Speeches

Mr President, the debate on the European Union's relations with China puts us before the dilemma of having an autonomous international policy based on our interests or continuing to sublet our international policy to organizations and structures that make their decisions based on the interests of others, if not contrary to ours. The speeches by President von der Leyen or Mr Borrell do not invite optimism in this regard. The European Union must be an independent actor in the development of an open and multipolar international order, an order with multilateral relations for mutual benefit and that recovers the objectives of the United Nations Foundation Charter. In this commitment to the autonomy of the European Union in its international policies, it is necessary to restore normality in our relations with China. President Xi Jinping has reached out in meetings with leaders of the European Union and we must take it, as the future of the planet cannot be built without China. No one can deny that improving relations with China is beneficial for the European Union and its peoples. Let us not fall into the trap of those who feel threatened by their privileges of world hegemony. Let's not do the dirty work for them. Let us defend Europe's interests from our autonomy. Let's get out of here with the activation of the agreements with China, which are frozen by political decisions that benefit others, but harm our peoples. Let us recognize that the peace plan presented by China can serve, together with other plans presented, for example, by President Lula or President Petro, to open negotiations for a peace in Ukraine at once, and let us leave here placing the European Union on the path of solutions and not as an active part of the problems. Let's change the course that leads us to a cold war situation with the world divided into blocks that are economically disconnected. A world that is not only harmful in the short term, because it would result in a deepening of the economic crisis that we suffer, but in the medium term would place us on the precipice of a nuclear holocaust. We want dialogue, autonomy and, most importantly, we want peace.

Mr President, we are concerned about the situation in Tunisia. The situation of the dissolution of Parliament, the reform of the judiciary or the attack on freedom of expression is very bad news for the Tunisian people. We are particularly concerned about the attempted repression being suffered by the Tunisian General Labour Union, the country's main trade union and a key organisation in the overthrow of the Ben Ali dictatorship and the expansion of the rights of the Tunisian working class. In Tunisia, as all over the world, trade unions are a vaccine against authoritarianism. We reject their repression and the recent expulsion of the General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation and a representative of the General Union of Workers of Spain. It is no coincidence that class unions are attacked, but it is no coincidence that Tunisia is now being debated here when France and Morocco are losing influence in the country. I wish this Parliament would debate the situation of countries, regardless of their geopolitical orientation. The defence of human rights cannot depend on geopolitical calculation.

Mr President, Mr Borrell, the Israeli regime has intensified its spiral of violence against the Palestinian people. So far this year, and not counting what is happening in the Gaza ghetto, 83 Palestinian people have been killed and 144 homes have been destroyed. They have authorized nine settlements and announced the construction, in the West Bank alone, of more than 10,000 homes for illegal settlers. A bill introducing the death penalty for Palestinian prisoners was passed earlier this month. And what is the European Union doing in the face of this outrage? Well, the usual: statements expressing deep concern as you, Mr Borrell, reactivate the Association Council with Israel and President Metsola announces close relations with the Israeli Parliament and invites with honour the president of a colonial regime that practises ethnic cleansing and apartheid against the native people of the territory it occupies. Mr Borrell, we must now put an end to the Association Agreement with Israel and exclude this criminal regime from all programmes financed by the European Union.

Madam President, the right, once again, has blocked a debate in this House on the brutal repression suffered by the Peruvian people for protesting against the dismissal of a president elected by popular vote. Peruvians are on the street fighting against dictator Fujimori's constitution, which shields corruption, perpetuates racism and allows multinationals to continue plundering natural resources. Last week I was in Lima on a mission organized by my group and we were able to verify on the ground the result of two months of government. de facto. Nearly seventy dead, nearly 2,000 wounded, an inordinate and growing number of detainees and missing persons, the persecution and criminalization of trade unions, human rights organizations, peasants and indigenous peoples, and the raiding of universities with tanks. The European Union cannot look the other way. We therefore call on you to cease all sales of arms and riot gear, which you are using against your own people, and to send a high-level mission to denounce these human rights violations.

