Debate contributions by Nicolás PASCUAL DE LA PARTE

Madam President, once again we have to lament the mass abduction of Catholics at a school, this time at St. Mary's School in Papiri State in western Nigeria. This mass abduction comes on top of other mass abductions, including of Catholics, in that country. We in the European Parliament have decided to continuously monitor the situation by denouncing the campaign of persecution against Christians – and Catholics in particular – in Nigeria. And do, in addition, more than talk and more than denounce. We must urge the Nigerian authorities to take police and justice measures to persecute Boko Haram and the terrorists who cause this genocide. Because victims are persecuted for being Christians, and that is exactly the definition of genocide. And, on the part of the European Union, apart from denouncing this unacceptable situation, we must urge the Commission to appoint a special envoy to the European Union against Christianophobia and for freedom of religion, and make our development and cooperation aid conditional on the protection of Christian minorities by the Nigerian Government.

Mr President, as the Commissioner has pointed out, throughout the year 2025, we have been able to set up the legal framework for the European defence: the White Paper on defence, we have later on the European defence readiness roadmap, the European defence readiness omnibus, the European industrial transformation framework, but now, in the year 2027, we have to deliver. We are going to be judged and to be assessed by how able and capable we are to deliver. The first step we have to look into is military mobility – the package that you have just announced. Here I think we have a good example of how to deliver on both the military and the civilian civilian sector as well. We have the funding already earmarked for that. We have also the political will. Now we have to deliver and to be able to come to fruition in 2026 and 2027. The financial package is already there. The SAFE package has shown us how much demand is there. We are now preparing the second SAFE package before the first has been already delivered. That means there is political will and demand. Then there is no excuse not to deliver.

Madam Chair, after Brexit, we continue to share with the United Kingdom the same geopolitical challenges. That's why we have agreed upon with them the UK‑European Union Strategic Partnership, as well as the European Union‑UK defence and security partnerships. I think that there we identify clearly the common challenges, how we have to fight against hybrid threats, massive disinformation campaigns, cyberattacks, regional conflicts and the change of supply. This being said, I think that now the Commission is negotiating, with our support, the participation of the UK in the SAFE Programme – the loan fund for joint procurement. Actually, we are discussing with them the possibility of a contribution fee and how will be the contribution of the non-European components in any service and in any product put in the European market. We support the Commission. I think that we come to an agreement, but a good agreement on both sides, and that means that we have to keep our conditions to be flexible, to be pragmatic, to accommodate the British desires as long as possible, to count on our support and I hope we will come to an agreement very soon.

Madam President, by means of the continuous airspace violations and the sabotage of our critical structures what Putin is trying to do is to find out which are our weak points in our collective defence. He's trying also to wreak havoc and to cause mayhem in our political leaders and fear among the society at large. And we have to accept that, to a certain point, he has got it, because he has realised that we don't have a collective answer, whether from the military point of view or even from the political point of view. It is very difficult to understand why, after nearly four years of war in Ukraine, our military planners have not been able still to set up a very effective counter-drone defence in Europe. Now we have to come to an agreement, at a political level, on how to respond to these continuous airspace violations, how to have a communication strategy, and how to pass on the message that, within some short period of time, we will be able to set up our defences. And for that, we also have to be ready to invest massively now in these counter-drone capabilities.

Thank you very much for the very pertinent question. The European Union has to make sure that we have a lasting and fair peace – not peace at any price. Peace at any price is no peace at all. It is injustice for the Ukrainian people. In order to achieve that, we have to continue supporting Ukraine, because it is not the stability and the peace in Ukraine which is at stake here – it is our, your, my stability and peace. Should this war in Ukraine not come with a fair outcome, the whole European project will be put at stake. The whole European and NATO project will be put at stake. There is a lot. That's why we cannot give in to any kind of peace plan, which doesn't incorporate fair conditions for the Ukrainian people. And to change Putin's calculation means that he has to assume that he cannot win this war. As simple as that.

