Stenograma dezbaterilor

Miercuri, 30 ianuarie 2008 - Bruxelles

16. Situaţia din Iran (continuarea dezbaterii)

  Der Präsident. − Es folgt die Fortsetzung der Erklärungen des Hohen Vertreters für die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik und der Kommission zur Lage im Iran.

  Javier Solana, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. − Mr President, I have listened with great attention to the representatives from the political groups of the European Parliament.

I agree with most of what has been said today. Therefore, I have not much to say about that. However, let me make some comments on the three main issues that I think we have to discuss today in relation to Iran.

I should like to say once again that it is not a contradiction to say that Iran is a very important country that has a vibrant society – potentially – and that we have to seek relations with it. The fact is that it is very difficult to do that at the moment. We have to keep trying to improve relations with such an important country as Iran. Again, we must insist that it is not doing enough to improve relations with us. On the three main issues I have spoken about – human rights, regional issues and the nuclear issue – it is very difficult to make progress in the negotiations. In one area it is impossible to make progress because in 2006 it dropped completely out of the negotiations. The human rights dialogue was stopped – it was not stopped by us but by Iran.

Let me say a word on that. I agree, as I said before, with most of the remarks that have been made today on the human rights issue, which is linked, as many Members have said, to the elections that will take place very soon in March. It will be very important to see how the public – the citizens of Iran – behave in this election.

But it is very important that the candidates who have been put forward are allowed to stand in the election. As you know, more than 30% of those candidates have not even been allowed to stand. Many of them, I would say, are the ‘modern forces’, if I can use that term, in Iran.

The second big issue is regional. There have not been many comments made here about that, but it is very important that Iran becomes a constructive player and not a ‘nuisance’ in the lives of the people of the Middle East and in the establishment of peace in the Middle East, as we understand the development of the peace process in the Middle East. There are two main points on the agenda. Firstly, the Middle East peace process, on which we fundamentally differ. We believe in a two-state solution, and they do not. We have to see how we can bring Iran to agree to that process, which has been agreed by all the Arab countries in the region, and, as has been proven not long ago, not by Iran.

The second point is Lebanon. We do not have Lebanon on the agenda today, but Lebanon is always on the agenda – even if not formally. The problems in Lebanon are in our minds and hearts. We know that is a problem on which Iran should be much more constructive.

The third issue I should like to mention, and which we have discussed on other occasions, is the nuclear issue. Firstly, I should like to thank Ms Beer, because I talked to her before the committee went to Iran and we had a very good exchange of views, which was very well coordinated. Cooperation with the Agency is fundamental. We have been pushing for that all along and we would very much like to see that cooperation producing fruit. However, that is not enough. We should be resolving the ‘outstanding issues’.

These issues, as you know, belong to the past. Why are they outstanding? Because they have never been explained, and that is the difference with some of the other countries that have been mentioned. Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty; it has obligations and it has not complied with those obligations. At the moment there is a discussion with Dr El Baradei and the people in charge of the nuclear dossier to see whether these ‘outstanding issues’ can be resolved. We are now in the year 2008, and some of those issues go back to 2003, 2004 and 2005.

That was the first thing I wanted to say, and the second thing, which is very important, is that we are continuing to support the dual-track approach. We want negotiations and we also want to follow the route to New York – together, in parallel. We would like to see how this can progress. We do not want to punish the people of Iran. We want them to come back to the negotiating table with a moral purpose.

To give you an example: as you know, last Tuesday we met in Berlin. On Wednesday I was here in Brussels having dinner with Dr Jalili, the day after we had been talking about New York and how to move the process forward in New York, I did not want to give the impression that we were doing something that we would not communicate directly. To prove that we would continue with the dialogue, I met him, had dinner with him and explained that to him. Therefore, in that sense, rest assured that we are making every effort to keep the dialogue channel open and not only open but productively open.

I do not have to tell you that sometimes you do not get the answer to the question. You hold debates here and you know that sometimes, perhaps because of a problem with translation, you do not get the answer to the question – you get answers to other things but not the question. You know that – you have had that experience – but we have to keep on trying, keep on trying and keep on trying – and we will!

On the intelligence report that has been mentioned: that is not our responsibility but the responsibility of the United Nations. But, in any case, if you read it – when it becomes public – the most important things are public, it states very clearly that in 2003 they stopped a part of the nuclear weaponisation. Now weaponisation has three elements. First, and most important, it is necessary to have enriched uranium – if you do not have enriched uranium you will never have the possibility of a military nuclear programme. Second, you need a missile to launch, and, third, you need the actual detonator of the bomb. The second stage is where they have stopped and that is what happened in 2003. That is one part.

