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
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
DROI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsGiusi Princi
Numerosi attivisti uiguri che avevano trovato rifugio in Kazakistan fuggendo dalle persecuzioni in Cina sono stati rimpatriati. Giornalisti indipendenti e avvocati impegnati nella difesa degli attivisti risultano a loro volta sottoposti a ostacoli e in alcuni casi a vere e proprie forme di persecuzione. Anche le manifestazioni a sostegno dell'Ucraina risultano di fatto vietate. Gli esuli e i rifugiati kazaki presenti in Europa sono inoltre oggetto di pesanti forme di repressione transnazionale. E persino gli attivisti impegnati in proteste per il miglioramento delle condizioni ambientali incontrano difficoltà nell'esprimere liberamente e pubblicamente le proprie posizioni.
Un episodio può esemplificare efficacemente questo peggioramento. Due anni fa la nostra delegazione allora presieduta dal collega Fulvio Martusciello aveva formalmente salutato con favore la decisione di limitare il numero dei mandati presidenziali, una scelta che costituiva un caso pressoché unico in Asia centrale.
Diverse organizzazioni per i diritti umani avevano allora accusato la nostra istituzione di ingenuità per quella dichiarazione, nella quale tuttavia credevamo profondamente. Quest'anno, a seguito della riforma del Parlamento, è stato invece deciso di azzerare il conteggio dei mandati presidenziali già svolti, di fatto abrogando la precedente disposizione e tornando nella sostanza allo status quo ante. Ci troviamo dunque di fronte a una situazione ancora in fase di transizione. Il dialogo esiste, così come esistono le leggi e gli impegni formalmente assunti, ma la realtà rimane ancora molto indietro rispetto agli obiettivi dichiarati. Il nostro dialogo e la nostra amicizia con il Kazakistan sono e continueranno ad essere improntati a quella franchezza che come delegazione abbiamo voluto affermare fin dai nostri primi passi.
Come Unione Europea disponiamo di una strategia per la tutela dei diritti della comunità LGBTQ che impone all'UE e quindi anche al Servizio Europeo per l'Azione Esterna e alla Commissione una posizione molto chiara di condanna rispetto a ogni forma di discriminazione. Allo stesso modo nell'ambito dell'accordo di cooperazione rafforzata sia l'Unione Europea che il Kazakistan hanno assunto impegni precisi in materia di tutela e promozione dei diritti umani. È nostro dovere ricordare tali impegni e vigilare affinché vengano rispettati. Ritengo che questo sia in particolare uno dei compiti fondamentali del nostro Parlamento. Per questa ragione quanto organizzato oggi dalla vostra sottocommissione rappresenta un tassello prezioso del dialogo e del sostegno che anche come DCAS abbiamo sempre promosso così come fatto con le altre delegazioni del Parlamento Europeo nei confronti dei coraggiosi difensori dei diritti umani e degli attivisti kazaki.
A questo confronto non intendiamo sottrarci.
Sono proprio loro a guardare all'Europa come un faro di valori e di libertà che desiderano diffondere anche nel loro paese.
E anche su questo siamo al loro fianco. Questa è anche l'aspirazione che ci manifestano i giovani kazaki che incontriamo regolarmente: una società più aperta, democratica e rispettosa dei diritti e delle libertà fondamentali di tutti. Sostenere questa aspirazione e accompagnare con franchezza e spirito costruttivo chi si batte per questi valori è un compito al quale non intendiamo sottrarci. Per cui ancora grazie, Presidente, a te, a tutta quanta la commissione per questa opportunità. E anch'io, tu hai salutato i giovani calabresi ospitati quest'oggi in questa importante commissione, io mi aggiungo al saluto.
Saluto anche i professionisti calabresi che sono qui presenti, che hanno voluto fortemente essere presenti in questa commissione perché la prima palestra di democrazia è la consapevolezza che i diritti umani che noi abbiamo la fortuna in Occidente di avere costantemente, in altre realtà del mondo non sono così scontati e dobbiamo tutti quanti noi combattere per rivendicarli. Quindi ancora grazie e complimenti.
Mounir Satouri
Merci à toi. Je vais donner la parole tout de suite à Madame l'ambassadrice de l'Union européenne auprès du Kazakhstan, Madame Aleska Simkic. Madame l'ambassadrice, vous avez la parole pour sept minutes.
Aleska Simkic
Monsieur le Président, Signora Princi, honorable members, thank you for inviting me to share our perspective on human rights developments in Kazakhstan. Let me start by confirming that Kazakhstan remains a valued strategic partner for the European Union. The Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, EPCA, provides the framework for our relations. Human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law are integral parts of this partnership. This session, as has been mentioned before, comes at an important moment.
Kazakhstan has gone this year through an intense period of political and institutional change. In January this year, President Tokayev announced the intention to work on the new constitution with several fundamental changes. The new constitution was drafted by an appointed commission in February and was approved soon thereafter by referendum on 15 March.
It entered into force on 1st of July. Parliamentary elections to the new 145-member unicameral parliament took place on 23rd of August. The first session of the parliament, meaningfully named Kurultai, which in nomadic traditions means assembly or gathering, was this past Friday. This all happened in mere seven months. The European Union and member states followed the process closely.
As mentioned, OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission assessed the technical preparation to the elections positively and found the voting day to be calm. At the same time, it indeed concluded that the elections lacked political pluralism, noted the absence of independent candidacy, limited space for civil society and independent media, as well as concerns regarding turnout reporting and the counting process. These findings merit careful follow-up. Allow me to now move to some observations of the respect for fundamental freedoms. First, the media freedom is becoming increasingly the subject of our concern.
Independent and plural media are essential for informed public debate. Yet, they continue to report the difficulties they face with the broadly formulated legislation. This is affecting particularly journalists and bloggers who do critical reporting. The overall consequences to their work are media closures or intimidation, which often result in self-censorship and limiting media pluralism.
Second, the freedom of assembly remains restricted in practice. While legislation enables peaceful assemblies in principle, local mayors and governors who are to give permissions for assemblies regularly interpret the requests in a very limited and prohibitive way. Third, we insist that human rights defenders, civic activists, lawyers and trade unions need to be able to do their work without fear of intimidation or stigmatization. Civil society organizations should be able to operate and access funding without undue obstacles. Honorable members, I personally and many of my colleagues were pleased to see the increase of women among the newly elected members of the Kurultai.
Women got 49 seats, or 33.8%. This marks a significant increase from the previous parliament's lower house where female lawmakers made up 18.4% of members. Kazakhstan can also serve as a model for the strong legislation on protection against domestic and gender-based violence.
We hope to see in the near future the accession to the Istanbul Convention to which Kazakhstan committed and we will continue to hope for increased representation of women in leadership and decision-making positions in political and public life in Kazakhstan. Talking about equality policies, indeed in the areas of LGBTQAI+, we were greatly disappointed that the legislation on banning the so-called propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation and pedophilia was adopted in December last year, despite our calls to reconsider. Putting the criminal pedophilia together with the LGBT and generally stigmatizing the LGBT will make the life additionally difficult for the LGBT groups and individuals, including children and youth the legislation claims to protect. Honorable members, Kazakhstan underwent its fourth UPR, Universal Periodic Review, in 2025 and received almost 300 recommendations, including more than 70 recommendations from EU member states. We welcome that Kazakhstan supported the large majority of the recommendations.
The priority now is their transparent and inclusive implementation with the meaningful participation of civil society. One of the recommendations coming from the EU was the need to increase the effectiveness of the Ombudsperson institution and the national preventive mechanism. For that they need independence, adequate resources, accessibility and effective follow-up to their recommendations. We look forward to continuing working with the Ombudsperson who has just been reappointed after the new constitution further defined the role.
Some other areas where we record positive developments as regards Kazakhstan's continuing reform process are: the abolition of the death penalty some time ago, the establishment of conciliation courts, enhanced digital rights protection framework and continued engagement with the UN human rights mechanisms. I would like to conclude by informing you about EU-Kazakhstan engagement in the area of human rights. The European Union holds an annual EU-Kazakhstan human rights dialogue and justice and home affairs subcommittee, with most recent editions being in Astana in March 2026, which was led by the then head of unit for Central Asia in the EEAS. The EU delegation and EU embassies discuss the human rights and rule of law issues, policies, legislation, but also concrete examples of individual cases with the representatives of relevant ministries. This is coordinated by the Ministry of Justice on the Kazakh side and this is done in regular bi-monthly human rights working group.
I have to say that this is a unique and exemplary format which is established a few years ago on the initiative of the Kazakh side. The EU delegation also engages regularly with the civil society organizations, with human rights defenders and journalists. Within our civil society programs, we organize annual regional civil society conference in one of the states of Central Asia. They took place this year in Bishkek and last year in Almaty. We organize the annual media forum where we discuss new technologies, but also matters of fighting disinformation with journalists from Central Asia.
To sum up, Kazakhstan has taken several important steps in fulfilling its international commitments in the area of human rights.
There, however, remain areas we will have to continue to work actively on, hopefully together. And we also trust that Kazakhstan will not succumb to the appeal of global democratic backsliding and will continue to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights, democratic institutions, political pluralism and meaningful civil society participation. We are here to assist and cooperate in any way we can that the positive trend is established. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mounir Satouri
Merci Madame l'Ambassadrice. Je vais maintenant donner la parole à Madame Chernobyle en ligne pour une intervention de sept minutes.
Tatiana Tchernobyl
Thank you. Mr. Chair, honorable members, I would like to describe the current human rights situation in Kazakhstan through the lens of the right to participate in public affairs and in state decision-making. As you probably know and heard, Kazakhstan has been going through a period of significant political change.
Among the developments are the decision to adopt a new constitution, its drafting and public discussion, the referendum on its adoption, the establishment of a new political party to support presidential reforms, and early elections to a new unicameral parliament, all taking place over the course of this year alone. Such developments should naturally generate significant public interest and engagement, and they did. But my concern is that the speed and scale of these changes leave limited space for meaningful public participation, reducing it to a formal exercise with little scope for the public to influence decisions before they are made. And this is not only my assessment. In relation to the constitutional referendum, OSCE/ODIHR, as you heard, reported a lack of meaningful transparency and inclusivity.
Following the 23rd of August parliamentary elections, ODIHR concluded that although technically well-prepared, the elections took place in an environment marked by limited political pluralism and with constrained space for civil society and independent media. These concerns are also reflected in individual cases. One illustrative case is that of Orozaly Yerzhanov, a lawyer and an outspoken public civil activist. In May, he was sentenced to four years of restriction of liberty together with a...
Mounir Satouri
Excusez-moi, Madame Shanobil, est-ce que vous pourriez parler un peu moins vite pour les interprètes, ça serait plus confortable.
Je vous laisserai le temps nécessaire, parlez un petit peu moins vite.
Tatiana Tchernobyl
Mhm. One illustrative case is that of Orozali Yerzhanov, a lawyer and an outspoken civil activist. In May, he was sentenced to four years of restriction of liberty together with a five-year ban on public and political activities in connection with his calls for so-called smart boycott of the referendum on the new constitution. His proposal was for those opposing the referendum to formally register their non-participation with the authorities. The case raises concerns about the boundaries of permissible political expression.
The ability to criticize a political process and express opposition to it is part of an open public debate. What is particularly concerning is the growing use of court-imposed bans on public activity as an additional consequence of criminal convictions. Now, these bans extend even to professional activities such as journalism and media work.
This August, journalist Alexandra Alyokhova was sentenced to three years in prison and banned from journalism for three years. On 18th of August, Gulnara Bashkenova, also a long-standing journalist and former editor-in-chief of the Orda news website, who was given an eight-year suspended sentence, was banned for five years from journalism, blogging, media-related activities and public events, as well as from certain positions in media organizations. Whatever the legal justification in individual cases, the breadth of such restrictions raises a broader human rights concern. For journalists and activists, excluding them from professional and public life affects not only the individuals concerned, but also society's access to diverse voices, independent information and critical perspectives. It narrows public debate and contributes to self-censorship.
This pressure is not limited to those who are prosecuted. Human rights defenders continue to be subjected to rhetoric that portrays the receipt of foreign funding as evidence of what is alleged to be disloyalty or acting against the interests of the state. This shifts the burden onto defenders to explain and justify their work, contributing to their stigmatization and undermining the conditions in which they can operate freely. The new constitution has even given this issue constitutional status.
And this brings me to another concern: the instrumentalization of the law. Over the past years, Kazakhstan has increasingly relied on broadly worded legal provisions and their selective application to regulate public and political expression, including in cases involving the dissemination of false information and incitement of social discord. A recent example is the case of Azamat Omarov, a political commentator and satirist from Astana, who was detained and placed in pretrial detention on allegations of inciting social discord in connection with videos containing satirical and critical comments about the president. If convicted, he could face up to seven years in prison. Such cases risk blurring the boundary between genuine incitement to hatred and legitimate political expression, creating a chilling effect on public debate.
This is why I am concerned about the growing emphasis on law and order in Kazakhstan's political discourse.
Law and order is a legitimate objective, but it cannot come at the expense of the space necessary for people to participate in public affairs, criticize government policies, and advocate for alternatives. We can see the same issue in major government decisions with far-reaching consequences for the public. Take the ongoing Data Center Valley initiative in Ekibastuz. The government presents it as a major investment and digital development project aimed at making Kazakhstan a regional technology hub. Given its potential long-term implications for the country's energy system, infrastructure, and economy, broad public engagement would be expected.
Yet, there is no publicly available evidence of a substantive, wide-scale public participation process around the project. As of August, no public hearings had been held. According to official information, they would take place only after the project documentation was completed, even though construction is already underway. This brings me back to the question of public participation. The point is not to oppose the project itself, but whether people have had an opportunity to participate in a decision of this scale before it is effectively set in motion, rather than after key decisions have already been made.
And I will stop here, but would like to elaborate on these concerns and discuss them during the Q&A. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Très bien. Il y aura effectivement un temps d'échange et de réponse aux questions des membres. Madame Nazarova, c'est à vous maintenant pour la même durée, sept minutes.
Favziya Nazarova
Thank you, Chair. Honorable members, dear colleagues. I would like to thank DROI for dedicating a separate discussion to human rights situation in Kazakhstan and for inviting IPHR and our colleagues to contribute to today's hearing. Earlier today, we heard about the significant progress made in deepening EU-Kazakhstan relations, including growing cooperation on critical raw materials, connectivity, transport and energy. And precisely because this partnership is becoming stronger, human rights should become more visible, not less.
The annual EU-Kazakhstan human rights dialogue that Madame Ambassador just mentioned about provides an important platform for discussing human rights concerns. But we believe that human rights should not be confined to this dialogue only. They should be addressed consistently across the EU political, economic and broader engagement with Kazakhstan.
