Subcommittee on Human Rights Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
DROI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsEngin Eroglu
For inviting me, chairman. We have a very important podium, very important speakers. When it comes to this law and ethnic unity throughout the world, we need to start thinking about how to avoid repeating the errors of the past. And this should not be a path to be followed by other countries in the world. So I look forward to this intensive discussion, because I think that this will be extremely important for this year.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you. Thank you very much for being here. It was a collective choice we made to associate delegations with our work. I will give the floor straight away to Miss Brooks for six minutes.
Sarah Brooks
Thank you, chair. Amnesty's 2023 human rights report is unequivocal. Over the year, as in previous years, Chinese authorities exerted unrelenting control over information and public discourse. They continue to suppress dissent and peaceful assembly, surveil defenders, writers, artists, and other civil society actors, and prosecute and eventually convict many of them of so-called crimes under vague national security provisions. Groups who had earlier enjoyed some space to operate, such as Christians, feminists, and members of the LGBTI community, faced further restrictions and harsher punishment.
China continued to use the death penalty and continued to refuse to share data on the extent to which it did. Two key parts of our report are worth special attention here. First, we describe how ethnic groups, including Uighurs and Tibetans, remained under strict political and cultural control. Even before this law went into effect, the labyrinth regulations, decisions, and political initiatives repressed individuals in the Uighur region and many others, including with respect to ESC rights. New national-level laws have reinforced state-led linguistic homogenization and narrowed the space for cultural diversity.
Although the UN's 2022 report on the situation in Xinjiang included a raft of recommendations, Amnesty has found no evidence of those being implemented. To the contrary, like with the ethnic unity law, we saw only cases that went in the opposite direction. My point is this, that the ethnic unity law is worrying not simply, and that it brings significant new challenges to rights. It is worrying because it codifies and normalizes already existing, apparently ad hoc, but no less rights-violating law, policy, and practice subnationally. It pushes Mandarin instruction and boarding school for preschoolers in Tibet.
The use of Chinese language education as a fig leaf for the mass incarceration of Uighurs, Kazakhs, and other non Han, ethnic groups or the pressure on Hong Kong students to engage in organized Mainland study tours. We must not lose sight of the fact that some of these have contributed to at least crimes against humanity, nor that they under guard an ethno nationalist vision of the state. Unity is not neutral coexistence. It is political ideological alignment. A second element is the extraterritorial application.
The rising brazenness and belligerence with which Chinese and Hong Kong authorities adopt and seek to enforce laws with impact well beyond their borders is astonishing. Take, for example, the national security law or article 23 legislation in Hong Kong. But aside from laws on paper, transnational repression has continued in practice. The authorities engage in acts such as surveillance, censorship, harassment, legal actions, and exert leverage over other states to forcibly return people to China or to take steps to restrict rights. As our colleague here has noted, with respect to the situation in Zambia with rights con.
In the ethnic unity law, acts that undermine ethnic unity or create ethnic division are poorly defined. This is a hallmark of Chinese legislative practice that ensures the party-state maintains the prerogative to prosecute where and whom it wishes with impunity. Worryingly, article 63 of the law explicitly states that organizations or individuals engaged in such acts outside the PRC territory are to be held legally liable. It's not an option. It's a diktat.
Some say in Europe or anywhere else for that matter wish to call for Tibetan independence or for responsible supply chain due diligence or for an end to the unjust detention of Sakharov prize winner, Ilham Tohti. For their exercise of fundamental freedoms, the ethnic unity law and its criminal punishment now hang over their head. The European Parliament and the EU must urgently take action to deepen the deepening Chinese government repression inside and outside the country. The adoption of this appalling legislation is a rude wake-up call for all in this room, in Brussels, and beyond as to how, quote, unquote, domestic and foreign issues are linked. Pursuing dialogue and cooperation must not come at the expense of accountability for serious and systemic human rights violations.
Not only should the EU and all member states call for the law's amendment or repeal, as in the resolution adopted last week, and for China to align its legislation and practice with international law and standards. Of course, they should. That's what the Lisbon Treaty says. But they should also make clear that as of 01/2026, implementing the ethnic unity law as written will have consequences for broader cooperation. That means reinvigorating conversations that view China simultaneously through security, economic, and human rights lenses in the pursuit of a long-delayed but deeply needed update to the EU's strategy on China.
It means ensuring that any EU or bilateral judicial cooperation with Chinese actors, including but not limited to extradition treaties, takes into consideration the role of Chinese courts and the judiciary in criminalizing the exercise of human rights, including the right to culture and to cultural expression. It means raising cases of detained individuals, not just human rights defenders, but also those detained because of the language they speak, the religion they practice, or the aspirations they hold, and doing so regularly, publicly, and with a running count to the extent to which these concerns fall on deaf ears. The EU and its member states must ensure that this message is sent without exception, whether by the working level at EEAS or by commissioners or the president of the commission and heads of state. Finally, all EU institutions should use all tools at their disposal to hold Chinese government officials accountable for serious human rights violations. For example, through support for universal jurisdiction cases where the act may meet the definition of crimes under international law.
Thank you.
Thank.
Tencho Gyatso
Mister Chair, honorable members of the European Parliament, thank you for inviting me to speak today. I would first like to commend this parliament for adopting last week a strong resolution on China's new law promoting ethnic unity and progress, sending a clear and timely signal to Beijing about Europe's concern. This law, which will enter into force on July 1, represents a significant turning point and solidifies a more precarious and harsher future for the Tibetan people. It reflects the codifying of assimilation policies under President Xi Jinping. What is new today is the scale, the systematization, and the legal codification of these policies.
Speaker 5
Several provisions of this law are particularly concerning. Article 15 says the state shall promote written and spoken Chinese. And even if a non-Chinese language is to be used, the state should give priority to the national standard spoken and written Chinese language and script. Thus, Tibetan is placed in a subordinate position. This has real consequences.
Language is not only a medium of communication. It is the foundation of cultural identity. When a language is marginalised, the culture it carries is also at risk. Today, over 1,000,000 Tibetan children are enrolled in a system of boarding schools designed to assimilate Tibetan children and indoctrinate them in Chinese Communist Party ideology. This law provides a blueprint for the Chinese government to pursue the erasure of the Tibetan language, culture, and identity.
Another deeply troubling provision is article 63, which allows Chinese authorities to target individuals and organizations outside China for acts deemed to undermine ethnic unity or to create ethnic division. These terms create a legal basis for transnational repression, not only against Tibetans, but also against Uighurs, Southern Mongolians, Hong Kongers, and Chinese dissidents and even human rights defenders living outside China. There are also around 150,000 Tibetans in exile worldwide, including several thousand living within the European Union, including in member states such as Belgium. The freedoms enjoyed by such European citizens of Tibetan ethnicity could now be exposed to the risk of arrest, arbitrary detention, or ill treatment if they travel to China or Tibet. My speaking here before you could suddenly be seen as contravening the ethnic unity law, as could the presence of all of you in this room today.
This raises serious questions under international law, including concerns about the sovereignty of European states. Reports led by members of this Parliament have already highlighted how authoritarian governments seek to silence critics beyond their borders. This law must also be seen alongside other policies affecting Tibetans, including large-scale forcible relocation of Tibetan nomadic communities, increasing restrictions on freedom of religion, including in matters related to succession of Tibetan Buddhist leaders, and in particular, the succession of the Dalai Lama institution, including the current 14th Dalai Lama. Since 2009, more than 150 Tibetans have committed grave acts of self-immolation in a desperate form of protest against restrictions on their fundamental freedoms and calling for the return of the Dalai Lama. In April, eight independent UN human rights experts clearly exposed and unmasked the CCP's intentions and emphasized the systematic way in which this voyage law violates China's own legal framework and its international obligations.
