Speeches

Madam President, Madam President von der Leyen, I would like to address two issues that you touched upon in your speech. First of all: Global gateway. Will you clarify the unresolved governance issues of the Global Gateway initiative before the end of the year? How many Global Gateway lighthouse projects will be identified by December? How will the cooperation with our connectivity partners Japan and India be accelerated? Second, on China policy: Are we drawing the right conclusions from the Russian experience? Xi Jinping's regime is becoming increasingly repressive internally and increasingly dangerous externally. China openly supports Russia's aggression in Ukraine. What steps do you intend to take to better support Taiwan, to make European human rights policy clearer about Xinjiang, instead of downplaying Ms Bachelet's criticism, and to fight for real economic independence vis-à-vis China?

Mr President, High Representative, for the EU Taiwan is a like—minded partner with whom we share good economic relations, but even more importantly, a common interest in defending human rights, the rule of law and democracy. This is why this Parliament has consistently stood in favour of enhancing the EU’s support for Taiwan’s democracy in the context of our own one—China policy. Unilateral changes of the situation in the Taiwan Straits will continue to meet our strong opposition. We fully condemn the PRC’s threat of the use of force, their continuous provocations and the escalation of threats from Beijing against Taiwan, which are completely unjustified and an escalation of choice. We want to signal to Beijing that a strategy of aggression would come with a very high price for the PRC itself, and we want to deter them from undermining security and peace in the region. Parliamentary diplomacy has to play a central role in this regard. We will continue travelling to Taiwan. We will invite the Taiwanese parliament, we will organise a parliamentary week and we will all make efforts to convince our colleagues in national parliaments to form a strong phalanx of solidarity with Taiwan.

Mr President, I would like to say to the High Representative that he emphasised just a few minutes ago that obviously Member States have the remit to do defence policy, but still, as European leaders, we also have the responsibility to try to coordinate as best we can common efforts to support Ukraine’s defence of their own sovereignty and their own borders. In the past, many European leaders have rejected the call from Ukraine to provide modern tanks to help the Ukrainian army to fight more effectively. More recently, rumours have it that the American administration might be charting a new course. My question to you, High Representative, is, can you inform us where that conversation stands at the moment?

Madam President, Vice—President, Commissioner, colleagues, the European Parliament has stood, and still stands and will continue to stand with Hong Kong. This Parliament continues to actively show solidarity with Hong Kong democrats against the Chinese Communist oppression. Last week, several members of this House reminded us of the 25th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong to the mainland authorities, and the second anniversary of the imposition of the national security law. This is the history of a betrayal, the betrayal of the trust of the citizens of Hong Kong and a betrayal also of the international community. With this joint resolution, we strengthen our resolve to not forget and to not cease supporting. We want the charges dropped against Cardinal Zen, who is a towering figure but is also representing many, many other courageous Hong Kongers. We want the extradition agreements that still exist between EU Member States and the PRC and even Hong Kong terminated. We want lifeboat opportunities created for Hong Kongers that have to flee their city. And we want permanent monitoring of the human rights situation in Hong Kong through our offices there. We will continue to stand tall. Only extremists from the left and the right do not join this call.

Mr President, the Council decision this week will be a historic one. It will breathe a new lease on life into the EU’s enlargement strategy. It will present a chance to overcome the long—blocked effort to heal dangerous European divisions and open wounds. This pertains in particular to the countries in the Western Balkans, most notably Albania and North Macedonia, but also others. In doing this, in re-invigorating the enlargement policy, we’re not just being gracious. It is in our own interest not to have a grey zone of minor security, a kind of buffer zone between our borders and those of a revisionist Russia. Not sharing European stability with the Eastern partners that want to join the EU family would undermine our own security and our own future. But let me also be explicit about one obvious conditionality for Europe’s united perspective: without Ukraine’s success in defeating the Russian accession, the candidate status promises would fall flat. That’s why providing the necessary arms without hesitation must be enforced.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the EU does indeed have a role to play in the Indo-Pacific, both for economic and geopolitical reasons. And that means we cannot allow ourselves to fall into ambivalence. We have to make clear where we stand. A free and open Indo-Pacific for all: that’s one of our commanding goals. This can be and should be supported by a network of trusted connectivity initiatives like the European Global Gateway Initiative. In the centre of our alliance-building in the region, we should focus on like—minded democracies. We need a strategic solidarity with like—minded democracies and also include other, more or less like—minded countries. And finally, we should not tiptoe around the elephant in the room, which is the PRC’s aggressive policy in the Indo-Pacific region, responsible for increasing tensions, be that on the Himalayan borders with India or in the South China Sea. We have to call a spade a spade and we have to make clear that Taiwan is also, for us, a democratic partner that we will not give up on.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Forced organ harvesting is an evil human rights violation. Such organ harvesting has occurred in large numbers in China in the past. And even today, there is evidence that China does not strictly adhere to the WHO guidelines on transplant medicine. For this reason, United Nations experts have expressed concern that the accusation that such forced organ harvesting exists in China, especially in the case of executed prisoners, continues to be raised. I am not aware of any facts that would prove that this has actually taken place since 2015. A WHO expert who visited various Chinese hospitals dealing with transplantation medicine said he had not found evidence, but could not rule out that it still exists. Particularly because, as Mrs Arena has said, this transplant medicine is of course an extraordinarily lucrative business. That is why we turn to the Chinese authorities and demand clarity, transparency and the end of any such practice, even in remote areas, even where no one is watching. I think we need to make this very clear: China has to draw a reliable border.

