Volledig verslag van de vergaderingen

Woensdag 29 januari 2020 - Brussel

23. Wet van 2019 tot wijziging van het Indiase burgerschap (debat)

  Przewodnicząca. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest oświadczenie wiceprzewodniczącego Komisji / wysokiego przedstawiciela Unii do spraw zagranicznych i polityki bezpieczeństwa w sprawie nowelizacji indyjskiej ustawy o obywatelstwie w 2019 r. (2020/2519(RSP)).

  Helena Dalli, Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President and honourable Members of this Parliament, the European Union and India enjoy a strong bond rooted in the 2004 strategic partnership. It is based on shared values of democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights, commitment to the rules-based global order, effective multilateralism and sustainable development.

The President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission will host the Prime Minister of India for the 15th EU-India summit on 13 March here in Brussels. We have a rich, frank and open dialogue with India on all issues of common interest, as well as on issues where we might have different perspectives.

The High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission was in India on 16 and 17 January, where he discussed the preparation for the summit. On this occasion, the Minister for External Affairs and Prime Minister Modi reaffirmed their strong interest for a deepened strategic partnership with the European Union.

The issue that you are debating today was also part of the discussions, and the HR/VP enquired about the risk of discrimination among refugees and migrants on religious grounds under the revised legislation. He also drew the attention of his interlocutors to the need to ensure compliance of national legislation with international law. Beyond this point, we believe that it is the role of the Supreme Court of India to assess compliance of the law with the Constitution and we are confident that the ongoing judicial process will contribute to appeasing the tensions and violence witnessed over the past weeks in the country.

Thank you for your attention and I look forward to your remarks.

  Michael Gahler, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Indien ist, wie die Kommissarin zu Recht gesagt hat, ein wichtiger Partner für uns, sowohl politisch als auch wirtschaftlich, und wir wollen die Beziehungen verbessern. Deswegen ist es für uns wichtig, zu schauen, was in dem Land vor sich geht. Wenn uns zur Kenntnis kommt, dass es dort aufgrund eines geänderten Gesetzes oder auch anderer geplanter gesetzlicher Änderungen – wie beim Registrierungsgesetz – Schwierigkeiten, und sogar Gewalt und Tote gibt, dann ist das ein Punkt, wo wir genauer hinschauen. Das tun wir in dem Zusammenhang, und es ist wichtig, dass wir uns hier schlau machen, wie die Situation einzuschätzen ist. Das Gesetz als solches nimmt ja nicht etwas von einem bestehenden Recht weg. Es gibt zwölf Jahre als Frist für alle, die legal in Indien gelebt haben, egal ob sie Muslime oder Christen sind oder anderen Glaubensrichtungen oder Ethnien angehören. Es ist in dem Falle eher eine selektive Privilegierung, also eine positive Diskriminierung. Dann stellt sich die Frage, ob in dem Zusammenhang tatsächlich etwas zu kritisieren ist. Die Kritik, die man sicherlich aus meiner Sicht üben kann, ist, dass im Zusammenhang mit der Debatte über dieses Gesetz auch das Gesetz über die Registrierung von Bürgern überarbeitet wird. Dort besteht die Befürchtung, dass viele Bürger den Nachweis nicht erbringen können, dass sie tatsächlich ein Recht haben, in Indien zu sein. Ich glaube, da muss Klarheit geschaffen werden. Ich bin froh, dass wir jetzt auch abwarten, bis wir die Möglichkeit haben, in zwei Wochen oder bei nächster Gelegenheit hier vielleicht auch mit Regierungsvertretern zu sprechen. Dann sollten wir – auch im Lichte dessen, was das oberste Gericht sagt – unser Urteil fällen. Schnellschüsse sind bei so wichtigen Partnern verkehrt, aber ich bin bereit, die Kritik da zu üben, wo sie auch angemessen ist.

