Brysselförordningen om domstols behörighet och erkännande och verkställighet av domar på privaträttens område liksom Romkonventionen om tillämplig lag för avtalsförpliktelser. Detta bidrar till ökad rättssäkerhet och en väl fungerande inre marknad.
Dock anser vi att det är viktigt att säkerställa att förordningen inte kommer i konflikt med tryck- och yttrandefriheten. Sveriges grundlagsskyddade skydd för tryck- och yttrandefrihet måste bestå oförändrat. Det är heller inte lämpligt att utländsk lag tillämpas vid bedömningen av tillåtligheten av fackliga stridsåtgärder vidtagna enligt svensk lag på svenskt territorium.
På båda dessa områden är det dessutom tveksamt om det finns rättslig grund i EG-fördraget för en dylik reglering. Vi stödjer därför de ändringsförslag som medför att lagen i det land där aktionerna genomförs tillämpas på fackliga stridsåtgärder och tillbakavisar de ändringsförslag som medför oacceptabla ingrepp i nationella regler om tryck- och yttrandefrihet.
Luís Queiró (PPE-DE),por escrito. As questões ambientais estão no cerne das políticas para o futuro da Europa. Assim, melhorar o acesso do público às informações através da criação Registos das Emissões e Transferências de Poluentes (RETP), de âmbito nacional, será fundamental para se aceder, de forma transparente e coerente, a estas informações.
Jan Andersson, Anna Hedh, Ewa Hedkvist Petersen, Inger Segelström och Åsa Westlund (PSE),skriftlig. Vi röstade för betänkandet om mandatet för medlingsförfarandet för 2006 års budget inför rådets första behandling. Det utgör en god grund för den fortsatta budgetprocessen. Vi anser dock att EU-budgetens struktur måste bli mer modern. Detta kräver bland annat en reform av den gemensamma jordbrukspolitiken, med en sänkning av interventionspriserna på jordbruksmarknaderna, en minskning av direktstödet samt en gradvis övergång till nationell medfinansiering. En sänkning av beloppen för de internationella fiskeavtalen är också befogad. Dessutom anser vi att sammanhållningspolitiken bör fokusera på de nya medlemsstaternas behov.
Ole Christensen, Dan Jørgensen, Henrik Dam Kristensen, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen og Britta Thomsen (PSE),skriftlig. Vi stemmer for betænkningen om mandat med henblik på budgetsamrådsproceudren for regnskabsåret 2006.
Vi mener dog, at i fremtiden skal EU-budgettet reformeres og moderniseres. Dette kræver hovedsageligt reform af landbrugspolitikken. Vi mener, at beløbet afsat til landbrugsstøtten skal sænkes. Vi mener desuden, at samhørighedspolitikken hovedsagelig skal fokuserer på de nye medlemsstaters behov.
Ρόδη Κράτσα-Τσαγκαροπούλου (PPE-DE).– Κυρία Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να αναφερθώ στην έκθεση Bozkurt για την κατάσταση των γυναικών στην Τουρκία. Οι έντεκα ευρωβουλευτές της Νέας Δημοκρατίας υποστηρίξαμε την έκθεση και μάλιστα με ποικίλες και πολυάριθμες τροπολογίες μας λάβαμε μέρος στη διαμόρφωσή της.
Αποδίδουμε μεγάλη σημασία σε αυτή την έκθεση για διάφορους λόγους:
Πρώτον τονίζει ότι τα δικαιώματα των γυναικών είναι αναπόσπαστο κομμάτι των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων, του ευρωπαϊκού κεκτημένου και των υποχρεώσεων των υποψηφίων χωρών να το υιοθετήσουν και να το εφαρμόσουν. Δεύτερον, θέτει το πλαίσιο μέσα στο οποίο πρέπει να κινηθούμε στη διαπραγματευτική μας πορεία με την Τουρκία. Τονίζεται μάλιστα στην έκθεση αυτή ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή στην έκθεση που θα συντάξει και η οποία θα αποτελέσει το πλαίσιο των διαπραγματευτικών ενεργειών μεταξύ της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής και της Τουρκίας πρέπει να συμ�!
�εριλάβει και την κατάσταση των γυναικών και τις υποχρεώσεις της Τουρκίας σε αυτό το κομμάτι του κοινοτικού κεκτημένου.
Η επιφύλαξή μας αφορά τον ποινικό κώδικα, γι' αυτό καταψηφίσαμε την παράγραφο 4. Χαιρετίζουμε την εφαρμογή του αναφερόμενου ποινικού κώδικα, επισημαίνουμε όμως ότι αυτό αποτελεί ικανοποιητικό σημείο μέχρι αυτή τη στιγμή, πρέπει δε να ενθαρρύνουμε τα βήματα προς αυτή την κατεύθυνση.
Αλλά ο ποινικός κώδικας δεν αρκεί να εφαρμοσθεί, πρέπει και να αναθεωρηθεί, διότι δεν αναφέρεται στα εγκλήματα τιμής.
(Η Πρόεδρος διακόπτει την ομιλήτρια)
Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM),skriftlig. Vi anser att EU är en värderingsunion och att Turkiet ingår i dess närområde. Därför stödjer vi också betänkandet som syftar till att stärka kvinnornas roll i Turkiet.
Vi stödjer Turkiets närmande till EU, men anser att varken Turkiet eller EU i dag är mogna för en förening. Turkiet uppfyller bland annat inte kraven på mänskliga rättigheter för att kunna bli medlem. EU måste också förändras. Den stela byråkratiska strukturen och den kostsamma jordbrukspolitiken måste reformeras i grunden innan Turkiet kan bli medlem.
Marine Le Pen, Marine (NI),par écrit. – Ce rapport, ou plutôt ce réquisitoire, devrait suffire à prouver à tous les partisans d'une Europe sans frontière, sans culture et sans passé, que la Turquie n'est pas un pays européen et que notre modèle démocratique occidental n'est pas forcément partagé par une nation qui est sensible à d'autres héritages.
Ce rapport dresse la liste de toutes les atteintes graves en matière de droits de la femme commises par l'Etat Turc, qu'il s'agisse des violences diverses, de l'accès des femmes au marché du travail ou de leur absence dans les organes de représentation politique. Ce rapport met aussi en évidence le système discriminatoire qui, dès le plus jeune âge, cantonne la femme dans un rôle accessoire et soumis. Enfin, il apparaît que la Turquie maintienne un système d'oppression des minorités, notamment des communautés Kurdes.
Les avancées modestes décidées par le Gouvernement Turc en la matière et les difficultés rencontrées sur le terrain pour les faire appliquer, ne permettent pas de remplir les conditions par ailleurs insuffisantes pour adhérer à l'Union européenne.
Dans ces conditions et après avoir pris acte des résultats instructifs des référendums français et néerlandais, nous demandons l'arrêt immédiat des négociations d'adhésion avec la Turquie.
David Martin, David (PSE),in writing. I voted for this report which draws attention to the situation of women in Turkey. It rightly notes that Turkish women face economic hardship, a high rate of violence against them and a low rate of participation in politics - only 44 of Member's of parliament are women.
However, it is also correct to note that the situation is improving and recent legislative reforms, especially in the Penal Code, have improved the situation.
Andreas Mölzer (NI),schriftlich. Mit ihren Anstrengungen zur Verbesserung der Lage der Frauen versucht die türkische Regierung sich westlichen Standards zu nähern. Von den ihnen gesetzlich zuerkannten Rechten, profitieren diese im unterschiedlichen Ausmaß: Während die Gleichstellung in elitären Gruppen verwirklicht scheint, hat sich in der breiten Unterschicht noch nicht viel getan. Im Gegenteil, da ihnen oft die Vorteile der staatlich initiierten Modernisierung verwehrt bleiben, bekennen sich immer mehr zu islamistischen Parteien, die vermeintliche „Lösungen“ anbieten und damit einen Auftrieb erleben.
Als kontraproduktiv erweisen sich in diesem Zusammenhang mehrere Faktoren: Zum einen wurde bzw. wird politisches uns soziales Engagement nur gefördert, solange es die Beziehung zwischen den Geschlechtern nicht in Frage stellt, sprich sich die Frauen weiterhin unterordnen. Weiters ist es problematisch, dass die fehlenden sozialen Kontakte zwischen den verschiedenen ethnischen und religiösen Gruppierungen bzw. den einzelnen Schichten zu verhärteten Fronten unter den Frauen geführt haben.
Zudem spricht es von Geringschätzung, wenn der Staat weibliche Arbeitslose nicht in offiziellen Statistiken anführt, weil man davon ausgeht, dass diese ihre „normale Stellung“ als Hausfrau wieder einnehmen. Damit wird nicht nur die eigene Vorbildwirkung unterbunden, sondern entsteht auch ein verfälschtes Bild, welches es im Hinblick auf Beitrittsverhandlungen noch genauer zu betrachten gilt.
Ρόδη Κράτσα-Τσαγκαροπούλου (PPE-DE),γραπτώς. – Addition, as last paragraph to the oral explanation of vote already made by Ms Kratsa after the votes
of the 06/07/05:
Οι ευρωβουλευτές της Ν.Δ. καταψηφίσαμε την παράγραφο 4 η οποία επιδοκιμάζει την τουρκική κυβέρνηση για τις πρόσφατες νομικές αλλαγές με τις οποίες τα εγκλήματα τιμής τιμωρούνται με ισόβια κάθειρξη ενώ προβλέπεται επίσης η τιμωρία των συνενόχων και συνεργών στα εγκλήματα τιμής. Η παράγραφος αυτή δεν αποτυπώνει την πραγματικότητα γιατί δυστυχώς τα εγκλήματα τιμής ακόμη δεν προβλέπονται ρητώς στον νέο Ποινικό Κώδικα, ενώ η ποινή των ισοβίων δύναται να μετριασθεί από 12 έως 24 έτη (άρθρο 29 του Π.Κ.).
Στόχος μας είναι να ενθαρρύνουμε την Τουρκία στην εξέλιξη της νομοθεσίας και της νοοτροπίας σύμφωνα με το ευρωπαϊκό κεκτημένο και να επισημάνουμε τα κενά που υπάρχουν σήμερα και τις υποχρεώσεις που δημιουργούνται στην πορεία προς τη δημοκρατία.
Περιμένουμε από την Τουρκία νέες νομοθετικές ρυθμίσεις και πολιτικές πρακτικές
για την προστασία των δικαιωμάτων των γυναικών και την απάλειψη όλων των διακρίσεων από το νομοθετικό, κοινωνικό, πολιτικό και οικονομικό επίπεδο.
Proinsias De Rossa (PSE),in writing. I agree with the general approach of Rapporteur Dimitrakopoulos on EU-Iraq relations which contains a serious and realistic assessment of the present situation in Iraq, including a great concern over the deteriorating security. The Report also incorporates key PES demands for the EU and its Member States to promote a new UN Security Council Resolution on Iraq which would lead to a decision on "substitution of foreign troops in Iraq by a UN peace-keeping force", the withdrawal "to be progressively implemented following a clear timetable."
I consider that Amendments 10, 11, 12, and 13 are vital to a balanced and acceptable way forward.
Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM),skriftlig. FN har en viktig roll i återuppbyggnaden av Irak och för att se till att demokratiska institutioner etableras. Vi stödjer de delar av betänkandet som betonar FN:s roll i byggandet av ett demokratiskt och stabilt Irak.
Samtidigt är det tydligt att betänkandet syftar till att stärka EU:s utrikes- och säkerhetspolitiska mandat. Ett stärkande av EU inom detta område riskerar att leda till en försvagning av FN. Därför väljer vi att rösta nej till betänkandet i sin helhet.
Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL),por escrito. Este relatório silencia a ignóbil agressão dos EUA e seus aliados ao Iraque, os mais de cem mil mortos, a destruição, os assassínios, a opressão e a tortura que as tropas invasoras infligem.
Um relatório que quer fazer esquecer o "passado" (que afinal é o presente brutal). Que apela a uma dita "gestão de conflitos", ou seja, a guerra de agressão, "mais multilateral". Que equipara a legitima resistência do povo iraquiano ao "terrorismo". Que escamoteia a tortura perpetrada pelos EUA, designando-a de "violação de direitos". Que, hipocritamente, pede aos vizinhos do Iraque para não se ingerirem nos assuntos deste país, sem uma palavra de condenação da agressão e ocupação pelos EUA. Que ambiciona a partilhar esta mesma ocupação e saque com os EUA, sob o "chapéu" da ONU. Que num inaceitável acto de ingerência advoga a implantação do capitalismo, dos seus instrumentos e políticas.
Ou seja, para as forças dominantes do PE, há que ultrapassar desentendimentos pontuais entre a UE e os EUA, demonstrando que a tendência é para o compromisso, em nome dos interesses do grande capital, e para o recuo diante das pretensões hegemónicas dos EUA, subalternizando e manipulando a ONU e reservando-lhe um papel assistencialista.
Daí o nosso voto contra!
David Martin, David (PSE),in writing. I support the Rapporteur's efforts to move the debate on Iraq away from the rights and wrongs of the war and the pre-war situation in the Country, onto an analysis of the present situation and the future of Iraq.
The report clearly condemns all forms of terrorism and acts of violence. I welcome its references to the need for respect of international legality and for relevant international covenants of human rights, the respect of women's rights and all minorities in the Country and the condemnation of the violations of prisoner's rights in Abu Grahib prison
The report suggests a series of workable measures for the humanitarian, social and economic rehabilitation of the Country.
Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL),schriftlich. Angriffskrieg gegen Irak legitimiert: Die dem EU-Parlament zur Entscheidung vorgelegte Resolution "über ein zunehmendes Engagement der EU im Irak" weist den Weg in eine völlig falsche Richtung. So ist festgehalten, dass man "sich von den Ereignissen der Vergangenheit" lösen möchte. Dabei wurden alle Verweise, dass keine Massenvernichtungswaffen im Irak gefunden wurden, schon im Vorfeld abgeschmettert. Dass die USA und ihre Verbündeten einen Angriffskrieg gegen den Irak geführt haben, soll offensichtlich in Vergessenheit geraten. Zugleich ruft die Resolution zur "Unterstützung der aktiven Schritte der Europäischen Union zusammen mit den irakischen Behörden im Kampf gegen Terrorismus" auf, ohne auch nur einen Satz zu möglichen Ursachen zu verlieren. Von der EU sollen künftig noch mehr finanzielle Mittel bereitgestellt werden. Tatsache ist, dass die bisherigen Mittel zum Teil vom World Bank Trust und nicht in ihrer Gesamtheit von den Vereinten Nationen verwaltet we!
rden; und weiterhin, dass der World Bank Trust bisher nur einen geringen Teil der ihm zur Verfügung stehenden Mittel auch tatsächlich eingesetzt hat. Eine transparente Rechungslegung der irakischen Behörden ist zudem schlicht Fehlanzeige. Eine Kontrolle wohin das Geld der europäischen Steuerzahlerinnen und Steuerzahler fließt, ist somit nicht möglich. Auf dieser Grundlage kann ein demokratischer Wiederaufbau des Irak nicht gewährleistet werden.
Luís Queiró (PPE-DE),por escrito. Votei favoravelmente a versão final deste relatório por ter verificado que o conjunto de emendas introduzidas ao referido relatório o melhorava substancialmente. Não é este o momento para regressar à discussão sobre a intervenção militar no Iraque - matéria sobre a qual tive ocasião de expor o meu pensamento. Neste momento o que interessa é discutir o que deve ser o papel da União Europeia nesta fase da vida política do Iraque. Ora, é meu entendimento que a UE deve agir em cooperação com os seus tradicionais aliados e em sintonia com as autoridades iraquianas, tendo presente a enorme coragem do povo iraquiano que respondeu afirmativamente à chamada às urnas apesar das enormes ameaças dos terroristas que continuam a operar em parte do território iraquiano. Entendo ainda que, evidentemente, toda esta cooperação deve acontecer de acordo a política das Nações Unidas para aquele país.
Em suma, entendo e defendo que a União Europeia deve cooperar, sem hesitação, com as legítimas autoridades iraquianas, e opor-se com clareza aos que insistem na desestabilização pela força do país. A existência de divergências sobre a intervenção militar não justifica divergências quanto ao apoio à população iraquiana que é hoje vítima de grupos de terroristas.
Catherine Stihler (PSE),in writing. To be consistent with previous votes on Iraq, I have abstained on the whole report and all amendments. This report is badly drafted and detracts from the main issue before the House today which is 'Making Poverty History'.
Γεώργιος Τούσσας (GUE/NGL),γραπτώς. – Η έκθεση για το Ιράκ εκφράζει τις προσπάθειες της ΕΕ να δημιουργήσει προϋποθέσεις ώστε να πάρει μεγαλύτερο μέρος στο μοίρασμα της περιοχής.
Ήδη από τη Σύνοδο Κορυφής της Αθήνας το 2004 και τα μετέπειτα ψηφίσματα-αποφάσεις, η ΕΕ νομιμοποίησε τον ιμπεριαλιστικό πόλεμο κατά του Ιράκ, αναγνώρισε την κατοχική κυβέρνηση, αποδεικνύοντας πως με τις ΗΠΑ έχουν ενιαία ιμπεριαλιστική πολιτική κατά των λαών. Αυτό εκφράζεται άλλωστε και με την έγκριση από την ΕΕ του σχεδίου των ΗΠΑ-ΝΑΤΟ για την Ευρύτερη Μέση Ανατολή, το οποίο επιχειρεί να ελέγξει τις πλουτοπαραγωγικές πηγές και τις χώρες της περιοχής για να διασφαλίσει τα συμφέροντα των πολυεθνικών, του κεφαλαίου και την ιμπεριαλιστική !
κυριαρχία. Ταυτόχρονα οξύνονται οι ανταγωνισμοί ανάμεσα στους ιμπεριαλιστές για εξασφάλιση μεγαλύτερου κομματιού από τη λεία.
Δεν μπορεί να υπάρξει λύση σε όφελος του Ιρακινού λαού, όσο υπάρχει ξένη επέμβαση και κατοχή από τα αμερικανο-ευρωπαϊκά στρατεύματα.
Καταψηφίζουμε την έκθεση απαιτώντας την άμεση αποχώρηση των κατοχικών στρατευμάτων ως προϋπόθεση για να εξευρεθεί λύση από το λαό του Ιράκ, που είναι ο μόνος αρμόδιος να καθορίσει το μέλλον του.
Να αποζημιωθεί το Ιράκ για τις καταστροφές που έχει υποστεί και να πληρώσουν οι ΗΠΑ και οι σύμμαχοί τους, που εξαπέλυσαν τον άδικο, ιμπεριαλιστικό πόλεμο.
Είναι αδιαπραγμάτευτο το δικαίωμα των λαών να καθορίζουν το μέλλον τους.
Proinsias De Rossa (PSE),in writing. I fully support this Joint motion. It is totally unacceptable that extreme poverty affects over one billion people, and that in sub-Saharan Africa about 300 million people live in absolute poverty and millions of people die each year from a lack of health care, clean water, decent housing and adequate nutrition.
There is an opportunity for the EU and its Member States to demonstrate leadership on poverty and fair trade at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles, at the MDGs Conference in New York in September and at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong in December.
Attaining the MDGs and combating global poverty will require all donors to increase the quantity and improve the quality of aid, make trade fairer and abolish unsustainable debt.
Glyn Ford (PSE),in writing. I spoke in our plenary meeting in Luxembourg all those years ago in support of the first Live Aid event. Today we have just seen the enormous upwelling of support again following Live 8 for Making Poverty History. Yet politicians have failed to deliver, with almost a billion people in the world living on less than one euro a day. Words are not enough; we need action. The Globalisation Intergroup in Parliament, which I chair, has over 100 members. We commit ourselves to pursuing fair trade and further aid here in Parliament. This will require enormous resources. We believe one source will be through promoting a capital transfer tax. France and Belgium have already passed the necessary legislation and Italy is considering the same. I call on all other Member States to look urgently to emulating them and, in doing so, to raise enough funds to provide basic housing, healthcare, sanitation and education for all those living on less than one euro a day.
Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM),skriftlig. Vi stödjer helhjärtat kampen mot global fattigdom. Vi anser att EU kan ge ett värdefullt bidrag i denna angelägna kamp genom att verka för en radikal reform av unionens protektionistiska handelspolitik, avveckla EU:s destruktiva fiskeriavtal med tredjeländer och genom att upphöra med att utbetala exportbidrag till europeiska producenter av produkter såsom till exempel mjölk och socker. Resolutionen innehåller dock ytterst begränsade formuleringar vad gäller denna typ av brådskande reformer.
Vår uppfattning är att EU inte skall arbeta med biståndsfrågor, utan att denna typ av betydelsefulla frågor skall handhas av respektive medlemsstat. Den internationella samordningen av biståndsinsatser skall ske inom ramarna för organisationer med lång erfarenhet och bred legitimitet, såsom genom FN och denna organisations organ.
David Martin, David (PSE),in writing. I warmly welcome this resolution as a further step towards the realisation of the Millennium Development Goals, especially with regard to the G8 Summit currently being held in Gleneagles and the UK Presidency of the EU.
I particularly support the resolution's call on the UK to use its Presidency of the G8 to put poverty at the heart of the international as well as the European agenda, and for Member States to underline their commitment to the eradication of poverty by seizing the opportunities offered in the coming months.
Whilst focus on development policy must remain a key feature of the European Union after 2005, I strongly believe we must also be careful to maintain a balanced approach to the eradication of poverty, using Trade as central tool.
Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL),schriftlich.Europäische Armutsbekämpfung: Letzte Woche in Paris. Hunderttausende demonstrierten gegen die kurzfristige Verschiebung der Wahlen. Polizeitruppen gingen gegen die Demonstranten vor. Es kam zu mehren Toten. Nahezu einmütig verurteilte das EU-Parlament das Vorgehen der Sicherheitskräfte. Umgehend wurde ein Untersuchungsausschuss eingesetzt, der feststellen soll, ob auch von der EU ausgebildete Polizeieinheiten an Tötungen von Demonstranten beteiligt waren. Zugleich beschloss das EU-Parlament umgehend alle EU-Militärberater aus Frankreich abzuberufen.
Diese Geschichte ist wahr, bis auf einige kleine Details. Am 30. Juni sind Armee und Polizei in der kongolesischen Hauptstadt Kinshasa mit Gewalt gegen Demonstranten, die einem Aufruf von Oppositionsparteien zu friedlichen Protesten gegen die Verschiebung der Wahlen gefolgt waren, vorgegangen. Nach Agenturberichten gab es mehrere Tote. Zudem wurde der Ausnahmezustand verhängt.
Die Europäische Union bildet zur Zeit im Kongo Polizeitruppen (EUPOL Kinshasa) aus, die auch in Kinshasa eingesetzt werden. Außerdem sind seit dem 8. Juni 2005 EU-Militärberater (EUSEC D.R. Kongo) im "Büro des Verteidigungsministers" und "im Generalstab" tätig
Selbstverständlich trat das EU-Parlament zu keiner Sondersitzung zusammen. Es wurde auch kein Untersuchungsausschuss eingesetzt, um zum klären, ob von der EU ausgebildete Polizeitruppen an den Tötungen beteiligt waren. Die EU-Militärberater sind weiter an höchster Stelle in der D.R. Kongo tätig.
Luís Queiró (PPE-DE),por escrito. É nosso dever, tal como é do nosso interesse, promover o desenvolvimento das condições de vida a nível mundial. Acontece que há vários anos que um conjunto assinalável de iniciativas de luta contra a pobreza não tem produzido os resultados desejados, nem sequer resultados mínimos que seria de esperar. É verdade que há países e regiões do mundo onde esse combate tem tido resultados que podemos classificar de positivos, não porque se tenha eliminado a pobreza - longe disso - mas porque têm revelado ir na direcção correcta. Tal tem acontecido em partes da Ásia ou da América Latina. Lamentavelmente, não é a situação generalizada em África, onde o nosso esforço tem de ser redobrado, mas tem de ter uma correspondência a nível local. É impossível ajudar quem não deixa que se ajude o seu povo, quem o prejudica, quem promove todas as causas de pobreza, designadamente a corrupção. Por essa razão, defendo que as iniciativas apoiadas pela União Europ!
eia devem associar a luta contra à pobreza com a luta pela criação de condições de desenvolvimento local, nomeadamente a promoção da democracia, da liberdade, o respeito pelos direitos humanos, e a economia de mercado. Dar dinheiro (ou perdoar dívidas) não basta nem é um caminho sempre promissor. Temos de fazer e conseguir mais, e sobretudo melhor.
Catherine Stihler (PSE),in writing. The 'Make Poverty History' campaign has placed the plight of the world's poorest at centre stage. There is an opportunity, as the G8 begins its deliberations today in Scotland, to make real progress on Africa and climate change. I hope the leaders will grasp this 'thistle' and make a real difference to those most in need.
Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM),skriftlig. Junilistan stödjer den svenska regeringens krav på att sammanhållningsstödet skall minskas från de föreslagna 336,1 till knappt 200 miljarder euro i budgetplanen för 2007-2013. Rapporterna borde handla om hur man lämpligast reducerar utgifterna för att kunna närma sig G6-ländernas krav på en budget som inte överstiger 1,00% av medlemsstaternas BNI.
Grunden för all sammanhållningspolitik måste vara att stödet skall gå till de allra fattigaste länderna. Idag går alldeles för mycket pengar till fattiga regioner i relativt rika länder. Dagens system är inte bara orättvist mot de fatigaste länderna, systemet kan även framstå som cyniskt eftersom rika länder inte själva tillåts hjälpa mindre välställda regioner på samma sätt som man skulle kunna göra om merparten av sammanhållningspolitiken åternationaliserades.
(Die Sitzung wird um 14.15 Uhr unterbrochen und um 15.05 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)
24. A szavazatok helyesbítései: lásd a jegyzőkönyvet
PRZEWODNICZY: J. ONYSZKIEWICZ Wiceprzewodniczący
25. Az előző ülés jegyzőkönyvének elfogadása: lásd a jegyzőkönyvet
26. A Balkán jövője tíz évvel Szrebrenica után
Przewodniczący. Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego są oświadczenia Rady i Komisji dotyczące przyszłości Bałkanów dziesięć lat po Srebrenicy.
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, I am delighted to be here at the European Parliament at the start of the British Presidency of the European Union. The next six months will be a critical time for many of the western Balkan states. As Minister for Europe, I am looking forward to pursuing the inherited agenda and working to help the countries of the region move further along the road to Europe.
Next week – as recognised by the title of this debate – marks the tenth anniversary of the massacre at Srebrenica in July 1995. Seven to eight thousand Muslim men and women were killed in cold blood in the worst act of genocide in Europe since 1945. We recognise that the international community failed to realise what was happening until it was too late and failed in its duty to protect innocent civilians, unarmed men, women and children. However, whatever the sins of omission of the international community, which we deeply regret at this time of sadness and remembrance, let us not forget the sins of commission by the attacking Bosnian Serb forces. The ultimate responsibility lies with those who murdered, raped and tortured in cold blood.
As we all know, some have already been tried and found guilty of their part in these atrocities, others have been acquitted. But those held most responsible – Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic – are still at large as fugitives from justice. Ten years on from this terrible event, it is surely time for the authorities in the region – in Serbia and Montenegro, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in Croatia – to grasp the nettle and meet their international obligations to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. But it is also time for them to honour their obligations to their people to remove the outstanding obstacles to them taking their rightful place within the European family of nations. I call upon all those in a position to make a difference to work together to remove this poison from the body politic, and to hand over all outstanding fugitives indicted for war crimes so that they may face justice in The Hague.
It is also a privilege, in taking over the European Union Presidency at this time, to be faced with so much hope and, indeed, opportunity. Croatia is on the cusp of opening accession negotiations to become a full member of the European Union, only ten years after the end of the war in 1995. As the European Council has made clear on a number of occasions, it is Zagreb’s responsibility to remove the one outstanding obstacle to these negotiations: the continuing failure to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. As the European Union Presidency, we stand ready to open negotiations as soon as the Council is satisfied that this obligation has been met. Clearly, the easiest way to overcome this obstacle would be to arrest and hand over the fugitive Ante Gotovina.
It would be a sign of our commitment to all the western Balkan countries and to the Thessaloniki commitments that they are all prospective candidates if we were able to open accession negotiations during our Presidency. But the ball lies firmly in Zagreb’s court.
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has also made much progress since the outbreak of ethnic conflict in 2001. Whilst there is still work to do to implement fully the terms of the Ohrid Framework Agreement, later this year the Commission will publish its opinion on the Republic’s application to join the European Union submitted last year. As with any other applicant, full compliance with the Copenhagen criteria is a precondition. We look forward to assisting the authorities in Skopje in making further progress on the terms of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement, especially in targeting corruption and organised crime and implementing economic and judicial reform.
The timing of opening negotiations will depend on the authorities’ commitment to tackling these issues in deed as well as in word. In Albania, it would appear that the recent elections passed in a generally peaceful manner. While the count continues, we urge all political forces to respect the due electoral process and resist premature judgements on the outcome. Nevertheless, we hope that a new government can be formed as soon as possible to ensure that Albania can continue her progress towards a stabilisation and association agreement. In this respect, the new government will need to tackle the endemic problems of corruption and organised crime and implement judicial reform if it is to fulfil its European aspirations which we fully support. One of the greatest challenges we face, of course, is Kosovo. The time is fast approaching when we should address the difficult and sensitive issue of Kosovo’s final status. Any outcome must work for all of Kosovo’s communities an!
d reinforce regional stability. That is why the contact group and the European Union have both ruled out any return to the status quo ante-1999 or any internal partition of Kosovo. Neither would serve the interests of the people of Kosovo or the region.
As for independence, that is clearly one option. But I would remind those who advocate independence that they must convince all communities and the world at large that independence can work and that the rights of Kosovo’s minorities as well as those who have yet to return to Kosovo after the violence of 1999 will be fully respected. If the people of Kosovo wish to join the European mainstream, they must learn to live together as equals, respecting their differences.
The current comprehensive review of standards is therefore a critical challenge. How positive the review will be depends on progress on the ground. Its outcome is not a foregone conclusion. I recognise that there has been real progress with standards implementation, but more needs to be done. A failure to demonstrate commitment for further work in key areas would not bode well for a positive outcome to the comprehensive review. The future is therefore in the hands of the Kosovo authorities in Pristina. In the meantime, the European Union has an important role to play in supporting further progress, in particular in the area of economic development.
Serbia and Montenegro have clearly made great strides in the last six months. In April, the European Commission concluded a positive feasibility study recommending that the European Union open negotiations with Serbia and Montenegro on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. The Council of Ministers has accepted this recommendation and invited the Commission to prepare a negotiating mandate. This is an important step for Serbia and Montenegro’s progress towards European Union integration.
By 5 October, which marks the fifth anniversary of the democratic changes in Belgrade, or by the tenth anniversary of the Dayton-Paris Accords in November at the latest, we would like Serbia and Montenegro to have begun negotiations for a stabilisation and association agreement. But cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal must continue to improve and in this respect Mladic and Karadzic are key, all the more so in light of the anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre, which we will commemorate next week.
I would also like to underline the importance of dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina in the interests of all the people of Kosovo. Only through participation in the democratic institutions of government can Kosovar Serbs ensure that their concerns are taken into account. We have welcomed Belgrade’s decision to encourage the Kosovar Serbs to participate in the decentralisation working groups and look to Belgrade to carry this through.
