NewzIntel.com

Category: Germany

  • MIL-OSI Europe: JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Azerbaijan, violation of human rights and international law and relations with Armenia – RC-B10-0133/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    Rasa Juknevičienė, François‑Xavier Bellamy, Michael Gahler, Andrzej Halicki, David McAllister, Sebastião Bugalho, Nicolás Pascual De La Parte, Isabel Wiseler‑Lima, Daniel Caspary, Loucas Fourlas, Sandra Kalniete, Łukasz Kohut, Andrey Kovatchev, Andrius Kubilius, Miriam Lexmann, Vangelis Meimarakis, Ana Miguel Pedro, Davor Ivo Stier, Michał Szczerba
    on behalf of the PPE Group
    Yannis Maniatis, Nacho Sánchez Amor, Raphaël Glucksmann, Udo Bullmann, Matthias Ecke, Francisco Assis
    on behalf of the S&D Group
    Emmanouil Fragkos, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Assita Kanko, Marion Maréchal, Aurelijus Veryga, Geadis Geadi, Rihards Kols, Bert‑Jan Ruissen, Charlie Weimers
    on behalf of the ECR Group
    Nathalie Loiseau, Petras Auštrevičius, Helmut Brandstätter, Benoit Cassart, Olivier Chastel, Bernard Guetta, Karin Karlsbro, Ľubica Karvašová, Moritz Körner, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, Marie‑Agnes Strack‑Zimmermann, Hilde Vautmans, Lucia Yar, Dainius Žalimas
    on behalf of the Renew Group
    Sergey Lagodinsky
    on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

    European Parliament resolution on the situation in Azerbaijan, violation of human rights and international law and relations with Armenia

    (2024/2890(RSP))

    The European Parliament,

    – having regard to its previous resolutions on Azerbaijan, Armenia and the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh,

    – having regard to the relevant documents and international agreements, including but not limited to the United Nations Charter, the Helsinki Final Act and the Alma-Ata Declaration of 21 December 1991,

    – having regard to the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950, ratified by Azerbaijan in 2002 and to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,

    – having regard to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict,

    – having regard to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement of 22 April 1996 between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, of the other part[1],

    – having regard to the statements by the European External Action Service spokesperson of 29 May 2024 on the human rights situation in Azerbaijan and of 3 September 2024 on early parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan,

    – having regard to Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolution 2527 (2024) of 24 January 2024 entitled ‘Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Azerbaijan’,

    – having regard to the Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions of the Election Observation Mission to the Early Presidential Elections held on 7 February 2024 and to the Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions of the International Election Observation Mission to the Early Parliamentary Elections in Azerbaijan held on 1 September 2024,

    – having regard to the report of 29 March 2023 by the Council of Europe’s European Commission against Racism and Intolerance on Azerbaijan and to the memorandum of 21 October 2021 by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights on the humanitarian and human rights consequences following the 2020 outbreak of hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh,

    – having regard to the orders of the International Court of Justice of 22 February 2023, of 6 July 2023 and of 17 November 2023 on the request for the indication of provisional measures for the application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Armenia v Azerbaijan),

    – having regard to Rules 136(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

    A. whereas the choice of Azerbaijan’s capital Baku as the venue for the 29th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29), scheduled to take place from 11 to 22 November 2024, has sparked controversy, notably owing to Azerbaijan’s worsening human rights record, as well as recent and blatant violations of international law, including aggressive behaviour towards its neighbour Armenia; whereas respect for fundamental human rights and civil society participation are enshrined in the host country agreement through which the Azerbaijani Government committed to uphold these rights; whereas in the lead-up to this major international conference, the Azerbaijani authorities have intensified their repression of civil society organisations, activists, opposition politicians and the remaining independent media through detentions and judicial harassment; whereas corruption and a lack of judicial independence further undermine governance;

    B. whereas civil society organisations list over 300 political prisoners in Azerbaijan, including Gubad Ibadoghlu, Anar Mammadli, Bakhtiyar Hajiyev, Tofig Yagublu, Ilhamiz Guliyev, Aziz Orujov, Bahruz Samadov, Akif Gurbanov and many others; whereas there are credible reports of violations of prisoners’ human rights, including detention in inhumane conditions, torture and refusal of adequate medical care;

    C. whereas prominent human rights defender and climate advocate, Anar Mammadli, has been in pre-trial detention since 30 April 2024 on bogus charges of conspiracy to bring illegal foreign currency into the country and his health has deteriorated significantly while in custody; whereas Gubad Ibadoghlu, a political economist, opposition figure and one of the finalists for the 2024 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, was arrested by Azerbaijani authorities in July 2023 and remained in detention until 22 April 2024, when he was transferred to house arrest; whereas his health has deteriorated significantly since his arrest, as a result of torture, inhumane detention conditions and refusal of adequate medical care, thus endangering his life; whereas the health of Gubad Ibadoghlu’s wife, Irada Bayramova, continues to deteriorate as a result of the physical violence she suffered during her detention by the Azerbaijani authorities; whereas on 4 December 2023 human rights activist Ilhamiz Guliyev was arrested on politically motivated charges a few months after he gave an anonymous interview to Abzas Media about the alleged police practice of planting drugs on political activists;

    D. whereas for more than a decade and with increasing determination, Azerbaijani authorities have been reducing space for civil society, arbitrarily closing down non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and arresting or forcing into exile civil society representatives; whereas in recent years, the Azerbaijani authorities have imposed increasingly stringent restrictions on civil society organisations; whereas activists, journalists, political opponents and others have been imprisoned on fabricated and politically motivated charges;

    E. whereas according to human rights defenders, crackdowns on civil society have occurred around other major international events hosted by Azerbaijan, including Eurovision 2012 and the European Games 2015;

    F. whereas the Azerbaijani regime appears to extend its repressive actions beyond its borders; whereas the ongoing crackdown on freedom of expression in Azerbaijan is also reflected in reports of transnational repression and reprisals against family members of detainees; whereas, since 2020, Mahammad Mirzali, an Azerbaijani dissident blogger, has been the target of several assassination attempts in France; whereas, on 29 September 2024, Vidadi Isgandarli, a critic of the Azerbaijani regime living as a political refugee in France, was attacked in his home and succumbed to his injuries two days later; whereas the Azerbaijani authorities have also engaged in politically motivated prosecutions of EU citizens, as seen in the case of Théo Clerc, prompting at least one Member State to formally warn its citizens against travelling to Azerbaijan owing to the risk of arbitrary detention;

    G. whereas Azerbaijan has implemented a systematic policy of bribing officials and elected representatives in Europe in order to downplay Azerbaijan’s human rights record and to silence critics, as part of a widely used strategy described as ‘caviar diplomacy’; whereas some cases have been investigated and some of those involved have been prosecuted and convicted by national courts in several EU Member States;

    H. whereas a number of European Court of Human Rights decisions have found that Azerbaijan has violated human rights; whereas according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, more than 320 court judgments against Azerbaijan have not yet been executed or have been only partially implemented, which is the highest number among all state parties to the European Convention on Human Rights;

    I. whereas on 3 July 2024, the Council of Europe’s European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) publicly denounced Azerbaijan’s ‘refusal to improve the situation in the light of the Committee’s recommendations’ and the ‘persistent lack of cooperation of the Azerbaijani authorities with the CPT’;

    J. whereas the PACE decided in January 2024 not to ratify the credentials of the Azerbaijani delegation, noting its ‘very serious concerns as to …[Azerbaijan’s] respect for human rights’; whereas the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe noted that its Monitoring Committee’s rapporteurs were not allowed to meet with people who had been detained on allegedly politically motivated charges, and that the Azerbaijani delegation refused to allow the rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to visit the country;

    K. whereas according to the Election Observation Mission led by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), the early presidential election held on 7 February 2024 took place in a restrictive environment and was marked by the stifling of critical voices and the absence of political alternatives; whereas Azerbaijan held early parliamentary elections on 1 September 2024 in what the OSCE/ODIHR-led International Election Observation Mission described as a restrictive political and legal environment that did not enable genuine pluralism and resulted in a contest devoid of competition; whereas in the period leading up to the parliamentary elections, several government critics were detained;

    L. whereas media legislation in Azerbaijan has become increasingly repressive, with the February 2022 media law effectively legalising censorship; whereas several other laws affecting the media also violate the country’s international obligations with regard to freedom of expression and press freedom; whereas public criticism of the authorities is subject to severe penalties;

    M. whereas according to Reporters Without Borders, virtually the entire media sector in Azerbaijan is under official control, with no independent television or radio broadcasts from within the country, and all critical print newspapers shut down; whereas the authorities continue to suppress the last remaining independent media and repress journalists who reject self-censorship; whereas Azerbaijan has intensified its repression against the remaining independent media, such as Abzas Media, Kanal 13 and Toplum TV, through detentions and judicial harassment;

    N. whereas the Azerbaijani laws regulating the registration, operation and funding of NGOs are highly restrictive and arbitrarily implemented, thus effectively criminalising unregistered NGO activity; whereas Freedom House’s 2024 index ranks Azerbaijan among the least free countries in the world, below Russia and Belarus;

    O. whereas gas contracts between Gazprom and SOCAR for the delivery of one billion cubic metres of gas from Russia to Azerbaijan between November 2022 and March 2023 have raised significant concerns about the re-export of Russian gas to the European market, particularly in the context of the signed memorandum of understanding on the strategic partnership in the field of energy; whereas the EU aims to reduce European dependence on Russian gas, but this agreement could be seen as undermining that goal, as Russian gas would still be flowing into Azerbaijan, thus potentially freeing up Azerbaijani gas for increased re-export to the EU; whereas there are also worrying reports of Russian gas being rebranded as Azerbaijani for sale in the EU;

    P. whereas Azerbaijani leaders have engaged in anti-EU and anti-Western rhetoric; whereas Azerbaijan has intensified its disinformation campaigns targeting the EU and its Member States, with a specific focus on France; whereas Azerbaijan has actively interfered in European politics under the guise of ‘anti-colonialism’, notably in overseas countries and territories such as New Caledonia;

    Q. whereas in addition, in September 2023, after months of the illegal blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan launched a pre-planned, unjustified military attack on the territory, forcing over 100 000 ethnic Armenians to flee to Armenia, which amounts to ethnic cleansing; whereas as a result, Nagorno-Karabakh has been almost entirely emptied of its Armenian population, who had been living there for centuries; whereas this attack represents a gross violation of human rights and international law, a clear breach of the trilateral ceasefire statement of 9 November 2020 and a failure to uphold commitments made during EU-mediated negotiations;

    R. whereas the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh lost their property and belongings while fleeing the Azerbaijani military push in 2023 and have been unable to recover them since; whereas actions amounting to ethnic cleansing have continued since then; whereas the EU has provided humanitarian aid to people displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh; whereas credible reports confirm the organised destruction of Armenian cultural and religious heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh; whereas Azerbaijani leaders and officials repeatedly use hate speech against Armenians;

    S. whereas both Azerbaijan and Armenia are bound by international humanitarian law and the Third Geneva Convention protects prisoners of war from all forms of torture and cruel treatment; whereas reports indicate that 23 Armenian prisoners are currently being held in Azerbaijani prisons without adequate legal representation, including eight former leaders of Nagorno-Karabakh, some of whom have received long prison sentences;

    T. whereas in February 2023, the EU deployed the European Union Mission in Armenia (EUMA) to observe developments at the international border with Azerbaijan; whereas Azerbaijan has refused to cooperate with EUMA and the mission has been the target of disinformation by Azerbaijani authorities and government-controlled media; whereas the Azerbaijani leadership continues to make irredentist statements with reference to the sovereign territory of Armenia; whereas the Azerbaijani army continues to occupy no less than 170 km2 of the sovereign territory of Armenia;

    U. whereas Armenia and Azerbaijan have engaged in negotiations on a peace treaty, the normalisation of their relations and border delimitation, both before and after the 2023 attack on Nagorno-Karabakh; whereas, despite mediation efforts by the EU and others, no peace agreement has been signed between Azerbaijan and Armenia; whereas, although both governments have stated that they are close to an agreement, recent remarks by the Azerbaijani president raise concern about Baku’s willingness to find a compromise to conclude the negotiations;

    V. whereas the EU fully supports the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both Azerbaijan and Armenia and actively supports efforts towards a sustainable peace agreement between the two countries, achieved by peaceful means and respecting the rights of the population concerned;

    W. whereas since Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, Azerbaijan has deepened its relations with Russia, including political and economic ties, as well as increased cooperation between their intelligence services; whereas Russia has openly backed Azerbaijan in its aggressive behaviour towards Armenia;

    1. Strongly condemns the domestic and extraterritorial repression by the Azerbaijani regime against activists, journalists, opposition leaders and others, including EU nationals, which has noticeably intensified ahead of COP29; urges the Azerbaijani authorities to release all persons arbitrarily detained or imprisoned on account of their political views, to drop all politically motivated charges and to cease all forms of repression, both within and beyond Azerbaijan; recalls in this context the names of Tofig Yagublu, Akif Gurbanov, Bakhtiyar Hajiyev, human rights defenders and journalists, including Ulvi Hasanli, Sevinj Vagifgizi, Nargiz Absalamova, Hafiz Babali and Elnara Gasimova, Aziz Orujov, Rufat Muradli, Avaz Zeynalli, Elnur Shukurov, Alasgar Mammadli, Ilhamiz Guliyev and Farid Ismayilov, as well as of civil society activists arrested after March 2024 such as Anar Mammadli, Farid Mehralizade, Igbal Abilov, Bahruz Samadov, Emin Ibrahimov and Famil Khalilov; expresses deep concern about the environment of fear that this has created inside the country, leaving civil society effectively silenced;

    2. Reiterates its call for the Azerbaijani authorities to drop all charges against Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu and allow him to travel abroad, unhindered and to the country of his choice, to reunite with his family, to receive the medical care he urgently needs and attend the Sakharov Prize ceremony in Strasbourg in December 2024; calls on Azerbaijan to ensure that he receives an independent medical examination by a doctor of his own choosing and to allow him to receive treatment abroad; calls on all EU representatives and individual Member States to actively support the release from house arrest of Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu and insist on his release in every exchange with the Azerbaijani authorities;

    3. Demands that freedom of the press and expression be guaranteed and that media organisations not be restricted; calls, therefore, on the Azerbaijani Government to release journalists working for Abzas Media and Toplum TV, including Ulvi Hasanli, Sevinj Vagifqizi and Alasgar Mammadli;

    4. Considers that Azerbaijan’s ongoing human rights abuses are incompatible with its hosting of COP29; urges EU leaders, in particular Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, to use COP29 as an opportunity to remind Azerbaijan of its international obligations and to meaningfully address the country’s human rights record in their interactions with the Azerbaijani authorities, including by calling for the unconditional release of all persons arbitrarily detained or imprisoned on account of their political views and by requesting to meet with political prisoners while in the country; calls for the EU and its Member States to do their utmost to ensure that United Nations Climate Change conferences are not hosted in countries with poor human rights records;

    5. Reminds the Azerbaijani authorities of their obligations to respect fundamental freedoms, and calls on them to repeal repressive legislation that drives independent NGOs and media to the margins of the law; calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to repeal repressive legislation on the registration and funding of NGOs to bring them into line with Venice Commission recommendations;

    6. Recalls that the 1996 EU-Azerbaijan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which is the legal basis for bilateral relations, is based on respect for democracy and the principles of international law and human rights and that these have been systematically violated in Azerbaijan;

    7. Reminds the Azerbaijani Government of its international obligations to safeguard the dignity and rights of detainees, ensuring that they receive adequate medical care, are detained in humane conditions and are protected from any mistreatment; calls on the Azerbaijani Government to swiftly comply with long-standing recommendations of the Council of Europe’s European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on the subject of the widespread recourse to physical ill treatment – including, on occasion, torture – by the police in Azerbaijan; calls on the Azerbaijani Government to implement all the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights;

    8. Reiterates its call for EU sanctions to be imposed under the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime on Azerbaijani officials who have committed serious human rights violations; calls on the EU Special Representative for Human Rights to request meetings with political prisoners in Azerbaijan;

    9. Insists that any future partnership agreement between the EU and Azerbaijan be made conditional on the release of all political prisoners, the implementation of legal reforms and the overall improvement of the human rights situation in the country, as well as on Azerbaijan demonstrating its genuine readiness to faithfully engage in the negotiation of a peace agreement with Armenia and to respect the rights of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians;

    10. Calls for the EU to end its reliance on gas exports from Azerbaijan; calls on the Commission to suspend the 2022 memorandum of understanding on the strategic partnership in the field of energy and to act accordingly;

    11. Reaffirms its support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both Azerbaijan and Armenia and strongly supports the normalisation of their relations based on the principles of the mutual recognition of territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders, in accordance with the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration; reiterates its demand for the withdrawal of Azerbaijan’s troops from the entirety of Armenia’s sovereign territory; calls on Azerbaijan to unequivocally commit to respecting Armenia’s territorial integrity; highlights that Azerbaijan’s connectivity issues with its exclave of Nakhchivan should be resolved with full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Armenia; reiterates its position that the EU should be ready to impose sanctions on any individuals and entities that threaten the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Armenia;

    12. Condemns any military aggression, use of force or hybrid threats against Armenia, as well as foreign interference and attempts to destabilise the political situation in Armenia; welcomes, furthermore, the decision to adopt the first assistance measure under the European Peace Facility in support of Armenian armed forces and calls for the cooperation between Armenia and the EU to be further reinforced in the field of security and defence; welcomes the actions undertaken by several Member States to provide defensive military support to Armenia and urges the Member States to consider similar initiatives; welcomes the new momentum in bilateral relations between the EU and Armenia, which is strongly supported by the authorities in Yerevan; calls on the Commission and the Council to actively support Armenia’s desire for increased cooperation with the EU;

    13. Expresses its support for the activities of the European Union Mission in Armenia (EUMA) and underscores the important role it plays; reiterates its concern regarding the repeated smear campaigns originating from Azerbaijan against EUMA; calls on EUMA to continue to closely monitor the evolving security situation on the ground, provide transparent reporting to Parliament and actively contribute to conflict resolution efforts; calls for the EU and its Member States to strengthen EUMA’s mandate, increase its size and extend its duration;

    14. Supports all initiatives and activities that could lead to the establishment of peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the signing of a long-awaited peace agreement; calls on Azerbaijan to demonstrate genuine efforts to this end; warns Azerbaijan that any military action against Armenia would be unacceptable and would have serious consequences for the partnership between Azerbaijan and the EU; welcomes the Armenia-Azerbaijan joint statement of 7 December 2023 on confidence-building measures; welcomes the progress made in the framework of the Armenia-Azerbaijan border delimitation process, which has led to an agreement on several sections of the border; encourages both sides to take further steps on the remaining sections; calls for the EU to cease all technical and financial assistance to Azerbaijan that might contribute to strengthening its military or security capabilities; calls on the Member States to freeze exports of all military and security equipment to Azerbaijan;

    15. Calls for the full implementation of all orders issued by the International Court of Justice, including the order of 17 November 2023 indicating provisional measures regarding the safe, unimpeded and expeditious return of people who fled Nagorno-Karabakh; recalls that the decision to host COP29 in Baku was made after Azerbaijan failed to comply with the above-mentioned International Court of Justice order as well as those of 7 December 2021 and of 22 February 2023; reiterates its call for independent investigations into the abuses committed by Azerbaijani forces in Nagorno-Karabakh; reiterates its call on the Azerbaijani authorities to allow the safe return of the Armenian population to Nagorno-Karabakh, to genuinely engage in a comprehensive and transparent dialogue with them, to provide robust guarantees for the protection of their rights, including their land and property rights, the protection of their distinct identity and their civic, cultural, social and religious rights, and to refrain from any inflammatory rhetoric that could incite discrimination against Armenians; urges the Azerbaijani authorities to release all 23 Armenian prisoners of war detained following Azerbaijan’s retaking of the Nagorno-Karabakh region;

    16. Reiterates its call for the EU institutions and the Member States to continue to offer assistance to Armenia to deal with the refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh; calls for the EU, in this regard, to provide a new package of assistance to Armenia to help the Armenian Government address the humanitarian needs of refugees; welcomes all efforts by the Government of Armenia to provide shelter and aid to the displaced Armenians;

    17. Expresses deep concern regarding the preservation of cultural, religious and historical heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh following the massive exodus of its Armenian population; urges Azerbaijan to refrain from further destruction, neglect or alteration of the origins of cultural, religious or historical heritage in the region and calls on it instead to strive to preserve, protect and promote this rich diversity; demands the protection of the Armenian cultural, historical and religious heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh in line with UNESCO standards and Azerbaijan’s international commitments; insists that Azerbaijan allow a UNESCO mission to Nagorno-Karabakh and grant it the necessary access;

    18. Deplores steps taken by Azerbaijan towards the secessionist entity in occupied Cyprus, which are against international law and the provisions of UN Security Council Resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984); calls on Azerbaijan to respect the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of states and to not invite the secessionist entity in occupied Cyprus to any meetings of the Organization of Turkic States;

    19. Condemns Azerbaijan’s repeated attempts to denigrate and destabilise Member States, including through the so-called Baku Initiative Group; condemns in particular its support for irredentist groups and disinformation operations targeting France, especially in the French departments and territories of New Caledonia, Martinique and Corsica; recalls that these methods were used against Germany in 2013; denounces the smear campaigns targeting Denmark; regrets the smear campaign aimed at damaging France’s reputation by calling into question its capacity to host the 2024 Olympic Games, launched by actors suspected of being close to the Azerbaijani regime;

    20. Condemns the arbitrary arrests of EU citizens based on spurious accusations of espionage and their disproportionate sentencing;

    21. Strongly condemns the public insults and direct threats made by Azerbaijani diplomatic or government representatives, or members of the Azerbaijani Parliament, targeting elected officials of EU Member States; demands, in this regard, that access to EU institutional buildings be denied to the Azerbaijani officials concerned until further notice;

    22. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the President, Government and Parliament of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the President, Government and Parliament of the Republic of Armenia, the Director-General of UNESCO, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the United Nations and the Council of Europe.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the misinterpretation of UN resolution 2758 by the People’s Republic of China and its continuous military provocations around Taiwan – RC-B10-0134/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    Michael Gahler, Miriam Lexmann, Sebastião Bugalho, Rasa Juknevičienė, Danuše Nerudová
    on behalf of the PPE Group
    Yannis Maniatis, Kathleen Van Brempt, Tonino Picula
    on behalf of the S&D Group
    Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Adam Bielan, Mariusz Kamiński, Charlie Weimers, Michał Dworczyk, Alexandr Vondra, Veronika Vrecionová, Ondřej Krutílek, Rihards Kols, Maciej Wąsik, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Alberico Gambino, Bert‑Jan Ruissen, Carlo Fidanza
    on behalf of the ECR Group
    Engin Eroglu, Petras Auštrevičius, Helmut Brandstätter, Dan Barna, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, João Cotrim De Figueiredo, Bernard Guetta, Svenja Hahn, Ľubica Karvašová, Karin Karlsbro, Moritz Körner, Nathalie Loiseau, Jan‑Christoph Oetjen, Ana Vasconcelos, Dainius Žalimas
    on behalf of the Renew Group
    Markéta Gregorová
    on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

    European Parliament resolution on the misinterpretation of UN resolution 2758 by the People’s Republic of China and its continuous military provocations around Taiwan

    (2024/2891(RSP))

    The European Parliament,

    – having regard to its previous resolutions on the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan,

    – having regard to its resolution of 16 September 2021 on a new EU-China strategy[1],

    – having regard to its recommendation of 21 October 2021 to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on EU-Taiwan political relations and cooperation[2],

    – having regard to its resolution of 7 June 2022 on the EU and the security challenges in the Indo-Pacific[3],

    – having regard to its resolution of 15 September 2022 on the situation in the Strait of Taiwan[4],

    – having regard to its resolution of 13 December 2023 on EU-Taiwan trade and investment relations[5],

    – having regard to the Strategic Compass for Security and Defence, approved by the Council on 21 March 2022,

    – having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 16 September 2021 entitled ‘The EU strategy for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific’ (JOIN(2021)0024),

    – having regard to the EU’s ‘One China’ policy,

    – having regard to the EU-China summit of 7 December 2023,

    – having regard to the European Council conclusions on China of 30 June 2023,

    – having regard to the visits of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of 25 to 27 July 2023 and of the Committee on International Trade of 19 to 21 December 2022 to Taiwan,

    – having regard to the statement of 1 September 2024 by the Spokesperson of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the latest dangerous actions in the South China Sea,

    – having regard to the statements by the Spokesperson of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on China’s military drills around Taiwan, including the most recent statement of 14 October 2024,

    – having regard to the G7 Foreign Ministers’ statements of 18 April 2023 and of 3 August 2022 on preserving peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait,

    – having regard to the statement by the Chair of the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting of 23 September 2024,

    – having regard to the joint declaration by the G7 Defence Ministers of 19 October 2024,

    – having regard to the urgency motion on Taiwan passed by the Australian Senate on 21 August 2024,

    – having regard to UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 (XXVI) of 25 October 1971,

    – having regard to the motion on UN Resolution 2758 passed by the Dutch House of Representatives on 12 September 2024,

    – having regard to the press statement by the US Department of State of 13 October 2024,

    – having regard to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),

    – having regard to Article 7 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), concluded on 9 May 1992,

    – having regard to Rule 5 of the Standing Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),

    – having regard to Article 4 of the Constitution of the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol),

    – having regard to Article 8 and Article 18(h) of the Constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO),

    – having regard to Rules 136(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

    A. whereas UN Resolution 2758 was passed by the UN General Assembly on 25 October 1971 and shifted the official recognition from the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the People’s Republic of China (PRC); whereas today Taiwan, while not being a member of the United Nations, maintains diplomatic relations with 11 of the 193 United Nations member states, as well as with the Holy See;

    B. whereas the EU and Taiwan are like-minded partners that share the common values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law; whereas Taiwan is a vibrant democracy, with a flourishing civil society; whereas Taiwan held peaceful and well-organised elections on 13 January 2024;

    C. whereas following the adoption of UN Resolution 2758, Taiwan lost its access to participation in multilateral forums, such as the WHO;

    D. whereas Taiwan has never been part of the PRC; whereas the Republic of China was established in 1912 and the PRC in 1949;

    E. whereas UN Resolution 2758 addresses the status of the PRC, but does not determine that the PRC enjoys sovereignty over Taiwan, nor does it make any judgement on the future inclusion of Taiwan in the UN or any other international organisation; whereas, however, the PRC continues to misinterpret UN Resolution 2758 to block Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations and unilaterally change the status quo; whereas these actions highlight the PRC’s ambition to alter the existing multilateral international order and undermine international law, and can be seen as an expression of systemic rivalry;

    F. whereas the EU continues to maintain its own ‘One China’ policy, which is different from the PRC’s ‘One China’ principle; whereas the EU’s long-standing position has been to support the status quo and a peaceful resolution of differences across the Taiwan Strait, while encouraging dialogue and constructive engagement;

    G. whereas through their statement of 23 September 2024 the G7 members, among other things, underlined their support for ‘Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organizations as a member where statehood is not a prerequisite and as an observer or guest where it is’;

    H. whereas supporting Taiwan’s participation in international organisations does not undermine the EU’s commitment to its ‘One China’ policy, which remains the political foundation of EU-China relations;

    I. whereas over the past decade the PRC has persistently tried to increase its influence over international institutions, using this to sideline Taiwan and prevent Taiwanese passport holders, including journalists, non-governmental organisation workers and political activists, from accessing international institutions; whereas the PRC exercises transnational repression by misusing extradition treaties to target Taiwanese people abroad and therefore put them at risk of arbitrary persecution and human rights abuses;

    J. whereas the statutes of most international organisations tasked to address global issues, including the WHO, the UNFCCC, Interpol and the ICAO, provide opportunities for entities such as Taiwan to participate without infringing on the rights of member states;

    K. whereas Taiwan has consistently demonstrated a peaceful and cooperative attitude globally, has significantly enhanced global developments and thus could contribute greatly to the work of various international organisations;

    L. whereas the PRC is a one-party state that is entirely controlled and ruled by the Chinese Communist Party;

    M. whereas in a speech on Taiwan’s national day of 10 October 2024, Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te stated that the PRC has ‘no right to represent Taiwan’ and reiterated that the two sides are ‘not subordinate’ to each other; whereas the PRC has justified its recent military exercise by claiming that President Lai Ching-te is pursuing a separatist strategy;

    N. whereas on 14 October 2024 the PRC launched a large-scale military drill, named Joint Sword-2024B, that simulated a blockade of Taiwan; whereas during this exercise a record number of 153 PRC aircraft,18 warships and 17 PRC coastguard ships were detected around Taiwan;

    O. whereas during the exercises four formations of the PRC coastguard patrolled the island and briefly entered its restricted waters; whereas the very frequent deployment of the coastguard by the PRC in the Strait in what the PRC considers ‘law enforcement’ missions is putting constant pressure on the Taiwanese authorities and causing a dangerous increase in the risk of collisions, in what is one of the most concrete indications of the PRC’s intention to erode the status quo; whereas the exercises launched on 14 October 2024 were the fourth round of large-scale war games by the PRC in just over two years;

    P. whereas these activities were condemned by Taiwan as an ‘unreasonable provocation’ and are the latest in a series of war games conducted by the PRC against Taiwan; whereas these military drills came days after Lai Ching-te, Taiwan’s new president, gave a speech vowing to protect Taiwan’s sovereignty in the face of challenges from the PRC;

    Q. whereas the median line, which was set up in a decades-old tacit agreement between both sides of the Taiwan Strait, was designed to reduce the risk of conflict by keeping the military aircraft from both sides of the Strait at a safe distance and thus prevent fatal miscalculations; whereas the PRC’s People’s Liberation Army violated the median line only four times between 1954 and 2020, but now routine incursions reflect Beijing’s intent to irreversibly reset long-standing benchmarks;

    R. whereas the press statements by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the US Department of State reaffirm that peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait are of strategic importance for regional and global security and prosperity; whereas the High Representative’s statement recalls the need to preserve the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, opposes any unilateral actions that change the status quo by force or coercion and calls on all parties to exercise restraint and avoid any actions that may further escalate cross-Strait tensions;

    S. whereas on 23 May 2024 the PRC launched a military drill called Joint Sword-2024A, just days after the inauguration of Lai Ching-te as the new President of Taiwan;

    T. whereas over the past few years the PRC has held similar military drills around Taiwan; whereas these military drills have increased in intensity and have been moved closer and closer to Taiwan’s mainland; whereas during a previous drill in August 2022 the PRC also fired missiles into Japan’s exclusive economic zone;

    U. whereas on top of military pressure the PRC has long been pursuing a sophisticated strategy of targeting Taiwan with foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI), including hybrid and cyberattacks with the goal of undermining Taiwan’s democratic society;

    V. whereas the PRC, under the leadership of Xi Jinping, has said that it will not renounce the use of force to seek unification with Taiwan;

    W. whereas the PRC’s 2005 Anti-Secession Law includes the use of non-peaceful means, triggered by ambiguous thresholds, to achieve what the PRC calls ‘unification’ with Taiwan; whereas such military action is a grave threat to the security and stability of the entire region, with potentially dire global consequences; whereas EU and US deterrence is of strategic importance to dissuade the PRC from undertaking any unilateral action against Taiwan;

    X. whereas the PRC’s increasingly aggressive behaviour, in particular in its own neighbourhood, such as the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, poses a risk to regional and global security; whereas since 2019 the PRC has violated the Taiwanese air defence identification zone (ADIZ) with increasing regularity; whereas the PRC has been behaving aggressively across vast areas of the Indo-Pacific and exerting varying degrees of military or economic coercion, which has led to disputes with neighbours such as Japan, India, the Philippines and Australia;

    Y. whereas the EU has condemned the dangerous actions conducted by Chinese coastguard vessels against lawful Philippine maritime operations in the South China Sea on 31 August 2024; whereas this incident is the latest in a series of actions endangering the safety of life at sea and violating the right to freedom of navigation and overflight in compliance with international law; whereas maritime security and freedom of navigation must be ensured in accordance with international law and, in particular, UNCLOS;

    Z. whereas the PRC is supporting Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, in particular through the export of dual-use goods to Russia and the ongoing involvement of PRC-based companies in sanctions evasion and circumvention;

    AA. whereas as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the PRC has a responsibility to work for peace and stability in the region, and particularly in the Taiwan Strait;

    AB. whereas through its 2021 strategy for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific, the EU and its Member States increased their presence in the region, including through a higher military presence of certain Member States and the continued passage of military ships through the Taiwan Strait;

    AC. whereas Taiwan is located in a strategic position in terms of trade, notably in high-tech supply chains; whereas the Taiwan Strait is the primary route for ships travelling from China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan towards Europe; whereas Taiwan dominates semiconductor manufacturing markets, as its producers manufacture around 50 % of the world’s semiconductor output; whereas the EU’s strategy for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific argues for increasing trade and investment cooperation with Taiwan;

    AD. whereas the EU is Taiwan’s fourth largest trading partner after the PRC, the United States and Japan; whereas in 2022 Taiwan was the EU’s 12th largest trading partner; whereas the EU is the largest source of foreign direct investment in Taiwan; whereas Taiwanese investments in the EU remain below their potential;

    AE. whereas members of the Australian Senate and of the Dutch House of Representatives have recently adopted motions concerning the distortion of UN Resolution 2758 by the PRC and called for support for Taiwan’s greater participation in multilateral organisations;

    1. Reiterates that Taiwan is a key EU partner and a like-minded democratic friend in the Indo-Pacific region; commends Taiwan and the Taiwanese people for their strong democracy and vibrant civil society, demonstrated once more by the peaceful and well-organised elections of 13 January 2024;

    2. Opposes the PRC’s constant distortion of UN Resolution 2758 and its efforts to block Taiwan’s participation in multilateral organisations; calls for the EU and its Member States to support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in relevant international organisations such as the WHO, the ICAO, Interpol and the UNFCCC; further calls on the UN Secretariat to grant Taiwanese nationals and journalists the right to access UN premises for visits, meetings and newsgathering activities;

    3. Strongly condemns the PRC’s unwarranted military exercises of 14 October 2024, its continued military provocations against Taiwan and its continued military build-up, which is changing the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific, and reiterates its firm rejection of any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait; lauds the restraint and disciplined reaction of the Taiwanese authorities and calls for regular exchanges between the EU and its Taiwanese counterparts on relevant security issues;

    4. Reaffirms its strong commitment to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait; underlines that any attempt to unilaterally change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, particularly by means of force or coercion, will not be accepted and will be met with a decisive and firm reaction;

    5. Underlines that UN Resolution 2758 takes no position on Taiwan; strongly rejects and refutes the PRC’s attempts to distort history and international rules;

    6. Reiterates the EU’s commitment to its ‘One China’ policy as the political foundation of EU-China relations; recalls that the EU’s China strategy emphasises that constructive cross-strait relations are part of promoting peace and security in the whole Asia-Pacific region and that the EU supports initiatives aimed at dialogue and confidence-building;

    7. Underlines that in Taiwan it is up to the people to democratically decide how they want to live and that the status quo in the Taiwan Strait must not be unilaterally changed by the use or threat of force;

    8. Reiterates its strong condemnation of statements by Chinese President Xi Jinping that the PRC will never renounce the right to use force with respect to Taiwan; underlines that the PRC’s use of force or threats or other highly coercive measures to achieve unification is incompatible with international law; expresses grave concern over the PRC’s use of hostile disinformation to undermine trust in Taiwan’s democracy and governance; reiterates its previous calls for the EU and its Member States to cooperate with international partners in helping to sustain democracy in Taiwan, keeping it free from foreign interference and threats; underlines that only Taiwan’s democratically elected government can represent the Taiwanese people on the international stage;

    9. Condemns the PRC’s systematic grey-zone military actions, including cyber and disinformation campaigns against Taiwan, and urges the PRC to halt these activities immediately; calls, in this regard, for cooperation between the EU and Taiwan to be deepened further to enhance structural cooperation on countering disinformation and foreign interference; welcomes the posting of a liaison officer at the European Economic and Trade Office in Taiwan to coordinate joint efforts to tackle disinformation and interference as a first important step towards deeper EU-Taiwan cooperation, and calls for the EU to further deepen cooperation with Taiwan in this key area; praises the courage of the Taiwanese people and the proportionate and dignified reactions of the Taiwanese authorities and institutions in the face of intensifying Chinese threats and activities;

    10. Firmly rejects the PRC’s economic coercion against Taiwan and other countries, as well as against EU Member States, and underlines that such practices are not only illegal under World Trade Organization rules, but that they also have a devastating effect on the PRC’s reputation around the world and will lead to a further loss of trust in the PRC as a responsible actor; stresses the independent right of the EU and its Member States to develop relations with Taiwan in line with their interests and shared values of democracy and human rights without foreign interference; calls on EU and Member State missions abroad to address and provide alternatives to malign PRC business practices, especially in the Global South;

    11. Is very concerned at the adoption of the so-called guidelines for punishing ‘diehard Taiwan independence separatists’ for committing crimes of secession and the incitement of secession jointly announced by the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the ministries for public security and state security and the justice ministry in June 2024, which could lead to harsh punishments for the crime of secession, up to and including the death penalty; strongly condemns the sentencing of one Taiwanese activist to nine years in prison in September 2024 after his arrest in the PRC in 2022, as well as the constant harassment of Taiwanese people working and living in the PRC;

    12. Is seriously concerned about the situation in the East and South China Seas; recalls the importance of respecting international law, including UNCLOS and, in particular, its provisions on the obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means and on maintaining the freedom of navigation and overflight; calls on all countries that have not done so to swiftly ratify UNCLOS; calls for the EU and its Member States to step up their own maritime capacities in the region; reminds the PRC of its responsibilities, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, to uphold international law and emphasises the obligation to resolve disputes peacefully;

    13. Reaffirms its grave concerns about China’s increasing military investments and capabilities; expresses grave concerns about the renewed Chinese and Russian commitment to further strengthen their military ties and condemns the Chinese supply of components and equipment to Moscow’s military industry; welcomes the Council decision to impose sanctions on Chinese companies for supporting Russia’s war against Ukraine; deplores the ‘no limits’ partnership between Russia and the PRC; welcomes the increasing commitment and military presence of the United States in the Indo-Pacific; reiterates its calls for a coordinated approach to deepening EU-US cooperation on security matters, including through transatlantic parliamentary dialogue;

    14. Strongly welcomes the close cooperation and alignment of Taiwan with the EU and the United States in responding to Russia’s war against Ukraine and issuing sanctions in response to this blatant violation of international law; recalls Taiwan’s help in addressing the humanitarian crisis caused by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and its continuous involvement and support for the Ukrainian government and countries hosting Ukrainian refugees;

    15. Highlights that the PRC’s various actions in the field of cognitive and legal warfare are slowly undermining the status quo, as well as intensifying grey-zone activities that are intended to circumvent detection, existing laws and response thresholds; calls for the EU to establish and enforce its redlines through its toolbox of sanctions, including sectoral sanctions, against hybrid activities and cyberthreats, and to coordinate strong diplomatic and economic deterrence measures with liked-minded partners;

    16. Expresses its gratitude for Taiwan’s help and assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic;

    17. Recognises the importance of Taiwan in securing global supply chains, especially in the high-tech sector where Taiwan is the leading producer of semiconductors, and calls for the EU and its Member States to engage in closer cooperation with Taiwan;

    18. Calls on the Commission to launch, without delay, preparatory measures for negotiations on a bilateral investment agreement, or other kinds of agreement, with Taiwan; highlights the potential for cooperation on foreign direct investment screening policy and on tackling economic coercion and retaliation;

    19. Applauds the increase in freedom of navigation exercises conducted by several EU countries, including France, the Netherlands and Germany; notes that these activities are in line with international law and calls for more cooperation and coordination with regional partners in order to increase freedom of navigation operations in the region;

    20. Welcomes visits by former and current Taiwanese politicians to Europe, including the recent visit of former President Tsai Ing-wen to the European Parliament on 17 October 2024; welcomes, furthermore, continued exchanges of its Members with Taiwan and encourages further visits of official European Parliament delegations to Taiwan; additionally encourages further exchanges between the EU and Taiwan at all levels, including political meetings and people-to-people encounters;

    21. Encourages, in this light, increased economic, scientific and cultural interactions and exchanges, focusing, among other areas, on youth, academia, civil society, sports, culture and education, as well as city-to-city and region-to-region partnerships; reiterates its call on the Member States to engage in meaningful and structural technical cooperation with Taiwan’s National Fire Agency and National Police Agency and with local administrations in the field of civil protection and disaster management;

    22. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the governments of the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan.

     

     

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Usurpation or unlawful involvement of EU citizens with properties in the occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus – E-002080/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    15.10.2024

    Question for written answer  E-002080/2024
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Costas Mavrides (S&D)

    EU citizens are among those facing criminal charges of usurpation or unlawful business involvement with properties in the occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus (RoC), mainly for acting as intermediaries for construction companies operating in the occupied territory, promoting or selling luxury accommodation built on illegally seized property owned by Greek Cypriots. So far, citizens of Germany, Italy, Hungary, Czechia and Portugal have been arrested and/or charged in the RoC for illegal involvement and activities.

    Such incidents represent a clear violation of rulings by the Court of Justice of the EU and of the rule of law. They deserve special attention as EU citizens are at the centre of the violations.

    Moreover, these violations are part of the blatant, cynical policy of the occupying Turkish regime to gain legitimacy by establishing economic ties with the EU via lucrative though illegal property and development deals, using EU citizens as buyers, promoters or middlemen.

    • 1.Is the Commission aware that EU citizens are involved in such illegal property dealings in the occupied territory of Cyprus?
    • 2.What measures does it intend to take aimed at preventing similar cases in the future, safeguarding the rule of law in the EU and protecting EU citizens’ rights?

    Submitted: 15.10.2024

    Last updated: 23 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Union Minister Shri Jayant Chaudhary to felicitate WorldSkills 2024 winners tomorrow

    Source: Government of India

    Posted On: 23 OCT 2024 5:45PM by PIB Delhi

    Minister of State (I/C), Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship (MSDE) and MoS, Ministry of Education Shri Jayant Chaudhary to honor the outstanding achievements of the Indian delegation at the WorldSkills 2024 competition during a  Felicitation Ceremony in New Delhi tomorrow.

    India has made a remarkable mark on the global stage at WorldSkills 2024 at Lyon in France, by winning four Bronze medals in different categories. These are: Ashwitha Police in Patisserie and confectionery; Dhrumil Kumar Dhirendra Kumar Gandhi and Sathyajith Balakrishnan in Industry 4.0; Joethir Adithya Krishnapriya Ravikumar in Hotel Reception and Amaresh Kumar Sahu in Renewable Energy category.

    In addition, the Indian delegation earned 12 Medallions of Excellence, a testament to their exceptional skills and consistent performance across various trades. India’s performance at WorldSkills 2024 was a strong showing on the global stage, with the country competing against other global giants like China, Japan, Germany, and the USA.

    The event will also be graced by Shri Atul Kumar Tiwari, Secretary, MSDE, and Shri Ved Mani Tiwari, CEO, NSDC, Sector Skill Council Experts and Industry/Academia Partners for WorldSkills 2024.

    WorldSkills Lyon 2024 saw more than 1,400 participants from over 70 countries competing in diverse skill categories, and the Indian competitors stood its ground among the best in the world, showcasing their talent and innovation in front of an international audience. India competed in 52 skills against countries like China, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Germany, Brazil, Australia, Columbia, Denmark, France, UK, South Africa, Switzerland, USA, etc.

    The Indian contingent’s success at WorldSkills 2024 is a significant milestone in the country’s journey toward becoming a global skills leader. Winning the Bronze medal in Patisserie and Confectionery in France, the global epicenter of fine pastry and baking, is an extraordinary achievement. It signifies India’s rising prowess in culinary arts, proving that Indian talent can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the best in a country renowned for its mastery in this craft.

    India’s 12 Medallions of Excellence at WorldSkills 2024 highlight the nation’s prowess across a range of traditional and emerging skills, from Mechatronics and Cyber Security to Jewellery and Beauty Therapy. These achievements underscore India’s leadership in both innovation-driven fields like Additive Manufacturing and Web Technology, as well as craftsmanship in areas like Cabinet Making and Cooking.

