SECOND SITTING
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
The sitting was opened at 10.10 with Mr Walter, President of the Assembly, in the Chair.
The PRESIDENT - The sitting is open.
The PRESIDENT - The names of those substitutes present at this sitting which have been notified to the President will be published with the list of representatives appended to the minutes of proceedings.
The PRESIDENT - In accordance with Rule 24 of the Rules of Procedure, the minutes of proceedings of the last sitting have been distributed.
Are there any comments on those minutes? ...
The minutes are adopted.
The PRESIDENT - In accordance with Rules 17 and 41 of the Rules of Procedure, I invite the Assembly to ratify the changes in the membership of the committees as published in Notice No. 2.
Is there any opposition? ...
The changes are adopted.
Later this morning we will debate the report of the Political Committee on European Security and the Middle East. As the report was adopted by the Political Committee only yesterday, I propose that we briefly set aside our normal rules and allow any amendments to be tabled until 10.45, which means that you have approximately 35 minutes in which to table an amendment to the report if you wish to do so. I know that the Political Committee considered amendments to the report yesterday, but that was internal to the Political Committee and I want to give other members of the Assembly an opportunity to table amendments to the Middle East report if they wish to do so. I ask you to table those amendments by 10.45, which will enable them to be translated into our two working languages and to be printed in time for the start of the debate later this morning.
Is that agreed?
It is agreed.
The PRESIDENT - The next order of the day is the address by His Excellency Mr Carlos Fernández Arias Minuesa, Permanent Representative of Spain to the WEU Council/EU Political and Security Committee, representing Mr Miguel Angel Moratinos, Minister for Foreign Affairs, representing the incoming Spanish EU/WEU Presidency.
I should like to thank you, Mr Ambassador, for coming today to introduce the programme of the incoming Spanish Presidency. Today is the day after the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Spain is going to bear the brunt of its implementation, with many new arrangements, such as reinforced cooperation. As we keep reminding ourselves, our modified Brussels Treaty is a model for reinforced, structured and permanent cooperation. Its provisions refer to defence per se - unlike the Lisbon Treaty - and I hope that this fact may appeal in certain quarters in coming months, as we look again at the implications of Lisbon.
The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all EU member states should have a profound impact on parliamentary scrutiny by national parliaments and the European Parliament. Cooperation and the flow of information between the two will increase. In particular, scrutiny by national parliaments over CSDP will be reinforced, as it should be; the participation of all national parliamentarians in this area is essential, as external EU operations are constantly growing in terms of numbers and complexity.
We had a very fruitful discussion in your Foreign Office in Madrid last week - I am very grateful for the arrangement of that - on this very subject. As a result, we shall help to organise a major conference in Spain next spring on the vital issue of public opinion and defence.
We look forward to working with you over the next six months and wish you the best of luck for what will undoubtedly be a challenging pesidency.
Mr Ambassador, you have the floor.
Mr FERNÁNDEZ ARIAS MINUESA (Permanent Representative of Spain to the WEU Council/EU Political and Security Committee) (Translation) Mr President, members of the Assembly, it is an honour for me to come before this Assembly to speak to you about the programme and priorities of the forthcoming Spanish Presidency of the Council of the European Union.
In less than a month, Spain will assume the Presidency of the European Union for the fourth time; taking on this responsibility constitutes a key event for my country's external action, possibly the most important of the coming years.
This will be our last Presidency of the Council for a long time. In the official order for the rotating Presidency, approved today, which extends until 2020, there is no provision for a fifth Spanish Presidency. If we take account of predicted enlargements over the next few years, everything would seem to indicate that it could be 15 years or more before we once again take the helm at the Council of the Union. It is no exaggeration, therefore, to say that this is a historic moment not only for Spain's foreign policy, but also its domestic policy - because it is clear that the European Union stepped into the foreign policy arena some time ago, permeating practically all of our national policies.
In addition, Spain is assuming the Presidency of the Council at a key stage in the European integration process, a real turning point in the Union's history. With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, one of the most ambitious reforms the European Union has ever known has been given fresh impetus. After a difficult ratification process, with all kinds of obstacles to be overcome, the new Treaty has come into force as the Swedish Presidency is coming to an end, and will have to be implemented during the Spanish Presidency, with a new Commission and a new European Parliament. This is one of the major challenges for the Spanish Presidency, whose efforts will make a vital contribution to arranging and securing the transition from Nice to Lisbon.
With your permission, I will focus now on two of the main issues that the new General Affairs Council will have to address, namely, the Treaty of Lisbon and enlargement. Once I have analysed these issues, I will talk about external relations and defence questions, which fall within the remit of the new Foreign Affairs Council.
The formal uncertainties concerning its ratification having been overcome, the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force yesterday, 1 December. This removed one of the most serious doubts hanging over the preparations for the Spanish Presidency.
The excellent work undertaken by the present Presidency has enabled agreements to be reached, at least at the political level, on various matters, so that these can be approved as soon as the Treaty enters into force, then rapidly implemented. Among these are the notification to third parties of the new international legal personality of the European Union, the new rules of procedure for the European Council and the Council, the new Council preparatory structures on the area of Freedom, Security and Justice, the chairmanship of Council working groups in the field of external relations and the launch of the European External Action Service. Once approved, it will be for the Spanish Presidency to secure their implementation in the most constructive and expeditious manner possible. The European External Action Service merits individual attention and I will come to this later.
In addition to adapting to the new institutional framework of the Union established by the Treaty of Lisbon, there are three main institutional issues that the Spanish Presidency intends to promote during its half year: the citizens' initiative, the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European External Action Service.
Starting with the citizens' initiative, article 11.4 of the Treaty on European Union states that one million citizens "of a significant number of Member States" may submit a citizens' legislative initiative, inviting the Commission to exercise its powers and present an appropriate proposal, on a particular subject. The procedures and conditions for such citizens' initiative will be determined in the corresponding Regulation.
The Commission has just approved a Green Paper to open a public consultation process on the details of this new initiative. The Spanish Presidency has informed the Commission of its wish for a formal proposal as soon as possible and is confident that the Commission will complete the public consultation process within a few weeks. If this is the case, it ought to be possible to approve the Regulation under the Spanish Presidency, since the European Parliament is equally interested and there is no significant opposition from any member state.
Secondly, there is the matter of accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. For this to take place, a negotiation will have to be opened with the Council of Europe, based on a mandate adopted unanimously by the Council. The Spanish Presidency intends to expedite this matter, which also requires a proposal from the Commission. We are aware of the technical and political difficulties involved, namely the need for unanimity in the Council and the subsequent technical and political requirements laid down by the Council of Europe, but it is Spain's intention to set this process in motion and guide its passage during our half year.
Thirdly, there is the European External Action Service. This is one of the most important innovations of the Treaty of Lisbon, not only from an institutional perspective, but also in terms of public awareness, given its originality and consequent significance for public opinion. After Lisbon, Spain is hopeful that the Union will abandon pointless duplication and isolated institutions in the field of external action and, through the European External Action Service, giving its support to the High Representative, will give greater coherence and visibility to the Union's international action. The Spanish Presidency will, therefore, direct its efforts to ensuring that the European External Action Service is operational at the earliest opportunity. In this regard, the fact that the European Council has opted for April 2010 as the projected date is good news indeed.
In preparation for this, the representatives of the member states have agreed on a report, which has the support of the European Council, to guide the High Representative in drafting her proposal for a Decision formally establishing the European External Action Service. The report is the result of long and complex debates among the 27, and represents a unanimous balance in the Council that was not easily achieved; however, it has to be said that there is still a long way to go, because it does not resolve all the issues, or go into the details.
Spain wants to see a strong European External Action Service that can provide appropriate technical support to the High Representative in all her duties and ensure coherence in the external aspects of the Union's affairs through the establishment of geographic units and single themes. To this end, we advocate an autonomous service, with its own budget and adequate staff right from the start. The staff would be drawn from the Council, the Commission and the member states in equal proportions at all levels, both at the Brussels headquarters and in the delegations.
The Presidency will also have to manage the very advanced process of enlargement of the European Union. Our work in this regard will be conditioned by strict adherence to the Copenhagen criteria and the renewed consensus of 2006. Candidate countries will have to comply in every detail with the conditions of entry to the European Union, not only in terms of their legislation and economies, but also their administrative practices.
We will continue to press on with negotiations with Turkey. We cannot deny that there will be obstacles and difficulties. Turkey will have to undertake significant and complex internal reforms which would be difficult under normal circumstances, and even more so in the context of an economic crisis. Through its Presidency, Spain will endeavour to lend new impetus to the negotiation process, emphasising Turkey's strategic and stabilising role in the Mediterranean and throughout the entire south-eastern region. It will also highlight the campaign for modernisation, particularly in the economic sphere, that Turkey has undertaken specifically in relation to its candidacy.
Although Turkey's candidacy arouses opposition amongst our European partners, we believe that the debate should be conducted on a technical, rather than political, basis and that Turkey should establish increasingly closer ties with the Union as it meets the conditions that have been set for it.
Turning to Croatia, the accession process is also well advanced. In its most recent Progress Report in October, the Commission said that the negotiations could be completed in 2010. We are ready to press on with these during our half year, in order to meet this date. Some political problems remain, however, such as the territorial dispute with Slovenia over the Bay of Piran. Spain, along with the majority of the member states, takes the view that a bilateral territorial dispute ought not to affect the enlargement agenda. This has been the criterion applied in previous accession negotiations and it should also apply in the case of Croatia and, indeed, in any future accession process.
We will step up the dialogue and cooperation with those western Balkan countries that have European aspirations and will promote the adoption of Community acts enabling these states to adapt to European standards.
