Estonia (debate)
President
The next item is the Council and Commission statement on Estonia.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner
Mr President, I welcome this discussion on the recent dispute between Russia and Estonia. Let me state right away that this is not a human rights issue. The moving of the bronze soldier statue in Tallinn and the exhumation of the soldiers' graves were carried out with full respect for Estonia's international obligations, notably under the Geneva Convention with regard to war graves. However, I am aware of the sensitivity of this matter, which touches on the interpretation of history.
While there have been concerns in Russia about this, we made it clear to Russia at the last summit that these concerns should be addressed through dialogue rather than through 'megaphone diplomacy'. We regret that the demonstrations that took place in Estonia turned into looting and riots. There is the right to demonstrate, which emanates clearly from freedom of expression. However, the fact that it led to a siege in front of the Estonian Embassy in Moscow was unacceptable. We have made clear our views about this and a demarche was conducted in Moscow immediately to remind Russia of its obligations under the Vienna Conventions.
We are concerned about cyber-attacks against official Estonian internet sites. These need to be properly investigated and the perpetrators must be brought to justice. We remind Russia of our joint commitment to cooperate in fighting cybercrime both in the context of the Common Space on Freedom, Security and Justice and by acceding to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. Today the Commission adopted a communication on cybercrimes and we will certainly work on its implementation.
We are also following closely the situation regarding trade between Russia and Estonia. There have been calls in Russia for trade boycotts of Estonian goods and services and restrictions on transport operations. At one point restrictions were imposed on trucks crossing the bridge over the Narva River and oil shipments through Estonia were reduced. Our latest information is that expert talks took place today concerning the bridge and that oil shipments through Estonia have resumed. We shall continue to monitor the situation.
I hope that this issue has now passed its climax and that emotions will subside. We discussed it at the EU-Russia summit in Samara and it was also raised at the press conference. President Putin even acknowledged that there might have been some overreaction on the Russian side and he regretted that the Estonian Ambassador had to leave Moscow. I fully support the Presidency in calling for a 'dispassionate dialogue on the matter', addressing the problems 'in a spirit of understanding and mutual respect'.
The Samara summit took place at a critical time in EU-Russia relations. The discussions were open and frank and the media reports have, of course, highlighted the areas of disagreement between us. I think it was highly important that we had this frank discussion: we have to talk to each other because Russia is and remains a strategic partner and an important neighbour. At the same time, we also have to talk frankly to them.
The EU side placed considerable emphasis, as Mr Barroso in particular knows, on the importance of the respect for democracy and human rights, notably in the run-up to elections. The detention of Garry Kasparov at Moscow airport, preventing him from attending a demonstration in Samara to coincide with the summit, was particularly regrettable and was very clearly addressed.
However, let me stress that there are also a number of positive issues to note from the summit. I would say that the picture of the summit was mixed.
First and most importantly, Russia was left in no doubt of the importance we attach to EU solidarity in our relations with Russia. Secondly, the summit confirmed that the EU and Russia see eye-to-eye on the underlying necessity of constructing a strong EU-Russia strategic partnership in the future. Thirdly, both the EU and Russia recognise that our economic and trading links in particular are larger and more intense than ever. Indeed, Russia is our third trading partner and we are their number one trading partner. We are working together for Russia's accession to the WTO this year, which will also see the signature of the Siberian overflight agreement, most probably in November. Fourthly, the summit also registered that, despite our difficulties, cooperation is proceeding well in many areas covered by the four common space roadmaps agreed in 2005. For instance the agreement on facilitation of visas and readmission will come into force on 1 June 2007.
In the field of education, we have the European studies centre in Moscow, where there are hundreds of students who study European law. Europe attracts great attention from the students. There are questions such as the early alert system for energy, which Russia agreed to in principle and which we now have to work on, and finally a sort of dialogue on the investment climate and on investment in general.
Therefore, as I have said, I do not think the picture is black and white: there is a full spectrum of different colours, from warm to cold shades.
(Applause)
Tunne Kelam
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I fully agree with the Commissioner's statement that we do not have to look at the picture in black and white, but unfortunately the black and white situation was forced on us and was forced on one Member State by its big neighbour.
However, I would like to congratulate both the Commission and the Presidency for their convincing demonstration of solidarity in Samara. I think the clear statement by the President of the Commission to the Russian President that Estonia or Poland are considered as equally important members of the Union as Portugal or Germany should be considered a key message. I think the most important thing in the current situation was to make our counterparts understand what solidarity means for the Union, which is based on common values.
As the motion for a resolution on Estonia states, attacks targeted at one of the smallest Member States are considered a test case for the solidarity of the EU as a whole, and all the major political groups have agreed on the text of the joint motion for a resolution on Estonia.
I think there are some issues which you need to address collectively in future. It is inadmissible to interfere brutally in the internal affairs of any State, especially a small one. There is a crucial difference between two former totalitarian states. New democratic Germany made it the basic principle of its foreign policy never to threaten any of its neighbours, and this has contributed to a very significant extent to a positive change in post-war Europe. I think we need to act together to help Russia take a similar stand regarding its past imperialist deeds and help it to come to similar conclusions.
Jan Marinus Wiersma
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, I should like to make two preliminary observations. I agree entirely with the Commissioner when he talks about a strategic partnership and the value of one, and states that we must continue the dialogue with Russia and must see what we can get out of it on the basis of our own principles and values.
Secondly, I am a Dutchman. I was not born in Eastern Europe. I grew up in freedom and have always lived in it. I think it is extremely important for me as a representative of what we could call an 'old' Member State to comment on what has happened to Estonia and the way in which Russia has treated it.
