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 sittingsMatjaž Nemec
Thank you to the reporter for the draft report. Speaking on behalf of my group, the S and D remain firmly committed to the halogen process in the full EU membership of Bosnia Herzegovina. However, as the reporter rightly notes, in his draft, the ongoing disagreements between political actors continue to paralyze the country's process on its European path. The tragic, recent history of war crimes and genocide committed in Boston Herzegovina can never be erased, and it must never be revised, denied, or glorified. At the same time, without genuine reconciliation, the country risks the main remaining trapped in a political stalemate and further divisions.
For this reason, it's particularly important that the report clearly demand condemns all forms of nationalism that divide society and glorify dangerous ideologies, which intimidate or insult the citizens of Boston and Herzegovina. This concerns both sessionists rhetoric from political leaders, including that of Milo Rathe Lodik on one side, and incidents such as the recent concert in Shiroki Brek of far right Croatian singer Thompson, where slogans and symbols associated with fascist ideologies were displayed. Furthermore, as already highlighted by the reporter, it's crucial that the law on the high judicial and prosecutor council and law on the courts of Boston Herzegovina are finalized and fully aligned with the recommendation of the Venice Commission. Straightening the rule of law and ensuring the independence, integrity, and accountability of the judiciary are essential steps for the country's progress towards the European Union. Equally important is the appointment of the EU chief negotiator, which represents another key step, and the key step of the succession process.
Let me conclude by thanking the reporter once again for his comprehensive work on this report. I'm confident that we will be able to continue constructive negotiations and reach a balanced outcome that supports Bosnia Herzegovina. Thank you, dear chief.
David McAllister
Thank you very much, Matthias. For the patriots, I do not see the Shadarapatra present. Then for the Renew Group, who would like to take the floor? ECR is there. Mister Stozzo.
Speaker 6
Oh, first, sorry. First, the ECR Group. Mister Stozzo. Thank you, chair. I'll speak in Romanian.
Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza
Dear colleagues, in such a complex society as Bosnia, had a governor, the European Union should be playing the role of mediator between polarizing political forces in the country. A variety of different ethnicities and regions are involved. And the EU should be there to provide social and political unity in Bosnia, and that is why we need diplomacy and not favoritism. And I very much hope that by virtue of this report, the European Parliament will be able to reaffirm its unwavering support for Bosnia Herzegovina's European path as well as for the territory integrity, sovereignty, and the constitutional order of the state. Accession, of course, should be merit-based and based on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, which ought to form the cornerstones of any such policy.
Bosnia and Herzegovina still has a way to go. European Union, of course, needs to be demanding but also fair throughout the procedure. Thank you very much.
David McAllister
Motsumez, Mr. Stozzer, for the Renew Group, Helmut Brandstetter is not in the room. Then for the Greens, Tanika Streak, please.
Tineke Strik
Yes. Thank you, Chair, and thanks a lot to the rapporteur for the presentation of the report. And it's not his fault that it's not a very positive report. I think it's really good to be very honest, to take stock of the current situation, which is really discouraging, I must say. Last week, we had a joint delegation meeting with the Bosnian members of parliament.
And there, we actually almost all concluded the same. The commission was very clear, but also members of the delegation, they actually agreed that it's a shame that for so long now, since 2 years, there's hardly any progress to be measured. And this, of course, means that we cannot take any progress in the accession talks as well. And I think we should make that very clear, but also come up with recommendations, of course, on how to overcome this deadlock. I think, and our group thinks, that we really have to look at the ethnic division, which is cemented throughout the whole system, creating also and contributing to this deadlock, and maybe also to the political willingness to keep the status quo.
And that we really have to look how to overcome this, because as long as political leaders have an interest in not getting any progress, how do you get there then? And I think in that sense, the EU should use its leverage, its incentives as well as possible. They really did their best to let the growth plan be adopted, but now we're still waiting for ratification, which is really a big shame. But also to make sure that we make clear that we have also our conditions if it comes to IPA funding and any other financial support, that it should go hand in hand with progress also on rule of law, the judiciary laws, for instance, but also on involvement of civil society because that was lacking with the growth pact. So I think we should really also, and we will come.
with
Tineke Strik
Amendments to the report to make sure that there is an obligation and really a big incentive to work together with civil society and all kinds of actors in society who are oftentimes more motivated for reforms than the leaders in power. And maybe I think it's also really good to acknowledge and to complement the EU and its communication, which finally became also more clear in Bosnia and the Balkans about what is the contribution of the EU and why it is so important to make certain steps to get closer to the EU because that is what the EU wants and what most of the citizens of Bosnia want as well. Thank you.
Thank you, President. I will speak Greek.
Speaker 14
Thank you very much. First thing I would say is that Bosnia Herzegovina is at a very crucial stage in its move towards the EU. Accession, of course, remains the objective for the country and its citizens, but progress is going to presuppose more political stability as well as more reforms. Now this has been a big challenge for cooperation between all the political forces in recent years, and often that has made the decision-making process extremely difficult. Of course, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, as well as the fight against corruption, are all of paramount importance.
And then there's a whole question of constitutional electoral reform to make sure that we strengthen the functioning of the country. We need to make sure that we have freedom of the media, as well as real public dialogue. These are all absolutely essential for the country. But, of course, Bosnia and Herzegovina also has an important role to play in the wider region of the Western Balkans. And, of course, we are always happy to support the country's European perspective.
Speaker 13
And I've got friends there. And I ask them, do you really want to make the necessary efforts and join the EU? Now we, on the left, of course, want to collaborate. We want to assist the rapporteur, and we genuinely do want to see the completion of this very important job.
David McAllister
Thank you. Mister Froelich from the ESN group is not present. Then I will now give the floor to the chairman of the European Parliament's delegation for relations with Bosnia Herzegovina as well as Kosovo, Davos Steli.
Davor Ivo Stier
Thank you, chairman, and let me thank also the rapporteur for his work and for stressing the importance of holding regular meetings of the EU BNH Stabilization and Association Parliamentary Committee, which is one of the 14 priorities for BNH. We have concluded the eighth SAP last week in Strasbourg. And in the co-chair statement, we have stressed that the country's EU integration path is not witnessing the expected progress. In fact, two years after the council conclusions and opening negotiations, B and H has passed only two of the required four laws and has not yet appointed a chief negotiator. We welcome the adoption of the reform agenda, but the country has not yet ratified the loan and facility agreements and has not appointed a national coordinator, thus risking losing resources from the growth plan.
Since this is an electoral year in Bosnia Herzegovina, we also discussed the changes in the electoral law. In our statement, we made a call for an electoral reform following the rulings of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights in order to ensure equality and nondiscrimination for all citizens and all constituent peoples in the country. In this regard, let me remind us that the suggestions for federal solutions expressed in the European Parliament's 2014 report remain valid. We have also discussed the EU's entry-exit system at the EU's external border with BNH, and we called on the commission and council to further engage with BNH and Western Balkan countries to find joint and practical solutions along the lines of the creation proposal for long-term permits for truck drivers. Now, regarding our colleagues, Nemes mentioned these concepts, I am aware that Slovenia has elections and the chief opposition leader, Janca, is a fan of this singer.
But I think that Bosnia and Herzegovina has a lot of other issues. I wouldn't like to import also this issue to Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, we're willing to discuss this matter in the future. What I think is a real problem is that the current ruling majority is certainly not functioning properly at the state level in Bosnia Herzegovina, but no other majority is going to obviously be formed before the October general elections. However, we call on all B and H political factors from the majority and the opposition to compromise on the fulfillment of the remaining criteria for opening negotiations with the EU.
Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you very much, dear Davore. Now I can give the floor to other members wishing to take the floor. In the moment, I have one request. Mister Ghiadi, anyone else? Not even Mr. Brown.
Speaker 18
Colleagues, Bosnia-Herzegovina, as it stands, is an example that should not be repeated. We see a great deal of fragmentation, a lack of a decision-making process, as well as vetoes, which hang over all decisions. And that has led to political deadlock, because the system is based on ethnic separation. There is a kind of apartheid along the lines of that in South Africa. The lack of any consensus at political level is also problematic.
Speaker 19
So we, for our part, as a European Union, must continue to pursue a path of European integration for Bosnia, and not see the Bosnianization of the Balkans. And that is why Europe is duty-bound to pursue this path. If we have member states who are seeking to throw themselves into the abyss, then we should intervene. For example, we need to save Cyprus from this fate. We need to have the kind of confederal model, but it has proved to be antidemocratic and nonoperational in the case of Bosnia based on this kind of racial separation.
David McAllister
Thank you, Mr. Gerradi. In the meantime, Mister Brandschutt has arrived. The floor is yours.
Helmut Brandstätter
Thank you, chair. I'm very sorry. Too many things at the same time today, but it's very good for running around and doing some sports without the fitness studio. Thank you very much. I just want to say a few things.
First is the 03/01/1992, was when Bosnia declared independence. And so we had an event in Vienna because there are many Bosnians living in Vienna, and it was very interesting. And one of the Bosniaks living in Vienna said, you know, we at the end, we will not find a solution for a post date and time. We will need someone from outside to help us. And that's a message I want to bring here.
I'm afraid that's true. And when we had the members of parliament here a few days ago, in Strasbourg, what did we learn? They mostly speak about the different groups, the three groups, and they hardly speak about their common country. So if we really want to have one Bosnian state entering the European Union, they will have to not only do judicial reforms and other reforms like the other countries, but they will need a kind of constitution that will fit the European Union. So that's my, yeah, that's what I really wanted to say.
And I would ask you, all of you, to think about that. If that's possible, who would do that again, etc. And the second topic I want to mention is the education system. When you come to a country and they talk officially about segregated schools, it makes me shiver. And that when I was in Sarajevo last time, I told them, you know, when two families come to Vienna, the kids go to the same school, learn with the same books, and learn about history together from one professor.
And in Bosnia, they learn with each other, not without each other. They lean against each other. So I think also, as far as history is concerned, they need some help. And I think it would be our job also to help there and to do something because if we just watch the development of Bosnia, I'm afraid, that will not have a good end. Thank you.
David McAllister
Alright. Thank you. No further requests to take the floor from colleagues. So then I can now hand over to the representative of the commission, Ms. Barbara Jesus Rimeno, for two minutes, and afterwards, Ms.
Kempeilen from the EAS. Please.
Speaker 20
Thank you very much, Mister Chair, honorable members. Let me start by thanking the reporter, mister Kola, for the draft report that broadly reflects the commission's assessment in the 2025 reports on Bosnia and most recent developments. On the EU pass, it has already been said we are two years beyond the European Council decision to open accession negotiations with Bosnia and Herzegovina, a decision which showed with no ambiguity that the EU door is open. Unfortunately, since then, we have reported stalled progress in two separate annual reports. The immediate priority should be delivery on all relevant steps leading to the adoption of the negotiating framework at an intergovernmental conference, in line with the European Council March 24 decision.
This requires appointing an operational chief negotiator able to lead the screening process, together with the adoption of two laws to strengthen the judiciary in line with EU standards. With the support of the EU delegation, the commission has been heavily engaged, including at the highest level, to encourage progress on these three items, which has been insufficient so far. Following also high level engagement and commissioner cost visit to the country last autumn, Bosnia De Goveina adopted its reform agenda. However, the implementation period has started without any first steps. And it is now for the authorities to swiftly sign and ratify both the facility and loan agreements, and to appoint a reform and growth facility coordinator.
Speaker 21
Let me remind you that any funding will be possible only after that. Finally, I would like to emphasize that the EU message to Bosnia De Govena is clear. The EU door is open. What needs to be done is clear. At the moment, when decisive progress is made with other partners in the region on their EU pass, the first intergovernmental is at reach.
Speaker 20
It remains up to Bosnia De Goveina to take advantage of this opportunity, and the commission will continue to support the country in this endeavor. Thank you.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the European External Action Service. Bosnia and Herzegovina's future lies in the EU, yet a lot still has to be done on this path. On our side, we continue active engagement with Bosnia and Herzegovina and encourage its authorities at all levels to use the current enlargement momentum and progress with EU-related reforms despite the electoral year. The recent developments in Republika Srpska contribute to the de-escalation of the political situation after last year's institutional crisis. However, election campaigning is already heating up.
And in this context, and beyond, we urge all political actors to refrain from divisive rhetoric and actions. The EU position remains clear. The country's sovereignty, territorial integrity, constitutional order, and international personality must be respected. Chair, the EU's longest running military operation, Operation Althea, continues to play a key role in supporting the authorities in maintaining a safe and secure environment for all citizens. A third support package from the European Peace Facility is currently under preparation for the armed forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, adding to the previous two packages worth €20,000,000.
