Показалец 
Разисквания
PDF 1260k
Вторник, 22 май 2007 г. - Страсбург Редактирана версия
1. Откриване на заседанието
 2. График на месечните сесии : вж. протокола
 3. Дневен ред: вж. протокола
 4. Внасяне на документи: вж. протоколи
 5. Разисквания по случаи на нарушаване на правата на човека, на демокрацията и принципа на правовата държава (обявяване на внесените предложения за резолюция): вж. протоколи
 6. Глобална Европа - Външни аспекти на конкурентността (разискване)
 7. Подпомагане на търговията от Европейския съюз (разискване)
 8. Споразумения за икономическо партньорство (разискване)
 9. Време за гласуване
  9.1. Споразумение между ЕО и Русия в областта на рибното стопанство и опазването на ресурсите в Балтийско море (вот)
  9.2. Финансов инструмент за околната среда (LIFE+) (вот)
  9.3. Програма Daphné III (вот)
  9.4. „Засилено сътрудничество между комисиите“(за изменение на член 47 от Правилника за дейността на Европейския парламент) (вот)
  9.5. Стандарти за качество на околната среда в областта на политиката за водите (вот)
  9.6. Биологично производство и етикетиране на биологичните продукти (вот)
  9.7. Партньорство в областта на рибното стопанство между ЕС, от една страна, и Дания и Гренландия, от друга (вот)
  9.8. Постоянна делегация EUROLAT (вот)
  9.9. Съвместната декларация относно практическите условия и ред за процедурата на съвместно вземане на решение (вот)
  9.10. Прекратяване на обедняването на биологичното разнообразие до 2010 г. (вот)
  9.11. Глобална Европа - Външни аспекти на конкурентността (вот)
 10. Обяснения на вот
 11. Поправки и намерения за гласуване: вж. протоколи
 12. Дискусия за бъдещето на Европа с участието на премиера на Италия, член на Европейския съвет (разискване)
 13. Одобряване на протокола от предишното заседание: вж протоколите
 14. Положението в Палестина (разискване)
 15. Време за въпроси (въпроси към Комисията)
 16. Състав на постоянната делегация на EUROLAT: вж. протокола
 17. Действия, предприети вследствие позиции и резолюции на Парламента: вж. протоколи
 18. Естония (разискване)
 19. Годишен доклад за 2005 г. за ОВППС (разискване)
 20. Сближаване на акцизните ставки върху алкохола и алкохолните напитки (разискване)
 21. Предоставяне на финансова помощ от Общността в областта на трансевропейската транспортна и енергийни мрежи (разискване)
 22. Дневен ред на следващото заседание: вж. протоколи
 23. Закриване на заседанието


  

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. LUISA MORGANTINI
Vicepresidente

 
1. Откриване на заседанието
  

(La seduta è aperta alle 9.00)

 

2. График на месечните сесии : вж. протокола

3. Дневен ред: вж. протокола
  

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carlos Carnero González (PSE). – Señora Presidenta, no pretendo hablar cinco minutos, sólo le pido que, con su generosidad y conocimiento de la región a la que me voy a referir, me permita intervenir por una cuestión de orden.

Se trata de lo siguiente, señora Presidenta, yo me pregunto si el Presidente de esta Institución podría asociarse, si no lo ha hecho ya, al llamamiento del Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas, señor Ban Ki-moon, para que cesen los enfrentamientos en el Líbano, que están costando ya una cantidad de vidas tremenda.

Creo que esto es imprescindible, y reflejaría el espíritu de todos y cada uno de los diputados de esta Casa. Ya sé que esta tarde tenemos un debate sobre la situación en Palestina pero el caso es que, mientras transcurre esta mañana, siguen muriendo personas civiles inocentes en el Líbano.

Es lo que pido.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Presidente. La richiesta sarà trasmessa al Presidente che certamente la proporrà anche alla Conferenza dei Presidenti.

 

4. Внасяне на документи: вж. протоколи

5. Разисквания по случаи на нарушаване на правата на човека, на демокрацията и принципа на правовата държава (обявяване на внесените предложения за резолюция): вж. протоколи

6. Глобална Европа - Външни аспекти на конкурентността (разискване)
MPphoto
 
 

  Presidente. L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione presentata dall'on. Daniel Caspary, a nome della commissione per il commercio internazionale, su "Europa globale - aspetti esterni della competitività" (2006/2292(INI)) (A6-0149/2007)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Daniel Caspary (PPE-DE), Berichterstatter. – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, geschätzte Kollegen! Als weltgrößter Binnenmarkt haben wir als Europäische Union ein besonderes Gewicht in der Welt. Um international weiter erfolgreich sein zu können, müssen wir nach innen die richtigen Rahmenbedingungen schaffen, aber auch nach außen unsere Handelspolitik so aufstellen, dass sie unseren wirtschaftlichen Interessen gerecht wird.

Die Kommission hat im Oktober 2006 in ihrer Mitteilung „Ein wettbewerbsfähiges Europa in einer globalen Welt“ ihre Vorstellungen für eine solche Handelsstrategie vorgelegt. Der vorliegende Bericht des Handelsausschusses soll kein Gegenentwurf sein, sondern einige Schwerpunkte entsprechend justieren, denn die Kommission und auch Sie, Herr Kommissar, müssen die richtigen Prioritäten setzen, statt kurzfristige Ergebnisse zu suchen.

Die Öffnung der Märkte unserer Handelspartner ist ein Gewinn für alle. Die Europäische Union ist ein sehr gutes Beispiel für offene Märkte und deren Erfolg. Das derzeit beste vorhandene Instrumentarium dazu bietet die Welthandelsorganisation WTO. Trotz aller Schwierigkeiten in der aktuellen Handelsrunde muss das Ziel einer multilateralen Handelsliberalisierung im WTO-Rahmen darin bestehen, hier ambitioniert voranzukommen. Auch wenn die Aussichten auf einen erfolgreichen Abschluss sicher nicht die besten sind, sollten gerade wir als Europäische Union nach wie vor alles daran setzen, doch noch zum Erfolg zu kommen, denn bilaterale oder regionale Freihandelsabkommen sind allenfalls eine zweitbeste Option oder gar Notlösungen, da mit ihnen vielfältige Nachteile verbunden sind. Wenn Freihandelsabkommen abzuschließen sind, dann unter folgenden Einschränkungen: Einerseits ist die Auswahl der Freihandelsabkommen auf die Staaten oder Wirtschaftsregionen zu beschränken, mit denen unsere Wettbewerber ein Abkommen aushandeln oder bereits abgeschlossen haben. Andererseits sollte der Umfang dieser Freihandelsabkommen aber deutlich über die Themen der WTO hinausgehen. Zusätzlich sollten wir uns als Europäische Union darum bemühen, Standards in diesen Freihandelsabkommen zu verankern, die plurilateral auf einer möglichst breiten Grundlage vereinbart werden. Ich denke zum Beispiel an Ursprungsregelungen, die in jedem Freihandelsabkommen unterschiedlich ausgehandelt werden und die gerade für unsere kleinen und mittelständischen Unternehmen, die zunehmend die Chancen der Globalisierung nutzen und in den Export gehen, kaum anzuwenden sind.

Leider wurden in der Vergangenheit oft andere Politikziele auf Kosten der Handelspolitik durchgesetzt. Wir sollten deshalb die Handelspolitik in Zukunft nicht mit sachfremden Fragen überfrachten. Wir müssen gleichzeitig darauf achten, dass die bestehenden Regeln, auf die unsere Handelspartner und wir eingegangen sind, auch eingehalten werden. Dies gilt insbesondere für den Bereich des geistigen Eigentums, in dem vielfach bestehendes Recht und eingegangene Verpflichtungen nur unzureichend angewandt werden oder die Anwendung sogar aktiv behindert wird. Einen Schutz vor unfairen Handelspraktiken bieten die Handelsschutzinstrumente der Europäischen Union, insbesondere die Antidumpingregeln.

Ich möchte ausdrücklich darauf hinweisen, dass eine sehr breite Mehrheit im Handelsausschuss wie ich der Meinung war, dass die von der Kommission angeregte Revision der Handelsschutzinstrumente derzeit nicht geboten ist. Wir sollten den Ergebnissen der Gespräche auf WTO-Ebene so schwierig sie im Moment auch sind, nicht vorgreifen. Die Handelsschutzinstrumente der Europäischen Union haben sich im Großen und Ganzen bewährt. Es besteht derzeit kein Änderungsbedarf.

Angesichts sinkender Zollsätze gewinnen die nichttarifären Handelshemmnisse immer mehr an Bedeutung. Zum Beispiel dürfen Antiterrormaßnahmen in allen Wirtschaftsräumen nicht zum nichttarifären Handelshemmnis des 21. Jahrhunderts werden. In diesem Zusammenhang spielt auch die Frage der Regulierung eine wichtige Rolle. Wir müssen unsere internen Regulierungen deswegen stärker nach ihrer Vereinbarkeit mit den Regeln unserer Haupthandelspartner ausrichten. Vor allem die Zusammenarbeit mit den Vereinigten Staaten und die Bemühungen der vergangenen Wochen unterstütze ich deswegen ausdrücklich.

Ich bin sehr zuversichtlich, dass wir die Chancen der globalen Märkte für uns und vor allem auch für andere – Entwicklungsländer, aber auch Industrienationen – sinnvoll nutzen können, wenn die die richtigen Prioritäten gesetzt werden. Dies wird positive Auswirkungen auf die Menschen in Europa und auf die Menschen insgesamt in der Welt haben, und ich bin den Kollegen, dem Ausschusssekretariat und den Fraktionsmitarbeitern sehr dankbar, dass wir in den vergangenen Wochen einen Bericht auf die Beine gestellt haben, der aus meiner Sicht in der anschließenden Abstimmung eine breite Mehrheit im Parlament finden könnte. Herzlichen Dank für die Zusammenarbeit und herzlichen Dank auch der Kommission für die Berücksichtigung unserer Anregungen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. Madam President, this is a very important report. Let me recall the background of Global Europe. In Europe we face huge challenges due to the pace of change in the global economy. This creates new opportunities, but it also generates some insecurity and understandable concerns.

Our core message is clear: rejection of protectionism at home, activism in opening markets abroad. We need to look beyond tariff reduction, to the trade barriers that lie behind borders. We also need to step up our engagement with the major economies of the next generation, particularly – but not only – in Asia, where there is huge potential for growth but where Europe is not performing as strongly as it should.

Our first priority remains the WTO and the Doha Development Agenda and I want to say something about that. There is a lot at stake for the global economy and for the developing world, and I will certainly explore every avenue in the weeks ahead to make a deal possible.

For two days last week the European Union hosted the Brazilian, Indian and US ministerial negotiators just outside Brussels. We had a constructive meeting, focusing on numbers and outcomes. Achieving these outcomes will not be at all easy. However, I believe on balance that we can find our way through this negotiation and conclude the Doha Round this year, as we agreed in Delhi in April. This requires convergence amongst the G4 in the next month or so. The political commitment to that objective is high indeed at the highest political level.

The gaps are still wide between us, both inside agriculture and between agriculture and industry and services. However, they are bridgeable if all parties agree to combine sufficient ambition with sufficient flexibility. I will insist on the basic principle that there should be real cuts and effective reductions from all key players in all key areas. Real market access in agriculture is worth real farm subsidy reductions and real cuts in industrial goods tariffs.

The level of ambition of the final package in agriculture and in industrial tariffs is inextricably linked. Europe is prepared to do a lot – indeed more than others – but we are not prepared to go to the limit of our ambition if others do not do the same. Of course there must be proportionate effort between developed and developing countries.

It is also vital to remember that the bulk of the economic gains in the Doha Round will not come from agricultural market access or indeed non-agricultural market access but from commitments by WTO members to open their services markets and from cutting the red tape and costs in time and money affecting trade flows worldwide. The services and trade facilitation negotiations are operating on a different timeline to the market access negotiations, but they must not fall through the gaps.

All of us amongst the core negotiators must assume our fair share of the effort and responsibility needed for a balanced outcome in this round. We all need to look forward to the economies we want to create in the future, rather than backwards to defend the structures of the past. Yes, consolidate the gains from past market opening, but also make a contribution to the new market opening needed to boost trade growth in the future. That is the only basis on which these negotiations can conclude, and we have little over a month to do so.

However, we can and should build on the platform created by the WTO to generate new opportunities for growth by further opening markets bilaterally to trade and investment, not as an alternative but as a complement to the DDA.

We have quite an ambitious agenda ahead of us: FTA negotiations with Korea, India and ASEAN, stepping up our engagement with China and the United States, IPR enforcement, a renewed market access strategy, follow-up of the trade defence instruments Green Paper, and further work on the trade and development agenda. We do this against the background of this complex multilateral trade round. This requires careful handling. But the first six months of our Global Europe strategy demonstrate that we can move forward in parallel: we have taken concrete initiatives following our Global Europe agenda and we have put the DDA back on track.

I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Caspary, for his excellent work. I am very happy to see the way the report handles all these issues. I am glad that Parliament takes a high interest in the report, which is clearly demonstrated in the almost 200 amendments. I am also happy to see that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been associated, given the link with the Lisbon Strategy.

Let me assure you that we have involved Parliament, and will continue to do so in the future, in the development of the Global Europe agenda. We informed the Committee on International Trade during the preparatory work of our overall communication, which I presented to the Committee on International Trade once it had been adopted by the Commission. My departments or myself have discussed all initiatives following the Global Europe agenda – i.e. the communication on China, the Green Paper on TDI, the communication on market access – at different times with Parliament.

For new FTAs, the negotiating directives have been provided to the Committee on International Trade – which is a novelty – and my departments have briefed the committee recently on the state of play. I will update the Committee on International Trade in early June on the FTA negotiations that we have just kicked off.

The Commission will consider carefully the recommendations and suggestions made by Parliament in its resolution. However, as guardian of the treaties we will do so by respecting the existing framework.

We need your continued full cooperation and your valid input on Global Europe in order to make the right choices on this ambitious journey. I am very glad that we have made good progress on this today with the Caspary report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Benoît Hamon (PSE), rapporteur pour avis de la commission des affaires économiques et monétaires. – Madame la Présidente, je voudrais féliciter le rapporteur M. Caspary. Je vais me contenter en une minute d'évoquer les principaux faits du rapport de la commission des affaires économiques et monétaires, compétente sur les questions de politique monétaire.

La commission des affaires économiques et monétaires s'est intéressée à la question des taux de change entre l'euro et les monnaies de nos principaux partenaires et concurrents pour souligner que, d'évidence, les bénéfices escomptés d'une réduction des droits de douane à l'exportation, ou les parts de marché que font espérer des disciplines renforcées en matière de barrières non tarifaires, peuvent être réduits à néant par une évolution défavorable du taux de change. C'est pourquoi, nous suggérons à la Commission de proposer de nouveaux instruments de défense commerciale qui permettent aux producteurs européens de se défendre face à une dépréciation abusive des monnaies de nos concurrents et nous suggérons de regarder du côté des États-Unis d'Amérique où un certain nombre de nos collègues législateurs du Sénat des États-Unis ont imaginé un système qui frapperait des importations issues de pays à la monnaie artificiellement sous-évaluée d'un droit de douane correspondant. Alors sans aller jusque là, nous jugeons que l'inertie dans ce domaine est devenue incompréhensible.

L'autre question, parmi les nombreuses contributions du rapport de la commission économique et monétaire, que je voudrais souligner rapidement, c'est la question de l'environnement en jugeant qu'il n'est pas équitable que les producteurs européens, qui doivent assumer des coûts liés à des méthodes de production moins polluantes, soient concurrencés par des importations bon marché issues de pays qui refusent d'assumer leur part dans l'effort en matière de lutte contre le réchauffement climatique. C'est pour cela que la commission des affaires économiques et monétaires propose la création d'une taxe carbone.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Syed Kamall, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Madam President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Caspary, on such a wide-ranging report – not surprising given the title of Global Europe – and I welcome its general tone. However, I have a few concerns and worries about a few possible contradictions.

I read a report calling for all so-called ‘public’ services to be kept out of trade negotiations, including media services. But surely focusing on media services goes against the grain of the Lisbon Agenda, which aims to make the EU a leading digital economy? However, even if we leave media services aside, are we really going to ignore citizens in poorer countries who have to put up with poor or non-existent health, education, water and transport services run by poorly-performing state monopolies or companies often linked to corrupt or inefficient politicians? I urge my fellow Members to listen to the citizens and not the politicians of these countries.

I also see Paragraph 80 supporting the view that trade defence instruments need not be reviewed, but I ask that the Commission no longer succumb to the protectionist sentiments of uncompetitive companies. For example, TDIs have made shoes more expensive for poor families, especially those with children, and penalise those EU companies that have grasped the opportunity provided by globalisation and global supply chains, creating high-value research, design and marketing jobs in the EU while outsourcing low-value jobs to Asia. In truth, TDIs mean that the Commission listens more to uncompetitive European companies than it does to consumers, retailers and global EU suppliers and I do not believe that they will save one European manufacturing job in the long run.

However, I do not wish to dwell only on my concerns. The report rightly confirms that the benefits of liberalisation outweigh any disruptive impact and that those countries that lift tariffs and non-tariff barriers and open up their markets benefit most. It also highlights the problem that the new French President will have to grapple with, in that protectionism leads to unemployment. For these reasons, I commend the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elisa Ferreira, em nome do Grupo PSE. – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, caros Colegas, também eu gostaria de começar por saudar o relator. A Europa precisa, hoje, de clarificar o modo como se insere na economia globalizada.

Enquanto socialistas, de que sou relatora-sombra, defendemos sem qualquer dúvida o quadro multilateral da Organização Mundial do Comércio. No entanto, o relativo impasse das negociações de Doha levou a Comissão, tal como os nossos principais parceiros, a encontrarem soluções transitórias através de acordos comerciais bilaterais ou regionais. Esta estratégia é claramente uma segunda opção e só será aceitável se os acordos forem compatíveis com o êxito das negociações de Doha e incluírem condições ambientais e sociais mínimas que sejam conformes com os padrões internacionalmente reconhecidos, tais como o de trabalho decente.

Entretanto, gostaria de sublinhar que a revisão unilateral dos instrumentos de defesa comercial, tal como referiu o relator, é considerada como claramente inoportuna. Além disso, há que assumir com clareza que parceiros economicamente pujantes e com capacidade negocial equivalente à da União Europeia devem ser tratados de forma diferente de países menos desenvolvidos ou com graves problemas de desenvolvimento.

Em relação aos primeiros, como é o caso da Coreia, da Índia, do Brasil, do México, da China e da Indonésia, é altura de a União Europeia exigir alguma reciprocidade, nomeadamente no que respeita ao acesso ao mercado, ao respeito pela propriedade intelectual, às regras de comércio, à política de investimento e à concorrência. Os cidadãos europeus assim o exigem. No entanto, esta reciprocidade nunca poderá ser exigida em relação a países frágeis ou com problemas de desenvolvimento. Pelo contrário, em relação a estes, a União Europeia adquire com esta estratégia responsabilidades redobradas e deverá reforçar as condições para que possam servir-se do comércio internacional para acelerar o seu processo de desenvolvimento.

Sabe-se que o equilíbrio entre estes vários objectivos não é fácil. No entanto, espero que seja possível encontrar um espírito de compromisso e um consenso suficiente entre os vários grupos políticos de modo a que os cidadãos europeus que aqui representamos se sintam mais seguros face às incertezas da globalização.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ignasi Guardans Cambó, en nombre del Grupo ALDE. – Señora Presidenta, cuando hablamos de la competitividad de la Europa global no estamos hablando de una cuestión teórica o académica, estamos hablando de la creación de riqueza, de la creación puestos de trabajo, del bienestar de nuestros ciudadanos, del papel de Europa en el mundo, de sus responsabilidades y de cómo las ejerce, con sus vecinos, con sus socios comerciales y también con aquellos que son más débiles y que más pueden sufrir lo que hemos venido en llamar la globalización.

Doy la bienvenida, en nombre de mi Grupo, al informe del señor Caspary, al que añadiremos, en la votación posterior, algunas enmiendas que mejorarán o precisarán algunas de sus afirmaciones, no en la línea de quitar nada, sino aportando algunas ideas en apoyo a las enmiendas presentadas por otros grupos.

El comercio y el libre mercado no son un dogma, no son una verdad religiosa que haya que defender como tal.

Es una realidad, una constatación, que sólo el libre comercio, con reglas claras y justas para todos, puede contribuir a la creación de riqueza, de bienestar y al desarrollo. El proteccionismo no puede ir nunca en esa dirección, y nunca ha habido pruebas de que aporte nada. El libre comercio, la apertura de los mercados a nivel mundial, llevan indirectamente consigo la creación de mayores libertades individuales para aquellos que se benefician de esa libertad. Por eso defendemos la apertura de los mercados y la liberalización, no como quien defiende un dogma o una verdad religiosa o un principio al que estemos políticamente unidos sino porque sus beneficios son muy claros.

Cuando la Unión Europea defiende ese mismo principio, defiende, en la nueva estrategia de una Europa global, esta apertura de mercados a nivel mundial, y tiene que ejercer también sus propias responsabilidades. Le incumben graves responsabilidades a la Unión Europea; las tiene cuando nos representa y nos defiende.

Por eso, y en esto mi grupo se suma a lo que han dicho otros portavoces, no es momento para revisar los instrumentos de defensa comercial, es momento, quizás, para ajustarlos, pero no para suprimirlos, no para modificarlos, porque la Unión Europea tiene la responsabilidad de no perder de vista las restricciones que siguen existiendo, restricciones, en muchos casos no arancelarias, que se van imponiendo progresivamente. Subrayo aquí una de la que tendremos ocasión de hablar: la denigración comercial que padecen los productos europeos en algunos países.

La Unión Europea tiene también su responsabilidad cuando negocia en nuestro nombre, cuando pide el acceso al mercado de servicios, cuando negocia en el ámbito de los concursos públicos.

Es muy importante que nuestra política comercial, no sólo no sea incompatible sino que encaje perfectamente con nuestra política de desarrollo —algo que no digo que no se esté haciendo—, pero el riesgo está ahí, que tengamos una política comercial que no vaya en paralelo con nuestras obligaciones en el ámbito del desarrollo. Por eso añadiremos también algunas enmiendas a este informe, para dejar clara esta idea.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Konrad Szymański, w imieniu grupy UEN. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Globalizacja jest przede wszystkim europejską szansą. Bardzo dziękuję sprawozdawcy, że wyeksponował to w swoim sprawozdaniu. Chciałbym zwrócić na to uwagę szczególnie naszym kolegom z lewicy, którzy są głównymi autorami skojarzenia wolnego handlu z bezrobociem i społeczną dewastacją.

Aby uniknąć złych konsekwencji handlu globalnego, aby wygrać globalną konkurencję, musimy uporządkować nasz własny system alokacji zasobów. Dziś jest on deformowany przez nadmierną regulację i reglamentację wspólnego rynku w samej Unii Europejskiej. Po części tracimy tę okazję w zakresie usług i rynków pracy w Unii Europejskiej.

Wciąż nie wykorzystujemy wszystkich przewag konkurencyjnych, jakie kryją się za wspólnym rynkiem euroatlantyckim. Zamiast straszyć tańszymi usługami, pracą i konkurencją podatkową wyciągnijmy z nich nasze wspólne korzyści, weźmy w tym wyścigu udział i ciężką pracą wygrajmy go.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pierre Jonckheer, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, quelle que soit leur couleur politique, les gouvernements ont approuvé en novembre 2006 les orientations générales proposées par la Commission et celle-ci est maintenant entrée concrètement en négociation, notamment avec la Corée du Sud et les pays de l'ASEAN, sur la base de mandats décidés par le Conseil sur proposition de la Commission.

En ces matières, rappelons-le, le Parlement européen n'a qu'un pouvoir de parole et doit se contenter d'une procédure d'avis conforme en fin de parcours. Il en est d'ailleurs de même pour les parlements nationaux. Les négociations commerciales demeurent une prérogative des exécutifs nationaux et communautaires, ce que nous critiquons depuis 25 ans.

Nous souhaitons, en effet, que le Parlement européen en particulier soit associé à la définition des mandats de négociation via une procédure de codécision et qu'ensuite une procédure de suivi puisse être réellement mise en œuvre et, de ce point de vue, je ne pense pas que les apparitions, certes intéressantes, de M. Mandelson devant notre commission soient suffisantes.

Mon deuxième message concerne les normes. Depuis le rapport Bruntland, nous demandons que les règles du commerce international soient adaptées aux exigences incontournables d'un nouveau mode de développement bénéfique pour l'ensemble des peuples de notre petite planète.

Faut-il rappeler, Monsieur le Commissaire, que l'empreinte écologique de notre mode de vie actuel d'Européens représente trois fois les capacités de la terre? Il est donc insoutenable s'il devait être généralisé, c'est la raison simple pour laquelle il y a urgence à ce que des normes internationales en matière d'environnement et de conditions sociales soient rendues contraignantes, et pas seulement encouragées, dans ces négociations commerciales, ce qui, hélas, n'est pas l'avis ni de la Commission, ni d'une majorité de ce Parlement, aveuglées par des intérêts de court terme.

Pour ces raisons, et bien d'autres encore, et notamment l'impact que ces négociations pourraient avoir sur le développement futur de la législation européenne, mon groupe uni n'approuvera pas ce rapport.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Helmuth Markov, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Der Bericht meines Ausschusskollegen Daniel Caspary ist im Wesentlichen die Wiederholung dessen, was auch in der Global-Europe-Strategie der Kommission zum Ausdruck kommt. Diese Lissabon-Strategie der Außenhandelspolitik kann ich nicht befürworten, wie auch die im April veröffentlichte Marktzugangsstrategie und die Politik der neuen Freihandelsabkommen, die sich nahtlos daran anreiht. Strategie und Umsetzung zielen vordringlich auf verbesserte Marktzugangsmöglichkeiten europäischer Unternehmen in Drittländern ab. Dagegen ist a priori nichts zu sagen.

Es wird angestrebt, durch die Abschaffung möglichst aller Handelsschranken nicht nur die Zölle, sondern auch verbraucher-, umwelt-, sozial- und entwicklungspolitische Maßnahmen ganz im Sinne der Freihandelslogik dem Primat der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit unterzuordnen. Gleichzeitig sollen die handelspolitischen Schutzinstrumente der Europäischen Union konsequenter angewendet und der Schutz des geistigen Eigentums – Stichwort Patente – ausgeweitet werden. Weil es innerhalb der WTO offensichtlich kaum zu einer multilateralen Einigung über eine solche einseitige Bevorteilung vor allem größerer europäischer Unternehmen kommen wird, streben Kommission und Rat immer deutlicher die Durchsetzung europäischer Wirtschaftsinteressen über bilaterale und regionale Abkommen an, die weit über das hinausgehen, was in der Doha-Runde eigentlich zur Debatte steht. Stichworte sind Deregulierung von Investitionen des öffentlichen Auftragswesens und der Wettbewerbspolitik. Einer solchen Politik, die nichts mehr mit der Schaffung eines fairen multilateralen Handelssystems zu tun hat, kann meine Fraktion nicht zustimmen. Starke und Schwache gleich zu behandeln heißt nicht, sie gerecht zu behandeln, und es geht um ein faires Handelsabkommen.

Einen wichtigen und richtigen Punkt im Bericht Caspary möchte ich aber dennoch hervorheben. Es kann nicht hingenommen werden, dass fast alle wichtigen europäischen Entscheidungen auf europäischer Ebene ohne die Mitbestimmung des Europäischen Parlaments getroffen werden. Wir werden heute Nachmittag bzw. im Anschluss noch über die Wirtschaftspartnerschaftsabkommen reden. Es stimmt, Herr Kommissar, im Ausschuss findet ein reger Austausch mit der DG Handel und Ihnen statt, das ist wahr, aber die Textentwürfe liegen uns als Handelsausschuss nicht vor. Solange es innerhalb des Europäischen Parlaments eine solche Geheimdiplomatie gibt, ist es verständlich, dass viele EU-Bürger den Maßnahmen der Europäischen Union immer skeptischer gegenüberstehen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Graham Booth, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Madam President, I believe in free trade. It has benefited my country and is an important tool in helping the world’s poorest nations escape from poverty. However, the EPAs do more harm than good to the cause of free trade because of the hypocrisy of the European Union.

On the face of it, opening up our markets to imports from these countries sounds very good as it will help boost their economies, but, as always, there is a flip side to the coin. The developing countries have to open up their markets to goods from Europe, to drop their import tariffs – according to the EU’s timescale by the end of the year – and, if they will not, up will go European trade barriers and down will come the amount of European aid. You cannot run before you can walk. As the rapporteur notes, the facilities are not yet in place in many ACP countries for revenue collection to replace tariffs as a principal source of government funding.

In trying to force the pace, I believe we are doing more harm than good to the cause of global free trade. Furthermore, who do we think we are to be bullying these nations into scrapping tariffs? After all, only last year the Commission brought in tariffs on shoes from China. But that was not free trade, or fair for that matter. We were told that they were dumping subsidised products on us. But what are we doing with our surplus agricultural products, subsidised by the CAP? Exactly the same thing: we are dumping them on poor countries and, in the process, dragging their farmers into poverty.

The rapporteur says that EPAs are going to be concluded between the EU and many ACP countries. This may well be true, but only because the EU holds the whip hand. ‘Partnership’ it may be called, but it is a most unequal partnership. It suits big business but it does not suit the developing countries. The health and environment standards in Europe are so high that the potential for many ACP countries to export their agricultural produce will be very limited.

What is more, the Commission’s own impact assessment suggests that signing these deals could well precipitate the collapse of manufacturing in West Africa. As a citizen of a country that has historically espoused and promoted genuine free trade, I do not want to be complicit in this. It only adds to my determination that my country will negotiate its own trading arrangements and leave this appalling European Union, which, for all its pious talk of relieving poverty and encouraging development, has actually been directly responsible for causing poverty on a massive scale throughout the developing countries of the world.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Dumitru Gheorghe Mircea Coşea, în numele grupului ITS. – Îl felicit pe raportor pentru munca excelentă pe care a depus-o, dar subliniez şi susţin în acelaşi timp remarca pe care raportorul o face în legătură cu faptul că este regretabilă situaţia în care cetăţenii Uniunii Europene stabilesc o paralelă între, pe de o parte, mondializare, iar, pe de altă parte, scăderea producţiei europene şi pierderea de locuri de muncă. În acest context se înscrie şi reacţia negativă pe care cetăţenii europeni o au faţă de procesul delocalizării unor întreprinderi productive spre noile state membre în scopul utilizării unei forţe de muncă mai ieftine. Am remarcat o astfel de reacţie negativă şi în timpul campaniei electorale prezidenţiale din Franţa, şi m-a deranjat faptul că România este prezentată ca o ţară care ar atrage aceste delocalizări, prejudiciind situaţia locurilor de muncă în alte ţări membre ale Uniunii. Se vorbeşte chiar de o politică de dumping social pe care ar practica-o România. Constat, cu regret, lipsa de informaţii pe care o au cetăţenii europeni şi insist pe nevoia unei informări nu numai ample, dar şi mai corecte.

În acest sens ar trebui ştiut că România, prin strategia sa de postaderare, nu încurajează delocalizarea, deoarece, în multe cazuri, prin aceasta se produc dezechilibre majore din punctul de vedere al protecţiei mediului, se dezvoltă ramuri industriale energofage şi utilizatoare de muncă slab calificată. Interesul actual al României este dezvoltarea unor ramuri industriale moderne, care să ridice gradul de competitivitate al economiei, şi nu aglomerarea pe teritoriul ţării a unui amalgam de întreprinderi, deplasate tehnic şi tehnologic. Iată de ce consider că delocalizarea este un proces care nu avantajează pe nimeni în interiorul Uniunii şi apare ca fiind extrem de necesară adoptarea unei strategii care să permită ca într-adevăr mondializarea să contribuie la respectarea interesului, nu numai al Uniunii, dar şi al diferitelor ţări membre în parte.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Roger Helmer (NI). – Madam President, there are some good things in this report – the importance of the transatlantic relationship, the progressive reduction of tariffs on transatlantic trade, the importance of trade liberalisation and the fact that protectionism leads to unemployment – and yet the report is practically schizophrenic on customs duties. On the one hand it commends what it calls ‘the success of the EU’s customs union’, despite Europe’s long-term economic decline compared to Asia and the US, and on the other hand it calls for the progressive reduction of tariffs.

We must make up our minds. Trade barriers are either good or bad – they cannot be both at the same time. The fact is that customs unions are a 19th-century Bismarckian concept and they have no place in the 21st century. It is time to abandon the EU’s common external tariff and to create a European free-trade area.

The report also commends the European social model and the updated Lisbon Agenda, yet we all know that the Lisbon Agenda is a dead letter. We talk about it but fail to put it into action, while EU competitiveness slips ever further behind our competitors. I well remember our British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in this very Chamber, asking the question: What sort of social model is it that leaves 20 million unemployed across Europe? Answer: the European social model. I also remember a visit to Singapore when the then Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, was asked by our colleague Mr Corbett why a prosperous country like Singapore had such poor social benefits and unemployment pay. Mr Goh Chok Tong replied: ‘We find that when we pay people to be unemployed we get a lot of unemployed people, so we don’t do that’. That is the wisdom of the Orient, and we would do well to bear it in mind.

There is only one way forward for a competitive Europe: we need Konrad Adenauer’s ‘bonfire of the regulations’. We need major reductions in taxes and in social and employment costs. Then, perhaps, we can start to compete in the world.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Γεώργιος Παπαστάμκος (PPE-DE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η πρόσβαση των εξαγωγέων και των επιχειρήσεων στις αγορές πολλών σημαντικών εμπορικών εταίρων της Ένωσης δεν είναι πάντοτε εύκολη. Προσκρούει σε υψηλούς δασμολογικούς και τεχνικούς φραγμούς, σε αδιαφανείς και αθέμιτες πρακτικές, σε διοικητικά και φορολογικά εμπόδια και, γενικότερα, στη μη πλήρη εφαρμογή της αρχής της εθνικής μεταχείρισης.

Επίσης υπογραμμίζω, το είπε και ο εισηγητής κύριος Caspary, την αναποτελεσματική προστασία της πνευματικής και βιομηχανικής ιδιοκτησίας σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο.

Μία επιπλέον παράμετρος μειωμένης ανταγωνιστικότητας των ευρωπαϊκών προϊόντων και των υπηρεσιών συνίσταται στην υποχρέωση συμμόρφωσης με αυστηρότερες προδιαγραφές ασφάλειας προϊόντων, προστασίας της δημόσιας υγείας και του περιβάλλοντος, των καταναλωτών και των εργαζομένων.

Δεν υποστηρίζω την άμβλυνση του ευρωπαϊκού ρυθμιστικού πλαισίου, αλλά την επιδίωξη όρων αμοιβαιότητας έναντι των εμπορικών μας εταίρων.

Ακόμη, τόσο σε διμερές όσο και σε πολυμερές επίπεδο, θα πρέπει να διασφαλίσουμε την αποφυγή όχι μόνο του οικονομικού ντάμπιγκ, όπως ισχύει σήμερα, αλλά και του κοινωνικού και οικολογικού ντάμπιγκ.

Εν προκειμένω, ορθώς η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση επιδιώκει, στο πλαίσιο των τρεχουσών διαπραγματεύσεων του ΠΟΕ, τον μηδενισμό των εισαγωγικών δασμών στα λεγόμενα 'πράσινα αγαθά'. Παράλληλα όμως θα πρέπει να εξετάσει τη δυνατότητα επιβολής 'πράσινου φόρου' στις εισαγωγές από κράτη που δεν δεσμεύονται από το Πρωτόκολλο του Κυότο προκειμένου να αντισταθμιστεί το ανταγωνιστικό μειονέκτημα των ευρωπαϊκών επιχειρήσεων και να αποτραπεί ενδεχόμενη μετεγκατάστασή τους σε περιοχές με ελαστικότερους περιβαλλοντικούς κανόνες.

Η ισορροπία του παγκοσμίου εμπορικού συστήματος προαπαιτεί συγκλίνοντα συστήματα, θεσμική διαφάνεια, συγκλίνουσες προδιαγραφές κοινωνικής και περιβαλλοντικής προστασίας.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Erika Mann (PSE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte gerne einige Punkte zum Bericht des Kollegen Daniel Caspary und zum Vorschlag der Kommission ansprechen, die für meine Fraktion wichtig sind.

Ich möchte dem Kommissar ausdrücklich danken, dass er den Mut hatte, diese Themen überhaupt aufzugreifen und einen Strategiewechsel in der Europäischen Union vorzuschlagen. Das ist ein Vorgang, den das Parlament bereits 2002 gefordert hatte, wobei ich damals selbst vorgeschlagen hatte, dass wir im Bereich der Abkommen verstärkt nach Asien schauen. Insofern erst einmal meinen ausdrücklichen Dank!

Das Problem besteht allerdings darin, dass wir seit 2002 eine gravierende Veränderung im Bereich der weltwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung vorfinden. Mit China haben wir andere Spieler bekommen, und die vorgeschlagenen Länder, wie z. B. Korea und einige ASEAN-Staaten, aber auch Indien, haben nicht mehr klassischen Entwicklungscharakter, sondern sind bereits Schwellenländer und extrem wettbewerbsfähig geworden. Dennoch herrscht in ihrem eigenen Land zum Teil große Armut, und das stellt die Europäische Union vor Herausforderungen. Das bedeutet: Wir werden eine kluge Handelsstrategie verfolgen müssen, die Fairness im Handel mit diesen Ländern fordert.

Wir werden eine Balance schaffen müssen, indem wir auf der einen Seite eine Marktöffnung in einem Fall-zu-Fall-Entscheidungsbereich den Ländern gegenüber verfolgen und auf der anderen Seite natürlich auch Standards fordern, etwa in den Bereichen Umwelt und Arbeitsschutz, aber natürlich auch im Bereich geistiges Eigentum. Das wird eine schwierig zu erzielende Balance sein!

Herr Kommissar, Sie haben davon gesprochen, dass Sie dem Parlament bereits weitere Rechte zugebilligt haben, indem Sie uns die Mandatsentscheidung überstellt haben. Das ist korrekt und ich möchte ausdrücklich dafür danken. Ich würde Sie trotzdem bitten, dass Sie uns weiterhin unterstützen, wenn wir vom Rat fordern, dass wir zukünftig auch das Zustimmungsrecht bekommen, das wesentlich dazu beitragen wird, eine vernünftige Handelspolitik zu entwickeln.

Ich möchte ausdrücklich dem Kollegen Daniel Caspary und meiner als Schattenberichterstatterin zuständigen Kollegin Elisa Ferreira für den Bericht danken sowie für ihre Bereitwilligkeit, mit uns zu kooperieren.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gianluca Susta (ALDE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'impegno continuo dell'Europa per favorire una sempre maggiore apertura dei mercati non deve impedire all'Europa stessa di affermare i propri interessi nel mondo globale. La strategia di Lisbona rappresenta un obiettivo ambizioso e condivisibile e consente di raccogliere la sfida che i concorrenti dell'Unione europea ci hanno lanciato.

Occorre però tenere conto che spesso la grande partita del commercio e dello sviluppo non si gioca con regole uguali e questa mancanza di reciprocità, seppur giustificata dal ritardo con cui molti paesi giungono all'appuntamento con lo sviluppo, penalizza i nostri sistemi produttivi, con conseguenze sociali gravi. Mantenendo ferma la nostra vocazione al multilateralismo, dobbiamo perseguire, se necessario, anche accordi bilaterali. La nostra politica è apertura del mercato, progressivo abbattimento delle dogane, e creazione di condizioni competitive uniformi. In questo quadro le politiche di innovazione, di apertura dei mercati, di sostegno alla riconversione dei settori produttivi maturi e non più concorrenziali devono essere un tutt'uno con gli strumenti per la tutela della proprietà intellettuale e, più in generale, con la protezione commerciale, come indica il Libro Verde e come la relazione dell'on. Caspary puntualmente riprende.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN). – A Uachtaráin, ba mhaith liom a dheimhniú ar an gcéad dul síos nach n-aontaíonn mise beag ná mór leis an gcur chuige oibre atá ag Peter Mandelson, Coimisinéir Trádála an AE, maidir le comhráití DOHA ar thrádáil Domhanda.

Dealraíonn sé domsa go bhfuil an tUasal Mandelson ag iarraidh margadh trádála ilshleasach a bhaint amach, is cuma cé a ghortófar sa phroiseas. Tá an iomarca géillte ag an Aontas Eorpach cheana féin sna cainteanna seo. Tá ciorraithe móra déanta ag an AE ar an tacaíocht a thugtar d'fheirmeoirí na hÉireann agus na hEorpa, agus táimid fós ag feitheamh go gcuirfeadh Meiriceá agus Grúpa Cairns na leasaithe a gheall siad féin i gcrích.

Ba chóir go mbeadh Rialtais na mBallstát uilig an-soiléir agus an-chúramach maidir leis an gcineál margaíochta ar mian leo a dhéanfadh an Coimisinéir Mandelson ar a son. Níor chóir dúinn ár bhfoinse beatha a bheith chomh fada ó bhaile le Meiriceá Theas. Ba chóir dúinn é a chothú anseo ag baile agus bá chóir dúinn é a dhéanamh ar na bunphrionsabail ar bunaíodh an tAontas Eorpach orthu, agus bá chóir go dtuigfeadh an tUasal Mandelson é sin. Is Sasanach é, agus ba chóir go mbeadh ciall ceannaithe ag Sasana sa phróiséis seo anois.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jacky Henin (GUE/NGL). – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, osons tordre le cou au mythe: le libre-échange ne fait plus reculer la pauvreté et ne favorise plus le développement. Les dernières études publiées par la Banque mondiale évaluent les gains à presque rien et sur ce presque rien, l'essentiel revient à la Chine.

Si l'on tient compte de la disparition des droits de douane, le bilan devient particulièrement négatif pour les pays en développement. La mondialisation capitaliste n'organise pas la concurrence entre les grosses multinationales, elle les protège. Par contre, elle met en concurrence sévère les systèmes sociaux et fiscaux résultant des choix démocratiques des citoyens de chaque nation. L'une des conséquences du libre-échange est d'ailleurs un transfert massif de la pression fiscale des entreprises vers les ménages. C'est pourquoi, les grandes phrases du rapport sur la préservation du modèle social européen ne sont que formules théâtrales destinées à faire pleurer dans les chaumières. Si nous voulons nous en sortir, il importe de substituer au principe de libre-échange celui de juste échange.

La chute du dollar et du yen saigne à blanc l'emploi industriel en zone euro. Et le rapport d'inviter la Commission à…, inviter! Tartuffe n'aurait pas dit mieux! Pas un mot sur la volonté inique de dévitaliser les réglementations antidumping au prétexte qu'elles nuisent à certains intérêts financiers, dits européens. Parce que nous sommes au service des citoyens européens et non à celui des sociétés de placements financiers spéculatifs, choisissons la coopération plutôt que la compétitivité, choisissons un protectionnisme rationnel s'appuyant sur des droits de douane sociaux et écologiques, établissons un contrôle des changes et de circulation des capitaux.

J'ai la conviction, Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, que si nous persévérons dans la fuite en avant libre-échangiste, l'Union ira droit dans le mur, pied au plancher, en chantant à tue-tête!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bastiaan Belder (IND/DEM). – Voorzitter, ik wil allereerst collega Gaspari feliciteren met zijn evenwichtige verslag. Deze tekst kan morgen bij de stemming op mijn steun rekenen.

Als rapporteur voor de betrekkingen tussen de Europese Unie en China trokken in het bijzonder de paragrafen over de handelsrelaties met de Volksrepubliek mijn aandacht. Ik heb mij daarbij verbaasd over de formulering van paragraaf 44, omdat ik China bepaald niet zie als eerste en meest duidelijke illustratie van het positieve effect van de liberalisering van de handel en van actieve deelname op de mondiale en concurrerende markten. De rapporteur is het hierover trouwens, gezien zijn lange lijst met zorg- en geschilpunten die volgt, met mij eens.

Naast de problemen op sociaal en milieugebied en onze zorgen over de bescherming van het Europees intellectueel eigendom, wil ik ook de gebrekkige toegang van Europese bedrijven tot de Chinese markt en dumpingpraktijken in China concreet noemen. Ook hierdoor wordt het Europese bedrijfsleven geschaad. De Chinezen schermen immers de eigen markt af voor buitenlandse concurrentie en bevoordelen tegelijkertijd eigen producenten.

Voorzitter, een open economie in een globaliserende wereld wordt vaak ten onrechte verward met een economie zonder barrières. Gelukkig kiest de rapporteur niet voor deze lijn. In paragraaf 17 van zijn verslag refereert collega Gaspari terecht aan de schade die de Europese economie oploopt door het gedrag van landen die zich niet aan de handelsregels houden. Als reactie hierop moet de Europese Unie zich tegen oneerlijke handelspraktijken beschermen.

Ik roep de Commissie dan ook op om binnen het kader van de WTO en daarbuiten uit te dragen dat de Unie oneerlijk gedrag niet tolereert. Dit houdt echter in dat de EU ook bereid moet zijn om met adequate handelsbeschermende instrumenten daadwerkelijk sancties in te stellen. Niet vanuit een protectionistische reflex, maar omdat in sommige gevallen alleen dwang helpt om een gelijk speelveld voor het EU-bedrijfsleven te garanderen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean-Marie Le Pen (ITS). – Madame la Présidente, le rapport de notre collègue démocrate-chrétien allemand, Daniel Caspary, sur l'Europe mondialisée expose de manière presque caricaturale les bienfaits de la mondialisation et de la politique commerciale de l'Union européenne.

En effet, il ne lui trouve que des avantages: ouverture des marchés, en particulier des marchés publics, compétitivité renforcée, bienfaits de la concurrence, libre-échange planétaire avec un petit bémol cependant sur les droits de la propriété intellectuelle.

À l'inverse, le protectionnisme est condamné sans appel et les droits de douane sont voués aux gémonies comme des outrages insupportables au dieu Commerce. Face aux ultralibéraux tout puissants du Parlement européen et de la Commission européenne, il sera intéressant de voir ce que va faire le gouvernement de M. Sarkozy pour défendre nos entreprises, en particulier, nos PME-PMI, notre agriculture et nos services publics.

L'Europe étant déjà l'ensemble économique du monde le plus ouvert, il est paradoxal de vouloir aller plus loin, sauf à sacrifier délibérément et définitivement notre agriculture et notre industrie. Et pourtant, c'est ce que fait l'Europe de Bruxelles, au nom de la concurrence, du dogme libre-échangiste ou pour satisfaire nos alliés américains. Dans ces conditions, faute d'une défense commerciale digne de ce nom, faute d'instruments de protection efficaces, faute de fonctionnaires européens indépendants des lobbies anglo-saxons, que peut faire l'Europe pour empêcher les délocalisations d'entreprises et la fuite des cerveaux et des capitaux? S'appuyer sur les nations millénaires, et non sur le mirage européiste que défend M. Caspary, gage de graves désillusions pour les citoyens européens.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in seno all'OMC l'Europa da sempre, spesso da sola e a scapito dei propri interessi economici immediati, ha difeso il rigore delle norme del sistema ed applicato un attento controllo sulle eventuali pratiche che possono provocare distorsioni sul mercato interno ed internazionale. Affinché queste norme abbiano un senso è necessario che l'UE insista con fermezza che esse vanno applicate anche dagli altri membri, in particolare dai concorrenti diretti.

E' importante inoltre che tali norme siano adeguate periodicamente all'evoluzione costante delle pratiche commerciali e del sistema produttivo, come nei recenti casi di delocalizzazione, per salvaguardare contemporaneamente la qualità e la quantità del lavoro nell'Unione, così come il rispetto delle norme sociali ed ambientali nei paesi extraeuropei. In questo senso vanno incoraggiate ed accelerate le procedure in corso per la creazione del marchio di qualità europeo e per la difesa della proprietà intellettuale, affinché la competitività delle nostre imprese, soprattutto quelle più piccole, e la qualità della nostra produzione vengano salvaguardate al di fuori e all'interno delle nostre frontiere.

In qualità di membro della commissione sviluppo mi sento in obbligo di ricordare come siano comunque necessarie flessibilità e gradualità per quei paesi in via di sviluppo impegnati a garantire, prima di un'apertura totale al mercato, le necessità di base delle proprie popolazioni: un accesso equo all'acqua potabile, all'educazione, a sistemi sanitari efficienti, per esempio, presupposti imprescindibili per un successivo sviluppo economico sostenibile.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE-DE). Först och främst vill jag börja med att tacka Daniel Caspary. Jag måste säga att det här är ett av de bästa handelspolitiska betänkanden som jag har sett i parlamentet. Här slås det tydligt fast att frihandel sprider välstånd och att protektionism sprider fattigdom. Det är ett bra steg framåt att vi kan konstatera det tillsammans i Europaparlamentet! Även kommissionens initiativ Global Europe om konkurrenskraftens externa dimension är väldigt bra. Handelspolitiken borde ju ha varit en del av Lissabonagendan redan från början. Att tala om Europas konkurrenskraft utan att tala om vår handel med omvärlden blir annars bara tomma ord.

Och nu när du ändå är här skulle jag vilja ta tillfället i akt och skicka med två synpunkter till dig, Peter Mandelson.

För det första har jag lagt märke till att kommissionen ofta talar om konkurrenskraft, men då nästan bara om vikten av att öka marknadstillträdet och sänka tullarna i andra länder. Men det är minst lika viktigt att öka tillträdet och möjligheterna för andra länders företag att komma hit och att sänka våra egna tullar. Det skulle inte bara ge europeiska konsumenter och företag billigare varor utan också skärpa konkurrensen och därmed stärka vår konkurrenskraft gentemot omvärlden. Att vi sänker våra egna tullar är alltså minst lika viktigt som att andra gör det.

Det andra jag vill ta upp är behovet av att reformera de handelspolitiska skyddsinstrumenten. I den delen håller jag inte riktigt med den rapport som vi har framför oss. Jag har förstått att trycket på kommissionen har varit väldigt stort efter att detta initiativ har lagts fram. Tyvärr verkar detta tryck leda till en lägre ambitionsnivå från kommissionens sida. I retoriken har man gått från att prata om en reform till att prata om en översyn, men jag förväntar mig att kommissionen presenterar en reform av de handelspolitiska skyddsinstrumenten som är värd namnet. Att EU skulle skydda oss från handel är ju lika dumt som det låter.

Jag vill även nämna ett av mina favoritexempel på absurda handelshinder, nämligen EU:s konstiga tullar på lågenergilampor. För samtidigt som vi oroar oss för växthuseffekten och pratar om att förbjuda vanliga glödlampor så skyddas vi från import av lågenergilampor genom höga tullar!

Nej, Peter Mandelson, vi måste snarast göra en rejäl reform av de handelspolitiska skyddsinstrumenten!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Harlem Désir (PSE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, je voudrais m'en tenir à quatre remarques.

D'abord, Monsieur le Commissaire, je crois que vous avez eu raison d'insister sur le fait que la stratégie d'une Europe mondialisée ne doit pas signifier l'abandon de la priorité aux négociations multilatérales. Il y a beaucoup d'engouement, mais aussi beaucoup d'illusions, sur ce que peuvent donner les accords bilatéraux de libre-échange. On nous dit qu'il faut le faire parce que d'autres se sont engagés dans cette voie, par exemple les États-Unis. En fait, les États-Unis n'ont signé que six ou sept accords de libre-échange, qui représentent 5 % à peine de leur commerce extérieur. Les autres accords ont échoué, parce qu'ils posent les mêmes problèmes que dans le cadre multilatéral, avec, en général, le même type de partenaires. Je voudrais ajouter que ces négociations débouchent souvent sur des accords qui sont plus déséquilibrés à l'égard des pays en développement, à l'avantage, évidemment, des pays développés.

Cela m'amène à ma deuxième remarque: en passant du cadre multilatéral au cadre bilatéral, il ne faut pas abandonner au passage les objectifs de développement de la politique commerciale. De ce point de vue, Monsieur Caspary, je crois qu'on ne peut pas dire que la politique commerciale n'est pas liée à d'autres dimensions: développement, lutte contre la pauvreté, environnement et politique sociale. Or, le lien entre commerce et développement, commerce et réduction de la pauvreté, n'est pas automatique. Par exemple, on dit que, si l'Afrique ne fait pas de commerce, elle restera pauvre. Ce qui est vrai. Mais cela signifie-t-il pour autant que tout accord commercial avec l'Afrique soit forcément bon pour elle? Non, ce n'est pas vrai. Il faut prendre en compte une ouverture plus différenciée, maîtrisée, qui tienne compte des secteurs fragiles d'un certain nombre de pays. Et ce n'est pas le cas uniquement pour les pays les plus pauvres, ce l'est aussi pour les pays émergents, des pays comme l'Inde, qui sont parmi ceux qui comptent le plus de pauvres dans le monde.

Troisièmement, il ne faudrait pas que cette stratégie d'une Europe mondialisée signifie la réintroduction de sujets qui ont été écartés dans le cadre multilatéral. Je pense aux sujets de Singapour, aux négociations sur les investissements, les marchés publics, les services publics. La réintroduction de ces sujets n'est pas justifiée, elle débouchera sur les mêmes problèmes, sur les mêmes blocages, ou alors on imposera de force ces sujets, qui vont au-delà des règles du commerce et qui concernent la régulation interne de secteurs sensibles, comme l'accès aux services essentiels, aux services publics.

Quatrièmement - et je conclurai sur ce point - comme M. Junker, je crois qu'on ne doit pas perdre de vue le fait que l'Union, à travers sa politique commerciale également, poursuit la mise en œuvre de règles sociales, de règles environnementales. On le fait à travers le système de préférences généralisées renforcé, on ne le fait plus dans les accords de libre-échange, et je le regrette parce que nous devons aussi promouvoir le respect, notamment, des règles de l'OIT.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jan Tadeusz Masiel (UEN). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Komisja Europejska powinna w większym stopniu informować nie tylko Parlament, ale przede wszystkim obywateli Unii o proponowanej przez nią polityce handlowej. Dzisiaj Europejczycy w różnych krajach boją się WTO i jej poczynań.

Należy w większym stopniu wyjaśniać obywatelom zasadę, że wolna polityka handlowa przyczyni się do wzrostu gospodarczego, tworzenia miejsc pracy i stałego rozwoju na świecie. Pod warunkiem, że będzie ona coraz bardziej zrównoważona, uczciwa, partnerska. I, co dla nas bardzo ważne, inspirowana naszymi, europejskimi normami socjalnymi i środowiskowymi. Z jednej strony wolny rynek, wolna konkurencja. Z drugiej – europejskie normy środowiskowe i socjalne.

Dzisiaj to utopia, ale te dwie wartości muszą się kiedyś spotkać. I w tym pana rola, Panie Komisarzu.

 
  
  

PRZEWODNICZY: PAN ADAM BIELAN
Wiceprzewodniczący

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE-DE). – Monsieur le Président, je voudrais tout d'abord féliciter mon collègue Caspary pour ce très bon rapport.

Parce que la mondialisation impose des mutations sans précédent, l'Union européenne doit aujourd'hui procéder aux réformes nécessaires qui lui permettent d'en tirer pleinement profit. Une de ces réformes repose sur l'adaptation de la politique commerciale européenne aux défis de la compétitivité. Il faut, en effet, mettre fin à la logique qui établit un parallèle entre, d'une part, la mondialisation et, d'autre part, la régression de la production européenne et les pertes d'emplois.

L'Europe doit être capable de devenir une zone de synergies et de coopération industrielle. Pour cela, tout est question d'attractivité, de spécialisation et de défense. L'Europe doit donc mener des politiques qui promeuvent un environnement favorable à l'esprit d'entreprise, à la production et à la création d'emplois. Les PME, acteurs-clés de ces politiques, doivent en ce sens bénéficier d'un accès facilité à la commande publique, comme on l'observe déjà aux États-Unis. Pour être plus complètes, plus intégrées et tournées vers l'avenir, ces politiques ne doivent pas non plus délaisser le secteur agricole, qui est un atout commercial stratégique de l'Union européenne et non pas une monnaie d'échange. Il aurait été d'ailleurs pertinent que cette communication y fasse référence, au même titre qu'au secteur des services ou aux produits à haute valeur ajoutée.

Parallèlement à cette attitude proactive, l'Europe doit être aussi celle qui protège. Les performances de l'Union européenne par rapport aux économies émergentes sont aujourd'hui compromises par un manque de réciprocité au niveau des conditions d'accès aux marchés et par la prolifération des pratiques commerciales déloyales. Face à cette perte de vitesse, l'Europe doit adopter une position plus résolue. Elle doit ainsi pouvoir se préserver du dumping économique, social et environnemental par le biais d'instruments de défense commerciale, qui sont, à l'heure actuelle, les seuls palliatifs à l'absence de règles de concurrence mondialement reconnues. La compétitivité extérieure de l'Union européenne, on le voit, sera assurée et par sa capacité à attaquer et par sa capacité à se défendre.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carlos Carnero González (PSE). – Señor Presidente, cierto, tenemos la globalización ante nosotros y ante ella hay dos maneras de actuar: dejarse llevar por los acontecimientos o tratar de gobernarla y de intervenir en ella, de regularla, al fin y al cabo.

Creo que eso es lo que pretendemos con nuestra política comercial, y, desde mi punto de vista, ése es el sentido de la Comunicación de la Comisión Europea y, en general, también del informe del señor Caspary.

Debemos transmitir un mensaje muy claro a nuestros ciudadanos en el debate que estamos celebrando hoy. No pretendemos hacernos con nuestra cuota de mercado, independientemente de otros criterios, no. Queremos estar presentes en el mercado mundial, pero favoreciendo tanto el refuerzo del modelo social europeo como la extensión de la riqueza y, por lo tanto, la disminución de la pobreza en todo el mundo.

Esto debe conseguirse en términos multilaterales antes que nada. La Organización Mundial del Comercio sigue siendo la vía preferente de la Unión Europea para intervenir en la globalización. En ese sentido, hay que seguir esforzándose todo lo posible para culminar la Ronda de Desarrollo de Doha.

Mientras eso no sea así, por propia responsabilidad hacia nuestros ciudadanos e, incluso, hacia los ciudadanos de los países con quienes queremos establecer acuerdos de libre comercio, tenemos que impulsar este segundo instrumento.

El informe del señor Caspary recoge elementos muy importantes para los socialistas y socialdemócratas. En este sentido quiero recordar el apartado 20, sobre las normas de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo, o el apartado 65, que diferencia claramente los servicios comerciales de los servicios públicos.

Si, además, el informe Casparry recogiera nuestras enmiendas 43 y 52 estaría mucho mejor orientado a lo que pretendemos. Aun así, desde mi punto de vista, este informe representa una aportación positiva.

Quiero decir también, como miembro de la Comisión de Asuntos Constitucionales, que, ojalá el Consejo accediera a poner en marcha lo que la Constitución, en proceso de ratificación o modificación, establece: no sólo un dictamen conforme sino también participación en el mandato, en el seguimiento de las negociaciones y, por lo tanto, representación plena de los ciudadanos en algo que, al fin y al cabo, afecta de manera muy clara a su vida diaria.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Zabierając głos w tej debacie chcę zwrócić uwagę na trzy kwestie.

Po pierwsze, rozwój handlu, o którym traktuje sprawozdanie, nie może być celem samym w sobie, ale należy na niego patrzeć z perspektywy wpływu na wzrost gospodarczy, w tym produkcję europejską, na tendencje na europejskim rynku pracy i zrównoważony rozwój całej Unii Europejskiej.

Po drugie, słuszne są zawarte w raporcie postulaty, dotyczące otwartości rynków, ale na zasadzie wzajemności i przy poszanowaniu zasad uczciwej konkurencji. Unia Europejska bardzo często otwiera swój rynek w sytuacji, kiedy partnerzy zagraniczni ani myślą przestrzegać wzajemności, a zwłaszcza zasad uczciwej konkurencji.

Po trzecie, szczególnie istotne jest przestrzeganie tych zasad w handlu produktami żywnościowymi, gdzie nieprzestrzeganie uczciwej konkurencji przez partnerów Unii powoduje ograniczenie, a często likwidację wielu dziedzin produkcji rolniczej w Europie. Ich odtworzenie w przyszłości, w sytuacji, kiedy partnerzy zagraniczni będą już dyktowali ceny, może być dla Europy bardzo kosztowne, jeżeli w ogóle możliwe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to make three points. The first is to thank Mr Caspary for doing an excellent job on this report and to congratulate him on continuing a good, free-trade, liberal line.

My second point is that I am a supporter of free trade and multilateralism. However, I understand that in the current Doha Round we have to take some measures, which we do not necessarily like, on the line of bilateralism, but we have to stick to it.

I should like to say to Mr Mandelson that it is very good that he is promoting us as a superpower in trade: over 20% of world trade is with us, 20% with the US. When we talk on trade people listen, and that is why it is very important to find a balance between free trade and protectionism.

On the trade defence instrument itself, I am a bit iffy – for example, I like Chinese tennis shoes! – and therefore I should like the Commissioner to be careful about that and not push it too far. We do not want to become a European Colbert state.

My final point concerns globalisation, in particular the sales of globalisation. I am very saddened when I listen to the likes of Jean-Marie Le Pen – which I do not do very often. It seems as if globalisation has become the scapegoat for everything: everything that is bad is thanks to globalisation and everything that is good is thanks to the Member State itself. This is the wrong way to approach things. I really do not want the European Union to become a modern Colbert, in other words, a mercantilist, which believes in its own exports but wants to prevent imports from elsewhere. That is not what we are about: our basic line is about the free movement of goods, services, people and money, and we need to promote that worldwide as well.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Kader Arif (PSE). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, je souhaite rappeler ici quelques principes essentiels et exprimer quelques inquiétudes quant à la nouvelle stratégie commerciale prônée aujourd'hui par la Commission et reprise dans le rapport de notre collègue, Daniel Caspary.

Le premier principe à rappeler est que la priorité doit toujours être donnée au multilatéralisme. Nous savons que la prolifération excessive d'accords bilatéraux nuit fortement à l'édifice multilatéral régulé, auquel nous adhérons. Le second principe est de ne pas affaiblir l'engagement de l'Union en faveur d'une politique commerciale au service du développement, une politique intégrant des dimensions non commerciales, comme le travail décent, l'accès aux médicaments, l'environnement ou l'éradication de la pauvreté.

Quant à mes inquiétudes, elles portent sur trois points. Le premier d'entre eux est que la dimension prodévelopement du cycle de Doha n'est plus prioritaire dans les futurs accords de libre-échange et le nouvel agenda commercial de l'Union, alors même que les objectifs de la politique commerciale de l'Union devraient toujours être pleinement compatibles avec sa politique de développement, et la compléter utilement, s'agissant en particulier des questions sociales et environnementales.

Mon deuxième sujet d'inquiétude est la portée de ces accords, lesquels vont bien au-delà des dispositions actuelles de l'OMC. Par exemple, le principe de réciprocité totale que l'on cherche à privilégier, y compris pour les pays émergents confrontés à la pauvreté à grande échelle, n'est pas acceptable. Nous devons permettre aux pays en développement de protéger transitoirement les secteurs fragiles et sensibles de leur économie. Bref, nous ne devons pas imposer aux autres ce que nous ne savons pas nous imposer à nous-mêmes.

Ma dernière inquiétude, enfin, concerne les propositions visant à négocier sur les sujets dits de Singapour. Ces questions, très controversées, ont été exclues du cycle de Doha suite à l'opposition généralisée des pays en développement et émergents. La controverse avait conduit auparavant à l'échec de Cancún.

Nous savons que ces sujets complexes, tant pour l'Union que pour nos partenaires, soulèvent des questions sensibles, touchant à la politique intérieure et, partant, à la souveraineté même des États. Ces sujets pourraient, par ailleurs, avoir un impact considérable sur les modèles économiques et sociaux et, donc, sur le développement même de nos partenaires.

Il est essentiel que l'Union ne pousse pas à l'inclusion de ces questions dans les négociations. Rien ne pourra justifier que ce qui a été sorti par la porte d'un cycle multilatéral revienne par la fenêtre étroite d'un accord bilatéral. Il y va de notre cohérence, de notre crédibilité et d'un certain modèle de développement que nous avons toujours cherché à promouvoir.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Glyn Ford (PSE). – Mr President, I should like to express my appreciation for all the work that Mr Caspary has put into this report. As Commissioner Mandelson rightly said, our priority this year is to conclude the multilateral Doha development round. Alongside this, there are complementary negotiations for bilateral free trade agreements with South Korea, ASEAN and India.

Mr Caspary’s report lays down a template within which we must try to operate in these negotiations, not because of Mr Caspary but because of our committee. The report however contains its contradictions, I think, as Mr Helmer said, it is positively schizophrenic.