It is also important to note that things related to the past are always sensitive, for us as much as for others. One has to tread carefully. I am a historian myself, and I know how dangerous it is if too much history is injected in politics. Although I always counsel in favour of exercising a certain level of self-restraint, my group has still expressed its solidarity with Estonia, and this must also be the basis for the European attitude in the conflict that has come about between Estonia and Russia.
The fact that this conflict affects not only Russia, but the entire European Union was hammered home by the Commission President, Mr Barroso, in Samara. The European Union has not attempted to trivialise the conflict. Russia's reaction was inappropriate and unacceptable. European governments and members of parliament have tried to interfere in the domestic affairs of an EU Member State, and this is outrageous.
Add to this the fact that the Russian authorities have done nothing to protect the functioning of the Estonian embassy in Moscow, as a result of which the conflict ended up, to all intents and purposes, being a diplomatic crisis. As I see it - and this is also worded well in the resolution - the Russian authorities, but perhaps we too, would do well to replace the hostile rhetoric by an attempt to contribute to a dialogue, not least between the communities in the countries in question, namely Estonia and Latvia, and not to drive things to a head, because this dialogue is also needed to create relations within those countries that match European values.
I hope that the message of dialogue, the message of talking about the future, not only about the past, will also be put across in Moscow.
Toomas Savi
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (ET) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to touch on two topics in recent Estonian-Russian relations, firstly the cyber war and secondly the disinformation that has been engaged in by President Putin.
Firstly, even after all of the declarations of support Estonia has received, Russia has not taken any steps to end the systematic cyber attacks on Estonia's official information and communication channels and on the web pages of the Estonian Government. The propaganda attacks on the Internet and via mobile messages include calls to violence and armed resistance. These messages are even distributed on television and through other media. Estonia is particularly vulnerable to cyber attacks, since it has an e-cabinet and e-government and this year had the first e-elections.
The cyber attacks taking place in Estonia should serve as a warning to the whole of Europe. In the 21st century this danger threatens all countries. We must seriously consider how to protect ourselves, and we must do this together. This is the first 'cyber war' in history, and it is clearly aimed at hindering the functioning of a sovereign state of the European Union.
Secondly, at an official press conference in Samara, at which the press of the whole world was represented, the Russian President said the following words, and I quote: 'It was not just that demonstrators were dispersed in Tallinn. A demonstrator was killed there. Moreover, it is not even the fact that an accident happened that is the issue,' Putin claimed, 'We are concerned by something else, by the fact that the person in question did not receive any help when he was injured.' According to Putin, Ganin died in the presence of the police.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is intentional disinformation. Indeed, 20-year-old Dmitri Ganin was fatally injured in the course of the rioting, but criminal proceedings were initiated in connection with Dmitri's death, and these showed that his death was not connected with the police activity in keeping the peace in Tallinn. At approximately midnight on 27 April, the police found Dmitri, who had suffered a stab wound, and called an ambulance for him at 12.26 a.m. The ambulance set off one minute later and reached the scene at 12.32 a.m., that is to say five minutes later. Dmitri was hospitalised at 12.51 a.m. He was operated on, and he died in the hospital at 2.00 a.m. I emphasise once again: the ambulance arrived five minutes after being called by the police, and thus Dmitri did not die in the presence of the police, but instead in hospital.
Konrad Szymański
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, the recent tensions with Russia over trade discrimination against Poland and Russia's interference in the internal affairs of independent Estonia provided what is probably the best possible demonstration of the actual mechanisms and forces underpinning European cooperation in the area of foreign policy.
It was our moral duty to show solidarity with Estonia, but such solidarity is also in our best political interests. Recent incidents between the Union and Russia amounted to a substantial investment in the future of the European Union, one that is far more significant than further institutional changes.
The European Union has come into its own, as a result of the far-sighted attitude adopted by the President of the Commission and the President of the Council. I am sure I speak for many citizens of Poland and Central Europe when I say to Mr Barroso and Mrs Merkel: thank you from the bottom of our hearts!
Satu Hassi
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is important to distinguish between the Russian-speaking people in Estonia and Russian policy. The Russian-speaking people in Estonia have the same civil and human rights as us, but the problems and differences of opinion do not entitle Russia to interfere in Estonia's affairs, such as demanding that the Estonian Government should resign. No one believes that the authorities in Moscow could not have prevented the disruption and the violence against the Estonian Ambassador and the embassy staff there when, just as the Commissioner said, opposition activists were stopped from travelling to the demonstration at Samara. The row over the statue has brought to light two different interpretations of history. It is true that the Red Army had a major role in liberating Europe from Nazism, but it is also true that the same army after the war became an army of occupation in Estonia and in many other countries.
The events have shown clearly how poorly the Russian-speaking population has integrated into Estonian society. It is the Estonian Government's and society's job, and I know that it is not always an easy one, to find a constructive way to resolve these problems. The police have an obligation to keep order, but accusations that the police have acted disproportionately harshly need to be investigated impartially and openly. Russia seems to find it hard to understand that Estonia and the other Baltic countries are actually sovereign states. We have to show Estonia solidarity. The Member States of the European Union must help Estonia to find out who or what started the attacks on Estonian authority websites.
(Applause)
Eva-Britt Svensson
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (SV) The Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left naturally regrets the disproportionate reactions in Russia, and we naturally demand that Russia fulfil its international commitments under the Vienna Convention.
That being said, the following must also be stated: no party is served by an escalation of the conflict, as may result from certain actions or simplistic resolutions and statements. Bridge-building and dialogue between parties is better than the setting up of walls and barriers. It is also indisputable that the discrimination and restriction of civil rights to which the Russian-speaking population of Estonia is exposed constitute the biggest breeding ground for conflicts. Responsibility for the conflict we are now discussing also resides with the Estonian Government, which does not respect the Russian-speaking population's civil rights. It is responsible for the fact that, before the monument was moved, no dialogue was conducted with the residents of Tallinn and for the fact that no account was taken of the monument's significance for a huge number of people as an important memorial to all those who lost their lives in the fight against Nazism and Fascism.
