Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 1 February 2012 - Brussels

16. EU foreign policy towards the BRICS and other emerging powers (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report (A7/0010(2012) by Mr Saryusz-Wolski, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the EU foreign policy towards the BRICS and other emerging powers [2011-2111(INI)].

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, rapporteur. − Mr President, I am glad that Lady Ashton decided to participate in this debate. It is an honour for us and especially important because the EEAS has now been in action for a year and the time has come for the first reviews and summaries of the Service’s existence.

The report was adopted in the Committee on Foreign Affairs in December last year by an overwhelming majority. By allocating such an important topic to the Foreign Affairs Committee, the European Parliament wanted to emphasise that in foreign policy terms BRICS is no longer just a catch phrase coined around trade and growth-related indicators, but that these countries have come of age and started a certain form of foreign policy making. The report goes beyond the individual country-by-country approach when thinking about Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and tries to see in what senses their common points of interest have brought them together.

One such common item is the feeling of marginalisation on the global level, especially when it comes to BRICS participation in the key institutions of global economic and financial governance. That is why the BRICS countries have decided to strengthen their cooperation on political and foreign policy issues. It could be called a mutual support network, but one that can be a convenient fall-back option when the situation requires concerted action.

The report indicates several areas, in particular the number of votes held in the UN Security Council, on Libya, on Syria, on the status of the EU in the UN General Assembly and others, like recently in Durban on climate change, which show that when the foreign policy objectives of the BRICS converge they are ready to concert efforts and act jointly. In most cases the BRICS take positions opposed to those of the European Union and they contest our positions and policy.

Are we ready to react and to act? Those countries enjoy – some of them to a special degree, especially democracies like India and Brazil – a privileged relationship with us. At the same time, they will not give the Union the right to speak in the United Nations.

Baroness Ashton, in your report you praise the geographical desk structure of the EEAS as the leading source of advice and briefing on respective countries. The report which I submitted encourages a coordination mechanism within the EEAS which would allow geographical desk officers responsible for particular BRICS countries to exchange and coordinate information and positions in cases where concerted action on our side can be expected. Such cooperation would have added value for you and your officials in devising future strategies. The mechanism I suggest does not require a modification of the current EEAS structure and can be of a purely functional nature. I was told that the first time such coordination took place was in preparation for attending the Foreign Affairs Committee meeting to discuss my report. I am glad to hear that, as it is the best proof that the report has already brought some results. Now, it will be of the utmost importance that this coordination is maintained and developed further and does not become a one-time event in the history of your Service.

The BRICS as a cross-continental foreign policy actor does exist and the ostrich policy of hiding one’s head in the sand, believing that the BRICS will stop existing, will not serve the EU well.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, may I first of all warmly welcome the report and thank Mr Saryusz-Wolski for the work he has done to bring this report to life, as well as all those who have commented on it, amended it or participated in the discussions about it.

It is really important because the growing role of emerging powers – and we focus in this debate on what we call the BRICS countries – is really important. When we consider the relationships that India, Brazil and South Africa have developed in their coordination through the India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum (IBSA) and the relationships between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa in what we now call the BRICS, it is important that we think about them in that way.

We know the economic statistics behind the phenomenal rise of the emerging powers, but for me the essence of this is about the politics. What matters is that economic clout is translated into political clout – into self-confidence and ambition for the role that can be played. We know that the five members of the BRICS are, of course, five strategic partners of the European Union, and individually they are – as Mr Saryusz-Wolski has said and the report acknowledges – very different in many ways. Each of them has a strong and deep relationship with the European Union.

It is incredibly important that we invest in our relationship with these countries and be active and creative in our engagement with them. We have a lot in common, and potentially there is a lot we can do together. This is precisely what I have been doing, what colleagues in the Commission and in the Council have been doing, and it is why – as honourable Members will remember – when I took on this role I said that I had three priorities: to get the service running; our neighbourhood, long before the events of the Arab Spring; and, thirdly, our strategic partners.

I would just mention that there are other emerging powers – countries like Mexico; countries with which we work closely, like South Korea; and of course Indonesia and others – but I want to concentrate for the purposes of this debate on the five that we call the BRICS.

With each of them, as I have said, we need to develop a strong relationship. In China I not only met with my interlocutor, State Councillor Dai Bingguo, with whom I had long debates and discussions, but I also met Defence Minister Liang to talk about how we could work together on tackling problems that we face together – on piracy, on counter-terrorism and so on. One of the advantages, if you like, of the many hats I wear in this post is that I can move between the Foreign Ministry and the Defence Ministry in many countries and can express the views of the European Union with both.

We have also been talking, of course, in India in the last two weeks: again, trying to break new ground in developing the strength of our relationship – particularly on some of the security issues that are so important and on joint work to develop the capacity to deliver on the World Food Programme, as well as tackling some of the global issues that we and they face – and recognising the significance of India in the region.

This weekend I travel to Brazil and then on to Mexico, our ambition, here again, being to strengthen the relationship we have and to talk about issues of importance between us. In Brazil I will focus in part on Iran as well as our work with Brazil on development and our work together in the UN Human Rights Council; and in Mexico, where they have played such an important role in recent days, on climate change and on some of the challenges that they face in their part of the region.

