Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Indeed, we have every reason to adapt our foreign, security and defence policy to the needs of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, which is contrary to international law. On closer inspection, I discover with horror many elements of a veritable fascist war of extermination. The US is thankfully ready to engage extensively at the moment, but we as Europeans must take precautions for the time after, when they are no longer willing to do so much for our security. If we now spend much more together on defence in national budgets, we must seize the opportunities of European economies of scale, in planning, in procuring the weapons we need. Because we will always travel together. Interoperability is therefore important. But above all, it is an acute matter of supplying Ukraine with all that is justifiable. And that is why I explicitly criticize the attitude of the German Chancellor, who is doing everything he can to delay and ensure that Ukraine does not get what it needs to defend itself in time. Today in Vilnius we heard very evasive answers, for example to the Spanish wish to deliver Leopard 2. We all know that; Germany must agree. But he claims he hasn't seen a motion to do so yet. This is a bureaucratic approach. Every day of delay in this area benefits Mr Putin, and we must not allow that.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, well, yes, this is a timely debate, but for quite a while now, I would say. Your description, your analysis, I have nothing to criticise about, it’s correct – but timely, as I said. I have been here for quite a while in this Parliament, dealing also with development issues. I recall, for instance, a 2011 Sahel strategy that was written by the Commission. So we have had it already more than ten years ago. The structural deficits, the fragility of states, political instability and – I would go so far as to say – the lack of statehood, perhaps, behind the shield of the capital city in many countries, that is indeed a situation that we have been faced with for quite a while. So, I dare to doubt when you say yes, the Sahel remains a priority. It should have been allegedly so for quite long. So I support all pillars that you have enumerated: political dialogue, security stabilisation, development assistance, international regional cooperation – all that. I wonder, in the current very urgent situation, when it is about the food shortage, when we address it and you referred to this pledging conference, which is welcome: are we clear enough to the countries concerned whose fault it is, that it is Russia that is, in the current circumstances, the one that is to be blamed. Are we making it clear that anybody, certainly Mali, that accepts Wagner or other troops of this kind, adds to the plight of their own people? And are we conditioning sufficiently our support to those who behave in a way that they can deliver to their people and that they can actually, in a proper way, accept and deal with the support that we are giving. I hope that that is the case and that we are in a position really to differentiate between those who deliver well and those who really do the opposite. That contributes to stability.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, dear Klaus-Heiner Lehne, dear Commissioner! For an external one minute, keywords: If there is an increased work performance of the EEAS, this must also be accompanied by a corresponding increase in staff and at the same time gender equality and geographical distribution must be ensured. We expressly welcome the Court’s special report on disinformation and its impact on the Union and hope that the recommendations in this context will indeed be fully implemented. We have to say to the Commission: We have also given so much money to third countries outside the Union in the context of the COVID pandemic – over 40 billion. And the visibility and communication regarding this support can actually be improved. And also as rapporteur for Ukraine – it fits right here – the focus of the Court of Auditors’ special report on ‘Combating major corruption in Ukraine’, which focused on the years 2016 to 2019. Since then, some things have gone in the right direction, even before the war. I think that in the context of the reconstruction of the country afterwards, we will find united forces to tackle this evil, which has existed so far, and to ensure that this country can function like a normal European state in the future.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. If you help quickly, you help twice. That is why the European Parliament's timetable for imposing sanctions is more ambitious than that of the Council. I very much welcome what the President of the Commission has presented today as the sixth package. But in Parliament's view, the oil embargo should also come now. The Commission should not be exhausted in the role of notifying the lowest common denominator of the Council. Together, the Commission and the European Parliament could push the Council towards a more ambitious timetable. If we turn off the inhumane fascist regime in Moscow more quickly, then the probability of ending the war more quickly increases. We should bear the additional costs for the oil that is available on the world market together. If the war lasts longer, we have the higher costs of delivering weapons, supplying the refugees, the costs of reconstruction and a stronger recession than the consequences of war, and this should also be taken into account in the overall consideration. I think that the Commission, together with the Presidency, should also be very creative in helping all Member States to show that the deadline for the oil embargo has now also been shortened. There is enough on the world market, as I said, but perhaps not every Member State will be able to seize these things. And that's why I hope that the schedule can be shortened in any case. However, Parliament's demand, including from the last plenary, is that the oil embargo should come now. Then it helps better in the shortening of the war, not only in the autumn. And with that, we are also helping our Ukrainian friends who are fighting an existential battle here. Slava Ukrajini!

