Stenograma dezbaterilor

Luni, 10 decembrie 2007 - Strasbourg

22. A zecea aniversare a Convenţiei de la Ottawa privind interzicerea minelor antipersonal (dezbatere)

  Le Président. – L'ordre du jour appelle la déclaration de la Commission sur le dixième anniversaire de la Convention d'Ottawa sur l'interdiction des mines antipersonnel.

  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I would like to thank Parliament for the opportunity to discuss this very important issue and to comment briefly on the motion for a resolution on a mine-free world, which we received today.

Ten years after the approval of the Ottawa Convention we can celebrate considerable progress in the achievement of its objectives. One hundred and fifty-six states have ratified the Convention, and the use of anti-personnel landmines has been markedly reduced in recent years. Fewer mines are being produced and there is virtually no trade in this hazardous weapon.

Since the adoption of the Ottawa Convention in 1997, the European Community has been highly committed to its universalisation and to the achievement of its objectives. Mine action has been part of the European Community’s assistance and development programmes in third countries, which have covered a wide range of activities – stockpile destruction, mine risk education, mine victim assistance, rehabilitation and socioeconomic reintegration. A dedicated budget line, complemented by funding from other geographic instruments, underpinned the EC Mine Action Strategy and Programming. In total, approximately EUR 275 million was committed over the 2002-2007 period, making the EC one of the leading donors worldwide. As Parliament has noted in its resolution, the EC Mine Action Strategy comes to an end this year. An evaluation will be carried out to assess whether it responded adequately to the Nairobi Action Plan. A preliminary internal analysis shows positive outcomes.

With the changes in the Commission external funding mechanisms in 2007, the anti-personnel landmine budget line has been replaced by new instruments for EC external assistance which can be used for funding appropriate mine actions. Geographical budgets for development, pre-accession and the Neighbourhood Policy are now the key financial instruments. In urgent cases, action in the area of anti-personnel landmines and explosive remnants of war can also be funded by the humanitarian aid budget and the new Instrument for Stability, which allow for funds to be mobilised rapidly in cases of crisis or emerging crisis.

This is the new legislative environment, agreed by the budgetary authority, in which we must operate. The EC’s overall approach, however, remains unchanged: landmines and other explosive remnants of war must be considered within a broad context of humanitarian assistance, long-term and sustainable socioeconomic development programmes. Countries wanting assistance need to prioritise mine action in their requests to the European Commission. We fully share Parliament’s concern, also expressed in its comments on the Instrument for Stability strategy, that a security gap in this important humanitarian field has to be avoided.

Although means and methods have changed, the EC’s commitment to the Ottawa Convention continues. In 2007, the European Community committed assistance for mine action for a total of at least EUR 33 million in the following countries: Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Jordan, Lebanon, Senegal and Sudan.

I want to assure Parliament that the Commission remains firmly engaged in continuing its support for the implementation of the Ottawa Convention and its assistance to third countries in destroying stockpiled anti-personnel mines, clearing mined areas and assisting victims.

  Stefano Zappalà, a nome del gruppo PPE-DE. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio il Commissario per il completo ed esaustivo intervento che ha fatto, dimostrando effettivamente quello che è già avvenuto su questa materia. Tuttavia, questa è una materia che credo debba ulteriormente impegnarci e impegnare – ma l'ha già detto il Commissario e quindi ne prendo atto – perché i numeri sono terrificanti.

Noi prima abbiamo sentito parlare di numeri in termini di sicurezza degli alberghi, o sicurezza di altro tipo – per carità, ogni vita umana è importantissima – però erano numeri direi molto contenuti. Qui stiamo parlando invece di realtà ben diverse: 10.000-20.000 persone l'anno coinvolte. Probabilmente ci sono persone menomate che superano il mezzo milione nell'ambito dei paesi terzi, e quindi questo è un argomento rilevantissimo e non è un caso, infatti, che a distanza di dieci anni dalla Convenzione di Ottawa si affronta questo argomento, ma in quest'Aula si riaffronta soltanto a distanza di due anni. L'abbiamo affrontato con una risoluzione nel 2005 e ne riparliamo adesso. E ne riparliamo adesso perché corriamo il rischio che si fermi il discorso.

