Tuesday 04 April 2000 at 10 a.m.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS A PROVISIONAL VERSION OF THE REPORT OF THE DEBATE OF 04 APRIL 2000 AT 10 A.M WHICH MAY STILL BE CORRECTED BY THE SPEAKERS
In this report:
1. Speeches in English are reported in full.
2. Speeches in other languages are summarised.
3. Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.
Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.
CONTENTS
Speakers:
Mr Atkinson (United Kingdom)
Mr B�rsony (Hungary)
Mr N�stase (Romania)
Mr Zhirinovsky (Russian Federation)
2. Institutional reforms in Ukraine (presentation by Mrs Severinsen and Mrs Wohlwend of report, Doc. 8666, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee; presentation by Mr E�rsi of opinion, Doc. 8695, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights; presentation by Mr Gross of oral opinion on behalf of the Committee on Parliamentary and Public Relations)
Speakers:
Mr Tarasyck (Foreign Minister of Ukraine)
Mr Saakashvili (Georgia)
Mrs Ojuland (Estonia)
Mr Marmazov (Ukraine)
Mr Solonari (Moldova)
Mr Hornhues (Germany)
Mr Tabajdi (Hungary)
Mr Lupu (Romania)
Ms Jones (United Kingdom)
Mr Nagy (Hungary)
Mr Zvarych (Ukraine)
Mr Ivanov (Bulgaria)
Mr Behrendt (Germany)
Mr Mota Amaral (Portugal)
Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 4 and 5 to the draft resolution adopted.
Draft resolution, as amended, adopted.
3. Address by Mr Ilir Meta, Prime Minister of Albania
Mrs Durrieu, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- The sitting is open.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- The minutes of proceedings of the previous sitting have been distributed. Are there any observations?
Mr ATKINSON (United Kingdom).- Until yesterday’s proceedings we had total transparency as to how all the members of this Assembly voted on every division, as demonstrated by our show of hands. Yesterday for the first time we introduced electronic voting. We no longer know how members vote. We have effectively introduced a secret ballot into our proceedings. When I look at the official report of yesterday afternoon’s proceedings, I see no list as to how we voted in the divisions that took place.
The introduction of the secret ballot into our proceedings goes totally against the best practices of parliamentary democracy, which this Assembly seeks to promote and uphold. So, Madam President, I seek your advice as to whether the introduction of electronic voting will provide for a record of how we have voted. If that is not the case, I should like this question to be referred as a matter of urgency to the appropriate body - presumably the Bureau - to insist that how members vote be recorded in the official report.
THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Atkinson for his point, but reminded him that the decision to use electronic voting had been taken by the Bureau in the first place. Any decision to make further changes to the voting system would also be taken by the Bureau. Under the old system, there had been a voting list only if there had been a roll-call vote. Consequently, yesterday’s votes were no different, although the new system had the advantage that voting numbers could be displayed.
Mr B�RSONY (Hungary).- May I ask you, Madam President, for clarification on the following issue? If the Bureau has decided something and a decision is adopted by the Assembly, is it possible to open a debate on several issues by simply raising a point of order and to renegotiate what has been decided by the Assembly, or bodies of the Assembly?
THE PRESIDENT said that she could only confirm that the decision to move to an electronic voting system had been taken by the Bureau and ratified by the Assembly. She called Mr N�stase.
Mr N�STASE (Romania) said that there appeared to have been an error in yesterday’s record. His speech appeared to have been credited to Mr Rogozin in error. Also, the reference to Lithuania was wrong; it should read "Romania".
THE PRESIDENT said that that matter would be looked into and rectified. She called Mr Zhirinovsky.
Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation) said that yesterday there had been too brief a discussion about current issues. Too much time had been spent debating the Assembly’s own internal affairs and other issues which should have been settled many years ago.
He said that independent delegates should have more opportunity to speak.
He had raised a number of years ago the issue of the credentials of delegates from the Russian Federation, yet no action appeared to have been taken. He called for this matter to be considered between now and Thursday.
THE PRESIDENT said that these were the kind of issues which should be dealt with by the Bureau and he should direct his comments to the Bureau.
The minutes are adopted.
2. Institutional reforms in Ukraine
THE PRESIDENT.- (Translation) The first item of business this morning is the debate on the report on institutional reforms in Ukraine, Document 8666, presented by Mrs Severinsen and Mrs Wohlwend, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, together with an Opinion, Document 8695, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights by Mr E�rsi, and an Opinion on behalf of the Committee on Parliamentary and Public Relations by Mr Gross.
The list of speakers for the debate closed at 6.30 p.m.: twenty-nine names are on the list and ten amendments have been tabled. The list of speakers must be interrupted at about 11.30 a.m. to allow time to the reply and votes before Mr Ilir Meta, Prime Minister of Albania, addresses the Assembly at 12 noon.
Mr Tarasyuk, Foreign Minister of Ukraine, is present. Before giving the floor to the rapporteurs, I would like to welcome him to this Assembly. He will speak in the debate immediately after the rapporteurs, and he is prepared to speak again towards the end of the debate in order to reply to questions.
I call Mrs Severinsen to present the report. She and Mrs Wohlwend have a total of eight minutes in which to speak on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.
Mrs SEVERINSEN (Denmark).- The President of Ukraine called the so-called referendum in the country because parliament was blocking reform. The parliament and the government blame each other for such problems. As I said in the press conference following the presidential elections, the stalemate between parliament and the executive must end. It is the stalemate that is blocking progress on reform.
Since the presidential elections, the Rada has changed completely and there is a new majority in it. For some weeks, two parliamentary groups were in competition, but that problem now seems to have been overcome.
On 15 January, the president decreed a referendum. However, the new majority in the Rada, in which there was no longer a stalemate, rendered that unnecessary. The content of the questions in the proposed referendum was not normal for such a process - besides which there was no legal basis for it. The Rada had agreed a three-month moratorium on all such referenda. That was one of the many reasons why the Council of Europe decided to consult the Venice Commission on the legality of the proposed referendum and to authorise two rapporteurs to go to Ukraine on a fact-finding mission.
Over recent years, there has been growing concern in the Council of Europe about attempts in various countries to change the balance between legislative and governmental bodies in favour of a strong executive. We see such a dangerous tendency in many of our member states. Indeed, the Assembly appealed to the Venice Commission about Moldova. The commission’s report was clear: holding a referendum in order to increase the power of the president at the expense of parliament was not legal and should not take place. So far, the President of Moldova has decided not to hold such a referendum. If the Council of Europe tolerates a referendum in Ukraine and there is a coup d’�tat as a result, our Assembly must bear the responsibility for it.
Furthermore, the question of raising the immunity of the Ukrainian members of parliament is very dangerous. There are rumours in Kyiv that, if a referendum results in a yes vote, many parliamentarians will be subject to charges. There is also doubt about the collection of signatures. Indeed, during the presidential election campaign, I saw the collection of signatures on the streets of Kyiv - even though the content of the referendum questions was known only in January.
Four million signatures are said to have been collected at very short notice. The Central Electoral Commission has not seen those signatures; it has checked only the procedure in various parts of the country. The Central Electoral Commission refused to register the first group initiated, but was forced to do so by a ruling of one of Kyiv’s district courts.
I thank all the Ukrainian officials for their positive response to our fact-finding mission. In our first quite long meeting with the president, he said, notably, that, with the exception of the final two questions, he regarded the referendum as binding. That matter is still unclear.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Thank you, Mrs Severinsen. The next speaker is Mrs Wohlwend.
Mrs WOHLWEND (Liechtenstein) said that there had been a number of changes since the Monitoring Committee’s visit. These included the ruling of the Constitutional Court on 24 March which had resulted in the removal of questions 1 and 6 from the referendum. The central question, however, was whether the referendum itself was in accordance with the constitution. The committee doubted that the referendum was admissible. She hoped that either the referendum would not be held, or that if it did go ahead it would follow the passing of the appropriate law. If the referendum did take place, the resulting reforms should be implemented in accordance with the constitution. Changes to constitutions which were themselves unconstitutional should not be accepted by the Assembly.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Thank you, Mrs Wohlwend. The next speaker is Mr E�rsi, the Rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Mr E�RSI (Hungary).- The Monitoring Committee asked for the legal opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on the matter. In short, the committee has come to the conclusion that the planned referendum is illegal and against the Constitution of Ukraine.
As we have heard, there have been some changes since we started our review. The Ukrainian Constitutional Court has declared the first and sixth questions to be anti-constitutional. That is an improvement, as the first and last questions were the most controversial. However, we hold the opinion that the remaining four questions are problematic. Some of the questions could be legitimate if the constitution were amended legally. We have no problem with decreasing the numbers in parliament, or with a new Chamber. However, this should be done legally.
We have a problem with the immunity question, as there is an assumption that there is a limitation on immunity. The real question is whether people would like to delete the provision in the constitution that provides for immunity for members of parliament. This may be an intimidation of members of parliament, and it is felt that it goes against the rules enjoyed all over Europe.
The committee members are not all lawyers, and we understand that the political situation in Ukraine is not easy. Some forces would like to proceed with the reforms, while others are blocking them. We have come to the conclusion that this referendum would not be a good one, but we are not taking a stand in terms of the substance of policy in Ukraine. We are trying to underscore our strong opinions.
Our message to the Ukrainian Government is that even the best ideas in any country can be implemented only according to the formalities of the constitution in that country. We are sad to recognise that the planned referendum is not in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine.
We believe that the Council of Europe must insist, and will continue to insist, that all the formalities of a constitution must be followed in every member country, including Ukraine. That is the reason why the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights fully supports the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee of the Council of Europe.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Thank you, Mr E�rsi. The next speaker is Mr Gross, Rapporteur of the Committee on Parliamentary and Public Relations.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland) said that referenda should be conducted on a proper constitutional basis. To do otherwise risked undermining democracy. No law had yet been passed in Ukraine on the holding of referenda. What was proposed was a misuse of referenda for populist reasons. The President’s hand would be strengthened and parliament side-stepped. The fact that signatures had been collected before the questions had been finalised cast doubt on the legitimacy of the referendum. The Constitutional Court had only partially addressed the issues.
THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Gross and the rapporteurs. She said the Assembly had one hour for debate. She invited Mr Tarasyuk, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, to speak.
