Speeches

Mr President, dear colleagues, there are only two possible ways of resolving the vital security deficit of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. The first one is weakening Russia beyond the point where it can present a real threat. And the second one – more realistic, in my opinion – is the full integration of those three countries into the European economic and security structures. It is true that none of those three is today ready to function as a full member of the European Union. So candidate status is just a first step of a much longer way. But we must be clear and sincere with regard to the final objective, which is membership. What we must not do is tell Ukrainians that we support their aspirations, but then turn to our own voters, give them a wink and say that this status doesn’t mean that Ukrainians are going to be full members. Finally, while everyone must proceed on their own individual merit, we must not ignore the dangers of splitting the three Eastern partners up at this critical juncture and therefore leaving one or two more vulnerable, because all these peoples deserve a place in Europe.

Madam President, dear colleagues, the resolution we are going to vote on tomorrow is primarily dealing with the media freedom and safety of journalists in Georgia and there is plenty to be critical about on that front. Georgia has, over the last two years, nosedived in the Global Media Freedom Index. Despite the solid legal framework, the physical safety of journalists and media representatives has significantly deteriorated, as illustrated by the violence by far-right groups against the participants in last year’s pride march and against the journalists covering the event. More recently, it has been illustrated by the sentencing of Mr Gvaramia, a well-known media figure, on rather dubious charges. Obviously, the problems of Georgia and the challenges it faces go beyond the media scene. We all do have legitimate concerns about recent negative trends in the area of rule of law and democracy more generally. The recent conduct of the Georgian Government has, quite frankly, been frustrating and disappointing on many fronts. I do believe that in a situation like this, we need to adopt a more resolute and more demanding line in our communications with our Georgian rulers, so they really understand that it is they who have to deliver to the Georgian people when it comes to Georgia’s European aspirations. However, I would like to also point out that a policy on our behalf will have to be based on a comprehensive and well thought-through strategy, not merely frustration and emotions. So I urge us all to carefully analyse potential consequences and plan for our next steps, so that our no doubt well-intentioned steps do not inadvertently undermine the legitimate aspirations of the Georgian people or our own strategic interests in the region.

Mr President, the implications of the Russian aggression against Ukraine for European security are really profound, and that is very well understood by our people, as best reflected by the Finnish and Swedish Governments’ decision to apply for NATO membership now, but also by the Danish people’s decision at the referendum to lift their opt-out on EU defence. So our people really believe that we need more collective security. The second implication is that the large-scale conventional war has made a very forceful return to the European continent and we need to prepare for that, because clearly we weren’t sufficiently prepared when this aggression was launched. Neither when it comes to defending our own countries against such a threat and nor when it comes to delivering assistance to our partners. Even, let’s be honest, our very good strategic compass deals more with the evacuation from Afghanistan than it deals with scenarios such as the conflict we are seeing right now. And finally, we must be honest. Putin’s Russia is ready to take much more pain as a price for its adventurous effort of restoring an empire than we previously thought. So we need a much more concerted and sustained effort to make sure that we are able to weaken Russia’s economy and military machine.

Yes. Thank you. A short follow up. Much of the discussion this century about European security and defence has taken place in a situation where the US focus on European security has been diminishing and the physical footprint of the Americans on European soil has been shrinking. Now, at least for the short term, we have seen this process reversed, to the extent even that, for the first time in many, many years, Americans are deploying more than 100 000 troops to Europe. Do you think that we should try to make this reversal permanent? And if so, what can we do to do so?

High Representative, thank you very much. I think that the Strategic Compass is a very good and actionable document. But, as so often happens, we have been overtaken by events. And, no doubt, we have to adapt the implementation to the significantly changed security situation following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I hope that most of the priorities in the document will remain valid and relevant. One that definitely will is EU-NATO cooperation, NATO being the primary provider of military security to all of its European member countries and also an organisation whose primary task is to defend the member countries against foreign aggression. My question is: what response, if any, have you received from NATO HQ and from the capitals of the non-EU member countries of NATO to our Strategic Compass? And, conversely, what are your expectations with regard to the NATO’s forthcoming new Strategic Concept?

