Volledig verslag van de vergaderingen

Maandag 10 maart 2014 - Straatsburg

22. Prioriteiten voor de betrekkingen van de EU met de landen van het Oostelijk partnerschap (korte presentatie)

  Przewodniczący. - Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia jest sprawozdanie Pawła Roberta Kowala w imieniu Komisji Spraw Zagranicznych w sprawie oceny i wyznaczenia priorytetów w stosunkach UE z państwami Partnerstwa Wschodniego 2013/2149 (INI) (A7-0157/2014).

  Paweł Robert Kowal, sprawozdawca. - Panie Przewodniczący! Wyobrażaliśmy sobie, że debata ta będzie podsumowaniem, że będziemy mogli powiedzieć, co się udało w[nbsp ]Partnerstwie Wschodnim, co się nie udało podczas ostatnich pięciu lat, i że powiemy wspólnie, jakie zostawiamy przesłanie na przyszłość. To sprawozdanie było w[nbsp ]istocie pomyślane jako przesłanie (nie chciałbym powiedzieć, że jest to testament tej kadencji Parlamentu). Mieliśmy popatrzeć sobie w[nbsp ]oczy z[nbsp ]komisarzem Füle i pomyśleć o[nbsp ]tym, co zrobimy my, a co zrobią już ci, którzy przyjdą po nas.

Stało się inaczej. Historia zapisała nieco inaczej tę kartę po wydarzeniach na Ukrainie. Myślę, że tematy, które podejmujemy, nie są abstrakcją na przyszłość, nie są życzeniem polityków, nie są naszym marzeniem, ale są koniecznością działania. I[nbsp ]to sprawia, że sprawozdanie, które miało pokazać tylko ogólne kierunki, jest bardzo konkretną odpowiedzią na to, co się dzieje dzisiaj.

Pierwsza rzecz, która rzuca się w oczy – nasze działanie w[nbsp ]sferze prawnej wobec naszych partnerów na Wschodzie zadecyduje o tym, czy im się uda.

Nasza zdolność do podpisania umowy stowarzyszeniowej nie tylko z[nbsp ]Ukrainą, ale także do podpisania tej umowy z[nbsp ]Gruzją i[nbsp ]z[nbsp ]Mołdawią, zadecydują o tym, czy to hasło, sformułowanie „Partnerstwo Wschodnie”, zapisze się w historii pozytywnie czy negatywnie.

Nie pozostało nam już dużo czasu, widzimy, co się dzieje na Krymie, wiemy, że podobne działania od dłuższego czasu podejmowane były przez naszego wielkiego sąsiada także w[nbsp ]Mołdawii i[nbsp ]w[nbsp ]Gruzji. Wiemy, jak duża może być cena zaniechania. Dlatego mówimy: trzeba podpisać umowę teraz, to sprawozdanie do tego nawołuje, ponieważ nasi partnerzy na Wschodzie muszą dostać podstawę prawną do rozwijania współpracy z[nbsp ]nami, do przyjmowania pomocy finansowej, do podejmowania współpracy finansowej, do walki z korupcją.

Dzisiaj można obrać za przykład premiera Jaceniuka: może się on okazać Balcerowiczem dla Ukrainy, może być tym człowiekiem, któremu pomożemy i[nbsp ]zmieni Ukrainę. Ale pamiętamy, że w 1917 roku była rewolucja lutowa i[nbsp ]po niej przyszedł świetny liberalny polityk książę Lwow. Jeżeli my nie pomożemy Jaceniukowi, jeżeli nie pomożemy dzisiaj rządowi Gruzji i[nbsp ]Mołdawii, może ich czekać los księcia Lwowa: ludzie nie będą ufali ani im, ani nam. My możemy dać im tę wiarygodność.

