Anti-dumping cases - state of play and prospects (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on anti-dumping cases - state of play and prospects by Daniel Caspary, Cristiana Muscardini, Tokia Saïfi, Georgios Papastamkos, Kader Arif, Bernd Lange, Gianluca Susta, Metin Kazak, Niccolò Rinaldi, Marielle De Sarnez, Yannick Jadot, Carl Schlyter, Helmut Scholz, Robert Sturdy, Syed Kamall, Jan Zahradil, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left and the European Conservatives and Reformists - B7-0562/2010).
Daniel Caspary
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, anti-dumping measures play an important role in the world. For us in the European Parliament, and I believe I can speak for the majority of Members here, this is not about protectionism, but about a sensible use of the anti-dumping instrument. We must be able to defend ourselves if other countries distort competition using state subsidies. We must be able to defend ourselves if companies dump products onto the market, in other words, if they sell products at less than the cost of producing them, in order to force their competitors out of the market and to gain an illegitimate advantage.
I would like to look at one point in particular. I would be interested in answers to the following questions from the Commission. Does the Commission have any experience or any feedback from the Council on the extent to which foreign governments are involved in these activities? Are there cases where governments in whose countries specific companies are based attempt to influence the decisions made in the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices? Have there been reactions or perhaps even attempts to exert influence which have led to a difference in the results of votes? I would be interested in finding out about this, because companies have come to me in the past with their concerns.
My second point is that on several occasions companies have approached me and asked me to make contact with the Commission and to prevent anti-dumping investigations from taking place in certain cases. If you impose an anti-dumping duty, this will have a negative impact on European companies doing business in other areas, such as Asia. I would be interested to know what the Commission's feeling is in this respect. What is the current state of affairs? Are there cases of this kind?
Vital Moreira
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to challenge the Commissioner to clarify as fully as possible the position of the Commission on trade defence instruments, which include anti-dumping measures. The fact is that in a recent communication the Commission said that open trade depends on fair competition between national and foreign producers, and added: 'we protect EU production from international trade distortions or disruptions, by applying trade defence instruments in compliance with [World Trade Organisation] rules'. That is all well and good. However, besides a good legal basis there also needs to be an effective and predictable decision-making mechanism so that these objectives can be achieved.
My question is as follows: could it be that the Council's recent proposal on Member States controlling the Commission's implementing acts, which include trade defence measures, correspond to this wish for a guarantee that trade defence measures are actually undertaken? I recall that this decision by the Council provides for exemptions from the general committee rules, which means that it is possible to make difficult, if not block, delay and, at the very least, politicise decision making on this matter, which is the Commission's responsibility. My second question concerns the following: in this communication the Commission also mentions that it is going to analyse the way in which to proceed with the updating and modernisation of our trade-defence instruments, along with the relevance of doing so. My concern is this: If the Commission does not fight this proposal by the Council on the procedure of deciding upon trade-defence measures, can it give us any guarantee that when it comes to the issue of reviewing them, it will resist the Member States which are interested in undermining and weakening the application of trade-defence measures?
Niccolò Rinaldi
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are only a few of us here this evening to talk about anti-dumping, which is, however, an issue we speak about a great deal in our own countries. I believe that there is no issue in international trade that business people, small and medium-sized enterprises, trade unions and consumers care more about than dumping. Dealing with dumping is basically a daily task for a large part of our productive economy.
The Commission is working hard and is certainly doing its duty when it comes to anti-dumping initiatives, but we are calling for action based on the following principles.
Firstly, transparency of action, full transparency of procedures, of the evaluation criteria adopted and their results, and then communications and a communications strategy, because the actions taken on anti-dumping by the European Commission can serve to reassure our business people and workers.
Secondly, there is space for the exercise of discretion in anti-dumping procedures. This is common sense, but sometimes I have the impression that too much discretion is exercised in the decisions that are taken.
Thirdly, following the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament must be better integrated, involved and informed. It seems to me that there the Commission is labouring somewhat to recognise Parliament's role in international trade - even though much effort has been made, for which we are grateful to the Commissioner - and Parliament certainly needs to have a stronger voice on anti-dumping as well.
Lastly, there is the question of dialogue with society. Once again, perhaps, the Commission still has much to do on this issue. Parliament cannot merely sit and listen to the players in society, including in anti-dumping matters. In this respect, the Commission should probably take note of the new requirements with respect to the exclusive powers on international trade recognised to it by the Treaty of Lisbon.
Lastly, it is clear to us that anti-dumping must be part of a coherent commercial strategy and an integrated policy based on the criteria of honesty and openness. Bearing this in mind, Europe will be able to move forward with its head held high.
Carl Schlyter
Mr President, we can now see the consequences here. It is a shame that the Commission did not take the opportunity to reform the Trade Defence Instruments in 2007 when we were talking about Global Europe, which was perhaps the original intention. When it comes to the question of the Treaty of Lisbon and which decision-making procedure we should have, perhaps none of those that exist really fit our purposes properly. However, we Greens actually have no problem with the question of implementation, provided the rules are clear, transparent and fair.
I would like to emphasise that, in this context, it is also important not only to safeguard the interests of producers, but also to include the interests of consumers and the actual purpose itself, just as Mr Caspary said, namely to put a stop to dumping below the actual costs. In this regard, however, I would like to stress that the actual costs must include environmental dumping. Obtaining an economic advantage by circumventing environmental legislation is just like obtaining another form of subsidy besides economic dumping, but in the form of the environment. It must be possible to include it when we look at the dumping issue.
We talked previously about trade policy as an instrument for achieving other goals. In this case, it may even be more effective to use anti-dumping measures to prevent carbon dioxide leakage within the Emissions Trading System, for example. In the current system there is a long list of hundreds of business sectors, covering tens of thousands of companies, with four different criteria for when they are to be granted exemption from the ETS or receive free allocation. In this case it is, of course, much easier to instigate anti-dumping proceedings when a European company is affected by unfair competition on account of a lack of environmental responsibility in other countries.
Helmut Scholz
Mr President, Mr De Gucht, ladies and gentlemen, we have already discussed in the previous debate the need to put trade policy into a broader context and to comply with, protect and implement international law. One of the legal frameworks which the European Union and its Member States form part of is the World Trade Organisation (WTO). However, my group has been critical of its shortcomings right from the beginning and particularly in this respect. The Commission is under an obligation to protect European companies and their employees from unfair competition using the anti-dumping instruments permitted by the WTO. In concrete terms, this is about selling products below cost. We are calling on you to expand the definition of production costs and to apply this definition multilaterally, because social dumping and environmental dumping, as other speakers have already emphasised, cause production costs to fall. The result is unfair competitive pressure on European companies, which may even put their survival at risk. We are threatened by a global downward spiral, which we cannot and will not accept.
Against this background, we must continue to work on defining objective criteria for the use of the instruments, because they currently have the reputation among countries both outside and inside the European Union of being arbitrary. One reason for this is the lack of a functioning appeal body. Some small and medium-sized businesses inside the EU are complaining that their interests are seen as less important than those of larger companies when the anti-dumping instruments are used. This applies particularly to the global division of labour for manufacturing firms in Europe. These companies are questioning whether the Commission still has a clear overview of the consequences of the measures it imposes. I would like the Commission to address this using the specific example of case AD549, with the keyword being the European Saint-Gobain group. The Commission's decision on this company may well help to support it, but from our perspective it also puts many jobs in small and medium-sized manufacturing companies at risk. My question to you, Mr De Gucht, is: Were adequate investigations carried out, were there appropriate opportunities to object, were these opportunities used and were the small and medium-sized companies given enough information about the procedures?
Robert Sturdy
author. - Mr President, I would say this to the Commissioner: since the start of the economic downturn, the Commission has repeatedly promised not to turn to protectionist policies but to embrace liberalisation - which you yourself have been very much in favour of - create opportunities for European businesses and make a more attractive opportunity in Europe for investment.
While I agree that anti-dumping measures must be used where they are necessary, the problem is, of course, whether you use them as a protectionist measure. The sheer number of anti-dumping investigations at the moment would suggest that they are being so used.
On this matter, Commissioner, I beg to differ with you on a particular problem in Belgium with an electronic company about which I spoke to you only about three or four weeks ago. In actual fact they have come to an agreement and they have sorted it out themselves, yet you have not dropped the anti-dumping legislation against that particular company. It was a Chinese company and a Belgian electronic company. They have sorted it out and are actually working together specifically to provide job opportunities in the European Union.
I will give you another example. We have a situation within the United Kingdom - and, for that matter, Europe - over fibreglass, which has an import duty at the moment of (and I stand to be corrected on this) 43.6%. This is a useful product used right across the United Kingdom and Europe for the manufacture of a number of products.
Finally, Commissioner, let me remind you that it was not you, not your predecessor but the predecessor of your predecessor who put in place anti-dumping legislation on fertiliser. Regarding agricultural products, at the moment we are deeply worried about the cost of production, supply and security of food. Yet the actual costs of fertiliser - because you have put in place anti-dumping legislation - have risen by 173%. Why is this happening? We must open up our markets. I trust you, of all people, implicitly to actually get rid of this protectionism across Europe. I look forward to hearing your answers.