We also hope that our Presidency will implement an ambitious programme in the area of external action. Our main objective is to collaborate in strengthening the already important role of the European Union on the international stage, so we will not limit ourselves to merely dealing with matters currently on the table. With the essential assistance of the new Community institutions and the other member states, we hope to enter new and decisive stages in the European Union's relations with its principal partners and increase the relevance of the European Union's role in finding solutions to the great challenges and conflicts on the international agenda.
We believe that the half year of our Presidency could provide an opportunity in this regard. The institutional innovations which the Treaty of Lisbon will usher in, together with a new Commission and European Parliament with increased powers, provide a great opportunity for the European Union to speak with a single and increasingly influential voice on the international stage. We must be able to use these new tools with ambition and political dexterity in the outside world, where we have raised particular expectations. This is why Lisbon represents not just an opportunity, but also a challenge to the credibility of the European Union in the outside world.
During its Presidency, Spain will have a particularly full external relations agenda. We would have to go back a long time to find a Presidency with so many international commitments of note: besides dealing with developments in current and future international crises in terms of CFSP and CSDP, our Presidency will have to prepare for and organise up to nine summits of Heads of State and Government of the Union with their strategic partners, as well as putting together a very full agenda of development cooperation in the context of the Millennium Goals.
The Spanish Presidency will be distinctly Euro-American and Euro-Mediterranean in its external relations. Six of the nine summits for which we have to prepare include these essential areas of our foreign policy.
We have been enthusiastic in taking on the organisation of the regional European Union-Latin America and the Caribbean Summit, which will bring together on Spanish territory a third of the countries that make up the United Nations. It is hoped that this summit will represent a qualitative change in Euro-Latin American relations by means of an ambitious Plan of Action, the approval of an Investment Facility and a European Union-Latin America and the Caribbean Foundation. Other priorities for the Spanish Presidency are the conclusion of negotiations for the Association Agreement with Central America, Colombia and Peru, and work designed to boost the negotiations with MERCOSUR.
The United States Summit in spring will be another key event of our half year. We have been working closely with the North American administration for some time to ensure the success of this Summit, which both parties are approaching with pragmatism and enthusiasm, as was clear at the meeting between Prime Minister Zapatero and President Obama.
The Canada Summit will provide an opportunity to work on the new stage in our relations represented by the start of negotiations on a new Trade Agreement. The Canadian Presidency of the G8 during the first six months of 2010 promises to be particularly useful in this regard.
It is a cause of particular satisfaction for Spain to be organising the first European Union-Mexico Summit, following the approval of the Strategic Partnership with that country. Together with Brazil, Mexico is now the second Latin American country to be recognised as a privileged partner of the Union.
In the Mediterranean area, we intend to organise the Second Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Union for the Mediterranean. The Summit should signify the confirmation of this ambitious project with the approval of a Programme of Work, the launch of the permanent Secretariat in Barcelona and the definition of new projects for this next stage of the Barcelona Process.
We are also enormously pleased that the European Union-Morocco Summit is to be held during our half year. This is the first of the Union's summits with a partner from the southern Mediterranean and the second, after South Africa, with an African partner. This summit represents the recognition of Morocco as an essential partner in Euro-Mediterranean cooperation and dialogue within the framework of the Advanced Statute.
Under the Spanish Presidency, the European Union will devote particular attention to invigorating the Middle East Peace Process, while at the same time continuing to support international efforts to resolve the nuclear issue with Iran.
It is difficult to overestimate the importance of Russia to the European Union. Russia is a trusted partner and neighbour of the Union and a global actor on the international stage. In spring we will be holding the European Union-Russia Summit when Spain, as Presidency of the Council, will spare no efforts working to consolidate a genuine strategic partnership between the European Union and the Russian Federation, from which both parties have much to gain.
Spain is ready to organise a meeting at ministerial level with the western Balkan countries to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Zagreb Summit. This meeting will also serve as a catalyst for the process of integrating the region into the European Union and as a stocktaking exercise, taking note of progress made and difficulties encountered in each of the Balkan countries.
Asia will also be an area of priority interest for Spain, and during our half year we will work to consolidate both regional and bilateral relations in the area.
We will hold a European Union-Japan Summit during which the Action Plan with Japan, due to expire in 2011, will be reviewed. We are confident that this will be an excellent opportunity to strengthen relations with the new Japanese Administration. Also during our half year, we will organise the second ad hoc European Union-Pakistan Summit, a meeting with a highly political agenda, when the Union will reiterate its support for Pakistan in a difficult regional situation.
I will now talk about Africa, a continent that has become one of the main pillars of our external action in recent years. Although no specific summits with this region will be held during the Spanish Presidency - the third European Union-Africa Summit will take place under the Belgian Presidency - a number of important events will, nevertheless, be taking place during our half year. I will mention just two of these: the Joint European Union-Africa, Caribbean and Pacific Council of Ministers at which the second revision of the Cotonou Agreement is to be signed; and the European Union-Africa Troika Meeting at which, with the summit in mind, we will have to adopt the second Action Plan with Africa and the structural changes to the eight European Union-Africa Strategic Partnerships. Lastly, besides encouraging an integrated focus on Somalia - including efforts to combat piracy in the waters off the coast of that country - our Presidency will pay particular attention to the Horn of Africa as a whole, to developments in Darfur and in southern Sudan, the Sahel and to the conflict in the Great Lakes region, devoting special attention to developments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
At the same time, Spain will work tirelessly to build the necessary consensus between the member states and present a relevant European position in such important areas as the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference planned for April-May 2010, or during work on a future international treaty to regulate the arms trade.
Implementing the European Union Counter-Terrorism Strategy and the Strategy for combating radicalisation and recruitment will also be an important aspect of our Presidency. The protection and promotion of human rights in this context, and the situation of victims of terrorism, will receive special attention. In addition, within the framework of the United Nations, the Spanish Presidency will promote the Alliance of Civilizations, while working to encourage the reform and reinforcement of this global international organisation.
During its Presidency, Spain will seek to improve the Union's crisis-management capacity, including the planning and conducting of operations. In this regard, we believe it is necessary to make the procedures for launching operations more responsive, in particular through force generation processes and financing mechanisms. Lastly, the Spanish Presidency will promote the combination of civil and military instruments that makes the European Union a unique player in the field of crisis management.
In the area of partnerships and cooperation with other international actors, we believe it is vitally important to strengthen the Union's relations with NATO and increase institutional cooperation with the United Nations on crisis management, as well as improving collaboration with regional organisations in Africa and Asia. We will work to strengthen the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) and promote increased cooperation with the Mediterranean.
Finally, the Spanish Presidency will encourage the exchange of information in the field of CSDP and the participation of third countries in its missions and operations.
In short, the first of January will see the beginning of the most complex and decisive European Presidency ever undertaken by Spain to date. In order to rise to this challenge, the Spanish Government is putting together an ambitious programme, focusing on the following pivotal points:
Economic recovery and the promotion of a model for sustainable growth and the creation of quality employment within the framework of the Lisbon Strategy Post 2010.
21st Century European Citizenship and gender equality.
The promotion of Europe as a global actor, the defence of human rights and the eradication of poverty throughout the world.
Implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon and the corresponding political and institutional renewal.
With this ambitious programme on the table, and bearing in mind the particular context of the Union at the present time, it cannot be denied that the Spanish Presidency will be conducted under extremely difficult conditions. However, we are not discouraged by this; quite the reverse. It makes us all the more determined to continue building the Europe of the future, and to leave our mark on the projects, initiatives and institutions developed by the Union to meet the many challenges presented by international society today.
The Presidency of the Council represents a unique opportunity for Spain with regard to our country's external action, an opportunity we intend to seize, so reinforcing the image of Spain as a country strongly committed to the European project, rigorous in the performance of its Community responsibilities and ambitious for its political projects.
I will now be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you very much, Mr Fernández Arias Minuesa, for your extensive speech. It tells us that the Spanish Presidency will be as full as any of us would have anticipated. The remarks that I made earlier about the challenges facing the presidency are fully borne out by your report.
You have agreed to answer questions from members of the Assembly. The first is from Mr Greenway, on behalf of the Federated Group of Christian Democrats and European Democrats.
Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom) - I thank you for your comments. The nub of my question is the role that you see for this Assembly in the future. There is much in what you said with which we agree. For example, we in the Committee for Parliamentary and Public Relations warmly welcome your comments about improving EU external relations, giving much increased visibility for security and defence matters from an EU perspective to our peoples across Europe. I entirely agree about accession and enlargement. That very much matches the sentiments in the report that we shall discuss tomorrow, which I have prepared for the committee, on the security, strategic and geopolitical advantages of enlargement.
If you look at our agenda this week, you will see reports on all the issues that you addressed in your excellent speech. That is the core work of this Assembly. If this is an historic moment for Europe, as you said, it is such a moment for our Assembly as well. What will be our role in the future? How will we be resourced? The EU has been given a huge increase in resources for the new Lisbon structure, but we in this Assembly face constant funding cuts. We believe in what is being attempted across the European perspective, particularly with regard to security and defence policy, but we want a fundamental role in ensuring that that policy is scrutinised adequately and that we have the resources that we need to do a proper job.
The PRESIDENT - Would you, Mr Fernández Arias Minuesa, like to answer that question?
Mr FERNÁNDEZ ARIAS MINUESA (summary) said that he could not give a clear-cut response to Mr Greenway's questions as he did not know what the future held for the Assembly. However, he could say what the Spanish Government thought of the Assembly. The answer was contained in Mr Greenway's question: the Assembly did good work and brought added value and helped to convey and communicate matters to the EU at large. It was in the hands of the member states to arrive at a consensus about the Assembly's future.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Fernández Arias Minuesa.
