2006 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Twenty-ninth sitting

Thursday 5 October 2006 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

3.       Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.

4.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the verbatim report.

Mr van der Linden, President of the Assembly took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.

THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.

1. Minutes of proceedings

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

Are these minutes agreed to?

The minutes are agreed to.

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

2. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT. – This morning we have the urgent procedure debate on recent developments in Lebanon in the context of the Middle East, for which there is a total of 27 speakers, followed by the urgent procedure debate on the mass arrival of irregular migrants on Europe’s southern shores, for which there is a total of 13 speakers and two amendments.

We will have to interrupt the list of speakers in the debate on recent developments in Lebanon at about 11.35 a.m. to allow time for the replies and the votes so that the debate on irregular migrants can start at about 11.45 a.m. The list of speakers for that debate will then need to be interrupted at about 12.40 p.m. in order to leave sufficient time for the replies and the votes.

I remind you that the Assembly has already agreed that speeches should be limited to four minutes.

Are these arrangements agreed to?

They are agreed.

3. Debate under urgent procedure: Recent developments in Lebanon in the context of the situation in the Middle East

THE PRESIDENT. – The first item of business this morning is the debate under urgent procedure: “Recent developments in Lebanon in the context of the situation in the Middle East”, presented by Mr Lindblad on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, Document 11056, followed by the vote on the draft resolution.

The list of speakers closed at 6 p.m. yesterday; 27 names are on the list and no amendments have been tabled.

I call Mr Lindblad, the rapporteur. He has eight minutes.

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – Thank you, Mr President. I am very happy that there are no amendments to this report. There seems to be strong consensus among our colleagues in the Parliamentary Assembly on how to approach the tragic situation in the Middle East. Such consensus is important if we are to believe – as I do – that we can help to improve the situation, difficult though that will be. We must always remember not only that we stand for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, but that we stand for those values at an individual level. We act on behalf not only of countries but of real, living human beings. We must always remind ourselves that this tragedy is hurting individual people. The Council of Europe must always be concerned about that. There are many examples of this in the Middle East.

As we have a consensus on this issue, there is not point in discussing who did what when, or should have done what when. Instead, we must focus on what we can do. However, I should like to mention certain examples of individual suffering. These include the abducted soldiers, and their families, who do not know where their loved ones are or whether they are still alive. Children and other innocent people are being killed in attacks on all sides of this conflict, both in Lebanon and in Gaza and the West Bank. Innocent people are being killed on both sides. It is therefore important that we, as parliamentarians in the Council of Europe, stand up for the suffering people, regardless of their ethnic or political background. We must protect those who have no protection.

Also, we must always fight extremists. In the report, I draw attention to the different actors in this tragic conflict. One of those actors is Iran, supported by Syria. That is a strange alliance between a very religious country and a very secular one. Those players who are not actually involved in the fighting in the Middle East bear a great responsibility in this context. There is no doubt that Iran has sent money and weapons – rockets – to make the conflict worse, and that Syria has helped in the process. Therefore, in my report I urge all parties and countries in the region to take responsibility. I urge them not to support terrorists or terrorist acts, but to try to help the suffering people and the development of democracy in the region.

Our role as parliamentarians in the Council of Europe can be to help promote our values at a parliamentary level. That is something new in the report. In the very last paragraph of the draft resolution, paragraph 23, I suggest that we ask the Political Affairs Committee to begin the process of promoting the values of the Council of Europe through the parliaments in the region, not only among the parties involved in the actual fighting but among all countries in the region.

We have already tried to make approaches to the parliaments in the region. A few weeks ago we had a meeting in Gaziantep, in Turkey. It was attended by a big delegation from Iraq, but there were problems. As you know, Israel is a permanent Observer in the Council of Europe, and the Iraqis did not want to participate in the meeting when someone from Israel was sitting in the room. That was, of course, unacceptable to us. We want a dialogue, and everyone must respect everyone else. Values differ, and we will not agree on many political issues, but it is very important to maintain a dialogue so that everyone respects everyone else. So far we have had more success with the dialogue between the Israelis and the Palestinians. There is still a long way to go, but at least the parties are sitting at the same table, along with the Political Affairs Committee’s Sub-Committee on the Middle East. That is a very important step.

Our report also discusses the efforts to form a unity government in Palestine. I heard on the news yesterday that President Abbas has for the moment abandoned the possibility of forming such a government, but we must never give up. We must constantly try to keep up the dialogue and to be as open as possible, listening to all the parties and promoting the basic values of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Margelov, who will speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

Mr MARGELOV (Russian Federation). – I thank the rapporteur for a superb report, which makes a brilliant contribution to our common efforts to solve the Middle East problem. This is a particularly appropriate time at which to discuss that problem.

Israeli troops have left Lebanon. Lebanese armed forces are being deployed along the blue line. Syria is promising to counteract the providing of Hizbollah with weapons. The ending of hostilities in Lebanon and of civilian casualties on both sides is, of course, a big achievement on the part of the international community and Europeans in particular. Regrettably, however, it does not mean a peaceful settlement in the Middle East in a wider sense. That is not because of the existence of a “second front” – the Palestinian-Israeli front, where the exchanging of rocket fire continues. The third and fourth fronts can also emerge there very easily. The issue is that of the very deep contradictions which are causing the region to explode, and which include ethnic-cultural and religious features. Smoothing over such contradictions is just one of the tasks of our Organisation as it works to promote European values.

Seeking a peaceful settlement in the Middle East remains the most important aspect of the activity of the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly. Our representatives and I – as rapporteur of the Sub-Committee on the Middle East – have visited the region several times, and are immediately conversant with the situation there. That has contributed greatly to the Council of Europe’s considered approach towards conflicting parties and the fair sharing of responsibility between them. We have always wanted each side in the conflict to fulfil its obligations on its own, without abandoning mutual expectations, and we have struggled for that. We have always insisted on the equality before the law of all organisations acting in the Middle East. We have contributed to the implementation of democratic elections in Palestine. Today we are also ready to provide practical assistance in setting up democratic institutions in the Middle East and bringing legislatures into accord with international laws. Seeking dialogue, the Council of Europe has tried to arrange regular meetings between Palestinian and Israeli parliamentarians within the walls of the Parliamentary Assembly. I believe that only technical, logistical reasons have prevented us from doing so.

Meanwhile, the latest events in the region may require even the expansion of such a platform for negotiations. Any intensity of confrontation should not change our principles. It would be unforgivable for us to abandon our positions and give up our convictions, and to cede to forces that are willing to mix conflict with blood. Practice compels us to embrace Middle East countries more generally. The values of the Council of Europe will make the situation in the region more healthy, because they espouse not war but dialogue, not hatred but tolerance.

Conflicts are engendered by a whole set of causes. Every European and international institution is required to play its own role in preventing and settling conflicts. Among the reasons for conflict-proneness given by experts is lack of tolerance and the absence of a broad cultural dialogue. A political settlement is only possible on condition that violence stops.

Somewhere the arms are already killing. Somewhere they are stockpiled. We should not be under the illusion that no one can pull the trigger.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Khalil, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KHALIL (Italy) said that, as a new member of the Assembly, he was particularly satisfied by the efforts expended by the Council of Europe beyond the borders of its member states. He himself came from Jerusalem and had experienced life as a refugee, but he had been among the fortunate. He had recently visited the Lebanon and had seen the terrible results of destruction. He hoped that the peoples of the Middle East could be liberated.

The Council of Europe had at its disposal the instruments required to solve conflicts. The presence of the international community in the Lebanon could help to transform the situation. The international community needed to call for the rigorous respect of international law and the rule of law. The use of different yardsticks which, unfortunately, always emerged when talking of Israel, must be abandoned. Intervention was necessary to ensure peace and stabilise the region. The UN resolution referred back to Resolutions 242 and 388 which called for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories and act in a responsible manner in resolving the tragedy of the Palestinian people. The Assembly should call for the release of Palestinian prisoners, including parliamentarians, and for an international conference on the Middle East.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Lloyd, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr LLOYD (United Kingdom). – Let me begin where Mr Khalil ended. We must say very firmly today that in the context of Lebanon and the Middle East the most important thing is to return to the road map and look for a just and fair settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In the end, that lies at the base of everything that we say in the context of the Middle East.

In a very good report, Mr Lindblad invited us to fight the extremists, but let us be blunt about matters. If we want to fight the extremists, we must also fight those things that give succour to the extremists and that give rise to extremism. The recent war between Israel and Lebanon led to one
victor – Hizbollah. It may be difficult for members of the Parliamentary Assembly to accept, but we must recognise that Hizbollah was given succour by every bomb that fell on Lebanon and every death of the thousand or more who died in Lebanon. In the same way, let us be frank about the fact that those who took the toughest possible line in Israel were given strength and support by every Israeli death in that same conflict. Conflict is the mother of extremism, as it gives support to those who seek the most extreme solution.

If we are to have a durable and long-term peace between Israel and Palestine, the Israeli Government needs to accept that the dialogue must include Hamas, difficult though that is to accept and we must also recognise the Israelis’ need for security. Hamas has a majority in the Palestinian Assembly. In the context of Lebanon, we must begin to talk to Hizbollah and, in the wider Middle East context, we must begin to talk to the authorities in Tehran.