    The success of the Indian competitors at WorldSkills 2024 is a testament to the rigorous preparation and industry support they received throughout their journey. Each participant underwent extensive training, supported by industry experts, mentors, and the best-in-class infrastructure provided by organizations across various sectors.

    ****

    PSF/DK

    (Release ID: 2067389) Visitor Counter : 51

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Press release – EU budget for 2025 to focus on research, health, education, and climate action

    Source: European Parliament

    Parliament demands an EU budget for 2025 that focuses on improving people’s lives, boosting competitiveness, and addressing current challenges.

    MEPs set the overall level of commitment appropriations for the 2025 draft budget at almost €201 billion, €1.24 billion more than the Commission’s proposal from last June. Parliament wants to boost programmes vital in addressing health challenges, supporting young people, agriculture and rural areas, helping people suffering from natural disasters, boosting climate action, managing migration and security needs, and strengthening EU support for neighbouring regions experiencing geopolitical and humanitarian crises. MEPs restored €1.52  billion in funding cuts proposed by the Council, and set payment appropriations at €153.5 billion.

    Repayment costs for the European Recovery Instrument (EURI)

    The EURI repayment costs, which are twice the amount initially forecast for 2025, should not result in reduced funding for essential programmes, like Erasmus+ or R&D, according to Parliament. MEPs want to reverse cuts made by member states to appropriations dedicated to these areas and to use the new “EURI cascade mechanism” introduced by the revision of the EU’s long-term budget . This mechanism is designed to manage escalating Next Generation EU borrowing costs without affecting key initiatives, maintaining the budget’s flexibility and response capacity.

    Quotes

    Victor Negrescu (S&D, Romania), general rapporteur for the EU budget 2025 (for section III – Commission), said: “Today’s vote is a strong signal of support for a citizen-centred EU budget focused on investments in economic development and improving people’s lives. That is why we are asking for an increase of €110 million for actions in the area of health, an additional €70 million for Erasmus, €42 million to protect our citizens against the effects of natural disasters, an additional €96 million for agriculture, €120 million for humanitarian aid, and €110 million for the Eastern and Southern Neighbourhood.”

    Niclas Herbst (EPP, Germany), rapporteur for the other sections, said: “Cybersecurity is vital for EU institutions and has remained a pressing concern since 2023. Another key priority is ensuring that the institutions have enough staff to fulfil new tasks, like for the implementation of the Artificial Intelligence Act. Additionally, improving the security of European External Action Service buildings, particularly in delegations situated in remote and high-risk areas, is essential. To address this, an increase of €37 million is required.”

    Next steps

    The vote initiates three weeks of “conciliation” talks with the Council, with the aim of reaching a deal for next year’s budget, which then has to be voted on by Parliament and signed by its President.

    Background

    Over 90% of the EU budget funds activities in EU countries and beyond, benefiting citizens, regions, farmers, researchers, students, NGOs, and businesses. Unlike national budgets, the EU budget is primarily aimed at investment, to generate growth and opportunities across the European Union.

    The EU serves 27 countries with a total population of 450 million. With these figures in mind, the annual EU budget is actually relatively small – on average €160-180 billion annually in 2021-27. This is comparable to the national budget of Denmark, which serves 5.6 million people, and is about 30% smaller than the budget of Poland, which serves 38 million people. (Source: Commission)

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Favourable conservation status of wolves – E-001649/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The term ‘extensive’ (German: flächendeckend) is neither mentioned in the Habitats Directive[1] nor in the Commission document on the ‘guidelines on concepts and definitions of Article 17 for the Habitats Directive’ which is publicly available[2].

    As stated in the reply to Written Question E -1611/2023, pursuant to Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive, the conservation status is considered as ‘favourable’ when population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis.

    Germany provides one of the most transparent monitoring schemes where the progress towards achieving a good conservation status can be publicly followed[3].

    The Commission document on the ‘guidelines on concepts and definitions of Article 17 for the Habitats Directive’ was established together with the Member States[4].

    The current system leaves flexibility on how to assess the conservation status in certain situations, e.g. in case of transboundary populations.

    • [1] Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7-50.
    • [2] https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/habitats_art17/Reporting2025/Final Guidelines Art. 17_2019-2024.pdf/
    • [3] https://www.dbb-wolf.de/wolf-occurrence/evidence-in-germany/map-of-occupied-raster-cells
    • [4] Expert Group on Reporting under the Nature Directives and the Expert Group on the Birds and the Habitats Directives (NADEG) and the Habitats Committee.
    Last updated: 23 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Democratic developments in Germany and Austria – E-002056/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    14.10.2024

    Question for written answer  E-002056/2024
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Christine Anderson (ESN)

    In Germany and Austria, the winners of recent elections – the AfD and the FPÖ – have faced resistance from the defeated parties, who have refused to cooperate with them. These developments, as well as the current motion in the Bundestag to ban the AfD, give rise to questions as to democratic practice and respect for the Union’s fundamental values, in the context of the EU’s responsibility for upholding the democratic standards set out in the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

    • 1.What view does the Commission take, given the principle of political diversity and plurality, of the practice of systematically shutting election winners out of political cooperation?
    • 2.What view does the Commission take of the motion to ban the AfD currently being discussed in the Bundestag, with regard to the democratic principle of political diversity and freedom of expression, which the EU regards as a fundamental value?
    • 3.What criteria must be met for a ban on a party in a Member State to be compliant with the values of the Union and, in particular, the principles of democracy and the rule of law within the meaning of Article 2 TEU?

    Submitted: 14.10.2024

    Last updated: 23 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Implementation of an EU-wide certificate of competence in agriculture – E-002110/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    16.10.2024

    Question for written answer  E-002110/2024
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Christine Schneider (PPE)

    In Germany, people who are competent and regularly take part in training courses are authorised to apply pesticides professionally. The certificate of competence is based on Directive 2009/128/EC, which aims to ensure that pesticides are used sustainably in the EU. The EU Member States have drawn up national action plans to implement the measures laid down in the directive. Accordingly, certificates of competence are implemented at national level and are valid only in the issuing Member State. Many companies are faced with the problem of a shortage of skilled workers, while at the same time long-standing employees from other Member States who can safely apply plant protection products are unable to obtain the relevant certificate of competence at their place of work due to language barriers.

    • 1.To what extent does the Commission consider an EU-wide certificate of competence for the application of plant protection products to be useful, and how could it be implemented in practice?
    • 2.How can agricultural businesses deploy employees who have obtained the certificate of competence in one Member State and now work in another Member State, whose official language they do not speak fluently, when it comes to the application of plant protection products?

    Submitted: 16.10.2024

    Last updated: 23 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI China: First China-Europe Express cargo ship completes maiden voyage

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    WILHELMSHAVEN, Germany, Jan. 24 — The first container ship of the “China-Europe Express”, the fastest direct route connecting Europe and China’s Yangtze River Delta region, arrived at its destination at the Jade Weser Port in Wilhelmshaven on Friday.

    The “KAWA Ningbo” cargo ship, carrying over 1700 containers of new-energy and other high-value goods, completed its non-stop voyage in 26 days, well below the shipment time of 45 days in the past.

    “The launch of the ‘China-Europe Express’ route not only provides convenience for the exchange of goods between China and Europe, but also plays a positive role in stabilizing the global product and supply chains, vividly interpreting the profound connotation of jointly building the ‘Belt and Road,’” remarked Cong Wu, consul general of the Chinese General Consulate in Hamburg at a ceremony marking the completion of the voyage.

    Cong further emphasized that the steady development of this new route would undoubtedly create new cooperation opportunities for both regions and inject fresh vitality into bilateral economic growth.

    Frank Doods, State Secretary in the Lower Saxony Ministry of Economics, Transport, Construction and Digitization, praised the route for bringing rich development opportunities to the city of Wilhelmshaven where the port is located and the broader Lower Saxony. He also expressed optimism about deepening economic ties between Germany and China.

    This milestone route was established through a partnership agreement signed at the China International Import Expo last year. The maiden voyage departed from east China’s Ningbo-Zhoushan Port on Dec. 30. The route is set to operate on a monthly basis, enabling regular freight exchange between China and Europe.

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Text adopted – Russia’s disinformation and historical falsification to justify its war of aggression against Ukraine – P10_TA(2025)0006 – Thursday, 23 January 2025 – Strasbourg

    Source: European Parliament

    The European Parliament,

    –  having regard to its previous resolutions on Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine,

    –  having regard to its previous resolutions on historical remembrance,

    –  having regard to the Charter of the United Nations,

    –  having regard to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC),

    –  having regard to the Geneva Conventions,

    –  having regard to Rule 136(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

    A.  whereas on 24 February 2022, the Russian regime declared the start of a ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine based on false claims that it needed to protect civilians;

    B.  whereas, in fact, since 24 February 2022 the Russian Federation has been waging an unprovoked, unjustified and illegal war of aggression against Ukraine, in continuation of previous aggressions since 2014, and continues to persistently violate the principles of the UN Charter through its aggressive actions against the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine and to blatantly and grossly violate international humanitarian law, as established by the Geneva Conventions of 1949, in particular through the massive use of targeted attacks against the civilian population, residential areas and civilian infrastructure;

    C.  whereas the UN General Assembly, in its resolution of 2 March 2022, immediately qualified Russia’s war against Ukraine as an act of aggression in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, and, in its resolution of 14 November 2022, it recognised the need to hold the Russian Federation accountable for its war of aggression, as well as legally and financially responsible for its internationally wrongful acts, and that Russia should pay reparations for the injuries and damage caused;

    D.  whereas Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is not an isolated act but a continuation of its imperialistic policy, which has included a war against Chechnya and military aggression against Georgia in 2008, and the occupation of Crimea and the start of a war in the Donbas in 2014;

    E.  whereas the start of Russia’s full-scale war of aggression against neighbouring Ukraine was preceded by several public declarations by the president of the Russian Federation seeking to justify its use of force by means of historical revisionism, false claims and illegitimate demands for the recognition of its exclusive interests in Ukraine and other neighbouring countries;

    F.  whereas the Russian regime has been making widespread use of disinformation, including based on distorted historical arguments, and foreign information manipulation and interference in an attempt to justify its crime of aggression, to incite the Russian population to support its illegal regime and illegal war of aggression against neighbouring Ukraine, to interfere in the democratic processes of other countries and to reduce support among their populations for continued international assistance and support for Ukraine against Russia’s war of aggression; whereas the Russian regime denies Ukraine’s distinct national identity, falsely claiming it as part of the Russian world (‘Russkiy mir’), a narrative rooted in imperialistic ideology; whereas Russia is demolishing Holodomor memorials and restoring demolished monuments to Lenin in the occupied territories of Ukraine;

    G.  whereas Russia has not only failed to acknowledge the unforgivable initial role of the Soviet Union in the early stages of World War II, for example through the 1939 Treaty of Non-Aggression between Nazi Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soviet Union) and its secrets protocols, commonly referred to as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, in which both totalitarian regimes conspired to divide Europe into exclusive spheres of influence, and failed to assume its responsibility for the many atrocities and mass crimes committed in territories occupied by the Soviet Union, but the current Russian regime has also instrumentalised history and created a cult of ‘victory’ around World War II to ideologically mobilise citizens and manipulate them into supporting an illegal war of aggression;

    H.  whereas Russia has developed a growing disinformation campaign of historical revisionism for the purpose of denying Ukraine its national identity, statehood and very existence, and with the aim of justifying its claims to exclusive spheres of influence, which is reminiscent of how the Soviet Union agreed with Nazi Germany to invade and occupy parts of Poland and Romania as well as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; whereas today, Russia poses a particular threat to Poland and the Baltic States and their sovereignty through this type of historical revisionism;

    I.  whereas Victory Day, celebrated annually on 9 May, has been turned by the current Russian regime into a tool of war propaganda in Russia, by exploiting the narrative of the ‘liberation of Europe from Nazism’ and thus ignoring the subsequent Soviet occupation of the Baltic States and the subjugation of central Europe; whereas this narrative of liberation from Nazism is being used today in Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine;

    J.  whereas in some Member States, communist symbols, as well as the symbols of the ongoing Russian aggression, are prohibited by law; whereas since 2009, 23 August has been commemorated across the EU as the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of all Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes; whereas since 2003, Parliament has held an annual commemoration for the victims of mass Soviet deportations;

    1.  Reiterates its condemnation, in the strongest possible terms, of Russia’s unprovoked, illegal and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine; calls on Russia to immediately terminate all military activities in Ukraine and to completely and unconditionally withdraw all forces, proxies and military equipment from the entire internationally recognised territory of Ukraine, to end its forced deportations of Ukrainian civilians and to release all detained and deported Ukrainians, particularly children;

    2.  Rejects the various claims made by the Russian regime as futile attempts to justify an illegal war of aggression that constitutes a blatant violation of the UN Charter and of the responsibility of the Russian Federation as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to maintain peace and stability and that was immediately recognised as such by the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with an overwhelming majority of the UN General Assembly; recalls that no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military, historic or otherwise, may serve as a justification for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine;

    3.  Condemns the Russian regime’s systematic falsification and use of distorted historical arguments, such as those related to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in its attempt to manipulate Russian public opinion into supporting criminal actions such as the illegal war of aggression against neighbouring Ukraine, to undermine international support and assistance for Ukraine and to erase Ukraine’s distinct cultural and historical identity; denounces Russia’s claim that it is entitled to zones of exclusive interest at the expense of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states as incompatible with international law;

    4.  Condemns the Russian Federation’s failure to establish accountability for Soviet crimes and its deliberate obstruction of historical research by denying access to and closing Soviet archives, as well as the fact that it has enacted legislation criminalising the truthful portrayal of Soviet and Russian crimes and persecuted civil society organisations investigating Soviet crimes, and has glorified Stalinist totalitarianism and re-created its methods; maintains that impunity and the lack of factually accurate historical and public debate and education has contributed to the current Russian regime’s ability to revive imperialist policies and instrumentalise history for its criminal purposes; condemns the persecution of civil society organisations investigating Soviet crimes or the crimes of the current regime, including the liquidation of International Memorial, the Memorial Human Rights Defence Centre, and the Moscow Helsinki Group, as well as the forced closure of the Sakharov Centre;

    5.  Recalls that the deliberate attacks of the Russian Federation on the civilian population of Ukraine, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, the use of torture, sexual violence and rape as weapons of war, the deportation of thousands of Ukrainian citizens to the territory of the Russian Federation, the forced transfer and adoption of Ukrainian children, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights constitute war crimes for which all perpetrators must be held accountable;

    6.  Reiterates, therefore, its full support for the ongoing investigation by the Prosecutor of the ICC into the situation in Ukraine based on alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide; welcomes Ukraine’s formal accession to the ICC as of 1 January 2025 as an important contribution to international efforts to establish accountability for serious international crimes; calls for the EU to make further diplomatic efforts to encourage the ratification of the Rome Statute and all its amendments globally;

    7.  Furthermore also reiterates its call for the establishment of a special tribunal to investigate and prosecute the crime of aggression committed by the leadership of the Russian Federation against Ukraine; reiterates its call on the Commission, the Council and the European External Action Service to provide all political, financial and practical support necessary for the establishment of a special tribunal; expresses its full support for the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression in Ukraine, based in The Hague and supporting the ongoing efforts of the Joint Investigation Team, as a first concrete step towards the establishment of the special tribunal;

    8.  Calls strongly for the EU and its Member States to further increase and coordinate their efforts, including with like-minded partners, to promptly and rigorously counter Russian disinformation and foreign information manipulation and interference in order to protect the integrity of their democratic processes and strengthen the resilience of European societies, inter alia by actively promoting media literacy and by supporting quality media and professional journalism, in particular investigative journalism that uncovers Russian propaganda, its methods and networks, and by supporting research into new hybrid influence technologies;

    9.  Calls for the EU to expand its sanctions against Russian media outlets conducting disinformation and information manipulation campaigns supporting and justifying Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and calls on the Member States to swiftly and thoroughly implement these sanctions and to dedicate sufficient resources to effectively addressing this hybrid warfare; calls for the EU and the Member States to step up their support for the independent Russian media in exile in order to enable diverse voices in the Russian-language media;

    10.  Expresses deep concern about the recent announcements from social media companies’ leadership concerning relaxing their rules on fact-checking and moderation and how this will further enable Russia’s disinformation campaign around the world; calls on the Commission and the Member States to strictly enforce the Digital Services Act in response to these announcements by Meta and earlier by X, including as an important part of the fight against Russian disinformation;

    11.  Calls on EU citizens to critically evaluate information by questioning its origins and intentions, particularly when it pertains to narratives linked to Russia, and to crosscheck facts using diverse and reliable sources to resist attempts at manipulation by foreign malign actors;

    12.  Condemns Moscow’s exploitation of Orthodox religion for geopolitical purposes, notably through the instrumentalisation of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) as a tool to influence and exert control over Orthodox populations in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Serbia and other countries;

    13.  Responds to the statement of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of 2 May 2023 on the ideology of ‘Ruscism’ by condemning the nationalist imperialist ideology, policy and practices of the current Russian regime; stresses the incompatibility of this ideology and policy and these practices with international law and European values;

    14.  Believes that Russia’s attempts to misrepresent, revise and distort the history of Ukraine undermine the collective memory and identity of Europe as a whole and represent a threat to historical truth, democratic values and peace in Europe; calls on the Member States, therefore, to invest more in education on and research into the common history of Europe and European remembrance, and to support projects that promote a better understanding of the impact of the division of Europe during the Cold War; expresses its support for the building of a pan-European memorial in Brussels for the victims of the 20th century totalitarian regimes; regrets the continued use of symbols of totalitarian regimes in public spaces and calls for an EU-wide ban on the use of both Nazi and Soviet communist symbols as well as symbols of Russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine;

    15.  Expresses its wish for the EU and its Member States to promote better knowledge and understanding of the human suffering of Europeans inflicted by the Soviet regime during the 20th century; in this respect, calls for remembrance and respect for the victims of Soviet crimes, such as the mass deportations, including of the Crimean Tatar people and from the Baltic countries, the Gulag system, the Holodomor, massacres such as the Katyn massacre, and the Upper Silesian tragedy;

    16.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the President, Government and Parliament of Ukraine, and the Russian institutions.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Greece gets EIB policy support for regions affected by lignite phase-out

    Source: European Investment Bank

    • EIB Advisory supports five Greek regions in social and green transformation projects following the gradual phase-out of lignite in Greece’s energy production
    • The goal is to improve living standards through investments in renewable energy, reskilling and urban development
    • The EIB Advisory service is supported by the InvestEU Advisory Hub

    The European Investment Bank (EIB) will advise five regions in Greece for investment programmes aimed at mitigating the social and economic impacts of lignite phase-out and facilitating the country’s transition to climate neutrality.

    Through the InvestEU Advisory Hub, the EIB will assist Western Macedonia, Megalopolis in the Peloponnese, Crete, and the North and South Aegean Islands, address economic and social aspects of the green transition.

    The EIB’s technical assistance, which is valued initially at €2.75 million, will be offered to the five regions. Greece plans to end, by 2026, the use of lignite which generates about a third of the country’s electricity, as it has been proven to be more harmful than other fossil fuels, causing climate change. The EIB have already previously provided similar support to help Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic cope with the permanent closure of lignite mines.

    “The European Investment Bank remains focused in its commitment to support Greece in addressing the complex challenges of the green transition, ensuring no region is left behind,” said EIB Vice-President Yannis Tsakiris. “Through the Advisory Hub, we are equipping the five regions with the technical expertise necessary to design and implement long-term investment plans, that will drive social and economic cohesion, foster renewable energy projects, and create sustainable job opportunities. This collaboration is a vital step toward mitigating the socio-economic impacts of the lignite phase-out while laying the groundwork for a climate-neutral future.”

    The EIB’s advisory services aim to:

    • Support and develop investment programmes that aim to revitalize and strengthen local economies.
    • Enhance institutional frameworks by providing training and sharing best practices from other EU Member States.
    • Ensure effective project management and compliance with EU standards.
    • Assist the regions in preparing grant applications, with a submission deadline of 11 September 2025, to secure the necessary funding.

    The accord, which comes under the InvestEU programme, builds on the Greek government’s commitment to social and economic cohesion efforts across the country and to align with European Union goals. It is also part of the European Green Deal and the Just Transition Mechanism (JTM), which aim to transform the European Union into the world’s first climate-neutral region by 2050 through mobilizing €100 billion in investments to assist areas most affected by the transition to low-carbon and climate-resilient economies.

    The regions receiving this support are covered by Greece’s “Just Transition Plan”. Following, are more details about the five areas:

    • Western Macedonia: Historically Greece’s energy powerhouse, it is heavily impacted by coal plant decommissioning. The main goal for the next day is to transform it into an “alternative clean energy hub” and to attract investment in new and dynamic sectors of national importance.
    • Megalopolis, Peloponnese: Renowned for lignite mining and power generation, requiring a transition to sustainable energy sources. The main goal is to promote the area as an “entrepreneurship hub” with an emphasis on new and innovative productive activities around the bioeconomy value chain (agriculture, circular and digital economy)
    • Crete: Focuses on integrating renewable energy sources and phasing out autonomous power plants. Additionally, the goal is to achieve “greener” development for the island and transform its business activities into more sustainable models.
    • North Aegean Islands: Relies on agriculture and tourism, with necessary investments in sustainable practices, including the blue economy, as well as the phasing out of autonomous power plants.
    • South Aegean Islands: The transformation of the tourism-driven economy is anticipated, while promoting green development initiatives and supporting the growth of business activities related to the clean energy value chain

    EIB’s role in supporting a climate-neutral Europe

    As the EU’s climate bank, the EIB plays a critical role in financing and advising projects under the Sustainable Europe Investment Plan (SEIP). The SEIP’s objective is to mobilise €1trillion in sustainable investments by 2030, with the JTM serving as a cornerstone for ensuring a just and inclusive transition across Europe.

    About InvestEU

    The InvestEU programme provides the European Union with crucial long-term funding by leveraging substantial private and public funds in support of a sustainable recovery. It brings together under one roof the multitude of EU financial instruments currently available to support investment in the European Union, making funding for investment projects in Europe simpler, more efficient and more flexible. The programme consists of three components: the InvestEU Fund, the InvestEU Advisory Hub and the InvestEU Portal. Through advisory support offered to project developers, the InvestEU Advisory Hub mproves the quality of investment projects and their alignment with the EU long term policy goals.

    Background information

    About the EIB

    The European Investment Bank (EIB) is the long-term lending institution of the European Union, owned by its Member States. It finances sound investments that further EU policy objectives. EIB projects bolster competitiveness, drive innovation, promote sustainable development, enhance social and territorial cohesion, and support a just and swift transition to climate neutrality.

    Approximately half of the EIB’s financing within the EU is directed towards cohesion regions, where the per capita income is lower. This underscores the Bank’s commitment to foster inclusive growth and  converge the living standards.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Debates – Thursday, 23 January 2025 – Strasbourg – Revised edition

    Source: European Parliament
    Verbatim report of proceedings
     344k  764k
    Thursday, 23 January 2025 – Strasbourg
    1. Opening of the sitting
      2. Combating Desertification: 16th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP16) of the United Nations Convention (debate)
      3. Resumption of the sitting
      4. Cryptocurrencies – need for global standards (debate)
      5. Resumption of the sitting
      6. Composition of new committees
      7. Composition of committees and delegations
      8. Voting time
        8.1. Case of Jean-Jacques Wondo in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (RC-B10-0069/2025, B10-0065/2025, B10-0069/2025, B10-0070/2025, B10-0072/2025, B10-0078/2025, B10-0081/2025, B10-0084/2025) (vote)
        8.2. Systematic repression of human rights in Iran, notably the cases of Pakhshan Azizi and Wrisha Moradi, and the taking of EU citizens as hostages (RC-B10-0066/2025, B10-0063/2025, B10-0066/2025, B10-0067/2025, B10-0073/2025, B10-0082/2025, B10-0085/2025, B10-0086/2025) (vote)
        8.3. Case of Boualem Sansal in Algeria (RC-B10-0087/2025, B10-0087/2025, B10-0088/2025, B10-0089/2025, B10-0090/2025, B10-0091/2025, B10-0092/2025, B10-0093/2025) (vote)
        8.4. Russia’s disinformation and historical falsification to justify its war of aggression against Ukraine (RC-B10-0074/2025, B10-0074/2025, B10-0075/2025, B10-0076/2025, B10-0077/2025, B10-0079/2025) (vote)
        8.5. Situation in Venezuela following the usurpation of the presidency on 10 January 2025 (RC-B10-0064/2025, B10-0064/2025, B10-0068/2025, B10-0071/2025, B10-0080/2025, B10-0083/2025) (vote)
      9. Resumption of the sitting
      10. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting
      11. Major interpellations (debate)
      12. Explanations of votes
      13. Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted
      14. Dates of forthcoming sittings
      15. Closure of the sitting
      16. Adjournment of the session

       

    PRÉSIDENCE: YOUNOUS OMARJEE
    Vice-Président

    		  
    1. Opening of the sitting

       

    (La séance est ouverte à 09h01)

    		  

    2. Combating Desertification: 16th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP16) of the United Nations Convention (debate)


    		 

      Jessika Roswall, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, healthy soils are fundamental for our collective future. Without rich and fertile soils, we have no food and many farmers have their livelihoods affected. We must pay more attention to combating land degradation and enhancing drought resilience for our economy and for our security.

    Europe is not immune to these issues. One of our key political priorities for the coming mandate, the new water resilience strategy, comes from the realisation that our European and global waters are under unsustainable pressure. At the same time, our Joint Research Centre Soil Observatory notes that at least 62 % of EU soils are affected by degradation.

    Droughts have substantial impacts on nearly all regions of the EU. This is why I travelled to Riyadh for the opening of the desertification COP16 on my first day as European Commissioner. I wanted to send a strong signal of the EU’s clear commitment to multilateralism and to cooperation with international partners on our key environmental challenges.

    The desertification COP followed the two meetings of the climate and biodiversity COPs. The day before it started, countries failed to agree on a global treaty on plastic pollution. On desertification, despite the EU’s strong engagement, we reached a mixed result in Riyadh. Parties were not able to reach a compromise on the main topic on the agenda – an instrument to address droughts. It is disappointing that we cannot bridge our differences and reach consensus on such critical issues.

    We were also disappointed in the outcome on gender and civil society organisations. The participation of these organisations increases transparency and democratic accountability. Their contribution is essential. However, some countries increasingly challenge the role and contributions of civil society organisations.

    Finally, we were disappointed that the parties were reluctant to embrace synergies across the three Rio Conventions on desertification, climate and biodiversity.

    However, we did also make progress on several fronts, and every bit of multilateral success is worth celebrating. We reached an agreement on establishing the Science-Policy Interface as a permanent body. We also adopted decisions on land tenure, on migration related to desertification, land degradation and droughts, and on avoiding, reducing and reversing degradation on agricultural land. It was the first time in the history of the Convention that agricultural land degradation was addressed. We must look at sustainable agricultural practices and healthy land together.

    Finally, after a 10‑year freeze, the parties agreed to increase the core budget of the Convention. This is an important step to ensure that global challenges like desertification, drought and water scarcity are properly addressed in the multilateral agenda.

    The EU is contributing to the concrete implementation of the Convention, particularly through our continued support for the Great Green Wall, an inspiring UNCCD flagship initiative that the EU is proud to champion. Building on this commitment, the EU has launched the second phase of the UN World Restoration Flagship, Regreening Africa, which is a key contribution to the Green Wall Initiative.

    Honourable Members, the EU and its Member States will need to step up efforts to protect our values and implement international commitments in the UNCCD and within the EU. In this regard, I am happy to report that the Commission is responding to the commitments of the European Court of Auditors by developing a methodology to assess land degradation and certification for the EU. This will require careful preparation and strategic alliances. We need to address land use, climate change, biodiversity loss, water scarcity and pollution in a coherent manner.

    Honourable Members, these are reflections from my first ever COP, and I am convinced that this COP on desertification needs to be more central. We also cannot look at the outcome of Riyadh without acknowledging that international negotiations have become more difficult, more complex and interconnected when the world is facing several ecological crises. Biodiversity, climate, food, water and energy challenges are all interconnected with land use.

    I’m now looking forward to hearing your views.

    		  
       

    		 

      Carmen Crespo Díaz, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, gracias por el empuje al tema del agua desde la nueva Comisión. Creemos que es fundamental. Yo soy de una tierra desértica, al lado del desierto de Europa de Tabernas, y allí se demuestra con la huerta de Europa —porque el 80 % del producto de frutas y hortalizas se exporta desde allí —que es posible abordar esta cuestión. ¿Por qué? Porque hay veinte veces menor huella hídrica en todos los productos agroalimentarios.

    Ese es el gran milagro: que para las infraestructuras hidráulicas se utilicen los fondos Next Generation, el Banco Europeo de Inversiones y se creen infraestructuras donde la ciencia, con todo lo que se está investigando, permita. Creo en estos momentos que es fundamental prestar atención a todas las fuentes hídricas: todas son necesarias, algunas en prevención y otras adecuadas a las cuestiones agrarias. Creo que es importantísima la economía circular, y las aguas residuales nos dan una oportunidad en Europa de tener agua regenerada, que incluso podemos inyectar a nuestra hucha del futuro, que son, en este caso, todas las aguas subterráneas.

    Por ello, creo que se puede hacer, que tenemos la obligación de hacerlo y que, además, en este momento, los países como España, como el mío, deberían trabajar en estas infraestructuras hidráulicas de prevención —también adaptadas a lo que es el tema agrario— y, por supuesto, bajar los impuestos, el IVA de los alimentos, que la rebaja no se ha prorrogado en este momento en ese decreto trampa que ayer llevaron al Congreso de los Diputados. Creo que es fundamental la seguridad alimentaria y, para conseguirla, tenemos que trabajar en las infraestructuras hidráulicas, como la nueva Comisión y la nueva comisaria están haciendo en este momento en Europa.

    		  
       

    		 

      Marta Temido, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, Caros Colegas, a desertificação e a degradação dos solos, tal como as alterações climáticas, são uma realidade que põe em causa os direitos humanos mais básicos, como o direito à alimentação ou o direito ao acesso à água limpa e segura. Atingem, em especial, as comunidades mais vulneráveis, as mulheres, as crianças, os povos indígenas, mas, potencialmente, vão atingir-nos a todos.

    E a COP 16, que decorreu em Riade no passado mês de dezembro, reforçou a urgência do combate a estes fenómenos, através da intensificação da colaboração internacional e de uma abordagem integrada. A União Europeia reafirmou o seu compromisso com a meta global de neutralidade da degradação da terra e o empenho em atingir este objetivo até 2030, através de incentivos aos Estados-Membros para que adotem políticas que favoreçam a restauração das terras e a implementação de práticas agrícolas sustentáveis.

    Por isso, a União Europeia tem de continuar a incentivar a adoção destas práticas agrícolas regenerativas, que respeitem os ecossistemas naturais e contribuam para a restauração de solos degradados, e deve bater-se pela implementação da Lei do Restauro da Natureza. Mas a inclusão da sociedade civil e do setor privado neste combate são essenciais, e isso exige iniciativas de apoio.

    Quero referir, aqui, uma iniciativa da sociedade civil do meu país, Portugal, que exemplifica bem esta luta que precisamos de levar a cabo com ela. E é a iniciativa Pró-Montado Alentejo, um projeto que visa promover a construção de uma barreira florestal ativa na região sul de Portugal, baseada no montado de sobreiro e azinheira, com o objetivo de mitigar os efeitos das alterações climáticas, combater a desertificação, proteger a diversidade e, enfim, combater o despovoamento.

    		  
       

    		 

      Julien Leonardelli, au nom du groupe PfE. – Monsieur le Président, la COP16 a été, sans aucun doute, la plus grande réunion d’États à ce jour sur le sujet de la désertification. Elle se tenait à Riyad, ce qui a permis aux participants de constater à quel point ce problème bouleverse des puissances régionales qui reposaient autrefois sur l’agriculture, comme l’Éthiopie ou l’Égypte. Ce véritable fléau est aujourd’hui à nos portes. On l’observe déjà en Grèce, en Italie, mais aussi dans ma région au sud de la France, en Occitanie, où l’eau courante des habitants est désormais rationnée en été, lors des canicules, où les agriculteurs ne peuvent pas toujours arroser leurs cultures et où les feux de forêt se font de plus en plus fréquents.

    Aujourd’hui, le temps n’est plus aux belles intentions et aux fausses promesses, mais au changement. Les Européens touchés par l’artificialisation des sols et la sécheresse méritent mieux que les ânonnements suffisants de ceux qui se tiennent dans des tours de verre et de béton. Pour répondre à ce défi, il faut privilégier les circuits courts, réduire le libre-échange débridé qui pollue notre air et nos océans et se tourner vers l’innovation et la recherche, à l’image des pays du Golfe. Ne restons pas spectateurs, soyons les acteurs de notre salut avant qu’il ne soit trop tard.

    		  
       

    		 

      Francesco Ventola, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, dal rapporto COP16 la desertificazione e la siccità rappresentano non solo emergenze ambientali, ma anche minacce sociali ed economiche per intere regioni.

    I dati forniti sottolineano che oltre il 40 % delle terre globali è degradato e che la siccità provoca perdite economiche annuali che superano i 300 miliardi. In Italia, questo si traduce in una crisi che colpisce soprattutto il comparto agricolo.

    Si rende sempre più necessaria e indispensabile la realizzazione di infrastrutture che ottimizzino il sistema di raccolta, conservazione e distribuzione della risorsa acqua. È necessario investire in impianti di riuso delle acque reflue. Nessuna goccia deve essere dispersa: non ce lo possiamo permettere.

    Non possiamo più accettare false politiche ambientali ideologizzate, che bloccano sui territori la realizzazione di progetti innovativi e realmente sostenibili. Bisogna intraprendere tutte le strade che la scienza e la tecnologia ci offrono per fronteggiare il rischio desertificazione.

    Cari colleghi, non limitiamoci solo a parlare dei problemi: agiamo per risolverli e facciamolo con determinazione, per il bene dei nostri territori, dell’Europa e delle generazioni future.

    		  
       

    		 

      Martin Hojsík, za skupinu Renew. – Vážený pán predsedajúci, vážená pani komisárka, vážené kolegyne, vážení kolegovia, aj keď sa takpovediac symbolicky konferencia dohody OSN o dezertifikácii konala v Saudskej Arábii uprostred púšte, nie je to téma, ktorá sa týka len Arabského polostrova a Afriky. Je to téma, ktorá sa veľmi bytostne týka aj nás v Európe. Dezertifikácia je každodenným problémom na Cypre, v Španielsku, v Taliansku, ale aj uprostred Európy. U nás doma na Slovensku každým rokom vidíme väčší a väčší podiel pôdy, ktorú už farmári nedokážu obhospodarovať, ktorá sa nám stráca takpovediac priamo pred očami, pretože sa vysušuje. O tom je dezertifikácia. Sucho a nedostatok vody sa stali fenoménom našej doby a keď prídu, tak prídu ako záplavy. Klimatická kríza sa mení na klimatickú katastrofu. Ničíme biodiverzitu a meníme krajinu v púšť. V niektorých častiach Slovenska farmári prišli až o 40 % svojich výnosov kvôli dezertifikácii. Taký obrovský to je problém. Preto ako spravodajca Európskeho parlamentu pre zákon o pôde, naozaj vás chcem vyzvať, aby ste ho podporili. Dúfam, že sa nám spolu s Komisiou a Radou podarí dosiahnuť čoskoro v trialógu dohodu. Základom je mať kvalitné informácie. V Rijáde sa dohodla medzinárodná platforma. V Európe takú nemáme, zákon o pôde ju vie poskytnúť.

    		  
       

    		 

      Pär Holmgren, för Verts/ALE gruppen. – Herr talman! Kommissionär Roswall! Klimatförändringarna handlar verkligen inte bara om att det blir varmare på planeten, utan ett mycket större hot i stora delar av världen är förändringarna i nederbördsklimatet. Det blir mer nederbörd, kraftigare nederbörd på de platser där vi redan har mycket vatten. Men framför allt, i det här sammanhang som vi diskuterar nu, på många platser, inte minst där vi har en stor del av mänskligheten, där vi har en stor del av jordbruk och matproduktion, blir det nu sakta men säkert torrare.

    Det är ett enormt stort akut hot mot oss och vår matproduktion. Det här gäller inte bara andra delar av världen, det gäller här hemma i Europa också. Vi ser delar av framför allt Sydeuropa, hur skördar av till exempel majs och vete redan har sjunkit med storleksordningen 60 %.

    Vi vet också att det torrare klimatet, det torrare, lokala och regionala klimatet, medför en massa riskkonsekvenser. Till exempel de förskräckliga översvämningar som vi såg i Valencia senast förvärrades så mycket av att marken där först hade blivit så torr och hård att den inte kunde ta emot vatten.

    Som kommissionär Roswall konstaterade: På COP16, visst i vissa steg, i vissa sammanhang tog vi steg framåt, men som ofta i sådana här sammanhang var det lite blandade resultat. Det största problemet är att vi återigen misslyckades med att få ett bindande globalt ramverk när det gäller att bekämpa torka.

    Hade ansvariga politiker redan i slutet på 1900‑talet tagit hänsyn till den forskning som fanns då hade vi förhoppningsvis inte varit där vi är nu. Men nu är vi där vi är, och det innebär att vi, inte minst här i EU, måste höja ambitionerna, både när det gäller att minska utsläppen och arbeta ännu mer aktivt med klimatanpassning.

    		  
       

    		 

      Catarina Martins, em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhor Presidente, nos próximos 25 anos, três em cada quatro pessoas será afetada pela seca a nível mundial. É uma catástrofe e está aqui. A Europa está a aquecer mais rápido do que o resto do mundo e a seca prolongada chegou décadas antes do que estava previsto.

    Por isso mesmo, e apesar do veto dos Estados Unidos e do Japão a um acordo para um regime global de resiliência à seca, a União Europeia não pode desistir desse objetivo e deve agir a todos os níveis.

    Venho de um país, Portugal, onde a agricultura superintensiva condena boa parte da população alentejana e algarvia, incluindo os pequenos agricultores, a uma vida sem água. O que produzem não alimenta essas populações nem deixa riqueza no país. Tudo é exportado, incluindo os lucros. Por lá, ficam só os solos degradados.

    Por isso, bem sei que esta não é a luta da ecologia contra a agricultura, é a das nossas vidas, incluindo a produção alimentar, contra a voragem das multinacionais do agronegócio. E por isso, Senhora Comissária, vai ser mesmo preciso coragem para enfrentar alguns dos mais poderosos interesses económicos.

    		  
       

    		 

      Zsuzsanna Borvendég, a ESN képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Magyarország termőföldjei az emberi tevékenység miatt száradnak ki. A Kárpát-medence természetes vízháztartása elegendő vizet biztosítana, ha a tájnak megfelelő módon gazdálkodnánk.

    De ma mindent a profitéhség határoz meg, amely kizsákmányolja a környezetet. Ártereink helyén zöldhasút termő szántóföldek vannak. Hagyjuk, hogy a folyók átvágtassanak az országon, ahelyett, hogy átitatnák a talajt az éltető vízzel.

    Az uniós döntéshozatal a klímaválság kapcsán a levegő összetételére fókuszál, és erre hivatkozva betarthatatlan emissziós szabályokat alkot, de az ennek érdekében használt új technológiák a talaj és a talajvizek elszennyeződését fokozzák.

    Magyarországon az aszállyal párhuzamosan az akkumulátorgyárak vízszennyező hatásával is számolni kell, vagyis nálunk is a gazdasági lobbik írják felül a környezetvédelmet.

    A Föld egy komplex rendszer, amely komplex válaszokat igényel, nem lehet kiragadni egyes problémákat. Ha valós megoldásokat akarunk, akkor a lokalitás felé kell mozdulnunk, és uniós forrásokból is a helyi sajátosságoknak megfelelő természetközeli megoldásokat kell támogatnunk.

    		  
       

    		 

      Christine Schneider (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Wüstenbildung ist eine globale Herausforderung, und Europa ist immer stärker betroffen. Unsere Ernährungssicherheit, die wir lange für selbstverständlich hielten, ist bedroht. Eine Lösung kann nur mit und nicht gegen unsere Landwirtinnen und Landwirte gefunden werden. Was passiert, wenn wir über ihre Köpfe hinweg entscheiden, das haben die letzten Jahre gezeigt. Bauernproteste sind zwischenzeitlich vor diesem Haus zum Alltag geworden. Daher mein dringender Appell: Beziehen Sie von Anfang an den Berufsstand mit ein, insbesondere bei der angekündigten Water Resilience Strategy.

    Drei Aspekte möchte ich hervorheben: Wir brauchen erstens ein intelligentes Wassermanagement. Nutzen wir die künstliche Intelligenz, um Wasserressourcen effizient zu verteilen. Setzen wir auf Wiederverwendung von Grauwasser und Abwasser, und bauen wir wassersparende Infrastruktur aus. So können wir Wasser nachhaltig zwischen den Regionen und Sektoren nutzen. Zweitens: dürreresistentes Saatgut. Es ist unverzichtbar, um Erträge selbst unter extremen Klimabedingungen zu sichern. Dazu brauchen wir neue Züchtungstechnologien, und die Blockade im Rat muss beendet werden. Drittens: Innovative Bewässerungslösungen, Tröpfchen- und Präzisionsbewässerung nutzen Sensorendaten, setzen Wasser ganz gezielt ein und vermeiden dadurch Verluste. Diese Technologien müssen wir stärker fördern, um unsere Landwirtschaft noch effizienter und nachhaltiger zu machen.

    Kurz zusammengefasst: Wenn wir Ernährungssicherheit wollen, brauchen wir neue Technologien und innovative Lösungen in enger Zusammenarbeit mit unseren internationalen Partnern, mit unseren Landwirten, aber auch mit uns Verbraucherinnen und Verbrauchern.

    		  
       

    		 

      Σάκης Αρναούτογλου (S&D). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Γη μας, πηγή ζωής για αιώνες, αντιμετωπίζει τον κίνδυνο να μετατραπεί σε πηγή αφανισμού. Οφείλουμε να αποτρέψουμε τη μετατροπή εύφορων περιοχών σε ερημωμένα τοπία. Όταν το έδαφος καταστρέφεται, διακυβεύεται το μέλλον της ανθρωπότητας. Η ζωή δεν μπορεί να ευδοκιμήσει σε καμένη γη. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση καλείται να αναλάβει ηγετικό ρόλο, διακηρύσσοντας την ανάγκη για ορθολογική διαχείριση των φυσικών πόρων και τερματισμό επιτέλους της αδράνειας. Η συνέχιση της παρούσας πορείας θα οδηγήσει στη συγκομιδή των συνεπειών της αδιαφορίας μας και όχι των καρπών της γης. Προτείνω τη σύναψη ενός Συμφώνου για Ζωντανή Γη, μια συμφωνία που θα προβλέπει την αντιστάθμιση κάθε χαμένης έκτασης με την αναγέννηση διπλάσιας έκτασης μέσω βιώσιμων επενδύσεων. Μια τέτοια πρωτοβουλία θα μπορούσε να αποτελέσει ένα νέο παγκόσμιο πρότυπο για τη βιώσιμη διαχείριση των εδαφών. Δεν πρόκειται για μια ουτοπική ιδέα, αλλά για μια επιτακτική ανάγκη. Παρά τις προσπάθειες για την προστασία του πλανήτη, παρατηρούμε την εστίαση ορισμένων στην εξερεύνηση διαστημικών προορισμών, παραβλέποντας την ανάγκη για άμεση δράση στη Γη. Φαίνεται να προκρίνεται η κατάκτηση ενός απομακρυσμένου κόκκινου πλανήτη εις βάρος της διαφύλαξης του πράσινου πλανήτη μας. Επιπλέον, διαπιστώνεται η ενίσχυση ρητορικών που αμφισβητούν την κρισιμότητα της κατάστασης, υποβαθμίζοντας τις περιβαλλοντικές προκλήσεις σε πολιτικά παιχνίδια. Η φύση μάς απευθύνει επείγουσα έκκληση. Ας την αφουγκραστούμε, πριν η σιωπή της γίνει πιο εκκωφαντική από οποιαδήποτε φωνή. Ο χρόνος για δράση είναι τώρα. Και σε όσους αναζητούν καταφύγιο σε άλλους πλανήτες, ας τους υπενθυμίσουμε ότι εκεί οι συνθήκες είναι ήδη ερημικές και θα έρθει η ερημοποίηση και στον πλανήτη μας, αν αυτό επιζητούν.

