2008 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-fifth Sitting

Thursday 26 June 2008 at 10 a.m.

Link to the voting results

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 de Puig, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.10 a.m.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.

1. Minutes of proceedings

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The minutes of proceedings of the Twenty-third Sitting have been distributed. If there are no objections, the minutes are agreed to.

      They are agreed to.

2. Agenda

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – In view of the debates which will take place this afternoon, and the number of speakers on the list, and given that the meeting of the Joint Committee planned for 6.30 p.m. this evening, in room 5, has been brought forward to 6 p.m., I propose that the sitting this afternoon end at the latest by 6 p.m.

      Is that agreed?

      It is agreed.

3. The situation in China

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The first business this morning is the general policy debate on the situation in China. The debate will finish at around 12 noon, and will be followed by the start of the debate under urgent procedure on the functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey, which will continue this afternoon.

      This morning we will be considering a report from the Political Affairs Committee, Document 11654, presented by Mr Mignon, rapporteur. Four amendments have been tabled to the draft resolution.

      I call Mr Mignon, rapporteur, to present the report from the Political Affairs Committee. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between your presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Mr MIGNON (France) said that it had been a great pleasure, and a wonderful opportunity, to have been able to draft this report on such a sensitive issue. The aim of the report was not to level accusations, but rather to present a very balanced analysis of the situation in China. He had wanted to touch on everything, both the positive and the negative, to produce a properly balanced account.

      China was a truly great country, although a number of problems remained. In the spheres of economic and international relations, China had made very significant progress, but the China of today did not respect a set of human rights that members of the Council of Europe would recognise. When Beijing was awarded the 2008 Summer Olympic Games a few years ago, a number of conditions concerning improvements in human rights and the rule of law in China had been set by the International Olympic Committee. Not all of these conditions had been met as fully as they might have been.

      He wished to note the tragic circumstances of the Chinese earthquake in recent weeks, and extend the sincere condolences of the Assembly to the Chinese people. But he also wished to talk about matters that were problematic, such as the death penalty and the fact that democracy was non-existent in China.

      China was a neighbour of the Council of Europe and, given that the principles of human rights and the rule of law were universal to members of the Council of Europe, it they had a duty and responsibility to extend a helping hand to this great neighbour. The Council of Europe had extended such a hand of friendship and assistance to the State of Israel which had been the first country to achieve observer status at the Council of Europe in 1957.

      He wished to thank the Chinese Ambassador to France who had agreed to meet him to discuss at length the issues of human rights and democracy in China. China had excellent bilateral relations with many individual member states of the Council of Europe, and the time had come for the Council of Europe, as an Organisation, to extend the hand of friendship and co-operation to China.

      He hoped that the report would be adopted without amendments because every word in it had been weighed extremely carefully.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Mignon, for the presentation of the report. I note that you have eight minutes and 30 seconds left of your speaking time. You can use that time to respond to points and questions raised in the debate.

      The first speaker is Mr Lebedev, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr LEBEDEV (Russian Federation) thanked the President and his distinguished colleagues. After recent events in Tibet, his political group had discussed at length whether it would be appropriate to have this debate on human rights in China. The conclusion was that it was entirely appropriate to discuss this issue; in fact, to not discuss it would undermine the fundamental values underpinning the Council of Europe. After all, no country was a far away place any more. Globalisation meant that notions of north and south were going to disappear because we were all citizens of the global village.

      The economic liberalisation in China meant that China was integrating into international markets, and was beginning to take a leading role in the development of technologies, which was a highly globalised issue. There had been discussion between old-fashioned socialists and those favouring a more free-market approach in China over several decades, and it was clear that those favouring liberalisation had won the argument. But this had not been accompanied by political liberalisation.

      The experience of the Council of Europe could be immensely useful to China, and it was worth remembering that not all countries in Europe had believed in, and upheld, the fundamental values of the Council of Europe at the time when that organisation was created. In future, the balance of power might well shift in the world, and it was possible that Europe would be but a little island on the sidelines. But it was important to spread the word about the crucial fundamental values that the Council of Europe represented and sought to uphold.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Elzinga to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands). – Thank you. I would like to stress that we are today discussing an important report, for which I thank the rapporteur. It could be a real step towards more substantial ongoing dialogue between the Council of Europe member states and the People’s Republic of China. That dialogue is important; it should be sincere dialogue for our mutual benefit, and should include discussion of human rights. That could improve the lives of many, many millions of people. We have some common ground: both China and the 47 member states of the Council of Europe have ratified the UN Charter.

      China deserves our attention because our economic activities are increasingly interrelated. All our economies seek to better their trade relations with China, as there are benefits for both sides, especially China. China has seen tremendous economic growth over the past few decades. In the past 25 years, China has taken more people out of poverty and has enrolled more children in school than any other country, according to a recent report by the International Labour Organization. Those are beautiful results, at least suggesting that China also takes its ratification of the ILO convention on minimum working age seriously. Unfortunately, China has not yet ratified all core ILO standards and conventions, and does not fully respect those that have already been ratified. That is also the case with regard to the UN Charter.

      The report deals with many issues and rightly expresses concerns about many human rights violations, including recent ones in Tibet and neighbouring provinces. More generally, issues that deservedly receive attention in the report include: discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, women and rural migrants; the death penalty; and the harassment, imprisonment and torture of human rights activists, lawyers and journalists.

      However, I have suggested one amendment – No. 4 – which would mean that the resolution would mention labour activists at least once. Their role is crucial for change in China. We talk about the downside of China’s economic growth and our cheap imports. Extremely long working days, a seven-day working week, low wages and people sometimes not being paid are pretty common. Unsafe and unhealthy working conditions are rather the standard, mainly in the cities and special economic zones. That leads to a large number of labour-related accidents.

      In the factories, you will find many young women working, many of whom are migrant workers who come from rural areas. They face the hardest conditions because they have fewer rights once moved to a different district. They lose rights related to social housing and education, and that leads to migrant workers living in factories and sleeping in dormitories. Sometimes there are eight to 10 women in one small room. I know, as an international labour activist myself, that unfortunately the loss of the right to education among rural migrants leads to an increase in child labour in some areas. There are child workers – they make up to 20% of the work force in certain industries.

      Workers are increasingly protesting against all that. According to official statistics, in 2005 alone, China counted 87 000 massive social disturbances, and according to the only trade union allowed, which is state controlled, the number of labour-related social disturbances grows by 30% a year. The Communist Party is trying to take the needs of workers seriously, and has approved new labour laws, raising the bar for employment standards and labour rights, but it does not dare to empower the workers themselves. Workers who try to organise themselves risk hard oppression, resulting in many imprisoned labour activists. I spoke of common ground; China is a member of the ILO, but to date it has not yet ratified important conventions on free association in an independent trade union, on collective bargaining, and on unforced labour. Human rights include core ILO standards. I hope that the report will lead to a developing dialogue between Europe and China in which Europe will keep addressing human rights issues until China ratifies all major conventions and fully respects the UN Charter. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Now I give the floor to Mr Prescott, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President. The Socialist Group welcomes the resolution and the debate on further dialogue between the Council of Europe and China. There is a vivid contrast with the inquiry held at the last meeting. Frankly, there were issues with the evidence given then, and the people who participated in the meeting were somewhat hostile to say the least. It was more caught up with the rhetoric of the papers than the substance of the matter. The rapporteur has taken a more measured part in this debate, and that is important. China wants to debate. I have gone there every year for the past 10 years and have discussed human rights, the Olympics and all the things that we want to talk about. I contributed to the release of a journalist in accordance with his human rights. Dialogue is important, and China wants it. I am glad that that is the tone being taken in the contributions that have been made so far, including by the rapporteur.

      The resolution seems a bit peculiar in some respects. In paragraph 1, we offer our condolences on the terrible earthquake and welcome the rapid assistance provided by the government and army, and then we condemn the army for making property, rather than people, a priority. I do not know what the evidence is for that statement, but it is a contradiction. We must make up our minds on where we stand on that. The same is true for a number of other points made in the resolution, particularly on the issue of rural workers.

      Some 15 million people a year come out of the rural areas into the cities, and out of poverty. They do not necessarily become prosperous, but they improve their standard of living and their education. We need a bit more perspective about that. Perhaps we should consider congratulating China on the news that we have heard today about nuclear power in North Korea, and the dismantling of the threat of nuclear weapons. That could have been achieved only by China; it was not achieved by the big six. We must welcome that news. It is a good indication of the role that China now plays on all global problems. I know that from my own experience at Kyoto, with regard to the issue of climate change. Globally, when it comes to growth in the economy, much depends on what goes on in China.

China has a major part to play. It plays its part in the UN; it is reaching out and it is right for us to reach out and talk to it and to have a critical debate on all the issues that we are concerned about. We should not necessarily condemn it with what is almost Cold War rhetoric – that seems to creep in from time to time. China is making applications to the ILO and the EU, and wants to be recognised as a market economy. There are major changes going on in China, and we should show respect for its development in our debates and dialogue. We in this Chamber constantly talk about problems in the transfer from the basic Communist political system to a more socialist democratic system. The Chinese call that socialism with Chinese characteristics. Let us have debate with them about what is right in that.

Let us debate with China them what democratic accountability is about. The report says that there are problems with arbitrary detention, human rights abuses, a lack of freedom of expression, religious persecution and the imprisonment of journalists. This week, we were debating exactly those comments and charges in respect of a number of countries in Europe, within our boundaries and among the signatory nations of the Council of Europe. We still condemn such things wherever they happen. That is our job and our obligation, but let us put this in perspective: we are seeing a powerful nation transforming itself from communism into whatever it might become – perhaps socialism with Chinese characteristics.