There is a role for this Parliamentary Assembly, as Mr Margelov said, in talking to the legitimate parliamentarians in the Middle East. That means that we have to talk to Tehran, to Beirut and to Hamas, within the context of the wider Palestinian authority. We must of course extend our dialogue to those in the Knesset who seek peace, but we must insist to all those people that we need to fight extremism. We must say to them all that we will work with them for just and peaceful solutions in the context of the wider Middle East, although that will mean achieving the difficult feat of bringing people who espouse extremism into political dialogue. Tehran must be part of the solution in the Middle East and Hizbollah must be part of the solution in Lebanon, but those are difficult messages. If we are to fight extremism, we must condemn all those who seek violent solutions, whether in Israel, Lebanon or Iran. We must also recognise that we have to sit down with extremists as well as those who work for peace in all those areas. The future of the Middle East depends on political dialogue.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Hörster, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr HÖRSTER (Germany) said that the report was succinct and objective in discussing the problems in Lebanon and that, while the conclusions seemed visionary, there was no getting away from them. Mr Lloyd had said that contacts with legitimate parliaments in the region should be increased, but there were not many to go on. Europe must take an interest in the region, which was on its doorstep.

The recent conflict had led to a shift in the political handling of the situation. Previously, Europe had been tolerated in the Quartet, but had not been seen as making a contribution to political solutions. That had now changed and Europe had been invited to send peacekeepers and had a voice in the political process. The mandate of the United Nations peacekeepers would end on 31 July 2007, but it was not clear what criteria should be used to judge the success of their mission. UN Resolution 1559, calling for the disarmament of Hizbollah, had no addressee and it was not clear who should enforce it. The Lebanese army was not in a position to do so, and so the international community must take on that role. Palestinian and Israeli sides should set out their ideas of how the process should finish.

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

Mr SCHMIED (Switzerland) said that the Assembly was contributing to the establishment of a dialogue. It was necessary to find a solution and he agreed with Mr Lloyd that no one should be excluded from the dialogue, as long as they were willing to leave their arms outside the negotiating room. The situation was very delicate. Yesterday his political group had heard from Karnit Goldwasser, the wife of an Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hizbollah in July. The Assembly should add its voice to the call by the European Union for the soldiers’ release. At the very least, the kidnappers should give some news on the condition of the soldiers. Civilians had lost their lives, wives had lost their husbands, and children had lost their fathers.

In the aftermath of the war, Hizbollah felt it could claim victory. Israel had withdrawn and the United Nations had 5 000 troops on the ground to reinforce the Lebanese army. It was necessary to strengthen Lebanon as a country and to back up the Lebanese Prime Minister. A just and fair solution had to be found reflecting the context of the conflict, not imposed from outside. Ideals should be left behind and practical answers should be found, with the consent and ownership of those on the ground. A more peaceful Middle East, where legitimate authority was strong, should be built. Many had paid a heavy price but the Assembly’s debate was a contribution to finding peace, which was the best memorial to those who had died.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Schmied. I now call Mr Brincat.

Mr BRINCAT (Malta). – Now that weeks have passed since the war in Lebanon has ended, it is important to assess the impact that this war has had on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A survey carried out jointly in the past few days by professional pollsters in Jerusalem and Ramallah not only examined Israelis’ and Palestinians’ attitudes on the conflict in the aftermath of the second war in Lebanon, but traced the attitude of both publics towards the resumption of a political process and their assessment of the impact of the war and the propensity for further violence in the Israeli-Palestinian arena.

Despite the bad turn of events yesterday evening, 67% of Israelis polled now support negotiations with a Palestinian national unity government, including Hamas, if that is needed to reach a comprehensive agreement. Even among Palestinians, a majority supports talks between a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority and Israel. As to the impact of the war on attitudes towards violence, findings suggest that Hizbollah tactics provided an attractive model for the Palestinians’ armed struggle.

Despite the militant views of the Palestinians in the aftermath of the war in Lebanon, the majority of Palestinians support the call for a ceasefire between Palestinians and Israelis, with an overall majority believing that Palestinians cannot depend on armed action only and must reach a political settlement.

What is most reassuring from all this is that three quarters of both Palestinians and Israelis support negotiations between Israel and Abu Mazen over a final status settlement. The war in Lebanon seems to have partly facilitated Israelis’ willingness to overcome the hurdle of a Hamas government in order to resume a political process for resolving the conflict.

Important lessons have been learnt from the war by both publics: first, reliance on military power or armed action alone is futile and a political settlement must be reached; secondly, and not unrelated, both publics believe that in order to prevent a war between them in the future similar to the war in Lebanon, there is a need to reach a permanent settlement between Lebanon and the Palestinians soon; and, thirdly, both publics seem to have become more forthcoming about the role of the international community in the conflict resolution process.

Although admittedly several tactical disagreements delayed a final Israeli troop withdrawal from southern Lebanon, there are strong suggestions that the climate could be improved in view of the recent Israeli pull-out from Lebanon. I have always regarded the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as a key component of the ceasefire that took effect on 14 August this year. One sincerely hopes that the appeal by the Lebanese premier that bickering will make Lebanon a battlefield for regional conflicts will not fall on deaf ears. Lebanese politicians should, I hope, work alongside the international community by concentrating on the reconstruction process.

Having visited Lebanon in June – just before the war broke out – I was filled with confidence that, in spite of the political factions and differences, what unites Lebanon is bigger and more important than what sets it apart. On our side, as European parliamentarians, we shall continue to strive for the establishment of a formal dialogue with Lebanese parliamentarians to enhance the parliamentary dimension, which the rapporteur rightly highlighted and recommended.

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Brincat. I now call Mr Legendre.

Mr LEGENDRE (France) said that all parliamentarians wanted peace in the region, a secure Israel, Palestine in its own borders, and a Lebanese state with its independence restored. Extremists had gained ground because their acts had provoked reactions such that many now saw their cause as just. It was necessary to return to reason. The Palestinians should not be allowed to return to tearing themselves apart in civil war, as the terrorists of the future would be bred from despair. By fostering a strong state in Lebanon, Israel would be guaranteed its own security. Strong passions were always aroused in the region. It was essential that places of remembrance should not be attacked. Our time was threatened by the threat of wars between civilisations. It was necessary to recall people to reason. The Middle East needed a stable Lebanese state which upheld the rule of law. The importance of establishing a dialogue between all the parties could not be over-emphasised.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Legendre. I call Mrs Vermot-Mangold.

Mrs VERMOT-MANGOLD (Switzerland) said that everybody had been shocked by the conflict over the summer and all had been left speechless by the level of pain and suffering which had occurred. The current situation was more complicated than ever. The various peace processes had been reduced to a trickle. The war had dashed many hopes and the current ceasefire was fragile. The Israeli Prime Minster Ehud Olmert had rightly been criticised by many Israelis and his strategy had little support. It was to be hoped that new figures would come to power in Israel who were able to replace the logic of war in the Middle East with the logic of peace and social development. It was essential to establish both a viable Palestinian state and the state of Israel within internationally recognised borders. Attacks on civilians in the region had to stop and the flow of weapons into the region must be halted. She concluded by stressing the importance of supporting peace initiatives and involving the civilian population.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Vermot-Mangold. I call Mr Rochebloine.

Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France) said that peace was everybody’s wish. He noted that while the Council of Europe was dealing with these difficult issues, the European Union had struggled even to reach a common view. France had highlighted the fact that the Israeli offensive was unacceptable. He underlined the risk that Israeli government policy was placing on the unity of Lebanon. The reconstruction of Lebanese political unity was a prerequisite for stabilisation. The Israeli attack had been totally disproportionate and current policy was feeding division and confrontation. There was an urgent need for peace to be restored. Lebanon must recover its integrity and mutual respect had to be established in the region.

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

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that Lebanon had gone through one of the worst moments in its history. Israel’s actions had been totally disproportionate. It was essential that all parties renounced violence and honoured agreements. The disarmament of Hizbollah was eminently desirable, although the timing of such a move would be very sensitive. He stressed the importance of stopping the supply of arms to Hizbollah from Iran and Syria: countries in the Middle East had not done enough to stop Iran arming Hizbollah and Hamas. Stabilisation in the region would be impossible without economic dynamism and the creation of jobs. Dialogue and negotiation were prerequisites for progress, so all the various protagonists must be brought together. The Council of Europe had a role to play in promoting democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The Council of Europe should establish dialogue with parliaments in the region.

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

Mr KOROBEYNIKOV (Russian Federation) questioned the role of peacekeepers, arguing that they never achieved a lasting solution, but only dampened down tensions temporarily. He was concerned that Russia was to make a financial contribution to reconstruction although the current problems in the region were not of its making. Recent violations of international humanitarian law should be investigated wherever possible. He stressed the importance of looking at measures to reduce poverty in the Middle East. As for the current situation in Afghanistan, continuing heroin production was enriching the drug mafia, while the people of Afghanistan were being impoverished. An economic renaissance was required in Afghanistan, as it was also in Iran and Lebanon. The goal should be dialogue, not war, and a world order free of conflict, based on economic and moral principles.

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

Mr SEVERIN (Romania). – I believe that most of the facts are already known and that most of the principles have been stated already. Therefore, I should like to make some quick points.

The first is about dialogue. Indeed, we can never repeat often enough that dialogue is
needed – a dialogue involving everybody and without any preconditions or unilateral solutions. The past few months have proved that a unilateral solution cannot work. European support for the countries in the region should be increased in accordance with their will to engage in a true dialogue. I have to underline, however, that this resolution does not apply to the release of the kidnapped people in the area. That cannot be a matter for bargaining.

My second point concerns democracy. Effective dialogue, lasting peace, truly independent states and regional security cannot exist without democracy. This is our speciality and we need to engage more in building a true, vibrant democracy in the region. We need to develop specific programmes that involve not only political solutions but actually going there and assisting in democracy building.

My third point is that more tolerance and multicultural coexistence are needed in the region. In that regard, we need to look carefully at our own standards on minority rights to see whether they could be applied there, or whether they need to be adapted in the light of the specific historical background of the area. The introduction of such standards – adapted if necessary – could help.

My fourth point concerns nation building. There is a need for nation building as an element of the restoration of cohesion in some states, and Lebanon is an example of this. There are problems of cohesion within that state and we have to assist the nation building process there, otherwise the problems will continue.

