Situation in the Arab world and North Africa - Situation in Yemen - Situation in Syria (debate)
President
The next item is the joint debate on the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the situation in the Arab world and North Africa, Syria and Yemen.
Catherine Ashton
Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Mr President, the last time I spoke in this Parliament in early May, I said that statements should, and could, be made but that the priority was action.
You will remember that I announced my intention to establish a European Union office in Benghazi. The European Union flag now flies above the courthouse in the newly-named Freedom Square: a symbol not just of our solidarity with its people, but of our practical commitment.
The office is now up and running and experts are arriving each week, working to see how we can support the security needs of the people and build the capacity of civil society. Last week, my team was in New York, coordinating our work on Libya with the UN.
Outside the courthouse in Freedom Square, I met some of the people who have been bringing democracy to life in Libya. They thanked me, they thanked you and they thanked the European Union. They know that we will stay with them over time. Today, I am sure you join me in saluting again the enormous courage of the Libyan people, whether in Benghazi, Misrata, the Western Mountains, Tripoli or in the South.
We have stepped up sanctions to stop arms and money reaching the regime. We have provided almost EUR 140 million of humanitarian assistance to those most in need. We continue to work for a political resolution to the conflict, in the Contact Group - which will meet in Istanbul this week - and in the Cairo Group, where, at our instigation, we continue to work with the UN Secretary General and the Special Envoy, Mr Al Khatib, the Arab League, the African Union and the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation, where we prepare for the days, weeks and months after Gaddafi leaves.
Actions must be rooted in strategy. The EU was the first to offer a serious response to the Arab Spring, with our partnership communication in March 2011. Two months later, we launched a new and ambitious European Neighbourhood Policy. I am delighted to have Stefan Füle with me today - my close and trusted partner in conceiving this new policy and on ensuring delivery on our promises.
You know the core principles of the policy: mutual accountability; individual approaches to individual countries depending on circumstances and aspirations and offering more support for more reform. In Stefan's words: 'more for more'.
It has financial backing to match, in the form of an extra EUR 1.2 billion for the next two years, on top of the EUR 5.7 billion already pledged - so, nearly EUR 7 billion. To this we should add a sum in the region of EUR 7-8 billion, the result of the concerted efforts I initiated to unlock new investment funds from the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
The goal is clear: the promotion of what I call 'deep and sustainable democracy' and - with it - economic prosperity. We know full well that democracy is hollow without food, safety, and jobs. So now is the time for all of us - for the institutions and the Member States - to deliver on those shared objectives.
Beyond the new policy, I have taken two further regional initiatives since we last met. First, to enhance our effectiveness, presence and visibility, I have appointed an EU Special Representative for the southern Mediterranean: Bernardino León. His task will be to assist us in strengthening the EU's political influence in the region - in dialogue with governments, civil society and international organisations - and to cooperate closely with the European Parliament.
Second, I have established a Task Force to draw together our work and bring in the European Investment Bank, the EBRD, other international financial institutions and other international partners, to turn commitments into reality, to synchronise and work closely together. That reality is about the democracy and the economy we wish to see on the ground.
In Tunisia and Egypt, we see the evidence of the economic upheavals of the last months. When I was in Egypt a few days ago, I talked to shopkeepers, to people in the streets and to people running hotels. All tell me the same story: that revenues in tourism and foreign direct investment have fallen and that they need support to revive and sustain the economy.
That is why, for instance, we are supporting a major Egyptian social housing initiative, and why we are launching a major programme to support the poorest areas in the greater Cairo region, as well as a EUR 20 million programme to support Egyptian civil society. We are ready to help Egypt reform its security sector, and we have offered EU election observation and assistance and support for democracy.
I talked with Deputy Prime Minister El Gamal, who is leading the electoral process and the drafting of the constitution. An eminent lawyer, it falls to him to sort out a constitution that, in my words, will be the 'guardian for the people'.
Similarly, in Tunisia, I met with Foreign Minister Kefi on Friday. Support for civil society and for the preparation of October's Constituent Assembly elections is well under way. We have been asked to deploy an election observation mission and will do so. Security reform and regional development programmes are also in motion.
The government in Tunisia, meanwhile, advances its own reform agenda. We applaud the consensus that was reached on the date for the elections and the fact that the principle of male-female parity for the lists of candidates has been retained.
I am concerned that the voice of women should continue to be heard and their engagement certain. There is a fear, expressed to me, that, having taken part in their revolutions, their place in their future is not guaranteed. We need to support them: practically, by offering our resources, and politically by making it clear that we expect to see their engagement. A few weeks ago, we funded a conference with UN Women in Tunisia to bring together women across the region to consult and gain strength from each other.
There is, of course, more to do - and this morning I have issued a statement of concern on the recent arrests of women journalists, artists and women's rights defenders in Iran.
But perhaps our greatest concern is for the people of Syria, who are denied the right to play their part in charting their country's future. What began as small local demonstrations against corruption in the local communities has become a national outpouring, and it has been met with violence and repression.
Yesterday in Homa, 1l people died, adding to the total of over 1500 civilians and 350 security personnel who have lost their lives. Ten thousand people have been detained. We condemn without reservation those acts of violence and repression.
Since we last met, I have increased our sanctions twice. I have continued to make our voice heard, worked with our international partners and sought action at the Security Council with the objective of sending a single message: to stop the violence, create the dialogue, and prepare for change.
President Assad's promises of reform and dialogue remain weak. Just recently, he announced that a committee will meet to prepare the framework for a dialogue. But let us be clear: any dialogue has to be inclusive, and that means the opposition taking part and all participating without fear.
Our EU delegation remains on the ground in Damascus, meeting every day with individuals and groups, working with other representatives and sending out our messages.
Our delegation in Ankara has been visiting the refugees who have arrived over the border in Turkey in their thousands. I have been in close touch with Foreign Minister Davutoglu of Turkey to offer support in the future, should they need that, and to discuss with him the political situation.
That instability in Syria has echoes in Lebanon. We are following the indictments of the special tribunal and must now carry forward its work.
That brings us to the search for peace in the Middle East, between Israel and Palestine. The changes in the surrounding neighbourhood, the speech of President Obama in May, the moves towards Palestinian reconciliation, the approaching UN General Assembly: all those bring a renewed focus on the possibility of talks and a solution. I have worked tirelessly for this possibility - working closely with President Abbas, Prime Minister Fayyad and Prime Minister Netanyahu and with many others in the region, with our Quartet partners and with the Arab countries - to look for a strong and ambitious consensus, in which the EU plays the leading role this Parliament wishes us to play.
The UN, the US and Russia responded to my letter requesting a Quartet meeting, which will take place in Washington on Monday. That will build on the process that began with the Quartet meeting in Munich which I chaired earlier this year. Since then, the envoys have met intensively and, for the first time, with the negotiators from both sides.
I do not underestimate the challenge, but my objective is absolutely clear: to try to find a way to adopt a statement next week that will help the Israelis and Palestinians to bridge the gap and allow for a return to the negotiating table.
Many look to September and the prospects for a resolution. We do not yet know what a UN resolution might say and what reaction it might bring. But I am clear that my energies should focus on using this time to get the talks moving and, on that, the European Union is united. We have a strong position from which to move forward, based on the Council conclusions, a united position.
I also understand very well the concerns for the people of Gaza, having visited twice and seen the situation for myself. I have consistently stressed the need for the crossings to open, to provide what people need, and to ensure the security that Israel needs.
It is there that our energies should lie. I am encouraged that, having spoken to the Prime Minister of Israel in the last few days, meetings are now taking place on the ground. But I do not underestimate the fact that there is much more to do. I thank Greece for its offer to route humanitarian aid to Gaza, in coordination with the UN.
I now want to turn to two kingdoms, Morocco and Jordan, where the EU supports and encourages the strong commitment to reform.
On 12 June 2011, King Abdullah of Jordan outlined ambitious reform proposals concerning political parties and the electoral process. I have been in regular contact with Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh with regard to this reform agenda, most recently during my last visit to Jordan two weeks ago. Finally, this past weekend, there was good news from Morocco, with a referendum endorsing the new constitution on Saturday.
The reforms proposed are a significant response to the legitimate aspirations of the Moroccan people. I now hope that Moroccan citizens will remain at the centre of the implementation process, and that the dialogue will now widen and strengthen. We are ready to give Morocco full support in this endeavour.
