Committee on Foreign Affairs 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
AFET European Parliament
Follow its sittings
Speaker 3
Third, a strong engagement with the US and Israel is necessary because we cannot make a difference on the ground without them, along with engaging with the Palestinian Authority around its reform program. With our support, the Palestine Authority might have a chance to reform over time and return to Gaza. We hope so, in line with point 19 of the Gaza peace plan. And you can rest assured that we continue to closely monitor and evaluate the European Union's support to the Palestinian Authority, making sure that it does not fall into the wrong hands. The UN Security Council resolution 2803 provides for this national committee to be the transitional authority. However, they also need to work with the Palestinian Authority, which has maintained some presence on the ground in Gaza at the operational level.
Early recovery and reconstruction in Gaza can only be sustainable if it is anchored in a credible political horizon, which is the two-state solution. I have made clear in Washington that the immediate priority for the early recovery of Gaza is safe access to Gaza for goods and our staff. This includes the possibility for international non-governmental organizations to operate effectively. This was my bilateral meeting with the Israeli Foreign Minister. So, we need the possibility for international non-governmental organizations to operate effectively and in accordance with humanitarian principles.
And I mentioned this, as I said, with different interlocutors, including Israeli Minister Sarra. Dear members, the reconstruction of Gaza will require immense resources. Our upcoming rapid damage and needs assessment, done jointly by the European Union, the World Bank, and the United Nations, will provide us with a clear roadmap for evidence-based recovery efforts. In the short run, the European Union is ready to resume projects that were suspended after October. I'm also encouraging the European Investment Bank to resume its access to finance operations in Gaza once conditions on the ground allow.
Let me also recall here the issue of Israel expanding its control over the West Bank. It destabilizes the region, and it undermines efforts for peace and stability. I also want to say a word on the Palestine donor group, which we held in November and that saw the participation of 60 international partners. We are planning to hold the next meeting soon, and I think we should reflect on how we can use it for coordinating efforts to support Gaza as well. I would also like to hear your opinions on this Palestine donor group.
Shifting to the broader Middle East, we will continue preparing for the Middle East strategy, but I have to admit that it is very complex at this moment, to be open and honest with you. More than ever, we need to work towards peace, prosperity, and stability in the region because it's also about our very own stability and security in the European Union. Let me do a quick tour of the table, country by country. The strategic and comprehensive partnership agreement with Jordan is being rolled out. We adopted the multi-annual package 2025 to 2027, and we disbursed the first tranche of micro-financial assistance, €250,000,000.
During the first ever EU-Jordan summit, we announced the investment conference on April 21 this year in Jordan. With Lebanon, we remain open to the development of a strategic and comprehensive partnership. It will depend on the progress of their banking reforms. They have some issues. IMF discussions with Lebanese authorities have been constructive, but challenges remain in both banking and fiscal reforms.
As you know, we have the €1,000,000,000 financial support package announced in May. The first half of the package supports the government's efforts to stabilize the economic and security situations. To complement our Team Europe approach, I will participate in the conference on security in Lebanon, which is organized by President Macron on March 5 in Paris next week. The European Union will also deploy an electoral observation mission at Lebanon's request. With regard to Syria, we are strongly committed to continuing to support Syria's inclusive transition, stability, and security.
The commission welcomes and closely follows the implementation of the agreement from January 30. However, we remain concerned about the situation in the Northeast and the risk of a resurgence of terrorism. It is critical to consolidate institutions, combat the risk of resurgence of terrorism and radicalization, and ensure a genuinely inclusive transition. We are working on the implementation of the first package of 175 million adopted in 2025. But during her visit, the Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, announced €620,000,000 for 2026 and 2027.
We are also working on a revamped format for the Syria conference in 2026. In this regard, we are preparing a high-level political dialogue in Brussels. First, second, an investment forum to support the economic recovery of Syria. And the third is also a follow-up of the day of dialogue with civil society in Syria, in Damascus and the cities across Syria. On Iran, the repression of recent nationwide protests is shocking and unacceptable.
All of you know that Iranians will decide the future of Iran. Therefore, we are willing to step up our support to civil society and explore opportunities for coordination or joint actions with member states. A military escalation would risk considerable repercussions for regional stability. Regarding Iraq, we are evolving from a post-conflict stabilization approach to an economic growth and prosperity approach. We will upgrade our partnership with Iraq to transition toward a more resilient and sustainable economy.
Now, moving to North Africa. The first-ever EU-Egypt summit and high-level business event last October was a great success. Our focus now is on the implementation of the very solid €7,400,000,000 financial and investment support package until 2027. In June 2025, we had, with your support, adopted €4,000,000,000 in macro-financial assistance. The EU-Egypt investment platform launched in June 2025 is expected to crowd in up to €5,000,000,000 in investment by 2027 via the European Fund for Sustainable Development.
Last month, I went to Morocco. Last month, we held the first association council with Morocco in seven years. We have launched negotiations toward a strategic and comprehensive partnership. The partnership aims to promote investment and trade, and strengthen market integration with Tunisia. Since the signature of the strategic and comprehensive partnership, some progress has been achieved in all five of its priority sectors.
There is potential for further cooperation, but there are also some concerns about democratic backsliding. With regard to Algeria, there is a lot of potential to further develop our cooperation under the Pact for the Mediterranean. I'm planning to go to Algeria shortly to take stock of our relations and ongoing matters in the country. As for Libya, we are in dialogue with authorities on key areas such as migration. It is crucial to find ways to reduce the number of irregular departures to Europe.
Now, to the Gulf. To the Gulf. We also continued to strengthen our collaboration with the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council. The first EUGCC Energy Ministerial Meeting will take place in Cyprus in May, on the margins of the Energy Council, an important event promoting our collaboration in this strategic policy field. The second EU-GCC summit is being scheduled for 2026.
There are some issues with the visa waiver, but let's discuss them later. To deepen our cooperation, we have proposed to all 6 countries to negotiate strategic partnership agreements. We have already launched negotiations with the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, while Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait have also expressed interest in launching negotiations. In Yemen, the situation in the country is volatile. Our support focuses on improving livelihoods.
Okay. I'm looking at my time.
The interpreter. Sorry.
Okay. Sorry.
Speaker 3
Yemen: the situation in the country is volatile. Our support focuses on improving livelihoods. Our support goes into critical sectors such as food security, agriculture, electricity, water services, and job creation. And we are discussing maritime security along the major trade routes. On migration, allow me to round off with a few horizontal issues that feature prominently in our relations with the countries of the Mediterranean.
We are managing migration effectively, together with our partners, in a whole-of-route manner and in line with fundamental rights. The commission adopted the migration strategy at the end of January, and we want to step up our cooperation. Our partnership with Tunisia and Egypt already contains migration management and provides substantive examples of cooperation in this area. The Pact for the Mediterranean includes migration as one of the areas of mutual interest. Increased security cooperation with Mediterranean partners is also essential.
In the Mediterranean region, Global Gateway serves as the investment pillar of the pact. More broadly, under the pact, new engagement with the private sector is becoming more strategic and targeted. Together, we are delivering major developments in transport, energy, and digital infrastructure, as well as investing in education, health, and research, strengthening regional connectivity, and supporting socioeconomic development overall. On a few words. Over the coming months, we will launch the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy and Clean Tech operational initiative, so-called TMED.
It is a major instrument to accelerate large-scale investments in renewable energy and clean tech across the region. While we are preparing TMED, we are already supporting key investments. Let me give you two examples. Our support to the modernization of the electricity grid in Egypt is an important step towards new investments in renewable energy and hydrogen. Thanks to the investment from the European Investment Bank, our ground support will leverage approximately €600,000,000 in support for this project.
We have also signed an agreement with the European Investment Bank to support an innovative green hydrogen project, which can be used to produce fertilizers for the European Union market. On IMEC, only to mention this because I'm running out of time, IMEC signatories have met several times at the senior official level since last May. Technical working groups are in place to launch concrete infrastructural projects. Overall, IMEC is operating in a difficult geopolitical environment. For full realization and maximum prosperity benefits for us all, we need a stable Middle East region. And to conclude on simplification, because I have to mention this as it is one of our priorities, I would like to draw your attention to the first annual progress report on simplification, implementation, and enforcement.
The report reflects how DG MENA contributed to the Commission's ambitious agenda to boost competitiveness, prosperity, and resilience in the European Union. The simplification measures were originally designed for the single market. I'm committed, however, to extending the benefits to our partner countries, not only to our market, for example through the Pact for the Mediterranean. And I have also held an implementation dialogue with MENA stakeholders. They confirm their interest in continuing to work with us and participating in the implementation of the pact.
To conclude, I want to thank you very much for listening to me, and I look forward to your comments and suggestions. Thank you so much.