Bosnia and Herzegovina have also recently made important progress towards the opening of negotiations on a stabilisation and association agreement with the European Union. This prize is within Bosnia and Herzegovina’s grasp but will remain out of reach until it has met the relevant conditions, which include agreeing on police restructuring, reforming public broadcasting and demonstrating full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
We would like Bosnia and Herzegovina to open SAA negotiations under our Presidency by the tenth anniversary of the Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement, but that requires further progress by the Bosnian authorities to meet the feasibility study priorities.
I have attempted today to summarise the present situation regarding our priorities for the Western Balkan countries over the next six months. There are certainly big challenges ahead, but let me end on a note of optimism.
In the last ten years so much has changed for the better: free and fair elections have been held throughout the region; changes of government via the ballot box are routine; large-scale conflict no longer threatens; countries of the region work together to improve the lives of their citizens. The European Union and other international partners are united in working with the region to maintain stability and create prosperity. The dark days of the early 1990s seem predominantly to be a distant memory. But as we move further down the road to closer integration between the western Balkan countries and the European Union, it is up to the countries concerned to make their cases irrefutable.
We understand that the European Union’s commitment to the regions has to be honoured and we undertake to do so. But during this time of introspection within the European Union and of uncertainty about its future shape and direction, it is all the more important that the countries of the region fulfil their own commitments, not in the interests of the European Union – although that is important – but for the sake of their people who for far too long suffered at the hands of those who claimed to represent their interests but who in fact only fomented hostility and strife.
(Applause)
President. Thank you, Minister. I should like to congratulate you on winning the contest for hosting the Olympic Games. I hope – and I am sure everybody here feels the same – that it will be not only a world event, a British event, but also a European event.
Olli Rehn,Member of the Commission. Mr President, almost 10 years ago to the day, on 11 July 1995, Srebrenica fell. No-one should ever forget the horrors that unfolded during the following days and weeks. We have a duty to remember so that we will see no other Srebrenicas; so that ethnic hatred and destructive nationalism will be definitively buried in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the Balkans and in the whole of Europe.
I shall go to the commemoration ceremony in Srebrenica next week to honour the victims and their families. I shall go there to express Europe’s support for peace, reconciliation and democratic development and for the European future of the Western Balkans. I also expect all the parties to ensure that the ceremony will be a dignified event and will contribute to the reconciliation process. Reconciliation is a very painful process after a devastating war like this, after violations of the most fundamental human rights, but it is also a necessary process. The European Union, as the greatest peace and reconciliation project, can testify to that and serve as an example of what can be achieved, including in the Balkans.
Justice is an essential element of reconciliation. There can be no reconciliation until war crime suspects are held accountable in a court of law. In this respect, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the ICTY, plays a crucial role. The countries’ cooperation with the ICTY has steadily improved, which is an encouraging sign, but more remains to be done to achieve full cooperation. Only then can this very sad chapter in the region’s history be truly closed.
The people carrying the main responsibility for the Srebrenica massacre are still at large. This is unacceptable. Mladić and Karadžić should have no place in the region. Their place is in The Hague.
(Applause)
The European Union has major responsibilities in ensuring peace and stability and enhancing democracy and prosperity on our continent. This is what the European Union is all about.
As Mr Alexander stated regarding the EU’s policy in the Western Balkans on behalf of the Presidency, the inclusion of our Balkan neighbours in the European integration process has been a powerful incentive for enhancing stability, human rights, the rights of minorities and the rule of law in the region. This is no small achievement, and we must make this perspective firm and tangible and thus ensure steady progress towards the respect of European values.
An important and intensive period for the Balkans lies ahead of us. The Kosovo standards review is a work in progress and the status talks are likely to start in the autumn. The prompt resolution of this issue is very important for the stability and progress of the whole region. We are about to open negotiations on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Serbia and Montenegro. The Commission is ready to contribute to the timeline Mr Alexander presented, i.e. this autumn, to get the negotiations started.
We also aim to start negotiations with Bosnia and Herzegovina soon, as long as the country fulfils the remaining criteria. When we have fully examined the conduct of last Sunday’s elections in Albania, we can determine the future pace in the negotiations on a Stablisation and Association Agreement with Albania as well.
The Commission’s opinion on the membership application of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is under preparation. We are also looking forward to opening accession negotiations with Croatia, as soon as the one remaining condition is satisfied.
We are all aware of the serious problems that we are presently facing in the European Union. It is only natural that enlargement policy will be a part of the broader debate on the future of Europe. I was therefore satisfied that the June European Council very clearly confirmed the Union’s existing commitments on enlargement policy and on the European perspective of the Western Balkans. This was very wise. Our enlargement policy has helped transform countries in regions that are still very fragile. We shall continue to help them to become stable, democratic and prosperous societies able to join the Union. The building of a better future for the Western Balkans is indeed the best way to commemorate the victims of Srebrenica. It serves the cause of peace, stability and prosperity in Europe, and our own vital interests.
I am looking forward to continuing to work closely with European Parliament and its relevant committees to this end.
(Applause)
Doris Pack, im Namen der PPE-DE-Fraktion.– Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Srebrenica steht für ein gebrochenes Versprechen nach 1945: Nie wieder Massenmord! Zehn Jahre nach Srebrenica müssen sich auch die westlichen Regierungen fragen, warum sie nicht rechtzeitig eingegriffen und Vertreibung, Mord und Krieg verhindert haben. Anfang der neunziger Jahre haben sie sich abgewandt und Milošević, Karadžić und Mladić freie Hand gelassen, Menschen zu vertreiben, zu vergewaltigen und letztlich, wie in Srebrenica, grausam zu töten. In Srebrenica, haben kriminelle Serben Tausende Muslime feige abgeschlachtet, unter den Augen einer unzureichend mandatierten UNO-Truppe.
Wir gedenken heute dieses Massakers und fordern alle auf, Anstrengungen zu unternehmen, um die Verantwortlichen und feigen Flüchtigen, Karadžić und Mladić, an das Tribunal auszuliefern. Ohne das wird eine Versöhnung in Bosnien und Herzegowina nicht möglich sein. Dass hohe serbische Politiker an der Gedenkfeier in Srebrenica teilnehmen, ist gut. Aber sie sollten auch verhindern, dass manche serbische Politiker die serbischen Opfer der kriegerischen Auseinandersetzungen Bosnien-Herzegowina mit den Opfern in Srebrenica gleichsetzen und aufrechnen. Dass das serbische Parlament und das Parlament der Republika Srpska nicht in der Lage waren, diese Massaker zu verurteilen, ist ein Zeichen von Unreife und Verstocktheit. Wie soll das serbische Volk dies tun, wenn ihm seine Vertreter nicht mit gutem Beispiel vorangehen?
Dieser Tag ist Anlass, gerade die Serben daran zu erinnern, dass Versöhnung nur möglich ist, wenn man eine eigene Schuld auch anerkennt. Als Deutsche weiß ich, wovon ich rede. Auch uns hat man verhältnismäßig kurze Zeit nach dem Krieg auch wieder die Hand gereicht, weil wir uns zu unserer Verantwortung für die Untaten, die in deutschem Namen geschehen sind, bekannt haben. So wenig, wie damals alle Deutschen schuld waren, so sind es heute alle Serben. Deswegen sollten die politisch Verantwortlichen, die Religionsvertreter und die Medien alles tun, um eine Aussöhnung zu ermöglichen. Die EU darf aber in ihren Bemühungen und ihrer Verantwortung nicht nachlassen, den Ländern in der Region zu helfen, die tragische Vergangenheit hinter sich zu lassen und eine bessere Zukunft anzuvisieren.
Gerade die jungen Menschen der Region haben es verdient, dass wir sie nicht im Stich lassen. Doch gerade ihre Politiker und ihre Eltern und Großeltern haben die Pflicht, für sie den Weg zu ebnen, die Verbrechen in Srebrenica Verbrechen zu nennen und die Hand zur Versöhnung auszustrecken.
(Beifall)
Hannes Swoboda, im Namen der PSE-Fraktion.– Herr Präsident! Mit Betroffenheit, ja mit Scham gedenken wir der Opfer des Massakers von Srebrenica. Viele der Täter sind noch nicht dingfest gemacht worden. Aber auch wir als Vertreter der europäischen Bevölkerung müssen uns unserer Mitschuld an den tragischen Ereignissen am Balkan bewusst sein und die Konsequenzen ziehen. Und es sind nicht nur die Opfer und die Familien der Opfer, die ein Recht auf ein Schuldbekenntnis und auf Reue haben. Auch die Zukunft Europas, die Zukunft der Region sowie die Zukunft Serbiens verlangt nach einer Einsicht der eigenen Schuld, und diese Einsicht ist die Voraussetzung für das Verzeihen und das Versöhnen. Nicht um Serbien zu erniedrigen, nicht um die Serben pauschal zu verurteilen, oder um Untaten und Verbrechen anderer Völker zu entschuldigen, erwarten wir Einsicht und Reue.
Uns muss jedoch klar sein, dass der Blick in die Vergangenheit dazu dient, eine bessere Zukunft herbeizuführen. Da ist Europa gefordert, dieser Region eine klare Perspektive zu geben. Die Länder des Balkans – so zeigt die Geschichte – waren allzu lang Spielball und Objekt der Interessen und der Machenschaften der europäischen Großmächte, inklusive bzw. und der Türkei – je nachdem wie man das sieht. Jetzt allerdings – und ich sage das nicht nur als Berichterstatter für Kroatien, sondern als einer, der sich für die ganze Region engagiert – müssen wir ihnen die Chance geben, das eigene Haus in Ordnung zu bringen. Wir müssen ihnen die Chance geben zu zeigen, dass sie ihre Lehren aus der Geschichte gezogen haben, dass Menschenrechte und vor allem auch die Minderheitenrechte anerkannt werden.
Wenn Minister Douglas und Kommissar Rehn hier die verschiedenen Prozesse dargestellt haben, die dazu führen sollen, diese Länder stärker an die Europäische Union heranzuführen, so möchte ich doch ganz klar und deutlich sagen: Das Ziel muss sein, den Ländern die Chance zu geben, Mitglied der Europäischen Union zu werden. Auch wenn heute ein anderer Wind bläst, und man die Erweiterung möglichst weit von sich wegschieben möchte, muss klar sein: Wir in Europa müssen uns auf eine solche Erweiterung vorbereiten. Klar muss aber auch sein, dass die Länder selbst die Aufgabe haben, ihre Hausaufgaben zu erledigen und das Ihre dazu beizutragen, um die Möglichkeit für einen Beitritt zu schaffen.
Aber – wie auch schon meine Vorrednerin gesagt hat – die Perspektive, dass sie eines Tages zu gegebener Zeit Mitglied der Europäischen Union sein können, wenn sie ihre eigenen Probleme überwunden haben, diese Perspektive müssen wir aufrechterhalten, gerade auch angesichts der vielen jungen Menschen, die in Europa ihr Ideal sehen. Selbst wenn wir kritisch gegenüber der Entwicklung der Europäischen Union sind, müssen wir doch anerkennen, dass viele Menschen in dieser Balkanregion eine große Hoffnung haben: Dereinst zur Europäischen Union, zum gemeinsamen Europa zu gehören. Und diese Chance müssen wir ihnen geben.
(Beifall)
Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, namens de ALDE-Fractie.– Voorzitter, Commissaris, collega's, aanstaande maandag zal het 10 jaar geleden zijn dat Srebrenica onder de ogen van VN-troepen werd ingenomen door Bosnisch-Servische troepen, dat het uitmoorden van meer dan 8.000 moslimmannen en -jongens begon, dat duizenden vrouwen, kinderen en ouderen werden gedeporteerd en honderden vrouwen werden verkracht. Onmetelijk leed werd veroorzaakt, dat blijft voortduren omdat de hoofdverantwoordelijken nog steeds voortvluchtig zijn, omdat niet alle slachtoffers zijn teruggevonden, omdat vele gedeporteerden niet naar huis terug konden keren en bovenal omdat het veroorzaakte leed niet wordt erkend door vele Serviërs. Dit bleek onlangs nog toen het Servische parlement een resolutie verwierp waarin de massamoord in Srebrenica werd erkend en veroordeeld.
Uit eigen ervaring weten wij dat verzoening na oorlog pas mogelijk is, wanneer de voormalige tegenstrevers erin slagen een gemeenschappelijke geschiedschrijving van het gebeurde te maken, vergiffenis te vragen voor het aangedane leed en diegenen te berechten die zich schuldig hebben gemaakt aan genocide en misdaden tegen de menselijkheid.
De tragedie heeft ook pijnlijk de tekortkomingen van het toenmalige buitenlands en veiligheidsbeleid van de EU blootgelegd, evenals de tekortkomingen van het VN-beleid inzake vredestichting en vredeshandhaving. Sommige tekortkomingen zijn inmiddels verholpen, maar eenheid van het buitenlands en veiligheidsbeleid is nog steeds niet gegarandeerd, vooral omdat de EU-regeringen daar niet ten volle toe bereid zijn. Wel zijn de Europese Unie en haar lidstaten erin geslaagd op eigen krachten en in NAVO-verband de toestand op de westelijke Balkan te stabiliseren en te verbeteren. Deze inspanningen moeten worden voortgezet en het perspectief op toetreding tot de Europese Unie moet worden opengehouden. Dat zal echter pas kunnen wanneer alle autoriteiten in de regio ten volle meewerken met het Internationaal Tribunaal voor voormalig Joegoslavië en de verantwoordelijken voor dit tribunaal brengen.
Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE.– Monsieur le Président, parler de Srebrenica est quelque chose de difficile pour certaines personnes de notre génération parce qu'il est vrai que nous nous sommes toujours demandés ce que nous aurions fait au moment où, par exemple, le fascisme a pris le pouvoir en Allemagne. Pendant longtemps, nous, les Européens, avons regardé: les Anglais, par tradition, étaient plutôt pro-Serbes, comme les Français; les Allemands étaient pour la Croatie et les Bosniaques n'avaient personne. Pendant des années, nous avons laissé les Bosniaques seuls. C'est après le drame de Srebrenica que nous avons compris la nécessité d'une position européenne, c'est-à-dire une position qui ne pouvait être ni anglaise, ni allemande, ni française, mais qui devait être une position commune.
Aujourd'hui, quand on parle du massacre de Srebrenica, nous devons questionner le comportement des Européens, questionner le comportement non pas des soldats hollandais qui étaient à Srebrenica mais de l'ONU en tant que tel, car si le mandat même de l'ONU à Srebrenica autorisait les 50 000 soldats affectés en Bosnie à tout faire, à régler la circulation, etc., il ne les autorisait pas à protéger la population. Nous devons, nous Européens, remettre cela en cause, en pensant à ce que nous avons fait. Doris Pack a raison quand elle invoquait le rôle des gouvernements: son gouvernement, celui de M. Kohl à l'époque, a fermé les yeux tout comme le gouvernement socialiste en France. C'est aussi la réalité de l'époque.
Aujourd'hui, il y a une stabilisation politique par l'Union européenne. Mais il y a eu une stabilisation par les accords de Dayton mais personne ici ne parle du problème que posent les accords de Dayton. Ces accords, nécessaires à l'époque, ont une définition ethnique de la région, définition ethnique qui se retrouve dans la constitution de Bosnie. Le drame de Srebrenica ne pourra pas être surmonté tant qu'on ne posera pas le problème des accords de Dayton, tant qu'on ne posera pas le problème de la définition ethnique de la région parce que c'est cette définition ethnique qui empêche aujourd'hui tant les Serbes que les Croates et les Bosniaques de reconnaître leurs crimes. Voilà pourquoi nous vous demandons, Monsieur le Président, M. le représentant du Conseil, ainsi qu'à la Commission, qu'il y ait une initiative européenne pour remettre sur la table les accords de Dayton. Dix ans après, il est nécessaire de remettre en question ce qui a été dé!
fini. La constitution bosniaque est une constitution ethnique qui ne permettra pas à la Bosnie d'entrer dans l'Union européenne. En conclusion, si nous n'avons pas le courage de remettre en cause les accords de Dayton, nous ne tirerons jamais les leçons de Srebrenica.
(Applaudissements)
Erik Meijer, namens de GUE/NGL-Fractie.– Voorzitter, tien jaar geleden gaf de aanwezigheid van een Nederlandse legermacht de inwoners van Zrebrenica een vals gevoel van veiligheid. Deze tot safe haven uitgeroepen plaats was een onverdedigbaar eiland temidden van de veel grotere Servische Republiek die door een andere bevolkingsgroep werd en wordt beschouwd als haar eigen safe haven. Door een volstrekt verkeerde inschatting van de situatie is verzuimd tijdig de maatregelen te nemen die hadden moeten voorkomen dat de onvermijdelijke overgave zou uitlopen in een wraakoefening en zelfs massamoord. Mijn fractie gelooft niet dat de uiteindelijke afloop echt anders zou zijn geweest als er een gecentraliseerd gemeenschappelijk buitenlands beleid van de Europese Unie zou hebben bestaan of als er een mandaat zou zijn geweest dat het gebruik van meer geweld door Dutchbat en ondersteuning door luchtbombardementen mogelijk had gemaakt.
Wie een vreedzaam samenleven van de drie volkeren in Bosnië wil garanderen, moet zoeken naar oplossingen die de instemming hebben van alle betrokkenen en niet van een of twee groepen waaraan wij de voorkeur geven. Alleen een federatief model dat de verscheidenheid erkent, naar het voorbeeld van België en Zwitserland, kan ieder recht doen. Wij moeten uitgaan van de realiteit dat het noorden en oosten sterk is georiënteerd op Servië en het zuid-westen op Kroatië en dat in die gebieden samen de meerderheid van de bevolking woont. Daarom heeft Bosnië-Herzegovina open grenzen met de buurlanden nodig. Elk streven naar gecentraliseerde eenheidsstaat kan alleen maar een permanente strijd om de macht oproepen tussen de verschillende bevolkingsgroepen. Niemand moet een andere groep kunnen onderwerpen. Dat moet de les zijn van Srebrenica en van het chaotische functioneren van de Vredesovereenkomst van Dayton.
Ryszard Czarnecki (NI).– Panie Przewodniczący! Debata na temat przyszłości Bałkanów toczy się w cieniu dziesiątej rocznicy zbrodni w Srebrenicy - największej zbrodni w Europie od zakończenia II wojny światowej.
Wojny i masakry na Bałkanach z całą pewnością były po części spowodowane tym, że Unia Europejska i NATO w tym regionie były zbyt mało aktywne. Struktury europejskie zachowały się jak Poncjusz Piłat, który po prostu umył ręce od odpowiedzialności. Dobrze, że to się zmienia, dobrze, że za półtora roku wchodzą do Unii Bułgaria i Rumunia, dobrze, że siły wojskowe i policyjne Unii stabilizują sytuację w Bośni i Hercegowinie, co miałem okazję obserwować w kwietniu tego roku osobiście. Wczoraj wróciłem z Albanii, gdzie byłem jako obserwator na wyborach parlamentarnych i trzeba powiedzieć, że te wybory są krokiem naprzód. Były one bardziej demokratyczne niż wybory, które miały miejsce w tym kraju poprzednio. Ten postęp trzeba zauważyć.
Oczywiście są jeszcze pytania i znaki zapytania - jest ich wiele, co dalej z Solanią, czyli państwem nazwanym od nazwiska pana Solany, Serbią i Czarnogórą w sytuacji kiedy Czarnogóra chce własnego niepodległego bytu państwowego. Jedno jest pewne - mimo kryzysu Unii Europejskiej - jesteśmy dla tych państw atrakcyjni. Mimo że dzisiaj w modzie nie jest mówienie o rozszerzeniu Unii Europejskiej, trzeba powiedzieć wyraźnie, że dobrze byłoby gdyby niektóre państwa bałkańskie do Unii weszły. Tylko to może zapewnić stabilność ekonomiczną i polityczną tego regionu, co nam jako Unii się w przyszłości opłaci.
Kończąc, gaszenie pożarów na Bałkanach drożej kosztuje niż im zapobieganie.
Γεώργιος Παπαστάμκος (PPE-DE).– Κύριε Πρόεδρε, συμφωνώ απόλυτα με την συνάδελφο, κυρία Doris Ρack, ότι η Σρεμπρένιτσα οφείλει να αποτελεί διαρκή ζωντανή μνήμη. Η τραγωδία με τα χιλιάδες θύματα σηματοδοτεί και επιβάλλει την αλλαγή σελίδας και την οριστική μετάβαση από το ταραχώδες παρελθόν στην περιοχή σε μια νέα εποχή ειρήνης, ασφάλειας και ευημερίας. Σηματοδοτεί και επιβάλλει την υπέρβαση εθνικιστικών προτύπων και ιστορικοπολιτισμικών δουλειών μέσω διαλόγου και συναίνεσης.
Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση απέτυχε να εμφανισθεί ως αξιόπιστη δύναμη παραγωγής και εξαγωγής ασφάλειας στη γειτονιά της. Αν ο λόγος ήταν η ανωριμότητα του ευρωπαϊκού πολιτικού συστήματος, τότε το μήνυμα είναι η ανάγκη εξοπλισμού της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης με τα ποιοτικά χαρακτηριστικά της ενιαίας και αυθεντικής πολιτικής ταυτότητας.
Τα Δυτικά Βαλκάνια εξακολουθούν να υπολείπονται αισθητά σε όρους οικονομικής ανάπτυξης και περιφερειακής ολοκλήρωσης. Ουδείς αμφισβητεί τις προσπάθειες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Όμως η προσέγγιση κάθε βαλκανικού κράτους χωριστά, κατά μόνας, αποδείχθηκε ανεπαρκής. Κατά τη γνώμη μου χρειάζεται ένα προωθημένο και συνεκτικό στρατηγικό σχέδιο για την περιοχή, ένα και μόνο συμβατικό πλαίσιο προνομιακής εταιρικής σχέσης μεταξύ της ΕΕ και των Δυτικών Βαλκανίων. Ομιλώ, κ. Επίτροπε, για ένα σχέδιο που θα συναρθρώνει τις αναπτυξιακές προτεραιό!
τητες κάθε χώρας σε ένα ενιαίο περιφερειακό σύνολο. Οι προγραμματικές παρεμβάσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης θα πρέπει να έχουν διασυνοριακό, διαπεριφερειακό χαρακτήρα. Έτσι θα υποβοηθηθεί η περιφερειακή οικονομική ολοκλήρωση αλλά και η οικοδόμηση κλίματος πολιτικής συλλογικότητας, συνεργασίας και εμπιστοσύνης.
Η άμεση πρόκληση για τις σχέσεις Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης - Δυτικών Βαλκανίων συμπυκνώνεται στο ακόλουθο τρίπτυχο: διαρθρωμένος πολιτικός διάλογος, διασυνοριακά δίκτυα υποδομών, άνοιγμα των αγορών. Εύχομαι καλή επιτυχία στη Βρετανική Προεδρία.
(Χειροκροτήματα)
Jan Marinus Wiersma (PSE).– Voorzitter, we denken vandaag natuurlijk vooral terug aan de meest gruwelijke gebeurtenis uit de recente Europese geschiedenis, de moord op duizenden mannen uit de moslimenclave Srebrenica in Bosnië-Herzegovina in 1995. Het verhaal van Srebrenica heeft in Europa en de wereld, maar vooral ook in mijn land, Nederland, een enorme impact gehad. Nederlandse blauwhelmen bleken toen niet in staat burgers, inwoners en vluchtelingen de bescherming te bieden die zij nodig hadden. En tien jaar later is dat debacle in Nederland nog steeds onderwerp van gesprek. Het gevoel van afgrijzen en het medeleven met de slachtoffers van deze massamoord en hun nabestaanden is groot. Onze gedachten gaan vooral uit naar hen voor wie het in feite het belangrijkste is dat de medeverantwoordelijken voor die misdaad, de toenmalige Bosnische president Karajic en generaal Mladic, nog steeds op vrije voeten zijn.
Herdenken moet medeleven met de slachtoffers echter ook overstijgen. We moeten de lessen verwerken en proberen vooruit te kijken. "Dat nooit weer" is ten eerste onze toezegging aan de landen van de Balkan, die we moeten steunen om de ervaringen van de oorlogen die zij hebben meegemaakt te boven te komen. Met het verleden in gedachten, moeten we vooral ook naar de toekomst kijken. Er moet ondersteuning komen vanuit de Europese Unie, binnen een helder raamwerk waarin het perspectief van integratie in de EU, zoals toegezegd door de Europese Raad, een belangrijke rol speelt. Ondersteuning vanuit de EU zal helpen vreedzame, stabiele en welvarende samenlevingen tot stand te brengen.
Het moet echter ook duidelijk zijn dat de belangrijkste dragers van de toekomst in de eerste plaats de landen van de Balkan zelf zijn. Er is nu gelukkig vrede in Bosnië-Herzegovina, maar het verleden is nog niet volledig verwerkt en dat vormt een belemmering voor het functioneren van de staat en de samenleving. Belangrijke zaken zoals de terugkeer van vluchtelingen en de arrestatie van verdachten van oorlogsmisdaden worden erdoor gehinderd. Met het verleden in het reine komen is voor mij ook een belangrijk onderdeel, evenals werken aan de toekomst.
Een tweede les is breder, en dat is een les die in Nederland zeer veel bediscussieerd is. "Nooit weer, niet in Europa, maar vooral ook niet in de rest van de wereld", betekent dat waakzaamheid is geboden om te voorkomen dat sluimerende conflicten escaleren tot bloedige en tot uitzichtloze situaties. We moeten alerter zijn en sneller en waar nodig ook harder optreden wanneer scenario's zoals dat van Srebrenica zich dreigen te ontwikkelen, om te voorkomen dat Europese troepen ooit weer in een situatie terechtkomen zoals Dutchbat tien jaar geleden.
Marco Pannella (ALDE).– Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, rappresentanti del Consiglio e della Commissione, nei cinquantanove secondi di cui dispongo vorrei semplicemente individuare un piccolo dettaglio. C'è qualcosa di cui voi avete vergogna senza rendervene conto.
Ieri sera in questo Parlamento si è tenuta una commemorazione e per la settimana prossima sono previste cerimonie a Srebrenica. Tra le tante cose vergognose che vengono rimosse ce n'è una in particolare che si chiama Emma Bonino. Emma Bonino è stata rimossa, non esiste più, non la si invita.
Capisco il motivo di tutto ciò, perché Emma Bonino, quando nel suo ruolo di Commissario europeo si trovava a Srebrenica, tentò disperatamente di avvisare il governo olandese il quale non la ascoltò, con le conseguenze che conosciamo bene. Sì, Emma Bonino era in quel luogo, come può testimoniare anche Reuters. Sono state ritrovate tutte le registrazioni. Nei giorni della tragedia Emma Bonino si collegò due volte con Radio Radicale, ma anche con la BBC, segnalando che mancavano all'appello migliaia di persone.
Caro collega Morillon, potremo riparlare della questione delle responsabilità, come pure di tutte le iniziative, in un'altra occasione.
Signor Presidente, la ringrazio, il mio tempo è scaduto.Vedremo se sarà possibile commemorare Srebrenica in un altro modo, dandole almeno l'omaggio della verità e della vigliaccheria europea e dell'ONU.
(Applausi)
Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE).– Voorzitter, terecht is er in dit debat en in deze dagen veel aandacht voor het verleden. Hoe kon gebeuren wat er is gebeurd in Srebrenica en wat zijn de lessen die we daaruit moeten trekken?
Srebrenica is niet alleen een pijnlijk verleden, Srebrenica is ook een pijnlijk heden. Bewoners die nog steeds niet kunnen terugkeren en wegkwijnen in vluchtelingenkampen. Kinderen die op school een totaal eenzijdig beeld voorgeschoteld krijgen van wat er tien jaar geleden gebeurd is, waardoor een noodzakelijke verzoening achterwege blijft. De identificatie van slachtoffers die broodnodig is om nabestaanden het vreselijke lot van hun geliefden te kunnen leren accepteren. Identificatie kost veel en gebeurt daardoor vaak veel te langzaam. Wat nu nodig is, is niet alleen aandacht voor tien jaar geleden, maar ook aandacht voor het Srebrenica van nu, aandacht, begrip en, waar nodig, ook geld om Srebrenica van vandaag te redden.
Een tweede Srebrencia is gelukkig niet zo waarschijnlijk meer op de Balkan van vandaag, maar de wonden die toen op de gehele Balkan geslagen zijn, kunnen alleen maar structureel geheeld worden als de landen van de Balkan weten dat ze welkom zijn in Europa. Ik steun dan ook de opstelling van de Europese Commissie, die gezegd heeft dat het perspectief op lidmaatschap voor de landen van de Balkan in stand blijft. De Balkan ligt in Europa, Srebrenica ligt in Europa, laten we die les nooit vergeten.
Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL).– Nebude míru na Balkáně, dokud nebudeme měřit různým metrem, různým komunitám. Pokud se domníváte, že mezinárodní tribunál pro zločiny v bývalé Jugoslávii měří všem stejně, hluboce se mýlíte. Dosud nebyl předvolán ani pilot letadla, který dvakrát nalétal na vlak jedoucí po mostě, než se trefil do pilíře a zlikvidoval most i vlak. To je nepřípustné! Netvařte se, milí kolegové, že to nevíte. Kolik Albánců a zahraničních muslimských žoldnéřů bylo do dnešního dne odsouzeno? Řada z nich, i pod vaší patronací, dnes vládne v Kosovu. A vy, vážení kolegové, klidně spíte? Vy tady klidně diskutujete? Vy jim dokonce chcete potvrdit odtržení od Srbska? Že se nestydíte.
V paragrafu 4 předložené rezoluce se správně říká, že je třeba chytit a dopravit tribunálu všechny viníky válečných zločinů. Věřím, že to myslíte vážně. Sledujte tedy výsledky práce tribunálu. Máte-li alespoň trochu cti, zkusme se brzy k této věci znovu vrátit. A jestli myslíte, že síly na to jsou a mají být dále beztrestné, potom to jasně řekněte. Veřejnost Evropské unie i celého světa jistě svojí reakcí ukáže i vám, co si o takovém pokrytectví myslí. A nezapomeňte na uřezané hlavy a zohavená těla obětí. Spravedlnost nelze dělit na přátele a protivníky. Stovky tisíc uprchlíků stále čekají na návrat, a to i do oblastí Slavonie a na hranice mezi Chorvatskem a Bosnou. Dnes my Češi vzpomínáme 490 let od upálení Mistra Jana Husa katolickou církví. Dodnes nebyl rehabilitován.
Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE).– Herr Präsident! Wir könnten uns lange über die Fehler von damals unterhalten, und ich habe es ja an Ort und Stelle erlebt und auch im Parlament damals. Ich möchte mich jedoch lieber auf die Fehler von heute konzentrieren.
Erstens, Herr Ratspräsident, haben Sie davon gesprochen, man könne mit Kroatien, einem wichtigen Land für die Stabilität der ganzen Region, erst verhandeln, wenn Herr Gotovina ausgeliefert ist. Damit stellen Sie sich in Gegenposition zum luxemburgischen Ratsvorsitz – was sehr interessant ist –, und Sie verhalten sich so, als würde man von Großbritannien fordern, es könne den Ratsvorsitz erst dann übernehmen, wenn es das Ungeheuer von Loch Ness gefasst hat. Niemand von uns weiß, wo sich Herr Gotovina befindet. Wenn Sie es wissen, dann bitte ich Sie, es auf den Tisch dieses Hauses zu legen und es der kroatischen Regierung zu übermitteln.
