AACR26	AS (2006) CR 26
	Provisional edition

2006 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Twenty-sixth sitting

Tuesday 3 October 2006 at 3 p.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 Kosachev, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.

1. Minutes of proceedings

THE PRESIDENT. –The minutes of proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Sitting have been distributed.

Are these minutes agreed to?

The minutes are agreed to.

The minutes of proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Sitting have not yet been distributed. They will be adopted at a later sitting.

2. Changes in membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT. – Our next business today is to consider changes proposed by the Spanish delegation in the membership of committees. These are set out in Document Commissions (2006) 6 Addendum 3.

Is the proposed change in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

It is agreed to.

3. Debate on general policy on the situation in the Balkans

THE PRESIDENT. – The first business this afternoon is the continuation of the “Debate on general policy on the situation in the Balkans” presented by Mr Eörsi on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, Document 11050, followed by the votes on the draft resolution and the draft recommendation.

There are 17 more speakers on the list and two amendments have been tabled.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu. He has five minutes.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – We all know that the Balkan region has a significant role in European history. It has a unique position for many reasons. The level of individual political stability, as well as the economic well-being and prosperity of the Balkan countries, has a direct impact on the security and stability of Europe in general. In turn, stability and security in Europe cannot be achieved and sustained if the Balkan region is dragged into economic or social turmoil. Time has proved that conflicts in the region have serious consequences for the continent as a whole.

It goes without saying that Europe’s interest in the fate of the Balkan region should remain strong. I therefore congratulate Mr Eörsi on his timely report, which again draws the attention of the Parliamentary Assembly to the recent situation in the Balkans. I share his concern that if Europe does not show a stronger interest in the western Balkan region, there is a danger that the sentiment of marginalisation will continue to grow, leading to undesirable consequences. I appreciate his approach of recognising the progress achieved so far and of criticising the international community for its share of responsibility for the lack of democratic development in the region. I am encouraged by that attitude and expect to see a similar approach adopted vis-à-vis another region which has its own specificities – namely, the Caucasus.

Naturally, it is up to the international community, the European Union and NATO whether or not to conform to the calls of the resolution. However, the Council of Europe can play a more active role in the region if we take into account the recommendation cited in the resolution. The Assembly should pursue the monitoring of accession commitments and obligations of the Balkan countries. It should provide support so that we make further progress on, and improve the functioning of, democratic institutions, the rule of law and respect for human rights. It should ensure that the highest European standards are integrated and applied in the region. It should encourage regional co-operation in key areas such as the fight against corruption and organised crime, money laundering, cultural heritage, the teaching of history and trans-frontier co-operation.

The rapporteur’s efforts to initiate a platform for dialogue offer an appropriate framework to discuss the most sensitive and painful questions on facing up to the past and coming to terms with it. I consider that a first step in work that could lead to the reconciliation of countries which have suffered conflict and loss for many years. I fully support the initiative and look forward to having more regular and in-depth discussions on the future of the Balkan region.

As Chairman of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, I remind the Assembly that the region has missing persons and internally displaced persons. That is not only a social and humanitarian problem, but one of the main obstacles to securing stability and security in the region.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Çavuşoğlu. I call Mr Goulet.

Mr GOULET (France) said that his remarks would echo those of previous speakers in the debate. The Assembly was examining its conscience and trying to get a sense of where it stood on the situation in the Balkans. He welcomed the report, which set out a road map for the future. The Assembly could be useful in preventing the powder keg exploding in the Balkans. He called for concrete actions to be taken as there had been enough words already. New forces of co-operation were required. Nothing stood in the way of interparliamentary dialogue. University exchanges had been positive. More could be done to pressure national governments to facilitate visas. Congratulating the rapporteur, he called for a more forceful and deliberate approach to be taken. Concrete measures had to be taken now or future generations would judge them.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much. I call Mr Jeftić.

Mr JEFTIĆ (Serbia). – Mr President, members of the Parliamentary Assembly, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to commend Mr Eörsi’s report on the western Balkans. It offers a pretty fair and realistic picture of the political situation in the Balkan countries. That should not present a problem for Mr Eörsi since he is personally very familiar with the region.

In the report, 2006 is seen as a decisive year for the entire region, and I fully agree with that fact. I believe that, despite all the problems that the countries in the western Balkans are experiencing, the European perspective is the primary question for the western Balkan countries. It is hard to speak about any kind of regional integration between the countries of South-Eastern Europe and the western Balkans because they are at totally different phases of the accession process. However, for the countries in the region, it would be very useful – indeed, necessary – to achieve the greatest possible political and economic integration and co-operation there. Bulgaria and Romania are practically in the EU. We hope that Croatia will achieve that goal shortly, as that would serve as an initiative and stimulus for Serbia and the rest of the countries in the western Balkans to enter the EU as soon as possible.

At this time, we also have a couple of open questions and problems in the region. One of them is definitely co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. For Serbia in particular, that is one of the conditions necessary to proceed with negotiations and, afterwards, to become a candidate country. A second issue certainly concerns the negotiations about the final status of Kosovo.

It is encouraging that most countries in the region have had democratic elections in the past couple of years, and regardless of certain changes that occurred after the elections, all have been able to form democratic governments. That serves as proof that the whole region is actually in an irreversible phase of democratisation and prosperity. The referendum in Montenegro clearly shows that it is possible for the western Balkans to end the whole process in a democratic way. That was confirmed by President Tadić, who visited Podgorica and expressed congratulations on the referendum’s result, and by the citizens of Montenegro in the recent parliamentary elections.

The Serbian Parliament has adopted a new constitution as a result of political consensus among all political parties in Serbia. That gives me the right to hope that the constitution will be confirmed by the citizens of Serbia in the referendum to be held on 28 and 29 October. Elections will be held at all levels, most probably by the end of the year, resulting in democratic government. The key role in that government will be played by President Tadić’s Democratic Party and Prime Minister Koštunica’s Democratic Party of Serbia. The new government will have the capacity and mandate to solve the question of co-operation with The Hague Tribunal and to continue talks on Kosovo’s final status. At the same time, it is of paramount importance to keep open the EU perspective for Serbia and the rest of the western Balkans.

I am convinced that, with the completion of the obligations towards the Tribunal, Serbia deserves to sign the Stabilisation and Accession Agreement, as well as to become a member of the Partnership for Peace programme, which is very significant for regional stability, especially in a region as volatile as the western Balkans. That will also mean that Serbia is irreversibly on her way to the EU and enable her to repulse the radical forces forever and send them into the past. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much. I call Mr Proroković.

Mr PROROKOVIĆ (Serbia). – Thank you. The initial report prepared by Mr Eörsi is one of the most balanced papers on the western Balkans produced by an international rapporteur in recent years. That is the reason why I fully support it. I congratulate you, Mr Eörsi.

In this report, the rapporteur dealt with two kinds of responsibility. The first is the responsibility of the Balkan countries and the commitments that grow from that responsibility. The second is the responsibility of the international community for the current situation in the first place and for future events. The international institutions, namely European institutions, do not need to establish new instruments in the Balkans, especially the western Balkans; rather, they need to implement the decisions already made, so that the countries and their peoples can carry on with the institutional and other reform processes in the western Balkans.

I shall mention the things that Mr Eörsi did not – he did not mention a number of politicians in the western Balkans who have some kind of special vision of European integration. We had the opportunity to hear one of them this morning. When I listen to their speeches, I get the impression that they are somehow going to move their countries somewhere closer to Brussels since they do not mention regional co-operation at all.

I believe that one has to reiterate clearly to them that there can be no Brussels without the establishment of regional co-operation and that the issue of European integration is an issue not of geographic integration but of value system building. Furthermore, if people really want to talk about geography, they should understand that the road from Tirana to Brussels goes through Belgrade, and that the road from Belgrade to Brussels goes through Zagreb.

In any case, we are next-door neighbours and we are dependent on one another. For the well-being of all of us we have to co-operate and try to reach agreements. Several issues have already been identified as matters for future co-operation. These include cross-border co-operation to fight organised crime, trafficking in human beings, smuggling and money laundering. The establishment of SEFTA — the South European Free Trade Area — should take place during the next year. It has been designed to make the whole of South-Eastern Europe one unique market.

We must initiate talks on regional co-operation in the fields of science, education, health care and culture. That is the only way in which we can establish sustainable and long-lasting stability alongside a system of values compatible with that of Brussels. The membership of Bulgaria and Romania in the European Union will be of significant help to us and I wholeheartedly support and welcome that event.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Avdić.