Madam President, it will be one year since the war, Russia's aggression and invasion of Ukraine. And once again we reiterate our condemnation, as we have been doing since the beginning. But we think that from the European Union we are working in the opposite direction to what the situation requires. We cannot think that we are fighting a war by arming the parties. We cannot think that we are fighting a war by arming that war machine that is NATO. Wars are not won by peoples, ladies and gentlemen. Peoples put the dead and misery. Wars, in any case, are won by others. So we think it's a mistake to think that by arming you're going to win the war and that you're going to win on the ground. We also believe that it is painful that diplomacy has been buried, that the UN and the OSCE are buried two meters underground. We call on the European Union to join the call made yesterday by President Lula, who, together with China, together with Mexico, together with the Vatican, is calling for diplomatic and political exit. Let diplomacy silence the noise of tanks and bombs.

Mr President, we welcome the fact that this Parliament is positioning itself with democracy, strongly condemning the fascist attack by Bolsonaro's supporters. Let's be clear: The shameful assault on democracy in Brazil began on April 17, 2017, with the coup against President Dilma, and continued with the campaign of lawfare who unjustly imprisoned President Lula. Both had the complicit silence of the majority in this House. That same silence that, unfortunately, they are keeping today in the face of the massacre and serious human rights violations that are bleeding the Peruvian people with more than fifty people killed. The attempted coup in Brazil, which we condemn here today, is not exclusive to Bolsonarism. It is the agenda of the right when it does not govern. As in the assassination attempt against Cristina Kirchner in Argentina or against President Petro and Vice-President Francia Márquez in Colombia; such as the coup d’état against Evo Morales in Bolivia in 2019; or as the permanent dirty war suffered by the Venezuelan and Cuban government and people. Don't repeat mistakes. Stop ignoring that the extreme right is incompatible with democracy, in Latin America and here.

Madam President, on 1 and 2 December a meeting was held in Washington between the United States Deputy Secretary of State and the European Union's Head of External Action. One of the conclusions of that meeting was that the United States and the European Union had never been so aligned in our strategic perspectives. Now, then, in this European Parliament, it seems that there is no limit that we are not willing to cross to belittle and criticize China to the greater rejoicing of the circus owner, that is, the United States. On this occasion she is condemned for implementing the anti-covid measures that they had decided. Anti-covid measures, policies that have demonstrated a prevalence of death from this pandemic almost a thousand times lower than that of the United States. And, despite that, they have been sensitive to the protests and have given in. They have yielded to the demands of the demonstrators. But it seems that the promoters of this resolution share more the treatment of Donald Trump or Jair Bolsonaro, true record men in the rate of affectation and death in their countries. I warn colleagues who are in these positions that the line separating the discourse that anti-covid measures are useless from that that with anti-covid vaccines a chip that makes us a robot is embedded is very narrow. After this it only remains that the earth is flat or that the woman was created from the rib of the man, as much as it likes to enact some school in the United States. From this European Union we should bet on a foreign policy based on peace, cooperation, solidarity and mutual benefit, respecting the sovereignty of the peoples and the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.

Mr President, today we can decide whether we want to respect international law or whether we prefer to make a new toast to the sun. If we respect the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to live in their own land, in peace and dignity, or if we confine ourselves to making a new declaration in which we express, in compunction, our deepest concern for this unacceptable situation. Words as grandiloquent as empty and sterile if they are not accompanied by actions. The criminal Israeli regime arrests and murders Palestinian children every day and conducts a systematic policy of ethnic cleansing. apartheid against a people who only want to live with dignity in their land. And while the European Union rewards it with a preferential association agreement, allows it to participate in programs such as Horizon Plus or Erasmus - projects financed by the citizens of the Member States - and consents to the trade in European territory of products from the illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. This year, the Israeli authorities have prevented members of this House from entering Palestine, yet the presidency of this Parliament does not dare to impose reciprocity measures. Now we are very dismayed because everything indicates that, in our environment, there could be people who Qatar and Morocco would have encouraged to wash, improve and protect their reputation. But it seems that the Israeli colonial regime is being done that same job, and much more, for free, until proven otherwise.

