Speeches

Madam President, relations between the European Union and Morocco are at their worst. The vote on the European Parliament resolution calling into question the Moroccan court decision on Omar Radi was the trigger for a long-running crisis. While the Kingdom of Morocco is a pillar of our policy in Africa and the Mediterranean, this situation is particularly worrying. At a time when all the meetings are being analysed as to whether or not it falls within the scope of foreign interference, I also note that the Western Sahara Study Group continues to regularly promote the views of the Polisario Front and to relay those of Algeria in that part of the world. After the judicial events this weekend, the EU-Morocco Joint Committee is no longer in a position to continue its work. It is absolutely necessary for Parliament to appoint a new co-president as soon as possible. The last meeting of this committee was in May 2022 and today it would be particularly useful for parliamentary diplomacy to play its role amidst tensions. Our relationship with Morocco is essential in terms of migration, economics, security and geopolitics. It is imperative that we preserve it and re-engage in dialogue.

Madam President, since the tragic night of 6 February, all Europeans have expressed their solidarity with the Turkish and Syrian peoples, both of whom are going through a terrible ordeal. Immediately, the European Chancelleries and the European Union announced their support for Turkey through various mechanisms, to our credit. On the other hand, our procrastination at the fate of the inhabitants of northern Syria is abject. Yes, we must lift the sanctions against the Syrian people. Yes, in the name of European humanism, we must not back down from any partnership to save human lives. 90% of Syrians lived below the poverty line before the earthquake. EU and US sanctions keep them in a perpetual economic crisis that increases their migration and costs human lives. These conditions were already revolting, they are now politically disastrous and morally unbearable. Even the US is now announcing the easing of its coercive measures. So what is Europe waiting for? The European Union cannot continue to make the Syrian people pay for Bashar al-Assad’s victory over the Islamist rebellion and thus continue to keep the Syrian people in misery, even after this disaster. Today, people in Aleppo are still on the streets for fear of their buildings collapsing. Humanitarian organisations are taking huge legal risks to get the help that the people of Europe generously want to give to the victims. And we close our eyes by pretending that the sanctions would not affect humanitarian aid. But you know that this is not true, because all banks refuse to make any transfers. So all those involved in emergency aid are telling us the opposite and asking for this change in policy, the victims of the earthquake are asking us to do so: Let us lift the sanctions for Syria.

Madam President, the European Union is quite paradoxical about Afghanistan. We knew perfectly well that the Taliban would not respect anything the Western powers wanted. These men live, fight and die to challenge our countries, which they consider barbaric and decadent. The place of women, religious freedom, Shia or ethnic minorities in Afghanistan will never be stable under their yoke. It took all the naivety of our institutions to believe that their retrograde ideology would subside in contact with the emissaries of Brussels. In 2009-2010, I had the honour of being France’s Special Representative in Afghanistan. I met Afghan women who imposed much more than our institutional set-up. Educated, free, courageous, they did not fight against windmills, but for their dignity and their future. They have been the forgotten of our institutions. For to help Afghan women, concretely, it was necessary to ensure a geopolitical compromise in Kabul. We had to stop pampering Pakistan. It was necessary to work with all components of Afghan political life, and not only with a puppet government that had fled the country by ruining the army and robbing the people. In a nutshell: In Afghanistan, standing up for women needed to be realistic – everything we have not often been able to do.

... this speech saying that we are coming together to condemn the practices of a country that is undermining human rights, oppressing protest voices and contributing to the destabilisation of Africa. But then that would mean that we are talking here about Algeria. However, the European left never condemns Algeria and the European Union passes it while hoping for its gas. Instead, we are debating Morocco, which is one of the pivots of our strategic partnership in Africa. What is in this resolution? The claim that Mr Radi is not a rapist. Like all of you, I do not know. On the other hand, unlike the majority of this assembly, I do not consider that the Moroccan judicial decisions, that the rape victim’s accusations are worth less than Amnesty International’s or Human Rights Watch’s statements. The recent example of the practices of the NGO Fight Impunity should have alerted all of us to the credit we systematically give to NGOs. Like States, they have their interests and limitations. If Mr Radi is the victim of a conspiracy, it is up to his lawyers and the Moroccan people to prove it, and it is not up to the European Parliament to wipe its feet on the Moroccan justice system.