In Algeria, the state of emergency has been lifted, and the President's promises of reform now need to become action - something I raised with Foreign Minister Medelci recently when we met at the EU-Algeria Association Council.
In Bahrain, we have continued to express concern at the persistence of human rights violations. Honourable Members will remember that I discussed this with the King of Bahrain in the Gulf a few weeks ago. We see trials lacking in due process, the handing down of death sentences and the disgraceful treatment of doctors who have tried to help those in need.
There may be some steps in the right direction. I saw that an independent international commission of inquiry into the events of the past few months has now been established. That is in response, in part, to the calls that we have made. But we need to remain vocal and strong in order that the national dialogue can finally get under way.
Finally, I turn to Yemen. Crippled by political stalemate and worsening humanitarian and economic conditions, the only way forward - as I discussed with the President before he was injured, and as we continue to send messages from our delegation - is a truly inclusive political transition, in line with what the Gulf Cooperation Council have put forward in their initiative.
We will continue to work closely with our partners, with the United States and with the Council, to try to unblock the situation and find a solution. As President Saleh begins to recover, he must transfer power and follow through on his commitment to the transition.
We have made it clear that we are ready, alongside our international partners, to provide further humanitarian, political and practical support. But I do not need to tell honourable Members just how difficult the situation is in Yemen and how concerned and alarmed we are by events on the ground. We are also ready to help prepare for elections and to establish a working Parliament there. But there is no question that, if Yemen is to move forward, that transition has to begin now.
I would like to close by thanking this Parliament for its steadfast support for the efforts to safeguard and promote these fundamental democratic values, rights and freedoms. Honourable Members, this Parliament is unique in what it can offer those in search of democracy. You are the representatives of democracy: you demonstrate the power of the citizen, and the qualities of open debate and freedom of expression.
Many of you know only too well the challenges of building democracy, fighting for causes and working for people. You have much to offer the people that I have met all over the region who long for greater dialogue and for the opportunity to meet with as many of you as they can. In this way, they can find out some of the practical ways in which democracy has taken root in your countries and in this European Union, and how you have overcome the challenges. I know that you will be generous in your support for those who are finding their own path to democracy and their own future.
As it was put to me in Benghazi by one of the many young people I met, a young man who had been imprisoned by Gaddafi for eight years as a political prisoner: 'we want what you have: democracy as everyday life'.
(Applause)
José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra
Mr President, they say that when the celebrated thinker, Ortega y Gasset, was asked what distance one needed to be from events in order to write history, he said, far enough not to be able to see the profile of Cleopatra's nose.
Lady Ashton, I bring this anecdote up not because Egypt is a country affected by the Arab Spring but rather because in the EU, we are experiencing an historic dilemma involving a lack of confidence in our project, debt crisis, the calling into question of the basic achievements that are most valued by our citizens, such as the Schengen area, and doubts over the ability of NATO.
However, over the last two and a half years, we have experienced tangible progress in the form of your own duties as Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the birth of the European External Action Service and the Joint Communication on a renewed European Neighbourhood Policy.
You said yesterday that our neighbours will always be there and I share that view. The question is about us, whether we will rise to the occasion, whether we will live up to the expectations of our citizens, who regard foreign policy as a barometer for the state of the EU, whether we will be able to accompany these transition processes effectively in the countries that are the subject of the resolution that we will adopt tomorrow.
Lady Ashton, we are clearly backing that. We believe and hope that you will succeed in your work, but in order to do so, you must act with the highest profile. Not a physical profile, like in Ortega's response, but rather a political profile, with particular emphasis on finding the greatest common denominator and not the lowest common multiple.
Véronique De Keyser
Mr President, Baroness Ashton, you have worked extremely hard, and you have our full support.
However, Parliament's resolution today relates to countries that are somewhat forgotten: Syria, Bahrain and Yemen. By calling for this specific focus, we are addressing a dual objective: the first is to break the silence and avoid practising double standards in the region, while these countries undergo cruel repression. The second is, while remaining firm in our condemnation of the atrocities that are being committed in these countries, to make political room for possible negotiations, which is something that you are going to look into.
This resolution has very wide support among the political groups, and I will simply make two or three points. The first, which may seem a little trifling, is of a linguistic nature. I do not like the idea of the expression 'Arab world' in the title of the report. This has somewhat post-colonial connotations, as if there were actually a single Arab world. As the resolution illustrates, and as you say yourself, there are many different countries, each with its own separate identity. There are also different regions, such as the Maghreb or the Mashreq region; therefore, I think we need to forget about this concept of an Arab world.
My second point concerns Syria. The repression that is rife today in these countries is bitter, cruel and ruthless. Even children are not being spared. The resolution denounces these crimes, which cannot continue to go unpunished. It expresses concern over the waves of refugees now crossing the border from Syria into Turkey. It calls for humanitarian corridors and the intervention of the United Nations, and supports the emerging opposition both outside and inside the country. However, the resolution stops there.
Why? Why have we not gone further? Why did we not say, for example, that we want Bashar al-Assad to leave power, as he has disappointed all those who believed he would change the repressive system he inherited from his father? This president seems to have crossed a line from which there is no going back. It is because we wanted to leave room for political negotiations in the corridors of the EU.
Baroness Ashton, Syria is heading into a state of violence. Religious minorities, especially Christians, feel threatened today by extremists. Please visit Damascus as soon as you can. Unlike my fellow Member, I would ask you not to keep your distance. What we need is strong political action and a high-level European presence on the ground. There may still be an opportunity, and I call upon you to seize it.
My third point is more general. I am going to go over my time, but I wanted to say that we support the External Action Service, and our relationship with it is much improved. However, there are overlaps at the moment between the structures surrounding the High Representative, and other bodies such as the task force, which has yet to prove its worth. Our help for these countries is a test for us, today, and naturally, I hope that these structures and the External Action Service will succeed with flying colours in the task before them. Our credibility depends on it.
Guy Verhofstadt
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I would like to ask Baroness Ashton whether she has seen the shocking images on YouTube in the past two days that show a man in Syria filming demonstrations in a street full of homes. At one moment, he sees a sniper from the presidential militia and is killed by this very same man, live, as he is filming. That is what you see on YouTube: his own death.
That man - and there are many cases like that - was killed because he was trying to make one thing clear: he was taking these pictures to put them on the Internet. He wanted everybody outside Syria to see what is happening in Syria, what continues to happen: a massacre of citizens with more than 1 500 deaths for the moment. In the outside world - let us be honest - we are watching and doing nothing, or almost nothing, to prevent it.
I know Syria is not Libya, so there is no front line to defend. What is happening there is completely different from what is happening in Libya. In that sense, Libya is maybe more difficult to tackle, but that does not mean we cannot do more than we are currently doing. We are waiting for a UN Security Council resolution, and that has been the case now for weeks and weeks. We are hoping for a breakthrough with Brazil, with Russia and with China on this issue, and it has not been forthcoming.
When we see, on the one hand, dramatic scenes taking place on the ground, live, and, on the other hand, Brazil, China and Russia blocking the Security Council, we have to imagine another way and ask further questions. We have to do more on our side and not wait for a Security Council resolution which will not come in the next few days or even weeks.
I have a proposal. I think two things can be done in addition to what we have discussed up to now. First of all, we can extend the list of the people covered under sanctions. There is currently a list of 30 people, which has had to meet with the approval of the international community, or at least of the US and the European Union.
We have to extend sanctions to all the 200 families who are currently in power in Syria, and who still support Assad by earning money thanks to the regime. It is thanks to these 200 families that Assad is still there. It is thanks to these 200 families that the massacre is still going on, and it is thanks to these 200 families that - as we can see on the Internet - snipers are killing innocent people on the streets.
We can do more than waiting; waiting for weeks and weeks for a resolution that is not forthcoming in the Security Council. What we can do is target these people and extend the travel ban and asset freezing to these 200 families, who are very well known, and extend the list of 30. That is the first thing to do.
I have a second proposal: we should finally face up to reality. There is no front line to defend, so we cannot do the same thing as in Libya, but we should at least consider the possibility of creating a safe zone, what we call a 'demilitarised zone', on Syrian territory.
