Speeches

Dear Colleagues, We need to put this weekend’s fake presidential 'elections' in Belarus in a wider context. Belarus is increasingly aligning itself with authoritarian regimes such as Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, becoming part of an emerging global Axis of Aggression. The ongoing repression of Belarusian citizens, coupled with full support for Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine, imply that the Belarusian regime must be held accountable in the same manner as Russia. However, the EU restrictive measures against Belarus apply only to almost 300 individuals and 40 entities. We seem also not to be serious on the regime’s accountability for crimes against humanity and aggression. There is only one investigation of the crimes against humanity invoked in Lithuania on the basis of universal jurisdiction, with no concrete results to show, and a single referral to the ICC by Lithuania, and no real discussions on the establishment of a special tribunal. I do not see any reason for our inaction that, in fact, is detrimental to our solidarity with the Belarusian people. Thank you.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, together with Hungary, Georgia has become an electoral autocracy. It has already established an oligarchic, one-party dictatorship. This is reflected in new and new legislation restricting peaceful protest and freedom of association, and contrary to the European standards of democracy as developed by the Venice Commission. And also in recent educational reforms that undermine democratic values and distance the country from Europe. Particularly alarming are reports by the BBC that, if confirmed, a banned World War One chemical agent known as camite was used against protesters. Such use would be in breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention, one of the greatest achievements of humanity, which allows only narrowly defined riot control agents with rapidly irreversible effects. An independent international investigation is therefore essential to establish the facts and ensure accountability, including, where appropriate, through universal jurisdiction.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, Belarusian hybrid attacks against Lithuania breach the UN Charter, including the duty of non-interference by means of coercion. Under international law, Belarus bears full responsibility regardless of attempts to deny attribution. This responsibility has been affirmed by public statements of the US presidential envoy, referring to assurances from Lukashenka to halt balloon launches into Lithuanian airspace. The EU must remain united: an attack on one Member State is an attack on the Union as a whole. We must not follow Trumpian diplomacy that sacrifices long-term objectives for short-term reversible concessions. Any review of EU sanctions with Belarus must remain conditional. Only sustained and irreversible change, including respect for human rights and an end to support for Russia's war against aggression against Ukraine, can justify reconsideration. I therefore welcome the decision of EU foreign affairs ministers to introduce new criteria on hybrid attacks, providing a basis for further measures.

Madam President, dear colleagues, authoritarian regimes today use influence as a strategic weapon. Their goal is clear: to divide Europeans, weaken our institutions and undermine confidence in democracy itself. We cannot allow this. That is why we must support the ambition to strengthen transparency and accountability in interest representation carried out on behalf of third countries. Europe needs clear, harmonised rules that expose manipulation while protecting our democracies. We cannot be compromised by existing, essentially different rules – or the absence of them – in Member States. Let me stress this point: this directive is the opposite of the so-called foreign agents law. It focuses on activities, not on funding. It imposes no criminal sanctions, no discriminatory labels and no prohibitions on legitimate advocacy. It targets activities carried out on behalf of foreign governments, with independent supervision and full respect for fundamental rights. Democracy must be able to defend itself.

Madam President, in recent months, we have experienced a new wave of hybrid provocations from Belarus and Russia, including air balloon incursions to Lithuania. First, it is important to underline that with these actions against Lithuania by Belarus, I would like to underline that there is no doubt regarding attributability or at least a breach of a duty to prevent. Despite the recent diplomatic efforts of the US to secure political prisoner releases and open channels of dialogue, Lukashenka's behaviour makes it clear: the regime has no interest in building constructive relations with the West. Second, Lithuania was forced to partially close its border with Belarus in response to these provocations, only to see Belarus retaliate by blocking Lithuanian trucks and refusing to release them even after Lithuania reopened the border. This is an open blackmail and escalation. Third, we must also update our own tools. The Union needs to introduce a new criterion in the Belarus sanctions regime that clearly defines hybrid activities as grounds for sanctions.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, we must be clear: any agreement that rewards aggression would not bring peace. It would send us several centuries backwards, legitimising violence as a tool in international relations. International law is explicit: when a serious breach of a fundamental norm of jus cogens – and Russia's war of aggression is precisely that – no state may recognise as lawful the situation created by that breach, nor render aid or assistance to the aggressor. Instead, states must cooperate to bring this breach to an end. This means no recognition of illegal annexation, no territorial concessions, nor any other proposals that would allow anyone to make a business deal out of this aggression. A just peace can only rest on firm foundations: full territorial integrity of Ukraine, full reparations to Ukraine, full criminal responsibility for the crime of aggression. These are not negotiating positions. They are international legal obligations incumbent on Russia.