Il Commissario – ripeto, la ringrazio per quello che ha detto – ha evidenziato alcuni canali di finanziamento con i quali si può proseguire la lotta alle mine antiuomo, intendo chiarire: mine antiuomo. Tuttavia, io credo che l'impegno debba essere molto più ampio. Troppi paesi sul pianeta Terra ancora non hanno aderito alla Convenzione di Ottawa, troppi paesi hanno ancora arsenali di questo materiale bellico, troppi paesi e troppi territori hanno ancora presenza concreta e quindi bisogna procedere in maniera molto seria allo sminamento.

Devo ricordare, integrando le cose che ha detto il Commissario, che il 34% – i dati sono questi, poi le statistiche bisogna vedere se sono realistiche o meno – comunque, in linea di principio il 34% di tutte le vittime delle mine antiuomo abbandonate sui territori che sono stati scenari di guerra sono bambini e quindi ancora più grave è questo fenomeno. Quindi per questo io credo che non solo il programma debba proseguire, Commissario, ma il programma deve essere ulteriormente e fortemente finanziato.

La Commissione ha già fatto tanto, l'Unione europea ha già fatto tanto: 335 milioni in questi dieci anni, 33 milioni solo nel 2007; però io credo che bisognerebbe che il Consiglio, la Commissione e gli Stati membri provochino un incontro per rivedere la Convenzione di Ottawa e si impegnino ancora di più affinché tutti gli Stati del mondo intervengano su questa materia e affinché lo sminamento e l'abolizione totale delle mine antiuomo sia veramente un futuro immediato, il più immediato possibile.

  Ana Maria Gomes, em nome do Grupo PSE. – A Convenção de Ottawa resultou de uma mobilização global e eficaz por uma causa justa que uniu e une governos, opiniões públicas e organizações não governamentais. Mesmo alguns Estados não-parte, e infelizmente ainda há 37, já cumprem, parcialmente, a Convenção.

Este instrumento age, assim, como um barómetro que mede o grau de participação dos países na comunidade global de valores. E tal como a Senhora Comissária já disse, vale a pena lembrar o que já foi conseguido. Em 10 anos os Estados-parte de Ottawa já destruíram mais de 41 milhões de minas. Só no ano passado a Sérvia, o Montenegro, Angola, Chipre, Cabo Verde e a Letónia cumpriram as suas obrigações e desfizeram-se totalmente dos seus arsenais de minas. 38 dos 50 países que produziam minas deixaram de o fazer, incluindo quatro Estados não-parte: o Egipto, a Finlândia, a Polónia e Israel.

Mas a celebração de dez anos de triunfos da Convenção também deve servir para assinalar o muito que resta fazer. Dez dos Estados-parte ainda não completaram a destruição dos seus arsenais, que ascendem a 14 milhões de minas. Destes 10, dois Estados-parte distinguem-se por deterem arsenais consideráveis de minas anti-pessoal e por não preverem quaisquer medidas para destruí-los: a Etiópia e o Iraque. Mas a esmagadora maioria de minas encontra-se nas mãos do Estado não-parte. Só a China continua a agarrar-se a um arsenal de 110 milhões destas armas desumanas, ao mesmo tempo que continua a produzi-las. Mais chocante - talvez por se tratar de um país aliado - com o qual exércitos europeus combatem lado a lado em terrenos como o Afeganistão, os Estados Unidos da América, outro país, outro Estado não-parte, não só continua a manter um arsenal de mais de 10 milhões de minas, como, no ano passado, o Pentágono pediu um novo financiamento para dois novos tipos de minas incompatíveis com a Convenção.

Esperemos que surtam efeito os esforços do Congresso Americano para, mais uma vez, impor limites à generosidade desta Casa Branca em relação a novos brinquedos bélicos.

A União Europeia continua a ter alguns telhados de vidro, com a Finlândia e a Polónia a manterem a sua recusa de ratificar a Convenção. Mas isso não deve impedir a Europa de pugnar por uma interpretação, o mais lata possível, do que constitui uma mina anti-pessoal. É escandaloso ver como alguns neste Parlamento insistem em fazer distinções assentes na definição militar formal do engenho e não na natureza do dano por ele causado. Um civil estropiado por ter accionado uma mina anti-carro não está interessado em bizantinices em relação à terminologia técnica.

