2008 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirtieth Sitting

Tuesday 30 September 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 10.05 a.m.

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

1. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – This morning the orders of the day call for the election of one judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Luxembourg. The list of candidates and biographical notices are to be found in Document 11693.

The voting will take place in the area behind the President’s Chair.

At 1 p.m., the voting will be suspended, and it will resume at 3 p.m. At 5 p.m., I shall announce the closing of the poll. As usual, counting will then take place under the supervision of two tellers.

I shall now draw by lot the names of the two tellers who will supervise the counting of the votes.

The names of Mr Kalemba and Mr Tulaev have been drawn. They should go to the back of the President’s Chair at 5 p.m.

I now declare the ballot open.

2. Membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in Document Commissions (2008) 6 Addenda 1 and 2.

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

They are agreed to.

3. Consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The first item of business this morning is the debate on the consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia. A report on this matter, prepared by the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), will be debated on Thursday.

      The list of speakers for today’s debate, which has been distributed, closed at 4 p.m. yesterday. I remind the Assembly that speeches in the urgent debate are limited to three minutes, and that we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 12 noon, and resume the debate on Thursday morning.

I should inform the Assembly that our debate this morning will also be enriched by interventions from Mr Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, and Mr Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights, which will take place after the contributions from the members of the ad hoc committee who visited Russia and Georgia last week.

I will call first the members of the ad hoc committee, beginning with those who represent each of the political groups. I call Mr Van den Brande, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium). – What happened, and is still happening, is a tragedy for all people in the region – a human tragedy, when we consider the victims, the wounded people and the refugees. For the first time, there has been a real war between two member countries of the Council of Europe. After mutual provocation, and the escalation and deterioration of the situation, they engaged in war. In fact, there was a pre-war, before 7 August. Let us be very clear: that is unacceptable, and we will never accept it when countries that face conflict do not resolve that conflict by peaceful means. Both countries did not do enough to prevent war. That is very much the position as regards other conflict zones in the area.

      On the factual situation, it is unbelievable that there are such diametrically opposed versions of events put forward by the Russians and the Georgians. There is not even any space for any self-criticism. An independent, international, careful investigation is therefore needed, because as I have said, truth is a prerequisite for reconciliation. Having said that, there are several points on which no further investigation is needed, because they are already clear.

The first concerns the unilateral declaration of independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Its recognition by Russia is unacceptable, because it is against the principle of the integrity of Georgia, and against international rules.

The second concerns the full implementation of the six points of the Sarkozy agreement and the withdrawal by Russia to the position of before 7 August.

The third point concerns the unacceptability of the infringement of human rights by both countries. That relates to the indiscriminate shelling that affected civilians, and the Russian Federation’s responsibility for the protection of civilians in the territories under its effective control; I refer to the ethnic cleansing by several groups and gangs. All assaults, looting and firing have to stop immediately.

      We also have to protect – everyone has to contribute to this – safeguard and secure the high number of refugees and internally displaced persons, and for that reason, free access to the whole area is important. Finally, there cannot be business as usual. Aside from the contribution of the Commissioner for Human Rights, the Secretary General and the Committee of Ministers, we have a responsibility. That means enhanced and continuous monitoring and being proactive – more proactive than we were – in ensuring that dialogue is one day renewed. We must assess the commitments, and be critical and firm. That is our responsibility in the forthcoming period.

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

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) said that the Council of Europe had been set up 60 years ago to ensure that there was no violence between the states in Europe. It was the first time in the history of the Council of Europe that two member states had violated this fundamental principle of the Council of Europe relating to violence. The Council of Europe was affected by the conflict. The whole of the Council of Europe was involved, not just Russia and Georgia. This was actually a war and not just a conflict. It was important to use clear language in order to ensure a proper understanding. Conflicts should not lead to a situation where agreements could no longer operate. The violence had escalated from conflict to war. Everyone knew about the conflict 15 years ago. In fact, it dated back to Stalin and had been smouldering for a long time. It was never resolved and could not be ignored. The Council of Europe knew this and was also responsible. There was no point in punishing or excluding individual countries. It was necessary to learn from the conflict and to develop a road map for the future beginning in North and South Ossetia and Georgia. In these places, people had been driven from their homes and needed help this winter. In order to resolve the conflict, the parties could not expect to get all they wanted and there would have to be compromise. There were also risks in the immediate future and it was important to take this opportunity to move forward to prevent further threats.