Madam President, As the Commission and the EEAS announced before, this was not a ‘business as usual’ summit. It was certainly no ‘panda hugging’ event. It was more tense and more controversial than at any time before. I’m happy that the European side did raise all the hot button issues, as you said, High Representative. I want to thank you for that. I also want to thank you for the support that you have given to those sanctioned, wherever they are. This online summit will, in hindsight, be seen as the one moment in which both EU and China dropped any illusion about win—win cooperation. No more ‘go along to get along’, no covering up the deep divisions. We clearly are in rivalry territory now. It has been China’s behaviour vis—à—vis Russia’s aggression against Ukraine that finally laid bare how big the distance has grown. China has formed a revisionist axis with Putin to overturn the multilateral rules—based order. China objected, together with Russia, against the European security order. China, in the case of Lithuania, also dared attacking the Holy Grail of the European Union – namely the single market. There is clearly a need for us to push back, and I like Mr Winkler’s language about the push—back, and there shouldn’t be any hesitancy. We should not just implicitly talk about possible sanctions if they support Russia, but explicitly. Xi Jinping played hardball at the summit. He played a cynical game. He demonstrated that he does not respect the EU as a partner. They do not want to accept who we are. But when they call for more autonomy, they will get a real geopolitical player. We will have to realise that the tough summit was just the opening of an era in which tough is the new normal, and we need one common European China policy to master that.

Madam President, 85 years ago, Nazis and fascists bombed Guernica. Today, Putin’s totalitarian regime destroys Mariupol by bombing civilians there just as cruelly. Or should we compare the siege of Mariupol to the criminal siege of Leningrad in the Second World War? In 1937, democratic Europe did not do enough to help defend the Spanish Republic against Nazi and fascist terror. Are we doing enough today to help defend Ukrainian democracy? No, not yet. I appeal to the Council: send Ukraine more arms and stop financing Putin’s war machine now!

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has spoken of a turning point in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Many hypocrites now pretend that they couldn't see it coming. But this turning point has not come upon us like a thief in the night. We could have seen it. We also know that the Western Balkans are also on Putin's strategic agenda. The question is: Are we making the same mistake for the second time? Or do we see what happens? Are we ready to say it clearly, to name it clearly? And are we doing everything we can to prevent it from going so brutally wrong again? Vučić and Dodik cannot carry water on two shoulders. They have to decide, they have to make a choice, and we have to make sure they do. To say this as the last sentence: It is already legitimate to criticize China's dependencies and interference in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but it is up to us whether we leave room for it. Without a realistic EU perspective, we have too little to offer the country.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The fact that we Europeans must show solidarity with Ukraine has rightly been emphasised here by most speakers. Only the extremists of the left and right make themselves instruments of Russian neo-imperialism. But averting a new intervention in Ukraine is not enough. Putin's senses and aspirations go to the revision of the stability order in Europe. That is why our response must go against all aspects of this policy in a very practical way. A Russian recognition of the so-called People's Republics in Donbass would have to result in harsh sanctions. And we must not allow Western greed to be used for Putin's aggression. Therefore: Stop for Nord Stream 2 and finally hard edge against Russian corruption and money laundering in the EU.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to praise this report on the Union's common foreign and security policy, and the fact that my group has not tabled any amendments to it reflects our support. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr McAllister, for this. It is the fruit of good cooperation. My praise for the report is not routine. My group has not always voted in favour of these annual reports. This time we can do it in good conscience. I would like to highlight three points: The report formulates a confident, proactive response to the growing challenges posed by authoritative potentates such as Putin and Xi. Their threat will not disappear into thin air, as the Dragon Bear AllianceThe Dragon-Bear cooperation between Putin and Xi. And their aggressive policies will not disappear. But we are far from reaching the end of our European possibilities. The report also rightly identifies the security challenges posed by climate change. For this, we need the vision of an international EU policy that sees the green transformation as a central task, as well as the fair partnership with all countries of our globe. Finally, it is not a question of making an umbilical vision policy under the slogan of strategic autonomy, but of understanding that we can best achieve the strengthening of the EU's strategic sovereignty by exercising strategic solidarity with democracies and other like-minded countries. In particular, the Global gateway The European Commission's initiative plays a central role. Let me conclude by saying that the EU is far from the end of its ability to take responsibility for the future of our common planet – if we show both insight and courage at the same time.