Druga sprawa fundamentalna: zbudowanie elity na przyszłość. To powinno być naszym przesłaniem, stąd pomysł uniwersytetu Partnerstwa Wschodniego, stąd pomysł specjalnego kolegium, które kształciłoby we wspólnym oddziaływaniu profesorów i[nbsp ]studentów z[nbsp ]dzisiejszych krajów Unii Europejskiej i[nbsp ]z[nbsp ]tej drugiej części Europy, która nie jest w Unii Europejskiej: Gruzji, Armenii, Białorusi, Ukrainy, Mołdawii, ludzi, którzy czytaliby te same książki, którzy rozmawialiby na[nbsp ]te same tematy i[nbsp ]którzy byliby przyszłością, kiedy Unia Europejska będzie obejmowała już nie tylko pół kontynentu, ale całość. Naszą polityczną perspektywą jest powiedzenie ludziom na Wschodzie: tak, Wasze miejsce jako obywateli, jako ludzi cieszących się wszystkimi prawami jest tam, gdzie my dzisiaj jesteśmy. Nie możemy tego zrobić dzisiaj, ale możemy się do tego dobrze przygotować. I[nbsp ]dlatego potrzebujemy wykształcić sieć ludzi, którzy podobnie myślą, którzy potrafią ze sobą rozmawiać i[nbsp ]współdziałać i[nbsp ]rozumieć się niezależnie od tego, czy Pan Bóg pozwolił im się urodzić na wschodzie, czy na zachodzie Europy.

Kolejną sprawą jest energia. Dzisiaj nasi partnerzy na Wschodzie znajdują się w[nbsp ]kleszczach zobowiązań i porozumień sprzed lat. My, oddziałując na dywersyfikację źródeł energii, na dostawy energii, możemy dać im wolność konieczną do działania.

Panie Komisarzu, pewnie nie będzie już wielu okazji do debaty, więc dodam, że myślę, że był to dobry czas naszej współpracy. Omawiane sprawozdanie w[nbsp ]jakimś stopniu ją zamyka. Myślę, że rozstajemy się w[nbsp ]poczuciu, że trzeba zrobić podczas tej sesji i podczas kolejnych wszystko, co w naszej mocy, żeby tym, którzy stali na Majdanie, którzy czekają w[nbsp ]Tbilisi, w[nbsp ]Kiszyniowie i[nbsp ]wielu miejscach na Wschodzie, dać nadzieję, że kiedyś będziemy razem w Unii Europejskiej, a teraz musimy odrobić nasze zadanie.

Dziękuję bardzo.

Pytania z sali

  Dubravka Šuica (PPE). - Gospodine predsjedniče, nadam se da će ovo biti samo jedno od izvješća, budući da ćemo ovaj tjedan još govoriti o Ukrajini i stvarno, kao što je rekao gospodin izvjestitelj, razvoj situacije u Ukrajini nas je malo demantirao i izazvao drugačiji tijek ovog izvješća.

Uzastopna proširenja u Europskoj uniji su dovela do situacije da se sigurnost, stabilnost i blagostanje zemalja istočnog partnerstva javljaju kao sve važniji čimbenik u Uniji. Partnerstvo koje nudi Unija temelji se na njihovoj vlastitoj političkoj volji, ali se ipak pokazalo kao nedovoljan pokretač promjena i reformi, usprkos jasnim europskim težnjama naroda zemalja istočnog partnerstva.

Smatram da treba jačati multilateralnu dimenziju istočnog partnerstva, zbog samog partnerstva, zbog poticanja klime suradnje, prijateljstva i dobrosusjedskih odnosa, dakle trebaju se podupirati ciljevi političkog pridruživanja, a posebno gospodarske integracije i treba uspostaviti međuljudske kontakte, voditi računa o demokratskim reformama, ali uz pomoć bogatog iskustva koje imaju europske države i koje smo i mi prošli u postupku uspostavljanja demokratskih sistema.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). - Gospodine predsjedniče, podržavam sve strategije i politike koje imaju za cilj jačanje demokratskih kapaciteta i stabilizaciju zemalja iz našeg susjedstva. Zemlje Istočnoga partnerstva važne su za Europsku uniju i njihov nam je napredak od neprocjenjive vrijednosti. Približavanje Uniji je težak i mukotrpan proces, naročito za države s komunističkom, totalitarnom prošlošću.

