contents 
page for this sitting is given at the end of the verbatim report.
|
AS (2006) CR 25 |
Provisional edition |
2006 ORDINARY SESSION
________________________
(Fourth part)
REPORT
Twenty-fifth sitting
Tuesday 3 October 2006 at 10 a.m.
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.
The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the verbatim report.
Mr van der Linden, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.
THE PRESIDENT. – The minutes of proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Sitting have not yet been distributed. They will be presented for approval at a later sitting.
THE PRESIDENT. – Yesterday, the Assembly agreed to limit speaking time in all debates to four minutes except on Friday. However, since the debate on the current situation in Kosovo has been removed from today’s business, I propose that speaking time in today’s debates should be five minutes.
Is that agreed?
It is agreed.
3. Changes in the membership of committees
THE PRESIDENT. – Our next business today is to consider changes proposed by the Italian and Spanish delegations in the membership of committees. These are set out in document Commissions (2006) 6 Addendum 2.
Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?
They are agreed to.
4. Debate on general policy on the situation in the Balkans
THE PRESIDENT. – The business this morning is on “The debate on general policy on the situation in the Balkans” presented by Mr Eörsi on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, Document 11050, with addresses by Mr Sali Berisha, Prime Minister of Albania, and Mr Adnan Terzić, Chairperson of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The list of speakers closed at 6.30 p.m. yesterday; 46 names are on the list.
The debate will continue this afternoon. However, I will interrupt the list of speakers at around 12.40 p.m. in order to allow Mr Berisha and Mr Terzić, who cannot be with us this afternoon, to reply to the debate.
I call Mr Eörsi, the rapporteur. He has eight minutes.
Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – The international media give us the perception and the feeling that the situation in the Balkans continues to deteriorate. However, we politicians should not be subjected to the impressions provided by the media because we all know that the media only use bad news. Good news is not reported.
We all know that the situation in the Balkans is not as satisfactory as we would like it to be. However, there are many examples of how the situation is better than it is perceived across Europe. There were elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina last weekend, and some people might have preferred a different outcome. That is normal in politics, but the election was more or less okay.
In the last part-session, we discussed the separation of Montenegro. We all concluded that the process was peaceful. No shots were fired and there was no blood. In fact, it was so peaceful that it was not newsworthy in the international media. However, we must be encouraged by the fact that it was peaceful and bear it in mind that the President of Serbia, Mr Tadić, was the first to acknowledge the independence of Montenegro, which he visited. All the messages were very peaceful. I also want to mention Mr Tadić’s visit to Croatia and to Bosnia and Herzegovina. There are many good signs that the situation is improving.
The Council of Europe and the international community in general are extremely good at criticising countries. We tell them what to do, what they should do better and what they cannot do, but are we good enough at criticising ourselves? Does the European Community – the Council of Europe, the European Union and others – do enough to make the Balkans a success story? I have concluded that we do not have a comprehensive Balkans strategy. Do we have a vision for the Balkans? Do we have a strategy to deal with the whole region?
I have also concluded that often we deal only with individual countries in the Balkans. We have a good relationship with Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania and Macedonia, but we lack a Balkans strategy. Although we take the traditional approach of having bilateral relationships with the countries of the western Balkans, I propose that we follow the example shown by Finland, Austria and, I think, Germany of appointing ambassadors to the Balkans as a whole. That would not cost more money because the ambassadors could reside in the capital cities. It would help us to co-ordinate a Balkans policy for all member states. We would all have a more comprehensive Balkans strategy which, at the end of the day, would result in a more comprehensive European strategy.
Our vision is to have a reunited Europe. The Council of Europe is quite good at achieving that, but we need to co-operate more with other organisations. We all remember that NATO enlargement was purely a result of a political decision. After a war, countries feel insecure. Countries that are not yet officially part of NATO should be part of the Partnership for Peace, and have the prospect of joining NATO when that becomes possible. That would help to calm down tensions.
We address the European Union in the report in order to provide a real European prospect to those countries. It is true that we can speak about enlargement fatigue, but of course we politicians are also responsible for this fatigue. However, we have to think about whether it is in our interests to stabilise the Balkans as we did earlier. We need to have a vision, which must be implemented, and timing is very important.
Let me just underline that, when the late Prime Minister Djindic had the courage to undertake reforms, Europe remained silent. If I may, let me just point out that Albania, whose Prime Minister is sitting here, also took lots of important steps towards reform. What was the response from Europe? I think that there was not one, and it was a mistake, so we must change these policies.
To avoid misunderstanding, let me say that I am not talking about setting dates for these countries, but we should do more than just use simple rhetoric about vague European prospects. There should be a road map for what these countries should do and what response should come from the European Union, the Council of Europe and others.
I propose one step in this report – it is to focus on citizens. I just heard – and I was shocked – that 70% to 80% of the people in Serbia have never been abroad. When the Schengen system is enlarged, even fewer people can go abroad because of the visa regime. That is understandable because of EU regulation and the cost of visas. I think that we should help those people, especially students, to travel as much as possible to the European Union so that, when they return home, they can spread our values. How can we achieve that? We can do so only if we introduce a zero-cost visa regime.
On the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, of course there should be increased co-operation from the respective countries in the Balkans. We should understand, however, that the international tribunal is not only a legal body, but one with political effects. The fact that Slobodan Milošević died in prison sent a very bad signal, because it is better that such people should be sentenced to provide justice to the people involved. If too many people die in prison, it does not help. The legality of such things may or may not be perfect, but we need to pay attention to the political effects as well.
Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to conclude by saying that we need to have a target because if we do not have one, we can achieve nothing. We need to have a clear set of visions and to understand what tools Europe in general, the Council of Europe and others can have. If our mission is implemented with those tools, I think that we can achieve our goal, which is to reunite all the countries in Europe, including those in the Balkans – of course, they were originally members of Europe – in an enlarged European family. That should be our goal. Thank you very much, Mr President.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mr Eörsi. I now welcome Mr Berisha, the Prime Minister of Albania. Colleagues, it is my pleasure to welcome in our midst our honoured guests, the Prime Minister of Albania, Mr Sali Berisha, and the Prime Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr Adnan Terzić.
Dear friends, today’s debate on the situation in the Balkan countries shows the importance this Assembly attaches to its relations with the countries of the region. Your presence here, honourable gentlemen, shows the importance you attach to strengthening and enhancing co-operation between your countries and within the larger context of Europe and European institutions.
For the past 15 years, the Assembly over which I preside has walked alongside countries of central, eastern and South-Eastern Europe on their road to becoming democratic countries respecting the core values of the Council of Europe: human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Political and legal reforms and consolidation of democracy and democratic institutions have been mainly the result of an intensive dialogue and co-operation with the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly.
The European perspective has become essential to democracy, stability, peace and prosperity for the whole region. On the other hand, the crisis brought about by the rejection of the constitutional treaty in France and my own country, the Netherlands, last year has led to questions being raised about the future of the EU enlargement. It is obvious that any further enlargement will be subject to strict scrutiny of an applicant country’s performance.
The EU however, should stick to the promises it has made about the western Balkans’ long-term prospect of membership; otherwise, Europe and the EU will lose their credibility. But if Europe should stick to its promises, your countries also need to respect their obligations and carry out wide-ranging, profound reforms in order to transform your societies into real democracies.
Much of the success of reform, economic development and regional stability will depend on the success of your work to strengthen institutions, root out corruption and do away with networks of organised crime. It is up to the countries and peoples of the region to address and overcome these problems.
Prime Minister Berisha, under your leadership, your government has stepped up efforts to fight corruption, strengthen the judiciary and increase the efficiency of your public administration. We in the Parliamentary Assembly can only continue to encourage and support your efforts fully to meet the Council of Europe criteria and recommendations.
Ratification by the European Parliament of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between Albania and the European Commission is an important step in advancing your countries’ aspirations for full integration in Euro-Atlantic structures. However, there are serious challenges ahead, among them the forthcoming local elections. These elections will test Albania’s determination to push forward with reform and become a genuine functioning democracy. The Council of Europe and its Assembly stand ready to continue to assist you in achieving this goal.
Prime Minister Berisha, you have the floor.
Mr BERISHA (Prime Minister of Albania). – Dear Mr President, dear Mr Secretary General and honourable members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like warmly to greet President René van der Linden, Secretary General Terry Davis and all members of the Parliamentary Assembly and thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address you today. I am indeed honoured by this occasion.
I also feel immensely indebted to you and the Council of Europe for your continuous support for Albania. The Council of Europe was the first international institution that I visited in 1992, only a few weeks after I was elected President of Albania, to ask for your assistance with our project to build a democratic society based on the rule of law on the ruins of the most Orwellian dictatorship that Europe has known. Since then, the Council has always been on Albania’s side.
I am deeply moved and proud to speak before you all, dear friends. I have had the opportunity and the privilege to debate and defend with you the democratic values and principles we hold in common. This enriching experience has inspired and empowered me to lead the efforts of the Albanian citizens to vote out one of the most kleptocratic regimes of modern times which was installed in Albania.
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that images of the past unpleasant, unhappy news about my country still linger in your memories. I stand before you today to assure you that Albania has archived those events in its past and is swiftly moving toward a new and European reality.
Last year, overcoming the autocracy of the country’s kleptocratic regime, Albanians succeeded in producing a peaceful rotation of power. They voted in scores to tear down the wall of corruption, organised crime and poverty that was thrusting them away from the democratic world. The Council of Europe resolution, elections in Albania and its monitoring of last year’s elections were a valuable encouragement and assistance to all Albanian voters.