Karel De Gucht
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I am happy that the European Parliament shares our view that the defence of EU production against international trade distortions should be considered as a necessary component of an open and fair trade strategy.
I share your view that trade defence instrument (TDI) decisions must continue to be founded on technical and factual elements, and I am confident we have one of the most effective and fairest trade defence systems in the world. I am aware that, in anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations, there are many interests at stake and that some stakeholders attempt to influence the decision. Nevertheless, I can confirm that the decision-making process is effective, transparent and based on factual evidence and thorough analysis.
I acknowledge that third parties have recently tried to influence our decision making by pressuring industries or, indeed, Member States and companies operating in these third countries. I strongly condemn such actions. In this context, the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon provides an opportunity to address this problem.
I would like to assure you that the number of TDI cases remains stable over the medium and long term: so, in response to Mr Sturdy, no, it is not going up. We have managed to avoid any significant increase which could have happened as a result of the world recession, and have ensured that the anti-dumping instrument would not be used for protectionist purposes.
Most statistics show that the number of cases in the EU remains lower than in our main trading partners. China remains, by and large, the main source of unfair trade (around 35% of cases launched by the EU are against China). I am determined to take action where necessary, and this includes anti-subsidy action.
Mr Sturdy also put a question with respect to a recent case, the so-called 'modem case', where the Commission had, in fact, looked at three aspects: the dumping, the subsidisation and also the safeguards. The dumping and the subsidisation were investigated on the basis of complaints by the company concerned and, according to the basic regulations, complainants can withdraw their complaints. EU law stipulates that, where a case is withdrawn, the proceedings can be terminated unless such termination would not be in the Community interests. We are currently examining the implications of the withdrawals. It should be pointed out that the Commission has accepted such withdrawals in the past and has consequently terminated investigations without taking measures.
On the third case, concerning the safeguards, this is, in fact, a complaint initiated by the government concerned in the case - the Belgian Government - so that is a somewhat different procedure. The company concerned (Option NV) has now informed the Commission that it has asked the Belgian Government to withdraw the request for the imposition of safeguard measures, but the Belgian Government has not yet informed the Commission whether it will comply with Option's request, so we are waiting for the Belgian Government to take a decision on its position. That is precisely what has happened in this case.
Now, continuing on the broader issues, trade defence instruments are there for good reasons. In the absence of international competition rules and other rules associated with properly functioning markets, trade defence instruments are the only possible means of protecting our industry against unfairly traded goods. We seek to use these rules in the most efficient way for our industries. The existence of time limits ensures quick action for the industry and predictability for exporters. I intend to keep our instruments effective and fair, for the benefit of all the economic operators concerned.
The international rules on trade defence are being renegotiated in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The EU position there is clear: we want to maintain the effectiveness of our instruments while protecting our business against protectionist actions by others. These WTO negotiations, as well as changes brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon, are important in relation to any review of our rules that we would wish to undertake.
As regards SMEs, trade defence instruments indeed represent a challenge for SMEs, in terms of both costs and complexity. There is a need to reduce the administrative burden for SMEs in trade defence investigations. This is why I have commissioned a study to look at the specific difficulties that SMEs face when dealing with TDIs, and at possible solutions to alleviate these difficulties.
Regarding the institutional aspects, you will have noted that the comitology proposal submitted by the Commission in March provides for Parliament to be fully informed as to the committee proceedings. The Commission will also provide information on the proposed measures on which the committees are asked to deliver an opinion, the final measures and the final adoption by the Commission. At any time, Parliament can obtain further information on request.
In this context, let me confirm that the Commission is effectively ready to make a proposal on the alignment of the trade defence instruments with the new system of control of delegated and implementing acts (this is the so-called 'trade omnibus'). However, as you are aware, there is significant discussion between the institutions on the overall issue of implementing acts. The Commission is carefully following the discussion and gauging, on the basis of contacts with the other institutions, when such a proposal should be adopted by the Commission. However, let me be clear that the only issue is that of when the proposal will be made, not whether it will be made.
There was also the specific question by Mr Moreira on the comitology. There, I would like to be very clear. I see no argument whatsoever in the Treaty of Lisbon for having special treatment for comitology when it concerns trade, and we will not agree to that. Of course, the decision is in the hands of Parliament and the Council, although the Commission could also have a role to play, as, ultimately, could the European Court of Justice. Introducing a different majority - because that is what it really comes down to - for overruling the Commission on questions of trade is not acceptable to us, and it is certainly not acceptable to me.
Finally, regarding the use of trade defence instruments by third countries, we have indeed observed an increase since the beginning of the economic crisis.
I would like to assure you that we follow trade defence actions by third countries closely, and we take action when necessary - including intense monitoring, effective support for EU exporters affected and, indeed, the initiation of dispute-settlement procedures at the WTO.
In many cases the Commission's actions lead to the termination of the investigation without the imposition of measures. In other cases, these interventions often result in lesser measures being imposed on the EU exporters concerned.
There was also a question about possible forms of retaliation towards third countries in respect of pressures exerted on European companies. We have received petitions on this matter from European companies but we do not disclose their names, in order to protect them. For example, in a recent case involving China, China attacked the dispute settlement in the WTO and the panel supported us, but we have not made public the names of the companies concerned, and I think this was also to protect the companies.
Two final questions were on whether we are going to review the trade defence instruments. We are not, because I truly believe it is not necessary. There is an enormous amount of work to be done on trade in the coming years, and I must say that I do not want to reopen certain discussions through such a review process. I would consider doing so only once the Doha Round is over.
There was also a specific question by the Green member. Mr Schlyter, your question is an interesting one, I must say, because, as you most probably know, these anti-dumping cases are introduced by companies. They are taken on the basis of a complaint by a company. So if a company were to raise the issue that you put forward concerning carbon leakage, then the Commission would, of course, investigate and see whether the case ought to result in measures being imposed. But the issue is certainly not beyond the scope of the arguments that we consider. We consider the arguments that are put forward by the companies concerned, so if a company were to put this before us then we would certainly look into the matter.
Cristiana Muscardini
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anti-dumping represents one of the most incisive instruments for defending commercial decency in the European Union in order to compete fairly on the market. It needs clear and enforceable rules within the new comitology.
The Treaty of Lisbon clearly states that the Commission is responsible for executive acts. The Council and Parliament have the power to monitor the work of the Commission. The compromise under examination today removes the role assigned to Parliament by the Treaty of Lisbon and could therefore create a new democratic deficit within the institutions.
In detail, we do not understand and we reject the proposal to apply differential treatment to anti-dumping measures, which introduces elements of discretional decision making, politicisation and legal uncertainty to proceedings, which should instead aim to protect the legitimate interests of businesses damaged by practices of unfair competition.
At a time of serious economic crisis like the present, it seems unreasonable and masochistic to make the conclusion of anti-dumping procedures complicated and perhaps impractical. Indeed, that would be the result of the current proposal if it were not amended.
We appeal to the Member States' sense of responsibility, as well as to that of the Commission, since their common interest must be to guarantee greater development. Development is only possible in the presence of rules that prevent market distortion, respect institutional roles and make procedures swift.
Mario Pirillo
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over recent years the number of anti-dumping procedures applied by the European Commission has increased. This is a sign of the increase in unfair practices operated by other countries against European businesses. Despite the economic and financial crisis, some 332 protectionist measures have been adopted by our international partners over the last two years.
We believe in free but fair international trade which is based on sharing rules which are the same for everyone. It is important to safeguard the effectiveness of Europe's instruments of commercial protection, which are used to correct illegal situations.
I am profoundly concerned about the effects that the current attempts to reform comitology may have on the effectiveness of these instruments. Leaving space for political and diplomatic negotiations to decide on the application of anti-dumping measures risks perverting a process that should instead remain based on concrete, objective information.
Jan Zahradil
Mr President, I would like to return to what my colleague, Mr Sturdy, was talking about here. Anti-dumping is a good servant but a bad master. Just as it serves to protect European companies and the European economy from unfair competition and unfair commercial practices, so can it be abused in the interests of protectionism, unfortunately, to close European markets to imports from third countries. I therefore call on the Commission, and I call on you, Commissioner, not to allow such a development, and for us to warn against anti-dumping measures being abused in the interests of protectionism and in the interests of closing the European market and European economy to the rest of the world. In my opinion, this would not benefit us, and, in my opinion, a closed fortress Europe would benefit no one and, in my opinion, history always shows that if Europe is open and cooperates with the rest of the world, then it only benefits from this. Please bear this in mind.
Elisabeth Köstinger
(DE) Mr President, cheap labour and social dumping are methods which are used very frequently in developing and emerging countries. The problem of anti-dumping shows how important it is to call for environmental and social standards, in particular, and also trade protection measures during negotiations on free trade agreements with third countries. European companies in all areas of manufacturing must not be put at a disadvantage because of their high quality standards, which, of course, are reflected in their prices. The developments during the current Mercosur negotiations are causing me great concern in this respect.
