Speeches

Madam President, Mr High Representative, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, building a geopolitical Europe has been one of the main objectives of this Commission. An unavoidable goal if we want to be heard and respected internationally. But we must ask ourselves if we are achieving this goal. And I wonder – with the exception, of course, of the response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, where, fundamentally, it did seem that a resolute Europe was emerging – where geopolitical Europe was in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We responded late and badly. Where is geopolitical Europe when we sign migration agreements with countries like Tunisia, when neither the content nor the method are shared by all Member States? Where has geopolitical Europe been during the early days of the terrible conflict between Hamas and Israel? Doing politics on Twitter? Making contradictory and non-aligned decisions between institutions? It is not possible to build a geopolitical Europe if we are unable to agree on our strategic objectives and priorities for external action, if states' agendas take precedence over the European interest. It is not possible to do so if we are unable to convey clear and coordinated messages and if we continue to have dysfunctional decision-making mechanisms in the field of foreign policy, the famous unanimity. And the truth is that, while Europe's relative weight in the world economy declines and while alternative polarities to the Western world are being built with force, no one today thinks of Europe as a leading geopolitical actor. We need to develop the project of a Europe with strategic sovereignty on key issues such as industry, trade, technology... More Europe also in defence. And we must be clear that, indeed, being geopolitical implies having a minimum of hard power, but the added value that Europe brings on the international stage must always be the defence of human rights, democracy and international law.

Mr President, is it too much to ask that barbarism and atrocities be unequivocally condemned, even when someone may feel close to the cause in whose name they are supposedly committed? If we don’t first and foremost have a human response to victims of terror, we are lost. The attacks by Hamas and the holding of hostages are acts of terrorism. And it saddens me that there are some still reluctant to condemn them. These atrocities hurt the Palestinian cause, which is a legitimate cause that does not deserve to be put into the hands of fanatics. We are still terrified by yesterday’s massacre in the Gaza hospital. Such criminal acts have to be investigated and perpetrators be held accountable. The indiscriminate killings of innocent civilians and the immense suffering inflicted to civilian population need to be condemned and stopped. Demanding respect for international humanitarian law does not weaken our condemnation of terror. It rather strengthens our commitment to a rules-based world, even in a world full of hatred. We are facing an extremely difficult situation. No diplomatic effort has to be spared in order to avoid an even bigger humanitarian crisis, and to prevent a regional spill-over of the conflict. Humanitarian corridors need to be put in place now. Hostages need to be released. It is urgent to de-escalate in the perspective of quickly achieving a ceasefire. These are days of rage and sorrow. But sooner rather than later those who reject violence and want peace will need to be rewarded. There is a conflict pending resolution for decades, and the only way out is through international law and just peace. Terrorism is also fought by genuinely and tirelessly working for peace. Now, with the bombs falling, this may seem like wishful thinking, but it is not. It is the truth that everyone knows, but too few dare to say these days.

Madam President, however you would describe what has been going on in Gaza after the terrible terror attacks by Hamas, one thing is for sure: there is a terrible humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza in front of our eyes, and we have to be able to speak about this humanitarian crisis. This needs our utmost attention. That is why we ask to add a second debate in a joint debate about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. However, I’ve been aware that there has been proposal work by different groups which reads ‘Council and Commission statements on the despicable terrorist attacks by Hamas, Israel’s right to defend itself in line with humanitarian and international law, and the humanitarian situation in Gaza’. As we believe, in the light of the terrible events unfolding in Israel and Gaza, this Parliament needs to speak in a clear and strong voice: that’s why we are able to withdraw our request for the sake of consensus.

