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
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
AFET European Parliament
Follow its sittingsElizabeth Spehar
I would like to basically focus on three messages to you this afternoon, and they are the following. First of all, I think we need to agree that peacebuilding and conflict prevention are not acts of charity. They're investments in Europe's own security and prosperity. Secondly, and I think this is a very important point as well, the European Union and the United Nations share common values and uphold the same principles, but we also have to work together to rebuild trust and demonstrate that multilateralism is delivering tangible results. And thirdly, at a moment of growing conflict and geopolitical instability, peacebuilding and conflict prevention have to move from the margins to the center of our collective response.
In terms of my first message on peacebuilding and conflict prevention being strategic investments in security, stability, and prosperity. We often talk about investing in peacebuilding and prevention as a moral imperative and an act of global solidarity. I think that's absolutely true and I think that remains very central certainly again to manifesting our true belief in the values and principles that we always talk about.
But it's also about reducing risks before they become security threats, before you have untenable migration pressures or economic costs that affect Europe directly. And as the European Union debates its future competitiveness, its economic security interests, its defense investments, all very important and very legitimate, and as my colleague Peter Wagner just mentioned, the next multi-annual financial framework, prevention should be viewed as part of Europe's broader security strategy. In a context of difficult budgetary choices, and I know that many of your governments are cutting the ODA allocations at the moment, in such a context, prevention shouldn't be seen as a competing priority.
We think it's one of the smartest investments available. We often spend a great deal of money responding to crises once they erupt. But the evidence is clear: preventing conflict is far less costly than dealing with its consequences. Peter Wagner was mentioning some statistics, I will give you another one. There was a recent study by the International Monetary Fund, and it found that the return on prevention investment averages 103 dollars on the dollar.
And prevention investments are just a fraction of a percentage of what we are spending currently on military expenditure. We are not saying we shouldn't defend ourselves, we are not saying that deterrence through military and defense means are not vital, particularly at this moment, but that there is room, including fiscal room, for modest but critical investments in prevention and longer-term peacebuilding. My second message on the EU and the UN having strong shared values and the fact that our partnership matters.
As you know, we share an unshakable commitment to multilateralism, international law, human rights, democratic governance, and the belief that sustainable peace requires inclusive political solutions, accountable institutions, and the rule of law. At a time when these principles are challenged, the EU and the UN remain natural allies in defending and achieving them. And we really rely on you for that at the United Nations. But we also have to acknowledge an uncomfortable reality, and that is that across many parts of the world, trust in international institutions, both global, regional, are under strain.
There are growing perceptions of inconsistency and double standards. Polarization is increasing. We need to have a response to this. And then the third message, as I'm running out of time, peacebuilding and prevention must move closer to the center of our effective response to today's crises. We have an enormous scale of challenges.
They have been mentioned: devastating wars in Sudan, Ukraine, the Middle East, and elsewhere. In this context, the question isn't whether we can afford to invest in prevention and peacebuilding, the question is whether we can afford not to. Thank you.
Now, the question is, would you like to say further points or should we immediately give the floor to the coordinators? I mean, there was a, there was agreed that there would be a second round, but you know, give us a few more examples. Okay, then we'll do that. So perhaps you can now give us some concrete examples how to showcase the EU-UN partnership. Once again, you both have the floor for five minutes each.
Speaker 1
Okay, thank you. I'll begin again. Let me begin with some geographies because before then also talking about some topics on which beyond peace in the general term we are cooperating.
On geographies, one of the most recent ones is Moldova, where you are probably familiar with a lot of the activities that the European Union in short tried to deploy to have fair and transparent elections. Now, in our case, we jointly started working there in 2023, 2024, so well ahead of the cycle, to prevent radicalization and to work on strengthening the electorate system. In parallel, we also worked on stabilization on the social front through joint measures with regard to energy security, but also then, unfortunately, we had to become very active jointly in helping in the influx of millions or the transit then of millions of refugees from Ukraine.
Another example is Gaza where we are jointly with some of our UN partners, we as EU are the biggest donor with regard to humanitarian demining and we work on this and a number of other activities together with UN partners. As far as conditions permit, this is already rubble removal to some degree, but very much at the moment still the basic access at all. So for us that is as part of beyond all the investments announced very important. Ukraine, we worked a lot on demining.
We work a lot on rubble removal, early recovery, etc. But there probably members know best. Allow me to jump maybe to one or two topics also where we work hand in hand. One of them is mediation. In a number of countries, Gambia, Peru, Mali, Moldova, Yemen, Papua New Guinea, Burundi, Niger, Zimbabwe, we are working together to help mediating internal or regional conflicts.
And we very often rely there on the standby team of the United Nations. I refer to it that we are partly funding, being deployed rapidly or where necessary also being deployed over time.
With regard to topics I mentioned, anything around stabilization, and that is then depending very much on the country that one can do, the UN is a very close and credible partner to us. That can be energy support, but that can also include other activities on which we are working together. It can be demining, it can be very basic provision of public goods and services in newly liberated areas in some of the conflict countries. Final word on maybe the currently too often in our region forgotten conflict where we are jointly active, that is Haiti, where we are jointly preparing now that the conditions allow to do so to go in with some stabilization activities where through the UN, the EU will support the forward deployment of civilian police forces to stabilize regions beyond a few parts of the capital.
Right. Ms. Spehar, please.