I should mention, too, South Africa. I met the South African Foreign Minister in November, again to discuss some of the issues that are extremely important – and South Africa’s work with the EU in Durban on the climate change discussions has been of enormous importance.

We have just discussed our relationship with Russia. It is a very important bilateral relationship; Russia is a significant partner in foreign policy; and of course there is also our concern about the internal situation.

In each of these countries we are trying to invest in developing a strong bilateral relationship. Each of them is different; each has a different history and different relationships, traditionally, not only with the European Union, but also with the EU Member States. I agree that we need a more creative and joined-up approach as we look not only at how to deal with those bilateral relationships, but also at how to work with that group of countries in regional and global forums.

This brings me to a thread running through your report which I think is really important: namely, the extent to which they form a homogenous block or not. I know you have been very clear in the report, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, about not exaggerating what that means. As you stressed, there are major differences economically, politically and socially – and anyone looking at those countries would see how significantly different they are – but whether they manage to coordinate their position depends on where their interests coincide. There are issues on which coordination is relatively straightforward, others where it is more difficult, and many where they would perhaps want to develop that coordination further.

So my proposal is that we need to invest in these countries as strategic partners in a very strong and dynamic bilateral relationship, finding the themes and issues on which we can work closely: economically and politically, bilaterally and internationally. We need to do that because it is in our interest to do it, but I also believe it is in our interest to avoid a mindset of ‘the West versus the rest’ – something I discussed with President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton at the summit in the USA in December.

It is important that we recognise the significance of our relationships with each of these countries and find the common ground, where they should be with us and we should be with them, on many of the issues we face. It is important that we deal with them as individual, strong strategic partners, but what Mr Saryusz-Wolski has just said about coordination is completely right. I welcome the fact that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has highlighted coordination within the European External Action Service. May I instantly take up your proposal and say that I will – as a direct result of your report and your comments – make sure that we find ways to implement such coordination in the future.

That brings me to my last remark. Individual countries – yes. Individual relationships – absolutely critical. However, as these countries start to come together, it is really important to consider what it is that brings them together to form a common position, be it because we are in a different place, or because they feel they want to gather together as emerging powers, rather than – from their perspective – powers in a different part of the world. We need to find ways of creating a different dynamic and making common calls with some or all of them when that works.

Mr Saryusz-Wolski, may I again thank you for the report. As I said, you have already achieved at least one thing in creating new coordination within the EEAS.

  Birgit Schnieber-Jastram, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development. – (DE) Mr President, Baroness Ashton, close cooperation between the European Union and the BRICS countries is absolutely essential in the light of the global challenges facing us, such as development policy in Africa. You have just made this very clear, Baroness Ashton. I would like to add that we need to move quickly, because the West will not be able to overcome these challenges on its own.

We must honestly ask ourselves the question of where our focus should lie in future: on spreading European values or on cooperating with China, for example. Because one thing is clear, which is that some of the BRICS countries prefer to take the route of gradual convergence rather than adopting binding, harmonised standards and rules. If we want to extend our cooperation, as a countermove we must take a more cautious approach to the issue of values. If we want to spread our values, then we must expect to encounter problems in our cooperation.

I am firmly convinced that the middle way is the best. Europe should not be preaching or behaving as it if it knows it all. We only need to look back at our history to realise that we have no grounds for doing this. We must be an attractive role model. It is clear that, in the light of the global challenges, we have no choice but to cooperate more closely. To sum up, the rise of the BRICS nations and the change in the world order are a major challenge, but also a major opportunity which we must make the most of. This report is a small step in the right direction and I would like to thank Mr Saryusz-Wolski for his hard work.

  Ioannis Kasoulides, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, my congratulations to Mr Saryusz-Wolski. In today’s interdependent world, global problems need global solutions. Global solutions are necessary for international security, political, economic, monetary and ecological stability, as well as for access to raw materials and rare earths.

The financial crisis in Europe had its origins outside the Union, but to put our house in order and avoid negative externalities, the cooperation of the rest of the world is necessary. It is for this reason that coordination between the EU and the United States, and their diplomatic understanding and cooperation with the BRICS, becomes very important.

We need to correct East-West monetary imbalances – the deficit in the West and the surplus and trillions of reserves in the East – by deciding on upper limits of deficit and surplus and by fighting protectionism. The cake is common worldwide. The West is the market of the East, while stability and prosperity in the East are necessary for the security and healthy economy of the West. In this framework, the contribution of the BRICS, and particularly of China, in a specific IMF special-purpose vehicle, would significantly increase IMF firepower and robustness in dealing with the sovereign debt crisis of the EU and tomorrow – who knows – of the United States. In parallel, Beijing’s request for a further upgraded institutional role in the IMF and free market status in the WTO, which will anyhow be attained by 2016, could be accommodated.

