Speeches

Mr President! Tunisia, ladies and gentlemen, is on a disastrous domestic political course. Responsibility for this lies solely with the President. He has been certified by the Court of Justice of the African Union that everything he has done since 25 July has been done unlawfully and in violation of the Constitution: dismissal of the government, dissolution of parliament, abolition of the 2014 constitution of the independent electoral authority and the High Judicial Council, dismissal of 57 judges, dissolution of all municipal representative bodies. With a turnout of 11% in the so-called elections, the population has certified the president with a corresponding level of legitimacy. Attacks on freedom of expression and assembly and on civil society organisations, including the trade union umbrella organisation UGTT, are unacceptable. The arrest of journalist Noureddine Boutar on 13 February is pars pro toto. He is the director of the largest independent radio station in Tunisia. Other critics were arrested and convicted, trade unionists were charged, and the head of the European Trade Union Confederation was expelled. All this is unacceptable! We demand the immediate release of Noureddine Boutar and all those who have been arbitrarily arrested or convicted. All illegally dismissed judges must be reinstated; Military courts are not allowed to sentence civilians. I expect the EU Council of Foreign Ministers to show more than just concern on 20 March. It must make a difference whether we are dealing with a democratic Tunisia or an undemocratic Tunisia. I expect our ministers to embrace Parliament's demands that we stop cooperating, for example, with repressive structures under the control of the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice. I expect that our EU delegation and our embassies will regularly present themselves to the authorities and call for an end to the unconstitutional practices of the authorities. I expect that we will demonstratively seek contact with independent media, political parties and civil society organisations and demand that the government fulfil its international obligations.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, indeed, time is of the essence to effectively counter the aggressor and for the Ukrainians to push him back from Ukrainian territory. And we have lost time. Too much time last year because the reality was that many Member States, including my own, remained too passive for too long, in spite of strong verbal commitments. The Netherlands – to name one positive example – in 2022 purchased twice as much ammunition in Germany than the German army itself. While Denmark, already in June last year, refurbished M113 transport tanks in a German company in Flensburg for Ukraine, the German government did not give the order to start the refurbishing of 100 Leopard 1 tanks that were stocked in the very same factory, FFG, where the Danish tanks were already refurbished. That practice must end. I hope that last week’s Stockholm informal discussion will lead to decisions that are swiftly implemented, especially for the ammunition that is so desperately needed. And I hope that our industry is really pulling all strings, ramping up capacities and not waiting until they are tasked by whatever government. I can assure them your products will be needed and therefore be purchased for a long period because we cannot assume that the evil empire will perish soon. And we need to deliver to Ukraine as long as it takes for Ukraine to win. And we need to replenish our stocks in time as soon as possible in order to be able to defend ourselves. Last year, already with a colleague, Sven Simon, we published an article in the German Handelsblatt suggesting we should think of a European Lend-Lease Act, the one that the United States had already in the Second World War to be able to swiftly supply Britain and other allies with the needed weapons. Perhaps you might embark on such a reflection again, a European Lend-Lease act, which would facilitate enormously the purchasing. We need to do what we can as long as it takes. Slava Ukraini!