human rights for the European Union is a single expression that no one has spoken: Qatar Gate. The scandal in this Parliament is historic: For at least ten years, an Islamist dictatorship has been able to orient our institution's resolutions according to its interests. This is an unprecedented humiliation for a European Parliament that gives lessons to the whole world and claims to subject state policy to the opinions of NGOs. What lessons have we learned so far from this scandal? None. Worse, you even refused the immediate creation of a committee of inquiry, as proposed by the Identity and Democracy Group. A whole system is being unveiled by the Qatar Gate, corrupting NGOs, more arrogant than honest European institutions, lesson-giving socialists working with an Islamist dictatorship. No one will take this report seriously, as it comes from an institution that is currently discredited by an unprecedented scandal. Yes, there is an urgent need to set up a real committee of inquiry without waiting for a judgment for years.

Madam President, this report is a quality report, but I have the impression at times that it is also a report that could be that of a communication agency. It is a historic plea for the erasure of nations in favour of a Brussels superstate. We are not here to celebrate the European Union’s foreign policy and the decisions of the European External Action Service. We are here to control the initiatives and represent the will of our compatriots. As you know, the French do not want the enlargement of the European Union. They do not want the move to a qualified majority to know if we are going to war, if we are cutting off our diplomatic relations or if we are selling weapons. Nor do they want sanctions to replace diplomacy. Even less do they want to be drawn into a war in Ukraine today and perhaps tomorrow in the Balkans. While yesterday Nicolas Sarkozy was able to secure peace in Georgia in 2008, François Hollande and Angela Merkel were able to build the Minsk agreements in 2014, Emmanuel Macron is now following the instructions of the European institutions rather than launching a French initiative. This is a step backwards for our sovereignty. It is also a step backwards for peace.

Madam President, after the break-up of Libya, after the abandonment of France and the soldiers of Operation Barkhane, the European Union is now taking part in the destabilisation of Chad. At Fort—Lamy, Chad hosts a French air base. In N’Djamena, he coordinates with the French military forces to fight mafias, jihadist groups and human traffickers. It is true that the European Union is not embarrassed by these considerations. For her, an African country deserves to be condemned. In my opinion, the European Parliament is currently in a very poor position to lecture a government that is negotiating with its opposition, under the – guess – aegis of Qatar. Yes, the events of October 20th are a very difficult ordeal for all Chadians. Yes, all victims are to be regretted and regretted. Yes, the transformation of these demonstrations into what the Chadian authorities see as an insurgency has been the occasion for bloody clashes. I note, however, that the African Union has refused to sanction Chad. It is urgent that we renew our alliances with African partners who have a tradition of trust with France. While Chad declared a food emergency last summer, faces numerous security challenges in both the North and South, and has faced the worst floods in its history, this new debate, in my view, is deplorable. Open your eyes, ladies and gentlemen: our ideological policy in Africa is erasing our friendships and destroying our interests there. Vote for this resolution, but tomorrow it may come as no surprise that this void will be filled by other countries in Africa.