Madam President, today begins an evidentiary hearing that seeks to assess whether or not a diplomat enjoys diplomatic immunity. That is, a further contempt of the United States for international norms and diplomacy as the basis of international relations begins. On 12 June 2020, the United States maneuvered for Cape Verde to arrest Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab. A diplomat who, despite the economic war that Venezuela suffers, got his people to have medicines and fuels during the pandemic, when it was most necessary. A person who was appointed a full member of the Social Bureau more than a year ago. In response to which the United States illegally brought him into its territory. Today begins his trial and concerns all countries: This is a trial that violates international law and leaves the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations on paper. We cannot afford it, especially in the current context of the rise of warmongering. Since the solemnity of this plenary session of the European Parliament, we defend diplomacy as a path to peace and demand the immediate release of diplomat Alex Nain Saab.

Madam President, I would like to think that, in most of the speeches, although some Members have put more emphasis on one thing and others on another, the majority of them have always opted for the positive. I share some allegations, such as the one made by my colleague from the Greens/EFA Group, that it is true that we talk a lot about gender issues, but in the end, when we have to decide, we decide or opt mainly for men. It's true. Unfortunately I'm going to have to answer to two people who aren't here. And I find it sad. I find it sad because I wish I could say things with the people in front of me. First of all, I am addressing Mr López-Istúriz. Mr López-Istúriz comes to claim Israel as the only democracy and comes to disqualify the work that has been done in the commission to reach this document. But it turns out that Mr López-Istúriz was neither in the committee nor expected. He doesn't know anything about what happened there. It has not had to stop any extreme left, nor right, nor in between, because it has not been so. The comrades who have been, who have participated in the debate, have been able to see that, except in the case of two groups, there has been a totally constructive climate, in which some have bet more, others less, but always from the generosity of knowing that we had to move forward with a constructive proposal. And to say that Israel is the only democracy in the area... well, I don't know. Anyone who calls anything a democracy. Being constantly murdering children is not democracy. Constantly bombing the Gaza Strip is not democracy. Bombing Syria is not democracy. To be using the Gaza Strip as an arms testing laboratory is not democracy. That, in my opinion, and I do not say it now as rapporteur, but I say it as Manu Pineda, that is called terrorism. And with those terrorists, I didn't take any pictures. I would also like to reply to Mr Tertsch. First of all, I want to say that the epic that some fascists raise that we are fascists but brave, in the case of Mr Tertsch, does not work. He's a fascist, but a coward. He came here, dropped the bomb and ran off like rats. Well, I'm going to answer Mr. Tertsch. His party has been funded by an Iranian terrorist organization. That's public and notorious. And now that you come here to count the milongas you want. But the organization that has been supported by Iranian terrorism has been the VOX party, to which Mr. Tertsch belongs.