Madam President, Mrs von der Leyen, High Representative! Thank you for your upcoming visit to Kiev, this is an important signal. And I beg you to take a look at the places of war crimes! Everybody's talking about Butsha. In Motyzhyn, mayor Olga Suchko was kidnapped with her husband and son on March 23, and they were killed because they did not want to cooperate with the occupying power. We now know what Ukraine as a whole would face if Russian soldiers conquered more parts of Ukraine. That is why we must win this war – for the sake of the people. But the rest of the world is also looking at whether the West is losing ground again or is in the end strengthened because freedom and democracy have triumphed over dictatorship and war crimes. To achieve this, we need - it has been mentioned - an acceleration, an increase in the supply of weapons. I would like to ask all governments to look again at what they have in their depots. Many military officials do not voluntarily tell the political leadership what is actually there. So check this and deliver accordingly quickly. As far as sanctions are concerned: We know what we're doing is tripping. Yes, it is right to impose a coal embargo now. But we also know – and both have already said so here – that, in case of doubt, is just another step and more needs to be done. I am convinced that if, for example, we were already seeking an oil embargo – and there is enough oil on the market – that would have the decisive effect, because that is the vast majority of revenue. So I cordially ask you to speed up and ensure that there is also an oil embargo and, of course, the gas embargo in the end. I am quite sure that there is strong support for this in Parliament as well.

Madam President, when I listen to certain Member States’ governments who are speculating about possible oil and gas shortages for the next winter season, I really wonder how long they think and foresee that this war should last. I think we should take now all available measures to shorten this war, and that can only be done by applying now all possible sanctions on the war criminal in the Kremlin in order to strangle him economically to the extent that he has to stop this war. That is why I call on our Member States and the Commission and the Council to really prepare for comprehensive oil, gas and coal sanctions now, as early as possible, in order to have this effect and, of course, to continue with the supply of arms, humanitarian aid and financial supplies to the government of Ukraine, to the extent possible, and thereby in parallel, of course, also helping the refugees. That is the comprehensive way we can achieve something, not by nitty-gritty considerations. Let’s do it now. Slava Ukraini!

Madam President, With many colleagues, I have spoken out against Nord Stream 2 for years – since 2015. Today is the broad consensus, and we see: In reality, it was not only about weakening and bypassing Ukraine, but also about having a free field of fire, because you have a replacement for a pipeline that was shot down in the war – at least Putin believed. I have also long advocated arms deliveries to Ukraine because I had no illusions that a weak opponent is always a temptation for a dictator. This, too, is largely a consensus today. Today I am in favour of us now pulling out all the registers of sanctions, now imposing a comprehensive oil, gas and coal boycott, not only when there is an area bombing à la Aleppo or Grozny. Freedom, democracy must always be worth more to us than the higher price of oil and gas. Every citizen can sacrifice two degrees for Ukraine. Turn down the heating by two degrees, and together we turn off the source of its revenues to the Stalinist dictator in the Kremlin. Suur tänu ja kõike head, Eesti! Slava Ukrajini!

Mr President, I welcome the positioning of Bosnia Herzegovina with regard to the Russian military aggression against Ukraine, and I do that also as a standing rapporteur on Ukraine. I think it is no surprise, however, that Milorad Dodik takes an opposite position. But we all know that Russia cannot deliver anything positive abroad, neither to Ukraine nor to Bosnia Herzegovina, or elsewhere. So I strongly urge everyone not to believe that a tactical siding with Dodik would profit the country as a whole or any particular grouping in the country. I think that, and that was the clear message from the Commission for which I am grateful, that the Republika Srpska and Dodik have to return to the institutions and make them work. Therefore, I welcome the conditionality that has been set up by the Commission to implement the foreseen projects in the Republika Srpska, which is EUR 600 million, only if this actually takes place. Moreover, with regard to the elections in October, I also welcome your position to insist that the elections take place in an appropriate set-up and also that the financial means that are required are put in the budget and used for that, in order that something can take place where the people have the right to vote, and it is not about the political parties and their infighting that has contributed to the stalemate.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Shanovni ukrajinski drusi, slawa Ukrajini! What is happening here before our eyes is real-time war in Europe, is immeasurable suffering of innocent people, is the biggest catastrophe for Ukraine since the German invasion in 1941 and is the fault and exclusive responsibility of a cynical, constantly lying and inhumane Russian dictator who wants to end the existence of Ukraine as a democratic, independent state and bring it back into the Reich against the will of the people. This attempt is underway, and this attempt must fail. When the Soviet Union began the blockade of West Berlin in 1948, with the Red Army standing all around, Mayor Ernst Reuter appealed to the peoples of the world. Today, revisionist Russia, with its invasion forces, is trying to encircle and strangle the Ukrainian capital and lead the free people there into Soviet servitude. It is therefore appropriate to repeat this appeal: You peoples of the world, you peoples of America, of Europe, of the free world, look at this city and this country and realize that you must not, cannot, must not give up this country and this people! To this people who have brought about the revolution of dignity with Ukrainian and European flags, who have said where they are looking and where they are striving, we must give them a political signal today: that they belong to us, that their struggle for freedom is not in vain, that evil, the Stalinist and fascist Putin regimes alike, will not prevail, and that after this trial, after this Way of the Cross, there will be reconstruction on a path to a common European future. I ask for your approval of our resolution. Slava Ukrajini!

