Subcommittee on Human Rights Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
DROI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
The roles they are forced into and the other violations to which they are subjected. Some children are abducted and forcibly recruited.
While others are pushed into recruitment seeking protection, basic livelihood support, or under peer or community pressure, or because of acute financial hardship. Dear members of parliament, regardless of how children are recruited or what roles they are used for, their association with armed forces or armed groups has devastating physical, psychological, and emotional consequences. Children who are released or separated must be handed over to civilian child protection partners who can ensure their safety and provide reintegration services, including family tracing and reunification. In 2024 alone, the United Nations provided protection or reintegration support to over 16,400 children formerly associated with armed forces or armed groups in situations on the Children and Armed Conflict Agenda. Sustainable reintegration is essential, not only for the child's recovery and future, but also for the long-term peace and security prospects of any society.
As States begin negotiations on a future treaty on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, I urge States to consider the inclusion of recruitment and use of persons under the age.
Of 18 as a standalone crime. This would extend protection to children aged 15 to 18 and close the gaps left by the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. It also ensures protection for children recruited and used in contexts that do not formally qualify as armed conflicts. Dear members of parliament, the presence and engagement of the European Union in many countries on the children and armed conflict agenda, and its commendable work on peace, security, and human rights, are important contributions to the cause of ending and preventing grave violations against children. The updated EU guidelines on children and armed conflict, the checklist for integrating child protection into civilian and military missions and operations, and the EU Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law due diligence policy on security sector support to third parties are essential tools guiding the EU's external action to protect conflict-affected children.
I encourage the Commission to ensure their full implementation, including by mainstreaming child protection across peace and security policy, development programming, and humanitarian action, particularly in the context of the forthcoming Communication on Humanitarian Aid. The European Parliament plays a crucial oversight and budgetary role within the EU's institutional framework. It can help sustain attention to children and armed conflict through regular scrutiny of implementation, strong language in its annual resolution on human rights and democracy, and the adoption of a dedicated resolution on children and armed conflict. I also welcome the work of the Intergroup on children's rights as an important platform for advancing the protection of conflict-affected children. Over the past year, my European liaison office in Brussels has provided numerous briefings and training sessions to European stakeholders, and we stand ready to deepen this collaboration.
As part of my efforts to prioritise regional partnerships, I also work closely with the African Union Commission and hope that we can likewise strengthen the trilateral partnership between the African Union, European Union, and the UN. I hope that this will be just the first of several joint initiatives we undertake together to further the protection of children. Lastly, I invite you to join our Prove It Matters campaign, which aims to rally the international community behind the Convention on the Rights of the Child, with children's voices at its centre. I would like to close my intervention with the words of children I met during my mission to Syria just a few days ago. What moved me most was not what I saw, but what I heard. The children did not speak of politics, war, or power.
They spoke of simple, universal dreams: a good education, a chance to be happy, a hope for a better future, and, above all, safe places where they can learn, grow, and play. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Thank you very much indeed, Chair, and thank you for inviting us today. So, just let me say first that we thank the European Parliament for its steadfast commitment to this issue through your resolutions, the budgetary oversight that you exercise, your debates, and your engagement worldwide. You've consistently helped to keep the issue of children affected by armed conflict high on the EU's political agenda, and that helps to strengthen our credibility whether it's in New York, in Geneva, the UN, or indeed in the field. Continued close cooperation between the UN, civil society, parliament, and the EU institutions will be vital. Children and armed conflict remain a high priority of the EU's external action. And indeed, as was previously mentioned, we revised the EU guidelines on children and armed conflict in June 2024.
And the policy framework, therefore, is in place, including updated guidance instructions that we sent to EU delegations in March 2025. And the key issue now is to actually implement that policy framework. I think we heard very clearly from the special representative of the UN Secretary-General the degree to which the findings of the latest report are disturbing, the trend that they show in the increase in the six grave violations, which, of course, is linked to the proliferation of armed conflict around the world. And it's very troubling that something so fundamental, in other words, shielding children from violence, should seem to be so perpetually contravened. Conflicts are becoming more protracted.
They're becoming more complex. They're increasingly urbanized, and this leads to children paying the highest price. Schools all too often become military targets. There's regular blocking of humanitarian convoys and the issue of recruitment or unspeakable abuse that were already mentioned, and these are actually violations of international law. And this deterioration comes in a challenging multilateral context, with the UN under severe budgetary pressure and with reform discussions going on.
And in the midst of that, it's very important that we rally political support in terms of funding and action around this issue, including one of the key features of the SRSG's mandate, which is the ability to bring human rights issues directly to the table of the UN Security Council in this area. And in this environment, the EU has remained strongly engaged. So, we were instrumental in ensuring the passage, at the end of last year, of the General Assembly Resolution which extends the mandate of the UN SRSG. And indeed, in December, we also co-sponsored the resolution at the General Assembly on the return of forcibly transferred and deported Ukrainian children. We're now in the midst of preparations for the 61st session of the Human Rights Council, which opened today.
Indeed, there is a resolution run by the EU together with the Latin American and Caribbean countries, which focuses on the rights of the child, with a specific emphasis on children and armed conflict. And in preparing that resolution, we, through our delegation in Geneva, consulted 23 children affected by armed conflict, and their message was very clear. Stop killing children, safeguard access to education, ensure humanitarian access, and involve children meaningfully in policy making for their futures. As was mentioned, we're also using public diplomacy, so the joint EU-AU-UN statement, which was mentioned on Red Hand Day on February 12. And looking ahead, at the end of this year, December will mark the thirtieth anniversary of the children alarm conflict mandate at the UN, which will give us further opportunities.