Mr President, in Syria, the European Union is only contributing to the deteriorating situation. After denying the powerful Islamist involvement in the Syrian rebellion, the EU has poured into a revanchist policy that is exhausting the entire region. Thus, by refusing to organise the repatriation of Syrian refugees present in Lebanon, you are destroying the balance of that entire country. Our insane policy of sanctions against the Syrian people is both a resounding political failure and a historic humanitarian scandal. The mafia galaxy of Qatargate, which is shaking the European Parliament, had obviously multiplied the initiatives in support of the Syrian rebellion. Moreover, for the past ten years, our policy towards Syria has been fully aligned with Doha’s interests in the area. Today, whether we like it or not, the Syrian people gave victory to Bashar al-Assad. Syria's worst enemy for ten years, Erdoğan, is now multiplying the signals to reconnect with Damascus. You are well aware that when Erdoğan puts forward a pawn in the Levant, NATO may well want it. To make it clear: Instead of supporting Syria’s territorial unity and policy, our foreign policy has paved the way for an inevitable bloodbath. As always in history, the US ended up abandoning the Kurds. And as always in history, the Turks absolutely refuse to allow Kurdish factions to organise at the border. Let's sum up this aberrant situation: Turkey is currently successfully moving closer to Damascus, while supporting the illegal occupation of the Idlib region by Islamists and supporting all enemies of the Syrian government. As for the Europeans, who have suffered Islamist attacks directly organized since the fiefdoms of the Syrian revolution, why could he not restore a balanced relationship with Syria? Yes, the clash between the Kurds and Erdoğan can only move us. However, we must be hypocritical to deny that we are indignant, but that we will do nothing else.

Mr President, after the ‘Qatargate’ affair, the European Parliament is not in a position to be credible on this file. Qatar regularly takes hostile positions against Israel in front of international institutions. This was again the case on 21 September at the 77th United Nations General Assembly. Neither Israel, nor Palestine, nor any country will be able to take our debate seriously in this matter. Our European Parliament and especially its Subcommittee on Human Rights have been under the influence of Qatar. There is currently no reason to say that this is no longer the case. To maintain this debate is to continue the humiliation of an institution that has failed to protect itself from the obvious interference of a state sponsor of Islamism. I would like France to spearhead a new dynamic in favour of two viable states. This is the only solution, as we know, for peace to come one day between Israel and Palestine. But it has nothing to gain from doing so through the European Union, which has neither the will nor the credibility to support such an initiative.

Madam President, we are all destroying a country with the best of conscience. I was last week with a delegation of French Members in Lebanon; All parties, all faiths and all actors have conveyed the same message to us, whether they are Shia, Sunni or Christian. Today, almost 2 million Syrian refugees are present in a country of 6 million people. This is an intolerable burden. Imagine tomorrow that in France we were receiving 22 million refugees. Today, schools in Lebanon are exploding, hospitals are failing and all this is compounded by the economic crisis. We must act quickly and according to a very simple roadmap. Today, it is enough to accept that Syrian refugees return to their country. The European Union and the West refuse to acknowledge their failure in Syria, and we are making sure that a country keeps a third of its population on its territory when it does not have the means to do so. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in a few months it will be too late: more schools and hospitals in a country than we are, I repeat, murdering. It is enough simply to allow NGOs to accompany refugees to Syria, for themselves and to save Lebanon.

Mr President, Egypt has just organised COP27 brilliantly. Obviously, the content of the discussions is subject to many political debates. However, we can agree on one thing: Cairo has done things perfectly. Our Parliament spends its time giving ecological lessons to the whole planet. At least the opportunity of this debate could have been used to congratulate Egypt and its people. But the opportunity was too good. The opportunity was too good to take up the speech of the associations that did not digest the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood from power. The opportunity was too good to serve soup to the Soros network, which is attacking France for its privileged relationship with Cairo. It is also fascinating to note the difference in treatment in this Parliament between Egypt and Qatar. Qatar has participated in the destabilization of the entire Middle East. He has supported some of the bloodiest Islamist rebellions in history. It continues to house the most fundamentalist preachers in the Arab world. The European Parliament will soon present a resolution which forgives him everything and congratulates him on many points. President al-Sisi’s Egypt is making progress on religious freedom, fighting Islamism on its soil, influencing its neighbourhood to resist jihadists. The European Parliament is presenting a resolution with terms that are as unfair as they are violent against it. Once again, the Arab world will read these initiatives as a model of the duplicity and hypocrisy of the European Union. Again, the rest of the world will wonder how Europe can be so wrong in choosing its regional partners. Once again, the citizens of the Member States will ask themselves a legitimate question: Why such submission to Qatar, Europe, when it finances associations and media that interfere in public life? Of course, Egypt must be encouraged to continue its human and economic progress, to modernise its infrastructure and to continue to be involved in the fight against illegal immigration and, above all, to have a courageous policy to combat terrorism. For that, we must be by his side.