Mr President, over an eight-year period, the world has witnessed a systematic, multifaceted Russian policy of invading, destabilising and demonising Ukraine. The reason is not that Ukraine was a military threat to Russia or that Russian speakers were discriminated against. Such claims are wrong. Nor should we buy the argument that NATO membership was such a threat. We know it is not our weapons, but it is the power of the values and the attractiveness of democratic societies that pose an existential threat to a repressive Russian state structure behind whose Potemkin facade anything goes. Yesterday, Putin left all options on the table. During the press conference with the German Chancellor, he continued his obvious lie that a genocide was ongoing in the Donbas. His interpretation of history deprives Ukrainians of all features of statehood, claiming it was one people, one empire, one language, one church. No, Mr Putin, it is not. Let us now be prudent. With the implementation of the Minsk Accord, let us not exert undue pressure on Ukraine in order to appease Russian claims. They cannot hand out hundreds of thousands of passports to the citizens of Luhansk and Donetsk and claim the recognition of these Russian Bantustans and, at the same time, demand that Ukraine grant a special status to this region. Ukrainians must stand together against the external threat, but they also need to put their internal divisions aside. Now is not the time for nit-picking partisan infighting. Join forces and implement the ambitious reform agenda that will one day make you an irresistible European country that enjoys all perspectives of a common future. We stand with Ukraine.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. We see the potential of the Lisbon Treaty in the area of the common foreign, security and defence policy. We are experiencing the reality of this world and the challenges we face. And before we hopefully act together, we hopefully share a threat analysis as foreseen in the strategic compass. Because if we were not on the road together in the perception and assessment, then we would not need to claim to play a role in the global foreign policy Champions League. We talk about wake-up calls with every new threat and challenge. I hope that the comprehensive Russian military build-up around Ukraine – by the way, the largest in Europe since the German Wehrmacht surrounded Czechoslovakia in 1938 and then blackmailed the Munich Conference – will indeed sound all the alarm bells, because it is not actually Ukraine that is meant to threaten Russia or our weapons, but we are meant and the way we live our values and how we organise our society. So let's act together and use the tools we have given ourselves. Global Gateway is an instrument that has already been mentioned, and I would like to broaden it to a certain extent, that this offer to all partners willing to cooperate should lead to an alliance of democracies, by bringing trade and security together in a meaningful way globally in order to safeguard our interests permanently.

