Understanding the EU’s approach to cyber diplomacy and cyber defence

Written by Tania Latici,

© metamorworks / Adobe Stock

Despite its expertise in cyber public awareness campaigns, research and development, and educational programmes, the EU is still subject to constant cyber attacks. The EU’s response to a sophisticated cyber threat spectrum is comprehensive, but perhaps the most European aspect of its toolbox is cyber diplomacy. Cyber diplomacy aims to secure multilateral agreements on cyber norms, responsible state and non-state behaviour in cyberspace, and effective global digital governance. The goal is to create an open, free, stable and secure cyberspace anchored in international law through alliances between like-minded countries, organisations, the private sector, civil society and experts. Cyber diplomacy coexists with its sister strands of cyber defence, cyber deterrence and cybersecurity.

Offensive cyber actors are growing in diversity, sophistication and number. Disruptive technologies powered by machine-learning and artificial intelligence pose both risks and opportunities for cyber defences: while attacks are likely to increase in complexity and make attribution ever more problematic, responses and defences will equally become more robust. Burning issues demanding the international community’s attention include an emerging digital arms race and the need to regulate dual-use export control regimes and clarify the rules of engagement in cyber warfare.

Multilateral cyber initiatives are abundant, but they are developing simultaneously with a growing push for sovereignty in the digital realm. The race for cyber superiority, if left unchecked, could develop into a greater security paradox. The EU’s cyber diplomacy toolbox and its bi- and multilateral engagements are already contributing to a safer and more principled cyberspace. Its effectiveness however hinges on genuine European and global cooperation for the common cyber good. Ultimately, the EU’s ambition to become more capable, by becoming ‘strategically autonomous’ or ‘technologically sovereign’, also rests on credible cyber defence and diplomacy.


Read the complete briefing on ‘Understanding the EU’s approach to cyber diplomacy and cyber defence‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.


Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2020/05/29/understanding-the-eus-approach-to-cyber-diplomacy-and-cyber-defence/

The coronavirus crisis: Options for economic recovery [What Think Tanks are thinking]

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© starlineart / Adobe Stock

As the coronavirus crisis keeps the world in its grip, analysts ponder what future measures could stimulate recovery from the deep recession expected in its aftermath, with a focus, in particular, on the European Commission’s plans and the growth-boosting fund recently proposed by France and Germany. Analysts also continue to contemplate what geopolitical order will emerge from the crisis, as well as the impact on individual regions such as Europe, Africa and Asia, or particular countries such as Saudi Arabia, Japan or Syria.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports from international think tanks on coronavirus and related issues. Earlier publications on the topic can be found in the previous edition in this series, published by EPRS on 26 May.

Who’s first wins? International crisis response to Covid-19
European Union Institute for Security Studies, May 2020

The European Union’s SURE plan to safeguard employment: A small step forward
Bruegel, May 2020

The Franco-German bond to the rescue
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2020

How Germany’s Constitutional Court jump-started the Franco-German engine
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

The EU recovery fund is a historic step, almost
Centre for European Reform, May 2020

Europe’s political oppositions in the coronavirus crisis
German Marshall Fund, May 2020

How to repair multilateralism after Covid-19
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

When the Franco–German ‘couple’ starts making sense again
Istituto Affari Internazionali, May 2020

Pushing the EU to a Hamiltonian moment
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, May 2020

The European Central Bank in the Covid-19 crisis: Whatever it takes, within its mandate
Bruegel, May 2020

How Germany’s Constitutional Court jump-started the Franco-German engine
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

The Coronavirus must push Europe to rescue multilateralism
Carnegie Europe, May 2020

How to repair multilateralism after Covid-19
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

Does restricting travel during a pandemic work?
Chatham House, May 2020

Covid-19 aside, it’s coal-fired power that threatens us most
Friends of Europe, May 2020

Weaker together or weaker apart? Great power relations after the coronavirus
Egmont, May 2020

How will Covid-19 impact Brexit? The collision of two giant policy imperatives
Bruegel, May 2020

Three ways Covid-19 will cause economic divergence in Europe
Centre for European Reform, May 2020

Save markets to save the single market
Bruegel, May 2020

Covid-19 and the climate: Energy nexus
Egmont, May 2020

Democracy delayed: Covid-19’s effect on Latin America’s politics
Chatham House, May 2020

Coronavirus crisis: Exploring the human impact on nature
Chatham House, May 2020

Living with coronavirus
Chatham House, May 2020

Dans l’après Covid, comment financer une relance verte?
Confrontations Europe, May 2020

In many of the hardest-hit states, Covid-19 small business relief is lagging
Brookings Institution, May 2020

G20 in the spotlight: The fight against Covid-19
Istituto Affari Internazionali, May 2020

Treacherous Mirror: Misinterpreting Italian Euroscepticism
Istituto Affari Internazionali, May 2020

How societies can fight pandemics and climate change at the same time
Atlantic Council, May 2020

How the coronavirus impacts Japan’s prospects for constitutional revision
Atlantic Council, May 2020

Americans want global engagement on fighting Covid-19
Brookings Institution, May 2020

L’économie et la diplomatie: Les deux défis de la Chine dans le monde post-Covid-19
Institut français des relations internationales, May 2020

Democracy is the missing link in EU Coronavirus recovery plans
Carnegie Europe, May 2020

To reopen the economy safely, we need both liability protection and hazard pay
Brookings Institution, May 2020

In der Corona-Krise aus der WTO-Krise
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, May 2020

Après le covid-19 le transport aérien en europe: Le temps de la décision
Fondation pour l’innovation politique, May 2020

L’Inde et le Pakistan à l’épreuve du coronavirus
Fondation pour la recherche stratégique, May 2020

La convergence ‘médias et télécoms’ à l’épreuve du Covid-19
Fondation Robert Schuman, May 2020

How does the Covid-19 pandemic affect LGBTI+ community in Turkey?
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, May 2020

The Covid-19 pandemic and conflict dynamics in Syria
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, May 2020

How Covid-19 affected the nation’s schools: New data gives insights for planning
Rand Corporation, May 2020

L’Arabie Saoudite face au COVID-19: l’ambition contrariée
Institut français des relations internationales, May 2020

Conflict, health cooperation and Covid-19 in Myanmar
International Crisis Group, May 2020

Sudan’s terrible combination: An existing humanitarian crisis and Covid-19
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, May 2020


Read this briefing on ‘The coronavirus crisis: Options for economic recovery‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Read all EPRS publications on the coronavirus outbreak

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2020/05/28/the-coronavirus-crisis-options-for-economic-recovery-what-think-tanks-are-thinking/

Food trade and food security in the coronavirus pandemic

Written by Krisztina Binder,

© SasinParaksa / Adobe Stock

The coronavirus pandemic has not only created a global public health crisis, but it has had a significant effect on the global economy and international trade. Measures to deal with the consequences of the pandemic while also affecting food trade have impacted on the world’s food systems and have raised concerns for global food security. The EU is committed to keeping trade flowing and supply chains functioning, and supports international cooperation to promote food security.