My government took office pledging to restore the rule of law – an essential condition for guaranteeing fundamental rights of citizens – to fight against organised crime, uproot the kleptocratic system and consolidate democratic institutions, as the foundation for all other reforms. A year ago, more than two thirds of all court decisions were not enforced, and the index of the rule of law was three times lower than that of Burkina Faso. Since then, the firm and fair application of the enforcement of all court decisions and the abrogation of hundreds of unlawful decisions have resulted in the law prevailing throughout the country.
In past years, Albanians have suffered more than any other people from organised crime, due to its symbiotic collusion with power at all levels. Organised crime had become so powerful that it was practically the real power behind government decisions, thus managing to make Albania a major trafficking territory. Facing such a reality, we adopted a stance of zero tolerance towards organised crime. A year later, I am happy to inform you that, thanks to the courage and professionalism of Albania’s police and other law enforcement agencies and their excellent co-operation with other countries’ law enforcement agencies, more than 33 major criminal organisations and groups have been tracked down, and hundreds of their members and all their bosses have been brought to justice, and their assets – worth millions of euros – have been seized and confiscated.
In a drive to curb criminal trafficking, the parliament enacted a three-year ban on the use in our waters of speedboats, which were being widely used for drug and human trafficking. As a result of those efforts, according to the international centre for the fight against organised crime, based in Bucharest, the drug trafficking route is moving from Albania. Albania today is a safe country and is widely perceived as such. The fact that, during the summer, 30% more foreign tourists visited Albania is a clear indication of this new reality.
In past years, corruption in Albania led to the development of a kleptocratic system. According to international reports, the bribes and illegal payments that Albanian citizens and businesses paid to officials in exchange for the very services and rights to which they were freely entitled were estimated at around €1.4 billion. The country’s customs and justice systems were among the most corrupt in the world, while state capture was widespread.
The fight against corruption – the cancer that has weakened and drained the body and soul of my nation – has been another major priority for the Albanian Government. We have initiated thorough, energetic measures to overcome corruption. We have adopted a small, efficient government on a diet, replacing the large, beefed-up administration. We have instituted new administrative and ethical standards, with the aim of preventing the use of public money for private and personal benefit. We have decreased by 40% all administrative expenses. Most of those savings were made simply by ending the mismanagement and abuse of public funds by the administration. We have amended the law on conflict of interest. The previous administration was built on conflicts of interest, but today there are no reported cases of such conflict, and if any are found they will be dealt with accordingly.
We have amended the law on public procurement. As a result, 92% of goods and services are now procured through open bidding, compared with a mere 25% a year ago. Parliament has also approved a law on whistle-blowers and denouncers of corruption, offering them special witness protection under the law and rewarding them with 6% of the recovered funds.
Our fight against corruption, smuggling and fiscal evasion has produced significant and encouraging results. Revenues from tax collection are 24% higher than forecast, which allowed us to have a supplementary budget in June. The cost of procurement has decreased by 25%, and the expenses of public administration have decreased by 40%. Bribery has also declined significantly. Corruption is a cancer in society. We have dealt a firm blow to the kleptocratic system that we inherited and are continuing our efforts to uproot this harmful phenomenon through our policy of zero tolerance.
Creating a favourable business climate and making Albania the most attractive country for foreign investment is our government’s main objective in the economic field. To this end, alongside our efforts to restore and consolidate the rule of law, we have embarked on a truly fiscal revolution. Our goal is to implement a flat tax, at the lowest rate in Europe. So far, we have considerably lowered all taxes. According to the KPMG ranking, in 2006 Albania was the country with the highest percentage rate of tax reduction in the world.
In addition to this fiscal revolution, we have lowered by 33% to 45% the price of electricity for businesses, cut in half the cost of business registration and reduced the time required for business registration from 42 days to only eight days. Thorough deregulatory reform aiming to liberalise the licensing and administrative business procedures is also under way.
Last but not least, the government has launched a new initiative – “Albania 1 Euro”. From now on, investors from your countries can enter Albania paying only €1 at the border, register their business paying €1, or rent for €1 for 99 years the land necessary for investment in productive activities. Mines, hydropower plants and railways will be given out to investors for €1. A full range of other services will also be offered for the price of €1. I would like to use this opportunity to ask you to encourage investors in your countries to consider the opportunities and potentials that Albania offers. “Albania 1 Euro” is our promise to them. Our economy is doing well, with 6% growth and the opportunity for further growth in the year to come.
In co-operation with Council of Europe, our government has also embarked on meaningful reforms in the field of decentralisation, education, and other sectors such as property reform and information technology. “Albania in the age of the Internet” is our new effort to boost the IT penetration in Albanian society.
At the end of the autumn, Albania will hold local elections, and I pledge that my government will do its best to ensure a free and fair election process. I invite the parliamentarians of the Council of Europe to monitor those elections.
On 12 June, Albania signed the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union. Ratification of the agreement by the European Parliament at the beginning of last month was the ultimate recognition of Albania’s western vocation and the common values that Albania shares with your nations. At the same time, it showed appreciation of all 25 EU countries for the reforms undertaken by the government that I chair, and appreciation for Albania’s overall peaceful transformation during the past 14 years. Albania has made great achievements due to its great and unwavering efforts as well as to your generosity and exceptional solidarity. In these endeavours, we have greatly benefited from the assistance of your governments, your nations and the taxpayers of your countries. The assistance and support of the Council of Europe have played a great role in this, and we remain always grateful to you.
I want to seize this opportunity to reassure you that, for my government, the Stabilisation and Association Agreement is the most significant contract for my nation with the member states of the European Union and it constitutes a road map for Albania’s full integration into the EU. For this reason, I ask you positively to persuade your parliaments to ratify it as soon as possible.
For 14 years, Albania has built and retained an excellent and loyal partnership with NATO and the United States. Our armed forces are undergoing a deep transformation with the aim of building a modern and professional army. Our soldiers are serving alongside NATO units in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Afghanistan, and in coalition with the United States in Iraq.
My government is determined to introduce all necessary reforms and pay any price to deserve the invitation to join NATO at the first enlargement summit. Albania’s membership of NATO represents the most secure future for Albania and her citizens. The support of your governments and parliaments for that process will always be highly valued and appreciated.
The tragedies, wars and cruel dictatorships that the people
of the Balkans experienced during the last decade of the last century did
not extinguish their aspirations for freedom, human dignity and integration
into the EU and NATO. In a matter of a few years the Balkans leapt from an
age of
violent confrontations, wars, ethnic cleansing and blind nationalisms – paralleled
only by those in east Africa – into an age of friendly political,
economic and military co-operation, and of irreversible regional and European
integration. 2006 is an historic year for the peoples of the Balkans: today
they are more united than ever in their European project.
Two important countries of the region, Romania and Bulgaria, will become members of the European Union on 1 January 2007. Croatia has opened its membership negotiations with the EU. Macedonia has been given the status of EU candidate. Albania has signed its Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU. SAA negotiations have been opened for Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Republic of Montenegro proclaimed its independence. Kosovo is moving towards finalisation of its status as a free and democratic European country.
A few months ago, I visited Kosovo. With great pleasure, I observed that no other country had changed more than Kosovo in the past seven years. Out of the scorching and ashes of hundreds of thousands of burnt houses in its towns and villages, from the rivers of tears, enormous human sufferings and blood, out of the mass graves, the citizens of Kosovo rose like the phoenix. With the precious help, generosity and extraordinary solidarity provided by your nations and governments, they built anew hundreds of thousands of homes, schools and kindergartens. They held fair and free elections. With the assistance of the best western expertise, they built efficient democratic institutions and established the rule of law.
I was particularly gratified to witness, in my meetings with the common people of all ethnic origins and their political and religious leaders, their firm will and enthusiastic efforts to build a European Kosovo where all citizens are equal before the law. I was witness to the commitment and determination of the Albanian majority to forgive but not forget, to respect and guarantee the freedoms of all minorities and Serbs in particular, and to respect their religious and cultural heritages as well as their languages.
In the last century, Kosovo was at the heart of the Balkan crisis. I believe that a fair and just solution of the Kosovo issues, respecting the will of the Kosovo people, is closely linked to the stability of Albania and other neighbours – Macedonia and Montenegro – as well as the stability of the region.
Regrettably, despite all the changes that have occurred in Belgrade since the fall of the Milošević regime and despite all the fundamental differences between the current Serbian leadership and yesterday’s Serb communist nomenklatura, the ghost of greater Serbia remains, and a lack of realism still dominates Belgrade’s stance towards Kosovo.
As a witness to developments in the Balkans during the past two decades, I can say that there are no essential differences between the position adopted in the Serbian Constitution in the mid-1980s and the Serbian constitutional scenario of 2006. I also remind the Assembly that between 1991 and 1995, Belgrade’s only option for a Kosovo solution was partition, and the drawing up of maps that changed every three months. Today, in 2006, the partition of Kosovo is still Belgrade’s only option for a solution on the crucial question of the Balkans.
Yet I am deeply convinced that changing the existing international borders in the Balkans poses the danger of awakening the old conflicts, with severe consequences for the region. Furthermore, over 90% of Kosovo’s population are Albanian, and Kosovo has been the home of those people since the beginning of time. The idea of partition, with the aim of creating a pure ethnic country in a region where such homogeneous countries do not exist, is not only unhelpful but dangerous.