The second part is the missile and you know that the technology on missiles is moving rapidly. We are concerned. This is not one of the key issues but it is an issue. Now we have a range of 1 300 km, which is no little matter. The third thing is enriched material, which is in breach and is continuing to be produced. That is the core of the problem: we have to see how we can get an agreement on this.

Let me repeat: a nuclear-powered plant to produce energy – you may like it or not, but that is not the issue being debated today – requires, as you know, at least seven or eight years from the moment the contract is signed to the moment the power plant is operational. There is no contract whatsoever between Iran and anybody who can produce a nuclear-powered plant to produce energy – kilowatts – none except for the Russian one. As you know the Russian contract has a clause that states, firstly, enriched uranium will be provided by Russia and, secondly, that the burned material – that means enriched plutonium or whatever is at the end of process – will be taken to Russia, so they will not need to have enriched uranium because it is provided.

Secondly, if they continue enriching, the question is why? – because they do not have anywhere to put it, no other power plant. So this is a question that it is fair to ask and it is difficult to get an answer. This is the only response to this question that I can give you, because it is something that is under your control and that of the leaders and citizens of the European Union.

I have tried to give you an honest account of our interpretation of the situation, the problems and the three main issues that we have to be concerned about as Europeans. I say again that we have great respect for the country – we have a profound respect for Iran – and we would like very much to engage with it and also see them move in that direction.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE). – Señor Presidente, mañana el Parlamento Europeo va a aprobar una resolución sobre Irán que va a ser suscrita por nuestro Grupo político.

No es casualidad que la primera parte de esa resolución verse sobre la situación de los derechos humanos.

La semana pasada hubo en nuestra Comisión de Asuntos Exteriores una comparecencia absolutamente insatisfactoria del señor Jalili, que no respondió a ninguna de las preguntas que se le formularon sobre los derechos humanos, las torturas, las ejecuciones públicas, la compra de misiles norcoreanos y de torpedos soviéticos susceptibles de ser dotados con cabeza nuclear.

Señor Solana, hemos oído muy bien que está usted esperando la respuesta a las preguntas que formuló al señor Jalili; lo mismo nos ha dicho la señora Comisaria Ferrero, y nosotros también estamos esperando todavía las respuestas a las preguntas que le formulamos.

Por eso, no es suficiente que nos lamentemos de que no hayan suspendido su programa nuclear, desoyendo el llamamiento de la comunidad internacional y tres resoluciones de las Naciones Unidas. Como nos acaba de decir el señor Solana, la comunidad internacional tiene la convicción de que están enriqueciendo el uranio para un programa de fines que no son pacíficos.

Por eso, tampoco es suficiente, señor Presidente, que digamos en el proyecto de resolución que no vamos a proseguir en la vía de un acuerdo de cooperación o de asociación con Irán hasta tanto no haya progresos sustanciales en lo que se refiere a los derechos humanos y a las garantías objetivas que nos permitan tener garantías claras de que no estamos progresando en la vía de un enriquecimiento de uranio para usos pacíficos.

Por eso, señor Alto Representante, yo le preguntaría: ¿piensa usted que la cuarta resolución que va a producir el Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas sobre la base de la reunión de Viena, donde se reunieron los miembros permanentes del Consejo de Seguridad más Alemania, va a ser suficiente para que Irán atienda al llamamiento de la comunidad internacional? ¿Cuál debería ser, señor Solana, el contenido de esa resolución de las Naciones Unidas para hacer frente a ese desafío y enervar la amenaza que supone para la paz y la seguridad internacional este programa de enriquecimiento de uranio de Irán?

  Lilli Gruber (PSE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il Presidente iraniano Ahmadinejad ha detto oggi a Busher, nel sud del paese, che Israele è una sporca entità sionista che prima o poi cadrà. Un'affermazione naturalmente inaccettabile e chiaramente propagandistica.