International trade affected by pandemic-induced crisis

To curb the rapid spread of the virus, unprecedented containment measures have been adopted worldwide that have restricted movement within and across the borders and shut down businesses’ activities. Lockdown policies resulted in, for instance, significant reductions in production, disruptions in logistics and distribution, and a drop in purchasing power and trade finance. As a consequence, the World Trade Organization (WTO) predicts a decrease in global merchandise trade of between 13 % and 32 % in 2020.

Although the WTO broadly prohibits the use of export prohibitions and restrictions, it allows their temporary introduction if a critical shortage of food or other essential products in an exporting country needs to be prevented or mitigated. Where members prohibit or restrict export of foodstuffs, the WTO Agreement on Agriculture provides that they must give due consideration to the food security of importing countries. In addition, the ‘general exceptions’ of WTO rules allow a member to introduce prohibitions and restrictions in order to pursue certain legitimate policy objectives, such as the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, under the condition that the application of the measures does not entail arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries, and does not constitute a disguised restriction on international trade.

Number of countries and separate customs territories introducing export prohibitions and restrictions, by category of product (as of 22 April 2020)

Figure 1 – Number of countries and separate customs territories introducing export prohibitions and restrictions, by category of product
(as of 22 April 2020)

The WTO Secretariat’s information note of 23 April 2020 estimated that 80 countries and separate customs territories (of which eight were not WTO members) had introduced export prohibitions or restrictions in the context of the coronavirus pandemic (See Figure 1). While most of the measures concerned medical supplies, 14 WTO members and three observers also imposed measures on food products. Although, in principle, all these measures should be notified, the WTO notes the low number of notifications. Thus, three notifications on foodstuffs export restrictions have been sent by Kyrgyzstan (wheat, rice, etc.), North Macedonia (wheat and wheat flour), and Thailand (eggs).

According to the food trade restrictions tracker of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), as of 25 May 2020, 11 countries apply active binding food export restrictions, among them Kazakhstan (buckwheat, sugar, etc.), Russia (wheat, rye, barley, etc.) and Ukraine (buckwheat, buckwheat grain).

Effects of the pandemic on global food trade and food security

The pandemic has already had direct and indirect impacts on food systems. These have included workforce shortages hampering production and processing activities, reduced cargo possibilities, additional health and safety measures requirements for supply chain members, panic-buying followed by decreased demand, but also reduced purchasing power. However, until now, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the supply of foodstuffs has been satisfactory and disruptions have not been significant. Global cereal reserves, for instance, are adequate, and prospects for wheat and other key staple crops for 2020 are favourable. At the same time, the FAO anticipates further disruptions in supply chains, with particular difficulties in, for instance, fresh food supply chains. Factors such as seasonal labour shortage and blockages of transport routes may affect the availability of these products, and not least, significantly increase the level of food losses and waste. This applies, for instance to fruits and vegetables, as well as to fresh fish and aquaculture products. Workforce issues may also adversely affect production and processing in the meat sector.

In addition to food availability, access to food is also an important dimension of food security. Analysts recall the food price crisis of 2007-2008, when export restrictions imposed by certain major food-exporting countries triggered the use of similar measures by other exporting countries, which led to price increases. According to the May 2020 Market Monitor of the Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS), recent and mostly temporary restrictive measures have so far had only a limited adverse effect on international prices; however, the poor and the most vulnerable sections of the population would in particular be at risk of access difficulties arising from food price spikes and falling revenues. Experts also stress the need to keep food supply chains open and efficient, in order to preserve jobs that provide income and livelihoods, and to contain price increases and critical shortages. Although currently it is largely unknown to what extent the pandemic will affect agricultural markets, the FAO’s analyses generally expect a decrease, both on the supply and on the demand side, with the latter due to slowing economic activity and rising unemployment.

According to the 2020 Global Report on Food Crisis, the 135 million people in 55 countries and territories who were in acute food insecurity in 2019 are the most vulnerable to the consequences of the pandemic. In addition, countries that are highly dependent on food imports or on exports of first-degree substances, such as oil, are also among those vulnerable to lack of food security. The report adds that at the time of the publication, the extent of the pandemic’s effects on these countries is unknown. Developing countries, where the pandemic may endanger income and labour-intensive forms of production, are also at risk.

The EU’s initial Covid-19-related trade actions also affecting food trade

The EU’s initial actions were aimed at addressing the immediate public health crisis, with the objective of ensuring the cross-border flow of vital medical supplies, basic agricultural products and other goods and services. On 7 April 2020, the EU notified to the WTO eight Covid-19-relevant steps including various fields of actions affecting international trade operations, such as the guidelines for uninterrupted air cargo services ensuring the operation of European and global supply chains. Subsequently, the EU informed the WTO about new trade measures to address the economic impact of the pandemic on 24 April 2020. EU export authorisation measures did not apply to agricultural and food products, but to certain items of personal protective equipment. Although not directly pandemic-induced, on 27 April 2020 the EU set import duty on maize, sorghum and rye. The low price of US maize, due inter alia, to the fall in oil prices caused by the Covid-19 outbreak, has activated an existing automatic mechanism calculating import duties for these cereals to protect EU cereal producers from being at a disadvantage.

At the G20 ministerial meeting on 30 March 2020, Trade Commissioner Phil Hogan, given the adequate global food supply, considered the introduction of export restrictions and other distortive measures in the agri-food sector unjustified. In a speech of 16 April 2020, Agricultural Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski called for keeping domestic and international food supply chains functional to prevent a global food security crisis and to ensure food security for the most vulnerable. The joint statement of 16 April 2020 of the Croatian Presidency and the European Commission stated that, ‘in the long-run there will be a need to ensure the resilience and sustainability of global value and supply chains’. On 22 April 2020, the EU and 21 other WTO members, in a joint statement, committed to keeping agri-food supply chains open and connected, and to refraining from creating domestic food stocks. The parties to the statement pledged to introduce agriculture and food products-related emergency measures that are targeted, proportionate, transparent and temporary.