Other regrettable factors are the escalation of the conflict, which was a reaction to the Estonian authorities not allowing peaceful demonstrations, and the further escalation, which was a consequence of the action taken by the Estonian police against the demonstrators. The Estonian action of removing an anti-Nazi memorial and the remains of soldiers who died in the war against Hitler's troops is seen as a provocation against all those who think that the fight against Nazism should be remembered in the future. No one is entitled to re-write history, and political views should not prevent serious analysis, and understanding, of how conflicts arise. It is only through such analysis and understanding that we shall be able to resolve conflicts in the future.
Christopher Beazley
Mr President, I cannot agree with the last speaker in her interpretation of moving a war memorial to a military cemetery. It seems to me that this is entirely the correct procedure. It is the right of the Estonian Government to make that decision, and this was used as a pretext, not, Commissioner, as you said, for a dispute between Russia and Estonia, but for a dispute between Russia and the EU. Commission President Barroso made the point extremely eloquently at Samara that we express our total solidarity with Estonia - as well as with Poland, with the Czech Republic and, indeed, with my own country, whose Ambassador has also been harassed by Nashi, an organisation from which President Putin does very little to dissociate himself.
We are told constantly that we have to de-escalate the situation, which we did not create. In your reply, Commissioner, I wonder whether you can dwell on the WTO negotiations to which you referred. Is it possible that we can continue to negotiate entry with a country which apparently appears to be implicated in the disruption of electronic communications - as Mr Savi has just explained - with the banking system, with our own security? Surely a very clear message has to be sent to President Putin that of course we want to continue these negotiations, but we cannot do so until the cyber-attacks cease.
Andres Tarand
(ET) Permit me to express my warm and heartfelt thanks to the representatives of the Commission and of all of the Member States in this House for expressing their countries' solidarity with, and support for, Estonia.
I will not dwell on the events that took place in Tallinn, which are spelled out in detail in the resolution, but I would like to emphasise the manner in which Russia has misrepresented the entire course of events for propaganda purposes. As my fellow Member, Mr Savi, has already noted regarding the death of the only young man to lose his life, would-be eyewitnesses spread in Tallinn the very next morning a version of the story according to which he had died in front of the Drama Theatre from blows inflicted by police truncheons. Since the location was identified incorrectly and the death was in fact caused by a stab wound, the Moscow version gradually dropped the reference to police blame, and President Putin claimed to the leaders of the European Union gathered in Samara that an ambulance had deliberately not come to assist the victim. I directly checked the facts on Sunday evening, when I spoke to the Minister of the Interior, who said that the ambulance had arrived at the scene within five minutes.
Thus, this lie has twice been refuted in this House, yet I have once again had to emphasise the facts, because tomorrow spurious films are likely be in circulation here in this building. A completely new issue, however, is the cyber war, which has received considerable coverage in the global media. (the speech was interrupted)
Georgs Andrejevs
Mr President, I would like to bring to your attention the historical background of the recent riots and violent demonstrations in Estonia. The European Union should understand that during the 50 years of Soviet occupation the Communist regime committed multiple crimes against the populations of the Baltic States. It moved hundreds of thousands of working migrants to the territories of these occupied, former sovereign states, which were members of the League of Nations, and created a real threat that Estonians and Latvians might become minorities in their own countries.
Following immense pressure from the international community, including the European institutions, Estonia and Latvia agreed to integrate those hundreds of thousands of non-citizens into their societies. However, integration is a two-way process, and the recent developments in Estonia show that there are reverse tendencies. The sentiments of Soviet times have been replaced by Russia's new imperialistic approach. Especially alarming is the fact that the younger generation, on which the most hopes for integration and loyalty have been placed, was at the centre of the recent violent events in Estonia, and this must give us some food for thought.
Inese Vaidere
(LV) Ladies and gentlemen, events in Estonia have starkly illuminated various issues that are important for Europe:
1) Russia has not given up its designs on the Baltic States, but is attempting to use the 'divide and rule' principle.
2) We must remind Russia of the need to acknowledge the fact of the occupation of the Baltic States, since a different interpretation of history will lead inevitably to similar conflicts in the future.
3) Like Finland in 1939, the little country of Estonia did not quail in the face of attacks from the 'bear next door', retained its dignity, succeeded and gained the support of the countries of Europe.
4) Russia only understands a strong and determined stance. Making concessions is seen as a sign of weakness, and so I would like to thank the Commission and Chancellor Merkel of Germany, the state with the Presidency, for their understanding of events and their solidarity in speaking to Russia with one European voice, and I would also like to express my conviction that this tactic will bring us all success in the future.
Tatjana Ždanoka
Mr President, I have listened with great attention to the Commissioner's contribution, but I do not agree that the issue is just a dispute between Russia and Estonia. Moreover, I wonder how the inter-ethnic conflict, the relations between minorities and majorities, one of the crucial points of which is a different approach to history, now becomes a matter of relations between the European Union and Russia.
I represent the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia and I have said on many occasions that we do not want to be hostages to geo-political games. Unfortunately, Russian speakers in Estonia as well as in Latvia were so-called prisoners of the first Cold War by being denied their citizens' rights - by being denied their language as an official language in the countries where they were a substantial minority. Now, unfortunately, we might be the hostages of the new Cold War and we see appeals in this House to the behaviour which is very like the Cold War.
There cannot be solidarity when there is violation of human rights. A number of international organisations just report on violations of human rights during the recent events in Estonia.
Georgios Toussas
(EL) The conflict between Estonia and Russia is not a bronze statue; it has to do with the insulting rewriting of history. It is an insult to the memory of the million of unknown soldiers who gave their lives in order to crush fascism.