O coronel Kadhafi, no seu Website e em anúncios de página inteira que colocou na imprensa portuguesa nos últimos dias da Cimeira UE-África, atacou a Convenção de Ottawa e defendeu as minas anti-pessoal como as armas dos pobres. Ao lado deste louco criminoso alguns, nesta Casa, defendem uma importação da Convenção que permite aos países ricos desenvolverem e utilizarem versões mais sofisticadas de minas para satisfazer uma suposta necessidade militar. Termino, Senhor Presidente, face a estas posições obscenas: o objectivo da União Europeia deve ser simples: um mundo livre de minas, de todo o topo de minas, e das suas vítimas civis.

  Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the Ottawa Convention on banning mines has been very successful in saving thousands of lives and in preventing thousands of people from becoming severely wounded.

Unfortunately, however, there is still a lot to be done and a long way to go in order to achieve a more drastic reduction in the manufacture and use of mines.

So, as we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Ottawa Convention, we must turn our attention to how to achieve the signing and ratification of this treaty by all states in the world. My opinion is that we should proceed as follows. Firstly, we must produce a much-publicised name-and-shame blacklist of all countries that have not signed and have not ratified the Convention. This concerns 31 countries to date, amongst them, unfortunately, the biggest countries in the world, i.e. China, India, Russia, the USA and others.

Secondly, we must try to impose strict and effective sanctions on the countries on this list so as to attempt, at least, to force them into signing.

Thirdly, we must set up a very effective and quick mine-clearing service which would be available on request to states that are not capable, i.e. for reasons of cost or lack of expertise, of dealing with such a problem on their own. Consequently, we must invest more in research on how to carry out demining more efficiently.

Fourthly, we must make sure the obligation to deal adequately with the health and social assistance to victims of landmines is fulfilled by all countries concerned. To this end, a more sufficient funding system must be made available to poorer nations.

Fifthly, the time has come to direct our attention, not just to anti-personnel mines but to all mines, as well as to other types of weapons that have the capacity to go on killing after a conflict has finished, an example being cluster bombs.

  Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis, UEN grupas vārdā. – Cienījamā komisāres kundze! Arī es vēlētos pievienoties sasniegumiem Otavas konvencijas sakarā. Gribu arī uzteikt Eiropas Savienības ievērojamos panākumus šīs konvencijas atbalstīšanā. Tomēr ir dažas problēmas. Pakistāna, Indija un Ķīna joprojām savās aizsardzības koncepcijās iestājas par kājnieku mīnu saglabāšanu. Diemžēl Eiropas Savienības dalībvalstis Somijā šo jautājumu izskata, mēģinot diskutēt par iespēju aizstāt kājnieku mīnas ar ķekarbumbām, kas nebūtu Eiropas Savienībai pieņemami. Kā zināms, Amerikas Savienotās Valstis un Krievija izstrādā konvencijai jaunu alternatīvu — vadāmas un pašlikvidējošas mīnas. Līdz ar to rodas jautājums: kā Eiropas Savienības un Otavas konvencijas dalībvalstīm tālāk rīkoties? Iespējams, ka šīs valstis tiek stimulētas iegādāties nākamās paaudzes humānākas kājnieku mīnas. Tāpēc es aicinātu Eiropas Savienību jau pašreiz izstrādāt savu pozīciju attiecībā pret ASV un Krievijas vēlmi izstrādāt šīs nākamās paaudzes kājnieku mīnas un vērsties pret to.

  Angelika Beer, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, verehrte Frau Kommissarin! Worum geht es eigentlich heute bei dieser Debatte? Wir wollen am Freitag als Parlament eine Entschließung verabschieden, in der wir erstens darauf hinweisen, dass wir den zehnten Jahrestag des Ottawa-Abkommens auch hier mit einer Ausstellung in Straßburg gewürdigt haben, in der wir aber auch sehr klar sagen, dass es nicht reicht, Antipersonenminen zu ächten, sondern dass auch Antifahrzeugminen einbezogen werden müssen.

Zehn Jahre Ottawa sind so wichtig, weil es zum ersten Mal ein zivilgesellschaftlicher Prozess war, der zur internationalen Ächtung einer Massenvernichtungswaffe, nämlich der Antipersonenminen, geführt hat. Es ist schon bezeichnend, dass die einzige Fraktion, die diesen Konsens im Parlament nicht mitträgt, nach dem Redebeitrag von Herrn Zappalà verschwunden ist. Denn es geht darum, dass ich Herrn Zappalà fragen wollte – angesichts der Tatsache, dass sich z.B. 2005 allein in Afghanistan 100 Unfälle mit Antifahrzeugminen ereignet haben –, ob er einem verkrüppelten Kind, das mit einem Schulbus in die Luft geflogen ist, ins Gesicht gesehen hat und begründet hat, warum er Antipersonenminen schlecht, aber Antifahrzeugminen gut findet.