We must not open the door to social dumping, but instead we must incorporate a sustainable approach into trade agreements. Dumping is a major problem in the agricultural industry, in particular when it results in the disappearance of small, independent farms which are replaced by agricultural contractors.
In this context, I would like to highlight the own-initiative report on trade relations between the EU and Latin America. This report clearly explains the concerns of the European Union on social, environmental and production standards. I would like to thank the Members who raised this important question with the Commission.
Karel De Gucht
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, this will be a very short reply. I still have to answer the question put by Mr Scholz on the Saint-Gobain glass fibre case.
Anti-dumping duties can make supplies more expensive - including for SMEs. The Commission is calculating this potential impact under the public interest test. SMEs can participate in the proceedings. We have an SME helpline to make cooperation easier. However, in this case, the impact is small because China has only 14% of the EU market.
Regarding the question put by Mr Zahradil on the use of the trade defence instrument as a protectionist tool and the risk of this happening, the only factor that influences the number of cases is the number of complaints received by the Commission and the quality of the evidence provided. The Commission's trade defence policy is a rules-based system in line with WTO rules. If a complaint is filed and there is sufficient substantiating evidence that dumping is taking place, then the Commission has no other choice than to open an investigation.
President
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Jarosław Kalinowski
In order to protect the European economy, it is necessary to introduce effective restrictions on the process used to lobby on behalf of products which originate in third countries. These products are very often made using materials which contain substances which are harmful both to the environment and to consumers. A conspicuous example are children's toys - dangerous ingredients contained in the paints or plastic parts can cause health problems, and poor workmanship can cause an accident which ends up with a visit to hospital. It is in precisely this way, of course - by using cheap materials and not paying attention to workmanship - that it is possible to achieve low retail prices and to flood markets. We must rigorously increase control over production of imported articles and ensure effective enforcement of the legislation which governs the introduction of cheap products from third countries to the European market. Trade protection instruments must be effective and must guarantee that all our businesses have fair conditions of competition.


Situation in Côte d'Ivoire
President
The next item is the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the situation in Côte d'Ivoire.
Zsolt Németh
on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Mr President, last Monday, the United Nations operations in Côte d'Ivoire and French Licorne troops proceeded to neutralise the heavy weaponry that was concentrated in the hands of former President Laurent Gbagbo. These weapons had, during the last weeks, frequently been used to terrorise the civilian population in Abidjan, resulting in numerous dead and wounded. The neutralisation of these weapons was thus necessary to protect civilians, and was carried out in accordance with the mandate given by the UN Security Council in its Resolution 1975.
Shortly afterwards, the Republican forces loyal to the democratically elected President Alassane Ouattara launched a ground offensive on Laurent Gbagbo's last stronghold in Abidjan in order to force him to hand over power. Due to these ongoing operations, it is our hope that the whole of Côte d'Ivoire has now been brought under the control of its legal government. I can only regret that this transfer of power could only be achieved at the price of human life and suffering, and that the verdict of the ballot boxes alone was not enough. This, however, is a victory for democracy in Africa and sends an important message to many countries undergoing political elections in this continent.
Since his defeat in the presidential elections on 28 November 2010, Mr Gbagbo has refused to hand over power despite the fact that international observers described the elections as free and fair and the entire international community, through the UN certification, recognised his opponent, Alassane Ouattara, as legally-elected President.
During the four months that have passed since, several initiatives have been made by ECOWAS, the African Union and the UN to negotiate a peaceful handover of power. I would like to commend these organisations for their efforts made in the name of peace and democracy. Unfortunately, all proposals for a peaceful handover of power were rejected by Mr Gbagbo, who insisted on clinging onto power illegally. The EU therefore holds him personally responsible for the sufferings and bloodshed that the Ivorians have endured during these last four months of post-electoral crisis. Mr Gbagbo should therefore be brought to justice to answer for his acts.
The EU, through the High Representative, Baroness Ashton, has congratulated President Ouattara on his victory, but we are aware of the numerous challenges ahead of him. He has won the war but must now win the peace. Law and order must be restored so that those hundreds of thousands of people who have fled their homes and even left the country can now feel safe to go home again. The economy must be relaunched to end the last ten years of recession and provide for growth and jobs. The administration must start functioning again so that public services can be provided.
The EU has stood by Côte d'Ivoire throughout the long years of crisis. EU cooperation has provided for humanitarian assistance but also for post-conflict aid for reconstruction and reconciliation. Some EUR 500 million has been disbursed since 2003. During the last dramatic months, the EU has taken a number of restrictive measures against individuals and entities supporting Mr Gbagbo, and this is recognised by our African partners as having substantially helped throughout the crisis. The EU should continue to accompany Côte d'Ivoire at this crucial moment. An aid package is being prepared, to be launched at the earliest possible opportunity. It is now time to start working to implement peace in Côte d'Ivoire.
Cristian Dan Preda
Mr President, the events of the past 24 hours in Côte d'Ivoire have been bewildering. We heard that Mr Gbagbo was set to surrender, a claim that was later denied. Now, tired of waiting for the outcome of the interminable wrangling, President Ouattara's Republican forces have launched an offensive on Abidjan.
Amid all this confusion, let us not forget what brought us to the current situation. Let me remind you that over the last four months, there have been several hundred deaths and one million displaced refugees. We must not lose sight of the bigger picture. The reason that we are in this situation is that Mr Gbagbo has stubbornly refused to listen to the verdict of the ballot boxes and to accept defeat. I think that the time has finally come, as his regime is collapsing in the wake of defections by his supporters, for Mr Gbagbo to cede power to the rightful President, Alassane Ouattara.
What is more, we must not forget the human rights violations and infringements of humanitarian law that have been committed in the country, which may constitute crimes against humanity. No effort should be spared in bringing the authors of these violations to justice - and that includes international justice.
Lastly, I would like to praise the action taken by the United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI), with the support of French forces, to enforce the United Nations Security Council mandate aimed at putting an end to the use of heavy weaponry and at protecting civilians.
Thijs Berman
Mr President, the end of the struggle for power in Côte d'Ivoire is in sight, after more than 1 500 people have died, nearly one million people in the region have been made refugees, entire streets of houses have been looted and the economy has ground to a halt. The country is experiencing a catastrophe and that is the price which Laurent Gbagbo has had to pay for refusing to admit defeat. His relentless refusal to respect the voters' wishes merits strong condemnation.
Many other things also merit condemnation: all the violence of the last few months, the many human rights violations, the threats, the violence against United Nations personnel, the speeches stirring up hatred and the kidnappings. There are still some firefights going on, but Gbagbo's departure is being negotiated, and that is good news. However, there is an emergency situation in Côte d'Ivoire. Many Ivorians are now running out of food and water, because they have not dared leave their homes.
It is essential that President Alassane Ouattara receives every support during the process of return to the rule of law, under which people will be able to live in peace and without fear, and under which the freedom of the press will be restored. A return to the rule of law is now the first thing that needs to happen. In that regard, the President has a duty to prevent his troops using force against the population and it is good that Ouattara has ordered an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the shocking massacre in Duékoué. Whatever means the Ivorians choose to restore the rule of law, through the courts or through a truth and reconciliation commission, one thing is clear: there is no statute of limitation on war crimes. The International Criminal Court must be allowed to do its work.
The sanctions have had an impact: Gbagbo has been financially drained. However, we must now ensure that we rapidly begin to dismantle the sanctions as soon as Ouattara takes up his rightful office because everything has ground to a halt. Even programmes for the provision of medicines to people in Côte d'Ivoire with HIV-AIDS are now at risk. Mr President, those donating aid to Côte d'Ivoire should not leave the country in the lurch now.
Marielle De Sarnez
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FR) Mr President, as we speak, hopefully the end of the Côte d'Ivoire crisis is imminent. We would all like to hear that Mr Gbagbo has surrendered in the next few hours.
The international community has been very patient, the African Union has undertaken several rounds of mediation, and the United Nations chose not to intervene between the two sides for several months. The United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI) has now taken action, with support from the French Licorne troops and in accordance with the Security Council resolution, but it has done so in order to protect civilians from the heavy weaponry used by the incumbent regime.
The crisis in Côte d'Ivoire should now serve as an example to all those who refuse to give up power despite electoral defeat. These individuals need to understand that, from now on, the international community is determined to enforce the law. Yet in strife-torn countries, where the concept of nationhood is still evolving, we cannot be satisfied with declaring a victor. We must strive for national reconciliation. This is the message that we now need to send to Mr Ouattara, who will be responsible for establishing a national unity government.
As each camp has accused the other of massacres and crimes against humanity, investigations need to be initiated with a view to apportioning blame and dispensing justice. Justice can involve vengeance, but it can also bring peace. I would like to plead in favour of the latter option, if that will allow Côte d'Ivoire to rediscover peace and stability and to see growth and development resume.
Judith Sargentini
Mr President, I am confused now. I heard the Hungarian Presidency say: Mr Ouattara has won the war; now he must win the peace. However, I have been watching television all day, keeping up with all the news, and it seems to me that Ouattara is still in the process of winning the war. It looks like it is going to happen, but it is still some way off.