The next question is from Mr Wille on behalf of the Liberal Group.
Mr WILLE (Belgium) (summary) said he agreed with Mr Greenway. He asked the Ambassador to say more about his concern that the EU should be in step with public opinion. Should Spain wish to organise a colloquy for that purpose during its presidency the Assembly would be glad not only to participate but also to co-organise it.
The PRESIDENT - Would you, Mr Fernández Arias Minuesa, like to answer that question?
Mr FERNÁNDEZ ARIAS MINUESA (summary) thanked Mr Wille for his offer to help in communicating with the public. The past five years had been important in securing the framework for the Lisbon Treaty. The difficulties encountered with the adoption of the treaty could be put down to a lack of communication by the EU, which had not properly explained what it could achieve. Citizens wanted a more robust and credible Europe, but had no confidence in what the European institutions had been doing. Mr Solana had often stressed the need for better communication, but the message had not been driven home. He had high hopes of the future European External Action Service; however, it would need to work with the national parliaments. He did not know whether a colloquy was on the agenda.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you.
We have a long list of questions, so I ask that both questions and answers be brief. The next question is from Lord Anderson, on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) - I have two questions, the first on the European External Action Service and the second on Croatia. You and your colleagues will set ground rules for setting up the European External Action Service. What proportion of the diplomats will be secondees from national governments and therefore in danger of being less independent? How will the service operate with regard to the United Nations? Will it be a case of first among equals, or will the service be an equal partner of national governments? Will some of the secondees come from non-governmental organisations with special expertise, for example in human rights?
On Croatia, is there a danger that we may not meet the June 2010 target date owing to the EU giving a veto to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia regarding certain documents that Croatia says it no longer possesses? Do you expect a Croatian accession to be co-linked with that of Iceland?
The PRESIDENT - Would you, Mr Fernández Arias Minuesa, like to answer that question?
Mr FERNÁNDEZ ARIAS MINUESA (summary) said he would answer the second question first. He did not think there was a link between Iceland and Croatia and each case would be assessed on its own merits. He believed there were difficulties with all enlargement conditions. If Croatia was willing to cooperate, it would be able to progress.
External affairs had not been worked out in fine detail. He did not know how many secondees would be required, but there had been discussions about the balance and about the number of representatives - it might be 30 to 35%.
The independence of the European External Action Service was not only about the proportion of secondees but also about the rotation of staff. Officials could stay for lengthy periods doing the same job. It was intended to have a rotational system similar to the diplomatic service, with rotation every three years.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you.
I call Mr Fassino, who has recently taken over as Chairman of our Political Committee. He is also the European Union's Special Envoy for Burma/Myanmar.
Mr FASSINO (Italy) (summary) said that he was grateful for the address. He had a number of questions to ask the Ambassador. After the Ambassador's address, the Assembly would be examining two reports, one on the Middle East and one on Afghanistan. He wanted to know, on each of these issues, the opinion of the Spanish Presidency. The Middle East peace process had stalled. Afghanistan was at a crucial stage, with the United States having recently announced a greater military commitment. There was uncertainty in the country after the recent election of President Karzai and this was a critical period.
The Ambassador had spoken of Asia: there was a window of opportunity with regard to Myanmar. President Obama and Mrs Clinton were engaged in a review of Myanmar and in 2010 there would be general elections, which provided a good opportunity for progress. He asked the Ambassador how the Spanish Presidency would engage in this issue. Finally, Iran was at an important stage following the recent elections in that country. He asked how the Spanish Presidency would take this situation forward.
The PRESIDENT - Would you, Mr Fernández Arias Minuesa, like to answer that question?
Mr FERNÁNDEZ ARIAS MINUESA (summary) said that the question of the Middle East could not be left to the countries directly involved as they would never be able to resolve the situation by themselves. It was essential that the European Union moved from the position of a supporter of peace initiatives to that of an actor through, for example, the work of the Quartet.
The Afghan Government had demonstrated its inability to provide its citizens with the wherewithal to improve their security and standard of living. He suggested that the EU could work alongside NATO to assist democratisation, perhaps by supporting the fledgling institutions in that country. It was essential that Afghan perceptions of the West were changed to those of friends and allies if any progress was to be made.
Iran posed a massive challenge. It was hard to see how things would shape up. The fallout from Iran's violent reaction to the work of the IAEA was ongoing and he could not say for certain how it would be resolved. Russia and China had changed their stance in relation to Iran's use of nuclear technology, and in any future work it would be important to take a united approach.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you. We will have to move a little bit faster through the questions. I propose to take them in groups of three.
I call Mr Jelinčič Plemeniti, from Slovenia.
Mr JELINČIČ PLEMENITI (Slovenia) - As you know, Mr President, I come from Slovenia, which neighbours the western Balkans, which you might say is a lively region. We heard in the speech that border disputes will have no effect on EU extension, but I think that they will. Taking in Croatia without the other countries of the western Balkans might cause huge problems.
Would it not be good for the Spanish Presidency to organise a peace conference on the former Yugoslavia, perhaps with Greece, which has the presidency of WEU? That would be the only solution to the problem in the Balkans; otherwise there is no war de facto, but de jure there still is. There are problems in Bosnia, Kosovo, and with Albanian minorities in Montenegro, other parts of Serbia and even in Macedonia. I think that it is important to have such a conference. What do you think?
The PRESIDENT - The next question in the group is from Lord Tomlinson, from the United Kingdom.
Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) - I will not wrap up my question in any attempt at being diplomatic. I will ask it directly and bluntly. When you replied to Mr Greenway about the future of WEU, you said, "I cannot tell you what the future holds". I am asking you to tell us what the present holds. You do not need a crystal ball: you can be quite precise about the here and now. In your original speech, you said that dysfunctional duplication should be avoided. Can you tell us to what that was a covert reference, and how it impacts on this Assembly?
Finally, when, I hope, you have given us some idea of the importance that you attach to this Assembly, perhaps you will explain to us, because we are somewhat bemused, why the attendance of Spanish members at WEU is so restricted? It might be that your government and parliament somehow do not value their input, but the rest of us do. We wonder why we are denied their input, and we cannot believe that it is merely about saving a few euros, given the profligacy with which all governments use their money in other international organisations.
The PRESIDENT - The next question is from Mr Kõuts.
Mr KÕUTS (Estonia) - I want to ask about the Spanish position on maritime security, particularly in relation to piracy. Last month, two Spanish trawlers were attacked by Somali pirates, and one was even hijacked. During your presidency, what will be your position on how the European Union can and must fight against piracy?
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Fernández Arias Minuesa.
Mr FERNÁNDEZ ARIAS MINUESA (summary) said that he thought the idea of a conference on the Balkans was an excellent idea. He did not envisage it being a full-scale peace conference, but rather a continuation of the current process of dialogue that had been under way for some time. He agreed that capitalising on the Greek Presidency of the WEU might well prove beneficial.
On the status of WEU, he said that there could be no doubt that WEU existed today and that he had not intended to give the impression that it was the view of the Spanish Government that it would not do so tomorrow. He merely noted that some member states might use the implementation of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty pertaining to foreign relations to re-evaluate the role of WEU, but that any such re-evaluation would almost certainly not take place in the next few months. The non-attendance of the Spanish Delegation was indeed a matter for regret and he assured delegates that this was in no way the consequence of any action taken by the Spanish Government. The Spanish Parliament was responsible for Spanish delegations to international assemblies, and whilst recognising budgetary restrictions, he did think that it was important that Spain was represented at WEU.
Operation Atalanta had proven that international cooperation was vital in combating piracy, which was not just an African problem. It affected trade all around the world and there was a danger of copycat actions in other regions.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you.
The next question is from Mr Zacchera, followed by that from Mr Rouquet.
Mr ZACCHERA (Italy) (summary) asked about the Spanish Government's position on illegal immigration, and in particular what Spain intended to do about the problem of immigrants entering through North Africa.
Mr ROUQUET (France) (summary) asked about the more flexible use of battlegroups.
The PRESIDENT - Would you, Mr Fernández Arias Minuesa, like to answer those questions?
Mr FERNÁNDEZ ARIAS MINUESA (summary) said that illegal immigration was a serious problem for Spain and Italy, as well other countries represented in the hemicycle. Spain was committed to tackling this issue in a variety of forums. It had launched the Rabat process and work was being done in the 5+5 group as well as within the European Union, for example. Progress could be made if the North and South recognised this as a common challenge and worked together to find joint solutions. Consistency in Community immigration policies and solidarity among the 27 member states were also necessary.
On battlegroups, Spain fully supported the project initiated by the French Presidency and the further work done in this area by the Swedish Presidency. It was necessary to have the greatest possible flexibility in the use of the battlegroups. Battlegroups were not the only rapid response solution in Europe, but they had the merit of existing. Political will was vital, however. Any work would draw heavily on the invaluable experience gained during ESDP missions.
The PRESIDENT - Ambassador, thank you very much indeed. You have given us an exhaustive presentation of the Spanish Presidency. You have answered questions from 10 questioners, but I think that they contained about 20 questions, so thank you for your indulgence in answering those questions. It remains to thank you very much indeed for being with us today and to give you a small token of our appreciation. Thank you very much.
Mr FERNÁNDEZ ARIAS MINUESA (Translation) - Thank you very much to all of you. During the Spanish Presidency we will continue to work very closely with the WEU Assembly.
The PRESIDENT - Before we move on, I want to extend a warm welcome to our Assembly session today to Mr Rudy Salles, who is the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean. You are very welcome here today, Mr Salles. I was delighted to attend the last meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean and I am delighted that Mr Salles is with us today. You are very welcome indeed.
