What Francisco spoke about.

Madam President, Commissioner, I believe that there is no doubt, for those who want to make a rigorous analysis of the situation, that the economic collapse that Cuba is facing today is the result of a great political and moral failure that preceded that economic collapse and that is the great political and moral failure of the Cuban revolution. In fact, this revolution that created huge expectations across the West, particularly on the left, quickly gave rise to the dictatorial regime that has manifested itself over these decades in various ways. Thousands of political prisoners, dissidents, intellectuals condemned to prison or exile, absolutely abominable situations. I remember the case of Heberto Padilla, which is a kind of Moscow process in Havana. And, therefore, the main responsible for what is happening are clearly the tyrants who, in the name of supposed egalitarian ideals, have led Cuba into an absolutely dark situation. But that does not mean, of course, that we are in favour of maintaining the embargo and, above all, that we are insensitive to the profound humanitarian crisis that is currently going through the island. I therefore believe that the cooperation dialogue agreement with Cuba should be maintained. But we must put more pressure on Cuba to break with this autocratic regime that has condemned the Cuban people to misery.

Mr Oliveira, I would like to begin by answering the second question. I believe that the answer lies in my speech; I expressed the same concern. We have a manufacturing industry that could be harmed if care is not taken to strictly monitor and monitor the implementation of the measures that are now going to be approved. I therefore believe that the European Commission now has a huge responsibility here and that it must continue to do so successfully. I am aware, for example, that in our country, Portugal, this manufacturing industry is of the utmost importance and is responsible for a large part of Portuguese exports. It is a successful industry, it is an industry with the incorporation of new technologies, and I even want to salute the way the representatives of the associative movement linked to this industry, in Portugal and in Europe, fought to assert their positions. As for the first question, I would simply say that the thesis I am adhering to here is the thesis of openness, but sometimes some protectionism is justified, of course.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Europe's trade opening is one of its major international strengths and an enormous economic advantage. We therefore see with growing concern the resurgence of an ultra-protectionist discourse which may be popular, but which seems to us to be contrary to European interests. However, we do not ignore the need to protect certain strategic sectors. The global steel safeguard measures expire at the end of next month, and a new mechanism needs to be approved – there is no doubt about that. We fear, however, that an overly restrictive path has been followed, which ultimately harms companies in a highly efficient, competitive and higher value-added manufacturing sector. We recognise that the final agreement is a step forward compared to the initial proposal of the European Commission, which does not ignore the concerns I mentioned above and which even introduces the need to assess the impact of this regulation on the rest of the value chain. The European Commission now has an obligation to monitor the possible negative effects of this legislation on the manufacturing industry, which, in countries such as Portugal, is synonymous with economic success and great technological development. We must therefore reject the idea of a fortress Europe. Rather, we must establish and deepen relations with countries and areas of the world that share with us references and values. That is why partnerships such as the one that has just entered into force under the Mercosur Agreement are vital for the future of the European Union.