  Boris Zala, on behalf of the S&D Group. - (SK) Mr President, there has been a very lively debate on the BRICS countries. It shows that this is a challenge for us – not just for Parliament, but also for the European Commission and our foreign service. Our lively debate was firstly on the issue of whether the BRICS is a real economic or political-economic grouping, or just our abbreviation for a collection of countries with very strong and dynamically developing economies. The debate on this was very lively.

I personally believe that the BRICS is not an integrated grouping, and that we should not approach it as a single political unit – even though it is true that the BRICS can produce an ad hoc unified viewpoint, for example in the United Nations. However, we should not overestimate this aspect. We must put far greater emphasis on the creation of bilateral partnerships – strategic partnerships - between the EU and the individual countries which we abbreviate into the BRICS, because these countries really are historically very different from each other. They are totally different countries, not just historically, but also in a practical geopolitical sense, and in their economic development.

Ultimately, however, we reached a compromise in this lively debate, agreeing that we must keep an eye on the BRICS so we do not lose sight of it as a partner, and that the EU must also develop strategic partnerships with large economic and political or geopolitical units such as Brazil, India and China, and so on. In my opinion, we ultimately came to a decent compromise – over the need to develop both instruments. This is proof of the fact that none of us had our heads in the sand in the end, and if we did then we have pulled them all out.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FI) Mr President, first of all my congratulations go to my colleague, Mr Saryusz-Wolski. He has at least made some progress and got things moving in the European External Action Service, as Baroness Ashton said, and that is a lot.

The BRICS countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – do not form a solid bloc on the international stage, but cooperation between them has an effect on international negotiations, agendas and final conclusions, for example at G20 summits. In the United Nations and Security Council, perhaps they have a more specialised role to play.

The BRICS countries are thus able very often to influence the agenda and priorities at negotiations, and this has sometimes weakened the EU’s position and our capacity for driving forward our own objectives. It is therefore vitally important that the EU can now develop strategic partnership programmes, and it is good that Baroness Ashton is visiting Brazil and other countries next week. It is a matter of urgency to develop these relations, and we will be doing absolutely the right thing if we view these countries as distinct, and act in accordance with each one’s history and current situation. They do not form a bloc, although they sometimes act together. The EU should also promptly create partnerships with these countries, and we need to think about priorities very carefully.

  Franziska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, coming back to development policies, we need to acknowledge that the BRICS countries are also new and increasingly important players in development policy. In fact, we should welcome this. We should try to include them in our international agreements on principles of development – including, for example, aid effectiveness principles – without using their inclusion as an excuse for watering down our own commitments.

We need to foster south-south cooperation because experience from, for example, Brazil on how to fight poverty has been very useful: the poverty reduction programmes that have been implemented in Brazil have been a great success, and now they are being implemented in other countries as well. Such proven best practices will be very important and they represent an important step for developing countries and societies.

Another crucial recommendation in the Committee on Development opinion is to push forward the reform of global financial and economic governance institutions – notably the Bretton Woods institutions – with the aim of ensuring broad representation of all member countries while reflecting changes in their economic weight. Can you tell us, Baroness Ashton, what steps the Commission and the EEAS intend to take in that regard?

We must also not forget that a large proportion of the world’s poorest people still live in the BRICS countries and therefore we cannot treat those countries as high-income countries. The EU-India free trade agreement, for instance, will have massive implications for India’s small farmers, fishermen, fisherwomen and other poor people. It is not right to look only at a country’s overall GDP because that is not a true reflection of the reality. We need to find new ways of dealing with emerging countries. Helping the poorest in these countries will continue to be necessary and important.

The Committee on Development also asked the Commission to define specific areas of cooperation with the BRICS countries in the field of development policy, for instance cooperation in the health sector, including access to basic healthcare services and infrastructure, the fight against AIDS and other matters. Maybe you could also give your view on that, Baroness Ashton, and tell us what steps you will be taking.

I will conclude with a word about our own position. Too often we have heard that what we are doing in developing countries may not be the greatest thing – but if we did not do it, China would come along and do it even worse. So I hope we will never hear that excuse again.

  Valdemar Tomaševski, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, the growing political and economic relevance of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa means that a coherent and efficient EU policy has to be developed for these countries. This should not be determined by our fears or apprehensions about the emergence of new powers, but should be based on cooperation and the building of mutual trust. Relations with the BRICS should be based on real partnership, but – and this is important – it should also be based on common values. The Union must duly take into account the new weight, in political and economic terms, of the emerging powers, to maintain its own international position. For these reasons, several priorities identified in the Saryusz-Wolski report need to be given emphasis and support.

The concept of bilateral strategic partnerships with each of the countries concerned will strengthen the Union’s position. Support should be given to the renewed partnership with Brazil on the basis of the EU-Mercosur Association Agreement, which will be the most important association agreement ever signed by the EU. Brazil may also serve as an excellent example to us of building self-sufficiency in energy, due to its support for the production of biofuels. We should also highlight the role of the strategic partnership with Russia, which will foster the maintenance of peace and security in Europe.