Mr AVDIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina). – Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, I want first to endorse the efforts of Rapporteur Mátyás Eörsi in proposing a resolution that truly reflects the answers to the controversies in the western Balkans. The Balkans are an integral part of Europe and an area in which conflicts emerge in a cyclical manner. That is why the region is usually perceived as either a gunpowder barrel or a grey twilight zone. In that geopolitical map, conflicts continue to occur.

Bosnia and Herzegovina, the country from which I come, with its complex constitutional and legal architecture and Dayton Peace Agreement and the active presence of the Office of the High Representative, the European Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the European Union Police Mission, represents the most important factor of peace and stability in the region. The European Union is passing an historic exam in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The constitution that my country received eleven years ago in Dayton has produced a politically unstable country and inter-ethnic tensions. It violates the basic human right to vote and to stand for elections. It also violates the European Charter on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. According to the first results of the general elections held on 1 October, a Croatian member of the presidency has been elected by a majority of Bosniac votes because the present constitution allows such a thing to happen. His election is legal, but its legitimacy can be disputed and could have long-term consequences for our country. We need a new constitution – a European constitution.

Bosnia and Herzegovina represents a certain connective tissue in the Balkans, in particular with Croatia and Serbia. Belgrade often holds our country as a hostage of its own policy towards Kosovo. It does so through the entity of Republika Srpska. The Prime Minister of Serbia would like to get Republika Srpska as compensation in the event of Kosovo’s independence. Those aspirations, along with Belgrade’s policy, destabilise the region. The definition of status for Kosovo does not have any connection with Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Council of Europe recognises these tendencies and adopted a resolution on constitutional changes in Bosnia and Herzegovina during its last part-session. Even though Bosnia and Herzegovina is still being monitored, some people would like to deny this and to make that document absurdly relative. I call on the Council of Europe to reaffirm co-operation between the Balkan countries instead of reaffirming special relations that belong to the past. I also call on the Council of Europe to use its political influence to strengthen its missions in the Balkans and to defend them against possible attempts at destabilisation in the region. The crime of genocide in Srebrenica must serve as a warning to us that this history must never be repeated. Thank you for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Ivanji.

Mr IVANJI (Serbia). – Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by referring to the message that was delivered at the EU summit held in Thessaloniki in 2003, in which it was stated that the process of European integration would not be complete until all the western Balkan countries had received full membership of the European Union. The idea of one, united, democratic Europe is an historical undertaking. Our aim is Europe of shared values, a Europe of no boundaries, a Europe of peace and stability – and never before in our history have we been closer to fulfilling that aim. Our priorities, our problems and our achievements may not be the same, but our aspirations are. Our commitment to the European future is the same.

The most important issue is that Europe wins a victory in our hearts and inside of us, not only by calling on our old, long and victorious European tradition, but through the modern European validation of achievements which testify that constructive communication, material stability, social security and solidarity have at last replaced the logic of wars, forced ethnic migrations, tragedies and crimes.

At the same time, the idea of a united Europe demands the maximum recognition of realities. In Serbia, we are very much aware of the process of coming to terms with our realities, but we are also aware of the fact that at this moment 68% of the population in Serbia unequivocally support the idea of membership of the European Union. In our country, we are seriously taking up and dealing with the challenges that are coming our way. We are solving the issue of the future of Kosovo through direct negotiations with the representatives of the Kosovo Albanians and with the participation of international representatives. In the course of these negotiations, we are observing the European values that are of crucial importance for the long-lasting stability of the region: multi-ethnicity, the protection of minority rights, the right of return for displaced people, decentralisation and concern for the perspective for all the citizens living in Kosovo.

The success of the negotiation process predominantly depends on the recognition and acknowledgment of the realities, the overcoming of partiality and the success gained while making efforts to find a compromise solution. That is why the continuation of talks between Belgrade and Pristina is an unavoidable condition for the creation of one stable, sustainable and long-lasting solution on the future status of Kosovo, without pre-judging any kind of solution that does not result from the direct negotiations.

However, if we bear in mind the statement of the Speaker of the Kosovo Assembly, who said that “Kosovo Albanians will use violence unless the international community imposes the solution referring to the status of Kosovo to Serbia”, and the statement of the Prime Minister of Kosovo, Agim Cheku, who said that “Serbia does not have the courage to attack Kosovo ever again”, one could easily ask oneself whether those statements are encouraging the negotiations and contributing to the settlement of the issue. Is it possible that while the negotiations are in progress anyone could impose any kind of solution?

I am not to blame for the possibility of Slobodan Milošević – no part of my personality is responsible for that. Let me remind you that on 5 October 2000 his regime was toppled. That regime had brought nothing but suffering to every citizen of the Republic of Serbia, regardless of their national or religious determination. On that day the democratic option won in Serbia, and it has been in power for the past six years. The winning democracy is ruling Serbia. It guarantees to every citizen equal rights and freedoms, it guarantees respect for differences, and it could guarantee the inviolability of the broadest possible autonomy for Kosovo and all rights for its citizens.

A Europe that does not erase countries but, on the contrary, connects them and brings them closer to one another; a Europe that does not ban freedoms but promotes them widely and creates opportunities, thus enabling every country and the people living in it to establish, develop and express their long-lasting interests; a Europe that transforms old enemies from the past into present-day and future friends; a Europe that can turn bad memories from the past relating to its closest neighbours into solidarity, fellowship and support – that is the idea of one united Europe which is so important and significant in relation to the achievements of all of us who were born in Europe, in the western Balkans, and who are ready to give in order to provide a European future for its people that amounts to much more than what the dark side of our Balkan past has inflicted on us and taken from us.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Kaikkonen.

Mr KAIKKONEN (Finland). – As we speak here in Strasbourg, the former Finnish President and United Nations Special Envoy Mr Martti Ahtisaari is trying to find an acceptable solution on the status of Kosovo. Mr Eörsi has accurately described the current year as crucial for Kosovo and the whole region.

The status negotiations seem to be deadlocked. It must be remembered, however, that Mr Ahtisaari has a clear mandate to be not a peace negotiator but a special envoy sent by the United Nations Secretary General for the status negotiations. Mr Ahtisaari’s mission is to ensure that Kosovo gains a permanent status. During that process, the main responsibility remains on the shoulders of the actors in the area, who should strive for better governance, less corruption, the rule of law and, above all, respect for human rights – all with full support from the international community. The best thing we can do now is give Mr Ahtisaari time and peace, and support his work in every possible way.

The European Union countries have been very privileged to enjoy peace and stability for longer than those in the western Balkan region. Nevertheless, it might be said that, especially among the older EU states, it is too often forgotten that peace is not self-evident and self-sustaining. After all, there are only 60 years between us here and the horrors of the Second World War, and the horrors in the Balkans are not so far away.

The European Union should not close its doors. The western Balkan region must have a vision of EU membership in the future. Of course, there is still a great deal to do in the region to fulfil the EU membership criteria, but EU enlargement to include the western Balkan region must be possible. I think we should send that clear message to the European Union.

The original idea, or vision, of the European Union was to pacify the belligerent continent. That idea still needs the support of caring and decisive actions. Kosovo has been administrated by the United Nations for seven years, which is far too long. The international community should do its utmost to achieve a negotiated settlement as soon as possible to avoid the flaring of violence and ethnic tensions. People need to feel secure to be able to settle down and continue to live peacefully, as I assume most would like to do.

Mr Eörsi’s report is a good one, and it should be accepted.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Dačić.

Mr DAČIĆ (Serbia) commended the introductory speakers, especially the Albanian Prime Minister, Mr Berisha. Serbia wanted to maintain the autonomy of Kosovo, but the situation was complex and consistent standards were not always applied. Serbian Kosovans were treated in a manner similar to that of German Jews living in ghettos under the Nazi regime; churches had been burnt and many people had gone missing.

In 1389, a famous battle had taken place in Kosovo between Serbs and Turks. No Albanians were mentioned in the reports of that battle because Albania did not exist then. It had been stated that peoples had the right to national self-determination; however, if a large number of Turks living in Germany wished to seek an independent state that would not be permitted. Some people had suggested that Kosovo formed only 15% of the territory of Serbia. It was nevertheless integral to Serbia’s culture and origins. More respect should be shown when talking about the situation in Kosovo. A peaceful solution was the goal. However, double standards should not be applied; the boundaries of the former Republic of Yugoslavia had to be respected, but that did not currently happen in the case of Serbia.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Albijanić.