Albania has adopted, and maintains, a realistic stance on the solution of the issue of Kosovo’s final status. We have fully supported the mission of President Ahtisaari and the Contact Group. We believe that the final status of Kosovo must guarantee the rights and freedoms of Serbs and all other minorities in the country, that it must guarantee full and effective implementation of the decentralisation process in compliance with the European Charter on Local Self-Government, that it should ensure full respect for the cultural and religious heritage and that it should endorse the expressed will of the Kosovo people for independence.
I think that the independence of Kosovo is essential to its economic and social development, and crucial to its stability and the stability of the entire region. The independence of Kosovo will provide a permanent answer to the fluidity of the Albanian factor in the Balkans. That is why Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro share similar views on the final status of Kosovo. Furthermore, I believe that the independence of Kosovo would contribute to the stability of Serbia. It would help Serbia to depart from its recent past, marginalise its radical forces and speed up its demilitarisation, thus helping it to integrate in the Euro-Atlantic institutions and secure the future that the nation deserves. However, owing to the absence of realism in Belgrade, an agreement between Pristina and Belgrade is elusive. That is why I believe that the only remaining alternative is an imposed agreement. The same has applied to all important agreements in the history of the Balkans over the past 150 years.
At the same time, I remain deeply convinced that Albanians and Serbs must follow in the great tradition of the other European nations, and embark on a new chapter of neighbourliness and friendly co-operation to the benefit of our common European future.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. We now come to the address by Mr Terzić, Chairperson of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Prime Minister Terzić, since Bosnia and Herzegovina’s accession to the Council of Europe, your country has marked significant progress in building a stable, functional and efficient democracy. Just before the 10th anniversary of the Dayton Peace Agreement, in November 2005, you opened the Stabilisation and Association Agreement negotiations with the European Union. The start of the process of further European integration has made it even more imperative for your country to undertake reform and address the imperative need to strengthen state institutions.
We in the Assembly hope that the politicians that will emerge from the coming elections will have the courage and the political will to go beyond sectarian political divides, put an end to hate speech which leads to ethnic tensions and press ahead with reform which will benefit the European future of the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We also hope that the new parliament will adopt the draft higher education law and abandon continued discrimination based on ethnic origin.
Mr Prime Minister, your country has chosen to be a member of the Council of Europe, you want to become member of the EU and therefore you should respect your commitments and obligations. We in the Parliamentary Assembly will continue to be your partners in this process.
Prime Minister, you have the floor.
Mr TERZIĆ (Chairperson of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina) thanked the Assembly for the opportunity to speak at the part-session. Bosnia and Herzegovina was the 44th member state of the Council of Europe. At its inauguration on 24 April 2002 the then President of the Council of Europe had described Bosnia and Herzegovina as a young state with a tragic past which was turning to the future. The then President had asked Bosnia and Herzegovina to fulfil its commitments to build a new democracy.
Admission to the Council of Europe had meant that Bosnia and Herzegovina had realised that it was not alone and the way ahead had become clear. The experiences that Bosnia and Herzegovina had had since joining the Council of Europe had confirmed that. The Council had helped Bosnia and Herzegovina to democratise, to reform institutions, to set up an independent judiciary, to strengthen state bodies, to hold elections that met international standards and to fight organised crime. The future of the region was the key issue in the committee’s report. Two mechanisms were necessary to ensure positive developments: first, co-ordinated action through the Common Foreign and Security Policy; and, secondly, a clear perspective on European Union membership.
In 2003, at Thessaloniki, a clear signal had been given to the western Balkans on future inclusion in the European Union. The signal had not been repeated, although there had been many changes in the region. The perspective of European Union membership had led to a transformation similar to that which had occurred in eastern European states. However, the western Balkans had faced the additional challenges of conflict and had been required to meet conditions such as co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague. There had been reforms in many sectors, including health, education, employment, defence, taxation, the judiciary and the police. It was very difficult to make reforms simultaneously across so many areas. All countries in the region had been able to implement widespread reforms because of the encouraging signals received from the European Union. The political consensus had not been imposed from above. Three years after Thessaloniki, the region had been encompassed by European Union policy, and peace and prosperity were spreading through the promotion of common values.
However, the European Union itself had not learnt from the success of its transformative policy. The double “no” to the constitutional treaty had led to a debate on the future of the Union. It was not a tragic result, as a timely dose of scepticism was good for political élites across Europe and for those who felt that further integration was inevitable. The current debate on “absorption capacity” posed the danger of weakening the effects of enlargement and having an impact on the global reputation of the European Union. It was in the interests of the European Union that the western Balkans should be an area of safety and prosperity. The European Union should accept its global and historical role and not leave black holes in Europe. There were risks in the process of implementing reforms widely across the western Balkan states. Those countries might experience “reform fatigue”, which would strengthen conservative forces against further reform, and the public might be swayed against painful reforms. The European Union should therefore shoulder its historic responsibility and not turn back. The internal problems in the European Union had to be solved and the Union had to export reliability, not uncertainty. An open door policy would strengthen those in favour of reform in the western Balkans. In the past, waiting for the European Union and the United States to get involved had led to painful consequences for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The involvement of those two powers had led to stabilisation after the wars. Eleven years later, Bosnia and Herzegovina had a different image and identity. The obligations and values of the European Union and the Council of Europe would lead Bosnia and Herzegovina to prosperity. It was essential to work in the common interests of all. The Council of Europe and the European Union had constructed new identities for central and eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War. That should now be turned into reality for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Prime Minister.
I now call Mr Zingeris, who will speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group.
Mr ZINGERIS (Lithuania). – Following the recent statement by Mr Barosso, everyone was shocked by, as it were, the frozen future of our Balkan neighbours. The basic fact is that Balkan history is part of European history. It is deeply rooted in that. After the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, we should concentrate on the Balkans and overcome the disease of fear of enlargement for such a native European region.
The integrationist approach of the countries of the western Balkans was first articulated at the 2003 Thessaloniki Summit, which offered the prospect of eventual membership, however distant, of the Balkan countries, in return for reform. During that summit, EU leaders pledged that “the future of the Balkans is within the European Union”. However, today the prospect of a longer than planned, or even abandoned, integration process appears to be looming large. The fact is that today the international community does not have a common vision on the integration of the Balkans into EU structures.
Despite the extreme conditions in Kosovo and the negative legacies of authoritarianism, communism and nationalism, with substantial help from the international community, Kosovo has made a lot of progress in terms of democratisation, the transition to a market economy and overcoming the effects of forced migration of both Albanians and Serbs.
Kosovars have shown skill in governing, particularly in the privatisation programme and in the government’s efforts to fight organised crime, trafficking and corruption. Political leaders there are eager to show the region’s potential as a partner for NATO and as a member of the European Union, and accession to those two institutions has become a top priority for the Kosovars.
We can clearly see from the experience of Greece, Spain or Portugal that the transition to full membership for Albania, Serbia or Montenegro will not be a “short-term” process requiring only a “slightly larger outlay” by the EU. Pessimism in the Balkans is fuelled in part by poor economic performance. Foreign direct investment to foster economic development has been pouring into soon-to-be EU neighbours Romania and Bulgaria, rather than Bosnia or Serbia. The EU accession process, which has had such a positive impact on much of post-communist Europe, can only help countries that have already achieved a reasonable level of governance.
The Prime Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina just a few minutes ago mentioned our feelings after the fall of the wall in Berlin and the liberation of middle Europe. The same feeling should be created in the Balkans – the feeling that the Balkans can benefit from the reforms. There are no other possible solutions for the Balkans – only integration into the EU. As Serbian President Tadić said, all outstanding issues in the region will be much more difficult to resolve if European membership plans are cancelled. I believe that European Union integration is seen by all sides in the previously conflict-ridden region as the only commonly acceptable solution.
We support continuing the EU enlargement policy. EU enlargement was and still is the most successful policy. It promoted stability and security at the Union’s borders. In addition, EU membership is a strong incentive to carry out necessary structural political and economic reforms. Therefore, EU membership is crucial for the countries of the western Balkans and for stability in the region. The decision by the last European Council to grant candidate status to Macedonia is a strong political signal not only to that country but to the western Balkans region. Reform pays off and it must be maintained. However, we acknowledge that that decision does not mean that we do not have a responsibility to take further steps.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Zingeris. I now call Mr Platvoet, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr PLATVOET (Netherlands). – I thank both guest speakers for their accounts of the situation in their countries and for their efforts to take part in European structures. My group thinks that there are some good proposals for the development of countries in the western Balkans in Mr Eörsi’s report, including political co-operation, the obligations and commitments to Council of Europe principles and co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague to combat organised crime, trafficking of human beings and corruption, but we do not agree with all the proposals.
Of course we understand the points on European Union membership. The Prime Minister of Albania said to us that there is a strong will in those countries to become members of the European Union, but we must be realistic on that issue. The referendums in France and the Netherlands showed that there are those who want to temper and to slow down the enlargement of the European Union.
I agree with the Prime Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina that the story there is a sad one. It is important that those countries that are in a rush to become members of the European Union use the time available to them now to build up stable democracies, to respect human rights and to create a social welfare state. Perhaps that is a better way of avoiding the tensions that we saw in Poland and Hungary, which joined the European Union just two years ago.