Tibet has been the testing ground for this new law. Both in 2010 and in 2020, model regulations were enacted in parts of Tibet that include many provisions found in this new law. This law is not about governance. This law is about reshaping identity and reducing the space for pluralism and diversity. The European Union knows well the value of cultural and linguistic diversity and is founded on the principle of unity in diversity, where such diversity is seen not as a threat but as a strength.
From this perspective, the trajectory we see in China is deeply concerning. Honourable members, please allow me to conclude with a few recommendations for your consideration. First, we encourage the EU to adopt a clear and unified public statement denouncing this law and its implications for human rights on behalf of all 27 member states. Second, this issue should be placed on the agenda of all upcoming high-level engagements with China, including EU-China human rights dialogue, the high-level strategic dialogue, and the EU-China summit. Third, we recommend appointing an EU special representative for Tibet, critical to the effective coordination and coherence of EU policies on Tibet.
Fourth, the EU should strengthen its response to transnational repression, building on the European Parliament's recent work and recommendations in this area. Fifth, we call on the EU to urge China to resume the Sino-Tibetan dialogue without preconditions. This dialogue remains essential to achieving a peaceful solution based on genuine autonomy for the Tibetans. As His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, has now reached the age of 90, it is more important than ever to seize this opportunity for dialogue. In conclusion, this law goes beyond a simple domestic policy shift.
It reflects a broader direction with profound implications for human rights, cultural diversity, and international norms. It is essential that these concerns are addressed clearly, consistently, and collectively by the European Union and its member states. Thank you for your kind attention.
Thank.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you very much indeed. And now I give the floor to Mr. Brown who is connected online. Over to you.
Kerry Brown
On March 12 this year, the Chinese National People's Congress, the country's annual parliament, passed the ethnic unity and progress-promotion law. It will come into use on July 1. According to the official statement from Xinhua, this law was aimed at fostering a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation and advancing what it called law-based governance and ethnic affairs. I think it is true, as other speakers have said, that this normalizes what has actually been practiced prior to the law passing. It does not replace the regional autonomy law from 1984, where many of the issues relating to minorities are spelled out.
Speaker 7
It doesn't replace that. That law remains in place. The official rationale of the law is therefore that it allows equal opportunity between the 56 officially recognized different ethnic groups in the country. The law occurs against a background in which the central government's management of ethnic diversity issues has been a deep source of detailed analysis and criticism. This is not a new phenomenon.
The state constitution of 1982 states that the People's Republic of China is a multiethnic country, but it is one where overwhelmingly 90% of the citizens identified themselves as belonging to the Han group. The foundations of the People's Republic of China in 1949 heralded a time of expected greater flexibility and recognition of diversity in the country. A previous leader, before 1949, Sun Yat-sen, in the nineteen twenties had famously only recognized five valid ethnic groups, but tied these to a strong sense of national identity and the joint mission to create a great, strong China. In 1956, influenced partly by the USSR, the new Chinese government listed the 56 identities mentioned above. At the same time, however, it also maintained movements against what it called Han chauvinism.
But the reality is that for much of the last seven decades, those not belonging to the Han have often received prejudicial treatment, and in the Cultural Revolution from 1966, for instance, violence and coercion. In the relatively more liberal 1980s, it is true that the main autonomous regions of which Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia are the most significant were granted rights from use of recognized languages in some schools and in public signage to subsidies from the central government to develop the economy and the rights to have two children other than that mandated under the one China policy in 1980. In February, however, scholars like Hu Angan and Ma Rong started to contest what they argued was discriminatory behavior and demanded wholly equal treatment across all groups despite their numeric differences. These ideas were inspired partly by the United States melting pot kind of vision of ethnic cohesion. The law occurs against a background where two issues are important.
Firstly, there is the rising sense of China currently being in a period of strong nationalist, populist politics under its leader Xi Jinping. Wang Huning, the chief ideological figure who sits on the Politburo, has stressed the need for the country to have strong cultural confidence. The demand for a more unified vision of what China today is and a clear narrative of its history means that the complexities of the historic role of groups like Mongolians, Tibetans, and Uighurs have either been ignored or downplayed. Secondly, there is also a larger geopolitical context. China is clearly in a period in which it knows that its relations with the US and others are increasingly difficult.
It is therefore seeking to be more autonomous in technology and innovation. Its universities are being streamlined, and responsibilities for contributing to this mission have been intensified. The government's views of the crucial importance of this developmental vision underpin its argument that, across the country, therefore, there needs to be a common language. This applies as much to the use of Cantonese, although, of course, that script is the same as Mandarin, as it does to Tibetan or Mongolian, which are wholly different languages. The simple fact is that the government clearly believes that even local dialects in the more remote western regions of the country are potential impediments to bringing these areas into the economic and developmental mainstream of modernity.
The law has been criticized by experts. One group from the UN has said that the law is an effort to dilute identity and codify forced assimilation policies. Another has stated that it threatens minority rights. One issue will be the ways in which the law is introduced and implemented. The United Front Work Department of the party published the guidelines by which the new law will be used to the 8 at the April.
It mandated a whole of society response, and stressed that the law's main objective was to strengthen national resilience in a period of deeper competition. It is best to see this law, therefore, as part of an overall approach to the Xi administration, but how they subject to the law might respond is something that no one currently knows. Though it is true, the preservation of different, more diverse forms of identity expression has been increasingly difficult in China over the last few years. But this move certainly makes it clear that the government regards its priorities as being the stressing of unity, even if that comes at the cost of potential discontent and resistance. Thank you very much.
Mounir Satouri
Nope. Never mind. The speaker corrects himself. Miss, you have six minutes.
Nicoletta Bustela
I will continue my intervention in English. The EU relationship with China is one of the most defining and consequential the EU has. And as part of this relationship, we engage with China. We talk to China, but we also put forward our demands and our concerns. This is certainly true for the area of human rights, where we speak directly to China, but we also mention and talk about our concerns publicly.
We have closely followed the adoption of the law on the promotion of ethnic unity and progress. And, we have, of course, in mind the fact that this will enter into force on July 1, and we'll continue monitoring its implementation. As previous speakers have observed, the law constitutes a comprehensive framework governing ethnic relations across China. The issue was addressed last week in Strasbourg, where commissioner Labib provided an intervention on behalf of a high representative, vice president Callas. And she underlined, they use serious concerns regarding the implications of the law for persons belonging to ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities in China.
As commissioner Labib recalled, such rights should be upheld in line with international human rights standards and with China's own commitments. I will recall the fact that she emphasized that measures that weaken minority languages use, that reduce the cultural space, or interfere with the freedom of religion or belief, risk undermining precisely the diversity which they claim to protect. The law must, of course, be assessed in the broader context of China's approach to governance and human rights. And as already noted, although the law does not appear to introduce entirely new policies, it does codify and elevate a number of existing practices into a binding national legal framework. Many of these elements were already present at the provincial or at regional level, in areas such as Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia, or elsewhere.
We have repeatedly conveyed our concerns on the situation and will continue to do so. For example, on the human rights situation in Tibet, we regularly voice our concerns on restrictions on freedom of religion or belief, on the preservation of cultural identity, on the rights of religious communities to manage their religious affairs without interference, and to freely choose their religious leaders. And we do not only do this, in relation to Tibet or Tibetan areas, but also in relation to Xinjiang and other regions, and more broadly on freedom of religion or belief. Let me recall that the constitution of the People's Republic of China itself provides for equality among ethnic groups and for the protection of minority languages and culture. And China has also made commitments within the United Nations framework.
