2006 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirtieth sitting

Thursday 5 October 2006 at 3 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

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

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

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

Mr Lloyd, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.

1. Minutes of proceedings

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

Are these minutes agreed to?

The minutes are agreed to.

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

2. Changes in the membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT. – Our first business today is to consider changes proposed by the Portuguese delegation in the membership of committees. These are set out in Document Commissions (2006) 6 Addendum 5.

Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

They are agreed to.

3. Establishment of a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing

THE PRESIDENT. – The first item of business this afternoon is the debate on “The establishment of a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing”, presented by Mr Einarsson on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, Document 10925, rev. 2.

The list of speakers closed at 12 noon today. Nineteen names are on the list and one amendment has been tabled.

We will have to interrupt the list of speakers in the debate at about 4.30 p.m. to allow time for the replies and the votes so that the debate on the image of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees can start at about 4.45 p.m.

Is that agreed? It is agreed.

I remind you that the Assembly has already agreed that speaking time in the debates today will be limited to four minutes.

I call Mr Einarsson, rapporteur. You have eight minutes.

Mr EINARSSON (Sweden). – Today, we will decide on a project of great importance for future co-operation in Europe. My report is devoted to our common responsibility to acknowledge and remember the suffering of all the victims of forced population movement and ethnic cleansing in the recent history of Europe.

In the last century, forced migration was a collective European experience. Millions of people were expelled, transferred or exchanged by reason of their ethnic origin or political and religious beliefs. Millions also felt compelled to leave their native country for fear of persecution by oppressive regimes. In the first half of the 20th century, 60 million Europeans were forced to leave their homeland, never to return. In recent years, millions of people have been displaced from the Balkans and the Caucasus because of the conflicts in those regions. All those tragedies have left deep wounds in the collective memories of the people concerned and the trauma is handed down from generation to generation and continues to influence the relationships between the countries of Europe. Therefore, it is the task of the Council of Europe, as a pan-European organisation with the aim of achieving greater unity between its members, to promote the commemoration of the victims of those tragedies.

For a long time, the international community regarded forced population movement as an appropriate method of solving ethnic and religious conflicts. After the Second World War, as well as after the First World War, population movement and ethnic cleansing were used by the victorious powers to create stability. The 19th century idea of nations, peoples or races as the actors of history, rather than individuals, prevailed and the concept that the mixing of different peoples – rather than the lack of protection for minority rights – was the root of conflicts, an idea taken to terrifying extremes by the Nazi regime, still guided the political thinking of post-war Europe.

Nowadays, it is generally agreed – at least officially – that deportations and forced population transfers entail serious human rights violations that could and should be prosecuted as crimes against humanity. The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population has unanimously agreed to recommend to our member states that they work together to create a European remembrance centre for the victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing. Therefore, I ask colleagues to give us their full support today.

The aim of the project should be to achieve reconciliation in Europe by helping nations to overcome prejudice and hatred rooted in the terrible experiences of the past. The project should promote conflict prevention by sensitising public opinion to the personal tragedy of those who have been forced to leave their homeland for ethnic, political or religious reasons. The centre should convey impartial historical knowledge and develop didactic material for discussions in schools and other institutions. It should organise international meetings where different views on events in the past can be exchanged in an atmosphere of mutual interest and tolerance. It should combat nationalism, racism and xenophobia and thus help to build a Europe in which political and religious differences are seen as a benefit, not as a threat.

The report clearly spells out that, due to its unique character, the deportation and extermination of Jews and Roma during the Second World War are not part of this project. The work done to commemorate the victims of the Shoah could, however, be used as a valuable source of inspiration and reference.

The centre will not be concerned with compensation for the loss of property resulting from forced population transfers.

Some colleagues may remember that a year and a half ago we had a lively debate in the Assembly on the remembrance of victims of forced population movement and ethnic cleansing. My new report has taken account of the criticism raised in that debate. The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population has debated this new report for more than a year and several new ideas have been taken on board. It is the committee’s unanimous conviction that only by acknowledging the sufferings of the victims of forced population movement and ethnic cleansing will we be able to overcome the divisions of the past.

Our Assembly’s particular responsibilities for defending the respect for human rights and human dignity make it the appropriate institution to commemorate crimes committed in the past. Only by presenting historical events in a pan-European context and discussing them openly across borders will we be able to build a Europe of tolerance and peace.

Thanks to the initiative of the Polish and German members of our Assembly, who put the remembrance of victims of forced population movement on the Assembly’s agenda, we will be able to advance this European project as described in my new report and thereby avoid the misuse for political purposes of those tragic historical events.

Our committee has agreed with the initiators of the project that the problem is a truly pan-European one. We have also agreed that the 20th century should be the focus of our attention and that there is a need to work with these tragic and traumatising events as experienced by the victims.

The recommendations addressed to member states aim at encouraging them to work on the issue of remembrance in their national context and with their European neighbours. For the European co-operation project I have advised using the formula of a partial agreement, which would not demand resources from the Council of Europe’s regular budget but would rely on contributions in the form of co-operative activities or otherwise from interested ministries and from other partners or sponsors.

In Sweden there is already an initiative to support the remembrance project. At the Living History Forum in Stockholm – a governmental institution founded to spread knowledge about crimes against humanity in the past, with a view to influencing the future and promoting tolerance, democracy and human rights – lectures and workshops will be held this autumn to inform people about the project. Next year international seminars will follow.

Colleagues, I hope I have been able to make it clear to you how important this initiative is and how much it deserves your support. I wish to remind you that if sufficient members vote for the draft resolution and the draft recommendation today, and then secure the support of their governments, the creation of the remembrance centre could be a contribution to the Council of Europe’s 60th anniversary celebration in 2009. Thank you for your support.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Einarsson.

I understand that Mr Schreiner wishes to move to refer the report back to the committee.

When a procedural motion is moved, it has priority over the main question. Debate on the report is therefore suspended until the procedural motion is decided.

Under Rule 37.3, only the proposer of the motion, one speaker against, and the rapporteur or chairperson concerned have the right to speak on the motion.

I call Mr Schreiner to move the reference back. He has one minute.

Mr SCHREINER (France) said that there were three reasons for his request. First, the report was 90% the same as the 2005 report. The draft should have been reworked, but the committee had not done so. It was therefore necessary to give the committee another opportunity to answer the criticisms of the previous report. Secondly, the Committee on Culture, Science and Education should have had the opportunity to give an opinion on the report. Thirdly, the report took no account of the financial impact of setting up a European remembrance centre, which was all the more important given the Council’s difficult budgetary situation.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Schreiner.

Does anyone wish to oppose the motion? I call Mr van Thijn.

Mr VAN THIJN (Netherlands). – I am very surprised by this sudden proposal. It is extremely unfair, because if any document has been prepared thoroughly in the past two years it is this document by Mr Einarsson. We spent many sittings of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, and we listened to many experts from all over Europe. Then, at the last minute, it is proposed to send the report back to the committee that has already unanimously supported the project several times. That is highly unfair, and I understand that the reasons for it are economic. This is a delicate emotional issue, and sending the report back for economic reasons at the last minute is unacceptable.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr van Thijn. What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr EINARSSON (Sweden). – As Mr van Thijn said, the report has been discussed for a long time in the committee. At the meeting in June I specifically asked all members of the committee to come forward with any type of criticism or proposal for amendment. I even asked everyone to go back to their delegations and ask if anyone outside the committee had any objections. I heard nothing. I am therefore surprised about the motion to refer the report back to the committee, and I cannot really take it seriously. As for the financing, the report says that it should be based on a partial agreement, so that issue is covered too. I strongly oppose referring the report back to the committee – and the committee, too, is unanimously against the proposal.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you for that information, Mr Einarsson.

The Assembly will now vote on the motion to refer the report on the establishment of a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing back to the committee. I remind colleagues to place their voting cards in the slots. Those in favour of reference back to the committee should vote “Yes”, and those in favour of holding the debate now should vote “No”.

The vote is open.

The procedural motion has been defeated. Under Article 37 of the Rules of Procedure, no further motion to refer the report back to the committee may be moved during this debate.

We will now proceed with the debate.

I call Mr van Thijn, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr VAN THIJN (Netherlands). – I congratulate the rapporteur on this excellent piece of work, after so many sessions, so many emotions and so many dilemmas. Speaking both personally and on behalf of the Socialist Group, I strongly support the setting up of the remembrance centre. In the past few years it has been hard to discuss the problem of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing without mentioning the deportation of the Jews – by far the worst thing that happened in the previous century. If we do mention it, people ask, “How could you compare those things?” The Holocaust is unique, is it not? But if we do not mention it, people blame us for missing the most important event in European history.