Mr President, we have been debating for years how to approach asylum and migration with a common European policy and, although this is one of the most polarised debates we have, prone to populism and instrumentalisation by the far right – or, rather, that is why – it is urgent to conclude an agreement, especially the asylum and migration package. It is also urgent because the current management is a failure. Failure in terms of human rights, lost lives, saturated arrival points at some external borders, lack of co-responsibility on the part of many governments, NGOs criminalized for their solidarity action and mafias at large. We are ready to conclude the negotiation, but we will continue to call for full solidarity between states, legal and safe pathways, the right to asylum and compliance with international law and human rights, particularly at borders and in cooperation with third countries. We want migration management based on the principles of solidarity and human dignity, also taking into account the needs of our economies and the reception capacities of our societies. It is urgent to reach an agreement, but this has to be a good agreement.

Madame President, the mass exodus of Armenians from Artsakh, fleeing their homeland and leaving everything behind for fear of their lives is truly shameful and represents a massive failure. We did warn that the months long blockade of the Lachin corridor was only the prelude to a de facto ethnic cleansing. Azerbaijan, with all its anti-Armenian rhetoric, was never genuinely committed to diplomacy. Aliyev, who made assurances that he wouldn’t once again use weapons to impose a solution, has mocked us, the international community and the agreement signed in 2020. Now he has what he has been dreaming of. A Nagorno-Karabakh without Armenians, another territorial conflict that ends with the use of force and not through negotiation and once again violating the right to self-determination. We have to make it clear that behaving like Azerbaijan did with such unilateral actions must have consequences. Otherwise, autocrats feel emboldened. The EU must now provide all the necessary help to Armenia to face the refugee crisis, but also to consolidate its democracy with a European perspective.

Mr President, reliable, secure and resilient access to critical raw materials is key to bring forward the digital and green transition, advancing our climate targets and achieve greater strategic autonomy. We need to diversify imports and reduce dependencies as fast as we can. And given that a dramatic increase in our demand over the next years is forecast, we need to find ways to recycle and reuse. But as customers and as consumers, we also have a responsibility on how sourcing is conducted. The situation in many mining sites across the world concerning human rights violations and negative impacts on the environment is dire. We need to ensure at all times that decisions related to critical raw materials take into consideration environmental, social and governance aspects, as well as the rights of indigenous peoples, and that human rights are upheld throughout the global supply chain. In other words, we have to be committed to sustainable and responsible sourcing.

Madam President, Commission President, during your and our mandate, some circumstances – mostly unexpected – pushed us to have to kind of reinvent ourselves as a union. We took decisions that were unthinkable a few years ago and we became more aware of ourselves as a political community with values and interests to stand for. And I must admit, Madam von der Leyen, that this has happened under your impulse with cross-party alliances in this Parliament, and despite the fact that in the EU we still have rather sclerotic ways of functioning. This political ambition cannot decay now. We cannot bow down to those who call with misleading arguments for an end to much needed policies like those of the Green Deal. We need to go on facing our challenges with political ambition, without leaving anyone behind, with more attention to social issues, which has been the big missing thing in your speech, and guided by a sense of responsibility towards future generations. And you mentioned Europe’s diversity. I hope next time in next debates, I can address you in my mother tongue, which is Catalan.

Mr President, Mr High Representative, I believe that this desire to deepen EU-CELAC bilateral relations is positive and comes at a good time, because interesting things are happening in some Latin American countries and because we need to diversify partners, allies, not only in the commercial field but also in the political one. But I would like to focus on three points. First of all, Latin American partners are rightly asking us that this relationship really be between equals, that it not only respond to the European extractivist trade priorities of the past, which, in addition, tend to be associated with human rights violations and negative impacts on the environment. This time they ask us that this relationship generates industrialization, knowledge, value, added value and that it stays in the region. That it has, therefore, a positive effect economically speaking. Secondly, the investment agenda must be consensual and appropriate on both sides and with the participation of civil society. And finally, we must put human rights and the fight against inequalities, especially pressing in the area, at the centre of the relationship.

