Speeches

Mr President, I find it fitting that my last debate in this Parliament does concern human rights, China policy and European relations with an increasingly oppressive and aggressive China under the totalitarian dictatorship of Xi Jinping. What happens in the Indo-Pacific, even though it’s far away, concerns us Europeans centrally. That’s why this Parliament has made an outspoken, realistic and united China policy one of our trademarks. Today’s urgency raises, in particular, the individual cases of Andy Li and Joseph John. We not only criticise how they’re being treated – even tortured – and demand their freedom, as much as we demand freedom for Jimmy Lai and all other Democrats, but we also call upon the EU authorities to act vis-à-vis Hong Kong: sanction John Lee, Beijing’s spineless vassal in Hong Kong; suspend all still existing extradition treaties with Hong Kong and China; and keep the memory of Hong Kong’s democracy movement alive, and carry the torch of freedom forward.

Mr President, High Representative / Vice-President, colleagues, Iran denies Israel’s legitimacy in existing; the inverse is not the case. Whoever just describes recent developments as another act in the perennial cycle of action and reaction and ignores that fundamental reality is not a voice of reason, but a voice of confusion. Unprecedented, Iran’s action is not just because it hasn’t happened before, but because it represents a new world in which authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, sometimes using their terrorist helpers, try to coordinate to undermine the international order. You said, Josep Borrell, that the EU needs to speak the language of power. Do it. Why don’t you put the IRGC on the terrorist list? You say sanctioning is not a policy. Not sanctioning is a policy. Act!

Mr President, Vice-President, Council, colleagues, I want to thank you, Commissioner, for your clear words. This debate about Chinese police activity in Europe is characterised by elements that we have seen in so many of our China-related debates over the last years. China is evermore more audacious and aggressive in pushing its totalitarian policies not only internally but also across their borders. Member States are not always united enough to answer to that with a single voice and to then walk the talk. This Parliament proudly – I think we can say this – has been at the forefront of pushing back against such Chinese practices. This Parliament has been a centre in the European fight for rule of law, human rights, freedom and democracy. And I hope that our successors in the next Parliament will follow the same trajectory. Let’s be practical. Let’s make sure that we will stop all the bilateral extradition agreements that still exist in 12 Member States. That we will create dedicated hotlines for the victims of Chinese policies, and that we will unwind the police cooperation that still exists in Italy, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia and Switzerland.

Mr President, colleagues, I rise today to highlight the fate of Oleg Orlov, a human rights activist in Russia who was sentenced on 27 February this year to 2 years and 6 months in a penal colony. Mr Orlov – who is 70 years old – already was a human rights activist in Soviet times. In 1988, he joined Memorial. He served as a member of the Human Rights Centre Board. In 2004 and 2006, he also served as a member of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights of the Russian Federation. Together with Memorial, he is a laureate of the Sakharov Prize of this House. He has been sentenced on the basis of the accusation that he has repeatedly discredited the Russian army. In an article that he published, he wrote, and I quote and that is the end of my contribution: ‘The brutal war unleashed by Putin’s regime in Ukraine is not only mass murder of people and destruction of the infrastructure, economy and cultural sites of this wonderful country, it is not only the destruction of the foundations of international law; it is also a severe blow to the future of Russia’. Let us recognise Oleg Orlov and show solidarity with him.

Madam President, colleagues, in line with Rule 180 of the Rules of Procedure, I would like to move the following oral amendment to introduce a new paragraph after Paragraph 57. Here is how it reads: ‘Is strongly concerned about a public statement from President Vučić in February 2024 explicitly endorsing possible military measures from the PRC against Taiwan in contradiction to the EU’s policy supporting the status quo in the Taiwan Strait and warning against unilateral measures, in particular by force or coercion.’