We welcome Bosnia and Herzegovina's full alignment with the EU common foreign and security policy, although further efforts are still required on sanctions implementation. Let me recall that high representative Kayak Kalas visited the country twice last year and is meeting today with the new chairman of the presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Denis Pecirovich. Furthermore, the high representative has actively promoted good neighborly relations, dialogue, and cooperation between Sarajevo and Belgrade. To conclude, the EU path remains the best guarantee of stability and security in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I would like to thank the rapporteur and all other members of the European Parliament who worked with us to advance this goal, and I'm pleased to say that the text in the draft report concurs with our views and assessments.
I thank you, Chair.
David McAllister
Kitas, thank you, Miss Kempenen. And now I give the floor to Andre Koller to sum up in two minutes.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, and thanks for all the contributions. I am happy that idealism has been put aside regarding Bosnia, and because it is very much needed. Referring to what Helmut Braun Stetter said, I think that a reset of the mindset of many politicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina is very much needed. They need to start thinking about the whole country as a whole, not only in terms of their ethnicity, which actually is, from my point of view, something that slows the things down very rapidly. I think that the Balkans need to be united in the EU.
We cannot afford to have a sort of an empty space on the map of Europe. And Bosnia Herzegovina is actually crucial in this because it's in the heart of Western Balkans. Condemning nationalism is a necessity. I think that radical nationalism and ethnic divisions and splits have never brought any good. So I would be very happy to work with all of you on anything that might lead to overcoming these problems that this country is facing.
And when it comes to mediating, yes, I think that our role is definitely to mediate, not only in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also in other countries that face the problems. The only question is if the politicians and representatives of Bosnia Herzegovina are willing to participate in such a process that would mediate or have us as the mediators of the problems that they have. Because when I was referring to the OHR, it sometimes seems to me that in Bosnia And Herzegovina, many politicians and officials, who blame the OHR for being a sort of protector from the EU also, blame him for all the wrongs that they have committed themselves. Thank you very much.
David McAllister
Thank you for your concluding remarks. Dear colleagues, the deadline for amendments for this report is set on April 21 at 04:00 in the afternoon, and we hope to vote on the report in our committee in June. That leads us to item number 11. Is the high representative vice president anywhere near the committee room? She's on her way.
Very close.
Speaker 24
So why don't we just adjourn this meeting for one or two minutes? She'll be with us any moment. So, ladies and gentlemen, may I ask you now to be seated? And may I ask our guests to now pay attention? So we come to item number 11.
David McAllister
It is a pleasure to welcome you, dear Kayakalas, dear high representative, vice president, to our committee today for the structured dialogue on the commission work program. Colleagues, at the beginning, let me remind you of the scope of this dialogue. As foreseen in annex four of the European Parliament Commission framework agreement, during the first semester, the committee should hold exchanges with the relevant commissioners on the state of implementation of the current commission work program as well as on the priorities to be reflected in next year's work program. Therefore, colleagues, I would kindly ask you to focus your questions on the current and forthcoming Commission work programs. Dear Kaya, let me start by welcoming the external action priorities outlined in the commission work program for 2026.
Certainly, in a rapidly evolving geopolitical environment, it is essential that the European Union continues to project stability and remains firmly committed to the rules-based international order. We note in particular the continued focus on supporting Ukraine, including through sustained political, financial, and military assistance as well as support for reconstruction, Ukraine's progress on its European path. We welcome the continued commitment to maintain and expand sanctions aimed at weakening the Russian war machine. We also, dear Kayakalas, welcome the planned initiatives concerning the EU's neighborhood, including the rollout of the pact for the Mediterranean, and the forthcoming EU strategy for the Middle East. The European Parliament has repeatedly called for a more coherent EU approach to the region aimed at promoting stability, addressing humanitarian needs, and supporting democratic governance.
Finally, we note that these initiatives come at a time of increasing geopolitical volatility, with ongoing instability in several regions and increasing risks of spillovers. In this context, we also welcome the initiatives aimed at strengthening democratic resilience and addressing challenges such as disinformation, cyberattacks, and foreign interference. So, having said that, we now look forward to hearing more about how these priorities will be taken forward in the coming year. I now give you the floor for 15 minutes, and once again, a warm welcome to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament. The floor is yours.
Speaker 25
Thank you, honorable members, to David. It's really good to be here. We are living in these very, very turbulent times, and there is clearly a connection between Russia's illegal war against Ukraine and what is going on in the Middle East. Both are products of the erosion of international law. Without accountability, judicial or political, the war will engulf the world once again.
And the way the crisis in the Middle East is unfolding already bears characteristics of the worst-case scenario in many ways. First, geographic reach. In addition to The United States, Israel, Iran, also the Gulf countries, Jordan, have been struck repeatedly by Iranian bombs and drones. Turkey, Azerbaijan have been tried. Lebanon and Iraq have been pulled in.
Pakistan is also in a very difficult situation with a mutual defense pact with Saudi Arabia, while it fights a war with Afghanistan, and our own member state Cyprus has been hit. Second, the wide-reaching economic impact. Hormuz, Strait of Hormuz, is a choke point for global trade. As we all know from the news, shipping through the Strait Of Hormuz dropped by roughly 70% in the first days of the war. And the impact of the energy prices is acute.
And this was also discussed yesterday in the Energy Council, and will be the center of discussions, of course, in the European Council this week. But the impact of the blocked Hormuz Strait is truly worldwide. The US and Europe import a minimal amount of energy through Hormuz. Around 80% of oil and LNG goes to Asia. Some regions will suffer more than others because of this war.
And think about just, you know, Asian countries that are dependent on the energy, but also fertilizers. For example, 54% of Sudan's fertilizers come via the Strait of Hormuz. And if it is a lack of fertilizers this year, there's going to be famine next year, or the food that goes via the Strait of Hormuz to the countries in the Middle East. It has an effect on semiconductor plants in Taiwan or on farms in Brazil for the fertilizer supplies. So it really has a global impact.
Now protecting the freedom of navigation is at the top of the global agenda and must be reinstated in the Strait of Hormuz. Everyone is looking to address this situation. And just yesterday, we had the meeting with the foreign ministers to discuss. We have an active mission, operation Aspires, in the region of the Arabian Peninsula, and we discuss what kind of role this operation could play. Of course, in the immediate term, besides the energy sector, there are many aspects that I'm dealing with on a daily basis.
There are 1,300,000 European citizens living in the region. My first priority is their safety. Last week, the first fully funded EU funded flights under rescue you departed from a conflict situation. Our delegations have coordinated over 70 national flights to get our citizens home. At least 30,000 have now been repatriated with member states' assistance, and we see that the demand is slowing down.
This is good, but we must continue to support those who we wish to leave the region. So the solidarity of the European Union is really not leaving anyone behind. Then there is the spillover effect to Ukraine. The longer the war continues in the Middle East, the more Ukraine suffers. I mean, Russia is already making money off the war in the Middle East with higher oil prices, and the Strait of Hormuz closed.
They can now again fund the war much longer. And with the aim of bringing the oil price down, the decision of the United States to relieve sanctions to the Russian oil could not have come at the worst time for Ukraine. Europe must mitigate Russia's increased energy profits by upping our own pressure through sanctions and breaking also Moscow's shadow fleet. Our inability to reach agreement on the 20 sanctions package or on the support loan for Ukraine is really putting the security of the European Union at risk. These are issues that must be resolved during the meeting of the European leaders this week. Otherwise, we will have our own goal here.
Iran is waging the war on the world. Its game plan is clear, raise the price of escalation to build the pressure for de-escalation. But there are no signs of this war slowing down right now, or that there is an exit strategy. So this is true, now, for the war in the Middle East as well as the war in Ukraine. As we are doing for Ukraine, we must do everything we can to manage the current situation by pushing for a diplomatic conclusion.
Europe's security depends on it, but so does the world. We must work with our partners in the region to figure out the way to make proposals to the US, Israel, and Iran on ways to stop this war. Honorable members, while we handle the fallout of the biggest crisis the world has faced in recent history, Europeans must remain laser focused on our own security. Our ability to shape the emerging world order to defend the rules-based international order and prevent anarchy depends entirely on our strength. And this starts with our defense of Ukraine and how we manage the aftermath of the war. For example, setting up the special tribunal for Ukraine is an urgent priority.
We know from our long experience in conflict mediation that justice is the key to lasting peace. But our security has many dimensions, from economic security to preparedness, from technological autonomy to defense-related issues, to the impact of security in different global regions. Take the Arctic, for example, that has been really at the center of crisis some months ago. If the Arctic ice melts, then, of course, Russia and China have more interest in increasing their presence. And this year, we will also come up with a new Arctic strategy.
On broader European security, together with President von der Leyen, we are working on bringing all the elements together under a new comprehensive approach later this year. And this should respond to the rapidly changing strategic context that the EU now faces. The main question is simple. How do we safeguard our core values and interests, and protect our citizens? Of course, this security strategy will be based on updated joint threat analysis, and this is now being compiled by our European intelligence center, ENIS, based on input from the National Intelligence Services.
And it should be ready by April. Yesterday, we also had the first informal discussion with the foreign ministers of the European Union regarding this security strategy. Honorable members, a stronger Europe depends on bolstering partnerships with third countries. Today, Europe has much more to offer to its partners than ever before. Really, when I go around the globe, I see this wish for more Europe everywhere.
Today, yesterday, sorry, we had the discussion with the foreign minister of India, really, with the foreign ministers of European Union. We have the new security and defense partnership with India, but, of course, there is much more that we can do apart from this. And what is the fundamental underlying principle is that Europe sticks by its friends. Take the Gulf, for example. We were in close contact immediately after the attacks happened.
I convened the EU GCC ministerial meeting to discuss this situation and come up with a joint statement. Some of our member states also immediately answered the call to increase air defense support to the Gulf states. And we are working also to bring the knowledge of Ukraine regarding the drone interceptors and the needs of Gulf together to actually also boost the European and Ukrainian defense industry. Our commitment to our partners is why the European Union is also building up defense and security with others. I already mentioned India, but we have altogether now 9 security and defense partnerships with countries in Europe, Asia and North America.
And I will sign one with Iceland tomorrow, and there are many more interested knocking at our door. What also sets Europe apart from others are our values. And in the face of this brutish power politics, Europe has no need to distinguish between values and interest because I really feel that our values are our interests. And that is why defending our values must always characterize our work with partners. Take humanitarian aid, for example.
When Lebanon became or came under attack last week, we quickly tapped into our emergency aid reserves to make aid available for 130000 people. And the first deliveries arrived last week. Especially in this current climate, now, the EU must remain a strong advocate and champion of international humanitarian law and humanitarian aid. And that is also why we will be working this year on making collective humanitarian action faster and more effective in times of crisis. And finally, we invest in partnerships because they also strengthen Europe's endurance as a global force for good, which brings me to where I began.
The damage that both the war in the Middle East and Russia's war in Europe are doing to the international order, the fact that both of these wars have taken the world closer to a third world war than we have been in the last 80 years. And the more we can rally others behind working collectively to address collective challenges, the greater chance we have to overcome forces seeking to bend the world at their will. This only confirms what we already know. I mean, working with our partners, the vast majority of the world seeks stability and predictability that a rules-based order provides. And that is why the European Union works toward this with our partners.
This will be the message I will bring to New York when I address the Security Council in April. I will also, it will also be the message you will hear this week when UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres joins us at the European Council. Honorable members, I think this is not the time to question ourselves. This is not the call for Europe to rethink our personality, our priorities, our ambition for a peaceful world governed by strong international norms and rules. If there is one message to take home today, it is this.
Now is the time to stand strong for what we believe in, including international law, to defend our union, to build stability in our neighborhood, and establish the broadest network of international partners. And the world is really looking at Europe and counting on us. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you very much, dear High Representative and Vice President. I will now open the first round of questions and comments. As always, the coordinators get the floor first. And it's two minutes each, and we kick off with Micha Galle.
Speaker 27
Thank you so much for your presentation. I think it's so obvious given the war against Ukraine, the war in The Middle East around The Gulf that each and every individual member state is just irrelevant to address these issues. And, also, the European Union will only be relevant when you stand united. So, if I understood you correctly, yesterday, the foreign ministers all agreed, and please confirm it, that this is not well, I put it in my words, this is not our war. We are not going to engage in this endeavor for that.
My other questions that arise, of course, are whether or not we can, in a different way than by providing ships, influence the ongoing events. And, I wonder, what your suggestions in this area are. Apart from that, when we look to a situation like currently in Lebanon, you had indicated that we are there with humanitarian aid. The question is, are we in a position to influence events in a way that, for instance, the further advancement of troops into the country and the amount of refugees would not further be stepped up. When it comes to the latest developments, also with regard to The U.
Speaker 28
S. And the indications that president Trump referred to on NATO that it would have an impact. Do you have any indication of what that could actually mean if we don't engage there? And or can we be hopeful that we will not have a real effect? Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you. We already have a long list of speakers for the second round, so please stick to your speaking time. Next is Nacho Sanchez Amor for two minutes.
