2007 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Fifteenth sitting

Wednesday 18 April 2007 at 3 p.m.

ADDENDUM

State of human rights and democracy in Europe

The following texts were submitted for inclusion in the official report by members who were present in the Chamber but were prevented by lack of time from delivering it.

Mr MARGELOV (Russian Federation). – I would like to emphasise the fruitfulness of our debates and thank the rapporteurs for the high-quality materials they have provided. The debates on democracy in Europe confirm the leadership of the Council of Europe in protecting and advancing European values. The debates fuel this role as far as they help to understand the processes under way on our continent and in the world.

Taking a snapshot of the state of democracy threatens serious generalisation, with assessments on a precedent-by-precedent basis. Such assessments are not always correct. Let us imagine that a person has lost his or luggage in Orly. Does it mean that France is a bad country? Of course not. Therefore, we should be even more vigilant when assessing democracy based on precedents, as democracy is a process by definition.

The above is confirmed by the classification of democracy levels that we have before us, namely, basic, developed, stable and strong. In fact, we deal with the continuous evolution of democracy from basic to its higher forms. The snapshot of the state of democracy in any country should be referred to these forms. I believe that country rapporteurs should follow this classification in future. It will not reduce criticism but will prevent excessive requirements.

We plan our debates every year. Therefore, the dynamic of processes will not escape the Assembly’s attention. We consider it important to know what is going on in every particular case, namely, whether is a disappointing failure in the work of a democratic institution or a trend, especially as such failures occur at all stages of democracy development, as the report says. Democratic institutions fail everywhere on a non-recurrent basis.

We consider it important to know the characteristics of countries, especially of those which have built a basic democracy. The 10% or 7% threshold reduces the representation in theory. Has Russia its 7% for this purpose? Party building is under way in Russia. As civil society is still weak, speaking without prejudice, the building is carried out with participation of authority. There are no successful parties in Russia which have appeared spontaneously. The high threshold underlies the idea that only powerful and authoritative parties will form the parliament. The power and authority are determined based on the membership and number of regional organisations.

I am not certain that this is the best way of transition to a party parliament. Every voice should be heard and considered in the developed democracy. Therefore, a 3% threshold might be a democratic optimum. At the same time there is a two-party system in model democracies and it means “a perfect competitiveness” in politics. Nevertheless, the electorate is obliged to choose only one of two ways.

If anybody knows another way of party building, please tell us. It is inefficient to simply criticise Turkey or Russia for a high limiting threshold in parliament. We should support such criticism with a convincing alternative.

The report speaks about the threat posed to democracy by market forces. “The economic man” disrupted the balance between values and interests to shift it towards interests. There is nothing out of the ordinary if the countries compete for the energy sources or their ways of delivery, for example. The trouble is that the collision of interests without values leads to conflicts. Lost values of “censorship” means lost control in the world. The minimum solidarity fades away, at which the international community could remove at least some of its common problems. This rule is quite applicable to national problems of states. That is why our efforts in extending European values are so important.

They are also important in the light of the visible tendency to strengthened nationhood after 11 September. It became clear that the destruction of a state leads to a catastrophe. A weak nationhood may be a source of extremism, violation of human rights and democratic proceedings. The existence of democratic institutions itself does not imply the existence of nationhood. There are such countries in the European time zone as well. The Council of Europe should not interrupt its work on assisting them in building nationhood. The Council of Europe should promote democracy, self-governance and human rights delicately and “à la Europe”.

The spread of democracy “à la Europe” requires not only delicacy but also deep insight into the peculiarities of cultures. We think that the Alliance of Civilisations Initiative is devoted to the dialogue of cultures at the global level. We should make this initiative Europe-wide, while taking into account the religious and ethnic potential of our continent and the whole European time zone. I would like to mention that it comprises today over 80 countries, including those far from Strasbourg or Brussels. There is no dividing line between us and them. The intercultural dialogue is important as far as it protects from the risks that arose from the spread of democracy. Thank you for your attention.

Mr IZETBEGOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina). – I am one of the representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the country which has, for centuries, cultivated harmonious natural cohabitation of the peoples of different nations, religious beliefs and cultures, thus becoming a sort of pattern for Europe that is being unified today.

Unfortunately, a decade and a half ago, during the wars caused by the dissolution of Yugoslavia, my country abandoned the image of being the symbol of harmonious cohabitation and fellowship, and became the symbol of the sufferings, horrors and massive violation of human rights.

Half of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina have been forced to leave their homes, hundreds of thousands have been killed or wounded, and in the United Nations protected zone of Srebrenica, a massacre was committed of almost the total male population.

This massacre has been characterised and judged as genocide, performed by the army and police forces of the Republika Srpska, according to the judgment of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, in February 2007.

These are all sad and well known facts. What is, seemingly, not so well known, is the fact that the violations of fundamental human rights in the Srebrenica region have continued up to this moment.

The police structure of Republika Srpska is still employing the persons that allegedly took part in the Srebrenica massacre – mothers and wives of killed Srebrenica men witness this on a daily basis.

Police and the prosecution of the Republika Srpska have not captured one single person that took part in the massacre of over 8 000 Bosniac men and boys. The authorities have not identified one mass grave in which they have buried the killed Srebrenicians.

In Bratunac, the town of the origin of thousands of victims of the massacre, the local authorities have forbidden the burial of the identified victims.

The constitutional obligation to establish and respect the national balance in accordance with the 1991 census in regard to the employing of civil servants has never been fulfilled.

Problems in the health and education services are immense and the issue of unemployment is catastrophic.

Such behaviour on the part of the authorities of Republika Srpska has led to the escalation of the unrest of the returnees in Srebrenica and to their desperate decision to leave their home town again. The settlement of tents for these double refugees has been formed in Sarajevo two days ago.

Bearing in mind all that I have said, I strongly believe that the draft resolution on the state of human rights and democracy in Europe that we have in front of us today should mention the present state in Srebrenica. The resolution that speaks of the geographical regions that are considered as the black holes on the map of human rights in Europe will not be accurate if it does not mention the darkest black hole – Srebrenica.

This region went through major suffering during and after the war, and therefore asks that special measures and attention be taken in order to establish normal life and full respect of human rights.

I have proposed the amendment to the draft resolution, by which the Council of Europe will urge the authorities of Republika Srpska and Bosnia and Herzegovina fully to implement the urgent measures in order to ensure the normalisation of the situation in Srebrenica and I hope this distinguished European home of democracy will give its support. Thank you.