As a personal victim – I was a child survivor of the Holocaust – I am very happy with the solution that has been found in the report, which says, “Your rapporteur believes that it is not possible to discuss forced population movements without mentioning the deportation of Jews… This crime against humanity represents one of the most atrocious pages of European history. Due to its specificity, this issue will not be dealt with in this report.” It has been well formulated.

The very fact that the Shoah was the black space in European history does not mean that we cannot take note of other atrocities that took place at the same time. More than 60 million Europeans were the victims of forced resettlement after the three big wars – I include the Balkan war in that. It affected all kinds of people – victims, perpetrators, bystanders and collaborators. Above all, however, it affected a large majority of ordinary people.

Europe, in particular the new generation, should be aware of the complete picture of all crimes committed against humanity so that we learn from them and avoid such events in the future. Ironically, most forced movements are the result not of war but of peace settlements, which create new sources of hatred and nationalism. As the Americans say, we should face history and ourselves.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr van Thijn. I call Mrs Zapfl-Helbling, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mrs ZAPFL-HELBLING (Switzerland) said that the creation of a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing would raise awareness of the horrible events of the past century. It would help us to embark on the path to reconciliation. Scepticism about the idea of a European remembrance centre was to some extent understandable, yet it was necessary to deal with the horrors of the past, to take responsibility and to learn lessons from history. Many wounds were still open. Furthermore, new dramas had unfolded over the past fifteen years. The Group of the European People’s Party believed that the European remembrance centre could become a symbol of collective memory. It would enhance awareness of the Council of Europe in the East and would demonstrate to the younger generation that divisions could be overcome through a shared memory. The European remembrance centre could be an instrument for preventing future conflicts. Financial concerns should not be the focus of attention.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Zapfl-Helbling. I call Mr Demirchyan, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr DEMIRCHYAN (Armenia). – Although the previous century will be remembered as the one that gave our civilisation its most significant democratic, economic and technological achievements, it was also the century of the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust and, more recently, the genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia. In addition, it was a century of dark ideology, two world wars and blood. It was the century of forced population deportations and “ethnic cleansing”.

Many European nations suffered from forced population deportations. Forced migration was a collective European experience. According to the report, in the last century 60 million to 80 million people in Europe were forced to leave their homeland. The report rightly notes that crimes committed in the past concern not only the populations that had to endure them, but all the peoples of Europe.

Impunity gives rise to new crimes. By allowing crimes to sink to oblivion and not condemning those that were committed, we encourage new crimes. Not condemning the massacre of more that 1.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 formed the basis of Hitler’s declaration, “Who recalls now the extermination of Armenians?” while fulfilling his monstrous plans.

The recognition of the Armenian genocide by Turkey will open a new page in relations between the two countries and will contribute to the establishment of stability and long-term development in the south Caucasus and to the realisation of the principles of the Council of Europe. As a pan-European institution, the Council of Europe cannot stand apart from people’s tragedies and human rights violations. We fully support the idea of the establishing a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and “ethnic cleansing”. We believe that that will help to create a common European memory of tragic events in order to overcome the divisions of the past.

The realisation of the centre’s objectives – testifying to the suffering endured by victims, promoting dialogue between nations, protecting the rights of national minorities, conducting research into the history of forced population movements, supporting the supply of educational materials to teach history, and encouraging people from different countries to share their thoughts and feelings in an atmosphere of tolerance – will help to overcome prejudices and negative stereotypes, to develop a common historical consciousness in Europe to prevent future conflicts, and to build a Europe where people with different cultures and religions co-exist in peace and an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding.

Once again, I emphasise that we fully support the report. I congratulate the rapporteur on his good work.

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

Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation) said that the issue being discussed today was extremely important, both because of its historical aspects and because of a possible role in the prevention of future tragedies. However, the proposal to set up a European remembrance centre had not been sufficiently thought through and was, as yet, premature. Many NGOs were already engaged in raising awareness of the past. Why then should this centre be set up under the auspices of the Council of Europe? The establishment of a European remembrance centre might, indeed, exacerbate hostilities rather than engender reconciliation. The entire proposal needed to be discussed in great detail and a committee should be set up to weigh up all the facts and assess the appropriateness of establishing the centre. It was as yet a little too early for the proposal. Mechanisms for reconciliation already existed. The idea should not be dismissed altogether, but it needed to be given time to develop.

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

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – Europe is the home of modern civilisation, democracy, human rights, liberty, equity and solidarity – it is the Europe that we are all proud of – but there is also the other, dark Europe: the home of two world wars and the genocide of European Jews, as well as the home of so many forced population movements and all kinds of “ethnic cleansing”. Mats Einarsson’s report addresses the latter question, and he does so in a very precise and excellent way.

The Group of the Unified European Left fully endorses the report. Only if we continue to remember what happened in our very countries – in our Europe – will we have the opportunity to find ways to prevent that evil history from repeating itself.

The proposed remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and “ethnic cleansing” can serve as an excellent place to study and to discuss the history of forced movements and “ethnic cleansing”. The centre can also be a place of reconciliation, by promoting impartial studies of history and by contributing to the creation of a common European history, thus overcoming, as the rapporteur states, the many divisions of the past.

On the European continent millions of people were forcibly expelled, transferred or exchanged because of their ethnicity or their political or religious beliefs, or because politicians drew new state borders, or decided that to resolve so-called ethnic questions people could be forced to leave their homelands. That is all part of our recent European history – we have to remember that today, tomorrow and in the near and distant future. The rapporteur has provided many convincing arguments and has done a lot of work to deliver a report and a proposal that should be acceptable to the great majority of the Assembly – including Mr Kosachev’s European Democratic Group. As the rapporteur has indicated in paragraph 7.2 of the draft resolution, the proposed centre should be funded outside the ordinary budget of the Council of Europe.

The proposed remembrance centre will provide Europe with a visible place to remind the Europeans of today and tomorrow of the 60 million to 80 million fellow European citizens who have been the tragic victims of forced population movements and of “ethnic cleansing”. We owe them our respect, and our promise that such events will not happen again. Let us remember them and let us create this very important centre of remembrance.

Mr Einarsson’s important report will also be his last for this Assembly. After eight years as a member of the Swedish delegation in the Assembly, Mats is going to leave us. That means that we also have to say goodbye to the leader of the Group of the Unified European Left in this Assembly. On behalf of the members of that group, and I hope also on behalf of us all, I want to say thank you very much, Mats, for the excellent way you have led a small but active group of leftist representatives in the Assembly, thereby contributing to the important work of the Assembly in the field of protecting and promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

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

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland). – Mr President, dear colleagues, as a longstanding member of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, I congratulate Mr Einarsson on his exceptional report and on his courage in taking up such an important, but at the same time delicate and difficult – the Americans would say tricky – set of problems.

The idea of establishing a European remembrance centre for the victims of forced population movements and “ethnic cleansing” is intended to remind Europeans of their history of forced migration, to favour reconciliation, to act as an instrument of conflict prevention and to sensitise public opinion to the fact that the personal tragedies of individuals are already part of Europe’s history.

In fact, the centre was supported by the German and Polish Presidents, Rau and Kwaśníewski, in their joint declaration signed in Gdańsk. Four years ago, the Polish Parliament even adopted a resolution on this subject, thereby underlining the importance of setting up such a centre under the auspices of the Council of Europe, so ensuring its international character and impartiality. In the circumstances, such an initiative would fundamentally differ from something that was extremely controversial – the unacceptable construction in Berlin of a centre against expulsions.

Twenty-one months ago, ahead of the 3rd Summit in Warsaw, the draft recommendation failed to gain a two-thirds majority in our Assembly. We are now coming back to the issue and trying to take into account the different processes and phenomena of the 20th century, including the human tragedies of both the Nazi and Stalinist times and Balkan “ethnic cleansing” in previous decades.

Such an holistic approach would be tantamount to departing from the context of bilateral relations or dispute resolution – for example, Polish-German, German-Czech, Turkish-Armenian and Serb-Albanian – in favour of the versatile international aspect of the whole problem. I perceive this as a great advantage.

We in Poland are at one in the opinion that overcoming the divisions of the past is a must in today’s Europe in order to achieve reconciliation on our continent. It is essential to get rid of prejudices and negative stereotypes and to resolve disputes that are rooted in the difficult experience of the past. It is crucial that future generations learn the lessons of history.