Mr. President, Mr. Borrell, to rethink, indeed, what do we do there? how are we there, but also with what alliances? I believe that precisely to defend these strategic interests of which we spoke, but also, above all, to help stabilize the area as a precondition for generating development and security, it is important, it is key, the relationship we have with the partners there. And there has been the paradox that, in the last ten years, implementing the Sahel Strategy, we had prioritized the relationship with the G-5 Sahel to the detriment perhaps of ECOWAS, right? I believe that we should now strengthen our strategic partnership with ECOWAS, which has a key role in the region, and work much more together. ECOWAS has a division over how to react to Niger, a division that is generally taking place across Africa. But I believe that we must have a much more consistent, direct and positive relationship with ECOWAS.

Mr Borrell, my first question is this: What, in your view, are the European Union's strategic interests in the Sahel region and to what extent are these strategic interests being affected by the various coups d'état that are plaguing the region?

Madam President, I think it is important for this Parliament to send a very unanimous and cross-cutting message to the Venezuelan authorities: Presidential elections scheduled for next year must be free, fair, inclusive and transparent. An electoral process must be guaranteed that protects the right to participate of all political options and opinions on an equal footing. In short, a fully democratic process must be ensured. In that sense, it is bad news the recent disqualification for fifteen years, decided by administrative means, of the opposition candidate María Corina Machado; an arbitrary disqualification, which in the past has also been suffered by political opposition figures or other figures and which today remain disqualified. Nor is it positive that the recommendations of the 2021 European Union Election Observation Mission are not implemented, and we call once again for all efforts to be made leading to the full implementation of these proposals. Although the dialogue between the Government and the opposition has not produced results so far, and has in fact been frozen in recent months, we urge the parties to resume this dialogue in order to facilitate, among other things, the full democratization of Venezuela. In this regard, we call on the European Union to support the internal, but also international, efforts that have taken place and that may take place in the future. Finally, we are on the verge of the EU-CELAC summit, which should provide a boost for relations between the European Union, Latin America and the Caribbean. Everyone should rise to the occasion so that this agenda of strengthened relations can prosper.

Madam President, yesterday a terrible event happened on the beach of Roda de Berà in Catalonia, in the Mediterranean. The body of a two- or three-year-old boy, in an advanced state of decomposition, was found in clothing. The police work on different hypotheses. One of them is that it would be a victim of a shipwreck of a boat full of migrants. This is not emotional blackmail. It's a very simple question: Do we really not have the economic, technical, human means, the capacity to coordinate to save lives, to prevent these tragedies? Do we really have no means of complying with what international law requires us to do? The Mediterranean is the deadliest sea, but it is not the largest. No one has to die crossing the Mediterranean. Of course we have to help the countries of origin. Of course we have to fight the mafias. But once people are at sea, tragedies must be avoided, lives must be saved and all the political will and resources must be invested in doing so. No more excuses.

Mr President, the Palestinian Authority is a government with limited self-rule over only a part of the West Bank, which in turn is an occupied and extremely fragmented territory, as I could witness myself three weeks ago as a member of DROI mission that went to the area. Moreover, the PA is in a very fragile financial situation and highly dependent on the international community, mostly us. It is also confronted with a legitimacy problem – no elections in 17 years – and it is becoming increasingly authoritarian in terms of suppressing political dissent and reducing the space for civil society. And despite all these challenges and flows, or rather because of them, the EU has to intensify its relations and its political dialogue with the PA with the aim of improving governance, institutions and the security situation in the OPTs, easing socio—economic conditions for Palestinians and ultimately making Palestine an independent, viable country, living peacefully and democratically alongside Israel and fully assuming its security demands. This would also require Israel to comply with international law regarding settlements and stop advancing de facto annexation. But instead of trust—building measures that could allow for the resumption of the peace process, the harsh reality on the ground is again an escalation of violence. The EU must focus its attention on what’s happening in the West Bank and intensify our efforts for de—escalation. We should not let the extremists keep instrumentalising the conflict, or else we will lose again chances for a future in peace.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, since the Chinese authorities imposed the national security law three years ago, fundamental freedoms, rule of law and judiciary independence in Hong Kong have alarmingly deteriorated. Around 250 people have been arrested. Some media outlets have been forced to close, while labour unions and civil society groups have been disbanded. The case of Jimmy Lai, founder of Apple Daily, detained in February 2021 on trumped-up charges and facing a possible life sentence is probably amongst the ones that best represent the curtailing of freedoms in Hong Kong and the crackdown on the pro-democracy movement and on independent media outlets, their owners and their journalists. But the list of people persecuted under the national security law is a long one. Let’s not forget other activists facing trial later this year, like Chow Hang-tung, placed in solitary confinement during her 34-hour hunger strike, or Albert Ho, whose bail was lifted on futile legal grounds and who suffers from cancer, or Benny Tai, Lee Cheuk-yan, Cyd HO, Joshua Wong and all the other members of the group Hong Kong 47. We urge the government of Hong Kong to immediately release and drop all charges against Jimmy Lai and all the other pro-democracy representatives and activists who have been suffering from state repression due to their commitment to the right to freedom of expression.