This is not wishful thinking, because it is currently under consideration in Ankara. This has already been done, in 1991 in Iraq - with the support of the US, you will remember - to protect the people living in the north of the country.
This is what we should do; otherwise, we will continue to see what is happening now: more killings. We should do this as fast as possible. My proposal is: please stop waiting for unanimity - which will not come in the UN - and take the lead on these two additional initiatives.
Charles Tannock
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, six months after the start of the Arab Spring, the countries in the Middle East and North Africa remain in flux.
Egypt deserves credit for prosecuting former President Mubarak and his family for corruption. Its military has generally shown wisdom and restraint in its handling of the political vacuum in the country. The ECR hopes to see a new president emerge in September who can restore Egypt's rightful place as leader of the Arab world. By the way, Ms De Keyser, there is an Arab world, there is also an Arab League, and that is the face for the Arab world.
After the elections, I hope that the Muslim Brotherhood will stick to their pledge to honour the concept of democratic pluralism and that Egypt will maintain the peace accords with Israel. These are vital for regional security. Egypt needs massive EU direct aid and loan finance now from the EIB and EBRD. I welcome Baroness Ashton's initiatives in this area; we must help stabilise this key country's economy.
Tunisia is also beginning to make tangible progress towards a more stable future, but remains destabilised by the ongoing upheavals in neighbouring Libya. It is essential for the credibility of the EU and for NATO - which is enforcing the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 - to end Gaddafi's grip on power in Libya.
Having invaded Iraq in the name of banishing tyranny and championing democracy, we in the West can hardly leave the job half done in Libya; a wounded Gaddafi being allowed to stay in power would be a disaster as he would plot revenge against his own people and also Western targets.
In this context, I also call on Algeria to cease helping the Tripoli regime with supplies and free passage for mercenaries.
In Yemen, the uncertainty about the succession to President Ali Abdullah Saleh risks emboldening the al-Qaeda terrorists in the country. He is now part of the problem and not the solution and he should stay in Saudi Arabia and sign the GCC-brokered agreement and pave the way for free elections and a successor.
The situation in Bahrain is also worrying, and I hope that the Sunni monarchy makes reformist concessions towards the opposition, mainly from the Bahraini Shia majority.
In Syria, President Bashar seeks to brutally crush all resistance to his autocratic Ba'athist rule. We cannot forget the principled stand by courageous unarmed protesters calling for a democratic post-Bashar Syria free of the malevolent influence of Iran and its support for Hezbollah and Hamas. The arrest and torture of children is particularly sickening in Syria and, although I, too, am concerned by reports of Salafist jihadi groups now joining the protesters, this cannot be used by the regime as an excuse to murder innocent protesters. I particularly fear now for the Christians and the Iraqi refugees on that territory.
I also welcome the constitutional reforms in Morocco to diminish the King's powers, but hope the situation in Western Sahara can also be settled peacefully with the referendum for independence.
I welcome this week the independence of South Sudan, and hope that Khartoum, also a member of the Arab League, will not try to destabilise Africa's newest nation, which needs all the help it can get from the European Union.
Lastly, I thank the High Representative and her staff for all their good work and commitment to supporting the Arab Spring and stabilising the EU southern neighbourhood.
Hélène Flautre
Mr President, all these populations are putting a colossal amount of energy into overthrowing regimes that are enemies of freedom and are oppressing them. We cannot help but admire this energy, and it puts paid to the prejudices held in various quarters about the supposed backwardness of the Arab world.
As has already been said, it requires a good deal of the European Union to rise to the challenge of these aspirations. For us to condemn the violence, support those who promote change, impose sanctions on the dictators, start again from scratch the deals we had negotiated with fallen powers, take on board the human, political and economic consequences of the upheaval that is going on, prevent counter-revolutionary attempts, mitigate the causes of destabilisation and rebuild our relationship as one of partnership, is a revolution in itself for the European Union.
Who now seriously believes that Bashar al-Assad is capable of beginning a political process that would involve those who promote democracy and change, and would establish the rule of law? I certainly do not, and I do not think many people do. And yet, there is no appeal to President al-Assad to leave power in our resolution. Nor is there a majority, unless we see proof to the contrary, willing to call the atrocities committed by this regime against peaceful citizens crimes against humanity, which is what they are, and to bring a case before the International Criminal Court through a Security Council resolution.
I do not think we have exhausted all the possibilities for diplomacy. Turkey could provide valuable help on this, if it can persuade the hesitant countries that have been mentioned, especially Russia and Brazil, but also China.
Taking responsibility also means protecting. It means resettling refugees, activating temporary protection, rescuing people at sea. These are the concrete steps that the European Union should be proposing for refugees, instead of organising top-level crisis meetings to discuss EU law. If the EU wants to be consistent, it needs a system that will allow civil society to be involved at every stage in defining objectives and indicators and in implementing and evaluating the EU's agreements with its future partners. This will represent real change for the European Union. Our partners are now accountable to their people, and their people are eagerly expressing their democratic demands.
Baroness Ashton, you were correct in your intuition and your analysis, well before the revolutions began. At the beginning of your mandate, you said that the validity of the EU's external policy would be tested in its own neighbourhood. How true that is! If the Union rises to the challenge of these peoples' democratic aspirations, its role on the new world scene will no longer hang as a question mark over the suffering that is piling up. In the situation as it stands today, it is the status of the European Union in this 21st century world taking shape before our eyes that is at stake.
Marisa Matias
Mr President, Lady Ashton, I shall start by saying that it is obvious we need to continue supporting the democratic revolutions taking place in these countries. I do not have much time, so I only want to make a few observations. First and foremost, we cannot forget that the conditions for negotiating must be set by the peoples of these countries if we want a democratic transition and not civil war.
The situation in Syria is serious, and that is true for Syria, but also for Yemen and Bahrain. If we want to prevent civil war, the last thing these countries need is Europe interfering in their internal affairs, above all else, by presenting military or paramilitary solutions. If I say this, it is because we must totally reject what is happening in Libya. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the United Nations (UN) have exceeded all resolutions, even those voted for by the UN Security Council. It is this silence in relation to Libya, and this rejection that we should be making and that is absent from this resolution, that I cannot support.
Bastiaan Belder
Mr President, in the early 1950s, the founding father of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, hoped that regime change in Egypt would pave the way for peace with the Arab world. He even stuck his neck out for this idea in public, although it turned out to be in vain. The Nasser regime and other new military rulers in the region turned out to actually be more anti-Israel than the monarchs they had replaced.
Baroness Ashton, Israeli politicians and analysts fear that the current 'Arabellion' (another, more accurate term for the Arab Spring) will come to an end in the 'gift of the Nile', in a historical parallel to the 1950s. The political influence of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood will strongly boost their influential Palestinian allies and block any peaceful reconciliation with the Jewish State. High Representative, do you view the change of regime in Egypt, by any chance, as a positive change for Arab-Israeli relations? I ask this because not only the Muslim Brotherhood, but also secular figureheads such as ElBaradei and Amr Moussa fill Israeli observers with little confidence for future relations between Cairo and Jerusalem.
Meanwhile, the real winner of this partial 'Arabellion' threatens to be the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is a real spectre, above all for the region, but potentially also for the world as a whole. Baroness Ashton, how can Europe, together with the United States, still prevent this scenario from coming about?
Andreas Mölzer
(DE) Mr President, many Arab countries will not be able to return to the old days, but in most cases, it is not clear where their journey is leading. However, the people of Yemen, for example, give cause for hope, with groups which have never spoken to one another before sitting the situation out side by side.
Simply replacing the president, as proposed by the Gulf Cooperation Council agreement, would not really bring about changes in the system. The situation in Egypt, where there are increasing numbers of attacks on Christians, shows that a coup by no means guarantees the introduction of democracy or religious freedom for minorities.
Following the euphoria of the Arab Spring in Egypt and Tunisia, it is clear that disillusionment has set in, given the ongoing security problems, the economic difficulties and the tough rearguard action being fought by the old regime. With the exception of Morocco, where the king is clearly popular, the protests in other Arab countries have simply led to empty promises and violence.
In my opinion, we should not underestimate the strategic importance of Syria. If the Iranian bloc were to be responsible for slowing down the Arab Spring, this would send out a devastating signal. Perhaps, at long last, it is time for the West to call for the departure of President Assad and to withdraw its diplomats.