Madam President, the European Union’s action in the Middle East can be summed up in two words: ideological and catastrophic. In Lebanon, you interfere in political life by offering no solution to the economic slump that afflicts the country. In Egypt, you insult a state that fights the Muslim Brotherhood and brilliantly organized COP27. In Syria, you refuse to draw the consequences of Bashar al-Assad’s victory and punish the Syrian people for not throwing themselves into the arms of the Islamist rebellion. You now want to review our agreements with Dubai. You exasperate Iran as much as Saudi Arabia. And I am not even talking about the Christians of the East, whom you are softly defending and who are the forgotten ones in your politics. The European Union has a genius. It spends taxpayers’ money without counting, and it only manages to make enemies. Whatever the religious denomination, geopolitical orientation and institutional nature of our Eastern partners, their response is always the same: the EU is arrogant, blind and unrealistic. Yesterday, France could negotiate peace in Lebanon. It could move the world by refusing to join the intervention in Iraq. It could propose ways of conciliation in Palestine. The EU is the tomb of French foreign policy. Its rise corresponds to our disappearance in Africa and our eclipse in the Middle East. A policy dating back to Saint Louis, Francis I, Napoleon III and up to General de Gaulle was liquidated in a few years to make way for the Brussels technocratic structure. Your diplomacy has only one face, that of sanctions. Your balance sheet has only one measure: the pace of France’s disappearance from its areas of influence.

Madam President, having heard these urgent debates on human rights and the Mediterranean world, I have a question: Is there a preferential option for the Muslim Brotherhood here in the European Parliament? We are entitled to ask ourselves this question, given the statements made today by the EU and the so-called human rights associations on Tunisia, as was the case yesterday with Egypt. When this country was ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood of Ennahdha, under infusion of Western money, we found nothing to complain about. Fortunately, the Tunisian people have been more courageous and have said stop to the regression of their morals and their finances. President Saïed has arrived. He arrived with extremely important popular support. He is trying to restore political authority and presidential authority. It is trying to re-establish the Tunis dialogue with the international financial institutions. It is also trying to restore some political stability. What is Tunisia suffering from today? First, a complicated neighbourhood. Secondly, an inflationary crisis in which the priority for the Tunisian people is to live rather than to survive. While Tunisia has just reached an agreement – as has been said – with the IMF, we should rather reflect with it on how to cooperate in order to strengthen regional cooperation in the Mediterranean. It is our interest in terms of migration, it is our interest in terms of security, it is our interest in terms of geopolitics, as the cultural ties with this country are so strong. We need a strong Maghreb, able to offer economic opportunities to its children, to fight Islamists and to participate in the balance of this entire region of Africa. Since 2019, President Saïed has been trying to strengthen the state, an essential condition for Tunisia to regain its regional and international scope, and I do not think that increasing interference to force it to follow certain revenues that have systematically failed since 2011 is a good thing. Dear colleagues, for you, Tunisia is facing Europe, for us, it is with Europe, in a shared interest for our common good: the Mediterranean.

Mr. Speaker, federalists like to repeat Jean Monnet's quote: "The European Union will be the sum of the solutions to crises". Yet Europe has not waited for the European Union to learn from its history. De Gaulle understood this at the time of the Cold War: organising an economic and industrial policy of mistrust towards Russia is never, in the long run, a good solution for our continent. Transferring control of our strategic gas stocks to technocracy without democratic legitimacy is neither the will of the French nor their interests. Emmanuel Macron has consented to a plan negotiated in catimini and which awaits our sovereignty. European states must retain the right to strategic independence, to the energy security policy of their choice. If tomorrow one country, France or another, wants to continue to source gas mainly from one country or another, it must be able to continue to do so. Commissioner, the European Union will not make us believe that storing Algerian gas or Qatari gas will mean, tomorrow, better defending European culture or democracy. Similarly, buying more and more shale gas from the Americans will not, I think, make us progress in protecting the environment.