Whatever happens, China must respect human rights, and we must argue that case. So let us have the dialogue. I am delighted that the President will soon lead a delegation to China precisely to take up that role. Whether in Armenia, China or any of the countries that we are talking about, we must always argue the case for European rights, but we must do so with respect and with an eye to our own history of political and social development – after all, people in glass houses should not throw stones.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mr Prescott. I now call Mr Haibach, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany) thanked the President and his honourable colleagues. He commented that the Council of Europe should concentrate on its core values when conducting its business. Questions had been raised about whether it was appropriate to discuss China and whether the Council of Europe should engage in dialogue with China to improve its human rights. In his opinion, it was absolutely right that the Assembly should debate this matter.

      There were a number of reasons for this. First, China was Europe’s neighbour and Europe had an important economic relationship with China. Secondly, it was necessary to be in close dialogue with the country to address global problems and threats. Thirdly, it was important to continue dialogue with neighbouring continents to deal with worldwide problems such as Africa. It was therefore important that Europe worked together with China.

      However, it was important to find the right approach. Up until now, Europe’s approach had oscillated between condemnation and turning a blind eye for the purposes of economic trading. Thus, it was necessary to develop a unified view in Europe and he commended the rapporteur for a balanced report. The importance of maintaining an unwavering focus on the upholding of fundamental human rights should not be watered down, but there was a need to develop a more constructive approach. Some progress had been made in China but there had also been some backlash. This was not about a difference in cultures, ideology, or forcing Europe’s views onto China. It was about tackling issues together and engaging in a long-term dialogue.

      He wondered who, if the Olympic Games had not been due to be hosted in China in the near future, would be discussing the problem of human rights in the country. This was the problem; discussions on China tended to arise on an ad hoc basis and there was no lasting dialogue. There was a need for a long-term approach and there were examples that such an approach could work. Dialogues between the Council of Europe and China, and between the Federal Republic of Germany and China, had begun to make some progress. There had been some changes in the Chinese legal system, which provided good indications that China was moving in the right direction. However, it was important to look past the Olympic Games and to discuss what would happen once they had finished and the flame had gone out. There was therefore a need to ensure that a long-term strategic approach was taken and a lasting dialogue was established.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Now I give the floor to Lord Russell-Johnston, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Lord RUSSELL-JOHNSTON (United Kingdom). – I, too, congratulate Jean-Claude Mignon on his report. We in the ALDE group feel that it is well balanced and informative and that it seeks dialogue but does not hesitate to make very direct criticisms of China’s human rights record and pace of change. In that regard, I give notice of my wish later to move an oral sub-amendment, with your permission, Mr President, to paragraph 15.2, whose ambiguity I did not really notice until I read the report again last night. That paragraph calls on China to “respect its ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, like all the Council of Europe member states”. We all know that all the member states of the Council of Europe do not do that. Therefore, I think that that phrase should be deleted. I do not want the Chinese to accuse us of double standards.

Before I leave the question of double standards, I should mention the point made by the rapporteur in paragraph 18 of his explanatory memorandum, where he refers to the Olympic Charter. The Olympic Charter is not within our control. However, there is one country in the world that excludes all women from representation – Saudi Arabia – but nobody speaks about that.

One subject not very much addressed that aroused quite a debate in the ALDE Group is the increasing divergence between those who give priority to human rights and those who give priority to trade and criticise the former if it harms or impedes the latter. That is an important question, and we should sit down with the business community and talk about it; otherwise the two approaches will drift further and further apart, which would be bad. Of course, that is not only a one-way process. The Chinese are buying into Europe. That might be good perhaps, or it might not. In my experience, totalitarian regimes only send abroad those who are ideologically reliable.

I said at the beginning that I believe in dialogue – I do – and when I was President of the Assembly, I paid a well-received official visit to China. I had an hour with the Foreign Minister and then only a little less time with Li Peng, who was the most powerful man in China at that time. It might amuse the Assembly if I say that, for the formal televised exchange, we sat not facing each other but in seats a little bit apart, parallel to each other, and I had been told to make a short statement. I decided to concentrate on the death penalty and hoped for a bit of extra punch by pointing out that we also criticise the United States on that subject. Li Peng snatched a sideways glance at me before turning back, and I saw in relief that he was smiling. “If you don’t tell me how to run my internal affairs,” he said, “I won’t tell you how to reform the House of Lords”. So, before coming to my final point, let me say that something that encouraged me about dialogue with China is that we share a sense of humour.

Paragraph 11 of the explanatory memorandum rightly mentions the good speeches of Merkel and Kouchner. This Assembly is an interfering body; we can be diplomatic, but we are not diplomats. Were it not for the commitment, courage and persistence of our predecessors, we would not now have a European Court of Human Rights. I sense a certain drift in the Assembly away from being forthright in criticising fellow members. It was noteworthy that, in the recent Russian Duma elections, members of a bloc who used to be excellent members of the ALDE Group were persecuted and denied a voice. We also had the honour of having Mr Kovaliev in our group, and he says it all in his open letter.

We must always speak out within our organisation for human rights, and paragraph 10 of the rapporteur’s explanatory memorandum says that, wherever they are transgressed worldwide, it is our duty to act. That is our responsibility and raison d’être.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now give the floor to Mr Wikiński.

      Mr WIKIŃSKI (Poland). – China is the forth-largest economy in the world and it is growing fast. It is the third-largest exporter and is having a major and growing economic and political impact not only in south-east Asia but globally. Although the economic relationship with China has evolved into a strategic partnership, there are widespread concerns in many Europe countries about human rights in China. Non-governmental organisations keep on emphasising that Europe should continuously raise human rights issues in dialogue with our Chinese counterparts.

      Despite China’s official assurances that hosting the 2008 Olympic Games would help to strengthen the development of human rights in the country, the government often does not observe its citizens’ fundamental rights and continues to impose multiple controls on civil society activists and protestors. Let us not forget that China has highly politicised its hosting of the Olympics and is using every possible means to ensure success. It is the biggest propaganda exercise ever launched by the Chinese Government.

      China is still the country that keeps in prison the largest number of journalists, cyber-dissidents, Internet-users and freedom of expression campaigners. The assurance given by a Chinese official in 2001, when Beijing was lobbying for the 2008 Olympics, about total press freedom has not been fulfilled.

      The countdown to the Olympics has sparked a construction boom. An estimated 1 million migrant construction workers are integral to that effort, yet their labour conditions are harsh and unsafe, and workers are often unable to access public services.

      There has also been insufficient progress in Tibet, where the situation is anything but normal. The authorities continue to fear that Tibetans may try to stage further protests, and Tibetans continue to fear that they may be arrested at any time for any reason. Lhasa, where the torch arrived on 21 June, have remained off-limits to foreign media and independent observers since protests began there in March. The Chinese Government has denied repeated demands for an independent international investigation into the March protests and their aftermath. In response to international condemnation of the March violence, the Chinese Government permitted 15 diplomats to visit Lhasa, but seriously restricted their ability to speak freely to Tibetans and visit those in detention. Even the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is mandated to visit detention facilities and to check on the well-being of prisoners worldwide, has never been allowed to carry out such work in China.

      As members of this Assembly, we must again and again loudly express our concerns about the violation of human rights which continues to occur in China, including restrictions on freedom of expression, religion and association, a lack of minority rights, torture and the death penalty. We should maintain a permanent dialogue with China, including with Chinese Members of parliament. Thank you for your attention.

      (Mr Kyprianou, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr de Puig.)

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Branger.

Mr BRANGER (France) thanked the President and said that he was happy that this house of human rights, that is to say the Council of Europe, was at long last coming to the question of fundamental freedoms in China, 19 years after the Tiananmen Square massacre. He thanked Mr Mignon for having been able to mobilise interest in addressing this issue. He regretted that the Dalai Lama had not been able to come and explain the day-to-day situation in the Tibet Autonomous Region.

He referred to a number of people whom he would have liked to have been able to be present to inform the Assembly about what had happened to them. Yang Chunlin, chained to a bed while in detention for “subversion of the state” in connection with protest on behalf of the 40,000 farmers evicted from their land without compensation; Pastor Hua Huaiqi, beaten while in prison for his religious activity and his 76 year-old mother sentenced to two years for protesting about this treatment; Kim Yong-Ja, alongside many other Chinese women victims of abuses and enforced abortions, who committed suicide while in prison for raising the trafficking of North Korean women; Ablikim Abdiriyim, arrested and tortured in relation to freedom of information on the Chinese Internet; and Hu Ja and Gao Zhiseng imprisoned and tortured for “inciting subversion” in relation to raising issues of AIDS, the environment and fundamental freedoms in China. These people’s stories would have been a basis for useful dialogue with Beijing. Progress was needed, perhaps eventually including observers form the Chinese parliament at the Assembly. The Chinese people mentioned would be astonished at our reluctance to confront the issue and use the explicit term “human rights” in a report on China; or was it the case that we would be regarded as inciting subversion, too? This underlined how much was yet to be done. A proper dialogue and concrete measures was needed with China and was desired by all.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I remind you that members have only four minutes and you have to respect that because we have a lot of speakers who wish to take part in the debate.

I do not see Mr Jakavonis, who is the next speaker, in the Chamber, so I call Mr Bjørnstad.

Mr BJØRNSTAD (Norway). – I thank the rapporteur for a timely and interesting report. China is in the middle of a fascinating transition. There is amazing progress in the economic, social and industrial sectors. With its impressive economic growth, hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty. The Chinese economy may become the world’s second largest in a few years’ time, but there are enormous challenges. The differences between the rich and the poor are alarming, and environmental problems are in proportion to the country’s size and growth. Sixteen of the world’s 20 most polluted cities are Chinese. Last but not least, China has a long way to go when it comes to democratic development, respect for universal human rights and, of course, minority rights.

      China’s geopolitical role and its importance in world politics are growing. It has become a key player on the international scene, and I cannot think of a single issue of global importance to which a solution can be found without Chinese engagement. The way in which China chooses to stake out further engagement and co-operation in the world community is a vital issue for all of us. Climate change and the environment, the world trade regime and security policy at both regional and global levels are key issues in which China’s constructive engagement is crucial.

