Daily Archives: June 17, 2015

Latest from OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine based on information received as of 19:30 (Kyiv time), 16 June 2015

This report is provided for the media and the general public.

The SMM monitored the implementation of the “Package of measures for the implementation of the Minsk agreements”. Its monitoring was restricted by third parties and security considerations*. The situation at and around Donetsk airport remained relatively calm, with fewer ceasefire violations recorded by the SMM. The SMM conducted crater analysis and revisited a number of heavy weapons holding areas of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and “DPR”. In Minsk, the SMM Chief Monitor chaired the Trilateral Contact Group’s Working Group on Security.

In Minsk, the SMM Chief Monitor chaired the Trilateral Contact Group’s Working Group on Security. The participants discussed security issues. The Working Group established consensus on a number of issues, including on unconditional support by all sides to the SMM’s freedom of movement.

The situation at and around Donetsk airport was relatively calm. Between 13:00 and 15:30hrs and between 17:00 and 17:30hrs, at the Joint Centre for Control and Co-ordination (JCCC) observation post at the Donetsk central railway station (“Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”)-controlled, 8km north-west of Donetsk city centre), the SMM heard several bursts from small arms and light weapons and a total of 15 explosions of unknown type to the west, north-west, north, and north-east at distances ranging between 1.5 and 3km from its position. The first of the explosions was followed by a strong blast wave, felt by the SMM patrol members. The JCCC Ukrainian Armed Forces and Russian Federation Armed Forces representatives at the observation post informed that no ceasefire violations had been recorded during the previous night, while each had registered only one ceasefire violation in their respective logbooks, in the morning, before the SMM arrived.

At the JCCC headquarters in Soledar (government-controlled, 77km north-north-east of Donetsk), the SMM was presented with separate ceasefire logbooks covering 15 June by representatives of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Russian Federation Armed Forces. The former had logged 102 violations, out of which 86 were attributed to illegal armed groups, including 11 cases of use of tube artillery, 20 cases of use of 120mm mortar, and four cases of tank fire. The Ukrainian Armed Forces reported two soldiers killed and three wounded in action. According to the Russian Federation Armed Forces representatives’ logbooks, there were 87 violations – 22 attributed to Ukrainian Armed Forces and 65 to illegal armed groups. The Russian Federation Lieutenant-General highlighted that two possible attacks had been stopped on 15 June around the area of Donetsk airport, due to early intervention by the Russian Federation JCCC representatives. The Ukrainian Major-General, Head of the Ukrainian side to the JCCC, confirmed that the former reacted promptly to their request for action.

At Klishchiivka (government-controlled, 58km north-east of Donetsk), the SMM met representatives from the social centre and residents, predominantly middle-aged women, who stated that on 13 June they heard incoming BM-21 Grad MLRS rockets, Uragan shelling, and heavy artillery fire in the areas between Dzerzhynsk and Kurdiumivka (both government-controlled, 42km north and 52km north-northeast of Donetsk, respectively). Occasionally they heard outgoing shelling from Kurdiumivka. According to the residents, the situation had been calm before the shelling.

The SMM met with the deputy chief of police in Artemivsk (government-controlled, 66km north-north-east of Donetsk) who stated that there was an ongoing problem with crimes, especially theft, and that suspects avoid law enforcement by escaping to non-government controlled areas

The SMM observed that the overall situation in the Luhansk region was calm. However, at Toshkivka (government-controlled, 60km north of Luhansk) the SMM heard 16 outgoing artillery shots from an easterly direction, approximately 8km away, followed by the sound of incoming explosions from heavy artillery, at the same location. At Toshkivka, the SMM further conducted analysis of two craters which it assessed to have resulted from one 122mm rocket, as well as a 152mm shell. The SMM determined that both originated from a southerly direction.

On 15 June, at Pervomaisk (“Lugansk People’s Republic” (“LPR”)-controlled, 57km west of Luhansk), the SMM observed three shelling impacts at the same residential house. At the house, the SMM observed damage to the walls and windows consistent with tank rounds. The occupants showed the SMM pieces of shell casing consistent with 125mm tank rounds. The SMM was told by an elderly woman that one female civilian had died as a result of the shelling, showing shrapnel from the shelling to the SMM.

