Debate contributions by Nacho SÁNCHEZ AMOR

Madam President, I say to dear Kaja – you and your team, you live here in the Parliament. Sorry for that. In the current landscape of domestic democratic regression and aggressive US foreign policy, the European Union has repeatedly expressed the need for reliable new partners in the world. One mechanism for securing such partnerships is political and trade agreements. But this policy and map cannot be the result of juxtaposed and changing national interests depending on national electoral calendars. Does Europe want all the partners it can have or not? What cannot be easily explained is choosing to support one or the other agreement depending on the pressure of one or the other sector or depending on the electoral calendar of each country. Because one day it will be an agreement and a sector, but in the future it will be another agreement and another sector. Because in everything you can find some sectors that receive some kind of damage from the agreements. The underlying problem is that we are renationalising European competition in foreign trade. Just look at this morning's voting map with Mercosur: national alignments over political groups and forgetting our obligation to defend European interests. Today it has been Mercosur and tomorrow it may perhaps be India, because in that case too there will be sectors affected. At this stage, as soon as we slide down that slope, this Parliament will be organised by national delegations and not by political groups.

Mr President, this is Parliament's annual report on human rights at the political moment of absolute prevalence of the crudest realpolitik and in the midst of a global reversal of the approach to principles and values. Therefore, it is also good to highlight the enormous contribution of this approach to principles and values in realpolitik. The defence of human rights, the rule of law and the promotion of democracy is not an optional policy of the European Union; is a mandate of the Treaties. It is a legal obligation, but it is also that a world of democracies is not only a fairer world, it is also a safer world. Democracies are boringly predictable; autocracies are unpredictable. Democracies have checks and balances, free press, critical public opinions, real systems of guarantees... Democracies do not militarily invade a neighbour at night – and if they do, they are no longer democracies. Therefore, our contribution to the stability of the world also lies in our policy of promoting democracy; They are not only the values of our civilization, they are also an instrument of stability and security for all.

Mr. President, I want to thank David and Thijs for the effort, for trying the impossible: a description of European foreign and defence policy at a time of heightened volatility and uncertainty over the past 75 years. As difficult as photographing a Formula 1 car. It is impossible to foresee some updates, David and Thijs, for example, the convenience of not publishing private messages between heads of state. In this panorama, which seems to be the end of the era of rationalism and the Enlightenment of which the European Union is the daughter, we must return to the basics, to the essentials: a period of essential consensus in foreign policy here, between the central groups of Parliament, between Parliament and the Executive, in the institutions of the Executive and between the Member States. Anything that weakens us must be rejected outright, and there we must speak of unanimity, as Hilde has done; find an acceptable term in the tone and volume of our public statements in foreign policy; and addressing European citizens when talking about foreign policy, because European citizens are starting to see their heads of government more than European foreign policy leaders.

Mr President, I would like to express my solidarity with almost all the Danish colleagues. My recommendation to Mrs Kallas, to the senior officials of the Commission and the Council and to Parliament itself is that the manuals on geopolitics and diplomacy should be forgotten and thrown away. What they will need in the coming months is patience and a basic child psychology manual. Unity will also be required, "UNITY" with capital letters. We have to forget about the small domestic fights here, between groups, between groups and institutions, between the institutions of the Executive and between the Member States. We have to reject anything that might weaken us, agree on some basics, discuss them in a discreet area and appear before the world and Europeans as the bloc we say we are. To find that common space, you have to raise the tone in the Executive and you have to modulate the tone in Parliament, because European citizens are starting to trust their national leaders more than the leaders of the European Union. And, therefore, a year of basic consensus is not a suspension of European democracy, it is an imperative in the face of an existential threat.