Ahead of President Tokayev's visit to Brussels this summer, IPHR and its Kazakhstani partners urged EU leaders to keep human rights firmly on the agenda. We are of course aware that many aspects of diplomatic dialogue are taking place behind closed doors. However, the public messaging following the visit focused overwhelmingly on investment and cooperation. For civil society, both in Kazakhstan and internationally, this was a missed opportunity to demonstrate that deepening cooperation and human rights could go hand in hand. And this is particularly important today.
Despite several years of promised political modernization, tangible progress remains limited. Power remains concentrated in the executive and genuine political opposition has little space to operate. The events of January 2022 remains a deep trauma for Kazakhstani society while the authorities failed to conduct a genuinely independent and transparent investigation into what happened. Victims and their families are still waiting for truth and justice.
The adoption of the new constitution was rushed and lacked meaningful public consultation, while those who criticized the draft or encouraged public debate, as Tatiana just mentioned, faced pressure and intimidation. Ahead of the August parliamentary election, this pressure reached unprecedented level, with criminal law increasingly used to restrict legitimate journalism and critical expression. We are particularly concerned about the misuse of criminal law to intimidate and silence critics. IPHR and its partners have documented a growing use of politically motivated criminal charges against journalists, bloggers, civil society activists, human rights defenders and opposition supporters. More than two dozen individuals are currently behind bars on charges considered politically motivated by Kazakhstani human rights defenders.
At the same time, civil society activists face persecution not only for criticizing Kazakhstan's own authorities, but also for speaking about the policies in its powerful neighbors. A particularly worrying example is the case of 19 activists associated with the Atajurt movement, convicted of inciting national discord following a peaceful protest concerning the situation of ethnic Kazakhs in China's Xinjiang region. As a result, 11 of them were sentenced to five years in prison.
The fact that the case followed a Chinese diplomatic note raises serious concern about external influence in the administration of justice. Pressure on LGBTQI+ activists continues to be a major concern. Despite widespread criticism, the broadly worded ban on so-called LGBT propaganda entered into force in March 2024, and we are already seeing its impact. Just last week, Feminita co-founder Gulzada Serzhan and two other activists were summoned by police in connection with the LGBT propaganda in a podcast, reportedly the first attempt to apply the new restriction in practice. However, the central question of today's hearing is not only what is happening in Kazakhstan, but also what EU and this Parliament can do in response.
As cooperation evolves further, the EU should continue to uphold the core values underpinning its partnership with Kazakhstan. The EU-Kazakhstan Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement identifies respect for democratic principles, human rights, and rule of law as essential elements of bilateral relations.
And it is very important that EU should use this leverage to promote concrete improvements. And the European Parliament has a particular important role here. In its 2021 resolution on Kazakhstan, Parliament made it clear that deeper political and economic relations under the EPCA must be based on shared values and concrete progress on democratic reforms. This message remains highly relevant today. We welcome Parliament's approach to the EPCAs recently signed with Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, where MEPs have called for effective monitoring and meaningful progress on human rights commitments.
The same principle should apply to Kazakhstan. We therefore encourage Parliament to request regular reporting from the External Action Service and Commission on implementation of the EPCA human rights provision, to establish clear human rights benchmarks and follow up on them, to regularly hear directly from independent Kazakhstani civil society as you are doing today, and to continue raising individual cases and broader human rights violation with the Kazakhstani authorities.
In a time when independent civil society in Kazakhstan is under growing pressure, activists, journalists, and human rights defenders look at the EU and European Parliament for support. We urge Parliament to stand firmly behind them and to ensure that deeper EU-Kazakhstan cooperation is accompanied by tangible improvements in human rights, democratic participation, and civic space. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Merci. Et donc on va passer à l'expression des membres. Il n'y a pas de coordinateur PPE, mais Monsieur Zdedovsky est en salle, comme ce matin pour le groupe PPE. Je vous donne la parole parce que j'ai à cœur que tous les groupes s'expriment. PPE.
Tomáš Zdechovský
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your overview about the situation. Thank you also, Ambassador. We know that the situation in Kazakhstan is really progressing. There is not status quo.
There is a lot of things what Kazakhstan did last ten years. It's not every time perfect. Also we have to criticize many things, but I'm sure that with new law and with new government after the election, they are open to talk about the progress of human rights.
You said that this is our key partner in the Central Asia. It's partner who is who was every times open to speak about human rights. There was no doubt that we didn't have it any opportunity to talk about that. And I am absolutely sure that it's this meeting is very important. It's open new chapter and we are looking for the future.
I have to say that European Union has to use less criticism, but we have to offer how to help to improve human rights in Kazakhstan as a partners, not someone who is dictating. The our mistake as European Union in Central Asia was that we were there dictating and saying this is our resolution you have to do it, but it's time to stop it. The situation in European Parliament completely change.
We have it now new really view of the situation and our view is please make a cooperation, make a open work and please work together. Because Kazakhstan is prepare to hearing us but as a partner not as someone who is under the pressure of European Union. Thank you very much.
Mounir Satouri
Pour le groupe socialiste, Monsieur Tarquino. Et je précise que c'est deux minutes par intervenant.
Marco Tarquinio
Merci Monsieur le Président. Parlerò in italiano. Grazie. Ringrazio anch'io sentitamente i nostri relatori per il quadro approfondito, l'ambasciatrice, i rappresentanti delle organizzazioni che si sono alternati, la Presidente Prince che nel suo intervento non si è limitata a dire il positivo delle relazioni col Kazakistan ma ha elencato i punti dolenti.
Io credo che per tutti noi si ponga un problema serio, che è quello che la clausola sui diritti umani che poniamo in ogni accordo che stringiamo, in ogni accordo di cooperazione, la signora Nazarova ce l'ha appena ricordato, non può ridursi a una clausola di stile che poniamo e poi non presidiamo nelle relazioni effettive che costruiamo con questi paesi. Sui aspetti positivi della relazione con Astana, ma anche gli arretramenti. In particolare c'è una dimensione che mi colpisce anche per un tratto biografico, che è quella di coloro che presidiano il settore della comunicazione e dell'informazione in questo paese. C'è un uso del diritto penale abnorme, oppressivo. Secondo Reporters sans frontières il paese è precipitato ulteriormente nella classifica dell'indice della libertà di stampa: su 180 paesi occupa attualmente il 149esimo posto, era al 141esimo.
Continua a precipitare, se questo non bastasse. Avete citato casi importanti di giornalisti perseguitati. Quello che come vecchio giornalista mi preoccupa è che oltre alle condanne penali ci sono pene accessorie che interdicono la professione per anni e anni. E vorrei ricordare infine il caso di Aidos Sadikov, ammazzato a Kiev dove era rifugiato, e non sono mai stati estradati dal Kazakistan i colpevoli individuati, uno dei quali è un agente della polizia kazaka. Questo è un punto che pesa sulle nostre coscienze e sulla nostra responsabilità.
Thierry Mariani
Merci Monsieur le Président. Moi j'ai noté les propos de Madame l'Ambassadrice qui disait que les derniers choix c'était quand même un grand pas en avant. Alors un grand pas en avant ça veut pas dire que tout est parfait, qu'il y a beaucoup de choses bien sûr à améliorer. J'ai la chance de suivre ce pays depuis 1993 quand j'ai été élu pour la première fois député français. Je rappelle quand même quelques événements.
Moi je me souviens quand on accusait l'ancien président Monsieur Nazarbaïev de vouloir établir une dictature et tout. Je rappelle qu'il a démissionné en 2019 volontairement sans que personne ne le lui demande. Je rappelle quand même qu'il y a eu une tentative de coup d'État en 2022 où l'ordre a été rétabli en partie à la fin grâce à des troupes russes et que le gouvernement kazakh leur a demandé gentiment de partir, ce qu'ils ont fait. Je rappelle qu'en mars 2026 le référendum, effectivement il n'y a pas eu une participation extraordinaire, il y a eu 73%. Je rappelle qu'en France le dernier référendum sur l'Union européenne c'était 69% et là on l'a trouvé tout à fait valable.
Après, qu'est-ce que je constate dans cette constitution ? Eh bien, oui, il y a effectivement, à mon avis, des points positifs : le rétablissement de la Cour constitutionnelle, le renforcement du médiateur des droits humains, l'instauration d'un mandat présidentiel unique de sept ans et, d'autre part, par exemple, l'abolition de la peine de mort, la pénalisation de la violence domestique ou le renforcement de la lutte contre la torture. Oui, reste à faire, je suis entièrement d'accord. Mais on exige de ce pays, comme des cinq pays d'Asie centrale, beaucoup, tout en attendant d'eux beaucoup. Il y a un moment où si, comme l'a dit mon collègue du PPE, on leur donne sans cesse des leçons, ils nous enverront gentiment voir ailleurs.
Je précise que j'ai entendu qu'on regrettait qu'on condamne les financements extérieurs dans la politique kazakhe. C'est vrai que c'est un scandale parce que c'est exactement ce qu'on fait nous. Voilà, il faut savoir : l'Union européenne condamne les financements extérieurs dans la politique européenne, et on a raison parce que ça s'appelle des ingérences étrangères. Donc on ne peut pas trouver que dans un cas c'est une ingérence étrangère et dans l'autre c'est quelque chose qui est inadmissible. Voilà, oui, le Kazakhstan doit progresser, mais 35 ans d'indépendance, c'est un partenaire, à mon avis, qui a beaucoup fait de progrès.
Mais je pense que en Asie centrale, ça reste l'un de nos principaux partenaires et que comme d'autres l'ont dit, on doit cultiver ce partenariat. Merci.
Tomasz Froelich
Ja, vielen Dank, Herr Vorsitzender. Vielen Dank auch an die Gastredner und besonders Dank auch an Frau Prinz, die Leiterin unserer Zentralasien-Delegation, die wirklich um gute Beziehungen zu allen zentralasiatischen Ländern bemüht ist. Ich habe im Sommer mir viel Zeit genommen, um viele Bücher zu lesen, darunter auch Weltordnung von Henry Kissinger. Und ich habe manchmal das Gefühl, dass wir genau die Fehler machen, vor denen Kissinger uns gewarnt hat. Der typisch wilsonische Impuls, unsere Moralvorstellungen anderen Ländern aufzuzwingen, ignoriert häufig historische, kulturelle und machtpolitische Realitäten.
Und das schadet am Ende nicht nur uns, sondern es schadet auch den Ländern, gegenüber denen wir eine solche Politik betreiben. Und Kasachstan ist ein gutes Beispiel dafür. Das Land hat sich in den letzten Jahren hervorragend entwickelt. Ich war selbst schon dort, um mir ein eigenes Bild davon zu machen. Und man muss auch konzedieren, dass Kasachstan für uns von herausragender strategischer Bedeutung ist, eben wegen seiner zahlreichen kritischen Rohstoffe, als Energielieferant, der uns Alternativen bietet und Diversifizierung ermöglicht, aber auch, weil der mittlere Korridor durch Kasachstan verläuft.
Und dieser mittlere Korridor ist für uns eine neue geoökonomische Lebensader. Und nun stellt sich eben die Frage, ob wir all das aufs Spiel setzen wollen, nur weil Kasachstan nicht alle unsere Werte hier in der EU teilt und sich beispielsweise auch gegen die LGBT-Ideologie ausspricht. Auch vor dem Hintergrund der Tatsache, dass Kasachstan, der Kollege Marani, aber auch der Kollege Stierhoffsky haben es gesagt, große Fortschritte gemacht hat in vielen politischen Feldern, auch im Bereich der Menschenrechte. Ich halte das für keine gute Idee.
Wir predigen zwar immer Toleranz, aber diese Toleranz sollte auch gegenüber Andersdenkenden gelten, und zwar auch, weil das in unserem Interesse ist, weil wir uns unglaubwürdig machen, wenn wir die belehren, aber dann selbst immer von Toleranz sprechen, aber dann andere Meinungen nicht zulassen. Denn wir müssen uns eines, glaube ich, vergegenwärtigen: Wir leben nicht mehr im Jahre 1991, als wir einseitig Bedingungen und Werte der ganzen Welt diktieren konnten, als wir noch der Nabel der Welt waren. Wir leben im Jahre 2026, es gibt jetzt mehrere Hegemonialmächte, und wenn wir als Europäer die Traditionen, Werte und die Eigenheiten anderer Länder nicht respektieren, werden sich Länder wie Kasachstan von uns abwenden, denn die haben mittlerweile neue Alternativen, und wir werden dann weiterhin global an Einfluss verlieren.
Mounir Satouri
Merci, chers collègues. On a avec nous comme membre de la délégation Madame Neveďalová, qui souhaite intervenir, et je lui donne la parole avec plaisir.
Katarína Roth Neveďalová
Ďakujem pekne, pán predseda. Využijem, že môžem hovoriť po slovensky. Ďakujem vám pekne, že tu dnes môžeme sedieť. Pre mňa je možno najzaujímavejšie a rada by som na začiatku hneď varovala niekoho, kto bude odtiaľto dávať informáciu, aby sa pozrel, kto tu sedí, tak okrem jedného kolegu sme všetci ostatní členmi delegácie pre vzťahy so Strednou Áziou a naozaj sa tomuto regiónu veľmi venujeme a chodíme, debatujeme s týmito poslancami a naozaj niektorí z nás, ako ja, už viac ako 15 rokov. Vidíme naozaj obrovský pokrok.
Ja budem pokračovať v tom, čo hovorila Juozas, čo hovoril Tomáš, čo hovoril Thierry, ale aj druhý Tomáš. My naozaj vidíme obrovský pokrok, ktorý Kazachstan urobil za posledné roky. Koniec koncov môžeme hovoriť napríklad aj o treste smrti, ktorý je tam zakázaný. Máme napríklad Spojené štáty, kde dodnes trest smrti platí, nikto ich nepovažuje za menej demokratické, takže aj toto je možno jedna z ukážok, že oni sa snažia. Nemôžeme očakávať, že každý má tú cestu rovnakú a každá krajina má právo na svoj vlastný príbeh a na svoje vlastné rozhodnutia, napríklad aj v prípade ústavy vlastného štátu, čiže každý si môže tú svoju ústavu upraviť, ako chce.
Taktiež pani veľvyslankyňa Simčič, som veľmi rada, že vás vidím po dlhej dobe. Hovorila o tom, aký významný pokrok urobila Kazachstan aj v oblasti ľudských práv. Ja úplne nie celkom rozumiem, prečo dnes máme túto debatu. Je fajn hovoriť, ale aj rešpekt ku tým kolegom, ktorí dnes prišli a rozprávali sa s nami ako odborníci, možno by stálo za to, aby tu bolo viac členov výboru pre ľudské práva, pretože dnes tu môžeme debatovať len my a náš názor ako členov delegácie pre Strednú Áziu je, že táto krajina si nezaslúži nejaké zhoršenie vzťahov. Určite by sme mali viac ďalej spolupracovať.
