Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, which is contrary to international law and inhumane, has various facets. We have repeatedly addressed and condemned them on previous occasions, from the debate on the kidnapping of children in Russia to the targeted destruction of vital infrastructure. All this is not directed against combatants, but against civilians or civilian institutions. A special aspect is the damage that destroys or impairs the environment as a result of the war. I do not mean the traces of an armored chain that can be seen on a harvested field and disappear again after a downpour. No, I am thinking of everything that gets unnecessarily into the soil, air and water of Ukraine – because of the war – and in some cases pollutes and contaminates these elements in the long term. There are calculations that the pollutant emissions from this war so far correspond to the annual emissions of Belgium. One of the biggest or biggest crimes in the area is certainly the destruction of the Kachowka Dam. I am against inflationary use of certain words, but I believe that in this context the word ecocide is actually appropriate in view of what has happened below the dam, but also above it by the disappearance of the lake there. We also have Russia's behavior in connection with the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. As such, it is already criminal to deliberately and deliberately carry out acts of war near nuclear power plants. But the treatment of the employees there is also extremely worthy of condemnation, and that is why this must also be recorded, as well as the other crimes that we record for the purpose of later war crimes trials. I think that it is precisely the crimes against the environment that show the character of the Russian regime, and the condemnation is certainly quite uniform and unanimous here in this House, as usual.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Thirty years of the Copenhagen criteria – I think they were right criteria in the political and economic spheres at the time, and they have remained so to this day. At that time, they ensured that the candidate countries were given a precise framework in which they could orient themselves. This is perhaps also the difference with the countries that have been in the Eastern Partnership so far. They did not have this precise framework, and this prospect of accession was not yet there. And the result was, among other things, that just in countries like Ukraine, let me say, the Wild East – i.e. in allusion to the Wild West – was still accessible and in this way oligarchs built up structures, precisely because they thought they could continue to act as they had until recently also organized in Ukraine. Those who were able to acquire one or the other in the Central European area – yes, at the turn of the century – understood these criteria relatively early on: Aha, now we are going in the direction of the rule of law, now we have to stick to the framework that is given, and in this respect, in my view, we embraced the rule of law much earlier and in this way also contributed to the fact that a framework was set here economically, but also politically, in the candidate countries, which should then be compatible with the European Union. I am confident: If we consistently apply and implement these criteria in the political and economic field with the new candidate countries, including in the Western Balkans, this is the prerequisite for us to have members in the future, who in this way also represent a strengthening of the European Union, but on the other hand will also naturally be strengthened for themselves. Membership of the European Union is a win-win situation for all those who now belong to it, also thanks to the Copenhagen criteria.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. From the outset, we as Parliament have called for the unconditional release of all hostages. The Israeli government has now agreed to a deal where 50 hostages will be released on the condition that 150 Palestinian prisoners be released and there is a four-day ceasefire. I am happy with the releasers and their families. The regrettable thing is that, in the perception of many Palestinians and Arabs, it seems that the terrorist group Hamas is forcing the Israeli government to make concessions, and that there has been no progress on the issue of a lasting peace settlement since Oslo with the representatives of the Palestinians who are willing to talk to Israel and recognize its right to exist. After the end of Hamas’ rule in Gaza, we must work as Europeans, best coordinated with the US, to establish a robust mandate within the UN framework – for Gaza – where a strong international presence provides first humanitarian aid and then reconstruction in Gaza. And this must then lead to a peace process, where elections will take place and negotiations will ensure that the conflict is pacified. I am in favour of not allowing this Gaza to be repeated and that there must be no further intifada in the West Bank, because there is a genuine peace process.