      We depend on a China that considers multilateral solutions, not unilateral ones. We need a China that acts responsibly and constructively, so we need to keep it engaged, and encourage dialogue and co-operation. There has been some talk of boycotting the Olympics, but I do not think that a boycott or isolation is the means to move China in the direction in which we want it to move. Some 30 000 journalists will attend the Olympics, which will put an extra spotlight on Chinese society, which is a positive step.

      China has to accept the focus on negative aspects of its society, which comes from its role as an active, central player in the world community. Human rights are not a domestic issue, but they are a legitimate international concern. We must voice our concern, in strong terms when necessary, about minorities in China and, of course, the situation in Tibet. The rule of law, and civil and political rights such as freedom of expression, religion and organisation, must be strengthened. The use of the death penalty is another issue of great concern.

      There have been positive developments. To give a concrete example, a new law on employment contracts came into force in China earlier this year. Previously, there was no such legislation to protect workers. It is not perfect, but small steps can make things happen. My country has a constructive human rights dialogue with China. Norway would be naïve to think that it alone can influence the Chinese giant, but together, we can all do so, and, little by little, change takes place. It is important to use all the tools available to us, both bilateral and multilateral, and to use both criticism and co-operation.

      China’s development depends on the country itself, and on its political choices, but it certainly does not exist in isolation. Quite the contrary: Chinese development is a consequence not least of globalisation and the fact that it has opened up to the world. Chinese leaders are more open to dialogue than ever before. We must demonstrate that developments that lead to greater democracy, guarantee human rights and protect minority rights are in China’s own interest.

      We accept criticism best when we know that it is constructive and comes from someone who has our best interests at heart. A constructive, frank dialogue, co-operation and exchange at all levels are, in my view, the best way forward to secure democratic development in China and positive engagement in common global challenges.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Bjørnstad. The next speaker is Mr Kondratov.

      Mr KONDRATOV (Russian Federation) said that this was the first time that he had spoken in this authoritative forum. The events that had created such a huge stir in China had been perceived in different ways in different countries and attracted attention in different ways. Separatism would always be bad for all aspects of life in a country. The problem was that many other countries, to whose advantage the upheavals were, were anxious to see more. Countries like Russia had been against independence for Kosovo, but others had seen Kosovo as unique, and therefore not a precedent. It was always a painful issue. There was no country which benefited from internal conflicts. In each case, it became just an excuse for the media to paint the familiar simplistic picture of some ethnic group seeking its freedom. The Olympic Games were a gift for agitators. What had happened with the Olympic flame, in what had been in the past a normal part of the events, had led to social unrest, even with people being killed, and hundreds injured. Trouble had been deliberately provoked. But violence begat only violence. To say that we should boycott the Olympic Games was clearly absurd, and it was politically motivated. The games were an opportunity for people to show what they could do, particularly of course the athletes and other sportsmen and women. Moreover, if things continued as they were, China would soon be a leading economy. Violence was not the answer.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Kondratov. The next speaker is Mr Grignon.

      Mr GRIGNON (France) thanked Mr Mignon, the rapporteur, for his excellent report, which should be the starting point of an extended dialogue with China. This would not be an easy dialogue, but it would be an important one. This discussion was taking place in the shadows of two significant events in China. One was the tragic earthquake in which up to 80 000 had died and perhaps 15 million people had been left homeless; and the second was the crisis in Tibet. These two events had demonstrated the nimbleness with which the Chinese authorities adapted to different situations. In the case of the earthquake, the reaction had been swift and very transparent. It could be counted as a significant policy and administrative success. The reaction in Tibet was obviously entirely different, and the old approach of repression and violence had been used. The Chinese authorities clearly knew exactly what they were doing, and what the world expected of them.

      Chinese policy was not grounded in ideology, but rather in pragmatism. It was very important to appreciate this fact. It was essential that the West entered into dialogue with China; this was a sine qua non. It was the only reasonable way to proceed. In doing so, the West had to avoid the trap of falling for the increasingly popular proposition that human rights was a concept only springing from western historical traditions, and therefore only relevant there.

      There was a Chinese conception of human rights, based on the teaching of Confucius, in which the group was worth more than the individual. The individual had responsibilities towards the group, and towards the state. The responsibilities of the state towards the individual were rather more limited, and primarily concerned material well-being. Living standards in China had increased massively in recent years and had therefore delivered in terms of this traditional Chinese concept of human rights. But the West had to be vigilant in this area: human rights, as understood by the member states of the Council of Europe, were not just a European invention but were universal values.

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

      Mrs GORYACHEVA (Russian Federation) said that it was an irony that the centres of worlds religions rarely seemed to be peaceful places. One just had to look at the Middle East as well as Tibet. Tibet had had a chequered history. To note just a few historical milestones: in 1911 Tibet had declared independence; but by 1950 China had taken control of the territory.

      The account of recent events in Tibet varied a great deal. The Chinese authorities said that Tibetans had started the trouble and that they had television footage to prove it. The Tibetans, on the other hand said that the Chinese Army had started the conflict, and that they also had television footage as evidence. Given the variation in accounts of this situation, would it not be wrong for the Council of Europe to go blundering in, seeking to judge who was victim and who was perpetrator? Would it not simply end up looking like a bull in a china shop? China was not a European country, and it would not be right for the Council of Europe to intervene in her affairs, and tell the Chinese how to do things.

      It was thought-provoking that, in some countries, people trusted the Chinese more than they trusted the Americans. Even in Australia, a western country, people trusted the Chinese as much as they trusted the Americans. Why did we think we could teach the Chinese anything? Perhaps we could learn a few lessons from them.

      Mrs Goryacheva had herself grown up in the far south-east of Russia, on the Chinese border and she had seen the Chinese economy changing and growing over the years. Now, the debate had moved on in China and they had started to talk about governance. It was expected that, by 2020, China would have a real middle class. Was it not for the Council of Europe to congratulate the Chinese people on these achievements, rather than criticise them? And should it not recognise that China had every right to protect the integrity of its own borders?

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

      Mr SASI (Finland). – The Council of Europe should mainly concentrate on its member states and observer member states, but sometimes we should make exceptions. Mr Mignon’s report is very good. China poses the biggest challenge to human rights in the whole world, not just because of the country’s size, but because of the huge lack of human rights in the country. As stated in the report, there is arbitrary detention, torture, the harassment of human rights organisations, the death penalty and so on. That is a real challenge to us.

      The problem in China is the political system. Communism does not respect human rights and there will be no hope for the country until it changes its political system. People talk about Chinese tradition, but when we consider Taiwan, for example, we see that human rights are fairly well respected there. In other political systems, human rights can exist, but not under communism.

      In communism, politicians want to control individuals because they do not trust them to make the right decisions in their own lives or in the life of the state. However, we have hope in China, and the hope is the market economy. The Chinese leadership understands that China cannot be a strong power without a strong economy, and a strong economy means a market economy.

In a market economy, people learn to make their own choices between different alternatives, and when they do so they can no longer be controlled to the same extent. When people form their own firms, they take the initiative, which makes them more difficult to control. A market economy needs tools, such as Internet access, which means the exchange of information, and that, too, makes people more difficult to control. When a middle class emerges in China through the market economy, those people will not be satisfied with the political system and something will change.

The market economy will break the Communist system in China. We do not yet know when, but the important thing for this Assembly is whether that breakdown happens peacefully or through revolution. If it happens through revolution, it will be an immense tragedy for the country so, for the sake of the Chinese people, I hope that the Chinese leadership will understand the need to change the system soon and not at the last moment.

A huge breakdown in China will have a great impact on the world economy, which is why it is important that we try to help China, through dialogue, to introduce human rights and democracy.       We have the basis for that dialogue – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. China is bound to that treaty and we should try to help the Chinese to implement its values in their political system; for example, there is an exchange of lawyers between Finland and China. Such initiatives can be helpful, although there is a long way to go. It is important that we have intensive dialogue with China, especially with Chinese non-governmental organisations so that people can learn best practice from Europe.

      Finally, there are many European companies in China. They must operate with high moral standards, because they can be a strong force in helping Chinese companies to apply human rights and fair rules.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Rochebloine.

      Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France) said that, in the light of three key events in China – the forthcoming Beijing Olympics, the recent earthquake and the violence in Tibet – this was a very important time to debate the situation in China. It was only natural that an international assembly like the Council of Europe Assembly should discuss the situation in an important country like China. General de Gaulle had recognised, very early on, the importance of developing diplomatic relations with China. He had realised that China would one day count on the world stage, and he had therefore started the French dialogue with China.

      China was often perceived as a bit of a mystery in the West, but it was instructive to consider the words of a fellow Frenchman, Alain Peyrefitte, who had talked about the “waking up” of China. It was true that the human rights violations in China, including public executions and the general functioning of the judicial system, was shocking. It was no surprise that people were ill at ease with these circumstances and it was true that they were not simply a manifestation of cultural difference but rather were a political problem. They arose out of the way that power and authority was understood in China. The freedom of expression of political opposition to the incumbent regime was curtailed; and this was compounded by the diversity with which the rules and decrees issued by central government were interpreted in different parts of China. There was a link between political efficiency and authoritarianism that needed to be appreciated.

      It was not effective to assert that our values were superior to those of others but, through dialogue and informal meetings, it was possible to advance the values and ideas that the Council of Europe represented, by persuasion. It was much more effective to convey our experiences of democracy through informal meetings and communications. He thanked and congratulated the rapporteur, Mr Mignon.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Del Roio but he is not here, so I call Mr Goldstein.

      Mr GOLDSTEIN (Observer from Canada). – I congratulate Jean-Claude Mignon and those who worked with him on producing an excellent, well-balanced and well-reasoned resolution and report. Many of us have expressed our concerns about the Chinese Government’s record on human rights domestically as well as its involvement in the crisis in Darfur and Burma and in the unrest in Tibet.