Mr ALBIJANIĆ (Serbia) said the most important values of the Balkans as a region were stability, regional co-operation, establishment of a durable peace and, ultimately, European integration. Serbia was in the process of adopting a new constitution. The draft constitution had received unanimous support in parliament, demonstrating the development of political life in Serbia. The draft constitution would be voted on in a referendum, and if successful would be proclaimed. Elections for a new government would then be held. It was necessary to continue the reforms in order to address the burning issues in the region.

It was important to emphasise that Serbia’s national negotiating team had submitted reports to parliament that had been unanimously accepted. The most important issue was decentralisation and the creation of new municipalities. That was essential to creating security and freedom of movement. Some were in favour of a quick solution imposed from outside, but others were in favour of a dialogue and a solution that empowered Serbians. Regional political and economic co-operation should be enhanced and mutual trade stepped up. Trade between states in the region made up only 10% of the total and should rise. Parliaments should intensify their contacts to support the work of governments in improving regional relations. Cultural co-operation was also important. Serbia had strengthened its democratic capacity in several ways.

This was his first visit to the Assembly as a delegate. Other Serbian members of parliament were also present, as were students from the Serbian law faculty. That demonstrated the importance of building networks and contacts with civil society.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Kirilov.

Mr KIRILOV (Bulgaria). – This has been a long debate. It is in such debates that we appreciate the great role of the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly. Such debates could occur anywhere else, but this is perhaps the most useful body in which the real problems of a large region can be discussed.

If we recall the situation in the region sixteen years ago, we realise that we have grounds for optimism. Then, we had countries belonging to the Warsaw Pact and countries belonging to NATO. We had non-aligned countries and one country that was almost totally isolated from the world. Today, we have a unique situation. All the countries in the region share a common goal. We could scarcely imagine that 16 years ago. We have a unique opportunity. The goal of European integration shows that all the countries in the region have learned the big lesson of Europe, which is a big lesson for the whole world. It is the lesson of integration, co-operation and sharing the same goals, having the same democratic standards and thus helping all our citizens.

It is not by chance that so many speakers have mentioned the status of Kosovo. It is important to follow those high democratic standards and that is why this Assembly is the right place to discuss Kosovo’s status. Without those standards any redrawing of borders would be a calamity. When we talk about potential independence, we should bear that in mind. The people of the countries in my region know our history well. Many of those countries, at various times, have thought that they were the biggest and greatest in the world. Now we think in a different way, and that gives us hope.

If we start the process of change, we must observe the effects closely. We do not want to see the return of strife. I am glad that my country and Romania will join the EU in January, but we will fight for all the countries of the region to do the same. We want to join the European Union and to live without borders and with all the other people in the Union. We can learn to live together without pressing nationalist issues and without redrawing borders or redefining history. This is an important issue and we should join hands. The countries that are joining earlier should do their best to ensure the political stabilisation of the region. No country should turn around and say, “We are in the European Union and we do not care about the rest.” It is in our general interest to achieve a region without borders for the sake of political stability and prosperity for our citizens. We share the same goals. If we join hands and put our efforts in that direction, we will definitely succeed.

We should also take ownership of the process, not just wait for something to happen. We should work together. Of course Mr Eörsi is right to say in his report that the European Union and the Council of Europe should be much more careful in this respect. At the moment, it is important to go forward, not to look back, and to help each other. We can show everybody that we can have solidarity in this region. If we show that and move forward I am sure that we can reach a situation where the whole region is without borders, a thriving region with a rich history and economic prosperity.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Kirilov. I now call Mrs Kanelli.

Mrs KANELLI (Greece). – Dear colleagues, I urge you to follow me, if you can, as someone who came from another planet. Otherwise, from what I heard in here, I have to forget that I am Greek, that I am a deputy, that I come from the Balkans and that I believe in European principles. I have to forget history. If I forget history, I cannot create new history.

In 1999, there were 76 days of Europe-approved bombardment of the area that we are talking about. Bombs of depleted uranium were going down. Part of northern Greece is breathing and eating it. We have a higher percentage of cancer in the northern states of my country.

In 1999, an opinion poll in the United States asked, “What is Kosovo?” Please name the area as it is known historically. It is Kosovo and Metohia. You cannot cut that out. You cannot change names of areas of the world to save time or to save words or to save letters when you print material about people, nations and lives.

In 1999 the United States was sending troops, money and airplanes from Aviano in Italy to bomb the area. In the opinion poll in 1999 in the United States, 90% of people thought that Kosovo was probably a new line of gas stations. Do you want to rewrite history like that? Do you want change? Do you want a road map, like in Palestine, where history is permitted to be rewritten?

In his report, Mr Eörsi writes about Dayton. When Dayton was signed Milošević was a hero ex-communist for Europeans and for the Americans. Mr Eörsi does not mention Rambouillet, the proposal for the country to join NATO. Now what do you tell me here? Is it that, to get into Europe and to achieve European integration, you can still blame Serbia and Gavrilović for the First World War?

Dear colleagues, have you ever read the Nazi committee financial plan for controlling the Balkans? Go back to the archives. It is in the public domain. You can read about it – that is exactly what is happening with the road maps created in the Balkans – how to isolate Mitrovica and Serbia; how to create small unstable weak states, so that the Nazis could have a garden. Are we going to continue like that? Where are the principles for Europe?

I heard an Armenian colleague talk about Nagorno-Karabakh. Do we need another road map in the heart of Europe that talks about peace? Can you impose peace in the American way? Kosovo has now one of the biggest American military bases. Military bases are spread all over the Balkans. The Americans control NATO. You said so in here. Everyone knows. So is this a passport to get into Europe as an independent state, having a big military base and 75% of the Kosovar population being jobless? There are hungry people there. There are internal emigrants, Serbs who moved there and Albanians who moved. Are we in a hurry? Do we have to solve a problem? What kind of problem are we going to solve in here talking about that? What is the problem? Who wants to cut a historical hand by creating a new history?

The Greeks lost Istanbul. No one wants to go back and get Istanbul. No one is interpreting history in that way, but then you interpret history for Kosovo going back 1 000 years. Come on, let us be Europeans. Let the people of the area have the time to discuss peacefully in order to solve their problems peacefully and to find their own solutions. The Balkans do not need to be patronised.

In my country there is a saying. Please remember it. This is Balkan. It is not an anecdote to be laughed at. Who laughs last laughs the best, so let them laugh their own way.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Kanelli. I now call Mrs Papadimitriou.

Mrs PAPADIMITRIOU (Greece). – It is not a great advantage to follow my friend Mrs Kanelli on the floor, but I am going to try to land you back on this planet – I could not do otherwise.

I should like to make a brief statement at this point since most of the ground has already been covered by the distinguished colleagues who preceded me. It seems that almost all of us agree that neither the European Union, nor the Council of Europe, nor our transatlantic relations can afford to face the consequences that a failure to reach the ultimate target of the European perspective of all western Balkan countries would entail.

Such a failure would not be first and foremost a failure of vision. It would above all be a failure to learn from mistakes and a failure to have the courage to proceed on what is the only viable road to integration and prosperity. With its deep and first-hand experience of the history of the Balkans, Greece is convinced that the process of integration can never be complete until all countries of the region are members of the family that is the European Union.

Indeed, that was one of the principal driving forces of the Greek presidency in 2003. That is one of the reasons why the Thessaloniki summit, so often referred to in Prime Minister Adnan Terzić’s address, for which I thank him enormously, posited the necessity for aiding the European perspective of these countries with force and conviction – I wish I could also say, with ultimate success. However, I look forward actually to saying it in the not too distant future, for we must not let the uncertainty of the current situation undermine the ultimate aspiration that we have for the region and that the region has in the European Union and the Council of Europe.

At the same time, we must not forget that the region and the countries that make up the region are facing serious problems and difficulties at grass-roots level. Problems of mass immigration, trafficking and the combating of organised crime particularly plague the region.

As a member of the Assembly and a Greek politician, I urge you all to look at these problems very seriously, because, ultimately, it would be most ironic if it were not the uncertainty of the future of the constitutional treaty, but the European Union’s and the Council of Europe’s failure to assist these countries in tackling and overcoming these serious and difficult problems, that led to a loss of faith and hope among those who have been promised so much. I am sure that if we do our best in this direction, the Balkan countries will in turn not only abandon hope, but do their utmost to further assist us in assisting them.