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! As the Ukraine rapporteur here, I think I can say that today we have a historic decision by the Commission in which it is proposing the opening of accession negotiations for Ukraine, and I am concentrating on this country. I think it is remarkable how, despite the Russian war of aggression, this country is still on the path of reform and thus expresses where it belongs. And this message, which comes from the Commission today and which this Parliament has also been clearly expressing for many years, is that this Ukraine is irrevocably on the European path and that there is no way back – even as long as and in whatever form, this Russia overwhelms the country with a war of aggression in violation of international law. I think – if I look at what the Commission has written down in detail in this regard, what Ukraine still has to achieve by March so that the negotiating framework can also be adopted – that is all possible, despite the war. And we should give the country all the support it needs. I am confident that this approach of concretely advancing enlargement with the many other countries also triggers the debate within the European Union, namely to improve reform and decision-making capacity in such a way that we can then work together with the new countries for a larger and more decision-making EU.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Hamas' attack on peaceful Israeli citizens was the largest attack on Jewish civilians since the Holocaust. Israel has the right of self-defense within the framework of humanitarian and martial law. I hope that it will be possible to free the hostages and that the main Hamas financiers, such as Qatar, will also be helpful behind the scenes. I hope that it will be possible to destroy Hamas structures in Gaza. Hamas is a resolute, deadly adversary to Israel, but has also established a repressive, corrupt regime for the residents of the Gaza Strip. I hope that after the end of the military action, the Palestinian Authority will be able to take back control, and by then I expect the suffering of the civilian population to be limited. The civilians in Gaza are as innocent as those in Israel. The responsibility for what follows the attack on Israel lies with Hamas, which has no regard for the people of Gaza. It is good that we are stepping up humanitarian aid. I would like Hamas financiers to redirect their funds for this purpose. What do we need to do to stop the next Gaza? As a member of parliament, I have experienced the third or fourth Gaza since 1999. It gets worse every time. An attempt is needed to relaunch the peace process – an agreed EU-US agenda that brings Israel and the Palestinians together and includes relevant neighbours such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The extremists on both sides must not achieve their goals. The Israelis are not driven into the sea and the Palestinians are not driven across the Jordan River to Jordan. Let's get it ready as soon as possible!

Madam President, thank you, colleagues, for the broad support as usual, and I ask the referral back to the Committee for Interinstitutional Negotiations according to Rule 59(4) of our Rules of Procedure.

Mr President, thank you very much, first of all, to the large majority of speakers here. Thank you for reconfirming our broad consensus. I need not go into any further details in this regard, but I would like to say to those who are closest to Putin in this House that they really have no right to claim that there is corruption in Ukraine. Who is the godfather of corruption, of kleptocratic structures? That is Putin, who wants with his allies to regain control of this country. And rest assured that this Facility, among other things, will see to it that there is a control of the finances. There is already anti-corruption control working in Ukraine: the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, the ProZorro system for public procurement. And there is the political will of the real reformers, and there is the vigilance of the civil society in Ukraine that we are also including in strengthening here. So far I think this will be one of the most controlled financial transactions that we have ever seen. And there was the other argument, which said that we want to colonise Ukraine with our entrepreneurs. Well, the only one who wants to colonise Ukraine is Putin. He is the slaveholder of his own country and wants to establish even a Stalinist or a fascist regime back in Ukraine. He will not succeed. But I can say something: our investment in this country makes this country also safer. That was the case for post-war West Germany, where some argued: ‘Well, there are so many Americans and Westerners coming and buying things’. First of all, nothing was taken away. The same will be the case in Ukraine: nobody takes anything away.But there will be a higher interest in this country staying safe and on the side of freedom and democracy. And so far, I welcome all bigger and smaller investors in Ukraine to contribute their share for the reconstruction of the country. I think that it will be a good investment because this country will at the end be an asset to the European Union. Once again, Slava Ukraini.

