Debate contributions by Vasile DÎNCU

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, the war has changed. The drone has become a mass weapon, has low cost and great efficiency. Europe, however, is not sufficiently prepared. We have fragmented acquisitions, we have critical dependencies on external suppliers for chips, sensors, batteries. We have rules that go slower than technology. In the European Parliament we have to do three things: a common framework for drones and counter-drones, fast, interoperable joint European procurement, and clear rules for military artificial intelligence. Europe's security no longer depends on size, it depends on speed, it depends on coordination, our ability to act together, because delay costs. We have two concepts born in these years in Europe and even promoted by the European Commission: European Drone Defence Initiative part of Defence Readiness Roadmap 2030 and Eastern Flank Watch, cintegrated anti-drone apacity. These are, unfortunately, under construction. They're under construction, we need to put them in operation.

Mr President, High Representative, Central and Eastern Europe does not discuss the subject of defence and security in abstract terms, it discusses from direct experience. The Eastern border means military pressure, hybrid attacks, disinformation, economic insecurity. You understand these things very well. For our region, European foreign policy is not a diplomatic exercise, it is concrete protection. Three things are necessary. Real political unity ‐ any veto right for a nation weakens and costs us safe. Secondly, a credible defence capability ‐ our colleagues' report suggests some interesting things. Also, European foreign policy does not suffer from a lack of values, it suffers from a lack of joint decision. While threats are quick, our response is procedural. While the eastern flank seeks protection, the Union negotiates formulations. Eastern Europe is not asking for privileges, it is asking for an acting Union, and I think it is time to refuse to vassalize Europe.

Mr President, European Democracy Shield enters the last stage: that of action. I think that for us, especially those who lived during the communist period in the countries of the East, we must mention that this project should keep its transparency and maintain dialogue even with the opponents of democracy. There are a few other important conditions. First, the European Centre for Democratic Resilience: It needs to be set up quickly, to know the structure, the transparency, the people who deal with it. Then there is the transparency of the instruments: I was just saying incident protocol, network of fact-finders. We also need public guidelines and procedures that are publicly recognised. Finally, the third element: I think it is very important how countries apply the obligations. It must be monitored and also subject to transparency. The fourth element is related to independent media. There is no democracy without independent media, and here we have to monitor very precisely what will happen.

Madam President, Commissioner, congratulations! EDIP changes the rules in Europe, puts the defence industry at the centre and transforms procurement from national decisions into joint processes. That is, we are finally giving birth to the common defence ecosystem in Europe. For our countries, the stakes are clear: If you join European networks, you gain access to contracts and technologies, if you stay on the sidelines, you continue to depend on imports. The rules are tough, demanding supply chains, ownership without external influences and real production capacities. This strikes directly at the weaknesses of the local industry. There's one more thing: This program requires speed, and that's a very good thing, because we don't have time. However, we have windows of opportunity and we can build partnerships, modernize factories and reposition our companies in European consortia. True, EDIP does not offer long time, but it provides a very clear framework, and Europe is gaining from this project. Congratulations!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Sandro Gozi's report is an example of a rational and courageous project at the same time. The European Union is really facing a decisive moment. Enlargement has been seen as a political promise, but it is a test of our institutional capacity. If we want a bigger Union, we need a more efficient Union. Our report makes it clear: without reforms, enlargement risks blocking decision-making mechanisms and weakening citizens’ trust. We need to adjust the vote in the Council, strengthen the role of Parliament and prepare a Commission fit for a Union of more than 30 states. An enlarged Union must remain able to decide quickly, protect democratic values and act united on the global stage. Enlargement and reform must go together. Only then will we have a stronger and more credible Europe.

I don't usually give interviews, I don't remember and I didn't give interviews at Antena 3. Maybe someone else said that. Dear Madam, of course we have some situations in which the institutions may not have communicated exactly as they should have in the case of democracy and this vision of yours is one, certain, ideological and partisan.

Madam President, Commissioner, one European Democracy Shield It is not an institutional luxury, but a strategic necessity. Today, democracies are no longer attacked only with weapons, but by manipulating information, distorting electoral processes and undermining citizens' trust. We need urgent and swift action. I propose three urgent directions. First, I was happy to hear it from the Commissioner, a European centre for democratic resilience, connected to national services, able to monitor and react to real-time hybrid interference and attacks. The second would be a common framework for the protection of electoral processes, minimum standards for the security of databases, transparency in campaign financing and control over microtargeting-the electoral system. Third, an early warning and counter-narrative mechanism for citizens to receive verified information before propaganda fills the entire public space. Dear colleagues, if we do not build these mechanisms, the next elections will become the target for hostile actors and I hope, Commissioner, that ReArm and SAFE, our mechanisms will...

