Speeches

Madam President, thank you very much indeed. I, as well as my colleague, have been listening very carefully to all the interventions I think I can draw four main ideas. The first one is that we have to face a new geopolitical paradigm. This new paradigm changes from the multilateralism that helps everybody to a zero-sum geopolitics scenario in which the powers like the US, China and Russia are comfortable, but we are not. The second idea is that security is a common global good. If it is a common global good, it is a matter not only for those in uniform, but the whole society at large. And then we have to mobilise our society to convince and seduce them that we are defending the lever to the freedom in order to have the support, because the politicians alone will not be able to get through it. The third idea I have felt here with all the interventions is a sense of urgency. We have to react quickly because Europe has in front of us a great challenge, which is to keep our own defence and security in our own hands, and to rise up to the challenges ahead. That means not only to have the political will, but to find the political leadership, to mobilise the funding necessary for that and to row in the same direction. We will be strong if we are united and we will be strong if we have our people, our voters, behind us. The fourth idea is that there cannot be peace in Ukraine without justice. If the peace has to be sustained, it has to be fair. It will not be sustained if it's not fair. And for that, we have to support our Ukrainian friends in order to go with a strong hand to the negotiating table, in which the European Union, by all means, has to be present.

Madam President, Mrs Kallas, dear friends, I have the honour to present the report on the common European security and defence policy for 2024. It is a report that, by its nature, is a bit special. Firstly, because it reflects not only the priorities of the European Parliament on these issues, but also those of the Commission and those of the European External Action Service as the first report of this legislature. But it is also a transition report, because it reflects precisely the geopolitical challenge, the paradigm shift that is taking place in the world. Faced with this paradigm shift and these new challenges, the European Union must respond to the circumstances. This report focuses on this transition from being dependent on others to being politically and strategically autonomous. It has incorporated the vast majority of the amendments from the various political groups, but in the end we were able to present - thanks to the work of all the services of Parliament, the Secretariat, the shadow rapporteurs and so on - a coherent report and a report focusing on the priorities of the European institutions and not just the European Parliament. What are these priorities? The first is that Europe, as I say, must begin to take the reins of its future into its own hands and be able to defend its model of life, its values, its convictions and its principles now and in the future. That's what we need time for. And, even if we want to create the Europe of defense of the future in the next four or five years, we need the United States of America to be with us in NATO and outside NATO to create a credible deterrent to Russia, so that Putin doesn't come up with new military adventures again. We need to create a strong deterrent and, for that, Europe needs time. In the best-case scenario, that is, if we have the political will, mobilise the necessary financial resources and show unity and determination to create that Europe of defence, we will need at least four or five years. We must therefore be aware that in the meantime we need the assistance and support of the United States and NATO. We don't want to do anything without Americans, as long as they want to participate like us. But we have to equip ourselves with those means and those resources to defend ourselves in the crises of our neighborhoods east, south and beyond. Obviously, we also make a geographical review of all the conflicts in which Europe has to have a unique position, starting with Ukraine. There we repeat, as my friend David has said before, that we will support Ukraine financially, politically and defensively for as long as necessary. And here we will do it even without the United States of America. We have to stand by the Ukrainian people and government for as long as they need us, and for that, we have to articulate the financial and political mechanisms that allow it. But they must always count on our support, as long as they are defending our freedom, our territorial integrity, our independence and our model of life on the battlefield of Ukraine. Secondly, we turn to the Middle East conflict, in which, following the visit of the High Representative, clear messages have been sent that we need to continue and resume the truce, that the negotiated truce between Hamas and Israel cannot be broken, because we still need the exchange of hostages and prisoners, and to maintain a space of peace and dialogue that allows for the resumption of political dialogue in order to bring Israel and the Palestinians to the negotiating table in order to seek a future that will ensure peace and prosperity for Israel and the future for the Palestinians. And that can only be done within the perspective of two states living back to back and in peace. Of course, we have also reviewed other conflicts: the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Uyghurs and Burma. But we have placed special emphasis, as I say, on these two major conflicts in Ukraine and in the Middle East. In short, we have a report from which we can begin to implement an agenda for the implementation of these conclusions which, as I insist, has sought to integrate not only the priorities of the European Parliament, but also of the Commission and the European External Action Service. I am very much looking forward to the debate on this proposal below.

Mr President, tectonic changes are taking place in the Middle East that are likely to change the geopolitical and geostrategic map in the area, and even to the borders. But at the moment what we have is a truce agreement between Hamas and Israel that gives us hope that peace will return to that region. There is a reality that we cannot lose sight of: Between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River live seven million Palestinians and seven million Jews. They have to learn to live in peace, with respect and with reconciliation. That is why we are committed to the two-state solution as the only possible one that offers a future of security and stability to Israel and prosperity and dignity to the Palestinians. We must implement this through our dialogue with the Israeli and Palestinian authorities to implement the EU Middle East Strategy, the new Pact for the Mediterranean and the strategy for the Gulf countries. The Commission is going to put forward these proposals and we must support them while continuing to support our two missions on the ground, EUPOL COPPS and EU BAM Rafah, which are doing a magnificent job with few resources.