Madam President, what transpired on 24 February was shocking, but not surprising. In fact, canaries in the coalmine had been singing about these threats all along. But it was a watershed moment and we have changed in those two weeks. Now we have to make those changes sustainable. We have to do six things. First of all, of course, we have to deny Putin a victory in Ukraine and show to the world that, ultimately, good triumphs over evil. Secondly, we have to strategically weaken the Russian dictatorship. Any threat consists of two vectors: the intent to do harm and the ability to do so. We cannot expect to change Putin’s evil intent so we simply have to remove his ability. Thirdly, we have to boost our defences, including defence spending. Fourth, we have to boost our resilience, including the resilience of liberal democracy itself. Fifth, we have to reduce our dependence on authoritarian countries like Russia in strategic areas. And, finally, we have to build alliances. The maxim ‘together with allies whenever we can, alone only if we really must’ is still very much valid, especially in existential crises like this one.

Mr President, I am proud at how strong and united we are today, but we have to be honest: we have been painfully slow and painfully late waking up to the true nature of Putin’s Russia. I hope that today we finally truly understand the urgency and the existential nature of the current situation. If we do, it is imperative that we support Ukraine in every way possible without holding anything back. This includes lethal defensive equipment, economic and humanitarian aid, help to refugees and, yes, also launching an honest and successful accession process for Ukraine to join our Union. Regarding sanctions on Russia, for as long as the criminal ideology of Putinism remains in power in Russia, we have to go beyond punishing individuals and take the strategic decision of systemically weakening Russia’s economy and industrial base. This is in our vital security interest. Yes, sanctions hit ordinary Russians too, and they are not enemies, but let’s admit it, it is primarily the responsibility of the Russian people to make sure that their mad Tsar cannot kill innocent people abroad. We should fully expect and, when possible, encourage the Russian people to take that responsibility seriously. Slava Ukraini!

Mr President, we have said always that we support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. And inevitably, the notion of sovereignty includes a country’s right to choose its own alliances. Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations are fully legitimate, no threat to anyone, and their realisation must be conditional only on Ukraine’s performance, not a third-country veto. Russia’s massive military build-up on Ukraine’s borders has brought our continent closer to a large-scale military conflict than at any time since the end of the Cold War. It’s only natural that we want to de-escalate the situation, but we must act in a way that will really result in de-escalation. Appeasing the bully or consigning to her more territorial control will not bring about sustainable de-escalation. In fact, it would only give the aggressor a signal that the intimidation tactic works. What we need is a strong collective deterrent posture by the community of democratic nations. Deterrence is not by nature escalatory. Its aim is to discourage the potential aggressor by changing her calculus, by delivering an unambiguous message that the cost of waging an act of aggression far outweighs any benefit it might be expected to bring. I do believe that President Putin is a rational player who will not rush into a conflict that is bound to bring him more pain than gain. A strong deterrent posture consists of two main parts. The first is a clear and united message to Russia that a new aggression will result in a decisive response from the international community. Inevitably, that response must include a package of crippling sanctions. The second part is bolstering Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. Again, I want to stress that a more confident Ukraine with stronger defensive capabilities will reduce, not increase, the likelihood of a new aggression by Russia. We must be strong and united. It may appear to some that doing nothing is a peaceful act. In reality, nothing is further from the truth.

Mr President, the threat landscape around us is becoming ever more complex, with the additional challenges being compounded by new and non—traditional threats. For our Union to be able to provide security to our citizens and to contribute to maintaining peace and resolving conflicts in the world, it is imperative that we manage to harmonise our national threat assessments, agree on the level of our collective ambition and make the necessary investment to meet that ambition. Europe must continue to maintain a values—based approach to foreign and security policy, and to support, defend, when necessary, the rules—based international order. To be successful, we need to back the values—based approach by unity, strength and resolve. Principles and resolve without capabilities will not do the trick; neither will new capabilities without political will to use them when necessary. At this moment, when Russian aggressive posturing is testing the foundation of European security architecture, we must display clarity of thought and words, but also readiness to turn our words into action.

Madam President, the current massing of Russian troops and military equipment on Ukraine’s borders is extremely dangerous and provocative. The situation must be de-escalated quickly in order to avoid catastrophic consequences. I believe that the political solution to this situation is not yet impossible and must be pursued, but the fact that Russia continues to renege on its previous commitments obviously makes it more difficult. It is clear from the steps of the Russian leaders that they see the aggression they launched in 2014 as an unfinished business. What the EU can and must do is to be firm and consistent in our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We must also be strong and consistent in helping Ukraine to boost its resilience against external pressure and provocations. On sanctions, I sincerely believe that Russia’s current leaders are ultimately rational players on the international scene. They have shown they will not shy away from using military means to achieve their goals if, but only if, they believe that the benefits are greater than the costs. So the task of the international community is to tell them very unequivocally that in case of any military adventure, the price Russia will have to pay is going to be far greater than any possible gain. So yes, the threat of new effective countermeasures, including well-targeted sanctions, can change the Kremlin’s calculus and help avert a military escalation. And finally, we must also be consistent and resolute in reminding Russia’s president that Ukraine’s geostrategic choices are for the Ukrainians to make, and no third party will ever have a veto in this.