My fifth point concerns the disarmament of paramilitary forces. We must put in place programmes for that disarmament, or at least for the reduction of the ability of the paramilitary forces to rearm again and again.

Syria is going to play a crucial role in achieving peace in the region. In that context – this relates not only to Syria – the poverty in the region and the isolation of the various players represent a barrier to peace. We need to determine how to overcome the barriers of poverty and isolation, and how to engage in a strategic dialogue with Syria in order to bring it into the peace process, as that is not happening at the moment.

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

Mr PREDA (Romania) said that the situation was complex and tragic and demanded action by all countries. Romania had followed the conflict with concern and had urged the cessation of hostilities. Romania had also helped in the evacuation of European Union and Moldovan citizens and had pledged a contribution of €500 000 towards the cost of rebuilding the Lebanon. The efforts of the Lebanese President to rebuild his country were supported by Romania, which was ready to provide further economic and other support.

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

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – Yesterday, I was privileged, like others, to listen to the wife of the young soldier who had been kidnapped. She did not pass judgment either on her own government or on the people who had kidnapped her husband. She made a simple plea to the Assembly, and I hope that the Secretary General and the President will take note of that plea. It was to allow her to have her husband back or to have news of where he was and whether he was alive or dead. She needed to know whether to grieve or to get on with her life. The Council of Europe has a perfectly legitimate humanitarian role to play in this regard. If we are to go in for that kind of gesture on behalf of an individual, however, we should also do so in the context of Israel. We should say to Israel that it should release those in detention who have been democratically elected. They are part of the process, whether Israel likes that or not, but they cannot play a part in the process if they are in prison.

Many people today have spoken about dialogue, but there is also such a thing as the dialogue of the deaf, in which people talk but do not listen. That simply is not good enough. On every single day of its existence, Israel has lost citizens in conflicts. It is the only country on earth that has forever been surrounded by hostile states. However, much of the hostility that exists towards Israel today is of its own making, because of the way in which it has punished people – particularly the Palestinians – without stopping to consider the consequences of its actions. Israel will have to do a lot to make the situation meaningful.

A colleague suggested earlier that it would be possible to disarm Hizbollah. We did not disarm the Iraqis, and we certainly did not disarm the warlords in Afghanistan. I do not believe that any country whose young men and women are serving in Lebanon will rush to take on the task of disarming Hizbollah. Indeed, many of them would pull their soldiers out of that force very quickly in those circumstances. These problems can be resolved only within the state of Lebanon, and we need to give Lebanon the kind of support that Israel has had to build its democratic structures over the past 58 years. The west, and the United Nations in particular, has poured billions of dollars into the state of Israel. If many of the other states in the region had had similar resources poured into them, democracy would not be a rarity in the area. During the 58 years since the creation of the state of Israel, we have missed opportunities to bring democracy to the other states in the region. My country is as guilty as any other in the mistakes that have been made over the years.

The United Kingdom is a good example of a country that has had to release terrorists and to sit down and negotiate with them in order to achieve peace in our own islands. We have peace in Northern Ireland today only because we were prepared to do that. Anyone who believes that we can achieve peace in the Middle East by leaving the situation much as it is today is making a great mistake.

The Council of Europe has a role to play in this regard. People might be critical of the fact that we are even discussing this matter, but we are doing so because, just a few weeks ago, tens of thousands of our citizens were being evacuated from Lebanon and because today thousands of our young men and women are policing the gap between Lebanon and Israel. We need to be part of this process. We are part of the cause of the problem and we need to be part of the solution. However, there is no point in having a dialogue if we simply preach the same verses that we have preached for the last 50-odd years. If we do that, we shall be doomed forever.

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

Mr CEBECİ (Turkey). – The Middle East has become the stage for yet another devastating conflict. Lack of progress towards peace in the region has once again fuelled a political and humanitarian crisis resulting in enormous destruction and human suffering. The conflict, which erupted at a time when we combined our efforts to promote mutual understanding, respect and harmony among religions and cultures, has not only further damaged the already volatile Arab-Israeli relations but worsened the chances of wider peace and security in the nations of the region. The situation therefore calls for our continued attention.

Now that a ceasefire can finally be achieved, we must focus our attention on healing the wounds of the Lebanese people to bring about a speedy recovery in the region and the rebuilding of Lebanon. The unanimous adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 is a major step in that direction. In the long run, however, given that the problems in the region are interconnected and multidimensional, we must intensify our efforts to find a comprehensive solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which unquestionably lies at the core of the Middle East issue. It is clear to all of us that as long as the broader Arab-Israeli conflict remains unresolved hostilities will continue, threatening not only regional stability and peace but perhaps the stability of the whole world.

If we are to create an environment that is conducive to peace in the region, we must encourage negotiation and discussions among the countries and parties involved. A negotiated two-state
solution – that is, the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state with recognised borders living side by side with Israel – is the only way of establishing stability in the region. The active involvement of the international community is essential to the achieving of that objective.

Because of our proximity to the region and the historic background of our relations with the countries concerned, Turkey closely follows all regional processes and plays – or tries to play – an active role in international mediation efforts. During the latest crisis, we remained in close contact, providing humanitarian aid for the people of Lebanon and assisting in the rapid evacuation of some 10 000 people from the region.

The crisis has proved to us once again that the path of violence and mutual rejection leads only to further suffering for the peoples of the Middle East. We now call on the parties to seize on the opportunity offered by the resolution to break the stalemate. It is time for the parties to work together to resolve their differences, and for the international community to encourage and support those efforts.

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

Mr TEKELİOĞLU (Turkey). – We are holding a very timely debate on an issue that is of primary concern not just to the peoples and countries of the Middle East, but to Europe and the world at large. The problems at the heart of the recent crisis have had far-reaching effects beyond the region for decades.

The hostilities and destruction in Lebanon have tested the faith placed in the international institutions. The United Nations naturally plays the leading role in efforts to end the crisis and pave the way towards stability, but the Council of Europe and other European institutions cannot remain indifferent to the alarming situation in a region that is in our immediate vicinity.

As a Turkish parliamentarian, I feel that my responsibility is to convey the high expectations of Europe among the peoples of the region. Given its historic ties with the region and its close relations with the parties to the conflict, Turkey is probably in a unique position among Council of Europe member states to feel the far-reaching negative effects of the crisis. Public reaction in Turkey to the human suffering was quick and strong.

The Turkish people take account of the following points. A missing soldier cannot be the reason for such destruction. Of course the soldier must be freed, but no one can explain the killing of a family at the seaside by Israeli forces before the war. Nearly all the infrastructure in south Lebanon was destroyed by Israel. Israel attacked civilian targets. So many people on both sides were killed in the war. Of course, there are many more points to be made.

From the very start, Turkey pursued active diplomacy and took its place at the forefront of the international effort to end the bloodshed. At the same time, we remained in close contact with all the parties to the conflict. Throughout, we have given humanitarian aid to the people of Lebanon, and assisted in the rapid evacuation of some 10 000 foreign nationals. We supported the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1701; but given the many challenges that remain, it is only a first step towards bringing peace and stability to the region.

The recent crisis proved once again that the question of Palestine continues to lie at the core of the problems in the Middle East. The issue is not simply a conflict between two countries; it is a problem for which everyone pays a heavy price, and which is having huge effects on a global scale. It is clear that everyone has drawn lessons from what happened in Lebanon. Now, in the aftermath of the tragedy, there is a different climate which may be suitable for a renewed peace initiative.

Now is the time to revive efforts to put the Middle East peace process back on track. We appeal wholeheartedly to all parties and the international community not to let this opportunity escape us. What we need now is strong and determined leadership which will resolutely pursue the road to peace. The Council of Europe and our Assembly must give full support to the efforts to revitalise the peace process. We must also not forget that the growing sense of injustice associated with the Middle East problem deepens the rift in cultural perceptions. We cannot allow events in the region to undermine the prospects of cross-cultural harmony that we are working so hard to achieve.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Beck.

Mrs BECK (Germany) was grateful to the rapporteur for the wise and balanced draft resolution he proposed, which had been adopted unanimously in the committee. The unrest in the Middle East was aggravated by the failure to recognise borders. The current conflict had resulted from the undermining of Lebanon’s sovereignty by Hizbollah. Hizbollah had been allowed to expand its arsenal of weaponry, enabling it to attack northern Israel. Palestine had also suffered as a result of disproportionate harshness from the Israeli side. Extremism would be fuelled as a consequence. The withdrawal of troops from the Gaza Strip had not led to peace: on the contrary, attacks in the region had increased. There were few conflicts around the globe where the solution was more apparent: a two-state solution was the only option.

She was glad that Europe had taken on the responsibility of providing peacekeeping troops in Lebanon. A military presence was not in itself a solution but it could create the security necessary for dialogue to take place. Dialogue was difficult, however, as the Political Affairs Committee had discovered in its visit to Turkey, when Iraqi representatives had refused to enter the same room as their Israeli counterparts. Europe must shoulder its responsibilities and help to decide a new road map. Iran’s ties with Hizbollah demonstrated that behind the Israel-Palestine conflict existed a wider clash between western secular values and the extremist Islamic world.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Hasson.

Mr HASSON (Observer from Israel). – At the outset, I wish to convey my sincere thanks to the President, members of the Parliamentary Assembly in general and members of the Political Affairs Committee in particular for the warm welcome we have received. I also congratulate Mr Lindblad on his work.

While I do not concur with every element of the draft resolution, I believe that this debate on recent developments in Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories is of extreme importance. I wish to remind colleagues that on 24 May 2000 the last Israeli soldier left Lebanon and we withdrew to the internationally recognised border. Only five months later, in October 2000, three Israeli soldiers were abducted by Hizbollah from Israeli territory. Israel negotiated the release of the soldiers’ corpses in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, but later paid a very heavy price when 34 Israeli citizens were killed by those released in that agreement.