Some members of my group complain that the report is not development-friendly. I am not sure it was intended to be as our imminent negotiations are with countries like Singapore and South Korea, Thailand and India, countries not really in anyone’s less-developed countries category any more. Within ASEAN, Laos and Cambodia are covered by the EU’s ‘anything but arms’ policy and therefore have a degree of protection.

I welcome paragraph 30 of the report, which takes into account the interests of the smallest and weakest countries. I certainly welcome paragraph 32 that demands that ILO standards on decent work be included in future FTAs.

I have some sympathy with Mr Kamall’s points with regard to audiovisual services, though I have to say that the privatisation of health, education, drinking water and energy rarely helps the poor in developing countries; rather it helps the minority rich population.

I welcome paragraph 33, which makes it easier to suspend free trade agreements when they are not fulfilled, particularly with respect to social clauses. Yet for some in the PSE Group, it is paragraph 29 which is the killer paragraph. It demands far-reaching liberalisation of services. My group met yesterday and narrowly decided that it could not support the report if this and similar paragraphs were included.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. Mr President, we have heard some very well informed and very intelligent contributions to this debate. I appreciate them and thank those who have taken the trouble to speak.

I think that the spirit, if not absolutely every letter, both of my own approach and of Mr Caspary’s report was captured by Mr Fjellner when he said that free trade spreads prosperity while protectionism spreads poverty. Broadly speaking, I think that is correct but I would say that free trade is a necessary but insufficient condition to bring about economic development and poverty alleviation in some of the more needy countries of the world.

I agree with those, including Mr Désir, who would like the Commission to operate a principle of proportionate reciprocity as far as developing countries are concerned. I agree with that and my approach reflects the capacities of the developing country markets in question. The EU asks of trading partners only what their level of development allows but, as others have pointed out, the sorts of economies that are seeking free trade agreements with us – Korea, the ASEAN countries, India – could hardly be described as typical least-developed countries in the world.

Mr Arif focused on the so-called Singapore issues, as did Mr Désir himself. All I can say in this regard is that, if partner countries decide that they wish to discuss these issues bilaterally with the European Union as a means of promoting their own development and creating economic opportunities for them, why should they not do so? I do not think it is for us in Europe to tell developing countries and emerging economies that they should not be addressing issues like investment, competition and transparency in government procurement.

One or two honourable Members have alluded to trade defence. Mr Caspary did at the outset and Mr Guardans Cambó has done so subsequently, as has Mrs Saïfi. There is no question in my mind of removing Europe’s right of recourse to anti-dumping measures. Trade defence instruments are a vital way of ensuring fair trade where goods have been produced in conditions of subsidy or where price distortion is taking place. Of course that should not be confused with the ordinary low-cost advantages in trade for many developing countries. Our purpose in using trade defence instruments is not to protect European business from fair low-cost competition.

It is true that from time to time I sometimes encounter those seeking use of TDI because they are afraid of competition, not because they want to engage fairly in competition. But I think that a periodic review allows us to ensure that public confidence in these instruments is maintained and to make sure that, if necessary, these instruments can change in order to reflect a changing world. That is all we are doing.

I should like to go back to one or two points that have been made. As regards the question of services liberalisation, I have quite a lot of sympathy with Mr Kamall’s point. Yes, we will be looking at market opening in the services sector in our bilateral FTA negotiations, but this will be a negotiation where our partners will maintain the right to regulate their services sectors and their right to decide whether or not to open public services sectors. That is for them to decide. It is not for us to impose.

I am also glad that one or two honourable Members have focused on the issue of labour conditions, social conditions and environmental conditions amongst our trading partners. I passionately believe that sustainable development, which touches on all those issues, is an overarching objective for trade policy as well. One trade and environment issue that we have pursued vigorously in the Doha talks, but which some countries have opposed, is lowering tariffs on environmental goods. Many environmental problems could be addressed by helping this trade. In future FTAs we will also continue to include commitments to standards at the workplace.

Honourable Members will know that we run into some opposition from our negotiating partners in respect of these conditions. They see them not as a way of levering up standards but as a way for those in the developed world to use new pretexts to keep their markets closed to the goods and services being exported from developing countries. So it important for us to keep a balance in these matters and certainly, as far as these issues are concerned, I strongly believe that we should be using the pressure that we have at our disposal by means of incentives, not sanctions.

Mr Markov and Mrs Mann both touched on the issue of the role of the European Parliament. I have always been interested in and committed to close cooperation with the European Parliament in the context of the Framework Agreement that we have. Wherever possible we extend our participation with the Parliament on trade matters. That is why we have shared with Parliament the negotiating directives for the FTAs in an entirely transparent way.

I would like just to touch on something that Mr Papastamkos said. In addition to his reference to our pursuit of zero taxes for an agreed list of environmental goods, I believe and I accept that we need to examine and find a way to deal with the free-rider issue in respect of climate-friendly policies and in connection with the Kyoto Protocol. In the long term this is going to become an increasingly important feature of the climate change debate. I think it is premature to think of a carbon tax. In my view, there are very many practical as well as legal difficulties in pursuing that specific idea. We must be careful that any climate-friendly policies and instruments that we might develop in the future do not become protectionist instruments. However, I entirely accept that the time has come for us to look carefully at these issues, because they are going to become increasingly relevant in the long term.

I should like to thank all those honourable Members who have spoken and contributed so well to this debate. I look forward to continuing and strong cooperation between myself and my services and this Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Przewodniczący. Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się dzisiaj o godz. 12.00.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 142)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Edit Herczog (PSE), írásban. – Gratulálok a jelentéstevőnek, és külön üdvözlöm Elisa Ferreira képviselőtársam hathatós közreműködését. Európa kettős álláspontot vall a globalizációról: Egyfelől mi vagyunk a fejlődő országok legaktívabb és legelkötelezettebb támogatói, mert hiszünk a demokrácia és a társadalmi és gazdasági felemelkedés értékeiben. Másfelől azonban mihelyt a fejlődő országok gazdasági versenytársainkká nőnek, megijedünk tőlük és saját gazdagságunkat, saját jólétünket féltjük tőlük. Márpedig az nem tartható sem az EU-n belül, sem a harmadik országokkal szemben, hogy a szegényebb addig partner, amíg szegényebb marad.

Emlékeznünk kell, hogy Európában a szociális vívmányok a gazdasági fellendülésre épültek, nem pedig fordítva: partnereinktől is csak akkor várhatjuk el a gazdasági és szociális jólét biztosítását, ha engedjük és segítjük, hogy meggazdagodjanak. Márpedig meggazdagodni a magas vásárlóerejű piacokon tudnak, a fejlett országokban, Európában. Ha bezárjuk piacunkat előttük, meghiúsítjuk a növekedésüket.

Ettől azonban nem kell lemondanunk saját gyarapodásunkról, pusztán meg kell értenünk: nem lehetünk mindenben mindenkinél versenyképesebbek. A jelenlegi világgazdasági keretek között technológiai fejlettségünkkel, környezettudatosságunkkal, szellemi termékeinkkel és szolgáltatásainkkal, innovatív képességeinkkel tűnünk ki, ezekre kell építenünk saját versenyképességünket.

A globális versenyben Európának szem előtt kell tartania, hogy a legjobb madár a lúd: énekel, úszik, fut és repül. Nem mindegyikben a legjobb, de mindegyikben tartósan helytáll. Megszívlelendő példa.

 

7. Подпомагане на търговията от Европейския съюз (разискване)
MPphoto
 
 

  Przewodniczący. Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest sprawozdanie sporządzone przez Davida Martina w imieniu Komisji Handlu Międzynarodowego w sprawie projektu rezolucji Parlamentu Europejskiego w sprawie pomocy UE na rzecz handlu (2006/2236(INI)) (A6-0088/2007).

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (PSE), rapporteur. – Mr President, before turning to the substance of this report, I should like to thank my shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation in the preparation of the report and in particular to thank the Commission’s Trade DG and Development DG, which, I am pleased to say, have been very keen to engage with Parliament on this particular issue. Finally, I should like to thank Pelayo Castro Zuzuarregui, the Parliament official I worked with on this report. He is leaving us for a year – we hope it is only for a year! – to work for the Spanish Prime Minister. I have worked with him on this report and a number of other reports; I have found it intellectually stimulating to be in his company and I wish him well.

On the substance, Aid for Trade is a vital tool for linking developing countries to the global economy. However, I want to stress at the outset that it is not a substitute for the Doha Development Round, but a complement to it. It is clear that liberalising markets is not sufficient in itself to link developing countries into the global economy. You just have to look at the experience of the last 40 years: LDCs have seen their share of world trade almost halved from 1.9% to 1%, and this is despite tariff reductions following the Uruguay Round and other tariff reductions and recent efforts such as the European Everything but Arms scheme, which gives duty-free and quota-free access to developing countries. Therefore, liberalisation, which I would argue is important, clearly of itself has not been enough to engage the developing countries fully in the global economy.

I also do not argue – and I want to make this clear – that Aid for Trade is of itself a panacea. However, it is quite clear that there is now a growing consensus on the benefits that Aid for Trade might bring. The WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong in December 2005 set out an ambitious work programme for Aid for Trade and called for more assistance to help developing countries into the global economy. This followed Mr Barroso’s commitment at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles of EUR 1 billion of European Union money and EUR 1 billion of Member States’ money to assist in the Aid for Trade budget line.

While this is all most welcome and sounded quite dramatic at the time of the announcement, we have to realise that the increases are quite modest in substance: the European Union’s contribution will increase from a base of around EUR 850 million at the moment to EUR 1 billion, while the Member States – if they deliver – will go from EUR 300 million to a EUR 1 billion.

Last October the General Affairs Council called for a trade strategy to map out how we fulfil these pledges. My report indicates some of the key points I hope we will see in that strategy. Firstly, in relation to the scope of Aid for Trade, I want the measurement of the Barroso billion to be against the existing base, which has two categories: one being trade policy and regulation, the other trade development. However, I welcome the fact that the WTO task force has added three further categories: trade-related adjustment, trade-related infrastructure and productive capacity. These are vital aspects of the Aid for Trade agenda and I hope additional resources can be found to assist developing countries to deal with such matters as the phasing-out of preferences, reductions in government revenue as a result of tariffs being lowered, or help in adjusting to new competitive pressures due to regionalisation, such as EPAs.

My report argues that Aid for Trade should be demand-led and country-owned. In this context, the WTO’s enhanced integrated framework should become the key diagnostic tool for developing countries, assisting them to identify where Aid for Trade can bring maximum benefits. Within developing countries we must also ensure that the private sector and civil society are engaged with the process. While Aid for Trade undoubtedly represents a different approach to general development aid, it should, in my opinion, be based on the same fundamental principles of poverty reduction and sustainable development, and our main point of reference should continue to be the Millennium Development Goals.

I am pleased that much of what we called for in this report was reflected in the Commission’s communication published in April, and, perhaps naively, I like to believe that was part of the intense interaction between the Commission’s DGs and the European Parliament. I hope that, when the final joint EU trade strategy is adopted over the summer, it will also be reflected in that strategy document.

I have called in my report today for biannual reporting back to Parliament so that we can check that the Member States and the Commission have delivered on both the quality and quantity of the aid that they are promising. All institutions so far have shown a willingness to deliver collectively on what I believe is an important strategy that can make an important, if modest, contribution to linking the poorest countries of the world into the global trading system.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, David Martin, for what I regard as a very rich report on aid for trade. I am very glad that he has referred to the Millennium Development Goals, because they represent our guiding idea and targets. I agree with him that free trade, whilst a necessary condition for development, is not a magic wand, just as I agree with him that aid for trade, whilst a necessary component of any development strategy, is not a panacea.

I believe that this report expresses a very strong commitment to the aid for trade agenda which I fully share. I have also read the very useful suggestions and guidance regarding the content of the EU joint aid for trade strategy, for which I am very grateful. Furthermore, I welcome Parliament’s engagement in this process.

Since 2005, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission have developed a clear common vision on the main principles of aid for trade. We all agree that trade can be an important catalyst for growth and poverty reduction in developing countries, but the successful integration of developing countries into the world trading system requires more than better market access and strengthening of international rules. In this respect the General Affairs Council conclusions of 14 and 15 May this year recall the crucial role of aid for trade.

The challenge we are now facing is to put these principles into practice in the context of the EU aid for trade strategy on which the Commission and Member States are jointly working. This strategy should set out a roadmap to meet our financial pledges, give guidance to improve the effectiveness of our aid, provide a framework on monitoring and reporting of aid for trade, and address the capacity of the Commission and Member States to deliver aid for trade. The strategy will be ready in October of this year and will then be presented at the WTO aid for trade review, so this Parliament’s report is extremely timely.

I would like to address some specific concerns raised in the report, and first of all the issue of the broadening of the scope of aid for trade in relation to the EU financial pledges. Let me emphasise that the credibility of our pledges is of great importance and make it crystal clear that there will be no changes to the scope of our pledge. The EUR 2 billion target remains related to the categories of trade policy and trade development.

I attach great importance to the wider aid for trade agenda, which includes building productive capacities beyond trade development, infrastructure and adjustment aid. For these areas, which are very capital-intensive, we need clear political commitment to do more, but let me stress once again that these efforts will not be counted in relation to our financial pledges.

Regarding the lack of additional resources for EDF funding to ACP countries, we would be happy to do more, but the Commission does not decide on the budget for the EDF. EU Member States do that. There are limited exceptions only and these are also approved by Member States and dedicated to very specific purposes such as adjustment arising from the sugar reform.

Regarding the integrated framework, I am glad to confirm what I announced in Hong Kong. The Commission is ready to commit EUR 10 million over the first two years to the multilateral part of the enhanced integrated framework. In addition to this, the Commission will complement the multilateral window with substantial bilateral and regional funding to implement activities identified through the integrated framework and prioritised by the respective partner governments. We will also provide human resources and capacity in the field to contribute to a better functioning of the integrated framework.

The issue of adjustment aid is rightly highlighted in the report. However, I do not agree that the EPA negotiations deserve a special mention in this context. Adjustment aid is relevant in relation to all external trade shocks. They may result from trade negotiations but could also be a consequence of unilateral reform as in the case of sugar. In any outcome of the EPA negotiations, the implementation of obligations of ACP partners will be phased in over a very long period and this will facilitate adjustment and identify requirements that we need to help meet.

Finally, we noted your request to look into the IMF’s trade integration mechanism as part of the EU aid for trade strategy. We think that this is more appropriately addressed in cooperation with other international donors, for example as part of the global aid for trade review at WTO level.

Let me once again express my deep appreciation for this Parliament’s political support for aid for trade, as well as our willingness to cooperate with the European Parliament to make further progress, and I look forward to doing so.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Margrietus van den Berg (PSE), Rapporteur voor advies van de Commissie ontwikkelingssamenwerking. – Voorzitter, handel en ontwikkelingssamenwerking zijn zeer nauw met elkaar verweven, zoals de commissaris terecht zei. Willen we de millenniumdoelstellingen in 2015 realiseren, dan kunnen en moeten hulp en handel elkaar aanvullen.

De ontwikkelingslanden hebben onze hulp nodig om hun regionale markten verder te ontwikkelen. Daarbij is een versnelde verbetering van de regels van oorsprong essentieel. Europa en de ontwikkelingspartners moeten gezamenlijk zoeken naar een task force voor ontwikkeling, die deze opbouw van de lokale markten handen en voeten kan geven.

Deze task force moet bestaan uit deskundigen op het gebied van handels- en ontwikkelingsbeleid en kan helpen bij de ontwikkeling en implementatie van concrete handelsversterkende maatregelen. Daarbij moeten we onder meer denken aan alternatieve belastinginkomsten, versterking van de productiecapaciteit en standaardisatie en creatie van gezamenlijke buitengrenscontroles. Vooral de human resources moeten verder worden ontwikkeld. Dergelijke praktische ondersteuning zou een echte hulp zijn bij het tot bloei laten komen van de lokale markten en onderlinge handel. Voor de grote infrastructuur denken wij eerder aan de EIB.

Deze handelsgerichte hulp mag echter geen sigaar uit eigen doos zijn. Dus niet uit het bestaande ontwikkelingsbudget worden gefinancierd. De PSE-Fractie wil nieuw geld, anders zou namelijk minder geld beschikbaar zijn voor het halen van de millenniumdoelstellingen en dat is tenslotte het centrale streefdoel waar ook de commissaris zich zojuist van harte achter stelde en waarmee we hem succes wensen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Martens, namens de PPE-DE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, commissaris, lange tijd hebben we ontwikkelingslanden op allerlei terreinen gesteund, behalve op het gebied van handel. Mede daardoor zijn landen en hun economieën in grote mate subsidie-afhankelijk gebleven.

Economische groei blijkt onontbeerlijk om armoede effectief te bestrijden. Kijk naar de geweldige vooruitgang die landen in Azië hebben doorgemaakt. Korea is een goed voorbeeld. Meer en meer komen we er dan ook achter dat handel buitengewoon grote kansen voor de economische groei van arme landen biedt.

Ontwikkelingslanden hebben vaak nog niet de juiste infrastructuur om op de wereldmarkt te kunnen opereren. Daarom hebben deze landen onze ondersteuning nodig en daarom is er de handelsgebonden hulpverlening. Deze is erop gericht ontwikkelingslanden in staat te stellen om te functioneren op de internationale markt. Via handelsgebonden hulpverlening kunnen landen bijvoorbeeld de regelgeving verbeteren op terreinen die de handel raken, zoals belastingen en douane. Het gaat om het verbeteren van wegen en waterwegen, bestrijding van fraude en corruptie, versterken van de productiecapaciteit en ook diversificatie. Veel landen zijn immers afhankelijk van slechts één landbouwproduct. Diversificatie van producten bevordert een stabielere economie.

Ook is capaciteitsopbouw nodig om goede onderhandelaars op te leiden. Voorzitter, omdat handelsgebonden hulpverlening dit doet, de arme landen hulp bieden, om hun economieën te versterken en hun onafhankelijkheid te vergroten, daarom ben ik blij met dit initiatief.

Handelsgebonden hulpverlening, het is al gezegd, is geen wondermiddel, geen panacee voor ontwikkeling, maar wel noodzakelijk om ontwikkelingslanden aansluiting te laten vinden op de internationale markt. Mijn complimenten aan rapporteur David Martin voor de inhoud en ook voor de plezierige samenwerking, waardoor er een inhoudelijk sterk en breed gedragen verslag voorligt.

Voorzitter, commissaris, om dit instrument ook effectief te laten zijn, vraag ik de Commissie om een goed werkprogramma - haalbaar en realistisch - en een goede samenwerking met de lidstaten.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sajjad Karim, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur for the way he has dealt with this report. As ever, Mr Martin has been open and willing to engage in compromise with colleagues, producing a report which demonstrates a real consensus in the Committee on International Trade. That said, having asked the shadow rapporteurs not to bring forward amendments at the plenary stage in order to preserve the spirit of that consensus, it would have been respectful had the PSE Group kept to that agreement. Nevertheless, I think we have done enough to ensure that the consensus will hold through the plenary.

I was unsurprised by the depth of common ground between us on the crucial issue of the EU’s Aid for Trade. The G8 summit in Gleneagles where the Commission and EU governments both pledged EUR 1 billion in aid to the world’s poorest people was preceded by a hugely popular campaign. Through the Make Poverty History marches, the Live Aid concerts and other efforts, millions of people have made their voices heard. They are angry, and right to be, about unfair trade rules and highly protected markets that work against those living in poverty and they are passionate about the need for change. If we are to build on the phenomenal mobilisation of public opinion, the pressure must continue at every level, domestic and international.

The key question is whether there is the political will to drive that change. Aid for Trade must ensure that the poorest nations have the capacity to benefit from increased trade liberalisation, efficient customs agencies, better infrastructure, tax regimes which do not rely on import and export duties and anti-corruption measures to ensure that the money gets to the people who have earned it.

Ultimately we will be judged not by how much is promised but by how much is delivered. Pledges on aid are always more easily made than kept. We are all too familiar with the double counting and relabelling tricks that recycle all pledges as new money.

The EU’s Aid for Trade package has a unique role to play to ensure sustainable development, growth and prosperity in the developing world. As such it must be new money over and above existing commitments and trends and it must not come at the cost of monies already earmarked for other crucial development projects such as health and education.

Whilst Aid for Trade is a long-term driver of development, meeting short-term targets, such as the Millennium Development Goals, must remain central to the EU’s international development policy. There too we must do better: some USD 50 billion more a year rather than the current commitment over a five-year period. If sustained political will is required to deliver Aid for Trade, then political courage is needed to ensure we deliver the MDGs in sub-Saharan Africa.

Aid works best when it is delivering a common set of objectives agreed between donor and recipient. We have to concentrate on finding solutions which best fit a country’s needs. That means responding to the demands of civil society and the private sector. As a Parliament, we have already thrown our weight behind the fair trade movement.

If we are to help reduce the poverty in which they live, we need mechanisms to ensure the aid reaches the people who need it most. This report provides the Commission with some clear and reasonable guidelines to that end. It is up to you, Commissioner, to deliver on them.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Frithjof Schmidt, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Auch wir danken dem Kollegen David Martin für die gute Arbeit. Lassen Sie mich mit einer positiven politischen Entwicklung beginnen. Es ist gut, dass der zuständige Rat, „Allgemeine Angelegenheiten und Außenbeziehungen“, am 15. Mai anerkannt hat, dass Zollsenkungen für viele Entwicklungsländer massive Einbrüche bei den Staatseinnahmen bedeuten. Und es ist gut, dass er betont hat, dass hier Kompensationszahlungen notwendig und erforderlich sind. Andernfalls würden wir Gefahr laufen, dass unsere Handelspolitik schnell zum Zusammenbruch jeglicher Entwicklungspolitik in diesen betroffenen Ländern führen könnte.

Es ist absolut notwendig, dass wir dagegen etwas tun. Wir brauchen dafür aber zusätzliche Mittel, die nicht auf die Entwicklungshilfegelder angerechnet werden, wenn wir die Millenniums-Entwicklungsziele erreichen wollen. Es muss verhindert werden, dass bei den Schwerpunkten der Entwicklungshilfe eine Art Verdrängungseffekt entsteht: weg von der Armutsbekämpfung und dem Kampf für die Millenniumsziele, hin zur Förderung der Exportorientierung.

Das wäre eine falsche Tendenz, die wir mit dem Einsatz dieser zwei Milliarden erzeugen könnten, wenn wir hier nicht bewusst politisch gegensteuern. Die Stabilisierung der lokalen Märkte ist für die Entwicklungsstrategie in der Regel wichtiger als die Exportorientierung gerade der schwächsten und der ärmsten Länder. Es geht hier um die Kohärenz unserer Politik. Aid for trade darf den Schwerpunkt der Armutsbekämpfung nicht relativieren, für die Finanzierung sind also zusätzliche Gelder erforderlich. Mich würde da auch wirklich interessieren, aus welchen Haushaltslinien das Geld genommen wird. Aid for trade darf ferner nicht dazu beitragen, dass die Stabilisierung lokaler Märkte, die im Zentrum einer Entwicklungsstrategie stehen müssen, unterminiert wird.

Das ist die Aufgabe bei der Umsetzung des großen Konzeptes Aid for trade für die Kommission, und ich appelliere an Sie, Herr Kommissar, auf diese Aspekte besonderes Augenmerk zu legen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zbigniew Zaleski (PPE-DE). – Panie Przewodniczący, Komisarzu, Sprawozdawco! Dlaczego pomoc dla handlu? Dlatego, że handel ma poważną misję do spełnienia. Kilka punktów.

Dobry handel od wieków zbliżał ludzi bez inwazji w ich tożsamość, wartości, życie społeczne i polityczne. Europie zależy na równych partnerach wśród dużych, a szczególnie wśród małych aktorów tej sceny. W handlu muszą być jasne reguły, uwzględniające dobro każdej strony. „Fair and free trade” to hasło godne wsparcia.

Sprawiedliwy handel nie zafunkcjonuje bez odpowiedniej infrastruktury, bez uzgodnień, na przykład powstających w ramach WTO. Bez wypracowanych odpowiednich skryptów postępowania na linii producent-odbiorca.

Nie można zapominać, że pomoc handlowa oznacza też wsparcie dla zagrożonych własnych sektorów, na przykład cukru czy owoców miękkich.

Ponadto należy wspierać wymianę transgraniczną między Unią a sąsiadami, na przykład Ukrainą.

Scena wymiany światowej jest na tyle zróżnicowana, że istnieje potrzeba standaryzacji i uświadomienia tych standardów wszystkim obywatelom. Dlatego trzeba stworzyć program pomocy wykorzystujący historyczne doświadczenie europejskie, bogactwo europejskiej oferty towarowej, usługowej oraz know-how i przekazać na to finanse. Nieduże, ale konieczne.

Przez analogię powiem, że dobry handel jest zdolny nie tylko podnieść standard życia, szczególnie w krajach biednych, czego dotyczy ten raport, ale także przyczynić się do bardziej pokojowego rozwiązania światowych konfliktów.

Panie Przewodniczący! Kończąc, nawiążę do anegdotycznej oceny, że „Ryanair” robi więcej dla wspólnej Europy niż niektóre instytucje europejskie, bo zbliża ludzi; powiem, że „fair and free trade” zrobi więcej dla integracji i dobrostanu mieszkańców Ziemi, w tym krajów biednych, niż wątpliwe polityczne decyzje.

Handel jest spoiwem świata, niech zatem Europa będzie promotorem pomocy dla tak rozumianego handlu, i to Komisarza zobowiązuje.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gianluca Susta (ALDE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, non sfugge a nessuno, in quest'Aula e nel mondo economico e produttivo dell'Unione europea, il fatto che un sempre maggiore APC può favorire uno sviluppo più libero e nel contempo più giusto e controllato del mercato.

Se l'Unione europea vuole rimanere la prima potenza economica del mondo e lo spazio di maggiore libertà e minore disuguaglianza sociale, raccogliendo anche la forte spinta che è venuta e viene dal Parlamento, deve non solo favorire lo sviluppo della capacità dei paesi in via di sviluppo di promuovere scambi commerciali esterni in presenza di una loro, purtroppo forte, perdita di competitività sui mercati mondiali, ma anche incrementare l'aiuto per il commercio nella consapevolezza che liberalizzazione e aiuto non sono iniziative tra loro contrastanti.

In questo quadro, la pur significativa somma di 2 miliardi di euro non è ancora sufficiente, occorre chiarire il concetto stesso di APC facendo proprie le conclusioni della Task Force dell'Organizzazione mondiale del commercio per gli aiuti sugli interventi finanziabili e integrando al massimo politiche di sviluppo e commercio stesso, come previsto dal quadro integrato, anche in funzione della riduzione della povertà.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie i Panowie Posłowie! W Unii Europejskiej wiele mówi się o zrównoważonym, wielostronnym systemie handlowym oraz uczestnictwie w handlu i czerpaniu z niego korzyści przez kraje rozwijające się.

Troska ta nie idzie jednak w parze z poprawą sytuacji krajów najsłabiej rozwiniętych. Wręcz przeciwnie, udział tych krajów w światowym handlu zmniejszył się w ostatnich czterdziestu latach prawie o połowę, tj. z 1,9 % do 1 %. Wyraźnie widać również wypieranie przez silne wielkopowierzchniowe sieci handlowe drobnego handlu oraz transfer dochodów z krajów słabiej rozwiniętych. Fakty te dowodzą, że globalizm i liberalizacja w handlu wyraźnie służą koncentracji kapitału w krajach silniejszych i mnożeniu ubóstwa w krajach słabo rozwiniętych.

W ostatnich latach obserwujemy nowe podejście do handlu w Unii Europejskiej. Objawia się ono dbałością o eksport artykułów przemysłowych kosztem artykułów rolnych. Powoduje to stopniową utratę bezpieczeństwa żywnościowego w całej Unii, a szczególnie w nowych państwach członkowskich. Fakty te powodują konieczność wprowadzenia nowego podejścia Unii Europejskiej do handlu międzynarodowego oraz opracowanie wdrażania krajowych strategii rozwoju handlu.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Γεώργιος Παπαστάμκος (PPE-DE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ουδείς αμφιβάλλει ότι η βοήθεια για το εμπόριο συνιστά μία ιδιαιτέρως σημαντική πρωτοβουλία. Υποβοηθά την πληρέστερη και αποτελεσματικότερη ενσωμάτωση των αναπτυσσομένων χωρών, ιδίως των λιγότερο ανεπτυγμένων εξ αυτών, στο πολυμερές εμπορικό σύστημα.

Όπως ελέχθη, το εμπόριο πράγματι δεν αποτελεί πανάκεια για την ανάπτυξη. Μπορεί όμως να ενισχύσει την εν γένει οικονομική και κοινωνική ανάπτυξη των κρατών αποδεκτών.

Η ειδική και διαφοροποιημένη μεταχείριση των αναπτυσσομένων χωρών στο πλαίσιο του ΠΟΕ είναι ως ένα βαθμό επιβεβλημένη, ιδίως ως προς τις λιγότερο ανεπτυγμένες χώρες. Θα πρέπει ωστόσο να σημειωθεί ότι η ανάληψη πολυμερών δεσμεύσεων και η συμμόρφωσή τους με τους κανόνες του ΠΟΕ συνιστούν κίνητρο για μεταρρυθμίσεις οι οποίες θα αποβούν επωφελείς για τις ίδιες τις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες.

Το σταδιακό άνοιγμα των αγορών τους και η εξωστρεφής οικονομική και εμπορική πολιτική συμβάλλουν στην ενίσχυση της ανταγωνιστικότητάς τους επιτρέποντας τη μεταφορά τεχνολογίας και τεχνογνωσίας.

Οι αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες εμφανίζονται όμως ιδιαίτερα διστακτικές στις πολυμερείς διαπραγματεύσεις σε κλήσεις περί ανοίγματος των αγορών τους. Για τον σκοπό αυτό, η βοήθεια για το εμπόριο είναι καθοριστικής σημασίας προκειμένου οι χώρες αυτές να ανταποκριθούν σε νέες υποχρεώσεις και να εφαρμόσουν τους πολυμερείς εμπορικούς κανόνες, να αμβλύνουν το κόστος προσαρμογής τους στις μεταρρυθμίσεις και να εντάξουν αποτελεσματικότερα το εμπόριο στις αναπτυξιακές τους πολιτικές.

Εξυπακούεται ότι η βοήθεια για το εμπόριο θα πρέπει να συνοδευτεί από τις κατάλληλες εσωτερικές πολιτικές στις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες προκειμένου να μεγιστοποιηθεί το αποτέλεσμα. Και σ’ αυτήν την προσπάθεια, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση καλείται να διαδραματίσει ηγετικό ρόλο για τη διαμόρφωση μιας αποτελεσματικής, συνεκτικής, στοχοθετημένης ατζέντας βοήθειας για το εμπόριο.

Τελειώνοντας την παρέμβασή μου θα ήθελα να συγχαρώ τον Επίτροπο, κύριο Mandelson, για τη στήριξη αυτής της πρωτοβουλίας όπως επίσης και για τη διασύνδεση των εξωτερικών πτυχών της ανταγωνιστικότητας με τις εσωτερικές πρωτοβουλίες για την ανταγωνιστικότητα της ευρωπαϊκής οικονομίας που ήταν το θέμα της προηγούμενης ενότητας της συζήτησής μας.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Arūnas Degutis (ALDE). – Pirmiausia norėčiau pasveikinti šalis nares ir Komisiją, kuri įsipareigojo iki 2010 metų padidinti pagalbai prekybai skiriamas lėšas iki 2 mlrd. eurų. Tai rimtas įsipareigojimas, jį vykdant reikės daug tarpusavio koordinacijos.

Šiam tikslui pasiekti būtina bendra Europos Sąjungos strategija, kurioje turi būti nurodyti būdai pirmiau įvardytam tikslui pasiekti. Taip pat sveikinu šį laiku parengtą Tarptautinės prekybos komiteto pranešimą, kuriame pateikiamas Parlamento požiūris kompleksišku pagalbos prekybai klausimu. Remiu kvietimą Komisijai du kartus per metus teikti Parlamentui pranešimus, kuriuose būtų įvertinta ES pagalbos prekybai teikimo pažanga.

Nors minėtieji šalių įsipareigojimai duoti tik pagal tradicinį pagalbos prekybai apibrėžimą, pateiktą Ekonominio bendradarbiavimo ir vystymosi organizacijos, ateityje reikėtų labiau atsižvelgti į PPO pateiktas išvadas ir siūlomą šio apibrėžimo praplėtimą, įtraukiant „prekybos infrastruktūrą“, „kūrimo produktyvumo galimybes“, kitaip tariant, imtis visų įmanomų priemonių, kad pagalba prekybai būtų labiau visa apimanti, lankstesnė ir efektyvesnė.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE-DE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, l'Union européenne affiche aujourd'hui des engagements ambitieux en matière de développement.

Je m'en félicite car il y a urgence, urgence d'aider les pays en développement à réduire la pauvreté, à atteindre les objectifs du Millénaire et à bénéficier d'une croissance économique durable. Appelons donc de nos vœux la traduction de ces objectifs par des actes concrets et efficaces.

À ce titre, on ne peut que saluer les engagements pris en faveur de l'augmentation de l'aide au commerce. Je souhaiterais mettre en avant quelques points qui justifient le caractère essentiel de cet instrument. Celui-ci répond, tout d'abord, à l'exigence de cohérence, laquelle doit guider les actions extérieures de l'Union européenne: en articulant les différents domaines de son action extérieure, l'Union européenne répond à deux principes, mieux légiférer et renforcer l'efficacité de son aide. Cet instrument répond aussi à la réalité du système commercial multilatéral en aidant les pays en développement et les pays les moins avancés à tirer profit des avantages résultant de l'accès au marché.

Enfin, cet instrument contribue à la mise en œuvre des accords commerciaux. On peut citer ici les accords OMC ou les accords de partenariat économique. L'aide pour le commerce contribue ainsi à faire du commerce international un instrument au service de la réduction de la pauvreté par le biais du développement économique.

Enfin, pour être efficace, l'aide au commerce doit répondre à plusieurs impératifs: être assortie d'engagements concrets, notamment en faveur de l'assistance technique, faire l'objet d'un contrôle et d'un suivi de sa mise en œuvre, renforcer l'appropriation locale et la gestion axée sur les résultats. Cela est essentiel pour que l'aide au commerce permette aux pays en développement de bénéficier des avantages résultant du système commercial multilatéral et de se donner les moyens d'accroître effectivement leurs capacités dans le domaine des échanges. Aussi invitons toutes les parties prenantes à ne pas relâcher leurs efforts, afin que l'aide au commerce soit en mesure de tenir ses promesses.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I would like to welcome and commend all those who have spoken on this subject this morning. I do not find myself in disagreement with anyone who has contributed. I agree, for example, with Mr Papastamkos, who said it is very important that, when we are pursuing trade and reform policies of our own, we are able to put in place flanking measures properly supported with adequate funds which enable developing countries to adjust to those reforms too. I agree with Mrs Saïfi that this has to be a results-driven process, which is why I attach importance to proper reporting as part of an effective aid-for-trade monitoring and reporting pillar, both in respect of what we do in the EU and in relation to the WTO.

If I might, though, just make two responses: first of all, to those who have questioned whether there is any question of double counting, recycling of money, robbing Peter to pay Paul or robbing Paul to pay Peter (which might be preferable!) – in fact neither is happening. Aid for trade, in our view, should never imply less aid for other sectors. The increases in aid for trade for both the Commission and the Member States are less than the overall ODA budget increases. Therefore, there is no need to reallocate resources from other sectors to meet the aid-for-trade pledges.

Secondly, one or two Members raised the issue of fair trade. In my view, our strategy should confirm full support for any activity which involves the private sector – especially SMEs – and civil society to ensure that aid for trade facilitates the creation and growth of enterprises to compete in international markets, for example, voluntary initiatives such as fair trade, eco-labels and comparable corporate scheme standards. The strategy should also address related issues of labour market and social adjustment and the ILO’s core labour standards.

Last of all, I think that Max van den Berg’s point about rules of origin, their improvement and simplification is very important. It is something on which I have focused and not made, along with my colleagues in the Commission, as much progress to date as I would like to have done, and we need to add speed.

Lastly, I think Mr Schmidt made some important points about aid for trade and its possible impact on local markets, and I shall certainly reflect on those. But I would like to thank David Martin once again for what has been an excellent and welcome report.

 
  
  

PRESIDENCIA DEL SR. MIGUEL ANGEL MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vicepresidente

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  El Presidente. Con la intervención del Comisario Mandelson queda cerrado el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar mañana a las 12.00 horas.

 

8. Споразумения за икономическо партньорство (разискване)
MPphoto
 
 

  El Presidente. El siguiente punto es el informe de Robert Sturdy, en nombre de la Comisión de Comercio Internacional, sobre los acuerdos de asociación económica (2005/2246(INI)) (A6-0084/2007).

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – Mr President, this is a particularly important report. The Commission, including the Commissioner himself, and I have worked very closely on it. This report highlights the complexity of establishing a forward programme for trade relations between the EU and the ACP, two very different and largely unequal groups which share a common goal to strengthen trade as a means of real development. Idealistic as this may sound, I have received a great deal of support from both the Commission and the representatives of the ACP regions and, despite the many concerns expressed by NGOs and political groups, they and I, and I am sure the Commission, remain optimistic.

EPAs have moved very slowly because of the conflicting ideas on a number of issues including regional integration, identification of sensitive products and preparing concrete and detailed proposals for EPA-related support. The ACP has been asked to do a great deal and too often the institutional infrastructure and lack of capacity has raised questions as to whether these proposals will contribute to their development in a manner that they want.

The January 2008 deadline is obviously what makes this year so crucial for EPAs. Time is running out. Negotiators must press on to reach a mutually beneficial settlement on EPAs that will help ACP countries develop and support international trade relations. In the event that some regions need more time, I believe it is incumbent on both parties to seek to ensure that ACP exports to the EU should not be harmed. This should be the objective, not discussing the feasibility of another WTO waiver, although I appreciate that the Commission is continuing to focus on reaching the deadlines. However, I am anxious to know what provisions have been outlined for these regions which find themselves without an agreement.

My report makes a number of recommendations: simplified, liberalised and more flexible rules of origin, full duty-free, quota-free market access for the ACP, workable safeguards, dispute settlement and monitoring mechanisms with transparent provisions and a real power to act in the event of changes caused by EPAs having a harmful effect on sectors of ACP economies. These are the positive aspects and need to be correctly framed in negotiations. We need to know how these mechanisms will work and to build trust and ensure that Europe will be as keen to help implement these mechanisms as the ACP countries.

We have recognised that, if EPAs are to be successfully concluded, there must be more ACP engagement than has been demonstrated throughout these negotiations. Only a true partnership will ensure these agreements are beneficial to all parties. The official EPA review due to be completed last December failed to provide a full and comprehensive report of the status of negotiations. This is far from encouraging and I am curious as to what precedence this sets in the actual signing of the agreements.

It is clear that additional resources will be needed to cope with the effects of change ushered in by EPAs. The scaling-up of trade facilitation, technical assistance and support to help ACP producers meet EU standards must be sufficiently extensive to offset losses from tariff revenues and help ACP countries take advantage of market access. In the first instance this requires greater efforts to ensure that funds already promised are spent in a timely and effective manner. The EU must be accountable for all of its development assistance and, together with the ACP, must set clear goals that boost ACP competitiveness and growth.

EPAs have an essential role to play as instruments for development and, appropriately designed, they represent an opportunity to revitalise ACP-EU trading relations, promote economic diversification and regional integration, and reduce poverty in ACP countries.

I mentioned in my speech that the EU must be accountable. This is taxpayers’ money, and democratic accountability is of concern to all of us and is essential. We have failed in many respects to help ACP countries; now I believe we have a real chance to do something that will really make a mark, provided we have the goodwill of all of them.

Unfortunately I have to leave now to go back for personal reasons. I have worked very closely with the Commission and the Commissioner. I think we have had a very good understanding and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them. I hope that we can continue to work in that manner.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I regard this report as very constructive, very realistic and very welcome.

As I said earlier this year in the Committee on International Trade, Mr Sturdy’s is a contribution which helps us look afresh at the challenges we face in these difficult, time-pressured talks. Yes, the EPA negotiations have moved slowly – more slowly, frankly, than anyone could possibly justify. But at the same time we have to recognise that these agreements are new, innovative and ambitious. When change is involved, people inevitably are uncertain and, therefore, want to tread carefully. We need to balance our need to complete these negotiations on time with our need to respect others’ uncertainties.

I fully agree with the starting point of the report, that appropriately designed EPAs are an opportunity to revitalise ACP-EU trading relations. In fact, I would say that they are our only real opportunity to stop the further slide of ACP trade into the commodity dependence and decreasing diversification that have typified ACP trade over the last quarter of a century. We looked for alternatives, and there is no shortage of suggestions and ideas. None provides the legally secure trade regime or links to development that EPAs do. None tackles the divisions between ACP countries in trade regimes that prevent regional markets emerging and lock countries into a North/South dependency.

So I am pleased that the report recognises the good faith and ambitious approach that we have taken. At the same time it recognises that trade is not the panacea for development. Only domestically driven policy reform built on firm foundations of good governance and an enabling environment for business and investment can secure the economic growth and development which the ACP countries seek. But I also agree that trade is critical to support and build on this reform and, in so doing, deliver inclusive growth and jobs. That is why I am determined that we will take the opportunity that EPAs present to us.

The development dimension of EPAs is in using market access, not merely granting it. It is investment finance, not merely development aid. This needs new rules fit for a globalised world, and this is why I am so keen that EPAs address issues such as competition policy, public procurement and trade facilitation. But we know our partners’ limits and will work with them to phase in change and to identify regionally specific needs and solutions. No one is talking about immediate overnight change or imposing rules. But we will keep talking. To turn away in the face of challenge would be to neglect our duty to give the ACP the economic future they deserve. We want to secure sustainable development, not unsustainable poverty.

The Sturdy report calls for full duty-free, quota-free market access into Europe, and this is what we propose. The Commission’s market access offer was made in April and proposes full access for all products with transitions for sugar and rice to protect the managed markets that the ACP rely on. This delivers on our promises to take the greatest commitments on market access and hand the full flexibility of WTO rules on exclusions and implementation over to the ACP themselves.

Everyone will be aware of the importance the ACP rightly attach to additional development support in this negotiation. This is a point on which Robert Sturdy sets out some very useful proposals. Funding is important. We must help the ACP grasp the new trading opportunities that EPAs will provide. The EPAs will not fail for lack of financial assistance – that I can guarantee. As part of this, we have suggested that EPA regional funds be established by each of the negotiating regions in order to build a tailor-made instrument, in line with international standards but owned and run by the ACP with ease of use. These funds, which would also be available to channel the support of other donors, could include institutional support to ensure that the capacity to implement the EPAs is there: private sector competitiveness – from access to finance to industrial retooling, to improving SPS standards; and helping out financially in those countries which face a fiscal challenge with the lowering of tariff barriers as revenues are shifted from governments to consumers.

So our ambition is clear: to build, through EPAs, a trade and development instrument which galvanises investment flows, internal demand, private sector activity and job creation and, in so doing, builds a sustainable fiscal base for ACP governments to operate, to provide basic services and to determine their own economic future free of WTO waivers, concessions and constraints.

Let me finish on a broader political point. There has been criticism, including from Members of this Parliament, of these negotiations, and concerns, particularly from our ACP partners, about the content, in some respects, of the negotiations. But we are now making headway in these negotiations. There is a positive dynamic to the negotiations. We have the real prospect of cementing a deep partnership for development between the EU and the ACP. The consequences of failure would be highly damaging to the EU and to the goal of balanced, dynamic growth in the ACP. That is why I welcome this report and Parliament’s support in delivering these agreements. I would like to express again my appreciation for the argument and the proposals and recommendations contained in it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean-Pierre Audy, au nom du groupe PPE-DE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, en préambule, je voudrais excuser ma collègue Margie Sudre, retenue par un rendez-vous avec notre nouveau Premier ministre français, M. François Fillon. Elle aurait souhaité intervenir au sujet de la situation particulière des régions ultrapériphériques de l'Union, qui lui tiennent particulièrement à cœur. Je voudrais aussi féliciter mon ami Robert Sturdy pour l'ampleur et la qualité du travail accompli dans cet excellent rapport d'initiative.

Notre Union doit conclure avec les pays d'Afrique, des Caraïbes et du Pacifique, dits ACP, des accords de partenariat économique, dits APE, destinés à renforcer la croissance économique, l'intégration régionale et la lutte contre la pauvreté dans six grandes zones défavorisées de la planète. Conformément à l'esprit de Cotonou, il faut sans cesse rappeler que les APE ne doivent pas se résumer à de simples accords de libre-échange, au sens de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce, mais représenter un véritable partenariat, permettant d'aménager un nouveau cadre d'intervention favorable au développement des économies des pays ACP et, donc, de la stabilisation de la paix, notamment sur le continent africain, avec une dynamique d'intégration régionale.

En raison de leur position géographique, à proximité de nombreux pays ACP, les collectivités d'outre-mer, qu'elles appartiennent ou non au territoire de l'Union, doivent être au cœur de ces accords préférentiels et réciproques. La situation particulière des régions ultrapériphériques et des pays et territoires d'outre-mer doit impérativement être prise en compte dans le cadre de cette négociation, sur la base de l'article 299, paragraphes 2 et 3, du traité. Il faut les associer le plus en amont possible à la négociation pour envisager des différenciations en matière d'accès au marché et coordonner leurs modalités respectives d'accompagnement, afin de renforcer leur insertion dans leur environnement régional.

C'est dans ce contexte, chers collègues, que je vous encourage à soutenir l'amendement cosigné par Margie Sudre et Robert Sturdy, au nom du groupe PPE, et destiné à trouver un équilibre intelligent entre l'intégration régionale de ces territoires ultramarins et les liens historiques et géopolitiques qui les unissent à l'Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Margrietus van den Berg, namens de PSE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, commissaris, dank aan Robert Sturdy. Iedereen is het erover eens dat handel kan helpen armoede te bestrijden. Helaas werken de handelsvoordelen voor de ACS-landen waarin de Overeenkomst van Cotonou voorziet, in de praktijk te weinig. Hetzelfde geldt eigenlijk voor Alles behalve Wapens.

Dat heeft alles te maken met de gebrekkige handelsomstandigheden in de ontwikkelingsregio's in kwestie, de hoge gestandaardiseerde Europese importeisen en de nog steeds niet hervormde en op de praktijk afgestemde oorsprongsregels. Die problemen maken dat de ACS-landen voorlopig nog niet in staat zijn om in de wereldeconomie mee te draaien. Sterker nog, ze schuiven er nog verder uit weg.

Het debat over de economische partnerschapsovereenkomsten moet daarom in de eerste plaats ook niet gaan over het verkrijgen van vrijhandelsovereenkomsten, maar over het sluiten van ontwikkelingscontracten. Handelsontwikkeling in de eigen regio, inclusief het moeizaam te ontwikkelen institutionele kader en personele middelen, en de millenniumdoelstellingen moeten in die ontwikkelingscontracten centraal staan. Pas op veel langere termijn kunnen we het dan hebben over de opening van de markten voor de EU. Daar zit wat ons betreft het probleem.

Alles lijkt, en dat is natuurlijk ook logisch, doordat de termijn op 1 januari afloopt, alles lijkt gericht op 1 januari 2008. Maar ondertussen is de aangeboden flexibiliteit die nu in de onderhandelingen speelt, eigenlijk onvoldoende gebonden aan ontwikkelingsindicatoren en veel meer aan vrij vage tijdsindicaties. Er is sprake geweest van vijfentwintig jaar, maar die termijn is nergens expliciet genoemd.

Is de Commissie bereid om de toegang van de EU tot de markten in kwestie te koppelen aan een ontwikkelingsbenchmark, zodat we zeker zijn dat de lokale markten daar er klaar voor zijn? Is de Commissie er bovendien toe bereid om voor de regio's die uiteindelijk geen EPO willen - en nogmaals, wij geven alle steun aan de onderhandelingen hierover - maar als uiteindelijk wordt besloten geen EPO te sluiten, expliciet ook het alternatief te accepteren van een SAP+?

We kennen de technische discussie, maar wat ons betreft is het zo, als je niet kijkt naar bananen en suiker - die zijn in de praktijk al tussen haakjes gezet, ook door onszelf - dat het voor 98% wel degelijk om een reëel alternatief voor de huidige handelsvoordelen gaat. Als de EU ook bereid is om werk te maken van snelle hervorming van de regels van oorsprong - en de commissaris heeft dat zojuist in een ander debat nog eens bevestigd - dan zou dat kunnen betekenen dat we daarmee ook een stuk verder komen.

Over de Singapore-thema’s: fijn natuurlijk, als regio's hiermee op een bepaald moment zelf iets willen. Daar is niets mis mee. Alleen, laten we niets opdringen.

Voorzitter, het is van het grootste belang om de tijdsdruk van de EPO-onderhandelingen te halen. Dat heb ik al gezegd. En daarom willen we ons eigenlijk richten op het ontwikkelingscontractdenken, waarbij de PSE-Fractie zegt: neem ruimte bij de onderhandelingen en tijd, inhoud en geld, en kom tot een werkelijk onderhandelingscontract. Als de EPO zo uitdraaien, is het fantastisch en anders is het gewoon geen goed aanbod. En wees ook bereid om de SAP+ als een reëel alternatief mee op tafel te hebben en om hierover in de discussies ook gewoon open en vrank te spreken.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sajjad Karim, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for the approach he has taken. Mr Sturdy’s approach in taking the Barbados resolution of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly as a starting point ensured that this report moved forward from a place of compromise.

As a whole, my group was satisfied with the tone and balance of the point, which is why we have not tabled any amendments. However, we remain concerned about a key contradiction within the report and within the conduct of the negotiations themselves: on the one hand, we urge negotiators to intensify efforts to complete the negotiations before the end of this year; yet, on the other hand, we call on the Commission not to exert undue pressure on the ACP countries. Both are accurate statements, but surely there can be nothing more pressing than a ticking clock with no acceptable deal on the table and no apparently suitable alternatives coming forward.

The Commissioner is familiar with the difficulties that deadlines present. We are not only dealing with the EPAs negotiations, but in the background we have timetables for regional integration and, of course, the troubled Doha Round. The fact that we do not have a WTO agreement has made these negotiations even harder, as the ACP cannot yet predict what they will get – if anything – out of Doha.

Through all this, however, runs the thread of development. To make increased liberalisation a driver of poverty reduction and economic growth, the European Union must integrate its trade and development policies, and nowhere is that more important than with the ACP and EPAs.

The EU is being accused of putting the year deadline before development. To counter such accusations I urge the Commissioner to demonstrate the Commission’s flexibility and commitment to the ACP’s concerns by undertaking a genuine exploration of development-oriented alternatives to the EPAs and, at the very least, if we do not have a workable agreement by the deadline, according to Cotonou we must provide at least equivalent market access to the ACP on 1 January 2008.

The European Union has the resources to undertake such an exercise. Meanwhile the ACP is struggling on a financial and technical basis. We have already spent a great deal of time discussing the EU’s aid for trade this morning and the two rapporteurs worked closely to ensure that these two reports went hand in hand.

The EU’s aid for trade programme is crucial to enabling the least-developed countries in the ACP to maximise on the benefits of increased liberalisation, and the Council has already confirmed that a substantial share of the increased trade-related assistance will be devoted to the ACP countries.

The ACP will continue to require substantial development assistance to address their supply-side constraints to trade beyond the next EDF. I would like to see the Commission and the Member States work towards significantly increasing the amount of aid for trade available as demand from ACP States increases through implementation of the EPAs. We must, however, acknowledge the moral difficulties of a major donor sitting across the negotiating table from a key recipient of aid for trade.

The Commission must not manipulate the prospect of aid by linking future development assistance to concessions made by the ACP in EPAs. Aid, by its very definition, can be used as a carrot, but it must under no circumstances be used as a stick if the EPAs are not concluded before the end of the 2007 deadline.

Aid for trade works best when it is delivering a common set of objectives between donor and recipient.

With the Committee on International Trade and Parliament’s delegation to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly, the Commissioner has a breadth and depth of parliamentarians with the expertise and willingness to engage with him on EPAs. As the clock keeps ticking, I urge the Commissioner to work with them to find a development-oriented solution to EPAs which ultimately fits in with the needs of the ACP.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Leopold Józef Rutowicz, w imieniu grupy UEN. – Szanowny Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Sprawozdanie pana Roberta Sturdy w sprawie umów o partnerstwie gospodarczym jest rzetelnym opisem obecnego stanu.

Istniejąca sytuacja nie jest dobra, pomimo dużego zaangażowania Unii Europejskiej. Oparcie współpracy na umowach nie uwzględniających rynku globalnego i zasad ustalonych przez WTO nie wróży powodzeniu umów o partnerstwie w ramach AKP.

Pomoc Unii Europejskiej dla tych krajów powinna przede wszystkim stymulować rozwój produkcji nie stwarzającej konkurencji dla producentów unijnych. Tym samym nie tworząc konfliktu interesów. Produkcja ta może być sprzedawana na rynku Unii Europejskiej na zasadzie umów wieloletnich. Przykładem mogą tu być biopaliwa, kopaliny. Oprócz pomocy humanitarnej tym krajom jest przede wszystkim potrzebna pomoc w tworzeniu nowych miejsc pracy.

Umowa o partnerstwie z krajami AKP powinna wiązać się ze strategią gospodarczą Unii Europejskiej. Nowe umowy powinny być oparte o zasady ustalone przez Komisję Europejską, Parlament Europejski oraz AKP.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Frithjof Schmidt, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Die Verhandlungen treten jetzt in eine entscheidende Phase ein, und sie sollen nicht scheitern. Klar ist aber auch, dass der große Zeitdruck die schwächeren unserer Partnerländer überfordert. Das ist es, was wir immer wieder zu hören bekommen.

Deswegen brauchen wir eine bewusst flexiblere Handelsplanung über den 1.1.2008 hinaus. Wir sollten aus den Fehlern der Doha-Runde lernen; dabei gab es auch ein sakrosanktes Datum, das dann überschritten wurde. Bei den erreichten Zwischenergebnissen wird es auch nicht schwierig sein, das gegenüber der Welthandelsorganisation darzustellen. Es sind hier auch Alternativen angesprochen worden, etwa das GSP+ auszubauen und weiterzuentwickeln. Das könnte ein möglicher Weg sein. Darauf müssen wir uns vorbereiten, das darf nicht überraschend kommen. Wir sollten aufhören, die Verhandlungen mit den Regeln für Investitionen im Dienstleistungsbereich zu überfrachten. Das erschwert die Verhandlungen, es führt nicht dazu, dass wir zu einem schnellen Abschluss kommen, und es verhindert, dass wir uns auf das Wesentliche konzentrieren.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vittorio Agnoletto, a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il negoziato EPA, così come condotto dalla Commissione europea con l'avallo del Consiglio, mette a rischio la sovranità economica ed alimentare dei paesi ACP, pregiudica ogni residua possibilità per questi paesi di consolidare le proprie filiere produttive aumentando il valore aggiunto delle proprie produzioni e li espone al rischio di un'ulteriore deindustrializzazione.

L'impatto socio-ambientale dell'apertura indiscriminata dei mercati locali agli investimenti internazionali, principalmente orientati al settore delle risorse naturali e della terra stessa, si sommerebbe negativamente alla mancanza di effettivi ritorni economici per le popolazioni di quei paesi: l'unico vantaggio sarebbe per le grandi aziende multinazionali europee! Su capitoli come i cosiddetti temi di Singapore, il commercio dei servizi e i diritti di proprietà intellettuale ci troveremo inoltre dinanzi a regole ancora più stringenti di quelle fissate dalla stessa Organizzazione mondiale del commercio. Un accordo OMC Plus spingerà le popolazioni africane ancora di più nel baratro dell'indigenza!

In Africa è a rischio la stabilità di intere comunità rurali, sono a rischio migliaia di posti di lavoro dell'industria della manifattura. Senza lavoro non resta che migrare, tentando la sorte su quelle carrette del mare che negli ultimi giorni sono tornate a invadere le sponde europee del Mediterraneo.

Come gruppo GUE chiediamo di fermare i negoziati EPA così come impostati e ripartire su basi differenti mettendo al centro la giustizia sociale, la solidarietà e l'autosviluppo dei popoli. Consideriamo inconcepibile ed illogico che mentre il negoziato sul Doha Round vive uno stallo la Commissione europea pretenda che il negoziato EPA non possa prevedere deroghe sulla scadenza negoziale.

Tutta l'Unione europea dovrebbe invece adoperarsi in sede WTO affinché si ottenga il riconoscimento di un regime transitorio per mantenere un sistema di preferenze commerciali a vantaggio dei paesi ACP, fintantoché un nuovo accordo non sarà finalizzato. Per tutti questi motivi ed altri ancora che non ho tempo di addurre, la decisione del mio gruppo è quella di votare contro la relazione Sturdy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jerzy Buzek (PPE-DE). – Dziękuję Panie Przewodniczący! Zabieram głos także jako członek stałych delegacji Unii Europejskiej do krajów AKP. Chciałem podziękować Panu Komisarzowi za wystąpienie, popieram główne tezy, a przede wszystkim gratuluję sprawozdawcy, panu Robertowi Sturdy. To jest bardzo dobre i bardzo obszerne sprawozdanie, ale są tam 53 punkty, drobiazgowe. To niemal instrukcja negocjacyjna.

Jeszcze raz podkreślam profesjonalizm opracowania, ale chodzi mi o pewien aspekt polityczny, który powinien wynikać ze sprawozdania Parlamentu Europejskiego. I ja tutaj chciałem podać krótko pięć punktów, które moim zdaniem są najważniejsze, jeśli chodzi o oddziaływanie nasze, Parlamentu, na negocjacje.

Po pierwsze, konieczność wyjaśnienia aspektu trwałego rozwoju w umowach o partnerstwie gospodarczym. To nie jest w tej chwili takie jasne dla krajów, z którymi dyskutujemy.

Po drugie, stwierdzenie, że otwarcie rynku w ramach umów o partnerstwie gospodarczym, samo tylko otwarcie rynku, nie poprawia konkurencyjności. To bardzo ważne, żeby zdali sobie sprawę z tego także nasi partnerzy z krajów AKP.

Po trzecie, powinniśmy w jakiś sposób stymulować reformy w tych krajach, poprzez preferencje, zachęty, także poprzez pomoc naukową, edukacyjną, wymianę ludzi. Chodzi o ogólny rozwój cywilizacyjny, który jest czasem ważniejszy nawet niż otwarcie rynku na produkty.

Po czwarte, musimy chronić pewne szczególne i wrażliwe sektory, na przykład rolnictwo w tych krajach. Musimy chronić grupy społeczne; niektóre, na przykład kobiety, mogą się okazać w ramach niektórych ustaleń także zagrożone. A szczególne preferencje powinniśmy dawać dla leków i dla spraw ochrony zdrowia.

I punkt piąty, ostatni. Integracja i współpraca regionalna, tam, na miejscu, to jest zasadnicza sprawa. Nasza Unia Europejska też rozwijała się na zasadzie wzajemnej współpracy, przede wszystkim. I na to powinniśmy kłaść nacisk.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Kader Arif (PSE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, la négociation des accords de partenariat économique entre la Commission et les pays ACP suscite les plus vives inquiétudes chez ces derniers et se déroule dans un climat incompatible avec la relation de partenariat historique qui nous lie.

L'Europe est perçue comme cherchant à imposer à tout prix des zones de libre-échange à des pays qui sont parmi les plus pauvres du monde, et à ses conditions. La relation de confiance avec les pays ACP est désormais en jeu.

Nous devons reprendre la négociation sur des bases nouvelles pour répondre aux inquiétudes soulevées dans les pays ACP concernant l'impact des APE sur l'avenir de leur économie, dont de nombreux secteurs ne pourraient résister à un abaissement des protections douanières et à une mise en concurrence non maîtrisée avec l'économie européenne.

La Commission doit revenir aux principes établis dans l'accord de Cotonou. L'objectif est le développement, et non la réciprocité dans l'ouverture des marchés. Un tel principe serait contradictoire avec l'objectif fixé, compte tenu des inégalités de développement qui ne disparaîtront pas en vingt ans. Ainsi, ces pays doivent avoir la possibilité de choisir entre un APE ou une autre formule d'accord préférentiel.

Nous devons offrir à ceux qui ne signeraient pas d'APE d'ici à la fin 2007 un accès au marché au moins équivalent aux préférences dont ils bénéficient actuellement, aucun d'entre eux ne devant se retrouver dans une situation plus défavorable au terme de ces accords.

Par ailleurs, les services et les sujets de Singapour n'ont pas à être introduits dans la négociation. La seule obligation au regard de la mise en conformité avec les règles de l'OMC concerne les préférences accordées pour le commerce des marchandises. Ces sujets ont été sortis de la négociation au sein de l'OMC, à la demande des pays en développement. Ils n'ont pas à être réintroduits brutalement pour les pays ACP. Ces questions sont d'abord du ressort des regroupements régionaux des pays ACP, dont il faut respecter la souveraineté en la matière. La Commission doit donc les retirer de la négociation.

En outre, les parlements des pays ACP et le Parlement européen, de même que la société civile, doivent avoir accès à tous les éléments de la négociation, être consultés et associés pendant son déroulement.

Enfin, si des délais plus longs sont nécessaires pour mener à bien la négociation de bons accords de partenariat économique, la Commission doit faire preuve de flexibilité et en défendre le principe auprès des membres de l'OMC.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Johan Van Hecke (ALDE). – Voorzitter, collega Sturdy heeft een evenwichtig verslag geschreven waarin ook tegemoet gekomen wordt aan de terechte kritiek van de ACS-partners dat bij de onderhandelingen door de EU te weinig wordt geluisterd naar hun verzuchtingen en te veel eenzijdig dingen worden opgelegd.

Ik zou hier kort iets willen zeggen over een aspect dat vaak wordt vergeten, met name het regionale aspect van de EPO: het versterken van de zuid-zuidhandel. De ontwikkelingsdoelstellingen kunnen alleen worden bereikt als de EPO gericht zijn op het aanmoedigen van goed economisch beheer, op het bevorderen van de regionale integratie van de ACS-economieën en op het aantrekken en vasthouden van meer investeringen. Een tijdige en effectieve handelsgerelateerde bijstand is een conditio sine qua non om het handelspotentieel van de ACS-regio's te versterken.

In dit verband zou ik de Commissie willen herinneren aan de toezegging van voorzitter Barroso om de ontwikkelingslanden een miljard euro aan handelssteun te verlenen. Het is een slecht teken dat in de overeenkomst van de Raad over de volgende financiële vooruitzichten onvoldoende voorzieningen voor de voorgestelde 190 miljoen euro per jaar voor landen uit het suikerprotocol worden getroffen.

Het nakomen van beloften is nochtans een kwestie van elementaire geloofwaardigheid, die wel eens bepalend voor het succes van de onderhandelingen zou kunnen zijn.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE). – Det finns tre ledord som kommissionen behöver följa i förhandlingarna: att lyssna, inte tvinga och inte stressa. Vi ska lyssna på deras krav.

Dessa förhandlingar är inte jämlika. Du, Peter Mandelson, har hundratals experter till ditt förfogande. De har ett fåtal. Vi har en enorm ekonomisk makt. De har bara ett gryende näringsliv. Vi kan köpa upp hela deras näringsliv. De har knappt möjlighet att köpa mat för dagen. Med så olika villkor är det viktigt att vi lyssnar på deras krav och försöker tillgodose dem.

EPA ska vara till för deras utveckling, inte vår profit. Vi ska därför inte tvinga dem. Vill de inte öppna upp en marknad, så ska vi, precis som sägs i punkt 17 i resolutionen, inte tvinga dem. Alla handelsexperter skolade i nyliberalt tänkande tror att minskade tariffer alltid är bra och att fri handel alltid är bättre än rättvis, men verkligheten visar att det inte är så. Och det är i verkligheten våra förhandlingspartner lever. En felaktig liberalisering leder till att människor kan dö. Ni kan förklara vad ni anser, men låt dem fatta besluten. Om de har fel är det deras fel. Det är lättare att leva med brister man själv är ansvarig för och kan ändra på än att leva i misär som är påtvingad av andra. Reciprocitet är inte nödvändigt. Låt dem bestämma om det. Vi kan leva med den och vi kan leva utan den, men de kan dö av den.