I want to stress that the Balkans are not western Europe’s back yard. Those who view the Balkans as such should stop doing so. Just look at the Balkans as the place where your sun rises. With its warmth and light, its environmental wealth, its cultural richness, and its eye-blinding reflection of historical wisdom and trans-temporality, the Balkans may be the place from where we can all draw the much needed dynamism to stop our European inertia and our immobilising scepticism, which produces no results.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Papadimitriou. I call Mrs Mitreva.

Mrs MITREVA (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). – I would like to express my appreciation to the rapporteur, Mr Eörsi, for a job well done. I welcome this general policy debate on the situation in the countries of the western Balkans. I would like to comment on three issues: integration of the countries of the western Balkans in the European Union, regional co-operation and – my favourite issue – liberalisation of the visa regime.

As a citizen of a country that is a candidate for European Union membership, but above all as a citizen of Europe – regardless of the fact that this fact is still not entered in my passport – I am reminded of the Scylla and Charybdis situation that Europe faced on its way to unification and I ask myself, “Is Europe fatigued with the victory? Is Europe tired of the way it has gone thus far and the results that it has achieved?” How else could one interpret the growing demands for a break in the enlargement process, which is sometimes, as Schuman would say, disguised by the pursuit for perfection? Does this perhaps indicate a lack of political will or, even worse, a lack of vision?

The European perspectives of the Balkan countries were opened in Zagreb in 2000, confirmed in Thessaloniki and reaffirmed at the Salzburg meeting. Indeed, those perspectives are becoming more tangible and attainable and they should stay at the top of the European agenda. Furthermore, Europe should set a clear timetable for the integration of the countries of the western Balkans in the European Union, as stated in our resolution. It is in this regard that I must share with you Macedonia’s hopes to start negotiations with the European Union in 2007. We are ready to fulfil our part of the bargain completely.

I am confident that the EU will find ways to overcome the internal challenges that it faces today. I am deeply convinced that the noble idea of a united Europe will not be called into question. Egocentrism is never a good ally – but solidarity is.

The Republic of Macedonia is a functioning democracy in a multi-ethnic society which is fully committed to reforms in all spheres. We continue to attach great importance to advancing regional co-operation and developing good neighbourly relations. I think that Macedonia substantially contributed to creating the new spirit of solidarity and co-operation in the Balkans. We consider regional co-operation to be a genuine need of the countries in the region and a complementary factor on our way towards Europe.

I am convinced that with joint efforts we can open a new chapter in our regional
co-operation – a chapter of economic development. We expect our EU partners and friends to support us in reviving the economic forms of co-operation and to help us develop the communication infrastructure in the region – I have in mind corridor 8 under the Dayton Agreement – up to the level of European standards.

I want to share with the Assembly my attachment to the visa liberalisation issue. What do we Europeans living in the part of Europe called the western Balkans have today? We have long queues in front of embassies, a heap of documents and expensive visa fees. This certainly is not part of the vision: it is the logic of the passport stamp. A small number of young people in the region – the pioneers of progress in our countries and our investment in Europe – have had the possibility to experience the EU at first hand. Something needs to be done promptly. We welcome the measures to enhance the mobility of students and researchers, as well as the opening of the relevant Community programmes and, of course, the facilitation of movement in the border regions of the European Union. But those measures are only the initial step towards enhancing people-to-people contacts and greater mobility.

The Council of Europe has greatly contributed to the promotion and strengthening of democratic forces in the countries of the region. I trust that it will continue to play a significant role in supporting the European perspectives of the countries of the Balkans.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Mitreva. I call Ms Čeković.

Ms ČEKOVIĆ (Serbia) said that her Serbian colleagues had already set out a great deal of material and it was difficult to make any new points in the debate. She stressed the importance of progress being made on the basis of international law and the UN Charter. She also emphasised the importance of observing European Union standards. Observing the standards of international bodies was essential to maintaining stability.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Pangalos.

Mr PANGALOS (Greece). – Mr President, Balkan co-operation has been mentioned by the heads of state and government whom we heard here this morning and certainly by many of our colleagues. Economic co-operation, which includes cultural and social institutions, is progressing and establishing a common space for the Balkan people. That is certainly useful. The situation is much better when we co-operate, as we have been doing in the past few years, instead of entering into armed struggle – at least no one dies anymore.

We are very proud to be the first to start the tedious and sometimes not very agreeable effort to bring the different sides in the conflict around the table. I remember that, in Greece in 1995, the three
now ex-leaders who were personally responsible for what followed – Tudjman, Milošević and Izetbegovic – established diplomatic relations between their countries. It was the beginning of a reverse in the situation – the last point in the escalation of violence.

In respect of the common European destiny, all this is part of the framework for the integration of these countries into the European Union. Although economic progress is going on, social exchanges are increasing and cultural relations are developing, the political problems remain. They result in the political crisis that is growing in respect of Kosovo.

Not everyone in the Assembly is concerned because not everyone lives in one of the countries involved – not everyone is Albanian or Serbian, or even a neighbour of these countries. We should clearly understand what our principles are. The principle on which the solution for the former Yugoslavia became the work of the international community – the international community helped to solve the problems in the former Yugoslavia – was that the federated republics that constituted the former Yugoslavia could become independent states. However, those former federated republics – Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” – therefore also have an integrity. They have independence, and independence means territorial integrity, and the process cannot go on forever.

I heard a colleague of mine ask what would happen if a specific territory were inhabited by a majority of people who come from another origin. What would happen if the Greeks asked for the independence of Astoria in Queens in New York, or for the independence of some parts of north London that are overwhelmingly inhabited by Greek Cypriots? Such things cannot go on forever. If we are in favour of finding a solution for the former Yugoslavia on the basis that the federated states of that country have the right to independence, we should protect their integrity and a way should be found so that the people who live there who do not have the same culture as the majority or perhaps do not have the same religion as the majority can exercise their human rights. That could be the way in which we can contribute by establishing a legal, ideological and protective framework – otherwise, we will further increase chaos and confusion. Thank you, Mr President.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mr Pangalos. The next speaker should be Mr Dendias from Greece, but he does not seem to be here, so I call Mr Gadzinowski, who is the last speaker on our list.

Mr GADZINOWSKI (Poland). – Seven years ago, NATO planes bombarded Serbia in order to help the Albanians who were persecuted in Kosovo. The effect was that Kosovo became a province which has existed on a temporary basis for years. It has become a region suffering from a high rate of unemployment, poverty, corruption, drug dealing and women trafficking. It has also become a region of human rights violations and discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities – now by the Albanian majority. It has been seven lean years for Kosovo.

This situation needs to be changed. However, these days, it is not easy to find a good solution. The Albanian majority is demanding independence and separation from Serbia. This secession could lead to destabilisation not only in the Balkan region, but in other parts of Europe. It would be an encouragement for similar actions in Macedonia, Moldova and Georgia. This could lead to a wave of separatist demands for revisions of borders.

Keeping Kosovo within Serbia would require the democratisation of both Kosovo and Serbia, and a move beyond ethnic hatred. At the moment, it is difficult to talk about any change. The most effective solution would be the accession of Serbia, Macedonia, Albania and other Balkan countries to the European Union and the democratisation and liquidation of the administrative borders and barriers to economic co-operation. However, it was the egoism of the rich countries that prevailed in the European Union. The European Union has now closed its doors to new members. For Serbia and Kosovo, this may mean another seven lean years.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much. That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr Eörsi to reply. You have four minutes.

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – Mr President, may I share an observation with you? Yesterday, the Assembly decided on a procedural trick not to discuss Kosovo, but I have listened to this debate and 96% of the speakers have spoken about Kosovo. That is very clear evidence that the Assembly wanted to discuss Kosovo as well. Again, I think that that procedure has served to smooth the debate and prevent certain things from happening. So I regret what happened yesterday, but this has been a very lively discussion indeed.

I should like to thank the Assembly for the overwhelming support that I have received from it. Honestly, I was somewhat worried that, if I spoke too much about the European perspectives, there would be too many responses concerning the enlargement fatigue, which we all know exists. I must tell you that I am extremely proud of this Assembly and that I am extremely happy that I can be part of it because it could make a difference to the current problems and the long-term strategy. We can show leadership to all other European organisations and we can consider what it means to think in terms of a long-term strategy. For that, I thank you very much.