David McAllister
Thank you very much, Commissioner, for your presentation. We now open the first round of comments and questions, and the coordinators have the floor first, each for two minutes. We begin with the EPP and Michel Gale.
Michael Gahler
Thank you very much for this overview. My first question is on Gaza. And, I mean, you had to attend this opening meeting of this board of peace and listen to this speech of himself praising the president. We are there as observers, and I think that it is okay to be there as observers for the Gaza issue. First question: how much was talked about Gaza?
The one thing. Then don't you think, as we are planning a Middle East strategy and also a strategy, I hope, for the peace process in the Middle East, we need to have a role? And as observers, of course, you cannot have a role. So, this body cannot really be the body where a solution can be found. If I look at the Gaza executive board and its composition, it's Witkoff and Kushner, whom we already know, then an American businessman, an Israeli businessman, Nikhil Ladanov, some foreign ministers, and indeed the United Nations special coordinator for the Middle East peace process.
But do you really think that this structure will lead to something? I think solutions must be set up in a different way for this huge problem. So, I hope that we will soon see a Middle East strategy and that it will not be delayed further. I think if we want to play a role, we cannot be mere observers. That's the only question.
The other one, I cannot talk about everything. Tunisia. You hinted at the point: yes, there is cooperation and an agreement, but there is some, well, democratic backsliding. I think Tunisians tell me it's worse than the Ben Ali time. So, my point is to say yes, we agreed to have it as a safe state for third-state refugees.
So, I also think that they are not persecuted if you come from a third country, want to go to Europe, and are sent back to Tunisia. They are not under personal pressure. But I think the political prisoners who are in Tunisia, we need to guarantee that when they manage to come to us, they still have an asylum procedure because they are really being prosecuted. So, I hope you can send it to the relevant commissioner.
David McAllister
Thank you. For two minutes, I give the floor to Ioannis Maniates on behalf of Nato Sanches Amor.
Thank you.
Yannis Maniatis
You, Mr. Chair. Dear Commissioner, thank you for joining us today at our committee meeting. I represent the Socialists and Democrats, as do you. And I think you can probably admit that choosing to participate in Donald Trump's board of peace was a monumental mistake. Somehow, your presence gave some legitimacy to the few countries that chose to participate, which is an affront to international law.
I would also like to know what mandate you had to travel to the US and why you participated. Moreover, the European Commission referred to the need for the EU, as one of the main donors, to be present. Is that why you had to go? That's what the commission said. We do, however, need a very specific strategy and roadmap.
We can't participate in meetings of structures that fall outside international law. You mentioned the activities at the start of your term, and you said that in April, we will have a new text. I do hope that it won't be too general and will include specific priorities. I do hope that the text will assist us in solving the remaining problems. Now, for the Eastern Mediterranean, who will be responsible?
You or someone else? Thank you.
Thank you.
David McAllister
You. For the Patriots, I don't see a representative present. For the ECR, Adam Bilan is on my list but not present. For Renew, who would like to take the floor? Helmut Braun Stetter, please.
Helmut Brandstätter
Thank you. So, I have 6 minutes now. Thank you very much. I have 6 minutes now because I can speak for the others as well. No.
Just a joke. Thank you very much, dear, and thank you, Commission. Of course, the other colleagues asked about Gaza. And also, I have to ask about it. I looked up the countries again.
What are Argentina, Indonesia, and Kazakhstan doing in Gaza? We know what will happen in Gaza, and Trump said it openly. He wants to make money there. He, personally, not the US. He wants to make money there.
And so, my question is really: what was the discussion there, and how do they want to build up something in Gaza? And so the question is: what would we really do there? And does it make sense for Europe to be in an organization that is just weird? I mean, nobody understands what sort of organization it is. Is it a gas organization?
Is it the new United Nations? What is it? And what did the others say? And, of course, the quote of the American ambassador Hakabe, who knows more about the Bible than his president, was also very strange. I mean, if the whole Middle East is Israel, we don't have to discuss anything anymore.
Was that a subject as well? And then I wanted to ask you about a few countries. First of all, Lebanon. Who is governing Lebanon? It was Hispaniola for some time.
I think they are weakened now, but who can you really talk to there? That's my first question. And then, about Argentina, I'm reading that not Argentina. Sorry. Algeria.
Starts with an "a" as well. Algeria: I'm reading that a lot of European governments are warning people not to go there. So the commission is cooperating with a country where we tell our people not to go. What's the way of talking to the Algerian government? And in general, my question is, you know, when I listen to you naming all these countries, we know in most of these countries, the Russians are very active with very negative ideas.
They are transporting refugees through Libya, sending them to Belarus so that they can then come to the European Union. So, that's also my question about migration. Where do you see progress there? Thanks very much.
David McAllister
Thank you. For the Greens, I understand Leo Luka Orlando would like to take the floor. Two minutes. Thank you.
Leoluca Orlando
You, and thank you, Madam Commissioner. Now you are the commissioner for the Mediterranean, and I think this is a real opportunity to seize. We've got a pact for the Mediterranean. The next step will be the action plan, which has been announced. But I do think we need to make it clear that "Mediterranean" is a noun, not an adjective.
You can't just add "Mediterranean" onto lots of other nouns. So, when you're thinking about the responsibilities of other commissioners, how can the Pact for the Mediterranean and you, as the commissioner for the Red Mediterranean, interact with other commissioners and other directorates-general involved in international issues, environment, migration, dealing with conflict, human rights, and so on? So, when we have an action plan, is it going to be a way of working out what that looks like in practice, or is it just going to be some more nice phrasings? Now, as the observer to the board of peace—I mean, it's Trump's board of peace. It's basically one person's board, isn't it?
Now, this is an instrument that is regarded as legitimate by many Europeans, but we already have the UN. So, what is going to happen to Gaza? Because the Americans seem to want to abolish freedom for the Palestinians, they just want to go in and do business. So, by having the commission present at the meeting, how do you reconcile that with the fact that the vast majority of member states are opposed to this board of peace, which is actually threatening the whole concept of peace and indeed the interventions of the EU as a whole?
Rima Hassan
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Madam Commissioner, for your presentation. I have to say that I'm rather concerned to see that you just whizzed through this presentation. You're presenting Israel as a partner despite the fact that Israel is currently committing genocide in Gaza, Israel which is an apartheid state, Israel which has the record number of UN resolutions, and which has already taken effective possession of the West Bank. And you're asking for solutions for other states, which you have mentioned. And then we've got the UN, which is helping Palestinians in lots of different countries.
So, I'm rather surprised to hear the tone with which you've given this presentation on the state of Israel, given the serious nature of the question of Gaza, its future, and Israel as a partner. So, 30% of Israeli weapons come from member states of the EU, and we have 15 times more imports from the colonies than we do from Gaza or the Palestinian State. And then, on the board of peace and Trump, I'm wondering whether you're aware that this is going to undermine the work of the United Nations and the defense of international law, which remains a fundamental value for the European institutions. Are you aware that your presence contradicts all the statements made by Antonio Costas, President of the Council, who has expressed his concerns about the mission and indeed the incompatibility of the position of this Board of Peace with the UN? And then there's been criticism from France, Spain, Slovenia, Ireland, and Portugal.
There are questions about whether the commission is authorized to act on this matter. So, I'm just wondering, what was your mandate for going to the Board of Peace meeting? And are you aware that you are contributing to undermining this international system, which is already in crisis?
David McAllister
Thank you. For the ESN group, there is no request to take the floor. I now give the floor to the chair of our subcommittee on human rights, Munya Satturi. Please.
Merci.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you, Chair. Madam Commissioner, good afternoon. The Red Mediterranean region is in an area close to us but also contains many challenges. I think we are all aware of that. Mister McAllister has said that we need to have a strategy for the region.
Therefore, I have several points that I'd like to make. In June 2025, there was a discussion on human rights and the neighborhood protocol, followed by a joint declaration with the commission, which opened the way for new approaches and agreements. Obviously, I'm talking here about focusing on human rights in many informal arrangements and the question of financial assistance, which is linked to those agreements because it's important that the EU maintains the values that it claims to uphold. Therefore, Madam Commissioner, I'm just asking you to tell us how you have supervision and monitoring mechanisms both upstream and downstream for the use of funding and for these agreements, because this model is likely to be reused. So, Madam Commissioner, I'm wondering how we can contribute to European Mediterranean policy in a way that preserves our values.
We want to focus on the principles of democracy and human rights. And therefore, in doing so, we should be able to define a strategy. But I'd also like to say a few words about your attendance at Mr. Trump's little event. I'm just wondering, you didn't have a mandate from the member states? So, I'm just wondering, on what legal basis did the commission decide to attend?