Slutligen skall vi inte stressa. Jag hoppas därför att kammaren stryker skäl F och ger bifall till ändringsförslag 4. Låt förhandlingarna ta den tid som krävs och låt under tiden det allmänna preferenssystemet vara kvar. Då kan de tryggt fortsätta att sälja till oss utan att ha ett damoklessvärd hängande över sig. Vi 27 EU-länder utgör tillsammans med AVS-länderna en dominerande grupp i WTO. Om vi vill kan vi tillsammans säga att vi behöver förlänga tiden för förhandlingarna eller utarbeta alternativ till ekonomiska partnerskapsavtal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gabriele Zimmer (GUE/NGL). – Herr Präsident, verehrte Kollegen, Herr Kommissar! Als die WTO urteilte, die Zollbevorteilung der EU für ihre ehemaligen Kolonien bedeute gleichzeitig eine Benachteiligung für andere Entwicklungsländer, hat sie damit nicht zu einer Neuordnung der Welt aufgerufen.

Herr Kommissar, Sie überschätzen aus meiner Sicht bei Weitem die Planungskompetenz Ihrer Behörde. Die EPA-Entwürfe, die Sie jetzt den Verhandlungspartnern auf den Tisch gelegt haben, bedeuten eine klare Überschreitung Ihres Verhandlungsmandats. Völlig ungeachtet der Erfahrung, die wir selbst in Europa gemacht haben, wollen Sie einen globalen Flickenteppich aus rein wirtschaftlich basierten Staatenbündnissen erzwingen. Sie geben damit Ihren Partnern gar nicht erst die Chance, sozial und politisch zueinander zu finden, und Sie verschaffen damit den europäischen Unternehmen einen riesigen Wettbewerbsvorteil.

Ich jedenfalls lehne es ab, unseren Partnerländern Bedingungen aufzuzwingen, wie sie die marktradikalen Kräfte noch nicht einmal innerhalb der EU durchsetzen konnten. Ihre Vorschriften für öffentliche Aufträge sind unverhüllte Keile für die Marktöffnung. Sie stellen zwar zwei Boxer in den gleichen Ring, aber der eine Boxer wiegt 100 kg mehr als der andere.

Deshalb fordere ich Sie auf, alle Verhandlungen auszusetzen, die über die Zolltarife hinausgehen, und Ihre Kraft dafür einzusetzen, dass wir eine entwicklungsgerechtere Form der WTO insgesamt erreichen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (PSE). – Mr President, I would like to join with those who have congratulated Robert Sturdy on what I think is a good report. The report correctly stresses that these are negotiations that are being conducted between unequal partners and it has been a theme of many of the other contributors this morning. I think the fact that the Commission and the ACP countries perceive the negotiations from a different standpoint is at the heart of many of the problems. If we look at the end of the year deadline, the perception of the Commission is that the deadline is an essential tool for meeting its WTO obligations. From the viewpoint of many of the ACP countries on the other hand, the deadline is being used to rush them into agreeing unsuitable agreements, and the Commission, I think, has to do much more to reassure the ACP countries that the deadline is not and will not be used to browbeat the ACP countries into agreements that they cannot otherwise live with.

On the situation with aid, the Commission says, and Commissioner Mandelson repeated this morning, that the negotiations will not fail for lack of money. But it is unfair to expect ACP countries to make long-term decisions on liberalisation and regional integration without having a long-term view of the amount of assistance that would be available to help them put together the regional regulatory frameworks to instigate new methods of collecting government revenues to make up for the loss of the tariff income or to construct a type of infrastructure which we know from our own experience in the EU is so important to developing our regional economy.

When we move on to the issue of market access, I have heard the Commissioner say in this Chamber that the European Union has no offensive trade objectives with ACP countries. But again, when we hear from negotiators, their perception is that the Commission is pushing them very hard to open up our services markets and to make other market-opening offers.

I say all this in a genuine spirit of belief that the Commission wants a pro-development package with the six regions. The Commission believes it is acting in the interests of the ACP countries, but it must understand that negotiations between unequal partners create suspicion in the weaker partner. When we talk about deadlines, they see threats, when we are vague on the aid package, they see linkage between the amount of market-opening they are prepared to offer and the size of their aid package. If we are to overcome these concerns, then we must bring more openness and transparency to the talks themselves and we must promise that once we conclude the talks, that there will be parliamentary oversight to the finally concluded agreements so that they can be reassured that parliamentarians will be involved in this process from their implementation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Fiona Hall (ALDE). – Mr President, following the progress of the EPA negotiations has been like living in two parallel universes. On the one hand, there have been many statements from the ACP side that the process lacks the development focus it is supposed to have. The ACP countries insist that they are being put under pressure to negotiate on the Commission’s terms and they are particularly concerned that the Commission has failed to give time for proper impact assessments and has dismissed any assessments that were not in line with its own position. On the other hand, strangely, the Commission has maintained throughout that no one is complaining or asking for alternatives to EPAs.

However, the January 2007 review of EPAs by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa was clear. This external and independent review concluded that there was a failure of the negotiations to have a development focus and an excessive focus on trade liberalisation alone. Given this external UN assessment, I do not see how the Commission can keep on maintaining that the EPA negotiations have a positive dynamic and that everything is rosy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Glenys Kinnock (PSE). – Mr President, I trust that the Commission will take note of the concerns that many– indeed, the vast majority of – Members of Parliament have raised this morning.

The EPA negotiations are clearly at a very critical stage, and this week European Union and ACP ministers meet in Brussels to review progress, at a time when, as others have said, they are under intense pressure to conclude by the end of 2007. The reality is, of course, that even where technically they are well prepared, ACP countries still face serious political issues which remain between ACP member states, within governments in the ACP, between governments and private sector, civil society and regional integration organisations.

David Martin raised some very important points about the level of suspicion and anxiety that exists in ACP countries. In the last few weeks I have been in both west and east Africa and, from the Prime Minister of Senegal, to the President of Ghana, to the Tanzanian Minister of Trade, the message was exactly the same: there are too many unresolved issues. On aid for trade: is it new money? Is it predictable? When is it going to be on the table? On levels of regional integration, in Tanzania I learnt of the enormous problems there and of the new east Africa configuration which they are planning for and have, I think, written to the Commissioner about. Then there are the Singapore issues, which others have mentioned and which are currently causing enormous difficulties in the SADC negotiations.

Most ACP member states have welcomed duty-free, quota-free access. However, it remains the case – and I am not sure that anyone has mentioned this – that a dozen or more EU Member States are expressing concern and objections to the proposal, and some ACP states are concerned about the impact on sugar, bananas and rice. Only yesterday, Barbados was saying that the region could benefit only if the EU ensured that they build the technical, productive and infrastructural capacity so that they can maximise the opportunities, particularly for sugar, between 2009 and 2015.

There is this doomsday scenario that people talk about. That is why, if they cannot sign up by the end of this year, the ACP should be provided with a high level of market access using GSP+.

The assertion I hear that alternatives do not exist is simply not the case and neither is the claim that no ACP region or country has asked for them. Recent research by the ODI, the UN and others points to an enhanced GSP as a viable alternative to EPAs and would provide that essential breathing space for negotiations to continue. GSP+ would provide more generous access than GSP, which is clearly not an option. Most ACP countries could well meet the eligibility criteria and would be provided with a level of market access almost equivalent to Cotonou for current exports, with very few exceptions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alain Hutchinson (PSE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, je voudrais tout d'abord me réjouir de la tenue de ce débat, ici et aujourd'hui, et ce, notamment, parce qu'il inflige, à mon sens, un démenti flagrant aux allégations, que nous entendons régulièrement ces derniers mois, selon lesquelles seuls quelques agités de la gauche européenne et une société civile défiant la Commission européenne par principe ou par habitude s'inquiéteraient du déroulement et du résultat des négociations sur les accords de partenariat économique. Ce n'est certainement pas le cas, nous l'avons entendu ce matin.

Pour dire les choses simplement, une seule question se pose en fait aujourd'hui dans le cadre de ces négociations, et cette question est la suivante: la Commission est-elle en mesure de garantir aux pays ACP qu'une fois signés, ces accords leur apporteront des conditions de développement plus favorables que celles dont ils bénéficient aujourd'hui? Si c'est le cas, je n'ai personnellement plus beaucoup de problèmes avec ces accords de partenariat économique. Si ce n'est pas le cas, ce que je crains, nous devons nous opposer à ceux-ci tels qu'on nous les présente pour l'instant, et tant qu'ils font la part belle à une vision trop exclusivement marchande des relations entre les hommes, au détriment de l'intérêt général des populations des pays ACP.

L'amélioration des conditions de vie du plus grand nombre de nos contemporains et des générations futures, au Nord comme au Sud, est un objectif prioritaire que nous sommes en droit d'exiger de la part de la Commission. Dans cet esprit, celle-ci se doit de poursuivre la négociation sur ces accords, de meilleure grâce et en toute transparence. À cet égard, je renvoie aux propos très concrets, très corrects, de mon collègue Arif. Mais la Commission se doit aussi de s'accorder, et d'accorder à nos interlocuteurs, les délais nécessaires, comme plusieurs orateurs qui sont intervenus avant moi viennent de le dire. Il est grand temps que cette exigence, portée par des millions de citoyens européens que nous représentons ici, soit considérée avec beaucoup plus de sérieux et de respect qu'aujourd'hui.

Monsieur le Commissaire, nous entendons ce matin, et très régulièrement ici, parler abondamment et avec insistance d'économie, d'ouverture de marchés et de compétitivité. Ces mots, ne l'oublions pas, nous devons les considérer pour ce qu'ils sont, c'est-à-dire des concepts et, au mieux, des instruments, qui n'ont de valeur que pour leur contribution éventuelle à la satisfaction de l'intérêt général, de l'intérêt du plus grand nombre de personnes, pas d'un nombre, même grandissant, de privilégiés, qui sauront profiter, au Nord comme au Sud, de n'importe quel accord passé avec n'importe qui, mais bien d'un nombre grandissant d'hommes, de femmes et d'enfants qui, ensemble, constituent la grande majorité des exclus de notre monde et qui attendent énormément d'une relation, sinon généreuse, du moins équilibrée avec leurs partenaires européens.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, dans ses dernières propositions, l'Union envisage d'étendre le concept "tout sauf les armes" à l'ensemble des pays ACP.

C'est une avancée, certes, qui permettrait de garantir qu'aucun d'entre eux ne perde au change après 2007, mais ce n'est pas une solution miracle, qui ferait des APE des accords de développement. Pour cela, il faut aller plus loin: prévoir une période de transition bien plus longue que les dix ou douze ans qui sont actuellement proposés; mettre fin au dumping agricole et respecter le principe de souveraineté alimentaire; offrir un vrai traitement spécial et différencié et permettre aux pays ACP de protéger certains de leurs secteurs; mettre fin aux pressions sur les sujets de Singapour, afin de respecter le droit de tous les États à gérer librement leurs services publics, et, enfin, impliquer davantage les sociétés civiles et les parlements.

Je crois que c'est à ce prix-là que les APE pourront servir, en priorité, le développement de l'Afrique, et pas seulement celui de l'Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. Mr President, it is a pleasure for me to respond to this debate on behalf of the Commission because of the importance of this subject: nothing less than future development, alleviation of poverty and opportunities to use the advantages of the international trade system are at stake for the ACP, some of the most poverty-struck countries in the world to whom we owe an absolute obligation.

The Economic Partnership Agreements are about using trade as a lever for development. We have no intention of forcing ACP countries to make commitments against their will. We are operating with one constraint, however: EPAs need to be WTO-compliant, thus including trade-opening on both sides for trade in goods and trade in services. This of course, and I say this emphatically, does not mean symmetrical trade-opening between the EU and the ACP. Obviously, in market-opening towards its partners, the EU will go much beyond what ACP partners will do for the EU.

In addition, in many areas, we are ready to give serious consideration to transition periods and in some cases very long transition periods – up to 25 years – together with substantial financial aid to help these countries implement their commitments so that EPAs genuinely act as a catalyst for policy reforms in ACP countries.

Concerning market access, recently the General Affairs Council of our Member States reaffirmed the principle of duty-free, quota-free, access to the ACP but with transition periods for a few sensitive products, notably rice and sugar. The same principle applies on bananas but we agreed on additional evaluation, notably to take into account the EU’s outermost regions, and that will happen.

Specifically, in response to what Mr van den Berg said, we are jointly building with ACP regions asymmetric market access schedules which allow continued protection for ACP-sensitive sectors. Our duty-free, quota-free offer gives great scope to protect the ACP and to open their markets in a deeply asymmetric manner. In addition, flexible safeguards will be in place so that we can take action quickly if problems arise. However, a conditional market access schedule would once again put our trading arrangements in a vulnerable position in the WTO, creating further uncertainty for ACP traders and investors. Introducing such a conditional approach would therefore not be wise from the point of view of the interests of the ACP countries themselves.

Some Members have talked about alternatives to EPAs. I can say without any hesitation or qualification whatsoever: there are no better development-friendly or superior development instruments available to us that would exceed the ambition and the potential that Economic Partnership Agreements offer. To offer GSP as some have suggested, when instead we could negotiate good Economic Partnership Agreements, would indeed be nonsense. ACP countries that are not LDCs would end up with worse market access to the European Union than almost any other developing countries in the world.

Yes, some then go on to propose GSP+ as an alternative, by relaxing entry criteria to GSP+ and expanding its coverage. This again is completely unacceptable. GSP+ continues the divisions in trade regime between LDCs and non-LDCs that EPAs are seeking to remove and does not promote the use of market access in the way that EPAs do. The GSP is open to all countries and many would simply take advantage of relaxed GSP+ criteria, exposing the ACP to direct competition while fundamentally undermining the purpose of GSP+, which is using trade preferences to promote signature of accords on human rights and good working practices. So I hope that people will not pursue or entertain the idea of GSP or GSP+ being an acceptable and/or superior alternative to EPAs.

The best development option by far is to sign EPAs on time. Any alternative falls short of this. We cannot simply flout WTO rules on the goods trade section of EPAs. If it becomes clear that for any region we are really not going to make it, LDCs get Everything but Arms; for non-LDCs that export bananas in particular, the waiver route is probably not politically viable at all. For others, things depend on progress in negotiations.

I would like to conclude by saying that, in contrast to some of those who have spoken here in Parliament this morning, I find the approach of the ACP countries shows considerable realism and understanding of what it is in the ACP’s interests to do. The ACP countries have voluntarily agreed the route map that we are following in negotiating these agreements. It is certainly not in the interests of the ACP for those who present themselves as friends of the ACP to peddle a doomsday scenario, to generate fears and insecurity which can only hold the ACP back from engaging in the negotiations which it is so much in their interest to conclude by the end of the year.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  El Presidente. Se cierra el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar mañana a las 12.00 horas.

Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 142 del Reglamento)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE), schriftlich. – Ich möchte dem Herrn Berichterstatter recht herzlich für seinen Hinweis auf den großen Handlungsbedarf von Seiten der Europäischen Union bei der Aushandlung von Wirtschaftspartnerschaftsabkommen danken.

Zunächst sollten wir uns vor Augen halten, dass wir für eine effiziente Einbeziehung der AKP-Staaten in den Welthandel an einem gleichmäßigen Erfolg in allen regionalen Gruppen arbeiten müssen. Dies kann unter anderem durch Handelserleichterungen und technische Hilfe für die Produzenten geschehen, sodass diese ihre Verluste bei Zolleinnahmen ausgleichen können. Damit allein ist diesen Staaten jedoch noch nicht gedient. Sie benötigen vielmehr auch eine fachgerechte Anleitung, um aus dem erleichterten Marktzugang auch tatsächlich Vorteile ziehen zu können.

Darüber hinaus wäre es meiner Meinung nach essentiell, das zu Grunde liegende Verwaltungsverfahren zu vereinfachen, um die vorhandenen Mittel effizienter nutzen zu können.

Ich denke, wir als Mitglieder des Europäischen Parlaments sollten uns der Tatsache bewusst sein, dass der Handel mit diesen Staaten auch von europäischem Interesse ist. Außerdem sind wir als Bürger entwickelter Staaten es den Bürgern der AKP-Staaten schuldig, für ihre Einbettung in den Welthandel alles in unserer Macht Stehende zu tun.

 
  
  

PRÉSIDENCE DE M. GÉRARD ONESTA
Vice-président

 

9. Време за гласуване
MPphoto
 
 

  Le Président. – L'ordre du jour appelle l'Heure des votes.

(Pour les résultats des votes et autres détails les concernant: voir procès-verbal)

 

9.1. Споразумение между ЕО и Русия в областта на рибното стопанство и опазването на ресурсите в Балтийско море (вот)
  

- Rapport: Morillon (A6-0160/2007)

 

9.2. Финансов инструмент за околната среда (LIFE+) (вот)
  

- Rapport: Isler Béguin (A6-0180/2007)

 

9.3. Програма Daphné III (вот)
  

- Recommandation: Gröner (A6-0147/2007)

 

9.4. „Засилено сътрудничество между комисиите“(за изменение на член 47 от Правилника за дейността на Европейския парламент) (вот)
  

- Rapport: Corbett (A6-0139/2007)

- Avant le vote sur l'amendement 3:

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Johannes Voggenhuber (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Es geht um die Annahme eines Änderungsantrags des assoziierten Ausschusses ohne Abstimmung. Hier ist nach allgemeiner Auffassung klar, dass der Änderungsantrag eines assoziierten Ausschusses nur dann automatisch übernommen werden kann, wenn er in die ausschließliche Zuständigkeit dieses Ausschusses fällt. Das Wort „ausschließlich“ fehlt hier. Ich habe mich mit dem Berichterstatter darauf verständigt, den Begriff „exklusive Kompetenzen“ in diesem Satz zu ergänzen, damit das präzisiert wird.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Richard Corbett (PSE), rapporteur. – Mr President, as rapporteur I can accept the oral amendment.

 
  
  

(L'amendement oral est retenu)

 

9.5. Стандарти за качество на околната среда в областта на политиката за водите (вот)
  

- Rapport: Laperrouze (A6-0125/2007)

 

9.6. Биологично производство и етикетиране на биологичните продукти (вот)
  

- Rapport: Aubert (A6-0061/2007)

- Avant le vote:

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marie-Hélène Aubert (Verts/ALE), rapporteur. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, mon rapport sur la production biologique et l'étiquetage des produits biologiques va finalement être mis aux voix aujourd'hui, après un renvoi en commission, d'abord, et une demande d'urgence au Conseil, ensuite, unanimement rejetée, d'ailleurs, par notre Parlement le mois dernier. Malheureusement, les nouvelles discussions menées pendant ces deux mois avec le Conseil n'ont pas permis d'avancer davantage sur des points importants. En particulier, ni la Commission ni le Conseil n'acceptent la double base juridique que nous réclamions. Le Conseil n'est pas revenu sur sa décision d'autoriser, par dérogation exceptionnelle, des additifs et des traitements vétérinaires issus d'OGM. De même, certaines substances chimiques pourraient être autorisées, elles aussi, par dérogation.

Faute de codécision, nous sommes contraints d'en prendre acte. Nous déplorons toutefois l'attitude fermée et désinvolte du Conseil ces dernières semaines, malgré la bonne volonté de certains États membres. Je regrette tout aussi profondément que la majorité des groupes ait refusé hier le report du vote au mois de juin, dans la mesure où le Conseil lui-même avait reporté sa réunion concernant l'agriculture biologique. Je regrette que la majorité des groupes n'ait pas voulu utiliser jusqu'au bout les moyens de pression qui sont les nôtres. Cela dit, le Conseil a néanmoins repris, dans son compromis, bon nombre de nos amendements et la consultation régulière de tous les acteurs concernés fait partie de l'accord global.

Je vous demande donc à présent d'adopter ce rapport. Vous pouvez compter sur ma détermination, comme sur celle de mes collègues de la commission de l'agriculture et du développement rural, pour suivre avec attention ce dossier dans les mois qui viennent.

(Applaudissements)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Le Président. – Monsieur Graefe zu Baringdorf, vous avez demandé la parole. Je vous demanderai en qualité de quoi et sur la base de quel article.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Erlauben Sie mir als Berichterstatter des Pendant-Berichts, in dem es um den biologischen Landbau geht, in der Frage der Außenbeziehungen folgende Bemerkung zu machen. Wir stimmen heute über einen guten Bericht ab, der ganz deutlich macht, dass die ...

(Tumult)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Le Président. – Je suis vraiment désolé, Monsieur Graefe zu Baringdorf, vous avez entendu la réaction de nos collègues. Je pense que tout le monde a compris que vous considérez que le rapport est un bon rapport, mais je ne peux pas donner la parole à tous les rapporteurs et anciens rapporteurs, vous le comprendrez aisément.

 

9.7. Партньорство в областта на рибното стопанство между ЕС, от една страна, и Дания и Гренландия, от друга (вот)
  

- Rapport: Post (A6-0161/2007)

 

9.8. Постоянна делегация EUROLAT (вот)
  

- Décision: B6-0204/2007

 

9.9. Съвместната декларация относно практическите условия и ред за процедурата на съвместно вземане на решение (вот)
  

- Rapport: Leinen (A6-0142/2007)

- Avant le vote:

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jo Leinen (PSE), Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Das Mitentscheidungsverfahren ist das wichtigste Instrument dieses Hauses, und das neue Abkommen mit Rat und Kommission macht das Verfahren erheblich transparenter und effizienter. In etlichen Einzelheiten kommen wir auf gleiche Augenhöhe mit dem Ministerrat.

Ich will an dieser Stelle den Kollegen Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Alejo Vidal-Quadras und Antonios Trakatellis herzlich danken, die über ein Jahr lang mit Rat und Kommission verhandelt haben, sowie auch Joseph Daul der das Ganze beaufsichtigt hat. Durch dieses neue Abkommen sind wir also in Sache Mitentscheidungsverfahren ein gutes Stück weitergekommen.

 

9.10. Прекратяване на обедняването на биологичното разнообразие до 2010 г. (вот)
  

- Rapport: Adamou (A6-0089/2007)

 

9.11. Глобална Европа - Външни аспекти на конкурентността (вот)
  

- Rapport: Caspary (A6-0149/2007)

- Avant le vote sur l'amendement 51:

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ignasi Guardans Cambó (ALDE). – Monsieur le Président, je propose un amendement oral qui vise à ajouter "les pays les plus pauvres" au lieu de "les pays en voie de développement".

 
  
  

(L'amendement oral n'est pas retenu)

– Avant le vote sur l'amendement 52:

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ignasi Guardans Cambó (ALDE). – Deuxième essai. Cette fois-ci, je partage tout à fait l'esprit de l'amendement. Il s'agit de demander à la Commission qu'elle prenne en compte ce qui est dans l'amendement. C'est cela l'esprit de l'amendement. Cela voudrait dire que, là où il dit:

... ‘should not seek to include’, we should say that the EU ‘should deal carefully with these issues’.

Je conseille à mes collègues du parti socialiste et du groupe des Verts de bien réfléchir avant de s'y opposer, sinon on risque de voter contre l'amendement dans son ensemble.

 
  
  

(L'amendement oral n'est pas retenu)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Le Président. – Nous avons à présent terminé notre séance des votes.

 

10. Обяснения на вот
MPphoto
 
 

  Le Président. – Nous allons passer aux explications de vote.

 
  
  

- Rapport: Isler Béguin (A6-0180/2007)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Votámos favoravelmente este acordo final por ter permitido que o Parlamento Europeu garantisse um aumento de 40 milhões de euros do montante proposto na posição comum do Conselho. O orçamento para o LIFE+ é, agora, de cerca de 1894 milhões de euros.

Por outro lado, parte do orçamento do LIFE+ é consagrada a projectos sobre "a natureza e a biodiversidade". O PE garantiu que, pelo menos 50% dos recursos orçamentais do LIFE+, serão utilizados para subvencionar projectos de apoio à conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade. Na sua posição comum, o Conselho tinha proposto consagrar 40% do orçamento total a estes projectos.

Por último, como se refere no relatório final, na reunião do Comité de Conciliação, o Comissário Dimas procedeu à leitura de uma declaração, segundo a qual a Comissão procederá, antes da revisão do quadro financeiro, a uma revisão das despesas autorizadas e previstas, a nível nacional e comunitário, sobre a gestão das redes Natura 2000. Esta revisão será utilizada para adaptar os instrumentos comunitários, em particular, o LIFE+, e garantir um nível elevado de co-financiamento.

Em conclusão, o resultado é muito mais satisfatório do que qualquer acordo concluído numa fase anterior do processo legislativo.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Duarte Freitas (PPE-DE), por escrito. Considero o resultado da conciliação muito positivo, tendo prevalecido a abordagem centralizada, em que a Comissão mantém a gestão do programa, de forma a garantir o valor acrescentado para a Europa como um todo, a igualdade de critérios e a excelência, reduzindo gastos secundários com a criação de entidades para a gestão a nível nacional.

Saliento ainda outros aspectos positivos como o aumento de 40 milhões de euros no orçamento geral e a afectação de 15% dos fundos para projectos transnacionais.

Voto, assim, favoravelmente o projecto comum aprovado pelo Comité de Conciliação sobre o LIFE+.

 
  
  

- Rapport: Gröner (A6-0147/2007)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident! Mit dem Programm Daphne III haben wir ein weiteres geeignetes Instrument gegen Menschenhandel und sexuelle Ausbeutung in die Hand bekommen. Es ist immerhin so, dass über 100 000 Frauen in der Europäischen Union Opfer von Menschenhandel und Gewalt sind. Daher ist es notwendig, ein solches Programm entsprechend auszugestalten.

Ich begrüße es sehr, dass die Haushaltsmittel von 50 Millionen auf über 114 Millionen Euro aufgestockt wurden und wir damit in den Herkunftsländern Informationskampagnen durchführen können, in denen Frauen und Kinder angeworben werden, die dann in der Europäischen Union Opfer sexueller Gewalt werden.

Mit diesen Informationskampagnen haben wir präventive Möglichkeiten, die Frauen aufzuklären und Schutz vor Ausbeutung zu bieten. Wenn das noch mit Hilfe von Stellungsprogrammen für betroffene Frauen kombiniert wird, dann ist mit Daphne III ein ganz entscheidender Schritt zur Bekämpfung von Gewalt, Menschenhandel und sexueller Ausbeutung gesetzt.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS). – Herr Präsident! Ich habe für den Bericht Gröner gestimmt, weil es zweifellos gelungen ist, im Kampf gegen Gewalt an Frauen Fortschritte zu erzielen, und das Programm Daphne dabei sicherlich eine Rolle gespielt hat.

Gewalt gegen Frauen ist aber in Kulturen stärker verbreitet, in denen das patriarchalische Machtprinzip noch stark verwurzelt ist und kaum Problembewusstsein besteht. Durch die Zuwanderungswellen der letzten Jahre haben auch bei uns an Frauen begangene Menschenrechtsverletzungen wie Genitalverstümmelungen, aber auch Zwangsheiraten, Einzug gehalten. Hier gilt es meines Erachtens, nicht nur ein Problembewusstsein zu schaffen oder Zwangsheirat in der EU unter Strafe zu stellen. Es dürfen auch keine Sondergerichtsurteile mit kultureller Begründung akzeptiert werden. Wenn inländische Täter bzw. solche aus dem abendländischen Kulturkreis bestraft werden, hat das gleiche Recht auch für Zuwanderer aus dem muslimischen Bereich zu gelten. Hier darf Justitia weder blind noch taub sein.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), na piśmie. Głosuję za przyjęciem sprawozdania posłanki Lissy Groner dotyczącego wspólnego stanowiska Rady mającego na celu przyjęcie decyzji Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady ustanawiającej na lata 2007-2013 szczegółowy program zapobiegania przemocy wobec dzieci, młodzieży i kobiet oraz walki z nią, a także ochrony ofiar i grup ryzyka (program Daphne III) jako część programu ogólnego „Prawa podstawowe i sprawiedliwość”.

Program Daphne został ustanowiony w 1997 roku i posłużył do sfinansowania ponad 350 projektów, w ramach których udzielane jest wsparcie organizacjom pozarządowym oraz instytucjom i stowarzyszeniom działającym w obszarze ochrony przed przemocą wobec dzieci, młodzieży oraz kobiet. Trzecia faza tego projektu, której dotyczy sprawozdanie posłanki Lissy Groner, cieszy się moim największym poparciem.

Daphne III za najważniejsze cele przyjmuje wspieranie rozwoju polityki Wspólnoty związanej z ochroną zdrowia publicznego, równością płci, zwalczaniem przemocy w rodzinie, ochroną praw dzieci, zwalczaniem przemocy związanej z płcią w sytuacjach konfliktowych oraz zwalczaniem handlu ludźmi i wykorzystywania seksualnego.

Te ambitne cele w latach 2007-2013 zostaną poparte budżetem 116 850 000 euro, który w porównaniu z budżetem Daphne I - 20 000 000 euro oraz Daphne II - 50 000 000, jest dowodem uznania znaczenia i osiągnięć programu.

Sprawozdanie trafnie podkreśla również potrzebę otwarcia programu na współpracę z organizacjami pozarządowymi poprzez zapewnienie większej przejrzystości, zmniejszenie biurokracji i udzielanie pomocy wnioskodawcom projektów ubiegającym się o finansowanie.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I supported these Amendments to Daphne III, the EU’s specific programme to prevent and combat violence against children, young people and women. I am pleased that the third phase of Daphne (2007-2013) has an increased budget of EUR 116.85 million. In addition, I am pleased that the bureaucracy will be reduced so that NGOs have easier access to the programme.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. I fully support the work of the rapporteur in combating violence against women. The DAPHNE programme helps in tackling this issue across the EU and those who fail to support this report today should be condemned.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Margie Sudre (PPE-DE), par écrit. – La prolongation du Programme Daphné pour 2007-2013 montre la volonté du Parlement européen d’inscrire ce plan, mis en place en 2000, dans la continuité.

La violence contre les enfants, les adolescents et les femmes constitue un phénomène social dramatique. Certains groupes particulièrement vulnérables à la violence doivent être mieux protégés, sans oublier la violence domestique ou les mutilations génitales féminines. À la Réunion, par exemple, les infractions contre les femmes ont doublé en 20 ans, et plus d'une femme sur 5 a subi au moins une forme de violence dans un espace public au cours des 12 derniers mois. Aussi, je souhaite que la Commission européenne consacre une année européenne à ce type de violence.

Je salue l’engagement de la Commission, qui a augmenté le budget à près de 117 millions d'euros, même si ce montant est inférieur à celui qu'a demandé le Parlement européen. Le doublement des moyens attestent néanmoins d’une ambition certaine dans les objectifs.

Cet effort doit encore s’accompagner d’une transparence du programme et permettre un accès plus aisé pour la société civile, qui manque d’assistance technique pour la préparation de propositions de projet, notamment dans les RUP. Je souhaite qu’à l’avenir, des réflexions soient conduites par un conseil d’experts.

 
  
  

- Rapport: Corbett (A6-0139/2007)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Richard Corbett (PSE), in writing. Instead of some of the more far-reaching proposals suggested to us, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs proposed a modest revision of Rule 47 (which would be renamed ‘Procedure with associated committees’). This more modest change would require the chairmen and rapporteurs of the committees concerned to meet and jointly identify areas of the text falling within their executive or joint competences. The chair of the committee responsible would have to take account of any such agreement when ruling on the final responsibility for different parts of the text. The rule would also allow the parties to agree, if they so wish, on more precise arrangements for their cooperation, which opens the door to possibilities such as a joint working group. The rule change also would guarantee that associated committees are represented in any Parliament delegation in a conciliation procedure.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bruno Gollnisch (ITS), par écrit. – Nous nous sommes abstenus sur les rapports de MM. Corbett et Leinen concernant la coopération renforcée entre commissions et les modalités pratiques de la codécision.

Certes, ces rapports, d'un point de vue concret, visent à faciliter le travail de ce parlement dans le cadre institutionnel et juridique qui est le sien. Mais ils sont symptomatiques d'une pratique parlementaire où, finalement, tout est presque décidé à l'avance, en petit comité, par le compromis interinstitutionnel ou intergroupe, au nom de l'efficacité et de la rationalité. Ils sont également symptomatiques d'une assemblée où les "grands" groupes, du moins ceux reconnus comme tels, font la pluie et le beau temps et où les droits individuels des députés sont réduits à leur plus simple expression, voire inexistants quand il s'agit de légiférer.

À force de policer son fonctionnement, ce Parlement, qui souffre déjà de son manque de représentativité nationale et politique et de son manque de proximité avec les citoyens, va perdre définitivement la nature qui devrait être la sienne: celle d'une assemblée élue par les peuples et pour eux.

 
  
  

- Rapport: Laperrouze (A6-0125/2007)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS). – Herr Präsident! Ich habe auch für den Bericht Laperrouze gestimmt, weil in Bezug auf das Wasser es natürlich besser ist, vorzusorgen als nachträglich teure Sanierungsmaßnahmen zu treffen. Als Österreicher und Bürger eines Landes mit sehr großen Wasserreserven glaube ich, dass wir für eine nachhaltige und umweltbewusste Wasserpolitik Intensivlandwirtschaft, die Probleme wie Überdüngung mit sich bringt, nicht länger finanziell unterstützen dürfen. Vielmehr ist jenen Landwirten unter die Arme zu greifen, die nach traditionellen Methoden anbauen. Aber auch bei der Beforstung können wir mitbestimmen, welche und wie viele Schadstoffe wie schnell ins Grundwasser gelangen, und überdies einen Beitrag zum Hochwasserschutz leisten.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Edite Estrela (PSE), por escrito. Votei favoravelmente o relatório Anne Laperrouze (A6-0125/2007) sobre a proposta de directiva relativa às normas de qualidade ambiental no domínio da política da água e que altera a Directiva 2000/60/CE porque considero que a União Europeia deve continuar a desempenhar um papel fundamental na defesa do meio ambiente e também porque a presente proposta tem por objectivo proteger e promover a qualidade do ambiente de acordo com o princípio do desenvolvimento sustentável.

São necessárias medidas, que vão no seguimento do proposto pela Directiva-Quadro “Água”, que permitam pôr termo à poluição química das águas, afectando os ecossistemas aquáticos, causando a perda de biodiversidade e deixando por sua vez os seres humanos cada vez mais expostos.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Esta nova proposta de directiva sobre as normas de qualidade ambiental no domínio da política da água surge na sequência da Directiva-Quadro da Água, adoptada em 2000, estabelece os objectivos de qualidade ambiental para as águas de superfície que devem ser atingidos até 2015, mas sem que haja uma avaliação formal das várias legislações existentes neste âmbito ou, sequer, uma abordagem integrada da política da água.

Trata-se, pois, de um conjunto de medidas avulsas, com alguns aspectos positivos e referências correctas à necessidade de ter em conta os dados científicos e técnicos disponíveis, as condições ambientais das diferentes regiões e o desenvolvimento económico e social equilibrado, mas num quadro de reafirmação do neo-liberalismo, subordinando as medidas propostas à "manutenção de condições de concorrência equitativas no mercado interno" e do princípio do poluidor-pagador.

Também introduz conceitos não muito claros, como as "melhores técnicas disponíveis", que podem ser utilizados para tornar obrigatório o uso de tecnologias e equipamentos patenteados, gerando dependências, além de poder privar trabalhadores dos recursos de produção, dados os preços dos equipamentos de elevada tecnologia.

Embora o Parlamento Europeu tenha introduzido algumas melhorias no texto da Comissão, recusou a maioria das propostas do nosso Grupo, pelo que nos abstivemos na votação final.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Διαμάντω Μανωλάκου (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Ο τίτλος για τα πρότυπα ποιότητας περιβάλλοντος στον τομέα της πολιτικής των υδάτων ουσιαστικά δεν ανταποκρίνεται στο περιεχόμενο του, αφού εστιάζεται στις βλαπτικές ουσίες στα επιφανειακά ύδατα και στα ιζήματά που προέρχονται μόνο από ζιζανιοκτόνα.

Μένουν εκτός ελέγχου άλλοι παράγοντες ρύπανσης όπως τα βιομηχανικά υγρά απόβλητα, τα αστικά λύματα, τα στραγγίσματα από σκουπιδότοπους, η θερμική ρύπανση από αντίστοιχες πηγές, η ρύπανση λιμνών με αέριους ρύπους από μονάδες καύσης που καταπίπτουν με τα καιρικά φαινόμενα κλπ. Η χημική όμως ρύπανση των επιφανειακών υδάτων μπορεί να προκαλέσει διαταραχές στα υδατικά οικοσυστήματα, καταστρέφοντας τη βιοποικιλότητα ή να συσσωρεύσει ρύπους στην τροφική αλυσίδα από μολυσμένα ψάρια. Εξάλλου είναι εμφανής η πρόθεση της Επιτροπής να στοχοποιήσει και ενοχοποιήσει την Αγροτική Παραγωγή, ως αποκλειστικό υπεύθυνο της χημικής ρύπανσης των επιφανειακών νερών. Εξάλλου η αρχή «ο ρυπαίνων πληρώνει» δεν σταματά τη μόλυνση αλλά νομιμοποιεί την αλόγιστη δράση βιομηχανιών και άλλων μονοπωλίων.

Δεν προτείνονται συγκεκριμένα μέτρα ελέγχου των πηγών απόρριψης των «ουσιών προτεραιότητας» επικίνδυνων και μη, τα όρια συγκέντρωσης των οποίων πραγματεύεται η Πρόταση Οδηγίας.

Ωστόσο η έκθεση διευρύνει το περιορισμένο περιεχόμενο της Οδηγίας για πιο αποτελεσματικής προστασίας των νερών. Τελικά όμως, τόσο το περιεχόμενο όσο ο προσανατολισμός απέχει από τις σύγχρονες ανάγκες προστασίας αυτού του κοινωνικού αγαθού της ποιότητας των υδάτων, που πρέπει να είναι πλήρης και όχι μερική και αποσπασματική.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. Water quality is essential to our environment and I am pleased to see that through European action we have witnessed improvements. I believe that the proposal of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety to look at the effectiveness of all Community legislative acts with a direct or indirect impact on water quality is a step in the right direction.

 
  
  

- Rapport: Aubert (A6-0061/2007)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident! Obwohl sich die Berichterstatterin, Marie-Hélène Aubert, sehr bemüht hat, einen guten Bericht vorzulegen, hat heute die ÖVP-Delegation hier im Europäischen Parlament gegen diesen Bericht gestimmt, weil wir nach wie vor in diesem Bericht vieles vorfinden, das uns große Probleme bereitet. Wir sind nach wie vor der Meinung, dass in der biologischen Landwirtschaft der Grenzwert für GVO 0,0 % betragen muss, und wir sind auch der Meinung, dass Importe aus Drittstaaten die gleichen Kriterien zu erfüllen haben wie Produkte aus EU-Ländern und daher kontrolliert werden müssen.

Ebenso dürfen diese Labels, die wir in der EU haben, nicht für Produkte, die nicht aus der EU stammen, verwendet werden, damit es zu keiner Irreführung der Konsumenten kommt und die Rückverfolgbarkeit möglich ist.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Françoise Castex (PSE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur du renvoi du rapport Aubert relatif à la production biologique et à l'étiquetage des produits biologiques en commission de l'agriculture.

Pour moi, il est nécessaire que le seuil de contamination accidentelle aux OGM ne soit pas identique à celui de l'agriculture conventionnelle, c'est-à-dire de l'ordre de 0,9%, car dans ce cas, on admettrait de facto que l'on ne peut plus empêcher les contaminations ni garantir qu'un produit, même certifié "bio", est exempt d'OGM.

À cet égard, j'ai soutenu la proposition émanant des socialistes européens, qui postulait que la présence d'OGM dans les produits biologiques devait être limitée exclusivement aux volumes imprévisibles et techniquement inévitables à concurrence d'une valeur maximale de 0,1% et que le terme "bio" ne devait pas être utilisé pour désigner les produits dont la contamination accidentelle par les OGM est supérieure au seuil détectable de 0,1%.

Enfin, je soutiens la demande d'un changement de base juridique sur cette question de l'agriculture biologique. De consultant, le Parlement européen entend devenir codécideur sur cette problématique, ce qui constitue une avancée en la matière.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Abstivemo-nos nesta votação final tendo em conta o que entretanto se passou em todo este processo. Por um lado, discordamos da posição da Comissão, que propôs um regulamento que autoriza a presença até 0,9% de organismos geneticamente modificados nos produtos biológicos, entre outros aspectos negativos. Continuamos a considerar que tal é inaceitável, sobretudo quando se trata da agricultura biológica. Tolerar os 0,9% da proposta de contaminação por OGM significa aceitar a contaminação transgénica dos produtos biológicos, o que terá inegáveis consequências para os consumidores e constitui uma séria e inaceitável ameaça à sobrevivência do sector da produção biológica.

Os consumidores escolhem produtos biológicos por eles serem produzidos de uma forma mais sustentável, sem recurso a pesticidas, e por serem completamente isentos de organismos geneticamente modificados. Aceitar a sua introdução, mesmo que em quantidades mínimas, é uma forma de manipular os consumidores com consequências graves para o ambiente e para a saúde em geral.

Mas, por outro lado, como foi possível melhorar no plenário a proposta da Comissão Europeia, embora o Conselho não tenha ainda dado uma resposta positiva nem tenha aceite a alteração da base jurídica, abstivemo-nos na votação final, esperando que seja possível alguma cedência relativamente às propostas que melhoram a posição inicial.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. I will be voting in favour of Mrs Aubert’s report on organic production and labelling of organic products. I believe that consumers have the right to clear identification of products they intend to purchase. Nevertheless, regulations on labelling have to reflect day-to-day realities. We cannot specify requirements that lie beyond our ability to operate in a meaningful way reflecting the best practical means available at the time. To do otherwise is to collude in limiting the availability of products many consumers might choose to purchase.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ambroise Guellec (PPE-DE), par écrit. – La production biologique représente aujourd'hui 1,4% du nombre d'exploitations agricoles des 25 États membres et 3,6% de la superficie agricole utilisée (1,8% des terres agricoles en Bretagne). La demande des consommateurs continue d'augmenter et l'arrivée sur le marché de ces produits avec divers labels, fabriqués même en dehors de l'UE, pose de nouveaux problèmes en matière de contrôle, de certification et d'étiquetage. De plus, les subventions ou normes dans ce domaine sont très disparates d'un pays à l'autre, ce qui crée des distorsions de concurrence pour les producteurs biologiques les moins aidés.

Je salue donc l'adoption en plénière de l'avis du Parlement européen adressé au Conseil pour qu'il adopte rapidement le règlement sur l'agriculture biologique. Ce nouveau règlement doit permettre de clarifier le cadre communautaire de la production alimentaire biologique qui date de 1991. Le Parlement demande que les systèmes nationaux d'inspection soient renforcés afin de permettre une traçabilité des produits à tous les stades de la production. Si l'utilisation du logo européen (pour les aliments contenant 95% d'ingrédients bio) et de la mention "UE-biologique" est obligatoire, l'ajout d'autres logos privés doit rester possible. Enfin, l'utilisation d'OGM doit être interdite dans la production biologique.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Διαμάντω Μανωλάκου (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Σε μία κολοσσιαία απάτη σε βάρος παραγωγών και καταναλωτών κινδυνεύει να μετατραπεί η πολυδιαφημισμένη αναβάθμιση της αγροτικής παραγωγής και η βελτίωση των αγροτικών προϊόντων μέσω της βιολογικής καλλιέργειας.

Οι ελάχιστες πολυεθνικές που προσπαθούν να ελέγξουν την παγκόσμια τροφική αλυσίδα μέσω των μεταλλαγμένων για τα κέρδη τους επιβλήθηκαν με ευθύνη όλων των πολιτικών ομάδων του ΕΚ συμπεριλαμβανομένων των ΠΑΣΟΚ-ΝΔ.

Η επιτρεπόμενη παρουσία ΓΤΟ και η προσθήκη συμπληρωμάτων (βιταμίνες κ.α) προερχομένων από ΓΤΟ στα βιολογικά τρόφιμα αποτελούν την κερκόπορτα χρησιμοποίησης μεταλλαγμένων σε χώρες και περιοχές που αντιστέκονται στην χρήση τους αναγνωρίζοντας ην επικινδυνότητα τους.

Ο καθορισμός ορίου επιτρεπόμενης ανίχνευσης μεταλλαγμένων στα βιολογικά προϊόντα, όσο χαμηλό και αν είναι αυτό σήμερα επιτρέπει την αύξηση του χωρίς έλεγχο εφόσον ακόμα και στο Ευρωκοινοβούλιο δεν επετράπη το δικαίωμα συναπόφασης. Το όριο αυτό θα καθορίζεται πλέον από τις πολυεθνικές σύμφωνα με την φυσική μόλυνση που θα προέλθει από την επιτρεπόμενη συνύπαρξη συμβατικών, μεταλλαγμένων και βιολογικών καλλιεργειών όσα προστατευτικά μέτρα και αν ληφθούν.

Έτσι οι παραγωγοί βιολογικών θα δουν τα προϊόντα τους να υποβαθμίζονται ενώ οι καταναλωτές θα εξαπατώνται αγοράζοντας «βιολογικά» με ΓΤΟ.

Οι προτάσεις μας για απαγόρευση μεταλλαγμένων στα βιολογικά τρόφιμα δεν έγιναν δυστυχώς αποδεκτές, όμως η πάλη συνεχίζεται μαζί με τους εργαζόμενους για υγιεινές καλλιέργειες και υγιεινή διατροφή.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I supported the resolution on organic food products which builds on the report in March to introduce stricter rules governing organic food products. I believe that this can increase consumer protection.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), skriftlig. Jag röstar för betänkandet eftersom det till skillnad från kommissionens förslag bevarar möjligheten till nationell märkning, men jag beklagar att det trots allt förordar att EU-märkning skall vara den dominerande märkningen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM), in writing. I voted for the report on organic labelling because it still allows for national labelling. This means that, although the proposed EU label recognises a diluted version of organic foods, particularly in terms of GMO content, national labelling can still signal the absence of GMOs in organic products in an EU Member State’s own market.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), in writing. Mr President, I am delighted today to support my group colleague in her report’s assertion that organic production and labelling represent a crucial area of EU production in need of protection. As the market for organic food grows it is vital that consumers feel safe in the definition of what is and what is not organic. We in Scotland have a thriving organic sector and I want to see that flourish. A stable labelling and definitions framework will assist that.

 
  
  

- Rapport: Post (A6-0161/2007)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Duarte Freitas (PPE-DE), por escrito. A Comunidade Europeia e a Gronelândia mantêm relações de pesca desde há longa data tendo o Acordo- quadro que data de 1985 expirado em 31 de Dezembro de 2006.

O novo protocolo que vigora desde 1 de Janeiro de 2007 por um período de seis anos fixa as possibilidades de pesca para os navios comunitários e a contrapartida financeira, assim como as categorias e as condições das actividades de pesca dos navios comunitários na ZEE gronelandesa.

O principal objectivo do novo acordo é manter e reforçar as relações de pesca entre a Comunidade e o Governo local da Gronelândia, graças ao estabelecimento de um quadro de parceria e de diálogo destinado a melhorar a política de pesca sustentável e a exploração racional dos recursos haliêuticos nas zonas de pesca gronelandesas, no interesse de ambas as partes.

Portugal tem um interesse particular neste sector pesqueiro pelo que é a favor da conclusão deste novo acordo.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Apesar do nosso voto favorável ao presente relatório - que aprova a proposta de regulamento em apreço -, temos uma reserva quanto ao nº 2 do artigo 3º da proposta de regulamento, que permite à Comissão considerar pedidos de licença de qualquer Estado-Membro, quando Estados-Membros cobertos pelo presente acordo não esgotem as possibilidades de pesca a que têm direito.

Consideramos que, em caso de subutilização das possibilidades de pesca concedidas a um Estado-Membro no âmbito de quotas e licenças, a Comissão deverá consultar os Estados-Membros visados sobre a melhor forma de garantir uma utilização óptima destas oportunidades de pesca, incluindo a possibilidade de transferência para outros Estados-Membros das oportunidades de pesca não utilizadas.

No entanto, consideramos que esta possibilidade não deve colocar em causa o princípio da estabilidade relativa. Ou seja, a utilização desta possibilidade não deve ter consequências nas futuras atribuições de oportunidades de pesca dos Estados-Membros no âmbito destas parcerias.

Neste sentido apoiámos a proposta de alteração que clarifica este ponto.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. As Amendment 7 was not carried, the EPLP was left with no option but to vote against the report. This report could jeopardise the historical fishing rights of the Scottish fleet and sets a dangerous precedent for future fishing agreements.

 
  
  

- Rapport: Leinen (A6-0142/2007)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), na piśmie. Głosuję za przyjęciem sprawozdania w sprawie praktycznego stosowania procedury współdecyzji. Na wstępie chciałbym podziękować Panu Jo Leinen - posłowi sprawozdawcy bardzo dobrze przygotowanego sprawozdania.

Należy podjąć wszelkie starania, aby zapewnić jak najsprawniejsze funkcjonowanie Unii Europejskiej oraz ułatwić system współpracy między instytucjami. Musimy dążyć to tego, aby podejmowanie decyzji i tworzenie prawa europejskiego przez trzy instytucje unijne: Komisję Europejską, Radę i Parlament Europejski było jak najbardziej przejrzyste dla obywateli europejskich.

Procedura współdecyzji jest bardzo ważna dla systemu ustawodawczego Unii Europejskiej. Zapewnia ona, że nowa legislacja UE przyjmowana jest w sposób bardziej demokratyczny. Propozycje usprawnienia tej procedury zawarte w sprawozdaniu są trafne i powinny przyczynić się do ułatwienia funkcjonowania tego systemu decyzyjnego.

 
  
  

- Rapport: Amadou (A6-0089/2007)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Em princípio, travar a perda de biodiversidade até 2010 é algo que importa apoiar, pelo que se impõem medidas adequadas. Sabemos que as espécies e os ecossistemas precisam de espaço para se desenvolverem e recuperarem. Assim, a manutenção dos ecossistemas deve tornar-se um objectivo de todas as políticas sectoriais e horizontais da UE, tendo em conta a importância vital de ecossistemas saudáveis para a prosperidade e o bem-estar na União Europeia e em todo o mundo. Por isso, o desenvolvimento urbano e rural não pode continuar a ignorar a natureza, para evitar que a nossa paisagem seja dominada pelo cimento e pela poluição.

A biodiversidade é um fundamento do desenvolvimento sustentável, pelo que é necessário integrar as preocupações relativas à biodiversidade em todas as áreas de deliberação política.

Embora haja contradições nas políticas comunitárias, os Estados-Membros devem aproveitar todas as oportunidades disponíveis no âmbito da PAC, da PCP, dos fundos de coesão e estruturais, do LIFE+ e do Sétimo Programa-Quadro para apoiar os objectivos em matéria de biodiversidade. Além disso, é imperativo dar uma maior atenção às necessidades financeiras na revisão orçamental comunitária de 2008-2009, durante a qual deverá ser feita uma avaliação da (in)suficiência e disponibilidade de financiamento comunitário para a biodiversidade, especialmente em favor da “Rede Natura 2000”.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Duarte Freitas (PPE-DE), por escrito. Voto favoravelmente o relatório Adamou porque considero a perda da biodiversidade um problema de importância vital para o futuro da UE e o Plano de Acção em discussão será uma ferramenta fundamental para por em prática as medidas necessárias para travar este fenómeno até 2010, apesar de considerar que o prazo será, certamente muito difícil de cumprir.

Concordo que as consequências das alterações climáticas. Os serviços prestados pelos ecossistemas e os papéis específicos da PAC e da PCP devem ser aspectos a ter em conta dada a sua importância para o cumprimento das metas e para a garantia da manutenção da biodiversidade a longo prazo.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Διαμάντω Μανωλάκου (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Το ενδιαφέρον της ΕΕ για ανάσχεση της απώλειας της βιοποικιλότητας είναι όψιμο και υποκριτικό, γιατί δεν παίρνει ουσιαστικά μέτρα, ούτε διαθέτει τους αναγκαίους πόρους.

Την ίδια στιγμή που εμφανίζεται να κόπτεται για την βιοποικιλότητα,, έχει ως βασική ιεράρχηση την προώθηση των ΓΤΟ. Σωστά αναφέρονται στην έκθεση οι κίνδυνοι από γενετικά τροποποιημένα ψάρια. Δεν αναφέρεται καθόλου στην τεράστια απειλή από τα ανθεκτικά ΓΤ φυτά που συρρικνώνουν τη φυτική βιοποικιλότητα και ενέχουν κίνδυνους για τη δημόσια υγεία.

Ήδη υπάρχει πληθώρα στοιχείων για κύμα εξαφάνισης ειδών, οι ρυθμοί απώλειας είναι 100-1000 φορές υψηλότεροι από φυσιολογικά επίπεδα, με τραγικές συνέπειες στη γενετική ροή μεταξύ των πληθυσμών πανίδας και χλωρίδας.

Ως κύριες αιτίες απώλειας της βιοποικιλότητας αναφέρονται οι κλιματικές αλλαγές, η ρύπανση του περιβάλλοντος, οι εντατικές μέθοδοι γεωργικής παραγωγής και η ακατάλληλη διαχείριση δασικών εκτάσεων και υδάτινων πόρων. Αυτά όμως είναι αποτελέσματα της ληστρικής εκμετάλλευσης της φύσης από τα μονοπώλια για την κερδοφορία τους. Αλλά και η αρχή του «ο ρυπαίνων πληρώνει» απενοχοποιεί τον ρυπαίνοντα, νομιμοποιεί και κάνει αντικείμενο παζαρέματος την υποβάθμιση του περιβάλλοντος, προς όφελος των κερδών του κεφαλαίου.

Ουσιαστικά η ευθύνη κυβερνήσεων και ΕΕ μεταφέρεται στους πολίτες, με την ενίσχυση εκπαίδευσης και ευαισθητοποίησης. Οι λαοί θα πρέπει να αναζητήσουν τις ευθύνες στην αντιπεριβαλλοντική πολιτική της ΕΕ και των κυβερνήσεων των κρατών μελών, να την καταδικάσουν και να την ανατρέψουν.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), in writing. Mr President, I am pleased that this important report gained the majority it did, because the gradual loss of biodiversity should concern us all. The implications of the moves to biofuels should in particular be kept to the forefront of our attention. While nobody would deny that we need to move away from fossil fuels, the knock-on effects of major shifts in production to monocultivation of (often GM) biofuels could have long-term effects that are even more detrimental, and this report does well to keep this issue on our agenda.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. The fact that 52% of freshwater fish species are threatened with extinction whilst cod and other fish stocks are at worryingly low levels should be a wake-up call for action. I agree with the rapporteur that biodiversity loss is as important as climate change and that Member States must show greater political will to prevent the loss of biodiversity. I am also pleased to see that the amendment condemning deep-sea bottom-trawling and other unsustainable fishing practices was carried.

 
  
  

- Rapport: Caspary (A6-0149/2007)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Utworzenie jednolitego rynku w naszej wspólnocie, rynku o dużym obszarze, rynku systematycznie powiększanego, przyniosło korzyści wszystkim jego uczestnikom. To powiększenie rynku było poprzedzone jego ujednoliceniem i wprowadzeniem nowego prawa, realizacją całego procesu dostosowań, krótko mówiąc – zbliżeniem warunków, które zapewniają rzeczywistą konkurencję.

Otwieranie rynku to warunek globalizacji, ale aby przyniosło to korzyści dla wszystkich, trzeba to otwarcie poprzedzić procesem nie tylko negocjacji, ale dostosowań, w tym przeprowadzić działania edukacyjno-informacyjne dla zainteresowanych grup społecznych. Tworzenie rynku globalnego musi być oparte na podobnych zasadach, jakie przyjęliśmy przy tworzeniu rynku europejskiego. To są dobre doświadczenia. Szczególnie ważne jest ustalenie norm i warunków, które powinny być zrealizowane przez zainteresowane strony. Są to między innymi normy środowiskowe, warunki pracy i płacy, zasady innowacji. Proces ten powinien mieć ustaloną tak zwaną „mapę drogową” o charakterze etapowym i ewolucyjnym oraz pełen monitoring przez zainteresowane strony.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Françoise Castex (PSE), par écrit. – Ce rapport engage l’Union européenne et ses partenaires commerciaux dans la voie d’un libéralisme conquérant, à contre-courant des fondements de la politique commerciale européenne.

Je regrette que les parlementaires européens renoncent à ce qu’ils ont défendu jusque là: une politique commerciale qui consistait à subordonner les accords commerciaux à des exigences sociales et environnementales en respectant la souveraineté des pays en développement dans la gestion d’un certain nombre de secteurs vitaux pour leur développement (services publics, investissements, marchés publics et règles de concurrence). Ce vote a remplacé cette politique par une stratégie de large libéralisation des services et des investissements dans les pays en développement, qui répondra aux attentes des industriels européens au détriment des besoins économiques pour le développement. Le principe de libre-échange doit être un outil au service du développement et non un objectif en soi.

Je déplore que les sujets de Singapour, qui avaient été exclus des négociations multilatérales de Doha, aient été réintroduits par les eurodéputés dans ce rapport comme des priorités dans de futures négociations bilatérales.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Edite Estrela (PSE), por escrito. Votei a favor do relatório Caspary porque, apesar de poder ser melhorado, considero que a maioria dos objectivos socialistas foram atingidos: nomeadamente, a preferência pelo multilateralismo e a conclusão de Doha, o tratamento especial dos países com problemas de desenvolvimento, o reconhecimento mútuo de normas, o respeito por mínimos sociais e ambientais combatendo o dumping actual, a protecção da propriedade intelectual, a adopção de códigos de conduta e de boas práticas pelas empresas europeias e a participação reforçada do Parlamento Europeu.

Considero fundamental uma posição activa e construtiva por parte do Grupo Socialista no acompanhamento das negociações bilaterais com grandes economias emergentes como a Coreia, a Índia, a China, a Rússia, entre outros, exigindo uma reciprocidade ampla e equilibrada; entretanto, o reforço da agenda de apoio aos países menos desenvolvidos, incluindo a criação de condições para a sua participação positiva no comércio mundial, requer um reforço urgente.

Estes aspectos, assim como a importante posição negativa relativamente à revisão unilateral dos instrumentos de defesa comercial ficaram, a meu ver, suficientemente abordados no texto final.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elisa Ferreira (PSE), por escrito. Votei a favor do relatório Caspary porque, apesar de poder ser melhorado, considero que a maioria dos objectivos socialistas foram atingidos: nomeadamente, a preferência pelo multilateralismo e a conclusão de Doha, o tratamento especial dos países com problemas de desenvolvimento, o reconhecimento mútuo de normas, o respeito por mínimos sociais e ambientais combatendo o dumping actual, a protecção da propriedade intelectual, a adopção de códigos de conduta e boas práticas pelas empresas europeias e a participação reforçada do Parlamento Europeu.

Enquanto relatora-sombra do PSE considero fundamental uma posição activa e construtiva por parte do Grupo Socialista no acompanhamento das negociações bilaterais com grandes economias emergentes como a Coreia, a Índia, a China e a Rússia, entre outros, exigindo uma reciprocidade ampla e equilibrada; entretanto, o reforço da agenda de apoio aos países menos desenvolvidos, incluindo a criação de condições para a sua participação positiva no comércio mundial, requer um reforço urgente.

Estes aspectos, assim como a importante posição negativa relativamente à revisão unilateral dos instrumentos de defesa comercial ficaram, a meu ver, suficientemente abordados no texto final tendo havido da parte do relator e dos relatores-sombra uma abertura ao estabelecimento de compromissos, que gostaria também de sublinhar.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bruno Gollnisch (ITS), par écrit. – À la lecture du nouveau rapport de cette assemblée sur les bienfaits de la mondialisation, malgré la multiplication des pratiques déloyales lésant les entreprises européennes, les délocalisations ou le chômage, j'ai une pensée pour le nouveau Président de la République française.

Dans ses discours électoraux sur l'Europe, il parlait d'une nécessaire "protection". Il a même osé prononcer le mot de "préférence communautaire"!

Je ne sais pas ce qu'a fait M. Sarkozy durant les cinq dernières années, mais il n'a certainement pas lu les rapports de ce Parlement, ni les comptes rendus du Conseil, ni les interventions de M. Mandelson et de son prédécesseur. On n'y parle jamais de "préférence", sauf en faveur d'une ouverture encore plus grande de nos marchés. On n'y parle jamais de protection, même si les instruments de défense commerciale de l'UE sont notoirement insuffisants et aléatoirement utilisés. On y parle seulement de poursuite de la mondialisation et de gestion des risques. Mais l'Union européenne ne gère absolument rien, et surtout pas les millions de chômeurs, les secteurs industriels sinistrés et l'agriculture en passe de l'être. À ses yeux, ces pertes sont comptées au nombre des risques acceptables.

Et je m'interroge: M. Sarkozy, sur ces sujets, abuse-t-il son public ou est-il lui même abusé?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), por escrito. O livre comércio e a liberalização global são aqui apresentados como falaciosas panaceias, em parceria com os dogmas da estabilidade dos preços, da redução dos impostos sobre a exploração do trabalho ou do aumento da concorrência.

Entre outros aspectos, aqui se afirma que os "acordos de livre comércio bilaterais e regionais constituem uma solução", que não sendo "ideal", deverá avançar quando for necessário para "melhorar a posição concorrencial dos exportadores da UE em mercados externos fundamentais". Estes devem ser "compatíveis com a OMC, globais e ambiciosos" e "assegurar uma liberalização abrangente dos serviços e dos investimentos, ultrapassando tanto os compromissos multilaterais existentes como os que resultarem da OMC". Ou seja, estando bloqueadas as negociações na OMC, a ordem é para avançar quando e onde seja possível liberalizar o comércio para gáudio e lucro dos grandes grupos económico-financeiros na UE.

O que o relatório escamoteia são as consequências desastrosas da liberalização capitalista - com as suas "reformas estruturais", o fim dos direitos aduaneiros ou a imposição dos chamados "direitos de propriedade intelectual" -, como o gritante aumento das desigualdades a nível mundial, o crescente desemprego, a precariedade do trabalho e a pobreza, assim como as consequências nefastas para o ambiente e para a biodiversidade.

Daí o voto contra.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. While this report had some negative elements, such as its call for a delay of the Trade Defence Instrument Review and the unprecise nature of the language on liberalisation (which has opened up the possibility that certain aspects of liberalisation may be negotiated upon which were controversial at the WTO level), I felt on balance it was a report to be supported.

The introduction at Committee stage of paragraphs on the need for Core Labour and Environmental Standards to be integrated into the EU’s trade deals, and of additional references to development considerations, made the report more rounded. While it could have gone further in its considerations of development issues, it is my view that during the current generation of bilateral trade deals the targeted countries (South Korea, India and ASEAN – given that in ASEAN there will be special and differential treatment to take account of developing countries) will be well placed to defend their interests during negotiations.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. Num mundo global as preocupações levantadas no presente relatório são da maior importância. Mesmo não concordando com algumas das posições expressas, reconheço nesta listagem de problemas e de possíveis respostas uma abordagem que é, no essencial, realista. E esse é, creio, um dos aspectos mais relevantes.

A discussão sobre a competitividade externa da UE ou sobre a UE e a economia global tem de assentar em realismo. A ilusão de que é possível vedar as fronteiras, impor regras idênticas às nossas em todas as latitudes e longitudes ou ignorar o impacte da concorrência no plano social é um erro que se paga insuportavelmente caro.

Creio, portanto, que a estratégia deve ser aquela que maximiza as vantagens, reduzindo tanto quanto possível os efeitos perversos desta nova situação: apostar, simultaneamente, na vanguarda e na tradição, no específico e no não-deslocalizável e no que é atraído pelas condições de vida proporcionadas no espaço europeu. A ideia, em voga, de que o mundo eurocêntrico (ou simplesmente a relevância económica e estratégica europeias) morreu com a chegada da economia global não é uma sentença, é uma opinião que os factos – e a vontade política é modeladora dos factos – podem contrair.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Albino Silva Peneda (PPE-DE), por escrito. Apoio este relatório bem como a adaptação das políticas comerciais da União Europeia aos desafios futuros.

O posicionamento líder da Europa no mercado mundial permite-nos reunir condições para a mudança por forma a respondermos à globalização sem renunciarmos aos nossos interesses e ao nosso modelo social.

Contudo, o aumento da liberalização do comércio tem de ser acompanhado por um melhor uso dos instrumentos de defesa face a práticas comerciais desleais.

Sem querer apelar a proteccionismos, que não minorariam os efeitos da globalização, é essencial que a Europa adopte um forte posicionamento relativamente ao cumprimento escrupuloso dos seus acordos de comércio internacional.

Não podemos aceitar que os nossos concorrentes recorram a políticas de auxílio estatal às exportações, a desvalorizações artificiais da moeda e que violem regras ambientais básicas. É igualmente inviável que estes países não respeitem os direitos dos trabalhadores e utilizem inclusivamente o trabalho infantil e forçado.

A abertura do comércio internacional e as condições de acesso aos mercados têm de ser globais e recíprocas. Por outro lado, a inclusão de normas sociais e ambientais mínimas nos nossos acordos comerciais tem de ser salvaguardada.

