Speeches

Mr President, the situation in Armenia is alarming. In 2020, the war against Artzak killed thousands of Armenians and demonstrated the overwhelming military superiority of Azerbaijan and its Turkish ally. We've been alerting relentlessly. The Azeri aggression was still in its infancy and the ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh was inevitable. The blockade of the Lachin Corridor was the prelude to this, and this crime against humanity was perpetrated in full view of the international community without any reaction. Where are we today? Part of Armenian territory is already occupied by the Azerbaijani army, which now openly threatens to invade the south of the country. At our insistence, the European Union has sent an observation mission to the country, whose role is essential. In these statements, the Commission proposes to strengthen the ties between the EU and Armenia and to support a peace agreement with Azerbaijan. This is of course necessary, but it cannot be enough. Peace will only be consolidated if the balance of power between Yerevan and Baku is rebalanced. Therefore, Armenia must be given access to the same funds that have been allocated to Ukraine to resist the Russian invasion: for the support of refugees, especially those coming by the tens of thousands from Nagorno-Karabakh, for the support of its economy and of course, to provide sufficient military support and armaments to deter further aggression, as French diplomacy has begun to do.

– Madam President, Commissioner, the annual report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union is a report that regularly monitors this issue, which is at the very heart of European integration and its values. With regard to the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, our vigilance focuses on the progress of the procedure for the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is still unfinished, whereas it has been required since the Treaty of Lisbon, which was adopted more than fifteen years ago. Similarly, our committee calls for the European Union to accede to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional Languages. The few Member States that have not yet done so, including France – I regret it of course – must also ratify them at last. Their binding nature must apply to all Member States, and not only to candidates for accession. The same applies to the Istanbul Convention for the Protection of the Human Rights of Women, which has not yet been ratified by six Member States, and to other requests. This concerns the strengthening and broadening of the tasks of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. The annual publication since 2020 of the European Commission's Rule of Law Report is also, of course, an important step forward. We must continue to consolidate all mechanisms for the protection of fundamental rights in the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, these two reports on European citizenship and on the integration of national and regional parliaments into the decision-making processes of the European Union address the very heart of European integration and its future. The first report concerns the rights and freedoms of every European citizen, irrespective of the Member State in which he lives and irrespective of his situation within that Member State. For example, if he is a member of a national minority or speaks a regional language other than the official language of the central state, etc. These rights and freedoms must be guaranteed in any situation for all citizens, regardless of political or societal contexts. It is even when situations of tension arise that Europe must commit itself even more to ensuring that this is the case and that every citizen within its jurisdiction benefits fully from his or her rights and freedoms. The second report concerns the integration of territorial subsidiarity into European democracy. This consideration of territories applies to Member States and their national parliaments that need to be better involved in decisions that affect them, but it needs to be extended to regional parliaments with legislative powers, particularly in the competences that implement European policies. This is particularly true in cross-border regions, especially when they are united on both sides of a border by the same language. Too often, states consider themselves justified in setting up barriers that separate historically very close populations. It is then up to Europe to ensure freedom of movement for citizens when it is hindered in this way. By helping to strengthen the guarantee of the rights and freedoms of European citizens and bringing the European Union closer to its natural and historical territories, these two reports make proposals that will have the effect of increasing the commitment of all citizens and peoples, including a nation without a state, to European integration. The Treaties will need to be consolidated on these two issues, in the spirit of these two own-initiative reports. Our group will vote in favour.

Mr President, Commissioner, it is not the few measures taken in the wake of this scandal that really deserve a debate. Instead, we need to talk about the facts that have been revealed and their major political consequences. The European Parliament’s international influence is largely due to the power of democratic influence it wields as the sounding board for all those fighting dictatorships around the world. The scandal has undermined its credibility, and what our Parliament needs is genuine self-criticism in the political groups and committees concerned. We must also talk about corrupters: Is there nothing to say about Qatar? Is there nothing to say about Morocco? Is there nothing to be said about its illegal colonisation of Western Sahara, which is at the root of this resounding scandal? Should we not have learned the lesson from the convictions of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this case, which involves the complacency of several senior Commission officials? Yesterday we awarded the Sakharov Prize to women who are fighting in Iran. At the same time, the press echoed shocking manoeuvres around the Sakharov Prize. It is not a debate on legislative measures or bureaucratic regulations that will suffice. There will need to be a political debate, in which those in charge and those who appointed them to their posts are held accountable.