The EU will therefore continue to call on China to respect both its international and constitutional commitments. And we will, as mentioned at the beginning of my intervention, continue to follow closely how this law is implemented in practice, having in mind the date of July 1 for the starting of the implementation of this law. We have, of course, a concern that has already been mentioned, the one that relates to the extraterritorial implications of this law. We continue to oppose extraterritorial application of third country legislation in breach of international law and call on all third countries to refrain from attempts to conduct transnational repression, whether in the EU or elsewhere. So we will remain attentive to any possible impact on diaspora communities or on individuals or entities located outside China, including within the European Union.
We remain the European external action service committed to the protection of human rights, including cultural, linguistic, and religious rights, and to the principles of nondiscrimination, respect for diversities as reflected in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Like relevant UN human rights treaty bodies, the EU will continue to monitor developments and raise concerns where necessary, both bilaterally with China and in relevant international fora. We will continue to urge China to cooperate effectively with the UN human rights mechanisms, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, relevant treaty bodies, and special procedures. And the EAS will continue to engage with China in a principled and consistent manner, recalling that respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, remains an essential element of our relationship. Many thanks.
Mounir Satouri
Very well. Let's move on to the debate with the members. I think it's Raza who will start for the EPP. You have two minutes.
Rasa Juknevičienė
Thank you very much. I had some questions. Actually, my question about how much more we here at the European Parliament can help was answered by Tensho Geyatso. But nevertheless, if you have some more ideas, it will be very helpful. So here are some thoughts from my side.
When I read about China's new ethnic unity and progress law, I did not see it as a distant policy matter. I saw my own country's history. Under Soviet occupation, Lithuanian children were taught that Russian was the language of progress and that our mother tongue was provincially unnecessary. Today, we hear translation in Lithuanian as well as a proud European Union language. When my mother was exiled to Siberia as a child, Lithuanian was called the language of the fascists.
As a Lithuanian, I understand what this law means. We lived under a system that treated our language as an obstacle to progress, and our identity as a threat to unity. The objective was not integration. It was repression. The same thing is now happening in the Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine.
This is precisely what Beijing is doing now with the law. Mandarin replaces Tibetan in schools. The law speaks of unity, but we know this vocabulary. We lived under this vocabulary. We should be clear-eyed.
This law provides the Chinese Communist Party with legal tools to dismantle the cultural, linguistic, and religious identity of Tibetans, Uighurs, and many other peoples. On the importance of our activities, there are those who say that our speeches and resolutions mean nothing here. The first European Parliament resolution on the Baltic States was adopted in 1983. I just graduated from my medical studies in the Soviet Union at that time. I didn't know about that.
Nobody knew about that in my country. Today, we have a memorial plaque dedicated to this resolution, and it was unveiled in the Baltic Waste space at the European Parliament. Look at it when you go through. Last moment. Of course, this plaque is a reminder of the importance of our work here.
A work that can sometimes seem meaningless at the time, but whose significance became clear later, as happened with the resolution on the Baltic States. Empires will lose, and our job, our work here, will be important. And thank you very much to all those speakers. You are doing what you can today despite the situation not happening better. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Merci, Franci. Thank you. Francis for the SMB group. Yes. Thank you very much. I will speak Portuguese.
Francisco Assis
The technological development of China has made us lose sight, here in Europe, sometimes of the real nature of the Chinese political regime. They have begun well, they started a system of economic development, but it's the regime itself remains strongly autocratic. This regime, which is carried by the current party, is responsible for some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century. The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution are responsible for the deaths of millions of people and some of the darkest times we've seen recently, and things haven't changed. You only have to look at what happened in Tiananmen in 1989, the way the students in Hong Kong are repressed, and the Tibetans and Uighurs are systematically repressed.
Therefore, this law just follows the logic of the political author, the Chinese political authorities. This is a Chinese attempt at an identitarian engineering at suppressing local and regional identities, by suppressing languages. This is a very well known trick by such regimes to remove religion and language throughout their country. This is part of removing a person's own identity, because that way they are integrated within a larger system. So as Europeans, we look at this with care, with a concern, and we can't seed ground to this kind of discourse.
Here in Europe, of course, we are facing problems in this region as well, particularly when it comes to our relationships with the countries across the Atlantic. There is some excessive anti-Americanism at times, which means that we can overlook China's attitudes. This is a highly repressive regime with whom we do need to keep contact, because if we cut contact with everyone we disagree with for the other world, we would be by ourselves. But we can't lose sight of our solidarity with people who are fighting for their rights in China because China continues to be one of the more perverse regimes in the world right now. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you, mister. I noted there was no one for the PFE, so we go on to the next group. Well, the coordinator isn't here anyway. So, go ahead.
Speaker 13
The police. As the chair of the China delegation talked about the history of Europe and the Second World War. He said that we should not repeat the errors of the past. It is important to repair these errors. And on the margins of the discussion, I'd like to talk about the Association of Polish People in Germany.
And until now, the German government does not want to allow this association to resume its work, which is a scandal. So, I'd like to appeal to Mr. Roglu to also look into the question of the Association of Poles in Germany that was disbanded. But on the merits of this debate, this new law that is to take into force on July 1 will impose Mandarin as the main language in China, which will affect 55 different ethnic minorities in China. They account for some 9% of China's population.
So, we're talking about hundreds of millions of Chinese. And the areas inhabited by minorities are also very big. And parents could be sanctioned for using or educating their children in their ethnic languages. Of course, we also see selective treatment of minorities and human rights in the European Union itself.
Bernard Guetta
Thank you, mister Guetta, for the new group. When a dictatorship hardens its laws and its political praxis, we always need to wonder why it is doing so. Generally, it's not because they feel strong. It's because they feel weak, or at least they feel like they are in a process of being weakened. The Chinese dictatorship is facing and will continue to face increasingly major difficulties.
The most important by far being the aging of its population, as well as the fact that they're going to miss workforce and young people when it comes to having to support elderly people in their pensions and their subsistence. Another problem, which is just as hard and perhaps even harder, is the lack of employment for people from young people who have just graduated. For now, there's no real solution for the authorities. There's discontent among the young people who have graduated. This isn't being expressed really, because repression and prevention are very harsh in China.
It's quite amazing, really. But if the Chinese authorities add up these provocations and this discontent, well, they will end up facing real socio-political difficulties. We can't they can't face having to deal with the discontent of all of these different populations within China while the socioeconomic and demographic situations become increasingly complex for this power. As it stands, we need to protest, and organize and show our disapproval while not losing sight of the fact that this is much more a sign of concern than a sign of strength from the Chinese authorities. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you, Bernard. To round off this group, we'll hear now from Farfullisch from yes. Mr. Farfullisch from
ASN. Thank.
Speaker 15
Thank you very much for all of the statements. I think it's a very interesting debate. Fundamentally, I'm very skeptical when we're talking about getting involved in other states' affairs, but I'm not one of those people that wants Chinese intervention in Europe either. And protecting national minorities is very important as well. And similar to colleague Molacek, in this debate, the question here is about our credibility.
Up until today, within many member states of the European Union, there was a policy of state and cultural assimilation. For example, my colleague from France, Guetta, might disagree, but I'm thinking of France. As part of national unity, France itself also promoted this ethnic unity against minorities, and even the charter for minorities of Europe has not been ratified by France. Strasbourg is the seat of the European Parliament in Alsace, where Strasbourg is. Three generations ago, the vast majority of the population spoke Alsatian.
Now it's a language which is dying out, and this is all part of France's ethnic unity policy. So my first question is, I've heard all of the guests on the panel. They all mentioned, do you also see the danger of a lack of credibility? Because that's something that we should really raise awareness of when it comes to China. Secondly, when it comes to language assimilation, what we should have here is better access to education and the job market, and that would allow us to tackle poverty in Xinjiang and in Mongolia, for example.