Mr TARASYUK (Foreign Minister of Ukraine).- Madam President, distinguished members of the Assembly, it is a great honour for me to address the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. This marks the first instance of a Ukrainian Foreign Minister speaking before this august body. It also holds some personal sentiment for me because six years ago, when a deputy foreign minister, I carried the inter-agency commission on the accession of Ukraine to the Council of Europe.
This morning, the Assembly will debate the agenda item "Institutional reforms in Ukraine". In that regard, I propose to examine the matter in a broader context, before you take a decision that could have a far-reaching and possibly undesirable effect.
This is the fifth year of our co-operation with the Council of Europe as a member state. Ukraine has achieved substantial progress in fulfilling its commitments to the Organisation, notably during the last few months. Since its accession, Ukraine has become party to one-fourth of all the legal instruments of the Council of Europe. Less than an hour ago, I had the pleasure of depositing with the Secretary General the instrument of ratification by the Verkhovna Rada of Protocol No. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights - [Interruption.] Thank you, but the applause should be for the Ukrainian Parliament and the members of our parliamentary delegation who are present. It was not an easy decision for our parliament, but it was the right decision. These steps demonstrate Ukraine’s commitment to European democratic values.
Distinguished members of the Assembly, for the past four and a half months Ukraine has witnessed the changes that had been expected for years. The re-election of President Leonid K�utchma, the appointment of a new pro-reform government and the formation of a democratic parliamentary majority are the factors that will determine the development of the country for years to come. The Ukrainian people can now rekindle the long-dormant hope that renewed political will and concord between the branches of powers will ensure progress in all spheres of life. Never before has the confidence of the people in the current reforms been so high. Never before have the results of the reforms been so tangible and direct. Never before have we seen important legislation approved so quickly by the parliament.
Let me bring to your attention some of the figures that vividly illustrate the efficiency of the Rada with its newly formed majority. Since the fifth session was opened in January of this year, the parliament has considered 207 agenda items, of which 105 laws have been approved. Some twenty-three draft laws have been approved in their first and second readings. Among those important and long-awaited decisions were, for example, the ratification of Protocol No. 6 and the abolishment of capital punishment.
As a result of the last presidential election, Ukraine has rejected the communist ghost of the past and confirmed its choice of a European future with a democratic political system, based on the rule of law and on an effective balance of executive, legislative and judicial branches. That fact did not go unnoticed by our friends in the Council of Europe.
Having made their choice, the people of Ukraine demanded that practical steps be taken to expedite the process of reform. On 15 January, the President of Ukraine issued a decree calling the all-Ukrainian referendum on the people’s initiative, thereby obeying the will of Ukrainian citizens. I want to stress that none of the decisions of the central electoral commission concerning the registration of 379 initiative groups has been contested in court. As President K�utchma explained in his letters to the President of the Assembly, Lord Russell-Johnston and the Secretary General, Mr Schwimmer, this initiative was the reaction of wide segments of Ukrainian society to the extremely ineffective activities of the parliament, which at the time was without a majority and which, to a great extent, resulted in deteriorating living conditions and economic stagnation. The decree was subjected to the consideration of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the Venice Commission regarding the constitutionality of the referendum. The Constitutional Court ruled on the issue on 27 March. As the president had promised, he obeyed that decision and on 29 March issued a decree introducing amendments to his previous decree on the referendum.
It is worth pointing out that President K�utchma, when signing the decree on the referendum on 15 January and also on several later occasions, expressed his disagreement with some of the questions and the way in which they had been worded by the initiative groups. On 16 February, while meeting the Monitoring Committee, the president said that it was up to the Constitutional Court to decide on the referendum’s conformity with the constitution. Furthermore, in his traditional annual address to the parliament on 22 February, President K�utchma stated that whatever the results of the referendum, there was no intention to dissolve the parliament nor to usurp its power, and nor would there be any changes to the constitution other than in the ways envisaged by the constitution itself. These and some additional clarifications were made by the president in his letters to the President and to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, of which I am sure you are aware. As I said a minute ago, the president kept his word by issuing the decree on 29 March which removed the two questions. Furthermore, the president stated that the results of the referendum would be implemented exclusively by constitutional means, in particular after the approval of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
As you certainly know, last Friday the Venice Commission made public its opinion on the referendum in Ukraine. It stated that, following the very important decision of the Constitutional Court, the factual situation had changed. I cannot but agree with the commission that "this decision opens the door for a possible solution on the basis of consensus between the various branches of state power."
The close attention of the Council of Europe of the issue of the all-Ukrainian referendum could be explained by the natural assumption that post-soviet states suffer from legal nihilism, and therefore need assistance. However, the maturity of Ukrainian society should not be left unaccounted for. The democratic traditions of Ukraine have been suppressed and interrupted for decades by both the imperial and soviet regimes.
Those traditions survived and are quickly reviving. The decision of the Constitutional Court and the reaction of the president and parliament are remarkable proof.
The referendum on 16 April does not imply that there will be overnight changes but it will oblige the Verkhovna Rada to consider such changes in full conformity with the Ukrainian Constitution and legislation. In other words, our democracy is developing and unconstitutional steps are impossible.
I want to express my gratitude to the Assembly, Monitoring Committee and Venice Commission for their interest and assistance. The enormous parliamentary experience gained by members may not always allow them to comprehend some of the peculiarities of resolving some problems in modern Ukrainian society, but I hope that the Assembly agrees that tackling post-communism is not a common task for the majority of European democracies. Most importantly, ideological detoxification is taking place on the initiative of the people. That evolutionary process requires the branches of the state to achieve the right balance.
I was once told that the Council of Europe might either help or cause damage to Ukraine when adopting a decision on the all-Ukrainian referendum, by seeking to suspend the country’s membership or apply other sanctions. I am confident that reason will prevail over emotion. The latest developments in Ukraine and the efforts of the Council of Europe and Assembly show clearly that we are able to find mutually acceptable solutions that are fully in line with democracy, law and the realities in Ukraine. There can be no other way, as Ukraine is part of those democratic traditions. We regard co-operation with the Council of Europe as a long-term process that has a good future. I hope that the current case will be viewed as another success story for both Ukraine and the Council of Europe - as we demonstrated last year with the OECD - and will serve as an example to others of how to settle disputes in a democratic way. I thank you for your attention and rely on your decision.
THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Tarasyuk for his speech and said that the protocol for the abolition of the death penalty in Ukraine was most welcome. Twenty-eight members had signified their intention of taking part in the debate. She called Mr Saakashvili.
Mr SAAKASHVILI (Georgia).- This debate is being watched closely by a nation of fifty-five million people that is in the process of regaining its European political identity and the repercussions of our decision will be much greater than a recommendation. Our decision will determine Ukraine’s choices and direction in the near future.
The relationship between the Council of Europe and the Ukraine has not run smoothly for several years. Ukraine was slow in adopting some legislation by the parliament that we are now trying to defend - rightly so. Ukraine was also reluctant to abolish the death penalty. Europe has a good tradition of acting resolutely in respect of Belarus and sanctioned the intransigence of the Belarusian authorities - but with the Ukraine, we are not dealing with a Belarusian-type situation. There has just been a decision by the Belarus Constitutional Court, by which the president has abided, and for several months Ukraine has responded to demands made by the Council of Europe, including for the abolition of the death penalty, when politicians were reluctant to respond to such unpopular reforms. Other improvements include the adoption of a law on political parties, and ratification of a charter for minorities and regional languages. This week, we are debating the repatriation of Crimean Tatars. That is another good example of how Ukraine is dealing tolerantly with sensitive and apparently insoluble issues. There are examples also of much less xenophobia among the Ukrainian population and authorities than in other large countries in the region.
Ukraine certainly has problems. A country that is one of the richest in Europe in terms of natural resources, intellect and industrial traditions has tremendous difficulties in respect of poverty and corruption. The nation is still overcoming the consequences of the greatest nuclear disaster of the last century, which has traumatised it. At the same time, we cannot help but admire the Ukrainian people and leadership for holding the country together despite numerous initial grim prognoses and outside pressures. President K�utchma has been resolute in pursuing European integration despite domestic difficulties in his rapprochement with Nato and the European Union. He has shown himself to be a statesman with a vision of the future of his country.
While we have been dragging our feet, along with Russia, even on the milder sanction of suspending the credentials of the Russian delegation, to apply the stricter sanction in the power of the Council of Europe to Ukraine following the decision of the Ukrainian Constitutional Court after the guarantees given by the president that the present parliament will not be dissolved, would be to halt progress on the rule of law in the making. It would also put the Council of Europe in jeopardy of applying double standards to different countries of the region, which would violate the regional balance, and deny Ukraine access to democratic institutions. While we believe that the Council of Europe ought to be tough on principles and should not tolerate violations of the Ukrainian Constitution, members of the European Democratic Group who took part in our discussion believe that some of the provisions contained in the draft recommendation are premature and would not lead to the strengthening of the Council and of the democratic process in the Ukraine.
THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Saakashvili and called Mrs Ojuland to speak.
Mrs OJULAND (Estonia).- In January, the Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group initiated a visit by the Venice Commission to Ukraine because we were informed of a referendum there in April. We found later that there was some basis for our concern. The commission and later the Monitoring Committee and Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights discovered that the referendum has no legal basis.
In principle, the Ukrainian authorities have the right to consult the population but only in connection with existing legislation. The Liberal Group is also concerned about the modalities and organisation of the referendum. Yesterday, the Liberal Group was told that last Sunday, ballot papers were available on the streets. I do not know whether that is true but that information causes us concern. We understand that the referendum is aimed at strengthening presidential power and diminishing that of parliament. Our concern is that Ukraine will copy the Belarusian model. On 25 March there was a large demonstration in Belarus when one of our colleagues, Mr Anatoly Lebedko - who has visited this Assembly - was beaten on the street and arrested. Do we want something like that to happen in the Ukraine? We should not close our eyes to such a possibility.
Ukraine is the same size as France. Can we imagine such an illegal referendum taking place in France, which, like Ukraine, is a big and important country in Europe? The Liberal position is that we truly want Ukraine to develop further democratic institutions, to stick to the principles of the Council of Europe, and to stay here within this Organisation which has such high values.
Later this week we will speak about the principles and values of the Organisation in connection with the conflict in Chechnya. Our activities must always be based on our most important values, which are fundamental to the Organisation.