On 2 September 2004, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1559. However, due to the lack of political pressure, the terrorist organisation Hizbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, created a state of its own in Lebanon. Hizbollah armed itself with thousands of short and long-range missiles, which it has used against our civilian population since day one of the military clashes. Meanwhile, Iran developed its nuclear programme.

On 11 August 2006, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1701. That decision was the key to stability in our troubled region. The preamble of the resolution calls for the unconditional release of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, the two abducted Israeli soldiers held by Hizbollah. However, since the day the resolution was adopted, we have not seen any sign of life from the soldiers. For its part, Israel has fulfilled all the requests in Resolution 1701.

On the Palestinian issue, I remind the Assembly that Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in August 2005. Palestinian elections were held in January. Since then, 1 200 rockets have been launched from the Gaza Strip at Israel. In June, Hamas abducted an Israeli soldier to the Gaza Strip from our territory.

Terrorism knows no boundaries. The immense task of the international community in general, and of Europe in particular, is now to ensure that all parts of Resolution 1701 are fulfilled completely and without hesitation. Resolution 1701 is a barrier to a new eruption of terror, which next time could be nuclear in nature. If the international community allows Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons, it
might – directly or via its proxies – export nuclear terror to the shores of Europe. Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hizbollah are not merely an Israeli problem, but a European problem. All of us must insist that we prevent Iran and its proxy organisations from threatening the international community.

Europe faces a huge challenge in supporting the moderate forces in the Middle East. Firmness, resolve and determination on your part are needed to stabilise our fragile region.

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

Mr SALLES (France) said that the conflict in July had triggered amazement and concern across the world: amazement because Lebanon had been regaining its sovereignty after Syria’s withdrawal and concern because wars in the Middle East were globally destabilising. Could the security of Israel be safeguarded and Lebanon’s sovereignty be guaranteed? Lebanon had the trappings of sovereignty but swathes of its territory were under the rule of militia under foreign influence. Hizbollah commanded troops trained by foreign powers and 20 000 missiles. South Lebanon had been taken hostage by Hizbollah, which threatened Israel’s security. Israel had been obliged to intervene in July, although the methods it had used were questionable. The international community had been forced to get involved. UN Security Council Resolution 1559 had not been respected: as a consequence the international community had agreed Resolution 1701 and had strengthened UNIFIL.

To pacify the region it was necessary to disarm Hizbollah, but recent statements by Hassan Nasrallah had caused concern because he had called for the resignation of the Lebanese Government and stated that Hizbollah would not disarm. Hizbollah’s ties with Iran were a particular concern in the light of that country’s nuclear ambitions. If Hizbollah would not disarm, UNIFIL must be given a military mandate to disarm the group itself. If action were not taken, the situation could become much worse than it had been in the summer. The international community must take the responsibility to act, not simply react. The Assembly should call for the release of the captured Israeli soldiers or, at the least, information on their condition and access to them by the Red Cross.

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

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Zingeris.

Mr ZINGERIS (Lithuania). – We face new realities in the Middle East, so how should we proceed? Of course, we are proud that there are democratic elections in Palestine and in Lebanon. We highly respect the results of those elections, but there are other realities. Every day in middle schools in some countries, there is education based on hatred of neighbouring countries. That is included in the curriculum of some elements of Muslim education controlled by Hizbollah and by Hamas. How should we react to the results of that? Year after year, that education presents horrible pictures of massacres.

Should we react to speeches by the Iranian President seriously, or as if they are part of a diplomatic game? If it is seriously stated that the state of Israel should be wiped out, what should we do? Some colleagues say that we should not react and that we should adapt to such a reality, but how should we react when some elements in the Middle East – I am not talking about Jordan or Egypt and other respectable countries – are saying that the other side should be wiped out of the region?

The Council of Europe is not a military organisation. It is based on human rights and on providing human rights education on the standards of the Council Europe. European Union neighbourhood policy programmes should attempt to influence the education of all the people in the Middle East, so that it is more civil in nature and is more related to civil society, which is our goal.

Therefore, our basic attitude to the Middle East is not to accept it when some elements of the other side – I am not talking about the whole of the Muslim side, of course – are saying that the other side should be wiped out. That is the reality. It is not a political game. It is seriously declared. We cannot accept that.

I think that both sides – respected Lebanese parliamentarians and Israeli parliamentarians - should be represented here, but we cannot accept the part about wiping out one of the sides, especially when that side is a small democratic state in the Middle East.

We cannot forget the basic realities of the Middle East. We should try to have a dialogue with the moderate forces, not with the forces that declare that some part of the Middle East should be wiped out. Thank you for your attention.

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

Mr MARQUET (Monaco) said that earlier speakers had shown that the recent crisis affected the whole future of the Middle East. The previous day there had been news of confrontations between Fatah and Hamas. The aims of UN Resolution 1701 were to end the hostilities, disarm the militias, secure the borders of Lebanon and ensure the withdrawal of Israel. It was necessary to implement that Resolution to bring about peace.

Hizbollah was in control of a state within a state, in which it ran both domestic and military policies. There was no solution in the present situation, since a working civil society was a precondition for a lasting settlement. The attack on a Lebanese member of parliament and journalist had flouted democratic values and shown the fragility of those values in that society. The Geneva Convention of 1949 protecting civilians in war must be upheld. States within the region must respect their obligations under international humanitarian law. The international community could not ignore other neighbouring crises, such as in the Palestinian territories. The international community must impose, as a precondition for progress, respect for the rule of law and human rights.

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

Mr ALATALU (Estonia). – It is a hard task to be the final speaker in a debate on our responsibility in the Middle East. My colleague from Lithuania, Mr Zingeris, said that the Middle East is a difficult area when it comes to education. However, we must be ready to work in all conditions. I remind colleagues that in January a delegation from the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly had observer status at the elections in Palestine. Together with all other main international organisations, we agreed that the elections were carried out according to the main standards.

Since then, however, the situation has changed. At the April part-session, we expected guests from the Israeli Parliament and the new Palestinian Legislative Council, but no one arrived, and we still have not received an explanation for that. At the time, some of the elected Palestinian parliamentarians were still in prison. That same group of prisoners composed a letter which was published in June. Javier Solana described it as the first step in the right direction. However, then the war started and those 28 Palestinian parliamentarians and eight ministers were detained.

What was our reaction? I have high praise for our President, René van der Linden, who immediately called for the release of the Speaker of the Palestinian Parliament who, as we know, was later released. The Speaker is on the same level as Mr van der Linden, but there was not enough of a reaction concerning our colleagues in the Palestinian Parliament, who are still in prison. Dialogue and negotiation require a counterpart. If one sixth or one fifth of the Palestinian Parliament are in prison, they are excluded from the normal process of negotiation between Palestine and Israel.

I am happy that 22 colleagues signed the declaration demanding the release of the Palestinian parliamentarians. I am aware that the same position is specified in the report by Göran Lindblad. The difficult process in the Middle East can go ahead only if everyone is included.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Alatalu.

That concludes the list of speakers.

Once again, I underline our strength. We have a double mandate – one in the Assembly of the Council of Europe and one in our national assemblies. We do not have a double hat; we have only one hat. We must use our mandate here and in our national parliaments.

I call Mr Lindblad, rapporteur, to reply. He as four minutes.

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – I thank everyone for their good and constructive contributions. We might not agree on everything, but there is large agreement on the direction that we should take in dealing with the problem in the Middle East.

We will enter into a dialogue with everyone. As the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, we will deal with parliamentarians from the countries in the region, but it is essential that we talk to everyone, including the Iranians. As part of my work on the Political Affairs Committee, I am involved in matters relating to nuclear issues in Iran. We are working on arranging a trip to Tehran. There have been some technical difficulties, which we will try to overcome. I hope that there will be an opportunity for us to start a dialogue with the Iranians.

It is important that all insurgents in the region are disarmed. Hopefully, many can be disarmed peacefully through dialogue. However, there will be problems with some military groups. We must support democratic forces in the region. It is important that negotiation, the rule of law and respect for human rights are at the top of the agenda.

Let me conclude where I started. It is important that the Palestinians recognise Israel’s right to exist within safe and protected borders. At the same time, Israel must respect the Palestinians. It is also important that all parties respect the results of earlier agreements and put the road map back on the table. We have to urge Israel to halt all military actions in the Palestinian territories. United Nations Resolutions 1559 and 1701 must be respected. I hope that the Quartet will get the negotiations going. It is very important that that is done quickly.

I hope that everyone will support the last paragraph in the draft resolution so that the Council of Europe is an active partner, keeping dialogue going in the region.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Lindblad.

Does the Chairperson of the Political Affairs Committee wish to speak? He has two minutes.

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – Thank you very much, Mr President. I should like to thank the rapporteur and our secretariat for their excellent work. I should also like to thank all our colleagues who contributed to this discussion. There were many things in common during the discussion, but one thing that came out was the fact that political dialogue is very important in order to solve the problems of the Middle East. Along those lines, the Political Affairs Committee has been doing its work. For example, we have been getting together Knesset representatives, the Palestinian Legislative Council and the Political Affairs Committee’s Sub-Committee on the Middle East. We have started this dialogue, and we hope that, in the very near future, we will have a tripartite dialogue along the same lines.

At the same time, dialogue has to be spread throughout the Middle East. For example, we have recently been in touch with the Lebanese, Syrian and Iraqi Parliaments. There should be dialogue without preconditions between those parliaments too. I think that parliamentary dialogue is very important in solving the problems. As we know, official dialogue between the governments is not going anywhere. Perhaps by starting the dialogue between the different parliaments, we might find new hope.