Of course, when I speak about overwhelming support, that does not apply to every individual. Mr Aligrudić was right to mention that we can place the emphasis on different things. However, so far as the major emphasis is concerned – I am now responding to the political groups – there was real, overwhelming support, perhaps except for one of them.

      I shall respond not to Mrs Kanelli, although I listened to her very carefully, but to the other person who spoke on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, Mr Platvoet. I told him that I would like to respond to him and I am pleased that he is here to listen to what I want to tell him. Mr Platvoet was born in the Netherlands and raised in peace and security under the NATO umbrella. He may still dislike NATO, but there are people in the region that we are discussing who feel insecure and who would like closer ties with NATO and with the Partnership for Peace. Because of their feelings of insecurity, I plead with Mr Platvoet not to advise those people not to join NATO just because he dislikes George W. Bush. I do not think that that is a serious political agenda. Speaking of President George W. Bush, by the way, presidents come and go. Given the devastating history of the region in question, its people need security. If you can find something better than NATO, please do so, but I have not yet heard of any alternative.

      Apart from that disagreement, I felt that there was an overwhelming consensus, and I ask the Assembly to adopt the report. As my friend Mr Goulet rightly said, please do not lean back in your armchair. This is not a decision just for today or tomorrow. It involves lengthy procedures, and there is a huge amount of work to be done in our capital cities, in our parliaments and in our governments in order to implement this mission as we wish. We do not know what will happen tomorrow — life is difficult — but we would like our children, or at least our grandchildren, to understand the term “Balkans” to mean simply a geographical part of Europe, without any political connotations. If we can achieve that, we shall be very happy European citizens.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you Mr Eörsi. Does the Chairperson of the Political Affairs Committee wish to speak? He has two minutes.

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – Thank you Mr President. This report is a little different from the others. This is a general policy debate on the situation in the western Balkans, and it is the first of its kind in our Assembly. Rather than discussing the issues country by country we decided to discuss all these important matters together on a regional basis. The main purpose of the report is to determine how the Council of Europe will increase its assistance to the western Balkan countries, in order to build integrated, multi-ethnic, democratic societies and help to establish a profound rule of law in the region.

As our rapporteur mentioned, 43 colleagues have taken the floor in this debate, but only 10 of them discussed the purpose of the report. The rest – 33 colleagues – talked about Bosnia and Serbia. Yesterday, using our rules and procedures, the report was postponed. This is not democracy. Some people just come out with theatricalities, but this is not a theatre; it is a very serious Hemicycle. We have to talk about politics, democracy and the rule of law. We also have to talk about human rights. But instead of doing that, some people prefer to use our rules and procedures in other ways. Accusing people and committees is unacceptable and I do not want to see that happening in this Hemicycle again.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

      The debate is closed.

      The Political Affairs Committee has presented a draft resolution, to which two amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation, to which no amendments have been tabled.

      We will first proceed to vote on the amendments to the draft resolution.

      They will be taken in the order in which they were tabled. If Amendment No. 1 is agreed to, Amendment No. 2 falls.

      I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to one minute.

      We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Rainder Steenblock, Mr Joachim Hörster, Lord John Tomlinson, Mrs Josette Durrieu and Mr Bart van Winsen, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 14.7.

I call Mr Steenblock to support Amendment No. 1.

He is not here. Does anybody else wish to speak in support of the amendment? Mr van Winsen, you have the floor.

Mr VAN WINSEN (Netherlands). – In the Political Affairs Committee, we discussed paragraph 14.7 of the draft resolution, which deals with setting a clear timetable for EU integration. Those who support this amendment remember the discussions that took place in most European countries about the accession states and about the Copenhagen criteria, which deal with the accession of the new countries. The amendment proposes to delete that paragraph, so that there is no clear timetable, because other circumstances may apply.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Austin to speak against the amendment.

Mr AUSTIN (United Kingdom). – I wish to speak against the amendment because this paragraph, which holds out the hope of European Union integration, is a key part of the report. People’s aspiration to have “European citizen” on their passports was clearly expressed by Mrs Mitreva. We should not take out this paragraph. However, I share the concerns of many members of the Political Affairs Committee about the provision for a clear timetable. That is why I have tabled the second amendment, which deals with the tyranny of deadlines and timings and instead inserts a road map. We must keep alive the aspirations of the whole of the western Balkans for European Union integration.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – I think that our dear friend, Mr van Winsen, made a mistake. This amendment was rejected by the committee. However, the second one was adopted. Perhaps he has confused the two amendments. The committee is against this amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 1 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr John Austin, Mr Bob Laxton, Mr Denis MacShane, Mr Paul Flynn and Lord Burlison, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14.7, replace the word “timing” with the following words: “road map”.

      I call Mr Austin to support Amendment No. 2.

      Mr AUSTIN (United Kingdom). – I rise to support Amendment No. 2.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee? I call Mr Ateş.

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – It has been adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11050, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11050, as amended, is adopted, with 100 votes for, 6 against and 5 abstentions.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 11050.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 11050 is adopted, with 103 votes for, 7 against and 4 abstentions.

(Mr van der Linden, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Kosachev.)

4. Current affairs debate: Council of Europe budget for 2007: an alarming standstill

     THE PRESIDENT. – The next item of business this afternoon is the current affairs debate on the “Council of Europe Budget for 2007: an alarming standstill”, with a statement by Mr Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

The list of speakers closed at 12 noon today. Nine names are on the list.

      Following the decision of the Assembly this morning, speaking time in debates is limited to five minutes, except for the first speaker, as appointed by the Bureau, who has 10 minutes.

      I call Mr Wille. He has 10 minutes.

      Mr WILLE (Belgium). – Our Assembly has exactly one hour to ensure that the hallucinatory situation involving the budget of the Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers comes to an end, and that our message is conveyed loud and clear. Today’s standstill is totally unacceptable.

      On 5 April 2006, the Council of Europe and its Secretary General presented a document on the priorities for 2007 and the budget consequences. There were two options. The first, which is preferred by the Secretary General, was to finance the extra needs of the Court outside zero real growth; the second was to finance them within zero real growth.

Our Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, of which I was a rapporteur, adopted two draft opinions on the budgets for the Council of Europe and the Assembly’s expenditure for 2007. The Standing Committee adopted them in Moscow on 29 May. Financing within a zero real growth budget was rejected, and the Assembly made an additional effort to secure €107 000. The Ministers’ Deputies were supposed to approve the priorities and the member states’ contributions for 2007 in late May, but they have not done so. Since then, rightly, our Secretary General has officially submitted to the Committee of Ministers, in accordance with the timetable, draft budgets and the 2007 programme under option 1.

Whereas the road map of the Council of Europe was clearly defined by the Warsaw Summit, apparently the Ministers’ Deputies approach our institution with a far less encouraging point of view. They wish to apply a ceiling on total staff-related appropriations. Reinforcement of the Court’s resources which entails an increase in its staff will automatically result in growth of the payroll for the entire Organisation. Economy measures will therefore be imposed in other parts of the Organisation “by freezing vacant permanent posts, a salaries freeze and the decrease in appropriations for temporary staff”. That will weaken our Council through the abandonment of activity areas owing to lack of staff.

The question is, do we accept the situation? Do we accept euthanasia for the Council of Europe? Ministers’ Deputies may feel that they represent their nation, but we as elected members represent the people, and we should not accept the loss of a forum on pan-European co-operation.

We therefore call on the Committee of Ministers to approve without any further delay the priorities for the draft budget and the programme of activities for 2007, as proposed by the Secretary General; to give clear, unambiguous support to enhancement of the resources of the European Court of Human Rights without weakening other sectors of the Council of Europe; to that end, to decide in principle to finance the Court’s additional needs outside zero real growth, which is in fact the option proposed by the Secretary General; and to determine member states’ total contributions for 2007 accordingly. That, in my opinion, is the real debate.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

      I call Mr Davies, Secretary General of the Council of Europe. He has five minutes.

      Mr TERRY DAVIS (Secretary General of the Council of Europe). – It is usual practice in the Council of Europe for the Assembly to debate next year’s budget in the spring, and to express an opinion. That took place, as usual, earlier this year. What I think is unprecedented – certainly I have never experienced it before – is for the Assembly to debate next year’s budget again later in the year. I welcome the debate, however, because we face an unprecedented situation. It is not that complicated; all that one needs to do is remember five numbers and one word. The numbers are 3, 7, 10, 150 and 7.5%, and the word is Bulgaria.