Mr President, what does it mean to engage in a lasting and fair peace? It means to understand why Putin marched into Ukraine. He didn't march into Ukraine in order to occupy the Donbas. He already had the control of this through the terrorists and the militias; he marched into Ukraine in February 2022 in order to topple the regime and to put a puppet president in Ukraine. This is the objective of Putin. No matter what kind of list of land concessions to Putin, he will not change his calculation. He will continue the war the day after the agreement, through hybrid threats and through massive information activities. The only way for us to change Putin's calculation then is to show that he cannot win this war, massively supporting our Ukrainian friends and increasing our pressure upon Putin. How? Through sanctions, with secondary sanctions for those who engage with Russia in order to make clear that he cannot go along with that. By the way, it would be very useful if the European Union put all these priorities that the President of the Commission has put forward here together and put forward as a peace plan – a European peace plan hand in hand with our Ukrainian friends, which offers security guarantees, which offers a political horizon, which offers financial support so that Ukraine can win this war and Putin changes his calculation. Otherwise, we will have this spending on our heads for years to come.

Madam President, I think that the recent Chinese introduction of export restrictions on raw materials and rare earths as a response to our policy concerning electric vehicles and semiconductors is an escalation of the weaponisation of the trade policies by China. We have to confront this in a smart way. That means we cannot decouple from China, but we also have to take a risk in order to reduce our dependence on China. That means to apply an initiative called the economic security doctrine, which incorporates many of the instruments we have. We don't need to create new instruments. We have to coordinate the instruments already existing in the European Union, including, for instance, the RESourceEU programme that deals with this particular problem. In addition to this, we have obviously to diversify the supplies with our longstanding and trusted allies – the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and even the Philippines. And finally, we have to engage with China in a critical dialogue that allows us to pursue our interests and at the same time to pass over the real messages.

Madam President, I think that we agree that we need European defence for the next years, and that means that we need a European defence, technological and industrial base. And that, at the same time, means that we need a European preference for the acquisition and the joint procurement. That is exactly what the European Defence Industry Programme means. It means that for the first time, Europeans, we decide to have European preference for the joint procurement that we need. It doesn't mean that we slam the door in front of our partners. We will have this open to collaboration with like-minded partners that want to contribute. The percentage of the European component is 65 %, could be more, could be less, but I think that we have agreed upon a very reasonable threshold, that also allows for the participation of like-minded countries. As well, the amount of money is not too much, it is EUR 1 500 million until the end of 2027, but I think it's a first step, a good gesture, for Europeans to go ahead with our own single market. That means that we don't need 27 national, fragmented markets, but a common one. And this means also that we commit ourselves in EDIP with a Ukrainian instrument to deliver as much as EUR 300 million. It's also a good message that we want to integrate the Ukrainian friends in the European chains of production. At the same time, I think that we have to encourage and to foster the participation of our small and medium enterprises, because it is meant for them, to incorporate themselves to our effort. And finally, we have to decide whether or not to make this transfer from European defence dependent on the US to European defence dependent on Europeans in an orderly way, or in a disorderly way. Obviously, we have to wait for an orderly way.

Mr President, the time has come to block all means of financing the Russian effort, which is why we strongly support the Commission's proposal to bring forward to 1 January 2027 the total ban on the import of natural gas into Europe. But, in addition, we are in favour of banning imports of other elements, for example nuclear energy or hydrocarbon derivatives. That will blind the financing of the Russian war effort and, at the same time, reduce Europe's dependence on non-democratic third countries. To do this we also have to fight the indirect routes of incorporation of Russian gas and, for that, we have to approve clear traceability certificates that tell us through which routes Russian gas indirectly enters Europe. And finally, if we are really serious about the will to blind funding to Russia, we have to start discussing economic, diplomatic and trade sanctions on those third countries that continue to buy Russian gas and oil. That would be definitive to demonstrate our seriousness with regard to the crisis in Ukraine.