Mr President! The report on cooperation in the fight against organised crime in the Western Balkans highlights existing problems in this area, but also highlights achievements in the fight against organised crime. Fighting organised crime there is also a high priority for us in the EU, as we are very closely intertwined with the region. The structures there affect us in the EU. However, it is primarily a problem for the people of the region, as it undermines their right to security and social cohesion, as well as their trust in the democratic system. Organised crime also creates obstacles to democratic reforms and hinders the accession process, as the threat posed by Western Balkan criminals has been used as an argument against EU accession in some EU Member States. The report stresses that depriving the Western Balkan countries of a European perspective worsens the situation with regard to organised crime and that only by accelerating the EU integration process and cooperation with Member States can the situation improve. The rule of law and the fight against corruption and organised crime are the main areas where the Western Balkan countries need to achieve results in order to progress on their path towards the EU. The report therefore calls on the governments of the Western Balkans to step up their efforts to promote the necessary reforms. The EU should continue to support them through financial assistance and practical cooperation. The report points out that organised crime is a structural problem. Links between organised crime, politics and business existed before the disintegration of Yugoslavia and continue to exist. In the report, we therefore call for the archives of the former Yugoslavia to be opened and, in particular, for access to the files of the former Yugoslav secret service (UDBA) and the secret service of the Yugoslav People's Army (KOS), and for the files to be returned to the respective governments upon request. Cooperation and exchange of intelligence with international partners such as the United States, the United Kingdom and international organisations such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) are critical to uncovering and dismantling criminal networks. The report focuses not only on the problems but also on the successes in the fight against organised crime and highlights the excellent cooperation with Eurojust, Europol and Frontex. At the same time, the report calls for such agreements to be concluded with those countries which do not yet have cooperation agreements with Eurojust, Europol or Frontex. Political considerations should not stand in the way of successful cooperation in the fight against organised crime, which benefits all our citizens. Finally, the report underlines the crucial role of civil society organisations and independent media in monitoring the work of governments and detecting corruption, and calls on the competent authorities to strengthen the protection of whistleblowers in order to increase the capacity to dismantle organised criminal groups.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Mr High Representative, I am grateful for your comments and would like to stress the seriousness of the situation. Yes, we are now in deterrence mode. This renewed Russian build-up of troops is unprovoked, unless one considers the simple existence of an independent Ukraine as a provocation – a country that seeks to stabilise and develop democratically, economically and socially. Putin's myth of the threat of NATO, on the other hand, is ridiculous. He knows that, Brezhnev already knew that. NATO, as an alliance of saturated democracies, does not attack anyone. It is not the weapons of NATO, but the way in which one organizes oneself in freedom, which then becomes a provocation, if that could even be successful in Ukraine. The continued aggression against Ukraine since 2014 has not affected Ukraine’s determination to establish a functioning democratic state. Because here it is so clear who the aggressor is, equations of victim and perpetrator are also not appropriate. The aggressor must de-escalate by withdrawing troops. Ukraine has every right to defend itself under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and I am grateful to all those who help it with weapons. We as the EU – hopefully coordinated with our transatlantic partners – will respond civilly to military aggression, but effectively. And we should hold up the instruments for that. It will hurt if SWIFT is turned off. It will also hurt the system profiteers if all long-term visas are cancelled. And one thing should also be clear: A Nord Stream pipeline will deliver nothing if war is waged at the same time, because we will not finance the war with the revenues from that pipeline. (The speaker speaks a few words in Ukrainian.)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, There is much in the Argen in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Presidency has raised a number of issues, but the biggest challenge the country, the EU and the international community are currently facing is the threat to the territorial integrity of the country, yes, the attempt to bury the Dayton peace agreement. This threatens peace not only in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but in the entire region. The person who does this has a name: Milorad Dodik. I wonder why the Council is not in a position to address this clearly – on 15 November, for example. This man, who at least undercover Supported by certain circles in Belgrade and certainly from Moscow, it must feel confirmed if it is not explicitly addressed. I ask the Council and the Commission: For example, how do you coordinate with the High Representative on this issue? Are you ready, for example, to increase the ALTHEA mission visibly? Or to practice in both entities the transfer of the troops, which are in readiness outside Bosnia? Then there is a Council decision of 26 March providing for restrictive measures and sanctions against persons who undermine the territorial integrity and constitutional order of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Are you prepared to initiate sanctions against Mr Dodik and his associates? I believe that this requires a clear answer here in this Parliament.

Mr President, instead of technocratically confirming already taken decisions and bureaucratically assessing any pre-accession progress, I wonder why the danger of a break-up of Bosnia Herzegovina has not been an issue in this summit. The recent concrete steps towards the secession of the Republika Srpska undertaken by the nationalist leadership under Milorad Dodik should ring all alarm bells. The votes in the Republika Srpska (RS) Assembly foreseen for next week are without precedent and, being illegal and unconstitutional as well as violating the Dayton Agreement, have the potential to generate concrete grounds for the RS leadership to pursue their secessionist agenda and thereby endangering stability and even peace in the whole Western Balkans. I therefore urge the Office of the High Representative (OHR) and the EU to issue a strong and possibly joint statement condemning the vote in strong terms, as well as declaring it illegal. Further, I trust that in the coming weeks, the EU and the OHR will use all possible diplomatic influence and, finally also, the OHR Bonn powers to bring the nationalist forces in the Republika Srpska leadership to reason. I wonder what concrete measures, including sanctions, or the removal from office of those responsible are being considered in order to maintain the territorial integrity of Bosnia Herzegovina and the peace in the region. You know what happens if we allow Dodik to declare independence? The next day he will be recognised by Putin, who takes revenge for Kosovo, and the green men are probably already on standby somewhere, perhaps in a niche in the Russian information centre. We cannot allow that to happen. Let us react properly and in time.