According to the European Commission, 2019 was an outstanding year for the EU in terms of agri-food trade. Not only did the value of exports reach €151.2 billion, an increase of 10 % compared to 2018, but the value of the trade surplus was also more than 50 % higher than in 2018, reaching €31.9 billion.


Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Food trade and food security in the coronavirus pandemic‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2020/05/27/food-trade-and-food-security-in-the-coronavirus-pandemic/

EU export authorisation scheme for personal protection equipment

Written by Issam Hallak,

© Sherry Young / Adobe Stock.

In the midst of the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, the European Commission issued an implementing regulation requiring authorisations for exports of personal protection equipment (PPE), effective as of 15 March 2020 for a six-week period. A second implementing regulation extended the period for another 30 days. The latter reduced the range of products subject to authorisation to three categories, namely mouth-nose protection, protective spectacles and visors, and protective garments; gloves and face shields were dropped from the list.

The authorisations are granted by national competent authorities, and must be coordinated with the Commission’s new ‘clearing house for medical equipment’ and the rescEU stockpile of medical equipment in order to verify that the PPE being exported is not needed by other EU Member States in their fight against coronavirus. The export authorisation regulations are among the EU coordination and solidarity mechanisms implemented by the European Commission.

A mapping of exports and imports of PPE subject to authorisation shows that, even though the EU runs a large trade surplus for medical products in general, it had been running trade deficits on these specific products for the last decade. The scale of trade in these products is also very small since imports represented as little as 0.05 % of EU gross domestic product (GDP) in 2019. This all goes to show how what amounts to a tiny portion of international trade can have dramatic consequences.


Read this briefing on ‘EU export authorisation scheme for personal protection equipment‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.


Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2020/05/27/eu-export-authorisation-scheme-for-personal-protection-equipment/

Coronavirus: The world in limbo [What Think Tanks are thinking]

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© scaliger / Adobe Stock

Most countries recovering from the first – and hopefully last – wave of the coronavirus pandemic are now in limbo. Confinement measures are cautiously being relaxed while short-term assessments on the impact of the virus on the economy and society are being refined. Meanwhile, analysts are now also looking at the mid- to long- term implications of the disease and also assessing the situation in the developing world, as well as in Russia, where, notably, they see the crisis working against President Vladimir Putin.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports from international think tanks on coronavirus and related issues. Earlier publications on the topic can be found in the previous item in this series, published by EPRS on 15 May.

Rebooting Europe: A framework for a post Covid-19 economic recovery
Bruegel, May 2020

Covid-19 calls for European strategic autonomy: The EU needs to manage global dependencies without pulling up the drawbridges
Finnish Institute for International Affairs, May 2020

Coronavirus is pushing the EU in new and undesirable directions
Centre for European Reform, May 2020

Options for a European Recovery Fund
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, May 2020

From Wuhan to the world: How the pandemic will reshape geopolitics
Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, May 2020

European identity and the test of Covid-19
Instituto Affari Internazionali, May 2020

Covid-19 will reshape our relationship with the state
Chatham House, May 2020

Coronavirus: Navigating a new storm with an old boat?
Fondation Européenne d’Etudes Progressistes, May 2020

Le Rapport Schuman sur l’Europe, l’état de l’Union 2020
Fondation Robert Schuman, May 2020

What is the world doing to create a Covid-19 vaccine?
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

The health and economic impacts of Covid-19 interventions
Rand Corporation, May 2020

Peace, conflict, and Covid-19
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

Taiwan’s coronavirus lesson: Technology with transparency
German Marshall Fund, May 2020

Greener after
Institut Jacques Delors, May 2020

European defence should not be the casualty of the ‘great lockdown’
Institut des relations internationales et stratégiques, May 2020

The EU and the Covid-19 crisis: Emerging stronger or weaker on the international stage?
Friends of Europe, May 2020

Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the Chinese economy
Polish Institute of International Affairs, May 2020

Developing policies for effective COVID-19 containment: The TRACE model
Brookings Institution, May 2020

Watch out, Putin’s star in Europe is declining
German Marshall Fund, May 2020

Le monde d’après: L’entreprise-providence?
Fondation Jean Jaurès, May 2020

Navigieren auf Sicht ist für einen grünen Wiederaufschwung nicht genug
Bruegel, May 2020

How the coronavirus revived Angela Merkel
Carnegie Europe, May 2020

Germany’s epic corona-tracing debate: A risky game with public trust
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, May 2020

The meaning of systemic rivalry: Europe and China beyond the pandemic
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

Strategy for a pandemic: The UK and Covid-19
Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, May 2020

Whatever it takes, for as long as is needed: Mapping a new European Recovery Programme
Wilfried Martens Centre, May 2020

Coronavirus: Not Putin’s kind of crisis
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

What Covid tells us about the politics of the former Soviet Union
International Institute for Strategic Studies, May 2020

Covid-19 and the climate: Energy nexus
Egmont, May 2020

Covid-19 spotlighted European migrants’ vital role: The EU must tell their story
Friends of Europe, May 2020

Towards urban decoupling? China’s smart city ambitions at the time of Covid-19
European Union Institute for Security Studies, May 2020

In the Covid-19 era, healthcare should be universal and free
Chatham House, May 2020

A double pandemic: Domestic violence in the age of Covid-19
Council of Foreign Relations, May 2020

Should communities be concerned about digital technologies to fight Covid-19?
Rand Corporation, May 2020

Digital tracking: Why it’s no
Institut Thomas More, May 2020

Risking their health to pay the bills: 100 million Europeans cannot afford two months without income
Bruegel, May 2020

How Iran was hit by and could overcome the COVID-19 crisis
European Policy Centre, May 2020

No triumph for Putin on Victory Day
Centre for European Reform, May 2020

Power shifts and the risk of a ‘crisis within the crisis’: Covid, oil and the MENA Region
Instituto Affari Internazionali, May 2020

Covid-19 and the oil price crash: Twin crises impacting Saudi-Iran relations
Instituto Affari Internazionali, May 2020