Mr President, congratulations on your election. China’s policy is once more on our agenda, and that will happen quite often in the time that we have ahead of us, because China is pursuing an increasingly aggressive, oppressive policy. I want to thank the democratic political groups in the European Parliament and all the colleagues that contributed to the drafting of this resolution for their efforts, because it is important for the European Parliament to remain a champion of the defence of human rights and the defence of democracy. And this is even more important since the Council has been hesitating, to say the least. When we look at the facts, it is clear that oppression in Hong Kong is not relenting. Just the opposite: 64 democratic and civic groups have been dissolved over the last year, more than 150 democrats, activists, journalists are languishing in jail, some of them more than a year without having seen a court yet. The last free media have been muzzled. This is a situation that bears out the worst nightmares that Hong Kong democrats had when they did courageously stand up for democracy. But they’re not shying back: democracy is not dead in Hong Kong. It merits our support, and I call upon the Member States and also our colleagues in the national parliaments to join forces with us in the European Parliament in that regard. We should not be delusional. If we forget about what China does, China doesn’t forget about us. We see that in the case of Lithuania. China is willing to break all international rules to pursue its hegemonic imperial goals. Let us carry the flag of the fight for democracy and the fight for human rights. If it’s not possible in Hong Kong to have Fourth of June vigils, let us organise the Fourth of June vigils this year. Let us organise Hong Kong Day on 1 July this year to commemorate our courageous colleagues in Hong Kong.

Madam President, Memorial was founded and began to thrive in the waning days of the Soviet Union. They have valiantly followed their founding spirit with their anti—Stalinist work until this day. All these years, they have been upholding the values that we all hold dear. In 2009, the European Parliament honoured them by bestowing upon them the prize that carries the name of their co—founder, Sakharov. Now, Vladimir Putin, a late admirer and disciple of Stalin, wants to close down Memorial – to ‘liquidate’ Memorial, as they say. Even his language gives testimony to what he represents. We today express our unbreakable solidarity with Memorial. The torch with which the courageous people of Memorial have carried over 30 years will be carried on. Memorial represents the dignity and Europeanness of Russia.

Madam President, a couple of years from today when we look back at this moment, what will we say? Will we say this was the moment when, finally, our hope in trade multilateralism collapsed? Or will we be able to say this was the time when we pulled together and created a new progressive agenda for trade multilateralism? It’s obviously not only in our hands, but it also needs our contribution, and the one thing that we need is pragmatism and the one thing that we don’t need is dogmatism. When I listen to Mr Simon who wants to sacrifice solidarity on the altar of intellectual property, that’s not pragmatism, that’s dogmatic. We need that pragmatism also when it comes to structural issues like reforming the appellate body, and we need that pragmatism also when we take advantage of plurilateral initiatives to enhance the multilateral overall framework. But we have the choice between pragmatism and dogmatism.

Mr President, Executive Vice—Presidents, it is good that the Trade and Technology Council (TTC) had a successful start. The first TTC meeting in Pittsburgh, however, does not mark the end of our trade controversies with the US. It doesn’t even mark the beginning of the end, but hopefully it marks the end of a new beginning in sorting out some of the issues. This assessment is borne out by what we see as a result of the recent trade and aluminium deal that you negotiated, Executive Vice—President. This is a welcome result, even though it is weaker than we had hoped and issues do remain. Even more important strategically, I believe, is the standard—setting dimension going forward. Shaping the future, not just sorting out legacy issues. And there we have to work very diligently with the US because this is of geopolitical relevancy. And if you allow me to say that, in the spirit of geopolitical responsibility, wouldn’t it make sense if there would not just be the American Secretary of State, but also our foreign minister?

Mr President, the overarching goals of the EU’s Taiwan policy have always been stability, peace and respect for the will of the people, and therefore we have consistently opposed unilateral changes of the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. But these worthy goals are under assault from the People’s Republic of China. Beijing is undermining peace and stability through aggressive actions in many different dimensions. The threat of a military attack against Taiwan is openly being peddled by Chinese ultranationalists. The Chinese dictator Xi Jinping has promised to conquer the island during his lifetime. Taiwan, a vibrant democracy and a society with many progressive achievements, needs and merits our strategic solidarity. The Weimers report which we’re discussing here spells that out. It also formulates perspectives for wide—ranging cooperation as partners which is very much in our own interest. Our message to the people of Taiwan is clear: we will stand with you. Our message to Beijing is: reconsider your policy. Historical patience will be better for China than any other hypothetical alternative. Our message to our European citizens, not only in Lithuania, is let’s stay united on China policy. I thank Charlie Weimers for his report and all the colleagues for their good cooperation, and I thank Vice—President Vestager for her remarks too.