Madam President, it is inevitable that solid and comprehensive arms control, non—proliferation and disarmament architecture based on binding treaties and reinforced by a reliable and transparent verification mechanism is a key to maintaining peace, stability and security in the world, as well as guaranteeing sustainable development. The report on WMD, arms control and disarmament regimes that we are going to vote on this week focuses on key opportunities as well as challenges in this regard. It emphasises the proactive role that the European Union, as a key donor of relevant international organisations, has been playing and continues to play in the global non—proliferation and disarmament efforts. Yet, despite all those great efforts, the Europeans have recently had to watch, with growing alarm, the crumbling of some key elements of the post—Cold War arms control architecture. This process, unless swiftly reversed, is bound to have a profoundly negative impact on European, as well as global, security. Over the past few years, we have witnessed the termination of the INF Treaty following Russia’s violations of the terms of that treaty, and we have seen the departure of the US and Russia from the Open Skies Treaty. We have struggled as Europeans to keep the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal, from completely falling apart. Today the jury’s still out when it comes to the future of that important agreement. The decision by the US and Russia to extend by another five years the New START Treaty was indeed a rare piece of positive news in an otherwise rather gloomy cycle. The report insists on the need to revive our efforts to reverse that negative cycle and to ensure universal adherence to existing, as well as future, disarmament and non—proliferation treaties. It is imperative that any talks about the possible successor treaty to the INF include all countries that are in possession of, or are developing, systems that would be limited or banned by the treaty. A notable case here is China’s rising military power. The report reaffirms its support to the JCPOA and it commends the central role played by the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency. It calls for the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and for the start of negotiations on the so—called Fissile Material Cut—off Treaty. The report also covers the loosening of global ethical norms against chemical weapons, a negative trend exemplified by the use of banned chemical agents in the Syrian war and against the Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny. And it points to the lack of a binding verification mechanism for compliance with a Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. But as already mentioned, the bulk of the report is naturally devoted to nuclear weapons. So let me conclude by reiterating my deep conviction that the Nuclear Non—Proliferation Treaty, or the NPT, must remain the cornerstone of the international efforts at nuclear non—proliferation and disarmament. The NPT, which recently celebrated its 50th anniversary, is the only nuclear weapons control treaty that brings together almost the entire international community and also includes among its members all the five recognised nuclear weapon states. The upcoming NPT review conference, long delayed by the pandemic, provides us with an opportunity to give a new impetus to nuclear disarmament efforts, and we must not let that opportunity to go to waste. We must also refrain from initiatives that might deviate from or weaken the goals of the NPT. I do sincerely believe that while we all share the long term goal of living in a world free of nuclear weapons, this objective can only be reached if we approach it in a realistic and reciprocal manner. Finally, I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs and our advisors for their constructive cooperation.

Madam President, I believe this resolution is extremely timely since just last week, the Council reached an agreement to apply new sanctions on the so-called ‘Wagner Group’ – a private military security company with very close ties to Russian leadership. The Wagner Group has been deploying its mercenaries in various conflict zones across the world. The group is often used in order to obscure Russia’s role in those conflicts and to try to maintain a degree of deniability regarding Russia’s direct involvement. We must not be deceived by those clumsy efforts, and we are not. The Wagner Group and other similar companies have, over the years, committed innumerable human rights violations. But sadly, they have so far largely escaped investigation, prosecution and punishment. This is absolutely unacceptable. We must make sure that all those crimes are investigated and prosecuted, and we must demand that the authorities of the countries in which our CSDP missions operate, terminate any contracts with PMSCs accused of having committed human rights violations. We have to fully utilise the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime, and we must demand that all governments contracting PMSCs ensure strict compliance with international humanitarian law, democratic oversight and accountability. And we must remain at the forefront of international regulatory efforts in this regard.