The EU must also not ignore the risk of new influxes of refugees, even if there is radical democratic change in the Arab world. We must begin making preparations now, so that we are genuinely ready for the problems that will face us in future.


Control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Százjer, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers - C7-0073/2010-.
József Szájer
rapporteur. - Mr President, it is only about one year since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which envisages considerable changes in the delegation of powers by the European Parliament and Council to the Commission.
A few months ago in this Parliament, we discussed my report about delegated acts. Delegated acts are when Parliament and Council delegate powers, but from now on, compared to the previous situation, we can take them back any time. We can set a deadline, we can change and we can veto if the Commission is not in line with what the legislator wanted.
In the case of the present regulation we are discussing based on Article 291 of the Treaty, we are speaking about implementing acts. In the case of implementing acts, the situation is a bit different. Here, it is the Member States which exercise their rights on how to implement the different legislation of the European Union. So there is a clear difference.
The new regulation and the new system of delegated acts gives us very wide powers. From Parliament's point of view, it changes our influence considerably, especially in certain areas of legislation.
However, in the field of implementation, we have the right as Parliament, as legislator, to regulate how the implementation procedure for the Member State should go.
I think Parliament was right after long negotiations to take the position that we would like to confirm and get clear commitments from both the Council and the Commission that Parliament's rights are met. After very long negotiations, we have made very serious progress in this area which has influence and an effect not only - and particularly not only - in the area of implementing acts, but also on delegated acts.
Even in the case of implementing acts, Parliament got and kept the right of scrutiny which means that, on the basis of the agreement with the other institutions, we have a procedure which we can apply.
My first priority was that we could keep these important positions. There is also another issue here, which is that there are other ongoing discussions in this Parliament represented by other committees - especially the Committee on International Trade, the Committee on Development and the Committee on Foreign Affairs - and also between Parliament and Council on the legislation concerning financial instruments and whether and how they should be regulated.
My goal in this framework was that this regulation should not prejudge this discussion. We want to help our colleagues who are fighting our position in an important discussion with the Council so that we can finally end up with the cooperation of the Council.
Finally, since my time is over, I would like to thank both the Commission and the Council for their flexibility in the negotiations. I understand that it was very difficult to get an agreement in Council. I think this is the deal which Parliament wanted and this deal can be satisfying for all Members, especially because this is not only about the text we are discussing now, but we expect both the Commission and Council to take part in the common understanding concerning these important issues. We also expect declarations which make clear that there is a clear commitment from the Commission for the alignment of the remaining part of the acquis communautaire. This text attached to my report should be satisfying for all Members of this Parliament.
Maroš Šefčovič
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, this morning we heard a very good debate on the citizens' initiative and tonight we are discussing the very important topic of comitology. I think it is a very good sign that here, after the Treaty of Lisbon has entered into force, we are actually finalising the main pieces of the legislation necessary for its full implementation.
The regulation on implementing acts will have a major impact on the way the Commission implements European law in the future. It will have a very important influence on the Union's ability to deliver its policies in the interests of its citizens. When we presented our proposal we set out its main objective: that new rules should put in place a system for the adoption of implementing acts by the Commission which would be simpler, more efficient, and more transparent and in full compliance with the Treaty.
How did we achieve these goals in the proposals we are about to discuss? As in the past, the control mechanism foreseen by the regulation is based on comitology, meaning committees composed of representatives from Member States to which the Commission will submit draft measures but, contrary to the present system, there will no room for intervention by the Council as such.
As the Treaty makes clear, only Member States and not the Council can control the exercise of the implementing powers by the Commission. Moreover, the regulation provides that all special procedures will disappear and that all implementing measures including those on trade - various measures such as anti-dumping or countervailing measures - will be subject to the regulation. This will represent a real revolution in the field of commercial policy.
We want to have simpler procedures, so not only will the new regulation establish just two procedures - advisory and examination - instead of four, but it will also provide for an automatic adaptation of the existing comitology procedures. The new procedures will begin to apply to all existing legislation from day one. Of course this is without prejudice to the nature of the powers conferred on the Commission on the basic acts.
The Commission has committed in a declaration to review all the acquis in order to adapt it as far as legally required to the regime of delegated acts, and I know how important this is for this House. We have so far identified 153 acts which were not submitted to codecision before the Treaty of Lisbon, and which confer powers on the Commission that have to be turned into delegated powers. In addition there are 299 acts which were previously aligned to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which will now have to be reviewed in the light of the provisions of the Treaty on delegated acts. But our aim is that before the end of Parliament's present legislative period all existing legislation will be fully in line with the new provision of the Treaty of Lisbon.
This means full alignment. You know how ambitious this goal is and therefore I am particularly pleased that the Belgian minister Mr Chastel kindly asked me to deliver to this House the commitment and the statement of the Presidency.
It states that the Presidency is aware of the ambitious intentions of the Commission in this regard; it welcomes these and supports the objectives. It can confirm that it is willing to do its utmost to make sure that this alignment is concluded as soon as possible once proposals by the Commission have been submitted. The Presidency is ready to cooperate in a loyal manner with Parliament and the Commission to achieve these objectives.
Of course we would like to have this statement enshrined in an official written record, but I think that we have to welcome the very cooperative spirit and collegial approach from the Belgian Presidency.
We want to have a system which is more efficient; accordingly the new rules fully reflect the Commission's role under the Treaties - with just one regrettable exception which I will come back to later - because only a qualified majority vote by the Committee against the draft implementing act can prevent the Commission from adopting it.
The one exception I just mentioned, where the Commission explicitly needs a positive opinion of the committee before being authorised to adopt the draft implementing act, relates to definitive multilateral trade safeguard measures. Even though only a limited number of acts are adopted in this area, we were against these exceptions on institutional grounds as we would have preferred a full alignment with the new rules.
I wanted to make this institutional point here although in the end this was the only possible basis for the compromise for the legislator and we welcome it. We want to have a system which is more transparent; the whole procedure will be conducted in full transparency.
All documents submitted to the committees are simultaneously sent to the European Parliament and to the Council; these two institutions will have a right of scrutiny on a completely equal footing. At any time during the procedure they may indicate to the Commission that they consider that the draft implementing act exceeds its powers; if we are overstepping our powers you have the right to make it very clear to us.
To conclude, all in all the text presents a very good result for Europe; it clearly strengthens the Community method and it clearly expands Parliament's power of scrutiny into all areas.
For instance, the new regulation provides that in some cases the Commission might be obliged to discuss the matter in an appeal committee. However this committee will be a normal comitology committee chaired by the Commission and subject to the same rules; only qualified majority against the Commission's draft can then prevent the Commission from adopting it.
If the new comitology regulation is approved today by the European Parliament it will enter into force very soon, already on 1 March 2011, and this is indeed very good news. We need to have the new legal framework operating as soon as possible, and I also hope that in parallel we could launch a common reflection about the line of demarcation between the delegated powers and the implementing powers of the Commission. We need these not only to avoid further conflicts when discussing proposals for the new legislation but also to streamline the alignment exercise.
To conclude I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Szájer, for all the work done throughout the negotiating process and also to all political groups for their cooperation and the flexibility they demonstrated. A final word of thanks goes to the Belgian Presidency who did a remarkable job in getting this file through the Council, in finding this very difficult compromise. I believe that what we are about to discuss, and I hope tomorrow approve, is very good news for Europe.
Gay Mitchell
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development. - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Szájer, for his efforts and for his report.
Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the current comitology provisions will be replaced by delegated acts and implementing acts under Articles 290 and 291, as has been explained, but I worry very much about the role of the Commission in implementing the decisions made in relation to the Treaty of Lisbon.
I think I heard the Commissioner just say that their aim is to do so by the end of this Parliament. That is another three and a half years, and they only have an 'aim'! This is not a residents' association, this is Parliament! If the Council is involved, Parliament is involved. As a parliamentarian - and it gives me no joy to say this - it seems to me that often, instead of acting as honest broker between Council and Parliament, the Commission is far too close to the Council, while Parliament, being of such numbers, is easily divided and far too easily sometimes facilitates what is a common view reached by the Council and by the Commission.