So, just to say that the revised EU guidelines that I mentioned structure our action on the ground every year in consultation with the UN and civil society. The council updates the EU's priority list of countries where the plight of children is most acute to ensure that our action and programming follow the places where the risks are highest and where we can make the greatest tangible difference. So, those guidelines give concrete tools for action, whether it's strengthening partnerships with regional and multilateral organizations or civil society on the ground, using our political dialogues to press for an end to grave violations, promoting the Safe Schools declaration, or indeed ensuring child participation in decision-making processes. We will have further opportunities this year, including working with the Commission on the upcoming communication on humanitarian assistance, which will have a strong international humanitarian law dimension as well. So, it's very clear to us that children must never be targets of war, and that our work in this area must continue.
This is.
Speaker 6
A message from the interpreters. Would somebody, thank you, Mister Matthews. Mister Charismagne, you have 5 minutes.
Speaker 7
Very much. War Child welcomes the important discussion on the recruitment and use of children in armed conflicts. Sadly, as mentioned already, despite years of efforts by states, civil society, and the UN to eliminate this practice, we are witnessing an increase in the number of children being recruited and used by armed forces and armed groups. War Child has supported conflict-affected children for nearly three decades. We have developed a specific care system that integrates responses to children's protection, education, mental health, and psychosocial needs.
For many years, we have implemented programs to prevent recruitment and use, as well as to support the reintegration and rehabilitation of children leaving armed forces and armed groups. As an example, in South Sudan, we trained military personnel on the prevention of children being used in armed groups, supported the development and implementation of national action plans, provided livelihood assistance to demobilized children and their caregivers, facilitated psychosocial support for demobilized children, and delivered protection and psychosocial support training to social workers from NGOs and government institutions. And we have done this in many other countries where we have implemented programs. Currently, our work on this is integrated into our broader child protection, prevention response, and case management activities. If the case of a child leaving an armed group or force is referred to us by a community or other partners who facilitate psychosocial support, cash assistance, and in-kind support such as education, materials, and clothing, then...
Our community-based work also includes training and awareness-raising on the prevention of recruitment and use of children. And, of course, in most cases, we also work very closely with the government on these issues. From our experience, we know that reintegrating children who have been recruited and used in a long-term process is a long-term process that requires engagement with both the affected child and the receiving community. Many children face stigmatization, which makes their reintegration particularly challenging. They also require psychosocial education and livelihood support.
War Child has developed evidence-based programs to reduce stigmatization and address mental health issues. The EU has a strong track record of supporting reintegration and prevention programs and has a critical role to play. Firstly, the EU and its members must ensure sustained and long-term funding for reintegration projects. Such funding does not just enable the recovery of individual children, but is a critical investment in community stabilization and peacebuilding. In this context, I urge that during the ongoing negotiations of the next EU multinational financial framework, children's rights are prioritized through the inclusion of a special child's marker and by ensuring that sufficient funding is allocated to humanitarian, peacebuilding, and development programs, especially at a time when these funds are under extreme pressure outside the EU specifically.
Second, we are alarmed by the erosion of international human rights and international humanitarian law. We call on the EU to firmly stand up in defense of international law and take concrete measures against those who violate laws and commit grave violations against children. Real accountability incentivizes behavioral change and encourages perpetrators to end grave violations. Furthermore, we congratulate the EU for their recently updated CAC policy framework and recall the need for its full implementation. The Paris Principles also remain an important and useful tool in this regard.
States must implement the Paris Principles and Guidelines on children associated with armed forces or armed groups, which encourage states to prevent recruitment, facilitate the immediate release of children, and support their reintegration. Finally, we are concerned that in the context of counterterrorism laws and operations, children who have been recruited and used are sometimes treated as perpetrators rather than as victims. We urge all states to recognize such children primarily as victims and to refer them to child protection actors or, where necessary, to handle their cases through an appropriate juvenile justice system. While the situation for children recruited and used in conflict is bleak, progress is possible. Since the establishment of the children and armed conflict agenda in the mid-1990s, more than 200,000 children have been released from armed groups and armed forces through the work of the United Nations and civil society partners, and the EU has had an important role in that.
With the right support, each child has the opportunity to rejoin society and recover their childhood. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Thank you very much. Moving on now to questions from the members. Miss Timelo, first of all, from the socialists.
Thank you.
Speaker 9
You, Chairman. I'd like to thank our guests for joining us today. Today, we are marking an international day that shouldn't actually exist. There should be no such thing as child soldiers. Despite that, many international organizations have reported on the way in which children continue to be recruited into armies.
Our chairman already told us that there are an estimated 250,000 children acting as child soldiers. They are threatened, extorted, and kidnapped. Used not just as soldiers, but also as guards, messengers, and cooks. They're often subject to sexual violence, deprived of both safety and their childhood, and, of course, of their future. The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified by many countries, but it is most certainly not universally applied.
This is why it is so important that work on conventions beyond international humanitarian law must continue. And the European Union must exert pressure on third countries that haven't signed up to the convention. Recently, Cyprus entered into a commitment regarding this, but much more needs to be done. It's important to underline the fragile nature of institutions and the extreme poverty. Factors such as this continue to feed into the ongoing recruitment of child soldiers.
So, I would like to move on to my questions now, referring specifically to that matter. The fact is, we do, of course, need practical, concrete penalties and measures to punish those involved. Those responsible for recruiting child soldiers must be held accountable. We've also suggested efforts to tackle the issue of funding. It's very important, of course, to ensure that child soldiers are reintegrated into society afterwards, and that requires UN support.
I would like to refer to one specific matter. As Miss Vanessa Fraser said in her intervention, clearly, we do need regular scrutiny of which rules are being applied and which are not. The United Nations has underlined that the European Union's focus must be on effective implementation, and the reports underline that a great deal remains to be done when it comes to financial instruments and continued support for reinsertion and reintegration. So, what exactly has the European Union been doing? Do we have a list of priority countries?