The SMM revisited seven Ukrainian Armed Forces heavy weapons holding areas, whose locations comply with the respective withdrawal lines. At one site, the SMM verified that all six towed howitzers (152mm 2A36 “Giatsint-B”) previously recorded were in situ. At the same site, the SMM saw additional six towed howitzers of the same type, which were not previously recorded. At the six other sites, the SMM observed that some of the heavy weapons previously recorded were missing: one self-propelled howitzer (152mm 2S3 “Akatsiya”) at one site; two multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) (122mm BM-21 “Grad”) at a second site; three MLRS (122mm BM-21 “Grad”) at a third site; four towed howitzers (152mm 2A65 “Msta-B”) at a fourth site; four towed howitzers (152mm 2A65 “Msta-B”) at a fifth site; and eight anti-tank guns (100mm 2A29 MT-12 “Rapira”) at a sixth site. At the last site, the SMM was not given access to a part of the site where eight anti-tank missile systems (9P149 “Shturm-S”) were previously held.

The SMM also revisited two “DPR” heavy weapons holding areas, whose locations comply with the respective withdrawal lines. At one site, the SMM found one towed artillery piece (152mm 2A65 “Msta-B”) with serial numbers previously not recorded by the SMM. Two previously recorded pieces of the same type were missing. The person in charge of the site explained that one was taken out for training, while he could not explain the absence of the other. At the other “DPR” site the SMM found five previously recorded pieces of the same type of artillery, out of which three had the same numbers as the SMM, while two had different numbers.

In “DPR”-controlled areas, an SMM unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) detected four howitzers and 14 main battle tanks (MBTs), including a concentration of ten MBTs around Michurine (“DPR”-controlled, 63km south of Donetsk). In government-controlled areas the SMM UAV spotted four MBTs and three artillery pieces. In Shyrokyne, the SMM unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) spotted seven houses on fire.

The SMM observed the movement of a convoy, including two armoured personnel carriers (BTR), an anti-aircraft gun (Zu23, 23mm), 13-15 trucks and vehicles, in the north-western part of Donetsk city (“DPR”-controlled) travelling to the west. Further to the north, in a government-controlled are, the SMM observed a convoy of approximately ten trucks of soldiers and equipment, escorted by two armoured personnel carriers, heading south.

With regard to the transfer of three criminal cases from the anti-terrorist (ATO) zone, the head of the district court in Industryalnii district in Dnepropetrovsk, informed the SMM of difficulties accessing witnesses from the ATO zone, who cannot attend court hearings due to freedom of movement restrictions.

In Vinnitsia (215km north-east of Chernivtsi), the SMM met representatives of a recently-established non-governmental organization (NGO),Common Cause (Spilna Sprava), which is ran by internally displaced persons (IDPs) and has a membership of around 300 persons (57 families), mostly from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The NGO representatives informed the SMM about difficulties experienced by IDPs at work and in accessing housing due to negative attitudes among the local population. Lastly, there has been a concern related to an “LPR” statement, saying that they would confiscate unattended property of IDPs, if they do not return soon.

On 16 June, the SMM observed a protest in front of the building of the Lviv regional administration by some 50 patients on hemodialysis  against supplying the hospital in Novoiavorivsk (40km west of Lviv) with old medical equipment, which, they say, endangers their lives and health. The governor and his deputy addressed the protesters, stating that they are against monopoly practices and welcome as many suppliers as possible. The protest was organized by the charity foundation “Road to Life”.

On 16 June, the SMM observed a rally in front of the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) in Kyiv of around 500 women and men, predominantly aged 55 and above, who sought lower prices of gas and communal services, as well as adjustment of wages accounting for inflation. Around 150 police and National Guard officers secured the protest, which remained peaceful.

The SMM continued to monitor the situation in Kharkiv, Odessa, Kherson, and Ivano-Frankivsk.

* Restrictions on SMM monitoring, access and freedom of movement:

The SMM is restrained in fulfilling its monitoring functions by restrictions imposed by third parties and security considerations including the presence of mines, the lack of information on whereabouts of landmines, as well as damaged infrastructure. The security situation in Donbas is fluid and unpredictable and the ceasefire does not hold everywhere. Self-imposed restriction on movement into high risk areas have impinged on SMM patrolling activities, particularly in areas not controlled by the government.

Delay:

  • At a “DPR” heavy weapons holding area, the SMM was held for ten minutes while the guards communicated on the phone with their superiors, requesting permission for the SMM’s visit. The SMM was eventually granted access, however instructed to inform “DPR” authorities in advance in the future and to arrange for a “DPR” escort.  

Prevented access:

  • On 16 June, at a Ukrainian Armed Forces-controlled check point, two soldiers informed the SMM that it could not continue further along that road towards Valuiske (government-controlled, 22km north-east of Luhansk), without giving any reasons. The SMM turned back.
  • At a heavy weapons holding area of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the SMM was not given access to a part of the site where eight anti-tank missile systems (9P149 “Shturm-S”) were previously held.

For a complete breakdown of the ceasefire violations, please see the annexed table.