Many countries have a strong desire to become members of NATO. We can understand that from a regional point of view, but the Group of the Unified European Left has another approach. It has become clearer and clearer over the past 10 years that NATO is a tool of the United States of America in implementing its policy of hegemony. Increasingly, NATO is being used as an alternative to the peace policy of the United Nations. The United States controls NATO, but it does not control the United Nations. The Bush government poses a threat to peace in the world. It is not involved in a war against terrorism, but from its policy, terrorism grows. From that wider perspective, we do not think that it is a good idea to let the countries of the western Balkans become members of NATO. It is necessary to debate that in Europe. We are already discussing the need to strengthen the United Nations, rather than NATO, so that we have a peacekeeping policy. We need to move away from the hegemony of the United States.
Peaceful co-operation between neighbouring countries in the western Balkans is a good tool. They need to build welfare states and to respect human rights. Those are the basic conditions to develop sustainable peace and prosperity in the region.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Platvoet. I call Mr Marcenaro, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that the Socialist Group had examined the draft resolution and gave it its support. The group was aware of the importance of the European perspective for the Balkans. It was necessary to look to the long-term future in establishing peace and co-operation in the Balkans. The Balkans and Europe had to face up to the problem of achieving co-existence while respecting differences. That was a challenge for modern democracies.
In the past, when the former Yugoslavia had come to an end, there had been division in the Balkans. Europe had to promote cohesion and needed a regional strategy and a clear timetable for integration. Enlargement might cause some problems, but it offered an alternative to the export of democracy by force of arms. Europe had to embrace that approach. Achieving peace in the Balkans was an issue not just for political élites but for all the people of Europe.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Marcenaro. I call Mr Sasi, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr SASI (Finland). – What happened in the western Balkans in the 1990s was a terrible tragedy. Many people were killed and there were great religious and ethnic tensions. There was no tradition of democracy and there was huge corruption because there was no market economy. The situation was very bad. Dictators control their countries with fear and by killing people. However, it is difficult to introduce democracy through peaceful means, as we saw in Iraq and the western Balkans. We were not able to pacify the areas at the beginning of the process. Fortunately, the Balkans are now on the right path and stability is guaranteed. However, we must remember that international troops are in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Kosovo. I do not see a way of withdrawing them in the near future. There is still much work to do.
There is, however, a path for those countries to follow which will bring them success and a good future. It consists of integration into the European Union. The prospect of that was raised in the late 1990s and clear steps, such as stabilisation and association agreements, have been taken towards membership. The countries involved in that process and the European Union have made that commitment. Membership of NATO, or at least participation in Partnership for Peace, is very important. We need their military forces to co-operate with the military forces of democratic countries, because countries with democratic traditions can show them what the correct role of an army is. I think that NATO has a lot to teach those countries, especially their military authorities. However, we should not forget our own Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
The monitoring processes really provide benefits. We try to show countries the right way to make such commitments, and they act accordingly. Sometimes, the pace is quite slow, but progress is being made in the right direction. We can also give technical assistance; we must strengthen that, as is said in the report.
We can already see that Slovenia is successfully on the way to becoming part of Europe. Next year, it will introduce the euro. I think that that is a goal for all those countries. The negotiations with Croatia are progressing very well. However, there is now a discussion in the European Union about whether the door is open for all countries. It has been said that, when there is no constitution, you cannot open the door.
It is my firm belief that every country in Europe must have the right to join the European Union. What is the core of the European Union? It is peace. It is a peace process, and where we need peace is in the western Balkans. The European Union must help those countries in future. I hope that all European Union countries ratify the treaty on the constitution – that will help – and the European Union must be ready in all circumstances to take new members. That is the solidarity that we have to show in the European Union. We have to remember, however, that membership also has a price – there are clear conditions, such as the Copenhagen criteria – and you cannot give a schedule for membership. Those countries that want to join the European Union must fulfil the requirements. And this time, the European Union must be very tough. We must demand that countries fulfil the criteria. Fulfilling them is very necessary for those countries, too.
I appeal to the countries in the region. You have to settle with the past. You have to bring war criminals to court. Things must be settled very soon, and then you can turn a page in your history and look forward. Do it as soon as possible and emphasise the role of the rule of law in your countries.
The question of Kosovo will be solved, I hope, by the end of this year, and every country must show flexibility as far as Kosovo is concerned. President Ahtisaari is a very skilful negotiator. You must trust in him – you must help him – because that is one issue that we must solve very soon. It is very difficult to see much progress being made in the whole region if it is not solved.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, you have to strengthen the state institutions and reduce bureaucracy. Thank you for your attention.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Mooney, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Mr MOONEY (Ireland). – Thank you very much, Mr President. I should like to compliment my esteemed friend and colleague, Mátyás Eörsi, the leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, on his excellent report. It was prepared in somewhat limited circumstances, but I think that he has grasped the essence of the current status of the countries of the western Balkans.
I wish to draw the attention of distinguished members to elements of paragraphs 11 and 12, which I believe are at the core of what we are attempting to do in helping the countries of the western Balkans. Mr Eörsi’s report states, “If Europe does not show more interest and better political commitment in the western Balkans it might be faced with a growing sentiment of marginalisation which could lead to undesirable consequences.” It continues, “The international community should learn lessons from errors committed in the past and would be well advised to listen closer and aim at understanding the domestic political challenges the countries face.” There is the old saying, which is something of a cliché now, that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.
I welcome the overall developments and improvements in stabilising the various countries of the western Balkans both in their political and state institutions. I endorse the view of Mr Sasi, our colleague from Finland, that there is a need, particularly in some countries – he referred to Bosnia and Herzegovina – to strengthen state institutions. In that regard, I wish to record my appreciation of and welcome for the elections that took place over the weekend. The international monitoring committees of the various institutions, not least our own – Lord Russell-Johnston represented the Parliamentary Assembly – have reported overall that the elections were free and fair. Let us hope that this will be the basis for going forward to stabilise democracy and the democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
However, Kosovo looms large, and Serbia is even larger still. There is a fear that instability may occur in Serbia if early elections are held. This is because of the rise of extreme nationalism in that country, as reflected by the growing popularity of the Serbian Radical Party. The phenomenon is due to a perception among Serbs that the international community is intent on punishing Serbia for its role in the 1990s. The key is the outcome of the final status talks in Kosovo, which if unfavourable to Serbia could lead to regional instability. This, coupled with the decision on independence for Montenegro, is hurting the ruling coalition, and there is a psychological impact of both these issues – the Montenegrin independence referendum and the ongoing final status talks in Kosovo – that is creating a deep psychological scar on the Serbian body politic and, indeed, on the Serbians themselves. In that regard, I believe that we in Europe should do everything possible to embrace Serbians and the other countries of the western Balkans.
I share the view expressed by Mr Eörsi in his report that western countries should liberalise and ease visa restrictions, especially those on Serbia. It is shocking that so few Serbians have travelled outside their own country. It is inevitable, if they are looking inward, that a degree of extreme nationalism is beginning to rise in that country.
I also want to put it on the record that we in Ireland have continued to give aid in every way possible, by direct development assistance of over €1 million to projects in Serbia. Some 213 Irish peacekeeping forces are also in Kosovo as part of the UNMIK force.
I would also draw attention to the fact that there are gathering clouds over what is going on between Serbia and Kosovo. It is obvious to everyone that developments in Kosovo have an impact on the region as a whole, especially on the political situation in Serbia and on the EU’s relations with Serbia. Serbia’s involvement in the final status negotiations will be essential, and I welcome the statements by the Serbian Government that there can be no return to the pre-1990s situation. However, let us make no secret of the fact the Serbia has stuck rigidly to its policy of more than autonomy but less than independence.
I should also like to draw the Assembly’s attention to the fact that the committee of which I am a member – the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population – is currently preparing a report on the situation of longstanding refugees and displaced persons in South-Eastern Europe. It is the committee’s view that future prosperity and political stability in the region will not be achieved without fully resolving the situation of the remaining refugees and displaced persons.
Eleven years after the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, and seven years after the armed conflict in Kosovo, there are still 444 000 displaced persons and 165 000 refugees in the Balkans. The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population is urging governments to redress the remaining obstacles that preclude voluntary return or local integration and has listed a variety of different means whereby that can be achieved.
Overall, though, I welcome this report. I am grateful, and I believe that the Assembly should be grateful, to Mr Eörsi for once again focusing on an area that Europe seems to be largely forgetting – and it will do so at its peril.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Durrieu.
Mrs DURRIEU (France) said that the Dayton Agreement was ten years old and had led to ten years of peace. However, there was still a military presence in the region. Until the military left, it was not possible to say that we had truly achieved peace. New situations were emerging and new risks were being created. The question was whether we could manage those new risks. For example, 200 000 Montenegrins living in Serbia now had a different status. Similarly, there were now 100 000 Serbians living in Montenegro. New policies were needed for managing change. Some 90% of Kosovans were Albanian in origin, but within the country as a whole 90% were Serbs: that created a risk which needed to be managed.
The future lay in European integration. Within each country, societies needed to be integrated in order to create overall European integration. Countries wanted European integration for protection and defence, but Europe should become a place of markets, structures, and justice – as established by the Council of Europe. She asked whether members sought a defence Europe, with its own policies. She did not believe all countries sought to follow that path to its conclusion.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Geghamyan.