As Covid-19 spreads in ICE detention, oversight is more critical than ever
Brookings Institution, May 2020

How the coronavirus will harm state and city budgets
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

The coronavirus challenge for Puerto Rico
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

Needed: A blueprint for a post-vaccine world
Rand Corporation, May 2020

Why Europe still matters
Carnegie Europe, May 2020

Le Covid-19 au Sahel: Pandémie lente mais impacts multiples
Institut français des relations internationales, May 2020

La Gestion très politisée du Covid-19 en Turquie
Institut français des relations internationales, May 2020

Strategy for a pandemic: The UK and Covid-19
International Institute for Strategic Studies, May 2020

Sanctioning pandemic-plagued Iran
International Institute for Strategic Studies, May 2020

The struggle for democracy in Asia: Regression, resilience, revival
Bertelsmann Stiftung, May 2020

Covid-19 and technology in the EU: Think bigger than apps
Wilfried Martens Centre, May 2020

Coronavirus: Nigeria’s ‘fiscal flu’
Chatham House, May 2020


Read this briefing on ‘Coronavirus: The world in limbo‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Read all EPRS publications on the coronavirus outbreak

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2020/05/27/coronavirus-the-world-in-limbo-what-think-tanks-are-thinking/

Citizens’ enquiries on the composition of the European Parliament, following Court of Justice ruling on case C-502/19

© European Union 2019 – Source : EP / Marc Dossmann

Citizens often send messages to the President of the European Parliament (or to the institution’s public portal) expressing their views on current issues and/or requesting action from the Parliament. The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (AskEP) within the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) looks into these issues and replies to the messages, which may sometimes be identical as part of wider public campaigns.

The President of the European Parliament has recently received a large number of messages following the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-502/19, Junqueras Vies, of 19 December 2019. Citizens first began to write to the President on this subject in December 2019. The President of the European Parliament, David Maria Sassoli, announced in plenary on 13 January 2020 that, following the judgement of the EU Court, the mandates of Mr Junqueras i Vies, Mr Puigdemont i Casamajó and Mr Comín i Oliveres began on 2 July 2019, on the basis of the official declaration of the results of the European elections by the competent Spanish authorities. However, taking into account the decision of the Junta Electoral Central of 3 January 2020, and pursuant to the decision of the Tribunal Supremo of 9 January 2020, the mandate of Mr Junqueras i Vies terminated with effect from 3 January 2020.

Please find below the main points of the reply sent to citizens who took the time to write to the President of the European Parliament on this matter (in English, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Polish).

Main points made in the reply in English

‘On 19 December 2019, the last sitting of Parliament’s plenary session of 2019, President Sassoli informed the Parliament about the content and consequences of the judgement of the Court of Justice in case C-502/19, Junqueras Vies, published on the same day. The statement of the President on the European Court of Justice ruling can be found here.

Taking into account the decision of the Junta Electoral Central of 3 January 2020 and the decision of the Tribunal Supremo of 9 January 2020 concerning the situation of Mr Junqueras i Vies, the President published a statement on 10 January 2020 on the composition of the European Parliament. This statement can be found here.

As outlined in the statement, the European Parliament is obliged to take note without delay of the final decisions of the competent authorities of the Member States. Therefore, the President announced in plenary on Monday 13 January 2020 the start of mandate of the three Members on 2 July 2019 of Mr Junqueras i Vies, Mr Puigdemont i Casamajó and Mr Comín i Oliveres, and the termination of the mandate of Mr Junqueras i Vies on 3 January 2020.

The President’s announcement of the termination of the mandate of Mr Junqueras iVies is currently under review by the General Court of the European Union. Parliament is not in a position to comment on ongoing Court proceedings.’

Main points made in the reply in Spanish

“El 19 de diciembre de 2019, en la última sesión del Pleno del Parlamento de 2019, el presidente Sassoli informó a la cámara sobre el contenido y las consecuencias de la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia en el asunto C-502/19, Junqueras i Vies, publicada ese mismo día. La declaración del presidente sobre la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión puede consultarse aquí.

Teniendo en cuenta la decisión de la Junta Electoral Central de 3 de enero de 2020 así como la decisión del Tribunal Supremo de 9 de enero de 2020 en relación con la situación del Sr. Junqueras i Vies, el presidente publicó el 10 de enero de 2020 una declaración sobre la composición del Parlamento Europeo. Esta declaración puede consultarse aquí.

Tal como se indica en la declaración, el Parlamento Europeo está obligado a tomar nota sin dilación de las decisiones que con carácter definitivo tomen las autoridades competentes de los Estados miembros. Por consiguiente, el Presidente anunció en el Pleno el lunes 13 de enero de 2020 el inicio del mandato de los tres diputados —Sres. Junqueras i Vies, Puigdemont i Casamajó y Comín i Oliveres— en fecha de 2 de julio de 2019, así como la expiración del mandato del Sr. Junqueras i Vies el 3 de enero de 2020.

El anuncio por parte del presidente de la expiración del mandato de este último está siendo actualmente examinado por el Tribunal General de la Unión Europea. El Parlamento no puede hacer comentarios sobre los procedimientos judiciales en curso.”

Main points made in the reply in Italian

“Il 19 dicembre 2019, durante l’ultima seduta plenaria del Parlamento del 2019, il Presidente Sassoli ha informato il Parlamento in merito al contenuto e alle conseguenze della sentenza della Corte di giustizia nella causa C-502/19 Junqueras Vies, pubblicata lo stesso giorno. La dichiarazione del Presidente sulla sentenza della Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea può essere consultata tramite questo link.

Tenuto conto della decisione della Junta Electoral Central del 3 gennaio 2020 e della decisione del Tribunal Supremo del 9 gennaio 2020 in merito alla situazione del sig. Junqueras i Vies, il 10 gennaio 2020 il Presidente ha pubblicato una dichiarazione sulla composizione del Parlamento europeo. Tale dichiarazione può essere consultata tramite questo link.

Come indicato nella dichiarazione, il Parlamento europeo è tenuto a prendere immediatamente atto delle decisioni definitive delle autorità competenti degli Stati membri. Pertanto, lunedì 13 gennaio 2020 il Presidente ha annunciato in Aula l’inizio del mandato dei deputati Junqueras i Vies, Puigdemont i Casamajó e Comín i Oliveres il 2 luglio 2019 nonché la cessazione del mandato del sig. Junqueras i Vies il 3 gennaio 2020.