Il 14 marzo ci saranno le elezioni politiche in Iran, in cui conteranno più le sue promesse mancate che non i proclami. Del resto anche l'America è in piena campagna elettorale e dunque è necessario stare ai fatti. Oggi l'Iran è la potenza emergente nel Golfo e con essa Washington sta cercando di negoziare un accordo. A dicembre i servizi segreti americani hanno stabilito che l'Iran non rappresenta una minaccia immediata. Il 12 gennaio scorso il direttore dell'AIEA, El Baradei, ha avuto assicurazione dagli iraniani sulla risposta a tutti gli interrogativi ancora aperti.

La pressione sull'Iran va mantenuta, ma serve a raggiungere un accordo utile a tutti e alla stabilità della regione, evitando misure radicali e spesso inefficaci. Basta ricordare l'Iraq e l'inefficacia delle sanzioni contro di esso. Va riconosciuto il ruolo dell'Iran nei nuovi equilibri dello scacchiere e gli vanno offerte delle garanzie di sicurezza credibili in un contesto regionale così turbolento. Un coinvolgimento americano diretto è essenziale per il successo di trattative che devono a questo punto essere onnicomprensive, come sta facendo del resto l'Unione europea.

Dall'altro lato è assolutamente chiaro che l'Iran deve assumersi responsabilità adeguate: abbandono delle ambizioni nucleari e militari con stringenti verifiche, ruolo costruttivo per la soluzione dei conflitti ancora aperti, rispetto dei diritti umani e delle donne e, più in generale, delle regole democratiche.

Poco fa il premio Nobel per la pace Shirin Ebadi mi ha mandato una mail in cui denuncia le gravi e sempre più frequenti violazioni dei diritti umani. "È questo, più di quello nucleare, il fronte più drammatico oggi in Iran" mi scrive. Cerchiamo di ascoltarla.

  Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (ALDE). – Mr President, I thank Mr Solana and Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner for the immensely hard work on the issue of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is causing so many headaches and worries to so many people internationally and on the Security Council of the UN.

It was my pleasure to represent my group on the recent delegation to the Islamic Republic of Iran just before Christmas, when we had a very exceptionally good sequence of meetings, to which Mr Solana has already referred, as has Mrs Ferrero-Waldner.

Of course, our call for dialogue in the Islamic Republic of Iran does fall on very welcome ears, because, as you well know, the former President of Iran put forward to the United Nations in 2000 the idea of the intercultural year of dialogue, which you yourself have picked up this very year here in the European Union.

I believe there are huge possibilities for dialogue, but not just on human rights and not just on the all-important nuclear issue. I believe we should be having dialogue on cultural issues – music, art, archaeology, painting, calligraphy – in which we share so much historical reference and so much potential for future gain.

I also believe that one critical item we should discuss is this so-called barrier between Islam and democracy. Perhaps it has not been noticed that the Islamic Republic of Iran believes that she has cracked that particular difficulty, and that her form of democracy is fully comprehensible with the Islamic Republic of Iran’s version of Islam, the all-important Shariah law and the Shiite Islamic tradition. I think this, again, is something that we should welcome and should discuss this very year, perhaps with former President Khatami or with other members of the Iranian religious influence and tradition.

  Romano Maria La Russa (UEN). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io ritengo, anche alla luce di quanto ho ascoltato durante questo dibattito, che tuttora l'unica via da perseguire sia certamente quella del dialogo, anche se risulta tuttavia difficile capire su che basi questo dialogo si possa poi sviluppare.

Come dialogare infatti con un paese che non rispetta i diritti dell'infanzia ed estende la pena di morte ai minori? Con il paese, o meglio è più giusto dire con il regime, delle impiccagioni in piazza, un regime che minaccia di voler cancellare lo Stato di Israele? E sulla questione nucleare dovremmo forse soprassedere o non quantomeno dubitare dell'utilizzo pacifico del nucleare? Fino a che punto dovremmo credere ai piani militari di difesa nazionale? E ancora, possiamo ritenere affidabile un regime che finanzia la guerriglia nei paesi limitrofi?

Con riferimento poi al rapporto della CIA, inviterei a non farsi troppe illusioni sull'attendibilità dello stesso. Non è la prima volta, peraltro, che questi rapporti vengono poi clamorosamente smentiti. A nessuno certamente possiamo negare la possibilità di sperimentare il nucleare a fini civili e non militari, ma il Presidente Ahmadinejad non solo non dà garanzie, non solo non dà alcuna garanzia, ma di fatto fa temere il peggio.