Elizabeth Spehar
Thank you very much. Let me try to complement a little bit in the in the time allotted. I mean, one of the we we feel that in terms of the Sahel, which is, of course, an extremely turbulent region in Africa, from which many problems stem, they are experiencing tremendous violence, terrorism, and this is also spilling across their borders to the wider region as well as also coming to these to these shores.
And one of the interesting countries that we've worked well together with the EU is Mauritania. Now, you don't hear about Mauritania that much. It's not in the headlines, and this is good news, because a few years ago Mauritania decided to invest in a preventive approach.
And so relative to its neighbors, it is really quite a stable place and it has been doing the investments necessary to address their a number of their internal challenges, but also to look to look to what they can do in terms of their of their borders. One of the specific things they decided to to invest in is a national prevention strategy and that is going to be guiding them to address the drivers of fragility in their country, such as economic exclusion, social fragmentation and the cross-border threats. We have worked very closely not only with the EU, but also with the World Bank and the African Development Bank to support this strategy.
And I think it's increasing incredibly important both for that country but again also for the surrounding areas and for Europe because if we can support Mauritania as a successful prevention example, others I hope will will follow. One of the interesting things that we supported oh, I'm already running out of time, my goodness, in Mauritania is a Murshidats network which was supporting women who used religion to basically deconstruct the the terrorist narrative. And it has really proven effective in helping convince young people not to join these terrorist networks. It's just one example, but of course institution building many other aspects are also part of that of that of that partnership with with Mauritania.
Let me quickly maybe talk about two other examples. One is the Democratic Republic of the Congo and also the Central African Republic. I think it's these are very important examples because they're also peacekeeping examples of peacekeeping operations, peacekeeping theaters where the UN is playing quite an important role in in trying to help stabilize those countries and build a path towards sustainable peace. But we've also worked very well to both with the the peacekeeping operation, the broader UN system and of course national and local authorities to work on the root causes of a number of the the root causes of these of these conflicts internally.
So in the case of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, MONUSCO, the peacekeeping operation, will be drawing down over time. It has already withdrawn from several parts of the country. My office has been helping through the Secretary General's Peacebuilding Fund to support efforts that help the national and local authorities and the UN country team to carry on the important work in terms of stabilization, reconciliation, transitional justice efforts that the mission started in in certain localities and that now they are leaving behind as they as they withdraw.
In the case of the Central African Republic as well, there's a lot of coherence that we are building across our UN system to support that country and also with the EU. And very recently we were able to support an effort where we now have a common framework between EU, UN, African Development Bank and the national authorities based on their national development program to try to use that to stabilize the country and to generate peace dividends.
Peter mentioned Moldova, so I will not belabor that point, but there are many other examples. And indeed, in terms of thematically what we are working on, we are working, yes, on providing quick solutions and availing ourselves of windows of opportunity when they do arise in crisis contexts or in preventive contexts. But we are also investing in longer-term peacebuilding together, building those institutions, helping to open up civic space. And all of these efforts also are incredibly important because otherwise we may be looking at relapse in a number of places, so that conflicts are not resolved, or resolved in terms of the immediate symptoms, if you will, but the underlying issues are not resolved and then we go back to a crisis context. Thanks.
Michael Gahler
Right. Thanks. And now we have an exchange of views and I give the floor to interested members and the first speaker is Mr. Gahler.
Yes, thank you very much to the speakers for giving us a hint how the cooperation goes ahead. I think it makes perfect sense, especially in regions where the UN is permanently present with a strong, well, équipe, with a team, and an additional crisis breaks out and humanitarian aid or whatever is needed, that we make use of that instead of starting from scratch, although we have also structures that could provide if it were an emergency situation. Or for other purposes, there was the Moldova or Ukraine was mentioned. Our concern here has always been a bit that the visibility of the European Union gets lost, simply because UN is bigger, the UN has its structures that are working in their way, they have some other ways and means to work than we do.
We as a parliament have our role of scrutiny. And then for me, I simply would like to know how in practical terms things work. I mean, is it the UN that is present with a project and we agree and then we have to agree to your terms, or is it a real negotiation in a way? Do we really make our points in a way that, well, that we have an impact, or would the UN in their presence say, okay, either take it or leave it, we have other partners who could also pass by?
Well perhaps it's a bit a simplistic view from outside but simply how is your experience and I ask both your experience with us we know the EU is sometimes a bit complicated on the one hand on the other side how is our experience from our people with the UN are they flexible enough to agree to our wishes so is that a win-win situation or is it something where we'd rather say okay we have to cooperate because there is no alternative but we create mutually rather frustration than success. Simply let us know how the atmosphere is and point visibility of EU is important for us.
Thank you next is Chloe Riedel. Or Nacho.
Nacho, you are not on my list.
Nacho Sánchez Amor
Okay, thank you, thank you Chloé.
And sorry, sorry, David. Well, I'm using Spanish, so if you need to use your headphones. Gracias por la presencia y gracias por el formato, porque eso nos permite, ligando con lo que decía ahora Michael, tener a las dos partes de la ecuación y no tener solo la visión que nos podría dar la Comisión y, por tanto, poder apreciar realmente, como decía Michael, en la práctica cómo se trabaja en diferentes escenarios. También poner en el centro la prevención tiene todo el sentido porque el mapa de nuestras operaciones no deja de ser en cierto modo el mapa de nuestros fracasos en la prevención. Tenemos que ir a un sitio porque la crisis no se ha evitado antes.