Wir sollten mit Kroatien so verfahren, wie Sie es fälschlicherweise mit der Türkei tun wollen, nämlich Verhandlungen beginnen. Und nur, wenn die volle Kooperation nicht gegeben sein sollte – dafür haben wir ein Überprüfungskomitee –, sollten wir diese Verhandlungen abbrechen oder unterbrechen. Aber die Verhandlungen sollten beginnen, denn Kroatien ist eine mitteleuropäische Demokratie, die den ganzen Raum stabilisiert.
Zweitens Bosnien: Daniel Cohn-Bendit hat absolut Recht: Das Abkommen von Dayton ist gescheitert. Wir brauchen ein Bosnien-Herzegowina dreier gleichberechtigter Völker und vor allem freier Bürger. Ansonsten wird dieses Gebilde wieder zum Ausgangspunkt neuer Gefahren und schwerer Konflikte.
Drittens Kosovo: Ich war erst vor wenigen Tagen im Kosovo. Wenn wir die friedensorientierte Politik von Präsident Rugova weiter ins Leere laufen lassen, dann werden dort radikale Elemente stärker. Wir haben die Bombenanschläge vor wenigen Tagen gesehen. Deshalb appelliere ich an den Rat, rasch den Weg in eine streng konditionierte, langfristig angelegte, international kontrollierte, aber unvermeidliche Unabhängigkeit des Kosovo zu gehen.
Der vierte Punkt bezieht sich auf Minderheiten. Wir reden ständig von Minderheiten. Im Kosovo gibt es garantierte Sitze für Minderheiten. In Serbien gibt es seit einigen Jahren ein neues Wahlrecht, das ausschließt, dass irgendein Minderheitenvertreter einen Platz im Parlament hat. Wir brauchen einheitliche Standards, nur dann werden wir eine glaubwürdige Politik entwickeln können.
Borut Pahor (PSE).– Eden od pomembnih, mogoče celo odločilnih razlogov za vojno tragedijo v nekdanji Jugoslaviji je bilo dejstvo, da mednarodna skupnost ni bila niti dosledna niti enotna v pristopu k reševanju temeljnega vprašanja, tj. pravice narodov do samoodločbe.
Zdaj je v tej regiji mir, vendar smo še daleč od napredka, ki bi zagotavljal dolgoročno blaginjo. To, da dajemo s tem poročilom in nastopom komisarja tej regiji sporočilo, da je dobrodošla v Evropski uniji je prav, tudi da dajemo poudarek ekonomskemu napredku je prav, vendar to ni dovolj.
Evropska unija je soočena z nalogo, s katero je bila na nek način soočena še pred samo vojno tragedijo, namreč da ima nek konsistenten in enoten pogled na temeljna statusna vprašanja narodov in držav v tej regiji. Daytonski sporazum ne zagotavlja napredka Bosne in Hercegovine, saj le-ta potrebuje sodobno ustavo. Najti moramo odgovor na vprašanje neodvisnosti Kosova, pravice samoodločbe Srbov in Črnogorcev. Ne moremo pristati na to, da si Makedonci ne zaslužijo imena, ki so si ga dali. Vse to so temeljna statusna vprašanja.
Rad bi podprl komisarja, da bi morala biti Evropska komisija bolj aktivna v tej politiki, kot je bila doslej.
Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE).– Herr talman! Resolutionen som vi kommer att rösta om i morgon är viktig, inte bara för att den kommer i en tid då det fortfarande tio år efter massakern finns människor som inte tror att detta har hänt, utan också för att varken parlamentet i Serbien eller parlamentet i Bosnien-Hercegovina har kunnat enas kring en liknande resolution. De serbiska ledamöterna i Bosniens parlament kunde inte acceptera vare sig resolutionstexten eller kompromissförslagen.
Någon har så sent som i dag lagt en sprängladdning vid det monument som har rests i Srebrenica till minne av alla offer. Som en som är född i Bosnien och som har upplevt det krig som vi pratar om i dag känner jag ett ansvar att förmedla till er åtminstone en liten del av alla de känslor som vi dagligen var tvungna att hantera under kriget.
Världen blev chockad av de videobilder på avrättningar av unga män som visades i Haag nyligen. Vi levde i dessa bilder. Därför vill jag beskriva för er hur det är att vara på andra sidan. Jag kommer nu att läsa upp en del av en åtalads berättelse inför Haagtribunalen, nedskriven av en journalist och författare som har följt rättegången. "Den åtalade såg i ögonvrån en ung pojke stiga ur bussen. Pojken kan ha varit femton år eller kanske yngre. Pojken såg på soldaterna och därefter på raderna med döda kroppar ute på åkern. Hans ögon blev större som om han hade svårt att ta till sig det han såg. När fångarna sjönk ner på knä, just innan soldaterna kommenderades att skjuta, hörde den åtalade pojkens röst: 'Mamma', viskade han, 'mamma'. Den dagen hörde den åtalade människor som bad för sina liv, vuxna män som grät. Han hörde dem lova soldaterna pengar, bilar, till och med hus. Men den pojken ropade på mamma, så som barn gör när!
de har drömt något hemskt."
Om vi överhuvudtaget skall ha någon chans att gå vidare efter Balkankrigen måste vi främst se till att alla som har gjort sig skyldiga till brott ställs inför rätta, inte bara de som är åtalade inför Haag, utan även de andra som går fria, och som snarast möjligt borde åtalas inför de nationella domstolarna. Det är vi skyldiga, inte bara dem som mördades, utan även dem som överlevde.
Παναγιώτης Μπεγλίτης (PSE).– Κύριε Πρόεδρε, σε λίγες μέρες κλείνουν δέκα χρόνια από τη μεγαλύτερη βαρβαρότητα που διαπράχθηκε στην Ευρώπη μετά το τέλος του Δευτέρου Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου, αυτήν της Σρεμπρένιτσα. Πρόκειται για μια από τις πιο μελανές σελίδες της ευρωπαϊκής ιστορίας και του ευρωπαϊκού πολιτισμού.
Σήμερα έχουμε υποχρέωση να ενισχύσουμε την ιστορική μνήμη, έχουμε την υποχρέωση να τιμήσουμε τα αθώα θύματα της γιουγκοσλαβικής εθνοτικής σύγκρουσης, τους Μουσουλμάνους, τους Σέρβους, τους Κροάτες, χωρίς επιλεκτικές ευαισθησίες αλλά και χωρίς λογικές συμψηφισμού αίματος.
Δέκα χρόνια μετά, η Βοσνία παραμένει βαθιά διχασμένη. Δέκα χρόνια μετά, η χώρα αυτή διαθέτει πέντε προέδρους και δύο πρωθυπουργούς και επιβιώνει με τεχνητά μέσα. Η διεθνής κοινότητα και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση οφείλουν να προχωρήσουν και να αναλάβουν πρωτοβουλίες για την αναθεώρηση της συμφωνίας του Ντέιτον στην κατεύθυνση ενός λειτουργικού ομοσπονδιακού, δημοκρατικού και πολυεθνικού κράτους.
Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση έχει την πολιτική και στρατηγική ευθύνη να υπερασπισθεί και να ενισχύσει την ευρωπαϊκή προοπτική και την ένταξη των χωρών της περιοχής των Βαλκανίων στους ευρωπαϊκούς θεσμούς. Απέναντι σε εκείνους που αμφισβητούν σήμερα τη διεύρυνση θα πρέπει να αντιτάξουμε σταθερά τη στρατηγική του πολιτικού και κοινωνικού εκδημοκρατισμού, της ειρήνης, της ασφάλειας και της σταθερότητας μέσα από την ευρωπαϊκή πορεία των Βαλκανίων.
Εάν διαψεύσουμε τους λαούς στο όνομα των πολιτικών σκοπιμοτήτων, θα έχουμε συμβάλει στην επικράτηση των πιο ακραίων εθνικιστικών δυνάμεων. Η Ευρώπη έκανε πολλά λάθη τη δεκαετία του '90. Δεν πρέπει να τα επαναλάβει.
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, thank you for your gracious words of congratulation on London’s Olympic bid. I would have been delighted if any European city had been successful in Singapore today, but I am particularly delighted that London has secured this. I hope that the 2012 Games will be a great European success.
I would like to thank all the Members of the European Parliament and the European Commission for their contributions to what has proved to be an insightful and wise debate this afternoon. It is clear that there is a real commitment by all of you to support the European aspirations of the Western Balkan countries. We certainly aim during our Presidency to work towards bringing the region within the European family of nations and will be working assiduously to achieve that. We are conscious of the many challenges ahead, but we are committed to working together to overcome them.
I shall respond to some of the main points that have been raised by Members on both past and future issues. Mrs Pack spoke powerfully on the need for reconciliation. I recognise the need for a wider recognition of responsibility and this was a subject that I discussed only last week with the Reis-ul-Ulema, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia, who has been leading efforts to achieve exactly this reconciliation within and between communities in the regions.
Mr Swoboda rightly recognised the need for countries to have opportunities to right past wrongs. That is certainly true but, as Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck reflected, it is necessary for all the countries in the region to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Mr Cohn-Bendit spoke of the Dayton Accords and urged the international community to now take the initiative. Whilst listening with care to the points that he made, I would respectfully remind him that only the three constituent communities of Bosnia can make changes to the constitution.
Mr Czarnecki questioned the European Union’s policy towards Serbia and Montenegro. The Serbia-Montenegro state union is a loose federal arrangement, created in 2003 largely through the initiative of Javier Solana. Under the terms of the state union Constitutional Charter, either republic can hold a referendum on withdrawal after February 2006. It is looking increasingly likely that Montenegro will seek to dissolve the union in 2006.
The European Union continues to support the state union as the best means of promoting stability and ensuring faster progress towards Euro-Atlantic integration. However, the European Union recognises the terms of the Constitutional Charter, which allows for a referendum to be held after three years and emphasises the need for any dissolution to be constitutional, consensual, negotiated and transparent.
Mr Papastamkos spoke of the need for a clear regional approach, so let me say a further word about the European Union’s priorities for the Western Balkans during the United Kingdom’s Presidency. During the next six months, a number of key issues will come to a head. The Commission will publish its opinion on Macedonia, Lord Ashdown’s mandate in Bosnia will come to an end and a positive assessment of standards implementation in Kosovo could lead to a process to determine Kosovo’s final status, a process in which the European Union will have a key role to play.
Across the range of Western Balkan issues, the Presidency will help the region make progress towards European standards and values. The Presidency will continue to drive forward the European Union’s Stabilisation and Association process, designed to build stability and prosperity in the Western Balkans and guide these countries towards eventual European Union membership. The progress of each country within the stabilisation and association process will be judged against established political criteria. Full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal, as I have already mentioned, remains a key political requirement.
Mr Posselt raised the issue of Croatia. As a proud Scotsman, I do not want to disabuse him of his apparent certainty that the Loch Ness monster exists, or to dissuade him from the opportunity of visiting Scotland to continue the search, but let me make a deadly serious point to him. The European Union has made it clear that it stands ready to open accession negotiations as soon as there is full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. We hope this will happen during the UK Presidency, but it is ultimately up to Croatia to take the necessary steps to ensure full cooperation. The easiest way for Croatia to address doubts about Croatia’s commitment to ICTY is to cooperate in locating and detaining Ante Gotovina.
Mr Beglitis raised the question of how European Union help to Bosnia-Herzegovina in implementing the reforms necessary for European Union integration can be taken forward. The European Union is providing a range of instruments to help the authorities carry out the necessary reforms. The European Union Police Mission aims to help the Bosnian police force reach European standards. It focuses on police reform through the monitoring and mentoring of middle-ranking to senior officers in the police force.
The EU CARDS Programme also supports reforms for European Union integration. The European Union Special Representative and High Representative, Lord Paddy Ashdown, plays a coordinating role between the different European Union presences and has played a leading role in encouraging the Bosnian authorities to take the reform agenda forward. I pay tribute to his work today. His Mission Implementation Plan closely reflects the 16 priority areas identified in the European Union feasibility study published in November 2003.
In addition to the terrible anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre, which has been mentioned by so many speakers today and which we will commemorate next week, this year will also mark the tenth anniversary of the Dayton Accords, as was also mentioned in passing by at least a couple of speakers, and the end to the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I believe that the next six months therefore offer an historic opportunity for these countries to demonstrate their wholehearted commitment to European values, to tolerance and the rule of law, to good neighbourly relations and to the difficult but very serious process of reconciliation, which a number of speakers have talked about today.
None of this will be easy. Each country will face particular and different challenges, but I encourage them to work jointly and to encourage each other on this path. In this respect, I echo the sentiments expressed by Commissioner Rehn. I cannot stress too highly the importance of full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Handing over the last remaining indictees for trial in The Hague, notably Karadzic, Mladic and Gotovina, is not just an obscure European Union condition, but is required under several United Nations Security Council resolutions. This will not only transform the nature of these countries’ relations with the European Union but will also serve to transform their societies and contribute to the long-term process of rehabilitation that has been spoken about so convincingly today.
In that respect the joint statement by the presidents of the Dayton signatories issued following the recent meeting of the Mount Igman initiative in Belgrade was a welcome step. It will contribute to the normalisation of relations between those three countries. It represents an excellent basis for further work and we look forward to the implementation of the important commitments it contains.
The forthcoming tenth anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre is a vivid reminder of how far the Balkans have come, but also of how much remains to be done. Thankfully armed conflict is and must remain a thing of the past although, as Mrs Ibrisagic reminded us, recent discoveries of explosives have shown that there are still those minded to advance their cause by violence.
The European Union has recognised the region’s aspirations to join the European family once conditions have been met, but corruption and organised crime are still far too prevalent and economic growth is lacklustre. But whilst we stand ready to help, the answer to these challenges lies not in Brussels, The Hague, London or, with the greatest of respect, Strasbourg. It lies within the region and within the people whose energy and talents have outlived the years of conflict and it depends on their willingness to demand that their decency, hope and integrity are fully reflected.
(Applause)
Olli Rehn,Member of the Commission. Mr President, after President Chirac’s ill-informed views on British and Finnish cuisine, I feel free to congratulate London as the European city for the venue of the 2012 Olympic Games. J’aime la France, mais ce n’est pas facile toujours.
I thank the honourable Members for a dignified and substantive debate that fully respects our duty to remember and draw conclusions for the present and the future. There was a wide convergence of views on a number of issues.
First of all, on the country’s need to cooperate fully with the Hague Tribunal. Clearly there is no lasting peace without historical truth and justice. We have to learn from what happened so that history does not repeat itself.
I also note wide support for the continuation of our prudently managed accession process, combining the historic mission of European integration for peace, democracy and progress with consideration for our citizens’ legitimate concerns about the absorption capacity of the Union. We therefore have to practice strict conditionality in our enlargement policy.
The future of the Western Balkans is clearly in the European Union. It is fair to say that the European perspective is the glue that keeps the Western Balkans on a peaceful and stable track. So is the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the European Union. The Dayton Accord managed to put an end to the war, but I agree with Mr Cohn-Bendit that it is certainly not an ideal constitution on which to build a properly functioning, multi-ethnic modern state. Therefore it is important that Bosnia and Herzegovina can itself reflect on the constitutional changes that can serve the country and its people better than the current construct.
It is up to the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina and their representatives to play a key role in this exercise. In my view, it would not be useful or appropriate for the international community to force yet another blueprint upon its citizens. We need consensus and a consensus-building political process in Bosnia and Herzegovina to achieve that objective.
I can assure you that the Commission will play an active role in the region in order to sustain hopes for its future in Europe. I very much look forward to working together with the European Parliament and the Presidency to achieve that objective.
(Applause)
Przewodniczący. Otrzymałem sześć projektów rezolucji(1) złożonych zgodnie z art. 103(2) Regulaminu.
27. Kapcsolatok az Európai Unió, Kína és Tajvan között, valamint a biztonság a Távol-Keleten
Předseda. Dalším bodem pořadu jednání je prohlášení Rady a Komise týkající se vztahů mezi Evropskou unií, Čínou a Tchaj-wanem a bezpečnost na dálném Východě.
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, in the 30 years since the European Union established diplomatic relations with China, both the European Union and China, and indeed the EU-China relationship, have seen quite remarkable change. The European Union-China relationship is now as close as it has ever been. But now, more than ever it is crucial that the European Union adapts to the challenge of China’s political and economic growth. European Union economies need to be able to respond to the competition and the opportunities offered by China and other emerging economies in Asia. The European Union has many interests at stake in China and East Asia more widely, clearly a highly important region in the 21st century. It is vital that the European Union and China both work together, with other international partners, to tackle global problems.
Discussion between the European Union and China is now rightly on a broad range of topics, including regional security, human rights, environment, education, migration, climate change and transportation. Just last week, the first EU-China Aviation Summit took place. All these discussions bring benefits to both parties. The European Union already has a lot of experience to share and often China is approaching problems in a new way and the European Union can learn from its fresh approach.
The eighth European-China Summit in September in Bejing will be an opportunity to celebrate 30 years of official relations between the European Union and China and to look forward to the next 30 years. This will be an opportunity for the European Union and China to work together as global partners on global challenges. We look forward to this chance for the European Union and China to combine their efforts in order to address the challenges of climate change and energy security through dialogue and practical cooperation.
Of course there are differences between us, but it is a sign of the maturity of the relationship that we can discuss these constructively, for example, through the EU-China human rights dialogue.
Human rights are of course a fundamental part of European Union foreign policy. The European Union acknowledges that China has made considerable progress over the last decade in its social-economic development and welcomes steps towards the strengthening the rule of law and cooperation with UN human rights mechanisms. But much more is needed.
The European Union continues to have serious concerns about human rights in China, such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. Journalists, lawyers, and members of NGOs continue to be harassed. The death penalty continues to be used extensively; there is widespread administrative detention and we have serious concerns about the use of torture. The situation in Tibet and Xinjiang remain a concern. The Council welcomes China’s work towards the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and hopes that as this work continues there will be real improvements in the day-to-day lives of all China’s citizens.
Another issue which China and the European Union discuss frequently is that of Taiwan. The last 30 years have seen tremendous change in Taiwan too. Taiwan is one of the most successful Asian tigers, experiencing an enviable 5.9 % economic growth just last year. GDP per capita in real terms is considered to be on a par with Japan and Hong Kong. But change there has not just been economic, but also political. Thirty years ago Chiang Kai-Shek died and his son Chiang Ching-kuo continued in power thereafter. It was not until 1996 that Taiwan had its first democratic presidential election. Now Taiwan is a full democracy.
The European Union’s Member States have no diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Nevertheless, its economic and commercial ties with Taiwan are strong. Taiwan is of course a member of the World Trade Organisation. Taiwan and the European Union also enjoy solid relations in other non-political areas, such as science, education, culture and various technical fields.
However, other aspects of the cross- Strait relationship are not so positive and this has consequences for regional security. In March this year China introduced its ‘anti-secession’ legislation with the intention, it said, of halting or deterring Taiwanese moves towards independence. It was largely a codification of existing Chinese policy but it made reference to China’s strong commitment to peaceful reunification and more disturbingly made reference to the use of non-peaceful means should circumstances warrant. The description of what those circumstances might be was rather vague. The European Union reacted by reaffirming its adherence to its one-China policy and its opposition to any use of force to resolve this issue.
The European Union’s position has always been that the question of Taiwan should be resolved peacefully through constructive dialogue and it has urged both sides to avoid unilateral measures which might heighten tensions. In a statement at the beginning of this year, the European Union welcomed the agreement to cross-Strait charter flights over the Lunar New Year. It considered that this type of practical cooperation would help to promote dialogue and understanding between the parties and hoped that ways could be found to build upon it. We note the dialogue between the Mainland and visiting opposition Taiwanese leaders and hope that the Mainland will soon be able to commence similar dialogue with the elected leadership in Taiwan.
On regional matters, China and the European Union share a common interest with others in a stable Korean peninsula. Given its influence with the DPRK, China has a key role in efforts to achieve a nuclear-weapons-free peninsula, a role which the European Union supports.
The European Union remains keen to contribute to peace and security in the Asia and Asia-Pacific region. It is one of our key objectives. Speaking for the United Kingdom for a moment, we are keen to use the United Kingdom’s Presidency of the European Union to take forward work in this area. The European Union should aim to engage more actively in the political management of the regional security challenges. Among current concerns, the European Union has called for early and unconditional resumption of the six-party talks and for the complete verifiable and irreversible dismantling of any DPRK nuclear weapons programme.
We need to look further at ways to strengthen the European Union’s contribution in regional fora such as ASEM and as a member of the ASEAN regional forum, the only Asia-wide multilateral forum on regional security. It also makes sense for the European Union to develop strategic dialogues with other key players in the East Asian region. The security of the region is not just a concern to those there, but to all of us.
Since China’s reform of the economy which began in 1978, its economy has grown by almost 10 % a year on average. In that time, Chinese-European trade has grown more than fortyfold. The EU is now China’s most important trading partner, and China is the EU’s second most important trading partner, after the United States.
In 2003, China became the world’s fourth largest trader, and its foreign trade continues to grow by 37 %, a growth rate unrivalled by any major trading nation. China has also overtaken the US as the largest recipient of foreign direct investment anywhere in the world.
China has made considerable efforts to live up to its new role in the global economic system. To comply with its World Trade Organisation obligations and accession commitments, it has cut tariffs across the board and engaged in a thorough overhaul of laws and regulations. Nevertheless, concerns remain. The business environment in China is still a difficult one for the foreign businesses that operate there. For example, laws to protect intellectual property rights are not implemented vigorously enough. The WTO Ministerial in Hong Kong this year provides an opportunity for the European Union and China to work together once again to help achieve an ambitious and balanced outcome.
With this tremendous economic growth in China has come change in other areas too. It was not until the mid-1990s that the European Commission drew up its first Asia strategy and China policy papers. This first policy paper attempted to define a long-term strategy to address China’s swift economic and indeed political development. At the same time, engagements stopped being rather haphazard and regular annual summits became the norm. In 1996, the first Asia-Europe meeting was held and two years later the first EU-China Summit took place.
Against this backdrop of rapid change, the main legal framework for EU-China relations, the Bilateral Trade and Economic Co-Operation Agreement of 1985 is looking decidedly out of date. The European Union is looking forward to the introduction of a new framework agreement that is more in keeping with the multifaceted relationship we enjoy today. I hope that during the period of the United Kingdom’s Presidency of the European Union, progress can be made on this. We will also be looking for progress on a number of other issues, including climate change of course in this week when the G8 leaders gather in Gleneagles, and towards market economy status for China.
Energy security is an issue of concern to all countries. It is a requirement of economic growth and development. Current global levels of energy production and consumption are already considered as having a negative impact on the global climate, and greenhouse gas emissions are expected to rise over the coming decades. The European Union and China face an important dual challenge, ensuring energy security and combating climate change.
The European Union recognises its obligation to reduce its own emissions while at the same time assisting countries such as China to meet their growing energy needs in a sustainable manner. The European Union and China have significant and internationally respected scientific and technological expertise. There is therefore excellent scope for the European Union and China to significantly strengthen collaboration in this important field.
The European Union and China do, of course, have differences. The agreement reached at the conclusion of the recent EU-China textile negotiations shows what can happen when we sit down to discuss those differences amicably and seek win-win solutions. China has acted, as the Commissioner for Trade, Mr Mandelson, said and I quote ‘as a responsible and valued partner’.
The time available to me for these remarks to the Parliament today is too short to encapsulate relationships which have evolved over 30 years, but I hope that others will now be able to contribute their thoughts on this important evolving relationship.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner,Member of the Commission. Mr President, I wish to begin by welcoming Mr Alexander in his new role, especially here in Parliament. We will have many debates together and it will be a pleasure to work with him.
I am very happy about this debate, because the situation in Asia and also in East Asia is indeed a major strategic issue. Asia is today not only the continent with the largest population but also with the highest economic growth rate and the highest rates of spending for research and development. The Far Eastern countries invest in their future and Asia will, no doubt, be the continent at the centre of the world stage in the 21st century. We have to know that and prepare for it.
Security in the Far East is a topic, therefore, of direct concern to European interests. It is part of the overall global responsibility for security and stability that lies at the heart of the European Union’s role in foreign policy. Moreover, stability in the Far East directly impacts not only on the prosperity and the well-being of our citizens but also of the citizens of this continent. China, Japan and the Republic of Korea are among the world’s top six economies, if the EU is counted as one. They also count among our major trading partners and are also key recipients of European foreign investment. Japan, for its part, is also a major source of investment in Europe, not least in some of the new Member States. In short, instability in the most dynamic region in the world would have serious consequences that would be deeply felt in Europe.
What, therefore, are the European responses and what are the instruments at our disposal to address this issue? I would like to tackle that question now.
Let us look at the main issues at stake in East Asia. Over the medium-term future, three major policy issues will dominate the political agenda in East Asia. Firstly, how to respond to the rise of China. Secondly, ensuring stability on the Korean peninsula and, thirdly, a peaceful resolution of tensions between China and Taiwan. The proper handling of these issues will have major implications both for our regional and wider security.
By contrast, the degree of economic integration in East Asia is also very impressive. However, this alone will not be sufficient to make East Asia more stable or more peaceful, particularly as the DPRK is still outside the emerging economic cooperation. Moreover, unlike in Europe in the later half of the 1980s, economic ties have not resulted in improved political relations. On the contrary, the economic rise of China and its assertive foreign policy have fanned concerns in some neighbouring countries that a more prosperous China could use its economic gains to pursue its national interests more forcefully and dominate the region both politically and economically.
The China-Japan rivalry has surfaced earlier and more visibly than expected by many observers. A trend in all East Asian countries towards a more nationalistic orientation may set the stage for using bilateral conflicts as a valve for domestic consumption. In China, for instance, as part of the process to move away from ideological constraints, nationalism has been revived as a unifying theme. With a generational change in Korea, anti-Communism based on the traumatic experience of the Korean War has lost its appeal. The new leadership, in line with the views of the younger generation often appears to see a forceful policy vis-à-vis North Korea as more of a threat to peace than North Korea’s nuclear programme. In Japan, a nationalistic renaissance can be observed, not founded on a young generation movement, but on an elite’s wish to change a so-called ‘self-denigrating attitude’ in Japan. This tendency in all three countries to favour nationalistic policies does not!
bode well for solving the concrete political problems that will become more urgent in the years to come. Moreover, with the technological rise of China, the economies may, in fact, move from complementarity to more intense competition and thereby heat up the political environment rather than cool it down.
Rising tensions are not a given, however. For instance, the meeting in Jakarta on 23 April between Japan’s Prime Minister Koizumi and China’s President – at which I participated – was held specifically to de-escalate the tension and that demonstrates that both sides understand that they would stand to lose economically from rising tensions. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the follow-up steps complicated rather than calmed down the situation when Vice Prime Minister Wu Yi abruptly cancelled a scheduled meeting with Prime Minister Koizumi. If nonetheless managed well, the Tokyo-Beijing rivalry could lead to constructive competition and thus would open the way to addressing long-standing conflicts, as witnessed, for instance, by the India-China rapprochement, followed by a visit of Prime Minister Koizumi to New Delhi and Tokyo’s increased interest in South East Asia. In this regard, it is very interesting to see the European example of overcoming war hostilities a!
nd cold war separation become a object of strong interest and study in East Asia. This provides us with an opening that we should use to foster relations with all regional players.
We are taking a number of concrete steps to address the various issues at hand in order to clearly voice Europe’s views for a way forward and to express our concerns about the situation. There is a political dialogue. It is true that we are just celebrating our 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations. There is also a human rights dialogue and all the security issues are there and are being discussed. Indeed, at the next summit with China, which will be held in September, we will try to come up with the idea of a more comprehensive and more ambitious framework agreement, because the old one is no longer fulfilling our most ambitious goals. There are 20 sectoral dialogues with the various ministers at ministerial level to prepare China for its WTO trade obligations and also, for example, for its obligations as regards intellectual property rights and as regards labour protection, which our colleague also mentioned. The general idea is fully reciprocal two-way relations.
On the China-Japan tensions, we have used recent high-level meetings – notably the EU-Japan Summit on 2 May in Luxembourg – to discuss stability issues in East Asia at the highest governmental level. In that context, we have agreed to intensify our political dialogue and we have said that energy issues in particular should be very high on our agenda, together with Japan. We want to do this, not least with a view to responding to Japan’s concern over a possible future lifting of the EU’s arms embargo on China. As a first follow-up, we held a ministerial Troika with Japan on 6 May in the margin of the ASEM meeting. In our political dialogue with China, we are also addressing the issue of Sino-Japanese tensions and calling for moderation and reconciliation.
On the arms embargo, the European Council Conclusions of December 2005 clearly stipulate that there should not be any change in the quantity or quality of arms exports to China. Therefore, any possible future decision on lifting the embargo should not alter the security situation in East Asia.
Moreover, the European Union has started a strategic dialogue with the United States on East Asia to address the security concerns of our partners, and information missions have been carried out to the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand to explain our position. We are finalising the reinforced Code of Conduct on arms experts.
Let me say two more things before the debate and then I will answer your questions. Regarding China’s Anti-Secession Law, in its statement issued on 15 March, the European Union clearly expressed its concern about this legislation. On that occasion, the European Union reiterated the principles guiding its policy, i.e. its attachment to a ‘one China’ policy and to the peaceful resolution of disputes. We have also called on both sides to develop initiatives for dialogue and understanding. It must be said that we were happy to see that Taiwan opposition leaders went to mainland China. We hope that in the future all parties will be involved in such contacts.
I refer again to the DPRK’s nuclear programme. I would remind you that the European Union – and the Commission also – is a board member of KEDO. We have financially and otherwise supported this – currently suspended – activity with a view to finding a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue. We continue to give our full support to possible six-party talks as a way forward and have impressed our view very clearly on the North Korean Government on various occasions. I hear that a parliamentary delegation is going to North Korea. We will be very happy to listen to you and to learn from you when you come back.
I will stop here. There is a lot to be said, because these issues, as I have said, are at the centre of our global policy for the 21st century.
Georg Jarzembowski, im Namen der PPE-DE-Fraktion.– Herr Präsident, sehr verehrte Frau Kommissarin, sehr geehrter Herr Ratsvertreter! Eigentlich müssten wir jetzt doppelt so viel Zeit bekommen, um auf die ausgezeichneten Ausführungen der Vorredner in der Sache richtig antworten zu können. Deshalb kann ich nur stichwortartig vorgehen.
Ich glaube, wir sind uns einig, dass die Spannungen zwischen den verschiedenen Staaten im Fernen Osten ernst genommen werden müssen, sei es die Spannung zwischen Japan und China, sei es die Spannung zwischen Nordkorea und Japan. Sie können das bis nach Russland hin verfolgen, etwa bei der Frage der vier Inseln, die seit dem zweiten Weltkrieg immer noch besetzt sind. Es ist ganz wichtig, dass wir als Europa einen vernünftigen Beitrag leisten, und zwar nicht nur aus wirtschaftlichen Gründen, Frau Kommissarin, sondern auch aus politischen Gründen. Wir sind uns doch alle einig – und ich nehme an, der Ratsvertreter wird mir zustimmen –, dass wir Demokratie, Menschenrechte und Rechtsstaatlichkeit fördern wollen, und dass wir es als langfristige Grundlage für vernünftige wirtschaftliche Beziehungen ansehen, dass wir auf gleicher Basis arbeiten.