And this is maybe something that Quetta mentioned. This language assimilation could serve to ensure that there is a better economic consideration for these people. And thirdly, in the constitution in China, there is a protection for languages that seems to be breached by this law. So, how do you assess that situation? Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Great. We've heard from all the coordinators. Do any other colleagues wish to take the floor? You would have one minute to do so. Mister Kaminski, you have one minute.
Speaker 17
Now the Chinese law makes us feel very preoccupied, but I could not agree with the thesis that it's a reflection of their weakness. It rather demonstrates the authoritarian nature of the Chinese regime and our weakness, because we do not react decisively. And this way, the Chinese regime introduces laws that can practically undermine the rights of the Chinese people. Ms. Brooks said that there are ways of suing the Chinese regime.
Could you please develop this theme and what situations we could try to sue the Chinese government. I also agree with the representative of the Tariqian Diaspora that this issue cannot be ignored in our dialogue. Sorry. Could you close, please? Now I'm afraid of the opportunistic attitude of the West and international organizations because our inactivity means strength for the Chinese regime.
Mounir Satouri
Please try to keep the allotted time. Mr. Anatoglou, would you like to say anything? No? All right.
Okay. We are done with the questions. So now I will give the floor back to the panel in the order in which they spoke initially. One question which came up multiple times after the vote in parliament is there a common position for the other 27 member states? Is that something you're working on?
Is that something we can expect in the next week? I think this is something which was mentioned directly or indirectly by multiple colleagues. I will let you answer that. Three minutes each.
Sarah Brooks
Thank you all for your questions, for your attention this morning. Thank you, mister. I leave that question to the colleague on my left, but I can assure you that Amnesty International and its partners in civil society, and among the diaspora, continue to call at every occasion for strong unequivocal public statements by the EU, all 27 member states, that go not only to audiences in, for example, the Human Rights Council through the regular item four statements, but that take advantage of every high-level opportunity to ensure that human rights are mainstreamed into the EU's foreign policy and its bilateral relationship with China. To come to a few of the questions, I picked up, maybe the first: Are there other ideas for the European Parliament, and to our final speaker, the question around the application of universal jurisdiction? I think there are a number of tools that both the institutions and member states can avail themselves of.
Most frequently, we have seen this be the bully pulpit, but I think that there is growing awareness that that voice of moral outrage, if not moral authority, is increasingly less effective. In the EU's discussions with China around trade, around commercial relationships, around investment, human rights must also be centered too because we know, especially when we look at the situation in the Uighur region, that human rights are intricately linked to trade and commercial issues. In terms of, I'm sorry. I'm just looking through my notes. Questions around, does this show China's weakness or China's strength?
I think every authoritarian is brittle. It's fragile. It relies on a web of narratives, of repression, of silencing, and often posturing to stick around. And I think what we have seen in terms of the example of rights, the cancellation of the global conference in Zambia, as a result in no small part, if not exclusively due to pressure from the Chinese authorities, the response to that must be unequivocal, that this is unacceptable, that the shutting down of spaces for global debate cannot be done simply because of the whim of a single government. And finally, I just wanted to speak to the broader context.
So since January 2025, China's views on issues like global governance, climate change, or armed conflict may appear to be more aligned with Europe, but that shouldn't be mistaken for improved goodwill and action to be a responsible global player or a change in China's stance and record on human rights protections. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
The online intervention from Miss Giazzo online. You now have the floor for 3 minutes.
Tencho Gyatso
Thank you very much, mister chairman, and thank you to the members of the parliament for putting attention on this important new law. I wanted to really emphasize one of the speakers said earlier that inactivity means strength for CCP. I totally agree with that. I want to bring your attention also to one particular dreadful cause that demonstrates the totalitarian approach of CCP's policies. It says here that the parents or guardians of minors shall perform their family education responsibilities in accordance with the law, educating and guiding minors to love the Chinese Communist Party, motherland, people, and the Chinese people.
So I think that is clear what it says. So I think, in terms of what more the EU can do, as raised by one of the speakers earlier, I put forth some recommendations, but I think there is a lot more that the EU and the member states can do, such as, you know, a statement on behalf of all the 27 member countries to condemn this ethnic law. There are also sanctions that could be placed on Chinese officials and entities involved in the implementation and sanctions on Chinese officials involved in interference of particularly the succession of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, which many of you have also spoken about. In particular, I will also stress the appointment of a EU special representative on Tibet. We see this is a really crucial time for Tibet.
And as I'm based in the United States here, the United States has had a position of a special representative on Tibet since 2002. And we have seen the benefit of having such a special coordinator, and the impact that it can have in working collaboratively across. So I think that's important. Finally, I would like to stress what I had stressed earlier, that the resumption of the Sino-Tibetan dialogue process is something that we call for because it's so important to see His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, as a solution and not a problem for the resolution of the conflict in Tibet. The parliament is somebody who has hosted his holiness, and you know who the Dalai Lama represents.
Speaker 5
That his message of peace and compassion and interdependence is something that's valid very much even in today's world. He is a figure that has worked tirelessly not only for the benefit of Tibetans but for the benefit of humanity at large. So your recognition of that will also give a sense of strength and hope to the Tibetan, and it's not only in Tibet but the diaspora community and the community who appreciate these values. So with that, I want to thank you for your time today.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you very much. Mister Brown, now you have the floor. Three minutes.
Kerry Brown
You. So I'll say 4 things. I mean, I've been dealing with China in one way or another as an official or a scholar for forty years. I think we just have to recognize we have failed to find a good way of talking to each other about values and human rights issues. There is a fault on both sides.
Think we've just never had the dialogue that we probably wanted to have. I think we have to remember in the context of today that, of course, Europeans and Americans and everywhere else, we are all in a very bewildered and complicated time. And therefore, I think that China's attitude or its appetite for listening to kind of, you know, strong language condemning it is limited. I think that's politically, we have to accept that. It's politically limited.
It doesn't want to hear lectures. That's just the reality we have to deal with. The second thing I'd say is that rapid modern modernization is a global phenomenon. With China, it's been particularly rapid. I did stress in my comments that we have to put things in a larger context and that many of these forces towards greater centralization in China across all areas are driven by the same kind of expansions of technology in other areas and modernity that we see elsewhere.
The third is that I completely accept Chinese pressure abroad on activities is unacceptable. China doesn't accept interference in its own internal affairs, and so anything that constitutes that, in Europe or elsewhere, is completely unacceptable. The final thing I'd say is whether we like it or not, we have to create some kind of dialogue with China. We have a strategic choice. We can condemn by not speaking and by not engaging because we believe strongly that what we see is wrong, or we can accept pragmatically that we will have to deal with the government that exists in China as it is now, and that we will have to find ways of talking to it.
And I think that I would stress to colleagues in the European Parliament and the European system, it is very, very important that we do try at least to have dialogue. I think that there's definitely a complex situation in China, and that we can certainly contribute to the development and evolution of that. However, challenging and difficult it is, it always was challenging and difficult. And so I think we shouldn't lose hope. Thank you very much.
Madame Poste.
Speaker 18
Thank you. Now, madam, Poste. Now you want to talk about the joint declaration of '27, I think. Well, I'll make sure to do that.
Nicoletta Bustela
I will make a comment on that and then a broader comment on all of the subjects mentioned on the possible statement. What I can say is that human rights issues, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, are part of our discussions with the Chinese and with member states and with other institutions, and it will continue to be so. So it's a way to say, I'm not aware of any plan, but your recommendation will be, of course, reported. And from the EIS side, we can, of course, share with our colleagues our analysis of the law. So I'm afraid I cannot go further than that. But I wanted to share with you a bit then what I found as in the different intervention, the importance of language, and the fact that language is, of course, seen as linked to national minorities, to fundamental rights, linked to people's identity.