Será responsabilidad de muchos actores internacionales y domésticos, pero lo cierto es que poner en el centro la prevención tiene todo el sentido porque, como se ha dicho aquí, yo creo que todos estaremos de acuerdo, es mucho más barato prevenir un conflicto que entrar a costear un conflicto. Y desde ese punto de vista, todo el apoyo. Una preocupación. Una preocupación. Este buen desarrollo de las relaciones, esta capacidad de llegar a los escenarios de crisis, en ningún modo puede ser una fórmula para dejar en segundo plano las responsabilidades.
En el caso de Ucrania, este Parlamento no se cansa de decir quién es responsable del daño y, por tanto, quién tiene que pagar la reparación. En el caso de Israel no. En el caso de Israel, lo que está sucediendo en el sur del Líbano es como un terremoto, es un fenómeno natural, nadie lo provoca y, por tanto, nadie está llamado a correr con el coste de la recuperación. Y yo creo que nuestras misiones tienen que poner el énfasis en que estamos en los sitios, pero que eso no puede ser un mecanismo de escape de las responsabilidades que tiene cada uno.
Y creo que el escenario, los escenarios diversos que ha creado a su alrededor Israel son un buen ejemplo de esta capacidad para escapar a las responsabilidades, siento tener que decirlo, por un silencio culpable de las instituciones europeas a las que les cuesta enormemente atribuir responsabilidades a quienes las tienen. Y en el caso de la destrucción sistemática de Gaza, objetivos militares y civiles y víctimas terroristas y civiles, y en el caso del sur del Líbano, siempre hay una fórmula de evitar atribuir responsabilidades a Israel. Y creo que eso es un error que daña la credibilidad de nuestras misiones. ¿Qué estaríamos diciendo si Rusia hubiera obligado a una misión como UNIFIL a estar dentro de los búnkers durante varios días sin acceso a agua y comida?
¿Qué diríamos si hubieran muerto seis integrantes de una operación militar de Naciones Unidas por uno de los agresores? Yo creo que en otros escenarios estaríamos siendo mucho más vocales de lo que lo estamos siendo en el caso de las actividades de Israel fuera de Israel violando el derecho internacional.
Y una cuestión sobre la Comisión. La Comisión siempre nos pide al Parlamento grandes bolsas de dinero y flexibilidad para gastar. Y yo entiendo que esa es la lógica de un gobierno y la lógica de un Parlamento es la contraria. Oiga, dígame en qué se va a gastar el dinero. Y por tanto por eso nosotros este tipo de funciones o de competencias queremos que estén en las acciones programables del pilar global de Global Europe, que es el modelo anterior.
Esto para nuestros amigos de Naciones Unidas debe sonar a marciano. Pero para decírselo en términos sencillos, el Parlamento quiere saber la programación en la que se gastan, incluidas estas misiones, y no dejar un saco sin etiqueta para que la Comisión decida en cada momento en qué gasta.
Esa es una tensión natural en todos los sistemas políticos. Yo creo que es bueno que la Comisión entienda que el Parlamento quiere saber antes de aprobar el Parlamento que las acciones programables sean más de las que ahora hay y que este tipo de acciones estén en lo que llamamos en nuestra jerga presupuestaria entre las acciones programables del llamado pilar global. Nada más y muchas gracias.
António Tânger Corrêa
Thank you Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests and dear colleagues. I agree what exactly what you said before, I mean our distinguished guests. And my country, it's Portugal, will keep on on humanitarian and peacekeeping operations forever. I mean, you can count on us. This said, I'd like to to say a few things.
Okay, projects presented under the broad umbrella of stability, peacebuilding or international partnership cannot become a blank check, especially when many of them are not directly linked to peace, security or the concrete interest of European citizens. At a time when European countries face pressure on energy, healthcare services, agriculture, defense and border protection, every euro spent outside European Union must be justified by clear and real European interests and measurable results.
This is particularly important as we prepare the next MFF for 2028-2034. The current Global Europe instrument under the 2021-2027 framework already requires 30% of its financial envelope to contribute to climate objectives, while at least 85% of new actions must have gender equality as a principal or significant objective. These priorities are not marginal; they shape the whole instrument.
The next MFF must not simply replicate this model by turning external action into a vehicle for climate, social, or ideological agendas, instead of focusing on security, stability, border protection, and the concrete interests of European citizens. The European Court of Auditors has repeatedly warned about weaknesses in this area. Poor focus and monitoring in Global Europe, insufficiently targeted support in Africa, and in its 2024 report, concerns about the transparency of EU funding granted to NGOs.
This is precisely why the next MFF cannot become a blank check for external spending. So, the question is not whether peace is desirable. Of course it is more than desirable, it is a priority. The question is whether this partnership delivers concrete stability and efficiency, protects European citizens and respects national sovereignty. I therefore have three questions.
First, which public and verifiable indicators will prove that the EU UN peacebuilding spending actually reduces conflict, instability, smuggling and irregular migration? Second, what safeguards will ensure that EU funds are not diverted, misused or captured by corrupt local elites, militias or political networks hostile to European interests? Third, in the next MFF, how EU will guaranteed that peacebuilding serves the security of our nations rather than becoming another vehicle for bureaucratic, climate or ideological agenda? Peace is a serious, very serious objective, but it requires realism, accountability and strict political control.