Speaker 29
Sorry. I have to admit that I have a growing sympathy for your position because you arrived with a war, and now you are in the middle of a war on fire. Listen. Sometimes I'm not in sympathy with some of your position, but my concern is, again, the double standards, the coherence of our approach in different conflicts and crises. When missus von der Leyden said in this toxic speech, and this part has not been corrected, it's pointless to wonder if Iran war is a war of necessity or a forward choice.
But we have been saying for years that the Russian world is a world of aggression. And now if we have to examine other conflict, we don't use this kind of approach, and even we avoid to mention the first aggressors, meaning United States and Israel. And when we talk about we have to take the world as it is and the mention of missus Vanderlaien, we have to focus on the reality of the situation. It does mean to condone the territorial gains of Russia in Ukraine, or we have to try to reverse the situation? And, we talk about, when we talk about Russia has to pay the damage caused, is this valid for Israel and the situation in Gaza?
Is this valid for when you talk about the war crimes, is it valid for Netanyahu and the ministers? What I like is my humble advice, Kaya. When you have to talk about Iran, change Iran for Ukraine, and listen to the sound of the phrase. If the sound of the phrase sounds fishy or squeaking, that means that we are using double standards. And my last point is try to address also the European citizens.
Speaker 30
When you talk, you are not only being listened to by other interlocutors in the world. You are being listened to by the European citizens, and they need European voices because they are coming back to the national leaders. They are listening to Sanchez and Macron and Meloni and even Carney, but they are not listen to anyone from Brussels. Thank you.
Thank.
Speaker 34
You, Chair, Madam High Representative. I'll be putting my question in French. The most recent major international crisis has pushed European countries to adopt sometimes common positions, quite often diverse and divergent. Spain has clearly condemned the US attack on Iran. Other countries support it.
Speaker 32
Others don't support it, but are deploying resources in the region to defend their interests. On the question of Russian assets, it has not been possible to reach unanimity. And the new demonstration of support to Ukraine will be made by 24 of the 27. We've heard the Belgian Prime Minister talk about the future normalization of relations between Europe and Russia, something which is totally unimaginable. For other capitals, in the diplomatic crisis around Greenland, several states cooperated to send a clear political message to the U.
Speaker 35
S. Administration, while others sought discretion working within NATO, rather than trying to demonstrate force. There's also the example of a coalition of the willing trying to regulate or trying to settle the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Not all European states are involved. Everybody participating according to their capacity and political will.
Speaker 33
So, in light of that, there seems to be no common will or interest in Europe, either in the Middle East or elsewhere. At the same time, we can see that the greatest level of effectiveness can be found in the formats of ad hoc coalitions between countries, and not in seeking a baseline position that everybody can agree on. How do you understand this reality? Do you support the development of a differentiated Europe where states can progress together as far as they wish to? And in light of this trend, is there a risk that we will see the commission try to work beyond its remit and speak on behalf of the 27, given that there is a lack of unanimity amongst the states themselves?
Thank you.
Speaker 39
Thank you, Chair, madam. High representative. As Russia's full-scale invasion enters its fifth year, discussions on a peace plan and Ukraine's EU future have accelerated. While the commission's 2025 report highlights progress, it also underlines the need for further reforms, notably in anti-corruption and judicial independence. At the same time, reports of a possible EU membership-lite model have emerged as part of a potential peace arrangement.
My question is, while reaffirming strong support for Ukraine's sovereignty, reconstruction, and European future, how does the commission conceptualize any reported EU membership light arrangement? And what concrete forms of integration would such a model entail in practice? My second question is on Cuba. Ten years after the signing of the political dialogue and cooperation agreement with Cuba, and despite the commitments undertaken by Havana as well as the European Union's political and financial openness, the Cuban regime has become more repressive towards its own citizens, more destabilizing in the Latin American region, and increasingly engaged in actions directly threatening the security of Europe and its citizens. The number of political prisoners continues to rise, and thousands of Cuban nationals are reportedly participating alongside Russian forces in the war against Ukraine.
Speaker 37
The European Parliament, through the adoption of amendment 82 in its recent SFSP report, has made it clear that such regimes should not continue to benefit from privileged cooperation with the European Union, including under the PCDCA. In light of the European Parliament's call to suspend the PDCA, how does the commission justify maintaining the agreement, and what concrete conditions and benchmarks would need to be met for suspension to be enacted? Thank you.
Speaker 40
Thank you very much, mister president, and dear Kai, I always ask myself, how can you make a work program with the president as president Trump at the other side? So that's really a question I think we have to reflect on. I think we as Europe need to react much more quickly than we do. But for that, we have to change, of course, the functioning of some institutions. You are very right on Iran and the Middle East and then on the Strait of Hormuz and the economic impact.
I think that's really what our citizens are asking us. What can Europe do? What will Europe do? So on that question, what can we do to help you push forward that freedom of circulation will come back and that the economic impact will not be so big as it is for the moment? Secondly, on Ukraine.
Is there still, and now I'm very open, and the first time maybe I will ask the question as a Belgian MEP. Is there still unanimity, or a big consensus in the council and the commission? Because the last days was a lot to do about the declarations of our prime minister, De Weve, who said we have to normalize the situation with President Trump. And I say what a lot of European leaders think, but don't dare say. So I really with Putin.
Where is Putin than Trump?
No. No. On.
Speaker 40
Prime minister, the waiver, of course, mentioned Putin. How can you react to that? Was that a topping, yesterday? And is it true what he said? Because I cannot think that he was speaking for a lot of leaders.
And then last but not least, the European security strategy. I think it's really necessary. And for me, we have to put forward more pressure on the European pillar in NATO, and my personal conviction on the European army, but that's maybe for a later stage. But how can we work on that? And last but not least, I want to support my colleague Nacho.
I think we have to communicate more with the European citizens, much more. Thank you very much.
Speaker 38
Thank you, Sharon. I will actually speak on the work program. First, the Middle East strategy. In the shadows of the current escalation in the Middle East, we see that the situation, especially regarding Palestine, is not improving. Since the ceasefire in October 2025, 663 civilians have been killed in Gaza.
We see the expansion of settlements and also the killing of civilians, including children, just last weekend. But we also see that Hamas is actually not being disarmed. So I'm wondering, what is the EU's strategy? How will it be reflected in the Middle East strategy, also given that the approaches of Trump and his likes in his board of peace are clearly not moving ahead? Second question, the people in Iran are seeing the second digital blackout only this year. And with two and a half weeks now of no access to the Internet at all, while the regime can continue to spread this disinformation, they are working with the Chinese technology.
And we see that a lot of other dictators are very interested in what is going on there, because they want to replicate the situation. At the same time, there are technical capabilities out there to work on circumvention. So I know it's not in the work program because it's a rather recent trend, but I'm wondering what the European Union is doing to prevent this kind of digital blackouts continuing. And then, maybe, a second third question is on the sanctions. We are putting a lot of sanctions on Russia, on Iran, a number of other countries.
We are improving when it comes to sanctions enforcement regarding Russia in the implementation. We are not deploying the same tools when it comes to sanctions enforcement with Iran and others. So I'm wondering if there is any plan to step up. And lastly, allow me just one remark. As frustrated as I am with the current US and Israeli escalation in the Middle East, I would strongly refrain from comparing the situation of Iran with that of Ukraine, given that the Iranian regime is really responsible for a lot of regional escalation for terror attacks in the European Union, but also has slaughtered and massacred its own population just in January.
David McAllister
Thank you very much, Jahana. The left, Danilo de la Valle, for two minutes.
Speaker 43
Thank you very much, Chair, Commissioner. On the Strait of Hormuz and the European states being involved there, I think we need to return to common sense. It's fairly straightforward. This isn't our war, and the only way to resolve this conflict is through diplomacy. We can't short circuit things looking at what Miss von der Leyen has said about the end of the old world order, and we need to be pragmatic, especially given the fact that the war of aggression by the US and Israel on Iran, where there have been no successes scored as aggressors.
Speaker 49
And yet it's a systematic violation of the rule of law by Israel and the US on this occasion. So I think we're talking about that short circuit and looking at how the European Union needs to step in, and whether you're comparing it with the Russian and Ukraine war. I think maybe we can also see a comparison saying that we need to look for a dialogue. We need to sit down around the table, but the EU is absent from that. We're showing complete weakness in this.
Speaker 44
And I think also energy provisions, you know, the US are dragging us into a global conflict with no exit strategy, and we're seeing the Gulf States and Iran under fire. Tehran's not in an easy situation after two weeks of Trump's attacks. So I think we need to look at the interest at stake, and look at the economic interest at stake, and look at how gas needs to be got to the EU as well. On the future of the EU, whether we want to push towards getting sourcing things from the US or whether Trump's gonna then turn the tap off. You know, looking at all the attacks of US and Israel with no condemnation, and the bombing coming the other way as well.
Speaker 42
I think we need to think about preventing this from happening in the first place.
Stanislav Stoyanov
Madame Kalles, on November 24 here, in this committee, you opened up your hearing with the words freedom, choice, independence, etcetera, promising to strengthen the union's positions on the world stage, making sure that we're always at the negotiation table in various forms of partnership. Today, however, the reality is rather different. The European Union is not present in key negotiations on Ukraine or the Middle East. In '24, you promised good relations with our biggest ally, the United States. Now you've just told us that The United States don't like us anymore and would like to sow divisions amongst us.
So, I mean, your ideas become increasingly abstract, I'm afraid. It's all sweet talk. But problems abound, and there are no solutions in sight. A lot of inconsistency. On the one hand, the union speaks of clamping down on illegal immigration, and then border protection and so on.
On the other hand, it would invite workers from third countries. And for many member states, that would represent unfair competition in the labor market. Buy European, another initiative, it's difficult to reconcile with Mercosur, for example. And last but not least, we should think more of our taxpayers rather than make them pay for all our wins, such as joint defense, and so on. Our security will be preserved if we stick to our democratic principles and do not encroach on the sovereignty of the member states.
Thank you.
David McAllister
And finally, the chair of our subcommittee on human rights, Munya Satturi, please.
We, madam.
Speaker 48
Well, Miss Kellas, I'd like to just address a few remarks to you from our annual report. The International Criminal Court. And in the last week, you mentioned the fact that the erosion of international rule of law is a problem. You said that we need to make sure that we support international law and human rights, and the European Union can and must do much more to protect international and multinational relations, including protecting and imposing Russian and US sanctions. On the international criminal court, what action is being taken there?
Speaker 47
On the other points I'd like to raise, there are just a couple. First of all, the freedom of the media and disinformation. We all know authoritarian regimes exploit channels of information and undermine democracy by doing that. What measures do you take to increase the possibility to have pluralism and freedom of information around the world? Secondly, on women's rights, gender equality, the restriction of women's rights around the world is not just problematic.
It is an institutionalized abuse of rights, and we must take action in legal terms. So, madam high representative, what are you doing along these lines to make sure that those who commit these sorts of abuses will be brought to book? So on those three points, I'd like to have as precise answers as possible. Thank you.
David McAllister
Right. That concludes the first round. First, the coordinators, and then the chair of our subcommittee, colleagues. We have noted more than 25 colleagues who want to take the floor on the second round. But, before I hand over to Kaya Callis, perhaps I can just ask one very simple question as chairman of AFET.
I was curious about the new security strategy that has been announced. I would like to know from you, how will this new security strategy relate to existing strategies like the economic security strategy, the global gateway initiative, or the strategic compass? And more importantly for our colleagues, how will the European Parliament be consulted in accordance with the treaty rules? And will the EAS commit to structured consultations with AFET before the strategy is finalized? And now I hand over to you for the first round.
Perhaps you can try to do it in 10 minutes so we have sufficient time, but it's up to you. But lots of colleagues also want to ask questions. Yeah.
Speaker 25
Okay. I try in ten minutes, but I'm not sure that I'm able to because there are also a lot of questions. First, mister Guller, of course, we are concerned with the freedom of navigation. But yesterday, when we had the meeting, it was also very clear that this is not Europe's war. We didn't start the war.
We were not consulted, and we don't know whether the objectives of this war are really. So we, you know, the member states do not have the wish to be dragged into this. Keeping this in mind, the freedom of navigation is still very important for us. Although, you know, one might say that, you know, the oil and gas going through the Strait of Hormuz, we are not so dependent on this route. But like I was mentioning, there are Asian countries that are dependent.
There are African countries that are dependent on fertilizers. So really, still, we were discussing what we could do. We have the operation as bidders, working in the area. Right now, I mean, it's limited to the Muscat line, so it is operating in the Red Sea. And the discussion was that, actually, also the Red Sea needs to be open because we haven't seen the Houthi attacks yet.
Maybe they come. Maybe they don't. But definitely, we need to have this alternative route open. And so the discussion is to also strengthen this operation that we already have in the area. Now, what more can we do?