Madam President, in this tense and tragic situation at the Belarusian border, Lukashenko is the sole culprit, he and not the vulnerable people whom he exploits and manipulates. Lukashenko has three goals. First, to divide the European Union – because we have over the past year shown remarkable unity in condemning his human rights violations. Secondly, Lukashenko wants to paint us Europeans as hypocritical, lecturing him on human rights but not able to fully live up to our own high standards. And thirdly, he wants to regain a seat at the international negotiating tables that he lost after falsifying last year’s election results. We must deny him all of those goals. We must increase pressure on Lukashenko’s regime and toughen the sanctions regime. But in doing this, we also must look critically at ourselves and make sure that no individual Member State and no company exploits the loopholes or exceptions and exemptions in those sanctions, so we really must stand united in order to prevail.

Mr President, first, I do believe that it’s important that we have, for the first time ever, a chance to debate here and vote on a concrete set of comprehensive recommendations dedicated to the development of EU—Taiwan ties. Taiwan is an economically and technologically advanced democracy and as such it is for us a like—minded and valuable partner in a strategically important region. Therefore, I believe it’s important to look for concrete ways to enhance our trade and economic relations, our cultural and youth exchange, industrial and technological cooperation, as well as intensify overall bilateral relations under the guidance of the One China policy. Secondly, I agree fully with Commissioner Vestager in that any further escalation of tensions in the Taiwan Strait is bound to have deep negative effects on both regional and global security, as well as trade and the economy. In this regard, China’s increasingly aggressive rhetoric and military posturing are of considerable concern. This means that we must stay alert and be very clear in our condemnation of such escalatory steps. Finally, I believe it’s imperative that we express full solidarity with Lithuania, our fellow EU Member State that has been targeted by Chinese sanctions over the issue of setting up a Taiwanese representative office. We should urge the Vice President / High Representative and the Council to take all appropriate steps.

Madam President, the minute only allows me to make three brief points. First, I believe it’s a very solid report and it reflects very strong unity among the major political groups in the Parliament when it comes to our approach to China. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Hilde Vautmans on that. Secondly, China is no doubt a rising global power, and the higher it rises, the more our relationship with China moves into the realm of strategic rivalry. It’s a relationship that is multifaceted and complex. We are looking for a comprehensive approach to China that would cover a variety of different policy areas, and this quest, if it has underscored anything, I think it is the need for greater unity among European Union Member states, but also the need for a greater EU strategic autonomy across a variety of policy areas, from security to trade to industrial and technological development. And finally, the human rights dialogue has been and will be a part of that complex relationship, and we cannot accept any attempts by China to intimidate us by imposing arbitrary sanctions on Members of this Parliament, and our actions must be guided by solidarity with the colleagues who have been targeted by such sanctions.

Mr President, we must not abandon hope and we must seek cooperation with those in Russia who share our core values, so that one day we can have a constructive partner in Moscow. In the meantime, we must admit that there are certain key differences between our world outlook and value system and those of the current Russian regime. This sets limits on how trusting our relationship can be. Let’s work our way, so to say, from inside out. First, the way Russia treats its own people – Russia’s human rights record – is ugly. It’s treatment of dissidents and political opposition is truly horrible. Second, the way Russia disrespects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its closest neighbours is in contravention of international law and contrary to the EU’s special security interest. Third, and most importantly, we must consider the way Russia keeps interfering in our internal affairs, be it by supporting radical populist parties, be it under the guise of protecting the so-called traditional values, or be it by promoting conspiracy theories aimed at undermining Europeans’ trust in our democratically elected institutions. So yes, we need to work with Russia on common challenges, but we must always remain sober, alert and situationally aware.

Madam President, there’s no denying that the results of our 20 year engagement in Afghanistan were not what we would have liked to see. There have been missed opportunities. There’s been wishful thinking and erroneous assumptions. But in the situation we find ourselves in today, our efforts will have to focus mainly on two things. First, averting the pending humanitarian catastrophe, which, if we allow it to happen, will have profoundly negative implications for European security, but first of all, for the lives of millions of Afghans. And second, when it comes to the access of women and girls to healthcare and education, the gains made over the past 20 years have been significant and we have to do what we can so these gains are not completely erased. We know our means and our access are limited, so we have to use them smartly. And finally, we have to do the lessons learned and bolster European capabilities, including military capabilities, so as to be able to respond more swiftly, more resolutely and more robustly to similar crises in the future.