Madam President, there is a new risk surrounding the Gaza conflict: relaxation, the drop in the attention of international public opinion, which is even logical after so many months of tension; But it is a risk that must be avoided, and not abandoned to the idea that there is a peace process underway that – with shocks – will yield results. To begin with – as has been said here – it is not a real peace process but, for the moment, only a ceasefire that has not even managed to stop the deaths, which are already counted – again – by dozens; a ceasefire, by the way, which committed Israel to allowing humanitarian aid in and which, in one week, has allowed 800 trucks when 600 are needed every day and, of course, this aid – inevitably – cannot reach the devastated north of the Strip; But this is not only about food, this is about essential services such as water and health care, at least basic. Another aspect in which you do not have to relax: accountability for the crimes committed. How we act now will be the measure for Putin: When there is a ceasefire in Ukraine, are we going to abandon Putin's accountability? Attention to the dilemma and the answer, because a different treatment will again test our credibility in the Global South. So, when the dilemma arises about responsibilities in the Strip, let's not lose sight of Russia's case and Putin's personal responsibilities. This Parliament approved in September the full re-establishment of UNRWA's mandate and funding. Trump's plan, fortunately, does not exclude any international agency. Many novice actors - from politicians to real estate agents - are going to appear in Gaza and some, surely, combining both souls, but UNRWA alone has 20,000 Palestinians on the ground, experts in the provision of all kinds of public services, which could be the germ of a future Palestinian administration without Hamas.

Mr President, this framework is a perfect example of the European Union's new foreign policy. We're looking for partners around the world with a sign on their forehead that says "We're desperate. We have anxiety. We need friends. And our interlocutors know that. They know it and they use it. And that's not a good starting point for any negotiations. Another of our limitations is that we negotiate with the implicit threat that our interlocutor can look for other international sponsors and can move to the dark side: Another weakness that many exploit. And, therefore, it is not strange that in the new formats of agreements our differential weapon, values and principles disappear, and an allergy is imposed to put anything that can minimally bother the other party. In the case of India, I no longer speak of violence against religious minorities. I don't talk about pretrial detention for years. Not even the ILO conventions, not even a mention of sustainable development. Pure realpolitik and no proximity values. The temptation of Greater Switzerland is calling. An introverted, walled, rich, aged, yet free European Union. Is that the model?

Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their work, with whom I have had an excellent collaboration. The Kyrgyz Republic is one of our main partners in a region where we have interests in security, connectivity, strategic diversification, conflict resolution and the defence of multilateralism. The previous agreement was already 25 years old and it seems logical that it has been revised at this stage. It has an ambitious trade and sustainable development chapter, with a rather remarkable inclusion of labour rights, climate change policies and openness to European companies and investors and the importance also of critical raw materials. It also strengthens cooperation in the field of foreign and security policy, conflict prevention and terrorism. However, we follow with concern the trend towards a security political model that is rapidly eroding the democratic standards of what was once considered an island of democracy. And we hope that this agreement will provide the Commission with new tools to reverse this trend.

Madam President, the barrage of words about Gaza is not only a graphic example of political impotence, but it is becoming an obstacle to action, an alibi for inaction. We must break this vicious circle and move from the mere description of horror to its political and legal qualification and the attribution of responsibilities, inside and outside the European Union. You have to abandon the phrases made and do something very important in politics: call things by name, without diplomatic jargon. Let's try it in today's resolution, because this notorious lack of credibility is no longer just something we will suffer from for decades in our relationship with the Global South, but is already affecting European citizens; And I don't mean just the protesters, but anyone watching a newscast, with those images that aren't broadcast on Israel's public television. Naming moral evil is necessary. Let's remember Hannah Arendt's warning of the "banality of evil" and call things by their name. That is why our proposal includes the term "genocide", points to the Israeli authorities as responsible for war crimes, calls for the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and calls for sanctions, embargoes, recognition of Palestine and the release of hostages.