Finally, I would like to express the hope that the Union will properly appreciate the importance of China as a future major economic power and will become a leader in contacts with China, with the aim of achieving economic recovery in our continent.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (EL) Mr President, this evening is an evening of congratulations. My congratulations to you on your election, my congratulations to the rapporteur on his excellent report and my expressions of satisfaction with her position to Baroness Ashton. I am sure that the BRIC countries are a driving force for global economic growth. The European Union must take serious account of the new specific gravity at political and economic level which the BRIC countries are acquiring, by making use of the political authority which they are developing. I also agree with the rapporteur that a differentiated approach is needed to each country. Their economies are structured differently and their experience from the global recession also differs. However, we should not forget that, the recent impressive economic growth recorded by most of these countries notwithstanding, they still have the highest concentration of poverty in the world. In addition, even though they account for 42% of the population of the planet, they only produce 17.4% of global GDP. Comparisons currently come out in favour of the European Union. The question is: what will happen tomorrow?

  Jacek Protasiewicz, (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, I would like to compliment you, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, on the European Parliament report you have drafted on relations between the EU and the BRICS. The report does indeed make a very good job of capturing the essence of the times in which we live. The world around us is changing dynamically, and one of the signs of these changes is the rapid development, and in particular the economic development, of countries which not long ago were only considered to be what we call developing countries. The result of this rapid development is, naturally, a growth in political relevance. Today they are no longer just economic powers, but increasingly important political actors, and, as Mr Saryusz-Wolski has observed in his report, the Union needs to develop a coherent strategy governing our relations with them.

I do agree, however, with those voices which have emphasised the fact that there are differences between these countries. These differences are clearly visible when we look, for example, at the details of their internal politics, and particularly at the way they approach civil liberties and human rights. These are values which for us as Europeans and as European politicians are important – not just economic cooperation, but concern for values which are dear to us and promotion of these values in relations with countries whose importance in the world is growing all the time. I agree with the conclusions and proposals contained in the report which say that we should develop a common strategy to govern relations with the BRICS in cooperation with our partners who share the same system of values, such as the United States.

Finally, I would definitely like to add my voice to the proposals which say that the European Parliament should have greater influence on formulating policy and on shared strategies, and should participate in summits between the European Union and its strategic partners, including those countries which today we call the BRICS.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, I would like to congratulate my colleague, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, on his work and on incorporating the suggestions made by me and my group.

The emergence of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) provides new opportunities for the European Union, but also major challenges in achieving its aim of contributing to a global order based on the rule of law, on universal human rights and on sustainable development, in order to achieve peace and security for all.

By investing in connections with the BRICS in the various forums, including the G7, G8 and G20, the European Union may find valuable allies in piecing together the global financial regulation and economic governance that humanity so needs, as the current crisis has shown with its destructive impact across the world.

However, this assumes that the EU is able to develop special partnerships, with different geometry for each of the BRICS, taking into account their history, the characteristics of their civilisations and their alliances, but also their lack of cohesion and clear differences. Sometimes the BRICS may take a foreign policy line that jars with that of the EU, as happened in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) last year, in the vote on UNSC Resolution 1973 on Libya; there, however, a Member State also dissented, unfortunately.

In such situations, it is up to the EU to use all its ingenuity and diplomatic tools to make each of the BRICS see that it is also in its interests to contribute towards strengthening a coherent international order which both shows and receives respect. It is clear that, if the EU engages in the reform and enlargement of the UNSC, which it has not yet done, it will be better able to be heard among the BRICS that are candidates for permanent membership, namely Brazil, India and South Africa, without losing anything from Russia and China, which prefer the status quo, although they do not have the courage to admit it. It falls to the EU to be able to show each of the BRICS that the more important they become internationally, the greater the responsibilities required of them in defending universal principles and values, and in a global order that ensures peace and justice for all.

Moreover, it is clear that there is an extraordinary potential in the BRICS whose societies are now genuine democracies and which have deep-rooted connections with European culture – such as Brazil, which shares its history, language, culture and many of the quirks of its people with Portugal, my country – for developing partnerships and cooperation in all areas, from trade to applied scientific development, industry, environmental and climate protection, renewable energy, combating poverty and promoting democracy.

It was no accident that, whilst in Cuba recently, President Rousseff recited the chorus of a Portuguese anti-fascist song: ‘O povo é quem mais ordena’, meaning ‘it is the people who command’.

IN THE CHAIR: OLDŘICH VLASÁK
Vice-President

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). - Mr President, later today we will be discussing the own-initiative report of Sir Graham Watson on consistent policy towards regimes against which the EU applies restrictive measures.

I appreciate the growing economic importance of BRICS countries. However, the EU policy towards them must take into account the principles that have been outlined in Sir Graham’s report. European values must always take precedence over economic interests. The common values referred to in Mr Saryusz-Wolski’s report are still in formation in these countries. The EU and the EEAS should make sure that constructive partnership with BRICS and other emerging powers brings about the spill-over of democracy, human rights, civil liberties, the rule of law and gender equality.