Frau Kommissarin, Sie haben zu Recht auf den erfolgreichen Gipfel Japan/EU im Mai in Luxemburg hingewiesen. Aber manchmal habe ich das Gefühl, dass Rats- und Kommissionsvertreter dreimal so oft in Peking wie in Tokio sind. Auch der Besuch von Taipeh wäre nicht falsch. Taiwan und Japan sind schließlich beides Länder, die Demokratien mit Mehrparteiencharakter haben, in denen es Menschenrechte und Rechtsstaatlichkeit gibt. Beides haben wir in der Volksrepublik China noch nicht gesehen, und es ist nur in sehr weiter Ferne überhaupt absehbar. Man bräuchte eine größere Ausgewogenheit der Besuche und der Kontakte, um darzustellen, dass Demokratien untereinander zusammenarbeiten müssen.
Ich würde gerne vom Rat noch wissen, wie es nun mit den weiteren Überlegungen zur Aufhebung des Waffenembargos aussieht. Wir als Parlament haben drei ganz klare Voraussetzungen: Erstens brauchen wir – wie Sie – wesentliche Fortschritte bei der Menschenrechtssituation in China. Zweitens müssen die Spannungen zwischen Taiwan und China aufhören. Man kann in ein solches Spannungsgebiet, wo China Taiwan mit über 700 an seiner Küste aufgestellten Raketen bedroht, doch nicht Waffen liefern! Frau Kommissarin, Sie haben ein bisschen gemogelt. Soll nun der Waffenkodex rechtlich verbindlich sein? Wenn ja, wann? Denn das ist für uns auch eine Voraussetzung, um überhaupt über eine Aufhebung des Waffenembargos reden zu können.
Wir müssen alles tun, damit die Länder in Asien das, was wir in Europa erreicht haben, nämlich sechzig Jahre nach Ende des zweiten Weltkrieges die Aussöhnung zu schaffen, auch erreichen. Wir sollten sie deshalb aufmuntern, den gleichen Prozess der Aussöhnung zu forcieren, denn ohne Aussöhnung gibt es keine Stabilität und keine Sicherheit.
Glyn Ford, on behalf of the PSE Group.– Mr President, I speak on behalf of the Party of European Socialists. This compromise resolution is one that we support, because we believe that it is important that the European Parliament speak with one voice. However, understandably it does not exactly represent the views of my Group, nor for that matter those of the other Groups that have signed it. It is exactly what it says: a compromise.
The Far East is an increasingly important region for trade and aid with increasing globalisation of both economics and politics. Security issues affect us all: now when North-East Asia sneezes, we all threaten to catch a cold. I would like to make three main points.
First, with respect to the arms embargo with China, it was rightly imposed after the horrors of Tiananmen Square. We rightly still have concerns about China’s human rights record, but, as the Council said, things are moving in the right direction. For us, it is the lack of a full legal base for the code of conduct on arms that is as much a problem for the lifting of the embargo as the situation in China.
Second, with respect to North Korea, as you have said, Commissioner, a delegation is leaving tomorrow, of which I am part, under the leadership of Ursula Stenzel. This will be the first meeting between a standing delegation of the European Parliament and the Supreme People’s Assembly of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
This Parliament has made its position clear in the past and will reiterate it in the vote tomorrow. The European Union has contributed EUR 500 million to humanitarian aid, development and KEDO in North Korea. We believe increasingly that we should have a policy of ‘no say, no pay’. We will seek to continue critical engagement to bring North Korea back to the table, out of the cold and into the world, but we want a place at that table when they come back to it.
Lastly, no country is immune from blame for the current tensions in this region: the China-Taiwan, China-Japan, Japan-South Korea issues and that of the Korean peninsula itself. There is a continuing need to come to terms with the region’s history. The countries might well learn from the historical Franco-German and German-Polish reconciliations here in Europe. As Commissioner Rehn said in a previous debate, ‘there is no lasting peace without reconciliation around truth and justice’.
István Szent-Iványi, a ALDE képviselőcsoport nevében.– Az Európai Parlament meggyőző többséggel foglalt állást a kínai fegyverembargó fenntartása mellett. Ennek az embargónak mindaddig fenn kell maradnia, amíg az elrendelés okai fennállnak. Például, amíg több mint százan börtönben vannak a Tienamnen téri tiltakozás résztvevői közül. A példák mutatják, hogy az embargó ellenére is fejlődnek a gazdasági kapcsolatok, tehát ez semmiképpen nem befolyásolja a gazdasági kapcsolatokat, de a politikai kapcsolatokra nézve iránymutató kell legyen. Én személy szerint bízom a brit elnökség álláspontjában, én úgy tapasztaltam, hogy az Egyesült Királyságnak egyértelmű, világos álláspontja van ebben a kérdésben és ehhez gratulálok.
A másik fontos kérdés: Tajvan 1997 óta szeretne megfigyelői státuszt szerezni az Egészségügyi Világszervezetben. Minden évben elutasítják, sajnos ebben az évben is ez történt, és sajnos a tagállamok együttműködésével utasították el. Pedig úgy vélem, hogy Tajvan 23 millió lakosának joga van arra a biztonságra és védelemre, amit az Egészségügyi Világszervezet tud nyújtani számukra, de fordítva is igaz ez, nekünk is szükségünk van arra a tudásra, tapasztalatra – és azt kell mondjam, azokra az anyagi eszközökre is –, amelyeket Tajvan tudna biztosítani számunkra. Teljesen érthetetlen, hogy miért utasítják el Tajvannak ezt a kérését. Nem kívánom megkérdőjelezni az "egy Kína" politikát, de ennek ehhez nincs köze. Tajvan ma is részese számos nemzetközi együttműködésnek, így például a Nemzetközi Kereskedelmi Szervezetnek tagja, részese az APEC gazdasági együttműködésnek, és más nemzetközi szerveze!
teknek is. Ugyanakkor az Egészségügyi Világszervezetben megfigyelői tagsággal rendelkezik a Szentszék, a Máltai Lovagrend, a Vöröskereszt, a Vörösfélhold, sőt még az Interparlamentáris Unió is. Ezek után teljes mértékben abszurd dolog, hogy Tajvant elutasítják. Kérem az elnökséget és a Bizottságot, győzzék meg a tagállamokat, hogy jövő évben vegyék fel megfigyelőként Tajvant az Egészségügyi Világszervezetbe.
Raül Romeva i Rueda, en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE.– Señor Presidente, efectivamente China desempeña un papel fundamental, tanto en la política exterior como en la política comercial europeas. Por ello, precisamente, es tan importante que la Unión Europea se asegure de que su política con relación a China contribuye a mejorar los estándares sociales, ambientales y de derechos humanos, y de que no pone en riesgo la estabilidad y la seguridad regionales.
En este contexto, coincido en que resultan preocupantes algunas de las acciones que recientemente han protagonizado las autoridades chinas, como, por ejemplo, en relación con Taiwán, la adopción de la ley antisecesión.
Hay que recordar también que la Unión Europea sólo podrá aceptar un acuerdo entre China y Taiwán si es el resultado de un diálogo pacífico entre las partes y, especialmente, si es respetuoso con los progresos democráticos hechos por Taiwán.
Por otra parte, como también se ha dicho, respecto al embargo de armas hay que recordar que es preciso mantenerlo intacto, al menos mientras no haya un avance notable en relación con los derechos humanos, lo que incluye también la situación del Tíbet, hasta que se aclare suficientemente lo que ocurrió en Tiananmen y, sobre todo desde mi punto de vista, hasta que el Código de conducta de la Unión Europea se convierta en un texto jurídicamente vinculante.
Por ello, quiero instar al representante del Consejo a que nos alegre este agosto con la adopción de un estatuto jurídicamente vinculante para el Código de conducta, lo cual sería muy celebrado por esta Cámara.
Erik Meijer, namens de GUE/NGL-Fractie.– Voorzitter, het oordeel van mijn fractie over de Volksrepubliek China en over de regering die zetelt op het eiland Taiwan was lange tijd eenvoudig. In 1949 was een oude, onbekwame profiteurskliek die niet in staat was een oplossing te bieden voor armoede en onrecht, terecht door het volk weggejaagd. Zij waren gevlucht naar een eiland waar de bevolking zich in meerderheid geen Chinees voelde en dat tot 1945 langdurig niet bij China hoorde. Op dat eiland vestigden zij een militaire dictatuur die probeerde aanvallen te doen op het vasteland. Uiteindelijk verloor dat oude regime zijn internationale erkenning en werd het uit de Verenigde Naties gezet.
Op het vasteland vonden ondertussen allerlei interessante experimenten plaats, zoals industrialisatie van het platteland en een ingrijpende reorganisatie van de landbouw. De komst van fabrieken, spoorlijnen en stuwdammen hielp het land vooruit. Helaas werden bij die experimenten, zoals de Grote Sprong Voorwaarts en de Culturele Revolutie, als gevolg van onervarenheid grote fouten gemaakt die veel mensen het leven hebben gekost. Dat leek de prijs voor een goede toekomst.
Inmiddels is China onder leiding van de erfgenamen van dit revolutionaire bewind nog steeds een land met toekomst, maar de politieke lijn is volstrekt gewijzigd. De Volksrepubliek is nu een supersnelle groeier, maar wel een met grote ongelijkheid, met doodstraffen en zonder democratie of vrijheid van organisatie. Het model lijkt vooralsnog op wat men in Zuid-Korea en Taiwan inmiddels terecht heeft verlaten.
Taiwan heeft zich ontwikkeld van een militaire dictatuur tot een steeds meer met Europa en Japan vergelijkbare parlementaire democratie. Tot die democratie behoort ook dat de wens naar voren komt voor een niet-Chinees, dus onafhankelijk Taiwan. Bij het zoeken naar een oplossing voor een 56-jaar durende deling van wat internationaal wordt erkend als Chinees grondgebied zullen we rekening moeten houden met die nieuwe ontwikkelingen. Alleen zo kunnen we vreedzame oplossingen voor de toekomst helpen vinden.
Bastiaan Belder, namens de IND/DEM-Fractie.– Voorzitter, ontspanning tussen China en Taiwan zou de veiligheidssituatie in het Verre Oosten aanmerkelijk verbeteren. De huidige situatie oogt daar allesbehalve naar. Voor Raad en Commissie de urgente taak een zakelijker relatie tussen Beijing en Taipei te bevorderen. De sterke Europese handelspositie met beiden biedt daartoe niet alleen de objectieve mogelijkheid, maar noopt er evenzeer toe vanuit het eigenbelang. Eén ding is duidelijk, het volstrekt premature voornemen van de Raad tot opheffing van het wapenembargo tegen de Volksrepubliek heeft, in combinatie met de recente Chinese anti-afscheidingswet, het regionale spanningsveld enorm versterkt. Strategische onnadenkendheid wedijvert hier met een schrijnend gebrek aan inter-Europese diplomatieke confrontatie, respectievelijk trans-Atlantische raadpleging. Naar ik hoop keert de Raad onder Brits voorzitterschap van deze onveilige weg terug. Indien de Europese Unie haar strategische verantwoordelijkheid waarneemt voor h!
et Verre Oosten, ondersteunt zij flexibele cross-Straits relations.
De tijd heeft ook op Taiwan niet stilgestaan. Sinds jaren al is er sprake van de ontwikkeling van een eigen nationale identiteit. Voeg daaraan een indrukwekkende democratisering toe. Ziehier de kern van het Taiwan-conflict van vandaag. Bovendien houden de Taiwanezen begrijpelijkerwijs de ontwikkelingen in Hongkong van de laatste jaren in het achterhoofd. Raad en Commissie, commercieel ziet u Taiwan bepaald niet over het hoofd. Diplomatiek lijkt dat, treurig genoeg, wel het geval en daarom sluit ik mij van harte aan bij paragraaf 9 van de ontwerpresolutie. Ondersteun een Taiwanees waarnemerschap bij de Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie en geef 23 miljoen vrije Taiwainezen een stem en een gezicht in internationale fora. Zo werkt de Europese Unie mee aan de broodnodige inter-Chinese dialoog.
Konrad Szymański, w imieniu grupy UEN.– Panie Przewodniczący, Pani Komisarz, Panie Ministrze! Ogłoszenie przez Chińską Republikę Ludową tzw. „prawa antysecesyjnego” to kluczowy moment dla bezpieczeństwa w regionie Dalekiego Wschodu. Chińska Republika Ludowa, uchwalając ustawę ostentacyjnie sprzeczną z prawem międzynarodowym, pokazała światu, że wraz z urynkowieniem części gospodarki i otwarciem się świata zachodniego na kontakty z Chinami, nie następuje upragnione złagodzenie reżimu w Pekinie.
Chiny wiedząc, że Tajwańczycy nigdy nie zgodzą się na unifikację w sposób dobrowolny, przygotowują się do zbrojnej napaści na ten demokratyczny i dobrze prosperujący kraj. Tylko od naszej reakcji zależy, jaki będzie finał tego procesu, który zaczął się od wydatków na zbrojenia, którego kolejnym krokiem była ta skandaliczna ustawa, której z kolei prostą aplikacją jest wycelowanie 600 pocisków balistycznych w kierunku Tajwanu.
Część reakcji europejskich już znamy. W tym samym czasie, kiedy Chiny dokonują swojej prowokacji, prezydent Francji - kraju o najwyższym bilansie handlowym z Chinami spośród krajów europejskich, ogłasza, że embargo na eksport broni do Chin nie ma już sensu i jest wyrazem wrogości. Wtóruje mu kanclerz Niemiec. Jest to najgorsza z możliwych odpowiedzi. Jeśli posłuchamy tych rad, możemy uzbroić kraj, który nie ukrywa swych agresywnych zamiarów wobec sąsiadów.
Europa potrzebuje innej odpowiedzi na tzw. „ustawę antysecesyjną”. Potrzebuje ona utrzymania embarga i zacieśnienia aktywnej polityki wspierania międzynarodowej pozycji Tajwanu w ścisłej współpracy ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi. Status quo, którego chcieliśmy do tej pory bronić, został podważony. Został podważony jednostronnie przez Chińską Republikę Ludową.
Słuchając tej debaty, pozwolę sobie na jeszcze jedno, może trochę żartobliwe spostrzeżenie. Gdybyśmy w Europie mieli ogólnoeuropejski zakaz pochwały ustrojów totalitarnych, to mam wrażenie, że posłowie postkomunistyczni nie wychodziliby z więzienia ani na jeden dzień i mielibyśmy Parlament, który by funkcjonował w składzie mniejszym o 50 osób.
Fernand Le Rachinel (NI).– Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, nous savons que la Chine, de par son influence sur la Corée du Nord, détient les clefs de la paix dans cette région du monde. Mais l'attitude de plus en plus agressive de la Chine communiste à l'égard de Taiwan constitue une menace d'autant plus grave pour cette paix que les dirigeants de Pékin disposent de l'arme nucléaire. Ces derniers, depuis 1949, n'ont pas renoncé à annexer Taiwan, devenue grâce au courage de ces habitants, une des économies les plus dynamiques du Pacifique et un modèle de démocratie dans une région où les régimes totalitaires sont encore nombreux.
Cette agressivité ne sera pas apaisée par les compromissions auxquelles se livrent quelques dirigeants européens, au premier rang desquels se trouve M. Chirac, qui est allé jusqu'à inviter dans son château le dictateur communiste chinois. Seule une attitude ferme et décidée amènera les autorités de Pékin à faire des compromis et notamment à reconnaître le droit à l'autodétermination des Taiwanais. Aussi longtemps qu'ils ne le feront pas, les États de l'Union européenne devront maintenir l'embargo sur les armes destinées à la Chine communiste. Si nos gouvernements adoptaient une autre politique, non seulement ils trahiraient les valeurs de liberté et de démocratie dont ils ne cessent de se prévaloir et de se réclamer, mais ils compromettraient gravement la stabilité de l'Extrême Orient.
Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE).– Herr Präsident, Herr Ratspräsident, Frau Kommissarin! Ich begrüße die Entschließung über die Sicherheit im Fernen Osten. Vor allem begrüße ich den Umstand, dass diese Entschließung auf einem breiten Konsens aller Fraktionen beruht. Sie bestimmt daher auch den politischen Rahmen, innerhalb dessen die morgen beginnende Korea-Mission stattfindet, in der ich die Ehre habe, den Vorsitz zu führen. Es hat ja bereits vorher zwei Ad-hoc-Missionen gegeben, aber seit es erstmals die Parlamentarische Delegation für die koreanische Halbinsel gibt, ist dies die erste Mission des Europäischen Parlaments nach Nord- und Südkorea überhaupt.
Der politische Hintergrund dieser Reise ist, dass das Europäische Parlament die Europäische Union als siebten Verhandlungspartner in die Sechs-Parteien-Gespräche ins Spiel bringen möchte. Auch liegt es in unserem Interesse, dass Nordkorea seine Isolation überwindet, um entsprechende humanitäre Hilfe der EU zu erhalten. Die Rückkehr zum Verhandlungstisch sowie der überprüfbare Abbau und Verzicht auf Nuklearbewaffnung sind eine wesentliche Voraussetzung nicht nur für die Annäherung der beiden Koreas und damit die Entspannung der Region, sondern auch für den Zugang zu größerer europäischer Unterstützung.
Auch in der Volksrepublik China, wo wir Gelegenheit haben werden, mit Vertretern des außenpolitischen Komitees des Volkskongresses zusammenzutreffen, sind uns die Kernaussagen dieser Entschließung eine politische Vorgabe. Vor allem ist es der Wunsch, dass die Volksrepublik China einen deutlichen Einfluss auf die Haltung Nordkoreas nehmen möge, um einen konkreten Termin für die Wiederaufnahme der Sechs-Parteien-Gespräche zu nennen und auf diese Weise eine politische Lösung zu ermöglichen. In diesem Sinne bieten wir, die europäischen Parlamentarier, unsere guten Dienste an.
Alexandra Dobolyi (PSE).– A Távol-Kelet biztonságának és további fejlődésének megőrzése érdekében szeretném felhívni azon országok kormányainak figyelmét, akik még mindig vitás területi kérdésekkel rendelkeznek, hogy kétoldalú tárgyalások formájában minél előbb rendezzék azokat. Napjainkban a második világháborúval kapcsolatban még mindig felmerülő nézetkülönbségek rámutatnak arra, hogy a történelmi múlttal való szembenézés és annak feldolgozása még várat magára a régióban. A térség biztonságának egyik kérdése a 2005. márciusában a Kínai Népköztársaság által elfogadott elszakadásellenes törvény. Fontosnak tartom a térség status quo-jának megőrzését, és támogatom a kérdés békés, a felek közti párbeszéd útján történő rendezését, az "egy Kína" elv szem előtt tartásával.
Sajnálatomnak adok hangot azzal kapcsolatban, hogy Észak-Korea 2005. februárjában bejelentette, hogy atomfegyverekkel rendelkezik, kilép az Atomsorompó Szerződésből és a hatoldalú tárgyalásokat meghatározatlan időre felfüggeszti. Szeretném leszögezni, hogy továbbra is a hatoldalú multilaterális tárgyalásokat tekintem a rendezés elsődleges keretének, és az azon született elvi egyetértést az atomfegyvermentes Koreai-félsziget megteremtéséről. Remélem, hogy Észak-Korea mihamarabb felülvizsgálja álláspontját, és nemzetközi garanciák biztosítása mellett visszatér a szerződéses keretek közé.
Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis (UEN).– Cienījamie kolēģi, komisāres kundze, Padomes pārstāvji! Eiropas Savienība vienmēr ir akcentējusi demokrātijas veicināšanu un brīvības tiesiskumu, un cilvēktiesību atbalstīšanu visā pasaulē. Šiem mērķiem ir jābūt demokrātiskas Eiropas stratēģiskai prioritātei un morālai nepieciešamībai, kas vērsta uz civilās sabiedrības un demokrātijas institūtu nostiprināšanu pasaules trešajās valstīs. Šiem aspektiem būtu jābūt noteicošiem, vērtējot Eiropas Savienības, Ķīnas un Taivānas attiecības, kā arī drošību Tālajos Austrumos.
Tāpēc īpaši aicinu paturēt prātā ieroču tirdzniecības embargo pret Ķīnu noteikšanas apstākļus. Nav noslēpums, ka no ieroču tirdzniecības viedokļa embargo pret Ķīnu praktiski nedarbojas. Tāpēc embargo būtu jāvērtē nevis kā ieroču izplatības ierobežošanas mehānisms, bet tikai kā Eiropas Savienības politisks instruments novērtējumam par demokrātijas un cilvēktiesību aspektiem Ķīnā. Tātad vēlme atcelt embargo liecina, ka demokrātijas, brīvības, tiesiskuma un cilvēktiesību jautājumi Ķīnā Komisijai, šķiet, bažas vairs nerada. Vai tiešām tā ir? Vai tā nav liekulība? Vai tiešām Komisija, Francijas, Vācijas vai Nīderlandes valdības, meklējot iespējas ekonomiskiem darījumiem Ķīnā, neredz, ka tur turpinās disidentu apspiešana, Falun Gong piekritēju vajāšana, demokrātijas un brīvības ierobežošana Hongkongā, ka pret demokrātisko Taivānu ir pavērstas vairāk ka septiņsimt Ķīnas raķetes, ka autoritārā Ķīna šajā pavasarī ir likumā nostiprinājusi tiesības veikt militāru iebrukumu demokrātiju attīstošā Taivānā?
Cienījamie kolēģi, šī ir reize, kad Eiropas Parlamentam atkal ir jāatgādina, ka Eiropas atsevišķas amatpersonas, valstu pārstāvji, risinot šauri ekonomiskās intereses, rīkojas saskaņā ar dubultiem standartiem — iedrošina Ķīnu, rāda gatavību ignorēt demokrātiskus ideālus. Šāda attieksme ne tikai mazina drošību Tālajos Austrumos, bet nākotnē kā bumerangs var ietekmēt drošību un stabilitāti arī pašā Eiropā.
Philip Claeys (NI).– Voorzitter, het wapenembargo tegen China werd ingesteld om te protesteren tegen de bloedige onderdrukking van het studentenverzet op het Tian An Men-plein in 1989. Is er sindsdien, in 16 jaar tijd, iets fundamenteel veranderd op het vlak van de mensenrechten in China? Hoegenaamd niets. Op het Tian An Men-plein hangt trouwens nog altijd een reusachtig portret van Mao Zedong, de grootste massamoordenaar van de twintigste eeuw.
Vandaag de dag zijn er nog altijd mensen die voor hun aanwezigheid op het Tian An Men-plein in de gevangenis zitten. Het zijn trouwens niet de enige politieke gevangenen, want de zogenaamde Volksrepubliek is nog altijd een communistische éénpartijstaat waar geen vrijheid van meningsuiting bestaat, waar geen vrijheid van drukpers bestaat, waar geen vrijheid van godsdienst bestaat.
Eergisteren bijvoorbeeld werd monseigneur Jia Zhiguo, bisschop van de nog altijd ondergrondse katholieke kerk in China gearresteerd. Hij bracht al meer dan twintig jaar van zijn leven door in gevangenschap. De Volksrepubliek China schendt niet alleen op systematische en permanente manier de mensenrechten, maar vormt ook een bedreiging voor de regionale stabiliteit en dus voor de vrede tout court. De zogenaamde anti-afscheidingswet is een mes op de keel van Taiwan.
De Europese Unie blaast tegelijkertijd warm en koud. Enerzijds verklaart men dat de situatie voor de mensenrechten in China moet verbeteren, anderzijds wil men het wapenembargo opheffen en het Chinese regime het signaal sturen dat men het niet te nauw hoeft te nemen met die mensenrechten. Men prijst Taiwan, terecht, voor het economisch succes en voor de reële democratie, maar men maakt de Volksrepubliek niet duidelijk dat een aantasting van de integriteit van Taiwan onaanvaardbaar is. Een strategisch partnerschap met China mag in die omstandigheden geen doel op zich zijn, zoals ook de zogenaamde One China Policy ook geen doel op zich moet blijven.
Als Taiwan ooit formeel zijn onafhankelijkheid uitroept, dan moet Europa die onafhankelijkheid onmiddellijk erkennen en moeten onze lidstaten diplomatieke betrekkingen met Taiwan aanknopen.
Μανώλης Μαυρομμάτης (PPE-DE).– Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κυρία Επίτροπε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, εκπρόσωποι της Προεδρίας, οι τακτικές επισκέψεις στις Βρυξέλλες και στο Στρασβούργο Κινέζων επισήμων αντιπροσώπων και οι συναντήσεις τους με εκπροσώπους του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου αναδεικνύουν το ενδιαφέρον ανάπτυξης της σχέσης της Κίνας με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.
Παράλληλα όμως έφεραν στην επιφάνεια διαφορές και σε πολιτικό επίπεδο που αργά αλλά σταθερά οδηγούν τις δύο πλευρές σε υποχρεωτική και αρμονική συμβίωση, γιατί η Λαϊκή Δημοκρατία της Κίνας έχει ανάγκη την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση την Κίνα. Επιπλέον, δεν πιστεύω ότι αποτελεί απειλή η παρουσία της Κίνας και της Ινδίας στο χώρο του διεθνούς εμπορίου, όπως ισχυρίσθηκε εδώ πρόσφατα, στην πρώτη του εμφάνιση, ο ασκών την Προεδρία του Συμβουλίου, Tony Blair. Αντίθετα, θα υποστήριζε κάποιος ότι είναι μία καλή ευκαιρία προσέγγισης των λ�!
�ών σε όλους τους τομείς συνεργασίας και ευγενούς άμιλλας, μια μοναδική ευκαιρία, όπου η προσέγγιση σε όλα τα επίπεδα θα δώσει λύσεις ακόμη και σε εκκρεμότητες, όπως ανάμεσα στην Κίνα και στην Ταϊβάν, που ζητά την απόσχιση, στην άρση του εμπάργκο πώλησης όπλων εις βάρος της Κίνας από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες και τέλος στην εξάλειψη της παράνομης και αδιευκρίνιστης εξαγωγής προϊόντων, ιδιαίτερα στον τομέα των φαρμάκων, της ηλεκτρονικής τεχνολογίας, των κλωστοϋφαντουργικών και των ειδών ένδυσης.
Δεν είναι συμπτωματικό το γεγονός ότι μπροστά στα αδιέξοδα το κινέζικο καράβι προσπαθεί να συμβιβασθεί. Οι διμερείς σχέσεις που έχει αναπτύξει η Κίνα με κράτη σε όλο τον κόσμο αυξάνονται και επεκτείνονται με γοργούς ρυθμούς, από τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες και τη Λατινική Αμερική μέχρι την Ευρώπη. Είναι αρκετό όμως αυτό ή χρειάζονται συντονισμένες ενέργειες από την πλευρά της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, ώστε οι στόχοι αυτοί να είναι κοινοί και ενιαίοι;
Ένας από τους μεγάλους αυτούς στόχους επιτεύχθηκε την περασμένη εβδομάδα - το ακούσαμε προηγουμένως. Η υπογραφή για συνεργασία για "ανοικτούς ουρανούς" - αύξηση στον τομέα των πτήσεων μεταξύ Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και Πεκίνου - από τον Αντιπρόεδρο της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, τον Jacques Barrot, είναι δείγμα καλής θέλησης. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση είναι ανάγκη, κατά συνέπεια, να επισπεύσει τις διαδικασίες ρύθμισης των εκκρεμοτήτων με την Κίνα. Ο άνεμος που πνέει θα έχει σύντομα ανυπολόγιστη ταχύτητα και τότε μόνο ένα Σινικό Τείχος θα μπορούσε να συγκρατήσε!
ι τον τυφώνα που λέγεται Λαϊκή Δημοκρατία της Κίνας.
Κλείνοντας θέλω να ευχηθώ καλή επιτυχία στο Λονδίνο για το 2012, ανάλογη επιτυχία με αυτή της Αθήνας των Ολυμπιακών Αγώνων του 2004, παρά τις όποιες αμφιβολίες είχε το Λονδίνο τότε. Και ευχές ακόμη γιατί η Μεγάλη Βρετανία έχει τη δυνατότητα σε συνδυασμό με το Πεκίνο του 2008 να επιτύχει ακόμη μεγαλύτερη σύσφιγξη στις σχέσεις.
Libor Rouček (PSE).– Dámy a pánové, kritici Evropy často tvrdí, že Evropa je příliš zahleděna do sebe, že si maximálně všímá svého okolí, že si nevšímá problémů, např. ve východní Asii. Já myslím, že dnešní debata ukazuje pravý opak, že jsme si vědomi výzev, které přicházejí z východní Asie, rostoucího postavení Číny i postavení Japonska, Severní Koreji, Jižní Koreji a samozřejmě i bezpečnostních problémů, které ve východní Asii panují.
Pokud jde o Čínu, já plně sdílím názor předsedající země Velké Británie, že je potřeba posílit globální dialog, že Evropa a Čína jsou globálními partnery, že společně musí řešit globální výzvy jako je bezpečnost, energetická bezpečnost, jako jsou klimatické změny. Tento dialog, toto partnerství, které, jak já též věřím, bude zarámováno do té rámcové dohody, nevylučuje a naopak podporuje dialog na poli lidských práv. Byl zde zmíněný Tchaj-wan, byla zde zmíněna Jižní Korea, právě tyto dvě země ukazují, jak je možné z totalitní autoritářské země postupně krok za krokem budovat demokracii. A já jsem toho názoru, že zesílený dialog s Čínou právě na poli lidských práv může vést k podobnému výsledku.
Aloyzas Sakalas (PSE).– Mr President, perhaps this policy under consideration is the best one at the given time. I am going to start by mentioning the political background.
Our policy is based on the ‘one China’ principle, but this principle has deprived the people of Taiwan of another fundamental principle: that of self-determination. I might understand the pragmatism of the EU, but it should not be selective, as we have never spoken of a ‘one Korea’ principle, for example.
My next comment is about the compatibility of China and Taiwan. I can hardly imagine two states under one political umbrella if they have such incompatible political systems. I see two options: we must either revise the one-China principle and adjust our policy in respect of it, or wait for an indefinite amount of time until China per se becomes a democratic state with a multi-party system, a rule of law and respect for human rights.
The proposed policy stems from the second option, but it is by no means the best choice.
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, let me begin by thanking the honourable Members for their wide-ranging and thoughtful contributions to this important and timely debate. I also thank the Commissioner for her generous welcome in this Parliament today. I also look forward to our many debates over the weeks and months to come.
Let me respond first to some of the main points raised during the last hour. Mr Jarzembowski spoke of the importance of the recent EU-Japan meeting. We clearly welcome and will work towards strong relations with Japan, and, of course, with China. He spoke wisely of the need for continued understanding and reconciliation within the region.
Mr Ford recognised the interdependence that is surely one of the hallmarks of our globalising world. He also raised the issue of the arms embargo, as did a number of speakers, including Mr Szent-Iványi, Mr Romeva i Rueda, Mr Belder and Mr Kristovskis. Let me, therefore, take a moment or two to address the queries that have been raised.
