2003 ORDINARY SESSION
(First part)
REPORT
First sitting
Monday 27 January 2003 at 3 p.m.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS A PROVISIONAL VERSION OF THE REPORT OF THE DEBATE
OF 27 JANUARY 2003 AT 3 P.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. |
|
4. Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated. |
CONTENTS
1. Opening of the 2003 Ordinary Session
2. Address by the provisional President
4. Election of the President of the Assembly
5. Voting cards and the register of attendance
6. Election of Vice-Presidents
8. Requests for urgent procedure, etc.
9. Adoption of the order of business
12. Address by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey
13. Progress report
Presentation by Mr Schreiner of report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee (Docs. 9621 and Addenda I to VIII)
Speakers:
Mr Hegyi (Hungary)
Mr Pourgourides (Cyprus)
Mr Eörsi (Hungary)
Mr Soendergaard (Denmark)
Mrs Durrieu (France)14. Statement by Mr Bruce George, President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
Presentation by Baroness Hooper on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development of report (Doc. 9638) and by Ms Zwerver on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography of report (Doc. 9519 rev)
Speakers:
Mr Busek (Special Co-ordinator of the Stability Pact for South-eastern Europe)
Mr Toshev (Bulgaria)
Lord Russell-Johnston (United Kingdom)
Mr Zacchera (Italy)
Mr Severin (Romania)
Mr Dokle (Albania)
Mr Grignon (France)
Ms Feric Vać (Croatia)
Mr Reimann (Switzerland)
Mr Ilham Aliyev (Azerbaijan)
Mrs Buŝić (Croatia)
Mr Bakhtiyar Aliyev (Azerbaijan)
Mr Kirilov (Bulgaria)
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, as amended, adopted
Draft recommendation in Doc. 9519 rev, as amended, adopted
Draft resolution in Doc. 9638 adopted
Mr Torbar, the oldest member present, took the Chair at 3 p.m.
THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.
1. Opening of the 2003 Ordinary Session
In accordance with Article 32 of the Statute and Rules 1 and 5 of the Rules of Procedure, I declare open the 2003 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
2. Address by the provisional President
THE PRESIDENT. – As the oldest elected member of the Assembly of the Council of Europe, it is an honour and a privilege indeed to open the 2003 proceedings, which have the purpose again to reaffirm the principles of freedom and human rights through democratic evolution. The road that we select will decide the destination that we will reach. It has been said and repeated: destiny is not what happens to us but rather what we do with what happens with us.
In the words of Jean Monnet, making a unified Europe means preparing the future for the generations to come, on the understanding that we firmly believe in the free and rational decisions of men and nations. That presupposes that our strategy will never again be determined by national, class or religious tensions and prejudices, but by the sensitivity of participants to co-operate on the achievement of constructive and useful goals. Once we have adopted the democratic rules of behaviour, we must adhere to their implementation and that means striving for ever faster progress for an ever greater number of people.
Peace and freedom are not on the market. They depend on individual efforts and the strengthening of the belief that some of the adverse and negative influences in the world of today, such as poverty and terrorism, must be combated and defeated by the common will and the courage of conviction, and that implies that optimism must prevail. Nobody has the right to lose confidence in the future. Nations and individuals must know what they think, what they want and what they hope for. That is what the Council of Europe has stood for since its inception.
As Romano Prodi stated, the new Europe is not founded on the borders that divide us, but on the interests that unite us. However, to become fully-fledged Europeans, we still have to overcome a number of obstacles. Some people understand only the language of hate, and we have to win decisively against the dictatorship of fear. Democratic victory will give a self-confidence which, in turn, will bring us political success and economic security. In that sense, while expressing our national wills, we are simultaneously building an international reality in which the Council of Europe is in the forefront of the struggle to influence the future.
Life is only what we make of it. We must confess and profess not only the optimism of the will, but especially optimism of the intelligence. The Council of Europe is essential for that purpose, as we have created a new political entity, with substantial economic growth and a conception of different realities that overcomes all divisions.
The Council of Europe is a pan-European forum that spans parliamentary, governmental and regional levels. It encompasses forty-four European countries and, as such, it has a unique role that gives voice to the countries that are not represented in the European Union. However, the number of countries represented in the EU is expanding, and ten countries have recently been added to the list. Like all Croatians, I fervently hope that my home country, Croatia, will very soon become part of the enlargement process, which is to be built on the solid foundations of the Council of Europe’s existing legal instruments and institutions to which we already belong.
Culture and political and economic interests are about to create that unity that could never be imposed by armies. Therefore, the new European democracy necessarily seeks a forever larger consensus that is built on ideas and not on enmities. Peace and tolerance will bring power closer to its source – the people. Our task is to make them stronger.
THE PRESIDENT. – The first order of the day is the examination of credentials of members and Special Guests of the Assembly, which have been submitted to the President in accordance with Rules 6 and 59 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of the Representatives, Substitutes and Special Guests are in Document 9679. If no credentials are contested, the credentials will be ratified.
Are any credentials contested?
The credentials are ratified. Accordingly the Representatives, Substitutes and Special Guests whose names are listed in Document 9679 are entitled to take their seat in the Assembly.
I welcome our colleagues and guests.
4. Election of the President of the Assembly
THE PRESIDENT. – The next order of the day is the election of the President of the Assembly.
Under Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure, no Representative can be a candidate for the presidency unless nominated in writing by at least ten Representatives or Substitutes at least forty-eight hours before the opening of the session or part-session.
I have received only one candidature: that of Mr Peter Schieder.
In accordance with Rule 13.3, I therefore declare Mr Peter Schieder elected President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for this ordinary session.
Mr Schieder, I congratulate you on your election, which is the result of your accomplishments.
(Mr Schieder, President of the Assembly, took the Chair.)
THE PRESIDENT. – Dear colleagues and guests, I should like to thank your for re-electing me as President of this Assembly. We have had a challenging year, and perhaps this is the right moment to recall what I promised in my inaugural speech last January and to take stock of what has been done and what remains to be done.
I said that we must refresh our attitudes and our image, along with our commitment to the values that we were set up to defend. None of this can be achieved through rhetoric. If we want concrete results we must engage in concrete actions.
What has been done about our attitudes?
We are doing everything that we can to strengthen the parliamentary character of our Assembly, and to make it a place for genuine political debate. All the heads of state and government, for example, who are invited to speak to the Assembly – which include the crowned heads of government – are now expected to answer questions from the Floor. There are several prominent guests here this week, and I hope that during our next session in April we shall welcome the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, who accepted my invitation to come to our Assembly during my meeting with him in Moscow at the end of November.
Internally, we have invested a lot of effort in consolidating our procedures, making them more transparent, more efficient and more reliable. An Assembly that wants to play a prominent role within and outside the Council of Europe cannot afford to be run like a debating club.
We adopted measures aimed at clearing the backlog of overdue and outdated reports, allowing the committees to deal with the rapidly evolving challenges of today, in a quick and politically relevant manner.
We also decided to adapt our functioning to the new circumstances resulting from enlarging our membership to forty-four countries. Again, just as an illustration, we adapted our calendar by taking into account, as far as possible, the religious holidays of all main faiths practised in our member states. This may seem a minor detail, but it is a part of the recognition that our Europe is not only Catholic or Protestant, but also Orthodox, Muslim and Jewish.
Within the Council of Europe, we tried to give the Assembly a bigger role and a stronger voice in the running of the Organisation. Although the Assembly has the right to be represented on many of the Council of Europe’s bodies, this potential for co-operation and influence has so far been either neglected, or used only sporadically. That is no longer the case. The most important result of that is our increased dialogue with the Committee of Ministers, which invited me to speak at its meeting in November last year. I am thankful that I am always invited by the Secretary General to his dialogue with them on the previous evening. I received assurances from the Committee of Ministers that such participation would become an established practice. The Assembly’s role and influence in the discussions on the third summit of the Council of Europe is the most recent example of our growing weight within the Organisation, but we should also be aware that this honour does not come without responsibilities.
The Assembly has also been active on the European and the world stage. Its debates on pressing world issues, from the crisis in the Middle East to the question of the International Criminal Court and the situation in Iraq, have attracted considerable attention and provoked reactions from those concerned.
Today, dear friends, the world is on the brink of war: not a small local spat that can quickly be dealt with but a conflict that may have long-term global repercussions. Some may ask what the Assembly and its decisions may change in the game played by the big and mighty. They may even dismiss it outright as unimportant and irrelevant. They are wrong.
We should all bear in mind the fact that the Assembly brings together parliamentarians from forty‑four European countries, representing 800 million Europeans. Our members are of all political persuasions, representing not only parties in power, but also those in opposition. It would be difficult to find a body that could represent the opinion of Europe’s citizens with more authority and legitimacy. Those who choose to ignore what is being said here in Strasbourg are doing so at their own risk. There is no “new” and “old” Europe in this Chamber, and in September last year, we said clearly that everything should be done to avoid a new war in Iraq and to find a solution to the Iraqi problem in accordance with United Nations principles and through its mechanisms.
I do not think that it is only President Chirac, Chancellor Schroeder and Foreign Ministers Fischer and de Villepin who think that more should be done to find a peaceful solution to this crisis. Our debate on Thursday will certainly provide another indication on where Europe stands on this issue.
We should not only be listened to on issues of war and peace. Let us look at the issue of maritime pollution, for example. In September 2000, we had a debate on the environmental disaster provoked by the sinking of the Erika along the Brittany coast. This week, two and a half years and another catastrophe later, we are likely to hold an urgent procedure debate simply to repeat what has already been said. If we had been listened to the first time, the tragedy of the Prestige could have been avoided.
We made strong and clear demands on the need to protect human rights and civil liberties in the fight against terrorism. We recognise the threat, and give full support to our countries’ efforts to combat terrorism. However, in doing so, we should not throw away the very values that the terrorists are set to destroy. That was also the message which our Assembly and the European Parliament adopted on the occasion of the first joint session of the two bodies last September here in this Chamber.
Over the past year, the Assembly has continued to play its essential role in the enlargement of our Organisation. Our pressure helped to bring about the recent agreement on the constitutional charter on relations between Serbia and Montenegro, which should pave the way for the accession of that country to the Council of Europe. Once it becomes a member, the monitoring procedure will be put in place to ensure that all the obligations and commitments entered into are respected to the letter.
A year ago, I also said we should refresh and change the Assembly’s image. Part of that is the matter of better communication and public relations. In that respect, we have made some progress, but we must do more if we want to be heard, understood and taken seriously by the media, by the public and, consequently, by politicians in our member states.
I also said that women should be better represented in our Assembly. That is a part of our image too, but it is also an indicator of whether we are serious about upholding the principles and values we preach to others. In that particular respect, we failed badly. In September, I criticised some large delegations for the virtual absence of women. The situation today, when we are about to approve the credentials of all forty-four delegations, including several new ones, is hardly any better. I criticised before, and I will continue to criticise, but if things do not improve, I and others are ready to propose concrete steps to achieve progress in that respect.
During my speech last year I also said that our citizens will not accept our contribution to their well-being at face value and that we need to provide them with clear evidence of the concrete and substantial impact that our work has on their lives. Have we succeeded in doing so? The answer is yes, but only to a certain extent.
When it comes to the important questions we are debating here, there is one thing we must always bear in mind. What we do and decide here in Strasbourg is just the beginning. Our responsibilities as members of the Assembly do not end when we board the plane to return home. Do not forget that, just as you represent your parliaments in the Council of Europe, you also represent the Council of Europe, and its values, in your national parliaments. If what we decide here is not given any follow-up at home, if you do not present, promote and defend our positions in relevant political debates in your countries, we are wasting our time and taxpayers’ money. I apologise for being as blunt as this, but there is no way around this truth.
I will not say very much about the week ahead. We have many important reports, we have several requests for urgent debates and we have many prominent guests. The only thing we lack is time. We shall not be able to get through the order of business in any meaningful manner without some discipline, particularly when it comes to respect for speaking time, and respect for the Assembly’s rules. I ask you to help us in the Chair in this endeavour. Thank you very much for listening to me.
5. Voting cards and the register of attendance
THE PRESIDENT. – May I remind all members, including any non-voting Substitutes, Special Guests and Observers, to sign the attendance lists outside the doors of the Chamber at the beginning of every sitting? May I also remind all Representatives and duly designated Substitutes to place their voting cards in the slot to ensure that the electronic system will work properly? If you have not done that yet, please do it now.
6. Election of Vice-Presidents
THE PRESIDENT. – The next order of the day is the election of the Vice-Presidents of the Assembly. No Representative or Substitute may be elected as Vice-President unless proposed in writing by the chairperson of the national delegation concerned on behalf of that delegation. I have received eighteen nominations. They are as follows, in order of precedence: Mr Clerfayt (Belgium); Mr Oliynyk (Ukraine); Mr Glesener (Luxembourg); Mr Schreiner (France); Mr Magnusson (Sweden); Mr Azzolini (Italy); Mr Bindig (Germany); Mr Loutfi (Bulgaria); Mr Iwiński (Poland); Mr Lloyd (United Kingdom); Mrs Wohlwend (Liechtenstein); Mr Gross (Switzerland); Mr Olekas (Lithuania); Mrs Wurm (Austria); Mr Mercan (Turkey); Mr Ilham Aliyev (Azerbaijan); Mr Béreš (Slovakia); and Mr Margelov (Russian Federation).
There has been no request for a vote, and I declare these candidates elected as Vice-Presidents of the Assembly in accordance with Rule 14.4 of the Rules of Procedure, and with the order of precedence set out in the notice paper. The vice-presidency in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina remains vacant for the time being.