      These concerns have led a number of international organisations, non-governmental organisations and state governments to suggest that the 2008 Olympic Games provide a perfect opportunity to raise human rights concerns with Chinese officials both directly and symbolically. Opponents of this approach argue that Olympic athletes have trained for years for the event and that it would be unfortunate, and in fact unfair, to have these athletes sacrifice their years of training for what would be in effect only a symbolic protest. They argue, therefore, that the Olympics should not be politicised.

      Obviously, we require a balance between the need to respect the dedication of the Olympic athletes on the one hand, and the fact that we are compelled to make some sort of statement on the troubling practices of the Chinese Government on the other. Those who insist on trying to separate sport from politics believe that it is possible to maintain a sphere in which athletic competition is isolated from ideological considerations.

      Interestingly, the charter of the Olympic movement calls for “respect for universal fundamental ethical principles”. It identifies the practice of sport as a human right and states that individuals must be able to practise this right free from discrimination. The charter places sport “at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.” I stop for a moment on the words “the preservation of human dignity”, because that is the area on which we logically and properly have the obligation to intervene.

I suggest four possible ways of doing so, none of which would, I believe, be offensive to the Chinese but all of which would be an assertion of a statement of principle on the part of the Council of Europe. First, senior political leaders, especially elected officials, should absent themselves from the opening ceremony. That would send a signal that the international community is concerned about the protection of human rights within China. The Prime Minister of Canada, for instance, does not intend to attend the opening ceremonies.

Secondly, Olympic athletes should be asked to take time to consider whether they might be willing to demonstrate solidarity and concern for the protection of human rights, perhaps by wearing a simple ribbon that is not prohibited by Olympic standards. Thirdly, the international community should do everything in its power to ensure that trained human rights observers are in place across China during the Olympic Games. Finally, concerned countries, as well as corporate sponsors of the games, should try to exercise pressure on the Chinese Government to loosen its iron grip on journalists and other members of the media.

The Olympic Games provide an opportunity for athletes from across the world to come together. The accomplishment of Olympic athletes should be overshadowed as little as possible by political concerns, but it is a fundamental ethical principle of Olympism itself that also obliges us not to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses. It is possible to achieve a balance between these two imperatives.

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

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania). – Thank you, Mr President. Ladies and gentlemen, today we are talking about China, but we must not forget the so-called Tibetan issue. There have been some positive developments in that area. Ten years ago, the Chinese authorities said that there was no Tibetan problem; they said that it was just one man who had the problem. Now, they recognise that the problem really exists. The events in Tibet last March showed that the problem is very big. The positive development is that there is now negotiation – or, as I would put it, embryonic dialogue. Unfortunately, progress is very slow, and trust and confidence are lacking.

The Tibetan side proposes a so-called five-point programme for negotiation. I want to remind colleagues of those points. The first concerns the administrative boundaries of the Tibetan region. Today, the Tibetan Autonomous Region is far smaller than the area inhabited by ethnic Tibetans. It is an artificial division that divides Tibetans administratively, and it will perhaps divide them politically in future, if there is a political settlement. The second point concerns the natural environment. Almost all the Asian waters start in the Himalayan mountains. The situation is deteriorating rapidly and the Chinese authorities will have to take action quickly.

The third point concerns the urgent need for demilitarisation of the region. China says that militarisation of the region is necessary because of the threat posed by India, but the Tibetan side says that the threat is not serious; the issue mostly affects the interior, and the Tibetans. The fourth point is about universal human rights, which have to be respected. That is a problem not just in Tibet but in China more generally. The fifth point is that China must start to think about Tibetan autonomy in the constitutional framework of China. Tibetans today do not demand an independent state. They think that a solution is possible because China has already used such a solution; for example, in Hong Kong there are two systems in one state. Why not introduce a system in Tibet in which there are two cultures in one state? That is possible.

Dialogue between Tibet and China is the only solution. The Olympic Games this year are a great opportunity for China to show its good will and to start real dialogue with Tibetans. The opportunity is still not lost; we still have time. Let us hope that the message from Strasbourg – from this forum – will help China to take a good step forward on human rights. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Herkel.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – Thank you, Mr President. Dear colleagues, I welcome this report very much, but in some instances I would prefer stronger wording. I remind colleagues that one of the main motives for holding this debate is to ask the fundamental question whether the Olympic Games will have a positive impact on the human rights situation in China. We will probably be able to give a better answer in the future, but up to now we must admit that there has been no significant progress. We must say frankly, not only to the Chinese authorities but to the European public and even the International Olympic Committee, that the number of human rights problems in China is very large. However, our report is very short. For that reason, not all the basic human rights problems are mentioned. For example, the issue of the rights of Uyghurs in eastern Turkestan is not mentioned in the explanatory memorandum. The story about Falun Gong has half a sentence in the resolution.

Much more attention is paid to the issue of Tibet. Why is Tibet so important? The answer is that one of the most valuable and interesting cultures in human history, the Tibetan Buddhist culture, is dying under our eyes. It probably could be preserved in exile, but it is in a dangerous situation. The only solution is the democratisation of China and our commitment to it. It is a well-known fact that the Assembly invited His Holiness the Dalai Lama to be present at this session. Unfortunately, he could not come. I should like to stress that that invitation should be extended for longer. Mr Haibach clearly made the point that what happens after the Olympic Games is very important.

At the beginning of this year, I was in India and I met the Dalai Lama. He made a very interesting point. He said, “Look, I am not so much afraid of what is happening now, before the Olympic Games; I am more frightened about what will happen after the Olympic Games.” We must have follow-up, and not just one report. Clearly, we must have sustainable dialogue with China on the issue.

There are a few important principles to consider. We should open up the country, open Tibet and other areas to journalists, initiate negotiations with the Dalai Lama on the religious and cultural autonomy of Tibet and other regions in the Chinese provinces, and free all political prisoners. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I see that Mr Van den Brande is not here, so I call Mr Omelchenko.

      Mr OMELCHENKO (Ukraine) posed the question of whether the Assembly should stand back and watch in silence while the human rights of the people in China were disregarded. In his view, society should not stand by and watch in silence, because this would be a betrayal of God. This had been the view of the orthodox saint, St Gregory. In Tibet, libraries and many valuable things had been destroyed which did not belong to Tibet, China or to any other country, and that was a sin against the whole of humanity. Fundamental human rights were a gift given by God and no person had the right to remove them. He had sympathy for the people who had been killed in the Chinese earthquake but felt that this was a sign that even nature had had her say.

      The world was now looking towards the upcoming Olympic Games and there had been talk of possible boycotts. But consideration should be given to past boycotts such as those in Moscow and Los Angeles. Nobody had gained from those boycotts, but many had lost out. In particular, the athletes had suffered as they could not compete, and the Olympic Games should, after all, be about the best athletes winning. In addition, those wishing to attend the Olympic Games would also lose out, so a boycott of the Chinese Games would achieve very little. It should be recognised that the people of China also had rights, and their right to host the Olympic Games should not be taken away from them.

      If Europe continued to speak the truth, it would eventually drive out ignorance and lies. If China were to adopt Europe’s values in the future, it would only be because Europe had provided the lead by demonstrating respect for human rights and the benefits thereof. The question had been raised of whether China should be invited as an observer to the Council of Europe. It was absolutely vital that China was allowed to do this, as an ongoing dialogue was needed. He hoped that the Council of Europe’s resolutions would demonstrate Europe’s view and would allow the Olympic Games to run smoothly.

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

      Mr TEKELİOĞLU (Turkey). – First and foremost, I would like to convey my heartfelt condolences to the families of the Chinese people who lost their lives due to the devastating earthquake that hit the country last month.

      As for the report, I would like to congratulate our rapporteur on his excellent work, which sheds light on the state of democracy and human rights in China. As the report indicates, this is a concrete manifestation of our strong belief that the defence of our core values – democracy, human rights and the rule of law – are not bound by the frontiers of Council of Europe member states.

      Our rapporteur clearly reveals the shortcomings of the Chinese regime with respect to democratic standards and human rights, but he does not stop there. He moves well beyond criticism and invites China to commit itself in a dialogue with the Council of Europe. It is noteworthy that what is offered is not a monologue in the disguise of a dialogue where one side unilaterally imposes its philosophy on the other. It is my conviction that the Chinese people have had enough of such approaches, because they totally disregard their own particular experience. Therefore, I find our rapporteur’s approach exceptionally constructive. His report reminds us that we have a lot to gain from a possible dialogue with China.

      Dear colleagues, the report gives a comprehensive account of the shortcomings of China in the field of human rights. It also helps us to grasp where China is with respect to democratic standards. In addition, there are references to the situation in Tibet, which, once again, has been brought on to the agenda of the international community because of the recent outburst of violence in the region. I would like to draw your attention, however, to another part of China that is not referred to in the report: the Xinjiang-Uyghur Autonomous Region, or Turkestan. Although an economically underdeveloped region, the Xinjiang-Uyghur Autonomous Region probably means more to my country than to others because of the existing cultural bonds between the Turkish people and the people of Uyghur origin living in that region.

I would like to make it clear that Turkey regards the Xinjiang-Uyghur Autonomous Region as part of China and the people of the region as loyal citizens of China. My country regards the Uyghur community in China as a bridge of friendship between the two countries. However, I would like to appeal to the Chinese authorities to give utmost importance to the development of the Xinjiang-Uyghur Autonomous Region and to the improvement of the living conditions of their citizens in that region.

      Mr President, I would like to thank our rapporteur once again not only for his extensive work, but for his constructive approach towards China. I believe that we send a very strong political message when we say openly that we do not intend to impose a specific model of democracy when we invite China to join in this dialogue. I hope that the Chinese Administration will soon respond favourably to this message. If that proves to be the case, we should be ready to embark upon a long process of dialogue. However, we should also bear in mind that we may have ups and downs in that dialogue, and we should never expect miracles to happen overnight. Thank you for you attention.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Tekelioğlu. I now call Mr Schneider.