Mr President, Mrs Delcy Rodríguez, a double illegitimate president of Venezuela at the moment, has announced the end of the amnesty law. It refers to new legal instruments, which do not yet exist, to resolve the many outstanding cases. Let us be clear: the absolute priority in Venezuela must be an immediate return to democracy. This can only be achieved by holding free elections. Those who are afraid of elections are afraid of democracy. The amnesty law, conceived and executed, moreover, under strong American pressure, admittedly allowed the release of many political prisoners, but it contained great iniquities. It was presented, from the outset, as a favor that despotism granted to prisoners of conscience. It led to beggarly and degrading behaviors of human dignity. He unwittingly exploited the understandable emotional distress of the victims and their families. To use freedom as a commodity is the most sordid of the human condition. Unfortunately, this is what has happened recently in Venezuela. Nothing substantial has changed. The dictatorship became a sort of American ‑ protectorate, but it did not alter anything in its essence. In the face of all this, there is one way and only one way forward: the denunciation of a regime that persecuted, arrested, tortured and killed with total impunity, and the demand for a radical political break.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the law on 'ethnic unity and progress', adopted in March, is nothing more than a legal tool for the forced assimilation of the identity of the various minorities that exist on Chinese territory. Drafted in vague terms, it leaves the field open to all kinds of arbitrariness. It is a typical legislation of a totalitarian project, which sees diversity and plurality as obstacles that must be removed from the path. Just days ago I had the opportunity to meet with a diplomatic representation of Tibet, which brought me the most lively concerns about China's actions to deny Tibetans their cultural and even spiritual identity. Europe, of course, cannot adopt a position of closing and cutting relations with China, but neither can it simply remove its protest against this iniquitous law from dialogue with the Chinese authorities. For all those who think that Europe can now put China on the same level as the United States hitherto, the answer is given: China is still dominated by a totalitarian model.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, three years after the beginning of barbarism in Sudan, the international community and the European Union continue to clamorously fail with the population being bombed, raped and deliberately besieged to starve to death. We cannot continue in this graduation of human suffering that leads us to action in some conflicts and to inaction in others, as if there were peoples of the first and peoples of the second. This strips ‑nos of moral authority and exposes ‑nos to the charge of double standards. There is an urgent need for more humanitarian aid and an end to the war is imperative. So far, the European Union has not even been able to openly hold to account the regional actors who feed it. Suffice it to note that not even Iran's retaliation against the Gulf countries has disrupted flights departing from the United Arab Emirates to supply the rapid suppression forces with the weapons used to commit crimes against humanity. If more than 150 000 dead, 15 million displaced and millions and millions of refugees at the borders are not enough to make Sudan a priority of our foreign policy, what else is needed?

Mr President, the situation in Lebanon is too tragic and too complex to be properly analysed by means of simplistic visions and purely dichotomous confrontations. It is unquestionable that Hezbollah is a serious problem, and that the Israeli army obviously has the legitimacy to try to end Hezbollah. And Hezbollah has behind it, as we know, Iran and Iran's project to destroy the State of Israel. That is absolutely indisputable, and I think we have gained nothing from concealing that evidence. But it is also true that the Israeli response must be a properly measured response and in accordance with the very principles that international law and the very law of war lay down. And that hasn't always happened, and often, unfortunately, in recent years, it hasn't. As has just been said, this means that the European Union must be more involved and more involved. We are not in a situation where this linear confrontation can be established between good and bad, between good and evil – indeed, we are hardly ever in such situations in political life, let alone in international life – but we are in a situation that is tragic enough for the European Union not to be able to ignore.

Ladies and gentlemen, anti-Semitism is one of the oldest and most tragic moral diseases in Europe. In the transition from the 19th to the 20th century, one of the greatest figures of German Social Democracy, August Bebel, stated the following: Antisemitism is the socialism of fools. We must constantly reflect on this, at a time when a growing majority of Jews claim to have been victims of anti-Semitic acts or words here in Europe. This happens in schools. There are cases of children who, for this reason, have already had to change educational establishments. We must therefore be very clear. And we must also say that there are forms of anti-Zionism that are already very close to anti-Semitism, not least because Zionism itself constitutes the identity of a significant part of the Israelis, and the proper frontier is not always established here. It is, moreover, paving the way for the very dangerous idea that the crimes committed in Gaza by the Israeli army have revoked the right of Jews to invoke the Holocaust of their people at the hands of the Nazis and their collaborators, or at least weakened that invocation. On the day that this thesis avenges, if it ever avenges, the doors will be opened so that this monstrosity can be repeated. That is why we must clearly state that the fight against antisemitism must remain a central battle for us, one of the great battles of our time.