Kao zastupnica iz Hrvatske jako dobro znam s koliko se izazova suočava društvo, impregniranom komunističkom ostavštinom u procesu usvajanja onih vrijednosti koje danas nazivamo zapadnima i na kojima se ova Zajednica temelji. Unija neće pomoći zemljama Istočnoga partnerstva tako što će ih staviti u službu svoje vanjske politike i odmjeravanja snaga s Rusijom u toj regiji. Pomoći će im prije svega ako principijelno nastavi braniti njihov suverenitet i teritorijalni integritet. Paralelno s tim potrebno ih je poticati na jačanje unutarnjeg kapaciteta i ispunjavanje strogih i objektivnih uvjeta, kako bi jednog dana te države bile potpuno spremne za pridruživanje Uniji.

  Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). - Gospodine predsjedniče, pozdravljam izvjestitelja, pozdravljam i povjerenika koji u ovim kasnim satima zastupa poglede Europske komisije. Ja bih se složio s kolegom Kowalom da su promijenjene okolnosti doista promijenile i svrhu ovoga izvješća. Ja ću biti vrlo kratak.

Naravno da je politika prema Istočnome partnerstvu prvenstveno bila namijenjena da bi se zemlje iz Istočnoga partnerstva politički i gospodarski tješnje vezale za Europsku uniju. Mislim da nam svi ovi događaji u Ukrajini prvenstveno pokazuju da je i ubuduće potrebno staviti naglasak naravno i na te mehanizme, ali isto tako i na obveze Europske unije u političkoj i gospodarskoj potpori zemljama Istočnoga partnerstva. Zato bih se složio s izvjestiteljem, sada je vrijeme ne toliko za riječi nego i za konkretne mjere.

  Маруся Любчева (S&D). - Г-н Председател, с приемането на този доклад трябва да покажем зрелостта на хора, които умеят да учат уроците от ситуациите, през които преминават. Източното партньорство е поставено на изпитание, защото само някои от страните са негови ясни привърженици и при тях не сме свидетели на някаква неудовлетвореност или колебание.

Това са европейски страни. Съвсем естествено е да се стремят към общите европейски ценности. Проблемът е в това дали и доколко Европейският съюз ще съумее да използва потенциала за интеграция в икономически, социален, морален за гражданите на тези страни аспект, при запазване на тяхното етническо, езиково, културно разнообразие и суверенитет. Без революционен ентусиазъм.

С източното партньорство имаме шанс да преодолеем поне част от проблемите, които успяхме да генерираме в отношенията с Украйна. Нека потърсим по-дълбоко сътрудничество в областта на образованието и гражданското сътрудничество. Именно изпитанията, пред които ни поставиха отношенията с Украйна, трябва да направят нашите послания по-ясни, по-конкретни, по-точни към страните от Източното партньорство, което трябва да се превърне в партньорство от взаимен интерес.

(Koniec pytań z sali)

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. - Mr President, thank you very much for giving me the floor. Dear Paweł, I actually came here to reinforce the messages in your report. I agree with you that a different chapter has been written on Ukraine – or is being written. At the same time, I am on your side in saying that the messages which are reflected in your report are important and relevant, and – if I may – I will reinforce some of them and add those that I also consider important. I would like to do so in three parts.

The first part I would like to address is the Eastern Partnership in general. Here I would like to make the following points. Firstly, it is important that we remind you all that the goal of this special partnership is to try to help our partners to deliver on their own ambitions. Ownership of reforms matters. Secondly, it is important to remind our partners, and also ourselves from time to time, that the most important thing is to make the best use of all the instruments, of which there are many.