Madam President, dear colleagues, fully supporting the new resolution on the situation in Belarus, I want to highlight an uncomfortable truth. Since 2020, in numerous resolutions, this Parliament has called for justice and accountability. Yet what have we achieved? The EU Member States have not made any progress in prosecuting the perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Belarus, although we know their names. So far, only Lithuania has invoked universal jurisdiction. Only Lithuania has referred the situation in Belarus to the International Criminal Court. And only Lithuania has applied to the International Court of Justice regarding the instrumentalisation of migrants by the Lukashenka regime. Yet even in Lithuania, no suspects have been named and no arrest warrants issued. Needless to say, this approach is contrary to the concept of international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity. We should insist on concrete steps in improving the situation. Impunity makes the dictator laugh at us.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, Ukraine needs predictability and stable, multiyear support that America no longer guarantees and that Europe has yet to deliver at full scale. The Commission's proposal to use frozen Russian assets for reparation loans is a welcome first step. Russian state money must be used for Ukraine's self-defence, not for the aggressor's future. It also has a sound international legal basis. Reparation loans are legitimate third-party countermeasures to Russia's ongoing war of aggression, which is the gravest breach of the UN Charter. They meet the requirements of proportionality and temporariness under international law. They also are of an exceptional nature, as applied only in respect of the aggressor and only for the aggression. Europe has the duty to assist the victim by all possible means. There is no other choice to secure our common European future.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, I fully support the report on Georgia as it is in full compliance with EU values and EU law. Georgian institutions have been captured by the authoritarian criminal oligarch regime. The Georgian Dream follows the Kremlin's manual of repression. They act as bandits and speak as bandits. Recently, the last formally remaining opposition for Georgia party representatives was stripped of its mandates in the parliament for a peaceful boycott. That is a means of political fight in any democracy. However, what is really against democracy is the existence of a current single‑party parliament. The EU response must be stronger. First, we must find a way to sanction on the EU level the Georgian Dream regime and to support the Georgian people. We must strictly follow non‑recognition policy of the Georgian Dream authorities. There is still one key difference of Tbilisi from Moscow and Minsk. That is the continued presence of the active civil society in the streets demanding new parliamentary elections and striving for European future. We cannot abandon the Georgian people.

Madam President, fear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the recent release of 14 political prisoners gives us little hope. More than 1 000, including EU citizens, still remain behind bars in Belarus. They are still subjected to systemic torture and inhuman treatment. No doubt, our line to demand the release of all political prisoners and to ensure accountability for the crimes against humanity must remain intact. In addition, first, we must call for a formal EU report on deaths of political prisoners. According to the available information, at least seven political prisoners – Shtermer, Shlettgauer, Kulinich, Lednik, Khrasko, Klimovich, Pushkin and Ashurak – died in recent years due to inhuman conditions. Secondly, we must urge the EU to sanction all the accomplices of Lukashenko regime, including 110 pseudo-deputies of the so-called House of Representatives, 68 members of the so-called Council of the Republic, more than a thousand of so-called judges, prosecutors and investigators. All of them are puppets of the regime, complicit in imposing the repressive legislation and destroying lives.

Madam President, dear colleagues, as the President of the Commission emphasised yesterday, when we go to China to defend our interests, Europe must show strength. This strength only comes through our unity, and unity must be based on our common values. Therefore, we must have in mind several important aspects. Firstly, China's position in Russia's war against Ukraine – China's support to the aggressor cannot be tolerated. Secondly, inadmissibility of political, economic and diplomatic pressure on individual EU Member States, for example on Lithuania. Thirdly, inadmissibility of the use of, or threat of, force against the liberal democracy in Taiwan, which is freely established and developed on the same principles as ours. Fourthly, stopping the destruction of the unique identity of the Tibetan people, as well as interference into their religious freedom. Fifthly, ceasing the grave breaches of human rights against Uyghurs in Hong Kong and elsewhere in China.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, we cannot defend the rule of law externally, failing to follow it in our own decision-making. The third country's accession to the Judgements Convention is a test of our compliance with the EU Constitution, the founding Treaties. The EU acceded to the Judgements Convention with Parliament's consent. Indeed, the consent to be bound by international agreements is a typical function of a democratic parliament. This consent has to be required also when the convention's scope – including scope of application – is changed, for example by the accession of third countries. However, as in the case of Ukraine's accession, we are again confronted with the Commission's refusal to recognise this inherent function of the Parliament as provided by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In this way, the Commission undermines the principle of representative democracy, including institutional balance and accountability to EU citizens. The Commission, as a guardian of the Treaties, must fully respect them without improvisation beyond its mandate. Therefore, with today's oral question and resolution, we not only support the accession of the UK, but we also are defending our parliamentary prerogatives and the rule of law.