Há que ter presente que o projecto europeu se fundamenta na solidariedade, no respeito dos direitos humanos e no desenvolvimento sustentável.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Thomas Wise (IND/DEM), in writing. I support the call to reject this proposal, thus making the review unnecessary.

 

11. Поправки и намерения за гласуване: вж. протоколи
  

(La séance, suspendue à 12h50, est reprise à 15h05)

 
  
  

VORSITZ: HANS-GERT PÖTTERING
Präsident

 

12. Дискусия за бъдещето на Европа с участието на премиера на Италия, член на Европейския съвет (разискване)
MPphoto
 
 

  Presidente. Signor Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri della Repubblica italiana, caro Romano Prodi, è con grande piacere che la accogliamo qui oggi nel Parlamento europeo per discutere assieme del futuro dell'Europa.

L'Italia, uno dei paesi fondatori, è sempre stata all'avanguardia nel guidare il processo di integrazione europea e anche in questo periodo, in cui stiamo cercando di trovare una soluzione all'impasse in cui versa il processo di integrazione europea, una soluzione che possa essere accolta da tutti, l'Italia gioca un ruolo determinante.

In particolare vorrei ringraziare il Presidente della Repubblica italiana Giorgio Napolitano per la fruttuosa collaborazione che abbiamo instaurato al fine di fare della riforma dei trattati un successo. Il Presidente del Parlamento sa che quando egli parla non ha solo il supporto del Parlamento, ma anche quello dell'Italia e questo gli dà più forza.

Herr Ministerpräsident, lieber Romano Prodi! In der Hauptstadt Ihres Landes, in Rom, fand im März dieses Jahres eine Reihe von Feierlichkeiten zum 50. Jahrestag der Römischen Verträge statt. Mit großer Freude durften wir dabei auf 50 Jahre des Friedens, der Stabilität, des Wohlstands und des Fortschritts für unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger zurückblicken. Jetzt ist aber auch die Zeit, gemeinsam in die Zukunft zu blicken. Die Europäische Union steht heute vor großen Herausforderungen und muss zur Bewältigung dieser Herausforderungen den Willen für die notwendigen Schritte und Reformen aufbringen, um unseren Weg in eine sichere Zukunft zu begleiten.

Als ehemaliger Präsident der Europäischen Kommission haben Sie, Romano Prodi, die Geschichte der Europäischen Union zu einem wichtigen Zeitpunkt mitgeprägt. Die von Ihnen geführte Kommission, vertreten im Konvent durch die Mitglieder der Kommission Vittorino und Barnier, hat an den Arbeiten zur Zukunft der Europäischen Union aktiv mitgewirkt und bis zur Regierungskonferenz die Geburt des Verfassungsvertrags begleitet. Zurzeit arbeitet die deutsche Ratspräsidentschaft intensiv an einer für alle zufrieden stellenden Lösung für jene Länder, die den Vertrag abgelehnt haben, aber auch für die 18 Mitgliedstaaten und damit bereits die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung der Europäischen Union, die den Vertrag schon ratifiziert haben. In diesem Prozess steht das Europäische Parlament inhaltlich uneingeschränkt zum Verfassungsvertrag, nicht zuletzt weil dieser das Ergebnis eines in langen Verhandlungen erzielten Kompromisses darstellt.

Wir sehen aber ein, dass wir alle engagiert arbeiten müssen, um eine Lösung zu finden. Wir unterstützen daher nachdrücklich die Bemühungen der deutschen Ratspräsidentschaft, insbesondere von Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel, für einen erneuerten Konsens zwischen allen 27 Mitgliedstaaten. Aber es wäre eine Missinterpretation des Willens der Bürgerinnen und Bürger, die bei den Referenden in Frankreich und den Niederlanden ihre Bedenken zum Ausdruck gebracht haben, liefe unsere Antwort auf eine Einschränkung der Demokratie, der Gestaltungsfähigkeit und der Transparenz der Europäischen Union hinaus. Das Europäische Parlament wird sich daher mit keinem Ergebnis zufrieden geben, das nicht im Interesse der Europäischen Union und ihrer Bürgerinnen und Bürger ist. Herr Ministerpräsident, mit gutem Willen – davon bin ich überzeugt – ist nicht nur ein Zugehen aufeinander, sondern auch ein Ergebnis möglich.

Signor Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri della Repubblica italiana, a lei la parola.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Romano Prodi, Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri italiano. Signor Presidente, onorevoli deputati, ci troviamo in un momento cruciale per il futuro dell’Europa e della costruzione europea: è con questa consapevolezza, e non senza emozione, che mi rivolgo a voi oggi. Ringrazio il Presidente Hans Gert Poettering per questa opportunità.

Da qui alle elezioni del 2009 l’Europa si gioca il proprio futuro. Fra un mese, il Consiglio europeo delibererà l’avvio di una Conferenza intergovernativa al termine della quale dovremo poter dire di essere stati all’altezza degli impegni che ci siamo assunti, tutti insieme, il 25 marzo scorso a Berlino.

Si tratta di decidere di cosa ha bisogno l’Europa, di cosa abbiamo bisogno tutti noi, per poter affrontare le sfide che il mondo ci impone. Sembra una questione astratta, invece è molto concreta. Ormai dovremmo aver capito che la capacità di noi europei di interpretare il mondo globale e coglierne le opportunità dipende da come sapremo far funzionare le nostre istituzioni comuni.

Permettetemi di dire subito con molta franchezza che non condivido quanti continuano a opporre la necessità di produrre risultati alla necessità di rafforzare le istituzioni europee. E’ proprio per avere più risultati che io auspico e mi batto da sempre per istituzioni comuni più forti ed efficaci!

Questa volta non partiamo da zero. Non abbiamo insomma da re-inventare qualcosa di nuovo. Nell’ottobre del 2004 i paesi europei hanno tutti sottoscritto un trattato e 18 paesi lo hanno addirittura ratificato. In questi ultimi due anni sono state ascoltate soprattutto le ragioni di chi esita. E’ venuto ora il momento di ascoltare chi quel trattato del 2004 lo ha ratificato. Chi si è impegnato, anche di fronte ai propri cittadini, a continuare quel percorso.

Un percorso iniziato alcuni anni prima, a Laeken, che si era snodato partendo da un assunto fondamentale e ineccepibile: che l’Europa non potesse avere risultati ambiziosi senza riforme altrettanto ambiziose.

Ebbene, io sono convinto che quell’assunto resti valido. E che quindi occorra ripartire dall’ottobre del 2004, archiviando i lutti e le pause di riflessione degli ultimi due anni e pensando con serietà e responsabilità al nostro futuro e a quello dei nostri figli.

Non si tratta solo di accordarci sulle nuove regole che ci occorrono. Ci sono altre esigenze egualmente prioritarie, senza cui l’Europa non potrà funzionare: un bilancio degno di questo nome e delle vere politiche sulle grandi sfide imposte dalla contemporaneità: energia, cambiamenti climatici, divario Nord-Sud… Ma partiamo oggi dalla questione più urgente, quella di superare l’impasse costituzionale e riformare le istituzioni.

Per riuscirci è indispensabile tener fede a un principio che è alla base del nostro stare nell’Unione europea. Un principio talmente fondamentale che definisce l’etica stessa del nostro stare assieme.

E’ quello secondo il quale nello sviluppo della costruzione europea occorre sempre fare uno sforzo per comprendere le ragioni degli altri, farsene in qualche modo carico. Noi questo sforzo lo abbiamo sempre fatto e continueremo a farlo.

Ma ci aspettiamo dagli “altri” eguale comprensione. Ci aspettiamo che questi altri si facciano egualmente carico delle nostre aspirazioni. Che in questo caso, lo sapete bene tutti, sono quelle di chi vuole una unione sempre più stretta.

E’ con in mente questo principio che noi faremo ogni sforzo per aiutare le Presidenze tedesca e portoghese a preservare il massimo delle nostre ambizioni di unione, tenendo in massimo conto le ragioni degli altri.

Fatte queste premesse, vorrei dire ora cosa a mio avviso non ci possiamo permettere al Consiglio europeo di giugno e alla Conferenza intergovernativa che seguirà.

Innanzitutto, ricordiamoci che questa volta il rispetto dei tempi è direttamente collegato a una questione di democrazia. Nel 2009 gli elettori europei dovranno infatti sapere su quale tipo di Europa sono chiamati a pronunciarsi. Che ruolo avrà il Parlamento europeo. Quali saranno i suoi compiti. Se ci sarà una Presidenza del Consiglio stabile, un ministro degli Esteri europeo. Come sarà formata la Commissione e così via…

Il mandato della Conferenza intergovernativa dovrà perciò essere preciso e selettivo. Indicando puntualmente i pochi nodi negoziali significativi e, soprattutto, come scioglierli. Solo così riusciremo a onorare la promessa di definire le nuove regole entro il 2009.

Con un mandato aperto, la Conferenza difficilmente si chiuderebbe per la fine del 2007, e i tempi per i passaggi a livello nazionale del nuovo accordo non permetterebbero di completare il processo per i primi mesi del 2009. L’impasse sarebbe insomma automatica.

Permettetemi a questo punto una considerazione. Una considerazione che mi viene spontanea dopo aver riletto proprio in questi giorni il trattato costituzionale del 2004 - vorrei invitare tutti a rivederlo ora che è passato del tempo e che è possibile un maggior distacco.

Ebbene, quello del 2004 è un testo bello. Bello davvero. Con un grande respiro europeo. Che soprattutto nella prima parte trasmette in modo chiaro e comprensibile il senso e la visione della grande impresa comune che abbiamo intrapreso.

Pensiamoci dunque due volte prima di archiviarlo e imboccare la via degli innesti a pettine, totali o parziali che siano, nei trattati esistenti. Perderemmo oltre tutto un patrimonio di semplicità e leggibilità a scapito della comprensione dei cittadini e, quindi, della loro adesione al progetto europeo!

Ma soprattutto perderemmo un testo che corrisponde a una coerente concezione dell’Europa, un testo che sa coniugare le aspirazioni ideali di molti di noi con l’esigenza - pratica e avvertita da tutti - di dare alla nostra Unione regole più solide e mezzi adeguati per far fronte alle nuove sfide.

Lo svolgimento dei negoziati sino a questo momento mi induce a ritenere che purtroppo noi dovremo rimettere mano al testo del 2004. E tuttavia vorrei fare stato qui oggi di fronte a tutti voi della mia convinzione che nel farlo ci priveremmo di qualcosa di molto importante! E che per noi che crediamo al progetto europeo si tratterebbe di un sacrificio enorme, di un prezzo molto alto da pagare per quanti hanno ratificato e investito democraticamente nella ratifica. Teniamolo ben presente.

Per questo noi non potremo accettare uno stravolgimento del pacchetto istituzionale esistente. Il rafforzamento della politica estera e di sicurezza comune attraverso un ministro degli Esteri, una Presidenza stabile del Consiglio, l’estensione del voto a maggioranza qualificata, il superamento della struttura su tre pilastri e la personalità giuridica dell’Unione sono tutti aspetti per noi essenziali, che vanno salvaguardati.

Vorrei qui mettere in guardia contro certi appelli al “realismo” tipici della vigilia di un Consiglio europeo importante, immancabilmente orientati a compromessi al ribasso. Vorrei invece osservare che se è vero che le grandi sfide globali possono essere affrontate solo a livello europeo, allora l’unico autentico realismo è quello di chi vuole un’Europa all’altezza di queste sfide, non di chi non la vuole!

Sul piano interno penso alla difesa del modello sociale europeo e alla realizzazione di un autentico spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia. Come non vedere che si tratta di un completamento indispensabile per una cittadinanza europea che non si riconosce nella sola dimensione economica?

Sul piano esterno penso alle guerre, alla lotta al terrorismo internazionale, alle sfide globali dell’energia e del cambiamento climatico (idrogeno). Come negare che l’unico modo per far valere sulla scena internazionale le nostre scelte e i nostri valori sia quello di saper esprimere una politica estera degna di questo nome, comunicandola al mondo con una voce sola?

Per quanto riguarda poi la struttura dell’Unione europea, non crediate che sia una questione solo teorica. La complessità dell’Unione è tra le prime cause della distanza che la separa dai cittadini. Come non vedere allora i vantaggi di un superamento della struttura in pilastri, soprattutto in termini di chiarezza e comprensione da parte dei cittadini?

Su questi punti il trattato costituzionale de 2004 fornisce risposte convincenti. Vogliamo veramente sacrificarle in nome di un approccio al ribasso, di una corsa al minimo comun denominatore? Vogliamo davvero rischiare di aumentare la complessità del sistema rinunciando a incidere su di esso in profondità e limitandoci a qualche ritocco di superficie? Vogliamo davvero continuare ad avanzare “col volto mascherato”, per usare l’espressione di Delors, per il timore di mostrare l’Europa vera ai nostri cittadini?

E allora, care deputate e deputati, rappresentanti dei cittadini europei, cerchiamo di non assecondare la retorica negativa sull’Europa. Non continuiamo a nasconderla ai nostri concittadini.

Mostriamola invece questa Europa. Con orgoglio. Facciamo vedere a tutti cosa ha saputo darci in termini di pace e benessere, spieghiamo quanto è fondamentale per le nostre esistenze. Diciamo una volta per tutte ai nostri concittadini che in un mondo che è oramai sistema di continenti non ha senso per uno Stato e per i suoi cittadini vivere al di fuori di un aggregato politico ed economico forte al suo interno e autorevole all’esterno.

L’Italia dunque lavorerà in questo negoziato per giungere a un compromesso alto. Sono convinto che ce la possiamo fare, che ce la dobbiamo fare tutti insieme.

Certo, se un’intesa a 27 dovesse rivelarsi impossibile, allora si porrebbe il problema di come procedere. E questo dilemma potrà essere risolto solo richiamando quel principio fondamentale di cui parlavo all’inizio del mio intervento: è l’etica stessa dell’Unione a imporre che nessuno comprima troppo e per troppo tempo le aspirazioni di altri.

Per questo l’Italia - Paese che da sempre crede profondamente all’Europa - ritiene di avere oggi un dovere in più. Quello di immaginare, o cominciare a immaginare, come permettere ai Paesi che lo desiderino di andare avanti davvero nella costruzione dell’unità dell’Europa.

Credo che non si debba necessariamente procedere tutti insieme, alla stessa velocità. Mi auguro e farò in modo che sia così. Ma mi rendo conto che non è sempre possibile. Già oggi d’altra parte alcune delle scelte politiche più significative dell’Europa, come l’Euro e la creazione dello spazio Schengen, sono state realizzate solo da alcuni Stati membri. Non contro qualcuno; senza escludere gli altri; mantenendo anzi la porta aperta. Ed è stata una scelta rispettata da quanti a suo tempo non si sentirono ancora pronti per andare subito verso una certa direzione.

Ecco, io auspico che anche in futuro prevalga questo stesso approccio costruttivo. E che abbia la meglio su ogni tentazione di veto.

L’Italia ha sempre ritenuto, lo sapete, che essere europeisti fosse il miglior modo di essere lungimiranti.

Ma oggi lungimiranza non significa solo disegnare scenari ambiziosi per il futuro della costruzione europea. Significa anche porsi il problema di permettere ai popoli che lo desiderano di realizzare le loro ambizioni di unione nei tempi e nei modi a essi più congeniali.

Se nessuno si farà mai carico di ipotizzare anche una simile eventualità, rischiamo l’insabbiamento del progetto europeo, di frustrare gli ideali di quanti sin qui ci hanno creduto profondamente. Persino paesi come il mio, che per 50 anni hanno investito senza riserve nella costruzione europea, potrebbero alla fine esaurire la propria carica vitale.

Voglio quindi concludere con un doppio messaggio.

L’Italia darà il massimo appoggio alla Presidenza tedesca e poi a quella portoghese perché il Consiglio europeo del 21 e 22 giugno e la Conferenza intergovernativa che seguirà, siano un successo in cui tutti i Paesi membri possano riconoscersi.

Allo stesso tempo, l’Italia sa bene che un compromesso non è un fine in se stesso. E che se quindi un tale compromesso non dovesse convincerci, noi non lo sottoscriveremmo. Un’avanguardia di Paesi potrebbe a quel punto rivelarsi il modo migliore per proseguire il percorso verso una Unione sempre più stretta, a condizione che sia sempre lasciata la porta aperta a chi volesse entrare a farne parte in un momento successivo.

Permettetemi infine di lanciare un appello forte ai parlamentari, ai rappresentanti diretti dei cittadini. Mi rivolgo soprattutto ai parlamentari europei che rappresentano il popolo europeo. Il vostro è un ruolo insostituibile per far comprendere ai cittadini qual è la posta in gioco.

Solo se al lavoro dei governi si affiancherà il vostro lavoro, potremo creare le condizioni per il successo del negoziato costituzionale.

Dobbiamo essere consapevoli che non possiamo fallire, pena il declino. Il declino di un’idea avanzata di Europa; di un’Europa che sa essere attore nel mondo grazie ai valori che ne costituiscono le fondamenta. Rischieremmo insomma di tornare ad essere la piccola appendice occidentale del continente asiatico cui ci condannerebbe non solo la geografia, ma anche la storia futura. Grazie.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Der Präsident. Herr Ministerpräsident Prodi, wir danken Ihnen herzlich für diesen überzeugenden europäischen Beitrag. Ich hoffe, dass alle ihn hören.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Joseph Daul, au nom du groupe PPE-DE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président en exercice du Conseil, Madame la Vice-présidente de la Commission, Monsieur le Président du Conseil italien, chers collègues, nous assistons à l'accélération du processus de construction européenne. Qu'il s'agisse de la relance institutionnelle, de la nouvelle dynamique insufflée par Angela Merkel sur le climat, l'énergie, ou de la mise en place d'une politique commune de l'immigration. L'Europe avance. L'Europe montre qu'elle constitue un niveau de décision nécessaire, efficace, mais aussi légitime. Monsieur Prodi, vous nous avez fait part de votre vision, de votre conception des affaires européennes. À travers vous, je veux saluer l'engagement historique, et plus que jamais d'actualité, du peuple italien en faveur du projet d'intégration européenne.

Après une longue phase d'incertitude, la relance institutionnelle se précise. La Présidence allemande a raison d'en faire l'une de ses priorités. Si l'Europe est en état de décider de façon efficace et démocratique, nous pourrons décider utilement de politiques communes. Aller vite et permettre à l'Europe d'avancer, c'est ce à quoi le candidat de l'UMP, Nicolas Sarkozy, s'est engagé et c'est le mandat que le peuple français a donné au nouveau Président de la République française.

Cette dynamique portée par un État membre qui a dit "non" au projet de traité, est d'ores et déjà soutenue par plusieurs autres États membres de l'Union et doit être mise à profit pour aller de l'avant. Le temps n'est plus aux interrogations. Ce qu'il nous faut à présent, c'est de l'action et de la flexibilité. Quatre semaines seulement nous séparent du Conseil européen, crucial, des 21 et 22 juin, qui doit aboutir à la rédaction d'ici à la fin de l'année d'un nouveau traité. Sa ratification par les vingt-sept pourra intervenir avant les élections européennes de 2009. L'action va de pair avec la flexibilité car il faut jeter les ponts entre les dix-huit pays, comme vous l'avez dit, qui ont dit "oui"; les deux qui ont dit "non" et ceux qui ne se sont pas encore prononcés. Chacun devra faire des efforts de rapprochement, de pédagogie auprès de ses opinions publiques. Il n'y aura de succès que si l'on cesse de s'arc-bouter sur des questions sémantiques pour se concentrer sur l'essentiel. Vote à la double majorité, extension du vote à la majorité qualifiée, principe de subsidiarité et répartition des compétences entre l'Union et les États membres, présidence stable, représentation commune sur la scène internationale, mais aussi Charte des droits fondamentaux.

Pour les députés européens de la famille PPE, ce dont l'Europe a besoin, c'est de constituer une force politique et de devenir un acteur autonome sur le plan mondial. L'Europe a besoin d'une identité sur le plan économique et commercial pour garantir que nos partenaires respectent les mêmes règles que nous, dans les domaines fiscal, environnemental ou social. L'Europe doit veiller à ce que, en son sein-même, n'existe pas de concurrence déloyale entre les États membres, en particulier dans le domaine fiscal.

Monsieur le Président et chers collègues, nous sommes sur la bonne voie, ce qui doit prévaloir, c'est le sens de la responsabilité et de l'intérêt général de la part des dirigeants politiques et des opinions publiques. Tout en restant fermes sur nos idéaux et nos principes, ceux-ci ne seront bien servis que si le pragmatisme l'emporte sur le dogmatisme. et si la bonne volonté est plus forte que la mauvaise foi et le laisser-aller.

Monsieur le Président, je voudrais brièvement évoquer ici le récent sommet Union européenne-Russie de Samara. Beaucoup de commentateurs l'ont considéré comme un échec pour l'Europe. Pour mon groupe, l'Europe est, bien au contraire, sortie gagnante de ce sommet. Gagnante, non pas contre la Russie, qui est un partenaire que nous respectons, mais gagnante dans l'affirmation de nos convictions et de nos idéaux. Nous sommes satisfaits car, sur le statut du Kosovo, sur l'énergie, mais aussi sur la question de la souveraineté de l'Estonie, nos dirigeants ont hissé le drapeau européen et se sont exprimés d'une voix forte et intelligible.

Monsieur le Président du Conseil italien, je conclurai sur ces propos en disant combien pour notre groupe parlementaire, la dimension euroméditerranéenne est capitale. C'est en Méditerranée que se jouera la réussite ou l'échec de notre aventure européenne. Investir dans les relations avec le bassin Méditerranée, miser sur le développement d'une région dotée d'un potentiel humain si important, oeuvrer pour la paix et la stabilité au Proche-Orient, rien n'est pour nous, Européens, aussi stratégique.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Der Präsident. Vielen Dank Joseph Daul, auch für die überpräzise Einhaltung der Redezeit.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Martin Schulz, im Namen der PSE-Fraktion. Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren, lieber Herr Ministerpräsident Prodi! Vielen Dank für Ihre ermutigende Rede, der ich als Vorsitzender meiner Fraktion nichts hinzuzufügen habe. Das, was Sie vorgetragen haben, ist die Meinung meiner Fraktion. Wir danken Ihnen für die Klarheit Ihrer Worte.

Wenn Sie mit dieser Klarheit in die Verhandlungen gehen, ist uns nicht bange. Es ist uns deshalb nicht bange, weil wir zumindest einen starken Regierungschef in dieser Regierungskonferenz haben werden, der nicht bereit ist, einen Kompromiss um jeden Preis zu schließen. Einen Kompromiss, der die Substanz dessen aufgeben würde, was wir in der Verfassung erarbeitet haben, wäre kein Kompromiss, sondern eine Niederlage für das europäische Einigungswerk. Deshalb danke für Ihr klares Bekenntnis.

(Beifall)

Mein Kollege Poul Nyrup Rasmussen hatte die Gelegenheit, in Nizza mit am Tisch zu sitzen und den Vertrag von Nizza mit auszuhandeln. Ich habe oft Gelegenheit, mit ihm darüber zu diskutieren. Als die 15 Regierungschefs in Nizza den Saal verließen, haben alle gesagt, dass dieses Ergebnis nicht reiche. Denn es handelte sich um einen dieser Minimalkompromisse, der geschlossen wurde, damit nicht noch mehr Regierungschefs einschlafen.

Das war der Grund, weshalb der Konvent einberufen wurde, weil diejenigen, die in Nizza zusammen saßen, gesagt haben: Für die Erweiterung reicht das nicht. Aber die Erweiterung kommt und wenn wir die Erweiterung meistern wollen, brauchen wir eine andere Vertragsgrundlage. Also haben sie widerwillig unserer Forderung nach einem Konvent zugestimmt. Denn sie wussten: Was wir 15 verhandelt haben, reicht nicht für 27. Dann hat man eine Verfassung angenommen – sie haben gesagt, der Text ist gut – ja, dem stimme ich zu. Es war eine gute Verfassung. Nun wurde sie abgelehnt und wir sind zurückgeworfen worden auf den Vertrag von Nizza. Aber ich stelle folgende Frage: Ist das, was im Jahr 2000 richtig war, nämlich dass Nizza nicht für die Erweiterung reicht, im Jahr 2007 falsch? Nein, Nizza reicht nicht für die Erweiterung, aber wir haben auf der Grundlage eines unzureichenden Vertrages bereits erweitert.

Wer die Europäische Union in diesem Zustand lassen will, der will sie zerstören! Das ist der Wunsch derjenigen, die um keinen Preis einen neuen Vertrag wollen. Und denen dürfen wir keinen Platz geben.

(Beifall)

Manche sagen: Nizza minus, Nizza ist uns noch zu viel. Heute habe ich einen Regierungschef gehört, der gesagt hat, dass es mit diesen Leuten keinen Kompromiss geben kann. Wer hinter Nizza zurückgehen will, der sollte besser erst gar nicht zur Regierungskonferenz fahren. Es ist nun an der Zeit, Klartext zu reden. 18 der Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union haben diesen Verfassungsvertrag bereits ratifiziert. Davon haben zwei Mitgliedstaaten ihn per Referendum ratifiziert, nämlich Spanien und Luxemburg. Warum erlauben wir eigentlich, dass immer nur über Frankreich und die Niederlande geredet wird? Warum sagen wir nicht, dass in Europa zwei Völker diesem Vertrag zugestimmt haben, es haben übrigens mehr Europäerinnen und Europäer mit Ja für die Verfassung gestimmt, als mit Nein dagegen. Auch das ist eine Wahrheit der europäischen Demokratie, die an dieser Stelle ausgesprochen werden sollte.

Herr Präsident, die Europäische Union ist ein Erfolgsmodell des Friedens nach innen, der sozialen Stabilität, der Kombination von wirtschaftlichem Wachstum und sozialer Stabilität und des Exports von Werten als Grundlage der Politik in den internationalen Bereich. Wer dieses Erfolgsmodell bewahren will, der muss an den bestehenden Vertragsgrundlagen viel verändern. Der italienische Schriftsteller Tomasi di Lampedusa lässt in seinem Roman „Der Leopard“ den Neffen Tancredi zum Fürsten von Salina den schönen Satz sagen: Alles muss sich ändern, damit alles bleibt, wie es ist! Wenn Europa so erfolgreich bleiben will, wie es ist, dann muss es seine vertraglichen Grundlagen ändern, und wenn Sie kämpfen wie ein Leopard, dann kämpfen wir mit Ihnen.

(Beifall)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, on behalf of my group I should like to welcome Mr Prodi back to Parliament.

Prime Minister, 50 years after the Treaty of Rome was signed, you have returned Italy to its rightful place at the heart of Europe, and at the heart of the European project. With President Napolitano you have turned the osservato speciale into a partner speciale. Your cabinet, with names like Bonino, Amato and Padoa-Schioppa, fills my colleagues and me with confidence.

We hear some criticisms of your first year in government, but we recall the faint hearts who made similarly dismissive remarks about your first year at the Commission. They were proven wrong. Enlargement, the euro: these are the jewels in Europe’s crown, so we will judge a government on its results, not on first appearances. It was Italy which, while others hesitated, led the European Union force into Lebanon, and Italy which pressed for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty. You showed the world that Europe can have the vision and the capacity to act in unison for the good of all.

We must seize that vision, for Europe’s future strength lies not in insulating itself against injustices, but in confronting the forces of pain and misery and destruction in the world beyond our borders. On our own continent we have healed the hurts of nations. Our interest now, indeed perhaps our survival, depends on exporting in the next 50 years the domestic achievements of the last. Global challenges like climate change, population growth and nuclear proliferation highlight what you have called ‘the inadequacy of unilateralism’. The world needs global mechanisms to create consensus on these matters.

And the model? None is better than our Community method, tried and tested over 50 years. And yet, even as Europe comes of age on the international stage, some are seeking to divide us from within. What should we say to the eurosceptics who say that the European Union is no longer fit for service, or that the European dream is menaced by globalisation, or that integration threatens national identity? They listen, but they do not hear. Mr Prodi, you wisely followed the advice of Cavour, who told us that he had discovered how to deceive diplomats. He said, ‘I tell them the truth, and they never believe me’.

As you told us in Berlin, marking Europe’s 50th birthday:

"Per creare abbiamo bisogno di buon senso, di pazienza, di fede, ma anche di un pizzico di follia."

A grain of folly, of self-belief, as well as grit and determination are indeed needed to face the future. For now is not the time for apathy or egocentrism. Our leaders must be bold: more Europe, not less, is the key to competitiveness; more Europe, not less, is the key to security; more Europe, not less Europe, is the key to a just world. That is why it is vital to reach an institutional settlement at next month’s intergovernmental conference. Only stronger institutions can build a stronger Europe.

Mr Prodi, it was Leonardo da Vinci, your compatriot, who taught us:

"Non si volta chi a stella è fisso".

Thank you for holding true to your vision.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Cristiana Muscardini, a nome del gruppo UEN. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'urgenza è approvare il nuovo trattato. Un'urgenza che va di pari passo con la necessità di semplificare, di rendere l'Unione più comprensibile ai cittadini. Ma banalizzare le difficoltà che esistono e sono la radice dei dubbi, che fino ad oggi hanno impedito di trovare il consenso, non è certo la strada.

Il Presidente del Consiglio italiano, già Presidente della Commissione, non può non essere consapevole che a proposte fumose e generiche corrispondono risposte fumose e inconcludenti, proprio il contrario di ciò che vogliono i cittadini. Il possibilismo che apre mille strade, ma non ne porta a compimento nessuna, specie quando le strade sono le stesse, che da più di dieci anni sentiamo proporre e poi abbandonare.

La crisi è evidente e non banale e perciò necessita di soluzioni adeguate ai tempi sempre più stretti e per questo gli sforzi del Cancelliere tedesco, le dichiarazioni del Presidente Sarkozy hanno ridato speranza a noi europeisti. Noi cerchiamo ciò che è realizzabile, non ciò che è impossibile! Crediamo che il compromesso, quando è alto e onorevole, sia alla base della politica. Quando si parla di "no ai compromessi" è perché si sono già fatti compromessi di poca importanza e di poco valore etico.

Se la crisi è evidente, si abbandonino i progetti non realizzabili in tempi brevi e si consolidi invece quanto trova immediato consenso: maggiore agibilità delle nostre istituzioni; maggiore applicazione della sussidiarietà; politica comune per le frontiere; il terrorismo; rilancio dell'economia e della competitività per la realizzazione senza più tentennamenti delle infrastrutture necessarie specie in tema di mobilità; politica energetica comune; difesa del patto sociale; regole chiare che impediscono la concorrenza sleale con una posizione più forte dell'Unione nell'OMC; armonizzazione delle legislazioni penali per quanto riguarda i reati di violenza contro l'infanzia.

I cittadini non possono avere fiducia in capi di governo che a Strasburgo delineano l'Europa con parole semplici e nel loro paese non realizzano i progetti che l'Europa ha approvato. Strasburgo chiede una politica estera comune, non che facciamo i solisti come è avvenuto in Afghanistan. Diminuisce la fiducia dei cittadini, quando la sicurezza delle frontiere non è garantita, per una confusa contraddittoria politica sull'immigrazione. I primi a subirne danno sono gli immigrati regolari. La TAV, approvata in tutte le sedi comunitarie, è bloccata per divergenze in sede al governo italiano e parimenti è fermo lo sviluppo.

Signor Presidente, io credo che quando ci si rivolge dicendo "l'importante ruolo dei parlamentari europei" dobbiamo anche cercare in tutti i paesi, compreso il nostro, di ricordare che a tutt'oggi i membri della Convenzione europea, i membri italiani, non sono stati mai chiamati per avere uno scambio di idee e per dare il loro contributo. Anche questo ha significato! Meno parole e più fatti!!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monica Frassoni, a nome del gruppo Verts/ALE. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il gruppo dei Verdi/Alleanza libera europea le dà il benvenuto, Presidente Prodi, in quest'Aula, anche perché ultimamente non sono purtroppo così frequenti i discorsi convintamene impegnati a favore di una soluzione alta della crisi costituzionale. Temiamo, tra l'altro, che domani il Primo ministro olandese sarà e dirà tutt'altra musica.

Comprendere le ragioni degli altri, va bene, ma l'esperienza ci insegna che sono quasi sempre le ragioni dei contrari a vincere. Che alla fine anche i governi più pro-europei come il suo, si sono via via piegati alle ragioni di coloro che vedono nella dimensione intergovernativa e nel rapporto di forza di Stati, la vera dimensione del governo europeo. E' stato così a Maastricht, ad Amsterdam e a Nizza. Lei ha detto che il suo governo non accetterà compromessi al ribasso, lo speriamo, perché in molte occasioni i precedenti non sono stati proprio esaltanti.

Ai Verdi non piacciono i ricatti, i conflitti e le rotture. Ci piacerebbe molto un'Europa armoniosa, innovativa e veramente sostenibile e unita, l'Europa a 27 è un grandissimo risultato. Ma siamo chiari: i ricatti fino adesso li hanno fatti soltanto coloro che hanno voluto frenare la soluzione della crisi costituzionale e questa è una realtà che non può passare sotto silenzio. Perfino la maggioranza di questo Parlamento ha rinunciato negli ultimi mesi e negli ultimi anni a fare una qualsiasi proposta un po' audace nell'attesa di un'iniziativa dei governi.

Riteniamo che ci siano due o tre condizioni che potranno permettere, Presidente, di uscire da questa impasse e noi speriamo veramente che il governo italiano sia convintamene dalla nostra parte in questo. Ci dovrà essere una forte alleanza fra i 18 paesi che hanno ratificato questo Parlamento, la Commissione, alcuni parlamenti nazionali, per resistere alla tendenza allo smantellamento del trattato costituzionale.

Lei ha fatto una lista di alcuni temi e io vorrei aggiungerne almeno due: uno, è la questione della Carta dei diritti fondamentali, l'altra è il tema della riforma della clausola di revisione. Non è più possibile andare avanti così, con un trattato adottato sempre all'unanimità e lasciando fuori il Parlamento europeo.

La seconda condizione è che bisogna, dovete voi governi, avere il coraggio di parlare all'opinione pubblica delle scelte da fare, delle divisioni che esistono fra di voi, sul futuro dell'Europa e a cercare il loro sostegno. Non vi nascondete in misteriosi negoziati segreti. Non buttate fuori questo Parlamento dalla riforma sulla Costituzione europea della Conferenza intergovernativa che si prepara, anche perché l'esperienza dimostra che nei segreti dei negoziati intergovernativi, vincono gli altri.

Noi, e concludo Presidente, non abbiamo paura della discussione sul nocciolo duro, anche se non ci piace. Anzi, pensiamo che soltanto mettendo alcuni governi e alcuni popoli di fronte alla scelta dentro o fuori, alla fine decideranno di stare con noi.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Francis Wurtz, au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Monsieur le Président, trois brèves remarques. La première ne concerne pas directement M. Prodi mais les fameuses douze questions posées par la Présidence du Conseil aux chefs d'État et de gouvernement. L'une d'entre elles est rédigée comme suit, je la cite: "Que pensez-vous de la proposition de changer la terminologie sans toutefois modifier la substance juridique, par exemple, en ce qui concerne le nom du traité?". Comment voulez-vous que le citoyen qui lit cela ne se dise pas que les dirigeants européens le prennent pour un benêt, pour ne pas dire autre chose?

Plus fondamentalement, M. Prodi vient de souligner que les électeurs européens doivent savoir quel va être le rôle du Parlement européen, s'il y aura ou non une présidence stable au Conseil européen et un ministre des Affaires étrangères européen, et comment sera constituée la Commission. Toutes ces questions sont en effet importantes. Mais n'entendez-vous pas d'autres interrogations autour de vous s'exprimer avec bien plus de force et de prégnance et auxquelles aucun d'entre vous ne répond jamais. Par exemple: même des économistes libéraux se demandent où risque de nous conduire, dans le contexte mondial actuel, une politique de libre-échange sans entraves associée à une libre circulation des capitaux, à une liberté absolue de délocaliser les moyens de production et à une égale liberté de mouvements des investisseurs étrangers, y compris les plus prédateurs. Quels changements proposez-vous à cet égard pour l'acquis communautaire?

D'autres voix, et non des moindres, s'élèvent contre la guerre fiscale que se livrent les États membres, ou bien pour un changement de statut de la Banque centrale européenne ou encore pour une politique industrielle volontariste dans les secteurs clés de l'économie moderne hors des règles de la libre concurrence. Quelle rupture avec l'existant estimez-vous souhaitable ou acceptable de ce point de vue? L'Europe doit-elle être une affaire de marché ou une affaire de politique face aux marchés? Dans quelle mesure la démocratie s'arrête-t-elle là où commence l'économie de marché ouverte où la concurrence est libre? Ces questions sont sur la table. Qu'en pensez-vous?

Un dernier mot à l'adresse de M. Barroso, absent aujourd'hui, qui s'est réjoui de ce que, selon lui, le oui l'a emporté lors des élections françaises. C'est un contresens. Certes, le nouveau Président français est un adepte du oui. Voilà pourquoi il craignait comme vous un nouveau référendum. Mais les engagements qu'il a dû prendre sur l'Europe pour faire passer son refus de consulter à nouveau les citoyens en disent long sur la profondeur persistante des aspirations antilibérales dans ce pays. Et nous saurons en particulier lui rappeler son discours de référence en la matière prononcé le 21 février ici-même à Strasbourg et intitulé "Je veux que l'Europe change". La vraie question est bien celle-ci: hormis les innovations institutionnelles, à quels changements êtes-vous prêt?

(Applaudissements)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, once again back in this Chamber and in his usual rousing style, Mr Prodi has confirmed his belief in a United States of Europe and the fact that we should speak with one voice on the world stage. Mr Prodi, whilst I may disagree with those views, I have at least to compliment your honesty in saying things in the way that you do. I am surprised you had to time to come, given that in Italy you have had 38 Prime Ministers in the last 60 years and it looks as though you may well be on the verge of the 39th. We are indeed very privileged that you have come along today.

When you tell us that security is so important – this ‘drive towards closer cooperation’ as you call it – particularly on the day when the British police announced that charges are to be laid in the case of the former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko, who was recently murdered in London, I wonder whether we really want your style of justice, given that Mario Scaramella, who tried to warn Mr Litvinenko of what was going to happen to him, has now languished in an Italian jail for six months. The charges against him keep changing and he has not actually faced a court. If you are suggesting we give up common law and habeas corpus for that sort of European system, my answer to you is no, thank you very much indeed.

Let us have a real debate, Mr President. Mr Schulz: 16 countries have approved the European Constitution, not 18, so please can we have some truth, some honesty and some openness and please can we not push on and totally ignore the French and Dutch referendum results. Mr Prodi did not even refer to that in his speech.

People have said no. Tens of millions of Europeans are saying ‘Give us, the people, a say in our future’. Stop behaving like a bulldozer, stop sweeping aside public opinion. By all means have your Treaty, but let the people decide on their future. Do not impose it upon them.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean-Marie Le Pen, au nom du groupe ITS. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Premier ministre, les eurocrates de la Commission et du Conseil ont dû pousser un immense soupir de soulagement le soir du 22 avril: pour eux, Royal ou Sarkozy, UMP ou PS, c'était la garantie que la Constitution européenne, pourtant rejetée massivement par deux peuples en 2005, allait être remise sur les rails, au mépris de la démocratie. L'un et l'autre étaient des candidats, et des élus, idéaux. Comme M. Bayrou, d'ailleurs.

Sarkozy comme Royal feignent de croire, comme vous-mêmes, que les Français n'ont rejeté que les politiques de Bruxelles, alors qu'ils ont rejeté également cette partie institutionnelle, que l'on veut aujourd'hui nous refiler en douce, à savoir le ministre unique des Affaires étrangères – ce ministre unique qui, s'il avait existé, nous aurait tous impliqués dans la guerre d'Irak –, le pseudo-président élu, la Commission réduite à des fonctionnaires issus de quelques États, la communautarisation de toutes les politiques, qui prive les États de tout droit de veto, bref, le super-État européen, bureaucratique et omnipotent.

À vos yeux, il valait même mieux que Sarkozy soit élu, plutôt que Royal, puisque le premier entend faire ratifier la Constitution par le Parlement, là où la seconde prétendait avoir quelque considération pour l'expression de la volonté populaire.

Après la nomination aux affaires européennes d'un ministre et d'un secrétaire d'État socialistes et à peine la passation de pouvoirs terminée entre l'ancien et le nouveau Président de la République, M. Sarkozy s'est précipité à Berlin confirmer la ratification par la voie parlementaire, son attachement au super-État européen et sa volonté de n'être que le gouverneur d'une province européenne. La chancelière allemande peut être rassurée: grâce à M. Sarkozy, sa présidence de l'Europe sera un succès! Elle pourra présenter en juin une feuille de route de relance du processus constitutionnel et de mise à mort des nations et de la souveraineté des peuples.

Élu par 53% des Français, M. Sarkozy trahit déjà les aspirations d'une bonne partie d'entre eux, et notamment des 55% de citoyens, de droite comme de gauche, qui ont voté "non" en mai 2005.

(Interrompu, l'orateur se tourne vers M. Schulz:"Qu'est-ce que vous avez, Monsieur Schulz, vous êtes malade?", puis se ravise: "Ah oui, c'est vous, Monsieur Cohn-Bendit, allez donc faire de la pédagogie chez les petits enfants!")

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Der Präsident. Herr Kollege Le Pen, bei den Abstimmungen geht es einmal so und einmal so. Darüber könnte doch keiner besser berichten als Sie.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jana Bobošíková (NI). – Dámy a pánové, Evropská ústava měla posílit potenciál Unie jako globálního světového hráče, ale co se stalo? Vznikl nesrozumitelný dokument, jehož schvalování se sociálním inženýrům zcela vymklo z rukou. Občané dvou zemí řekli jasné ne. Vznikl nespravedlivý dokument, který už řadu let odpoutává pozornost politiků od skutečných problémů, zanáší zbytečné spory dovnitř Unie a potvrzuje slova, že Unie je malá. Nikoliv geograficky, ale myšlenkovým rozměrem svých leaderů, kteří nedokáží přijmout neúspěch projektu a navrhnout občanům projekt jiný. Hlavy států chodí kolem horké kaše namísto, aby na rovinu řekli: v Římě jsme před třemi lety podepsali text, který občané odmítli. Je to slepá ulička a musíme jít jinou cestou.

Budoucnost Evropy jako globálního hráče neohrožuje nepřijetí současné Ústavy. Ohrožuje ji odtržení politiků od reálného života a zbytečné diskuse o mrtvém textu. Občané jednotlivých států stále méně rozumějí řeči evropských institucí a jejich představitelů. A globální partneři těží v unijní nejednotnosti a sebestřednosti jejich leaderů.

Jsem přesvědčená, že Evropská unie potřebuje reformu institucí a nový sjednocující dokument, který by jasně vymezil pravomoci Unie a jednotlivých států. Smlouvu, která bude stručná, srozumitelná, spravedlivá, a tudíž pro občany přijatelná, a hlavně smlouvu, která nebude jen doplněnou nebo ořezanou verzí odmítnuté Ústavy. Domnívám se, že v rukách jednotlivých států by měly zůstat penzijní, daňová, zdravotní, sociální, kulturní, justiční a jaderná politika. Pokud jde o ostatní politiky, nutně musí být předmětem diskuse. Řada z nás v životě i v politice zažila neúspěch, teď se to stalo propagátorům Evropské ústavy. Měli by překonat svou ješitnost a prohru si přiznat. A měli by co nejdříve začít jednat o zcela nové smlouvě. Od červnového summitu a německého a portugalského předsednictví takový realizmus očekávám. Jen tak posílíme důvěru v evropský projekt, před občany Unie i v globální ekonomice a politice.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Romano Prodi, Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri italiano. Signor Presidente, onorevoli deputati, vi ringrazio molto di questo dibattito, come tutti i dibattiti in questo Parlamento è stato breve, costruttivo e franco. Ha messo in rilievo posizioni molto diverse fra di loro riguardo al futuro dell'Unione europea. Se sentiamo alcuni degli interventi finali, anche posizioni inconciliabili.

Certo questo problema va affrontato, discusso, portato avanti in modo democratico, aperto, come sempre avviene e come sempre è avvenuto nell'ambito di questo Parlamento. Proprio questo mi ha spinto a fare il discorso iniziale; proprio per regolare questa grande diversità, questa larghezza di opinioni, dobbiamo avere regole che ci permettano di gestire l'Unione europea, che tutti noi abbiamo avuto.

Stiamo dimenticando il lungo cammino che abbiamo fatto nell'organizzare il trattato costituzionale; dimentichiamo i 18 mesi della Convenzione, i dibattiti, il coinvolgimento dei parlamenti nazionali, del Parlamento europeo. Dimentichiamo che non è stato un dibattito chiuso. Si è arrivati però a un risultato, riprendo le parole dell'onorevole Muscardini: "ma, attenzione che in politica bisogna arrivare ad un compromesso, un compromesso alto". Bene, il progetto di Costituzione era già un compromesso!

Come Presidente della Commissione europea ho sofferto per alcune grandi spinte in avanti che sono mancate in quel trattato. Abbiamo voluto questo compromesso, perché capivano, proprio per realismo della politica, che non si può avere tutto! Che la nostra idea di Europa era ancora più forte, ma che in quel momento le circostanze storiche permettevano questo.

E' stato sottoscritto da tutti i paesi dell'Unione, anche da Londra, con la responsabilità dei governi dell'Unione. Adesso, si viene a dire che questo trattato è nato così, da una piccola stanza e fuori dalla volontà dei popoli. E' nato dai rappresentanti del popolo! E' stato sottoscritto dai governi eletti dal popolo! Questo è quello che è avvenuto! Chiaramente possiamo ancora cercare il compromesso, perché nella nostra vita abbiamo sempre cercato il compromesso, ma non si può con il compromesso deludere e annullare il progetto dell'Europa.

Questo è il limite invalicabile che ci siamo posti ed è per questo motivo che ho fatto un discorso in cui ho delineato i punti fondamentali dai quali non si può recedere: sono i punti della volontà popolare, il problema dei pilastri, il problema del ministro degli Esteri! Ma come, ma abbiamo vergogna a chiamare chi ci rappresenta ministro degli Esteri? Chiamatelo pure segretario di Stato, se volete, per usare la terminologia anglosassone. Ma di cosa abbiamo paura! Ma non ci rendiamo conto di quanto è costato in questi anni non avere un ministro degli Esteri! Non ci rendiamo conto di cosa non abbiamo potuto fare nel Medio Oriente, in tutte le zone vicine. Come abbiamo lasciato che la situazione politica si deteriorasse, per le nostre divisioni!

E' questa la irresponsabilità con cui andiamo noi di fronte alla storia? Ecco, guardate, in questi giorni si gioca quest'ultimo aspetto della nostra unità politica, l'ultimo aspetto della nostra capacità di rappresentare l'Europa nel mondo. E se non lo capiamo adesso, quando sarà? Ho lasciato quel banco della Commissione da poco tempo, da un paio di anni o poco più! Ebbene, i rapporti di forza nel mondo: la Cina, l'India, l'Asia, il problema di un'Europa che non è stata capace di parlare a questi grandi popoli e non è stata capace di parlare da pari a pari agli Stati Uniti d'America, convincerla!

Questo non è abbastanza per pesare sul nostro futuro? Vogliamo continuare a non contare niente anche per un'intera prossima generazione? Questa è la domanda che io vi pongo di fronte alla Conferenza intergovernativa, di fronte al Consiglio europeo. Non mi pongo altre domande! Mi pongo il senso della responsabilità dell'Europa, di fronte alla storia, di fronte alla vita nostra e dei nostri figli.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Der Präsident. Herzlichen Dank, Ministerpräsident Prodi! Der Beifall drückt aus, was das Europäische Parlament denkt.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, dopo mesi di difficoltà, l'iniziativa del Cancelliere Merkel e le elezioni di Nicolas Sarkozy alla presidenza della Repubblica francese hanno offerto nuove speranze all'Europa. Malgrado ulteriori resistenze, ora c'è la reale possibilità di dar vita ad un nuovo trattato che sancisca le regole di un'istituzione assolutamente originale quale l'Unione europea! E' evidente, purtroppo, che il testo frutto del lavoro così ben diretto dalla presidenza italiana, guidata da Silvio Berlusconi e firmato a Roma, non potrà più entrare in vigore.

Se però si vuole che l'Europa svolga il ruolo che le compete sul palcoscenico internazionale, si dovrà salvare la sostanza del trattato. Penso al principio delle decisioni prese a maggioranza su alcune importanti questioni, penso all'unica voce in politica estera, penso alla durata della Presidenza. Approvare un testo ridotto rappresenta soltanto un primo passo in avanti. Certo, l'ottimo è il nemico del bene, però è importante continuare a percorrere la strada intrapresa e decidere prima delle europee del 2009. Magari, pensando al domani, alla nuova legislatura di questo Parlamento che potrebbe avere anche un ruolo costituente come suggerito da molti, a cominciare dal presidente della commissione giuridica on. Gargani e dall'on. Brunetta.

Ma l'Europa a 27 non ha solo bisogno di regole istituzionali per meglio funzionare. Ha bisogno di riconoscersi nei valori che ne costituiscono la vera base, le fondamenta sulle quali costruire un'Unione che in futuro non si dissolva di fronte alle difficoltà. Sarebbe un errore non fare della libertà, della solidarietà, della sussidiarietà, della centralità della persona i cardini delle istituzioni comunitarie. Sarebbe un grave errore rinunciare alla nostra identità, alle nostre radici giudaico-cristiane e ad un modello sociale fondato sulla famiglia, quella composta dal padre, dalla madre e dai figli.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gianni Pittella (PSE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il collega Tajani mette in campo argomenti che non hanno nulla a che fare con l'argomento odierno, mentre abbiamo ascoltato invece parole chiare, forti e determinate dal Presidente Prodi, la quali danno all'Italia la guida dell'integrazione europea e danno più forza al Parlamento europeo, sempre all'avanguardia nella battaglia per le riforme costituzionali dell'Unione.

Sono state parole chiarissime su un punto nevralgico: si deve ripartire dal progetto di Costituzione ratificato dai 18 e non da Nizza. Bisogna dare un mandato chiuso, non un mandato aperto, alla Conferenza intergovernativa! Non si può definire morto un progetto di Costituzione che è stato accolto dalla stragrande maggioranza dei cittadini e che dà risposte precise, altro che fumosità on. Muscardini! Le ha elencate Prodi, le risposte precise nella sua introduzione e nella sua replica!

Senza Costituzione, caro compagno Wurtz, l'Unione europea è più debole e maggiore è il rischio del declino verso una pura area di libero scambio. Ecco perché a volte non capisco certe posizioni della sinistra più radicate! Dopo il discorso del Presidente Prodi, il Parlamento e tutti noi siamo più confortati e più forti e vivremo la nuova fase con maggiore determinazione e maggiore tenacia.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bronisław Geremek (ALDE). – Dziękuję Panie Przewodniczący! Chciałem przede wszystkim wyrazić radość, że premier Romano Prodi jest człowiekiem, który nie jest zmęczony Europą. Jeden z filozofów powiedział kiedyś, że największym zagrożeniem dla Europy jest zmęczenie. Chciałbym przypomnieć, że premier Romano Prodi, gdy był przewodniczącym Komisji Europejskiej, podjął trudne zadanie rozszerzenia Unii Europejskiej. I czynił to często wbrew głosom mediów, czy wbrew głosom opinii publicznej, czy części opinii publicznej. Dlatego, że myślał o przyszłości Europy.

Ja bym chciał, żeby takie samo przekonanie towarzyszyło teraz myśleniu o przyszłości Europy. Jest nas tu wiele w tej sali, którzy myślą, że Unia Europejska potrzebuje teraz mądrej reformy instytucjonalnej. Staje przed nami jednak pytanie: na ile metoda wspólnotowa, o której pan premier mówił jako o tym mechanizmie, który Unię Europejską popycha do przodu, o ile metoda wspólnotowa jest obecna w działaniu Rady Europejskiej. A więc w działaniu przedstawicieli rządów. Pan premier Prodi był w jednym ciele, w Komisji Europejskiej, i jest w drugim, w Radzie Europejskiej. Obserwator zewnętrzny ma czasem wrażenie, że pojawia się tutaj jako pierwsze i główne odniesienie egoizm narodowy, a nie myślenie w kategoriach wspólnego interesu.

I to jest kwestia, która, wydaje mi się, jest szczególnie istotna. Jeżeli w Parlamencie Europejskim będzie poczucie znaczenia wspólnoty, jeżeli jest ono w Komisji Europejskiej – co uczynić, ażeby Rada Europejska do tego się dostosowała.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Roberta Angelilli (UEN). – Signor Presidente del Consiglio italiano, faccio il mio intervento a nome del gruppo UEN il quale, mi fa piacere ricordarlo al Presidente Prodi, rappresenta la quarta forza politica del Parlamento europeo. Voglio ribadirlo con forza: l'Europa ci sta a cuore! Il presidente del partito che rappresento, l'on. Fini, nella Convenzione è stato tra coloro che hanno contribuito con entusiasmo all'attuale progetto di Costituzione. Più in generale, noi italiani abbiamo una lunga e ininterrotta tradizione europeista, non possiamo perciò non sostenere l'appello lanciato qualche mese fa proprio in quest'Aula anche dal Presidente della Repubblica italiana Napolitano, il quale chiedeva di approvare al più presto la Costituzione.

Questa Costituzione è necessaria anche per avere una politica estera comune. L'ha detto bene, signor Presidente del Consiglio, una politica estera comune di cui tanto sentiamo la mancanza, soprattutto in questo momento di crisi internazionale.

Colgo l'occasione a tal proposito per rivolgere un ringraziamento a tutti coloro, a partire dai circa 8000 italiani impegnati nel mondo nelle missioni di pace, in particolare in Afghanistan, in Libano e in Palestina. Missioni importanti e fortemente sostenute da tutte le forze politiche italiane, seppur ad onor del vero, onorevole Prodi, con qualche imbarazzante eccezione nella sua maggioranza di governo.

Ma voglio ritornare alla Costituzione con un rammarico e un auspicio. Il rammarico è che non sia stato possibile menzionare nel testo le sue radici cristiane; l'auspicio è che si raggiunga l'obiettivo di una rapida approvazione della Costituzione. Sono convinta che l'Italia come al solito saprà fare bene la sua parte.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Johannes Voggenhuber (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Wo bleibt Romano Prodi? Wie oft habe ich mir diese Frage in den letzten Monaten gestellt? Wo bleiben die Regierungen, die die Verfassung verteidigen? Herr Ministerpräsident, heute habe ich Sie wieder gefunden! Auf den Barrikaden habe ich Romano Prodi wieder gefunden – spät, aber doch. Sie haben den Konsens beschworen, Sie sind herausgetreten aus der Riege der Regierungen, die die historische Verantwortung für Europa jeden Tag gegen Kleingeld wechseln.

Herr Ministerpräsident, Sie haben gesagt, wir müssen die Argumente der anderen respektieren. Da möchte ich Sie fragen: Wer sind die anderen? Wenn es die Bürgerinnen und Bürger Europas sind, auch die, die nein gesagt haben, dann habe ich keine Bange. Wir wissen, was sie wollen: mehr Demokratie, mehr Transparenz, mehr soziale Verantwortung, ein besseres Europa, eine überzeugendere Verfassung. Oder sind die anderen die Regierungen, die die Krise des Ratifikationsprozesses missbrauchen, um uns mit ihren alten Begehrlichkeiten zu traktieren, mit ihren alten Machtansprüchen, mit all dem, was wir ihnen im Konvent abgerungen haben, die die Unzufriedenheit der Bürger mit Absicht auf Europa lenken, um ihre Macht über Europa ohne europäische Demokratie, ohne soziale Dimension und ohne eine gemeinsame Rolle in der Welt zu behalten – denen es um die alten Machtkämpfe einer Fronde geht: das Europa der Staatskanzleien gegen das Europa der Bürger.

Sie haben davon gesprochen, dass wir Kompromisse brauchen. Auch darin liegt eine sehr brisante Frage. Der Kompromiss, der in den 12 Fragen aufleuchtet, ist der Kompromiss als historische Lüge über Europa. Denn es gilt auch, Herr Ministerpräsident – und ich danke Ihnen besonders dafür, dass Sie das sichtbar gemacht haben –, nicht nur den Inhalt, sondern auch den Geist der Verfassung zu erhalten. Wenn wir sagen, Gesetze heißen nicht mehr Gesetze, sondern Verordnungen, dann nehmen wir den Menschen den Anspruch auf demokratische Legitimation, denn Gesetz bleibt es ja, materiell gesehen. Wenn wir das Primat des europäischen Rechts leugnen, ist das falsch, denn es bleibt ja im Unterirdischen bestehen und der Außenminister bleibt das, was wir wollten. Nein, der Kompromiss kann kein Bluff und keine Lüge sein. Wir haben auch um den Geist der Verfassung zu kämpfen!

(Beifall)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Roberto Musacchio (GUE/NGL). – Caro Presidente Prodi, proprio perché ho per l'Europa la sua stessa passione, sono convinto che per rilanciare il processo costituente occorra un nuovo slancio che si fondi su democrazia e diritti. Sono sempre più convinto che la logica intergovernativa non rappresenti la soluzione ai problemi, ma parte di essa e, che ci fa rischiare il minitrattato o anche le due velocità.

Sono i cittadini e i parlamenti a dover riprendere la guida con un nuovo mandato costituente affidato a un Parlamento europeo che abbia queste funzioni, per un nuovo testo, per un referendum europeo; per cambiare testo e contesto.

Occorre che al centro siano con chiarezza diritti esigibili che caratterizzino la cittadinanza europea. Diritto al lavoro e del lavoro che sanciscano che per l'Europa è normale un lavoro stabile e di qualità e non quello tutto precario che si sta elaborando con la flessicurezza!

Occorre un diritto certo all'ambiente, che richiede politiche innovative, fondate sulla cooperazione, visioni multipolari come quelle che devono portare alla ratifica del dopo Kioto e non le mere logiche della competizione commerciale!

Occorre un diritto alla pace che nasca dal ripudio della guerra e da una politica dell'Unione che si fondi su questi valori e li pratichi attivamente come propria politica estera!

Occorre una nuova Europa, la sola possibile ma sempre più necessaria. Dal popolo con i parlamenti la possiamo costruire!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paul Marie Coûteaux (IND/DEM). – Monsieur le Président, il y a deux ans presque jour pour jour, le non français condamnait à mort la Constitution européenne. Il y eut ensuite la confirmation des Pays-Bas, celle de la Grande-Bretagne, puis les refus tchèque et polonais. Il y eut aussi le peu d'empressement des deux seuls pays qui ont dit oui par référendum, le Luxembourg et l'Espagne. Ainsi, en Espagne, seulement 32 % des électeurs inscrits ont approuvé le texte. Bref, c'était l'échec, puis l'enlisement du processus constitutionnel, échec duquel nous sommes principalement redevables à la France.

Dès lors, tout fut clair pour nous, souverainistes français, au nom desquels je parle ici: c'est la France qu'il fallait circonvenir, les Français qu'il fallait tromper! Eh bien, ce fut fait, par une ruse gigantesque. Lors de la présidentielle, deux candidats furent présélectionnés d'entrée de jeu, pour que, une fois l'un d'entre eux élu et fort alors d'une fraîche légitimité, il dise oui là où les Français ont voulu dire non. C'est le sens de l'insupportable geste de M. Sarkozy se précipitant chez Mme Merkel le jour même de son intronisation.

Il faut que l'on sache que ce oui arraché à la France par le détour présidentiel est un oui illégitime. Je sais très bien que l'on va s'arranger entre soi, dans le petit aquarium silencieux et grouillant des oligarchies bruxelloises, pour concocter un nouveau texte, que l'on ne baptisera certainement pas constitution mais réforme institutionnelle, ce qui revient au même.

Cependant, les partisans du non ne sont pas morts. Que M. Barroso ne s'y trompe pas, et ne vous y trompez pas davantage, Monsieur Prodi: la France donnera tôt ou tard de nouveau de la voix car la France, envers et contre tout, tient à ses libertés. Et ces libertés-là, les libertés nationales, finiront bien, malgré vos pauvres manigances, par triompher.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Koenraad Dillen (ITS). – Voorzitter, eerste minister, meer dan wie ook in Europa kent u het functioneren van de Europese instellingen. Door uw vroegere functie als voorzitter van de Commissie bent u dan ook goed geplaatst om te weten waarom de Europese burgers vandaag het huidige Europa meer en meer de rug toekeren. Bureaucratie, overreglementering, geen enkel respect voor het subsidiariteitsbeginsel, politieke correctheid, geen respect voor de christelijke erfenis van Europa en de obsessie om het islamitische Turkije toe te laten tot de EU hebben ervoor gezorgd dat de meeste Europeanen het Europese ideaal van de founding fathers vandaag gelijkstellen met een opdringerige superstaat die niet meer luistert naar de wil van de burgers.

Wij hebben de laatste jaren enkele frappante voorbeelden van de opzettelijke doofheid van het officiële Europa gekregen. In Frankrijk en Nederland hebben de burgers in een democratisch referendum "nee" tegen de Europese superstaat gezegd. Niettemin gaat het Duitse voorzitterschap gewoon door op de ingeslagen weg. Voor Angela Merkel, en ik vrees ook voor u als lid van de Europese Raad, telt de wil van de bevolking niet. Alle opiniepeilingen wijzen ook uit dat de Europeanen wel bevriend willen zijn met de Turken, maar niet willen dat een niet-Europees en islamitisch land lid wordt van onze Unie. En ook daar gaat men verder op de ingeslagen weg.

Maar maakt u zich geen illusies. Deze weigering om naar de noden en verzuchtingen van de Europeanen te luisteren, zal zich bij een volgende gelegenheid opnieuw tegen het officiële Europa keren, en dan moet men niet komen klagen, mocht de burger weer eens "fout" stemmen, zoals dat heet.

Tenslotte nog dit, meneer de eerste minister, de regering van mijn land heeft zich de voorbije week te schande gemaakt door om commerciële redenen een bezoek van de Dalai Lama aan België te verbieden. Niemand wil China voor het hoofd stoten. Erst das Fressen und dan die Moral heet het dan. Ik hoop dan ook dat u binnen de Europese Raad het woord zult nemen om deze laffe houding van uw regering, die graag de mond vol heeft over mensenrechten, maar als het erop aankomt de eigen economische belangen laat primeren, op de korrel te nemen en België in deze zaak te veroordelen. Als het Europa menens is met de verdediging van de mensenrechten, moet het ook de hypocrisie van sommige lidstaten durven veroordelen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Der Präsident. Herr Kollege Dillen, Sie haben mich persönlich angesprochen. Ich habe gestern schon hier vor dem Plenum Stellung genommen. Ich werde es niemandem gestatten, ein Gespräch zwischen dem Dalai Lama und dem Präsidenten des Europäischen Parlaments zu verhindern. Es ist ein Brief auf dem Weg. Ich erwarte darauf eine Antwort und werde mich zum geeigneten Zeitpunkt wieder dazu äußern.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Irena Belohorská (NI). – Vážený pán premiér Prodi, dovoľte mi privítať Vás.

Ste politik, ktorý má bohaté skúsenosti s riadením národného štátu, ako aj Európskej komisie, na čele ktorej ste stáli. Chcem zdôrazniť, že pre úspešnú budúcnosť Európskej únie je nevyhnutné prijať ústavnú zmluvu.

Nedávno sme oslávili 50. výročie podpisu Rímskych zmlúv. Toto číslo samé o sebe hovorí, že odvtedy sa veľa zmenilo a že stále platné zmluvy potrebujú zmenu. Európske spoločenstvo malo vtedy 6 štátov a bolo skôr ekonomickým zoskupením. Dnes má Európska únia 27 členov, z toho 12 patrí medzi krajiny s bývalým komunistickým režimom. Tvár Európskej únie je dnes teda veľmi odlišná od tej v roku 1957.

50 rokov staré zmluvy sú neprehľadné, komplikovane napísané a dá sa povedať, že prežité. Javí sa nám ako nevyhnuté prijať nový ústavný dokument, nové jasné pravidlá hry. Je potrebné si uvedomiť, že reformy, ktoré nám ústavná zmluva ponúka, ako napr. právna subjektivita, záväzné zakotvenie základných ľudských práv, generálny prokurátor, reforma inštitúcií, reforma legislatívneho procesu, to všetko sú zmeny, ktoré môžu Európsku úniu posunúť ďalej. Je najvyšší čas skončiť toto obdobie reflexie a prejsť k obdobiu akcie.

