Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, the Roma communities unfortunately continue to suffer from structural discrimination throughout Europe. They are denied access to fundamental rights such as education, health, housing and justice. Despite a number of EU strategies, including the Rome 2011 Strategy, the risks of exclusion remain very high. These communities are often victims of forced evictions and face a constant violation of their basic rights. While the European Commission has a key role in ensuring anti-discrimination legislation, such as the Racial Equality Directive, the lack of political will and insufficient responsibility of Member States are still very significant obstacles to the necessary changes. The Commission's recent assessment confirms that while some processes have been initiated, the promises have in most cases not translated into concrete and effective action on the ground. But beyond that, these communities are now the victims of a special attack by some far-right forces across Europe. This is the case in my country, Portugal, where the far right has clearly chosen this community, the Roma community, as a prime target of its racist and xenophobic attacks. And in the face of this, we must respond in the strongest possible terms, seeking to ensure conditions of dignity for this community that is part of European history.

Madam President, Commissioner, the atrocities committed against the Congolese indiscriminately must have consequences for those responsible. These atrocities are unequivocally war crimes and crimes against humanity. And one of the biggest culprits in the escalation of violence, which is particularly cruel to women, is Rwanda – about which no one has the slightest doubt – which, moreover, is playing a double game in the region. It is committed to peace, but will arm and cover the M23 rebels, who have recently taken Goma and Bukavu. The European Union has the power to call the Rwandan Government to account and many appeals have already been made to this effect, to which I naturally join, suspending the cooperation projects it has with the country, until it puts an end to any collaboration with the armed groups on the ground today and makes a contribution so that these groups and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo commit themselves to the Nairobi process and engage in a genuine national dialogue. Of course, since the overwhelming majority of Congolese are Christians, it follows, of course, that the majority of the victims of the atrocities are also Christians. But to make such distinctions is something ignominious and barbaric.

Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union is not just about policies, plans, strategies, agreements, regulations and directives. A union between peoples, such as ours, also needs symbols and the symbolic dimension of Europe has been sidelined for the benefit of other priorities. Radio Free Europe is one of the symbols of European identity and memory, because it was created in the post-war period to give voice to European values, to be a light for the peoples in the East who were suffocated by totalitarian communist regimes, crushed by false symbols and false idols. In the dark times we are living in again, the European Union cannot let that light, that symbol, go out. The winds blowing from the East – from Russia in particular – are, again, winds contrary to Western freedom and democracies. Radio Free Europe is not a Cold War relic. It is a symbol of free Europe in its own right and the European Union should take over its funding where appropriate.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, this is a particularly important moment in the life of this Parliament. We cannot ignore the fact that human rights, viewed as universal rights, had their origin precisely here in Europe, in the year 1789, at the time of the great French Revolution. This was the first time that we defined that human rights, although applied to a country, had a true universal dimension. Since then, they have come a long way, but the truth is that in the last year we have seen a very serious setback in human rights practically all over the world. Looking at what has happened, we can mention, we can enunciate several serious problems. Democracies are retreating. There are far more autocracies than democracies around the world today and, above all, the value of democracy is widely questioned in various parts of the world. Executions have increased. The number of those sentenced to death has increased. Violence against women in some parts of the world has increased alarmingly and I must mention in particular that extreme form of violence which is sexual violence against women. Around the race for critical raw materials, which are fundamental to our own technological development, to the digital and climate transitions we are engaged in, new situations that undermine human rights are also being created around it. Big tech companies operating all over the world create new problems of disrespect for human rights in the digital world. The International Criminal Court, as has just been rightly mentioned, is today the subject of an unprecedented challenge and attack that could call into question its very viability. So we have no reason to be optimistic. We have an obligation to be attentive and to continue to support all those who, in the most diverse parts of the world, fight heroically for the affirmation of human rights.