Koniec koncov aj Tomáš spomenul transkaspický koridor, na ktorom vlastne spoločne, ktorý budujeme s týmito štátmi, ktorý je pre Európsku úniu veľmi dôležitý. A môžem vás uistiť, že my ako členovia delegácie, myslím, že chystáme sa na konci októbra znova, ak sa nič nezmení, do Kazachstanu. Budeme debatovať s poslancami. Vždy, vždy na každom rokovaní je súčasťou našej debaty aj aktuálna situácia o ľudských právach. Vždy sa stretávame s aktivistami, s občianskou spoločnosťou, so všetkými ľuďmi, ktorých sa to týka.
A naozaj my tam osobne chodíme, debatujeme o tom a vidíme, aký pokrok oni robia. Takže prosím, nezatvárajme dvere s touto obrovskou krajinou, s ktorou potrebujeme a chceme mať dobré vzťahy, ktorá v súčasnej situácii v najbližšom východe je pre nás ešte viac dôležitá. Ďakujem veľmi pekne.
Mounir Satouri
Bien. Tout le monde a pu s'exprimer, les différents points de vue ont été donnés. Je vais redonner la parole évidemment aux trois intervenantes pour répondre. Juste deux petites remarques de ma part. Attention à ne pas construire des arguments qui, si on parle d'un autre pays, peuvent s'inverser, se retourner contre ceux qui les disent.
On peut pas mettre de l'énergie, du temps, de la passion à défendre certaines minorités et considérer que d'autres minorités ne méritent pas d'être défendues. Et je le dis très clairement, on peut pas défendre de manière engagée, et j'ai beaucoup de respect pour ça, des minorités religieuses dans tel ou tel pays, et quand on discute de la minorité LGBTQI+, ne rien avoir avec les droits de ces minorités-là. Ça c'est le premier point. Attention à l'argument spécificité culturelle, parce que ce même argument sur la spécificité culturelle permet à certains régimes qu'on condamne unanimement ici d'opprimer de manière forte le droit des femmes. Et donc oui, il y a des différences, il ne s'agit pas d'être condescendant ou de donner des leçons, mais j'avais le sentiment, moi en tout cas je vais continuer à l'avoir, qu'il y a une certaine universalité des droits humains et que jusqu'à ce que ça change, notre politique étrangère doit être guidée par un certain nombre de principes.
Et dans le cadre de notre contractualisation, nous avons à faire en sorte qu'il y ait une évolution positive. Certains nombre de points, ça a été dit par les intervenantes, des choses ont évolué positivement, d'autres choses le sont moins. Autant je suis pour qu'on affirme quand des choses évoluent positivement, mais qu'on taise et qu'on mette sous silence sous quelques arguments que ce soit ce qui ne marche pas bien, je trouve que c'est pas une bonne politique. Mais évidemment ce n'est que mon point de vue qui se rajoute à tous les points de vue qui ont été donnés. Madame l'ambassadrice, je vais vous redonner la parole pour pouvoir répondre aux questions qui ont été posées.
Aleska Simkic
Thank you everybody, all the honorable members for their comments. I think it was very valuable discussion. I'd like to make, if you allow me, four points in answering all of the comments that have been made here. First, I'd like to say, of course, as I said in the beginning, Kazakhstan remains the key partner, it remains the strategic partner and it has been confirmed with several high-level visits that happened in the past year. At the same time, the added value and comparative advantage of the European Union in relations with Kazakhstan is with the authorities but also with the civil society, which is a very active civil society, which wants to have values and shared values with the European Union.
And in that context, our delegation and the European Union is acting. We never take things in segregated way. So when we talk about investment, when we talk about developing the Trans-Caspian transport corridor, when we talk about critical raw materials, there is always the issue of values, it's issue of sustainability, it's issue of environment, but it's also the issue of human rights.
So this is always, and I'd like to reassure all the civil society members present, but also all the MEPs that are present, that this is one big topic that we always address. The second point I'd like to make is there is no such thing as us, EU, imposing some values on another partner. We are talking about universal values, as has been mentioned by you, Mr. Chair. We are talking about the values that Kazakhstan itself committed to by being a member of the United Nations, by being member of the OSCE, and by also joining some conventions that they voluntarily joined. And what we are doing is just putting the mirror in front of the Kazakh authorities to fulfill their own commitments.
And that, indeed, in partnership. That, I think...
Mounir Satouri
Madame l'ambassadrice, je suis désolé de t'interrompre. Si vous pouviez faire un tout petit peu moins vite, je pense que les interprètes nous en seront gré. Désolé.
Aleska Simkic
Sorry for that. I, when I get passionate, I get fast. So I just want to say that we are not trying to impose any human rights from the European values or any of this sort to Kazakhstan, but we just want them to show the mirror to them about how they should implement their own commitments. My third point is, of course, as we are now seeing all the developments and processes and reforms that Kazakhstan is making, Kazakhstan has a complete right to decide on its setup, on its institutions, on its constitution.
What we have been noting is that what has been perhaps missing in the process is participation of the civil society, of the people. This all decisions have been made in relatively narrow circle, which, if you allow me this more personal comment, I do not think would be possible in any of the European Union member states where democracy is wide, but that is my my personal comment. And my fourth point is very much welcome the members of the European Parliament to come and visit Kazakhstan. I think that one thing that European Union will show its interest is actually by also showing up here in Kazakhstan and in Central Asia in general. Those of you who have been here two years ago will remember how highly Kazakhstan values the visits and that's that would help also us as the delegation here to contribute to the to the further progress of Kazakhstan.
Thank you very much for this opportunity, Mr. Chair.
Mounir Satouri
Je vous en prie, merci à vous. Et c'est bien d'être passionnée, Madame l'Ambassadrice. Gardez cela. Madame Chernobyle. Je vous donne la parole cinq minutes, essayez de parler lentement parce que je vous ai sentie aussi passionnée tout à l'heure, mais pour le travail de nos interprètes, faites attention à leur qualité de travail.
À vous.
Tatiana Tchernobyl
Kazakhstan is undertaking significant reforms and taking many important decisions. But reforms cannot be measured only by the number of laws adopted, institutions created, or elections held. It must also be measured by whether people are able to participate genuinely in shaping those changes. When critical voices are prosecuted, journalists and activists are excluded from public and professional life, broadly worded laws encourage self-censorship, and major decisions are taken without real public input, the conditions for exercising the right to take part in public affairs are increasingly constrained. In this context, I would respectfully suggest three areas that could merit particular attention in the EU engagement with Kazakhstan.
First, to continue raising the importance of public participation in political and legislative process, including the need to ensure an enabling environment in which civil society and human rights defenders can contribute without undue stigmatization or pressure.
Second, to pay close attention to restrictions on journalists' and activists' professional and public activities, particularly where such restrictions have a chilling effect on legitimate political expression. And third, to place respect for fundamental freedoms more visibly within the EU's engagement on major economic and investment projects in Kazakhstan, particularly where European or international partners are involved. I thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Merci beaucoup, Madame Nazarova, vous avez la parole pour cinq minutes également.
Favziya Nazarova
Merci, Chair. If I may conclude with one broader reflection. Being from the region, I very much welcome a stronger European engagement with Kazakhstan, as this partnership is not only in the interest of EU and Kazakhstan, but the wider Central Asia region. Central Asia matters to Europe and Europe matters to Central Asia. People in the region looking to Europe with hope for better opportunities, education, stronger economies, and EU is already making a significant contribution here.
But we also want to see more engagement on developing stable civil society, credible and independent courts, and accountable governments in the region. And I want to make it clear, when EU is signing agreement with Kazakhstan or any other countries, and where human rights, democracy and rule of law are part of this agreement, this commitment should be implemented in practice. This is one of the main principle of international law. And this is particularly why Kazakhstan example is so important today. Its enhanced partnership and enhanced cooperation and partnership agreement has been in force since 2020, while other countries in the region are developing a similar partnership with the European Union.
So what happens in Kazakhstan send a message to the whole region. And if serious human right backsliding continues without a meaningful response, this signal that serious human it signals to others that human rights commitments could be ignored without any serious circumstances consequences. And I believe that here public messaging really matters.
Unfortunately, the recent EU statement following Kazakhstan parliamentary election was somewhat disappointing. While it acknowledged some serious concern identified by OSCE, we really hope to see this concern reflected more strongly in the EU public message. Thus, looking forward, we really hope to see more timely and visible EU responses to when serious human rights violation occur. And we also very much hope that human rights and accountability will remain on the agenda, not only in the human rights dialogues, but across EU bilateral engagement with Kazakhstan. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Merci beaucoup. Avant de conclure, Madame la Présidente Trinchi, vous avez peut-être un petit mot, un petit commentaire à rajouter.
Giusi Princi
Sì, soltanto intanto per ringraziare perché sono delle preziose occasioni di confronto, come si diceva prima. Io voglio evidenziare, come ho detto prima nel mio intervento, che c'è un buon rapporto con il Kazakistan, un rapporto schietto, leale. C'è una importante partnership anche di carattere economico che noi andiamo sempre di più a rafforzare.
Abbiamo delle sfide comuni che stiamo cercando di intraprendere, vedi quella relativa al cambiamento climatico. Io stesso sto creando dei partenariati con la mia regione, promuovendo degli accordi tra l'università Narxoz in Kazakistan e un'università, la Mediterranea, di Reggio Calabria. Ma proprio nell'ambito di questo accordo di franchezza e di lealtà, non possiamo negare quelle che sono le criticità che al momento ci sono, anche perché, come dicevano anche i colleghi, è una denuncia che fa sì che loro stessi, gli amici, come li definiamo, kazaki, assumano gli impegni di lavorare su quelle che diventano poi, appunto, le materie di confronto. Perché noi in ogni incontro fissiamo sempre come punto all'ordine del giorno la questione dei diritti umani che solleviamo anche attraverso gli incontri con le ONG che per noi rappresentano una fonte indipendente importantissima di conoscenza.
Per cui è una materia che fa parte della nostra quotidianità con il Kazakistan, anche perché noi lo diciamo sempre, non vogliamo imporre a nessuno le regole occidentali. È una partnership, è un ponte di democrazia quello che andiamo noi a instaurare con il Kazakistan, che diventa anche un ponte strategico di opportunità di carattere commerciale, perché vediamo che l'Europa si sta aprendo sempre di più ad una diversificazione economica e l'Asia centrale ha un ruolo importante perché, come dicevo prima, è ricca di materie prime. Però tutto questo non impedisce che noi con la lealtà e con la franchezza che ci appartiene andiamo a confrontarci su quelle che per noi sono delle materie fondamentali che, appunto, come si è già detto, è il diritto internazionale e lo stato di diritto e la democrazia. Per cui grazie ancora e camminiamo insieme.
Mounir Satouri
Bien, merci Madame la Présidente. Je crois que notre discussion aujourd'hui a clairement montré d'abord que le Kazakhstan est un partenaire important. Je crois que le mot clé a été prononcé par les uns et par les autres, quel que soit le point de vue d'ailleurs. Qu'un certain nombre de pas a été réalisé, qu'il y a des choses qui ont évolué, qu'il y a des choses à améliorer, voire certaines choses qui se dégradent ces dernières années. Je pense qu'ici personne ne remet en cause ce partenariat, mais que la manière dont il devrait être renforcé, les points qui devraient évoluer peuvent faire l'objet de débats entre nous.
Moi, je ne vais pas rappeler les principes qui sont les nôtres et ceux qui doivent guider notre politique étrangère. Je dois dire que je suis peiné d'entendre ici entre nous parler de valeurs occidentales. Ce sont des mots qui sont souvent dans la bouche de celles et ceux qui n'aiment ni l'Union européenne ni la démocratie. Je crois que ça serait une erreur que de soutenir cela. Ceux qui pensent que la liberté d'expression ou de la liberté de la presse ne sont qu'une valeur occidentale et qu'elles ne valent pas pour tous les peuples, je leur souhaite d'être nés dans un peuple où le fait de s'exprimer amène à la torture, l'enlèvement ou la prison.
Je pense que dans ces conditions-là, ils auraient été partisans du fait que c'est des valeurs universelles. Moi, je ne crois pas à cette foutaise. Je pense qu'il y a des valeurs universelles que toute l'humanité est en droit de partager. Si c'est important de s'exprimer sans être réprimé ici, j'imagine et je pense que ça l'est pour tout le monde. Et donc il y a des règles internationales, il y a des conventions signées librement par tel ou tel État, et puis il y a ce qui devrait encore jusqu'à maintenant guider notre politique étrangère.
Je partage un point des voix critiques qui ont été exprimées aujourd'hui, c'est qu'il faut être ni donneur de leçons ni condescendant. Et moi, je l'ai souvent dit, peu m'importe d'où viennent nos partenaires. Les pays, leurs histoires, leur culture, parfois leur religion, fait qu'ils viennent d'un point particulier. Ce qui est important, c'est le chemin qu'on emprunte ensemble et sur quelle base, sur quelles valeurs ce chemin-là est fait. C'est sans doute la différence entre nous et d'autres.
D'autres disent à ces pays-là : "Venez comme vous êtes, restez comme vous êtes, nous ce qui nous intéresse, c'est vos minerais, vos richesses, votre pétrole." En vrai, nous, on a aussi besoin de leurs richesses, de leurs minerais et de leur pétrole. Mais nous, on doit leur dire : "Venez d'où vous êtes, mais on fait un parcours ensemble dans lequel il y a nos intérêts mais aussi les vôtres." Ça, ça doit être une différence. Mais dans lequel le système de valeurs et la manière dont on évolue, il y a les règles internationales, l'État de droit, la liberté d'expression, la liberté de la presse, la liberté des minorités et de toutes les minorités.
Et donc, le débat va se poursuivre. Il y a évidemment, on a entendu l'ambassadrice, il y a des choses qui relèvent des autres institutions européennes. Il y a des choses qui relèvent de notre responsabilité de parlementaires. Je pense que dans le cas du Kazakhstan, il faut renforcer le dialogue interparlementaire.
Je suis disposé, Madame la Présidente, à participer à toutes les initiatives que votre délégation organise pour poursuivre le débat, le débat ferme et respectueux. Je sais que vous allez bientôt au Kazakhstan. Si après votre retour vous avez un plan d'action spécifique, je serai heureux de proposer à la sous-commission Droits de l'homme d'y participer. Merci beaucoup, chers collègues. On reprend à 16h15.
Donc vous avez cinq petites minutes de pause.
Speaker 16
Good afternoon, everyone. I'm very pleased to welcome you to this meeting of the Subcommittee on Human Rights. I'm very pleased to welcome our guests, our speakers, and our colleagues. I'm very pleased to welcome you to this meeting of the Subcommittee on Human Rights. I'm very pleased to welcome our guests, our speakers, and our colleagues.