What are the main risks in terms of violations? What work has been done with embassies? What practical measures are being taken right now to ensure that this plague comes to an end? The fact is, children are often very resilient, and this is one of the few sources of hope in our fight. But the opinion about the ability of children to recover doesn't solve the problem.
Speaker 10
We have to act quickly. And the time has come for us to take practical action. Madam Hassan. Miss Hassan left.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Chairman. And I'd like to thank all the guests for their presentations today. The last annual report from the Secretary-General of the UN on the fate of children in armed conflict says that we have seen a 21% increase in violations against children in armed conflict. And we see that the highest figures are for different reasons in different contexts. For example, in Israel, the occupied Palestinian territories, and also in the DRC.
Speaker 12
This has been raised by different speakers, but many people haven't referred to Israel, and the figures are quite alarming. About 700 Palestinian children every year are arrested and arbitrarily detained in Israeli prisons, according to Save the Children. And this is backed up by documents from Amnesty International. From the age of 12 years, they can appear before a military court. They are detained for 121 days on average in Israeli prisons, and that comes from the United Nations.
So, I don't want to go through all the different legal bases and conventions. All of us, including the NGOs in particular, have referred to those organizations that may be heard by the committee. But I'd like to ask a question to the EEAS about Israel's impunity. We have tried to sound the alarm several times. We have tried to raise the issue of Israel's impunity.
It's an exception in the EU, and no one understands it. There's no problem in getting sanctions against other states. And I would remind you that it was about 20,000 children who were assassinated during the genocide by the Israeli state. So, my question is very simple. What measures have been taken by your service to build a dialogue based on strict respect for human rights, particularly of children, a dialogue that is with Israel?
Speaker 13
Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Hassan. Mrs. Gomez Lopez has the floor. Spanish? Well, first of all, I'd like to thank the three speakers for their magnificent presentations.
And I'd like to start with a question. It seems like a very simple one, but it's actually very complex. The High Representative has said how, over the last few years, there has been an increase in the number of cases, the number of cases of direct and indirect victims. And I've read that there could be up to 25 percent. That's up to 41,000 children who have been recruited, and 23,000 who may have been victims of torture and physical abuse.
The reality is that, in this report, there is a significant increase. And so, that's why the question I'm going to ask is complex, not simple. What is happening here? Why is the situation so bad here? Bearing in mind that armed conflicts are increasing in number and in the degree of violence.
So, why are we failing? What could be done better? Not only the international community, but specifically the European Union. And here, I'd like to ask some more specific questions. The High Representative mentioned in the report that there have been cases of child soldiers in Colombia recently, and that Colombia has signed the convention.
So, what could be done about that? I'd also like to ask the representative of the union about two things. First, you talked about specific tools. Could you say a bit more about these specific tools that are available to us? Or whether we could participate in a program to support child soldiers when they are being reintegrated into society.
This was referred to by other speakers. Reintegrated, then, into society after participating in an armed conflict. And then, we heard from the representative of War Child. This is about the multi-annual financial framework. I'm participating in the work on that.
And so, I'd like to understand more about what we could do to include measures in the multi-annual financial framework. Do you have any comments on that? I was interested to hear what you said about the fact that there are children who are victims of recruitment and are being treated as terrorists. And then the High Representative also referred to something which struck me. I wonder whether there were any legal arguments about that.
You mentioned something very important about the revision of crimes against humanity and whether the recruitment of child soldiers could be included as a specific crime. Could you say something about that, please? Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
You. I've got two questions. This first one is for Mister Shazamani. You gave us a very positive description of the EU's role here, and that's a good thing. But which other organizations are working on this issue?
And Missus Fraser, you talked about collaboration between the UN, the EU, and the African Union. Are there African Union states that are working on this in particular? And if so, which states are working on these issues? I'd like to give the floor to our panellists to reply. So let me give the floor first to Mrs.
Fraser. You've got 3 minutes.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. You have all raised very interesting things and issues, and I would really like to discuss them with you. There is a really important role that the European Union can play in order to help us stem the violence against children, especially these violations that we report on. First of all, there are countries where the European Union provides funding through structural funds. I think it would be very important to have a human rights traffic light system, perhaps so that countries that collaborate in order to stem violations against children will have more incentives from the European Union.
I'm not saying development is not important, so I'm not saying that you should stop development funds, but I think there should be a bit of a reward system and an acknowledgment of it. In the discussions, whether in the European Parliament's various committees—economic, Foreign Affairs, or Human Rights—or with the High Representative representing the European Union in meetings with these countries, we should have key advocacy points. We have a specific number of countries on our list: 23 countries and one regional situation, which is the Lake Chad Basin region. This is included in our report where we provide very important information about the ongoing trends there. I think it is important that there is common advocacy here, with common statements made to show these countries that it is not just the United Nations saying something about them, but the EU also takes note of what that country is doing on this particular issue, supports child protection in that country, and supports the country acting on child protection.
There are different issues when it comes to the situations of countries. We really need to look at each situation in our report differently because, in some situations, you have state actors, such as the national forces. So if it is a national army, for example, that is recruiting or abusing children, then clearly, we need to work directly with the government to ensure that they are held accountable and to ensure that the government passes all the national legislation required to make sure that there is accountability for whoever is violating this. But when there are non-state actors, we have to partner with the countries as well in order to work with the armed groups to ensure that we can enter into action plans, for example, with armed groups for the handing over of children. We do this.
One of the members mentioned Colombia. For example, Colombia has a mediation process for their peace which is being carried out in Qatar. We were given, as an office, access to the parties. Within that mediation process. We have started discussions directly with one of the armed groups in order to enter into an action plan with them, which could lead to us and our partners separating a few hundred children from this armed group and reintegrating them into society.