That's my first question. And then secondly, what lessons will you, as an institution, draw from having attended the event despite the fact that many member states distanced themselves from the whole structure? And how does that fit in with what the council is doing on external relations? So, you've got the member states who should be giving their approval in the case of the Middle East. So, what's going to happen in the future?
Because this is a matter that is crucial for the European Union's foreign policy.
David McAllister
Right. Thank you. This concludes our first round. I will now give the floor to the commissioner. Just to inform you, we have requests for the second round by colleagues Zengaretti, Janoul Muru, Bugalio, Telak, Shtya, Zofko, Milamon, Kobachev, and Della Vale.
If you want to take the floor, please indicate that these are the members for the second round. So, Dubravka, first round with you now.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Dave. Let me try, at the beginning, to reply to your question, which almost all of you asked about border peace, to be clear. And so, the invitation to participate in the meeting was addressed to President von der Leyen by the Chair of Border Peace, who is Mr. Trump. I participated at the request of the president and acted as a replacement for the president. And it is within the remit of the European Commission, as the external representative of the Union, to accept invitations of this kind as a matter of international courtesy.
My participation there was limited because someone asked how much was discussed and how much was devoted to Gaza. If I have to judge now, I would say two thirds of the time was devoted to Gaza and one third to their resolutions and their rules of procedure, which we don't endorse, to be clear. So, my participation was how much time do I have?
Ten to fifteen minutes.
Speaker 3
Sorry. So, my participation was limited to the Gaza-specific segment of the meeting, and it cannot be interpreted as amounting to an implicit endorsement of the Board of Peace by the Commission, let alone by the Union. So it was not an endorsement of the outcome of the meeting or any resolution that might be adopted or that might have been adopted by the board of members. So, I participated once again as an observer and therefore did not intervene in the deliberations of the conference. No speaking time was allotted to nonmembers.
So, I used this time in the margins to speak with partner countries who were there. My presence provided an occasion to showcase the considerable EU support for Palestine and confirms the European Union's readiness to support recovery and resilience in Gaza, but everything under the UN Security Council Resolution 2803. To your knowledge, 14 member states were present out of 27. Although I'm saying I'm not representing member states, 14 of them were there. I'll tell you.
Romanian president of the country, Hungarian prime minister, Bulgarians, five ministers, Cyprus minister who is chairing the European Union at this moment, minister of foreign affairs of Czechia, deputy prime minister of Italy, state secretary of Croatia, and then Austria, Finland, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakian minister, and many others: UK, Norway, Switzerland—they were there. I'm not mentioning anyone else. From the Middle East, which was my interest, I had very good meetings with all the partner ministers from Egypt and Jordan. I have bilaterals with the State Secretary from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the minister from Israel, whom I already mentioned, as well as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. So, there was a good occasion to meet all of them.
I have to tell you that what I said in my introductory statement is that the Foreign Affairs Council, chaired by my HR VP, invited Nikolay Mladenov, who is being posted by the Board of Peace and by President Trump. We invited him a month ago to come to Brussels, and he came on Monday. And we discussed it with him for almost two hours during the Foreign Affairs Council. So, we endorsed communication. We cannot shut or close all the channels that exist because these are, at the moment, the existing channels.
This is the reason. May I tell you something? I'm not reading from my briefings. This is the reason. I am saying that Palestine Donald Group, which I mentioned, but nobody maybe takes it seriously.
Palestine Donald Group is our board of peace. We have established this. This was mentioned by President von der Leyen in her State of the Union speech. We had it in November. I said that more than 60 international partners were present there.
What we would like to do is extend the scope of this Palestine donor group, not only to speak about their reforms, but because the reforms are necessary. As you know, the Palestinian Authority should be reformed, and we are assisting with it and cooperating closely with them. But we would like to somehow do this, so this is the reason why I wanted to hear your opinions. Can we maybe somehow extend the scope of this Palestine donor group to use it as our border peace, so-called, and we can also be important, not only as the major donor, but also as an important political partner? And this is what we all want to do.
The situation is that we are the major donor, and we are not the major player. And it was not, and I was here with you in it was 11/05/2024 when I was trying to compete for this position. At that time, I was saying the sentence, or it was like a syntagma. We want to be players, and not only players. At that time, to be honest with you, I wasn't completely aware of what it meant.
Now this is what it is. We are payers and not players, and we want to find our role in helping people in Gaza and resolving this situation between Israel and Gaza. To Madam Hassan, I just want to understand. We also have many questions about the number of elements in the Charter of Border Peace related to its scope, its governance, and its compatibility with the UN Charter. So, this is why we are ready to work together with the United States on the implementation of the comprehensive peace plan for Gaza.
It's about peace. All of us want peace, and we are always speaking about Palestinians, poor Palestinians. Now, there is a chance to help these people, and this is what we are doing. We are using all our tools which are at our disposal. So, we are actively engaging with the United States on how we can jointly reach this objective, and this is the reason why Mr. Mladano was with us in the Foreign Affairs Council.
This is about the Board of Peace. If you have extra questions, I'm ready to reply if I have missed something, but this is our position. So I was representing the president from the line there, and not HR VP, and not 27 member states, just to be clear. But my position is that we have to use this regardless of the fact that we don't agree with some of the rules of procedure from the board of peace. Michael Gayer is asking if I think that the structure can be solved; of course, I don't think that they can solve it alone.
They also need us. They need us. And this is the reason why we have to cooperate closely with the United States and with Arab states as well. And this is not a coincidence that the Gulf countries are part of my portfolio. So, we cannot say they are not Mediterranean geographically, but we cannot imagine prosperity and peace in this region without involving them.
And this is why we are trying to be more effective with them in closing strategic partnership agreements and so on. So, this is to reply to your question on the board of peace, but also on the action plan. So this is another topic now. But the action plan is exactly what I asked my colleagues in Digimena. I don't want to have yet another document: Mediterranean agenda, Mediterranean pact, and that's it.
We want to have something tangible. So, this is the reason why we are working. I'm trying to find it. We are working on the action plan, as I said at the beginning, which will be set up around three pillars of the plan. You know, the first pillar is about people, the second pillar is about economies, and the third pillar is about security, migration, and resilience.
And in the first pillar, it's about people. So we are working diligently on establishing Mediterranean University. It doesn't mean that we will build new premises, but we are trying to create a network or alliance of Mediterranean universities to connect people from Beirut, Alexandria, Fez, Marseille, Napoli, and Piraille. So, we want to connect people of the Mediterranean, especially young people, through education, by investing in education. This is it. I would like to have this as my legacy project, but of course, let's see.
Another issue is establishing a youth parliamentary assembly. So young parliamentarians of the Mediterranean meet every now and then. I cannot speak much about it. On the team on economy, TMAD, I said earlier, it is investing in energy, investing in renewables, investing in hydrogen, and this is how we want to develop these countries. We want to develop these countries.
By doing this, we are creating new jobs. You all know, and we are keeping these young people because demography is different from European demography. We want to keep these people there. But if you need people here in Europe for our labor market, they must be educated. They will have vocational training at the Mediterranean University, and they can come to Europe through legal pathways.
And this is what we want to achieve. In the end, legal pathways for those who want to come to Europe allow them to come back legally. And, by doing this, we are addressing the root cause of migration. This is how I communicate because someone asked me how I communicate with other commissioners. It's a collective work.
I can say the Mediterranean portfolio is like an umbrella portfolio. I cannot do anything alone without the trade commissioner, Bruner for migration, Zaharieva for education, and so on. Just wanted to make you aware of Jorgensen, who is very important for energy. So this is how I operate within the commission. This is what the president on the line wants and how she wants us to work.
And the third pillar is about migration. I already said something. Regarding the question of why we are present in Algeria, you know what? This is what we said. If not us, who will be there?
So we don't have a choice. You answered the renewal branch letter? So you replied to your question, in fact. You told me why we are there. At the same time, you said that Russians are very active.
So I think that the reply is contained in your question. Because if you are not there, someone else will be, and they are already there. So we want to be at the table. We want to help them with migration and other issues, and this is why we are there: in order to be present. This is how I can reply to your question in a very simple, very simplified way, but it could also be okay.
Know. Someone asked me about Lebanon. Also, you asked me about Lebanon. Who are we talking to? I was in Lebanon a few months ago.
So I'm talking to all three: to the president, to the prime minister, and also to the speaker of parliament, who is Hezbollah, by the way. So all of them are willing to receive me. We were talking with them. Things are going in a good direction. The only problem is that they cannot align on the IMF and on a banking system.
We even offered to start negotiations on the strategic partnership agreement because we wanted to show that they are a role model country in the Middle East. We want to push them. Unfortunately, they have elections soon, and maybe this will help to go on.
Perhaps Paris.
Paris? Yeah.
We go to Paris on March 5.