Mr President! I am pleased to present to you, ladies and gentlemen, and also to the Commission, the result of our joint work on the Ukraine Facility. I am proud to inform you that once again, at the joint meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Budgets, we succeeded in achieving a vote that reflects the broad consensus of this House since the beginning of Russia's criminal full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine. With 86 votes in favour, only six rejections and two abstentions, we have given a clear political signal. This signal goes to the fighting Ukraine, to our Member States, but also to the aggressor. We support Ukraine during the war, we support Ukraine in its reconstruction, we support Ukraine on its way to the European Union. Listen to me, Putin! Ukraine will never return to the Gulag. I would like to thank my co-rapporteur, Ms Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, representing the Committee on Budgets and the S&D Group, for the good agreement and efficient cooperation that have made it possible to conduct the discussions well. I would also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs from the various political groups in our two committees for their many helpful contributions and special commitment. We are working under special time pressure to bring this regulation under wraps by the end of the year. Today's timely debate and tomorrow's vote would not have been possible without the great work of our teams of staff in committees, political groups and Members' offices. Ladies and Gentlemen! The Ukraine Facility aims to interlink the reconstruction, modernisation and pre-accession of Ukraine to the European Union. This is an ambitious project. Even during the war, Ukrainians and the EU are starting to work on a common European future. Ukraine is to present a so-called Ukraine Plan for reconstruction. It will be a master plan. It is prepared by the government, but also needs to be developed with municipalities and regions, as well as with civil society. But the last word – the last Ukrainian word – for such a plan must be the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian parliament. The extensive reconstruction and modernization cannot be carried out from public funds alone. The Facility will therefore enable guarantees and grants to attract private sector investment to Ukraine earlier than would be expected in the current war situation. In doing so, we want to set an accent of support for Ukrainian small and medium-sized entrepreneurs. Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! 50 billion euros is a lot of money and a very large solidarity support from the EU. We therefore also address the precautionary measures against abuse and waste, but also against corruption. We demand transparency and controls and have put forward appropriate proposals. In this context, however, it is also encouraging and useful to take up the readiness of Ukraine's excellently qualified civil society organisations and assign them monitoring tasks where state and European structures are overwhelmed. Ukraine already has relevant experience, which we want to take on in accordance with the partnership principle. Ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that Ukraine not only wins the war, but also strengthens democracy at all levels and creates sustainable prosperity for citizens, with the help of the European Union. Slava Ukrajini! Za peremohu!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. It is time for us to be honest in our efforts to regulate the relationship between Serbia and Kosovo: What was done with heavy weapons on 24 September by Serbian paramilitaries led by Milan Radoičić cannot have taken place without the knowledge and at least tolerance of the Serbian leadership. Radoičić too often sits on Vučić's lap. Fortunately, the Kosovar police prevented worse. This was not the first provocation: In May, there were intensified violent demonstrations from Serbia with dozens of injured, Italian and Hungarian soldiers - hardly any reactions from the EU. Vučić and Radoičić had to feel encouraged! When will we learn the lessons of our failure in the 1990s? What matters is not what politicians say in English in Brussels, but what they speak to their own people, what campaigns they run in the controlled media and, above all, how they act. Vučić learned from his fathers Šešelj and Milošević: Let any green male do something, just don't act directly as an instigator. There can be no return after September 24th. business as usual where we have a fundamental agreement of 27 February, which Vučić does not sign. He has no obligation to Kosovo, but we are pushing Kosovo exclusively to comply with Article 7 with this association of Serbian cities. If it goes according to Serbian wishes, then we will soon have a Republika Srpska 2.0. It can't be that way. If now the EU and the US make it clear to Belgrade that the troops are to be withdrawn there and otherwise pre-accession aid will be stopped, then there is a chance for a return to a real dialogue.

Madam President, colleagues, we are where we are: Azerbaijan’s unilateral violent action has been widely condemned and rightly so. Let us now take a people-centred approach: helping Armenia to address the humanitarian challenges resulting from more than 100 000 refugees, demanding the establishment of an international presence of observers to reassure the remaining population of their safety – the framework could be the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe or the Red Cross, all renowned organisations where Azerbaijan is a full member – and engaging President Aliyev by his own promises that those citizens can live safely in their homeland. An international presence would be a prerequisite for that, and this guarantee must not apply only to those few who remained. We must demand that those who fled in panic are encouraged and reassured that it is safe to return home. Ethnic cleansing must not be the lasting and final result of this violent action. Let us also signal to the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Pashinyan that if Russia abandons them, we will not. I think we should start negotiations on a visa-free regime. That could be a sign of hope that they are not alone.

Mr President, it is with deep regret and outrage that I have to inform the plenary of the decision of the Tunisian authorities yesterday evening to refuse entry for a delegation of Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee to the country. We should have left today and would have arrived in Tunis this evening. This conduct is unprecedented since the democratic revolution in 2011. We continue to be ready for, and we insist on, a dialogue also on critical issues and remind that this Parliament has always approved the comprehensive cooperation agenda, including the strengthening of democracy and financial support, as agreed in the association agreement. (Applause) So I ask the President to take appropriate measures. I have also communicated this to the High Representative and to further institutions. I think we should not accept this whole handling by the authorities.

