Debate contributions by Bart GROOTHUIS

Madam President, High Representative, let's call things as they are. Italy, Spain and France are against putting the Islamic Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) on the EU terrorism list. Let's call things as they are. France, Spain and Italy say there are legal obstacles. Well, maybe murdering people inside Europe or funding several terrorist organisations or burning synagogues in Düsseldorf. Maybe that's not enough. But surely unleashing chemical weapons on the Iranian population is. Or killing many thousands of innocent civilians. Spain, Italy and France say they need a legal court order. Well, there is one, like in Düsseldorf. And please, ask Israel, Saudi Arabia, United States, Canada, Bahrain, who have already designated the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, whether there was a diplomatic collapse. There wasn't. Can the High Representative formally acknowledged here today that it is these three countries, like the press is reporting constantly in the Council who are blocking to list the IRGC? Will the High Representative be on our side to sanction the IRGC and expose their children and grandchildren who are studying here in Europe, enjoying our liberties while their relatives are pouring chemical weapons over the heads of innocent, freedom abiding Persians? Let's call things as they are.

Madam President, Commissioner, thank you, Commissioner, for putting forward this legislation. It's much, much appreciated what you've done, and I really, really want to thank you for your courage in this one. And what struck me most when you just stood here is that you said we shouldn't be naive about foreign powers switching off critical infrastructure, and I agree. In 1917, the English cut Dutch telecommunication cables to Indonesia – they did it. And in 1918, we built our own sovereign radio and transmitter, Radio Kootwijk – it's still there, beautiful. But it can happen. And now, in 2026, all of our critical infrastructure is in the hands of China. And rightfully you said there's mandatory, obligatory rules and provisions in place for telecommunications to cut out Huawei and ZTE. I really commend you for that. But I must be honest, 80 % of all PV inverters that we import are Chinese. How about solar panels, batteries and their control panels? All Chinese. I don't see a difference between telecommunications and the electrical grid and other critical sectors. I would like to say, from this House, it's not just telecommunications, there's more we should do. Loved working on it, thank you very much, and thanks again for putting this forward.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, this week, Europe votes to stop buying Russian gas. No more weaponisation of energy dependencies – good. But in doing so, we're behaving like a goldfish. A goldfish swims around its bowl, forgets where it's been, and it starts all over again. In our European fishbowl, we are rightfully electrifying our continents. But 80 % of residential grid batteries in Europe are Chinese. The Chinese are dumping wind turbines on our market. A total of 80 % of Europe's new solar PV inverters are Chinese, and so is their software. Service availability for Europe can be manipulated from Beijing fast, at their time of choosing, and it can be done at a massive scale – from dependency on one autocrat to another. So I have to ask the Commissioner: are we really breaking our dependency this week or are we just changing suppliers? Europe cannot afford to keep swimming in circles. Ban Chinese vendors from our critical infrastructure. Build European and also invest in a nuclear European grid backbone.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, when China stopped delivering critical raw earth materials to Japan in 2010, Japan wisely reduced Chinese dependencies within years. When the United States was confronted with similar restrictions half a year ago, they acted with speed and ruthlessness, co-financing new mines in Brazil, long-term offtake agreements across Asia, EUR 8 billion of investment in Australian mines, tariffs to undermine dumping from China. It created several new long-term viable business cases within half a year. And the EU? No tangible results. Not because we're in any better position than Japan or the United States – Europe faces the same intentional and brutal coercion from Chinese-controlled rare earths. If a Dutch company wants to trade with a German company, and the product contains just 1 % rare earths, the CCP (the Chinese Communist Party) has to approve that trade. So act – or we will industrialise faster than we de-risk. That is why we ask the Commission to build a new trade and industrial framework, a high-standard free-trade marketplace for rare earths with partners around the world who do not wish to be coerced by China. But without trade protection, dear Commissioner, all such investments will leak away. Without trade measures, the RESourceEU plan has no chance of success. Long-term offtake contracts, guaranteed minimum prices and tariffs can together build that new business case like Japan and the US has demonstrated – demand politics. So mine, refine and define our own future.

Mr President, Commissioner, Council, as markets outside Europe are increasingly closing for our entrepreneurs, I would like to ask the Commission to open up new markets for our businesses, to finish new trade deals fast. But trade negotiations with the Gulf region have dragged on for 34 years; India, 18 years; Latin America, 26 years and counting; Malaysia, 15 years, etc. It's too slow for this geopolitical storm. The problem is that by overloading trade agreements with additional demands on human rights, environmental or political conditions, we are stopping crucial trade deals from ever reaching the finish line. As an extra result, ratification is too slow. And let's just stop the translation of each concept trade agreement into 24 different languages. It's used as an excuse for delay. Commissioner, your excellent team in Brussels should become a lean, mean fighting machine. We need to reform faster than markets around us are closing. Reform starts here at home and you have our support in doing so.

Madam President, Commissioner, Europe faces dual coercion: from US tariffs, yes, but far more dangerously from China's strategic chokehold on rare earth exports. Gallium, germanium – critical elements – are already no longer reaching our industries. Colleagues, remember that no guided missile can be produced without gallium. It's important because the Chinese Foreign Minister told High Representative Kallas that Russia may not lose the war, but also because our economic and our industrial survival is at stake. And as President von der Leyen rightly said, this is about dominance, about building dependency and about state-organised blackmail. Some here still claim this is just collateral damage in the US-China rivalry. It's not. It's about showing where the power is. Some here suggest we strike a deal: drop tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles in exchange for the withdrawal of Beijing's retaliatory measures. That's appeasement – it won't work. Feeding the beast won't pacify it. Some here argue that European Member States should go for themselves and defend their own industries without the backing of the EU. Don't! It will only invite more coercion in the years to come. I argue differently: economic leverage is there in Europe, at least theoretically, if we use it. So, use every tool in the EU economic toolbox: close markets if necessary, impose export controls, sanction Chinese banks fuelling Moscow's war of aggression. Leverage what we have, or we don't have leverage at all. Commissioner, act with strength for European sovereignty and industrial survival, and above all, don't encourage more coercion.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, Portugal and Spain's meltdown of the electricity grid in April happened because 2.5 GW fell off the electricity grid in capacity. Chinese company Huawei alone controls a solar inverter capacity in Europe of more than 100 GW. Six Chinese vendors collectively hold more than 200 GW of inverter capacity across Europe. That is more than enough to destabilise the entire European grid, and it can be done from Beijing remotely, silently and devastatingly fast. Why are we allowing this vulnerability to grow? We already took action in 2021 on risky vendors in telecommunication infrastructure. And now it's time we do the same for our energy infrastructure. Now, it's time we have a binding grid security toolbox that bans risky vendors from our critical infrastructure. Our political assessment is exactly that, Commissioner. There are no quick fixes, but there are alternatives also from Europe, and, above all, there is a need for a path out of these unacceptable dependencies. And it's up to you and the Commission to lead us the way out of it.

Madam President, dear colleagues, High Representative, Israel is not attacking Iran. It is striking the brutal regime of Khamenei and his Revolutionary Guard. And Israel did what it had to do to show how to deal with murderous dictatorships that only understand force. The ayatollahs have thus far remained in power because of the support of Russia and China. This alliance fuelled a sustained and growing campaign of violence and terror against the West, against Israel, against us and against the poor people of Iran. But the alliance isn't doing well. Moscow is already faltering today. After Syria, Russia is once again abandoning an ally. And the Russia-Iran part of the Russia-Iran-China axis is already beginning to collapse. And now the Iranian people are watching us and they ask us the question here in Europe, do we have your support? Dear High Representative, Europe must seize the moment. We must reassert ourselves by reintroducing snapback sanctions immediately, put pressure on the regime, immediately place the IRGC on the EU terrorist list. The alternative is far graver: allowing totalitarian regimes or radical Islamist groups to rally behind Tehran. This is a historic moment demanding clarity and courage, and we cannot afford to appear weak or indecisive to Beijing, Moscow or Tehran. That would only embolden them. To conclude, I urge you, all colleagues, to recognise the gravity of the current situation today and tonight, and stand firm with the brave Iranian people. This is not a call for escalation, on the contrary, but for principled, resolute actions to safeguard peace and secure the world.

Madam President, colleagues, dear Vice-President/High Representative, the biggest victim of the past months of Trump being in office is, of course, Russia. For the past 108 years, generations of Russians have been told that everything wrong in Russian society is to blame on the United States. It's the fault of the Americans. But now that Russia has gloriously won the second Cold War and increasingly has an ally in Washington, Russia needs a new enemy. And you and I, dear Commissioner, know what enemy that's going to be. It will be Europe. So we need to rebuild deterrence comparable to NATO's deterrence in the 1980s, re-arm Europe, not individually but collectively with the friends we have in Norway, the United Kingdom and even Canada. But what is not yet in today's reports, and what should be, is the acknowledgement that the United States also competed with Russia in Africa, in the Global South, between its intelligence services, in space, on military bases, etc. Europe should now take on that effort too or the autocratic order will grow. So I urge you to vote in favour of the defence report I had the honour of co-negotiating, but this is merely the beginning.

Mr President, Commissioner, having heard the President of the Commission and the President of the Council this morning, and you, dear Commissioner, just now, I worry that we got it wrong, at least partially. It's not about rearming individual countries, as in the Cold War. That would be insufficient, as it does not deter our adversaries. It is about collective rearming into an alliance which is able to compete with the deterrence that NATO had in the 1980s. That is the task. For Europe, this requires delivering strategic enablers to operate on a divisional level, Commissioner, and the majority of those enablers are currently being paid for and operated by the US, which is still our ally. But Europe needs to develop or buy such enablers ourselves now. Secondly, continental Europe is much bigger than the European Union. So the solution when it comes to a solid security architecture should, therefore, also include the UK, Norway, Turkey, Iceland, even Canada in a European security council – of which nothing has been mentioned. The industrial policy in the white paper should follow this security architecture. I ask you to take this on board, dear Commissioner, and get it right this time.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, the main takeaway from Georgia Meloni's close manoeuvres with Elon Musk and his company, Starlink, is that it sends a clear signal to Europe. The European alternative to Starlink – 'IRIS square', not 'IRIS two', Commissioner – must be accelerated. Europe should work harder and faster. Sure, like many colleagues have said, for Italy there are clear and imminent dangers if Elon Musk encrypts and handles government communications. Italy can easily become a signals intelligence colony of the United States. It's true that Italy is not supporting Europe's commitment to technological leadership, to security and to self-determination, as you said, Commissioner, and I agree. But the biggest problem is, of course, our own lack of ambition with the IRIS2 programme. If Europe does not rally behind IRIS2 and the GOVSATCOM programme and accelerate its own progress, the future of European sovereignty in space communication will be decided by Elon Musk. So feel the heat: finish IRIS2 four years earlier than planned, move fast and build things!

Madam President, dear Commissioner, the United States of America is blocking Europe from buying its most advanced chips for artificial intelligence. Well, at least some countries can still buy the chips, but not those countries who plan to actually do something with it, like building European AI factories or high‑performance computing centres. It's a clear attempt by our ally to put European AI companies two generations behind, and to make Europe dependent on AI technology. There is therefore no doubt, dear colleagues, about what the response from Europe should be: move fast and build things. Investing 200 billion in AI, dear Commissioner, what is it worth if we don't have the chips? Dear Commissioner, we ask you for an EU Chips Act 2.0, with, at its core, the design of advanced AI chips in Europe. Design and co-produce advanced AI chips here. The previous Chips Act was done in six months. We can do it again. Move fast, build things, let's go.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, promoting one political party during an election while suppressing others, or even rolling out the red carpet for Russian disinformation campaigns on a Chinese platform, it reminds Europe of its darkest hours. Yet it has happened in Romania. And it's happening in Germany. So no doubt what needs to be done: uphold and enforce the law. But if that means that over TikTok, China would limit our access to critical raw materials, or the US would limit its support for to NATO, the nature of the game is changing. So then there can be only one response: to create European alternatives for social media platforms. But all of that will be unnecessary – unnecessary – if you, Commissioner, uphold the law and enforce it in the rules-based order we have. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Please act.

I'll tell you what I did, I protested, sir. I protest again against the completely irresponsible way we are delivering ourselves in the hands of China, including TikTok. So should you. Foreign interference is not something you ridicule about. It's not whataboutism – do something about it. This Commission has the tools – finish the job in order to keep us safe now and in the long-term future. That you're playing with your future is your problem, not ours.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, when they use TikTok to change the course of a nation like in Romania, or when they buy votes to block the sovereign will of a country like in Moldova, or when they forge elections to keep control over a sovereign nation like in Georgia, what does that mean? It means the Russians are merely dry swimming and practising for the German elections to come next year, so we know what's at stake. The Commission has been given the tools to counter malign foreign interference: the Digital Services Act, the Code of Practice, the law on political advertising. So now it's up to the Commission to finish the job before the German elections, uphold the laws we agreed on, because it is the best guarantee for freedom of speech. And, President, if you allow me in Dutch to say one or two words to my colleague Sander Smit from the BBB, the BoerBurgerBeweging. Mr Smith referred to one stupid, stupid action by the European Commission to influence opinion in the Netherlands. That's where he finds me by his side. However, he equates it with the millions of attempts for which President Putin is paying billions to destroy our democracy. That can never happen.