Speaker 3
I already said in the introductory speech that I will go on March 5 to Paris, to this conference on Lebanon. So, there is much more to say, but maybe...
There's a second round.
Second round. Thank you.
Helmut Brandstätter
Did I understand you right? Because you said that there was a minister from Austria in Gaza, but it was just the ambassador there.
Okay. So.
David McAllister
We now give the floor to other members asking for the floor for a second round of questions. Since we're starting to run out of time, perhaps you can limit yourself to one to one and a half minutes, and then we'll have a comprehensive second round with the commissioner. The first is Sébastien Bugallo.
Sebastião Bugalho
Thank you very much, Chair, Madam Commissioner. First of all, as a member of this house, I would like to say very clearly that few people in this town would have represented, regardless of who you were representing, in a balanced European and moderate way as you did, and I would like to make that very clear. Second of all, it sounds a little bipolar from some members that we are always complaining. The European Union doesn't exist. We have no role.
We don't do anything. And now we are asking the commissioner, why did you go there? It's an incredible thing, I have to say. So, two very quick questions. Do we like the 20-point peace plan?
We do. Do we want to turn it into reality? We do. How do we do it without Israel and the United States? We don't.
So two very quick questions. You mentioned that you met the Israeli Foreign Minister. Was he capable of presenting you with a timetable for direct access to the field, to the strip, or at least an idea of it? And then, secondly, we know that Israel has preferred partners for the future of the region. Certainly, we don't have to be a genius to think about what they're thinking, but what's your view?
Who should be the privileged partners for the rebuilding of Gaza besides the European Union and the United States? Because Israel has preferred partners, what is your view on that? Thank you.
Nicola Zingaretti
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Madam Commissioner. Our S and D group has obviously expressed its support for the Mediterranean pact, and we share the vision and the objectives of creating a framework with strong political engagement from the bottom up. We think that we need to focus on shared priority areas like energy, the environment, and education. We need to have this as an umbrella for democracy, for public engagement, rather than as an opportunity for private companies to engage in business.
So, we don't want to have a repetition of 1955 and 1957. We want to have more of the Treaty of Rome than the State of Israel. So, we want to make sure that we learn the lessons from the past. We do think that we need to emphasize the people-to-people approach. That needs to be recognized as a key pillar, and the pact should focus on the human dimension of the Euro-Mediterranean.
In the action plan, we need to make sure that we don't become overly dependent on bilateral agreements. We need to focus more on multilateralism. And ultimately, Commissioner, it's going to be vital that we create cultural peace in the Mediterranean, as we did under the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, back in the day. So, that's how we see things. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you. Please, colleagues, it's a maximum of one and a half minutes. Next is Ingebukhtarlag.
Ingeborg Ter Laak
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Commissioner, for joining us. I'll have a very specific and short question. I promise you, Chair. I want to ask you something about Syria. There was an overthrow of the regime in December 2024.
There was a good spirit in Syria. I know everything was going to get better, and people were really hopeful. I believe the last time I was there was in October. I believe the spirit is still there, but it takes time. And then last January, Ursula von der Leyen, president, promised a support package of €620,000,000.
What's the plan? What are the conditions for this support package? What's the strategy? And I read a lot about it in the media, but I also read that the EU is overhauling its Syrian sanction regime. Can you elaborate a little more on that?
And you said the new Middle East strategy is complex. Does that mean it is going to be delayed?
Hana Jalloul Muro
I'll try to speed up. Thank you, President. Thank you, Commissioner, for being here. So I guess that when we are criticizing the participation in the board of peace, it's much more in the sense that we understand that we need dialogue, and we cannot, in any way, cut the lines. But we cannot forget that since the so-called ceasefire, more than 700 Palestinians have been killed, and there is a de facto annexation of the West Bank that nobody is relentlessly denouncing properly in this parliament.
We would like nobody to talk about that even today. So I think that's very important, and we expect you also, when we talk about Palestine, to denounce the situation in the West Bank and the killing of the Palestinians in Gaza. And, of course, we do understand and we want this board of peace not to substitute the multilateral system and international law that we believe in and support in this parliament. On the other hand, you know that the main project they have is a real estate project that we confront. You mentioned that you do not agree with the rule of procedure of the board of peace.
I would like to clarify that sense more. And then, two more very fast questions about elections in Lebanon. Do we still have the date as it was? I'm here, Commissioner. Don't worry.
It seems confusing. Sorry. Thank you. So, the date for Lebanon, is it still the same in May, or will it be delayed to later in July? And, related to the strategic partnership with Saudi, how is the situation there, and what about the visa waiver?
Thank you.
Davor Ivo Stier
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Commissioner. You clearly stated at the beginning that the EU is not a member of the Board of Peace. At the same time, we know we have a resolution of the Security Council 2803 endorsing the board of peace, with a very specific scope on Gaza. Given that, I think it was the right decision for the president of the commission, when he received the invitation, not to go personally, not to have the EU there with their high representative, but to have, as an observer, the commissioner entitled for that particular topic, the commissioner for the Mid Mediterranean. Now, my question would be: you didn't mention Turkey.
I know this is in the portfolio of Commissioner Kos as a candidate country, yet in the context of the Middle East and, of course, all of your portfolio, it plays a significant role. How is that cooperation? Can you elaborate a little on that? Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you. Next is our colleague, Dilavale. Thank you, Commissioner.
Danilo Della Valle
Thank you for that report. So we've had the Board of Peace. It was criticized by Boril. It seems to be a 2.0 colonial project. And then I think we also had the Italian government there.
They were observers, but then you need to look at the administration and what's being done whenever you're considering what is the genocide in Gaza and the West Bank. And when we're looking at the Mediterranean area, we see changes. There are dozens of resolutions on countries there. But then, when you're looking at relationships with the people in the South of the Mediterranean, we need to consider this. But we're seeing that certain things are being tolerated there, for example, in Libya as well.
And then we're also seeing the role of Turkey when it comes to geopolitics as well. But quite often, we want to talk about human rights, international law, and respect for them. But then, what about these obligations? They just seem to disappear when you're talking about Israel, for example. There doesn't seem to be any consequence there.
There hasn't even been a suspension of the association agreement. But then, I have a question here. There was an agreement with Libya and Egypt. So, this is something from a while ago. So, Egypt continued to ignore the red lines that Italy, for example, had when it came to the murder of Eugenio.
And there is this work that was hindered by Italian Judaism. It was very difficult then to do anything there because there was this climate of terror. So, what can you do in that case when it comes to looking at that agreement?
Željana Zovko
Right. So, Commissioner, at this moment, it appears that you are the only one who is talking to Americans from the Commission's point of view. Maybe you can help us bridge this vacuum because we need the Americans in crisis strategic areas such as security for Ukraine and also rebuilding peace in different zones. So, what is your feeling about this lack of the right interlocutor on the European side at the moment? And, I mean, 14 member states have sent their representatives.
With an ambassador or minister, it's the same. I was an ambassador. So, an ambassador represents the state. So, is this the complete division in the European Union between those who want to keep these transatlantic relations going and those who don't, who want some other way? Can you explain to us how you work under these strange circumstances?
Thank you.
He had.
David McAllister
To leave. Sorry. Oh, he had to leave. Then, the final speaker is Mr. Kobachev.
Andrey Kovatchev
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Madam Commissioner, I would also like to support your balanced approach. And, as my colleague Bourgallium just mentioned, I do not understand colleagues from the left who are now using this to criticize why we are on an international forum, which is extremely important for peace in the Middle East, especially for the reconstruction in Gaza. We might not agree with the charter and not be a full member of this board, but we should talk with them. And in this board, whether we like it or not, there are something like 80% of the Muslim countries represented.
How can we not be there to talk with them, especially with Mister Mladenov? I am happy that he was here and that you had the possibility on Monday to exchange with him about the next steps. And now, on the action plan for the Mediterranean, we need a few achievable goals. And you mentioned one of these is Mediterranean University. We already have the first Euro-Mediterranean University.
Do you coordinate this with countries on these few goals? And when do you expect to have this action plan on the Mediterranean? Thank you very much.
David McAllister
Thank you, André. I see no further requests to take the floor. So, Commissioner, if I can ask you, in the next round, between 10 and 15 minutes to answer as many questions as possible.
It can be shorter.
Speaker 3
Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'll try to reply to your questions. First question from Mister Gaglio: thank you for your support for a balanced approach. Okay?
So we need a role, and this is what I said at the beginning; I don't want to repeat it. Thank you for supporting me. You said that we are endorsing the Two Points plan. If we support this plan, then we have to act. How can we do it without the Americans?
We cannot do it without the Americans. And now, to reply to Zeliana's question immediately, because transatlantic relations are important for us. I'll tell you my personal position. Transatlantic relations go beyond any American administration. So we have to keep them, and we will keep them.