Mr President, dear colleagues, our support for Israel as a functioning, vibrant democracy in the Middle East is, to a large extent, dependent on this very fact – that it remains a functioning democracy, where the separation of powers between the executive, parliament and the courts prevails. The legislation that is currently passing the Knesset seeks, among other issues, to enable the Knesset to overrule Supreme Court decisions. Such legislation must be a no go in a functioning democracy. But there is hope and protest. Israeli President Yitzhak Herzog last Thursday said that the government should abandon proposed legislation to overhaul the country’s judiciary, in favour of a model with broad national support. I also put my trust in Israel’s vibrant civil society. Hundreds of thousands of citizens are demonstrating every day against this onslaught on a liberal democracy, and they will not let it happen. Israel, with its founding legacy, must remain on moral high ground. The prime minister has to guarantee that hate speech against political opponents and extremist positions expressed by cabinet ministers do not further encourage a circle of violence, such as the radical settlers attacking Palestinians in Huwara. He is also responsible not to implement those parts of the coalition agreement where the signatories claim, ‘Israel has a natural right over all of the land, and a fundamental purpose of the new government will be to promote Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank’. We want to defend Israel’s legitimate right to exist as the Jewish state, but we cannot defend what is illegitimate.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! In absentia, thank you very much to the rapporteur, Urmas Paet. Ich hoffe nicht, dass ihm die Russen in einer dunklen Ecke aufgelauert haben, damit er jetzt nicht hier sein kann. We agree to a large extent. We need to become more relevant in foreign and security policy. This has long been the view of Parliament and, in fact, of most governments. We all know: Only together are we strong. Only together can we impress third parties. Only if you know that we are traveling together, third parties will turn to us in the hope that we will make the difference together. If we act powerfully, collectively and permanently, for example, in the matter of Ukraine, then a war criminal knows that he has underestimated us. The rest of the world is watching us – all those who would like to engage with us as good partners in the long term, but who perceive when the West withdraws. This must not happen to us after Afghanistan and the Sahel in our core area of interest. Then we come to the crucial point: It's good for everyone to be unanimous. But I think it would hardly make any difference for the addressee of a measure or for observing third parties if one of the 27 were missing. So for current reasons, for example, if we have to convey a certain message to the Georgian government, then this government could not buy anything for it if Mr O from U does not agree with it. But if we can't say anything on the ground because of a unanimity requirement, then the wrong people benefit. If such local statements do not even result in a blockade minority, then there is a lot of evidence that the majority is correct. I would also find it rather weird, for example, if the former colonial rulers could prevent unanimity in statements or measures against certain states. Therefore, one of our key recommendations in Article 1(g) is that we limit the unanimity principle to decisions on the creation and deployment of military missions or operations with an executive mandate and that we can adopt sanctions and other measures or simply verbal notes by qualified majority. I think it would make a difference.

Madam President, that has been dealt with, as the other issue has already been approved, on the Silicon Valley bank. So, thank you. I’m supportive of the suggestion.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. In nine days, the criminal, full-fledged Russian war of aggression against Ukraine will be celebrated for the first time. We should first commemorate the innocent victims of this breach of civilisation, the children, women and men who were killed, raped, tortured, who had to flee, who lost everything, and also the Ukrainian soldiers who fell for a just cause – the defence of their homeland. So that the abysmal evil in Europe does not prevail again, we Europeans, the united West, the entire democratic world must continue to stand together and now do what is necessary. First things first: More ammunition, stronger air defenses, more artillery that can reach all parts of occupied Ukraine, battle tanks, not to liberate territories, but people suffering from the cruel Russian occupation and daily arbitrariness. And since Russia does not impose any restrictions, fighter jets must also become part of the Ukrainian defense. Those in my home country who, out of naivety, anti-Americanism or secretly out of a historically false German-Russian kinship, believe they have to refuse arms to the Ukrainians, I call out: Recognize the true face of the dictator in the Kremlin! This is the applied fascism of the 21st century. Never again! Slava Ukrajini!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! What we have seen and heard here is a refusal of reality on the part of the Council and the Commission. Tunisia was once a bearer of hope after the Arab Spring, and we are back back to square one, As far as the situation is concerned. We are much closer to Ben Ali than to any other democratic politician since 2011, and we have witnessed a coup d'état here from above, from President Saied. He deposed the government, deposed the parliament, and High Judicial Council He was dismissed and 57 judges removed. And we have a situation where we are experiencing delegitimization by the Tunisian people: 11% turnout in these elections. I was wondering: Why do you start the referendum? You have to start with the coup from above. What the Venice Commission said about this president's conduct was a damning verdict. And the Court of Justice of the African Union also made clear political statements last September. The elections have been boycotted by all relevant parties, the trade union umbrella organisation, civil society – and you ignore that here. It must make a difference in our politics whether we have someone here who adheres to the Constitution or whether he breaks it. It must make a difference whether he respects an elected parliament or whether he abolishes it. The Tunisians gave their answer. And I don't think the European Union can do anything here. business as usual Otherwise, we can actually abolish all our values that we always hold in Sunday speeches. I find it outrageous what I haven't heard here today. They are making a policy here that denies the reality of this country. It is likely that tens of thousands of Tunisians will have to get on board again to acknowledge the reality here. This President, what is happening in Tunisia at the moment, must not receive our support. We have to draw consequences here and raise other strings.