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

      Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – Like the other four groups in the Assembly, my group is deeply concerned about the war – I stress the word “war” – between Georgia and Russia. Like the other four groups, my group yesterday held a full and frank debate about that war. Everyone in our group welcomes the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s investigation into what happened. Everyone in my group supports the action of our Commissioner for Human Rights, and everyone in our group supports the full implementation of the six-point plan negotiated by the European Union. The group looks forward to receiving the final report of the ad hoc committee, hopefully in January. When we have the report and the facts, it will be time to decide what to do. It is essential that the Assembly does something rather than nothing. Then, and only then, will it be time to decide on withdrawing credentials or voting rights, and then, and only then, will it be time to decide on the future membership of political groups.

      This war is a tragedy, not only for Russia and Georgia, but for the Council of Europe. Although it is right to call for the full facts, there is one fact that no one can now dispute: two members of the Council of Europe used military force against each other. We can argue about who started it, but that is the fact – there has been a war. That is a clear breach of the undertakings given by the Russians and the Georgians when they joined the Council of Europe. Carrying on as normal is not an option. Doing nothing will simply make us the laughing stock of those who watch what we do. If we are to play a constructive role in preventing another tragedy, and more deaths and destruction, we have to be careful not to do too much. That is the challenge that we face: we must avoid doing nothing, and avoid doing too much. The Council of Europe is about values. We cannot enforce values through weapons or through economic sanctions. We can spread the values we believe in only by talking to people and that is why I am against expelling anybody. To expel is to slam the door in the face of dialogue and it is an admission of defeat. I do not want this Assembly to admit defeat.

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

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – My point of departure is the same as that of Andreas Gross. This Organisation was set up after the Second World War with the purpose of preventing wars. This is the first time in our history that two member countries have gone to war. The ad hoc committee visited Moscow, Tbilisi and South Ossetia, and we can testify that human suffering does not respect citizenship, nationality or ethnicity. We must ask how we can do better in the future to prevent such military conflict.

      Our mission was a mission impossible. We had two days in Moscow and two days in Tbilisi and we attempted to verify the truth. We learnt a lot, but we could not verify the truth. As Luc Van den Brande said, truth is the prerequisite of reconciliation and we must have an international investigation that is as in-depth, comprehensive and objective as possible. Those who disagree with that proposal are those who fear the truth. I hope that Georgia and Russia will both agree that such an investigation should take place. Day by day, hour by hour and, if necessary, minute by minute, we will investigate what happened to escalate this situation.

      The report says that both parties could have done more to prevent this war. In my opinion, that sentence is as wise as it is empty. We are not here to condemn, we are here to assist. We must ask ourselves what we would have said to our colleagues if they had asked us what we would have done on any given day. It is easy to say to the Russians that it was a mistake to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia or that it was a mistake to enter Georgia. What should the Georgians have done when people in their territory were shelled? We come from different countries. Some of us come from former Soviet Union states and others, including me, from former satellite countries. Some of us come from countries that have suffered from wars in the past, and others come from countries that have never known war. We have to show some empathy and ask what we would do if our people were shelled. Without that empathy, our words are empty.

      I am looking forward to a good debate, but if people praise our report by saying that it is balanced, they will be wrong. The situation in the South Caucasus is not balanced, and we must bear that in mind.

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

Mr KOX (The Netherlands). – While most of us were enjoying our holidays, August in Ossetia and Georgia turned into apocalyptic horror days. During the summer war of 2008, hundreds of people were killed or injured, thousands lost their homes and belongings, tens of thousands fled to either Russia or Georgia, and millions were terrified by the prospect of further escalation of the war. August proved that it takes only a short war to ruin the lives and luck of so many people for ever.

All the suffering could have been avoided if politicians had been wiser. Their main duty is to prevent war, not to provoke it. The suffering of so many people began after Georgia started the war with the argument that it was restoring its constitutional order by shelling the capital of Tskhinvali and attacking Russian peacekeepers nearby. Then Russia intervened militarily, with the argument that it had to protect South Ossetian and Russian citizens. Those might sound like reasonable arguments, but when the consequences are so horrible, the arguments must be totally invalid.