THE PRESIDENT. – The next order of the day is the appointment of members of committees. The candidatures for the general committees and the Monitoring Committee have been published in documents which have been made available as Doc. Commissions (2003) 1 and Addendum I. These candidatures are submitted to the Assembly in accordance with Rule 43.6 of the Rules of Procedure.
Are these proposals approved?
The proposed candidatures are approved and the committees are appointed accordingly.
8. Requests for urgent procedure, etc.
THE PRESIDENT. – Before we examine the draft order of business, the Assembly needs to consider the five requests for urgent procedure or current affairs debates which have been made in due form as provided for in Rules 50 and 52 of the Rules of Procedure. The Bureau examined these requests on 13 January and this morning in the Bureau meeting. If the Assembly agrees with the Bureau’s proposals, which I will announce as we deal with each request, I propose that we take the decisions on timing when we consider the adoption of the order of business.
The first request for urgent procedure is for a debate on the code of good practice in electoral matters. The Bureau approved this request. The matter has already been referred to the Political Affairs Committee.
Does the Assembly agree with the recommendation of the Bureau that a debate on the draft code of good practice in electoral matters should be placed on the order paper, or is there an objection?
The Bureau’s recommendation is accepted, and the request for urgent procedure is therefore approved for the code of good practice in electoral matters. The second request is for an urgent debate on the amendments to the Constitution of Liechtenstein. The Bureau approved this request and recommended to the Assembly that the matter be placed on the order paper. The matter has already been referred to the Political Affairs Committee. I heard that not everyone agrees with that and that there is an objection from René van der Linden, and I give the floor to him.
Mr VAN DER LINDEN (Netherlands) said that an urgent debate should not be held except where there were grave circumstances. The subject of marine pollution deserved urgent debate. There should not be a debate on Liechtenstein, which would provide time to focus on the other issues. The Government of Liechtenstein was not in a position to prepare for any debate.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Now the floor goes to someone who wishes to speak in favour of having this matter on the agenda, then to a speaker from the Political Affairs Committee, followed by a speaker giving the opinion of the Bureau. Mr Eörsi has asked to speak for the Bureau. Mr Jurgens has been asked to speak in favour of having this on the agenda, and I will ask the chairman to speak for the Political Affairs Committee. First, I call Mr Jurgens to speak in favour of having the debate on the agenda.
Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – No one would disagree that the people of Liechtenstein are a highly developed people as my colleague Mr van der Linden said but are they doing something that is against the basic rules of the Council of Europe? If they have a referendum half way into March and do something that is clearly against the most basic rules of the Council of Europe as to the responsibilities of those with political power, in this case the Prince of Liechtenstein, it will be a reactionary proposal. It is important that the people of Liechtenstein know the opinion of the Council of Europe before the referendum. It is possible that Mr van der Linden is right and that the referendum question will be rejected, but if it is accepted a monitoring report will have to be made on Liechtenstein because its constitution is against the basic precepts of the Council of Europe. We would not want to have that. All three Venice Commission advisers were from countries with a monarchy. I come from a country with a monarchy, as does Mr van der Linden. It is a problem that we face. The republics should give us a chance to show the Assembly that we know what democracy is.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I give the floor to the Chairperson of the Political Affairs Committee in the last session, Mr Jakič.
Mr JAKIČ (Slovenia). – The Political Affairs Committee reacted in accordance with the rules. We received the request. We appointed Lord Kilclooney as our rapporteur. We prepared a report. The arguments of Mr Jurgens led us to prepare something for discussion before the referendum. The Venice Commission conclusions were alarming. I hope that you, Mr President, will put the matter to a vote. Personally, I think we should have the urgent debate.
THE PRESIDENT. – I give the floor to Mr Eörsi to give the opinion of the Bureau.
Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – Mr van der Linden said that Iraq is a much more important matter. I do not think that anyone in this room would disagree with that. However, this Assembly has never ranked things in terms of importance. If something was important, we did not compare its importance with that of other subjects. The Assembly has discussed before referendums in other countries. If we believe that all countries in the Council of Europe are equal we must discuss the proposed referendum in Liechtenstein. Why is it an urgent matter? The referendum is due to take place before the next part-session. We believe in the democracy of Liechtenstein and would like the voters there to hear the opinion of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. We should follow the practices we have followed before and have the discussion in the Assembly.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. We shall now vote on the request for urgent procedure. I remind the Assembly that the decision requires a two-thirds majority. Yes means that you are in favour of having the urgent debate, no means that you are against.
The voting is open.
The request for urgent procedure on the amendments to the Constitution of Liechtenstein is negatived.
The third request was for an urgent debate on recent decisions by the Ukrainian Parliament.
The Bureau considered that this matter should be dealt with in the framework of the Monitoring Committee and that there should be no urgent procedure debate. If no one is against that decision, we will not have an urgent debate on that question.
Does someone wish to speak for the urgent debate?
That is not the case.
We will not have an urgent debate on recent decisions by the Ukrainian Parliament.
We shall now consider the fourth request for an urgent debate on Iraq.
The Bureau approved this request and recommended to the Assembly that the matter be placed on the order paper and referred to the Political Affairs Committee.
Does the Assembly agree with the recommendation of the Bureau that a debate on Iraq be placed on the order paper?
The Bureau’s recommendation is accepted and the request for urgent procedure on Iraq is therefore approved.
We shall now consider the fifth request for a current affairs debate on marine pollution.
The Bureau’s recommendation is that the debate be approved under the urgent procedure so that the Assembly will have a text to vote on. It also proposes that the matter be referred to the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs.
Does the Assembly agree to the recommendation of the Bureau that a debate on marine pollution under the urgent procedure should now be placed on the order paper?
Mr LE GRAND (France) said that the Assembly should take advantage of the presence of a representative of the Committee of Ministers to have a debate.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. That was very interesting but not a speech against. We will not take it into account.
No one is against.
The Bureau’s recommendation is accepted and the request for urgent procedure on marine pollution is therefore approved.
9. Adoption of the order of business
THE PRESIDENT. – We come to the adoption of the order of business. The draft order of business submitted for the Assembly’s approval was brought up to date by the Bureau on 13 January and this morning. It has been distributed.
There will be no urgent debate on Liechtenstein in the afternoon on Thursday so we will keep the original proposal to have the urgent debate on the code of good practice. On Friday there will be just three debates. The Assembly will meet at 9 a.m., not at 8.30, so everyone can get up half an hour later. The proposal is as it stood before the Bureau this morning.
Is that agreed?
It is agreed.
Arrangements for the organisation of debates, speakers’ lists and tabling of amendments are set out in the notice paper.
THE PRESIDENT. – Because the proposed order of business is very full, I propose that speaking time in the debates on Tuesday morning and all day Wednesday and Thursday be limited to four minutes.
Is that agreed to?
It is agreed to.
THE PRESIDENT. – This afternoon the business is very full, with debates on three reports for which there is a total of forty-one speakers and two amendments to consider. There are also two statements. We must finish by 7 p.m.
We will have to interrupt the list of speakers in the first debate at about 5.05 p.m. and in the second debate at about 6.35 p.m. in order to leave sufficient time for the replies on behalf of the committee and the votes. The second debate will start at about 5.20 p.m.
Are these arrangements agreed to?
They are agreed.
12. Address by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey
THE PRESIDENT – Dear friends, we now come to our first guest speaker. It is an old friend and a former outstanding member of the Assembly. He has been active in our Assembly for more than eight years. He has been active in several committees and has shown how he is interested in the work of our Assembly. The reasons why he is here go beyond either sentiment or protocol. Abdullah Gül, the Prime Minister of Turkey, can speak with authority on many of the issues that we are likely to debate this week, from the situation in Iraq to the consequences of European Union enlargement.
Prime Minister, we are happy, privileged and honoured to have you here. Please speak to your Assembly.
Mr GÜL (Prime Minister of Turkey). – Mr President, Mr Secretary General, dear colleagues and friends and ambassadors, it is an honour and pleasure for me to be back in this Assembly. I was privileged to be a member of this body. I consider the Council of Europe to be a school for democracy, the rule of law and human rights. It contributed immensely to my political philosophy. In the 1990s, following the removal of dividing lines in Europe, I was part of the fact-finding missions to the candidate countries of the Council of Europe. We lived through the enlargement of the Council. I am happy to see those countries as fully-fledged members represented here.
Now, as the Prime Minister of my country, I have the opportunity to put into service the accumulation of the experience that I acquired as a member of this Assembly. I also consider the Council of Europe to be a permanent network for promoting and disseminating ideals of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Last week, I was in Davos, where I participated in the World Economic Forum. I met many old friends from the Assembly. I was happy to share experiences in terms of the same ideals that we continue to serve.
I express my confidence in the members of the new Turkish Parliamentary Delegation to the Assembly, who are for the first time under the roof of the Hemicycle. I am sure that they will be strong advocates of the ideals and principles of the Council of Europe. Turkey highly values the work of the Council and its bodies. It has greatly benefited from the common norms and standards as it seeks to further its democracy.
My government, who took office following the November general elections, is committed to continue, and accelerate, the process. I can confidently say that my government is firmly committed to maintain its reformist nature. We have already demonstrated our resolve. In the first two months of my government, we have already achieved the adoption of two reform packages. I should like to remind the Council that those were the first pieces of legislation to be adopted by the new parliament. I assure you of our determination to have the reforms fully reflected upon implementation. The comfortable majority granted to us by the Turkish people is an insurance of our determination.
I should stress that the reformist nature of my government and the pace of reforms are particularly remarkable, given the growing tendency in some parts of the world to restrict fundamental rights and freedoms under the pretext of security concerns.
Allow me to be more specific. As a former member of the Assembly, I am well aware of the criticisms levelled against Turkey from this place. Many members have repeatedly underlined, among others, two important issues: torture and ill-treatment and execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. My government has announced a policy of zero tolerance of torture. In line with this approach, two weeks ago our parliament passed a legislative package proposed by my government, which brings about sweeping reforms for fighting torture. We have eliminated the often-criticised system of prior administrative permission for claims of torture and ill treatment. From now on, all charges of torture and ill treatment will promptly be brought before the Turkish courts. Moreover, the reform package also provides that sentences for the perpetrators of torture and ill treatment may no longer be deferred or converted into fines. I believe that these reforms will provide strong deterrents against torture and ill treatment.
I turn to the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The previous Turkish Government introduced last year the right to retrial based on the judgments of the Court. However, its scope was rather limited. I take pleasure in informing you that last Thursday the Turkish Parliament adopted a draft bill proposed by my government, which will provide the right to retrial for all the judgments finalised by the Court. A finalised judgment of the Court will entitle the applicant to seek retrial at the court which heard the case in the first place. This is a major step in aligning Turkish legislation with European norms. It is yet another indication of the reformist nature of my government.
Another often-stated human rights criticism concerns restrictions on the properties belonging to religious minority foundations. I am pleased to inform you that last week my government promulgated a by-law that lifts these restrictions. This step testifies to the centuries-long traditions of the multiculturalism and religious tolerance of the Turkish people.
Turkey abolished the death penalty in August last year. Following that, my government signed Protocol No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on 15 January. We are proceeding immediately with the ratification of Protocol No. 6. Europe thus becomes a continent free of the death penalty.
The state of emergency, which lasted close to three decades, was lifted totally by my government in the first week following the vote of confidence. With habeas corpus restored to the entire country, all Turkish citizens now enjoy the same legal guarantees.
We seek to complement domestic reforms by assuming new international commitments. We ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights will soon follow. Turkey will thus become party to all the six major United Nations conventions.
In the medium term, my government will introduce to parliament comprehensive legislation aimed at bringing Turkish law into line with the highest democratic standards. To that end, we will introduce a new press act, law on demonstrations and marches, a law on associations and a new penal code. We plan to transform state security courts into specialised tribunals that are mandated to fight against organised crime. We are finalising a draft bill which will compensate Turkish citizens for losses suffered owing to terrorism.
Our fundamental objective is to transform Turkey into a fully functioning European democracy. In the light of the ongoing international debate on the so-called clash of civilisations, popularised in the aftermath of 11 September, perfecting Turkish democracy will have significance beyond the borders of my country.
We will perfect our democracy with the participation and support of the Turkish public. Our people are increasingly insistent on broader reforms. We will actively collaborate with the non-governmental organisations, both Turkish and international. My government is committed to fulfilling completely the political criteria of the European Union to start access negotiations as soon as possible.
In the light of these reforms, I urge the Assembly to evaluate Turkish achievements in the fields of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and ask you to conclude the monitoring procedure for Turkey. It is obvious that Turkey does not deserve to be subject to the Assembly’s monitoring. My personal experience in the Assembly assures me that such a step will further strengthen our efforts in this regard.
As we meet here, the clouds of war are gathering in the Middle East. I believe that you all share our concern about the situation in Iraq. The peoples living in the region have so far suffered immensely. The region cannot and should not endure another armed conflict. My government is sparing no effort to prevent war: we are exploring all the possibilities to find a peaceful solution. I have visited several capitals to consult Iraq’s neighbours, and to co-ordinate our efforts. Last week, foreign ministers of six regional countries held a meeting in Istanbul, and agreed on a regional road map to avert war.
The prime responsibility for a peaceful solution lies with the Iraqi leadership. Iraq must co-operate fully with the United Nations and the UN inspectors. It must convince the international community that it has disarmed itself fully of weapons of mass destruction. That is the collective message that I bring you from all Iraq’s neighbours, and I believe that it is a message you share.