Your report actually lists them all: from the bilateral to the multilateral dimension, sectoral cooperation, the means of interaction – both formal and informal. This is the kind of unique partnership where we have summits on one side and informal ministerial meetings combined with sectoral cooperation on the other.

The third point – and here I also agree with you, because your report has quite rightly stressed this point – is that we need to combine inclusivity with differentiation. This means that we need to make an effort so that all of our partners are engaged, and that we find a framework within the broad Eastern Partnership for all of them.

The last point would be stating the obvious: the Eastern Partnership is not a straitjacket, and the only non-negotiable issue is that of the values and principles underpinning our partnership. But we also have, among our Eastern Partners, countries which have committed to much deeper reforms, which have asked for a closer relationship, and which have agreed with our reactions to those calls for a political association and economic integration. I am talking about Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, and also about an association agreement including a deep and comprehensive free trade area.

Let me make seven short remarks. At this time, all of us are often ready to look back to the past and to make judgements on what was right and on what went wrong. I think that this element of objectivity, which I also appreciated very much in your report, is important.

Point number one is that the association agreement – and whenever I say association agreement, I also mean the DCFTA – has strengthened the capacity of our partners to make sovereign decisions. I think this should actually be our primary goal.

Point number two is that it respects the traditional relations which our partners have with their neighbours. I would make the argument that it helps to promote such relations rather than the other way round.

Point number three is that we offer not only a blueprint for reforms but also a comprehensive and genuine partnership. It is combination of political association and economic integration, and it is accompanied by the rule of law, the fundamental freedoms, and other value-based elements which are so important for any reforms to be fully implemented.

Point number four is that we are proposing what has already worked before: the Eastern Partnership and the association agreements are not a laboratory; we are not testing; we are not experimenting. I recall one clear example which you will probably like: Poland and Ukraine in the 1990s. If I look at the GDP per capita, it was more or less the same, but then Poland concluded a free trade agreement of the same type which we offered to our partners. A couple of years after that, Poland’s GDP per capita grew by a factor of four. It doubled in the case of Poland and halved in the case of Ukraine. This is what we offer, and this is important to recall.

Point number five is that we work not only with authorities but also with others – particularly with civil society – and that this makes reforms more viable. Point number six is that when our partners become victims of undue external pressures, we stand firmly on the side of our partners and mobilise all instruments of solidarity if needed.

Point number seven: let me make the point emphatically that our polices are contributing, in the long run, to the creation of a free trade zone stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok. To say the opposite – to say that what we offer is actually a choice between Brussels and Moscow, between the West and the East – is propaganda. It comes from those who, while ignoring our previous invitation for dialogue on these issues, have imposed military measures on their neighbours. It is ironic that it is this week that we will have the first bilateral group with the Russian Federation to address what one might call their difficulties with the overall concept, trying to make it clear that they have nothing to fear.

But let me end with a point on Ukraine. You have said that there are indeed going to be many discussions on this issue this week here in Strasbourg. Let me just briefly recall what has been underlined by the Member States in the past week, namely that we have strongly condemned Russia’s unprovoked violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Other steps to destabilise the situation in Ukraine would lead to additional and far-reaching consequences for our relations on a broad range of issues, and we hope that things will not reach that stage.

We firmly believe that the problem should be solved through dialogue. That brings me to the last point. Some of our partners have clearly-defined European aspirations. We have been looking for too long for a way to reflect on this and to respond to it. The last ordinary Foreign Affairs Council that debated Ukraine decided that the association agreement was not the final goal of cooperation with Ukraine. This is an important development, because it is only within the spirit of Article 49 of the Lisbon Treaty that we will be able to take full advantage of the association agreement.

I thank you very much for this debate, and I thank you even more for this important report.

  Przewodniczący. - Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się w środę 12 marca 2014 r. o godz. 12.00.