Escludendo l'opzione di un intervento militare, lontano credo da tutti i rappresentanti e dai parlamentari dell'Unione europea, e quindi evitando l'intervento militare – questo è fondamentale e basilare –, ritengo che sarebbe una sconfitta per tutti e penalizzerebbe l'economia, penalizzerebbe un popolo inerme, ignaro e innocente, l'opzione delle sanzioni. Inviterei ancora ad usare la diplomazia, perché ripeto le sanzioni non hanno mai sortito nulla di buono, servono soltanto ad alimentare ulteriore odio verso l'Occidente e gli Stati Uniti in particolare.

  Gerard Batten (IND/DEM). – Mr President, deceit is a weapon of war approved of in the Koran under the doctrine of taqiyya. Iran professes no plans to develop nuclear weapons. Evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. They had 3 000 uranium centrifuges already. Not one can be used to generate nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Together they will produce one bomb’s worth of weapons-grade uranium a year.

Now Iran plans to build 5 000 more centrifuges. Meanwhile, illegal secret imports of raw uranium arrive from the Congo, a country the EU supports with humanitarian aid. Britain still allows Iranian students to study nuclear physics at our universities. In addition to this, Iran, Syria and North Korea are working together to assemble missiles and chemical warheads. Last year, technicians from all three countries were killed when something went wrong in Syria. Traces of Sarin gas were later detected in the atmosphere.

Whether or not these countries successfully develop nuclear warheads, chemical warheads would certainly be deployable in the near future.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nel ribadire il diritto all'autodeterminazione energetica dei popoli, apprezzo il tentativo negoziale dell'Unione e sostengo la sinergesi del piano di lavoro AIEA-Iran. È lodevole e utile per fugare preoccupazioni, anche al fine di depotenziare speculazioni politiche e strategiche basate sull'ipotetica minaccia alla pace.

Del resto, anche al punto 5 della risoluzione, si ammette la necessità di rinunce a retoriche speculazioni politiche sull'Iran. Tutta la prima parte della risoluzione e l'esortazione alla creazione di un nuovo quadro multilaterale per l'utilizzazione dell'energia nucleare sono condivisibili.

Appare invece demagogica la seconda parte. Le violazioni dei diritti umani in tantissima parte del mondo non registrano altrettante e solerti condanne. Ne sono esempio le recenti risoluzioni su Pakistan e Cina che non hanno avuto altrettanta energia, né palese sostegno all'opposizione interna. Questo mi obbliga a dichiarare la mia contrarietà alla risoluzione, perché diritti umani e libertà sono valori assoluti che non conoscono diversità di applicazione, né si prestano alla sperequazione tra il chiede e il condanna.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the Iranian nuclear programme remains the source of our greatest concern. We hope that the process of negotiating a solution will be continued.

The European Union should stand united on this very difficult issue, and we should support the efforts of the High Representative and of the Commission, Member States and the international community, including the recently proposed UN Security Council resolution.

Efforts should be aimed at encouraging Iran to return to talks concerning long-term arrangements resolving the nuclear issue.

We in the Committee on Foreign Affairs of this House decided to invite Mr Jalili to talk and to have a dialogue. Our committee was dissatisfied with the answers given, and we know how difficult dialogue is. However, the meeting with the Committee on Foreign Affairs has shown our unanimous stand on the Iranian question, and it has also sent a strong political signal to the Iranian Government.

If we want to continue any meaningful dialogue, we have to restore credibility to our relations. Our Iranian partners must introduce absolute transparency to their nuclear programme by cooperating fully with the IAEA. They must fully implement the provisions of the Comprehensive Safeguard Agreement, and we should maintain pressure on the Iranian Government to comply with its commitments and to make them understand that this is the only way to gain international recognition, as well as to pursue successfully economic development to the benefit of its citizens.

The human rights situation in Iran has seriously deteriorated recently, and we should keep condemning the systematic violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially those carried out on juvenile offenders and women.

As a community based on values, having at the core of our values human rights and democracy, and looking at stability and security as our highest concern, we should not and cannot disregard the worsening human rights situation there, and we should do our utmost to convince our partners that it pays to respect the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

  Libor Rouček (PSE). – Dámy a pánové, dovolte, abych se ve svém dnešním příspěvku zaobíral dvěma aspekty vztahů s Íránem.

