Speeches

Mr President, of course I share the concerns of previous speakers: The fight against crime in the Balkans is a priority. But where I cannot follow them is the reasoning that without a European perspective, we would not be able to fight effectively and sustainably against the mafias in this region. First, because this argument is the door open to an unlimited extension of the European Union. Tomorrow, which will prevent the people of the Caucasus or Anatolia from saying ‘if we do not enter the European Union, crime will explode in our country’. Secondly, because this report, which deals with a very specific subject, organised crime in the Balkans, which is rotting the lives of so many of our compatriots, has been treated – as is often the case in this Parliament – from an ideological point of view. This disconnection from reality is not the only weakness of the report. Indeed, we are trying to use the fight against crime to obtain international recognition of Kosovo, while the will of EU Member States, against the historical reality, opposes such recognition. I ask a simple question: Has the recognition of Montenegro made it possible to combat organised crime and its links with the authorities in power? I ask another question: Has entry into the EU stopped Roma mafias from a number of our countries? It is therefore not, of course, a question of combating crime, but of advancing an ideological agenda through this report. And then, there is a great absence in this text, the migration route of the Balkans: How can we address the fight against crime in this region without mentioning the Balkan migration route and the Turkish influences there? How can we abandon the EU’s external borders in Croatia, when they are so regularly discussed? The Kosovo and Albanian vendettas and networks are taking Europeans hostage - it has been said: settlement of accounts, continuous flow of drugs, modern slavery, exploitation of women, organ trafficking are a scourge for our nations. These tragedies deserve better than a petition of ideological principle. Yes to the fight against mafias, but no to their instrumentalisation to bring certain countries into the European Union.

Madam President, I have searched in vain for what territory Ukraine is now occupied by Russia, Ms Loiseau. Yes, there is a territory, Crimea, where the inhabitants made the choice in 2014 to join Russia through a referendum won with an overwhelming majority. Moreover, have you seen, Ms Loiseau, a massive wave of migration from Crimea sweeping across Europe? No, no. And why? You know this very well, because this referendum reflected the will of the majority of the population. In eastern Ukraine, where people have risen up against the Kiev government, residents are waiting for the Minsk agreements granting them special status in Ukraine to finally be respected. Yes, we all know that there was a solution to defuse this Ukrainian conflict. This solution was the outright application of the Minsk agreements negotiated by Ms Merkel and Mr Hollande. Unfortunately, they have always remained a dead letter. It is well known that the Ukrainian government and the Rada did not intend to apply them and, logically, Russia has not shown more willingness to apply them as well. For example, the Ukrainian government has still not taken the slightest step to deliver on its promises in Donbass, namely to establish a status that guarantees more autonomy. Today, worse, Ukraine is picking up the most belligerent accents against the Russians. Do you have to remember that some supporters of the Ukrainian government have their hands full of blood? The blood of dozens of victims of the burning of the House of Trade Unions in Odessa in May 2014, passed over in silence. The blood of those beaten to death by Mr Bandera's nostalgic militias, a notorious Nazi sympathizer. Is it necessary to recall that the Donbass crisis was triggered by the decision of Mr Poroshenko's government to abolish regional languages in 2014, Russian, but also Hungarian, Romanian and even Crimean Tatar? Today, 13,000 Ukrainians, regardless of their ideas, have lost their lives in this conflict. The European Union must stop veiling its face in Ukraine. The latest report of the Court of Auditors of the European Union begins with the following words: “Ukraine is undermined by great corruption”. President Zelenskyy, who has been chasing failures, is also playing on rising tensions to save the little popularity he has left. Censorship of the press, denunciation of false coups d’état: Obviously, we are ready to do anything to guarantee his situation. The only peaceful path today is compliance with the Minsk agreements. This is the respect that the European Union should demand from all parties to avoid a new war. And it is this respect that you make fun of, whatever you say.