I had the chance to meet several people from the war zone last week and I listened to their tragic personal stories. I also met politicians in Moscow, Tbilisi and Tskhinvali. I was struck by the contrast between the people who suffered so tragically and the politicians who tried to explain that it was not their fault and that they acted only in the interests of the people. How cynical!

If a war starts, politicians must have failed, especially if they come from member states of the Council of Europe. Therefore, the Group of the Unified European Left supports the demand for an international independent investigation with the participation of the Council of Europe and the parliaments of the member states involved. What went wrong and why, who is to bear responsibility and who will redress the damage done?

The international investigation should also include an examination of the role that other countries and international organisations played and to what extent they bear at least part of the responsibility for not preventing the war. That includes our own Organisation, as well as the European Union and NATO, not to mention the United States, which paid for and trained the Georgian army, and by doing so prepared it for the war.

We have to find out what happened in order to prevent it from happening again. We have now entered a period in which we have the worst international relations since the end of the Cold War, and we live in dangerous times. Similar conflicts could easily turn into new wars, and it is our duty to prevent that from happening and to address this dangerous development. Our credibility and much more is at stake.

First and foremost, we have to urge Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia to come to some arrangement to give international and national relief organisations ample opportunity to help all victims of this war, to ensure security for those organisations in the former war zone, and to allow internally displaced persons to return home safely. We have to urge all the parties involved to respect international law, not to violate it, and to comply fully to restore the rule of law, respect for human rights and democracy in that part of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Lindblad, Chair of the Political Affairs Committee.

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – I shared the experience of my colleagues during our visit, so I shall not repeat what they have said. I agree with what they have said of their impressions. It is totally unacceptable to have a war between two member states of the Council of Europe. That will never be acceptable, and we must therefore take action. The necessary action may not be decided in this session – perhaps it will be in the January session – but it is imperative that in this debate and in Thursday’s debate, we have a dialogue that includes the parties involved, so Russia and Georgia must take part. That is why it would have been wrong to revoke any voting rights or exclude anyone from taking part at this stage. However, we should not exclude the possibility of such action at a later stage after the investigation. It is premature to discuss what action should be taken at this stage.

On the question of responsibility, it is clear that the main fighting started on 7 August, but the build-up had been going on for a long time. There had been provocations, shootings and skirmishes for many years, but matters escalated with the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali. However, I believe that the Georgians were tricked into that, because the 58^th Army and the Russians were prepared. In criminal justice, we talk about premeditation, and the events were premeditated on the Russian side. The problem is that Georgia used too much force, but they did so on their own territory. Other countries have used too much force on their own territories, and that is not acceptable, but it is even less acceptable to invade another country and use excessive force. That can never be tolerated, and we must discuss that in this debate.

We must address what we can do to prevent such things from happening, but also what we can do to promote reconciliation. The Council of Europe is all about reconciliation and dialogue. We have to build up trust again. For one thing, the non-governmental organisations are now not let in through the Georgian border and the checkpoints towards South Ossetia because the South Ossetians say that they will not accept anything coming in from the Georgian side. They told us that we would be the last delegation to be admitted that way. With that attitude, there is no future for and no possibility of building up and achieving reconciliation and the new trust. Therefore, it is utterly crucial that we keep the dialogue open.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Lindblad. I call Mr Pangalos.

Mr PANGALOS (Greece) said that while the liberal basis of the economic system was crumbling and affecting Washington and the capitals of member states, and while young people were being marginalised, the Assembly was having to talk about the Caucasus. Similar situations had arisen in the past, for example in relation to Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Kosovo.

      Although there were no divisions, there were principles and morals, and it was necessary to ascertain the facts as well as to act on behalf of dispersed peoples. In order to do so, it was necessary to maintain ongoing contact with all sides. This was particularly necessary in this case, as it was not as easy as in other instances to ascertain what had occurred.

      The instrument proposed should be adopted by the Assembly, and the reality of the current situation should be looked at more closely by everybody.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Pangalos. I call Mrs Jonker.