The Liberal group cannot agree to the referendum taking place in Ukraine in that illegal manner. Nor can we accept the idea that the constitution will be changed by the results of a referendum that has no legal basis. If it does take place, we in the Council of Europe should consider ways of taking Ukraine back to the basis of the principles of our Organisation - and we must also take appropriate measures concerning the membership of Ukraine.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Thank you, Mrs Ojuland. I now call Mr Marmazov.
Mr MARMAZOV (Ukraine) said that he was used to hearing questions raised about the state of democracy in Ukraine. It was right that the Council of Europe’s opinions be considered on these matters.
The machinery for changing the constitution in Ukraine by means of a referendum did not exist. Those changes could only be made by the Verkhovna Rada.
The action taken by the Constitutional Court represented a victory for democracy. The Court had not seen the six questions as having equal weight. Additionally, it had made clear that any positive answers given to the questions would not in themselves confer sufficient authority for changes to be made. Any such changes to the constitution needed to be made via the proper legal procedures.
He did not think it would be appropriate to suspend the Ukrainian delegation. Delegates from Ukraine speaking at the Assembly provided a positive voice for democracy in Ukraine.
He agreed with those delegates who had said that a coup in Ukraine would be regrettable.
THE PRESIDENT called Mr Dumitrescu, who was not present. She called Mr Solonari instead, to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mr SOLONARI (Moldova).- The issue that we are debating is of the utmost importance for the future of democracy, not only in Ukraine but in the whole region of the former Soviet Union. The Ukraine is a big and influential country, so if its political regime is changed in an undemocratic direction by unconstitutional means, that would create a powerful momentum for similar changes in neighbouring countries.
Meanwhile, one cannot but realise that in the so-called new independent states - the former Soviet republics - there is an ever present danger of anti-democratic authoritarian developments. The lack of democratic traditions and the fragility of public institutions, and indifference - or at least lack of vigilance - on the part of civil society, make it possible for such executive coups to be implemented.
In many countries in the region, the regimes tend to evolve in the direction of an authoritarian presidentialism with an all too powerful executive and a feeble and inefficient legislature. History abounds with cases of strong heads of state, sometimes even supposedly democratically elected, using referendums - or should I say plebiscites? - to strengthen their own position and introduce authoritarian systems of government. That is because referendums, being a powerful means of direct democracy, can easily be abused, especially if the legislative framework is non-existent or inadequate. There is nothing unique in what is happening in Ukraine now, and if events are allowed to develop according to their own logic, the consequences will be only too familiar.
The Socialist Group is of the opinion that the Council of Europe should be praised for what it has done in that respect. It reacted swiftly and properly, by the appointment of the rappporteurs of the Monitoring Committee, the visit to Ukraine and the Assembly’s decision on the Venice Commission.
The decision of the Venice Commission was tremendously important for the developments in that country. The Constitutional Court took a decision on the matter - an important decision, which created a new situation and which many people think was the result of listening to the opinion of the bodies within the Council of Europe. By ruling that points 1 and 6 of the presidential decree were unconstitutional, and that the other issues, if they are voted upon, should be considered only as a basis for further consideration and decisions by the Verkhovna Rada, the Constitutional Court created a new situation whereby a solution based on consensus between the branches of power became possible.
There is still a difference between the Venice Commission, which tends to see the entire referendum as unconstitutional, and the position of the Constitutional Court. The rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee tend to accept the position of the Venice Commission.
The Socialist Group came to the conclusion that the rapporteurs should be supported and that the whole referendum should be regarded as lacking a legal basis. At the same time, we are of the opinion that a constitutional referendum would not result in immediate changes to the constitution, as any changes should be made in conformity with the Constitution of Ukraine.
THE PRESIDENT called Mr Hornhues to give an opinion on behalf of the EPP.
Mr HORNHUES (Germany) said that he was glad there had been improvements in Ukraine such as the removal of the death penalty. With regard to the proposed referendum, Ukrainians had the right to draw their own conclusions from their experience of democracy so far. There were many different models of democracy and Ukraine should be allowed to develop its own approach. However, amendments to the constitution should be made in accordance with the constitution itself and with accepted basic rules.
THE PRESIDENT called Mr Tabajdi.
Mr TABAJDI (Hungary) said that the Assembly should send a clear signal to the Ukrainian Government that anti-democratic and unconstitutional changes were unacceptable. In spite of the decision of the Constitutional Court, there were still grounds for concern. He had supported Ukraine’s membership of the Council of Europe and there had been some progress, notably the abolition of the death penalty. Now, however, there was a far-reaching crisis in its political institutions. Amending the constitution in an unconstitutional way was unacceptable. If there were no improvements he would support the suspension of Ukraine.
THE PRESIDENT called Mr Lupu.
Mr LUPU (Romania).- I congratulate our Ukrainian colleagues on the new course set in the evolution of democratic institution in their country.
Romania welcomes and encourages the progress towards the rule of law and democracy in Ukraine, and supports all efforts aimed at the consolidation and enhancement of the progress achieved.
As a member state of the Council of Europe, Ukraine has pledged to put into practice a number of commitments intended to pave the way for and smooth the transition to an authentic democratic European state, observant of common European values such as the rule of law, a multi-party system and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Relations between Romania and Ukraine have developed steadily, in keeping with the emergence of a climate favouring regional co-operation as a prerequisite for stability and development in our region. The treaty of good-neighbourly relations between Romania and Ukraine establishes the overall framework for relations and regulates the protection of the rights of national minorities in both countries, including the right to political representation in the two parliaments of representatives of minorities.
As a matter of principle, the calling and organisation of a referendum should be a sovereign attribute of all states. Nevertheless, we cannot be indifferent to a result that might well affect the established rights of minorities, such as that to political representation. I refer particularly to the possible consequences of reducing the number of members of parliament.
According to national legislation and in keeping with international commitments, all minorities are represented in the Romanian Parliament. We expect the same treatment of minorities by a good neighbour like Ukraine - indeed more so since provisions to that end are inscribed in the treaty founding our bilateral relations. We encourage Ukraine to apply to the fullest extent the provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, to which it is party, and to bear in mind such elements when putting into practice the result of the referendum to be held on 16 April.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Thank you Mr Lupu. The next speaker is Ms Jones.
Ms JONES (United Kingdom).- I was a member of the delegation that visited Ukraine to monitor the presidential elections at the end of October and the beginning of November. It was the first time that I had visited Ukraine. I ended up as co-rapporteur for the report and came away from the country with two overwhelming impressions. The first was of the use and abuse of presidential power during the campaign, and the second was of political deadlock between the president and the parliament.
The result of such deadlock is that the hard-pressed citizens of Ukraine are not benefiting from the economic reform that they deserve. I am sure that President K�utchma would argue that the referendum is a way in which to break that deadlock, but I do not believe him. I shall be frank because I am speaking in a personal capacity. The referendum is extremely unhealthy because it will give the president even more power and weaken the parliament. As Mrs Ojuland, of the Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group rightly pointed out, the Council of Europe has very high standards. As I am speaking frankly, I should add that it is a little regrettable that, owing to such high standards, we were yesterday denied a debate on Austria.
The suspension of Ukraine might play into President K�utchma’s hands. If the referendum goes ahead, we shall be suspending the very parliamentarians who are trying, in effect, to win the battle against President K�utchma and the powers that he wishes to award himself. We must bear in mind the fact that Ukraine has finally abolished the death penalty, although, admittedly, it left doing so to the last minute. Indeed, the timing of it is interesting in the context of today’s debate. Nevertheless, it went ahead with the abolition.
I have not yet decided how I shall vote at the end of the debate. I shall listen carefully to all speeches. I have absolutely no illusions about what President K�utchma is trying to do in Ukraine and I am extremely concerned about the weakening of the parliament, but we must be very careful not to play into his hands. If the referendum goes ahead, I hope that we shall be able to observe how it is conducted and how the campaign for it is run. Unless there is improvement on what I saw in October and November, I shall be by no means convinced by it.
This is an important debate. If our aim is to help the hard-pressed people of Ukraine and encourage them to go ahead with political and economic reform, there must be grave doubts about what we may achieve if we isolate the country.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Ms Jones. The next speaker is Mr Nagy.
Mr NAGY (Hungary).- As the Foreign Minister of Ukraine has just emphasised, President K�utchma has accepted the decision of the Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the referendum. In evaluating the current system in Ukraine, the following aspects must be taken into consideration.
Following independence in 1991, Ukraine’s most important task was to maintain the sovereignty of the country and enhance its international reputation. It took significant steps to strengthen relations with European-Atlantic organisations, and consistently stood up for European stability and security. In a move that was unprecedented world-wide it renounced nuclear weapons, declaring the country free of them. It entered into a basic treaty with its neighbours, among them Hungary.
Also in 1991, Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Co-operation Council, and in 1994, it joined the Partnership for Peace programme. It also signed a charter establishing a distinguished partnership with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Under President K�utchma’s leadership, Ukraine is committed to supporting western policies and to strengthening ties with Nato.
In 1995, Ukraine joined the Council of Europe. The most important area of such co-operation has been the harmonisation of its legal system with European standards. In order to achieve that, the Verkhovna Rada passed the Political Parties Act and ratified the European charter on regional and minority languages. Finally, Ukraine met the obligations undertaken on joining the Council of Europe by abolishing capital punishment. The Verkhovna Rada was willing to pass such acts only after President K�utchma’s determined action at the beginning of the year.
By restricting Ukraine’s participation in the work of the Council of Europe and condemning the country, the Assembly would create an internal crisis in it, which could serve as the basis for attacking President K�utchma’s commitment to the west and his government, as well as the majority in parliament. Therefore, exclusion of Ukraine is not in the interests of any major international organisations whose declared goal is further co-operation with Ukraine and the strengthening of working relations in every area possible. If we are to sustain the process of integration, such co-operation is indispensable.
In response to criticism, Ukraine has fully complied with the Council of Europe’s obligations. However, I agree that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should draw President K�utchma’s attention to the fact that concentration of power must not result in either aggressive action against the opposition or the use of anti-democratic methods. The executive must remain within the boundaries of lawlessness and constitutionality, and comply with international standards.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Thank you Mr Nagy. The next speaker is Mr Zvarych.