When he finally manages to take up his post as President of the country, he will leave behind him four months of misery, which have left the country in a state of collapse, the economy in smithereens, people dead and population groups played off against one other. What a start to a new period of governance! If we are using expressions such as 'a victory for democracy in Africa' to describe elections which have resulted in wars, then it seems to me that we must be getting our words confused. However, what is far more serious is the fact that the country has responded to the elections in such a way.
What should we, in Europe, do now, if Mr Ouattara gets the chance to take up his position? I think that, with the cocoa boycott, we have demonstrated that we are capable of taking rapid action and that we are able to use trade to promote democracy. Côte d'Ivoire is one of the ACP countries: as such, it receives development aid from us and, thus, a political dialogue needs to be part of the picture. We have to enter into that political dialogue with a man who is able to show that he can bring all parts of the country back together. He has to show us and the rest of the world, but, above all, his own people, that he is able to move beyond this violence and that he is willing to make amends.
Marie-Christine Vergiat
Mr President, it is difficult to comment on the situation in Côte d'Ivoire when it is constantly changing and incredibly uncertain.
Let me start by thanking the shadow rapporteurs, who spent this morning working on the motion for a resolution that will be presented tomorrow. We have all worked together to ensure that the motion is balanced and forward-looking. We know today that atrocities have probably been committed by both camps and that the culprits will need to be brought to justice, no matter who they are.
The Ivorian population has been the main victim of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire. The United Nations presence on the ground, in the form of the United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI), has been unable to protect civilians. What is worse, it has taken action, with support from French military forces, against one side, admittedly under the auspices of a UN resolution, but one that dates back to 1975, making it 36 years old. The Chair of the African Union, Mr Obiang Nguema, denounced it in no uncertain terms yesterday. Fortunately, the UNOCI does not seem to be involved in the final attack that is apparently now being launched by Mr Ouattara's troops.
In view of all this, we did not want to be associated with the resolution and will not be voting in favour of it. We are all aware of France's role in Africa. Françafrique has caused a lot of harm and continues to do so. What is more, the French authorities make no secret of the policy, claiming that they want to protect and maintain France's interests.
Bruno Gollnisch
(FR) Mr President, the terrible thing about our modern societies and, in particular, European society, and, even more specifically, our Parliament, is the generalised flock mentality: our tendency to behave like sheep.
Apart from the last two speakers, everyone has simply parroted what they have read in the paper, heard on the radio or seen on the television. Everyone tells us that Mr Ouattara won the elections, which is quite possible, but it certainly was not clear-cut.
Everyone tells us that the brutal military intervention yesterday was a means of neutralising heavy arms. These things are presented in the rosiest terms. Neutralising heavy weaponry is another name for a bombardment. I myself have seen the effects of bombardments: I am a reserve officer and I can tell you that a bombardment involves killing people, burning people, blowing people up. In other words, it is military action conducted in favour of one side and against another. It may be justifiable, but here, among parliamentarians, among political representatives, we should be brave enough to tell the truth.
We are also told that these arms were to be used to terrorise the civilian population. Yet at the end of the day, in a civil war, some civilians are armed, particularly when one camp has Kalashnikovs and the backing of half of the nation's army. So I think we need to put an end to this hypocrisy. We took brutal action in favour of one camp and against another. Was that action justified? Perhaps.
Let me conclude by saying that I do not see how Mr Ouattara can be innocent of the atrocities committed by his troops while Mr Gbagbo is always blamed for the atrocities committed by his troops.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))
Cristian Dan Preda
(FR) Mr President, I would simply like to ask Mr Gollnisch what he believes the outcome of the election signifies and whether it means that Mr Ouattara's victory must ultimately result in him taking power. This is purely a question of democratic legitimacy.
I went to Côte d'Ivoire as head of the election observation mission and I can assure you that the elections were valid and that there was a clear and unequivocal winner.
Bruno Gollnisch
(FR) Mr President, Mr Preda, I said that Mr Ouattara might well have won the elections, but I do not think it was as clear-cut as you suggest. In any case, the Côte d'Ivoire Constitutional Court did not take that view, although the court is drawn up along political lines, just like the French Constitutional Court. For my part, I would be delighted if we were to focus on the French elections. I represent a group that has millions of voters, with a leader who reached the last round of the presidential elections, but which does not have a single member of parliament, nor yet a single senator in our national parliament. Yet you are completely impervious to this particular scandal.
(Calls of 'off the subject' from the Chamber)
Filip Kaczmarek
(PL) Mr President, the former President of Côte d'Ivoire, Laurent Gbagbo, is said to have indicated yesterday he is ready to surrender and to have asked the United Nations for protection. Negotiations over Gbagbo's surrender are in progress. They are being conducted after forces loyal to the democratically elected President Ouattara took over the presidential residence in Abidjan. In the opinion of Prime Minister Soro, the end of Gbagbo's rule is a matter of hours away. I am not certain of this, but I hope this is how it will be. However, we do know for certain that civilians, including women and children, are also being killed in the armed conflict. In the clashes between the supporters of the two politicians, around 1 500 people have been killed, and a million have had to leave their homes. A few days ago, one of Gbagbo's advisers said that even a possible massacre in Abidjan will not convince the former President to admit defeat in the presidential election and hand over power. It is easy to foresee, therefore, what should happen in Côte d'Ivoire: a quick end to the fighting, the departure of the former President from the country, which will stabilise the situation significantly, the administration of justice to all those who have committed war crimes or murders, and stabilisation of the country. The European Union should support all these measures.
Mitro Repo
(FI) Mr President, we certainly hurried to help Libya, but with Côte d'Ivoire, we have remained inactive since November. The sanctions imposed by the Council are a step in the right direction, but when will they be lifted? Why have they been used to block the Abidjan Port Authority's export of cocoa beans and to shut down the oil refinery? If we are not helping, at least we should not cause more trouble. The innocent victims will be the Ivorian economy and, in the long term, European consumers too.
Laurent Gbagbo must give way and there should be support for the speedy return of refugees to their homes. The surrounding countries cannot cope with the current volumes of refugees. The EU must help organise elections and the construction of democratic institutions. Normal business should not, however, be prevented. Côte d'Ivoire is the most prosperous economy in West Africa. Economic recovery and access to EU markets for exported products are the real key to restabilising the country. I shall expect a response from the Commission.
Charles Goerens
(FR) Mr President, unlike Mr Gollnisch, I am of the opinion that we cannot allow civilians to die amid general indifference as they are exposed to force and violence employed by an illegitimate Head of State.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1975 authorises the international community to obstruct a regime which uses weapons against its own people. In the current case, this constitutes progress, in that we are no longer compelled to look on helplessly as civilian populations are subjected to atrocities committed by their leaders.
However, although we should welcome the fact that we can now break through the wall of indifference under international law, we must also ensure that all due precautions are taken to guarantee that military force remains a last resort. Unfortunately, in Côte d'Ivoire, President Gbagbo has not taken any action to avoid this terminal outcome.
When all is said and done, I dare to hope that Resolution 1975 on Côte d'Ivoire, together with Resolution 1973 on Libya, will serve to dissuade others from citing State sovereignty as an excuse for killing their own citizens. The combination of the International Criminal Court and the recent stance taken by the United Nations Security Council means that barbarous acts committed with impunity will soon no longer be the rule, but should hopefully become the exception.
Sabine Lösing
(DE) Mr President, in a deeply divided country like Côte d'Ivoire, can a lasting peace be brought about by violent means and can the winner of the presidential election be legitimised? This seems extremely doubtful, especially as the real causes of the conflict have not been resolved. The country was destabilised as a result of economic problems brought about largely by the structural adjustment programmes of the World Bank. The sanctions which were rapidly imposed with the aim of weakening the Gbagbo government have exacerbated the situation and given rise to a humanitarian crisis in Côte d'Ivoire. The legitimacy of both claimants to the presidency is in dispute. The armies of both sides are responsible for massacring the civilian population.
Once again, the West has taken sides and now the United Nations (UN) is waging war alongside French troops to try to ensure the victory of one side in the conflict. Will European powers once again be deciding the fate of African people as they did in colonial times, but this time with the support of the UN? What has happened to the principles of international law? Is this the concept on which the UN was founded? Instead of aiming for peaceful solutions to conflicts, the UN seems to be supporting civil wars or taking sides in them. Whose interest is this in?
Michèle Striffler
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to emphasise that, setting aside the political crisis in Côte d'Ivoire, we are facing a genuine humanitarian crisis that may well linger on.
The post-electoral violence has resulted in over one million internally displaced persons and refugees. What is more, the flood of refugees may reignite simmering tensions in the region. The humanitarian crisis, ladies and gentlemen, will not be resolved by the political agreement that is currently being hammered out. We must be able to respond rapidly if we are to avoid a worst-case scenario. Whatever happens, the chaos in Abidjan will last for several months.