The future role of BRICS in the international arena should not be underestimated. If we cannot engage them positively, they might become extremely difficult competitors for the EU in economic terms while disregarding human values.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, I shall begin by congratulating the rapporteur, my colleague Mr Saryusz-Wolski, on drafting this report. I believe that it is an important element of setting out an EU foreign policy strategy, so I hope that the Commission and, in particular, the Vice-President/High Representative will be able incorporate the vision that the rapporteur has presented here into their strategy.

As a Portuguese Member, I particularly welcome the door being opened – although that is as far as it has gone – to the creation of a European Parliament delegation to Brazil, as it is incomprehensible that all of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) have their own delegation, except Brazil. This is interesting because it is the only country out of Brazil, Russia, India and China whose national language is a European language, and which has a clearly Western, Atlantic and European culture, giving it a unique affinity to us. It also has a key role as an example for the other BRICS in the area of human rights and, we might say, international action. It is also incomprehensible that Parliament, unlike the Commission and the Council, has not created a delegation for Brazil.

The Commission and the Council have an alliance, a strategic partnership with Brazil, but we in Parliament still do not have a delegation to Brazil – largely because of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament – and cannot monitor Brazilian policies. We can monitor economic affairs in Mercosur, but we cannot monitor the international policy positions of Brazil because we do not have a dedicated delegation to the country. This is a total failure on the part of Parliament, and I hope that it will be rectified following the great vision shown the Saryusz-Wolski report.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D). - Mr President, the report we are now debating is strategic, comprehensive and sophisticated, addressing Europe’s challenge generated by the changing distribution of power within the international system: a process accelerated by the current world crisis.

Europe, which has created a modern international system, is now facing a double challenge. She has to keep her central place within it while having to fight a nasty internal crisis. In the past century, given Europe’s centrality within the international system, war in Europe has twice become world war. Today, even if war in Europe is unthinkable, our continent could still rock the world boat hard, both financially and economically.

The West – the US and Europe – now has to make room for the newcomers, either in existing bodies such as the UN Security Council or by creating new ones for them such as the G20. BRICS is a nascent grouping which is relatively heterogeneous, while Russia and China are well-established powers. There is a big question mark over the ambitions of Brazil and South Africa, with India apparently preoccupied primarily with China, which embodies this challenge. How can Europe best engage these emerging power centres without destroying the current world international institutional architecture? To engage this power successfully, Europe, which will have first to ensure coherence between the national and EU approaches towards them, will need to strike the right balance between change, namely permitting these emerging power centres to achieve their aims, and continuity, namely safeguarding her interests.

  Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the most visible aspect of the changes affecting Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (the BRICS), which is also the most significant one in terms of consequences for the life of our societies, regards the economic and commercial penetration of these emerging powers. These changes may lead to stability and widespread prosperity, but appropriate speed is required, both in terms of responses in the international rules – and we know that unfortunately the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations are at a standstill – and in terms of greater integration of our foreign policy with trade policy, taking into account the fact that our foreign policy in some respects is unfortunately still in its infancy, while trade policy, thanks to the exclusive competences of the Treaty of Lisbon, is fully functional.

I am wondering, for example, what the role of trade attachés in our embassies is. These trade attachés are not part of the European External Action Service, but will play a key role in the BRICS countries, one that is as important, if not more so, as that of our diplomats.

  Diogo Feio (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, Baroness Ashton, I would like to begin my speech by congratulating our colleague, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, on the excellent report that he has presented to us here. It is clear from the report that the world of today is seeing the rise of new countries to the status of powers, which I believe demands a new approach and position by the EU in order to address this phenomenon.

The so-called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) are countries with very diverse histories, cultures, societies and political systems. There is some geopolitical and historical conflict between them, and it is clear that they take onboard our fundamental values, such as democracy, freedom and respect for human rights, to varying degrees.

Without neglecting the other countries, I believe that we should strengthen our relations with those that not only nominally share those values, but also apply them in a consistent and committed way, such as Brazil. While it is true that the worlds of the Cold War and of the period of US dominance could coexist with an United Nations Security Council stripped of military, demographic and cultural representativeness, I have major doubts as to whether everything can continue as it is.

The idea of a global citizenship cannot cease to be made up of symbols and images from other countries. This is a valuable prerequisite in order for us to maintain the universality of Western values. We should give clear signals that we deserve the trust of our partners; that we do not just share values, but are willing to work together and give them a voice at global level, and to enable the interpretation of those who may be heard clearly.

As such, I would emphasise the historical role of my country, Portugal, in the development of Brazil’s language and its establishment there.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). - Mr President, our report was not only political, it was also an intellectual challenge – an attempt to describe the current situation, to foresee future developments and, on that basis, to outline policy proposals for our relations with the BRICS countries.

It is time for us to wake up. In many cases the EU institutions and the European leaders still live in a world of the past that no longer exists. Our eurocentric views and approaches often lead to failures, or half successes, for us on the global scene. We need to catch up with reality. Baroness Ashton, you should take this report not as a criticism of you, but rather as a call for action.