Mr ZVARYCH (Ukraine).- Since we last reviewed the issue of Ukraine’s fulfilment of its Council obligations, much has changed in my country. To be positive, Ukraine has entered the European death penalty-free zone. On the negative side, there is the referendum issue.
I wish to refer to several factors that are inadequately represented - or even misrepresented - in the committee’s report. Contrary to the report, Ukraine has had a law on a national referendum since June 1991. I want to make it clear that that law exists. An entire section of the constitution deals with the right of the people to hold a referendum on practically any issue.
To state that the referendum is invalid, illegitimate or completely unconstitutional is quite simply wrong. It is a gross misrepresentation of undeniable fact. Politically, the question remains open whether a less-than-stable emerging democracy should engage in such dangerous and reckless experiments with the constitutional fibre of its political system. The ability of Ukraine to appreciate the potential perils involved in this process will be demonstrated when it comes to implementing the changes that were mandated by the Ukrainian people by popular vote.
If the Council of Europe suspends Ukraine’s membership, the Council’s legal and other levers of oversight will not be able to be applied with a view towards securing the rule of law in Ukraine. That basic, undeniable fact should remain foremost in our minds when we discuss the Council’s options in this complicated situation.
I wish to draw to the attention of the Assembly the fact that following the ruling by the Constitutional Court, much of the precarious nature of the referendum has subsided. In short, the situation has changed in principle. Two of the most controversial questions have been removed. However, the issue to be addressed will be how to implement the results of the referendum.
The constitution clearly stipulates that amendments to the constitution can be introduced only by a law adopted by parliament. In other words, parliament’s role cannot be circumvented. By suspending Ukraine’s membership and revoking the Ukrainian parliamentary delegation’s credentials, the Council would in fact weaken the position of parliament. That would play into the hands of those who launched this dubious scheme in the first place.
I do not want to be an apologist for our president, but let me pose one simple question: was it possible for the president not to announce a referendum after more than four million signatures were collected by popular initiative? Hardly. What other option did the president have, particularly after the Supreme Court ordered the Central Electoral Commission to register initiatory groups?
Some have argued that the Constitutional Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the referendum itself. Forgive my candour, but this position is simply absurd. By ruling that four of the six questions were constitutional, there can be no doubt that the court was of the opinion that the referendum itself was constitutional, although no specific statement to that effect was made.
Finally, does the Council of Europe have grounds for making irresponsible threats to the effect that if the referendum takes place and its results are implemented in a manner that is inconsistent with the constitution, Ukraine’s membership of the Council will be suspended? I suggest that no such grounds exist.
Today, we heard the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine state unequivocally and categorically that changes to the constitution can be introduced only in strict accordance with the letter of the fundamental law. He stated that the president will abide by the decision of the Constitutional Court. Is it appropriate for the Council even to threaten to apply sanctions in future, given those irrevocable facts? The only answer to that question is no.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Thank you, Mr Zvarych. The next speaker is Mr Ivanov.
Mr IVANOV (Bulgaria) congratulated the rapporteurs on their work. Ukraine had made undoubted progress in changing from a totalitarian state to a democratic one. Article VI of the European Charter of Human Rights had been adopted. The current Ukrainian authorities had the opportunity to increase respect for human rights and to improve democratic procedures.
The situation of the Bulgarian minority in Ukraine gave cause for concern. There had been no teaching in Bulgarian since the second world war. The Bulgarian school had been transformed into a Russian one. There was no teaching of Bulgarian language, literature or history despite Bulgarians constituting the second largest minority group after Russians.
Although a country’s constitution was the main internal legal means of consolidating democratic structures, the principles of democracy had to be implemented at the closest possible level to the people.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Thank you, Mr Ivanov. The next speaker is Mr Behrendt; he has four minutes.
Mr BEHRENDT (Germany) said that a parallel could be drawn with Belarus, where the powers of the president had been shored up at the expense of those of the people. Such a situation was intolerable from a democratic point of view. The greatest dangers had been averted as two of the six questions had been struck off the referendum as a result of the Constitutional Court’s ruling. Nevertheless, the proposals would still weaken parliament. He wished to underline Mr Gross’s point that those in favour of democracy had to remain vigilant at all times. It was correct that the Council of Europe had monitored the situation in Ukraine closely and that it should continue to do so.
Principles of democracy and the rule of law should be respected in that fledging democracy. However, there was a need to avoid over-reaction. The Assembly should not consider the exclusion of the Ukrainian delegation at this stage. Any such decision should be taken only after a referendum, were it to be held.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Thank you, Mr Behrendt.
I must now interrupt the list of speakers. I remind you that members who are on the list and present in the Chamber, but who are not able to speak, may submit their speeches to the Table Office, room 1083, in typescript form within 24 hours of the end of the debate for publication in the official report.
I call Mr Tarasyuk to say a few words.
Mr TARASYUK (Foreign Minister of Ukraine).- Thank you, Madam President. Distinguished members of the Assembly, I listened with great attention to your comments. I want to express my gratitude for all your kind words during the debate. Ukraine has established democracy and the rule of law and it has contributed to peace and stability not only in eastern and central Europe, but throughout Europe as a whole. I shall convey your views and comments, as well as your recommendations, to the President and Government of Ukraine.
I want to comment briefly on some of the views expressed. We are grateful for the statement made yesterday by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. He welcomed the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine as an important step forward. He also welcomed the subsequent action taken by the President of Ukraine to comply with the court’s ruling. When listening to some of the comments made in the debate, I could not but help remember that well-known saying about knocking on an open door.
I want to reiterate that the president’s decree on 29 March fully complied with the ruling of the Constitutional Court. Not to acknowledge that, either intentionally or unintentionally, is to live in an unrealistic world. The president sent a clear message that, under the Constitution of Ukraine, any changes would have to be in accordance with the constitution. That means that changes can be made only if they are in accordance with chapter 13 of the constitution.
I carefully read the opinion of the Venice Commission, but I could not find a single phrase suggesting that Ukraine’s Constitution is undemocratic. There is no question of any unconstitutionality in Ukraine’s referendum. Therefore, some of the amendments approved by the Monitoring Committee do not fully comply with the opinion of the Venice Commission. Paragraphs 54 and 55 of the Commission’s report reflect on the changes in the situation in Ukraine.
On the subject of immunity, Article 80 of the Constitution of Ukraine states that National Deputies are guaranteed parliamentary immunity. No one doubts that provision - it is not subject to change in the referendum. Paragraph 2 of the article states that National Deputies are not legally liable for the results of voting or for statements made in parliament or its bodies, with the exception of liability for insult or defamation. Therefore, that paragraph, too, will not be subject to the referendum.
What will be subject to the referendum? It is paragraph 3, which says that National Deputies shall not be held criminally liable, detained or arrested without the consent of the Verknovna Rada of Ukraine. That is the only paragraph that will be subject to the referendum. To sum up, we will not do anything that is unconstitutional or contrary to our obligations as a member of the Council of Europe.
We have a provision relating to observers at the referendum. Indeed, I sent a letter to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr Schwimmer, inviting him to send Council of Europe observers to the referendum. I sent a similar letter to the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, and to the Director of the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Mr Studmann.
Under the President of Ukraine’s decree, a working group has been created to help observers to monitor the preparation and conduct of the referendum. Ukraine will not follow other examples because Ukraine is an example in itself. Of all the former soviet republics and newly independent states, Ukraine remains the only country without any violence or serious inter-ethic troubles. Ukraine has demonstrated to the whole of Europe how countries should treat national minorities.
Once again, I thank you, Madam President, and all the members of the Assembly for their active participation in the debate and for their intention to contribute to the development of democracy and the rule of law in Ukraine. That is the major objective of President K�utchma and the Government and Parliament of Ukraine.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Thank you, Minister, for attending this Assembly and also for your speech. I know that you will pass on to your president our wish that Ukraine becomes a stable and democratic country.
I now call the rapporteurs to reply to the debate. They have four minutes. I call Mrs Severinsen.
Mrs SEVERINSEN (Denmark).- I, too, thank everyone for their contributions. I want to tell the Minister that we accept that it is true that many laws have been passed during the last three months. Therefore, I must ask, why have a referendum? It is good that nothing will be done until after the referendum and then in accordance with the constitution - but if so, why have the referendum? Besides, Amendment No. 5 takes into account that there is no intention to do anything after the referendum. Under Amendment No. 5 the situation is clear and there would be no suspension.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Thank you, Mrs Severinsen. The next speaker is Mrs Wohlwend.
Mrs WOHLWEND (Liechtenstein) said that she was pleased that Ukraine had ratified Protocol No. 6 to the Convention. The main issue was, however, the referendum. If Ukraine did not live up to its obligations to the Council of Europe, the Assembly had a duty to act. What was being offered in the report was an opportunity to find a solution in a sensible way.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Thank you, Mrs Wohlwend. I call Mr E�rsi.
Mr E�RSI (Hungary).- I thank my colleagues for their support and take the opportunity to refer to the Minister’s comment about the Venice Commission’s report. It expresses many doubts but was written in diplomatic terms, so members should not allow themselves to be misled. Every member in this Hemicycle - with the exception of one, who is your countryman - called the referendum illegal. Please take this issue seriously and understand that we are seeking a mutually acceptable solution. The referendum must either be abolished or held legally.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- I call Mr Gross.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland) said that the content and manner of the referendum should not be disassociated. Voters needed to know what powers the second chamber would have before the referendum was held. Ukraine should resist the drift to authoritarianism.
THE PRESIDENT called Mr Mota Amaral to speak on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.
Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) said that the committee’s work was ongoing. He was pleased that Protocol No. 6 had been ratified and that there was no longer deadlock in parliament. It was crucial, however, that the freedom of parliamentarians was guaranteed. The committee was taking a firm stand but would take account of progress made. He wanted Ukraine to remain in the Council of Europe, but the Assembly had a duty to ensure that its principles were respected.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- The debate is closed.
The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft recommendation on the reform of institutions in Ukraine, to which ten amendments have been tabled. I remind members that speeches on amendments are limited to one minute.
The amendments will be taken in the following order: Nos. 6, 7, 2, 3, 8, 1, 4, 10, 9 and 5. If Amendment No. 10 is accepted, Amendments Nos. 9 and 5 will fall.