Mr. President, stop spying on us. Stop doing it illicitly, illegally, intrusively and undemocratically. Every time governments or agencies of European states have tapped the mobile phones of politicians, activists, journalists and lawyers, they have increasingly eroded democracy and the rule of law. Every attack on our phones is an attack on the fundamental rights of all. I am now addressing the Spanish State directly. Stop spying on us and collaborate with the investigations. The victims of their illegal espionage have the right to know when and why we were spied on and to have responsibilities purged. This is not just for me. Today, this is also required by this European Parliament, which calls on Spain to cooperate with the courts, to hand over judicial authorisations – if any – and to provide answers to all victims of ‘Catalangate’. It is not worth hiding behind the excuse of national security. We're not a threat. We're Democrats, Mr. Zoido. If they consider us a threat, it is because their concept of democracy is very, very fragile. A message also for the extreme right of VOX, which is absent like all the extreme right because it is not interested in this debate. Stop intoxicating with your conspiracy rhetoric. Your national pre-democratic populism no longer cheats in this house. The constant blockade and sabotage of your group will not prevent us from demanding from the Spanish State, and from all the States involved in this scandal, truth, reparation, justice and non-repetition.

Mr President, the Council’s recently agreed position on migration and asylum is worrying to say the least. It shows a bias towards the most narrow-minded attitudes regarding asylum and migration. The Council’s general approach would significantly lower protection standards for people arriving at EU borders. It would normalise the detention of migrants in close facilities at external borders for months, including families with children. The much-needed solidarity between Member States translates now into the possibility of paying for not relocating – that is, for not assuming responsibility. The cost of looking away is set at EUR 20 000 – money that can also go to third countries so that they can, and I mean it ironically, do us the favour of stopping migrants and asylum seekers on their own. Fortress Europe sees its foundations reinforced, while European solidarity faces a resounding failure. In the coming weeks and months, we will need to defend the agreements of this Parliament. They still fall short, but they are for sure closer to our fundamental values than those coming from the Council.

Madam President, Mr High Representative, Cuba is going through one of the worst crises of recent decades. Crisis of shortages, especially of fuel, inflation, the largest wave of emigration in decades. Undoubtedly, the US blockade with extraterritorial effects is one of the causes of this situation. It is, although the embargo cannot be the justification for all the ills of the island. For example, it does not at all justify the human rights situation, which is also delicate, with political prisoners and restrictions on fundamental freedoms. Meanwhile, geopolitically, the Cuban government – far from condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – has close ties with Putin’s Russia, seeking its oil, wheat, financial support and tourists. This scenario, perhaps in a certain sense, does not make things easy for the political dialogue and cooperation agreement, but I think that in turn this context makes this agreement more necessary than ever, because at least it gives us a platform to try to influence issues of mutual interest, accompany reforms and openings of an economic and institutional nature and maintain dialogues on human rights such as the one that will take place in Havana in November, led by Mr Gilmore. I sincerely believe that this is better than nothing, because nothing was what the previous common position gave us. The path of the agreement is complex and requires perseverance and efforts by all parties, but given the context, Mr Borrell, I still believe that it is the best alternative, especially given our renewed ambition to intensify relations with Latin America and the Caribbean.

High Representative, I would like to put the focus on the broader negotiations towards a peace settlement. It is true that there have been intense and commendable diplomatic efforts in recent months, including from the EU. That’s true. There’s been five rounds of negotiations, discussions in Brussels. During these discussions, different issues have been tackled; issues like delimitation of the border, connectivity issues, including the lighting corridor, humanitarian issues, the release of prisoners. It seems that – and correct me if I’m wrong – there’s been little progress thus far. But to me, the cornerstone will be the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh, where there is fundamental disagreement between the two sides. Concrete commitments are needed to guarantee the rights and the security of the native Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh and for the protection of their heritage and their culture. I am afraid there won’t be any comprehensive and fair peace agreement without that. So I would like to ask you, Mr Borrell, what is your view on the need to agree on the final status for Nagorno-Karabakh? And what minimum criteria should this status meet?

–Mr President, although the Algerian Constitution clearly protects freedom of the press, in recent years there have been judicial acts and decisions that in practice contradict this protection. The case of Ihsane El Kadi is the most recent. A journalist critical of the authorities who had previously been subjected to intimidation, he was recently sentenced to five years in prison and his two media outlets closed. From spurious accusations related to funding from abroad, the outcome of the entire process, pending appeal, is a clear attack on press freedom. This Parliament therefore calls on the Algerian authorities to release Ihsane El Kadi. Promoting a free and independent press is fundamental to consolidating an area of freedoms. This also includes the protection of the rights of those journalists and citizens in general who are critical of the authorities. While the proposed New Information Law contains some progress, the truth is that the media and journalists continue to face obstacles in exercising their profession freely and independently. We therefore call on the Algerian authorities to remove these obstacles and improve the protection of fundamental rights in the country.

Madam President, Chancellor, today is Europe Day. Today, and indeed every day, we can congratulate ourselves on the successes of European unity. Many of these achievements have been driven by your country. However, we still have a lot of work to do to make the EU more coherent, for example in terms of democracy and fundamental rights. We must say loud and clear that the illiberal projects of some European governments are simply incompatible with the European project. We must be aware of what it means for the whole Union when Member States are left behind in the ranking of freedom of the press, when governments politicise the judiciary or when legitimate democratic self-determination efforts are confronted with state power and judicial harassment. This too is Europe today, Chancellor, and we urgently need the will and courage of countries like yours to reverse these anti-democratic and anti-European tendencies.

Mr President, Mr Borrell, Peru has been in a permanent political but also social crisis for many years. But this last crisis, following the arrest of President Castillo for his intention to dissolve Congress, unleashed an uncontrolled repression by the Government with an unacceptable price on human lives: 67 deaths, according to the Ombudsman's Office, 49 of them due to the excessive use of force by security forces that, according to Amnesty International, used lethal weapons indiscriminately. Acts of violent repression, arbitrary arrests, extrajudicial executions and the disappearance of demonstrators cannot go unpunished. We trust that independence between powers will be respected to allow for an independent, diligent, thorough and transparent investigation that clarifies the facts, prosecutes those responsible and redresses the victims. We call on the transitional government to end the criminalisation of peaceful social protest and to guarantee this right; to also put an end to the climate of harassment of human rights defenders and journalists who are also victims of constant harassment by certain groups; to promote a dialogue with all sectors involved in the protests, a dialogue which must be effectively supported by the European Union; a crucial dialogue to find a consensual solution to the crisis. The protesters are not only asking for the restitution of President Castillo, whom, by the way, some never forgave for a humble rural teacher winning an election. They also call for the improvement of living conditions, an end to enormous inequalities, an end to racism rooted in part of society and an end to discrimination against indigenous peoples. We also call for a fair trial of the ousted president and, finally, we call on the Peruvian authorities to guarantee as soon as possible a fair, free and transparent general election, under international observation.

Mr President, as we know, one of our weaknesses as the EU is the difficulty in establishing unified and coherent foreign policy strategies. That this would happen to us with what is one of the most relevant strategies – our relationship with China – would be particularly serious. We have indeed a good basis to update such a strategy in President von der Leyen’s recent speech at the EPC, which I can endorse almost from top to bottom. But if we send contradictory messages to Xi Jinping, we lose credibility, for instance, as when President Macron says what he said in relation to Taiwan. The maintenance of the status quo in the Taiwan Strait is not an internal matter. If it breaks down due to increasing Chinese aggressiveness, this will have regional and international repercussions, as everyone knows. We cannot break the fragile European consensus on such sensitive issues with unilateral steps such as this. With China, we need to establish a relationship that takes into account both the evolution of the Chinese regime in recent years – more authoritarianism and more willingness to shape the international order – as well as our own interests. And this implies cooperating bilaterally and multilaterally whenever possible, reducing the enormous strategic dependencies that we have, which represent a high economic risk, and never, ever giving up in the defence of human rights and democratic values.

Madam President, the European economy is subject to pressures that can weaken its competitiveness and therefore its ability to generate and redistribute wealth. The latest scare related to, once again, the strength of the banking system. The geopolitical dynamic also poses challenges such as inflation or reducing strategic dependencies on technologies, energy or critical materials. And all this while we have to align our economic base to the ecological transformation. To successfully overcome all these challenges, there is a key area in which we are not doing enough, where we continue to lag behind, namely investment in research, development and innovation. At the last European Council meeting, it was again requested that we achieve the target of investing 3 % of GDP in research, an objective that today only four Member States fulfil – and we have been pushing for this goal for 21 years now. It will turn out that governments will make much more effort to reach the 2 % military spending target than the R&D target and this is worrying because we are talking about the long-term competitiveness of our economy.

Madam President, in times of geopolitical turbulence such as the present, it is more important than ever for the European Union to know how to find its place in the world in political and security terms, but also in economic, commercial or industrial terms. This requires broad consensus and shared ambitions. In this regard, for example, it is positive that the Commission has presented the Green Deal Industrial Plan and, in particular, the Net-Zero Industries Act. It is the first legislative proposal of the Union dedicated to industrial policy and with a perspective of strategic sovereignty. However, these days we see the reopening in the Council of debates and political agreements already closed on very important measures to combat climate change, such as the end of combustion engines in 2035. And there are many other examples of how some governments and some groups, in this House, systematically try to lower ambition in the deployment of Green Deal measures. But now is not the time to be divided, now is the time to maintain the political unity and ambition that allow us to advance in the ecological transformation and be leaders in more competitive industries, that is, sustainable industries.

In just a few short weeks, we have seen what the most extremist government in Israel’s seven-decade history is capable of: eroding democracy by undermining the independence of the judiciary. Mr Borrell, the EU must unequivocally stand with those who defend a solid democracy with proper checks and balances in Israel. And you should make clear that if these reforms go ahead, this will ultimately have consequences for relations between the EU and Israel. But as we look at what is going on in the streets of Israel and in the Knesset, we need also to be looking at what is happening in the occupied territories. And there we see more of the same. Perhaps with greater intensity. We see growing violence, expansion plans for illegal settlements, a de facto annexation turning into a covert, de jure annexation, daily discrimination against Palestinians, demolitions... It is necessary that it also gets international attention and condemnation and that the EU finally gets vocal and consistent, opposing occupation policies from the current government, as well as former ones which seek to make a just and lasting peace an impossibility.