Mr President, let me first thank Mr Picula for the report that he drafted and for the great cooperation that he offered. Certainly, when he started his work, the high—flying hopes that we had in the renovation, the resurgence, the reinvigorating of the transatlantic relationship were not tainted with some of the more recent disappointments. But on the other hand we should not forget – and the report says so – that also the European side made mistakes, for instance by rushing the CAI just before the end of the year and just before Biden came into office. Today we know that the new development, the renewing of the transatlantic relationship, needs realism and laborious efforts. It’s not going to be a sprint, rather a long and arduous cross—country run with up—and—down. The rhetoric sometimes sounds better than its implementation turns out to be. Like Mr Lange, I liked the rhetoric about trade that helps the working class. But if this is just a nice phrase to cover economic nationalism, that is not all that good, and I would second you by demanding that the US move substantially, according to the Airbus—Boeing model, also with regard to steel and aluminium. The report says we want ‘partnership in leadership’ with the US. That leadership claim also, of course, implies more responsibility. We cannot live up to that responsibility by transatlantic navel—gazing, forgetting about the rest of the world. Even though, in the conflict between democracy and authoritarianism, we know which camp we belong to, we cannot build that relationship either just as a reaction to what China does and to China’s hegemonic plans. We have to offer a vision to the world of a better future, including climate responsibility, infrastructure development, health, solidarity, fair and open trade and peace instead of arms races. I believe in that regard – and this is my last sentence President – that the Global Gateway initiative that President von der Leyen put on the table will have to play a major role. I hope that we can cooperate on that with the US too.

Madam President, let me first thank Ms Vautmans for a very good report and for all the efforts at keeping this House united – and indeed we are. We are also self—confident. We don’t believe in defeatism and declinism. We think that if Europe mobilises our positive energies, we can well stand up to the Chinese challenge. But we have to acknowledge – and it’s long past time – that we believed that this was just about trade. This is much more about geopolitics and on many fronts increasingly we see that the systemic rivalry is coming to the fore. I would hope we would have more opportunities for cooperation on climate policy, for instance. But what is it that China tells us? They say we’re not willing to be a partner on climate unless you stop criticising our atrocious human rights record with regard to Xinjiang. This is not what we are willing to accept. We are proposing positive European policies to create alternatives, like an alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative. We want to stop the import of slave labour products. We will continue telling Ms Merkel and all the others that CAI will remain in the freezer until China changes course. We will uphold the solidarity with Lithuania and we are encouraging our leaders not to go to Beijing, not to accept invitations to the Olympics, if the Chinese human rights situation does not change. For this policy, on which we have been united for quite a while in this House and which is a policy of pride and confidence, we would hope we get support also from the European Commission and the Member States.

Madam President, Mr Borrell, colleagues, extremists from the left and from the right have argued that going to Afghanistan was illegal or selfish or imperialist. I disagree. It was in self-defence against international terrorism, but soon our involvement went astray. We must also confess that. In overshooting self-confidence instead of helping nation-building, we try to impose nation-building, and that did not succeed. And then the second major mistake was that we grew tired of the burden without thinking about our strategy. And after the West had invested trillions, we were too short-sighted to make the small additional investment that would have been necessary to keep the situation relatively stable. I think the withdrawal was a mistake. Of course we should be able as Europeans to hold an airport for a humanitarian evacuation, but that’s not the core problem. The tools and the means are not the core problem. The perspective and the will, that’s the core problem.

Madam President, this is not the first time today that we are discussing Hong Kong in this House. It is important that we do it because we stand with Hong Kong’s fight for their freedoms and for democracy. This is not an internal affair. Upholding human rights is our common global responsibility. Systematically in Hong Kong the freedoms that were once guaranteed for 50 years to come are being dismantled. I’m very grateful that we have such a good consensus between the five big democratic groups in this House to stand against that. Today, we can – we must – say that free media are a thing of the past with the closure of Apple Daily. But this is just one additional step. The Legislative Council (LegCo​) has seen the Democrats evicted. The new electoral law is perverse. Universities, educators and public servants have been told that they now owe loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). On the basis of spurious excuses, the traditional 4 June vigils have been denied, as have other demonstrations. Businesses like HSBC have been forced, or lured, into doing the regime’s bidding in the unjust persecution of democratic activists, and the judiciary has been put on notice that, in the future, they are expected not to apply the law, but to apply Beijing’s will. The European Parliament speaks up. It does so today, and it will do so in the future. But we will need some more voices from Member States’ capitals to join the chorus. Human rights stand at the centre of European foreign policy, not just for the European Parliament. That’s why we also call on political leaders to refrain from accepting invitations to the 2022 Winter Olympic Games in Beijing unless the situation changes fundamentally.