David McAllister
Thank you, Antonio. I don't see any other coordinators in the room, so I can now give the floor to members, and the first is Željana Zovko.
Željana Zovko
Well, thank you very much, and I mean, it's very important the functions that you are doing, and I was rapporteur for preventive diplomacy in the previous term that this Parliament has adopted.
But I don't think that the amount of money that we pay into UN budget balances the power and also the strong voice that we expect from our contribution in UN peacebuilding decision making. I see much more influence by some other countries and I see these other big players using UN bodies as their logistics.
I also did ocean diplomacy and I can see at play the way they are managing this former G77 or now Global South whatever. When are we going to become realistic and also to take into account the interest of this house and our content that we are trying to put into your debates? Because I mean my colleague just mentioned UNIFIL. I'm originally from the country that has gone through the war and has seen the closure of UN mission but through transformation of you know the army and the fact is that UN has not done anything to prevent what is happening on the border.
And I I met General Aoun who is now president of Lebanon. He was pleading for support and for help 10 years ago. So who is taking responsibility in UN in their in your recommendations? I mean today we are deciding on the on the role of high representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina. What is the UN voice, I mean on lessons learned?
What have you done there to make the country stable? So we have Lebanon on one hand, we have Bosnia and Herzegovina on the other. I mean in the end it will come up that these populists are right that we are just wasting our taxpayers' money if we don't have accountability and lessons learned. So can you offer us some lessons learned that you have done and some soul searching why why are we having UN at this position as we have now?
Thank you.
Chloé Ridel
Yes, thank you very much. I will express myself in French. Merci beaucoup pour vos interventions. Il y a un adage latin qui est hérité de la Rome antique et qui dit : "Si tu veux la paix, prépare la guerre".
Et cet adage continue de guider malheureusement l'essentiel des politiques de sécurité dans le monde avec des résultats non seulement insuffisants mais aussi largement contre-productifs. Et donc vous appelez à juste titre pour préparer la paix non plus à essentiellement préparer la guerre mais à investir dans la prévention, dans le développement, dans la médiation, dans la construction d'institutions qui fonctionnent. Et moi je voulais vous interroger sur une dimension essentielle que mon collègue a aussi abordé de la prévention des conflits qui est l'investissement dans l'émancipation des femmes et des filles dans une diplomatie féministe.
Je sais que les Nations Unies font beaucoup en la matière mais peut-être que vous pourriez détailler ce point parce qu'il me semble fondamental et il faut que dans le cadre du prochain cadre financier pluriannuel de l'Union européenne on consacre suffisamment de financement à l'investissement dans les droits des femmes, dans leur émancipation économique et dans leur accès aux responsabilités politiques parce qu'on sait que c'est aussi comme ça qu'on construit la stabilité et la paix dans le monde. Donc qu'est-ce que vous faites côté des Nations Unies sur ce plan et quelles recommandations pourriez-vous faire à l'Union européenne également en la matière ? Merci.
Davor Ivo Stier
Thank you, Chair, and sorry for coming late to the debate. I was in a different meeting, but thank you very much to all the speakers, in particular, if I may, to Stella Ronner and Elisabeth Spehar. It's very good to see you after several years. And my question would be, nowadays there is a lot of talk about the importance of international law and a lot of criticisms to those countries that are attacking some other countries, violating obviously international law.
However, sometimes the debate is losing the point that international law is not only about the sovereignty of nations, it's also about respecting human rights in the country and treating your people by the authorities in the proper way because when a government is not treating their own people in the proper way, it's very easy that they will then start conflicts with another countries. Now you both have a lot of experience being working at the OSCE or in the case of Elizabeth, the OAS in the unit for promotion of democracy, that's when we met for the first time. What can we do more about that issue? We have in the UN the SDG 16 tackling exactly that aspect, but somehow this is now has been marginalized. I think that it's not we are not paying enough attention.
What else we could do from the EU side in cooperation with UN on this particular point?
David McAllister
Thank you.
Right, I see nobody else would like to take the floor then I will have the final question. I would like to ask our guest speakers, what we heard today is that the EU-UN partnership is truly a cornerstone of effective multilateral action.
The European Union is a huge donor of the United Nations, and I simply have two questions because this money we are handing out to the United Nations is taxpayers' money. We have to justify this in front of our voters, and we are a huge donor of the United Nations. And my questions are also, first of all, how can we improve the accountability? And second, how can we improve the visibility that the world actually knows that it's the European Union who's...
And this is where every time I travel abroad and we see the activities of the United Nations, and we're very active in communicating what we do as United Nations, but sometimes I would see slightly room for improvement who's actually financing this. Others like the Chinese or the Russians are world champions at this. We are always so modest. We hand out hundreds of millions of euros and then we save the last 500 euros for a poster, for a little sign saying that it was actually us. I'm saying this because I think you need to know in the United Nations that we are getting an increasing debate at home because money is short everywhere and we have to increasingly justify this in front of our citizens and voters.
And I sometimes have the impression not everyone has realized that the economic challenges the European Union is facing might also lead that we have to readjust our funding for these international organizations. So what I'm trying to say is I understand that the United Nations is an organization of equals, but it has to be clear who's financing this.
And here I think there is room for improvement and that's why I'm very happy to welcome you today and that we can have this exchange of views because obviously there are not only myself but other colleagues who are asking exactly these questions.