Madam President, the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is a clear demonstration of the European Union’s diplomatic failures. Neighbourhood policy, political accession process for the Western Balkans: None of this has allowed Europe to be an effective actor in Bosnia. For 30 years, we have known that the country stands on a compromise in which all foreign powers are engulfed. Organised crime, migration routes from the Balkans to Trieste, human trafficking... the list of dangers on our doorstep is long. Turkey, the United States, Albania... Everyone is trying to play their score on the backs of the two Bosnian republics. Why would they do the opposite? They know that Brussels does not say a word against the provocations of Albin Kurti in Kosovo and Edi Rama in Albania. Unfortunately, everything is now participating in a real implosion of Bosnia. The sectarian actions of the US representative and the anti-Serb prejudices of Western statements have obviously aggravated tensions in the country. It is even rumoured that Brussels and Washington are working on sanctions against the representative of the Bosnian Serbs. If, what I fear, it were confirmed, can we still believe that we will improve the situation and obtain legitimacy and effectiveness by imitating American policy everywhere? Who can believe for a second that sanctions are the beginning of a solution in the countries concerned? Nobody. The European Union is a humiliated actor in Bosnia. Only an emancipated US policy and a return to a fair and balanced relationship with Serbia can, I hope, avoid the flare-up.

Madam President, Tunisia, through its history, culture and geography, is unwaveringly linked to Europe. The recent period in the country has been particularly deplorable for our relations. The coming to power of a party linked to Islamism has precipitated migratory, security and cultural tensions. As everywhere the followers of the Muslim Brotherhood have led, the result has been catastrophic. Impoverishment, gabegie, corruption have been Ennahdha’s track record and political implosion has long been on the horizon. As everywhere, the Arab Spring gave birth only to a socio-political catastrophe. All observers were particularly concerned. The most serious therefore welcomed with immense relief the election and the decisions of Kaïs Saïed. Kaïs Saïed is the opposite of Islamists, those who, in sneakers, sell to Turkey and are not able to read the Koran. He speaks literary Arabic, he won the last presidential election with more than 70% of the vote and I admit that he develops sovereignist arguments. I see a lot of women in her new government, including the Prime Minister. This should be welcomed by the European Parliament. Instead, obviously, some prefer to relay the propaganda of the Muslim Brotherhood. They would like the rule of law to benefit Islamist parties. They continue to support the solutions that have plunged Tunisia into this economic decline and accelerated migration flows. A strong and prosperous Tunisia would be an asset for EU Member States. Let us give the opportunity to this new government, which has all the qualities to right Tunisia by finding the way back to an effective democracy at the service of its people.

Madam President, one of the biggest flaws of this Parliament is that it is a prisoner of its obsessions. There would be so much to say about the Arctic: the effects of globalisation on maritime transport, the preservation of biodiversity, the need to maintain cooperation between nation states in the Arctic. Unfortunately, this Parliament does not serve this purpose. Once again, we serve to justify symbolic and military investment in NATO. The European Union’s interest is rather to encourage our nations to develop strategic relations with Beijing and Moscow in this region of the world, which is one of the last where we still have a peaceful dialogue with these two partners. Who can seriously believe that the European Union is in a position to dictate the conduct of countries directly bordering the Arctic Ocean? Who can believe for a moment that the nations would have to go through Brussels to defend their specific interests in this region? Nobody. Once again, our Parliament is distinguished by a report that is completely indifferent to the principle of reality. It is neither good for our trade nor good for our continent.

Madam President, Ethiopia is one of the first Christians in history. It is one of the pivotal countries of the Horn of Africa. It is also a key link in Europe’s migratory perils. This is why the fate of Ethiopia has always been of interest to European nations. This is why the international community must also be particularly cautious, especially when it rushed to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed a few months after his election. It is true that in recent years, awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to war triggers has tended to become a habit. As far as Ethiopia is concerned, our recklessness is certainly even more culpable. Abiy Ahmed decided to fight a bitter battle against Tigray province when it refused to delay the general elections on 4 November. Since then, the constant assaults by government forces on the region have been marred by numerous war crimes. The Christian heritage, so prolific in the Tigray region, is particularly at risk. Ethiopian monks were even massacred. This observation, which is already overwhelming, is compounded by two other points. First, Abiy Ahmed himself admitted that he had asked the Eritrean army for help in invading northern Ethiopia. This army multiplies massacres and defends the interests of one of the most closed states on the planet. Secondly, Ethiopia is now a very fragile country, as other hotbeds of ethnic protest against the central government are emerging. However, between the Islamist hotbeds in Somalia and Sudan, and Turkish influence in the region, the worst is to be feared in terms of migration and security for the entire Horn of Africa and tomorrow, perhaps, for Europe.