To be frank, from a Polish perspective, the new version of the report is not perfect, because of the underestimation of the tragedy of our nation – for instance, in referring to the period of Stalinist regime. For instance, the text is silent on the mass deportation of Poles to Kazakhstan. Paragraph 49 contains a rather bizarre juxtaposition of Germans and Poles as the nationalities who were most concerned by mass population movements in connection with the war events. However, the main purpose of the centre is to help to overcome the divisions of the past and to study the reasons why these deportations were for many years considered the best way to maintain stability in Europe. The centre could partly follow the example of the North-South Centre in Lisbon, while undertaking more versatile activities in the fields of research and education and the raising of public awareness. The experience of Yad Vashem in Jerusalem could also be taken into consideration.

The Polish delegation will table an amendment to paragraph 7.3 of the draft resolution. It will aim to avoid the situation in which an agreement to set up a national centre could be perceived as a pretext for the realisation of plans similar to those of the organisation of Erika Steinbach in Germany.

In many cemeteries around the world, we find the Latin inscription “Non omnis moriar”. Such a message should be the main guideline for the centre.

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

Mr LEGENDRE (France) was uneasy about taking a stand against the report. “Ethnic cleansing” should be condemned because it ran counter to the raison d’être of the Council of Europe. However, some time had already been spent debating the subject and the proposal had then failed to secure the necessary majority in the Council. The debate had demonstrated that a number of members were concerned about the historical background.

France had experienced little forced population movement, so he could not speak from experience, but as a historian he thought that the rights of the victims were being confused with the Nazi crimes. Precision was required. It would be odd if the Council of Europe were to forget the solutions adopted by member states after the Second World War. No one wished to forget the guilt that had to be borne by the Nazi regime, but it was to be regretted that the committee’s proposal had not been referred to other committees of the Council of Europe, in particular the Committee on Culture, Science and Education. The report should be re-examined by all relevant committees.

There was a risk that the Council would be split in the vote at the end of the debate. That would be most unfortunate, given the importance of the subject: consensus was required, but it was unlikely to be found during this debate.

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

Mr DZEMBRITZKI (Germany) thanked the rapporteur for producing good recommendations on such a difficult subject. He supported the idea of a remembrance centre, which would be a step forward and would act against racism and xenophobia. The process of establishing such a centre should not be caught up in extraneous political questions. A proposal for a similar centre, to be based in Berlin, had been proposed in 2002 by the Association of Expelled Persons, but the proposal had been rejected.

The findings of scientific research on expulsions in the 20th century had not always been accepted or used. A centre that was both physical and virtual seemed necessary. The Polish amendment should be considered with that idea in mind. The question of the site for the centre should be dealt with at another time. The most important objective was to contribute towards the atmosphere of reconciliation in Europe, and the report and its recommendations gave members the chance to do that.

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

Mr SCHREINER (France) stated that his feelings on the subject were well known. The suffering of displaced persons should not be ignored, and he endorsed Mr Legendre’s reasoning. The report should have been referred to other committees for consultation.

There were also concerns about the use of language in the report. In particular, the word “deportee” had a particular legal definition in France, and referred to those who had been deported to death camps. Similarly, confusion could arise over the definition of the term “ethnic cleansing”. The report should have been looked at more carefully.

Some had argued that the source of funding for such a centre was not important, but only on Tuesday members had discussed the budgetary difficulties faced by the Secretary General and the Council of Europe. The funding for a remembrance centre did not exist. There was no denying that the subject under discussion was sensitive, but regions and countries could establish their own centres and memorials. Indeed, there was one in Alsace, commemorating those known as the “despite us”, young men from the region who had been forced to serve in the Wehrmacht during the Second World War. That was funded by the region and state, not by the Council of Europe. For those reasons he was unable to support the report.

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

Mrs OSKINA (Russian Federation) was concerned that the issue had been examined last year and the Council had failed to reach agreement. She was unhappy about the proposed name for the centre, which did not represent what the Council wished to achieve.

It was only sixty years after the end of the Second World War, and some of those who had fought Hitler were still alive, yet history was being re-written already. Similarly, it had been forgotten that the Soviet Union had fought fascism alone for years. The legacy of that fight was still present in Russia today, and the number of Soviet lives lost was still not known, although some estimates put it as high as 27 million.

The recent erection in Estonia of memorials to dead SS officers was deplorable. It was doubtful that any remembrance centre could ensure the telling of a true history without distortion: for that reason, such a centre would only create tension between nations.

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

Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) believed that a centre would keep alive the memory of those who had lost their lives. Collective memory needed to be preserved without propaganda and geopolitical concepts. History would continue to repeat itself without the collection of memory. The genocide of the Armenian people in the 19th century had been forgotten by some, but had been remembered by Hitler, in the form of the Holocaust. Humanity’s amnesia was punished. Genocide was a memory not just of the Armenian people but of the whole world.

Azerbaijan had perpetrated ethnic cleansing against Armenia. Human memory was short, but the experiences of the Armenian people could not be re-written. Armenians living in the areas affected had been displaced long before the Karabakh war. Armenia was a very peaceful nation and the displacements had been started by Azeri aggression. Several pogroms had been perpetrated by Azerbaijan.

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

Mr ÖZAL (Turkey). – This is the second time that this very important report has been discussed in our Assembly. In January 2005, the recommendation was defeated because it lacked the necessary two-thirds majority. The vote showed the importance of the report and the contentiousness of the issue.

Population transfers and examples of ethnic cleansing are not new phenomena and cannot be attributed specifically to any political or economic system. It is also a fact that in the past international reactions to such population movement have been limited and, in general, evaluated in light of the ideologies and alliances of the parties concerned.

The goal of overcoming prejudice and favouring reconciliation by promoting the impartial study of history will certainly contribute to the creation of a common European memory. Remembering tragic historical events objectively will certainly contribute to the prevention of their recurrence. However, objectivity should be carefully maintained, especially given the contentious issues that fall in the centre’s area of interest. In other words, with its objective approach, the centre will be rightly established to stop the misuse of such population movements by some populist politicians.

Approaching contentious issues in an objective and impartial manner may have a vital role in the credibility and, therefore, the success of the centre. The centre should promote a comprehensive and impartial study of European history, because it is only through such studies that a common history and reconciliation can be achieved and respect for the rights of victims maintained. On the other hand, the centre should avoid creating new enmities among nations by reviving historical problems. Nor should it be a tool for politics or ideologies. Otherwise, the noble goal of the centre – reconciliation and building a common history – will disappear and the centre will itself become a subject of conflict.

I also wish to respond to claims made by some colleagues about the tragic events of 1915-16. The tragedy that was imposed on both Armenians and Turks during the First World War was sad enough. Our call for a joint study of the period by international historians should be accepted, so that the truth may be known. I oppose political manipulation of the centre and it should be protected from attempts to do so, because they could undermine its entire credibility. If we give way to those who judge history in their own interests, the centre will become useless and harm efforts towards reconciliation.

We should all do our best to maintain the proposed centre’s impartiality and objectivity, and thus ensure its credibility.

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

Mr BERÉNYI (Slovakia). – I am happy that this report is on the agenda for today. I am aware that this issue is very sensitive for some member states – similar material could not even be debated in some of our national parliaments – but it proves the value-added activity of our Parliamentary Assembly.

As the report says, the wounds have to be healed. The expulsions and deportations of 20th century European history are still taboo issues in some countries, which means that extremist political groups can use them to stir up political and diplomatic conflict. That is why this proposal is highly important from the point of view not only of historical correctness, but of successful European integration.

I am a Hungarian from Slovakia and I could point out some inaccurate figures in paragraph 46 of the document, but they do not matter. The report as a whole is well balanced and highly appropriate. Like many other members of my community, I can say that it is only an accident that I am a citizen of Slovakia and not of the Czech Republic or an area of Hungary. The report mentions what happened in 1946-47 in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but I do not support the report for reasons of revenge or with a hidden agenda. I am fully aware that the Czechs, Slovaks and others in central Europe suffered a lot throughout our common history.

I support the report for the simple reason that we need to build up a collective memory and a common historical consciousness, so as to understand each other better than we have done so far. We need to understand why some groups make certain demands and why some nation states – and international organisations – support or deny those demands.

I am convinced that the centre would lead to more reconciliation than misunderstanding, as some previous speakers have claimed. As for the financial question, can the value of reconciliation be measured in euros? Can we measure in euros the benefits of successful European integration? It is 60 years since the Second World War, but it is not too late to support this proposal.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Pozzo di Borgo.

Mr POZZO DI BORGO (France) said that the French delegation had expounded the reasons for not supporting the establishment of a European remembrance centre the first time it had been proposed. The centre did not intend to deal with the extermination of 6.5 million people during the Holocaust or Shoah, because there were a number of other initiatives dealing with that subject. But young people today would gain a strange impression of the centre if it did not deal with the worst example of ethnic cleansing in the 20th century. Moreover, the centre would tax the already overstrained budget of the Council of Europe.