Mr President, after three years of war, devastation and death, it seems that we are working towards a peace negotiation perspective. But a peace for Ukraine must be a just, lasting peace, and a just and lasting peace must respect the principles of the Charter of the United Nations: the intangibility of borders, territorial integrity, political independence, the freedom of any state to choose its international alliances. We have to guarantee that to the Ukrainians. And above all, there can be no peace without the Ukrainians or above the Ukrainians. It is they who have to say what the terms of peace are. And that is where the European Union has to help. We need to help by offering them bilateral and collective security guarantees and also by offering them a prospect of joining the European Union and joining NATO in due course. Let us not look so much at what the United States, the President of the United States, is doing and look at what we are capable of doing and what collective plan the European Union has to respond to that prospect of peace that is opening up in Ukraine. We have to face that reality in a united way and with our own plan.

Madam President, the trade war declared by Trump was already coming, because he announced it during the election campaign. Trump's trade tariffs have a double dimension: an outer dimension and an inner dimension. The external dimension consists of using them as weapons of coercion for a negotiation against the trading partners, to put their interlocutor on the defensive, but the internal dimension is more important, because once Trump has announced that he is going to lower the corporate tax - the corporate tax– from 35% to 15%, that will lead to a mismatch in the national accounts that will have to square with import revenues through tariffs. That is, they will compensate for the tax gap left by the reduction in corporate tax. Tariffs are therefore going to be there for years and, in the face of that, the European Union has to react by becoming the guarantor of international free trade, starting with the ratification of the Mercosur Agreement, the ratification of the Modernised Global Agreement with Mexico and establishing agreements with India and Japan. We are the main trading partner of the world, but we also depend more than anyone on trade and therefore we have to...

Mr. President, Donald Trump has returned to the White House and, therefore, we have to offer a positive agenda, of meeting, of dialogue, of negotiation, from a point of view of firmness of our principles and our convictions. And when there are difficulties and when there are problems, we must be smart enough to turn them into opportunities for the European Union. On three fronts you will mainly notice Trump's impact. On the economic front, with its announced lowering of corporate taxes. That is going to mean that, if it goes down from 30% to 10%, there will be a vacuuming effect of European investments and companies towards the United States and that, in addition, that fiscal deficit caused by the lowering of taxes will have to be compensated by a rise in import tariffs. Tariffs will therefore not be so much a geostrategic and geopolitical weapon as an instrument for framing fiscal accounts. And from the international point of view, it will also be a change, a turning point. There are people who even talk about an accelerator of history. But here Europe must be able to help ensure that its principles and convictions are reflected in the international order. That is, we cannot be the sufferers of the new international order, but conform it. And for that we have to act with unity, with determination and with strength, and not allow the United States to separate us, nor allow bilateral relations, but with the whole of the European Union as a fundamental actor for peace and stability.

Mr President, yesterday was a day of joy in the Middle East and a day of hope. But it is a hope in a fragile ceasefire, which we have to take care of, because this ceasefire is not guaranteed: These are three stages, which we hope will end well, but it is a ceasefire that is subject to all sorts of provocations and ruptures. The European Union can clearly assist in the achievement and maintenance of this ceasefire through political and diplomatic support, through the massive delivery of humanitarian aid to the well-deserving people of Gaza, and already starting with a massive reconstruction plan in the area. But let us not deceive ourselves, there will be no peace in the Middle East until there is a definitive agreement between Israel and Palestine that guarantees two things: the security of Israelis – the security of their borders and the security of their state – and a political horizon of dignity for Palestinians. Without that there will be no peace and prosperity. Nor will there be peace in the Middle East if there is no agreement on Lebanon that prevents a terrorist group like Hezbollah from hijacking the state and determining the future of that country. Nor will there be peace and prosperity in the Middle East if we do not get Syria back on the path of democracy. That is why I believe it is time for the European Union to become the engine for convening a regional peace conference in the area, including, of course, all these countries and all those actors who have something to say: the United States, the Gulf countries, Turkey and all those who want to contribute to peace. That peace conference will require the European Union to stand united and make a proposal from the European Union. Let us overcome our differences, overcome our difficulties and propose ourselves as peacemakers. If we complain later, it'll be our fault.