We all know that the UN inspectors will submit their report to the UN Security Council in a few hours. I firmly believe that the United Nations process must be followed to the end. In that process, Turkey can and should be seen as an agent to convey the European norms to the region with a view to establishing lasting peace.
Permit me to make some short remarks about the Cyprus issue. The two Cypriot parties are now engaged in serious detailed negotiations for a settlement based on the Annan plan. My government actively supports that process, and will extend all assistance to find an early solution. Our government continues to be fully committed to a just and viable comprehensive settlement in Cyprus. We are closer than ever to ending a forty-year struggle.
Cyprus is the common home of two peoples. To reach a viable and lasting solution, both parties must show respect and try to meet each other’s concerns and sensitivities. We encourage the Turkish Cypriots to make substantial contributions to achieving an early settlement. Both parties should be encouraged to render the Annan plan mutually acceptable.
The work of the Council of Europe touches the daily lives of Turkish citizens in a variety of ways. By way of illustration, let me mention that homes were built for earthquake victims with the support of the Council of Europe Development Bank. Turkish experts help to draft European conventions. We bring our experience to the Council in the field of inter-cultural dialogue. Turkey also contributes to the Council’s work in its cultural activities, among them Eurimages and the European Audiovisual Observatory. The cultural committees have always seen Turkey as a member bringing new ideas to the new challenges of the inter-cultural dialogue, with our rich cultural heritage.
As a founding member, we will continue to participate actively in the work of the Council. We in Turkey highly value your work in strengthening European stability, based on common democratic norms.
Dear friends, as a former member of this body, once more I wish you all the best in your deliberations.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Prime Minister, for your most interesting address. It was a pleasure to listen to you.
Members of the Assembly have expressed a wish to put questions to you. I remind them that questions must be limited to thirty seconds. Colleagues should be asking questions and not making speeches.
We tried to group the questions, but there was a demand for them to be placed in order. That means first all the groups, and then questions according to the time when they were submitted.
A substantial number of colleagues have expressed the wish to ask questions. To ensure that as many as possible can put their questions, I do not propose to allow supplementary questions.
The first question is from Mr Terry Davis, from the Socialist Group.
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom). – On behalf of the Socialist Group, which has often criticised Turkey in the past, may I congratulate you and your government on the reforms that you have introduced since the election, with the support of the opposition? May I urge you to continue to work constructively with the Government of Greece to encourage the people of Cyprus to find a solution to the Cyprus problem, in the interests of all the people of Cyprus?
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – Thank you for your appreciation. As I said in my speech, we are pushing hard to find a lasting solution. We are very sincere. I hope that this will end in a peaceful result. Of course, the solution must be satisfactory to both sides if it is to be lasting.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr van der Linden from the European People’s Party group.
Mr VAN DER LINDEN (Netherlands) congratulated Mr Gül on the progress of reform.
(The speaker continued in English)
I congratulate the Prime Minister of Turkey, and also congratulate the Council of Europe on his nomination. It will give us great confidence for the future, and will also encourage Europe as a whole.
What does the Prime Minister think is the role of the Council of Europe in the northern part of the region, among Turkey’s neighbours, especially in the Caucasus?
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – As you know, enlargement is the issue in the Council of Europe as well. In that respect, Turkey has a chance of playing a good role, as in the past we have had good relations in the area. Many people from that area live in Turkey, which can provide a bridge to establish good relations.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Eörsi to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democratic and Reformers’ Group.
Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – I join my colleagues in congratulating you, Mr Prime Minister, on your very promising speech. I understand that one of the biggest challenges facing Turkey is that of European Union membership and I am sure that you know that our Liberal colleagues in the European Parliament fully support Turkey’s starting accession talks. What can the Liberals in the Hemicycle do to help your goals become true?
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – Thank you. My government understands that we have to do our homework to prepare Turkey for full membership. That is why, when I became Prime Minister, we produced reform packages and sent them to parliament. As I have said, two reform packages were passed in parliament and I am very pleased to say that the government and the opposition were united in pushing them through. It will be enough for you to appreciate what we have done.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Atkinson on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr ATKINSON (United Kingdom). – May I say what a pleasure it is to see that a former member of the Group of the European People’s Party is the Prime Minister of his country? Do you agree that, following the Israeli elections this week, a new peace process in the Middle East is overdue? As Turkey is the only Nato country with influence on both sides, do you have any new initiatives to propose?
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – As Mr Atkinson has said, we have good relations with both sides and that provides us with an opportunity. My government’s programme made it clear that we are ready to support and to contribute to the peace process. I hope that we will have an opportunity after the elections and Turkey will work hard to play its part.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Laakso of the Group of the United European Left.
Mr LAAKSO (Finland). – Allow me to say that, when we first heard about your victory, we felt that it was also a victory of the Council of Europe. That is important. We can see that there is a new page in the relationship between the Council of Europe and Turkey.
May I ask about the further reform of the Turkish Constitution, in which there are still remnants of military rule? What are you going to do to abolish those remnants?
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – As I have said, we are reformists so our aim is to upgrade Turkish democracy so that it meets the standards of the Council of Europe. We have therefore amended the constitution and changed the nature of the nation’s executive council. That is, of course, part of a process that I think will continue.
THE PRESIDENT. – The next speaker would have been Mr Kanelli from Greece but his delegation did not nominate him, so I cannot give him the opportunity to ask a question. I call Mrs Durrieu of France.
Mrs DURRIEU (France) offered congratulations on behalf of France and asked whether his election on a secular mandate put Turkey in a strong position to enter the European Union.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – There is no doubt that Turkey is a secular country. We are also unique in the region in the respect that we are the only Muslim country that is a candidate for membership of the European Union. We are a good example and are trying to show the world that a country with a Muslim identity can be a transparent democracy and comfortable with the modern world. Secularism forms part of that.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Kontogiannopoulus of Greece.
Mr KONTOGIANNOPOULOS (Greece) asked to what extent the reform timetable had been drawn up to meet the criteria for accession.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – In fact, if you compare Turkey with the other candidate countries, you will see that Turkey fully meets the Copenhagen criteria. Before the end of 2004, our aim is to start negotiations. Of course, that will involve progress reports in 2003 and we want to receive good reports. That is why we are pushing the reform package through parliament. We are optimistic. We have the political will and determination to prepare Turkey for full membership. As I have said, we are doing our homework and I hope that the European Union will appreciate that.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Oliynyk of Ukraine.
Mr OLIYNYK (Ukraine) asked whether Iraq had given the US the slightest grounds to allow them to carry out aggression.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – This crisis is very serious and the next two weeks will be crucial. We are part of the region and know it better than many others. That is why we are trying to exhaust all possibilities before a war takes place. We made a strong call to Iraq and the Iraqi leadership should understand it. In a closed regime, the leaders sometimes do not know what is going on. That is why I sent a minister to Iraq with a letter from me. We made everything clear and put it in the open. I hope that, this time, the Iraqi leadership will realise what is happening so that we can avoid a war.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Lloyd.
Mr LLOYD (United Kingdom). – Mr Prime Minister, please accept the congratulations of the British delegation. Turkey knows the enormous costs of war as a result of the Gulf war and its consequences for your country. In that context, are you of the view that deterrence and containment would be a better way to restrain Iraq than military adventurism?
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – I have visited leaders in the region, and we have discussed this issue together. There is still time, although it is running out, to avoid war, and we should work hard to achieve that end. If there is a war, the consequences will be bad for the region. It is a Pandora’s box. Iraq is like a small Middle East: it represents all the ethnic and religious differences – Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Sunni and Shia Muslims and Christians. It will be very difficult to deal with all of them. The economic burden of a war would be very heavy. I am afraid that there will be a revival of nationalism. We worry that Iraq may turn into another Lebanon.
There is also the humanitarian consequences. During the first Gulf war, in one night 500 000 Iraqi refugees came into Turkey, and we had to receive them. Children, women and elderly people came across the border. We do not want the same situation, which is why we must try to find a non-violent solution.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Kirilov.
Mr KIRILOV (Bulgaria). – Turkey’s role as a neighbour of Iraq is very important. Do you think that the inspectors are doing a useful job under present circumstances? Do you think that hostilities should start without a new United Nations Security Council resolution?
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I will call Gül.
Mr GÜL. – In a few hours, we will know the result of the express report. We hope that the report will be clear enough. International legitimacy is very important. For that reason, I think that a second United Nations resolution is needed, at least to convince the people. Turkey lays great store on international legitimacy.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Christodoulides.
Mr CHRISTODOULIDES (Cyprus). – Mr Gül, you just said that you were for a just, viable and lasting solution in Cyprus. I fully agree with that. Will you try to persuade the leader of the Turkish-Cypriot community, Mr Denktash, to negotiate, on the basis of the Annan plan, with the representatives of the Greek-Cypriot community to achieve such a solution?
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – That is why the negotiations are going on. The position of my government is that no solution is not a solution. There is a perception that the Turks prefer no solution. That is not correct. My government will push for a solution. However, if the solution is not satisfactory to both sides, it will not be a lasting one. We want people to live in a peaceful atmosphere. We all know what happened in the past, and we do not want to repeat that. We do not want to have tragedies similar to those at the beginning of the 1970s. That is the worry, but I think there is a solution. We are all trying to join the European Union. If we were in the same home together, there would be no more problems.
THE PRESIDENT. – Before giving the floor to the next speaker, I must announce that we made a mistake. When I said that Mr Kanelli was not duly substituted, it was correct, but it was incorrect to say that Mr Kanelli had asked to take the floor. The handwriting was a little ugly, and we could not read it. It was not Mr Kanelli, but Mrs Katseli who asked to take the floor. After the next speaker, I shall give her the floor. The next speaker is Mr Pourgourides.
Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). –As a Greek Cypriot, may I wish you from the bottom of my heart every success in your efforts to make Turkey what you want to make it? In your speech, you referred to your commitment to implementing the outstanding judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Does that commitment include the well known case of Loizidou v. Turkey, which concerns the payment of just compensation for being unable to use one’s property in the occupied part of Cyprus?
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – We are negotiating to find a solution, and we must concentrate on that. When we reach a solution, all such problems will be resolved. I shall, however, be able to give you a written response.
THE PRESIDENT. – The next speaker is Mrs Katseli, and I again beg her pardon for the mistake.
Mrs KATSELI (Greece). – asked Mr Gül to implement reforms to protect the Greek minority, in particular measures to protect the Greek religious establishments.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – Passing laws is very important, but their implementation is essential. We are aware of that, and my government is determined to do that. Soon, you will see that there will be no problem in the implementation of these laws.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr. McNamara from the United Kingdom.
Mr McNAMARA (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President. May I say, Prime Minister that in many ways it has been a breath of fresh air to hear of the new steps that Turkey is taking? I believe that they are welcomed not only in the Assembly but throughout the world. Is it your intention to see that all the decisions of the Court of Human Rights are fully implemented by Turkey before you set about your negotiations to join the European Union?
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – I have already mentioned in my speech that we have made many changes and that we have amended the constitution. We have passed new legislation so I do not think that there is a problem. Also I said sincerely that we were going to implement the decision of the Court and that is why retrial rights were given to the people.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Ms Isohookana-Asunmaa.
Ms ISOHOOKANA-ASUNMAA (Finland). – Prime Minister, in view of tomorrow’s debate on freedom of expression of the media in Europe, what further concrete measures does your government plan to take to bring Turkish legislation and practice into line with European standards and, in particular, with the case law of the European Court on freedom of expression?
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – We believe that the expression of opinions is an essential part of fundamental rights, so if there is no violence behind it, any opinion should be free. Since we changed the laws and the constitution, there is no more discrimination.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Jurgens of the Netherlands.
Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – I very much welcome the decision on retrial in relation to cases that have been tried in the European Court of Human Rights, but, more importantly, when will the legislation change? Mr Gül’s party was banned while he was a member of this Assembly. I remember a discussion about that. The DEP party was banned in Turkey and four members of parliament have been in prison for nine years and are still there. Will the provisions be changed in Turkish law so that the case of Leila Zana could not occur again?
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – In fact, we have already changed the legislation and we have passed a law which gives the right to retrial, so those former deputies have the right to go to court again.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mrs Vermot-Mangold.
Mrs VERMOT-MANGOLD (Switzerland) raised the issue of the Kurds and asked how Turkey would try to resolve issues of minority rights.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – Of course, the Kurds are our citizens so there is no discrimination as to who is a Turk and who is a Kurd in Turkey. Turkish citizenship is essential for us, but I am sure that you will accept that there was terrorist activity in Turkey. We cannot ignore that. Because of that, some cases have been brought to court and some of those involved are in prison. In my speech, I also informed you that the emergency administration, which continued for almost thirty years, was lifted in the first week of my government. We now need peace, and the happiness of Turkish citizens is very important for us.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Gross.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – Prime Minister, I have a delicate question for you and I only have the courage to ask it because you know that I am supportive and I know that you are open and that we worked together very well. Perhaps you know that I have to make a report for the Political Affairs Committee on successful examples of autonomous regions. Would you allow me to come to Turkey to see whether it would fit in with your interest in integrating your country to give autonomy to the Kurdish part, in which the Kurdish cultural people are in a majority?
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – As Mr Gross said, we used to sit next to each other, and he is a good friend. Our constitution does not discriminate between our citizens. Turkish citizenship is essential for us. In parliament, we do not look at the origin of the people, and that applies also in the administration. In the government, there are sometimes prime ministers, speakers of the parliament or presidents. We have had some problems in the past, and unfortunately we suffered because of the terrorist activity. But anyway, you are welcome to travel to my country and to see the region. I am sure that you will see the reality better when you go there.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Rochebloine.
Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France) commended the new Turkish Government, which represented a real drive for renewal, and praised the daring policy whereby Turkey was seeking recognition as a member of the European community of nations. He asked whether Turkey could acknowledge the past genocide of Armenians.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – You could approach this issue from a different point. At that time, there was a war and there was no attempt by the Turks to massacre the people. It is now time to consolidate our relations, and that is why Turkey is helping Armenia and why there are frequent flights from Istanbul to Yerevan. That is also why Turkish business people are helping there. I also think that Armenia should have good relations with its border countries. It has to recognise the border at least. We are helping them. We will continue. There is no need to go back any more. Let us look at the future for better relations.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Gubert.
Mr GUBERT (Italy), while recognising the force of Turkey’s application to join the EU, questioned whether the EU would be able to embrace the Turkish culture, its religion, its heritage and its people.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – Of course, if you decide on one thing, you will have to consider whether its role will be just continental or global. Will it play a strategic role in world affairs? I think that the new Europe should play a strategic role in global affairs. Turkey will not be a burden on the European Union. It will be an asset. It will be a political decision of the European leaders.
It is a win-win situation. If we are a member of the European Union, we will win. At the same time we believe that the European Union will win too.
THE PRESIDENT. – The next speaker is Mr Pavlidis.
Mr PAVLIDIS (Greece)welcomed the Prime Minister of Turkey to the Council of Europe. He recognised the efforts of the Turkish Government to initiate reform. He asked the Prime Minister of Turkey what plans he had for addressing the issue of immigrants originating from Turkey, passing through Greece, and en route to Europe.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – It is clear that the moves are not coming from Turkey. They are coming from other parts of the world. Unfortunately, Turkey is being used in a different way. We have good co-operation to prevent and to stop the movements.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Janssen van Raaij.
Mr JANSSEN van RAAIJ (Netherlands). – I have been a member of the parliament of the European Union for twenty years and have always supported Turkey becoming a member. Those who find it difficult because a large part of your country is outside Europe cannot use the example of Denmark. When it became a member of the EU, the biggest part of that kingdom, Greenland, belonged to the American continent. That is a very good argument in Turkey’s favour.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr O’Hara.
Mr O’HARA (United Kingdom). – Are you satisfied that sufficient attention is being given to the cultural and natural heritage in the context of the major development project for south-east Anatolia, in particular the proposal to construct a dam at Ilisu on the River Tigris? You will be aware that Balfour Beatty withdrew from the project because of confusion over management control and strategy over the resettlement of people whose land is flooded, the control of and effect on waters upstream and downstream and the archaeological remains at Hasankeyf.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – That is a great heritage site for us. We are thinking about that project again. We want to build the dam but at the same time we want to protect the heritage. I think there is a way to do that. There is a new project. We are trying to solve the problem.
THE PRESIDENT. – The last speaker is Mr Berisha.
Mr BERISHA (Albania). – I congratulate the Prime Minister on his victory and I am deeply convinced that his government will show to the world how compatible Islam is with secularism, free elections and the rule of law. That is a great contribution.
Do the Prime Minister and the Government of Turkey intend to change a little bit the threshold for elections, which is 10%? I think it hurts representation in the Turkish Parliament of Turkish voters.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gül to reply.
Mr GÜL. – That is a good question but the electoral law was not made by us. In a way it is designed to stop us. The response of the Turkish people was different.
You are right. We are studying political parties law and electoral law. I am sure that, together with the opposition, we will have better registration.
THE PRESIDENT. – That brings an end to the questions. Mr Prime Minister, I thank you most warmly on behalf of the Assembly for your address and your remarks. Thank you very much for coming here. It was nice to see a friend of the Assembly and the Prime Minister of a member of the Council of Europe.
(Mr Tony Lloyd, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Schieder.)
THE PRESIDENT. – The next order of the day is the presentation of and debate on the progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee, Document 9621 and Addenda I to VIII.
The list of speakers closed at 1 p.m. today. Seventeen names are on the list.
I remind you that we have already agreed that in order to finish the debate by 5.10 p.m., we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 5.05 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the votes.
I call Mr Bernard Schreiner to present the progress report. You have eight minutes.
Mr SCHREINER (France) noted that in the last session of the Assembly, held in September, members of the Assembly were extremely active. He referred in particular to a meeting in Malta on 17‑18 November 2002 and thanked the Maltese authorities for the warmth of their welcome. The meeting enabled them to meet the President of the Republic of Malta who had held several posts in the Council of Europe. This enabled the Maltese authorities to present their position on, firstly, the provision and protection of democracy, the pre-eminence of the rule of law and human rights; secondly, their commitment on social rights; and, thirdly, the strengthening of the Mediterranean dimension. In 2003 a conference on migration policies would be held. The Maltese presidency had also made clear its support that there should be a European Convention against trafficking in human beings. On the Corruption Convention there was a follow-up to the joint meeting held on 25 September 2002 and it was proposed to hold a further meeting on 25 September 2003. He thanked the Secretariat for the work they put in. The meeting was a clear success.
There was a prospect of a third summit of the heads of the Council of Europe. The summit should have an action plan on human rights and the rule of law and managing migratory flows. It should be held in 2004. The French authorities welcomed and supported this. He thanked the German authorities for the invitation for the meeting to be held in April 2003. He also thanked the Moldavian authorities for their invitation to the committee in May 2003.
Finally, he noted that the dates for sittings in 2004-2005 appeared in the activity report.
THE PRESIDENT. – In the debate, the first speaker is Mr Hegyi, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group. I remind you, Mr Hegyi, and other speakers that the time limit is five minutes each.
Mr HEGYI (Hungary). – Thank you, Mr President. The Socialist Group had an informal debate yesterday on freedom of expression in Europe. This is not the first time that I have spoken about the freedom of the media. I think that we all agree that freedom of the media and freedom of expression are basic parts of human rights.
We talk a great deal about free elections, but there are no really free elections without an informed society and, similarly, an informed public audience. When we talk about freedom, that should mean the freedom to hold different views and to receive different information. That freedom is uncertain in many parts of Europe. The danger of that is becoming greater and greater year by year.
There are two forms of danger in Europe that concern the media. One is the old one – it is well known to many of us – of censorship of the state. The other danger is the monopoly of private corporations. Both these dangers are present in Europe, and some countries face both of them.
Before speaking about the dangers of huge corporations that have a monopoly over the media, I shall mention some so-called evergreen topics which I raise in this place year after year. However, they should be referred to whenever it is possible to do so. First, there is Ukraine. I think that everybody heard about the disappearance and murder of Mr Gonzadze. It is a sad story but it must be mentioned. Last September, another Ukrainian journalist – Mikhailo Kolomiets, the editor of a news agency – disappeared. He was later “found” in a forest. During the last three months no one has been able to find out what had happened to him, but his news agency took a very pro-opposition line.
I will not relate all the stories coming to us from Belarus, but it is a sad collection of atrocities of all kinds perpetrated against journalists, some of whom are put in prison. The government controls the media, and there is legal and economic harassment of newspapers and television channels.
In central and eastern European countries such as mine, there is a danger of “Big Brotherism”. The quality of television goes down and down. Both right-wing and left-wing parties, churches, unions and intellectuals are protesting with no result. The standards of commercial television worsen year by year.
Italy is a special case in the context of state censorship and private business monopolies. That is mentioned in many reports. Mr Berlusconi owns commercial television, and has political control over the public media. When he was elected Prime Minister he promised that he would solve the problem within a hundred days. He has been Prime Minister for nearly two years, but nothing has happened. He still owns the private media and many television channels, as well as controlling public television. Programmes in which he is criticised are taken off the air, even public television programmes, and censorship is a growing danger.
Let me quote a journalist whose words were published in the Financial Times.
“But the thing that really frightens me”, he said, “isn’t that censorship is a diktat from above, it’s that it’s servility from below. Everyone working in television knows that, for the next five or seven years, their career will depend on Berlusconi, and they grovel accordingly.”
I was a journalist in Hungary before the political changes, and I learned from my experience that the most dangerous enemy of the freedom of the press is self-censorship. If censorship comes from above people can protest, but it becomes people’s nature to obey all kinds of orders from above. That means the end of the freedom of the press.
I trust that next time there will be no need for a speech like this, and that the situation of the media in Italy will have changed.
THE PRESIDENT. – The next speaker is Mr Pourgourides, speaking on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – There is no need to remind me of the five-minute limit, Mr President, because I will speak more briefly than that.
The observation of parliamentary and other elections has, as we all know, become a very important and useful function of our Assembly. The presence of observers from the Assembly is vital to the conduct of truly democratic elections in some of the recently created democracies on our continent. The Group of the European People’s Party believes that the role of our observers must be extended to cover the role played by the media in the conduct of free elections.
As the last speaker said, problems with the democratic process in the media exist not just in Europe’s under-developed democracies, but in some of the more developed countries such as Italy. Problems involving the role of the media in the more recent democracies, however, are more serious. We must pay close attention to important factors in the functioning of true democracy in Europe.
All the activities involved in the observation of elections would never have taken place as effectively and successfully as they have so far without the dedication of Council of Europe staff. We must be very proud of our staff, and we thank them sincerely for their assistance.
As is mentioned in the various reports prepared by our rapporteurs, problems continue in a number of countries. There are still quite a few serious problems in some of them. Whether there are free elections in those countries or not, although they are members of the Council of Europe, is debatable, and in some cases the question of whether elections are truly free is borderline. We must continue our work and increase our effectiveness in monitoring elections and in other democratic activities in all member states in the Council of Europe. We must become more effective. It is easy enough to define that, but I have no easy solutions to the problem of achieving it. I believe, however, that we have been on the right track over the past few years, and I believe we will improve even further during the coming months.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Eörsi, speaking on behalf of the Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group.
Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – Let me take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Imre Kertėsz, the first Hungarian writer to be awarded the Nobel prize for literature. I do so not just because Mr Kertėsz is a great author and not just because he is a Holocaust survivor, and indeed not just because he is the first Hungarian to be awarded the Nobel prize without being compelled to emigrate from Hungary first, but because the humanity, commitment to human rights, and values widely shared in the Assembly which can be found in his books are greatly respected. I wish him good luck for the future.
The Copenhagen summit was a great achievement in the European Union. It was an important step in the reunification of Europe. We should all thank Prime Minister Rasmussen, who was president of the European Council at the time. We should also thank Pat Cox, president of the European Parliament, and Mr Prodi, President of the European Commission. They worked together to make this happen. Let me, as a Liberal, say modestly that all three belong to the Liberal family. That is just one more reason for us to express our thanks.
There was a period recently when not everything was cheerful. I am thinking of the terrible terrorist act in the Moscow theatre last autumn. I appreciated the statement issued by the Bureau which thoroughly condemned every kind of terrorism. I am only sorry that the Bureau rejected the Liberals’ request to put questions, and to ask the Russian authorities to investigate what they did wrong. They seemed to think that even the most terrible attacks gave the green light for a lack of concern about our citizens. There were no antidotes, and the hospitals did not know what poison had been used in the theatre. There was a lack of information. A number of mistakes were made and, if investigations had been carried out, those mistakes might be avoided in the future. We hope that the Russian authorities will come to a similar conclusion.
There is also good news. We often complain that the United States of America does not share the values that we hold in the Council of Europe. The good news is that sometimes our messages reach the important leaders in the United States. I refer to the former governor of Illinois, Mr Ryan, who received such messages. Before he completed his term of office, he pardoned a number of criminals who had been sentenced to death. His statement expressed the same values and convictions that we have expressed in this Organisation for a long time. I hope that Mr Ryan will not be subject to the financial charges that seem to me to be a form of revenge for what he did. The Council of Europe should consider rewarding him with our human rights prize that was awarded to other distinguished fellows earlier.
Last but not least, I wish to make a statement. In the September part-session, I misunderstood the words of my friend and colleague, Mr Terry Davis, in the debate on Iraq. If I made a mistake, I have to correct it in the Hemicycle. I ask him to accept my apologies. I thank everyone for their attention.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Soendergaard, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr SOENDERGAARD (Denmark). – I, too, take the opportunity to welcome the new Turkish delegation. I congratulate its members and the Turkish people on the elections of 3 November. The election result provides a possibility of a new beginning for Turkey. That is absolutely necessary for three reasons. The first is the economic crisis and the grave social situation for a large part of the Turkish population. The second is the big problems that Turkey has had in guaranteeing minority rights, because that has led to the long war over the Kurdish question. The third is the problem that Turkey has had in respecting its commitments to the Council of Europe’s values such as those on the prevention of torture and on the securing of democratic rights. We must regret the fact that the elected member of parliament, Lălă Zană, is still serving a sentence of twenty-five years for using her mother tongue, Kurdish, in parliament.
We very much hope that such problems belong to the past. However, those problems have meant that the members of the Group of the Unified European Left agree with the Bureau’s decision of 3 September 2002 to set up an ad hoc committee to observe the parliamentary elections in Turkey that were planned for 3 November.
The legal basis for that decision is the fact that in 1999 the Parliamentary Assembly endorsed that “the observation of elections may be extended to states which are undergoing an Assembly monitoring procedure”. Therefore, it was shocking that the former Turkish Parliament refused to give any help to the Council of Europe in observing the election. We were confronted with that refusal to co-operate and we think that, on some points, the report of the ad hoc committee is very weak. We disagreed with the committee when it said that its mission should not be seen as monitoring but “should be considered as a visit to a longstanding member state of the Council of Europe at the time of parliamentary elections”.