Madam President, the script of the authoritarians is boringly similar, if not because it creates so much pain and so much cruelty. In addition to the pressure on the media, on NGOs, the harassment of minorities, the dismantling of the judiciary, paranoid narratives about imaginary external enemies, the falsification of elections and so on, they always coincide in the arrest of opposition leaders. It's happening in Turkey and it's happening in Georgia. Putin stops them and kills them, some of them he kills even without stopping them. In the case of Georgian Dream it is enough to remove them from the stage with any absurd excuse. In case there is any remote doubt about the political nature of the persecution, look at the offer of the president of the country: offers to pardon imprisoned opposition leaders if they agree to participate in local elections. First you are arrested so that you do not make public life - and all the sentences refer to the fact that you cannot hold public office - and then your own jailers offer you the key to the cell if you serve to legitimize their elections and their more than probable victory. Sarcastic and cruel. Commissioner Kos, be careful with the comparison and the tone we use with Georgia and Turkey, because the same things are happening.

Madam President, before our eyes is unfolding in all its splendor a European foreign policy prey to Chamberlain syndrome: to appease and reassure the world's new authoritarian leaders. Only moral verticality towards Putin and Russia is shown; for the rest – for Trump, for Erdoğan, for Saied, for Al-Sisi, for Aliyev, for Netanyahu – appeasement: It is the only European policy. We exhibit values and principles like a peacock, with Putin, here, on the dark side of Belliard Street, but, for the others, double standards, which are becoming a non-traditional but genetic component: the metastases of our foreign policy. The case of Israel is a good example: Laziness in activating human rights mechanisms is costing lives every day. In this Parliament, the supposedly Israeli-American humanitarian spawn, whose sole function is to lure Palestinian men into the queues of hunger to be shot there at pleasure by American mercenaries, is normally received. Here the dilemma is whether or not to suspend an Association Agreement; There the dilemma is to watch the children die or risk their lives in a queue of hunger. I make it easy for the Council, because the Council has to choose how history goes: or Chamberlain, or Churchill.

Mr President, one of the most common and sometimes annoying aspects of authoritarian regimes is not only repression, but treating citizens as minors, as children, with all kinds of fantasies. The idea of the outside enemy is one of the favorite mechanisms of authoritarian systems, and this childish narrative, this children's tale, takes the name "Deep State" in Georgia. Anything that annoys the government is "deep state": It can be a tweet from a student or it can be any pronouncement from this House about the country. But, to get that narrative implemented, it is necessary to displace the professional and truthful information made by journalists like Mzia Amaghlobeli. Freedom of the press is an infallible antidote to the psychotic fantasies of authoritarian systems and, therefore, it is necessary to remove any kind of freedom of the press from the environment, sometimes with ridiculous measures, such as, in the case of Georgia, prosecuting judicially if any journalist uses expressions such as "illegitimate parliament", "illegitimate government", "oligarchic regime", "prisoners of the regime" or "pro-Russian regime": Chemically pure Stalinism in a country that, until recently, was a leading candidate for membership of the European Union.

Madam President, Mrs Bentele, can we close our eyes to the contempt and criminalisation of international courts? Can you close your eyes to new waves of illegal settlements? Can you close your eyes to plans to demolish a hundred houses in Jenin? Can one close one's eyes to withholding funding due to the Palestinian Authority, to the violent death of a thousand people in the West Bank, where there is no war, to the criminalization of honor and its replacement by a perfectly dysfunctional spawn? Can you close your eyes to the destruction of schools and hospitals? Can you close your eyes to the displacement of 700,000 people, to the withholding of international aid at the border, to the proudly genocidal statements - because words matter, and you have said so - by Mr Netanyahu's ministers about the use of hunger as a weapon of war? Can you close your eyes to 56,000 deaths, including 17,000 children and 1,000 babies under the age of one? Mrs Bentele, I'm asking you if you can close your eyes to all this at the same time, because all this is happening at the same time. The same army that boasts of being able to put a missile with millimeter precision in an apartment in a building in Tehran is carpet bombing the civilian population in Gaza, as in Guernica, Mrs. Bentele, as in Guernica. The double standards, Mrs Kallas, are the cancer of European foreign policy. Of course we can do things: Do not close your eyes, call things by their name, activate the clauses of the agreement that give us some ability to influence that situation, stop selling weapons to Israel, recognize the Palestinian state and persevere in the two-state solution.

