Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, today they are spending exactly 47 years on an Islamic revolution that led, at the time, to the accession of some European intellectual sectors, completely dominated by ideological blindness, which led them to believe in the merits of a revolution that quickly proved to be the origin of one of the most tetric regimes that contemporary times have known. And the cruelty of this regime has no limits. To the will to freedom of the Iranian youth, to the will to celebrate life, the regime always responds in the same way: repression and death. Protesters, chanting for freedom, reject all forms of dictatorship and call for a democratic, pluralist and corruption-free republic. To suppress this revolt, the Iranian regime executes, persecutes, kills. The number of executions recorded so far in 2026 is already quite unacceptable. But despite this brutal and brazen repression, the regime has failed to stop the revolt of the freedom-loving and courageous Iranian people. That is why he deserves the firm and unwavering support of the free world. Finally, I would like to mention Lindsay and Craig Foreman, two Europeans living in Spain, who were arrested in January 2025 while travelling in Iran and subsequently charged with espionage. We must also think about these two European citizens.

Madam President, in 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville visited America and, four years later, published his famous book Democracy in America. And what did he see in America? He saw the most advanced laboratory in modern democracy. He saw in the United States an unprecedented model of balance between individual freedom and representative government, based on a solid institutional structure. It saw a society with efficient counter-powers and a highly committed civil society. But Tocqueville also saw the dangers of democracy in America, of democracy anywhere in the world, and these dangers lay for him in three things: in an excess of individualism, in the risk of the tyranny of the majority and in the possibility of appealing to the strong man. America is facing precisely this situation today, but we must not confuse an administration with a president. America is Trump's America, but it's also Trump's America. New York Times. It is America that persecutes immigrants, but it is also America of a civil society that contests. I believe that this debate is a tribute to American democracy and this debate, above all, is an expression of solidarity for all those in the United States who are fighting for the recovery of the democratic values that inspire the United States of America.

Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the situation in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo is the product of decades of entrenched conflicts and old imbalances eroding the foundations of peace in the Great Lakes region. Since the beginning of this year, we have witnessed an escalation of violence driven by the M23 rebel group's offensive, which remains unpunished. Every day, houses are reduced to ashes, children are forced to kill, men are murdered with impunity, women are victims of systematic sexual violence. In the immediate future, it is imperative to increase the European Union's humanitarian aid, because what is on the ground is not enough, and to increase support for victims of sexual violence, because the State has exhausted its capacity to respond. In another plan, sanctions must be adopted against those responsible for atrocities and justice must be given to the victims of crimes against humanity. Apparently, the past few days have brought positive signs of Qatar-sponsored peace talks. The UN peacekeeping mission is on standby to monitor a cease‑fire. However, this tragic irony is that of a country where the presence of an international military force in the province of South Kivu for 27 years coexists with very serious crimes against humanity in the north of that province. All this must merit in-depth reflection in the United Nations on the effectiveness of its missions and on what is the responsibility to protect, which, let us not forget, is also part of international law.

Mr President, I shall begin by quoting in Spanish a Spanish person who, faced with this decision by the Spanish Government, said the following: It is good news to facilitate the contribution to the common good of many immigrants who were already working, participating in school, health and social services and, sometimes, living among us. Their dignity is thus recognized. Who says that? Some dangerous leftist? Any former ‑ Minister of Podemos? No, no. Luis Argüello, president of the Episcopal Conference of Spain, archbishop of Valladolid, said this. And this position is, in my view, the most sensible position in the face of such a situation. Not only in Spain, but also in other European countries, today we have thousands of immigrants who have arrived in very difficult circumstances, but who have made a decisive contribution to the development and progress of our economies and to solving the problems of our societies. And in the face of this, what do we do? Do we expel immigrants? What consequences does this have for our own lives? I therefore make my own the words of Dom Luis. He responded well.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Syria has got rid of the criminal dictator Bashar al‑Assad, but it has not yet got rid of the violence that continues to threaten the lives of civilians and exacerbate the humanitarian crisis. At this time, ‑nos is particularly concerned about the situation in northeastern Syria. The Kurdish communities are seeking to maintain long-standing forms of self-management, even if integrated into the Syrian state, and are striving for democratic confederalism. This is an absolutely vital issue for the future and for the territorial integrity of the country, which can only be resolved politically and institutionally. That is why the top priority of the European Union must be to support a lasting cease‑fire, while remaining vigilant to any human rights violations. What the European Union cannot do is finance the effort to rebuild Syria if that reconstruction means the destruction of various communities, particularly those who have constantly fought for the values of human rights on which we ourselves are inspired. The stabilization of north-east Syria should be seen as the preamble of future Syria, based on the peaceful cohabitation of diversity and a constitutional heritage that guarantees fundamental rights to all communities. Any other outcome will be precarious and vulnerable to violence.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, half a year later, we are once again discussing the situation of Joseph Figueira Martin. We'll all be more or less the same. Unfortunately, he is much worse. In the meantime, he was tried and sentenced to ten years of hard labor. A trial that developed in absolutely precarious conditions. And our position can only be one - the one we had half a year ago: demand the immediate release of Joseph Figueira Martin. This Parliament must not forget European citizens who are victims of violence and arbitrariness in third countries. Time is not running in our favor, much less, as I said, in Joseph's favor. He's getting weaker and weaker. Faced with the danger of this European compatriot of ours, the time has come for us to take clear positions. In particular, we must consider sanctions against those responsible for this wrongful process and make it clear to the authorities of the Central African Republic that European Union aid to this country is not irreversible. Such aid must, of course, be conditional on respect for the most basic human rights. This is a concrete case. There will be others, but this is the one we know about, and so we must go to the very end in defending this man's physical integrity. The crime he committed: to be a humanitarian worker, someone who has left Europe for the sole purpose of helping some less-favoured peoples on a continent affected by poverty. We can't forget him. We have a duty to support him.