We want the rapporteur to confirm that the Council of Europe has the right to monitor elections in countries that are being monitored and that it is only the Council of Europe that has the right to decide whether we want to observe elections in countries that are being monitored. Will he also confirm that the countries being monitored are obliged to accept the decision of the Council of Europe if it decides to observe an election? They must do that if they want to play according to the rules of the game in this Organisation. I hope that the rapporteur can clarify those points.
THE PRESIDENT. – The final speaker will be Mrs Durrieu. I apologise to the other speakers on the list.
Mrs DURRIEU (France) said that she was an accredited observer to the Turkish elections and agreed that they were carried out smoothly. Although the AKAP won an overwhelming majority, it represented the erosion of the Attaturk legacy. The AKAP was an Islamist party and they would be watching to see whether it would be moderate. She welcomed the new government in Latvia which faced major challenges to reduce corruption and to deal with minority issues. Forty per cent of the country were Russian speakers. The government wanted to create a Latvian nation, using language and citizenship as means of integration. She would follow developments as Latvia pursued EU membership.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I must interrupt the list of speakers. The Bureau and the standing committee now have an opportunity to reply. I call Mr Schreiner.
Mr SCHREINER (France) said it was difficult to address all the points raised in the time available. He was keen to carry out observation of candidate countries and those subject to monitoring. This represented the will to pursue democracy. Although there were still problems, such as the death penalty, the Assembly should not lose heart. He thanked the Secretary General and all staff of the Organisation in helping to promote human rights.
THE PRESIDENT. – The debate is closed.
At its meetings on 9 December, 13 January and this morning, the Bureau proposed further references to Committees that are subject to ratification by the Assembly under Rule 24.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The details of these appear in the Progress Report.
Does the Assembly approve ratification of these references?
They are agreed to.
The Assembly takes note of the Progress Report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee (Document 9621 and addenda).
14. Statement by Mr Bruce George, President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
THE PRESIDENT. – We now have the honour of hearing a statement by Mr Bruce George, President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. Mr George is also my parliamentary colleague in the United Kingdom Parliament. You are most welcome here among us, and we await your observations with great expectation.
Mr GEORGE (President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly). – Mr Lloyd, I do not want to inflate your expectations of my powers of oratory. After all, the President of the Assembly implored members to be more concerned about the presentation of fact, and not to lapse into oratory. It was a privilege to listen to the Turkish Prime Minister. A former British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, is demonised in Turkey. Perhaps the juxtaposition of a Lloyd and a George precipitated the Prime Minister’s departure, but we should do nothing to inhibit what seems to be a remarkable reform agenda. Those right-wing columnists who felt that the election of his party would be a cataclysm should revisit their faulty analysis, because from the evidence so far this is a reformist Administration like no other since the era of Kemal Attaturk.
One thing that I have learned from my brief presence here, which I may follow, is the use of the bell. I am exploring other options to silence members of parliament. The Sweeney Todd option is to pull a lever and they disappear into a great hole, but I viewed with interest the look of fear and terror in the eyes of members of this Assembly when the bell was pressed.
It is an honour for me, as President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, to address this plenary session of the Council of Europe’s Assembly. I thank the President for this invitation to share with you my views on the activities of our Assembly and its growing relationship with your Assembly. The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly, as the first European assembly to be created in the history of our continent, and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, as the youngest international parliamentary institution in Europe, have been productive and successful in the achievement of our common objectives and goals.
Today, more than ever, the Assemblies of the OSCE and the Council of Europe need to work together to ensure democracy, the rule of law and the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in all our countries. We must not forget that we are important and indispensable in that regard, as we provide the democratic foundations of the Council of Europe and the OSCE.
Over the decades, our two organisations, the Council of Europe and the OSCE, have played an essential role in the transformation of Europe. There is still an enormous amount of work for both of us to do to try to create peace and security and to implement the European standards of democracy and human rights. Sometimes, although not always, our activities overlap, and co-ordination and co-operation are needed. There is a lot of work for both Parliamentary Assemblies to do.
The objective of building European security in a comprehensive way and preventing conflict is a challenge for the OSCE and the Council of Europe, which can best be faced by the two organisations working together and maximising our respective areas of competence and comparative advantage. Likewise, at the parliamentary level, I am pleased that our two Assemblies have established a close relationship and an effective and mutually reinforcing division of labour. The fact that the governmental and parliamentary leaderships of the OSCE and the Council of Europe have met regularly to co-ordinate their activities and to discuss matters of mutual concern is of paramount importance.
The parliamentary dimension of the OSCE is essential, especially as it has become an important partner of the Council of Europe in furthering peace and stability across Europe. The OSCE remains the most flexible and responsive Euro-Atlantic foreign policy instrument for non-military contingencies. It is the primary instrument for early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation in its region. It has the capacity to deal with intra-state conflict and transnational threats to stability. Its broad Euro-Atlantic and Euro-Asian composition and its comprehensive approach to security are a unique asset to our organisation. We must continue working to enhance our co-ordination and co-operation, especially in those fields related to the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and election monitoring.
Before analysing the prospects for our co-operation, allow me briefly to present to distinguished members of your Assembly some of our activities over the past few months.
The Assembly, like yours, continues to address issues of concern to citizens while promoting parliamentary involvement and facilitating inter-parliamentary dialogue and co-operation. Nato and the European Union are in the process of enlarging and the Council of Europe’s functions have not been decreasing, I note. The outcome of the Prague summit last November and the conclusions of the Copenhagen European Council will have far-reaching consequences not only for the future of Europe but for the nature of the transatlantic partnership. The enlargement of both organisations will extend even further the already large common space of democratic stability of the European continent.
The OSCE has a crucial and unique role to play in enhancing security within and among states. Our Assembly has decided to devote the 2003 Rotterdam annual session precisely to that theme: the role of the OSCE in the new architecture of Europe, under which we intend to address from our perspective the issues related to the enlargement of Nato and the EU. Furthermore, the ad hoc committees of our Assembly continue to serve as an important tool in furthering the development of democracy and stability in the OSCE region. We have ad hoc committees on Belarus, Moldova, Kosovo and Abkhazia, all of which have contributed to promoting dialogue and seeking co-operation in politically sensitive and unstable areas. In these areas, the committees have promoted a degree of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and assistance in the development of the legal and democratic institutions and processes by providing advice to the parties in conflict on legal, constitutional and political frameworks.
Our Assembly also continues to pay special attention to the relations between the OSCE and its Mediterranean and Asian partners. The conference on security in the Mediterranean held in Madrid last October, and the trans-Asian parliamentary forum to be held in Almaty later this year clearly show our commitment. These conferences seek to bring regional issues – in this case, those of the Eurasian and Mediterranean dimensions of the OSCE – to the attention of a greater number of parliamentarians throughout the OSCE area. I hope that you agree that the events and aftermath of 11 September highlighted both the importance of security in Asia and the Mediterranean to security in the OSCE area as a whole.
We also pay special attention to economic and environmental issues in our area. I should like briefly to reflect on some of the political issues that our Assembly is currently addressing, and which both our assemblies should continue to join in enhancing our co-operation. We have a very effective continuous programme for monitoring parliamentary elections. Our Assembly has taken the lead in monitoring parliamentary and presidential elections in the OSCE area for more than a decade. We also successfully co-operate with one of the institutions of the OSCE, the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.
Election monitoring is one of the areas in which our two assemblies have developed co-ordination and co-operation. Others, the European Parliament in particular, have also been included in that co-operation. This is an area in which our joint efforts will be needed for several years to come. Monitoring requires co-operation on several levels. Each election monitoring operation should be a long process in each individual country. This is not a process in which you have omniscient schoolmasters acting as monitors of ignorant pupils whose elections are being monitored. Our election monitoring is a form of parliamentary solidarity. Consolidation of parliamentary democracy throughout Europe and beyond is in our common interest. It also consolidates peace, stability and prosperity.
Election monitoring can be successful, however, only when new democracies or democratising nations, or those who are beginning the process towards democracy, co-operate in good faith. With very few exceptions, this has been the case. Unfortunately, there have been examples of a lack of sufficient co-operation. In this conjunction, I would like to mention briefly our relationship with Belarus.
Some time ago, I received from your President a letter suggesting that we more formally agree on co-operation in election monitoring in the form of a memorandum of understanding. This is being worked on and I certainly welcome it. I suggest that the memorandum on which we agree should include the following up of election monitoring findings, in close co-operation with the parliaments and the governments of the countries concerned. We have done this already in the case of Ukraine.
We co-operate on the Stability Pact. The parliamentary troika has a genuine parliamentary dimension, which I am sure should be welcomed. Co-operation between the Council of Europe and the OSCE, and between our two parliamentary assemblies, has taken the form of an established practice of the 2+2 and 3+3 meetings. Again, that is very important.
On Belarus, our two assemblies have been co-operating at a high level and there is some small cause for cautious optimism in the recent agreement between the OSCE and the Government of Belarus on the new OSCE office in Minsk, which should begin its work again in the coming weeks. We should not forget, however, that this breakthrough came only after a stalemate of over one year during which the work of the OSCE advisory and monitoring group slowly ground to a halt as its international staff were, one by one, denied visas and diplomatic accreditation and forced to leave the country. I can only hope that the Belarusian authorities will not impede the work of this new office, but rather co-operate in deepening the parliamentary and democratisation process. It is important too that the Assembly of which I am proudly president will shortly be deciding whether to readmit Belarus to our proceedings. That decision will be made by our standing committee on 20 February, and only after a report following a visit by our working group on Belarus.
Let me thank you for your invitation to present to our colleagues the activities and objectives of the OSCE parliamentary assembly. We are determined, as I have said time and again, to develop relations and co-operation with you. We have had some very good experience of that and I hope that, under my presidency, it will deepen and broaden. I can assure you that the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly will continue to do its best in assisting you to strengthen respect for and implementation of commitments to democracy, human rights, religious freedoms and the rule of law. We must add to that list responsible economic and environmental policies – in other words, furthering peace and stability across our continent. Thank you for listening to my rather over-long words and I wish you well in your deliberations.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr. George, you reminded us all of our common traditions and our common way of viewing the world, and indeed of the need to forge a co-operation that has existed in the past and to ensure that in the future it works better. Our Assembly looks to you to forge that co-operation on behalf of your Assembly, and we look to our own president to do the same thing. President Schieder is, of course, dedicated to that cause. I know that he intends to go to the meeting between the OSCE and the Council of Europe at the Hague on 5 February. He will also attend the next standing committee in Vienna in February. That is a measure of his ambitions and I think that they parallel the ones that you have expressed yourself. Once again, on behalf of my colleagues in the Council of Europe Assembly, thank you very much for your presence here today and for your important words.
THE PRESIDENT. – The next item of business is the joint debate on the reports on South-Eastern Europe listed on the notice paper.
The list of speakers closed at 1 p.m. today. Twenty-four names were on the list and two amendments have been tabled.
I remind you that we have already agreed that in order to finish this debate by 7 p.m., we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 6.35 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.
I call Baroness Hooper, Rapporteur of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development. You have eight minutes to present your report.
(Mr Scheider, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Lloyd.)
Baroness HOOPER (United Kingdom). – Before Mr Bruce George leaves the Assembly, I must say how appropriate it is that this debate follows his statement, particularly, as he mentioned, as the OSCE forms part of our parliamentary troika, which is working so hard in Tirana.
It is a privilege to represent the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development for the first time. I am fortunate too that Mr Kirilov, the acting chairman of the committee, is close by. He comes from the region, has first-hand knowledge and experience of it. He is the general rapporteur for South-East Europe.
The Stability Pact was last debated in the Assembly two years ago. Many years ago, I had the pleasure of attending a law conference in Split and Dubrovnik. I was in Slovenia in 1994 for a brief Council of Europe meeting. My knowledge was limited until last year when I was a Council of Europe observer at the elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina and subsequently attended the parliamentary troika meetings in Tirana in November.
My intention has been to keep the report and recommendations short and straightforward. That was possible because of the Tirana declaration, which was issued after the third parliamentary troika meeting held under the chairmanship of the Council of Europe. That declaration was clear and is appended to my report. In turn, I ask the Assembly to support it.
The process for stability and good neighbourliness in south-east Europe was created in 1999 at the Cologne Council of the European Union in the wake of the Kosovo war. It offers a brighter future for the region. Now the pact is changing as it reflects changes in the world environment as well as in the region itself. It is increasing its focus, prioritising better, streamlining its operations and working hard to hand over activities to the region. In that context, congratulations must go to Mr Busek, the special co-ordinator, and his team.
It is worth noting that the pact’s mandate and associated budget provided by the European Union expire at the end of June this year when the full review will take place. Whatever the outcome of the review for the pact itself, it is important that its work continues and is sustained, and that we in this Assembly continue to take an interest in developments.
It is true that expectations in the region were raised by the creation of the pact – perhaps they were raised too high. It is therefore of great importance to acknowledge and to appreciate what has been achieved, especially those visible signs of progress such as the forty-six start-up projects and the signing of twenty-one free trade agreements within the region, about which we shall hear more from Mr Busek.
Whatever the outcome of those projects and agreements, I believe that the free trade area agreements that are being set up between countries in the region are vital for political as well as economic reasons. The negotiations themselves have proved to be efficient tools for easing tensions between countries. The agreements serve as links to establish co-operation that was either non-existent or severely disrupted by years of conflict. We have seen former adversaries sitting around the same table, jointly drawing up and now implementing the agreements. A few years ago, that would have been unthinkable.
I also draw attention to the references both in my report and in the Tirana declaration to the issues of corruption, organised crime and the trade and movement of persons, which was highlighted at the meetings in Tirana. I believe that the Council of Europe has a special role here as, together with the OSCE, we provide leadership for the Stability Pact’s anti-corruption initiative, which advocates a multi-disciplinary approach to promote good governance, to strengthen the rule of law and all the other things that are necessary to combat the frightening increase in that problem.
There are other ways in which this Parliamentary Assembly has a special role. One is in relation to international organisations such as the World Bank, the OSCE and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. We have a unique opportunity to question those organisations on their activities in the Assembly. We have annual discussions with them; we had discussions with the EBRD in London last week. We can raise issues raised in the report on those occasions.
We have a duty when we return from this Assembly to our national parliaments to remind our colleagues there of these issues, including the economic and political situation in south-east Europe. I say that happily in the knowledge that Lord Russell-Johnston secured a debate to call attention to the Stability Pact for the Balkans earlier this month in the House of Lords. It was a useful debate to which I was able to contribute.
Those of us who are members of the European Union must press our national governments to take action to reform such policies as the common agricultural policy, which are greatly hampering agreement and progress among agricultural producers in the Balkans and other countries, and preventing them from standing on their own two feet. Therefore, it is not only people on the spot in the Balkans who must take action. We all must.
No one wants the international community presence in the region to continue forever but, in recognising the progress that has been made, we need to maintain the engagement of the international community for the foreseeable future. I commend the report to the Assembly.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Ms Zwerver, Rapporteur of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography. She has eight minutes.
Ms ZWERVER (Netherlands). – The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography has been concerned with the humanitarian situation and in particular with the displacement of the population in the Balkans since the beginning of the outbreak of hostilities in the region.
The order adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly in 1991 instructed it to “monitor the situation of refugees and displaced persons in the former Yugoslavia, and to report to the Assembly at regular intervals”. In accordance with it, the committee has presented a number of reports and draft recommendations on specific refugee problems encountered by different countries from the former Yugoslavia.
Nearly all the reports were based on fact-finding visits by the rapporteurs or delegations of the committee. This means that the rapporteurs were not drafting their texts based on information gathered by others. They were present in the field, sometimes in difficult and dangerous conditions, to become well acquainted with the real situation on the spot.
The delegation of the committee visited Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992 in an extremely difficult period, and again on several occasions. The committee also visited the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia directly after the Nato strikes. I hope that it will not be necessary again to visit the region in such dramatic conditions. I hope also that the committee will be able to take less and less interest in the situation in the Balkans. However, interest should remain, and that applies to the Assembly.
I note that the debate was not mentioned in the press release of the Parliamentary Assembly’s winter session. I hope and assume that this was a small mistake and that the debate will be given the necessary reference in the upcoming Parliamentary News of the Assembly.
I gathered information for the report and I carried out a fact-finding mission throughout the region. It was not dangerous but it was quite exhaustive and emotional. That can be said especially of my visit to the women of Srebrenica. It should be said that the overall picture allows for optimism. There has been a visible breakthrough. It is particularly spectacular in so-called minority areas, when people return to the places where they constitute a minority.
There are practically no more security concerns and nor are there political obstacles. The authorities of the countries concerned are ready to accept those who wish to return, and they follow in general the advice given by international organisations about the introduction of specific laws and other measures, for example. There are, of course, some particular concerns but in general the situation is satisfactory. My report contains some concrete figures.
Of course, not everybody will return. Some refugees have already settled somewhere else and some do not wish to return to the places that are marked by their suffering. We must respect their choices and allow them to sell their property and move to where they wish to move.
There are also certain numbers of people who wish to return, but cannot do so because of the difficult economic situation in their homeland – for example, lack of accommodation, lack of job opportunities and lack of prospects. There is room for an international contribution. It is our duty to assist all those people who wish to return, and to help their governments to deal with a problem that exceeds their capacities.
In that respect, the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe should obviously play an important role. Therefore it is important to have a discussion of the pact at the political level. I am very satisfied with the idea of debating the two reports together, one presented by the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development and the other by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography. Thus, refugee questions will be put in the broader context of the reconstruction and development of the region as a whole. For that reason, I consider that it is useful to hold parliamentary conferences on the subject, such as the one organised in Tirana last October, to which Baroness Hooper referred.
There are obviously still some concerns when we examine the problem of displacement in the Balkans as a whole. I have tried to give an account of those concerns, and perhaps for that reason some people felt that I was too critical or too pessimistic.
I have received a letter from Ms Feric-Vać, the head of the Croatian delegation, in which she makes a number of comments about the part of the report that relates to Croatia. I included information on new developments that took place after the adoption of the report. Therefore, there is a revised version of the report before us.
I wish to be clear: I am impressed by the progress that has been made on the issue of return by the efforts of the governments concerned and by reconciliation among peoples. If I raise certain difficult questions such as tenancy rights, my purpose is to direct attention to seeking possible solutions. Financial resources would solve much of the problem. Social housing, which would provide accommodation to all those who have lost their tenancy rights, would be such a solution. However, that again implies a great deal of financing, which Croatia cannot afford on its own.
In February, I will probably go with Mr Cilevičs, the rapporteur on displacement in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo, to gather information about the specific situation of the Roma displaced population and returnees, in a broader context of forced returns from western Europe. It is a sensible question that we will raise to see how it could be solved. It is not our purpose merely to be critical.
I shall be listening carefully to the discussion, which I hope will be interesting and useful for us all.
THE PRESIDENT. – I now have the pleasure of welcoming Mr Busek, the Special Co-ordinator of the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe. I use this opportunity to thank Mr Busek for the good co-operation that we enjoy. I thank him also that we have had a chance to co-operate in an excellent way in other areas of work. Mr Busek, you have the floor for eight minutes.
Mr BUSEK (Special Co-ordinator of the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe). – I thank Peter Schieder for his remarks and offer my thanks to the entire Council of Europe. During the period of troika parliamentary co-operation there has been success, and that is helpful in general. That which the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe with the European Parliament and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe is doing in co-operation with regional parliaments is of high value and is very necessary.
I shall underline something that was decided at Tirana. We need stronger co-operation between regional parliamentarians. The exchange of ideas, views and experiences is vital in many areas. However, that is not the subject of my report. The Stability Pact has existed for more than three years and there has been some success. The situation is improving. However, sometimes that is not recognised because the area is out of the headlines. Sometimes I hear people say, “It is not so interesting now. Forget it. We can close the subject.” If south-east Europe is again in the headlines, that might be the result of wars and ethnic cleansing. It is valuable to say that there are signs of improvement.
We tackled the so-called six achievables in the past year, and succeeded in some measure. Elections took place. We saw the improvement of democracy in the region. Elections took place without international assistance. Some international organisations, including the Council of Europe, looked at how they were conducted. The countries involved conducted the elections for themselves. There has also been an improvement in military security, and that has been assisted mainly by Nato. We have seen some improvements in civil security, but there is much to do in that area.
I shall refer especially to regional co-operation. It has been a great success story over the past year. For example, we have the crime fighting centre in Bucharest, which has been working for more than two years. Turkey now has the leadership. We also have the institution which is collecting small arms and other light weapons in Belgrade. We are of course concerned about military developments in Sarajevo. We have the agreement between Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia.
We opened up a secretariat for fighting organised crime in conjunction with the Stability Pact operations in Bucharest. We look forward to doing the same thing in the fight against corruption.
We also look forward this year to taking action on education and youth. We must not forget the business community. We have business support offices in Istanbul, Thessaloniki, Venice, Vienna and Zagreb, and a business information and clearance centre at Thessaloniki. There is also a business advisory council. I was able to merge the existing south-east European co-operation initiative and the Stability Pact. More success can be expected, because the economic situation is improving. We now have average real growth of 3% a year, but from a very low level. More must be done, especially on greenfield investment, which until now has mostly taken place through privatisation.
This is all connected with migration. There is no reason to leave a country if a job can be found there. Up until now, the unemployment rate has been quite high.
Valuable work has been done by the European Union in connection with the candidate countries Romania and Bulgaria and in the stabilisation and association process. We should look at the Stability Pact on one side, at the SAP and candidacy on another, and the south-east European co-operation process on a third. All are successfully being merged.
What are the core objectives that we determined at the last regional table at Thessaloniki? There are six, relating to local democracy and cross-border co-operation, including co-operation with the Council of Europe; the media; infrastructure; trade and investment; managing and stabilising population movements; and fighting organised crime. More than half the infrastructure projects are under way. There was much justified criticism of the fact that the process had lasted so long, but I am urging progress in every project.
We are missing only one of the required twenty-one free trade agreements, the one between Bulgaria and Bosnia and Herzegovina. That was done within a year. It is an outstanding international example, and I congratulate the countries involved.
We are dealing with the regional electricity market, and will do the same for gas. Oil is also important to the framework conditions for the business community.
As for organised crime, the UN Centre for International Crime Prevention is progressing. In the global context, we need co-operation with the Caucasian states and with central Asia.
I thank both Baroness Hooper and Ms Zwerver. The report is outstandingly important. We have much to do in the future. Migration and refugee return are connected. We have therefore MARRI – the Migration, Asylum, Regional Refugees Initiative. We need to do more in that regard. We must develop a plan to build up national activities and initiatives. We need a selective labour scheme, because unemployment is a big problem. We must do something about asylum. We must combat illegal immigration. Last but not least, there is the refugee issue, which, along with Kosovo, may not be dealt with until the end of the year.
Quite a lot must be done. We are often asked when the Stability Pact will be completed. We will finish if every country in the region is a candidate for the European Union, because that is the real perspective for south-east Europe.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Toshev to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party. Like all the other speakers, he has five minutes.
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria). – On behalf of my group, I congratulate Baroness Hooper on the report. We appreciate the importance of her work.
The third parliamentary conference on the Stability Pact, held in Tirana last October, was organised by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which chairs the parliamentary troika. That is a sign of the attention paid by our Assembly to the problems of south-east Europe. Co-operation between the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the European Parliament is the right way to achieve the results that we expect and to improve co-ordination, avoiding duplication and misuse of resources.
However, we understood the frustration expressed by many south-east European Stability Pact members at the conference over the slow implementation of some Stability Pact projects. The donors were reported to be impatient as well. Co-ordination in the Pact should be more efficient, to bind the trends and to address the expectation of the people. Nevertheless, we should pay tribute to what has already been done.
As a citizen of the region, I think that some visible signs of the activities of the Stability Pact could play an encouraging role in the process of co-operation between countries in south-east Europe and, in particular, the western Balkans area. Many projects have already begun, and my dream is to see them completed as soon as possible. Bridges should not be just symbols; they should, in reality, connect the people and the countries.
The return of refugees and displaced persons should be completed, and we are addressing that as well. I appreciate what Ms Zwerver said about that.
I entirely agree with Baroness Hooper: political stability, lasting peace and regional security and co-operation can be achieved only through rapid economic development. There is no democracy of poverty. On the contrary, poverty can be a good environment for populists and extremists. Owing to the limited own resources of some countries in the area, economic development cannot be achieved without the involvement of the European Union and the other European states that are willing to express their solidarity with this part of Europe. The EU process of association and stabilisation could play an important role in that – both the rapporteur and Mr Busek mentioned it – but the countries of the region, and especially the western Balkans, should take responsibility for doing their best to implement the necessary measures to fight corruption and organised crime and create a good environment for economic development and investment. The Council of Europe agreement known as GRECO is a good basis for co-operation.
The role of parliaments is crucial to the whole process, and the proposal to create a regional parliamentary forum must be appreciated. I believe that it could contribute significantly to achievement of the main goals of the Stability Pact. The creation of mutual confidence and trust is a pre-condition of the other steps that the Pact will achieve. A second crucial pre-condition, however, is the creation of a good infrastructure to facilitate direct contact between the people, and a cultural and economic exchange. “Corridor No. 8” and railway links have been discussed for a long time, but there is much still to be done.
The Tirana conference concentrated on another important issue, the development of the civil society and democracy. I think that the Council of Europe could play an important role in helping, for example, the programme for education on democratic citizenship based on the rights and responsibilities of the citizen.
I believe that the Stability Pact will be an historic event for Europe. I wish success to Mr Busek, and to all of us who are working for implementation of the Pact.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Lord Russell-Johnston on behalf of the Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group.
Lord RUSSELL-JOHNSTON (United Kingdom). – I begin by complementing Baroness Hooper and Ms Zwerver on their respective reports, which are realistic and provide a clear analysis of the situation.
In my period as President, I had the opportunity and, may I say, the pleasure of visiting all the countries in the Stability Pact and I am sure that you, Mr President, have also had that opportunity. Since then I have become chairman of the governing board of the International Institute for Democracy which, before my time, was responsible for proposing the troika system by which the process is now overseen. It now takes a lead in holding seminars that are directed at building better parliamentary standards. My new role enables me to follow closely progress on this issue.
It is not possible in a short speech to cover every issue, but I propose to make six short points. First, as people have said, we have to admit that the fanfare of trumpets with which the pact was introduced and perhaps, in particular, the launch of the so-called quick start programme, created a level of expectation that was not met. The impression was given that some kind of Marshall plan for the Balkans was being embarked on, but it was not. No major environmental project has been completed and, in particular, the Danube has not been cleared. As Ms Zwerver pointed out, high unemployment is a major part of the problem of refugee return, and there are still 1.2 million displaced persons in the regions.
Secondly, however, much productive work has been done. I think special credit should be given to the development of much freer trade in the region and, as Mr Busek said, to the co-operation in the transport and energy sectors. There has been slow but steady work in the training of administrators and in developing more effective common methods for combating the corruption that is still endemic in some countries and the criminal networks that have grown up.