      Mr SCHNEIDER (France) congratulated Mr Mignon, the rapporteur, on his excellent report. The picture it painted did not inspire unbounded optimism and there had been a consistent absence of progress made by China in addressing these problems. It was a tragedy that China had been allowed to inflict such undemocratic behaviours upon the people of China and Tibet. Chinese people were often arrested for unjustifiable reasons such as “thought” or “cyber” crimes, and arbitrary detention and execution were unfortunately common.

      Disappointingly, the Olympic Games did not appear to be inspiring change within China. The Communist regime was not recognising the democratic views of Europe. Furthermore, dialogue with China was difficult because the regime did not recognise the fundamental human rights which Europe held so dear. So the Council of Europe’s stance should be firm. China could not just be complacent about its economic progress; it must also address the human rights of its people.

      The Dalai Lama had unfortunately not been able to attend this part-session but it was hoped that he might be able to speak to the Assembly in October. This would not please the Chinese regime but it was appropriate for the Dalai Lama’s views to be expressed in such an environment. The resolution invited member states to be consistent and present a united viewpoint, and the Council of Europe Assembly should also be firm in the approach it took. There was still a long road ahead but, as the Chinese proverb said, “a journey of 1 000 miles starts with a single step”. He was still waiting for China to take its first step towards addressing the observance of the human rights of its people.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Last but not least, I call Mr Sigfússon.

Mr SIGFÚSSON (Iceland). – As I have the honour of being the last speaker, I have the problem of finding something to talk about that has not been mentioned yet. Several speakers discussed whether we should have had this debate on the situation in far away China. After two hours of debate there is probably no need to argue any more about that. The debate has happened and I welcome it. I have no problem with using time in the Council of Europe to discuss human rights violations, the state of democracy and the rule of law, whatever the part of the world under discussion.

China is a huge player in the field of investment, and a huge investor and trading partner with Europe. That means that politicians, businessmen and not least consumers are directly linked and responsible for things that are happening in China that we cannot overlook. The cheap clothes or toys that we happily buy for ourselves and our children may be produced by workers in China, or even children, who are working under unacceptable conditions.

The report and the debate are put forward in a spirit of dialogue and in the belief that a frank and honest dialogue and exchange of views is always the right way to proceed. As I see it, we are offering China a dialogue, but we would do that dialogue no service if we were not honest in our formulations as regards the violation of human rights and other such issues.

I welcome what is said in the report in general but I would like to stress several points. I strongly second the comments of my colleague, Tuur Elzinga, about labour rights. It is important to make improvements in that sector in China. It is important to improve the working conditions of the single biggest work force in the world. If we are to fight social dumping in the globalised economy, China is very important in that context.

I also agree wholeheartedly with what the report says about Tibet. It was shocking, heartbreaking and shameful to see the brutal violence used against people guilty of nothing but wanting to exercise their right to demonstrate and to make their point. It does not matter who started it – the use of force in such a way can never be justified.

The report is rather weak when it mentions the death penalty. I would like to see a much stronger formulation condemning the extensive use of the death penalty in China. The fact that China is in the same boat as another superpower, the United States, makes it no better. I also mention the forced removal of people from their home towns and other areas to make way for the building of big dams or other construction sites. I refer specifically to the Three Gorges dam. People were moved in their millions from the local area by force. It was a violation of human rights. Considering the environmental concerns, that makes it even worse.

I welcome the dialogue and I hope that our Chinese friends will accept our offer to engage in it with us.

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

I call Mr Mignon, the rapporteur to reply. You have eight minutes and 30 seconds.

Mr MIGNON (France) thanked the President and all colleagues, and wanted to say at the outset that he was a very happy rapporteur, because all that he had heard reflected great credit upon the Assembly. From the moment that he had become a member of the Assembly in June 1993, he had wanted to ensure that the Council of Europe would focus on the observance of human rights and be the recognised home of expertise and analysis on such ideas; and indeed it had got to the heart of the matter. Lord Russell-Johnston had been right to point out that there was a mistake in the draft resolution in relation to paragraph 15.2. He apologised for that.

      He welcomed the high degree of consensus, which had been apparent. Many politicians had attested to the high quality of the work done here.

      In the debate, people had mentioned a number of issues, of which one was the Olympic Games. It would be a mistake to boycott them and he hoped that his own President Sarkozy would be at the opening ceremony. Another example was Tibet, but this was a report about China, and although Tibet had been mentioned, this was not a report about Tibet specifically. It was true that it could be said that the debate was taking place in the absence of Tibetan and Chinese representatives and friends. However, with Mr Lindblad, a meeting had been held where there had been the potential to hear from everyone. Regrettably, China had not taken up the invitation but he had been assisted by the Chinese Ambassador, a fact that was recognised in the report, and just yesterday he had been received by the Chinese Consul in Strasbourg. So the contacts which had been called for had indeed been made.

      He asked whether we were entitled to teach lessons on human rights to everyone; and said that he thought not, not in his own country, nor were other member states in a position to teach lessons to China.

      Some had said that the report should have been more hard-hitting. He was capable of using hard words but what should be remembered was: diplomacy; tolerance; and dialogue. That was the deliberate and explicit tenor of the report. It had also been suggested that it was too brief, which perhaps it was, but he hoped that it would be the first of a series of reports encouraging and reflecting an ongoing dialogue with China.

      Paragraph 16 mentioned the idea of giving long-term observer status to China. He had been taking soundings and had heard no criticism or opposition to the proposal. He thought that it would be a good thing. Next year would be the 60th anniversary of the Council of Europe and if the Parliamentary Assembly could achieve an effective dialogue with China, that would be a wonderful birthday gift.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Does the chairperson of the committee wish to speak? You have two minutes.

      Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – This debate has shown that there is a serious need for dialogue with Communist China, regardless of the fact that the Communist party is responsible for one of the most repressive and undemocratic regimes in the world. In terms of numbers, China has one of the worst records on capital punishment. Repression is combined with totally uncontrolled raw capitalism. There is no real protection of property; there is no rule of law, no democratic rights, and no freedom of expression or assembly. Religious groups are oppressed and even groups with a peaceful philosophy such as Falun Gong are not allowed to exist. I do not understand Falun Gong’s philosophy, but I would protect its right to exist and practise that philosophy.

That is why we should have dialogue. We should talk with the Communist regime in China and use our influence. The Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly can make a difference. We shall talk and we will be present at the Olympics. I advise everyone who has the opportunity to do so to go to the Olympics, and make sure that they wear a button that says, “Democracy and Human Rights”, in Chinese and English, on their jacket. That should not be controversial, even in China.

      We are promoting human rights and democracy, and we need further dialogue. I thank the Rapporteur and the Secretariat of the Political Affairs Committee.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The debate is closed.

      The Political Affairs Committee has presented a draft resolution in Document 11654, to which four amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the following order: 4, 2, 3, 1.

      I remind you that speaking time on amendments is limited to 30 seconds.

      Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – I should like to move the following oral amendment to the draft resolution: “delete in paragraph 1 of the draft resolution the following words: ‘although it regrets that the Chinese military was instructed to protect the military installations instead of assisting immediately the sinistered population’.”

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Prescott. Under Rule 34.6, the President may exceptionally declare an oral amendment or sub-amendment to be in order if in his or her opinion it is designed to make a clarification, to take account of new facts or to lead to conciliation.

      Before reaching a decision on the orderliness of this oral amendment, I invite the Chairperson of the Political Affairs Committee to put his view.

      Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – I do not think that the oral amendment provides any clarification or anything else that you mentioned, Mr President. That paragraph in the resolution was amended in committee on Monday. The issue has already been discussed, and the oral amendment does not add anything.

      THE PRESIDENT. – I am afraid, Mr Prescott, that in my opinion, too, the oral amendment cannot be debated, because it does not offer any clarification.

      Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France) proposed an oral amendment. It was an amendment which would delete words from paragraph 3 of the draft resolution. He said that the words did not add anything, and were not appropriate.

      THE PRESIDENT. – I will follow the same procedure. Under Rule 34.6, the President may exceptionally declare an oral amendment or sub-amendment to be in order if in his or her opinion it is designed to make a clarification, to take account of new facts or to lead to conciliation.

      I invite the Chairperson of the Political Affairs Committee to put his view before I reach a decision.

      Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – I deploy the same argument. We should call a spade a spade, and that is what the provision does, so I am against the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT. – I am afraid that I agree with Mr Lindblad, so the oral amendment cannot be debated.

We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Tuur Elzinga, Mr Bjørn Jacobsen, Mr Andros Kyprianou, Mr Steingrímur J. Sigfússon, Mr Yevhen Marmazov and Mr Tiny Kox, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10, after the word “including”, to insert the following words: “labour activists,”.

I call Mr Elzinga to support Amendment No. 4. You have 30 seconds.

Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands). – As I argued in the debate, organised labour and labour activism are crucial to progressive change in China. Labour activists struggling for trade union and fundamental labour rights are human rights activists, so they should be mentioned in the report.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4 is adopted.

I have received an oral amendment from Lord Russell-Johnston which reads as follows: “In the draft resolution, sub-paragraph 15.2, leave out the words ‘like all the Council of Europe member states’.”

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.

Before reaching a decision on the orderliness of this oral amendment, I invite the Chairperson of the Political Affairs Committee for his view.

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – This certainly brings more clarity to the report, and it corrects something that was not right in the first draft, so I am in favour of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – I agree with Mr Lindblad.

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – I spoke with Lord Russell-Johnston about this, and we agreed that the English in the document was wrong. However, if we added “should do” to the sentence in the resolution, everything could stay in place. That was the intention of the Political Affairs Committee: it was not to delete something but to add those two words. We agreed that that was what the Political Affairs Committee wanted.