Madam President, this report highlights the need for coherence and accountability in the European Union's security and stability policy towards the Middle East in general and towards the Gulf region in particular. This is very relevant since the current regional situation is characterized by increasing instability and a violation of human rights that is often perpetrated by armed governments and supported by the European Union. The lack of an autonomous and regional approach on the part of the European Union has been very problematic and has contributed to fuelling tensions, which is why the report raises the need to reassess policies, taking into account a human security perspective, as defined by the United Nations. The European External Action Service recently published its Joint Communication on a Strategic Partnership with the Gulf, which promotes cooperation with all Gulf Cooperation Council countries, but falls short on several aspects highlighted in the report. Security and stability in the Middle East is interdependent with that of Europe and, therefore, we need to reverse the failed policies that have led us to the current situation, ensure a coherent approach, which is not based exclusively on the fight against terrorism, which often uses repressive methods that do not comply with international law, and take into account the sources of instability. Any form of EU involvement, including through funding, should contribute to ensuring international law, the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the concept of human security. Local problems and conflicts require local solutions. Existing regional organizations should play a leading role in the peace and dialogue processes in the region. The European Union must strengthen multilateralism in the region, both with countries and with regional organisations, as well as deepen our interparliamentary engagement. We must engage in dialogue and not go for a divisive policy in the region, between countries perceived as pro-Saudi and those perceived as pro-Iranian. We must review and suspend, if necessary, the European Union's association with those countries in the region that violate human rights. We demand responsibility for war crimes in Yemen and we analyse the involvement of the European Union in that war. An inclusive political process is needed to achieve peace and for all parties to participate in United Nations-led talks. We call for an end to Syria's ongoing occupation and for a political solution to the ongoing conflict based on dialogue, democracy and the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity. We reject Turkey's violations of Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity. We condemn the occupation of Palestine, as well as call for the lifting of the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. The policy of expanding illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem must be reversed immediately. At the same time, we highlight the positive impact of UNRWA throughout the region and underline the need to ensure adequate funding. We call for an effective mechanism to respect the European Union's common position prohibiting the supply of weapons to countries involved in conflict. We call for the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the region, in accordance with the 1995 Resolution of the Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. And we call on Israel to sign the Treaty to reveal its nuclear status. We need the European Union to engage with civil society. Criteria related to the rights of women, workers, freedom of association, freedom of the press or the guarantee of access to basic rights are essential. And we condemn the massive use of spyware, such as Israeli Pegasus, throughout the region. We call for the democratic clause to be applied in association agreements with the European Union when there are clear human rights violations. And finally, we call on the regional authorities to respect the prohibition of torture in all circumstances and to abolish the death penalty. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a report that, although I promoted it as rapporteur, it is certainly not the report that I would have written if it depended only on me, nor the report that any of those present would have written. This is a report that is the result of the commitment and responsibility, mainly of seven groups that have been able to bet courageously and generously on a report that helps to improve the European Union's relationship with the countries of the region in order to have a relationship in which it bets on respect for human rights, in which it bets on respect for the sovereignty and independence of those countries and in which an interventionist vision is discarded, a colonialist ambition with which we go to those countries to tell them what they have to do. I would, of course, like to thank the other groups, which have been generously involved in the preparation of this report and, of course, I remain at your disposal for whatever is necessary.

Mr President, Mr Borrell, the European Union has to decide whether it is betting on a world divided into blocs, on a new version of the Cold War, or whether it is really defending a multipolar international order. The current policy of the European Union towards China is characterized by subordination to the directives of the National Security Council of the United States and entails a battery of sanctions and provocations against China that shows that our alleged allegation for a multipolar world is nothing more than a tacticalist pose. China is neither a systemic enemy nor a trade rival to any nation on the planet. In fact, it is a loyal trading partner, with many possibilities to overcome the effects of the crisis that we are suffering and that will hardly be resolved in isolation. The attempt to impose a unipolar system in the service of the United States is, quite simply, the attempt to keep alive a system that is a danger not only to the peoples of the European Union, but to the very survival of the planet and of all humanity.

Madam President, Commissioner, the Commission seems to have only an industrial view of fishing, completely ignoring the reality of the different fleets and the real situation in ports and auction halls. Or so it seems with the Regulation for deep-sea fishing, drawn up without taking into account either the type of vessel or the characteristics or specificities of each coast. They treat large industrial fleets in the same way as small-scale fishing; apply in the Gulf of Cadiz or on the Galician coasts the same measures as in France or Ireland. And all this without taking into account the morphology of each area. This has led the sector to put itself on a war footing and to several States mobilizing to stop it. It is unacceptable that a regulation that can leave more than 10 000 families alone in Spain without their source of income has been made ignoring their demands and without the participation of those affected. A lack of legislation that they have had to correct partially and urgently because it is based on outdated data and without a minimum analysis of the socioeconomic impact on the different coastal regions, nor of the differentiated impact of the different fishing models on the biodiversity of each of the marine ecosystems. We have to preserve our seas, no doubt, but with serious studies, effective measures and an intelligent, non-bureaucratic implementation that avoids sending our fishermen into misery in a capricious way. Stop legislating blindly, include dialogue with the fishermen's guilds and with the environmental organizations of each territory. Stop making bureaucratic fishing policies that seem designed by those who know the reality of a marina better than that of a fishing port.