Mounir Satouri
Allez, chers collègues, on va reprendre. C'est avec plaisir que nous passons maintenant au point suivant, un échange de vues avec Monsieur Martin Erman, directeur général pour les relations multilatérales, les droits de l'homme et la démocratie au SEAE. Monsieur Erman, nous avons eu l'occasion d'échanger de manière bilatérale, mais c'est la première fois que vous intervenez à DROIT, et je vous souhaite donc une très, très chaleureuse bienvenue. Tout d'abord, je voudrais souligner que nous apprécions la coopération avec le SEAE, dont le rôle est essentiel pour faire progresser la protection et la promotion des droits humains à l'échelle mondiale. Nous partageons bien sûr les mêmes objectifs dans ce domaine et renforçons mutuellement notre action grâce à nos outils complémentaires des vôtres, que ce soit du point de vue de la diplomatie parlementaire, des pouvoirs législatifs et budgétaires et du contrôle démocratique.
Ainsi, nous devons travailler ensemble et c'est ce que nous faisons. Aujourd'hui, nous avons bien des choses à discuter ensemble. L'été a été une période particulièrement chargée pour le SEAE, le rapport annuel sur la démocratie et les droits de l'homme de cette année ayant été publié le 11 août.
Ce rapport dresse un tableau plutôt sombre de la situation mondiale malgré quelques avancées notables, notamment l'UE reste très active et le rapport témoigne de l'étendue des efforts. Comme chaque année, ce document constitue une source importante pour notre propre rapport annuel dont la rapporteure cette année est Isabel Wiseler-Lima et qui doit être adopté par le Parlement début 2025. Nous sommes heureux de constater que dans le rapport annuel du SEAE, des questions essentielles de notre travail commun sont mises en avant, telles que la peine de mort, la protection des défenseurs des droits de l'homme, la liberté d'expression et la sécurité des journalistes ainsi que la liberté d'association et le droit de réunion pacifique. Il est également très positif que la répression transnationale soit mentionnée pour la première fois, le Parlement ayant appelé le SEAE et les autres institutions à agir dans la lutte contre ce phénomène. Nous savons aussi que le SEAE travaille également actuellement sur la finalisation d'un nouveau plan d'action pour la démocratie et les droits de l'homme pour les années 2025-2030 et toutes informations que vous pourriez nous transmettre à ce sujet sera utile.
Monsieur Herman, je vous donne donc la parole pour ouvrir, couvrir ces sujets pour 15 minutes.
Martin Erman
Thank you very much, chair, chair, honorable members.
Let me start by thanking you, Chair, for inviting me. And as you mentioned, I mean, we've already had the pleasure of meeting bilaterally, as I've actually had the opportunity to meet with a number of you bilaterally. But this, of course, is the first opportunity that I have to address the DROI plenary. And I'm very glad, I'm very, very glad to do so. I come from a family of politicians and parliamentarians who, of course, are immensely disappointed that I became a civil servant.
But I feel a special affinity with the European Parliament and I have to say a deep appreciation for its critical importance and for the vitality of its democratic debate. Now, let me say from the outset that the European Parliament matters greatly to our external human rights and democracy work, and this subcommittee matters in particular. Your political scrutiny, your expertise, and your constant engagement help keep human rights high on the EU's external agenda. And in a world of what we might call growing contestation, that matters in many ways more than ever. Now, today's exchange is particularly timely.
We have just published the EU annual report on human rights and democracy in the world, and at the same time, we have started work on the next EU action plan on human rights and democracy. Now, let's not mince words. Let's be clear that 2023 was another extremely difficult year for human rights and democracy globally. We saw continued armed conflict, deepening authoritarianism, weakening of the rule of law, attacks on civic space, pressure on independent media, disinformation, and what you might call a broader challenge to multilateral norms and institutions. Human rights are under pressure.
Democracy is under pressure. International law is under pressure. And in this context, we are heading to New York for the start of the 81st UN General Assembly in just a few weeks, and it is also in this context that we are preparing for the next multi-annual financial framework. Now, against that backdrop, the EU has remained or strived to remain consistent. Human rights and democracy are not an accessory to foreign policy, they are part of its core.
And as the HRVP has said on multiple occasions, our values are in many ways our interests. Now, the annual report illustrates in many ways that commitment. It's not just an annual stocktaking exercise for us, it's an important instrument of transparency, of accountability, and political direction.
It shows how the EU acted across regions, themes and instruments. And it allows us to monitor and assess the implementation of the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy and to do so in a structured and of course in a public way. Now, throughout 2023, we defended the universality of human rights and the rules-based international order in the conference rooms and negotiating theaters in New York, in Geneva and beyond, no? We worked with partners to uphold international human rights law and international humanitarian law. We raised individual cases.
We supported those on the frontline, no? Human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, trade unionists and civil society actors, often in increasingly hostile environments. We worked with young people and paid particular attention to those facing the greatest risk, including women human rights defenders, LGBTI persons and victims of reprisals and transnational repression.
Now, just by way of example in these areas, through the protectdefenders.eu in 2023, 10,184 human rights defenders in more than 90 countries received support, of which at least 686 were journalists at risk that received assistance. EU delegations worldwide marked IDAHOT by raising pride flags, by organizing events and film screenings, by publishing opinion pieces and in a very practical and visible way engaging with LGBTI civil society and human rights defenders. We continue to promote accountability, including through support to the ICC and international justice mechanisms and, where necessary, through the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime. We try to advance key thematic priorities: gender equality, the rights of women and girls, the rights of the child, freedom of religion or belief, freedom of expression online and offline, labor rights and of course the fight against torture and the death penalty. We also continue to address the growing human rights and democracy implications of digital technologies and artificial intelligence, both recognizing their potential to expand participation, access to information and accountability, but of course also the risks they pose when used for surveillance, for manipulation, discrimination or repression.
And we continue to insist that our broader external engagement, including on the Global Gateway, must be anchored in rights, in dignity and inclusion. We also remain clear that democracy and human rights are inseparable, no? Support for democratic institutions, election observation and actions against disinformation and foreign information and manipulation are all part and parcel of that effort. Now on the action plan. Now while defending today's priorities as as I mentioned, we are also preparing for tomorrow's challenges, if you like.
We've now started work on the next action plan on human rights and democracy. Now this is in many ways an opportunity to sharpen our approach. The current action plan which you know well has given us a very, very strong framework, but the world is changing fast and our responses must keep pace. No, in many ways we must remain firm on the principles and the values and norms, but also flexible, agile and adaptable in our in our approach to defending exactly these principles, values and norms.
The next action plan will try to sharpen its focus on the impacts of conflicts on rights, the opportunities and risks of digital technologies, the backlash against gender equality and non-discrimination, the shrinking space for civil society and the wider assault, if you like, on the international rules-based order. It will also try to reinforce our attempts to tackle, our efforts, sorry, to tackle attempts to undermine democratic processes and attacks on the rule of law. Now, our aim is quite clear, if ambitious. The next action plan must build on the current one and be strategic, operational and credible. It must help us in many ways try to act earlier, more coherently and with greater impact, and it must reflect the voices, of course, of those we seek to support, above all civil society and human rights defenders.
Now, some of the areas that we will try to reinforce include the protection for those at risk, transnational repression, equality and accountability. It will try to deepen links between human rights, democracy, security and conflict prevention, to reinforce multilateralism and international law, and expand focus on digital technologies and AI, including in the specific areas of surveillance, disinformation, privacy, electoral integrity and foreign interference. Now, in terms of process, then our aim is to have the action plan adopted by the Council in December this year, around Human Rights Day.
Now, after adoption, we see the partnership with the European Parliament as absolutely crucial and central for what of course is to most in many ways the most important part of the action plan, and that is of course its implementation. Now, we want to engage with this subcommittee as that process moves forward. Your views will be essential in helping us shape a framework that is both ambitious, realistic and above all actionable, no? And I look very much forward to our discussions to hear your views. We will be taking careful note of what you say and to continue to work together to keep human rights and democracy at the heart of EU external action.
And I will stop there, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Très bien. Bravo pour la concision. Moi, je m'étais dit que vous auriez besoin de beaucoup plus de temps, mais je pense que les interventions des membres vous pousseront à préciser et à répondre aux questions. Isabel, je disais avant que tu arrives que tu étais rapporteure de notre rapport annuel cette année, mais tu ne fais pas que ça. Tu as la parole au nom du PPE.
Isabel Wiseler-Lima
Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le Président, pour votre compréhension. Ce n'est pas toujours évident. Mais en tout cas, merci beaucoup, Monsieur, d'être là et de la présentation que vous avez faite.
Je crois que nous devons absolument avoir en tête que nous devons être efficients. Il ne suffit pas de déclarations, il ne suffit pas de bonnes intentions, il faut que ce que nous faisons ait aussi des résultats sur le terrain. Et donc je voudrais vraiment insister sur ce point-là. Je voudrais que ce à quoi nous nous engageons, nous puissions aussi le réaliser et mettre nos efforts dans ce que nous pouvons réaliser. Et vraiment essayer de faire de notre mieux justement pour, vous l'avez évoqué, j'aimerais assez utiliser le mot restaurer la place des droits de l'homme, la place de la démocratie dans les valeurs, surtout pour les droits humains, l'universalité des droits de l'homme.
Je crois que nous n'insistons pas assez. Je ne voudrais pas être mal comprise comme je pense que ça l'a été ce matin. Je ne considère absolument pas que l'Union européenne ou en Europe nous ayons la primauté ou un quelconque droit à nous mettre en valeur par rapport aux droits humains.
Les droits humains c'est une valeur universelle et défendue par de nombreuses personnes sur l'ensemble de la planète. Dans les pays qui les piétinent, nous avons des gens qui engagent leur vie même tous les jours pour cette défense. Moi je voudrais effectivement que de notre côté nous insistions sur cette universalité et j'aimerais assez savoir comment vous vous voyez quels sont nos leviers pour que la loi internationale soit de nouveau, international law, qu'elle soit de nouveau mieux respectée, qu'elle ait de nouveau la place qu'elle, je pense qu'elle a eu pendant un certain nombre de décennies et qu'elle aurait vraiment besoin de retrouver. Je voudrais aussi évoquer, reprendre, vous avez évoqué nos délégations de l'Union européenne. Je crois qu'elles jouent un rôle fondamental et si vous pouviez un peu nous parler de ce que vous voyez de ce qu'elle peut faire.
Un mot et j'arrête Monsieur le Président. Nous devons aussi garder à l'esprit, je voudrais voir effectivement ce que nous en disons dans le plan par rapport à l'intelligence artificielle qui joue un rôle de plus en plus déterminant et qui pose pas mal de questions pour notre futur. Merci beaucoup.
Mounir Satouri
Merci chère collègue. Qui s'exprime pour le groupe socialiste ? Marta Temido, notre vice-présidente, il y aura d'autres tours de parole.
C'est Marta qui s'exprime en premier.
Marta Temido
Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le Président. Je vais m'exprimer en portugais. Bem-vindo, Senhor Ermane. É um gosto tê-lo aqui e discutir este tema. Todos sabemos, a democracia está hoje sob ataque.
E não é só fora das fronteiras da União Europeia. Assistimos cada vez mais a circunstâncias como as que referiu, de redução do espaço físico, do espaço cívico, de perseguição dos defensores dos direitos humanos, de aprovação de legislação destinada a silenciar organizações independentes, ao crescimento de movimentos que atacam os direitos das mulheres, das minorias, de quem as representa e defende. E perante esta realidade de erosão democrática, o próximo plano de ação da União Europeia para os direitos humanos e a democracia tem de ser mais do que uma mera declaração, mais do que nunca. Tem de ser, como disse a minha colega Isabel Wiseler-Lima, um instrumento de ação. É isso também que nos preocupa.
E nós entendemos que esse instrumento de ação tem que ter três eixos e, de alguma forma, eles já estavam plasmados no atual plano de ação. Em primeiro lugar, precisamos de coerência e temos que o voltar a repetir, porque precisamos de coerência interna. A União Europeia tem que liderar pelo exemplo, mas precisamos também de coerência externa. E não nos ajuda nada uma ideia cada vez mais divulgada de que os direitos humanos são sujeitos a uma relativização cultural e são algo que as sociedades ocidentais utilizam, mas que não é aplicável a outros lugares do globo. Isso não é assim.
Os direitos humanos são universais. Para eles estarem no centro do nosso diálogo político, no centro da nossa ação externa, nós não podemos não os ter presentes quando celebramos acordos comerciais, quando celebramos acordos de associação, quando fazemos investimentos no contexto do Global Gateway, porque essa falta de coerência tem um preço e ele está a ficar-nos cada vez muito claro. Depois, nós temos também de ter um outro eixo de ação, que é proteger quem defende os direitos humanos. E o espaço cívico tem de ser um pilar essencial do próximo plano, garantir a proteção dos defensores dos direitos humanos e, em particular, as mulheres, as organizações mais expostas. E finalmente, e mais importante do que tudo, não há ambição sem recursos.
E é este o ponto que mais me preocupa. No próximo instrumento Global Europe, é essencial contemplar financiamento previsível e de longo prazo. E nós não vemos como é que isso esteja a ser acautelado, tal como não vemos coerência entre querermos ter mais valores e menos delegações da União Europeia e reduzirmos a dimensão das que temos.
Gostaríamos de ouvir o senhor sobre estes temas. Muito obrigado.
Mounir Satouri
Merci. Alors tout le monde dépasse un peu, mais ça serait bien que ça reste un peu. Sinon on va pas y arriver. Pour le groupe PPE, Monsieur Mariani.
Thierry Mariani
Je vais faire un effort, je vais le faire en moins d'une minute. Monsieur le Directeur, l'Union européenne n'a toujours pas adhéré à la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme. Toujours pas. Et pourtant, c'était prévu par l'article 6 du traité de Lisbonne en 2009, c'est-à-dire que depuis 17 ans, on n'a pas respecté cet engagement prévu par le traité de Lisbonne. Alors je dis ça parce que j'ai eu l'honneur de siéger pendant 10 ans à l'Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l'Europe.
Et donc ma question est simple : c'est pourquoi on n'a toujours pas adhéré, quels sont les blocages et quand est-ce que vous pensez qu'on adhérera ? En 32 secondes, Monsieur le Président.
Mounir Satouri
34, 34 Monsieur le député. Pour le groupe Renew, Bernard Guetta. Non, excusez-moi Monsieur Guetta, et je m'excuse auprès de Madame Grossetête. C'est le groupe ECR. Non, vous ne voulez pas vous exprimer ?
Bernard, c'est à toi.
Bernard Guetta
Nous ne cessons de le répéter depuis ce matin, le monde a changé. Quand on défendait les droits de l'homme jusqu'à il y a deux, trois ans, allez, disons jusqu'à l'élection de Donald Trump, nous le faisions dans un ensemble ou avec un ensemble qu'on pourrait appeler l'ensemble occidental, États-Unis et pays de l'Union européenne principalement, et dans un climat international dans lequel à peu près personne ne s'attaquait frontalement, ouvertement, à la démocratie et à la Déclaration des droits de l'homme. Ce monde n'existe plus. En ce sens, les rapports de force ont totalement changé. Nous sommes, pardonnez-moi de répéter ce que je disais ce matin, mais apparemment il faut le répéter, nous sommes avec quelques autres pays non insignifiants mais peu nombreux, le Canada, l'Australie, la Nouvelle-Zélande, la Corée du Sud, etc., nous sommes le bunker, le bunker du droit international et des droits de l'homme.