  John Howarth, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, I find and many of the people I represent find the Indian Citizenship Act amendments alarming. This cannot be dressed up. This is a highly discriminatory piece of legislation which targets a specific religion. Muslims are singled out and the threat that this legislation represents to the secular nature of India should be clear, and it’s all very well asking the Indian Government what’s actually going on, what they think, but I don’t believe this is necessarily a government they can trust. I mean, they’re going to say that it’s okay, but the reality appears to me to be somewhat different, and the reports of violence that we hear from India are on the increase. I think a message needs to be sent to the Indian Government from the European Union – because this is a government of Hindu nationalism, a populist government out of the same mold that we have seen elsewhere in the world. The message needs to be very clear: whether it’s Kashmir or the rights of citizens, respect for human rights is an essential element of the arrangements that this Union makes with other partners, and without that respect for human rights, our relationship as the European Union with India will come under serious threat.

  Dinesh Dhamija, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, India takes in persecuted refugees from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh – and they’re the bad guys? No, they’re the good guys. They’ve taken in the refugees.

This motion does not censure any of those three Muslim countries for having created this refugee crisis. The UN Minorities Declaration of 1992 states that minorities can be classified as national, ethnic, religious, linguistic or cultural. This act, the CAA, is just focused on persecuted religious minorities seeking refuge in India. Thus, Muslims coming from those three Muslim countries cannot be considered minorities. Muslims do have a right to become Indian citizens by the 1955 act, of course. The CAA allows Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Parsis and Sikhs to become citizens after six years of living in India. These are persecuted religious minorities.

There are many things wrong with our motion today, but I’ll just give you four: Rohingyas, Tamils, police violence and the National Register of Citizens. Rohingyas are a religious Muslim minority leaving Myanmar for Bangladesh. When they come from Bangladesh to India they become economic migrants because they’re coming from a majority Muslim state. Violence and brutality of the police: let me inform you that 57 policemen had bullet wounds in a demonstration in Lucknow. Tamils are an ethnic minority, not a religious minority. The National Register of Citizens is not even mentioned in the CAA. Are we saying that India, or any other country for that matter, is not allowed to document the people living inside its boundaries?

The CAA is in front of the Supreme Court and thus should be considered sub judice. The real reason for this motion has come before us: the India-EU summit. Should we not be talking to the Indians rather than criticising them and playing neo—colonial politics. We must have a debate but we must also have a summit.

  Scott Ainslie, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I say to my colleagues that I am utterly heartbroken by the appalling decision that we have taken today to postpone the cross-party resolution on India’s Islamophobic Citizenship Act – a resolution to which all the main groups had committed and the EPP has co-signed, but today they have chosen to postpone the vote yet again. Faced with the pressure of India’s diplomatic lobby, the EU have crumbled, capitulated, prioritising yet another trade summit with India over our commitment to protecting human rights. We have refused to take a stand on this Islamophobic policy which could drive 200 million Muslims – nearly half the EU’s population – toward statelessness, incarceration or deportation. In the state of Assam, 1.9 million citizens have already felt the curse of this nationalistic move by Modi. It’s shameful. Now, many words were said in this Chamber today and from your seat to say that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. Today, colleagues, we are doing nothing – to protect the rights of Muslims. Today’s persecuted peoples. This will be the very last time I address Parliament, but I want to leave you with this simple plea: do not allow the Indian Government to use its diplomatic and political might to buy itself impunity. Stay strong and principled and fight against human rights violations and injustices, speak truth to power and hold, the authoritarians to account, but you must act. Words are not enough.

  Thierry Mariani, au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, l’Inde est une démocratie, la plus grande démocratie du monde si l’on tient compte de sa population. Son gouvernement et son premier ministre ont été élus et réélus.