. – Mr President, today, rescuing a proposal from the European People's Party, we are debating here Russian and anti-European propaganda. But, let me clarify something before I begin to value freedom of expression and plurality: There is no greater source of Russian propaganda than what the European People's Party makes possible by whitewashing far-right parties and putting the red carpet on them to govern. And there is no better sounding board for anti-European propaganda than the impoverishment faced by the European popular classes, who see how their basic needs, such as energy or food, are now priced for luxury goods. Closing the media; imprisoning a journalist; attempt to impose warmongering as a single discourse; silence, politically persecute or brand as pro-Putin or anti-European those who do not support the escalation of war or defend diplomacy and dialogue... All this, believe me, has nothing to do with fighting propaganda, but with dangerously curtailing freedom of expression and plurality. Pablo González is a Basque journalist who was covering the conflict for several Spanish media outlets when he was arrested in Poland. He did not make Russian propaganda, but neither did he pro-NATO. Maybe therein lies part of the problem. He's been incarcerated for more than seven months. Without trial, without formalized accusation, incommunicado, under a regime of imprisonment typical of a totalitarian State, and extending without definitive date a "preventive prison". In war or in peace to pre-emptively imprison journalism and freedom of information is not to fight against propaganda, but, rather, to fertilize the ground for it to have its effect. I take this opportunity to demand from here, from the European Parliament, the immediate release of Pablo González and respect for the right to information and freedom of the press.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, Vice-President, Mr Weber's speech obliges me to change the start of my speech. It seems to me that the fact that the godfather of his party’s agreement in Italy with Mussolini’s heir party – with Italian neo-fascism – speaks here of authoritarianism is only a bad joke. Focusing on the topic of the debate, I want to start by condemning, once again, Russia’s war – and invasion – against Ukraine. At a time when the threat of the use of nuclear weapons is real, we again insist that this war must stop, and our best weapon remains the diplomatic route. But declarations of intent are not enough, much less if they come from those who have been sowing the conditions for confrontation for years and years. Mr. Putin is most responsible for this war, but do not sell us that NATO works for peace, as its growth to the east for so many years shows that it wants a return to the bipolar world, to a new cold war. All this is always to the detriment of multilateralism and the sovereignty of peoples. Nor does it help the authoritarianism of the Ukrainian government, which has outlawed eleven opposition parties and continues to persecute unions and social movements in the country. The European Union has had a historic opportunity to develop an autonomous foreign policy, but decided to subordinate itself again to the interests of the United States. European citizenship is in a very difficult situation. It is the popular classes who have to pay for the consequences of this crisis. We speak from a firm commitment to peace and the defence of the rights of the popular classes, but the European Union should rethink what it is doing, if only to look after its own interests. We're still on time. For all these reasons, we urge European diplomacy, once again, to revive the role of the OSCE, which is now defunct. This is the best way to reach an agreement that will end the war, an objective necessity for security and peace in Europe. Instead of sending arms and making exalted appeals, let us study the proposal that Mexico has presented at the United Nations General Assembly, for example, in which they propose peace talks and tripartite mediation between the UN, India and the Vatican. This is the right path for de-escalation: more diplomacy, not more NATO.

Mr. President, Salah Hamouri is 36 years old. He is a French-Palestinian lawyer and human rights defender from Jerusalem. Since the age of 15, when he was shot, Salah has suffered Israeli persecution, facing continued judicial and administrative harassment. He has suffered arbitrary arrests, travel bans, bail and fines, house arrests and separation from his family. His family, whom I have recently met in Paris, explained to me that, to this day, Salah is still under administrative detention without being charged with any specific charge. He has recently been illegally revoked from his residence in Jerusalem, alleging "failure of loyalty to the State of Israel." Here, once again, the widespread practice of demographic manipulation of the apartheid Israeli. We in the European Union cannot take a profile in the face of this systematic violation of human rights against the Palestinian people, especially in a case against a European citizen. We demand an end to the harassment and the immediate release of Salah.