Advancing United States' Interests at the United Nations

AS DELIVERED

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Congressman Engel. Distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. And thank you for being here. Thank you also for your leadership in advancing America’s national security interests and our values in the world.

Last week I traveled to Ukraine, where I had the chance to see up close what happens when the rules undergirding our international peace and security are ignored. At a shelter for displaced families in Kyiv, I met a mother who told me how her husband and two-year-old child had been killed in February when a shell struck their home in a village in eastern Ukraine. The shelling, as you all know, was part of a sustained assault by combined Russian-separatist forces – and the victims just two of the more than 6,300 people who have been killed in the Moscow-manufactured conflict. Shortly after the attack, the mother fled town with her five surviving children in a van whose roof and doors had been blasted out. Her plea – one I heard echoed by many of the displaced families I met from eastern Ukraine and occupied Crimea – was for the fighting to stop, and for their basic rights to be respected.

As the members of this Committee know, we are living in a time of daunting global crises. In the last year alone, Russia continued to train, arm, and fight alongside separatists in eastern Ukraine; a deadly epidemic spread across West Africa; and monstrous terrorist groups seized territory across the Middle East and North Africa, committing unspeakable atrocities. These are the kinds of threats that the United Nations exists to prevent and address. Yet it is precisely at the moment when we need the UN most that we see the flaws in the international system, some of which have been alluded to already.

This is true for the conflict in Ukraine – in which a permanent member of the UN Security Council is violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity that it was entrusted with upholding. It is true of the global health system that – despite multiple warnings of a spreading Ebola outbreak, including those from our own CDC – was slow to respond to the epidemic. And it is true of UN peacekeepers, who too often stand down or stand by when civilians they are responsible for protecting come under attack. Thus leaving populations vulnerable and sometimes open to radicalization.

Representing our nation before the United Nations, I have to confront these and other shortcomings every day. Yet though I am clear-eyed about the UN’s vulnerabilities, the central point I want to make to this Committee is that America needs the United Nations to address today’s global challenges. The United States has the most powerful set of tools in history to advance its interests, and we will always lead on the world stage. But we are more effective when we ensure that others shoulder their fair share and when we marshal multilateral support to meet our objectives. Let me quickly outline five ways we are doing that at the UN.

First, we are rallying multilateral coalitions to address transnational threats. Consider Iran. In addition to working with Congress to put in place unprecedented U.S. sanctions on the Iranian government, in 2010 the Obama Administration galvanized the UN Security Council to authorize one of the toughest multilateral sanctions regimes in history. The combination of unilateral and multilateral pressure was crucial to bringing Iran to the negotiating table, and ultimately, to laying the foundation whereby we were able to reach a framework agreement that would, if we can get a final deal, effectively cut off every pathway for the Iranian regime to develop a nuclear weapon.

Consider our response to the Ebola epidemic. Last September, as people were dying outside hospitals in West Africa, hospitals that had no beds left to treat the exploding number of Ebola patients, the United States chaired the first-ever emergency meeting of the UN Security Council dedicated to a global health issue. We pressed countries to deploy doctors and nurses, to build clinics and testing labs, and to fill other gaps that ultimately helped bend the outbreak’s exponentially rising curve. America did not just rally others to step up, we led by example, thanks also very much to the support of this Congress, deploying more than 3,500 U.S. Government civilian and military personnel to Liberia, which has been Ebola-free since early May.

Second, we are reforming UN peacekeeping to help address the threats to international peace and security that exist in the 21st century. There are more than 100,000 uniformed police and soldiers deployed in the UN’s sixteen peacekeeping missions around the world – that is a higher number than in any time in history – with more complex responsibilities also than ever before. The United States has an abiding strategic interest in resolving the conflicts where peacekeepers serve, which can quickly cause regional instability and attract extremist groups, as we have seen in Mali. Yet while we have seen peacekeepers serve with bravery and professionalism in many of the world’s most dangerous operating environments, we’ve also seen chronic problems, too often, as mentioned, including the failure to protect civilians.

We are working aggressively to address these shortfalls. To give just one example, we are persuading more advanced militaries to step up and contribute soldiers and police to UN peacekeeping. That was the aim of a summit that Vice President Biden convened at the UN last September, where Colombia, Sweden, Indonesia and more than a dozen other countries announced new troop commitments; and it is the message I took directly to European leaders in March, when I made the case in Brussels that peacekeeping is a critical way for European militaries to do their fair share in protecting our common security interests, particularly as they draw down in Afghanistan. This coming September, President Obama will convene another summit of world leaders to build on this momentum and help catalyze a new wave of commitments and generate a new set of capabilities for UN peacekeeping.