Madame la Commissaire, vous avez tenu des propos apaisants: oui, nous devons avoir un partenariat avec l’Inde; et oui, surtout, cette loi est en ce moment en plein processus démocratique. L’Inde dispose d’une Cour suprême qui va juger de la validité de cette loi, et je me félicite que le vote de notre résolution a été repoussé. En effet, comment ce vote aurait-il été interprété en Inde? Imaginons que nous ayons voté contre cette loi: on aurait dit que la Cour suprême a été influencée par l’Union européenne. Non, je pense que ce vote devait être reporté et je pense surtout que nous n’avons pas à nous prononcer sur cette loi: c’est de la souveraineté des États de choisir leurs nationaux. Comme cela a été dit par l’orateur du PPE, il n’y a en réalité aucun changement pour une partie de la population. Il y a, si vous me permettez cette expression britannique, un fast track qui est créé pour certains. En France, il y a un fast track sur la nationalité qui est créé pour certains ressortissants qui viennent de pays qui ont partagé notre histoire à un moment ou bien qui parlent français. Je ne pense pas qu’il y ait une persécution de qui que ce soit dans ce pays et dans cette loi.

Enfin, comment ne pas voir la main du Pakistan derrière cette campagne médiatique contre l’Inde? Le Pakistan qui, je le répète, ne respecte aucun accord international et que nous continuons à gratifier du statut de GSP+. Le Pakistan, où la minorité chrétienne est menacée.

Alors, laissons à chaque État le droit de choisir qui peut avoir sa nationalité. L’Inde accueille des milliers, voire des millions de réfugiés. À mon avis, ce sont les pays d’où viennent ces réfugiés qui sont à blâmer et non pas l’Inde qui les accueille.

  Ryszard Czarnecki, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Przed chwilą padły tutaj słowa o lobby, silnym lobby, a ja myślę, że dzisiaj w Parlamencie Europejskim zwyciężyło lobby zdrowego rozsądku i szacunku. Szacunku dla największej demokracji świata (w sensie demograficznym), szacunku dla naszego bardzo ważnego partnera w Azji – partnera ekonomicznego, a także politycznego, szacunku dla bardzo starej cywilizacji, szacunku dla państwa, które nigdy nie wtrącało się w nasze wewnętrzne sprawy Unii Europejskiej. Kiedy debatowaliśmy nad traktatami, żadnych uwag ze strony New Delhi nie było. Mam wrażenie, że sytuacja, w której my będziemy występować jako nauczyciele, sędziowie czy prokuratorzy, nie jest dobrą metodą. Tutaj chodzi o partnerstwo i o wzajemny szacunek. O to apeluję.

  Idoia Villanueva Ruiz, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señora presidenta, cierres de Internet, represión policial, 170 muertos en las protestas contra la Ley de nacionalidad en la India. Una Ley que no solo viola el carácter laico de la propia Constitución india, al introducir la religión como criterio para obtener la nacionalidad, sino que también rompe los compromisos internacionales basados en los derechos humanos, como denunció la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas.

Esta Ley no es solo en sí misma discriminatoria, es un peligroso resurgir para los derechos de todas, desde la «internacional reaccionaria». El primer ministro Modi, en conexión con Trump, con Bolsonaro, comenzó su segundo mandato con peligrosas decisiones en el conflicto de Cachemira atacando a ONG y cercenando libertades públicas.

Europa debe ponerse al lado de los millones de trabajadores indios e indias que están haciendo huelgas por sus derechos laborales; de los grupos de mujeres que denuncian las violaciones en grupo. Esto significa condicionar el acuerdo estratégico a un cambio sustancial en los derechos humanos. O apostamos decididamente por ser un actor político independiente que pueda dialogar en pie de igualdad o la propia Europa está en riesgo.

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nonostante l'emendamento alla legge sulla cittadinanza del governo Modi sia formulato in termini apparentemente di accoglienza e protezione, in realtà questa norma è discriminatoria e divisiva, escludendo molte religioni dalle stesse facilitazioni attribuite ad altre e, unitamente all'istituzione del registro nazionale dei cittadini dell'India, il CAA potrebbe infatti portare a una crisi di apolidia su larga scala, senza contare le inutili tensioni e risentimento creato nella comunità musulmana.