As Members are aware, a review of the European Union arms embargo was, of course, announced by the European Council in December 2003 and is presently ongoing. In June, the European Council also recalled its conclusions of 16 and 17 December 2004 and invited the Council to continue its work on that basis. No date was set for a decision. The Council also welcomed the launch of a strategic dialogue on Asia with the United States and Japan. We look forward in the course of our Presidency to taking this forward.
No decision has yet been taken on lifting the EU arms embargo in China. The review launched in December 2003 is, as I have said, ongoing. In its conclusions in December 2004, the Council recalled the importance of the criteria of the code of conduct, which have been referred to by a number of Members today, including the provisions regarding human rights, stability and security in the region and the national security of friendly and allied countries.
Mr Szent-Iványi also raised the issue of the European Union’s position on Taiwan’s participation in the World Health Organisation. There are difficulties over Taiwanese membership of the World Health Organisation. The WHO is a United Nations specialised agency where statehood is therefore a prerequisite of membership. The public health benefits to Taiwan from observer status appear limited, since the World Health Organisation and Taiwan already share information on an informal basis. The European Union made its position public on Taiwanese participation at the 2004 World Health Assembly. Ireland issued an EU Presidency statement that strongly supported the principle enshrined in the WHO Constitution that the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being. It also expressed hopes that all parties will show flexibility in finding mechanisms to allow Taiwanese medical and public health officials to participate !
in these activities. At this year’s World Health Assembly, the issue did not come up for vote in the General Committee, but we understand that the WHO secretariat and China recently signed a memorandum of understanding on WHO technical exchanges with Taiwan.
Mr Meijer offered his own distinctive views on Chiang Kai-Shek and on his successors in Taiwan. I would simply reiterate the point I made in my introductory remarks that today Taiwan is, of course, a full democracy.
Mr Szymański and Mrs Dobolyi spoke of the anti-secession law recently passed by China. So let me say a further word on China-Taiwan relations and cross-strait tension. The European Union and the Council attach great importance to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, which is important for the whole region and indeed beyond. The Taiwan question should be settled peacefully, as I said, through peaceful negotiations. We welcome any efforts by both sides to lower tensions, such as, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, the cross-strait charter flights and visits by Taiwanese opposition parties. We hope that both sides can find a mutually acceptable basis for a resumption of peaceful dialogue and avoid unilateral measures, which might heighten tensions.
Luxembourg issued two Presidency statements this year on cross-strait relations. In February, a statement was issued welcoming the agreement to cross-strait direct charter transfer flights over the Lunar New Year. The second statement issued in March by the Luxembourg Presidency followed China’s adoption of its anti-secession law, which has caused so much commentary in the course of our debate this afternoon. That statement voiced concerns over the legislation’s reference to the use of non-peaceful means. It asked all parties to avoid any unilateral action that might rekindle tensions and also encouraged both sides to develop initiatives that contribute to dialogue and to mutual understanding.
In his meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Li on 17 March, almost immediately after the passage of the law, the High Representative, Javier Solana, expressed the European Union’s concerns about some elements of the anti-secession law. He acknowledged positive elements in the law, strongly supporting the call for cross-strait dialogue and cooperation, but made clear that references to a potential resolution of the issue by non-peaceful means was very much at odds with European Union policy. He clarified once again the position of the EU: first, full support for a one-China policy and, secondly, resolution of the situation through dialogue and peaceful means.
Mrs Stenzel told us of her mission departing for the Korean peninsula tomorrow and this was also referred to by Mr Mavrommatis. I wish her and her colleagues well in this important work and I look forward to hearing a full report of her endeavours on her return.
Mr Rouček mentioned the criticism sometimes directed at the European Union that it is too inward looking. I would simply say that those who make that criticism would have done well to listen to the calibre and contributions of the debate we have had this afternoon. I therefore welcome his endorsement of our approach, which recognises that Europe must look outwards and actively engage with the challenges and also the opportunities that our modern globalising world provides.
Mr Kristovskis and Mr Claeys appropriately raised the issue of human rights in China. I can assure both Members that the European Union raises a lot of human rights concerns with the Chinese Government at the biannual European Union-China human rights dialogue, which is a regular high-level exchange. The last round was held in Luxembourg in February. The next round will take place in Beijing this autumn. The European Union also regularly engages Chinese interlocutors on human rights issues, including at the very highest levels outside these dialogues. The European Union also funds human rights projects within China.
Let me say a word or two in conclusion. The Chinese presently have a target to reach per capita income comparable to that of today’s developed countries by about 2050. The significant development of economic strength was really the opening framework with which I approached this debate. That was echoed by the words of the Commissioner immediately following my contribution. Whether it reaches that ambitious target or not, the development of its economic and trade ties is already all but irreversible. China is also accepting the responsibility that economic strength brings. It has more influence on the world stage in such fora as the WTO, the G8 and the United Nations. This is all to the good. Many of the problems we face today, such as climate change, which will clearly be one of the significant items being discussed in Gleneagles over the days to come, can only be solved through action by all.
The Council has a close interest in supporting China’s successful transition to a stable, prosperous and open country that fully embraces free market principles and the rule of law. For this reason, the European Union has a policy of strong engagement with China. This engagement is mutually beneficial and is not confined solely to matters of trade. The European Galileo programme will provide high precision global satellite navigation services, an area in which China is keen to develop links with the European Union. A cooperation agreement was concluded in October 2003, under which China has pledged to contribute EUR 200 million to this programme.
Of course, we do not imagine that there will not be disagreements or that there will not be differences of opinion. We trust that our relationship with China is strong enough for us to be able to meet to address these challenges in the weeks, months and years ahead.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner,Member of the Commission. Mr President, a lot has been said in this very interesting debate. I thank all Members for their interesting contributions. They have concentrated on a few topics.
With regard to the arms embargo, my colleague has said almost everything. I should just like to answer Mr Jarzembowski, confirming that we are aiming at a legally binding code of conduct. It will depend on the Member States, but that is our aim.
With regard to human rights, it was said by a few Members that we have not mentioned human rights. That is simply not true. On the contrary, human rights feature in all our political dialogues and great significance is attached to them. I recently met with Foreign Minister Li and I was also involved in a troika in China. The main topic there, apart from the arms embargo and some trade issues, was the human rights issue. We clearly said – and this went on record – that the Chinese should go on, for instance, with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and with releasing prisoners incarcerated after the Tiananmen Square protests. We have a human rights dialogue at least, where these issues can be clearly talked through and then, hopefully, taken up by the Chinese.
I would also like to mention Taiwan. The European Union has advocated – and this is a unanimous policy – the one-China policy, which means that we do not recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state and we have no diplomatic or formal political relations with Taiwan. Nevertheless, we have cultural and economic relations with Taiwan. Therefore, it is not for us politicians but for high officials to go to Taiwan, where they hold exchanges of views. We also do not support Taiwan's efforts to become a member in international fora because, if such membership implies statehood, that is not possible according to the consequent policy that we have. Taiwan was able, by contrast, to join the World Trade Organization because the WTO supposes that each member is a separate customs territory, thus making Taiwan's membership possible.
With regard to the China-Taiwan question, the EU has been very explicit with both sides, consistently insisting on a peaceful resolution through dialogue, as I mentioned. We were indeed very pleased, and said as much, when opposition politicians went there. We said that we encouraged them to do such things with all other politicians.
The whole question of the United Nations, of multilateral diplomacy, is very important. We stand before a reform of the United Nations. China will have a very important say there. We would like to work in a very constructive way.
I should like to pay tribute to Mrs Stenzel and other colleagues for this interesting mission to the DPRK. It would be in all our interests if the six-party talks were resumed. If needed, we are always standing ready. There is no need for the European Union to come in, but if there is a need – we have always mentioned that to all the parties – then certainly we would be prepared and ready.
I thank you for this highly satisfactory discussion. We must accept a China that will rise with or without us. Therefore, we must focus all our interests in shaping that rise to ensure that China emerges as an open society committed to the rule of law at home and abroad and also as a power that acts responsibly regionally and with regard to global security and, hopefully, in the future, democratically. It is now at a critical place in the global supply chain, meaning that the significant EU business and consumer interests also need to be consolidated and advanced. We need to influence the reform process in all areas of society and the economy. We try to do that in our bilateral talks, in our troika talks, within the framework of the different international organisations, or at the United Nations.
(Applause)
Předseda. Na závěr této rozpravy jsem obdržel pět návrhů usnesení¹(1) předložených podle čl. 103 odst. 2 jednacího řádu.
Rozprava je tímto uzavřena.
Hlasování proběhne 7. července 2005.
Písemné prohlášení (článek 142)
Filip Andrzej Kaczmarek (PPE-DE).– Bezpieczeństwo na Dalekim Wschodzie jest ważne. Jest ważne szczególnie dla tych, którzy codziennie odczuwają deficyt bezpieczeństwa. Proszę sobie wyobrazić jak mogą się czuć mieszkańcy Korei Północnej skazani na kaprysy swych komunistycznych władców. Jak czują się mieszkańcy Tajwanu, gdy muszą konfrontować swe codzienne życie z tzw. antysecjonistycznymi tendencjami ChRL? Jak czują się Tybetańczycy, którzy stali się mniejszością we własnym kraju? Naszym obowiązkiem jest wspierać tych, którzy są w niebezpieczeństwie.
Zasada "jednych Chin" jest akceptowalna, ale jest akceptowalna do momentu, w którym jej stosowanie nie narusza innej zasady - zasady samostanowienia mieszkańców Tajwanu. Polityka "jednych Chin" nie może doprowadzić do sytuacji, gdy ofiarą jej stosowania będą mieszkańcy Tajwanu. ChRL jest tygrysem ekonomicznym, ale niestety nie jest tygrysem demokracji. Gdyby ChRL była demokratycznym państwem prawa łatwiej byłoby stosować zasadę integralności terytorialnej. Dopóki jednak prawa człowieka nie są tam przestrzegane, nie można akceptować presji ChRL wywieranej na Tajwan.
Europie udało się przezwyciężyć polityczne skutki zimnej wojny. W Azji nie udało się przezwyciężyć politycznych, ekonomicznych i społecznych skutków prawdziwej wojny - wojny koreańskiej. Można dyskutować czy Korea Północna przegrała tę wojnę czy nie. Pewne jest natomiast, że przegrali ją zwykli ludzie. Ludzie, którzy mają prawo, aby żyć normalnie, a nie w skansenie komunistycznego totalitaryzmu.
Předseda. Dalším bodem pořadu jednání je prohlášení Rady a Komise - Svět bez min.
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, I am honoured today to have the opportunity to open this debate on ‘a world without landmines’. Support for international mine action is one of the most important political priorities of the European Union and I am genuinely grateful for the efforts of the European Parliament in helping to ensure that this issue has not dropped down the international agenda.
The European Union took an active role during the First Review Conference of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on their Destruction in November 2004, which was referred to as the 2004 Nairobi Summit on a Mine-Free World. The European Union considers that the First Review Conference of the Convention was an important milestone to take stock of what has been achieved up to now in implementing the Convention and identifying what needs to be done to renew the commitment of States Parties in eradicating the inhumane effects of anti-personnel mines.
There is a risk that we may lose sight of the importance of this issue when debating safely today in the heart of Europe or, for that matter, in New York or Geneva. I would therefore like to set the scene for this afternoon’s debate with a reminder of the extent and the severity of the problem and why it is important that the European Union and the European Parliament continue to play such a leading role.
It is estimated that between 15 000 and 20 000 people are killed or injured by landmines each year. These deaths and injuries take place in more than 80 countries around the world, from Angola to Zimbabwe and even closer to home in the Balkans. Astonishingly, this equates to more than 40 casualties per day, a figure which I am sure everyone here today will agree is simply unacceptable. The vast majority of these casualties occur in countries no longer in the grip of conflict. However, landmines do not recognise the end of hostilities. It is a horrible truth that millions of anti-personnel mines still exist and, in some parts of the world, are still being laid, affecting the poorest people in the poorest countries, the people least able to deal with the threat and the people most in need of our help and support.
Anti-personnel landmines are merciless and indiscriminate. They cannot be accurately targeted; they do not distinguish between soldiers and civilians, adults or children. The injuries inflicted by landmines on those unfortunate enough to come into contact with them are truly horrific. This is no mistake. Anti-personnel landmines have been designed to maim rather than kill their victims. The victims of landmines suffer horribly, being literally blown to pieces. Put simply: landmines cause deprivation, random death and untold suffering in many innocent civilian populations.
So it is right that the international community should take action and that the European Union should be amongst the front-runners. The Ottawa Convention or ‘Mine Ban Treaty’ prohibiting anti-personnel landmines has enjoyed wide international support and there are now 152 signatories. Much progress has been made to combat the scourge of these terrible weapons since the Convention’s entry into force in 1999. The Convention is a success story. Before the Convention, 34 nations were thought to be trading in anti-personnel mines. Now, apart from some illicit activity, virtually no such trading is taking place. 54 nations used to produce anti-personnel landmines; today 15 nations are thought to have the capacity to produce mines, but most of these countries are not actually doing so. Seven years ago mines were used in 19 countries; now it is probably 5. Effectively, the ban on these anti-personnel mines is global because of the huge and appropriate stigma now attached to t!
he use of these weapons.
Over 37 million stockpiled anti-personnel mines have now been destroyed. Large areas of the world have been cleared of mines and made productive again. These are achievements that the international community can be proud of and would never have come about were it not for the Mine Ban Treaty. But that does not mean we should relent on our objective for a complete universalisation of the Ottawa Treaty and we must work towards an agreement to ensure that the comprehensive action plan at the Nairobi Review Conference is implemented fully.
Standing here today before you, I am particularly proud and grateful for the role that the European Union has played in the fight against anti-personnel landmines. The European Union has helped maintain political cooperation as well as practical assistance. I fully support the European Union’s goal to ‘drastically reduce the lingering threat and impact of landmines in the context of increased local security and regional confidence’. Some may argue that the European Union’s target of ‘zero victims’ is too optimistic and is, indeed, unachievable. But it must remain our goal and we are committed to work towards reaching this target.
The European Union’s 2005-2007 mine action strategy operates on the basis of three thematic objectives: to reduce the anti-personnel landmine threat, to alleviate mine-victim suffering and aid socio-economic reintegration and to enhance local and regional impacts of effective mine action capacity.
In pursuit of our aims, we have demonstrated both political and financial commitment to making them a reality. We will continue to do so. The European Union has sought to promote all efforts likely to contribute to the goal of the total elimination of anti-personnel landmines, including through joint action and diplomatic démarches, dialogue with third-party countries, as well as activity in international fora.
There is still much to be done. The European Union has and will continue to back policy in this area with resources. Financially it is projected that the total European Union assistance for mine action under our 2005-2007 strategy will amount to at least EUR 140 million, which will be linked to the European Union’s wider development goals. Member States are backing this up with additional bilateral funding to countries in need.
It is clear that where there are landmines, there is little prospect for development. The very presence of mines exacerbates poverty by preventing the productive use of land and infrastructure, while the cost of treating injured survivors of landmine accidents drains the poorest nations of already scarce resources. This is why humanitarian de-mining is particularly important. We will continue to support mine action focused on the poorest countries. Future mine action will depend strongly on incorporating mine action into countries’ development plans. Failure to do so will adversely affect the hopes to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, which will be such a focus of the Millennium Review Summit in September.
Let me conclude by saying that the European Union is determined to achieve the complete elimination of the threats posed by the landmines, by promoting universality, destroying stockpiles, clearing mines and assisting victims. We do so in close cooperation with the international community, be it governments, international organisations or, indeed, non-governmental organisations. Let us continue to take concerted action until the last anti-personnel mine is cleared from the face of the earth and the target of zero landmine victims is finally achieved.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner,Member of the Commission. Mr President, besides being extremely important to the international community and to the European Union, the topic of landmines is also of great personal interest to me. During the war my father trod on a land-mine and had a leg amputated, so you can imagine that in a way that marked my whole childhood. I therefore, as Foreign Minister, felt very strongly committed to the fight against landmines and I think it is a centrepiece to our work on human security. As we have heard, landmines remain a threat in too many countries.
Five years after the Mine Ban Treaty entered into force and after the successful outcome of the Nairobi Review Conference last year, the international community, with the European Union as a leading force, has achieved significant progress towards a world without landmines. To date 144 countries have ratified the Mine Ban Treaty.
Whilst we have indeed achieved great successes, a lot remains to be done and there can be no long-term security without human security. Support for international mine action therefore continues to be amongst the most important political priorities of the European Union.
Our efforts to combat landmines are an integral part of our foreign humanitarian and development policy. In response to the Nairobi Action Plan, the European Commission adopted the second Mine Action Strategy for 2005 to 2007 at the end of last year. Its overarching objective is a zero-victim target. What we want is a world where no-one will be injured or killed by landmines. This is not a remote political dream. It is an achievable goal. To make it reality, the Commission is further strengthening international assistance in mine action, by strongly encouraging States to ratify the Mine Ban Treaty and also by helping them implement it.
In this regard, it is my pleasure to announce that, following the recent ratification by the Ukrainian Parliament of the Mine Ban Treaty, the Commission and the Ukrainian Government have just agreed the details of a major project for the destruction of land-mine stockpiles. We have explained to our Ukrainian partners that they needed to ratify the Mine Ban Treaty before we could release any funds. This is therefore an encouraging example of concrete cooperation that promotes universal adherence to the Treaty.
Our strategy is supported by a budget of EUR 140 million, 10% more than for the 2002 to 2004 Strategy. This money is well spent, not just on marking, clearing and destroying mines, but on alleviating the suffering of the victims, socio-economic reintegration and the enhancement of local and regional capacity. To give you just one specific figure, in Afghanistan we shall have spent approximately EUR 40 million between 2001 and 2006, in order to make the country safe for the civilian population.
I would like to stress that since the signature of the Mine Ban Treaty overall financial support from the Community and the Member States reached a record figure of over EUR 1 billion, almost half the global budget for land- mines. This proves that here too the European Union is a global actor that can make a difference and it also proves that the European Parliament and the Commission, together with the Council, are a strong team in foreign affairs. I very much welcome and support all your initiatives and thank you for having put them on the table.
Finally, I would like to say that we currently face heavy weather, but that is no reason to become introspective. We must remain firm in pursuing our ultimate external policy goal and that is a secure Europe in a better, more secure world.
(Applause)
Geoffrey Van Orden, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group.– Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Ferrero-Waldner for her remarks and commitment. I particularly welcome the British Minister of State for Europe, Mr Douglas Alexander. It is very nice to see him here.
I have been involved in action against the scourge of anti-personnel landmines for some 10 years now. It is a pity that we still have to raise this subject. As the Minister has mentioned, many of the poorest parts of the world are still afflicted by these weapons. It is estimated that there are still about 15 000 mine victims every year and millions of mines are still stockpiled. The fact is the armed forces of afflicted countries are not involved enough in mine clearance. Too much is left to NGOs and the international community and there is a danger that the political campaign that supports mine action will head off in other directions instead of concentrating on what really matters: making safe those areas where the suspected presence of mines is a bar to normal life and economic development and assistance to mine victims.
It is most important that the landmine problem is, to all intents, overcome by 2010, in just five years’ time, and does not become one of those problems that never go away. This requires accelerated commitment of political will and of resources by the international community and the affected countries.
The Commission is to be congratulated for the size, quality and continuity of its contribution, but it needs to attach even higher priority to this problem and we need to ensure the right multiannual commitment of funds and ensure that money is well spent.
It is also important that we remain sharply focused, taking account of the requirements of our own professional and responsible armed forces. Some seem to forget that it is not the western democracies that are the problem. For the most part, they are part of the solution. I refer to our own governments – the British and other European governments, and also that of the United States, which is among the world’s largest contributors to mine action.
The PPE-DE Group is putting forward its own resolution and is not able to support the resolution by the other political groups, which emphasise widening the campaign to include anti-tank mines and other categories of munitions.
This week attention is focused on Africa at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles and here in the European institutions. Let us remember that many African countries are amongst the most afflicted by landmines and their presence is a major barrier to the rapid development that needs to take place across the continent if the people of Africa are to escape from poverty. Let us renew our commitment to overcome the awful impact of anti-personnel landmines.
Ana Maria Gomes, em nome do Grupo PSE.– Também eu fiquei sensibilizada pela intervenção do Sr. Ministro e da Srª. Comissária Ferrero-Waldner, referindo-se a uma situação que deve ter ocorrido durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial e, no entanto, cada ano que passa, e ainda hoje, 20.000 pessoas são vítimas de minas ou munições abandonadas e, entre elas, 8 a 10 mil são crianças mortas ou mutiladas, a maior parte pela variante das minas ditas anti-pessoais. Estas armas imorais continuam a ter consequências sociais, económicas, ambientais e humanitárias e constituem, assim, uma intolerável ameaça à segurança humana de comunidades inteiras.
A Convenção de Otava representa um avanço tremendo no combate a este flagelo mas, como ouvimos no dia da informação organizada aqui, no Parlamento Europeu, a 16 de Junho, da boca de Jody Williams e do Embaixador Wolfgang Petritsch, muito há ainda por fazer. Para além das obrigações jurídicas a que estão sujeitos os Estados Partes, a comunidade internacional tem o dever de eliminar de uma vez por todas não só as minas ditas antipessoais mas quaisquer minas ou mecanismos que possam matar ou mutilar indiscriminadamente. E países como o meu, que minaram outros países, em guerras coloniais ou outras, têm particulares responsabilidades em ajudar agora a desminá-los e a apoiar a recuperação e a reinserção social das respectivas vítimas.
A Europa, em particular, deve manter o papel de liderança nesta área e estendê-lo a outras áreas de desarmamento. A produção, o comércio e a utilização de minas anti-carro, munições de fragmentação e armas ligeiras colocam desafios que importa confrontar agora, sob pena de perdermos a iniciativa; e, para isso, os membros da União e a Comissão têm de apresentar-se unidos e falar com uma só voz, mais audivelmente e com mais eficácia, promovendo a universalização da Convenção de Otava em todos os fóruns internacionais e nas relações com países terceiros e insistindo na ratificação e assistindo na sua aplicação. Para isso, é importante que os países da União que ainda não assinaram ou ratificaram a Convenção o façam sem demora e se juntem às 144 nações que consideram que esta e outras dimensões do desarmamento global são elementos fundamentais da estabilidade sustentável do nosso planeta e da segurança de todos nós.
Trata-se, assim, como dizem as conclusões da Conferência de Revisão de Nairobi, de trabalhar na direcção de um mundo livre de minas. Devemo-lo a milhares de comunidades cujo desenvolvimento se vê ameaçado por estas e outras armas que matam e mutilam aleatoriamente. Pelos direitos humanos, pela segurança humana, pela paz, por aquilo que são os valores mais essenciais em que se funda a União Europeia. É isto que está reflectido na resolução que propomos.
Jelko Kacin, v imenu skupine ALDE.– Čeprav je veliko držav že prepovedalo uporabo, skladiščenje, izdelavo in razširjanje protipehotnih min in se zavezalo k njihovemu uničenju z ratifikacijo konvencije, pa protipehotne in druge kopenske mine še vedno obstajajo. Prav včeraj je vozilo slovenske vojske v Afganistanu zapeljalo na mino. Prikrite ležijo v naravnem in bivalnem okolju, grozijo ljudem in živalim, ubijajo in zelo prizadenejo s telesnimi in psihičnimi poškodbami ter socialnimi in drugimi trajnimi posledicami. Svet še vedno ni osvobojen grožnje tega najbolj nehumanega orožja, ki onesnažuje naš planet.
Razumem položaj in zgodovinske okoliščine v treh državah članicah Evropske unije, ki še vedno niso ratificirale konvencije, toda zdaj je čas sprememb. Preprečevanje in odvračanje nevarnosti vojaških spopadov v Evropi bi morali zagotoviti z drugimi sredstvi.
Žrtev min je več kot se nam zdi, oziroma se tega zavedamo. Žrtve niso samo nedolžni civilisti, predvsem kmetje in njihovi otroci, ki so, če preživijo, psihično in fizično poškodovani in zaznamovani za vse življenje. Žrtve so tudi njihovi starši, sorodniki, sosedje, prijatelji in znanci. Prav je, da v naši resoluciji govorimo tudi o denarju za rehabilitacijo in reintegracijo žrtev. Resocializacija je dolgotrajen in zelo zahteven proces, ki omogoča šele dokončno in pravo rehabilitacijo.
Toda vsako razminiranje je veliko cenejše od odstranjevanja posledic eksplozije in rehabilitacije žrtev. Tudi v jugovzhodni Evropi, manj kot tisoč kilometrov od Strasbourga, še vedno beležimo nove žrtve min, zato moramo z razminiranjem vztrajati in nadaljevati do odstranitve zadnje mine v Evropi. Če ne bomo pri tem hitrejši, bomo soočeni z novimi žrtvami, na drugih celinah pa ne bomo dovolj prepričljivi in uspešni, če se ne bomo najprej dokazali doma.
Šele svet brez min dopušča vrnitev beguncev in obnovo kmetijstva, ki je pomembna gospodarska panoga zlasti v državah, kjer so divjale vojne.
Caroline Lucas, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group.– Mr President, just a few weeks ago a bus in Nepal drove into an anti-tank mine that had been put on the road by rebels. More than 60 civilians died. That incident – just one among many thousands – highlights the appalling damage that can be caused by modern anti-tank mines.
The ban on anti-personnel landmines set out by the Ottawa Treaty was an important first step. However, for a truly mine-free world, it is vital that we go beyond this and call for a comprehensive ban that covers all types of mines, including anti-tank mines and fragmentation bombs. I am sorry that the PPE-DE Group cannot join us on this. The horrific incident in Nepal illustrates the urgent need to allow specialist NGOs to involve non-state actors as well in cleaning mines from areas under their control.
We must not forget the role played by financial institutions. I warmly welcome the initiative taken by private Belgian banks to stop investing in companies involved in the production of landmines. The EU and Member States should work hard to make this fine example of corporate social responsibility legally binding throughout Europe. I hope we will send a strong message tomorrow by adopting this excellent resolution and take forward the vital campaign to finally eliminate the scourge of mines, which has killed and maimed so many.
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, it is only right that we have had this important debate. I have appreciated the lively and thoughtful discussion we have had in the limited time available to us today. Indeed we have heard the moving personal testimony of the Commissioner and seen her personal commitment both to this issue and to this agenda.
As we have heard, there is almost universal agreement on the need to tackle the terrible problems caused by anti-personnel mines. There is equally a recognition that people of our constituencies all across this continent expect nothing less of us. Let me respond to some of the main points that have been raised in the course of our debate.
I begin by paying tribute to the long-standing work on this issue by Mr Van Orden. He spoke with real knowledge and a sense of urgency, given the scale of the challenge we face. I join him in congratulating the Commission for its work and paying tribute to the work that it has undertaken on this issue and recognise, as he made clear, the particular challenge faced by Africa in relation to the clearance of mines. All of us, with a sincere regard for the condition of that continent, recognise what a significant contribution the removal of mines can make to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals there.
Mrs Gomes spoke in particular of the risks mines pose to children, while recognising the significant step forward represented by the Convention. I agree with the initial point she made, that Europe has a leading role to play in this regard. Indeed the European Union has been at the very forefront of the fight against anti-personnel landmines. I can assure her that we will continue to be so. Under the 2005-2007 strategy, we are aiming for the ambitious goal of a zero-victim target, where no one will be injured or killed by landmines. This strategy represents a common goal that all 25 Member States share.
Mr Kacin spoke of the contemporary threat posed by landmines with reference to the recent incident in Afghanistan. On the issue of universalising the Convention, as part of the action plan agreed by the First Review Conference of the Ottawa Convention last December, the European Union is committed to promoting the universalisation of the Treaty and the international community is making progress: 152 countries have now signed the Convention and 144 have ratified it, so the Ottawa Treaty is now very much the international norm, although that does not mean that we should ease up on our efforts to universalise it.
Mrs Lucas paid rightful tribute, I felt, to the important work of non-state actors in relation to the ongoing work both of universalising the Treaty and of continuing to make the case for further action to be taken. We have had the opportunity and indeed I believe that we now have the responsibility to make a real difference to the lives of millions of people around the world by taking action in relation to mines. This is an opportunity to help free them from the shadow of fear that anti-personnel landmines cast over their daily lives week-in and week-out and we have a responsibility to meet that challenge head on and deliver real results that will help deliver prosperity and security for future generations, not just on this continent but on all the continents of the world.
I am grateful for the contributions that I have heard to the debate this afternoon. I have been heartened by the commitment of the Commission. I can assure you that the UK Presidency will continue to take action on this important subject.
(Applause)
Předseda. Na závěr této rozpravy jsem obdržel šest návrhů usnesení¹(1) předložených podle čl. 103 odst. 2 jednacího řádu.
Rozprava je nyní uzavřena.
Hlasování proběhne 7. července 2005.
(Zasedání, které bylo přerušeno v 17:50, pokračovalo v 18:00.)
29. Kérdések órája (a Tanácshoz intézett kérdések)
Die Präsidentin Nach der Tagesordnung folgt nun die Fragestunde (B6-0247/2005).
Wir behandeln eine Reihe von Anfragen an den Rat.
Die Präsidentin.
Anfrage Nr. 1 von Dimitrios Papadimoulis (H-0447/05)
Betrifft: Marmorfries des Parthenon
In der britischen Presse sind neue Daten zur unsachgemäßen Art und Weise veröffentlicht worden, mit der das Britische Museum den Schutz und die Erhaltung des Frieses handhabt, wodurch wieder einmal das Argument der britischen Seite widerlegt wird, der Fries könne besser im Britischen Museum geschützt werden. Welche Initiativen gedenkt der Rat zu ergreifen, um die Entschließung des Europäischen Parlaments (3.11.1998) zur Förderung unseres gemeinsamen Kulturerbes umzusetzen?
Gedenkt der Rat seine guten Dienste anzubieten, um Druck auf Großbritannien dahingehend auszuüben, dass der Forderung nach Rückgabe des Frieses entsprochen wird? Ist er der Auffassung, dass eine Einigung über die Rückgabe des Frieses dazu beitragen würde, das Ansehen Großbritanniens im Hinblick auf die Ausrichtung der Olympischen Spiele 2012 zu verbessern?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. Madam President, I am grateful for those words of welcome. The question raised by the honourable Member concerning the Parthenon marbles does not fall within the Community’s sphere of competence. This is an issue for the United Kingdom and Greece, which should be addressed bilaterally by their respective authorities.
Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης (GUE/NGL).– Κύριε Προεδρεύοντα, αφού σας συγχαρώ για την ανάληψη της οργάνωσης των Ολυμπιακών Αγώνων του 2012 και, θεωρώντας ότι η κυβέρνησή σας έχει συμφέρον να αναπτύξει την οικουμενικότητα ενόψει της οργάνωσης αυτών των Ολυμπιακών Αγώνων, θα ήθελα να ρωτήσω την Προεδρία αν σκοπεύει να προσφέρει τις καλές της υπηρεσίες επικοινωνώντας με τη βρετανική κυβέρνηση, έτσι ώστε αυτό που αποφάσισε και ζητεί το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο από το 1998, την επιστροφή των μαρμάρων του Παρθενώνα, να γίνει πράξη μέσα στα επόμενα χρόνια.