Mr President, dear colleagues, first of all, my sincere thanks to the rapporteur for the cooperative approach he has taken. There is an island off the coast of mainland China that organises a Chinese society in a democratic and prosperous way and is therefore, as such, a provocation for the Communist one-party state. I welcome this first report on the EU-Taiwan relations in which we explore the potential of extending and deepening relations with this island. We are not crossing red lines. To the contrary, we want to preserve the status quo across the Taiwan Strait and demand that no unilateral steps be taken and certainly no violent steps from mainland China. In return, we should not unilaterally change the status by recognising Taiwan diplomatically, but an acronym EBFDR, everything but formal diplomatic recognition, should encompass a bilateral investment agreement. We should, for instance, have an interest to secure the supply of semiconductors from Taiwan and facilitate Taiwanese investment in this field in the EU. So I ask the Commission to push the Member States in this regard and be it with the argument that we have all reason to apply it with the democratic part of the Chinese society, when we have already concluded it with the dictator part. It is also in our interest to see Taiwan as an observer in relevant international organisations such as the World Health Organization, or the International Civil Aviation Organization, and it is good to see that Taiwan is a stable factor when we look at our Indo-Pacific strategy. We can also learn a lot from how Taiwan has built up resilience against Chinese cyber war activities and in that regard I welcome the visit of our INGE Committee next week in Taiwan.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The fact that the economic, social and pandemic situation in Tunisia is difficult has not only been known to all those involved since this spring. By the way, there are many countries that are in a complex transformation process, where, for example, there is also the problem of corruption. Nevertheless, I would not recommend any of the presidents there to send a democratically elected parliament home. President Saied did not pursue the dissolution of Parliament with the aim of new elections, but he invoked a state of emergency Article 80 in the event of imminent danger to the country, its security or independence, which undermines the normal functioning of the public administration – I quote the Constitution. There is no dispute between Parliament and the President. At the latest after that, he left the framework of the Constitution. He should have first consulted the Head of Government and the President of the Parliament, and he should have taken into account the fact that, in accordance with Article 80(2), in this situation, Parliament is considered to be in permanent session. Instead, he suspended it indefinitely, declaring its decrees above the Constitution by Decree 117. In my opinion, this is nothing more or less than a breach of the constitution from above, and it cannot be cured by the fact that there is applause from the street. Instead of lonesome decisions outside the constitution, the country needs a national dialogue, perhaps coordinated by the Quartet, which has already been helpful in the past and has received the Nobel Peace Prize for it. And as a parliamentarian, I say: This includes, of course, the democratically elected parliament.

Mr President, I speak today on behalf of the PPE Group in order to announce that our Group will not participate on the substance of this debate. This debate does not address a case of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. This debate rather constitutes yet another example of abuse of this House’s so far well—established and highly respected procedure of addressing urgent cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in third countries where they are most at risk. In countries where there is no rule of law, where laws are applied arbitrarily, where there is no freedom of expression, or where individuals or groups are systematically harassed, and where courts are obedient executers of the ruler’s will. None of that is the case in the United States. To the contrary; this controversial law is not in force yet, has been addressed and continues to be evaluated in different court instances. Just yesterday, a federal judge stopped the application. And of course, further instances will follow. So who are we to put such a situation on the same level and address it with the same discussion instrument as when we discussed China’s stance on Hong Kong or the Uighurs, or Russia’s, or Belarus’s, or Cuba’s multifold human rights violations? For some, it’s probably yet another expression or occasion of general anti—Americanism. I call on the more reasonable colleagues in the Group that signed not to support this motion as we will not support this motion.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the Lukashenko regime just prevented my arrested innocent friend Pavel Sieviaryniec from attending his father’s funeral. My sincere condolences to his family. Such behaviour shows the evenly Stalinist and fascist character of this regime. We must keep the Belarus issue on the agenda. Personal sanctions must be extended to all involved in the persecution of political prisoners. They must be more effectively implemented and extended to private economic profiteers and those state industries that create income for the regime. And let’s add those Russian entities that buy industries in Belarus as we speak. What we need is to strengthen the legitimacy of the opposition. I wish that the Commission prepares the suggested conference on the future of Belarus, which would involve the leaders of the opposition and civil society to discuss how to implement the pledged financial package for a democratic Belarus once it is emerging. What we do not need is ambassadors from Member States who refuse to meet Svetlana Tsikhanouskaya, and I wonder whether that is an act of appeasement rather or of personal convenience not to be declared persona non grata. In both cases, not acceptable. (Exclamation in Bielarusian)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. If you look at a world map and mark the liberal democracies with which we share common values, if we then complement the existing trade flows and, as a third element, the security arrangements, then the close links between the EU and the US become particularly clear. In order for them to remain our most important strategic partner in the long run, we need to do our homework. In the area of global security, we must jointly evaluate who is threatening our way of living in freedom and democracy. In doing so, we must become more attractive as a partner for the USA, an ally who is also able to act autonomously in certain parts of the world and certain situations, who can also assume his part of the responsibility when the USA is not there. At present, we appear to be more of an ally in need. We can no longer afford to stay that way. In the area of trade, we need to realise the full potential by first ending mutual sanctions, then looking at the areas where tariffs are mutually abolished, standards are mutually recognised or harmonised in the future. The Trade and Technology Council is certainly a suitable body for this purpose. In fact, I would like to see a free trade agreement with the United States in the not-too-distant future. Based on enhanced bilateral cooperation in the areas of security and trade, we will then be able to establish global trade and security cooperation with like-minded partners in the future. Only an alliance of democracies can permanently meet the challenge of a totalitarian China and, in Europe, of an aggressive Russia.