      Mrs JONKER (Netherlands). – I want to give you the picture in relation to the situation of the internally displaced persons and refugees in Russia and Georgia.

      According to UNHCR, there were, at one moment, 192 000 IDPs and refugees. Thirty-five thousand refugees left for the north and 160 000 IDPs left for the south. From the north, nearly everybody is back. The 2 000 who remain are mainly children who cannot go to school in South Ossetia, the sick and the elderly. There are still 65 000 IDPs who remain in Georgia outside the region of South Ossetia and the border zone. They stay mainly with family or in public buildings in Tbilisi or in tents in Gori. The public buildings are in urgent need of repair and the tents are overcrowded. At the beginning of September, the estimate of the Georgian authorities was that 64 000 of the IDPs were children.

      The people who stayed in the border zone and in South Ossetia are the old people. The ad hoc committee met and talked to them in three villages and in Tskhinvali. We saw houses that had been looted and burned. The priority for those people is safety. Right now, they are not safe from the militia and ethnic cleansing.

      The reality is that Georgia already has 220 000 IDPs from the conflict in the 1990s. They live in the boundary area of Tbilisi. Until now, they have not had the opportunity to integrate.

      When I returned, I had four main concerns for the IDPs: the right to return, security for those who want to return to South Ossetia, the level of support, and possibilities of integration for those who do not want or are not able to return.

      Ethnic cleansing is still going on. Also, when the EU observers become operational, their mandate will be to monitor in the buffer zone, not in South Ossetia. Who can guarantee safety? Russia’s politicians and army, and the de facto authorities in Tskhinvali, must take responsibility. Otherwise, the right to return will be a dead letter.

      On the level of support to the Georgian authorities, I will put it like this: do not use the people as a political tool, and use the funds and donor money properly. The people are the victims of this war, not only the refugees and IDPs. People have been wounded, killed, kidnapped and beaten up. That cannot happen without consequences. We must have the guts to show what the Council of Europe stands for – human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Jonker. I call Mr Islami.

      Mr ISLAMI (Albania). – Mr President, I address you today as a concerned citizen of the European community. The conflict in Georgia is not an isolated event that affects only the parties involved. It is a European issue that goes to the core of the principles that this Organisation represents.

      When leading this discussion, the most important issue is not to determine who started this conflict and what its history is. Calls have already been made on that issue by members of the European Union, and there was consensus in the ad hoc committee on making a similar statement.

      Today, I want to address the issues that this Organisation and our national governments must face as part of our commitment as members of the Council of Europe. First, we must address security in the conflict regions. During and after the conflict, many people were killed and wounded. Ethnic cleansing has been part of that and it was most dramatic in the region of South Ossetia. Human Rights Watch and our Commissioner for Human Rights prepared a very good report on that aspect. Our Organisation should not accept this situation. We cannot tolerate such grave human rights abuses.

      Secondly, I welcome the introduction of European observers in Georgia to ensure peace and stability. However, this is only a first step. It will be necessary for European observers, and eventually a policing and peacekeeping force, to expand their mission into the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

      Thirdly, the Russian Federation must uphold the six-point peace plan brokered by the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, and security must be created to allow for the safe return of internally displaced people.

      This conflict displaced ethnic Georgians and Ossetians, and both groups have the right to safe return. That is something that this Organisation must impress on all parties.

      Finally, we cannot ignore the violation of international law in relation to the disproportionate force used by the Russian Federation and its unilateral recognition of the two breakaway regions. That is the key element of this war and if we do not address the issue there will be no chance to resolve the conflict.

      The decision taken by the Russian Federation represents the final act after a series of provocations and intimidations, coupled with a policy of granting illegal passports to the inhabitants of the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This move of the Duma and the President of the Russian Federation goes against the principles of this body and violates the basic rules of international law.

      My proposal is, in the short term, that the Council of Europe and our national governments must do all that they can to improve the security situation in Georgia and help with the care and safe return of internally displaced persons. In the medium term, we must address the issue of Georgia’s territorial integrity. Numerous United Nations resolutions and all major international organisations have unequivocally included the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia. The Russian Federation must accept its responsibility within the international order and reverse its unilateral decision to recognise the independence of these regions. Our Assembly must include in its resolution some provisions respecting that commitment and principle.