We are working with the partners of The Gulf, with Jordan, Egypt, but also our partners from other countries to actually how can we come up with the proposals for the US, Israel, and Iran to end this war. Because, clearly, we are all aligned that we want this war to stop because it has too high a cost for everybody in the world. So this is what we are working on. On Lebanon, in addition to the humanitarian aid, we are also supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces to disarm Hezbollah. And we are also discussing operation.
As you know, UNIFIL mandate will be over, and then the question is whether there will be a void left. But it doesn't mean that we will take over UNIFIL, but we are discussing whether there's an appetite from the member states also to have our own operations so that we can help Lebanon in this regard. You the question on the impact of NATO, of course, you know, this is the statement of the president of the United States. We have learned, of course, over this year to take it much more calmly. But at the same time, the words of the president carry weight.
So that is also clearly the case. So right now, we take note of this statement. On your question, I'm not responsible for anybody else's speeches but my own. So I mean, all the questions regarding the speech of somebody else should be addressed to that person. I'm working with 27 member states.
And the really, I mean, trying to put our position together. And we have also managed to say that international law is important. And to your question about the damages, the underlying principle in civil law, in criminal law, also international law, is that whoever causes the damages should pay for this. On the different positions, we have, you know, foreign policy in the European Union is very complicated because, you know, as we have tried to have the European position, we still have 27 member states. And we don't always see eye to eye in all the issues.
So bringing these member states together is always hard. I wouldn't put those two things, like, contradictory: the coalitions of the willing and the European Union. Because if you think, there are a lot of things that started from the coalition of the willing that eventually were European. If you think about the Schengen Area, for example, started as a coalition of the willing. If you think about the Eurozone, started as a coalition of the willing.
So clearly, we can build on this. And what we have to keep in mind is that, actually, our unity is our strength. I mean, I have had, you know, many interactions with partners from Latin America, from Asia, especially now, especially in this geopolitical context. When something happens, everybody is calling, what are you doing as the European Union? And I'm calling all my ministers.
It's like, let's have a unified position, because if we have a unified position, we can also rally others behind us. And we are and our adversaries also know this. Because, you know, if you look in the world, in Europe, the big member states in Europe seem like big countries in the world. They are small countries. We all are small countries.
We are.
Speaker 25
Only credible, you know, power if we are acting together. And this is hard. I don't deny that it is. Sometimes we are successful, sometimes we are not. But what I'm trying to argue with the member states as well, this time is different than anything else, because we have these big wars going on.
And there are a lot of countries, majority vast majority of countries in the world who are looking at us because we are not the superpower that actually wants the world that is based on whoever has the power who can take what they want, but who actually supports the world that is based on some kind of rules. And the vast majority of countries want that, so they are all looking at us. On the EU membership, light and the enlargement issues. So the discussions have not really, we haven't had the discussions thoroughly on this. Cuba, the issue of the agreement.
I think what I asked my services already when Venezuela happened is, like, you know, let's look into both, you know, our policy regarding Cuba, but also our policy regarding Venezuela. I mean, we have to have, you know, we can see the different scenarios, and we also need to have a plan ready for these scenarios so that we can rally the 27 countries behind that. And when the scenario happens, we can actually, you know, move forward together. So this is a work in progress. And, of course, this agreement that you're referring to has a lot of different options.
I mean, I'm not defending it per se, but I'm saying that this really gives the possibility to address the issues that you were also mentioning in your question. Then on the freedom of navigation, like I was mentioning, what can we do? I mean, for the time being, we are not extending the mandate of SPIRES, but we are working together with our partners to really, you know, bring this war to an end and deescalate so that, you know, it will be open, this Strait of Hormuz. The question on normalizing the relations with Russia. My question is always what has changed in this regard.
And the first question is, what do we want to talk to the Russians about? And that's why I also presented to the member states, you know, a paper. Let's discuss what we want to discuss with the Russians if we have this possibility. Because if you look at the peace talks that have been now stalled, actually, the other part is totally missing. Everybody's putting the pressure on Ukraine, but nobody's asking any questions to Russia.
And if we continue like this, I'm sorry, we will have more of it. And that's why, you know, let's discuss whoever then goes to discuss with the Russians. But it's also then has this mandate or at least, you know, we can all ask, did you talk about these issues? But it also sends a signal to Russia that, you know, if they think that they can just, you know, agree with The United States on issues that concern Europe and whatever US is telling us, we will do, then let's give a very clear signal that this is not the case. You need to talk to us about the issues that concern us and to be very strong here, not to say that, you know, everything that is negotiated that doesn't concern us, that we somehow praise these agreements beforehand.
Because then don't complain that we are not around the table, because we have given our approval upfront away. Now on Palestine. Yes. I mean, the new war in Middle East has really shifted the attention away, and the situation is extremely tire. We discussed this yesterday with the foreign ministers, and I, again, made this push for the sanctions on violent settlers because, really, it's a credibility of European Union as well because, and there, you know, this is illustrating the problems that we have with the common foreign policy that everybody needs to agree to, that, you know, 26 agree, one doesn't, and we can't push this through.
The phase two is completely stalled. Last FAC, we had the discussion, not this one, but the one in February, we had the discussion with Nikolay Mladanov, also how the work is going and what could we do. But actually, nothing is really moving. And our concern is that still, I mean, the Board of Peace that it was how it was stated in the United Nations Security Council resolution was to have a clear role for the Palestinians, to also have a clear timeline and how we, you know, phase out the interim solutions. On the Middle East strategy, I think, you know, when the war is going on, I mean, there are so many moving parts that there is no point in doing this strategy while everything is moving.
So I think we have to take time on this. On the digital blackout on Iran, I know that we have been working on issues of how to provide the Internet also to Iran. I'm just because I don't have it in my materials, I will come back. But I remember that we had this discussion. What more can we do?
I mean, of course, we are supporting the civil society, but it's true that also access to information is an issue. And what you also point out, I mean, the Chinese technology is really in the hands of autocrats working like this. So, what are the alternatives? It's the question. On the sanctions implementation improvement, yes, we definitely need to do more work on Russia.
We have the Shadow Fleet coordinator, and we are really working on, as soon as we see a ship, we don't wait for another package of sanctions. We do it immediately so that it has an effect. We do the reach out to the flag states also, and this work is really ongoing. And we have the sanctions envoy as well to talk to the countries who are actually helping with the circumvention of sanctions. But what I have to stress here is that it is European companies that are very often circumventing the sanctions.
So that is a bit of a problem. Then straight to Vermouth, keeping this open for us. You know, the question, oh, yeah. Sorry. I always get in trouble in parliament.
I'm sorry. But I didn't say anything. Okay. Diplomacy is the only way out. I think this is important to stress, and that's why, you know, maybe we are not that vocal about being engaging with different partners, but we definitely are.
And then, yes, strengthen Europe as a geopolitical power. I still stick to my words. Yes. I've been in the office for 1 year, and I haven't managed to do everything. But still, I think, you know, it takes some understanding from the member states to actually get there, that when we are united, when we act together, when we put also our money where our mouth is, then we are, you know, geopolitical power.
And we are working on the economic side, the competitiveness. We are also working with the military side. Sorry. And the questions on the international criminal court.
Speaker 25
And what are we doing in this regard? I mean, we have supported the ICC through direct funding. We are also contributing financially to strengthen the capabilities of the Office of the Prosecutor. On the sanctions, I work with the member states whether there is, like, a common position that we are, you know, taking steps that we have in our hands to take, but the member states were then at least not on board entirely. And on the yep.
Pluralism and media freedom, we are supporting civil society. And on the security strategy, so, I mean, definitely, we will have the consultations. Right now, it is very in the initial phase because the member states really need to have the buy-in. Because if the member states don't believe in this, then nothing is going to happen. And my question is also, we have a lot of papers.
I'm not really a big fan of papers. I'm more a fan of the implementation of those papers. So how can we make the comprehensive approach so that it's also implemented by the member states? Thank you.
David McAllister
That was the most important sentence. For the record, the high representative vice president has announced that the European Parliament will be consulted and involved. Dear colleagues, this is a long list of colleagues who will take the floor. We will do the following in a very transparent manner. This is, by the way, a dehunt list, and Marty has noted the names.
We will go through the list until 20 past four because the high representative has to leave at half past, and she needs at least 10 minutes. So let's see how far we get. The first is, and it's one minute. And in our committee, one minute is 60 seconds. One minute, Miss Sofko is first.
Željana Zovko
Alright. Thank you. Madam Kai Kallas, I read your interview in the Financial Times this weekend, and I was struck by your message. You just said, and you repeated my confusion, you are not responsible for the messages from the president of the commission. I mean, as a former ambassador, I know that the minister of foreign affairs is responsible to his government.
What is the commission doing? I mean, who is speaking? Do you have one voice? Who is dividing the commission? You?
Your politics? Who is sending a message to the United States of America in our negotiations on the trade, on security guarantees for Ukraine? Can you just give me a clear answer? Who is running the show in Brussels? And, please, who is your interlocutor in Washington on these crucial issues?
Matjaž Nemec
Thank you, Chair, Madam High Representative. We have always been critical of the Iranian regime and its violent repression on the Iranian people. But, you have asked in the very beginning how can we safeguard our core principles and values. I have a very simple answer by condemning the actions by everyone, including the US and Israel, who threaten human, I mean, threaten principles and values on a daily basis. But let me ask you a directly simple question.
Was the initial Israel and US attack on Iran against international law? And if yes, when will we see you condemn the attack, and when will you stand up for international law and order? Thank you so much.
Davor Ivo Stier
Thank you, chair. High representative, our influence in many areas of the world could be limited. But if there is one area where we have influence, actually responsibility for peace and securities in the Western Balkans. There, we've just debated the situation in Serbia, concluded that they are not making progress towards the EU, not aligning with our CFSP, and they are procuring not only defense, but also offensive weapons like the hypersonic missile from China. So my question is, do you have the support in the council to send a clear message to Belgrade that it's time to stop military cooperation with Russia and China, the security dependence on them, and to side fully with the EU.
Thank you, chair. I will speak in Hungarian.
Speaker 57
Thank you very much. The war in Ukraine has been going on for 4 years now. We're moving into the fifth year of the war. People are being killed, and people are being unlawfully enrolled in the army. Now last year, I already alerted you to the fact that Josef Sebeksin, who is a member of the Hungarian minority, was also conscripted into the army.
Speaker 59
He was mistreated, and he subsequently died. But you ignored that. And in January, there was another case. Jolt Begat had a medical certificate attesting to the fact that he was not apt to serve on the front, and he was nevertheless conscripted into the army, and he also subsequently died. We are talking about basic human rights here that must be observed in Ukraine as elsewhere.
These units must observe human rights, and in doing so, we can save lives. Are you prepared to do something against these abuses in Ukraine?
Speaker 18
Hi, representative Callas. Now I think that you overlooked one important fact, and that is the way in which Cyprus is having to contend with the fallout from the war in Iran and the agreements that we have. Of course, we need to support Cyprus militarily, economically, and also strategically, and we will have to use the UN armed forces as well and also pursue UN resolutions on the occupation of the Turkish part of the island of Cyprus, which is an illegal occupation, and that is why we call for the immediate withdrawal of forces and what possible sanctions will be imposed on Turkey if it fails to abide by such calls. And then the issue of escalation and the community acquis, because it is simply intolerable that you are not dealing with these issues when we're talking about occupation of EU territory, and we've got a situation which requires your support.
Speaker 60
Thank you, chair. Well, supporting the Fiddish party representative here in the committee, I would really repeat a word, stop putting. I mean, that's the best way to stop killing Hungarians in Ukraine. Ukrainians in Ukraine and all over. I mean, do it now.
Madam Kalas, two points. You had just an exchange with the foreign ministers of the European Union. Is there any magic stick which is coming out from your debates concerning possible alternative support for Ukraine, mean, budgetary support, it's 90,000,000,000 as it stands. And secondly, you rightly said, shadow fleet is a shame. 40%, around 40% of 500 and so shadow fleet ships are registered and operated in Europe by European countries, including the European Union countries.
Is there any hope you will get us a certain grip on those countries and ships?
Speaker 62
Thank you, Chair, Madam High Representative. I like your expression, more Europe everywhere. But I would like to add, first of all, more Europe in the immediate neighborhood of the European Union. We have heard recently several intriguing proposals on how to reassess and further develop the current framework. I have two questions.
First, enlargement policy often brings unexpected developments. We are now hearing about the potential return of Iceland to the negotiating table. Could such a development be stimulative or for the overall enlargement process? Should we be considering a potential mini big bank, or will accession continue to proceed on an individual basis? Second, we have heard from highly ranked actors references to possible timelines for enlargement.