The PRESIDENT - The next item of business is the presentation of and debate on the report of the Committee for Parliamentary and Public Relations "Models and structures of interparliamentary cooperation", Document 2055.
I call the Rapporteur, Mr Daems, to present the report. Mr Daems, you have 10 minutes to present your report, and I remind those who wish to speak to this report that they will have a maximum of four minutes.
Mr DAEMS (Belgium) (summary) said that the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty opened up new horizons for the European Union, especially as regards institutional considerations.
The "governmental" aspects of Europe would change considerably as a result. There would be a foreign minister for the rest of the world to talk to. Things were not so clear on the "parliamentary" side. National parliaments had to be receptive to European legislation while continuing to represent those who elected them in their own countries. They had to accommodate to decisions taken in common but be attentive to the specific needs of their own people. Within Europe, a major question for the immediate future was how to strike a balance in institutional terms between the community sphere and the areas of responsibility that remained subject to decision-making at national level.
The area of concern to this Assembly, security and defence policy - an intergovernmental responsibility - had seen no institutional development under the treaty as far as the parliamentary side was concerned. Ministers were able to keep in step with one another through the Political and Security Committee but national parliaments had been given no institutional means of exercising collective oversight, with the risk that a democratic deficit would arise.
Under the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament had not been given a remit for defence matters (over which the Assembly had formerly had oversight) although there were mechanisms through which the Parliament could be informed about joint missions and programmes initiated by member states. So while the machinery existed for national governments to make Europe-wide decisions on defence matters, they were not accountable to centrally-elected European politicians, just national ones, and national parliaments, which had the last word on their country's security and defence policy decisions, were bereft of the means of holding their governments to account for collective decisions taken at European level.
For some years now, there had been discussions about how WEU might be reformed, how it could add value and ensure it had an impact within national parliaments.
Interparliamentary cooperation was of major and growing importance across the world. There was a growing number of links between national parliaments. He did not wish to read out the text of the report but hoped that the Assembly had been able to consider its words carefully. The WEU Assembly had many advantages; it had a stable headquarters and a permanent and knowledgeable administrative staff. Its members were grouped by political affiliation rather than nationality, making its discussions truly transnational. However, it needed to strengthen its links with the outside world to ensure that its work had greater visibility and impact in national parliaments. This meant that members had to promote and follow through recommendations adopted by the Assembly in their national parliaments.
He thanked the Secretariat for its support, and asked the Assembly to approve the resolution set out in the report, with one technical amendment as tabled. He stressed once again that members should submit this and other WEU Assembly reports to their national parliaments.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Daems.
The debate is open. A number of speakers have subscribed to the list for the debate. The first speaker is Lord Tomlinson, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group. You have four minutes.
Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) - The Socialist Group discussed this report yesterday and offers its unanimous support for it. We think that it is a good report and a good platform that, particularly in the light of recent discussions with the Spanish Presidency, we must use to decide exactly on our next steps.
There was a refreshing honesty from the Spanish Presidency when faced with giving its views on the here and now and about the future of this Assembly. It was made clear that there are discussions among governments about our future. Although the Spanish Presidency said that it will not make any proposals for reform of the WEU, I emphasise that Mr Fernández Arias Minuesa said that such reform is not being ruled out by others, whom he described as more advanced in their thinking. If that is not an implicit threat to this organisation, I have never heard one.
Therefore, we have to move away from the generality of the assertion of our importance. In the specific circumstances following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, we must identify with clarity the areas that, as they are to be resolved intergovernmentally, should be the subject of scrutiny by an interparliamentary body. We must focus our work much more directly and clearly, and find common ground about our common purpose.
The background against which we do that is an extremely dangerous one. It is one where we have almost given up discussing our budgetary needs, because we know that the budget with which we are presented will further restrict our ability to do that which we believe needs to be done. Although I very much welcome the views of Mr Fernández Arias Minuesa, who condemned the decision of the Spanish Parliament, those decisions have been made and there is pressure not only on the Spanish Delegation but on other delegations concerning the ability to represent their parliamentary interests in our Assembly.
Our main role in the next few months is to determine our role post-Lisbon, a role that can only be conducted properly by an interparliamentary body. If we do not do that, perhaps we will be reflecting our own death wish. I do not share that death wish at the moment but if we are to inspire confidence of our national parliaments and governments, we must show more self-belief. We should look at the attendance at some of our committees and our gatherings. It is easier to find an empty seat than an occupied seat in the Chamber. Those things show a lack of confidence in our role and our purpose. If we do not show self-belief, how can we expect anyone else to believe in us? We must discover our creed, show what we believe in and work single-mindedly towards that conclusion.
The PRESIDENT - The next speaker is Mr Mota Amaral.
Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) - I subscribe to everything that Lord Tomlinson has said and I congratulate the Rapporteur on his report. We must take seriously the role of national parliaments in the framework of the EU following the Lisbon Treaty. As our Rapporteur suggested this question must be put to our national parliaments. We may face changes to the fundamentals of our organisation and I am not optimistic about the future of WEU, even though the Lisbon Treaty contains a special mention of it as an entity with which the EU must cooperate.
An interparliamentary body within the framework of EU institutions is certainly needed. In my previous responsibility as Speaker of the Portuguese Parliament, I tried to get the Speakers of all member countries in favour of putting an interparliamentary body into the then Constitutional Treaty. The reply was that the European Parliament was against that. But what legitimacy does the European Parliament have in terms of democratic scrutiny of matters that are not within the competency of the European Parliament?
I believe strongly that these questions should be decided by national parliaments in terms of providing an interparliamentary assembly based on the free cooperation of national parliaments. Such an institution would be in charge of the permanent dialogue about the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity, which is vital for the defence of our specific interests against the tendency of the Eurocracy to make Europe more uniform. On the other hand, Europe also wants a strong hold on questions of defence and foreign policy.
Under these new conditions this assembly may be a little obsolete. The delegations from each country here are the same as the delegations to the Council of Europe. We need more members who are concerned directly with defence and foreign policy and with the constitutional questions involved in the subsidiarity principle. It would be paradoxical if such an institution were not placed in the framework of the responsibilities of our national governments but if so, we must proceed with dialogue and cooperation with national parliaments.
The PRESIDENT - It now gives me great pleasure to call Mr Mehmet Çiçek, the Vice-President of PABSEC, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation.
Mr ÇIÇEK (Vice-President of the Parliamentary Assembly of Black Sea Economic Cooperation) (Translation) - In my capacity as Vice-President of PABSEC, it gives me great pleasure to address such an important meeting of the European Security and Defence Assembly/Assembly of Western European Union.
Established in 1993 as the parliamentary dimension of the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, PABSEC brings together 76 members of parliament from 12 member states - Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Turkey and Ukraine. The People's Assembly of Egypt, the French Parliament, the German Bundestag, the Knesset of the State of Israel, the National Council of the Slovak Republic and the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus have observer status in PABSEC.
Ever since its creation, PABSEC has established contacts with various international organisations and parliamentary assemblies, many of which are observers to PABSEC. These include, in addition to your Assembly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the European Parliament, the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the Eurasian Economic Community, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the Parliamentary Assembly of Belarus-Russia Union, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Central European Initiative, the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and the Parliamentary Union of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference Member States.
The three PABSEC specialised committees - the Economic, Commercial, Technological and Environmental Affairs Committee, the Legal and the Political Affairs Committee and the Cultural, Educational and Social Affairs Committee - discuss and draft documents on a wide range of issues of importance for the development of the Black Sea region.
Our Assembly this year celebrates its 16th anniversary. In its 16th year of existence, the Assembly has taken resolute action to provide consistent support to BSEC projects, concentrating its efforts on subjects of the utmost importance for multilateral economic cooperation in the Black Sea region.
Multilateral economic cooperation and the challenges of sustainable development take priority in the agenda of the Assembly. PABSEC has considered the main aspects of regional economic cooperation and has elaborated relevant recommendations for reaching a higher degree of integration of the BSEC region into the European and world economy.
Having focused its activities on high-priority economic issues, the Assembly also addresses problems of democracy and the rule of law, globalisation, terrorism, good governance, civil society, the institution of ombudsman, stability and security and local authorities.
In recognition of the fact that such social hardships as a dramatic decline in living standards, growing unemployment and poverty among people are widespread in the transition countries, the Assembly has addressed these issues and adopted recommendations on the social protection of migrants and displaced persons, pensioners, children, migrant workers, the unemployed and women, calling for social guarantees and new clearly-defined social policies for the most vulnerable groups of the population.
PABSEC also devotes particular attention to cooperation in the cultural sphere. In this context, the Assembly has adopted various recommendations on the protection of the cultural heritage and cultural cooperation, including, for example: dialogue among cultures, cultural diversity, the preservation and enhancement of the cultural heritage and cultural tourism.
The PABSEC initiatives for cooperation between the capitals, public broadcasters and constitutional courts of its member countries, as well as the organisation of the Children and Youth Festival of BSEC member states and the meeting of ombudsmen from BSEC member states have led to a strengthening of cooperation at the level of civil society.
It is very important that regional cooperation among parliaments should make national legislatures more effective and create strong ties between parliaments and parliamentarians. In this respect, the role of the parliamentary assemblies is to provide an effective mechanism for achieving common goals towards the establishment of a truly democratic society.