The debate in the European Parliament during the last part-session in Brussels and the approval of the resolution expressing solidarity with the Estonian Government is a conscious policy to support the rewriting of history and the revival of fascism in the Baltic and other states.
We have repeatedly condemned with facts known to everyone that a methodical effort was made in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania after 1991 to restore the collaborators of the SS and German fascism. At the same time, they started demolishing monuments to the Red Army. In July 2004, the monument to the Estonian anti-fascist Lembit Pärn was demolished and a monument was erected to the Waffen-SS commander Alfons Rebane.
In Latvia, the Salaspils concentration camp, where 100 000 adults and 4 000 children were murdered, was named a 'reformatory and labour camp' by the government. In Romania, the collaborator with Nazi Germany, Prime Minister Ion Antonescu, was acquitted on charges of war crimes.
Waffen-SS murderers and torturers are given pensions and looked on as freedom fighters in the Baltic States. The Council is silent in the face of all these accusations and questions by the members of the Greek Communist Party in the European Parliament.
It does not surprise us. Fascism is the pure child of capitalism. We do not agree with Putin. However, we do wonder, when you wipe out over 20 million dead, why you are so insulting and call for respect for international conventions.
You are rewriting history, but the facts do not change. It is an historic truth that it was the Red Army, with the communists, the Soviet Union, at the vanguard that crushed fascism in eastern and central Europe and raised the red flag with the hammer and sickle on the Reichstag.
It was and still is the permanent nightmare that will always mark the defeat for those who dreamed of global sovereignty ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Charles Tannock
Mr President, Russia regrettably will not wake up to the new geopolitical reality that the so-called 'near-abroad', where it exercised total power for most of the last century, from the Caucuses to Ukraine, is no longer a reality. The Baltic States are now also proud, independent EU Member States and it is right and proper that the EU and NATO, which they have joined, should show total solidarity when Russia attempts to bully the smallest of them - Estonia - over what is entirely a sovereign internal matter of that newly independent republic.
Many might question the political wisdom of moving the statue of a so-called Soviet liberator. However, I, fortunately, come from a country that has never experienced the brutal Stalinist invasion and annexation that these countries have. One must appreciate that most Estonians do not see the Soviets as liberators but as tyrants, who extinguished the independence and freedom they enjoyed in the inter-war period.
The relocation of the statue and fallen Russian soldiers was conducted according to international law and it in no way justified the Duma resolutions calling for the resignation of the Estonian Government; the subsequent violent demonstrations; the cyber-attacks on Estonia's sophisticated system of e-government; the outrageous use of Nashi, an extreme nationalist organisation, to harass the Estonian Embassy - in violation of the Vienna Conventions, and on the back of a similar strategy adopted against the British Ambassador, Anthony Brenton, who attended the Kasparov rally last year.
If it wants good relations after the summit with the EU as a whole and if it wants to negotiate a new PCA, Russia must appreciate that it has to respect all the EU Member States equally.
The cosy bilateral days of former Chancellor Schröder, now richly rewarded by President Putin with a cushy job after his retirement, are well and truly over. The new EU leaders, such as Sarkozy and Merkel, are going to get much tougher with Russia in future.
(Applause)
Katrin Saks
(ET) Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your clear message that Russia must not treat Estonia as its province or constituent republic.
The Bronze Soldier was just a pretext. If there had not been that, something else would have been found, possibly elsewhere. This was an attempt to create a rift not only within Estonia, but also within the European Union; an attempt by Russia to create instability that would justify greater interference and help direct attention away from its own removed monuments.
As former Minister of Population and Ethnic Affairs, I confirm that this was not an ethnic conflict, that is to say one between Estonians and Russians. Although in many respects we have different views of history and its symbols, I confirm to you that those few thousand youths who rioted do not represent the Russian minority in Estonia. Those who came onto the streets shouted 'Rossiya, Rossiya'.
We are proud of our Russians who see Estonia as their home, and we will try to do everything we can to restore peace. We cannot change the past, and it is unlikely that we could change the attitude towards it, but we can shape a common vision of the future. A large part of the population has today adopted the position 'different past, common future'.
Henrik Lax
(SV) The riots following the removal of the bronze soldier in Tallinn were a shock for all those who have made efforts to integrate the Russian-speaking population into Estonian society and to strengthen the bonds between the population groups in Estonia. Estonia now needs the maximum amount of support and solidarity from the EU and its Member States in order to move on from this setback, harmonise the relationship between the country's language groups and stabilise the whole society. Estonia must not be exposed to undue pressure and interference from Russia. That is important for the whole of the European Union.
Estonia has proud traditions and all the prerequisites of success. As long ago as 1920, the Russian-speaking minority was given a strong position by Estonia's first constitution. An important step now would be to set up an Estonian TV channel broadcasting in Russian. At present, too many Russian-speaking Estonians are exposed to one-sided information from Russia.
Wojciech Roszkowski
(PL) Mr President, let us take a broader view of this issue. The recent EU-Russia summit in Samara resulted in a change in our mutual relationship, as the existence of solidarity within the Union became apparent to the new Member States. Thanks are due to the President of the Council and the President of the Commission for this.
It may be deemed disappointing that no progress was achieved in the talks. Nonetheless, the Samara summit should be regarded in a positive light. This is because the development of relations between the Union and Russia is conditional on Russia's respect for the sovereignty of individual Member States of the Union and on Russia abandoning tactics that involve exerting political pressure through economic instruments or the use of information technology.
Unfortunately, the Russian authorities have failed to take this on board. The cyber-attacks on Estonia have not ceased, and the embargo on Polish meat is still in place. The trail left by Alexander Litvinienko's murderers leads to Moscow. All the Union can do is to maintain pressure.