David McAllister
So now we have to give the floor first to Stella Ronner and then to Agi Veres and then we go back to Ms. Spehar and Mr. Wagner. So Stella Ronner and Agi Veres.
Stella Ronner
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all the members for giving me a chance to react very briefly to some of the questions and interventions that were done.
What is important for me representing the multilateral relations directorate of the EEAS is to underline what I hear in the room and what is something that I would really like to mention specifically, the commonality of our thinking with the UN and with various others on three points when it comes to peace and security. First of all, and this has been indeed pointed out by different speakers in different ways, it's really the interlinkage of the peace and security development and human rights and the fact that we see the importance of this also in the peacebuilding sphere.
And actually it was mentioned but available empirical data clearly supports that this interlinkage leads to better and more sustainable peace outcomes just as does the inclusion of civil society women and youth in our planning and operationalizing of missions. They really contribute to peace that lasts longer and in response to Mr. Davor Stier I would say that this is certainly a point where we work very closely with the UN to make this happen concretely on the ground. So again the centrality of humanitarian peace and development nexus in our engagement is fundamental and this has also inspired our new strategic approach on humanitarian diplomacy that was presented jointly with the Commission in the form of a communication just last week and discussed this morning.
So to put it simply, we need to recognize that humanitarian peace and development are connected, also in broader discussions on peace and security that take center stage in the world today that is marked by so many unprecedented challenges and crises.
And in this context, and this is the point that was outlined by Mr. Wagner and by Elizabeth Spehar already, indeed investing in peacebuilding is really a low-cost, high-return intervention. I will not elaborate because it was already done, but for the EU as a global actor for peace, conflict prevention is a core foreign policy objective. And speaking about EU priorities in foreign policy, especially when it concerns conflict prevention and peace, brings me to a third point, and that is to underline our very active role in pursuing peacebuilding, and certainly not least in our partnership with the UN, and I would say also very much on the ground in the field.
Together with our member states, the EU is the main contributor to the UN Peacebuilding Fund with 60% of total funding and we will continue advancing our EU-UN strategic partnership in the years ahead. I should add on this that we have done so and we continue to do so with the full awareness that the increasingly multifaceted character of conflicts and rapidly emerging new forms of warfare require us and our UN interlocutors and the rest of the UN membership, I would add, to continuously reflect about what is needed in a specific context.
So our reflections and again very much done in in in close cooperation and consultation focus on shorter missions, missions that are better integrated in a local context, but also with clear and achievable mandates, but also missions that have a planned exit strategy. So in line with this, we are the EU is very pleased with the successfully concluded peacebuilding architecture review. And it is now key to implement the PBAR results including as as Ms. Behar mentioned via the upcoming first ever peacebuilding week starting on the 22nd in June in New York in June. So work that is very much ongoing. Thank you so much.
Agi Veres
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you very much for the opportunity to be able to contribute to this discussion. Perhaps allow me just to press a few points in in this discussion also in response to some of the questions that were raised. To echo some of the the speakers before, I would really like to emphasize one simple point, that in today's geopolitical environment, the partnership between the UN and the EU is not about abstract cooperation, it's really a strategic, operational, and indispensable cooperation. We've heard some of the examples on in some of the countries, and from UNDP's perspective, we're very much also on the implementation side of of these examples.
And just to demonstrate to you the magnitude of it, out of five billion dollar portfolio that we have annually to deliver development assistance, more than half of it, about 2.6 billion, is in assistance annually to on the ground in crisis and fragile settings. So we are supporting communities in a very integrated and intertwined context.
When we talk about prevention, it's it's rarely a standalone assistance or support that we're providing. It's really about being there for before, during and after crisis, from the earliest days of a crisis through recovery and reconstruction, while also strengthening resilience, long-term durable actions and solutions and addressing the destabilizing impacts and the emerging global threats. And we all know that these destabilizing risks and threats are are evolving and they're rapidly changing, so we also need to think ahead of how to prevent them. And the results are quite concrete. Beyond the examples that we heard in Moldova, Gaza, Mauritania, Haiti and so forth, I also wanted to mention a few specifics vis-à-vis Ukraine.
In Ukraine, our joint crisis assessments across the EU and World Bank and the UN helped move rapidly from the emergency response to recovery planning, restoring energy systems, housing, schools and critical infrastructure.
In 2023 alone, UNDP helped 6.6 million people maintain access to essential services, electricity, heating systems, water and sanitation. And as the UN's lead for mine action, we have cleared already more than 19 square kilometers of contaminated land and removed over 285,000 tons of rubble.
And this is really a prerequisite for returns, for agriculture to put back into production, land to put back into production, and for businesses to restart economic activity. We're also pioneering Ukraine's first underwater demining program, which could be an example for for other conflicts as well. We deliver around 40% of UN's assistance in Ukraine, and this is really more about not just rebuilding what was lost, but it is also about laying the foundations for a more resilient and future-ready Ukraine. Beyond these examples, I think what also matters is to show what effective multilateralism looks like: locally-led prevention, nationally-owned recovery, and partnerships that combine political engagement and sustained investments. For the UN, the support of the European Parliament is critical.