Our Assemblies are two major institutions constituted by countries located in highly important geostrategic and geopolitical regions of our world. Located on the north-south and east-west axes, the BSEC countries have been at the crossroads of civilisations. The BSEC region is at the heart of the area through which the historical trade route between east and west - the Silk Road - passes. Today, the secure route for western countries to the east passes through that region. The natural resources needed by the western countries, such as oil and natural gas, are provided by and transported from this group of countries to the consumer countries of Europe. With the Nabucco gas pipeline project, Turkey has become the indispensable country of this region. Energy supplies from Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to Europe will pass via Turkey. Sharing strong historical, cultural and economic ties with the relevant countries, Turkey was a driving force in the establishment of the BSEC organisation. Together with the other countries, Turkey is keeping up its efforts to continue strengthening cooperation among BSEC countries. The BSEC countries, wishing to further strengthen cooperation and solidarity with the European Parliament, are aware of their key role for the development of our regions in all directions. Some BSEC member countries are also members of the EU. Turkey is working hard to fulfil the relevant requirements for EU accession. For many centuries, Turkey has been the bridge between civilisations connecting Europe and Asia. Turkey is the only country with territory in both Europe and Asia.
All interparliamentary institutions and their members agree that the issues on your agenda - support for United Nations operations, the war in Afghanistan, European security, the Middle East and other global events being taken up by your Assembly - are subjects relevant to the whole world and requiring particular emphasis.
It is an inevitable reality that as a consequence of expansion of the EU in 2007 to include Romania and Bulgaria, both on the Black Sea, agenda items on the Black Sea region and its close vicinity have come to the fore as never before.
In this context, given the scope and importance of the economic, political, legal, commercial, technological, cultural and environmental issues that are at the centre of the activities of PABSEC - the most effective and most comprehensive parliamentary organisation in the Black Sea Region - they certainly also concern parliamentarians of neighbouring European countries to the highest degree. I hold the conviction that subjects of high priority to PABSEC such as energy supply, diversity and security, land and maritime transport, immigration and the fight against organised crime are also closely followed by the members of the WEU Assembly.
It must be borne in mind that the peace, prosperity and well-being of the peoples represented in both assemblies are dependent on the work done individually and in common by PABSEC and the WEU Parliamentary Assembly.
PABSEC decided at its 30th General Assembly in Tbilisi in December 2007 to form a permanent delegation to further strengthen cooperation between PABSEC and the European Parliament, and swiftly fulfilled the requirements of that resolution. It has already held meetings with EU member parliamentary groups and committees in order to discuss the methods to be pursued and the ways and means of organising an effective and permanent information exchange between the two parliamentary bodies.
As you know, PABSEC and WEU Assembly members have been taking part in each others' general assembly meetings for some time now. Most recently you participated in our General Assembly in Moscow last November and members of the Parliamentary and Public Relations Committee of your Assembly have taken part in our sessions. Esteemed parliamentarians from that committee also took part in our 31st General Assembly in Athens in June 2008 and submitted to it your Assembly's proposal for the signing of a protocol of cooperation between the two Assemblies. I approve such initiatives, which I think will strengthen cooperation between our Assemblies. PABSEC is an organisation that is always open to cooperation. I welcome such constructive and optimistic perspectives from valuable members of our Assemblies.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman and other colleagues for receiving PABSEC here in these beautiful surroundings and for providing us with an environment for the mutual exchange of opinions. We will be pleased to see you at the 35th General Assembly of PABSEC which is to take place in Belgrade in June next year, as well as at our other future meetings.
I wish the Assembly fruitful work, and success in your activities.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you very much indeed, Mr Çiçek, for that contribution to our discussion on interparliamentary cooperation.
The final speaker is another of our guests, Mr Rudy Salles, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean.
Mr SALLES (President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean) (summary) thanked members of the Assembly for the invitation to participate. He said that it was important for parliamentarians to go to the various assemblies as they received more information than they could obtain if they stayed only in their own parliaments. Special links had been established. The assemblies represented the people and created a link not just between parliamentarians, but between their peoples. Parliamentarians enjoyed freedom of speech, which allowed the debate to move forward. He said that there was a need to maintain WEU and to encourage other assemblies. As the representative of the Mediterranean Assembly he felt that it would be useful to have an exchange of observers between the WEU and the Mediterranean Assemblies. There was a great deal to be gained by the Mediterranean Assembly from such an action.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Salles.
That concludes the list of speakers.
The debate is closed.
Do you wish, Mr Daems, to reply to the debate? You have a maximum of five minutes.
Mr DAEMS (Belgium) - I wish to thank Mr Çiçek from PABSEC for his kind words. I believe that cooperation between interparliamentary assemblies is important. I have been to your Assembly several times, and getting information from countries around the Black Sea gives us a totally different view of what is happening in that region and of what is happening to our region, because a lot of security and defence matters have an effect from east to west and from west to east. If we do not know what is happening on the other side of the border, how the hell can we make good decisions? I therefore thank you for your reflections and, with the authority of having the Chairman of my Committee present, I hope that our two Assemblies can be more formally engaged.
(The speaker continued in French)
(Summary) He said that a broader range of information was available in the Assembly. Outside of the Assembly colleagues did not get such information, and decisions were being made in parliaments without the full information being available.
(The speaker continued in English)
These things do change, so we must change. If we have intergovernmental action, however, we need interparliamentary control on the other side. That is what we need, and that is what I propose in the report. Therefore, Lord Tomlinson, you are right that we can be important only if we know and believe that we are important, and that we have added value to render to our national parliaments. Mr Mota Amaral, you said exactly the same.
That is why, at the end of my intervention, I said that, as an example, I would introduce such conclusions to my national parliament. I will force my colleagues in the Belgian Parliament to take a position. They can say yes or no, and I - with my Belgian colleague, Mr Wille, the Chairman of the Committee - will not leave the Belgian Parliament without them having said yes or no. If we have the right arguments and if we can show the importance of the information that we can give to our colleagues in the national parliament, they will say yes, because they will have understood the impact that we can have on their decision-making.
I thank all our colleagues for their work. I thank again Mr Salles. I hope that we will have a unanimous vote in favour of the report and that all our colleagues will do the same as me and go to their national parliaments tomorrow, introduce the conclusions and try to get a yes or no.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you.
I understand that the Chairman does not wish to speak?
The Committee for Parliamentary and Public Relations has presented a draft resolution to which one amendment has been tabled.
We come to Amendment 1, which reads as follows:
1. Replace recital (iii) of the draft resolution with new text as follows:
"Convinced that it is essential for work done in interparliamentary bodies to have greater visibility and determined to spare no effort to ensure that its own work has greater impact within national parliaments,".
I call Mr Daems to support the amendment.
Mr DAEMS (Belgium) - I am in favour.
The PRESIDENT - Does anyone wish to oppose the amendment? ...
That is not the case.
I presume the committee is in favour.
I will now put the amendment to the vote.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
Amendment 1 is adopted.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution, as amended, contained in Document 2055.
Under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, if 10 or more representatives or substitutes present in the Chamber so desire, the Assembly shall vote by roll-call on a draft resolution.
Does any member wish to propose a vote by roll-call?
That is not the case. We will have a vote by show of hands.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
The draft resolution, as amended, is adopted unanimously.
The PRESIDENT (Translation) - The next item of business is the presentation of and debate on the report of the Political Committee, "European security and the Middle East", Document 2060.
I call the Rapporteur, Mrs Josette Durrieu, to present the report.
(Mrs Nurmi, Chairman of the Finnish Delegation, took the Chair)
Mrs DURRIEU (France) (summary) said that the three issues she had identified at the previous session in the context of European Security in the Middle East remained crucial today: these were Iraq, Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The question regarding Iraq was whether peace and democratic stability had been genuinely achieved. Regarding Iran, the question was whether its nuclear programme was a threat or a risk. The answer was that it was both: the biggest risk was an imbalance of power in the region. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a central issue. President Bush had regarded it as a regional problem, whereas President Obama had at an early stage defined it as a problem with global consequences. Two questions arose in connection with that conflict: how to guarantee peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians and the issue of denuclearisation of the region.
There had been high expectations of President Obama but he had as yet not been able to drive the process forward. The American U-turn had been disappointing. Mrs Clinton, whose remarks had not been helpful, wisely had been replaced by Special Envoy Mitchell.
The status quo was to the advantage of both Israel and Hamas. Israel maintained its obstinate and self-destructive position. While Israel's right to exist and to security must be recognised, it was necessary to say no to continued settlements and to the wall. On a recent trip to the area, she had had difficulty getting through the blockade into Gaza and had experienced first-hand the difficulties encountered by Gazans everyday. She had visited some of the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt, three of which were large enough to drive a truck through. The report mentioned arms trafficking but there were numerous other forms of trafficking. The blockade of Gaza was unacceptable and benefited Hamas.
Europe had been wrong not to recognise Hamas' election victory in 2006. The Palestinian people was divided and had no government. The Palestinians too were entitled to a state with borders. All they were left with was the right to resist, a right that the committee had voted against including in the draft report. The right of return of refugees should be recognised as a principle, even if it was unrealistic to imagine that the refugees could all return and be reintegrated. The means to reconcile the Palestinian people was through elections, without which the status quo would continue.
Regarding the different players, Egypt played the role of mediator. She paid tribute to the work done by Turkey, which was in the invaluable position of being able to talk to everyone, including both Israel and Syria. The Arab states had adopted King Fahd of Saudi Arabia's peace plan in Beirut, in 2002. It was entirely possible that Syria would take on a greater role. She had met with President Assad who had said he wanted to normalise relations with Europe and the United States.
Europe was politically weak but a big contributor of funds to major projects in the fields of border control, the judicial system, police training and land registration. The Palestinian state did not yet exist, but when it did, it could function. In conclusion, Mr Solana had recently said that if the protagonists could not find a solution, one should be provided for them: and indeed what other solution could there be than a decision taken by the international community, represented by the United Nations?
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mrs Durrieu.
The debate is open.