Es geht darum, dass ich von ihm und seiner Fraktion wissen möchte, ob sie schon einmal den Soldatinnen und Soldaten ins Gesicht gesehen haben, die heute verkrüppelt sind, oder den Angehörigen der Verstorbenen, die durch Antifahrzeugminen verkrüppelt und ermordet wurden, und wie sie das rechtfertigen. Es gibt keine Unterschiede zwischen guten und bösen Minen, sondern es gibt die Notwendigkeit, auch Antifahrzeugminen international zu ächten.

Ich möchte noch etwas zu der Frage der Finanzierung sagen. Natürlich ist das Stabilitätsinstrument – und ich setze mich als Berichterstatterin auch weiter dafür ein – notwendig und hilfreich, um in kurzfristigen Maßnahmen Minenbeseitigungsarbeiten vorzunehmen. Aber wir wissen auch, dass eine kurzfristige Maßnahme, eine Strategie zur Entminung unserer Welt, nicht ausreicht. Deswegen setzen wir uns in einer Entschließung dafür ein, dass wir im Hinblick auf 2009 diskutieren, wieder eine eigenständige Haushaltslinie einzusetzen. Wenn wir von Humanität reden, dann in diesem Bereich, und dann fordern wir klare Beschlüsse ein.

  Tobias Pflüger, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Das Ottawa-Abkommen ist ein Erfolg aufgrund des Drucks von unten, von sozialen Bewegungen. Es haben nicht die Regierungen begonnen, sondern die Bewegung gegen Landminen. 156 Staaten haben inzwischen unterzeichnet, interessanterweise auch 30 nichtstaatliche bewaffnete Gruppen. Es gibt folgende Probleme: Die Antipanzerminen sind nicht mit abgedeckt. Auch diese Antipanzerminen müssen verboten werden, weil auch Lkw, Busse usw. davon betroffen sind.

Es müssen Exporte unterbunden werden, und zwar so, dass weitere Exporte über andere Länder nicht mehr möglich sind, und es geht auch darum, dass die Schwestern der Landminen ebenfalls verboten werden müssen. Jean-Claude Juncker hat es 2004 sehr schön auf den Punkt gebracht. Er sagt: „Ein Verbot von Streubomben wäre die logische Verlängerung des Verbots von Landminen.“ Ich muss sehr deutlich sagen: EU-Rüstungskonzerne produzieren Landminen. Ich nenne deutsche Firmen: Diehl, Rheinmetall, EADS. Es muss endlich Schluss sein mit diesen brutalen Mordwaffen, den Landminen, nicht nur hier in der Europäischen Union, sondern weltweit.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I am delighted to see Commissioner Kuneva here this evening. I have literally just got off a plane and I was not expecting to speak, but I am delighted to have the opportunity. I am probably one of the few people in Parliament who was actually at the signing of the Ottawa Convention 10 years ago. The campaign against anti-personnel landmines is something that I have been very heavily involved in over many years. So I very much welcome this debate.

I think it is very important that we keep our minds on the real problem. When we were all at Ottawa 10 years ago, we hoped that this would be a problem that we would really eradicate over the coming 10 years. Well here we are, 10 years on, and we are still saying more or less the same things that we said 10 years ago, which I think is a great pity.

We have got to get the thing into perspective. We managed to have that ban on anti-personnel landmines because responsible armed forces recognised that they could take this particular weapon out of their armouries and they were fully behind it. We have got to be very careful that we keep our armed forces on board in these debates, so trying to widen the ban into all these other areas is sometimes unhelpful – when we talk about anti-tank mines, for example. These are weapons which we still need, to be used by responsible armed forces in our democracies. We should always point the finger at the real culprits. The real culprits are what some people politely term ‘armed non-state actors’. These are actually insurgents and terrorists and these are the people who are making greatest use of these weapons around the world.

If we look at the problem in Afghanistan at this moment: the anti-personnel landmines which are still being laid are being laid by the Taliban in Afghanistan. These are the people who are causing these problems at the moment. So we need to direct our attention in the right sort of way. I very much welcome the debate. I would like to think that we are putting the right resources into overcoming this problem, and that has my full backing.