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. First, let me thank the honourable Member for his kind words of congratulation to the United Kingdom on securing the 2012 Olympic Games for London. I would have been delighted if any European city had secured those games, but I was particularly delighted that London has been successful today in Singapore. I hope that it will be a truly outstanding European event, and I am sure all Members of Parliament will be warmly invited, along with citizens from right across this continent.
On the specific supplementary question that the honourable Member raised, I can assure him that the British Government is fully aware of the views of the Greek Government and the views previously expressed by this Parliament on the issue of the Parthenon Marbles. The United Kingdom Government considers that this is a matter for the trustees of the British Museum, who are, in the case of the United Kingdom, independent of government.
I understand that the position is that the British Museum considers the British Museum to be the best place to house the Parthenon sculptures.
I reiterate that this is not an appropriate matter for the Presidency to deal with; it is better taken forward by bilateral discussions between the Greek and United Kingdom authorities.
David Martin (PSE).– While you are absolutely right to say that the issue of the Parthenon Marbles is a bilateral issue between Greece and the United Kingdom, would you not agree that there is a need to further discuss our common European heritage and to find ways of sharing, to the best effect, Europe’s valuable historic resources?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. The point made by the honourable Member is an important one in terms of work that can be done collaboratively. I can assure him that, if one looks, for example, at some of the treasures from the art world that have been brought to the United Kingdom and taken to other European countries in recent years, it reflects that fact that there is much sharing of cultural heritage across European boundaries.
That does not, however, diminish the points that I made. In this case, the matter is more appropriately dealt with bilaterally between the respective national authorities. I would also reiterate the point that the British Museum trustees are the appropriate body with whom these discussions should be taken forward, rather than it being a matter for national governments in the first instance.
Die Präsidentin.
Anfrage Nr. 2 von Sajjad Karim (H-0449/05)
Betrifft: Folter “in Vertretung”
Im Lichte des absoluten Verbots von Folter und andere Formen der Misshandlung haben Staaten ihr Vorgehen verteidigt, angebliche Terrorismusverdächtige in andere Länder zu überstellen, wobei sie nachdrücklich darauf hinwiesen, dass sie sich um diplomatische Zusicherungen bemühten, dass die Häftlinge nicht gefoltert würden. Es gibt aber immer mehr Hinweise darauf, dass bestimmte Staaten – sowohl innerhalb der EU als auch Drittländer – Terrorismusverdächtige aufgegriffen und von einem Staat in einen anderen Staat überstellt haben, von dem allgemein bekannt ist, dass er Folter als eine Verhörtechnik einsetzt. Opfer behaupten, dass sie gefoltert wurden und die Staaten, die die Überstellung veranlasst haben, den aufnehmenden Behörden sogar Listen mit Fragen übermittelten, die im Zuge des Verhörs beantwortet werden sollten. In Anbetracht dieser Praktiken steht außer Zweifel, dass – wenn man sich auf diplomatische Zusicherungen "verlässt" – dies einen Versu!
ch darstellt, das Recht zu beugen. Dieses Vorgehen muss aufgedeckt und eingestellt werden.
Was wird der Rat angesichts der Tatsache, dass das Verbot von Folter und andere Formen der Misshandlung eine allgemein verbindliche Verpflichtung darstellt, unternehmen, um diese Verstöße zu verhindern und Abhilfe zu schaffen, wenn es zu diesen Verstößen gekommen ist?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. The Council shares the view of the honourable Member that efforts must be pursued in order to make more effective the fight against torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world.
Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, to which all EU Member States are a party, provides that no state shall expel, return or extradite a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
Regarding the assertion of the honourable Member that, both within and outside the European Union, certain states have seized and rendered terror suspects from one state to another that is widely recognised as employing torture as an interrogation technique, the Council is not aware of the ‘mounting evidence’ claimed by the honourable Member. It is for the Committee Against Torture set up by the Convention Against Torture to monitor the implementation of the Convention.
The Council is, and will remain, actively committed to the prevention and eradication of torture and other cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment, in line with the EU guidelines on this subject.
Sajjad Karim (ALDE).– I have heard the answer and am quite happy to forward evidence in my possession, through my office, to the relevant committee and, indeed, to the Presidency. It surprises me somewhat that they do not have that information. I can tell the House in very clear terms that there are disturbing allegations that EU Member States themselves have allowed their territory to be used as landing points for planes used in extraordinary renditions. Member States that allow their territory to be used in this way and allow flights to leave in such circumstances are colluding in serious and persistent breaches. What action does the Council plan to take to investigate these allegations and, if Member States are found to be responsible for such breaches, is the Council prepared to take action under Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union and suspend certain membership rights of those states?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. Madam President, in light of your direction, I shall keep this answer brief. I note the offer made by the honourable Member to pass on the evidence apparently in his possession to the Committee against Torture, which has been set up by CAT to monitor the implementation of the Convention. I would simply reiterate that the Council is and will remain actively committed to the prevention and eradication of torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, in line also with the EU guidelines on this subject.
Die Präsidentin.
Anfrage Nr. 3 von Sarah Ludford (H-0452/05)
Betrifft: Umsetzung der dritten Säule zur Terrorismusbekämpfung
Die Erklärung des Europäischen Rates zum Kampf gegen den Terrorismus vom 25. März 2004 legt den Mitgliedstaaten die Pflicht auf, bis Juni 2004 vier Rahmenbeschlüsse und zwei Beschlüsse, die für den Kampf gegen den Terrorismus von entscheidender Bedeutung sind, umzusetzen. Außerdem ruft der Rat in dieser Erklärung dazu auf, einen weiteren Rahmenbeschluss umzusetzen und das Übereinkommen über die Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, das zugehörige Protokoll sowie die drei Protokolle zum Europol-Übereinkommen bis Dezember 2004 zu ratifizieren.
Kann der Rat nach Ablauf eines Jahres bestätigen, dass alle Mitgliedstaaten ihren Verpflichtungen nachgekommen sind? Falls nicht, welche Schritte plant der Rat, um die vollständige Umsetzung dieser Maßnahmen durchzusetzen? Welche Schlüsse zieht der Rat aus der Tatsache, dass in den Bereichen Sicherheit und Bedrohungen aus kriminellen Handlungen zwischen Theorie und Praxis eine Lücke klafft?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. The state of play of the implementation of the legislative instruments relevant in the fight against terrorism is set out in Document 8211/05 Add. 2 Rev. 1, which will be distributed to the European Parliament.
The tables indicate that, although not all instruments have been fully implemented, considerable progress has been made since last year. The Council plans to update the tables contained in the aforementioned document regularly and, on that basis, to discuss with all Member States the state of play with regard to implementation.
Sarah Ludford (ALDE).– In January the Commission reported that only three Member States had fully implemented the Framework Decision of June 2002 on joint investigation teams by the deadline, not including the UK.
The Commission said it encountered many difficulties in gathering the relevant information. Is it not time to stop the tradition whereby the Council does not name and shame those countries not implementing the Framework Decision? Is it not also necessary that the Council take advantage of the provisions in the current Treaty to convert the hopelessly ineffective as well as undemocratic intergovernmental provisions in the law enforcement area to Community competence so that suitable enforcements of the law are agreed by the Member States? Otherwise, how are we ever going to combat crime and terrorism?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. Madam President, I note the tenor of the question. The specific matter raised is an issue that I will certainly look into in the course of the Presidency. I would say, however, on the general question of why the European Union has not made further progress on counter-terrorism legislation, that substantial preparatory work on counter-terrorism legislation has been carried out under previous presidencies. We anticipate that we will be able to agree a framework decision on exchange of information and the European Evidence Warrant under our Presidency.
The framework decision on data retention has been held up by concerns about its legal base and by the lack of a common understanding between Member States.
Die Präsidentin.
Anfrage Nr. 4 von Jonas Sjöstedt (H-0454/05)
Betrifft: Urteil gegen Eğitim Sen in der Türkei
Das Oberste Gericht der Türkei hat am 25. Mai 2005 die Auflösung der Lehrerorganisation Eğitim Sen verfügt. Sie verliert damit das Recht, ihre etwa 200 000 Mitglieder gegenüber den Behörden und Arbeitgebern zu vertreten.
Hintergrund dieses Urteils ist, dass Eğitim Sen in ihrer Satzung und im Aktionsplan das Recht auf Unterricht in der eigenen Muttersprache für alle Kinder verteidigt und das Recht aller, sich entsprechend ihrem kulturellen Hintergrund zu entwickeln. Das Oberste Gericht ist der Auffassung, dass dies eine Verletzung der Verfassung der Türkei sei, wonach jeglicher Unterricht in türkischer Sprache abzuhalten sei.
Die Kommission hat bereits früher bekräftigt, dass in der Türkei weiterhin beachtliche Einschränkungen des Vereinigungsrechts, des Rechts auf Aushandlung von Kollektivarbeitsverträgen und des Streikrechts bestehen, und dass die Türkei nicht die Normen der IAO erfüllt.
Welche Konsequenzen wird nach Auffassung des Rates der Beschluss des Obersten Gerichts der Türkei für die Bemühungen des Landes um eine Mitgliedschaft in der EU haben?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. The honourable Member is undoubtedly aware that in deciding that Turkey fulfilled the Copenhagen political criteria sufficiently to open accession negotiations, the European Council on 16 and 17 December 2004 clearly stated that the Union would continue to monitor closely the progress of the reform processes within Turkey. In that context, the specific case mentioned by the honourable Member is known and has been followed closely.
Without going into the details of the ruling given recently by the Turkish Supreme Court, the Presidency can state that it has prompted some concern on the part of the Union with regard to respect for both freedom of expression and association, and for the cultural rights of minorities. The proceedings are still under way and the trade union organisation in question has also stated that it might appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
The Presidency can, nonetheless, assure the honourable Member here and now that, if need be, and while respecting the principle of the independence of the judiciary, the Union will not fail to raise this issue with the Turkish authorities, as it does regularly in the various fora for political dialogue as well as within the bodies of the Association Agreement regarding any problems that arise in implementing the reform process.
Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL).– Jag skulle vilja tacka ordförandeskapet för svaret och framför allt för löftet att ta upp denna konkreta fråga om denna turkiska lärarorganisation i direkta bilaterala kontakter med Turkiet.
Detta mycket anmärkningsvärda beslut innebär en kränkning av grundläggande fackliga rättigheter och rätten att organisera sig. Det innebär dessutom en kränkning av yttrandefriheten i Turkiet samt minoriteters rättigheter i ett och samma beslut. Jag tycker därför att detta är ett oerhört centralt fall för Turkiets demokratiska trovärdighet.
Jag vill också ställa följande fråga till ordförandeskapet: Kan förhandlingar om EU-medlemskap inledas med Turkiet så länge denna typ av beslut tas i landet?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. Although I am respectful of the point made by the honourable Member, it is important to recognise that the Turkish Government has made enormous progress over the last couple of years through the adoption of a series of constitutional and legislative reforms. Major reforms include the abolition of the death penalty, new protections against torture, greater freedoms of expression, association and religion, ratification of international agreements on human rights, greater cultural rights for Kurds and others, and reduction of the military’s role in the government.
The December European Council to which I referred endorsed the 6 October Commission recommendation that – and once again I quote – ‘Turkey has met the Copenhagen political criteria that accession negotiations be opened’. The Council’s conclusions welcomed the decisive progress made by Turkey in its far-reaching reform process and express confidence that Turkey would sustain that process of reform.
Turkey’s human rights record will be the subject of intense scrutiny during the accession negotiations. We remain confident that all remaining concerns will be addressed during that accession process.
David Martin (PSE).– Supreme Courts are by definition laws unto themselves and I think you are absolutely right to emphasise that this one unfortunate and unsupportable decision should not in any way impinge on the progress of Turkey towards membership of the European Union. They have, as you have outlined, made significant efforts to meet European norms and we should not blow this one incident out of all proportion. Does the Council agree?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. I am happy to concur with the opinions of my fellow countrymen. I would certainly say on a serious basis that real and significant progress has been made. There is clearly further work to be undertaken, but it would be unfortunate if those who have wider objections to this issue did not recognise that this is a single decision within a process that is heading in the right direction, although there is a significant amount of progress still to be made.
Åsa Westlund (PSE).– Jag välkomnar också rådets svar på frågan, men jag skulle vilja ha ett klargörande.
Anser rådet att Turkiets konstitution som den nu har tolkats av Högsta domstolen är förenlig med Europeiska unionens stadga om de grundläggande rättigheterna? Jag tänker då särskilt på artikel II-72 om mötes- och föreningsfrihet, där friheten att engagera sig fackligt särskilt betonas, och artiklarna II-81 och II-82 i samma stadga om icke-diskriminering och om att språklig mångfald måste respekteras.
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. We are clearly concerned that on 25 May the Supreme Court ruled that the Egitim Sen should be closed down on the grounds that its by-laws contradicted the constitution by advocating mother-tongue education. The decision is especially disappointing after the case had twice been dismissed by the Turkish Labour Court, which had noted that mother-tongue education is permitted under European law. Again I would reiterate the general point in relation to freedom of expression that free speech is beginning to take hold and beginning to flourish in Turkey. Recent reforms include allowing broadcasting and teaching in Kurdish and constitutional amendments strengthening the freedom of the press and recognising the supremacy of Turkey’s international human rights obligations.
There is mounting evidence that the judiciary is now increasingly relying on the European Court of Human Rights’ rulings as a basis for its judgments. That is surely to be welcomed by all Members of this Parliament.
Die Präsidentin.
Anfrage Nr. 5 von Chris Davies (H-0458/05)
Betrifft: Zypern
Wann wird der Rat die Vereinbarung für die Aufnahme direkten Handelsverkehrs mit Nordzypern umsetzen?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. The Council has expressed its view on this matter on a number of occasions. In any event, it may be recalled that the Council has been steadfast in its support for the pursuit of efforts to achieve the reunification of Cyprus and in its desire to see all Cypriots living together as citizens of a reunited island within the European Union in the near future. It is against this background, and with this in mind, that the European Union has been examining measures capable of putting an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community and facilitating the reunification of Cyprus.
More specifically, as regards the Commission’s proposals relating to part of the instrument of financial support for encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community and the exchanges with zones where the Republic of Cyprus exercises no effective control, Council bodies have already carried out important work. The fact that certain difficulties – particularly as regards direct exchanges – remain to be overcome, means that these two proposals still cannot be adopted. However, the Council can use the Presidency’s good offices to assure the honourable Member that it will continue working to encourage the island’s economic integration and to improve contacts between the two Cypriot communities and within the European Union.
Chris Davies (ALDE).– I welcome the Minister to the House. I hope he is enjoying the experience.
I wonder if he could tell me whether or not he agrees with the comments made by President Papadopoulos who said recently that proposals to open direct trade with Northern Cyprus would have no real or substantive economic effect but would amount to a political demand aimed at politically upgrading the north?
Would he agree with me that the treatment of Turkish Cypriots – who are after all EU citizens – by their neighbours on that island, which amounts to nothing less than economic apartheid, is unacceptable and must be stopped, and will he give some indication of the practical steps his Presidency will take over the next six months to bring this about?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. I am grateful to the honourable Member for his question. In relation to whether I am enjoying the experience, I think it is still too early to say.
On the substantive point of the need for direct trade with Northern Cyprus and the query that was directed to me in relation to the views expressed by others, the Council’s position remains that which has been previously stated. We continue to believe that direct trade will help to narrow the gap in economic development between the north and the south of the island, promoting economic cooperation and business ventures between the two communities. Assisting the economic integration of the island would also boost significantly the prospects for reunification, since it would make a settlement easier and, frankly, less costly to accommodate.
In relation to the specific actions that will be taken under the United Kingdom’s Presidency, the Government wishes to see these regulations agreed as soon as possible, in order to fulfil the Council mandate to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. So, in consultation with the Commission and other Member States, we will carry forward work on the dossiers left by the Luxembourg Presidency.
Die Präsidentin.
Anfrage Nr. 6 von Simon Coveney (H-0460/05)
Betrifft: Burma - Menschenrechte und Shan Zivilisten
Welche konkreten Schritte gedenkt der Rat angesichts der beträchtlichen Zunahme von Angriffen der burmesischen Armee auf Shan Zivilisten und der gravierenden Menschenrechtsverstöße im Shan Staat (Burma) zu unternehmen, um Druck auf die burmesischen Regierungsstellen auszuüben, damit sie ihr brutales Vorgehen in der Provinz Shan beenden? Was wird unternommen, um die thailändischen Regierungsstellen dazu anzuhalten, ihrer Verantwortung gerecht zu werden und den Flüchtlingen, die täglich über die Grenze nach Thailand flüchten, den lebensnotwendigen Schutz und humanitären Beistand zu leisten?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. The Council has expressed its concerns regarding human rights in Burma at several meetings with Burmese leaders, most recently on 6 May, at a ministerial meeting with Burma held in the margins of the Asean Ministerial Conference in Kyoto.
At the EU-Asean ministerial meeting held in Jakarta in March, the Presidency met with a senior Burmese official to inform him of the European Union’s concerns and to encourage his authorities to attempt to initiate a dialogue with all the country’s political and ethnic groups in order to facilitate reconciliation and democracy in Burma.
On 17 June 2005, on the occasion of the 60th birthday of Aung Sang Suu Kyi, the Presidency made a declaration on behalf of the European Union in which it reiterated its concern at the current situation in Burma and the renewed tensions involving the nationalities, especially the Shan state and the Karen. In that declaration it was pointed out that the European Union is committed to supporting national reconciliation and respect for human rights and democracy in Burma and a request was made to the state Peace and Development Council to enter into a genuine dialogue with the NLD and with ethnic representatives to find peaceful political solutions that take into account their legitimate concerns.
Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE), Deputising for the author.– On behalf of Simon Coveney who raised this issue, the question to the Council has to be: given what you have just outlined, how effective has all of this been and what other steps might be taken? I do not think anyone is satisfied that the actions so far have yielded any results.
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. I am speaking to Parliament today as a representative of the Presidency, but I can assure you, not least from my previous work as a Foreign Office Minister in the United Kingdom Government, that I am fully aware of the efforts that have been made by the British Government, and by Europe more generally, to try and bring about the resolution that all of us would seek in the face of the present human rights abuses in Burma.
Our commitment in Burma is to promote human rights, democratisation and sustainable development as far as we can, using all the tools available to us. The European Union remains, I am delighted to say, at the forefront of international efforts to press for improvements in human rights in Burma. Opposition groups, including the National League for Democracy, acknowledge and welcome the continued political and practical support of the European Union.
Human rights violations have been highlighted in successive highly critical resolutions on Burma in the United Nations General Assembly and in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Burmese authorities can be in no doubt about our views. The EU troika expressed our deep concern over the situation in Burma directly to the Burmese Foreign Minister in Kyoto on 6 May.
We continue to believe that it is essential for the regime to enter into a genuine and inclusive dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy, and with ethnic representatives. Only such a dialogue can promote a peaceful democratic future for all Burma’s people.
I would, however, add this additional remark. While I am proud of the work that the European Union and European Member States have taken forward on this issue, I think it should be recognised that it is also important for other Asian neighbours of Burma to continue to take action and step up their efforts on the human rights abuses. The failure in previous resolutions before the United Nations to secure the active support of other Asian partners to the kind of initiatives necessary to bring this degree of pressure to bear on the Burmese regime was a matter of disappointment to us. So I can assure you that from the Presidency’s point of view we will maintain the pressure at European level, but we are cognisant of the responsibility of others outwith Europe as well to continue to make the case for change to the Burmese authorities.
Die Präsidentin.
Anfrage Nr. 7 von Claude Moraes (H-0465/05)
Betrifft: Minderheitenschutz in der EU
Beabsichtigt der Rat, Erklärungen zum Schutz der Minderheiten in der EU und zur Zukunft der Agentur der EU für Grundrechte abzugeben oder diese Fragen in sein Arbeitsprogramm aufzunehmen?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. The Council supports the establishment of an EU human rights agency, which will play a major role in enhancing the coherence and consistency of the European Union’s human rights policy. Following the adoption by the European Commission of the proposal to establish the fundamental rights agency, the Council will place the proposal before a working party for examination.
As for the protection of minorities, the honourable Member is kindly reminded that legislation has already been adopted in an effort to tackle discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation. The European Commission is due to report in 2006 on the state of transposition of Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. Furthermore, the Council takes note of the communication of the European Commission of 1 June 2005 on non-discrimination and equal opportunities for all, a framework strategy, in which the Commission proposes to establish a high-level advisory group on social and labour market integration of disadvantaged ethnic minorities.
Under the United Kingdom Presidency, the Council, as well as the European Parliament, will deal with the European Commission’s proposal for a decision on the European Year of Equal Opportunities For All – i.e. 2007 – built upon four key themes: rights – raising awareness of the right of equality and non-discrimination; representation – stimulating a debate on ways to increase the participation of under-represented groups in society; recognition – celebrating and accommodating diversity; and respect and tolerance, promoting a more cohesive society. The total proposed budget is EUR 13.6 million, which would cover preparatory actions in 2006, as well as the activities due to take place during the European Year itself in 2007.
Claude Moraes (PSE).– I hope it was not the Scottish accents coming across. The President-in-Office is extremely clear. I should like to welcome him to his office with no irony at all – as we have heard from one or two other Members – and thank him for that very positive answer.
I would like to remind the President-in-Office that the United Kingdom has implemented all the directives that he mentions. We have taken a lead on this. Many Member States have yet to implement anti-discrimination legislation.
Could I ask whether you agree with me that the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, which has broad support in this House, is something that could be strongly developed under your watch and that we should ask the Member States who have yet to implement anti-discrimination legislation to do so as quickly as possible?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. I am grateful to the honourable Member for his question. I am respectful of the expressed desire that I speak slightly more slowly. I hope it was a reflection on my speed and not my accent. I can assure you that if I appeared speedy in my initial answers, it was only through my desire to reach as many questions as we can in the course of the limited Question Time available to us today.
I am also grateful to the honourable Member for acknowledging the work of the United Kingdom Government on this particular issue. I personally judged that it would be deemed rather unpresidential for me to boast in that regard, but I note the comments he has made. I am grateful for his warm welcome to my speaking role today.
The United Kingdom welcomes the Commission’s proposals, and the Presidency also does so, on the establishment of a fundamental rights agency. We are in favour of an effective, independent FRA, with well-defined work objectives that do not duplicate the work of existing bodies. That was the subject of a discussion that I held with colleagues in the Council of Europe this morning, just across the river.
We believe that the agency should give priority to areas such as racism and xenophobia, building on work already done by the European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia. We will work with other Member States to develop the details during the course of our Presidency.
Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE).– Without wishing to undermine the very serious question put by my good friend and colleague Claude Moraes, I notice that you welcome this particular agency. I wondered if you could share with us your thoughts on how many agencies you believe the EU should have and whether you would agree with me that the EU generally needs fewer agencies and more action?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. I do not wish to break the consensus that appears to have broken out in the Chamber when answering the honourable Member’s question, but I have never seen a contradiction between the establishment of a necessary agency undertaking important work and action being taken by the European Union. Perhaps that is simply something on which we disagree.
Charles Tannock (PPE-DE).– Minister, welcome to your debut in the European Parliament. On the issue of the Fundamental Rights Agency, I have deep concerns about the risk of duplication with the existing excellent work within our own Parliament in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the work of the Council of Europe and the UN’s Human Rights Commission.
How can you ensure that there will be no be duplication and therefore no waste of EU taxpayers’ money?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. I am certainly alive to the concerns that the honourable Member has raised. Indeed, it was the subject of lengthy discussions this morning with the Council of Europe, which has expressed similar concerns in terms of how we avoid duplication. Sometimes, the language that is used in terms of synergies and complementarity should not mask the important question that he has asked in terms of the importance of being rigorous as regards the role of the FRA.
I believe t is necessary for the Presidency to be clear that steps will be taken to ensure that the FRA avoids duplication, as his question suggested. The Presidency has worked closely with the Council of Europe, which supports the establishment of the FRA. We believe that the FRA management board could include a representative of the Council of Europe and an observer from the proposed European gender institute in order exactly to avoid the kind of duplication raised by the question. This is a matter on which we will need to have continuing watchful eyes. In that sense, I am grateful to him for raising this question. It is not a matter that will be finally be resolved today, but it merits continued and detailed reflection in the weeks and months ahead.
Die Präsidentin.
Anfrage Nr. 8 von Robert Evans (H-0467/05)
Betrifft: Bankgebühren
Ist dem Rat bekannt, dass einige Banken in der EU für Geldüberweisungen exorbitante Gebühren verlangen? Einem Bürger aus meinem Wahlkreis wurden z.B. kürzlich etwa 1.000 Euro für eine Überweisung von einer Bank in Spanien auf ein Konto im Vereinigten Königreich berechnet. Ist der Rat bereit, eine Regulierung der Gebühren in Erwägung zu ziehen, die europäischen Bankkunden bei Überweisungen im Binnenmarkt in Rechnung gestellt werden können?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. The Council refers to its reply to Written Question E-0229/02. Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro has applied since 1 July 2002 so far as electronic payment transactions, cash withdrawals, and card payments are concerned, and since 1 July 2003 to cross-border credit transfers. It provides for charges levied by financial institutions for cross-border transactions between Member States and the euro area to be aligned with the charges levied for similar transactions within the Member State in question. Other Member States may apply the regulation to cross-border payments and credit transactions in their own currencies.
It is recalled that the Commission has exclusive right of initiative in the field of Community regulation referred to by the honourable Member. However, should the Commission decide to send a proposal to that effect, the Council of course would consider it.
Robert Evans (PSE).– Thank you very much for that answer. Like you, I am very familiar with the ruling of the 2001 Council, to which you referred at great length.
However, putting that to one side. Would you consider personally that it is a matter of concern that international banks are making huge amounts of profit at what is now the touch of a computer button for people transferring money within the internal market?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. It is fair to say that, due to the nature of the international capital markets, this is not the only instance in which, by the touch of a button on a computer keyboard, vast amounts of money can be made. Indeed, we have some experience of that in the United Kingdom, though – I am glad to say – that was before the term of office of this government.
However, the honourable Member raises an important point and, should he wish to correspond further with me, I would certainly make sure that those representations are passed on to the relevant people.
Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE).– I would like to bring to your attention a constituent who has just emailed me about outrageous FIFA charges for World Cup tickets for 2006. It may interest you with regard to the London Olympics. Apart from the price of the tickets, he was charged EUR 24 for the use of his MasterCard. The tickets only cost EUR 149. Is it not time to look, as my colleague said, at the fact that so much money can be made by those who do so little?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. The honourable Member raises a very important matter on behalf of one of her constituents. As a Scotsman, I have to say that I fear the question of World Cup tickets may prove only to be of academic interest to me, but I am sure for many other Members represented in this Chamber it will hold greater significance than for those of us in Scotland.
As I have already made clear, though, in relation to the original question that was asked, it should be recalled that the Commission has exclusive right of initiative in this field of Community regulation and therefore I think if there are particular concerns in relation to the credit card transaction in question it would be appropriate that these matters also be raised with the Commission.
Die Präsidentin. Da sie dasselbe Thema betreffen, behandeln wir nun die Anfragen Nr. 9, 10 und 11 gemeinsam.
Anfrage Nr. 9 von Paulo Casaca (H-0470/05)
Betrifft: Verbreitung von Gewaltaufrufen im Libanon über öffentliche europäische Telekommunikationseinrichtungen
Nach den begründeten Hoffnungen auf eine demokratische Zukunft für den Libanon stimmen die jüngsten Meldungen recht pessimistisch, insbesondere die Ermordung von Journalisten und die geringe Wahlbeteiligung – vor allem vonseiten religiöser Minderheiten – in Gebieten, die von der pro-iranischen Hisbollah-Miliz kontrolliert werden.
Einer der von dieser terroristischen Organisation am stärksten genutzten Wege für die Verbreitung ihrer Hass- und Gewaltbotschaft ist die Ausstrahlung ihrer Programme über das Telekommunikationsunternehmen HISPASAT, zu dessen Mitbesitzern mindestens ein Mitgliedstaat zählt.
Ist der Rat nicht der Auffassung, dass dieses Vorgehen im Widerspruch zur Richtlinie „Fernsehen ohne Grenzen“ steht, namentlich zu deren Artikel 22, und den Schlussfolgerungen des Rates „Bildung, Jugend und Kultur“ vom 23. und 24. Mai 2005 zuwiderläuft?
Wann kann der Rat gewährleisten, dass über öffentliche europäische Medien keine terroristischen Aufrufe mehr an die Libanesen gerichtet werden?
Anfrage Nr. 10 von Charles Tannock (H-0554/05)
Betrifft: Programm des Fernsehsenders Al-Manar und fortgesetzte Verstöße gegen EU-Richtlinien
Obwohl von allen Regulierungsbehörden für den audiovisuellen Bereich bestätigt wird, dass der Inhalt der von Al-Manar gesendeten Programme gegen die europäische Richtlinie „Fernsehen ohne Grenzen“ verstößt, wird Al-Manar weiterhin in Europa und von Europa in andere Regionen der Welt ausgestrahlt: Der spanische (zum Teil verstaatlichte) Satellitenbetreiber Hispasat und der französische Satellitenbetreiber Eutelsat stellen Al-Manar weiterhin Sendekapazität zur Verfügung.
Es ist erstaunlich, dass Hispasat sich zwar der Hassparolen von Al-Manar bewusst ist, jedoch noch keine konkreten Maßnahmen getroffen hat, um die Ausstrahlung derartiger hasserfüllter Sendungen zu unterbinden, während in Frankreich Eutelsat von der Regierung angewiesen wurde, Al-Manar nicht mehr auszustrahlen, und diesen Anweisungen auch nachgekommen ist.
In den meisten europäischen Ländern kann Al-Manar außerdem direkt über den von Saudi-Arabien betriebenen Arabsat und den von Ägypten betriebenen Nilesat empfangen werden; diese Satellitenbetreiber fordern junge Menschen dazu auf, Selbstmordbombenanschläge zu begehen.
Wird der Rat diese Frage gegenüber den Regierungen Spaniens, Frankreichs, Saudi-Arabiens und Ägyptens zur Diskussion stellen, um dafür zu sorgen, dass dieser Situation mit der gebotenen Dringlichkeit ein Ende gesetzt wird?
Wie kann die EU behaupten, ihre Verantwortung im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus in allen Bereichen ernst zu nehmen, wenn es einem Sender wie Al-Manar möglich ist, weiterhin ungestört durch die Medien Terrorismus zu fördern, obwohl dies seit langem bekannt ist?
Anfrage Nr. 11 von Frédérique Ries (H-0561/05)
Betrifft: Fernsehsender Al Manar
Im März 2005 veranstaltete die Kommission ein Treffen des Zusammenschlusses der europäischen Medienaufsichtsbehörden (EPRA), auf dem bekräftigt wurde, dass Artikel 22 Buchstabe a der Richtlinie "Fernsehen ohne Grenzen" ausdrücklich jede Ausstrahlung untersagt, die zum Hass auf Grund von Rasse, Geschlecht, Religion oder Nationalität aufreizt. Auf diesem Treffen war man sich auch einig, dass derartige Bestimmung auch für Sendeanstalten aus Drittländern gelten, die eine Frequenz, eine Satellitenübertragungsmöglichkeit oder eine Verbindung über einen Satelliten nutzen, der einem Mitgliedstaat gehört.