THE PRESIDENT. – You agree, Mr Lindblad, as I understand it. In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.6. However, it cannot be considered if there is opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

      Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

      That is not the case. I therefore call Lord Russell-Johnston to support the alternative oral amendment proposed by Mr Kox. You have 30 seconds.

Lord RUSSELL-JOHNSTON (United Kingdom). – The rapporteur – Mr Lejeune, as he calls himself – has basically agreed that the original formulation is ambiguous. I understood that practically all members have ratified the measure, but whether they respect ratification is a different question, which is why I wanted to delete those words. Mr Kox’s proposal would be satisfactory, as it would simply say that respect “should be” shown by existing members.

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

      I will read out the oral amendment proposed by Mr Kox: “In the draft resolution, sub-paragraph 15.2, add the words ‘should do’.” What is the opinion of the committee on the alternative oral amendment?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the oral amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The oral amendment is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Andres Herkel, Mr Kimmo Sasi, Mr Aleksandër Biberaj, Mr Egidijus Vareikis and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15.4., after the words “foreign journalists during”, to insert the following words: “and after”.

I call Mr Herkel to support Amendment No. 2.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – The content of the amendment is simple. Journalists must have freedom of movement and freedom of reporting not only during the Olympic Games, but afterwards.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is adopted.

Mr HAIBACH (Germany). – I have an oral amendment to paragraph 15.4.

THE PRESIDENT. – I am sorry, but we have passed that point and I cannot accept your amendment.

We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Andres Herkel, Mr Kimmo Sasi, Mr Aleksandër Biberaj, Mr Egidijus Vareikis and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 15.6. with the following sub-paragraph:

“take steps to negotiate with the Dalai Lama and Tibetan representatives about a genuine cultural and religious autonomy in the Tibet Autonomous Region and for Tibetans living in adjacent provinces;”.

      I call Mr Herkel to support Amendment No. 3.

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – We think that the Assembly must have the courage to say in the paragraph who has the higher moral authority in Tibet and what the subject of discussion must be.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – As I said in the debate, the matter has already been agreed. The mover of the amendment pointed out that he wants to bring to the fore issues about Tibet, but the resolution makes that clear so the amendment is unnecessary.

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

      Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 3 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Lord Russell-Johnston, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mr Andreas Gross, Mr Mikhail Margelov and Mr Luc Van den Brande, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 19, to delete the words “through its Political Affairs Committee”.

      I call Mr Eörsi to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – I move the amendment formally.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

Mr DREYFUS-SCHMIDT (France) said that it might have been helpful to go to China before the report was completed. What was the point of going to China to find out more facts afterwards? In his view, it would have be better to scrap paragraph 19 altogether.

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

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is in favour.

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 11654, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 11654, as amended, is adopted, with 95 for, 0 against and 5 abstentions.

(Mr de Puig, President of the Assembly, took the Chair, in place of Mr Kyprianou)

4. Debate under urgent procedure: Functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The next business this morning is the debate under urgent procedure on the functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey: recent developments, which will arise on the report from the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), Document 11660, presented by Mr Van den Brande, rapporteur.

I remind you that we agreed yesterday to interrupt the speakers list at 1 p.m. and continue the debate this afternoon.

I call Mr Van den Brande, rapporteur, to present the report from the Monitoring Committee. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Netherlands). – We face an important debate about standards; it is not theoretical but practical. We are talking about common criteria and common democratic values. I want to state clearly that the aim of our report and the draft resolution is evidently not to interfere with decision making in another judiciary – in this case, Turkey. We are appealing for the separation of powers in all member states, so by that logic we cannot interfere.

      My second remark is that the debate is not about secularism; it is about the place of political parties in the institutional democratic framework. I want to underline the fact that one of the main principles of our Court of Human Rights is that the political party is not just a free association; instead, it is a free association with a common programme, the purpose of which is to be involved in democratic decision making in a country. That is one of the pillars of open, inclusive and transparent democracy.

      My third point is that the debate and the resolution are not about interfering, but about giving a clear signal not only to Turkey but to all member states that they have to accept common standards. I hope that the report makes it clear, first and foremost, that a principal concern is the case law of the court. Only under exceptional circumstances, and only when a political party is using violent or undemocratic means, should proceedings be opened to ban a political party or to ask that people do not remain in politics.

      As the Secretary General of the Council of Europe has remarked, the Venice Commission has a clear guideline on this matter, which is the same as our proposal. Our Resolution 1308 of 2002 clearly states that we should stick to those principles. When our Assembly observed the elections on 22 July 2007 – I was chairman of the observation mission at the time – we said there were concerns about the threshold in Turkey, which was the highest of the 47 member states. There was also a concern about the internal democracy in political parties, but as there is a certain tradition in Turkey, the elections were deemed to have been exercised in a free and fair way. It is unthinkable that a political party should be banned because of the arbitrary approach of a court. In addition to the ability to demand the banning of a party was the prohibition of more than 70 people from being in politics. Out of those, 39 members of parliament are no longer in politics.

Turkey is still under close monitoring, and it makes a difference because we are involved in a dialogue with it to see whether it can deal with our aims. The motion of 2004 contained 12 points of concern that have to be taken on board in a post-monitoring dialogue. One of those points is that there is special concern about Turkey because it has a long tradition of banning political parties. This is not a new point. There were about 20 cases of banned parties, and it is a particular concern with regard to Kurdish organisations.

      We explicitly say in the motion and resolution that we pay tribute to Turkey for the important changes that it has made over the past five years. The basic constitution of 1982 belongs to the coup of 1980. That is why we are convinced that it is not a case of Turkey amending the constitution but a case of it having a full new constitution according to common standards and rules. There will be great concern in the Assembly if we do not intervene. We must say clearly that every country, and certainly Turkey, out of the 47 has to be in line with the common standards.

The problem still remains that the first three articles of the constitution are not open for discussion and cannot be amended, even though that could be done in a democratic way. Other constitutions, such as Germany’s, have provisions to maintain the basic democratic values of a state. Each constitution has something to say about the history of the country, which is also the case in Turkey. When we talk about an open inclusive democracy, the most “extreme and drastic” measure, according to the Court, is to ban a democratic party from politics and to prohibit people for at least five years from participating in politics.

      There was a large consensus on the draft resolution in the committee. We accepted a few amendments to clarify the text and hopefully we will discuss three proposals in particular. If necessary, we have seriously to consider reopening the monitoring of Turkey. It is not acceptable that a political party can be banned and people can be prohibited from being in politics, because that does not conform to our democratic rules and standards, which we want to see implemented.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Kyprianou on behalf of the Group of the United European Left.

      Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – The current political situation in Turkey and the smouldering confrontation between the military and the political leadership of the country date back further than the closure case opened against the Justice and Development Party. Let us also bear in mind the fact that the country’s projected aspiration to accede to the European Union has caused Turkey to take some positive steps in the right direction. However, much more needs to be done until it fully abides by the principles, norms and values of the European family.

      The European course taken by Turkey has caused some internal reactions. Various circles reacted because they feared that Turkey’s European dimension could change the character of the country irreversibly. Of course we respect each country’s diversity and different opinions. After all, one of the main goals of the big European family to which we belong is to accommodate different ethnic, cultural and religious variations, and those variations enrich the multicultural character of Europe.

All member states of the Council of Europe have to respect and abide by certain non-negotiable principles, norms and values, which form the cornerstone of this Organisation. Democracy and respect for human rights and the rule of law are only some of the core values that this Organisation represents. Turkey is currently undergoing a deep political crisis, a crisis that seriously threatens the country’s European course and aspirations. Indeed, some of the actions by the Turkish Prime Minister, such as the lifting of the ban on the wearing of the headscarf in universities through a constitutional amendment, led to severe tensions on the political scene. It also added to the worry felt in certain sectors that the AKP was gradually Islamising Turkey.

      However, Mr Erdogan’s party, which now faces the threat of closure, gained a large absolute majority in the 2007 elections. We are concerned that political stability in the country will be seriously affected, regardless of the party closure law suit outcome. It will also seriously undermine the democratic functioning of state institutions and hold up urgent economic, political and social reforms. Let us remember that, if the law suit finally succeeds, it will not be the first time that something like that has happened in Turkey. The Group of the Unified European Left therefore expresses its deep and serious concern about the future. I also point out that in Turkey it is nearly considered to be a crime to state that you are of Kurdish origin. Turkey is a member state of this Organisation, and a candidate state for accession to the European Union. It is therefore essential that it abides by and respects all democratic rules and norms.

      Last but not least, I would like to remind colleagues that when the monitoring procedure for Turkey was closed back in 2004, the Assembly, through Resolution 1380, resolved to continue a “post-monitoring dialogue”. Let us now think about whether we should consider re-opening the monitoring procedure for that country, not as a form of punishment but to assist Turkey in undertaking the urgent reforms that she has to make. That would also resolve the doubts in anyone’s mind about whether this Organisation has a double standards policy when it comes to derogation by any member state from the Council of Europe’s core values and fundamental principles. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Hancock on a point of order

      Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – May I ask whether it is proper for a member to make a spurious allegation, as the last speaker just did? Some 17 members of the Turkish Parliament are Kurdish by ethnicity, so is it right for a member to give such unhelpful, factually incorrect information to the Assembly?

      THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Hancock for his comments and noted that his statement would be included in the official minutes so his concerns would be recorded.

      (Translation). – I now call Mr Gross, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland) noted that within the SOC there were a variety of views but the overriding majority thought that the report was correct. Mrs Merkel had said that when it came to human rights, there was no such thing as interference in internal affairs. The action taken by the Constitutional Court of Turkey earlier in the year had effectively been a coup by the judiciary, and the Council of Europe must now work to counter any such coups occurring in the future. The Constitutional Court had effectively tried to prevent the election of the president because his wife wore a head scarf. Following interventions, the elections had been held and 47% of the voters backed the government, providing a strong indication of the public’s support for the government’s policies.