Colombia, it's true, is a member of the convention, but it is not Colombia that is violating the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is the armed groups. And so, we have to partner to support Colombia in order to combat these armed groups for their violations. There are a number I have seen, for example, in Syria, and this is the type of discussions I have held over there. So, I will give you an example with Syria.
Syria is now looking at a new future, has turned the page, and is looking towards the future. We did have the Syrian army under the Bashar regime, which was responsible for recruitment and dues. However, we had very important discussions with the new Syrian government and with the Defence Forces, where we ensured and obtained commitments from them. They have already implemented laws and a code of ethics within the army stating that recruitment will only be above the age of 18. Now that the armed groups, as part of their transitional process and transitional justice, the Syrian government is absorbing the armed groups into one new national force. They have undertaken that there will be no recruitment under the age of 18.
After any of the forces that are being amalgamated into the new Syrian force, they would undergo age vetting. And if there are already children within these armed groups, they will not be absorbed in this process. This is really very important because when we enter into this action plan and this prevention plan with the new Syrian Army in order to put these commitments on paper, they will be time-bound, and the UN in the country will have the opportunity to verify that the new Syrian government has kept their word and implemented their commitments with us. Then, this would mean that we have protected several hundred children in Syria. We have protected them from these old violations continuing. And this is the way we need to work with countries.
So, we need to get the data that we have in our report, analyze it situation by situation, and find the solutions that are specific to each situation. And we can work together on this because the EU is also a very important partner for us. The African Union is very active on this. I had important meetings with the African Union at the end of December, and they had committed to me and have fulfilled that commitment to appoint my counterpart. So now they also have a special representative on children and armed conflict, and we will work together on joining joint initiatives, which I will also propose to the European Commission, where we could do joint advocacy but also field trips together, solutions for specific countries.
If my office enters into action plans with violators, how can the other two organizations also assist us in ensuring that we support that country in the implementation of the commitments of that action plan? Thank you.
Speaker 5
Thank you very much, and thank you for the questions from the honorable members. So, I should explain the mechanism by which we work on children and armed conflict. So, what our guidelines conceive of, and how it's implemented through the guidance note to our delegations, is that delegations in the priority countries have a contact point, and that contact point is responsible for helping to integrate all the means that we have at our disposal. Those can be at the political level. So, I could take the example of recent visits to Ethiopia by the EAS political director.
They can be at the level of humanitarian assistance because usually, we are very active on that front in places where there is a conflict. They can also be at a higher diplomatic level. And I would refer to the meetings on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference on Sudan that the High Representative held. So, those priority countries are about two dozen in number. They follow very closely the evidence given to the Security Council in the annual reporting by the SRSG, and they cover many of the countries we have already referred to in this conversation, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Ukraine, and indeed Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.
There's a very important role for the UN that we can't replace, as Missus Fraser said, because they have a neutrality that allows them to talk to and get action commitments not only from the armed forces of governments, but also from armed groups, in other words, nongovernmental parties to conflict. We are also very involved in trying to build and protect the framework for international accountability, first of all through support for the ICC, which was already mentioned, but also in terms of calling out perpetrators of violations against children through the global human rights sanctions regime and the territorial sanctions regimes of the EU. So our aim is to combine all of those things together. If I take an example like Sudan, a significant share of the EU's funding, which is at the level of many hundreds of millions of euros, is going directly to protecting children, maintaining continuity of education, helping to safeguard children from violence, exploitation, and recruitment, and to support family tracing and reunification for unaccompanied minors. Just to say, at the end, one of the honorable members raised an extremely important question, which is related to accountability in the case of Israel and Gaza.
And there, I think I would simply refer you to what the High Representative has said in public on seeking accountability for violations of the laws of war, the Geneva Conventions, and the Convention on Crimes Against Humanity, which is upcoming in the UN through a long intergovernmental process in New York. The EU is, in fact, one of the main proponents of the convention in that area. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Speaker 7
You asked which other countries are supporting this work. You know, the list, unfortunately, is not that big. I mean, Canada, Japan, and some countries in MENA have said that they are interested. And, of course, the European Union, at this point, is the biggest actor. And we cannot hide away from the elephant in the room, which is the United States' approach to ending aid.
This actually puts the emphasis on the importance of the work of the European Union and the Parliament, and the emphasis on rights-based approaches. You asked, I think the representative asked about what the European Union or the Parliament is doing wrong because things and numbers are getting worse. I think the situation where we cannot actually put pressure on governments because they turn around and say, "Well, who are you to tell us what is right or wrong anymore? Because look at what is happening and what are the crimes that you are supporting yourselves and the anti-rights movements that are taking place also in many of our countries." Then it becomes a much more challenging approach to have real conversations, which put the right space at the center, and you keep pushing for this. And you asked which other countries are supporting us. I also have to give credit to the countries.
For example, I know the situation in Colombia is getting worse, but the Colombian government has also done a lot. So the countries where the use of child soldiers is in place are still trying to combat this as well. So, they also need to be given certain credit for that. And I do have some specific questions on what you can do more in the upcoming annual planning. I don't think there is time here, but I'm happy to take your contact information and come back with very clear recommendations on that, and also on the situation of children who are being treated as terrorists rather than as victims.
Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you, Mr. Shazawami. Thank you for your reply, although you also expressed some concerns. And that brings us to the conclusion of our debate. But to do that, I'd like to give the floor to Miss Annick Villarosa, who is the unit head at DG ECHO for humanitarian aid policies and international humanitarian law. Over to you.
Speaker 16
Well noted. Yes. Indeed. As we are all very much aware, the global humanitarian system is under unprecedented strain. The current funding crisis threatens to dismantle core components of child protection systems, including data and evidence gathering, frontline services, skilled personnel, preventive programming, and coordination structures.