Al Manar ruft zu Hass, Gewalt und Selbstmordanschlägen auf, verteilt antisemitisches Material und achtet keine Grundrechte. Al Manar wird ausgestrahlt unter Nutzung von Satellitendiensten und -kapazitäten der Satelliten Hispasat (zum Teil im Besitz der spanischen Regierung) und Globecast, ein Tochterunternehmen der France Telecom. Aus seinem Büro in Beirut sendet Al Manar seine Signale auch an Arabsat (www.arabsat.com) und an Nilesat (www.nilesat.com.eg), deren Sendungen in den meisten Teilen Europas empfangen werden können.
Was unternimmt der Rat, um diese Form der terroristischen Propaganda, die Europa und andere Regionen der Welt erreicht, zu stoppen? Sind die Behörden Saudi-Arabiens und Ägyptens alarmiert und gebeten worden, Maßnahmen zu ergreifen und eine verantwortungsbewusste Rolle im gemeinsamen Kampf gegen Terrorismus zu spielen?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. Madam President, I am happy to take questions 9, 10 and 11 together.
As the honourable Members are aware, the Council is committed to the fight against incitement to hatred in broadcasts. Article 22(a) of the Television Without Frontiers Directive provides that Member States should ensure that broadcasts do not contain any incitement to hatred on grounds of race, sex, religion or nationality. However, the directive does not apply to broadcasts intended exclusively for reception in third countries, nor to broadcasters not under the jurisdiction of a Member State.
Following the measures taken successfully by the French, Dutch and Spanish authorities on the basis of the directive, Al Manar is no longer broadcast by any EU-based satellite company and the Television Without Frontiers Directive no longer applies to it.
The Council discussed the issue of incitement to hatred in broadcasting from countries outside the European Union at its meeting on 23 May 2005 and took stock of work initiated to respond the problems posed by satellite broadcasting of non-EU channels in the European Union. This followed a meeting of the presidents of national broadcasting regulatory authorities on 17 March 2005, which agreed to reinforce cooperation between the regulatory authorities and identified concrete measures to strengthen this cooperation, notably information exchange regarding channels authorised in Member States, establishing a contact point within each national authority. In the Council, delegations took note of the measures and proposals outlined to combat incitement to hatred in broadcasts. They recognise that consideration should be given to the means of combating more effectively the broadcasting of such material in the context of the revision of the Television Without Frontiers Directive, n!
otably the adaptation of this instrument to the most recent technological developments.
Paulo Casaca (PSE).– Permita-me que agradeça, Sra. Presidente, esta resposta cuidadosa e rigorosa que foi agora mesmo dada pela Presidência britânica e permita-me também, Sr. Ministro, que lhe enderece, a si e a toda a Presidência, os meus mais sinceros votos de grande sucesso perante os desafios europeus que estão à sua frente. Mas a questão que aqui foi levantada tem, no fundo, um problema na sua base que é o da relação das instituições europeias com quem, em países terceiros, está a fomentar activamente o terrorismo.
Ainda hoje, na imprensa, pude constatar que, no Irão, há uma campanha activa para levar pessoas a cometer atentados suicidas em Israel e no Iraque.
Gostava de saber que comentários tem a Presidência sobre isto.
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. I am grateful for the honourable Member’s generous words and good wishes at the outset of our Presidency. As I sought to reflect in my initial answer, we wholly condemn actions which are taken towards inciting the kind of terrorism and acts of violence which he describes and I hope my earlier remarks reflect the seriousness with which we regard this problem.
Charles Tannock (PPE-DE).– I would like to thank you for your considered reply and also for the fact that the British Government has belatedly given consideration to banning Hizbollah’s so-called civilian wing, whereas in fact there is no difference between the civilian and the military wing.
Today was a great day for the city that I represent, London, in our winning the Olympic bid for 2012. One of the messages from the Prime Minister in Singapore was that the Olympics will be used as a vehicle for peace and friendship amongst nations, as a way of combating this kind of hatred between peoples.
What more can be done to stop EU Member State registered companies giving advertising revenue to television companies like al-Manar? In addition, what pressure can you bring to bear through the Council on the governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia to stop them broadcasting to the Arabic-speaking communities resident in EU Member States listening to this hate-filled type of broadcasting?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. First, let me say that I would disagree with his characterisation of the British Government’s position in relation to Hizbollah, but this is not the forum or the occasion to explore these issues, which are more directly of relevance to the national authorities of the United Kingdom than to our role as the Presidency.
I am, however, grateful to the honourable Member for his warm welcome to his home city’s success in securing the Olympic Games and let me assure him that there are plenty of opportunities in bilateral forums and indeed in contact between the European Union and other nations outwith the European Union to raise exactly the kind of concerns of which he spoke this afternoon.
Frédérique Ries (ALDE).– Madame la Présidente, je voudrais remercier et féliciter les autorités espagnoles, qui viennent à leur tour d'interdire la diffusion de la chaîne Al Manar, dont nous parlons ici, via leur satellite Hispasat. Cela dit, je voudrais poser deux questions précises à M. Alexander, car nous ne semblons pas avoir les mêmes dernières informations, ni la même interprétation, de certains articles de la directive Télévision sans frontière. La France a donc sommé Eutelsat de cesser la transmission du signal. Fort bien. Quid de Globesat, qui est une filiale de France Télécom et qui n'a pas, selon mes informations, arrêté de fournir le signal à d'autres satellites lesquels, effectivement, fournissent ce signal à leur tour en dehors des frontières de l'Union européenne? Alors, dans votre réponse, vous êtes peu précis, me semble-t-il sur les intentions de Nilesat et d'Arabsat, les satellites Egyptien et Saoudien, qui selon ma lecture de l'article 2, paragraphe!
4, tombent bien sous les provisions de la directive Télévision sans frontières. Nous avons, vous le savez, un accord d'association avec l'Egypte, alors la question va-t-elle être abordée? L'a-t-elle déjà été? Nous avons un Conseil le 13 décembre, avez-vous l'intention d'en parler? Questions précises.
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. I would simply make a couple of points.
First, I am unaware of the disparity of which the honourable Member speaks, but if there are issues of factual disagreement between us then I would be happy to receive representations in that regard.
The other point I would make is the basic one that Community law does not apply to broadcasts intended exclusively for reception in third countries and that is also a factor in our discussions.
Ryszard Czarnecki (NI).– Pani Przewodnicząca, Panie Ministrze! Hiszpania ten problem rzeczywiście rozwiązała dopiero w zeszłym tygodniu, Francja niestety jeszcze nie. Pani deputowana Ries ma absolutnie rację w tym względzie, w związku z tym jest kwestia pewnej presji na władze Francji, ale przede wszystkim presji na władze Arabii Saudyjskiej i Egiptu, o czym słusznie tutaj mówił pan Charles Tannock przed chwilą. To jest również zadanie, jak sądzę, pewnej kwestii dyplomatycznej dla Rady.
Panie Ministrze, życzę Panu wielu sukcesów na tym stanowisku, a nawiązując do faktu, że Szkocja nie pojedzie na Mistrzostwa Świata - chyba trzeba zwolnić trenera Bertie Vogtsa.
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. The honourable Member attaches great importance to diplomatic discussion of these issues. This is clearly an issue not solely of broadcasting, but also of getting to the root of those organisations or individuals who seek to perpetuate hatred and misunderstanding, when we stand for greater understanding and reconciliation of great faiths and of great peoples. So I take on board the importance of diplomatic representations being made.
In relation to his second point, I think this is factually accurate in the sense that Bertie Vogts has already left the coaching role for the Scottish football team, but then I thought it might be not very communautaire of me to point that out, given that we have reappointed a Scotsman to that role, apparently to no great effect so far!
Die Präsidentin. Da der Fragesteller nicht im Saal anwesend ist, ist die Anfrage Nr. 12 hinfällig.
Anfrage Nr. 13 von James Hugh Allister (H-0473/05)
Betrifft: Dienststelle für externe Maßnahmen
Inwiefern werden die Vorschläge für eine Dienststelle für externe Maßnahmen durch das Scheitern des Ratifizierungsprozesses der vorgeschlagenen EU-Verfassung beeinträchtigt? Welche Schritte schlägt der Rat angesichts des Scheiterns der Verfassung und somit der vorgesehenen Basis für Maßnahmen vor, um die vorbereitenden Schritte zu revidieren, die zur Einführung der Dienststelle für externe Maßnahmen vermutlich bereits unternommen wurden?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. Following the declaration by the Heads of State and Government on 17 June on the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty, the Council has not taken a decision on what further steps, if any, might be taken on the preparations for the introduction of the European External Action Service.
James Hugh Allister (NI).– Since the External Action Service would exist to assist the Union Foreign Minister, since the Union Foreign Minster can only exist pursuant to the Constitution, and since the right to act on behalf of the EU only arises on foot of the EU itself having a single legal personality, does it not follow that its legal authority arises from the Constitution? Since there is a pause for reflection with regard to the Constitution, should the same not apply to the External Action Service if that pause is genuine, rather than cosmetic? For if implementation action continues, is the Council not then flying in the face of the public rejection of the Constitution and all its manifestations?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. Clearly the future of preparatory work on the European External Action Service is tied up with the future of the Constitutional Treaty. The honourable Member is right to acknowledge that there is now a pause for reflection following the decisions reached at the Brussels European Council just a couple of weeks ago. That time – now for reflection, as identified by the European Council – will continue for a number of months.
Let us be clear, first of all, that the preparatory work to date has consisted of discussions between the Member States, the Council Secretariat and the Commission, as tasked by the Heads of State and Government in October 2004. It is the case that the Luxembourg Presidency took forward preparatory work as tasked by that intergovernmental conference and, indeed, by the December European Council. This work, however, has not pre-empted the ratification process: it has consisted of discussion and exchange of ideas in Brussels. As I said in my initial answer, no formal decisions have been taken.
Richard Corbett (PSE).– Does the Presidency accept that the Constitution in some places makes mandatory things that are already perfectly possible and legal under the current Treaties? For instance, the Council could decide, by changing its rules of procedure, to meet in public when dealing with legislation. National parliaments could be better involved with early information, and some aspects of the External Action Service may, for instance, be explored in due course.
I note that Mr Allister prefers not to go down that route. Presumably, he, as a good federalist, wants the external representations of the Union to remain under the Commission and not under Mr Solana.
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. I will not intrude in the private discussion between the honourable Members as to who is a federalist and who is not.
Let me simply say that I am on record in the United Kingdom as saying that one of the obvious areas where there is scope for progress in relation to greater transparency within the European Union is the European Council in its ability to meet, when in legislative mode, in public. That seems to me to be common sense.
However, we also need to reflect the fact that the decision reached at the Brussels European Council two weeks ago was for a period of reflection. It is necessary, therefore, to reflect that in the priorities that we will be developing in the course of the coming year. There will be plenty of opportunities, both for Members of this Parliament and, indeed, for European leaders, the European peoples and the public within Europe, to take part in those discussions during the period of reflection. Therefore, the first priority must be to hold discussions relating to the period of reflection rather than to move immediately towards changes – whether great or small – in relation to the actions of the European Council or, indeed, some of the issues anticipated in the Constitutional Treaty.
Die Präsidentin.
Anfrage Nr. 14 von Willy Meyer Pleite (H-0478/05)
Betrifft: Erfüllung internationaler Verpflichtungen im Zusammenhang mit terroristischen Anschlägen
Gegen Luis Posada Carriles, venezolanischer Staatsbürger kubanischer Abstammung, liegt ein Auslieferungsersuchen der Regierung seines Landes wegen seiner Beteiligung an einem terroristischen Anschlag vor, der am 6. Oktober 1976 im Luftraum von Barbados gegen ein Flugzeug der kubanischen Fluggesellschaft „Cubana de Aviación“ verübt wurde, das von Caracas aus mit dem Ziel Havanna gestartet war, und bei dem 73 Menschen ums Leben kamen. Derzeit befindet er sich in den USA in Haft, und Venezuela – der Staat, in dem der Anschlag stattfand – hat bei den USA wegen seiner mutmaßlichen Täterschaft seine Auslieferung beantragt.
Der Europäische Rat hat auf seiner außerordentlichen Tagung vom 21. September 2001 erklärt, dass der Terrorismus eine echte Herausforderung für die Welt und für Europa darstelle, und dass die Bekämpfung des Terrorismus zu den vorrangigen Zielen der Union bei der Beachtung des Völkerrechts und internationaler Abkommen zählen werde.
Eines dieser Abkommen ist das am 23. September 1971 in Montreal unterzeichnete Übereinkommen zur Bekämpfung widerrechtlicher Handlungen gegen die Sicherheit der Zivilluftfahrt, auf dessen Grundlage, neben dem bilateralen Auslieferungsabkommen mit den USA, der venezolanische Staat von der amerikanischen Justiz die Auslieferung ihres Staatsbürgers verlangt.
Wie beurteilt der Rat die Tatsache, dass die USA bis zum heutigen Tage den mutmaßlichen Terroristen Luis Posada Carriles noch nicht ausgeliefert haben?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. The Council regards the case of Luis Posada Carriles as a bilateral matter between Venezuela and the United States. The Council would like to remind the honourable Member, moreover, that the case of Posada’s deportation is still sub judice and that the United States authorities have not officially rejected a formal Venezuelan request for extradition.
Without prejudice to the outcome of the Posada case, it should be noted, however, that the European Union condemns all acts of terrorism regardless of their target or motivation. In the European Council declaration on combating terrorism of 25 March 2004, the Union and its Member States pledged to do everything within their power to combat all forms of terrorism in accordance with the fundamental principles of the Union, the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the obligations set out under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373.
In this context, the Council recalls that all EU Member States are party to the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the safety of Civilian Aviation, which makes it an offence to endanger the safety of an aircraft in flight and requires states that have custody of offenders either to extradite the offender or submit the case for prosecution.
Willy Meyer Pleite (GUE/NGL).– Señor Ministro, este caso produce una gran alarma social porque, al margen de que, efectivamente, es un problema bilateral entre Venezuela y los Estados Unidos de América, éstos no deben dar la impresión de amparar y proteger a personas encausadas por delitos de terrorismo, incluso cuando se trate de personas vinculadas a sus servicios de inteligencia, como es el caso del señor Posadas, que efectivamente estuvo en la nómina de la CIA.
En cierto modo celebro su contestación, porque plantea la necesidad de que no quede ningún delito de terrorismo execrable, como éste, sin una sentencia justa.
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. With the greatest of respect to the questioner, it would be injudicious to be drawn into general discussions of this case given its status as sub judice at present. I have noted what the questioner said, but in light of the fact that the matter remains sub judice, what I have said fully states the Council’s position.
Die Präsidentin.
Anfrage Nr. 15 von Bill Newton Dunn (H-0482/05)
Betrifft: Gemeinsame Ermittlungsteams
Im Rahmen der Beantwortung meiner Anfrage (H-0377/05)(1) in der letzten Fragestunde war der Rat nicht in der Lage, meine zusätzliche Frage zu beantworten, versprach jedoch öffentlich, mir eine schriftliche Antwort zukommen zu lassen. Wie lange muss ich noch warten, bis diese Antwort eintreffen wird?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. Following the reply given by the Council representative to Question H-0377/05 during Council Question Time at the last European Parliament plenary session in Strasbourg on 8 June 2005, the honourable Member asked a supplementary question concerning the state of play as regards the transposition of Council Framework Decision No 2002/465/JHA of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams.
In reply to Question H-0377/05, the Council representative stated that 21 Member States had notified the General Secretariat of the Council that they had transposed the framework decision, but in two Member States the draft legislation transposing this decision had been, or would soon be, put before Parliament and that one Member State had announced that it had transposed the decision in part.
The supplementary question put by the honourable Member was aimed at finding out what the situation was in the 25th Member State. On the basis of the information obtained, the Council can inform you that the 25th Member State – namely Italy – has informed the General Secretariat of the Council that the provisions implementing the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams and the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 29 May 2000, are contained in draft law C2372, tabled by the government on 20 February 2002 and currently undergoing scrutiny in joint committees 2 – justice – and 3 – foreign affairs – of Italy’s Chamber of Deputies. No estimate can be given for the moment of how long the Italian Parliament will take to approve this bill.
Bill Newton Dunn (ALDE).–Thank you very much, President-in-Office. I do not think I have ever had such a full reply to a question. I am very grateful for that. I must also say that I have never seen the Council benches so full. I think this is the first time that the people on the Council benches outnumber the rest of Parliament put together. What an impressive start you are making.
My supplementary question is this: there is nothing wrong with the President-in-Office saying he does not know the answer to the question, as he did in his previous guise a month ago, and promising to write to us. However, is he now saying that a promise to write to us after Question Time will not produce a reply and that we must put down a supplementary in order to get the answer? Or, if he does not know the answer, will he in future do what he said in his previous life and write to us as he promised?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. I am grateful for your words of congratulation to the Presidency for the fullness of our benches, but I fear I have already learned at my initial appearance at this Parliament that what you lack in quantity you more than make up for in quality in relation to the questions that you asked.
In relation to the specific point that was made by the honourable Member in relation to correspondence from the presidency, it is a matter that I will look into, but I will look into it in light of the fact that we have endeavoured in the course of the reply I have given to offer as comprehensive an answer as possible to the question posed by the honourable Member.
Die Präsidentin.
Anfrage Nr. 16 von David Martin (H-0484/05)
Betrifft: Ergebnisse des G8-Gipfels für die Institutionen der EU
In welcher Form gedenkt der Rat die Ergebnisse des G8-Gipfels, der in dieser Woche in Schottland stattgefunden hat, sowie etwaige künftige Aktionen zu erörtern, die seitens der EU-Institutionen erforderlich sind?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. The Gleneagles G8 summit, taking place in Scotland this week, will focus on two key issues: Africa and climate change.
Africa, because the continent contains 18 of the world’s poorest countries. It is currently not on target to meet any of the UN Millennium Development Goals first set out at the Millennium Summit in 2000. The continent needs a step change in development, financing, health, education, governance and the capacity to trade in global markets and programmes for dealing with killer diseases and building African peacekeeping capacity.
Climate change is our additional priority, because it is clear that our world is warming up. Major irreversible change in our climate is a real threat and the most important issue we face in the long term. Tackling the problem needs a global approach. The summit is an opportunity to move forward the debate at the highest political level and to help forge a common vision.
The European Union plays a leading role in both issues and has already agreed policies on them. The G8 agreement does not bind the European Union, but may serve as a catalyst for future discussions within European Union structures.
The G8 Summit outcome may give rise to discussion in the relevant Council formations. For example, the 12 July Ecofin meeting will discuss development financing. All political and legislative initiatives at European Union level will, of course, follow the normal EU procedures for discussion, agreement and adoption as appropriate.
David Martin (PSE).– Before getting to the substance, I too should like to congratulate the President-in-Office, not just for the quality of his responses but for their speed. He might be interested to note that I was speaking to a group of Scottish visitors just before coming back here for Question Time. They asked me about the G8 and I told them that I had a question – No 16 – but there was no chance of reaching it, so I am very pleased that we have indeed reached it.
He is absolutely right to say that the G8 does not instruct the European institutions, but it would be foolish of the EU institutions not to respond to the outcome of the G8 discussions. He has already given a partial answer to this question, but will he go further and consider asking both the Commission and the Council Secretariat systematically to go through the G8 conclusions to see where follow-up action is required by the EU institutions?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. It is a benign coincidence that the United Kingdom holds both the Presidency of the European Union in the second half of this year and the chairmanship of the G8. I believe it allows an opportunity for effective synergies to develop between the work of the European Union and indeed of the G8.
The evidence I would cite in support of that contention is already clear. If one considers the truly historic decision taken by European Union Development Ministers within the last month to effectively double the level of aid provided by European Union Member States by 2010, from approximately USD 40 billion to USD 80 billion, it is clear that it has already established a very important benchmark for the G8, as it gathers in Scotland this week.
The European Union deserves fulsome tribute and credit for its long-standing interest in issues of development related to Africa. If I might be so bold, with the permission of Parliament, I think the United Kingdom also deserves credit in this instance for having decided to put the issue of Africa at the top of the international agenda of this week’s G8 meeting.
I would say, however, that the conclusion of this discussion will not be at the conclusion of the G8 Summit this week. In the course of our European Union Presidency over the next six months, there will, of course, be this week’s G8 Summit in Gleneagles. There will then be the Millennium Review Summit in New York in September, followed by the next critical Ministerial Meeting of the Doha development round in Hong Kong in December.
Each of those represents a vital staging post on the onward march of progress towards helping many of the world’s poorest countries and the peoples of Africa. If you need any further illustration of the critical contribution that European Union institutions can make to that progress, one need look no further than the decisions that will be reached in Hong Kong in December, where I personally hope the European Union’s Trade Commissioner will be able to advance an agenda that is pro-growth in Europe and pro-poor in the world.
Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE).– Can I say first say to the Minister that I have been very impressed with the British Government in its general handling of this issue, and I congratulate you. I do not want to take from that by saying that Mr Blair really is not making sense when he says he is listening to the people on the subject of the Constitutional Treaty. The people are not talking about the Constitutional Treaty. We are talking about the Constitutional Treaty. They are talking about the developing world. Please continue to drive that agenda. You have given great leadership on this issue. Please do not drop the ball. After the G8, after your Presidency here, we need that leadership very badly.
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. I am grateful to the honourable Member for his warm words of support for the leadership that Britain has offered both in the G8 and in the European Councils on this important matter.
We are definitely in agreement that the peoples of Europe care passionately about the issue of development. I attended the rally that took place in Edinburgh, in my country of Scotland, at the weekend. If, like me, you had been able to see in excess of 200 000 people gathered in that city, you would have been in no doubt whatsoever about the extent to which both the European Union and the Government of the United Kingdom are acting with the full support of people from right across Europe in pursuit of the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.
However, it must be recognised, notwithstanding the level of public support for the action we have taken and, I hope, the further steps that we can take this week at Gleneagles, that the scale of the challenge we face is profound. If you take, for example, the Millennium Development Goals, and in particular their aspirations for sub-Saharan Africa, the timescale set out by world leaders back in 2000 was 15 years for the achievement of those Millennium Development Goals. At the present rate of progress in sub-Saharan Africa, some of these Millennium Development Goals will be met not in 15 years but in 150 years. We are categorically of the view that this is too long to wait. That is why we are so proud of the work that European Union institutions and European ministers of development – and, indeed, as reiterated in a decision by Ecofin when it met last month – have carried out in relation to advancing the cause of development in recent months and weeks and why we are det!
ermined to use the opportunities, not just of our Presidency of the European Union, but also the opportunities presented by the G8 this week, the Millennium Review Summit in September and the Doha talks in December, to try to continue to advance this vital and important agenda.
Die Präsidentin. Da der Fragesteller nicht im Saal anwesend ist, ist die Anfrage Nr. 17 hinfällig.
Anfrage Nr. 18 von Philip Bushill-Matthews (H-0492/05)
Betrifft: Arbeitszeitrichtlinie
Kann der Rat bitte mitteilen, wie er sich die nächsten Schritte im Zusammenhang mit der Überarbeitung der Arbeitszeitrichtlinie vorstellt?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. As the honourable Member is certainly aware, the Commission submitted an amended proposal regarding the revision of the organisation of the Working Time Directive on 31 May 2005 following adoption of Parliament’s opinion at first reading. This proposal was discussed by the Council on 2 June. However, owing to the short period of time left for examination, the Council was not in a position to assess all its implications. The Council therefore instructed the Committee of Permanent Representatives to examine the amendment proposal with a view to the Council reaching an agreement as soon as possible.
Erna Hennicot-Schoepges (PPE-DE).– Monsieur le Ministre, je voudrais savoir quelle est la position britannique au sujet du opt-out. Est-ce que vous maintiendrez votre position en faveur du opt-out ou est-ce que vous avez des solutions de rechange?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. I am not convinced that this is either the forum or the occasion on which to advance the United Kingdom’s position on this, given my responsibility to answer on behalf of the Presidency. As with every incoming Presidency, our responsibility is to seek to lead and also to find consensus, but that consensus will inevitably and appropriately involve the United Kingdom, as well as the other Member States of the European Union.
Die Präsidentin.
Anfrage Nr. 19 von Gay Mitchell (H-0495/05)
Betrifft: Sterbehilfe
Der Ständige Ausschuss der Krankenschwestern und Krankenpfleger der EU (PCN) hat die EU-Mitgliedstaaten aufgefordert, Rechtsvorschriften zur Sterbehilfe sowie zur Rolle und zu den Verantwortlichkeiten aller im Gesundheitswesen Beschäftigten, insbesondere des Pflegepersonals, zu erlassen, sofern derartige Rechtsvorschriften noch nicht bestehen. Der Ausschuss vertrat die Ansicht, dass von medizinischer Tätigkeit gesprochen werden kann, wenn Leben beendet wird. In einem Bericht der Parlamentarischen Versammlung des Europarats zur Frage der Begleitung von Patienten am Lebensende wurden „Verfahren und Bestimmungen gefordert, mit denen die Verantwortlichkeiten der Ärzte und des Pflegepersonals eindeutig festgelegt werden und die Rückverfolgbarkeit aller Entscheidungen und Maßnahmen gewährleistet wird, so dass eine wirksame Kontrolle möglich ist“. Pflichtet der Rat dem Anliegen des PCN bei, und wird der Rat in dieser Angelegenheit eine Erklärung abgeben?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. The Community’s responsibilities in the field of public health are set out in Article 152 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. In particular, Article 152(5) states that Community action in the field of public health shall fully respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care. The Council, therefore, has no competence as regards euthanasia.
Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE).– Thank you, Minister, for that reply. In April this year, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe rejected by a large majority a draft measure to legalise euthanasia in Europe. At the same time, in the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legalised, it is reported that assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia are now responsible for one in 40 deaths.
Given the rise in euthanasia tourism, does the Council agree that the coordination between Member States at EU level on this issue would now be prudent, taking into account the principle set out in the Treaty that the death penalty is not one which should be available in Member States?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. With the greatest of respect to the questioner, I would reiterate the point I made in my initial answer, that the European Community does not have competence for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care. The present Treaty is quite clear on this point in relation to Article 152(5). As such, the Council has no competence as regards euthanasia and so it cannot create legislation on this issue. It cannot specify the roles and responsibilities of healthcare workers regarding euthanasia because Member States have the sole competence in this area. It is therefore for Member States to ensure that they have procedures and provisions in place to define the roles and responsibilities of medical and nursing staff. Member States are also responsible for monitoring these procedures.
Die Präsidentin.
Anfrage Nr. 20 von Bernd Posselt (H-0496/05)
Betrifft: Lage in Togo
Wie beurteilt die Ratspräsidentschaft die aktuelle Lage in Togo, und welche Schritte plant sie, um zur Stabilisierung Westafrikas beizutragen?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. The European Union has closely followed the evolution of the situation in Togo. In a statement issued in the aftermath of the elections, the Presidency expressed its grave concern regarding the situation in Togo following the elections on 24 April and paid tribute to the people of Togo who took part in the ballot despite difficult conditions. The Presidency also condemned the wave of violence and launched an urgent appeal to all the parties to restore calm.
In a declaration issued on 3 June, the European Union expressed its support for the initiatives taken by the African Union through its Peace and Security Council, in particular the appointment of a special envoy to facilitate dialogue between the Togolese parties and the decision to send an observer mission to monitor the political, security, social and humanitarian situation, as well as the human rights situation in the country. The European Union also urged the Togolese authorities to carry out an impartial, exhaustive and credible investigation into the acts of violence against the civilian population.
The European Union raised the issue of Togo at the latest ministerial meetings with the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States, held on 11 April and 18 May respectively. During those meetings it had the chance to discuss the complexities with regard to African mediation efforts and election monitoring.
The European Union declares that it is ready to support the national reconciliation process and it will continue to monitor the political situation in Togo closely, particularly in relation to the 22 engagements undertaken by the Togolese Government during the consultations under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement and reproduced in the Council Decision of 15 November 2004.
The next legislative elections in Togo figure among the election monitoring priorities established by the Commission for 2005. The Commission will send an exploratory mission, which should report on the advisability of sending an election monitoring mission if a number of conditions are met: first, if a government is in place; second, if a consensus exists among the main political parties to respect the results of the elections: and, third, there is real progress on the 22 commitments.
Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE).– Herr Ratspräsident! Ich danke Ihnen sehr für Ihre ausführliche Antwort und möchte nur noch Folgendes fragen: Halten Sie es für denkbar, dass die Europäische Union in der nächsten Zeit unmittelbar und aktiv in den Friedensprozess eingreift und versucht, eventuell einen neuen Wahlgang herbeizuführen, ganz konkret innerhalb der nächsten Zeit?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. I reiterate the point I made in my earlier statement that the Commission will send an explanatory mission, which should report on the advisability of sending an election monitoring mission if a number of conditions are met, and I set out those conditions.
In the first instance, we would want to be clear as to the findings of such an exploratory mission in relation to further work that could potentially be done in that area.
Die Präsidentin.
Anfrage Nr. 21 von Panagiotis Beglitis (H-0498/05)
Betrifft: Beteiligung Zyperns und Maltas an den Verhandlungen der europäischen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik
Bekanntlich hat Zypern als Mitgliedstaat der EU das Recht zur vollen Teilnahme an allen Maßnahmen im Rahmen der GASP, nimmt jedoch an den Initiativen der GESVP, die die strategische Zusammenarbeit der EU mit der NATO betreffen, nicht teil. Dies geht auf einschlägige Abkommen zwischen den beiden Organisationen zurück.
Indessen verhindert die Türkei – direkt oder indirekt – sowohl bei allen Verhandlungen zwischen der EU und der NATO als auch im Rahmen der institutionellen Verhandlungen der EU die Teilnahme Zyperns und Maltas sogar bei Themen, die nicht direkt die strategische Zusammenarbeit zwischen den beiden Organisationen betreffen, indem sie den Beschluss des Nordatlantischen Rates vom 13.12.2002 sehr weit auslegt. Das Gleiche geschieht auch bei Treffen der EU, mit dem Argument, dass dort als vertraulich eingestufte Informationen der NATO erörtert würden.
Hat der Rat die Absicht, auf diese anhaltende Situation zu reagieren, die zu schwerwiegenden institutionellen und politischen Problemen führt und im Wesentlichen einem Drittland und Kandidatenland die Möglichkeit bietet, in das Funktionieren und die Verfahren der EU einzugreifen?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. As rightly pointed out by the honourable Member, as things stand at present and under the agreed framework for EU-Nato relations, Cyprus and Malta do not take part in EU military operations conducted using NATO assets, the so called ‘Berlin Plus’ arrangements. Likewise, they do not receive NATO classified information or EU classified information containing or referring to NATO classified information.
This state of affairs necessarily has implications for Cyprus and Malta’s participation in EU-NATO meetings, as well as in some internal EU meetings. It will not, however, affect the rights and obligations of EU states in their capacity as EU members, in particular the entitlement of Cyprus and Malta under the EU Treaty to participate fully and without discrimination in defining and implementing the CFSP, including defence aspects. The Council is fully aware of the problem and, in the absence of complete resolution of the issue, has been raising it constantly over the past year with the parties involved. Turkey has been asked to help resolve the problem, but for the time being the complexity and the wider implications of the issue have made it difficult to achieve much real progress.