We cannot attempt to understand contemporary Russia without considering its attitude to the past. As a prerequisite for long-lasting and constructive relationship with Russia, the Union needs to develop a common vision of that past. With that in mind, it would be helpful to create some kind of 'Truth and Reconciliation Charter'.
Anna Ibrisagic
(SV) I think that what has happened in Tallinn since April of this year is eminently clear to everyone. I am uncertain, however, as to whether everyone understands its significance. The previous debates in Parliament on this subject indicate that not everyone understands why certain people have reacted so violently. Allow me, therefore, to explain.
As early as at the time of his appointment as President, Mr Putin indicated that he would do everything he could to restore to Russia its former military strength and the power that he believes is Russia's due. If I remember correctly, only one newspaper - a French one - directly picked up on the signals from Russia. Other media remained unaware of them. Those of us who speak Russian and who have experience of living close to, or under the thumb of, Russia did, however, understand. Over the years, it has, however, become ever clearer that Russia is developing in the wrong direction when it comes to human rights, media independence and political freedom. Otto von Habsburg, one of Europe's most respected political figures, described it as the route back to the time of Stalin. He is now 95 years old. He has a perspective on things, and he remembers. Others appear to have forgotten, however. In the European Parliament, too, there are Members who appear to have forgotten the trials that had to be endured by the Eastern European countries on their way to freedom, independence and autonomy. All the threats and boycotts, the interference in other countries' internal affairs and the blackmail involving withheld energy supplies appear to have been forgotten. A number of these events took place quite recently and are happening right now in some of the countries I would designate as the new Europe.
Some people from the old Europe appear, however, to have forgotten their historic lesson: that it is only through conducting a common foreign policy, showing solidarity and speaking with one voice that we can preserve peace. This is not about the monument in Tallinn. The debate is not about Estonia. It is about Europe and about Europe's sovereignty and independence.
Roberts Zīle
(LV) Mr President, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, first of all I would like to thank Mr Barroso for saying in Samara that a problem that any Member State has with Russia, even the very smallest state, is also a problem that the European Union has with Russia. That was fine support for the Member States, the new Member States, and especially Estonia, but even for those politicians who have now lost their rose-coloured spectacles regarding relations with Russia it is vital to understand that attempts will continue to take place to demonstrate that for Russia there still exists the real old Europe and the territories close to its borderland, which, in Russia's view, have temporarily, under the influence of various events, accidentally become part of the European Union. At the same time there will be new tests of the strength of the European Union's unity, and tests of new virtual weapons, which in modern society can do enormous harm. So the question is whether the European Union will wait until it runs into more problems with one of the European Union's ex-Soviet bloc Member States, or whether it will be able to urge upon Russia the requirements that any state must fulfil if it wants to become a democratic and prospective member of a partnership. Thank you.
Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis
. - (LV) Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, ladies and gentlemen, it is particularly important for Europe not only to display solidarity but also to acknowledge the true reasons for the conflicts that occurred in Estonia. Europe absolutely must understand that in Estonia there was a clash between Western democracy and the old Soviet totalitarian ideologies. In recognising this, Europe must unfalteringly reject the historical interpretations of the totalitarian USSR era. Europe must promote the removal of USSR symbols that offend the inhabitants of nations that were enslaved by the USSR. Europe must participate in the renewal of historical truth in the occupied Baltic States and elsewhere in eastern Europe. This might be a precondition for the reconciliation of representatives of differing ideologies and for future integration in the former Soviet-occupied territories. This is also a joint problem for the whole of Europe. I would like in particular to stress that the European Parliament ought from now on to be an active participant in achieving these goals of truth and the rule of law. Thank you.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner
Mr President, this discussion has clearly shown that the key word is 'solidarity'. I should like to thank a number of Members for their words of thanks.
Mr Barroso in particular could not have been clearer on this issue. Many of you know what he said. His meaning was that aggression against one Member State - in this case Estonia - represents aggression against the whole European Union. This was a very strong statement and it also showed that divide et impera politics cannot work if Europe speaks with one voice.
These were the main issues and main lessons of these proceedings. These questions took some considerable time in the discussions in our meeting. We emphasised again and again that we are working as an EU of 27 Member States and that solidarity will be maintained.
On WTO accession, both sides at Samara recognised that our economic and trading links are larger and more intensive than ever and it was encouraging to hear from the Russian side that they intend to accelerate the process of their accession to the WTO. It is encouraging because it is in our interests to bind Russia into a rules-based system where it can then be held to account. This is very important.
On cyber-attacks, it is now up to the Council to work on the Commission communication where we have added a specific paragraph on cyber-terrorism. I can see there is generally much agreement in this House on how important it is to work on this question of solidarity.
(Applause)
President
Pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure, I have received seven motions for resolution.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday 24 May.


4. (
- After the vote:
Arlene McCarthy
President of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. - Madam President, I wanted to intervene after the vote on the Lechner report. I did not want to interrupt the voting, but I merely wanted to thank the PPE-DE Group for supporting the common position so that we now have a very strong majority, which will be a very good signal to both consumers and businesses that we intend to open up the market and protect consumers.
Madam President, I know that you have taken a very active role in this dossier and I think it is a credit to all the parties that we just got a tremendous majority in the end after many doubts and reservations.


9. Social Package (vote)
- Before the vote
Philip Bushill-Matthews
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, just to confirm briefly that the PPE-DE Group has decided to withdraw our resolution on the social package. We had a very full debate at the last part-session, at which all groups aired their views very fully. Meanwhile, our group has secured the rapporteurship on the renewed social agenda, which reflects the immense importance we give to social issues, and we look forward to getting the considered comments from all political groups over the coming months, so that together we can produce a report of which the whole House can be proud.