Europe had a duty to remember and to pass on the memory of historical suffering, but that should begin with a common definition of events in history books to avoid the manipulation of the past. Europe was a unified continent once again, but the seeds of conflict remained, as had been demonstrated during the Assembly’s debate. Historians, not politicians, were the best equipped to assist the collective memory.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Pozzo di Borgo. I call Mrs Pashayeva.

Mrs PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan). – Mr President, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Mr Einarsson for the preparation of such a relevant report. Personally, as the representative of the Azerbaijan nation, which, during its history, has been exposed to genocide, deportations, ethnic cleansing and forced population movements, and has had more than 1 million internally displaced persons, I consider that the establishment of a European remembrance centre for the victims of ethnic cleansing and forced population movements is very significant for future generations. But this centre must be based on fairness and objectivity, not on political interests; otherwise new and serious discontent could be created in Europe.

I want to touch on some aspects of the report and ask Mr Einarsson to concern himself closely with these problems. First, although the report says that some events happened in different areas of Europe in the beginning of the 20th century, it is interesting that not a sentence has been written about the events that happened in the Caucasus during the years 1905 to 1918. We are not told about problems such as the murder of Azerbaijanis by armed Armenians, headed by Andranik, or the forced movement of tens of thousands of Azerbaijanis from their historical homelands, leading to the deaths of thousands of people.

Secondly, Mr Einarsson has spoken about the deportations and forced population movements generally in the Soviet Union during the time of Stalin, and Azerbaijanis have been mentioned in the report as a people who have been damaged by that. For this I am very grateful to Mr Einarsson.

Between 1948 and 1952, 100 000 Azerbaijanis were moved to Azerbaijan from their historical homeland in Armenia, under an Armenian Government initiative and with the support of Stalin. However, there is no mention of that in the report.

Mr Einarsson mentions recent European conflicts in the Balkans and the Caucasus. During the Soviet collapse in 1988, 200 000 Azerbaijanis were forcibly deported from Armenia, from their homelands, just because they were Azerbaijanis. Thousands of people lost their lives during those events. Now there are no Azerbaijanis in Armenia. If that is not ethnic cleansing or forced population movement, what is it? Unfortunately, there is no word about this in the report.

Armenia occupied 20% of the territory of Azerbaijan; it is still continuing this occupation and is not paying attention to UN Security Council resolutions or Resolution 1416 of the Council of Europe, which demands the withdrawal of Armenian military forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. As a result of Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijani territories, 100 000 Azerbaijanis became internally displaced persons from their native lands. Armenia has realised an ethnic cleansing policy in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. There are no Azerbaijanis in the occupied territories.

The armed forces of Armenia committed genocide in Khojali city in Azerbaijan. During the Khojali genocide most of the citizens were murdered and Khojali city was completely destroyed. Mr Rapporteur, it is not called ethnic conflict – Azerbaijanis have never made such a case against Armenians – but it is a case of ethnic cleansing by Armenia against Azerbaijanis. If it were not ethnic cleansing, some 30 000 Armenians would not be able to live in Azerbaijan. Despite Armenia’s occupation of 20% of Azerbaijani territory, there is no negative policy against Armenians living in Azerbaijan.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Pashayeva. The final speaker in the debate is Mr Karski.

Mr KARSKI (Poland). – Mr President, dear colleagues, various discussed documents have been rejected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. We are coming back again to those documents today. The idea of establishing a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing was initiated a few years ago. It seemed to be the right initiative. But reality has modified this opinion. The explanatory memorandum is far from showing the objective truth about the processes it describes. Unfortunately, it will form a directive on the basis of which this centre will be created. For example, paragraph 37 mentions how the authorities of the USSR forcibly displaced nations in the 1930s, but there is nothing about the 600 000 Polish people displaced from the area of Żytomierz.

In the explanatory memorandum, victims and aggressors are put in the same position. The statement in paragraph 49, that Germans and Poles were the nationalities most affected by mass population movements in connection with war events, is an equal treatment that is unjustified. The German state has to take all the consequences of the aggressive war, the first victim of which was Poland. In the same way, the German state had to take all the consequences of the war they lost, during which the most serious crimes were committed. During that war, German scientists made soap from human fat. The only dispute around that subject is whether that soap was made in a laboratory or on an industrial scale. During the same war, millions of people were murdered in concentration camps. A lot of nationalities, for example, Jewish, Polish and Russian people, were condemned to slavery and death.

The Nazis got power not through a rebellion, but through democratic elections. The German nation in its referendum decided to empower Adolf Hitler with the competencies of the state president. In that same referendum, the German nation also voted to withdraw from the League of Nations – the organisation with the aim of protecting international peace.

Germans and the USSR established the new Polish border in 1939, which is, with small changes, the present Polish border. Polish people living on the eastern side were displaced.

According to international law, every state consists of three elements: territory, population and sovereign authority. As a consequence of the realisation of international responsibility for raising and conducting aggressive and criminal war, there were consequences for each of those three elements. It is necessary to remember that the international community – acting on the basis of international law – acted to prevent a new war from being raised by Germany. The liquidation of the Prussian state was intended to serve the same aim.

We must not forget that 90% of Germans left their living places as a consequence of following the orders of the German authorities. This fact is not mentioned in the explanatory memorandum at all. The regulation of the German Ministerial State Defence Council obliged every German to escape from the Red Army to territories that were free from its occupation. Taking those facts into consideration, we cannot miss the opportunity for the planned centre to serve as an instrument of historical relativism, putting victims and aggressors together in one place.

The problems and budgetary difficulties of the Council of Europe do not mean that the creation of such a centre is unjustified.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Karski.

That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr Einarsson, rapporteur, to reply. He has four minutes.

Mr EINARSSON (Sweden). – I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate, irrespective of whether they support the report or not.

Mr Kosachev said that the issue is sensitive and that it has an influence on international relations even today. That is very true. However, I cannot share his conclusions. History is very dangerous. It can be a lethal weapon. It can be used to instigate hate and revenge, to start wars and to legitimise repression. I am convinced, however, that the answer to that risk is not to avoid or deny history, but to deal with it in an open, democratic and multinational context. No other institution is better suited to having such a discussion on history than the Council of Europe.

I envisage the centre as being a place where Armenians do not speak about Armenian history, but speak instead about the suffering of the Azeris; where an Azeri speaks about the history of the Kurds; where a Kurd speaks about the Assyrians; and where Assyrians speak about the Germans. I expect the centre to be a place where we can find not the truth about history – there is no such thing as the truth in history – but an open, multinational and democratic discussion on the terrible experiences of this continent. It is necessary for parliamentarians to make it possible to continue the discussion on the centre by adopting the draft resolution and recommendation.

I find it difficult to take seriously some of the objections to the report. The name of the centre, the linguistic difficulties of the word “deportee”, funding and partial agreement were mentioned. Mrs Oskina made a good point about how the role of the Soviet Union in defeating Nazism was forgotten. I agree, but I cannot understand what that has to do with the draft resolution.

Some of the criticism against the explanatory memorandum was justified. I am not a historian and the explanatory memorandum is not the history of forced population movements. It is an overview that contains some examples. Unfortunately, the list of sufferings is much, much longer than those outlined in the explanatory memorandum. Of course, there are some mistakes and some wording should be different, but we are not voting on the explanatory memorandum. We are not voting on a history book on the forced population movements in Europe. We are voting on the draft resolution and the draft recommendation on the European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing. The debate has demonstrated the need for this centre.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Einarsson.

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

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – We know that the subject is difficult for many of our member states. It is, however, important, as the debate has proved. I thank colleagues for their contributions and I am sure that it has shed a new light on our understanding of the suffering of the victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing. We are concerned about the victims. We do not aim to point a finger at this or that responsible government or group of people.

I thank the rapporteur for his lengthy efforts to produce the report.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Çavuşoğlu.

The debate is closed.

The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population has presented a draft resolution, to which one amendment has been tabled, and a draft recommendation, to which no amendments have been tabled.

We will first consider the amendment to the draft resolution.

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

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mrs Urszula Gacek, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mr Tomasz Markowski, Mr Zbigniew Girzyński, Mr Edward Maniura, Mr Tadeusz Wita and Mr Karol Karski, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 7.3, add the following words: “, only under the auspices of the Council of Europe”.

I call Mrs Gacek to support Amendment No. 1.