Et nous le sommes à la fois contre la Chine, les États-Unis, la Russie, l'Inde, beaucoup d'autres encore. La question est donc très simple : est-ce qu'au service d'action extérieure, on a engagé une réflexion que nous n'avons pas encore engagée nous-mêmes au Parlement sur les différences de rapports de force et sur la manière dont nous pouvons aujourd'hui défendre les droits de l'homme avec beaucoup plus de difficulté, cela va de soi, qu'il y a encore quelques années ?
Mounir Satouri
Très bien, merci Bernard. Il y a une constante, je le reconnais, dans ton approche et ton analyse. Ça a été l'occasion notamment ce matin, tu as eu l'occasion de le dire. Madame Salis pour le groupe The Left.
Ilaria Salis
Grazie. L'Unione Europea non potrà mai essere un attore globale credibile nella difesa dei diritti umani se continuerà ad applicare doppi standard dettati da presunti interessi geopolitici ed economici.
Il nuovo piano d'azione dovrebbe riaffermare un principio molto semplice: il diritto internazionale e i diritti umani valgono per tutti, sempre e senza eccezioni. Non possiamo accettare che i diritti umani vengano sacrificati in nome della sicurezza, del controllo dei flussi migratori e delle alleanze. Eppure è quello che facciamo sistematicamente, da Israele agli Stati Uniti, passando per tutti quei paesi che abbiamo trasformato in gendarmi della fortezza Europa, delegando a loro il controllo dei nostri confini. Facendo così perdiamo ogni credibilità e francamente non possiamo stupirci se parte del mondo considera ipocrita la nostra retorica sui diritti umani. Questo deve cambiare.
È una questione vitale per il futuro dell'Europa. Chiediamo quindi che il nuovo piano d'azione preveda un monitoraggio realmente indipendente e meccanismi vincolanti di condizionalità. Di fronte a prove credibili di gravi violazioni e abusi, i finanziamenti e la cooperazione devono essere sospesi. Punto. Perché i diritti umani e la giustizia internazionale non possono valere solo quando ci conviene: o valgono sempre o non valgono più niente.
Ora la mia domanda è: il nuovo piano d'azione prevederà meccanismi vincolanti per sospendere finanziamenti e cooperazione dell'Unione Europea senza eccezioni e senza doppi standard? E il Servizio Europeo per l'Azione Esterna come garantirà che questi meccanismi siano applicati con la stessa fermezza anche quando le violazioni riguardano nostri alleati e partner strategici? Grazie.
Mounir Satouri
On a terminé le tour des coordinateurs, mais il y a encore des collègues en salle qui ne se sont pas exprimés. On a le temps de le faire. Je vous invite à prendre la parole les unes et les uns, vous faites comme vous l'entendez. Vous êtes du même groupe, donc je ne vais pas choisir à votre place, mais vous pouvez chacune et chacun prendre la parole. À la fin, si vous ne le faites pas, c'est moi qui décide.
Chloé Ridel
Je commence et puis... Merci Monsieur le Président et merci Monsieur de votre présence devant cette commission.
Moi je souhaite vous interroger sur un point précis de votre rapport qui est celui qui concerne la justice internationale et la Cour pénale internationale qui est menacée de démantèlement par l'administration américaine, par Donald Trump, qui voit de nombreux de ses juges sanctionnés jusqu'à sa présidente, Madame Akane, sanctionnée par les États-Unis ce mois d'août. Alors vous dites dans votre rapport que l'Union européenne a fait des communiqués, la Commission européenne a fait des communiqués pour défendre la Cour pénale internationale, qu'elle en a parlé à ses partenaires dans les forums de discussion sur les droits de l'homme et cetera, que 5 millions d'euros de budget de l'Union européenne ont aussi été versés à la Cour pour soutenir ses services d'enquête et aussi le fonds d'indemnisation aux victimes. Tout ça c'est bien, j'ai envie de dire que c'est mieux que rien, mais c'est bien en deçà de ce qu'attendent les citoyens européens qui attendent une vraie réponse européenne face aux attaques insupportables que subit la Cour pénale internationale et derrière le droit international lui-même. Nous attendons que le règlement de blocage soit activé, c'est une demande formulée par ce Parlement européen à plusieurs reprises. Donc ma question est la suivante : qu'est-ce qui bloque pour activer ce règlement de blocage et qu'est-ce que la Commission européenne entend faire suite à cette nouvelle escalade dans les menaces américaines contre la Cour pénale internationale avec les sanctions récentes contre sa présidente ?
Merci.
Mounir Satouri
Monsieur Tarchinio, et je précise que vous êtes rapporteur sur le rapport annuel droits de l'homme. Allez-y cher collègue.
Marco Tarquinio
Parlo in italiano. Parlo in italiano. Faccio mie le annotazioni che sono state fatte da diversi colleghi, dalla relatrice Wisseler-Lima, da Marta Temido, da Chloé Ridel soprattutto, anche le cose che la collega Salis ha sottolineato. Ma vorrei soffermarmi soprattutto su un punto. Lei ha accennato all'impatto dei conflitti in atto sul sistema dei diritti internazionali.
Questo è un punto che mi è particolarmente a cuore, in particolare per il fatto che il ritorno alla politica di guerra sta riducendo sia gli spazi democratici che i diritti fondamentali degli esseri umani. Siamo tornati alla fame usata come arma di guerra e c'è un altro crimine di cui si sta discutendo. Io vorrei sapere se c'è una posizione dell'Unione Europea, se noi saremo in grado di esercitare un ruolo positivo in questo senso per codificare un crimine di cui si sta ragionando, che è quello del domicilio. La distruzione sistematica dei luoghi dell'abitare avviene in diverse parti del mondo per costringere popoli, comunità a sradicarsi da dove vivono, a trasferirsi altrove, per essere cancellati. Il domicilio sembra un lusso che possiamo permetterci di non affrontare, invece è uno dei drammi della caduta dei diritti umani a livello globale in questo momento.
Grazie.
Sandra Gómez López
Muchísimas, muchísimas gracias, presidente. Bueno, pues yo creo que todos estamos en esta sala de acuerdo en que tenemos un plan maravilloso, que a la Unión Europea no le faltan recursos, medios y premisas para aplicar y proteger a los derechos humanos en nuestras relaciones comerciales, en nuestro apoyo de financiación presupuestaria o en otros tantos instrumentos. Pero los tenemos, pero lo que es evidente que no tenemos voluntad de aplicarlos. Y aquí tengo una pregunta muy concreta, y es: desde que está en vigencia este plan, desde el año 2020, ¿cuántas veces se ha aplicado? Alguna suspensión de alguna relación comercial, alguna retirada de un apoyo financiero presupuestario desde el año 2020.
Porque me parece que desde la vigencia de este plan, la realidad es que nos ha faltado esa voluntad. Y estamos, y hoy hemos tenido una conferencia con entidades y plataformas defensoras de derechos humanos, que estamos prácticamente en nuestro peor momento. Y yo creo que eso merecería una reflexión.
También han aportado una propuesta y una idea interesante, y es la dación a cuenta que deben de dar las plataformas digitales. Y no solo cuando obviamente interfieren en procesos democráticos o incluso se aplica censura por parte de los gobiernos y no se permite la libertad de creación. Creo que también estaría interesante aplicar una dación de cuentas cuando la difusión de información falsa o de bulos puede conllevar o poner en riesgo la vida de personas, como ha pasado en Ceuta, en España, en donde 145 personas han muerto por la difusión intencionada de información falsa a través de plataformas digitales de las que nadie va a ser responsable. Gracias.
Mounir Satouri
Merci, chers collègues. Vous voyez qu'il y a de quoi faire. Vous avez bien fait de garder du temps tout à l'heure pour les réponses. Peut-être une question ou une réflexion de ma part. Je partage évidemment beaucoup de choses qui ont été dites et je ne vais pas les redire, et notamment les réflexions de Bernard.
J'en tire peut-être pas les mêmes conséquences. En tout cas, jusqu'à là, je refuse de les retirer. Le changement à l'échelle du monde et la position de l'administration américaine change les choses.
Je sais que la diplomatie a ses règles, elle a son langage. Mais le problème, c'est qu'on est face à quelqu'un de très vocal, qui peut s'exprimer trois fois dans la même journée avec un style et une outrance qui saturent l'espace public. Face à cela, moi je vois que les Européens, ils ont une difficulté en plus de toutes les autres. C'est d'abord, c'est compliqué de s'exprimer vite vu le fonctionnement. Est-ce que ce sujet-là est considéré à la fois à l'OSCE et parmi les États membres ?
Et puis par ailleurs, quand il y a expression, quelqu'un parlait tout à l'heure, il y a eu un communiqué, ça n'a pas le même effet, ça n'a pas la même force. Et je trouve qu'on est un peu timide dans les propos qu'on peut tenir. Comment est-ce qu'on va pouvoir tenir longtemps dans cette situation ? On est face à quelqu'un de très vocal, qui est capable d'être très extrême, qui du coup, par ce mode de communication, est très repris avec une saturation excessive de l'espace médiatique. Et à côté de ça, le peu que l'Union européenne exprime n'est pas entendu.
Donc comment est-ce qu'on équilibre un peu ce rapport de force en plus de tout le reste ? Quelle coalition, avec quelle stratégie, avec quels moyens ? Parce qu'autrement, je pense que si le contrepoids ne vient pas de l'Union européenne, je ne vois pas d'où il peut venir.
On n'y arrivera pas tout seuls. On n'aura jamais la possibilité et les capacités tout seuls, mais personne n'y arrivera sans nous. Donc du coup, ça repose sur les Européens une responsabilité singulière. Ça c'est mon premier point. Le deuxième, et il va rejoindre, et ça ne va pas l'étonner, ce que disait Chloé sur la Cour pénale internationale.
À quand une action concrète de l'Union européenne ? Ça ne peut plus tarder. Je pense que là, ils ont atteint le dernier palier avant donc sanctionner l'institution elle-même. Si, aussi imparfait qu'il puisse être, le statut de blocage n'est pas activé avant, ça sera trop tard de l'activer après. L'Union européenne, la présidente de sa Commission, ses institutions, son Conseil auront cette responsabilité face au reste du monde.
Donc quel... où est-ce qu'on en est par rapport à ça ? Et est-ce que vous pensez qu'on s'approche d'une solution sur le statut de blocage de la part de l'Union européenne ? Parce que nous, nous pensons qu'on s'approche de la sanction de l'institution elle-même. Donc ça c'est ma question. Et je n'ai pas donné la parole à la coordinatrice du groupe des Verts qui vient de nous rejoindre, Madame Vera.
Et évidemment, avant qu'on ait les réponses, vous pouvez bénéficier de vos deux minutes avec plaisir pour exprimer votre point de vue et poser votre question.
Ana Miranda Paz
Thank you very much, Chair, and also my apologies. I think I had something wrong on my, on my calendar. So sorry that I missed the beginning of the discussion. But thank you for your presence and I look forward to hearing the answers of all of these very pertinent questions that I've heard. And from our side, on the side of the Greens, I'd mainly just thank you very much for the annual report and the upcoming action plan.
It has been a very difficult time for the EU human rights agenda. I think we can all agree to that, unfortunately. We're seeing this increasing pressure on the multilateral system, these unrelenting attacks on international justice, the shrinking civic space all around the world, and a number of conflicts continue to fuel disrespect for human rights and international humanitarian law is repeatedly being violated. Against this background, I see the new action plan as an important opportunity to translate our concerns into concrete actions, but also to be very clear on how we intend to deliver and measure the progress that we hope to make. This is also a conversation that needs to go hand in hand with the discussions on the MFF and particularly the future of Global Europe, which will be a key test to our commitment to human rights.
Despite all of the challenges obviously the EU remains a stronghold an important actor on on human rights. At the same time as all of the colleagues have also pointed out I think it's important that we're realistic about the inconsistencies in our approach so far and there is a growing gap between what we say and what we do and this is affecting our credibility very seriously. So it is our belief as the Greens that in this complex geopolitical climate the answer is precisely to go for credibility and to stand for the values that we defend and and stand on. On on quickly on the action plan I would like to just give a word of encouragement for stronger attention to gender equality and more gender inclusive language throughout the entire action plan and the report. It's particularly important given that this topic is getting so much pushback and speaking of topics that are getting a lot of push pushback also sexual rights and reproductive health deserve some more explicit attention.
And then finally to echo what my colleague Mounir said, the chair on the ICC and ICJ, I mean, it's a major challenge that they are facing, not just decreasing funding but growing attacks on these institutions which are just doing their job, the job that we all expect them to do. And it is important that governments and international stakeholders increase their support and do something, finally do something, especially us as European Union, to safeguard the independence of these important institutions because without them we're truly doomed. Thank you.
Speaker 29
Et ben voilà, c'est à vous. Si vous voulez qu'on fasse une pause pendant vos réponses, on pourra.
Martin Erman
No, thank you, thank you very much, chair. At this point in time I regret my career choice of becoming a civil servant and not a parliamentarian and being the one to ask the questions. No, but can I just, jokes aside, thank you so much for not only for the questions but actually also some of the inputs in terms of areas of particular priority that I think that it's important for you, for us to pay attention as we develop the next action plan on human rights and democracy. Can I just, I mean, I want to start a little bit where we, where the first MEP started with this sort of focus, the need to focus on effectiveness, no? Because actually I think it's quite, it's quite central is this idea of let's be firm on the principles and the values and norms but be try to be agile and adaptable and flexible in how we approach this.
Because I think, and this was a point that others made also, that at the end of the day, what counts is results, no? I mean, and that's what to some extent what we should be, be guided of, sort of a little bit of flexibility in, in that. I think the point on human rights being universal, they are not our human rights, I mean, they are universal. I think that's part of, part of the answer to that. What I think is going to be a long journey to rebuild respect for international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
But I think the universality of this is quite central. Now I think in our assessment, I think there is a growing concern around the world, not only in Europe, of what we see as a fragmentation or as erosion of, of respect for some fundamental tenets of international law. And I think there is a conversation to be had with different parts of the world on what is it that we do in such a, in such a situation. I think I mentioned we're just a couple of weeks away until, well, large parts of, of the political leadership not only of the European Union, but also of European Union member states will travel to New York for high-level week. I mean, this is of anything is the town hall of the world.
And I'm quite certain that the pressure on multilateralism, on human rights and democracy will feature prominently not only in the open meetings of the UN but also in many of these bilateral conversations. And I do think actually those conversations are incredibly important. Our delegations play an important role in that because those are conversations not only to be had when it's high-level week in New York or another summit or another event, but that's a running conversation. So I think it's quite central. Now, this question on universality and also about consistency.