At the beginning of the plenary, it was announced that the rapporteur intended to table an oral amendment to cover the events of last weekend in Cyprus, as follows: 'Reiterates its deep concern regarding all unilateral action which aim at entrenching on the ground the permanent division of Cyprus as opposed to its reunification; condemns, in this context, the recent illegal visit of President Erdoğan to the occupied areas of the Republic of Cyprus, as well as his provocative statements, which jeopardise the efforts of the UN, the EU, the international community at large and other parties involved for the resumption of substantial negotiations in the agreed framework; regrets that such unilateral actions are tantamount to a direct illegitimate intervention against the interests of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities;'.

Mr President, Commissioner, there is one question that pervades this debate: Why don't we finally close the accession process? I would like to reflect on that. Some of the comrades on the right have expressed a kind of substantial social and cultural incompatibility that I do not see. The European Union gave Turkey the opportunity and it has been wasted many years ago, but please do not confuse Turkey with Erdoğan. Erdoğan is not Turkey nor Turkey is Erdoğan. I remind many of those who say close the door that in the last local elections Erdoğan's party did not win and the opposition party won. So let's look at the country. There is a civil society that implores us not to close the door, not to leave them without hope of changing the country. It is possible that in ten years there will be another Turkey really committed to a European path. And we must also look after a pro-democracy, pro-European civil society that is constantly demonstrating against repressive policies and defending the flags of the European Union. Why have we defended the flags of the European Union in Maidan? Why don't we defend the European flags on the streets of Istanbul? There is a vibrant and active civil society in Turkey wanting to continue the path towards the European Union. This Parliament needs to hear that voice and not just the voice of some rulers who are – hopefully – temporary rulers. That is why, in the opposition, for many years - I am talking about my previous colleague, Kati Piri - we have been suspending the accession process, but we have not finished it, because to finish it would require unanimity again and that would be very complicated. Therefore, I ask you to reflect that in the criticisms we all share that Turkey has missed its opportunity, the idea, sometimes very tempting, of confusing a country with its ruler at this time does not take hold.

Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank the rapporteurs with whom I have worked on an important dossier in which we have sometimes expressed very different positions, but in which I have found a very open negotiating environment and which we hope will lead to a better relationship between the European Union and Turkey. The main thrust of this year's report is to distinguish between being a Member State of the European Union and being a partner and neighbour of the European Union. And why do we now make this insistence that we have not made other years? Because in the Turkish press - 90% of it, the pro-government press - there is a nationalist propaganda that says "our military power will open the doors for us to be a Member State of the European Union", which encourages a mistake in public opinion that we think it is necessary to dissolve. They know it's not gonna happen. There are no shortcuts to being a member state of the European Union. Being a member of the European Union is about mature democracy and values, while being a partner can be many other things. Accession is a non-negotiable regulatory process and partnership is transactional and depends on mutual trust and the ability to have shared interests. And, therefore, the adhesion process is frozen and well frozen. Since 2013, there has been no good news regarding freedoms and the rule of law in Turkey. La represión ha alcanzado cualquier rincón de la sociedad en el que haya el más mínimo criticismo, incluso el más inocente, desde estudiantes, periodistas, activistas, miembros de la oposición, los líderes de la asociación empresarial más importante del país, los periodistas —como el caso del periodista sueco al que nos referimos— y cerramos el ciclo, por el momento, con la detención de İmamoğlu, que es quizá el caso más grave de los últimos años y que demuestra a las claras el carácter plenamente autoritario del régimen, esencialmente —repito, esencialmente— incompatible con el carácter de ser miembro de la Unión Europea. But Turkey, in addition to being a failed candidate, is a neighbor. He is a potential partner in other aspects of the relationship. And Turkey obliges us to consider it once again as a potential partner – and only as a potential partner – by abandoning democratic reforms and closing the accession process to itself. Turkey can be important from a security point of view. It must be understood and it is good to make some clarifications: Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952. Sometimes, reading the Turkish press and talking about Turkey's importance to Western security, it would seem that Turkey is going to ask for membership in NATO, of which it has been a member since 1952. But Turkey has an alignment with the European Union's common foreign and security policy of 5%. Our agreement with Turkey on foreign policy is 5%, which almost falls into statistical error. If twice they make a mistake, they can double the alignment with the European Union - and it also has the Russian S-400 missiles. Therefore, these are things that Turkey needs to examine: whether this attitude and this lack of alignment is the basis on which to build our foreign policy relationship with them. Economy: The economy is also about the rule of law. The lack of legal certainty in legal processes in Turkey is driving investors away, and surely chasing the leaders of the business world doesn't help either. However, Commissioner, you have heard me say: We advocate the continuation of high-level dialogues. Precisely because Turkey is closing to accession, the partnership chapter must be opened, and high-level dialogues are an essential element as long as they are not at all confused with the accession process.