Mr President, as was the case with the COVID crisis, the European Union and Mrs Loiseau, Emmanuel Macron's spokesperson in this Parliament, are using the war in Ukraine to create a European superstate. Solidarity with the Ukrainian people must not make us forget another reality. You are sacrificing nations to accomplish a federalist project. You do this without consulting the people, by deciding on sanctions that will ravage our economy. You do this by forgetting the other nations that, from China to India, from Senegal to Mexico, refuse to align with our policy. You do this by hiding your proposals from the French. After the destruction of the French diplomatic corps, you want to set up a Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the European Union. You now want to impose a diktat of Brussels on our defence industry. After the disappearance of our strategic independence in the hands of the European Union, you want Brussels to be able to embark us in conflicts and sanctions policies without the rule of mandatory unanimity. You practice a real strategy of shock by exploiting the legitimate emotion of the war in Ukraine. You put us at extreme risk by giving in to all the injunctions of the Ukrainian president, who now comes to lecture in Paris or to lecture in Berlin. I think you are dragging us into an economic and geopolitical catastrophe through a policy of sanctions that no one wants to follow outside the West. As you continually demand the application of multilateralism, you are building a system that isolates us in an almost exclusive relationship with the United States.

Madam President, Commissioner, you referred to 'robust' sanctions. But can we look once at the economic effects of the sanctions we have taken? Because political effects, you never see them. So far, I do not know of any country that has changed its position after sanctions. The result of these sanctions? As you know, the main sanctions against Belarus have been on nitrogen and potash, which are its main products. Belarus, together with China and Russia, produces 60 per cent of the production of these potash fertilizers. Result: After these sanctions, prices quadrupled. Quadrupled. When I take – and I invite you to do the same – Eurostat statistics, I see that Belarus has never made so much money from this potash fertiliser. Never. So I would like sanctions to be added to the sanctions. I have the impression that this Parliament is drunk on sanctions. But if sanctions are added, what is their effect? Is it just to have fun in this Chamber? So I say that, of course, the situation in Belarus must change. But if it evolves, I think, contrary to some, that it will be by re-establishing dialogue rather than adding sanctions to sanctions. Result of these sanctions today: the countries I mentioned are earning more, our farmers are seeing fertiliser prices skyrocket and consumers are seeing the price of some of the agricultural products skyrocket.

Mr President, Moldova made a key choice in 1994: neutrality. This choice is the guarantee of the development of this country. This is the choice of a country that must help us maintain bridges between eastern and western Europe. The great generosity of the Moldovan people in welcoming Ukrainian refugees is of course a credit to this country and deserves to be commended. It is quite normal, therefore, for the solidarity of European nations to be exercised with those who welcome the victims of war. However, I have the greatest concern when I hear the words of some of my colleagues. Moldova is the fruit of a complex history of friendship and coexistence between the West and the Russian world. Anything that would shake that balance can become a danger to that area. It is the huge mistake of the European Union to have followed all American strategies and become dependent on NATO. If we had built a genuine tool to support the independence of European nations, then perhaps we could be a regional stabilization actor. Unfortunately, this is not the case. This is not the case when the Eastern Partnership is instrumentalised to align beneficiary countries with Western positions. This is not the case when we turn a blind eye to the practices of pro-European business circles, as was the case during the 2014 banking scandal in Moldova. This is not the case when the European Union openly interferes in the elections of a third country by designating the good and the bad, as Brussels did to support the election of Maia Sandu. The last European elections have shown in my country that the French people are currently opposed to any further enlargement. This was clearly stated by the main political parties present in this Parliament. To deceive Moldovans by telling them that there will be unanimity in favour of a new rapid enlargement is not honest. I remember that we had exactly the same scenario in 2014, when a number of my colleagues went to Maidan and explained that Ukrainians would be in Europe the day after tomorrow. Ten years later, we see where we stand! I therefore support the necessary aid to Moldova, but I absolutely refuse the instrumentalisation of this country by powers that want to drag a large part of Europe into the chaos of a generalised confrontation. We must work for peace and dialogue, not seek to expand proxy wars that will serve no one on our continent.