Mr GEGHAMYAN (Armenia) said that in 1918, at the end of the First World War, the then President of the United States formulated the principle of national self-determination. The United States had established a protectorate of two different ethnic groups in the Balkans. Historians had later concluded that the implementation of the principal of national self-determination had destroyed the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In Montenegro, self-determination had brought about the beginning of the collapse of society: that had acted as a sign to the whole of Europe. He cited the example of Azerbaijan, where the results of a referendum on self-determination had not been accepted by the international community, although it had been conducted according to international electoral guidelines. Civil unrest had ensued. He hoped that the resolution on the subjects under discussion would advocate a universal approach, and exclude force, since there was no alternative to national self-determination.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Beck.
Mrs BECK (Germany) congratulated Mr Eörsi on his report, noting the time available and the complexity of the subject. She was glad to see that the countries of the Balkans were moving forward, but emphasised that tensions in the region were still high. Peace was accompanied by extreme nationalism and that prevented a country from recovering as quickly as it might otherwise do. Parts of the Balkans still lacked democratic structures. Elections were held on ethnic lines and the religious backgrounds of the candidates were still emphasised. Fundamental democratic rights were thus violated, and the Council of Europe must express its dissatisfaction with such a system. The situation in the Balkans was a challenge to all Europeans, not just to the countries highlighted in the report.
Paragraph 14 of the draft resolution was important as it emphasised the need for increased ease of travel for Balkan citizens. Nationalism was best tackled by allowing people to travel and experience other cultures, but decision makers and governments established regimes that were counter-productive to that spirit of openness. Ease of travel had to be tackled before the Balkans became part of the European Union. She urged members to adopt the idea of a road map.
(Mr Lloyd, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the chair in place of Mr van der Linden.)
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Lavtižar-Bebler.
Mrs LAVTIŽAR-BEBLER (Slovenia). – I congratulate the rapporteur on his work. I fully agree with the conclusions and recommendations of his report. The western Balkans is a key region for the whole continent, as the report points out. Events in the region always affect the wider European area. It is therefore our common responsibility to find proper solutions by helping countries in the area concerned. Further progress and improvement in the functioning of democratic institutions, the rule of law and respect for human rights are the key to lasting political and economic stability in the area. I agree with the rapporteur that the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly should play a vital role in pursuing those aims.
A clear message of the European perspective is also vital
for those countries. The European Union should not forget its obligation
to enable the countries of the western Balkans to obtain their objective.
Slovenia is particularly aware of that, having once walked the path of assertion
in the international community itself. As a young participant in Euro-Atlantic
integrations and the
country presiding over the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
in 2005, Slovenia has directed – and, as president of the European
Union in 2008, will direct – its efforts towards ensuring that issues
involving the countries of the western Balkans remain high on the agenda of
the international community.
For the national parliament of the Republic of Slovenia, co-operation with the parliaments of the countries of the western Balkans is a high priority. Emphasis should also be placed on direct and all-round co-operation by the Slovenian Parliament with nearly all the parliaments of the region. Given its historical and geographical position, Slovenia represents a bridge between western Balkan countries, as well as between them and the European states with a long tradition of parliamentary democracy.
In recent years, several official and study visits have been made both by representatives of the parliaments of the western Balkans to Slovenia and by representatives of the Slovenian Parliament to their parliaments. Regular contacts with the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina have been established. The twinning programme with Macedonia was operated successfully by Slovenia, and the first concrete steps have been taken by the consortium for assistance to the Kosovo Assembly, in which Slovenia is one of four equal partners helping the assembly with capacity building. Several visits by Kosovo parliamentarians to Slovenia have been organised, the most recent in September this year by the delegation of the presidency of the Kosovo Assembly.
We strongly believe that the Euro-Atlantic perspective is a key motivator for the political and economic development of those countries. All actors in the international community who are involved in the area should bear that in mind. Defining a clear strategy, offering better incentives and perspective to the region and, above all, supporting institution building in the countries concerned are vital, as the rapporteur suggests. On the other hand, we hardly believe that the recent changes in the Constitution of Serbia will help to bridge the distance between the entities. Moreover, we are afraid that new disagreements are on the way.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Biberaj.
Mr BIBERAJ (Albania). – We listened attentively to Mr Eorsi’s presentation on the general policy on the situation in the Balkans. I thank him for his report.
Today’s discussion comes at a time that is crucial for the future of the Balkans and Kosovo in particular, and for the integration that is taking place in the region. This year has seen a series of historic events in the Balkans. Following a referendum that complied with European standards, Montenegro became an independent and sovereign state. Parliamentary elections have been held in Macedonia, Montenegro and, last Sunday, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have welcomed the normal conduct of the elections, and consider them to be a victory for all citizens of those countries in their path towards integration in the European Union and NATO. This year is also expected to produce the agreement on the final status of Kosovo, which must accord with international agreements based on the will of the Kosovo people.
We abide by the guiding principles of the EU, NATO and the Council of Europe for a safe and stable region in which bilateral and multilateral co-operation replaces religious and ethnic conflicts between Balkan countries, being aware that regional co-operation is a precondition for European and Euro-Atlantic integration of these countries. In this regard, one of the most optimistic acknowledgements is the fact that now all Balkan countries have to speak and understand the same language – that of European integration. We perceive the developments in our region in the light of the latest statement by the Security Council, the Contact Group and the EU, and in view of the continuity of the process of democratisation and integration in the region.
The Kosovo issue is of crucial significance for the peace, stability and Euro-Atlantic integration of the western Balkans. Albania supports the endeavours of the international community, the Security Council, the Contact Group and the Mission of the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General, Martti Ahtisaari, to find a solution to the Kosovo issue by the end of 2006 by relying on the basic principles of a non-return to the situation before 1999, the non-partitioning and non-unification of Kosovo or a part thereof with another country and the consideration of the will of the majority.
In that regard, we share the view that the settlement of Kosovo’s final status is an urgent issue. It would bring stability to the entire region, produce the conditions for building up representative and fully accountable institutions that enjoy the trust of the whole population in Kosovo, strengthen democracy and establish the foundations for economic growth, and contribute to the further strengthening of good relations between neighbours in the western Balkans and their prospects of European integration.
The best solution would be to reach a compromise accepted by the parties. However, if that cannot be achieved, we support the idea of an settlement imposed by the international community, which would have at its very foundation a respect for the will of the people of Kosovo. Albania encourages the parties participating in the bilateral talks in Vienna to continue the dialogue constructively, so that the settlement of the Kosovo issue can be achieved within the Ahtisaari mandate, which requires a realistic approach from the parties. We welcome the stance by Mr Ahtisaari, who considers the Kosovo issue a unique case.
I share the view that a European future for Kosovo requires, among other factors, the fulfilment of standards. The implementation of those standards should go hand in hand with the process of status definition. By the end of this year, Kosovo should be a sovereign, independent, democratic and multi-ethnic state, where minority freedoms and rights are respected and safeguarded through laws and institutions. An independent and democratic Kosovo, oriented towards Euro-Atlantic integration, would also be a factor in peace and stability for the Balkan region and beyond. Unless the Kosovo issue is settled, there can be no talk of calm and stability in the Balkans.
Albania has become a force for stability in the western Balkans and we expect others to play the same role. We see the integration of the western Balkan countries with the EU in the context of a vision of a united Europe, which is a factor in the development of the whole of our region and the rest of Europe.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Alatalu.
Mr ALATALU (Estonia). – I appreciate highly the first words of the rapporteur about the covering of events in the Balkans by the media, which often do not give the correct picture. I was in Montenegro three weeks ago as an observer in the elections and I asked the same question several times – why is this country, with its splendid history, not yet a full member of the European community? There was nothing to do for many of the observers sent, because, as we were told yesterday, the process adhered largely to European standards. Shortcomings exist everywhere, but we must question the feelings of the people and whether they consider themselves European and members of the European community. The answer is only in the affirmative.
At the same time, the majority of the Balkan countries are not painted the same colour as all the other European countries on the political map. Everyone understands that that is a result of the political games played before and after the two world wars and the collapse of the so-called socialist regimes. The end of the two red empires – those of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia – was similar in that at first only a minority area achieved the right to become separate. In the first place, separation was achieved by Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, followed by Slovenia and Croatia, but the majority in both former empires remained linked to their previous centres. The creation of new independent states was postponed. We must ask whether it is right that the first graduates from the socialist regimes should have been admitted to Europe 15 years ago, while their schoolmates are still sitting on the same bench. We must be more flexible and optimistic in addressing the problems of the Balkan countries.
During the years of the communist empires, Yugoslavia was closed to the west and other more open societies. Now, the west is better informed about the problems of the Balkan nations and is able to prevent the worst scenarios, but happily the fate of the Balkans still awaits a final settlement.
I am happy to remind the Assembly that Estonia decided in 1990 to establish close co-operation with Slovenia, which was also determined to become totally independent. In that period, we signed several documents, which will be of interest to the historians, because they were between one half-state and another. We are ready to enlarge our co-operation to all Balkan countries. As proposed by the rapporteur, we appointed ambassadors to several Balkan countries and we have been active in peacekeeping. We are ready to share our experience of integration with the European Union and NATO and in regional co-operation.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Islami.
Mr ISLAMI (Albania). – As you know, the political concept of the western Balkans was defined some years ago as part of a regional approach to European Union integrations. It consists of all areas of the former Yugoslavia, including Albania but excluding Slovenia. The people of the region are naturally proud of their European roots and they celebrate their nature, their values and their rich history. That is why the younger generation in South-Eastern Europe is optimistic about its European perspective.
All the independent countries that were part of Yugoslavia, including Kosovo, have inherited complex problems, mostly ethnic in origin. The armed conflicts that raged in almost all former Yugoslav territories for almost a whole decade have complicated even further the process of transition and European integration.
Albania is the only country in the region without ethnic problems. Albania was not involved in any of the armed conflicts raging in the region in the past few years. Albania has also traditionally enjoyed religious harmony. Being immune to the complex ethnic problems in former Yugoslavia, and because of its clear European and Euro-Atlantic orientation, Albania is fully committed to influencing, in a positive way, through its highly valued moderating role, the acceleration of the integration processes in the region.
One of the constituent parts of the western Balkans is Kosovo. We think that it is imperative that a solution be found to the status issue. Without interfering in the status talks and while hoping for a consensual solution, we believe that Kosovo’s independence is the best option, which can ensure durable, long-term peace and stability for Kosovo and the entire region, as well as a clear and secure European perspective for the region.
The situation in our region is becoming more stable and secure. Despite the difficulties, steps have been taken towards stability and democratisation of the region. Our region has reached the stage where all its component parts, the six independent states and Kosovo, which is close to gaining independence, jointly as well as by following their own paths, are aspiring to or are applying for EU and NATO membership.
The experience gained from the progress of others in the integration process confirms our belief that individual progress is not only related to the improvement of understanding and regional co-operation, but a fundamental contributor to it. There is no alternative. As each country gets closer to Europe, different issues affecting South-Eastern Europe today will be less and less demanding.
We believe that the process of EU integration of western Balkan countries and the regional co-operation process rest on three fundamental principles. First, regional integration is accelerated significantly by each country’s progress in its individual process of European integration. Secondly, European integration is impossible without achieving regional integration. Thirdly, regional integration means first and foremost “Europeanisation” of relations between all the countries in the region.
Our relations with Italy and Greece, two neighbouring EU countries, are developing very well. Successful co-operation is developing with Croatia and Macedonia, including joint efforts in the framework of the aspiration to be a NATO member. Open political dialogue marks the relations with Serbia. Excellent relations have been maintained and developed with other countries in the region such as Turkey, two new prospective EU members, Bulgaria and Romania, and Montenegro, Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Increased links with all those countries can be attributed to the new philosophy that “the success of each country means success of the region and the success of the region as a whole means success for each of us”.
In that context, we have followed an active and constructive policy with each of the neighbouring countries bilaterally, in the framework of different bilateral regional initiatives, and through multilateral regional initiatives. We have taken a proactive role as regards political dialogue and exchanges in all fields of common interest with countries in the region.
We believe that the fight without compromise against organised crime, corruption and trafficking, while respecting European standards, must be accompanied by the implementation of a strategy for the free movement of people and the liberalisation of the visa regime, as that is the best way to respond to the aspirations of our citizens. I agree with the recommendations of Mr Eörsi that the western Balkans need to define more clearly not only an EU strategy and perspective but the timing of EU integration. Another key element for the EU must be the education of the young generation. That is why university exchanges and accession to the Bologna process for all western Balkan countries is important. Thank you for your attention.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Islami. I now call Mr Gardetto.
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) congratulated the rapporteur on succeeding in a difficult task and completing a report on a complex and sensitive subject. Three years after Thessaloniki, there had been progress in the western Balkans. There had been domestic reform, reconciliation between peoples and regional collaboration. However, more progress was needed to heal the rifts between states and to improve democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It was necessary to concentrate on the education of young people and to nip religious extremism and nationalism in the bud. Minorities should be integrated and encouraged and assisted to take their future into their own hands. The priorities should be tackling crime, illegal immigration, corruption and people trafficking. Fostering economic development was also very important for creating peace and stability.
Each state must take responsibility for fulfilling its commitments and the Council of Europe and the European Union must also take responsibility for their respective roles. There should be further co-operation between national parliaments and the Assembly to monitor the fulfilment of commitments to reform. In the field, the Council of Europe should intensify its work and extend a helping hand to the western Balkan states. The European Union should send strong signals to give hope for the future, especially for young people, and should make more visible pledges to forestall marginalisation. Special attention should be paid to Kosovo, to Serbia, to the Presevo Valley with its Albanian community, to Republika Srpska, to “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and also to Montenegro, which had recently become independent and whose leaders had nailed their colours to the mast of the European Union. To help the peoples of the Balkans was to ensure the future of peace on the doorstep of Europe.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Gardetto. I now call Mr Milo.
Mr MILO (Albania). – First, I congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent report. I fully support the draft resolution on the situation in the Balkans.
To speak about the situation in the Balkans, it is necessary to discuss five questions: the level of democracy and rule of law, respect for human rights and minorities, good governance, conflict resolution and the Euro-Atlantic integration process. It is difficult to speak on all the issues in the time available, but I would like to talk briefly on each of the ones I mentioned, especially the level of democracy and conflict resolution.
All the western Balkan countries are democracies and all of them have made good progress on many things, but we are conscious that much more needs to be done. In particular, they must respect constitutional institutions, the freedom of the press, opposition parties, human rights and the rights of minorities. I have heard the reports of two prime ministers, including the prime minister of my country. I do not share all the opinions expressed by Prime Minister Berisha in the Assembly, but in general Albania is making good progress on economic development, fighting corruption and tackling human trafficking and organised crime. As a representative of the opposition, I support, as do many others in Albania, many of the important attempts to improve the situation in our country and to fulfil the standards that will enable Albania to take further steps in the process of European integration.
Many other countries have much to do, but I do not have enough time to comment on their internal situations. However, I want to mention Kosovo, which is one of the most sensitive issues with regard to the stability and future of our region. Much has been said about the final status of Kosovo. In particular, some people have used history to avoid finalising its status. However, history does not help us to find a realistic and long-term solution. The so-called historical right was mistakenly used and supported to give a temporary and wrong solution to the problem. Kosovo’s final status needs to be based on reality. Solutions must be supported by guaranteeing the long-term development and security prospects of Kosovo and the whole region.
After the independence of Montenegro, Kosovo is the last chapter in the history of the conflict that held the Balkans hostage. It is a bad model for the relationship between neighbouring countries.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Milo. The next speaker is Mr Fenechiu.
(Mr van der Linden, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Lloyd.)
Mr FENECHIU (Romania). – I congratulate my colleague, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, on his excellent report.
Romania is at an important stage of its modern history. That is a consequence of the decision by the European Commission to recommend its admission to the European Union family on 1 January 2007. Today, as always, the stability of the western Balkans and the Euro-Atlantic perspective of the region are a foreign policy priority. An awareness of our potential to continue to play an important role in the region and of our dowry of good relations and co-operation with the Balkan states means that we can firmly state our determination to intensify the bilateral and multilateral dialogue that is key to stability and understanding in the region.
As a member of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, I want to stress my firm conviction that the economic development of the region is the only road to a prosperous and peaceful future for the Balkans. As such, that should be the priority of politicians. Poverty represents a barrier to democracy and creates an environment for conflict.
Changing the Stability Pact into a regional co-operation council, which will become the main political forum of the region, and multiplying relationships in the Adriatic-Euro region, will intensify the cohesion and help the co-operation process. The solution for a better future and a safe one requires such co-operation. If we sustain all methods of co-operation, we may improve the security and co-operation climate in the region.
The main challenges remain the outcome of the negotiations on the status of Kosovo and the constitutional reform of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this context, it is important to mention the democratic manner in which the recent parliamentary elections and referendum in Montenegro took place. I congratulate all those involved and assure our friends in Montenegro of our willingness to sustain their efforts to improve good governance and strengthen democracy and the rule of law.
We have to acknowledge that Serbia must play an essential role in regional security, and it needs our assistance to strengthen its relationships with the Euro-Atlantic community. I am sure that our Serbian friends understand the crucial importance of their co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. I hope that the international community continues to pay attention to the region and to support democratic evolutions in the Balkans in order to make Europe a more coherent, stable, prosperous and peaceful environment.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Fenechiu. I call Mr Mota Amaral.
Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal). – I sincerely congratulate the rapporteur, Mátyás Eörsi, and the Political Affairs Committee. Once again, the committee has faced a very difficult question with success.
The Balkan region is without doubt a part of Europe. As a consequence of its history and the domination of different imperial powers in the region, we all face serious problems of nationalism, sometimes pushed to extremism. We all remember that the First World War began in the Balkans, and some historians say that the Second World War was only the second chapter of the first one. More recently, in the 1990s, terrible ethnic wars exploded, with thousands of casualties and atrocious genocide, as well as the destruction of the Balkan’s cultural treasures, which were also a part of European heritage.
Fortunately, peace now prevails across the Balkans. However, the stability looks fragile. Thousands of foreign troops, with hundreds of Portuguese soldiers and police officers, are still stationed there, and they have no idea when they will be brought home.
Last year, with a mission of the Parliamentary Assembly of Western European Union, I visited the “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina. I was surprised by the easy approach taken by European officials there to the integration of the Balkan countries in the European Union.
We recently heard the statement of President Barosso of the European Commission in which it was made clear that the European Union is not ready for sudden, new enlargement. When it comes to Balkan areas, the first problem is to understand how many candidates we have there, because those countries are dividing themselves, splitting, and we do not know whether we are dealing with five, six or seven candidates that are willing to become members of the European Union.
The difficulties that still exist after the last enlargement will be even more difficult to handle. This should not be considered as a denial of European status to the people of the Balkans. The unification of Europe should be maintained as a great design for Europe and for all Europeans. A reasonable transition period does not mean that the door is closed.
However, there are serious problems in some Balkan countries that relate to refugees and displaced persons. In Kosovo, this problem is most important, and guarantees should be given that all ethnic groups will live peacefully together. The fight against organised crime and the trafficking of human beings, arms and drugs is still a top priority in Kosovo.
In my opinion, the international community should act wisely and avoid trying to impose a solution on Kosovo without consensus among all the parties concerned. We in the Assembly congratulate those involved in making progress along the democratic path, for which there is evidence, but that must be balanced by consideration of the existing difficulties. The Council of Europe must be ready and willing to maintain the co-operation with the countries of the Balkans in strengthening their democratic institutions. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Açikgöz.
Mr AÇIKGÖZ (Turkey). – Mr President, dear colleagues, I want first to thank the rapporteur, Mr Eörsi, for his valuable work. As he says, 2006 is a crucial year for the entire region. The recent independence of Montenegro, the beginning of the status talks on Kosovo, the EU Stabilisation and Association Agreement negotiations with Bosnia and Herzegovina, the need for a new mandate for continuing with a separate SAA for Montenegro, the suspension of SAA negotiations with Serbia and the signing of a new SAA with Albania were all significant developments.
In this transition period, there is a need to ensure that the values of the Council of Europe are firmly anchored and deeply rooted in the region’s civil society, judiciary and democratic institutions. I strongly believe that Council of Europe membership is an important element in achieving these developments. Yet greater effort should be made both by the Council of Europe and the member countries from the Balkan region. The western Balkan countries should carry out the reform processes they have embarked on. They should pursue their efforts in complying with all the obligations and commitments set out by the Council of Europe in terms of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. On the other hand, the Council of Europe should have a presence in those countries, particularly in political and legislative fields and in training, capacity building and participation areas.
Dear colleagues, we must help the western Balkan countries to build integrated multi-ethnic and democratic societies. A just and sustainable solution regarding the status of Kosovo can be achieved within that scope. Montenegro should become a member of the Council of Europe and become involved in intense and fruitful negotiations with regional and international organisations as soon as possible.
We should step up the parliamentary assistance programme with Montenegro and Serbia and extend it to other countries of the region as well. The western Balkan countries should ensure full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. It is a must for future reconciliation among the people of the region and between neighbouring states.
Taking into account the sensitive and fragile political and social structure of the Republic of Montenegro, developments should be followed closely to ensure that the achievements take root within the country. We should continue to extend our assistance and support the Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is tackling many of the problems.
We should develop a stronger link between the Assembly and our national parliaments to assist those countries in order to improve their work. We should also seek increased co-operation with the EU in this respect.
It is our obligation to encourage the western Balkan countries in their efforts of democratisation. That is the only way to achieve stability and peace in Europe. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Geveaux.
Mr GEVEAUX (France) said that when war had broken out in Yugoslavia in 1991, Europe had been horrified. Europe had then rediscovered the different ethnic and religious origins of people in the Balkans. Peace had now returned, but it was fragile. Under the ashes, the fire was still burning. Some of the new states were fragile and decentralisation had diluted responsibilities and in some instances caused deadlock. One encouraging sign in a bleak picture, however, was the independence of Montenegro.
The economic situation in the Balkans was a cause for concern, with high unemployment and political instability discouraging investors. Corruption and organised crime were rife. Ethnic tensions persisted. States had to foster tolerance. It was in that spirit that France urged all states in the region to co-operate fully to bring all war criminals to justice.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Severin.
Mr SEVERIN (Romania). – Winston Churchill is reported to have said that the Balkan people produce more history than they can consume. I do not think that that is right. On the contrary, over the centuries the Balkan states have not been allowed to produce the kind of history that they would have liked. Therefore, like all peoples who cannot produce their own history, they have produced a lot of mythology. That mythology presents a subjective image of their past and is now a burden as they try to build a future and try realistically to face the present.
I congratulate Mr Eörsi on his report and on his suggestions. We must follow his basic idea that the rest of the European countries – members of the Council of Europe and the European Union, which form the hard core of Europe’s values – should offer a vision of a dignified future for the Balkan countries. We must accept that it is not only the Balkan countries that have responsibility for their situation. Europe has an equal responsibility, and it should correct a misunderstanding that it has allowed to grow – that Europeans are looking to ethnic states for a solution to the difficulties presented by the co-existence of various peoples.
Europe and the international community must also correct the misunderstanding that we sometimes take sides instead of offering a coherent vision. Sometimes we are tempted to value the aspirations of some people more than those of others, to identify collective guilt, or to place responsibility only on some people rather than on everybody. The Balkan countries are not the only countries that must take responsibility for this.
I share the views expressed here that Kosovo is not the
root of the crisis in the Balkans. Frankly, the independence of Kosovo from
Serbia is much less dramatic than the independence of Serbia from Kosovo.
We have to find a way to make our Serbian friends independent of this huge
crisis. Perhaps the only way out will be a so-called “imposed” solution.
However, I would warn colleagues that we might be going too far in that direction.
Not all imposed solutions are equal. An imposed solution that is unfair,
and that is based not on respect for the aspirations of all the people in the
Balkans but on a cheap approach – namely, that Serbia must pay the
full price for all the difficulties in the Balkans – might not be accepted
or recognised.
The British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, said at the end of the First World War that however harsh peace conditions might be, they will be accepted if they are perceived to be fair. However, if they are not fair, the taste for peace will be forgotten when those who experienced the war have died. If we are to have an imposed solution in the Balkans, it must be just and fair. Most unjust wars come to an end, but the consequences of an unjust peace never end, and are perpetrated from one war to the next. I hope that we shall be able to create an integral vision for the Balkans.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Fomenko.
Mr FOMENKO (Russian Federation). – Some of the statements at this sitting have reminded me of the eloquence of the Communist Party conventions in the eastern bloc. According to those speeches, the economic situation and the conditions of human life got better from one convention to the next and soldiers were training every day to be ready to fight for the ideals of people’s democracy anywhere in the world. The Soviet leaders were generous or cautious enough to send only Soviet troops to Afghanistan. Nowadays, Big Brother prefers to use as much foreign manpower as possible in the modern battles for democratic values in Afghanistan, but the drugs traffic from Afghanistan is increasing.
The improvement of European practices and values in the Balkan countries, as applauded here, is confirmed in everyday life. Already, millions of citizens of the new EU member states are to be seen on the streets of the old EU states, and the majority of the population in the central European eastern bloc countries are suffering a deterioration in living conditions.
Thank God that it is not Moscow, but Brussels, that is now paying for the incorporation of the poor countries of South-Eastern Europe in this new zone of mutual prosperity. We can observe the process from the outside, and what do we see? Politicians of different sides still blame so-called communism for the economic troubles of Mittel-Europa. However, those countries were extremely poor long before the Soviet bloc was formed. Let us look at the countries that are now ready to join the EU in January 2007. Their gross domestic product figures were several times less than those of Germany, the United Kingdom or France even in the 1930s. Did anyone ask the taxpayers of the economically developed countries of Europe whether they wished to pay for the expansion of the EU to include the Balkan states? Did anyone explain to the small and medium-sized entrepreneurs of Romania the consequences of the implementation of European standards? According to La Tribune, only 2% of those entrepreneurs are aware of what the results of the 1 January 2007 festivities will be. The decision was made – and who cares about the disastrous results for the earlier idea of creating from the European Union an independent strong player on the global scene?
I cannot be optimistic, either, about the prolongation of the state integrity of the United Nations protectorate of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Entering any Croat village in that so-called federation, you will find only Croatian flags, even on election day. The UN governor of Bosnia or the United States ambassador there could force people to remove those illegal flags, but even they could not force people to forget about them.
In the old Sarajevo book stores, many portraits of Marshal Tito can be seen. People remember the better life in the so-called Yugoslav empire. That so-called Yugoslav empire, incidentally, was created by liberals of Croatian, Slovenian and Serbian origin after the First World War and fully supported by the great western powers that won it. The so-called empire was reformed after the Second World War, with the full support of the great western powers that won that war.
Today, some optimists have talked about Kosovo’s independence. Such a status can be achieved by a physical majority of Kosovars, but the Serbian authorities cannot forget about their voters. Neither this nor any other government can abandon the Kosovo question. Today we cannot blame anyone – we can only blame history – for the fact that to Serbs, the field of Kosovo means exactly the same as the field of Poitiers means to the French. At the battle of Poitiers in 732, the famous Charles Martel stopped the Arab-Muslim fast track to Europe. Of course we can speculate about the possibility of creating an independent statehood at Poitiers and the abandoning of French citizenship for the local population, but I do not think that such speculation would be productive. The same applies to much of what has been said today.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Glăvan.
Mr GLĂVAN (Romania) congratulated Mr Eörsi on an excellent report. Stability in the western Balkans was a priority for Romania. Increased dialogue at bilateral and multilateral levels could only improve the stability of the region and bring it closer to democratic structures. The Adriatic region of Europe was being transformed: there was an increase in strength, cohesion, and co-operation, which all facilitated domestic stability and prepared countries for the demands of a market economy.