Mr President, Commissioner, the launch of the Conference on the Future of Europe had raised many hopes that Europe would move towards more democracy, more efficiency, more convergence and more respect for diversity. Unfortunately, the process will remain unfinished. It is a failure for our mandate not to have obtained the process of Treaty revision that the European Union so badly needs. The report that we will approve tomorrow, however, has the merit of laying down the broad outlines of the revision of the Treaties that would be necessary. For my part, in view of my sensitivity as a defender of minority peoples and languages, I would like to welcome the following advances in this Parliament's position. First, the commitment to strengthen Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, to promote, rather than merely respect, its rich cultural diversity. In this regard, our Group supports the Spanish Presidency which wants Catalan to be treated with Basque and Galician as an official language of the European Union. Articles 2, 10 and 19 of the Treaty propose to extend the fight against discrimination to national minorities and their language. Finally, Article 299 proposes that regional parliaments with legislative powers in relation to EU policies should be listened to and taken into account by the bodies of Europe. That is why we will vote in favour of this report.

Madam President, Commissioner, this resolution denounces the imprisonment and conditions of imprisonment of Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu, the opponent of Mr Aliyev, the dictator who heads Azerbaijan. The case of this personality recognised in his country for his struggles for democracy and human rights illustrates the appalling democratic situation in Azerbaijan. With him, dozens of political prisoners are subjected to arbitrariness. They are independent journalists, human rights defenders, political opponents, etc. Azerbaijan is a dictatorship and we have to denounce it much more strongly than has been done so far. On the contrary, the Commission even praised a reliable partner. This is all the more unacceptable given that Mr Aliyev’s regime is threatening ethnic cleansing of an entire Armenian population living in Nagorno-Karabakh, which has been reduced to starvation by the Azeri army’s blockade of the Lachin corridor for almost a year. We will vote for this resolution and we call on Parliament to be aware of the danger that such a dictatorship represents in Baku for its people, for minorities, for the Armenians of Artsakh and for peace in this part of the world.

Mr President, Mr Nacho Sánchez Amor's report on Turkey will be a landmark. It is a comprehensive document that describes precisely the situation in Turkey after the re-election of Mr Erdogan, as well as the developments that lie ahead: Putin’s rapprochement with Russia at the time of the war in Ukraine, a democratic retreat that continues and worsens, justice increasingly exploited by the authorities, the repression of freedom of expression, the arbitrary imprisonment of political opponents, the abuses of an authoritarian regime against many elected officials, particularly in Kurdistan. Finally, on the Kurdish issue, the report expresses – and I am particularly grateful to the rapporteur for this – Parliament’s position in solidarity with the Kurds persecuted in Turkey, militarily invaded in Syria and murdered in Iraq by bombings and drones. The rapporteur offers us new perspectives for EU-Turkey relations, based more on democracy and respect for the rule of law. We agree with its terms and conclusions.

... it is global warming and that Europe, in 50 years, has seen a considerable decline in nature under the pressure of certain economic activities, particularly agriculture, and that we must reverse this trend if we want to give our citizens back a living environment where they will find not only work and economic activity, but also well-being.

Madam President, Commissioner, the Nature Restoration Act is a climate necessity. It is also necessary for all Europeans and for all European territories, both on land and at sea. I want to stress here the consequences of global warming in the Mediterranean where I live. As climatologists have said, this is where the impact will be greatest. Posidonia beds in the Mediterranean form an exceptional ecological heritage, whose CO2 capture power is the highest possible. But this wealth continues to decline under the pressure of human economic activities. Should it not be ended as a matter of urgency? Implementing strict nature restoration legislation as soon as possible is what we can do with this law. Without this law, destruction will continue. It would be irresponsible for it to be rejected tomorrow. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Madam President, our fellow Members Carles Puigdemont and Antoni Comín did not come to Strasbourg to participate in this session. The reason for this is the lack of guarantees on the respect of their parliamentary immunity at the time of winning the Parliament in France. This session is very important and each vote will count towards the adoption, or not, of some of the most important texts of the mandate. Their absence is therefore detrimental to the democratic life of our Parliament. They asked you for support, as is the tradition when some of us are deprived of our freedoms as elected representatives, and also for a strong intervention to ensure that they can participate in our session. We deeply regret that you have not done so and we ask you a solemn question: Why?