And I would like to share the fact with you that we have been discussing these issues with Chinese interlocutors for a very long time. Professor Brown just referred to the importance of keeping the door open for dialogue. And this is something we have done. Actually, if you check our press release after the last human rights dialogue last year, as part of the human rights dialogue, we visited with the Chinese delegation a province in an EU member state, which is home to linguistic minorities. And I have to say that there was a lot of interest shown from the Chinese delegation.
So I think that these are areas where we cannot avoid expressing our concern publicly, but also to engage and explain more about ourselves and share different practices. Thank you.
Before.
Mounir Satouri
Concluding, as the chair of the delegation to China, would you like to take the floor? No? Well, thank you very much, dear colleagues. In the introduction, I mentioned several bodies of our parliament that will come together over the next few weeks and months to exchange with the Chinese authorities. This is just after the last resolution.
Hopefully, we can have exchanges around this important question of human rights. And each meeting this will happen with the Chinese authorities. I wish all the best to the delegation to China. You can count on us as you carry on talking about this topic. And over the next few months, if there are things that you want to exchange with us, and if you want to have another hearing, then we are here for that.
Thank you very much to the experts as well. It's an important topic that we will continue to monitor. Thank you. We will have a couple of minutes as a break, and then we'll tackle the final point on the agenda for this morning. I invite all colleagues now to take a seat, for those who have joined us for this final point on the morning's agenda.
So we will continue our session now with a debate that's more urgent than ever. Across the world, press freedom continues to decline, while independent journalists and media are under increasing pressure. These developments have profound consequences on the functioning of democracies around the world, and on the ability of citizens to access reliable information. Objective, independent, and factual journalism remains a cornerstone of democracy. It is essential to hold those in power to account, to denounce abuse and corruption, and to give visibility to injustices that otherwise would remain invisible.
When journalists are silenced, intimidated, or coerced into self-censorship, democratic resilience itself is weakened. The European Parliament has always supported journalists and media freedom around the world. Through our resolutions and external action, we have repeatedly condemned attacks, harassment, and impunity against media professionals. In 2023, our subcommittee adopted a dedicated report on the protection of journalists globally, which makes concrete recommendations on how EU instruments can be better mobilized. This work remains very relevant today and requires sustained follow-up.
In this context, we are closely following the evolution of the cases of journalists and cartoonists living in particularly precarious or dangerous conditions. For example, the Palestinian cartoonist Safa Oda, who was the winner of the pause program of the College of France, who has been waiting since spring 2025 with her sister for their evacuation from the Palestinian enclave of Gaza to France. I welcome our guests today who will help us to assess the current situation with regard to press freedom, in order to identify concrete actions that the European Union can take to step up its support for journalists and strengthen press freedom around the world. I have the pleasure of having all speakers here with me at this panel, madam Julie Majacak, representative to the European institutions at Reporters Without Borders, mister Terry Anderson, executive director of cartoonists' rights, and miss Helena Boguslavsky, deputy head of division for human rights at the EESE. Welcome to all three of you.
And, Julie, I'll give you the floor to begin. You have six minutes.
Good.
Julie Majerczak
Morning. Thank you very much for this invitation. Now we published the World Press Freedom Index last Thursday, so it's as an invitation to talk to you about the most recent threats on journalists and to put forward what the European Union could do. So for the very first time in the history of the World Press Freedom Index, the level is at its lowest ever level. Over half of countries are currently classed as in a difficult or very serious situation.
And this is not just a marginal change, but rather a real structural change. So, how do we get to this position? Well, of course, there are the most visible forms of repression. In 2025, 60 journalists were killed because of their work, and currently, 473 journalists are in prison. In many several different countries, informing others is an act that can cost you your freedom or your life.
Conflicts also play a major role in Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, and especially Gaza. Journalists are paying a heavy price. Since 10/07/2023, over 220 journalists, Palestinian journalists, have been killed in Gaza by the IDF. This is an unprecedented situation. In dictatorships, repression, unfortunately, remains unshakable and systemic.
I could give the examples of, for example, China, North Korea, and Eritrea, which are at the bottom of the index. Eritrea is last at the 180th position, and the journalist Dawit Isak has been held without trial for over twenty years. There are also some states where the access to information has fallen over the last twenty five years because of changes or hardings of political regimes. This is, for example, the case in Hong Kong under the control of China, but also in Georgia, in Saudi Arabia, which is a unique fact in the world executed a journalist Turkey Al Jasser. But simply looking at these facts is not enough because the tactics for fighting press freedom have changed and journalists are ever more threatened.
They are strangled by political discourse, which is becoming ever more hostile toward reporters. It's weakened by a struggling economy in the media, and it's put under pressure by the instrumentalization of laws against the press. Within our index, we've used 5 different indicators. The economic, security, political, social, and legal indicators. And what we've seen this year is that the legal framework indicator is the one that's fallen the most, and the score has fallen by over 60% or in over 60% of the different countries.
And this shows a global trend of instrumentalizing law in order to restrict press freedom, criminalizing journalism, and creating a legal arsenal which is ever more restrictive, especially in terms of national security policies. And this includes even some of our democratic countries. This is especially the case in Georgia, which is struck by over a year of democratic crisis and repression of demonstrators. And the legal arsenal in order to put down the media and adopting restrictive laws on foreign agents and financing media. This criminalization is based on two main mechanisms.
Firstly, the misuse of laws on national security. Twenty-five years after nine eleven, the extension of defense secrets and anti-terrorist laws in many countries is being used to cover up topics in the public interest. Now I can see that I'm slightly running out of time, I'll move forward now. This is a technique. I'll give you some examples.
It's been used in The Philippines where accusations of terrorism have been used as a pretext to silence independent journalists. For example, in Hong Kong, there was a national security law which allowed them to imprison the press tycoon Jimmy Lai. And there is also an increase in the use of slap suits. These are legal actions which don't aim to win in the court, but rather to financially tire out and psychologically tire out the journalists. This is happening even within the European Union. And so given what I've set out, there is a question.
To what extent will we accept this progressive strangling of journalism and this systematic blocking of journalists and the erosion of press freedom. And so the question is, what can the EU do? Because the criminalization of journalism globally is not about a lack of legal means, but it's misusing the existing tools and a shortage of political will to defend the tools. So we need to tackle and fight impunity. Currently, 90% of crimes against journalists remain unpunished, and this is a devastating signal.
It means that you can attack journalists without any consequences, and so the EU needs to actively support international mechanisms in order to strengthen judicial cooperation, and move forward with measures against impunity. RSF, Reporters Without Borders, has also set out five complaints for war crimes against Israel with regard to their conflict against Gaza. The second priority is to support journalists and media in exile, because supporting journalists in exile allows press freedom to be defended. It allows us to remain informed about what's happening in different countries, and it also allows those authoritarian countries for the citizens in those countries to have access to reliable information. Therefore, Europe needs to implement ambitious mechanisms, specific visas, residency permits, family reunions, and access to the labor market.
Because it's not simply about welcoming, we also need to allow them to continue to share news. For example, one of the initiatives and one of the projects, it seems I've run out of time. Well, just one final point, then. Currently, when it comes to Gaza, there is an initiative from various different organizations, including the CPJ and the Feder Confederation of European Journalists. This is a draft letter to Osif on the line and the vice representative, Kai Callas, to use all means possible to open Gaza to the international press.
It's about to be sent. It'll be sent tomorrow. So if any of you haven't yet signed this letter and want to sign it, I will leave it here. I'll allow.
Speaker 20
to be spread around if you do want to get involved in that. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And, yes, time is going very quickly, and, unfortunately, it's my role to remind everybody of that. Mister Anderson, now you have the floor.