Europe's commitment to multilateralism and prevention matters at a time when both are increasingly contested. So you have a very, very important role in this and we're glad to be a partner in its implementation. I also wanted to talk about the cost of inaction briefly. It's really rising and the repercussions of the military escalation in the Middle East are already being felt globally through energy prices, food insecurity and so forth, and we've heard some of the economic consequences of it. But also just to indicate that conflict drains about 13 to 17 trillion from the global economy every year.
So the choice before us is not whether we invest in prevention, but whether we are prepared to pay a far greater cost, political, humanitarian and economic cost later on.
This is one of the smartest investments that's available to us and we're really advocating for further investment on that. The evidence is very clear: lasting stability is rarely achieved through military means alone and fewer than one in 10 conflicts ends in decisive military victory, and around 60% relapse within a decade, particularly where underlying development gaps are not addressed.
So in this sense, we need to look at fragility beyond just containing the violence, but also looking at functioning institutions, economic opportunities, social cohesion and trust between the citizens and the state. So this is why we see the EU and UN partnership very critical, because we invest in the conditions for for this durable peace. And maybe just a a mention on the visibility as as many of you talked about that as an increasingly important element. We fully recognize that this is this is important for the partnership not with the EU, but just with the EU, but with the member states. And our objective is not to substitute the EU's presence, but to extend it.
This is about particularly in fragile and high-risk environments where the UN can maintain operational access and trusted local partnerships. And we are covering visibility elements both in terms of branding and other materials through dialogues, through visibility of social media campaigns both towards the citizens, decision-makers and the local public. But we are definitely aware of this need and we would like to work with you to invest more in it. Thank you very much.
David McAllister
Right, thank you. Before I give the floor to Ms. Behan, Mr. Wagner, colleagues, you've probably followed it in the media.
I would like to congratulate Portugal and Austria for being successfully elected to the United Nations Security Council. Unfortunately, Germany, one of the largest donors of the United Nations, was not elected. And now back to you. That's how big donors are treated.
Elizabeth Spehar
Thank you very much. Well, this is a wonderful segue into answering some of the questions. So, yes, thank you, General Assembly, anyhow.
Yes, look, a lot of really important points and I'm absolutely sensitive to all of them. Let me very quickly try to go through some of them. The issue of visibility, we hear you loud and clear. We are trying to improve that and let us do that together. I'm, we are very open to seeing how more and how better we can do that.
We have a challenge in that ourselves in the sense that we are very much about in peacebuilding national ownership. And if the UN is also touting its flag all the time, what does that mean about Mauritania's own efforts, the government, the civil society and so on? So it's a bit of a delicate dance, but we understand the importance of this. In terms of the contributions to the Peacebuilding Fund, we do things like having visibility week so that we focus on a particular partner or donor for one week and do lots of publicity and so forth. We've done it with a number of individual EU member states.
I think we've probably done it for the EU itself. We can do it again. There's a lot we can do at country level with your ambassadors in country, etc. So let us continue that conversation. We are absolutely open to this and we understand it.
But again, we have to have that balance even ourselves to be somewhat adjacent to the national stakeholders. Secondly, on accountability, there are a lot of tools for that already. If they're not readily available or known by you, we are happy to bring that to you. For example, in terms again of the Peacebuilding Fund, there is a website, a lot of transparency, reports, very detailed information about where the money is going, how it's going, and so forth.
I would be happy to come here more often to talk to you about this and go into more detail, time allowing. So we are absolutely ready to be accountable. What type of cooperation we have with the EU, it is so diverse. Yes, some of it is the EU funding some of our instruments, but a lot of it is very much working alongside each other in sister missions in certain conflict contexts, working together on trying to move forward mediation processes. It's really very diverse.
But I want to again emphasize the importance of the fact that we are working very clearly on the basis of the same very clear understanding of the values and principles that our organization, our collective organizations stand for, and that this is the only way to make progress on sustainable peace and sustainable development ultimately. In terms of lessons, lessons learning, we are increasingly investing time and the money we we do have for impact evaluations, gathering and and making known compelling narratives, looking at concrete results, being able to to actually quantify as much as possible what the results actually are.
What is the impact? What have we actually done? Where have we moved the needle? When it comes to prevention, as you can imagine, it's not so easy. But we recently did an impact evaluation of some initiatives that we had supported in Guatemala, in very heavily indigenous populated areas, which showed that certain communities, with the support we provided, there was an 80% reduction in the level of conflictivity in those communities.
And this was done by a very rigorous, independent study. So we have tools. We have to invest in them. And we're happy to, we're trying to roll out more and more of this information. In terms of lessons learned more broadly, what have we learned from failures, what have we learned?
I agree, we have to learn from our success as well as our failures. What are some of the lessons learned in some of the very complex theaters such as Lebanon and others?
I mean, honestly, political will and political support. You cannot expect our peace operations to be solving something if the ones who really hold political power are not weighing in. That is absolutely critical. But the other lesson I would say in the broader peacebuilding tableau is that we need various things to come together.
We like to look at peacebuilding as something that should be nationally owned, locally led, and internationally supported. And that's why as much as we want to give all give ourselves visibility, we also have to have a tiny bit of humility that they're the ones in front, the actual peacebuilders of that country or that region, we are there to support. That being said, your support can definitely be made more visible and we will work on that. How to make the case to taxpayers? I think it's a range of things.