My last point is that, for the sake of dialogue, the abducted Israeli soldiers should be freed as soon as possible, but the parliamentarians who are in Israeli jails should be freed too. That should be the first step towards parliamentary dialogue. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The Political Affairs Committee has presented a draft resolution in Document 11056, to which no amendments have been tabled.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11056 is unanimously adopted, by 78 votes.¹

I congratulate the rapporteur and the committee. Thank you.

4. Debate under urgent procedure: Mass arrival of irregular migrants on Europe’s southern shores

THE PRESIDENT. – The final item of business this morning is the debate under urgent procedure: “Mass arrival of irregular migrants on Europe’s southern shores”, presented by Mr Christopher Chope on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, Document 11053, followed by a statement by Mr Thomas Hammarberg, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. I thank Mr Hammarberg for his willingness to take part in this discussion.

The list of speakers closed at 6 p.m. yesterday. Thirteen names are on the list and two amendments have been tabled.

I remind the Assembly that we have already agreed to interrupt the list of speakers at around 12.40 p.m. in order to allow time for the replies and votes.

I call Mr Chope. He has eight minutes.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom). – I begin by thanking members of the Assembly for selecting this important topic for emergency debate. I thank fellow members of my committee for their comments, suggestions and support. I also thank the secretariat, particularly Mr Mark Neville, for the hard work involved in bringing the material for this report together so quickly. I should also like to thank Mr Hammarberg for choosing to contribute to this debate. If I am not mistaken, I think that this will be the first occasion on which he has contributed to such a debate since he was elected, and we look forward to hearing what he has to say.

The background to this issue and the context of this report are well known. There has been a substantial, indeed massive, increase in seaborne migration into southern Europe from Africa – into the Canary Islands, Spain, Italy, Malta and Greece. Other countries are involved, but those are the ones that I think are bearing the brunt of the new invasion of migrants.

The number of irregular migrants landing in the Canary Islands has increased fivefold in one year, with 25 000 recorded as having arrived already this year. What are the prospects for the future? Last month, a press report suggested that 100 000 people were waiting in west Africa to get into boats to go to the Canary Islands. We know that seaborne migration is taking place across the Mediterranean as well.

Seaborne migration is often more visible than overland migration, especially when dangerously overloaded small boats are used as the means of transport on rough seas. But this report recognises that there may be as many as 5 million irregular migrants or more in Europe, and it is not only a problem for southern Europe.

I should like to highlight two aspects. The first is that the arrival of so many irregular migrants in southern Europe poses major humanitarian and human rights challenges. What do the countries involved do on reception? What do they do in considering the issues of detention and thereafter release? How, if at all, can they facilitate the return of these irregular migrants? The draft resolution reminds countries of their human rights and humanitarian obligations, and members will have seen in the body of the report that there can be grounds for concern about whether human rights and humanitarian obligations have been met in full by the countries that are dealing with this challenge.

The second aspect that I wish to highlight is one of migration management, both short-term and long-term. The immediate need to have effective patrols along the coast of west Africa has been recognised, but I think that it is fair to say that such patrols have not been implemented effectively. Indeed, there has been a lot of criticism of the EU agency called FRONTEX and other national organisations. They stand accused of doing too little, too late. It is clear that some countries blame Spain and Italy for effectively being involved in contributory negligence, as we would say in the United Kingdom, through regularisation programmes.

When we examined this issue in the committee earlier this week, four other key issues arose during the discussions with colleagues which they thought warranted further follow-up work, and perhaps I can just briefly refer to those issues. The first is the need to look further at the root causes of this flow of irregular migration. We could, for example, follow up the recent report of the Global Commission on International Migration. This is a big and important issue.

The second matter raised and discussed has been the need to look into the steps required to tackle the illegal criminal networks responsible for the trafficking and smuggling of irregular migrants. That is a particularly topical matter – particularly for those of us from the United Kingdom because in today’s United Kingdom press there are reports of the smashing of what is described as the largest ever people-smuggling operation across mainland Europe in the United Kingdom. The ringleader was sentenced yesterday to eight and a half years imprisonment by a United Kingdom court, and when one looks at the horrific pictures that accompany those press reports, many people will say that eight and a half years was not enough for the gross inhumanity of which that person was guilty and the accompanying cruelty that resulted.

What is perhaps significant for us, however, is that the people smugglers were brought to justice through the use of intercept material provided by Belgium, Italy and Austria. That underlines the importance and effectiveness, when used, of pan-European co-operation in tackling these illegal criminal networks. The sad thing is that this co-operation is not widespread enough, particularly in the areas that we are discussing in the context of this report.

The third issue that we discussed was that of readmission arrangements. Tackling returns is essential, not only for dealing with those who have arrived but to deter those who are planning to leave their own country as economic migrants.

The fourth issue was the impact of regularisation programmes. This is a delicate issue, but such programmes much have a pull effect. The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population is looking into this issue in great detail, and we agreed this morning to hold a seminar and to obtain expert advice on it.

All these issues, and others, are highlighted in the draft resolution and draft recommendation. It is clear that the Assembly has to step up its work in a number of key areas of migration management, while not losing sight of the important human rights and humanitarian implications of dealing with these flows of migrants. Most of them are economic migrants and irregular migrants, but sadly, because of the large volumes of people involved, the genuine refugees and asylum seekers are losing out. We need to ensure that we strike a proper balance in this regard.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Chope.

We now come to the statement by Mr Thomas Hammarberg, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. Mr Hammarberg, you have the floor. You have seven minutes.

Mr HAMMARBERG (Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights). – Thank you, Mr President. Let me say from the outset that I welcome the recommendation in the report that I pay special attention to this problem in my country reports and otherwise. This is obviously a key priority for all human rights work in Europe and I shall act accordingly. This is a very timely report. It is also balanced, and I like the fact that it is comprehensive while at the same time emphasising human rights. Of course, it is now necessary to be more precise about the management of migration, but we should not forget the human rights dimension of these issues. Both aspects are well formulated in the report.

We need to pay more attention – as the report does – to the root causes of this issue. There is no better way to do this than to give more support to the countries of origins, not least those in Africa and on the eastern side of our continent. Those countries need more support and development assistance if they are to achieve a standard of living that will make it less necessary for their young people to try to come to our continent. That must be strongly emphasised.

The proposal for sharing responsibility must be given more political support. There has been a great deal of discussion about this in many meetings, but there is not enough implementation of this principle. We need to share the responsibility all over Europe, rather than burdening the countries that, for geographical reasons, are more of a target for incoming migrants. That point has been well expressed in the report and it should be one of the key messages in the final recommendation as well. I also support the emphasis on the need to address the problem of criminal networks. They pose a threat to the human rights of vulnerable people.

Some time must also be devoted to the positive aspects of migration. There are positive aspects, not least for an ageing continent, and we should not forget that migration also involves human rights issues. It is emphasised in Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights that everyone should be free to leave any country, including their own. We must have regard to that perspective as well.

We should also remember that when we have a wave of migrants, there will always be a mix of asylum seekers and economic migrants. We need to find the appropriate instruments to deal with them not as a collective group, but in a way that makes it possible for the asylum seekers in that wave to have their cases studied and processed legitimately, with appropriate regard to their human rights.

Another point that I would like to emphasise is the vulnerability of irregular migrants. In several countries, there is a notion that irregular migrants have no rights at all, but that is a misconception. They do have certain rights, and that point has to be made in the national debates. They have a right to due process, but they are sometimes denied that right. They also have a right to adequate shelter and housing, to a certain level of education – not least for the young people among them – and to emergency health care. Sometimes, however, these rights are forgotten, and one of the key messages from the Council of Europe must be that any group of irregular migrants – even though they may not be wanted by the majority of the population – has certain rights, and that those rights must be protected. They have rights under the European Convention and according to the revised Social Charter, and it is our duty to make that clear.

I would also like to emphasise the importance of taking further action to stem xenophobia in our countries. Let us face it: xenophobia is a major problem in Europe today. Migrants are often victims of xenophobic actions by skinheads, neo-Nazi groups and others, and it is our duty to protect those vulnerable people from such actions.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mr Commissioner. You are working very hard for the Council of Europe, and your contribution is very much to the point. This is also a good example of the co-operation between the Assembly and a commissioner. I can assure you that the Assembly and I will strengthen your position and your staff in any way that we can. You need that and you merit it.

We now come to the list of speakers in the debate. I call first Mr Jacobsen, who speaks on behalf of the Group of Unified European Left.

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

Mr JACOBSEN (Norway). – Dear colleagues, the Group of the Unified European Left thanks the rapporteur for his good work and for having delivered a good report. The report represents a humanitarian solution to these issues and strikes a good balance between the need to take action to manage the flow of migrants and the need to guarantee the humanitarian needs and human rights of those people.

Paragraph 16.4 of the draft resolution states that children should not be detained unless that is unavoidable. If they are so detained, their human rights as children could be infringed. I am glad that the report stresses the need to examine the root causes of migration. This will be an important continuation of the report. We all know that fighting poverty in Africa is one of the most important political issues for the future. Let us start by making the United Nations Millennium Development Goals a success. We all know that we need to reach 0.7% of each country’s gross domestic product if we want to fight poverty. Compared with the human and economic costs outlined by the rapporteur, fulfilling the Millennium Development Goals will be relatively cheap. The world spends about $1 000 billion on military activities and about $300 billion on export subsidies for agricultural products in the rich world, while we spend about $50 billion to $60 billion on international aid. We can see that there is a struggle taking place between the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee to use even more money from the aid budget for military purposes.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr de Puig, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr de PUIG (Spain) thanked the rapporteur for producing such an excellent report and draft resolution in a very short time. While the report focused on the humanitarian aspects of the situation, economic, political and statistical aspects were well covered, and the report was to be welcomed.