    		  
       

    		 

      Mireia Borrás Pabón (PfE). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, señorías, voy a ser muy clara: la CP16 ha sido otro espectáculo bochornoso de hipocresía, con líderes mundiales que vuelan en sus jets privados a Arabia Saudí; un país, por cierto, que incumple el 75 % de las restricciones medioambientales que ustedes desde aquí, desde Bruselas, imponen sin piedad a nuestros agricultores. Sí, aquellos mismos que evitan la desertificación del territorio. ¿Y qué resultados hemos obtenido? Ninguno, ningún compromiso vinculante.

    Nos enfrentamos a un gran problema, señora comisaria: casi el 70 % de las tierras agrícolas mediterráneas están en riesgo de desertificación y solo en España —en mi país— dos millones de hectáreas ya están clasificadas como desérticas. ¿Y qué hace la Comisión al respecto? Lo de siempre: culpabilizar al cambio climático. Pero ¿se han planteado, por un momento, que el principal problema fuera, por ejemplo, la falta de inversión en infraestructuras hídricas? En Europa se pierden millones de toneladas de agua de riego debido a infraestructuras hídricas que están tremendamente anticuadas.

    Miremos a Israel —un país que tiene recursos hídricos muy escasos y condiciones casi desérticas—, que ha revolucionado su agricultura con tecnología muy avanzada; mientras ellos aumentan su productividad un 30 %, aquí en Europa nuestros agricultores se ven obligados a abandonar sus tierras. Desde Vox ya seguimos en esta línea y propusimos un plan: un gran Plan Hidrológico Nacional para garantizar el agua y cohesionar el territorio. ¿Y qué es lo que votó toda la izquierda en bloque? Un no rotundo. ¿Y qué es lo que votó el Partido Popular? Pues se abstuvo, como siempre, cuando le gustan nuestras iniciativas, pero tienen complejo en admitirlo.

    Miremos ahora a Jaén: Marmolejo, Arjona, Lopera. ¿Les suenan, señores del PP? Son lugares de España donde el Partido Popular está expropiando tierras cultivadas con olivos para construir masivamente plantas fotovoltaicas. ¿Les preocupa de verdad la desertificación, señores del PP? 100 000 olivos a la basura, en nombre de la sostenibilidad. Empezamos a pensar que ustedes prefieren el aceite de Marruecos al aceite de Jaén, pero lo cierto es que no me extrañaría ver dentro de muy poco tanto al Partido Popular como a la izquierda manifestándose juntos en contra de sus propias políticas, esta vez no en apoyo de las nucleares, sino en su falsa solidaridad con los agricultores de Jaén, tan falsa como la sostenibilidad que defienden.

    		  
       

    		 

      Laurence Trochu (ECR). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, mes chers collègues, face aux enjeux climatiques, il est triste de voir que les solutions idéologiques prennent trop souvent le pas sur le bon sens. La question de la désertification n’y fait pas exception et les réponses apportées à ce problème, que personne ne nie d’ailleurs, sont souvent illusoires. À ce titre, l’opposition féroce et même, parfois, violente des écologistes français à des solutions de bon sens telles que les mégabassines, qui stockent le surplus d’eau de l’hiver pour le réutiliser l’été, est un exemple éloquent.

    Alors, plutôt que de voir en l’homme uniquement un prédateur-pollueur, l’homme doit être la solution, par l’innovation, le progrès technique et la recherche. La désertification ne peut être combattue par une écologie punitive et normative à outrance, ruineuse pour notre compétitivité, comme l’a d’ailleurs souligné le rapport Draghi.

    Nos agriculteurs, qui ont façonné nos paysages, sont las d’être désignés comme les principaux responsables et d’être écrasés de normes. Dernier artefact idéologique, le changement climatique est aussi utilisé comme prétexte pour justifier une immigration de masse venue du Sud dont plus personne ne veut. Alors, chers collègues, pour relever le défi du climat, sortons enfin de l’idéologie.

    		  
       

    		 

      Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Mr President, as I stand here, my home country of Ireland is preparing to be battered by one of the strongest storms in decades. And if you look at the weather forecasts across Europe, there’s rain in many areas. So it’s a concept that is very hard to understand when we sometimes speak about desertification.

    But, in reality, the scale of this problem – the desertification – should be everyone’s concern. It affects the land of homes to 1.5 billion people. The UN estimates that 135 million people have already been displaced due to desertification, and this could rise to 700 million by 2050. This land is also important agricultural land, and the UN estimates that 40 % of agricultural land has already been degraded.

    The consequences are far-reaching: humanitarian, migration, environmental problems, food and water security, political stability or political instability, for global security, for trade and supply chains there are significant challenges. And each of these consequences will have an impact also on Europe and the daily lives of our citizens.

    We cannot reverse the problems in the very short term, but we have to plan and we must make real collective efforts to halt its spread and to address its long-term implications. So while I welcome the commitments at the COP16 of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, especially regarding the financial commitments from both the public and private sector, we do need to ensure that we make a common effort to bring forward the challenges regarding drought and the protocols with regard to tackling the same.

    If we are going to halt this runaway train, we need to have a common, coherent plan for tackling drought and that involves governments, businesses, local people, scientists and engineers.

    		  
       

    		 

      Kai Tegethoff (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, the summer of 2024 is the hottest on record in the EU and globally. Thirteen Member States, meaning almost 50 % of the Member States of the EU, are affected by desertification and almost 25 % of the territory is sensitive to desertification. Still, while the EU promotes the leadership role globally, we are not prepared ourselves.

    The desertification COP16 failed to agree on a global drought framework, and the Commission promised to present a water resilience strategy already a year ago. I hope this will come very soon.

    And Commissioner Roswall, in your introduction, in your first sentence you said that we need to focus on helping farmers, and in the second sentence it was ‘focus on economy’. I think what we really need in that water resilience strategy is water saving targets. We need to improve efficiency and reuse of water. We need to protect and restore our water supplies and the whole catchment area.

    And then at the same time, considering the wildfires and the flooding that we deal with here every single plenary session, we have to make sure that this water resilience strategy is accompanied and embedded into a real European climate adaptation law.

    		  
       

    		 

      João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, o problema da desertificação é um problema ambiental ou climático, mas é essencialmente um problema da relação do ser humano com a natureza, é um problema humano, social e económico.

    As conclusões da COP16 contêm muitos dos elementos relevantes para o debate sobre o combate à desertificação, mas revelam também as muitas dificuldades que é preciso ainda superar.

    Há muito por fazer para que haja verdadeiramente soluções, relativamente ao uso e à gestão eficientes da água e dos recursos hídricos, relativamente à ocupação e ordenamento equilibrado do território, relativamente à promoção de práticas produtivas sustentáveis, equilibradas, seja na agricultura, na pecuária, na silvicultura. Há muito por fazer no investimento público que é preciso nos territórios rurais, para travar o abandono da população e a consequente desertificação do território.

    Permitam-me trazer, aqui, um aspeto que é relevante em Portugal, que é o montado de sobreiros e azinheiras, que é característico do meu país. O montado não é apenas um conjunto de árvores que retêm carbono e resistem melhor aos incêndios. O montado é um sistema agrosilvopastoril que tem de ser encarado como tal em todas as suas dimensões, não apenas pelo valor ambiental, mas pelo enorme valor social que tem, porque cria emprego, fixa as populações, permite práticas produtivas sustentáveis e equilibradas, garante um adequado ordenamento do território na compatibilização da sua utilização para fins produtivos, mas também tem preocupações ambientais.

    Este é um exemplo do investimento que precisamos de fazer em áreas e em recursos que, sendo naturais de cada país, naturalmente permitem uma resposta mais eficaz ao combate à desertificação.

    		  
       

    		 

      Daniel Buda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisară, doamnelor și domnilor colegi, deșertificarea este o realitate care nu poate fi contestată, iar la COP 16 s-a subliniat acest lucru. Potrivit datelor oficiale, deșertificarea generează costuri globale de peste 300 de miliarde de euro și afectează mai mult de 1,5 miliarde de oameni, crescând presiunile migraționiste și alimentând războaiele pentru resurse.

    Uniunea pierde anual 74 de miliarde de euro din cauza degradării terenurilor, iar lipsa acțiunii va reduce randamentele culturilor cu cel puțin 10 % până în 2050, generând o penurie, atât pentru apă, cât și pentru alimente. România, țara mea, se confruntă din plin cu aceste fenomene. Avem nevoie urgent de acțiuni curajoase, care nu doar să prevină acest fenomen, ci chiar să-l inverseze pe termen lung.

    Pentru a ne proteja securitatea alimentară, trebuie să investim în tehnologii și soluții inovatoare, precum noile tehnici genomice în gestionarea durabilă a apei și dezvoltarea unor sisteme inteligente de irigații la prețuri accesibile pentru toți fermierii, și subliniez acest lucru: la prețuri accesibile pentru toți fermierii.

    În același timp, se impune utilizarea eficientă a apelor uzate, mai ales în jurul marilor centre urbane, și investiții serioase în ceea ce înseamnă desalinizarea apei marine, toate acestea trebuind să devină o prioritate strategică și o obligație față de cetățenii noștri.

    Investițiile din sectorul privat trebuie încurajate, iar Comisia trebuie să se asigure că statele membre utilizează eficient și rapid banii pentru împăduriri și perdele forestiere. Europa are la dispoziție soluții, însă fără investiții direcționate și finanțare adecvată, nu va putea face față acestor provocări.

    Stimați colegi, alegerea este a noastră: să acționăm acum sau generațiile viitoare vor suporta consecințele imobilismului nostru destructibil.

    		  
       

    		 

      Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisară, stimați colegi, sigur, dezbatem o problemă foarte importantă, păcat că sunt așa de puțini membri ai Parlamentului European în sală. Așa cum s-a declarat și aici, cum a fost și în declarația Convenției, se degradează anual terenul. S-a ajuns la 70 % din terenuri care au fost transformate din starea lor naturală.

    Secetele cauzează pagube și costuri și daune, peste 300 de miliarde pe an. Unde merg aceste daune și pagube? Evident, la fermieri și, până la urmă, la cetățeni. Doar în perioada 2015-2019, circa 100 de milioane de hectare de terenuri sănătoase și productive au fost degradate anual, amenințând evident, securitatea alimentară a globului, precum și disponibilitatea apei.

    Ce trebuie făcut, doamnă comisară? Ne-ați relatat ce a fost la Convenție și că nu s-a ajuns la compromisuri importante. Eu cred că Uniunea Europeană trebuie să fie preocupată mai ales de ce se întâmplă în Uniunea Europeană, sigur, și global. Eu cred că trebuie să îmbunătățim instrumentele politice naționale și europene pentru abordarea productivă de gestionare a secetei. Aici avem foarte mult de făcut. Este nevoie de alocarea de bugete pentru finanțarea restaurării terenurilor, creșterea rezistenței la secetă, prin cercetare și inovare.

    Comisia Europeană trebuie să aibă un plan de acțiuni la nivelul Uniunii Europene care să combată degradarea terenurilor în colaborare cu statele membre. Și mai trebuie făcut ceva, doamnă comisară: politicile Uniunii Europene, ale Comisiei, nu trebuie să se anuleze ca la algebră – plus și minus – sunt mii de hectare acum, cu parcuri fotovoltaice, terenuri care nu mai sunt recuperate zeci de ani.

    Trebuie să vedem cum corelăm politica energetică cu această politică de protejare a terenurilor și cred foarte mult că este nevoie să vă gândiți, în principal, la cum să nu creăm presiune asupra fermierilor din Uniunea Europeană, asupra cetățenilor din Uniunea Europeană, atât timp cât în restul globului, Statele Unite, Japonia și celelalte state, nu au votat la această Convenție.

    		  
       

    		 

      Mathilde Androuët (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, à l’issue de la COP16 consacrée à la désertification qui a eu lieu à Riyad, 12 milliards ont été sécurisés d’ici 2030 pour améliorer les terres, dont dix proviennent de la Banque islamique de développement. Dans un rassemblement international, les pétromonarchies sont donc venues au secours des déserts de sable, déserts où parfois on construit, en dépit de tout souci environnemental et économique, des pistes de ski.

    Voilà, une fois de plus, la démonstration qu’aux problèmes environnementaux, qui sont des problèmes localisés, on ne peut avoir de réponse globalisée. Les COP sont des rassemblements de déblocage ou de création de fonds financiers, aucunement des lieux de réflexion et d’apport de solutions environnementales. Aussi, sur le problème majeur de la désertification et de l’assèchement des sols, ayons une vision et des solutions locales. La gestion de l’eau est une question sensible et différente d’un pays à l’autre et, parfois, d’une région à l’autre dans un seul et même pays. L’an passé, dans le nord de la France, les cultures ont souffert de trop de pluies, soit l’inverse exact des Pyrénées orientales, en manque d’eau permanent.

    Si vous vous refusez au traitement local pour n’opérer qu’à l’échelle européenne, prenons des problèmes communs. En Bulgarie comme en Guadeloupe, 60 % de l’eau est perdue tant les infrastructures sont vétustes et fuyardes. De même, encouragez le reboisement, le replantage des haies pour favoriser la captation de l’eau par les sols. Bref, appuyez-vous sur ceux qui connaissent le mieux leur environnement, à savoir les paysans, plutôt que sur les financiers des pétromonarchies pour régler nos problèmes d’eau et de désertification en Europe. À problème local, solution nationale.

    		  
       

    		 

      Marie Toussaint (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, la désertification, c’est l’autre nom de l’injustice climatique et de la vulnérabilité. C’est d’ailleurs peut-être parce qu’elle a d’abord touché les pays les plus pauvres que les pays les plus riches n’y ont, pendant si longtemps, prêté que si peu d’attention. La désertification est aujourd’hui sur nous. La Corse et les parties les plus pauvres de la Méditerranée, Perpignan et ses quartiers parmi les plus précaires de France, ou encore la dévastée Mayotte, n’ont plus d’eau. En Guadeloupe, l’érosion côtière frappe, puisant dans l’assèchement des terres. Quand dans le Massif central, ce sont évidemment les petits paysans qui souffrent le plus et qui n’ont pas les moyens d’acheter du foin pour leurs élevages lorsque celui-ci vient à manquer.

    Au fond, la désertification continue dans l’indifférence, parce qu’elle frappe d’abord et de manière évidente les plus vulnérables. Mais ne soyons pas naïfs: nous réaliserons bientôt que la désertification est notre affaire à tous. Espérons qu’alors il ne sera pas trop tard. En Afrique, c’est déjà 16 % du PIB qui s’est évaporé du fait de la désertification.

    Madame la Commissaire, nous ne sommes pas impuissants, ici, sur le territoire européen, pour un enjeu qui est bien un enjeu planétaire. La désertification est liée au dérèglement climatique et aux énergies fossiles. Alors sortons-en, et plus vite qu’aujourd’hui. Elle est aussi liée à l’agriculture intensive et à la déforestation que nous pouvons, que nous devons combattre. Alors agissons! Il n’y a plus de temps à perdre.

    		  
       

    		 

      Valentina Palmisano (The Left). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, non è necessario guardare al Sahara per comprendere la desertificazione: i deserti si trovano ormai dietro casa. Sempre più spesso, immagini surreali, e allo stesso tempo drammatiche, mostrano paesaggi trasformati, fiumi ridotti a sentieri e laghi completamente prosciugati.

    Il 40 % del suolo del Sud Italia è già a rischio, come tanti paesi del Mediterraneo. In questo modo, stiamo trasformando paesaggi millenari.

    E questo non è soltanto il risultato del cambiamento climatico, ma anche di pratiche agricole non sostenibili, che hanno impoverito il nostro suolo. Ecco, il nostro approccio deve cambiare, privilegiando la qualità delle produzioni e la rigenerazione del suolo.

    Il degrado non è inevitabile, per fortuna: possiamo invertire la rotta. Servono però incentivi per modelli agricoli basati sulla qualità e sulla rigenerazione del suolo. La politica deve smettere di finanziare pratiche obsolete e supportare invece l’innovazione.

    Colleghi, la desertificazione, infatti, non è soltanto una sfida tecnica, ma è anche una questione di giustizia verso i nostri territori e soprattutto verso le generazioni future.

    Il mio monito è che non sia la COP17 a salvare il suolo europeo, ma il nostro impegno concreto, oggi.

    		  
       

    		 

      Salvatore De Meo (PPE). – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, la desertificazione è una delle sfide più urgenti del nostro tempo, aggravata dal cambiamento climatico e dalle attività dell’uomo.

    Non è solo una crisi ambientale, ma un problema sociale ed economico che minaccia la biodiversità, la sicurezza alimentare e la stabilità delle nostre comunità, alimentando tensioni e migrazioni forzate.

    Pensate che, ogni anno, 12 milioni di ettari vengono degradati, mettendo a rischio la sopravvivenza di oltre un miliardo di persone. Questo dato ci allarma e ci ricorda che la desertificazione, insieme alla crescente scarsità dell’acqua, richiede risposte immediate, coordinate e ambiziose.

    La COP16 è stata un’occasione per riflettere sulle nostre responsabilità, perché l’Unione europea manca di un’azione comune adeguata e le risorse dedicate sono ancora troppo limitate rispetto alla portata degli interventi.

    Dobbiamo impegnarci e sostenere lo sviluppo di politiche sostenibili, promuovendo pratiche agricole rigenerative e resilienti, un uso responsabile delle risorse idriche e l’innovazione tecnologica per ripristinare gli ambienti degradati.

    La cooperazione internazionale, inoltre, è importante perché nessun paese può affrontare da solo questa battaglia. La desertificazione non conosce confini e le sue conseguenze si ripercuotono su scala globale. Solo lavorando insieme possiamo affrontare la complessità di questa sfida. Ciò significa condividere conoscenze, tecnologie e risorse, oltre a costruire – come si sta facendo – partenariati solidi tra governi, organizzazioni internazionali, società civile e settore privato.

    Combattere la desertificazione significa investire nel futuro, nella nostra diversità, nella sicurezza alimentare e nella stabilità delle generazioni future.

    		  
       

    		 

      Thomas Bajada (S&D). – Mr President, desertification is not a story from far, far away. Its serious implications have long been affecting the Mediterranean region due to its unique ecosystems, economic dependencies and limited natural resources.

    In southern Spain, over-irrigation has led to soil erosion. In Crete, aquifers have been overexploited, leading to salinisation. In the neighbouring Sahel region, desertification has displaced millions of people, increasing migratory pressures towards Europe. And in Malta, increased pressure on desalinisation plants raised energy consumption and costs, which are passed on to households and businesses.

    Today this is not a story only for southern Europeans. It is also a story shared with other Europeans from temperate and humid climates like Bulgaria. In fact, last year 45 % of the EU’s territory faced drought, threatening food production and water security.

    Desertification is about humanity, our dependence on water for survival, and our need for water security and food security. Therefore, our response must be people-centred. The fight against desertification demands global cooperation, but it also starts at home in this very House. We need to dramatically increase our political commitment to water – we need to preserve our lands, help our nature to recover and conserve our water. And, dear Commissioner, we need to act now, with an ambitious European water resilience strategy before it is too late.

    As rapporteur of the Parliament’s initiative, I call for decisive action to protect our people and resources and build a sustainable future of a liveable world for future generations to come.

    		  
       

    		 

      France Jamet (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, la désertification est une menace importante, mais il en est une dont on ne parle pas assez, c’est la désertification de nos fonds marins. Déplorer l’acidification de nos océans, le réchauffement des eaux ou la hausse du niveau de la mer ne suffit pas. Il faut aussi dénoncer les causes de ce désastre. En France, par exemple, dans le Morbihan, on les trouve dans la construction stérilisante de parcs éoliens offshores ou dans les ravages de bateaux-usines sans-frontiéristes. Deux activités nocives, deux activités pourtant encouragées par l’Union européenne, qui témoignent de l’hypocrisie générale, voire de l’imposture pseudo-écologiste sur la préservation et la pérennité de nos écosystèmes.

    Depuis quinze ans, on constate la dégradation alarmante de nos océans, qui menace nos richesses maritimes, les métiers qui en dépendent, au premier rang desquels nos pêcheurs, et nos ressources alimentaires. Cet équilibre si fragile, aggravé par la pollution terrestre qui se déverse dans nos mers, a aussi un impact sur nos climats et sur la désertification terrestre. La pluie salvatrice qu’attendent nos agriculteurs et les populations touchées par la sécheresse, cette pluie salvatrice ne tombe pas du ciel, elle vient de nos océans.

    Alors tous ces vœux pieux et autres déclarations d’intention ne résoudront rien si nous ne remettons pas en cause l’écosystème mondialiste que vous avez mis en place, basé sur un libre-échangisme dérégulé au détriment d’un localisme raisonné et national.

    		  
       

    		 

      Vicent Marzà Ibáñez (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, en los últimos diez años, la superficie desertificada en la península ibérica se ha multiplicado por veintitrés. Es especialmente preocupante en el sur de Alicante, en la Vega Baja, un territorio de transición, precisamente donde la presión urbanística es salvaje, donde la presión del sobreturismo es salvaje, y donde ahora ya no ocurre de forma aislada que se corte el agua, sino que ya es de forma recurrente. Y no solo se corta en verano, también en otros periodos del año. Ni pasa solo con el agua destinada a la gente y, por lo tanto, con el agua de boca, sino también con la que usan los agricultores.

    En el mismo territorio también ya hay una lucha que se va viviendo en toda Europa, que es por la privatización del agua. Tenemos cada vez menos agua y cada vez está gestionada por menos manos y mirando siempre hacia el negocio. Por eso, hacen falta de una vez por todas políticas valientes que custodien el territorio, que nos adapten al cambio climático y que protejan a la ciudadanía, por ejemplo, ante situaciones como la dana que hemos vivido en Valencia. Y hace falta que el agua sea gestionada de forma pública para que sea un derecho garantizado para el conjunto de la ciudadanía.

    (El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul»)

    		  
       

    		 

      João Oliveira (The Left), Pergunta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhor Deputado, o Governo de Portugal avançou recentemente com uma lei chamada Lei dos Solos, que tem como objetivo permitir a construção em solos onde até hoje essa construção não era permitida. Esta decisão, naturalmente, favorece a especulação imobiliária, mas cria também problemas de desordenamento do território.

    O senhor deputado vem da região de Valência — onde ainda recentemente houve uma tragédia, na sequência de umas cheias —, por isso, queria colocar-lhe uma questão precisamente a partir da sua experiência.

    Considerando a experiência na região de Valência, decisões como esta do Governo português, de desordenamento do território e de favorecimento da especulação imobiliária, permitem a solução de algum problema, por exemplo, o problema da habitação — que é o pretexto que o Governo português utiliza —, ou o combate à desertificação dos territórios? Ou, pelo contrário, opções destas de desordenamento do território agravam ainda mais as consequências de catástrofes naturais, como aquelas que atingiram a região de Valência?

    		  
       

    		 

      Vicent Marzà Ibáñez (Verts/ALE), respuesta de «tarjeta azul». – Sí, señor diputado Oliveira, la presión urbanística y la urbanización salvaje de hoy son las víctimas del mañana. Lo hemos visto en nuestra tierra con la dana: se ha construido donde no se podía construir, porque se ha visto que el territorio solo era un espacio de especulación y no para que la gente tuviera garantizado su espacio vital y se protegieran sus vidas.

    La gente ha muerto por estar, entre otras cosas, urbanizando territorios que no se pueden urbanizar. Ha habido una dana que ha llegado con esa cantidad de agua brutal porque estaba absolutamente todo cimentado, porque la tierra no ha podido acoger toda el agua también. Por eso es tan importante que se combatan esas iniciativas como la del Gobierno portugués que usted dice, porque urbanizar, insisto, de forma salvaje es crear víctimas en el futuro.

    		  
       

    		 

      Sebastian Everding (The Left). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! „Wälder gehen den Völkern voran, die Wüsten folgen ihnen“. Das sagte schon im 17. Jahrhundert der französische Schriftsteller Chateaubriand. Der Klimawandel und der massive Einsatz von Düngemitteln verstärken die Bodenerosion und auch das Artensterben. Grundwasserentnahmen für Bergbautätigkeiten, die industrielle Massentierhaltung und die Bewässerung in der Landwirtschaft entziehen Wäldern das Grundwasser, das dringend für die Regeneration in Dürrezeiten benötigt wird. Sie tragen zur Bodenversandung bei, schädigen das Ökosystem und trocknen CO2-Senken wie Moore aus. Hier muss dringend durch mehr Schutzzonen und mehr Entnahmeeinschränkungen gehandelt werden.

    Ein weiteres Mittel gegen Wüstenbildung könnte ein stärkerer Fokus auf die Agroforstwirtschaft sein. Dürren bedrohen bereits jetzt die Lebensgrundlage von rund 1,8 Milliarden Menschen weltweit und bringen gefährdete Gemeinschaften immer weiter an den Rand des Abgrundes. Darüber hinaus kosten sie 300 Milliarden US‑Dollar pro Jahr und bedrohen wichtige Wirtschaftssektoren wie die Landwirtschaft, Energie und Wasser. Liebe Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, wie bei allen anderen Aspekten des Klimawandels gilt auch hier: Es ist weitaus günstiger, jetzt zu handeln, als später zu versuchen, die Folgen zu kompensieren.

    (Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ zu antworten.)

    		  
       



    		 

      Gabriella Gerzsenyi (PPE). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! A teve helyes állat, de nem szeretnénk közlekedési eszközként használni. Az éghajlatváltozás miatt az elsivatagosodás Magyarországon is egyre nagyobb probléma. Duna-Tisza közi homokhátság hazánk területének mintegy 10%-a, most már az ENSZ szerint hivatalosan is félsivatag.

    Ez a kormányzati tétlenségnek a szimbóluma. Csökkennek a terméshozamok, megnehezül a megélhetés, homokviharok előfordulnak, tavak száradnak ki és élőhelyek szűnnek meg. S nem csak környezeti, hanem társadalmi és gazdasági válság is, hiszen veszélyben az élelmiszer-ellátás és elnéptelenedik a vidék.

    Már két évtizede tudományos tanulmány és program készült a problémára. Az akkori kormány elfogadta, a Fidesz-kormány azonban tudatosan figyelmen kívül hagyja a szakértők figyelmeztetéseit, elhanyagolja a vízgazdálkodást, a talajvédelmet, ellenben százmilliárdokat költ presztízsberuházásokra, például stadionokra.

    A megoldás kulcsa az uniós, nemzeti és a helyi összefogás. Úgy véljük, hogy európai szinten átfogó stratégiára van szükség a fenntartható földhasználat és a vízvisszatartó technológiák támogatására.

    A Tisza Magyarország legnépszerűbb pártja. Kormányra kerülésünk után vissza fogjuk állítani az önálló környezetvédelmi minisztériumot. Kiemelten foglalkozni fogunk a talajvédelemmel, vízgazdálkodással, európai forrásokat irányítunk az érintett közösségekhez, és támogatni fogjuk a gazdákat ebben a küzdelemben is.

    		  
       

    		 

      César Luena (S&D). – Señor presidente, señorías, es un debate en un contexto bastante difícil, porque tenemos al nuevo inquilino de la Casa Blanca y su negacionismo, y un Grupo PPE retardista, ya lo siento. El discurso de ayer del señor Tusk nos lleva por esos senderos peligrosos.

    Presento dos ideas que son como dos evidencias. El suelo es un recurso no renovable, es importante no olvidarlo. ¿Saben cuánto han aumentado las sequías en los últimos 25 años? Un 30 %. Y, en este contexto, señora comisaria, ¿qué puede hacer la Unión? Le digo que defender las políticas verdes —al paso que vamos— va a ser algo casi contracultural. Pues mire, en primer lugar, una evaluación de riesgo de desertificación y degradación de las tierras, como sugirió el Tribunal de Cuentas Europeo en el año 2018. No sabemos nada de ese informe. La Ley de vigilancia del suelo, por favor, se lo pido a sus colegas del Grupo PPE, porque la están rebajando y rebajando, como todas las normativas medioambientales. Podemos declararnos como región en riesgo de desertificación en el marco de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas. Para eso no tenemos que esperar a ninguna cumbre internacional, eso podemos hacerlo ya nosotros. Y, sobre todo, presente una estrategia específica de desertificación, como le ha dicho este Parlamento.

    Fíjese: hasta cuatro grandes medidas podemos hacer nosotros solos —la Unión Europea— y dar ejemplo en el mundo. Pero claro, hay demasiado retardismo en la derecha. No caiga en eso, señora comisaria, hay muchos Grupos que la vamos a apoyar.

    (El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul»)

    		  
       


    		 

      César Luena (S&D), respuesta de «tarjeta azul». – Estaba mirando, señor presidente, por si era alguien de la extrema derecha, porque no hubiera aceptado nunca nada, ni tarjeta azul ni verde.

    Mire, todo lo relacionado con los fondos europeos, a pesar de su Grupo y de su política en España, lo estamos sacando adelante bien. Y no quiero recordar aquí lo que han intentado ustedes hacer con la vicepresidenta primera, Teresa Ribera. Es decir, que a pesar de que ustedes aquí estén en contra de todo y siempre estén poniendo obstáculos y problemas, nosotros estamos aplicando muy bien los fondos NextGenerationEU en España y lo seguiremos haciendo. Solo le pido una cosa: está bien que me haga esa pregunta, pero después, en España, ayuden, que siempre están en contra de todo.

    		  
       

    		 

      Jutta Paulus (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Als ich ein Kind war, war Wüste die Sahara oder die Gobi. Ferne, beeindruckende Orte, beschrieben in den Romanen von Karl May oder den Schilderungen von Sven Hedin. Und heute, nur wenige Jahrzehnte später, sehen wir Wüstenbildung in Spanien, in Portugal, in Italien, in Griechenland, in Ungarn, in Bulgarien. Wer sich da wundert, hat die Wissenschaft ignoriert oder den Einflüsterern der fossilen Industrie geglaubt. Die haben Milliarden investiert, um Zweifel zu säen – Zweifel an den Erkenntnissen, die Exxon selbst schon in den 70ern ermittelt hatte, um sie dann in den Giftschrank zu legen und öffentlich die Wissenschaft zu diskreditieren.

    Die Leugner sitzen auch in diesem Haus bei den Rechten, den noch Rechteren und den noch noch Rechteren, und bei der Welt‑Wüsten‑Konferenz haben wir leider auch keine großen Fortschritte gemacht, denn auch hier sitzen ja die Petrostaaten mit am Tisch. Deshalb: Europa muss handeln. Wir brauchen ein Klimaanpassungsgesetz, das naturbasierte Lösungen in den Mittelpunkt stellt, und eine glaubwürdige Unterstützung für die Länder, die am stärksten betroffen sind.

    (Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ zu antworten.)

    		  
       


    		 

      Jutta Paulus (Verts/ALE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Vielen Dank, Frau Kollegin, für die Frage. Es ist mir ein Rätsel, wo Sie Ihre Anschuldigungen und Informationen hernehmen, denn wir sind ja durchaus die Partei, die für eine bäuerliche, kleinbäuerliche, familienzentrierte Landwirtschaft eintritt, die für eine nachhaltige Landwirtschaft eintritt, die im Einklang mit dem steht, was uns die Wissenschaft empfiehlt.

    Da brauchen Sie bloß mal in die Berichte unserer eigenen Agentur zu schauen – die Europäische Umweltagentur ist eine Agentur dieser Europäischen Union. Da sitzen hochmögende Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler, die sich seit Jahren und Jahrzehnten mit diesen Fragen beschäftigen. Und das, was wir in unseren Programmen, in unseren Vorschlägen aufgreifen, entspricht dem, was diese Wissenschaft uns vorschlägt, denn wir stehen auf dem Boden der Wissenschaft und nicht auf dem Boden der Lobbyinteressen, die hier leider ihre Papiere verbreiten.

    		  
       


    		 

      Borja Giménez Larraz (PPE). – Señor presidente, el agua es vida y el agua es desarrollo. Hoy vemos como la desertificación avanza. La falta de agua se ha convertido en una amenaza, especialmente para los países y las regiones del sur de Europa. Aunque algunos somos más vulnerables, este desafío nos afecta a todos. Hablamos del acceso a un bien básico. Hablamos de un recurso fundamental para la agricultura y para la ganadería, para la industria, para crear empleo y fijar la población.

    La Unión Europea debe implicarse de lleno en el impulso de un pacto europeo del agua que establezca medidas integrales para garantizar una gestión sostenible y eficiente de los recursos hídricos. Y ese pacto hay que dotarlo de fondos: necesitamos fondos para construir y modernizar infraestructuras hidráulicas, como embalses y presas que permitan regular cauces y gestionar periodos de sequía de forma más eficaz. Necesitamos fondos para mejorar y modernizar los sistemas de regadío. Todo ello acompañado de políticas de gestión eficiente del agua. Y hay que actuar con urgencia.

    En España, en mi región, Aragón, que tiene zonas profundamente áridas y desérticas, el Parlamento autonómico aprobó por unanimidad en 1992 el llamado Pacto del Agua, un acuerdo que reivindica las obras hidráulicas necesarias para garantizar las necesidades presentes y futuras de la comunidad. Pues bien, en estos treinta años hemos avanzado muy poco: tenemos más de treinta obras pendientes. Sabemos desde hace décadas qué es lo que queremos, lo que necesitamos, pero la falta de voluntad y fondos lo ha dejado en el olvido. Ante la inacción del Gobierno de España, la Unión Europea debe adoptar un papel activo. Debe contribuir a financiar estas obras. Hoy ya no es una opción: es una obligación.

    		  
       

    		 

      Camilla Laureti (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la desertificazione va affrontata a livello globale, perché mette a rischio biodiversità, risorse idriche e sicurezza alimentare e fa tremare la giustizia sociale.

    Spaventa pensare che, anche a causa degli effetti della desertificazione e della siccità, entro il 2050 oltre 200 milioni di persone potrebbero essere costrette a migrare.

    Lo vediamo anche in Europa: il Sud soffre sempre di più per siccità e carenza di acqua. In Italia abbiamo intere regioni che restano per lunghi periodi senz’acqua, anche a causa di una scorretta gestione della risorsa idrica. L’acqua – il nostro bene più prezioso – non è una merce, ma è un diritto, e dobbiamo incentivarne conservazione e riuso e lavorare sulle reti idriche.

    Dobbiamo proteggere e ripristinare i nostri suoli, favorire con finanziamenti ad hoc e risorse il passaggio da metodi di coltivazione intensivi a pratiche agricole sostenibili. Se perdiamo i nostri suoli, perdiamo il pianeta.

    La desertificazione l’abbiamo vista arrivare e porta anche, e soprattutto, la nostra impronta: per questo, dobbiamo smettere di far finta che non esista e dobbiamo agire sin da ora.

    		  
       

    		 

      Marco Falcone (PPE). – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, in un momento in cui larga parte del continente fronteggia l’inverno, potrebbe apparire fuori contesto parlare di desertificazione e carenza idrica. Eppure, questo dovrebbe essere l’atteggiamento che qui in Europa dovremmo tutti avere: occuparci per tempo di questa enorme sfida, di questa enorme emergenza, prima che sia troppo tardi.

    E ve lo dice chi arriva qua a Strasburgo da una delle due più importanti isole del Mediterraneo, la Sicilia, e rappresenta due delle più importanti isole – assieme alla Sicilia, anche la Sardegna – entrambe fortemente a rischio. Si immagina che più del 50 % del territorio delle due regioni, addirittura entro i prossimi trent’anni, potrebbe essere a rischio desertificazione.

    Certo, il cambiamento climatico è un fattore decisivo. Purtroppo, però, la lotta alla desertificazione non può essere affidata solo alle misure collegate in qualche modo al Green Deal. Anzi, questo grande contenitore potrebbe diventare un luogo in cui tutto si perde, e già la Corte dei conti europea, nel 2018, aveva invitato l’Unione europea ad avere una visione completa e a porre in essere dei programmi di pianificazione.

    Ecco perché noi del Partito Popolare Europeo siamo per la difesa del territorio, certamente, e riteniamo che le isole debbano essere guardate con grande attenzione. Come? Tramite un serio programma di investimenti e, se vogliamo, di infrastrutture, non solo di transizione energetica.

    L’Europa deve avere il coraggio di varare un grande piano di stanziamenti strutturali per la lotta all’avanzare del deserto.

    (L’oratore accetta di rispondere a una domanda “cartellino blu”)

    		  
       


    		 

      Marco Falcone (PPE), risposta a una domanda “cartellino blu”. – Noi del Partito Popolare Europeo guardiamo a un approccio molto pragmatico. Certamente, la transizione ecologica diventa per noi il faro, ma al contempo riteniamo che un serio programma di investimenti debba essere calibrato alle esigenze del territorio. Non dobbiamo eccedere in un senso, ma nemmeno in un altro.

    Certamente, gli interventi in agricoltura, gli interventi tecnologici e, se vogliamo, anche un serio piano di investimenti, soprattutto in condutture idriche di adduzione e, se vogliamo, di approvvigionamento, possono rappresentare certamente una soluzione.

    Lo dico per la Sicilia – io provengo dalla Sicilia – dove l’acqua non manca, ma mancano le infrastrutture. Per cui, grazie per il suo input.

    		  
       

    		 

      Leire Pajín (S&D). – Señor presidente, señorías, se ha dicho aquí reiteradamente, nos enfrentamos a una crisis aparentemente silenciosa, pero profundamente devastadora: la desertificación, la pérdida de suelos fértiles y de recursos hídricos. De nuevo, es una crisis global que nos afecta a todos, también en Europa, especialmente en el Mediterráneo, en países como España, en regiones como Alicante.

    Hasta el 40 % de las tierras del mundo —casi la mitad— están degradadas. Esto supone una amenaza a la biodiversidad, pero también a la seguridad alimentaria. Las cifras lo dejan bien claro: el 90 % de la población mundial pasa hambre; es decir, más de 700 millones de personas, por no hablar de los cientos de miles de desplazados y de refugiados por la desertificación y por el cambio climático.

    El derecho a la alimentación es fundamental. Señorías, no podemos estar hablando aquí de las sequías y de la desertificación, pero luego intentar retrasar y retardar las normas que protegen contra la degradación de los suelos o que protegen la biodiversidad. No podemos hablar aquí de las cifras, pero después querer ser más laxos con las leyes que luchan contra eso.

    Por eso, señorías, como dijo el Tribunal de Cuentas, como dijo Naciones Unidas y como ha dicho el Consejo, necesitamos un plan ambicioso, transversal, que se coordine con otras Convenciones de las Naciones Unidas, con presupuesto y con objetivos, sin más demora.

    		  
       

    		 

      Manuela Ripa (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Die Wüstenbildung ist eines der drängendsten Probleme unserer Zeit – nicht nur etwa in Afrika oder in Asien, auch in Europa. 13 EU‑Länder in Süd‑, Mittel‑ und Osteuropa sind nach eigenen Angaben bereits betroffen. Auch in anderen Teilen Europas schreitet die Austrocknung von Böden voran. Zukünftig könnten auch hier Wüsten entstehen. Dass es dringenden Handlungsbedarf gibt, dieses Bewusstsein war nicht ausreichend vorhanden bei der COP16 in Riad. Auch in der EU wird definitiv nicht genügend getan. Probleme sind voranschreitende Bodenversiegelung, Entwaldung, zu intensive Landnutzung, falsche Bewirtschaftung. Der Klimawandel mit Dürren und Starkregenereignissen beschleunigt zudem noch den Verlust fruchtbarer Böden.

    Daher ist es von entscheidender Bedeutung, dass wir in Europa neben einer effektiven Wasserstrategie das EU‑Bodengesetz verabschieden – als erster wichtiger Schritt hin zu mehr Bodenschutz und gegen Wüstenbildung. Bei der Wüstenbildung ist es wie beim Klimawandel. Es ist viel kostengünstiger und einfacher, jetzt Gegenmaßnahmen zu ergreifen, als die Dinge umzukehren, wenn der Schaden schon eingetreten ist. Denn dann ist es zu spät.

    		  
       

    		 

      Jean-Marc Germain (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, Bakou, Cali, Riyad, les différentes COP se suivent et se ressemblent. Elles sont toujours utiles par leur existence même, mais jamais à la hauteur: 40 % des sols seraient dégradés dans le monde et 75 % de la population mondiale en sera affectée d’ici à 2050, 75 %. On le sait, les plus vulnérables en sont les premières victimes.

    Appelons un chat un chat: cette COP fut une déception. Et si l’Europe a fait preuve de volontarisme sur la promotion de la résilience à la sécheresse, son rôle a été plus ambigu: en s’opposant à un protocole juridiquement contraignant sur la sécheresse, en portant insuffisamment les pratiques agricoles durables et par une contribution financière insuffisante. Le Partenariat mondial de résilience à la sécheresse et ses 12 milliards de promesses a le mérite d’exister. Mais c’est une goutte d’eau, si je puis dire, par rapport aux 2 500 milliards nécessaires pour restaurer le milliard d’hectares de terres dégradées.

    Alors que Donald Trump vient de sortir de l’accord sur le climat, faisons preuve de leadership. Allons en Mongolie pour la COP17 avec des propositions et des aides concrètes, faute de quoi la planète et les générations futures ne nous le pardonneront pas.

    		  
       

    		 

      Dan-Ştefan Motreanu (PPE). – Doamnă comisară, domnule președinte, stimați colegi, deșertificarea afectează deja 13 state membre, iar seceta cauzează pierderi de 9 miliarde de euro anual. Doar în România, 400 de mii de hectare sunt afectate de deșertificare. Adoptarea Regulamentului privind restaurarea naturii impune statelor membre să refacă 20 % din terenurile degradate până în 2030.

    Din păcate, regulamentul nu a fost însoțit de alocări bugetare suplimentare. Drept urmare, solicit Comisiei Europene ca în următorul exercițiu financiar să abordeze această insuficiență și să pună fonduri concrete la dispoziția țărilor din Uniune.

    Totodată, pentru menținerea securității alimentare, este esențial să sporim investițiile în dezvoltarea sistemelor de irigații inteligente, utilizarea apelor urbane reziduale tratate, captarea apei pluviale și construirea de rezervoare.

    În plus, rezultatele cercetării privind desalinizarea apei marine din programul Orizont Europa trebuie să fie accesibile statelor membre pentru implementarea acestor tehnologii moderne la costuri reduse.

    		  
       

    		 

      Stefano Bonaccini (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, siccità, incendi e pratiche produttive che minano la fertilità dei suoli stanno innalzando il rischio di desertificazione anche qui in Europa, dove 13 paesi, tra cui il mio e altri sei nel bacino del Mediterraneo in particolare, sono colpiti da questo fenomeno.

    A rimetterci sono produzione e sicurezza alimentare, tessuto sociale ed economico delle aree colpite, e i nostri agricoltori, prime vittime dei cambiamenti climatici che qualcuno, addirittura ancora oggi, nega.

    L’Unione europea deve essere protagonista in questa sfida a livello globale, diffondendo nei paesi più a rischio buone pratiche – ad esempio, irrigazione di precisione o depurazione e riuso agricolo delle acque reflue – e con un piano europeo per le acque, e per l’acqua, che con più risorse per le politiche di sviluppo regionale e rurale – confido per delega nel Commissario Fitto – sostenga e semplifichi investimenti per una maggiore capacità di accumulo – dighe invasi, bacini e reti di distribuzione più efficienti – e autorizzi nuove colture che necessitano di meno acqua.

    Il prossimo bilancio pluriennale, allora, deve diventare l’occasione per migliorare alcune politiche dell’Unione e sostenere con i fatti, e non le parole, cittadini e imprese nel contrasto al cambiamento climatico.