(Applause from the PPE-DE Group)


EU-Cameroon forest law agreement - EU-Republic of Congo forest law agreement - FLEGT voluntary partnership agreements (continuation of debate)
President
We now return to the debate.
Eva Joly
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, these partnership agreements between the European Union, Cameroon and the Republic of the Congo should, in principle, turn out to be good news for these populations, and good news for biodiversity. However, this is only one stage in a long process which the European Parliament will follow closely.
If we want this agreement to allow for the introduction of a regulated, transparent and environmentally friendly timber trade which benefits local populations, rather than a few groups of dubious legality, the European Union must ensure that the rights of the local and indigenous populations are fully respected and that the latter actually participate in the consultations. It must help strengthen the capabilities of all those involved; it must contribute to the fight against corruption and to the introduction of real forest governance.
The agreements must not be a pretext for continuing to pillage the natural resources of developing countries. Rather, they must help restore a balance in relations between the European Union and these countries.
Christofer Fjellner
Madam President, these Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) agreements that we are to vote on tomorrow concerning Congo and Cameroon are important European tools, or weapons, in the fight against illegal logging and, for that reason, I welcome them.
Illegal logging is a huge problem, both in terms of the environment and from an economic and social point of view. At the same time, it is important to remember that it is rarely the problem itself, in this case illegal logging, that creates the conditions for trade in illegal timber. Instead, this is a symptom and a consequence of many other problems that, in many cases, are even more serious - poverty, lack of ownership rights, corruption and, in certain cases, war.
The problems are greatest in some of the world's poorest countries. I am therefore very pleased that the Commission bore that in mind when drawing up and negotiating the agreements. We could say that we have provided free trade in exchange for the countries concerned making reforms to strengthen ownership rights, fight corruption and ensure the introduction of reasonable forestry legislation.
That fact that we are tackling the root causes rather than the symptoms is what gives us the best indication that what we are going to do tomorrow is a step in the right direction. At the same time, it is important to remember, particularly ahead of forthcoming negotiations with other countries, that in our fight against trade in illegally logged timber, we must not prevent poor countries from exporting one of their more valuable raw materials. We must not make it harder for them to use wood, which is a fantastic natural material. The good is not the enemy of the best.
I would like to remind you that my country, Sweden, became rich at one time precisely by exporting timber. We must not prevent the poor countries of today from taking that opportunity. As you now go further and negotiate the agreements, I hope that you will continue to fight specifically against illegally logged timber and not against the trade in timber.
George Sabin Cutaş
Madam President, the European Commission has initiated the process of concluding voluntary partnership agreements with countries which export timber to the European Union. In this context, I think that it is important to set up a structure promoting the active involvement of local communities, with a view both to monitoring the agreement's implementation and improving the forest governance framework and, last but not least, in order to prevent corruption as much as possible.
Involving civil society in the process of drafting the agreement with Cameroon is a positive indication of this. At the same time, specific measures are required to continue this kind of dialogue in all the signatory countries. It is also important to aim at developing a socially and environmentally sustainable timber industry, including through the reduction of deforestation and forest degradation in these countries. The agreements must comply with the European Union's international environmental and sustainable development commitments.
Chris Davies
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, we are debating Voluntary Partnership Agreements. These are lovely words, they are good words: they represent a European Union that is not trying to impose its will upon developing nations but is trying to lend a helping hand to achieve common goals. Yet the practicalities of an agreement with a state the size of Congo create all sorts of daunting problems.
The size of the state alone is something akin to that of Europe; the governance for much of that state is non-existent; corruption levels are quite extraordinary - Transparency International puts the Republic of Congo almost bottom of its league table.
Then there is the number of staff we have working to ensure that this agreement delivers on its goals - just a handful of people; the profits of illegal logging are absolutely vast and perhaps greater than anything we can offer by way of compensation; and the markets for illegal wood are in countries like China, which may not be paying anything like the attention that we pay, and the respect that should be paid, to maintaining forests.
All these problems suggest that voluntary partnerships, however good our intentions, will have difficulty delivering the goals. So what assurances can the Commission give us that every possible step will be taken to ensure that our high ambitions here will truly be realised, and that we can all have confidence that these voluntary partnership agreements, as we make them in future, will deliver on the goals we have set?
Anna Rosbach
Madam President, the Earth's forests are the lungs of the planet, and we must do everything we can to protect them. At a time of rapid global population growth and, with that, a generally increasing need for resources, jobs moving to distant parts of the world and an economic crisis, I think that in the EU, we need more European timber rather than importing exotic timber from countries where it is difficult to control illegal logging and where we cannot control the corruption either.
By clearing tropical forests, we are reducing the biodiversity in the areas concerned and contributing to the extinction of a long list of endangered species. We are also altering the climate. This is completely unnecessary, particularly when there are perfectly good alternatives. If we learn to plant more forest in Europe again and use more European timber, these problems will disappear. Why should our garden tables be made of wood from the rainforest and why are exotic parquet floors better than floors made of EU wood?
However, having said that, and because I cannot stop EU citizens using exotic and tropical timber, it is important that these agreements are adopted. It is important that we help to ensure that there is an improvement in the control of timber products and the timber we import. We must try to safeguard ourselves against corruption, which is extremely difficult, as reflected in the agreements. I am therefore under no illusion that we will succeed in putting an end to all illegal logging in either Cameroon or Congo - unfortunately. I would have preferred the agreements to be binding rather than voluntary. However, it is clearly better to have voluntary agreements than no agreements at all and therefore I support them.
In general, however, I hope to see more initiatives to protect the world's forests, particularly when it comes to the EU's agreements with countries from problematic parts of the world.