      The question was what would happen if this occurred again and the Constitutional Court overstepped the mark on another occasion. The result would be a need to rally the voters which could lead to a dangerous situation where a judicial coup developed into a military coup. Looking back through history at why Constitutional Courts had been developed, it was important to recognise that they had been established on the same footing as governments and parliaments. The fundamental principle should be recognised that Constitutional Courts should never be above the workings of parliament.

      This topic could not be separated from discussions on secularism. In Turkey, traditionalists were under the impression that cameralism was different to secularism and their understanding of secularism was very different to our own. Unfortunately, the judiciary in Turkey had been given great power but this power was not derived from the people, so the views of the voters were not being accurately represented.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr van der Linden on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr Van der LINDEN (Netherlands). – Mr President, dear colleagues, this is an important debate at the right moment in the right place. The situation in Turkey is extremely serious, and could have far-reaching political, economic and social consequences. The rule of law and democracy are at stake there. Of course we support an independent and impartial judiciary, but independence also means abiding by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the obligations and principles of the Council of Europe. Since 1961, the Constitutional Court has banned 24 parties, and in almost all cases the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the ban violated its Charter of Human Rights. We expect all institutions, including the judiciary, to respect Council of Europe standards and principles, and to act accordingly.

The Constitutional Court has to apply European standards when it comes to the dissolution of political parties. Case law of the European Court of Human Rights relating to Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Article 10 is on freedom of expression, and Article 11 is on freedom of association and assembly – and the guidelines on this matter adopted by the Venice Commission have to be respected.

      This Assembly must send a clear message that these international principles count in all member states and in all the institutions of those member states. A party is allowed to change the constitution by political means if it respects democratic principles. The Parliamentary Assembly has observed the elections, and all international organisations have declared them to be free and fair. The people expressed their will in accordance with fully democratic procedures. We would like to encourage the government to continue with and to speed up the reform process.

      The AK Party has an excellent record when it comes to the reform process, including in respect of social and economic matters, minority affairs and education. Even in the Kurdish part, it gained huge support among the electorate last time. Of course, there is still some way to go. The clear and firm decision to join the EU is a strong expression of the political will to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria. We ask the government to continue to show its commitment to secularism even more explicitly. We urge it to speed up the process of constitutional reform with the assistance of the Venice Commission, which is one of the world’s most prestigious institutions in dealing with constitutional matters, and to review the law on political parties as well.

      A ban on the AK Party would be contrary to the principles and standards of the Council of Europe. If such a ban took place, it could be seen as a judicial coup. There are no grounds at all to ban a political party that gained the overwhelming mandate of the people in free and fair elections. Such a ban would create huge tensions and not only cause grave international repercussions inside Turkey, but question the ongoing negotiations with the European Union. How could the European Union continue negotiations with a country that had banned a freely and fairly elected political party and individual members? That would be one of the most serious infractions of our democratic system, and it cannot be accepted by this Parliamentary Assembly, which stands for the promotion and defence of our fundamental values.

      Mr President, the Group of the European People’s Party fully supports the rapporteur’s excellent report. Thank you very much.

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

      Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – Mr President, let me first say that our Turkish colleagues should not feel lonely. In other member states of the Council of Europe – certainly in my country, Hungary – we debate what to do if a Constitutional Court is about to make an anti-constitutional decision. We have very difficult discussions about the relationship between religion and the state. We should be proud that we have such discussions here. I can say as a Hungarian that I would welcome it if the Assembly also scrutinised such debates in my country.

      Of course I agree with our rapporteur, but this is a delicate debate because we do not generally interfere in such formal judicial processes. But I also agree with my friend, Mr Gross, and also with Mr van der Linden, because there is a case for speaking up here, partly to promote European experiences, as well as to draw the court’s attention to the possible political consequences of what it is doing. I believe that, when a court makes such a decision, it should not pay attention to public support about the decision – that is the rule of law – but it should bear in mind what could be the consequences: the end of democratic processes in a country.

      I disagree with our rapporteur, however, and I agree more with Andreas Gross about the fact that, yes, this is also a discussion about the secular state. At least on the surface, perceptions suggest to very many Europeans how a secular state should function. The Assembly is calling for, and strongly supporting, secular states, but it is important that we demand only that the state is secular and not necessarily its political parties. If we are not clear about that, I believe that many Turkish people will say, “Well, how come the Assembly does not understand that, in Turkey, there can be a party that bases its policies on religious values?”

We in Europe have a huge number of EPP parties – Luc Van den Brande is a president of one of them – but many people call their members Christian Democrats. We do not have any problem with that, but we know that, even when Christian Democrats come to power, the state should remain secular. It is very important to identify that it is not a problem if Turkey has a party – of course, it is not a Christian party – based on Islamic values, but secularist demands should be addressed to the state.

Mr President, checks and balances are a very important issue, as was mentioned by my colleague, Mr Kyprianou, because we all know that it is very difficult to speak up about this. We have very little evidence about the role of the army and the military in the country. What is their influence on the existing constitutional parties in Turkey? That subject also needs to be addressed in the future.

Let me finish, Mr President, by saying that the ALDE Group is also fully in favour of this report. Let me also add that, based on my 18 years in politics in a quasi-emerging democracy, I came to the conclusion that democracy has nothing to do with good or bad decisions – there can be both in a democracy – but is about no one having absolute power and about always allowing room for change. That is democracy. We hope that, in Turkey, no decision will be made that cannot be changed in the future. That is the most important point. Thank you very much.

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

      Mr MARGELOV (Russian Federation). – Mr President, dear colleagues, I would first like to thank the rapporteur for his work. It was a difficult task, but he succeeded.

      Many countries are living today in the so-called “European time”. The Council of Europe gathers together democracies of different ages with various traditions. Turkey occupies a special place in that respect. We know that the country’s political system differs from bookish models and that the present stage of its development is only a step on the way that leads to a European-style system. Turkish and European legislation is being harmonised, which is encouraging and brings good results. Defending secularity in the country now rests more and more on human rights and democracy.

      Today, it is indisputable that the decision-making mechanism in republican Turkey has become more open. The Medjlis is quite an experienced parliament that is able to take decisions based on political compromise, but the 10% electoral barrier on parties that wish to be elected to the parliament is still too high, and the legislation does not really regulate the activities of political organisations. An established, organised opposition is acting in the country and NGOs are working. Those organisations are trying to get free from state control. They are competing against traditional political parties, despite the fact that they have some problems with registration and control procedures. Trade unions have started to struggle against the influence that political parties have on them. The mechanism of interaction between the state and trade unions is taking shape – slowly, but it is happening.

      Organisations that defend human rights are becoming more active in Turkey, and international structures help to give them advice. Harmonisation between European and Turkey’s legislation contains certain conditions that permit the country’s ethnic and religious minorities to gain equal rights.

      It is appropriate to mention that the present Turkish Government has carried out numerous European-spirited reforms – the biggest number of such reforms in the country’s modern history. With all that going on, the ruling party is not involved in any corruption scandal and is supported by large groups of the population.

We are facing a very complicated collision today, and I do not know whether there is a precedent for this. I refer to the situation that arose when the government gave permission for headscarves to be worn in universities. Because of that decision, attempts are being made in the Constitutional Court to ban the ruling party, but that party won a majority at the election, and it is ruling Turkey on a fully legitimate basis. We must consider that very intricate situation. I understand that we in the Parliamentary Assembly will not be able to eliminate this conflict definitely, but I am sure that our careful discussions will contribute to the settlement of that conflict and help to give the parties involved in that conflict a new view of the problem.

The Council of Europe’s requirements for democratic standards are high, but we must bear in mind the fact that not everything in the world is arranged according to our wishes. I would like to remind colleagues that, among other features, European diversity is marked by reaching those high standards to different degrees. We are obliged to understand that and to encourage positive trends.

I do not call for people to overlook the failings in the functioning of such institutions wherever that might happen, but I do call for people to remember that the first task of the Assembly is to help to “debug” all such problems. For me, that is the point of our monitoring reports – they are not intended to stick labels on to anybody. That is especially important when we are discussing the democratic perspectives of a country such as Turkey.

Turkey is indeed an integral part of Europe. It is our geopolitical and cultural ledge, or projection, into the big Middle East. It is a country that has had a strong impact on the course of our common European history. Its destiny is inseparable from the destiny of Europe. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you.

Mr Van den Brande, you have the opportunity to respond to the group representatives. You have four minutes in total.

Mr Van den BRANDE (Belgium). – I pay tribute to and thank all colleagues who have spoken on behalf of their groups. Of course, this debate has a lot to do with secularism. A state has to be secular, a government has to be secular but human beings are not secular. It is important that in this debate we are aware of that. I will not fall into the trap of discussing the limit of secularism. The important point is that the constitution gives an effective interpretation of the basic tenets of the Atatürk Republic.

We face the risk not only of political instability but democratic instability, which is also important. The main point is that each member country, including Turkey, must comply not only with the principle but the practice of the separation of powers. However, the separation of powers also means interaction between powers. It is important to note that complying with obligations and commitments is not a question only for a government or parliament; it is also a question for all the institutions in a state. It is important that the state complies with those obligations and commitments. It is also important, with the separation of powers, that each power gives the right space, institutionally and democratically speaking, to the other power. That is the essence of the debate.

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

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden). – We, the Council of Europe, promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We must keep to them all. Owing to all those values, the situation in Turkey has improved over the years, although we hope that more will be done. Many of us are sad to see that the process has been halted owing to the political situation last year.

Democracy is about the freedom of the people to associate, to express themselves, to assemble, to choose their religious belief, to create political parties and to stand for election to win a mandate to make decisions, even on the constitution, according to the constitutional rules of the country and the will of the people. Owing to the rule of law, we must be careful not to interfere or try to influence independent courts wherever they are. Having said that, I would like to underline the decisions of the Court here in Strasbourg and the need for every country to respect those decisions.