Mr President, dear colleagues, as the EPP Group we support the amendment to criticise the International Olympic Committee for its intention to allow Russia and Belarus back to the games. We propose placing this call more prominently, as a separate paragraph of the resolution. The reason is that this will also allow us to take the split votes requested by the Renew and EPP Groups on paragraph 26. I ask for your support for the following text in a new paragraph after 25 which reads ‘Condemns the recent decision of the International Olympic Committee to allow Russian and Belarusian athletes to compete in qualifications for the Paris 2024 Olympic Games under a neutral flag, which runs counter to the countries’ multifaceted isolation and will be used by both regimes for their propaganda purposes;’.

. – Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! What can be said in a minute? Firstly: Ukraine must win this war, otherwise it will go on indefinitely. This is in the interests of Ukraine, Europe and the free world as a whole. Secondly: We must continue our full support as long as it is needed. There is a broad consensus on this. This applies to political support, military, financial, humanitarian support. I also very much agree with what the Commissioner said: Russian crimes must also be systematically recorded so that we can draw the appropriate legal consequences. What we call it remains to be seen. In any case, the crime of aggression must be prosecuted. Reconstruction must be closely combined with the needs of the accession process. This means that there must not be a relapse into old structures, but that it must be reformed at the same time as reconstruction. We must also take care at home that false structures are not built up here during the war or that laws are passed that are not compatible with EU law at the end of the day. Here, too, care must be taken during the war to ensure that no wrong tendencies are taken.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. We need this special tribunal to prosecute the crime of war of aggression. And I am confident: If there is political will among our governments and the Commission, then our legal experts will also find a suitable framework for this. Along the way, we need to help Ukraine secure the evidence. This must be done to a large extent and it must also be ensured that it is processed and processed in the rule of law. I think maybe you can also borrow from an institution that we had in Germany during the GDR period. This was a so-called central registration point, which was in the city of Salzgitter. It recorded all the crimes of the GDR, i.e. where people were held in detention, tortured or unjustly sentenced. These people could then, when they came to the West, register names, places, facts, and after reunification, the people who were the perpetrators, if possible, were also tried. We should also go in this direction – registering all the names on the Russian side that are involved in this war of aggression – and in this way also helping the rule of law to be upheld in due course.

Madam President, dear colleagues, the criminal and, in words and deeds, utterly fascist Putin regime has committed yet another in a series of war crimes against the civilian population of Ukraine. I have been several times in Dnipro and I would like to express my sincere condolences to the families of the victims of this vicious attack. My latest figures – and you are right, Commissioner, the figures are likely to increase – but the latest I just got from Kyiv is that there are 44 killed, including five children, and many injured and many missing still. It will not be forgotten and it will not be forgiven. I call on the Commission and the Council to strengthen the sanctions regime against this criminal regime. There is ample opportunity to increase it and to also double-check whether the existing ones are really followed. I am also very much in favour of extending the lists of personal sanctions, and we should definitely have a look at this Navalny list, these 6 000 persons – I think they are not there by accident and I think they are all profiteers of the regime. And I think we need not prove that every individual is personally involved in the war crimes. But if there are hesitations – especially if we cannot seize the assets of these persons – what we can do is deny them visas. There is no right, there is no legal obligation for any of our countries to issue a visa to a third-country national. And when we have these persons that are not then able to enter our countries to enjoy the property or the yachts or whatever they have got here, that amounts de facto to an expropriation. And I really think we should embark on this approach and thereby contribute to the pressure that is exercised against the profiteers of this regime.