      When one prepares an ordinary budget for an international organisation such as the Council of Europe, there are inevitably pluses and minuses. Some things come to an end and others need to start, especially in view of the action plan agreed by the heads of state and government at the Warsaw Summit. Of course, we have some efficiency savings which help to provide funds for the new activities, but this year we face special, exceptional problems.

      First, as Secretary General I face the need to find €3 million – that is the “3” that I mentioned – for some obligatory increases that are beyond my control. The first of those is required because we have to maintain our buildings. Because of accounting principles, I find that I must provide a further
sum amounting to roughly half that €3 million to cover the increased cost of maintenance of our new buildings – not because we are spending more money, but as a direct result of international accounting rules, which I accept. That is to be provided from the ordinary budget rather than the investment budget.

      Secondly, there was less underspending last year than before. As is the custom here, the money resulting from underspending in 2004 will be carried forward to the budget for 2006, and that resulting from underspending in 2005 will be carried forward to the 2007 budget. Last year, we had less underspending than in previous years because the first thing I did was to take out some built-in underspending from our budget in 2005. I took out the fat, and that means that we have less underspending to carry forward for next year’s budget. I make no apology for that, because it was good management and it was applauded by the Ministers’ Deputies. So that is the 3.

      The 7 is the extra resources needed by the Court as a contribution, not to solving the problem but to dealing with the problem. We all know that the Court has a tremendous number of outstanding cases. It is 7 because in this year’s budget the increased resources for the Court start in October. Next year, we will have the full year of increases. Secondly, the Court needs €5 million as a contribution to dealing with its arrears. Three plus 7 equals 10. Our ordinary budget is €200 million, but a quarter of that goes to the Court. Obviously we cannot make economies in the Court: we are trying to increase its budget to deal with its problems. So we have €150 million for the rest of our activities. Ten as a percentage of 150 is 7.5%, so I am faced with the need to redeploy that amount. That is on top of the 7.5% that I redeployed in this year’s budget, following the action plan from the Warsaw Summit.

      What can we do? I accept the general context of zero real growth and not having any extra resources for our ordinary budget. I also accept the need to find the €3 million required by the application of the accounting principles, but that leaves €7 million. In my view, as I made clear in the document to which Mr Wille referred, that €7 million should be financed on top of our ordinary budget. The Court needs the extra resources and the governments should find those resources.

      Some governments have made it clear that they are not willing to accept my proposal. Instead they say, through their ambassadors, that they want me to cut the rest of the budget to provide more money for the Court. We are not to cut democracy, human rights and the rule of law, but to look elsewhere, including education, culture, youth, social cohesion – which translates into migration, Roma, social rights and the campaign for children’s rights. Those account for €24 million and to find €7 million from that would mean taking away 30%.

Other governments tell us to cut staff expenditure, but this Organisation is staff intensive. The work we do is people intensive. This is a standard-setting organisation. That takes staff. It is a monitoring organisation. That takes staff. It is an awareness-raising organisation. We are also a training and capacity-building organisation. We provide advice and expertise to our member states. All that work takes people. If we reduce staff expenditure, we reduce the number of people and that is the same as reducing our activities. The alternative is to cut staff wages. That is the stark choice facing us. In effect, those governments who tell us to cut staff expenditure want to fund the Court at the expense of the staff working in the Secretariat. They are entitled to tell us to do that, but I am entitled to draw it to your attention.

      There are two ways to kill an international organisation such as the Council of Europe. The first is to close it down straightforwardly and transfer its responsibilities to another organisation. That is what happened to the intergovernmental side of the Western European Union, which was transferred to the European Union. The other way to kill an international organisation is to starve it to death – not changing its responsibilities, but refusing to give it the necessary resources, especially when another organisation that does have the money is ready to take over those responsibilities. In our case, that is the European Union, and that point brings me to the word “Bulgaria”.

      Bulgaria will join the European Union in January next year. It will then be required to contribute €300 million immediately to the European Union. We have 46 member states and I leave you to work out the figures. I rest my case.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Secretary General. I assure you that you have the full support of the Parliamentary Assembly. As you know, we did not accept any reduction in our small budget. We have €15 million for all the work of the Assembly, and there is no other Assembly in the world that manages its activities for that sum. Only the fundamental rights agency in Vienna starts with €15 million and goes up to €30 million. I ask colleagues to return to their national parliaments and make that point in debate. Stand up in your national parliaments to defend this valuable organisation. In the end, it is not the Committee of Ministers that decides, but the individual ministers who are used to dealing with the European Union where the financing of projects is more easily decided.

      I am a strong defender of European integration, and we have to be keenly aware of how we spend taxpayers’ money, but we must defend our Organisation because we are doing a great job.

      In the debate, I call Mr Kox, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands). – It looks so political for politicians to complain about their own budgets. Nevertheless, this time it is appropriate to complain. My group agrees with the proposals made by Mr Wille, but I want to broaden the debate a little. This Organisation is threatened not with
euthanasia – that would be a smooth ride – but with permanent budgetary anorexia, which is a horrible disease. That disease is imposed on the Organisation by the Committee of Ministers and our own governments. They ask the Council, the Court and the Assembly to do ever more for ever less money. As a Catholic, Mr President, you know that miracles can happen, but not in this case. We will not get a miracle, so we have to have a political solution. We are politicians, so we must achieve that.

      My group sees a huge gap between the fine words at the 3^rd Summit of heads of state and government on the important work of the Council, the Court and the Assembly and the meagre amount of money they are actually prepared to spend on the Council of Europe. It was good that our President and our Secretary General were present at the 3rd Summit, but unfortunately they forgot – or did not get the opportunity – to collect the signatures of the heads of state and government in Warsaw that would have obliged them to put their money where their mouths were.

My group calls for action. That is normal for our political tendency, but in this case it is advisable for us all. To paraphrase Karl Marx, now that we have discussed the budget, it is time to change it. We ask the President and the Secretary General to address national parliaments and governments and request national debates on the budget for the Council of Europe. That is where the debates have to take place as has been pointed out. In those debates, we can remind the national parliaments of the promises made and the goals set in Warsaw – their promises and their goals. Then we can explain how much the Council, the Court and the Assembly do for so little money. We can compare our budget with the huge amount of money spent by the European Union. As has been pointed out before, the proposed new EU agency
on fundamental human rights – which will be discussed tomorrow by the second chamber in the Netherlands – will cost taxpayers more than this entire Assembly.

We can explain that promoting and protecting democracy, the rule of law and human rights has its price. You cannot have it for free.

We advise the President, the Secretary General and all our colleagues to visit all member states and to speak with parliamentarians, because many of them do not know what is happening here. Perhaps they think that a lot of money is spent on this Assembly and do not get feedback from it. They should go out and speak to the committees that deal with European and foreign affairs in our national parliaments.

If our governments are not prepared to provide us with enough of a budget, you have to go and get it. It is not easy but it is the only solution that we from the Group of the Unified European Left can offer. You have to go home, explain our case, and make public what is happening here. You have to debate it and you have to succeed. That is the advice of my group. If you need any help from the left side of the political perspective, you can have it.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Kox. I can assure you that I have visited many member states and addressed their parliaments, and I have never failed to explain what we are doing, especially the fact that we provide so much value for so little money. You must not be sceptical about miracles. Life itself is a miracle.

I now call Mr Schreiner, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr SCHREINER (France) said that the French Parliament was eager to debate the budget of the Assembly. After many years of zero growth and the imposition of efficiency measures, the Council of Europe had experienced budget cuts across its institutions. There was deadlock in the Council of Ministers and governments were refusing to take account of the budget needs of the Assembly and of the European Court of Human Rights. The situation was incomprehensible and unacceptable.

Countries were quibbling over the funding of the Council of Europe but were funding other organisations such as the European Democracy Forum, which had no democratic accountability and had not been tried and tested. It was bizarre that European Union states refused to increase the budget of the Council of Europe but were funding the establishment of the fundamental rights agency to perform the same functions on a budget of €15 million rising to €30 million. That would make sense only if the Council of Europe were to disappear.