Mr President, Mr High Representative, in your previous statements you said that the maximum pressure had been implemented and, in the course of the debate, we found that the pressure of sanctions had not been implemented and that it remained available. The most pessimistic scenario in this region would be a worsening of the conflict, ethnic cleansing in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, given Azerbaijan’s military superiority on the ground. Is the weapon of sanctions envisaged to prevent such an outcome?

Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your presence and for your reply. The interest of this debate this evening has already been to show how sensitive the European Parliament – and Europe in general – is to developments in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. You said in one of your first interventions that we put as much pressure as possible. Then the debate showed that pressure was not implemented: sanctions. The future could, I hope, be the culmination of a peace process. But the future could also be a worsening of the situation and a phenomenon of ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh province, where an Armenian population lives. Would the EU then use the weapon of sanctions to prevent such an outcome, if it were to be decided by the aggressive force of Azerbaijan, whose military superiority is known?

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Mediterranean Sea is a European sea for half its extent. Europe cannot remain passive any longer in the face of the uninterrupted regressions in this ecologically fragile area. These regressions are further increasing as a result of global warming, to which the Mediterranean is particularly vulnerable. Climatologists estimate that its impact will be 20% stronger than elsewhere in Europe. This will quickly multiply the problems for the European citizens who live there: fires, devastating storms, scarcity of water resources, loss of biodiversity. On the other hand, human activities are having an increasing impact, for example the increase in international maritime traffic passing through them, bringing air pollution and discharges into the sea, and also the increase in riparian populations, such as tourism. No efficiency will be possible without involving European added value. No actor can claim to provide separate solutions to these problems that need to be addressed collectively. Europe has many assets that give it a prominent responsibility in the management of this space. It has technical competence supported by multiple actors. It has the administrative competence to manage a cooperation already foreshadowed by different programmes. It has the experience of macro-regional strategies already developed elsewhere and, in addition to its technical and administrative capacity, it has a financial capacity that is incomparably stronger than that of other countries, both in the East and in the South. If the European Union commits itself in the name of its responsibility for the northern part of the Mediterranean basin, it will be a driving force for the countries and regions of the South and the East. If it remains passive for longer, the situation will continue to deteriorate, and Europe will then bear the responsibility for not having implemented its capacity to act. This is the message sent today by the European Parliament through this report, which calls for the establishment of a macro-regional strategy for the Mediterranean. In conclusion, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs who all contributed to this report.

Madam President, Commissioner, this debate on the State aid system leads us to denounce the fundamental error of defining single and uniform regulations in a territory as vast and diverse as that of the European Union. This can only increase inequalities and give an advantage to regions that do not suffer from any structural handicaps. It has been thought in the past that equality can be restored by budget allocation alone, but a budget envelope alone can do nothing if the conditions for its use are not adapted to the actual data of the territory concerned. I come to the islands, since your reply to our colleague Omarjee completely ignored them. The Regulation on aid de minimis is essential in the islands because the economic fabric is made up of very small businesses. The reality of production costs in island territories is 10% higher than elsewhere. Many more projects would be carried out if a threshold were applied in the islands. de minimis different to take this into account. The adaptation of a regulation to the particular situation of islands is, moreover, provided for in Article 174 of the Treaty of Lisbon, but the Commission refuses to implement it. The economic future of island territories will depend very much on such progress on the regulatory front.

