On the eve of the vote on a resolution on the designation of Russia as a “State sponsor of terrorism” and “which uses terrorist means”, the political groups in the European Parliament were divided on Tuesday 22 November (see EUROPE 13063/4).
“This is an issue that divides the Parliament quite a bit”, acknowledged Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D, French).
Although the joint resolution was negotiated by the EPP, ECR, Renew Europe, S&D and Greens/EFA Groups, only the first three groups finally signed it.
According to Mr Glucksman, this resolution, which “divides the left-wing groups”, should not do so, “because it is clear on the qualification of the facts”. For him, as for Andrius Kubilius (EPP, Lithuanian), the Parliament rapporteur on Russia, what Russia is doing in Ukraine - targeting civilian infrastructure to terrorise the population - is the definition of terrorism in any international convention. For the French MEP, “the Russian method is the very definition of terrorism”.
The S&D Group is divided, with a return to geographical divisions: MEPs from the Baltic countries and Poland are in favour of this resolution, while those from Spain and Germany are more reluctant. After a debate within the group on Tuesday evening, the S&D is expected to vote in favour of the resolution, according to an EU source.
For Greens/EFA co-president Philippe Lamberts, a State sponsor of terrorism “does not exist in European law. Legally, this has no basis or effect, it is more political posturing than anything else”. He explained that his group had not signed the resolution because it is “inappropriate for Parliament to allege or mention things that do not exist in law”.
Mounir Satouri (Greens/EFA, French) said that calling Russia a State sponsor of terrorism could weaken international law, as it is not possible to prosecute someone for both war crimes and terrorism.
Mr Lamberts said that parliamentary groups which until recently enjoyed standing by Vladimir Putin were now vying for “ever stronger expressions” with respect for the Russian regime, saying that this was “a cheap way to buy a good conscience”.
The Left’s co-president Martin Schirdewan recalled that “the question of the terrorist State is a term that does not really exist in the EU”. In his view, considering Russia as a supporter of terrorism could close the doors to negotiation and lead to an escalation. “I believe that at the diplomatic level, we still have the opportunity to get China or India on our side before we think of such terminology”, he added.
MEPs in favour of the resolution - which has no legal effect - say that the qualification would not prevent Russia from being sued or from entering into negotiations. (Original version in French by Camille-Cerise Gessant with editorial staff)