I think part of restoring that respect is recognizing that we are not perfect, no? And to some extent, I think the HRVP actually said it when she was in New York in April, that we do not claim perfection, no? And that of course also means subjecting yourself to scrutiny. That means actively engaging on the Universal Periodic Review in the Human Rights Council. And then I think in many cases when we talk to partner countries, it's also by actually looking not only at what's in the international obligations but actually what's also in national legislations and use those as a starting point also for some of those conversations.
Fully agree that ambitions need funding. Without money you can do some things, but you cannot do what you need to do.
But I do think it's important that this is not only about funding. I mean, and I think you would be the first as MEPs to recognize, MEPs to recognize this. Now on the specific question of, of why, why have the European Union not joined or acceded to the European Convention on, on Human, on Human Rights yet? I mean, as you rightly point out, this was indeed foreseen of course by the, by the Lisbon Treaty and EU and the Council of Europe negotiated accession all the way back in 2013. But as you know, of course, the Court of Justice of the, of the EU said that agreement was incompatible with, with the treaties, no?
And of course there are, continues to be more technical problems. But the EU wants to join. I mean, we've designed accession in a way that the court can supervise the EU without, if you like, undermining the, the, the autonomy. Now, renegotiations took place from 2020 to 2023 and there has been a provisional agreement in 2023. So I suppose the best question, or the best answer I can give you is probably not the one you want to hear, but that of course is that we continue to work, that the ambition and the aspiration continues to be in, in place.
It is not something that we have entirely forgotten. Now, to our colleague who pointed out, like the chair, that the changing balances of power, and I suppose you can just say that balances of power are in flux. I'm an economist by training, I'd say the very, very few balances in life that are constant, they continue to change and also... But we are of course in a particular sensitive moment. And I think you're absolutely right that there is of course this pressure on multilateralism, on international law, on human rights and democracy.
So it has not fallen off the agenda.
Now you ask, have the European External Action Service begun a discussion on this? Is this something that member states are discussing? I think this is very much on top of the agenda of what member states are discussing, both when they meet regularly in the Foreign Affairs Council here in Brussels. I mean, these days they are meeting in Ireland for the informal Foreign Affairs Council meeting.
It's I'm sure it is it is on the agenda when the European Council meet. Sometimes it takes the form not of that particular conceptual discussion but of particular geographies or or challenges but they are of course all influenced by the fact that we are looking at a geopolitical world somewhat in somewhat in somewhat in flux. But for me that once again underlines the the critical importance of staying firm on principles, norms and values but staying flexible, agile and adaptable in how we approach this. I think that is the only way we are going to to be able to to respond. That may sometimes challenge our particular how should I put it diplomatically our particular institutional complexities, no, that does not always sort of provide for fast decision making.
But but slow well-considered decision making still has a still has a place in this world. You could argue that that's actually what's more of that is is is needed, no. On on ICC. I mean also something that is you know very very high on on our agenda and has of course been for for a long time. In our world and I think the HRVP has said it on several occasion the the ICC is the cornerstone of international criminal justice and in many ways the fight against impunity.
Now in face of the latest US announcement you will of course have noted that both the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council reacted.
The High Representative also issued a statement and once again made the European Union position very, very clear. That, you know, we stand by those individuals that have been sanctioned. We believe that the ICC, we believe firmly that the ICC must be able to work independently and impartially. We remain firmly committed to international criminal justice, accountability, and the fight against impunity, and we fully support the ICC. Now, rest assured that we are in close, close contact with the ICC and are constantly discussing with them how we can best, how we can best support them.
Now, we are continue to assess the implication of these latest measures, but rest assured that we remain firm in our support of the ICC. Now, I may want to say that that goes of course also for EU member states, no? I refer you to the statement that was brought out not only by the High Representative, but also by all 27 EU member states on the Day of International Criminal Justice on 17th of July, if I'm not mistaken. I think it was exactly the same week that other measures were announced across the Atlantic.
But just to emphasize again that we are deeply committed to this, but we also continue to assess how do we respond in the best possible way, how do we respond in the most effective way. A colleague brought up this issue on on on war and hunger and food security as a weapon of war and whether there were sort of ambitions to join a code or something. I want to just draw attention to the fact that we have of course a number of EU member states that are also in their national capacities member of the European sort of of the UN Security Council. And I think it was just last week actually that Denmark as a member of the of the of the UN Security Council held a debate that actually put conflict and food security on the table exactly to try to revive that revive that discussion and set standards. Now, we all know that that putting things on the agenda of the Security Council does not immediately produce results, but it tries exactly to raise to raise awareness of this and put and put these issues on the on the agenda.
I've spoken for 10 10 minutes, Mr. Chair, so I think I will leave it at that. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Eh bien merci. Monsieur Ramal, je crois qu'on l'a dit tous les deux tout à l'heure, c'est votre première discussion ici en DROI. Et je crois qu'on peut tous les deux se dire que ce ne sera pas la dernière. Je pense qu'il est essentiel qu'on travaille ensemble.
Je crois profondément dans la Team Europe. Je vous l'ai dit aussi, notre coopération avec le SEAE se passe dans de très bonnes conditions. Il m'arrive parfois de râler quand la Commission n'est pas représentée, mais le SEAE fait le boulot, chacun évidemment dans son rôle. Et je pense que vu l'adversité à laquelle on va avoir face dans les prochains mois, les prochaines années, on a intérêt à cultiver notre travail commun, chacun évidemment avec ses méthodes, sa légitimité et ses outils, mais on doit additionner nos capacités et nos possibilités. Le monde en a besoin.
Merci beaucoup. On reprend dans dix minutes. Vous pouvez faire une pause, mais n'allez pas trop loin non plus.
Chers collègues, je vous prie de bien vouloir vous installer. Nous allons démarrer. Merci. Nous allons désormais revenir sur la mission DROIT qui s'est tenue au Caire du 20 au 22 juillet. Il s'agissait de la première mission du Parlement spécifiquement consacrée à la situation des droits humains en Égypte depuis l'arrivée au pouvoir du président Sissi.
Aujourd'hui, nous ferons un compte-rendu de cette visite ainsi qu'un échange avec la société civile. Le programme de la mission a pu être mis en œuvre dans son intégralité et a inclus les échanges avec le ministère des Affaires étrangères, Monsieur Abdel Latif, le procureur général, le Conseil national des droits de l'homme. Nous avons bien sûr consacré une journée au dialogue avec la société civile. Les discussions ont porté sur un large éventail de questions relatives aux droits de l'homme, notamment les droits politiques et civils ainsi que les droits économiques et sociaux et la situation des réfugiés.
Une attention particulière a été accordée à la situation des journalistes détenus ainsi qu'aux questions liées à la liberté d'expression et la liberté des médias. La seule exception au programme prévu concernait la rencontre avec une détenue dont le Parlement européen a demandé la libération, rencontre qui n'a finalement pas pu avoir lieu parce que pas autorisée. La mission a également permis d'établir un dialogue direct avec le Conseil national des droits de l'homme dans une perspective de suivi. Il sera utile de poursuivre et d'intensifier ces échanges, notamment en envisageant une invitation du Conseil à participer à l'une des prochaines réunions de notre sous-commission. Je vous propose à présent de donner la parole aux intervenants de la société civile, Monsieur Hossam Bahgat, directeur exécutif de l'Initiative égyptienne pour les droits des personnes, et Monsieur Mahmoud Shalaby d'Amnesty International, tous les deux en ligne, puis à Madame Katharina Volzova, chef d'unité Égypte à la DG MENA de la Commission européenne, et ensuite aux membres de notre délégation afin qu'ils puissent partager leurs principales observations et conclusions.
Notre échange sera clôturé avec les observations du SEAE. La parole est à Hossam Bahgat.
Vous avez la parole pour six minutes.
Hossam Bahgat
Chair Sartori, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to once again address you on the human rights situation in Egypt. I last had the honor of appearing before you in the fall of 2024. Since then, the EU has maintained numerous engagements with the Egyptian government regarding human rights. Two EU special representatives of human rights conducted missions to Egypt. The Commission produced multiple assessments ahead of each disbursement under the macro-financial assistance tool.
Based on the decision you passed last year, an annual progress report on human rights has recently been presented to you by the Commission. And of course, your subcommittee just concluded a recent visit to Cairo, as we heard from Mr. Chair. Therefore, allow me, Chair Sartori, instead of presenting yet another human rights report, to share only a few remarks about the last 12 months in Egypt.
My goal here is to illustrate why Egypt remains a situation of special concern, requiring urgent measures to address a deepening human rights crisis, and what we realistically expect from the EU in this regard. The autumn of 2025, so a year from now, marked a good run for the Egyptian government, bolstering its international standing and domestic leverage. Egypt secured the election of its candidate as UNESCO Director-General, the first Arab to hold the post. Egypt won a seat on the UN Human Rights Council with 173 votes, hosted world leaders at the Sharm el-Sheikh Peace Summit, and of course convened the first EU-Egypt summit in Brussels. External economic relief provided a vital financial lifeline, including a 7.4 billion development deal with Qatar and scheduled tranche releases from the IMF program and the EU's MFA.
However, we must ask what has occurred behind the veneer of these diplomatic and financial successes. Shortly after the Brussels summit, parliamentary elections were held under the same restrictive legal framework and were so fraught with irregularities that President Sisi himself took to his personal X account to denounce and distance himself from them.
The crisis of political arrests persisted, with the routine use of prolonged pretrial detention to silence critics indefinitely. High-profile activists like Ahmed Douma or lawyer Mohamed Abou el-Diyar and youth activists linked to Gaza solidarity movements have faced rearrest or systematic judicial harassment. A new wave has started of blockades on foreign funding to independent NGOs, most of it from European sources. Not a single presidential pardon was issued for political prisoners during the last 12 months. And let me move to the sad irony we live in, which is that the regime allegedly fighting political Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood has been executing the worst campaign in decades of prosecutions based on morality and religion.
Starting this time last year, security agencies launched an unprecedented crackdown on freedom of religion and belief with the arrest of at least 100 atheists, non-conforming thinkers, and Shia Muslims through August of this year.
A milestone Court of Cassation ruling reaffirmed the state's refusal to recognize the marriage and family status of Egyptian Baha'i citizens, further entrenching discrimination against them. And dozens of social media users have been arrested under vague family values charges, while security forces increased their use of dating apps for the targeted entrapment of gay, bisexual and trans individuals. Moreover, starting this year, authorities have executed and expanded another unprecedented campaign, this one an aggressive one against refugees and migrants, involving door-to-door arrests and checkpoints outside schools and hospitals. These detentions, often based solely on skin color, have included women, children and persons with disabilities. At least 25 deaths in migrant detention have been documented since January, which is a chilling spike up from zero documented deaths in previous years.
Thousands have been deported, mostly to Sudan, despite the vast majority of them being registered with the UN. On press freedom, Reporters Without Borders last year ranked Egypt 169 out of 180, while the Committee to Protect Journalists placed Egypt among the world's top six worst jailers of journalists.
On justice, Egypt ranked 135 of 142 on the Rule of Law Index, while Amnesty International reported an alarming increase in executions and nearly 500 new death sentences following flawed trials in 2025. Transparency International scored Egypt 130 globally on corruption, while the World Economic Forum placed Egypt in the worst 10 countries on the Global Gender Gap Index. Just some rankings. Turning to the socio-economic rights situation and despite macro-level stabilization, the burden on ordinary Egyptians remained immense. Subsidies on fuel and basic foodstuffs were rolled back as health and education spending fell below constitutional targets.
High inflation has eroded purchasing power, sparking widespread labor unrest. In total, 1,849 non-violent events were documented in 2025. That is an increase of 340%, 340% increase over 2024, driven primarily by economic grievances. The state budget for this fiscal year reveals the continuing troubling prioritization of debt servicing over human needs. Interest payments on domestic and foreign debt now consume roughly 60% of projected public revenue.
This exceeds the combined spending on health, education, wages, and subsidies together. The government continues to rely on borrowing to cover 49% of its expenses. Despite this reality, and in contrast with these independent objective global rankings, the European Commission recently concluded once again that Egypt has shown sufficient progress and, quote, concrete and credible steps on human rights to satisfy MFA requirements. We find this assessment again dangerously disconnected from the lived experience of Egyptians. To assess Egypt's human rights situation, one need only ask a few measurable questions.
Is the number of political prisoners rising or falling? How many independent media blocks have been lifted? How many human rights defenders, including the three directors from my own organizations targeted for the last six years, how many of them have been freed from arbitrary travel bans, asset freezes, and terrorism designations? Are poverty and inequality improving or worsening? Is social spending meeting constitutional targets?
The answers to all of these are abundantly clear. Egypt, Mr. Chair, is on a perilous path.
Mounir Satouri
Tout à fait, je suis désolé mais il faut conclure. Concluez s'il vous plaît.
Hossam Bahgat
Egypt is on a perilous path. The systematic closure of legal and peaceful channels for dissent, coupled with deepening poverty and glaring inequality, makes the country a ticking bomb. This is especially true given that 60% of our population are under 30. This demographic majority has come of age in a republic of fear defined by a constant struggle for survival and a total lack of future prospects. History teaches us that such conditions are a primary recipe for instability.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mounir Satouri
Merci beaucoup. La parole maintenant est à Monsieur Salabi, toujours en ligne pour six minutes, et si vous pouviez faire l'effort de respecter le temps, ça serait super. Merci. Allez-y.
Mahmoud Shalaby
Thank you so much for inviting Amnesty International to this meeting to speak about the human rights situation in Egypt, which remains very dire. Yet the European Commission has concluded, as my colleague Hossam was saying, in the context of the MFA to Egypt, that Egypt has fulfilled the political precondition which requires taking concrete and credible steps towards respect for human rights. It's our assessment that simply every positive step taken by the government is met or followed by two steps backward, making the overall trend certainly negative. For over a decade now, the Egyptian authorities have been imposing over the population a crisis of arbitrary detention, and now the country has thousands of people languish in pre-trial detention or in imprisonments following unfair trials, solely for expressing views or behaviors that are not sanctioned by the state.
The rampant use of arbitrary detention not only targets political opponents in Egypt, it also extends to a wide range of groups, serving as a deterrent to the exercise of human rights in the country. These groups include religious minorities such as Shia Muslims, Christians, and non-religious minorities such as atheists, artists, lawyers, actual or perceived LGBTI people, even women who express themselves on platforms such as TikTok and often charged with vague morality charges. This for sure includes actual or perceived political opponents. It also includes people who, social media users who are ordinary people complaining about price hikes or the government's handling of the economic crisis. So far in 2026, despite the announcements of some releases by the Egyptian government, the number of those newly detained for political reasons is three times higher than the number of those who have been released.