Mr President, Commissioner, the Republic of Moldova is today one of the countries most exposed to Russia's hybrid aggressions: disinformation campaigns, energy pressures, attempts at economic and political destabilisation. In the face of this permanent attack, our gesture of solidarity is very beautiful and this touches us, the Romanians, as well as our Moldovan brothers, but we have to do some concrete things. There were appreciated here, mentioned some concrete things, our aids for Moldova, but I specify a few more things. Firstly, we need to help them strengthen energy security through joint digital defence programmes and by connecting to our rapid response mechanisms. Secondly, energy interconnection must be accelerated so that Chisinau is no longer a prisoner of multiple energy dependencies, even if progress has been made lately. Last but not least, it is about democratic resilience, support for independent media, fighting disinformation and supporting local public administration in particular. By supporting Moldova, we also protect ourselves, strengthen the eastern flank, strengthen citizens' trust in our project and show one thing: Europe does not abandon its neighbours, it supports them in resisting and prospering in the face of this aggression.

Mr President, Commissioner, the revision of the Association Agreement is a hard decision, but the weight of this decision must not cause us to lose our balance. Yes, it seems like a confrontation of perceptions, one between David and Goliath, but in this struggle of perception, let's not forget that on October 7 there was a brutal attack, with over 100 civilian deaths, with hundreds of hostages. Sanctioning Israel without nuances in this context risks being perceived as a blank check for organised terrorism. At the same time, we cannot ignore the reality in Gaza, as you said, the obligations assumed under the Association Agreement, so our decision must be one of balance. More than 60% of the residents of the kibbutz have left their homes, dozens of families are waiting for the hostages to return. The government sends humanitarian aid to Gaza, but does not advertise so as not to lose its coalition partners. So, the revision of the agreement must be a tool of dialogue, not of rupture, our position must be clear: two states in peace and security. But until then we must remain just, not partisans, not radicals, but Europeans faithful to our values - humanity, justice and balance.

Mr President, dear colleagues, dear young people who are in the stands, we mark a day of memory and truth, we commemorate the Armenian Genocide, a historical tragedy in which over one and a half million Armenians were exterminated in the Ottoman Empire. This act was not only a profound humanitarian suffering, but also a historic precedent. The silence of the world at that time paved the way for crimes in the 20th century. "Who remembers the Armenians?" asked Adolf Hitler rhetorically and cynically. Today we have a moral duty not to close our eyes, because this means justice and is a sign of our commitment to humanity and democratic values. Turkey today does not inherit the guilt for the acts committed a century ago, but the guilt begins when you choose to hide a crime, not when you choose to admit it. Assuming the past is not a weakness, but a sign of strength. It is a sign of political courage and dignity. Denying genocide is not an opinion, it is a form of complicity. Today we express our solidarity with the Armenian people and reaffirm our commitment to a world where historical truth no longer needs to be negotiated politically.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the situation of Armenian political prisoners in Nagorno-Karabakh raises fundamental questions about justice, stability and the future of peace in the South Caucasus. Of course, the Caucasus region, as James Forsyth describes it, is one of the most colorful and vivid in the world, and the diversity of local interests complicates any diplomatic situation and any diplomatic action. However, when it comes to peace and stability in the Caucasus, the European Parliament has not deviated at all from its principles and values. Armenia’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence animated resolutions such as that of 13 March or 24 October 2024. Unfortunately, Azerbaijani authorities persist in human rights violations, promoting aggressive rhetoric against Armenia, persecuting Armenian officials in Nagorno-Karabakh. Against this background, we propose that the Union and the Member States watch over trials and visit Armenian hostages. We went even further, advocating sanctions against Azerbaijani officials responsible for judicial abuses. The EU's sanctioning regimes allow us to take strict action against officials as a first step to deter future abuses. The prospects are not positive, therefore, given the military movements in the area, I think we must not wait for a great tragedy to happen in order to adopt concrete measures. This is kind of a question for the Commission at the moment. Dear colleagues, as I said before, the South Caucasus is a particularly complex region. We must therefore act diplomatically, intelligently, but firmly, to protect our values and human rights. Prisoners are not just a number, they are someone's brothers, parents and children, they deserve freedom. The release of political prisoners should be part of a broader effort to build a future based on mutual trust and cooperation, but above all on respect for the global order and rules. We must fight to keep this vision alive.

Mr President, Commissioner Kubilius, we have heard today that the time for illusions has passed, so we must say that the time for paper strategies has also passed. We now need a roadmap for a European army. We need an action plan to strengthen the European Union's strategic autonomy and reduce its dependence on NATO at this time. We need three pillars for that. There was a lot of talk about the first two: creating first of all its own military capability, then an integrated defence industry and above all, I would say, its own deterrence strategy. I will insist on this third element. We need a European military and economic deterrence mechanism capable of countering external threats without depending on NATO, and here are a few things. First, it would require the construction of a doctrine of its own, a military response scenario in the event of an attack, and the operationalisation of Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union, similar to Article 5 of NATO. We need a European defence shield for cyber-attacks, for example, but perhaps also a missile shield and also a clear definition of when and under what circumstances the European Union intervenes militarily, both internally and externally. It is an investment of intelligence that is absolutely necessary. We would also need a defence governance structure, because it is now fragmented.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Republic of Moldova is in a process of rapid transformation. It's amazing what's going on. It is approaching the European Union step by step. These changes, in order to be sustainable, need to increase the capacity to withstand shocks, to increase societal resilience. Moldova is in a fragile geopolitical context, marked by many risks and threats. That is why three elements are very important here: democratic and institutional resilience. Here we see a lot of progress in the fight against corruption and institutional transparency. Economic resilience – Moldova also needs to diversify its economy, boost investment and reduce its dependence on external sources. The strategy of independence and energy efficiency made with the help of the European Union is very important. And also societal resilience and community cohesion – here, we must support social protection, access to education and health and vulnerable groups. This is why societal resilience is important and an investment. Congratulations to the rapporteurs! Congratulations, Commissioner, on your work!