Mr President, President von der Leyen, Minister, colleagues, it’s good to have this debate. It’s good to have brought unity in this House. But looking at the crisis which we are confronted with, regarding European security, what is it worth to agree on a CFSP report if we don’t have the national leaders that we would need to turn plans into action? I applaud your speech, President von der Leyen, but other people elected to lead Europe are failing her. Let’s just look at President Macron and Chancellor Scholz – sensing that the helpful leadership of President Biden is waning, they’re presently at each other’s throats, belittling, undercutting and insulting each other. While one of them is a hero of grandiose statements without real substance, the other – whose party is still partly an appeasement party – hides his timidity behind a play with alternative facts ad nauseam. What about other big EU countries? Where’s Italy? Europe’s historical mother, barely visible. Where’s proud Spain? Her leader, when he spoke to us here, had only empty words and no interest. Some leadership comes from countries in the EU’s north and east. The proposal from Estonia of 0.25% of GDP going to defence – that’s a leadership proposal. I think we have to rally citizens when leaders fail. So let’s form a phalanx of parliaments in order to turn this crisis into a step forward. Hic Rhodus, hic salta.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, indeed, it is important to create a new regulation in order to overcome the lack of transparency and to stop the long legal battles that we’ve seen in the past. However, the two co-rapporteurs have presented their proposals as if they were just simple, clear, evident and balanced. I’m not convinced, and INTA has not been convinced. Within industry, within Commission, within the political groups in this House, there has been a broad debate about the right balance, and we should not try to hide that, and we should not, Ms Walsmann and Mr Wölken, attack the opposing arguments as just being threadbare. I agree with a lot that has been said by colleague Hübner. She’s been speaking not just for her own person or for her own group in INTA, but for INTA. In particular, the aggregate royalty provisions are not convincing to us, and the question whether the new regulation should just apply to future patents is also not satisfactorily solved. We have concerns that the global competitive situation of our industries will be weakened to the advantage of third-country competitors, and I think we should reconsider.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the perpetually repeated news about the imminent death of the WTO has been vastly exaggerated. And that is good, because we need the WTO. Commissioner Johansson, you have pointed out the priorities that are at the centre of our agenda, and I agree, we agree. We need dispute settlement. We need to avoid digital trade tariffs. We need mainstreaming of development. We need a solution for fisheries subsidies. And, of course, we also need, and particularly urgently, greening trade, making trade a positive tool, not an obstacle. The resolution that we have in front of us addresses these issues and that’s why the group line of my group is to support the resolution. That will not be shared by all our colleagues, because some of us have different understandings of the meaning of the word ‘compromise’. But compromise is exactly what we will need at an international level, and in particular at MC13, in our efforts to hold on to a multilateral trade system through timely reforms. We have understood that we must also use different tools. We have introduced unilateral measures, but we also run into the obvious reality that unilateral measures are not always well coordinated with our international relations. We have tried bilateralism and just saw how Australia showed us the middle finger. We have advocated plurilateralism and harvested minilateralisms that fragment the trade world. This is why holding on to the perspective of a multilateral trade order is in the interest of the European Union, of all its citizens, and of our partners around the globe.

Mr Urban Crespo, you said that Global Gateway amounts to green colonialism. Could you substantiate that accusation by pointing out which of the projects that the Commissioner presented amount to green colonialism?

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, colleagues, I’m glad we have this debate, because we need the full energy and the creativity and the common efforts also of this House to promote the Global Gateway’s agenda. The Global Gateway was announced in 2021. In 2022, it was bogged down because of internal contradictions within the Brussels bureaucracy. In 2023, the Global Gateway made substantial progress, as has been explained, on the governance, on the efforts to push the narrative, to clarify the priorities and on the Global Gateway Forum. This year must become the year in which Brussels and the Member States’ capitals, according to the ‘Team Europe’ approach, make it the centrepiece of the EU’s offer for a new partnership with people and countries in the so-called global South. Without such an offer, our talk about geopolitical ambition will turn into shallow, empty talking points. Global Gateway is not development policy as usual: it is co-development policy, it is a transformative approach with clear priorities that are focussed on the digital transformation, the climate and realistic, resilient supply chains. With the Global Gateway, the EU wants to contribute strategically to the global commons, and the EU can be a driver and shaper of the global transformation. It must be made a central task of the next Commission and this Parliament.