I have to again say we have to bring the evidence, we have to bring very compelling stories, we have to make it understood how important this is to their daily lives, taxpayers' daily lives, to their own security, even though it seems a million miles away. And we can do that. I think we can do that. And I think we can appeal also to taxpayers' sense that yes, it has to bring something to us, but there is also something to be said to make sure that we have some solidarity with others.
We can do that and we have to work on that. I think there were probably many other things, but I do not want to hog the microphone. Yes, institution building and so forth. Ah yes, this is a very important point on capacity building, girls and empowerment. I can tell you that in our peacebuilding work, women, peace and security, the empowerment of women and girls is a critical cornerstone, and it's not an ideological slogan or something that we're doing for the fun of it.
We are based on national ownership. Everything we support, the member countries are actually asking us for it in their countries, and so many countries have realized that they will not be able to move forward unless actually they empower their women and girls. So they are asking for this support. And the Peacebuilding Fund, which as you were saying, Stella, the European Union and other member states are supporting, is one of the, I would say, most successful entities supporting women, peace and security, girls' and women's empowerment.
Empowerment, over 40% of everything we support has a very clear gender equality and women's empowerment angle, always. And we record it and we support a lot women human rights defenders, women peacebuilders, women trying to get into politics either as voters or as candidates. There's a lot that's being done and it is a huge focus. In terms of human rights and respecting international law, respecting human rights and so forth, what can we do? You know, is SDG 16 marginalized, etc.?
I don't know if it is, I don't think it is, but I think we need to work together on this because again, where do we have some of the most committed member states in terms of SDG 16, the importance of democratic governance, inclusive, accountable and strong institutions and democracy? It is you. So we need to work together hand in glove on that. And yes, I probably missed a number of things, but in the interest of time, I'll leave it there.
Thank you, you covered many points. Thank you. And finally, Mr. Wagner.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Let me thank you first for again having the opportunity to speak to you today. Secondly, for the report, as I already mentioned, that the committee voted, which I think is very positive from our perspective on the next MFF, and for bringing up the points on visibility and transparency. Being internally often called the chief UN basher when it comes to visibility, I'm happy to get this support from our democratically elected parliament.
It is very good. And it is important because, and that leads to some of the other questions, the visibility is part of transparency and that is an important part of accountability. And there these things are coming together. The better we are, the better it is and the easier to follow also where the money goes, what is happening with the money, how is it used.
That is for us an important part. But let me, despite all my well-known criticism of this visibility thing, also say that UN is, and that's sometimes beyond what we are cooperating here on peace and security, very often an actor whom we also work with where we do not want to have the EU in the frontline visibility, drawing criticism, etc. It's a balance occasionally depending on the conflict, the situation in which you are. Also important, there was the question of the honorable member regarding whom do you choose and why, etc.
Now, there are theaters across the world where we have the UN having access and none of the other agencies having access and having sometimes the expertise. But it is true, we have to work together on visibility. I'm very grateful whenever you travel to countries and you were recently with some of our colleagues in Nigeria, I think, make the point because it is in the context itself. In Brussels, we can complain, but we have to also make our ambassadors pushing for it, have everybody singing from the same hymn sheet on that. Let me then briefly come to the question which I was, and now it will be shorter because I don't have to speak in French, about the small versus the bigger projects, women, peace, and security.
We are, for example, here indeed working on the peace building fund with the UN, but we have just launched recently a new project dedicated to this very important topic because it is so crucial for the reasons which Elizabeth Spehar mentioned. For us, most of our expenditure in crisis response has this so-called gender marker because it is in most of our actions really a key consideration and it's a very important consideration.
If you allow me to briefly then wrap up on the point on what we do also specifically in this context on women. This is a good example between our big actions on which I have no question we have to have the balance of consulting with Member States, with Parliament about the big programs. But if I take for example the first days of the Russian full-scale invasion in Ukraine, we could within days, with UN partner in this case and a local partner, launch a program to protect women against conflict-related sexual violence, to start documenting war crimes in that respect, etc.
That we are only able to do if I do not have to go through a three-four months long consultation comitology procedure. I make this strong distinction always, and now I'm going too much into the MFF discussion, but it's crucial. The big flexibility, where I can understand that there's a big reluctancy to give us as Commission more and more of that. But please, you have to give us the trust that we act on the small things quickly, targeted, and very impactful, very often things which then cannot be visible, very often we try to at least then afterwards also explain them, but we need there the flexibility. So yes, we need money, but for certain activities and notably here in the immediate crisis, but also the prevention context, we need flexibility to act quickly.
With that, I would come to an end. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members.
David McAllister
Well, thank you. Thank you to all our four guest speakers. Colleagues, is there any other point you would like to raise? Then we only have a couple of minutes left. Željana Zovko.
Željana Zovko
I just wanted to ask, and I'm very glad that you mentioned our visit to Nigeria and what we raised as an issue that you're not taking into account the accounts from the field and these senseless projects on reconciliation among... it doesn't work in a case when Christians are persecuted and that's visible. So the accounts also from the churches, that is also our recommendation in our urgency resolution, should be taken into account much more.
And on the point of self-criticism, what would you say when we have AFET missions traveling without any women? Is that also a lack of visibility from European side and how I think that we have also to be, you know, accountable for that.
David McAllister
Okay, the United Nations is responsible for many problems in the world, but not for the composition of AFET delegations. As a chair, I call on the coordinators to nominate women for our missions, and I agree that all-male delegations should not be the standard in this European Parliament. Would you like to respond, not on the first point, Nigeria, or should we call it a day?