Monsieur le Président, the European Union's migration policy is following a path that gives us cause for concern. We cannot accept that the European Union systematically departs from the protection of the right to asylum and from the fundamental principles on which the European project itself is based. We are and have always been ready to work on improving the Common European Asylum System, as demonstrated by the work on the Pact. But let's be clear: Reforms cannot be made at any price. They must be sustainable, based on solidarity, both between Member States and with third countries, and fully aligned with European Union values and international law. Exchanging responsibility for mere outsourcing, exchanging rights for opaque agreements and exchanging people for money is not the best solution - it is not even a solution. It is, moreover, a strategic, political and, above all, a moral error. If the European Union wants to have credibility in the world, it must always act in accordance with the principles it proclaims. The right to asylum cannot be a negotiable right. It is, moreover, a fundamental pillar of international law and of our own European identity.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, Mr President of the European Council, we Europeans today are faced with a truly tragic situation, which consists of the following: Our main historical ally is on the verge of becoming our adversary. This is for a clear reason: There is an anomaly today in the United States - a democratically elected autocrat is leading the world's greatest power. And it is promoting that autocratic vision not only internally, but also externally. It has thus become a factor disrupting the international order; Interestingly, an international order in which the United States played an essential role at the time of its formation - it is enough to recall the decisive role of President Wilson at the Paris Conference in 1920. Interestingly, the leader of the far right today came here to speak and did not say a word about Greenland. It has devoted all its time to attacking the agreement between the European Union and Mercosur. The two things are connected. A small Europe, a shrinking Europe, a Europe without ambition is precisely what we do not want. We want a Europe that is open to the world, we want a Europe that regulates the international situation, and for that very reason (I am about to end), the agreement with Mercosur is absolutely vital for (...)

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, we have had a very interesting debate here in the last few minutes, something that many people in the world aspire to and which, unfortunately, they cannot access; and a debate in which they were also able to speak, with the legitimacy of having been elected, some and some who are not exactly very supportive of human rights and the valorisation of democracy. But that is the strength of democracy - it is often also giving the floor to its enemies. There is a broad consensus in this House on this report, which has been made quite explicit here, and that is a consensus on the founding values of the European Union, which we, of course, do not want to impose arbitrarily on the rest of the world. But we have an obligation to listen to those who, fighting for these same values, come to us and ask us for help and support in the struggle that, in so often tragic circumstances, they are waging precisely for the affirmation of these fundamental values: They are the values of the dignity of the human person, they are the values of individual autonomy, they are the values of freedom of expression in all areas of association - in all areas - they are the values of freedom of thought, of believing or ceasing to believe in this or that philosophical orientation, of believing or not believing in the religious plane. These are absolutely essential values and fortunately they are enshrined in the European political space. That's something that defines us. And by defining ourselves, it also leads us to contract obligations. We have an obligation to support, listen to and support all those in the world who fight for these values and principles. And, as has already been said, we see that, unfortunately, there has been a shrinking of the democratic field and of respect for human rights in the world. We put forward concrete proposals; some have already been mentioned and highlighted: the adoption of a budget clearly earmarked for human rights, democracy and the rule of law in the future MFF; we need to review the overall sanctions regime so that they are more agile, that they cover the fight against corruption and that they can be approved in the Council by qualified majority; the Mechanism Human Rights Defenders supported more than 10 000 human rights defenders in 2024, but there is also a need to protect them from the increasing use of abusive lawsuits by autocratic and illiberal states. We therefore have a number of different initiatives which we are presenting here and which are included in this report. The report is not so much (as I said earlier, at the beginning) an X-ray, but it is an X-ray that also points to some therapy. We have this duty to the world. That is Europe's duty. It is not the duty to impose, it is the duty to support, it is the duty to encourage, it is the duty to be in solidarity with those who aspire to such a simple thing: One day they will be able to participate openly and freely in a debate like the one we had here today.

Madam President, Commissioner, academic research in Azerbaijan is a high-risk activity. In such a way, it can be considered a crime of high treason and be worth imprisonment of 15 and 18 years. This is exactly what happened to two academics in this country: Igbal Abilov and Bahruz Samadov. Not long ago, two other leading academics were sentenced to incarceration: Fazil Gasimov and Gubad Ibadoghlu, the 2024 Sakharov Prize finalist, who is still under house arrest. I believe that we have reached the limit of what can be done at parliamentary level to condemn these human rights violations, to demand the release of those arbitrarily detained. I would remind you that this Parliament has already called twice in the last year for the suspension of the Memorandum of Understanding with Azerbaijan in the area of energy, as long as this country persists in its violations of human rights. The time has come to comply with these resolutions. As stated in this new resolution, the time has come to make any progress in future partnership agreements with Azerbaijan conditional on the immediate release of political prisoners and full respect for the rule of law.