You advocated a whole lot of anti-Americanism, I didn’t expect anything else. But are you not ashamed that you speak on this topic without mentioning, with a single word, the responsibility of the Russian dictator Putin for this war? Aren’t you ashamed?

Colleague, as you just expressed your strong support for helping Ukraine to help us defend the European security architecture and our freedom, would you support the Estonian proposal that every EU Member State should dedicate 0.25 % of their GDP to military support for Ukraine?

Madam President, dear colleagues, this Parliament has supported the Commission’s connectivity policy with broad majorities. This Parliament has been in favour of the Global Gateway Initiative. Fortunately, groups have agreed to have this debate this week, but this Parliament is not just a supporter, this Parliament can also help shape the agenda. We have a contribution to make. We want more clarity, more transparency. We want priorities clearly defined and we want to exercise our right of oversight. Having a resolution would give us the opportunity of expressing explicitly that, so I would ask you to support that proposal.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, we’re discussing here a Chinese policy that is of the making of the Communist Party, Emperor Xi Jinping himself. It’s a policy directed against 1 million Tibetan children and against the whole Tibetan nations. A diligently planned policy organised with the utmost brutally bureaucratic efficiency, a comprehensive and unrelenting push for the forced assimilation of the Tibetan young generation, pursued with the goal of depriving them of their cultural heritage, of cynically transforming them into willing colonial subjects of Great Han nationalism. This policy is a radical remake of oppressive so-called development policies, under the excuse of cultural enhancement that had been pursued by US, Canadian and Australian authorities against indigenous ethnic groups in their countries. The goal is the destruction of Tibetan culture. Even the name Tibet is attacked. They tried to annihilate the name. China has made a lot of hay with criticising the history of European colonialism, but Xi’s regime itself is a colonial regime, and that’s why we should stand in solidarity with the Tibetan people against them.

Madam President, colleagues, it’s been at least 10 years since we have not looked at the wider relationship between the EU and Japan, even though Japan obviously is one of our best and most important likeminded partners globally. The economic relations have thrived, but as regards other dimensions, including security, research and development, global high-quality infrastructure development, the dual digital and green transformation, upholding the multinational international order, working with developing nations or enhancing people to people contacts, there is much we can do beyond what we have. This report describes where we are and where we want to go. Next year, we will have an anniversary in that relationship, and I hope that this report can contribute to taking it to new heights. Thank you to all the shadows and all the staff.

Mr President, Vice-President / High Representative, colleagues, the recent EU China summit demonstrated that we’re far from out of the woods in our relations with Beijing, and we won’t be anytime soon. Of course, we can hope that at some point in the future, China may again try to become a responsible stakeholder, but presently, let’s not fool ourselves. China is a dictatorial and totalitarian regime with global hegemonic ambitions. I want to make just a few remarks on China’s foreign policy and our interests in that regard. Look at what happens in the Philippines neighbourhood. We have to push back hard against China’s efforts to change the facts in the sea. Maybe having multilateral patrols would be a good idea. Look at Taiwan, in January, there will be presidential election. China already threatens to coerce the new newly elected president. We should prepare for pushing back. Look at Hamas. China has not even called them a terrorist organisation. Look at the wave of dumping exports that is coming our way. Josep Borrell spoke a little bit about that. Look about Ukraine, where China supports Russia materially and politically. We have to call a spade a spade. And even as regards climate, you love saying, Vice-President Borrell, that China is a necessary partner. I would say they are necessary alright, but not yet a partner in that regard. So let’s do realistic policy and not pursue pipe dreams.