And this is unfolding at a time when the number and severity of humanitarian crises, particularly armed conflicts, as mentioned by previous speakers, are escalating. Children face a heightened risk of sixth-grade violations, abuse, exploitation, and neglect. And in this challenging context, the Commission reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the agenda for children. Commissioner Labib continues investing politically and financially in ensuring compliance with humanitarian law and prioritization of children's protection while being an empowerment advocate. She is also a strong advocate of children's rights to safe and quality learning in conflict settings. The commission's key focus on child protection and the firm budgetary commitment of 10% of its yearly funding to education in emergencies make it a reference donor with continuously strong child programming.
Last year, we dedicated nearly €180,000,000 to education in emergencies and child protection activities. This support included interventions such as case management services for children associated with armed groups and armed forces, and survivors of grave violations; for instance, in Sudan, I believe that Alice mentioned it, referral pathways and restoring family links in Ukraine, integrated education, child protection, and psychosocial programs for conflict-affected children. I would mention, for instance, Northwest Syria, including with War Child Netherlands, actually, I believe. Community-based protection measures, that was in Myanmar. Relocation of children at risk of recruitment into armed groups to safer areas.
We mentioned Colombia. This is one of the cases where we do support these kinds of actions. And then, of course, advocacy everywhere to address grave children's rights violations. The commission also offers direct funding support to the children and armed conflict monitoring and reporting mechanism in Yemen, Lebanon, Myanmar, and Bangladesh. And via what we call our Enhanced Response Capacity program, we support Save the Children Netherlands with a project to strengthen humanitarian access for children.
The work explores access challenges and solutions for these children in Palestine, Myanmar, Yemen, and Mali. So the evidence gathered so far shows that a dedicated focus on children's interests, including their access to humanitarian services and protection, can actually offer powerful entry points for de-escalation and stabilization because parties to conflict, even when deeply polarized, can show a degree of alignment around children's access to health care, nutrition, education, and safety. And that is why children will remain an explicit focus of our work and a priority under the upcoming communication on humanitarian aid. I believe Ellis also mentioned that one will be adopted in May, and this is being co-drafted with the EAS. And this will also contain two main elements: one on a new strategic approach to humanitarian diplomacy, and another on fragile contexts and an integrated approach to fragile contexts.
I thank you for your attention.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you, Miss Villarosa. Protecting children from the scourge of war isn't just a legal obligation. It's a moral imperative, and it's the cornerstone of a world that respects fundamental human rights. We'll continue, for our part, to work with our partners in the other European institutions, with the United Nations, international organizations, and civil society to prevent and eliminate this phenomenon and to ensure that children the world over grow up in a world of peace. Thank you to our speakers.
We're going to take a short break now, after which we'll resume with the next item on the agenda. Two-minute break. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Yes. The workshop, which is under the next point on the agenda, arrives at a very timely moment, especially taking into consideration the work being done with the European Parliament on the Global Europe draft legislation, which is a new financial instrument for external action for the period 2028 to 2034.
Lead committees, AFET and DAVE, are working on a rough mandate for the European Parliament for the forthcoming inter-institution negotiations. And I would like to already welcome the Afert and DEVE members who are joining us for this particular point on the agenda.
I have already had an opportunity to address the question of the future of financing to support human rights and democracy on a number of occasions. Under our subcommittee. And as you know, Droit has the mandate to support the A FIT committee when it comes to all issues related to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.
And we wish, therefore, to make our contribution to the debate on this point during this period of drafting and preparing the mandate for parliament. The current context obviously has a decisive meaning here because we know that there are cuts to financing for all sorts of human and democracy projects, for example, in the USA. And there is a greater need than ever to affirm our European leadership in order to support these projects.
So, it's absolutely crucial that we see to what extent the Commission's proposal for the Global Europe Instrument will allow us to continue with our long-term commitment in the EU to support democracy and human rights around the world. And how can we remodel, perhaps redesign, some of the modalities for defining and financing these projects in the future?
So, we have a panel made up of Mr. Julian Plotka, Director of the Scientific Project at the European Politics Institute in Berlin. He is going to present to our committee the preliminary study work that is being done and has been commissioned by the committee; it concerns assessing the human rights and democracy dimension of the Global Europe draft legislation. The final study will be ready in April, and obviously, we will have an opportunity to look at it.
We have Mrs. Cristina Guevara, member of the financing working group within HRDN; Mrs. Chiara Ademow, Head of Unit Gender Equality, Human Rights, Democratic Governance from DG INT at the European Commission; and Mr. Ellis Mathews, Head of Division for Human Rights at the EAS.
Speaker 17
And we'll be starting off. And without further ado, I shall give the floor to Mr. Plotka for 10 minutes. Yes.
Speaker 18
Dear Chair, dear members of the European Parliament, thank you very much for this opportunity to present the preliminary findings of the study on the human rights dimension in the Commission proposal for a new Global Europe instrument, which will be published in May. However, with regard to some of the research questions, I am already able to present some findings.
Next slide, please. These four points are my agenda for the next 10 minutes. My intervention is structured around the research questions addressed in the study. For four, I will present the findings. Well, for the latter two points, you are invited to read the study very soon, in a couple of weeks.
The first research question is whether the discourse on democracy, the rule of law, and human rights has changed compared to the time under the previous multi-annual financial framework. If you have questions regarding the methodology of the study, you are invited to ask those later in the discussion. I will not address methodology in the 10-minute presentation. The second research question asked about the importance of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights in the proposed new Global Europe instrument. The third research question asks about the effects of the elimination of the somatic programs in the proposed instrument. The fourth question looks into the role of the European Parliament in the governance of the newly proposed instrument.
In addition to those four research areas, the study will also look into the flexibility of the proposed instrument in addressing democratic regression, as well as the support for civil society actors if the partner countries do not consent to the EU's support for those actors. But as I said, these findings will be presented later.