This was an unjust and unbalanced world, in which people lived in desperate conditions, many suffered from hunger and lived in poverty. Europeans were viewed as rich and opulent people who did not help poorer societies to develop. The desire of individuals to migrate to richer countries could be understood. Hypocrisy often dominated debates about migration. Europe needed migrants. It was true that Europe could not accept all migrants, but that was a different debate. There were jobs for migrants in European societies, jobs that Europeans would not undertake. The rights of migrant workers had to be recognised. Spain had 800 000 migrant workers employed on labour contracts.

Migration was not a problem to be faced by countries in isolation, but one that required a united European approach. It was only Europe that could assist development, demonstrate solidarity and work with countries of origin to tackle the root causes of migration.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Cosidó, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr COSIDÓ (Spain) congratulated the rapporteur on the report. Immigration was needed, but illegal immigration was a serious threat to the security and stability of European countries and a humanitarian tragedy that Europe could not ignore. The trafficking of people was one of the most lucrative aspects of organised crime. Those trafficked often ended up working in conditions equivalent to slavery, living on the edge of the law. Many irregular migrants were obliged to live in marginalised communities. Irregular migration drove racial hatred and increased xenophobia: it was thus a blight on societies. This was not just an unacceptable humanitarian disaster, but a grave threat to democratic systems.

Regular migration must be fair to all and in strict compliance with the rule of law. Some countries experienced more immigration than others, but it should be treated as a shared problem. Europe’s current response was inadequate. The challenge was so great that it could not be addressed without the co operation of migrants’ countries of origin. The causes of irregular migration, such as dictatorship, weak economies and poor governance, had to be tackled at the roots. The rapporteur was to be congratulated on identifying steps that would enable Europe to move forward.

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

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – I echo the thoughts of many who have thanked the rapporteur, the committee and the staff of the Council of Europe for producing the report, but I feel that some members have tried to muddy the waters – if you do not mind my using that expression – by linking planned migration and the problems of migration generally with the situation that we face in this instance. It is a situation of crisis proportions. People are dying every day in their attempts to travel from Africa to Europe, either across the Atlantic to the Canaries or across the Mediterranean to the southern countries of Europe. This is the crisis that the report was intended to start to address.

However, there will never be burden sharing – a fair distribution of the people who arrive in Europe – unless there is a proper, comprehensive readmission plan. In many of our member states, the population simply will not stand for that: they do not want to see it happen. With the best will in the world, if people think that burden sharing is possible without proper policies on readmission, I can tell them that it will not happen. People will still be dying every day in their attempts to secure what all of us would want, a better life.

In his contribution, Mr Chope rightly addressed the issue of events in the United Kingdom yesterday, when sentence was passed on those who had trafficked people from 37 different countries into the country. The ringleader received eight and a half years in prison, but that is hopelessly inadequate. I would have condemned him to live the rest of his life in the cage in which he trafficked those people across Europe. One of the saddest pictures I have seen – other than that of the bodies of the 30-odd Chinese workers who died in the mud at Morecambe in the United Kingdom – was of young people caged like animals in the back of a lorry, which was in all the United Kingdom newspapers today. It stands as testament to the evil of people who traffic others.

Why are there so few prosecutions? Hundreds of thousands of people are trafficked every year around the world. My constituency is on the south coast of England and we get people from Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan and China. They did not walk from those countries – some of them paid huge sums of money to get to the United Kingdom. However, only a handful of people are ever prosecuted for trafficking. What is wrong with talking about the responsibility of nations in north and west Africa to address this issue? This is not just a European issue: it is an African issue and a global issue. We have to have policies to address trafficking where it starts, on the way to and in the recipient countries. We ignore at our peril the part of the draft recommendation that talks of improving the situation in the countries of origin so that people do not want to leave.

Someone pointed out yesterday in the committee that people will always want to move. That is true and we must ensure that that freedom exists. However, if people move legitimately, we can ensure that their lives are not threatened in the process and that they do not fall prey to the evil behaviour that we have seen in so many cases. We must accept this report as the first step of the many that we will have to take.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Greenway, who will speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – I congratulate my parliamentary colleague, the rapporteur, who is also my colleague on the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, on his excellent report. I hope that it will be obvious that there is a massive programme of work for the committee to undertake and that we will have the support of the Assembly in undertaking it.

What are we going to do to stem the flow of human misery that we have seen on our television screens and the huge loss of life that other speakers have mentioned? As we say in this report, Mr Commissioner, we must reinforce and remind member states of their human rights obligations. We have a crisis on this continent and I shall concentrate on two or three aspects of the report that attempt to deal with that crisis.

First, many people are trafficked by sea by criminal networks in boats that are available because the fish have been plundered by European fishing boats. Instead of fishing, the boats are used for trafficking people from Africa to Europe. For the life of me, I cannot understand why more is not done to stop that. The authorities must know who is involved, so why do they not stop the boats leaving? I am told that one reason they do not intercept the boats is that the skippers will tip those on board over the side to avoid arrest. We cannot tolerate that. I say that it must stop and we must take a strong view when dealing with those illegal people.

Some people argue that fortress Europe is part of the problem. Some argue that people lose their lives trying to get here because of fortress Europe. On the other hand, it is argued – and I think that I agree – that because the waters off the west coast of Europe are not properly policed people think that they can reach the shore. We have to prevent that by stepping up patrols.

What do we do to tackle the root cause of migration? Time after time, the Assembly has called for action to improve security, promote better governance, increase job opportunities, support development programmes, encourage free and fair trade and provide greater financial support for countries of origin, but nothing is ever done. It is time to make a start and deal with the root causes. If there is one message that we should take back to our own parliaments from this Assembly this week it is surely that such action is now urgent. Of course people across Africa want a better life, but they will not achieve that better life by getting on boats and drowning in the Atlantic off the coast of this great continent.

This is not someone else’s problem, colleagues; it is our problem. It is a problem for the whole of Europe which must be tackled by the Council of Europe and the European Union. If there is one issue on which those two bodies need to co-operate, it is managing migration better and stopping the appalling loss of life. We should be ashamed that it is happening on our borders.

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

Mr BRINCAT (Malta). – The fact that the Council of Europe has accepted the need to hold an urgent debate on a European response to the tidal wave of mass illegal immigration in the Mediterranean southern European states underlines the gravity and socio-economic impact that this onslaught of criminal activity has on the states involved.

The endless flow of illegal immigrants to central Mediterranean countries such as Malta puts extreme pressure on the financial and social fabric of those states. The challenge posed by illegal immigration is not solely a Mediterranean problem; it is a European problem. It is not only a social phenomenon, but a crisis situation that results from the criminal actions of gangs of human traffickers in countries of origin and countries of transit.

While development aid to Africa is commendable, it will only mitigate the problem in the very long term. Nevertheless, due consideration should be given to Article 13 of the Cotonou Agreement, which states, “each of the ACP states shall accept the return of, and readmission of, any of its nationals who are illegally present on the territory of a member state of the EU, at the member state’s request and without further formalities”. We should also bear in mind Article 8, which refers to the initiation of a dialogue with countries of origin. Without a degree of conditionality attached to such aid, there is no guarantee that any benefit will be derived by European states from easing the burden of such criminal activity.

We are equally concerned that Europe has been slow to respond to the phenomenon of organised crime and – even worse – that it has applied double standards according to the size and geographic importance of the countries concerned. Certain countries have a degree of capacity to absorb illegal immigrants, as my Spanish colleague pointed out, but that is not true of Malta. Our small geographic size and high population density are the two decisive negative factors, not to mention the strong and emerging racist and xenophobic feelings to which the emergency situation has given rise – feelings that we have never experienced in the past. A coherent holistic policy has been in the pipeline for far too long at a European level, simply because there are certain European states that have not yet realised the urgency of addressing the phenomenon of illegal immigration, since it is something far from home from which they feel detached.

While we agree that dialogue rather than confrontation should be the primary tool to induce countries of origin and transit to control mass unregulated migration, and that every effort should be made to end conflicts in order to avoid the further displacement of people, trafficking of human beings and the smuggling of persons should be considered as an international crime and governed by an appropriate United Nations convention, since illegal immigrants are nothing but victims of organised crime. After all, such criminal activity goes against respect for human rights and human dignity.

From my country’s perspective, unless we apply the principles of solidarity and burden sharing, the challenge posed by illegal immigration in the Mediterranean will remain solely a Maltese problem rather than a Euro-Mediterranean problem. If aid is given, funds should be equally directed to the patrolling of desert borders to help stop the influx at source. Part of the funds allocated to countries of origin should also be used for an intensive basic campaign exposing the dangers of illegal migration, organised crime and the problems faced when illegal immigrants arrive in transit and destination countries.

Personally, I feel that, in our case, not only do we need to distinguish between economic refugees and genuine humanitarian cases but we must also recognise the serious security implications that such organised crime carries with it. Where strictly necessary we shall honour our humanitarian international commitments, but at the same time we feel that our European partners should adopt a policy of zero tolerance towards human trafficking and the smuggling of persons and take concrete action to curtail those criminal activities which on various occasions have resulted in the loss of life at sea.

I agree with the rapporteur that the issue is to be kept under constant review, particularly if, as I predict, the situation becomes graver and graver as time goes by.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Brincat. I call Mr Özal.

Mr ÖZAL (Turkey). – Mr President, Mr Commissioner, dear colleagues, I welcome this urgent debate on the mass arrival of irregular migrants on Europe’s southern shores, given the urgency of this topic. I would also like to thank our rapporteur, Mr Chope, for his very well-prepared report on the subject.

In recent times, we have unfortunately witnessed numerous cases of tragic human suffering caused by an influx of illegal migrants, particularly to southern European states. Along with other southern European states, Turkey also faces an enormous illegal migratory pressure. Due to its unique geographical location, my country is at the intersection of international migration routes, with irregular migrants moving from the east toward Europe. Although Turkish security forces apprehend most of the irregular migrants from Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bangladesh and the African countries, there is a long way to go in order to contain this wave.