In your view, should these timelines be understood as indicative political signals or realistic and achievable frameworks? Thank you.
Speaker 69
Dear madam vice president, to survive, Europe must become stronger and more integrated. Although Iceland and Norway are not EU members, they remain our close economic partners and good friends. We are all Europeans. We share the same values and face the same threat from the East. In times of geopolitical crisis, Europe stands united.
This is why I deeply appreciate the fact that Iceland will soon hold a referendum on reopening negotiations with the EU. In times of crisis, we need each other, particularly with regard to security. I would like to ask about this aspect. One week ago, you said that the defense and security partnership with Iceland would be signed in the next coming days. When exactly will the agreement be finalized by the EU?
And what steps are you taking to improve the process? Thank you very much.
Villy Søvndal
Thank you very much. I think we all understand, the situation of gravity we are in right now. We are not the ones causing the problems. That's the one who once denied to follow international rule. Of course, that's putting damage in Ukraine going on, but it's also the fully chaos Trump and Netanyahu are creating in The Middle East.
I do not want one sentence to defend the Iranian regime, but when you want to do like they did to attack a country, you need to have a plan. You need to have some allies. You have to have some international body behind you when you do that. So I think, what we learn from this is that we need to make much more energy on the international alliances with the ones who agree with us. Thank you.
Speaker 72
Madam Vice President, first condolences to all the French colleagues in the room who lost a national citizen four days ago in Iran. And the two questions. The latest Europol report mentions Gaza as a source of radicalization and a security risk to our continent. To your knowledge, how much higher is Europe's vulnerability to terrorism in the last two weeks since Iran was attacked? And the second question, in your first ten minutes, you didn't say three words: win the war.
Speaker 66
You said Europe's security depends on a diplomatic solution, end quote. I have to ask you, is the commission moving on the peace for strength doctrine, or are you just less hawkish today than you were a year ago? Thank you.
Speaker 87
Thank you very much indeed, Miss Callas. There seem to be moves afoot to put an end to international law, and to see the survival of the fittest. Might is right. You know, I've seen that in the case of Russia, and I think that we have to take the same attitude when it comes to the Palestinian genocide, as well as the kidnapping of the president of Venezuela, as well as the moves now against Iran. Of course, we're not fond of the Ayatollah's regime, but that does not mean that you can have a superpower using power to bomb cities and triggering an escalating economic crisis.
Speaker 86
Again, that's the backdrop. I would like to ask you whether you agree with assertions by President Vanderlijn that the rules-based international order no longer exists, and the European Union can no longer rely on a rules-based system. I wonder whether she said that and whether you agree with that, and I do not know whether it's really logical to have two such opposing opinions within the same college of communias. And secondly, do you not think that at some point in time, the European Union has got to try and bring about de-escalation? Thank you.
Mister Tuch, one minute.
Miss.
Speaker 67
Carlos, now we have heard here, and you basically suggested there was some kind of parallel between President Putin and President Trump. Do you think that we can also draw parallels between Ukraine and Iran? I mean, we've heard that from the left, for example. We've heard them say that here. Now, of course, President Trump is the head of the world's best democracy. You've got a democracy, with a kind of division of power that we can only aspire to, and we've seen president Van der Leyen ridiculing parliament and saying that she can do what she likes regardless of what the European parliament or the court of justice say, and we don't have elections.
We've got Putin as a criminal, and president Trump is ahead of democracy. That can't be parallel. Now when it comes to Cuba, we see that the same finances and the same people are protecting a murderous dictatorship before it eventually falls.
Keenan is next.
Speaker 70
Thank you, chair. The Commission's priorities in its work program are clear: strengthening Europe's security, defending democracy, human rights, and ensuring resilience against external threats. When it comes to Iran, the gap between these words and actions becomes painfully clear. Dear high representative Kayakarlas, what has Europe been doing all this time while Iranians have been slaughtered by the IRGC? Hesitating, discussing sanctions, and seeking to resume diplomatic processes.
Speaker 71
Miss Carlos, you have been sending a message that is the exact opposite of what you claim to defend. It is time for a change. It is time to reexamine the EU's approach to Iran, and for once, place the EU on the right side of history. No negotiations with terrorists. Dear high representative, I call on you to act and support any means that will help bring down the regime. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you. We're entering the last 5 minutes. Mister Blanchetters next.
Helmut Brandstätter
Thank you, chair. Thank you, Vice President. You said our unit is our strength, and, of course, it is right. And it brings me to a question about China. As we know, China wants to talk to 27 different countries, not to the one European Commission.
My question is who are the countries where it is the most difficult to convince that they're not playing their games? What can you do so that we act as unity towards China? And my second question towards the United States. As EUDS, Democracy Shield, we've been to the United States, had very good conversations in the FBI, also in the Department of Justice, and they told us we also need you. We need the cooperation between Europe and the United States.
So what can you do to and also the whole commission to explain it to the American president more often that he needs us as well, so it goes both ways, and then we can be friends again. Thanks very much.
Speaker 74
Thank you, chair. Madam Kellas, the incident in Cyprus made it very clear that the mutual defense clause 42.7 is not operational. How would you make it operational in the future? Second, as chair of the political committee for the Mediterranean, I have been advocating for years now that, within the EU defense, we could have regional defense sectors. I think that's also an idea supported by the commissioner.
I'd like to get you a response to that, specifically, whether you would support the permanent presence of European naval and area forces in Cyprus. Thank you.
Speaker 77
Thank you very much indeed. Miss Callos, you said that Europe has to defend and support its allies. Do you not, however, think that we ought, in that case, to be changing friends, finding some different friends? Because usually, your friends don't wage illegal wars, and they don't trample on Russia over international law. And I think, you know, we've got a number of presidents who ought to be behind bars.
Some because they have been indicted by the ICC, and others because they've got 30 separate charges pending against them. And, of course, this war is affecting stock markets across Europe, but the main problem is that it is a breach of international law, whereas we're not condemning what the US and Israel are doing. Iran reacted pursuant to the UN charter. So with which authority should we be pushing back against Russia's aggression towards Ukraine, that being the case? Merci, madame.
Speaker 81
Thank you very much indeed, Madam High Representative. Thank you very much indeed for having reminded me of the importance of international law and recalling that Iran is not our war, whereas Ukraine is our priority. However, I would like to talk to you about something else, a crisis that seems to have got lost in the midst of everything else that is going on, and that is a civil war, forces seeking to win back parts of Syria. It's extremely serious. You've got members of ISIS who have escaped, and you were seeing a bombing of parts of Kurdish Syria and Iraq.
Speaker 75
And we, the European Union, in that region, are facing a huge security crisis. We're seeing the risk of a resurgence of ISIS, and I would like you, therefore, to commit to dialogue with the Syrian authorities. It's absolutely essential to make sure there's conditionality to the EU's aid, making sure the country does combat ISIS.
One minute.
Thank you. I will speak in Greek.
Speaker 84
Hi, representative Callis. We are seeing this legitimate aggression by the United States against Iran, and we are continuing to fail to face the allies with their responsibilities to beef up their military presence in Hormuz. We have the problem of the Israeli attacks on Lebanon. And you're talking about expanding Aspidas. So we are talking, therefore, about a widening of the conflict.
Speaker 78
Therefore, I believe that it is also incumbent on the Greek government here, given that there are international forces seeking to defend British bases on Cyprus, whereas we know that we also have problems, given that there are US bases in Crete as elsewhere. Thank you very much.
David McAllister
I have to close the list, but we've gone through all speakers anyhow. It's Mr. Brown.
Speaker 79
Dear madam, you have just given a wonderful presentation of how unnecessary and useless your office is. With all due respect, the situation is clear as we look at the recent war. The gun, where is the gun? The weapon, it's the US Navy and Air Force. Who's the gun holder?
Speaker 82
Who's the perpetrator? The aggressor? It's the Jews, Israel, and the Jewish diaspora all over. And you, madam, you are merely the silencer, the silencer at the end of the gun barrel. And this is everything you do here to hush, to stop me right now and all the world, all the Europe for the truth not to be spoken.
David McAllister
Thank you, Mr. Brown. I just want to say, because you're always seeking attention. I know you by now. But on behalf of this committee, I completely reject your antisemitic remarks you just made. You will not repeat this to this committee.
Could you please elaborate?
To the High Representative.
Could you please elaborate?
Speaker 76
Mister Brown, you don't have the floor. Shut up. Madam Callas, please. Thank.
David McAllister
If you behave in this way, you will be treated like this exactly. And put this on your video, and tell your voters once again that you have a big victim. You are an attention seeker. You know that and have had enough of it. I've given you the floor five times today.
Speaker 80
Now would you please listen to the high representative, like all other colleagues?
Speaker 25
Thank you. So try to fit into these ten minutes. First, on your question, who is running the show? I mean, in June 2024, we got mandate, three of us, Antonio Costa for running the European Council, Ursula von der Leyen for running the European Commission, and me for high representative vice president of the commission to run the external action. Who is my interlocutor in the US?
Marco Rubio. Then, on your question, international law gives you two possibilities to use force. One is for self defense, and the other one is on the remit of UN Security Council resolution. So whoever uses force also has to justify it. On Belgrade, the cooperation, of course, the problem is that when we see Serbia is not really in full alignment with our policies.
We are working with them on different aspects. And when I'm already addressing the Western Balkan issue, then I want to note that we had, over the weekend, actually, one little step in the Belgrade Pristina dialogue in terms of also the issues that were there with the Serbian minorities. So I think we can work from there. Then on the Ukraine war, yes, there are people recruited to the Russian army now even from Africa. And we have to be very clear that, you know, whatever money is offered to these people, they are going to get killed in this war whenever Russia offers this also for the people in the outskirts of Russia.
Cyprus issue, we have always, I mean, I have always raised the Cyprus issue with my counterparts. Whenever I'm talking, we are also trying to find solutions regarding this. Then the alternative plan for support loan and the sanctions package, we are working on the leaders' level now to actually have the way out. So Plan A for the time being. But of course, then we need to see whether it is doable.
On Shadow Fleet, we are constantly being creative in coming up with new proposals. On the enlargement, I want to stress that enlargement is always a political choice. I mean, having been in this process, it is also clear that, of course, you have to do all the benchmarks and all the work. But at the same time, for us, it's also a geopolitical choice. And I think in this geopolitical context, we should really move on with the enlargement.
And when it comes to timelines, then at least when we joined, it was also a timeline that we could participate in the European elections that were happening in 2004, if I remember correctly. So the point being that timelines are always good for pressure. In Iceland, we're going to sign this agreement tomorrow, actually, when it comes to security and defense. Of course, we are looking forward to the outcome of their referendum that is taking place on August 29. So but this shows actually that, you know, countries want to join us, and that is a good thing.
But we also need to show, I mean, to the Western Balkans that we are actually moving. Actually, today, I had a meeting with the prime minister of Montenegro and also the president of Bosnia Herzegovina. I mean, also push them on the European path. Then, radicalization. Of course, radicalization is a big issue.
And why I'm always stressing accountability is because, you know, if you have these attacks, whether it's, you know, by the violent settlers, whether it's by the Palestinians, if you don't have accountability for the crimes committed, there will be revenge and retaliation. So it's an endless circle. And that's why, you know, if we want to diminish radicalization, we really need to see accountability for the crimes committed. And this is very important also on the international level. Peace by strength, this is absolutely the way, and that's why we are also working on our defense capabilities to be a military power, which we are not right now, but we are really working on that.
Then what Europe has been doing in Iran to support the people. We have supported the civil society. Of course, we can't be vocal about this, and, otherwise, these people would be under attack also, you know, different NGOs. But the point is that regimes rarely change from outside. They always change from the inside.
And that's why our approach has always been, you know, really to empower the people so that, you know, they can take the future into their own hands. Then, China. Yes. We need to have unity regarding China. And now the problem is when we have the discussions, we all agree on the diagnosis of the problem, the issues that we have.
I mean, their economic cursive practices against our companies, also their support to Russia in this war. But we don't agree on the cure, because the cure is painful. Let's be very honest. Because China is very strong, they can also retaliate. And now, you know, we have a choice.
Either we take, you know, more morphine, which means, you know, subsidizing our companies, and eventually, even the big countries run out of taxpayers' money to do that, or we actually try to tackle the issue as we are. So we are not taking seriously enough if we are not willing to act actually on our words, although we are raising these issues. So we need to work with that. And on the forty two seven, you know, yesterday, we were discussing this also briefly in the Foreign Affairs Committee. With 42 seven, of course, you know, member state has to initiate this.
Cyprus hasn't initiated. But my issue that I've been preparing already before these attacks on Cyprus was to operationalize 427. So I've been sitting down with the military staff to come up with, you know, concrete proposals, how it would work in practice. And in my vision, it is basically, you know, two or three different scenarios. One is that when article 42.7 is initiated, there's no article 5 because, you know, the member state is not member of NATO or it is not the threshold of article 5.