I would like to congratulate the Commission for deciding to increase its humanitarian aid budget to five times the original amount, bringing European support to over EUR 30 million. The European Union must mobilise all the necessary resources in order to help the most vulnerable population groups and monitor how their requirements evolve.
We must also ensure that the greater media coverage devoted to the situation in Libya does not eclipse the gravity of the humanitarian crisis in Côte d'Ivoire. Furthermore, the current security situation is preventing humanitarian workers from operating and reaching the people, which is terrible.
I would like to close by saying that there must be no impunity: we must do our utmost to ensure that justice is done.
Bernd Posselt
(DE) Mr President, firstly, I would like to express my surprise that Baroness Ashton is once again not here. However, I am pleased that she is being represented by my friend, Mr Németh. I would like to see him, Mr Füle or another person permanently coordinating the foreign policy of the European Union and not someone who is hardly ever here in the European Parliament.
On the matter itself, I would like to make it quite clear that Côte d'Ivoire, of course, has many problems which need to be resolved. However, President Ouattara was clearly the winner of the election and he is the person who has democratic legitimacy. This is the view of the African Union and of many other bodies. Therefore, we should be grateful that the United Nations (UN) and, above all, the UN Secretary-General and President Sarkozy, have prevented a massacre from occurring like those in other African states, such as in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. For this reason, we should not quibble over this.
Of course, this does not resolve the problems. However, when Mr Putin starts to criticise the UN and to say that the UN Secretary-General has gone beyond his mandate, this destabilises the UN at a time when it is urgently needed. The African Union should also not express its opinions so loudly, because it has completely failed to help in this crisis. The African Union should have helped to bring about democracy in Côte d'Ivoire. We Europeans have made many mistakes in the past and we are continuing to do so. However, in this case, the mistakes are someone else's responsibility.
President
Our services have informed me, and I think it is important to know this, that at the beginning of the year, the Vice-President/High Representative's office sent a list of the plenaries in which she would be able to attend. It was known from then that she could not be here this time, so obviously if we have a debate that involves issues like that, someone else has to represent her, and that should be clear.
We now move on to the catch-the-eye procedure. There are three speakers.
Mariya Nedelcheva
(FR) Mr President, the violence is truly escalating in Côte d'Ivoire. Political conflict between two individuals has, unfortunately, resulted in a humanitarian crisis.
Clearly, the basic democratic principle of respecting election results must be upheld. Mr Gbagbo's departure is therefore inevitable. The question is: what comes next? There is a danger that tensions between the two camps will intensify. What do we plan to do if civil war breaks out? We should work towards achieving three things.
Our first priority has to be maintaining peace and stability, which is needed so that the people of Côte d'Ivoire can resume their daily lives: eating, providing care, working and going to school. An independent commission must be established to investigate the violence perpetrated since the conflict began.
Secondly, the United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire and the African Union must continue their activities. However, we should also consider setting up a dialogue mechanism that will include all parties, both within the country and from the wider international community.
Lastly, let me remind you that the European Union sent an election observation mission. The Union must now press for the recommendations it made to be taken into account and integrated in the post-crisis process.
Catherine Bearder
Mr President, with the aid of modern technology, I am watching the situation in Côte d'Ivoire unfolding as I sit here. These pieces of equipment are playing their role in Côte d'Ivoire, just as they have done in North Africa, with people texting for assistance and medical help.
Over the past six months, the patience of the friends of Côte d'Ivoire has been sorely tried: it has been like a car crash in slow motion as we have watched the country slide into the situation in which it now finds itself - and it is always the most vulnerable who suffer. We have been talking here this week about refugees coming from North Africa to Europe, but we have also heard reports of nearly a million fleeing to neighbouring countries which are almost as poor, or even poorer, than Côte d'Ivoire. Friends of that country must be on stand-by to help, as soon as we can, to restore it to normality and health and give the people there the prospect of good fortune in the future.
Ilda Figueiredo
(PT) Mr President, the civil war situation in Côte d'Ivoire remains worrying, with the country paralysed economically, and with high levels of violence that have affected its people and turned it into a humanitarian crisis. It is time to put a stop to this. We know that there are longstanding reasons for the grave situation being experienced there, particularly the poverty and social inequality left there by former colonialism or by the structural adjustment plans imposed for years by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). However, these last four months of misery following the elections have shown how regrettable it is that the international community, including the European Union, has not made sufficient use of diplomatic channels for a peaceful and political solution to the crisis.
The role of France in this matter is also regrettable, as it preferred military intervention to persisting with diplomatic channels. We therefore call for an end to the war and to violence by all parties, and we urge the EU to act accordingly.
Zsolt Németh
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, to quote the words of a famous Hungarian poet: 'Among murderers, he who remains silent is an accomplice'. When we are seeing that thousands are dying and people are fleeing in their millions, we must not comfort ourselves with phrases recalling the dove of peace, but must take action. And before anyone draws parallels between the action in Libya and Côte d'Ivoire and that in Iraq, I would like to remind everyone that the current action is not reminiscent of Iraq or even Afghanistan, but of Rwanda, and of Kosovo, and it is no coincidence that we have been talking so much over the past few weeks about having, as we formulated it, a 'right and responsibility to protect' civilians, citizens.
Accordingly, I would like to repeat that yes, Mr Gbagbo has lost this fight, is alone in his bunker, and is awaiting his fate. I would also like to stress that the legal grounds for this action is indisputable in the present situation. The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1975, and this resolution provides a perfectly clear mandate for the action. Thirdly, I would also like to emphasise that the crimes committed must no longer remain shrouded in obscurity and without investigation. It is to my great satisfaction that legally elected President Ouattara, as well as the Prime Minister, have consented to and clearly support the UN conducting an international investigation of the massacres committed. The investigation of these massacres is therefore already a part, and a very clear pre-requisite, of any settlement.
As far as the European Union's contribution is concerned, ECHO has already at this point envisaged EUR 30 million in humanitarian aid and, as I have also indicated in my introductory speech, a package will be prepared by the European Union in the near future which will provide the European Union's support to the economic and institution-building goals of the legitimately elected President and government.
President
I have received seven motions for resolutiontabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at noon.
(The sitting was suspended at 20:35 and resumed at 21:00)


3. Situation and cultural heritage in Kashgar (Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, China)
President
The item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on the situation and cultural heritage in Kashgar (Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, China).
Tunne Kelam
author. - Mr President, Uyghurs have practically become a minority in their historic homeland. They need international support to preserve their culture and identity. In fact, the fate of the ancient city of Kashgar is in the balance. A modernisation programme has slated up to 85% of the traditional old city of Kashgar for demolition. It is important to prevent the historic fortress being replaced by modern apartment blocks. If the Chinese authorities are serious about convincing us that all will be well, they have to first of all convince the native population of East Turkestan that their cultural heritage really will be respected and that the Uyghur language will be taught in schools on an equal level with the Chinese language.
I call on the Chinese authorities to accept possible contributions by ICOMOS, which has impressive experience in the management of urban historic landscapes, and I ask the Chinese Government to agree to lift Kashgar to UNESCO world heritage status that will include several cultural sites along the ancient Silk Road.
Marietje Schaake
author. - Mr President, under the banner of reform and development, the ancient Silk Road city of Kashgar is being demolished. It is not only a blow to global cultural heritage, but most of all, the city is very important for the Uyghur and the Hui populations, and for China's cultural diversity as a whole, which is now being destroyed.
China has stepped up efforts to boost relations through cultural diplomacy throughout the world, but no one will be interested in a marketed, homogenised culture of a country which has such cultural diversity.
In the interests of economic opportunity and sustainable relations with the rest of the world, respect for human rights and minorities in the broadest sense is essential. We urge the Chinese Government to assess the possibility of including Kashgar in the joint application with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan for the Silk Road UNESCO world heritage designation.
The High Representative should step up the human rights dialogue with China and make it more action-oriented and effective.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
Mr President, today's debate on the rights of ethnic minorities in China comes a day after the Dalai Lama officially announced that he is resigning from his political role in Tibet. In the coming months, we should watch the development of the political situation there carefully. Today, however, we are talking about another minority group which is suffering discrimination in China - the Muslim Uyghur population. China is justifying its policy towards them by the need to fight terrorism, and for the Chinese authorities, the persecution of the Uyghur people also means the destruction of the Uyghurs' cultural heritage. Particularly disturbing are the reports of the reconstruction of the city of Kashgar. This will, in practice, mean the destruction of its historical centre, one of the most interesting and best-preserved examples of Muslim architecture in Central Asia, which attracts more than a million tourists every year and would be eligible for inclusion on the UNESCO world heritage list if China applied for this status.
I am confident that the European Union's diplomatic service will demonstrate its effectiveness in talks with the Chinese authorities, and will remind them of the need to respect the rights of ethnic minorities and protect their cultural heritage. Thank you.
Frieda Brepoels
Mr President, it is clear that Kashgar is the symbol, par excellence, of Uyghur cultural identity in the Chinese province of Xinjiang. On 27 January, I organised a conference in Brussels, where I learned of the impact which the destructive Chinese urbanisation plans are having on the Uyghur population. It is, indeed, the case that, under the guise of public security and modernisation, China wants to leave no more than 15% of the original city intact and, in fact, transform Kashgar into one huge open-air museum. I think it is high time that we responded powerfully to this, before it is too late.