Madam President, you will not be surprised, Mrs Kallas, to be told that my group regards the current framework for political dialogue as a useful tool for open critical contact with the Cuban authorities. Of course, much better than the relationship vacuum that Aznar ordered and that became a completely sterile period. If we dismantle this framework, we have the American embargo and the insult of considering Cuba a state that promotes terrorism, that is, we have Trump. Is that the policy with Cuba that the right wing of this House defends? Is that Trump's? However, the defence of the current framework is not uncritical: the Political Dialogue Agreement can and should be improved in its implementation. Civil society represented in human rights dialogues should be that: civil society and all civil society, not only civil society close to the government, but also criticism and opposition. And we don't have the argument that there are counterrevolutionary elements in these opposition groups. Being counter-revolutionary is not a crime, it is a right, the right to dissent from the opinion of the authorities. And in the European Union they have every right to sit down with all Cuban civil society in the framework of political dialogue.

Madam President, Mrs Kos, with Turkey we have the same dilemma as with other countries in clear authoritarian drift: how to combine interests with values? But with one essential difference: Turkey is formally at least a candidate country and being a candidate means progressively aligning with European interests, values and views. Membership is about democracy; partnership It can be many other things transactional and reversible. In the current landscape in Turkey there is a veritable barrage of texts and comments in all pro-government media, that is 90%, in which it is said "our military power will open the doors to us being members of the European Union". That is why we must insist that there are no shortcuts, that being a member of the European Union goes from Demirtaş and goes from Kavala and now goes from İmamoğlu. Why stop İmamoğlu now? Not only to nullify him as a candidate, and hence the accusation of corruption, but also taking advantage of the fact that Europe is looking for friends and Erdogan expects a response from Europe that is less strong than at other times. Thank you for your decision not to go to Antalya, in line with this Parliament's decision not to attend the Joint Parliamentary Committee meeting.

Madam President, I shall try to concentrate three matters in one minute. First, a lack of adjustment between our foreign policy expectations and the means we employ. There is a chronic underfunding of the European External Action Service but, at the same time, there is a chronic inflation of expectations. We all ask you for everything and you have to worry so that, in the new financial framework, you do not follow that situation: financial reinforcement should be requested every few months in the Commission. Secondly, your obligation is always to try to agree to 27, to have everyone on board. That's his role. But if it is not achieved within a reasonable time to reach crises in time, it is necessary to normalize work to twenty-six or twenty-five. I don't insist on Deputy Gahler's idea. Any measure except to continue giving an impression of paralysis or being late. Third, double standards are the cancer of our foreign policy. And I know that it is not always possible to achieve unanimity but, with your public statements, you can try to limit the damage that makes us appear before the world in some cases by raising our voices a lot and, in other cases, by being very timid.

Madam President, after a bloody weekend that tells us about the fragility of the new institutions and the danger inherent in uncontrolled militias, last night we had good news that seems to clear, even provisionally, one of the most urgent unknowns of the Syrian labyrinth: the national assemblage of the northern Kurdish minority, of its institutions de facto and its military strength. As far as Kurdish communities are concerned, there seems to be hope on both sides of the border, albeit with different logics and rhythms. The initial agreement reached last night has at least two roots: the massacres of the attack of these days and the risk of uncontrollability, and Öcalan's call for the disarmament and dissolution of the terrorist organization PKK, whose waves have reached the Turkish militant forces of northern Syria. It is an initial agreement and therefore subject to shocks, but our political will towards that framework is for there to be a united, sovereign, inclusive Syria in the hands of the Syrians themselves. So, it was Turkey, it was Israel and it was Russia.