–Madam President, colleagues, I’m aware of the problems of our farmers and we need to address them. But I still expect more creativity from the Commission and the Member States primarily concerned. As the Ukraine rapporteur, I hope that the Commission does not prolong the measures blocking Ukrainian exports. It ruins Ukraine’s internal market, adding further difficulties to the country. But how can we overcome the problems on our side? The Polish border currently is the biggest bottleneck. There is an election upcoming and nothing moves. Commissioner, having listened to you, am I right in thinking that you would take up proposals and suggest to the Polish Government to open the border for sealed trains and trucks heading for the ports in Poland and the Baltic States? Could we apply the same as you indicated to Adriatic ports? And could one, in concrete, allow the sanitary and phytosanitary checks to be done in these ports prior to export and not at the Polish border? The seals would secure that nothing in between stays in the EU and more could then be made available for the global market. And are you concretely preparing subsidies for the transports that you mentioned and also for the storage costs in these ports? Simply prolonging the blockade should not be our level of ambition both towards Ukraine and our farmers. Slava Ukraini!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! If we look at the situation in Tunisia only from this point of view of migration, then indeed the description of what the situation is at the moment is correct on your part. But we have to see the whole picture, not just now, since today, when the situation is changing dramatically, but in the last two years since the presidential coup. And what did we do there? In my view, we would not have needed this present Memorandum of Understanding, because we should have done all this within the framework of the Association Agreement. Only then are other aspects of democracy and the rule of law relevant. And if we had offered the money we now offer conditioned two years ago, you would return to constitutional order and then we would support you in a situation where the country is going down the drain right now. Now we have a situation where Tunisians also got on the boats. We didn't have that two years ago. Through injunctive sins, because we let it happen, and because we are only interested in migration, we totally ignored internal development. And this has contributed to the fact that the situation within the country has become so dramatic. As I said, Tunisians go in, those who are threatened by presidents because they come from Africa, that has already been mentioned, and therefore injunctive sins in the last two years. And now we're just trying to fix that one aspect. That's too little.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, There is a German proverb, that is: The most pious can't live in peace if the evil neighbor doesn't like it. We have a bad neighbor. He's not only evil, he's criminal. He kills men, women, children every day. And workers in Ukraine would also rather do their job than defend their country. But they don't feel like coming back to the Gulag. That's why they have to pick up weapons. That's why it's right that we support them. And if we have a bad neighbor, then it is also right that we defend ourselves. And because we have limited resources, it makes sense that we use economies of scale. Because if we procure together, if we also plan together before and then also practice together and then are also interoperable together. It is therefore good that we have now introduced this regulation here and that it is now being adopted. It is part of a policy that is being imposed on us. None of us had any intention of permanently increasing defence budgets here. But we do not see that this Russia behaves in any way, that it becomes compatible with Europe in a sense that it accepts its neighbours and their rights. And we can't accept that. That is why I am grateful that we will have a very broad consensus here tomorrow, apart from the margins. Once again, the old French saying is true: Les extrêmes se touchent – The extremes are touching. Unfortunately, they touch each other with the help of a war criminal sitting in the Kremlin. It is very important that we stand here together and support Ukraine. I was in Kiev this weekend. I have seen the many thousands of flags on the Maidan, all representing a dead man. It's awful to look at that. This must be ended by the fact that Ukraine wins this war and Russia is expelled from this country. Slava Ukraini!