Then the second is when Article five or it is below the Article five, although the NATO country is attacked and 42-7 is initiated. And the third option is when Article five of NATO and Article 42.7 are initiated at the same time. And there, you know, my wish and what I have tasked my service with is to come up with this because we need to have these discussions. And not only discussions, but also, you know, tabletop exercises with the 27. I mean, how do we act if such a case happens?
I mean, who does what? Because we don't really have that thought through, in my sense, the way it should be thought through. So I think this is really the momentum for these discussions, and the work is ongoing there. And then on Syria. Yes, absolutely.
The resurgence of ISIS and what is happening in Northeastern Syria and the camps is, especially, a great concern to us. I've been in contact also with Iraq. That was before this war started in Syria, I mean, regarding the camps and what more can we do. And also with Syria that they really need to have control over this. So clearly, we are keeping an eye on this and trying to help as we can, but this is clearly a problem that we should not underestimate.
And then expanding Aspiras. I was saying that we are not expanding Aspiras for the time being. So there was no appetite for that. What we are discussing is strengthening the current operational speeders that we have in the Red Sea. That means more capabilities, so that we can also keep the Red Sea navigation open.
David McAllister
Dear High Representative, Vice President, thank you so much. Colleagues, I think many questions were covered. Thank you so much for attending today's meeting. We managed to give all colleagues who wish to take the floor, actually the floor. And with this, I would like to thank you for your engagement and for the fruitful debate on the commission's work program.
Speaker 24
We continue with the next item in 1 minute. Thank you very much, Diakkayo. Let's continue today's meeting. It's been a long day. Nonetheless, I'm now happy to welcome our good friend, Yerji Pomyanovsky, the executive director of the European Endowment for Democracy.
David McAllister
It's a good established tradition that once a year, the executive director presents the EED's report in our committee, and this will allow us to reflect on the state of democracy in our neighborhood and beyond. Colleagues, since we're running late, I will just say one more sentence. The European Endowment for Democracy has demonstrated the importance of flexible support for democratic actors across the neighborhood. And this at a time when funding is shrinking and geopolitical challenges are intensifying, its role has become more critical than ever. And now, Yerji, you're ready.
You were just at the PSC ambassadors. Now you're here in the AVID committee. Please let us know more about the ED's achievements and activities in the year 2025.
Speaker 88
Thank you very much, David. Thank you, chair. And thank you, committee, for inviting us. This annual interaction is extremely important for the European Endowment for Democracy because we strongly believe that this chamber has a lot of both role, inspiration, as well as was behind the setup of the European Endowment for Democracy. Without the support of the European Parliament, I think we would have never been established.
So it's a close link, and this link stays for many years, and I'm extremely privileged to enjoy this relationship. Today, I want to focus on a few. Maybe let's start with the three things. First, what are the needs and what is EED delivering on the ground right now? Second, what can the external dimension of the European democracy shield mean in practice?
And the third point I would like to develop a little bit on is the democracy support serves EU strategic and security interests, and it has to be well reflected in the next multi-annual financial framework. So let me first say that the EU secure future relies heavily on the democratic frontline of the EU neighborhood. I think this sounds trivial, but if we look at what's going on in different countries that are neighboring the EU, we see that there is an active war, not only the big scale war as we see in Ukraine, but the daily war with values, with logic of democratic state, with all elements of the reality that we would like to enjoy in Europe, and we would like to have with the partners and the countries that are aspiring for membership, but also any other society. Because when we talk about democracy, and today, it's so difficult to define, people argue there are better systems that deliver. They are better systems to provide the economy.
They are better systems to provide security or anti-terrorism. It's not true. There is no better system in a democracy to protect people. And here, with all problems that every democratic society faces, we can say it without lengthy discussions and definitions. So this democratic frontline is a reality with which we are being faced every day by supporting people who are fighting for democracy in their countries.
That's what we do for the last thirteen years. Recently, we have reached, over that period of thirteen years, €300,000,000 in democracy support, a milestone, with a total of 3,300 grants provided to different activists. Specifically, 2025 saw a massive shock to the democracy support ecosystem across the EU neighborhood due to US funding cuts, especially due to dismantling US aid projects and support. We were able to set up, especially in a few ecosystems that were extremely relevant to us, and provided 62% more grants than the previous year. So this was a quick reaction, not a volume-based reaction, but rather buying time and analyzing all kinds of damages that were happening.
And at the same time, also, EED was a center place for addressing, funding, the crisis of Radio Europe and journalism in the region. So we were also trying to react quickly to many journalists that were suddenly abandoned through the drastic cuts of the Radio Free Europe budget. Excuse me. However, today, we can say we are not able to sustain the level of support that was emergency support, and we need EU and member states to step up and to find a way and prioritize, of course, not maybe every place to close this gap. The biggest damage, just to answer some of possible questions, is not necessarily with the journalists themselves or with the front people of different initiative activists, those who you would host here in the parliament, those who are visible in different social media, but the people who support them, the editors of video, the cybersecurity experts, the people who are setting up websites, the people who are simply logistically backing up different activists, those people without international funding, they are losing simply their source of income.
And although they sympathize with those initiatives, they were supporting them, they have to move to other initiatives when there is such a huge funding gap. So this backup of activism is the biggest, I would say, gap and the biggest damage that we see today, and this is also long-term damage. These people, while they once disappear from this democracy ecosystem, it will be very difficult to bring them back. This year, the annual report includes impact briefs on Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Albania, Turkey, and Syria. You've got a copy.
We put an exclamation mark with the dot shield. This is a democracy shield. It's small, but still it tried to shield democracy. An exclamation mark. Last year, our cover was a question mark.
And today's exclamation, there are no more marks left. So we need to do something because I don't know what will be the next year cover for the European and Downfall Democracy report. So, this report includes those briefs. Let me start with a few comments summarizing those briefs. In Moldova, our impact brief shows what long term investment looks like.
In Moldova, we were steadily investing to be ready for the moment of crisis, for the moment of verification, and that's exactly how it happened. The sudden mobilization of the political community to support referendum and elections in Moldova wouldn't be possible if there is no infrastructure of independent media, active civil society, many experts on Fimi, on this info who are already there. And this whole society and whole of government approach at the same time was the best lessons learned how to do in such a turning point. And that was exactly why today we can say Moldova is a good news of 2024. In Ukraine, impact brief shows how civic activism remains robust even in wartime.
Last July, the cardboard revolution when civil society reacted swiftly to government efforts to dismantle a critical anti-corruption organization was a testament to this resilience. That is extremely important, and that's also a maturity of civil society. Ukraine has been prime focus of EED work since our establishment in 2013. As I already said, USAID withdrawal created the situation that we started to receive double number of applications from Ukraine. We were trying to respond, but we cannot cover the gap.
Partners such as Zukr Insume or Realna Gazeta reporting from inside Russian controlled Wuhansk. These are the type of initiatives where EED support was crucial and provided visible impact. We're also working closely with the veterans organizations. That is another focus, and let me mention a few of them. Legal Hundred, the Ukrainian woman veteran movement, PRINCEP.
They are going to play a role in years to come, because the veterans movements will be extremely important in the recovery process and the future political process of Ukraine. In Syria, the impact brief shows the importance of staying the course. EED was supporting civil society and independent media outlets that were located in the non-Assad controlled territory. Many of them moved to Damascus last September. Their determination to shape pluralistic democratic Syria is visible, and it's providing an element of optimism.
They are not working in easy conditions. The interim president, Al Sharra, hasn't mentioned even once the word democracy in his speeches. So we have to understand what is the environment in which those democratic change actors are working. We need to support them. We need to simplify our programs for Syria.
They do exist. They don't need extra training. They don't need extra study visits or a tour. They just need a budget to scale up their activities to establish themselves strongly in Damascus and main cities, and to start building and strengthening civil society of secular nature for an inclusive society, for the future democratic processes that may take place in Syria, but we cannot believe that it will be for granted. In Belarus, independent media continued to reach extraordinary audiences on platforms like TikTok, YouTube, inside Belarus.
This is despite intensifying repression. Independent media outlets supported by ED like Nasha Niva, Zerco report really crazy figures for their reels on TikTok, YouTube, breaking the obvious information blockade by Yukashenko. While real change in Belarus may take time, today, ensuring its society continues to receive objective information is the task. In Albania, the investigative media partners are challenging the COSIC cooperation between business, traditional media, and organized crime. Investigative media were supported.
Investigative media, we supported like citizens, are exposing corruption and forcing state institutions to respond. In Turkey, our impact brief focuses on support to Kurdish cultural and language initiatives. They include theaters, cultural centers, literature collectives, and publishing houses and media. These are vital spaces for enabling public expression. Let me say a few words about the European Democracy Shield.
In November, an important communication was published about the European Democracy Shield. EED and the democracy support community of practice welcomed it, in particular the inclusion of an external dimension of democracy shield. EED was honored that our work in the EU neighborhood and beyond was commended in this joint communication. Let me say in this context, we need an active shield, not just a shield that blocks threats, but one that positions the EU as a proactive force capable of shaping its neighborhood, and securing its democratic future. Let me make a few comments on what I mean by active shield.
Firstly, building resilient pro-European societies in the EU neighborhood should be seen as a security imperative. Resilient democratic societies are the most durable shield against hybrid attacks by autocratic regimes, by femi perpetrators, and external coercion. When institutional trust collapses, populations become far more vulnerable to manipulation, as we see in Georgia today. When resilience has been built, it holds, as we saw in Moldova. Europe is safer when our neighbors have accountable governments, rule-based processes, citizen participation, independent judiciary, genuinely democratic elections, and freedom of press and expression.
Secondly, today, the existential democratic frontline is situated in our neighborhood, in Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans. We must seize the opportunity to learn from those who are defending their democracies with much fewer resources and innovating and experimenting under enormous pressure. We need an early warning mechanism, shared intelligence between civil society and state institutions, and genuine partnership that leads to the whole of society approach. Thirdly, democratic survival requires innovation, rapid response, and constant adjustment. The threats we face will not wait for institutional processes to catch up.
We all know that innovation happens first in the field. We see this in Ukraine, as military strategists across the world are drawing lessons from its wartime innovations. In today's rapidly changing geopolitical and technological environment, achieving results requires constant experimentation. This is something EDI knows well. We have been investing in transformative ideas and the people behind them for past thirteen years.
The newly established European Center for Democracy Resilience must engage closely with the existing pro-democracy ecosystems as well as civil society organizations across the neighborhood. Together with our partners, we have the knowledge. We should use it to the best of our ability. Without adequate, flexible, and threat-responsive funding, the democracy shield will be a statement of intent without the means to deliver. The next MFF must provide the architecture.
When windows of opportunity open or necessity comes, as in Syria at the '24, as in Moldova prior to the 25 election, or in Armenia today prior to June elections, we need to respond quickly. Mobilizing resources on an ad hoc basis is not a good practice. Democratic resilience must be a long-term budget priority. It is a concern that the global Europe instrument is set to have no ring-fenced democracy and human rights budget line. Democracy support is not a nice to have priority.
It is a strategic policy closely linked to other European policies: security, climate change, migration, economic development, and Europe's global influence. Let me conclude. Behind each of 3,300 initiatives that EED supported is a democracy activist or group of democracy activist journalists, grassroots community organizers. They are people who choose a harder path because they believe in democracy and democratic values. These people are continuing to work in Belarus, in Russia, in Algeria, in Egypt, and today in Georgia, despite crackdowns and repressions.
We shall not abandon them. Today, with the withdrawal of most of US foreign aid from the EU neighborhood and beyond, this responsibility falls on Europe's shoulders. The democracy shield should have a prominent place in the new EU budget, to avoid being an abstract policy exercise. Protecting democracy inside our borders and beyond is not a cost. It is an insurance policy for our own future.
Dear members of the European Parliament, the decision on how much the EU will allocate to this vital work is also in your hands. Thank you very much for this attention, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
David McAllister
Georgie. Thank you very much for the presentation of the 2025 ED report. We now have some time for a brief exchange of views, and we kick off with Mihir Gala.
Speaker 27
Thank you very much, Yaji, for your presentation. As every year, it deserves praise, recognition, and encouragement to continue the good work. You have outlined the challenges that we face, especially also since USAID was scrapped. And you indicated how we could, in some instances, well, increase our contributions. You named 62%.
Speaker 28
I assume that was in the key areas where USAID and Ukraine or Moldova went out. Now the way you the Americans are financing their NDI or IRI is a bit different than us. And my question is whether you have in the way that you, so to say, institutionally support certain CI and certain NGOs, whether you have tried to perhaps copy that a bit because we had sometimes the impression in the corporation with NDI and IRI that on the spot, their work was a bit more doable, because it was not so project oriented only in short term and a bit more long term, so that better planning was possible. I mean, we could cope with that, but now they are gone. So my question is, would you adapt this approach a bit more long term, in the relevant areas that we are dealing with?