Third, we are fighting to end bias and discrimination at the UN. Day in and day out, we push back against efforts to delegitimize Israel at the UN, and we fight for its right to be treated like any other nation – from mounting a full-court diplomatic press to help secure Israel’s permanent membership into two UN groups from which it had long and unjustly been excluded, to consistently and firmly opposing one-sided actions in international bodies. In December, when a deeply unbalanced draft resolution on the Israel-Palestinian conflict was hastily put before the Security Council, the United States successfully rallied a coalition to join us in voting against it, ensuring that the resolution failed to achieve the nine votes of Security Council members required for adoption. We will continue to confront anti-Israel bias wherever we encounter it.

Fourth, we are working to use UN tools to promote human rights and affirm human dignity, as we did by working with partners to hold the first-ever Security Council meeting focused on the human rights situation in North Korea in December. We used that session to shine a light on the regime’s horrors – a light we kept shining through a panel discussion I hosted in April, with escaped victims of the regime. One woman told of being forced to watch the executions of fellow prisoners who committed the “crime” of daring to ask why they had been imprisoned, while another woman told how members from three generations of her family – her grandmother, her father, and her younger brother – had starved to death. This is important for UN Member States to hear.

Fifth, we are doing everything within our power to make the UN more fiscally responsible, more accountable, and more nimble – both because we have a responsibility to ensure American taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, and because maximizing the efficiency of our contributions means saving more lives and better protecting the world’s most vulnerable people. Since the 2008 to 2009 fiscal year, we have reduced the cost-per-peacekeeper by 18 percent, and we are constantly looking for ways to right-size missions in response to conditions on the ground, as we will do this year through substantial drawdowns in Côte d’Ivoire, Haiti, and Liberia, among other missions.

Let me conclude. At the outset, I spoke of my recent visit to Ukraine. Across the range of Ukrainians I met – from the mother who lost her husband and two-year-old child in the assault by combined Russian-separatist forces; to the brave students who risked their lives to take part in the Maidan protests against the kleptocratic Yanukovych government; to the young members of parliament working to fight corruption and increase transparency – what united them was the yearning for certain basic rights. And, the belief that the United States could lead other countries – and the United Nations – in helping make their aspirations a reality.

I heard the same sentiment when visiting UN-run camps of people displaced by violence in the Central African Republic, and South Sudan, and in the Ebola-affected communities of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone at the peak of the outbreak.

Some may view the expectation that America can help people overcome their greatest challenges and secure their basic rights as a burden. In fact, that expectation is one of our nation’s greatest strengths, and one we have a vested interest in striving to live up to – daunting as it may feel in the face of so many crises. But we cannot do it alone, nor should we want to. That is why it is more important than ever that we use the UN to rally the multilateral support needed to confront today’s myriad challenges.

Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

###

JOB VACANCY – Position of Communities Field Officer VN 005/2015

The EEAS, Western Balkans Division, requests EU Member States and European Institutions to second experts or support the advertisement for contract regime to the following available positions with the EUSR Support Team in Kosovo, according to the described requirements and profiles:

Organisation:

European Union Special Representative in Kosovo

Job Location:

Kosovo

Availability:

01 August 2015

Contract Regime:

Seconded/Contracted

Job Titles/Vacancy

  • Communities Field Officer (VN 005/2015) – 1 position (Pristina)
    Seconded/Contracted –Mission Support Management Level (MSML)

Deadline for applications:

06 July 2015

Email address to send the CV:

recruitment@eusrinkosovo.eu

Information:

For more information related to the selection and recruitment, please contact the EUSR ST:

Ms Aida Zunic – EUSR in Kosovo Support Team
(email: recruitment@eusrinkosovo.eu ),
Tel: + 381 38 51 31 603

Mr Alessandro ROTTA – EUSR in Kosovo Support Team
(email: alessandro.rotta@ext.eeas.europa.eu )
Tel: +381 38 5131 289
Fax: +381 38 5131 304

The EEAS, Western Balkans Division, requests EU Member States and European Institutions to second experts or support the advertisement for contract regime to the following available positions with the EUSR Support Team in Kosovo, according to the described requirements and profiles:

A. Essential Requirements

Citizenship – Citizen of a Member State of the European Union (EU) and enjoying full rights as a citizen.

Integrity – The participants must maintain the highest standards of personal integrity, impartiality and self-discipline within the EUSR Support Team. Participants are not allowed to provide or discuss any information or document as a result of access to classified and/or sensitive information related to the EUSR Support Team or respective tasks and activities. The participants shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the EUSR.

Knowledge of the EU Institutions – Knowledge of the EU Institutions and international standards, particularly related to the Common Foreign and Security Policy, including the Common Security and Defence Policy.