But, of course, at the moment, they are very sensitive. And we also have to be sophisticated in the commission because it's not only about Gaza. Although Gaza is very important to us, it is also about relations on trade, tariffs, and other matters. So, I won't say more on this. It's very important, and we have to be very smart and see how to deal with this.
And this is what we are trying to do. But there are three institutions: your institution, which is very important. There is a council, which is also very important. And then the commission, we are only making proposals, and you are the ones who will, in the end, endorse this. And it's not easy, so we are trying our best.
Thank you for your support and your question. On the timetable, because Mr. Bugallo, you asked me about the timetable. Nobody mentioned this here, but I will tell you, I also forgot. Everything depends on this: disarmament, or how to say, decommissioning of the weapons by Hamas. So how can we speak about the timetable if Hamas hasn't done it?
So this is what we need, and this is what will help the second stage of this peace plan to survive, if I may say so. Everything depends on that. So no, but we can speak politically. We can attack each other. We can have our positions left, right, or in the middle, but it is about that.
Who are our preferred partners? Our preferred partners are the International Organization for Migration, the United Nations, and UNICEF for education. There are many. We are for multilateralism, and we are trying to keep this multilateralism going. Just to understand, also, with all other organizations, I don't want to mention, but, you know, we are communicating and cooperating with all of them.
And many of our projects, be it in the Middle East or in North Africa, are being done by these people from UNICEF, from UNHCR, because sometimes we cannot go directly, and we need implementing partners on the ground. We are working with them. That's it. People-to-people contacts, Mister Zika. Happy that we will work together on your report on the Pact for the Mediterranean.
Of course, as I said, I want to see it tangible and concrete, and people-to-people is the first pillar of our pact, and we have to work on it. The human dimension is very important. And you mentioned Romano Prodi, former president of the Commission, former Italian prime minister. I'm working in close relation with him and his team on the Mediterranean University, just to make you aware of that. And someone asked me, Andrei Kovacev asked me, "Who are we talking to?"
I know that you are from the Black Sea, but you're also interested in the Mediterranean. Okay. So there is a special unit within the DG, called Digimena. Maybe later, we can talk about it. They are the first entry point for whatever we are doing.
So we started our discussions with different directors and deans of the universities to see whether some of them might be willing to accept adding to their curricula topics on the Mediterranean, be it on religion, freedom of religion, history, history of work, skills for tourism, artificial intelligence, green jobs, or vocational training, which both of us need. They need them, and we need them in Europe. So, this will be about that. So I'll tell you the details later. On Turkey, now I still forgot.
Sorry. I forgot to say that the minister, the minister of foreign affairs, the Turkish minister of foreign affairs was there. I also had a short, I won't say bilateral, but it was a short encounter with him. And they want to talk to us, but you know, sometimes we also have to be cautious. They are under the myth of Marta because Turkey is still an enlargement country, as you know.
But since Cyprus is our issue, and migration is an issue within our remit, we have to work together because they are a very important military and NATO power, and they are key for Syria. So, I'm sure you know this. So, they can also be used as interlock locators for Hamas. So, I mean, this is not an in-camera meeting, but I'm just trying to hint at the points. So they are key partners for the stability of the region.
Thank you for the support. Then, there was a question. Sorry. I'm trying to find my way in Syria. There was a good spirit, as you said at the beginning.
I think there is still a good spirit. The president from the line was there. As I said and as you repeated, we committed to €620,000,000. When I was there, I committed to 175. And, of course, it always comes with conditions.
So any money, any European money that goes to this region goes with conditions. When I mentioned the money, it is always being monitored by different mechanisms. We have five different scales, and we are always following the money. So no cent of European taxpayers' money will go into the wrong hands. This is what we have been doing.
Of course, it's not always easy knowing the different governments and different stages of democracy there, but we are really trying to do our best. So now you ask me, do I think that the Middle East strategy will be delayed? Of course, we don't want to have it delayed. Just a second. I have to follow one on the Middle East strategy, just to tell you.
It's not only me. It's also an external service. And my colleague, the HR VP. So we are working together, and we have been working together. Since things have been developing, as you know, as we speak now, it's not easy to be okay.
We can have a strategy, and then it is changed. So whether Hamas lays down weapons, whether in Syria the situation will come down in the Northeast, whether the camps will be, I don't know, abolished or not.
They are.
Speaker 3
No longer financed by some, whether these people go back to Iraq or whether European member states accept these people, because it's a national competence. I'm talking about foreign fighters. So the situation is complex, and it's not easy to put it on paper. But we have the first draft. So maybe I will be able to tell you more next time.
I'm not, at this moment, ready to go out with this because we are following, as I said. So, we are trying to work bilaterally as well. This is why I mentioned Lebanon as the role model country, trying to help them, to push them to go on and to work within their own country. For example, Jordan, we have very good relations and very good outcomes. But, of course, all of them still need assistance.
On Israel, someone asked, whose question was this? Sorry. On Israel. There was a question about Della Vale. What are the consequences?
You asked about the consequences. You know that during her State of the Union speech, President von der Leyen said that everything is on the table. So, is Article Two still on the table or not? But it is not up to the commission. It's up to the member states to discuss.
Member states should be aligned on this. What I did from my portfolio, we blocked all bilateral cooperation. So all bilateral cooperation with Israel is blocked, except for NGOs and Yad Vashem. So we are still paying for NGOs and for Yad Vashem, and all other bilateral cooperation is being suspended. So, the possible suspension of Article 2 is on the table.
Depends on the situation and, as I said, on the member states. So, not only the commission. It's not always easy to align our three institutions. What was the question? Act on the action plan.
I already replied. Shalyana. So, there we need a lot of political engagement. We need a lot of understanding among us three institutions, I think. It's not commission we are trying to do, but it's always 27%.
Then, there are different political groups. And if we want to achieve what all of us say, peace in the Middle East, we also need, because someone asked, we badly need Arab states. We badly need the Gulf states. This is why we talk to them, because they have to invest there. They are the main investors there, and it's true.
They are our southern neighbors, but they are closer to them than to us. So, if they want prosperity, those countries in the Gulf need peace in their region. And we are supporting them, and this is why we want to make them feel secure to invest their money there. But nobody will invest their money if the situation is not peaceful. Who will invest capital if there is no peace?
So there should be guarantees for peace, and this is something we are trying to do. Unfortunately, we cannot do it alone. We as Europeans, and this is why we need partners, be it Americans, be it the Gulf countries, or be it all others in the world. Someone mentioned Indonesia. I don't know.
All of those who want to help are welcome. And I want to thank you, dear Chair. It was not easy to reply to this diverse question, but I was trying my best. Thank you so much.
David McAllister
Well, dear Commission, let me thank you for this fruitful debate on the Commission work program. I think that was very insightful. Thank you for being so patient and answering as many questions as possible. I would like to thank all colleagues for their good contributions. We can now say farewell to the team of Commissioner Zuitsa.
It was once again a pleasure to have you here, and we will continue in one minute with item 16. So, I think we better continue. It is now item number 16. Obviously, a number of colleagues still have the urge to have bilateral conversations with the Commissioner. Dubravka, you can continue your conversation outside.
So, we now move to the consideration of the draft report on countering transnational repression towards an EU strategy to protect Europe's sovereignty and democratic values. Transnational repression is a serious and under-addressed threat to democracy, human rights, state sovereignty, and security within our European Union. It has unfortunately become a normal and institutionalized practice for many countries seeking to control their citizens abroad. As a cross-border phenomenon, it requires coordinated EU action. Therefore, I welcome the work we are doing on this subject, which complements the earlier DWA own initiative report focusing more specifically on transnational repression against human rights defenders.
Let me now invite the rapporteur, Hannah Neumann, to present her draft report. The floor is yours, dear Hannah.
Hannah Neumann
Dear colleagues, dear chair, transnational repression sounds like quite a technocratic term, but it is oppression. As the chair said, it is when repressive regimes such as China, Russia, Iran, Rwanda, Eritrea, Egypt, Turkey, Venezuela—we are right now counting about 40 of those repressive regimes. When these regimes do not stop at harassing, imprisoning, and killing opposition in their own countries, but start doing the very same thing here in Europe to silence dissent. They target dissidents, journalists, activists, human rights defenders, academics, diaspora communities, and everyone else who supports them. They use a broader and ever-growing range of tactics, from physical intimidation and attacks to abuse of legal, financial, and administrative tools, to digital and cyber attacks, and coercion by proxies, especially targeting family members in the home countries. They use loopholes in our systems, and they work with organized crime.
Transnational repression has become one of the most serious and under-addressed threats to our democracies, the people living in Europe, human rights, and also to European sovereignty and security in recent years. And for those who oppose these brutal regimes, the message is sadly very clear. At the moment, they are nowhere safe. Let me be very clear, dear colleagues. When foreign regimes silence voices inside Europe, they are targeting individuals, but they are also targeting our democracy, our freedom, and our security.
At the moment, they are mocking us. They are mocking our security services, and far too often, they get away with it. Because right now, our response frameworks are not fit for purpose, and that is what we intend to change with this report. First, we in Europe have, at the moment, no clue how big the problem really is. Transnational repression is significantly underreported.
That's why we underestimate its scale and scope. Two, the little response we have is scattered. National approaches alone are doomed to fail because perpetrators of transnational oppression do not care about borders and they cooperate with each other, so should we. To stop them from exploiting loopholes in our laws and gaps between member states. And also at the EU level, as well as at national levels, the responsibility for transnational oppression is not clear.
It sits somewhere between DG Home, DG Just, EAS, the digital, and no one really feels in charge. Number three, we do not yet dare to stand up to the perpetrators and work with communities to protect victims well enough. With this report, I, and I assume we, try to respond to these challenges with recommendations for a coherent, victim-centered EU strategy to address transnational oppression, based also on previous international efforts of the G7, the OHCHR, the Council of Europe, and others, by doing the following. One, establishing a common EU definition for transnational repression, because we cannot address what we do not clearly define. By demanding reliable data gathering on the scale and scope of transnational repression in Europe and worldwide, and by strengthening protection and support for victims, including legal assistance, prevention, and psychosocial care, victims must be at the center of our response.
By preventing and responding to specific tactics, including physical attacks, digital abuse, and proxy-based threats, by addressing the structures that enable transnational oppression in Europe, including vulnerabilities in our own systems, by cutting financial flows and dismantling the environments that allow organized crime to operate, because perpetrators often use proxies such as criminal networks, agents, and intermediaries. By strengthening deterrence and accountability, ensuring that perpetrators finally face consequences, positioning the European Union as a global leader in countering transnational oppression, and encouraging subsequent Council presidencies to pick up from us and ensure consistent implementation of these concepts across DGs, as well as in the member states. This report, dear colleagues, builds on a draft report, but it is the first in the European Parliament to address this complex issue in all its forms and implications. The draft you currently see is only the beginning. It outlines the structure for the report, but I will also add many additions to this draft report myself.
This report is an opportunity for the European Parliament to adopt a blueprint for the Commission, EAS, member states, and others to finally find effective solutions to the growing threat of transnational oppression. Dear colleagues, let us together make sure that people who at the moment feel nowhere safe will finally be safe here in Europe. In this spirit, I'm looking forward to your amendments for constructive cooperation in the negotiations on this important and timely file. And I would also like to sincerely thank the AFET secretariat, namely Kirsten and Mark, for all the excellent support so far, as well as the many stakeholders from the member state side, from different DGs, but also from the many communities affected by transnational oppression, whose knowledge, expertise, and lived experiences are already an essential part of this draft. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you very much, dear Hannah Neumann. Now it's time for the Shadow reporters to take the floor, and we begin with Antonio Lopeth, Istudis White for the EPP.
Antonio López-Istúriz White
Thank you, Chair. First of all, I welcome the fact that this Parliament is taking a deeper look at the phenomenon of transnational repression. Only a few months ago, in November, the plenary adopted a report drafted on this in the Subcommittee on Human Rights addressing transnational repression against human rights defenders, where I served as a co-rapporteur. In that report, this parliament agreed for the first time on a common definition of transnational repression and recognized the broader scope of this threat to the protection of our values. The decision to prepare a second report in AFET was therefore clear in its objective: not to repeat the human rights discussion, but to move towards a geopolitical and foreign policy dimension of this phenomenon.
This report should analyze how transnational repression affects our security, sovereignty, and the coherence of our external action. For this reason, we should build on what has already been agreed. We need to be careful not to reopen or redefine concepts that this Parliament approved only 3 months ago. Changing the definition now would only create confusion where we have already reached political agreement. The definition we adopted should remain our common reference.
This report should now focus on the geopolitical dimension of transnational repression and the external challenges it creates for the European Union. I will change now to translation into Spanish.
Transnational repression does not just consist of espionage or information transfer. It can also take a humanitarian form. The Cuban medical brigades have been denounced for coercion and restricting the freedoms of their professionals sent abroad. And that's why, during this term, we have been able to introduce an amendment in the CFSP covering this. This is an example of international repression.
It's not just limited to intelligence operations. This structured authoritarian control beyond the jurisdiction of sovereign states is an example. We have recently approved amendments under the Majinsky Framework. Our response to transnational repression must be followed by more comprehensive and effective sanctions against authoritarian regimes. Credibility is of the essence.
Sanctions only work if they are applied consistently. We all know the case of the vice president of the Venezuelan government, the dictatorial regime, who is still subject to EU sanctions and who was still able to enter Barajas Airport in Madrid, which raises doubts about how we apply our own decisions. Situations such as this one weaken the credibility of our external foreign policy and give strength to those who challenge our determination. These cannot be symbolic gestures or press statements. These are legal acts.
And what happened to Vice President Rodriguez continues to happen in spite of the political affairs surrounding her.
I'm very
David McAllister
Dono, is that you? It's actually two minutes, and you were speaking nearly four minutes.
So, no. No. No. This is.
David McAllister
Okay. Look. I'm a very kind committee chair. Marta is next to me, though.
Thank you, Chair.
Marta Temido
I'll be speaking Portuguese. I'd like to start by thanking our colleague Hannah Neumann for the fact that we are now dealing with this topic once again in earnest, having approved the report of our colleague Riedel in October on transnational oppression of human rights defenders. Now, we have a broader report, and it seems to align fully with the previous one. Transnational repression is one of the most serious threats to human rights, and we mean assassinations, for instance, but also kidnappings, abuse of extraditions, digital surveillance, and threats to families of dissidents who live abroad. This isn't just a violation of individual rights.
This is foreign interference directly in European affairs. When authoritarian regimes persecute journalists, members of the diaspora, or human rights defenders in our jurisdiction, they are testing our legal order and our ability to respond collectively. Today, this repression is becoming increasingly digital, and we need to respond. Given this reality, the EU needs a clear, coordinated, and ambitious strategy. From my point of view, that should include the following:
First, it should include prevention and combating of transnational repression according to a commonly agreed definition. And this should be systematic in our foreign policy, human rights policy, and international agreements. It should also include data collection, including Europol, the EAS, national authorities, and they need to be prepared to react to this reality. We should also strengthen protections for victims by providing legal support and psychosocial support. The perpetrator should be held accountable in a global regime, and we should react to your poor red alerts.
If we want to protect our values and our sovereignty, we need to act firmly in this area because this is becoming increasingly frequent in our territories. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you very much, dear Martha. For the Patriots, Mr. Tanjir Khouria is not present. The ECR shadow is Mr. Tarju. The floor is yours, sir. Thank you.
Claudiu-Richard Târziu
You, chair. I'm from Romania. The communist regime had its secret espionage service, which would attack, threaten, and assassinate dissidents who were anti-communist, both in Romania and in other countries. So I'm very familiar with what transnational repression can look like, and I'm very interested in this topic, so I was very happy to be a shadow rapporteur for the file. I have read through the rapporteur's proposals, and I wanted to highlight a couple of things.
There are a few aspects that need further clarification to provide us with an efficient text. First of all, the terminology is not very clear. We have expressions such as dedicated channels, mechanisms, or clear communication channels. They haven't been defined, and they should be, because we can't be certain what we're talking about here. Are they structures, or are they platforms?
If we don't make the text more specific, it will be declarative only, but not particularly applicable. Second, the pros are for national contact points and European contact points. This needs to be simple. We have cooperation networks. They should be working.
The problem isn't a lack of structures, but a lack of efficacy or efficiency in these structures. We also need a legal basis. On the other hand, the cross-border nature of transnational repression is a redundant use of language. We need to be very clear in our terminology. It's clear that if something is happening beyond borders, it is transnational.
I do not think it is beneficial to bring ideological concepts into a report such as this one. We need to extend protection to all persecuted people regardless of gender. We shouldn't be introducing gender ideology here. The text needs to be based on legal realities and the competencies of the union. The union needs to be a secure space for those who are persecuted.
We need to do away with needless bureaucracy and strengthen national competencies. As shadow rapporteur, I will be tabling amendments for greater clarity, both institutionally and in the text. Thank you.