Mr President, dear colleagues, sometimes there is a temptation to take on the narratives of the far right or to make concessions for the sake of the popularity of topics that are populist. It is a trap and a great danger to Europe's competitiveness. The well-being and prosperity of EU citizens depends on its competitiveness in this global economy. Maintaining the European Union's competitive advantage requires international scientific and technological collaboration. Restricting the free movement of labour and capital reduces the ability of European companies to attract talent and investment. Isolationist trends put at risk innovation and research, which are drivers of competitiveness. For Europe's security we need interoperability, the single market, the banking union and what we might call cultural interoperability. So, let's avoid this trap! Europe, in order to remain competitive in the world, must also combat extremist tendencies, among other dangers.

Mr President, democracy operates on the basis of rules and responsibility, otherwise it is chaos. Therefore, I believe that the discussion about TikTok and networks is not only a Romanian business, as it tends to become, but it is a problem of the entire European Union. I would like to say one thing, it is true that TikTok oversimplifies and polarizes political communication, but let's not just blame the platforms for what is happening, for political attitudes or behaviors, because we in politics simplify a lot. And I'll give you an example: We are also divided in Romania, and here in Parliament, into pro-Europeans and sovereignists or patriots. Leaving the label of pro-Europeans means that others are not with Europe or that Europe would have something that is against national interests. Both statements are false, so this is a simplification. That's why I think we need to move to regulation without censorship and without banning networks. Meta, for example, did not comply with EU law. For example, an independent study in Romania showed that there were 25 Facebook pages that were viewed 160 million times and made propaganda for a particular candidate, for candidate Georgescu. I also believe that legislation is really important. We should create a crisis cell at European Union level, from Cybersecurity Agency, working with other countries to see what we have to do in the future. Of course, there must be other regulations, but they will surely come.

Mr President, dear colleagues, in 1940, the Republic of Moldova came under Russian occupation, as did Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania. Today's vulnerabilities of this country are the consequence of this history and of this unfortunate geostrategic position. But today Moldova is on the front line of the war with Russia, along with Ukraine, and we are still behind the front. Social problems, migration, underdevelopment, complicate the situation a lot. However, under the courageous leadership of Maia Sandu and a team of Moldovan politicians, this heroic nation is accelerating reforms and modernization, making remarkable progress. Partnership with the European Union is necessary because it raises living standards, helps modernise and strengthens security. October 20 is very important for the European route of the Republic of Moldova, and today's document represents a gesture of solidarity for a courageous nation that seeks to regain its place in Europe. Moldova is looking to return home, that is, to Europe. Our message is very clear: Dear Moldovans, you are not alone!

Mr President, Commissioner, it is a coincidence that when I first entered this room, 18 years ago, at the microphone and at this tribune, it was the Commissioner of that time, Michel Barnier, who proposed a European civil protection and response force. He also proposed a Civilian Security Council, based on an idea of having 5,000 people containing this force. That didn't happen. We have improved our civil protection systems. I am pleased, Commissioner, to hear that the Commission is thinking about a strategic plan for resilience against natural disasters in the future. I think we need to move on to a different approach, a different thinking. We need to move from solidarity to intelligence, because European territory must be seen as a common infrastructure. Disasters do not take into account borders and I hope that this shift, from the need for solidarity now to the need for intelligence for the future, will also be reflected in the text that we will vote on in the European Parliament.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, Commissioner, it is a good thing that continuity, that both the old Parliament, and the new European Parliament, and the old Commission, and the new Commission will support Ukraine. We may indeed have lost competitiveness, as the Draghi report tells us, but we must not lose our values and for the European social model, solidarity is the most important value. Romania was and remains one of the most important contributors to supporting Ukraine or, as Mr. Gahler said, to use an expression of him, I delivered more than I said. But it's not just weapons that Ukraine needs. Ukraine also needs electricity. Winter is coming and the Russians will mainly bomb the electrical infrastructure. Commissioner, energy prices in Eastern Europe have risen three times because the unified electricity market is not working very well. Southern and Eastern Europe are cut off from Western Europe. That is why, in order to support Moldova and Ukraine this winter, we need to support Romania, Bulgaria and Greece, which have submitted or will submit an initiative to the European Commission regarding electricity price compensation.