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The Commissioner responsible is not here yet. Tomorrow's vote on EDIRPA, the regulation establishing the instrument to strengthen the European defence industry through joint procurement, marks a historic moment in European defence as, for the first time, EU budget funds will support Member States in jointly procuring defence products. But no EDIRPA without Putin, no ASAP without Putin, it is about accelerating the production of ammunition, and probably because he started his war in 2014, without Putin there would not be the activation of PESCO or the defence fund, which we all had to set up from this point of view. It is truly unfortunate that this criminal and also the brutal attack on Ukraine are needed to finally launch this instrument and others. Because we could and should have acted much earlier. We had already made the situation possible, actually 25 years ago, when the British and French agreed in Saint-Malo that we could do anything at all in this policy area. A lot has happened since then. We have written many papers, created structures, instruments and just the mentioned defence budget. But if we look at it rationally and soberly, not much has happened yet, for example, of the more than 70 PESCO projects, which is the constant structured cooperation, nothing has really been launched, none has been changed accordingly and the capability gaps continue to exist. Joint procurement of armaments at European level is not only the logical consequence of funding research and development projects in the Defence Fund, because what is developed together is then also achieved together, but it is the key to a truly common European defence in which the European armed forces can cooperate effectively on the basis of common equipment and also allow economies of scale and a more effective use of European taxpayers' money. We must finally overcome petty statehood and the dominance of national-industrial policy considerations. EDIRPA, as a short-term instrument, is of course clearly set against the background of the war in Ukraine. For this reason, in the negotiations, the EP has been very active and successful in enshrining defence procurement for Ukraine and Moldova in the EDIRPA Regulation and in particular in promoting it. However, the budget of 300 million can only be a start to help Member States replenish their stocks and further supplies to Ukraine. However, in view of 30 years of neglecting our defence, we will need significantly more resources, so I hope that the Commission will swiftly present the announced proposal for a comprehensive European defence investment programme. In addition to the continuation of EDIRPA in this programme, it will be crucial that this programme also has the appropriate means to meet the objectives and requirements. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs for their constructive cooperation, as well as the Commission and the Swedish Presidency and all the staff involved. We managed to make $40 million. Unfortunately, one thing happened: According to the Commission's proposal of 500 million, 240 million of these were then derived for the ASAP programme, i.e. for the promotion of ammunition procurement. This should not happen to us in the future. I hope that we will make very good progress in this cooperation.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the way in which this intergroup dialogue on this difficult report has been handled. The common starting point is the goal of a two-state solution, which we must also work towards with this recommendation. The report is difficult because it mainly criticizes, but one has to calibrate this criticism constructively in order to achieve the desired effects. On the one hand, this criticism applies to the main addressee of this recommendation, the Palestinian Authority. Their legitimacy vis-à-vis their own citizens is now difficult to justify because the last elections took place in 2005 and 2006. That is why we demand that the PA create the conditions for democratic elections. As one of the main financiers of the Palestinian Authority, we demand that this authority fight corruption and nepotism, that it does not promote any form of anti-Semitic rhetoric and violent behaviour towards Israelis, despite the circumstances of the occupation, and that it respects the independence of the judiciary and Palestinian civil society, leaving all minority groups, including Christians, the freedom that is commonplace in a democratic society. We also have demands and expectations for Israel arising from the daily practice of the occupation. If Israel is serious about a peace settlement, then the approval of 5,000 additional housing units on June 26 does not fit into the picture. It applies to both sides: He who wants peace must not pour oil into the fire. We must clearly tell Israel, the government, that it is responsible for ensuring that the radical settlers do not behave as if they were in the country. West Bank at home. That's not what they are. And maybe we can get the states that are in the Abraham Accords to engage in the dialogue that the Commission has with these countries in this peace process.

Madam President, the EPP Group would like to support the suggestion from Renew and the ECR. However, as already slightly indicated by colleague Auštrevičius, we would prefer to have it in June – also with one argument, which is that it is a bit closer to the debate that will be held anyhow ahead of the summit in Vilnius in July. So we think it’s better to have it then. I was also informed that the Swedish Presidency will not be present at a later stage today, but will certainly be present in Strasbourg. So we would support the suggestion of the Renew Group to have it in June, and the title.