Helmut Brandstätter
Thank you, Chair. And first of all, I thank you very much, Anna Neumann. I think that's a very good initial draft, and we will have some discussion because there are a few things where we have to strengthen the report. The fact is that autocratic regimes around the world not only have transnational repression but are also murdering individuals in EU countries. And today, we had a meeting of EUDS, and there was a report from the International Strategic Action Network for Security about Belarus. And what we heard was that the Belarus government uses Interpol in order to find citizens, and Interpol, by a red notice, makes it possible, at least in European countries, for those people to go to prison for a few days.
In other countries, like Vietnam and also Serbia, those people are really in danger of being sent to Belarus. And by the way, there are Serbian students here today. I'm very happy that they are here today, and they want to say that they are fighting for a democratic Serbia. And, of course, we should also support that. But that, for me, is a very important thing we have to have in this report.
Also, the question of Interpol arises because it cannot be possible that autocratic regimes and dictatorships use a red notice in order to get back people from the opposition. And one more thing, because the colleague talked about espionage. I don't know about other countries. But in Austria, you are not allowed to spy against Austria, but you would be allowed to spy against other countries, which is crazy. We have already tried for some time to change the law, and I think we are about to do that.
I don't know about other countries, but I think within Europe, it should not be possible because it is also a way of transnational aggression. And so, for me, that would also be one point. Thanks very much.
David McAllister
Thank you. The left shadow rapporteur is Fernando Parena. Is he present? That is not the case. For the ESN, would somebody like to take the floor for the ESN group?
Petar Volgin
You, chair. I'll speak in Bulgarian. That.
People are being prosecuted because they have an opinion that is different from that of the state or because they are politically incorrect. Well, I've read this draft very closely, but unfortunately, I didn't see any specific examples of which people are being prosecuted. So that is why I'm going to give a few examples here of people who have been found guilty because their views were different from those of the official views. At the end of last year, there were two European citizens who were sanctioned by the EU. There was the Swiss Jacobo and the French Guillemoure, and their assets were frozen.
And they were not allowed to work with any EU citizens or companies. Jacques Baud is a former intelligence officer, and Sabine Mauro was a former officer in the French armed forces. They were in Ukraine, but they're not using the ideological clichés that you mostly see. They were in Ukraine. They were saying that regardless of how much money Kyiv gets, they will never be able to win.
And they were both saying that Russia cannot be defeated on the battlefield, regardless of how many arms Zelensky gets. It's only going to prolong the war and the suffering of the Ukrainian people. Yet both of those people were sanctioned. And, of course, no one has to agree with their opinion, but what we must do is make sure that we defend the right of European citizens to have different opinions. In Europe, we have the freedom of opinion, and that's something that we need to keep.
David McAllister
Thank you. Now, I give the floor to other members who would like to speak. I have one colleague, Kevin Terch. Anyone else? Then we have.
Okay. Please.
Hermann Tertsch
I'll be speaking Spanish. I think this is a report that will require a lot of work because it's full of misleading things, such as the title. What do we mean by European sovereignty? When we defend ourselves, there's one thing: to talk about democratic values, but European sovereignty doesn't exist, as we all know. And still, it is beginning to appear in the titles of official documents of this parliament, which I think is very strange. And then we've got this matter of gender ideology that we're trying to shoehorn into all our reports and every document produced here.
It's really being forced to cram ideology into all our working documents that we produce ceaselessly. I find it curious. And then, we need to talk about some of the most dangerous cases we know, given that we see anti-Trump phobia here in this Parliament, and that's being fed by the Commission. It seems that, once again, we are seeing a great deal of sympathy growing for the People's Republic of China. We saw that a few years ago, the massive danger that poses.
And still, once again, we find ourselves in a new Chinese spring, even though they perpetrate some of the most significant repression in the world, not just transnationally, but also in European Union territories. It is, in fact, China and the Chinese Communist authorities acting against their own citizens and many others that are very significant there.
Chris Rauten.
Yannis Maniatis
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you very much to Anna Neumann for her great work on the draft report. I look forward to the report. I look forward to what the rapporteur and the shadows will produce. And I think it's only right that we take on this topic not only in defense of all those European citizens in our streets, in our cities, who suffer from surveillance and from the threat of even being killed in our streets. We must give the signal to all countries that use this transnational repression that we are not going to accept that. And that in itself also has an effect on these countries and on what we as the European Union are prepared to accept, and also the signal that we give thereby to autocrats, to autocratic regimes.
And I heard colleague Branch Tattern mention a couple of topics that we have already seen for years, for decades. The abuse of red notices, for example, has been seen in the context of Morocco, Belarus, and so on. So, I look forward to the result of this report, and I will leave it at that. Yes, that's better.
David McAllister
Right. I can now give the floor to the representative of the EAS, Miss Helena Boguslavska. Are you present? Please, madam.
Speaker 55
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, honorable members. The European External Action Service very much welcomes this debate and commends the European Parliament for its continued attention to transnational repression, including, as shown through the 2023 Parliament resolution on the transnational repression targeting human rights defenders. I would like to refer to some of the EU documents that form the basis for the EU external policies. Particularly, the EU guidelines on human rights defenders explicitly address the protection of human rights defenders facing cross-border threats. The EU action plan on human rights and democracy, valid from 2020 until 2027, considers the protection of human rights defenders as a key priority, with dedicated actions to counter digital surveillance, legal harassment, and physical intimidation.
Speaker 56
More recently, the EU strategy for civil society that was adopted in 2023 explicitly recognizes transnational repression as a growing and systemic risk to journalists, human rights defenders, and diaspora communities. The strategy commits the EU to strengthening protection mechanisms, improving early warnings, and ensuring that civil society can operate without fear of retaliation, whether within the EU or abroad. To deliver on those commitments, the EU is taking concrete, targeted action, and I want to make five points. First of all, we are deepening diplomatic engagement to prevent and address transnational repression. Through our global network of EU delegations, we monitor cases where individuals face harassment, surveillance, or coercion by foreign governments.
Speaker 55
We raised those cases in bilateral dialogues, as well as in multilateral fora and in human rights consultations, demanding accountability. Secondly, to build expertise in our EU delegations, we are expanding our training on transnational repression, and we have also made it available to the experts from the EU member states. Thirdly, there was a key milestone in collaboration with this house that we had last year through the policy dialogue and experts' workshops that we organized together with the European Parliament's subcommittee, in cooperation with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and also with civil society last December. Fourthly, we are also working with partners like G7, United Nations, Council of Europe, to address systematic vulnerabilities such as Interpol abuse and the misuse of financial systems. And then last but not least, protecting victims remains a cornerstone of our approach, and this requires close collaboration with civil society to ensure that those targeted receive assistance, legal support, and safe relocation where needed.
To close, the EAS remains deeply engaged in addressing the challenge of transnational repression, and we look forward to continuing cooperation with the European Parliament to continue effective responses to TNR, building on existing efforts and priorities. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you, Miss Boguslavsky. Finally, the floor now goes back to our rapporteur, Hannah Neumann, for her final remarks.
Hannah Neumann
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, dear colleagues. I'm especially grateful that so many are here discussing the outlook of this report, even beyond shadows. I'm looking forward to very constructive negotiations and also to amendments from your end on what you already hinted at: concrete proposals on how we can improve things through coordination, but also other ways and means. I encourage you to look into your different national contexts as well, because responses are very different between member states. Some are starting to work on the prod on the issues. Others so far haven't worked on it at all.
Some people have very good experiences. In some cases, such as Austria, we also see loopholes in the system. I mean, I have issues with the Iranians. When I'm in Yenan, the Iranians can legally spy on me. So that's the situation we have at the moment, and I think these are exactly the loopholes we need to find ways and means to close.
And I'm also looking forward to all of us having a joint understanding of what transnational oppression is at the end of this process. Thank you very much.
David McAllister
Thank you, colleagues. The deadline for amendments is set on March 4 at 4 in the afternoon. The vote in Afrat is planned on May 5. And with that, we move on to our final item on today's agenda. This is item no. 15.
It is.
David McAllister
Consideration. Seats for 17. So it's number 17, as I've been informed, anyhow. It is for the consideration of the draft recommendation on promoting transnational governance of water in the interest of conflict prevention and peace. Access to safe water, I don't have to tell you, is a fundamental human right, yet scarcity is escalating due to societal overuse, pollution, and climate change, exacerbating instability worldwide.
More than 150 countries share transboundary river basins, many of which are in fragile regions where poor management and weak policies fuel conflicts, displacement, and humanitarian crises. In armed conflict, water access is increasingly restricted and also used as a weapon against civilian populations, and critical infrastructure is deliberately destroyed for tactical advantage. The European Union already employs tools like Endicchi Global Europe and water diplomacy, but these efforts require better-focused coordination and collaboration with rivers and states to foster effective regional cooperation. To prevent conflicts, the European Union must deepen its engagement through political dialogue, mediation, and capacity building, prioritizing inclusive governance and support for vulnerable communities. Recognizing transnational water governance as a strategic priority in our foreign policy is essential for long-term stability, security, and sustainable development.