Next slide, please. So, coming to the question of the change in discourse, clearly we find a change in the discourse and the debate. On EU foreign policy, we find the traditional dichotomy between values and interests. These are also mentioned in the proposal by the European Commission. The EU Global Strategy called for a new balance which combines both the support for values and the support for interests.
And in the EU Global Strategy, that is called principal pragmatism. Since the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we clearly find a renewed debate on a new definition of this principled pragmatism that is not limited to the instrument in question, but we also find this in the proposed instrument. This is most obvious in the discourse on the role of democracy. In the past, democracy was mainly discussed as a value in itself, but since 2022, in some states, we find a clear shift towards the contribution of democracy to resilience, both inside the EU and in external relations. We notably find this debate in the neighborhood policy, where countries shall be made resilient against foreign interference.
Also, beyond this question of democracy support, the debate on new foreign policy in general shows a clear shift towards supporting European sovereignty, with the US more and more acknowledging the geopolitical and geoeconomic competition. All EU foreign policy is increasingly valued against its contribution to strengthening European sovereignty. That does not mean, however, that the discourse on European values and the protection of the international order has fully vanished. However, the question of geopolitics and geoeconomics, as well as the promotion of European interests, takes much more space in the debate.
Next slide. Coming to the next question, how does the proposal for a new global instrument address democracy, the rule of law, and human rights? We find four different approaches in the proposal. First of all, Article 21 prohibits any measures under the instrument that violate human rights. Second, the newly proposed performance framework shall be adopted within the framework of the new Martial N annual financial framework. Establishes mainstreaming of gender equality as an obligation for all financial instruments listed in Annex 3 of the proposed regulations, including the new Global Europe instrument.
The third, the general objective of the proposed new Global Europe instrument referred to the EU values and also to the RT 21 treaty on the European Union, which includes democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.
According to this, EU external actions shall be guided by the principles, and the EU shall seek to advance democracy, the rule of law, human rights, among other principles. That promotion is a general objective of the proposed Global Europe instrument. This can also be seen in the specific objectives of the geographic pillars, which all include democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.
No. Comparing the previous or the current NDIC instrument to the new proposal, we clearly see that in the legislative act itself, the objectives of promoting human rights, the rule of law, and democracy are less detailed and more moved to the Annex. However, it is still quite clear that during the implementation of the new instrument, the EU is obliged to respect and promote democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, and has to mainstream gender.
Equality is due to the new framework regulation. However, the European Commission has the power to amend Annex II in the form of a delegated act. It thus has more discretion to change the objectives during the implementation of the regulation.
Next slide. Then, looking into the pillar structure, the current NDK instruments have earmarked specific amounts for the thematic programs on human rights, democracy, as well as civil society organizations. The earmarks in the new proposal are just of a geographic nature. These geographic pillars, as well as a global pillar.
So, in terms of ring-fencing, we currently find the provision that 90% of spending under the instrument shall be for order requirements, and 30% of the spending under the new instrument shall be devoted to climate action.
And to reach environmental objectives, there is a defined maximum amount of up to 3% of current financing for cross-border activities in the first two pillars. So far, we don't have any money earmarked for funding human rights under the current proposal of the commission.
So what could the European Parliament do to change this? First of all, it could expand the scope of the current instrument in Article 3 and add a component on democracy, the rule of law, and human rights to the geographic and global pillars. Second, it could establish a quota of the funding to be spent on democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, as a performance regulation intends to do for environmental measures. Also, in the previous or the current Indiki, we find a number of provisions which guarantee minimum spending for certain objectives with regard to time. If there are questions, maybe we can go into more detail here during the discussion.
And the third option would be that the European Court of Auditors has recently recommended including an indicative financial breakdown in the Annex. Two, which would be a much more detailed approach to assign certain amounts to specific targets. However, all these measures would reduce the Commission's flexibility in spending the funds, which is one of the main objectives of the new proposal.
Next slide, please. Now, looking in the last minute at the role of the European Parliament, which mainly controls the Commission's work under the new proposed instrument. To this end, the proposed regulation foresees a number of information rights to enable the work of the Parliament and to establish an exchange of views between the Parliament and the Commission. In general, this is a classic rule of parliaments in foreign policy. However, what is especially crucial is that the delegation of powers to the European Commission to amend the provisions in the form of delegated acts is more far-reaching than under the previous Indiki instrument, especially with regard to the specific objectives of Annex II.
And so, in principle, the European Parliament and the Council have the opportunity to object to the delegated acts or even revoke the delegation powers. However, that's just an instrument of last resort. So, changing the procedure of adopting delegated acts is not an option, and that would violate the interinstitutional agreement between the three institutions.
So, recommendations to the European Parliament to strengthen a rule would be on the 1st floor, taking its control function seriously. Vis-à-vis the European Commission, codify those aspects which are most important to the European Parliament in the legislative act itself.
Next slide. Yes. Thank you very much. So far, from my side, and as I said, if you have more questions, I'm happy to go into more details.
Speaker 19
Yes. Thank you very much. Mrs. Guevara. 7 minutes. Thank you very much, dear Chair, dear members of the European Parliament.
Speaker 20
I'm here representing the Human Rights and Democracy Network, which is a network of European organizations defending human rights, democracy, the rule of law, and EU policies. And we want to discuss seven points of attention based on our analysis of the Global Europe instrument.
Next slide, please. So, next one. Thank you. So, the first point we want to address is that we actually welcome the total overall budget and the envelope that is being discussed. We find that this is a positive and strong message of support for international cooperation in times when ODA is shrinking. So, we welcome that.
On a second point, while increasing funding commitments, it is very clear, as already mentioned by the previous speaker, that there is a shift in the paradigm and indeed European interests are being placed on an equal footing.