Mrs GACEK (Poland). – I want to draw attention to the role of national remembrance centres in the draft resolution. At one time, it was hoped that centres dealing with bilateral issues would help to heal old wounds. Unfortunately, the Polish-German experience, which is not unique, shows that discussion about the creation of national centres serves only to sour relations between the parties involved. Therefore, if such national centres are established, let that be exclusively under the auspices of the Council of Europe. Only this body can guarantee their impartiality and objectivity. Indeed, any national centre that intends to present history in a fair way should welcome the patronage of the Council of Europe. Therefore, I request that we add the words in the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Gacek.

I understand that Mr Einarsson wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which reads as follows: “In the amendment, leave out the word ‘only’ and insert the word ‘preferably’.”

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 sub-amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6, and can be considered unless 10 or more members of the Assembly object. Is there any opposition to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case.

I call Mr Einarsson to support the oral sub-amendment. You have one minute.

Mr EINARSSON (Sweden). – I fully understand why the amendment has been tabled, but it is too harsh. It would mean that this Organisation would have to be against any central institution if it does not come under the auspices of the Council of Europe. I would rather use the word “preferably”.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mrs GACEK (Poland). – I would prefer the stronger wording.

THE PRESIDENT. – The mover of the amendment is not in favour of the oral sub-amendment.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is rejected.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 1?

I call Mr Popescu.

Mr POPESCU (Ukraine) opposed the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 10925 rev. 2, as amended.

The vote is open.

The vote is as follows: 39 for, 39 against and 4 abstentions.

We have a remarkable situation. I call Mr Pozzo di Borgo.

Mr POZZO DI BORGO (France) (Translation). – My voting equipment is not working. Perhaps that has made a difference.

THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Pozzo di Borgo says that his voting equipment has not worked.

I call Mr Evans on a point of order.

Mr EVANS (United Kingdom). – Mr President, will you inform the Chamber whether members are only supposed to vote for themselves? If someone has left and left their card in their voting machine, is someone else allowed to vote for them?

THE PRESIDENT. – No. Let me make it quite clear that, if a card is left in a machine, it should be used only by the member to whom that card belongs.

Mr Pozzo di Borgo, I propose to take the vote again in the interests of certainty, because this is a controversial issue.

Mr POZZO DI BORGO (France) (Translation). – I shall vote against.

THE PRESIDENT. – I will make sure that Mr Pozzo di Borgo’s vote is counted even if it is done manually.

Is another voting machine not working? If the voting machinery is proving inadequate, we will have to vote again, quite frankly. I do not think that there is any alternative, particularly on a controversial and marginal vote. Colleagues, in the interests of clarity, I will now ask you to vote once again. Does anyone have any problem with the vote? Everyone is happy.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 10925 rev. 2, as amended, is adopted, with 43 votes for, 42 votes against and 3 abstentions.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 10925 rev. 2. For the sake of clarity, I remind you that a two-thirds majority is required when taking a decision on a draft resolution.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 10925 rev. 2 failed to achieve the required two-thirds majority – with 41 votes for, 40 votes against and 5 abstentions – and is therefore rejected.

I must place on record that, irrespective of this vote, I think that all colleagues will want to thank Mr Einarsson for his hard work over many years in the Assembly and for the role that he has taken. Thank you once again, Mr Einarsson, for all your good work.

(Mr Preda, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Lloyd.)

4. The image of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees in the media

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The final item of business this afternoon, which is the debate on the report by Mrs de Zulueta on “The image of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees in the media”, which will be presented by Mr Çavuşoğlu on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, Document 11011.

The list of speakers closed at 12 noon today. Nineteen names are on the list and four amendments have been tabled. On Monday, the Assembly decided to limit speaking time to four minutes per speaker. I should also remind you that, in order to finish by 6.30 p.m., including time for replies and votes, we will need to interrupt the list of speakers at about 6.15 p.m.

Is that agreed?

It is agreed.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to present the report.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – Information is power. The media are in control of the information that we receive on asylum seekers, migrants and refugees and they have the power to shape the image that we have of persons belonging to these groups. We have been bombarded by the images of mass arrivals on Europe’s coasts over this summer and it is not surprising that we have had an urgent debate on the issue earlier today. The images shown of these arrivals and the stories written about them shape our understanding and our views of them. They may be stories that focus on the plight of the boat people, and the hardships and persecution that they faced when fleeing their countries of origin. They may deal with the dangers and tragedies of the crossing and the overcrowded situation and difficult situations in which they live when they arrive.

Conversely, the images and stories may be of illegal migrants flooding into Europe, using devious methods to enter Europe, destroying documents, lying about their identities or refusing to return to their countries of origin. What is important is that the media should portray a balanced picture of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees. This is at the heart of the report and the draft recommendation before the Assembly today.

The starting point for the report is simple. It is freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention. In the June part-session earlier this year, the Assembly discussed in some detail freedom of expression in the light of religious beliefs, and adopted Resolution 1410 (2006). That resolution highlighted the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society.

Freedom of expression is not an absolute right, however. While no undue restrictions should be placed on freedom of expression, the media have a responsibility to portray accurately the situation of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees and to reflect the positive contribution that they make to the society in which they live. The report covers some of the images of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees that we see in the media.

We are constantly given alarm calls about being besieged and overwhelmed by waves of migrants. In contrast, very little is published about the contributions that migrants, including irregular migrants, make to our economies, our households, our health care systems and so on. Asylum seekers are frequently lumped together with irregular migrants – or, as some like to call them, “illegal migrants”. Sometimes we even see terminology such as “illegal refugees” or “bogus asylum seekers”. This muddies the terminology and wrongly equates refugees and asylum seekers with criminals or other dishonest persons.

Because of their origin and their religion, some migrants are also the victims of Islamophobia, with links being made to terrorism. The Danish cartoon case has had a significant impact on migrant communities, and that issue was well debated in the Assembly earlier this year. Romanophobia has also taken hold in certain media circles. In the United Kingdom, for example, EU enlargement has resulted in scaremongering articles about anticipated floods of Roma scrounging money from the state. The image of migrant women is all too often distorted in the media. They are often portrayed as prostitutes, the victims of trafficking or the victims of restrictive religious or cultural traditions. The media need to be encouraged not to stereotype migrant women in this way.

It is also necessary to say a few words about hate speech in political discourse. As a recent example, the Assembly Bureau last month called on the Slovak Government to intensify the fight against hate speech. While the media cannot necessarily be blamed for hate speech in the political discourse, they play an instrumental role in reporting what politicians or government officials have said. They should therefore be encouraged to avoid recourse to sensational reporting or distorting inflammatory political discourse.

The Assembly has already come up with some ideas on how to tackle issues linked to the migrants, asylum seekers and refugees in the media. Notable in this respect is its Recommendation 1277 (1995) on migrants, ethnic minorities and the media. The draft recommendation before you today builds on that recommendation. It recognises that there are certain steps that can be taken by member states, or by member states together with the media, but that for the most part it is the media who should regulate their own behaviour.

For example, the media should be encouraged to adopt, in so far as they have not already done so, codes of conduct laying down the ethical principles that should guide them in their work. They should also be encouraged to supplement such codes by drawing up guidelines to tackle particular challenges such as avoiding the stereotyping of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, and avoiding anti-Semitism, anti-Christianism, Islamophobia, Romanophobia and other forms of intolerance. A further recommendation is for the establishment of national complaints procedures to investigate, for instance, complaints about media materials that foster intolerant, racist or xenophobic attitudes, and to provide effective remedies where complaints are upheld.

Member states could also adopt a number of measures. These could include adopting and implementing legislation prohibiting incitement to hatred, violence or discrimination. They could also include signing and ratifying relevant international instruments such as the European Convention on Cybercrime and the Additional Protocol concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems. Tackling racism and intolerance on the internet is one of today’s major challenges.

The media and member states can also work together to encourage the employment of migrants and refugees in the media, including through relevant training programmes. It is also important to sensitise media professionals to issues linked with multiculturalism, pluralism tolerance, integration and equality for all.

Your rapporteur considers that the Council of Europe also has a role to play in this issue, and I hope that you will be able to support the draft resolution and the draft recommendation before you today.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. The debate is open. I call Mrs Zapfl-Helbling, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mrs ZAPFL-HELBLING (Switzerland) said that the world was in a constant state of flux. Migration was a subject of concern in all countries. Better communication was the key to gaining an increased understanding of different societies. The need to understand the diversity of different cultures was a major challenge to society. The media played a vital role in the integration of foreign citizens. Research suggested that many media reports contained discriminatory, even threatening, elements about minorities. That was why the media played such an important role in migration-related issues. Misconceived ideas about asylum seekers and refugees were often expressed in the media. The EPP believed that combating racism, in all forms, was an important role for the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe should commission a study on the media which would also examine issues such as transnational television channels and computer crimes.