And the other question is, as you are co-financed also from member states and even from non-member states, from Britain and others who are contributing, how is the development in this regard? Have we got positive numbers to report, or is it stagnating or even going back? Thank you.
Speaker 29
You are welcome, Jesse. What did you prefer before? The good news, the bad news? Let's start with the good news. This morning, this committee passed two pilot projects related to your work.
One is to proposing to the European Union, to the commission, to create a toolkit to prevent in the early stage of democratic backsliding because we always reacted not timely, and things become sour and difficult. And I think Georgia is a good example. The other is the bright spot. Let's detect the bright spot, what we call democratic breakthrough, and support it immediately to try to solidify these trends in the issue. These two pilot projects have been approved this morning, and they are in the pipeline to gather and to try to have the support of the parliament.
I would like really that then we could be managing or involved in the issue. The other thing is our group is supporting the idea that in the global pillar or in the global pillar of the global Europe is to include a mention to promotion of democracy. Expressly, I don't know if the final result of the negotiations is going to be a budget line or whatever other technicality that I'm not familiar with, but our political ideas have to include. Let's go to the bad news. Listen to this phrase.
Europe must focus on the reality of the situation to see the world as it actually is today. This is part of the liege speech to the ambassador. And this part has not been reversed or nuanced or explained, contrary to the other part of the old order and the new order. But this phrase is poison for the democratic support. That means, okay.
We have to deal with the autocracies. We have to deal with the autocrats. And why are we spending not only money, but political effort to change things outside our borders if the situation is as it is. And I think we have to struggle from every corner of the European Union institutions, against this real political approach that I think is very dangerous because it's our only differential mark in the international arena. The Chinese are very easy to deal with because they only put money, and they only create condition.
They don't ask to be seated, the prison on to attend the trials. But we have been consistently a different type of international actor, and one of our marks is the promotion of democracy as it is enshrined in our treaties. And, for that reason, I think we have to be clear. We have to be aware of and to create cautiousness about this trend that apparently is gaining ground. Thank you.
Speaker 91
Thank you, chair. Thank you for this booklet, again. I read last year's one as well, and I was here last year at the presentation of the report. I asked some questions about how the money is being spent, and I got no answer. So I sent to the European Endowment for Democracy written questions about contracts and who the partners are, and I got zero response.
Speaker 92
Sorry. I got substantially zero response. In public registers, it's marked that in the last couple of years, you had more than €100,000,000 projects funded from the EU budget. This year, you claim that you spent or last year, you claim you spent more than 50,000,000, yet zero contracts are available. Zero actual reports are available.
Speaker 91
Only this story. The EED claims to be independent, but in fact, it clearly says it's funded by the European Union. So my question, one of my questions, is who is actually responsible for EED? Is it you, mister director? Is it the chairman of the AFET committee who is also the chairman of the board?
Is it Mr. Galer who's also a member of the board? I mean, the majority of the members of the boards are members of the European Parliament. And yet the EED claims to be independent. How does that work actually? And why do I get the response that any of your spending is not public because you are an independent institution?
Speaker 92
My second question is, is there no such conflict of interest that we're actually scrutinizing the EED in the Effort Committee, where the chairman of the Effort Committee is also the chairman of the board of the EED? So, again, what is exactly the legal status here? And I was just watching here. I understand that you want to help, more because US funding is gone. But do you really think that in Zaporizhzhia, now the youth need more projects funding gender identity?
Speaker 91
Is this really what Ukraine needs right now or Zaporizhzhia needs right now, more gender identity? I mean, you also had this in your last year's report for Pristina, I believe, a three-day queer festival. Is that democracy export? Or do you think mister Zelenskyy is not doing enough for gender identity in Ukraine? What can you do more?
Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you. Mister Lazo, you could also reach out to the Hungarian representative who sits on the board of governors. So now just saying that next time you're in Budapest, you can reach out to your own government also. Adam Bilen for the ECR is not present. Then Bernard Guetta for renewal.
Well,
Speaker 94
Just per chance, I've come back on what's just been said and say that last September, I was in Washington carrying out some investigations to draw up a report on the state of democracy in the US. Of course, I went to see the two organizations, the Democrats and the Republicans, who support or who supported democracy in the world. I took a deep dive in the important buildings, very beautiful but empty. And when I say empty, I'm not exaggerating. Completely empty.
Speaker 93
There were three or four people, maybe. In the Republicans, they tried to put on a brave face. In the Democrats, they were completely at a loss. You could see it on their faces. These organizations no longer existed.
And I understood that very day, the extent to which I'd really understood more than many others how our foundation was absolutely crucial, completely indispensable. And finally, if I've got a few seconds, chair, if I may. Is my time over? No? Okay.
Thank you. My last point. I'm a member of the executive committee of the foundation. And without wanting to exaggerate, whenever I turn up for one of our meetings, I really get the impression that I'm heading into the headquarters of the fight for democracy, the struggle for democracy. Because today, it's become a fight, not just against dictatorships that we've known for many long years, not just against those illiberal regimes, but also now against the contestation of democracy, which is being cultivated by new political and intellectual circles in the United States itself within the biggest democracy in the world.
Speaker 98
Thank you very much. And full disclosure, I'm also a member of the executive committee. But that's why I precisely know how thorough your reports are. And our goal is not to execute and administer, but to control you, control the transparency. And this transparency is secured through the reports of our meetings, where, by the way, the Hungarian representatives are also present.
Speaker 97
This is number one. Number two, I would like to thank you and to underline the wisdom of the Polish people. Because I remember, in 2012, 2013, and I think you were also very often in Berlin, trying to convince us that these are the institutions that we need in the future. And this is the institution that we need in the future, and we need in the present. And this is the institution that so many people who are now relying on our European help are needing and are getting.
Speaker 96
People from Russia, people from Ukraine, people from Georgia, from Turkey, and from many other countries. And I work with those people. I don't know if Mr. Laszlo works with these people. We work with them. We are literally saving them from prison, from persecution, and some from death.
But you cannot just save them. You need support for their organizations, and this is what this organization is doing. You are asking what they're doing? They're saving people, and they're saving democracy. And it's all transparent.
Speaker 99
I can tell you what Zaporozhye needs now, Zaporizhye. I can tell you what it needs. It needs €90,000,000,000 that your government is blocking. This.
Speaker 96
what they need. And not your complaints about LGBTI or whatever gender ideologies you have in your head. So, instead of thanking this organization and supporting us, we need a lot more support and more financial support also in the view of MFF. You are coming here and making a pre-election theater that you will be using there on your video to support your undemocratic regime at home. And this is a shame.
So, thank you very much, Yerji, for what you are doing. Continue doing it. And yes, we will continue controlling the transparency of your organization as we have been doing so far. This is our goal and our task in the European Union. Thank you.
David McAllister
Right. Thank you. Sergei, for the left, I don't see the request to take the floor, neither from the ESN group. Other colleagues who would like to take the floor, I have two. Please be brief.
One minute. It's Juliana Zofko and Robert Bedron. Anyone else? No. Then, and mister Tejas.
So, three speakers. One minute. We're running late. That's why I have to be a bit cautious of the time. Juliana, please.
Željana Zovko
Alright. Thank you very much. I'm also a member of the board, but not of the executive board, so I don't see the projects that you are approving. And I would rely that my colleagues in different political groups, can you just please be quiet? No.
But I would just, for the record, ask once again that the geographical distribution in Boston Herzegovina and taking into account the interest of three constituent people in supporting media. The diversity is being taken into account, and it's not. It's still not. Many times, I ask these questions, and I'm doing it again. In this report, you put different cantons in Bosnia and Herzegovina that they have issues.
What different cantons? I mean, it is important what you are supporting. It is important where you are pushing your projects. It is important geographical distribution, and I will ask this question in our board meeting, in these open meetings, and I will criticize you as long as you don't give me the right answers. Who are you supporting there?
This is a very important fact. And please do, colleagues, you know, we are promoting the European Endowment for Democracy, and the European Endowment for Democracy should promote above everything the European agenda. I don't see this here. You know, reform and growth, how did it happen? It's not by accident.
This is what we want to see in this, in these reports, that Armani goes to this promoting the main issues that these countries will bring them to a real democracy and European future. So I'm not very happy still. And, mister Pomelanovsky, you're a really nice guy, but I think that there's a lot of room for improvement. Thank you very much.
David McAllister
Right. Thank you. We had a debate on Bosnia this morning, and once again, was underlined. Bosnia and Herzegovina has three constituent peoples with three very different interests, and we need to indeed reflect this. Mr. Bedron is next.
Speaker 100
Thank you very much, sir. And I don't have to come out because I have no links with EED. So I'm not a member of the board that's advising, but I'm a big fan of EED and the work of Jesus, who I admire. The elephant in the room, of course, is money on the topic we are talking about. And I want to thank you, Jesu, for mentioning the European global Europe instrument.
Indeed, this is a very important tool. And indeed, we must ensure and do everything that the specific budgetary earmarking will be secured for human rights, democracy, women's rights, governments, and the rule of law. Fully agreed. I find it full of hypocrisy when I hear my Hungarian colleagues talking about transparency, about monitoring of the funds, the most corrupt EU government representative talking about transparency. Lukosko talking about gender ideology.
Again, I don't want to remind you, Josef Shiera, our colleague, you should ask him about gender ideology and sexual orientation and all these issues. He was representing you here in this Parliament. But my question to you, Jesu, would be on the emergency funding mechanism, which you introduced in ED with the crisis with USAID. What is the plan for the continuation of these mechanisms? And one is the financial situation of these mechanisms.
What do you how do you plan to continue with this emergency situation? And last but not least, on Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, you, me, and our Hungarian colleague would probably not be here if not for Radio Free Europe. We are, thanks to this kind of institution and funding them by us at this time. Again, Team Europe, you're coordinating Team Europe on that. What is the perspective for functioning of this radio and securing the funding?
Thank you very much.
Speaker 102
Thank you so much. I'll be very brief. First question is, how do we measure the return on investment of all these funds? The second question is about the money that was given to the Zaporozhzhia region in Ukraine. Some people, some colleagues are pro LGBT, others have doubts about it.
But this is another question here. Are you aware that Russia is using the so-called values to win hearts and minds? And one of their justifications is that they are fighting a holy war against Ukrainians. So if you're funding these kinds of events, LGBTQI plus and endless other letters, you're just feeding their propaganda to win more and more hearts and minds on their side, and to claim that what they are fighting in Ukraine, it's a war against the Decadent West. So what made your organization decide to give money, for example, to an LGBTQI plus and many other letters, instead of giving money to buy generators, for example, considering the fact that they are missing that during the winter?
Thank you.
David McAllister
So thank you very much, dear colleagues, for your contributions. Yerse, I now give the floor to you for your reply. We're already running late. Can you keep it to five or seven minutes? Of course.
Thank you.
Speaker 88
Thank you very much. Let me then, briefly, ask. So first on the NDI, IRA net situation, this organization is strongly hit by the change and approach in the US, although Congress brought back a lot of financing. So for example, National Endowment for Democracy is back to action. Similarly, NDI and IRI got some part of their funding, exactly the same.
And some of them, especially NDI, were having a little bit diversified portfolio, having also Canadian grants and some other countries. I think even one time, they also had EU grant. So they continue, but not on the same scale. The type of work that they were delivering, we cannot replace because they were supporting party building, party strategies, understanding how to build a democratic political environment through the trainings, through the study tools, and visit. That is very difficult to replace because, first, this is very expensive.
Secondly, it is based on their expertise. Here, German have role to play to compensate some of those elements. We support to close the US funding gap is focused on providing operational cost, basically to save the operational part of many initiatives, especially media, but not only. Because, as I said, this is a long-term biggest damage that people who professionally were engaged in cybersecurity in all services that are needed for different type activities. They were simply departing because there was an end of funding.
We are in touch with American institutions, and there is a dialogue. There is a lot of coordination across Atlantic despite some of the political narratives that are coming from the White House. So I think America still provides a variety of approaches here, and there is a lot of room for closer cooperation. If we are answering to mister Sanchez, I think what president Van der Lehne meant is that the world today is much more difficult than it was some time ago, and we have to first admit what it is and then find a way to deal with it. So in my view, democracy shield declaration and external dimension of democracy shield shows that there is an ambition to be proactive, not simply to react to what it is.
My contribution to this discussion is, and my advice, if one would listen, is that there is no difficulty in reconciling different agendas. The immigration, the climate change, the anti terrorism, the investments, the economic cooperation, all those agendas are not possible if we do not have in front of us stable, reliable, accountable, democratic governments. If we send our investors to the country run by a dictator, and tomorrow the dictator will say, I will nationalize half of your businesses, what will we do? Europe will not wage a war against this country because that's not the way Europe operates. We can build safety and prosperity of our citizens by establishing partnerships that are rules-based partnerships.