Andreas Mölzer
(DE) Madam President, in my opinion, although the partnership agreement with Cameroon in the forestry sector is indeed praiseworthy and comes during the International Year of Forests, it is also a very convenient way for the EU to improve its image. However, as to whether the agreement is worth the paper it is written on, I have my doubts, unfortunately.
After all, corruption is a topical issue in Cameroon. Accusations against the state by environmental organisations claim that the government is very well aware of the environmental crimes of the forestry industry but is preventing monitoring and prosecutions from being carried out. After all, foreign companies are said to control more than 60% of the timber production and processing and three quarters of the timber exports. Only if it can be guaranteed that foreign companies are no longer wiping the floor with local companies, which completely lack forestry and environmental expertise, and if Cameroon gets to grips with the corruption, will this sort of agreement have any meaning. With all the concern about the destruction of the rainforests, this must not be used as an excuse to prevent forest owners in Europe from exploiting their forests, because forest management in most EU Member States is exemplary.
Filip Kaczmarek
(PL) Madam President, a month ago, I was in the Republic of Congo with the delegation of the Committee on Development, where our talks with government representatives and with experts and non-governmental organisations also covered the FLEGT initiative.
The timber industry is a very important one for the country. After crude oil, it is the second largest source of export income. It should be remembered that what happens to income from crude oil and how it is used is not completely transparent or clear to us, or at least the information is sent with a long delay. At the same time, the government of the Republic of Congo is expressing concern about the future of its forest areas and is planning a huge afforestation campaign. Of course, we still do not know if this afforestation programme will be successful, but we should certainly wish the government of Congo all the best in its endeavours. This is why it is so important to strengthen legal trade in timber. It is equally important for FLEGT to operate in neighbouring countries, because otherwise, as a result of smuggling, for example, the agreement may prove to be ineffective in practice.
Neither do we yet know if the standards we are promoting on the legal trade in timber will come into force and operate globally - some speakers have already called attention to this problem. One way or another, we must try to ensure that the system proves effective. We must also help in putting pressure on other importers, from outside Europe, to ensure the gradual elimination of illegal trade in timber.
The FLEGT initiative is important, both for reducing poverty and for protecting the environment - for controlling the phenomenon of deforestation and developing a diversified economy in many countries. In the case of the Republic of Congo, this goes hand-in-hand with another need, which is the need to develop agriculture and reduce food imports. Thanks to FLEGT, international trade in timber can become fairer, more sustainable and more environmentally friendly. We hope this will be the case.
Kriton Arsenis
(EL) Madam President, Commissioner, my congratulations on the completion, to all intents and purposes, of negotiations on these two agreements. However, I should like to express my concern at the fact that the FLEGT negotiations with Indonesia and Malaysia have deadlocked.
Commissioner, the Commission has an important instrument in its hands: the regulation on timber. This regulation exempts the countries with which a FLEGT agreement has been concluded from the scope of the regulation. It is an important instrument for giving new impetus to the negotiations. We really do need to conclude FLEGT agreements with all countries with important tropical forests in either Asia or Latin America and with the major timber dealers, such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China and numerous other countries.
These countries are taking their own way forward; they are adopting their own procedures for modernising and monitoring legal logging. The question is: are we doing what we need to do? Are the 27 Member States passing decisions regulating imports of timber from FLEGT countries?
Finally, a series of delegated acts is needed for the timber regulation. We have two years until the regulation applies in full. The Commission needs to speed up the procedures, to issue delegated acts, so that the countries know the details and what they need to do to adapt.
Seán Kelly
(GA) Madam President, without a doubt, this is a much more important question than the publicity it will receive.
One of the great scandals of the 20th century was the continuous and systematic chopping down of forests, especially in the Third World, done not by individuals who knew no better and cannot be faulted, but by big greedy businesses and corrupt governments. That is why this agreement is to be welcomed wholeheartedly and I hope it will be implemented, because if it is not, it will not be worth the paper it is written on.
On the broader front, we also have to ensure that other policies of the European Union do not contribute to continued deforestation. I am referring to the proposed agreement on Mercosur which many people feel will encourage farmers to chop down the forests in those countries so that they can export agricultural products into Europe.
So we have to be vigilant.
(GA) Thank you.
João Ferreira
(PT) Madam President, illegal logging in Central African countries, such as Cameroon and the Congo, constitutes a threat to the integrity of resources on which the local communities and indigenous peoples depend for their existence and way of life. Indeed, it is a threat to an ecosystem that is home to enormous biodiversity and plays a very important role in regulating biogeochemical cycles.
Given the advancing destruction of the tropical rainforest in this region - and let us not forget that it is fed by the demand of operators and importers in industrialised countries, particularly countries in the European Union - the solution cannot possibly be to legalise what is illegal today, the unsustainable exploitation of the rainforest, which would be nothing short of a legitimisation of the theft of land from the local communities and the occupation of vast areas of rainforest by timber companies, as has been occurring.
The European Union's development cooperation and aid policy has a very important role to play here in supporting the diversification of the economy of these countries and turning a model based heavily on the extraction and export of a small number of raw materials to industrialised countries completely on its head.
Paul Rübig
(DE) Madam President, I believe that the subject of timber will occupy us even more intensively in future. For this agreement, it is therefore important that we provide appropriate support in the area of research and, above all, that, in terms of education and training, we make sure that the small and medium-sized enterprises in Cameroon and Congo have the opportunity to develop further in terms of their environmental knowledge in this area. I am therefore very pleased that this debate is taking place. It is important for all of us that the demand for timber is satisfied in future, too.
Franz Obermayr
(DE) Madam President, forty percent of Cameroon's surface area is covered in forest. Yet, we have to say, that although Cameroon is the largest exporter of tropical wood in Africa, in no other country are the forests being so extensively cleared.