Thirdly, I welcome Mr Busek’s commitment to measuring progress and to ensuring that people know what is happening. I read his report on priorities for 2003 in which he said, “While the Pact remains committed to promote long-term trends, the special co-ordinator recognises the need to deliver tangible results on an annual basis”. That is important. It would dramatically change perceptions of the stability pact – as I have said, there has undoubtedly been disappointment at the slowness of economic progress – if priority were given to a high-profile project. I have already referred to the clearance of the Danube. If that could be achieved in the next couple of years and if the bridges at Novi Sad could be reconstructed that would not only be of huge benefit throughout the region, but would produce a great boost to morale.
Fourthly, I recently initiated a debate on the Stability Pact in the British House of Lords and the Minister who replied said that, although the pact’s current mandate and associated budget provided by the EU expires at the end of June 2003, the commitment to it was open ended. I welcome that, and the Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group is also strongly in favour of the pact.
I shall make two short points before I conclude. The first is that recognition of the Hague process is still imperfect. It is a disgrace that Mladič is still at large in a very small area seven years after Srebrenica. I do not think that Croatia is fully co-operating, either.
We will also have to face up to the problem of Kosovo at some time. We must remember that independence means something different these days given the background of EU enlargement and the work that the Council has done to establish common standards across borders.
Perhaps the Stability Pact has not done as much as it should have done, but it has done well.
THE PRESIDENT. – The next speaker is Mr Zacchera from the European Democratic Group.
Mr ZACCHERA (Italy) said that it must be borne in mind that the situation was improving. That was positive. His concern was the stability of the situation. Was it just due to the high number of peace-keeping soldiers? To what extent had progress been made in minds, or was it because there were soldiers on each corner? The Balkan region had on several occasions been in crisis. The first law of stabilisation was to ensure economic development. He regretted that although peace was making progress, there were no inter-ethnic communities. A balanced situation had not been created. Work on settlement, peace and economic development would pave the way for some of these countries joining the EU in the future and so was doubly important.
The geography of illegal immigration to Europe had changed. More Kurds were abandoning eastern Turkey and Iraq to gain access to western Europe. The areas were still under the thrall of major criminal organisations. There were still Mafiosi controlling the migrant flow. It should also been borne in mind that some areas had got worse, such as Macedonia.
He supported the adoption of these two extremely useful reports.
THE PRESIDENT. – I now welcome back to the Assembly Mr Severin. You have the Floor on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mr SEVERIN (Romania). – Thank you, Mr. President. It is good to be back, and I hope that we will have many opportunities to do good things together.
First and foremost, I should like to commend the two rapporteurs on their report, and to express our group’s support for their recommendations. I should also like to greet Mr Busek, and to commend him and his team on their outstanding efforts towards the implementation of the Stability Pact. We have supported him in the past and we shall do so in the future. The Stability Pact is a source of hope and a source of frustration, because hopes were too high and because the implementation of the Pact and the support of the international community have fallen short of what was needed. I have in mind mainly the European Union structures, which should be more effective in support of the Pact.
There are two main problems with the pact. First, there is the problem of how to put together democratic security and security through development, as democracy and development are two alternative names for peace and security. Secondly, there is the problem of how to transform national aspirations, the cultural plight and social traditions in the region into modern, civic, multicultural nations that can at the same time be integrated into a new cosmopolitan European nation. It is difficult to pursue both those objectives at the same time.
To cope with these problems, we need a permanent political impetus and an integrated strategy of common projects at regional level. Such a strategy must include the right solution for refugees and displaced people, as well as the establishment of multicultural societies. We should make it clear that without multicultural societies in the region, and without a solution for refugees and displaced people, progress will not be long lasting.
The parliamentary troika is a good tool to provide impetus. However, its activities should not be limited to one or two conferences per year. I suggest that we establish in our Assembly a group of friends of the Stability Pact, who could bridge the work of those conferences, propose broader programmes and politically network the region, because we failed to establish a parliamentary network at regional level.
For a more integrated strategy, the states in the region need to be better integrated into European institutions, and there should be better co-ordination between the European institutions involved in the implementation of the Stability Pact. I believe that stabilisation and association agreements between the European Union and the respective states in the region cannot be a substitute for the Stability Pact. On the contrary, we must link the two. We must take advantage of stabilisation and association agreements, but we must also act at regional level. Full membership of the Council of Europe of all the states in the area will be a step forward towards achieving our goals.
I also believe that we must work on the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other organisations to get them to be more strategically oriented when dealing with the countries in the region.
Some people believe that all the problems in the region have been solved as the civil war is not so violent and no longer so evident. We all know that the absence of war is not the only condition for peace. While recognising the progress that has been made, we must remain engaged in the region. It would be a big mistake to think that this is a regional problem. It is a European problem. It is also a test of Europe’s ability to overcome the legacy of a troubled past and to build a better future.
(Mr Gross, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Schieder.)
THE PRESIDENT. – I now call Mr Dokle.
Mr DOKLE (Albania). – said that the Stability Pact was very important for European integration. A regional dialogue had started and free trade areas had been set up, for example, between Albania and the rest of eastern Europe. He noted in that connection that the Albanian foreign minister had made a visit to Belgrade.
The Stability Pact was important politically as well as economically, particularly for transfrontier co-operation such as freedom of the press and free movement of people.
Crime knew no frontier and threatened the rule of law. All efforts should be made to mobilise the struggle against organised crime.
Projects of the Stability Pact were taking too long, especially where more than one donor was involved. It had its successes and its shortcomings.
THE PRESIDENT. – I now call Mr Grignon
Mr GRIGNON (France). – thanked Baroness Hooper and Ms Zwerver for their reports. He drew attention to supply of electricity. There were gaping differences between programmes and results. In Kosovo, the electricity supply was obsolete. He mentioned in particular the two lignite power stations, Kosovo A and Kosovo B and the fact that power stations stop and start so companies are forced to use generators.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Ms Feric-Vać from Croatia.
Ms FERIC-VAĆ (Croatia). – Thank you very much, Mr President, dear colleagues, Baroness Hooper and Ms Zwerver. I would also like to thank my colleague, Mr Popa, who changed places with me. I would like to show my appreciation to both our rapporteurs for their extensive reports. My greetings go to Mr Busek and to the success of the Stability Pact and, maybe, a new initiative, which we would all welcome. I also warmly thank Ms Zwerver for having included points from my letter to her in her revised version of the report. This shows the true spirit of the Council of Europe in terms of solidarity and co-operation, and that is what we strive for.
Population displacement in South-eastern Europe, with its trends, problems and solutions, is naturally linked to the Stability Pact for south-eastern Europe and to its progress in enhancing security and political stability through economic co-operation, which is the prime prerequisite for solving the problems of displaced persons in this part of our continent.
Regarding the revised final report on displacement, I would like to comment on the recommendations and on point 13.I.A. This is a recommendation that the Republic of Croatia has already been implementing intensively since 2001 – through a significant increase in budgetary resources and the search for other resources of finance through loans – and which continued through 2002 and into this year. The government provided additional financing both from the state budget and through loans, which resulted in the reconstruction of 7 800 housing units for the returnees to Croatia and of basic infrastructure damaged in the war, the provision of 2 000 housing units for alternative accommodation, and the reconstruction of approximately 600 houses damaged in the war for the refugees returning from Croatia to Bosnia and Herzegovina. A total of 116 300 housing units damaged or destroyed in the war have been reconstructed so far.
Regarding the return of persons to Croatia without citizenship, more than 2 000 such persons have already returned. In that context, the assertion that freedom of movement is not ensured, due to the greater difficulty of obtaining Croatian documents, does not reflect the real developments. After all, a large number of Croatian refugees abroad, including those in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, already have Croatian passports.
As has been pointed out, the government have already provided financing for the implementation of the Return of Property Act. The €107 million necessary for the completion of the return of property and the provision of alternative accommodation for the temporary users of this property has mainly been provided already. In November 2002, the government requested a loan from the Development Bank of the Council of Europe, which will be processed within a short period of time. Regarding point 13.II.D, alternative social housing for refugees who no longer have tenancy rights but who wish to return to Croatia is provided through the programme of housing in the areas of special state concern mentioned earlier, through the models legally prescribed both for temporary users of other people’s property and for all other returnees without property of their own. For the former holders of tenancy rights who are returning to other areas of the Republic of Croatia, a solution will be found very soon through other social programmes.
In regard to assessments of alleged ethnic discrimination, it does not exist as such. It is a fact, however, that there is still a significant lack of jobs in the return areas, which equally affects all the ethnic groups who live there. This is the consequence of the overall economic collapse experienced in these areas during the war. I also want to mention the support and finances available for the many associations involved in inter-ethnic conciliation which participate in the return programmes. We would also like to prepare the population of the cities to which returnees come back for such an event, because we had a sad event on Christmas Eve when a Croat family in central Bosnia was murdered, symbolising a lack of tolerance for the returnees. We shall further accelerate our co-operation with Bosnia and Herzegovina on this matter. Thank you once again. I hope that this will be a contribution to a better solution in future. Thank you very much for your report.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Reimann.
Mr REIMANN (Switzerland) reported the dissatisfaction of Albanian participants. Land rights in Albania were still not regulated. He appealed to the Stability Pact countries to address the criticisms in the report.
THE PRESIDENT. – The next speaker is Mr Ilham Aliyev.
Mr Ilham ALIYEV (Azerbaijan). – Thank you. I would like to speak about one of the factors creating instability in south-eastern Europe. For more than ten years, Armenia has continued to occupy the territory of Azerbaijan. Following Armenia’s aggression against Azerbaijan, 20% of our territory is occupied. As a result of that occupation, more than 1 million people of Azerbaijan have become refugees. The issue will be raised during discussions today on migration. It is one of the major factors causing instability in the region, risk and hostility.
Thousands of villages and cites of Azerbaijan have been destroyed. Today, one member of the Council of Europe, Armenia, is occupying the territory of another member of the Council of Europe, Azerbaijan. Unfortunately, the international community does not strongly express its attitude towards that.
We regard it as positive that the Council of Europe, at its last part-session, took the step of recognising the occupation by Armenia of the territory of Azerbaijan. The occupied cities of Azerbaijan have been named.
Azerbaijan has been a member of the Council of Europe for two years. During those two years, at every part-session of the Council of Europe, the Azerbaijan delegation has raised that issue. We have asked our colleagues to be more active and to end that unfair and unjust occupation.
I am grateful to the Council of Europe for making it very clear in its resolution that it condemned the occupation and for stating the facts as they are. We all know how strong the Armenian lobby is in the United States, in some European countries and in Russia. That lobby is active in local elections and politicians have to take that into account. However, in this organisation, the main principle of which is the protection of human rights and justice, everything must be clearly stated, including who is the aggressor and who is the victim of the aggression.
We are also grateful to the Council of Europe that a special rapporteur has been appointed to investigate that issue and to prepare a report, where the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan will be analysed and recommendations will be made. We are talking today about economic co-operation being a factor in the creation of security and stability but I reiterate that the official position of Azerbaijan is that it will never start economic co-operation with Armenia until that country completely withdraws its occupation forces from our territory.
I would like to mention one more issue. Recently, one of the soldiers of the Azerbaijani army was wounded and captured by Armenian forces. He is now in prison in Armenia. The Red Cross is dealing with that matter but unfortunately we do not have any positive results. I would like to use the authority of the Council of Europe to help that person to return to his family. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The last speaker is Ms Bušić.
Ms BUŠIĆ (Croatia). – I congratulate and compliment both rapporteurs but let me comment on Ms Zwerver’s report and thank her for the tremendous effort that she put into it. To prepare a report on the complex issues of refugees presents a great challenge to rapporteurs and I commend Ms Zwerver for taking up that task.
Still vividly remembering the human suffering during the recent war in Croatia, and being very much aware of the complexity of the issue of return, I feel obliged to speak, although a few minutes is a rather short time for such a subject.
The report deals with the entire region of South-eastern Europe and Croatia is covered extensively. I do not intend to go into details. Please allow me to make some general comments. Being completely aware of our obligations regarding refugees, and being personally involved in solving the problem, I can assure you that Croatia is doing her utmost, given the circumstances. The situation of refugees and internally displaced persons cannot be considered in isolation from the economic situation in general. With high unemployment and a sluggish economy, especially in the areas of return, the problems are truly financial in nature.
The actions of the Government of Croatia resulted in significant progress in the return of property. As for the return of refugees, the government invited all its citizens to return. It removed all administrative and legal obstacles to return. It is a matter of free will if and when those people return.
I intended to respond only to the Croatian part of the report. However, as the issue of security conditions is so relevant to the issue of return, I am compelled to mention the atrocities that happened only a month ago, on Christmas eve, in a small Bosnian village near Konjic. A Croatian family were attacked by gunfire while getting ready for midnight mass. Three members of the family were instantly killed and one was seriously wounded. The victims were former refugees who were among the first returnees to the village. Neighbours say that they were very quiet, never had any disagreements and worked hard to rebuild their lives.
The perpetrator was soon caught and confessed to the killings without remorse. He was from a neighbouring village, did not know the victims and admitted to belonging to two Islamic extremist groups, both of them funded from outside.
For those of you who are not familiar with the tradition in Bosnia before the war, in traditional Bosnian communities, Muslims used to join their Christian neighbours in celebrating Christmas, and Christians and Jews joined the Muslims in festivities at the end of Ramadan. Unfortunately, some outside forces have another vision for Muslims in Europe and for throughout the world. The three Croats killed in the obscure village last Christmas Eve joined the dead of 11 September and other victims of criminal acts carried out in the name of dangerous ideology.