      Finally, we face a long-term challenge. The conflict in Georgia raises questions of European security and energy policy. We must all work together to send a clear message to our national governments and complementary organisations that peace, stability and freedom in Europe cannot be compromised.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. It is time to hear the communication of Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

Mr DAVIS (Secretary General of the Council of Europe). – In August this year, two member states of the Council of Europe engaged in a military conflict with each other. As a consequence, hundreds of people were killed, thousands were forced to flee and countless homes were destroyed. These, Mr President, are facts. It would be a huge mistake to minimise what happened. It is a crisis of historic proportions, not only for the people and the two countries involved, but for the region and for the Council of Europe.

Let me say immediately that I do not agree with those who say that there has always been conflict between Ossetians and Georgians. I know from my personal experience as a rapporteur for this Assembly that that was not true 10 years ago. When I met the then President of South Ossetia, Mr Chibirov, he assured me that there was no hatred between Ossetians and Georgians, that they were interrelated and that things had greatly improved since the fighting a few years previously. I confirmed that with the Russian general in charge of the peacekeeping force at the time and with the commanders of a Georgian contingent and of an Ossetian contingent. They all told me the same thing: that there would be no more war or conflict between Georgians and Ossetians.

As recently as last November, when I visited Georgia for a summit meeting, we were told by ministers in Georgia that the situation was constantly improving. Something changed. When I visited Georgia during the conflict in August, I was told by international observers – people there on the ground – that it had all started to change in April, after which there was a steady escalation of violence. In April, I saw what was happening in South Ossetia and I made a public statement on 30 April. In the heading, I urged Georgia and the Russian Federation to settle disagreements by peaceful means. I called on the Russian Government to ensure that the presence of its peacekeeping forces and troops had a positive influence on peace and stability in the region. I reminded both countries that, as members of the Council of Europe, they were committed to settling disagreements by peaceful means.

As we know, incidents continued and there was a steady escalation and build-up. So, on 4 July, I issued another statement, calling for the escalation of violence in South Ossetia to stop. I said that people had been killed, that shelling and shooting were going on in Tskhinvali and nearby villages in South Ossetia, that even if we did not have a clear picture of what was happening or who was responsible, we knew that people were being killed and injured, and that someone was sitting on a powder keg and playing with fire. Everyone with influence, including the governments in Tbilisi and Moscow, should have done their utmost to prevent any further escalation. The people of the South Caucasus should not endure another war.

That was a month before the escalation on 7 August. When that happened, I issued another statement calling for the protection of the civilian population. I said that everyone should refrain from action that endangered the lives of civilians. The first priority was an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, followed by direct talks to find a peaceful and permanent solution. That was on 8 August, a day after the Georgians started shelling Tskhinvali.

The next day, I issued another statement, headed simply “Stop the killing”. I said: “I urge everyone to stop the shooting and stop the bombing and get round a conference table. A total ceasefire is the only way to stop the killing…I remind both Georgia and the Russian Federation that, as members of the Council of Europe, they have committed themselves to find peaceful solutions to conflicts, both internal and international”.

On 10 August, I went to Georgia, arriving on the morning of Monday 11 August, with the Chairman-in-Office, Mr Carl Bildt from Sweden. We had extensive talks, as you know, with Georgian officials and the representatives of international organisations in Georgia. Why did we go to Georgia rather than Russia? We went to Georgia because that was where the war was. We decided that we must also go to Moscow if we could, in order to hear the Russian side. Unfortunately, we were told that we could not be received. Since then, I have of course received a great deal of information from both Georgia and Russia, including from the special representative in Tbilisi. I have had regular contacts with the Secretary General of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Other representatives from the Council of Europe have visited the region, including your delegation, the congress delegation and Thomas Hammarberg, the Commissioner.

The Ministers’ Deputies met on 3 September. At that meeting, I told them that I had drawn four conclusions: one, that the Russian peacekeeping force had failed to stop attacks on Georgian villages by South Ossetians before the conflict escalated on 7 August; two, that the Russian peacekeeping forces had not prevented attacks on Georgian civilians by South Ossetians during the fighting and since it had stopped; three, that both Georgia and Russia should have used only peaceful means to settle the conflict between themselves and between Georgia and South Ossetia, in line with their commitments to the Council of Europe, but had not done so; and four, that both Georgia and Russia had failed to ensure that several provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights were observed in South Ossetia and the rest of Georgia.