L’annuncio del Presidente in merito alla cessazione del mandato del sig. Junqueras i Vies è attualmente all’esame del Tribunale dell’Unione europea. Il Parlamento non può esprimere osservazioni sui procedimenti giudiziari in corso.”

Main points made in the reply in Portuguese

“Em 19 de dezembro de 2019, na última sessão plenária do período de sessões do Parlamento em 2019, o Presidente Sassoli informou o Parlamento sobre o conteúdo e as consequências do Acórdão do Tribunal de Justiça relativo ao processo C-502/19, Junqueras i Vies, publicado no mesmo dia. A declaração do Presidente sobre o acórdão do Tribunal de Justiça Europeu pode ser consultada aqui.

Tendo em conta a Decisão da Junta Eleitoral Central, de 3 de janeiro de 2020, e o Acórdão do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, de 9 de janeiro de 2020, relativamente à situação de Junquera i Vies, o Presidente publicou uma declaração sobre a composição do Parlamento Europeu em 10 de janeiro de 2020. Essa declaração pode ser consultada aqui.

Conforme indicado na declaração, o Parlamento Europeu é obrigado a registar, sem demora, as decisões finais das autoridades competentes dos Estados-Membros. Por conseguinte, o Presidente anunciou em sessão plenária, na segunda-feira, 13 de janeiro de 2020, o início do mandato dos três deputados -Junqueras i Vies, Puigdemont i Casamajó e Comín i Oliveres – em 2 de julho de 2019, e o termo do mandato de Junqueras i Vries em 3 de janeiro de 2020.

O anúncio da cessação do mandato de Junqueras i Vies pelo Presidente está atualmente a ser examinado pelo Tribunal Geral da União Europeia. O Parlamento não está em posição de comentar processos judiciais em curso.”

Main points made in the reply in Polish

“W dniu 19 grudnia 2019 r., na ostatnim posiedzeniu plenarnym Parlamentu w 2019 r., przewodniczący D.M. Sassoli poinformował Parlament o treści i skutkach wyroku Europejskiego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości w sprawie C-502/19, Junqueras Vies, opublikowanego tego samego dnia. Oświadczenie przewodniczącego w sprawie orzeczenia Europejskiego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości znajduje się tutaj.

Uwzględniając decyzję hiszpańskiej centralnej komisji wyborczej (Junta Electoral Central) z 3 stycznia 2020 r. oraz decyzję hiszpańskiego sądu najwyższego (Tribunal Supremo) z 9 stycznia 2020 r. dotyczącą sytuacji O. Junquerasa i Viesa, w dniu 10 stycznia 2020 r. przewodniczący opublikował oświadczenie w sprawie składu Parlamentu Europejskiego. Oświadczenie to znajduje się pod tym linkiem.

Jak wskazano w oświadczeniu, Parlament Europejski jest zobowiązany do niezwłocznego przyjęcia do wiadomości ostatecznych decyzji właściwych organów państw członkowskich. W związku z tym w poniedziałek 13 stycznia 2020 r. przewodniczący ogłosił na posiedzeniu plenarnym rozpoczęcie mandatu przez trzech posłów w dniu 2 lipca 2019 r.: O. Junquerasa i Viesa, C. Puigdemonta i Casamajó oraz A. Comína i Oliveresa, a także zakończenie mandatu O. Junquerasa i Viesa w dniu 3 stycznia 2020 r.

Ogłoszenie przez przewodniczącego zakończenia mandatu O. Junquerasa i Viesa jest obecnie przedmiotem kontroli przeprowadzanej przez Sąd Unii Europejskiej. Parlament nie może wypowiadać się na temat toczących się postępowań sądowych.”

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2020/05/26/citizens-enquiries-on-the-composition-of-the-european-parliament-following-court-of-justice-ruling-on-case-c-502-19/

Citizens’ enquiries on the use of animals in scientific research

© Alona / Adobe Stock

Citizens often send messages to the President of the European Parliament (or to the institution’s public portal) expressing their views on current issues and/or requesting action from the Parliament. The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (AskEP) within the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) looks into these issues and replies to the messages, which may sometimes be identical as part of wider public campaigns.

The President of the European Parliament has recently received a large number of messages calling on the Parliament to introduce a Europe-wide moratorium on the use of animals in scientific research.

Citizens first began to write to the President on this subject in October 2019. In their messages, correspondents requested an EU-wide ban on all tests on animals for household products and their ingredients. Regarding other purposes, they called for a shift towards humane methods not involving animals.

Please find below the main points of the reply sent to citizens who took the time to write to the President of the European Parliament on this matter (in English, French, German and Dutch).

Main points made in the reply in English

The EU rules on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes are laid down in Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010. The directive is based on the principle of replacement, reduction and refinement of the use of animals in procedures (also known as the ‘Three Rs’ principle).

On 3 May 2018, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on a global ban to end animal testing for cosmetics, in which Members reiterated ‘that animal testing can no longer be justified for cosmetics and asks EU and national public authorities to uphold the public’s opposition to cosmetics testing and support the advancement of innovative, humane testing methods;’

Further to the ban on animal testing for cosmetic purposes, Members of the European Parliament have tabled questions to the Commission – among others – on animal testing and clarifications on REACH and the Cosmetics Regulation, to which the Commission reply stated that ‘The promotion of alternative methods to animal testing is one of the main objectives of the REACH Regulation’.

On 3 March 2015, a European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Stop Vivisection’ was submitted to the European Commission, the goal of which was ‘to abrogate Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes and put forward a new proposal aimed at phasing out the practice of animal experimentation, making compulsory the use – in biomedical and toxicological research – of data directly relevant for the human species’.

The initiative was discussed during a public hearing hosted by the European Parliament on 11 May 2015, in order to provide a platform for debate for Members, the general public, the European Citizens’ Initiative supporters and experts in the field.

In its communication setting out its actions in response to the initiative, the Commission welcomed the mobilisation of citizens in support of animal welfare and stated that the EU shares the initiative’s conviction that animal testing should be phased out, which is also the main aim of EU legislation.

Numerous petitions have been submitted to the European Parliament on the issue of animal testing and vivisection.