Terry Anderson
Thank you. Cartoonist Rights, my organization, is an American nonprofit established in 1989 and dedicated to the defense of the human rights of cartoonists furiously abused, criminalized, displaced, and or threatened with violence because of the material that they draw. We work in very close concert with Cartooning for Peace, Paris, on matters of common interest. And ordinarily, it would be their president addressing you now, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to substitute. Last time we were both here was with cartoonists on the line, a report on threats to editorial and political cartoonists worldwide in the post-pandemic period.
In March, we launched its sequel entitled Under Pressure, and there will be copies of that report available by the door as you exit, in both French and English. I encourage you to avail yourself of it. While cartoonists on the line covered the period 2020 to 2022 and what we had judged to be a doubling of reported incidents of cartoonist censorship, Under Pressure looks at trends and evidence through 2023 through '25. The chief problems of brutal authoritarianism and intolerance of dissent have not abated. But in addition, more insidious forces are at work.
I will expand upon that, but it cannot go unsaid that the single most dramatic change has been in the United States. The president of the United States does not read, and in my view, that is the only reason cartoonists have not been lavished with the same negative attention he bestows upon TV comedians and pundits. However, news media owners and managers are, so to speak, obeying in advance, resulting in a rash of cartoonists resigned, dismissed, or cartoons dropped entirely from titles amid accusations of Trump derangement syndrome or similar. The Gaza conflict has been a multiplier with over-sensitivity to accusations of antisemitism, having an obvious chilling effect. And so to the report, and the 87 cases examined therein, which is a lot, more than I have time to disclose, but a very short list.
I would highlight Muhammad al Hazza, who was approaching the end of a six-year prison sentence for charges pertaining to a cartoon published in Qatari media amid a Saudi Arabian economic boycott when, at an unknown date in 2024, a secret and therefore illegal retrial was held. Many months later, his family in Albaja learned that his sentence had been extended to 23 years. In addition to the numerous abuses that have occurred to his rights as a defendant, it is alleged that his medical needs have been neglected and that he has been tortured. We were cosignatories to a submission put before the UN working group and arbitred detention on Al Hasa's behalf in January. In Cairo, July 2024, the home of cartoonist and translator Ashraf Omar was raided, and he and the contents of his workspace were seized.
Initially, the police denied involvement, as is often the way in Egypt. But after 48 hours, it was established that Omar was indeed a prisoner and had been interrogated with his wife, Nadim Mugiith, later saying that threats of electrocution were made. He was subject to measures introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic and never repealed, which entailed video conferences with a judge and prosecutor, renewing a cycle of pretrial detention with no opportunity to object or seek recourse, and only now ending as we've recently learned that full trial proceedings against him will at last begin May 10, accused of assisting and financing terrorism. And in late June last year, Le Man magazine published a cartoon by Doan Pelivan that portrayed two deceased souls ascending to heaven from the ruins of Gaza. A Jew named Moses or Musa, and a Muslim named Mohammed.
And this was, in our view, willfully and deliberately misreported as a portrayal of the prophet, leading to mass protests at the magazine's Istanbul office, and the heavily publicized arrest of Pelevan plus four other staff members, with a sixth co-accused abroad at the time and now living in exile in France. Criminal trials of these five began yesterday, although they were essentially sent home and told to return in mid-October. Meanwhile, the magazine itself has been shut down, maligned as an instrument of foreign influence, and investigated on supposed financial irregularities. This was the last remaining of what was once a humor magazine stable to rival any in Europe, gradually worn away under President Erdogan's time in office. Lastly, we have taken a close look at cartoonists' experiences online.
Again, the findings are large in volume, and there are 21 separate recommendations that we have in the report, which I will not try to summarize here. But we are focused on censorship and content moderation, rather abuse aimed at cartoonists, our precarity within the media ecosystem, and the risks posed by AI. We'd welcome your support in addressing those concerns to otherwise unapproachable tech giants. But to return to the idea of pressure from invisible forces, it is noteworthy that almost half the cartoonists feel, although naturally they cannot prove it, that they have been shadow banned. And of those who report more direct censorship, content removal, account suspension, etc., the most frequently cited reason is the political content of their work.
And although majorities say that they have been insulted, threatened, had cause to feel anxious or fearful, figures that also spike among female and among younger cartoonists, most do not bother to report these problems to third parties, nor do those who appeal succeed with moderators. The online space is the last result, the last redoubt for so many cartoonists abandoned by traditional or legacy media. We cannot allow it to become a hopelessly hostile environment. Thank you. Thank.
Helena Boguslavsky
Thank you very much for inviting DES to this panel. I will start maybe by saying the obvious, that democracy cannot exist without a free press and that independent media is a cornerstone of any democratic society. And it's essentially alongside the freedom of expression. These are fundamental human rights. These are not just nice to have.
Speaker 24
In this respect, international law is very clear. Journalists must be protected at all times. They must be able to carry out their work freely without undue interference, fear of violence, harassment, intimidation, persecution, or expulsion. And this is especially critical in conflict zones where journalists shed light on the realities of war and where they often also show in the spotlight the potential war crimes. We have heard from my fellow panelists that 2025 was the deadliest year for journalists worldwide ever recorded.
Helena Boguslavsky
It is, of course, largely due to wars and conflicts. We have seen it in Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and also the current conflicts in The Middle East, recently in Gaza and Lebanon as well as in many places in Africa. All those killings should be fully investigated, and those responsible should be held accountable. But also elsewhere across the world, we see that the killings, injuring, threatening, arbitrary detention, torture, forcing into exile, and silencing of journalists. It really has become a shocking reality, and we have seen also in our contacts with the civil society that it has been really growing, particularly last year. Women journalists are disproportionately targeted by gender-based violence, including online harassment and abuse, which also further silences critical voices.
We have also seen the steep decline in the legal environment in many places. And as Mrs. Mayerczak also referred to the intimidation offline and online, along with the strategic lawsuits against public participation, so-called SLAPPs type of legislation that risk fostering this kind of self-censorship behavior amongst journalists. There are new, very inventive ways of presenting new types of legislation in many countries, all kinds of laws on state secrets that potentially compel journalists to reveal sources, the misuse of the terrorist laws, fake news charges, all the cybersecurity, cybercrime bills, also the intrusive surveillance techniques, and so on. We have decried the intimidation and repression against journalists taken by the authoritarian regimes, notably including violence and repression by the Iranian regime.
And we raised the need for the governments to set a solid legal framework to protect the journalists. I would like to mention also one more challenge that we see as a growing challenge in the past few years. The fact that traditional media outlets are struggling, including struggling financially. They are also cutting networks of foreign correspondents. And all this together creates a bit of a void in which we see more and more outlets posing as media that try to fill in and spread fake news or echoing de facto dosing power instead of holding them accountable.
So it floods then the public with propaganda and disinformation. It requires us to pay particular attention also to the issue of the independence of the public broadcasters, transparency of media ownership. We have also been raising consistently the issue of the Internet shutdowns that also have an effect on curtailing freedom of information and expression and impact the work of journalists and bloggers. We have just issued a statement last week on the World Press Freedom Day by the high representative Kayakalas on behalf of the EU. So agreed that by all the EU member states in which the European Union reaffirms its resolute commitment to defend free pluralistic media, independent and qualitative journalism against all this mounting pressure.
We have also marked last year the international day to end impunity for crimes against journalists. It's on November 2. But this is, of course, just the symbolic steps. We reflect all those commitments and try to address all those concerns also in our daily work, both in Brussels and also in the delegations around the world and together with the member states in team Europe, as well as in partnership with a lot of other partners. I can mention the European Endowment for Democracy, which supports a lot of independent platforms and journalists.
We work a lot with the UN on the protection of journalists and media workers, with UNESCO and also with the Council of Europe and OECD. I have to say that all this is, of course, in the somehow growing more challenging global landscape. It's not enough, but it is necessary work that we are trying to carry out. And if I may put a bit of publicity for an upcoming publication that we will have, we will soon publish our annual report on human rights and democracy that should come out in the coming weeks. And in this report, one of the important factual benchmarks that we use is always the WordPress Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders.