Madam President, our absolute priority must be to bring Putin to the negotiating table and, for that, we have to alter his calculation. He thinks that we are going to get tired sooner or that we are going to lack the financial, military and political means and resources to help Ukraine, and in that miscalculation we have to influence. We need to make sure that we give Ukraine all the help and financial support it needs in the coming years and that is why the Commission has decided – and we approve – not to confiscate, but to use 140 billion of Russian assets held in Europe as collateral for a loan to Ukraine. Since we know that Russia will never pay for the repair, it will possibly lose that funding. We are aware that there are legal risks in terms of the prestige of foreign investments in Europe, the confiscation of European assets not repatriated in Russia and the sale of European currencies on international markets. But all these risks – which are certain – pale in the face of the need to support Ukraine with all the financial resources at our disposal, and this is a guarantee of that.

Madam President, after three and a half years of war in Ukraine, we see surprised by the incursion of drones into our airspace. After three and a half years of war in Ukraine. That doesn't say much in favor of our capacity for planning and foresight. Russia is using drones and we can only oppose expensive Patriots or the takeoff of sophisticated F-35 aircraft, which is unsustainable. That means we have to react quickly and in a very short time. And the first thing we need to do is to propose, ahead of the next meeting of Heads of State and Government on 23 and 24 October, which will be held here in Brussels by the Commission, a contingency plan. An action plan that provides for rapid, unified and effective action by Europe in the face of attacks by Russia, which, if it has declared war on Ukraine, has declared a hybrid war on Europe. And that means disinformation – a massive disinformation campaign – cyberattacks and hybrid threats. And for that we have to be prepared. But not only from a military point of view, but also from a communication and political point of view. Let's do it!

Madam President, Commissioner, two years ago there was a cruel and savage massacre of Israelis. And then we've had two years of war and suffering in Gaza. But right now we have a ray of hope in the peace plan presented by the United States that the European Union and the Member States should unreservedly support because it is the only serious, viable and feasible initiative to bring peace and end the suffering of the Palestinians. It is a very complex plan that has several phases and is conditioned by many factors. But we have to support him from now on. The Government of Israel supports it, it is supported by the Muslim countries and the Arab countries of the region, it is supported by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and therefore, as I say, it is the only hope. This shows that international conflicts are resolved and vehiculated through diplomatic work, diplomatic efforts, the hard work of leaders who are willing to get political commitments and not sterile activism, aspavent, radical positions and other totally useless manifestations.

Madam President, High Representative, I extend my congratulations to the rapporteur on the report on Ukraine. I think that it is time for the European Union to cobble together a comprehensive initiative on peace for Ukraine. During the summer we have been attending a lot of meetings and encounters in Alaska and in Washington, and I think that the people, our public opinion outside, need to have a clear idea of what the European Union stands for with regard to Ukraine. We have to put together, to cobble together, an integral, comprehensive peace plan together with our Ukrainian friends. The main idea is that Russia cannot win this war. We have to support our Ukrainian friends – not to defend themselves, but to win the war, which is something quite different. And for that, we have to promise them a quick integration into the European Union. We have to strengthen and reinforce their armed forces and to integrate the army into our European defence infrastructure. Only with these clear messages can we set up a clear deterrence against Putin.

Thank you, dear colleague, for your intervention. It's totally unbalanced and untrue: Spain, again, never set up concentration camps in the modern time in Cuba. I mean, the real oppressors of Cuba are the communist regime under Fidel Castro and his successors. And you know that millions of Cubans have left the country because they cannot live in Cuba. These are the oppressors of Cuba: the communist regime that you represent. The second point: I have not said anything about Israel. I have said that Iran is the head of the monster which will destabilise the entire region. And without this regime, we will probably leave the region and ourselves better off, and you as well.