Unfortunately, the desperate flow of irregular migrants is only one part of the tragedy we have been witnessing. The unwelcoming approach of some European governments makes that tragedy even worse. Many migrants are forced to return by officials who do not seem to care about the humanitarian crisis taking place right before their eyes. Reports concerning numerous irregular migrants found dead in the middle of the sea because they were not only denied entry, but forced to return are nothing but pure human tragedy.

The spread of irregular migration movements has also created the climate for human trafficking. Today, we are aware that illegal migration flows are generally directed by transnational organised crime networks. In light of the presence of such networks, which will continue to exploit desperate people’s hopes, a sustainable solution to such an enormous problem is beyond the means of any single country. The solution to the problem undoubtedly requires regional and global burden sharing.

I welcome the two-pronged approach that Mr Chope has adopted in drafting his report. He not only highlights the need to examine the root causes of migration movements, but emphasises the fact that the humanitarian needs of migrants must be urgently met and their human rights respected. Another crucial point that the rapporteur rightly asserts is, “it is essential to identify those requiring international protection and to ensure that they have access to a fair and efficient asylum procedure.” We have to deal with those states that tend to perceive all immigrants that end up on their shores as illegal immigrants.

I fully support Mr Chope’s recommendation that the Assembly should encourage member states to share the burden of mass arrivals of illegal migrants. If we are determined to deal with this problem and to eradicate its root causes, we must urge the governments of member states to co-operate. Governments must be urged to use the existing mechanisms and expertise of the international organisations, including the Council of Europe.

Turkey, which is a transit country in illegal migration, is shouldering a burden that is neither caused nor created by her. Providing shelter, food, medical treatment, as well as bearing the return costs of a very high number of illegal immigrants, causes a heavy financial burden on the already strained resources of Turkey. For this reason, Turkey has long been suggesting further developing effective co-operation with her European Union partners in the spirit of burden sharing.

I welcome the specific and detailed recommendations in the report. I personally believe that they may help shape a framework to effectively combat illegal migration, while promoting and protecting the fundamental rights of irregular migrants and providing them with the humanitarian assistance they may need.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Özal. I call Mrs Vermot-Mangold.

Mrs VERMOT-MANGOLD (Switzerland) said that the tragedy of the boat people in southern Europe was not new, but that the numbers arriving had now reached alarming proportions. African migrants were prepared to take great risks to reach Europe in search of a better life, whereas the people traffickers got off scot free. It was difficult for migrants to get jobs in Europe and they were often exploited. States in the south of Europe should take action while respecting the human rights of migrants. Housing and food should be provided, people should be treated with dignity and any asylum claims should be dealt with.

Many people were arriving from Senegal because there were no job prospects, or indeed life prospects, in that country. Many were driven to migrate from Africa by hunger, disease and unemployment, which reached levels of 80% to 90% in some countries. People were compelled to face any danger and although there had been a discussion of the distinction between true and false migrants, unemployment was a sufficient reason to migrate.

Europe could not accept all migrants and a wall had been erected around Europe in the shape of asylum procedures which no longer took account of people’s problems. Europe needed migrants, just as migrants needed Europe. More aid should be targeted at the problem. European countries were wealthy and given that plenty of money was available to fight wars, it should also be available to solve development problems. There should be more investment in developing countries and educational assistance. Corruption and money laundering should be tackled to prevent criminality. She had been told by a Senegalese migrant that he would prefer to die one day at sea than to die every day at home.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Vermot-Mangold. I call Mr Iwiński on a point of order.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland). – Mr President, I want to protest formally and officially against
the unacceptable division of time in the two urgent debates. Almost two hours were devoted to the first debate on the situation in Lebanon and more than 20 speakers were called. This debate is no less important – even the Commissioner for Human Rights participated in it – but it seems that only nine people will be called to speak.

I have been a member of this Assembly for 15 years and have never come across such a situation. It is unacceptable. Will you please transmit my opinion to President van der Linden? I never want to encounter such a horrifying situation again. It is disgraceful.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Iwiński, for your intervention. The timetable was decided by the Assembly and implemented by the President.

I call Mr Dupraz.

Mr DUPRAZ (Switzerland) said that too often people were paying a very heavy price for landing on the shores of southern Europe. The root of the problem was economic. There was a real need for dialogue and negotiation. Migrants were men and women and all people deserved respect and dignity and a humanitarian reception on European soil. The solution had to be generated internationally: it was impossible to make progress acting alone. There were three key areas for action: the fight against criminal networks, consideration of readmission agreements and the provision of education in countries of origin. Unless those issues were taken up, people would continue to come to Europe. There were no easy solutions. Human rights were central to this debate.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Dupraz. I call Mr Vera Jardim.

Mr VERA JARDIM (Portugal) agreed with the Mr Iwiński’s protest. This debate was an urgent one and little time had been set aside for it. Measures had to be taken to tackle the daily humanitarian tragedies. It was high time a coherent pan-European policy was established. It was also necessary to take a broader view of causes and effects. Relations with African countries had to be rethought and migratory flows managed. The economic relationship between the North and the South had to be regulated fairly. Europe needed immigrants, but clandestine immigration was a scourge.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Vera Jardim. I call Mr Bockel.

Mr BOCKEL (France) said that it was necessary to try to find a solution to the problem of providing housing, schooling and employment for migrants in Europe. Fortress Europe was not a realistic possibility. However, not all economic migrants could be taken by European countries and some controls were needed. The underlying causes of migration had to be examined, and long-term solutions found. Partnership agreements between countries of origin and destination countries were a vital tool: rules had to be worked out jointly. The working out of a package of co-development measures between the North and the South was a priority. It was also important to promote good governance in developing countries, and to foster education and training, so that developing countries could themselves make progress and so that their populations did not join the ranks of the rootless in European cities.

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Iwiński.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland). – Thank you, Mr President. I also thank you for prolonging the debate, because it is always better to correct errors sooner rather than later.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, during the adoption of the order of business on Monday, we heard some voices against including this urgent debate in the part-session’s agenda. Those colleagues implied that there is almost nothing new in this field because the different migration challenges are constant and simply more or less spectacular. However, they are not right about that, given the new quality – not just the quantity – of the phenomenon and processes that we are talking about.

I therefore wholeheartedly welcome Mr Chope’s very solid report, which was prepared so quickly. He rightly underlines that, in the light of mass arrivals on Europe’s southern shores, a range of issues need to be tackled, both to manage the immigration flows and to focus on the humanitarian and human rights problems posed. For this reason, the participation of the Commissioner for Human Rights in today’s debate is fully justified.

At first glance, we are confining the discussion only to our member states situated in the southern Mediterranean area – Greece and Turkey, on the one hand, and Spain and Portugal, on the other – but that approach would be erroneous. This has to be our common concern, not an exclusive issue due to the empathy and solidarity needed. In the epoch of interdependence, the whole problem remains a pan-European one, considering, among other things, the secondary movements of these arrivals.

As the old Romans used to say, “Hodie mihi, tibi cras” – today it is my problem, tomorrow it will be yours. For instance, did we learn well enough the lessons of the French Sangatte crisis on the coast off the English channel years ago? I well remember the suggestions of our Assembly’s special delegation at Sangatte, which I had the honour to lead. Those suggestions remain up to date. Earlier, we had faced issues in respect of Lampedusa – by the way, a crisis that is still vivid – and, more recently, those in respect of the Ceuta and Melilla enclaves. Today, we think of the Canary Islands and Malta.

A whole set of issues, linked to migration policy, leads to the abuse of this subject in the international politics of certain countries. The approach practised every day by many political forces is one of expressing xenophobia, lack of tolerance and even open racism. Please look at the course of recent elections in many states – for example, Austria and Sweden – and keep in mind the referendum in Switzerland, as well as the legislative changes in the Netherlands. Look at this year’s events in France, and even at this year’s L’affaire du gymnase de Cachan. Of course, the idea of fortress Europe is unacceptable, but at the same time, the international management of migration flows has become a must.

I should like to support entirely the rapporteur’s proposals in paragraph 13 and 14 of the draft resolution – inter alia, encouraging member states to share the burden of mass arrivals. It seems particularly important to contribute to the different air and sea patrols that are being put in place by FRONTEX. This European agency – it is based in Warsaw, by the way – deals with the management of external borders, and it must be strengthened and its effectiveness increased.

It is very proper that the preliminary recommendation recalls the Council of Europe’s 3rd Summit Action Plan, as it directly stresses that the management of migration is a major challenge to Europe in the 21st century.

Will you allow me to continue, Mr President, simply because I lost half a minute at the beginning by thanking you for your corrections? I should like to finish.

THE PRESIDENT. – No, so can you finish your contribution?

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland). – Okay. Let me say only that we should return to the matter because, a few years ago, the Assembly adopted my report on the need to create an observation agency for migration. Indeed, Greece was ready to host it. We should agree to that idea, perhaps in co-operation with the European Union, and that could be very important not just for our Organisation.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much. As for the decision about the minutes, it was not an error; it was largesse. Everyone agreed with the order of business yesterday and this morning, so we must have this urgent debate now. Everyone also agreed to the schedule. May I thank in advance the interpreters, who have accepted the proposal for an additional 15 minutes? So we shall finish this debate at 1.15 p.m. I call Mr van Thijn.

Mr VAN THIJN (Netherlands). – I shall be brief. I have only two points, because everything has been said already. First, we are talking about numbers, about an invasion and about a wave of immigrants, but we should never forget that, behind those numbers, there are human beings who have a right to be treated in a dignified way, even if they are not admitted. I cannot agree with the tone of the two amendments relating to a fight. A fight against what? Yes, we have to fight against the criminal networks, but the people that we are discussing are the victims of the criminal networks. We should never fight against irregular migrants as such.