Dear colleagues, let me inform you that the committee will provide an opinion. Now, I invite the rapporteur, Mr. Leo Luca Orlando, to present the draft report. Mister Orlando, the floor is yours for 5 minutes.
Leoluca Orlando
Chair, thank you for having emphasized the importance of this report. I'd also like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to present this report on transnational governance of water in the interest of conflict prevention and peace. So, we're not talking about something that is always in the spotlight, especially at this time of geopolitical crisis and war. But that makes it an even more important issue. It is an urgent issue that we need to address because water isn't just a minor detail in conflict prevention.
No. It's a central pillar because water is vital to life, as you said. It's also a human right, and it is a basic requirement for life and peace. Therefore, we are seeing growing pressure on water resources. We're seeing pollution.
We're seeing excessive consumption. We're seeing the effects of climate change, which are resulting in real problems around the world. And we're seeing a lot of armed conflicts and political issues ending up focused on the availability of water. Therefore, I should remind you that over half of all our freshwater resources cross borders. So, that means that we're talking about cross-border resources.
But there isn't enough regulation around these resources. Without an agreement, well, sorry, with an agreement, it can provide stability and consensus. But where there is internal or international conflict, failure to agree on how to use these finite resources can actually speed up the whole crisis process. There's inequality, instability, and even migration, which can arise. We see this in many regions, like the Middle East.
We're seeing it in Palestine, in North Africa, but also in Asia and Latin America. In Sub-Saharan Africa, we have seen water become weaponized. Access to water has been limited, which has impacted infrastructure. So, there were technical, administrative, and environmental factors, but they were overlooked in favor of the strategic benefit. Then, there's the question of energy.
There are a lot of external relations policies that focus on international cooperation. But all of the instruments should make our cooperation in this matter more effective. So, we should be more proactive in our engagement with member states of the European Union by focusing on more coordination on cross-border resources and also looking at humanitarian solutions. We should look at everyone who is engaged on the ground. So, transnational governance is obviously a very sizable challenge.
In the case of water resources, that means making effective use of this natural resource. So, our report has a number of practical and constructive proposals that I think are worthy of your support. But I would like to hear what you have to say about our proposals, and I look forward to receiving your amendments and your feedback before then presenting an improved report. And I am confident that my shadow rapporteurs have vital input to provide on this report. So, I do hope that our committee will be able to contribute to providing recognition for the importance of transnational governance of water resources as part of the tools in our external affairs toolkit.
It should be part of our diplomatic and peacekeeping efforts.
David McAllister
Thank you, dear. Mister Orlando, now they have the floor for the EPP, Ingeborg Terlag.
Ingeborg Ter Laak
Thank you, Chair, and thanks to all for all the work that has been done. The scarcity of water creates conflict. It triggers irregular migration and creates problems in providing basic human needs, such as drinking water and food security. Hence, it is important to focus on how, through water governance, conflict prevention and peace can be promoted. Lastly, water is a weapon of war, whether it is the case of the Russian Federation deliberately attacking a water dam in Ukraine, whether it is water filtration systems on European soil that are being hacked also by the Russian Federation and contaminated, or the cutting of fresh drinking water supply in conflict situations, such as recently in Gaza and Sudan.
Cases like these should be condemned. Water is a scarce resource, and we should treat it as such. And we also need to keep in mind that when we operate peacekeeping missions, we usually fly in large quantities of water. And this is extremely costly, polluting, but above all, it is a huge risk to the operation. Rather than flying in quantities, there should be a focus on how to use the surrounding water and improve the systems.
Creating availability of quantity and quality of water in countries of conflict-prone contexts requires public-private partnerships in which local partners and corporations take their responsibilities and see the importance of investing in adequate water quality infrastructure. To conclude, the EPP group will most likely file a few amendments in order to put more emphasis on how water is used as a weapon in conflict situations and how water systems should be introduced in public-private partnerships. Thank you very much.
Matjaž Nemec
Thank you. Thank you, Chair. On behalf of the SND Group, in my capacity as a shadow reporter, I would like to sincerely thank the reporter, Orlando, for an excellent draft that provides a strong starting point. This report sends a strong and timely message that water is not only a vital natural resource, but also a cornerstone for peace, stability, and cooperation. In a world increasingly affected by climate change and geopolitical tensions, protecting water, ensuring its fair distribution, and sustainable management are essential for preventing conflicts and fostering dialogue between nations and communities.
So we stress that equal access to shared water resources remains a major driver of instability in many regions. One of them, as has already been said, is the Middle East, notably the Jordan River Basin and the Gaza Strip, where the destruction of water infrastructure and persistent disparities in water allocation continue to undermine public health, agricultural development, and prospects for peace. So, I believe that together with the reporter and the other shadow reporters, we will ensure constructive cooperation so that this text contributes meaningfully to promoting peace, safeguarding water resources, and reinforcing the rule of law of the European Union in supporting transnational cooperation. So, thank you to both of you there: reporter and chair. Thank you so much.
António Tânger Corrêa
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak Portuguese for a change so we can get used to the language. Chair.
Dear colleagues, water is necessary and good for life, but there are some who treat it opportunistically. It means sovereignty and security are national interests, and that is exactly what we're shining a spotlight on in this report. The first debate has to be correctly centered on international law. The UN Charter also centers on national sovereignty and the right to sovereignty over national waters. That is why we want to include the 1958 convention here, so that we're not presenting other motivations as cooperation.
There's no room for gray areas here when it comes to state sovereignty. Some want to reduce everything to climate action, as if geopolitical matters were secondary. We require realism, not slogans. And now, I come to the heart of the problem. We cannot accept this sliding to the EU representative replacing states.
We must ensure that this is not a Trojan horse for more centralization and more legislative power in Brussels. If there is conflict around shared waters, it should be resolved by sovereign states. If we refuse to transform the EU into something that acts everywhere, it should only act on member state initiative. We reject the idea of financing being increased as if bureaucracy were an end in itself. The objective is to protect states' populations and stability.
Finally, when there is a dispute, we don't want to strengthen international tribunals as the first line of response. We should give priority to the national courts. These are the amendments that we will be tabling to this report on water, whether we are talking about seawater or fresh water. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you. For the ECR, no request to take the floor for new petrol authority issues.
Petras Auštrevičius
Thank you, Chair. As we know, floods can kill a lot of people, but scarcity of water does almost the same. So, we have to be serious about the rules that govern the management of water resources. It can hardly be described as a national issue because rivers cross many countries. Lakes are transboundary, like nature in general.
So we have to be, I think, careful in this description. So that's why, as my first point, once appreciating this draft, which is a good basis for further deliberations, I think we have to take a look at the international rules which govern water resources. If we need any proposals on international conventions, let's not hesitate to do this because the situation has changed a bit. But indeed, I would say it's more about commonly accepted and rational rules rather than micromanagement. Nobody is willing to do this, but there is a certain need for a better approach to save lives and to provide opportunities for people to have drinking water and so on.
Water pollution, water reuse, and indeed excessive usage of water are big issues. I think Renew Europe will come up with certain amendments in this regard, but I believe we are on the right way to tackle this issue. And indeed, this is a very practical policy matter. It's not a theoretical one. I mean, once we see reports, follow the news, and see the situation, that's why let's have a good report made by us in common action rather than disagreeing on some principal issues.
Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you, Petras. The left and the ESN group have not been appointed. Now I would ask other members if they would like to take the floor. Then, I give the floor back to our rapporteur for his final remarks. Mister Orlando, two minutes.
Leoluca Orlando
Thank you, Joe. I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed because they have understood the scale of the challenge that we are facing. We're trying to bring the question of water governance back into the remit of AFOT because peacekeeping isn't just a slogan. It's not just marketing. It really is a scientific discipline, and it is interdisciplinary in nature.
And water governance has confirmed that. There are a number of people who argue that water is a resource. It's a common resource, but I think it's more useful to think about it as a right because that allows us to focus on a number of important points that could otherwise be the subject of debate. Now, water and air are not natural human rights. Irrespective of your ideological stance.
So, thank you to everyone who has worked alongside me, and I know that some of the amendments have already been made. I've started going through them, and I expect to see more. This is a piece of work where there is no single truth, so I will go carefully through all the amendments. I'm not going to try and amend my own text, but I do think that we need to work together to improve this text and come up with a solution that makes it clear that transnational governance of water is one way of reducing conflict and building peace. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you. The deadline for amendments is set on March 5 at 12:00 noon. The vote in effort is foreseen on April 15. A long session of the effort committee today has come to an end. I wish you a wonderful evening, and see you again tomorrow morning at 09:00, where we will continue our meeting.
Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.