Madam President, the European Union has long left France alone in the Sahel. This abandonment was a strategic absurdity and as Mr Gahler said – for once, I agree with him – this debate should have happened a long time ago. While French soldiers were dying to fight Islamism in the Sahel and neighbouring countries, Brussels, for years, was looking elsewhere. As usual, excuses were always found: it was necessary to promote integrated European action, it was not necessary to give priority to France, it was necessary to promote NATO’s ambitions. Unsurprisingly, France ended up getting tired of this generous mission, which it led in almost complete isolation, even if in recent years, let’s be honest, there has been a minority European participation. Tomorrow, the French people will be tired of being the only one to accept compromises to underpin the idea of strategic autonomy in Europe, when others have already put their destiny back in the arms of NATO. The junta in Mali no longer wants the action of France and its soldiers. It is unfortunate, but it is his right. In five years, Emmanuel Macron’s France will have pushed back France’s influence in Africa, in the very countries where we had historical allies. This backsliding should also ask us about the ability of Europeans to influence the African continent. While China, Russia, Turkey and the Arab world are increasing their influence on the African continent and even in the Sahel, Europe, Commissioner, no longer knows how to act. The impact of the war in Ukraine on African economies is going to be terrible and I am willing, as I have heard now, for the new leader to be the Wagner militias, but I think that the destabilisation of Libya has been much more important in the fatal chain for Africa. Migration pressure, radicalisation against a background of impoverishment, risk of famine, the European Union is now losing its tools of influence at a time when crises are looming. Yes, we need a new policy, but we need a new policy urgently.

Madam President, Cambodia has a special connection with our continent. It is probably the South-East Asian country that has maintained the most relations, in particular with France. It would therefore be perfectly normal for the European Union to have good relations with Phnom Penh. Yet the EU persists in refusing to maintain these correct relations with Cambodia, while once again having a double standard. In neighbouring Vietnam, we are signatories to a free trade agreement, which is no problem. Fundamental rights are far less advanced than in Cambodia and I do not even dare to talk about the conditions of the elections. But on the other hand, in Cambodia, sanctions are imposed, in Vietnam, a free trade treaty is signed. Once again, double standards. Of course, Cambodia does well to demonstrate the double standards of the European Union in this matter. One may even wonder if part of the European left is trying to erase its past friendship with the Khmer Rouge by attacking Cambodia. Cambodia has real challenges ahead of it, including the normalisation of the relationship between the state and opposition parties. It is not by imposing sanctions that we will support its progress. Moreover, while the UN Human Rights Committee issued a critical periodic report on the country last March, it is clear that at least it is working with the country’s political power: national plan against violence against women, campaign to improve access to administrative identity, continuation of trials against the Khmer Rouge, reform of juvenile justice, establishment of a committee against torture. Not everything is excellent in respecting human rights in Cambodia, but reforms are at least on track. Instead, let us try to encourage them instead of blaming them and being once again, in this region as elsewhere, in a two-point, two-step policy.