. – Madam President, High Representative, ladies and gentlemen! We saw last year that there seems to be a need for strong external pressure in foreign policy matters in order to unite and act resolutely together. The war that the criminal Putin regime is waging against Ukraine, but in reality it is also waging against us by other means, has almost forced this common positioning. I would have liked us to have come to a common, more realistic assessment of Putin's intentions earlier. There were more realistic assessments. The greater part, especially in the western part of the EU, did not want to admit it. Let us draw consequences from this. In my view, this is the admission that even the largest Member States are not in a position to develop a specific agenda vis-à-vis a determined dictator, which also impresses him. Already the table at the meetings of Macron, Scholz and others with Putin was visibly not suitable for a dialogue. In a joint communication with the Commission, the High Representative already prioritised Russia before the start of the war: Push back, constrain and engage. Let us act together in such a realistic European approach in the future – let us remain strong together! Let's not go back! Much of Latin America, Africa and Asia will be happy to continue to engage with us, such a strong Europe, in the future. I wish us a victorious New Year.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Yes, I am speaking here for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and this is one of the policy areas where it is quite obvious that it is not enough at the front and back. Commissioner, I'm glad you're here. I would have liked someone from the Council to be there, because they also have to listen, and I hope they will be told that too. We have to be honest. As much as I am glad, as a rapporteur for Ukraine, that in the area of Peace Facility We in Parliament cannot accept it as a principle that, in view of the new challenges, things should be organised here outside the budget. When the financial framework was adopted, we had neither Corona nor the criminal Russian war of aggression. If we now have and have had Corona and the criminal war, then we must respond to it, within the institutional responsibilities. Then, as a Member of Parliament, I say: Everything we need more needs to be reflected in the budget. That is why the debate we are launching here is a necessary one. I hope that the Commission will also find the courage to join in.

Madam President, I’m sorry but a brief indication for my colleagues in the EPP. There’s a wrong signal in three amendments. It concerns 36, 43 and 44: please vote minus. Sorry for this intervention. 36, 43, 44: vote minus, please.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Kuhs, you are working on Ukraine as supposedly the most corrupt state in the world. We could be a corner further in the fight against this corruption if we were not here with Russia, the most criminal state in Europe, carrying out its war against Ukraine here. Today we have with a huge majority labelled Russia as what it is: A state sponsor of terrorism and a state that uses means of terrorism. We have illustrated in detail the amount of destruction and suffering that this inhuman, criminal regime has caused and continues to inflict on its peaceful neighbour and its innocent citizens. That is why, as standing rapporteur on Ukraine, I am deeply grateful to all EU institutions and Member States that we continue to stand firm also in our financial support. And I wouldn’t like to forget all those other bodies and civil society that are fiscally supporting Ukraine. EUR 18 billion – that is EUR 1.5 billion per month – is only part of the dire needs to keep the country running, to pay the salaries and so on. And I think – and that has been alluded to also by my colleague Van Overtveldt – given the amount of money and given war—related problems in the amount of transparency and all that, it requires a better role for the Parliament. We need to set up a working group together with the Commission from the Budget Committee and Foreign Affairs to supervise and to accompany the payments of what is going to Ukraine. So that is my suggestion to the Commission: to accept this idea, to involve us closely as a Parliament in administering this huge amount of money. Slava Ukraini!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr High Representative! In relation to China, it basically remains a triad partner, competitor and systemic rival. It would be nice if China were available as a partner in defending a multilateral, rules-based world order and not only if it suits them. I would have liked China to be a partner on issues such as combating climate change, in the form of China taking its share of responsibility. Unfortunately, I could not find this in Sharm el-Sheikh. The same applies where we, as competitors on the world market, accept the WTO as a common framework for action. The following must apply in the future: Chinese companies are only allowed to do in Europe what our EU companies are allowed to do in China. And, of course, we are systemic rivals where the Chinese dictatorship de facto supports the Russian dictatorship and where we demand that China does not unilaterally and by force change the status quo vis-à-vis Taiwan. Only together can we impress China on all these issues. Tell that, Mr High Representative, to the lone fighters in all our small Member States!

Madam President, originally in the EPP we had a discussion and thought it would make more sense to have the High Representative present in a debate, and we therefore suggested that we have the debate in two weeks’ time. But given the urgency and the urgent developments that we have seen – Hannah Neumann referred to the vote in the Majlis and the fact that most of those arrested are even facing the death penalty – I think we should have this debate now. We cannot construct now, from today to tomorrow, a resolution, but as the President has already made an introductory statement, perhaps she could, on behalf of all of us, make another statement focusing both on the fate of those arrested – facing the death penalty – and also calling on the Council to think of sanctions. So we would agree to have this debate and see that we get something official from the House at short notice.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The Commissioner rightly said: Ultimately, Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine disrupts the entire financial architecture. If we are to be honest, we actually need a new financial perspective, not just for foreign policy, so that we can do what we really need to do. This includes, of course, direct comprehensive assistance to Ukraine, including the whole region, where all budget lines are extremely tense. And that is why we can only work to ensure that what is needed in terms of priorities - and that is, among other things, what we can do for Ukraine - is done with the limited resources that we have. But we should also provide the means we have in other areas, whether it is in Palestine or in other urgent emergencies. Otherwise, we will lose our credibility in this area.