Knowledge of the Western Balkans – Very good knowledge of the history, culture, social and political situation of the Western Balkans, in particular through field experience in a multilateral working environment.

Negotiation Skills – Must have excellent negotiating skills and the ability to work professionally in a stressful and diverse environment.

Flexibilityand adaptability – Ability to work in arduous conditions with a limited network of support. Must be able to cope with possible extended separation from family. Ability to work as a team player with excellent interpersonal and communication skills.

Physical and mental health – Physically fit and in good health without any physical or mental problems or substance dependency which can impair operational performance in the EUSR Support Team.

Ability to communicate effectively in English and other languages – Must be fullyfluentin written and oral English language. Report writing skills are especially needed. Knowledge of French will be an asset.

Computer Skills – Skills in word processing and spreadsheets are essential. Knowledge of other IT tools will be an asset.

B. Essential Documents and Requirements for the Selected Candidates

Passport – Seconded participants should obtain a diplomatic or service passport from the respective national authorities.

Visas – EUSR support members must ensure that any necessary visas are obtained for entry into the Kosovo area prior to departure from their home country. It is also essential to obtain any transit visas, which may be required for passage through countries en route to the Balkans/Kosovo area.

Security Clearance – Seconded participants should have or obtain a national security clearance “EU SECRET” level or equivalent.

Certificate/Booklet of vaccination – To be in possession of a valid certificate/booklet of vaccination showing all vaccinations and immunisations received. To be vaccinated according to the required immunisations for the geographical area.

Medical Certificate – To be in possession of a valid certificate declaring fit to participate in the context of EUSR support team activities.

Driver Licence – Be in possession of a valid – including Balkans/Kosovo area – civilian driver licence for motor vehicles (Category B or equivalent). Being able to drive any 4 wheel drive vehicles.

C. Job Descriptions

Communities Field Officer-Seconded/Contracted (Mission Support Management Level)

(Reference VN 005/2015)

Main tasks

The Communities Field Officer will be based in Pristina and working within the Communities team reporting to the Political Adviser/Communities. S/he will be responsible for advocating, facilitating and reporting on the implementation of the EU objectives with regard to communities in Kosovo in line with the EUSR’s mandate. In particular s/he will focus on maintaining links and conducting fieldwork in Kosovo (mainly south of the river Ibar), in Serb majority municipalities and Serb inhabited villages. The Communities Field Officer will be recruited with a view to also cover issues related to the decentralization process in the Serb majority municipalities and to follow on-the-ground implementation of the Pristina-Belgrade Agreement.

S/he will perform the following tasks:

  • To represent the Office of the EUSR and facilitate EU activities in support of improvement in rule of law, governance, socio-economic development and integration of the Kosovo Serb community in Kosovo society;
  • To liaise closely with municipal authorities, especially the bodies that safeguard community rights/protection; community representatives; civil society and other relevant locally based institutions when it comes to following up on priorities/ issues facing the Serb communities at the municipal and grass-roots level;
  • To identify and advise the EUSR, through the chain of command, on how to address problems affecting members of the Kosovo Serb communities and to help foster inter-ethnic dialogue and cooperation (where applicable) with the wider Kosovo Albanian majority communities in close liaison with other international organizations who have field presence/coverage;
  • To monitor and report on political developments of relevance for the implementation of the EUSR mandate, in particular with regards to the grassroots implementation of the Pristina-Belgrade agreement;
  • To regularly liaise with field presence of other international missions, such as OSCE, UNHCR, UNMIK, Council of Europe, etc;
  • To contribute to regular reporting and help support activities relating to EUSR matters and other related duties as required.

Qualifications and Experience

  • Advanced University Degree in Political Sciences, Journalism, Law, International Relations, Diplomacy, Social Sciences or academic training relevant to the specific post;
  • A minimum of 5 years of professional experience preferably in a policy analytical and/or implementation position in a national or international context;
  • International experience preferable, particularly in crisis area with multi-national and international organisations
  • Excellent interpersonal and communications skills, familiarity with diplomatic protocol;
  • Proven ability to produce imaginative and workable solutions to complex problems;

Excellent knowledge of spoken and written English, knowledge of Serbian strongly desirable.

ANNEX 2: APPLICATION FORM

Neuf produits phares de XCMG captent l’attention sur le salon M&T Expo

SAO PAULO, Brésil, 17 juin 2015 / PRNewswire — XCMG, cinquième plus grande entreprise de machinerie de génie civil au monde, a ravi la vedette lors de sa participation au M&T Expo 2015, l’un des plus grands salons au monde pour les industries minières et du génie civil, à Sao Paulo, au Brésil, le 9 juin, où l’entreprise a reçu des commandes pour 108 machines, ce qui fait d’elle la société chinoise la plus couronnée de succès sur cet évènement.