Madam President, it is high time for the European Union to reflect on its alliance policy. While his mouth is filled with talk of multilateralism, his actions go in the opposite direction. We see it with every international conflict. The European Union does not hesitate to abide by the dictates of the United States, a country that continues to sow the world of war and attack the peoples who question its hegemony. The European Union understands that the new world order consists of attacking any country that the United States puts on its target and, in this sense, it has been provoking and sanctioning China and Russia for years, to which the United States has declared its systemic enemies. The European Union must abandon this subordination and have its own foreign policy, based on peace, cooperation and respect for human rights and the sovereignty of peoples. Far from this, what we see is following a global gendarme who decides everything based on bombs, military interventions and sanctions. And, in front of us, our peoples are suffering the consequences of this submission.

Madam President, this debate shows the obsession that some sectors of this Parliament have against democratic and progressive governments and movements in Latin America. This has always been the case on the part of the extreme right, especially the Spanish, but it is very sad to see groups that consider themselves democratic, and even some progressive, support a resolution promoted by Vox, which acts as if Latin America continues to be a Spanish colony and that calls any leftist government in Latin America a dictatorship. Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela, the São Paulo Forum, the Puebla Group and all the organizations you insult in this pamphlet will continue to work for the sovereignty of the Latin American peoples and for their peoples to be the owners of their destinies and their resources. You can continue working for the patron, the same one who has wanted to exclude these countries from the Summit of the Americas and who is going to see there only with a group of palm trees, but know that there are peoples who know what it is to be a colony and will never be one again.

Mr President, after more than 100 days of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, an aggression which we condemn from the outset, the European Union is facing an important decision. You can opt for the path proposed in the report, a path of confrontation and military escalation, or for the alternative position that we present and that proposes a different way out. After decades of policies of pressure and harassment against Russia by the United States and NATO, using the European Union as a tool in the service of these objectives, we have reached a scenario that everyone says they do not want, but with which some dreamed. The European Union's sanctions policy is hypocritical. As an example: We bought the same Russian oil, but now we pay an extra cost because we bought it from India instead of Russia. The sanctions are not being paid by Putin, they are being paid by our peoples, with inflation unprecedented in the last forty years, while the ruble is being revalued by 35% against the euro. The industrial and agricultural sectors are already suffering the effects of these sanctions through shortages of, for example, steel, cereals and fertilisers. We propose that, in the face of conflicts, instead of fuelling escalation, the European Union should work to resolve them. It must work with the United Nations to find diplomatic and political solutions. We propose that the European Union protect refugees, regardless of their passport, and defend freedom of opinion and information. We propose, in short, that the European Union build peace instead of encouraging wars.

Mr President, on the morning of Wednesday 11 May, at 6.13 a.m., the editorial staff of Al-Jazeera in Ramallah received the following email: The occupying forces storm Jenin and surround a house in the Yabriyat neighborhood. I'm on my way, I'll bring you the news as soon as I've collected clear data. It was signed by Shireen Abu Akleh, a veteran and well-known journalist. When she got to do her job, she was cornered by Israeli sniper fire. She got out of the car perfectly identified, wearing a vest and press helmet, and was shot near her ear, just where she stopped covering her helmet. It was an extremely accurate shot. Fifty Palestinian journalists have been killed by Israel since 2000. It's no coincidence. It responds to the attempt to silence the fact that in the past year alone more than 300 civilians have been killed by the Israeli occupying forces. Israel does not want witnesses to the system of apartheid and the ethnic cleansing it imposes on Palestine. Israel cannot continue to participate in European projects, programmes or agreements, nor can it continue to receive funds, as long as it continues to violate international law and the human rights of the Palestinian people. We cannot be complicit in the murder of this journalist, nor in the forced transfer of the population, nor in the mass detention of children, nor in the expansion of illegal settlements. Today Parliament agrees to have this debate and I thank all the groups that supported it for allowing it. But now it is time for the Union to move from words to deeds.

