9ème législature Tatjana ŽDANOKA

. ‒ I stand for peace. Therefore, I voted against this resolution calling for an escalation of the military confrontation. That is how, and not otherwise, one can regard the calls for the EU and its Member States “for contributions towards strengthening Ukraine’s defence capacities to be increased” (paragraph 24), ‘to accelerate the provision of defensive weapons to Ukraine’ (paragraph 25) and ‘to continue providing the strongest possible economic and financial support to Ukraine, as well as macro-financial and technical assistance wherever needed, including in defence- and security-related areas’ (paragraph 31).
The President of the European Commission in her speech at the session of the European Parliament on 1 March 2022 declared that EUR 500 million from the EU budget will be used to purchase arms for Ukraine. This is the first time the EU finances the provisions of lethal equipment.
Eight years ago, we witnessed many cases of civil confrontation in various regions of Ukraine, leading to numerous tragedies. In my speeches at Parliament at that time, I emphasised that the reason lay in a different vision of the future for the country among different segments of the population. In 2013, the Ukrainian population was already divided into two equal parts: those who were against European accession and those who were in favour. Besides that, the overwhelming majority was against Ukraine joining NATO. Ignoring this fact for the sake of their geopolitical interests on the part of the leaders of the European Union and other international global players has led to the current tragic situation in the very centre of the European continent.

I abstained in the vote since I believe that the statement of §1a of this report is far from reality and that advancing democracy, the rule of law, the universality and the indivisibility of human rights is NOT at the core of the EU’s common foreign and security policy and that this is NOT reflected in all areas of the Union’s relations with non-EU countries and institutions. In my opinion, the EU professes a policy of double standards in relations with non-EU countries depending on geopolitical interests as well on the internal political problems of some EU Member States forcing governments to reorient the public debate towards alleged foreign threats. The EU and its Member States have to hold themselves to the same standards that they demand of third countries concerning human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. The EU, as it is now, is not suitable for the role of a judge for third countries in human rights matters.

. – I voted against this report, and the major reason for this is my belief that the global EU human rights sanctions mechanism may not be an ‘essential part of the EU’s human rights and foreign policy toolbox’ (see para 67). The only toolbox to strengthen the EU’s role as a ‘global human rights actor’ is substantial improvement of the human rights situation in the EU itself. Those who claim to be judges for others are themselves involved in the political persecution of their own citizens. In order to mention the names of all political prisoners in the European Union much more place than this file allows is needed. In my country, Latvia, people are prosecuted for their political opinion or even for the fact of working for certain media. In neighbouring Lithuania, former Member of Parliament, Algirdas Paleckis, is persecuted for his opinion, dissenting from the ‘official’ one. In Spain, my former colleagues MEPs Oriol Junqueras and Raül Romeva, as well as a number of other Catalan people, are imprisoned. The EU, as it is now, is not suitable for the role of a judge for third countries in human rights matters, since people have every right to ask the question: who are the judges?