XCMG%20cranes Neuf produits phares de XCMG captent lattention sur le salon M&T Expo

XCMG cranes working at Arena Fonte Nova, a World Cup venue in Salvador.

Photo – http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20150617/223705

Pour sa douzième année de participation au M&T, l’entreprise a présenté de nouveaux produits, dont des grues, des chargeuses, des rouleaux, des niveleuses, des pelleteuses, des camions pour l’exploitation minière, des foreuses horizontales dirigées et des plateformes de levage, produits spécialement adaptés au marché local, et approuvés par la certification FINAME du Brésil, ce qu’aucune autre entreprise chinoise n’a réussi à obtenir.

« Les commandes très importantes que nous avons faites sur le salon sont vraiment un cadeau pour le premier anniversaire de XCMG Brésil. Par ailleurs, obtenir la certification FINAME donne à XCMG un avantage concurrentiel qui va lui permettre d’augmenter ses parts sur le marché local, puisque les plus grands projets soumis à des appels d’offres privilégient les produits FINAME et que les politiques gouvernementales offrent une plus grande protection aux entreprises certifiées. De plus, les clients qui achètent ces produits bénéficient de plus faibles taux d’intérêt auprès de la Banque BNDES », a déclaré Li Qianjin, directeur général de XCMG Brésil.

La vedette incontestée de XCMG sur le M&T a été une pelleteuse certifiée FINAME. Équipée d’un moteur de la norme « Tier 3 » de Commins Brésil, d’un godet de 0,72 m³ et d’un système de contrôle intelligent conçu indépendamment, cette machine offre des performances d’exploitation de pointe et une augmentation de l’efficacité de travail de 15 %. La présentation en exclusivité du camion haut de gamme pour l’exploitation minière de l’entreprise a aussi attiré l’attention des visiteurs lors de ses débuts, soulignant son adaptabilité dans des conditions de travail difficiles.

XCMG voit un grand potentiel commercial au Brésil après avoir conduit des recherches à plusieurs reprises dans des conditions de marché, et l’entreprise se développe sur le marché brésilien depuis l’an 2000. Au bout de 15 ans d’efforts, XCMG a gagné la confiance du gouvernement et des clients locaux.

« Il n’a pas été facile d’établir un système d’exploitation international, d’élargir nos parts de marché à l’étranger, de consolider notre image de marque ou de surmonter les barrières culturelles et de communication, mais XCMG y est parvenue au Brésil », a déclaré Wang Yansong, vice-président de XCMG. Maintenant l’entreprise crée des postes de travail dans le pays, apporte une grande contribution fiscale, fabrique des produits de qualité et conduit le développement rapide de la chaîne d’approvisionnement locale.

XCMG a pu démontrer la reconnaissance de la marque au Brésil en participant largement à la construction d’infrastructures, dont douze lieux destinés à la Coupe du monde de football FIFA 2014 et 115 commandes de grues pour les Jeux olympiques de 2016 à Rio.

Pour de plus amples informations, veuillez visiter www.xcmg.com, ou les pages d’accueil de XCMG sur FacebookTwitter et Youtube.

Contact :
Carolina Li
xcmg_media@163.com

Corporate Taxation Action Plan

Mesdames et Messieurs,

Pour la 2ème fois en trois mois, je présente devant vous un paquet solide pour améliorer le système d’imposition des sociétés en Europe.

Le paquet de mars avait la transparence fiscale en son cœur.

Aujourd’hui, le champ de notre action est plus large. Nous visons, très fondamentalement, àréformer le cadre d’imposition des sociétés en Europe, pour le rendre plus juste, plus efficace et plus propice àla croissance et àl’emploi.

Concrètement de quoi s’agit-il? Faute de règles européennes entre les Etats membres, notre marchéintérieur est défaillant sur le plan fiscal. Je veux citer deux situations tout aussi inacceptables dans un espace aussi intégréque l’Union européenne.

Tout d’abord, nous ne pouvons plus tolérer que certaines entreprises (souvent les plus prospères) s’affranchissent de leur juste contribution àl’impôt, et que certains régimes fiscaux les encouragent dans cette voie.

Cette situation est injuste, parce qu’elle revient àfaire peser en retour sur les citoyens et les autres entreprises une charge fiscale plus lourde. C’est inacceptable sur le plan social.

Cette situation est inefficace, parce qu’elle assèche les recettes des Etats membres et affecte leur stabilité.

Cette situation, enfin, est intenable, parce que les pratiques abusives et la course au moins-disant fiscal minent les politiques fiscales favorables àla croissance, et créédes distorsions dans le marchéunique.