Mr President, dear colleagues in Georgia, we are witnessing the attacks on the rule of law, independent media, NGOs, freedoms of assembly and association. The Georgian nightmare is rapidly transforming the country into autocracy. A single-party system, apparently, is not compatible with pluralistic democracy. Several times, our Parliament has already demanded the immediate release of all political prisoners and called for new, free and fair parliamentary elections. This is the only way to restore democracy. Our Parliament has also declared the legitimacy of the current parliament and president in Georgia. However, not many Member States follow the Parliament's line, nor the Commission, which supports, by the way, the accreditation of ambassadors to the illegitimate President of Georgia. Only a few Member States have imposed sanctions. Therefore, the EU seems to be treating Georgia as a lost country. But this is a big mistake. The Georgian civil society continues to fight. They have not lost themselves, nor their European aspirations. We cannot abandon them if we really seek to support democracy.

Thank you very much, dear colleague, for the question. As a lawyer, I can assure you that sovereignty doesn't mean the free discretion which international commitments are to be fulfilled or which are not. It is inseparable from the proper fulfilment of all international obligations, including those stemming from the EU membership in a goodwill. And if no, if somebody wouldn't like those obligations, there is always the way to withdraw.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, regrettably, Hungary acts as a Russian Trojan horse within the European Union, eroding our fundamental values from inside and weakening our common security. The Orbán regime echoes Moscow's disinformation and anti-LGBTQ policy. According to the classification adopted recently by the Venice Commission, Orbán's regime can be described as an electoral autocracy with unfair elections, regular abuse of state resources, erosion of civil liberties and subverted institutions. The more space this regime is given, the more aggressively it restricts fundamental rights, in particular the freedom of assembly. The regime does not hesitate to abuse laws, even rewrite the constitution with incredible speed in order to consolidate its power. Will we tolerate these actions until the damage is irreversible? The time for hesitation is over. Apart from all the infringement procedures, ultimately Hungary's voting rights must be suspended at the Council.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the European Union is more than a market. It is founded on the rule of law, inseparable from pluralistic democracy and fundamental rights. These values are not optional. They do not have different meaning. They define who we are. Now, across the European Union, we are witnessing a dangerous trend. The abusive rule by law, replacing the rule of law. We see it when courts are politicised, when civil society is silenced, media freedom is attacked, the rulings of the Court of Justice are ignored. Hungary stands as a stark example. It has experienced a decade of democratic backsliding. How did we respond? We talk too much. We don't do enough. This must be changed. We need to act at the first signs of democracy erosion. The Parliament has already demonstrated its leadership. However, the Commission and the Council must stop turning away. In my own country, Lithuania, we can notice signs of concern. The attempts to control the national public broadcaster, to legitimise corruption, and not to comply with the ruling of the constitutional court defending family rights of same-sex couples. And the Commission seems to step back, insisting that family rights belong to national rather than EU domain. Altogether ...

Madam President, dear colleagues, we have heard many right words about the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, including immeasurable human losses and sufferings. Regrettably, we have also heard extreme right and left representatives aligning themselves with the aggressor and spreading Russian lies. There is no doubt that the aggression is the gravest international crime, no doubt that Russia is committing numerous crimes against humanity and war crimes, no doubt that we have to support Ukraine. However, first and foremost, we must believe in the victory of Ukraine, in the victory of international law and justice. All the delays and shortcomings in supporting Ukraine can be explained by a lack of belief and consequently, a lack of determination. If Israel, which is almost ten times smaller than Iran, can dismantle the latter's aggressive potential, why couldn't Ukraine, with our support, do the same? Our belief in Ukraine and trust in ourselves is the most important in compelling the aggressor to peace, and it is indeed the issue of our survival. This is also a burden that history has placed on us.

Madam President, dear colleagues, we have heard many right words about the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, including immeasurable human losses and sufferings. Regrettably, we have also heard extreme right and left representatives aligning themselves with the aggressor and spreading Russian lies. There is no doubt that the aggression is the gravest international crime, no doubt that Russia is committing numerous crimes against humanity and war crimes, no doubt that we have to support Ukraine. However, first and foremost, we must believe in the victory of Ukraine, in the victory of international law and justice. All the delays and shortcomings in supporting Ukraine can be explained by a lack of belief and consequently, a lack of determination. If Israel, which is almost ten times smaller than Iran, can dismantle the latter's aggressive potential, why couldn't Ukraine, with our support, do the same? Our belief in Ukraine and trust in ourselves is the most important in compelling the aggressor to peace, and it is indeed the issue of our survival. This is also a burden that history has placed on us.