Experts estimate that, in 10 to 15 years, the ecologically important tree species from the Congo Basin will have disappeared if the logging continues as it has done. What can we do about this? What is important for the protection of Cameroon's tropical forests is, above all, that corruption is combated, both at the level of the officials and also where the private tenant farmers are concerned, that effective criminal prosecutions continue to be carried out and, of course, that sustainable forestry is practised. Where a lot of felling takes place, there must also be regeneration. Something that is very important is better training in logging work in order to avoid premature damage during clearing.
Above all, European companies must take some responsibility, because around 80% of the yield is shipped to Europe. The EU must also act accordingly in this regard by taking direct and decisive measures. A voluntary agreement is all well and good, but in this context, it will not get us anywhere. We need to make the companies accountable.
Andris Piebalgs
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the debate definitely went beyond the scope of this Voluntary Partnership Agreement. It is not only trade that affects forests: the forest is an energy resource for these countries, and population growth also has an impact on the forest.
So I would like to emphasise again that this is a first step in addressing just one of the areas of concern. I know that it is not a solution, but you have to start somewhere in addressing the issues.
Also, I would not like to discourage you with regard to the level of commitment of the countries concerned. I know that dealing with these countries is sometimes not simple, but they are countries with a difficult history. They got their independence 50 years ago, and not exactly in the same circumstances as some of our countries got independence, so things take time. It takes time to establish state institutions capable of fighting corruption or establishing the management of resources, and they are on the right track. In Africa, in particular, they have economic growth even in times of crisis, and this means they are getting stronger and getting better.
I realise this is just one indicator, but overall, there has been encouraging news, and the only way we can improve the process is by working together. That is where we come in with sustainable forest management: we are talking about Congo-Brazzaville (the Republic of the Congo) and Cameroon today, but we are also working with the Democratic Republic of the Congo and with Indonesia. We are still negotiating but we have high hopes of a positive conclusion.
So I would say that the risks here are minimal. Commitment is the starting point and I look on this process as a very positive one.
We should also consider the global commitment to fight climate change. Cancún gave some assurances that other parts of the world also take things seriously in that regard. We are not the only ones who would like the world to be fair and sustainable, and other parts of the world will learn from us.
Let us take, for example, energy efficiency drives. We made a start, and other parts of the world have followed. The same applies to resource efficiency. If we can use less timber, then other parts of the world will definitely learn from our example. I believe there are a lot of ways in which we can lead.
Last but not least, I would like, once again, to guarantee that the Commission will conduct monitoring, not only by my own staff, but also through the EU delegations and the Member State delegations that we have. This is one of the processes in which we share our efforts with the Member States. The Commission does not simply work alone and, in many respects, Member States' experience has been particularly crucial in concluding this voluntary partnership agreement.
I would ask this House really very much to deal with this consent process because I believe it is a healthy process, it goes in the right direction and, at the same time, does not provide the answers on all the issues that you have raised today.
Yannick Jadot
Madam President, Commissioner, once again, I would like to thank the Members who have spoken. I believe that we have almost all spoken in the same terms: making this essential point about VPAs, which provide the link between development, the environment and the strengthening of civil society.
I believe that, if there is one tool that we can use today to bring about sustainable development in these countries, particularly the African countries, it is undoubtedly the strengthening of civil society. As long as the only or the main expression of democracy in those countries is the vote to elect the President, then as we have seen - as the history of Côte d'Ivoire unfortunately reminds us - we will not make sufficient progress.
Therefore, strengthening civil society - the fact that it plays a constant role in the implementation of these agreements, in the monitoring of forest exploitation, in the discussion on the conditions of this exploitation and in the sharing of revenues linked to this forest exploitation - is essential.
It is through this strengthening of civil society, too, that we will respond best to the argument that we often hear concerning China: 'Why should we meet the criteria for strong cooperation with Europe - social, democratic and environmental criteria - when China makes a mockery of them in terms of corruption and pillaging?' Well, strengthening civil society is the best defence against this system which China, in particular, is trying to impose on the countries of the South.
Then, as you said, Commissioner, Europe is a large market for tropical timber, but it is also - and this is essential for all exploiters and for all industry - a stable and lucrative market, and that is also a very important tool in these countries.
Thank you for your desire to work with the European Parliament. We are very happy about this future collaboration.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday (19 January 2011).
Written statements (Rule 149)
Gaston Franco
I am delighted that, after five years of negotiations, Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) on forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT) have been concluded with Cameroon and with the Republic of the Congo.
These agreements will help ensure good forest governance by granting FLEGT licences to timber products from these countries and thus guaranteeing the sustainable exploitation and management of their forests.
It is essential to have a system by which to monitor movements of timber and derived products from harvesting right up to export. Twenty to thirty per cent of world industrial timber production is illegal, as is 60% of the harvesting that has taken place in Africa over the last 10 years.
These VPAs will therefore help preserve the forests in these countries by combating illegal harvesting, which causes significant environmental, economic and social damage.
The main advantage of these VPAs is that they will apply to all exports between the EU and these countries, together with all other timber importing countries.
I hope that this VPA system will be rolled out quickly to other forest countries.
Daciana Octavia Sârbu
in writing. - FLEGT voluntary partnership agreements were a good basis on which to build international cooperation to tackle the problem of deforestation. And they continue to show their relevance today, especially in the context of last year's illegal timber regulation. Countries which adhere to such voluntary schemes are able to give certain guarantees about the legality and environmental sustainability of their timber sources. There are clear benefits in terms of environmental protection, although we should be mindful of the fact that trade in legally harvested timber is not necessarily sensitive to the needs of indigenous people. It is important that, as more VPAs are agreed, their effects are closely monitored and that their terms take full account of the needs and human rights of people who are dependent on forests, but who often do not have a voice in the management of those forests.