Deuxième situation, les entreprises qui ont des activités dans plusieurs Etats membres, et devraient donc bénéficier des facilités liées au marchéintérieur, se heurtent encore àdes obstacles, lourdeurs et complexités liées aux différences entre les 28 systèmes nationaux, àla double imposition ou aux difficultés d’arbitrage des questions fiscales entre juridictions. La majoritédes entreprises européennes tireront bénéfice de notre action, puisqu’il s’agit àla fois d’empêcher leurs concurrents moins scrupuleux de gagner un avantage déloyal, et de recentrer les politiques fiscales sur la création d’emploi et l’investissement.

Nous devons agir pour faciliter la vie des entreprises qui cherchent àcréer de la valeur ajoutée en Europe, et lutter contre celles qui essayent d’échapper àl’impôt. Voici notre objectif aujourd’hui.

COMMENT POUVONS NOUS REFORMER CE CADRE

Le cadre en place aujourd’hui a terriblement vieilli: nous nous appuyons sur des règles élaborées dans les années 1930 pour réguler l’environnement des entreprises du 21ème siècle.

Le résultat est d’ailleurs clairement décevant.

Nos structures dépassées n’ont pas suivi le rythme des transactions actuelles –qui sont mobiles, digitales, intangibles–ni les montages fiscaux sophistiqués qui les encadrent.

Au niveau international, l’OCDE travaille àmettre àjour le cadre international de l’imposition des sociétés.

L’initiative de l’OCDE est extrêmement bienvenue et nous la soutenons activement en oeuvrant pour un accord – l’initiative BEPS – en novembre prochain. La voix des Européens compte dans cette négociation importante.

Mais nous devons en tant qu’Union européenne aussi – presque indépendamment de notre coopération internationale – élaborer nos propres solutions pour le marchéunique, qui soient compatibles avec les normes internationales mais répondent ànos besoins propres.

L’UE a besoin d’une approche commune et cohérente de la réforme de l’imposition des sociétés, mais qui ne soit pas irréaliste et qui nous ferait perdre un avantage compétitif par rapport ànos partenaires internationaux.

Je suis bien conscient que souvent les Etats-membres voient l’action communautaire dans ce domaine comme une menace pour leur souveraineté.

Mais en réalité, c’est l’inverse. La vraie menace pour les souverainetés nationales, c’est la coexistence chaotique de 28 systèmes d’imposition nationaux. Il faut donc mieux faire coexister ces systèmes.

Je ne parle pas ici d’harmonisation des systèmes nationaux, ni d’harmonisation des taux, on n’en est pas là, mais bien d’un rapprochement pour faire avancer nos entreprises.

Heureusement, nous assistons àune prise de conscience dans les Etats membres que les entreprises doivent payer leur juste part d’impôt, qu’il faut des systèmes d’imposition soutenables et propices àla croissance; qu’ils ont besoin d’un marchéunique attractif pour les entreprises et l’investissement –et que pour cela il faut revoir entièrement leur approche de l’imposition des sociétés.

Nous devons dans cette optique réexaminer collectivement notre cadre et le mettre en conformitéavec la réalitéactuelle.

Voilàl’objet du Plan d’Action que je vous présente aujourd’hui.

First on CCCTB :

At the heart of today’s Action Plan is a re-launch of the proposed Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, or CCCTB, which is the “big bang” when it comes to corporate tax reform.

This single initiative can greatly improve our business environment–which means more investment and job creation –successfully prevent tax avoidance and protect our Single Market from external base erosion.

The idea is simple: we have a Single Market and we have a single rulebook for cross-border company taxation. Companies acting in several Member States would use a single base across all Member States when computing their benefits, instead of using different national bases. The savings in terms of administrative and compliance costs would be close to €1Bn every year. No more mismatches, no more loopholes, unnecessary compliance costs or internal disputes between Member States.

Although the CCCTB is currently deadlocked in the Council, there is strong support for the idea of reviving it: from Member States, the European Parliament, businesses and other stakeholders.

Because the benefits the CCCTB offers are too great to give up, I plan to make a new proposal, with some adjustments, to kick-start successful negotiations.

I intend to bring forward this proposal as early as possible in the new year, with preparatory work to start immediately from today.

I can already tell you that the new proposal will be for a mandatory CCCTB, at least for multinationals. Because it has become clear that a voluntary system will not stop tax avoiders. So we strengthen the proposal in that point.

Since the current proposal has proven too vast to agree in one go, we will be going for a step-by-step approach to implementing the CCCTB, focusing first on the idea of a common base and moving later towards consolidation.

But the clock doesn’t stop in the meantime, because many of the corporate tax problems we face today demand an immediate response.