Prvním z nich je občanská společnost. Jak jsem se mohl na vlastní oči a uši přesvědčit při nedávné návštěvě Teheránu, v Íránu existuje velmi silná a aktivní občanská společnost. O svá práva se hlásí ženy, novináři, národnostní a náboženské menšiny. Velmi živá je studentská scéna. Řidiči autobusů, pekaři a mnohé další profese organizují své vlastní nezávislé odbory. Ekonomové a podnikatelé tlačí na privatizaci a liberalizaci íránské ekonomiky.

Všechny tyto skupiny a složky íránské společnosti hledají v Evropě, v Evropské unii, dialog a pomoc. Chtěl bych proto vyzvat Komisi a vysokého představitele Javiera Solanu, aby byl pro tento dialog s íránskou společností efektivně využit nový nástroj pro demokracii a lidská práva, který máme k dispozici.

V Íránu, podle mého názoru, by mělo být rovněž vytvořeno diplomatické zastoupení Evropské unie. Tímto krokem bychom podpořili nejen diskuzi a dialog s občanskou společností, ale zároveň také spolupráci s místními institucemi a orgány v oblastech společného zájmu. A společných zájmů, navzdory rozdílným názorům v otázce jaderného programu či lidských práv, máme s Íránem mnoho.

Zmíním pouze jednu sousední zemi Íránu, a to je Afghánistán. Jsem přesvědčen, že není v zájmu našem ani Íránu, aby do Evropy například proudily z Afghánistánu tuny nelegálních narkotik. Podobně společné zájmy máme i v otázce afghánských uprchlíků a koneckonců i v otázce celkového mírového řešení situace v Afghánistánu.

Z tohoto a mnoho dalších důvodů Evropská unie potřebuje v Teheránu vlastní diplomatické zastoupení.

  Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, both Mr Solana and Mrs Ferrero-Waldner have stressed repeatedly in their presentations today the need for dialogue, negotiation and persuasion. Mrs Ferrero-Waldner highlighted the need for people-to-people contact. She told us of the success of our Erasmus Mundus and poverty alleviation programmes.

So, are we training their nuclear physicists in our universities? Are we, at our taxpayers’ expense, paying for poverty relief in one of the richest oil-producing nations in the world because they have chosen to spend billions on a nuclear weapons programme? What has our policy of appeasement achieved?

According to Mr Solana, so far, no success. He said that the Iranian regime continues to ignore us. Mrs Ferrero-Waldner said that we have more executions than ever before. Well, let me tell you, Mr President, 23 people were executed in the first two weeks of this year, including several women. Five people had their hands or feet amputated. Men and women continue to be stoned to death by this jihadist, misogynous, homophobic, genocidal, brutal regime which is a world sponsor of terror.

If we wish really to support Iranian students, we should support the brave students of Teheran University, who have been demonstrating for the past five days, demanding regime change. Instead of backing appeasement, we should back the legitimate Iranian Opposition. Instead of keeping the PMOI on our terror list, we should put the revolutionary guards of Iran on the EU terror list.

  Helmut Kuhne (PSE). – Herr Präsident! Wie wir gerade gehört haben, gibt es auch bei uns im Europäischen Parlament Vertreter, die ihre Priorität nicht auf eine Verhaltensänderung des iranischen Regimes, sondern auf eine Zerstörung dieses Regimes richten. Ich glaube, man muss eines ganz klar sagen, und das ist die zwingende politische Logik: Wer die Zerstörung des Regimes will und seine Politik darauf ausrichtet, wird keine Verhaltensänderung des Regimes bekommen. Und das ist das, worauf wir zielen müssen, wenn wir über die Nuklearfrage reden.

Die diplomatische Seite würde sehr gestärkt werden, wenn die Vereinigten Staaten sich direkt an den Gesprächen beteiligen würden, denn sie können etwas anbieten, das die Europäische Union in dem Ausmaß nicht anbieten kann, nämlich Sicherheitsgarantien. Herr Solana hat darauf hingewiesen: Die Erkenntnisse der amerikanischen Geheimdienste rechtfertigen nicht den Schluss, dass keine potenzielle Bedrohung durch das iranische Programm besteht. In der Tat, da ist ein Problem. Und dieses Problem kann man nicht dadurch lösen, dass man den Druck wegnimmt. Man kann das Thema nicht wegnehmen aus dem Weltsicherheitsrat, weil sonst irgendwann die Gefahr besteht, dass das iranische Regime sagt: Danke das war’s, wir haben genug hochangereichertes Uran, wir treten jetzt aus dem Atomwaffensperrvertrag aus und produzieren unsere Nuklearwaffen. Sollte dieser Fall eintreten, bliebe uns nichts anderes als die Rückkehr zur Strategie nuklearer Abschreckung, wie wir sie aus den 60er und 70er Jahren kennen.