Journalists must avoid presenting clichéd images of refugees and migrants. Laws should be introduced to prevent the distribution of material with a racist content. The way in which some elements of the media incited racial hatred was astonishing.

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

Mrs BARGHOLTZ (Sweden). – The ALDE group thanks the rapporteur for her important and comprehensive report.

All of us, as politicians, are well aware of the importance and power of the media in relation to our images. The way politicians are described by the media can lead to contempt not just for individual politicians, but for politicians as a group. Sometimes it even leads to hate. There is a parallel with the way in which migrants, asylum seekers and refugees are treated by the media. Like politicians, they are viewed as a single homogenous group. That image is strengthened by the media; it could even be said that the media take a leading role. I assume that we have all met people with strongly negative views about migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, based on what they have got to know through the media. But they often make exceptions for the migrants with whom they have become acquainted. That is what the problem is all about, and that is why migrants’ integration in society is so important.

I want to focus on one point in the report. Paragraph 8.6.4 of the draft recommendation states that member states of the Council of Europe, and the media, should be invited to “promote and fund the production and broadcasting of programmes for and by migrants and refugees, including in their own languages, as well as promote the visibility of migrants and refugees in society by their inclusion in mainstream television programmes and at peak viewing times”. That is a very important recommendation.

Although migrants and refugees are under-represented in the media, a substantial number of them run their own radio and television channels. However, large financial resources are needed for the production and transmission of television programmes. Because of that, a small number of state-owned and big private companies are behind the supply of various television and radio programmes. It is a democratic problem, as there is a risk that small groups without resources of their own will be excluded from the debates.

Different countries have different rules for handling that sort of problem. In the United States, for instance, local authorities have the right to charge cable television companies up to 5% of their income in order to use them for ventures involving special kinds of television. In other countries, including Germany, the state finances part of those activities. The special channels are very important in terms of integration.

I hope and believe that the report will contribute to an improvement in the image of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees in the media.

Four amendments have been tabled, and on behalf of the ADLE group I will support them.

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

Mrs OSKINA (Russian Federation) supported the points made by her colleagues. There was no doubt that the media played an important role in issues such as asylum and migration. It was important that media coverage should be balanced; otherwise, tensions and xenophobia in societies could be aggravated. In regions with ethnic minorities, negative press reports could have a domino effect in the creation of tension and conflict.

It was proposed that the media should adopt a code of conduct. In addition, journalists needed to develop a conscience. No one wanted censorship from the outside, but journalists needed to be aware of the potential reaction to their stories. Members should remember the reaction in the Islamic community to the Danish cartoons, which had been exacerbated by comments attributed to the Pope and taken out of context. That situation had led to a fatwa being issued against the Pope.

A Russian television channel had recently examined the issue of ethnic tensions. It had been reported that a Korean restaurateur had served dog meat, and he had later been murdered. It transpired that, provoked by the media reports, somebody had taken out a contract on the restaurateur. That story demonstrated the great responsibilities held by journalists, and the report and its recommendations deserved full support.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Shybko, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr SHYBKO (Ukraine). – I congratulate the rapporteur – it is a pity that she cannot be here – on a good job. The proposed report stresses the necessity to combat discrimination, racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance in society, including anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Romanophobia. Those issues are very important for every country in Europe. They are also on the agenda for Ukrainian society.

Recent events connected with the commemoration of the victims of Babi Yar that took place in Kiev from 25 to 27 September demonstrated the tolerance of our politicians and our society. Ukraine will follow that path.

The Socialist Group is positive about the ideas expressed by the rapporteur to improve the image of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees in the media. That must be achieved at both national and European levels. Effective procedures to investigate complaints of intolerant, racist and xenophobic attitudes in the media are very necessary.

The report is in line with a number of other documents of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which were adopted between 2004 and 2006. They all contain the possible Council of Europe framework strategy to maintain migratory flows and to combat different types of illegal migration.

For example, Document 10108, adopted on 15 March 2004, and entitled “A European Migration Observatory” rightly stipulates “Migration into Europe, within Europe and out of Europe will respond to the specific situation of European states, including population trends and economic development”. This morning, we adopted Document 11053, which supported the notion that migration is a human right.

The present report stresses the necessity of avoiding negative stereotypes of migrants being presented in the media. The rapporteur proposes far-reaching conclusions. The Socialist Group supports the context of the document and the proposed recommendation.

I draw colleagues’ special attention to paragraph 8.6 of the draft recommendation, which makes concrete recommendations to Council of Europe member states and the media. In particular it proposes the encouragement of the employment of migrants and refugees in the media – Europe has had that experience since the Second World War – and the promotion and funding of the broadcasting of programmes for and by migrants and refugees, including those in their own language.

Everything I have mentioned would be a good tool to promote appropriate images of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees in the media in a tolerant way.

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

Mr GÜLÇIÇEK (Turkey) thanked the rapporteur for the comprehensive report on such a sensitive subject. The presentation of migrants by the media had a decisive impact on the quality of life of those people living in Europe. Tolerance was a fundamental value of democratic states, which made the report a relevant subject for the Council of Europe. Freedom of expression was very important as it allowed people to understand each other through discussions on their differences.

However, the scandal over the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed had shown that the media should behave within certain limits. Media representations could incite violence and terror through hate speech, so freedom of speech was not absolute. The media had to show responsibility. Because of ignorance, many spoke in an inflammatory or racist manner about migrants. The media were able to counter such propaganda and should behave more responsibly in order to promote integration. The Council of Europe could assist the media by establishing standards and expressing its views strongly. The report cited various examples of ways in which the Council of Europe could be of assistance, including through outreach to the media and public opinion, to promote respect and understanding.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Geghamyan. He is not here, so I call Mr Wodarg. He is not here, so I call Ms Guliyeva. She is not here, so I call Mr Reymann.

Mr REYMANN (France) said that the portrayal of migrants by the media was a sensitive subject. Migrant groups were not homogenous, but fell into different categories which needed clarification. Some had fled political oppression, whereas others were economic migrants. The image of migrants on television, however, was simply of foreigners. In portraying migrants it was possible either to resort to emotion or to explain the facts. In general, scant attention was given to the problem and the media risked creating a climate of fear among their audience. Some television programmes considered the issues in more depth, which was preferable. For example, the makers of one television programme in France had accompanied a group of migrants on their journey from Africa to Europe.

It might be possible to set up a tribunal of journalists to oversee the portrayal of migrants in the media, or it might be necessary to legislate. Legislation to address hate speech was already in place. Journalists should be trained critically to view the political agenda lying behind inflammatory speeches. That kind of analysis was also necessary for the portrayal of other groups in society, including women.

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

Mr MIRZAZADA (Azerbaijan) said that the debate covered many millions of very diverse people, including political and economic migrants and unfortunate individuals. The Assembly should define its position. The report was asking a lot of the media, and it was necessary to recognise that the press would be objective only if the public attitude were objective, which was not always the case. Societies did not always view foreigners in the same light as themselves. There were 15 million refugees in the world, of whom 1 million were Azeris, displaced by Armenian aggression and occupation. The media in other countries did not always portray that situation accurately; similarly the Azeri press was not always objective in covering the events in other countries. It was necessary to put one’s own house in order. The attitude of the government determined the stance of the media and of the general population, which was why responsible behaviour was needed from the authorities. It was necessary to think compassionately of those homeless people who had arrived in the West because they could not support themselves, or see a future in their own countries. It was unfortunate that the rapporteur was no longer a member of the Italian delegation.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Mirzazada. I call Mr McIntosh.

Mr McINTOSH (United Kingdom). – I think that we all agree on the objectives in the report. The question is what measures we should use to reach those objectives. Three different methods have to be part of the toolkit.

First, of course, there is the criminal law, whose role is to protect individuals against hatred and violence. The problem with the criminal law is that because it has criminal sanctions, it has to be very precisely formulated, so that it cannot lead to indefinite or imprecise conclusions. Therefore, it has to be restricted to matters that are suitable for the criminal law.

Secondly, there is the civil law, in which the onus of proof is less serious. The role of the civil law is to protect individuals and groups against discrimination. That is a possible and legitimate way to meet the objectives in the report.

The important point about both the criminal law and the civil law is that they apply to all media, but also to all persons and organisations. In other words, they are not restricted to the media. The third issue that we have to consider is whether there are specific actions that should be applied only to the media. There is a danger in part of the report, in the suggestion that governments should have a role in that third way of attempting to achieve the agreed objectives. Too much of a government role would be dangerous.

In my country, there is a restricted and precise government role in broadcasting. Because of the history of limited spectrum and the requirement for high standards of public service broadcasting, governments have laid down in successive pieces of legislation the requirement that the broadcast media are objective and balanced on all subjects, not just those covered by the reports.