Madam President, we have come to ask for a statement from the Commission on the attack on Palestinian journalists by the Israeli occupying forces, in particular the case of Shireen Abu Akleh. The Israeli regime kills Palestinians virtually every day: in the last year, more than 300 dead, two of them journalists; In addition, there is also a journalist imprisoned. Despite this, the Israeli regime enjoys a privileged relationship with this Union, with the European Union; a privileged relationship that is helping him perpetuate an occupation that has lasted for many decades. We believe that it is necessary for this issue to be discussed here and for us to position ourselves on it, because, if not, it might seem that for the European Union and for this European Parliament there are first- and second-class deaths. I believe that this debate cannot be postponed. We therefore call for this issue to be discussed. We know that there is another proposal on the same subject. The important thing for us is that the debate should take place, and we are therefore prepared to see both proposals come together.

Madam President, for a person to suffer the removal of parts of his own body against his will is one of the worst human rights violations we can imagine. But let's be serious; There is no evidence of this happening in China. What we do know is that the Chinese government has invited UN High Commissioner Bachelet to see if there is any truth to this complaint. What there is evidence of, for example, is the forced removal of organs from Palestinian prisoners by Israel. But this regime does not allow the entry of the United Nations to document these facts denounced since 2015. Why do we focus on something about which there is no evidence while silencing what there is? Here is my opinion: The US National Security Directive identifies China and Russia as systemic enemies. And here we see ourselves, once again, assuming in the European Parliament the agenda imposed on us by the United States.

Madam President, Mr High Representative, the European Union and China share a very close commercial bond that we cannot ignore; We therefore believe that it is good that meetings, such as the one at the last Summit, should be held which should serve to strengthen dialogue and cooperation. A stable relationship with China is crucial for peace and stability: I think we would be wrong if we re-entered the dynamics of the Cold War, that either China is with us or we are against China – that leads us nowhere – and I think it would be a mistake to fall back into the temptation to dynamite bridges, especially in a complex context like the current one. Let us have an active role in the dialogued resolution of conflicts; the European Union must abandon a vision of blocs and bet on the construction of a multipolar world, playing its own role and without following: This is essential to ensure the interests of European workers and businesses and to consolidate a differentiated voice in the midst of so much noise. Let us form our own perception of China and implement an independent policy working for the stable and lasting development of bilateral relations: In the face of the turbulent world situation, let us bet on stability.

Mr President, we condemn Russia's attack and invasion of Ukraine, without any nuances. Neither the eight years of attack against the Dombás, nor the impunity of the murders committed by the Nazi gangs, nor the breach of the Minsk agreements, nor the deployment of NATO on the Russian border: None of this justifies the attack. We are against war and, precisely for this reason, we cannot support a resolution which calls for arms and which is referred to as a guarantee of peace in an instrument of war such as NATO. Nor can we support sanctions that directly affect the civilian population and have historically proved ineffective. Never in life have sanctions served to end any conflict. We are embarrassed that a peace fund is dedicated to the purchase of weapons. We defend diplomatic and political channels as the only way to resolve conflicts. We defend the sending of humanitarian aid and the opening of borders to receive refugees. I want to end by making my own a phrase from our secretary general, Julio Anguita: Damn the war and the scoundrels who support it.

Madam President, Burkina Faso is a country deeply affected by neoliberalism and imperialism. We have good examples of this, such as the grabbing of land and resources by multinationals, the imposition of free trade agreements that aggravate the economic situation, or neoliberal reforms imposed from outside with disastrous consequences for the people. It is certainly regrettable that in the twenty-first century we must continue to condemn the interference and economic exploitation of the former colonial powers and, in many cases, their contribution to generating conflicts or coups d'état. Precisely, the latest political processes in Burkina Faso had helped to promote a government of national unity that has been overthrown by this military coup d'état, thus removing the possibility of democratization of the country, contributing to the rise of fundamentalist violence. Therefore, it is essential that from this Institution we defend the sovereignty of the peoples and their right to govern themselves, and condemn any attack or blow to their sovereign decision.