I hope, as this excellent report states, that the problems in Turkey will be solved in accordance with our common rules. I fully support the report and the proposal from Mr Eörsi. Secularism and the existence of parties with religious values are common in our countries. We all know that they can co-exist due to our common values.

(Mr Mignon, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr de Puig.)

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

Mr KOÇ (Turkey) thanked the President, but said that he was rather puzzled that the report which, contrary to the usual practice, focused not on the party in power but on the opposition. The Assembly, on every opportunity, affirmed its attachment to democratic pluralism. But how could that be? To prejudge a court decision was interference with judicial process. Even our Court recognised subsidiarity, as there could be problems of incompatibility. The report was asking that constitutional judges should take a decision, not on whether the party in power had acted in conformity with the rules, but on the basis of its political consequences. Banning a party was an exceptional measure but that did not mean that it should never happen; and there had been cases where it had happened. The greater the electoral impact of a banned party, the greater the risk to democracy. The criterion used by the Strasbourg Court was the primary criterion, whether cause, reasons and process in the banning of such an organisation were reasonable and proportionate.

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

Mr CEBECI (Turkey). – I am a member of the AK Party. Let me be frank: what we are going through in Turkey has nothing to do with secularism or what is more secular or less secular; it is a pure power struggle to see who will run the country. The élite Turks, who are very small in number but very influential in the system, have run the country so long and assume that it is their God-given right to rule the country. For them, ordinary Turkish people such as us should not be in critical positions in the decision- making process. Let me share an anecdote with you. In the 1940s, a Turkish daily newspaper, carried a front-page headline stating that the weather was so hot that people had rushed to the beaches, adding that “the citizens could not swim”. I am afraid that very little has changed in the past 60 years. We can look at this from another perspective. As most political scientists and sociologists agree, in the past six years of AK Party governance, many people have moved from the periphery to the centre, and they have started to enjoy their new position. Even though the centre has become larger, the previous residents of the centre have lost ground to the periphery. In fact, by helping more people to move from the periphery to the centre, AK Party governments have been able to integrate more people into the secular system. That is why it is strongly argued with regard to secularism the exact opposite of what the chief prosecutor argues in his indictment.

      The AK Party has always advocated progress on the rule of law, which is one of the main principles of the Council of Europe. Unfortunately, the trend in Turkey is to turn away more and more from the rule of law towards the rule of the judiciary. AK Party governments advocate democracy, the rule of law and human rights – the core values of the Council of Europe and prerequisites for European Union membership. If that process is interrupted or stopped, Turkey could easily become isolated from the rest of the world. In that case, I am afraid, Turkey would turn into one of the former Ba’athist regimes of the old Middle East. An unfortunate result of that process would be a block to European integration.

      The chief prosecutor claims that the AK Party is a centre for anti-secular activities. Let me say a few things about that. From our first day in government, and as a political party, too, we have made many improvements to the position of women in public life and politics. The legal framework and our practices are part of the public record. Anyone, even someone with limited knowledge of Turkey, secularism and the modern world, can easily see that that contradicts the chief prosecutor’s claims. I have to add that girls who choose to cover their hair should be able to attend university, because more education is better than less education. The headscarf ban that has been operating in universities for years has not reduced the problem, and someone who is of university age should freely be able to choose what to do with his or her hair.

      In government, we have done many things. We have provided high-speed Internet access in every classroom. That is not the sort of thing that a party or government with an anti-secular agenda would do. I do not want to get into a philosophical argument about secularism, but I accept that change is painful. Democracy is a continuing process and the Turkish people are resilient, so we will overcome these problems.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Cebeci. I call Mr Johansson

      Mr JOHANSSON (Sweden). – Thank you, Mr President, for making this important debate possible. I thank the rapporteur, too, for producing a good report and making a clear statement at the beginning of our debate.

      This is the right time to hold this debate, because in summer or early autumn the Turkish Constitutional Court will come to its verdict. If it concludes that the ruling party – by far the largest party in the country – which has been responsible for many important steps for democracy in Turkey in recent years, should be dissolved, 71 of the party’s most prominent members, including the president and the prime minister and 39 members of parliament, would be banned from politics. Such a verdict would be a democratic disaster, and it would unleash constitutional chaos, which would set Turkey back decades, sending it back to the dark years of military rule and recurrent coups d’état.

      The debate is therefore exceptionally timely. I have very strong feelings about Turkey, which I have visited several times in recent years. I am a member of the High Level Working Group in the European Socialist Party, chaired by the former Finnish Prime Minister, Paavo Lipponen, and the former Greek Foreign Minister, George Papandreou. We are following membership negotiations between the EU and Turkey. On our visits, we have met the Turkish leadership several times: Prime Minister Erdogan; Mr Gül, when he was Foreign Minister; Mr Babacan, when he was in charge of negotiations; and the opposition leader, Mr Baykal and other opposition members. We have discussed the need for more democratic reforms such as a reduction in the 10% threshold to parliament and a change to Article 301 of the constitution. We are always well received, and our group plans another visit in October this year.

      We have a clear picture of what is going on right now. The constitutional process is a sign that there are still strong forces – old structures – in Turkey that are trying to roll back the country’s democratic development. They have not accepted real democracy, and unfortunately the opposition parties often play on that, which is very dangerous. The issue that has torched the crisis is that of headscarves, and whether girls should be allowed to wear them at university. Yes, says the government; no, says the Constitutional Court. The prosecutor says that that would turn the universities into centres of anti-secular activity. Ladies and gentlemen, come on: listen to that argument.

I am a strong believer in secular principles, and I spoke in the Assembly last year in the debate on the report on the dangers of creationism in European schools. We sent a strong warning to those who try to make science out of religion. I take the same approach to religion and politics, which should be kept apart. Religious beliefs are private matters, not a state issue. What kind of clothes people wear is up to them, not politicians, and certainly not the Constitutional Court. The whole case is built on a misinterpretation of the concept of secularism. The right to wear a headscarf does not violate secular principles.

      I hope that the Constitutional Court will come to a wise decision, and if it does, something good can come out of this. It is obvious that Turkey needs to introduce further deep constitutional reforms. The army must get out of politics once and for all, and there must also be discussion of what Turkey is and who lives there. Turkey is a great country, with great people: Turks, Kurds, Assyrians, Muslims, Christians, people of no faith, and many other ethnic and religious groups. This ethnic and religious diversity should not be denied. It should be recognised, and if Turkey takes that path, it would not weaken the country – on the contrary, it would be much stronger.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. The last speaker this morning is Mr Türkeş.

      Mr TÜRKEŞ (Turkey). – First, I have to clarify a couple of points, as I think my colleagues were misinformed.

      The banning of the Justice and Development Party did not result only from the university headscarf case. My party, the Nationalist Movement Party, was also in favour of allowing 8 000 university students to attend classes wearing headscarves, but that was part of a package of constitutional reforms. Some laws had to be agreed after the constitution was changed, but the Justice and Development Party did not accept that. At that point, the university headscarf case appeared to be a threat to the secular system in the Turkish Republic.

      Another point is that everybody, whatever their ethnic origins, is an equal citizen. As Mr Kyprianou noted, people of Kurdish origin are also equal citizens, so it should not be thought that there are different systems in Turkey.

      A further point I want to clarify is that when we were electing the President of Turkey, the issue was not that Mr Gül’s wife wore a headscarf, but that the Justice and Development Party did not seek consensus in Turkey. The party had a majority and insisted on doing whatever it liked.

      When I heard that there was to be a report on recent developments in the functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey, I thought we would discuss why a cartoonist was put on trial and had to pay a fine just because he drew Mr Erdogan as a cat. Turkey has a long tradition of mocking its politicians so why have no comedians been doing that for the past five or six years? Were they politely warned off? We do not seem to be discussing that.

      Why are we not discussing the fact that the second biggest media group was purchased by a trade group for US$1.1 billion? Why was US$750 million supplied by the state-owned banks and why was US$350 million received in Qatar Emirates funding? Is it just coincidence that the chief executive officer of the company was the son-in-law of Mr Erdogan? None of those things was in the report.

      After making those clarifications, I do not have much time left. I simply point out that as the hearings are next week, any discussions held in the Assembly will directly affect the Turkish judicial system.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you.

I must now interrupt the list of speakers. We will resume the debate this afternoon.

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

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I propose that the Assembly holds its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the agenda that was approved on Monday 23 June.

      Are there any objections? That is not the case.

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

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.5 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Minutes of proceedings

2.       Agenda

3.       The situation in China

Presentation by Mr Mignon of report of the Political Affairs Committee, Doc. 11654

Speakers:

       Mr Lebedev (Russian Federation)

      Mr Elzinga (Netherlands)

      Mr Prescott (United Kingdom)

      Mr Haibach (Germany)

      Lord Russell-Johnston (United Kingdom)

      Mr Wikiński (Poland)

      Mr Branger (France)

      Mr Bjørnstad (Norway)

      Mr Kondratov (Russian Federation)

      Mr Grignon (France)

      Mrs Goryacheva (Russian Federation)

      Mr Sasi (Finland)

      Mr Rochebloine (France)

      Mr Goldstein (Canada)

      Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

      Mr Herkel (Estonia)

      Mr Omelchenko (Ukraine)

      Mr Tekelioğlu (Turkey)

Mr Schneider (France)

      Mr Sigfússon (Iceland)

      Replies:

      Mr Lindblad (Sweden)

      Mr Mignon (France)

      Amendments Nos. 4, 2 and 1, and oral amendment, adopted

      Draft recommendation, as amended, adopted

4.       Functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey

Presentation by Mr Van den Brande of report of the Monitoring Committee, Doc. 11660

Speakers:

Mr Kyprianou (Cyprus)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Mr van der Linden (Netherlands)

Mr Eörsi (Hungary)

Mr Margelov (Russian Federation)

Ms Lungren (Sweden)

Mr Koç (Turkey)

Mr Cebeci (Turkey)

Mr Johansson (Sweden)

Mr Türkeş (Turkey)

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