After quashing the demonstrations in Urumqi in July 2009, the Chinese authorities were called upon by this House to make every effort to bring about an open, permanent and respectful dialogue with the Uyghurs and pursue a more integrated and comprehensive economic policy in their area, aimed at encouraging local involvement and, above all, protecting Uyghur cultural identity. Unfortunately, the current Chinese policy in Kashgar is proving to be quite the reverse of what was called for then. Not only the destruction of Kashgar, while denying the local population any say in the matter, but also the Chinese refusal to allow Kashgar to compete for UNESCO world heritage status, is illustrative of the way in which the Chinese Communist Party deals with cultural diversity.
Charles Tannock
author. - Mr President, the EU's motto is 'Unity in diversity'. Sadly, such a sentiment does not resonate in the People's Republic of China, whose Communist rulers are obsessed with unity, but not much thought is given to celebrating diversity.
Undoubtedly, the attempt to impose Han Chinese majority culture on tiny minorities in the world's most populous country is causing much tension and resentment. We already know about the suppression of the ancient Buddhist Tibetan culture over the last 60 years; now we see the same threat looming over the city of Kashgar in the restive province of Xinjiang.
For 2 000 years, Kashgar has been a thriving city on the Silk Road with a rich, unique and flourishing central Asian culture, but now it is facing wholesale demolition and rebuilding. It is hard to escape the idea that this is Beijing's attempt to break the will of the Uyghur separatists.
I personally have no brief or sympathy for the separatist cause, some of whose supporters, I am afraid, have links to al-Qaeda, but I urge the Chinese Government to think again. The destruction of an ancient city like Kashgar would simply strengthen the resolve of all of those who would wish to foment violence against the state.
Rui Tavares
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, to tell you the truth, out of the three urgent debates taking place this afternoon, this really is the one in which we feel the most impotent. We have talked about Pakistan and Belarus and we then have reason to believe that the European Union has not only moral authority but also leverage or power over external authorities to try to ensure, at least, that they are on the right track.
In fact, when we talk about China, we know that this leverage is reduced because a lot of what we say in this House contradicts what the European governments in our capitals do: that is to say, what Mr Sarkozy, Mrs Merkel or politicians in my own country, Portugal, do, like Mr Sócrates, who only very recently diverted a demonstration against Chinese authorities so that the Premier, who was visiting Lisbon, did not have to come face to face with those protesting against his regime. In other words, it is Europe itself that is repeatedly participating in this dream world or fantasy world, which the Chinese leaders are creating for themselves, in which there is no opposition and in which one development model suits all, and is the same in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, or in Tibet.
Therefore, it is really difficult for the European Parliament to say what we are going to say today, which is also what is written in our resolution: we are calling for the Beijing authorities to stop committing this demographic genocide against Uyghurs; we are calling for them to preserve the cultural and ethnic diversity of the regions that make up China; and we are calling for them to preserve places of architectural or heritage value. However, the leaders of our own countries are throwing themselves into the arms of the Chinese leaders, pardoning them for everything that they have done in their country, and are giving them free rein in the name of a development model that ultimately we respect only to a very basic degree. It has therefore been demonstrated once again that moral authority begins to take shape at home and that, in any case, when we in the European Union are talking about others, we are, first and foremost, talking about ourselves, and we need to review our attitude towards China.
Bernd Posselt
Mr President, as has already been said, Uyghurs are not a minority but a people with an ancient Silk Road culture who gradually succumbed to Chinese rule, which was initially very relaxed. The Uyghurs are supported, in particular, by the World Uyghur Congress based in Munich, and the cultural heritage of Kashgar is supported by the Blue Shield movement, the president of which, Karl von Habsburg, was here in Strasbourg this week to provide us with information.
If we are to support the Uyghurs, let us do so by means of a friendly appeal to the Chinese, because the Uyghurs are threatened with cultural ethnocide. Moreover, China, as the oldest cultural nation in the world, should clearly recognise that one of the characteristics of a cultural people is the protection of, and respect for, other cultures, particularly when it comes to small cultures in a huge empire. The Chinese only have to apply their own constitution, which states in three places that this cultural heritage must be preserved.
I would therefore like to say very clearly that we want some give and take from our Chinese partners on this issue - we want the protection of the cultural heritage of the Uyghurs.
Corina Creţu
Mr President, it is my personal view that, in this case, we must guard against one-sided judgments. There is a risk of counterproductive bias, both in relation to the situation on the ground and to the partnership between the European Union and China. The bloody violence in recent years in Xinjiang is glaring proof that resorting to force is the least satisfactory option. This is why I believe that it is our duty to encourage interethnic dialogue.
It is my opinion that the European Parliament resolution must not affect the right of the Chinese authorities to defend the integrity of their country and the safety of all their citizens, especially against terrorist threats in a region where al-Qaeda is attempting to establish a presence. We must clearly encourage balanced national development from both an economic and demographic perspective.
(Applause)
Kristiina Ojuland
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, it is well known that Uyghuria is in imminent danger of becoming a second Tibet. The People's Republic of China has announced a 'Kashgar Dangerous House Reform', the purpose of which is to raze 85 per cent of the Old City in Kashgar.
Such philistinism must be stopped and the European Union must insist that the authorities of the People's Republic of China do not destroy this important cultural site on the ancient Silk Road. The UN Declaration of the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, as well as the constitution of the People's Republic of China, must be respected, even by Beijing.
The People's Republic of China is more and more exercising sinicisation of ethnic minorities such as the Uyghurs and the Tibetans. It is a cultural genocide in the 21st century, which we simply cannot accept.
Jaroslav Paška
Mr President, Chinese official circles have long found it irksome to have references to other ancient and important cultures and civilisations whose monuments are today located in Chinese territory.
Kashgar is the centre of the Muslim Uyghurs - one of the largest ethnic minorities in China. For millennia, the Chinese tried to subdue the lands of the Uyghurs, and many times they failed in their fight to subdue these lands. Even today, therefore, there is a certain aloofness in the position of the Chinese administration, and an effort to suppress any manifestation of the cultural traditions and identity that are linked to the rich cultural monuments of the Uyghurs and the city of Kashgar.
I am not sure whether the official Chinese bodies are today capable of accepting the philosophy that the current Chinese state is built not only on the traditions and history of the Chinese empire, but also on the traditions and histories of other peoples. The behaviour of the Chinese towards Tibet, and towards the Uyghur monuments in Kashgar, bears witness rather to the fact that today's China is incapable of appreciating the wealth which other peoples and other cultures have brought to its shared state.
It is therefore right to state from this place that we, in contrast to the Chinese authorities, appreciate and cherish all important cultural monuments located on the territory of the People's Republic of China, as well as those in Tibet and in Kashgar.
Seán Kelly
Mr President, Kashgar is a city of three and a half million people, a bit smaller than the population of the entire island of Ireland. It is closer to Baghdad than it is to Beijing. It is on the great trading route of the Silk Road and has some of the best preserved Islamic architecture sites, some of which are buried beneath the desert. It also has the largest mosque tomb in China and is a treasure, there is no doubt about that. However, as has been said, it is under a great threat, ostensibly because the Chinese want to redevelop the city because of its susceptibility to earthquakes. That is not acceptable to us, because we feel that a great treasure would be lost.
What can we do about it? Perhaps very little, but at least highlighting it here today is important. We can, as we said, ask that it be included among the Silk Road world heritage sites. Perhaps we could also make people aware of the treasures that are there, so that the people there can preserve them into the future. It would be the world's loss, but a bigger loss to China.
Mitro Repo
(FI) Mr President, this resolution actually concerns the preservation of an important cultural heritage and the right of minority peoples to their cultural identity. The ancient city of Kashgar is one of the best preserved Islamic cities in Central Asia. Kashgar's rich history goes back to China's Han Dynasty, and the city was an important staging post on the Silk Road. It linked Asia to Europe. The entire Xinjiang Region has enormous cultural significance for the entire world.
China must take action to make Kashgar a UNESCO world heritage site and preserve the area for future generations. The European External Action Service should also ensure that local strategies extend to the right to its cultural identity. The European Union's delegation to China could also earmark funds to support the traditions of the Kashgar minorities and their cultural identity.
Monica Luisa Macovei
Mr President, future generations depend on our actions today to protect timeless sites such as Kashgar. Kashgar is a fundamental pillar of the history of Islam in China.
In 2009, the Chinese Government announced an urban reconstruction programme that plans to demolish 85% of the old city of Kashgar and replace it with modern apartments. The demolition should be stopped. Urban planners should identify a development plan that preserves the old city of Kashgar. The whole Silk Road in China should be submitted for protection under UNESCO's world heritage programme, which China joined in 1985. I call on the Commission and the Council to raise these matters with the Chinese authorities.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
Mr President, cultural heritage is crucial to preserving identity. This is clear in Europe, in China, and wherever, and the Chinese authorities know this. However, we have seen, for instance, how they have purposefully destroyed this heritage, which means this identity, in several places like Tibet, and now they are doing the same in the Uyghur places like Kashgar.
This is why it is so important that we once again explain our position, and we urge the Chinese Government to stop the cultural destruction threatening Kashgar's architectural survival immediately and to carry out a comprehensive expert inquiry into culture-sensitive methods of renovation. This is not for nothing: the credibility of a government is also based on how it treats minorities. If China wants to be credible in the international sphere, it is important that minorities, such as the Uyghurs, are treated properly, adequately respectfully and in line with human standards.
Paul Rübig
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner Hahn, culture and identity must clearly be placed centre stage at global level. Just this week, Karl Habsburg explained to us how important it is in the search for identity for this cultural heritage not only to be available to the Uyghurs, but also for it to be a global asset. China should make a concessionary gesture in this regard. For example, we have recently entered into an agreement with the town of Wenzhou enabling direct investments to be made in dollars in future. I see an opportunity here for the focus also to be placed on this region and for people in the different cities and regions of China to have equal rights. International relations can indeed provide a great deal of help here.
Sari Essayah
(FI) Mr President, there is no respect for the fundamental rights of the ethnic minorities in China, be they Tibetans or Uyghurs. It is typical that the Chinese Communist Party refuses to support the city of Kashgar in its bid to compete for UNESCO world heritage status. In recent years, China has provided support for an international project to add cultural sites on the Silk Road to the world heritage list, but Kashgar itself has not been on that list because it is the home of one of China's largest minorities, the Uyghurs.
On the contrary, China intends to demolish large areas of the city, claiming that it fears for the safety of the residents, but cultural, civil and human rights organisations regard this plan as a cruel attempt to crush Uyghur culture. The Chinese Communist Party must come to acknowledge the fact that the citizens of China are culturally diverse, and they must also have a right to cultural autonomy.
Elena Băsescu
(RO) Mr President, the old centre of the city of Kashgar is in danger and, along with it, the historic symbol of the Uyghur minority in China. The policy being pursued of so-called urban reconstruction is resulting in the gradual disappearance of this group's identity, which developed its culture around the fortress situated on the Silk Road. I believe that moving the Uyghur population from their traditional dwellings and demolishing Kashgar are measures which violate minorities' rights. In addition, the city is regarded as the best preserved example of Islamic architecture in Central Asia. Kashgar's streets and buildings can be restored to improve the inhabitants' living conditions. The question is why the authorities are not investing in activities of this kind. I recommend the inclusion of the old centre in the UNESCO world heritage list as part of the Silk Road. I also appeal to the Chinese Government to stop demolishing the city and to look for alternative solutions.
Eija-Riitta Korhola
(FI) Mr President, owing to its remote location, Kashgar, on China's western border, and the Uyghurs who live there, have succeeded in preserving their ancient traditions for centuries. The city therefore attracts hundreds and thousands of tourists a year. On account of its strategic location, the Chinese administration is now trying to control the region more effectively to guarantee better access to the energy markets in Central Asia.
China does, of course, have the right to develop economically, but the rights of minority groups, fragile as they are, must be protected. It is possible to develop Kashgar in such a way that the way of life of the Uyghurs can continue to be guaranteed. The earthquake safety of buildings and the infrastructure can be improved without putting into effect plans to destroy 85% of the ancient city, with the Uyghurs being forced to move out to new residential areas and seeing their society fragment.
This reckless destruction of the ancient city should therefore be stopped, and the Uyghurs should be consulted on the development of the place where they have traditionally lived. Otherwise, their exotic, fascinating culture is in danger of being completely destroyed.
Ryszard Czarnecki
(PL) Mr President, I would like to say it is to be welcomed that the European Parliament is once again talking about the Uyghurs, a Muslim minority which is suffering discrimination in China. I would like to remind everyone that there has already been a European Parliament resolution about this, and that we should also express our views in relation to other religious minorities which are being persecuted in the People's Republic of China, such as the Christian minority. Catholics are facing very severe discrimination there. The Communist authorities in Beijing have appointed special ecclesiastical structures which are not recognised by the official Catholic Church. I think this very necessary and important discussion can, today, be a voice in defence of all religious minorities in China. I think that voice is greatly needed.
Johannes Hahn
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the preservation of cultural heritage is obviously of central importance in ensuring the protection and continuation of a minority's traditions and way of life. Moreover, the destruction of important cultural property has the potential to deal a serious blow, not only to the heritage and archaeological patrimony of the minority concerned, but to cultural heritage in general. In this light, the European Union is following with concern the redevelopment of the ancient city of Kashgar in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region of China. The significance of Kashgar as a centre of culture for the Uyghur minority in China cannot be overstated. Kashgar is conceived as being as important as Jerusalem is to Jews, Muslims and Christians.
The Chinese Government's 2009 White Paper on Xinjiang stated that restoration of Kashgar is necessary to protect the city from earthquakes or fire. This is a laudable aim. Civil society, both in China and internationally, has expressed considerable disquiet about the methods employed. There is serious concern that as much as 85% of the old city may be demolished. Indeed, many notable buildings, including the unique Xanliq madrasah, appear to have been destroyed already. It is also worrying that some 200 000 people may be displaced from their traditional homes and that there appears to have been little or no consultation with the residents affected.
It is feared that the demolition of structures which have formed the basis of Uyghur culture for many hundreds of years may have a grave impact on the preservation of their culture in the years ahead. It is also regrettable that China has chosen not to propose Kashgar as a world heritage site despite its unique status, as this would allow UNESCO to become involved in the process of redevelopment. We understand that UNESCO has, in any event, made representations to the Chinese authorities concerning the impact of the development on Kashgar's traditional heritage and culture. The European Union fully shares these concerns and will call on the Chinese authorities to work with UNESCO to ensure that any redevelopment of Kashgar meets international best practice in this field.
The European Union will also call on the Chinese authorities to ensure that the inhabitants of Kashgar are fully consulted about the future of the city and that their views are taken into account.
President
I have received six motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the debates.


1. Youth in Action programme (2007-2013) (
- Before the vote:
Katerina Batzeli
rapporteur. - Mr President, with regard to the four reports to be voted on, let me point out on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education that the multiannual programmes in the field of culture, education, youth and citizen participation in community activities are some of the most important activities of the EU and especially of the European Parliament.
Decisions on the choice and funding of the different activities covered by these programmes ought thus to rely on clear and objective criteria. Simplified procedures should be adopted to avoid unnecessary delays for European citizens.
The four comitology reports, which the European Parliament is being asked to adopt today in plenary, aim to ensure transparent, fast and effective procedures. This will simultaneously strengthen the European Parliament's role in this field of procedures.
The fact that these parliamentary proposals have been accepted by both the Commission and the Council is particularly satisfying and gives hope for future interinstitutional agreement.
Finally, I would like to thank the Commission, the Council under the Slovenian Presidency, and the current French Presidency for the spirit of cooperation and agreement and for the way they have managed these four Community programmes.


Protection of the Communities' financial interests - Fight against fraud - Annual Report 2008 (debate)
President
The last item is the report by Mr Cozzolino, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the protection of the Communities' financial interests and the fight against fraud - Annual report 2008.
Andrea Cozzolino
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at a time when the Treaty of Lisbon is giving Europe a more incisive role in the lives of millions of Europeans, the challenge of transparency and legality is crucial. Hence the report that we are presenting is the result of a highly coordinated effort. The work was confined, first and foremost, to the scenario outlined by the Court of Auditors, whereby the financial impact of irregularities fell from more than EUR 1 billion in 2007 to EUR 783 million in 2008.
The fall concerns all spending areas except direct expenditure and pre-accession funds. Areas of major concern still exist in relation to the Structural Funds too. However, absolute amounts and values alone do not tell us where the urgent problems are hidden and where the situation is under control. Our analyses and meetings over recent months have led us to prioritise two requirements. Firstly, the urgent need to make the Member States more responsible for identifying fraud and irregularities, and for sharing the information needed to combat fraud, waste and distortions in expenditure and in the collection of taxes.
Secondly, the importance of presenting proposals and working hypotheses in order to make it easier to implement measures in the Member States, with administrative procedures and management strategies that give priority to the quality of the projects and to their impact on the living and working conditions of European citizens.
In order to achieve these objectives, we propose that Parliament insist on certain priorities: firstly, we propose that OLAF draw up 27 profiles, analysing with due care and attention the strategies followed by each individual Member State in combating fraud and irregularities in the use of European resources, with a precise map of the authorities responsible for performing checks in each individual country and data on the quantity and quality of the checks performed and on their effects.
Secondly, reducing the number of irregularities and significantly improving the regulations. We are embarking on a legislative and regulatory simplification programme, intended in particular for the Structural Funds. Moreover, the fight against corruption, financial crime and breaches of public procurement rules must be stepped up. In this year's report we have made progress on this point with the support of the entire committee. Thanks to an intense, concerted effort, proposals have been drafted on the main problems in this area. From the relationship between the EU and tax havens, to the databases on beneficiaries of European funds, the report makes a practical contribution to increasing the transparency of expenditure and to strengthening the anti-fraud and anti-corruption strategies.