Colleghi, mi chiedo: se lo scopo della legge fosse stato effettivamente finalizzato alla tutela delle minoranze perseguitate, perché non sono state incluse altre minoranze perseguitate di paesi limitrofi? Penso, ad esempio, alle popolazioni musulmane dei Rohingya in Myanmar, dei Bihari in Bangladesh o ancora degli Ahmadi in Pakistan, e potrei continuare con una lunga lista.

L'azione esterna dell'Unione si basa su principi che ne hanno informato la creazione, tra cui il principio di non discriminazione. Sono profondamente rammaricato per la decisione di rinviare il voto di oggi. È un nostro dovere, colleghi, come rappresentanti eletti, condannare le azioni del governo indiano e fare quanto in nostro potere affinché riconsideri il CAA e magari lo abroghi. La tradizione, la storia e la grande ricchezza culturale dell'India non meritano tutto questo.

  Neena Gill (S&D). – Madam President, there’s been much disinformation in the run-up to this debate, and even misleading statements in this House by some who have spoken before me, mixing up all sorts of issues. Let’s just stick to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). This is an action of positive discrimination aimed at fast—tracking the integration process of refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, who have already been in India for many years, recognising the high level of discrimination faced by non-Muslims in those countries. It is not seeking to exclude any of the other groups who do not fall within this category. They can still apply for citizenship and be processed. What really pains me is that I have repeatedly raised the concerns around the persecution of minorities in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh only for them to fall on deaf ears. Had this house paid a little bit more attention to those gross violations, as we do today to the CAA, India may not have had to take these actions. So I really welcome that the vote has been postponed on the resolution. First, it’s full of factual inaccuracies. Secondly, it is right that we take time to have a proper debate and this House waits until the Supreme Court has deliberated on this. One thing we have to recognise is that India has a very strong civil society and Indians are far more than capable of holding their executive to account without interference from those who know very little about it.

  Shaffaq Mohammed (Renew). – Madam President, earlier, at the start of this session, we had a very powerful lesson in history, a lesson that’s painful for this Chamber because that’s one of the reasons this House came into being: where one group of people decided another group of people were going to become stateless. I thought this Chamber had learned that lesson and I thought that we were going to be moving on, but what we see now – yes, you can have your meetings and resolutions, but I say to you: I have tried so hard to get this resolution on the table. I postponed the last one. I sat down with all the groups and I thought we had an agreement, but we haven’t. I’m going to be away from here now, I’ll be gone. God forbid, god forbid, if something terrible happens to that new group of people that are going to be made stateless, I can go away with a hand on my heart and say, ‘I did everything possible’, but individuals in here from the top table downwards thought that business and trade interests were more important than human rights. That’s what you’ve done today. Well done.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 171(8))

  Eugen Tomac (PPE), Întrebare adresată conform procedurii „cartonașului albastru”. – Ați vorbit despre faptul că un grup important de cetățeni vor deveni apatrizi în urma acestei legi. Puteți să ne spuneți cifra exactă a cetățenilor care rămân fără identitate cetățenească?

  Shaffaq Mohammed (Renew), blue-card answer. – Apologies for taking my headphones off. If you looked at the motion in ‘H’, this NRC has been enacted in just one state. One state, and 1.9 million people cannot prove that they are Indian citizens. What on earth are you going to do with those people? Because there are already detention camps set up. That’s why I say to you, remember your history: in Nuremberg, that law was also passed, and that was ‘legal’. Just because a law is passed in a Parliament doesn’t mean it is legal. Learn from our history. I am taking his home with me. I am going to hold this in my drawer. God forbid if anything happens, those people that stop this vote today, I’ll be publicly naming them and saying ‘these are the people that have led to this tragedy’.