Further information on animal testing is available in the summary of EU legislation on the protection of laboratory animals and the Commission’s webpage on ‘animals used for scientific purposes‘, which also contains details of EU action to identify alternative approaches.

Further information:

Main points made in the reply in French

La question de l’expérimentation animale relative à la protection des animaux utilisés à des fins scientifiques est réglementée au niveau de l’Union par la directive 2010/63/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22 septembre 2010 . La directive s’appuie sur l’application des principes dits de remplacement, de réduction et de raffinement (ou «règle des trois R») de l’utilisation d’animaux dans le cadre de ces procédures.

Le 3 mai 2018, le Parlement européen a adopté une résolution sur l’interdiction totale de l’expérimentation animale pour les cosmétiques, dans laquelle il «réaffirme que l’expérimentation animale ne peut plus être justifiée pour les cosmétiques et demande à l’Union et aux pouvoirs publics nationaux de soutenir l’opposition des citoyens à l’expérimentation animale pour les cosmétiques et le développement de méthodes d’expérimentation novatrices et humaines».

Dans le droit fil de l’interdiction de l’expérimentation animale dans le domaine des produits cosmétiques, plusieurs députés ont adressé des questions à la Commission concernant, entre autres, l’expérimentation animale et des éclaircissements sur REACH et le règlement sur les produits cosmétiques, ce à quoi la Commission a répondu en déclarant que «la promotion de méthodes alternatives à l’expérimentation animale est l’un des principaux objectifs du règlement REACH».

Le 3 mars 2015, une initiative citoyenne européenne intitulée Stop Vivisection a été présentée à la Commission, en vue de demander à cette dernière «d’abroger la directive 2010/63/UE relative à la protection des animaux utilisés à des fins scientifiques et de présenter à la place une nouvelle proposition de directive visant à mettre fin à l’expérimentation animale et de rendre obligatoire, pour la recherche biomédicale et toxicologique, l’utilisation de données pertinentes pour l’espèce humaine».

L’initiative a été examinée lors d’une audition publique, organisée par le Parlement européen le 11 mai 2015, pour permettre aux députés, au grand public, aux signataires de l’initiative citoyenne européenne et aux experts du domaine d’échanger sur ces questions.

Dans sa communication exposant ce qu’elle compte faire pour répondre à l’initiative, la Commission salue la mobilisation des citoyens en faveur du bien-être des animaux et déclare que l’Union européenne partage la conviction qui est celle de l’initiative citoyenne, à savoir que les essais sur les animaux devraient être progressivement supprimés, ce qui est aussi la finalité ultime de la législation européenne dans ce domaine.

Un grand nombre de pétitions ont été présentées au Parlement européen sur la question de l’expérimentation animale et de la vivisection.

Davantage d’informations sont disponibles dans la synthèse publiée sur EUR-Lex concernant la protection des animaux de laboratoire ainsi que sur la page web que la Commission consacre aux animaux utilisés à des fins scientifiques, qui précise également les mesures prises par l’Union pour recenser les méthodes de substitution à l’expérimentation animale.

Pour plus d’informations:

Main points made in the reply in German

Die einschlägigen EU-Vorschriften zum Schutz der für wissenschaftliche Zwecke verwendeten Tiere sind in der Richtlinie 2010/63/EU des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 22. September 2010 festgelegt. Die Richtlinie basiert auf dem Prinzip, dass der Einsatz von Tieren bei solchen Verfahren ersetzt, eingeschränkt und verbessert werden soll (das sogenannte „3R-Prinzip“: replacement, reduction, refinement).

Am 3. Mai 2018 hat das Europäische Parlament eine Entschließung zu einem weltweiten Verbot von Tierversuchen für kosmetische Mittel angenommen, in der die Mitglieder bekräftigt haben, „dass Tierversuche für kosmetische Mittel nicht länger gerechtfertigt sind“, und „die EU und die einzelstaatlichen Behörden [aufgefordert haben], der ablehnenden Haltung der Öffentlichkeit gegenüber Tierversuchen für kosmetische Mittel Rechnung zu tragen und die Weiterentwicklung innovativer, humaner Versuchsmethoden zu fördern“.

Als Ergänzung zu dem Verbot von Tierversuchen für kosmetische Zwecke haben die Mitglieder unter anderem die Kommission zu Tierversuchen und zu Erläuterungen zur REACH- und zur Kosmetikverordnung konsultiert, worauf die Kommission erwidert hat, die Förderung alternativer Methoden zu Tierversuchen sei eines der wichtigsten Ziele der REACH-Verordnung.

Am 3. März 2015 wurde bei der Kommission eine Europäische Bürgerinitiative namens „Stop Vivisection“ eingereicht, die darauf abzielt, „die Richtlinie 2010/63/EU zum Schutz der für wissenschaftliche Zwecke verwendeten Tiere außer Kraft zu setzen und einen neuen Vorschlag zu unterbreiten, der auf der Abschaffung der Tierversuche beruht und stattdessen – in der biomedizinischen und toxikologischen Forschung – verbindlich den Einsatz von Daten vorschreibt, die direkte Relevanz für den Menschen haben.“

Das Europäische Parlament hat am 11. Mai 2015 eine öffentliche Anhörung zu der Initiative veranstaltet, um Mitgliedern, der Öffentlichkeit, Unterstützern der Europäischen Bürgerinitiative und Sachverständigen in diesem Bereich eine Diskussionsplattform zu bieten.

In ihrer Mitteilung mit den aufgrund der Initiative ergriffenen Maßnahmen begrüßte die Kommission die Mobilisierung der Bürger für den Tierschutz und führte an, dass die EU die Überzeugung der Bürgerinitiative teile, dass Tierversuche abgeschafft werden sollten, und dass das EU-Recht letztlich darauf hinauslaufe.

Beim Europäischen Parlament wurden zahlreiche Petitionen zum Thema Tierversuche und Vivisektion eingereicht.

Weitere Informationen über Tierversuche finden Sie in der Zusammenfassung der EU-Rechtsvorschriften zum Schutz von Versuchstieren und auf der Website der Kommission zu Tieren, die für wissenschaftliche Zwecke verwendet werden, die außerdem Details der Maßnahmen der EU zur Entwicklung alternativer Forschungsmethoden umfasst.