So it's, for us, also a regular source of information to factually present the human rights situation in various countries. So we thank also for the latest edition of the index that was published. And the report will also contain a lot of examples of concrete actions that we have taken around the world, including on media freedom and on protection of journalists. So I will not dwell on particular examples, but I would very much like to refer to this upcoming publication. It's an annual publication.
And it also presents a picture of the worsening situation one year after another, particularly on this file.
Speaker 26
Advertising message, and I'm sure the members of the subcommittee will closely read your annual report. And maybe we could continue discussing the various subjects. So for this socialist, I'll give the floor to our first bride president, Marta DeMillo. You have the floor. Thank you very much, Chair.
I'll speak Portuguese.
Thank.
Marta Temido
Thank you very much for today's presentations. There's no way no other way to start than by saying that this moment we are celebrating, in a way, the International Day for Press Freedom couldn't be taking place in a more concerning moment in time, bearing in mind the news we hear every day and also the reports we've read recently. Today, they have brought up a lot of these concerning facts. Half the countries covered by the report now fall under the categories of difficult or very difficult in terms of freedom of the press. And we can't help but notice that there's a relationship between these results and those of another recent report, which we have discussed in this committee, Varieties of Democracy.
This also shows that democracies throughout the world are sinking. Journalists murdered, imprisoned, taken to court, accused of terrorism, and attempts on national security, amongst many other problems. This is something we hear about all the time, which is extremely concerning. I know that in this committee, we work in parallel with the external action service, and many of our EU countries are also facing these problems. I have a special concern with Eritrea, and because I do work with African matters, Eritrea is at the bottom of this ranking.
But we noticed that the European freedom Media Freedom Act is being disrespected in many of our own member states, and that's something I that's what I'd like you to speak about on the panel. It's easy to point out the splinter in our brother's eye while having a beam in our own. The national regulations, which call into question the European Freedom Media Act, are concerning. When we look at Bulgaria, Malta, Italy, have legislation which already exists or which is being prepared for implementation, which questions the independence of the public broadcasters, we need to be worried. So what can we do to improve the freedom of speech, which is being threatened not just in countries which are being considered for EU membership, but our existing members.
And we have more sophisticated attacks within the EU. How can we support journalists and protect them from financial attacks? They're not as deadly as murders, of course, but they are very problematic for democracy. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you. Isabelle has just joined us. I'll give the floor now to Mister Vale for two minutes. And if Isabelle wishes to take the floor before the end of the table round, I will give her the floor. Mister Vale.
Thank.
Grégoire de Fournas
You, Chair, and thank you to the speakers. I've got a question for Ms. Majerjak, in particular, on behalf of Reporters Without Borders. I'm sure you know of Christophe Cress, who's been detained in Algeria for a year now, and his family is hoping that he will be pardoned by the president and will get home before the World Cup. And Algeria, according to your own index, is at position 145 in the league.
Speaker 31
Now, in January, there was the issue of Charlie Hebdo. We remember the executions of the cartoonists there. There should be full liberty for those. Our country is most affected by the terrorism of the member states. And there are when it comes to demonstrations of journalists who have press cards, I wonder if you could comment on that.
Grégoire de Fournas
It's difficult for domestic security forces to know who's an activist and who's a journalist, and who is there to cause problems if they don't follow journalists' codes, codes of ethics, and rules. So picking up on what our colleague Marta was saying. In some countries, we're seeing channels closed by the far-left. BFM TV, I think, is one that has provided support for this issue. And I think the press does need to have the right to inform the population.
Isabel Wiseler-Lima
Isabel, do you want to take the floor now? Two minutes. Thank you. I'm really sorry I wasn't there from the start. It is a difficult situation for journalists today, and I never talk about press freedom without mentioning how important it is for democracy, how important it is to have an independent press.
It has a vital role, and there are dangers for journalists as they go about their work. And I'm thinking about the number of journalists who have died when carrying out their work, and we can never emphasize this enough on World Press Freedom Day. There's one point which is of concern, may not have been tackled that much, which is the Internet and all the dangers that it entails for journalism, whether this is loss of credibility because there is incorrect information going around, and it's being assimilated to the work of journalists even though it's not the case at all. And also, there's a problem of the very survival of journalism, financially speaking, the fact that the work is not paid. It's actually stolen from the Internet.
And that means that there are major problems for journalism across the world, not just limited to one continent. So maybe you could touch on that aspect. And once again, let me thank you very much for all you're doing.
Thank.
Speaker 17
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm very pleased that on this International Day of Journalism, we are talking about journalists who are being prosecuted or imprisoned in all areas of the world. I'm pleased that you have mentioned Ms. Eli. His sentence, in practical terms, means life imprisonment. And there are a number of people imprisoned across the world, and our obligation is to try to free them.
But you haven't mentioned one state, Belarus, because there, despite some amnesty, a number of people are still being imprisoned. For example, Mr. Ivanishin, who is imprisoned for the fight with a repressive regime. But I have one question for Ms. Bogusławska.
Support from the media in a country like Belarus. Financial support to such media is not very generous, but this support ends up with intermediary organizations, and the funds may not necessarily end up with independent Belarusian journalists. And so there are a number of media, Belarusian media, independent media that have never received any European fund. So I would like to ask you to look into it, because it will be good that these moderate funds be distributed in a credible manner.
Speaker 34
I'd like to start by thanking all of the panelists who spoke today, and to highlight that I fully agree with everything that was said by the two representatives of Reporters Without Borders and Cartoonists' Rights because you really touched upon all very different but all very serious challenges that journalists face nowadays. And, particularly, I think it's important to highlight what was said, that more than 200 journalists have been targeted and murdered by the Israeli army in the past two years of the genocide. So I thank you for also naming this letter that you're working on for the access of journalists to Gaza, and I'll very gladly, after the meeting, come and sign it if I haven't already. But it doesn't end there, unfortunately. It really is a trend that we see a bit all over the world.
So thank you also for bringing up the repression of free media and of entertainers, by the Trump administration, which has huge repercussions on democracy and how that democracy is able to function and how much that then affects the rest of the world, of course, as well as, for example, the wave of misinformation and disinformation that threatens our democracies. And here, I would, of course, leave it mostly to our colleagues in the Lieber Committee and in the cult committee to really describe the situation that journalism is in in the European Union. But it goes without saying that it is also extremely problematic, and there's a lot of work to do at home, aside from the work we want to do abroad, obviously. And finally, to highlight that this is a human rights issue not just for the journalists themselves because they put their freedom at risk because they subject themselves to violence, to threats, to jail time, to even death sometimes, but also to citizens of the world, anywhere because they lose their rights to independent information. And only with credible information, you're able to hold your governments or large institutions accountable.
And without that, you can't. So really, to highlight this. And I guess in line of questions, I would just like to ask you, how do you assess the efforts of the European Union at the moment to protect journalists around the world? And are there two or three key points that you'd like to leave us, parliamentarians, with, to keep in mind in our future discussions with members of other countries, in our urgency resolutions, in our motions, and everything in our work? What are two or three key topics that you'd like us to keep attention to?
Thank you.
Fabienne?
Speaker 35
Thank you very much. Mister Takino and Miss Fredel are here. I will give them the floor for one minute if they wish to give the panelists time to respond. Mister Takino, thank you, Chair, and thank you. Thank you for your testimony and for the leitmotif running through what people have said.
Speaker 37
Let me quote a case which occurred in Nicaragua. The union of journalists was dissolved one year ago, and 250 journalists are living in exile. So everything is linked together. And only 1% of the world's population lives in the country where there is a free press. There are many Tunisian and Palestinian journalists I'd like to pay tribute to.