It was necessary to reject criticisms of the Council of Europe. It was not tenable to request increased funding, but then to agree to set up new institutions. Budgetary rigour was important but not sufficient. If governments did not increase the funding of the Council of Europe, the Organisation would be marginalised. It was necessary to find a way out of the deadlock. He would not accept the situation lying down. The Council of Europe had played a significant role in the post-war years and in supporting new democracies and had a clear future role ahead of it. He stood four-square behind the Secretary General.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Schreiner. I now call Mr Schmied, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr SCHMIED (Switzerland) thanked those who had defended the Council of Europe. The situation was grave and it was necessary to be honest and to come up with answers or to accept the dissolution of the Council of Europe. Speakers had referred to financial anorexia or euthanasia. The problem was not financial but political, perhaps because the Council of Europe was stepping on the toes of other institutions. The level of the ordinary budget was €190 million and its remit covered 800 million inhabitants, signifying a cost of 25 centimes per inhabitant, although poorer countries contributed at different levels.

Where did the problem lie? The money had been invested well. At the 3rd Summit in Warsaw representatives of governments had given the Council of Europe a list of tasks to perform. How was it possible to impose this mandate to perform missions without supplying enough funding? Those who gave the mandate must also provide the funds. It was necessary to talk to the states that had asked the Council to perform this range of tasks. While efficiency could always be increased, there were limits to the returns to be generated that way. The Council of Europe deserved the esteem in which it was held, but there was no point repeating that point if the institution was in its death throes. It was necessary to find concrete solutions. The Council of Europe deserved more than a slow, agonising death. If it had to die, it should be beautifully.

      The PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Schmied.

      I call Mr Chope, who will speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom). – I congratulate Terry Davis on his robust statements and the clarity of his presentation. It is great that everyone is in agreement. Let us see whether we can deliver a result.

      When one discusses budgets, it is easy to talk in numbers without thinking about the precise implications. I want to illustrate our point by referring to the work of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Most people would say that one of the most remarkable pieces of work of the Council of Europe in the last year has been the report on alleged secret detentions and unlawful interstate transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states. That work was done by the committee and by Mr Marty in particular. We discussed that subject at our last meeting in September and debated how we would continue our work. We were told that we would not be able to do so because we did not have the money for it. We had one person on secondment who did a lot of the research, but we could not continue that secondment because we needed more money. Yet we were also told that the European Union has no fewer than 100 employees in the fundamental rights agency.

We are trying to make progress on a shoestring. There is an incompatibility between the largesse that so many countries of the European Union are prepared to show towards the fundamental rights agency and their utter meanness towards this Organisation. I share the view of previous speakers that the motive may well be that the European Union wants to so weaken this Organisation that it is able to subsume it. We must fight that with all our might. We must keep raising the issue with our parliaments. I am embarrassed that the United Kingdom Government seems to be complicit in this. Its comments to me imply that we are in the wrong and that the UK Government is totally rational in its approach. I hope that we will return from this gathering with all-party support in the UK Parliament for holding our government to account on its stand on this subject and for seeing whether we can have some justice, because at the moment we are certainly not getting that.

I would go further and say that the Council of Ministers is treating this Organisation with contempt. Why is it that we have not had a response to Recommendation 1728, which was passed by the Assembly on 25 November 2005? Almost a year has gone by and we have not had a response. If we do not get a satisfactory response to our budgetary concerns between now and our meeting in December, we should have an emergency debate with it as the top item on our agenda. We can no longer go on having debates such as today’s. We have a resolution in front of us and this is supposed to be a low-key, matter-of-fact debate, but an enormous amount of passion is building up. Our very Organisation is at stake. There are 25 member states in the European Union and they form more than half the membership of the Council of Europe, yet it seems that they are intent on undermining this Organisation. We must not allow that to happen.

The PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Chope.

Let us not complain too much in the Assembly, but complain instead in our national parliaments. If we act at home, we can make it clear that we do not accept what is happening. However, all the national delegations have to take responsibility for that at home in their parliaments. You have addressed your own government, and with good reason, because there is much to do in the United Kingdom, not only on this subject but on the Memorandum of Understanding and the Juncker report as well.

I call Mr Kirilov.

Mr KIRILOV (Bulgaria). – I am sorry, but probably as a result of a technical reason there was no speaker on behalf of the Socialist Group. I can assure you, Mr President, that the leader of our group is aware of the problem and we do not differ in any way from the views expressed – on the contrary.

As Chairman of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, I thank all members for their patience over the past few years, and in particular over the past year. Their indignation has been growing all the time. Each year we go through this agony, which is terrible. It is killing us. At the last meeting, the committee took the decision, as Mr Chope just mentioned, to have an urgent debate in this part-session. In a way, I am sorry that I did not press harder for that at the Bureau meeting. We must face the fact that we have a big political problem. It is not simply a matter of money. A few months ago we discussed additional money because of consequences relating to the expenses of the European Court of Human Rights. All our countries were told that we had to find an additional €10 million. Mr Kox said, “You have to go and get it,” but we have to go and get this money from our representatives in the Committee of Ministers and our ministries of foreign affairs. We have to do the job because no one else is doing it.

I feel sorry for the Secretary General and Mrs de Boer-Buquicchio. Some of us should go and watch the debate in the Committee of Ministers and listen to the arguments on closing down different sectors and activities, and for making cut after cut. I fully agree that it is difficult to speak about this without getting emotional. The fundamental issue is that Council of Europe activities are not under a big light. We need only a small amount of money compared with what we spend on other things. We should be ashamed of the situation. We need to go and get the money from our respective countries. If we do not, we will not get results and will watch the death of this Organisation.

I should like to add that a number of new member countries, neighbours of the Council of Europe, have joined the European Union, and they know very well the difference between the sums of money that we speak about here and those that are spoken about there. As part of our moral obligation – this is something that we, and especially the new member countries, should feel obliged to do – we should explain what the Council of Europe is all about. We have to be grateful for all these years of helping us to prepare for the political requirements and commitments of the Copenhagen criteria and for everything that this Organisation has done for the new member countries.

We cannot leave this issue to one side. We have an emotional obligation and a moral obligation to work on this. So let us send a clear message. If there is no result, we will have to discuss the budget in our countries. That will be our fault here. We should not blame someone else, and our respective ambassadors to this Organisation should be brought to account as well to find out what positions and whose instructions they took and why we have to create the conditions to deal with such a negative attitude towards the Council of Europe. Thank you very much.

(Mr Holovaty, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr van der Linden.)

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Kirilov. I call Mr Branger.

Mr BRANGER (France) said that, as his colleagues knew, the rule of zero growth in real terms had been in force for some time and even a low rate of inflation had eaten away at the Council of Europe’s margin for manoeuvre. That had particularly affected the European Court. He hoped that reform would make the European Court more effective, not only improving legal efficiency but also ensuring social and political stability. Efforts to strengthen the Court must not affect other Council of Europe bodies. The proliferation of institutions should be resisted. There should be fewer areas where the European Union sought to do what other bodies, particularly the Council of Europe, already did. He noted that France had the honour of hosting the Parliamentary Assembly and he would do his best to ensure that the necessary means were made available to the Council of Europe by making representations to the French Government. The Council of Europe should be recognised for its extraordinary achievements. Its work was exemplary.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Branger. I call Mr Lengagne.

Mr LENGAGNE (France) said that listening to the early part of the debate had been a surreal experience. He expressed dismay at the figures that had been mentioned. When he had discovered that the French Government contributed €37 million to the Council of Europe, he had thought that a zero had been missed off the end. By way of contrast, he pointed to the greater expenditure of the European Parliament. He argued that while MEPs did not have good contact with their local constituents, representatives at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe were in constant contact with ordinary people. The Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly were irreplaceable. Representatives at the Parliamentary Assembly had to shoulder some responsibility. It was necessary to participate effectively in domestic debate in order to press for greater funding for the Council of Europe. France could probably double its contribution to the Council of Europe, as, could other countries. He urged his colleagues to take the fight back to their national assemblies. He was ashamed that the debate had had to take place.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Marquet.

Mr MARQUET (Monaco) thanked the previous speakers for their comments on such an important matter. In previous years the Committee of Ministers had imposed a zero rate of growth in real terms on the Council of Europe, which had forced the Secretary General to find innovative ways to balance the budget. The budgetary horizon for 2007 was even more alarming: the Secretary General had presented two options to the Committee of Ministers. His preferred option was to finance growth outside the budget. He urged all parts of the Council of Europe to make efficiency savings.