Weitere Informationen:

Main points made in the reply in Dutch

De EU-regels betreffende de bescherming van dieren die voor wetenschappelijke doeleinden worden gebruikt zijn vastgelegd in Richtlijn 2010/63/EU van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 22 september 2010. Deze richtlijn is gebaseerd op de beginselen van vervanging, vermindering en verfijning (de drie v’s).

Het Europees Parlement heeft op 3 mei 2018 een resolutie aangenomen over een mondiaal verbod op dierproeven voor cosmetica, waarin de EP-leden aangeven dat zij van mening zijn dat “het verrichten van dierproeven voor cosmetica niet meer valt te rechtvaardigen” en waarin zij de Europese en nationale autoriteiten verzoeken “om het verzet van het grote publiek tegen dierproeven voor cosmetica en de ontwikkeling van innovatieve, humane testmethoden te steunen”.

Naar aanleiding van het verbod op dierproeven voor cosmetische doeleinden hebben EP-leden schriftelijke vragen ingediend bij de Commissie over o.a. dierproeven en verduidelijking van de Reach-verordening en de cosmeticaverordening. In haar antwoord op deze vragen verklaarde de Commissie dat de bevordering van alternatieve methoden voor dierproeven een van de belangrijkste doelstellingen van de Reach-verordening is.

Op 3 maart 2015 werd het Europees burgerinitiatief “Stop Vivisectie” ingediend bij de Europese Commissie. De indieners van dit burgerinitiatief drongen bij de Commissie aan op intrekking van Richtlijn 2010/63/EU betreffende de bescherming van dieren die voor wetenschappelijke doeleinden worden gebruikt en indiening van een nieuw voorstel met daarin een geleidelijk verbod op experimenten met dieren en een verplichting om – in het kader van biomedisch en toxicologisch onderzoek – gebruik te maken van gegevens die rechtstreeks van belang zijn voor de mens.

Over dit initiatief werd op 11 mei 2015 een openbare hoorzitting gehouden die georganiseerd werd door het Europees Parlement en die bedoeld was om EP-leden, burgers, de ondertekenaars van het burgerinitiatief en deskundigen op dit gebied een platform voor debat te bieden.

In de mededeling van de Commissie waarin de Commissie aangeeft welke maatregelen zij als reactie op dit initiatief wil gaan nemen, geeft de Commissie aan verheugd te zijn dat zoveel burgers zich inzetten voor het welzijn van dieren en dat de EU het met de indieners eens is dat er een verbod moet komen op dierproeven, en dat dat ook het belangrijkste doel is van de EU-wetgeving.

Over de onderwerpen dierproeven en vivisectie werden bij het Europees Parlement ook talrijke verzoekschriften ingediend.

Meer informatie over dierproeven kunt u vinden in de samenvatting van de EU-wetgeving over de bescherming van proefdieren en de website van de Commissie “animals used for scientific purposes”, waar ook meer informatie te vinden is over wat de EU doet om alternatieve methodes te vinden.

Meer informatie:

 

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2020/05/26/citizens-enquiries-on-the-use-of-animals-in-scientific-research/

How digital technology is easing the burden of confinement

Written by Mar Negreiro,

© Stanisic Vladimir / Adobe Stock

The coronavirus pandemic is bringing an unforeseen acceleration in the digital transformation of societies around the world. This is the first pandemic in history in which digital technologies are being used on a massive scale to keep people connected while in isolation, allowing them to telework, follow online courses, shop online or consult health professionals from home. As a result, internet traffic has increased substantially since confinement began. According to EU Member States’ national regulators, operators have so far been able to manage this surge, while also introducing many exceptional measures, such as temporarily removing broadband data caps and making extra data and free online content available.

The current crisis has highlighted the importance that upgraded telecoms networks and 5G will have for societies and economies. Furthermore, now that confinement has started to ease, it is increasingly clear that digital technology will continue to play a very important longer-term role in controlling the spread of the coronavirus. The scope of contact-tracing apps is likely to expand, and teleworking, telehealth and e-learning are likely to become more prevalent than before.

However, the most popular digital apps, whether for e-commerce, social media, videoconferencing or contact tracing are not of EU origin, posing concerns for the EU’s digital dependency, competitive advantage and data privacy. In fact, the coronavirus crisis has further consolidated the existing dominance of ‘Big Tech’.

The pandemic has further exacerbated existing issues; for instance, the digital divide has broadened further and there has been a global rise in cybersecurity incidents. The EU is poised to tackle these issues, while at the same time embracing the digital transformation in our lifestyles and allowing the internet to play a critical role in defeating the virus.


Read the complete briefing on ‘How digital technology is easing the burden of confinement‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2020/05/25/how-digital-technology-is-easing-the-burden-of-confinement/

EU budgetary and financial response to the coronavirus crisis

Written by Clare Ferguson, Marianna Pari, Stefano Spinaci,

Within the limits of its powers, the EU has acted quickly to tackle the coronavirus pandemic and its consequences. Showing considerable flexibility, EU institutions have organised a package of measures (some already decided, others proposed or requested), to counter the crisis, drawing both on the EU budget and a wider economic package. Parliament is calling on the European Commission to propose a €2 trillion recovery package, distributed mostly through grants (over which Parliament will maintain scrutiny) rather than loans, and warns against the presentation of misleading figures. The recovery package should provide real funding to help those hardest-hit, and focus on climate mitigation, digitalisation and a new health programme. The Commission has committed to propose a comprehensive recovery plan, along with revised 2021-2027 MFF proposals, on 27 May 2020. In the meantime, France and Germany have suggested a €500 billion ‘recovery fund’.

© European Union, 2020 –European Parliament / EPRS


Read the complete briefing on ‘EU budgetary and financial response to the coronavirus crisis‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.


Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2020/05/20/eu-budgetary-and-financial-response-to-the-coronavirus-crisis/

Citizens’ enquiries on the situation of the Kurdish population in north east Syria – Rojava

© Peter Hermes Furian / Adobe Stock

Citizens often send messages to the President of the European Parliament (or to the institution’s public portal) expressing their views on current issues and/or requesting action from the Parliament. The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (AskEP) within the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) looks into these issues and replies to the messages, which may sometimes be identical as part of wider public campaigns.