Mr President, for 438 days already we have been witnessing Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. Putin endangers the foundations of our international order, which, if successful, would set a dangerous precedent for other authoritarian regimes. Therefore, we are called upon to stand united and with resolve on Ukraine’s side. This Commission proposal is an urgent matter and a necessary step in light of the atrocities Ukraine is facing and the threat from Russia we are facing. ASAP provides a set of measures that will enable the EU and its Member States to live up to this challenge, primarily by increasing the production capacities for ammunition in Europe. The urgency to boost our production becomes obvious when looking at the numbers for artillery and ammunition. Currently, Ukraine is using about 3 000 shells, sometimes more, each day. The current annual production capacity in Europe is at 300 000. Given these figures and the pledge of EU Member States to provide a million shells to Ukraine, the urgency for ASAP is evident. I therefore fully support treating that file with the highest priority in our House. However, the urgency also requires that the initiatives launched in support of Ukraine and for replenishing our depleted stocks be provided with the necessary financial means. In that regard, and despite the urgency for implementing ASAP, we should not reduce the financial envelope for joint procurement as foreseen for the EDIRPA instrument or for the European Defence Fund. Both proposals and the EDF are equally important, and we need to make all of them a success ASAP, as soon as possible. In effect, we need a full revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework to properly adjust our budget in order to be able to adequately address this war. However, as long as such a revision is not taking place, EDIRPA and ASAP as new instruments should be the focus of our efforts. Saving some breadcrumbs that will not make any substantial difference for the envisaged long—term European defence investment programme would only deny us the necessary difference we need to achieve now with EDIRPA and ASAP. So let’s therefore address first things first.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a not only unfortunate, but unacceptable incident last Saturday. My dear colleague Andrey Kovatchev, travelling on a diplomatic passport at the Zlatarevo - Novo Selo border crossing between Bulgaria and North Macedonia, was refused entry. There were also four other persons whom I don’t know, but he was refused entry without being given any reasoning, and later the Ministry of Interior argued that any person who disturbs the order and peace of the country and to harm and belittle the citizens and the country shall not be allowed to enter into the territory. I know Andrey Kovatchev as a very decent colleague who supports the accession and the negotiations with North Macedonia, and he is definitely not one who is by any means endangering this country. I think this unacceptable behaviour by a candidate country should be brought to your attention, and perhaps the President could also take appropriate measures.

Mr President! I am very grateful to the International Criminal Court, and in particular to Karim Khan, for carrying out his task of registering Russian war crimes and naming those responsible. Vladimir Putin and Marija Lvova-Belova are also personally and politically responsible for the crimes that we are discussing here today. It is infamous when the aggressor wants to give the impression of saving children through illegal deportation. We see TV reports where Ukrainian children are solemnly naturalized or otherwise Russianized. Some of the 361 children who have been returned to Ukraine so far have reported details. Russification today – as a German, I remember with shame the time of the German occupation – not only in Ukraine – where similar practices were applied, ‘arizable’ children were deported and then turned into Germans or at least tried to do so. It's terrible that history repeats itself. I expect that all states that have ratified the ICC Statute will also implement arrest warrants issued. But before that becomes possible, we must do our part to prevent impunity, and that is to support the competent Ukrainian authorities and the investigators of the International Criminal Court in registering the cases of deportation and other crimes and in securing evidence. I also hope that many of the 141 UN states that have spoken out against the war of aggression will actively contribute to this.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. With regard to relations with China, the often described relationship triangle remains valid: Partner, competitor and increasingly systemic rival. I think we should regulate economic relations with China within the framework of a functioning WTO if the bilateral agreement is finally not concluded. However, in any case, all parties involved must abide by the respective rules. At the same time, we must ensure that one-sided dependencies on sensitive raw materials and products are reduced. It's not about decoupling. The interdependence is too great for that. And this aspect of reciprocity should lead pragmatists in the Communist Party apparatus to realistically assess the risks of a confrontational policy – towards us, but also towards their neighbours in the east and south, and in particular towards Taiwan. Our message must be clear: There is no unilateral, violent change in the status quo vis-à-vis Taiwan. Xi Jinping must come to the conclusion that the risks and consequences of violent action against Taiwan are too great and incalculable. And as true as it is that we as Europeans need to define our interests together, including with China, and as true as it is that we do not have identical interests with the US on all issues, we cannot lean on issues of war and peace and fundamental values and say: If Taiwan is attacked, it's only a matter for the United States, and we're doing it. business as usual. We need to work together to prevent the worst case. This requires a constant dialogue between all stakeholders and China. Our message is best then a unified message, Monsieur le Président.

Madam President, yes, thank you very much, colleagues, after consultation also with the S&D and Renew, I would like to add this debate entitled ‘Repression in Russia, in particular the cases of Vladimir Kara-Murza and Aleksei Navalny’.