We come first to Amendment No. 6, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraph 2 with the following new paragraph:
"The Assembly welcomes a number of positive steps recently taken by the Ukrainian authorities, notably the decision of the Verkhovna Rada to authorise ratification of Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, following the ruling of the Constitutional Court that the death penalty is unconstitutional in all criminal cases without exception, as well as ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The Assembly also notes that in accordance with the Constitutional Court decision, the Verhkovna Rada introduced relevant amendments to the Criminal, Criminal-Procedural and Penal Codes, replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment. In acknowledging the Constitutional Court decisions, the Assembly embraces the position of the Court that insofar as the right to life if inalienable, the death penalty cannot be applied even in cases tried in a period of a state of war, which is consistent with the Assembly’s position creating in all of Europe a ‘death penalty free zone’."
I call Mr Zvarych to support the amendment.
Mr ZVARYCH (Ukraine).- This article deals with Ukraine’s success and achievements but its wording does not completely reflect the situation. There was a Constitutional Court decision on the death penalty, according to which it was declared unconstitutional, not only in peacetime but in wartime - a policy that many countries represented here have yet to adopt. Ukraine has leapfrogged many countries in Europe in that respect and it would be beneficial to incorporate that point, which would not affect much of the substance of the resolution.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr B�rsony.
Mr B�RSONY (Hungary).- This is not a question of describing what has been done but is a recommendation in relation to a fundamental requirement by a democratic assembly of a country. This is not a fairy tale about the past but a recommendation for the future, so I strongly oppose the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) (Translation).- We are against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Voting is now open.
Amendment No. 6 is rejected.
We come to Amendment No. 7, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraph 3 with the following new paragraph:
"The Assembly takes note of a decree, issued by President Leonid Kuchma, according to which a national referendum on institutional reform is scheduled to take place on 16 April 2000. In recognition of the fact that this referendum has caused concern according to its constitutionality and taking note of the opinion of the Venice Commission on this issue, the Assembly welcomes the recent Constitutional Court decision, which partially removes the potential threat to the rule of law in Ukraine, which was implicit in the original presidential decree."
I call Mr Zvarych to support Amendment No. 7.
Mr ZVARYCH (Ukraine).- I draw your attention, colleagues, to Article 3 of the draft recommendation, in which the referendum is described as "the so-called ‘referendum’". I do not believe that that closely represents the position of the Venice Commission on the issue. Nowhere in the text of its opinion is the validity of the referendum as such called into question. Hence I suggest that we express our concern over the way in which the referendum is taking place. Nowhere in the text is the Constitutional Court’s decision taken into account, so I also suggest that we also welcome "the recent Constitutional Court decision, which partially removes the potential threat to the rule of law in Ukraine, which was implicit in the original presidential decree."
I am suggesting that we represent the true situation as it now exists in Ukraine following the Constitutional Court’s decision.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Gross to speak against the amendment.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland).- I ask the Assembly to reject the amendment. With words, one can make politics, and when we do not use the correct words we mislead the people. This is not a referendum; at best it is a problematic plebiscite. That is why we use the phrase "so-called ‘referendum’"; we refer to the official language, but we also say that that language must be questioned.
I was at the Venice Commission, and I listened to what was said. The Commission is on the same lines, but it never avoids the idea that we must think for ourselves. It advises us, but it does not guide us. We are free to choose our own words, and I ask you not to delete the phrase "so-called"; I ask you therefore to reject the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) (Translation).- The committee voted against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Voting is now open.
Amendment No. 7 is rejected.
We now come to Amendment No. 2, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 4, insert a new paragraph as follows:
"It also takes note of the decision of the Constitutional Court dated 29 March 2000, which provides that:
i. questions Nos. 1 (confidence in the parliament) and 6 (approval of the constitution by referendum) are unconstitutional;
ii. in case of positive answers to questions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, the changes to the constitution must be approved by the Verkhovna Rada.
iii. the President of Ukraine and the Central Electoral Commission must take action to implement the decision of the Constitutional Court".
I call Mr Gjellerod to support Amendment No. 2.
Mr GJELLEROD (Denmark).- A lot of words have been said today about the Constitutional Court’s decision, and I will not repeat them, but I am still of the opinion that that decision must be reflected in our recommendation. Hence the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Zhirinovsky to speak against the amendment.
Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation) said the Assembly was deceiving itself, as the Constitutional Court had only pronounced against two of the referendum questions. The Assembly should take a tough stand, as it had with Russia, and make its views known before the date of the referendum, as it would be too late to do so afterwards. The Assembly should be aware that election results in the Ukraine could not be trusted.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) said the committee was in favour but acknowledged the need to review the wording of the English version of the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Voting is now open.
Amendment No. 2 is adopted.
We now come to Amendment No. 3, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 5, replace the word "should" by: "must".
I call Mr Gjellerod to support Amendment No. 3.
Mr GJELLEROD (Denmark).- Thank you, Madam President. Paragraph 5 of the draft recommendation refers to a "specific procedure" in the constitution, and says that it "should be respected". In my opinion, it must be respected. That is the reason for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?…
What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) (Translation).- We support the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- Voting is now open.
Amendment No. 3 is adopted.
We now come to Amendment No. 8, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraphs 6 and 7 with the following new paragraph:
"In order to avoid any constitutional conflicts in the future, the Assembly stresses the need for a new law on referendums, that, on the one hand, will fully comply with the constitution in allowing the people of Ukraine to directly participate in certain policy decisions, but that, on the other hand, will clearly spell out the legal procedures that must be followed in the organisation of a referendum and will preclude any attempt to disrupt the constitutional system of balance of powers."
I call Mr Zvarych to support Amendment No. 8.
Mr ZVARYCH (Ukraine).- Colleagues, I draw your attention to the fact that paragraph 6 states that "a valid referendum cannot be organised until a new law on a referendum procedure has been passed". I cannot understand how we can ignore the fact that there is a law. The law exists, and I stress that fact again. However, I agree that a new law that would regulate such issues needs to be passed, and that is what I try to suggest in the amendment. Parliament should draft a new law to do away with any potential constitutional conflicts concerning referendums. I ask you to pass the amendment; otherwise, we are undercutting the Constitutional Court, which has ruled on the validity and constitutionality of the referendum.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr B�rsony to speak against the amendment.
Mr B�RSONY (Hungary).- I say to my distinguished colleagues who tabled the amendment that that amendment is self-explanatory, because it includes the words "In order to avoid any constitutional conflicts". If they recognise that there is a constitutional conflict, that is a clear recognition that something is wrong with the current legislation. That suggests that the committee’s standpoint is correct, and will probably be supported by the Assembly.
THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) (Translation).- We voted the against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- Voting is now open.
Amendment No. 8 is rejected.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- We come to Amendment No. 1, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 7, insert the following new paragraph:
"The Assembly takes into account the opinion of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (‘Venice Commission’) adopted on 31 March 2000 in which it concluded that:
- the present referendum cannot directly amend the constitution;
- it seems highly questionable whether a consultative referendum of the people’s initiative is admissible;
- it is up to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to decide whether, at the present stage of the implementation of the Ukrainian Constitution, there is in general a legal basis for the holding of referendums in Ukraine;
- one of the questions submitted to referendum is clearly unconstitutional, the other questions are extremely problematic and/or unclear;
- taken together, the adoption of the proposals contained in the referendum would disrupt the balance of powers between the President and the parliament;
and that these elements taken together cast grave doubts on both the constitutionality and the admissibility of the referendum as a whole, and therefore urges its Monitoring Committee, for report, and its Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, for opinion, to follow closely the constitutional developments in Ukraine."
I call Mr E�rsi to support Amendment No. 1.
Mr E�RSI (Hungary).- The first draft was produced before the Venice Commission came out with its conclusions. Mr Gross is absolutely right; we are the victim of the Venice Commission, because we could not ignore the fact that the Commission came to a conclusion, so the amendment aims at extending the draft with the conclusions of the Commission.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Zvarych to speak against the amendment.
Mr ZVARYCH (Ukraine).- I understand that we should indeed include something of the Venice Commission’s report, but I would draw attention to that report. The amendment does not include paragraphs 54 and 55 of the report, in which it is very clearly stated that, according to the members of the Commission, the situation in Ukraine has changed in principle. If we are to quote the Commission’s report, we should be fully consistent with the Commission’s position and not try to interpret its report.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) (Translation).- We voted in favour of the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- The voting is now open.
Amendment No. 1 is adopted.
We come to Amendment No. 4, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 7, insert the following new paragraph:
"The Assembly, therefore launches an urgent appeal to the President of Ukraine to postpone the referendum until a new law on referendum procedure is adopted".
I call Mr Hancock to support Amendment No. 4.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom).- The Ukrainian Foreign Secretary made a very compelling and interesting case today for not holding the referendums. Consequently, the amendment is very appropriate, because it asks the President of Ukraine to think very seriously about what his own Foreign Secretary said here today and what the Assembly should be telling him; that one should not hold a referendum on any issue until one is sure that the rules and regulations relating to it are clearly understood by all the participants. There is ample evidence, from our own report and from others, that the people in Ukraine who signed up for the initial thinking on this simply did not understand what was being asked of them. That cannot be right. In a democracy, things need to be transparent, clear and finely balanced on the arguments. This was manifestly not the case. The Foreign Secretary said as much, and it would be right and proper for us to support the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Saakashvili to speak against the amendment.
Mr SAAKASHVILI (Georgia).- It must be noted that the amendment makes little sense in the present situation, in which there is not even a slim chance that the present Parliament of Ukraine will adopt any law at all on the referendum. That is obvious. There have been laws since 1991and there had been extreme reluctance to specify anything in a new law. So it is just a matter of saying that there will be no law, so there should be no referendum. It is as simple as that.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
I understand the committee voted in favour of the amendment.
The reference to the referendum had to be understood as a reference to the so-called referendum.
The voting is now open.
Amendment No. 4 is adopted.
We come to Amendment No. 10, which is, in the draft recommendation, delete paragraph 8.
I remind the Assembly that if the amendment is adopted Amendments Nos. 9 and 5 will fall.
I call Mr Kieres to support the amendment.
Mr KIERES (Poland).- When we submitted Amendment No. 10 we did not recognise the essence of Amendment No. 9 or know that Amendment No. 2 would be adopted. We acknowledge that Amendment No. 9 goes along the desired lines better than Amendment No. 10 and takes into account our intentions. Therefore, I am empowered by members of the group to withdraw the amendment and give support to Amendment No. 9.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Amendment No. 10 is withdrawn.