Madam President, the holding of the recent meetings of the Cooperation Council between the European Union and Iraq, after a seven-year standstill, is good news. It marks the gradual return to normalcy of the situation in Iraq after the terrible period of the fight against Daesh. Your account of the last meeting shows that relations with the new Iraqi leadership are now constructive. In your press release, you stated: “We condemn the attacks on Iraq’s integrity.” But you did not name the aggressor. I'll do it for you: This is the Turkish army, which is carrying out attacks on and occupying part of Iraqi territory. It should even be added that these aggressors, according to independent investigations, used chemical weapons on Iraqi territory. Condemning the attacks is not enough. The aggressors must also be condemned. Behind your precautions, there is a fundamental question: the Kurdish question. Of all the states in the region, Iraq is the only one that grants the Kurdish people full and automatic autonomy. I call on the European Union to support our Iraqi partners in this regard and to encourage them to continue their policy towards the country’s Kurdish minority.

Mr President, Europe’s action for the values of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, women’s rights and minority rights is recognised all over the world. The European Union and the Council of Europe are leading this common fight and the report already highlights the important convergences that exist. What is proposed is to go further, to pool resources, to place the European Union within the remit of the European Court of Human Rights, to structure an area that will be the most important institution for the defence of human rights in the world. Among the proposed axes, the protection of minorities is a strongly affirmed priority. It is the honour of Europe and its institutions to be seen as an example around the world. This is an area where we have a great deal of influence and the proposals in this report will help to raise its profile. At a time when a humiliating scandal from Qatar and Morocco has damaged our reputation, this report puts the European Parliament at the forefront of the fight for human rights, but it also urges all other European institutions and all Member States to step up their action in this area as well.

Madam President, Brexit was a bad decision. It has a negative impact on the European Union, just as it has a negative impact on the United Kingdom. And within the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are suffering the most serious consequences of this decision. I would remind you that Scotland and Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly against Brexit and are suffering the consequences against their will. Faced with this negative situation, the Withdrawal Agreement and the Trade Cooperation Agreement as negotiated are the best guarantors to mitigate the consequences. Under the leadership of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the UK had embarked on a very negative path. The bill interpreting past agreements, which had been tabled unilaterally by the British government, was a very bad signal. The Windsor Agreement, which has just been negotiated, provides for the withdrawal of this bill, which denatured the Northern Ireland Protocol. This was absolutely necessary to build mutual trust in the negotiations. The positive developments since the responsibilities of the new Prime Minister Rishi Sunak allow, if they are confirmed, to resume the thread of dialogue and to take into account the interests of Ireland on a lasting basis. The report by our colleague Pedro Silva Pereira has closely followed these developments. The final text that our group is going to vote on tomorrow sets the stakes well. Moving forward, rebuilding lasting trust with British leaders. And vigilance because, like it or not, the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom since Brexit has changed in nature over the long term.

Madam President, Commissioner, the report on the rights of EU citizens to participate in municipal elections leads to the strengthening of European democracy, through the rights of European citizens living outside their country of origin. It will facilitate their integration into democratic life in general by improving their ability to get involved in local democracy where they live, in particular through municipal elections. The report proposes to facilitate their direct participation in local democracy, in municipal elections, whether as voters or candidates, by being better informed and better encouraged to get involved. Each host state will have to improve information for the citizens concerned in their own language – including if it is a regional language –, facilitate the implementation of their rights and allow them to be involved in the political debates that are also theirs. All current restrictions will have to be lifted. This report therefore advances European democracy. It will give every citizen concerned a stronger sense of belonging to the Union and a better involvement in local political life where they live. Our group will vote in favour and asks the Council to support it as well.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at the instigation of the European Parliament’s Intergroup on Traditional Minorities, National Communities and Languages, the EPP and Greens/EFA groups had proposed that a resolution on minority rights be put to Parliament for a vote on the 30th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. The other groups did not support this request, and in the vote on our part-session agenda a very narrow majority was in their favour: only two votes apart. I'm sorry. I believe that this issue of minorities, since the United Nations adopted this declaration, is seriously underestimated by the European institutions, including our Parliament. In the 1990s, several texts were drafted and voted on in this Parliament and in the Council of Europe, such as the European Charter for Regional Languages and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. These texts were part of the definition of the Copenhagen criteria, which have been the basis of the European Union’s values since 1993. Unfortunately, these two decades have eroded interest in these themes, which are essential to the cohesion of the European Union and to respect its motto, ‘United in diversity’. However, how can we ignore the importance of these issues internationally, such as in Syria and Iraq, where the Islamist state had made the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities the main part of its misdeeds, with regard to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh in the Sahel, where ethnic conflicts explain most of the grip gained by Daesh Islamists in Ethiopia, or for Uighurs in China? The European Union’s backsliding on these issues affects, in my view, the proper apprehension of these conflicts by our European External Action Service as well as by most European diplomats. Within Europe, these issues are equally topical. The Copenhagen criteria are still not ratified by a country like France. The UN Special Rapporteur has recently deplored the censorship of a law adopted for the teaching of regional languages. The reasons come from afar. They come from the conflicting history of states, to which the construction of Europe wants to provide a lasting response. However, the backsliding on these issues is significant and jeopardises the stability of the Union. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the deplorable decisions currently being taken in some countries against Russian-speaking minorities, as a result of Vladimir Putin’s actions. Care must be taken to prevent such measures, which, far from building peace, risk increasing problems. That is the debate at stake. I have no doubt that this will be fully taken over by Parliament in the future.