Mr President, HR/VP, colleagues, the bottom line of our relationship with the United States can be captured in one sentence: ‘we should be partners in leadership and responsibility’, as you have quoted from the text. DC has often asked us to shoulder more responsibility, and that’s justified. But they do not always listen when we ask for more partnership in leadership. However, the United States is not anymore the shining city on the hill that we can just always follow. Still, there’s a necessity to build on the partnership, to strengthen the partnership. But we almost also must address issues where we are not seeing eye to eye. And with regard to multilateralism, that pertains in particular to the trade realm, where the US often talk about rules-based order, but whenever it comes to WTO, they forget it. We need to be cooperating also with other like-minded partners in order to impress on our US partners that we want to shape the future. And the last point is the most urgent one: that is Ukraine. What the US Congress is deliberating at the moment can be captured with the English saying ‘penny wise, pound foolish’: to not spend the money on supporting Ukraine would be suicidal in the strategic long term.

Thank you for taking my question. There are actors that aid and abet Russia’s war of aggression. What is your opinion on the question of whether we should also make those countries that aid and abet Russia’s war of aggression responsible and also try to make them pay the cost?

Mr President, Vice-President, colleagues, without an effective economic security strategy, ten years down the line European industry will not have a seat at the table but be on the menu. That’s why I’m grateful to President von der Leyen and also executive Vice-President Dombrovskis for taking the lead in this conversation. And I do agree with what you said, Mr Borrell, that we look to need to look into the governance issues and maybe also learn from Japan in that context. We need a full picture of our strategic dependencies and risks, and we should encourage the Member States to play along well in that regard. We should not think that we have seen all the dangers over the horizon yet. I believe that there is a real risk that there will be waves of dumping exports from China over the next couple of years. We must not fall into the trap of having a struggle between the Member States and Brussels. We must not fall into the trap of protectionism, and we must not fall into the trap of forgetting the strength of the single market. There, I agree with Mr Ferber, but there is more that we have to do long term. We need a strategy to internalise the external cost of security in our economies. And finally, if we want to play offence, we also need to team up with partners globally, including in countries of the Global South.

Mrs Villanueva Ruiz, in the English translation that I followed, you said that Gaza is being turned into an extermination area by Israel. Can you please explain that sentence?

Mr President, HR/VP, colleagues, I will try to follow your advice, Josep Borrell, and talk without emotions. There’s a lot that I would criticise or do criticise about the way in which the Netanyahu government conducts this self-defence against Hamas, but I think it is not right to put so much of the blame just one-sidedly on Israel. You said, and I quote you, ‘Israel refuses a political solution’. Now, I have two questions there. Number one: do you have an idea of how to solve the issue of Hamas terror politically? Second: has Hamas offered a political solution? Why just put the blame on Israel? Then people have said here Israel is sowing the seed of hate. Somebody else said terror is now spreading in Gaza. Has that terror not come from Gaza? Let’s not talk as if all the blame could put on Israel. I think that will not make us a partner in solutions.

Mr President, Executive Vice-President, colleagues, first of all, I want to thank colleague Iuliu Winkler for his work. I also want to state that I’m proud that this Parliament, over the last almost five years, has done quite a lot to consequently work on enhancing the relationship between the EU and Taiwan. The debate today is another step in that direction, and I think that is very important. I do recognise, Vice-President, that the Commission also has stepped up its efforts, as you explained, and I do also support your expectation towards Taiwan that there is homework to be done on their side also, in particular with regard to the issues that you mentioned, offshore wind and agricultural food products. But I also want to point out that when we look at what the US does or what Japan just did, in agreeing on memorandums of understanding or in trade facilitation deals with Taiwan, there’s room to improve our work. Here I want to voice a warning. As colleague Winzig said, we have to combine trade and political stability and the effort to reap the fruits of trade without actively contributing to political stability will be futile. We cannot just dodge the question, Vice-President, of whether we’re willing to sign an agreement with Taiwan. We need a resilient supply chain agreement, not just because of the beneficial trade results, but also because of the beneficial stability results, and the Commission should not dodge that necessity.

Colleague, you have explained how much Polish coal stands at the centre of our future. My question is: for how long do you think should we stick to the coal approach that you are advocating? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?