  Thijs Berman (PSE). – Voorzitter, soms is het jammer dat we geen open debat hebben, dan kon ik op Geoffrey Van Orden gaan reageren, maar dat doe ik niet.

De wereldwijde campagne tegen de landmijnen is misschien een groot succes. Duizenden vierkante kilometers land zijn inmiddels vrij van landmijnen dankzij het werk van mensen die grote risico's nemen in Bosnië, in Angola en vele andere landen. Maar er is tien jaar na de Ottawa-Conventie nog geen enkele reden tot vrolijkheid.

Het is waar dat 156 landen de Conventie tegen landmijnen hebben ondertekend, en dat de handel is teruggelopen - drastisch is teruggelopen -, maar er wordt nog wel geïnvesteerd in de productie van landmijnen, ook door financiële instellingen in Europa. Ook Nederlandse en andere banken en pensioenfondsen hebben zich hieraan schuldig gemaakt. Het is goed om deze instellingen te wijzen op de gevolgen van hun investeringen in landmijnen.

Want sinds 1975 zijn één miljoen doden gevallen door landmijnen. Elk jaar worden tienduizenden mensen slachtoffer van landmijnen. Tijdens dit debat vallen minstens drie slachtoffers, 70 per dag. 200.000 vierkante kilometer land is door landmijnen ontoegankelijk geworden en er zijn nog 250 miljoen landmijnen in omloop.

De regeringen van Birma en Rusland leggen op dit moment nog mijnen en dat, meneer Van Orden, is toch wat anders dan "terroristische clubs", hoewel ... de regering van Rusland... Er zijn nog steeds dertien landen in de wereld die ze produceren of zich het recht voorbehouden om daar in de toekomst weer toe over te gaan. In de VS zijn het bedrijven als Alliant Techsystems en Textron die ongestoord doorgaan met het produceren van mijnen, met orders van de Amerikaanse regering.

Voorzitter, mevrouw Kuneva, België verbiedt investeringen in landmijnen, in de rest van Europa zijn bedrijven actief. Een collega wees op Rheinmetall en Thales. Dat moet stoppen en dat is precies waar onze resolutie om vraagt, opnieuw om vraagt, want in juli 2005 werd dezelfde eis al door het Europees Parlement gesteld. De EU-lidstaten moeten gezamenlijk afspreken dat geen enkel Europees bedrijf of financiële instelling in de toekomst nog belegt in bedrijven die landmijnen ontwikkelen en produceren. Datzelfde moet gebeuren voor clusterbommen en bommen tegen vervoermiddelen, die ontploffen zodra iemand in de buurt komt.

De wapenindustrie is niet onder de indruk van ethische argumenten. De dreiging met een investeringsstop kan helpen. Laat de EU dit initiatief dan eens nemen en een uitzondering maken op de regel dat de politiek zich niet bemoeit met het investeringsbeleid van het bedrijfsleven. Voor zaken die bij internationale verdragen zijn verboden, is politiek ingrijpen een morele en politieke verplichting. En dat hoort in de Europese en in de nationale wetgeving te worden opgenomen. Voor een wereld zónder landmijnen en zónder antivoertuigmijnen, zoals collega Beer heel terecht stelde.

We willen hierover uw mening horen, mevrouw Kuneva. Het is nodig dat de Europese Commissie eindelijk eens een initiatief laat zien op dit gebied. En tot slot, doe meer aan de inzet voor mijnopruiming. Het geld is er, de knowhow is er, maar de Europese inzet blijft achter.

  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. Mr President, success has been achieved in the last 10 years, as many of you mentioned, but it is clear that significant challenges still lie ahead.

Every year, landmines still leave thousands of civilians dead and thousands more with missing limbs, and they contribute to keeping countries in post-conflict poverty. This is why we will continue to pursue action in support of the Ottawa Convention.

The European Commission is determined to continue its efforts to financially assist communities and individuals affected by landmines, through all available instruments.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Mr President, may I note with regret that, in this debate, as indeed in the previous debates, i.e. in the dangerous toys debate and in the fire safety debate, there has been no representative of the Council in this Chamber. I think that this is shameful.

  Le Président. – Nous le transmettrons au Conseil.

Le débat est clos.