We come to Amendment No. 9, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraph 8 with the following new paragraph:
"With a view towards more firmly securing the principles of democracy and the rule of law in Ukraine, the Assembly recommends to the Committee of Ministers to monitor closely the manner in which the results of the referendum are implemented in Ukraine, in particular with regard to the procedural norms, that are affirmed in the Constitution of Ukraine, so that the amendments that will be finally adopted be fully compatible with the standards of the Council of Europe."
I call Mr Mota Amaral to support the amendment.
Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) said that the committee had thought that Amendment No. 5 should be taken before Amendment No. 9, although it was possible that he was mistaken.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Amendment No. 9 will be taken first.
I call Mr Zvarych to support Amendment No. 9.
Mr ZVARYCH (Ukraine).- I draw attention to the fact that if paragraph 8 is passed in its current wording Ukraine’s membership of the Council of Europe will be suspended. That is why we suggest recommending to the Committee of Ministers that it begin monitoring the situation following the referendum, because the threat is not so much in the referendum but in the way in which the results are implemented - whether anyone in Ukraine will try to do this in an unconstitutional fashion. Therefore, recommending to the Committee of Ministers that it monitor the situation following the referendum is what our basic intent should be, not already eliciting sanctions.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Zhirinovsky to speak against the amendment.
Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation) said that an absurd situation was arising. The Assembly was being asked to wait for the referendum to take place before taking any action. Allowing the referendum to go ahead would undermine democracy.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) said that the committee had voted against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- The voting is now open.
Amendment No. 9 is rejected.
We come to Amendment No. 5, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraph 8 by the following paragraph:
"The Assembly, therefore, recommends the Committee of Ministers to seek to ensure that all provisions of the constitution in force in Ukraine are thoroughly respected in the implementation of the referendum results, and in any procedure aimed at amending the constitution in particular. If the referendum results are implemented in a non-constitutional manner or if the constitution were to be amended through non-constitutional means, it recommends that Ukraine’s membership of the Council of Europe be suspended".
I call Mr Hancock to support Amendment No. 5.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom).- I listened with great interest to the Foreign Minister. He made the point that Ukraine had responded to the demands of the Council of Europe, but that is not quite right, is it? The Council of Europe made no demands other than that Ukraine abide by this Organisation’s accepted rules. Ukraine responded to its conditions of entry; it has responded to our rules.
I was disturbed when I heard the Foreign Minister say that there would be problems in Ukraine if suggestions in the latter part of the amendment were adopted. Those suggestions simply reiterate the rules and conditions required by the Organisation that Ukraine sought to join. Nobody in Ukraine should have anything to fear if they believe what the Foreign Minister says and what we are led to believe the President of Ukraine is saying. There is no problem with adopting the amendment if Ukraine is absolutely sure that it will stick to what it signed up to on joining the Council of Europe. The amendment gives the Assembly the opportunity to reiterate our position.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Zvarych to speak against the amendment.
Mr ZVARYCH (Ukraine).- I should like to move an oral sub-amendment. I suggest that we delete the second sentence of Amendment No. 5. If, following an authoritative and categorical statement from the Foreign Minister of Ukraine to the effect that no unconstitutional deeds or action will be taken by the president or the government, we threaten sanctions by agreeing to the second sentence of the amendment, we are basically telling Mr Tarasyuk and my country, "We believe that you are lying". I therefore suggest that we adopt only the first sentence of the amendment.
Mr BEHRENDT (Germany).- Although I support the amendment, I should like to move an oral sub-amendment, too. I suggest that the last word should be "reconsidered" instead of "suspended".
Mr B�RSONY (Hungary).- I formally oppose any oral sub-amendment.
THE PRESIDENT said that if the Assembly was to accept Mr B�rsony’s proposal that no oral sub-amendments be considered then ten delegates should now rise to indicate their support.
She said that as more than ten delegates had stood, Mr B�rsony’s proposal was accepted and no oral sub-amendments would be considered.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).- What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) said that the committee supported the amendment as originally tabled.
THE PRESIDENT.- The voting is now open.
Amendment No. 5 is adopted.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation in Document 8666, as amended.
The draft recommendation, as amended, is adopted.
(Lord Russell-Johnston took the Chair in place of Mrs Durrieu.)
3. Address by Mr Ilir Meta, Prime Minister of Albania
THE PRESIDENT.- I am sorry that we kept you waiting outside the Chamber, Mr Meta, but we have had one of those complicated and difficult debates that our Assembly sometimes conducts.
Prime Minister, most politicians - I am quite sure that all my colleagues would agree - are seldom, if ever during their entire career, faced with a challenge of the magnitude that you face in your post: to govern a country and a people who, in recent history, have had to go through so many dramatic and tragic experiences. In a decade, Albania has seen the end of a totalitarian regime of rare, if not unique, brutality and paranoia, as you remarked to me when we talked this morning. It has experienced the near-complete collapse of state institutions, caused by the ruthless exploitation of people’s na�ve yet understandable desire to create a better life for themselves and their families. Economic duress has created a dramatic exodus of tens of thousands of Albanians, exposing them to the risks and uncertainties of illegal immigration and, sadly, to prejudices which the unprincipled encourage.
Finally, the murderous campaign of Serb forces in Kosovo a year ago forced hundreds of thousands to seek shelter in Albania. In receiving them, the country displayed remarkable solidarity and humanity, as I saw when I visited Kukes. For that, Albania deserves profound respect and gratitude. I said that when the Albanian president came to see us, but I cannot say it often enough.
All of these problems have left marks - psychological, social, economic and political ones. Divisions continue to frustrate efforts to complete the necessary reforms. However, one characteristic of the ordinary people has struck me again and again during my many visits to the country - Albanians not only want a better life, but are ready to do something about it.
That mix of hope, ambition and determination should serve as an inspiration to Albanian politicians. If you succeed in mobilising it properly, it will be the most important asset you have in accomplishing your difficult task.
Mr Prime Minister, I invite you to address our Assembly.
Mr META (Prime Minister of Albania).- It is a great pleasure and honour for me to have the opportunity to speak to you on this day, which marks the approach of the fifth anniversary of Albania’s accession to the Council of Europe. However, I wish to emphasise that co-operation with the Council - the oldest European organisation championing democracy and human rights - dates back to before 1995, as co-operation was established between the Albanian Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly in 1991.
I thank you once again for the interest shown towards my country and my government, as well as the interest shown in our democratic and institutional developments. I am grateful for the opportunity to be present here to outline our most recent developments and efforts, and our resolve to proceed.
Today, Albania - and the government I have the honour to head - is totally involved in the process of democratic transformation. The country has achieved multi-dimensional progress, the most salient achievements being: respect for human rights, both civil and political; respect for the rights of minorities; cultural diversity; linguistic pluralism; and freedom and co-operation among various religious communities.
We have put in place a functioning state based on the principle of the rule of law. On that foundation lies the new constitution, which clearly defines the separation of various powers, the independence of the judiciary, decentralisation of power at a local level, the encouragement of private media and many other things. Significant steps have been undertaken with regard to economic recovery and build-up.
Such steps are closely linked with the stability in the country, the rule of law, the fight against corruption and an active role for our foreign policy in the framework of the Stability Pact, the general economic improvements of the country and the adoption and implementation of relevant legislation. These create the proper ground for the government to have clear and concrete perspectives for development.
We are committed to conducting the upcoming local elections in a free and fair manner and we will not permit such elections to create rifts and to be an excuse for division. Therefore, we are co-operating closely with the international community, particularly the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe, to find a consensus on a few pending issues.
However, we note with regret that the major opposition party seems to lack such a will and defies the constitution. Its representatives have attended some of our meetings with the OSCE and the Council of Europe and we hope for their continued participation.
Law enforcement and strengthening the rule of law remain high on the agenda of my government. The fight against corruption and illegal trafficking and the strengthening of the judiciary and the police along the lines agreed upon with our international partners continues with great determination.
Recently we adopted a package of laws aimed at the police forces. Following the adoption last November of the law on state police, which finally marks its separation from politics, we are currently working to strengthen police co-operation among the countries of the region to increase efficacy in the fight against organised and cross-border crime. We have achieved important results and, in 1999, there was a sharp decrease in crimes committed.
With regard to corruption - still a major challenge for the entire region, Albania included - we have focused our attention on two aspects; namely the fight against corruption in the national and regional frameworks. By the latter, we mean co-operation with the countries of the region, not to mention adherence to a series of European conventions and agreements. Of course, this entails the efficient implementation of obligations stemming from those conventions.
As the chairman of the government programme against corruption, I am aware of my specific obligations and I am committed to fight to the very end against corruption. However, the fight against corruption is not a task simply for the police, the courts or the government alone. It must encompass all society, with the government carrying a specific responsibility.
Albania’s strategic goal is to strengthen ties with the European Union and Nato, with the long-term aim of becoming members of those organisations. We can achieve that by the consistent implementation of reforms, the modernisation of the state and society and a continuing policy of reliable and predictable partnership with the international community.
In this respect, I would like to single out the fact that, during the last few months, we have worked hard to achieve the main targets of Albania’s integration in Europe and the Euro-Atlantic structures. In our relations with the EU, essential developments have been achieved. Late last month in Brussels, I officially handed over Albania’s status report. I hope that, by the end of this year, we will be able to start the negotiation of an association and stabilisation agreement with the EU. We are fully dedicated to honouring our commitments.
Bilateral relations with Nato have witnessed new and important developments following the Kosovo crisis. With regard to the membership action plan, we are now in the phase of consultation and we are accomplishing step by step the requirements set forth by the organisation.
The Albanian Government is fully committed to continuing reforms to the legal and judiciary system. I want to take this opportunity to express my gratitude for the contribution that the Council of Europe and the European Commission have made, through the action plan, to the reform of the judiciary and the legal system in Albania. In this framework, there have been some major achievements related to the independence and efficacy of the judiciary. These will definitely help to recover its lost credibility.
The Government of Albania has focused major attention on the expansion of the progress of structural reform in the basic areas of governance. Important progress has been made in the framework of the joint action plan between Albania, the Council of Europe and the European Commission to carry out further reforms in the field of justice.