Madam President, the Middle East is enduring a change of geopolitics and of the geopolitical map, and one of the main elements for this change is to hold Iran accountable for its sponsorship of terrorism and destabilisation across the region. We know that appeasement doesn't work with this regime, and we know as well that direct military intervention is not advisable either. What will work will be international isolation based upon the hardening of the sanctions against this criminal regime, as well as political and diplomatic pressure. At the same time, we have to recognise and support the democratic opposition of Iran, which will be the only one that will put an end to this regime. As far as Gaza is concerned, we reiterate our call for unhindered access of humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people, as well as a kind of future for them which has to be without Hamas. Hamas cannot be in the future political framework of the Palestinians. And to back the cease fire immediately. Concerning my colleague Botenga from The Left, I must say that Spain never set up concentration camps in Cuba. He has to review his history books, because the communist regime of Fidel Castro and his followers has forced millions of Cubans out of his country and oppressed them and brought them misery and repression.

Madam President, thank you very much President of the Commission, reciprocity, transparency and respect for a level playing ground. These are truly the three principles upon which our relationship with China has to build up. Firstly, on the security front, we cannot accept that China continues supporting and assisting Putin's Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. If China wants to be recognised as a big power, it has to assume also big responsibilities. It is a member of the Security Council, that means that it's supposed to be a guarantor of peace and stability in the world, and you cannot guarantee peace and stability in the world if you assist Putin's war of aggression. Our relationship with China cannot be normalised as long as it continues supporting Putin. Secondly: human rights. We cannot ignore that China massively and grossly disregards the human rights of racial minorities and religious minorities. We have to remember that. Thirdly: trade and services. China has to abide by all the dispositions of the World Trade Organisation and not select those it likes and disregard those it doesn't like. We know the pattern of behaviour of China; they subsidise the industries in order to eliminate the competition, they get the monopoly and they impose the conditions afterwards. Fourthly: rare earths and raw materials, critical raw materials. We cannot accept the threat and the menace of control of exports of raw materials. It goes against the rules of the World Trade Organisation. By the way, this particular point is not the responsibility of the Chinese only; we have renounced exploiting our own raw materials and rare earths because of the dispositions of our green agenda. This has to be reconsidered if we want to not depend entirely on China. So: reality, reciprocity, transparency and a level playing ground.

Madam President, thank you High Representative for your introductory remarks, in the run up to the NATO summit next week, we have to ask ourselves why NATO has been the most successful defence organisation ever in history. I think there are three elements. First of all, because we Europeans and Americans share the same principles, we share the same convictions. This is the strength of our relationship. Second, because of the strength and the ability and capability of NATO to adapt to the new realities; the flexibility of the organisation. And third, the unwavering leadership of the US. That's why we have to strengthen our link with the US. We perhaps have to recognise that we have to start the debate on the geographical application of NATO because the geopolitical, geostrategic and economic situation has evolved, obviously, and most of the items are not decided only in the Atlantic but also in the Indo‑Pacific. The Indo‑Pacific and the Atlantic are interrelated. That's why we should perhaps start thinking about extending NATO to like‑minded countries around the world and to have a global NATO because if we are not in the right geographical position, we will be out of business very quickly. Concerning the financing, as the HR/VP has said, one of the main items of this summit will be the ramping up of the money that we have to put for our common defence. It's not only a matter of numbers. We firstly have to decide what are our main threats and risks; secondly, what are the capabilities that we need to have in order to face these risks; and thirdly – but thirdly, not first – how much money we need to finance our capabilities. That's why, I think, we will come to a good conclusion that we have to ramp up our efforts to have fairer burden‑sharing with the US, but also to identify our capabilities in the near future.

I am delighted to be here today. The bottom line, when I think of the Palestinian crisis today, is how to help the Palestinians in practical terms. Apart from making rhetorical, political vents, how do you help them in practical terms? And the best way to help in practical terms is to have influence with the Palestinians and with the Israelis to try to bring them to the negotiating table and prevent these useless massacres of civilians. We can make big statements here, but that doesn't help the Palestinians at all if we're not realistic, we're not pragmatic, and we don't take into account the instruments we have at our disposal to influence the Government of Israel and Israeli society instead of totally erasing ourselves from the equation and turning away.