Madam President, today we can recall the commitment made 80 years ago at the end of the Second World War: any peace must be grounded on international law. And indeed, the legal order established then was built on the same core principles: the prohibition of aggression, a respect for state sovereignty and territorial integrity, self-determination of peoples. The duty not to recognise forceful annexation has withstood all tests for almost 100 years. There is nothing different when we seek just sustainable and comprehensive peace in Ukraine. The Russian annexation of four Ukrainian regions, including Crimea, can never be recognised and the territorial integrity of Ukraine must be restored. Full reparation for the aggression must be ensured to Ukraine, including the use of frozen Russian assets. Criminal responsibility for the aggression has to be achieved through the special tribunal to be established with the assistance of the Council of Europe and the European Union. Meanwhile, only the Ukrainian people are entitled to decide their future, including their robust security through full membership of the European Union and NATO. These are the principles that cannot be compromised by any business deals, no matter who is the dealer.

Mr President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, recently, we marked the Belarusian Freedom Day, anniversary of the proclamation of democratic Belarus in 1918. Peaceful Belarusians who commemorated this day publicly in Lithuania, Poland, Germany and elsewhere abroad are now being persecuted by the so-called Investigative Committee of Belarus with threats of imprisonment and confiscation of their property. Needless to say, this is one more crime against humanity involving gross violations of universally recognised human rights. We do know all the names of the organisers and perpetrators of this crime, and that this time extends the Belarusian borders. Therefore, first, the EU Member States must effectively apply universal jurisdiction in respect of all crimes of the Lukashenka regime. Regretfully, this is not the case yet. And now the National Prosecutor's office hasn't named any suspects. Second, the EU must target by sanctions all the employees of the so-called investigative committee. And third, the sanctions have to include the confiscation of Lukashenka's and his associates assets for the purpose to compensate the damage done to the repressed Belarusian people. This is a language that all the dictators can understand.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I think today we are not debating on elections in France or Romania, but what is most important. What I would like to emphasise is that the latest criminalisation of Pride marches – together with the authorisation to use facial recognition in order to persecute peaceful protesters in Hungary – is not only a simple breach of the freedoms of assembly and expression; with this type of legislation, Hungary has put itself at the distance of only one step short to Russia, where the LGBT community has been proclaimed as an extremist organisation. Needless to say that in such a manner, Hungary seriously and persistently breaches EU fundamental values, such as human dignity, freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Being an agent of Putin's regime, Orbán has nothing to do in the European Union. Therefore, let us be honest: the further delay in applying Article 7 for Hungary can lead only to the self-destruction of the European Union itself.

Mr President, dear colleagues, lex semper dabit remedium - the law must always provide appropriate remedies against any breach. This maxim fits the best in seeking the legal solution on the frozen Russian assets. The legal and moral imperatives in this case, indeed, are more than clear. There is no doubt that Russia, as an aggressor, must stop the war and provide the full reparation to Ukraine. There is also no doubt that the war of aggression is the grossest possible breach of international law. Therefore, other states must cooperate in bringing to an end the aggression. This cooperation includes legitimate countermeasures. This is the answer as to how to justify under international law the use of frozen Russian assets for self-defence and the reconstruction of Ukraine. We must weigh what has to be safeguarded: the sovereign immunity of the aggressors' assets or the survival of a victim, independent and democratic state of Ukraine, as well as the whole rules‑based international order. Therefore, Europe must be decisive by developing progressively international law with the decision to transfer frozen Russian assets to Ukraine at the account of future reparations. Let us ensure that the aggressor always pays.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the fight for women's rights is not just a political choice. It is also a choice between civilisations or between inclusive, participatory democracy and authoritarianism, usually accompanied with violence and sexism. However, progress on gender equality in the EU still seems to be uneven and fragile. A new EU-wide gender-based violence survey exposes that violence against women remains a daily reality. The EU directive on violence against women fails to include a consent-based definition of rape. Five EU Member States: Bulgaria, Czechia, Lithuania, Hungary and Slovakia, refused to ratify the Istanbul Convention, sounds like a betrayal of our core values. The Women's Rights Roadmap is a step forward to the single European human rights space, however not sufficiently concrete. It should be implemented by ambitious legislative proposals, appropriate education and conditionality instruments for those who do not adhere to European standards of gender equality. If we need a reminder of what is at stake, look at Ukraine. Even at war, Ukraine has launched its first gender equality index because of understanding that there is no civilised world without women's rights and gender equality.

Mr President, there are only two ways to achieve long‑lasting peace in a war of self-defence against aggression: victory or capitulation. However, only in the case of victory against an aggressor can we see legitimacy restored and justice achieved. This means the full restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty, full reparation for all the damages sustained by Ukraine, punishment by a special tribunal of the Russian and Belarusian leadership for the crime of aggression, as well as holding accountable all those responsible for war crimes. And, certainly, the implementation of other principles of President Zelenskyy's victory plan, such as the full membership of Ukraine in the European Union and NATO. Justice cannot be separated from peace, and conditions of peace cannot be dictated by the aggressor. They should be determined by the victim and international law. Everything else is the fundamental failure for us political leaders of Europe. Our generation might be remembered with shame and disgust. Do we really want this to be our legacy?