At a time when Egypt is in need of a vibrant civic space where people and political parties and NGOs and media could debate over the many challenges that are facing the country, including the economic crisis, the civic space in the country remains tightly closed, with the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, as well as media freedoms and the right to political to participate in public affairs, all remain severely restricted. In 2024, presidential hopeful Ahmed Tantawy was detained, was sentenced to a year and banned from running for office for five years after he attempted to run for the 2023 presidential elections, and 100 people from his campaign were also detained.
Um basically simply the the political parties opposition political parties and independent political parties in in Egypt cannot operate nor can meaningfully participate in in public life because of the effective criminalization of the rights to freedom of association assembly and um peaceful and um the right to participate in public life. NGOs as my colleague was speaking Hossam um including those who have registered under the abusive 2019 associations law continue to face risk of closure including the Egyptian center the center for Egyptian women's legal assistance and the association for freedom of thought and association thought and expression due to the repeated government's unjustified rejections to their foreign funding grants including from EU member states. Independent media outlets like Mada Masr and Al-Manassa remain blocked in Egypt. 24 journalists remain arbitrarily detained for their legitimate human rights work or for political reasons. A number of human rights defenders still face arbitrary travel bans including three former and current directors at EIPR and human rights lawyer Mohamed Al-Baqer and researcher Ahmed Samir Santawy.
Throughout 2026, the situation of refugees and asylum seekers was not any better, and the 2025 asylum law allows for the unlawful deportations and arbitrary detention of asylum seekers on migration grounds. The bylaws or implementing regulations that were issued in May 2026 failed to address these key flaws in the law. Amnesty International regrets that government initiatives such as the Presidential Pardon Committee, the National Dialogue, the National Strategy for Human Rights have failed to deliver tangible or concrete human rights progress. And at the end, we recognize that the EU's relationship with Egypt is crucial and a deepening one. That's why we encourage the EU and the government of Egypt to work together in light of this relationship to ensure concrete human rights progress and ensure that Egypt is committed to...
Mounir Satouri
Merci, il va falloir conclure, je suis désolé.
Votre temps de parole est terminé, donc concluez, prenez quelques secondes pour conclure.
Mahmoud Shalaby
Yes, well, the last thing I wanted to add is in particular ahead of the third and last disbursement of the macro-financial assistance to Egypt, it will be key that the EU uses this opportunity to establish time-bound, concrete and measurable indicators for Egypt to meet its human rights obligations. And thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Merci beaucoup, Madame Volfova, vous avez la parole pour cinq minutes.
Katerina Wolfova
Merci beaucoup, thank you very much, Chair, honorable members of this committee. Thank you for the opportunity to exchange again following the delegation's mission to Egypt in July. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to hear your assessment of the mission and the discussions you had on the ground. In reaction to the my predecessor speakers, in their interventions, I would like to mention and let me mention that there will be a possibility of my colleagues working in the External Action Service to intervene maybe at the at the end of this of this exchange to clarify maybe on the points of the assessment of the human rights in the context of the macro-financial assistance.
Despite the concerns raised, there is definitely room for improvement, but we are encouraged to hear of the mission's positive outcomes. Engagement of this kind are fully aligned with our broader efforts on human rights under the strategic and comprehensive partnership with Egypt and help to advance dialogue and cooperation on issues of critical importance. I will not repeat the broader overview of EU-Egypt relations that I presented ahead of the mission, but rather focus briefly on human rights and protection and on what we are doing concretely through our cooperation. As you were able to see during your visit, Egypt is a key strategic partner for the European Union, but also a country facing significant political, socio-economic and regional challenges. Human rights and fundamental freedoms remain an integral part of our engagement with Egypt and of the strategic and comprehensive partnership.
We are convinced that the partnership through its mutually reinforcing components can create further space for constructive dialogue and cooperation on human rights.
Since its signature and in the context of the macro-financial assistance operations, we have seen increased opportunities for engagement with the Egyptian authorities on these issues. In the in this context, the Commission and the European External Action Service work hand in hand, maintaining regular exchanges with a broad range of stakeholders in order to assess developments and calibrate our engagement accordingly. We continue to raise human rights issues with the Egyptian authorities through our regular political engagement, including at senior level, addressing key issues like civic space, freedom of expression and association, conditions of detention and individual cases of concern. But our engagement is not limited to political dialogue. We also seek to support concrete improvements on the ground through our cooperation programs.
We work with the Egyptian institutions, including the National Council for Human Rights, as well as the National Councils for Women, Motherhood and Childhood and Persons with Disabilities to strengthen institutional capacity and support the implementation of Egypt's human rights commitments.
We also cooperate closely with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights in Egypt. This includes support for human rights analysis and reporting, as well as training for young diplomats, journalists and law enforcement officials from different institutions, including the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Interior and the Public Prosecutor's Office. At the same time, we continue to support Egyptian civil society organizations by reinforcing their capacity to apply rights-based and participatory approach, with particular attention to women, young people, children, persons with disabilities, refugees, migrants and host communities. Let me say a few words now more specifically about refugees, asylum and migration, which I know were also important elements of your mission. Egypt is hosting a very large refugee and migrant population, which has grown considerably as a consequence of the war in the Sudan, but also in the broader context of the instability in the region.
This is placing significant pressure on public services and host communities, while making protection of refugees and migrants all the more important. Our cooperation therefore combines support for Egypt as a host country with a strong focus on protection and respect for the rights of refugees and migrants.
We maintain substantial support to UNHCR and other UN partners including for registration, protection, access to education and healthcare and assistance to vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers while also supporting host communities. We are also following closely the transition towards Egypt's new national asylum system. We have consistently been stressing the importance of implementation in line with Egypt's international obligations including the principle of non-refoulement and of ensuring that UNHCR can continue to play its essential protection role during the transition. We are considering further assistance including capacity building for the implementation of the new legal framework. At the same time we recognize that further progress remains necessary including on civic space, fundamental freedoms and in safeguarding the rights of migrants and refugees.
Our engagement and cooperation provide a channel through which we can continue to pursue such progress. I will conclude by, you know, expressing my keen interest in hearing from you your assessment following the mission including your exchanges with the authorities, civil society and other interlocutors and your views on how we can best follow up on your findings. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Et ben super, on va faire ça tout de suite. Comme ça on va pas vous décevoir et je vais donner la parole à Antonio López-Istúriz White qui va s'exprimer en tant que membre du PPE et de cette mission.
Antonio, trois minutes.
Antonio López-Istúriz White
Thank you, chair. First of all, thank you for leading the mission and the secretariat who prepared this mission with great care. Also to our ambassador in Cairo, Angelina Eichhorst, and the ambassador here of Egypt, Ahmed Abu Zeid. I think that there was a good collaboration that led to a very good visit. And I want to say very clearly, it was the first, I believe, you could correct me if I'm wrong, first visit of the Human Rights Committee to Egypt.
And every meeting we asked was accepted. Government, prosecutors, whatever, you know, House of Representatives, Human Rights Committee, civil organizations, independent journalists, family of prisoners. Everything was, you know, in this region, let me put it clearly, this kind of access is not something we should take for granted. In several neighboring countries, a program like this one would simply not have been possible. I think that our hosts were open, they listened, and they engaged on difficult questions.
True in the report is that also we were denied the access to the prison to see some prisoners in prison, and we highlighted this fact also in the report. Okay. Also, as the External Action Service has reminded us, we have to know also where Egypt sits. And before conditionality, that is a word that some people are using very easily, before this, let's also try to understand where Egypt is. Exactly between us, Middle East, and Africa.
And this is a place you would not envy to be so. And it's a more or less stable country surrounded by conflicts, by problems, and has provided also some, I would not rather say stability, but also mediating in many conflicts like in Gaza, as you all know, in Yemen, in Libya, and so on. I just want to put it clearly what the situation is. On refugees, the UN, the United Nations speak about 1, 1.5 million refugees, the Egyptians speak about 10 million.
Whatever the figure you take, the burden is enormous. And it is being carried by a country under serious economic strain, mostly because also the war on Sudan, this immigration. We saw families, we were there in the UN facilities, we saw, and needs our help, also this mission specifically also that are, you know, they asked, they are not finding the economical support. But the truth is that also Egypt is keeping people on its territory. It has kept our shores calm, contrary to other countries, as you know in my country Spain what's going on.
This is not the case in other places. Solidarity cannot be a one-way street. We should share responsibility instead of watching from a distance. I also known of what I have declared, chair, replace this our human rights message, which we delivered in our declaration. We raised the issue of journalists who are still detained.
We raised our concerns with prolonged pre-trial detention, prison conditions and the space available to civil society, including the practical obstacles that prevent Egyptian organizations from receiving European fund and many, many other questions that still are also unanswered.
And in our dealings with the government of Egypt, of course, the European Union, as was well expressed, also this question of human rights will have an important place and also motivate our acts. Said so, there was also, we saw that there are new movements inside the government, the new criminal procedure code, the reforms on asylum, labor rights, social protection. Our task now is to follow this closely and to check that they are applied in practice and not only in paper. True, and to keep the channel open and to raise these questions also in this committee, of course, that's what we are for. In the declaration, I mean, I just saw the question, I want to raise the question of conditionality.
It's for the EPP something that I will not share with my colleagues as I saw in some of the reactions. For the rest, I think it was a very good meeting and I'm very thankful for that. It was also eye-opening and very interesting for many of us. Thank you very much.
Speaker 38
Merci Antonio, et maintenant la parole à Sandra Gómez López, groupe S&D et membre de cette mission.
Sandra Gómez López
Muchísimas gracias, presidente.
Bien, yo en primer lugar, desde luego me quiero sumar a felicitar la organización de la misión. Especialmente creo que nos tenemos que referir a esta comisión, al secretariado, pero también al Servicio de Acción Exterior, a la embajadora y especialmente a las personas encargadas de evaluar la situación de derechos humanos en Egipto, que nos hicieron una magnífica agenda. Es por ello que también debemos de reconocer que hubo una voluntad por parte de el gobierno y los responsables políticos de Egipto de atender nuestras reuniones, resolver nuestras dudas y contestar prácticamente a todas las cuestiones, y eso es incuestionable. No obstante, creo que el caso de Egipto viene a ejemplificar muy bien el debate que hemos mantenido a lo largo de hoy en esta comisión sobre la realidad que aplica la Unión Europea a la hora de hacer valer su posición política y su fuerza para proteger los derechos humanos de sus socios estratégicos. Porque Egipto lo es, eso es incuestionable.
Es un país que ofrece estabilidad política y económica en cierta parte a una región muy compleja, como ha dicho mi compañero.
No obstante, lo que nosotros tenemos que evaluar, más allá de su especial contexto geográfico y político, también es cómo el gobierno trata a sus propios ciudadanos, que es en realidad de lo que tenemos que hablar en esta comisión. Y es ahí donde yo creo que de forma objetiva es innegable que hay mucho trabajo por hacer, demasiado, sobre todo en materia de libertades. Y mantuvimos diversas reuniones con familiares que mantienen a sus personas queridas, a sus allegados, durante años en la cárcel sin además tener un procedimiento procesal penal claro que les permita al menos tener un proceso con garantías. Y por lo tanto, eso es un hecho objetivo que en materia de libertades, de protección de garantías judiciales, Egipto está muy lejos de los estándares que deberíamos de exigir como Unión Europea. No obstante, también hay una cuestión de crítica en estos pocos segundos que me quedan que debemos de hacer como Unión Europea.
Y ahí sí que me sumo a las palabras que ha dicho mi compañero sobre la responsabilidad que están asumiendo en la gestión de la crisis de diferentes guerras, en realidad, por su enclave estratégico, pero especialmente en el caso de Sudán, donde tampoco los europeos somos del todo inocentes. Y es ahí en donde creo que tenemos una especial responsabilidad más allá de darles, si me permiten la expresión, dinero para que lo gestionen con la ayuda financiera. Porque sí que me llamó mucho la atención cómo tanto ACNUR como el propio los propios responsables políticos afearon, porque también hay que decirlo, que países de la Unión Europea este verano rechazaran acoger, por ejemplo, a niños y niñas víctimas de violencia sexual en Sudán para poder tratar, acoger o tutorizar en en Europa. Y que países como Canadá estaban asumiendo un número que están bastante más lejos asumían y tienen una responsabilidad menor asumían buena parte de nuestra responsabilidad, ya que en el último momento se había rechazado asumir estas estas este acogimiento y lo había tenido que hacer países como Canadá. Y yo creo que aquí tenemos una responsabilidad que está asumiendo Egipto y que también debemos de reseñar en nuestro posicionamiento político.
No solo podemos pagar porque gestionen un problema, perdón, que además, como han declarado, no se hace con las garantías debidas y creo que aquí también debemos de, si me permiten la expresión, presionar a nuestros gobiernos para que asuman su responsabilidad.
Mounir Satouri
Merci. S'il vous plaît, respectez le temps de parole parce qu'on a la réunion des coordinateurs qu'on ne peut pas décaler avec des sujets importants à trancher. Madame Noichl, trois minutes.
Maria Noichl
Ganz herzlichen Dank. Wir haben hier eine, glaube ich, ganz eindeutige Diktatur erlebt. Und ich glaube, da muss man auch kein anderes Wort finden, es ist eine Diktatur. Es können nicht alle zu den Wahlen antreten. Es werden Minderheiten gehetzt, es werden NGO-Gruppierungen unterdrückt, es gibt Verhaftungen.
Wir haben eine Kulisse erlebt, und zwar nicht nur die Stadt, die wir erlebt haben, die wie eine Kulisse in der Wüste steht, wo man sagt, wo ist man hier überhaupt, sondern wir haben auch eine Kulisse von freundlichen Gesichtern erlebt. Aber das alles kann uns doch nicht darüber hinwegtäuschen, was wir wirklich gesehen haben. Ich möchte mal ein paar Aussagen nochmal zusammenführen. Der kanadische Botschafter sagt, es ist schlimmer als vor zwanzig Jahren. Der Schweizer Botschafter hat gesagt, es ist kein Krieg, aber er sieht, das ist immerhin etwas, wenigstens kein Krieg.
In der Diskussion kam raus, wenn es zu Wahlen kommen würde, dann würde die muslimische Bruderschaft gewinnen. Und es ist ganz klar, es gibt Todesurteile etc. pp. Das heißt, im Endeffekt haben wir doch alle gesehen, was los ist. Und jetzt ist die Frage, was können wir tun?
Was können wir tun? Können wir bei beschriebenen Papieren, können wir bei strategischer Partnerschaft, bei anderen Partnerschaften, die mit Ägypten eingegangen werden, schlicht und einfach bestimmte Dinge anfordern und deutlich machen, dass das bei uns mit dazu gehört? Und da muss ich schon deutlich machen, dass ich das unbedingt noch mal auf den Punkt bringen will, die strategische Partnerschaft, die uns den ganzen Tag über nicht wirklich erklärt wird, was bedeutet das, was können wir davon fordern, was ist unser Mehrwert, was ist unser, was ist der Mehrwert auf der anderen Seite? Das andere ist, das Wort Konditionalität wurde jetzt schon ein paar Mal benannt, das heißt schlichtweg Bedingungen. Und wir sollten darüber nachdenken, ob wir nicht eine Urgency für die nächste Straßburg-Woche oder die Straßburg-Woche drauf in Auftrag geben, dass wir deutlich machen, wir müssen doch einmal wirklich das Licht jetzt da drauf lenken, was da dorten passiert.