Mr President, Commissioner, Canada has published a list of universities and institutions which pose a risk to Canada's national security. There is no equivalent list in Europe. The United States work with security clearances before sensitive technology can be exposed to foreign students. In Japan and Australia, risky collaborations with foreign universities are routinely reviewed and can be dissolved at state level. To these standards, nor to the NIST standards on how to collaborate safely at universities, these are not adapted in Europe. What we did do in Europe was set up an excellent parliamentary committee to investigate unwanted foreign interference and espionage. Unfortunately, this work was not continued, but much needs to be done. If there is still any doubt after today's debate, we should make clear that we need this committee in the previous mandate to become permanent, to keep pressure on countering foreign interference, monitor our own recommendations, because this threat will not disappear by itself.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, Russia is actively mapping drinking water supplies in Sweden and Finland with the intent to sabotage. And Russia is trying to map and sabotage cargo aeroplanes in Germany, bringing goods to Ukraine. And yes, Russia is addressing the threat of internet cables with how they perceive it, and they are sabotaging our internet cables in our seas. But then, why, colleagues? Why are we still talking about hybrid threats? Aren't these clear examples of clear escalation by Russia on European soil? There can be only one response. Time to hit back hard. Now, I wish to remind the Commission that the Russian economy is in big trouble. Inflation is at 9 %. Interest rates in Russia are at 20 %, coming close to 30 %. And their reserves will run out in a year. And the rouble is falling fast. Russia will soon be a country with tanks but no food. Crippling the Russian economy further should be our target. It was effective in bringing down communism. Let's do it again. Maximise the support to Ukraine with amounts that Russia cannot surmount. And do work together with Donald Trump for the final blow: lower oil and gas prices, flood the market so the war machinery ends not just in Russia, but also in Tehran.

Madam President, in the past 25 years, Europe's defence spending was more or less stable, while China has increased its defence spending with 600 % and Russia with 300 %. Russia is already at war. China is preparing for one. When President Xi would decide to move on Taiwan with a blockade and a counter‑blockade from the American navy would follow, trade flows to Europe would immediately halter and stop. Europe might have medicine for a couple of weeks, but without semiconductors or critical raw materials, our industry and businesses will be even sooner going black. Is Europe prepared for such a scenario? Dear colleagues, recently I asked in the Industry Committee, in the Defence Committee and in the Trade Committee for scenario studies on a Taiwan blockade, and I ask for your support. It would be the first direct result in this House of Mr Niinistö's excellent, excellent report on civil and military preparedness. His thought leadership is Finland at its best and it will be Europe at its best, but only if we implement his excellent recommendations without further ado.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, colleagues, since 2017, the Chinese state can demand from any Chinese company to help execute Chinese offensive espionage operations abroad and its operations to influence elections abroad. One hundred and fifty million – mainly young – Europeans have installed the Chinese app TikTok. Its algorithms help them decide what to like, what to trust and who to vote for. TikTok engineers in China decide what the trends are in Europe, in fashion and music, but also in politics. What could possibly go wrong, dear colleagues? Well, of course, first Chinese espionage can be enabled on a device. And second, our elections can be influenced by the Chinese state. So what to do? First, this Parliament should take its task seriously and set up a serious hearing of TikTok's top executives on whether the TikTok app has a place in our democratic Union. Secondly, when politicians like ourselves decide to use TikTok, don't just reach out to those 150 million young voters, but also use the TikTok app to stand up against the Communist Party in China, its ideology and misbehaviour, or else we are complacent to autocratic censorship ourselves.

Madam President, today is a sad day. Today, exactly 10 years ago, flight MH17 leaving from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was shot down – a shameful, shameful deed. Shooting down innocent people from ten kilometres altitude, 298 innocent people were killed: 196 of them – I must reiterate, dear President – were Dutch, four Belgians, four Germans, but 17 nationalities in total. More than 80 children were onboard. Russia had effective control of the territories from which that rocket was fired. Russia was beyond any doubt… Beyond any doubt, the Russian military fired that Buk missile. And today we grieve. Today we are united in our grief. And today we seek justice for the dead. And we want to take responsibility. We want Russia to take responsibility. But Russia is not taking responsibility. Three men were convicted in The Hague, but they remain in Russia under the custody of Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin spreads disinformation, false narratives about MH17, and Vladimir Putin still occupies territory and kills innocent people. Later this year, the European Court of Human Rights will come with a verdict. Later this year, the Civil Aviation Organisation will come with a verdict. But I would like to say, as an inhabitant of The Hague, Mr Putin, President Putin, The Hague is the only city in the European Union where you are welcome. And I live to see the day that you end up in The Hague.