Was wir aus dieser Debatte aber auf jeden Fall ausschließen sollten — und das muss ebenso klar sein —, ist die so genannte militärische Option. Was immer unter dem Begriff „der Westen“ verstanden wird, ob sich das nur auf Nordamerika bezieht oder auch auf Europa, die Wahrnehmung der so genannten militärischen Option wäre ein politisches Desaster auf Jahrzehnte, nicht nur in der muslimischen Welt, sondern auch gegenüber Staaten wie Indien, die mitgeholfen haben, dieses Thema in den Weltsicherheitsrat zu bringen.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – Dovoľte mi vyjadriť hlboké znepokojenie nad zhoršujúcim sa vývojom situácie v oblasti ľudských práv v Iráne, osobitne pokiaľ ide o uplatňovanie trestu smrti, mučenia, neľudského zaobchádzania s väzňami a o represiu voči politickým oponentom. Mali by sme kategoricky odsúdiť takéto evidentné porušovanie ľudských práv a základných slobôd, ktoré sú základom našich demokratických spoločností.

Ako člena parlamentného zhromaždenia Euromed ma však osobitne trápi bezpečnostná otázka a skutočnosť, že Irán, napriek odporu Európskej únie a medzinárodného spoločenstva, naďalej pokračuje vo vývoji svojho jadrového programu. Napriek ubezpečeniam, že krajina rozvíja jadrový program výlučne na mierové využitie, je veľmi ťažké nebyť znepokojený nad takýmto vývojom situácie.

Už končím s poukazom na skutočnosť, že Rusko nedávno dodalo nukleárny materiál, a iné indície nám hovoria, že Irán je nedôveryhodný partner a mali by sme sa podľa toho zachovať.

  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE). – Mr President, have all EU Member States been consistent in the political message delivered to Iran to back the efforts of the EU three and Mr Solana on the nuclear file by living up to the imposition of the economic sanctions?

And have EU Member States and you, Mr Solana, been pressing the Bush Administration to talk to Iran directly, not just about Iraq, but about the nuclear file in particular? Or are you of the view that there is no point, that it will wait for the next US Administration?

  Janusz Onyszkiewicz (ALDE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Chciałbym wrócić do tego, o czym mówił pan Javier Solana, mianowicie do prawidłowego odczytania raportu CIA dotyczącego problemu nuklearnego w Iranie.

Powtarzam jeszcze raz za panem Javierem Solaną, że tylko jeden element został zawieszony, i to jest niesłychanie wątpliwe, czy został zawieszony w sposób trwały. Opozycja irańska twierdzi, że ten program został tylko rozproszony w innych miejscach, ale dalej on jest kontynuowany. Myślę, że warto im wierzyć, bo właśnie opozycja irańska zwróciła po raz pierwszy uwagę na militarne aspekty programu jądrowego w Iranie, co potem okazało się absolutną prawdą.

I to prowadzi mnie do kolejnej sprawy, mianowicie, że czas najwyższy, ażeby właśnie tą organizację, Mudżahedinów Ludowych, skreślić z listy organizacji, które są organizacjami terrorystycznymi. W tej sprawie wypowiedziały się już sądy, wypowiedziało się już Zgromadzenie Parlamentarne Rady Europy, wypowiedział się parlament włoski. Czas, żebyśmy my zrobili to samo.

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, pour moi, Monsieur Solana et Madame Ferrero-Waldner, il n'y a pas de différence entre le nucléaire civil et le nucléaire militaire. Vous nous avez expliqué, Monsieur Solana, que, pour faire une bombe, il suffisait d'uranium. Je crois qu'il faudrait être un peu naïf pour croire que le pays aux richesses naturelles impressionnantes qu'est l'Iran a besoin d'énergie nucléaire pour se développer. Par contre, on sait très bien qu'il a besoin d'énergie nucléaire pour faire la bombe.

Vous avez également dit que le nucléaire était un facteur d'instabilité et que nous n'avions pas de prise sur l'Iran. Vous avez tout à fait raison. Lorsque vous proposez l'interdiction de l'enrichissement, nous sommes tout à fait d'accord. J'irai même plus loin: je crois qu'il faut l'interdiction du nucléaire tout court. Actuellement, seulement 4 % de l'énergie au niveau mondial est de l'énergie d'origine nucléaire.