However, I would like to warn against attempts to simplify the picture and to regard the BRICS countries as a kind of unified political bloc. Indeed, we have no interest in seeing them move closer to one another to create a counterweight to the EU that will not necessarily be based on the principles and values we find important. That is why I would recommend an intensification of bilateral relations without artificially pushing these countries towards greater cohesion.

The European Parliament can play an important role here. Parliamentary cooperation with some of these countries is producing good results. Others seem to be less interested, but that should not discourage us. A good step would be for the European Parliament to be invited to participate in bilateral summits.

As regards Brazil, I am one of those who very much supported the establishment of a bilateral parliamentary cooperation committee and I am sure that this will be a reality as of 2014. By the way, the amendment which mentions this possibility in the report was introduced by the S&D Group, and specifically by Ana Gomes.

  President. - I see a blue card here. You have the floor. You. I have seen you, and you will have the floor next. Would you like to respond to the blue card question, Mr Vigenin? Will you take the question? As I said, Mrs Gomes will have floor after her colleague. Are you taking the question? I ask once again. No. I am therefore interrupting the blue card question.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). - Mr President, it was not possible to give the floor to Ana Gomes for a blue-card question, and since no time has suddenly arisen to allow a blue-card question from my colleague from the PPE Group, I will not respond to that question.

Catch-the-eye procedure.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, as a member of the Mercosur delegation, I would like to give you some specific details about the relationship with Brazil, the country with the greatest influence in South America and with the greatest chances of becoming a factor of stability in this region.

As Brazil’s main trading partner, the European Union generates no less than 22.2% of its total trade. I believe that the European Union and Brazil can, and should, cooperate more extensively, including with regard to supplementing the volume of commercial transactions, particularly following the joint action plan for the period up to 2014, and specifically in acquiring a leading role in international forums on topics such as climate change, economic governance and, last but not least, human rights.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, I would like to highlight the importance of intensifying the industrial cooperation in the field of space policy between the European Union and BRICS countries.

As a member of the European Parliament delegations for relations with Mercosur and India, I emphasise the importance of the EU-Mercosur association agreement, which will be the most important association agreement ever signed by the European Union and which is aimed at trade worth USD 125 billion annually. I would also like to emphasise Brazil’s role as a main actor in the Mercosur region, and welcome the renewal of the EU-Brazil strategic partnership, the Joint Action Plan 2012-2014. We regret that the EU-Brazil agreement on air transport was not signed at the EU-Brazil summit in October 2011.

As far as the EU-India relations are concerned, special attention should be given to the cooperation in the cyber security field and the protection of personal data. I appreciate the role of the European Investment Bank, who has allocated EUR 1 billion through the renewable energy and energy security facility for energy projects in India.

  Inês Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In the power-rebalancing process underway at global level, the majority of this House now supports closer ties with the so-called ‘BRICS countries’ (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) on an individual basis, as they fear their unity and that it could mean a weakening of the influence and dominance of the capitalist triad – which we consider to be the US, Japan and the EU – in the institutions of international capitalism.

They want to restrain their growth and the diversification of their economic activity, which jeopardise the international distribution of labour and the role these countries were supposed to play; namely, that of producers of products low in value added. Gone are the days when these countries were mainly exporters of raw materials and agricultural products. Today, they are increasingly becoming world powers, rivalling the triad, and some of them are even taking the opposite course to that of the EU in terms of combating hunger and poverty, which will increase for us as a result of the course and the misguided policies of the EU and the Member States. For our part, we advocate the establishment of relations with all countries, refusing to pigeonhole them and safeguarding mutual interests, regardless of differences and of political, economic, social and cultural perceptions.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). - (SK) Mr President, in my opinion, relations between the EU and the BRICS countries should be developed on a much deeper level, and in particular coordinated through agreements, so that cooperation is underpinned from an economic and business perspective, as well as from the perspective of development support and environmental protection. I support those who say that these relationships must be built primarily on the basis of bilateral economic agreements, which should be very clearly prioritised, with regard to the heterogeneity of these countries, their global expansion and their varying products. However, the main emphasis, in my opinion, should be on supporting and constructing economic and social structures in these countries so that they do not circumvent, so to speak, the rights of workers to protection from health problems and injuries at work.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I too would like to congratulate Mr Saryusz-Wolski for drafting this detailed report. Partnership with the BRICS economies provides the EU with a base for sustainable development. I would like to stress both the accelerated demographic growth in these states and their rapid economic growth. I should highlight paragraph S which focuses on the values and principles shared by both groups. Cooperation with the BRICS countries must be encouraged in a manner which is suited to specific national circumstances. At the same time, dialogue forums must include issues such as tackling climate change or access to rare earths. Cooperation between the BRICS countries and the EU in these areas may result in more effective intervention and noticeable results. Joint strategies need to be devised, taking into account existing economic and cultural differences.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, with your indulgence, can I just inform the honourable Members about what has happened in Egypt tonight. There has been an incident at a football stadium in Port Said and approximately 73 people have been killed and hundreds injured. It appears to have come at the end of the match, when fans went onto the pitch. I have already sent condolences directly to the Foreign Minister of Egypt, for which I have had his thanks and acknowledgement, but I am sure the honourable Members would want to be informed and of course would want to join me in expressing our condolences and shock at this terrible incident. Mr President, I just thought it was worth interrupting my own remarks to inform the honourable Members about this terrible tragedy.