Lastly, with regard to OLAF, it is crucially important to guarantee its full operational independence, the full cooperation of the Member States and an appropriate human resources strategy, which it most definitely needs. We must keep the debate alive and kicking in Europe so as to establish the role of a single European Prosecutor.
To conclude, I believe it is vitally important to fight together for the transparent and efficient management of European resources. In this regard we must ensure that the problems that do exist are not exploited in any way in order to call into question instruments of fundamental importance to the European project, such as cohesion policy and development aid. Rather, we must look clearly at the problems, at the distortions that still exist in the various European spending areas and use these data to take new, determined steps forward, thereby making the management of our finances more efficient and transparent.
I believe that, by making this effort, the various European institutions really will make progress in the construction of a Europe that is stronger, more integrated and able to better satisfy the needs of Europeans.
Elena Băsescu
- (RO) I think that European funds must be made accessible to citizens in a fair, transparent manner. One feasible method for possibly eradicating corruption in public procurement is to introduce a transparent system in the form of an online tender system.
According to the Commission's report, the declining financial impact of irregularities in 2008 indicates that some of the legislative and institutional measures aimed at discouraging fraud were implemented successfully by Member States. Greater financial control is still required, along with effective legislation for combating tax fraud, especially relating to VAT.
The protection of the European Union's financial interests is a priority for the Romanian Government as well. As part of this, the Fight Against Fraud Department was set up. It provides the single point of contact in Romania with OLAF for European funds.
Monica Luisa Macovei
Mr President, as EPP shadow rapporteur I would like to start by expressing my gratitude to the rapporteur and to the other colleagues from the political groups for their excellent cooperation. We paid particular attention to increasing transparency and better rules for public procurement, as this is the area most vulnerable to fraud and corruption which distort the market and increase the prices paid by consumers.
Moreover, beneficiaries of EU funds from all Member States should be published on one website and based on the same criteria. I also called for the mutual recognition of disqualifications, such as the exclusion of fraudulent offenders from acting as chief executives. OLAF's activities should be supported; we ask for statistics and reasons in cases where national authorities did not file indictments following reports by OLAF, which happens in 73% of the cases initiated by OLAF.
The report also proposes to ban companies which operate through offshore havens from concluding business agreements with companies residing in the Union if their offshore location has unilaterally delayed the adoption of cooperation agreements with the Union.
Let me conclude by saying that the Union must treat fraud and corruption as interlinked and as a matter of priority.
Seán Kelly
Mr President, I think it is not an exaggeration to say that the current economic crisis was brought about by a moderate crisis initially, a moderate crisis that saw greed triumph over generosity, corruption triumph over integrity and self-interest triumph over solidarity; and until we get back to generosity, integrity and solidarity being at the heart of corporate and government affairs we will never get out of the trouble we are in at the minute.
I agree totally with every effort made to fight fraud. I have seen programmes in Ireland showing people who were claiming social welfare in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and England every week, people flying in to Cork airport and out again having claimed social welfare. The worst of all was the banks - Allied Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide - playing ping-pong with accounting practices to hide their true situation.
This has landed us in terrible trouble in Ireland, and every effort must go to ensure that fraud is stopped. The message has to go out loud and clear that it is going to be pursued and dealt with very strongly at European level and at every level.
John Dalli
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, honourable Members, on behalf of my colleague, Commissioner Šemeta, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur for his constructive report and the proposals put forward for improving the protection of the Union's financial interests.
The Commission appreciates that Parliament strongly underlines the joint responsibility of the EU institutions and the Member States in this respect. Let me just make a couple of remarks.
Regarding the reporting of irregularities by the Member States, OLAF has established a new web-based reporting system called IMS: Irregularities Management System. This has brought about considerable improvements in the reporting of irregularities by Member States, including those which you criticise in your report. The Structural Funds is an area of particular concern both for the Parliament and the Commission. The Commission has taken strong actions to remedy weaknesses in the most affected areas and programmes in the framework of the action plan for structural actions in 2008, including a vast simplification exercise.
With his fellow commissioners, my colleague Commissioner Šemeta, will pursue efforts aiming at reducing further the error rate in cohesion policy. The Commission will assist and monitor the Member States for the closure of the 2000-2006 programmes and will make sure that the management and control systems under the new programming period will deliver their benefit. Moreover, the Commission will liaise with the Member States' authorities to ensure that they fully assume their responsibility in shared management as reinforced by the new provisions in the Lisbon Treaty.
Considerable progress has been achieved concerning transparency about the beneficiaries of EU funds. In the area of agriculture the Council has agreed that publication of the beneficiaries of funds is the responsibility of the Member States. The information has to be made available on a single website in each Member State, in line with the principle of shared management. To provide an overview and facilitate access to the Member States' websites, the links to these websites are linked on the Europa web page.
I come now to OLAF. I thank the rapporteur for the strong support he explicitly states for the work of OLAF. My colleague Commissioner Šemeta fully agrees that the office should concentrate on its core tasks of conducting investigations, although OLAF also has other important duties to fulfil, in particular in the area of fraud prevention. He also agrees that the focus for OLAF should be on the more important cases and that small-scale fraud should be handled by other bodies.
In 2008 OLAF revised the financial follow-up procedures relating to OLAF cases by establishing de minimis thresholds. Commissioner Šemeta has taken good note of your comments on the need for OLAF to work together with the internal audit services, which he fully shares. OLAF and IAS have been cooperating closely since 2003. They exchange information and provide each other with specific training to improve their respective staff knowledge on issues of mutual interest. OLAF is willing to cooperate still more closely with the IAS.
Regarding procedural rights, the new OLAF manual adopted in December 2009, which has been transmitted to Parliament, already provides comprehensive guidance for OLAF investigators. More detailed rules on procedural rights will be included in the legislative proposal for revision of the OLAF regulation. In this respect the Commission would also recall that the reflection paper on the legislative reform of OLAF will be submitted to Parliament and the Council before the summer break.
Commissioner Šemeta looks forward to presenting this paper to the Committee on Budgetary Control at its meeting in July. Finally, he looks forward very much to working with Parliament as an ally in the task of improving the efficiency of OLAF and the protection of EU taxpayers' money.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Alain Cadec
The fight against fraud is a crucial challenge that the European Union and the Member States must take up. The importance of the public funds pledged under the heading of cohesion policy demands the utmost vigilance given the potential for misappropriation of those funds. The credibility of the Structural Funds among Europeans is at stake. In this connection, I welcome the efforts made by the European Commission and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to combat fraud more effectively. As the rapporteur points out, the financial impact of irregularities on structural actions has decreased significantly. Furthermore, the increase in the number of irregularities reported to the Commission testifies to the progress of the fraud prevention systems. It is important for the Commission and the Member States to continue this fight as rigorously as possible. However, it is also essential not to discourage potential beneficiaries of the Structural Funds with overly harsh restrictions. Intentional fraud is one thing; a lack of precision when organising projects is quite another. While the former must be considered as a criminal activity, it is important to simplify the procedures in order to limit the impact of the latter.
Tamás Deutsch
in writing. - (HU) The crisis unfolding in some countries of the euro area presents an unprecedented warning to European decision makers to unconditionally protect public funds and the Community's finances. The economy and the international markets react with exceptional sensitivity to any measure taken by the European Union, such as, for instance, the rescue packages adopted in recent days. Entire national economies could be threatened if crisis management is not handled appropriately and on a European level. Therefore I would not be exaggerating when I say that the eyes of the whole world are on our finance ministers and on the European institutions. To this day, the governments of certain Member States, by pursuing their personal interests and functioning like oligarchies, have brought their own economies to the brink of bankruptcy and made any future prospects unattainable for entrepreneurs, families and qualified young people. Because of this we can only welcome the rapporteur's intention to increase the accountability of Member States. Today this is one of the key issues for successful crisis management. Rigorous monitoring, in order to end the era of corrupt governments, is more important than ever in this critical period.
Franz Obermayr
in writing. - (DE) The report on the fight against fraud indicates a fundamentally positive development. From 2007 to 2008 there was a reduction in the negative financial effects of irregularities in all sectors. However, this was not the case with regard to pre-accession aid. Here the negative effects have increased by 90.6%. In this regard, I would point out that since 2002 the EU has been providing financial support for Turkey's 'efforts' towards EU accession, with successively higher amounts being paid out each year. For the period 2007 to 2013, Turkey will receive the sum of EUR 4.84 billion. This is the case even though the Commission is aware that Turkey is making nowhere near the required amount of progress in respect of the accession criteria. The money is continuing to flow nevertheless and in ever higher amounts. The most recent special report by the European Court of Auditors states, in addition, that with regard to the accession aid for Turkey in particular the money is being invested without sufficiently explicit objectives and benchmarks. Without a clear strategy, money is being used with no specific plan and in an unconstructive way. We must put an end to this madness.