Mr President, the removal by administrative means of democratically elected mayors to impose commissars of the losing governing party is one of the clearest proofs of the abyssal level of democratic deterioration in Turkey. The origin of the rule was emergency legislation after the 2016 coup, a coup attributed to a religious sect; an anti-coup law that immediately began to be used against the Kurdish movement, which had nothing to do with the coup; exceptional legislation that remains in force eight years after the reason that gave it meaning and that is activated after each local election. The rule is undemocratic, but the practice is even more so, because nothing in the law prevents the government from appointing a local adviser to the party that won the elections, and not a commissar of the party that lost them. Despite so much cruelty and so much pain, the ridiculous character of Turkish authoritarianism reaches literary limits: Accusing an actress of terrorist propaganda for playing a terrorist in a television series is like accusing Charles Chaplin of a hate crime for having played Hitler, or recommending from power to the media that they do not broadcast so much negative news because that goes against the general interest. And with these and other practices they keep knocking on the door of the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, on the elections, some colleagues have stated here that the international election observation considered the elections to be perfect. It's not like that. I cannot go into detail, dear friend Mariani, but the OSCE harshly criticized many conditions and also the violent pressure on voters. But there is one element that is little talked about: the hidden agenda of the elections. Georgian Dream ran for election without telling voters: "I'm going to get the country off the European path". Surely many Georgians would have voted differently if they had known that what the government was proposing was "outside Europe, welcome Russia". There is therefore an element of legitimacy that needs to be re-stated. Some comrades have also referred to the attack on Giorgi Gajaria, the country's former prime minister, by armed people from the government party. That fact and many others reflect an element of absolute impunity. Activists are persecuted, tried and put in jail immediately. There is still no court ruling on the aggressors of pro-European activists. That's obviously no coincidence. It's not just some policemen, Commissioner, it's also a lot of activists...

Mr President, Commissioner, in Kyrgyzstan, as in so many other countries, Mr Zdechovský has just said, the regression in democratic standards has been pointed out by many international reports. The case before us today is further evidence of this worrying drift: filming by the security services has served to arrest the leader of the opposition party and – beware – to ban that party’s participation in local elections. We do not know – and we have asked – whether that recording had been made with judicial authorisation. Nor do we know how to go from a conversation between two people who do not quote any other third person to arresting a third party, the leader of the party, and, beyond that possible criminal responsibility, prohibiting in administrative, not judicial, the participation of a party in an election. Today that leader is on hunger strike and in jail when he could be under house arrest. This Parliament must give its consent to a new political and trade agreement with Kyrgyzstan. An agreement based, like everyone else, on the protection of human rights. We hope, for the sake of relations, that this case will be resolved before that parliamentary procedure.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, another Spaniard, I'm sorry. At the beginning of the session there were twenty-two colleagues in the Chamber and eleven were Spanish. One hour should be set aside for the Spanish national debate as a permanent matter. And all you needed, Mr. Gonzalez Pons, was to join the group of Spaniards. Indeed, Spain has been very much mentioned in the debate, but I believe that there is a certain time lag because it was before 2018 that this House should have been concerned about corruption in Spain, because it was in 2018 that the Spanish Parliament expelled the Popular Party from the Government and because in those years there were many cases that led to the Spanish Popular Party being the only political party definitively condemned for corruption. There is a long list of issues that I will avoid reading because the Spaniards who listen to us will know them. The Spanish Government is not besieged by corruption; the Spanish government is besieged by the media and judicial terminals of the right and the Spanish far right. With little success, by the way, as is shown in every vote in Parliament and every time the polls are called.