Madam President, the EU-China summit could have been a strategic step forward for European nations. However, this is a disappointing result. First, because the Chinese do not want to follow our crazy escalation of sanctions against Russia. They do not want to, because they know that in reality they will ultimately benefit. As you try to make people believe that economic suicide is the best way to build a strong Europe, the world looks at us with dismay: neither Africa, nor South America, nor Asia stand with us. Despite a costly policy of collaboration, despite our pretension to dictate morality to the world, we often find ourselves closed doors. The strategic challenge for the coming years is: Will Europe still count tomorrow or will we now be a wasteland between Beijing and Washington? To answer this question, we must maintain the diplomatic power of European states and adapt our economic policy. Maintaining our diplomatic power is a reminder that our strength lies in the diplomatic traditions of the Member States and their military independence. In our diplomatic traditions, there is the weight of experience. When we sanction a country, it inevitably imposes counter-sanctions on us. Only minds disconnected from reality can hope otherwise. We're in a never-ending escalation. The Brussels project is to put pressure on China to align with our policy towards Russia. Obviously, this project is unlikely to be realized. On the contrary, we should have negotiated with China new outlets and new supply chains for our economies. We did not, because we are obsessed with one thing: always and always bring us closer to the positions of the United States. If we really want to trade with China, it will be necessary to return to an attitude of conciliation with it, otherwise we are dependent on the slightest American communication campaign to block our markets, constrain our diplomacy, vassalise our armies. Yes, we need to negotiate with China in the interest of nations. The European Union refuses to do so, again preferring an ideological view of the world.

Madam President, thank you. Let us be careful, Commissioner, that the European sanctions taken in response to the war in Ukraine and the sanctions against Russia do not lead to a real food crisis. When we take sanctions, I always ask myself the question: Are their costs and impacts assessed? Today, I would just like, in the short time I have, to take an example: the sanctions that were imposed on Belarus almost two years ago. What was their result? Has the Belarusian system and regime collapsed? No, no. On the other hand, what was the main sanction against Belarus? The ban on potash, Belarus’ main resource. As a result, the price of potash fertiliser in 2021 increased threefold. Since the beginning of the year, this fertiliser has increased further by 40%. In the end, has Belarus lost money? No, no. It even seems to be earning more, because it has reoriented its market, because there is a global shortage and prices, I repeat, have tripled. On the other hand, our farmers – I hear the talk about replacing with natural fertilisers and I fully agree, but it takes time – are now paying three times more for their synthetic fertilisers. Our consumers see the price of this fertiliser reflected in the prices of the materials they consume. So I'm just saying: When taking sanctions, try to assess their impact. It is always difficult to measure the political effects on the target country. I don't know of any country that has plagiarized because of sanctions. On the other hand, I see the effects for the consumer and for our farmers. Excuse me, but in the example I took on potash, it is a total failure.

Madam President, the interest of Europe, like the interest of the Sudanese, is that calm and order prevail in their country. We have all welcomed the departure of Omar al-Bashir and the Identity and Democracy Group is calling for his presentation before the International Criminal Court in its alternative resolution. The Government of Sudan has since been divided among several political forces who have great difficulty in coming to an agreement. The international community must refrain from interfering in Sudanese affairs and avoid repeating its mistakes in Libya or Egypt in Khartoum. Civil war in Ethiopia, people fleeing Eritrea, high-risk presidential elections in Somalia. Threats of migratory surge from the Horn of Africa are high. The triggering of US or EU sanctions on Sudan would only exacerbate these risks. I am particularly concerned, moreover, about the European Union's inaction and silence on Ethiopia's filling of its dam on the Blue Nile. President Abiy Ahmed could accelerate this process and thus endanger thousands of human lives in Sudan and Egypt. His bloody repression against the populations of Tigray shows that he is quite capable of it. And when I read in the joint resolution that some are afraid of border surveillance measures in Sudan, I can only be appalled. While the Muslim Brotherhood could use the situation to try to turn Sudan into a refuge for Islamists around the world, we must guard against any hasty condemnation. We see in Libya that speeding up elections is not always the best way to improve the situation. It is in our interest to work with neighbouring countries, including Egypt and Chad, to prevent any dangerous consequences in this turbulent period in Sudan.