Mr President, of course, we can only understand people who seek to preserve their freedom, in Hong Kong or elsewhere. Who wouldn't? Who does not feel a certain sympathy when they see students, priests and journalists standing up to maintain the very special spirit that prevails in Hong Kong? Diplomacy, however, is not about sympathy or feelings. This is a matter of national interest. In 1997, England decided to hand over Hong Kong to China and de facto surrender sovereignty over the island. And everyone already knew the rest of the story... We can regret it. It is regrettable that European nations have been and continue to be encouraged to reduce their influence around the world. But I'm also realistic: the European Union has no influence in Hong Kong and our nations have no interest in adopting hawkish rhetoric against China, as can already be seen in some statements. Let us open our eyes and seek our own path, the interest of Europe, amid the adversity between China and the United States. Let us not allow ourselves to be dragged back into a new Cold War.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there is an influence that we never talk about in these walls, an influence that everyone knows but nobody talks about. This influence in our parliamentary life is that of a series of very political NGOs that advocate transparency for others and hide their very concrete interests behind a cosmetic of human rights. Foreign interference is inseparable from international life. Our European neighbours are well aware of this, who, under Louis XIV or Napoleon, under de Gaulle or under the Third Republic, had never ceased to interfere in the French political process. It was precisely the strength of our great leaders to resist them. It is the weakness of our current leaders to have given up being a great power. That it seems far away the time when Jacques Chirac and France could refuse to participate in the invasion of Iraq. If a President of the Republic did so again, I wonder whether he would not be condemned by this Parliament. Yes, Mr Glucksmann, there are foreign interferences which you have denounced. But I think you have forgotten a country whose interference in our institutions is permanent. A country that is officially manoeuvring and yet is thousands of kilometres from our borders. A country that has no interest in the European Union becoming, as its founders dreamed, a true global economic power. This country, of course, is the United States of America. They co-opt the elites, fund scholarships and programmes for political staff of European nations, they express their opinion on the outcome of elections in the very heart of Europe, they even interfere in the presidential election in France, where Barack Obama had officially indicated that he was calling to vote for Emmanuel Macron. Moreover, their action is redoubled by ideological groups financed by billionaires. And if we call them NGOs, they are actually political pressure groups trying to impose their agenda on our institutions. So what I am asking for, quite simply, is also the same transparency requirement for those NGOs that have now taken up so much space in Parliament. If you do, Commissioner, then I will believe in your will to combat interference. Finally, I am concerned about the climate in this Parliament, where when one is wrong to have a different opinion from the majority, one is immediately taxed as an agent from abroad. I wonder if we are not revisiting a period of intolerance that McCarthyism symbolised in the 1950s.

Madam President, her name was Ebru Timtik, a lawyer specialising in politically sensitive cases. She died on August 27, 2020, after 238 days of hunger strike. She was about 40 years old. Helin Bölek also died in his 28th year, after 288 days on hunger strike. His body no longer held. She was a musician, like İbrahim Gökçek and Mustafa Koçak, who also died in prison during their hunger strike. I could mention other detainees who died in the silence of Turkish prisons because of their opinions or political commitment. I could also tell you about the Diril family: Simoni and Hurmuz Diril, a Christian couple from the Sirnak region of southern Turkey, both abducted. The wife was found dead and no one knows where her husband, Hurmuz, is. We try to alert every plenary session about this couple, but some refuse to pass an amendment that only mentions this situation. This sectarianism is also evidence of our institution’s dual discourse on human rights and international politics. I would point out that it was following the death of one man, one man – of course, one too many – in a Russian prison that the United States adopted the Magnitsky Act. The European Union quickly imitated them. The numerous deaths of political opponents in Erdoğan do not provoke the same reaction. Mr Erdoğan continues to receive billions from the European Union. Mr Erdoğan still does not find the door closed and definitively closed in the accession negotiations. Mr Erdoğan is still NATO’s pillar for the Middle East. Colleagues, our attitude towards Turkey shows all the hypocrisy of our institution. Mr Erdoğan is necessary for the interests of the United States and therefore sanctions, threats, reactions slip on him, because he knows that he fears nothing from the international community. For other countries, the less well-crafted stories are enough to provoke hysterical reactions. People are watching us. They analyze the roots and consequences of our actions. They note that in the face of the Erdoğan threat, we are not acting. We remain paralyzed.