And that can only be established with accountable governments that have democratic control over their own territory. So in that sense, democracy support is not a nice to have. It's not just a value-based agenda. It's strictly interconnected with all other agenda, including security type of policy. If we understand like this and if President Van der Leyen, I hope, will follow this logic, I'm not afraid about what Europe will do, but, of course, it has to be transformed into action seriously.
Let me quickly answer the important intervention by mister Laszlo. We are governed by the board. We are governed and controlled by the executive committee. It is a combination, and it's an experimental combination. That's how ED was established by the European Union, by the way, 14 years ago, that it's a mixture between member states, representatives, politicians, and also civil society.
In that sense, we are independent because we do not represent the interest of any institution. We do not represent the interest of any nation. We are inter independent in our actions that are driven by our mandate. Whether we are publishing names of our grantees, no. Why?
The, Elon Musk, what he did when he started his Dodge activity, published all grantees of USAID that were many of them were confidential. Many people were arrested. Probably, some people lost their lives. That is the thing that we want to avoid. We are transparent to our internal reporting mechanism, but we are not transparent to dictators and those who are not observing human rights who will arrest people, kill them, put them to Gouak, like Navalny that was eventually killed in the Gouak simply because he decided to go back to his country and fight for democracy inside the country.
So here is a very simple, very practical approach that our board accepted as the operating model for ED. And as long as this is accepted by the European Union, by the members of the board, we will continue this way. That's why you will not get your answer. And there is no legal way you can get your answer. So thank you for sending the emails.
They will remain without an answer. Now talking about the LGBT. IQ. IQ. Plus.
Speaker 88
About as it was said already here, there is an important part of every society for whom this is an important agenda. Democracy means that every need needs to be addressed, but we are not doing well. Only two to 3% of our projects relate to this specific issue. We have much more important issues in the given places. So I think it should be up to 10% at least, kind of in proportion to what part of the society consider this as an important issue.
I think in some societies, this is a very important issue because people get arrested because they are gay or lesbian, that is wrong. That should not happen. And fighting for the rights of this community is not fighting or promoting anything. It's fighting for basic human rights. And if we understand this properly, and I hope you understand, but you are just playing your political agenda, that is the right way to do.
And it has nothing to do with conservatives, leftists, or anything else. It's just basic, not at all. Human rights. Not at all. Not at all.
Now, Christian, I will tell you something like this about Zaporozhye. When I was meeting our partners in Ukraine since the beginning of the war, full scale war, they were very much torn apart by the very, very simple dilemma. If we talk about corruption and fight corruption in my country, we will give fuel to the Russian propaganda. If we don't talk, we will make our own country’s systems weaker. So my country will not be enough efficient to win a war.
How would you solve this dilemma? To speak about corruption or to shut up about corruption? They were living in this dilemma all the time. The cardboard revolution was criticized when Zelensky was trying to dismantle one of the anti-corruption institutions because people were saying, you cannot protest because you will make your government weaker. No.
That's exactly what democracy is about. Everyone, every activist needs to make its own account, saying, okay. I was silent till today about this or that problem, but tomorrow, I will speak up because the damage of not speaking up will be bigger than protection of someone's interest or avoiding extra fuel for the propaganda, because the nature of the Russian propaganda and toxic narrative is regardless whether they will be a project or not, they will do all the same. They will smuggle their toxic narratives to dismantle people's courage, to dismantle people's bravery, to fight back, and to defend their country. So, there is no dichotomy.
There is no dilemma here. Fighting corruption is also fighting Russian propaganda. But the people in Ukraine, they are ready to fight corruption because they want to make their country more democratic, to win the war, and to become members of the EU and NATO.
Speaker 102
Just a follow-up. Will follow-up question. How much money did you give to churches in this case, if you gave to LGBT projects?
Colleagues.
Speaker 88
Churches. But because of the LGBT agenda in churches, what this Colleagues. Colleagues. Cannot understand.
No. No. No.
David McAllister
No. Colleagues, I'm chairing this meeting and nobody else is. We've been sitting in this room since 9:00. We're all starting to get slightly tired. We are running half an hour late, and we have another coordinator speaking ahead of us.
I would like to conclude this item. You can continue your conversations after this item. Please, Jesse, can you conclude now? Yes. And then we move on to the next item.
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
Speaker 88
Thank you very much, David. Yes. The parliamentarian type of debate is not the usual type of debate I'm running. Nevertheless, to conclude. So first, there is no dilemma on what is the agenda.
I took note of Ms. Zofko, comment on Bosnia specifically. As you know, our funds for Bosnia are not very big. So there are not that many projects. And the original logic of EDD is demand-driven.
So we look into projects as we receive them, and we can't accept more than 20% in a given portfolio. So the ratio of rejection and acceptance is about one to five for the projects, the relevant projects that are coming to us. I don't think there is any specific here, this balance if we look into incoming applications and our response with regard to different parts of the Bosnia And Herzegovina society. So I will look into it again. I will report to you on the figures.
But, honestly, I cannot say because we are not strategizing. We are not deciding from top down that 30%, 30%, 30%. We are always reacting to the applications that are coming. More applications are coming, more projects we are supporting. And, of course, relevance is key.
But this proportion between incoming application and response is rather stable over the last 13 years. So I will stop here because I know we are running out of time. Thank you very much.
David McAllister
So thank you very much, Gersi. See you next year for the presentation of the VEN 2026 program. Thanks for coming. First to the ambassadors, and then to our committee. And colleagues, we immediately move on to the next item.
So, because we didn't stick to our allocated speaking time, we will soon not have any interpretation. Can I ask all members, can I just ask you to leave the room immediately? We will continue to have order in this committee until the last minute. And may I ask especially our guests to now swiftly leave the room? And perhaps our two colleagues could continue their deliberations peacefully.
Gentlemen, the exit is on this side, in case you have not found it yet. And if you could just leave our committee room, that would be very helpful. So item number 13, we now turn to the consideration of a draft opinion on the proposal for a council decision amending the decision on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Union, including relations between the European Union on the one hand and Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark on the other, for which committee is responsible. This is a consultation procedure pursuant to article 203 of the treaty for the European Union. The question of the overseas countries and territories is acquiring greater geopolitical significance.
I don't have to tell you this. This is particularly true in the case of Greenland, but it also extends more broadly to the OCT framework as a whole. Against that background, this draft opinion provides AFET with an opportunity to underline the foreign policy and strategic dimensions of the proposal while fully respecting Davi's lead competence on the file. Once again for the notes, while fully respecting Davis' lead competence on the file. Let me now give the floor to Urmaz Paid, our standing rapporteur for the Arctic.
He is responsible for the opinion. Urmaz, the floor is yours for 3 minutes.
Speaker 105
Thank you very much. As I understand, there is no more translation, so I can speak in Estonian to avoid further questions.
Speaker 105
Well, okay. I still try to manage in English, then. The council proposal places a clear focus on strengthening the strategic and geopolitical role of overseas countries and territories, particularly highlighting their importance for security, supply chain, and the Arctic dimension. It emphasizes economic diversification and skills development, especially in Greenland, while aligning the program with key EU initiatives such as Global Gateway to boost investment and connectivity. At the same time, it prioritizes sustainable resource use, including biodiversity and renewable energy, and introduces more flexible modern funding tools.
Overall, it shifts the partnership towards a more strategic, investment-driven and geopolitically oriented approach. Our committee is giving an opinion to DEVE on this, and we have circulated the draft amendments, which should add a stronger geopolitical and strategic layer. The OCTs are key assets for EU global influence, security, and access to critical resources, with a particular emphasis on the Arctic and Greenland. Regarding Greenland, we emphasize the climate change-driven transformations, intensifying geopolitical competition, and growing external pressure due to unfounded territorial claims. We stress the need to detect and deter hybrid threats to ensure the security of undersea infrastructure, and we call for closer cooperation between the EU, NATO, and Arctic partners in that regard.
We also address Greenland's right to self-determination, including the potential EU accession, which is, of course, welcomed. Some amendments also place strong emphasis on OACTs as key sources of critical raw materials and renewable energy, highlighting their importance for the EU's strategic autonomy, supply chain diversification, and green transition. At the same time, we stress that these resources belong to the OECTs, underlining that their exploitation must respect local sovereignty, environmental standards, and the interests of their populations. The deadline for tabling amendments is twenty sixth of March. And, of course, we also plan to have shadow rapporteurs' meeting and final vote here in Auffet Committee on May 5.
Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you, Omas. Now the shadows have the floor for two minutes each, and Micha Galles is replacing Mika Altulla.
Speaker 28
Yes. And I'm reading out his statements. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Ormaz, for your work on the draft opinion. I would like to focus on Greenland. As rightly highlighted by Ormaz in the draft opinion, this is fundamentally a geopolitical issue.
Greenland is not only an Arctic partner, but a strategically crucial geopolitical partner for the European Union. Precisely because of this geopolitical dimension, two points follow. First, it would be worth reflecting on whether this file could benefit from closer joint involvement of both Afed and Dever. Given the strong geopolitical dimension, a more balanced role for Afed could help ensure that this aspect is fully taken into account. Second, the level of financial support does not match the strategic importance of Greenland.
While the proposed increase is a step in the right direction, it remains far from sufficient given Greenland's importance in the European Arctic. I welcome the proposal and the steps taken so far. I will be tabling amendments to further strengthen the geopolitical approach. Thank you. Probably.
Speaker 100
Thank you very much, sir. And I want to also thank Urmaz for his important work. As always, excellent cooperation, also given the growing strategic importance of the Arctic as it was said already today. I would like to highlight four short points on that. First, on Greenland, we fully support the right of its people to decide their future free from external pressure, while respecting the existing constitutional framework within the Kingdom of Denmark.
And in this matter, precision is very important. Secondly, second point, we must put climate and local communities at the center of our approach. The Arctic is on the front line of climate change, and any EU engagement must prioritize environmental protection, sustainable development, and the rights and well-being of local populations. The third point, on the references to possible EU membership, we should be cautious and respectful in this. Our main role is to listen and build partnerships, not to force any outcomes.
And finally, let us keep this opinion focused and avoid expanding it to other regions, which might dilute its core message. And I want to thank all my colleagues for their work and excellent cooperation. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you so much, Robert. And now for the PFE group, no request to take the floor from the ECR Christian. Tejas?
Speaker 102
Thank you. Amending the decision on the association and the overseas countries and territories is not just a technical update. It reflects a renewed commitment to cooperation, sustainability, and shared prosperity. The new proposal is essential about modernizing and strengthening how the EU works with overseas countries and territories, especially Greenland, in a more strategic and results-driven way. I appreciate that this proposal shifts the decision from a development-focused framework to a more strategic investment-driven partnership with Greenland at its core.
The overseas countries and territories broaden the European Union's global footprint and project power across key regions such as the Antarctic, Arctic, Caribbean, Indian Ocean, and Pacific. And I'm looking forward to working with my colleagues to have the best results as we work before on the Arctic report. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you, Christian, for your brief statement. Willy Sundal for the Greens.
Villy Søvndal
Thank you very much. I'll speak on Greenland mostly. It's so important that we continue to strengthen and build upon our shared European relationship with Greenland, with a huge geopolitical importance in the present geopolitical situation. We must do so through close and trusting cooperation with the people of Greenland on a lot of areas, both on economic cooperation, on connectivity, on green transition, on mining in a responsible way, and in security. I believe in a future where we can build an even deeper relationship and where we continue to hold great respect for traditions, the culture and dynamics, and the right to self-determination that define Greenlandic society.
I'm in contact with my Greenlandic colleagues who greatly value the support that comes from not only the parliament, but across our shared union. If it is the wish of the Greenlandic people, I certainly also believe that the EU should play a stronger role, showing that we stand steadfast with the population in a time marked by great geopolitical turbulence. Therefore, I also see it as very positive that we now see indication from the commission to increase the EU financial contribution to Greenland. I hope for greater dialogue and deeper cooperation in the future, but remember nothing about Greenland without Greenland. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you, Willy. For the left, is not present, and Alexander Zell from the ESN is also not present. Would anyone else like to take the floor? That is not the case. Then, Urmas.
Would you like to conclude?
Speaker 105
Yeah. Well, thank you for your comments, colleagues, and, well, let's prepare an adequate and strong opinion. Thank you.
David McAllister
Very good. Then I would like to thank Urmaz and colleagues for the geopolitics exchange. And as Urmaz mentioned, the deadline for amendments will be March 26 at 12:00, and the vote will take place in Affect on May 5. Item number 14, any other business. Item number 15, the dates of our next meetings are April 15 all day and April 16 in the morning.
And I now conclude today's Afton meeting, and we will immediately continue with the coordinators' meeting.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.