Politicians should give a sense of direction. We are talking about the management of migration and about a comprehensive policy. We should be more concrete when we take the next steps; this is only the first step. We have talked about fortress Europe, and many speakers have said that that is not what we want to create. So why are we behaving as though Europe were a fortress? It is a fact that that is what is happening. If we do not want fortress Europe, we should develop a comprehensive policy in which migration is seen not as a threat but, as our Commissioner for Human Rights has said, as an opportunity and a necessity.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

That concludes the list of speakers.

Mr Hammarberg, would you like to respond to the debate? You have three minutes.

Mr HAMMARBERG (Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights). – The Assembly is sending a clear message. Yes, it is true that this is our problem and that this can be only the first step. It is also true that there is a humanitarian crisis. It is obvious that we need a consistent, pan-European, human rights-based, systematic policy in this area. However, that policy should not include collective measures that make it impossible for legitimate asylum seekers to have protection and to seek asylum when they arrive. That has to be avoided, and we need to make a distinction in that regard.

I agree that there is a need to make a clear distinction between the criminal traffickers and the migrants, who are often the victims. If we blur the line between the two, we undermine an important principle of human rights. Migrants have human rights, and that should be part of our policy.

Mr Jacobsen mentioned problems relating to children, and I would recommend an even stronger emphasis on the need to avoid putting children into prisons when they arrive. This does not work but, unfortunately, many countries have done it. We need to take a principled position on that matter.

My last point is that very few countries in the Council of Europe have ratified the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. In fact, only two have ratified this important convention so far. The convention is relevant to this discussion. Something that you could all do at home is to bring up in your national parliaments the need for all countries in Europe to ratify this important convention. There is also the United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, but almost none of the countries in the Council of Europe area has ratified it. Why not? It is an important instrument to address this problem, in that it recognises that migrants have human rights. Can you look into this matter and ensure that there is a discussion at home on ratifying these important international and European instruments?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Chope, the rapporteur, to reply. He has four minutes.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom). – I thank everyone who has participated in this debate. I thank the Human Rights Commissioner most of all for coming along and giving us the benefit of his advice, which we much appreciate. There is a great deal of agreement on this issue, which is most welcome. Too often, politicians are not prepared to deal with such difficult issues, and this is an issue that many governments will simply put into the “too difficult” box. They will not tackle it; they will fudge it. However, with elected politicians from so many different countries speaking out on the subject today, we are making it clear that we cannot fudge it any longer and that we have to come up with some solutions.

The themes of this debate have emphasised that we must look at the causes of migration. Some important contributions were made on that subject. When we discuss the common agricultural policy, we should think not only about our own national self-interest but about the consequences of the policy in the context of the economy of Africa. My colleague from the United Kingdom, Mr Greenway, extended that argument to include the common fisheries policy. He asked why so many boats in west Africa were not being used for fishing. The answer is that it is probably a result of European Union policies on fishing.

A further theme in the debate was the rule of law. We are a body that deals with democracy, human rights and the rule of law. There is perhaps a tendency to say that because we are sympathetic to these economic migrants, we should allow anarchy to prevail. We cannot allow anarchy to prevail, however, because that would be totally at odds with the rule of law. That is why we need a system of rules that can be enforced right across Europe and in the other countries from which illegal migrant flows are coming.

A third theme was the consequences of migration. The Human Rights Commissioner mentioned xenophobia, and other speakers mentioned criminality and the human disasters and tragedies that so often flow from these activities. This has been an excellent debate, and I am most grateful to everyone who has participated. I hope that we shall be able to explore many of these themes further in committee.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Chope.

Does the Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population wish to speak? He has two minutes.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – This debate on mass arrivals has been very important for our committee in identifying a number of issues that it is imperative for us to look into further. It has highlighted that achieving a common European response to the issue of migration will not be the easiest of tasks. There is disagreement over the regularisation programme, and there are difficulties involved in negotiating readmission agreements. On a large scale, there is the issue of providing support for countries of origin and transit, to tackle the root causes of migration.

It is important to underline, however, that dealing with mass arrivals is not just a migration management issue. It is a humanitarian issue and a human rights issue. The Council of Europe has a responsibility to ensure that the rights of migrants are respected from the point of their arrival, throughout their stay, and also if and when they are returned. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has the opportunity to visit places where migrants are detained. In the debate today the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Hammarberg, expressed his concern and his willingness to be involved.

Last but not least, our Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population has an active committee on mass arrivals, which can look further into the issue. Each of these different bodies has a contribution to make towards addressing the human rights and humanitarian concerns relating to the mass arrivals of irregular migrants on Europe’s southern shores. Today’s debate has provided an important impetus in that regard.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The debate is closed.

The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population has presented a draft resolution to which two written amendments were tabled, and a draft recommendation to which no written amendments were tabled.

We will proceed first to vote on the amendments to the draft resolution, which will be taken in numerical order.

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

If I am informed correctly, the two amendments supported by Mr Cosidó could be withdrawn and replaced by an oral amendment. Is that right?

Mr COSIDÓ (Spain) said he did wish to withdraw his written amendments, which had been intended to add more force to the resolution, but he had reached an agreement with the rapporteur, who would suggest an oral amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Does that mean that the two amendments have been withdrawn?

Mr COSIDÓ (Spain) (Translation). – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Cosidó has withdrawn the amendments in favour of an oral amendment from Mr Chope. Mr Chope, do you wish to proceed with your oral amendment?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom). – Yes, Mr President.

THE PRESIDENT. – I ask Mr Chope to read the text of his oral amendment.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom). – It reads as follows: “After paragraph 13.7, insert the following sub-paragraphs:

‘– avoid mass regularisation programmes that may have a “pull effect” on irregular migration;

– develop a system of consultation in order to co-ordinate national policies on steps to regularise irregular migrants;

– collaborate in the fight against irregular migration;’.”

The oral amendment reflects the views of the committee, which debated the subject this morning. It also accepts the tenor of the original amendments which have been withdrawn. I hope that, in the spirit of conciliation, members of the Assembly will find this an acceptable solution.

THE PRESIDENT. – I remind the Assembly of Rule 34, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to its being debated.

In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

I call Mr van Thijn on a point of order.

Mr VAN THIJN (Netherlands). – The oral amendment makes three fundamental additions to the resolution, at least one of which I consider to be very controversial. I do not think that that can be done in an oral amendment; it should have been done earlier.

THE PRESIDENT. – Are there 10 or more members against the oral amendment being debated? There are 11, so the oral amendment cannot be debated.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11053, with no amendment.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11053 is adopted, with 59 votes for, 0 against and 2 abstentions.

We now come to the draft recommendation contained in Document 11053.

I have received an oral amendment from Mr Dupraz, which reads as follows: “In the draft recommendation, replace paragraph 3.3 with the following paragraph:

‘3.3.       Encourage countries of origin and host countries:

– to combat the illegal criminal networks responsible for the trafficking of irregular migrants;

– to conclude agreements on the return of such migrants;

– to carry out programmes of education and training as well as programmes of economic development to incentivise the return of irregular migrants to their countries of origin and to encourage the populations of those countries to remain on their own territory.’”

I remind the Assembly again of Rule 34, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to its being debated.

I must inform the Assembly that this amendment was submitted to the Table Office as a written amendment, but after the deadline for this debate had passed. It does not meet the criteria for oral amendments, and therefore cannot be debated.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 11053.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 11053 is adopted, with 58 votes for, 1 against and 0 abstentions.

I congratulate the rapporteur and the committee on their excellent work.

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

THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the orders of the day which were approved on Monday.

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 1.15 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Minutes of proceedings

2.       Organisation of debates

3.       Debate under urgent procedure: Recent developments in Lebanon in the context of the situation in the Middle East

      Presentation by Mr Lindblad of the report of the Political Affairs Committee, Doc. 11056

      Speakers

       Mr Margelov (Russian Federation)

      Mr Khalil (Italy)

      Mr Lloyd (United Kingdom)

      Mr Hörster (Germany)

      Mr Schmied (Switzerland)

      Mr Brincat (Malta)

      Mr Legendre (France)

      Mrs Vermot-Mangold (Switzerland)

      Mr Rochebloine (France)

      Mr Gardetto (Monaco)

      Mr Korobeynikov (Russian Federation)

      Mr Severin (Romania)

      Mr Preda (Romania)

      Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

      Mr Cebeci (Turkey)

      Mr Tekelioğlu (Turkey)

      Mrs Beck (Germany)

      Mr Hasson (Observer from Israel)

      Mr Salles (France)

      Mr Zingeris (Lithuania)

      Mr Marquet (Monaco)

      Mr Alatalu (Estonia)

      Replies

      Mr Lindblad (Sweden)

      Mr Ateş (Turkey)

Draft resolution adopted unanimously.

4.       Debate under urgent procedure: Mass arrival of irregular migrants on Europe’s southern shores

      Presentation by Mr Chope of the report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, Doc. 11053

      Statement by Mr Thomas Hammarberg, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

      Speakers

      Mr Jacobsen (Norway)

      Mr de Puig (Spain)

      Mr Cosidó (Spain)

      Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

      Mr Greenway (United Kingdom)

      Mr Brincat (Malta)

      Mr Özal (Turkey)

      Mrs Vermot-Mangold (Switzerland)

      Mr Dupraz (Switzerland)

      Mr Vera Jardim (Portugal)

      Mr Bockel (France)

      Mr Iwiński (Poland)

      Mr van Thijn (Netherlands)

      Replies

      Mr Hammarberg (Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights)

      Mr Chope (United Kingdom)

      Mr Çavuşoğlu (Turkey)

      Draft resolution adopted.

      Draft recommendation adopted.

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

¹ . Mr Van den Brande (Belgium) declared that he had participated in the above vote but his card did not function properly and his vote was therefore not registered.