Madam President, colleagues, the EPP Group is prepared to hold this debate this week if it gets a majority. However, we think in order also to preserve the unity of the Parliament on the issue of Ukraine, we should let the discussion go a bit further and we should have the resolution in November II and not to have it at short notice. There is a debate that is ongoing not only in Europe in our Member States, we have it in the Council of Europe, we have this debate in the United States, whether to have it or not to have it. So we should thoroughly reflect about how to position ourselves and not to do it too quickly in this week. So debate, yes, but resolution November II, that is our suggestion.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, In this systemic conflict between our peace-loving democracies and a belligerent dictatorship, we have seen a renewed escalation in recent weeks on the part of the deeply fascist aggressor: Mobilization, especially in areas with national minorities, and a voting farce to give the impression that here a Ukrainian population is just waiting to be brought home to the Reich. The Potemkin facade of sham legitimacy collapses visibly for all. Now it must be a matter of making Ukraine winter-proof – economically, humanitarianly, socially and, above all, in terms of consolidating arms supplies. Yes, unfortunately it is required. The American Lend-Lease Act I would like to see this happen in Europe, at least in some Member States. This would speed up the supply of weapons because it eliminates the need for individual permits. I hope that Germany and France will finally make their contribution to uniting Europe on this issue by finally making a comparable contribution to arms deliveries, as many Eastern Member States are already making. No solo walks. Coordinated deliveries of armored vehicles and leopard tanks as an example, as the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Bundestag calls for, among other things. Chancellor Scholz, do the right thing now. Take Hamburger Helmut Schmidt as an example. He did the right thing and enforced the NATO double decision against his own party. That was right. He also deserved it in history. Don't be afraid of your party. Approve the arms shipments of martens and leopards. History will prove you right.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! Dear High Representative, I can almost entirely agree with what you have just said. I think what we experienced this summer didn't need Nancy Pelosi's visit as a pretext, but what China organized there was practically an exercise in practicing a complete maritime blockade around the island. We cannot accept this threat, and it is therefore right that, in response to it, within the framework that is possible, namely the one-China policy, we should expand our relations with Taiwan as much as possible. I once made an acronym in English during a visit to Taiwan: EBFDR – everything but formal diplomatic recognition – in other words, this abbreviation, which should give us the opportunity to really exercise the full potential of these relations in the field of business and also of political contacts, of culture. And in this context, we as the European Parliament have long called for us to conclude a bilateral investment protection agreement with Taiwan. This would allow both our economy and the Taiwanese to expand these existing contacts. We are interested, for example, in Taiwanese investing in semiconductors. I have heard that they have now founded a company in Italy and started production there. This needs to be expanded. This is better in the context of such an agreement. Please trust me – thank you!

Thank you very much for what you said. But Mr Stoltenberg was quite clear. He said it’s worse when Ukraine loses than when we have empty arsenals in our Member States. So how to get our Member States, the big ones especially, to deliver what they have got and not to think that it’s better to preserve it for their own purpose? Because I think one thing is clear, our weapons at home are already directed at Russia. They are the enemy. But if we can make it usable for the Ukrainians and they can reduce the Russian stockpile, then it is also a reduction of the threat towards us. I think it simply as that.

Thank you very much. Fortunately, all of us, or most of us here, in the House agree that it is Ukraine that must win the war and not the fascist regime in Moscow. Now, at short notice, we do need, of course, to sustain the supply of weapons from the West. And we see there are deliveries, especially also from the United States and Britain. If it had been only the Europeans, it wouldn’t have been enough for Ukraine to survive. Now we have established a clearing house on the EU side and in parallel now we had the second Ramstein Conference where also some commitments were made. My question is, how is that being coordinated? Are you in contact in this regard with Mr Stoltenberg? And especially the question is also how can we encourage, especially our major Member States – Germany, France, Italy, Spain – to deliver more, and also especially in my German case, to encourage the German Government not to deliver something unilaterally, but take the lead in organising the delivery of tanks that are necessary for Ukraine together with other nations. Please do it behind the scenes and get the Germans where they should be.