What is intended to be the main objective of ODA is poverty alleviation and sustainable development. And we believe this needs to be addressed. A little bit also, this probably leads to the third point, which is the watered-down language on human rights and democracy. We believe that indeed this new regulation, unlike in the ICI, mentions human rights much less, and concepts like gender equality are either mentioned less or have been moved to the annex, which in our view represents less political weight. And then, of course, the main concern that we have is related to the elimination of the thematic program.
For human rights and democracy. We find that this is very regrettable because, throughout many years, even decades, the European Union has held its human rights and democracy commitments with very clear budget allocations. And also through different multi-annual, multi-financial frameworks. And we believe that they should be maintained. When we were analyzing the proposal, we understood that the human rights and democracy thematic programs had been removed. We would have hoped to see some sort of ring-fencing mechanism or some sort of protection for this budgeting, maybe in the form of thematic targets.
But in fact, this regulation moves in the opposite direction, and it mostly eliminates all thematic targets that are already contained in the ICI. So, in that sense, for HRDN, it's very clear.
That without ring-fenced allocations for human rights and democracy, these risks to political commitments risk becoming very discretionary. And it is very shifting on different priorities: geographical level, or strategic, or political.
We also want to say a word on the fact that the human rights and democracy programs were indeed, and have proven to be, a sort of lifeline for many organizations working on human rights and democracy. Sometimes, in very restrictive environments. And we believe that eliminating the thematic program is going to hurt the possibility of accessing funding at a time when we all know that we are facing a backsliding on human rights and democratic values.
Then, maybe to say also at the top of flexibility, we find that the proposed legislation has to guide in principles, simplification, and flexibility. And we believe that somehow they are being used to justify the elimination of the thematic programs. We believe that having an indicative budget allocation does not necessarily conflict with flexibility.
And indeed, as mentioned, the previous speaker in our recent opinion of the Court of Editors made the exact same argument and even suggested to reincorporate, suggesting to the European Parliament to consider stating some of the thematic targets. And in that sense, we as HRDN are also requesting that thematic targets be included for human rights and democracy.
In terms of engagement with sales society organizations, alongside the human rights and democracy program, the civil organizations program has also been eliminated. Which one was one of the standalone programs that actually acknowledged the key role that civil society plays to promote and support sustainable development? These new legislations, on the other hand, acknowledged the role that we play in consultation and dialogue, but we perceive ourselves as being one of the main allies that the European Union has to promote an international order based on values and law.
This happens at the same time as the regulation proposes new mechanisms to provide direct awards to private entities. And both things combined sort of make us wonder the kind of relationships that the European Union is going to be prioritizing during the following 7 years.
And finally, of course, to mention that the midterm evaluation was eliminated, and we believe that this is indeed weakening accountability, transparency, and participation. And again, that should be addressed. So, in terms of our recommendations, we have a couple of statements that I think have been circulated. But otherwise, you can circulate them. And basically, we are suggesting, for your consideration, the first one: to maintain the indicative budget allocation that has been proposed to preserve the human rights, democracy, and civil society organizations' thematic programs with ring-fenced allocations, and also to insert thematic targets for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.
And strengthen democratic scrutiny, transparency, and accountability. This is in relation to the elimination of the evaluation as well. And, yeah, in the current state of the global European instrument, proposed regulation.
We believe that it is more important than ever that we work closer with the Commission and with the AES, having the strongest action plan that we can on human rights and democracy.
Thank you.
Speaker 21
Thank you. Thank you very much for this opportunity.
I think, as the chair mentioned at the beginning of this workshop, in this volatile global context, it is important indeed for the European Union to be able to continue to take decisive action to promote human rights, our values, and principles, but also to support sustainable development, rules, international order, and, of course, also to support our strategic interests.
So, the partners suffer from the volatility too. They want to recall that we have a 4,000,000,000,000 funding gap to reach the Sustainable Development Goals. And the European Union wants to maintain and provide predictability.
At the same time, we also learn from the lesson of the past. We are working on a seven-year cycle, so we also need the necessary flexibility to be able to cope with and respond to unpredictable shocks and crises.
So indeed, the Commission put forward a very ambitious proposal for the external dimension, the Global Europe instrument with a 200,000,000,000 budget, which is a nominal increase of 74% compared to the current budget, and it is done purposely because we need to strengthen the Union's geopolitical position in the world.
We will also support, as you have seen in the proposal, Ukraine with an additional 100,000,000,000. At least, that's our proposal. And coming to human rights and democracy, these issues remain very central to the Global Europe proposal. The Global Europe will be implemented in line with what we call the embedded principle of Geographization, which means that the bulk of our support indeed should be channeled through the geographic pillars. And this is already something that we have started with the NDCI.
So, to give you two figures: for example, in 2023, 25.1% of new geographic programs supported human rights, democracy, and good governance. Totaling 2,460,000,000.00 in one year. This amount is much higher than the overall 7-year allocation of the thematic program, Human Rights and Democracy, which was 1,500,000,000.0.
Just to say, I think it's important that we also see the overall picture here. And in addition, around half of the thematic program on human rights and democracies is already implemented by the delegation at the local level through country allocations.
So the move of the commission to geographies was to bring coherence, consistency, and the action closer to the ground because, in the end, delegations are at the forefront of implementation.
In addition to the geographic pillars, if you look at the next two of each and every geographic pillar, human rights, democracy, rule of law, and gender feature as specific thematic priorities. In addition to this, we put forward a global pillar to focus on sustaining precisely the global action on human rights and democracy, and support global international civil society networks and platforms.
So when you provide the lifeline to human rights defenders, this would typically be an action at the global level that we could still support through the global pillar or our contribution to the CHR or the ICC, and what have you.
So, importantly, we paid attention to keeping the specificities that we have now and transposing them to global Europe, for instance, for human rights, democracy, and civil society actions. The advantage there is the provision which allows us to act independently from the consent of the government. So the flexibility features that we had until now are also there.
And one article which was not mentioned by our expert is Article 9.4 of the proposal. For me, this is really important. It states that we need to take a human rights-based approach in all the actions within the scope of Global Europe. As you know, it is very broad.
It goes from a large neighborhood to the rest. And this really means that we need to apply human rights—all human rights for all—nondiscrimination, participation principle, etc., integrating them into the internal process of review as we have been doing until now. So that's also just, I think, a provision that is important to keep in mind.
And, yeah, so to summarize, we don't see this proposal as a bad signal on human rights. We see it more as a natural evolution of geographicalization. And it builds on the existing framework.
Maybe one line on the targets. Just to say, indeed, the overall commission approach has been one of flexibility and simplification. The performance regulation sets a target on the environment and climate, but also on gender mainstreaming across the board.
There is a recital in the Global Euro proposal that refers to the principle and targets of the EU Gender Action Plan. So that is also important because we set, as you know, 85% as a gender target in the gender action plan. The only exception that we managed to get for Global Europe in terms of a specific target is ODA. It is to have at least 90% as a minimum of the Global Europe actions delivering on ODA, and this is also to respond to your concern that we would depart from the objective of sustainable development, which is not what we want to do.
Thanks.
Thank you. Thank you very much indeed.
Speaker 5
So, my comments are aimed at complementing what Gerard Adamo has just said. So, obviously, the EAS contributed to the MFF package proposal that the Commission published in July. Notably, with regard to the Global Europe Instrument, which is what you're most interested in today. I think, therefore, what we can bring to today's discussion is more related to the policy context for the debate, which accompanies the budget proposal and is important to bear in mind. And that's to continue ensuring that human rights and democracy are central to the EU's foreign policy.
So that we have our work on partnerships, on stability, and on security based on accountability, justice, and the rule of law, and not just on short-term interests. And I believe that the interest-values dichotomy was referred to, but really, our values are our interests in this context.
Especially one where, you know, autocrats, broadly speaking around the world, are exploiting short-termism. So one of the key things is that we put center stage, as Kara said, the EU's credibility in terms of being a stable and reliable long-term partner.
And I think also increasingly in the geopolitical debate, which was referred to by the first presenter, that we really very clearly make the case that human rights are absolutely foundational for peace, security, and also prevention, which is an important part of debates such as children and armed conflict. So, the prevention of conflict. So, human rights are integral to our long-term security vision. And the way that we work with that under the current MFF cycle is with the action plan on human rights and democracy that Kara referred to. That isn't just a list of headings and principles.
It has actions associated with it. And so the whole point of it is that it's supposed to turn the treaty obligations and the many policy documents that we have into actions that we can then follow up with our partners, including the parliament and civil society. And so, we anticipate also running concurrently with the next MFF further action plan on human rights and democracy that we'll be looking at defending in the face of rising repression, whether it's by supporting human rights defenders or combating digital authoritarianism, and work to counter the closure of civic space. I'm thinking of places like Belarus and Nicaragua.
There would be many more examples. Independent voices are often the first casualty of conflict and repression. To push back against the playbook of election interference, corruption, or weaponized migration.
And so, we look forward to an action plan not unlike the current one that would mobilize all of the instruments, the tools, if you like, that the EU has at its disposal, whether they're political, financial, or diplomatic. So, looking at raising human rights through all of our high-level engagement, whether it's summits, political dialogues, or human rights dialogues, of which we have 40 or more a year. Using targeted sanctions, as I mentioned in my last presentation, either under the territorial regimes or under the specific global human rights sanctions regime, there are already examples in that area.
And in the case of Russia, Myanmar, Nicaragua, and lately also Iran, looking at setting the topics that then become fed into the funding priorities that Cara mentioned. So I'm thinking of the kind of resources that go to local actors, independent media, grassroots women's networks who are often the first to draw attention to backsliding on democracy, but also I think the important normative work that goes on multilaterally at the UN, at the Council of Europe, in the OSCE, and elsewhere.
We would be looking at carrying on the work that we do in the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, making sure that we uphold the existing norms and develop them to counter new risks. I'm also thinking of some of the themes that we currently fund under the work done under the current action plan and the current MFF.
So, the global consortium that we have on accountability and fighting impunity. On working towards the abolition of the death penalty and the fight against torture. So, we anticipate rolling out consultations on the next action plan during the course of this year. That would then be conceived as running concurrently with the next MFF. And the important thing to remember is that, as in the current MFF, where we do have a thematic program, the program is aligned with the policy like that.
So with the action plan on human rights and democracy, we would like that approach to continue under the new, more flexible and simplified structure of the MFS. So, I'll leave it at that for my introduction.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 22
Thank you. Thank you very much. Moving on now to questions and answers. Isabelle is the first member on behalf of the EPP. I'd like to start by thanking you all for your presentations.
Speaker 23
Thank you for the numerous details, which I think should feed into our work. So the next MFF, which should be up and running in 2028, although given the state of the world, there are some questions about that.
So, we find ourselves in a situation referring not so much to the European Union, but elsewhere in the world, the United States in particular, which used to provide enormous quantities of aid but stopped doing that. So the money is dried up for human rights and democracy. This means that many programs and measures will no longer be possible in the future. And I think it's, unfortunately, unthinkable that the European Union will be able to make up that shortfall.
So, my question is: we've heard lots of details this afternoon, and they are very useful. But I would like to ask you, if you were to put your finger on one critical issue, one essential action program which really would be missed if it couldn't be done, which would it be? And perhaps you could share with us any ideas you might have about what we could do to defend democracy, for example, by supporting independent journalism. So just one thing I wanted to refer to, but I'd like to hear what you think What are the most critical issues for you if we haven't got enough money to cover everything, what should we be focusing on? And once again, let's
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.