However, we are aware that democratic, economic and social prosperity is linked intricately with the entire development of the region and, in particular, with the stability and strengthening of relations with and among neighbouring countries. For that reason, Albania gave full support from the very beginning to the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe, which we believe offers a new framework for the stabilisation and development of southeastern Europe. The Stability Pact promotes democracy, economic development and security which, in the end, will enhance the integration of the countries of the region into the Euro-Atlantic structures. However, we believe that strengthening our internal policies and institutions is a prerequisite to using the opportunities offered by the Stability Pact properly. The Government of Albania believes that the active participation of the Council of Europe in the three round tables of the pact - in particular, in table one, on democracy, and table three, on human rights - is vital to the countries of the region.
The Government of Albania has fully supported the commitments of the international community for the stabilisation of the situation in Kosovo embodied in Security Council Resolution 1244. As you are aware, some of the major challenges the international community is facing in Kosovo include the establishment of a secure environment for the return of all displaced persons, confidence building to ensure multi-ethnic cohabitation, restoration of law and order, creation of self-governing democratic institutions pending a final political settlement, and so forth. I believe that the obstacles to the free return of refugees, regardless of their ethnic origin, and the efforts ethnically to cantonise Kosovo, taking into particular account the latest events in Mitrovica, are diametrically opposed to the above mentioned principles. The recent vicious circle of violence in Mitrovica is beyond doubt a consequence of the policy followed by the regime in Belgrade, which aims at destabilising and questioning all that has been achieved so far in Kosovo. Therefore, we deem it important that the international community maintains the embargo on Miloševic’s regime. Otherwise, as he is a dangerous liability, he will be reinvigorated and his grip on power will be strengthened.
The processes are as one and are inseparable, and the goals can be achieved only through a serious commitment by all countries of the region, as well as by the international organisations. Albania’s regional policy is characterised and based on the philosophy of good neighbourliness. To that end, we are co-operating closely with the Governments of Greece, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and Bulgaria to identify projects of mutual regional impact. We are giving particular importance to relations with the democratic forces in Montenegro.
Recently, the Albanian Parliament set up an ad hoc committee to assist in the implementation of the Stability Pact. The pact is a post-conflict healing process and therefore it should maintain a certain balance among countries in the region. It is a well-known fact that Albania inherited the worst infrastructure compared with other countries. It also bore the major brunt of the Kosovo humanitarian crisis, the consequences of which are now being felt. Hence it is vital that Albania is supported in the distribution of funds. In this respect, I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to all the donor countries that endorsed Albania’s projects in the last financing conference in Brussels, late last month.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are of the opinion that the Council of Europe is a political organisation of general competence, which is contributing and will continue substantially to contribute to the future consolidation of the region. The role of the Organisation in the post-conflict era in relation to other organisations consists of a series of major tasks encompassing the establishment of democratic institutions, protection of human rights, assistance to refugees and activities in the field of local democracy, judiciary, civil society, media and elsewhere. Such activities are implemented both through providing expertise and through the office of the Secretary of the Council of Europe in Priština, Kosovo. In this framework, we appreciate the invaluable role that the Council of Europe is playing in the accomplishment of United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo tasks.
The Government of Albania believes that the whole of the Council of Europe is vital in southeastern Europe, in particular its contribution to the establishment of a constitutional framework, the development of a democratic culture, cultural heritage and so forth. These are the main pillars of the programme of the Organisation for stability in the region and they ensure the protection of human rights for all citizens. This contribution becomes more significant if we want to avoid future conflicts. In this context, the role of the Assembly is vital.
Alongside the consolidation of state structures, the Government of Albania has taken concrete steps to fulfil the duties set forth by various international organisations including, of course, the Council of Europe. The signing of Protocol No. 6, which abolishes the death penalty, is a sea change in our legislation and, what is more, it is important in our mentality. Nevertheless, I want to underline the fact that it has not been easy for us to take such a step and to observe our commitment, taking into account the developments my country has been through in the past. But, in our judgment, capital punishment gives a false sense of security to the public. Worst of all, playing God in this way has no conceivable moral basis. Much remains to be done - a civilised state, to deserve its name, must uphold, not violate, the sanctity of human life.
With regard to the government’s programme and the implementation of its priorities, we have resolved to go ahead with democratic, legal, institutional and economic reforms. Permit me to express my deep appreciation for the enormous support offered by the Council of Europe and other European organisations in this regard. The accession of Albania to the Social Development Fund, the establishment of the state publication centre and of the magistrate’s school, the judicial police, the support in drafting the organic law for the Ministry of Justice, the efforts in adjusting Albanian legislation to make it compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights - which is in fact one of the priorities of our mutual co-operation - and the programme for democratic stability in south-eastern Europe approved in May 1999 in Budapest, are some of the major areas of our co-operation that are bearing fruit now. This process of co-operation has enabled us to achieve the priorities set forth in our programme, thus facilitating the way to Albania’s integration into Euro-Atlantic structures. Obviously we have a long way to go and these are long-term objectives which will require strong commitment and perseverance on our part.
Before concluding, I would like to emphasise that we are working hard to improve the image and perception that others have of Albania and to show that the Albania that we want to build is a European Albania. We are aware of the difficulties ahead of us, so we very much need the support of European and international organisations, as well as that of the most developed democracies, with the aim of consolidating state institutions, invigorating our economy and promoting cultural values. This process, for which I am convinced we will have your support, is a serious challenge to the Albanian Government and the entire country.
Dear Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to conclude by expressing, on behalf of the government I represent, my firm conviction that the fruitful co-operation and contribution of your Organisation for the reconstruction of the democratic institutions in Albania will continue unfailingly in the future. Thank you for your attention.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you very much, Mr Prime Minister. The applause that you have just heard showed how much the Assembly appreciated what you just said. You have agreed to answer questions, and fourteen members of the Assembly have so far indicated their wish to put questions to you.
I remind those who wish to put questions that they are limited to thirty seconds, and no more. As we are short of time, I shall use a bell to stop people exceeding their time - otherwise we will not get through all the questions. I do not propose to allow supplementary questions for the same reason.
Some of the subjects that members wish to raise have a common theme, so I have grouped those questions. Where that is the case, I will call members to ask their questions one after the other, and then invite you, Mr Prime Minister, to answer them as a group.
The first group concerns the general political situation in Albania, with questions from Mr Taylor from the United Kingdom, who is an Ulster Unionist, and Mr Brunetti from Italy. I call Mr Taylor.
Mr TAYLOR (United Kingdom).- We thank the Prime Minister for his progress report. I have two brief questions. He said that he wanted to create a European Albania. Does that mean that, eventually, Albania would wish to join the European Union and become a member of Nato? He also praised the Stability Pact. Can he confirm that it is benefiting Albania, not simply a great idea?
THE PRESIDENT.- I call Mr Brunetti. He is not here.
Mr META.- I thank Mr Taylor for his interesting question. I mentioned that we want to build a European Albania. Albania has been in Europe for 100 years, but, because of fifty years of the hardest communist regime in Europe, the country has encountered many problems in achieving democratic values. Fortunately, Albania has made major progress in the past ten years, and its entry into membership of the Council of Europe five years ago was a major step. For Albania to become truly a European country, it needs to improve its democratic, economic and constitutional standards to the level of the most developed European countries. We are ambitious to join the European Union and Nato and are now in the process of working on opening negotiations for a new agreement on stability and association. Albania is fulfilling almost all its commitments to the Council of Europe by Protocol 6 and all the obligations that flow from the country’s desire to join the European Union and Nato. We hope that will make it possible in the years ahead for Albania to become a European country, not only geographically and by desire but by European standards.
As to the Stability Pact, I appreciate that the conference on financing that Pact -
THE PRESIDENT.- I do not want to interrupt, Prime Minister, but the next three questions are about the Stability Pact. Perhaps it would be better to take them together.
Mr RADIC (Croatia).- What concrete results do you expect from the implementation of the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe?
Mr BEHRENDT (Germany) asked what benefits the Stability Pact would have for Albanian minorities in southeastern Europe and also what degree of inter-regional co-operation between Albania, Montenegro and Macedonia would result from the pact.
Mr HEGYI (Hungary).- The situation of the Albanian population in Kosovo is well known to us, but few people are aware that there is also an Albanian minority in Montenegro and Macedonia. Peaceful co-existence with the majority population is crucial to keep the peace in Europe. How does the Prime Minister view the situation of the Albanian minority in those two countries?
Mr META.- I must emphasise that the result of the Stability Pact must be not only economic - although any lack of success in that regard will be a disappointment for the region. The Stability Pact is aimed also at helping the countries of the region to work in harmony in building a common future. We must forget and leave behind our difficult past, which was full of conflict and ethnic problems and has presented a serious obstacle to the development of the entire region.
Since the end of the Kosovo war, we have seen growing harmony between the countries of the region. There have been many meetings and changes, and that better atmosphere will provide a helpful basis for developing the projects of the Stability Pact. We hope that the result will be not only a favourable political climate and growing understanding between the countries but new concepts for dealing with minority and ethnic groups. We hope also to see economic changes and reconstruction throughout the whole region, which will further strengthen economic and infrastructural ties. The last Brussels conference was an important step in that direction.
As to the Albanian minority in Montenegro and Macedonia, there are many ethnic problems in the region. The Albanians probably have more problems than anyone else. The position of the Albanian Government accords with Council of Europe and European Union standards. We have a full commitment to the Greek minority in Albania and to the ethnic groups in Montenegro and Macedonia. We feel that we have a right to ask other countries to adopt similar concepts in respect of Albanians in Macedonia and Montenegro. Albanians have been in Macedonia many years and in Montenegro more recently. They are doing their best to cohabit by participating in coalition governments and building new democracies and a common future. The current Macedonian Government of Mr Georgievski is dealing differently and in a positive way with the Albanians, which helps Macedonia’s stability. I am sure that they will work together to build new standards.
The Albanians in Montenegro belong to the democratic forces in that country. They have some complaints, but we believe that the growing democracy there will lead to improved standards. They must take an active role in that process. Albania has co-operated usefully and successfully with Montenegro and Macedonia over the past year and with Macedonia in particular over the past month. Last January, we held a trilateral meeting at prime ministerial level and have presented some common projects in the context of the Stability Pact, which will help further to improve our relationships.