Mr President, Commissioner, the European continent experienced in the 20th century the totalitarian phenomenon, in its Nazi and Soviet versions, the Holocaust, the most repugnant manifestation of the persecution of the Jewish people known in history. But it was precisely to react to this that a political project emerged: the European project, based primarily on the promotion of human rights. And that is what we must safeguard in our political activity here in the European Parliament. The far right speaks of a Europe, it speaks of a West and it speaks of human rights that radically clash with the European spirit, with the human rights that underpinned the founding of Europe. Because one of the fundamental things about human rights is its characteristic of universality. Yes, that was a European achievement, an achievement that results from the Enlightenment, from critical rationalism, from the European critical tradition. Universalism means that human rights must apply to everyone. Now, the discourse of the far right is based on a simple idea: Human rights should only apply to a few, to Europeans by birth, whatever that is. And that is why, when we talk about human rights, we talk about very different things, even if we are using the same words.

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.

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.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, today we have an important annual parliamentary ritual: discuss and vote on a report on human rights and democracy in the world. Like all rituals, it serves to reactivate our knowledge, our responsibility and our commitment. Unfortunately, we note that every new report confirms the downward trend in human rights and democracy in various parts of the world, including in countries that were, until recently, beacons of the founding values of constitutional democracies. At the same time, autocrats are bolder, they have new weapons of repression: cybercrime, transnational repression, election interference, the truth crisis brought on by mass disinformation. The backsliding places huge - perhaps even disproportionate - expectations in our European Union, which is increasingly alone today. It is therefore incomprehensible that a thematic programme for human rights is absent from the new MFF 2028-2034 on the pretext that it is a cross-cutting theme. This year, the report focuses less on the radiography of human rights and democracy in the world and more on the therapy that the European Union can apply. It focuses on a critical appreciation of policies in this area and on recommendations to strengthen, expand and refine them, projecting them into the framework of the various European policies. It is a contribution to the preparation of an action plan for human rights and democracy post‐2027, a plan commensurate with the new world order that is taking shape as the stage for a duel between the law of force and the force of law. Most political groups in this Parliament have been able to overcome their differences by recommending the adoption of democratic conditionality mechanisms in cooperation with third countries, which increase our ability to pressure them towards greater compliance with human rights and democratic standards. In line with this, the new Global Europe instrument for financing partner countries should be endowed with binding clauses, and the presence of independent human rights institutions should be a prerequisite for the eligibility of those countries for access to finance. Human rights dialogues must be linked to clear goals and results so that progress can be assessed in each round. Ladies and gentlemen, this Parliament symbolises, for the victims and their defenders, a light in the dark, even if that light cannot dispel all darkness. Thousands of people flock here in search of some justice, some protection, some relief. Here the force of law is still stronger than brute force. Some of the resolutions we adopt here help to correct injustices and sometimes even save lives. That is why we must regard the defence of human rights as one of the noblest missions, not only of the European Union in general, but also of this Parliament in particular. At a time when so many voices are rightly outraged at serious transgressions of international law, we must not forget that human rights law is also an international law, and that its main armor is the international system of justice, today under close attack, not only by autocracies, but also by some democracies. We must unite around the values that, even if sometimes imperfectly, Europe advocates like no other region in human history. There is no political construct so rooted in the theory of human rights that it is born of jusnaturalism, the French Revolution, Enlightenment universalism as the European Union. The growing contempt for human rights, even in countries once deeply committed to democracy, invites us today to look at Europe as an area of decency, dignity and law.

Mr President, Madam High Representative, ladies and gentlemen, Iran is perhaps the most finished example of how a country with an extraordinary history and an exceptional cultural and artistic wealth can almost be destroyed by religious fanaticism. The Iranian people have been oppressed for decades by the violence of the theocratic state and the failure of the Ayatollah-sponsored economic system. But the sea of Iranians and Iranians who have been demanding the fall of the regime in the streets are proof that there has been an undeniable desire for freedom in the country for a long time. And it is this desire for freedom that thousands of people - most of them young people - have unfortunately paid for with their lives. In view of this, the European Union must be very clear in the political message to be sent to Tehran and to the whole world. The Iranian people have every right to resist. You have every right to a prosperous life, without violence and without arbitrariness. And we have to be unconditionally on the side of this people. And another equally important message that the European Union must leave is that we recognise the legitimacy of the democratic opposition to the theocratic regime and are ready to engage with it and open a new chapter in the history of that great country.