Mr President, Commissioner, the times are very demanding for the European Union. All the answers and all the solutions to the world's serious problems are expected of her today. It is expected that she will act with immediate readiness, that she will replace overnight those who, as is the case with the United States, have backtracked on their commitments to security, to humanitarian aid. And many of those who were just pro-Europeans are hastening, at first, to portray the EU as weak or failed. But the truth is clearly different. Since the pandemic crisis, and still with the same legal armour as the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union has lived up to difficult circumstances. He has acted, he has responded, he has reinvented himself. Just now, in the face of security threats on the horizon, the European Union has devised a plan of EUR 800 billion to re-arm. Even now, the European Union is preparing to respond to the tariff hostility of its old ally with a package of heavy tariffs. The news of a 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine is a small relief, but nothing is guaranteed when there is a wordless interlocutor on the other side: Vladimir Putin. Therefore, the European Union cannot let its guard down. Ukraine is weakened and we must have the courage to use the 200 billion Russian assets frozen on our territories to keep afloat the ability of Ukrainians to guarantee their independence and the democratic values they share with us.

Thank you very much for the question. The agreement, in essence, as I have already said, is an agreement that guarantees and protects the various European economic sectors. Particularly in the field of agriculture, we have to have this debate. Let's see who wins and eventually who loses. If there are some European agricultural sectors that are going to lose, of course we have to find compensation mechanisms at European level, and that is what we have done over the years. If there is one sector in the European Union that has benefited greatly from European support, it is precisely the agricultural sector. It is probably the economic sector that has benefited most from the support over the years, over the several decades of existence of the European Union. Now, what is also not acceptable is the discourse that is being made about the state of agriculture in those countries. I know all these countries, I have visited them several times. In these countries, the law of the jungle does not apply. They are democracies, they are democracies with the rule of law and they are democracies increasingly concerned with keeping up with the big agendas on the issues of combating climate change, deforestation, etc. Let us also not make such a bad judgment of countries ...

Mr Oliveira, do not underestimate the democratic importance of this European Parliament. The agreement will be discussed and voted on here in the European Parliament; and this Parliament is also the expression of the will of the various countries, of the various peoples, of the various European states. The agreement is, in my view, a good agreement, it is an agreement that protects, in essence, European interests. There will be some sectors that may lose. In all agreements there is always that risk. Then we have to find mechanisms, safeguard clauses, support funds and that is what is planned. So this speech, which is a speech that aims to create fear in European society, with certain sectors of European society, is a speech that does not serve the interests of those you are supposed to represent and defend.

Madam President, Commissioner, this agreement is good for the European Union politically, economically and commercially. The European Union has every interest in strengthening its links with the Mercosur countries. We have deep historical, cultural and political affinities with this region. We are talking about a set of democracies. We must deepen these relations and nothing better than moving forward with the treaty. At a time when protectionism and mercantilism are returning in force, we must show signs of openness, a free trade agreement and an agreement aimed at properly regulating relations with another region of the world. We do not want a Europe closed in on itself. We want an open Europe. Europe needs to connect with other regions of the world. We need to source raw materials that we do not have on our continent. We need to establish trade relations that will boost our economies and, therefore, it is essential to finally ensure the implementation of this agreement. But there's something I want to say here. It is legitimate, of course, to be against this agreement, but what I have noticed, unfortunately, I think that on some left and many right, is that there is a real Trumpist discourse against this agreement, because it is a discourse based on the falsification of reality and a discourse based on the attempt to produce fear among the populations. Let us have a serious debate, a debate on the basis of the facts, a debate on the basis of what is actually in the agreement and not what some want to make believe is in the agreement, but is actually not there. This agreement is an agreement that should, can and should be discussed. We are starting this democratic discussion here. We are an open and democratic space, but we have an obligation to do so rigorously.

Commissioner, like so many here perhaps, I was a young man in Portugal, a teenager, when I followed the fall of dictator Somoza and the victory of the Sandinistas, and I remember well the great hope that this created in all of us. But we quickly realized that we were facing an authoritarian system. Unfortunately, in the name of socialism, a dictatorship was in fact being established, and we cannot look differently at left-wing dictatorships or right-wing dictatorships. Dictatorships are always dictatorships and must be clearly condemned. The situation has worsened in recent years and, in particular, in recent months. The most recent constitutional reform was to strengthen the autocratic power of this real matrimonial dictatorship, which is in fact something specific in the world, to call into question the principle of separation of powers. This has already had consequences: more political prisoners, more people persecuted for doctrinal reasons, for religious reasons, for reasons of willingness to participate in civic life. Nicaragua is increasingly a country detached from the fundamental principles of freedom and democracy. This is a dictatorship in all its splendour. And we Europeans have an obligation, all of us, to express unequivocally our solidarity with the Nicaraguan opposition, the Nicaraguan resistance and the entire Nicaraguan people who are suffering the hardships of a violent dictatorship.