Madam President, dear High Representative! What lessons we have learned from Afghanistan and what consequences we draw with regard to other conflicts, but also in general, from what instruments we will use in the future in foreign, security and defence policy or create ourselves anew, will be discussed in detail elsewhere. In the short term, I think we all agree that we must also bring humanitarian aid directly into the country, above all through the channels of the United Nations, in order to avert the likely famine. We continue to all agree that we are the vulnerable groups who have worked for us, or even those who are the focus of the Taliban, whether they are journalists or civil society activists, especially women’s rights activists or also teachers or public servants in an exposed position – we must ensure that they can come to us. To do this, we need to talk to the Taliban – right – but without formally recognising them. On the one hand, I think we have now stopped development aid for the first time. I think we have to look at this project-by-project or sector-by-sector, for example, in the field of agriculture, to see whether it is possible to come to the conclusion that these projects can still be carried on with the local cooperation partners who remain there. However, this must be left to a further assessment. And we also need to ensure that neighbouring countries receive immediate support when it comes to ensuring that people who may be fleeing are accommodated in a dignified manner.

Mr President, I’m glad to see that apparently there’s broad consensus in the analysis, both from the Council, the Commission, and I assume also from us here in Parliament, when we assess the situation in Ethiopia. I think it is a high need to get our act together and to push towards those who are responsible on the ground allowing, in the first place, the access of humanitarian assistance. I think what has been described – that is a ceasefire since the 28 June and that the troops have to withdraw and talks have to start – is positive to note. That is right, but the most urgent thing now is to get the EU humanitarian aid to the millions of people who are internally displaced and who are exposed to immediate famine. Accordingly, I think one thing that is really doable is to ask the responsible people in Addis to allow the airports to be used, because I think that is the access that is possible. If bridges are destroyed and there is no road access, at least the airports must be made available. There should be no such thing as a flying prohibition. That is, I think, what we have to concentrate on. We also call for a UN—mandated, independent, transparent and impartial international investigation on the alleged war crimes, which is indispensable to start a process of national reconciliation.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, It is good that since December last year we have had the opportunity to use this sanctions regime to sanction individuals who have been guilty of serious human rights violations. It is an advantage that we do not have to impose sanctions on an entire country, but can use it very specifically against the individual offenders. However, as has already been mentioned, we believe that the mechanism is incomplete. Certainly, it would have to be considered to include the aspect of corruption in a reform or, as the British have done, to introduce a separate mechanism in this context. I am flexible. But in the matter itself, I think it is right that we include corruption here. Another deficit is certainly unanimity, and we should talk about it with the Member States concerned. In fact, it cannot objectively be the case that, if one finds a human rights violation, then in extreme cases 26 Member States take the view that: Yes, this person is responsible, and only one Member State claims the opposite. In fact, this can only be based on non-objective considerations, such as financial interests, and we consider this to be politically unacceptable. That is why, I think, we should also use the normal legislative approach in the case of an amending regulation. That is to say, there is a proposal from the Commission, which then goes to the Council and Parliament, and then it is decided in codecision. And then, I think, on the one hand, we will be able to involve corruption, but we will also be able to talk to the Member States concerned, which have so far been opposed to the lifting of unanimity.