Vážený pán premiér Prodi, chcem sa Vám poďakovať za to, že ste verili Slovensku, keď sa dalo na cestu, o ktorej ste hovorili, že bude dlhá. Slovensko je mladý, nový členský štát Európskej únie a verí Vám, ako verí aj Taliansku a Európskej únii, ktorá zmení svoje pravidlá hry.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE). – Mr President, Prime Minister, today we are once again debating constitutions and institutions when the citizens of Europe are really more interested in jobs, prosperity, the environment and global poverty.

It is a myth that the European Union is in a crisis or paralysed and incapable of taking decisions, and this is the pretext that some governments are using to demand that the Constitution should be back on the table. I know that you, Prime Minister, believe this as well.

It is not a constitutional crisis. Even the British Government has said that the EU is able to take decisions based on current treaties, and the period of reflection following the French and Dutch ‘no’ votes should, in my view, have been used to take a long, hard look at the reasons for the rejection of the constitution. Instead, the discussions now seem solely focused on what parts of it can be kept at all costs.

As someone who believes in my nation’s membership of the European Union and the potential for good that Europe possesses, I am saddened by this debate. I have always believed there was a need to simplify and make more transparent the decision-making processes and institutions of Europe, as the Laeken Declaration envisaged. The enlargement of the EU may indeed require some amendments to existing treaties or new treaties from time to time, but I cannot accept that this Constitution is required, nor is it desirable at this moment.

There is no doubt that the British people will demand a referendum on any new treaty that might propose additional powers for the EU, and my party would support that. We will watch with great interest the actions of the British Government in the weeks to come. Mr Blair will attend the Brussels Summit on the very eve of his retirement and he must not commit his successor in his absence. Gordon Brown should insist that he attend the summit alongside Tony Blair and take full responsibility for whatever his Government signs up to.

I hope that this kind of realism will guide Mr Brown’s actions in the difficult times that lie immediately ahead.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. Thank you, Mr Kirkhope. My information is that the British Prime Minister has close contact with Gordon Brown!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – Herr Präsident! Herr Ministerpräsident Prodi, es ist sehr gut, Sie hier in diesem Haus zu haben – als Person, die sehr viel für Europa gemacht hat, insbesondere aber natürlich auch als Ministerpräsident.

Romano Prodi hat über die Außenpolitik gesprochen. Ich bin ihm sehr dankbar dafür. Es gibt viele in diesem Haus, die gerade jetzt sagen, wir brauchen eine gemeinsame Haltung gegenüber Russland. Auf der anderen Seite gibt es viele, die sagen, wir dürfen Amerika nicht dominieren lassen. Wir brauchen ein starkes Europa. Gemeinsam sagen wir, Indien, China und Brasilien werden immer stärker, können wir da unsere Interessen noch durchsetzen? Wir haben das Nahost-Problem, das wir in Kürze diskutieren werden. Die Frau Kommissarin ist schon da. Wie sollen wir denn einen europäischen Beitrag zu all dem liefern, wenn wir keine gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik haben? Wie sollen wir eine gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik haben, wenn wir nicht in Zukunft eine klare Persönlichkeit haben, die all diese Belange nach außen vertreten kann und auch Ansprechpartner dafür ist?

Herr Ministerpräsident, bleiben Sie insbesondere in dieser Frage hart! Ich gebe Ihnen völlig Recht: Nicht jeder Vertrag ist ein guter Vertrag. Wir brauchen einen Vertrag, der eine Minimumschwelle überschreitet und Europa wirklich voranbringt. Alles Gute, Herr Ministerpräsident!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lapo Pistelli (ALDE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, c'era uno slogan nel '68 che diceva "Siate realisti, chiedete l'impossibile", oggi dovremmo dire "Siate realisti, chiedete ciò che è necessario per non affondare questo progetto europeo di cui tutti voi siete custodi temporanei". Se nel 2009 il Parlamento europeo si ripresentasse a rinnovo senza una convincente risposta istituzionale, l'Europa tutta affronterebbe una crisi di illegittimità irrimediabile, mentre, al contrario, i cittadini devono potere oggi scegliere su un modello chiaro come lei lo ha definito.

Il Parlamento si è pronunciato molte volte su questo tema e la parola adesso è al Consiglio. Sappia il Presidente Prodi che egli oggi qui non rappresenta solo il proprio paese, ma tutti quegli europeisti che non hanno ammainato le vele di una maggiore integrazione.

Per concludere ricordo una cosa: chi non condivide oggi, si chiami pure fuori; gli altri possono andare avanti liberamente. Ricordiamoci che l'Europa è nata da un'avanguardia di paesi e non è detto che domani essa possa essere rilanciata proprio con lo stesso metodo.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mario Borghezio (UEN). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il Presidente Prodi si presenta da noi come ex Presidente della Commissione europea con un bilancio tutto negativo: allargamento, euro, Cina, riforme; sembra il bilancio dell'IRI! Perché oggi, per esempio, lei non ha avuto il coraggio di venire a parlare, visto che è così entusiasta della Costituzione europea superfederalista, dei cambiamenti istituzionali nel nostro paese. Quando si vuole decidere a concedere il federalismo che chiede da tanto tempo il Nord? E' una questione di libertà e anche di coerenza politica!

L'on. Schulz l'ha paragonata al Gattopardo. Sembra una gaffe ma invece ha centrato perfettamente. Solo un grande Gattopardo come lei riesce a governare con partiti politici che hanno l'insegna della falce e martello quando ha fatto l'allargamento ai paesi che si sono liberati dal comunismo e, riesce addirittura a governare, pur rappresentando soltanto un terzo del nostro paese.

Guardi che dal cielo, Sturzo e De Gasperi ci guardano e forse si vergognano di quei rappresentanti nel nostro paese che si sono dimenticati dell'impegno dei padri fondatori per un'Europa dei popoli e delle regioni, non delle lobby. Il suo orizzonte spirituale, Presidente Prodi è quello della Goldman Sachs, non quello dei campanili e delle cattedrali, come pensiamo noi.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur Prodi, notre ambition est de continuer la construction européenne. Certes, nous avons raté une marche. En votant non au traité constitutionnel, beaucoup de Français pensaient faire barrage à une Europe libérale et espéraient, ainsi, influer, pour faire avancer une Europe sociale et écologique. Or, ici, nous le savions, c'est l'inverse qui s'est produit. Les non ont condamné nos institutions à l'immobilisme, et je partage la vision du président Prodi lorsqu'il demande de ne pas jeter le bébé avec l'eau du bain.

L'Europe a besoin d'une constitution et le compromis obtenu par la Convention est à reprendre et à améliorer. Ainsi, si par mini-traité, comme le présente le nouveau Président français, on entend le compromis constitutionnel et la Charte des droits fondamentaux, ce sera oui, oui à un ministre des Affaires étrangères. Mais, Monsieur Prodi, que pèsera ce ministre sans politique étrangère européenne véritable?

Oui, Monsieur Prodi, il faudra encore améliorer le traité. Si ce devait être un traité au rabais et une ratification en catimini, ce serait inacceptable. L'avenir de l'Europe, c'est l'affaire des Européennes et des Européens. Alors, oui à un référendum européen, au même moment, dans les vingt-sept pays et, pourquoi pas, lors des prochaines échéances européennes!

Oui, pour que l'Europe puisse faire face aux enjeux d'aujourd'hui – je pense au changement climatique – qui transformeront radicalement nos vies. Je suis persuadée que nos concitoyens comprennent ces enjeux et sauront faire avancer ce formidable projet européen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Umberto Guidoni (GUE/NGL). – Presidente Prodi, onorevoli colleghi, il processo di approvazione della Costituzione europea non può ridursi a una serie di emendamenti dei trattati esistenti, deve contenere aspetti sociali importanti ora non presenti! L'Europa deve essere capace di affrontare le grandi sfide che mettono a rischio i diritti dei cittadini, la qualità della vita, la salute e il futuro stesso della popolazione.

Di fronte a fenomeni come la delocalizzazione, l'esaurimento delle risorse idriche, la fame di energia nel mondo e i cambiamenti climatici, i singoli Stati sono inermi, incapaci di formulare strategie vincenti. Solo con un'azione concordata a livello continentale, e ancor più planetario, si può sperare in un successo che non possiamo mancare.

E' importante che l'Europa sia all'avanguardia nel mondo, sia dal punto di vista politico, come polo di riferimento di politiche sociali inclusive, di una politica dell'accoglienza che sia di modello per le altre parti del mondo, sia sul versante delle scelte tecnologiche e sulle ipotesi del futuro, in particolare nel settore delle energie sostenibili.

Cinque membri dei principali gruppi politici presenti nel Parlamento europeo hanno firmato una dichiarazione scritta sulla necessità che l'Europa imbocchi una via nuova sull'economia, basata sull'idrogeno: una vera rivoluzione industriale, tecnologica e sociale, sostenibile nel lungo periodo. Lei lo ha accennato e credo che questo sia uno degli esempi in cui l'Europa può e deve giocare un ruolo di attore principale nello scacchiere mondiale.

In conclusione, non c'è bisogno di un compromesso a tutti i costi, bisogna affrontare i problemi reali che riguardano milioni di cittadini. Solo così il sogno di un'Europa unita saprà parlare al cuore degli europei.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Γεώργιος Καρατζαφέρης (IND/DEM). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, καιρός είναι να σταματήσουμε τη νεκρολογία για το νεκρό ήδη ευρωπαϊκό Σύνταγμα. Ας βγούμε στην κοινωνία για να δούμε τις ανάγκες της Ευρώπης:

- Εκατό εκατομμύρια Ευρωπαίοι ζουν κάτω από το όριο της φτώχιας.

- Η εγκληματικότητα καλπάζει σε όλες τις πρωτεύουσες της Ευρώπης.

- Οι λαθρομετανάστες κυριαρχούν.

Έχουμε βεβαίως μια μεγάλη δοκιμασία στα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα από ορατές και αόρατες κάμερες.

Κύριε Prodi, ήσασταν Πρόεδρος της Ευρώπης για πέντε χρόνια. Πείτε μου, ποια είναι τα ανατολικά σύνορα της Ευρώπης; Εχθές μόλις, δύο υποβρύχια πλήρως εξοπλισμένα ήταν δυτικά της νήσου Σάμου κοντά στη Μύκονο. Τί θα συμβεί αύριο το πρωί; Η σπίθα του πολέμου από την Τουρκία είναι εμφανής.

Πρέπει λοιπόν να πάρετε πρωτοβουλίες για το μέλλον της Ευρώπης. Γιατί, διαφορετικά, αυτή η ενωμένη Ευρώπη θα έχει την τύχη που είχε η Ιερά Συμμαχία πριν από δύο αιώνες.

Δεν είναι το ζητούμενο να στήσουμε ένα υπερκράτος. Το ζητούμενο είναι να μπορέσουμε να διαφυλάξουμε τη Δημοκρατία και να διαφυλάξουμε την ευημερία των λαών η οποία βάλλεται και προσβάλλεται βαναύσως από το κεφάλαιο και από την Κεντρική Τράπεζα. Αυτός πρέπει να είναι ο στόχος της Ευρώπης: ο πολίτης και όχι το κεφάλαιο να αυξήσει τη δύναμή του.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  József Szájer (PPE-DE). – Az Európai Unió kritikusai nagyon gyakran azzal bírálják az Európai Uniót, hogy túl erős, túl sok mindenbe beleavatkozik. Meggyőződésem, hogy éppen a fordítottja igaz. Mi, akik újonnan csatlakoztunk az Európai Unióhoz, azt látjuk, hogy egy erősebb, cselekvőképesebb Európára van szükség, egy olyan Európára, amelynek az eszközei a feladatai megvalósításához rendelkezésre állnak. Ehhez közös energiapolitikára van szükség, közös bevándorlási politikára, a terrorizmus elleni közös küzdelemre és a környezetvédelem összehangolására.

Minderre azért van szükség, hogy az Európai Unió négy alapszabadságát megvédelmezzük és megnyerjük az állampolgárok támogatását is mindehhez. Nagyon sokan úgy néznek erre az alkotmányra, mintha az végcél lenne. Valójában helyére kell tennünk a dolgokat, és az alkotmányos szerződés valójában nem más, mint egy eszköz ezen célok megvalósításához.

Az európai polgárok támogatását az alkotmányos projekthez akkor tudjuk visszaszerezni, hogyha Európa képes lesz ezeknek a közös céloknak a megvalósítására. Ehhez persze arra is óriási szükség van, hogy Európa kereszténységen alapuló közös gyökereit nyíltan elismerjük, és ez megjelenjen az európai alkotmányban. Szükség van arra, hogy megvalljuk Európa közös értékeit a szabadságjogok tekintetében, a kisebbségek jogainak védelme tekintetében. Meg kell nyernünk Európa polgárainak támogatását ehhez az alkotmányos szerződéshez, de nem mint végcélhoz, hanem mint egy eszközhöz, amellyel a közösen, ötven éve kitűzött célokat el tudjuk érni.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (PSE). – Mr President, Prime Minister, anyone who heard the American President saying at the press conference after the summit with the European Union that ‘we have had a nice meeting with these people from the European Union’ would wonder whether he was thinking about Mr Barroso, Chancellor Angela Merkel, or who? Anyone who saw or heard the American President could be in no doubt that we need one voice for the European Union, and that is why we thank you for your clarity in your speech today. Anyone who has been to the Middle East is also in no doubt that we need one voice for the European Union.

That is why, Prime Minister Prodi, it is one thing to speak in the European Parliament – we all know that, as this is not the most difficult place to argue for a better treaty – but it is another to speak in the IGC, when the hard stuff comes and it is face to face.

I know you are a strong and firm Prime Minister. We respect you. Stand firm, Prime Minister, and we will stand firm with you, on behalf of the European Socialists and progressives all around Europe. I think you will have a strong majority behind you standing firm together with you for the benefit of European people in the future.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. And that was the experience of a former prime minister who is now an MEP.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marco Cappato (ALDE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il futuro dell'Europa è nelle sue radici, per noi radicali sono rappresentate dal manifesto di Ventotene, che indicava la necessità di conquistare pace, democrazia e benessere superando la dimensione dello Stato nazionale.

Riformare l'Europa oggi significa offrire questo progetto anche ai popoli dell'altra parte, sull'altra sponda del Mediterraneo, affermando anche per loro il diritto individuale alla democrazia attraverso l'adesione degli Stati democratici a partire dalla Turchia, ma con la prospettiva anche di Israele, del Marocco e di altri. Lei ha parlato di avanguardia, per noi sarà avanguardia solo quella che non chiuderà le porte dell'Europa.

Altro punto: proponiamo che qualsiasi riforma da fare sia sottoposta al voto referendario del popolo europeo in quanto tale. Non referendum nazionali, ma un unico referendum sottoposto ai cittadini della patria europea contro l'Europa neogollista delle patrie nazionali.

Per concludere, salutiamo un esempio di come possiamo, come Unione, essere forti quando abbiamo fiducia in noi stessi: la presentazione della risoluzione sulla moratoria dell'esecuzione capitali all'Assemblea generale in corso alle Nazioni Unite. Attenzione, però Presidente, al sabotaggio che alcuni ancora stanno tentando ora. Ad esempio, si guardi la comunicazione ufficiale del CAGRE e della burocrazia del Consiglio. Dopo l'ultimo CAGRE significa che si sta tentando questo sabotaggio, Presidente, cerchiamo di impedirlo.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Genowefa Grabowska (PSE). – Dziękuję Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Premierze! Koleżanki i Koledzy! Jest oczywiste, że potrzebujemy Unii Europejskiej skutecznej i uporządkowanej, demokratycznej i bliskiej obywatelom, solidarnej i opartej na traktacie konstytucyjnym. Takiej unii, jaką Pan, Panie Premierze, nam dzisiaj nakreślił. Za to dziękuję.

Chcę także w tej chwili podziękować za solidarność, jaką Unia Europejska okazała ostatnio mojemu krajowi, Polsce, w realizacji polityki wschodniej. Społeczeństwo polskie widzi to i docenia. Społeczeństwo polskie rozumie, że potrzeba odwzajemnienia takiej samej solidarności w sprawach ważnych dla całej Europy jest oczywista. Dzieje się tak dlatego, że 68 % moich rodaków jest zadowolonych z członkostwa w Unii i chce więcej Europy. A ponad 60 % chce traktatu konstytucyjnego.

I dlatego apeluję do Pana, Panie Premierze, aby Rada Europejska na najbliższym szczycie wsłuchiwała się także w głosy obywateli Unii Europejskiej, bo przecież to dla nich, a nie dla rządów, budujemy ten gmach, który nazywa się Unia Europejska.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Der Präsident. Wir bedanken uns beim italienischen Ministerpräsidenten! Sie haben gesehen, dass die große Mehrheit des Europäischen Parlaments Ihre Überzeugungen teilt. Es wird in den nächsten Wochen darum gehen, dass wir diese Überzeugung durchsetzen. Wir wünschen Ihnen dabei viel Erfolg, besonders auf dem Gipfeltreffen heute in einem Monat, am 21. und 22. Juni in Brüssel.

Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

(Beifall)

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 142)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Richard Corbett (PSE), in writing. – As elected politicians, we must listen to the people – all the people. Some, such as Mr Farage, want to listen only to some of the people, those who voted ‘No’ in France and the Netherlands. Others want to listen only to those who said ‘Yes’ in the 18 countries which have ratified the Constitutional Treaty.

Fortunately, a majority in this House and of the governments of the Member States want to listen to all, to bridge the divergence of views and find a solution capable of being ratified by all 27 Member States.

Of course, the European Parliament, which approved the constitutional treaty by a large majority, wants to salvage as many as possible of the reforms contained in the constitutional treaty. It is perfectly natural that Parliament should want to sacrifice as little of the treaty as possible, but it must also be as much as is necessary to secure agreement by every country.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexandra Dobolyi (PSE), írásban. – Mit is jelent számunkra Európa? Egy határok nélküli közösséget, mely a békén, szabadságon és demokrácián nyugszik, törekedve az abban élő polgárok jólétének előmozdítására, megvalósítva a tagállamok közötti szolidaritást.

Nagy kihívások előtt állunk! Ki kell jelölnünk Európa számára a megfelelő cselekvési irányt, amely meghatározza majdani működési kereteit, politikáját és azt az Európát, amelyben a jövőben élni és boldogulni szeretnénk. Fontos, hogy megőrizzük és továbbadhassuk a jövő generációi számára azt az egységet, amelyet évtizedek alatt sikerült megvalósítanunk kitartó munka eredményeképpen.

Fontosnak tartom, hogy megőrizzük az Európai Unió mind a 27 tagjának egyediségét és sokszínű hagyományait, de hangsúlyoznom kell, hogy számos olyan cél van, amelyet külön-külön nem, csak közösen érhetünk el.

Ennek értelmében kötelességünk, hogy félretegyük történelmi sérelmeinket és egy megújított alapra helyezzük Európánkat. Mi egy erős Európai Unióban vagyunk érdekeltek, mely hatékonyan tud fellépni mindazon kihívásokkal szemben, amelyekkel napjainkban meg kell küzdenünk, mint a terrorizmus, szervezett bűnözés, illegális bevándorlás, éghajlatváltozás, energiapolitika. Ezért elengedhetetlen egy hatékonyan működő intézményrendszer.

Ennek érdekében konszenzusra kell jutnunk, hogy elő tudjuk mozdítani közös ügyünk előrevitelét, hiszen az új alapszerződés (Alkotmány) hiányában az EU csak az ázsiai kontinens hanyatló nyugati nyúlványa lehet. A lehetőség adott a megoldásra, remélem élni tudunk vele.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Magda Kósáné Kovács (PSE), írásban. – Leállni az alkotmányozás folyamatával nem lehet, mert az az Európai Unió komoly válságához, az európai értékek devalválódásához, és Európa globális tekintetben való lemaradásához vezethet.

Romano Prodi személye és a közösen eltöltött közelmúlt a biztosítéka annak, hogy az értékek megőrzése, az együttműködés egy 27 tagú, kibővült Európában is lehetséges.

Az új tagállamoknak Kelet-Közép Európában egyelőre elképzelhetetlen egy olyan európai jövő, amelyben a nemzeti identitás egy közös európai államiságban oldódna fel. Ezek az országok a Szovjetunió nagy vörös olvasztótégelyéből történelmi léptékkel épp csak most nyerték vissza nemzeti identitásukat, ezért polgárai úgy akarnak európaiak lenni, hogy nemzeti önazonosságukat, frissen kialakított demokratikus intézményrendszerüket ne kockáztassák.

Mindemellett és éppen ezért a kelet-közép európai országoknak egy erős Európára van szükségük, mert továbbfejlődésüket és nemzeti érdekeik védelmét együtt, egy rugalmas Európában láthatják leginkább biztosítottnak.

Ezért nem fogadhatjuk el, hogy az Alkotmányos Szerződés politikai és jogi zombi legyen. Ugyanakkor az előbbre jutáshoz feltétlenül szükséges módosítások megtételére nyitottak vagyunk.

 
  
  

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΡΟΔΗ ΚΡΑΤΣΑ-ΤΣΑΓΚΑΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΥ
Αντιπρόεδρος

 

13. Одобряване на протокола от предишното заседание: вж протоколите

14. Положението в Палестина (разискване)
MPphoto
 
 

  Πρόεδρος. – Τα Συνοπτικά Πρακτικά της χθεσινής συνεδρίασης έχουν διανεμηθεί.

Υπάρχουν παρατηρήσεις επ’ αυτών;

(Το Σώμα εγκρίνει τα Συνοπτικά Πρακτικά)

Η ημερήσια διάταξη προβλέπει τις δηλώσεις του Συμβουλίου και της Επιτροπής σχετικά με την κατάσταση στην Παλαιστίνη.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Günter Gloser, amtierender Ratspräsident. Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, sehr geehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! In den letzten Tagen haben wir einen besorgniserregenden Anstieg der Gewalt im Nahen Osten gesehen. Die innerpalästinensischen Auseinandersetzungen im Gazastreifen haben über fünfzig Menschen das Leben gekostet.

Über 150 Kassam-Raketen wurden in der letzten Woche aus dem Gazastreifen auf israelische Städte abgefeuert. Gestern Abend starb eine Israelin. Bei den israelischen Militäraktionen kamen bereits über 30 Palästinenser ums Leben. Es besteht die ernste Gefahr einer weiteren Eskalation. Die im November zwischen Palästinensern und Israelis vereinbarte Waffenruhe im Gaza-Streifen wird zusehends brüchiger, und die mit saudischer Hilfe im Februar in Mekka erreichte innerpalästinensische Aussöhnung steht auf dem Spiel.

Die Einigung von Mekka hat zum Ende der islamistischen Alleinregierung der Hamas beigetragen. Seit dem 18. März regiert in Palästina eine neue palästinensische Regierung der Nationalen Einheit. Mit 83 von 86 Parlamentariern, darunter alle Abgeordneten von Hamas und Fatah, hatte zuvor eine überwältigende Mehrheit der Regierung ihr Vertrauen ausgesprochen. Aber in der internationalen Gemeinschaft besteht weiter ein breiter Konsens darüber, dass die palästinensische Regierung den Lackmustest noch nicht ganz bestanden hat. Denn auch von dieser Regierung werden die drei Kriterien des Quartetts nicht vollständig erfüllt.

Die Europäische Union hat trotzdem an ihrer humanitären Unterstützung für die Palästinenser festgehalten. Ich unterstreiche das ausdrücklich: Mit über 300 Millionen Euro hat die Europäische Union mehr gegeben als in den Jahren zuvor.

Für eine völlige Normalisierung unserer Beziehungen zu den Palästinensern bleiben aber die Quartettkriterien der Maßstab: Anerkennung des Existenzrechts des Staates Israel und der bisherigen Abkommen zwischen Israel und der PLO sowie ein genereller Verzicht auf Gewalt. Insbesondere beim Gewaltverzicht besteht aber noch ein erhebliches Manko. Von der palästinensischen Regierung erwarten wir uns gerade in diesen Tagen ein effektives Vorgehen gegen den Beschuss und die Freilassung des israelischen Soldaten Shalit.

Gleichwohl hat die Europäische Union das Ende der Hamas-Alleinregierung für einen erneuten Aufbruch in der Nahostpolitik genutzt. Die Außenminister haben den Kontakt mit den Regierungsmitgliedern, die die Quartettkriterien anerkennen, wieder aufgenommen. Präsident Abbas verdient daher unsere volle Unterstützung. Die EU steht in engem Kontakt mit dem Finanzminister Fayyad und unterstützt ihn dabei, transparente Institutionen und Mechanismen im Finanzbereich aufzubauen, denn die Verbesserung der Finanz- und Wirtschaftslage ist unser aller Ziel. Dazu beitragen würde auch die von der Europäischen Union immer wieder geforderte Freigabe der von Israel zurückgehaltenen Zoll- und Steuerrückerstattungen.

Seit Monaten bereits hat sich die Präsidentschaft für eine Wiederbelebung des Nahostquartetts und eine stärkere Einbindung der konstruktiven arabischen Partner engagiert. Nach ersten Erfolgen geht es uns nun insbesondere darum, das erreichte Momentum zu erhalten. Für uns bedeutet dies, dass wir noch engagierter dazu beitragen müssen, die Bemühungen aller Beteiligten im Nahostfriedensprozess zu forcieren.

Die bilateralen Treffen zwischen Präsident Abbas und Premierminister Olmert bringen bisher noch keine spürbaren Erfolge. Hier muss etwas geschehen: Zugang und Beweglichkeit für Palästinenser müssen deutlich verbessert werden, israelische Zusicherungen müssen endlich umgesetzt werden. Auf palästinensischer Seite vermisse ich die Durchsetzung des Gewaltverzichts und das Engagement bei der Freilassung des israelischen Soldaten Shalit.

Die Arabische Liga hat vor allem dank saudischen Engagements die Friedensinitiative vom März 2002 bekräftigt. Ein erstes erfolgreiches Treffen der Arabischen Liga mit der Europäischen Union hat auf unsere Einladung hin beim letzten Rat am 14. Mai stattgefunden. Weitere Gespräche hat die Arabische Liga mit dem Quartett und auch mit Israel geführt. Zwar kann dieses Engagement keine bilateralen Verhandlungen zwischen Palästinensern und Israelis ersetzen, doch kann die Friedensinitiative ein positives Umfeld für sie schaffen. Dies sollte aber gerade auch von der Europäischen Union weiter gefördert werden. Wir bemühen uns als Präsidentschaft um ein weiteres Treffen des Nahostquartetts innerhalb der nächsten Tage.

Bei aller Skepsis dürfen wir jetzt angesichts der langsamen Fortschritte nicht in Resignation verfallen. Die Europäische Union ist sich in den letzten Monaten ihrer gewachsenen Rolle zunehmend bewusster geworden. Wir sind bereit, dieser damit gestiegenen Verantwortung gerecht zu werden.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Madam President, unfortunately this debate today comes at a very tense moment when the situation in the whole region is deteriorating both in Lebanon and in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as in Israel. The events of the last three days in Lebanon, with significant loss of life in such a short time – almost 100 dead – are a startling reminder of the need to work on a regional solution to this conflict. As you know, Javier Solana is in Beirut today at this very difficult moment and we hope that a better situation can be brought about.

I urge our friends in Lebanon, from all the parties and political factions, to act as they have done so far, to call for calm and to refrain from actions which could provoke a major internal conflict. Once again national unity is also at stake.

The Commission noted that all the factions, the majority and the opposition as well as Palestinian organisations, condemned Fatah al-Islam and I hope that all political leaders will continue to give proof of their maturity, that ability to envisage a better future, and will prevent the conflict from again evolving into an intra-Lebanese fight. What is most important now is to find a solution to de-escalate the situation in Tripoli and to avoid the eruption of other hot spots in the rest of the country. The population in the camps also has to be helped. Ambulances and humanitarian convoys must gain access to the camps. In the end we all know that there has to be a regional solution. In the context of this whole situation we can only call on all sides – in Lebanon and in the Palestinian Territory – to refrain from violence and prevent further escalation.

I turn now in particular to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Like the President-in-Office, I too am deeply concerned about last week’s interfactional clashes in Gaza which resulted in 55 dead and 280 injured. Regrettably it seems that Gaza is at risk of sliding into civil war. Factions should stop hostilities immediately and reconcile their differences within the national unity government.

I also deplore the resumption of the Qassam rocket attacks from Gaza on the Israeli city of Sderot, which yesterday caused the death of an Israeli woman. Israeli-led air strikes in retaliation then caused the death of 35 Palestinians, so this vicious cycle has started again. Therefore it is important that the ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinians be restored and extended to the West Bank.

During my recent meeting with the Palestinian Foreign Affairs Minister, Ziad Abu Amr, we discussed the fragile situation of the national unity government, especially as concerns security, but also the budget. The first decisions taken by the government seem to point in the right direction. Mr Abu Amr mentioned that his government considers itself the cabinet of President Abbas. This government has a different programme from its predecessor and I felt encouraged after this meeting. I think that it deserves our clear support. President Abbas has requested all our backing, as his political survival may depend on its success. I hope that this very difficult violent situation can be contained.

In the meantime, Finance Minister Salam Fayad, whom I met after the formation of the government, faces the incredible challenge of repairing the Palestinian public finances after one year of institutional decay and a sharp decrease in revenues. Against all odds he has made considerable progress and the technical conditions for receiving direct funding have almost been put in place.

As you know, the Palestinian Authority has three main sources of funding: internal taxes, taxes and customs revenues on imported products, and foreign aid. Internal taxes have dwindled as a result of the economic slowdown. Since last year’s election, Israel has also withheld the taxes and customs revenues on imported products. This is the major cause of the Palestinian Authority’s financial difficulties. Furthermore, foreign aid cannot flow easily as a result of the US-imposed restrictions on financial transactions with the Palestinian Authority Government

We are helping to solve these financial problems in three ways. First, our Temporary International Mechanism has become a core source for funding for allowances, fuel costs and core supplies. Since the formation of the national unity government we manage this TIM in close cooperation with Salam Fayad’s Ministry of Finance.

Since the establishment of the TIM last June, we have already transferred over EUR 300 million through this mechanism. I would like to thank Parliament for its support in making more budgetary resources available so that the TIM can continue to deliver.

A second way in which we are helping is to work with our US partners to facilitate the transfer of foreign aid to the Palestinians, in particular the Arab funds pledged in Riyadh at the recent Arab summit.

Last but not least, we have urged Israel on multiple occasions to resume the transfer of Palestinian tax and customs revenues. We are using all the instruments we have, whether economic or political, but the survival of this government does not depend only on us. Only the resumption of all financial flows to the Palestinian Authority can deliver a durable solution to their financial crisis. And the Palestinians have to play their role and decide once and for all to end their fighting and focus on peace.

We still think that, despite the distress we are witnessing in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in Lebanon, we should profit from an important window of opportunity in the peace process in case it shuts down again, so it is very important that the German initiative is successful. It is crucial that the Arab League relaunches its Peace Initiative. As you know, there has been a determined diplomatic follow-up at the highest level in the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. I myself have had several meetings with the Follow-Up Committee in Sharm el Sheikh, in Riyadh, and also more recently at the GAERC meeting in Brussels.

Secretary-General Amr Moussa and others have underlined the urgency which is more evident than ever today and he has asked for our help in bringing the parties to the table. On the Israeli side, I am encouraged that Foreign Minister Livni has been to Cairo and is now expecting a follow-up visit by her Jordanian and Egyptian counterparts in the coming weeks. She has also shown willingness to engage more than in the past and she will also be invited by the German Presidency to the next GAERC meeting.

At the same time I also endorse the efforts of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to bring the parties together and start discussing the political horizon for the Palestinians. I hope that will be possible even though events are not going well at this moment. The energy and efforts invested by Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others must also be recognised.

Next week the Quartet will meet. I hope that this meeting will respond to the efforts of the Arab League, which could relaunch the progress on all tracks of the peace process, but I am also realistic and I understand what the German Presidency has said, that we should at least uphold the situation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, en nombre del Grupo PPE-DE. – Señora Presidenta, efectivamente, estamos ante una situación realmente muy difícil. Como han subrayado el representante de la Presidencia en ejercicio del Consejo y la Comisaria, se trata de una crisis política grave, con enfrentamientos y guerras intestinas entre las dos facciones que asumen el Gobierno de Unidad Nacional, en el que se habían puesto tantas esperanzas; una crisis económica, social y humanitaria gravísima, con unos datos demoledores: más del 66 % de la población palestina por debajo del índice de la pobreza; más del 50 % sin seguridad alimentaria; más de un millón de personas que no han podido percibir una renta estable a lo largo del último año; cien muertos en los últimos tres días en el Líbano; muchísimos muertos en la Franja de Gaza.

Creo que, ante esta situación, la Unión Europea tiene que salir de su letargo y dar un paso en la buena dirección.

Si hay algo que se ha hecho bien, hay que ponerlo en el activo de la Comisión Europea, que, en medio de innumerables dificultades, está prestando su contribución a la catástrofe humanitaria y social que está viviendo la región, pero creo que tenemos que ir más lejos.

La señora Comisaria nos ha recordado que el Alto Representante, Javier Solana, está en estos momentos en la región. Tenemos que tener presencia de ánimo y fuerza para tratar de salir de las declaraciones retóricas, señor Presidente en ejercicio del Consejo, y hacer un esfuerzo, desde la Unión Europea, para tratar de llevar un poco de sentido común a esta situación de barbarie que está viviendo la región.

Hay un círculo vicioso de la violencia: el envío de misiles Kassam, las represalias israelíes, el anuncio de los ataques suicidas ... Estamos ante una espiral de violencia absolutamente suicida.

Hay que intentar poner un poco de orden, confiar en los esfuerzos del Alto Representante, movilizar al máximo la diplomacia de la Unión Europea y apoyar, desde la Comisión, todo el ejercicio de apoyo humanitario y económico que se está llevando a cabo.

Quisiera comentar a la Presidencia en ejercicio del Consejo una cuestión que me parece clave, es decir, que para reanudar la ayuda directa a la Autoridad Nacional Palestina el Cuarteto afirmó que lo decisivo era no sólo la composición del Gobierno sino también las acciones que el Gobierno estaba desarrollando.

¿Podría la Presidencia en ejercicio del Consejo hacer una valoración de este dato y explicarnos cómo podríamos salir de este círculo vicioso de odio, violencia y destrucción?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pasqualina Napoletano, a nome del gruppo PSE. – Signora Presidente, signor Presidente del Consiglio, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, la morte e la violenza sono tornati a Gaza, in Libano e in Israele. Come gruppo socialista, sottolineiamo la necessità e l'urgenza di un mutamento sostanziale della politica dell'Unione europea in Medio Oriente, con il ristabilimento pieno del sostegno finanziario alle istituzioni e al popolo palestinese.

Gli scontri di questi giorni sono il frutto dell'esasperazione e dello stallo della situazione politica, dimostrano e confermano anche il fatto che Israele non costruirà la propria sicurezza sulla morte della Palestina e dei palestinesi. Il doppio standard della democrazia europea nei confronti del governo di unità nazionale deve cessare, la tenuta politica di quel governo è l'unica speranza di poter riprendere il controllo della situazione.

Ma la decisione di sospendere il sostegno finanziario alle istituzioni appare ancora più insensata dopo la formazione del governo di unità nazionale. Il fatto che il Consiglio e la Commissione abbiano deciso di non incontrare gli esponenti ministeriali di Hamas e gli indipendenti non aiuta la stabilizzazione di quell'esecutivo, in questo momento l'unica via per poter dare espressione politica al popolo palestinese.

L'intesa della Mecca, seppure non rispecchia la ripetizione acritica dei 4 punti del Quartetto, va ovviamente in una giusta direzione, nel senso del reciproco riconoscimento e della cessazione della violenza. Su questo dato dobbiamo lavorare per rendere la situazione evolutiva in senso positivo. Anche perché, come ricordava la Commissaria, il ministro degli Esteri Abu Amr, il quale la scorsa settimana è stato qui da noi a Bruxelles, da questo punto di vista ci ha molto, molto rassicurati.

Ci uniamo al dolore e alla condanna per il lancio dei missili su Sderot e anche al fatto che lì ci sono state vittime e feriti, ma nello stesso tempo vogliamo fare appello alle autorità palestinesi e israeliane perché cessino le ritorsioni sproporzionate, spropositate, illegali verso esponenti politici e civili palestinesi. Si è rimessa in moto una dinamica perversa e noi europei dobbiamo cercare di contribuire a interromperla.

Vorrei ricordare che i 78 morti in pochi giorni in Libano ci parlano di un altro frutto avvelenato del conflitto arabo-israeliano non risolto, e cioè del fatto che in Libano può riaprirsi uno scontro aperto con i 400.000 profughi palestinesi presenti in quel territorio. Abbiamo già vissuto questo incubo, cerchiamo di evitarlo, così come abbiamo fermato nel luglio scorso, la guerra e l'aggressione di Israele al Libano.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Chris Davies, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, the President-in-Office said that the new unity government in Palestine had not quite passed the litmus test. Well, the Israelis have not quite stopped building their security wall, stealing Palestinian land and water. The Israelis have not quite released the 10 000 prisoners, many of them held without charge or trial. The Israelis have not quite stopped holding checkpoints – 589 according to the Commission’s latest figures – which impose an economic embargo upon the Palestinians. The Israelis have not quite paid back the money – which may amount to about one thousand million euros now – that they have withheld from the Palestinians’ own revenue over the past year. They have not quite stopped the partition and separation by way of identity cards, which my own party leader, Paddy Ashdown – our former representative in Bosnia-Herzegovina – described just last Saturday as racism dressed up as administration.

I say these things to the President-in-Office because we are seen as a European Union that practises double standards: we are seen to ignore every Israeli illegality, but to expect Palestinians to behave like saints. When the Commissioner says that we are using all the instruments at our disposal to get the Israelis to observe international agreements and obey the law, I do not think that can possibly be the case. There are many tools at our disposal that we are not even trying to exercise.

Therefore, what does the Palestinian unity government have to do now? Just two weeks ago our delegation heard Prime Minister Haniyeh not only convince us in a way that satisfied us all that the unity government was determined to meet the Quartet’s three principles, and believed it was doing so, but also that it would meet with members of the Quartet without reservation or precondition at any time to try to sort out these differences. I urge the President-in-Office to take up that offer.

Note also the comments just yesterday of the Norwegian Foreign Minister when he asked what would happen if we do not support this government. There would be only chaos and crisis if we do not give it our support.

Therefore, President-in-Office, the good news in your speech is that you are seeking an urgent meeting to review the situation yet again. That is a positive step forward. All I can say is that we have often accused the Palestinians of missing opportunities; we have often accused the Israelis of missing opportunities. This is an opportunity that we ourselves must not miss.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ryszard Czarnecki, w imieniu grupy UEN. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Panie Ministrze! Panie i Panowie! Sytuacja na Bliskim Wschodzie to permanentne, istotne wyzwanie nie tylko dla krajów tego regionu, ale także dla całego świata. Przestrzegamy przed jednostronnym emocjonalnym spojrzeniem na ten trwający dziesięciolecia konflikt. Wbrew uproszczeniom, wbrew pokusie łatwych ocen, dokonywanych na podstawie telewizyjnych „newsów”, nie jest to biało-czarny film. Uznawanie Izraela za agresora i opresora to podejście może modne, w niektórych środowiskach, ale nieprawdziwe i aintelektualne.

Wzrost nastrojów radykalnych, a także głosów oddawanych na właśnie radykalne ugrupowania typu Hamas, świadczy o więcej niż trudnych perspektywach dialogu na tym obszarze. Istotnym problemem są również, o czym mało mówimy, głębokie podziały i ostre konflikty, przeradzające się w walki zbrojne w palestyńskich elitach politycznych i w palestyńskim społeczeństwie.

Eksperci zwracają uwagę na system edukacyjny Autonomii Palestyńskiej, który, jak twierdzą uczestnicy zeszłotygodniowej konferencji zorganizowanej w Parlamencie Europejskim przez posła Van Ordena, utrwala negatywne, antagonizujące stereotypy świętej wojny dżihad i strukturalnej niechęci, czy wręcz nienawiści do Izraela. Gwoli obiektywizmu, z drugiej strony, Izrael realizuje od zakończonych zwycięstwem Hamasu wyborów w Autonomii Palestyńskiej dość kontrowersyjny plan nieprzekazywania palestyńskich podatków z powrotem do Autonomii. Musi to w decydujący sposób rzutować na relacje izraelsko-palestyńskie. Unia Europejska musi reagować realistycznie i racjonalnie. Nie może być naiwnym wujkiem, dającym spore kieszonkowe i nie interesującym się na co te pieniądze idą. Ale też nie możemy być zakładnikiem żadnej ze stron konfliktu.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Caroline Lucas, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group . – Madam President, I have to say I am still in a bit of a state of shock over the words of the representative of the Council. I do not understand how he can say that the new unity government does not fulfil the criteria of the Quartet. Our delegation has just come back from the region and all of us unanimously agreed that they had.

Yes, there are still some Qassam rockets which of course are to be condemned. But do you really think that, by refusing to fully engage with the government, the EU is helping bring that back under control? Do you really think it has got nothing to do with the economic and political stranglehold in which Israel holds Gaza?

You mention the detention of soldier Shalit – and of course he should be released – but you did not even mention the 41 members of the Palestinian Legislative Council who are still detained by Israel; you did not even mention the detention of 10 000 Palestinian political prisoners held by Israel, many without trial. So, let us have some balance in this debate.

By refusing to fully recognise the new unity government and by channelling aid via a temporary international mechanism rather than through the Palestinian Authority, the EU is actively undermining the authority and the apparatus of Palestine’s democratic institutions. And, even worse than that, our position is actually encouraging those elements both inside and outside Palestine which want this government to fail. Every day that goes by when we refuse to engage fully with this government is another day for the extremists to say, ‘Look: democracy is not working. We did everything the international community demanded – democratic elections, a new unity government, fulfilling the Quartet demands, and still we face a political and economic boycott. So, why on earth are we helping to bring about a democratically-elected government which is doing its best to keep the peace?’

Is that really what we want? Do not imagine that the alternative will be a slightly different government whose colours we like slightly better. The alternative will be chaos and violence on an unimaginable scale, the whole region will become destabilised and there will be even more rapid growth of extremism across the Middle East.

Because, while the Council adopts a wait-and-see policy to review how the new government performs, each day it waits it puts the very outcome it wants to see in ever greater jeopardy. There is a very real danger that in a few years’ time we will look back at this moment and think, ‘Why on earth did we not support democracy in Palestine when we had the chance?’

So to the Council I say please tell us again what the Palestinian Government has to do, and to the Commission I ask, when will you suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Κυριάκος Τριανταφυλλίδης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Υπουργέ, κυρία Επίτροπε, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δεν είναι αμέτοχη σ’ αυτά τα ακατονόμαστα που συμβαίνουν σήμερα στην Παλαιστίνη. Και αυτό γιατί παρέλειψε να δράσει αποφασιστικά την κατάλληλη στιγμή και προς την ορθή κατεύθυνση.

Πριν είκοσι ημέρες, η αντιπροσωπεία του Κοινοβουλίου για τις σχέσεις με το Παλαιστινιακό Νομοθετικό Συμβούλιο πραγματοποίησε επίσημη επίσκεψη στην Παλαιστίνη. Η επίσκεψή μας έγινε σε μια ιστορική στιγμή για το παλαιστινιακό ζήτημα: μετά την ανάδειξη μιας νέας κυβέρνησης που ήταν το προϊόν ελεύθερων και δημοκρατικών εκλογών. Μιας κυβέρνησης που, αν και είχε την υποστήριξη του 60% του εκλογικού σώματος, όταν αμφισβητήθηκε από τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες και την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, δεν δίστασε να μοιραστεί την εξουσία με άλλες πολιτικές δυνάμεις για να σχηματισθεί, υπό τον αδιαμφισβήτητο ηγέτη της Παλαιστινιακής Αρχής, Αμπού Μάζεν, κυβέρνηση εθνικής ενότητας υπακούοντας έτσι πιστά στα κελεύσματα της Συνόδου του Αραβικού Συνδέσμου.

Σε αυτή την κυβέρνηση λοιπόν, που εκπροσωπεί ολόκληρο τον παλαιστινιακό λαό, η αντιπροσωπεία του Κοινοβουλίου υπέβαλε ξεκάθαρα τα ζωτικά ζητήματα που αφορούν την υπόθεση της ειρήνης στη Μέση Ανατολή. Και πήραμε, όπως είπαν οι συνάδελφοι, ξεκάθαρες απαντήσεις:

Αναγνωρίζουμε, μας είπαν, το δικαίωμα του Ισραήλ να υπάρχει μέσα στα σύνορα του 1967. Φτάνει κι’ αυτό να αναγνωρίσει το δικό μας δικαίωμα να δημιουργήσουμε το δικό μας κράτος δίπλα στο Ισραήλ.

Απορρίπτουμε τη βία. Αναγνωρίζουμε όλες τις συμφωνίες που έχουν συνομολογηθεί μεταξύ Ισραήλ και PLO. Είναι μέσα στις άμεσες προτεραιότητές μας η απελευθέρωση του Johnson. Δουλεύουμε για την απελευθέρωση του Σαλίτ, μέσα στα πλαίσια ανταλλαγής κρατουμένων.

Για να μπορέσουμε όμως, μας είπαν, να υλοποιήσουμε τις επιδιώξεις μας, χρειαζόμαστε τη βοήθειά σας. Πρέπει αμέσως να αρθεί το πολιτικό και οικονομικό εμπάργκο.

Γι’ αυτό, καταλήγω με μια έκκληση προς το Ισραήλ και μια προς τους Παλαιστινίους:

- το μεν πρώτο να παύσει να στοχεύει με πυραύλους τους αντιπάλους του και να ελευθερώσει όλους τους εκλεγμένους αντιπροσώπους των Παλαιστινίων.

- Στους δε δεύτερους να σταματήσουν να επιτίθενται με ρουκέτες στο έδαφος του Ισραήλ.

Αλλά και με μια παράκληση προς το Συμβούλιο και την Επιτροπή: Αναγνωρίστε αμέσως τη νέα δημοκρατικά εκλεγμένη κυβέρνηση Εθνικής Ενότητας του Προέδρου Αμπάς. Τερματίστε αμέσως την πολιτική της κατ’ επιλογήν προσέγγισης ορισμένων μελών αυτής της κυβέρνησης. Τερματίστε αμέσως το πολιτικό και οικονομικό εμπάργκο. Εμπλακείτε δυναμικά σε ένα δημιουργικό διάλογο με όλη την κυβέρνηση εθνικής ενότητας. Στηρίξτε αυτή την κυβέρνηση για να μπορέσει να διαπραγματευτεί την ειρήνη. Άλλως, θα επέλθει το χάος και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θα έχει γι’ αυτό τη δική της ευθύνη.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paul Marie Coûteaux, au nom du groupe IND/DEM. – Madame la Présidente, la situation en Palestine confirme tristement ce que les souverainistes disent depuis des lustres au sujet du conflit proche-oriental, à savoir qu'il serait faux de croire que ce conflit puisse avoir pour grille de lecture la simple opposition entre Palestiniens et Israéliens et encore moins, bien entendu, entre musulmans et juifs.

La vraie ligne de fracture, de plus en plus béante d'ailleurs, oppose, d'un côté, les partisans de la conciliation, comme plusieurs hommes d'État israéliens en ont montré l'exemple – je ne peux manquer de citer ici le nom glorieux de Yitzhak Rabin –, mais aussi des hommes d'État palestiniens, comme Yasser Arafat et Mahmoud Abbas, et, de l'autre côté, les fanatiques, aussi bien les fanatiques musulmans que les fanatiques du grand Israël, dont les connivences, d'ailleurs, ne sont plus à démontrer puisque l'on sait que des mouvements extrémistes palestiniens ont été voulus, et même financés, par certains radicaux israéliens.

Il y a donc deux camps: d'un côté, le camp de la solution politique et, finalement, de la paix; de l'autre, celui de l'affrontement, de la haine et de la guerre sans fin. Le malheur a voulu que, malgré de bonnes paroles, les États-Unis jouent le jeu des faucons, celui des extrémistes israéliens et des intégristes musulmans, tandis que l'Europe, je veux dire les principaux États européens sont, pendant ce temps, restés muets. La seule voix européenne tant soit peu unie fut celle de la déclaration de Venise, en juin 1980, par laquelle les Européens se prononcèrent pour la création d'un État palestinien. Toutefois, nos divisions reprirent de plus belle et, désormais, l'Europe, une fois encore, ne peut parler d'une seule voix que pour ne rien dire.

Eh bien, il est temps de libérer la souveraineté des États d'Europe, pour qu'ils puissent de nouveau jouer leur jeu librement dans cette partie du monde, où se joue une bonne partie de leur avenir.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philip Claeys, namens de ITS-Fractie. – Voorzitter, al wie de gebeurtenissen in het Midden-Oosten van de jongste dagen heeft gevolgd, kan alleen maar somber gestemd zijn. Ik had de eer om vorige week woensdag in de Conferentie van voorzitters van ons Parlement een gesprek bij te wonen met Amr Moussa, secretaris-generaal van de Arabische Liga, en de minister van Buitenlandse Zaken van de Palestijnse Autoriteit. Daaruit bleek volgens mij hun oprechte wil om te werken aan een vredesplan voor de regio, maar er blijven een aantal - hoe zal ik zeggen - structurele problemen hangen.

Hamas, de belangrijkste Palestijnse regeringspartij, weigert nog altijd Israël expliciet te erkennen en weigert nog altijd het terrorisme en het geweld af te zweren en te veroordelen. Het is volstrekt onduidelijk hoe vredesgesprekken in die omstandigheden kunnen leiden tot succes.

De voorbije dagen is trouwens ook het geweld tussen de verschillende Palestijnse kampen opgelaaid, met zelfs een verijdelde bomaanslag tegen president Mahmoud Abbas. Voor mij lijdt het geen twijfel dat Israël het recht heeft zich te verdedigen tegen geweld en terreur, ook met militaire middelen. Wel zou Israël gewaarschuwd moeten worden tegen acties gericht tegen Palestijnse parlementsleden en a fortiori tegen de Palestijnse eerste minister, hoewel daar stemmen zijn opgegaan om dat pad te gaan bewandelen. Hiermee zou een gevaarlijke grens worden overschreden met een nog grotere escalatie van het geweld tot gevolg.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jim Allister (NI). – Madam President, the misery and suffering in Palestine is truly awful and, while the fact that it is largely self-inflicted does not lessen its impact, it undermines those who always want to blame Israel for every tragedy in the region. Today, of course, the usual suspects in this debate, like Mr Davies and Ms Lucas, on their habitual hobbyhorses, have done their biased best to unreasonably shift all the blame onto Israel. What we are witnessing is a veritable civil war in Palestine between Fatah and Hamas, and the particularly aggressive actions of Hamas show us that the pursuit of democracy and a democratic mandate has done nothing to tame or to temper their adherence to terror. It is this undiluted attachment to terror that makes Hamas so unfit to govern. Likewise, their continuing aggression towards Israel, with their sustained rocket campaign, wholly justifies the defensive response of Tel Aviv.

I fear that, as long as Fatah and Hamas can tout both gun and ballot, democracy and the peace that it can bring will not prevail in this troubled and failed entity that is Gaza. Any international initiative that fails to address the removal of the gun from both sides in Palestine will flounder and fail.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Edward McMillan-Scott (PPE-DE). – Madam President, once again we are discussing this tragic situation in Palestine. Let me say at the outset that all of us condemn terrorism wherever it occurs. I should say that the suicide bombers who attacked London a couple of years ago all came from my constituency. However, they were motivated by events in the Middle East – by Iraq and by Palestine – and therefore it is proper that we should not only consider the events in the Middle East as they affect the people there but also people in our own territories.

I used to say that Israel was the only democracy in the Middle East. But two years ago I chaired our delegation for the elections of President Abbas, which were much welcomed by the international community. However, when he came here a few months ago he said that if we, the international community, would not support him, there would be chaos and civil war in his country.

Last year I chaired the Election Observation Mission for the elections to the parliament in Palestine, and then the European Union turned its back on those results. We seem to be paralysed by the roadmap. However, in my view the situation has now got to the point where the EU simply has to change its approach. Palestine is collapsing economically, politically and socially. We are risking another Algeria, where, when the West turned its back on the results of the elections in 1992, the result was 200 000 dead.

I believe the time has now come for the EU, if it cannot recognise the government of national unity, at least under the terms of a draft resolution some of us discussed last week, it should cooperate comprehensively with that government. Secondly, it is surely high time that the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs had a working party – not just on the United Nations or the Balkans or the five external financing instruments: let us have a working party on the Middle East.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Véronique De Keyser (PSE). – Madame la Présidente, imaginons une ville plongée régulièrement dans l'obscurité. Imaginons une ville sans policiers. Imaginons des fonctionnaires privés de salaire depuis un an et demi. Imaginons des hôpitaux sans médicaments, des écoles sans fournitures scolaires. Imaginons une ville bouclée, livrée à elle-même, sans administration qui fonctionne. Et imaginons que de l'argent y circule, et des armes. Souvenons-nous qu'une nuit de panne électrique à New York a entraîné des pillages et des crimes, dans la plus grande démocratie du monde … Alors, que faut-il espérer aujourd'hui en Palestine?

Notre politique irresponsable a conduit à l'effondrement des administrations que nous avions mises en place, à l'affaiblissement du pouvoir en place, à l'extension de la pauvreté, à la résurgence de maladies qui avaient disparu - même la Banque mondiale en convient -, et ceci, malgré les efforts louables de la Commission. Aujourd'hui, on vient de grimper un échelon de plus dans le malheur: les Palestiniens s'entretuent! Mais mes chers collègues, le scénario était prévisible. Au lieu de rechercher l'unité des deux grandes factions palestiniennes, légitimées par des élections incontestées, au lieu de miser, dès le début, sur leur unité, nous avons décidé de jouer le jeu de sanctions qui les divisaient.

Alors que le Président Abbas essayait, au péril de sa vie, et jouait son va-tout en forçant la naissance d'un gouvernement d'unité nationale, basé sur une plateforme politique qui s'inspirait des principes du Quartette et qui respectait les engagements de paix passés antérieurement, nous nous croisions les bras à attendre. Nous n'avons pas su profiter de cette embellie et des espoirs de La Mecque.

Aujourd'hui, Javier Solana, parti en mission dans la région, déclare à juste titre: "Nous devons soutenir l'unité palestinienne". Mais ce n'est pas en envoyant de l'argent et des armes à une des deux parties que nous soutiendrons cette unité! Il n'y a qu'un moyen, vous le savez tous: il est politique. C'est pourquoi, avec certains de mes collègues, je vous dis ceci: il faut reconnaître d'urgence le gouvernement d'unité nationale! Il faut asseoir son autorité, il faut l'aider à asseoir son autorité et à assurer la subsistance de sa population

Qui sème le vent, récolte la tempête: je ne suis pas la première à le dire. Mais, si nous refusons encore de traiter avec les islamistes modérés, nous aurons sur les bras uniquement les radicaux et les extrémistes et ce n'est pas seulement en Palestine qu'ils feront entendre leur voix!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Lambsdorff (ALDE). – Frau Präsidentin! Die Situation ist in der Tat tragisch. Radikale Gruppierungen der Hamas beschießen täglich Sderot mit Qassam-Raketen. Diese Raketenangriffe sind kein Zufall, sie sind vielmehr der mittlerweile fünfte Bruch des Waffenstillstandes.

Erneut ist der Versuch zu erkennen, von den internen Kämpfen zwischen den Palästinensern selber, also zwischen Hamas und Fatah abzulenken. Es hat in diesen Kämpfen 55 palästinensische Tote gegeben, gestorben von palästinensischer Hand. Jetzt schien die Zeit gekommen, um die Aufmerksamkeit erneut auf den gemeinsamen Feind Israel zu lenken. Und wie reagiert Israel? Mit harter Hand. Diese israelische Regierung, die Zustimmungsraten von um die 3% erzielt, tut der Hamas den Gefallen und versucht, die Quelle der Angriffe militärisch auszuschalten. Wieder gab es zivile palästinensische Opfer, die wir bedauern. Wieder hat die Hamas Zeit gewonnen und kann notwendige politische Konzessionen aufschieben. Wieder scheinen wir wie gelähmt. Denn es hat ja in Mekka Konzessionen gegeben. Sie reichten nicht aus, keine Frage, aber trotz der Schwächen von Mekka waren diese Konzessionen ein wichtiger Schritt in Richtung eines Friedens. Diese Vereinbarung ist jetzt durch die erneute Gewalt in ihrem Kern verletzt worden.

Ich glaube daher, dass es bis auf Weiteres wichtig und richtig ist, dass die Europäische Union auf die Einhaltung der vollständigen Bedingungen des Quartetts und der Vereinbarungen von Mekka drängt, bevor sie ihre Zahlungen an die Einheitsregierung wieder aufnimmt. Dies steht nicht im Widerspruch zur Forderung des Kollegen McMillan-Scott, eine pragmatische, umfassende Zusammenarbeit dort zu suchen, wo es tatsächlich dem Wohl der Bevölkerung dient.

Dennoch sollten wir dieses wichtige Instrument nicht zu früh aus der Hand geben. Ich ermutige Rat und Kommission und die Arabische Liga, in ihren Bemühungen Fortschritte zu erzielen, und würde mir sehr wünschen, dass sie möglichst schnell zum Erfolg führen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jan Tadeusz Masiel (UEN). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Ministrze! Pani Komisarz! Na ostatnim szczycie w Samarze Unia Europejska uratowała swoją twarz. Przewodniczący Komisji, pan Barroso, i przewodnicząca Rady, pani Merkel, nie zawahali się z całą ostrością i stanowczością upomnieć o niesprawiedliwie traktowany kraj członkowski, Polskę, w kwestii mięsa, i o prawa człowieka w Rosji.

Dlaczego Unia Europejska nie posunie się dalej i nie upomni o los Palestyńczyków w Izraelu, czy o zjednoczenie Cypru, okupowanego przez Turcję od 1974 r. W XXI wieku u bram Unii mają jeszcze miejsce wielkie niesprawiedliwości, a my robimy ciągle za mało, by pomóc je przezwyciężyć.

Czy w Palestynie ginęli ludzie przed powstaniem państwa Izrael? Jak długo jeszcze wojska izraelskie będą okupowały terytoria palestyńskie? Czy Palestyńczycy nie mają prawa do swego państwa? Żydzi, którzy go tak długo nie mieli, jak mogą go komuś odmawiać? Amatorskie ataki palestyńskie na Izrael, bo jak można nazwać je inaczej w porównaniu z działaniami wojsk izraelskich, są odpowiedzią na ciągle trwającą okupację.

To Izrael powinien zrobić pierwszy krok umożliwiając utworzenie państwa palestyńskiego. To byłby początek drogi do osłabienia przemocy w tym regionie i do pokojowego współistnienia.

Zadaniem Unii Europejskiej jest być stróżem wolności na świecie, zwłaszcza kiedy Stany Zjednoczone wycofały się z tej roli i stronniczo popierają Izrael. A być może nie byłoby 11 września, gdyby, jak niegdyś, były bezstronnym stróżem prawa i sprawiedliwości na świecie.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Johannes Voggenhuber (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, Herr Ratspräsident! Nach dem Wahlsieg der Hamas sagte ich hier in unserer letzten Aussprache: Niemals wieder darf Europa zulassen, dass die Existenz Israels in Frage gestellt wird. Umso entsetzter und umso trauriger komme ich von der Reise durch Palästina zurück. Das heißt, ich wollte Palästina besuchen, es war aber nicht zu finden. Was ich gefunden habe, war militärisches Hinterland. Zerstückelt, zerteilt, abgetrennt sind Familien von anderen Mitgliedern der Familie, von Arbeitsplätzen, Städte vom Wasser, Siedlungen von fruchtbarem Land.

Ich kann nur eines bezeugen: Niemand, Herr Ratspräsident, Frau Kommissarin, kann unter diesen Umständen leben. Das Besatzungsregime der israelischen Regierung dient nicht der Sicherheit des Landes, es bringt das Land in Gefahr. Es verwandelt Palästina zu einer Brutstätte der Verzweiflung, des Hasses und der Gewalt. Die Situation ist schlimmer geworden, Frau Kommissarin, ja, sie wird sich noch weiter verschlimmern, und das kann und darf niemanden wundern.

Es ist immer schwer, als Politiker militärische Maßnahmen zu analysieren. Aber eines möchte ich Ihnen hier schon sagen – als Grundüberzeugung nach dieser Reise: Dieses Besatzungsregime dient auch anderen Zwecken! Es dient offensichtlich und unleugbar vor allem dem Schutz illegaler Siedlungen und ihrer Verbindungen untereinander. Es dient der Okkupation der Wasserressourcen dieses Landes. Es stellt auch ein System des Landgewinns und der Erweiterung der israelischen Grenzen dar. Das kann nicht zum Frieden führen!

Ich habe gesagt: Niemand darf mehr das Existenzrecht Israels in Frage stellen. Bei aller Kritik und bei allem, was wir für den Frieden von Israel zu verlangen haben. Deshalb will ich heute sagen, was zu verlangen ist: dieses Besatzungsregime aufzugeben und zu einem lebensfähigen Staat Palästina beizutragen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, continuano a morire i palestinesi e tanti ne sono già morti in passato, di nuovo sono puniti collettivamente. La risposta dell'esercito contro un gruppo di terroristi, che vanno combattuti, ma di nuovo paga il popolo palestinese.

Sarebbe doveroso e responsabile riconoscere il nostro fallimento: comunità internazionali, partiti politici, movimenti, dopo quaranta anni l'occupazione militare israeliana continua e il muro sottrae acqua e terra al futuro Stato palestinese. La tragedia che si sta consumando è stata molte volte annunciata!

Dal 1980 parliamo di due popoli e due Stati: uno Stato esiste, l'altro, non c'è. La popolazione palestinese è senza libertà, umiliata, espropriata, ostaggio di gruppi estremisti che tengono in ostaggio la popolazione e anche la leadership. Non basta! Non basta davvero promettere che diamo più aiuti economici! La soluzione è politica: fermare l'occupazione militare, l'espansione degli insediamenti, riconoscere il governo di unità nazionale palestinese, lavorare per l'unità dei palestinesi e non per la loro divisione!

Mostrare che l'Unione europea crede alla legalità internazionale e lo dice ad Israele, che invece la viola continuamente. Un paese che giorno dopo giorno perde in realtà, come dice David Grossman, anche la sua moralità. Fare presto! Fare presto, perché palestinesi e israeliani e libanesi pagano il prezzo della nostra incapacità e dei nostri due pesi e due misure. Riconoscere il governo e anche forse porre una forza internazionale delle Nazioni Unite a Gaza e nella Cisgiordania. A mio parere è indispensabile!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Γεώργιος Καρατζαφέρης (IND/DEM). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, συνεχίζουμε να ζούμε τις συνέπειες ενός λάθους του 1947. Εάν τότε δεν είχε υπάρξει η μονομερής αναγνώριση του Ισραήλ και είχε αναγνωρισθεί και το κράτος της Παλαιστίνης θα είχαμε γλυτώσει από πολύ αίμα. Μια στατιστική υπηρεσία έβγαλε το συμπέρασμα ότι έχει χαθεί τόσο αίμα σ’ αυτήν την περιοχή που θα μπορούσαμε να έχουμε σώσει ένα εκατομμύριο παιδιά από μεταγγίσεις αίματος.

Όλες αυτές οι τραγωδίες που συνέβησαν στους δίδυμους πύργους, στο Λονδίνο, στη Μαδρίτη και αλλού είναι απότοκος αυτής της πολιτικής του 1947 την οποία συνεχίζουμε σήμερα. Γιατί να μπαίνουμε σε ατέρμονες λεπτομέρειες; Έχουμε τη δύναμη αύριο να αναγνωρίσουμε το κράτος της Παλαιστίνης; Αυτό θα ήταν, αν θέλετε, μία πρόοδος.

Αλλά σφυρίζουμε τον αγώνα 90 - 10. Και όταν ο διαιτητής σφυρίζει 50 - 50 βγαίνει αγέρωχος από το γήπεδο. Όταν σφυρίζει 60 - 40 το παιχνίδι τελειώνει. Όταν όμως σφυρίζει 90 - 10, γίνεται κόλαση και στην εξέδρα και στο γήπεδο.