The President of the European Parliament has recently received a large number of messages on the situation of the Kurdish population in north east Syria, following a Turkish military operation in this region in October 2019. Citizens first began to write to the President on this subject in October 2019, expressing their concerns regarding the situation and asking for the European Union to intervene with concrete action. On the same day that the Turkish military operation began – 9 October 2019 – the President strongly urged Turkey to halt all military action immediately and to find solutions in peace and stability, through dialogue.

Please find below the main points of the reply sent to citizens who took the time to write to the President of the European Parliament on this matter (in English and in Italian).

Main points made in the reply in English

The European Parliament and other European Union institutions are highly concerned about the situation.

We wish to inform you that the President of the European Parliament, Mr David Maria Sassoli, has stated, on 9 October 2019:

‘I strongly urge Turkey to stop all military action immediately. There is a population that has already suffered badly. We must not allow anything that can cause further suffering. This must stop. This intervention will never be a solution to the problem. We in the international community, the European Union, its institutions, ask that this military intervention stops, and we discuss the possibility of a buffer zone, but it must be done in peace and stability and through dialogue.’

The Plenary of the European Parliament held a debate on 9 October 2019 on the situation in northern Syria during which the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Ms Federica Mogherini, made a statement.

The Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union, which met in Luxembourg on 14 October 2019, adopted conclusions on north east Syria, including that:

‘The Council recalls the 9 October 2019 Declaration of the High Representative on behalf of the European Union and urges Turkey again to cease its unilateral military action in North East Syria and to withdraw its forces. The EU condemns Turkey’s military action which seriously undermines the stability and the security of the whole region, resulting in more civilians suffering and further displacement and severely hindering access to humanitarian assistance.’ and ‘The EU recalls that it will not provide stabilisation or development assistance in areas where the rights of local populations are ignored or violated.’

President Sassoli, in his speech, on 17 October 2019, to the European Council has stated:

‘For days, people throughout Europe have been following with dismay and anger events in our neighbourhood. The Kurdish population of north-eastern Syria, which fought bravely against the terrorists of the so-called Islamic State, is now under attack by a NATO country.

It is no wonder that our citizens feel a strong sense of gratitude towards the Kurds, because the battle against ISIS has been fundamental to our security.

Against this background, the European Parliament reiterates its call for the accession negotiations with Turkey to be suspended.

We consider it unacceptable and firmly reject any attempt by the Turkish authorities to establish a link between its military action in north-eastern Syria and the fate of Syrian refugees on Turkish territory.

It is worth reminding our citizens that the European Union is not funding the Turkish authorities but contributing directly to assisting and improving refugee living conditions through the work of UN agencies and humanitarian organisations. Human beings in need must never be used as a bargaining chip to justify violations of international law.’

For further information, you may wish to consult the website of the European Parliament and the website of the Delegation of the European Union to Syria. 

Main points made in the reply in Italian

Il Parlamento europeo e le altre istituzioni dell’Unione europea sono molto preoccupati riguardo alla situazione.

La informiamo che il Presidente Sassoli ha dichiarato il 9 ottobre 2019 quanto segue:

“Chiedo, con forza, alla Turchia di interrompere immediatamente ogni azione militare. C’è una popolazione che ha già sofferto duramente. Non dobbiamo metterla in condizioni di avere altre sofferenze. Che si fermi questo intervento, che non sarà mai la soluzione ai problemi che abbiamo! La comunità internazionale, l’Unione europea, le sue istituzioni chiedono che questo intervento si fermi e si discuta la possibilità anche di un cuscinetto di sicurezza ma certamente va fatto nella pace, nella stabilità e nel dialogo!”.

La Plenaria del Parlamento europeo ha tenuto una discussione il 9 ottobre 2019 sulla situazione nella Siria settentrionale durante la quale la Vicepresidente della Commissione/Alto rappresentante dell’Unione per gli affari esteri e la politica di sicurezza, Sig.ra Federica Mogherini, ha rilasciato una dichiarazione.

Il Consiglio per gli Affari esteri dell’Unione europea si è riunito a Lussemburgo il 14 ottobre 2019 e ha adottato conclusioni sul nord-est della Siria dichiarando:

“Il Consiglio rammenta la dichiarazione dell’Alto rappresentante a nome dell’Unione europea, del 9 ottobre 2019, ed esorta nuovamente la Turchia a cessare la sua azione militare unilaterale nel nord-est della Siria e a ritirare le sue forze. L’UE condanna l’azione militare della Turchia che compromette seriamente la stabilità e la sicurezza dell’intera regione, aumentando le sofferenze dei civili, provocando ulteriori sfollamenti e ostacolando fortemente l’accesso all’assistenza umanitaria” e “L’UE ricorda che non fornirà assistenza alla stabilizzazione o allo sviluppo in settori in cui i diritti delle popolazioni locali sono ignorati o violati”.

Il Presidente Sassoli, nel suo discorso del 17 ottobre 2019, ha dichiarato quanto segue:

“Sono ormai diversi giorni che le nostre opinioni pubbliche guardano con angoscia e rabbia a quello che succede non lontano dai nostri confini. La popolazione curda nel Nord-est della Siria ha combattuto con coraggio i terroristi dello Stato islamico e ora è oggetto di un’aggressione da parte di un Paese membro della NATO.

Non è un mistero che i nostri cittadini nutrano un forte senso di riconoscenza per quelle comunità. La battaglia contro l’ISIS, d’altronde, è stata fondamentale per la nostra sicurezza.

In tali circostanze il Parlamento europeo, come affermato già in passato, reitera la richiesta di sospendere i negoziati di adesione con la Turchia.

Riteniamo inaccettabile e respingiamo con forza ogni tentativo da parte delle Autorità turche di effettuare un legame fra la sua azione militare nel Nord-est della Siria e la sorte dei rifugiati siriani in territorio turco.

È bene ripetere ai nostri cittadini che l’Unione europea non finanzia le autorità turche ma contribuisce direttamente all’assistenza e al miglioramento delle condizioni di vita dei rifugiati tramite le attività delle agenzie delle Nazioni Unite e delle organizzazioni umanitarie. Gli esseri umani in difficoltà non possono mai essere utilizzati come merce di scambio per giustificare inaccettabili violazioni del diritto internazionale.”

Per ulteriori informazioni, può consultare il sito web del Parlamento europeo e il sito web della Delegazione dell’Unione europea in Siria.

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2020/05/20/citizens-enquiries-on-the-situation-of-the-kurdish-population-in-north-east-syria-rojava/