Mr President! Tunisia, ladies and gentlemen, is on a disastrous domestic political course. Responsibility for this lies solely with the President. He has been certified by the Court of Justice of the African Union that everything he has done since 25 July has been done unlawfully and in violation of the Constitution: dismissal of the government, dissolution of parliament, abolition of the 2014 constitution of the independent electoral authority and the High Judicial Council, dismissal of 57 judges, dissolution of all municipal representative bodies. With a turnout of 11% in the so-called elections, the population has certified the president with a corresponding level of legitimacy. Attacks on freedom of expression and assembly and on civil society organisations, including the trade union umbrella organisation UGTT, are unacceptable. The arrest of journalist Noureddine Boutar on 13 February is pars pro toto. He is the director of the largest independent radio station in Tunisia. Other critics were arrested and convicted, trade unionists were charged, and the head of the European Trade Union Confederation was expelled. All this is unacceptable! We demand the immediate release of Noureddine Boutar and all those who have been arbitrarily arrested or convicted. All illegally dismissed judges must be reinstated; Military courts are not allowed to sentence civilians. I expect the EU Council of Foreign Ministers to show more than just concern on 20 March. It must make a difference whether we are dealing with a democratic Tunisia or an undemocratic Tunisia. I expect our ministers to embrace Parliament's demands that we stop cooperating, for example, with repressive structures under the control of the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice. I expect that our EU delegation and our embassies will regularly present themselves to the authorities and call for an end to the unconstitutional practices of the authorities. I expect that we will demonstratively seek contact with independent media, political parties and civil society organisations and demand that the government fulfil its international obligations.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, indeed, time is of the essence to effectively counter the aggressor and for the Ukrainians to push him back from Ukrainian territory. And we have lost time. Too much time last year because the reality was that many Member States, including my own, remained too passive for too long, in spite of strong verbal commitments. The Netherlands – to name one positive example – in 2022 purchased twice as much ammunition in Germany than the German army itself. While Denmark, already in June last year, refurbished M113 transport tanks in a German company in Flensburg for Ukraine, the German government did not give the order to start the refurbishing of 100 Leopard 1 tanks that were stocked in the very same factory, FFG, where the Danish tanks were already refurbished. That practice must end. I hope that last week’s Stockholm informal discussion will lead to decisions that are swiftly implemented, especially for the ammunition that is so desperately needed. And I hope that our industry is really pulling all strings, ramping up capacities and not waiting until they are tasked by whatever government. I can assure them your products will be needed and therefore be purchased for a long period because we cannot assume that the evil empire will perish soon. And we need to deliver to Ukraine as long as it takes for Ukraine to win. And we need to replenish our stocks in time as soon as possible in order to be able to defend ourselves. Last year, already with a colleague, Sven Simon, we published an article in the German Handelsblatt suggesting we should think of a European Lend-Lease Act, the one that the United States had already in the Second World War to be able to swiftly supply Britain and other allies with the needed weapons. Perhaps you might embark on such a reflection again, a European Lend-Lease act, which would facilitate enormously the purchasing. We need to do what we can as long as it takes. Slava Ukraini!

Mr President, dear colleagues, our support for Israel as a functioning, vibrant democracy in the Middle East is, to a large extent, dependent on this very fact – that it remains a functioning democracy, where the separation of powers between the executive, parliament and the courts prevails. The legislation that is currently passing the Knesset seeks, among other issues, to enable the Knesset to overrule Supreme Court decisions. Such legislation must be a no go in a functioning democracy. But there is hope and protest. Israeli President Yitzhak Herzog last Thursday said that the government should abandon proposed legislation to overhaul the country’s judiciary, in favour of a model with broad national support. I also put my trust in Israel’s vibrant civil society. Hundreds of thousands of citizens are demonstrating every day against this onslaught on a liberal democracy, and they will not let it happen. Israel, with its founding legacy, must remain on moral high ground. The prime minister has to guarantee that hate speech against political opponents and extremist positions expressed by cabinet ministers do not further encourage a circle of violence, such as the radical settlers attacking Palestinians in Huwara. He is also responsible not to implement those parts of the coalition agreement where the signatories claim, ‘Israel has a natural right over all of the land, and a fundamental purpose of the new government will be to promote Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank’. We want to defend Israel’s legitimate right to exist as the Jewish state, but we cannot defend what is illegitimate.