I must stress firstly that Parliament, in my view, should not be under any pressure to sign up completely to the proposed first-reading text in this regard. The most important thing is that we reach a fair compromise that is the best option available for this House and for the citizens we represent, while noting what our colleague, Mr Szájer has said. If this means waiting for a second-reading agreement, then so be it. As I said, the rule must be that if Council is involved, Parliament is involved. We are codecision makers, colegislators in this regard.
As the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development, I feel it is of paramount importance that we assert the independence of Parliament and that the Commission respect both institutions. I am not sure that this 'compromise' achieves that.
Saïd El Khadraoui
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. - (NL) Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur for his work on what is a complex and very technical dossier, but one that is, nonetheless, very important for our future activities.
The old comitology procedure with four different options was not unknown to us, the Committee on Transport and Tourism, and we have been familiar for a long time with how to deal with implementing decisions. However, with regard to the adjustments which need to be made under the Treaty of Lisbon, I would like to say that we support the compromises which the rapporteur has agreed with the Council. There are, nevertheless, two things which we consider need your attention.
First of all, we want the maximum flow of information to Parliament and also the maximum involvement of Parliament in the preparation of the Committee's decisions.
Secondly, I would like to emphasise the importance of a good approach to the transitional period, and in that respect we ask the Commission to be generous in favour of Parliament when reforming the comitology procedure, as defined in the acquis, to the new delegated and implementing acts, where the choice between the two procedures may be open to debate.
Therefore, this does not apply to the reform alone, but also to the application of the current acquis ahead of any reform.
Danuta Maria Hübner
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. - Mr President, I worry that rejecting the inclusion of delegated acts in financial instruments might set a dangerous precedent for other policies. It also raises interinstitutional distrust and we are all concerned by this situation.
The forthcoming proposals on the legislative package for regional policy after 2013 might require application of implementing acts, but might also require delegated acts. We cannot accept the prior exclusion of delegated acts. This should be a matter of negotiation among the colegislators on a case-by-case basis.
This position is, in my view, consistent politically and legally and I believe that the Council and the Commission will evidently share it with Parliament. Ahead of us lie a number of difficult years, without doubt. Our duty as European institutions is to make the most of our policies, and by avoiding unnecessary conflicts and procedures we can be more effective in this common task.
Paolo De Castro
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as Chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I am deeply disappointed for several reasons with the contents of Mr Szájer's report, which is being voted on tomorrow.
Firstly, none the amendments voted for by my committee unanimously - and I stress, unanimously - were taken into account, even though the common agricultural policy is one of the policies with the most acts adopted under the comitology procedure and is therefore one of the ones most affected by the adaptation of legislative acts under the Treaty of Lisbon.
Secondly, under the text of Article 10, the European Parliament will have no power to exert pressure nor a margin to negotiate with Council over the adaptation of CAP legislation to the new treaty.
We are aware, in fact, that the Council has already demonstrated its unwillingness to agree acts delegated to the European Parliament and, with the adoption of this Regulation, the Council will not have any interest in proceeding with negotiations because the automatic adaptation - which excludes delegated acts and only covers implementing acts - has no deadline because it is transitional.
For this reason, together with other fellow Members, I tabled an amendment that makes the automatic alignment genuinely temporary and I call on you all to support it in order to reinforce the role of the European Parliament. There is no reason, in fact, to come to an agreement at first reading over such a sensitive file that sets the rules for implementing the treaty for the coming years. This is the reason why, for this all-important file, we have the right - I would even go so far as to say the duty - to improve the text as much as possible and therefore proceed to a second reading without giving in to blackmail by the Council, which is threatening not to move on this file in order to force us to accept this negative agreement.
After the budget, I think this is the most important file we have to vote on, because it redraws the balance of power between the European institutions. Here in this Chamber, we must vigorously defend the prerogatives of Parliament, which has been democratically elected and represents all European citizens.
Antolín Sánchez Presedo
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Treaty of Lisbon introduces substantial changes to the process of developing and implementing EU legislation, by distinguishing between delegated acts and implementing acts. The previous primary legislation only provided for implementing measures.
This regulation is essential for an orderly transition from the old system to the new system, and for appropriate use of the implementing powers granted to the Commission by the Treaty of Lisbon. It strengthens the democratic principle because it recognises Parliament's right to control, increases transparency through the annual report and incorporates a review clause in order to perfect it based on experience. It therefore satisfies the requests that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs had made in this respect.
In the area of financial services, it will help to increase legal security and the effectiveness of legislation. It complements the objective of the Omnibus Directive of limiting the powers entrusted to the Commission in the old framework that are compatible with the current framework to a period of three years from the entry into force of the new Treaty, and establishes provisions so that the technical implementing standards, which are part of the new supervision structure and the sectoral regulations in the area of financial services, can eventually be adopted.
Therefore, as the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I view the report positively and I congratulate Mr Szájer.
I would like to thank the President for his generosity and to give you all my best wishes for this festive season and for the coming year.
Klaus-Heiner Lehne
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a series of explanations are needed, including here in plenary, with regard to misleading debates which have taken place in the groups, in the Conference of Committee Chairs and in some cases in the committees.
First of all, this regulation is not about deciding what delegated acts are under the terms of Article 290 and what implementing acts are under the terms of Article 291. This regulation will definitely not come to a decision on this. This is decided in the basic act. In other words, the law itself will decide on the authority under the terms of Article 290 or Article 291, if provision is made for this. The regulation only covers the procedure in the case of Article 291.
My second point concerns the criticism of Article 10. This article also relates only to the procedure and nothing else. In this context, the Commission has once again clarified that it does, of course, intend to review all the existing acts from the pre-Lisbon period as part of the alignment and to make new proposals to both legislative bodies: Parliament and the Council. This has been reinforced once again in comparison with the previous Interinstitutional Agreement.
The only thing which is really new is the procedure for external trade. I admit that the compromise which the Belgian Presidency has come up with is rather bureaucratic. There is no doubt about that. However, given the two blocking minorities in the Council, this was the only possible solution.
For me, this question is all about weighing up the benefits. We also need to weigh up, as the rapporteur has said, what Parliament has negotiated. We have a procedure for reviewing implementing acts which is not provided for in the treaty. That is a very significant step forward, in particular with regard to the involvement of Parliament, which goes beyond the terms of the treaty. Therefore, when the benefits are weighed up, it is clear that this deserves our support. This is why I am in favour of the report as it is, without amendments. We will not be able to achieve any more in the first reading than we could achieve in a later conciliation process after an unspecified period.
Eva Lichtenberger
Mr President, the regulation that is being discussed today has been largely disregarded by all the committees over a long period. However, some people in this House have now woken up at the end of the process when the results are on the table. Some of them have unfortunately not attended the debate, which is a pity because it would have been very interesting to hear their views.
As a former member, I have a clear memory of the spirit of the convention. It called openly for the European Parliament to be given specific rights in several areas, to ensure that it remained credible in the context of the institutions and with regard to the citizens.
Despite the convention's demands, nothing was done. The very tough negotiations which the Belgian Presidency had with the Council were what enabled important progress to be made. I remember what Mr Lehne said. It was a question of the permanent possibility of investigating whether the Commission had exceeded its powers.
Of course, some of the regulations are not exactly ideal, such as the international trade agreement, but nevertheless I agree with the outcome. I would like to thank the Belgian Presidency. It has made every effort to ensure that something was achieved. I would also like to thank the rapporteur, who negotiated sympathetically and intelligently.
Raffaele Baldassarre
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when we vote on Mr Szájer's report tomorrow, we will give the go-ahead for one of the new instruments - on implementing acts - contained in the Treaty of Lisbon.
This will simplify the old comitology system. It is a measure that will ensure greater transparency during the adoption of legislative acts, regulating methods of control by Member States over the exercise of powers conferred on the Commission. The fundamental importance of the Regulation has made the legislative procedure complicated both at inter-institutional level and within Parliament where, however, because of the involvement - albeit belated - of all committees, I hope it will be possible to adopt the proposal at first reading.
I therefore congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Szájer, for succeeding in achieving the priority objectives for the European Parliament: I refer to the guarantees to align the current comitology procedures with the new procedure, the right to scrutiny by Parliament and the Council, the creation of an appeal committee chaired by the Commission and the inclusion of a review clause that will make it possible to evaluate the efficiency of the procedure.