    		  
       

    		 

      Ştefan Muşoiu (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisară, dragi colegi, la nivelul Uniunii, deșertificarea afectează 8 % din teritoriu, așa cum au precizat și colegii mei antevorbitori. Zonele cele mai prejudiciate însă sunt cele din Europa Centrală, de Sud și de Est. Și țara mea, România, suferă din cauza acestui proces nesănătos al naturii. 40 % din suprafața sa agricolă este în pericol să se transforme în dune de nisip.

    De aceea, nu trebuie să permitem ca acest neajuns major să devină o amenințare la adresa siguranței alimentare a generațiilor viitoare de europeni. Acest fenomen grav trebuie decelerat prin strategii comunitare concrete și ferme.

    Trebuie să avem în vedere că micii fermieri din toate aceste zone de pe continent, afectate de deșertificare, sunt și ei în pericol. Nu au cum să se lupte singuri împotriva naturii și trebuie să le venim în ajutor. Au nevoie de susținere financiară europeană care să dubleze eforturile mai mari sau mai mici ale guvernelor naționale. Mizez pe înțelepciunea noastră comună și pe o reacție mai bine conturată a Comisiei pentru frânarea acestui fenomen natural periculos.

    		  
       

       

    Interventions à la demande

    		  
       


    		 

      Hélder Sousa Silva (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, a desertificação é um desafio crescente que se coloca à União Europeia, especialmente nos Estados-Membros do Sul e, particularmente, próximos do Mediterrâneo.

    A falta de água, a exaustão dos solos e as alterações climáticas são, hoje, uma dura realidade nalgumas zonas da União e, além disso, assistimos também ao despovoamento de algumas regiões do interior por falta de atratividade e de competitividade.

    Portugal enfrenta cumulativamente estes dois problemas. As regiões do Alentejo e do Algarve evidenciam uma brutal falta de água, quer para agricultura, quer para consumo humano. E as regiões próximas da fronteira com Espanha sofrem de despovoamento.

    Em resultado destas duas situações, assistimos a fluxos migratórios do interior para o litoral, das zonas rurais para as zonas urbanas, que são verdadeiros problemas. Por isso, considero que o próximo quadro financeiro plurianual deve responder à desertificação e ao despovoamento e, assim, resolver o problema de coesão territorial que enfrentamos na nossa União.

    		  
       

    		 

      Seán Kelly (PPE). – (Níor phioc an micreafón suas tús na hóráide) … labhairt ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo, gaineamhlú an domhain.

    And depending on who you’re listening to, between 20 % and 40 % of land is threatened with desertification, particularly in places like the Sahel, Gobi Desert, South America. I think it’s good that the European Union are now emphasising that deforestation, in particular, has to end in any free trade deals we’ll be doing.

    Within Europe, we will be shortly discussing the next CAP and, obviously, protection of the soil, nature restoration are going to be key in that. And I would make one suggestion: give every farmer in Europe a minimum of 50 trees native to their own area to set on their farm. This would help to restore nature, protect the soils and be a small step to end desertification.

    Bímis ag dul ar aghaidh de réir a chéile, mar de réir a chéile a dhéantar na caisleáin.

    		  
       

       

    (Fin des interventions à la demande)

    		  
       

    		 

      Jessika Roswall, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, your interventions show how important it is for the EU to continue tackling the interconnected challenges of droughts, land use, climate change, biodiversity loss and water scarcity together for our economy, our security and our livelihoods. They show that we are not ignoring the difficulties we face in the current geopolitical climate. And as many of you have also mentioned, we are all affected.

    I just also want to say – and this is to César Luena – that the Commission is not ignoring this. And I just want to repeat one thing that I said in my first remark: the Commission is responding to the recommendation of the European Court of Auditors by developing a methodology to assess land degradation and desertification for the EU.

    Although we didn’t leave Riyadh with all our desired outcomes, we should still acknowledge and build on the important progress that was made. So now we need to keep up the momentum. We need to accelerate implementation at national and international levels, and continue our work to agree on the outstanding COP16 decisions, especially on droughts.

    Many of you have underlined the importance of water and the need to make progress on strengthening our water resilience, so I also want to say – as I said earlier, and I know you know – that the Commission has made it a priority to present a new strategy on this.

    I know Parliament is already making progress on its reports on this. I thank you today for your input, and I look forward to close dialogue with you, with your rapporteur, Thomas Bajada, and all of you on this important topic, and of course, on continuing fighting desertification.

    		  
       


       

    (La séance est suspendue quelques instants)

    		  
       

       

    IN THE CHAIR: CHRISTEL SCHALDEMOSE
    Vice-President

    		  

    3. Resumption of the sitting

       

    (The sitting resumed at 10:29)

    		  

    4. Cryptocurrencies – need for global standards (debate)


    		 

      Magnus Brunner, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, first of all, sorry I’m a couple of minutes late – I was in the office, actually, but I didn’t make it here on time, I’m sorry about that. Also, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the need to agree on global policy standards for crypto. As you may well know, these standards, of course, do exist and have been agreed in international fora. Let me give you a brief overview of how they came about and where the EU stands in their implementation.

    International regulatory and policy organisations have been working on international crypto standards for a number of years now. Early on, there was an international understanding that crypto markets are global markets and are largely unregulated and pose, of course, also risks that need to be addressed. And then in 2023 the G20 unveiled the crypto-asset policy implementation roadmap, which reflected the policy and regulatory responses developed primarily by the International Monetary Fund, the Financial Stability Board and standard-setting bodies covering specific areas of finance such as the International Organization of Securities Commissions on investor protection, or also the Financial Action Task Force on anti-money laundering.

    The core of these international standards on crypto are the FSB recommendations on crypto-asset markets and activities, and recommendations for global stablecoin arrangements. The European Union is the first major jurisdiction to have reflected those standards in law. We have done this by adopting the regulation on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA), which has now started to apply, and we have also amended other legislation such as the Anti-Money Laundering Directive and also the Transfer of Funds Regulation.

    We are strongly committed to ensuring the global implementation of international standards. We regularly advocate this in the relevant international fora in which we as a European Union participate.

    Implementation of international standards of course is necessary, not only to ensure a minimum level of policy and regulatory convergence internationally, but also to ensure that jurisdictions follow a sensible common denominator in addressing the risks also posed by the crypto markets. This is particularly important in crypto markets, which are global in nature, of course – yes, everyone knows that, with crypto exchanges and platforms operating across borders and assets also moving on open networks that are widely accessible.

    The adoption of international crypto standards has so far been incremental. Indeed, jurisdictions have made progress also in implementing the policy and also the regulatory responses developed by, as I said, the IMF, the FSB and the standard‑setting bodies. Almost all FSB jurisdictions have plans to develop new – or at least revise existing – regulatory frameworks for crypto.

    Information gathered at the international level suggests that the majority of FSB member jurisdictions expect to achieve alignment with the FSB framework by this year, by 2025. And this is of course very good news. We will continue to support relevant international organisations to ensure that the momentum we have now in implementing international standards on crypto is maintained. And we stand, of course, ready to work with jurisdictions that wish to benefit from our experience with MiCA. This includes the US. The US has been heavily involved in defining, together with other partners, the international standards on crypto, and I’m convinced that the new administration is fully aware of the fact that a robust policy response to crypto requires also an international effort.

    We therefore look forward, of course, to continuing working with the US authorities as they consider their policy approach to crypto assets and related service providers, and we would view it as a positive development if the US were to make progress on crypto‑specific legislation that would provide greater legal clarity on the treatment of crypto assets and related service providers, while at the same time also addressing the risks we are facing. And we believe existing international standards should form the basis of any crypto framework, including, of course, the one in the US, not least because they ensure international convergence in this area and contribute to a level playing field.

    Our experience in the European Union has shown that ensuring legal clarity is the right way to support innovation in these markets, while mitigating, on the other hand, of course, also the risks we are facing. Developments in the crypto market since the adoption of MiCA have only strengthened the case for legal clarity. Whatever approach the US ultimately takes, we do hope it will ensure that innovation flourishes while allowing, of course, on the other hand, also bad actors to be weeded out.

    		  
       

    		 

      Markus Ferber, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Diverse Kryptowährungen, allen voran Bitcoin, haben in den vergangenen Tagen Rekordkurse erklommen. Der Grund ist klar: Die neue Administration in den Vereinigten Staaten ist diese Woche ins Amt gekommen, und sie wird sehr viel kryptofreundlicher sein als die Vorgängerverwaltung. Der neue US-Präsident spricht gar davon, eine strategische Bitcoin-Reserve aufzubauen und die USA zum Krypto-Mekka der Welt machen zu wollen. Dass Donald Trump es wohl ernst meint, sieht man auch daran, dass er selbst einen eigenen Meme Coin aufgelegt hat, der wohl nur ein Ziel hat: seinen Reichtum noch etwas zu vergrößern. Ich glaube, die Anleger werden nichts davon haben.

    Unabhängig davon, wie man zu Kryptowährungen steht, unterstreicht diese Entwicklung ein grundsätzliches Problem: Obwohl Kryptowährungen ein globales Phänomen sind, haben wir keinen internationalen Ordnungsrahmen. Ein Regierungswechsel in den USA führt deshalb sehr schnell dazu, dass sich die Marktlage rapide verändert und da auch der Verbraucherschutz, auch für europäische Anleger, massiv unter die Räder kommt. In anderen Teilen des Finanzmarkts, vom Bankensektor bis zum Clearing, haben wir uns aus guten Gründen auf internationale Standards verständigt. Die haben wir im Kryptosektor bisher nicht, und das rächt sich jetzt auch.

    In der Europäischen Union sind wir mit der Verordnung über Märkte für Krypto-Assets, der MiCAR, weltweit Vorreiter. Wir haben in der EU ein glaubwürdiges Regelwerk geschaffen, das den Wildwest-Auswüchsen wie in den USA einen Riegel vorschiebt und gleichzeitig Vorhersehbarkeit und Planbarkeit für alle Marktteilnehmer schafft. Es gäbe also bereits eine Blaupause für internationale Mindeststandards. Deswegen, lieber Herr Kommissar, sollten wir von dieser Blaupause Gebrauch machen und auf internationale Lösungen hinwirken. Dass das nicht einfach ist, ist klar. Aber wenn wir nicht anfangen, werden wir es nie schaffen.

    		  
       

    		 

      Jonás Fernández, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, sin duda, yo creo que todos podríamos convenir en la necesidad de esas normas internacionales para el mercado de las cripto. Así he entendido las palabras de la Comisión apelando a la necesidad de fijar esos estándares mínimos.

    Pero, ciertamente, viendo lo que estamos viendo al otro lado del Atlántico, yo creo que deberíamos empezar a reconsiderar los buenos propósitos y empezar a trabajar más para proteger Europa, en un tiempo en que Donald Trump e incluso su mujer emiten su propia moneda —como decía mi colega Markus Ferber— en los días previos a tomar posesión, mostrando poco respeto, en mi opinión, por la propia institucionalidad. Deberíamos recibir el mensaje en Europa, y yo creo que el mensaje que tenemos que recibir es que no podemos contar con la Administración estadounidense en los próximos años para llegar a ningún tipo de acuerdo mínimo sobre criptomonedas.

    Por lo tanto, en vez de apelar a los buenos propósitos en los que llevamos empeñados años, deberíamos tener una posición mucho más asertiva y ser conscientes de que ese escenario va a ser casi imposible y que, por lo tanto, tenemos que aplicar el Reglamento MiCA —claro que hay que aplicar el Reglamento MiCA—, pero tenemos que también proteger a nuestro sector financiero, a nuestros bancos y a nuestros seguros de posibles impactos de inestabilidad financiera derivada de las cripto más allá de Europa. Y debemos también acelerar la negociación para tener un euro digital en Europa que permita ofrecer una respuesta propia a las necesidades, al parecer, de algunos inversores.

    		  
       


    		 

      Marlena Maląg, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Szanowni Państwo. Unia Europejska dzięki wprowadzeniu przepisów MICA stała się globalnym pionierem w regulacji rynku kryptoaktywów, wyzwalając je tak naprawdę z szarej strefy. Należy docenić fakt, że regulacja MICA wprowadza obowiązek raportowania, zapewnia mechanizmy kontroli wewnętrznej oraz wymaga separacji aktywów klienta od aktywów dostawców usług kryptowalutowych. To podstawy, które zapewniają większą przejrzystość, bezpieczeństwo inwestorów. Co ważne, zabezpieczone są także interesy państw członkowskich spoza strefy euro.

    Kryptowaluty, jak wiemy, nie mają granic. Musimy sobie jednak jasno powiedzieć, że różnice między krajami znacząco obniżają atrakcyjność tego rynku i spowalniają jego rozwój. Dlatego konieczne jest wypracowanie globalnych standardów regulacyjnych. Unia Europejska, choć jest liderem w tej dziedzinie, musi uważać, by nie przyjąć jak zwykle zbyt restrykcyjnego podejścia, które mogłoby wepchnąć innowacje, inwestycje w bardziej elastyczne rynki spoza Unii Europejskiej.

    Jeszcze niedawno kryptowaluty ożywiały marzenia części inwestorów o infrastrukturze finansowej niezależnej od banków centralnych. Dziś te marzenia nieco osłabły. Ale kryptowaluty są i będą trwałym elementem globalnej gospodarki. Naszym zadaniem jest traktowanie kryptowalut jako narzędzi finansowych, które wymagają odpowiedniej regulacji, ale bliskich rynkom tradycyjnym, takich regulacji, które zapewnią bezpieczeństwo inwestorom, nie tłumiąc jednocześnie innowacji. Nie możemy przespać tej rewolucji. Przyszłość rynku kryptowalut wymaga równowagi między ochroną interesów klienta a umożliwieniem przede wszystkim dalszego rozwoju.

    		  
       

    		 

      Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, aux États-Unis, Donald Trump se rêve en président de la crypto. Résultat, la cryptosphère s’enflamme, une cryptomonnaie créée à son effigie et une autre dédiée à Melania, le bitcoin qui s’envole et la démission du président de l’Autorité des marchés financiers américains. Pendant ce chaos, en Europe, nous avons fait un choix différent: réguler pour protéger.

    Avec le règlement MiCA, nous avons posé les bases d’un marché des cryptomonnaies sécurisé, imposant des mesures solides contre le blanchiment d’argent et contre le financement du terrorisme, comme par exemple la vérification des identités et le signalement des activités suspectes. Car oui, les cryptomonnaies ont des avantages. Elles offrent de nouvelles opportunités d’investissement, encouragent les plus jeunes à venir investir, et permettent un soutien vital face à des systèmes corrompus ou en zone de guerre, comme pour la diaspora ukrainienne.

    Mais elles ne doivent pas devenir une jungle mondiale au service des fraudeurs et des criminels. À ceux qui, en Europe, flirtent avec les leaders américains du bitcoin: savez-vous que leur véritable objectif est de contourner nos devises officielles, à commencer par l’euro, et de saboter notre système monétaire en Europe? Drôles de souverainistes. Comme pour l’intelligence artificielle ou la taxation minimale, l’Europe doit pousser pour un cadre mondial. Les cryptomonnaies ne doivent pas devenir un eldorado pour les tricheurs, mais un outil au service de tous les investisseurs 2.0.

    Monsieur le Commissaire, agissez maintenant pour adopter au plus vite des normes mondiales minimales. Il y va de la souveraineté de l’Europe, de celle de l’euro et de la protection de nos concitoyens européens.

    		  
       

    		 

      Rasmus Andresen, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Seit knapp einer Woche gibt es den Trump Meme Coin – ökonomisch wertlos und für Trump‑Fans vor allem eine emotionale Bindung zu ihrem großen Idol. Der TrumpCoin ist eine Betrugsmaschine, das zum Teil auch ausländische Geld geht in die Kassen der Trump‑Familie. Während Ex‑US‑Präsident Jimmy Carter Ende der 70er-Jahre noch seine Erdnussfarm verkaufen musste, als er gewählt wurde, betrügt Trump auf der ganzen Linie. Aber der TrumpCoin ist vor allem auch eine Symbolik für eine andere US‑Politik im Bereich der Kryptowährungsregulierung, und das sollte uns Sorgen machen. Wir sollten hier ganz klar feststellen, dass Anlagen in Kryptos mit hohen Risiken verbunden sind und dass wir auch wissen, dass das Geldwäscherisiko bei Kryptowährungen deutlich höher ist als in anderen Bereichen.

    Der Mehrwert, der durch Kryptowährungen geschaffen wird, ist fraglich. US‑Präsident Trump öffnet mit blinder Deregulierung und auch, indem er Krypto‑Ultras in wichtige Finanzämter in seiner Administration befördert, der Privatisierung des Währungssystems Tür und Tor. Lassen Sie mich ganz klar sagen: Das darf nicht der europäische Weg sein. Ich bin froh, dass eigentlich aus den großen Fraktionen fast alle Redner auch Skepsis zum Ausdruck gebracht haben und deutlich gemacht haben, dass wir auf der einen Seite internationale Standards brauchen – ja –, aber dass wir nicht den Kurs einschlagen sollten, den die Trump‑Administration hier auf den Weg bringt.

    		  
       


    		 

      Pasquale Tridico, a nome del gruppo The Left. – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, mentre negli Stati Uniti, con l’insediamento di Trump, il Bitcoin raggiunge valori storici e persino una moneta meme di Trump guadagna miliardi di capitalizzazione, in Europa il dibattito sulle valute digitali resta fermo, specialmente per quanto riguarda l’euro digitale.

    L’euro digitale emesso dalla Banca centrale europea rappresenterebbe una risposta pubblica, sicura e indipendente, a sostegno della nostra autonomia strategica ed economica rispetto alle criptovalute, che, a causa della loro volatilità e della mancanza di regolamentazione, non possono offrire un metodo di pagamento stabile.

    Questo progetto, però, rimane bloccato per alcuni paesi che mettono il veto e gruppi politici. Noi, invece, sosteniamo con forza l’introduzione di questo strumento, perché garantirebbe l’indipendenza strategica dell’Europa dai colossi stranieri, principalmente americani, che monopolizzano i pagamenti elettronici, permetterebbe la costruzione di un’infrastruttura europea per i pagamenti digitali, ridurrebbe i costi di transazione per consumatori e venditori e, inoltre, aumenterebbe la stabilità finanziaria.

    L’euro digitale rappresenterebbe anche una risposta cruciale nella lotta all’evasione, che ogni anno priva il welfare europeo di 824 miliardi di euro di gettito fiscale.

    Commissario, Le chiediamo un passo in avanti rispetto all’euro digitale.

    		  
       

    		 

      René Aust, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! In den vergangenen Jahren sind weltweit die staatlichen Möglichkeiten gewachsen, uns Bürger zu überwachen. Der Wunsch, sich gegen diese Überwachung zu schützen, wächst jedoch ebenso. Darum erleben Kryptowährungen wie Bitcoin einen solchen Aufschwung. Während der Coronazeit haben wir beispielsweise in Kanada erleben müssen, wie unliebsamen Regierungskritikern die Konten gesperrt wurden. Manche Betroffene hatten nach diesen Kontoschließungen nicht einmal mehr die Möglichkeit, ihre Mieten zu bezahlen. Kryptowährungen schützen durch Verschlüsselungstechnologien unsere Bürger vor übergriffigen Staaten. Gut so!

    Darüber hinaus wollen wir, dass unser Geld sicher ist vor staatlicher Manipulation. Immer mehr Gelddruckerei durch Zentralbanken entwertet das Geld weltweit. Der Euro hat seit dem Jahr 2001 um mehr als ein Drittel seiner Kaufkraft verloren. Darum wollen viele Bürger eine manipulationssichere Währung. Auch das versprechen Kryptowährungen. Im Übrigen: Wenn hier gerade davon gesprochen wird, dass Terrorfinanzierung und Drogenfinanzierung durch Bitcoin begangen wird: 90 Prozent aller Terrorfinanzierungen finden nach wie vor durch Dollar oder Euro statt. Wir setzen uns für die Souveränität unserer Nationen ein, aber genauso setzen wir uns ein für die Souveränität unserer Bürger. Wir trauen ihnen zu, für sich selber zu entscheiden. Darum wollen wir Neuerungen wie Bitcoin und Co. auch weiterhin zulassen, und zwar so, dass nicht Politiker, die keine Ahnung von diesen Dingen haben, darin rummanipulieren. Die neue Trump‑Regierung macht es vor: keine Angst vor Innovation, sondern die Chancen ergreifen. Technologieoffenheit also auch im Finanzbereich.

    		  
       

    		 

      Regina Doherty (PPE). – Madam President, colleagues, we have spent the last few months since I’ve been here intensively talking about the importance of innovation, and it is clear that, despite all of the risks it entails, crypto stems from a desire to innovate and operate outside traditional norms and structures.

    In general, legislators and regulators should focus on creating the conditions for innovation and sectors to thrive. But in this case, there’s vital issues of trust, consumer protection and there is obviously the serious potential for financial crime that still exists.

    And yet, on the other side of the Atlantic, we hear the promises of the new administration of the sector, even as the President’s own meme coins were launched and then crashed and lost half their value in the space of one weekend.

    I think there are serious questions that have to be asked about a situation where the most powerful politician and one of the richest men in the world can self‑enrich himself through a scheme while purporting to be in charge of the regulators of that particular innovation? And while these questions go unaddressed, the cryptocurrency industry will continue to face serious pushback by some of us in this Chamber and outside.

    The EU’s legal framework for the sector seeks to promote innovation while tackling market abuse and the very large elements of criminality, and its full implementation has literally only just begun, it’s in its infancy. So, I hope that when we eventually come to review and have an international standard, that our efforts will be used for that global standard.

    		  
       

    		 

      Eero Heinäluoma (S&D). – Madam President, despite the hurray mood in parts of the crypto world since the election of Trump, it’s important to look at the facts. I see at least three reasons to remain concerned about this bubble.

    Firstly, despite all the measures adopted, crypto seems to remain the favourite tool for sanctions evaders and gangsters, including cocaine cartels, North Korean hackers, Iranian and Russian spies and fentanyl smugglers. If we want to tackle these problems seriously, let’s hit them where it hurts. Secondly, as well outlined by the ECB, the recent rise in Bitcoin value benefits mainly a happy few at the expense of the many. From an investor protection perspective, this is far from optimal. Finally, in times of high energy prices and energy scarcity, investing in infrastructure to mine bitcoins is wasting energy.

    Therefore, it is good to have this debate. We indeed need global standards for crypto to tackle these challenges, and the EU should take the lead as MiCA and the AML package can give some inspiration. But we should go further and we need a MiCA 2 to close remaining regulatory loopholes, for example, around NFTs and decentralised finance applications. We count, therefore, on this new commission to pick up this role and push this agenda forward.

    		  
       

    		 

      Aleksandar Nikolic (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, comme avec Internet, le cloud et l’IA, nous sommes une fois encore à la charrette des grandes puissances sur la cryptomonnaie. 10 % des Européens détiendraient des cryptomonnaies. En France, ils seraient déjà 12 %, soit plus de 8 millions de Français. Et cela continue d’augmenter.

    Et vous? Votre premier réflexe, c’est d’avoir peur. Ce n’est pas de savoir comment investir dans cette nouvelle technologie, la fameuse chaîne de blocs, mais comment la réguler, comment taxer les profits de monsieur Tout-le-Monde et comment la contrôler. Car au fond, c’est ça qui vous terrifie dans le monde de la crypto: il échappe aux technocrates. Quand il y a une nouvelle technologie, immédiatement vous en avez peur et vous voulez la réguler.

    Nous, on se demande comment s’y adapter et comment en tirer profit. Nos préoccupations sont: pourquoi l’Europe n’innove plus et comment utiliser ces technologies pour booster notre compétitivité. Plutôt que de taxer, favorisons l’investissement dans l’industrie européenne et l’économie réelle, incitons les détenteurs de crypto à transformer les plus-values en actions dans des entreprises innovantes, faisant en sorte que les futurs Nakamoto ou Musk soient européens et créent des technologies de rupture sur notre sol. Soyons enfin un continent d’avenir. Oui, il faut rendre la crypto utile et pour cela, il faut se débarrasser des technos inutiles.

    		  
       

    		 

      Guillaume Peltier (ECR). – Madame la Présidente, partout, le socialisme mène à la ruine. Il y eut, certes, l’URSS, Cuba, l’Angola ou le Brésil qui se réveillèrent pauvres comme jamais. Mais aujourd’hui, c’est l’Europe que les gauches tentent d’asservir. Pas un jour qui ne passe sans que les politiciens de gauche n’inventent, en France ou ailleurs, une nouvelle norme, une nouvelle taxe, une nouvelle contrainte. Pas un jour qui ne passe sans que les vieilles gauches sur ces bancs ne hurlent contre le mérite, l’effort, le succès, le travail. Alors, je le dis à tous ces politiciens: laissez-nous tranquilles. Quand laisserez-vous respirer les entrepreneurs et les originaux de tout poil dont vous sabordez le talent?

    Le pénible babil technocratique de ce débat sur les cryptomonnaies est le symptôme d’une Europe en dormition, épuisée par la fièvre socialiste. Dépassée et déclassée, voilà l’Europe que vous proposez au monde, transformant la terre de Jacques Cœur en mouroir de l’esprit d’entreprise. Pire: à l’heure où le monde entier fait le choix de la liberté avec Donald Trump, Elon Musk ou Javier Milei, vous voulez nous contraindre à la relégation. Pourtant, l’histoire est têtue. En connaissez-vous beaucoup des gens de gauche qui, à la chute du mur de Berlin, se sont enfuis à l’Est? Le monde entier s’éveille et vous, la gauche, vous voulez continuer à dormir de vos vieilles lunes ou, pire, vous ronflez de vos impôts fatigués. Alors écoutez bien: nous ne voulons plus de vous, nous ne voulons plus être ni taxés ni spoliés, nous voulons être libres!

    		  
       

    		 

      Gilles Boyer (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, les cryptomonnaies gagnent d’évidence en popularité. Elles fonctionnent en dehors de toute législation financière et dans l’anonymat le plus total. Comme tout instrument de spéculation, elles feront la fortune des uns et l’infortune des autres, sans jamais contribuer à l’économie réelle. Mais n’oublions pas, et c’est notre rôle, que c’est avant tout à la puissance publique d’organiser la circulation des monnaies en s’adaptant aux nouveaux usages et de garantir la stabilité et l’utilisation de l’euro.

    C’est le sens du projet d’euro numérique, un équivalent à l’argent liquide dans un portefeuille numérique, émis et garanti par la Banque centrale européenne, à l’inverse des cryptomonnaies. Ce sera un moyen de paiement gratuit, sécurisé, accepté partout en Europe, même dans les zones sans connexion Internet et avec, dans certains cas, un niveau d’anonymat similaire à l’argent liquide. L’euro numérique permettra à l’Union européenne de préserver et de renforcer sa souveraineté monétaire dans un secteur des paiements de plus en plus numérisé. Les colégislateurs doivent s’y atteler sans tarder, au premier rang desquels notre Parlement.

    		  
       


    		 

      Catarina Martins (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, todas as épocas tiveram as suas bolhas e fraudes financeiras. Hoje, são as criptomoedas, uma burla disfarçada de investimento, que gera uma montanha de poluição sem produzir um alfinete.

    Sem surpresa e sem escrúpulos, Trump acaba de anunciar a criação da sua própria criptomoeda, que será regida pelas regras que o próprio criará como presidente dos Estados Unidos. Como em qualquer esquema de pirâmide, só os criadores, como Trump, sairão sempre cheios de dinheiro, mas, neste caso, dinheiro real, euros, dólares. Os incautos e deslumbrados vão perder tudo.

    Senhor Comissário, ao permitir as criptomoedas a pretexto da regulação, as instituições europeias estão a normalizar a burla, contribuindo para enganar cidadãos e, ao permitir aos bancos a constituição de carteiras de criptoativos, estão a criar um mecanismo crescente de contágio aos mercados, ignorando até os avisos do FMI. Na crise do Silicon Valley Bank, já tivemos um cheiro deste mecanismo.

    Sejamos claros: regular as criptomoedas tem de ser proibir as criptomoedas, impedir os bancos de as comprar, proteger as pessoas da burla, evitar a próxima crise financeira.

    		  
       


    		 

      Kateřina Konečná (NI). – Paní předsedající, vážený pane komisaři, vážené kolegyně, vážení kolegové, kryptoměny s sebou nesou příslib inovací, ale také celou řadu rizik. Miliony lidí v nich vidí příležitost, ale bohužel je zde i mnoho těch, kteří kvůli podvodům a nejasným pravidlům již přišli o své celoživotní úspory. A to vyžaduje od států a jejich institucí velkou opatrnost. Kryptoměny nelze apriori odmítat. Přináší nové možnosti v oblasti financí, nezávislosti i v investicích. Nicméně je nezbytné, aby jejich rozvoj byl ukotven v jasných principech. Jedním z těch klíčových je i právo občanů platit hotově, což považuji za základní svobodu, kterou musíme chránit. Nové metody oběhu finančních prostředků nemohou vést k zániku těch stávajících, které slouží právě jako pojistka celého systému. Kryptoměny a blockchain mohou ohrozit například prudký vývoj kvantových počítačů. Na toto všechno musíme být připraveni. Proto vyzývám k vytvoření globálních standardů, které zajistí ochranu uživatelů, jejich případné odškodnění v případě podvodů, transparentnost trhu, pravidla zdanění a zároveň respekt k finančním právům občanů.

    		  
       

    		 

      Kinga Kollár (PPE). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Világszinten növekedik a kriptoeszközökbe való befektetések volumene. Ugyanakkor az nem kérdés, hogy ez a befektetési forma különösen kockázatos. Ezért az ilyen termékekkel való kereskedéshez nagyfokú pénzügyi jártasság és tudatosság szükséges.

    Legyünk reálisak! Egy OECD-jelentés szerint a befektetők kevesebb, mint fele érti a kamatos kamat számítását, így azt gondolom, jól tettük, hogy Európa megfelelő időben a szabályozás mellett tette le voksát, és globális standardokért harcol.

    Hiszen jól tudjuk a kétezres évekből, hogy a pénzügyi válságok nem állnak meg a határokon. Az áttekintő szabályozást az is indokolja, hogy a kriptoeszközök a feketegazdaság valutájaként is funkcionálnak.

    Ugyanakkor a túlszabályozást is el kell kerülnünk, mert az sem elfogadható, hogy a szabályozás akadályozza az európai innovációt, és ezáltal az európai vállalkozások lemaradnak a globális piacokon.

    Versenyképesség, prudencia, fogyasztóvédelem és a magas standardok globális kiterjesztése. Ez az irány, amit követnünk kell, de még inkább a pénzügyi ismeretek és tudatosság növelésére van szükség, mert ez a kulcs ahhoz, hogy az európai állampolgárok jó befektetési döntéseket hozzanak, és ezáltal növeljék vagyonukat, Európa vagyonát.

    		  
       

    		 

      Aurore Lalucq (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, parce que sans régulation, le marché des crypto-actifs, ce ne sont pas des monnaies, ce ne sont pas des technologies, ce sont des actifs financiers. Ce serait fait d’arnaques, de financements, de pratiques illicites en tout genre, dont celle du financement de groupes terroristes tels que Daesh. Nous avons choisi de les réglementer dans un climat hostile, violent, toxique, fait de menaces et de cyber-harcèlement.

    Il est donc cocasse de voir aujourd’hui que ceux-là mêmes qui nous harcelaient à l’époque et hurlaient qu’ils allaient partir aux États-Unis à cause de nous, se plaignent des pratiques actuelles de l’administration de Donald Trump, lequel a déstabilisé le marché avec le lancement de son «coin». Ils sont en train d’expérimenter ce qu’est la loi du plus fort quand elle ne leur est pas favorable. Donc oui, évidemment, comme nous l’avons toujours dit, il nous faut des réglementations au niveau international. Il faut aussi protéger la nôtre, se renforcer sur la question de la stabilité financière, mais surtout, par pitié, ne perdons pas trop de temps avec ce débat. On sait ce qu’il faut faire dans le domaine des cryptomonnaies. En revanche, on doit avancer en ce qui concerne l’euro numérique et la création de nos propres «big tech».

    		  
       

    		 

      Mathilde Androuët (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, l’essor des cryptomonnaies est un défi majeur pour nos États et pour l’Union européenne. Ces systèmes alternatifs, échappant souvent au contrôle des banques centrales, ne doivent pas compromettre un principe fondamental: la souveraineté monétaire des nations. La monnaie est un attribut régalien indispensable pour garantir la stabilité économique et protéger nos concitoyens.

    Pourtant, pendant que l’Europe s’interroge, d’autres pays avancent à grands pas. Les États-Unis, par exemple, ne se contentent pas d’encadrer ces nouvelles technologies; ils les soutiennent, les développent et les utilisent comme un levier d’influence stratégique à l’échelle mondiale. De leur côté, la Chine et d’autres puissances investissent massivement pour asseoir leur domination numérique.

    Face à cela, l’Europe ne peut rester figée dans une culture de la surréglementation. Certes, il est essentiel de garantir un cadre sûr, transparent et respectueux de nos valeurs. Mais réglementer sans agir, c’est accepter de subir. Nous devons changer de paradigme. Investissons dans les technologies numériques comme la chaîne de blocs, soutenons les entreprises innovantes et encourageons l’émergence de solutions européennes compétitives. Il en va de notre souveraineté économique et monétaire.

    Nous ne pouvons pas laisser des acteurs extérieurs imposer leurs règles, dicter leurs normes et nous asservir à des technologies qu’ils contrôlent seuls. Soyons ambitieux, bâtissons une Europe qui ose, qui innove et qui s’affirme comme un leader mondial. Oui, l’avenir de notre souveraineté ne s’écrira pas dans l’attentisme; l’Europe doit être forte, visionnaire et audacieuse.

    		  
       

    		 

      Adrian-George Axinia (ECR). – Doamnă președintă, un aforism care a devenit celebru în ultimii ani este că regulile fizicii se aplică indiferent dacă noi credem sau nu în ele. Parafrazând și luând în considerare propunerea de reglementare Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) putem spune că aceste monede virtuale vor exista, indiferent dacă Uniunea Europeană sau orice alt stat membru crede că sunt bune sau încearcă să le controleze total. Ceea ce nu înțelege Comisia Europeană, ține de rațiunea de a exista a acestor criptomonede.

    Li se aplică logica unei monede bazate pe încredere, a cetățenilor sau a piețelor. Or, apariția acestor monede virtuale este mai degrabă rezultatul neîncrederii în modul de funcționare a economiei și al sistemelor politico-administrative complexe. Mulți se refugiază în cripto pentru a-și proteja valoarea proprietății în fața inflației, a turbulențelor financiare și economice, dar și ca tentativă de ocolire a unui sistem Big Brother care vrea să știe la secundă ce face fiecare cetățean cu banii.

    În forma actuală, Markets in Crypto Assets va eșua tocmai din dorința prea mare de a intra în intimitatea oamenilor și de a verifica și controla fluxurile financiare. Exact cum s-a întâmplat și cu tentativa de interzicere sau limitare a plăților cash.

    Abordarea propusă de Comisie este deci mai aproape de China, unde tranzacțiile cripto sunt interzise, decât de un sistem financiar deschis spre inovație. Inclusiv în această privință, Bruxelles-ul ar avea de învățat de la noua administrație de la Washington.

    		  
       

    		 

      Cynthia Ní Mhurchú (Renew). – A Uachtaráin, criptea-airgeadraí. Forbairt mhór teicneolaíochta, gan dabht, le deiseanna dearfacha ar nós córas airgeadais níos ionchuimsithí, idirbhearta trasteorann níos tapúla agus féidearthachtaí réabhlóideacha trí theicneolaíocht bhlocshlabhra. Níor chóir dúinn san Eoraip neamhaird a dhéanamh de chriptea. Ach, ná ligimis orainn go mbeidh sé seo brea éasca.

    Tá fíordhúshlán ag baint leis na deiseanna seo. Guagacht praghsanna, gníomhaíochtaí mídhleathacha agus easpa cosaintí láidre do thomhaltóirí. Ábhair imní dhlisteanacha iad seo a éilíonn freagairt láidir shoiléir, ach, ag an am céanna, níor cheart dúinn rialú iomarcach a dhéanamh ar bhonn eagla na heagla. Má dhéanaimid nuálaíocht a thachtadh, tá an baol ann go gcaillfimid an borradh díreach céanna a d’fhéadfadh ceannaire domhanda a dhéanamh den Eoraip sa gheilleagar digiteach.

    Seachas sin, caithfidh ár gcur chuige a bheith cliste, ag féachaint chun tosaigh agus réidh le lúbadh mar a oireann. Tá rialacha ag teastáil a chuireann trédhearcacht chun cinn, mar shampla cosaintí láidre i gcoinne sciúradh airgid agus cosaintí do thomhaltóirí. Ar an gcaoi chéanna, ní mór dúinn an nuálaíocht a chothú trí oibriú le nuálaithe príobháideacha, trí chreataí solúbtha a chruthú. I ndeireadh na dála, tá deis ar leith ag an Eoraip anseo le criptea. Ba chóir dúinn an deis a thapú.

    		  
       

    		 

      Giuseppe Antoci (The Left). – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario Brunner, onorevoli colleghi, Europol ci segnala un incremento nell’uso criminale delle criptovalute nel riciclaggio di denaro e per la richiesta dei riscatti dopo gli attacchi informatici. La blockchain facilita trasferimenti rapidi di capitali a livello globale, offrendo ai criminali un vantaggio significativo.

    Nel campo della cibercriminalità emergono tecniche avanzatissime, che richiedono competenze elevate degli investigatori. Tali competenze necessitano di personale adeguatamente formato.

    Inoltre, cresce l’uso di criptovalute ancorate al valore delle materie prime, apprezzate dai capi criminali per la loro stabilità e facile comprensione.

    La mancanza di strumenti adeguati per il tracciamento delle criptovalute in alcuni Stati membri sta facendo aumentare le richieste di supporto investigativo a Europol.

    Di fronte a queste sfide – e conoscendo la Sua grande sensibilità – è essenziale un impegno coordinato per sviluppare standard globali e condivisi, al fine di combattere efficacemente l’uso illegale di questa tecnologia.

    		  
       

    		 

      Marcin Sypniewski (ESN). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Noblista Fryderyk von Hayek powiedział, że nie ma odpowiedzi, dlaczego monopol na emisję pieniądza jest taki niezbędny w dzisiejszym świecie. I gdy po kryzysie w 2008 roku chroniliście banki przed upadkiem, do którego pośrednio doprowadziliście, to programista czy grupa programistów, znani jako Satoshi Nakamoto, powiedzieli „dość”. Powiedzieli dość pokusie nadużycia, z której korzystają rządy i banki, dość psucia pieniądza przez jego emisję, dość fałszywemu pieniądzowi. I w ten sposób powstał bitcoin. Jest to najlepszy kandydat do stania się pieniądzem. Jest rzadki, podzielny, trudny do podrobienia, a przede wszystkim nie uznaje nad sobą dyktatów rządów i banków. Jest też antykruchy. I wszystkie te zakusy, żeby go ograniczyć, tylko go wzmacniają. I patrząc na te wszystkie proponowane ograniczenia, wiem chyba, jaka jest odpowiedź na pytanie Hayeka. Powiedział on, że najgorszym monopolem w rękach rządów jest monopol na pieniądz. I te dążenia do ograniczenia kryptowalut wynikają z tego, że są to niepaństwowe środki wymiany, które wygrywają z inwigilowanym, przeregulowanym pieniądzem dekretowym. Pamiętajmy o tym, że pieniądz powinien służyć ludziom, a nie – elitom.

    		  
       

    		 

      Luis-Vicențiu Lazarus (NI). – Doamnă președintă, stimați colegi, România a fost teatrul unor operațiuni financiare absolut tragice pentru poporul român în anii 90. Scheme Ponzi implementate de tipi care erau manipulați de servicii secrete și politicieni au reușit să devalizeze buzunarele poporului român.

    Ulterior, sigur, societatea a evoluat. În 2001 au apărut avioanele care au dărâmat blocurile gemene și, sigur, a început războiul împotriva terorismului. În 2008 a apărut Bitcoin pe fondul crizei din America, criză ce s-a transferat și în Europa, desigur, și ulterior criptomonedele au luat avânt.

    V-ați gândit, poate, că acest imbold al statelor împotriva cetățeanului de a bloca deținerea cash-ului a favorizat acest avânt al criptomonedelor? Și acum, noi vrem să reglementăm. A apărut acest regulament MiCA ce reglementează anumite lucruri, dar nu reușește să facă o diferență între oamenii care au rea-voință de la început și oamenii care într-adevăr vor să facă proiecte serioase în criptomonede.

    		  
       


    		 

      Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, mais do que exportar legislação, a Europa tem de exportar inovação. Mas vamos ser claros: não fomos pioneiros na tecnologia que suporta os criptoativos e devíamos ter sido, mas para criar o regulamento, obrigações e burocracias, aí não perdemos tempo.

    É evidente que os criptoativos precisam de um quadro legal. São um ativo financeiro, por isso, há mínimos de transparência e, muito importante, de proteção do investidor. Mas é também evidente que essas leis têm de garantir segurança e previsibilidade para quem quer inovar e investir.

    Se aqui na Europa não estamos a garantir nem uma coisa nem outra, como vamos defender uma regulação global? Primeiro, temos de garantir que o regulamento de mercado de criptoativos é bem implementado. Segundo, temos de apoiar a inovação em blockchain com a consciência de que é uma tecnologia que não se esgota em criptomoedas, mas que pode e deve ser aplicada noutras áreas. Terceiro, temos de perceber que criptomoedas são hoje ativos financeiros como qualquer outro.

    Tentar uma regulação global tem impacto na concorrência livre, na dinâmica do mercado e na liberdade financeira das pessoas. Não podemos viver num faroeste financeiro, quando falamos de criptomoedas, mas também não podemos aprisionar novos projetos, novas ideias e novos investimentos que criam emprego e oportunidades.

    Este já não é o tempo de desconfiar de tudo quanto é novo, é o tempo de confiar naqueles que inovam, que investem, que fazem futuro no presente.

    		  
       


    		 

      Nikos Papandreou (S&D). – Madam President, Commissioner, from this discussion I think the answer is staring us in the face.

    We have two distinct philosophies, one on one side of the Atlantic and one on the other side. The US is a free market, let it bloom, let’s have the $TRUMP coin and then we regulate. Ours is let’s regulate and see what happens.

    What’s happening now is, besides the criminal activities with crypto, it’s also used by poor people in countries with inflation. So they put it into crypto, a very unsafe coin, and then turn it back into their currency.

    What we need to do is to create the Spinelli coin, which is the digital euro, and to have our own digital crypto competing so that we can impose international standards with safe asset from Europe.

    We will not be able to regulate the huge space from the rest of the world, unless we have our own digital coin that people will trust in, not only in Europe but internationally. MiCA helps on that. The way we will impose international standards and MiCA is by having our own innovation and our own Europe.

    (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

    		  
       

    		 

      Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă (NI), întrebare adresată conform procedurii „cartonașului albastru”. – Ați vorbit de regulamentul MiCA. Aici avem o regulă în care se menționează că ofertanții sau persoanele care solicită admiterea la tranzacționare cu criptoactive, altele decât jetoanele de referință la active și jetoanele de bani electronici, trebuie să fie persoane juridice, să publice o carte albă, iar următoarea regulă este: să acționați cinstit, corect și profesional. Puteți să-mi spuneți, vă rog frumos – și în calitate de avocat, vă întreb – cum veți ajunge la concluzia că persoana respectivă acționează cinstit, corect și profesional, înainte de a fi în calitatea lor de ofertanți sau persoanele care solicită admiterea la tranzacționare?

    		  
       


    		 

      Angéline Furet (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, la chaîne de blocs et les cryptomonnaies sont nées d’une idée simple: redonner le contrôle aux individus, renforcer la transparence et garantir un accès équitable à des systèmes ouverts. Décentralisation, transparence et sécurité sont donc les valeurs fondamentales de cette révolution. Mais aujourd’hui, la chaîne de blocs va bien au-delà des transactions financières. Elle révolutionne la gestion des données, la traçabilité et la confiance numérique en transcendant les frontières et en appelant à une coopération mondiale. Cependant, avec cet immense potentiel viennent aussi des défis: fraudes, inégalités d’accès et manque de réglementations claires.