In returning to the subject of our debate, I would like to say that this is a big area of priority for our work and to thank again Mr Saryusz-Wolski and all of those who have contributed to the report and to the debate tonight. As I said at the beginning, when I laid out my own priorities for my work, strategic partnerships were critical – not just for the bilateral relationships which so many have spoken about, but also because of their significance as partners as we tackle some of the global challenges. I have already indicated some of the ways in which we work with them individually.

We have strong relationships with all the countries that we call the BRICS. We have delegations, which are very active, and we have a considerable number of meetings – not just myself, and not just in country, or in Brussels, but across the different international meetings that we have. It is not unusual to be meeting with Ministers many times in the course of a year. These are important because they keep us in touch, as well as serving as regular contacts.

My fellow Commissioners also spend a great deal of energy on developing those strong links on some of the issues that honourable Members have raised, whether it is climate change or development, education or other areas of work. Perhaps I should pick up especially on two.

We talk about the strong economic weight, and a number of honourable Members have raised that. I think the work that we do together in developing and enhancing our bilateral trade work is very significant. With some countries, like Brazil, it is all part of a broader strategic approach in Mercosur. With others, such as India, we are in the final stages of trying to close a free trade agreement. With others, such as China, we are developing those links that are so important if we are to tackle some of the issues, for example intellectual property rights and the level playing field of trade and investment that are so critical to European industry and business and our future.

So it is extremely important work, not just with ministries but with Chambers of Commerce and supporting industry. In our delegations, as the honourable Members know, we have officials from the Commission who work on these issues as their priority, and this is how they spend their time while they are in country.

I just want to focus in my final remark on development, because this is a theme that has also been raised. We have enormous engagement with all these countries in two different ways. First of all, honourable Members have pointed to the fact that for some of them there are still real challenges of poverty: India is an obvious example. So, although the engagement may change and may not be in the way that it used to be, it is about engaging with them to provide support, for example with climate change, energy and some of the key areas of work where the Commission has played such a vital role and will continue to do in the future.

But it is also about them as partners in development. Talking with our colleagues in Brazil, we have worked hard to develop how we can work together, for example in delivering our development in Africa. This is an area that I think we need to consider working on further, where we are able to collaborate and use our contributions more effectively by thinking through the strategy of how we work on our development priorities.

So all of these areas are ways in which we can continue to develop our individual bilateral relations. But I accept that when they coordinate, they create in a sense a collaborative approach on certain issues. We certainly need to be able to respond to that approach, while recognising that, primarily, they are distinct and separate countries with different histories and traditions and certainly different relationships with us.

I would just like to thank Mr Saryusz-Wolski again for this work and to commend him for putting forward this important report and to say to honourable Members that we will of course continue actively to pursue our work with Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, together and, most importantly, individually.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, rapporteur. − Mr President, first let me thank Lady Ashton for the openness with which she has received the report, which calls for more action, as somebody has rightly said. I would also like to thank my colleagues, who understood the message and contributed to the richness of this report.

I am happy because what has a name exists. It is named – the phenomenon has been named, so it does exist. So we should treat this report as an early notification – not a warning – about forthcoming challenges.

I did not deny in this report that there are huge differences between them, but I tried to extract the tiny part which is common to them, even if it is only 1% of the picture and even if it is only restricted to issues on which they have similar positions and act as an entity and foreign policy in the making.

You said, Lady Ashton, that we should avoid a ‘West versus the rest’ confrontation. This is also my dream, but the world is not as we would wish. My comment would be ‘yes, but...’. In some cases, we see that democracies there – India and Brazil – were seduced by autocracies regarding their common positions, and regarding human rights and democracy (and I see the convergence with the Watson report), Libya, Syria, the Ivory Coast and Sudan. In some cases they were jointly challenging the current system of international governance.

The question of the EU voice in the UN was an appalling and most regrettable case. Having strategic partners (as we call them with all due respect) means having reliable partners sharing values. Very often they neither share nor practice our values.

In the policy towards the BRICS we should avoid the creation of coalitions of the lowest common denominator on democracy and human rights. Our policy should be inclusive, in order to involve them in the system of governance – but on the basis of universal values. They should be our partners and not our opponents, as has happened in the past. In the EU we should think strategically. In 2050 they will be immensely bigger than we are. Let us be prepared. The EU has to act together under your leadership, Lady Ashton, to avoid Member States’ divergent policies, for example on Libya. Regarding Libya, BRICS were more united than the Union itself. We need strong European foreign policy.