We have nine speakers on the list, who have four minutes each. I ask you please not to do as I did yesterday, when I spoke for too long.
The first speaker on the list is Mrs Memecan, on behalf of the Liberal Group.
Mrs MEMECAN (Turkey) - I congratulate the Rapporteur, Mrs Durrieu, on her comprehensive report and thank her for the realistic and constructive assessment in her introduction. Her recommendations are highlights of internationally accepted solutions that would bring peace and stability to the region. It may sound unimaginable to talk about peace and stability in the region, but we are in no position to ignore or give up on that. Peace and stability in that region means peace and stability at home and, unfortunately, the converse is also true.
Mrs Durrieu's report has chapters on various parties, from Saudi Arabia to the European Union, that have a stake in and have taken part in the various processes that have aimed to resolve the conflict in the region. Unfortunately, none of those efforts has come to fruition and brought peace and stability. I believe that a change in attitude can help in implementing solid recommendations and changing the status quo.
There are so many injustices in the region that the people who are subject to them each moment of their lives lose their sense of objectivity and problem-solving abilities. The walls are unjust, illegal settlements are unjust, bullying is unjust, the restriction of basic human rights is unjust, continual rocket attacks are unjust. As a result, Palestinians live their lives in misery, and life is no fun for the Israeli people either. As gloomy as that may seem, the solution is in the fairness of the recommended solutions and the road maps, and good will in their implementation. People will stand behind what is right and will be willing to fight until they reach a fair solution. There will always be unrest until then.
Mediators are crucial in designing fair solutions and road maps. Objective and fair-minded mediators will make sense to all parties involved. Democratic solutions will work. Any deviation from objectivity and fairness or the application of double standards in the name of protectionism will kill the process, as it did in the past. People understand these things and resist double standards, losing their confidence in international mediators and withdrawing their support for solutions. There can be no resolution without the support of those involved.
Oppression, bullying, restrictions, blockades, and violence do not work. The current gloomy situation is proof of that. Dialogue, mutual respect, engagement, listening and empathy always work. That takes time but it works. Mediators, the international community and Israeli and Palestinian leaders should consider these principles when dealing with problems in the region. For a change, Israeli and Palestinian leaders should start devising projects to win the hearts and minds of the Palestinian and Jewish people respectively. Instead of devising projects to separate the peoples, they should come up with ideas of common interest to bring the two peoples together. Instead of building walls, plans should be made to bring them down. Instead of fear and hostility, the seeds of affection and sympathy should be sowed in the people.
With an ultimate two-state solution, these two peoples will become equal neighbours. They will buy and sell from each other, invest in each other's countries, visit each other, and teach and study in each other's schools and universities. It must be time to start the process among the ordinary people. It will not be the agreements, recommendations or even treaties that will sustain peace; it will be human interaction.
As there is more interaction, there will be more understanding and desire to maintain good, peaceful relationships. The normalisation of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship will eventually spread to other neighbours. Israelis must have good neighbourly relationships with all nations in the region if we are to ensure peace and prosperity for them all and security in Europe. I might sound like John Lennon but it really does help to imagine. Where there is a will, there is a way. Israelis and Palestinians are worth it.
I once again congratulate Mrs Durrieu, and hope that her recommendations are taken seriously and will not be invalidated by irresponsible interventions.
The PRESIDENT - The next speaker is Mr Fassino.
Mr FASSINO (Italy) (summary) thanked Mrs Durrieu for the report. It was difficult to discuss a conflict that had been raging for 60 years. Over time peace seemed further and further away. The Assembly needed to consider how it could contribute to speeding up a possible solution.
It was an extremely complex situation. There was no right or wrong, both sides were in the right: Israel in its desire for security and the Palestinians in their desire for a state. The most important challenge was to create relations of trust between the two sides. He noted when he had visited the region that both Israelis and Palestinians had been able to tell him what the solution to the conflict should be, but none of them had been able to say how it could be achieved. Without trust, no solution was within reach.
There had been some positive developments: first, the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States and a consequential refocusing on this region by the American Administration; and, second, the Israeli Prime Minister's recognition, during a speech shortly after the election, of the Palestinians' right to a state.
Finally, he noted that while it was regrettable that the Palestinians were divided, Europe had to work with whichever leaders were in place, and support any efforts by other Arab nations to make progress in the peace process.
The PRESIDENT - I remind speakers of the need to stick to the four-minute limit. The next speaker is the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, Mr Salles.
Mr SALLES (President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean) (summary) expressed his thanks for the invitation to address the Assembly. He reminded members that the PAM was a young organisation, founded in 2006. It brought together all the Mediterranean countries, with the exception of Spain, which had attended many of the meetings but which had now withdrawn completely. He hoped it would soon be represented once again.
He also thanked Mrs Durrieu for the report, which was a comprehensive look at a very complex subject. Although it was a difficult situation, he urged the Assembly to remain optimistic. War was only ever a means, not a solution in itself, and therefore peace would eventually come to the region.
He noted that Europe had also experienced wars between its nations, and although he did not suggest that European solutions could be transferred to the Middle East, Europe could offer its understanding and support.
He informed the Assembly that the PAM would be holding a joint UN-PAM international meeting on the Middle East peace process in 2010 and invited members of the Assembly to attend and provide their valuable input. He noted that the United States would also be attending.
Finally, he asked one last question of Mrs Durrieu on the role that children might have in bringing an end to the conflict.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Salles.
The next speaker is Mr Vrettos.
Mr VRETTOS (Greece) (summary) congratulated Mrs Durrieu and all those involved in drafting the report, particularly Lord Anderson.
To solve the Middle East problem, it was essential to understand the problem. Israeli settlement policy was the single most important factor in this regard. Europe had to recognise its own mistakes; in particular when it had not recognised the elected Palestinian Government in 2006, and its subsequent halting of financial aid to the region.
Europe in its post-Lisbon form had to make the most of the new High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy to demonstrate the EU's interest in and commitment to the region. Efforts had been made in the past to bring the Palestinians and Israelis round a table and to create a greater sense of confidence and trust; this work had to be continued.
European policy in the region had to distinguish between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Haupert.
Mr HAUPERT (Luxembourg) (summary) congratulated Mrs Durrieu for the report, which he felt covered all the major issues in the conflict, including those that gave common ground to both sides and might present a starting point for improved relations.
Europe must not remain outside the peace process, and must agree a common strategy. Europe had the credibility to make it an important contributor to the peace process, and the recent adoption of the Lisbon Treaty had given it the ability to strengthen its common foreign policy. Europe had to throw its full support behind the United States policy in this region, even if that policy did not receive support within the United States itself. The conflict in the Middle East had the potential to spill over and directly impact Europe. The EU had no choice but to put its full support behind the peace process.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Austin.
Mr AUSTIN (United Kingdom) - Thank you. May I say how much I welcome the presence here today of my long-standing friend, Rudy Salles, who is representing the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean? I was part of the conception of that body, if not of its birth, and I think that he has made a valuable contribution to it.
Mrs Durrieu's report has been described as balanced, and I think that that is true. However, I sense that, in trying to achieve that balance, it became slightly over-generous to the Israelis. I take slight exception in paragraph (v) of the draft recommendation to the reference to Gilad Shalit. I do not disagree that his kidnapping and detention are wrong, or that he should be released, but I wonder why the report makes specific reference to him. Are we saying that those Palestinians who have been arrested and detained without trial are of lesser concern? We should be concerned about all such people.
Egypt is indispensable, but we should not place too much reliance on its ability alone to bring about the Palestinian reconciliation. It has its own agenda in relation to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. It is right that the report emphasises the role that Syria can play, and I am pleased that there is also a reference to Turkey in paragraph (x) of the draft recommendation. Turkey can be a crucial player in bringing about a peaceful resolution of the situation. Rudy Salles is also right to mention the role of Jordan and of King Abdullah, as well as that of the Arab peace plan. We should encourage and put real investment into that peace plan, because it is not about a two-state solution; it is about a 27-state solution, with Israel living in peace with all its partners in the region.
We should have made more of the reference to the blockade and to what we mean by unfettered access for aid and humanitarian agencies, by the lifting of the restrictions on trade, by the movement of people and by the lifting of maritime restrictions. The blockade is an act of collective punishment of a civilian population, and it is therefore illegal under international law. In my opinion, there should be more references in the report to the breaches of international law. There are blockades in the West Bank as well, to which Mrs Durrieu referred, including 618 obstacles to movement and the building of the wall that effectively annexes 10% of the Palestinian territory on the West Bank into Israel. There should be a legal objection to the routing of the barrier and to the destruction of Palestinian property that that has entailed.
There is also no mention in the report of home demolitions. There should be a condemnation of that policy, which is also in violation of international law. I am also troubled by the absence of a reference to occupation, or to the fact that Israel has legal obligations under the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. I hope that, in a subsequent report, Lord Anderson will pay attention to those breaches of the Geneva Convention and to the breaches of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860 in relation to Gaza. I agree with other speakers that the settlements are a crucial issue. There must be not a moratorium but a complete freeze on settlements, as well as negotiations on the dismantling of those that already exist.
I agree with Mr Fassino that the election needs to take place of a Palestinian negotiating partner.
We need not just a negotiating partner for Palestine, but one in Israel, and that is absent at present. The mayor of Jerusalem has said that he intends East Jerusalem to be a Jewish city by 2020. As Mr Salles' report states, the Speaker of the Knesset has said that there should be an economic peace, but not a political solution, for Gaza, that Gaza should be able to manage its own local administration under Israeli supervision, and that the Palestinians should be seen as the guests of the Israelis. That absence of a negotiating partner in Israel at present should be addressed in the resolution.
The PRESIDENT - I call Lord Anderson.
Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) - Our colleague, Mr Fassino, said that both sides in the Palestine-Israel conflict are right. May I say to him that he is also right, and that that is part of the problem. I congratulate Mrs Durrieu on the report and agree with her that the European Union is not playing its full role. I also agree with her that the wall or security fence is illegal, but I would remind her that since its destruction we have heard little or nothing about the suicide bombers who blow themselves up on Israeli buses or go into Israeli cafes and blow up people going about their normal business.
I also agree that we should speak to Hamas, the victors in the election, but it is surely not unreasonable to ask that they accept, explicitly or implicitly, the existence of the state of Israel and the commitments entered into on behalf of the Palestinians. Part of the problem is that the Middle East scene is changing rapidly, with many negative features, not least a weakness of leadership on both sides: in Iran, the leadership of the Mullahocracy and the way in which the election was stolen.
Earlier this year there were signs of hope. The Arab League initiative of 2002 was still on the table, there was the offer by the international community of reprocessing the nuclear material from Iran in Russia, and most importantly the Obama phenomenon, with the President's Cairo speech. Alas, since that time, the hopes have been dashed, Iran has spurned the offer, and there is further repression in Iran. How does one relate realistically to its nuclear ambitions? What would be the effect of a nuclear-armed Iran on such a highly combustible region? Perhaps most important is the apparent retreat of the United States in the face of the Netanyahu pressures, with the Obama administration seemingly lowering the Middle East in its priorities, which is perhaps understandable in the light of Afghanistan and of many people saying that the Middle East peace process is dead. Premier Netanyahu has gained a short-term tactical victory, but that has led to the resignation of a proper interlocutor in Mahmoud Abbas, and the frustration of the Palestinians in seeking to have an internationally recognised Palestinian state. Therefore, the victory may be Pyrrhic.
Where does the European Union go in such circumstances? Clearly, the Middle East crisis affects us all, not just those around the periphery of the Mediterranean, and we should keep it high on our agenda, helped by the new instruments that the Lisbon Treaty gives us as Europeans. We should keep the matter, too, on the agenda of the Assembly, but realistically be ready to seek movement where we see opportunities - alas, in a rather darkening picture.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Clappison.
Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) - May I, too, congratulate Mrs Durrieu on her report and its balanced conclusions. The matter is an important one for the Assembly to consider, and I echo the comments of Lord Anderson that we keep it on our agenda, given its security implications for Europe. We can be of some assistance in that area.
I share the support expressed for a two-state solution to the problem and, like Mrs Durrieu, I want to see Israel alongside a Palestinian state. I do not think that I will get there in the three and a half minutes remaining for my speech. However, I agree with what is said in the report about the plight of the Palestinian people and those in Gaza. While we work towards a peaceful solution, we must recognise that plight and bring to bear all the humanitarian aid possible in assistance, and persuade Israel to help in alleviating conditions where it can reasonably do so.
We can also ask something of Hamas. If it faced up to its responsibilities and improved the security situation in Israel, that would assist the Palestinians and the authorities in Gaza. When hundreds of rockets were launched on Israel from Gaza, and the Gaza authorities caused or permitted those rockets to be fired, it did not help Palestinian people in Gaza or elsewhere. If we can have confidence-building measures and address the security issue, we can also move forward on the humanitarian issue.
Briefly, I want to speak about Iran and the risk of it acquiring nuclear weapons. Much of the debate has a subtext because it has been proposed implicitly in some quarters that it does not matter if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. Let me give the Assembly three reasons why it does matter.
First, Iran has exhibited the characteristics of an aggressive power in the region, of wanting to achieve a shift in the regional balance of power, and has particularly directed aggression towards Israel, not just through the statements of President Ahmadinejad and his behaviour in hosting holocaust denial conferences - and what he said about scratching Israel from the map of the Middle East - but in directing aggression towards Israel through proxies, particularly Hezbollah, in acts of outright aggression on Israeli soil, directed against the state of Israel. Of course that has brought tragic consequences in Lebanon.
Secondly, we should be concerned about Iran acquiring such weapons because of the risk of the nuclearisation of the region, to which the report rightly refers, and the risk of other powers being tempted to acquire nuclear weapons. That cannot be in the interests of peace and stability in the Middle East, and the report is right to recognise such problems.
Thirdly, we should be concerned about Iran acquiring such weapons because we have said that we are concerned.
Europe has been engaged in the 3+3 process for a number of years, seeking to dissuade Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. So far I regret that the consequences of that have been meagre because Iran has clearly exhibited in its actions the intention of trying to acquire nuclear weapons come what may, and nothing so far seems to have successfully brought it to desist from that intention. If we say that we are going to do something, we should follow it through and not give signals to the contrary. We were right to come to the conclusion that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would introduce an unpredictable and potentially dangerous element into the region, and we should persist with our diplomacy in trying to persuade it not to acquire nuclear weapons.
(Mr Walter, President of the Assembly, resumed the Chair)
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Clappison.
The final speaker is Mr Hancock from the United Kingdom.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) - I congratulate those who have spoken in this well-informed and interesting debate. I apologise for not being here for Mrs Durrieu's introduction but I was at another meeting, and I would like to apologise for my colleague, Mrs Memecan, who was present in the debate, who has just left to go to the meeting I have just come from.
I am particularly interested in the report. It has been said that both sides are right and I think it was Lord Anderson who then said that our new Chairman of the Political Committee was also right. But my concern is about what is right in the situation. John Austin made a number of valid points that exposed what is wrong with the situation. If Israel is ever to find a way of dealing with the issue, it must look more comprehensively at what it has done wrong. Why are so many Palestinians so manifestly opposed to Israel, and why are they disappointed time and again by the Israeli reaction to offers to try to bring sides together?
I was interested in the concept of the role that Turkey plays. Turkey is uniquely placed. It not only forms a bridge between Asia and Europe, but between its secular state and the Muslim extremism that is developing to its east, with the resurrection of a Christian ethic in Europe, which is finding it more and more difficult to come to terms with trying to sort out issues because it is focused on the problem being a religious one rather than on finding a way in which people can live together.
All the arguments are destroyed when the first thing that Israel does on leaving settlements is to demolish them. It does not even allow the Palestinians to move into the homes that were built on their land. What sort of signal does that send out? What sort of signal is sent out when a fence is built? I can understand all the problems of the horrors of bombers and suicide missions, and so on, but in Ireland the border was never heavily defended by the United Kingdom during all the troubles that we had there. Not just during the 30 years in which people died and tens of thousands were injured and had their homes destroyed, but over nearly 300 years of history we never built a wall or a defensive barrier to separate the communities in Ireland. Community blockades were resurrected, but they were never successful because people needed to communicate, to trade with each other and to walk across their city. It is the same in Israel and in Palestine.
We must accept that there is and has to be a method by which two communities can live together. John Austin's point was not about Israel making peace with just the Palestinians; it needs to resolve its outstanding issues with all the other countries in the Middle East. That is not insurmountable, but it will not be easy. The last 50 years have proven that Israel is the only state in the world that has always been surrounded by people who do not want it to exist. But most of the Arab states have moved on from that. We, as a European continent, must work with those Arab states and countries such as Turkey and Egypt, which are prepared to give so much themselves to make a peace settlement work.
This is a balanced report. I object to people saying that there is a lack of balance in the report, which some people have slightly hinted at. The report, as amended by the committee, is a very balanced document. But if we are ever to see any hope in the Middle East, there must be a bit more give by the Israelis. They must look up and look positively at what they have done that is so manifestly wrong over the past 50 years. Good relationships will never be built when people seek to punish hard. The person with the biggest stick does not always win the argument.
The PRESIDENT - That concludes the list of speakers.
You have the floor, Mrs Durrieu.
Mrs DURRIEU (France) (summary) thanked Lord Anderson for endorsing the report and the resolution. She thanked the staff, who fully deserved the Assembly's gratitude for the work they had done. She thanked Mr Salles and agreed that she had omitted Jordan from the report. The role of Jordan was important, but there had been no immediate action in regard to Jordan since the last report. She thanked Mrs Papadimitriou for what she had said in yesterday's debate. It had been a powerful testimony describing the real situation. She agreed with Mr Fassino that there was a need to create trust, which was lacking at the moment. The results of the Iranian election must be accepted. Mr Haupert had been right to reflect on the minor role being played by Europe at this time. In response to Mr Austin she said that it was her report, but the recommendation was in its present form following the discussion and vote in the committee. She said the blockade had been mentioned in the report and that Israel should stop new settlements. The Assembly should assume collective responsibility for the text of the report. She said she had been going to countries in the region for the past 15 years and was aware of the situation. She agreed with Mr Clappison that there was a threat from Iran. The President of Iran should be disassociated from his people, who were asking a lot of questions of him. She also agreed with Mr Salles who had said that there could be no solution except through peace.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mrs Durrieu.
Does the Vice-Chairman of the Committee wish to speak?
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) - I agreed 100% with Mrs Durrieu when she said that this is the committee's report. I cannot think of a report that has had so much scrutiny, amendment and discussion - not least by Mrs Durrieu herself - in an attempt to get it into shape. She was right to say that the report ceased to be hers when amendments were made yesterday and previously, because they changed it considerably. If the balance has shifted in this report, it is because it was shifted by members of the committee and not by the Rapporteur. To be fair, she has done her best.
As the person who chaired three of the meetings during which the report was discussed, I must say that on at least one occasion I was less than fair to Mrs Durrieu. I do not normally say sorry, and I know that she will not readily accept my apology, but on reflection I was less than generous on the second to last occasion that we debated the report. It was with the intention of trying to move things along, because sadly there is a habit of trying to speak on every item. I hope that she accepts my apology; I meant nothing personal.