Romania would support any approach that ensured stability in the region and consolidated institutions and the rule of law, but the heritage, culture and multi-ethnic nature of each society needed to be protected. Romania appreciated the need for the implementation of a European role in Kosovo, but without territorial changes. Romania was soon to become the eastern border of the European Union and was keen to support the rapprochement of its neighbours, because that would improve stability and democracy in the region.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Bjřrnstad.
Mr BJŘRNSTAD (Norway). – I join others in congratulating the rapporteur on a very constructive report. It is indeed timely for us to focus on the general development of the western Balkans. We must demonstrate an even stronger commitment to the region. If we do not, we shall run the risk of increasing marginalisation, stagnation and unrest, and even instability and conflict.
Although the level of tension has decreased over the past few years, sources of instability are still present. Today we see tensions within each individual state, more than exist between them. That puts national institutions under great pressure, and is itself a source of instability.
The region does not exist in a political vacuum. It is an integral part of Europe, and is key to the stability and security of Europe as a whole. Weak institutions and a lack of democratic and economic development would constitute a threat to us all. The countries of the western Balkans face a big challenge in fighting organised criminal activity, not least the trafficking of arms, drugs and human beings. All countries in the region have Euro-Atlantic integration as the primary aim of their foreign policies. It is crucial that the European Union, NATO and the Council of Europe do what they can to assist and speed up that process. A small but important recommendation in the report is liberalisation of the visa regime, which would make it easier for people to travel and communicate.
We must pay special attention to the implementation of international standards, and the development of strong national institutions and the rule of law. The development of local democratic institutions is also important. I believe that the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe can play a constructive role. In this Organisation, we are well placed to contribute.
I agree that there has been a tendency towards bilateral focus in our thinking, which may have blurred the vision of the region’s development as a whole. We need to find a better balance. The countries in the region do not all face identical challenges, and they cannot all move at the same speed; but they can move in the same positive direction. I agree with Prime Minister Sanader, as I read him yesterday, that each country should be treated on its own merits, but no one should be left alone. Regional co-operation should therefore be encouraged and assisted.
Although it does not feature in the report, it is not possible to have a serious debate on developments in the western Balkans without mentioning Kosovo. We need a final status agreement. Any solution must as far as possible be based on a negotiated settlement that is mutually acceptable to the parties. Flexibility is a necessity. Both the process and the outcome must contribute to regional political stability, and not carry the roots of new conflicts. Full co-operation with the ICTY is also crucial to European integration and development of the region as a whole.
There is progress in the region, but there is still a long way to go. The road to Euro-Atlantic integration must be paved by the countries themselves, but with assistance and input from us all. We need to nurture a feeling of optimism about the future, and a belief that reform and the building of strong democratic institutions will bring integration, development and prosperity to a region and people that have suffered far too much.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Aligrudić.
Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia). – It gives me great pleasure to welcome the document prepared by Mr Eörsi. It is obvious that the presented text was drafted in hope and constructively. It is obvious that everyone will be in favour of the document, although we will all take a slightly different approach to some issues. One always has some objections to any proposed document, but I shall concentrate on the positive aspects.
One good aspect of the proposed text is that it recognises the progress achieved so far in the countries of the western Balkans. Especially it calls on the Assembly and the international community to facilitate regional parliamentary co-operation and it calls on the European Union to increase political co-operation to bring the western Balkan countries together. It clearly indicates that the process of integration should be our main goal and that there is no sense in dividing in order to re-integrate, or in separating in order to bring together. That goes hand in hand with the principle of not changing internationally recognised borders.
The future of the western Balkan countries is not in changing internationally recognised borders and introducing new countries, thus drawing a new political map. That principle should also be applied to the status of Kosovo. It would be much better if we could achieve a mutually agreed solution to the Kosovo issue, instead of an imposed solution.
The future of the western Balkan countries depends on good co-operation between them. It is only sincere co-operation between those countries that will bring about a long-term and sustainable peace in the region.
Another positive aspect of the draft resolution is that it calls on the European Union to offer better incentives and perspectives to the region, and it recognises the efforts and achievements of the countries so far. It also calls on the EU to liberalise its visa regime. The document also mentions the necessity of full implementation of standards in Kosovo and expresses concern about the internally displaced persons and refugees. For example, there are almost 240 000 IDPs from Kosovo in Serbia.
It should be underlined that the draft resolution calls on the countries of the western Balkans to co-operate fully with the ICTY. Most importantly, it urges the ICTY to avoid violating the basic human rights of the indictees, including the right to trial within a reasonable time frame. That rarely happens in such documents and it is very important, bearing in mind the basic commitments of the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly.
For those reasons, I suggest that we adopt this excellent document.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Dzembritzki.
Mr DZEMBRITZKI (Germany) said that as it was the 60th anniversary of the opening of borders between Austria and Hungary, which had ushered in liberty, this was a particularly pertinent report and debate. The western Balkans were part of Europe according to the map and shared common history. Democracy and stabilisation had been kick-started by the granting of a European Union perspective. The member states should confirm the commitment made at Thessaloniki. As a German, from a large European Union country, he none the less believed that “absorption capacity” had not been exhausted. There were only 32 million people in the western Balkan region. However, with 33 member states in the European Union, it would not be possible to govern by unanimity. Constitutional arrangements should therefore be reformed, and the German presidency of the European Union would address that issue. Structures to allow the accession of more states could be created, but it would also be necessary to raise awareness of the importance of a stable western Balkan region within the European Union.
The discussion of the final status of Kosovo had been postponed but would need to be resolved. The deadline for that discussion would not be met, but it was more important to reach a viable solution. In Bosnia and Herzegovina it was important to overcome the shortcomings of the arrangements put in place by the Dayton Accord and to implement constitutional reform. The current situation was incompatible with European Union values. It was also necessary to promote economic development and create regional economic structures. A facilitated visa regime should be set up with the European Union as the restrictions were a huge problem for the western Balkans. Regional heritage should be preserved but without the element of ethnic conflict. The European Union represented cultural values and it should not be necessary to protect those values by stationing troops in the Balkan region. Countries should draw on their own strengths to build those values. It was necessary to promote co-operation between the states at the bilateral and multilateral levels; that would be a long process.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.
I will now suspend the list of speakers to allow Mr Berisha and Mr Terzić to have the opportunity to respond to the debate.
Mr BERISHA (Prime Minister of Albania). – Mr President, honourable parliamentarians, once again, I thank you wholeheartedly for this great debate, which has shown substantial support for our countries to realise the greatest project that they have ever had in their history: to join the European Union and to be fully integrated in the European Union and in NATO. I am totally convinced that that is the best future for my nation. That is why we remain committed to making every effort to reach those norms, standards and criteria which are indispensable for developing, promoting and safeguarding the values and principles that we share. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Berisha. I now call Mr Terzić.
Mr TERZIĆ (Chairperson of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina) thanked the contributors to the debate and pointed out that the rapporteur had said in his report that he had not received enough support to visit each country in the region in order to ensure that the report was as thorough as possible. The report had said that countries in the region should implement constitutional changes, which was correct. But that was just one piece of the puzzle in organising society according to European values. Constitutional changes were not a wish-list but an unavoidable step on the path towards the European Union. The member states that joined the European Union in 2004 had needed to harmonise their constitutions with the European Union even though they were modern states.
Bosnia and Herzegovina needed to adjust its constitution to European norms. General elections had been held in Bosnia and Herzegovina two days ago, which was proof of the progress that had been made since admittance to the Council of Europe. Those were the first elections financed and organised entirely by the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina without external assistance. All election monitors and observers had agreed that international and European standards had been upheld. It was now necessary to form a government quickly. Mrs Beck had commented that the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina had voted along nationalist lines. That was correct, but it was a reflection of the constitutional arrangements in place, which required reform. The current constitution deprived some citizens of the right to be elected to public office, but by next year new arrangements would be in place.
THE PRESIDENT. – I thank Mr Berisha and Mr Terzić for their worthwhile contributions to this debate and for their answers to questions. We will continue with the list of speakers this afternoon.
5. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting
THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the orders of the day which were approved yesterday. The current affairs debate on the budget will take place at approximately 4.30 p.m.
Are there any objections? That is not the case.
The sitting is closed.
(The sitting was closed at 12.55 p.m.)
3. Changes in membership of committees
4. Debate on general policy on the situation in the Balkans
Presentation by Mr Eörsi of the report of the Political Affairs Committee, Doc. 11050
Address by Mr Sali Berisha, Prime Minister of Albania
Address by Mr Adnan Terzić, Chairperson of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Speakers
Mr Zingeris (Lithuania)
Mr Platvoet (Netherlands)
Mr Marcenaro (Italy)
Mr Sasi (Finland)
Mr Mooney (Ireland)
Mrs Durrieu (France)
Mr Geghamyan (Armenia)
Mrs Beck (Germany)
Mrs Lavtižar-Bebler (Slovenia)
Mr Biberaj (Albania)
Mr Alatalu (Estonia)
Mr Islami (Albania)
Mr Gardetto (Monaco)
Mr Milo (Albania)
Mr Fenechiu (Romania)
Mr Mota Amaral (Portugal)
Mr Açikgöz (Turkey)
Mr Geveaux (France)
Mr Severin (Romania)
Mr Fomenko (Russian Federation)
Mr Glăvan (Romania)
Mr Bjřrnstad (Norway)
Mr Aligrudić (Serbia)
Mr Dzembritzki (Germany)
Replies
Mr Berisha (Prime Minister of Albania)
Mr Terzić (Chairperson of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina)
5. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting