Speeches

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.

Madam President, thank you very much indeed. I, as well as my colleague, have been listening very carefully to all the interventions I think I can draw four main ideas. The first one is that we have to face a new geopolitical paradigm. This new paradigm changes from the multilateralism that helps everybody to a zero-sum geopolitics scenario in which the powers like the US, China and Russia are comfortable, but we are not. The second idea is that security is a common global good. If it is a common global good, it is a matter not only for those in uniform, but the whole society at large. And then we have to mobilise our society to convince and seduce them that we are defending the lever to the freedom in order to have the support, because the politicians alone will not be able to get through it. The third idea I have felt here with all the interventions is a sense of urgency. We have to react quickly because Europe has in front of us a great challenge, which is to keep our own defence and security in our own hands, and to rise up to the challenges ahead. That means not only to have the political will, but to find the political leadership, to mobilise the funding necessary for that and to row in the same direction. We will be strong if we are united and we will be strong if we have our people, our voters, behind us. The fourth idea is that there cannot be peace in Ukraine without justice. If the peace has to be sustained, it has to be fair. It will not be sustained if it's not fair. And for that, we have to support our Ukrainian friends in order to go with a strong hand to the negotiating table, in which the European Union, by all means, has to be present.

Madam President, Mrs Kallas, dear friends, I have the honour to present the report on the common European security and defence policy for 2024. It is a report that, by its nature, is a bit special. Firstly, because it reflects not only the priorities of the European Parliament on these issues, but also those of the Commission and those of the European External Action Service as the first report of this legislature. But it is also a transition report, because it reflects precisely the geopolitical challenge, the paradigm shift that is taking place in the world. Faced with this paradigm shift and these new challenges, the European Union must respond to the circumstances. This report focuses on this transition from being dependent on others to being politically and strategically autonomous. It has incorporated the vast majority of the amendments from the various political groups, but in the end we were able to present - thanks to the work of all the services of Parliament, the Secretariat, the shadow rapporteurs and so on - a coherent report and a report focusing on the priorities of the European institutions and not just the European Parliament. What are these priorities? The first is that Europe, as I say, must begin to take the reins of its future into its own hands and be able to defend its model of life, its values, its convictions and its principles now and in the future. That's what we need time for. And, even if we want to create the Europe of defense of the future in the next four or five years, we need the United States of America to be with us in NATO and outside NATO to create a credible deterrent to Russia, so that Putin doesn't come up with new military adventures again. We need to create a strong deterrent and, for that, Europe needs time. In the best-case scenario, that is, if we have the political will, mobilise the necessary financial resources and show unity and determination to create that Europe of defence, we will need at least four or five years. We must therefore be aware that in the meantime we need the assistance and support of the United States and NATO. We don't want to do anything without Americans, as long as they want to participate like us. But we have to equip ourselves with those means and those resources to defend ourselves in the crises of our neighborhoods east, south and beyond. Obviously, we also make a geographical review of all the conflicts in which Europe has to have a unique position, starting with Ukraine. There we repeat, as my friend David has said before, that we will support Ukraine financially, politically and defensively for as long as necessary. And here we will do it even without the United States of America. We have to stand by the Ukrainian people and government for as long as they need us, and for that, we have to articulate the financial and political mechanisms that allow it. But they must always count on our support, as long as they are defending our freedom, our territorial integrity, our independence and our model of life on the battlefield of Ukraine. Secondly, we turn to the Middle East conflict, in which, following the visit of the High Representative, clear messages have been sent that we need to continue and resume the truce, that the negotiated truce between Hamas and Israel cannot be broken, because we still need the exchange of hostages and prisoners, and to maintain a space of peace and dialogue that allows for the resumption of political dialogue in order to bring Israel and the Palestinians to the negotiating table in order to seek a future that will ensure peace and prosperity for Israel and the future for the Palestinians. And that can only be done within the perspective of two states living back to back and in peace. Of course, we have also reviewed other conflicts: the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Uyghurs and Burma. But we have placed special emphasis, as I say, on these two major conflicts in Ukraine and in the Middle East. In short, we have a report from which we can begin to implement an agenda for the implementation of these conclusions which, as I insist, has sought to integrate not only the priorities of the European Parliament, but also of the Commission and the European External Action Service. I am very much looking forward to the debate on this proposal below.

Mr President, tectonic changes are taking place in the Middle East that are likely to change the geopolitical and geostrategic map in the area, and even to the borders. But at the moment what we have is a truce agreement between Hamas and Israel that gives us hope that peace will return to that region. There is a reality that we cannot lose sight of: Between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River live seven million Palestinians and seven million Jews. They have to learn to live in peace, with respect and with reconciliation. That is why we are committed to the two-state solution as the only possible one that offers a future of security and stability to Israel and prosperity and dignity to the Palestinians. We must implement this through our dialogue with the Israeli and Palestinian authorities to implement the EU Middle East Strategy, the new Pact for the Mediterranean and the strategy for the Gulf countries. The Commission is going to put forward these proposals and we must support them while continuing to support our two missions on the ground, EUPOL COPPS and EU BAM Rafah, which are doing a magnificent job with few resources.

Mr President, after three years of war, devastation and death, it seems that we are working towards a peace negotiation perspective. But a peace for Ukraine must be a just, lasting peace, and a just and lasting peace must respect the principles of the Charter of the United Nations: the intangibility of borders, territorial integrity, political independence, the freedom of any state to choose its international alliances. We have to guarantee that to the Ukrainians. And above all, there can be no peace without the Ukrainians or above the Ukrainians. It is they who have to say what the terms of peace are. And that is where the European Union has to help. We need to help by offering them bilateral and collective security guarantees and also by offering them a prospect of joining the European Union and joining NATO in due course. Let us not look so much at what the United States, the President of the United States, is doing and look at what we are capable of doing and what collective plan the European Union has to respond to that prospect of peace that is opening up in Ukraine. We have to face that reality in a united way and with our own plan.

Madam President, the trade war declared by Trump was already coming, because he announced it during the election campaign. Trump's trade tariffs have a double dimension: an outer dimension and an inner dimension. The external dimension consists of using them as weapons of coercion for a negotiation against the trading partners, to put their interlocutor on the defensive, but the internal dimension is more important, because once Trump has announced that he is going to lower the corporate tax - the corporate tax– from 35% to 15%, that will lead to a mismatch in the national accounts that will have to square with import revenues through tariffs. That is, they will compensate for the tax gap left by the reduction in corporate tax. Tariffs are therefore going to be there for years and, in the face of that, the European Union has to react by becoming the guarantor of international free trade, starting with the ratification of the Mercosur Agreement, the ratification of the Modernised Global Agreement with Mexico and establishing agreements with India and Japan. We are the main trading partner of the world, but we also depend more than anyone on trade and therefore we have to...

Mr. President, Donald Trump has returned to the White House and, therefore, we have to offer a positive agenda, of meeting, of dialogue, of negotiation, from a point of view of firmness of our principles and our convictions. And when there are difficulties and when there are problems, we must be smart enough to turn them into opportunities for the European Union. On three fronts you will mainly notice Trump's impact. On the economic front, with its announced lowering of corporate taxes. That is going to mean that, if it goes down from 30% to 10%, there will be a vacuuming effect of European investments and companies towards the United States and that, in addition, that fiscal deficit caused by the lowering of taxes will have to be compensated by a rise in import tariffs. Tariffs will therefore not be so much a geostrategic and geopolitical weapon as an instrument for framing fiscal accounts. And from the international point of view, it will also be a change, a turning point. There are people who even talk about an accelerator of history. But here Europe must be able to help ensure that its principles and convictions are reflected in the international order. That is, we cannot be the sufferers of the new international order, but conform it. And for that we have to act with unity, with determination and with strength, and not allow the United States to separate us, nor allow bilateral relations, but with the whole of the European Union as a fundamental actor for peace and stability.

Mr President, yesterday was a day of joy in the Middle East and a day of hope. But it is a hope in a fragile ceasefire, which we have to take care of, because this ceasefire is not guaranteed: These are three stages, which we hope will end well, but it is a ceasefire that is subject to all sorts of provocations and ruptures. The European Union can clearly assist in the achievement and maintenance of this ceasefire through political and diplomatic support, through the massive delivery of humanitarian aid to the well-deserving people of Gaza, and already starting with a massive reconstruction plan in the area. But let us not deceive ourselves, there will be no peace in the Middle East until there is a definitive agreement between Israel and Palestine that guarantees two things: the security of Israelis – the security of their borders and the security of their state – and a political horizon of dignity for Palestinians. Without that there will be no peace and prosperity. Nor will there be peace in the Middle East if there is no agreement on Lebanon that prevents a terrorist group like Hezbollah from hijacking the state and determining the future of that country. Nor will there be peace and prosperity in the Middle East if we do not get Syria back on the path of democracy. That is why I believe it is time for the European Union to become the engine for convening a regional peace conference in the area, including, of course, all these countries and all those actors who have something to say: the United States, the Gulf countries, Turkey and all those who want to contribute to peace. That peace conference will require the European Union to stand united and make a proposal from the European Union. Let us overcome our differences, overcome our difficulties and propose ourselves as peacemakers. If we complain later, it'll be our fault.

Mr President, Madam High Representative, we can only congratulate ourselves on the fall of an autocrat and a dictator like Bashar al-Assad, who subjected his people to a tyranny with crimes, with torture, with displaced people and, therefore, the first idea would be to congratulate all European democrats. The second is that, precisely now, we are witnessing a redefinition of the geopolitical and geostrategic map of the Middle East. In the Middle East nothing that seems is true and nothing that is true is what it seems. Alliances of friends today are alliances of enemies tomorrow. Therefore, the situation is fluid because, in addition, many world powers have clear interests in the area. The European Union, faced with this question mark and uncertainty that opens up to us after the fall of Bashar al-Assad, with leaders who come from Salafist Islamism with records of human rights violations, must be very careful and extreme prudence when approaching the situation right now. We must demand, as the High Representative said, the territorial integrity of Syria and respect for human rights, as well as guarantee independence and territorial sovereignty and try to help the displaced and those who suffer most, by increasing our humanitarian aid from the European Union. What we cannot do is open a debate twenty-four hours after Assad falls on how to return refugees to Syria. That is not exactly what we Europeans should do. We must therefore assist in a transition to a democratic regime that integrates religious and racial minorities and assist where possible for the time being, pending further developments.

Madam President, preparedness must be costly, but the price of being unprepared is far higher. I think that is the main message presented by the wonderful report from Mr Niinistö. This is the one I will retain. The second one is that we have to raise awareness of the whole civil society in order to face the real risks going across the board. That means, at the same time, that we have to make a sense of urgency and to speed up the crisis, preparedness and readiness of our instruments in the European Union, and to cooperate and coordinate with the Member States to be fit for purpose. I welcome the high level of ambition of this report that goes across all the possible hazards, but I think that we should focus on the resilience of the critical infrastructures and key services, especially countering cyberattacks, hybrid threats and massive disinformation campaigns. That demands a lot of investment and a lot of cutting-edge technology in order to be prepared for all these eventualities.

Madam President, the old order has not finished dying and the new order has not just been born. We are in a period of transition from an old order that emerged from World War II, based on effective multilateralism, the United Nations system, collaboration, cooperation and the rule of law, to a new order in which the protagonists are the great powers that compete with each other. If today we wanted to renew the 1945 United Nations Charter of San Francisco or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we would surely not achieve the necessary consensus in the international community. References in global governance have therefore changed. We have a China that is increasingly assertive, a Russia that questions the international order with the brutal and murderous invasion of Ukraine and a very polarized United States internally, which prevents them from exercising their international leadership as before. In this scenario, the European voice must be heard through the meeting of its own space, a unique message and a determined protagonism. Their own space must be that of individual freedom, human rights, the rule of law, the division of powers, democracy and the liberal economy. The message must be unique; There may be several of us who speak on behalf of the European Union as long as we agree on the message. And the protagonism has to be decisive. It is up to us, therefore, to turn Europe into an international player with its own weight that projects its values and principles without blaming anyone.