When we come to the press, however, we must be careful to avoid government intervention in its regulation. I do not mean that we should reject the report’s conclusion that there should be control over media ownership. The diversity of media ownership is an important protection. I do, however, suggest that self-regulation for the press is a better alternative to the intervention by government. We must be very precise when we use the criminal law and be determined not to run the risk of government intervention against a free press.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr McIntosh. I call Mrs Hurskainen.

Mrs HURSKAINEN (Finland). – The report raises many important and complex questions. I want to underline two very important principles of the Council of Europe – freedom of expression and pluralism. You will recall that in June 2006 the Assembly adopted my report and resolution on freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs. One of the report’s conclusions was the need to place a strong emphasis on freedom of expression. There can be no democratic society without the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Therefore, I am pleased that today’s report also underlines the fact that there should be “no undue restrictions on freedom of expression”. Restrictions, prohibitions and, indeed, censorship will never achieve sustainable and lasting solutions. We must preserve diversity and pluralism based on human rights, democracy and the rule of law by fostering communication.

The report also calls for “an effective legislative framework protecting against incitement to hatred, discrimination and intolerance” and “the need to tackle hate speech by politicians and its propagation in the media”. I support that idea. In fact, I will deal with that topic in my second report, which I am currently preparing, on blasphemy, religious insults and hate speech.

I have one question. I am new here – I have been a member for only four years – and want to know whether it is possible for someone else from Finland to speak in my place. Is that the case or not?

THE PRESIDENT. – No.

Mrs HURSKAINEN (Finland). – Okay.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mrs Hurskainen. I call Mr Özal.

Mr ÖZAL (Turkey). – I want to express my appreciation to the rapporteur for this excellent and detailed report. It touches on a very important issue and draws our attention to some of the serious problems that we face today. I am sure that it will be used as a reference for the further work that is to be realised on this important subject.

The media are among the most influential tools in promoting, either intentionally or unintentionally, specific images of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees. It is obvious that the subject gains further urgency when we take into account the mounting numbers of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees, and the events of 9/11. We face growing tendencies, such as the negative stereotyping of these vulnerable groups in the media.

Unfortunately, the portrayal of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees sometimes reflects racist and xenophobic views. Regrettably, it is a fact that the mainstream media in Europe fail adequately to reflect the multicultural and multireligious nature of societies. These vulnerable groups are often portrayed as being at the margins of society, and some insensitive media coverage makes them targets.

We need to devote greater attention to the constructive role that the media can play in combating discrimination and racism, as well as in promoting integration of such people in host societies. Through well-informed and balanced reporting, the media can provide a far-reaching forum for public discussion and can shape public opinion on these vulnerable groups. That is why I believe that media coverage of them should be closely monitored to avoid discrimination, racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance in our societies, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

Within this framework, I want to draw attention to an increasing tendency to portray Muslims in Europe negatively. We witnessed a rise in Islamophobia in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. However, that tendency continues to increase, especially with the media’s negative focus on Muslim communities, which directs suspicion towards those groups as potential terrorists. As our report rightly says, “biased reporting in the media fuels the misconception that the Islamic faith is fundamentalist, and that all people of Muslim origin are potential terrorists”. Unfortunately, the caricatures published in a Danish daily newspaper showed the gravity of this problem. We should closely monitor the media to avoid such incidents. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right and should not be curtailed. However, we should be very careful about those who are using that fundamental right as a pretext for deliberately distorting reality or for creating intolerance or hostility based on religious or racial grounds.

There are 3.5 million Turkish migrants living in Europe. Therefore, the content of the report is of great importance to us. It is no surprise that almost every day, one can find reference to Turkish migrants in the European media. Unfortunately, I have to stress that references to them do not always reflect the realities.

I stress that I support every recommendation in the report. I hope that the measures in it will pave the way for a better understanding of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers in Europe, so that we move towards resolving their problems.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Özal. I call Mrs Hurskainen on a point of order.

Mrs HURSKAINEN (Finland). – Excuse me, but I misunderstood you earlier.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Ms Pashayeva.

Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan). – First, I should like to thank the rapporteur for his full and interesting report, because a discussion of the image of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees in Europe is needed today. There are 33 million migrants in Europe today, and their integration into the society in which they live is very necessary. The press and media can play an important role in the fast integration of these people into the society in which they live, because those organisations play a great role in the establishment of various opinions in society.

The position on this theme of some press and media structures in Europe is very exciting. We often witness how the press and TV channels raise society’s feelings against asylum speakers, migrants and refugees. Populist television programmes, newspaper articles and some politicians’ speeches about how asylum seekers, migrants and refugees have come to occupy Europe are very exciting, too. Such articles, programmes and speeches about the continuation of the flow of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees to Europe can suggest that those people are taking employment away from local people, and that can raise society’s feeling against the asylum seekers, migrants and refugees, thereby increasing the enmity and xenophobia against them and creating a gap between them and the rest of society. That prevents fast integration.

The mass media must eliminate any stereotype that causes discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance, including anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Romanophobia. Unfortunately, we can see the opposite process in the press and media today. The reason for the increase in Islamophobia in Europe is that wrong and non-objective information, programmes and speeches about the Islamic religion and Muslims appear in some media, including the press.

The truth is that, as was noted in the report, the majority of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees – both those who come from inside and those who come from outside Europe – make an important economic contribution to European society and cultural diversity. Of course, the press and media play a big role in the lives, integration and image of the asylum seekers, migrants and refugees in any society. The mass media must pay attention to the positive contribution that they can make to that society. However, we seldom see such cases.

Unfortunately, the press and media structures that raise feelings in society against asylum seekers, migrants and refugees in some European countries are supported by some of the political groups in those countries. That is the main factor that deepens the problem. As was mentioned by the rapporteur, in order to eliminate the negative cases that may be created in Europe, investigation of intolerant, racist and xenophobic attitudes in the mass media and press and an effective complaints procedure are necessary. We must produce, either in the Assembly or in our countries, serious measures to eliminate such negative cases as well as support all the measures that are noted in the draft resolution by the rapporteur.

In my country, Azerbaijan, this issue is paid special attention. There are a lot of programmes to support the integration of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees into society. Besides that, the press and media structures know that the distribution of the materials that cause racism, discrimination and xenophobia is forbidden by law. The mass media and press structures adopt a sensitive approach to articles and programmes about asylum seekers, migrants and refugees.

We must struggle seriously on this issue, even against the laws in some member states, if necessary, as well as call for the press and media structures to adopt a sensitive approach to information, articles and programmes about asylum seekers, migrants and refugees, in the interests of the future of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Mr Fomenko is not here, so I call Mr Evans.

Mr EVANS (United Kingdom). – I do not really want to spoil the party that everyone is having this afternoon in praising this report, but I have some severe reservations about it, to be honest, and they go along the lines of what Mr McIntosh said. I think that the aims are right. We are anti those who are anti-Semitic, xenophobic and racist, but I also think that we are attacking the wrong objective – we are attacking those in the media and saying that they are the problem. That is what politicians tend to do a lot of the time. Governments tend to like to attack the media when they do not think that they are getting the right press, but the fact is that we ought to be attacking the national governments and international institutions that have failed us miserably in tackling the problem that has resulted in millions of people coming into certain countries. Some countries are suffering more than others, but there is a severe problem.

Mr McIntosh said it absolutely right. In the United Kingdom, we have lots of newspapers – some of them are very good and some of them are rubbish. The ones that some of you think are rubbish might be those that I believe to be good, and vice versa. However, what we are talking about today is a form of self-censorship or indeed state-inflicted censorship, which is hugely dangerous. It is more dangerous than the problem that we are trying to tackle. That would be an unintended consequence, but my goodness me, look at some of the unintended consequences of some of the well-intentioned laws that we introduce in all our parliaments.

We must be very careful when we talk about state interference within a free press. We are all libertarians. We all believe in freedom, and freedom of expression is vital in that respect. I know that some people get a rough deal out of that. If you open a newspaper in the United Kingdom, you could be forgiven for thinking that everyone under the age of 21 is up to no good and is a beer-swilling, knife-wielding thug. We all know that that is completely false. Some 99% of the young people in our countries are absolutely fantastic – they do great work and they get on with it – but, of course, that goes unreported in the newspapers.

Are we really saying that, where there are problems with mass immigration and those people commit crimes, we ought to cover it up and not say that they have done so? That would be very dangerous indeed. Of course, part of the failure of governments to tackle the problem of asylum seekers and migration would be hidden, because people would not know that those people were in the country.