Speaker 1
We are a service which has more than one-third of its people on the ground. But given the size of the world and given the fact that notably the conflicts that you're describing are very often not even national but regional, if not local, we try to intervene, but indeed we often have a problem to not get the full granular support. And already from the capital, very often what is coming through is different from what is happening a few hundred kilometers away.
I was in DRC recently with some colleagues and that's another big country where we sometimes struggle within the country even to understand what is going on.
Miss Beha, Mr. Wagner, Miss Ronner, Miss Veris, thank you for attending today's committee meeting. Without any further ado I come to item number 17, any other business. Definitely not. Item number 18, the date of our next meetings are the 24th of June all day and the 25th of June in the morning. Today's meeting is herewith closed.
Good morning, colleagues. I would like to welcome you to this meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I would like to inform you that the meeting is being webstreamed.
Speaker 32
Good morning, colleagues. I would like to ask you to take your seats. We have a very busy agenda today. And we are starting with a very important debate. So, please, take your seats.
I would like to welcome our guest, the High Representative, Vice-President Josep Borrell. Thank you for being with us today. We will have an exchange of views on the situation in the Middle East. But before that, we have some procedural points. First of all, the adoption of the agenda.
Are there any comments on the agenda? I see no comments. The agenda is adopted. Secondly, the approval of the minutes of the previous meetings. Are there any comments on the minutes?
I would like to remind you that the meeting is being webstreamed. I would like to remind you that the interpretation is available in the following languages: German, English, French, Italian, Dutch, Danish, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, Finnish, Swedish, Czech, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak, Slovenian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Croatian. I would like to remind you that the meeting is being recorded. I would like to remind you that the meeting is being webstreamed. I would like to remind you that the meeting is being recorded.
I see no comments. The minutes are approved. Thirdly, the Chair's announcements.
I would like to remind you that the meeting is being webstreamed. I would like to remind you that the meeting is being recorded. I would like to remind you that the meeting is being webstreamed. I would like to remind you that the meeting is being recorded. I would like to remind you that the meeting is being webstreamed.
I would like to welcome you all. I would like to welcome our guests. And I would like to start with the adoption of the agenda. The draft agenda was distributed. Are there any comments on the agenda?
I see no comments. The agenda is adopted. The next item is the approval of the minutes of the meetings of the 20th and 21st of March 2023. Are there any comments on the minutes? I see no comments.
The minutes are approved. The next item is the Chair's announcements. I would like to inform you that the meeting is being webstreamed. And I would like to inform you that the interpretation is available in the following languages: German, English, French, Italian, Dutch, Danish, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, Finnish, Swedish, Czech, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak, Slovenian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Croatian. And I would like to inform you that the meeting is being recorded.
Speaker 33
Good morning, colleagues. I'm opening the meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I'm very happy to see you all here. We have a very busy agenda today. We have much more important things to discuss than Korea and Japan.
We have some very important votes. We have some very important reports. We have some very important discussions. And we have some very important guests. So I'm very happy to see you all here.
And I'm very happy to see that we have a full house. And I'm very happy to see that we have a lot of people here. And I'm very happy to see that we have a lot of people here. And I'm very happy to see that we have a lot of people here. And I'm very happy to see that we have a lot of people here.
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. We have a very busy agenda today, so I'd like to get started right away. First, I'd like to welcome our guest, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell. Thank you for being here with us today, Mr. Borrell.
We're looking forward to hearing your update on the current situation in the Middle East. As you know, the situation is very complex and rapidly evolving, and we're all very concerned about the potential for further escalation. We're also interested in hearing about the EU's efforts to promote peace and stability in the region. After Mr. Borrell's presentation, we'll have a chance for questions and comments from members of the committee. I'd like to remind everyone to keep their questions and comments brief so that we can hear from as many people as possible.
We also have a number of other items on our agenda today, including a discussion on the EU's relations with China and a report on the situation in Ukraine. So, without further ado, I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Borrell. Mr. Borrell, the floor is yours.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be here with you today. As you mentioned, the situation in the Middle East is very complex and rapidly evolving. I've just returned from a trip to the region, where I met with a number of key players. I'd like to share with you some of my observations and the EU's current thinking on the situation.
David McAllister
Good morning, colleagues. I would like to welcome you to this meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. We have a very busy agenda today, so I would like to start immediately. First of all, I would like to ask you to approve the agenda. Are there any objections to the agenda?
I see no objections, so the agenda is approved. Secondly, I would like to inform you that the meeting is being webstreamed. Thirdly, I would like to remind you that the interpretation is available in all the official languages of the European Union. Now, we move to the first item on our agenda, which is the exchange of views on the situation in the Western Balkans. We have with us today the Commissioner for Neighbourhood and Enlargement, Olivér Várhelyi.
Commissioner, you have the floor.
Olivér Várhelyi
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Honourable members, it is a pleasure to be here with you today to discuss the situation in the Western Balkans. As you know, the Western Balkans is a priority for this Commission. We are committed to the European perspective of the region. We have been working hard to support the reforms in the region.
We have also been working hard to improve the connectivity in the region. We believe that the Western Balkans belongs in the European Union. However, there are still many challenges that need to be addressed. We need to see more progress on the rule of law, the fight against corruption, and the protection of fundamental rights.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.