He had been present at the March meeting of the European Union Social Affairs Committee. That body suffered from a problem in that it was able to invite countries to join but was not able to ensure that conditions of entry were met: it was important that the Council of Europe should fill that role.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gardetto.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that the Council of Europe was dealing with deliberate attempts by the Committee of Ministers to obstruct its work. The Committee of Ministers refused to provide the budgetary means for the Council to conduct its activities; the committee’s stance could only be interpreted as an attempt to destroy the activities of the Council of Europe. The work of the Council of Europe could not be undertaken by any other body, and the Council was needed to enforce democracy and protect human rights in many countries. It required the wherewithal to stay true to its objectives.

None the less, it could be argued that the Council of Europe should scale down its expenditure and reduce services that were not at its heart. Focus could be placed on vital activities and staff transferred to ensure the survival of the overall mission. The time had come for everyone to recognise their responsibilities.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Kosachev.

Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation). – As the representative of the Russian Federation, I believe that this situation is unprecedented, in that Russia can definitely not be blamed for anything that we are discussing. We have been a major contributor to the budget of the Council of Europe ever since our entry into the Organisation. This issue is the subject of heated debates in our country. Many people simply do not understand why Russia pays so much money to the budget. Our contribution is the biggest, although we pay less to the budgets of the United Nations and other respected organisations. However, members of the Russian delegation here believe that Russia should continue to pay as much as it can towards our work on democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Nevertheless, this debate becomes more and more controversial because sometimes we cannot give simple answers to simple questions. During the 10 years of our membership of the Council of Europe, we have paid the equivalent of more than one annual budget of the whole Organisation. According to my calculation, at least four countries’ annual contribution to the Council of Europe budget is less than the annual salary of a national judge in the European Court of Human Rights.

Let me take the example of Georgia, which is cited in different contexts nowadays. Its contribution to the budget is exactly the amount that a judge from Georgia receives as a salary in the European Court of Human Rights. Georgia pays 100 times less to the budget than Russia – four times less per capita. Someone may point out that Georgia is a poor country, a country in transition, but last year it took first place in the world by increasing its military budget by 150%. So money exists in countries like Georgia which, in my opinion, could be spent for better purposes than financing an army.

My first idea is that we should look again at the procedures for contributions from different countries to the Council’s budget. I am in favour of asking some countries to start paying more for the purposes of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, as Russia has for the past 10 years. My second proposal concerns the Council’s expenditures. Again, let me compare the Russian situation with the situation in Georgia. Georgia’s per capita expenditure on the Council of Europe is 100 times more than the Council’s expenditure per capita on projects in the Russian Federation. I consider that to be an unfair approach. Either we must acknowledge that there are 100 times more programmes for democracy in Georgia than there are in Russia or we must make more balanced decisions.

My second proposal is that we need more parliamentary control – control from our
Assembly – over budget expenditures, so that we can avoid such unbalanced decisions and so that there is a possibility for us Russians to give simple answers to questions from our electorate.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – I am delighted to speak in the debate.

I think it is obvious from every speech we have heard this afternoon, including that of the Secretary General, that if we continue in this way we will submit ourselves to absolute ridicule and contempt – and rightly so. If we continue to spread resources so thinly, in the end we shall cease to be effective. In some instances, it might even be that we have achieved that already.

I am very concerned when I hear that we are not doing the right thing. We have considered just a handful of progress reports. I want someone from the Council of Ministers to explain to me, and to the Assembly, what we were doing wrong. Where did we go wrong? What concerned the Council of Ministers about our actions? We were trying to tackle issues that affect people’s lives on a daily basis. That is our track record. All we hear is “Stick to your core issues.” I do not see anything that does not resemble what a reasonable person knowing this Assembly would consider to be in its core interests.

Terry Davis rightly asked about education and culture – the very things that hold society together, that create a fabric of well-being, that give people confidence in themselves and their country. If that is taken away, if that collapses, the core issues of human rights, the rule of law and the ability to vote will all be threatened. Part of our responsibility is not only to protect and fight for those rights, but to ensure that where they are, they remain. That is why members are involved in activities that some might consider to be slightly removed from our responsibilities. I have never seriously shared that view.

I recently read The Da Vinci Code – a bit late: I was probably the last person to read it. On reflection, I think I could write the book now, but I would not write about the search for the Holy
Grail – Christ’s cup. I would write about the search for the Terry Davis money tree, because somewhere in the vicinity there must be a money tree that the Council of Ministers suspect Terry Davis, or his successors or predecessors, to have known about. The Council of Ministers has continually said, “Do more, Terry. You know where the tree is. If you squeeze it a bit more tightly, money will drop and everyone will be happy.” Where is the tree? Of course, it does not exist.

There were two famous comedians, Laurel and Hardy. I believe that we are now coming very close to their situation. The Council of Ministers is always getting us into a mess, and the Council of Europe is always saying, “That’s another fine mess we have got ourselves into, but somehow we will find a way to crack it.” That simply is not good enough, is it? This Organisation, and the 46 nations represented here, are worth more than that.

I do not want to be in competition with the European Union. What it receives is irrelevant. We are talking about what we do. If the Court’s work is so vital to all 46 nations, let them accept that there is a price for that. But there is also a price to be paid for taking one child out of an institution in Russia, Albania or Romania. There is a price to be paid for taking drugs out of sport, and for the influence that we can exert there. There is a price to be paid for giving culture to people so that they can have confidence in their country. Let all 46 of our nation states accept responsibility for putting the whole fabric of society together and protecting it.

This is not about countries in rivalry with each other – Georgia and Russia, the United Kingdom and France. It is about our knowing collectively that what we are doing here is the right thing. Okay, we do not always do it quickly enough, and we sometimes have to compromise so much that many of us have some doubts; but, in the main, this is the only organisation that encompasses all the things that make societies worth living in. If we cannot provide that, protect it and pay for it, we are living in a pretty sorry state.

It simply is not good enough to say that parliamentarians can go back and argue about the budget. We can do that, but I do not think that it will have the desired effect. Someone, somewhere, influences the foreign ministers’ decision to allocate money to the Council of Europe. Where does that influence come from? It does not come from Tony Lloyd, the leader of the British delegation. It must come from someone on the Council of Ministers, from the British ambassador or from elsewhere.

I should be interested to know how much the 46 nations spent collectively on their legations in Strasbourg to service us while we are here. I wonder, if they were faced with the same criteria as Terry, what they would be doing with their budgets and their staff.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers.

I remind you that at the end of a current affairs debate, the Assembly is not asked to decide on a text. The Bureau may subsequently refer the matter to the appropriate committee for report. I would also like to inform you that this subject is on the agenda of the Joint Committee on Thursday evening.

5. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the orders of the day which were approved yesterday.

Are there any objections? That is not the case.

The orders of the day of the next sitting are therefore agreed.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 5.40 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Minutes of proceedings

2.       Changes in membership of committees

3.       Debate on general policy on the situation in the Balkans

      Speakers

      Mr Çavuşoğlu (Turkey)

      Mr Goulet (France)

      Mr Jeftić (Serbia)

      Mr Proroković (Serbia)

      Mr Avdić (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

      Mr Ivanji (Serbia)

      Mr Kaikkonen (Finland)

      Mr Dačić (Serbia)

      Mr Albijanić (Serbia)

      Mr Kirilov (Bulgaria)

      Mrs Kanelli (Greece)

      Mrs Papadimitriou (Greece)

      Mrs Mitreva (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”)

      Ms Čeković (Serbia)

      Mr Pangalos (Greece)

      Mr Gadzinowski (Poland)

      Replies

      Mr Eörsi (Hungary)

      Mr Ateş (Turkey)

      Amendment No. 2 adopted.

      Draft resolution, as amended, adopted.

      Draft recommendation adopted.

4.       Current affairs debate: Council of Europe budget for 2007: an alarming standstill

      Opening speech by Mr Wille (Belgium)

      Address by Mr Terry Davis (Secretary General of the Council of Europe)

      Address by the President

      Speakers

      Mr Kox (Netherlands)

      Mr Schreiner (France)

      Mr Schmeid (Switzerland)

      Mr Chope (United Kingdom)

      Mr Kirilov (Bulgaria)

      Mr Branger (France)

      Mr Lengagne (France)

      Mr Marquet (Monaco)

      Mr Gardetto (Monaco)

      Mr Kosachev (Russian Federation)

      Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

5.       Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting