Speeches

Madam President, officially, the Wagner Group does not exist. At least that is the position of the Kremlin. This is annoying, because the Wagner Group is found everywhere Russia tries to expand its influence: – in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, the Central African Republic and perhaps one day – let’s hope not, let’s make sure not – in Mali. This is annoying, because the victims of the Wagner Group do exist. Rape, torture, murder, arbitrary arrest. Our resolution describes the atrocities committed by Wagner’s men and it is a litany of horror. We must salute all those who investigate these crimes, sometimes at the risk of their lives. Three Russian journalists died in the Central African Republic because they were investigating Wagner Group abuses. This is probably why, officially in Moscow, the Wagner Group does not exist: to allow Russia to escape its responsibilities in the face of its crimes. But the Wagner Group is not just massively violating human rights. It thrives on the distress of the countries where it rages. Mining, the capture of customs resources, it does not stop at anything to capture the resources of countries that have had the misfortune to use what we do not dare to call its services. Let us add to this massive disinformation campaigns, because this Russian group not only wants to intervene wherever it sings, it also wants to drive out those, and especially the Europeans, who are trying to stabilize the countries in crisis and get them out of the chaos, the trade funds of these mercenaries. So I would like to tell the Malian authorities to think about their country, to rise to the level of responsibilities they have seized and to turn their backs clearly and definitively on the idea of using mercenaries who would only add violence to violence without ever ending it. And I want to salute our European Union, which has decided to sanction the Wagner Group and urge it to act swiftly and strongly against these sowers of hatred and death.

Mr President, this is not a migration crisis taking place on the border between Belarus and Europe. It is a deliberate manipulation by Aleksandr Lukashenko in an attempt to destabilise and divide us. Lukashenko is not only a dictator who oppresses his people and remains in power illegitimately after rigged elections. He’s a highwayman. A few months ago, he hijacked a European plane between two European capitals to kidnap a young blogger who had found refuge in Europe; Let’s not forget that. Since then, he organizes the tour operators of shame. By making them glimpse a hypothetical future in Europe, it attracted thousands of Iraqis who could not locate Minsk on a map. He provided them with visas, specially chartered flights and rushed them to the borders of our Union, preventing them from turning back. He certainly did not act alone. For our part, we have been able to remain united and in solidarity with the countries that were taking this hybrid attack head-on and which we cannot leave alone. Let us remember what Lukashenko said a few months ago: I'll send you migrants, then I'll send you drugs, then I'll send you the mafia. But the Mafia is he and his accomplices in this undertaking of unheard-of cynicism. We have no reason to give in to this blackmailer. None. We must learn to guard against the hybrid attacks of this war low cost and without military means, which is nevertheless a war that authoritarian regimes are waging against Europe. For these diets, all blows are allowed. Information manipulation, cyberattack, underground funding of complicit politicians and now human trafficking. We will respond to these attacks in accordance with the law, because they are our values, but we will respond, because it is our right.

Madam President, today is the autumn of democracy in Tunisia and yet it is far from spring, that of the Jasmine Revolution. Yet only ten years have passed. Today, the Tunisian Parliament is suspended. President Kaïs Saïed decides more and more on his own. More and more alone. So, of course, we rise, we lament, we regret. We condemn what we see and do not understand. But where were we? Where was the European Union when the Tunisian Parliament was fired, including a fight in the hemicycle? What were we saying when, just a year ago, a Tunisian Islamist MP justified the beheading of a French professor, Samuel Paty, on the pretext that he had blasphemed? To the Tunisian people, so courageous and so confused, to the Tunisian civil society, so active and determined, to the young Tunisians, who vote with their feet trying to cross the Mediterranean at the risk of their lives, we give many lessons, but we have not yet found a way to give them what they lack most: Hope.