Εμείς λοιπόν φταίμε γι’ αυτή την κόλαση. Γιατί σφυρίζουμε το παιχνίδι 90 - 10. Χαλάει ο κόσμος και ακούμε στη Βουλή καθημερινές αναφορές για τα πυρηνικά του Ιράν. Δεν μίλησε ποτέ κανείς για τα πυρηνικά του Ισραήλ. Και αυτό είναι άδικο. Εάν θέλουμε να είμαστε δίκαιοι, εάν θέλουμε να πιστεύουμε τους πολίτες μας και να μας εμπιστεύονται και αυτοί, πρέπει να αποδώσουμε δικαιοσύνη. Και δικαιοσύνη θα υπάρξει μόνο με την αναγνώριση του κράτους των Παλαιστινίων.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean-Claude Martinez (ITS). – Madame le Président, Madame le Commissaire, le mur de Berlin a pu tomber, l'empire soviétique peut bien appartenir au passé, le monde s'est planétisé, mais, du moins, y a-t-il quelque chose d'immuable, comme un lieu où l'histoire s'est arrêtée, c'est la Palestine, cette Palestine qui devient le trou noir de l'humanité: Gaza, les camps, les roquettes, les intifadas, les attentats, une seule terre pour deux peuples, une guerre longue de soixante ans déjà. Qui plus est, une avalanche de mythes, avec des esplanades, des tombeaux, des patriarches, des temples, des mosquées, du monothéisme et du cynisme, un cynisme partagé, d'ailleurs, par les durs des deux côtés, côté Israël, la technologie, la force, l'élimination d'Arafat, du Fatah, l'étranglement économique, les prisonniers, bref, tout, mais surtout pas des négociations, plutôt l'Iran que l'Irak, plutôt le schiisme que le baasisme, et, côté palestinien, les durs ont évidemment le long terme démographique pour eux.

Entre-temps, trois générations sacrifiées déjà et nous, que faisons-nous? Eh bien, nous faisons des déclarations, des visites, des voyages – n'est-ce pas Monsieur Solana? –, de l'humanitaire. Voilà, c'est tout! Or, ce conflit est l'enfant lointain des conflits européens de 14–18 et de 39–45 et, nous, nous ne faisons pas ce qu'il faut, nous faisons du pharisaïsme. Nous savons pourtant qu'il faut aller au-delà de la réunion d'urgence, qu'il faut arrêter les embargos, qu'il faut s'investir, qu'il faut un Camp David européen, avec toutes les parties, Israël, la Palestine et son gouvernement d'unité, mais aussi la Syrie, mais aussi l'Iran, mais aussi le Liban, et nous savons aussi qu'il faut dire le droit, les deux droits, sans doute le droit de l'État d'Israél à la pérennité, mais aussi le droit de l'État palestinien à exister, à être reconnu.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE). – Madam President, the recent downward spiral of internecine violence between armed secular Fatah and Islamist Hamas militias in Gaza is of grave concern, as we now see the consequences of a weakened Israeli leadership post-Lebanese war and a weakened Palestinian President Abbas having to deal with the religious fundamentalists within Hamas, who won the elections last year. The Hamas members of the unity government are clearly not able to break away from their intransigent positions based on theocratic obscurantist views that the State of Israel can never be explicitly recognised, that terrorist violence is justified and that they are not bound by previous agreements signed by the late Chairman Arafat.

So clearly this Palestinian Authority unity government does not fulfil the Quartet criteria and the EU cannot lift the ban on Hamas as a terrorist organisation or directly fund the Palestinian Authority at present, relying instead on the TIM for delivery of humanitarian aid which now totals over EUR 500 million yearly and has actually risen during the last three years. There is increasing acceptance amongst Arabs, as evidenced by the recent proposals from the Arab League, of the desirability of a negotiated solution. The Israelis all recognise the damage to Israel’s economy and society of the continuing violence after the recent spate of over 100 Qassam missiles launched by Hamas at civilian areas. In fact there was one fatality last week which constitutes, in my view, a war crime under international law.

Only the extremists, it seems, are afraid of peace. Whatever the origins of the Middle East conflict, there is increasing recognition amongst Arab States that Israel is here to stay, whilst Jews around the world can see that Israel’s long-term security is best served by recognition of the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to have their own secure state also.

But the Palestinian Authority must first be able to secure law and order on its territory, which it is failing signally to do right now. Securing the release of the BBC reporter Alan Johnston and the kidnapped soldier, Corporal Shalit, would be a great start and create a climate conducive to restarting the vital roadmap for peace talks.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich möchte mich zuerst einmal entschuldigen, dass ich nach meiner Rede gleich gehe, weil ich einen Vorsitz führen muss. Ich weiß, dass das unhöflich ist, aber ich bitte, es zu entschuldigen.

Das Recht Israels, sich gegen die Kassam-Raketen zu wehren, steht selbstverständlich außer Frage. Diese Raketenbeschüsse von zivilen Einrichtungen und Personen sind ein Verbrechen. Sie provozieren Israel, aber sie provozieren natürlich auch die Regierung, die derzeit in Palästina an der Macht ist. Das ist ja fast schon der Hauptzweck. Und was macht die Europäische Union?

Es tut mir leid, Kollege Gloser, die Antwort, die Sie gegeben haben, natürlich im Namen der Ratspräsidentschaft, ist völlig unbefriedigend. Sie ist genau so unbefriedigend wie bei der letzten Debatte.

Wir tun nichts, um die Kräfte zu stärken, die als einzige die Möglichkeit hätten, gegen diese Terroristen vorzugehen. Wir werden mit unseren Erklärungen nichts ändern. Auch die militärischen Gegenschläge Israels werden leider nichts ändern – auch wenn sie im Einzelfall gerechtfertigt sein mögen –, wenn die Europäische Union dieser Regierung keine Chance gibt. Ich rede von der Regierung, denn es ist ja zynisch, bei den einzelnen Ministern zu entscheiden, wen man von ihnen trifft und wen man nicht trifft? Ich habe schon das letzte Mal erwähnt, dass die Frau Ratspräsidentin zwar die israelische Außenministerin trifft, aber dann beim Außenminister von Palästina sagt, sie treffe keine Außenminister. Das ist keine wirklich produktive Haltung.

Ich möchte die Frau Kommissarin für Außenbeziehungen nicht in Schwierigkeiten bringen, aber sie hat immerhin davon gesprochen, die Regierung zu unterstützen, nicht einzelne Minister. Und wenn beide sagen, wir müssen Abbas unterstützen, so tun sie das eben nicht, wenn sie seine Regierung nicht unterstützen und ihr nicht die Möglichkeit geben, gegen den Terrorismus und gegen die Terroristen vorzugehen.

Das ist das Problem. Wenn Europa sich nicht dazu bekennt, werden all diese Gespräche nichts nützen, weil der Friede nur von innen her geschaffen wird. Friede wird es nur geben, wenn es in Palästina starke Kräfte gibt, die sich durchsetzen können, weil sie die politische, moralische oder finanzielle Unterstützung der Europäischen Union gegen die Terroristen bekommen. Das hilft Palästina und das hilft Israel. Wenn Sie Israel helfen wollen – noch einmal sei es gesagt – dann müssen Sie dieser Regierung eine Chance geben. Alles andere ist eine Farce.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vittorio Prodi (ALDE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, grazie alla Presidenza e alla Commissione per la loro presenza. Chiaramente il tempo disponibile mi permette solo di formulare alcune riflessioni.

La Palestina è una questione grave e urgente, si trova in una condizione di avvitamento che dobbiamo cercare di correggere. Il governo di unità nazionale è il solo interlocutore, dobbiamo prenderne atto in modo realistico e cercare di guadagnare tempo con un'azione di speranza verso la Palestina. E' possibile arrivare anche ad una forza di interposizione e avere il coraggio, come Unione europea, di essere il garante comune della sicurezza di Israele e della Palestina, sullo sfondo di una politica che deve essere di apertura al mondo arabo, a cominciare dall'intero Mediterraneo, pertanto senza isolare questo conflitto dal problema generale del rapporto tra Islam e Occidente.

Credo in un sogno: avere un'Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite riformata con sede a Gerusalemme, in modo tale che effettivamente si possa dare questo tipo di speranza. Ci si può lavorare; credo che potremmo farlo!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paul van Buitenen (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, the Hamas Charter is a sacred text with three Islamic seals. Unlike the secular PLO, Hamas does not recognise the concept of peace. The PLO may want a two-state solution, but Hamas wants to eliminate Israel.

What does the Hamas Charter say? In Article 7 it mentions an Islamic world order and the destruction of all Jews. Articles 22 and 28 say that the Jewish people created the French and Russian Revolutions, the First and Second World Wars, but also the United Nations, drugs and alcohol abuse, and control of the mass media. Stopping the conflict with Israel is high treason and perpetrators will be cursed, according to Article 32.

Cooperation with Hamas would make the EU morally responsible for a peace process leading to the elimination of Israel. We must help the Palestinians, but not by facilitating the Hamas agenda.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bastiaan Belder (IND/DEM). – Voorzitter, begin februari verscheen in de Duitse pers, in de Frankfurter Allgemeine, een uiterst somber verslag over de politiemissie van de Europese Unie in de Palestijnse gebieden. "Je werkt hier in een moeras van bedrog en corruptie", oordeelde haar scheidende leider MacGyver, een Brit, openhartig.

Maanden later is de situatie door de escalatie van de rivaliteit tussen Fatah en Hamas alleen maar verslechterd. Een noodzakelijke vraag dringt zich derhalve op, Raad en Commissie: hoe zinvol acht u voortzetting van de EU-missie tot opbouw van een burgerpolitie op de westelijke Jordaanoever en in Gaza? U zult toch bezwaarlijk medeverantwoordelijk willen zijn voor de verregaande rechteloosheid aldaar?

Inmiddels meldde persbureau Reuters gisteren dat de Europese Unie haar grensmissie in Rafah met een jaar verlengt onder het veelzeggende, onveranderde motto "De Palestijnen zijn verantwoordelijk voor de grens". Hun politie kijkt wel uit de smokkelaars van wapens, drugs, geld en personen iets in de weg te leggen, aldus Palestijnse ingewijden. Dat is mijn bron. Aan Raad en Commissie dezelfde vraag: wilt u daarvoor lijdelijk verantwoording nemen?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Günter Gloser, amtierender Ratspräsident. Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich bitte um Nachsicht, dass ich an dieser Stelle nur ein paar kurze Bemerkungen machen werde, da ich um 18.00 Uhr den Termin mit Ihrem Ausschuss für auswärtige Angelegenheiten habe und einen Rückblick und eine Bewertung der letzten Tagung des Rates „Allgemeine Angelegenheiten und Außenbeziehungen“ abgeben darf.

Ich kann alles verstehen, was Sie, teilweise auch nach persönlichen Reisen und Gesprächen, beschrieben haben. Aber ich bitte doch auch zu konstatieren, dass es gerade die Europäische Union und insbesondere die vorangegangene und die jetzige Präsidentschaft waren, die sich überhaupt bewegt haben, um das Nahostquartett wiederzubeleben und einen Prozess in Gang zu setzen. Durch das Ingangsetzen dieses Prozesses ist auch die saudi-arabische Initiative zustande gekommen. Ich möchte darum bitten, hier zu differenzieren, dass bestimmte Dinge nicht allein darauf zurückzuführen sind, dass keine finanziellen Mittel fließen. Es handelt sich auch um eine innerpalästinensische Auseinandersetzung. Natürlich haben wir – ich habe das in der Erklärung für die Präsidentschaft deutlich gesagt – in Gesprächen mit Israel deutlich gemacht, dass Mittel, die den Palästinensern zustehen – Zölle, Steuern – zurückfließen müssen, damit verschiedene Infrastrukturmaßnahmen gewährleistet werden können. Frau Kommissarin hat mehrfach – auch im Rat – darauf hingewiesen, wie die Unterstützungen der Europäischen Union in den letzten Monaten vonstatten gegangen sind. In der Öffentlichkeit mag gelegentlich der Eindruck entstanden ist, dass wir nichts oder nur unzureichend zahlen. Das Gegenteil ist der Fall: Wir haben während der sehr kritischen Phase als Europäische Union mehr Finanzmittel transferiert, als es vorher in einer anderen Situation der Fall war.

Kollege Davis, wir wollen nicht, dass die Palästinenser sozusagen als Heilige dastehen müssen, weil sie alles erwarten. Aber eines war doch klar – das hat die Konferenz in Mekka ergeben, als darum geworben wurde, eine Regierung der nationalen Einheit herzustellen –, nämlich dass dann genau die Voraussetzungen erfüllt werden, die das Nahostquartett immer gefordert hat: Existenzrecht Israels, Verzicht auf Gewalt, aber auch das Einhalten vorangegangener Abmachungen der Vorgängerregierung. Bestimmte Bewegungen sind vorhanden, aber leider herrscht noch keine Klarheit darüber, ob sich die Regelung dazu bekennt. Es besteht überhaupt kein Grund für uns, „zu mauern“. Die Regierung der nationalen Einheit könnte diesen Schritt tun, und es könnten die Voraussetzungen geschaffen werden. Es ist doch nicht so, dass wir dies nur als Randthema behandeln. Auf jeder Tagung befasst sich der Rat damit, wie man weiterkommen kann. Ich habe ausdrücklich gesagt, dass die Präsidentschaft versucht, in Kürze nochmals ein Treffen des Nahostquartetts zu arrangieren, weil wir wissen, wie viel davon abhängt. Der Hohe Beauftragte, der viele Kilometer nördlich, in Beirut, ist, weiß ja, dass es nicht nur um Israel und Palästina geht, sondern auch um die Frage der Sicherheit und des Selbstbestimmungsrechts des Libanon.

Ich möchte dafür werben, dass wir es nicht nur beim Reden belassen, sondern dass wir versuchen, Initiativen zu starten, damit ein Dialog zwischen Israel und den Palästinensern stattfindet, damit aber auch die finanzielle Unterstützung geleistet wird und damit wir – ich habe das eben noch einmal nachgelesen – gegenüber Israel dafür eintreten, dass die Bewegungsfreiheit der Palästinenser ermöglicht wird und nicht weiterhin so eingeschränkt bleibt, wie es derzeit der Fall ist. Mit diesem Zustand kann keiner zufrieden sein. Ich bitte um Ihre Nachsicht, dass ich Ihre Debatte an dieser Stelle verlassen muss.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jana Hybášková (PPE-DE). – Paní předsedající, paní komisařko, děkuji za to, že jste tady dnes s námi zůstala. Narozdíl od mnoha poslanců jsem byla v Palestině více než jednou. Izrael, jak tady všichni chcete, opustil Gazu. Předal ji svobodně, demokraticky zvolené vládě. Gaza tudíž není vojenské zázemí, Gaza je území zničené extremismem, fundamentalismem, terorismem, korupcí a cynismem samotných palestinských válečných vůdců.

Milí poslanci, jsme tak naivní, že si myslíme, že přihození dalších stovek milionů eur bez jasných kritérií zastaví Džund al-Islám nebo Dahlána od dalšího násilí? Myslíme si opravdu, že legalizace válečných vůdců a teroristů, jako jsou Mašal nebo Dahlán, přinese mír oblasti? Naštěstí máme Radu a Komisi, kterým tímto děkuji za jejich pevný a jasný postoj. Děkuji, že v obtížné situaci stojí na straně práva. Je třeba, abychom odmítli násilí a vzdali hold obětem v Gaze a na Západním břehu. Je třeba jasně odmítnout, aby Hamás zastoupený v palestinské vládě činil Izrael rukojmím svých strašných extremistických zájmů. Varuji před jasně prokázanou spoluprací Hamásu, včetně členů vlády, a novými organizacemi Al-Káidy, jako jsou Fatah  

al-Islám nebo Džund al-Islám.

Žádáme, aby palestinská vláda uznala nejen výměnné dopisy mezi Rabinem a Arafatem a přestala lhát o splnění klíčové podmínky uznání Izraele. Žádáme palestinskou vládu a všechny arabské představitele, zejména Saudy a Egypťany, aby se vší politickou a lidskou odpovědností přistoupili okamžitě k mírovým jednáním o řádném uznání státu Izrael v rámci řádně uznaných mezinárodních hranic. Žádáme Fatah, aby neprodleně začal jednat s Hamásem o rozložení sil v OOP. Jenom tak, na straně práva s jasným východiskem, budeme moci opravdu nejen poskytnout humanitární pomoc, ale především budeme schopni podpořit vznik životaschopného a demokratického palestinského státu.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jamila Madeira (PSE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, como foi referido, o Parlamento Europeu esteve na Palestina no início deste mês. O momento era de enorme tensão, mas hoje, duas semanas volvidas, a tensão é maior e infelizmente os cidadãos da região esperam cada vez menos da União Europeia. Apesar dos diferentes potenciais de tensão, o Parlamento Europeu procurou estar no terreno. Esteve lá, e hoje, apesar de esta tensão ter aumentado, o Senhor Solana está também na região.

Vimos uma situação de catástrofe humanitária, como a Senhora Comissária descreveu e como naturalmente conhece. Mas vimos também um muro, um muro com 852 km de extensão que, pretendendo combater a violência e manter seguros os israelitas de ataques árabes, invade 25% do território da Cisjordânia e anexa territórios cruciais para qualquer acordo de paz baseado nas premissas de 1967. Um muro que aprisiona pessoas dentro das suas próprias casas, que bloqueia o acesso das crianças à escola, que impede os camponeses de cultivarem a sua terra. Um muro que fez de Gaza a maior prisão a céu aberto conhecida no mundo. Uma prisão onde a polícia israelita determina desde o início de 2006 que ninguém entra nem sai, ou será que devo dizer: nada entra nem sai!

Perante tudo isto, todos olhámos perplexos, todos negámos qualquer envolvimento. Hoje, esperamos que os olhos e o coração do Senhor Solana possam transmitir alguma esperança a estas populações em nosso nome. In loco, nós passámos a mensagem, reconhecemos o Governo que o quarteto pediu e pedimos hoje, aqui, que efectivamente assim continue a acontecer. Que o Conselho e a Comissão cumpram esse compromisso, que cumpram os requisitos impostos e que estejam disponíveis para trabalhar com todos.

É preciso que seja aqui dito, preto no branco, o que efectivamente a União Europeia está disponível a fazer. Mostremos ao mundo, uma vez mais, que só se faz a paz dando a mão aos que precisam e eliminando o seu desespero.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – Arvoisa puhemies, aluksi haluan sanoa, että kun olen kuunnellut tätä keskustelua, minusta on tuntunut siltä, että kokonaiskuva on jokseenkin rajoittunut. Keskustelua seuraava sivistynyt kansalainen saattaa ajatella, että hyvin monella Euroopan parlamentin jäsenellä on varsin rajoittuneet tiedot Palestiinan ja Israelin alueen historiasta. Miten Israelin valtio syntyi? Mikä oli Yhdistyneiden Kansakuntien päätöslauselma aikoinaan? Mikä oli jakoperusta? Mikä oli Balfourin julistus ja niin edelleen. Meille parlamentaarikoille on häpeäksi, jos me emme ensin opettele kotiläksyjämme, vaan tulemme puhumaan suurella tunteella asioista, joita emme välttämättä tunne. Sen vuoksi on paikallaan pysähtyä miettimään, mistä kyseisellä alueella on kysymys, ja hahmottaa kokonaiskuvaa eikä vain esittää lyhyttä viittausta.

Meidän eurooppalaisten on tuettava demokratiaa eikä terrorismia. Meidän arvojamme ovat ihmisoikeudet, mielipiteenvapaus ja oikeusvaltioperiaate. Niistä meidän on pidettävä kiinni. Jos ne ovat meidän arvojamme, me emme voi tunnustaa niin sanottua kansallisen yhtenäisyyden hallitusta, joka on terroristijärjestö Hamasin johtama. Me emme voi antaa sille tunnustusta, vaan meidän on eurooppalaisina pidettävä kiinni demokratian arvoista.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Frieda Brepoels (PPE-DE). – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega's, na ons bezoek begin mei aan de westelijke Jordaanoever en Gaza kan ik alleen maar concluderen dat we verder af staan dan ooit van een structurele oplossing, zoals nochtans afgesproken veertig jaar geleden.

We zien op de westelijke Jordaanoever heel veel illegale nederzettingen tot stand komen. We zien het aantal controleposten alleen maar aangroeien in plaats van afnemen. In Gaza leeft 87% van de mensen beneden de armoedegrens. Er zitten nog 41 Palestijnse parlementsleden in de gevangenis en van de terugkeer van vluchtelingen wordt helemaal niet meer gesproken. En de muur die groeit inderdaad uit tot de grootste ter wereld. Daar kan Israël trots op zijn.

Nochtans hebben de Palestijnen ook het recht op zelfbeschikking en een menswaardig bestaan en zij zijn bereid om offers te brengen en compromissen te sluiten. Zij hebben al meermaals concreet getoond dat ze vrede en welvaart willen voor hun volk.

Maar willen de internationale gemeenschap en de Europese Unie dit eigenlijk nog wel? Ik heb daar soms mijn twijfels over, ook als ik vandaag de commissaris hoor zeggen dat zij na gesprekken met de minister hoort dat men de regering van nationale eenheid vraagt om steun te geven en dat Abbas dit ook vraagt. Waarom erkent u dan de regering niet? Waar wacht u eigenlijk op? Wanneer zult u de directe steun aan de Palestijnse Autoriteit eindelijk geven?

Ik hoor het voorzitterschap spreken over de vereisten van het kwartet. Maar wij moeten niet wachten op een nieuwe bijeenkomst van het kwartet. De Europese Unie zou hier het voortouw kunnen nemen. Wij moeten spreken met de gehele regering.

En tenslotte, commissaris, u zegt dat alle instrumenten gebruikt worden om Israël te dwingen die taksen over te maken aan de Palestijnen. Ik zie niet over welke instrumenten u het had. Ik zou daar heel graag iets meer over horen, want ik denk dat er geen tijd meer te verliezen is.

 
  
  

PRESIDÊNCIA: MANUEL ANTÓNIO DOS SANTOS
Vice-Presidente

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Béatrice Patrie (PSE). – Monsieur le Président, une fois encore nous sommes aujourd'hui amenés à dresser la sinistre comptabilité du Proche-Orient. Depuis le 6 mai, trente-six Palestiniens, dont onze civils, ont péri dans les raids israéliens de Gaza. De l'autre côté, 146 tirs de roquettes ont été effectués sur la ville israélienne de Sdérot, faisant seize blessés. Les Palestiniens s'affrontent entre eux. Au Liban, les trente mille réfugiés palestiniens du camp de Nahr Al-Bared font les frais des combats entre l'armée libanaise et les extrémistes de Fatah-al-Islam. À cet égard, d'ailleurs, disons clairement qu'il n'y a jamais de bonne raison pour martyriser les populations civiles.

Plus globalement, nous devons appeler à un changement radical de la politique européenne au Proche-Orient. Il n'est plus acceptable de refuser de soutenir politiquement et financièrement, et sans exclusive, un gouvernement palestinien d'union nationale que nous avons appelé de nos voeux et qui, si l'on en croit le ministre des Affaires étrangères palestinien que nous avons reçu récemment, premièrement, respecte le pluralisme politique, deuxièmement, ne remet pas en cause l'État d'Israël, troisièmement, réclame la reconnaissance d'un État palestinien dans les frontières de 67, quatrièmement, renouvelle son attachement aux résolutions onusiennes et arabes, notamment sur la question des réfugiés.

Soyons lucides, l'initiative de paix scellée au sommet de Ryad n'a aucune chance d'aboutir si nous, Européens, ne travaillons pas à lever le siège politique et économique qui touche le gouvernement palestinien. Quinze mois de blocus, 70% de la population vivant en dessous du seuil de pauvreté, 50% de chômage constituent des conditions idéales pour la montée du fondamentalisme et du terrorisme mais n'offrent pas les meilleurs atouts à un gouvernement pour rétablir l'ordre et la loi. Puisque nous exigeons du gouvernement palestinien qu'il exerce ses responsabilités, exerçons les nôtres.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Mr President, as a child I was happy to believe that all people were equal. Growing into a young man I was very upset to realise how wrong I was: that there were in fact two kinds of people – those whose lives matter and those whose lives do not matter. Then, I became involved in politics and I was taught that what was really important was not what is right but what brings in votes.

Today, as an MEP, I have finally formed the opinion – simplistic and cynical as it may sound to some – that there are indeed two kinds of people: those liked by the American Government and those who are not. Based on this view, the Palestinian people can be humiliated, starved, imprisoned without trial, tortured, executed, etc. and it does not really matter, because the Bush Administration and their obedient servants, e.g. the ‘Blairinos’ of this world, consider Palestinians to be subhuman.

Therefore, why waste our time debating Palestine when we know that nothing significant will come of it? If we really care about the issue, then we should address our efforts towards the planet’s Grand Master, Mr Bush, and try to convince him that Palestinians are in fact human. If we succeed, which I very much doubt, then perhaps we can contribute constructively towards solving the Palestinian problem.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE-DE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Wszyscy pragniemy pokoju na Bliskim Wschodzie, niemniej pomysł, który się pojawił, aby Unia Europejska wznowiła pełną i bezpośrednią pomoc finansową dla władz Autonomii Palestyńskiej, jest zdecydowanie przedwczesny.

To, że w jakimś państwie przeprowadzono demokratyczne wybory, nie jest wystarczającym warunkiem pomocy europejskiej. Są państwa, gdzie jest demokracja, a mimo to Unia Europejska odmawia wydatkowania w nich pieniędzy swoich podatników.

Myślę, że możemy mówić o dwóch zasadniczych przyczynach takiej odmowy. Pierwsza to taka, iż dany kraj po prostu nie potrzebuje naszej pomocy. Druga, gdy dany kraj nie uznaje lub nie stosuje podstawowych zasad istotnych dla Unii Europejskiej.

I właśnie z takim przypadkiem mamy do czynienia w Palestynie. W istocie sporu o finansowanie nie chodzi o Izrael i Palestynę, chodzi o nasze własne zasady. Potencjalny beneficjent odmawia bowiem uznania prawa darczyńcy do stosowania pewnych rudymentarnych zasad.

Nie spieramy się o to, czy nazywać coś terroryzmem, czy walką o wolność. Spieramy się o to, czy można wspierać organizację, która programowo promuje przemoc wobec innych. Czy możemy wspierać tych, którzy wcale nie chcą pokoju? Odpowiedź na pytanie, czy powinniśmy finansować władze, które nie chcą pokoju, jest oczywista, czy wydaje się oczywista: nie powinniśmy. I nie dlatego, że w Autonomii Palestyńskiej jest chaos, nie dlatego, że nie wiadomo, jak długo Rząd Jedności Narodowej będzie w ogóle rządził. Nie dlatego, że trudno jest określić zakres jego realnej władzy. Nie dlatego, że w walkach między Hamasem a Fatahem zginęło w ubiegłym tygodniu 50 Palestyńczyków. Nawet nie dlatego, że w programach telewizyjnych dla dzieci stacji Al-Aksa nawołuje się palestyńskie dzieci do zniszczenia Izraela i do udziału w wojnie. Powinniśmy odmówić przede wszystkim dlatego, że powinniśmy szanować własne zasady, własne wartości, własną przeszłość.

Trzeba wyraźnie powiedzieć, że alternatywa, którą przedstawia premier Hanija: „zwycięstwo lub męczeństwo”, jest fałszywa i jest szkodliwa dla narodowych interesów Palestyńczyków.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (PSE). – Mr President, I was mildly encouraged by what the Commissioner had to say and, frankly, thoroughly depressed by what the Council had to say. It seems incredible that the Council fails to recognise that the creation of a government of national unity in Palestine was a major political risk both for Fatah and Hamas. The platform of unity government is a platform of negotiations and trying to reach peace, something the Council failed to acknowledge.

I believe – and I think the majority in this House now believes – that the time has come to stop all restrictions on our dealings with the Palestinian Authority. The Commissioner has said today that the conditions for renewing direct aid have almost been met. Commissioner, let us not wait for protection. I plead with you to go to the next Foreign Affairs Council meeting and ask them to recognise the Palestinian Authority’s government of national unity. If the Palestinian Government fails to keep its promise, of course we can then end our negotiations and our involvement with them, but let us give them a chance.

Failure to cooperate with the Palestinian Government does nothing to end the cycle of violence or tackle the grave humanitarian crisis that so many of my colleagues have spoken eloquently about this afternoon. Failure to cooperate with the Palestinian Government also does nothing to encourage Israel to end its financial and military assaults on Palestine. Even today, the Deputy Defence Minister of Israel warned that his country could single out the leader of Hamas, the current Palestinian Prime Minister, for extrajudicial killing. Does anyone really believe that actions such as this would help the peace process?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Mr President, after the tragic failure of the Bush administration to push for an Israel/Palestine peace deal in the last five years, the Arab peace initiative is a rare bright spot. The release of Corporal Shalit and Alan Johnston and the 40 Palestinian legislators would create much-needed goodwill. The fact that the EU and the US are maintaining links with Palestinian Foreign and Finance Ministers shows that there is no boycott, no failure to engage and the hundreds of millions of euros of humanitarian aid mean our back is not turned to the peoples’ plight.

However, it is very difficult to conceive of resuming budgetary support to the PA when the unity government has not, despite some claims to the contrary, fulfilled the Quartet demands. Even if we do not attribute to Prime Minister Haniyeh the continuing statements of Hamas spokesmen vowing to destroy Israel, we cannot ignore his invocation of God or martyrdom to rally Palestinians just last night. Colleagues who wished to argue pragmatically that the unity government is the best deal on offer should stick to that justification for supping with them and not try to persuade us that something has happened which has not.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bowis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, our message to every Israeli, every Palestinian, every member of Hamas or Fatah must be: In the name of your god and for the sake of your children, pull back!

Today we have the Israeli spokesman threatening to kill the elected Prime Minister of Palestine; we have the Hamas threats to seek vengeance; we have Fatah and Hamas in and out of conflict with each other; the killing of a Palestinian family on a Gaza beach leading to the capturing of the soldier Shalit, which led to attack and counterattack, tit for tat and on it goes. Stop; think; talk. Release soldier Shalit, release Alan Johnston and release the speaker and the 40 members of the elected Palestinian Parliament. And to the EU I say, engage with both the Palestinian Government and with the Israeli Government.

Secondly, one says, let us find ways of ending the causes of violence, and the biggest cause is poverty. Palestinian poverty has rocketed and poverty comes from withheld taxes, from unpaid employees, from trade and banking embargoes. It is time for all that to end before it ends in more violence. It is time to stop and remove illegal settlements. It is time to stop and remove that gruesome, cruel, immoral wall, and it is time, Commissioner, to publish the document compiled by the heads of mission in Jerusalem and Ramallah, who reported on East Jerusalem and whose summary was that Israel’s activities in Jerusalem are in violation both of its roadmap obligations and of international law.

Let us have that out in the open; let us talk, and let us then persuade everybody to think about their children’s future, stop the violence and work for peace.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Libor Rouček (PSE). – Násilí a nepokoje na palestinských územích pokračují. Světové agentury přinášejí každý den údaje o počtu zraněných a mrtvých. I přes opakovaná prohlášení o vyhlášení příměří mezi Fatahem a Hamásem ozbrojené konflikty mezi těmito frakcemi přetrvávají. Přetrvává i ostřelování města Siderot z pásma Gazy, stejně jako odvetné útoky izraelské strany. Stávkují palestinští zdravotníci a učitelé, mzdy nejsou vypláceny ani palestinským policistům a dalším pracovníkům veřejných služeb. Jak zde již několikráte bylo řečeno, prudce roste chudoba. Více než 80 % Palestinců v pásmu Gaza žije za méně než 2 dolary denně.

Již tímto chci naznačit, že Palestina a Izrael potřebují naši pomoc, protože sami se z této spirály i ze spirály násilí nedostanou. Patřím k těm poslancům, kteří volají po větším a širším zapojení Evropské unie. Chtěl bych proto opětovně vyzvat Komisi, aby prověřila všechny dostupné prostředky na zmobilizování rychlejší a účinnější mezinárodní pomoc. Obávám se, že pokud se toto nestane, zvyšuje se pravděpodobnost totálního kolapsu palestinské samosprávy a rozpoutání plné občanské války s nedozírnými následky nejenom pro Palestince, ale také pro Izrael a celý Blízký východ. Byla zde řeč také o Libanonu.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Mr President, it has been a very passionate discussion and I completely understand why because, as I said before, we all feel a great frustration. But you have to understand that, over the last 10 years, the European Union has really tried to play an important role for the peace process – not in order to enhance the conflict but in order to make peace, or help to make peace. In the end it is always the two parties that have to be ready, but we try to push them. We were then quite happy to be an important and influential member of the Quartet.

However, we can only be a facilitator of this peace. That means we have to look to both sides. We cannot just go to one side, and therefore we feel that we embraced the three Quartet principles as important basic principles. It really is the Council, not the Commission, that can recognise the Government – there are 27 Member States. I understand if you ask me to do so, but it is not me who can take this decision.

I know there is one instrument which you have indirectly mentioned: the cancellation or suspension of the association agreement with Israel; but do you really think this would make a difference? I do not think it would. We would no longer be a facilitator of this process, so it would be the wrong instrument at this moment.

What we have as an instrument is a continuous political dialogue where all the parties work with all the parties, but it is true that there are other members of the Quartet too, for instance the United States of America, as has been mentioned. It is very important that we feel that there is also a push from that side too. Over the last months, we have seen a much greater effort on the part of the USA, particularly from Condoleezza Rice. We have all welcomed that and have tried to move forward. The German Presidency, in particular Mrs Merkel, but also Foreign Minister Steinmeier, have really tried to move forward.

A political solution can never be brought about by violence. Unfortunately, we now have violence again. I can promise – and this is within the Commission’s competence – that we will further engage with the National Unity Government, as we have started to do. But as we have said our policy is a gradual engagement and we cannot do everything. Even Salam Fayad said to me when I first met him after the formation of the Government that I would need some time to clean up the mess in the Finance Ministry – and this is still not completely done. Therefore, we are nearly there, the technical conditions would be ready, but you also know that the Council has to give us some political backing. I want you to understand these things.

I think the situation is very dramatic, and I hope that the Council understands that we have to engage in order to help this National Unity Government achieve the right platform to continue with the peace process and with the talks on the political horizon. We know that it is a complicated situation, and that is why I said that I see at least some positive hope in the fact that Foreign Minister Livni will attend the next Council meeting after the very positive meeting we had with the Arab League, but on the ground I agree that the situation is very difficult, and, besides all this, it is also those factions and those different radical groups that are outside the Government that would like to jeopardise the whole process. It is a vicious circle and I agree that we have to try to break it up.

An honourable Member mentioned that we have extended our mission monitoring the Rafah border crossing. We did that because we think that opening up freedom of movement of goods and people is so important. I myself have been working on that with Prime Minister Olmert. I remember my last visit there when I took it up in order really to go into the details. But there are security concerns. Unfortunately, there are suicide bombers coming over the borders, a lot of funds are being smuggled, so you always have the two sides of this conflict, but we think that it is important to have prolonged this mission at the Rafah crossing because only with the European Union is there a chance of there being an opening.

We are engaging. We are also working with the Finance Minister, not only on the Temporary International Mechanism (TIM), but also on institution building and technical assistance, helping them particularly on the question of customs, revenue collection and on auditing. This has been asked for by Salam Fayad, so we are working with them. I said we will also look at what we can then perhaps fund through the TIM as regards their particular desires, so not only those things that we have been funding up till now in order to help the population to survive, but to go further.

This is what I can offer you in this delicate and difficult situation. We have to go on pushing and bringing the different parties together. I hope that the time window is still open.

 

15. Време за въпроси (въпроси към Комисията)
MPphoto
 
 

  Presidente. Segue-se o período de perguntas (B6-0018/2007).

Foram apresentadas as seguintes perguntas à Comissão.

Primeira parte

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 30 do Deputado David Martin (H-0301/07)

Assunto: Consequências negativas dos objectivos da UE no domínio dos biocombustíveis

83% da produção mundial de óleo de palma provém da Indonésia e da Malásia. Em parte como resposta à crescente procura de biocombustíveis pela UE, tanto a Indonésia como a Malásia procedem ao abate de grandes áreas de floresta - em muitos casos, florestas tropicais com elevado valor ambiental - para aí plantarem palmeiras para a produção de óleo de palma. Tem a Comissão conhecimento de que, segundo um recente relatório da ONU, 98% destas florestas poderá desaparecer até 2022? Está a Comissão ciente das consequências da desflorestação para a fauna local, como, por exemplo, para muitos orangotangos que acabam em centros de reabilitação, sendo pouca a esperança de libertação e regresso ao seu meio natural? De acordo com um grupo de pressão neerlandês, cerca de 50% do espaço para novas plantações é obtido mediante a seca e a queima de terrenos ricos em turfa, o que liberta enormes quantidades de dióxido de carbono.

Como pode a Comissão conciliar o objectivo da UE de reduzir em 20% as emissões de dióxido de carbono até 2020 com o possível aumento destas emissões na Indonésia e na Malásia (segundo o mesmo grupo de pressão, a Indonésia é o terceiro produtor mundial de CO2)? Quais são as intenções da Comissão no que se refere à introdução de um rótulo ecológico para os óleos de palma "sustentáveis"? Tenciona a Comissão examinar a possibilidade de proibir a importação de biocombustíveis para a UE?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member’s concern about deforestation and peat land draining in South-East Asia. It is aware of the link with the fast-growing demand for palm oil. Production of palm oil is growing at about 9 % per year; more than 80 % of the production comes from Malaysia and Indonesia.

In deciding how to tackle this problem, it is essential to have a clear picture of the supply of and demand for palm oil. About 1% of the world’s biofuels came from Indonesian and Malaysian palm oil in 2006. The main use of palm oil today is in food and other non-energy sectors. Only 1% of palm oil production from Indonesia and Malaysia was used for biofuel production in 2006.

However, demand for bioenergy is likely to rise in the future, and not only in the European Union, and that leads to increased production of palm oil for biofuels. Having said that, the Commission is aware that, if nothing is done, the increasing demand for biofuel, linked to the proposed Community biofuel target for 2020, could create additional environmental pressures, which would be contrary to the sustainable approach supported by Parliament, the Commission and the Council.

Today, no mandatory certification exists that will guarantee that tropical rainforests or peat lands in South East Asia are not suffering from the production of palm oil, regardless of its use. Within the framework of its legislative proposal, the Commission will therefore include a biofuel sustainability scheme designed to ensure that the biofuel sector plays its part in tackling this issue.

The Commission is currently working on the design of this scheme. It aims to include measures to deter the conversion of both tropical forests and peat lands for biofuel production, as well as measures to deter the use of production methods that are inefficient in greenhouse gas terms. These measures will apply to domestically produced biofuels as well as imported biofuels. In view of the above, any attempt to deal comprehensively with the impact of oil palm cultivation on the environment would need to take into account oil palm production for all end users.

The Commission, the Council and Parliament have all expressed support for a balanced approach to biofuels in which domestic production and imports will both contribute to meeting the huge requirement, but production will be carried out on a sustainable basis.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (PSE). – Thank you, Commissioner, for that reply. Do you accept that the objective of the biofuels policy of the European Union is to reduce global emissions, not just European Union emissions? My concern and the concern that lies behind this question is that if we only measure the emissions from biofuels in Europe and not the emissions involved in the production and shipping of those biofuels, we might not actually be contributing to the reduction in global emissions.

I am pleased to hear what the Commissioner said about the sustainability scheme. Will the Commission look at how we can distinguish between good and bad biofuels from the point of view of emissions?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. I definitely agree that our global scheme is to fight global emissions of CO2 and for this reason we are certainly looking at the carbon footprint of biofuels use.

At the same time, if the biofuels produced in one region would have to be transported to another region, we cannot artificially forbid this. For this reason, our scheme should include that the best biofuels are the more rewarded with the support and in this way it is a part of the scheme that will not encourage transporting palm oil to supply our market.

Additionally, I believe it is extremely important to understand that we need to work in parallel towards a way of protecting peat lands and rainforests. Because, whatever we do, we perhaps will be sustainable. There will be other regions that will just go for palm oil.

So, in the negotiations which are to start in Bali, we need to work towards a scheme for protecting the rainforests, as well as looking at how to encourage the planting of more forests on the Earth, not for palm oil for our transport, but for less CO2 emissions from transport as a whole.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – Pirmininke, gerbiamas Komisijos nary, aš norėjau pasiteirauti, kaip biodegalų gamyba, jos augimas gali paveikti maisto rinką. JAV kukurūzai, kurie naudojami biodegalams gaminti, yra žymiai brangesni už grūdus. Ar tolimoje perspektyvoje, pereidami prie tokio atsinaujinančio energijos šaltinio, mes neturėsime krizės maisto produktų rinkoje?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. It is a justified question. There is a lot of land in the European Union that is not being used. Therefore much of this land could be used for producing biomass, not only for biofuels but also for producing heat, for cooling or for producing electricity. A number of countries have a situation that is sustainable; they produce 12 % of their electricity from biomass. At the same time, they also produce biofuels. So there is potential for using that land. If I look at the second generation of biofuels, there is land that could be used for producing biofuels.

The Commission has calculated that the European Union could cover 14% of its needs, even if we do not import biofuels from other parts of the world.

Concerning the increase in the price of food products, this is influenced by many elements. You mentioned the example of maize. The price of corn is decided on the global market and it has been highly affected by the severe drought in Australia and the potential growth in the United States. There is some correlation if the farmer is given the choice of using his land for producing either biofuels or basic foodstuffs. But I believe the market will respond appropriately and, if our sustainability scheme that will encourage the production of biofuels with fewer CO2 emissions is put in place, there will be a balance in this market.

I have never said that we will be able to replace all the oil we use with biofuels. There is potential both in the European Union and globally, but it will never replace all the oil we use. At this stage I would say that it is not a question of food prices or the use of biofuels, because globally biofuels are used on a very small scale and they definitely have not had any impact at this stage on the price of foodstuffs.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – Herr Kommissar, Sie haben zu Recht darauf hingewiesen, dass es durchaus Sinn macht, dafür zu sorgen, dass auf Brachland in Europa nun Pflanzen angebaut werden, aus denen man Treibstoffe gewinnen kann. Ein aktuelles Problem ergibt sich dabei bei der Produktion von Braugerste, weil die Förderung für die Produktion von Biokraftstoffen es für den Landwirt attraktiver macht, hier andere Produkte anzubauen. Somit hatten wir im eigenen Land, in der eigenen Wirtschaft Probleme, für einen nicht ganz unwichtigen Wirtschaftszweig – die Produktion von Bier – die entsprechenden Grundstoffe zu erzeugen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andris Piebalgs, Mitglied der Kommission. Man könnte fragen, was wichtiger ist: Nahrung oder Energie? Als wir uns noch selbst mit Erdöl und Erdgas versorgen konnten, war die Situation eine andere. Heute müssen wir alles importieren. Wir wissen, dass auch global die Nachfrage nach Erdöl und Erdgas steigt. Und doch möchten wir das gleiche Niveau an Komfort halten. Das bedeutet, dass ein Teil unserer Bemühungen in die Produktion von Energie fließen muss. Wie gesagt: Zurzeit haben wir so viele Möglichkeiten und Reserven, dass wir all diese Möglichkeiten ausschöpfen müssen.

Doch müssen wir auch klug sein und nicht irgendetwas machen, wofür wir später teuer bezahlen müssen. Die Schemen, die wir entwickeln, bedeuten einen ersten Schritt. Wir haben alle Möglichkeiten, diese Schemen so zu gestalten, dass es für die Nahrungsmittelindustrie zu keinen großen Schwierigkeiten kommt.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 31 da Deputada Danute Budreikaite (H-0303/07)

Assunto: Acordo entre os Estados-Membros da UE e a Rússia no domínio da energia

Com a publicação, pela Comissão, do 'pacote energético', em Janeiro de 2007, foi dado novo ímpeto aos esforços de alguns Estados-Membros no sentido de um abastecimento de recursos energéticos procedentes da Rússia mediante a conclusão de acordos bilaterais ou trilaterais com esse país.

A Rússia, a Grécia e Bulgária assinaram um acordo sobre um oleoduto que ligará o Mar Vermelho ao Mar Egeu. A respectiva construção deverá ter início em finais de 2007, devendo encontrar-se concluída em 2011.

A Hungria, conjuntamente com a empresa russa "Gazprom", procederá à construção do gasoduto "Energia Azul", que, partindo da Turquia, atravessará a Bulgária e a Roménia. Esse gasoduto seguirá o traçado previsto pela UE para o gasoduto "Nabucco". O novo acordo com a Rússia denomina-se "Acordo sobre a diversificação do abastecimento de gás".

Qual a posição da Comissão relativamente a uma tal diversificação do abastecimento energético, visto que o fornecedor é a mesma "Gazprom"? Qual o impacto eventual de tais acordos na execução da política comum da UE no domínio da energia?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. These are issues that we have discussed previously: how to supply the European Union with sufficient energy resources. As you know today 50% of our energy supplies are covered by imports and we know that in the future the percentage will be even higher. It could be 65%, with more than 80% of gas being imported and even more oil, with over 90% being imported.

For this reason we will continue to work with all traditional suppliers. For gas it is Russia which today provides 27.5% of our supplies. Oil is supplied by Norway at 14% and Algeria at 12.5%. For this reason, we are interested in strengthening ties with traditional suppliers and obtaining more supply routes. Supply routes that deliver gas and oil are exposed to danger. I would mention a recent explosion in the Ukrainian gas pipeline system. That certainly had an impact on transport but, because there were other ways of delivering gas, it did not affect the EU internal market. However, it is very clear that having more supply routes is more beneficial for consumers.

EU dependency on Russia should not be over-emphasised because it is clear that, with Russia having the biggest gas resources as well as being one of the countries with the biggest oil resources, it is natural that supplies from Russia are topping our import list. The Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline is in my opinion a very important project because it bypasses the Turkish Straits. In this way, it reduces first of all the possibility of an environmental disaster and secondly it is an additional supply route to channel oil that is produced north of the Caspian to European markets. So, for this reason, this project also got support from the Commission because it is an additional supply route and it does not increase our dependence on Russia.

At the same time it is very important to diversify; first because relying on one supplier gives the monopoly supplier a chance to dictate the price but also because it gives an opportunity to influence consumer choices. For this reason the European Union has actively diversified its supply. One of the areas where we have been getting supplies this year is the Caspian Sea and Shah-Deniz in Azerbaijan, where we have established very good cooperation from the countries surrounding Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey.

Nabucco will be the next project that will be implemented. Nabucco is a more ambitious project. It will take a bit more time but we are well on track to obtaining supplies from this source through the fourth potential gas supply corridor. At the same time we are also diversifying oil supplies because a project has also been announced from Samsun to Ceyhan, an additional oil supply project that again will bring oil from the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea region towards the European Union.

We are encouraging cooperation with these countries around the world because, even if there are three big suppliers to the gas market – Russia, Iran and Qatar – there are other suppliers who could increase supplies. Norway will increase supplies to the European Union in the next few years by close to 50%. The same is happening with Algeria, which will provide additional supplies and more and more LNG terminals are coming on-stream.

For this reason, I believe that we should continue to work with Russia. We should continue to buy energy resources because, for Russia, the EU is the best possible market because it is the closest market and mutual ties have existed for some time, but for security of supply it is important to diversify.

Additionally, I would like to stress two further elements because it is never the case that you can rely only on imports. It is important to develop energy sources inside the European Union, to be extremely energy-efficient and to build internal energy infrastructure whether it be pipelines or electricity transmission lines. The European Union is very active in all these areas, even if we always recognise that each country decides on its own energy mix. But, through the instruments of the internal market and through the instruments given us by European legislation, we are encouraging the use of local resources and being very energy-efficient.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – Gerbiamas Komisijos nary, dėkoju už atsakymą ir suteiktas viltis, kad mes visgi rasime ir kitų, alternatyvių energijos šaltinių, nes, kaip minima mano pateiktame klausime, ir, atsižvelgiant į dabartinę situaciją, akivaizdu, kad ir kokie bebūtų susitarimai, viename gale vamzdžio, bet kurio, ar naftos, ar dujų, yra Rusija. Lietuvai Rusija nustojo tiekti naftą, tą patį daro ir Latvijai. Todėl labai pasitikėti šiuo šaltiniu negalime. Tačiau prašyčiau, kad visi dėtume bendras pastangas siekdami greičiau įgyvendinti projektus dėl kitų, alternatyvių energijos šaltinių.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. Well, I always advise Member States to be active. I hope that they hear what you are saying and what I am saying because it is always important for Member States to cooperate among themselves and look for alternatives. Theoretically, if there is a need, the Baltic States could use one additional energy terminal.

But it is the governments that should decide how to diversify and how to cooperate and how to get interconnection. I am very glad that we have managed to interconnect the Baltic countries’ market with Finland. Now the big task is to achieve interconnection with Poland and in the future with the other Nordic countries. This would also eliminate the risk of a possible disruption of supply from one direction affecting the whole country.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – Herr Kommissar! Mich würde interessieren, wie im Bereich der Transeuropäische Netze (TEN) die finanzielle Unterstützung gesichert werden soll. Gibt es einen Terminplan, wann für diese TEN-Leitungen – wie z. B. Nabucco oder Bluestream – tatsächlich Mittel fließen, und könnten Sie sich vorstellen, dass der Zeitplan für die Überprüfung 2008 entsprechend vorbereitet wird?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andris Piebalgs, Mitglied der Kommission. Die Kommission wird in diesem Bereich nur teilweise unterstützend tätig, weil uns im Haushalt nicht so viele Mittel zur Verfügung stehen. Natürlich unterstützen wir die Gesellschaften und die Unternehmen, die dort Geld investieren können. Es ist eine wirtschaftlich sehr interessante Sache, in Energietransport zu investieren. Zurzeit kann ich sagen, dass der Zeitplan für Nabucco mit 2012 festgelegt ist. Die Kommission hat bereits eine begrenzte finanzielle Unterstützung geleistet, aber auch die politische Unterstützung ist wichtig. Der Koordinator für dieses Projekt wird in den nächsten Monaten bekannt gegeben, natürlich in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Europäischen Parlament.

Ich glaube, dass wir nach der Annahme des Energiepakets die Möglichkeit haben, zu dieser Frage zurückzukommen, wenn die Haushaltsperspektive diskutiert wird. Meiner Meinung nach gibt es auch die Notwendigkeit, mehr Mittel für Transeuropäische Energienetzwerke zu reservieren, weil es Richtungen gibt, die strategisch wichtig und gleichzeitig für die Wirtschaft nicht so profitabel sind. Deshalb brauchen wir mehr Geld. Aber wir haben noch Zeit, all das zu analysieren und einen Vorschlag vorzubereiten.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – Thank you for your answers, Commissioner, they are really impressive.

I would like to ask you whether the Commission has noticed that Russia has never created difficulties as regards supplying ‘old’ EU Member States with oil and gas, whereas with Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary and other new EU Member States, there have been many difficulties. What do you think about these first- and second-class forms of treatment?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. There are two explanations for this. First of all, sometimes new Member States’ policies have not been very clear as regards diversification; at least some of the new Member States have not tried to encourage as much diversification as could be possible, thereby becoming more dependent on one supplier, Russia.

Secondly, I do not think that Russia does this on purpose; it is just because those countries are the first in line whenever supplies are disrupted and, as they are more exposed than older Member States in terms of diversification of supply, they are affected more. Member States should do much more and invest more in the diversification of the energy mix, of supply routes and of suppliers.

Furthermore, when the infrastructure is affected, those countries are the first to have a problem because the historical networks were constructed precisely to connect Russia, as a supplier, with those countries, as consumers. That is why this perception exists, but I would repeat that diversification is the key to avoiding this state of affairs, and every country should embark on diversification in order to minimise any problem that may arise in the transport of supplies. I believe also that the suppliers would then take more care to deliver in the best possible time and to repair the networks as soon as possible if any leaks occur.

 
  
  

Segunda parte

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 33 do Deputado Claude Moraes (H-0298/07)

Assunto: Sítios Web de incitamento ao ódio

Qual é o ponto de vista da Comissão sobre a proliferação de sítios Web que incitam ao ódio, com destaque para os sítios que promovem e incitam ao ódio racista, anti-semita e anti-roma, nalguns casos com indicação de nomes e pormenores de contacto relativos a activistas que poderão, desse modo, ser escolhidos como alvo?

Tem a Comissão conhecimento de iniciativas parlamentares, no Reino Unido e noutros países, para resolver o problema desse tipo de sítios Web? A Comissão propõe algumas iniciativas semelhantes?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. Racist and xenophobic violence and hate speech are a very sad reality all around Europe. According to the 2006 annual report of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, the majority of Member States have recorded an increase in racist violence and other racist crimes over the past few years.

The Commission has always rejected and condemned in the strongest possible terms all manifestations and expressions of racism, regardless of their source and form of manifestation. A measure to fight racist speech is perfectly compatible with freedom of expression if – and only if – it respects Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I would be the first to admit that defining the border between safeguarding freedom of expression and defining racist speech as a penal crime is not an easy task and that it requires careful consideration. However, I am convinced that there is no contradiction in simultaneously protecting people against racist speech and making sure that freedom of expression remains one of the key pillars upon which our societies are founded.

This is the spirit in which the Council reached a political agreement on 20 April 2007 on a framework decision aimed at ensuring that racism and xenophobia are punishable in all Member States by effective, proportionate criminal penalties. This framework decision requires Member States to criminalise intentional conduct, such as public incitement to violence or hate towards a group of people or persons belonging to a group defined on the basis of race.

Incitement to violence or hatred will also have to be made punishable throughout the EU if committed by public dissemination or distribution of pictures. Distribution in this context means disseminating action by any means of transmission, including through websites.

I am not aware of any parliamentary action in the UK or in other Member States to tackle those websites. However, the framework decision is expected to lead to the adoption of new legislation, at least in certain Member States, to address racist crimes, including those committed via the internet.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Claude Moraes (PSE). – Commissioner, your answer clearly reflects the efforts that you put into the framework decision on racist crimes and you are clearly saying that that this kind of cybercrime has hit websites which, if they were in the printed word, would be deeply offensive to everyone in this House. Now that they are on the web they are equally as offensive. Do you feel the framework decision will do the job adequately or do you feel that the cybercrime communication, which again is current, may be a way forward or do you believe it is just a question of asking Member States to implement adequate laws which will cope with an accelerating rise in the most offensive sites which excite racial hatred and violence based on difference?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Franco Frattini, Vicepresidente della Commissione. Signor Presidente, onorevoli deputati, a mio parere questa decisione quadro è adeguata. L'abbiamo adottata dopo cinque anni di discussioni politiche e secondo me oggi la vigilanza dovrà essere sugli Stati membri affinché la traspongano in modo integrale e rapido e, soprattutto, affinché la pratica applicazione di queste regole sia effettiva. Oggi la Commissione ha adottato una comunicazione generale sui reati cibernetici la quale sottolinea la necessità di una rete europea tra tutte le autorità di polizia per accertare se internet, questa straordinaria e positiva rivoluzione, venga utilizzato, come purtroppo accade, da criminali. Abbiamo infatti osservato che i crimini razzisti e l'incitamento alla violenza sono in crescita in Europa.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS). – Herr Kommissar, ein weiterer, meines Erachtens nicht zu vernachlässigender Aspekt in dieser Frage ist die Vielzahl der von fundamentalistischen Moslems betriebenen antiwestlichen Propaganda- und Hassseiten im Internet, auf denen zum Kampf gegen die westliche Welt und deren Ideale aufgerufen wird. Ist sich die Kommission dieser Aktivitäten bewusst und gibt es Maßnahmen, auch hier gegenzusteuern?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Franco Frattini, vice-président de la Commission. Cet aspect sera au cœur de la discussion qui va avoir lieu dans deux jours, cette semaine donc, au sein du G8, où l'Union européenne et les autres partenaires vont, précisément, aborder la question de l'incitation à la violence et au terrorisme sur le Web et les sites Internet. La piste que je propose d'explorer consiste à criminaliser les comportements de ceux qui incitent concrètement à des activités criminelles terroristes et qui exploitent le réseau à cette fin. Ma proposition va être présentée au Conseil de ministres d'ici quelques mois.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – Herr Vizepräsident der Kommission! Ich habe eine Frage, die sich auf das Internet und indirekt auf den Terrorismus bezieht. Als Maßnahme gegen Terrorismus wurde die Richtlinie zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung erlassen.

Ist es richtig, dass Wertkarten-Handys, Webmail-Betreiber, wie etwa Hotmail oder auch private Server davon nicht erfasst werden können? Damit ist ein relativ großer Kreis beschrieben, den auch terroristische Netzwerke nutzen könnten, um diese Erfassung zu umgehen. Worin liegt jetzt der konkrete Mehrwert dieser Richtlinie zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Franco Frattini, Vicepresidente della Commissione . Signor Presidente, onorevoli deputati, il valore aggiunto di questa direttiva è quello di permettere la registrazione, non il contenuto, della telefonata, solo il fatto che una telefonata è avvenuta da un certo posto, ad una certa ora, da un certo telefono. Questo come tutti sanno, è stato utile per l'individuazione concreta del movimento di alcuni criminali e di alcuni sospetti terroristi.

Ovviamente con le tecnologie dobbiamo riuscire a individuare anche coloro che si servono di tecnologie più avanzate, cioè provider privati o a esempio schede SIM che non sono state formalmente registrate. Ma questa è una questione di tecnologia. Nella comunicazione di oggi sui reati cibernetici propongo una conferenza europea con il settore privato e con l'industria che si terrà a novembre, a Bruxelles, nella quale si farà il punto proprio sulle tecnologie applicate alla sicurezza per proteggere l'uso corretto della rete internet.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 34 da Deputada Glenis Willmott (H-0300/07)

Assunto: Linha telefónica de emergência a nível da UE para vítimas de prostituição forçada

Na sequência das pressões exercidas pelo Parlamento Europeu em Junho de 2006, o Comissário responsável pela Justiça, Liberdade e Segurança referiu-se a planos de criação de uma linha telefónica (multilingue) de emergência a nível da UE para vítimas de prostituição forçada. A referida linha teria por objectivo fornecer uma primeira ajuda às vítimas de tráfico, permitindo-lhes falar com um interlocutor imparcial e encorajando-as, por essa importante via, a procurar aconselhamento e apoio. Como obstáculo à criação dessa linha foi referida a dificuldade em conseguir um acordo entre todas as companhias telefónicas dos então 25 Estados-Membros.

Que medidas adoptou a Comissão para tornar essa linha de emergência uma realidade e que progressos foram eventualmente conseguidos para obter a participação das companhias telefónicas nesse projecto?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. As you know the Commission and I personally are committed to fully implementing the European action plan against trafficking in human beings which I proposed here at the beginning of 2006 and which this Parliament endorsed. This action covers the protection of victims of trafficking. Its implementation requires close cooperation between Member States, institutions and civil society organisations. The action plan should be regarded as a long-term programme which will guide continuous EU action in the near future and in any case far beyond summer 2007.

I consider free telephone helplines as a valuable mechanism, offering advice to victims in need. They are particularly useful to spread confidence. I am committed to setting up without any delay a hotline for victims and those vulnerable to trafficking, covering all Member States in the European Union. You may know perhaps that on 15 February 2007 we adopted, as a Commission, a decision which requires Member States to reserve a range of six-digit national telephone numbers for single freephone numbers all beginning with 116 for services with social values. One of the many subjects to be covered could be telephone hotlines for victims of trafficking in human beings.

The above decision has already reserved the number 116000 for hotlines to report missing children. I will discuss the latter project in more detail at a Conference on an International Day for Missing Children which will be held in Brussels on 25 May, and at the Conference on the Rights of the Child, to be held in Berlin on 4 June 2007. ‘116’ numbers can be compared with the emergency number 112 in that they will give access to national or local organisations providing the service in question in the Member State in which the call was placed.

We have launched a public consultation for identifying other services which would benefit from single European freephone numbers. This consultation was open for proposals until 20 May. This is expected to lead to other numbers being reserved for other services later in the year. Making them operational, allowing for citizens to be able to call these numbers, will then be the task of Member States, their telecom regulatory authorities and telephone operators.

The reservation of a common number and the creation of a network of hotlines is the first practical step to support victims. In addition to setting up a network of hotlines we seek to improve the assistance to victims of trafficking by other means too. My firm commitment to the issue is confirmed by the fact that the 2007 budget establishing a specific programme to fight against crime foresees four projects in the field of prevention and fight against crime in specific areas, including trafficking. We are also supporting the creation of a European anti-trafficking day, which aims to increase the visibility of the problem connected with trafficking. The initiative will take place on 18 October this year. We are highly committed to raising awareness and reinforcing policy means in order to provide quality services for those in need of assistance.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Glenis Willmott (PSE). – Thank you for that very comprehensive answer, Commissioner, but you give your opinion on whether you feel that the EU’s efforts to tackle forced prostitution during the World Cup in Germany were successful, and what lessons can be learnt from this experience for future international sporting events held in Europe, such as the 2012 Olympic Games which are to be held in London?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Franco Frattini, Vicepresidente della Commissione. Posso dirle che abbiamo completato una valutazione dei risultati della cooperazione di polizia durante i mondiali di calcio in Germania, renderemo pubbliche le conclusioni e poi ci sarà un dibattito, il quale, secondo me, dovrà coinvolgere pienamente il Parlamento europeo.

Consideriamo l'esperienza dei mondiali in Germania un caso di scuola positivo. Probabilmente siamo riusciti a prevenire il trasporto verso il territorio europeo di alcune migliaia di giovani ragazze destinate alla prostituzione. Abbiamo avuto una cooperazione con 12 paesi membri dell'Unione europea. La Germania e la polizia tedesca hanno svolto un lavoro eccellente. Abbiamo offerto le conclusioni che renderemo pubbliche come contributo per gli altri eventi sportivi futuri in Europa. Posso dirvi che esiste un'interessante attenzione della Repubblica popolare cinese in relazione allo svolgimento dei giochi olimpici di Pechino 2008. In altri termini è un'esperienza giudicata utile come modello.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – Herr Kommissar! Ich halte das für eine ausgezeichnete Initiative, aber wie machen wir den Opfern klar, dass sie diese Nummer nutzen können? Hat die Kommission die für die Verbreitung dieser Information erforderlichen Mittel eingeplant? Wie stellen Sie sicher, dass es in der Praxis wirklich funktioniert? Bei den Opfern, z. B. jungen Frauen aus Russland, handelt es sich ja zumeist um Personen, die keine EU-Sprache sprechen. Wie stellen Sie in der Praxis sicher, dass diese Hotlines auch funktionieren – meist besteht ja sehr starker Zeitverzug – und man nicht in eine Warteschleife geschaltet wird und vielleicht erst nach einer halben Stunde eine passende Antwort bekommt?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Franco Frattini, Vicepresidente della Commissione. Certamente abbiamo affrontato ed esaminato questo problema operativo: il primo numero, precisamente il 116000, sarà destinato ai bambini. Lo renderemo noto con una pubblicità in tutte le sedi: nelle scuole, negli aeroporti, nelle stazioni, con la diffusione di pubblicazioni che spiegheranno in modo estremamente semplice che esiste un numero e chi risponde a quel numero non parlerà solo la lingua del paese dove la telefonata viene fatta. Stiamo estendendo progressivamente la possibilità, prevista anche dal contratto dei concessionari che svolgeranno il servizio, che si parlino almeno tutte le lingue ufficiali dell'Unione europea. Ovviamente dobbiamo pensare anche a lingue come quella russa. Per ora, come prima fase, l'aggiudicazione della concezione avverrà prima delle ferie estive, cosicché questo telefono possa essere consultato fisicamente e avvieremo una pubblicità massiccia. La stessa cosa faremo quando gli altri numeri, diversi dal 116000, verranno attribuiti con determinate priorità, tra cui sicuramente quella delle vittime della prostituzione forzata.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – Pirmininke, gerbiamas Komisijos nary, jūs tikrai pristatėte išsamią kovos su nusikalstamumu programą, kalbėjote apie kelias ypatingas telefono linijas – „hotline“. Aš norėčiau paklausti, ar tų linijų gausa nesukels tam tikros painiavos? Ir ar, sakykim, paskambinusios „112“, galės prašyti pagalbos priverstinės prekybos žmonėmis aukos?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. This special number, 116000 for example, will replace all the national hotlines, so there will be only one number. In my country there is now one number and in France there is another one. In the near future there will be only the number 116000 for missing children, and so on. All these special European numbers will replace national numbers, of course.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Arlene McCarthy (PSE). – Mr President, on a point of order, I have to object to the way the questions are being handled. Members take the time to draft questions, submit them six to eight weeks in advance, and then you do not take those questions because you give the floor to other Members who wander in, look at the list and may have a fleeting interest in the question. You have taken up time with two questioners or people who have not taken the time to question the Commissioner properly. I object to that on the basis that I have taken the time to draft proper questions and I would like an answer from the Commissioner so that I can also follow up with the press on those issues.

In future Members will not want to table questions if this is the way you intend to conduct Question Time.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Presidente. Senhora Deputada, a sua questão é pertinente, mas eu estou apenas a cumprir o Regimento.