On behalf of the committee, I thank you, Mrs Durrieu, for your efforts and I thank all those involved in helping the committee to get the report right. Indeed, I thank all members of the committee. Nearly everyone on the committee - it is rare in this Assembly - played a part in producing the report. That is very important. I therefore commend the report to the Assembly and hope that it is agreed unanimously. That would send a very positive message from this community of European politicians who do live in hope of a solution being found. It will not be easy, but the report gives a true perspective on what we might consider to be our hope for the future.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Hancock. I hope that honour is satisfied by your chivalrous apology to Mrs Durrieu.
As a testament to the work of the Political Committee, no amendments have been tabled. The committee has worked very hard on the report and I know that among its members many amendments were considered, and that is why we have a report that does not require further amendment.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 2060.
Under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, if five or more representatives or substitutes present in the Chamber so desire, the Assembly shall vote by roll-call on a draft recommendation.
Does any member wish to propose a vote by roll-call? ...
That is not the case. We will have a vote by show of hands.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
The draft recommendation is adopted unanimously.
The PRESIDENT - You will be very conscious of the time, as we are eating into our lunch break. We have one more item of business: the presentation of and debate on the report of the Defence Committee, "European security and the Middle East", Document 2051. As we have run short of time, I propose to take the opening contributions of the Rapporteurs and then to break for lunch. I ask for your indulgence for about 10 minutes. The debate will start this afternoon after the items of business on the election of Presidents and Vice-Presidents. Is that agreed? It is agreed.
If all three Rapporteurs wish to speak, you will have five minutes each.
I call first Mr Konstantinos Vrettos.
Mr VRETTOS (Greece) - Recent events, and in particular the security threats stemming from trafficking, illegal immigration from Africa and Asia, maritime terrorism and the serious pollution caused by hydrocarbons, have brought home the importance of increased surveillance of maritime borders. Indeed, the consequences of those illegal activities put our societies at considerable risk.
At the same time, the substantial increase in the amount of European trade taking sea routes requires coastal states to step up their efforts to ensure maritime security and safety. It has become a priority for the European Union to control maritime risks, both in coastal waters and on the high seas, where different maritime threats abound. European Defence Ministers, meeting informally in Gothenburg in September, reconfirmed the importance of integrated maritime surveillance by ensuring coordination within and between states and through civil and military cooperation. One such example is the initiative taken by the Baltic states.
In parallel with such initiatives, the European Maritime Safety Agency has recently set up a Europe-wide communications network capable of identifying and tracking ships sailing under European flags. The EU has also turned its attention to accidental and deliberate pollution at sea, which is nowadays considered a growing threat, and has set up a system of radar imaging satellites that enables polluting ships to be detected. The first surveillance operation took place in October and three oil spills were detected.
There has been real progress in the area of immigration, thanks in particular to the joint operations conducted by the Frontex agency. Moreover, Frontex has undertaken to step up the dialogue with the immigrants' countries of origin, including Turkey, on the repatriation of illegal immigrants. All such threats to European coasts require major coordination efforts on the part of member states and joint maritime operations to achieve maximum effectiveness. The European maritime surveillance policy must enhance interoperability and information-sharing.
Another threat facing the EU on the high seas is piracy. Indeed, Operation Atalanta, which was established in the Gulf of Aden in November 2008, has contributed significantly to the fight against piracy in that part of the world. However, since April 2009, there has been a massive resurgence in pirate activity despite the fact that the naval forces of several countries are deployed in the region. Nevertheless, even though the number of attacks rose dramatically in 2009, the pirates' success rate has been going down: in 2008, only 69 out of 111 attacks were thwarted, whereas of the 109 attacks in the first half of 2009, 81 were thwarted. The EU has set up two international data transmission networks - Texweb and MSCHOA - that allow ships in the Gulf of Aden to monitor the situation in real time and to apply for protection, and 98% of ships that did so were able to cross the Gulf of Aden without incident.
The EU has also signed agreements with the Kenyan Government allowing pirates captured by EU ships to be handed over to Kenya for trial.
There are plans to sign similar agreements with other governments in the region including Djibouti, the Seychelles and Tanzania. Operation Atalanta has been an overall success and we want to encourage greater participation in the reconciliation process in Somalia to establish the rule of law there.
In conclusion, in view of the current performance of the integrated maritime policy and the commitment of all parties - the Commission, member states and parliaments - to implementing a policy, it is up to us as parliamentarians to continue to support these initiatives within our national governments. That is why the Assembly should recommend the following: support the efforts of the European Commission, Frontex and the European Maritime Safety Agency to coordinate maritime surveillance operations in Europe's maritime approaches; take action at national level to improve coordination in the different government departments involved in maritime surveillance activities and designate a responsible authority; promote stronger cooperation among member states and other relevant European agencies; procure national platforms dedicated to the surveillance of maritime borders; support EMSA's efforts to enhance the quality of data by integrating the SSN, CSN and LRIT surveillance systems into the SSM tracking information relay and exchange system; strengthen the arrangements put in place by Frontex for the interception of migrants at sea and the repatriation of illegal migrants; pursue the efforts to organise sound cooperation with the countries on the southern Mediterranean rim and the Atlantic coast of Africa to combat effectively all forms of trafficking, in particular drug trafficking and illegal immigration; promote the SUCBAS initiative as a model for enhanced regional cooperation at European level; pursue the maritime counter-piracy efforts being conducted in the Gulf of Aden in the framework of Operation Atalanta; improve the security of ships in transit by increasing the number of on-board protection teams, installing a surgical unit on board one of the frigates present in the zone and strengthening maritime air patrol capabilities by using other bases with the support of the countries of the region involved in the effort to combat piracy; pursue the advice and assistance initiative organised by the Political and Security Committee for the training of coastguards and legal aid in the region of Yemen, Djibouti, Somalia, Kenya and the Seychelles; consider the creation of an international criminal tribunal on piracy as proposed by the United Nations Contact Group on Piracy; and participate in the reconciliation process in Somalia to establish the rule of law there.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you. I call Mr Kõuts.
Mr KÕUTS (Estonia) - The major emphasis of the report is on the following items: the risks and threats to the maritime situation; international initiatives, including the activities of the European Union, NATO and regional cooperation initiatives; the combat against piracy; and the role of the maritime authorities of EU member states.
One cannot overestimate the importance of maritime transport to the EU. The EU maritime nations' coastal regions are contributing over 40% of European GDP, while roughly 90% of EU foreign trade and 40% of internal trade travels by water. The EU has no alternative to the increasing use of maritime transport, regarded as a priority among European transport strategists.
We cannot exclude the security risks associated with maritime trade. Globalisation means that a demarcation line cannot be drawn between internal and external security as many states depend on the same or similar security factors.
The EU's internal processes bring the economic, political, ecological and security-related interests of member states into ever closer correlation. Speaking in an ecological context, I wish to refer to the Baltic. At present, there are roughly 2 000 vessels in the Baltic. Figures given by the Helsinki Commission report on accidents in the Baltic in 2008 suggest that the number of ships there then was between 3 500 and 5 000. Maritime traffic between 2006 and 2008 increased by 20%. There were 135 accidents in 2008, 10% caused by double-hull tankers. The EU should concentrate on developing legislation on maritime safety and pollution prevention.
Continuing pirate attacks, security threats from drug and arms trafficking, illegal immigration from Africa and maritime terrorism must make us think more seriously about the need for increased European maritime surveillance.
The resurgence of piracy threatens European trade, and combating piracy is one of our priorities. The International Maritime Bureau has suggested that there have been more than 500 pirate attacks, with 909 crew members taken hostage, 737 of them off the coast of Somalia, 41 hijackings and four crew members killed.
Pursuing counter-piracy efforts in the Gulf of Aden through Operation Atalanta is vital, as is the promotion of an international criminal tribunal on piracy.
The European Parliament at its plenary in Strasbourg on 26 November adopted a resolution. MEPs considered the activities of EU NAVFOR Atalanta off the coast of Somalia to be a success. However, they expressed the view that piracy will not be tackled effectively until the problems of poverty, failed statehood and the distorted attitude towards piracy in Somalia are resolved.
Therefore the coordination of sea-based actions has become a strategic challenge for the EU. For this, the EU must master naval technologies and communication systems and organise permanent coordination and cooperation between member states.
In such a framework, the major emphasis has to be on the regional level. We appreciate the efforts made in this field by the Swedish EU Presidency, one of whose priorities was integrated maritime surveillance. Maritime surveillance on the model of the Sea Surveillance Cooperation Baltic Sea (SUCBAS) initiative has given good results and has to be strengthened. I hope that this example will be taken up by the countries on the other side of the Jutland peninsula and by other members of the European Union.
EU agencies such as the European Maritime Safety Agency, Frontex and the European Defence Agency are contributing to the support and coordination of the action taken by the member states' administrations. Besides encouraging such multinational coordination, it is of vital importance to promote civil and military cooperation. This is the only solution for effective action where the various threats to maritime security are occurring, whether in coastal waters or on the high seas.
To improve the situation, the implementation of the project on the subregional risk of the spillage of oil and other substances in the Baltic Sea, and the use of passenger name records data and of electronic seals on sea containers, should be encouraged, and cooperation between European Union customs administrations improved. Deepening, purposeful cooperation between member states in the field of maritime surveillance has important practical significance for the whole European Union.
In conclusion, I should like to thank both my co-Rapporteurs and Admiral Gilles Combarieu and his team for their cooperation in the preparation of this report.
The PRESIDENT - That concludes our business for this morning.
I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 14.30.
The sitting is closed.
(The sitting was closed at 13.20)