La question que je vous pose, Monsieur Solana et Madame Ferrero-Waldner, est celle-ci: ne trouvez-vous pas que la France, avec notre président, M. Sarkozy, joue avec le feu et l'instabilité mondiale en signant des accords nucléaires avec des pays comme la Libye, la Chine, la Géorgie? Est-ce qu'on ne pourrait pas profiter de l'expérience malheureuse faite avec l'Iran pour arrêter la prolifération de l'énergie nucléaire au niveau mondial?

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL). – Voorzitter, het debat over Iran gaat over meer dan kernenergie, oorlogsdreiging en schending van mensenrechten. In zijn inleiding heeft de heer Solana al beschreven waarom Iran, ondanks enkele kenmerken van democratie en een hoog niveau van onderwijs, voor zeer veel mensen geen aangenaam land is om in te leven.

Veel mensen die door de Iraanse regering worden vervolgd of die onder het huidige bewind niet in vrijheid kunnen leven, hebben hun toevlucht gezocht in Europa. De Europese Unie en haar lidstaten moeten die mensen niet hinderen. De vreedzame oppositie in ballingschap moet hier alle vrijheid hebben.

Daarom is het belangrijk dat het Europees Hof van Justitie heeft vastgesteld dat het onjuist is dat zo'n organisatie op de lijst van terroristische organisaties is geplaatst. Het is belangrijk dat dit Parlement de Raad eraan herinnert dat die plaatsing onterecht en onaanvaardbaar is. Juist over díe lijst is geen compromis met het Iraanse regime mogelijk.

  Vytautas Landsbergis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to know if anybody can give me an answer. During the parliamentarians’ visit to Teheran, did they attend any public executions? Especially those in which cranes of European production were used.

  Miloslav Ransdorf, (GUE/NGL). – Já bych chtěl připomenout, že íránský jaderný program paradoxně startoval v době, kdy Írán byl spojencem Spojených států. Šáhovi radili Američané postavit dvacet jaderných elektráren. Doby, jak se zdá, se změnily, ze spojence se stal nepřítel a obraz Íránu je rozporný.

Na jedné straně vím o utrpení našich přátel ze strany Tudeh, na druhé straně je třeba říci, že v žádné arabské zemi není takový stupeň plurality a rozvinuté občanské společnosti, jako je v Íránu.

Odborová scéna, která tady byla zmíněna kolegou Roučkem, rozhodně zaslouží pozornost stejně jako ženské hnutí a já se domnívám, že návrhy kolegy Roučka, aby se ustavilo zastoupení Evropské unie v Teheránu, zaslouží pozornost a podporu.

Je třeba opravdu rozvíjet tyto vztahy. Je to velký národ, velká kultura a rozhodně má k nám mnohem blíž, než si dovedeme představit.

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE). – Mr President, Iran remains a danger to the stability of the world and the Middle East. Iranian jihadis are fighting alongside terrorists in Iraq, killing British soldiers. Iran’s judges routinely pass death sentences on homosexuals and teenagers.

Why is Iran pressing ahead with uranium enrichment when it has no operational nuclear power stations or even plans to build them in the future? Why is Iran developing Shahab III missiles with the potential to carry nuclear warheads and drop them on European cities?

Our message must be clear and uncompromising. Iran will not be allowed by the international community to arm itself with nuclear weapons.

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, this was, of course, a very important discussion. Why? Because there is a huge civil society in Iran that certainly would like to have a different way of life, but there is still a very difficult regime.

I think we all know that the nuclear issue is the huge stumbling block at this moment. It spoils all the possibilities for development and also for a bilateral relationship, which would have very great potential. This is what I said repeatedly to Mr Jalili: ‘Why do you not take this? Why is there no possibility of entering into a dialogue with you? Why do you not show some political will on this?’ I think this is what we have to do – try to appeal to the population as well, to see if there is perhaps a chance to change things at the next elections – knowing that it will be very difficult.

But I think it is interesting to see that the Opposition is, at least, coming together again. It has been split. It has been in a resigned mood. Now there is, at least, a new will to go for elections and perhaps change the situation, at least of the Government. But of course, as I said before, the screening of the candidates by the Council of Guardians is now under way and is crucial. As Ms Beer said, if 7 000 candidates can run for 290 seats, too many candidates have already been rejected. Two thousand of them will have been rejected. Therefore I strongly hope that an appeals procedure will indeed redress the situation. The Iranian electorate deserves to be able to choose its representatives from amongst a wide spectrum of parties and opinions. Of course it is clear that we are not supporting any specific party, but it is important that there is the establishment of a genuine pluralism.