Mr President, Mr High Representative, in his report to the United States, the Europe of 27 too often resembles the three little monkeys of Chinese tradition. Above all, hear nothing when three US presidents in a row, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, tell us about the pivot to Asia. Above all, see nothing when the United States leaves Afghanistan because it is tired of being the world’s policeman. Above all, do not say anything when Washington is smearing its European allies, lest it smear them even more or, worse, disinterested in them. Yet, in recent weeks, Europe has been able to make its voice heard. After Kabul, to learn the lessons and move towards a European defence, as proposed by the President of the Commission here, but also after the wrong way done by Australia and the United States, not only to France, but also to Europe as a whole. What we need today is to strengthen the European pillar of NATO and build a credible European defence. The US is now in favour. It's up to us to stop closing our eyes and plugging our ears.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, how many of us have had our phones, yes, theirs, infected with the Pegasus software? Because what we're talking about doesn't just happen to others, and spying isn't just about movies and TV series. If the Pegasus scandal has any merit, it is, colleagues, to make us aware of the security challenges and the fight against foreign interference that concern us all. This year, this Parliament – our Parliament – has been the target of at least one serious and massive cyberattack. This year, the press reported that at least one employee from one of our political groups had proven ties to Russia. This year, several parliamentarians have been sanctioned for having lent themselves to sham official missions to at least controversial regimes. Twice, I have approached the President of our Parliament to ask him to work seriously towards establishing sufficient resources and fostering a genuine culture of security in this Parliament. I am still waiting for his reply. I believe, however, that she cannot wait any longer.

Madam President, one minute to talk about China, the organisation of our debates borders on surrealism – Joseph Borrell noted this earlier and he is right. I will therefore avoid general comments and focus on one specific point, that of China's presence in universities and European research. In this area, as in others, our naivety leaves us speechless. We have not paid enough attention to strategic sectors, often in the grey area between civilian and military, where scientific cooperation with China is plentiful. We have allowed the Confucius Institutes to multiply and dictate, where they are located, which research topics are authorised and which ones are prohibited when it comes to China. We do not know who are the European researchers that Beijing has convinced to work for Chinese research and the conditions under which they put their knowledge at the service of a country and often an army, the People’s Liberation Army, whose ambitions should worry us. In short, we have accepted without reacting a growing dependence of our universities on cooperation with China, at the risk of looting our knowledge and Chinese censorship in our research. It is time to impose transparency where opacity prevails, to stop letting our universities do anything in order and to build a real strategy for Europe’s scientific sovereignty.

Madam President, defeat, rout, disbandment; for once, in the face of a crisis – that of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s victory – there is no shortage of words. But as always in the face of a crisis, these are always the same moods. First the astonishment, then the anger, and then the denial. Denial is refusing to see that NATO has failed in its most ambitious mission. This means refusing to hear from the United States, which has been telling us for three presidents that it is tired of being the world’s policeman. And that means refusing to accept that we need to build a genuine European defence without delay. We did not take part in the US withdrawal decision or its implementation. We have not been able to autonomously set up an airlift for the evacuation of our nationals and the most threatened Afghans. We could not impose a safe humanitarian zone in Kabul. What more do we need to react and act? If it is true that Europe is moving forward thanks to crises, then let us bet that European defence now has every reason to move forward.

Mr President, Viktor Orbán and Carrie Lam have two things in common: They don't know how to say no to Beijing and they hate the free press. Reporters Without Borders has just singled them out among the world leaders who most attack journalists. It is therefore no coincidence that the Hungarian Prime Minister stole from the Hong Kong leader and prevented the European Union from opening its doors to Hong Kong Democrats fleeing a crackdown that has become systematic. It is no coincidence, but it is a disgrace. Twenty-six European states were ready to launch a lifeline for journalists and activists whom Hong Kong's leaders want to silence by welcoming them to the European Union. But Viktor Orbán was watching and he said no. The Democrats in Hong Kong, Australia, Canada and our neighbour, the United Kingdom, will be able to welcome them, but we will not. It is time to change our rules and abandon the unanimity rule in foreign policy. It is time to hold Viktor Orbán to account for his fierce fight against freedoms.

Madam President, Mr High Representative, I have a question for you. Are we still really at peace when disinformation sweeps across Europe every day, when cyberattacks follow one another, when, in this very Parliament, some falsely patriotic politicians recite the propaganda of Moscow or Beijing without changing a comma? We need to get to the bottom of it: our democracies are being harassed by authoritarian regimes that do not support what Europe stands for – a single area of freedom, prosperity and solidarity. So, if we agree, I have another question for you, High Representative: In the face of attacks on our democracies, what is your battle plan to expose the extent of imported disinformation? And paraphrasing Stalin: How many divisions in Europe? To counter cyber-attacks, how do you propose to organise solidarity between Member States, as allowed by the European Treaties? How do you intend to retaliate against those who are harassing our democracies and engaging in war for the time being? low cost? Mr High Representative, do not tell us what you are already doing, because we know it, we appreciate it, but we are convinced that more needs to be done. If it is a question of human and material resources, tell us; If it is a question of legal tools, tell us. This Parliament serves this purpose, and this Parliament, at least the overwhelming majority of its members, has as its first task the protection of our democracies.