Mr President, Almaty, Nursultan and many other cities in Kazakhstan have been the scene of deadly clashes. Kazakhstan even had to appeal to the Common Security Treaty Organization to restore order. And I note that almost all foreign troops have already returned to their country. It is therefore with some surprise that I learned of the inclusion of this debate on the agenda. I rejoiced at the beginning. I thought that perhaps our Parliament would talk about the stability of this country since independence. No bloody civil war like in Tajikistan. No conflict with neighbouring states as between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Perhaps I imagined that we would encourage the development that prevails there. I thought that reminds us of the importance of our trade relations for raw materials with this great Central Asian country. I was perhaps naively saying that we would congratulate Kazakhstan on its religious peace in a part of the world plagued by Islamist radicalization. But no, I forgot that these resolutions really only serve to give our Parliament a good conscience. It is necessary to condemn and if possible condemn quickly. Even if we have absolutely too little information. We do not know exactly what happened in Kazakhstan. Other speakers have pointed this out before me. We do know, however, that there have been far too many lives lost among demonstrators and security forces alike. Is it a riot because of inflation? Is this a new manipulation of Mr. Abliazov thanks to the billions of dollars he stole from the Kazakh people and which he uses to finance organizations to destabilize the country? Is this the result of political tensions? We don't know for sure at this time. And yet, a majority of MPs proudly brandish these condemnations. Because Kazakhstan's progress, its central role in the new Silk Roads, its political evolution, obviously, are taking a back seat. What seems to interest the majority of this Parliament is to use all situations to attack Russia or China. I express my condolences to the military and civilian victims of these events and I hope that the light will be shed and that Kazakhstan will resume its economic and democratic development.

Mr President, everything is good in this Parliament to attack Serbia. Belgrade, shamefully bombed by NATO forces, is like a permanent bad conscience on our doorstep. Serbia refuses to comply with the European Union’s forceful Atlanticism? The Commission then makes it a condition for accession to the European Union, without these provisions being included in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Serbia refuses to recognize the dismemberment of its territory with the creation of Kosovo? So this Parliament is trying to impose the recognition of Pristina. Does Serbia welcome all international investors, be they Chinese, European or Russian? So Brussels would like to make it dependent on our subsidies alone. I am the first to defend the right to fair competition on the European continent. However, I want these human rights resolutions to be comprehensive and transparent. Where does the information on the Linglong plant come from? An association funded by George Soros’ Open Society and whose representative is a former employee of George Soros in Serbia. Colleagues, it must be said that Mr Soros’ interference in the affairs of this Parliament is a constant insult to our constituents. The Balkans attract a huge number of investors and diverse networks. Turkey, the Gulf countries, Russia, the United States and China are in constant competition. What does the European Union stand against them? Money rains on the less virtuous leaders, like Mr Đukanović in Montenegro. This attitude inevitably results in failures, because we pass for an actor more ideologue than realistic. This resolution, I fear, will therefore remain a dead letter. Instead of inciting an impartial and full investigation, this resolution condemns without specific elements. Instead of engaging with Serbia, we are exploiting a biased investigation against Belgrade.

Madam President, after the regular debates on Hungary, now it is the regular debates on Poland. Poles have the right to sovereignly choose their definition of the family, their conception of the unborn life, their education system and the place they are willing to give to the state in the direction of their lives. These areas, as has been said, are not within the competence of the European Union. And the defence of the rule of law – the rule of law, a concept which does not appear in the Treaties and which is not precisely defined – cannot be a pretext for arrogating to itself, at European level, prerogatives which belong only to the constitutions of the various countries. We were discussing the fall of the USSR on Monday: Solzhenitsyn warned us that there would be seeds of totalitarianism in the powers that would rule the world after the Cold War. The European Union does not have to determine what a man, a woman, a family is. The European Union does not have to behave like a deity that would force its followers to follow a new gospel. It is the Constitution of a country that must define it, and this Constitution today does not have to comply with a rule of law that has never been clearly defined in the Treaties.