Questions on how the North Atlantic Council interprets and applies its own decisions, including that of December 2002, should properly be addressed to NATO. I note, however, that requests to extend the scope of EU-NATO dialogue beyond military cooperation in crisis management have come mainly from NATO. The Council is happy to consider such an extended dialogue, provided that all 25 Member States are present at the table. I should also like to note that, at the most recent meeting between the European Union Political and Security Committee and the North Atlantic Council on 27 June 2005 in Brussels, it proved possible to hold a formal exchange of views on Darfur with all 25 EU Member States participating. I would like to consider this a first, even though small, step forward to more significant progress on this difficult issue.
Παναγιώτης Μπεγλίτης (PSE).– Θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω ιδιαίτερα τον Προεδρεύοντα του Συμβουλίου, Υπουργό κ. Alexander, και να του ευχηθώ κατ' αρχάς καλή δύναμη και καλή επιτυχία στο έργο του και στο έργο της Βρετανικής Προεδρίας.
Αντιλαμβάνομαι από την απάντησή σας, κ. Alexander, ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και η Βρετανική Προεδρία δεν συμφωνούν με την προσέγγιση και με την ερμηνεία που δίνει η Τουρκία στις σχέσεις Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης - ΝΑΤΟ. Θα συμφωνείτε ασφαλώς ότι ούτε η Κύπρος ούτε η Μάλτα είναι κράτη μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης με μειωμένη θεσμική ισοτιμία στο πλαίσιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
Έχει η Βρετανική Προεδρία υπόψη της να αναλάβει κάποιες συγκεκριμένες πρωτοβουλίες, για να βρεθεί λύση σε αυτό το πολύ σοβαρό πρόβλημα που δημιουργεί η Τουρκία;
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. Obviously the basis of the question reflects the fact that two organisations, in particular the European Union and NATO, must both agree on the agenda of any meeting in advance. As I made clear in my original reply, it is not for me to comment today on how NATO interprets and applies its own decisions in this respect. I would merely reiterate what I said in my initial answer.
Die Präsidentin.
Anfrage Nr. 22 von Jacek Protasiewicz (H-0499/05)
Betrifft: Menschenrechte in Kuba
Das Regime Fidel Castros hält nach wie vor 61 politische Gefangene in Haft, die wegen ihres Einsatzes für die bürgerlichen Freiheiten und die Menschenrechte zu langjährigen Freiheitsstrafen verurteilt wurden.
Gleichzeitig hindert die kubanische Regierung auf eine Art und Weise, die in völligem Widerspruch zu den Grundsätzen des Völkerrechts steht, europäische Parlamentarier daran, Kontakt zu Menschenrechtsaktivisten in Kuba aufzunehmen.
Aus welchen Gründen hat der Rat in dieser Lage Vorschläge zur Verschärfung der politischen Sanktionen der EU abgelehnt?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. In its conclusions on Cuba, which were adopted on 13 June 2005, the Council drew on the 1996 Common Position, the relevance and validity of which it reaffirms. Consequently, the European Union aims to encourage a process of transition to pluralist democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and sustainable recovery and improvement in the living standards of the Cuban people. This approach has never been called into question by any of the Member States.
The Council has taken a firm position, especially in relation to the human rights situation which, according to these conclusions, should be raised at every high-level visit. This Council has also expressed regret at the lack of any further advance since the release of several political prisoners imprisoned in March 2003. It has, in particular, condemned the action taken by the Cuban authorities to curb freedom of expression, assembly, and freedom of the press.
Furthermore, the Council has categorically condemned Cuba’s unacceptable attitude to foreign parliamentarians and journalists who attended the Assembly to Promote Civil Society, on 20 May 2005, and were either expelled or denied entry into Cuba.
Moreover, closer relations with the peaceful political opposition and with broader sectors of Cuban civil society through intense and regular dialogue decided at the end of January have produced satisfying results. The Council decided to maintain this dialogue and indeed intensify it according to the agreed guidelines. These meetings of representatives of the European Union and of the Member States with the peaceful opposition will continue to take place. The Council has decided to reconsider its position in the context of evaluation of the common position in June 2006.
Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE), Zastępca autora.– Pani Przewodnicząca! Chciałbym zapytać przedstawiciela Rady, jakie konkretne działania ma Rada zamiar podjąć. Fakty są takie, że w więzieniach kubańskich dalej tkwią opozycjoniści skazani na wieloletnie więzienia. Rada Europejska podtrzymuje zniesienie sankcji wobec reżimu Castro, tymczasem Unia Europejska powinna właśnie na prawa człowieka stawiać w prowadzeniu polityki międzynarodowej.
Czy nie czas, aby zmienić taktykę wobec reżimu Fidela Castro i nie ulegać tylko i wyłącznie polityce Zapatero i Madrytu w tej sprawie?
Douglas Alexander,President-in-Office of the Council. I shall begin with a couple of points of history and then speak of the future.
On 31 January the European Union agreed to intensify its dialogue with the peaceful opposition in Cuba and then on 13 June, conclusions also noted that the expulsion of EU deputies and journalists, which prevented them from attending a meeting of civil society on 20th May in Havana, was unacceptable.
The European Union’s cohesive approach to human rights in Cuba was recently shown at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in April when Member States jointly co-sponsored the resolution, drawing attention to Cuba’s human rights record.
I can assure the honourable Member that the European Union will continue to use every opportunity to call for the release of all political prisoners and will urge the Cuban Government to apply greater respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, political reform and further economic liberalisation in Cuba.
Die Präsidentin. Da die für die Fragestunde vorgesehene Redezeit erschöpft ist, werden die Anfragen Nr. 23 bis 42 schriftlich beantwortet(2).
Damit ist die Fragestunde beendet.
(Die Sitzung wird um 19.35 Uhr unterbrochen und um 21.00 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)
Für nicht behandelte Anfragen siehe Anlage “Fragestunde”.
30. Kérelem a parlamenti mentelmi jog érvényesítésére: lásd a jegyzőkönyvet
31. Megállapodás a Svájci Államszövetség és az EU között: 1. a menedékjog iránti kérelem megvizsgálásáért felelős állam meghatározása, 2. schengeni vívmányok
Presidente. L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione presentata dall'onorevole Timoty Kirkhope, a nome della commissione per le libertà civili, la giustizia e gli affari interni, 1. sulla proposta di decisione del Consiglio relativa alla firma, a nome della Comunità europea, dell'accordo tra la Comunità europea e la Svizzera relativo ai criteri e ai meccanismi che permettono di determinare lo Stato competente per l'esame di una domanda d'asilo introdotta in uno degli Stati membri o in Svizzera [13049/2004 - COM(2004)0593 - C6-0240/2004 - 2004/0200(CNS)] e
2. sulla proposta di decisione del Consiglio relativa alla firma, a nome della Comunità europea, dell'accordo tra l'Unione europea, la Comunità europea e la Confederazione elvetica riguardante l'associazione di quest'ultima all'attuazione, all'applicazione e allo sviluppo dell'acquis di Schengen [13054/2004 - COM(2004)0593 - C6-0241/2004 - 2004/0199(CNS)] (A6-0201/2005)
Benita Ferrero-Waldner,Mitglied der Kommission. Herr Präsident! Ich begrüße es sehr, dass das Europäische Parlament den Abschluss der Abkommen zur Assoziierung der Schweiz zum Acquis von Schengen und von Dublin unterstützt.
Diese positive Einstellung ist umso wichtiger, als in der Schweiz die politischen Verfahren zur Ratifizierung dieser Abkommen ja jetzt abgeschlossen sind, wobei der wichtigste Schritt sicher das Referendum vom 5. Juni war.
Wir alle, nicht zuletzt das Europäische Parlament, sollten diesen Aufwind in der Schweiz nutzen, um zugleich auch positive Stimmung für die europäische Sache zu machen. Hierzu gehört natürlich auch, die Verfahren auf unserer Seite möglichst zügig abzuschließen.
Die Abkommen, die am 26. Oktober 2004 in Luxemburg unterzeichnet wurden, sind ein positives Zeichen für die weitere Entwicklung der Beziehungen zwischen der Union und der Schweiz.
Das Schengen-Abkommen, über das hier mit abgestimmt wird, wird auch für die EU-Bürger konkrete Verbesserungen bringen. Dies gilt insbesondere für viele Tausende von Pendlern, Berufsfahrern und Reisenden, die ja täglich die Grenze passieren müssen. Diese Personen werden vor allem nach der Umsetzung des Abkommens von erheblichen Erleichterungen profitieren können.
Die Abkommen über Schengen und Dublin schaffen darüber hinaus aber auch mehr Sicherheit durch die Zusammenarbeit in der Verbrechensbekämpfung und im grenzüberschreitenden Datenbereich.
Daher ist es so wichtig, dass das Europäische Parlament den Abschluss der Abkommen unterstützt. Leider gibt es aber in Bezug auf das für den Abschluss anzuwendende Verfahren unterschiedliche Auffassungen bei der Kommission und beim Rat auf der einen Seite und beim Parlament auf der anderen Seite.
Die Kommission hat ihre Position noch einmal überprüft. Übereinstimmung dürfte es in einem Punkt geben: Bei beiden Abkommen handelt es sich nicht um Assoziierungsabkommen im Sinne des EG-Vertrages, auch wenn das Wort Assoziierung im Titel vorkommt.
Darüber hinaus ist die Kommission jedoch der Ansicht, dass durch diese Abkommen auch kein besonderer institutioneller Rahmen für die Zusammenarbeitsverfahren ins Leben gerufen wird. Die Existenz eines Gemischten Ausschusses alleine reicht dazu noch nicht aus.
Ich möchte hierzu besonders feststellen, dass die Gemischten Ausschüsse lediglich die Aufgabe haben, über einen eventuellen Fortbestand der Übereinkommen zu entscheiden, sollte die Schweiz ihren Vertragsverpflichtungen, insbesondere der Umsetzung des Schengen- oder des Dublin- Acquis in nationales Recht, nicht nachkommen.
Diese Gemischten Ausschüsse haben außerdem erheblich weniger Gestaltungsrechte, als bereits bestehende Gemischte Ausschüsse, die durch andere bilaterale Abkommen mit der Schweiz errichtet wurden.
Aus diesen Gründen ist die Rechtslage nach Ansicht der Kommission so, dass beide Abkommen nicht zustimmungspflichtig sind.
Die Kommission sieht deshalb derzeit keinen Anlass, ihren Entscheidungsvorschlag zu ändern.
Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Mitglieder des Europäischen Parlaments, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, ich bedanke mich für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit und sehe der Debatte mit Interesse entgegen.
Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE), rapporteur.– Mr President, like a curate’s egg, as they say, that introduction by the Commissioner was good in parts but not in all parts. I am greatly honoured to have conduct of these matters. My respect for not only the institutions of Europe but also for the Swiss institutions and people knows no bounds. It was only because of the willingness of the Swiss people, through their referendum on 5 June, to see greater cooperation between Switzerland and the EU that I was able to proceed with my proposals.
As the Commissioner has already pointed out, these are good proposals. They are radical, particularly from a Swiss perspective, because although Switzerland retains its independence, if the report is adopted its borders will now effectively allow more movement of people. It will retain strong control over movements of goods but there will be greater movement of people, much better cooperation between law enforcement authorities and, through Switzerland's involvement in the Dublin acquis, close involvement in determining who is responsible in the case of difficult asylum applications.
These are all very good, progressive and acceptable developments. They could well be the start of many more agreements based on a similar approach, an approach that was adopted previously with both Norway and Iceland and is now being used with Switzerland.
As I said, I very much respect the decision of the Swiss people on 5 June and I am therefore happy to proceed. However, although I have heard the Commissioner's explanation on the mixed committees and hence the legal base, I still have considerable problems.
I look at this not so much as a lawyer myself, but on the basis of our legal advice, which appears to be ambivalent. From my point of view it indicates that the right procedure would have been the assent procedure rather than consultation.
That is the basis on which I intend to proceed. I still hope that we might be able to reach an accommodation here, because the purpose of my two amendments to this report is to make sure that this is an assent and not a consultation procedure. Obviously there might be an ongoing dispute. I am disappointed in that part of the Commissioner’s speech, because she seems to indicate that she is happy that her legal advice is better than mine. I suppose you do not always have the same legal advice when you have two lawyers, any more than two economists ever agree on financial matters. Nevertheless, I feel very strongly that this is important, not only in this particular case but also for other matters and agreements that we might bring to Parliament for consideration in future. My committee is quite clear about this, having taken advice, and I too feel very strongly.
I do not want to be seen to be blocking progress or obstructing the will of the Swiss people, who are very interested in the outcome of our discussions and what I am doing here. However, it is in everybody’s interests that we make it clear that the European Parliament very much guards its right to be involved in assent procedures in the limited fields in which they apply. We feel very strongly about that.
I hope that the Commissioner will be able to reconsider. The Council is not present, but it had a similar view. I would like to see the matter reconsidered, because these freer relationships can only be to the benefit not only of the Swiss people but also of all of us in the European Union, especially its institutions, and in particular the European Parliament.
Karl von Wogau, im Namen der PPE-DE-Fraktion.– Herr Präsident, verehrte Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Zunächst einmal werde ich mir erlauben, im Zusammenhang mit dem Schengener Abkommen, einige Fragen zu stellen, denn ich erinnere mich sehr gut an die Zeit, als das Schengener Abkommen verabschiedet wurde. Damals waren vorab aber einige Dinge erfolgt: Man hatte die Zölle abgeschafft, man hatte die Mehrwertsteuer an der Grenze abgeschafft, man hatte die Erhebung von Veterinärkontrollen an den Grenzen abgeschafft, man hatte die Erhebung von Statistiken an den Grenzen abgeschafft, man hatte die Kontrolle von Markenprodukten an der Grenze abgeschafft. Auch Exportbeihilfen und Importabschöpfungen wurden damals abgeschafft, so dass die Grenze wirklich offen war. Der letzte Schritt war dann die Personenkontrolle, die im Schengener Abkommen geregelt wurde.
In der Schweiz ist es gerade umgekehrt. All die Dinge, die ich aufgezählt habe, bleiben. Das Einzige, was wegfallen soll, sind die Personenkontrollen. Ich stelle also die Frage, ob es hier unseren Schweizer Nachbarn nicht gelungen sein sollte, aus diesem sehr trockenen Brot, wie ich es hier beschrieben habe, die einzige Rosine herauszupicken, wie ich bei diesen Verhandlungen ohnehin den Eindruck hatte. Jedenfalls haben diesen Eindruck meine Wähler am Hochrhein: Sie weisen immer wieder darauf hin, dass das, was die Schweiz als wichtig betrachtet hat, auch behandelt wurde. Aber es gibt sehr schwierige Probleme – z.B. der Fluglärm vom Flughafen Zürich –, die nicht geregelt wurden, obwohl sie bilateral sind und sowohl die Schweiz als auch Deutschland betreffen.
Die zweite Frage, die ebenso wichtig ist, betrifft die Landwirte an dieser Grenze. Die deutschen Landwirte haben sehr große Schwierigkeiten, einmal weil die schweizerischen Beihilfen sehr viel höher sind, so dass von den Schweizern höhere Pachten bezahlt werden können, und dazu sollen sie jetzt auch noch die Beihilfen der Europäischen Union bekommen. Das kann kein Mensch verstehen! Hier sind die Verhandlungen an irgendeiner Stelle nicht so geführt wurden, dass diese Interessen angemessen berücksichtigt worden wären.
Was die Rechtsgrundlage betrifft, so sind wir hier unterschiedlicher Auffassung. Wir meinen, dass diese Gemischten Ausschüsse tatsächlich institutionellen Charakter haben. Das hat auch unser Rechtsausschuss bestätigt. Unter diesen Bedingungen glaube ich nicht, dass das Europäische Parlament eine definitive Stellungnahme abgeben kann. Wir müssen also weiter darüber beraten. Eine Ratifizierung dieses Vertrages von Seiten der Europäischen Union ist daher derzeit aus meiner Sicht nicht möglich.
Andreas Schwab (PPE-DE).– Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Als Abgeordneter, dessen Wahlkreis in direkter Nachbarschaft zur Schweiz liegt, habe ich natürlich zusammen mit dem Kollegen von Wogau ein ureigenes Interesse an einer guten und vor allem engen Zusammenarbeit zwischen der Europäischen Union und der Schweiz.
Die Kollegen haben allerdings den Eindruck – zur Rechtsgrundlage möchte ich mich selbst nicht äußern, da kann ich dem Kollegen Kirkhope als Berichterstatter nur zustimmen –, dass die Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten einerseits und der Europäischen Union als Verhandlungspartner der Schweiz andererseits nicht so gut ist, wie das die Bürgerinnen und Bürger in unserem Wahlkreis von uns erwarten dürfen. Allerdings glaube ich, dass das vorliegende Abkommen unter dem Strich trotz allem – wenn man davon ausgeht, dass das Freizügigkeitsabkommen am 25. September direkt dazukommen muss – einen Fortschritt für unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger in unserem Wahlkreis bedeutet, weil Schengen und Dublin für eine engere und damit bessere Zusammenarbeit bei der Personenkontrolle stehen und damit auch der inneren Sicherheit dienen. Davon profitieren nicht nur die Schweizer, sondern auch unsere Mitbürgerinnen und Mitbürger.
Allerdings müssen von der Zusammenarbeit zwischen der Europäischen Union und der Schweiz beide Seiten profitieren. Daher teile ich die Auffassung, dass das Abkommen von Schengen und das Freizügigkeitsabkommen einander wie zwei Seiten einer Medaille ergänzen müssen. Gerade auch vor dem Hintergrund einer Reihe von aktuellen Problemen im Grenzbereich, die wir auch beim Treffen mit unseren Schweizer Kollegen in Fribourg nächste Woche beim SINEEA-Delegationstreffen ansprechen werden, ist es richtig, dass unsere Schweizer von der Kommission darauf hingewiesen werden, dass wir das Schengen-Abkommen nur im Zusammenhang mit dem Freizügigkeitsabkommen sehen können, und dass dies – Herr Kollege von Wogau hat zu Recht darauf hingewiesen – möglichst nicht das Ende einer Entwicklung sein sollte, sondern am Anfang einer Entwicklung stehen sollte, in der sich die Schweiz für weitere engere Zusammenarbeitsbeziehungen entscheidet. Ich glaube, dass das im Interesse der Bürgerin!
nen und Bürger am Hochrhein liegt und halte es daher für richtig, den Bericht des Kollegen Kirkhope zu unterstützen. Es steht mir nicht zu, zu den rechtlichen Fragen, die der Kollege Kirkhope angesprochen hat, Stellung zu nehmen. Ich unterstütze ihn hier.
Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE).– Senhor Presidente, quase que diríamos que este debate interessa apenas ao PPE, mas não é verdade, interessa a toda a Europa. Gostaria de começar por cumprimentar o trabalho que foi feito pelo colega Kirkhope defendendo as prerrogativas deste Parlamento. Queria felicitar a Comissão pela iniciativa e queria dizer à Senhora Comissária que é muito importante que, depois da Islândia e da Noruega, a Suíça se possa tornar o terceiro Estado que não faz parte da União Europeia a estar associado à execução e aplicação, bem como ao desenvolvimento, quer do acervo de Schengen, quer do sistema Dublim/Eurodac.
De facto os suíços decidiram, como já foi referido pelo colega Kirkhope, por referendo, estreitar a sua relação com a União Europeia integrando o espaço Schengen, que permite a livre circulação, e, no âmbito do acordo de Dublim, que tem a ver com a política de asilo. Aplaudo a entrada da Suíça nestes sistemas, o que permitirá a eliminação de diversos obstáculos à livre circulação e um reforço da cooperação, que é fundamental, tendo em conta a sua situação geográfica. A Suíça ganha sob o ponto de vista político em termos de uma maior estabilidade no âmbito da sua vizinhança geográfica e, do ponto de vista económico, tirando partido de uma maior fluidez da circulação.
Deste modo a Suíça deverá aceitar e aplicar o acervo de Schengen no seu todo, o que não acontece com todos os Estados-Membros da União Europeia, estando prevista apenas uma derrogação relativa ao desenvolvimento futuro do acervo de Schengen, condição considerada necessária para a conclusão de um acordo relativo à tributação da poupança.
Quanto ao segundo acordo, a Suíça deverá aceitar, implementar e aplicar o acervo actual e futuro do Dublim/Eurodac sem quaisquer derrogações. Para terminar, gostaria de sublinhar que estes acordos marcam uma aproximação da Suíça à União Europeia, que é desejada, mas também constituem em si um exemplo para outros países de que é possível estreitar esforços, laços e políticas com a União Europeia sem passar necessariamente pela integração formal como Estado-Membro.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner,Mitglied der Kommission. Herr Präsident! Vielleicht darf ich zuerst generell auf die Fragen eingehen. Ich glaube, dass wir uns grundsätzlich alle darüber freuen, dass diese Abkommen jetzt da sind, dass eines bereits auch mit Referendum angenommen wurde, und dass wir in den Prozess der Ratifizierung eintreten können. Wie gesagt wurde, ist das sehr wichtig, weil es sowohl ein Modell für andere Länder sein kann, als auch für die Schweizer Bürger eine Chance bieten wird, immer näher an die Europäische Union heranzukommen.
Ich möchte nun, nachdem es angesprochen wurde, vor allem auf die Rechtsfrage noch einmal eingehen.
Nicht nur der Juristische Dienst der Kommission, sondern auch der Juristische Dienst des Rates hat sich geäußert. Herr Berichterstatter Kirkhope, Sie haben es gesagt, dennoch möchte ich es hier noch einmal bestätigen.
Der Artikel 300 des EG-Vertrags definiert 4 Fallgruppen, bei denen der Abschluss eines internationalen Abkommens der Zustimmung des Europäischen Parlaments bedarf: 1. Assoziierungsabkommen im Sinne von Artikel 310 EG-Vertrag, 2. Abkommen, bei denen durch die Einführung von Zusammenarbeitsverfahren besondere institutionelle Rahmen geschaffen werden, 3. Abkommen mit erheblichen finanziellen Folgen für die Gemeinschaft und 4. Abkommen, die eine Änderung eines Rechtsaktes bedingen, der nach dem Verfahren des Artikels 251 oder 252 EG-Vertrag angenommen wurde.
In allen anderen Fällen kann das Europäische Parlament lediglich eine Stellungnahme abgeben. Der Juristische Dienst der Kommission ist der Ansicht, dass die vorliegenden Übereinkommen nicht unter die oben genannten Fallgruppen zu subsumieren sind. Die von den Übereinkommen geschaffenen Gemischten Ausschüsse haben – so ist die Ansicht unseres Juristischen Dienstes – nur eingeschränkte Befugnisse, und zwar im Rahmen der Streitbeilegung.
Deshalb muss ich auch diese Meinung der Kommission aufrecht halten, obwohl ich das natürlich vernommen habe.
Darf ich dann noch ein Wort sagen zu dem, was Herr von Wogau hier angesprochen hat und was auch Herr Schwab erwähnt hat. Ich glaube, wir haben die Probleme und die Fragen sehr wohl gehört, die Sie erwähnt haben, und die die räumliche, aber vor allem die regionale Zusammenarbeit betreffen. Das sind Fragen der Landwirtschaft, des Fluglärms usw. Natürlich sind sie eher bilateraler Natur. Aber ich sehe, dass hier ein gewisser Zusammenhang besteht. Ich kann hier jetzt keinen Lösungsvorschlag vorlegen, aber wir sehen natürlich diese Problematik, und vielleicht kann man das bei Gesprächen mit der Schweiz gelegentlich noch einmal auf den Verhandlungstisch legen.
Herr Präsident, ich habe derzeit nichts weiter hinzuzufügen und bitte, dass das Parlament die entsprechenden Verfahren weiter durchführt.
Presidente. La discussione è chiusa.
La votazione si svolgerà giovedì, alle 12.00.
32. Az Európai Közösség hitelezési tevékenységének hatása a fejlődő országokban
Presidente. L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione presentata dall'onorevole Gabriele Zimmer, a nome della commissione per lo sviluppo, sulle ripercussioni delle operazioni di concessione di prestiti della Comunità europea nei paesi in via di sviluppo [2004/2213(INI)] (A6-0183/2005)
Gabriele Zimmer (GUE/NGL), Berichterstatterin.– Herr Präsident, verehrte Damen und Herren! Ich habe die Gelegenheit, Ihnen heute meinen Bericht vorzustellen, zu dem ich vom Entwicklungsausschuss beauftragt worden bin, einen Bericht, der sich insbesondere mit den Wirkungen der Kreditvergabepraxis der Europäischen Union, hier natürlich speziell mit der Europäischen Investitionsbank, befasst. Dieser heute hier vorliegende Bericht, der morgen zur Abstimmung kommen wird, verfolgt in erster Linie die Absicht,
die Europäische Investitionsbank zu einem wichtigen und vor allem zu einem wirksamen Instrument der Entwicklungshilfe zu machen.
Viele von Ihnen haben sich am heutigen Tag der Kampagne Make Poverty History angeschlossen. Das ist selbstverständlich zu begrüßen. Wenn wir an einem solchen Tag, an dem sich das Europäische Parlament auch symbolisch dazu bekannt hat, sich an der Aktion White Band Global Action Day zu beteiligen, muss man aber auch darüber reden, inwieweit die von uns zu verantwortende bisherige Entwicklungshilfe tatsächlich den Ansprüchen genügt, die wir selbst immer wieder – auch nach außen – in den Vordergrund stellen. Die heutige Armut hat bereits eine Geschichte, und Teil dieser Geschichte sind die Fehler, die auch in der Entwicklungsfinanzierung in den letzten Jahren gemacht wurden und die dazu führten, dass heute immerhin 2 736 Millionen Menschen – also fast die Hälfte der Weltbevölkerung – mit weniger als 2 Dollar pro Tag leben müssen.
Ich möchte noch einmal auf einen Teil der Diskussion von heute früh verweisen, der aus meiner Sicht in einem unmittelbaren Zusammenhang mit diesem Bericht steht. Gerade die afrikanischen Bewegungen haben immer wieder Kritik an der Bevormundung durch die Staaten des Nordens geäußert und verlangen von uns vor allem, dass wir einen intensiven Kampf gegen Armut, Hunger und Krankheiten führen, und dass wir uns auf eine völlige und bedingungslose Streichung der Schulden der ärmsten Länder verständigen. Das sollen wir unterstützen. Sie fordern auch, dass größere Ressourcen für die Entwicklungshilfe und vor allem in einer besseren Qualität als bisher zur Verfügung gestellt werden.
Zu den Fehlern der Vergangenheit gehört sicher – das muss man in Bezug auf die Europäische Investitionsbank auch ansprechen – eine mangelnde Koordinierung der verschiedenen Akteure in der Entwicklungsfinanzierung. Trotz der Vereinbarung von Barcelona agieren Kommission und Mitgliedstaaten, multilaterale und nationale Entwicklungsbanken noch immer zu weitgehend nebeneinander. So wirken sie mitunter sogar kontraproduktiv. Daher legt dieser Bericht großen Wert darauf, dass die EIB bei ihren neuen Aufgaben im Entwicklungsbereich von Anfang an auf Kohärenz, Transparenz und vor allem auch auf Koordinierung setzt.
Zu den folgenschweren Fehlern gehört aber auch die Zielsetzung, die in der so genannten Entwicklungsfinanzierung dominierte: die Förderung der eigenen Außenwirtschaftsbeziehungen und die Erschließung der Märkte im Süden durch europäische Unternehmen. Betrachten Sie das begrenzte Mandat der Europäischen Investitionsbank vor allem mit dem Blick auf Kredite in Asien und Lateinamerika, so finden Sie das dort auch fast wortwörtlich formuliert. Die Anteilseigner der Europäischen Investitionsbank, die Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union und die Kommission, verhandeln zur Zeit über ein neues Mandat für die EIB für Kredite außerhalb der Union. Diese Verhandlungen werden aber nach meiner Ansicht zunehmend von Finanzexperten und immer weniger von Entwicklungsexperten geführt. Auch der Sachverstand des Parlaments blieb bisher ausgeschlossen. Doch dieses neue Mandat muss ein klares Bekenntnis zu den Aufgabenstellungen enthalten, die sich insbesondere auch auf die Durc!
hsetzung der Milleniums-Entwicklungsziele beziehen, die Bekämpfung der Armut in den Zielländern.
Damit aber das Parlament über eine entsprechende Ausformulierung dieses neuen Mandats wachen kann, ist es meiner Meinung nach erforderlich – und diese Forderung enthält der Bericht –, die Europaabgeordneten bereits im September dieses Jahres über den Verhandlungsstand zu informieren. Es kann nicht sein, dass wir dann vor vollendete Tatsachen gestellt werden. Die Bekämpfung der Armut darf künftig auch nicht mehr einfach nur an den Zahlen für das Wirtschaftswachstum gemessen werden. Diese verschleiern oftmals auch die wachsende Verarmung gerade in ländlichen Räumen. Auch die dort angeführte Höhe der ausländischen Direktinvestitionen eignet sich nicht als Erfolgsindikator, denn sie sagt nichts über die Schaffung von Arbeitsplätzen oder soziale bzw. ökologische Verträglichkeit der Investitionen aus. Wenn die EIB zum Beispiel heute in Sambia schweizerische und kanadische Unternehmen bei der Errichtung großer Kupferminen fördert, die ihre Gewinne fast komplet!
t wieder ausführen, den Flüssen vor Ort jedoch ihre Gifte hinterlassen und damit in ganzen Regionen die Landwirtschaft zerstören, dann sind das zwar zählbare Auslandsinvestitionen, aber keine messbare Bekämpfung der Armut.
Der Ihnen heute vorliegende Bericht enthält auch eine Reihe von konkreten Vorschlägen, wie die Darlehenstätigkeit der EIB in den Entwicklungsländern künftig zu verbessern ist. Im Einklang mit den Zielen der Vereinten Nationen bilden gerade auch die Milleniums-Entwicklungsziele den Rahmen für diese Vorschläge, und innerhalb dieser Vorschläge wurden auch sehr viele Detailvorschläge unterbreitet, um hier vorwärts zu kommen.
Ich möchte besonders auf ein Problem verweisen. Nach meiner Ansicht berücksichtigt die Europäische Investitionsbank noch völlig ungenügend die Forderung, insbesondere die Indikatoren der Milleniums-Entwicklungsziele anzuwenden, damit sie überhaupt in der Lage ist, die Wirkung ihrer eigenen Tätigkeit nachfolgend beurteilen zu können. Sie setzt auf allgemeine Angaben. Ich glaube, das reicht einfach nicht aus, vor allem, wenn man dann vergleicht, mit welcher Wirkung andere, nationale Entwicklungsbanken mancher Mitgliedstaaten schon arbeiten.
Gerade der Tsunami hat gezeigt, dass wir einen dringenden Veränderungsbedarf haben, wenn es darum gehen soll, dass die Investitionsbank in Notsituationen in der Lage ist, auch unabhängig von Außenwirtschaftskriterien vernünftige Kredite zu vergeben und tatsächlich wirksam zu helfen. Hier brauchen wir ein klareres Mandat durch die Mitgliedstaaten als Anteilseigner. Deshalb bitte ich morgen um die Unterstützung zu dem vorliegenden Bericht, damit die Zusammenarbeit zwischen Europäischem Parlament und der Europäischen Investitionsbank auch weiterhin produktiv bleibt und wir im Sinne der Entwicklungshilfe vorwärts kommen.