Speaker 39
And there are many journalists who have died, even more than those recorded in the official numbers. And I've accounted for two fifty reporters killed. And then, of course, their family, there was a proposal to launch an appeal for press freedom in Europe. And I think this is something we need at a global level. We need to support the families of those affected who are experiencing genuine difficulties.
Chloé Ridel
Yes. Thank you very much to the speakers. They're setting out a situation which is very worrying. And I refer to the Reporters Without Borders report, which shows that press freedom is at its lowest ebb for 25 years, and only 1% of the world's population lives in a country with a really free press. That is a really shocking figure, and this should lead us to react strongly at the European level because pluralism and press freedoms are values which we need to defend.
It is a condition for democracy and freedom. Today, journalists are threatened by media ownership concentration and the fact that they are intimidated and targeted for doing their job, particularly in conflict zones. 93 journalists were killed in 2025. 220 journalists have been killed since 2023 in Gaza. Two thirds of those killed in the world.
Isabel Wiseler-Lima
So we do need to support the fight for the truth. Isabelle, were you wanting to come back at all? No? Though I would like to strike a positive note, the Sakharov Prize winner has not been released. That's something very positive.
Speaker 38
And I think that shows that our actions can lead to good results, though I'm afraid his colleague is still in prison. But sometimes, we do manage to get things done. So just a positive note there. So I return to the panelists. You're going to have to answer the questions in record time, very rapid-fire, maximum three minutes each.
Julie Majerczak
Well, I already had difficulty giving my presentation in six minutes, so I'm not sure if I can answer all the questions, but I'll do what I can. Well, the EU, democracies in Europe need to take effective action. I mean, the subject was press freedom in the world. But the MFAR, the Media Freedom Act, has been in application since last August, and not all countries have updated their legislation accordingly. So the member states and the commission really need to act and monitor the implementation, and launch infringement proceedings if necessary.
On the dangers of the Internet, yes, that is one of the things that RSF does keep reminding people of, because when everything's mixed together, this reduces the credibility of journalists. People no longer believe in anything if there is a lot of incorrect information going around. And then the platforms, of course, have now taken over 80% of the advertising revenue that used to go to the media. So that's a real problem. And then, of course, this generative AI, which makes it even harder to distinguish the true from the false.
And whether we're talking about the DSA or the AI Act, I don't think European legislation is sufficient. And urgency resolutions, I think, have come up. There are many things which are worrying. I mean, we have to continue fighting. Otherwise, I wouldn't be in RSF at all.
And parliament resolutions may not always appear to have an effect. People don't like being put under pressure, of course, but sometimes there are positive developments that happen later. So I do ask you to continue. Serbia is a country which is of great concern to us, and the EU needs to act more strongly. Georgia and Gaza as well.
I still don't understand how the association agreement with Israel still stands when it does have a human rights clause, which says if there are flagrant violations of human rights, this agreement needs to be suspended. Now if the Israeli army isn't committing flagrant violations of human rights, I wonder what that term actually means. The next speaker, please.
Terry Anderson
Thank you. Mention has already been made of Safa Oda. If you'll permit me, I just want to return to her case before I leave you today. Earlier this week, she was the winner of the Co Fianna Encourage and Cartooning Award presented by the Freedom Cartoonist Foundation in Geneva. As the chair mentioned, she has been languishing in a tent in the Can Yunus refugee camp along with her sister despite a promise for relocation to France through the POWDS program.
I would encourage everyone within this end of my voice to use every sinew available to you to make sure that promise is kept to both those women. She wasn't the only winner. The other laureate was Jimmy Sintongo from Uganda. Again, a cartoonist harassed for many years by, in fact, parliamentarians. And that was reflected in the anxiety and the fear that we see reported to us by the cartoonists with whom we correspond.
The this in the past decade, the primary fear is no longer the threat of extremism or terrorism. It is criminalization and harassment from the state itself. So when it comes to cases within the EU itself, I think that action has whatever action can be taken against SLAPPs as I've already been mentioned today, these kind of lawsuits that are perhaps not even intended or mounted with victory in mind, but to harass, to cause anxiety, to consume time and resources, and effectively discourage the cartoonist. I think of Cristina Sao Paulo in Portugal and sued over a cartoon that was broadcast on public TV by the police unions, for example, or Mario Natangelo in Italy, sued for definition by the sister of the prime minister despite the fact that he thought it had been cleared of any wrongdoing by the regulatory press authority. So a case that didn't actually have much merit, but was pursued anyway with the intention of harassment.
To the lady in the center of the room, there are 21 concrete recommendations about the Internet and the report that you can collect from the door. So I won't go over them all here. But to echo what's just been said, the commission should include monitoring and reporting of cartoonist situation and emergency responses included EU delegation levels, ensure that cartoonists are beneficiaries to the same schemes and measures that are applied to cartoonists. There was language like that in the July 2023 resolution for the protection of journalists in the world, and the European Union's policy on the matter, so I encourage you to bear that in mind. Our work is affected by DSA implementation with regard to moderation, algorithm transparency, and harmful or illegal behavior, abuse, etcetera, online.
And going forward, any new legislation on generative AI that represent must generative AI must be closely monitored and regulated. It represents not only an existential threat to all creative professions, but constitutes an unprecedented assault on the very notions of expertise and veracity. And in fact, it's been devised in a very large part by individuals whose beliefs are at odds with human rights. Thank you.
Helena Boguslavsky
Thank you very much. I will, I would like to address two specific questions that were asked by the honorable members.
One, missus mentioned the Eritrea case. This is one of the files on which the European Union had a long standing leadership in multilateral fora. We have this regular resolution in the Human Rights Council that provides the mandate of the special rapporteur who monitors the situation in Eritrea. And as long as there is no positive evolution and we have not observed this, this is something that we repeat every year, and we provide the opportunity also for the special reporter to provide his own reports and speak to the UN membership. And this is also the resolution that should normally be coming up in June this year.
And on the issue of Belarus, and thank you very much for raising this, we have at this very moment, actually, I'm pleased to say that there is an open call for proposals for support specifically for journalists from Belarus, Russia, and also those journalists who have been relocated from Ukraine that is open by my colleagues from the European Commission to provide independent and free information to audiences in their languages. It's open until May 28, and it's €3,000,000. But it's, of course, on top of previous projects that have been rolled out in previous years. And specifically for Belarus, I think since 2020, there has been over €200,000,000 for Belarusian civil society, human rights defenders, independent journalists that was dispatched. My own experience in talking to the Belarusian and Russian journalists is that, indeed, often these are not necessarily huge amounts of money that we are able to provide as the European Union. But these are often, as you have said, relatively small outlets. And what is really impressive is that with relatively small means, it reaches huge, huge audiences in Russia and Belarus.
Often, the readership and the audiences of the broadcast that they are able to provide is actually much bigger than those of many big media outlets in the European Union. So this is really multiplying effect with the relatively small amount sometimes that we are able to provide to those media. Thank you very much.
Speaker 26
Thank you. Just a few words. Everything which applies to journalists also applies to press cartoonists. They also play an important role in the freedom of speech. We need to continue to mobilize to support freedom of speech.
This is a barometer for democracy, and it used to be a barometer which defines our relationship with other countries. We also need to support freedom of press throughout the world, and I encourage our group members to bear this in mind during MFF discussions so that this topic stays at the forefront because it's something we need more than ever. We need financing from the EU more than ever to be able to guarantee the survival of the independent press throughout the world. Thank you very much. I will close this session.
Mounir Satouri
We'll meet again at 3 for a closed session. It's in a different room, so check your emails, and I'll see you then. And have a good lunch in the meantime.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.