    C’est donc ici que réside notre responsabilité collective. Il faut bâtir des normes mondiales, non pas pour étouffer l’innovation, mais pour l’encadrer et l’amplifier. Ces normes doivent donc 1) sécuriser les utilisateurs; 2) préserver la décentralisation; 3) favoriser un cadre propice à l’innovation.

    L’Europe, avec des initiatives comme le règlement MiCA, a démontré qu’une réglementation, bien que partielle, est envisageable. Elle doit donc maintenant agir comme un pont pour initier un dialogue mondial. La chaîne de blocs est une chance unique de construire des systèmes plus justes et équitables. Ensemble, nous pouvons orienter cette révolution vers un avenir plus ouvert et prospère.

    		  
       

    		 

      Ondřej Krutílek (ECR). – Vážená paní předsedající, vážený pane komisaři, ke kryptoměnám musíme přistupovat konstruktivně. Od loňského roku platí nařízení MiCA a já věřím, že jeho zavádění do praxe probíhá bez větších problémů.

    V Česku se díky našemu poslanci Jiřímu Havránkové podařilo prosadit jak automatické právo na zřízení bankovního účtu pro kryptopodnikatele, tak osvobození od daně při prodeji kryptoměn po třech letech. Myslím si, že tímto přístupem by se mohly inspirovat i další evropské státy. Naopak nápady typu zdanění nerealizovaných zisků z kryptoměn, které slyšíme z některých zemí, bych opravdu nedoporučoval.

    Američané mají k regulaci kryptoměn odlišný přístup, a tak se domnívám, že dosažení globálních standardů minimálně v tuhle chvíli nepřichází v úvahu. I proto bychom měli být opatrní s jakoukoli další možnou regulací od nás z Evropské unie. Důležité je, aby přehnaná regulace a nepředvídatelné právní prostředí nemotivovaly startupy a další firmy k úprku z Evropy.

    Pokud se bavíme o blockchainu, je to technologie budoucnosti, která nabízí řadu praktických aplikací. Příští týden v úterý pořádám v Bruselu akci, na kterou bych vás chtěl všechny pozvat. Bude na ní mimo jiné představen i projekt Českého vysokého učení technického a půjde o inovativní blockchainovou platformu pro decentralizované vydávání dluhopisů pro malé a střední podniky. Tak se stavte.

    		  
       


    		 

      Adnan Dibrani (S&D). – Fru talman! Kommissionär! Kryptovaluta, som en gång varit väldigt nischat, har snabbt fått genomslag i hela världen. Det är också en digital revolution som öppnat upp nya möjligheter inom andra sektorer.

    Det finns en stor potential i blockchain‑tekniken som kan innebära vinster för till exempel offentlig sektor, för mer robusta och effektiva system. Just nu undersöks därhemma till exempel hur vi ska använda den här tekniken inom vården, för att kunna säkrare hantera och dela personlig hälsodata.

    Det är viktigt att vi främjar ny teknik när den kommer, men samtidigt är det viktigt att den nya tekniken har en viss kontroll. Teknik får inte användas för att skada konsumenter, för terrorismfinansiering, för penningtvätt och så vidare. Här har EU gått före och reglerat krypto. Men krypto existerar på global nivå och därav behöver vi standarder på global nivå, så att vi kan dra nytta av potentialen, inte hämma den, och se till så att tekniken används på rätt sätt och inte används av suspekta nationer för att skada konsumenter och våra system som vi håller så kärt.

    		  
       

    		 

      Diego Solier (NI). – Señora presidente, señor comisario, el Reglamento MiCA, aunque presentado como un avance hacia la regulación de los criptoactivos, representa una amenaza directa a los derechos de los ciudadanos.

    Bajo el pretexto de proteger al consumidor y garantizar la estabilidad financiera, este marco podría socavar la privacidad, la libertad financiera y la innovación. Imponer estándares globales en un sistema creado para ser descentralizado es, literalmente, ponerle puertas al campo.

    Medidas como la recopilación masiva de datos personales, requisitos de capital inalcanzables para start-ups y la prohibición de ciertos criptoactivos no solo ahogan la innovación, sino que limitan la libertad de elección de los ciudadanos. Además, la vigilancia y la supervisión excesiva abren la puerta a un control digital sin precedentes.

    Mi pregunta es clara: ¿estamos regulando para proteger al ciudadano o para reforzar el control de los grandes poderes económicos y políticos sobre sus vidas? No podemos permitir que este Reglamento traicione la esencia de las criptomonedas: descentralización, autonomía y libertad.

    		  
       

    		 

      Andrey Kovatchev (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the European tech sector faces challenges that create a perception of stagnation compared to dynamic regions like South‑East Asia and the US. The EU is a global pioneer in the introduction of regulations such as the MiCA, with the aim to protect customers, but without hamper the growth. Yes, we need global standards, and the EU must be in the lead of this introduction. But also, we need to wake up.

    Talent migration is a big concern, with 90 % of the EU tech workers willing to relocate to the US for better salaries and funding opportunities. To reclaim the position of Europe, we need innovation‑friendly policies, including clear regulatory frameworks and sandbox environments for start-ups that will promote prosperity and growth.

    The rapid development of cryptocurrency markets highlights the urgent need to educate people on how to navigate the evolving landscape responsibly. Without proper knowledge, individuals and businesses risk falling victim to scams, fraud, financial crimes or malign global players. Europe needs to act now and act fast, if we are serious about our fostering competitiveness, and to act together with the responsible crypto community and not in a war with them.

    Are we ready to take bold decisions to ensure our success or will we risk again being left behind as others seize opportunities which we hesitate to explore? Commission and Council and colleagues, we need to act now.

    		  
       

    		 

      Waldemar Buda (ECR). – Doregulować, przeregulować i zabić. Taka jest regulacja i takie są działania Unii Europejskiej w wielu sprawach. Tak było z przedsiębiorcami, tak było z rolnikami. I teraz dokładnie tak samo podchodzimy do blockchain i kryptowalut. Za chwilę się okaże, że cały świat na tym zarabia, cały świat się rozwija, a my nie traktujemy tego jako szansy, tylko traktujemy to jako zagrożenie. Dzisiaj największe aktywa w kryptowalutach mają Chiny i Stany Zjednoczone, a Europa zastanawia się, jak to ograniczyć? Jak to zwalczyć? Za chwilę miliard osób na świecie będzie miało kryptowaluty.

    W Polsce 12% osób w wieku produkcyjnym ma już kryptowaluty. Ja się więc bardziej boję tego, że wy będziecie doregulowywać niż że nie będziecie robić nic, bo to pewnie zabije ten rynek i inni będą na tym zarabiać. Oczywiście nieprawidłowości trzeba ścigać, ale rozsądnie. Dzisiaj jak w Polsce się próbuje to uregulować, to lobbyści obsiedli urzędy i instytucje i ciężko cokolwiek zrobić. I ci, co mają na tym zarobić, i tak zarobią. A zwykli ludzie niestety nie mogą inwestować i się w tej sprawie rozwijać.

    		  
       

    		 

      Caterina Chinnici (PPE). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario Brunner, onorevoli colleghi, “follow the money”: è questo il metodo per contrastare davvero la criminalità organizzata, come l’esperienza investigativa e giudiziaria italiana ci insegna da oltre quarant’anni. E “focus on the money” è oggi il motto della Procura europea nel solco di quell’insegnamento.

    Quando il denaro si fa virtuale, le sfide per le autorità di regolamentazione e di contrasto si complicano, mentre invece si moltiplicano le opportunità per le organizzazioni criminali: decentralizzazione, anonimato, bassa tracciabilità, scarsità di controlli, possibilità di effettuare rapidi trasferimenti di denaro transfrontalieri e di creare catene complesse di transazioni sono solo alcune delle ragioni che rendono criptovalute e blockchain strumenti sempre più utili per la criminalità organizzata transnazionale e per le organizzazioni terroristiche globali.

    In criptovalute si pagano i traffici di droga, armi ed esseri umani e, attraverso le operazioni che le criptovalute consentono, i capitali illeciti vengono riciclati e reinvestiti agevolmente nell’economia legale.

    Per questo, è necessario regolamentare il fenomeno. Certo, con il regolamento sui mercati delle cripto‑attività, le norme sui trasferimenti di cripto‑attività e le nuove norme su antiriciclaggio e confisca abbiamo iniziato a farlo, però l’Unione deve continuare a sostenere l’adozione di regole uniformi e standard globali, per impedire alle organizzazioni criminali di sfruttare a proprio vantaggio lacune e differenze normative, arginare il jurisdiction shopping e, così, contrastare davvero il crimine economico e finanziario.

    		  
       

    		 

      Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, digital and cryptocurrencies present an important opportunity for Europe, provided we establish the necessary safeguards. We must strike the right balance between regulating to enhance consumer protection and promote financial stability, while ensuring we do not hinder innovation or impede the financial inclusion that cryptocurrencies can offer.

    The MiCA Regulation demonstrates Europe’s willingness to lead in establishing best-in-class regulatory frameworks. Recent events, such as the collapse of the FTX in November 2022, have shown why proper standards are essential to protect our citizens from irresponsible, and even fraudulent, market behaviour.

    However, the new Trump administration’s pro-crypto stance provides an opportunity for us to reflect. We hear from the crypto industry that the US is now becoming a more attractive jurisdiction than the EU, with its regulatory approach expected to be looser than ours. On this I make two points.

    One: here in Europe we must approach this industry with the same competitiveness lens we apply to all sectors. It is vital to monitor the impact of our regulations and remain adaptable enough to amend them if needed, ensuring we maintain the right balance.

    Two: those in the crypto industry eyeing Trump’s America with enthusiasm might reflect on the Trump coin debacle before this week’s inauguration. Be careful what you wish for!

    Ultimately, the cross-border and decentralised nature of cryptocurrencies demands international cooperation to address clear regulatory gaps, as was stated by the Commissioner and my colleague Markus Ferber. So let us collaborate closely with our global partners to establish clear and enforceable global standards.

    		  
       

       

    Catch-the-eye procedure

    		  
       

    		 

      Niels Geuking (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Die ursprüngliche Idee von Kryptowährungen, ein globales und dezentrales Finanzsystem aufzubauen, hatte schon ihren Reiz und war leicht faszinierend, aber selbst der Bitcoin ist heute eine Riesenmogelpackung: 60 Prozent aller Bitcoins werden gerade mal von weniger als 18 000 Adressen verwahrt. Wo ist da der dezentrale Gedanke geblieben?

    Auf dem Kryptomarkt insgesamt herrscht dann auch eine Wildwest-Mentalität. Die Meme Coins sind Betrug mit Ansage. Vom Hawk Tuah Girl bis zum TrumpCoin – es mangelt schlicht und ergreifend überall an Substanz. Am Ende versucht dann jeder, jemand Dümmeren zu finden, der bereit ist, mehr zu bezahlen, als man selbst investiert hat. Es ist ein Spiel mit Verlierern und ein modernes Beispiel der Tulpenmanie, getrieben von Profitgier und Dummheit. 2021 sagte Trump selbst noch, Kryptowährungen seien eine potenzielle Katastrophe, gar Betrug – zumindest, bis er selbst einen Deal machen konnte. Weltweit durchsetzbare Regeln ohne die USA? Schwierig. Dabei braucht es sie, und zwar vor allem für die Technologie und den Fortschritt brauchen wir die globalen Standards. Zur Not …

    (Die Präsidentin entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)

    		  
       

    		 

      Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, de teama evaziunii nu trebuie să ne opunem inovației. Sigur, criptomonedele sunt rezultatul unei inovații. Ați spus foarte bine, avem regulament, avem directivă, ne gândim la standarde internaționale, pentru că da, nu suntem singuri pe lume, avem o piață globală.

    Problema este că, din punctul meu de vedere, nu trebuie să obstrucționăm cetățenii în a-și folosi veniturile, nu trebuie să obstrucționăm întreprinderile să investească așa cum doresc, ci trebuie să avem reguli pe care să le respecte.

    Ați spus, domnule comisar, între altele, că doriți să scoateți actorii dăunători. Trebuie să vedeți și cum, trebuie să spuneți ce măsuri, trebuie foarte multă transparență. Nu știu dacă aveți o statistică în Uniunea Europeană, în statele membre: Câte cazuri avem de evaziune, de înșelătorii prin criptomonede?

    Dar trebuie făcute aceste lucruri și cred că trebuie să rămânem cu această inovație – criptomonede – și în Uniunea Europeană, însă cu o reglementare și o supraveghere corectă.

    (Președinta a retras cuvântul vorbitoarei)

    		  
       

    		 

      Alexander Jungbluth (ESN). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich glaube, diese heutige Debatte hat wieder gezeigt, dass es unterschiedliche Menschenbilder gibt, die in diesem Parlament hier vertreten werden. Und eigentlich werden hier in diesem Haus immer Debatten darüber geführt, dass man Dinge regulieren muss, Dinge steuern muss. Freie Meinungen werden über den DSA eingeschränkt, und bei den Kryptowährungen ist es auch das Ziel, das möglichst an die kurze Leine zu legen.

    Ich glaube, wir sollten hier an dieser Stelle mal feststellen, dass unser Menschenbild ist, dass wir freie, mündige Bürger haben. Und freie, mündige Bürger sind auch in der Lage, sich eine freie Währung zu suchen. Und aus dem Grund, glaube ich, sind Kryptowährungen genau das Mittel, sich gegen staatliche Repressionen zu wehren, sich abzukoppeln von Staaten und einer Europäischen Union, die immer übergriffiger werden.

    		  
       


    		 

      Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Gerbiama pirmininke, komisare G. Braunai, labai malonu pasveikinti ir labai tikrai geras sumanymas ir teisinga linkme. Čia vienas kolega kalbėjo apie Dievo laiminimą, tai jam priminsiu, kad Dievas ne tik laimino, bet davė Dekalogą ir davė virš trijų šimtų įsakų ir įsakymų. Taigi, reguliavimas prasidėjo nuo Dievo. Tai visiems linkiu to nepamiršti. Toliau, antras dalykas, noriu atkreipti dėmesį – taip, godumas, spekuliacijos, pinigų plovimas, visos šitos bėdos yra didžiulės. Prisiminkite, kas atsitiko su finansų krize, kai griuvo didieji bankai. Tuomet su privačiais lėktuvais važiavo gelbėtis pas ką? Pas vyriausybes. Kai įvyko didžiulės krizės jau su kripto bankais vėl gi buvo tas pats. Todėl išties tie, kurie per daug kalbate apie laisvę, atminkit vieną, kai būna skaudžios pasekmės, tuomet ir tenka ieškoti pagalbos ne kitur, o valstybėse ir reguliuojamuose bankuose.

    (posėdžio pirmininkė iš kalbėtojo atima žodį)

    		  
       

    		 

      Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă (NI). – Am văzut că vă deranjează foarte mult că Donald Trump și-a făcut propriul Bitcoin. Bravo lui! De ce nu faceți și dumneavoastră? Dumneavoastră sunteți cu băncile, băncile opresive! Ca avocat, am văzut cum băncile și-au bătut joc de clienții lor, i-au lăsat fără case, fără pământuri, fără nimic, oameni care s-au sinucis din cauza băncilor – cămătari legali.

    În acest context, bitcoinul – vreți și pe acesta să îl monopolizați, să îi faceți regulamente, oricum, extrem de proaste, pentru că niciodată nu o să puteți să garantați că o persoană sau o companie acționează cinstit, corect și profesional. În fapt, nicio companie nu poate acționa cinstit, corect și profesional din cauza impozitelor voastre.

    Mi-aduc aminte, statul român, ca să mă oprească, în „plandemie”, să mai lupt împotriva măștii și a vaccinării, mi-au blocat toate conturile și mi-au luat toți banii din bănci și mi-au dat 30 000 de euro amendă. Așa, ca să fiu controlată, să nu mai am cu ce să-mi cresc copiii. Bitcoinul este libertate și …

    (Președinta a retras cuvântul vorbitoarei)

    		  
       

       

    (End of catch-the-eye procedure)

    		  
       

    		 

      Magnus Brunner, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, what an interesting discussion and God bless Europe, I would say. I would like to conclude maybe this discussion by saying that we, of course, remain strong supporters of international standards for crypto. These represent a common set of principles around which jurisdictions around the world can converge.

    These standards ensure, at the end, an appropriate policy framework for crypto markets allowing innovation – yes, that is very important – to take place while ensuring that risks are appropriately mitigated. And with this EU MiCA Regulation all of you and most of you were talking about, Europe is the first major jurisdiction to achieve compliance also with international crypto standards.

    However, the Commission is well aware that our efforts alone, or even a partial international effort, cannot ensure that the risks posed by these global crypto markets are adequately addressed, and it is therefore crucial that the adoption of international crypto standards continues to grow.

    The US, that was mentioned as well as a key partner, of course, in promoting the adoption of international standards. We therefore do hope that the new administration will act as a catalyst for further progress in bringing regulatory clarity to crypto asset markets in the United States. And we would expect that any new policy and regulatory developments in the US fully, of course, reflect international standards.

    Thanks again for the discussion and for giving the Commission also the opportunity to participate in this very important exchange.

    		  
       


       

    (The sitting was suspended at 11:48)

    		  
       

       

    IN THE CHAIR: SABINE VERHEYEN
    Vice-President

    		  

    5. Resumption of the sitting

       

    (The sitting resumed at 11:59)

    		  

    6. Composition of new committees

    		 

      President. – Following the creation of the standing committees on security and defence and public health, and the special committees on the European Democracy Shield and on the housing crisis in the European Union, the political groups and the non-attached Members have notified the President of appointments to these new standing and special committees as of 23 January 2025.

    The list of the committees’ members will be published online and in the minutes.

    		  

    7. Composition of committees and delegations
























    		 

      President. – Sorry. We have clear rules on what are points of order. Some colleagues are very generous when there are actual accidents or things that are happening. But sorry, we have to stick to the points of order, because on Monday we have the one-minute speeches so you can make your position on special issues you want to raise.

    But we are here exactly for points of order. And that is what I exercise, clearly to the Rules. And there is no discussion about what has happened yesterday or the week after, or 20 weeks before or later. Sorry, we have clear order to rule it like it is.

    (Applause)

    		  

    8. Voting time

    		 

      President. – The next item is the vote.

    		  

    8.1. Case of Jean-Jacques Wondo in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (RC-B10-0069/2025, B10-0065/2025, B10-0069/2025, B10-0070/2025, B10-0072/2025, B10-0078/2025, B10-0081/2025, B10-0084/2025) (vote)

    		 

      President. – The first vote is on the joint motion for a resolution tabled by five groups on the case of Jean-Jacques Wondo in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (see minutes, item 8.1).

    		  

    8.2. Systematic repression of human rights in Iran, notably the cases of Pakhshan Azizi and Wrisha Moradi, and the taking of EU citizens as hostages (RC-B10-0066/2025, B10-0063/2025, B10-0066/2025, B10-0067/2025, B10-0073/2025, B10-0082/2025, B10-0085/2025, B10-0086/2025) (vote)

    		 

      President. – The next vote is on the joint motion for a resolution tabled by five groups on the systematic repression of human rights in Iran, notably the cases of Pakhshan Azizi and Wrisha Moradi, and the taking of EU citizens as hostages (see minutes, item 8.2).

    		  

    8.3. Case of Boualem Sansal in Algeria (RC-B10-0087/2025, B10-0087/2025, B10-0088/2025, B10-0089/2025, B10-0090/2025, B10-0091/2025, B10-0092/2025, B10-0093/2025) (vote)

    		 

      President. – The next vote is on the joint motion for a resolution tabled by five groups on the case of Boualem Sansal in Algeria (see minutes, item 8.3).

    		  

    8.4. Russia’s disinformation and historical falsification to justify its war of aggression against Ukraine (RC-B10-0074/2025, B10-0074/2025, B10-0075/2025, B10-0076/2025, B10-0077/2025, B10-0079/2025) (vote)

    		 

      President. – The next vote is on the joint motion for a resolution tabled by five groups on Russia’s disinformation and historical falsification to justify its war of aggression against Ukraine (see minutes, item 8.4).

    		  

    9. Resumption of the sitting

       

    (Sēde tika atsākta plkst. 15:00.)

    		  

    10. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

    		 

      Priekšsēdētājs. – Ir pieejams vakardienas sēdes protokols un pieņemtie teksti. Vai ir kādas piezīmes? Protokols ir apstiprināts.

    		  

    11. Major interpellations (debate)

    		 

      Priekšsēdētājs. – Nākamais darba kārtības punkts ir debates par plašu interpelāciju, uz kuru jāatbild rakstiski un kurai seko debates, un kuru ECR vārdā iesniedza Charlie Weimers, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Kristoffer Storm, Jaak Madison, Carlo Fidanza, Adam Bielan, Alexandr Vondra, Patryk Jaki, Johan Van Overtveldt, Roberts Zīle, Emmanouil Fragkos, Georgiana Teodorescu, Geadis Geadi, Marion Maréchal, Ivaylo Valchev, Kosma Złotowski, Mariusz Kamiński, Maciej Wąsik, Dick Erixon, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Beatrice Timgren, Nicolas Bay, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Ondřej Krutílek, Guillaume Peltier, Michał Dworczyk, Laurence Trochu, Şerban-Dimitrie Sturdza, Tobiasz Bocheński un Gheorghe Piperea Komisijai par ES finansējumu fiziskiem robežu aizsardzības elementiem, piemēram, sienām, žogiem vai citām barjerām, pie ES ārējām robežām (G-001002/2024).

    		  
       

    		 

      Jaak Madison, author. – Mr President, first of all, we are pretty many Members here on the last day of the week.

    First of all, in September, on September 20, 30 Members of the Parliament, so pretty many, have addressed written questions to the Commission. Unfortunately, we haven’t got any answer in six weeks. So, c’est la vie, and the result is that we have to discuss the question here.

    And I’m even more happy that on this very important topic, we can ask directly from the new Commissioner from Austria, who understands probably very well about the consequences of the illegal migration, about security, about the defence questions.

    The question was about the EU funds and is there any kind of consideration in the European Commission to finance also the projects to protect our external borders physically? For example, in February 2023, the European Council implored the Commission to immediately mobilise substantial EU funds and means in order to help countries bolster their border protection capabilities and infrastructure.

    Commission President von der Leyen has said that the EU will act to strengthen our external borders, specifically by providing an integrated package of mobile and stationary infrastructure from cars to cameras, from watchtowers to electronic surveillance.

    Unfortunately, we understand very well that it’s not enough to fight against, for example, the hybrid attacks by Russia, where they are using thousands of people as a weapon against Finland, against Poland, Lithuania, maybe next day to Estonia. And if those people are used by Russia’s hybrid attack, how can we stop to move them to Germany, to Austria, to the inside of the European Union, thanks to the Schengen free movement that we have?.

    That is why we had only two concrete questions: why has the Commission not yet recognised the reality on the ground at the EU’s external borders and moved to lift its anachronistic moratorium on EU funding for physical border barriers?

    And secondly, considering the ongoing hostile activities at the eastern border and the Member States have taken to constructing border barriers to counter the instrumentation of migrants, will the Commission change its approach and support Member States’ external border barrier projects financially via the EU budget?

    		  
       

    		 

      Magnus Brunner, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you, first of all, for bringing this very important topic to the agenda this afternoon. Let me start by saying that I fully agree with the imperative of reinforced management of our external borders. It must be, of course, us and not the smugglers who decide who comes to our European Union and under what circumstances. This is all the more imperative given precisely the hybrid threats you mentioned. Our response must be as united as it is resolute.

    Coming from a ministry of finance for the last three years, allow me to start my intervention with some figures. In 2024, we saw a 38 % drop in irregular arrivals compared with the previous year. So it’s 239 000 compared with 386 000. And this includes a sharp 78 % drop on the Western Balkan route and 59 % fall on the central Mediterranean route. And that’s stated, as you mentioned, by President von der Leyen in her latest letter also to the European Council. This is the result of the EU’s active engagement with our partner countries, and it is working. We see that and we must continue to pursue these efforts.

    But, as you rightly mentioned, in parallel, we are very much aware that some regions are still under pressure, of course. In particular, there was a threefold increase in irregular crossings at the eastern border, in part as a result, as you mentioned, of the instrumentalisation of migrants by Russia and Belarus in their attempt to destabilise the European Union and undermine also our security. As a response, last month, the Commission issued a communication on countering hybrid threats from the weaponisation of migration and also strengthening security at the EU’s external borders. The Commission recognised that Member States can take proportionate, on the one hand, and also temporary measures to address the threat posed by both Russia and Belarus.

    Member States have the responsibility, of course, also to maintain law and order and safeguard national security. That’s pretty obvious. But they do so with the support of the European Union and also its budget on a European Union level. Those Member States bordering Russia and Belarus have recently received additional funding of EUR 170 million to enhance border surveillance altogether.

    This is just part of the broader picture of EU budgetary support to border management. All EU funding for border management has more than tripled over the past three multiannual financial frameworks (the famous MFF), with up to 7.7 billion allocated for border management and also visa instrument in the current 2021 to 2027 period. With these funds, the European Union is building one of the most advanced border management systems in the world and the largest share of this amount – that’s EUR 4.3 billion – is allocated directly to Member States under their national programmes.

    Also the EU’s decentralised agencies – Frontex, eu-LISA, the EUAA, of course, the asylum agency – they also play a key role when it comes to border management, and their budget for the current period amounts to EUR 9.8 billion. In the future, the strengthening of Frontex with increased operational capabilities, including a tripling of its standing corps, will also further contribute to supporting the Member States – because that’s what Frontex is here for – in addressing the challenges at the external borders.

    I would therefore argue that not only has the Commission recognised the reality on the ground, but it is actively also supporting enhanced border management with substantial means, actually. I would also underline that this remains a key priority for me and for the Commission in general. And we are committed to continuing to strengthen the EU’s external borders and supporting the Member States, of course, both operationally and financially, to boost border surveillance.

    I am also very keenly aware, however, that budgets are limited, and the EU budget, of course, is no exception here. It is essential to make the most of every single euro, channelling it to where it is most effective at the end of the day and has the biggest impact, of course. Given these considerations, the Commission has so far focused funding, where the needs are the most urgent and where European money can have a real added value. This has included financing for mobile and stationary units, for border surveillance systems and equipment, for refurbishment of border crossing points, new installations for IT systems, plus also, of course, the maintenance of the equipment. All this increases situational awareness on border control capabilities, which are, of course, crucial for effective border protection, combined, as I said before, with continued support and also continued deployment by Frontex.

    That is the picture of today: EU funding is available to Member States to provide well‑equipped and also modern infrastructure for a very high level of security at the European external borders and to help also combat irregular migration. These things must go hand in hand. On top of this, Member States can decide, of course, themselves to finance structures such as fences, for instance, themselves, while always ensuring, of course, respect for fundamental rights.

    Now, the next step – and this is very important what I’m going to say now – going forward, Mr Madison, and following the trend also observed in the last years, it is clear that the overall needs for border management must be reassessed as part of the preparation of the next multiannual financial framework. This process is currently underway and should of course not be pre-empted. We will, of course, take into account the border management needs we have for the next months and years to come, which must be considered in a holistic manner for the different needs, priorities and resources available, whilst always ensuring that measures are, of course, proportionate and also respect fundamental rights.

    The views of the European Parliament in preparation of that process are, of course, incredibly important. At the same time, constant engagement is necessary to achieve results on external border management, and the European Union will continue to deepen these comprehensive and strategic relations that it is building with key countries of origin, but also key countries of transit, including migration in the spectrum of key interests covered by these agreements.

    		  
       

    		 

      Lena Düpont, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, I’d like to address the topic of today on two levels: on a procedural one and on a content one.

    On the procedure, as a representative of this House, of course, I also need to underline the request towards the Commission to respect the timelines and, of course, to adhere to the timelines. There’s a reason why we set timelines for the answering of the questions, and I think that we can do more actually also to work together to come closer again in that sense.

    On content, as it is mainly about instrumentalism – where, by the way, the ECR had the rapporteurship in the previous term – I think the question here at stake does not necessarily reflect the dynamic in the policy field. The Commission, the Commission President, they are in close debate with the Member States concerned. There are proposals on the table, both with financial support and additional money, but also in the adaptation of the policy response.

    As a general remark, Europe is the strongest when we act together and we, as the EPP, will make sure to do so further down the road. And while I say that some here in the House need to accept that there is a thing such instrumentalism – that it is part of hybrid attacks, and it needs to be seen in the geopolitical context – other parts here in the House also need to accept that as well, because the very same reason why we are speaking about this cynical, state-sponsored and state-accepted smuggling business is Moscow and Minsk attacking – trying to pressure – the European Union.

    So at least actors, some here in the House, want to align closer with. I would call that cognitive dissonance, but solve that out on your own. Rest assured that we, as the EPP, will go forward working on a common solution as a European Union that is strong and proud of its roots and values.

    		  
       

    		 

      Ana Catarina Mendes, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Caros Colegas, fiquei muito preocupada com o final da sua intervenção, Senhor Comissário, permita-me partilhar isto consigo.

    Em 2021, quando se aumentou a verba para o Fundo de Gestão Integrada das Fronteiras, a Senhora Presidente da Comissão afirmou — e cito — «a União Europeia não financiará nem muros, nem arame, nem cercas». O Senhor Comissário terminou a sua intervenção a dizer: «vamos aumentar o financiamento para as cercas».

    E queria dizer-lhe, em nome dos Socialistas e Democratas, que estamos totalmente de acordo que é preciso gerir as nossas fronteiras, mas gerir as nossas fronteiras não significa violação dos direitos humanos, como temos assistido frequentemente.

    Por isso, as verbas que foram atribuídas — mais verbas —, para as fronteiras, para este fundo, não podem ser para as câmaras de vigilância, para as cercas, para os muros, porque isso é ao arrepio daquilo que tem sido a política de migrações da União Europeia ao longo dos anos.

    E, por isso, Senhor Comissário, aquilo que lhe queria dizer é que tenha em conta os dados que aqui referiu, que eu, ontem, referi na minha outra intervenção, e que são verdade: em 2024, houve um decréscimo da imigração irregular em 38 %.

    Isso significa, Senhor Comissário, que nós temos de continuar a estar atentos à implementação do Pacto das Migrações e ter uma visão humanista daquilo que é a imigração. Nós não vamos parar a imigração com a mão, como não paramos o vento com as mãos, é impossível. Os fluxos migratórios existem desde sempre.

    A Frontex tem sido, muitas vezes, acusada de violar direitos fundamentais e, recentemente, a plataforma para a cooperação sobre cidadãos não documentados alertou para a violação sistemática, nas fronteiras, dos direitos humanos destes cidadãos, por isso, aquilo que lhe peço é que continue a ser o guardião dos tratados e a tratar as pessoas com dignidade.

    		  
       

    		 

      András László, on behalf of the PfE Group. – Mr President, EU countries want border walls and other barriers against illegal immigration, and the EU should pay for it. The majority of European leaders demanded that the European Commission immediately mobilise substantial funding for this. This was two years ago and Ursula von der Leyen did nothing.

    What did the Commission do instead? They sued Hungary for defending the EU’s external borders. For not allowing illegal entry into the EU, Hungary received a EUR 200 million fine. In addition, they demand that we pay a fine of EUR 1 million for each and every day that we refuse to give up our efforts to keep illegal migrants out of the EU.

    European citizens don’t want a Christmas like in Magdeburg. They don’t want a New Year’s Eve like in Brussels or Cologne. Europeans want tough border protection on the outer borders of the European Union. The radical ideology of Brussels elites about open borders is a failure. It goes against the will of EU governments, it goes against the will of European citizens and it goes against common sense.

    Ultimately, European citizens pay the highest price for it. In 10 years, Hungary has already spent EUR 2 billion to defend the EU’s borders on the south. In the east, several countries are now spending vast resources to keep illegal immigrants out.

    Pay for the fence in Hungary; pay for the fence in Finland; pay for the fence in Poland and all other countries that defend our external borders. This was the demand of the European governments so that European citizens won’t have to pay with their blood.

    		  
       

    		 

      Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo, od czerwca 2021 roku Polska, Łotwa i Litwa doświadczają kryzysu na swojej granicy z Białorusią, gdzie dziesiątki tysięcy migrantów i osób ubiegających się o azyl, głównie z Afryki i Bliskiego Wschodu, próbowały przedostać się i próbują przedostać się do Unii Europejskiej przy wsparciu władz białoruskich. Od 2023 roku dołączyła tutaj również Finlandia. Już bezpośrednio Rosja, bez pomocy swojego pomocnika, jakim jest Łukaszenka, tak samo próbuje wepchnąć na terytorium Unii Europejskiej nielegalnych imigrantów.

    Tymczasem nowe rozporządzenie kryzysowe, które jest częścią Paktu o Azylu i Migracji, odnosi się do problemu instrumentalizacji migracji jedynie z perspektywy prawa azylowego i jedynie poprzez zapewnienie bardzo ograniczonego katalogu odstępstw od obowiązujących przepisów, które mają być stosowane przez państwa członkowskie zaatakowane w ten hybrydowy sposób. Oczekujemy jednak, jako Europejczycy od Unii Europejskiej bardziej asertywnych rozwiązań, skupiających się przede wszystkim na bezpieczeństwie obywateli Unii Europejskiej. Rozwiązania takie powinny obejmować wzmocnienie infrastruktury granicznej, budowę barier fizycznych i modernizację systemu granic, współpracę organów ścigania i odpowiednie wsparcie Europolu i Frontexu z wykorzystaniem również narzędzi współpracy międzynarodowej, w tym skutecznej współpracy z państwami trzecimi w zakresie powrotów i umów o readmisji.

    Szanowni Państwo, chciałbym przypomnieć też o sytuacji, która miała miejsce, kiedy ta hybrydowa wojna Putina się rozpoczęła. Byliśmy świadkami w tej Izbie festiwalu hipokryzji i wystąpień zgoła kabaretowych. Przedstawiciele nie tylko lewicy, ale również PPE atakowali w sposób grubiański i skrajnie niemądry ówczesny rząd polski, rząd Prawa i Sprawiedliwości za budowę muru na granicy polsko- białoruskiej i za ochronę granicy zewnętrznej Unii Europejskiej. Ba, nawet został zdymisjonowany ówczesny szef Frontexu, za to tylko, że wsparł ówczesne działania rządu polskiego. Nie kto inny, jak ówczesny lider PPE, sam Donald Tusk, grzmiał, że migranci zwiezieni przez Łukaszenkę to biedni ludzie, których należy wpuścić, bo przybywają oni tutaj w poszukiwaniu lepszego życia.

    Europosłowie Platformy Obywatelskiej, którzy dzisiaj zasiadają w tej Izbie, pajacowali na granicy, atakując werbalnie funkcjonariuszy polskiej Straży Granicznej, policji czy wojska. A dzisiaj jesteśmy świadkami cudu. Nie kto inny, a ten sam Donald Tusk wczoraj z tego miejsca mówi, że najważniejsze jest bezpieczeństwo i wzywa do ochrony granic zewnętrznych.

    Szanowni Państwo, jego kolega, pan Max Weber z tego miejsca gratuluje Tuskowi odsunięcie Prawa i Sprawiedliwości od władzy i wysyła premiera Jarosława Kaczyńskiego na emeryturę. Panie Weber, gdyby nie premier Jarosław Kaczyński, którego siła i wola polityczna powstrzymała ten nielegalny proceder, to te setki tysięcy migrantów miałby Pan dzisiaj w Berlinie, w Monachium i w innych miastach niemieckich. Jeżeli ktoś ma iść na emeryturę to Pan, Ursula von der Leyen i zabierzcie Tuska, dzięki Wam ma już wysoką emeryturę europejską.

    		  
       

    		 

      Fabienne Keller, au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, cher Roberts Zīle, Monsieur le Commissaire Magnus Brunner, nous avons eu ce débat de très nombreuses fois et, en dépit d’arguments logiques, factuels, et de statistiques démontrant que construire des murs aux frontières non seulement ne marche pas, mais que ce n’est pas non plus dans notre ADN européen, nous y voilà encore.

    Contrairement à ce qu’aime prétendre l’extrême droite, il ne suffit pas de construire des murs à nos frontières pour régler la question de l’immigration illégale. Bien sûr que nous devons protéger nos frontières, nous organiser pour les faire respecter, comme vous l’avez expliqué, Monsieur le Commissaire; nous nous y employons. Mais la meilleure gestion de la migration et la meilleure protection de nos frontières, elle passe aussi par l’application de ce pacte, qui n’est pas encore en œuvre. En effet, un volet majeur de la mise en œuvre du pacte est consacré à cette protection des frontières.

    Cela passe par la création de procédures accélérées aux frontières, d’un filtrage rigoureux, d’une base de données sur l’asile et la migration et de moyens budgétaires supplémentaires. Le pacte comprend également un volet de coopération avec les États tiers afin de prévenir les départs irréguliers, de lutter contre le trafic des migrants, de coopérer en matière de réadmission et de promouvoir des voies d’accès légales. Ce sont ces mesures novatrices que nous devons financer avec le budget européen.

    Ce budget doit être utilisé pour rassembler. Il doit être mis au service des citoyens et de la solidarité. Le budget européen, chers collègues, doit construire des ponts, pas des murs.

    		  
       

    		 

      Mélissa Camara, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, barrières, barbelés, divisions. Là est l’obsession d’une partie de la classe politique européenne. Partout où des États ont dressé des murs, ils n’ont semé que souffrance et désespoir. Aujourd’hui, une soixantaine de murs parsèment le globe de cicatrices de béton. Depuis une vingtaine d’années, les barrières physiques se multiplient aux frontières de l’Union européenne, en Hongrie, en Espagne, en Grèce, en Bulgarie. Ce sont désormais 13 % des frontières terrestres de l’Union européenne qui sont clôturées.

    Les murs, donc, comme seule perspective politique, partout. Regardez ce mur entre les États-Unis et le Mexique érigé sous Bush, toujours plus haut sous Trump, plus de 1 000 kilomètres d’acier et de méfiance. Ce mur que, chaque année, des centaines de milliers de personnes cherchent à franchir, poussées par l’espoir d’une vie meilleure. Et ici, en Europe, c’est la même histoire. Ceuta et Melilla, par exemple. Une porte close, des regards détournés. Ces barrières ne résolvent rien. Elles brisent des vies, elles éteignent les rêves et tuent. Souvenons-nous du 24 juin 2022 à Melilla: le gaz lacrymogène, les balles en caoutchouc, des migrants piégés entre les clôtures, blessés, abandonnés, sans soins… 23 vies fauchées. Et combien d’autres en Europe?

    Les murs n’arrêtent pas les pas. Ils allongent les routes. Ils poussent les exilés vers des chemins plus périlleux où l’ombre de la traite les guette. Les murs ne stoppent pas non plus les catastrophes humanitaires et climatiques, les guerres, les persécutions qui ont lieu partout dans le monde. Je l’ai dit hier dans une autre intervention et je souhaite le rappeler aujourd’hui: personne ne quitte son pays, ses repères, sa famille et ses proches par choix. Les murs ne protègent pas, ils séparent, ils creusent des fossés entre les peuples. Ils nourrissent la peur et la haine.

    Puisque les murs ne suffisent pas, désormais, des caméras, des drones de surveillance et tout un arsenal numérique sont déployés aux frontières de l’Europe. Mais les gens continueront d’essayer. Leur permettre de franchir les frontières n’est ici qu’une question d’humanité et de solidarité.

    Cette Europe forteresse n’est pas la mienne. Mon Europe est celle d’un accueil digne et inconditionnel, celle des droits humains et de l’égalité. Jamais nous n’accepterons la surenchère des moyens sécuritaires contre les personnes exilées, comme la droite et l’extrême droite de ce Parlement le réclament. Des milliards qui partent en fumée chaque année, pour quelle protection? Pour quel résultat, sinon la mort et le désespoir? Cessons enfin l’apathie morale. L’Europe doit choisir l’humanité, la solidarité, les ponts et refuser les murs.

    		  
       

    		 

      Christine Anderson, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Europa wird angegriffen – nicht durch Panzer oder Raketen, sondern durch den Migrantenansturm auf unsere Grenzen, der als Waffe gegen uns eingesetzt wird. Und das funktioniert, weil wir uns von linken Spinnern haben einreden lassen, Pushbacks seien illegal. Pushbacks – also das konsequente Zurückweisen von Migranten an den Grenzen – sind aber das effektivste Mittel, um illegale Grenzübertritte zu verhindern und diesen Angriff auf unsere Heimatländer abzuwehren.

    Dass wir sie nicht nutzen dürfen, verdanken wir einer massiven Lobbyarbeit von Pro-Migrations-NGOs, finanziert von exzentrischen Milliardären, die sich als moralische Instanz aufspielen. Tatsächlich aber gefährdet deren Agenda nicht nur die Sicherheit Europas, sondern Europa an sich. Jedes souveräne Land hat das Recht, ja, die Pflicht, seine Grenzen zu schützen. Die Behauptung, dass dies rechtswidrig sei, ist eine dreiste Lüge, die Europa jeder Möglichkeit der Selbstverteidigung beraubt.

    Und natürlich brauchen wir physische Barrieren an den Außengrenzen – sie wirken, sie schützen, sind legal und legitim. Diese Zäune und Mauern sind nichts anderes als ein in Stacheldraht und Beton gegossener Pushback. Also bauen wir sie endlich, diese physischen Barrieren, und schützen wir endlich unsere Heimatländer und unsere Bürger.

    Auch Sie, Herr Kommissar Brunner, sollten doch inzwischen zur Kenntnis genommen haben, dass die politische Landschaft im Wandel ist. Ihre christdemokratische Partei wird bald Juniorpartner der FPÖ sein. Sie werden Ihren Kurs ohnehin ändern müssen. Warum nicht jetzt? Und wenn nicht jetzt, wann dann?

    Aber die nächsten Wahlen werden ohnehin zeigen, dass die Bürger keine Parteien mehr wählen werden, die sich weigern, die Grenzen zu schützen. Sie werden keine Parteien mehr wählen, die die Sicherheit der eigenen Bürger auf dem Altar imaginärer Rechte und Ansprüche von Millionen von rückständigen Masseninvasoren opfern und – mehr noch – sie ihnen erbarmungslos zum Fraß vorwerfen.

    Kommen Sie endlich zur Besinnung. Handeln Sie – und zwar entschieden und jetzt!

    		  
       


    		 

      Murielle Laurent (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, «structures physiques de protection des frontières», il s’agit là du titre de ce débat. Ce n’est en réalité que du verbiage politiquement correct pour parler de murs, de barrières, de barbelés. Cette sémantique nous renvoie à une période bien sombre de notre histoire.

    La Communauté européenne a été bâtie sur un idéal de paix, d’union et d’ouverture. Notre but n’est pas d’ériger des murs, mais de les faire tomber, comme ce fut le cas le 9 novembre 1989 avec la chute du mur de Berlin. Financer de telles infrastructures serait une insulte à la construction européenne. Plutôt que de construire des murs, nous devrions consacrer notre budget à défendre la démocratie, menacée par les populistes et non par les migrants. Comme je l’ai dit hier, ici même, lors du débat sur les liens entre la criminalité et la migration: il n’y a qu’en assumant une migration positive, en mettant en place des voies légales de migration et en engageant des partenariats sérieux avec les autres pays que nous pourrons y parvenir. Non, ce ne sont pas des idioties, c’est du bon sens. Le respect des droits fondamentaux, c’est du bon sens.

    		  
       

    		 

      France Jamet (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, 30 000 personnes. 30 000 personnes sont mortes en tentant de traverser la Méditerranée, à la poursuite d’un eldorado fictif, à la poursuite d’un eldorado que vous leur avez vendu. Ces morts tragiques, elles ne sont pas à mettre sur le compte de la lutte contre l’immigration illégale, mais sur celui de votre idéologie sans-frontiériste, des pompes aspirantes que vous avez mises en place et de votre mansuétude vis-à-vis des réseaux mafieux de passeurs. On voit d’ailleurs à Mayotte, sur notre sol, aujourd’hui, le résultat de cette politique du laissez-faire.

    Alors c’est vrai, construire des infrastructures pour stopper cette pression migratoire, qui pèse sur nos comptes publics, notre économie et la sécurité de nos compatriotes, ne sera pas suffisant sans un arsenal juridique et la volonté politique. Pour cela, il faut d’abord avoir le courage de dire: «Sachez que si vous entrez illégalement sur notre territoire, ce sera l’expulsion et le retour.»

    		  
       


       

    Brīvais mikrofons

    		  
       


    		 

      Bogdan Rzońca (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Chciałem zabrać głos, żeby oddać hołd 21 letniemu Mateuszowi Sitkowi. Polski żołnierz, 21 letni żołnierz, został zabity przez bandytów na granicy polsko-białoruskiej. Zabity, zamordowany. I chcę o tym tu powiedzieć, bo wtedy, kiedy my, Polacy, broniliśmy granicy Unii Europejskiej, kiedy Putin i Łukaszenka wpychał uchodźców do Polski, prowadząc wojnę hybrydową, wy świetnie tu bawiliście się w Parlamencie Europejskim na fałszywym filmie polskiej reżyserki, która ośmieszała polską policję, polskich żołnierzy, tych wszystkich, którzy bronili granicy Unii Europejskiej.

    Musicie się za to wstydzić. Będę wam o tym zawsze przypominał, dlatego że dzisiaj oczywiście ta debata jest ważna, cieszę się, że komisarz przyjął takie, a nie inne stanowisko, ale wołaliśmy o te pieniądze na granicy, o to bezpieczeństwo w poprzednich latach i się nie udawało. A wczoraj oklaskiwaliście Donalda Tuska, który tutaj, w Brukseli, powiedział tak: To, co robi polski rząd Prawa i Sprawiedliwości, to szpetna propaganda. A myśmy po prostu zwyczajnie bronili granicy Unii Europejskiej. (przewodniczący odebrał mówcy głos)

    (Przewodniczący przerwał mówcy)

    		  
       

    		 

      Siegbert Frank Droese (ESN). – Herr Präsident! Ich hatte selber die Gelegenheit, als Bundestagsabgeordneter die litauische Außengrenze, die bulgarische Außengrenze zu besuchen, und es gab immer Kritik an den Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten durch die EU, dass eben zu viel humanitäre Maßnahmen gefördert wurden, aber kein robuster Grenzschutz. Insofern sind die Ausführungen von Politkommissar Brunner ein kleiner Fortschritt.

    Alleine mir fehlt der Glaube an den Willen. Wir brauchen den Willen zur Festung Europa. Wir brauchen einen, wenn Sie so wollen, neuen Eisernen Vorhang an den Außengrenzen Europas. Aber wir brauchen auch im Inneren Europas Ordnung. Wir werden daher nicht umhin kommen, Millionen von Straftätern und illegalen Migranten auszuweisen. Also wir brauchen millionenfache Remigration innerhalb Europas.

    Und das ist leider in Ihren Worten, Herr Politkommissar Brunner, überhaupt nicht vorgekommen. Solange dieses Thema nicht zentral als Aufgabe von Ihnen angesehen wird, kann ich leider Ihren schönen Worten keinen Glauben schenken.

    		  
       

       

    (Brīvā mikrofona uzstāšanos beigas.)

    		  
       

    		 

      Magnus Brunner, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, honourable Members, thank you very much, first of all, for your interventions.

    Border protection, I think we all agree, is a shared responsibility. We know the dimension of the challenge, definitely. And we will continue to dedicate also massive resources to meet it in cooperation, of course, with national authorities, with the EU agencies dealing with the topic, and with partner countries of origin and also of transit, as I said in my former statement.

    EU funds will have a strong role to play in this, and the preparation of the next MFF will be the moment to reassess the needs for border management and how these can be better addressed, whilst always ensuring – and this is also very important – that measures are proportionate and of course respect fundamental rights.

    I stand ready to engage with you on this in the weeks to come. I think that is very important. And I stand, of course, also ready to listen to you all.

    		  
       

    		 

      President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner.

    The debate is closed.

    		  

    12. Explanations of votes

    		 

      Priekšsēdētājs. – Nākamais darba kārtības punkts bija paredzēts balsojumu skaidrojumi, bet tā kā neviens balsojuma skaidrojums nav saņemts, tad pāreju pie šīs sēdes nobeiguma.

    		  

    13. Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted

    		 

      Priekšsēdētājs. – Šīs sēdes protokols tiks iesniegts Parlamentam apstiprināšanai nākamās sēdes sākumā.

    Ja nav iebildumu, šodienas sēdē pieņemtās rezolūcijas nosūtīšu tajās norādītajām personām un struktūrām.

    		  

    14. Dates of forthcoming sittings

    		 

      Priekšsēdētājs. – Nākamā sesija notiks 2025. gada 29. janvārī Briselē.

    		  

    15. Closure of the sitting

       

    (Sēde tika slēgta plkst. 15:41.)

    		  

    16. Adjournment of the session

    		 

      Priekšsēdētājs. – Eiropas Parlamenta sesiju pasludinu par pārtrauktu.

    		  

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: IEW 2025 to be Second Largest Energy Event Globally: Union Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shri Hardeep S Puri

    Source: Government of India

    Posted On: 24 JAN 2025 5:14PM by PIB Mumbai

     

    Mumbai, 24th January, 2025

    India Energy Week (IEW) 2025, spanning over 1 lakh Sq mts, will be the second-largest energy event globally, event in terms of participation, exhibition space, and sessions said Shri Hardeep Singh Puri, Union Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas in Mumbai today.

    Scheduled to be held from February 11-14, 2025, at Yashobhoomi, Dwarka, New Delhi, IEW 2025 promises unparalleled global participation from Ministers, CEOs, and industry leaders, setting new benchmarks in the energy sector. 

    While interacting with media, the Minister highlighted the Clean Cooking Ministerial to be hosted on the sidelines of IEW 2025. This event will serve as a vital platform to strengthen collaborative efforts for accelerating the global adoption of clean cooking solutions. India’s highly successful Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) will take centre stage, showcasing valuable insights and best practices as a global template for addressing energy access challenges. 

    IEW 2025 is set to achieve remarkable growth in scale and participation compared to previous editions. The exhibition space will expand by 65% to 28,000 square meters, while the number of conference sessions will increase to 105, and global delegates will exceed 70,000. Over 500 speakers, including key international voices, will participate, reflecting the growing global significance of the event. The conference will also host 10 country pavilions from leading nations such as the U.S., UK, Russia, Japan, Germany, and the Netherlands, alongside eight thematic zones focusing on hydrogen, renewables, biofuels, and petrochemicals. 

    The event will see participation from 20+ Foreign Energy Ministers or Deputy Ministers, along with Heads of International Organizations and 90 CEOs from Fortune 500 energy companies. This reflects India’s rising influence in shaping the global energy transition dialogue. Shri Puri also highlighted initiatives to engage youth and innovators, with leading IITs, startup platforms like “Avinya“ and “Vasudha,” and 500 students from Delhi/NCR participating to showcase innovation and technology-driven solutions. 

    A key highlight of IEW 2025 is the focus on compelling themes, including energy security, just and orderly transitions, collaboration, resilience, capacity building, and digital advancements. The event’s Clean Cooking Ministerial will further amplify India’s leadership role in ensuring access to sustainable and affordable energy solutions, reinforcing its global commitment to energy equity. 

    With its unparalleled scale and focus on innovation, India Energy Week 2025 is poised to position India at the forefront of global energy transitions and strengthen its role as a catalyst for change in the energy sector.

    ***

    MN/PK

     

    Follow us on social media:  @PIBMumbai    /PIBMumbai     /pibmumbai   pibmumbai[at]gmail[dot]com

    (Release ID: 2095851) Visitor Counter : 81

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Woman Charged With Discharging Firearm During Assault of United States Border Patrol Agent

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Burlington, Vermont – The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Vermont stated that Teresa Youngblut, 21, and who is believed to be from Washington state, has been charged by criminal complaint with one count of using a deadly weapon while assaulting a United States Border Patrol agent, and one count of using and discharging a firearm during and in relation to that assault. Her initial court appearance has not yet been scheduled.

    According to the charging affidavit, during the afternoon of January 20, 2025, a United States Border Patrol agent initiated a traffic stop of a Toyota Prius on Interstate 91 in Coventry, Vermont. The car was occupied by Youngblut and a man who was a citizen of Germany and whose immigration status was in question. Youngblut and her companion had come to the attention of law enforcement a few days earlier when a hotel employee in Lyndonville expressed concern about them being dressed in tactical clothing and protective gear, while also being armed. Law enforcement also observed the couple in the Prius earlier on January 20 at a Walmart parking lot in Newport, Vermont. At that time, the German man was seen wrapping unidentifiable objects with aluminum foil while seated in the vehicle.

    According to the affidavit, during the January 20 vehicle stop, both Youngblut and her companion were armed. During the stop, Youngblut fired her handgun without warning toward at least one of the Border Patrol Agents while outside the vehicle. Her German companion also tried to draw a firearm, and at least one Border Patrol Agent fired his service weapon. The exchange of gunfire resulted in Border Patrol Agent David Maland sustaining fatal injuries. Youngblut and her companion were also shot. The German man was pronounced dead at the scene, and Youngblut was taken to the hospital for medical care.

    The investigation into this incident is ongoing. It is being led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with substantial assistance from the Vermont State Police and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, in coordination with Homeland Security Investigations, United States Border Patrol, the Newport, Vermont, Police Department, and the Orleans County Sheriff’s Department.

    Acting United States Attorney Michael P. Drescher stated: “The events leading to this prosecution tragically demonstrate how the men and women of law enforcement regularly put their lives on the line as they try to keep our communities and our country safe. The United States Attorney’s Office is deeply grateful for those with the courage to do such dangerous work. We intend to honor them, and the memory of Border Patrol Agent Maland, by performing our prosecutorial duties so that justice may be done.” Drescher also commended the investigative collaboration demonstrated by the FBI, Vermont State Police, ATF, and the other agencies involved.

    Craig Tremaroli, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Albany Field Office, stated: “Agent Maland bravely served his country as a member of the United States Air Force. He continued that service when he answered the call to protect and serve as a law enforcement officer, making him a shining example of service over self. This arrest proves the FBI, together with our partners, will work diligently to ensure any individual who uses a firearm to assault such a public servant will be brought to justice.”

    “The senseless and tragic killing of a United States Border Patrol agent is a stark reminder of the immense sacrifices law enforcement officers make to protect our nation,” said James M. Ferguson, Special Agent in Charge of ATF Boston Field Division. “ATF stands resolute with our partners to bring justice to the individual responsible. Our deepest condolences go out to the agent’s family, colleagues, and all who are grieving this profound loss.”

    Chief United States Border Patrol Agent Robert Garcia stated: “We appreciate all our law enforcement partners’ response to this tragic event as we continue our mission of protecting this nation’s border and ensuring public safety.”

    The United States Attorney’s Office emphasizes that the complaint contains allegations and that Youngblut is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty. Youngblut faces a maximum prison sentence of life and a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years if convicted of the charges in the complaint. The actual sentence, however, would be determined by the District Court with guidance from the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines and the statutory sentencing factors.

    The prosecutor is Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Lasher. Youngblut is represented by the Office of the Federal Public Defender.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: January 25 is the day of the legal end of the war between the USSR and Germany

    Translation. Region: Russian Federation –

    Source: State University of Management – Official website of the State –

    On June 22, 1941, Nazi German troops treacherously invaded the territory of the Soviet Union, marking the beginning of the bloodiest war in history.

    The Second World War in Europe ended on May 9, 1945, when Germany signed the act of surrender. But legally, the Soviet Union stopped considering Germany an enemy only on January 25, 1955. On that day, the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR “On the termination of the state of war between the Soviet Union and Germany” was issued.

    Why did it take 10 years between the end of the fighting and this decree? The document itself explains that at the Potsdam Conference in 1945, the victorious countries decided that Germany should become a united, peaceful and democratic country. It was also decided that a peace treaty should be signed with Germany.

    But 10 years passed and Germany was still divided and there was no peace treaty. The Soviet government believed that this was wrong and that the German people should not be in an unequal position compared to other nations.

    The decree stated that the USA, England and France were doing everything to ensure that West Germany rearmed and joined military alliances. This prevented an agreement to unite Germany on peaceful terms and sign a peace treaty.

    Despite this, the Soviet leadership decided to put an end to these difficult relations and declare peace with Germany.

    “Having in mind the strengthening and development of friendly relations between the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic, based on the recognition of the principles of sovereignty and equality, taking into account the opinion of the Government of the German Democratic Republic and taking into account the interests of the population of both East and West Germany.

    The Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR by this Decree declares:

    The state of war between the Soviet Union and Germany is terminated and peaceful relations are established between them. All legal restrictions arising in connection with the war with respect to German citizens who were considered citizens of an enemy state are no longer in force. The declaration of the termination of the state of war with Germany does not change its international obligations and does not affect the rights and obligations of the Soviet Union arising from existing international agreements of the four powers concerning Germany as a whole.”

    The document was signed by the Chairman and Secretary of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR K. Voroshilov and N. Pegov.

    Did you know about this fact? Share in the comments on our official pages.

    Subscribe to the TG channel “Our GUU” Date of publication: 01/25/2025

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI: CORRECTION: XCHG Limited

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    HAMBURG, Germany, Jan. 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — In a release issued on January 21, 2025 by XCHG Limited (NASDAQ: XCHG), please note that an incorrect version of the release was distributed. The corrected release follows:

    XCHG Limited (“XCharge” or the “Company”), (NASDAQ: XCH), a global leader in integrated EV charging solutions, today announced a collaboration with a leader in the rental car space to upgrade its EV charging offerings at US airport rental facilities. XCharge has completed charging station construction at the rental company’s sites in several major East Coast airports and has secured a pipeline of future projects at the rental company’s additional airport locations along the eastern seaboard.

    XCharge’s high-speed chargers and efficient installation process have rapidly strengthened the rental company’s airport charging infrastructure, helping it meet its service standards and goals for expanding its EV rental fleet. Given their relatively small footprint and utility grid constraints, U.S. airport rental car locations face unique challenges in EV adoption. XCharge’s comprehensive solutions are designed to work within these boundaries, offering fast, simple installation without the need for intensive site upgrades, maximizing efficiency and reducing the complexity of construction.

    Furthermore, XCharge’s Level-3 charging stations empower shorter charging cycles compared with the Level-2 solutions commonly used in existing airport locations, resolving rental car service bottlenecks and enhancing customer satisfaction. At the Company’s initial airport project for the rental company, XCharge’s simultaneous charging technology significantly reduced the average charging time, improving charging speed by more than tenfold.      

    Aatish Patel, President of XCharge, said, “We’re thrilled by the positive outcomes of this collaboration. The results underscore our commitment to being more than just a hardware supplier – we want to resolve our partners’ most pressing concerns as efficiently as possible, whether that is site design, operational efficiency, or even EV charging education. By focusing on the broader needs of those we work with, we have created turnkey solutions that address key challenges effectively. We look forward to expanding this cooperation and bringing our high-quality charging services to more customers nationwide.”

    With charging anxiety remaining a top concern for EV drivers, especially first-timers, XCharge will continue to strategically elevate its presence in locations with substantial organic consumer traffic to introduce its convenient, high-speed charging services to a broader audience.

    About XCharge

    XCharge (NASDAQ: XCH), founded in 2015, is a global leader in integrated EV charging solutions. The company offers comprehensive EV charging solutions, which primarily include DC fast chargers and advanced battery-integrated DC fast chargers as well as their accompanying services. Through the combination of XCharge’s proprietary charging technology, energy storage system technology and accompanying services, the Company enhances EV charging efficiency and unlocks the value of energy storage and management. Committed to providing innovative and efficient EV charging solutions, XCharge is actively working toward establishing a global green future that is critical to long-term growth and development.

    Safe harbor statement

    This press release contains forward-looking statements. These statements are made under the “safe harbor” provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Statements that are not historical facts, including statements about the company’s beliefs and expectations, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties, and a number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statement. In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by words or phrases such as “may,” “will,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “target,” “aim,” “estimate,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “potential,” “continue,” “is/are likely to” or other similar expressions. All information provided in this press release is as of the date of this press release, and the company does not undertake any duty to update such information, except as required under applicable law.

    For investor and media inquiries, please contact:

    XCharge

    IR Department

    Email: ir@xcharge.com

    Piacente Financial Communications

    Brandi Piacente

    Tel: +1-212-481-2050

    Jenny Cai

    Tel: +86 (10) 6508-0677

    Email: XCharge@tpg-ir.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Signature of MGCS Project Company shareholder agreement

    Source: Thales Group

    Headline: Signature of MGCS Project Company shareholder agreement

    Friday, January 24, 2025 – Thales, KNDS Deutschland, KNDS France and Rheinmetall Landsysteme signed the articles of association for MGCS Project Company GmbH, Cologne, on Thursday 23 January 2025 in Paris in the presence of the French Minister of Defence, Sébastien Lecornu, and the German Minister of Defence, Boris Pistorius.

    MGCS, which stands for Main Ground Combat System, is a German-Franco armament program designed to replace the Leopard 2 and Leclerc main battle tanks with a cross-platform combat system by 2040.

    The signing of the shareholder agreement marks an essential step in the forthcoming creation of the MGCS Project Company. After negotiating a contract with the Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support (BAAINBw), acting on behalf of the two states through a German-Franco Combined Project Team (CPT), this project company will be responsible as the industrial prime contractor for the implementation of the next phase of the MGCS program. In particular, it will consolidate the concept and the main technological pillars of the system.

    The company will be equally owned by the parties, 25% each, with a national workshare of 50% Germany and 50% France, and will be based in Cologne, Germany.

    The industrial partners in the MGCS program are delighted with this signature, which follows on from the impetus given by the French and German governments in the spring of 2024, with the signing of a Letter Of Intent (LOI).

    About KNDS:

    KNDS is the result of the association of Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) and Nexter, two of the leading European manufacturers of military land systems based in Germany and France.

    KNDS forms a Group of around 10,000 employees, with a 2023 turnover of 3.3 billion euro, an order backlog of around 16 billion euro and incoming orders of 7.8 billion euro. The range of its products includes main battle tanks, armored vehicles, artillery systems, weapons systems, ammunition, military bridges, customer services, battle management systems, training solutions, protection solutions and a wide range of equipment.

    The formation of KNDS represents the beginning of consolidation in land defense systems industry in Europe. The strategic alliance between KMW and Nexter enhances both groups’ competitiveness and international positions, as well as their ability to meet the needs of their respective national army. In addition, it offers to its European and NATO customers the opportunity of increased standardization and interoperability for their defense equipment, with a dependable industrial base.

    KNDS headquarters are based in Amsterdam.

    Press contact: guillem.monsonis@knds.fr

    About Rheinmetall:

    Rheinmetall AG of Duesseldorf, a listed company, is a leading international defence contractor and a driver of future-oriented technological and industrial innovation in civil markets. With over 31,000 employees and 171 sites worldwide, Rheinmetall generated sales of €7.2 billion in 2023. With its technologies, products and systems, the company creates the indispensable basis for peace, freedom and sustainable development security. Rheinmetall Landsysteme GmbH is part of the Rheinmetall Division Vehicle Systems Europe and is one of the leading land system manufacturers.

    Media contact: oliver.hoffmann@rheinmetall.com

    About Thales:

    Thales (Euronext Paris: HO) is a global leader in advanced technologies specialized in three business domains: Defence, Aerospace and Cyber & Digital. It develops products and solutions that help make the world safer, greener and more inclusive.

    The Group invests close to €4 billion a year in Research & Development, particularly in key innovation areas such as AI, cybersecurity, quantum technologies, cloud technologies and 6G.

    Thales has close to 81,000 employees in 68 countries. In 2023, the Group generated sales of €18.4bn.

    Media contact: camille.heck@thalesgroup.com

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: ‘Ignorance is no match for the power of knowledge and education’

    Source: Amnesty International –

    Robina Azizi,19, fled Afghanistan’s northern Balkh province in 2021, leaving behind her home, her belongings and her school after the Taliban took control. Conditions rapidly deteriorated; soon after, the Taliban barred girls and women from attending secondary schools and universities. An estimated 1.4 million girls have been deprived of their right to education under the Taliban’s three-year rule.

    Determined to create opportunities for Afghan girls, Robina, who now lives in Germany, founded Girls on the Path of Change (GPC), an organization and online community that empowers Afghan girls to share their stories and pursue online education. With support from organizations like Amnesty International, there is hope that these initiatives can be expanded further. However, sustained action from the international community is essential to increase the pressure on the Taliban to stop this cycle of repression.

    Before the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in August 2021, I lived with my family in the Balkh province in northern Afghanistan. I was attending school without concern and aiming to graduate.

    I had lofty ambitions, promising myself I would study at a reputable university in the hope of one day helping my country, as well as girls who were deprived of a proper education. Every day, I aimed to achieve excellent grades. I would lie awake at night, eager to attend school the next morning.

    On 10 August 2021, I was due to travel home with my friends after finishing a school exam. However, I felt as though something bad was going to happen. On my way home, I looked down the streets and alleys of Mazar-i-Sharif as if I wouldn’t see them again. When I got home, my mother was packing our belongings. 

    “We’ve booked your flight ticket; we have to leave. The Taliban have taken control of the districts of Balkh. They might come into the city,” she explained. “The Taliban takes girls into captivity and forces them into marriage. The lives of your father, brother, and sister are in danger; we must go. You are a writer and have always written against the Taliban. If they find your writings, they’ll kill you too.”

    The next day, my family and I flew to Kabul. I left everything behind: my school, classmates, exams, dreams and books.

    Learning to survive

    When we arrived, Kabul had not yet fallen and girls were still attending school. I longed to join them. I wrote to myself: ‘I have come to survive.’ This sentence became my mantra. Every day brought news of the Taliban spreading fear and seizing more provinces. Yet I still hoped to return to Balkh so I could go back to school.

    However, five days later, on 15 August, we witnessed the return of the Taliban in Kabul. The President fled and the Taliban took control in hours, announcing a ban on education for girls of secondary school age a month later.

    Robina Azizi,19, fled Afghanistan’s northern Balkh province in 2021, leaving behind her home, her belongings and her school after the Taliban took control. Determined to create opportunities for Afghan girls, Robina, who now lives in Germany, founded Girls on the Path of Change (GPC), an organization and online community that empowers Afghan girls to share their stories and pursue online education.

    With any hope of returning to education taken away, I realized I had to do something. I returned to my books and started striving for a better future. I found courses in Kabul, started studying English and reading again. As it was dangerous to go outside to study, we tried take the course secretly.   I promised myself that, despite thousands of problems, I would fight for myself and the girls of my country. I started raising awareness among Afghan families, trying to make them understand the importance of their daughters’ education, urging them to let them continue their studies.

    Later, with the help of my instructors, I enrolled in an online school despite not having the required documentation. While there, I encouraged other girls to join me and helped them with their English courses. Days passed, and I started getting used to the deprivations of the Taliban’s hardline rule over the country. To nurture my talents and share my story, I spoke with media outlets like Tolo and other broadcast programs about the importance of girls’ education. 

    Give girls a chance

    We were eventually forced to leave Afghanistan to save our lives and to ensure I could still go to school. I knew I needed to support my classmates, friends, and those who had lost their morale and needed help. After all, I’d personally experienced what it was like to be deprived of an education in Afghanistan. I always thought about these girls and wanted to stand by them. I established Girls on the Path of Change to amplify their voices, share their challenges and stories with others, and create an avenue for them to access online education and continue their studies.

    Moving forward, I am working with organizations such as Amnesty International to ensure international pressure continues and that governments around the world are held accountable for their weak stance against the Taliban’s systematic abuse and discrimination [of women and girls], which amounts to gender persecution.

    As a girl who once lived in Afghanistan and was deprived of my right to education, I call on everyone to support girls’ education. Education is essential, and girls in Afghanistan must not remain illiterate. Afghanistan needs strong, educated women. We must not give up, even if we must fight from our homes. Together, we must stand firm, move forward with determination, and prove that the ignorance of the Taliban is no match for the power of knowledge and education.

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Polish fugitive arrested in the Netherlands thanks to a tip received via EU Most Wanted website

    Source: Europol

    The fugitive was wanted in connection with multiple serious offenses across Poland and Germany. These included his suspected involvement in a fatal violent incident in Poland in December 2021, in which the victim succumbed to his injuries. He was also convicted in Poland for a violent offence in 2019, for which he was sentenced to one year in prison, and…

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Newly discovered photos of Nazi deportations show Jewish victims as they were last seen alive

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Wolf Gruner, Professor of History, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

    Deportation of Jews in Bielefeld, Germany, on Dec. 13, 1941. Courtesy City Archive Bielefeld, CC BY-SA

    The Holocaust was the first mass atrocity to be heavily photographed.

    The mass production and distribution of cameras in the 1930s and 1940s enabled Nazi officials and ordinary people to widely document Germany’s persecution of Jews and other religious and ethnic minorities.

    I co-direct an international research project to collect every available image documenting Nazi mass deportations of Jews, Roma and Sinti, as well as euthanasia victims, in Nazi Germany between 1938 and 1945. The most recently discovered series of images will be unveiled on Jan. 27, 2025 – Holocaust Remembrance Day.

    In most cases, these are the very last pictures taken of Holocaust victims before they were deported and perished. That fact gives the project its name, #LastSeen.

    A few of the images we’ve tracked down were taken by Jewish people, not Nazi officials, offering a rare glimpse of Nazi mass deportations from a victim’s perspective. As descendants of survivors help our researchers identify the deportees in these images and tell their stories, we give previously faceless victims a voice.

    Jewish Germans assemble for deportation in Breslau, Germany, in November 1941.
    Courtesy of Regional Association of Jewish Communities in Saxony, Germany, CC BY-SA

    A growing archive

    The #LastSeen project is a collaboration between several German academic and educational institutions and the USC Dornsife Center for Advanced Genocide Research in the United States. When it began in late 2021, researchers knew of a few dozen deportation images of Jews from 27 German towns that had been gathered for a 2011-2012 exhibition in Berlin.

    After contacting 1,700 public and private archives in Germany and worldwide to find more, #LastSeen has now collected visual evidence from 60 cities and towns in Nazi Germany. Of these, we’ve analyzed 36 series containing over 420 images, including dozens of never-before-seen photo series from 20 towns.

    Most photographs of Nazi mass deportations from local archives published in our digital atlas were taken by the perpetrators, who documented the event for the police or municipality. That has heavily shaped our visual understanding of these crimes, because they display victims as a faceless mass. When individuals were depicted, it was most often through an antisemitic lens.

    The LastSeen digital atlas shows locations of deportations where visual documentation has been uncovered.
    Screenshot, LastSeen, CC BY-SA

    We have, however, obtained a handful of images taken from a victim’s perspective. In January 2024, the #LastSeen team shared newly discovered photographs showing the Nazi deportations in what was then Breslau, Germany – today Wroclaw, Poland.

    They were sent to us for analysis by Steffen Heidrich, a staff member of the Regional Association of Jewish Communities in Saxony, Germany, who came across an envelope titled “miscellaneous” while reorganizing his archive. It contained 13 deportation photographs – the last images taken of dozens of Jewish victims before they were transported from Breslau to Nazi-occupied Lithuania and massacred in November 1941.

    Jewish resistance

    Many of these pictures in this series show a large, mixed age group of men and women wearing the yellow star – the notorious Nazi-mandated sign for Jews – gathering outside with bundles of their belongings. Some are taken from a peculiar angle, from behind a tree or a wall, suggesting they were snapped clandestinely.

    People waiting for deportation in Breslau in November 1941.
    Courtesy of Regional Association of Jewish Communities in Saxony, Germany, CC BY-SA

    Given the deportation assembly point for the Breslau Jews, a guarded local beer garden, our researchers knew that only a person with permission to access that property could have shot these pictures.

    For these two reasons, we concluded that an employee of the Jewish community of Breslau must have documented the Nazi crimes – most likely Albert Hadda, a Jewish architect and photographer who clandestinely photographed the November 1938 pogrom in Breslau.

    Hadda’s marriage to a Christian partially protected him from persecution. Between 1941 and 1943, the city’s Jewish community tasked him with caring for the deportees at the assembly point until their forced removal.

    These 13 recently discovered pictures constitute the most comprehensive series illuminating the crime of mass deportations from a victim’s perspective in Nazi Germany. Their unearthing is testimony to the recently rediscovered widespread individual resistance by ordinary Jews who fought Nazi persecution.

    Documenting Fulda

    Our project has also identified new deportation photos taken in the German town of Fulda in December 1941, during a snowstorm.

    Previously, historians knew of only three pictures of this deportation event. Preserved in the city archive, they show the deportees at the Fulda train station during heavy snowfall.

    We discovered two new images of the same Nazi deportation, apparently taken by the same photographer, in a videotaped survivor interview in the Visual History Archive of the USC Shoah Foundation in Los Angeles.

    In 1996, the Shoah Foundation interviewed Miriam Berline, née Gottlieb, the daughter of a successful Orthodox Jewish merchant in Fulda. At the end of the two-hour interview, Berline held two photographs up to the camera. They clearly show the same snowy deportation in Fulda.

    Screenshot from Miriam Berline’s interview about the Fulda deportations.
    USC Shoah Foundation Visual History Archive, CC BY-SA

    Berline, born in 1925, escaped Nazi Germany in 1939. She did not remember how her family obtained the images but recalled the photographer as Otto Weissbach, a “wonderful” man who had helped Fulda’s Jewish families.

    Our researchers investigated and learned his name was Arthur Weissbach, a non-Jewish neighbor of the Gottliebs. The factory he owned still exists. Descendants of Jewish families have since confirmed that he kept valuables for them and took care of elderly relatives who stayed behind.

    Weissbach’s niece said he was a passionate hobby photographer. Since Weissbach kept contact with survivors after the war, he might have given the images to the Gottlieb family. Today, the family’s copies are lost, but their existence is preserved in Berline’s video interview at the USC Shoah Foundation.

    The pictures show the Jews at the Fulda train station on Dec. 9, 1941 – revealing how Nazi deportations happened in plain view.

    The day before, Jewish men and women from around Fulda had been summoned and spent the night at a local school gym. In the morning, they were taken to the train station and forced by police to board a train to Kassel, in central Germany, and then eastward onto Riga, in Nazi-occupied Latvia.

    In total, 1,031 Jews were deported from Kassel to Riga. Only 12 from Fulda survived.

    Identifying the deportation victims

    It is difficult to identify the people in the photos we discover. So far, we’ve published 279 biographies in the digital atlas.

    In the future, artificial intelligence may help us identify more people from the photos in our collection. But for now, this process takes exhaustive research with the help of local researchers and descendants of survivors, whose names are known from archived transport lists.

    Families often struggle to recognize individuals in these images, but sometimes they have family photos that help us do so.

    Take, for example, this posed family portrait of two young girls. They are Susanne and Tamara Cohn.

    Susanne and Tamara Cohn, circa 1939.
    Private Archive, CC BY-SA

    Relatives of the Cohn family had this photo. It, along with data from the local Nazi transport list, established that two girls photographed in one of his Breslau deportation shots were the daughters of Willy Cohn.

    Cohn, a well-known German-Jewish medieval historian and high school teacher in Breslau, kept a detailed diary about the persecution of the town’s Jews from 1933 to 1941. It was unearthed and published in the 1990s.

    This photo, below, may be the last picture ever taken of his children with their mother, Gertrud.

    Gertrud, Susanne and Tamara Cohn, Breslau, November 1941.
    #LastSeen Project, CC BY-SA

    New insights

    The #LastSeen research project is generating new insights into the history of Nazi mass deportations, new methodologies for photo analysis and new tools for Holocaust education.

    In addition to the digital atlas, which has been visited by more than 50,000 people since its launch in 2023, we have developed several award-winning educational tools, including an online game that invites students to search for clues, facts and images of Nazi deportations in an artificial attic.

    In workshops for teachers and seminars with students, #LastSeen teaches the history of Nazi deportations and demonstrates how historical photo research works. In Fulda, for example, high schoolers helped us locate the exact places where the photographs were taken.

    Those pictures will be published in our atlas on Holocaust Remembrance Day 2025. A public commemoration in Fulda will feature the local students’ contributions.

    Depending on fundraising, we hope to extend the #LastSeen project beyond Germany. Collecting images from all 20-plus European countries annexed or occupied by the Nazis will help us better understand these crimes and advance research and education in new ways.

    Wolf Gruner is the director of the USC Dornsife Center for Advanced Genocide, which is a partner of the multiinstitutional research project #LastSeen.

    – ref. Newly discovered photos of Nazi deportations show Jewish victims as they were last seen alive – https://theconversation.com/newly-discovered-photos-of-nazi-deportations-show-jewish-victims-as-they-were-last-seen-alive-246929

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: greenhawk-ct.com: BaFin warns against website

    Source: Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht – In English

    The German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) warns against the website greenhawk-ct.com. According to its findings, the operator offers financial and investment services as well as crypto-asset services there without a licence.

    The website operator appears under the name Greenhawk-CT, without using a legal form. He does not provide any information about his place of business. In addition, the operator declares that he is authorised and regulated by the Crypto Conduct Authority. However, the Crypto Conduct Authority is not a nationally or supranationally mandated or legitimised supervisory authority.

    Anyone offering financial or investment services or crypto-currency services in Germany requires a licence from BaFin. However, some companies offer such services without the required licence. Information on whether a particular company is authorised by BaFin can be found in the company database.

    The information provided by BaFin is based on Section 37 (4) of the German Banking Act (KWG) and Section 10 (7) of the German Crypto Markets Supervision Act (KMAG).’

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: fincareglobal.org: BaFin warns of website and points out suspected identity theft

    Source: Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht – In English

    The website operator mainly appears under the name ‘Finance C G’ or ‘Finance C G Global Ltd’. In some places, however, he also calls himself ‘Fincare Global PTE. Ltd’ and claims to be based in Singapore and regulated by the Financial Services Commission of Belize (FSC, Financial Services Commission of Belize).

    In the past, the operator has also provided customers with business addresses in Frankfurt am Main and London, United Kingdom. In addition, he was previously responsible for the identical, now inactive websites fincare-global.org, fincare-global.ltd and fincare-global.net.

    BaFin has no information about a possible connection between the fincareglobal.org website and the fincareglobal.com website, which is operated by FinCARE Global Pte Ltd. This is presumably a case of identity theft at the expense of the company mentioned.

    Anyone offering financial or investment services in Germany requires a licence from BaFin. However, some companies offer such services without the required licence. You can find information on whether a particular company is licensed by BaFin in the company database.

    BaFin bases this information on section 37 (4) of the German Banking Act (Kreditwesengesetz).

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Press Release – Animal products and by-products imported from Germany prohibited to protect livestock from foot and mouth disease Friday 24 January 2025

    Source: Channel Islands – States of Alderney

    Press Release

    Date: 24th January 2025

    Animal products and by-products imported from Germany prohibited to protect livestock from foot and mouth disease

    Following an outbreak of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in Germany, to protect local livestock from risk of infection, people returning to the Bailiwick are not permitted to bring certain animal products and by-products into the Bailiwick from European countries.

    FMD poses no risk to human health.

    All imports of the following animal products from pigs and ruminants (e.g. sheep, cattle and goats) from Germany are prohibited:

    ·         Fresh meat and meat products including sausages, ham, and cured meats.

    ·         Milk and dairy products including butter and cheese.

    Anyone returning to the Bailiwick from the EU (excluding Germany), Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, the Faroe Islands and Greenland, can only import animal products from pigs and ruminants for personal consumption provided that they:

    ·         are packaged to EU commercial standards and weigh no more than 2kg per person, and

    ·         bear an identification or health mark (or commercial labelling if it is an animal by-product) to evidence that they are commercially produced.

    These restrictions do not apply to infant milk, medical foods and certain low risk composite products (including some chocolate, confectionery, bread, cakes, biscuits, pasta and food supplements).

    If any prohibited products are imported they will be placed in the secure bins provided at the harbour and airport.

    David Chamberlain, States Veterinary Officer, said:

    “FMD poses no risk to human or food safety, but is a highly contagious viral disease of cattle, sheep, pigs and other cloven-hoofed animals.

    “We urge islanders not to bring prohibited animal products to the Bailiwick from the EU to avoid introducing this virus to our local herds, which could have a devastating impact on animal health and welfare.”

    Ends

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The Holocaust: how ‘rescue archaeology’ is tackling the impending loss of surviving witnesses

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tony Kushner, James Parkes Professor of Jewish/non-Jewish Relations, University of Southampton

    This year is the 80th anniversary of the Soviet army’s liberation of Auschwitz, the huge and complex concentration and death camp in which one million Jews were murdered.

    The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is For a Better Future, a message of hope that is much needed in this extremely troubling world, where the far right is gaining power inside and outside of Europe.

    An issue which has troubled those, like myself, who are involved with Holocaust education and memorialisation for some time is what to do when the survivor generation passes on.

    This is no longer a theoretical concern. Every year, inevitably and at an accelerating rate, the numbers of Holocaust survivors diminishes. In the past few years in the UK alone, prominent survivors have been lost. Most recently Lily Ebert, aged 100, who late in life became famous through relating her harrowing story through the very modern media of TikTok.

    Speaking about her death, King Charles said: “Alongside other Holocaust survivors she became an integral part of the fabric of our nation; her extraordinary resilience and courage an example to us all, which will never be forgotten.”

    Indeed, many Holocaust survivors have been prominent in recent years, recounting their testimony to schools and the media. Holocaust Memorial Day, inaugurated at the start of the new millennium, has provided a special place for survivors at both a national and local level.

    This year at the University of Southampton, for example, we are privileged to have Janine Webber, a survivor of the Lvov ghetto in German-occupied Poland, speaking. She will relay to a diverse audience of all ages and backgrounds her life before, during and after the Holocaust.

    Through the Parkes Institute for the study of Jewish/non-Jewish relations, we have organised this city-wide event for over two decades. We know, however, that this may be one of the last times we will be privileged to have the survivors at the heart of our programme. In 2035 it will be the 90th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and by then few survivors, if any, will still be alive.



    Read more:
    Charlotte Delbo and the women of Convoy 31000: how researching their stories led me to a forgotten subcamp and Nazi lies in the Auschwitz archive

    There is a certain irony in the understandable angst about the devastating prospect of a world without Holocaust survivors (as well as their liberators, and those who helped Jewish people during their darkest hour).

    For many years after 1945, Holocaust survivors were not given the space to talk about their experiences – a silence that often extended to their children and wider families. It was only talking in their own small circles that these survivors felt that their experiences would be understood.

    Now the situation is very different. Survivors are honoured for their work in educating new generations born well after the second world war. King Charles’s heartfelt tribute to Ebert reflects a wider tendency. Many have been given honours, including a knighthood to the late survivor leader, Ben Helfgott, who died in 2023. Helfgott was one of over 700 child survivors who were flown to the UK in 1945 to recuperate and ended up making a huge contribution to the country.

    The Pride of Britain Awards honoured Sir Ben Helfgott in 2020.

    In the 1950s and 60s, when the first histories of the Holocaust were produced, the focus was on the perpetrators and the victims were voiceless and seen as “uneducated men” who had no place in accounts of the recent past. All of this changed in the late 20th century when the Holocaust grew in public awareness and interest.

    Belatedly, the survivors were rescued from obscurity and the human element of the tragedy came to the fore. Local and then international testimony projects emerged, the largest being the ongoing Visual History Archive which has interviewed close to 60,000 survivors, including of more recent genocides such as that in Rwanda.

    ‘Rescue archaeology’

    I have estimated that there may be up to 100,000 testimonies of Holocaust survivors in video, oral history and written format – perhaps the most related to any event in history. Most recently these interviews have been developed as interactive holograms where students and others can ask questions of the survivors such as the University of Southern California’s Dimensions project.

    These projects are a form of “rescue archaeology”, saving the testimony of survivors before it is too late. They are, especially in the hologram form, a way of directly confronting the dilemma of how to educate and commemorate without the survivors actually being present.

    The University of Southern California’s Dimensions in Testimony project.

    In 2000, the Imperial War Museum in London opened its first Holocaust galleries. Before then the Holocaust had rarely been confronted by this landmark museum. In 2019 a new permanent Holocaust exhibition was also opened. In both exhibitions, survivor testimony was a prominent and engaging feature. Video testimony especially can capture the attention of all age groups and backgrounds.

    But even with this remarkable resource of recorded Holocaust testimony, something huge and irreplaceable will be lost when we no longer have the survivors to tell their stories.

    Even when survivors are unfocused in their presentation, or they find it challenging to communicate what is ultimately indescribable, there has been a bond between them and their audience. In some ways their presence has made it too easy for those involved in education and commemoration to deal with the Holocaust.

    We must therefore find fresh ways of doing justice to their experiences, using their recorded experiences (including those who were killed but managed to write their testimony in the war itself through diaries) and finding creative ways of engaging a new generation to whom this is now distant history.

    It would be naive, however, to think that the post-survivor world will be an easy one to navigate. We have been lucky that the survivors have had the courage and energy to share their experiences and must regret that it took us so long to listen.

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    Tony Kushner does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The Holocaust: how ‘rescue archaeology’ is tackling the impending loss of surviving witnesses – https://theconversation.com/the-holocaust-how-rescue-archaeology-is-tackling-the-impending-loss-of-surviving-witnesses-248202

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The Holocaust poets who can help us to understand genocides past and present

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jean Boase-Beier, Emeritus Professor, School of Literature, Drama and Creative Writing, University of East Anglia

    On Holocaust Memorial Day we remember the victims of the Nazi Holocaust in 1940s Europe and all those affected by later genocides.

    I believe that reading poetry is an important way to commemorate these victims because it is such a personal form.

    The events of the Holocaust are familiar to many people as dates and numbers. The first concentration camp opened in Dachau in 1933. In 1942 the infamous meeting at the Wannsee took place in Berlin to decide upon the “final solution” to the perceived problem of Jewish people in Germany and beyond.

    Some 6 million Jewish people were murdered, some 200,000 disabled and ill people were killed in Germany alone and 400,000 people were forcibly sterilised because they possessed traits the Nazis deemed undesirable.

    Such statistics are well documented by Holocaust historians. But behind these numbers, overwhelming in their sheer vastness, are individuals, those whose voices we hear especially clearly in poems.

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    People wrote poetry as realisation grew of their likely fate even before the murderous events that later came to be called the Holocaust. Many wrote poetry about the Holocaust later, because they survived and wanted the world to hear their stories, or because they lost family members and wanted to remember them.

    Among those who wrote after the Holocaust was German poet Volker von Törne, who was wracked with vicarious guilt for his father’s Nazi past.

    But it is the poems written as the events of the Holocaust were unfolding that strike a particular chord. These are poems by prisoners facing execution, by Jewish members of society forced to live in overcrowded ghettos, by those in camps and those about to be transported to camps. Often such poems were written on odd scraps of paper, carefully hidden or buried in the ground, or smuggled out of prison, ghetto or camp.

    These writers, desperate to tell their stories, chose poetry because of its immediacy, its conciseness, its emotional impact and its ability to say what cannot easily be said in prose.

    Almost none of them wrote in English, so English speakers read them via translators who can speak their words for them, fashioning new versions that aim to capture the style of the originals with all its resonances and as much of their immediacy and impact as possible.

    Poets of the Holocaust

    Some Holocaust poets became famous, and their work has been translated many times. One of the best known, Paul Celan, was a Romanian-German poet. His parents died in the Holocaust. He died by suicide in 1970, having written some of the most memorable poems about the Holocaust, including Death-Fugue (1948), which described the repetitive and deadly rhythm of camp life and death.

    German poet Nelly Sachs, who escaped at the last minute to Sweden, won the Nobel prize in 1966. Her work is readily available in a number of excellent recent translations.

    Other famous poets of the Holocaust include Yiddish poet Abraham Sutzkever, Italian essayist Primo Levi and Hungarian poet Miklós Radnóti.

    But the stories told by these famous poets, important though they are, can only give a partial picture. Often the fine details of everyday experience, the fears and hopes of individual women, men and children, have a particular resonance in the work of lesser-known poets.

    Romanian-German poet Selma Meerbaum-Eisinger was only 17 when she wrote her poetry of fearful anticipation. She was transported to a concentration camp where she died a year later.

    Lithuanian poet Matilda Olkinaitė was murdered at 19. How would their poetry have developed had they lived? We will never know. But what they have left us, recreated through their translators, is a highly sensitive view of life in the chaos of approaching catastrophe.

    Voices in anthologies

    For readers who want a fuller picture of Holocaust poetry, anthologies are invaluable. They usually have an introduction, or notes, providing the context that is so crucial to understanding the poems.

    Two older anthologies, Holocaust Poetry by Hilda Schiff (1995) and Beyond Lament by Marguerite Striar (1998) are still very useful.

    More recently, I co-edited the anthology Poetry of the Holocaust (2019), which arose from a research project funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Our aim was to collect less well-known Holocaust poetry, and, with the help of 35 translators from languages as varied as Yiddish, Norwegian, Japanese and Hungarian, to present the poems in original and translation, with a contextual note for each.

    We tried to include a broader range of poems than earlier anthologies have tended to do. The anonymous Song of the Roma, for example, laments the fate of the more than 200,000 Gypsy, Roma and Traveller victims of the Nazis.

    Many poems in the anthology document very specific events, such as French writer Andrė Sarcq’s To the Twice-Murdered Men, which depicts the dreadful detail of his lover’s death at the hands of the Nazis, who treated gay men with unfathomable barbarity.

    Polish Resistance member Irena Bobowska suffered the cruel removal of the wheelchair upon which she depended. She imagined the world she has lost in So I Learn Life’s Greatest Art.

    German poet Alfred Schmidt-Sas wrote with extreme difficulty, as his hands were bound. He reflected on his imminent beheading in Strange Lightness of Life. And in My God, French poet Catherine Roux told of the horrifying and mundane details of her arrival in a concentration camp: “I’ve no hair / I’ve no hanky.”

    It is only by listening to these individual voices that we can really begin to understand what the many millions of Holocaust victims went through, and what victims of genocides all over the world have suffered and are suffering at this moment. Poetry helps us to do this.

    Jean Boase-Beier acts as Translations Editor for Arc Publications. She has received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council for research relevant to this article.

    – ref. The Holocaust poets who can help us to understand genocides past and present – https://theconversation.com/the-holocaust-poets-who-can-help-us-to-understand-genocides-past-and-present-248205

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Transcript of Western Hemisphere Economic Outlook October 2024 Press Briefing

    Source: International Monetary Fund

    October 25, 2024

    PARTICIPANTS:

     

    RODRIGO VALDES

    Director of Western Hemisphere Department

    International Monetary Fund

     

    ANA CORBACHO

    Deputy Director ofWestern Hemisphere Department

    International Monetary Fund

     

    LUIS CUBEDDU

    Deputy DirectorWestern Hemisphere Department

    International Monetary Fund

     

    JULIE ZIEGLER

    Senior Communications Officer

    International Monetary Fund

     

      

    MS. ZIEGLER: Good morning.  Welcome everyone.  This is the press briefing for the Regional Economic Outlook for the Western Hemisphere.  My name is Julie Ziegler, and I am with the Communications Department at the Fund.  I’m going to introduce our panel today.  To my immediate left is Rodrigo Valdes, who.  the Director of the Western Hemisphere Department.  And he is joined by his Deputies, Ana Corbacho and Luis Cubeddu.  So, we are going to start with some opening remarks from Rodrigo, and then after that I will have some housekeeping items, and we will take your questions.  

     

    MR. VALDES: Thank you, Julie.  And good morning to everyone.  Welcome to this press briefing.  We have just released, and it is on the internet, our Annual Regional Economic Outlook for the Western Hemisphere.  This is a bit like the WEO, but for the region.  And here we have two important messages, two key messages.  

     

    The first one is that there is a need to rebalance macroeconomic policies in the region.  And the second one is the urgency to press on with structural reforms to boost potential output growth.  And I will explain this.  The monetary policy part of the first message, the rebalancing applies to several of the flexible exchange rate and inflation targeting countries in the region with different degrees of intensity.  The second message, the urgency to deepen reforms for growth, really applies to almost all economies in the region.  

     

    Over the last few years, the region has successfully weathered a series of major shocks in the world economy.  They showed resilience and they have adopted really macroeconomic policies in most countries that are at the top of the frontier of what we know.  And so far, largely the region has stayed in the sidelines, on the sidelines of global geopolitical tensions.  

     

    Now growth in the region is moderating as most economies are operating back near their potential.  What is concerning, however, growth in most countries is expected to return to its low historical average and this will not help with the region’s macroeconomic, fiscal and social challenges.  Overall, we expect growth in Latin America and the Caribbean — if we exclude Argentina, which has an important rebound next year, and Venezuela with its own dynamics — growth will moderate from 2.6 in 2023 to 2.2 in 2025, going through 2.6 also this year, 2024.  So we’re going back to the lower part of the 2 percent around these baseline projections.  We see the risks to near-term growth tilted to the downside, partly reflecting global risks, including importantly the persistent geopolitical tensions.

     

    Turning to inflation, in line with global trends and also reflecting the effect of tight policies, inflation has fallen markedly since the peak of mid-2022, and it is near the target in most countries.   However, it is not a target almost everywhere.  In the region, I would say that the last mile of this inflation has been rather long.   We expect to continue to see easing of monetary policy, but gradually on account of sticky services and inflation expectations not being perfectly re-anchored and also because inflation risks are generally tilted to the upside, reflecting basically commodity price volatility — the factors that I mentioned before of geopolitical risks and also new risks of fiscal slippages.  

     

    So, with the output gap and inflation gap mostly closed, what should policymakers do?  We think that they need to focus on rebuilding policy space and working on boosting potential growth – the messages I mentioned at the beginning.  This means rebalancing the policy mix and pushing forward with structural reforms.  

     

    Let me elaborate a bit more on the policy mix.   The current combination of macro policies is generally not everywhere, but generally tilted toward tight monetary policy while fiscal policy remains loose.  Although the earlier tightening of monetary policy by the region’s central banks was essential to bring inflation down, inflation is now close to target while monetary policy rates remain elevated in many countries.  At the same time, however, public debt levels are high and will continue raising if we do not have fiscal consolidation.  

     

    So, at this juncture it is necessary to rebalance policies, starting with strengthening public finances.  Most countries have quite ambitious fiscal consolidation plans, but their implementation –so from plans to reality — has been in such a way that they have been pushed back.  It is crucial in the region that these plans proceed without further delays to rebuild the buffers while protecting priority public spending, investment, and social spending.  Strengthening the current fiscal rules is also important so they can deliver these consolidation objectives.  

     

    A timely implementation of this fiscal consolidation is critical not only for fiscal sustainability, but also for supporting the normalization of monetary policy and the credibility of the frameworks more broadly.  With fiscal policy moving in the right direction, most central banks will be well placed to proceed with the monetary policy easing that we expect, while remaining on guard, of course, against risks of reemerging price pressures.  

     

    Let me now speak about the second point, that is the need to press with structural reforms and I will go from need to urgency.   As mentioned before, medium-term growth is expected to remain subdued, reflecting longstanding unresolved challenges which include low investment and especially low productivity growth.   Also, the region is suffering shifting demographics that will slow growth further.  The labor force is growing less than before, and this will weaken one essential engine for growth.  The impediments for growth are many and country specific, some are more common, and that reality is confronted with an ongoing reform agenda that is thin in many countries.  This could lead to a vicious cycle of low growth, social discontent and populist policies.  So greater efforts to advance with structural reforms are needed to boost potential growth and raise living standards.  

     

    We see that strengthening governance is a priority that cuts across all areas of growth.  This includes, for example, reinforcing the rule of law, improving government effectiveness, and, importantly, tackling crime more efficiently.   Improving the business environment and public investment is also needed to increase overall investment.  While reducing informality and making labor markets more attuned to more productivity gains is important.  This part of the labor market is also really important for women labor force participation, because this is one of the sources to offset the demographic headwinds.  

     

    These reforms will also be essential in positioning the region to fully harness the benefits of the global green transition and new technological advances.  It is disappointing that until now mining investment, for example, in the region has not picked up despite the new opportunities for green minerals.  This suggests, and I quote here, “we can do better,” as the IMF Managing Director stressed in her initial annual meeting speech, that also applies to our region.  

     

    From our side, through policy advice, capacity development, and financial support, we are ready to continue engaging, supporting countries in their efforts to strengthen their macroeconomic frameworks and increase economic resilience and growth opportunities.  

     

    With this, let me stop here and we are ready to take your questions.  Julie.

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Thank you.  Before we take questions, let me please just go through a few housekeeping items.  I want to remind everyone first of all that this is on the record.  Also, as Rodrigo mentioned, the report has just been published for the Western Hemisphere Regional Economic Outlook and you can find it on imf.org.  

     

    So, when we go to your questions, I ask please that you raise your hand, that you state your name and your affiliation, and if you are online, please can you keep your cameras on.  We cannot go to you unless your camera is on.  So, I appreciate it if you keep your cameras on.

     

    Finally, please keep your questions brief.  We are going to start, as in practice in the past, with questions on the region, meaning the entire region, Western Hemisphere or the Caribbean.  We will get to country questions after that.  Please bear with us, but we would like to start with questions from the region — on the region.  

     

    Does anybody have a region-specific question?   Yes, please.  

     

    QUESTIONER: A question about protectionism.  How do you see the growing threat of resurgent protectionism, threat to macroeconomy and to markets as well?  And how do — how should the region prepare for that?   And then maybe another thing on insecurity, which is another theme as well.  How could it deter or curb investment in the region insecurity, please?   

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Do we have any other questions on the region?  Please. The lady in the back.

     

    QUESTIONER: Thank you.  How are you analyzing the effect of the U.S. election and potential tariffs on emerging markets, particularly on interest rates and capital flows?  And on Latin America, do you think the fiscal stimulus measures in the region are compromising the efforts of central banks in combating inflation?  And does it endanger years of macro stabilization?   Thank you.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay, one more.  

     

    QUESTIONER: I am sorry, The Financial Times has an article out just this morning saying that the EU is accelerating — well, within the block — accelerating or rating contingency plans for a possible Trump presidency.  The German Institute — Economic Institute — in Cologne says that a trade war could hit GDP growth in Germany by about 1.5 percent.  And I think Goldman Sachs has a forecast saying that the euro could fall by about 10 percent if those tariffs move forward.  So, I’m wondering if that is the biggest threat.  And then secondly, on outlook, I thought there would be a lot more optimism since inflation is decelerating — in the euro area and interest rates are being cut.  That — would lower the cost of borrowing and actually spur investment there.  So, if you could share your thoughts on that. Thank you.  

     

    MR. VALDES: Okay, so — let me start from the last question.  Why we are not more optimistic in the medium run given that inflation is coming to targets?  Reality is that there are two forces here.  The cycle around the trend and that part of the cycle has been readily well managed in the region.  We are back — to trend.  But that trend, unfortunately, is not very strong in terms of growth.  That does not depend on macro policies in the short run.  Macro policies can produce a stable environment, can facilitate that growth.  But ultimately it is investment.  It is the accumulation of capital, productivity, the labor force, what produces — that trend.  And there is this call for you need, the region, needs to refocus from micromanagement that was very important the last few years to this low trend because we are hitting capacity basically.  And this is across the region.  It’s the Caribbean.  It is Latin America.  Perhaps Central America.  A few countries are the higher growing countries right now because exactly that, because they have a bigger trend.  

     

    That brings me to the issue of trade for the region.  Trade is very important.  These are almost all open economies, small open economies.  I have to say, on trade at first, the region has been very protective of open trade.  If you look at measures against trade and across the globe, the region has been the ones that have put less constraints to that.  

    Second, in terms of the election, as we always say, we would not speculate on that.  No, that is not something that is a role of the Fund.  But what we can say is that open trade is good for the region depending on how is fragmentation at the end, if it happens.  Further fragmentation, where is the circles where is the near shoring, for example.  Some countries may even benefit, but others may suffer.  But we do not know yet.  What I can say though is that for this trend growth, open global economy is better for the region.  

     

    Two more things.  Security.  This is an issue that has been a new concern, I would say, for the macroeconomy.  We have — some estimates that this matters.  Matters for growth.  Matters for investment, and especially matters for the well-being of people.  So it’s something that in the region at least is top of mind — for households.  And . need to take it very, very seriously. It has macro impact in the region.  We will have a conference, by the way, in November on this precisely.  It’s not that we will become experts on this, but we want the financial community to be more on top of these issues.  

     

     And finally, let me mention this tension — fiscal-monetary policy.  I do not think it is the case that we are in a position that we are risking the two decades of very strong work that we have gained.   But at the same time, we are not well-balanced.  On average, some countries are better, some countries — less good.  A good balance between monetary policy and fiscal policy.   

     

    Debt dynamics are such that debt-to-GDP is increasing.  Plans are good, but they have been postponed in many countries.  So, we need to deliver on those.  And that will produce this opportunity to continue also easing monetary policy.  We have said that this is like a tango, and it is not an easy tango to have between the central bank and the Ministry of Finance.  But it is needed, this coordination. 

     

    Let me stop there. I do not know if my colleagues would like to add anything on this in general.  No?   Perfect.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: So before we go, just last call for regional.  These are on the region, not country specific All right, go ahead.  In the center.   

     

    QUESTIONER: Thanks very much. Just this is the 80th anniversary of the Bretton Woods institutions.  For most of that period, Washington-based financial institutions have had pretty much a monopoly on lending to Latin America.  We have just had a BRICS conference in Russia.  BRICS have a development bank.  There are other alternatives for Latin American countries for finance and development.  How does the IMF feel about that?  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay, maybe one more on the region. Okay, go ahead.  Right there.   

     

    QUESTIONER: Hi, good morning. Of course, there have been some glowing words about how Caribbean countries have handled their policies over the past couple of years.  But of course, we also know that several Caribbean countries are vulnerable, particularly as a result of climate change.  So, my question is, what policies or what reforms can we see that will help provide a buffer with regard to climate activity that has been affecting the Caribbean?  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay.

     

    MR. VALDES: Okay. Look, reality is that we have been working for years with other partners in terms of regional arrangements.   We have Development Banks in the region, the IADB, we have CAF, we have FLAR (Latin American Reserve Fund) as another arrangement that lends money to central banks.  So perhaps the issue here is not whether we have these new institutions, but how to coordinate well.  We are convinced that the more coordination, the less fragmentation, that everybody works together is better.  Nobody needs the monopoly of this, but we need to work together.

     

    In terms of the Caribbean, I will ask Ana to go a bit more in detail. But it is very important to face reality for the Caribbean.  And they are doing it.  There’s a striking number.  Countries in the Caribbean lose 2.5 percent of GDP in capital per year, on average.   It does not happen every year, but every 10 years you can have a 25 percent loss.  So, you have to be prepared for that.  And that means that fiscal policy has to be geared towards that.   This is a multilayer system.  You have to be careful with investment.   Investment has to be more resilient.   You have to work in the insurance side, in contingency bonds, for example.  So, there is a lot to do.  Some countries have been very good on that.  Let me take the case of Jamaica and the last hurricane.  They had some possibilities to use contingencies for that case.  

     

    But let me pass to Ana to add a bit.  

     

    MS. CORBACHO: Thank you.  Certainly, the Caribbean region is very vulnerable to climate change shocks.  And we are concerned that the patterns of these shocks may be changing, becoming more severe and more frequent, which certainly requires more action on the government side and the multilateral community to support Caribbean economies.   

     

    In particular on policy measures, what we have emphasized in our dialogue is the need to integrate better mitigation and adaptation strategies in public investment plans.  Also fostering more active participation of private finance in increasing investment for climate resilience, as well as reducing the consumption of fuels through electrification.  An upside for the Caribbean is the green energy transition.  It could certainly give countries a chance to enhance resilience by investing in renewable energies, and through that, boosting competitiveness and lower exposure to climate change shocks.  Thank you.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Great. We are going to take some questions online.  She says the IMF reduced the growth prospects for Mexico.   Could you tell me about the greatest risk that my country faces and the possibilities to grow a little more?  

     

    We have another one. She said, is it possible for Mexico to achieve the reduction of the fiscal deficit from 6 percent to 3 percent as the government intends, while maintaining spending on social transfer programs and energy subsidies?  

     

    So, while we are on Mexico, anybody else on Mexico in the room?  Please go ahead.  Wait — for the mic, please.    

     

    QUESTIONER: A bit more about violence and the risk that it poses to all the general policies, the challenges.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Thank you. 

     

    MR. VALDES: Well, let me first say that we are in the middle of the Article IV process with Mexico.  So you will have a lot of details after it goes through the Board and the Article IV is published.  You probably have seen also the concluding statement published a couple of weeks ago.  But I can add a couple of things here.  One, we see bottlenecks in certain areas, and energy is one.  Infrastructure more generally as something that is a constraint right now in Mexico to take more advantage of — the opportunities it has with nearshoring and other possibilities.  The government is working on this, and we support fully that these are constraints that need to be alleviated.  

     

    In terms of fiscal, I would not want to make any… I mean, let us wait — for the budget. There is always the possibility, as we mentioned in the concluding statement, of have revenue mobilization at some stage.  We see, though, very importantly that there are steps towards consolidation.

     

    In terms of violence.  Look, here, I think we need to recognize that macroeconomists at least do not know a lot about how violence has impacts on the economy and the economy on violence.  So, I think it is very important to invest more knowledge on this.  Our own estimates – and this is a broad estimate – it’s not for Mexico specifically, but if the region were able to cut by half the difference it has between homicides suffering to the level of the world economy, growth could increase about half a percentage point for a good 10 years.  And that is more or less aligned with other estimates that are around.  So, in terms of the macro, this is something that is important.  

     

    Now, easier said than done because then the next question is what to do.  And there is where I would not want to make any comment because — we really, as macroeconomists, know very little. But we know that it’s important.  

     

    QUESTIONER: Good morning.  Can you hear me?  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: We can hear you.  If you bear with us, we can’t see you yet.

     

    QUESTIONER: Good morning, Julie. Good morning, Mr. Valdes. The projection for Ecuador is 0.3 percent in 2024.  We want to know if the projection includes the energy crisis in Ecuador that has worsened with power outages of up to 14 hours.  What impact can the energy crisis have in Ecuador?   And do you feel that it will affect the fiscal goals of the extended facility program that Ecuador has?  Is there a possibility of a recession this year?   

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Thank you. We have also we had questions submitted on Ecuador from Evelyn Tapia from PROMESA.  Does Ecuador’s growth projection for 2024 and 2025 include the effects of the electricity crisis that the country is experiencing?  When is the review of the program’s goals expected to end so that the country can receive the second disbursement for the Fund?  And when would that disbursement be made effective?   

     

    Ecuador? Anything else?  Okay.

     

    MR. VALDES: Okay, so everybody to be on the same page. Ecuador has a program with the Fund, an EFF, and we are close to have the First Review of the program.  I will ask Ana to go into more details on the growth considerations and other considerations you may want to add.  But let me just say that the authorities have been implementing this very strongly.  So — we are very optimistic, at least from the side of the commitment from the authorities on their own program that has been supported — by the Fund.  There will be a mission soon for this Review.  And of course, this new shock about electricity that has to do with climate, again — is bad news.  At the same time, the first half of the year was a bit stronger than expected.  

     

    But let me ask Ana to elaborate.  

     

    MS. CORBACHO: Thank you, Rodrigo.  I want to emphasize, as Rodrigo did, that the authorities are making very strong progress in advancing their stabilization program.  They have taken very important fiscal measures that are already showing results with an improvement in their fiscal position.  And we also see liquidity conditions, and notably the reserve position of the country, being stronger than we had expected when we approved the program in May.  

     

    Now Ecuador faces a very difficult electricity crisis with the worst drought in many decades.  The situation is still unfolding, but we would expect that it would have an impact both on economic conditions and fiscal needs.  And as we have more information, we may need to revise then the growth outlook for ’24 and ’25.  As of now, because the first part of the year was stronger than we had expected, we actually increased our forecast for 2024 growth from 0.1 to 0.3 percent.  

     

    In terms of the program, we expect that this would be discussed at the board by the end of the year, and upon completion of that review, if it is successful, there would be availability of the second disbursement in the program of $500 million.  Thank you.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Now let us turn to Argentina. And we will take a bunch of questions.  Don’t worry.  

     

    QUESTIONER: Hi, good morning.  Thank you very much for taking my question.  My first question will relate — related that yesterday Kristalina Georgieva had a meeting with our Economy Minister, Luis Caputo.  Can you tell us what were the conversation and is coming very soon a mission to Argentina?  Just to the review of Nine and Ten Review.  Thank you very much.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Thank you. I am going to take a few questions in the room first.  Please go ahead.  

     

    QUESTIONER: Thank you.  Rodrigo, I wanted to ask you, after criticism from President Javier Milei decided to step aside from the day-to-day negotiations with Argentina, but I was hoping you could tell us if you’re still involved in the back office discussions with the rest of the team about the future program and the ongoing economic situation in Argentina.  And for Luis, you were in both meetings with Gita Gopinath and Kristalina Georgieva yesterday.  I wanted to know if, in your view, has the Argentine government gained enough credibility, you know, with the fiscal front and with the ongoing economic recovery to come to the Fund and ask for an increase in the exposition with a new program?  Thanks.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay.  Let’s go online.

     

    QUESTIONER: So, question for Mr. Cubeddu.  My question is to know what was discussed in the meeting yesterday between Ms. Georgieva and Minister Caputo.  And also, if you could — well, if the IMF is concerned about the lack of reserve accumulation in the central bank in recent months, if is there the possibility of grant a waiver maybe in the Tenth Review?  Thank you.

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Great, thanks.  Let’s take one more and we’ll pause after that.  The woman here in the red shirt, please.  

     

    QUESTIONER: Hello, good morning. I would like to know if — how important is for the Fund for Argentina to release its capital controls and if you are discussing new money to help that within a new program.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay, let us pause, or maybe one.  I saw someone behind you had one more question, and then perhaps we can — yes, go ahead.  And then we will move on. 

     

    QUESTIONER: The IMF pointed out in its last — in its latest staff report that it was necessary to eliminate the exchange rate for exporters and move forward with the removal of exchange controls.  What is your opinion on what has been done so far?  And is it possible, as the — government claims to achieve growth without — with — capital controls?  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay.  

     

    MR. VALDES: Okay, thank you for the several questions in Argentina.  Let me start from one.  There were a couple of questions, that I just want to say that, as a matter of policy, we do not disclose the conversations between authorities and management.  No, this is not our job.  Second point I want to mention is that the teams have been interacting very actively and constructively for several weeks already.  Ana has mentioned, the authorities are here, and that engagement has continued.  

     

    And finally, I have delegated the Argentina case to Luis Cubeddu, as you know.  And really, I do not have anything else to add on this.  

     

    MR. CUBEDDU: Very good.  And to address a few questions on Argentina and perhaps maybe also to first mention, thank Rodrigo for the deep trust in this complex and important case.  This is obviously a team effort, and it involves the technical team in Western Hemisphere as well as other departments.  

     

    Maybe to stress from yesterday’s conversation, our management, both Kristalina and Gita, as well as us, staff, met with the Argentine authorities, with Minister Caputo and Central Bank President Bausili.  I think in our conversations we stressed and underscored the important progress that has been made, particularly in reducing inflation and establishing a very strong fiscal anchor.  We now have nine months of primary surpluses and overall balances under our belt.  I think we also underscored that this has also allowed an improvement in the central bank balance sheet as well as a strengthening of international reserves from extremely low levels. 

     

    In those conversations, we also emphasize that challenges remain and that sustaining the gains that we have seen so far will require that policies evolve and that appropriately balance domestic as well as external considerations and external objectives.  In this regard, — we discussed the need — to gradually unwind some of the existing ethics restrictions and controls.  But obviously, this should be done in a carefully calibrated way to ensure that the process is an orderly one.  

     

    With regards to moving forward and the questions related to the program.  I think our teams continue to work closely — with the Argentine authorities.  The — discussions — have deepened in an effort to better understand and fully understand their plans in the period ahead.  The engagement in which we are in is taking place within the context of the current EFF.  Although the authorities are also exploring the options whether to move to a new program.  Our hope is that we will be in a position to provide a bit more information on this in terms of the strategy of engagement over the coming weeks.  

     

    So, I think with this I tried to summarize some of your questions and, although happy to answer as needed.  Thank you.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay, that is good.  Please go ahead.  

     

    QUESTIONER: So, there is a law of fair taxation that is awaiting approval in my country, Honduras.  How does the IMF evaluate the fiscal policies implemented by the Honduran government and their impact on the country macroeconomic stability?

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Why do not you take that, and I will — I think we have a couple people online for Chile that will get queued up while you answer that question.  

     

    MR. VALDES: Anything else on Honduras?   No?  Okay.  

     

    QUESTIONER: The last week Honduras has been successful, passed [inaudible].  The program is technical.  An agreement, that has been reached.  My question is whether advantage or benefit will there be for the country with IMF — another multilateral organization?  Thank you.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay.  

     

    MR. VALDES: Okay.  Do you want to go to Chile too?  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Sure.  We’re — getting near the end, so let’s take a couple of people online.   

     

    QUESTIONER: Hi, Julie.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Hi.  

     

    QUESTIONER: This is a question for Mr. Valdes.   There’s two questions actually.   The first is there is some doubt here in Chile about the fiscal revenue for next year.  Now we are in the process of the law for the next year.  So specifically for the new tax compliance law, if it is going to get the fixed revenue that the government expects, how do you see that?  And you see there is a risk there?  And the second question is about the growth because the Central Bank of Chile expect the long-term GDP growth for Chile going to be nowhere in the next years, 10 years, to 1.8.  Little lower than the report that you report that you had foreseen.  Do you see some sign signal from the government for to actually increase the long-term growth?  Because you talk — in the report about streamline the process for investment permit, the [inaudible], I would say here, and the strength security.   I know you can talk a little longer about that.  That’s the question.  Thank you.   

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay, I have one more to add on Chile: in the case of Chile, do you think there are any measures that are not on the government’s agenda that are relevant for growth?  And then what is your view of Chile’s fiscal accounts?  Just mentioning the S&P highlighted the country’s fiscal consolidation, and Fitch warned that Chile is unlikely to meet its fiscal deficit target for 2024.  So — let us take those, and I think those will be the last questions of the briefing.  

     

    MR. VALDES: Okay, thank you, Julie.  Well, let me start with — Honduras.  Honduras has a Fund-supported program.  It took some time to reach Staff-Level Agreement for the First and Second Reviews combined, but we managed to have Staff-Level Agreement a few days ago.  And we are now working to bring the program to the review to the Board.  

     

    What I can say is that this program it is very important to safeguard macroeconomic stability.  We are — we agree on the policies needed for that, and the commitment of the authorities is very important to do their part in terms of fiscal monetary policy and effects policies such that we safeguard the macroeconomic stability.  The review is also very important because it will facilitate the disbursement of different credits for from other partners.  So, for example, the IDB and the World Bank.  So overall, this review is important because we are agreeing on policies that are needed.

     

    In terms of the Ley de Justicia Tributaria, which is in Congress, first, let me say that this law, we understand that this proposal incorporates many suggestions from the position in the private sector, and we value enormously the dialogue that countries can have with the different partners on this, and we salute that.  

     

    Second, more to the content.  There are about 15 corporate income tax special regimes — in Honduras, and by any metric that is too high.  So, it is very important the effort that they are doing to consolidate and hopefully end into three regimes.  And also, it is important to say that Honduras has tax exemptions of around 7 percent of GDP.  That is way above also of what we observe in other places.  And it is also important to discuss whether those regimes, those exemptions, are worth having or not.  And this law exactly proposes some discipline, if you want, on this.  We estimate that it would yield about 1 percent of GDP in revenues in the medium run.  

     

    In terms of Chile, well, you know, I am a Chilean.  So, I will — and we have some rules at the Fund that we should not speak about our countries too much.  So, I will defer the questions to the Mission Chief Andrea, who is available for this.  Although I can say a couple of more broad issues.  I do not want to enter into the fiscal reform law or other things.  

     

    But let me just say that there are important measures taken in Chile align with this call that we have about potential output growth.  They are making efforts to make more predictable and to shorten also the process of permits for the different investments, and that’s — we value that enormously.  Also, there are initiatives to facilitate labor force participation for women.  And that is also something that the Fund for a long time has been advocating.  Of course, this is a marathon.  And in a marathon, you have to — you do not have one silver bullet until you get to the end of the marathon with a couple of measures.  It takes much more in Chile and all countries.  What to do is very country specific.  But as I mentioned before, around rule of law, around security, around predictability, around the labor market, are many other ideas that could be advanced.  Thank you.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Take one more. I know you wanted to ask your questions.  

     

    QUESTIONER: Thank you for taking my question.  What are the IMF’s recommendations for Brazil given the worsening forecasts for public debt?  And the government is working on new measures to cut spending.  What is the importance of these measures?  And additionally, how will fiscal policies, you know, these new measures and higher interest rates, impact future growth?  Thanks.

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Thanks.  And that is the last question.  

     

    MR. VALDES: Okay, so let me just react to — the question in the following sense.  Brazil has, as other countries, this challenge of how to implement a level of consolidation that is very important to stabilize debt and has a challenge that’s probably not everywhere.  And it is a difficult challenge.  Many of the expenditures are very rigid.  So politically speaking, it is more difficult.  You have to work in the taxation mechanisms that are there.  We understand that they are doing that.  We have recommended that for some time, and that should facilitate this.  

     

    Importantly, in this tango between the central bank and fiscal, we should not look only to the fiscal side.  We should also do it together with monetary policy.  So the growth effects of a consolidation should not be really bad.  First, it could be positive by itself by lowering risk premia, and second, opens up the possibility of — lower rates, and that is important.  

     

    Ana was the Mission Chief for Brazil and now is the reviewer of Brazil, so she may want to add something.  

     

    MS. CORBACHO: Yeah, I just want to say that in our baseline forecast, we do expect an improvement in the fiscal position of Brazil.  But what we have been emphasizing is that this improvement needs to be tackled and underpinned by very concrete revenue and spending measures.  Rodrigo mentioned the challenge of making the budget more flexible.  This will help Brazil have more space to respond to new spending priorities as well as shocks, unforeseen shocks.  It requires deep structural reforms in the big items of spending categories, in wages, in pensions, floors for certain items of the budget, and many more spending rigidities that are very particular to Brazil.  There’s also an agenda to foster revenue mobilization, particularly by reducing inefficient tax expenditures.  And after the groundbreaking VAT Reform, considering also reforms of personal income tax and corporate income tax.  Thank you.  

     

    MR. VALDES: If I just may add as a closing, that we will have the Regional Economic Outlook launch in Paraguay on November 4th.   The report has a couple of accompanying papers on fiscal and labor force participation, labor markets, that are pretty interesting, very detailed.  I hope useful.  Thank you.   

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Thank you, Rodrigo.  Thank you, Ana.  Thank you, Luis.  This concludes the press briefing.  

     

    SPEAKER: Question on Colombia.

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay.  We can take, if you agree, Colombia.   

     

    MR. VALDES: Yeah, but you should say it before.   Okay, go ahead.  

     

    QUESTIONER: You can do it in Spanish if it is easier for you.  And please, if you can answer in Spanish.   Dr. Rodrigo, for 11 years you have spoken about reforms, but I see that the reforms are really complicated.  Even today, Colombia has not been able to bring about a tax reform in order to collect $3 billion, a little billion dollars, which is just a minor amount at an international level.  What is truly recommended by the IMF so that the reforms will move forward and will not have to face the hurdles and the respective congresses, so that countries can improve their flow of investment and for the trade to truly be dynamic?  You know the history of Colombia.  We grew at 4 percent and now not even at 2 percent.  Thank you.  

     

    MR. VALDES: Thank you for the question.  I will answer in Spanish.  What you are showing is the difficulty in developing reforms.  And when we say, let us develop reforms, we do not do it in a vacuum without understanding that the policy is difficult and not because we face difficulties that would stop us from doing it.  It is key for the region to continue expediting, accelerating the development of reforms and hopefully for the benefit of growth and not only for other things.  And specifically, it is important to do it because of what you were saying, because the potential growth, even in the countries that grew faster 5 or 10 years ago, such as the Pacific Partnership or the Pacific Alliance, has reached an average again.  And we are worried that with that very low average, lower than emerging Europe and much lower than that of emerging Asia, obviously the social needs, the fiscal needs, will not be solved.  And therefore, the appeal is to double effort.  There’s no way of skipping the political effort.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay.  If you — have any other questions, please feel free to reach out to us via email at media@imf.org.  Thank you all for attending.  

     

    *  *  *   *  *

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Julie Ziegler

    Phone: +1 202 623-7100Email: MEDIA@IMF.org

    @IMFSpokesperson

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Transcript of Western Hemisphere Economic Outlook October 2024 Press Briefing

    Source: IMF – News in Russian

    October 25, 2024

    PARTICIPANTS:

     

    RODRIGO VALDES

    Director of Western Hemisphere Department

    International Monetary Fund

     

    ANA CORBACHO

    Deputy Director ofWestern Hemisphere Department

    International Monetary Fund

     

    LUIS CUBEDDU

    Deputy DirectorWestern Hemisphere Department

    International Monetary Fund

     

    JULIE ZIEGLER

    Senior Communications Officer

    International Monetary Fund

     

      

    MS. ZIEGLER: Good morning.  Welcome everyone.  This is the press briefing for the Regional Economic Outlook for the Western Hemisphere.  My name is Julie Ziegler, and I am with the Communications Department at the Fund.  I’m going to introduce our panel today.  To my immediate left is Rodrigo Valdes, who.  the Director of the Western Hemisphere Department.  And he is joined by his Deputies, Ana Corbacho and Luis Cubeddu.  So, we are going to start with some opening remarks from Rodrigo, and then after that I will have some housekeeping items, and we will take your questions.  

     

    MR. VALDES: Thank you, Julie.  And good morning to everyone.  Welcome to this press briefing.  We have just released, and it is on the internet, our Annual Regional Economic Outlook for the Western Hemisphere.  This is a bit like the WEO, but for the region.  And here we have two important messages, two key messages.  

     

    The first one is that there is a need to rebalance macroeconomic policies in the region.  And the second one is the urgency to press on with structural reforms to boost potential output growth.  And I will explain this.  The monetary policy part of the first message, the rebalancing applies to several of the flexible exchange rate and inflation targeting countries in the region with different degrees of intensity.  The second message, the urgency to deepen reforms for growth, really applies to almost all economies in the region.  

     

    Over the last few years, the region has successfully weathered a series of major shocks in the world economy.  They showed resilience and they have adopted really macroeconomic policies in most countries that are at the top of the frontier of what we know.  And so far, largely the region has stayed in the sidelines, on the sidelines of global geopolitical tensions.  

     

    Now growth in the region is moderating as most economies are operating back near their potential.  What is concerning, however, growth in most countries is expected to return to its low historical average and this will not help with the region’s macroeconomic, fiscal and social challenges.  Overall, we expect growth in Latin America and the Caribbean — if we exclude Argentina, which has an important rebound next year, and Venezuela with its own dynamics — growth will moderate from 2.6 in 2023 to 2.2 in 2025, going through 2.6 also this year, 2024.  So we’re going back to the lower part of the 2 percent around these baseline projections.  We see the risks to near-term growth tilted to the downside, partly reflecting global risks, including importantly the persistent geopolitical tensions.

     

    Turning to inflation, in line with global trends and also reflecting the effect of tight policies, inflation has fallen markedly since the peak of mid-2022, and it is near the target in most countries.   However, it is not a target almost everywhere.  In the region, I would say that the last mile of this inflation has been rather long.   We expect to continue to see easing of monetary policy, but gradually on account of sticky services and inflation expectations not being perfectly re-anchored and also because inflation risks are generally tilted to the upside, reflecting basically commodity price volatility — the factors that I mentioned before of geopolitical risks and also new risks of fiscal slippages.  

     

    So, with the output gap and inflation gap mostly closed, what should policymakers do?  We think that they need to focus on rebuilding policy space and working on boosting potential growth – the messages I mentioned at the beginning.  This means rebalancing the policy mix and pushing forward with structural reforms.  

     

    Let me elaborate a bit more on the policy mix.   The current combination of macro policies is generally not everywhere, but generally tilted toward tight monetary policy while fiscal policy remains loose.  Although the earlier tightening of monetary policy by the region’s central banks was essential to bring inflation down, inflation is now close to target while monetary policy rates remain elevated in many countries.  At the same time, however, public debt levels are high and will continue raising if we do not have fiscal consolidation.  

     

    So, at this juncture it is necessary to rebalance policies, starting with strengthening public finances.  Most countries have quite ambitious fiscal consolidation plans, but their implementation –so from plans to reality — has been in such a way that they have been pushed back.  It is crucial in the region that these plans proceed without further delays to rebuild the buffers while protecting priority public spending, investment, and social spending.  Strengthening the current fiscal rules is also important so they can deliver these consolidation objectives.  

     

    A timely implementation of this fiscal consolidation is critical not only for fiscal sustainability, but also for supporting the normalization of monetary policy and the credibility of the frameworks more broadly.  With fiscal policy moving in the right direction, most central banks will be well placed to proceed with the monetary policy easing that we expect, while remaining on guard, of course, against risks of reemerging price pressures.  

     

    Let me now speak about the second point, that is the need to press with structural reforms and I will go from need to urgency.   As mentioned before, medium-term growth is expected to remain subdued, reflecting longstanding unresolved challenges which include low investment and especially low productivity growth.   Also, the region is suffering shifting demographics that will slow growth further.  The labor force is growing less than before, and this will weaken one essential engine for growth.  The impediments for growth are many and country specific, some are more common, and that reality is confronted with an ongoing reform agenda that is thin in many countries.  This could lead to a vicious cycle of low growth, social discontent and populist policies.  So greater efforts to advance with structural reforms are needed to boost potential growth and raise living standards.  

     

    We see that strengthening governance is a priority that cuts across all areas of growth.  This includes, for example, reinforcing the rule of law, improving government effectiveness, and, importantly, tackling crime more efficiently.   Improving the business environment and public investment is also needed to increase overall investment.  While reducing informality and making labor markets more attuned to more productivity gains is important.  This part of the labor market is also really important for women labor force participation, because this is one of the sources to offset the demographic headwinds.  

     

    These reforms will also be essential in positioning the region to fully harness the benefits of the global green transition and new technological advances.  It is disappointing that until now mining investment, for example, in the region has not picked up despite the new opportunities for green minerals.  This suggests, and I quote here, “we can do better,” as the IMF Managing Director stressed in her initial annual meeting speech, that also applies to our region.  

     

    From our side, through policy advice, capacity development, and financial support, we are ready to continue engaging, supporting countries in their efforts to strengthen their macroeconomic frameworks and increase economic resilience and growth opportunities.  

     

    With this, let me stop here and we are ready to take your questions.  Julie.

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Thank you.  Before we take questions, let me please just go through a few housekeeping items.  I want to remind everyone first of all that this is on the record.  Also, as Rodrigo mentioned, the report has just been published for the Western Hemisphere Regional Economic Outlook and you can find it on imf.org.  

     

    So, when we go to your questions, I ask please that you raise your hand, that you state your name and your affiliation, and if you are online, please can you keep your cameras on.  We cannot go to you unless your camera is on.  So, I appreciate it if you keep your cameras on.

     

    Finally, please keep your questions brief.  We are going to start, as in practice in the past, with questions on the region, meaning the entire region, Western Hemisphere or the Caribbean.  We will get to country questions after that.  Please bear with us, but we would like to start with questions from the region — on the region.  

     

    Does anybody have a region-specific question?   Yes, please.  

     

    QUESTIONER: A question about protectionism.  How do you see the growing threat of resurgent protectionism, threat to macroeconomy and to markets as well?  And how do — how should the region prepare for that?   And then maybe another thing on insecurity, which is another theme as well.  How could it deter or curb investment in the region insecurity, please?   

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Do we have any other questions on the region?  Please. The lady in the back.

     

    QUESTIONER: Thank you.  How are you analyzing the effect of the U.S. election and potential tariffs on emerging markets, particularly on interest rates and capital flows?  And on Latin America, do you think the fiscal stimulus measures in the region are compromising the efforts of central banks in combating inflation?  And does it endanger years of macro stabilization?   Thank you.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay, one more.  

     

    QUESTIONER: I am sorry, The Financial Times has an article out just this morning saying that the EU is accelerating — well, within the block — accelerating or rating contingency plans for a possible Trump presidency.  The German Institute — Economic Institute — in Cologne says that a trade war could hit GDP growth in Germany by about 1.5 percent.  And I think Goldman Sachs has a forecast saying that the euro could fall by about 10 percent if those tariffs move forward.  So, I’m wondering if that is the biggest threat.  And then secondly, on outlook, I thought there would be a lot more optimism since inflation is decelerating — in the euro area and interest rates are being cut.  That — would lower the cost of borrowing and actually spur investment there.  So, if you could share your thoughts on that. Thank you.  

     

    MR. VALDES: Okay, so — let me start from the last question.  Why we are not more optimistic in the medium run given that inflation is coming to targets?  Reality is that there are two forces here.  The cycle around the trend and that part of the cycle has been readily well managed in the region.  We are back — to trend.  But that trend, unfortunately, is not very strong in terms of growth.  That does not depend on macro policies in the short run.  Macro policies can produce a stable environment, can facilitate that growth.  But ultimately it is investment.  It is the accumulation of capital, productivity, the labor force, what produces — that trend.  And there is this call for you need, the region, needs to refocus from micromanagement that was very important the last few years to this low trend because we are hitting capacity basically.  And this is across the region.  It’s the Caribbean.  It is Latin America.  Perhaps Central America.  A few countries are the higher growing countries right now because exactly that, because they have a bigger trend.  

     

    That brings me to the issue of trade for the region.  Trade is very important.  These are almost all open economies, small open economies.  I have to say, on trade at first, the region has been very protective of open trade.  If you look at measures against trade and across the globe, the region has been the ones that have put less constraints to that.  

    Second, in terms of the election, as we always say, we would not speculate on that.  No, that is not something that is a role of the Fund.  But what we can say is that open trade is good for the region depending on how is fragmentation at the end, if it happens.  Further fragmentation, where is the circles where is the near shoring, for example.  Some countries may even benefit, but others may suffer.  But we do not know yet.  What I can say though is that for this trend growth, open global economy is better for the region.  

     

    Two more things.  Security.  This is an issue that has been a new concern, I would say, for the macroeconomy.  We have — some estimates that this matters.  Matters for growth.  Matters for investment, and especially matters for the well-being of people.  So it’s something that in the region at least is top of mind — for households.  And . need to take it very, very seriously. It has macro impact in the region.  We will have a conference, by the way, in November on this precisely.  It’s not that we will become experts on this, but we want the financial community to be more on top of these issues.  

     

     And finally, let me mention this tension — fiscal-monetary policy.  I do not think it is the case that we are in a position that we are risking the two decades of very strong work that we have gained.   But at the same time, we are not well-balanced.  On average, some countries are better, some countries — less good.  A good balance between monetary policy and fiscal policy.   

     

    Debt dynamics are such that debt-to-GDP is increasing.  Plans are good, but they have been postponed in many countries.  So, we need to deliver on those.  And that will produce this opportunity to continue also easing monetary policy.  We have said that this is like a tango, and it is not an easy tango to have between the central bank and the Ministry of Finance.  But it is needed, this coordination. 

     

    Let me stop there. I do not know if my colleagues would like to add anything on this in general.  No?   Perfect.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: So before we go, just last call for regional.  These are on the region, not country specific All right, go ahead.  In the center.   

     

    QUESTIONER: Thanks very much. Just this is the 80th anniversary of the Bretton Woods institutions.  For most of that period, Washington-based financial institutions have had pretty much a monopoly on lending to Latin America.  We have just had a BRICS conference in Russia.  BRICS have a development bank.  There are other alternatives for Latin American countries for finance and development.  How does the IMF feel about that?  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay, maybe one more on the region. Okay, go ahead.  Right there.   

     

    QUESTIONER: Hi, good morning. Of course, there have been some glowing words about how Caribbean countries have handled their policies over the past couple of years.  But of course, we also know that several Caribbean countries are vulnerable, particularly as a result of climate change.  So, my question is, what policies or what reforms can we see that will help provide a buffer with regard to climate activity that has been affecting the Caribbean?  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay.

     

    MR. VALDES: Okay. Look, reality is that we have been working for years with other partners in terms of regional arrangements.   We have Development Banks in the region, the IADB, we have CAF, we have FLAR (Latin American Reserve Fund) as another arrangement that lends money to central banks.  So perhaps the issue here is not whether we have these new institutions, but how to coordinate well.  We are convinced that the more coordination, the less fragmentation, that everybody works together is better.  Nobody needs the monopoly of this, but we need to work together.

     

    In terms of the Caribbean, I will ask Ana to go a bit more in detail. But it is very important to face reality for the Caribbean.  And they are doing it.  There’s a striking number.  Countries in the Caribbean lose 2.5 percent of GDP in capital per year, on average.   It does not happen every year, but every 10 years you can have a 25 percent loss.  So, you have to be prepared for that.  And that means that fiscal policy has to be geared towards that.   This is a multilayer system.  You have to be careful with investment.   Investment has to be more resilient.   You have to work in the insurance side, in contingency bonds, for example.  So, there is a lot to do.  Some countries have been very good on that.  Let me take the case of Jamaica and the last hurricane.  They had some possibilities to use contingencies for that case.  

     

    But let me pass to Ana to add a bit.  

     

    MS. CORBACHO: Thank you.  Certainly, the Caribbean region is very vulnerable to climate change shocks.  And we are concerned that the patterns of these shocks may be changing, becoming more severe and more frequent, which certainly requires more action on the government side and the multilateral community to support Caribbean economies.   

     

    In particular on policy measures, what we have emphasized in our dialogue is the need to integrate better mitigation and adaptation strategies in public investment plans.  Also fostering more active participation of private finance in increasing investment for climate resilience, as well as reducing the consumption of fuels through electrification.  An upside for the Caribbean is the green energy transition.  It could certainly give countries a chance to enhance resilience by investing in renewable energies, and through that, boosting competitiveness and lower exposure to climate change shocks.  Thank you.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Great. We are going to take some questions online.  She says the IMF reduced the growth prospects for Mexico.   Could you tell me about the greatest risk that my country faces and the possibilities to grow a little more?  

     

    We have another one. She said, is it possible for Mexico to achieve the reduction of the fiscal deficit from 6 percent to 3 percent as the government intends, while maintaining spending on social transfer programs and energy subsidies?  

     

    So, while we are on Mexico, anybody else on Mexico in the room?  Please go ahead.  Wait — for the mic, please.    

     

    QUESTIONER: A bit more about violence and the risk that it poses to all the general policies, the challenges.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Thank you. 

     

    MR. VALDES: Well, let me first say that we are in the middle of the Article IV process with Mexico.  So you will have a lot of details after it goes through the Board and the Article IV is published.  You probably have seen also the concluding statement published a couple of weeks ago.  But I can add a couple of things here.  One, we see bottlenecks in certain areas, and energy is one.  Infrastructure more generally as something that is a constraint right now in Mexico to take more advantage of — the opportunities it has with nearshoring and other possibilities.  The government is working on this, and we support fully that these are constraints that need to be alleviated.  

     

    In terms of fiscal, I would not want to make any… I mean, let us wait — for the budget. There is always the possibility, as we mentioned in the concluding statement, of have revenue mobilization at some stage.  We see, though, very importantly that there are steps towards consolidation.

     

    In terms of violence.  Look, here, I think we need to recognize that macroeconomists at least do not know a lot about how violence has impacts on the economy and the economy on violence.  So, I think it is very important to invest more knowledge on this.  Our own estimates – and this is a broad estimate – it’s not for Mexico specifically, but if the region were able to cut by half the difference it has between homicides suffering to the level of the world economy, growth could increase about half a percentage point for a good 10 years.  And that is more or less aligned with other estimates that are around.  So, in terms of the macro, this is something that is important.  

     

    Now, easier said than done because then the next question is what to do.  And there is where I would not want to make any comment because — we really, as macroeconomists, know very little. But we know that it’s important.  

     

    QUESTIONER: Good morning.  Can you hear me?  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: We can hear you.  If you bear with us, we can’t see you yet.

     

    QUESTIONER: Good morning, Julie. Good morning, Mr. Valdes. The projection for Ecuador is 0.3 percent in 2024.  We want to know if the projection includes the energy crisis in Ecuador that has worsened with power outages of up to 14 hours.  What impact can the energy crisis have in Ecuador?   And do you feel that it will affect the fiscal goals of the extended facility program that Ecuador has?  Is there a possibility of a recession this year?   

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Thank you. We have also we had questions submitted on Ecuador from Evelyn Tapia from PROMESA.  Does Ecuador’s growth projection for 2024 and 2025 include the effects of the electricity crisis that the country is experiencing?  When is the review of the program’s goals expected to end so that the country can receive the second disbursement for the Fund?  And when would that disbursement be made effective?   

     

    Ecuador? Anything else?  Okay.

     

    MR. VALDES: Okay, so everybody to be on the same page. Ecuador has a program with the Fund, an EFF, and we are close to have the First Review of the program.  I will ask Ana to go into more details on the growth considerations and other considerations you may want to add.  But let me just say that the authorities have been implementing this very strongly.  So — we are very optimistic, at least from the side of the commitment from the authorities on their own program that has been supported — by the Fund.  There will be a mission soon for this Review.  And of course, this new shock about electricity that has to do with climate, again — is bad news.  At the same time, the first half of the year was a bit stronger than expected.  

     

    But let me ask Ana to elaborate.  

     

    MS. CORBACHO: Thank you, Rodrigo.  I want to emphasize, as Rodrigo did, that the authorities are making very strong progress in advancing their stabilization program.  They have taken very important fiscal measures that are already showing results with an improvement in their fiscal position.  And we also see liquidity conditions, and notably the reserve position of the country, being stronger than we had expected when we approved the program in May.  

     

    Now Ecuador faces a very difficult electricity crisis with the worst drought in many decades.  The situation is still unfolding, but we would expect that it would have an impact both on economic conditions and fiscal needs.  And as we have more information, we may need to revise then the growth outlook for ’24 and ’25.  As of now, because the first part of the year was stronger than we had expected, we actually increased our forecast for 2024 growth from 0.1 to 0.3 percent.  

     

    In terms of the program, we expect that this would be discussed at the board by the end of the year, and upon completion of that review, if it is successful, there would be availability of the second disbursement in the program of $500 million.  Thank you.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Now let us turn to Argentina. And we will take a bunch of questions.  Don’t worry.  

     

    QUESTIONER: Hi, good morning.  Thank you very much for taking my question.  My first question will relate — related that yesterday Kristalina Georgieva had a meeting with our Economy Minister, Luis Caputo.  Can you tell us what were the conversation and is coming very soon a mission to Argentina?  Just to the review of Nine and Ten Review.  Thank you very much.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Thank you. I am going to take a few questions in the room first.  Please go ahead.  

     

    QUESTIONER: Thank you.  Rodrigo, I wanted to ask you, after criticism from President Javier Milei decided to step aside from the day-to-day negotiations with Argentina, but I was hoping you could tell us if you’re still involved in the back office discussions with the rest of the team about the future program and the ongoing economic situation in Argentina.  And for Luis, you were in both meetings with Gita Gopinath and Kristalina Georgieva yesterday.  I wanted to know if, in your view, has the Argentine government gained enough credibility, you know, with the fiscal front and with the ongoing economic recovery to come to the Fund and ask for an increase in the exposition with a new program?  Thanks.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay.  Let’s go online.

     

    QUESTIONER: So, question for Mr. Cubeddu.  My question is to know what was discussed in the meeting yesterday between Ms. Georgieva and Minister Caputo.  And also, if you could — well, if the IMF is concerned about the lack of reserve accumulation in the central bank in recent months, if is there the possibility of grant a waiver maybe in the Tenth Review?  Thank you.

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Great, thanks.  Let’s take one more and we’ll pause after that.  The woman here in the red shirt, please.  

     

    QUESTIONER: Hello, good morning. I would like to know if — how important is for the Fund for Argentina to release its capital controls and if you are discussing new money to help that within a new program.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay, let us pause, or maybe one.  I saw someone behind you had one more question, and then perhaps we can — yes, go ahead.  And then we will move on. 

     

    QUESTIONER: The IMF pointed out in its last — in its latest staff report that it was necessary to eliminate the exchange rate for exporters and move forward with the removal of exchange controls.  What is your opinion on what has been done so far?  And is it possible, as the — government claims to achieve growth without — with — capital controls?  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay.  

     

    MR. VALDES: Okay, thank you for the several questions in Argentina.  Let me start from one.  There were a couple of questions, that I just want to say that, as a matter of policy, we do not disclose the conversations between authorities and management.  No, this is not our job.  Second point I want to mention is that the teams have been interacting very actively and constructively for several weeks already.  Ana has mentioned, the authorities are here, and that engagement has continued.  

     

    And finally, I have delegated the Argentina case to Luis Cubeddu, as you know.  And really, I do not have anything else to add on this.  

     

    MR. CUBEDDU: Very good.  And to address a few questions on Argentina and perhaps maybe also to first mention, thank Rodrigo for the deep trust in this complex and important case.  This is obviously a team effort, and it involves the technical team in Western Hemisphere as well as other departments.  

     

    Maybe to stress from yesterday’s conversation, our management, both Kristalina and Gita, as well as us, staff, met with the Argentine authorities, with Minister Caputo and Central Bank President Bausili.  I think in our conversations we stressed and underscored the important progress that has been made, particularly in reducing inflation and establishing a very strong fiscal anchor.  We now have nine months of primary surpluses and overall balances under our belt.  I think we also underscored that this has also allowed an improvement in the central bank balance sheet as well as a strengthening of international reserves from extremely low levels. 

     

    In those conversations, we also emphasize that challenges remain and that sustaining the gains that we have seen so far will require that policies evolve and that appropriately balance domestic as well as external considerations and external objectives.  In this regard, — we discussed the need — to gradually unwind some of the existing ethics restrictions and controls.  But obviously, this should be done in a carefully calibrated way to ensure that the process is an orderly one.  

     

    With regards to moving forward and the questions related to the program.  I think our teams continue to work closely — with the Argentine authorities.  The — discussions — have deepened in an effort to better understand and fully understand their plans in the period ahead.  The engagement in which we are in is taking place within the context of the current EFF.  Although the authorities are also exploring the options whether to move to a new program.  Our hope is that we will be in a position to provide a bit more information on this in terms of the strategy of engagement over the coming weeks.  

     

    So, I think with this I tried to summarize some of your questions and, although happy to answer as needed.  Thank you.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay, that is good.  Please go ahead.  

     

    QUESTIONER: So, there is a law of fair taxation that is awaiting approval in my country, Honduras.  How does the IMF evaluate the fiscal policies implemented by the Honduran government and their impact on the country macroeconomic stability?

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Why do not you take that, and I will — I think we have a couple people online for Chile that will get queued up while you answer that question.  

     

    MR. VALDES: Anything else on Honduras?   No?  Okay.  

     

    QUESTIONER: The last week Honduras has been successful, passed [inaudible].  The program is technical.  An agreement, that has been reached.  My question is whether advantage or benefit will there be for the country with IMF — another multilateral organization?  Thank you.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay.  

     

    MR. VALDES: Okay.  Do you want to go to Chile too?  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Sure.  We’re — getting near the end, so let’s take a couple of people online.   

     

    QUESTIONER: Hi, Julie.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Hi.  

     

    QUESTIONER: This is a question for Mr. Valdes.   There’s two questions actually.   The first is there is some doubt here in Chile about the fiscal revenue for next year.  Now we are in the process of the law for the next year.  So specifically for the new tax compliance law, if it is going to get the fixed revenue that the government expects, how do you see that?  And you see there is a risk there?  And the second question is about the growth because the Central Bank of Chile expect the long-term GDP growth for Chile going to be nowhere in the next years, 10 years, to 1.8.  Little lower than the report that you report that you had foreseen.  Do you see some sign signal from the government for to actually increase the long-term growth?  Because you talk — in the report about streamline the process for investment permit, the [inaudible], I would say here, and the strength security.   I know you can talk a little longer about that.  That’s the question.  Thank you.   

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay, I have one more to add on Chile: in the case of Chile, do you think there are any measures that are not on the government’s agenda that are relevant for growth?  And then what is your view of Chile’s fiscal accounts?  Just mentioning the S&P highlighted the country’s fiscal consolidation, and Fitch warned that Chile is unlikely to meet its fiscal deficit target for 2024.  So — let us take those, and I think those will be the last questions of the briefing.  

     

    MR. VALDES: Okay, thank you, Julie.  Well, let me start with — Honduras.  Honduras has a Fund-supported program.  It took some time to reach Staff-Level Agreement for the First and Second Reviews combined, but we managed to have Staff-Level Agreement a few days ago.  And we are now working to bring the program to the review to the Board.  

     

    What I can say is that this program it is very important to safeguard macroeconomic stability.  We are — we agree on the policies needed for that, and the commitment of the authorities is very important to do their part in terms of fiscal monetary policy and effects policies such that we safeguard the macroeconomic stability.  The review is also very important because it will facilitate the disbursement of different credits for from other partners.  So, for example, the IDB and the World Bank.  So overall, this review is important because we are agreeing on policies that are needed.

     

    In terms of the Ley de Justicia Tributaria, which is in Congress, first, let me say that this law, we understand that this proposal incorporates many suggestions from the position in the private sector, and we value enormously the dialogue that countries can have with the different partners on this, and we salute that.  

     

    Second, more to the content.  There are about 15 corporate income tax special regimes — in Honduras, and by any metric that is too high.  So, it is very important the effort that they are doing to consolidate and hopefully end into three regimes.  And also, it is important to say that Honduras has tax exemptions of around 7 percent of GDP.  That is way above also of what we observe in other places.  And it is also important to discuss whether those regimes, those exemptions, are worth having or not.  And this law exactly proposes some discipline, if you want, on this.  We estimate that it would yield about 1 percent of GDP in revenues in the medium run.  

     

    In terms of Chile, well, you know, I am a Chilean.  So, I will — and we have some rules at the Fund that we should not speak about our countries too much.  So, I will defer the questions to the Mission Chief Andrea, who is available for this.  Although I can say a couple of more broad issues.  I do not want to enter into the fiscal reform law or other things.  

     

    But let me just say that there are important measures taken in Chile align with this call that we have about potential output growth.  They are making efforts to make more predictable and to shorten also the process of permits for the different investments, and that’s — we value that enormously.  Also, there are initiatives to facilitate labor force participation for women.  And that is also something that the Fund for a long time has been advocating.  Of course, this is a marathon.  And in a marathon, you have to — you do not have one silver bullet until you get to the end of the marathon with a couple of measures.  It takes much more in Chile and all countries.  What to do is very country specific.  But as I mentioned before, around rule of law, around security, around predictability, around the labor market, are many other ideas that could be advanced.  Thank you.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Take one more. I know you wanted to ask your questions.  

     

    QUESTIONER: Thank you for taking my question.  What are the IMF’s recommendations for Brazil given the worsening forecasts for public debt?  And the government is working on new measures to cut spending.  What is the importance of these measures?  And additionally, how will fiscal policies, you know, these new measures and higher interest rates, impact future growth?  Thanks.

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Thanks.  And that is the last question.  

     

    MR. VALDES: Okay, so let me just react to — the question in the following sense.  Brazil has, as other countries, this challenge of how to implement a level of consolidation that is very important to stabilize debt and has a challenge that’s probably not everywhere.  And it is a difficult challenge.  Many of the expenditures are very rigid.  So politically speaking, it is more difficult.  You have to work in the taxation mechanisms that are there.  We understand that they are doing that.  We have recommended that for some time, and that should facilitate this.  

     

    Importantly, in this tango between the central bank and fiscal, we should not look only to the fiscal side.  We should also do it together with monetary policy.  So the growth effects of a consolidation should not be really bad.  First, it could be positive by itself by lowering risk premia, and second, opens up the possibility of — lower rates, and that is important.  

     

    Ana was the Mission Chief for Brazil and now is the reviewer of Brazil, so she may want to add something.  

     

    MS. CORBACHO: Yeah, I just want to say that in our baseline forecast, we do expect an improvement in the fiscal position of Brazil.  But what we have been emphasizing is that this improvement needs to be tackled and underpinned by very concrete revenue and spending measures.  Rodrigo mentioned the challenge of making the budget more flexible.  This will help Brazil have more space to respond to new spending priorities as well as shocks, unforeseen shocks.  It requires deep structural reforms in the big items of spending categories, in wages, in pensions, floors for certain items of the budget, and many more spending rigidities that are very particular to Brazil.  There’s also an agenda to foster revenue mobilization, particularly by reducing inefficient tax expenditures.  And after the groundbreaking VAT Reform, considering also reforms of personal income tax and corporate income tax.  Thank you.  

     

    MR. VALDES: If I just may add as a closing, that we will have the Regional Economic Outlook launch in Paraguay on November 4th.   The report has a couple of accompanying papers on fiscal and labor force participation, labor markets, that are pretty interesting, very detailed.  I hope useful.  Thank you.   

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Thank you, Rodrigo.  Thank you, Ana.  Thank you, Luis.  This concludes the press briefing.  

     

    SPEAKER: Question on Colombia.

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay.  We can take, if you agree, Colombia.   

     

    MR. VALDES: Yeah, but you should say it before.   Okay, go ahead.  

     

    QUESTIONER: You can do it in Spanish if it is easier for you.  And please, if you can answer in Spanish.   Dr. Rodrigo, for 11 years you have spoken about reforms, but I see that the reforms are really complicated.  Even today, Colombia has not been able to bring about a tax reform in order to collect $3 billion, a little billion dollars, which is just a minor amount at an international level.  What is truly recommended by the IMF so that the reforms will move forward and will not have to face the hurdles and the respective congresses, so that countries can improve their flow of investment and for the trade to truly be dynamic?  You know the history of Colombia.  We grew at 4 percent and now not even at 2 percent.  Thank you.  

     

    MR. VALDES: Thank you for the question.  I will answer in Spanish.  What you are showing is the difficulty in developing reforms.  And when we say, let us develop reforms, we do not do it in a vacuum without understanding that the policy is difficult and not because we face difficulties that would stop us from doing it.  It is key for the region to continue expediting, accelerating the development of reforms and hopefully for the benefit of growth and not only for other things.  And specifically, it is important to do it because of what you were saying, because the potential growth, even in the countries that grew faster 5 or 10 years ago, such as the Pacific Partnership or the Pacific Alliance, has reached an average again.  And we are worried that with that very low average, lower than emerging Europe and much lower than that of emerging Asia, obviously the social needs, the fiscal needs, will not be solved.  And therefore, the appeal is to double effort.  There’s no way of skipping the political effort.  

     

    MS. ZIEGLER: Okay.  If you — have any other questions, please feel free to reach out to us via email at media@imf.org.  Thank you all for attending.  

     

    *  *  *   *  *

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Julie Ziegler

    Phone: +1 202 623-7100Email: MEDIA@IMF.org

    @IMFSpokesperson

    https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2024/10/25/tr-102524-press-briefing-western-hemisphere-department

    MIL OSI

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Union Minister Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan inaugurates the International Workshop on Use of Modern Technology in Survey-ReSurvey of Urban Land Records in New Delhi today

    Source: Government of India (2)

    Union Minister Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan inaugurates the International Workshop on Use of Modern Technology in Survey-ReSurvey of Urban Land Records in New Delhi today

    Digitally updated and transparent land records facilitate optimization of the land resources and sharing of information with various agencies for assisting in policy and planning: Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan

    We will benefit from the presence of experts from around the world and the knowledge they present will help us apply modern technologies in land management: Union Minister

    The department has approved the National Geo-Spatial Knowledge Based Land Survey of Urban Habitations pilot project for creation of land records in urban areas: Shri Chouhan

    Posted On: 21 OCT 2024 5:19PM by PIB Delhi

    Union Minister for Rural Development Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan inaugurated the International Workshop on the use of “Modern Technologies in Survey-Resurvey for Urban Land Records” at Dr. Ambedkar International Centre in New Delhi today through video conferencing. Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan, in his keynote address as the Chief Guest reaffirmed the commitment of Govt. of India in boosting digitization and maintenance of land records under the Digital India Land Records Modernization Programme (DILRMP). Highlighting the importance of the quality land records, Minister stated that digitally updated and transparent land records facilitate optimization of the land resources and sharing of information with various agencies for assisting in policy and planning. He elaborated that for a robust property record and tax administration, seamless access to land records is crucial to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of public service delivery through various schemes of the Centre and States. Minister emphasized the need for close coordination in the Central and State Governments and requested the Department of Land Resources and State Governments to work in close coordination.  

    He also discussed the steps taken by the Government of Madhya Pradesh in creating urban land records and informed that drone flying has been completed in 34 towns and Orthorectified Imagery (ORI) production is complete in 12 towns. He expressed his happiness on the pilot programme called the “National geospatial Knowledge-based land Survey of urban Habitations (NAKSHA)” of the Department of Land Resources with a view to create Land Records in Urban Areas. The Pilot project will be started in more than 100 cities/towns in all the States / UTs and it is expected to be completed in one year’s time. This will be followed by full-fledged survey which would cover the entire urban area in the country within a period of 5 years.   Shri Chouhan added that he is happy to report that aerial photography with 3D imagery is a powerful tool for urban planning. Considering the rainfall and flood situation at the local level, it is very important to develop better drainage and flood management. Aerial photography with accurate GPS coordinates will help in accelerating the speed of land survey, which will ultimately be useful in property tax assessment, better transport system, planning of drainage and flood management and preparation of master plans for our urban areas. 

    Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan said that he is happy to inform that his department is making tireless efforts in this direction.  He wanted to consult with experts from other countries on creation and reconciliation of land records and this two-day conference is an effort to discuss and understand global best practices in the use of new and emerging technologies in this regard. He is sure that the distinguished participants will put forth their views which will be discussed in detail during the sessions. He requests the representatives of the State Governments present here to actively participate in the discussions, because only with the cooperation of the States will we be able to integrate modern technologies in urban land administration and improve efficiency and transparency in land management systems. We will benefit from the presence of experts from around the world and the knowledge they present will help us apply modern technologies in land management.

    Union minister extended his best wishes for successful organization of this event and he hope that the information gained from the workshop will help the government in formulating policies to further strengthen the urban local bodies.

    Secretary, Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Shri Manoj Joshi said that this international workshop has been organized and along with this we have started a pilot program to conduct surveys in urban areas. For this, Survey of India is our technical partner so that drone flying can be done in all the cities. From the images obtained from drone flying, the revenue and urban departments of the states will prepare urban land records, master plans and drainage records of cities. The objective of this workshop is that foreign experts in land records can take advantage of the experts in software. States which have done the land record survey work. They will be able to share information with each other. We will be able to complete this work of land records in one year.

    In the inaugural session, Shri Kunal Satyarthi, Joint Secretary, Department of Land Resources, Govt. of India welcomed the participants and set the agenda of the workshop. Shri Abedelrazq Khalil, World Bank’s Practice Manager for Urban and Land, South Asia Infrastructure Department highlighted the importance of land records in Urban area. Shri Vivek Bharadwaj, Secretary, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Govt. of India shared experience of SVAMITVA Scheme and stressed the urgent need for digital land records for urban area too.

    The first session of the Workshop on International Best Practices in Establishing and Maintaining Urban Digital Land Record was chaired by Shri Manoj Joshi, Secretary, Department of Land Resources and moderated by Mr. Klaus Deininger, Lead Economist, World Bank. This session had global participation from the land registration/survey departments of South Korea, Spain, Netherlands, France, United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, USA, Germany.  The importance of registration laws, land surveying, aerial mapping and the integration and implementation of GIS was discussed extensively, during this session.

    The workshop is a unique gathering of the stakeholders from the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India, Revenue and Urban Development Secretaries of 34 States/UTs, the Municipal Commissioners, international experts, Municipal officers /CEOs of around 120 Urban Local Bodies which are taking part in the Pilot programme National Geospatial Knowledge based Survey of habitations (NAKSHA) for Modernization of Urban Land records and industry &technology partners from India and abroad.

    Further, a Technology Exhibition on survey and resurvey featuring more than 30 Technology Companies from India as well as abroad was inaugurated by Shri Manoj Joshi, Secretary, Department of Land Resources, Govt. of India.

    *****

     

    SS

    (Release ID: 2066731) Visitor Counter : 53

    Read this release in: Hindi

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Yanette: My sister was forcibly disappeared by the Colombian military

    Source: Amnesty International –

    Yanette Bautista was just 27 when her sister Nydia was forcibly disappeared in 1987. Three years later, Yanette found Nydia’s remains – she had been murdered by state authorities and her whereabouts concealed to her family. It was the first time she learnt about enforced disappearances, an issue that is rife in Colombia – even today – with an estimated 200,000 people disappeared between 1985 and 2016 according to the 2022 Final Report of Colombia’s Truth Commission.

    Since her sister’s enforced disappearance, Yanette, now 66, has dedicated her life to supporting Colombian women to search for their loved ones without fear. She has set up her own organization, as well as spearheaded a new bill that became a law in 2024, calling for better protection for women searchers. In honour of the bill, Colombia has recently introduced International Women’s Searchers Day, which takes place on 23 October.

    Here she tells her incredible story, spanning three decades…

    I found my sister three years after she was taken away and disappeared. I knew it was her. She was wearing the same clothes she had on the day she disappeared. It had been a day of celebration, the day our children received their first communion. When we found Nydia, she was still wearing the same dress and a jacket I had lent her. The only thing missing was her underwear. There was no reason for her underwear to be missing. I had to beg the authorities to hand her body over. I even threatened to go on hunger strike. When they eventually agreed to give me Nydia’s body, they handed it over in a trash bag.

    My sister was forcibly disappeared when I was 27. At the time, I didn’t know enforced disappearances existed. She was studying economics at university. We knew she was part of an opposition guerrilla group, M-19, that signed a peace agreement and became a legal political party a couple of years later. We thought that the worst that could happen was for her to be sent to jail by a judge for her political activities. It felt shocking to learn that we lived in a country where there was a huge lack of human rights. If you supported the opposition, you paid for it. It was a situation of desperation and confusion.

    My father and I started searching together – we went to hospitals, to military brigades, to the police intelligence, the secret police and the jails to see what could have happened. It was dangerous from the beginning as I started to be threatened many times just for asking for her. Eventually I was forcibly displaced. I left my home, sent my children to live elsewhere and I moved to another location. I soon started receiving anonymous calls. On one occasion, someone said: ‘Don’t look for her, she’s fine.’ It wasn’t a comforting call, and I knew I had to continue searching.

    Yanette Bautista is the founder of Nydia Erika Bautista Foundation, created to fight against impunity in enforced disappearance in Colombia.

    I sought help from the Colombian NGO Committee for Solidarity with Political Prisoners (CSPP) and we were provided with legal assistance, while the Association of Family Members of Disappeared Detainees (ASFADDES) shared advice. While I searched for my sister, I started working with other families and we eventually got in touch with Colombia’s Inspector for Human Rights – he was determined to help. He somehow found a witness who claimed to know where Nydia was. By that point I didn’t have hope we would find her alive. I’d come to realize that those searching for their loved ones, were searching for people who had been murdered.

    A case was opened, and the well-known lawyer Eduardo Umaña took it on. I was told the witness was part of the Colombian military. He wanted to confess and said Nydia had been murdered and was buried in a rural town near Bogota. Together, with the inspector, forensic experts and our lawyer, we exhumed the body. I immediately knew it was her, even though she had been buried under NN (No Name).

    Life changed dramatically

    After Nydia disappeared, my life changed. I used to be an executive secretary for an important CEO, but it felt artificial after I started searching. I found it impossible to continue in this bubble, while people were being forcibly disappeared. That’s why I took off my heels and put on my shoes so I could start searching.

    After my sister disappeared, life changed. So I took off my heels and put on my shoes so I could start searching for her.

    Yanette Baustista

    Even though we found Nydia’s body, we have never got the justice we deserve. The inspector for human rights sanctioned in 1995 one general and four military officials – a first in our country. However, two months later, he had to flee because he started receiving threats. During that time, I was calling for a change in law, speaking out about the military – and I was eight months pregnant. I was under constant surveillance. Eventually the four sanctioned men were set free even though it was clear it was the military committing these crimes.

    By this time, it was too dangerous for me to stay in Colombia. Following a trip to Germany I just couldn’t come home. In 1997, I was forced into exile for seven years. During this time, I worked for Amnesty International, writing and researching about violence against women. I also became President of Federation of Family Members of Disappeared Persons (FEDEFAM), working with victims of forced disappeared in different countries.

    Returning home

    When I eventually returned to Colombia in 2007, I started my own organization. I’d met people from the Philippines, Albania, Kosovo, Turkey. We had so much collective knowledge. I wanted to empower families to search for their loved ones, so we started our organisation in my living room, with a small group of families.

    Our collective, Nydia Erika Bautista Foundation, is designed for women to help one another. There’s no hierarchy. It is an exchange of knowledge. We provide legal support, document stories and advocate. We have a leadership school to empower the women searching in different parts of the country. We work in eight regions of Colombia and we are supporting 519 cases.

    Our collective is mostly women – our research has revealed 95% of those searching for their loved ones are women – they’re mothers, sisters and wives. In a patriarchal society, it’s a task handed to the caregivers. But to me, we’re more than caregivers. When women start searching, we become human rights defenders – searching fearlessly, we challenge the rules of silence and oppression imposed by those who disappeared our loved ones, and we end up defending the rights of everyone.

    Yanette leads a workshop with women searchers in Bogotá, Colombia.

    The women who search are incredibly brave, even though there is no support from the authorities and no political will to investigate these crimes. In fact, enforced disappearance isn’t seen as a crime – it’s normalized; sometimes it’s even justified by the Colombian authorities.

    Moving forward

    As a collective, we want to turn our pain into rights. That’s why we wrote a law in a bid to empower women searching for the forcibly disappeared and to promote the rights of these women. It was signed into law in 2024.

    However, our next task is to ensure it is implemented and becomes a reality. We have so many allies supporting us, including Amnesty International, and it is spurring us on every day. 

    While I have hope going forward, advocating for this law brings fear. As I continue to call for change, enforced disappearances are continuing, women searchers are suffering violence, and our funds are decreasing – making our work even tougher.

    However, in my darker moments, I remember Nydia. Nydia dreamt of an army of women, who were armed with voices, not guns. I am determined to pursue her dream, so women can search without fear of suffering violence or of not having food at their family’s table, so women can search with freedom and dignity.

    This piece is part of Amnesty International’s new campaign #SearchingWithoutFear, supporting women across the Americas searching for their loved ones. 

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Dr. Liz Sherwood-Randall for the Eradicate Hate Global Summit | Pittsburgh,  PA

    US Senate News:

    Source: The White House
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Thank you to each of the speakers, including the survivors, who preceded me. You are each both humbling and inspiring, and I am deeply grateful to have listened to what you have shared with us.
    It is an honor to be here with you at the fourth convening of the Eradicate Hate Global Summit.
    Thank you, Brette for your generous words — and thank you for taking on this vital leadership role. 
    The Summit has convened thousands of experts and developed multiple innovative approaches – including the “Up End Hate” campaign that empowers young people to prevent violence.  And that is just the most recent example of the impact this solutions-oriented Summit has delivered.    
    Sunday, October 27th, will mark the sixth anniversary of the horrific day when a white supremacist who hated Jews and immigrants went to the Tree of Life synagogue here in Pittsburgh and attacked the innocent human beings who were worshipping during morning Shabbat services.
    He murdered eleven people that day, robbing the world of their futures. 
    For each of them, their loved ones still grieve, and in solidarity we each can say:  May their memories be a blessing.
    The phrase is a resonant and powerful one. It invites us all not just to remember those we have lost, but to honor them by continuing to pursue justice and heal our broken world in their names.
    Looking at this week’s agenda and each of you in this room, remembering them is indeed proving to be a blessing, by motivating this hard work to translate ideas into action.
    In the aftermath of that terrible and tragic day, this community and this city have shown that an act of terror should and can unite us rather than divide us. In the Summit, you have shown the world how you have taken the emotions and prayers that arose and the actions you are undertaking and channeled them into meaningful deeds.
    It is in that spirit of moving from hope to action that I come to you today.
    I will speak to you about three topics: the threat we face now, the responses we are pursuing to address that threat, and the actions we are taking to reduce that threat in the future.
    First, we unfortunately have to acknowledge that current forms of domestic terrorism and hate have fueled a dynamic threat landscape that is even more daunting following the savage Hamas attack on Israel one year ago and its ongoing aftermath.
    These threats present a new set of challenges that we must do everything we can to prevent, to disrupt, and to prepare for if they cannot be stopped.  
    Indeed, the Biden-Harris Administration’s response to hate and domestic terrorism is outlined in a series of innovative strategies and implementation plans that harness the full force of the Federal government of the United States. 
    But critically, they depend on intensive, enduring cooperation with civic, religious, private sector and international partners like you to generate a comprehensive response.
    And although it may not feel that way every day, this model is delivering results. I am the first to admit that the challenges are immense, and even growing.  But I also fervently believe that combining our full strengths, we can come together to make a difference. 
    The Normalization of Hate and Violence
    Let me begin with the threat landscape: As the White House Homeland Security Advisor over the past four years, I have seen firsthand that a fundamental threat to our democracy is the normalization of hate-fueled violence.
    Domestic terrorist movements, including racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists, continue to advocate for widespread violence on the premise that it would lead to outcomes they seek, including chaos and societal collapse among other dystopian ends.
    These dark minds celebrate attacks in El Paso, Buffalo, Poway, Colorado Springs, Charleston, and yes, just east of here, in Squirrel Hill — as well as numerous attacks abroad that they ascribe to their twisted worldview.
    The proliferation of these ideologies online reflects this trend, and its purveyors are reaching a growing number of people, including teenagers and even younger children.
    And as this threat has evolved both in the United States and especially online, we have seen its “domestic” dimensions become increasingly global.
    Let me give you one example of what I mean.  On September 9th of this year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice arrested and charged two leaders of the Terrorgram Collective in the United States.
    These two individuals created a global community of white supremacists to communicate online with like-minded people, disseminate violent propaganda, and encourage physical attacks on minority communities and government officials.
    The amplification of hate online has corresponded with a growth in antisemitism and other forms of hate, particularly in the wake of the October 7th Hamas attacks. 
    By just one measure, between October 7th, 2023, and January 30th of this year, the FBI opened over three times more anti-Jewish hate crimes investigations than in the four months prior to the October 7th attacks. I will return to the meaningful outcomes from these investigations in a moment. 
    And October 7th has had ramifications beyond the rise in hate. We have observed terrorist groups from across the ideological spectrum seeking to exploit the attack for their own goals. Images and messaging emerging from the conflict are expanding the pool of individuals susceptible to mobilization to violent acts, and causing terrorist groups that previously disdained each other to form common cause.
    And these effects are likely to persist long after hostilities cease— and will interact with future flashpoints and activating events, which could drive terrorist attacks against the United States and Israel, as well as against Jewish, Muslim, Arab, and other communities.  
    And it is not just terrorist organizations that are of high concern. The behavior of lone actors can have significant ramifications, even when they do not commit mass violence.
    For example, in February 2024, a joint investigation between the FBI and Florida authorities led to the arrest of a 17-year-old for swatting—which is the practice of making false reports to 9-1-1 to induce a law enforcement response at a residence or workplace.
    Over a two-year span, this particular young person targeted a Florida mosque and hundreds of high schools, historically black colleges and universities, and even the homes of FBI agents.
    Swatting distracts and drains valuable law enforcement resources, exposes police to a potentially life-threatening response, and traumatizes citizens, including students and worshippers, who experience these events.
    And as if this wasn’t bad enough, it emerged that the young suspect was selling swatting as a service on Telegram— which is another way in which that platform is being exploited for dangerous purposes.
    Now, some look at today’s threat landscape and assume the worst, and conclude that there is little if anything that can be done to stop the growth of these threats. 
    But I am here today to tell you that, like all of you, we do not see it that way.    
    The Biden-Harris Administration’s Strategic Approach
    Clearly what I have described is not how we wish our world had evolved. But we have come together here to affirm that we are not powerless in the face of hate and violence.
    From day one, President Biden and Vice President Harris have pursued a rigorously calibrated, integrated approach to countering hate and domestic terrorism that is aligned with our values and complements our broader national security interests.
    This is built on their core belief that domestic terrorism and hate strike at the very foundation of our democracy.
    Indeed, President Biden decided to run for the White House back in 2017 after men with tiki torches emerged from the shadows in Charlottesville spewing the same Antisemitic bile we heard in Germany in the 1930s. 
    That’s why, on his first day in office, President Biden directed me to lead a 100-day comprehensive review of U.S. Government efforts to address domestic terrorism.  This resulted in the development and release of the first-ever National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism in June of 2021.
    We went to work immediately on implementing that strategy.  And to complement it, recognizing how critical our partners beyond the Federal government would be to our success, in September of 2022, President Biden hosted the United We Stand Summit to mobilize communities to work with us in advancing an inclusive and bipartisan vision for a more united America and to push back against the growing normalization of hate in our society.
    In December of that year, Susan Rice – then the President’s Domestic Policy Advisor – and I launched an initiative to specifically tackle Antisemitism, Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination.
    This led to our releasing, in May 2023, the first-ever U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. And we have been working to develop a complementary strategy to address Islamophobia. 
    Importantly, our approach not only tackles the threats of today but prepares for emerging and future threats. 
    So I want to focus here on three key elements of the strategy: first, our efforts to hold accountable those who engage in hate-fueled violence and hate crimes; second, our efforts to protect vulnerable communities; and third, our efforts to prevent such acts from occurring in the first place.
    Accountability Measures
    Our Administration has prioritized the use of our legal authorities and tools to expand investigations and prosecutions. 
    As a result, from 2020 to 2022, the number of FBI domestic violent extremism and domestic terrorism investigations more than doubled to over 2,700. 
    In 2022, the Department of Justice also created a specific domestic terrorism unit within its National Security Division to handle these investigations and prosecutions.
    And a similar dynamic is occurring in our efforts to address hate crimes. The FBI has published and widely disseminated information about what constitutes a hate crime and how to report them, and reinforced this by conducting over 70 meetings with faith-based organizations since October 7th.
    These efforts, combined with the FBI’s tireless work to investigate every lead they receive, have delivered results.  Let me describe a few.  
    In November of 2023, a Tampa, Florida, resident was arrested by the FBI for allegedly leaving threatening voicemails at two Jewish organizations in New York.
    In January 2024, a Massachusetts man was arrested for threatening to kill members of the Jewish community and bomb places of worship.
    And just last month, the Department of Justice announced criminal charges against a Pakistani national arrested in Canada who was planning to travel to New York City to attack a Jewish Community Center on the anniversary of October 7th.
    Protection Measures
    We have also driven efforts to enhance the safety and security of Jewish and other communities targeted for hate and violence. For example, President Biden worked with Congress to secure an additional $400 million for the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) Nonprofit Security Grant Program in February of this year.
    This grant program funds security improvements and training for nonprofits and houses of worship, including campus organizations and community centers.
    For example, the same program paid to install cameras and boost other security measures in Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas—actions that the congregation’s Rabbi credited with avoiding loss of life when a terrorist took hostages in the synagogue in January 2022. 
    We have also worked in partnership with a wide range of state and local leaders and non-governmental partners to help communities and institutions protect themselves against and prevent hate.
    As just one example, this past summer we provided 5,000 campus leaders all across the country with a detailed list of the federal resources available to help them establish safer and more secure learning environments for their students, faculty, and staff.  
    We sent Federal experts to campuses, hosted a variety of convenings to discuss challenges and identify solutions, and released updated toolkits to enhance their preparations for the new academic year that began in August.
    This effort is ongoing, and the fear and anxiety of those who feel threatened on campuses persists. But it is clear that the resources and toolkits we have shared align with the changes that many campuses have successfully implemented this Fall.  
    Prevention
    And this brings me to the third element of our response—the actions we are taking now to prevent hate-fueled violence and domestic terrorism in the future, before they occur. 
    We know that a complex process brings an individual to pursue targeted violence or terrorism. But we also know that there are behaviors and other signs that people see that are clues that an individual might be trending toward or contemplating an act of targeted violence or terrorism.   
    We have elevated the prevention of targeted violence and terrorism as a strategic priority for countering terrorism, antisemitism, and related forms of hate. 
    Our goal has been to build a prevention architecture that supports nation-wide state and local efforts to intervene and “offramp” individuals who appear to be moving toward committing acts of targeted violence and terrorism.
    At the Federal level, we have surged support to state and local behavioral Threat Assessment and Management, or “TAM” teams as we refer to them.
    For example, the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit has embedded specifically trained agents who are called “threat management coordinators” in their field offices and is working to ensure that each of their field offices are participating in the local Threat Assessment and Management teams. Some of these coordinators are here with us today.   
    Likewise, the U.S. Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center recently released a six-step guide for state and local law enforcement about how they can most efficiently establish a TAM team that can assess and intervene with individuals identified as posing a risk of violence.
    And there is the DHS Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, which I know is well represented here in the room.  Among their many accomplishments, I want to highlight their work creating and curating the online Prevention Resource Finder, which you can Google at that name—literally a one-stop shop that lists all Federal resources available to help state and local governments prevent acts of targeted violence and terrorism. We recently expanded the website, and it now offers nearly 150 resources.
    It’s important to say again here that the Federal government cannot effectively tackle this metastatic challenge alone.
    Indeed, all of the evidence shows that prevention is most effective when led by our state and local partners, who are on the ground, embedded in our communities. This is especially true for TAM teams, which often operate at the county or municipal level.
    The good news is that we know state and local partners can do this quickly and successfully in partnership with Federal expertise and assistance. Let me give you an example.
    In the days and weeks following the appalling May 14th, 2022, domestic terrorist attack at the Tops Supermarket in Buffalo, the state of New York quickly reached out to the Federal Department of Homeland Security and other Federal agencies to explore how to expand existing partnerships and build a statewide prevention effort.
    To be clear, this was led by and implemented by the State of New York, but the Federal government offered substantial assistance to the State of New York.
    And by 2023, New York had launched a statewide targeted violence prevention strategy that included placing at least one TAM team in every county.
    Just two years after the Buffalo attack, New York had established TAM teams in forty-three counties and the City of New York.
    In May, New York noted that their TAM teams were collectively intervening in more than one thousand two hundred cases.
    And, more important, these TAM teams are saving lives, taking action with respect to certain individuals who were clearly planning acts of targeted violence.  
    This is critical, painstaking, lifesaving work, and I am encouraged to see that many more states are responding to our calls to move in this direction.
    This is progress, and if we persist, these efforts will reduce violence in our Homeland.  
    Closing
    In closing, I want to thank each of you for the work you do every day to prevent, to prepare, and to respond to this phenomenon that is tragically impacting so many of our communities and leaving families and neighborhoods devastated. 
    Your partnership with us is vital to stopping the normalization of hate-fueled violence that threatens our democracy. 
    Again, I want commend the work of this Summit. You are the embodiment of what I have spoken about today.  And there is a real feeling of solidarity in a group like this, and we can and must draw strength from one another.
    For a moment, I will take you back to another very dark time in our Nation’s history — the days and weeks after 9/11. Then I had very young children — and to focus them on the positive in a time of terror I would say to them, “look at all the helpers — there are so many people who are helping other people.”
    You are the helpers today, the doers, the healers in these times, and your work to scale up prevention efforts – and to mobilize the youth of our country to be a part of the solution to hate – are two of the numerous examples of how the agenda for the coming three days will build a stronger and safer America for all of us, and set an example for the world. 
    I salute you for all your commitment, your dedication, and everything you are doing — 
    And I will end where I began. While the threats are real and pernicious, we take inspiration from each other and from those we have lost.  
    May each of their memories be a blessing – and may our work together light the way to a brighter and more secure future.     

    MIL OSI USA News –