Mr President, Madam High Representative, we can only congratulate ourselves on the fall of an autocrat and a dictator like Bashar al-Assad, who subjected his people to a tyranny with crimes, with torture, with displaced people and, therefore, the first idea would be to congratulate all European democrats. The second is that, precisely now, we are witnessing a redefinition of the geopolitical and geostrategic map of the Middle East. In the Middle East nothing that seems is true and nothing that is true is what it seems. Alliances of friends today are alliances of enemies tomorrow. Therefore, the situation is fluid because, in addition, many world powers have clear interests in the area. The European Union, faced with this question mark and uncertainty that opens up to us after the fall of Bashar al-Assad, with leaders who come from Salafist Islamism with records of human rights violations, must be very careful and extreme prudence when approaching the situation right now. We must demand, as the High Representative said, the territorial integrity of Syria and respect for human rights, as well as guarantee independence and territorial sovereignty and try to help the displaced and those who suffer most, by increasing our humanitarian aid from the European Union. What we cannot do is open a debate twenty-four hours after Assad falls on how to return refugees to Syria. That is not exactly what we Europeans should do. We must therefore assist in a transition to a democratic regime that integrates religious and racial minorities and assist where possible for the time being, pending further developments.

Madam President, preparedness must be costly, but the price of being unprepared is far higher. I think that is the main message presented by the wonderful report from Mr Niinistö. This is the one I will retain. The second one is that we have to raise awareness of the whole civil society in order to face the real risks going across the board. That means, at the same time, that we have to make a sense of urgency and to speed up the crisis, preparedness and readiness of our instruments in the European Union, and to cooperate and coordinate with the Member States to be fit for purpose. I welcome the high level of ambition of this report that goes across all the possible hazards, but I think that we should focus on the resilience of the critical infrastructures and key services, especially countering cyberattacks, hybrid threats and massive disinformation campaigns. That demands a lot of investment and a lot of cutting-edge technology in order to be prepared for all these eventualities.

Madam President, the old order has not finished dying and the new order has not just been born. We are in a period of transition from an old order that emerged from World War II, based on effective multilateralism, the United Nations system, collaboration, cooperation and the rule of law, to a new order in which the protagonists are the great powers that compete with each other. If today we wanted to renew the 1945 United Nations Charter of San Francisco or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we would surely not achieve the necessary consensus in the international community. References in global governance have therefore changed. We have a China that is increasingly assertive, a Russia that questions the international order with the brutal and murderous invasion of Ukraine and a very polarized United States internally, which prevents them from exercising their international leadership as before. In this scenario, the European voice must be heard through the meeting of its own space, a unique message and a determined protagonism. Their own space must be that of individual freedom, human rights, the rule of law, the division of powers, democracy and the liberal economy. The message must be unique; There may be several of us who speak on behalf of the European Union as long as we agree on the message. And the protagonism has to be decisive. It is up to us, therefore, to turn Europe into an international player with its own weight that projects its values and principles without blaming anyone.

Madam President, Mr High Representative, when, a year ago, the terrorist organisation Hamas launched the criminal attack on Israel, which we remember yesterday with pain and solidarity in this Parliament, it was surely not aware of the cascade of regional conflicts that it was going to unleash and that are destabilising all the geostrategic balances in the area. Israel's military attack on Hezbollah's leaders on Lebanese soil and Tehran's response by launching ballistic missiles on October 1 against Israel set off an escalation of the conflict. We in the European Union should therefore strengthen our diplomatic and political efforts to try to contain this escalation with an imminent ceasefire. This, in the short term. In the medium term, when weapons fall silent, we should establish a strategy for Lebanon. It cannot be that a group recognised as a terrorist group by the European Union holds a whole country hostage: Hizbullah. In the meantime, we must provide all the necessary humanitarian aid to a country that contains the highest number of refugees per square kilometre and per capita: More than 1.5 million Syrian refugees are on Lebanese territory. We therefore need to strengthen our humanitarian aid and update it.

Mr President, dear colleagues, on the battlefields of Ukraine is not only the freedom and the security and democracy and independence of the Ukrainian people, it's also the security, the freedom, the independence of all us Europeans. That's why we have promised to keep unwavering support and unwavering assistance to the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian Government as long as it takes. But this is more at stake. Putin invading Ukraine has put into question the whole international order. There are quite a number now of autocrats and dictators around the world watching if, by brutal force, you can change internationally respected frontiers, if by brutal force and invasion, you can impose a government, whether or not by brutal force, you can also buy the independence of a neighbouring country. All this is at stake, and that's why we have to commit to our promises concerning different commitments. The first one is to keep our quick delivery, speedy delivery of weapons without any undue delay. Secondly, we have to leave all the artificial restrictions to the delivery of our weapons and to the use of weapons, whether in Ukrainian soil or in Russian soil, in legitimate targets. It means, as well, to increase our financial package, whether by macroeconomic assistance as well as investments, and to increase and ramp up as well our humanitarian assistance for the winter, which is around the corner.