  President. - The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on 2 February, 2012.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) As mentioned in this initiative, the forthcoming EU-Mercosur Association Agreement will be the most important association agreement ever signed by the EU, encompassing 750 million people and trade worth USD 125 billion per year. On 8 November 2011, in a discussion with the Commissioner and ministers for agriculture, I had the opportunity to question the Commissioner about the responses that the new agricultural policy would provide, so that producers might successfully address the competition problems that the agreement with Mercosur would mean for them. At that point the Commission suggested that the answer to this problem was the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. However, the answer should have been defending European agriculture in the agreement, and not tabling this inappropriate proposal. I believe that this proposal is far from being the answer that farmers need to their real problems if they are to tackle the potential consequences for them of an agreement that does not protect the interests of European agriculture. This also raises questions as to whether this is not a ready yet clumsy way of legitimising negotiations that do not protect our agriculture.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In order for the BRICS countries and other emerging powers to play an increasingly important global role in foreign policy, their economic growth needs to continue and increase. As the current economic crisis shows, there is a strong degree of interdependence between emerged and emerging powers. Indeed, the economic growth and welfare of the former is a definite prerequisite for the consolidation of the latter’s economic growth. In light of this, the EU needs to act as a single, robust political and economic entity in order to continue to promote universal values in the new multi-polar system of global governance. However, a great deal of attention must be focused on the trend towards excessive regulation of the financial market, which will only result in the migration of capital to BRICS countries with fair regulations. This development has a particularly serious impact, starting with the increase in financing costs for European companies and ending with the loss of their competitiveness. Transnational challenges such as climate change, global regulatory issues, access to raw materials and rare elements, terrorism, sustainable development, political stability and global security will require an approach based on common values, consensus, consultation and close cooperation with the new emerging powers.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. – I agree with the statement that there are significant political, economic and social divergences among the BRICS countries. We also have to take into consideration the instrument of strategic partnerships in the EU’s relationships. Furthermore, it is not in the interest of the EU to consider BRICS countries as a bloc. We have to be aware of our place in the world and the importance of our relationship with other actors. The report points out that BRICS have shown regional integration capacity and hence the capacity to engage in multipolar governance systems. There is a potential interest of the BRICS in contributing to global governance. What I want to point out is that opportunities for collaboration can appear in investments, exchange of experience, technology and research partnerships in major projects.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Formulating EU policy towards the states referred to by the acronym BRICS is a particularly difficult task. This is because on the one hand they are countries which are enjoying rapid economic development, while on the other hand it should be remembered that over 70% of the world’s poorest people live in middle-income countries. There is no doubt that the BRICS countries differ from the EU’s Member States not just in terms of economic indicators, but also in terms of values which we consider to be universal and inalienable.

The policy of the EU and the Member States towards the BRICS should also have the support of our citizens. To support something, it is first necessary to understand it. I fear many Europeans do not understand why China is the recipient of relatively high levels of official development assistance from Europe. This really is difficult to justify or rationalise.

I am convinced that EU political strategy towards the BRICS should revolve around consistent building of shared standards, which will reduce differences both in the area of competitiveness and in relation to values. We will not achieve this objective by unilaterally raising standards in the EU. I am thinking, for example, of plans to reduce CO2 emissions. Everyone who knows at least a little about the BRICS knows very well that at the moment these countries do not have the least intention of restricting their development. Changing this attitude is a serious challenge for the EU.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) The largest EU states have long suffered from a belief in their own uniqueness, size, importance and key position in the world. This is also understood by the author of the own initiative report, and virtually the entire report is concerned with the possibility of avoiding, for example, the danger of the BRIC countries becoming a key force in the world, regardless of the interests of key EU states and the US. It is clear from certain passages that, on the one hand, there will be an attempt at various EU levels to unify viewpoints as much as possible, not just in foreign policy but also in other areas, so that the EU can act as a unified and sufficiently large partner. On the other hand, negotiations will be conducted individually with individual BRICS countries in order to eliminate the danger of them taking a unified approach. The Committee on Development has understood that cooperation in the area of the environment, regional cooperation and introduction of systems to reduce social inequality (item 1 of the Opinion of the Committee mentions ‘efficient tax and social protection systems’) means a departure from today’s neoliberal capitalism in favour of something else. Not even the Committee on Development dared call this socialism, but the Committee members apparently understood this. It is, anyway, only dialogue with the strongest and fastest growing countries in the world that will make possible the full involvement of the EU and US in a future new world order. Panic is inappropriate, and we must treat the BRIC countries as fully-fledged partners.

  Vladko Todorov Panayotov (ALDE), in writing. – Until recent times, Europe’s diplomatic efforts were mainly turned towards the US and other industrialised countries. Nowadays, globalisation and the emergence of the BRICS as major exporters on international markets are the driving forces behind the industrialised countries’ loss of global market shares. This has brought the EU to reconsider its foreign policy towards these countries which have gained colossal power on the international political chessboard. Nevertheless, the approach on how to reshape our foreign policy towards the BRICS is, in my opinion, too often based on the fear of industrial competition, especially in the case of China. As a matter of fact, if all BRICS present common challenging features, such as a prominent land size, a large population, a rapid economic growth, they also provide formidable opportunities for the EU’s market in the fields of exports. That is why our foreign policy should be built on the grounds of these positive prospects as opposed to dreading irreversible rivalry.