  Anna Bonfrisco (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, egregio Alto rappresentante, l'Unione europea ha da sempre intensi rapporti commerciali con l'India, ma deve anche riconoscere il suo tentativo di costruire e difendere uno Stato di diritto, pur tra le molte, molte contraddizioni.

Noi dobbiamo rispetto all'India. L'India non ha nulla a che fare con i paesi che la circondano, a partire dal Pakistan, ideologicamente e religiosamente contrario al progresso, alla Cina, che impone il suo autoritarismo su più di un miliardo di persone, o al Myanmar, con la sua pulizia etnica contro i Rohingya.

Al netto di eventuali profili di costituzionalità, che non spetta a noi valutare, l'interesse dell'Unione europea deve essere quello di evitare ogni conflitto con un paese come l'India, proiettato nel futuro e all'avanguardia nel mondo per un sistema di educazione, quello dello STEM, fonte di benessere per i suoi cittadini. L'India è un paese ben cosciente delle minacce interne ed esterne alla sua sicurezza e cerca solo di attuare le misure che ritiene necessarie.

  Phil Bennion (Renew). – Madam President, I certainly welcome the idea of a Citizenship Amendment Act in offering protection for persecuted groups. Unfortunately, the Act as it stands is seriously flawed. The law does not extend to the protection of Muslims. Now, there are Muslim sects in neighbouring countries that do face discrimination and one of them, the Ahmadiyyas, has already been mentioned. Ultimately, this law discriminates on religious grounds, and is therefore contrary to the whole principle in India of secularism and also its obligations and international human rights law. The danger, if this act is applied alongside the requirements of the National Register of Citizens, is that many Muslims could be deemed stateless if they cannot produce the correct documentation. This is already proving to be an issue in Assam, where – it’s already been stated by Mr Mohammed – 1.9 million people have been excluded from the register on the basis of not having the documents. So, India’s refugee policy needs to be applied to all of those in need, including Muslims, and the Government should ensure that security forces show sufficient restraint towards protesters and are held to account for their excessive use of force.

  France Jamet (ID). – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, aucun pays au monde n’admettrait de ne pas contrôler ses frontières. L’Inde est un pays souverain qui a prérogative pour décider qui est éligible à déposer une demande de nationalité, à plus forte raison lorsque la cohésion nationale et la sécurité autant intérieure qu’extérieure du pays sont menacées: l’Inde est une démocratie – nous l’avons tous répété ici – la plus grande du monde; et une fédération dans laquelle les États ont une importance cruciale dans un nombre important de domaines.

L’afflux de millions de réfugiés en provenance du Bangladesh, du Pakistan et surtout d’Afghanistan n’est pas, pour l’Inde, qu’un fait humanitaire; c’est un défi national posé à l’unité du pays déjà fragile. L’Inde doit gouverner une population de plus d’un milliard 300 millions d’habitants et n’entend pas succomber – comme cela a été souvent le cas dans son histoire – à des divergences internes, mais bien prendre sa place dans le monde en tant que nation unie. C’est son droit le plus strict.

Zgłoszenia z sali

  Silvia Sardone (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, trovo francamente sconcertante che per l'ennesima volta qui in Parlamento europeo ci troviamo a parlare di altri Stati, mettendo in dubbio la sovranità che gli altri Stati hanno, tra l'altro mettendola in dubbio in uno Stato come l'India, che è riconosciuta come grande democrazia, soprattutto in Asia. Tra l'altro, su un tema che tra febbraio e marzo vedrà coinvolti esponenti del Parlamento europeo ed esponenti indiani che si incontreranno per discuterne. Un tema e un provvedimento che è sub judice e che sarà valutato dalla Suprema Corte indiana.

Però io mi chiedo: ma ha veramente senso mettere in discussione i rapporti tra Europa e India su un tema che è chiaramente di politica interna indiana? E soprattutto io penso che i cittadini europei ci avevano votato per discutere dei temi e dei grandi problemi degli europei non degli indiani o di altri Stati.