Mr President, High Representative, is suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement going to advance the Palestinian cause by an inch? Will suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement help the pitiful humanitarian situation of Palestinians in Gaza? Is suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement going to make it easier for the parties to negotiate? If the answer to these questions is no, we would have to think about what it is for then to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement. I think the important thing is to recognize that the Association Agreement is not a privilege or a grace: It is the framework of our relations with an ally, which allows us to have political influence, to have an open communication channel and to have the possibility of using this instrument to influence Israel, its policies and its society. So let's be realistic. We are in favour of maintaining the Agreement as an instrument, as a tool of influence and as a channel of communication, while, of course, demanding the immediate release of the hostages and access to humanitarian aid for the Palestinians.

Madam President, the war in Ukraine is reaching unthinkable levels of cruelty and inhumanity. Putin and his army are systematically and voluntarily bombing hospitals, schools, basic infrastructure, power plants, water reservoirs ... clearly with the aim of breaking the will of resistance of the heroic Ukrainian people and provoking waves of immigration to Europe. He's not gonna make it: neither will it break the will of the Ukrainian people nor will it achieve its goals. We demand the release of the more than 35,000 children forcibly deported to Russia and indoctrinated. We demand the release of the more than 16,000 adult prisoners who are being tortured, massacred, malnourished and killed in Russian prisons. We demand the exchange of the thousands of prisoners who are in concentration camps in Russia - in the 21st century, yes, concentration camps. We demand his release. And we demand first and foremost that unconditional and unrestricted access be granted to the International Committee of the Red Cross and other international humanitarian agencies to demand compliance with the terms of the Geneva Conventions that protect soldiers and detained civilians. And, fourthly and lastly, we demand that Europe maintain an increasingly robust system of sanctions, that we be able to close all escape routes so that the price of continuing the war is unbearable for Putin and force him to come to the negotiating table.

Hamas is what it is: is a terrorist movement that can have no prominence in the future (inaudible words) in the political, social and economic life of Palestine. Israel is engaged in an existential struggle against Hamas and Hezbollah, and we must therefore recognize that we must also assist Israel in that effort to end terrorism. If these terrorists carry out their objectives in the Middle East, then they will continue with Europe, there is no doubt in their minds. The terrorists must be stopped there, in the Middle East, and Hamas has in its statutes the objective of erasing the State of Israel from the face of the earth. That must be recognized, that is the reality, that is the people that Israel is dealing with and therefore we Europeans can only be an actor of peace and stability if we recognize the whole reality so that we can offer a future of peace and stability to Palestinians and Israelis.

Madam President, I believe that the question today is whether the European Union – if this House – wants to act as an international actor of peace. Yes or no? Logically, the answer is – or should be – positive. For that, we must begin by recognizing reality, the whole reality. The reality is that we have to demand that the Israeli Government stop the massive bombing of the Palestinian civilian population, allow massive access to humanitarian aid, food and medicine for the Palestinian population, refrain from deportations and respect international humanitarian law. But recognizing reality also means recognizing the right of the State of Israel to defend itself, since it has been attacked by a terrorist organization (Hamas) that has kidnapped its people as hostages and uses it as a human shield to use violence and achieve political objectives. The future of the Middle East cannot be in the hands of terrorist groups like Hamas. Recognizing Israel's right to defend itself and to end these terrorist groups is also part of the reality. If we do not recognize the whole reality, we will hardly be able to support and help the Palestinian people and Israel to find paths of negotiation and peace.

Madam President, Commissioner, I believe that the strategy proposed by the European Union must be integrated into a broader concept of comprehensive human security, which has a classic defence dimension – the armed forces – but also has a civilian dimension, which is preparedness for conflicts, natural disasters and unforeseen events. This basically means that we have to prepare for these eventualities, because it is much cheaper to prepare than to then deal with the consequences of these disasters. Is preparation expensive? Yes, but, as I say, it is much more expensive to try to reverse situations. That means greater civil and military cooperation, greater cooperation between the public and private sectors, to ensure that critical infrastructure and essential services are guaranteed and that we are prepared to respond to attacks, cyber-attacks, hybrid threats, information manipulations. In a word, we have to make society aware that the culture of defense belongs to everyone and that we all have to prepare ourselves.