Having said this, I completely agree with all those – and I did not go into all the details – who said that we have to do a lot on the human rights front, even if we cannot go forward with regard to the nuclear issue. We have, of course, supported all the UN resolutions; Canada has introduced such a resolution. This has been adopted, clearly showing where Iran – unfortunately – stands today. I would like to say, to some of the Members of Parliament who have mentioned that we should use the EIDHR instrument, that we are already using it via implementation through the UN, UNICEF and UNODC: for instance in the areas of juvenile justice and young people addicted to drugs, and on the question of justice. But it becomes more and more complicated in this very rigid atmosphere. I have been trying to have one diplomat in one Embassy in Tehran, to ensure a smoother coordination of joint projects. This is, of course, only a small step, but hopefully a meaningful one, which could pave the way, at least a little, for the development of our cooperation. Unfortunately, however, Iran remains evasive. Last week, when I personally mentioned this, I did not receive an answer.

  Javier Solana, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. − Mr President, very briefly as I had the opportunity to answer earlier. There are not many new questions and, as I have already said, we basically share the views expressed.

Concerning a question put by Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, a debate is now taking place in the Security Council, so I do not think I should be elaborating on that. You asked me what I would like to see. I would like to see a resolution which is not needed because the dialogue that we are asking for is a reality. You know which elements have to be put in place in order to have a meaningful dialogue.

Concerning other reflections about enlarging cooperation, there are many other fields in which we can and should cooperate. Afghanistan and drugs have been mentioned. This is an important issue on which we would very much like to cooperate.

Other questions have been put about the group of six in the United Nations. I cannot speak on behalf of anybody. I can speak only on behalf of the six with which I am negotiating. I have received support from everybody, from all the members of the group, including the European Union – there is no doubt about that – but also the other members of the Security Council who are not members of the European Union.

La question de Madame Béguin sur l'énergie nucléaire. Je ne veux pas entrer aujourd'hui dans le débat sur l'énergie nucléaire en général. Nous aurons le temps pour cela quand nous parlerons de l'énergie. Mais je vais vous dire la différence claire entre le nucléaire pour la production d'énergie électrique et le nucléaire pour autre chose, que vous avez bien séparés. La différence fondamentale, c'est que, pour la production d'énergie électrique, le nucléaire a besoin d'un enrichissement de X et que, pour la production d'armes de destruction, on a besoin d'un enrichissement qui va bien au-delà de cela.

La deuxième question, ce sont les déchets. Il est très important de savoir ce qu'on en fait. Vous savez que, dedans, se trouvent du plutonium et d'autres choses, qui sont utilisables. Les entreprises qui offrent la technologie sont aussi chargées de prendre tous les déchets. Donc, la situation est tout à fait différente de la situation que nous envisageons quand nous parlons de l'Iran et du processus d'enrichissement autonome.

J'aimerais dire, Mesdames et Messieurs les membres du Parlement, que j'ai fait, dans ma première intervention, une description de l'Iran que j'aimerais voir: je pense que cet Iran est possible, que cet Iran est souhaitable et que cet Iran est un pays dans lequel nous devons nous engager. C'est un pays vivant, un pays avec beaucoup de profondeur, intellectuelle, culturelle, etc., que nous aimerions voir s'engager avec nous pour travailler ensemble dans plusieurs dossiers: dossier de l'énergie, dossier des droits de l'homme, dossier du Moyen-Orient, dossier nucléaire … Pour cela, il faut que nous commencions à avoir réellement un dialogue sérieux sur tous les dossiers ensemble.

Pour le reste, je voudrais vous remercier pour l'attention accordée à ce débat important et, je vous le dis, Monsieur le Président, je suis prêt à venir vous parler du dossier iranien, ou d'autres dossiers, quand vous m'inviterez.

  Der Präsident. − Herzlichen Dank, Herr Hoher Vertreter.

Zum Abschluss der Aussprache wurden gemäß Artikel 103 Absatz 2 der Geschäftsordnung sechs Entschließungsanträge⁽¹⁾ eingereicht.

Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 31. Januar, statt.

(1) Siehe Protokoll.