Allow me a final comment on what was the last obstacle to the negotiations: the inclusion of the common commercial policy within the scope of the future Regulation. Although the final agreement will allow the application of a simple majority voting system for the adoption of anti-dumping measures during a transitional period of 18 months, subsequently the measures will be adopted by qualified majority. This solution was the outcome of a difficult compromise but I am convinced that it satisfies both the needs of industry and the European Union executive, removing decisions of a technical nature from the risk of dangerous politicisation.
Gianluca Susta
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I totally disagree with the last speakers. Personally, I find that this measure is harmful to the priorities of Parliament and is against the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon.
We are about to conclude 70% of the agreements at first reading with the Council, but I fail to understand the rush to conclude such a sensitive measure as this at first reading since it concerns the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon, which has extended our powers, particularly on commercial policy. At the very opening of the anti-dumping procedures, we are changing from the objectivity of legal certainty to an intervention by Member States, which threatens to become the outcome of bargaining between the Commission and Member States.
I therefore think it is a step backwards, as is automatic alignment without any time limits from the old comitology system to the present system in the agricultural field, which strengthens the role of Parliament.
Therefore, I do not believe it is wise to rush into an agreement with the Council at first reading, because we also run the risk of disputes before the Court of Justice.
Maroš Šefčovič
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I should like to thank everyone for all the contributions, which reflect how complex an issue we are dealing with.
Allow me to react to some of the comments. Concerning the review and our commitment to it in relation to all the relevant acts, we have here an extremely ambitious plan and I have been discussing it with Mr Lehne during our framework agreement discussions: we have 299 plus 153 acts to align. I think that if we say we would like to do it within the period of this legislature, it is a very ambitious plan. If I say it is 'our' ambition, I mean that on behalf of the three institutions because this clearly requires loyal cooperation from all of us.
I would like to assure Mr Mitchell of the Commission's utmost respect for Parliament.
I would like to highlight one paragraph in the draft Commission statement which is attached to the proposal. I will just read it out: 'While this alignment exercise is under way, the Commission will keep the European Parliament regularly informed on draft implementing measures related to these instruments which should become, in the future, delegated acts.' So our commitment to transparency and clarity is absolutely clear. I would also like to confirm, here in this House, that we will offer Parliament the maximum amount of information. Parliament will receive all information at the same time as the committees, so we will do our utmost to keep Parliament informed also in this procedure.
I think I have to thank Mr Lehne for clarifying the situation in the debate. What we are discussing today are implementing acts, and this regulation does not prejudge in any way whether we should use delegated or implementing acts in the future.
Concerning the issue of alignment, I think Mr De Castro was not here when I was reading out the agreed statement of the Belgian Presidency with a full commitment to loyal cooperation to achieve this ambitious goal of full alignment in the coming years. I think there is a reassurance here that it is not only in Parliament' interests, but also in the Commission's and the Council's interests to proceed very quickly. I think this is very clear and I am sure that we will honour this agreement.
Concerning the issue of politicisation of anti-dumping and countervailing measures, I think, actually, that we will see the opposite, because you know what the system is today: that a simple majority of the Member States' representatives can block a Commission proposal. This would be much more difficult in the future because you would need a qualified majority of the Member States representatives to block it. So I think that what we are doing here will actually strengthen the Union approach and strengthen the position of the Commission in the trade talks, exactly as prescribed and projected by the Treaty of Lisbon.
If you will allow me, I will conclude by underlining the importance of legal certainty in this matter because, of course, when we are dealing with sensitive issues like trade, like anti-dumping measures, like countervailing measures, we need to have very well established procedures and we need to have a clear division of roles and responsibilities. Parliament needs the very clear scrutiny rights which have been given to it by the Treaty of Lisbon, and we need the legal certainty to operate in this very important legislative area because you know how often these measures are disputed in various international fora.
Therefore, I would plead with the honourable Members to support these proposals without amendment because I think they are really good for the position of the European Union in world affairs.
József Szájer
rapporteur. - Mr President, I should like to thank everyone for their contributions, both now and during the last nine months we have been working on this issue.
First, a procedural thing. Many colleagues have voiced their worries about the fact that we are rushing into a first-reading agreement under pressure from the Council. Both the Commission and Council and several colleagues involved in the negotiations can testify that the pressure was the opposite. It was Parliament and myself who said to the Council that if it did not reach agreement then the whole thing could fall apart.
We got a very clear commitment from both the other institutions because like Parliament, as Mr Šefčovič just mentioned, they are for the stability of the Treaty of Lisbon. The later we accept, the later we adopt this kind of regulation, the longer the old comitology procedure - which we do not like because of its many problems - will go on. From that point of view, nine months is not a short time and could encompass two readings. There has been full transparency, and several colleagues can bear witness to that.
I have been in the Conference of Committee Chairs six times during these nine months and have also met with shadows and coordinators from all the committees. It was I who decided to go for agreement because we were getting everything I wanted. Maybe the Council and the Commission do not like it, but we got everything.
What does a rapporteur do when everything I and the different committees requested is there, although perhaps not in the form we want? Mr De Castro is right. His requests are not in the form of the text of this regulation, but this is about implementing acts, and they are there in the Commission's commitment. I have done this alignment - the omnibus - before, and the same commitment was given by the Commission, which it honoured with very minor exceptions. In that sense, I thought I could trust this promise and if the Commission does not honour it, I will stand up and claim it and align, as Mr De Castro is doing.
In that sense, there is no pressure. The pressure came from me. Through good cooperation in many difficult negotiations we agreed on something which I can unreservedly offer to the House to take on board.
Thank you very much to everybody, especially to the colleagues who took part in this very difficult process. I apologise to the general public, which does not understand a word of what we are discussing, but I can definitely say that transparency and parliamentary control of European Union issues will be much better after this regulation is adopted.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Vital Moreira
This legislative initiative on the control of 'executive instruments' by the Commission has been imposed by the Treaty of Lisbon, which includes this under the legislative powers of the European Parliament. It is also undeniably a positive piece of legislation overall, taking account of the existing situation.
But several aspects fall short of full compliance with the Treaty of Lisbon. Amongst these negative aspects, two stand out. Firstly, there is no cut-off point for mandatory adaptation of the countless existing situations to the new system and to the Treaty of Lisbon. It was for this reason that I tabled an amendment introducing such a clause. Secondly, and principally, the derogations provided for in the case of trade defence instruments (specifically anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures, as well as safeguard measures), according to which Member States will have more intrusive control over the Commission, are unacceptable, as they will make it more difficult to apply these measures and will lead to their politicisation. These measures are essential for defending European companies from competition from imports that benefit from such illicit benefits.
There is no constitutional or political basis for this discriminatory treatment of commercial defence measures, which undermines the ability of the Commission (and the Union) to defend European industry against unfair competition from outside its own European internal market.


3. Humanitarian situation of Camp Ashraf residents
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions concerning the humanitarian situation of Camp Ashraf residents.
Ana Maria Gomes
author. - Mr President, some in this Chamber want to present the People's Mujahedin as heroes or a true alternative to the Iranian regime. They are neither.
In my trips to Iraq, I have heard Kurdish, Sunni, Shia, Christian, Turkman leaders and others complain about the role of the People's Mujahedin as a tool of Saddam Hussein in the 1988 Anfar campaign, which culminated in massacres such as Halabja. That is what the Iraqi delegation which was here this week also confirmed to us, while assuring us that the Iraqi constitution binds the Government of Iraq to fully respect the human rights of the residents of Camp Ashraf, who, with the help of UNHCR and ICRC, wish to leave for Iran or any other destination, or wish to stay as political refugees abiding by the laws of Iraq.
We must understand the reluctance of the Iraqi Government to let Camp Ashraf continue to be a nuisance to their good neighbourly relations with Iran. For Iraqis, Iran cannot be wished away. It is there. It is a powerful neighbour. It is true that the People's Mujahedin are no longer on the terrorist list, but they are still an opaque cult which brutalises those of its members who wish to defect. Above all, the people in Camp Ashraf are human beings whose human rights have to be respected, irrespective of the fate of the organisation itself or of its past. They are to be treated under the 1951 Refugee Convention and no one - I repeat, no one - should be forced to return to Iran.