Mr President! I will inform the rapporteur Paulo Rangel that the debate here has taken the expected course. And that means, I think, that we, as a large majority here in plenary, support the approach that Commissioner Lenarčič has also expressed here, namely that there is still some work to be done on the part of those responsible in Bosnia-Herzegovina before they obtain this candidate status. It is interesting to note that: There are the 14 points, but it is not required that you have to have fulfilled them all, but a substantial part of it. And I think that, as is always the case, if you find a willingness to compromise on the part of those concerned, if you put forward legitimate concerns and at the same time accept offers on the other side, you can come to compromises. I think that if, on the one hand, the right to vote is changed in accordance with the wishes of the Croatian citizens, then, on the other hand, perhaps the scope of the right of veto in the House of Peoples could be reduced to the really essential points – if that were an do ut of If we can – then we can move forward. I think we are all in favour of the fact that there is no discrimination. We are all in favour of making all citizens feel at home throughout the country. And we are all in favour of keeping this country together. That is why we must tell those who want to drive this country apart – and Mr Dodik should be mentioned in the first place – that this must be over and that no future path can be taken. I think that if compromise and pressure from our side comes to an appropriate extent, we can also move forward. I hope so, in the interest of the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Mr President, Bosnia and Herzegovina is at a crossroads in its European path. After a year of political deadlocks and secessionist movements, the political agreement reached in Brussels on 12 June and the most recent Council conclusions are strong signs of the EU’s commitment to the European and Euro-Atlantic future of the country. The European Council has declared its readiness to grant candidate status to Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is a crucial moment for the country, for the Western Balkans and for Europe. While these are welcome developments, we must not forget the challenges ahead. The country still needs to implement a number of reforms and fulfil several necessary criteria. The Council has said so by inviting the Commission to report immediately on the implementation of the 14 key priorities. Strengthening the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law and the fight against organised crime and corruption will be central to this positive assessment. The two main challenges that Bosnia Herzegovina currently faces are not technical but political. The secessionist movements orchestrated by the leadership of the Republika Srpska and the impasse in negotiations on electoral and constitutional reforms which will bring Bosnia Herzegovina in line with European norms. These two challenges have caused an almost permanent deadlock of state institutions that required the intervention of the High Representative and a reinforcement of Operation Althea. Solving these blockages and bringing functionality back to the state is of paramount importance. Therefore, the Council must follow the example set by the US and the UK and sanction Milorad Dodik, someone who, only days after committing himself to reforms in Brussels, flew to St Petersburg to meet Vladimir Putin and continues to refuse to condemn the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. The Kremlin’s assets around Europe and the world are being sanctioned. Mr Dodik must be as well. The withdrawal from state institutions and the creation of parallel ones are a violation of the Constitution and the Dayton Peace Agreement and inevitably prevent any advance towards EU integration. That is also why we must support the Office of the High Representative and Operation Althea, which are vital to maintain the peace and stability of Bosnia Herzegovina. Their mandates must be renewed and if they are not, other means must be explored and be at our disposal, including NATO. The European Union’s funding must also be modulated in light of these threats. The electoral and constitutional reforms have also not yet been realised, despite significant mediation by the EU and the US. There was a lack of political will to overcome differences and reach a balanced agreement. That is why we welcome the political agreement reached in Brussels, which will allow the country to progress decisively on its European past. The legacy of the Dayton Peace Agreement must be preserved, but the country must also implement repeated rulings by national and international courts and bodies to guarantee equality and non-discrimination. Most importantly, we must acknowledge the long-standing European aspirations of all citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Bosniaks, Croats, Serbs, Jews, Roma and all other citizens who will benefit immensely with these key reforms. It is their legitimate choices and aspirations that need to be respected. And that is why free and fair elections must take place next October. Funds have now been secured, and we call on all political actors to take part and allow the citizens to express their democratic choices. And so, despite these challenges, we should appreciate the renewed European focus on the Western Balkans and understand its unmistakable importance in Europe’s new strategic and security context. The peace, stability and prosperity of Bosnia Herzegovina depend on our support and on the country’s European perspective.