Mr President, thank you. Where are you, Mr. Borrell? Can't you see anything? Did the High Representative of the European External Action Service not understand that Mr Erdoğan wants to start a war in northern Syria? So would Europe have nothing to say to prevent Turkey’s planned invasion of northern Syria? Erdoğan is violating international law. It threatens millions of Kurdish citizens and other nationalities who live together in Rojava and who, despite Daesh and the general situation in Syria, are building a society with real democratic values. This invasion will have disastrous consequences for the Middle East in general, but it will also have consequences for the rest of the world. The first of these will be the release into the wild of around ten thousand Islamist prisoners held by the Kurdish armed forces, who will thus be able to recreate Daesh. Can this be appropriate for the European Union? If this is not the case, we must commit ourselves very quickly and weigh on the future of this region. The possibility of bombing northern Syria with impunity must be blocked by deciding to establish a no-fly zone, as was done in its time, under the aegis of the UN, for Iraqi Kurdistan. In Iraq, the authorities of autonomous Kurdistan are recognised by the international community, and their government has made northern Iraq an island of stability and refuge for all those persecuted by Daesh. The same must be done for Rojava. The authorities in northern Syria, which peacefully and democratically administer this territory, have fought and defeated Daesh alongside Europe and the United States, must be officially recognised and involved in negotiations for the future of Syria. Rojava and its autonomous administration have never been a threat to Turkey; it is the opposite, in fact.

Mr President, Commissioner, the Sahel region is a major concern for Europe. What is happening in Burkina Faso at the moment is evidence of the political collapse of the states in this area. France’s military intervention in Mali in 2013 had prevented a second outbreak of terrorism in the Sahel, when the Islamic State was already ruling over Syria and Iraq. This intervention was indispensable. The great mistake that followed was made by the European Union, which left France lonely. If Europe had intervened more, this would have cut short hostile propaganda linked to France’s colonial past. The Malian and Burkinabe states have in recent years been seriously destabilized by the rise of Islamist armed groups. Each coup is another signal of their failure in the fight against terrorism, and the frantic pace of these repeated putschs points to an end to the cycle. Unfortunately, all this could lead to a decisive victory for the Islamists. So, what to do? Europe will have to be operational once the putschist apprentices have definitively failed. Those who are ready to take over must be provided with a framework for cooperation that is immediately operational. If this huge area of the Sahel falls permanently into the hands of Islamists, Europe will inevitably suffer the consequences. We therefore call on the External Action Service to coordinate the initiative and on the Member States to provide it with means of action, including military ones, which are not reduced to those of the French army alone, which is vulnerable to smear campaigns given its colonial past.

Madam President, political parties and political foundations are an essential vector of democratic life. What we will vote for today will only be a simple improvement of a situation that is set to change profoundly. Among the proposed developments, the most interesting are those that respond to the new political situation, such as Brexit and the enlargement project, made even more necessary by the war in Ukraine. We will now be able to offer British political parties the opportunity to remain a full member of our European parties and we will be able to foreshadow the conditions for the accession or re-accession of new countries to Europe through their participation in the life of European political parties. This new regulation will also simplify the functioning of parties, which is important, especially for the smaller European political parties, which are all essential for the diversity of the political offer made to our citizens. This progress is interesting and we endorse it. How, however, can we imagine that we will continue with bodies so essential to the democratic life of the Union, which should be at the forefront of it, while remaining as far behind on such sensitive issues as gender equality, the fight against corruption or the fight for transparency?

Madam President, Commissioner, this report on border regions, living laboratories of European integration, shows how interesting it is for the European Union to define targeted policies for these specific territories, such as islands and cross-border regions. These regions are indeed living laboratories of European integration. If we were to take stock of the situation before being in Europe and the new situation after joining the European Union, it would undoubtedly be these border regions that would show the biggest changes in the lives of their citizens. This is due to a double effect: Relegated to the margins of their Member States, these regions were most often marginalised and excluded from development. The advent of the single market and the opening up of new areas through the abolition of borders have been indisputable factors in their development. However, much remains to be done to exploit all the potential of these regions for Europe. It is in the border regions that cohesion and regional development policy will have the greatest scope for progress in the coming years. To do this, we must remove the obstacles that are still numerous and perennial: physical barriers, through connections that are still insufficient; administrative and legal obstacles, as public policies need to be harmonised between regions that are geographically close but separated by state legislation. There are also language barriers that could often be easily removed by highlighting cross-border cultures and languages, often different from those of state capitals. I am thinking of Alsace, where we are today, Corsica where I live, which has the same linguistic and cultural base as Sardinia and the rest of Italy, the Basque Country or Catalonia, whose common language is a link across the Pyrenees. All these assets must be relived and put to good use with the help of the European Union. At the borders of the Member States, there are therefore multiple territories in which the construction of Europe can undergo considerable developments. It is still necessary to give them the means to do so. This is what this report proposes, which my group fully supports.

Mr President, Commissioner, the own-initiative report that we are due to adopt at this session is the starting point for a vital process for the future of the island territories of the European Union. For a quarter of a century, the programming periods of the European Union's regional development policy have followed one another without any improvement in the situation on the islands. This is verified through macroeconomic indicators such as GDP, unemployment rate, poverty line and others. But this is most evident in the continuing increase in imbalances affecting island economies as a whole. More and more services, most often related to tourism, but always less industry, always less agriculture, always fewer young people and graduates, always less research and innovation. The COVID crisis has shown that islands are more vulnerable territories than others, and that their current economic model, which European policies objectively feed, leads these territories to a dead end. In 25 years, where will we be if we continue like this? In 25 years, there will be only tourism. Agricultural abandonment will abandon our ecosystems to fires and natural disasters. The richness of the cultural diversity that each island brings to Europe will be extinguished and biodiversity seriously damaged. Even tourism will then decline, because it has not been able to preserve a balanced and resilient society to welcome it. We need to change our policy for the islands of the European Union. To this end, the report makes constructive and common-sense proposals. It enunciates an inescapable truth: Insularity is a permanent structural handicap that must be compensated for successfully. The cumulative effects of insularity must be taken into account through differentiated regulations that establish genuine equality between island economic actors and their counterparts in continental territories. This is the European action plan, the pact for islands, which we are calling on the Commission to implement by implementing Article 174 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Mr President, the dictatorial regime imposed by Mr Erdoğan in Turkey has just been laid bare by the monstrous sentencing of Mr Osman Kavala, an exorbitant sentence: from life in prison. Mr Kavala is a person committed to democracy and human rights. By ignoring the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, which had requested his release, despite the total absence of charges, this conviction shows that Turkey has reached a climax of dictatorial drift. There are thousands of political prisoners in Turkey. Parliamentarians, including many Kurds, mayors of many cities in Kurdistan, are persecuted, imprisoned, stripped of their democratic mandate. For several weeks, the Turkish army has been conducting military operations in Iraq. It does the same in Syrian Kurdistan. Mr Erdoğan does not respect international law or the European Court of Human Rights. Mr. Erdoğan is like Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin said: All Ukrainians are Nazis. All Kurds are terrorists, Erdoğan echoes him. It’s the same narrative, it’s the same drift, and it’s the same peril for Europe. The release of Mr Kavala must be snatched away with the full weight of the European Union. We must decide on economic and diplomatic sanctions against this dictatorship.