THE PRESIDENT.- There are two questions on Kosovo and refugees. One is from Mr Iwinski, who is outstandingly active for the Assembly in respect of refugees; and one from Mr Kofod-Svendsen of Denmark.
Mr IWINSKI (Poland).- In view of the number of challenges that Albania is facing, I want to ask about the present situation in Kosovo. What is the attitude of the government there to minor Albanian political forces, such as Mr Rugova’s group on the one hand and Mr Thace’s on the other? How is the Prime Minister perceiving the tendencies for an independent Kosovo or unification with Albania? We would also be grateful if he will comment on the situation in respect of Albanian refugees and displaced persons.
Mr KOFOD-SVENDSEN (Denmark).- I would like to hear specifically about what possibilities there are for the refugees to return to their home areas. Can you do something to help them in starting their new lives in their home areas?
Mr META.- I thank Mr Iwinski for his question about our stance on developments in Kosovo, the political forces there, and its future. The position of the Albanian Government has always been highly principled, and is part of the position of the international community on developments in Kosovo. We are aware that there are many problems there, but they do not compare with the situation a year ago, when hundreds of thousands of Kosovars were refugees in Albania, Macedonia and other countries.
Today, those people are back home, but there are many difficulties, because there is not yet a complete institutional framework there. Managing life and managing the problems is difficult. The war was only months ago, so there are also emotions and other reactions, and some upset caused by disappointment at the fact that, when people came home, everything could not be changed very rapidly, especially from the economic point of view. People have passed a difficult winter, with an almost total lack of energy supplies, and many other problems.
However, there is much progress. For instance, there is no KLA in Kosovo today. There are some changes in political life, too, and Albanians have participated in the interim administrative council from the beginning, thus showing that they are willing to work closely with the international community to build institutions in Kosovo and stabilise the situation there. Unfortunately, the Serb minority have not yet taken their place in the interim administrative council, but we hope that they will do so as soon as possible.
Certainly there are still problems. In particular, the situation in Mitrovica has been continuously problematic, and we have asked all the Albanians there to be helpful and to co-operate with the international community - with UNMIK, KFOR and so on. However, I must emphasise that Miloševic is the person most interested in preserving tension in Kosovo, because that is how he tries to keep tensions far from Belgrade. He wants the international community’s efforts to stabilise the situation in Kosovo to fail. Therefore, he tries to cantonise Kosovo and to create enclaves that can be used whenever he wants to make the situation difficult. That is the main reason why we sometimes have problems.
From the outside, we have made it clear to the Albanian political parties that our co-operation with them will be based on their efforts to co-operate with the international community in building democratic institutions, and on their showing their tolerance of the Serb minority and other ethnic groups. We do not have a special preference for any particular group or party; we have a very principled position, and that will continue to be the case. We also want a better understanding among the groups, and the closest co-operation between the Albanian factors and the international community, especially with Mr Kouchner.
Questions about the future of Kosovo cannot really be addressed to me, and I am not the right person to answer them. The answers must be given by all the citizens who live in Kosovo - but for us it is an undemocratic Kosovo. That problem is on the agenda, and it is much more important than the independence of Kosovo.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Meta. Mr Cox, who is Chairman of our Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, wants to ask a question about children in Albania.
Mr COX (United Kingdom).- Prime Minister, the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee of this Assembly has been in the forefront of helping your country with the protection and welfare of children. Can you tell us what progress you are making in developing services involving education, health care and care home facilities for the benefit of children? What are you doing to stop the trafficking in children, which, sadly, did take place in your country?
Mr META.- I thank you for your question, Mr Cox. We are aware of your concerns and your recommendations concerning the situation of children in Albania. That situation is problematic, as are the general situation and the social problems in our country. I stress that we are very committed to improving rights, living standards and education. I am also committed to working to promote social cohesion, in close co-operation with the Council of Europe and Unicef, and to define a national programme for children, through the national committee for women and the family.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Meta. I call Mr Hornhues to ask a question.
Mr HORNHUES (Germany) had concerns that the Central Election Committee might not be independent and that accordingly the conduct of elections might not be unbiased.
Mr META.- I hope that my speech was clear about the organising of the new local elections. Indeed, we can profit from this great opportunity to invite the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to monitor those elections. I am confident that they will be the fairest and most free democratic elections in the country since 1991, because the conditions for organising such elections are better than ever. In answer to the specific question about the Central Election Committee, I have to say that that committee was created by respecting the constitution of the country. We see that there are some contests for the way which do not stand, but also for any person who is part of the committee. Despite all that, I think that the essence of the noise which is coming from part of a democratic party has nothing to do with the way in which the committee was created. It has nothing in substance to do with the people involved, either, but results from an effort to make some noise about the idea that there are attempts to manipulate the elections in Albania. That is not true.
Today, I represent a government, but also a party that was in opposition in May 1996 when Mr Berisha, the former president, manipulated the elections in a most unfair way. We cannot repeat the same drama for Albanian democracy now, in the Europe of 2000.
We work very closely with the OSCE presence in Tirana, Ambassador Ahrens, your representative there, and the international community, to establish a dialogue and to resolve all the problems. We also deal with all the logical points that come from the opposition, always respecting the constitution, but also trying to show the maximum flexibility and will to include the opposition in all the procedures for organising the elections. It is not the majority that is quitting the round table headed by the OSCE presence in Tirana, but sometimes it is part of the opposition which wants to block the process. I assure the Assembly that the government will take every measure not only to develop the process, but to organise the most fair and free elections in the country since 1991. Everybody is invited to see them.
THE PRESIDENT.- We have five questions left. They are all on different subjects, but with co-operation and speed we can get them all in, one after the other.
Mr HADJIDEMETRIOU (Cyprus).- I am one of those who follow developments in Albania as a Council of Europe observer, and I was a rapporteur in the parliamentary elections. I congratulate you, Mr Prime Minister, on what you have achieved.
My question concerns culture. In its reflections on the struggle in the former Yugoslavia, the Assembly has stressed the role of culture in reconstruction and the development of understanding. The Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe does not, however, include action for culture and the cultural heritage. Does Albania believe that there is no place for culture in the reconstruction process?
Mr POLLOZHANI ("The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia").- Mr Prime Minister, I should first like to congratulate you, your government and your fellow Albanians on your attitude and contribution during the Kosovo crisis.
Secondly, in the framework of the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe there was a donors’ conference in Brussels. Albania received a sum of money for infrastructure reorganisation. Do you believe that these funds are sufficient for the realisation of corridor 8? How long it will take to build it for the countries of the region?
Mr Rodeghiero (Italy) asked what Albania was doing to prevent illegal emigration to Italy.
Mr RISE (Norway).- As an observer during the referendum on your new constitution one and a half years ago, I should like to know, Mr Prime Minister, what have been the main obstacles for the government in implementing the new constitution. What was most worrying for me as I visited your country was the extent of organised crime. We saw the mafia’s control of villages, the stolen cars, drug trafficking, illegal economic activity. Do you consider organised crime to be a threat to democracy? What is your government’s main strategy to get rid of organised crime?
THE PRESIDENT.- Mr Van der Linden has gone, so that is the end of the questions. Good luck, Mr Prime Minister.
Mr META.- I shall do my best to be brief, in order that we may be punctual.
I appreciate the emphasis that Mr Hadjidemetriou gave to the role that culture can play, including in the context of the Stability Pact, in helping to create a better understanding and more harmony between the countries of the region. This can be a very important way to promote more tolerance and understanding and to use cultural diversity not to separate us from one another but to strengthen our co-habitation, our understanding, so that we may live in harmony and respect this diversity. We are therefore also working with neighbouring countries in the context of the Stability Pact to present some common projects.
Mr Pollozhani asked whether the Brussels conference had resulted in enough funds to finance corridor 8. I thank him for a question that was very interesting not only for me and Albania, but for many other countries in the region. I have to emphasise that building corridor 8 remains of great importance, not only for Albania, but for the development of our region. So far the process has advanced slowly. However, we are optimistic, not only as a result of the conference but as a result of our talks and negotiation with the European Union, the European Commission, the United States, the European Bank of Investments and other institutions, that our countries will have the right support to promote the project, to make it a reality. The Brussels conference is just a starting point from which we shall go on.
Mr Rodeghiero’s question had to do with Italy’s problems because of "clandestines" from Albania. The fight against the clandestine traffic is a regional challenge, because there is a regional network which helps the "clandestines" to go to Italy, not from Albania but from other countries to Albania and to Italy. Albania has been and still is a transit country, which has been used by the regional network because of the fragile institutions resulting from the internal instability in the past. But in the last year we have succeeded, co-operating very closely with the Italian Government and the governments of other neighbouring countries, in fighting this trafficking. Much more effort is needed. It is also necessary that neighbouring countries from which "clandestines" enter Albania, and from there pass to Italy, accept readmission agreements with Albania and take their own responsibility in fighting the clandestine network.
As for the difficulties in implementing the new constitution, we have done our best after adopting European standards, and for this reason I must thank the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission for help in the whole process of drafting it. There have been many changes in our legislation in order to make the whole legislative framework compatible with the new constitution. As a result of this process, we have passed very important laws on the judiciary, the police and the civil service that will help to make fundamental reforms.
With regard to the strategy against organised crime, there is in Albania a completely different view of security, criminality and organised crime compared with a year ago. Progress on improving security and strengthening public order and relevant institutions was recognised and appreciated at the most recent meeting of the Albanian groups in Vienna in late February.
We are working very closely with WEU and Italian missions in order to be more successful in fighting organised crime. Indeed, we have had success in fighting smuggling; there has been a tremendous increase in the amount seized by customs in the past month. We have also been successful in fighting the problem of clandestines. We are co-operating with neighbouring and other European countries in the fight against drug trafficking and every other type of trafficking through Albania.
I have done my best to give short and clear answers. I hope that honourable parliamentarians have received the answers that they wanted; if they have not, I apologise.
THE PRESIDENT.- On behalf of the Assembly, I thank you very warmly, Mr Meta, for both your speech and your full and patient responses to our questions. You deserve a good lunch.
4. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting
THE PRESIDENT.- I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the orders of the day which were approved on Monday 3 April.
Are there any objections?…
That is not the case.
The orders of the day of the next sitting are therefore agreed.
Does anyone wish to speak?…
The sitting is closed.
(The sitting was closed at 1.10 p.m.)