Por não se encontrar presente o Deputado Marc Tarabella, a pergunta nº 38 caduca.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 39 do Deputado Marco Cappato (H-0289/07)

Assunto: Acesso à comunicação para as pessoas com deficiência

Que iniciativas está a Comissão a lançar ou tenciona promover para facilitar o acesso das pessoas com deficiência aos instrumentos de comunicação, com especial referência ao acesso à rede de banda larga, aos SMS, a chamadas vídeo a preços adequados para pessoas surdas, à legendagem das transmissões televisivas a partir das transmissões de serviço público e de informação política e eleitoral, e a adopção gratuita da assinatura digital?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. In answer to the Honourable Member's question, I should like to say that the European Union’s strategy in terms of people with disabilities has been laid down in the Disability Action Plan of 2003-2010, where access to ICT is a priority. You might also know that one of the pillars of the i2010 Action Plan is inclusion. On that basis, the Commission adopted a communication on e-accessibility in 2005 and a communication on e-inclusion is in preparation for the end of 2007 and in this text there will be a proposal for new actions when appropriate.

We are not only working on concrete actions in that way, we are also encouraging our research efforts in the direction of developing new methodologies and new services for the disabled. We also have the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – the CIP – which supports our ICT policy with pilot projects and so on and so forth. Several actions are proposed on e-accessibility and on something that will become very important in the future – ICT for the elderly. Very often they are the people, because there are people with disabilities and very often the elderly have those disabilities too and they represent a very high future percentage of our population. That is why ICT for the elderly for ambient living will become one of the strong elements of our future policies, not only in theory but also in research and in practical implementation.

We are also supporting standardisation on e-accessibility. For instance, we have taken an initiative to harmonise at EU level the accessibility requirements for public procurement in the ICT domain through an EU standard, because we believe that common standards can facilitate the development of accessible ICT products by the industry, leading to more uptake which also means to lower prices. Therefore the one is linked to the other.

There are also some vertical issues. In June 2006 we will propose strengthening the right of disabled users to access emergency services and introducing a Community mechanism to address e-accessibility issues. We will have an opportunity to discuss those problems with Parliament when together we will try to find a solution for the universal service. There will be a public consultation on the scope by the end of 2007 or the beginning of 2008 – I do not know yet exactly when – but that will be the time for Parliament and our main stakeholders to come forward with proposals to see what we are going to do with the universal service.

A very concrete problem should be solved the day after tomorrow, because then the Council is going to accept the European Parliament’s amendment at its meeting concerning the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. Parliament introduced an amendment on subtitling, improving accessibility for people with disabilities to audiovisual media services. I hope the Council will accept this and then the new policy will go also in this direction.

The question of digital signatures will gain in importance as secure electronic communications are developing between commercial and public service providers and users. The Commission will look at this issue in the follow-up to the European Electronic Signatures Directive and the e-government Action Plan, also bearing in mind people with disabilities.

I can just tell you in a very personal way that the various presidencies of the European Union have all held a congress or an exhibition – something official and public – to show how the results of the research have been put into practice. I have always thought that this was a very good example to be taken up in our e-government activities, which are there to be proposed by the Commission and the European Union, but they have to be implemented by local governments most of all and by regional and national governments. I have seen the enthusiasm with which regional and local governments in particular have taken up the results of our work to provide practical help for the disabled people living in their region.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marco Cappato (ALDE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio il Commissario per la risposta molto dettagliata e sistematica delle politiche in atto. Vorrei in particolare ringraziare per il collegamento fatto, nei termini in cui intendevo farlo io, sulla questione del rapporto stretto tra le tecnologie per aiutare le persone disabili e quelle che invece possono aiutare le persone anziane.

Vista la tendenza demografica europea, con una popolazione che invecchia sempre di più, come media, la rivoluzione tecnologica può dare risposte di un'ampiezza sociale enorme. L'ultimo punto, che volevo portare alla sua attenzione è che per alcune persone completamente immobili e in grado di parlare magari soltanto con il movimento degli occhi simili tecnologie sono non solo un problema, un aiuto, sono un modo per realizzare un diritto civile fondamentale, la libertà di espressione.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. There are many technologies and many techniques that can be utilised in order to help in this respect. I really believe that the ageing of the population will first need a response from us on the societal level, but this response on the societal level is also an opportunity for the European industry, because if our industry gets the societal response from the policymakers, from those who are responsible in areas, in regions, in countries and at European level, then they can start to market systems, services and items for the elderly. I believe that this will not only help our society but also our economy.

So this is a turning point. It is also a question of growth and jobs, because, if we get it right, we can export systems on the societal level, as well as commercial items and services, outside of Europe. So I really believe that all those elements are working closely together for the betterment of our society and of our economy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 40 do Deputado Georgios Papastamkos (H-0296/07)

Assunto: Separação nos mercados de telecomunicações electrónicas

Num discurso recentemente pronunciado em Bruxelas, a Comissária Reding defendeu que o sector das telecomunicações na UE deve seguir o método europeu de separação entre as infra-estruturas e os serviços para que haja uma verdadeira concorrência no sector das infra-estruturas terrestres. Como instrumento principal para o legislador nacional propõe a "separação jurídica entre as infra-estruturas de rede a os níveis dos serviços". No entanto, a Comissária não exclui até a total separação operacional para os mercados das telecomunicações electrónicas.

Poderá a Comissão aprofundar um pouco mais o que entende por "método europeu"? Considera que o Organismo de Telecomunicações da Grécia se integra na categoria a que poderia ser aplicada a separação total?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. The honourable Member asked me what I mean by the expression ‘our European way of separation’. We currently have a framework for telecoms that provide regulatory tools or remedies to the NRAs in cases where markets are not competitive, and in its review of the framework the Commission will be looking at ways of strengthening the single market for telecom services.

One possible innovation is to work more closely on remedies, because remedies are sometimes either not applied or not applied swiftly, which is the same problem. We have also analysed that one possible tool as a remedy could be functional separation, which means separating the network business of a dominant market player from the part of the business that provides a service to the end customers.

This functional separation can provide the right incentive to providers of network services not to discriminate between customers for wholesale services. This can in turn mean that the conditions for real competition in the telecom markets are improved.

So we are not speaking here about forcing dominant players to sell off part of their businesses, as has happened in other parts of the world – for example in the United States with AT&T. We would not like to go in that direction, and that is why I am talking about ‘the European way’. It would then be for each national regulator to assess the condition in its own Member State before considering such a remedy. This has already been done in Britain with Openreach, so that is one example which we have in that case.

The honourable Member also asked about Greece. In the case of Greece it would then be the Greek regulator, on the basis of national law in line with the updated EU framework, to take account of competitive conditions and all other relevant factors in the Greek market, and then to propose – or not – such a remedy if he thought it to be necessary and in the interests of the Greek market.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Γεώργιος Παπαστάμκος (PPE-DE). – Ευχαριστώ την κυρία Επίτροπο για την απάντησή της. Έχω όμως την αίσθηση ότι, στην πράξη, έχουμε 27 διαφορετικά ρυθμιστικά συστήματα στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Σε ό,τι αφορά τις ηλεκτρονικές επικοινωνίες, απέχουμε πολύ από το να μιλούμε για μια πραγματική εσωτερική αγορά.

Εσείς ασφαλώς κάνετε πολύ μεγάλη προσπάθεια στον τομέα αυτό. Η ρυθμιστική αυτή αβεβαιότητα ή, να το θέσω διαφορετικά, η πολυδιάσπαση προκαλεί αβεβαιότητες για επενδύσεις, προκαλεί αβεβαιότητες στον ανταγωνισμό, αβεβαιότητες στην καινοτομία και, βεβαίως, δημιουργεί ελάχιστες θέσεις εργασίας.

Το ερώτημά μου είναι: μπορούμε να μιλούμε για μια ευρωπαϊκή βιομηχανία τηλεπικοινωνιών χωρίς μια πανευρωπαϊκή ρυθμιστική συνοχή;

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. The honourable Member is absolutely right. For the time being we do not have a European market for telecoms. I think that has to be changed, because the only way for Europe to stay strong in matters of telecommunications – and Europe is strong, we are really one of the leading forces on the world market in this – is to get rid of 27 sometimes conflicting regulatory systems and come to one system which makes sense and which will also permit cross-border services and investments to take place, and enable us to have big European players which will work across several countries. So we are now working towards opening the market for international roaming. Parliament is going to decide on that tomorrow, and that is always a sign to show where we want to go in the future.

I will certainly come forward with a proposal for the reform of the e-communications package in order to get this European market to function, not to get rid of the national regulators – I think that we still need them because they know their market best – but in order to get not harmonisation, but logic in the remedies which they propose and which have to be applied swiftly so that there is a level playing field between the different markets and so that the cross-border activities of the industries can take place without being blocked by a lack of market opening in other markets.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 41 da Deputada Katerina Batzeli (H-0310/07)

Assunto: Quadro europeu para uma utilização mais segura dos telefones móveis pelas crianças e adolescentes

A entrada em vigor do Quadro europeu para uma utilização mais segura dos telefones móveis pelas crianças e adolescentes, adoptado a 6 de Fevereiro pelas principais empresas do sector na UE, é saudada como um primeiro passo importante para garantir a protecção dos menores contra certos riscos decorrentes da utilização de telefones móveis; considera-se mesmo que esta política deve ser integrada na Comunicação da Comissão "Rumo a uma estratégia da UE sobre os direitos da criança" (COM(2006)0367 final).

Que meios considera a Comissão apropriados para a aplicação deste quadro a nível nacional de modo a garantir a sua aplicação e controlo efectivos por parte dos pais, professores e responsáveis pelos menores? Dado que este quadro europeu é um código de auto regulamentação das empresas europeias, de que modo irá a Comissão participar na supervisão da sua correcta aplicação nos Estados-Membros e avaliar a sua eficácia? Quais as competências das autoridades nacionais de regulamentação no que diz respeito à elaboração dos códigos nacionais de auto regulamentação, o mais tardar até Fevereiro de 2008, e à supervisão da sua aplicação? Considera a Comissão oportuna a adopção futura de uma iniciativa legislativa comunitária vinculativa para os Estados-Membros e as empresas, dado que a auto regulação por si só não pode ser suficiente?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. I think that, if I have heard correctly, this question has already been partially answered by my colleague Mr Frattini who also spoke on this subject. The fact that he partially answered this question clearly shows that it is the Commission as a whole that is worried about the development of our society and the Commission as a whole that takes measures to move ahead in this area.

On 6 February this year, 15 leading European mobile operators and content providers united to sign a European framework for safer mobile use by younger teenagers. That is a voluntary agreement; it is a memorandum of understanding whereby the mobile industry, together with the GSM Association of Europe, agrees to monitor, publish and translate codes on their website, both those which already exist and those which will be adopted. These self-regulatory codes will then, for instance, help parents or grandparents or educators to understand what the problems for children using third-generation mobile phones might be. This agreement came out of the discussion in a high-level group that I convened, which included children’s organisations, consumer organisations and bodies for content classification, as well as regulatory bodies. The memorandum of understanding sets out a number of principles and requires signatories to work towards implementation through self-regulation at national level.

When we signed this together and we held a press conference, I said that I had confidence in the signatories. I will give them one year, until February or March next year, in order to implement that. Then we will come back to the subject and we will see if they have implemented it. If they implement it – fine – then maybe we will have discussions about possible corrections or future projects. If our expectations are not met, the Commission will then consider the introduction of specific measures.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Κατερίνα Μπατζελή (PSE). – Ευχαριστώ πολύ την Επίτροπο για την απάντηση. Ουδείς εδώ αμφισβητεί για τον ρόλο της Επιτροπής στο σημαντικό αυτό θέμα. Θα ήθελα να υποβάλω στην Επίτροπο δύο ερωτήσεις, περισσότερο για διευκόλυνση της συζήτησης. Θεωρώ ότι πρόκειται για ένα εθελοντικό μνημόνιο – όπως ανέφερε η ίδια – και αναμένεται μία αυτορρύθμιση του τομέα. Θα έλεγα λοιπόν ότι η Επιτροπή θα πρέπει στην ουσία να ξέρει τί θα αξιολογήσει μετά τον Φεβρουάριο του 2008:

Θα προτρέψει δηλαδή τα κράτη μέλη να προχωρήσουν σε ορισμένους κοινούς κώδικες για να μπορούν να παρακολουθούν το θέμα αυτό; Θα κωδικοποιήσει και θα αναλύσει τις βέλτιστες πρακτικές κατά κράτος μέλος;

Τέλος, ποια είναι η επικοινωνιακή πολιτική προς τους γονείς οι οποίοι έχουν αμάθεια σ’ αυτόν τον τομέα και ποια κοινοτικά προγράμματα μπορούν να χρησιμοποιηθούν προς ενημέρωσή τους;

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. Thanks to the preparatory work it has done, the Commission has brought the mobile operators to take this initiative because the mobile operators understood very well that the Commission would not stand still and not do anything.

We had seen in our recent surveys that there are many children who use mobile phones – in fact the majority of children over 12 years old. Most of all, camera phones and the location services can be a problem; for instance in the UK 10% of respondents say they had an unpleasant image taken of them, 17% of the kids feared that the image was posted online and forwarded to others, and 14% had experienced cyber-bulling. In Save the Children Finland’s survey, 30% of 7 to 15 year olds had experienced bullying through their mobile phones.

So we know that there is a problem, but this does not mean that we have to push the parents now into saying ‘no more mobile phones for our kids’. That would be the wrong reaction. That is why it is so important that for instance the access for control for adult content should be available and that there be awareness-raising campaigns for parents and grandparents – who often buy mobile phones for their grandchildren – and for the children themselves.

It is important that the classification of commercial content according to national standards of decency and appropriateness is taking place, and that, as Commissioner Frattini has explained, the fight against illegal content on mobiles is really carried out. We decided no later than today in the Commission to establish this fight against illegal content. What we are speaking about here is not the illegal content as such, it is the dangers which can occur for children, and here the awareness-raising campaigns are the most important. We will monitor what is happening in that field, and we will monitor what the signatories of this memorandum of understanding have agreed upon. I have the European framework for safer mobile use by younger teenagers and children with me; I can hand it over to the Member and then she can see if this is taking place in her country, for instance, and I would be very grateful if she would inform me about that.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 43 do Deputado Bernd Posselt (H-0288/07)

Assunto: Situação na Voivodina

Nos últimos anos, ocorreram reiteradamente na Voivodina ataques brutais contra membros de minorias, tendo-se procedido sistematicamente à instalação de refugiados sérvios em povoações cujos residentes pertencem a minorias, a fim de as tornar maioritariamente sérvias. Por outro lado, existiram verbas da UE que não chegaram aos respectivos destinatários, por exemplo, para a formação de professores de línguas minoritárias.

Poderia a Comissão indicar se foi posto cobro a estes abusos e que análise faz, em termos globais, da evolução na Voivodina?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. The Commission has been monitoring the situation in Vojvodina very closely. We have urged the authorities to tackle inter-ethnic incidents promptly. We have encouraged the authorities to promote good inter-ethnic relations and to preserve Vojvodina’s multi-ethnic and multicultural model.

As noted in the November 2006 progress report on Serbia, the inter-ethnic situation in Vojvodina has improved. There has been a decrease in the number of incidents. No significant incident has been reported in the first few months of 2007. The authorities have taken a number of measures concerning the official use of minority languages and scripts as well as the representation of minorities in the judiciary and police.

Improvements have also been recorded concerning education. The importation of Albanian- and Hungarian-language text books for use in Vojvodina has been approved. A Hungarian-language teacher-training faculty has been set up in Subotica, which has been operational since October last year. These measures obviously need to be further developed and complemented.

We have noted, however, that there has been no progress in the adoption of new legislation on the national councils for the minority groups, and problems persist in the area of information in minority languages. Therefore, we have requested that the Serbian authorities take further effective action on these matters.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – Herr Kommissar, ich hätte zwei Fragen. Zum einen: Wie sieht es mit den leider stattfindenden systematischen Ansiedlungen von serbischen Flüchtlingen aus Bosnien und auch aus dem Kosovo aus, die die ethnische Zusammensetzung des Gebiets sehr verändern, etwa in der großen ungarischen Gemeinde Temerin bei Novi Sad? Die zweite Frage: Was ist mit den Lehrerbildungsanstalten, die mit EU-Mitteln für die Rumänen, Slowaken und Ruthenen eingerichtet werden sollten, was jedoch ins Stocken geraten ist? Sind die inzwischen eingerichtet?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. As regards Mr Posselt’s supplementary question concerning EU assistance to Vojvodina and its relation to minority rights, while it is not possible to extrapolate exactly the total amount of aid given to the autonomous province of Vojvodina, the territory has received significant EU assistance, which has been directed to those needs to which Mr Posselt referred.

We have based our economic assistance on the following considerations: history, i.e. post-war reconstruction, notably as regards the Sloboda Bridge; geography, through integrated border management; and the economy.

Vojvodina is a relatively wealthy area compared with other areas of Serbia. Therefore, even though it occupies 25 % of the area of the republic and has 20 % of the population, Vojvodina has absorbed 36 % of the credit line that the EU has earmarked for SMEs.

All in all, it is clear that we are using this economic assistance for the purposes to which Mr Posselt referred, and I can assure him that this money is well used for the protection of minorities and their rights.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – Herr Kommissar, Sie haben zu Recht darauf hingewiesen, dass sehr viel EU-Fördergelder zum Schutz von Minderheiten und speziellen Anliegen der Union ausgegeben werden. Wäre es nicht auch möglich oder ist es nicht auch notwendig, sicherzustellen, dass entsprechender politischer Druck auf Serbien ausgeübt wird, in seiner Politik bestimmte Missstände gar nicht erst entstehen zu lassen bzw. seine Politik dahingehend zu verändern, dass wir nicht später mit EU-Geldern sanieren müssen?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. I agree with the Honourable Member that we have to use political methods in parallel with economic assistance. That is what we have been doing as regards Vojvodina. We have raised these issues with the Serbian Government. Now, as the country has a new democratic government which is reform- and Europe-oriented, I expect that we have an even better chance of making our voice heard and ensuring that our concerns are taken into account in Serbia as regards Vojvodina’s position.

The new Constitution of Serbia contains detailed provisions concerning human rights and the protection of minorities. However, it contains some ambiguities in relation to the scope of territorial decentralisation. The new Serbian Parliament will have a key role in implementing the Constitution soundly, especially in enhancing the protection of minorities, as well as establishing forms of local self-government that are in line with European standards. In this respect it is certainly positive that, thanks to the revision of the electoral law, ethnic minority parties now have several seats in the new Serbian Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zsolt László Becsey (PPE-DE). – Mivel én közvetlenül a Vajdaság mellett születtem, talán felhívnám a valós szituáció néhány kérdésére is a Biztos urat. Az egyik az az, hogy nem probléma-e, hogy a Vajdaságban az őshonos magyar kisebbség gyakorlatilag még mindig háborús bűnösnek számít? Antigoné joga ott nem érvényesül, tehát nem temethetik el a halottakat, meg sem emlékezhetnek róluk.

Vagy az nem probléma-e, hogy sehol nincs arányosság sem a foglalkoztatás, sem a privatizáció, sem az állami intézmények, sem az oktatás területén? És jó volna, hogyha újra válaszolna Bernd Posselt úrnak azon kérdésére, hogy mi van az erőszakos betelepítésekkel. Egyébként szívesen felajánlom azokról az újabb incidensekről szóló teljes listát Olli Rehn úrnak, amelyek csak az utóbbi időben történtek.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. Concerning the position of the Hungarian minority in Vojvodina, we have, as I said in our progress reports, analysed its situation very carefully. We have also discussed the issue with the Serbian authorities, who have underlined that they are committed to increasing the participation of people from national minorities in the police and judiciary, but they claim that there is often a lack of interest from qualified candidates. In my view, it is important that we continue this political pressure or political encouragement.

At the same time, once we solve the problems that have caused internally displaced persons to migrate, then we have better chances of avoiding the kinds of problems to which you referred. I am of course referring in particular to the issue of the Kosovo status talks. There must be a well-managed status settlement, and I am confident that, once we have that, there will be no destabilising effects on ethnically mixed areas such as Vojvodina. That is why we urge all those concerned to show a sense of responsibility. The Commission’s firm view is that no parallel can be drawn between Kosovo and Vojvodina.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 44 do Deputado Dimitrios Papadimoulis (H-0290/07)

Assunto: Aplicação da Convenção sobre o Direito do Mar por parte da Turquia

Na sua resposta à pergunta (E-0802/07), a Comissão afirma que a Convenção sobre o Direito do Mar faz efectivamente parte do acervo comunitário, que a Turquia será obrigada a adoptar e aplicar aquando da sua adesão à União Europeia. No entanto, a sua resposta a uma pergunta anterior (E-4160/06) sobre o mesmo tema, a Comissão tinha declarado que esperava que a Turquia, aquando da sua adesão à União Europeia, tivesse já adoptado e posto plenamente em prática o acervo.

Poderá a Comissão indicar por que mudou de posição num período de seis meses? Será que a Turquia terá de adoptar e aplicar a referida Convenção "aquando da sua adesão à União Europeia"? ou "deverá ter adoptado e posto plenamente em prática o acervo aquando da sua adesão à União Europeia"? Poderá a Comissão expor os fundamentos jurídicos da sua posição?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. The Commission has not changed its position at all as regards Turkey’s acquis communautaire obligations. There is no contradiction between the two answers the honourable Member refers to, which, on the contrary, reflect the very same approach. Like all other candidate countries, Turkey is expected to implement and enforce the acquis communautaire by the time of accession, that is, at the latest at the time it joins the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Επίτροπε, το τελευταίο διάστημα συμβαίνουν πολλά δυσάρεστα πράγματα με την Τουρκία. Ο τουρκικός στρατός παρεμβαίνει ανοιχτά στις πολιτικές εξελίξεις. Η Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία δέχεται απειλές γιατί, εφαρμόζοντας τη Σύμβαση για το δίκαιο της θάλασσας, προωθεί μαζί με όμορες χώρες την εκμετάλλευση της αποκλειστικής της οικονομικής ζώνης. 160 Κούρδοι υποψήφιοι, ανάμεσά τους και η Λεϊλά Ζάνα, αποκλείονται από τις επικείμενες εκλογές.

Σέβονται αυτές οι ενέργειες το κοινοτικό κεκτημένο; Μήπως ήρθε η ώρα η Επιτροπή να μιλήσει μια γλώσσα πιο καθαρή και πιο αυστηρή προς την τουρκική ηγεσία;

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. The questions raised by the Honourable Member are extremely important, but they are somewhat beyond the scope of this particular question. Unfortunately, time will not allow me to respond in detail. However, I would like to underline that it is important that we are both fair and firm with Turkey in order to break the negative spiral in relations between the European Union and Turkey.

By ‘fair and firm’ I mean that we have to be fair by keeping our word, sticking to the commitment that, if Turkey meets all the conditions of EU accession, it can join the Union. At the same time as being fair and credible we can be firm and rigorous, and we can expect Turkey to carry out reforms and respect citizens’ rights so that, for instance, the Kurdish question can be addressed or women’s rights, trade union rights and freedom of expression can be enhanced in Turkey thanks to the credible prospect of EU accession.

So we have to be fair and firm at the same time with Turkey.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Presidente. Pergunta nº 45 da Deputada Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (H-0340/07)

Assunto: Crise política na Turquia e perspectivas de adesão

Nos últimos dias, a ensejo da eleição do Presidente da República, a Turquia mergulhou numa crise política profunda, que suscita sérias dúvidas quanto ao funcionamento das instituições democráticas. O Tribunal Constitucional decidiu a anulação da primeira volta das eleições, decisão que foi vivamente contestada pelo Governo. O Primeiro-Ministro declarou que o sistema parlamentar se encontrava bloqueado, solicitando uma antecipação das eleições, enquanto o Estado-Maior General do Exército advertiu que intervirá para impedir a eleição do islamita Abdullah Gül ao cargo de Presidente.

De que modo avalia a Comissão a situação descrita, num país candidato à adesão? O Comissário Olli Rehn, responsável pelo Alargamento, declarou que as Forças Armadas devem respeitar a autonomia dos processos democráticos, que a União Europeia assenta nos princípios da liberdade, da democracia, do Estado de direito e da independência do poder político em relação ao poder militar, salientando a necessidade de respeito desses princípios, que constituem um elemento central dos critérios de Copenhaga, para a adesão de um país à UE. Entende a Comissão que tais intervenções do exército estão em conformidade com as exigências do acervo comunitário? Que consequências poderiam ter para o processo de adesão da Turquia? Será possível contar com uma nova reacção da Comissão se a situação não evoluir em conformidade com os princípios democráticos da UE?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. The Turkish Government respected the ruling of the Constitutional Court and took the measures to implement it. This was important for the political stability of the country, regardless of the events that led to the ruling.

To this end of political stability, the majority party submitted to the Grand National Assembly a proposal to hold early general elections. Subsequently, the Grand National Assembly agreed by a broad majority that the early parliamentary elections would be held on 22 July 2007.

The Commission expects that the parliamentary, and subsequent presidential, elections will be carried out democratically in an atmosphere of responsible debate and political stability. As regards the role of the military, I have often said that I have a high regard for the Turkish armed forces in the fulfilment of their duties of defending their country and contributing to international peace, but, as I stated after the statement by the Chief of Staff at the end of April, the military must leave the remit of democratic decision-making to the democratically-elected bodies of Turkey.

It should be self-evident that if any country wants to join the European Union it should respect all democratic principles, including ensuring democratic leadership of civil military relations, and, in my view, this is fully compatible with secular democracy, or democratic secularism, which is anchored in the Turkish Constitution.

Once the new Parliament is elected and a new government takes office, it will be crucial for Turkey to revitalise and relaunch fully the legislative work and implementation of the reforms that enhance the rule of law and fundamental freedoms in the country.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ρόδη Κράτσα-Τσαγκαροπούλου (PPE-DE). – Κύριε Επίτροπε σας ευχαριστώ για την απάντησή σας. Πράγματι, αναγκαστήκατε για μια ακόμη φορά να επαναλάβετε αυτά που έχετε πει πολλές φορές στην Τουρκία, όπως ο ίδιος αναφέρατε, για τη στάση που πρέπει να τηρήσει ως υποψήφιο μέλος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

Ήθελα να ρωτήσω εάν αυτή η κρίση δεν φανέρωσε κάτι περισσότερο, εάν δεν φανέρωσε μια αδυναμία. Εσείς δεν χρησιμοποιήσατε άλλα μέσα για να προσεγγίσετε τους πολιτικούς και τους στρατιωτικούς παράγοντες;

Διότι, υποθέτω, τις παραινέσεις τις έχετε απευθύνει επανειλημμένως και δημόσια και κατά τις επαφές σας.

Με την ερώτησή μου θα ήθελα να διευκρινιστεί εάν έχετε παρέμβει σε μεγαλύτερο βαθμό εξαιτίας της σοβαρότητας της κρίσης και των στοιχείων που αυτή αποκαλύπτει.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. Thank you for this very important question, Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou. In fact, I talk a lot with the Turkish Government – some people in Europe think that it is too much! But in times of the political or constitutional crises which Turkey has undergone and, to my mind, is going through during this crisis phase, it is particularly important that we maintain a channel of communication and discuss intensively with the Turkish Government and with all the relevant players in Turkish society in order to make clear what the expectations of the European Union are, if and when Turkey wants to become a member of the European Union. Of course, democratic leadership of civil and military relations is one of these cornerstones.

As the Commission stated very clearly in early May – after my statement concerning the political intervention of the Turkish military in the tense situation – that the European Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and the supremacy of democratic, civilian power over the military. If a country wants to become a member of the Union, it needs to respect these principles. This is the core of the Copenhagen criteria for EU accession. This has been made very clear to the Turkish Government and those involved in politics in Turkey, as well as through the Turkish media to the Turkish citizens. I do not think that a higher volume helps. Instead we need clarity and precision and, concerning our statement, it cannot get any clearer than our statement of 2 May.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Κωνσταντίνος Χατζηδάκης (PPE-DE). – Κύριε Επίτροπε, δεν ανήκω σ’ αυτούς που θέλουν η Τουρκία να είναι μια ανεξέλεγκτη δύναμη στην περιοχή. Από την άλλη πλευρά, διερωτώμαι ποιο συνταγματικό δικαστήριο οποιασδήποτε δημοκρατικής χώρας, όχι μόνο στην Ευρώπη αλλά σε ολόκληρο τον κόσμο, θα αποφάσιζε ότι για την εκλογή του Προέδρου της Δημοκρατίας χρειάζεται απαρτία δύο τρίτων!

Μ’ αυτόν τον τρόπο, η εκάστοτε αντιπολίτευση σε οποιαδήποτε χώρα μπορεί να ελέγχει την εκλογή του Προέδρου της Δημοκρατίας.

Η Επιτροπή, στην ανακοίνωσή της ανέφερε ότι σέβεται το κράτος δικαίου και τους κανόνες του και δεν θέλει να παρέμβει στην Τουρκία. Πρόκειται όμως για κράτος δικαίου; Δεν νομίζω ότι ήταν ισορροπημένη η ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. Thank you for this follow-up question, Mr Hatzidakis, and for your own question, in which you called the Commission statement ‘excessively indulgent’. You also called for a more explicit message.

I must say that, as a Commissioner, as I said before, I do not believe in high-volume or megaphone diplomacy. I believe in clarity, precision and consistency. In this regard I think we do not disagree with the honourable Member, because, as I said before, we have repeatedly underlined the importance of the supremacy of democratic civilian power over the military. At the same time it is also important that we keep the accession negotiations alive and we make practical progress with them, because what the nationalists really want in Turkey is to cut the accession negotiations. I do not want to give this present to the nationalists of Turkey. It is much better to strive towards the EU accession of Turkey, keep the accession process alive and move towards the shared objective, because that is the way for Turkey to become a more European, more democratic country, where the rule of law and fundamental freedoms are respected.

As regards your reference to the Constitutional Court, I understand the reasoning of your question and we have also taken note of the ruling which was issued by the Constitutional Court. I would like to quote what was said on 2 May by the College of Commissioners when we discussed this matter and we made our position clear to the Turkish Government and Turkish public. We said, ‘regardless of the unfortunate events leading to the ruling, this legal decision by the Constitutional Court should now be respected by all parties, because the respect of state institutions is essential to ensure political stability’. That is rather clear language.

We also stated that, ‘under these circumstances, the European Commission welcomes the announcement of holding new parliamentary elections soon in order to ensure political stability and democratic development in Turkey’. Again, it cannot get any clearer than that.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Presidente. As perguntas que, por falta de tempo, não obtiveram resposta obtê-la-ão ulteriormente por escrito (ver Anexo).

O período de perguntas está encerrado.

(A sessão, suspensa às 20h05, é reiniciada às 21h00)

 
  
  

PRZEWODNICZY: PAN MAREK SIWIEC
Wiceprzewodniczący

 

16. Състав на постоянната делегация на EUROLAT: вж. протокола

17. Действия, предприети вследствие позиции и резолюции на Парламента: вж. протоколи

18. Естония (разискване)
MPphoto
 
 

  Przewodniczący. Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego są oświadczenia Rady i Komisji w sprawie Estonii.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I welcome this discussion on the recent dispute between Russia and Estonia. Let me state right away that this is not a human rights issue. The moving of the bronze soldier statue in Tallinn and the exhumation of the soldiers’ graves were carried out with full respect for Estonia’s international obligations, notably under the Geneva Convention with regard to war graves. However, I am aware of the sensitivity of this matter, which touches on the interpretation of history.

While there have been concerns in Russia about this, we made it clear to Russia at the last summit that these concerns should be addressed through dialogue rather than through ‘megaphone diplomacy’. We regret that the demonstrations that took place in Estonia turned into looting and riots. There is the right to demonstrate, which emanates clearly from freedom of expression. However, the fact that it led to a siege in front of the Estonian Embassy in Moscow was unacceptable. We have made clear our views about this and a demarche was conducted in Moscow immediately to remind Russia of its obligations under the Vienna Conventions.

We are concerned about cyber-attacks against official Estonian internet sites. These need to be properly investigated and the perpetrators must be brought to justice. We remind Russia of our joint commitment to cooperate in fighting cybercrime both in the context of the Common Space on Freedom, Security and Justice and by acceding to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. Today the Commission adopted a communication on cybercrimes and we will certainly work on its implementation.

We are also following closely the situation regarding trade between Russia and Estonia. There have been calls in Russia for trade boycotts of Estonian goods and services and restrictions on transport operations. At one point restrictions were imposed on trucks crossing the bridge over the Narva River and oil shipments through Estonia were reduced. Our latest information is that expert talks took place today concerning the bridge and that oil shipments through Estonia have resumed. We shall continue to monitor the situation.

I hope that this issue has now passed its climax and that emotions will subside. We discussed it at the EU-Russia summit in Samara and it was also raised at the press conference. President Putin even acknowledged that there might have been some overreaction on the Russian side and he regretted that the Estonian Ambassador had to leave Moscow. I fully support the Presidency in calling for a ‘dispassionate dialogue on the matter’, addressing the problems ‘in a spirit of understanding and mutual respect’.

The Samara summit took place at a critical time in EU-Russia relations. The discussions were open and frank and the media reports have, of course, highlighted the areas of disagreement between us. I think it was highly important that we had this frank discussion: we have to talk to each other because Russia is and remains a strategic partner and an important neighbour. At the same time, we also have to talk frankly to them.

The EU side placed considerable emphasis, as Mr Barroso in particular knows, on the importance of the respect for democracy and human rights, notably in the run-up to elections. The detention of Garry Kasparov at Moscow airport, preventing him from attending a demonstration in Samara to coincide with the summit, was particularly regrettable and was very clearly addressed.

However, let me stress that there are also a number of positive issues to note from the summit. I would say that the picture of the summit was mixed.

First and most importantly, Russia was left in no doubt of the importance we attach to EU solidarity in our relations with Russia. Secondly, the summit confirmed that the EU and Russia see eye-to-eye on the underlying necessity of constructing a strong EU-Russia strategic partnership in the future. Thirdly, both the EU and Russia recognise that our economic and trading links in particular are larger and more intense than ever. Indeed, Russia is our third trading partner and we are their number one trading partner. We are working together for Russia’s accession to the WTO this year, which will also see the signature of the Siberian overflight agreement, most probably in November. Fourthly, the summit also registered that, despite our difficulties, cooperation is proceeding well in many areas covered by the four common space roadmaps agreed in 2005. For instance the agreement on facilitation of visas and readmission will come into force on 1 June 2007.

In the field of education, we have the European studies centre in Moscow, where there are hundreds of students who study European law. Europe attracts great attention from the students. There are questions such as the early alert system for energy, which Russia agreed to in principle and which we now have to work on, and finally a sort of dialogue on the investment climate and on investment in general.

Therefore, as I have said, I do not think the picture is black and white: there is a full spectrum of different colours, from warm to cold shades.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tunne Kelam, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, I fully agree with the Commissioner’s statement that we do not have to look at the picture in black and white, but unfortunately the black and white situation was forced on us and was forced on one Member State by its big neighbour.

However, I would like to congratulate both the Commission and the Presidency for their convincing demonstration of solidarity in Samara. I think the clear statement by the President of the Commission to the Russian President that Estonia or Poland are considered as equally important members of the Union as Portugal or Germany should be considered a key message. I think the most important thing in the current situation was to make our counterparts understand what solidarity means for the Union, which is based on common values.

As the motion for a resolution on Estonia states, attacks targeted at one of the smallest Member States are considered a test case for the solidarity of the EU as a whole, and all the major political groups have agreed on the text of the joint motion for a resolution on Estonia.

I think there are some issues which you need to address collectively in future. It is inadmissible to interfere brutally in the internal affairs of any State, especially a small one. There is a crucial difference between two former totalitarian states. New democratic Germany made it the basic principle of its foreign policy never to threaten any of its neighbours, and this has contributed to a very significant extent to a positive change in post-war Europe. I think we need to act together to help Russia take a similar stand regarding its past imperialist deeds and help it to come to similar conclusions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jan Marinus Wiersma, namens de PSE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, twee opmerkingen vooraf. Ik ben het helemaal eens met de commissaris, als hij spreekt over een strategisch partnerschap en de waarde daarvan en zegt dat we de dialoog met Rusland moeten voortzetten en moeten kijken wat we eruit kunnen halen op basis van onze eigen principes en waarden.

Tweede opmerking: ik ben Nederlander. Ik ben niet geboren in Oost-Europa. Ik heb altijd in vrijheid geleefd en ben in vrijheid opgegroeid. Ik vind het heel erg van belang om als vertegenwoordiger van een zeg maar "oude" lidstaat iets te zeggen over wat er gebeurd is met Estland en de manier waarop Rusland daarmee is omgegaan.

Het is ook van belang vast te stellen dat dingen die met het verleden te maken hebben, altijd gevoelig liggen, bij ons en bij anderen. Daar moet je voorzichtig mee omgaan. Ik ben zelf historicus en ik weet hoe gevaarlijk het is, als je te veel geschiedenis in de politiek stopt. Ik pleit altijd voor een zekere zelfbeperking. Maar dat neemt niet weg dat de solidariteit van mijn fractie uitgaat naar Estland en dat moet ook de basis zijn voor de Europese opstelling in het conflict dat tussen Estland en Rusland is ontstaan.

Dit conflict gaat niet alleen Rusland aan, maar de hele Europese Unie en dit standpunt is in Samara door Commissievoorzitter Barroso ook heel helder naar voren gebracht. De Europese Unie heeft niet gepoogd het conflict te bagatelliseren. De reactie van Rusland was ongepast en onacceptabel. De Europese regeringen en parlementsleden hebben geprobeerd zich in de interne aangelegenheden van een lidstaat van de Europese Unie te mengen en dat is ongehoord.

Daar komt nog bij dat de Russische autoriteiten niets hebben gedaan om het functioneren van de Estse ambassade in Moskou te beschermen, waardoor het conflict in feite uitdraaide op een diplomatieke crisis. Ik denk - en dat staat ook in de resolutie goed verwoord - dat de Russische autoriteiten, maar misschien ook wij zelf er goed aan zouden doen om de vijandelijke retoriek te vervangen door een poging om bij te dragen aan een dialoog, ook tussen de gemeenschappen in de landen waar we over praten, Estland en Letland, en de zaak niet op scherp te stellen, want die dialoog is ook nodig om binnen die landen verhoudingen te creëren die overeenkomen met Europese waarden.

Ik hoop dat de boodschap van dialoog, de boodschap van praten over de toekomst, niet alleen maar over het verleden, ook overkomt in Moskou.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Toomas Savi, fraktsiooni ALDE nimel. – Härra president, proua volinik, tahaksin puudutada kahte teemat Eesti-Vene hiljutistes suhetes. Esiteks kübersõda ja teiseks väärinformatsiooni, mida on esitanud president Putin.

Esiteks. Isegi peale kõiki toetusavaldusi Eestile ei ole Venemaa võtnud ette ühtegi sammu, lõpetamaks süstemaatilisi küberrünnakuid Eesti ametlikele info- ja kommunikatsioonikanalitele ning Eesti administratsiooni veebilehekülgedele. Propagandarünnakud Internetis ja mobiilsõnumite kaudu kutsuvad üles vägivallale ja relvastatud vastupanule. Neid sõnumeid levitatakse isegi televisioonis ja teiste meediakanalite kaudu. Eesti on küberrünnakute osas eriti haavatav, kuivõrd Eestil on e-valitsus, e-riik ja esimest korda sel aastal toimusid ka e-parlamendivalimised.

Eestis toimuvad küberrünnakud peavad olema äratuskellaks kogu Euroopale. 21. sajandil võib selline oht ähvardada iga riiki. Me peame tõsiselt mõtlema, kuidas ennast kaitsta ja seda peame me tegema koos. Tegemist on ajaloo esimese "kübersõjaga", mis on suunatud selgelt ühe Euroopa Liidu suveräänse riigi toimimise vastu.

Ja teiseks. Samaras ametlikul pressikonverentsil, kus oli esindatud kogu maailma ajakirjandus, lausus Vene president järgmised sõnad, tsiteerin: "Tallinnas ei aetud lihtsalt meeleavaldust laiali, seal tapeti üks demonstrantidest. Asi pole selles, et tegemist oli õnnetu juhtumiga," väitis Putin ajakirjanikele, "meile teeb muret teine asi: inimesele ei antud abi, kui ta oli haavatud." Putini sõnul suri Ganin politsei silme all.

Head kolleegid, tegemist on tahtliku väärinformatsiooniga. Tõesti – rahutuste käigus sai surma 20aastane Dmitri Ganin. Dmitri surmaga seoses algatati kriminaalmenetlus, mille käigus selgus, et tema surm ei olnud seotud politsei tegevusega avaliku korra tagamisel Tallinnas. Politsei leidis 27. aprilli südaöö paiku torkehaavaga Dmitri, kellele politsei kutsus kiirabi kell 00.26. Kiirabi sõitis välja minut hiljem ja jõudis sündmuspaigale 00.32 ehk viie minutiga. Dmitri hospitaliseeriti kell 00.51, teda opereeriti ning ta suri haiglas kell 2.00. Rõhutan veelkord: kiirabi saabus viie minuti jooksul peale politsei väljakutset, seega, kolleegid, Dmitri ei surnud politsei silme all, vaid haiglas.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Konrad Szymański, w imieniu grupy UEN. – Pani Komisarz! Panie Przewodniczący! Trudno o lepszą ilustrację prawdziwych mechanizmów i siły, jaka stoi za europejską współpracą w zakresie polityki zagranicznej niż ostatnie napięcia z Rosją na tle dyskryminacji handlowej Polski oraz ingerencji Rosji w wewnętrzne sprawy niepodległej Estonii.

Solidarna postawa z Estonią była naszym obowiązkiem moralnym, ale ta solidarność jest też w naszym najlepszym politycznym interesie. Ostatnie wypadki na linii Unia-Rosja były wielką inwestycją w przyszłość Unii Europejskiej, o wiele ważniejszą niż kolejne zmiany instytucjonalne.

Unia Europejska, dzięki dalekowzrocznej postawie przewodniczącego Barroso i kanclerz Merkel, przeżywa dzisiaj swój wielki czas. Myślę, że będę wyrazicielem uczuć wielu Polaków i mieszkańców Europy Środkowej, kiedy powiem tu uroczyście: dziękujemy!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Satu Hassi, Verts/ALE-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, hyvät kollegat, on tärkeää tehdä ero Viron venäjänkielisen väestön ja Venäjän politiikan välillä. Viron venäjänkielisille kuuluvat samat kansalais- ja ihmisoikeudet kuin muillekin, mutta ongelmat ja erimielisyydet eivät oikeuta Venäjän sekaantumista Viron asioihin, kuten vaatimusta Viron hallituksen erosta. Kukaan ei usko, etteivät Moskovan viranomaiset olisi kyenneet estämään Viron lähettilääseen ja lähetystöön kohdistuvaa häirintää ja väkivaltaa kun, aivan kuten komissaari totesi, juuri oppositioaktiiveja estettiin matkustamasta Samaraan mielenosoitukseen. Patsaskiista on tuonut päivänvaloon kaksi erilaista historian tulkintaa. On totta, että puna-armeijalla oli tärkeä merkitys Euroopan vapauttamisessa natsismista, mutta on myös totta, että sama armeija muuttui sodan jälkeen miehitysarmeijaksi Virossa ja monissa muissa maissa.

Tapahtumat ovat tuoneet ilmi venäjänkielisen väestön puutteellisen integroitumisen Viron yhteiskuntaan. On Viron hallituksen ja yhteiskunnan tehtävä – tiedän, ettei se aina ole helppo tehtävä – löytää rakentava tie näiden ongelmien ratkaisemiseksi. Poliisin velvollisuus on pitää yllä järjestystä, mutta syytökset poliisin suhteettoman kovista otteista on tutkittava puolueettomasti ja rehellisesti. Venäjän näyttää olevan vaikea ymmärtää, että Viro ja muut Baltian maat todellakin ovat suvereeneja valtioita. Meidän on osoitettava Virolle solidaarisuutemme. Euroopan unionin jäsenvaltioiden on autettava Viroa selvittämään Viron viranomaisten Internet-sivuihin kohdistuvien hyökkäysten alkuperä.

(Suosionosoituksia)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Eva-Britt Svensson, för GUE/NGL-gruppen. – GUE/NGL-gruppen beklagar naturligtvis de oproportionerliga reaktionerna i Ryssland och vi kräver självfallet att Ryssland fullföljer sina internationella åtaganden enligt Wienkonventionen.

Med detta sagt så måste också följande konstateras: ingen part är betjänt av en upptrappning av konflikten vilket kan bli resultatet av handlingar eller onyanserade resolutioner och uttalanden. Brobyggande och dialog mellan parter är bättre än resande av murar och barriärer. Det är också odiskutabelt att den diskriminering och begränsning av medborgerliga rättigheter som den rysktalande befolkningen i Estland utsätts för är den största grogrunden till konflikter. Ansvaret för den konflikt vi nu diskuterar vilar också på regeringen i Estland som inte respekterar den rysktalande befolkningens medborgerliga rättigheter. Den har ansvaret för att man inte före flytten av monumentet förde någon dialog med invånarna i Tallinn och att man ignorerade den betydelse monumentet har för oerhört många människor som en viktig påminnelse om alla de som förlorade sina liv i kampen mot nazismen och fascismen.

Man måste också beklaga den upptrappning av konflikten som var en reaktion på att de estniska myndigheterna inte tillät fredliga demonstrationer och den ytterligare upptrappning som var en konsekvens av den estniska polisens agerande mot demonstranterna. Den estniska åtgärden att flytta ett anti-nazistiskt minnesmärke och kvarlevorna av soldater som dog i kriget mot Hitlers trupper upplevs som en provokation av alla som tycker att kampen mot nazismen bör bli ihågkommen i framtiden. Ingen har rätt att skriva om historien och politiska uppfattningar får inte hindra en seriös analys och förståelse av hur konflikter uppstår. Endast så kan vi i framtiden lösa konflikter.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Christopher Beazley (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I cannot agree with the last speaker in her interpretation of moving a war memorial to a military cemetery. It seems to me that this is entirely the correct procedure. It is the right of the Estonian Government to make that decision, and this was used as a pretext, not, Commissioner, as you said, for a dispute between Russia and Estonia, but for a dispute between Russia and the EU. Commission President Barroso made the point extremely eloquently at Samara that we express our total solidarity with Estonia – as well as with Poland, with the Czech Republic and, indeed, with my own country, whose Ambassador has also been harassed by Nashi, an organisation from which President Putin does very little to dissociate himself.

We are told constantly that we have to de-escalate the situation, which we did not create. In your reply, Commissioner, I wonder whether you can dwell on the WTO negotiations to which you referred. Is it possible that we can continue to negotiate entry with a country which apparently appears to be implicated in the disruption of electronic communications – as Mr Savi has just explained – with the banking system, with our own security? Surely a very clear message has to be sent to President Putin that of course we want to continue these negotiations, but we cannot do so until the cyber-attacks cease.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andres Tarand (PSE). – Lubage mul tänada soojalt ja südamest komisjoni ja kõikide liikmesriikide esindajaid siin saalis nende riikide solidaarsuse ning toetuse eest Eestile.

Ma ei peatu resolutsioonis üksikasjalikult loetletud sündmustel Tallinnas, vaid toonitan asjaolu, kuidas Venemaa on kogu sündmuste käiku propagandistlikult moonutanud. Ainsa hukkunud noormehe surma kohta, mida siin juba kolleeg Savi märkis, levitasid inimesed, kes ütlesid, et nad on olnud pealtnägijad, juba järgmisel hommikul Tallinnas varianti, et ta suri Draamateatri juures politsei kumminuia hoopidest. Kuna koht oli vale ning surmapõhjus oli pussitamine, kadus Moskva variandis tasapisi politsei süü ja president Putin teatas Euroopa Liidu liikmesriikide juhtidele Samaras, et kannatanu juurde ei tulnud tahtlikult kiirabi. Kontrollisin seda pühapäeva õhtul otse siseministrilt, kes vastas, et kiirabi jõudis kohale viie minutiga.

Niisiis on see vale siin kaks korda ümber lükatud, kuid see on siiski minu poolt veelkord rõhutatud selleks, et homme on arvatavasti siin majas liikvel ka väärad filmid. Täiesti uus on aga kübersõda, mida maailma press on ohtralt käsitlenud. (kõne katkestati)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Georgs Andrejevs (ALDE). – Mr President, I would like to bring to your attention the historical background of the recent riots and violent demonstrations in Estonia. The European Union should understand that during the 50 years of Soviet occupation the Communist regime committed multiple crimes against the populations of the Baltic States. It moved hundreds of thousands of working migrants to the territories of these occupied, former sovereign states, which were members of the League of Nations, and created a real threat that Estonians and Latvians might become minorities in their own countries.

Following immense pressure from the international community, including the European institutions, Estonia and Latvia agreed to integrate those hundreds of thousands of non-citizens into their societies. However, integration is a two-way process, and the recent developments in Estonia show that there are reverse tendencies. The sentiments of Soviet times have been replaced by Russia’s new imperialistic approach. Especially alarming is the fact that the younger generation, on which the most hopes for integration and loyalty have been placed, was at the centre of the recent violent events in Estonia, and this must give us some food for thought.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Inese Vaidere (UEN). – Godājamie kolēģi! Notikumi Igaunijā spilgti izgaismoja vairākas Eiropai svarīgas lietas:

1) Krievija nav atmetusi savus tīkojumus attiecībā pret Baltijas valstīm, mēģinot lietot principu "skaldi un valdi";

2) Krievijai jāatgādina par Baltijas valstu okupācijas fakta atzīšanas nepieciešamību, jo atšķirīgs vēstures traktējums nenovēršami vedīs pie līdzīgiem konfliktiem nākotnē;

3) nelielā Igaunijas valsts tāpat kā Somija 1939. gadā nenobijās no "kaimiņu lāča" uzbrukumiem, saglabāja pašcieņu un guva panākumus un Eiropas valstu atbalstu;

4) Krievija saprot vienīgi stingru un noteiktu pozīciju. Piekāpšanās tiek novērtēta kā vājuma pazīme, tāpēc vēlos pateikties Komisijai un prezidējošās valsts Vācijas kanclerei Merkelei par notikumu izpratni un solidaritāti, runājot ar Krieviju vienā Eiropas balsī, kā arī izteikt pārliecību, ka šāda taktika nesīs panākumus mums visiem nākotnē.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tatjana Ždanoka (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I have listened with great attention to the Commissioner’s contribution, but I do not agree that the issue is just a dispute between Russia and Estonia. Moreover, I wonder how the inter-ethnic conflict, the relations between minorities and majorities, one of the crucial points of which is a different approach to history, now becomes a matter of relations between the European Union and Russia.

I represent the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia and I have said on many occasions that we do not want to be hostages to geo-political games. Unfortunately, Russian speakers in Estonia as well as in Latvia were so-called prisoners of the first Cold War by being denied their citizens’ rights – by being denied their language as an official language in the countries where they were a substantial minority. Now, unfortunately, we might be the hostages of the new Cold War and we see appeals in this House to the behaviour which is very like the Cold War.

There cannot be solidarity when there is violation of human rights. A number of international organisations just report on violations of human rights during the recent events in Estonia.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Γεώργιος Τούσσας (GUE/NGL). – Η διένεξη μεταξύ Εσθονίας και Ρωσίας δεν είναι ένα μπρούτζινο άγαλμα αλλά έχει να κάνει με προκλητική ενέργεια παραχάραξης της ιστορικής αλήθειας. Προσβάλλει τη μνήμη εκατομμυρίων αγωνιστών που έδωσαν τη ζωή τους για τη συντριβή του φασισμού.

Η συζήτηση στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, στην προηγούμενη ολομέλεια στις Βρυξέλλες, και η έγκριση του ψηφίσματος στο οποίο εκφράστηκε η αλληλεγγύη στην εσθονική κυβέρνηση αποτελεί μια συνειδητή πολιτική στήριξης της πλαστογράφησης της Ιστορίας και την αναβίωση του φασισμού στις Βαλτικές και άλλες χώρες.

Έχουμε επανειλημμένα καταγγείλει με στοιχεία τα οποία είναι γνωστά σε όλους ότι στην Εσθονία, στη Λετονία και στη Λιθουανία, μετά το 1991, μεθοδεύτηκε η αποκατάσταση των συνεργατών των SS και του γερμανικού φασισμού. Παράλληλα άρχισε η κατεδάφιση μνημείων του Κόκκινου Στρατού. Τον Ιούλιο του 2004 γκρεμίστηκε μνημείο του εσθονού αντιφασίστα Lembit Pärn και στήθηκε μνημείο του αξιωματικού των Βάφεν - SS Alfons Rebane.

Στη Λετονία, το στρατόπεδο συγκέντρωσης στο Σαλασπίλς, όπου δολοφονήθηκαν 100.000 ενήλικες και 4.000 παιδιά, ονομάστηκε από την κυβέρνηση "Αναμορφωτικό Εργασιακό Στρατόπεδο". Στη Ρουμανία, ο συνεργάτης της ναζιστικής Γερμανίας, Πρωθυπουργός Ίων Αντωνέσκου, αθωώθηκε από την κατηγορία των εγκλημάτων πολέμου.

Δολοφόνοι και βασανιστές των Βάφεν - SS συνταξιοδοτούνται και θεωρούνται μαχητές της ελευθερίας στις Βαλτικές Χώρες. Σε όλες αυτές τις καταγγελίες με ερωτήσεις των Ευρωβουλευτών του Κομμουνιστικού Κόμματος Ελλάδας το Συμβούλιο σιωπά.

Δεν μας εκπλήσσει. Ο φασισμός είναι γνήσιο τέκνο του καπιταλισμού. Δεν συμφωνούμε με τον Πούτιν. Αναρωτιόμαστε όμως, όταν σκυλεύετε πάνω από 20 εκατομμύρια νεκρούς γιατί είστε τόσο προκλητικοί και ζητάτε σεβασμό των διεθνών συνθηκών;

Πλαστογραφείτε την Ιστορία, όμως τα γεγονότα δεν αλλάζουν. Η ιστορική αλήθεια περιλαμβάνει ότι ο Κόκκινος Στρατός, με πρωτοπόρους τους κομμουνιστές, τη Σοβιετική Ένωση, ήταν εκείνοι που στην Ανατολική και την Κεντρική Ευρώπη συνέτριψαν τον φασισμό και έστησαν την κόκκινη σημαία με το σφυροδρέπανο στο Ράιχσταγκ.

Ήταν και παραμένει ο μόνιμος εφιάλτης που για πάντα θα σημαδεύει την ήττα γι’ αυτούς που ονειρεύτηκαν την παγκόσμια κυριαρχία …

(Ο Πρόεδρος διακόπτει τον ομιλητή)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE). – Mr President, Russia regrettably will not wake up to the new geopolitical reality that the so-called ‘near-abroad’, where it exercised total power for most of the last century, from the Caucuses to Ukraine, is no longer a reality. The Baltic States are now also proud, independent EU Member States and it is right and proper that the EU and NATO, which they have joined, should show total solidarity when Russia attempts to bully the smallest of them – Estonia – over what is entirely a sovereign internal matter of that newly independent republic.

Many might question the political wisdom of moving the statue of a so-called Soviet liberator. However, I, fortunately, come from a country that has never experienced the brutal Stalinist invasion and annexation that these countries have. One must appreciate that most Estonians do not see the Soviets as liberators but as tyrants, who extinguished the independence and freedom they enjoyed in the inter-war period.

The relocation of the statue and fallen Russian soldiers was conducted according to international law and it in no way justified the Duma resolutions calling for the resignation of the Estonian Government; the subsequent violent demonstrations; the cyber-attacks on Estonia’s sophisticated system of e-government; the outrageous use of Nashi, an extreme nationalist organisation, to harass the Estonian Embassy – in violation of the Vienna Conventions, and on the back of a similar strategy adopted against the British Ambassador, Anthony Brenton, who attended the Kasparov rally last year.

If it wants good relations after the summit with the EU as a whole and if it wants to negotiate a new PCA, Russia must appreciate that it has to respect all the EU Member States equally.

The cosy bilateral days of former Chancellor Schröder, now richly rewarded by President Putin with a cushy job after his retirement, are well and truly over. The new EU leaders, such as Sarkozy and Merkel, are going to get much tougher with Russia in future.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Katrin Saks (PSE). – Head kolleegid, tänan selge sõnumi eest, et Venemaa ei tohi suhtuda Eestisse kui oma kubermangu või liiduvabariiki.

Pronkssõdur oli ju vaid ettekääne. Kui poleks seda, oleks leitud midagi muud, võimalik, et kuskil mujal. See oli katse tekitada lõhet mitte ainult Eestis, vaid ka Euroopa Liidus; katse tekitada ebastabiilsust, mis annaks õigustuse suuremale sekkumisele ja aitaks tähelepanu kõrvale juhtida oma mahavõetud sammastelt.

Endise rahvastikuministrina kinnitan teile, et tegemist polnud rahvuskonfliktiga, eestlaste ja venelaste vahelise konfliktiga. Kuigi meil on paljus erinev nägemus ajaloost ja selle sümbolitest, siis kinnitan teile, et need mõni tuhat vägivallatsenud noort ei esinda vene vähemust Eestis. Need, kes tänavale tulid, karjusid "Rossija, Rossija".

Me oleme uhked oma venelaste üle, kes peavad Eestit oma koduks ja püüame üheskoos teha kõik, et kodurahu taastuks. Me ei saa muuta minevikku, vaevalt, et ka suhtumist sellesse, aga me suudame kujundada ühise tulevikunägemuse. Suur osa ühiskonnast on tänaseks omaks võtnud seisukoha "erinev minevik, ühine tulevik".

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Henrik Lax (ALDE). – Upploppen i samband med flytten av bronssoldaten i Tallinn blev en chock för alla dem som arbetat för att integrera den rysktalande befolkningen i det estniska samhället och stärka samhörigheten mellan befolkningsgrupperna i Estland. Estland behöver nu allt stöd och all solidaritet från EU och dess medlemsländer för att kunna vända detta bakslag till en harmonisering av förhållandet mellan landets språkgrupper och en stabilisering av hela samhället. Estland skall inte vara sårbart för otillbörliga påtryckningar och inblandning från Rysslands sida. Detta är viktigt för hela Europeiska unionen.

Estland har stolta traditioner och alla förutsättningar att lyckas. Redan år 1920 fick den ryskspråkiga minoriteten en stark ställning i Estlands första konstitution. Ett viktigt steg vore nu att införa en estnisk TV-kanal på ryska. Idag är alltför många rysktalande ester utlämnade åt ensidig information från Ryssland.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Wojciech Roszkowski (UEN). – Panie Przewodniczący! Spójrzmy na sprawę z szerszej perspektywy. Ostatni szczyt Rosja-Unia Europejska w Samarze przyniósł zmianę we wzajemnych stosunkach, gdyż nowe państwa członkowskie mogły odczuć, że istnieje unijna solidarność. Przewodniczącej Rady i przewodniczącemu Komisji należą się w związku z tym wyrazy uznania.

Brak postępów w rozmowach może martwić, jednak szczyt w Samarze należy ocenić pozytywnie, gdyż warunkiem rozwoju stosunków Unia-Rosja jest poszanowanie przez Rosję suwerenności poszczególnych krajów Unii i porzucenie przez nią taktyki nacisku politycznego przy pomocy instrumentów ekonomicznych i informatycznych.

Niestety, władze Rosji nie przyjmują tego do wiadomości. Cyberataki na Estonię nie ustały, a embargo na polskie mięso nadal obowiązuje. Ślady morderców Aleksandra Litwinienki wiodą do Moskwy. Unii nie pozostaje nic innego, jak kontynuowanie nacisków.

Nie zrozumiemy jednak dzisiejszej Rosji bez przyjrzenia się jej stosunkowi do własnej przeszłości. Trwałe i konstruktywne stosunki z Rosją wymagają bowiem wypracowania w Unii wspólnej wizji tej przeszłości. W tym celu należy stworzyć coś w rodzaju „Karty Prawdy i Pojednania”.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE). – Jag tror att det står fullständigt klart för alla vad som har hänt i Tallinn sedan april i år. Jag är dock osäker på om alla förstår vad det betyder. De tidigare diskussionerna i parlamentet i detta ärende tyder på att alla inte förstår varför vissa har reagerat så kraftfullt. Låt mig därför förklara.

Redan vid Putins utnämning till president antydde han att han skulle göra allt han kunde för att åter ge Ryssland dess forna militärstyrka och den makt som han anser tillstår landet. Om jag minns rätt var det bara en fransk tidning som direkt uppfattade signalerna från Ryssland. Övriga medier såg dem inte. Vi som talar ryska och har erfarenhet av att leva nära eller under Ryssland - vi förstod. Under åren har det dock blivit alltmer klart att utvecklingen i Ryssland går åt fel håll, både när det gäller mänskliga rättigheter, mediernas oberoende och politisk frihet. Otto von Habsburg, en av Europas mest respekterade politiska gestalter, beskrev det som vägen tillbaka till Stalintiden. Han är 95 år idag, han har perspektivet, han minns. Men andra verkar ha glömt. Även i Europaparlamentet finns det ledamöter som förefaller ha glömt de prövningar som de östeuropeiska staterna fick utstå under sin väg mot frihet, självständighet och oberoende. Man tycks ha glömt alla hot och bojkotter, inblandningen i andra länders interna angelägenheter och utpressningen med hjälp av uteblivna energileveranser. Vissa av dessa händelser skedde helt nyligen och utspelar sig just nu i denna stund i några av de länder som jag betecknar som det nya Europa.

Men en del från det gamla Europa verkar ha glömt sin historiska läxa - att vi enbart genom en gemensam utrikespolitik och solidaritet och med en röst kan försvara freden. Detta handlar inte om monumentet i Tallinn. Debatten handlar inte om Estland. Debatten handlar om Europa och Europas suveränitet och oberoende.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Roberts Zīle (UEN). – Priekšsēdētāja kungs, cienītā komisāre! Vispirms es gribētu pateikties Barosso kungam par Samārā izteikto domu, ka jebkuras pat vismazākās dalībvalsts problēmas ar Krieviju ir arī Eiropas Savienības problēmas ar Krieviju. Tas bija labs atbalsts dalībvalstīm, jaunajām dalībvalstīm, it īpaši Igaunijai, taču pat tiem politiķiem, kuriem "nokrita rozā brilles" par attiecībām ar Krieviju, ir būtiski saprast, ka turpināsies mēģinājumi parādīt, ka Krievijai pastāv īstā vecā Eiropa un tās tuvās pierobežas teritorijas, kas, Krievijas prāt, īslaicīgi dažādu notikumu iespaidā ir nejauši nokļuvušas Eiropas Savienībā, un paralēli testiem, cik stipra ir Eiropas Savienības vienotība, tiks izmēģināti arī jauni, un tiek izmēģināti arī jauni virtuālie ieroči, kuri modernā sabiedrībā var nodarīt milzīgu kaitējumu. Tāpēc jautājums ir, vai Eiropas Savienība nogaidīs un sastapsies ar jaunām problēmām kādā Eiropas Savienības pēcpadomju bloka dalībvalstī, vai arī būs spējīga pati izvirzīt Krievijai prasības, kādas jāizpilda jebkurai valstij, ja tā vēlas kļūt par demokrātisku un paredzamu partnerattiecību subjektu. Paldies!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis (UEN). – Kolēģi, komisāres kundze! Ir īpaši svarīgi, ka Eiropa ne tikai parāda solidaritāti, bet arī atzīst Igaunijā notikušo grautiņu patiesos cēloņus. Eiropai noteikti jāsaprot, ka Igaunijā notika Rietumu demokrātijas un vecā padomju totalitārisma ideoloģiju sadursme. To apzinoties, Eiropai ir nešaubīgi jānoraida totalitārās PSRS laika vēsturiskās interpretācijas. Eiropai ir jāsekmē PSRS simbolu novākšana, kas aizskar PSRS paverdzināto tautu iedzīvotājus. Eiropai ir jāpiedalās vēsturiskās patiesības atjaunošanā okupētajās Baltijas valstīs un citur Austrumeiropā. Tas varētu būt priekšnoteikums dažādu ideoloģiju pārstāvju samierināšanai un integrācijai nākotnē bijušās PSRS okupētajās teritorijās. Tā ir arī visas Eiropas kopējā problēma. Īpaši vēlos uzsvērt, ka Eiropas Parlamentam turpmāk ir jābūt šo patiesības un tiesiskuma mērķu sasniegšanas aktīvam dalībniekam. Paldies!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Mr President, this discussion has clearly shown that the key word is ‘solidarity’. I should like to thank a number of Members for their words of thanks.

Mr Barroso in particular could not have been clearer on this issue. Many of you know what he said. His meaning was that aggression against one Member State – in this case Estonia – represents aggression against the whole European Union. This was a very strong statement and it also showed that divide et impera politics cannot work if Europe speaks with one voice.

These were the main issues and main lessons of these proceedings. These questions took some considerable time in the discussions in our meeting. We emphasised again and again that we are working as an EU of 27 Member States and that solidarity will be maintained.