Und zu sagen, und das möchte ich dem Kollegen von der EVP sagen, zu sagen, weil uns die jetzt in einem schwierigen Gebiet, und das möchte ich Ihnen nicht unterstellen, bitte nicht falsch verstehen, aber so ungefähr, ja, das ist ein schwieriges Gebiet und die halten uns die Flüchtlinge weg und deswegen schauen wir nicht genau hin. Das macht China auch. China sagt auch, wenn ich mit euch Geschäfte machen kann, dann schaue ich nicht genau hin. Wir sind nicht China.
Wir müssen genau hinschauen. Da sind wir verpflichtet und der Menschenrechtsausschuss sowieso. Und von daher, ich möchte auf jeden Fall drum bitten, dass wir einen nächsten Schritt überlegen. Weil was nicht geht ist, da nicht mal hinfahren mit einer Dienstreise, das alles sich nicht anschauen, Gesichter, die sehr freundlich waren, gegenüberstehen, ein paar Urlaubsfotos machen, heimkommen und nichts erledigen. Also wie gesagt, wir brauchen eine ganz klare Sache, Konditionalität, strategische Partnerschaft, wie ist das gefüllt?
Und die Frage nach wie vor, könnten wir eine Urgency machen? Dafür wäre ich sehr. Ganz herzlichen Dank.
Mounir Satouri
Merci, Madame Neichl, et franchement, pour le respect du temps, c'était parfait. La parole maintenant est à l'autre intervenant, enfin participant pour le groupe ECR, Monsieur Jongen. Trois minutes.
Marc Jongen
Merci, Monsieur Chair. Ja, ich, wir wollten uns auch bedanken beim Sekretariat für die gute Organisation dieser Reise, auch bei den ägyptischen Behörden, Botschaft und auch vor Ort. Das war alles vorbildlich organisiert und ich habe selbst sehr viel gelernt aus dieser Reise. Natürlich entspricht vieles, was dort als Menschenrechtssituation angesprochen werden kann, nicht dem, was wir unter europäischen Standards verstehen, das ist keine Frage. Aber Ägypten ist auch in einer sehr schwierigen Lage und Situation.
Wir haben dort eine unglaubliche Bevölkerungsentwicklung, ein Bevölkerungswachstum mit sehr viel Armut, die zu bewältigen ist. Und dazu kommen auch Flüchtlinge, das habe ich zum Beispiel so vorher nicht gewusst und auch gelernt aus dieser Reise, mit wie viele Flüchtlinge Ägypten selbst aufzunehmen hat und Migranten, nicht nur aus dem Krieg aus dem Sudan, aber vor allem auch deswegen und von dort her. Und insofern leistet dieses Land auch sehr viel, nicht zuletzt auch für uns, weil natürlich hier Migrantenströme, die ansonsten nach Europa durchströmen würden, auch in Ägypten aufgehalten werden. Jetzt ist es klar, was uns die Angehörigen der inhaftierten Journalisten und Oppositionellen erzählt haben, das ist zum Teil erschütternd, ohne Frage.
Und es wäre wirklich zu wünschen, dass diesen Menschen geholfen werden kann und dass wir auch einwirken auf die ägyptischen Behörden, dass hier die Bedingungen abgemildert werden und man das mit Menschenrechten kompatibler macht, was dort geschieht, was dort geschieht. Aber wir müssen ja auch sehen, im Unterschied zu China sind wir hier eben diesen Flüchtlingsströmen ausgesetzt. Und wenn wir jetzt mit einer besserwisserischen und belehrenden Geste und Konditionalität und allem den Ägyptern uns gegenüberstellen, dann müssen wir auch die Konsequenzen bereit sein zu tragen. Und das vor allem auch an die Kollegin von der SPD, S&D, dann müssen Sie auch bereit sein, endlich die Frontex wieder so zu organisieren, dass es ein echt europäischen Schutz, also Schutz der europäischen Außengrenzen gibt, dass wir auch Pushbacks erlauben etc. Und wenn wir in der Lage sind, uns selbst vor illegaler Migration zu schützen, können wir vielleicht auch gegenüber Ländern wie Ägypten etwas selbstbewusster auftreten, was das angeht.
Ansonsten wird das eine schräge Angelegenheit. Also insgesamt ist das für mich ein positives, positives Fazit für diese Reise und mit Licht- und Schattenseiten. Dankeschön.
Mounir Satouri
Bon, ce que je vous propose, s'il y a des membres qui souhaitent intervenir, c'est une minute. Après le SEAE, Madame Gatto, vous parlerez deux minutes trente. Et il faut vraiment qu'on conclue pour démarrer la réunion des coordinateurs. Y a-t-il des membres en dehors de ceux qui se sont exprimés ? Monsieur Mariani, une minute.
Thierry Mariani
En une minute, écoutez, j'ai rarement vu un rapport aussi positif. Pardon, Dieu sait que cette commission fait par moments des rapports qui sont extrêmement critiques. Je vais pas reprendre ce qui a été dit par tous mes collègues. Si j'ai bien compris, toutes les demandes quasiment de la délégation ont été respectées, à une exception, qui est la rencontre avec un prisonnier politique, qui aurait dû passer, d'après ce que nous disent les autorités égyptiennes, par le ministère de la Défense. Après, pour accélérer, je crois qu'il faut quand même voir la situation de ce pays.
Pression démographique, ça a été dit. Pression migratoire, si l'Égypte ne faisait pas le travail de bloquer les afflux en mer, que ferions-nous ? Et pression aussi, ne l'oublions pas, terroriste. Et enfin, un dernier point, je livre à votre réflexion deux chiffres. Nous avons un accord avec l'Égypte pour une dotation de quatre milliards.
Il y a deux semaines, le Qatar vient de signer pour une dotation de vingt-neuf milliards. Alors moi, je veux bien qu'on exige toute une série de choses, mais il y a un moment où il faut savoir si on a les moyens de peser. Et je pense qu'on a un vrai dialogue avec l'Égypte, que ce pays, comme ça a été souligné à plusieurs reprises, accepte d'ouvrir ses portes. Il y a du travail à faire, il y a des progrès à faire, mais je pense que le montrer du doigt comme par moments c'est fait, c'est à mon avis pas la bonne méthode.
Je crois qu'on doit rester ouvert au dialogue avec ce pays.
Alessandra Gatto
Oui, merci Monsieur le Président et merci aussi à tous les intervenants qui m'ont précédée. So I will take the opportunity to react in particular on the issue of the political part of the assessment of the macro-financial assistance where the EEAS is indeed in the lead. So let me explain a bit the logic of this assessment. The latest assessment about the first that takes into account the first half of 2024, we have observed some encouraging steps at the legislative and institutional level with concrete measures. And what we've noticed also a sustained engagement on several aspects of human rights, both with the UN system and with the EU.
So on the UN front, we had for the first time since 2018 a visit from a UN special rapporteur, specifically on safe drinking water and sanitation, that took place in Egypt, as well as the fact that Egypt has submitted the UN core document for the first time since 92. It was already mentioned before that Egypt is also a member of the UN Human Rights Council, and we've noticed also in this context a overall positive engagement. When it comes to the EU, I mean, I can testify with my own daily work that relationship with Egypt have reached such a level of maturity that we are able to address difficult issues with them. You've also testified that through the mission you had. Human rights have been regularly, frequently raised with the Egyptian authorities at all levels, so from technical up to ministerial level, and they were raised during the summit of last year.
Let me say that Egyptian authorities do not shy away from difficult questions and takes into account our encouragement and remarks to improve several aspects. The assessment we made is obviously not a completely rosy one.
We have also acknowledged persistent challenges and shortcomings and the EEAS wants to sustain an active and constructive engagement with Egypt in this respect. We are also well aware of the assessment that international, regional and local NGOs provide regarding human rights. And let me in this context thank all of them because we do have very frequent exchanges with some of the interlocutors you had today and the same goes for our delegation in Cairo. So our overall assessment of the situation is informed by intense, sustained and deep exchanges with the authorities as well as with local NGOs. And that's on the basis of this overall assessment that we assess that there is a positive trajectory on Egypt's reforms and it is a positive trajectory that we would like to continue to support and sustain.
Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Ok, bien. Alors je redonnerai pas la parole et je m'en excuse aux intervenants pour répondre aux questions mais on va rester en contact et je pense qu'il y aura d'autres occasions. Juste deux petits points, une minute trente.
Attention aux EDL de circonstance Monsieur Mariani. Faisons confiance à notre administration, à la délégation, la procédure pour la visite en prison a été carrée. Il fallait passer par le ministère de la justice et ça a été fait et dans les temps. Point. Ça a été refusé, nous le mentionnons parce que c'est un fait, on n'en fait pas un casus belli mais ne venons pas ici introduire le doute sur si la visite n'a pas eu lieu c'est parce qu'on s'est trompé de procédure, ce n'est pas vrai.
Je pense que là-dessus vous pouvez me faire confiance. Deuxièmement, on a constaté des choses très simples et je pense qu'on doit avoir un minimum de consensus entre nous. Nous ne pouvons pas permettre à ce que l'espace civique continue à être rétréci. Il demeure encore deux médias libres en Égypte. Je pense que notre job, notre rôle est de les soutenir.
Et d'ailleurs quand on l'évoque avec les autorités égyptiennes, en vrai quelque part ils en conviennent. Moi je trouve pas que le mot conditionnalité est un gros mot. Et d'ailleurs chers amis de droite et d'ailleurs je crains qu'à l'avenir la conditionnalité quand on va parler de conditionnalité migration vous allez commencer à l'apprécier. C'est pas un gros mot en fait. C'est des engagements, il y a du plus à des conditions quand ça fonctionne.
Qu'on fasse plus quand le partenaire fait bien, mais qu'on accepte de faire moins quand le partenaire fait moins bien. Attention aux chiffres, Monsieur Gangané et même Antonio. Non, il n'y a pas 12 millions de réfugiés en Égypte. Et d'ailleurs, on l'a entendu collectivement ensemble de la part de l'ambassadeur en charge de l'outil de gestion de la migration égyptien qui a été d'une précision extraordinaire. Il y a entre 1 million 1 et 1 million 2 de réfugiés, c'est beaucoup et l'Égypte doit être soutenue pour cela.
Moi je suis même pour qu'on introduise des bonus et des malus.
Mais il n'y a pas 12 millions. Il y a 12 millions d'étrangers en Égypte, comme il y a 12 millions d'Égyptiens qui vivent à l'étranger, notamment en Europe. Et donc, et moi, j'ai pas besoin que les Égyptiens me disent qu'il y a 12 millions de réfugiés pour que je pense qu'il faut les aider dans cette gestion des réfugiés qu'ils ont sur place. Le vrai chiffre peut me suffire pour dire qu'il faut que l'Union européenne renforce son soutien. Attention aussi, moi je demande là-dessus une précision sur le coût en termes d'infrastructures et de services publics de la présence des réfugiés.
Parce que moi, je veux bien tout ce que vous voulez, mais les enfants des réfugiés, ils peuvent pas ne pas accéder à l'école publique et nos partenaires égyptiens qui disent que ça leur coûte en termes d'éducation. Et quand il y a des moyens de l'Union européenne et des moyens caritatifs qui permettent d'inventer des dispositifs privés communautaires pour que ces enfants-là aillent à l'école, dire : "Ouais, c'est pas normal parce que les populations locales égyptiennes, elles n'y accèdent pas". Ça peut pas être tout.
C'est ou l'un ou l'autre. Et si c'est pour ça que je parlais de précision avec les Égyptiens, moi je pense qu'il faut du respect, il faut de la précision et il faut un peu de rapport de force. Avec le sourire, mais du rapport de force quand même. Si ça coûte aux services publics d'éducation, sanitaire et autres aux Égyptiens d'accueillir des migrants, il faut que ce soit précis pour qu'on puisse nous être capables de l'évaluer. Il y a eu l'exemple, et vous étiez là, chers collègues, quand j'ai échangé avec les autorités égyptiennes quand ils parlent de la pression sur les loyers et l'inflation au niveau et l'augmentation des prix des loyers pour les Égyptiens.
Enfin, sauf que depuis dix ans, les prix des loyers ont aussi augmenté parce qu'il y a une forte inflation en Égypte. Et s'il y a une forte inflation en Égypte, c'est pas à cause de l'arrivée des migrants, c'est à cause des choix notamment économiques de ce régime. Et donc l'autre point par contre sur lequel il faudrait qu'il y ait aussi un dialogue sérieux, c'est sur le modèle de développement et les choix du régime.
Si, et tous les observateurs économiques sérieux le disent, si le modèle égyptien est juste un modèle de développement par la promotion immobilière, de construction de nouvelles villes, de nouveaux bâtiments publics et touristiques, il va y avoir un problème et ça sera un puits sans fond. Donc oui, l'Égypte a des difficultés qui relèvent de sa position géopolitique, géostratégique, mais l'Égypte a des difficultés qui relèvent aussi de choix souverains opérés par les responsables. Et d'ailleurs, critiquer ces choix quand vous êtes un économiste égyptien connu et reconnu vous amène à la prison. C'est ça aussi la réalité égyptienne. Et donc l'Égypte est un partenaire important, c'est un grand pays, il mérite qu'on l'aide, il porte une part sur les réfugiés importante, mais on ne peut pas au nom de ça tout tolérer, tout accepter et fermer les yeux, y compris sur des choix économiques opérés qui ruinent le pays.
Et donc moi je souhaite que le partenariat stratégique se poursuive, je ne veux pas qu'on arrête, mais je veux qu'on soit un partenaire utile pour les Égyptiennes et les Égyptiens et utile pour la stabilité de la région.
Antonio López-Istúriz White
Seulement une petite remarque, il y a un malentendu qui s'installe. Je n'ai pas dit que j'ai pris la part de dix millions. J'ai dit c'est les Nations Unies qui parlent d'un million, c'est le gouvernement qui parle de dix millions. J'ai dit je ne prends pas part de ça. C'est pour ça qu'on a fait bien à demander la data, les data, la vraie data, et qu'on supporte les Nations Unies et le centre de réfugiés.
C'est ça que j'ai dit.
Mounir Satouri
Merci beaucoup. Nous continuerons bien sûr à être attentifs à la situation en Égypte. Et on va passer désormais à la réunion des coordinateurs. Seuls les coordinateurs, les advisors de groupe et les membres du secrétariat peuvent rester en salle. Les autres, nous vous libérons et vous souhaitons une bonne soirée.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.