But let us make one thing clear. This resolution is not about the Iranian regime, which has been repressing its people, mismanaging the country and destabilising the Middle East for decades. Anyone who presents a vote for the PSE and Green amendments, which aim to balance the tone of this resolution, as a vote for the Iranian regime, is either arguing in bad faith or has simply run out of arguments.
The spirit of our amendments is quite simple. We want to present the whole picture of human rights violations and threats in and around Camp Ashraf. For example, we request that all Camp Ashraf residents be allowed to be interviewed by the ICRC and UNHCR at a neutral location and without People's Mujahedin officials in attendance, in order to clarify their real wishes. Also we must call on the Mujahedin leadership to stop controlling the lives of the residents of Camp Ashraf, namely by not letting them leave the camp. Above all, we express our concern about the reported practices of mental and physical manipulation and severe human rights violations within the cult. In short, this is about the individual human rights of the people in Camp Ashraf. Let us have these people and their human rights in mind when we vote.
Alejo Vidal-Quadras
author. - Mr President, this morning we will be voting on a joint motion for a resolution co-signed by four political groups on the situation of the Ashraf refugee camp in Iraq. Three thousand five hundred Iranian men and women, members of the democratic opposition to the fundamentalist regime in Iran, live there completely defenceless. In the last few weeks they have been under pressure and harassment by the faction of the Iraqi Government under the influence of the Iranian regime, and there is a high probability that at any moment a tragedy could happen that would parallel the ones we witnessed in the Balkans not so long ago.
We all remember Srebrenica, and I have no doubt that no Member in this Chamber wants a second Srebrenica in Iraq. Our motion for a resolution is a call to alert public opinion all over the world before a disaster takes place. Unfortunately, some colleagues have tabled amendments that could increase the danger for the residents in Camp Ashraf and provide the Iranian regime and its proxies in Iraq with arguments to massacre them.
I recently visited the camp myself and I assure you that the allegations included in the amendments tabled are absolutely unfounded. People in Ashraf are there on a volunteer basis. They are free to leave whenever they want and they live in the best friendly relations with the Iraqi population of the region. The intention of our motion is to protect these people. Nobody would understand - but if these amendments are adopted the result of the motion would be exactly the opposite.
This is not a political issue, colleagues: it is purely humanitarian and it is very urgent. I beg you to vote against all amendments tabled to this joint motion supported by these four groups and support the motion as it has been agreed by these four groups that are of very different political stances. The lives of many innocent and harmless people depend on your vote. Please do not let them down.
Angelika Beer
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my group has not signed this resolution and we will only vote in favour of it if the amendments that I have tabled together with the author, Mrs Gomes, on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance are adopted.
It relates to the dispute over the Mujahedin or the MKO. This is not a democratic opposition. I would like to say a few things about it. The MKO is a degenerate organisation, which is tantamount to a religious sect and which severely oppresses its own members, including within the camp. Mental and physical pressure is used to force the members to stay in this camp. Those who refuse have their relationships destroyed, they are forced to divorce and their children are taken away - one of the most brutal means of oppression.
The MKO has totally isolated all MKO members living inside and outside the camp. All access to the international press or media is prohibited. All of the interviews conducted by the US took place in the presence of MKO cadres, which meant that the people could not talk about their real problems and concerns.
In the past, MKO members from northern Iraq were handed over to Saddam Hussein's henchmen and were shamefully tortured and killed in camp Abu Greib. These are just a few examples and explanations for the joint amendments which I urge you to support. Anyone who rejects these - and I want to say this very clearly - and anyone who adopts the present resolution text unchanged, is voting in favour of allowing the MKO to carry on its policy of oppression in a camp that it controls. You will then also be partly responsible for what the MKO is currently threatening to do, namely that if the camp is broken up under international supervision, it will call on its members there to incinerate themselves. That is clearly the opposite of what we want to do here and therefore I urge you to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by the PSE and my group.
Erik Meijer
author. - Mr President, for 30 years Iran has been ruled by a theocratic dictatorship. That dictatorship not only forces the inhabitants to live in conformity with its religious standards but also tries to kill everyone who does not conform to its system. The consequence is that many Iranians have to live in exile, not only in Europe but also in the neighbouring countries.
After the Anglo-American military invasion in Iraq, the Iranians who live there in exile got a guarantee of protection from Iran. Now the foreign troops are preparing to withdraw from Iraq. I support this withdrawal, but an unforeseen consequence could be that the theocratic regime in Iran would get an opportunity to attack the opposition outside its own borders. It strives for the deportation of those people to Iran in order to kill them. Inside Iraq there is much solidarity with the Iranians in exile. However, the power of Iran in Iraq has grown because the majority of the inhabitants in Iraq, too, is Shiite Muslim.
Through written questions to the Council I have drawn its attention to the position of the 3 400 people living in Camp Ashraf. The only answer was that the Council had not discussed this matter. Today, we are discussing a very important urgent resolution on Camp Ashraf. In two previous resolutions in 2007 and 2008, our Parliament confirmed the legal status of the Ashraf inhabitants under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Today, our Parliament is paying special attention to the current situation by adopting a resolution only on Ashraf. This text is a joint text, adopted by most political groups, and it is balanced. It wants to send a strong message to the Iraqi Government that the rights of these 3 400 people in Ashraf, including 1 000 women, cannot be violated because of the pressures of the mullahs in Iran.
So we must send a united message, without amendments that would undermine and weaken this resolution, which only covers the humanitarian issues of Ashraf residents. We have to avoid any changes to the final text of the resolution that would complicate the situation or endanger the lives of these defenceless people.
The inhabitants of Ashraf were bombed by US forces at the beginning of the invasion in 2003. Later on, they were screened by the USA. The Iraqi Government has also screened every one of the people in Ashraf - this took place during April this year. Every one of them was interviewed, outside Ashraf. They were encouraged and urged to leave the camp or go to Iran. Only six of them agreed to leave - six out of 3 400 people! So we have to respect their decision.
Mogens Camre
author. - Mr President, the situation of Camp Ashraf, home to 3 500 members of the main democratic opposition of Iran, the PMOI, has been of great concern for some time and has been the subject of several resolutions in this House in recent years. Together with a delegation of four Members of this House, I visited Camp Ashraf in October last year and met with American, Iraqi and UN officials there. They all reinforced our concern for the legal status of Ashraf's residents, because its security was transferred from American troops to Iraqi forces at the beginning of this year.
The situation has got much worse since then. The Iranian supreme leader, in an official announcement at the end of February, asked the visiting Iraqi President to implement the mutual agreement to close down Camp Ashraf and expel all its residents from Iraq.
Since then Iraqi forces have started a siege around the camp. Iraqi troops have been preventing entry of families of Ashraf residents, parliamentary delegations, human rights organisations, lawyers, journalists and even doctors to the camp, and do not allow many logistical materials to get into Ashraf.
This Parliament therefore found it absolutely necessary to address this as an urgency issue at this stage. We have now worked together with all groups and produced a common text, which is well balanced and addresses all our concerns on this matter, and calls on international bodies to find a long-term legal status for Ashraf residents.
Unfortunately there are some amendments tabled by some of the spokesmen for Tehran, those who believe the lies told by Tehran. I think we should understand clearly that these are contrary to the security of the residents of Ashraf and we should vote against them. We urge all colleagues to stick to the joint text and reject any amendments.
Marco Cappato
author. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, here we are talking about a 'camp', which is in actual fact a small town of people who have laid down their weapons on the basis of a difficult political decision; people who have entrusted their own defence, in fact, to the international community. The reason why we are debating this point today under the urgent procedure is the risk that these persons may be deported en masse and that all their rights with regard to the Iranian regime may be infringed once and for all.
Certainly, questions can be raised about the level and extent of democracy in the People's Mujahedin of Iran, their organisation, but this is not the subject of the debate that we must have, and this is not the reason why we asked for the urgent procedure to be used. The reason why we have requested the application of the urgent procedure is to prevent this small town from being attacked as a whole, for its fundamental rights to be swept away and for it to be consigned to the hands of the Iranian dictatorship.
This is why the amendments that have been tabled are liable simply to confuse the naked urgency and necessity of this message, and that is why I hope they will not be adopted.
Tunne Kelam
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, we are here today to prevent a potential, large-scale, human tragedy from taking place.