Chiudo con una cosa: il testo include attacchi al governo, parla di chiusura di accesso Internet e tante altre cose, quindi è chiaro che noi come gruppo saremo contrari.

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)

  Helena Dalli, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, I have taken due note of the various opinions expressed by the honourable Members today. The EU values its partnership with India – may I reiterate this. It’s a respected democracy, the largest in the world and the oldest in Asia, and we look forward to pursuing and intensifying our dialogue with India at the forthcoming summit on the whole range of issues of common interest, including our mutual commitment to democracy, the rule of law and human rights. I thank you and good night.

  Przewodnicząca. – Otrzymałam sześć projektów rezolucji złożonych zgodnie z art. 132 ust. 2 Regulaminu.

Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się podczas drugiej marcowej sesji miesięcznej.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 171 Regulaminu)

  Łukasz Kohut (S&D), na piśmie. – W grudniu 2019 roku przyjęto w Indiach prawo przyznające obywatelstwo migrantom, którzy przed 2015 rokiem przybyli do tego kraju z Pakistanu, Bangladeszu i Afganistanu, pod warunkiem, że nie są muzułmanami. Takiego prawa nie sposób nazwać inaczej niż dyskryminacją. Nie ma wytłumaczenia, które mogłoby uzasadnić dyskryminowanie i wykluczanie ludzi ze względu na wyznawaną religię czy też jej brak. Nie ma wytłumaczenia dla dyskryminacji z powodu jakiejkolwiek cechy – płci, wieku, stopnia sprawności, pochodzenia etnicznego, orientacji seksualnej, czy jakiegokolwiek innego powodu.

Przed dwoma dniami ocalały z Holocaustu Marian Turski, przemawiając w 75-tą rocznicę wyzwolenia Auschwitz, powiedział: „Nie bądźcie obojętni, gdy jakakolwiek mniejszość jest dyskryminowana, ponieważ istotą demokracji jest to, że większość rządzi, ale demokracja na tym polega, że prawa mniejszości muszą być chronione jednocześnie”. Ludzi, którzy przeżyli piekło będące wynikiem wykluczenia i nienawiści, trzeba słuchać.

Unia Europejska i Indie mają dobre stosunki i regularnie prowadzą dialog. Ważne jest, byśmy w ramach tego dialogu zwracali mocno uwagę na to, że prawo, które wyklucza, że prawo, które dyskryminuje, zawsze źle się kończy. Ważne jest również, byśmy zwracali uwagę na wartość, jaką jest świeckie państwo – państwo, w którym kościoły i związki wyznaniowe oddzielone są od władzy publicznej.

  Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE), por escrito. – La ley de nacionalidad aprobada por el Parlamento indio en diciembre de 2019 ha llevado a la violencia en las calles. Tenemos que analizar con detenimiento lo que está ocurriendo, pedir aclaraciones a las autoridades y esperar la decisión del Tribunal Supremo de la India. En 15 días, representantes gubernamentales y el primer ministro de la India vendrán a Bruselas y esa será una oportunidad de pedir aclaraciones. Desde su independencia en 1947, la India ha emprendido un admirable desarrollo, consolidándose como un referente democrático en la región e incluso como un paladín de la tolerancia y de la diversidad. Una normativa que discrimine abiertamente a los musulmanes y desafíe a sus países vecinos, sería crear un problema con su minoría musulmana. Este tipo de políticas tiene el riesgo de ampliar la brecha entre musulmanes e hindúes y dificultar la entrada de musulmanes en el país sería darles un sentimiento de ciudadanos de segunda categoría. De confirmarse, se crearía un motivo para la radicalización, en un país en el que hasta ahora no ha habido grandes problemas con el terrorismo yihadista. Confío en que el Gobierno aclarará la situación y rectificará lo que tenga que rectificar antes de que la violencia en las calles empeore.