EFFECTIVE TAXATION

Second key principle, there is the burning question of how to ensure effective taxation in our Single Market.

I would like to stress very clearly that the Commission is not proposing minimum rates of taxation. We discussed, it is not our purpose. However, it is unacceptable that certain multinationals make large profits in the EU, but pay little or no tax here. This goes against even the most basic idea of fairness.

There is strong consensus that companies must pay a fair level of tax where they generate their profits. But there’s less clarity on how to achieve this.

Some Member States have taken unilateral anti-abuse action, in an effort to enforce this principle.

But purely national measures against cross-border avoidance can cause more problems than they solve. So we a common approach is essential.

This could entail revising our corporate tax legislation, limiting low or no tax schemes and reinforcing our common anti-abuse artillery.    

We have also set out practical actions to reinforce the link between taxation and economic activity.

For example, we will reform the transfer pricing system and oversee new rules for tax regimes offering special treatment to intellectual property (known as Patent Boxes).

These might seem like small and highly technical parts of an overall tax system. But if I tell you that transfer pricing and intellectual property location account for over two thirds of all profit shifting, you can see why they need to be urgently addressed.

TRANSPARENCY

Meanwhile, we continue to push for greater tax transparency, following the ambitious package I presented in March, which will be discussed in the ECOFIN on Friday, and which has received very broad support from Member States.

Today, we go further by launching a public consultation on corporate tax transparency, to gather views on whether companies should have to publicly disclose certain tax information. My colleague Jonathan Hill will be in charge of this consultation.

There is a clear public demand for greater transparency and accountability. But this is a complex matter and any policy decisions that we make must be well-grounded – because this Commission is all about support for businesses, investment and job creation.

The consultation should provide valuable input, from all perspectives, to help the College shaping the right response on this issue. From a personal point of view, I am in favour of going as far as possible in terms of publicity when it comes to tax rulings.

We are also extending our transparency ambitions beyond the EU – particularly in relation to non-cooperative countries.

When it comes to tax havens, Member States have very different policies.

Some operate blacklists. Others don’t.

Some take counter-measures. Others don’t.

This patchwork approach is neither clear nor transparent. And it fails to stop certain jurisdictions from enticing corporate profits away from the EU.

A robust EU stance against tax havens would give Member States a collective weight to resist external threats to their tax bases.

TAX HAVENS

As a move in this direction, we take today another decisive step to push non-cooperative non-EU jurisdictions to be more cooperative and to adopt international standards, agreed at G20 level for example.

We are today publishing the “top 30” non-cooperative jurisdictions, or tax havens, consisting of those countries or territories that feature on at least 10 Member States’ national blacklists. These lists have been established by Member States since 2012, following a Recommendation from the Commission. It is time now to present an EU overview of those tax havens most listed by our Member States.

These tax havens cover the 5 continents as you can see on the screen behind me:

– Europe, first, with Andorra, Liechtenstein, Guernsey and Monaco ;

– Africa with Liberia, Mauritius and Seychelles ;

– Asia with Brunei, Hong-Kong and Maldives ;

– Oceania with The Cooks Islands, Nauru, Niue, The Marshall Islands and Vanuatu,

– and finally the Americas, with half of the list : Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Island, Grenada, Montserrat, Panama, Saint-Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint-Christopher and Nevis, Turks and Caïcos and the US Virging Islands.

Our hope is that all of these jurisdictions will soon adopt the agreed international standards, in particular the exchange of information, to fight against tax evasion. Some have already done so.

This can be the basis to start a screening process of certain third countries’ good governance standards, and to develop an EU response.

CONCLUSION

Mesdames et Messieurs,

Les réformes en matière d’imposition des sociétés ne sont pas toujours populaires.

Certains s’y opposeront, diront que nous allons trop vite, trop loin.

Ces arguments sont dépassés. C’est maintenant qu’il faut changer les choses.

D’autres diront au contraire que nous devons être plus audacieux, plus prescriptifs.

C’est tout aussi simpliste.

Les systèmes d’imposition ont une faible résilience aux chocs brutaux.

Les réformes doivent être soigneusement documentées, préparées et correctement mises en œuvre. Il y avait trop de cathédrales en matière de fiscalité qui ont été démontées au Conseil.

L’approche présentée aujourd’hui est la bonne: ambitieuse mais réaliste, solide mais flexible, pour s’adapter aux futures évolutions.

Aujourd’hui la Commission pose les bases d’une imposition en Europe qui soit plus juste, plus efficace, plus propice àl’empl­oi et àla croissance: c’est attendu par nos concitoyens et exigépar la communautédes affaires.

Aux Etats-membres àprésent de s’en emparer.