Almost 4 000 people, members of the Iranian opposition, are in imminent danger of being deported by the Iraqi authorities back to Iran, whose regime has already executed more than 22 000 of their friends. By the way, these are the people who have exposed the Tehran secret nuclear programme and are opposing the terrorism-exporting regime by peaceful means.
It is in the interests of the democratic credibility of the Iraqi Government, as well as the US Administration, which has granted their status as protected persons, to protect their lives, respect their free will and dignity and guarantee their safe future under international law. But, first of all, we call on the Iraqi Government to lift the blockade of Camp Ashraf.
Nicholson of Winterbourne
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I believe that Alejo Vidal-Quadras, a good friend of mine, and others who have spoken are profoundly mistaken and that we should support the amendments, because the Iraqi Government has announced on more than one occasion recently that it has no intention whatsoever of forcing the inhabitants of Camp Ashraf to leave for Iran or to go to any other country.
The Iraqi Government has repeatedly requested different countries, including many EU Member States, to receive them, and we have not agreed.
Of the 3 400 people living in the camp, 1 015 hold residence permits from, and enjoy resident status in, different countries, many of which are EU Member States, and we are not accepting these people. Why?
Most of the camp's inhabitants received professional military training during the previous Saddam Hussein regime and they participated with his presidential guards and with other security forces in the violent crushing of the Iraqi people's popular uprising after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991.
There is ample evidence that these people harmed the Iraqi people when the Iraqi army refused to carry out the killings that Saddam Hussein required. The families of the victims in Iraq cannot forget this fact, and the Iraqi Constitution does not permit the presence of groups such as the NKO or the PKK on Iraqi soil.
Two thousand of these people have registered themselves with the High Commissioner for Refugees, hoping to be transferred to other countries ready to accept them, and for several years now the Iraqi Government has been working closely with UNHCR asking other countries to accept them.
Dear colleagues, this is the business of Iraq. The sovereignty of Iraq is at stake, and we should place our trust in this democratically elected Government of Iraq. This is their right, their duty, and I can assure you they are fulfilling it correctly.
Charles Tannock
Mr President, I have never been a great fan of the People's Mujahedin of Iran, whose philosophical origins are Islamist-Marxist - which is a contradiction in terms - and they were of course for many years under the protection of Saddam Hussein, the butcher of Baghdad, whom they supported militarily.
Nevertheless, in recent years they have reformed, and have given valuable information to the West about human rights violations in Iran and the geographical location of Iran's secret uranium enrichment facilities. It was therefore questionable if they should have remained on the EU banned terrorist list. What is unquestionable, in my view, is that the residents of Camp Ashraf deserve legal protection in Iraq from its Government and the allied forces, and do not deserve deportation to Iran, where they face almost certain torture and possible execution.
Richard Howitt
Mr President, this debate once again demonstrates the limitations of urgencies, with huge numbers of representations because there has been insufficient time for proper negotiation and consultation.
I want to put on record that the original Socialist text clearly opposes any question of forced deportation, and calls for full compliance with the Geneva Convention and full access by international human rights organisations. To Mr Vidal-Quadras and others, having myself sought to get a compromise by getting cross-party support only for Amendments 2, 3 and 6 and then the Socialist support for the joint resolution, it is a complete distortion to say that these amendments could be used as a pretext to massacre residents. Whether people support or criticise the PMOI, in a human rights debate no one in this Chamber should disagree with amendments which seek to support human rights obligations on any or all parties anywhere in the world.
Jan Zahradil
- (CS) Mr President, 30 seconds will be enough for me. I would like to say that I am delighted the PMOI was taken off the EU's list of proscribed organisations during the Czech Presidency, and I am pleased that we are continuing to protect the Iranian opposition against the regime through today's resolution on Camp Ashraf. I would like to thank everyone participating from all political groups regardless of their colours or convictions and I hope the resolution will go through in the proposed form without the amendment proposals which would somehow deform it.
Paulo Casaca
(PT) Mr President, I too want to call for this joint motion for a resolution to be voted on as it currently stands. The amendments tabled here in this House are profoundly mistaken.
It is absolutely incorrect to say that even one refugee from Camp Ashraf or the alternative camp has been transferred to Europe or even within Iraq with the support of the High Commissioner. I challenge anyone to ask the High Commissioner if any refugees have been transferred at any time.
All this is absolutely false, and is solely intended to facilitate a massacre. That is what it is all about, nothing more, and I would ask the authors of these absolutely shameful amendments to withdraw them, as they are an insult to this Parliament.
Antonio Tajani
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, I ask to be able to speak, but to do so in conditions where this is possible. With all the MEPs walking around it is, truly, very difficult; I have a lot of respect for Parliament, but it seems to me truly impossible to be able to speak under these circumstances.
President
You are right.
Ladies and gentlemen, we will not close the debate until everyone is seated in silence.
Would those Members who are talking in the aisles please note that we are not going to close the debate until they stop talking and we can listen to the Vice-President of the Commission with proper respect.
Antonio Tajani
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, I would like to thank you, because I believe it is right to participate in debates by listening to what is said and by speaking in an appropriate manner.
(FR) I am now going to speak in French. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission regularly monitors the development of the situation in Iraq, particularly in relation to Camp Ashraf.
As we all know, in January 2009 the Iraqi Government took back control of that area. With regard to the humanitarian situation in the camp, the Commission has been informed by the International Committee of the Red Cross and other international organisations that have been monitoring the development of the situation that no significant deterioration in living conditions or any breaches of international conventions have been reported.
The Commission entirely agrees with the view that the closure of the camp should be within a legal framework, and that the lives and physical or moral well-being of its residents should not be threatened. International humanitarian standards should be applied, not least the principle of non-return.
On several occasions the Iraqi Government has said that it is prepared to treat the residents of the camp decently and that it did not have any intention of illegally deporting the members of this organisation or forcing them to leave Iraq.
With this in mind, the Commission nevertheless stresses the need, as always, to respect the rule of law, and is counting on the Iraqi Government to act accordingly.
When they met with the Commission in March 2009, the Iraqi authorities reiterated their commitment to respecting international humanitarian standards and not using force, and in particular to not conducting forced returns to Iraq.
The Iraqi Human Rights Minister is currently holding individual meetings with the residents in order to establish their rights and determine whether they wish to return to Iraq or leave for a third country.
Over recent weeks, some members have chosen to leave the camp and have been able to do so without encountering any difficulties. The Commission supports these efforts. If the residents of the camp wish to leave, the Iraqi Government must authorise them to settle in another country and facilitate the process.
The Commission, in cooperation with the representatives of the Member States on the ground, will continue to monitor the progress of the situation.
(Applause)
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place next.


2. Parliament's new role and responsibilities in implementing the Lisbon Treaty (
- Before the vote
Jo Leinen
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say just a few words in German. The fact that, to round off its work in this parliamentary term, this House has adopted five reports, all of which are connected with the Treaty of Lisbon, is an important signal for the European elections and for the time after that.
This House has always worked continuously and consistently for the Reform Treaty, even in times of difficulty and when many had doubts and even wanted to abandon the project. Yesterday, with the 'yes' in the Czech Senate, we took a huge step forward. Congratulations to the country that has the Presidency.
(Applause)
We may now be justifiably optimistic that this reform project will enter into force at the end of 2009 with a positive vote in Ireland.
The newly elected European Parliament will have many new powers and capabilities. This newly elected Chamber of Citizens in the European Union can fulfil the promise we have made to achieve a better EU with more democratic control and more transparency. I thank all my colleagues in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, especially today's rapporteurs and the overwhelming majority of Members in this House who supported all the reports and made this progress possible. Thank you very much.
(Applause)
President
Our fellow Member, Hans-Peter Martin, has asked to take the floor; it really must be for a point of order.
Hans-Peter Martin
(DE) Mr President, I have just one question. If the Irish say 'no' again, how often must they keep going to the polls? A third, fourth, fifth time? That is not democracy, it is a karaoke parliament.
President
It was not a point of order, but I had the good grace not to make a martyr of you.
Proinsias De Rossa
Mr President, I want to make a personal statement in relation to what Mr Martin just said. The Irish Parliament is not a 'karaoke parliament', and I object to it being described as such by that man.
(Applause)