Madam President, Commissioner and Minister, the sanctions ordered by President Trump against judges and officials of the International Criminal Court may mean, in practice, the end of this court, which was created to enforce the Rome Statute and to try the most atrocious crimes of which human beings are capable. The end of the International Criminal Court would represent an unacceptable civilisational setback and would be a boon to the genocidal people of this world. It would also be an unacceptable blow to the millions of victims who see the ICC as their only chance for justice and reparation. However, there is no body other than the European Union that can come to the aid of the ICC and keep the international justice system afloat. The European Union has a single tool for this: blocking status, which allows circumvention of the extraterritorial effects of laws adopted by third countries. Here, triggering the blocking statute has become a categorical imperative. The European Union has a choice to make between justice and impunity, and cannot delay that choice any longer. What is at stake is nothing less than the survival of the international criminal justice system.

Mr President, Commissioner, what is happening in the Democratic Republic of Congo today is yet another tragic chapter in the history of violence suffered by Africans. The report of the atrocities that come to us from the region is especially cruel, because they have as one of the main targets women and girls subject to rape, as a systematic weapon of war and affirmation about opponents. We must ensure that those responsible for these heinous crimes are brought to justice and that, as far as is humanly possible, reparations are made to the victims. We cannot ignore that Rwanda is one of those responsible for this escalation of violence. This country has played a double game in the region. On the one hand, it is committed to peace, on the other, it is arming and providing cover for the military forces advancing on Goma. The European Union has the capacity to hold the Rwandan government to account by suspending its partnership and cooperation projects with that country until it clarifies very clearly its participation in the clashes and puts an end to any collaboration with the armed groups on the ground today.

Madam President, Commissioner, the European Union has historically shown great difficulty in dealing with the problems of the Middle East, which is understandable given the very nature of the European Union, which consists of several states with different and, in some cases, conflicting foreign policies. But never, as today, has a more active presence of the European Union in the Middle East been so necessary. What have we seen in the last few weeks, and in particular in the last few days? Absolutely demeaning and even obscene statements by the President of the United States when he refers to Gaza and the Palestinians, on terms that we all heard a few days ago and a few hours ago. A behavior of the government of Israel that is completely unacceptable. Israel now has the most extreme right-wing government in its history, and its behaviour even calls into question some of the fundamental tenets of Zionism. Because, no matter what position we have towards Zionism, this behaviour of Israel, of this government of Israel, completely departs from the generous principles, of some of them, that were at the basis of that movement. And, on the other hand, we also have Iran as a source of permanent instability in the region. In view of all this, the European Union must assume its responsibilities. Only we, I believe, will be in a position today, given recent developments in the world, to take a more active part in contributing to the recognition of the two States, to the viability of the two States. That means, I believe, first of all, and until recently this was not a clear thing, the recognition by the national states of the legitimacy of the State of Palestine. And I appeal, even in the case of my own country, which is Portugal, to move towards the recognition of the State of Palestine, because it seems to me to be a step forward towards resolving this problem. But the subject is complex and we cannot have Manichean views.

Madam President, Commissioner, I rise in this debate to refer specifically to the situation of the members of the mujahedeen organisation of the Iranian people. As you will know, several members of this organization are being held in Tehran's Evin prison. Many of them are survivors and witnesses of the mass executions that took place in the late 1980s in Iran by the infamous death commissions. Members of the mujahedeen have consistently denounced human rights violations, torture and unfounded accusations against the regime's dissidents. Even from prison, they always express their solidarity with all prisoners on death row and call for an end to capital punishment, including through hunger strikes. Now, on January 7, two members of the mujahedeen had their death sentences reconfirmed by the Supreme Court: Behrouz Ehsani, 69, and Mehdi Hassani, 48. Both were subjected to physical and psychological torture of extreme violence. Amnesty International has called on the Iranian authorities to halt the execution of the two dissidents. This Parliament cannot but make the same appeal.

Mr President, Commissioner, Sudan is still not as visible in this Parliament as it should be. Unfortunately, the European Union's commitment to the resolution of this catastrophic war continues to fall short of what is necessary, because no one is unaware that this war is probably the deadliest of all times. Despite this, the European Union seems oblivious to the macabre geopolitical interests at stake. There are no consequences for those who are profiting from war and paying for heavy weapons used indiscriminately in civilian areas. The United States has already imposed sanctions on the leaders of the two conflicting forces, as well as on funding sources linked to the United Arab Emirates. The European Union must follow the same path: sanction war criminals and hold the United Arab Emirates to account. Sudan should be one of the priorities of European foreign policy, given the scale of the tragedy that afflicts it. The fact that it is not means that, compared with other regions of the world, the European Union unfortunately continues to look at Africa as a kind of footnote.

Mr President, Commissioner, in a democracy the rules are very clear: Those who win the elections have the legitimacy to exercise power and those who have the most votes win the elections. And so today, in Venezuela, the reality is very simple: there is a usurper installed in power and there is a legitimate president prevented from landing in his own country. That is the reality. That is why this Parliament must send a very clear message to Europe and the world, and in particular to the Venezuelan democrats, that this is our understanding and that we stand in solidarity with all Venezuelan democrats. Last session, I did not follow my group and I took a position of clear recognition of the President-elect of Venezuela. And it is with that authority, too, that I now want to say that it is not a great service to the Venezuelan democrats to take advantage of this type of debate to come and attack the legitimate government of Spain. It is a terrible service, it is an exploitation, it is an unacceptable instrumentalisation of those Venezuelans who, at the moment, are going through an extraordinarily difficult phase and are fighting for democracy. I don't think they need that kind of support. They need generous, deep, clear solidarity. A solidarity from Democrats to Democrats and not a solidarity conditioned by the will to oppose in one's own country of origin.

Mr President, Commissioner, the Belarusian regime is a puppet regime that caninely serves Putin's imperialist narrative. In a few days, a new electoral farce will take place for dictator Lukashenko to perpetrate himself in power. The European Union must not let the world forget the political opponents who fill Belarus' prisons, starting with Mikalai Khilo, who has been detained for almost a year on charges of insulting the dictator. This official of the Delegation of the European Union to Belarus was sentenced to four years in prison a few days ago. He remains an official of the European Union. You need to support him and his family. Your arrest must have consequences. The opposition has called for the people to revolt. In the 2020 elections, the people took to the streets to express their revolt and the regime shook, but Russia-backed violent repression got the better of them. The Lukashenka regime does not exist outside its osmosis with the Putin regime. And for that very reason, weakening Putin is irreparably weakening Lukashenko and creating an opportunity for Belarusians to get rid of this terrible dictatorship.

Mr President, Commissioner and Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, the images that have come to us from Saydnaya prison are a representation of the absolute evil of which human beings are sometimes capable. Unfortunately, absolute evil does not necessarily succeed good. And the Syrian reality is too complex and painful for us to look to the future with optimism. But let us look with some hope. There is now a path that clearly forks. On a path that we would want – highly unlikely – which would lead to a tolerant and multi-ethnic regime. And the one we do not want – but unfortunately it is possible – which would lead to the establishment of a violent repressive theocracy. The first question is to what extent the Syrian people will be able to freely choose their path and to what extent, unfortunately, other peoples and other states will not choose instead of the Syrian people, and this will be a mere plaything on the geopolitical board of the region. At this time, we know some statements from the rebels who took power. These statements point to a pacification of Syria, to an orderly transition, but they must be questioned. And we have an obligation to do so. We must ask them whether or not they will respect ethnic and religious minorities and seek harmonious coexistence. Whether or not they will hold war criminals, including those who have used chemical weapons against defenceless civilians, criminally responsible. At the same time, the European Union must now negotiate humanitarian corridors to help the population in need. And let's not forget one thing: Syria is destroyed and one of our first tasks is to strongly support Syria in its reconstruction process.

Mr President, Commissioner, ensuring that every child has access to fundamental rights is not only an ethical duty of all of us, but is the key to a fairer, more tolerant and brighter world. But children are still the ones who suffer the most from the physical and psychological violence with which adults punish each other. The children of Gaza, massacred without pity or pity, the Ukrainian children deported to Russia, the Afghan girls annulled by the medieval and religious fanaticism of the Taliban, the Sudanese children fleeing the civil war. And there are children who suffer right here in Europe. Child poverty affects almost 20% of our children. Access to quality and inclusive education is still unequal and migrant and refugee children remain on the margins or away from their parents. There is therefore still a long way to go in the area of the promotion and protection of children's rights, which is why it is important to mark the anniversary of this very important UN Convention.

Mr President, Commissioner, Europe is the continent that takes the best care of labour and trade union rights. They were, as we know, rights won at the cost of blood, sweat and many tears. But today European democracies benefit from products from countries where these rights are not yet consolidated or even under attack. And this dilemma, as seen in the case of Cambodia, also arises in relation to countries with which the European Union has even signed cooperation agreements. There is a reflection that needs to be made now. The European Union's Generalised Scheme of Preferences is not delivering the expected result. The partial suspension of these benefits in the case of Cambodia does not appear to have had any effect. The persecution and imprisonment of trade unionists and activists for political reasons is proof of this. The European Union must make it clear to the Cambodian government that it does not agree with the criminalisation of the struggle of Cambodians and attacks on civil society, using all the mechanisms at its disposal, be it individual sanctions or even the total suspension of preferential tariffs.

Thank you very much, Mr Oliveira, for your question. As I began by saying, we agree with the diagnosis contained in the Draghi Report. Solutions are matters that should now be discussed. And this is one of them, it is a matter that must be discussed. I believe that we must find a solution that links European priorities with national priorities. I do not, of course, think that the national states should be placed in a secondary position in relation to the policies that they must follow with regard to adoption, to increasing foreign investment. We have to articulate the two dimensions and I think that is what has been happening, that is the path that we must continue. I have no fear in this area. I believe that the best policy will be one where national options can be combined with European ones. And that is the path that for many years, as you know, we have followed, namely the Socialist Party in Portugal.

Madam President, Commissioner, in this House, in this Parliament, we may differ and we will certainly differ in the solutions, but we do not disagree with the diagnosis outlined in the Draghi report. A Europe with signs of economic decline, very low levels of investment, a loss of international relevance and complex demographic and geopolitical challenges. In this new global economy of rapid transformation and innovation, venture capital is essential to support the creation and development of new businesses, a function not fully ensured by the banking sector, as we know. Despite advances in recent years, Europe continues to have a low profile on the world market. There is a need to foster a greater risk culture in European society and to stimulate the supply of risk capital. In this field, the European Investment Bank could play an important role. Here too, however, we must state clearly the following: the European model of development goes through the virtuous articulation of modernization and economic growth with a social state that protects and also liberates. This is our model, in which, I believe, the vast majority of the population continues to review themselves. There is no economic prosperity without social welfare.

Madam President, Commissioner, unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to the intolerant and if we are not prepared to defend the tolerant society from the assault of intolerance, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them. These words were written by one of the greatest liberal-democratic philosophers of the 20th century, Karl Popper, and are found in his well-known work The Open Society and its Enemies. And that's exactly what we're talking about. Popper challenged both right-wing totalitarianism and left-wing totalitarianism. He clearly defended the primacy of liberal democracy and was aware of one thing: that the only limit that can be set is the limit on those who, being intolerant, call into question the basic and fundamental presuppositions of democratic-liberal civic coexistence. Unfortunately, today, this is happening on a large scale on digital networks, affects various segments of the population and has a particularly harmful effect on young people. The answer to this goes through two things: on the one hand, by better regulating social media, in the name of defending freedom – not in the name of atrophying freedom, as some here claim, but in the name of defending the values of freedom – and, on the other hand, by promoting critical, autonomous, free and conscious thinking in every young European. That is the path we must follow.

Madam President, Commissioner, Iran is an example of how a great people, with an extraordinary history and an exceptional cultural and artistic wealth, can be subjugated by a group of religious fanatics; a people that lives oppressed by the violence of a theocratic state, although it cherishes an undeniable desire for freedom. Not content with raping their own people, Tehran's ayatollahs have turned violence into a product that can be exported to various parts of the world. They have been doing ‑no for a long time in the Middle East and are therefore one of the main obstacles to peace in the region. And now they are committed to exporting this violence to Europe, by radicalising young people on European soil and even partnering with criminal organisations. This has a name: terrorism, international terrorism. The Iranian religious dictatorship is now probably the regime that most sponsors and promotes terrorism, because it is also convinced that its survival depends on it. We therefore believe that we can no longer hesitate. Our next step must be to put the Revolutionary Guards on the list of terrorist groups in the European Union, as Canada and the United States have already done.