The Islamic leadership in Bosnia and Herzegovina has protested against the intrusion of such radical elements into the country. Unfortunately, not enough has been done to root it out. The international community has introduced a significant number of measures to ensure the safe return of refugees and to guarantee their safety after arrival. Unfortunately, we know of numerous threats, harassments and killings. If these actions are not eradicated, our noble thoughts of multi-ethnic co-existence will stand on very fragile feet, and will be a long way away.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Bušić. As I have said, the list of speakers had to be closed. All those who have their speeches on paper will be able to bring them to the Table Office.
The next speaker on the list was Mr Bakhtiyar Aliyev. He promised that he would speak for only one minute so I shall give him the last minute.
Mr Bakhtiyar ALIYEV (Azerbaijan). – Thank you, Mr President. First, I would like to congratulate Ms Zwerver and express my deep gratitude to her for an excellent and comprehensive report. I hope that the decision that the Assembly will make on this extremely important issue will be an adequate response to the last hope of hundreds of thousands of people to return to their native places. These people are looking to us to realise this hope. We might kill the hope of people who have lost everything – their families, their friends and their homes.
Most of us have visited the places where refugees and internally displaced persons are placed. The conditions of life for these people in so-called “tent towns” and rail wagons are unbearable.
In conclusion, I express my full support for the draft recommendation that has been proposed by our distinguished rappporteur. I hope that it will be helpful for the solution of displaced persons’ problems in the entire European house.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Aliyev. The first person who has the right to reply is Mr Busek, and I am happy to give him the floor for four minutes.
Mr BUSEK (Special Co-ordinator of the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe). – It is impossible to take up every question that has been raised. I shall try to deal with the main subject. It is right that the expression “quick start project” was misleading. It was a mistake. Many politicians claimed that the Marshall plan was coming. That is not the reality. The situation after the second world war cannot be compared with the situation in South-eastern Europe. To the region, the quick start project meant that today the money would be decided and that tomorrow the capability would arise. That is not possible. We must prepare the ground. We must know which project we are undertaking. If it is a cross-border project, both governments have to agree on it. That is one of our problems. One state may be saying that the project has priority and the other is saying, “Let’s postpone it.”
The Stability Pact is only an honest broker. We are dependent on the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and other organisations. Things are done by them. I might say to recipient countries that if something is appearing as a problem, the banks will be happy to postpone the project. That is clear. The rules must be followed and, for example, there must be tendering. We cannot decide that something must be done and say that it will be done tomorrow.
There should be no railway project. Do not think that any bank will want to finance railways. The return on investment is very long term, and bankruptcy can almost be expected. Such a project has to be initiated by state railways.
Another factor is clearance. The Danube is clear at Novisad and the problem is a bridge. I proposed that a new bridge should be built, but that was not accepted by the serving government. It wanted the same bridge that was destroyed by Nato to be rebuilt stone by stone. Therefore, we are talking not of ten months but of two years or more. The Danube cannot be used as long as there is a pontoon bridge. The other famous bridge is at Vidin-Kalafat. It will be started in the middle of the year.
Reconciliation is important. It will not take place as we move from one day to the other. There is talk of a heavy burden that stems from history and from other factors. If one neighbour suppressed another neighbour, there is a difficult situation. We started a reconciliation initiative, especially with the younger generation, but it has to be moved forward step by step. Western countries should be asked whether all the reconciliation should take place in our countries. I know of some good examples that apply to Austria and our Czech neighbours, for example. There are many open problems.
Organised crime is a serious problem, and it lies with the weakness of the state. Mainly, criminality has not originated from south-east Europe. Drugs are coming from Afghanistan. The trafficking in human beings comes from the Far East. It is a matter of the weakness of the state and a lack of co-operation. We are consumers of drugs. I find that at conferences everyone is listening nicely to me but giving no answer. To be straight, we need some global efforts. The problem is not limited to Europe. Criminality is a global problem.
If we are to deal with corruption, there must be work for the public, higher wages, a legal system and a working courts system. There is also the need for close co-operation. If we did not fully succeed, that is connected with the economic situation. Migration is connected with the social situation and with the improvement of the economy. We must put all these things together. I thank all those who asked questions because the process is helpful if we are to point the finger at the things that are problems for us.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Busek. We wish you all the best in continuing with your important engagement and work.
I call Ms Zwerver, the Rapporteur of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography. She, too, has four minutes.
Ms ZWERVER (Netherlands). – Thank you, Mr President. I thought that Baroness Hooper would be called before me but I am happy to take over.
I thank everyone who complimented me on the report. It is always nice to get some compliments. Indeed, I hardly heard any criticism. Perhaps Ms Bušić and Ms Ferić-Vac were slightly critical, but in the end they, too, were happy with the report.
Ms Bušić said many things about the Stability Pact which I do not need to repeat. We have been asked about the stability of the situation, which is a relevant question in this context. I think that there cannot be peace in a region where there are still more than 1 million IDPs and refugees. That is an unstable situation. The Stability Pact, even though we have put a great deal of money into restructuring, will not bring peace in the end. The people should be able to go home, or they should be able to stay where they are and make a new life.
The past two years have marked a significant improvement in the process of return. I am happy to say that many people were able to return to their homes. However, many others were unable to do so. Ms Bušić talked about the economic situation, as did Mr Busek. It is improving but it remains rather poor. People are unemployed. People will not go back to a region where they do not have employment, where housing has not been reconstructed, where the basic infrastructure is not in place and where children cannot go to school. A great deal of work needs to be done in these areas.
As I said earlier, I was able to speak to the women of Srebrenica and Sarajevo. Many women did not want to go back to Srebrenica: they felt insecure and traumatised, and wanted to stay in Sarajevo and make a new life for their children. They face difficulties, however, because people are returning to their houses in Sarajevo. The women are living illegally in the houses of people who fled during the war.
I plead with the international community not to forget the problems in the Balkans, and not to forget the Stability Pact. We can still criticise – we can criticise a great deal – but that should not prevent us from continuing to put money into the region. When there is no war, western Europe tends to forget those issues. I issue my plea for the sake of all the people in the region and all internally displaced persons. We must step up our past commitments, keep the Stability Pact going and provide the necessary money. The countries concerned must themselves be serious about reconciliation and stabilisation. That is another plea.
I thank Assembly members again for their nice comments about my report.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr Iwińsky, Chairperson of the committee, would like to comment. He has two minutes.
Mr IWIŃSKY (Poland). – Let me kick off by recalling the moment in 1992 when a delegation from our committee arrived in Sarajevo, which was then being bombed. We also visited Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and other countries in the area. Nearly eleven years have elapsed since then, and fortunately we are no longer going on such missions – fortunately because that is a sign of improvement in the situation. However, as Ms Zwerver pointed out, more than a million refugees and displaced persons remain in the region, which cannot be considered normal. Many of those people have been in that position for more than ten years.
I see several positive elements, however. For instance, there is increasing co-operation between governments that are contributing jointly to the improvement of the situation in the area of return. However, we need more international financial assistance and loans for return and integration projects.
As several speakers emphasised, the whole process of the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe requires not just more visibility on the part of the Council of Europe and a greater presence of parliamentarians but, to put it bluntly, parliamentary control. I would be happy to see an increasing role for the parliaments as well as the Parliamentary Assembly.
THE PRESIDENT. – I call Baroness Hooper, who has four minutes.
Baroness HOOPER (United Kingdom). – I agree with Ms Zwerver. It was a good idea to debate the two reports together, as they are complementary.
I thank all who have participated in an excellent debate that should add greatly to the impact of the reports. Mr Busek’s participation was especially important, and his winding-up speech was particularly useful.
Many people in the region will follow closely what has been said here today. It represents a snapshot of progress to date as well as intentions for the future. Many useful suggestions have been made. I particularly applaud Mr Severin’s observation that parliamentarians from countries in the region should take advantage of the opportunity to meet in the Assembly and to integrate and co-ordinate their activities. Perhaps we can follow that up in a positive way.
There has been a great deal of consensus on both reports. I do not think that mine, in particular, was controversial. At least no amendments were tabled, I am happy to say.
I thank the secretariat of my committee for all its help and support. Copies of the report of proceedings of our parliamentary conference in Tirana are available to anyone interested in studying them further.
I also agree with Ms Zwerver that we should not forget the people of the region, and should not forget what we have said and promised today.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call the Vice-President of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, Mr Kirilov.
Mr KIRILOV (Bulgaria). – I think that we are managing to embrace reality more and more, not just in the Assembly but in regard to the expectations of the people in the region. This is not a Marshall plan, and some of the procedures are cumbersome. But does that mean that we must put up with everything? There have been instances of inefficiency in the implementation of some infrastructure projects. We must get on with the implementation of those projects. I am glad that Mr Busek pointed that out. parliamentarians must try to focus on that, and to play their role both in their own countries and in the context of project implementations.
As for the problem of displaced persons, yes, it takes time to heal hatred, but we must be realistic. We cannot put up with certain events. One example is mentioned in the report: 6 000 gypsies driven out of Kosovo still live in Macedonia. Why? I could possibly understand the hatred and bad feeling among, for instance, Albanians and Serbs, but why are gypsies still living in a country that is experiencing quite a few difficulties for other reasons? We must be vigorous, and do all we can to expedite matters.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Kirilov. That contribution brings us to the end of the debate.
We now proceed to a vote.
The Committee on Economic Affairs and Development has presented a draft resolution to which no amendments have been tabled.
The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography has presented a draft recommendation to which two amendments have been tabled.
I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to one minute.
We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Ms Feric-Vać, Mr Pangalos, Mr Sfyriou, Mr Kirilov, Ms de Zulueta, Mr Škrabalo, Mr Jansson, Mr Akhvlediani, Mr Čekuolis, Mr Stankevič, Ms Bušić, Mrs Stoyanova, Miss Toshev and Mr Torbar, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 13.ii, after the word “Croatia”, insert the following words:
“, in order to implement the action plan on the repossession of property which has already given significant results”.
I call Ms Feric-Vać to support the amendment.
Ms FERIC-VAĆ (Croatia). – I tabled the amendment to seek clarification, as Croatia is already using budgetary resources to implement the action plan. That has yielded encouraging results.
THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr IWIŃSKY (Poland). – The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.
Amendment No. 1 is adopted.
We now come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Ms Feric-Vać, Mr Pangalos, Mr Sfyriou, Mr Kirilov, Ms de Zulueta, Mr Škrabalo, Mr Jansson, Mr Akhvlediani, Mr Čekuolis, Mr Stankevič, Ms Bušić, Mrs Stoyanova, Miss Toshev and Mr Torbar, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraph 13.ii.g with the following sub-paragraph:
“to promote projects for employment and social policies through domestic financing and international assistance, that would improve economic and social conditions of all ethnic minorities;”
I have received an oral sub-amendment. The original amendment should have not replaced paragraph 13.ii.g but should have added something to it. The oral sub-amendment assists us in our work and I can accept it unless ten or more members of the Assembly object. Is there any objection to the oral sub-amendment being discussed?
That is not the case.
I call Ms Feric-Vać to move the amendment in the amended form.
Ms FERIC-VAĆ (Croatia). – The words in Amendment No. 2 are exactly what are needed to improve the overall position of national minorities in Croatia. The problem could be increased through increased financing. It is not a political problem, but a financial one. The amendment clarifies that point. It would be a substantial help in solving problems.
THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment as amended?…
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland). – The committee is in favour of the amendment as amended.
THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.
Amendment No. 2, as amended, is adopted.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 9519 revised, as amended.
The voting is open.
The draft recommendation in Document 9519 revised, as amended, is adopted.
We will proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 9638.
The voting is open.
The draft resolution in Document 9638 is adopted.
16. Change to the membership of committees
THE PRESIDENT. – The following changes in the membership of committees have been proposed by national delegations, and I hope that I pronounce the names properly:
Czech Republic
Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs
Members: Mr Jaroslav Lopbkowicz and Mr Jiri Maštálka
Alternates: Mr Petr Lachnit and Mr Petr Rafaj
Sub-Committee on Local and Regional Democracy
Member: Mr Petr Lachnit
Alternate: Mr Jiri Maštálka
Sub-Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries
Member: Mr Jaroslav Lopbkowicz
Sub-Committee on Food and Consumer Protection
Member: Mr Jaroslav Lopbkowicz
Alternate: Mr Jiri Maštálka
Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities
Member: Mr František Kroupa
Alternate Mr František Mezihorák
Poland
Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Member: Mr Adam Gierek (in place of Mr Jerzy Smorawinski)
Alternate: Mr Jerzy Smorawiński (in place of Mr Adam Gierek)
Russian Federation
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
Member: Mr Valery Galchenko
Committee on Economic Affairs and Development
Member: Mr Valery Galchenko (in place of Mr Vladimir Grachev)
Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Member: Mr Valery Galchenko
The Secretariat has just given me more names of the Czech Republic delegation.
Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography
Member: Mrs Daniele Filipiová
Alternate: Mrs Anna Čurdová
Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Member: Mr František Mezihorák
Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs
Member: Mr Jiri Maštálka
Alternate: Mr Petr Rafaj
Committee on Rule of Procedure and Immunities
Member: Mr František Kroupa
Alternate: Mr František Mezihorák
Are these changes agreed to?
They are agreed to.
17. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting
THE PRESIDENT. – I remind you that during deliberations on the order of business earlier today, the Assembly agreed that speaking time in the debates on Tuesday morning and the whole of Wednesday and Thursday will be limited to four minutes.
I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting tomorrow at 10 a.m. with the orders of the day which were approved today.
Are there any objections?…
That is not the case.
The orders of the day of the next sitting are therefore agreed.
The sitting is closed.
(The sitting was closed at 7.05 p.m.)