On WTO accession, both sides at Samara recognised that our economic and trading links are larger and more intensive than ever and it was encouraging to hear from the Russian side that they intend to accelerate the process of their accession to the WTO. It is encouraging because it is in our interests to bind Russia into a rules-based system where it can then be held to account. This is very important.

On cyber-attacks, it is now up to the Council to work on the Commission communication where we have added a specific paragraph on cyber-terrorism. I can see there is generally much agreement in this House on how important it is to work on this question of solidarity.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Przewodniczący. Otrzymałem siedem projektów rezolucji(1) złożonych zgodnie z art. 103(2) Regulaminu.

Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się w czwartek, 24 maja.

 
  

(1)Patrz protokół


19. Годишен доклад за 2005 г. за ОВППС (разискване)
MPphoto
 
 

  Przewodniczący. Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest sprawozdanie sporządzone przez Elmara Broka w imieniu Komisji Spraw Zagranicznych w sprawie rocznego sprawozdania Rady dla Parlamentu Europejskiego dotyczącego głównych aspektów i podstawowych wyborów WPZiB, w tym konsekwencji finansowych dla budżetu ogólnego Unii Europejskiej - 2005 r. (2006/2217(INI)) (A6-0130/2007).

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elmar Brok (PPE-DE), Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Den Jahresbericht des Rates zur GASP diskutieren wir heute ohne den Rat. Umso mehr bedanke ich mich bei der Kommission und bei Frau Kommissarin, dass sie heute hier ist. Es wirft auch ein deutliches Licht auf das Europäische Parlament, dass es diesen einzigen formalen Bericht, den wir im Bereich der Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik vorlegen, in der Nachtsitzung behandelt.

Ich glaube, dass in den vergangenen Jahren und gerade in dem Zeitraum, den wir hier zu beobachten haben, die Zusammenarbeit mit der Kommission im Bereich der Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik und in vielen Bereichen auch mit dem Rat außerordentlich positiv war.

Wir haben in diesen Zeiten erhebliche Fortschritte in der Entwicklung der Nachbarschaftspolitik und in der Politik im Zusammenhang mit dem Balkan erreicht, wir sind auch in zunehmendem Umfang in der Lage, uns im Bereich der Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik zu positionieren, die Europäische Union übernimmt heute ein Maß an Aufgaben, das vor zehn Jahren, vor fünf Jahren fast nicht vorstellbar gewesen ist. Dass aus diesem Grunde heute die Europäische Union – sei es im Nahen Osten oder sei es in der Iran-Frage – erstmalig in der Lage war, auch andere Länder in unsere Strategie der Kombination von Prävention, zivilem Krisenmanagement und militärischen Fähigkeiten einzubringen und nicht alleine auf militärische Fähigkeiten zu setzen, also die Idee des soft power der Europäischen Union auch stärker zu einer Politik im weltweiten Maßstab zu machen, müssen wir als Erfolg sehen.

Gleichzeitig müssen wir uns die Frage stellen, ob wir in der Lage sind, mit den Fortschritten, die wir erreicht haben, den Herausforderungen vollständig zu begegnen. Erlauben Sie mir deswegen an dieser Stelle die Bemerkung, dass die Verwirklichung des Verfassungsvertrages gerade in den Bereichen der Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik von essenzieller, wenn nicht gar existenzieller Bedeutung ist. Aus diesem Grunde heraus müssen wir gerade in dieser Frage und in diesen Tagen und Wochen, wo wir auf die nächste Regierungskonferenz zusteuern, deutlich machen, dass dies einer der unverzichtbaren Bestandteile des Verfassungsvertrages ist, denn wir müssen unsere Fähigkeiten kohärenter gestalten, was ja auch von der Kommission so gesehen wird.

Ich finde es wichtig, dass wir auch im Vorgriff darauf manche Maßnahmen wahrnehmen. Ich möchte die Kommission beispielsweise ermutigen, den Ausbau ihrer Delegationen, die wir in 120 Ländern haben, so zu forcieren, dass sie im Vorgriff auf den Auswärtigen Dienst, der nach dem Verfassungsvertrag vorgesehen ist, auch von den anderen Institutionen schon genutzt werden können. Da der Rat ja hier nicht vertreten ist und nicht mithören kann, kann ich sagen, diese wäre auch eine hervorragende Gelegenheit zu beweisen, dass ein solcher Auswärtiger Dienst auch in Zukunft unter die Zuständigkeit der Kommission fallen sollte, und dass wir keine unabhängige Institution brauchen. Wenn wir in dieser Frage jetzt schon eine entsprechende vernünftige Praxis im Sinne vollendeter Tatsachen verfolgen, werden wir ein umso höheres Maß an Handelsfähigkeit besitzen.

Die Europäische Union ist in 120 Ländern durch Delegationen der Kommission vertreten. Sie ist mit 20% des Welthandels die weltweit größte Handelsmacht. Wir haben ein Bruttosozialprodukt, das zwar nicht pro Kopf, aber insgesamt höher ist als das der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Wenn es uns gelingt, dies in eine politische Sprache umzusetzen, und zwar eben im Sinne einer solchen nicht nur auf militärische Gewalt, sondern auf soft power angelegten Position, dann können wir in der Lage sein, das transatlantische Bündnis handlungsfähig zu machen – und zwar auf Augenhöhe – und auf diese Art und Weise gleichberechtigt Einfluss ausüben, wie das jüngst mit dem Transatlantischen Wirtschaftsabkommen der Fall war, das für uns einen wichtigen Fortschritt in der Fortsetzung der Beziehungen mit den Vereinigten Staaten bedeutet, die auch in Zukunft unser Bündnispartner sind. Es kann von unserer Seite her keine Äquidistanz zu Russland und Amerika geben, sondern die USA sind den Werten nach unser erster Partner. Das muss in einem solchen Zusammenhang klar gemacht werden, damit in einer solchen Frage keine Missverständnisse aufkommen.

(Beifall)

Ob man gerade mit der aktuellen Regierungspolitik einverstanden ist, ist in einem solchen Zusammenhang Nebensache.

Wir müssen aber gleichzeitig sehen, dass wir diesen Einfluss nur erreichen können, wenn wir auch gemeinsam handeln. Solidarität bedeutet, dass wir nach außen solidarisch sind. Ich möchte dem Ratspräsidenten und der deutschen Ratspräsidentschaft insgesamt dafür danken, dass sie das in Samara gemeinsam mit der Kommission bewiesen hat. Hier hat man wirklich nichts anbrennen lassen und deutlich gemacht, dass man sich nicht hat auseinander dividieren lassen. Wir dürfen uns von Amerika nicht in ein altes und ein neues Europa auseinander dividieren lassen. Wir dürfen aber auch nicht zulassen, dass der Nachbar im Osten meint, es gebe unterschiedliche Regionen von Sicherheitsqualität und in bestimmten Regionen habe man mehr Einfluss als in anderen. Jeder Staat in Europa und in der Welt muss frei sein, seine Entscheidung zu treffen, welchem Bündnis und welcher Gemeinschaft er angehört, und kein Nachbar – so groß er auch sein mag – darf mit seinem Einfluss versuchen, dies zu ändern. Dies ist ein Kernpunkt des Helsinki-Vertrages von 1975, nämlich dass jedes Land eigenständig die Entscheidung trifft, welcher Gemeinschaft es angehören will. Dennoch müssen wir sehen, dass dieser große Nachbar im Energiebereich und auch wegen anderer Fragen für uns wichtig ist. Deshalb müssen wir auch dafür sorgen, dass die strategische Partnerschaft mit Russland ausgebaut werden muss, weil es mir lieber wäre, dass ein solches demokratisches Russland auf unserer Seite steht und nicht auf der Seite des Iran.

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Mitglied der Kommission. Herr Präsident, verehrte Damen und Herren Abgeordneten! Ich begrüße die Gelegenheit, mit Ihnen allen den Bericht von Elmar Brok zu diskutieren, auch wenn dies zu nachtschlafenden Stunden geschieht.

Die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik ist ein entscheidendes Element der EU-Außenpolitik, bei dem die Kommission gemäß den Verträgen vollständig eingebunden wird. Wir nehmen an der Diskussion in allen relevanten Ratsgremien teil. Wir sind ein ständiges Mitglied der Troika. Wir verwalten und implementieren den GASP-Haushalt. Wir tragen durch die gesamten Maßnahmen im Rahmen der ersten Säule auch zu den außenpolitischen Zielen der Europäischen Union bei. Es ist für uns von entscheidender Bedeutung, dass die Union über eine vollständig abgestimmte Außenpolitik verfügt, die sowohl die gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik als auch die Dimension der Gemeinschaft und damit die Maßnahmen der Mitgliedstaaten einbezieht. Wir wollen sozusagen wie die Zahnräder in einem wohlgeölten Getriebe sein.

Lassen Sie mich kurz einige der Themen dieses sehr umfangreichen Berichts aufgreifen:

Im Hinblick auf die außenpolitischen Aspekte des Verfassungsvertrags bin ich ebenfalls der Auffassung, dass deren Umsetzung die Effizienz, Kohärenz und Sichtbarkeit der GASP vergrößern würde. Jedoch sollten wir daraus nicht die Schlussfolgerung ziehen, dass die Dinge in der Zwischenzeit nicht verbessert werden könnten oder auch verbessert wurden.

Was in diesem Zusammenhang zählt, sind die Entwicklungen und Ergebnisse vor Ort, und hier hat es erhebliche Verbesserungen gegeben. Erst vor kurzem konnten wir uns von einer verbesserten Zusammenarbeit zwischen Rat, Mitgliedstaaten und Kommission überzeugen, wie bei der Abstimmung unserer jeweiligen Handlungen und Maßnahmen bei den Vorbereitungen auf eine Lösung im Hinblick auf den Status des Kosovo, bei der Verstärkung unserer Bemühungen, durch Maßnahmen in den Bereichen Polizei und Justiz die Rechtsstaatlichkeit in Afghanistan zu fördern, Polizeiarbeit fällt in die Zuständigkeit des Rates und des Ratssekretariats, wir übernehmen den Justizbereich, militärische Mittel werden im Rahmen der NATO angewandt. Weitere Beispiele sind die Unterstützung des Nahostfriedensprozesses (EU-Mission zur Unterstützung des Grenzschutzes am Grenzübergang Rafah), die Förderung der Reform des Sicherheitssektors in der Demokratischen Republik Kongo oder auch die Finanzierung der friedenserhaltenden Operationen in Somalia oder dem Sudan durch die Afrika-Friedensfazilität oder der Beobachtungs- und Überwachungseinsatz in Aceh.

All diese kostenintensiven, aber politisch sehr wichtigen Unternehmungen machen es notwendig, dass wir die erforderlichen Ressourcen sowohl aus dem Haushalt der Gemeinsamen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik als auch der Gemeinschaftsinstrumente, einschließlich des neuen Stabilitätsinstrumentes, in Anspruch nehmen, um unsere Ziele zu erreichen. Ich möchte hinzufügen, dass sich hier vor allem das Stabilitätsinstrument bereits jetzt als ein sehr flexibles Instrument erweist, das es uns ermöglicht, auf Krisen schnell zu reagieren und die erforderlichen Kapazitäten aufzubauen.

Indem wir in Krisensituationen und bei anderen außenpolitischen Herausforderungen zusammenarbeiten, ebnen wir eigentlich schon den Weg zur Umsetzung der außenpolitischen Bestimmungen des Verfassungsvertrags. Damit stärken wir auch die Rolle der Europäischen Union in der Welt, was von EU-Bürgern gewünscht und richtigerweise im Bericht hervorgehoben wird.

In der EU-Außenpolitik spielt auch das Europäische Parlament eine ganz besondere Rolle. Daher messe ich unserem regelmäßigen Austausch mit Ihnen – sei es in Plenar- oder in Ausschusssitzungen – großen Wert bei. Wir sollten dabei immer unsere gemeinsame Herausforderung im Auge behalten, die darin besteht, die Gesamtwirksamkeit unseres Einflusses in der Welt zu erhöhen.

Wie der Bericht mit Recht unterstreicht, ist ebenfalls von Bedeutung, dass die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik auch angemessen finanziert wird. Die Geldmittel wurden für die neue Finanzperiode daher auch beträchtlich aufgestockt, insbesondere im Vergleich zu anderen politischen Bereichen. Was den Haushalt für 2007 betrifft, so wissen wir alle, dass 2007 hinsichtlich der haushaltspolitischen Anforderungen ein außergewöhnliches Jahr werden wird. Die zwei wichtigsten Herausforderungen sind sicherlich das Kosovo und der Friedensprozess im Nahen Osten. Im Kosovo wird, sobald es uns gelingt, einen endgültigen Status zu vereinbaren und eine Entschließung des UN-Sicherheitsrates in New York angenommen wird, eine große, vielleicht die größte zivile ESVP-Operation gestartet werden, an deren Vorbereitung die Kommission und der Rat bereits intensiv arbeiten. Was den Friedensprozess im Nahen Osten betrifft, so müssen wir sicherstellen, dass die Unterstützung für die palästinensische Bevölkerung aufrechterhalten wird.

Falls zusätzliche Ressourcen für den GASP-Haushalt gebraucht werden, müssen wir gemeinsam mit dem Parlament eine geeignete Lösung suchen, und zwar unter Berücksichtigung der Notwendigkeit, im Notfall auch auf unvorhergesehene Krisen in anderen außenpolitischen Bereichen zu können.

Ich könnte jetzt die einzelnen Themen erläutern, aber ich glaube, in Ihrem Sinne zu handeln, wenn ich hier vorläufig abbreche und nach der Debatte vielleicht die eine oder andere Einzelfrage beantworte.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Αντώνης Σαμαράς (PPE-DE), Εισηγητής της γνωμοδότησης της Επιτροπής Προϋπολογισμών. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ως μέλος της Επιτροπής Προϋπολογισμών εκφράζω την ικανοποίησή μας για το ότι ενισχύεται το κεφάλαιο της Κοινής Εξωτερικής Πολιτικής και Πολιτικής της Ασφάλειας με σχεδόν 1.800 εκατομμύρια ευρώ για την περίοδο 2007-2013, δηλαδή με ένα ποσόν υπερ-τριπλάσιο της προηγούμενης επταετίας.

Θεωρούμε όμως ότι γι’ αυτόν ακριβώς τον λόγο θα πρέπει η θετική αυτή εξέλιξη να συνοδευθεί από ενισχυμένα μέτρα κοινοβουλευτικού ελέγχου και βελτιωμένης συνεργασίας της επιτροπής μας με το Συμβούλιο, όπως άλλωστε προβλέπει και το άρθρο 28 της Συνθήκης της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Και επομένως έχω την υποχρέωση να καυτηριάσω την αποψινή αδικαιολόγητη απουσία του Συμβουλίου που μας δίνει έναν πολύ αρνητικό συμβολισμό.

Η θέση μας είναι ξεκάθαρη, ότι δεν μπορούμε να δεχθούμε ετήσιες εκθέσεις του Συμβουλίου που θα περιορίζονται αποκλειστικά στην εκ των υστέρων (ex-post) περιγραφή των δραστηριοτήτων της ΚΕΠΠΑ. Με την υπογραφή μάλιστα της νέας διοργανικής συμφωνίας έχει έλθει η ώρα να μας παρέχει το Συμβούλιο πληροφορίες πριν πάρει τις τελικές του αποφάσεις.

Τέτοιες ουσιαστικές δημοσιονομικές πληροφορίες μας δόθηκαν μόνο τελευταία για το Κοσσυφοπέδιο από τον αρμόδιο γερμανό πρέσβη και οφείλω να χαιρετήσω την πρωτοβουλία του συγκεκριμένου πρέσβη, ελπίζοντας ότι η βελτίωση αυτή θα συνεχισθεί σε τακτική πλέον βάση.

Δύο ακόμη σημεία: εκφράζουμε την ανησυχία μας για το γεγονός ότι ήταν σχεδόν αδύνατη μέχρι σήμερα η αξιολόγηση των λεγόμενων «μικτών δράσεων» της ΚΕΠΠΑ που συνεπάγονται δαπάνες τόσο από μη στρατιωτικές δράσεις όσο και από δράσεις με στρατιωτικές ή αμυντικές συνέπειες και, δεύτερον, να υπογραμμίσω ότι θεωρούμε αναγκαίο να εμπίπτουν στον προϋπολογισμό της ΚΕΠΠΑ και οι ειδικοί απεσταλμένοι της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και, ως εκ τούτου, να απαιτούνται κριτήρια που θα αφορούν και τον διορισμό και την αξιολόγησή τους.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bogdan Klich, w imieniu grupy PPE-DE. – Panie Przewodniczący! Raport Elmara Broka dotyczy roku 2005, ale oczywiście spotkaliśmy się tutaj po to, aby mówić o Wspólnej Polityce Zagranicznej i Bezpieczeństwa w przyszłości. Jak ona ma wyglądać?

Aby Unia Europejska mogła aktywnie wpływać na pokój, stabilizację i bezpieczeństwo międzynarodowe, musi oczywiście posiadać odpowiednie narzędzia w postaci stosownych instytucji i polityk. Ale za tymi narzędziami zawsze kryje się wola polityczna państw członkowskich albo jej brak. Tyle bowiem jest i będzie Europy, ile woli politycznej jej przywódców. Także za Wspólną Polityką Zagraniczną i Bezpieczeństwa kryje się wola polityczna naszych przywódców. A zatem jakie wyzwania stoją przed naszymi przywódcami, jeżeli chodzi o CFSP i SDP?

Po pierwsze, uważam, że należy wprowadzić na drodze reformy traktatów - bez względu na to, jaki będzie ostateczny kształt tej reformy - te propozycje, które znalazły się w traktacie konstytucyjnym i bądź bezpośrednio, bądź pośrednio odnoszą się do Wspólnej Polityki Zagranicznej. A zatem nadać Unii Europejskiej osobowość prawną i zlikwidować jej strukturę filarową. Utworzyć nowy organ, tzn. funkcję ministra spraw zagranicznych oraz utworzyć europejską służbę działań zewnętrznych.

Należy także utrzymać generalną zasadę jednomyślności w zakresie polityki zagranicznej, bezpieczeństwa i obrony, ale też rozszerzyć zakres stosowania głosowania większością kwalifikowaną.

Bardzo istotne jest wprowadzenie klauzuli solidarności w przypadku zagrożenia lub też aktu terrorystycznego oraz utrzymanie zasady pomocy wzajemnej na wypadek agresji zbrojnej na terytorium jakiegokolwiek państwa członkowskiego (zasady sformułowanej w artykule I-41 traktatu konstytucyjnego).

Ponadto niezbędne jest pozostawienie współpracy strukturalnej w zakresie misji przy jednoczesnej likwidacji ich ekskluzywnego charakteru. Należy również wprowadzić do traktatu rozszerzoną listę zadań petersberskich oraz umocować wreszcie traktatowo Europejską Agencję Obrony.

Po drugie, należy zapewnić efektywność misji pokojowych, zarówno obecnych, w Bośni i Libanie, jak również przyszłej, w Kosowie.

I wreszcie, należy wprowadzić do nowego traktatu klauzulę solidarności energetycznej. Byłaby ona dobrą odpowiedzią na zagrożenia dla bezpieczeństwa energetycznego krajów członkowskich, które coraz częściej dotyczą naszych obywateli.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Helmut Kuhne, im Namen der PSE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Herr Berichterstatter, wir Sozialdemokraten unterstützen Ihren Bericht, obwohl es zu einigen Punkten konkreter politischer Maßnahmen unterschiedliche Auffassungen gibt. Wir sind zum Beispiel der Meinung, dass man aussprechen sollte, dass es ob der geplanten Stationierung des amerikanischen Raketenabwehrsystems in einigen Staaten der Europäischen Union Besorgnisse und Befürchtungen gibt, dass daraus eine neue Runde des Wettrüstens wird. Als Sozialdemokraten sind wir übrigens äußerst erfreut festzustellen, dass teilweise die gleichen Fragen, die wir an dieses System haben, mittlerweile auch im Repräsentantenhaus des US-Kongresses gestellt werden.

Aber warum unterstützen wir Ihren Bericht? Wir unterstützen ihn, weil er in einer ganz konkreten Situation vorgelegt wird und im Ausschuss auch eine breite Mehrheit gefunden hat, und diese konkrete Situation ist die Schlussgerade zur Schaffung einer neuen vertraglichen Grundlage für die Europäische Union und für die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik. Wir als Sozialdemokraten wollen diesen Fortschritt. Wenn Sie mir diese kleine Gemeinheit gestatten: Wir werden ihn möglicherweise morgen mit einer größeren Geschlossenheit unterstützen, als es Teile Ihrer eigenen Fraktion tun werden.

In dem Zusammenhang sollte man auch noch ansprechen, worum es geht. Sie haben es zu Recht angesprochen, und ich will es auch noch einmal unterstreichen. Uns, die wir hier sitzen, wird es nicht mehr betreffen. Aber es kann möglicherweise unsere Enkel betreffen. Sie werden irgendwann einmal in den Geschichtsbüchern lesen: Im Jahr 2007 hatten die Europäer noch einmal die Chance, die Geschicke der Welt mitzubestimmen. Sie haben diese Chance verspielt, anschließend wurde der Einfluss in der Welt zwischen den Verreinigten Staaten und China aufgeteilt.

Damit diese Entwicklung nicht eintritt, ist es notwendig, dass dieses Europäische Parlament in der konkreten Situation den Bericht unterstützt, die Maßnahmen unterstützt. Viele von ihnen hat Herr Klich aufgezählt. Ich schließe mich dieser Aufzählung an. Dies sollte morgen die gemeinsame Position der breiten Mehrheit dieses Parlaments werden.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Cem Özdemir, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Sie werden sich wahrscheinlich wundern, dass auch meine Fraktion, die Grünen im Europäischen Parlament, den Bericht Brok nicht nur begrüßt, sondern ausdrücklich unterstützt. Ich habe mit Interesse und Freude die neu entdeckte Leidenschaft des Kollegen Brok für die soft power wahrgenommen. Auch das kann ich nur ausdrücklich begrüßen, und ich bin schon gespannt darauf, inwiefern er das auf die Erweiterungspolitik der Europäischen Union im Hinblick auf den westlichen Balkan, aber auch auf die Türkei umsetzt. Ich will das hier nicht vertiefen. Was sicherlich nicht weiter angehen kann, ist der Umgang des Rates mit dem Europäischen Parlament im Bereich der GASP und der ESVP. Wir werden je nach Gusto und je nach dem, wie die Lage einzuschätzen ist, irgendwann im Nachhinein informiert. Das wird zu Recht kritisiert und muss geändert werden. Aber auch das, was bislang als Gemeinsame Außen-, Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik firmiert, verdient oft nicht den Namen, der damit einhergeht.

Ich will versuchen, das am Beispiel Kosovo konkret darzustellen. Die Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union haben in den vergangenen Jahren viele Soldaten, Helfer und Geld in die Krisenregion geschickt und planen jetzt eine breite Beteiligung an der Polizei sowie zivilen Präsenz. Wenn man die Qualität, aber auch die Quantität unserer gemeinsamen Leistungen betrachtet, könnte man meinen, dass die Europäische Union eine klare, einheitliche und gemeinsame Kosovo-Politik verfolgt. Die Realität ist allerdings – wie wir alle wissen – anders, obwohl die Angelegenheit bereits im Sicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen behandelt wird. Auch hier stellt sich die Frage: Müssen wir wieder darauf warten, dass die Amerikaner einschreiten, oder sind wir selbst in der Lage, das Problem zu lösen?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tobias Pflüger, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich will heute einmal mit den Punkten anfangen, bei denen wir uns einig sind. Der Zeitpunkt der Debatte ist eine Zumutung. Dazu ist das Thema tatsächlich viel zu wichtig, und – das wird in dem Bericht überraschend deutlich formuliert – eine reale parlamentarische Kontrolle der Militärpolitik der Europäischen Union gibt es nicht. An mehreren Punkten – 41, 42 und 43 – wird dies sehr klar beschrieben.

Der Rat sollte endlich zur Kenntnis nehmen, dass sich das Europäische Parlament an diesem Punkt tatsächlich völlig einig ist: Wir wollen eine parlamentarische Kontrolle, und wir wollen, dass das Europäische Parlament auch in Entscheidungen im Bereich der Militärpolitik eingebunden wird.

Aber damit das Ganze hier nicht zu einer Konsenssoße wird, nenne ich jetzt vor allem die Punkte, in denen wir nicht übereinstimmen. Der Kernpunkt ist tatsächlich das, was Elmar Brok vorhin angesprochen hat, nämlich der Verfassungsvertrag. Wie schon die Kommissarin beschrieben hat, wird der Verfassungsvertrag tatsächlich wesentliche „Fortschritte“ für den Bereich der Militärpolitik bringen. Genau das ist einer der Gründe, warum wir diesen Verfassungsvertrag ablehnen. Wir hoffen, dass genau solche Passagen wie etwa Artikel I-41 Absatz 3 in diesem jetzt geplanten Grundlagenvertrag eben nicht mehr auftauchen. Ich bin da nicht sehr zuversichtlich. Es sieht ganz danach aus, als solle der praktisch gleiche Vertrag nicht mehr Verfassungsvertrag genannt werden, sondern in anderer Form durch die verschiedenen Regierungen verabschiedet werden.

Ich will zu einigen Punkten innerhalb dieses Berichts etwas sagen. Es wird sehr deutlich formuliert, dass die strukturelle Zusammenarbeit zentral sei. Sie ist tatsächlich zentral, wenn man eine Militärmacht Europäische Union will. Wir wollen das nicht, also wollen wir diese strukturierte Zusammenarbeit nicht. Und es wird sehr deutlich der Athena-Mechanismus formuliert, mit dem über Tricks Militäreinsätze der Europäischen Union finanziert werden. Zum Beispiel werden Militäreinsätze auch über so genannte Rückflüsse aus dem Europäischen Entwicklungsfonds finanziert. Das halten wir für einen Skandal. Hier ist tatsächlich notwendig, dass diese Trickserei aufhört und dass die Europäische Union keine Militärmacht wird.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, this report calls for an EU foreign minister, a common foreign policy, a common EU seat on the UN Security Council and much more and, of course, for the all too predictable full ratification of the rejected European Constitution in order to make it all possible. The parts that amused me the most were those calling for a foreign policy to be decided by qualified majority voting and for national security services to be subject to democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament.

The justification for all this is that this is what the people of Europe want from the European Union. I do not know which people Mr Brok has been speaking to, but they certainly were not British. The idea that they would want to hand over control of their foreign policy, defences and security services to the European Union is laughable. The frightening thing is that Mr Brok is serious.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE). – La numai două săptămâni de la serbarea zilei Europei, la 9 mai, dezbaterea pe marginea raportului domnului Elmar Brok, consacrat politicii europene de securitate comună, este actuală şi necesară. Îi mulţumesc în acest sens raportorului pentru abordarea cuprinzătoare a acestei tematici, indisolubil legate de prezentul şi viitorul Uniunii Europene, precum şi pentru stabilirea, în interiorul raportului, a unor priorităţi necesare unei acţiuni eficiente în contextul european şi internaţional de astăzi.

În calitatea mea de raportor la subiectul cooperării cu şi în cadrul Mării Negre, am apreciat în primul rând poziţionarea tematicii consolidării relaţiei Uniunii Europene cu ţările acestei zone ca o prioritate pentru anul 2007. Nu mai puţin importantă este şi sublinierea necesităţii de a dezvolta dimensiunea cooperării regionale în cadrul politicii externe a Uniunii. Regiunea Mării Negre dispune, fără îndoială, de un potenţial bogat de dezvoltare; în egală măsură, ţările din zonă se confruntă şi cu provocări serioase în mai multe domenii. Stabilitatea, dezvoltarea şi prosperitatea în zona de vecinătate a Uniunii Europene, consolidarea relaţiilor Uniunii Europene cu ţările acestei regiuni, precum şi încurajarea cooperării intra-regionale este, în acest context, de o importanţă majoră. Reunind în cadrul său state membre ale Uniunii Europene şi vecini ai acesteia, regiunea Mării Negre poate şi trebuie să devină un spaţiu al cooperării pe baza valorilor şi principiilor europene. Trebuie însă să trecem de la vorbe la fapte, din plan teoretic în cel al măsurilor concrete şi eficiente, care să demonstreze implicarea Uniunii Europene în această regiune.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Libor Rouček (PSE). – Dámy a pánové, evropské státy stojí na počátku 21. století před celou řadou nových výzev. Máme zde globalizaci, mezinárodní terorismus, kontrolu zbrojení a odzbrojení, zákaz šíření zbraní hromadného ničení, je zde nekontrolovaná migrace, energetická závislost a bezpečnost dodávek energie, klimatické změny, prevence šíření chudoby ve světě a mnohé další. To vše jsou problémy a záležitosti, které se týkají každého evropského státu bez rozdílu jeho velikosti a také samozřejmě bez rozdílu geografické polohy. A toto vše jsou výzvy, problémy a záležitosti, které žádný evropský stát, byť ten sebevětší, není schopen řešit a vyřešit sám.

Z tohoto důvodu potřebujeme společnou zahraniční a bezpečnostní politiku a nejenom to, potřebujeme také její posílení, a to minimálně v tom rozsahu, jaké navrhuje Ústavní smlouva. Mimo jiné potřebujeme vytvořit post evropského ministra zahraničních věcí. Tento ministr by měl být zároveň komisařem a předsedou Rady pro zahraniční věci tak, aby Unie konečně mohla mluvit jedním hlasem. Potřebujeme vytvořit skutečnou evropskou službu pro vnější činnost, posílit strukturální spolupráci, potřebujeme doložku o pomoci a mnohé další věci, které obsahuje právě návrh Smlouvy o Ústavě EU.

A co je také velmi významné, ústavní proces by měl být dokončen do roku 2008. Já myslím, že to je důležité nejenom z hlediska dalšího rozšiřování, řekněme o Chorvatsko, ale také, jak již bylo řečeno, pro celkové zefektivnění společné zahraniční bezpečnostní a obranné politiky. Obávám se, že bez tohoto zefektivnění se Evropa propadne do role nejenom politického, ale postupně i ekonomického trpaslíka.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM). – Elmar Brok predikar vikten av att EU får en utrikesminister och egna ambassader runt om i världen. Han konstaterar att bara 18 länder än så länge har ratificerat konstitutionsfördraget, men att ”det måste ratificeras fullt ut”. Smaka på den formuleringen: ”det måste ratificeras fullt ut”. Det betyder alltså att man underkänner folkviljan i två av EU:s grundarstater. Så går det till här i Strasbourg och Bryssel. Och som alltid återkommer mantrat att Europa måste kunna tala med en röst. Det betyder att 27 röster skall tystas. Vad kommer den återstående rösten då att säga? För att ta ett exempel: invasionen av Irak stöddes av en koalition av vilja där Storbritannien, Italien, Spanien, Polen, Nederländerna, Danmark med flera länder var med. Ett EU med en röst hade sannolikt sagt ja till invasionen och tyska soldater skulle ha tvingats ut i krig mot förbundsdagens bestämda vilja. Tänk efter och tänk om! För att tala med en röst måste det finnas ett folk med en identitet, men vi européer har olika.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ρόδη Κράτσα-Τσαγκαροπούλου (PPE-DE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, θα ήθελα να συγχαρώ τον εισηγητή κύριο Brok, καθώς και τον συντάκτη γνωμοδότησης κύριο Σαμαρά, για τις επισημάνσεις τους σχετικά με τις αδυναμίες και τις ελλείψεις της ΚΕΠΠΑ καθώς και τις προτάσεις τους για μεγαλύτερη δραστηριοποίηση, καλύτερη χρηματοδότηση και αξιοποίηση των δυνατοτήτων μας για να μπορέσουμε να διαδραματίσουμε ένα διεθνή ρόλο και να αντιμετωπίσουμε τα προβλήματα.

Είναι καιρός να αναρωτηθούμε όμως, είναι αρκετά όλα αυτά; Θα αποδώσουν τα αποτελέσματα που θα αναμένουμε κάθε φορά; Είναι ένα ερώτημα που μας υποβάλλουν οι πολίτες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης αλλά και οι πολίτες άλλων περιοχών του κόσμου, κυρίως σε περιοχές που είμαστε παρόντες αλλά όχι αρκετά αποτελεσματικοί.

Θα ήθελα να αναφερθώ στη Μέση Ανατολή, όπως αναφέρεται και η έκθεση Brok, η οποία αυτές τις ημέρες βιώνει μια κατάσταση ιδιαίτερα έκρυθμη. Η κατάσταση αυτή αποτελεί πραγματικά μια μεγάλη πρόκληση για μας. Προσφέρουμε συντονισμένα και διαχρονικά ανθρωπιστική και αναπτυξιακή βοήθεια. Διατηρούμε ειρηνευτικές δυνάμεις, όπως στο Λίβανο· αστυνομικές δυνάμεις, όπως στη Ράφα. Και περιμένουμε τα προβλήματα να λυθούν από μόνα τους ή από άλλους ή να ακολουθήσουμε δρόμους που υπαγορεύονται από άλλους.

Αναγνωρίζουμε ότι η καρδιά του προβλήματος είναι το παλαιστινιακό πρόβλημα και όμως επαναπαυόμαστε σε προσωρινές λύσεις και δεν παίρνουμε την τύχη στα χέρια μας να οδηγήσουμε σε ριζικές λύσεις που θα είναι και βιώσιμες.

Είναι καιρός να δούμε ότι υπάρχει ανάγκη για μια ευρωπαϊκή στρατηγική πιο ανεξάρτητη και αυτόνομη, που θα βλέπει τα πράγματα πιο καθαρά και θα τα λέει με το όνομά τους. Μόνο έτσι μπορεί να είμαστε αποτελεσματικοί.

Κύριε Επίτροπε, αναγνωρίζω τις προσπάθειές σας και τις βλέπω ζωντανές και αποδοτικές όπου βρίσκομαι στην περιοχή αυτή και αλλού. Αλλά πιστεύω ότι, πριν από τη Συνταγματική Συνθήκη που θα μας δώσει ένα πλαίσιο πιο συνεκτικό και υπεύθυνο, μπορούμε να φροντίσουμε για μια καλύτερη συνεργασία με το Συμβούλιο. Το Κοινοβούλιο μπορεί να συμβάλει σ’ αυτήν την περισσότερο πολιτική και βαθιά προσέγγιση των θεμάτων και χάραξη στρατηγικής.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marianne Mikko (PSE). – Kallid kolleegid. Ühise välis- ja kaitsepoliitika eelarve suurendamine kolm korda on samm edasi. Siiski ei jätku seitsmele aastale jaotatud pea 2000 miljardist eurost isegi hädavajaliku tarvis.

Talumatu on olukord, kus Euroopa Liidu kaal rahvusvahelistes suhetes jääb selgelt alla mõnede liikmesriikide kaalule. Liikmesriikidele oluliste küsimuste hoolimatu liigitamine kahepoolseteks on andmas surmahoopi Euroopa Liidu välispoliitika tõsiseltvõetavusele. Samamoodi nõrgestame end ise, lastes Venemaa – lähivälismaa – doktriinil tõmmata kriips peale võimalikele tulevastele liikmesriikidele.

Nii meile endale kui ka meie partneritele tuleb kasuks, kui me räägime ühel häälel maailmas ja maailmaga. See peab olema ühishuvide, mitte suurriikide mugavuse hääl. USA mõjuvõimu langus, Venemaa talitsemata ambitsioonid ning uued jõujooned maailma majanduses kohustavad meid Euroopa Liidu potentsiaali näitama ja seda ellu rakendama. Toetan raportööri üleskutset juhtrollidesse kaasata ühtlasi rohkem naisi.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM). – Jag vill bara ta upp en fråga som gäller överskridande av talartid. Alla talare måste behandlas lika. Om alla andra får tala till punkt så måste även min kollega här till vänster få göra det, även om han inte har samma åsikt som talmannen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jamila Madeira (PSE). – A clarividência com que o colega Brok coloca as questões em cima da mesa e a linha política que assume leva a que, com franqueza, lhe dê os meus parabéns. Como federalista convicto e indefectível defensor da Constituição põe o dedo na ferida e desenha a responsabilidade da União Europeia no mundo de hoje.

Gostaria, no entanto, de me debruçar sobre um ponto deste relatório directamente relacionado com o Médio Oriente e com o seu conflito e a passividade da União Europeia face ao estado catastrófico das coisas, tal como resultou esta tarde do debate sobre a situação na Palestina. A prioridade geográfica da UE para 2007 deve ser precisamente a situação na Palestina. Por isso, discordo da sua posição. O cerne dos problemas e a instabilidade no mundo encontra-se, como é sabido, no Médio Oriente. Por isso, para que a nossa vida seja mais segura, com democracia e paz, é necessário que a União Europeia assuma estes desafios como a sua prioridade máxima entre as diferentes prioridades da política externa.

A defesa do objectivo no conflito israelo-palestiniano de dois Estados lado a lado na região, dentro das linhas definidas em 1967, interpela com urgência a comunidade mundial e interpela-nos a todos.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Mr President, let me begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Brok, for this important report. It comes at a very crucial moment, when the German Presidency is trying to revive the Constitutional Treaty, perhaps without its title. The important thing is greater efficiency.

How can we achieve greater efficiency in the future? Not only via the institutions but also through the political will of the Member States. Only if there is unanimity in our actual way of voting will there be the possibility of an effective common foreign and security policy. Therefore, we should go forward with more qualified majority voting on common foreign policy. This is very complicated, but I think it would make a real difference.

I should also like to thank our rapporteur, particularly with regard to his remarks on the delegations. I have started to work very closely with our people on more training, on better political reporting, on public diplomacy and on exchange programmes between the Member States, the Council, the Council Secretariat and ourselves in order to achieve – via osmosis, as I always say – a better understanding of each other and to prepare a cohesive approach in the future.

Let me just make a couple of further remarks, one about Kosovo. Kosovo is indeed a European problem, which needs a European solution with the agreement of the international community. The European Union is to take responsibility for post-status Kosovo. How can we achieve this? I think this can be done by setting up an international civilian office, by establishing a very significant rule of law mission and by continuing capacity-building on a large scale on the basis of, hopefully, a Security Council resolution.

I should also like to say that today we have already had quite a long debate on the Middle East. We know how difficult the situation is, but I think the European Union has played quite an important role and wants to continue to play an important role, particularly in conjunction with other members of the Quartet. Even if the situation seems to be rather bleak today, we hope that we can still bring the two sides together for a positive approach in the future.

I should like to mention that the Black Sea is one of those new areas where we have focused our efforts with regard to our Neighbourhood Policy, because we think this is a new area with new Member States, like Romania and Bulgaria, we have reached out and we would like to work together with Turkey and with Russia on this region, trying to address many of the important issues.

Finally, with regard to contacts between the Council and the European Parliament, there is now an interinstitutional agreement, there is more contact between the Council and Parliament on CFSP issues, and I think the special representative of the Secretary-General, Mr Matthiessen, who is here today, will certainly also mention that.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Przewodniczący. Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się w środę, 23 maja.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 142)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Glyn Ford (PSE), (in writing). This report by Mr Brok is an important step forward in European common foreign and security policy. With the successive development of European Industrial Union, Social Union – as part of the European social model – Economic and Monetary Union and the adoption of the single currency, Europe is now ready and must move to develop and project a united stance on foreign policy issues.

This is beginning to happen. Europe has adopted a distinct stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict, Iran and the Korean Peninsula, all in my opinion with their commitment to dialogue and critical engagement far more appropriate than the confrontational and one-sided unbalanced approach of the Bush Administration.

Our first CFSP venture into Asia has been a resounding success with the EU-brokered peace deal in Aceh being overseen by the joint EU-ASEAN Aceh Monitoring Mission, which observed the decommissioning of arms, the resettlement of combatants – on both sides – and the removal of non-organic troops, all of which led to the historic elections last December that saw the former GAM combatant and prisoner of the Government in Indonesia in Banda Aceh elected Governor. We will continue to aid and assist this peace process to consolidate this success.

Now it is time for Europe to express itself more strongly in the Korean Peninsula. (...)

(Written statement abbreviated pursuant to Rule 142(7))

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE), in writing. – Colleagues, I would like to thank my colleague and friend Elmar Brok for his excellent report on CFSP. I should especially like to emphasise three points.

Firstly, the report expresses the need for a common approach to foreign policy issues in times of globalisation. The report mentions climate change, dependency on energy, failing states and international terrorism, just to mention a few examples.

Secondly, the report underlines that the Constitutional Treaty provides the necessary institutional innovations, for example the double-hatted foreign minister, to coordinate mutual foreign policy more efficiently.

Thirdly, effective policy needs funds. The report sees ‘the total amount of EUR 1740 billion allocated to the CFSP for the period from 2007 to 2013 as insufficient to achieve the ambitions of the Union as a global actor’. I agree.

I should therefore like to express my support for this report.

 

20. Сближаване на акцизните ставки върху алкохола и алкохолните напитки (разискване)
MPphoto
 
 

  Przewodniczący. Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest sprawozdanie sporządzone przez Astrid Lulling w imieniu Komisji Gospodarczej i Monetarnej w sprawie wniosku dotyczącego dyrektywy Rady zmieniającej dyrektywę zmieniającej dyrektywę 92/84/EWG w sprawie zbliżenia stawek podatku akcyzowego dla alkoholu i napojów alkoholowych (COM(2006)0486 - C6-0319/2006 - 2006/0165(CNS)) (A6-0148/2007).

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. Mr President, as you know, the Commission’s proposal under discussion follows the report presented by the Commission in May 2004 and the subsequent call by the Council of 12 April 2005 for the Commission to come forward with a proposal to revalorise the minimum rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages to compensate for inflation. Its sole purpose is to maintain the real value of the minimum rate; it is not a proposal aimed at harmonisation or convergence of rates.

I would like to begin by informing honourable Members of the discussions which took place in the Ecofin Council in November 2006. In the Council, there was strong resistance from a number of new Member States who claimed that they had had nothing to do with the point of departure for counting inflation of 1993, as they were not then part of the Community. I have some sympathy with this point of view and have therefore promoted a compromise, officially put forward by the Finnish Presidency, in the discussions with the Member States.

This compromise takes 1 May 2004, the date of accession of the 10 new Member States, as the point of departure, and results in a much lower rate of inflation. Instead of 31 %, the new proposed rate increase is only 4.5 %. Unfortunately, this compromise proposal was vetoed by one Member State, the Czech Republic – which, I might add, would be entirely unaffected by a 4.5 % revalorisation as the excise duty currently applied is higher. However, I am optimistic that, when the issue next returns to Council, the Czech position will have changed and that unanimity will be obtained.

Obviously, the impact of a 4.5 % revalorisation is minimal but, even so, transition periods will be available for the Member States affected. In the case of Bulgaria and Romania, whose accession took place on 1 January 2007, such transition periods will be very generous.

I would like to turn now to Mrs Lulling’s report, which certainly contains some fairly radical ideas. First, to repeat what I said at the very beginning, the Commission proposal is not aimed at harmonisation or convergence of rates, but is simply a revalorisation, which, under the compromise I mentioned, will take 2004 as the point of departure. Second, repealing the directive and abolishing minimum rates, as Mrs Lulling suggests, would have extreme consequences. For example, there would be no obligation at all for Member States to apply excise duties on alcohol, which in turn would create more distortion of the internal market. The abolition of minimum rates could also result in less freedom for travellers because Member States would press for tighter restrictions on the amount of alcohol that individuals could take from one Member State to another in order to stem the inevitable revenue leakage. I am definitely against re-establishing borders within the EU for alcoholic beverages and I am therefore also against abolishing minimum rates. It would also set a dangerous precedent for the other excises, such as tobacco and energy, which are also subject to minimum rates, and for other taxes such as VAT. Member States are required to respect certain rules in relation to tax rates. It could also raise health-related concerns.

I should also like to say something about the proposed Code of Conduct, which effectively introduces a positive rate of excise duty on wine. As you know, wine is currently subject to a minimum rate of zero, and this remains the case under the Commission proposal. However, under the proposed Code of Conduct, the 15 Member States that do not currently tax wine would not only need to introduce a positive rate, but would ultimately need to aim their trade towards the EU average, which is currently EUR 48 per hectolitre. I am convinced that the proposed increase in excise duty on wine would not be widely supported by citizens.

In conclusion, I sincerely hope that honourable Members will reject the proposal made in the report and deliver an opinion supporting the Commission proposals, as amended, of course, by the Council compromise regarding in particular the date from which to start counting inflation, 1 May 2004, which would result in an increase of just 4.5 % in the minimum excise duty.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, en politique, il faut parfois faire preuve de courage. C'est ce que le Parlement pourrait faire en votant demain mon rapport, qui propose d'abolir les taux minimaux sur l'alcool et les boissons alcoolisées. Ces taux ont été fixés en 1992 dans le but de rapprocher les taux appliqués dans les différents États. Ce rapprochement n'a pas eu lieu, bien au contraire.

Mais ce n'est pas la faute des taux minimaux, même s'ils n'ont pas été adaptés à l'inflation depuis quinze ans. Si on les augmentait de 31 % - ce qu'a proposé la Commission en septembre 2006 -, il n'y aurait toujours aucun rapprochement significatif. En effet, la différence entre ces taux minimaux, même adaptés, et les taux sur le vin, la bière et les spiritueux pratiqués par les États membres du Nord de l'Union resterait énorme. La preuve: la taxe est de 0,0936 euro sur un litre de bière en République tchèque et à Malte, contre 1,43 euro sur un litre de bière en Finlande!

Au cours des longs mois de discussion, le Conseil n'a pas réussi à se mettre d'accord sur une adaptation de ces taux minimaux, aussi minime soit-elle. Il a tout juste décidé d'inviter la Commission à mener une étude détaillée de la fiscalité de l'alcool et des boissons alcoolisées, notamment des tendances concernant les positions concurrentielles et les niveaux de prix.

Les choses étant ce qu'elles sont, Monsieur le Commissaire, il faut quand même maintenant sortir de l'impasse dans laquelle la Commission et le Conseil se sont engagés. Il n'y a, pour ce faire, qu'une seule solution raisonnable, logique, intelligente: faire abstraction de taux minimaux qui n'ont plus aucune raison d'être et se mettre d'accord sur un code de conduite qui aidera les États membres à faire converger leurs taux d'accises dans le respect du principe de subsidiarité, que vous avez oublié dans votre discours. C'est ce que vous propose la commission des affaires économiques et monétaires dans mon rapport.

En ce qui concerne les amendements déposés pour la plénière par le groupe socialiste et les Verts, je propose résolument de les rejeter. Les amendements socialistes aboutiraient à du bricolage sur l'augmentation des taux et sur le calendrier. Mais ce qui est plus grave, c'est qu'ils prévoient dorénavant des adaptations automatiques à l'indice européen des prix si celui-ci augmente de 0,5 %, sans consultation du Parlement et du Conseil. Quand on songe à notre combat en matière de comitologie, une telle proposition relève du folklore! Proposer un taux zéro, comme les socialistes l'ont fait, pour les bouilleurs de cru bulgares qui consomment leur propre production, c'était faire du window dressing, c'était jeter de la poudre aux yeux des citoyens bulgares avant les élections européennes en Bulgarie, le 20 mai. C'est cousu de fil blanc, car les auteurs de l'amendement concerné savent très bien qu'une telle exemption serait impraticable et n'aurait aucune chance d'être adoptée à l'unanimité au Conseil. Il en est allé de même du retrait de mon rapport de l'ordre du jour de la mini-session du 9 mai, pour éviter aux socialistes bulgares de montrer leur vrai visage avant le 20 mai: cela n'a pas servi à grand-chose vu le résultat des socialistes en Bulgarie, résultat pas très glorieux, heureusement.

Quant aux amendements des Verts, je dois d'abord constater qu'ils ignorent que ce n'est heureusement pas la Commission, mais le Conseil qui a à décider en matière de fiscalité. Ignorer à un tel point le traité est plutôt grave pour un groupe qui ne cesse de donner des leçons à tout un chacun dans cette maison! Si les Verts n'avaient pas, en dernière minute, retiré leurs amendements 24 et 26, qui chargent la Commission de fixer un taux maximal, on aurait dû les déclarer irrecevables parce qu'incompatibles avec le traité.

Qualifier le vin de substitut pour la bière, comme les Verts le font dans leur amendement 25, est tout à fait fantaisiste et témoigne d'une culture gastronomique sous-développée. Les vignerons de France, d'Allemagne et du Luxembourg n'oublieraient pas, d'ici 2009, que leurs députés verts ont proposé d'abolir le taux zéro pour le vin, qui est un produit agricole de tout premier plan. Ces pays, qui ont choisi d'appliquer le taux zéro, ne sont certainement pas prêts à voter pour son abolition à partir de 2008.

Monsieur le Commissaire, vous avez défendu votre position, qui est déjà morte de sa belle mort au Conseil. Je regrette que vous n'ayez pas saisi l'occasion que nous vous offrons sur un plateau d'argent pour sortir de l'impasse sans perdre la face. C'est vraiment dommage! Monsieur le Commissaire, vous connaissez certainement le latin: errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum ...

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Piia-Noora Kauppi, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, first and foremost, although I normally support wholeheartedly Commission initiatives on taxation, especially the common consolidated corporate tax base for companies, on this issue I also support Mrs Lulling and this excellent report.

Any report that deals with alcohol and taxation risks running into a lot of national sensitivities, and this has happened to this report.

In 1992 – the last time this matter was debated in Parliament – the European Union looked very different. There were only 12 Member States, with GDP per capita levels relatively close to one another. It was then presumed that imposing minimum rates of duty on alcohol would result in price convergence across the Member States. We now know that, even if this had happened with the 12 old Member States – which it did not – the changes in the structure of our Union alone would impose the need for change. These rates are no longer up to date or beneficial for the European economy as a whole.

I am glad that Mrs Lulling came to the radical conclusion of scrapping all the minimum rates on alcohol duties and proposes a code of conduct instead. This is beneficial in many ways: it eliminates the need for continuous inflation checks and gives Member States the right to choose the level of duties appropriate for their economic and cultural conditions, which now vary greatly across the 27 Member States.

I understand the concern as to what the next consequence in the Council might be. It is true that the Member States might try to impose some new barriers, but we are not in favour of that. We would like to leave Member States free to make their own stupid decisions, if that is what they want to do.

Therefore, I would like to stress that being in favour of Mrs Lulling’s report does not contradict some Member States continuing to impose higher taxes on alcohol. This is the case, for example, in the Nordic countries, like Finland, where higher taxes are still used to finance, among other things, a wide number of health initiatives and campaigns. I support that policy in the Nordic countries, because we are not ready for very low rates of alcohol taxes in Europe. Maybe we are a less gastronomic country in that way, but this does not contradict my view that the Lulling report should be adopted tomorrow.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pervenche Berès, au nom du groupe PSE. – Monsieur le Président, je me doutais que ce débat sur les taux d'accises serait passionnant, et je crois que nous en avons un avant-goût.

Notre rapporteur, qui n'a pas été soutenu par le groupe socialiste lors du vote en commission économique et monétaire, nous a invités à faire preuve de courage et, manifestement, pour elle, le courage consisterait aujourd'hui à faire table rase du passé. Je reconnais là son talent luxembourgeois, s'agissant des taux d'accises dans le domaine des alcools, mais permettez-moi de ne pas la suivre sur ce terrain et de ne pas me rallier à ce plaidoyer en faveur de la concurrence fiscale ou de la libre circulation des produits dans un marché intérieur qui n'en serait pas un.

Monsieur le Commissaire, votre proposition est à mes yeux une bonne proposition. Je crois que les éléments de compromis qui sont aujourd'hui sur la table du Conseil, qui tiennent compte de la réalité de la hausse des taux d'accises à la suite de l'élargissement de l'Union européenne, sont bons et que nous devrions les soutenir. Les amendements déposés par mon groupe vont en ce sens et ne relèvent en rien d'un bricolage, dont Mme Lulling, manifestement, n'a pas compris la quintessence.

La question est de savoir progresser dans ce domaine. Dire que le mieux serait de tout abandonner, sous prétexte que la tâche est difficile, ne me semble pas une bonne stratégie. Concernant d'ailleurs le renoncement à tout taux d'accises, je suis tout de même heureuse de constater que Mme Kaupi reconnaît que ces taux d'accises peuvent être utiles, y compris en termes de santé publique, et qu'il convient parfois de les maintenir.

Au-delà du problème particulier de nos amis bulgares, je crois que, ici, en tant que législateurs, nous devons, avec sérieux et dans un souci de cohérence, plaider pour le maintien des outils, faibles, insuffisants, qui sont aujourd'hui entre les mains de la Commission pour que le marché intérieur, dans son fonctionnement, ait son pendant dans le domaine fiscal. Monsieur le Commissaire, vous le savez, vous pouvez compter sur le soutien plein et entier de mon groupe dans votre combat en ce sens.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Olle Schmidt, för ALDE-gruppen. – Astrid Lulling, ni har många goda sidor, men ibland hugger ni också i sten och det gör ni med detta betänkande. Jag kommer att rekommendera min grupp att avvisa ert förslag i sin helhet och att alltså följa kommissionen.

I ett betänkande som handlar om prisnivåer på alkohol måste man också ta hänsyn till vad ökat drickande betyder för folkhälsan. Men om folkhälsan sägs ingenting. Att avskaffa punktskatterna på alkohol och öl vore att ge helt fel signaler. Vi vet att alkoholskadorna ökar och vi vet att allt fler ungdomar i Europa bokstavligen super sig sönder och samman, inte bara i de nordiska länderna.

Varje dag rullar det in floder av öl, vin och sprit i Sverige, en halv miljon burkar öl och 65 000 flaskor sprit. Detta beror på de stora skillnaderna i alkoholbeskattning. Här kan högre gemensamma punktskatter inom EU spela en viktig roll. Kostnadsmarginalen betyder mycket i det här sammanhanget eftersom de konsumenter vi pratar om är priskänsliga.

Europa skall inte växa samman genom spritturism. Jag begär inte att EU skall införa svenska skatter, det vore mig främmande, men vad jag däremot begär är omtanke och solidaritet också med andra länder och deras invånare. Det är därför punktskatterna på alkohol i ökande grad måste harmoniseras.

Vi européer dricker mest alkohol i världen. Kommissionen presenterade förra året en strategi för att minska alkoholskadorna. Om vi i denna kammare vill följa kommissionens linje så har vi bara en sak att göra: att avvisa detta betänkande.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, w imieniu grupy UEN. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Panie i Panowie Posłowie! Propozycja zbliżenia stawek podatku akcyzowego dla alkoholi i napojów alkoholowych wywołała ożywioną dyskusję i liczne kontrowersje. Wynika to nie tylko ze zróżnicowania stawek podatku akcyzowego stosowanych w poszczególnych państwach członkowskich Unii Europejskiej, ale również z obaw, że inicjatorzy zmian tak naprawdę zmierzają do stopniowego przejęcia przez Unię kompetencji podatkowych od państw członkowskich i doprowadzenia do jednolitego podatku od osób fizycznych i prawnych.

Wprowadzenie proponowanych zmian w dyrektywie Rady 92/84 EWG w konsekwencji prowadziłoby do osłabiania konkurencji, obniżenia jakości poszczególnych produktów oraz do dalszej monopolizacji rynku przez duże koncerny.

Konkludując, problem jest bardziej złożony niż wydaje się to inicjatorom zmian, wymaga pogłębionych analiz, dyskusji oraz dalszych konsultacji z państwami członkowskimi.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carl Schlyter, för Verts/ALE-gruppen. – Den som i subsidiaritetens namn vill avskaffa minimiskatten på alkohol måste acceptera att man samtidigt i subsidiaritetens namn tillåter en begränsning av privat införsel av alkohol. Annars kommer länder med höga punktskatter att fullkomligt flöda över av billig privatimporterad sprit och få betala notan med höga vårdkostnader. Utan införselbegränsningar blir det landet med lägst skatter som tvingar sin alkoholpolitik på alla andra.

Med vilken logik kan man ta med sig 200 kg vin, öl och sprit, men bara 15 kg färsk fisk över EU-ländernas gränser? Dessutom är det absurt med noll i skatt på vin när det finns skatt på öl och sprit. Ännu mer absurt blir det när Sverige dras inför domstol för att man enligt kommissionen gynnat ölsektorn genom höga skatter på vin. EU snedvrider självmarknaden genom sin nollskatt på vin. Alkohol är inte en normal handelsvara. Att som utskottet se detta som en fråga för inre marknaden utan hänsyn till folkhälsan är oansvarigt och oekonomiskt.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, the Council and the Commission want to increase the minimum rate of excise duty on alcohol, supposedly to reduce the distortions in competition and to promote the single market. The rapporteur states that the minimum rate set in 1992 and applied by a minority of Member States has not prevented other Member States from widening the gap by increasing their rates. The conclusion is that it is pointless to set minimum rates when Member States are free to set higher rates and the directive should be abolished.

However, the EU is never going to relinquish control over anything, however pointless it may be, and certain countries will see their rates rise when the minimum rate is increased in line with inflation. This at least will teach new Member States a valuable lesson: the EU will interfere in that which is closest to their hearts and it will cost them money.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean-Claude Martinez, au nom du groupe ITS. – Monsieur le Président, en 1990, on nous a expliqué qu'il fallait des fourchettes de taux. En 1992, on nous a expliqué qu'il fallait des planchers. Maintenant, on nous explique qu'il faut des planchers flottants, et toujours pour la même raison: l'eugénisme, la névrose sanitaire de l'Europe calviniste, qui devrait nous conduire à imposer des droits de douane intérieurs, à ériger des barrières fiscales, jusqu'à près de deux euros par litre de vin, par exemple au Danemark, en Grande-Bretagne. Mais si nos amis anglais, danois, suédois veulent prélever des impôts, qu'ils le fassent! Les pays méditerranéens, l'Allemagne, le Luxembourg appliquent pour le vin des taux d'accises zéro.

Chacun est libre, s'il le veut, de se droguer plutôt que de boire, mais pour autant, on ne résout pas le problème de la drogue avec de la fiscalité. Eh bien, on ne crée pas de la santé sanitaire, si j'ose dire, par de la fiscalité. Laissez-les boire, laissez-les vivre! Il y a des taux maxima sans limite: on n'a pas besoin de taux minima!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Roger Helmer (NI). – Mr President, here we go again – yet another timid, surreptitious attempt by the Commission to introduce tax harmonisation by the back door.

In this House, we love to talk about ‘harmful tax competition’, so let us get one thing straight right away: there is no such thing as harmful tax competition; all tax competition is good. Any attempt at harmonisation represents a cartel operated by governments against the interests of the people. Like all attempts to harmonise taxes, this proposal will have the effect of raising taxes yet further in our grossly overtaxed economies.

The Commission’s proposal has a further defect: by seeking to apply a common percentage increase across the board, it further exacerbates the existing distortion between beverage types, which unfairly discriminates in favour of wine at the expense of traditional spirits, like cognac and Scotch. Here I must declare an interest: I once worked in the Scotch whisky business; for several years I was Mr Johnny Walker in Korea.

Any reasonable person must surely agree that the gross discrimination in duty terms in favour of wine, and against beer and spirits, which these proposals enshrine, is wholly unacceptable. It cannot be allowed to proceed. Let me therefore commend the work of the rapporteur, the admirable Mrs Lulling. Rarely has a report in this House distilled so much common sense.

The 1992 measure to harmonise alcohol duties has failed in its objectives. The changes proposed by the Commission would also fail. The amount of duty collected is small, sometimes too low to justify the collection costs. Member States should be free to set rates that suit their own people and their culture.

Mrs Lulling’s final recommendation is that the Community legislation in this matter should be abolished. Let me congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Lulling, on a job well done.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Мартин Димитров (PPE-DE). – Уважаеми г-н председател, уважаеми дами и господа, в аргументите, използвани от социалистите и от уважаемия комисар Kovács, има един голям проблем и той е следният: Те казват: „Когато акцизите се определят от Брюксел централизирано, няма проблеми със здравето. Обаче, когато се даде правото на всяка страна сама да определя своето акцизно облагане, тогава има големи здравни проблеми.“

Това е несъстоятелен аргумент, който е типичен за хората, които имат централизиран начин на мислене. Страните имат повече информация, по-добре познават своите проблеми и могат по-добре да се справят с определянето на акцизните ставки. Защо мислите, че когато Брюксел определя централизирани акцизи, нещата изглеждат по-добре? Тази логика не я разбирам.

Другото много важно нещо: здравните проблеми зависят от образованието, от информационни кампании и много по-малко от данъци. Разликата в доходите между Източна и Западна Европа е много голяма. Как при 10 пъти разлика в доходите да определите минимални акцизи, така че всички да са доволни? Това очевидно не може да стане. В страни като България и Румъния сегашното акцизно облагане представлява около 70 % от крайната цена заедно с ДДС, което създава огромен стимул за „сива икономика“, което означава производство, което не се отчита въобще от държавата. Тази „сива икономика“ ще навлиза и в други страни-членки на Европейския съюз.

Затова въобще не може да се говори и не трябва да се говори за увеличаване на акцизните ставки. Напротив, трябва да се даде право на всяка страна в зависимост от своите традиции, национални особености да определя акцизните ставки. Това е разумното, рационално предложение.

Напълно заставаме цялата българска делегация в Народната партия зад предложението на г-жа Lulling, което е изключително разумно. Това е едно законодателство, което 15 години не дава ефект. Очевидно е, че е излишно и ако имаме доблестта и смелостта, трябва да кажем: „Да, не върши работа.“ И трябва да бъде спряно. Неслучайно започна инициатива на Европейската комисия за премахване на тези директиви, които са излишни. Ето пример за излишна директива. Имате ли смелостта да я прекратите? Това е единственото решение.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ieke van den Burg (PSE). – Voorzitter, neem me niet kwalijk dat ik over dit onderwerp niet zo erg geëmotioneerd kan zijn, wat hier blijkbaar wel de gewoonte is. Laat mij beginnen door onze schaduwrapporteur, mevrouw Gottardi, te verontschuldigen. Ik neem het even van haar over.

Ik moet zeggen dat ikzelf met groot amusement heb gadegeslagen hoe mevrouw Lulling als een ware Marianne deze strijd heeft aangevoerd, deze revolte tegen dit voorstel voor een richtlijn en dit voorstel om de minimumtarieven op bier en alcohol op te trekken volgens de inflatie. Dat is inderdaad een onderwerp waarmee je goed kan scoren. Dat blijkt wel. Belasting is natuurlijk een impopulair onderwerp en bier en alcohol zijn hele populaire onderwerpen. Maar goed, wij werden dus in onze fractie niet zo meegesleept, omdat wij ons, zoals mevrouw Berès al gezegd heeft, verantwoordelijk voelen voor de interne markt en voor eerlijke concurrentie.

Het enige kritische punt dat ik zou willen noemen, is dat deze richtlijn zoals die begin jaren '90 is opgesteld, natuurlijke hele slechte wetgeving is, doordat er absolute getallen zijn ingezet. Dat is geen goede werkwijze, zeker bij een onderwerp waarover je met algemene stemmen moet beslissen, want dan is het vrijwel onmogelijk om die absolute getallen ooit te veranderen.

Daarom ben ik zo gecharmeerd door het voorstel dat commissaris Kovács samen met het Finse voorzitterschap heeft gepresenteerd, om te voorzien in een automatische indexatie. Ik denk dat het een hele goede geste is geweest om daarbij niet zo hoog te beginnen als in het oorspronkelijke voorstel, maar om met de eerste verhoging die er moet komen, een wat bescheidener aanvang te nemen.

Daarom hebben wij als PSE-Fractie deze voorstellen, zoals ze nu in de Raad behandeld worden, als amendementen ingediend. Ik denk dat het heel verstandig zou zijn en van goed beleid getuigen, als het Parlement daar morgen in meerderheid voor zou stemmen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Margarita Starkevičiūtė (ALDE). – Pirmininke, aš norėčiau paremti Astridos Lulling pranešimą todėl, kad manau, kad jis yra gerai subalansuotas ir atitinka liberalią mokesčių politiką.

Ginčas čia šiandien yra ne apie patį akcizą, kurio pakėlimas šimtosiomis dalimis, kaip mėgsta sakyti Komisija, iš tiesų nieko nepakeis, ir skirtumas tarp akcizų Lietuvoje, pavyzdžiui, ir Skandinavijos šalių išliks toks pat didelis. Ginčas apie tai, ar mes norime standartizuotų, harmonizuotų mokesčių tarifų, ar mes manome, kad mūsų šalių įvairovę turi atspindėti skirtingi mokesčių tarifai ir skirtingos mokesčių sistemos. Taip, mes turime skatinti verslą veikti tarp įvairių šalių ir kurti bendrą vidaus rinką. Bet tai mes gali