In fact, the 10 new EU entrants were mentioned earlier, and our government suggested that 13 000 people would come from those countries into the United Kingdom to seek work. The actual figure is now somewhere nearer 600 000 people, because the United Kingdom does not have a derogation on that. Should that figure be covered up? If it were, that would be very dangerous indeed. I think that my government got it wrong, and the fact that we tell people about that is part of the tool of informing the public, so that they are well informed when it comes to general elections and so that they can make intelligent choices about which party should form government.

I would ask everyone here to be very cautious before asking our governments to start muzzling our free press and twisting and spinning the truth to cover up the things that we would prefer people not to read about.

THE PRESIDENT. (Translation) – Thank you. The debate is closed. I call Mr Çavuşoğlu.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – Thank you, Mr President. The debate today has highlighted the importance of the freedom of expression and how it relates to the media. It has also highlighted the fact that freedom of expression cannot be treated as an absolute right and that the media have responsibilities to exercise that right in a way that does not infringe the rights of others.

With regards to asylum seekers, migrants and refugees, it is clear that there are problems about their representation in the media. I have given examples of those problems, and various speakers have also touched on them in the debate. There is a need to portray an accurate image of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees in the media. There is also a need to ensure that those people are visible and involved in the media.

Examples of stereotyping remain too frequent, irrespective of whether those people are portrayed as a threat – flooding into Europe, taking jobs and feeding on social security – or as criminals or terrorists. Greater efforts are needed to avoid those stereotypes. A number of the proposals that are included in the draft recommendation will go towards improving the image of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees in the media and I hope that you will be able to support the draft recommendation.

As Mr Evans and Mr McIntosh mentioned in their speeches, the report neither accuses nor attacks the media. While it does not necessarily ask governments to take measures, it recommends what the media, governments and states can do together.

Before I end my summing up, I would like to pay tribute to the rapporteur on this issue, Mrs de Zulueta. As you will be aware, the report was prepared not by me but by her, but she is no longer a member of our Assembly. I would like to pay tribute to her work on this issue and her work in our committee, on which she served as first Vice-Chair. She has brought her own particular knowledge, experience and skills to this issue, being a journalist by profession. It has been a pleasure for me to present her report to you today in the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The debate is closed.

The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population has presented a draft recommendation, to which four amendments have been tabled.

They will be taken in numerical order.

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

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr José Freire Antunes, Mrs Sinikka Hurskainen, Mrs Anne Brasseur, Mr Andrew McIntosh, Mr José Mendes Bota, Mr Russell-Johnston, Mr Ricardo Rodrigues, Mr Josef Jařab, Mr Edward O'Hara and Mr Paschal Mooney, which is in the draft recommendation, paragraph 3, after the words “terrorist threat”, insert the following words:

“These fears are fuelled by the attitude of a minority of the immigrants themselves, for instance those who commit so-called ‘honour killings’. The murder of the Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh by a Muslim immigrant is another example.”

I call Mr Freire Antunes to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr FREIRE ANTUNES (Portugal). – Mr McIntosh from Britain has just made an essential point on this issue. The text that has been presented fails to see the overall picture and represents a degree of regression, compared with the text that was adopted by the Assembly in June. In free Europe, we can discuss everything. We can discuss bad taste, or attempts at discrimination, and those freedoms are governed by the law. In free Europe, we cannot call for the suppression of freedom of expression because it is the basic foundation of our democracy.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the Amendment? I call Mr Einarsson.

Mr EINARSSON (Sweden). – Even though what is said in this amendment might be true, the wording unfortunately lends itself to the interpretation that xenophobia can, at least to some extent, be justified by crimes committed by individuals belonging to minority groups. I am sure that that is not the intention of the amendment; nevertheless, I believe that this should be avoided.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr José Freire Antunes, Mrs Sinikka Hurskainen, Mrs Anne Brasseur, Mr Andrew McIntosh, Mr José Mendes Bota, Mr Russell-Johnston, Mr Ricardo Rodrigues, Mr Josef Jařab, Mr Edward O'Hara and Mr Paschal Mooney, which is in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 4, add the following sentence:

“In its resolution 1510 (2006) the Assembly confirmed that freedom of expression should not be further restricted to meet increasing sensitivities of certain religious groups.”

I call Mr Freire Antunes to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr FREIRE ANTUNES (Portugal). – The second amendment is based on the same concept of a free Europe. Here, we have a separation between religion and the state, but when those two entities have become mixed together throughout history, it has led to disaster. In the name of a free Europe, we cannot suppress our basic freedom because of any special sensitivity of religious groups. That is why I have tabled these amendments.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – The committee is in favour of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr José Freire Antunes, Mrs Sinikka Hurskainen, Mrs Anne Brasseur, Mr Andrew McIntosh, Mr José Mendes Bota, Mr Russell-Johnston, Mr Ricardo Rodrigues, Mr Josef Jařab, Mr Edward O'Hara and Mr Paschal Mooney, which is in the draft recommendation, before paragraph 8.4.1, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“ensure the protection of freedom of expression in conformity with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights;”.

I call Mr Freire Antunes to support Amendment No. 3.

Mr FREIRE ANTUNES (Portugal). – The amendment speaks for itself. However, I would like to stress that Europe has for many decades been a melting pot for many civilisations, with different concepts of freedom. Across history, when someone starts to question freedom of expression, it can lead to a dangerous situation, as our British colleagues have pointed out. We have laws relating to freedom based on Article 10. We should respect them.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – The committee is in favour of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr José Freire Antunes, Mrs Sinikka Hurskainen, Mrs Anne Brasseur, Mr Andrew McIntosh, Mr José Mendes Bota, Mr Russell-Johnston, Mr Ricardo Rodrigues, Mr Josef Jařab, Mr Edward O'Hara and Mr Paschal Mooney, which is in the draft recommendation, before paragraph 8.5.1, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“strongly oppose self-censorship and other attempts to restrict freedom of expression in order to meet sensitivities of specific groups;”.

I call Mr Freire Antunes to support Amendment No. 4.

Mr FREIRE ANTUNES (Portugal). – In free Europe, if a journalist or a newspaper does not treat their subject with objectivity, or if they resort to discrimination, racism or violence, we take them to court. We do not kill them, and we do not suppress the newspaper. Being against all forms of censorship is part of being in favour of the free Europe that we all want to keep.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr van Thijn.

Mr VAN THIJN (Netherlands). – Censorship is a very bad thing. Self-censorship, is any, is a matter of self-determination, and therefore part of the freedom of the press.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 11011, as amended. A two-thirds majority is required.

The draft recommendation in Document 11011, as amended, is adopted, with 44 votes for, 8 against and 4 abstentions.

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the business which was 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 5.50 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Minutes of proceedings

2.       Changes in the membership of committees

3.       Establishment of a European remembrance centre for victims of forced population movements and ethnic cleansing

      Presentation by Mr Einarsson of the report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population (Doc. 10925 rev. 2)

      Speakers

      Mr Schreiner (France)

      Mr van Thijn (Netherlands)

      Mr Einarsson (Sweden)

      Motion to refer the report back to the committee rejected.

      Speakers

      Mr van Thijn (Netherlands)

      Mrs Zapfl-Helbling (Switzerland)

      Mr Demirchyan (Armenia)

      Mr Kosachev (Russian Federation)

      Mr Kox (Netherlands)

      Mr Iwiński (Poland)

      Mr Legendre (France)

      Mr Dzembritzki (Germany)

      Mr Schreiner (France)

      Mrs Oskina (Russian Federation)

      Mr Rustamyan (Armenia)

      Mr Özal (Turkey)

      Mr Berényi (Slovakia)

      Mr Pozzo di Borgo (France)

      Mrs Pashayeva (Azerbaijan)

      Mr Karski (Poland)

      Replies

      Mr Einarsson (Sweden)

      Mr Çavuşoğlu (Turkey)

      Amendment No. 1 adopted.

      Draft resolution, as amended, adopted.

      Draft recommendation rejected.

4.       The image of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees in the media

      Presentation by Mr Çavuşoğlu of the report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population (Doc. 11011)

      Speakers

      Mrs Zapfl-Helbling (Switzerland)

      Mrs Bargholtz (Sweden)

      Mrs Oskina (Russian Federation)

      My Shybko (Ukraine)

      Mr Gülçiçek (Turkey)

      Mr Reymann (France)

      Mr Mirzazada (Azerbaijan)

      Mr McIntosh (United Kingdom)

      Mrs Hurskainen (Finland)

      Mr Özal (Turkey)

      Mrs Pashayeva (Azerbaijan)

      Mr Evans (United Kingdom)

      Replies

      Mr Çavuşoğlu (Turkey)

      Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 adopted.

      Draft recommendation, as amended, adopted.

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