Texto integral 
Relato integral dos debates
Terça-feira, 12 de Junho de 2018 - Estrasburgo Edição revista

10. Acordo nuclear com o Irão (debate)
Vídeo das intervenções

  President. – The next item is the debate on the statement by the Vice—President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the Iran nuclear agreement (2018/2715(RSP)).


  Federica Mogherini, Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, I believe it is very timely that we are discussing the nuclear deal with Iran just today. You know that just a few hours ago the United States and the DPRK ended their summit in Singapore. Today’s summit between the two proves that diplomacy and dialogue are the only way forward, in this case towards lasting peace on the Korean peninsula and beyond.

Let me say that, in more general terms, this is a clear sign of the fact that the diplomatic track is often challenging, is often the most difficult one to be followed, but it is always the rewarding one and needs to be sustained over time. It was the same track that the international community and the European Union followed for over a decade with Iran, resulting in the signing, almost exactly three years ago, of the nuclear deal. We did it because it was in our security interest – our European security interest and the global security interest. Through this deal we prevented nuclear proliferation, we avoided a regional escalation and we made sure that Iran would never acquire a nuclear weapon – ever.

Three years on, the deal is delivering. Iran abides by its nuclear-related commitments, as has been confirmed 11 times by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the last time was just a few weeks ago. Our position as Europeans has not changed. On the contrary, we have seen the reasons why this agreement was a good agreement. We remain committed to the full and effective implementation of the nuclear deal with Iran.

What today is different is that on 8 May the United States took the unilateral decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear deal with Iran, which is a multilateral agreement unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council with resolution 2231.

The European Union reacted in an immediate and united manner, as also agreed at the top level by the Heads of State and Government of all European Union Member States, in Sofia, on 16 May and reconfirmed, just a couple of weeks ago, by the Foreign Ministers of the 28 Member States at our last Foreign Affairs Council. Since a month ago, the bulk of the international community has confirmed and reiterated the strong support for the nuclear agreement with Iran, simply for a very pragmatic reason – that there is no better alternative and the world cannot afford a nuclear arms race. In particular, I would add, the world cannot afford a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

This support from the rest of the international community is something I experience every single day in my meetings, be it with the Chinese Foreign Minister or the Japanese Foreign Minister or the African Union Chairman or our colleagues from Latin America or the rest of Europe that are not part of the European Union. This features always very high on the agenda. How can we partner together and make sure that the agreement stays in place. And, let me say, here the European Union has a responsibility also to share with partners around the world, which is how to maintain one of the few functioning pillars of the nuclear non—proliferation architecture.

This support was also reiterated by the other co—signatories of the nuclear agreement – France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia and China. We convened and we chaired, as the European Union, the first Joint Commission without the United States on 25 May in Vienna. The work on the implementation of nuclear—related commitments continues. This is essential for security. For instance, the Arak reactor modernisation project led by China continues, as does the conversion of the Fordow facility into a Nuclear Physics and Technology Centre, a project led by Russia. A dedicated workshop on Fordow is foreseen to take place later this week.

It is essential for our own security and for the security of the region that implementation work continues and we are guaranteeing that this happens, regardless of the US withdrawal. Implementation must continue, both on the nuclear commitments and also on the economic track, because the other essential part of the nuclear deal is the lifting of sanctions and the opportunities it creates for normalised trade and economic relations. From this perspective, the US decision to withdraw from the JCPOA and to re—impose all secondary sanctions is extremely problematic and needs to be addressed, first of all by the European Union, by its Member States, and by the rest of the international community at large. Many European companies have chosen to do business with Iran after the agreement was signed and are doing so in good faith, based on commitments made by the international community, as I said, based on the implementation of the UN Security Council resolution unanimously adopted. Some of them have already announced now that they would discontinue their engagement so as to avoid US penalties. Others have informed that they would withdraw from negotiations that had already started – leaving, by the way, the economic investment space to other players in the world, which also is not in the European interest. This has created, as you can imagine, and as you know, enormous pressure inside Iran, especially from those who have always opposed the agreement, and the credibility of the entire international community, of the multilateral system, of the UN system, is being questioned. The recent statements by Iran on uranium hexafluoride must be seen in this context. These announcements are clearly not a violation of the nuclear deal, but it is also clear they do not contribute to build confidence and they are meant to put pressure on the international community. The letter sent by President Rouhani to the Heads of State and Government of France, Germany and the UK is to be interpreted exactly in the same context.

It’s clear that our strategic and security interest is to save, to preserve this nuclear deal. We have reacted in a firm, decisive and united manner to protect at the same time our security interests, and let me say, in this way, our economic sovereignty. This is also an incentive, I would say the incentive, for Iran to continue to comply with its nuclear restrictions. Any other alternative could have tragic consequences and it would make us all less secure, with no exceptions.

As a first major step, last Wednesday, the European Commission adopted two delegated acts. The first is an update of the blocking statute, which forbids EU companies to comply with US secondary sanctions. The second is an extension of the lending mandate of the European Investment Bank to support economic activities in Iran. After a period of non—objection, both acts should enter into force on 5 August, just before the first batch of US sanctions takes effect on 6 August. The support of this Parliament to conclude both processes swiftly will be of the essence and extremely important, also as a political sign.

We are also working on concrete measures aimed at sustaining our cooperation in key economic sectors, particularly on banking and finance, trade and investment, oil and transport. In this work we keep a strong focus on small and medium—sized enterprises which are less engaged in the US market.

The most important challenge now is to find solutions on banking and finance, because legitimate trade and investment need banking partners and financial models that work. These issues are being addressed through intensive expert consultations, happening basically on a daily basis, including in Brussels and in Tehran last week, but also at the political level.

As I mentioned, we worked on this with EU Member States’ Foreign Ministers at the last Foreign Affairs Council. We focused in particular on the need to combine our work at EU level, with the two measures I just mentioned and the work that is ongoing at the expert level, with action from single Member States to protect national economic operators. This is the only way to be effective in this endeavour – to combine EU—level measures and national measures in a coordinated manner.

This is why we decided, and we have started to do so, to set up a network of national focal points of all EU Member States to further coordinate and intensify our work. This is essential to keep Iran in the nuclear agreement.

Of course, Iran also needs to do its part – and this is very clear – to improve its standards against money laundering and terrorist financing and step up banking reforms. These are essential steps to make Iran more attractive to European businesses and banks.

Last week, the Foreign and Finance Ministers of France, Germany and the UK, together with myself, wrote a letter to the US Secretaries of State and of the Treasury. We expressed our expectation that the extra—territorial effects of US secondary sanctions will not be enforced on EU entities and individuals, and that the United States respect the good faith of economic operators within EU legal territory, and we asked for a number of specific exemptions.

Let me be very clear. First of all, this is not an economic issue for Europe. This is a security issue for Europe, and the main thing is the nuclear non—proliferation efforts we’re making. Second, our determination to preserve the deal is also in the interests of the United States, because preserving the nuclear deal is essential to our common security, both for Europe, for the United States and for the entire Middle East, which might otherwise fall into a spiral of nuclear proliferation and of an even more dangerous level of conflictuality.

Think for one moment of the scenario without the nuclear agreement in place tomorrow and you’ll realise how dangerous this would be for all of us.

Preserving the nuclear deal is also essential to maintaining our unique and precious – even if difficult – channels of communication with Iran. The nuclear deal was never meant to solve or to address all issues in our relations with Iran. On the contrary, at the very beginning, meaning some 15 years ago now, that the purpose of the agreement would have been limited to only nuclear issues. Like it or not, that was the mandate the High Representative at that time received from the UN Security Council, and this is the mandate that was fulfilled.

Having a nuclear deal in place with Iran has opened up a window to address other issues that are not nuclear—related and that are there and that are our issues of concern as much as they are American issues of concern. They are outside the scope of the nuclear deal; they always have been. They need to be addressed. We believe that they can be better addressed on the basis of maintaining the nuclear deal with Iran, rather than on the basis of destroying it.

I’ll give you a couple of examples of small windows that have opened up in our dialogue and political talks with Iran on issues that are not related to the nuclear ones. We have had the opportunity to discuss ballistic missiles, regional issues and human rights in the EU—Iran high level political dialogue and in other meetings – quite a unique formation, especially for the West.

I’ll be very clear, we have serious issues with Iran’s behaviour and stance in those fields. This is no mystery – either for us, or for them – but they are not linked to the nuclear agreement implementation and they would not be easier to deal with at all without the nuclear deal in place. On the contrary, let me say by experience that during all the years of negotiations of the nuclear deal anything else that was not nuclear—related was basically off the table. Once you keep and consolidate the nuclear deal with Iran and make its survival beyond question, then the space opens up to deal with other issues.

We are addressing these issues in their own right, in direct contacts such as on Yemen. On this, I would like to share with you that we have set up a regional dialogue with Iran, chaired by us, by the European Union, with the participation of France, Germany, Italy and the UK. So far this dialogue has focused on Yemen and it has already delivered one step that was important – helping organise the visit of the UN special envoy Mr Griffiths to Sana’a at the beginning of June, to meet with the Houthi leadership. We will discuss further steps of this work exactly with the special envoy of the United Nations at the next Foreign Affairs Council to see how we can use our channels to try and make the work to solve the Yemen crisis more effective.

If the nuclear deal collapsed, it would also be much more difficult to address our non—nuclear concerns that we have. The current tensions on the nuclear deal have already narrowed the space for discussing all the other issues and we believe it is in nobody’s interest to close the channels that currently remain open. Again, the only outcome would be to give more space to those in the region, including in Iran, that argue for more radical positions.

Our position on the Iran nuclear deal is based on our principles and it is based on pragmatism. The nuclear deal makes Europe more secure and prevents a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It brings economic benefits to the people of Iran, and it should continue to do so, and it opens precious new channels – albeit difficult ones, as I said – for diplomacy and dialogue.

This is why we are determined to preserve the nuclear deal and prevent a new escalation of tensions in an already troubled region and world, because Europe and the world cannot afford wasting all of this.


  David McAllister, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Ich möchte zunächst Ihnen, verehrte Frau Mogherini, herzlich danken für die umfassende Darstellung der Lage und auch persönlich danken – ich glaube im Namen aller Abgeordneten, die sich für auswärtige Angelegenheiten in diesem Parlament interessieren – für Ihr ganz persönliches Engagement in dieser überaus wichtigen Frage.

Wir sind uns sicherlich alle einig in diesem Hause: Das Iran-Abkommen war nie perfekt, das muss uns allen bewusst sein. Dennoch bleibt es der richtige Weg, um einen nuklear bewaffneten Iran zu verhindern, wie Sie das eben gerade dargelegt haben. Und dass es nach Angaben der Internationalen Atomenergiebehörde „keine glaubwürdigen Hinweise“ auf ein iranisches Atomwaffenprogramm nach 2009 gibt, ist eben vor allen diesem Abkommen zu verdanken. Deshalb ist die amerikanische Entscheidung so schwer nachzuvollziehen.

Aber ich möchte noch einen Punkt machen: Die innen- und außenpolitische Rolle des Irans bleibt weiter höchst problematisch. Frau Mogherini, Sie haben das gerade eben angesprochen: Die massiven Menschenrechtsverstöße, das ballistische Raketenprogramm, die destabilisierende Rolle in Ländern wie Irak, Syrien oder Jemen, die Unterstützung der Hisbollah im Libanon und nicht zuletzt auch die aggressiven Bedrohungen gegenüber Israel sind für uns inakzeptabel, und wir wünschen uns, Frau Hohe Vertreterin, dass diese Probleme weiterhin auf allen politischen Ebenen offen und unmissverständlich angesprochen werden. Dabei haben Sie die Unterstützung des Europäischen Parlaments verdient.


  Victor Boştinaru, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I will start by saying that there is nothing strategic in dismantling our common EU—USA achievements throughout history, dismantling the multilateral rule-based system or calling into question the high value of multilateral diplomatic victories.

For the sake of clarity, the Iran deal required the country to eliminate 98% of its uranium stockpile, dismantle and seal two thirds of its centrifuges, cap uranium enrichment at levels well below weapons grade and remove the core of its plutonium reactor. Today the sweeping inspections regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency certifies that Iran is complying with all its commitments. Yes, the deal is key for nuclear non—proliferation and should be kept in place as long as possible. This is key for global peace and security and is in the interests of the international community, including the USA and Iran.

The credibility of the USA negotiating future nuclear agreements, notably the one with North Korea is now at stake. Today, after the summit between President Trump and President Kim Jong—un I can only hope that the North Korean deal will be as ambitious as the Iranian one. At the same time, this is to protect European companies in the light of the reintroduction of American sanctions.

Thus, the S&D Group welcomes the Commission proposal to activate the blocking statute. It goes without saying that the dialogue with the United States should continue. Nevertheless, in order to address separate issues, such as Iran’s presence in Syria and its support for the bloody Assad regime and the development of ballistic missiles, in parallel we call on the EU to take all necessary measures to ensure tangible economic benefits for Iran.

Finally, we are living in turbulent times. It is therefore key for the European Union to stand firm and unite in the face of this challenge.


  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, the signing of the JCPOA with Iran in 2015 was a breakthrough to halt the march towards nuclear proliferation in an unstable region. According to the IAEA’s verification and monitoring programme, although the limits were probed and are being probed, no outright violations have been detected to date. I would like also to take the opportunity to acknowledge the role of Baroness Ashton and the role of the European External Action Service in bringing the deal to fruition back in 2015.

President Trump’s decision, therefore, to pull out now and risk unravelling this finely-tuned agreement is baffling. It sends all the wrong signals to the other wannabe nuclear states, including the DPRK. The remaining EU signatories have a vital role now. On the one hand, the US must be persuaded that the deal is still our best tool against nuclear proliferation, and on the other hand, Iran must be encouraged to continue to meet all its obligations. Finding ways to financially protect the European Union companies doing business with Iran will indeed be challenging.

In Europe, of course we do not share common values with the Iranian Government. There are still other major issues of concern to be addressed, such as the Iranian ballistic missile programme, its involvement in proxy wars in the region, gross human rights violations and supporting terrorism, but we must not let one poorly-advised anti-multilateralist president destroy an agreement that has, at its heart, the desire to maintain a more peaceful world. I am very grateful that brexiting Britain is backing the European Union, not its traditional ‘special relationship’ partner, the United States, on this very important issue.


  Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, after the G7, President Trump left not a millimetre of doubt about his opposition to his main allies. Anyone who was not yet convinced now knows the EU needs foreign and security autonomy. Our strength is tested in the process of keeping the spirit of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) alive. The EU has chosen, with international partners, to bind and verify Iran’s nuclear programme through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and our part of the deal is lifting sanctions.

Of course, we are committed to peace, diplomatic solutions and, first and foremost, that which we ourselves have signed up for. So to have this policy autonomy is key. Certainly, to have the US choose to abandon one of the biggest diplomatic successes at times where these are few and with so much at stake is enough for us to absorb, and so we simply cannot accept that Washington spells out which sanctions our European companies are bound by. I would be interested in what is possible to mitigate US extra territoriality without pushing private-sector risks into public institutions.

At the same time, our autonomy must be clear in Tehran. Iranian leaders cannot and must not dictate what we in Europe should do. Iran itself must build confidence that they are committed to their part of the deal if they expect us to try and work hard to absorb the challenge of the US stepping back. I’m interested to learn a bit more about how conversations with China and Russia are going, because the spotlight is so much on us.

In previous debates, I have made clear that I believe that we have lost too much time focusing only on Iran’s nuclear programme and not on the country’s toxic role in the Middle East as well as the systematic human rights violations against the Iranian people. I urge you to make sure the EU has a broad agenda in relation to Iran and not to be trapped in the single issue of saving the deal, however important that may be.


  Klaus Buchner, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Auch ich möchte mich sehr herzlich bei Ihnen für Ihr Engagement und für die Dinge bedanken, die Sie bereits jetzt erreicht haben, Hohe Vertreterin. Wenn Europa dem Willen von Präsident Trump folgt und ebenfalls die Sanktionen gegen den Iran wieder anwendet, dann wird der Iran die Produktion von Atomwaffen wieder aufnehmen, und ein nukleares Wettrüsten im Nahen Osten wird beginnen. Denn wenn der Iran über Atomwaffen verfügt, dann lässt sich sein Erzfeind Saudi-Arabien sicher nicht davon abhalten, ebenfalls welche zu beschaffen. Und Saudi-Arabien wäre sicher nicht das einzige Land, das einerseits nach der Bombe greift und andererseits Terroristen unterstützt. Das müssen wir mit allen Mitteln verhindern.

Europa muss sich gegen Donald Trump durchsetzen, der alle Firmen bestrafen will, die mit Iran Handel treiben. Unsere beste Maßnahme dagegen ist eine alte Verordnung, die Sie, Hohe Vertreterin, bereits erwähnt haben: die Blocking-Verordnung, die den europäischen Firmen hilft, die mit dem Iran Handel treiben wollen. Durch diese Verordnung werden alle Firmen entschädigt, die wegen ihres Handels mit dem Iran ihre Aktivitäten in den USA nicht mehr durchführen können. Es bleibt uns keine andere Wahl, als die von Ihnen vorgeschlagenen Maßnahmen zu treffen. Der Handel zwischen Europa und dem Iran darf nicht gestoppt werden. Ich erwarte, dass das Europäische Parlament und auch der Ministerrat Ihnen schon im Vorhinein zustimmen und signalisieren, dass diese Maßnahmen bestätigt werden, denn alles andere würde eine tödliche Bedrohung für uns alle bedeuten.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)


  Paul Rübig (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Kollege Buchner, wir alle sind daran interessiert, dass sich die Wirtschaftsbeziehungen Europas mit allen Ländern dieser Welt so positiv wie möglich entwickeln. Wir haben dafür ja auch die WTO und den Appellate Body und wir bemühen uns wirklich, nicht nur multilateral, sondern auch plurilateral die Dinge in die richtige Richtung zu bringen. Glauben Sie, dass es möglich ist, auch mit Iran hier eine dementsprechende Grundlage zu schaffen, dass unsere Betriebe, dass die Wirtschaft sich gerade dort mit den kleinen und mittleren Betrieben zusammenfinden kann und auch auf beiden Seiten für eine friedliche Lösung sein wird?


  Klaus Buchner (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer. – Yes, I think it is possible. We have already started some business and the point is not the money transfer, which is already possible now. The point is what you, High Representative, have mentioned, namely that European banks also give loans and that the usual business with money transfers works. So the answer is yes.


  Cornelia Ernst, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich habe ziemlich lange überlegt, was ich jetzt sage. Denn einerseits sendet Präsident Trump Zeichen zur Beendigung des Krieges und zur Denuklearisierung auf der koreanischen Halbinsel, was wir natürlich begrüßen, und andererseits kündigt er einen Vertrag zur Denuklearisierung mit dem Iran. Er unterzeichnet eine Erklärung des G7-Gipfels, um sich wenige Minuten später davon loszutwittern. Er tanzt vergnügt mit dem saudischen Despoten beim Staatsbesuch in Riad und beschimpft die Länder, die ihm nicht passen, als Drecksländer. Die US-amerikanische Außenpolitik ist unberechenbar geworden und damit auch beliebig. Die Vereinigten Staaten sind als seriöser Partner nur noch schemenhaft wahrnehmbar, und ihre Führungsrolle, auf die sie immer wieder pochen, haben sie längst verloren.

Wir müssen die UNO stärken und dürfen nicht wie das Kaninchen vor der Schlange hocken und hoffen, dass sie nicht zubeißt. Es ist längst der Zeitpunkt gekommen, eigene Wege konsequent zu gehen, sich auf die eigenen Kräfte zu besinnen, die Dinge zu tun, die getan werden müssen. Das Iran-Atomabkommen muss erhalten werden.

Eine weitere Eskalation im Nahen und Mittleren Osten kann in dieser wichtigen Region einen Flächenbrand auslösen und auch die Hoffnung so vieler Menschen zerstören. Das wollen wir nicht. Frieden – lassen Sie mich das abschließend sagen – und nur Frieden macht es möglich, Wirtschaft zu entwickeln, Korruption zu bekämpfen, die Lage von Menschen zu verbessern und Menschenrechte wirksam zu verteidigen. Gehen wir diesen Weg!


  Fabio Massimo Castaldo, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, gentile Alto rappresentante, guardati dal nemico ma dall'amico guardati cento volte. Questo aforisma calza a pennello alla complicata situazione che si è creata a seguito della decisione americana di ritirarsi unilateralmente dall'accordo sul nucleare iraniano.

Questo ha portato la Commissione ad estendere il mandato della BEI all'Iran per supportare le nostre imprese e a rispolverare il cosiddetto statuto di blocco, che proibisce alle compagnie europee di adeguarsi alle sanzioni extraterritoriali statunitensi. Questa partita a scacchi rappresenta un problema tanto grande quanto complesso. Nonostante l'Unione e gli Stati membri abbiano a più riprese affermato il nostro supporto all'accordo, con la conferma delle sanzioni secondarie verrebbero meno gli incentivi economici per l'Iran, che infatti ha minacciato di uscire a sua volta.

Credo, che la decisione statunitense di lasciare unilateralmente l'accordo rappresenti un errore storico e sono fermamente convinto che sia nostro dovere fare tutto il possibile per salvaguardarlo, nonostante gli strumenti a disposizione forse non siano ancora sufficienti per l'arduo compito.

Voglio fare un ultimo appello al Presidente Trump: sediamoci assieme e, partendo dall'attuale base, che è appunto l'accordo stesso, un accordo che sta funzionando, cominciamo i negoziati per ampliarlo, venendo incontro alle vostre preoccupazioni. Come gesto di buona fede, però, gli Stati Uniti rinuncino quantomeno ad applicare le sanzioni secondarie alle compagnie europee.

Se dovessimo fallire assisteremo ad un precedente pericolosissimo, non solo per l'ulteriore destabilizzazione e l'escalation nella regione, ma perché si renderebbe evidente che gli Stati Uniti in primis e l'Occidente tutto non sono più partner affidabili nel mantenere la parola data. Ne va della nostra sicurezza, come lei ha detto, e non solo del nostro commercio.

Cari colleghi, la fiducia si guadagna goccia a goccia, ma si perde a litri. È essenziale che su questo dossier non ci siano spaccature tra noi, e agli alleati statunitensi dico: attenzione ad abbandonare il multilateralismo in favore di confronti bilaterali, può essere un'arma a doppio taglio anche per voi. Come dice un antico proverbio persiano, "se il gatto e il topo trovano l'accordo, il droghiere è rovinato".


  Mario Borghezio, a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ho l'impressione che di fronte a una realtà oggettiva, cioè, piaccia o non piaccia, che l'accordo nucleare con l'Iran è appeso a un filo, la risposta dell'Europa appaia, come dire, opaca.

Vi è stata la lettera siglata da Francia, Germania, Gran Bretagna e dalla signora Mogherini per l'Unione europea, con la quale di fatto si è un po' supplicato gli Stati Uniti di esentare le imprese europee dalle conseguenze delle sanzioni. Ho sentito anche in quest'Aula parlare e insistere, giustamente e polemicamente, su questo concetto dell'extraterritorialità americana.

Ma quando mai è stata ostacolata in precedenza? E quando mai, nel corso delle numerose occasioni nelle quali abbiamo commentato e generalmente è stato esaltato questo accordo, si è previsto lo scenario – bisogna sempre prevedere un piano B – che improvvisamente questo accordo potesse essere vanificato? E quale sarebbe stato il risultato per le nostre imprese? Si dice che si vorranno tutelare le piccole e medie imprese, ma quelle che vanno ad affrontare i lavori e le grandi conseguenze, in un paese come l'Iran non propriamente tranquillo, sono le grandi imprese e queste stanno scappando tutte.

Quello che non si dice chiaramente, in questo dibattito, da parte della signora Mogherini, è che scappano tutte, se ne vanno via tutte, quelle dell'auto, quelle del petrolio, disegnando uno scenario molto pericoloso per l'Iran, soprattutto, e quindi per le conseguenze di geopolitica e anche di sicurezza molto pericolose per tutto il mondo.


  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η συμφωνία για το πυρηνικό πρόγραμμα του Ιράν αποτελεί αναμφίβολα την μεγαλύτερη ίσως επιτυχία της εξωτερικής πολιτικής της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως, διότι, πέραν του ελέγχου του πυρηνικού προγράμματος αλλά και των δραστηριοτήτων του Ιράν, έθεσε τις βάσεις για την ειρηνική επίλυση του προβλήματος της Μέσης Ανατολής και παράλληλα έδωσε και την δυνατότητα εμπορικών σχέσεων με το Ιράν. Μεγάλες εταιρείες, όπως η Airbus και η Τotal, έχουν συνάψει εμπορικές συμφωνίες, αυξήθηκε και ενισχύθηκε η οικονομία της χώρας, αυξήθηκαν κατά 700 000 οι θέσεις εργασίας και το Ιράν διέθεσε ένα μέρος των κονδυλίων για την αντιμετώπιση της τρομοκρατίας.

Για όλους τους παραπάνω λόγους η απόφαση του Προέδρου Trump να αποχωρήσουν οι ΗΠΑ μονομερώς από τη συμφωνία εγκυμονεί κινδύνους. Κατ’ αρχάς το Ιράν απειλεί ότι θα αποχωρήσει και αυτό μονομερώς από κάποια άλλη συμφωνία που έχει υπογράψει με άλλες χώρες και θα επαναλάβει σε εθνικό πλαίσιο το πυρηνικό πρόγραμμα, ενώ πρόσφατα ανακοίνωσε την επιθυμία του να αποκτήσει δυνατότητες για τον εμπλουτισμό ουρανίου. Επιπλέον υπάρχει κίνδυνος να επαναληφθούν οι συγκρούσεις των ναυτικών δυνάμεων των ΗΠΑ και του Ιράν στον Περσικό Κόλπο.


  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Haute Représentante, l’accord nucléaire iranien est, on le sait tous, un pilier de l’architecture globale de sécurité et une réalisation importante de la diplomatie européenne que vous dirigez.

Lors de la mission AFET/DROI qui s’est rendue à Téhéran en février, j’ai pu mesurer l’inquiétude de nos interlocuteurs iraniens par rapport au changement de la politique américaine, parce que eux, à l’époque, étaient déjà convaincus que Trump allait faire ce qu’il a fait.

Nous avons essayé d’assurer à nos interlocuteurs iraniens que l’Europe allait œuvrer pour préserver cet accord et ce que vous faites et ce que les ministres des affaires étrangères font.

Mais j’ai également retenu l’insatisfaction de nos interlocuteurs iraniens quant à nous Européens. J’ai été choqué par leurs critiques, notamment pour ce qui est des retombées économiques: ils nous reprochent, ils vous reprochent qu’elles ne soient pas là, et on a dû vous défendre, Madame la Haute Représentante.

Ce qui m’inquiète, c’est qu’ils continuent à faire cela, et ils continuent à dire des choses qui ne sont pas toujours dans la philosophie politique de cet accord.

Récemment, l’ayatollah Khamenei a parlé de l’augmentation de la capacité nucléaire iranienne dans le cadre de l’accord, ce qui est tout à fait inacceptable.

Je termine en disant que je suis content de ce vous avez dit concernant la possibilité de discuter sur les droits de l’homme. Mais j’aimerais voir aussi des résultats concrets.

Nous avons discuté la dernière fois, ici, de nouveau du cas d’Ahmadreza Djalali. C’est un citoyen qui a aussi la nationalité suédoise et j’aimerais le voir libéré...

(le Président retire la parole à l’orateur)


  Knut Fleckenstein (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Frau Mogherini, wir begrüßen Ihre klare Haltung und die klare Haltung der Kommission, inklusive des Mandats für die Europäische Investitionsbank und inklusive der wieder in Kraft gesetzten Blocking Verordnung. Ich will nicht alles wiederholen, was schon gesagt worden ist. Der Iran hat sich an seine Abmachungen gehalten, die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika haben es nicht. Sie sind einseitig ausgeschieden, und falls sie die Sanktionen wirklich verhängen sollten, haben sie einen Vertragsbruch beziehungsweise Bruch internationaler Regeln in Kauf genommen.

Ich halte das nach wie vor für völlig verantwortungslos. Die Sicherheit in dieser Region hat viel mit unserer Sicherheit zu tun. Und wenn der Iran seine Vorteile nicht erhält, warum sollte er sich an seinen Teil der Abmachung halten? Das wird eine Gefahr für uns alle werden, weil Saudi-Arabien angekündigt hat, was dann geschieht; Israel hat es auch. Diese Gefahr für uns alle dürfen wir nicht einfach hinnehmen, nur weil ein Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten keinen Respekt vor seinen Alliierten mehr hat.

Lassen Sie mich eine Bemerkung machen, die mir auch sehr wichtig ist. Ich glaube, dass wir noch einmal unsere Partner im Iran drängen sollten, dass wir endlich auch eine Mission der EU im Iran aufmachen können. Es wird nicht durch uns blockiert, wenn ich das richtig verstanden habe, sondern es wird bisher durch Teheran blockiert. Wenn wir vertieft zusammenarbeiten wollen, dann muss es manchmal auch schnell gehen und auf einem direkten Wege. Und deshalb wäre eine solche Mission der EU in Teheran exakt das Richtige.


  Anders Primdahl Vistisen (ECR). – Hr. formand! Atomaftalen med Iran var fra begyndelsen problematisk. Problematisk, fordi den amerikanske præsident, der indgik den, udmærket godt vidste, at den ikke kunne ratificeres demokratisk i senatet i USA. Derfor står vi nu i nøjagtig samme situation, som i forhold til Paris-klimaaftalen, at det er den til enhver tid siddende præsidents prærogativ at beslutte, om man vil overholde eller forlade aftalen. Ud over det er der den helt fundamentale problemstilling omkring aftalen med Iran, at den ikke tager de mange aspekter af iransk problematisk adfærd med. Vi taler her om udvikling af ballistiske missiler, om en situation, hvor Iran spreder terror både i Mellemøsten og i Europa. Helt grundlæggende er aftalen derfor ikke god og grundig nok. Derfor kan man selvfølgelig godt sidde, som mange gør her, og beklage, at amerikanerne har trukket sig fra aftalen. Vi kunne også prøve at finde en mere konstruktiv model, hvor vi rent faktisk - sammen med amerikanerne - finder en måde til at inddæmme den skadelige iranske indflydelse, både i regionen og i resten af verden.


  Javier Nart (ALDE). – Señor presidente, hago mías todas las palabras de usted, señora Mogherini. Ha sido impecable, correcta y ha hecho un análisis impecable de toda la situación.

Cuando estuvimos en Teherán hablando con Ali Akbar Velayati, dijo una cosa que era muy evidente: «Nosotros respetamos el acuerdo si el acuerdo nos respeta a nosotros». Y, en consecuencia, si somos capaces de cumplir el intercambio entre la seguridad nuclear con la multiseguridad y el desarrollo. Si somos incapaces de asegurar el desarrollo porque Estados Unidos a través de su presión económica, del control estratégico que tiene de los movimientos financieros, lo bloquea, no solamente debemos acudir al Reglamento de bloqueo.

Mire, señora Mogherini, yo creo en la amistad y en la colaboración con los Estados Unidos, de la misma forma que creo que la distancia entre Washington y Bruselas es la misma distancia que entre Bruselas y Washington. Y de esa forma, para ser respetados, tenemos que ser respetables y no podemos simplemente cumplir con nuestro dinero a través del Reglamento de bloqueo. Si nos realizan las presiones económicas de las que somos víctimas, el único lenguaje que entiende ese hombre de negocios tosco que es Trump es, sencillamente, la contradicción.


  Σοφία Σακοράφα (GUE/NGL). – Κυρία Επίτροπε, είναι θετικό καταρχάς ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση εκδήλωσε την απόλυτη στήριξή της στην πυρηνική συμφωνία και μάλιστα διαφοροποιήθηκε για πρώτη φορά κάθετα από τις ΗΠΑ. Φυσικά όλοι γνωρίζουμε ότι αυτή η διαφοροποίηση αφορά στη σύγκρουση ενεργειακών συμφερόντων και όχι αποκλειστικά στα πυρηνικά. Αν όμως όντως θέλουμε να παραμείνει ενεργή η συμφωνία, απαιτούνται παρεμβάσεις που θα το αποδεικνύουν σε όλα τα επίπεδα και όχι μόνο για προστασία επιχειρήσεων και επενδύσεων. Αυτό σημαίνει ενίσχυση της ευρωπαϊκής θέσης κατά των πυρηνικών, αλλά ενίσχυση με πράξεις. Το ελάχιστο πρώτο δείγμα θα ήταν να προσχωρήσουν στη Συνθήκη για την Απαγόρευση των Πυρηνικών Όπλων όλα τα κράτη μέλη της Ένωσης. Ας μην ξεχνάμε ότι μέχρι σήμερα την έχει κυρώσει μόνο η Αυστρία.

Κύριε Επίτροπε, αν πράγματι ενδιαφέρεστε για την ειρήνη στην περιοχή, ασκήστε πίεση στον σημαντικό σας εταίρο, όπως τον αποκαλείτε, το Ισραήλ, που δεν έχει προσχωρήσει ούτε καν στην πρώτη συνθήκη για τη μη διάδοση των πυρηνικών. Ας κάνουμε έστω και τα ελάχιστα που θα αποδεικνύουν την αξιοπιστία των προθέσεών μας.


  Tiziana Beghin (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissario, grazie all'accordo sul nucleare e alla fine dell'embargo, l'Iran si è aperto al mondo e molte aziende italiane ed europee hanno ripreso a commerciare con questo paese, investendo in Iran miliardi di euro per creare infrastrutture e servizi.

Tramite il commercio possiamo migliorare la situazione del popolo iraniano e creare nuove opportunità di lavoro e sviluppo per le nostre imprese, non solo quelle grandi come all'inizio, ma anche per le piccole e medie imprese si apre un mercato decisamente interessante visto le dimensioni ma anche semplicemente facendo riferimento a quanto era già abbastanza rilevante per le nostre aziende prima del periodo dell'embargo.

È chiaro che le sanzioni decise oggi dagli Stati Uniti ostacoleranno questi progetti e, in base all'approccio americano, ogni impresa che commercia con l'Iran rischia di perdere l'accesso al mercato americano e la facoltà di usare il dollaro come moneta per gli scambi, in pratica la perdita di un mercato essenziale e la paralisi del credito.

È evidente che non c'è nessuna legittimità in queste sanzioni, perché l'Iran ha rispettato tutti i termini dell'accordo sul nucleare. Quindi l'Europa, come è già stato ricordato, deve farsi trovare preparata e aiutare le imprese europee. L'Unione dovrebbe negoziare delle esenzioni specifiche con gli Stati Uniti, permettendo alle nostre imprese di continuare a fare affari, ma si dovrebbe anche consentire agli Stati membri di dotarsi di fondi ad hoc per sostenere le imprese colpite dalle sanzioni ed estromesse dai canali di credito, senza che questa forma di supporto sia considerata un aiuto di Stato.

Ogni misura dovrebbe essere concordata e armonizzata tra i diversi Stati, perché proprio il mancato coordinamento tra gli Stati europei creerebbe un danno enorme alle nostre aziende. E bisogna ovviamente capire chi pagherà se queste subiranno delle perdite. Il commercio con l'Iran è sicuramente importante per gli iraniani, ma lo è anche per le nostre aziende, e se non vogliamo perderlo dobbiamo correre ai ripari e dobbiamo farlo tutti uniti.


  Nicolas Bay (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, pour les entreprises françaises, l’accord de Vienne sur le nucléaire iranien représentait un espoir, celui de reconquérir des parts de marché dans un grand pays avec lequel la France a longtemps eu des relations privilégiées.

PSA y a fait un retour spectaculaire avec 450 000 véhicules vendus l’année dernière et de belles perspectives dans ce pays de 82 millions d’habitants. Le constructeur français a ainsi repris la place qu’il avait dû céder à son concurrent américain General Motors après un décret signé par Barack Obama en juin 2013. Peugeot et Citroën sont implantés depuis longtemps en Iran et le marché iranien est redevenu pour eux le premier marché étranger devant la Chine.

L’Iran est également un enjeu stratégique pour un autre géant industriel français, Total, qui a signé un très gros contrat gazier en juillet 2017. Rappelons en effet que l’Iran détient les deuxièmes plus importantes réserves de gaz naturel au monde, juste après la Russie.

Au lieu de vous époumoner en vain contre la hausse des tarifs douaniers décrétée par le président Trump, dénoncez et agissez donc contre le scandale de l’extra-territorialité du droit américain, qui nuit gravement à nos intérêts économiques. Un règlement du Conseil de novembre 1996 est censé protéger les entreprises européennes mais il n’a jamais été appliqué, faute d’avoir le courage d’assumer un vrai bras de fer avec les États-Unis.

En 2014, nous aurions dû empêcher la justice américaine d’infliger à BNP une amende record de 9 milliards de dollars, déjà à cause de l’embargo américain sur l’Iran.

Les États-Unis défendent leurs intérêts, il est temps que les nations européennes défendent les leurs.


  James Carver (NI). – Mr President, recently in Yemen the Houthis announced that their missiles could now reach Abu Dhabi and that Emiratis could expect similar attacks to those carried out against Saudi targets. Let me be clear: all these missiles are Iranian. The Houthis are unable to fight the legitimate authorities in Yemen without the active involvement of Iran.

Madam High Representative, if you consider the destabilisation in Lebanon, the tragedy in Syria and the resurgence of Hezbollah, there is one common denominator: Iranian regional aspirations. Why no mention of the human rights abuses against the Iranian people and the murder of Iranians speaking out against this despotic regime? Why are you not speaking about these criminal acts? Why not hold the Revolutionary Guard to account, or are drug smuggling and money laundering no longer a concern of anyone here? Are you seriously suggesting that we can trust this regime, and indeed saying that we should reward them? Perhaps you are so guided by your anti—American rhetoric that you will stubbornly take everyone down this disastrous path, although, as always, it will be others who will ultimately pay the price of your folly.


  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). – Señor presidente, la alta representante nos ha recordado la necesidad de insistir en el mantenimiento del acuerdo nuclear con Irán por razones de seguridad, siempre que Irán cumpla sus obligaciones. Según la Agencia Internacional de Energía Atómica, dos tercios de las centrifugadoras han sido destruidas, el 95 % del uranio enriquecido está fuera del país y el reactor nuclear de Arak está inoperativo.

Sin embargo, señora alta representante, hay una pregunta que flota en el ambiente: ¿Se arriesgarán las empresas europeas con intereses en Estados Unidos a sanciones de este país? Usted lo acaba de decir: ¿Podrá la Comisión obtener exenciones? La verdad es que después de los aranceles al acero y al aluminio y de la reunión del G7, es dudoso.

Si volvemos la vista en estos momentos a Singapur, vemos que el autócrata norcoreano, sobre la base de sus sesenta bombas nucleares y más de 1 000 misiles, ha obtenido su minuto de gloria. No hay alternativa a lo que nos propone la alta representante. Es muy importante mantener este acuerdo nuclear, pero también son muy importantes los derechos humanos que se están degradando continuamente en el país.


  Elena Valenciano (S&D). – Señor presidente, yo encuentro a todos mis colegas muy prudentes, la verdad.

Algunas cosas ya sabemos: que Trump ha venido a volar el sistema de relaciones internacionales, cuidadosamente construido después de la Guerra Fría, ya lo sabemos, ya ha sucedido; que el presidente Trump ha decidido tener una mala relación con sus aliados del G-7, con su vecino del norte, Canadá, con su vecino del sur, México, y con la Unión Europea también lo sabemos, eso ya ha pasado; que sus provocaciones y bandazos permanentes han convertido al mundo en un lugar más inseguro, también lo sabemos. Ahora queda por ver cómo reaccionamos nosotros ante algo que ya es una certeza: que este comportamiento es un comportamiento que hace que el mundo sea hoy más peligroso de lo que era antes de que Trump fuera el presidente de los Estados Unidos.

La manera de reaccionar a esto, sin duda ninguna, es defender nuestros intereses de manera unida. Lo que le queda a este Parlamento, por lo tanto, en esta tarde, tal y como estamos haciendo, es reforzar la posición de la Unión Europea y sostener con firmeza la acción de la alta representante en la defensa de un pacto nuclear que es, probablemente, una de las herramientas más importantes para nuestra seguridad y nuestra estabilidad.

Tenemos que saber ya que en la Casa Blanca no tenemos a un amigo, y tal vez así podamos nosotros reforzar nuestra propia amistad dentro de las fronteras europeas, hacernos más fuertes a nosotros mismos, en la medida en que lo que tenemos enfrente, desgraciadamente, es un fenómeno nuevo. Y es un inquilino de la Casa Blanca que no ha venido a ayudarnos, sino a todo lo contrario.

Y creo que el trabajo de la alta representante en estos últimos meses en la defensa del acuerdo nuclear es un excelente trabajo. Creo que estamos todos convencidos de que nuestra estabilidad y nuestra seguridad dependen en gran medida de que ese acuerdo se mantenga, y por eso hoy quiero apoyar firmemente la tarea de la alta representante.


  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Уважаеми г-н Председател, уважаеми колеги, уважаема г-жо Могерини,

Позволете ми първо да Ви поздравя за Вашата навременна и полезна за Европейския съюз позиция, която изразихте в първите часове на тази криза. Позицията беше правилна и тя трябва да бъде следвана и от нашите колеги.

Уважаеми колеги, споразумението с Ислямска република Иран е полезно за Европейския съюз и за неговите членове. Това споразумение работи, това споразумение може и ще създава работни места във всяка една от държавите членки. Може, е и ще бъде допълнителен гарант за сигурността на гражданите в тези държави.

Не можем и не трябва да позволяваме на трети страни да застрашават интересите на държавите-членки на Европейския съюз. Не можем и не трябва да бъдем заложници на непремерена и волунтаристична политика. Когато говорим за човешки права, трябва ясно да си даваме сметка и да знаем докъде стигат възможностите не да се месим във вътрешните работи на суверенни държави. Това е споразумение е добро, ние трябва да го уважаваме и да го развиваме.


  Urmas Paet (ALDE). – Mr President, it is very bad that we have come to a situation where allies such as the European Union and the US have such diverging opinions on Iran and how to move forward. The Iran nuclear agreement is not perfect, but to change it, the allies – meaning the US and the European Union – should work together, not act unilaterally. The unilateral actions of the US undermine this much-needed alliance and also the international legal environment.

It is also clear that some expectations that came with the Iran nuclear agreement have not been fulfilled, such as the way Iran is spending the money that it has received due to the lifting of sanctions. Instead of using this money to build up its country and help people, it is using the money to enhance its military structures and support conflicts in its neighbouring countries like Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Also, the continued threats against Israel are unacceptable and must be addressed also by the EU. Of course, the EU should think of Plan B, should Iran go ahead and resume the enrichment of uranium, as the Iranian President has threatened.


  Mike Hookem (EFDD). – Mr President, the Iran deal is dying before our eyes and only Europe is still clinging on to this flawed plan. Lauded as a means of ensuring peace and security for generations, its only effects have been to potentially catalyse yet more death and destruction in the already unstable Middle East, and to drive a wedge in western diplomacy, as Trump actually follows through with his campaign pledges and ends US participation.

The USA will be re-imposing sanctions on Iran. It was also reported last week that the Iranian regime is looking at options to boost uranium enrichment in case the deal fails. So let’s be clear: Iran is preparing for the failure of the nuclear deal. But what is the EU’s reaction to all this? The Commission is trying to force through a delegated act to make Iran eligible for European Investment Bank funding. Not content with clinging to a dying deal, you actually want to give economic and political support to the Iranian regime. It makes sense though doesn’t it? Trump pulls out of the nuclear deal and you see an opportunity to make the EU look like big players on the world stage.

This is more about EU vanity than it is about solving complicated political issues. It is almost as if the EU is trying to fight a proxy war against America in the Middle East. Our ability to influence Iran is greatly weakened without US participation. If the EU and Europe’s major powers continue down this line, its only real impact will be to tilt backwards towards the anti-Americanism that seeps through the seams of these institutions.

So how will this affect potential economic projects financed by the EIB? How will this influence the deteriorating trade and diplomatic relations between the EU and USA? According to Reuters internal sources, the EIB is unhappy with the Commission proposal because the EIB raises funds on US markets. To make matters worse, a delegated act is a power the unelected Commission has to adopt legislation without any anyone who was elected having a vote. So this proposal is far from being democratic and accountable.

Whilst we will of course continue to work closely with European allies when our interests converge, this is not one of those times. May’s government is too scared to fully embrace the opportunities and independence that Brexit provides, and is continuing to follow EU policies and legislation, no matter the cost to the UK. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want an independent Britain to be the 51st state of America. But the British people certainly voted to stop being the EU’s 28th State. This is going to be one of the first big tests for the UK to refind its place in the world as an independent nation. The whole point of Brexit was to make our own democratic rules and pursue our own interests, but like the rest of the negotiations, Ms May will surrender to the EU, following EU rules and policies as closely as possible, completely against the express will of the British people.

The UK Government, packed with remainers, could not see the benefits of Brexit before the vote and is too scared to seize them now. This is not academia or a domestic political squabble, but will have real and long-lasting effects on our standing in the world, driving a wedge between the UK and our most important strategic partner, the USA. We should not follow Mogherini’s vanity project at the expense of our most important global relationship. It is time for us to follow our American allies and call it as we see it. The Iran deal is dead, and we must seek out a new style of diplomacy, one that actually gets results, as we are seeing on the current Korean Peninsula ...

(The President cut off the speaker)


  President. – Colleagues, once again, I have been as tolerant as I could be as Chair, but next time I really will be cutting off the microphone within seconds of when you should finish. I think it is unfair to your colleagues.


  Michał Marusik (ENF). – Panie Przewodniczący! Słuchając tej debaty, z niepokojem zauważam, że wielu mówców bardzo umiejętnie broni tezy, która niestety jest nieprawdziwa. Otóż już starożytni wiedzieli, że jeśli chce się mieć pokój, trzeba być przygotowanym do wojny. Kraje, które dysponują strategicznym potencjałem odwetowym, nie są atakowane. To nie słabość jest ostoją i gwarancją pokoju i bezpieczeństwa. Ostoją pokoju i bezpieczeństwa jest siła. Silnych nikt nie atakuje. Proszę zauważyć, że kraje Afryki Północnej nie dysponowały możliwością strategicznego odwetu i zostały zniszczone. Jeżeli więc zależy nam na światowym pokoju, to powinno nam zależeć na tym, żeby kraje miały możliwość obrony i nie były atakowane. A w ogóle kto może decydować o tym, który kraj będzie miał możliwość odwetowego działania, a który takiej możliwości mieć nie powinien? Nam chyba takie prawo nie przysługuje.


  Udo Voigt (NI). – Herr Präsident, Hohe Vertreterin! Als ich vor drei Wochen im Iran war und dort auch Gespräche mit führenden Mitgliedern des Wächterrates hatte, habe ich dort Folgendes gesehen: Auf der einen Seite ist das Vertrauen in die Länder Europas groß, dass sie wenigstens Wort halten, auf der anderen Seite ist ein starkes Misstrauen da, dass letztendlich Europa wieder nach der Pfeife der USA tanzt.

Ich denke, die Hoffnung, dass auf der einen Seite die EU, Europa sich einen eigenen Weg freimacht und sich absetzt von den Vereinigten Staaten und endlich einmal die Wirtschaftskraft von fünfhundert Millionen Europäern ausspielt, diese Hoffnung ist groß und darf auf keinen Fall enttäuscht werden. Donald Trump, die USA sind out. Neuverhandeln wurde auch diskutiert – warum denn nicht? Warum nicht eine atomwaffenfreie Zone im ganzen Nahen Osten schaffen, unter Einschluss von Israel, damit der Frieden dort endgültig garantiert wird?


  Elmar Brok (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Vizepräsidentin, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es geht darum, den Atomwaffensperrvertrag zu retten. Deswegen ist es wichtig und deswegen wünsche ich Ihnen, Frau Mogherini, viel Erfolg, dass der von Ihnen ausgehandelte und von uns getragene, von den drei EU-Mitgliedsländern – die demokratisch sind – durchgesetzten Vertrag jetzt mit den anderen Partnern auch gegen die extraterritorialen Ansprüche der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika verteidigt wird.

Gleichzeitig sollten wir darauf achten, dass es natürlich Kritikpunkte am Iran gibt: wegen der inneren Struktur, der Menschenrechtsverletzungen, des Raketenprogramms, der Beteiligung an den Kriegen im Mittleren Osten und wegen der Israelpolitik. Aber wir müssen deutlich machen, dass Präsident Trump, wenn er den Iran-Deal zerstört, keine Glaubwürdigkeit mit Nordkorea haben wird. Im Übrigen wünsche ich ihm sehr viel Erfolg für seine Verhandlungen. Wenn er die Verifizierungen mit Nordkorea herausbekommen sollte, die Sie, Frau Mogherini, im Falle Irans verhandelt haben, dann hat er ein gutes Ergebnis. Das, was heute herausgekommen ist, ist eine schöne Erklärung ohne jegliche Absicherung, dass Nordkorea sich daran hält.


  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Das Atomabkommen mit dem Iran wurde mit Recht als ein Triumph der Diplomatie gewürdigt. Ein schier unlösbares Problem konnte durch Gespräche und vertrauensbildende Maßnahmen gelöst werden, und ganz wesentlich für diesen Erfolg waren die Bemühungen der Hohen Beauftragten für die Außenpolitik, Federica Mogherini. Es war nicht nur ein Beweis dafür, dass europäische Außenpolitik funktionieren kann, sondern auch ein kräftiges Signal für Multilateralismus. Mit dem Abkommen wurde auch die Tür aufgestoßen für mögliche Entwicklungen in der Region, für Frieden, für mehr Wohlstand, Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit, insgesamt mehr Stabilität – das alles abhängig davon, ob sich der Iran an die Vereinbarungen hält. Die Internationale Atomenergiebehörde stellte wiederholt fest, dass die Vereinbarungen erfüllt wurden.

Die Entscheidung des amerikanischen Präsidenten, sich mutwillig über das alles hinwegzusetzen, ist unverantwortlich und stellt einen radikalen Bruch des Vertrauensgrundsatzes dar. Auf welcher Basis sollen künftig Konflikte gelöst werden, wenn man nicht mehr darauf vertrauen kann, dass Vereinbarungen eingehalten werden? Es ist daher zu begrüßen, dass wir zu unseren Vereinbarungen stehen.

Es darf aber nicht beim guten Willen allein bleiben, es braucht robuste Absicherungen – auch im Interesse der europäischen Unternehmen, die im Vertrauen auf die Gültigkeit internationaler Abkommen Entscheidungen getroffen haben. Hier ist die Europäische Investitionsbank gefragt. Alle bisherigen Projekte im gemeinsamen Interesse müssen weiter fortgeführt werden, wie der erst langsam in Fahrt kommende Menschenrechtsdialog, der sehr wesentlich ist und entscheidend sein wird, oder die gemeinsamen Anstrengungen im Kampf gegen den Drogenhandel oder die regionale Sicherheitskooperation. Und es wäre überaus hilfreich, nun endlich auch die Eröffnung einer EU-Delegation in Teheran in Angriff nehmen zu können. Nur durch intensive diplomatische Aktivitäten kann die gegenwärtige Krise gelöst werden, wie schon einmal.


  Ελένη Θεοχάρους (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, Κυρία Επίτροπε, με τη συμφωνία του 2015 η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δεσμεύτηκε για τον αποτελεσματικό έλεγχο του πυρηνικού προγράμματος του Ιράν με ταυτόχρονη άρση των κυρώσεων κατά της χώρας αυτής. Αναμφίβολα τασσόμαστε υπέρ της συμφωνίας, ακόμη και μετά την υπαναχώρηση των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών που ακολουθούν αλλοπρόσαλλη πολιτική, υπό τον όρο βεβαίως ότι και το Ιράν θα τηρήσει τις υποχρεώσεις του.

Η άρση των κυρώσεων θα έχει θετικό αντίκτυπο στην επιβίωση του φτωχού λαού του Ιράν, θα βοηθήσει στην ανάπτυξη της δημοκρατίας και στην ανατροπή του καθεστώτος, αλλά ταυτόχρονα θα βοηθήσει και τις οικονομικές σχέσεις της Ένωσης με τη χώρα αυτή. Να θυμίσω ότι πολλά αεροπλάνα του Ιράν έπεσαν κατά καιρούς παρασύροντας στον θάνατο εκατοντάδες ανθρώπους, γιατί σύμφωνα με τους ισχυρισμούς της Τεχεράνης δεν πουλούσαμε εξαρτήματα για τη συντήρησή τους. Επισημαίνω ότι η εφαρμογή κυρώσεων είναι αποτελεσματική όταν δεν είναι επιλεκτική, είτε αναφορικά με το ίδιο έγκλημα, όπως για παράδειγμα για την απόκτηση και διάδοση των πυρηνικών όπλων, είτε όσον αφορά παρόμοια εγκλήματα, όπως για παράδειγμα για την κατοχή ξένων εδαφών. Εφαρμόζουμε κυρώσεις εναντίον της Ρωσίας, αλλά χαϊδεύουμε την Τουρκία.


  Marcus Pretzell (ENF). – Mr President, this debate is based on a number of fake news items on the so-called Iran deal. There never was a deal. I cite the Obama Administration: ‘The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and it is not a signed document’. I cite Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif: ‘No agreement has been reached, so we do not have any obligation yet,’ and Iranian leader Ali Khamenei: ‘Nothing has happened yet’.

In the US it was a decision taken only by one person, the former President of the United States, against the articulated democratic majority of the US Congress by all of its Republican – and some of its Democrat – members. It was an agreement without any binding obligations, as the leaders of Iran very openly and precisely made clear on the very day this so-called deal was published. It was an agreement that solely stated the personal and political trust of the former President of the United States in the Iranian leadership. It signalled the trust of this utterly overrated President in a government that repeatedly announces its will to extinguish Israel; a government that supports a number of Islamic terrorist organisations all over the Middle East; a government that has shown its disrespect for most of our values for almost four decades.

This deal was established undemocratically; it was non—binding and was a clear proof of the inappropriate visions – not to say lack of visions – of Obama’s foreign policy, which the vast majority of this Parliament still follows against any intelligent understanding of the situation. Let’s go for a new deal. Let’s go for a real deal. Let’s go for a deal that respects the vital and legitimate interests of Iran’s neighbours, and especially Israel.


  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – Monsieur le Président, l’insupportable prétention des États-Unis à imposer l’universalité de leurs sanctions au monde entier, après leur dénonciation unilatérale de l’accord avec l’Iran, est totalement inacceptable.

Nous payons l’absence totale de réaction lorsque naguère, nous avons laissé la banque française BNP Paribas être rackettée par les États-Unis à hauteur de 7 milliards d’euros – 9 milliards de dollars – en raison du fait que sa filiale suisse avait continué à travailler avec l’Iran.

Je suis le seul député à avoir alors interpelé la Commission et le Conseil. Vos réponses ont été indigentes, comme celle du président français Hollande alors en visite dans cet hémicycle. Aujourd’hui encore, vous opposez les paroles – point de contact, poursuite des discussions, loi de blocage –, mais déjà les entreprises européennes – Total, Peugeot, Airbus – ont renoncé à leurs projets dans ce pays.

Les seules mesures efficaces seraient de nous préparer à placer sous séquestre des avoirs américains équivalents aux avoirs européens qui seraient spoliés par les autorités américaines.

Nous avons été les alliés des États-Unis d’Amérique, nous ne sommes pas leurs vassaux.


  Arnaud Danjean (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, ce n’est pas par complaisance ni avec naïveté que les signataires du JCPOA (Plan d’action global commun) ont privilégié la voie diplomatique sur le nucléaire iranien, mais c’est parce que pendant 15 ans, il a été fait un constat lucide, à savoir qu’il n’existait pas d’alternative réaliste pour traiter cette menace, car c’est bien d’une menace grave dont il s’agit.

Les Européens doivent être, sur la scène internationale, un pôle de stabilité et de fiabilité. La parole d’un accord multilatéral oblige ses signataires, au-delà des querelles politiques domestiques. S’en affranchir brutalement n’offre aucune solution satisfaisante à personne.

Cet accord ne répond bien sûr pas aux problèmes posés par la politique de Téhéran dans la région ni à la préoccupation légitime quant au développement des capacités balistiques iraniennes.

Mais d’une part, nous connaissions très bien ces données lorsque nous avons négocié l’accord et d’autre part, il est incohérent de penser que ces contentieux pourront être résolus en commençant par remettre en cause l’accord sur le nucléaire, qui est un socle, même fragile, à toute négociation plus générale.

L’aventurisme militaire dans un Moyen-Orient profondément instable a déjà provoqué suffisamment de dégâts.


  Ana Gomes (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, tem o meu apoio nos seus esforços para preservar o acordo nuclear com o Irão que é a pedra angular do regime global da não proliferação nuclear e, assim, absolutamente estratégico para a União Europeia, para a segurança da região e para todo o mundo.

Besides, the JCPOA can, with the lifting of sanctions, foster economic, social and people-to-people exchanges, thus enhancing political dialogue with Iran and bringing to that dialogue questions like regional issues and human rights – including in Iran. We need this channel of dialogue; it can actually encourage Iran to play a responsible role in the region, in contrast with the Wahhabism fuelling terrorism from neighbouring Saudi Arabia and proxies.

To counter those who want to destroy the JCPOA, I support the Commission’s proposal to reactivate the blocking regulation, making it possible to protect legitimate EU trade with Iran, and to empower the European Investment Bank to finance trade with Iran. We must refute Trump’s hypocrisy in opposing the verified JCPOA when he is trying to sell his unverified deal with the North Korean dictator, and all those who try to pretend – like Israel and the Saudis backing Trump – that Iran is the only source of trouble in the Middle East.

No doubt, I condemn many of the Iranian policies – namely violating human rights in Iran, and namely supporting the regime of Assad in Syria – but Iran is not the only troublemaker in the region. We should equally condemn all those who are fostering trouble and fuelling conflicts, like the UAE, which is now preparing an assault on the port of al Hudaydah in Yemen, which the UN has warned could lead to catastrophic humanitarian consequences. The divergence with the Trump administration over the JCPOA is actually part of a deeper problem in transatlantic relations: trade wars, withdrawal from the climate agreement, from the migration global compacts, brazen interference against our Union in European countries, supporting populist far-right policies. This is a bigger problem, and we need...

(The President cut off the speaker)


  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). – Mr President, three years ago I spoke here against the disastrous Iran nuclear agreement, the JCPOA. I have to ask Ms Mogherini: what are you celebrating by signing this deal? Is it the freeing up of USD 100 billion in frozen assets so Iran can sponsor terrorism, funding Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Hamas in Gaza, Houthi rebel missiles in Yemen, annexing Iraq and destabilising Bahrain? Iran is a septic octopus with its poisonous tentacles wrapped all around the Middle East. Or are you proud that Iran lied to you about its nuclear ambitions (as secret papers released by the Israelis prove) or has engaged in five ballistic missile tests since the deal was signed? Or was it that, even if it fully complies, that regime can still have uranium enrichment? Or is it the fat contracts for Total, Airbus, Peugeot and Citroen? I fully agree with President Trump’s bold decision to withdraw the US from the deal and return to sanctions. Trump is right. The EU is wrong.


  Michael Gahler (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Verehrte Hohe Beauftragte, ich unterstütze voll und ganz die Linie, die Sie hier politisch vertreten. Ich bin doch sehr überrascht über Kollegen, die die Ablehnung dieses Abkommens mit dem Iran nicht etwa damit begründen, der Iran verletze dieses Abkommen, sondern sie begründen das mit anderen kritikwürdigen politischen Aktivitäten des Iran. In der Tat, das ist alles zu kritisieren, und es ist alles aufgezählt worden, was wir am Iran nicht gut finden. Aber das hat nichts mit dem Verhandlungsgegenstand zu tun.

Als wir damals diese Dinge verhandelten – ich kann mich noch erinnern, ich war damals schon dabei –, da war die Priorität der Prioritäten die Verhinderung der iranischen Bombe. Und es war richtig, dieses Abkommen abzuschließen. Und ich frage mich schon: Ist die Sicherheit Israels zum Beispiel dann besser gewährleistet, wenn der Iran sich etwa nicht mehr an das Abkommen gebunden fühlt? Das glaube ich nicht.

Ansonsten meine Frage im Bereich der Wirtschaft: Können wir nicht unseren Handel mit dem Iran insgesamt eher auf Euro umstellen, damit wir auch von amerikanischen Banken nicht mehr so abhängig sind?


  Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questo nostro dibattito si colloca nel quadro di un profondo mutamento delle relazioni internazionali e ne è testimonianza anche l'ultimo G7. L'attuale amministrazione americana sembra aver adottato una linea disarmante nella sua semplicità nelle relazioni esterne, bene interpretata anche nel caso iraniano da Mike Pompeo.

Se vuoi essere considerato amico degli americani, allora devi accettare le condizioni che ti vengono poste, dodici nel caso iraniano, o pagare le conseguenze del rifiuto. In ciò c'è tutto l'azzardo, che magari può forse pagare nel caso nordcoreano, ma dubito funzioni con l'Iran, con il rischio di una escalation pericolosa.

Penso che non bisogna dare pretesti all'atteggiamento americano. Parliamoci chiaro: in questo momento, non c'è nulla che possa essere ragionevolmente fatto per convincere Trump, Netanyahu e Bin Salman per spingerli in direzione di una posizione di dialogo e di razionale analisi della situazione.

Se l'Europa, così come l'Iran, vuole avere una chance di uscire da questa difficile situazione, è indispensabile che questa chance venga vista soprattutto nella capacità di logorare i loro propositi attraverso il buon senso e la pazienza. Le condizioni di Pompeo, tra l'altro, rappresentano più uno strumento nelle mani dell'amministrazione israeliana che in quelle statunitensi, aprendo la porta per una legittimazione di un conflitto di fatto già iniziata da alcune settimane sul suolo siriano. Un piano ben impostato che l'Europa e l'Iran possono scardinare solo attraverso la pazienza diplomatica, nell'ottica di far chiudere quella finestra di opportunità che oggi Netanyahu sembra voler gestire in prima persona.

Per questo, signora Alto rappresentante, nel sottoscrivere la sua linea, le chiedo innanzitutto di lavorare per evitare, qui e nella regione, che venga creato un casus belli che possa produrre conseguenze difficili da gestire.


  Bas Belder (ECR). – Dank u wel, Voorzitter. Ik kijk uit naar een rationeel en moreel Europees beleid versus de Islamitische Republiek Iran in geopolitiek opzicht, economisch opzicht en in moreel opzicht.

Geopolitiek, meneer de Voorzitter. Laat de Europese Unie samen met de Verenigde Staten optreden tegen de expansionistische koers van Iran en destabiliserende koers van Iran in het Midden-Oosten.

Ten tweede, economisch. Laat de EU niet zijn nauwe financiële, economische en handelsbetrekkingen met de VS op het spel zetten voor onvergelijkbaar zwakke relaties met Iran.

Bovendien, we gaan toch niet de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde steunen met haar terroristische acties, intern en extern. Immoreel! De EU moet zich niet nucleair laten chanteren. Dat is vanaf het begin al zo geweest, vanaf het begin van de nucleaire deal met de onderhandelingen door Zarif nota bene. En bovendien, over moreel gesproken, een appeasementpolitiek bedrijven tegenover een regime dat de eigen bevolking en de regio terroriseert en Israël wil vernietigen; laat de EU deze politiek laten varen, want die is immoreel.


  Eduard Kukan (PPE). – Mr President, there is no doubt that the JCPOA has been an important achievement that could guarantee security in the region and bring Iran back onto the international scene. It is very unfortunate, therefore, to see the US backpedalling on this deal. The consequences for international relations and for security in the region could be dire.

The EU finds itself in a difficult situation. I agree that we should keep Iran tied to this deal. It will be tough, but in the given circumstances we have no other choice. We will have to work, moreover, out of the uncertainties around the investments that the EU made in Iran. This concerns in particular the sanctions the USA could bring to businesses interested in investing in Iran. We also have our own EIB investments in Iran. It would be very unfortunate if they were subject to US sanctions. The situation will need a diplomatic solution.


  Flavio Zanonato (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, non si può negare che la decisione di Trump di ritirarsi dall'accordo sul nucleare iraniano, oltre a danneggiare la credibilità degli Stati Uniti, mette in pericolo la stabilità dell'intera regione ed è un passo indietro nel percorso di non proliferazione delle armi nucleari.

Noi europei dobbiamo salvaguardare i risultati ottenuti dalle nostre diplomazie, impedendo che si vanifichino gli sforzi di più di dodici anni di negoziato. Dobbiamo essere garanti di una piena implementazione dell'accordo, assicurandoci che l'interruzione delle sanzioni migliori le relazioni economiche con l'Iran e che ciò abbia un impatto positivo anche sulle condizioni di vita della popolazione iraniana.

Ho apprezzato e condivido fino in fondo l'intervento dell'Alto rappresentante Federica Mogherini. Dobbiamo come Parlamento europeo appoggiare fino in fondo il suo sforzo e il lavoro che finora ha fatto e dobbiamo persuadere, con tutti i mezzi che ha disposizione l'Unione europea, l'Iran a mantenere gli impegni, nonostante il ritiro statunitense. Questo favorirà anche...

(Il Presidente interrompe l'oratore)


  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Mr President, I will make three points. One element is missing here. There was not one serious word addressed to the Iranian people. You mentioned just the human rights dialogue, which has failed to produce any tangible results. I think that an issue which is no less important than the nuclear deal is the continued repression of the Iranian people by the extremist fundamentalist regime.

Second, I am worried that the EU approach has been tilted towards protecting EU companies’ access to the Iranian markets rather than protecting with equal commitment human rights and civil liberties there.

And third, Ms Mogherini mentioned that the deal has avoided regional escalation. I think the opposite is true. The Iranian military expansion in the Middle East has recently reached the Israeli borders. There is a direct threat to the very existence of Israel, as Tehran has repeatedly called for the annihilation of the Jewish state. Has there been any serious reaction to that from the EU?


  Jytte Guteland (S&D). –Herr talman! Utrikesrepresentant Mogherini! För mindre än två veckor sedan stod vi här och debatterade mänskliga rättigheter i Iran. Även om debatten i dag handlar om kärnteknikavtalet vill jag börja med att betona vikten av att EU står upp för de mänskliga rättigheterna och emot dödsstraffet. Jag vill upprepa ett av kraven från senast: Frige Ahmadreza Djalali, Iran! Gör det nu!

Om dagens ämne vill jag säga att det ensidiga beslutet från USA:s sida att dra sig ur avtalet är både oroande och oansvarigt. Flera har sagt det: det ökar spänningarna i regionen och det kan gynna de minst reformvänliga krafterna. Kärnteknikavtalet är inte fulländat, men det är resultatet av tolv års diplomatiska ansträngningar. Överenskommelsen har inneburit att vi haft en kontrollmekanism på plats. Det har varit viktigt för vår säkerhet och för det globala icke-spridningsarbetet. Nu måste EU sluta upp bakom Mogherini och skapa sig en helhetsbild över situationen. Parallellt med arbetet mot kärnvapen måste vi fortsätta trycka på inom de alarmerande områdena.


  Lars Adaktusson (PPE). – Mr President, as Europeans we believe in political dialogue and disarmament. At the same time, the JCPOA is a deal with serious flaws, the first one being that the negotiations leading up to the deal were a missed opportunity to improve the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic.

Secondly, the deal allowed Iran to keep its nuclear infrastructure intact. It was designed to put off problems, not to deal with them once and for all. Thirdly, the revenue from lifted sanctions went into the pockets of the revolutionary guard, rather than to the country’s suffering people.

The EU should now look at these failings and condition our future commitment to the JCPOA on human rights improvements, a complete stop to the sponsoring of terrorists, and the full dismantling of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure.


  Neena Gill (S&D). – Mr President, while US President Trump claims to champion denuclearisation in one part of the world – signing a deal with North Korea built on shaky grounds of Twitter diplomacy and laced with vague, noncommittal wording – he abandons the strong, solid nuclear deal with Iran: the product of years of negotiations by the international community, and the effectiveness of which is attested by at least 10 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports.

High Representative, in your address to us earlier, you stressed the importance of the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA). The majority of this House agrees, but now it is vital that we ensure that the re—imposition of US sanctions does not spell an end to the deal. So my questions to you are: the EIB, as we’ve heard before, has been asked to extend its activities to Iran to help shield businesses from the US sanctions, but it is hesitant because it is worried about US retaliation. But as far as I’m concerned, their core mandate is to carry out our policies, and there’s nothing more important than carrying out this particular deal.


  Dubravka Šuica (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, točno je gospođo Morgherini, kao što ste rekli, da je nuklearni sporazum s Iranom stup sigurnosti u ovom području Bliskog istoka. Slažem se s vama. Isto tako se slažem da je uzdrman taj stup sigurnosti izlaskom Sjedinjenih Američkih Država iz tog sporazuma. Jedini put da se zaustavi stvaranje iranske nuklearne bombe bio je upravo ovaj sporazum, i stoga je on u tom dijelu pozitivan. Međutim, činjenica je da postoji veliko kršenje ljudskih prava u Iranu, koje ovdje rijetko spominjemo.

Nedavno sam imala priliku biti s delegacijom AFET-a u Iranu i osobno sam se mogla uvjeriti, iz razgovora, na koji način se taj režim tamo održava i na koji način se krše osnovna ljudska prava građana Irana. Mislim da o tome moramo razgovarati. Isto tako, nemojmo zaboraviti agresivnu politiku Irana prema Izraelu. U svakom slučaju, smatram da tamo treba osnažiti demokraciju i da treba poraditi na mijenjanju režima. To će biti jedini način da se smiri stanje na Bliskom istoku.

(Zastupnica je pristala odgovoriti na pitanje postavljeno podizanjem plave kartice (članak 162. stavak 8. Poslovnika))


  Udo Voigt (NI), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Ich wollte Sie nur fragen: Wenn Sie von Menschenrechtsverletzungen im Iran sprechen, warum schweigen Sie über Menschenrechtsverletzungen in den Vereinigten Staaten und in Israel?


  Dubravka Šuica (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Das ist eine interessante Frage.

Zanimljivo je vaše pitanje, međutim, današnja tema je upravo Iran i nuklearni sporazum. Nismo danas govorili o stanju ljudskih prava u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, koja je demokratska država, i tema danas nije Izrael, ali činjenica je da Iran ima agresivnu politiku u odnosu na Izrael, i to možemo i dokumentirati.


  Javi López (S&D). – Señor presidente, hoy desde aquí, desde el Parlamento Europeo, queremos condenar de forma enérgica la decisión unilateral de la Administración Trump de violentar el acuerdo nuclear con Irán.

Un acuerdo que, además, tenía mecanismos de verificación, y sabíamos que se estaban cumpliendo los compromisos que de él se derivaban. Un acuerdo que para nosotros es mucho más que un acuerdo. Es una pieza fundamental para evitar una escalada nuclear en una región hoy con fortísimas tensiones. Por eso, queremos apoyar de forma decidida los esfuerzos de la alta representante y del Consejo para salvaguardar este acuerdo y enviar dos mensajes. Hoy no hablamos de Irán. Hablamos de la diplomacia y del multilateralismo como mecanismos para ordenar las relaciones internacionales —la palabra frente a la fuerza—; eso es lo que hoy Europa defiende. Y hablamos de las relaciones transatlánticas, que se están rompiendo.

La falta de confianza que hoy tenemos en la nueva Administración estadounidense tiene que tener una respuesta firme en defensa de nuestros intereses y nuestros valores desde Europa.


Catch—the—eye procedure


  Marijana Petir (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, gospođo povjerenice, Iran je suočen s gospodarskom krizom, nezaposlenošću, siromaštvom, zatiranjem temeljnih ljudskih sloboda, a posebice prava žena. Ne smijemo zaboraviti niti činjenicu da je Iran u protekloj godini nakon Kine bio prva zemlja s najvećim brojem egzekucija, što je u suprotnosti s našim vrijednostima u Europskoj uniji, jer mi ne odobravamo smrtnu kaznu kao pravnu sankciju.

U Iranu postoje unutarnji prioriteti na kojima je potrebno raditi, kako bi se građanima osigurali dostojanstven život, sloboda i temeljna prava. To su problemi koje nuklearni sporazum ne može i neće riješiti. Prava iranskog naroda, svakog djeteta i svake žene, svakog političkog zatvorenika, moraju biti stavljena na prvo mjesto. Smatram kako su upravo ta prava morala biti i preduvjet za potpisivanje ugovora.

Iranski nuklearni sporazum je važan i njegova namjera je bila dobra, no on ne smije ostaviti po strani kršenje ljudskih prava i nebrigu o vlastitom narodu, te Europska unija mora na to primjereno reagirati.


  José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Alta Representante, antes de mais deixe-me felicitá-la pelo seu excelente trabalho neste dossiê que é tão difícil como todos nós sabemos. Senhora Mogherini, é um facto que o plano de ação conjunto global foi um instrumento histórico em matéria de diplomacia multilateral que deve, apesar das suas imperfeições, constituir uma pedra angular para uma solução futura de maior alcance pós 2025 que englobe o programa de mísseis balísticos Ariane iranianos e que abranja um conjunto mais vasto de atores regionais.

A incapacidade do Presidente Trump em compreender esta estratégia inovadora ratificada pelo Conselho de Segurança, constitui uma ameaça para a não proliferação de armas nucleares e para a segurança do Médio Oriente e da Europa.

Senhora Alta Representante, concordo consigo que, neste momento particularmente crítico, a União deve continuar a apostar na manutenção do acordo com o Irão reforçando a sua monitorização e verificação sem, no entanto, Senhora Alta Representante, esquecer que, ao mesmo tempo o regime dos ayatollahs pede a não aplicação dos efeitos extraterritoriais das sanções secundárias norte-americanas, continua o carácter repressivo de um regime que, apesar das promessas de reforma, continua a deter um triste recorde de violações dos direitos humanos e que é líder das execuções per capita do mundo.

Senhora Mogherini, peço-lhe que não se esqueça destes iranianos que todos os dias sofrem brutalmente nas mãos de um regime tão brutal.


Elnökváltás: LÍVIA JÁRÓKA


  Jude Kirton-Darling (S&D). – Madam President, as the eyes of the world focus on the Iranian nuclear deal and Trump’s unilateral decision, I ask colleagues to keep in mind the people of Iran. Human rights in Iran continue to deteriorate, with peaceful protests facing intimidation, violence, detention and torture. While we work to preserve the nuclear deal, we must never lose sight of the principles and values upon which this Parliament was built. We must never stop standing up for those without a voice and holding those with power to account. We must never stop in our efforts to promote democracy, free speech, the rule of law and the right to peaceful protest.

This House must stand in solidarity with the people of Iran, who desire these most basic of freedoms, and this House must stand in solidarity with those in Iran currently in prison, enduring torture, or those who face the death penalty for the simple belief that tomorrow may be better than today.


  Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Madam President, there is a major loophole in the current nuclear deal, and that is the lack of any limits on Iranian military expansionism. Iran is directing a massive army of Shia militias in both Iraq and Syria, and in both countries has a direct military presence in the shape of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In Syria especially this Iranian presence is very clear. It is obvious that any economic support from the EU to Iran will go directly to the companies owned by Ayatollah Khamenei and his family and to the companies owned by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This is the very force that helped Assad drive refugees to Europe.

My question is why the EU policy towards Assad has changed so fundamentally that we plan to support the forces he is depending on. Why should the EU support the forces that are harassing the Christians in Iraq? The EU needs to consider these consequences before there is any continuation.


  Patricia Lalonde (ALDE). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Haute Représentante, Madame Mogherini, chers collègues, l’accord sur le nucléaire iranien doit être préservé en l’état malgré le retrait des États-Unis.

L’idée de vouloir y rajouter trois clauses, comme l’ont suggéré certains dirigeants des États membres européens, est irréalisable. Jamais les Iraniens ne l’accepteront et nous prenons ainsi le risque que l’Iran ne reprenne l’enrichissement d’uranium. L’Iran n’est pas la Corée du Nord. Le peuple iranien sera solidaire de ses dirigeants et toute velléité de la part des Occidentaux d’orchestrer un changement de régime risque de plonger la région dans un chaos total dont l’Europe risque d’être la première victime.

Les Iraniens réclament le droit à l’autodéfense, la guerre Iran-Iraq a fait plus d’un demi-million de morts et reste présente chez les Iraniens, comme le rappellent ces affiches des martyrs sur les façades des rues de Téhéran, comme dans toutes les villes en Iran.

Il faut que l’Europe fasse jouer la diplomatie pour obtenir des Iraniens un retrait du sud syrien. Il faut aboutir à de vraies négociations sur le Yémen avec les Houthis plutôt que d’acculer l’Iran par des menaces vaines.

Chers collègues, nous devons tout faire pour que les sanctions contre l’Iran soient levées et essayer de contourner les sanctions américaines pour que les entreprises européennes puissent rester en Iran. Il en va de l’avenir de l’Europe, je sais, Madame Mogherini, combien vous en êtes convaincue.


  Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου (GUE/NGL). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κυρία Mogherini, συζητάμε και δίκαια καταγγέλλουμε τη στάση του κυρίου Trump απέναντι στη συμφωνία αποπυρηνικοποίησης του Ιράν. Δεν νομίζετε όμως ότι υποχρεούμαστε να διευρύνουμε λίγο το ζήτημα; Δεν θα βρούμε να πούμε μια λέξη με αφορμή αυτό το θέμα υπέρ της αποπυρηνικοποίησης του πλανήτη;

Πρόσφατα ήταν εδώ εκπρόσωπος οργάνωσης που βραβεύτηκε με το Βραβείο Νόμπελ και υποστήριξε πάρα πολύ σωστά, καταχειροκροτήθηκε δε από όλους, ότι, από τη στιγμή που εφευρέθηκαν τα πυρηνικά, κάποια στιγμή θα χρησιμοποιηθούν, είτε από λάθος είτε σκόπιμα. Αυτό το μεγάλο θέμα, αυτή τη μεγάλη καταστροφή πάνω από τα κεφάλια της ανθρωπότητας δεν μπορεί να την αφήνουμε έξω από τη συζήτηση, όταν μιλάμε για την αποπυρηνικοποίηση συγκεκριμένου κράτους ή συγκεκριμένης περιοχής.

Επιτρέψτε μου, κυρία Mogherini, να ανακαλέσω στη μνήμη σας – και αναφέρομαι σε προσωπικό θέμα, αλλά είμαι υποχρεωμένος να το κάνω –το μαχητικό μας παρελθόν υπέρ της αποπυρηνικοποίησης του πλανήτη.


  Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, Ιράν: άλλο ένα πεδίο σφοδρών ανταγωνισμών για τα κέρδη του κεφαλαίου. Η συμφωνία δεν χωρά τα συμφέροντα όλων των μνηστήρων για τον έλεγχο του πλούτου αυτής της χώρας. Γι’ αυτό οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες τορπιλίζουν τη συμφωνία, ενώ η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, η Γερμανία, η Γαλλία και η Ρωσία, που έχουν αποσπάσει πολλά και μεγάλα συμβόλαια για τα μονοπώλιά τους, προσπαθούν να την προφυλάξουν βάζοντας ταυτόχρονα όρους κατά του Ιράν.

Ο κίνδυνος είναι μεγάλος, υπολογίζοντας επιπλέον την ένταση της επιθετικότητας του Ισραήλ, που δολοφονεί τον παλαιστινιακό λαό, βομβαρδίζει τη Συρία και εκτοξεύει απειλές κατά του ιρανικού λαού με την κάλυψη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, των ΗΠΑ και του ΝΑΤΟ. Από αυτούς τους ανταγωνισμούς και τις λυκοσυμφωνίες οι λαοί μόνο απώλειες και αιματοχυσίες θα γνωρίζουν. Γι’ αυτό πρέπει να παλέψουν ενάντια στον ιμπεριαλιστικό πόλεμο, τις συμμαχίες και τις συμφωνίες του κεφαλαίου που λυμαίνονται τον πλούτο που οι ίδιοι οι λαοί παράγουν και αυτοί πρέπει να τον καρπώνονται.


  Petri Sarvamaa (PPE). – Madam President, argument number one seems to be that we, as the European Union, must cherish stability in the Gulf region by sticking unconditionally to the JCPOA. However, you only need to look into the present situation to understand that, with the Mullah regime, we are far from stability.

The reaction from Ayatollah Khamenei to the withdrawal of the United States from the agreement speaks volumes. The Tehran dictatorship is actually using the opportunity to milk the Union and keep oppressing its own people. The main issues for the Iranian people are freedom, human rights, women’s rights, poverty – and not the nuclear deal. But the main thing for the Union seems to be the deal and all the other deals that come with it.


  Julie Ward (S&D). – Madam President, whilst I am hugely concerned about Trump’s irresponsible and dangerous foreign policy, tearing up a landmark, EU-brokered deal designed to presage a more peaceful world, I want to remind those in positions of power and influence that many people remain unfairly imprisoned in Iran, a country with an appalling human rights record.

Nazanin Zaghari—Ratcliffe is a British—Iranian dual citizen, who is currently detained in Evin prison on trumped up charges, her situation sadly made worse by Boris Johnson’s ignorant and careless words. Having met Nazanin’s husband, Richard, I can testify to the terrible pain being experienced by her family.

So I urgently call on the High Representative to use all the means in her power to urge the Iranian authorities to release Nazanin and others like her. I’d also like to express my solidarity with the Iranian people, who occupied the streets to protest against corruption and rising prices. Despite calling itself moderate, the current government continues to violate human rights and disregard the Iranian people’s wish for a more open country.


  João Pimenta Lopes (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, condenamos a decisão da Administração norte-americana de denunciar o acordo nuclear e de impor novas sanções ao Irão, desprezando a Carta das Nações Unidas e o direito internacional.

Uma provocação inserida na sua política de confrontação, configurando um risco de escalada de agressão dos Estados Unidos e dos seus aliados no Médio Oriente, nomeadamente contra o Irão ou o Líbano, sequente às guerras de agressão ao Afeganistão, ao Iraque, à Líbia, à Síria e ao Iémen.

Sublinhamos o papel belicista e de sistemático desrespeito pelo direito internacional de Israel e pela Arábia Saudita, vossos aliados, países ambos responsáveis por guerras de agressão contra povos do Médio Oriente. As reações da União Europeia e das suas principais potências não apagam a sua responsabilidade e conivência com as operações de ingerência e de agressão dos Estados Unidos, ou da NATO, na região, como recentemente na Síria, ou naquelas guerras de agressão com base em mentiras da propaganda de guerra.

A defesa da paz no Médio Oriente passa pelo fim das guerras de agressão e pela defesa dos princípios das Cartas das Nações Unidas.


(„Catch the eye” eljárás vége.)


  Federica Mogherini, Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, first of all, let me thank you all for having expressed quite clearly a sort of convergence and a certain unity behind the work we are doing to try to preserve the nuclear deal with Iran. It is the same unity that I have seen in the Commission, the same unity that I have seen in the European Council, in the Foreign Affairs Council, and the same unity that I have seen uniting the European Union within our Union, but also with our international partners all around the world.

Let me stress this point because we have a responsibility as Europeans at this time. The world is looking at us to try and preserve this achievement – no achievement is perfect, but it’s an achievement – and it’s also looking at us to find ways themselves – our international partners – to contribute to preserving these agreements.

I have heard a certain confusion on the extreme right of the Chamber. You know I never enter into these discussions, but I think I have to clarify a couple of things. One is the nature of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) because fake news can produce fake news and can itself become fake news. Let me be very clear on this: the nuclear deal with Iran is not a treaty. It has never been a treaty. It is a multilateral agreement that was negotiated for 12 years under the mandate of the UN Security Council, which mandated the High Representative of the European Union to facilitate the negotiations between Iran, on one side, and Germany, France, the UK, the US, China and Russia, on the other side, to reach an agreement that then became a UN Security Council resolution annex. So the legal framework that legitimates the JCPOA is not in the nature of being a bilateral or multilateral treaty. This is why it has not been ratified by Parliament, but it is an annex to the UN Security Council resolution. There is a UN Security Council resolution that unanimously endorsed and approved the text of the JCPOA and if you want to see it – sorry, the colleague has disappeared, as fake news disappears from time to time – the signed version of the JCPOA is in my office. You’re free to come and see it. It exists. It’s 102-3 pages long – it takes some time to read it and probably a lot of time to understand it – but it exists and it’s available on the website for everybody to consult it. Indeed it has a legal basis, being a UN Security Council resolution document. As such, technically speaking, the unilateral move of the United States Administration is the unilateral decision to stop complying with the UN Security Council resolution the United States itself voted. That is just to clarify what the JCPOA is.

The second element of confusion I see especially – well, only – on the extreme right part of the Chamber is this – and I understand the political dilemma that some political forces might have at this stage, namely following the Trump agenda of destroying multilateralism and going only to bilateral agreements or affirming European autonomy. In French I would say ‘c’est où votre souverainisme?’, because for me protecting and preserving European interests – security interests, economic decisions – at this stage is a matter of priority. I’m surprised that some forces that have always argued for sovereignty and autonomy are now tempted to follow not Brussels but Washington. I think this is a mistake. This is a mistake that goes beyond the nuclear deal with Iran, but I leave this for political reflection in some parts of Europe.

What is at stake today? First of all, what is a stake is the risk that Iran decides to restart its process to achieve a nuclear weapon. This is what we are talking about. The agreement is not perfect. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know anything in diplomacy – not even in life – that is perfect. No agreement, no deal is perfect, but this agreement is working. This agreement’s purpose was – and still is – to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and it is preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. That’s it. The risk is that, were this agreement not in place tomorrow, what would be the immediate consequence? Nuclear proliferation? Iran developing a nuclear programme that is not peaceful? The region going into a spiral of nuclear proliferation? And we know the region. We know the conflictuality of the region and some of you were perfectly right: the risk of slipping into a major scale conflict is real. It’s perfectly possible.

There are two other issues at stake: the credibility of multilateralism and of international agreements – I would say of UN Security Council resolutions. The arguments that whatever is signed can be destroyed unilaterally after a few years is a dangerous one. I often gave this example in Washington. If a private company signs an agreement, when the CEO changes the agreement stays in place. If we introduce the element of uncertainty of agreements signed, the entire world collapses and the credibility of any negotiation – of any negotiation – collapses, and the international system also goes in that direction. So what is at stake is – and our responsibility is big in this – to try to maintain the credibility of diplomacy and multilateralism and, at the end of the day, bilateral agreements as well, because if you can unilaterally withdraw from a multilateral agreement, why shouldn’t you do the same on a bilateral agreement if at a certain moment you change your mind?

Third, what is at stake is the autonomy of the European Union. This goes beyond the nuclear agreement with Iran. This would lead us to a different kind of debate, one that we will surely have at some point, but it is essential that the European Union, together with our international partners, is able to take decisions based on merit, based on our interests and our values, and based on what we think and decide is good for us and for the rest of the region and the world, that, by the way, was a joint analysis and a joint decision not only with our American friends, but also with the rest of international community. Otherwise, the UN Security Council resolution would not have been unanimously adopted. We didn’t move from where we were, and our analysis of what is in our interest and the global interest stays the same, especially after 11 reports that the deal has worked and that Iran is compliant. I believe that we need to be able to affirm that the European Union positions are determined in Europe.

Having said that, the risk of not managing to save this agreement is real and I think we should not underestimate that we are running a risk. Even if we do all we can – and we are doing all we can – to preserve this agreement, there is a risk that this derails. I think we have the power and the instruments, together with our Member States and together with the other international partners we have, to prevent this agreement from being completely disrupted. But there is a risk that this work does not succeed. I think this is the worst case scenario because this would undermine security – nothing to do with stability – and would undermine the nuclear non—proliferation regime and the credibility of the West and of multilateralism and diplomacy. This is why I believe that, even if it’s difficult – and I see all the limitations – we have the responsibility to try to achieve this result. Even if it’s difficult, we must we must do all we can together to preserve this agreement, and this is exactly what we are doing because, again, the scenario of not having the agreement in place would be a disaster for Europe, for the security of the Middle East, for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and I believe also for the United States of America.



  Elnök. – A vitát lezárom.

Última actualização: 18 de Setembro de 2018Aviso legal - Política de privacidade