Against this background, it is not surprising that the European Court of Human Rights has already received more than 1 700 applications from individuals. It will be dealing with those as quickly as possible. In the meantime, we must all decide what to do about the situation. The only sanction in the statutes of the Council of Europe is suspension of a country’s membership. I can tell you, from discussions at the informal meeting of ministers last week, that there is very little support, if any, for such a sanction. The fact is, however, that the Council of Europe must react. To do nothing would seriously damage the credibility of this Organisation and increase the prospects of further violations of obligations resulting from membership of the Council of Europe.

That is why on 3 September, at a meeting of the ambassadors here, I proposed a special enhanced monitoring procedure for both countries. Last week, I received unanimous support from the 32 ministers who attended the meeting in New York. Existing monitoring procedures are not enough. We need a new procedure to monitor compliance with the standards of the Council of Europe by both Russia and Georgia. This new procedure will bring together all the information generated through our existing monitoring procedures and all the information provided by other bodies, including the Assembly and the Commissioner for Human Rights. Indeed, I can tell you that the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is already in the region undertaking its work, or trying to do so.

My reports will also include information provided by other international organisations, especially the OSCE, the EU and the United Nations. My intention is to provide this report not only to ministers, but to the Assembly. The results of this enhanced monitoring will then feed into our Council of Europe programme of activities; indeed, a review of our programme of activities began as soon as my colleagues returned from their summer holidays at the end of August. The directorate of culture will be sending a mission led by the director general herself. We hope that it will go next week, at the request of the Ministry of Culture in Georgia.

The director general for social cohesion is trying to arrange an urgent visit, in order to assess what can be done to help the refugees and displaced persons. We are in touch with the EU to see what we can do to contribute to the training of its monitors. Finally, when we know what projects we are going to undertake, we shall approach both the EU and the Council of Europe Development Bank for funding and help with this work.

The immediate issue is the right of return for refugees and displaced persons. A precondition on all the principles set forth – all six of them – by Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg is return. That must be treated as an absolute priority for the international community and we need a quick decision on who in the international community will be responsible for settling the matter. The situation we have at the moment where everyone talks about the right to return but nothing is done in practice is unacceptable and must not continue.

      Much has been said. There was much speculation about who first pulled the trigger. Of course that is important, but the fact is that it is not a black and white situation. It is shades of grey. That is what will almost certainly be made clear in any investigation. The real issue is not only how it happened and what happened, but what we are going to do about it.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights.

      Mr HAMMARBERG (Commissioner for Human Rights). – Naturally, I will focus on the human rights problems which arose as a consequence of the war and its aftermath.

When I returned from my previous visit at the end of August, I reported that we were faced with nothing less than a humanitarian disaster. Many people have been displaced, many have lost their homes or other property, many have been denied safety and security and a number have been deprived of their liberty. Quite a number have lost their lives.

      We focused on the key issues that are important in order to secure the protection of human rights in future. We avoided going into the political background for obvious reasons and formulated those urgent principles for human rights and humanitarian protection.

      As the Secretary General said, the first point is the right of return. As Mrs Jonker said, quite a number of people have now returned, but quite a number are still waiting to return. I am happy to report that there has been some progress in that regard. It is important that the Georgian Government has had the courage to plan for the unfortunate but realistic prospect that some people will not be able to return before the winter. It gave the figure of at least 17 000.

For return to be a realistic prospect, there is a need to rebuild houses. The houses in the villages north of Tskhinvali are almost totally destroyed and it will be a massive project to rebuild them so that it is possible for people to return. The other main problem is to guarantee their safety. There is also a need for everyone in a decision-making authority to recognise the principle that everyone has a right to return. In that regard, during my visit, I had a long discussion with the acting de facto Prime Minister in Tskhinvali and at the end of the discussion he recognised that that principle is important and will be respected in reality. Of course, now we need to follow through on that and ensure that that principle in all cases is respected, but I saw some movement when it comes to attitude and that is important.

      The second point is caring for those IDPs who cannot go back. About 17 000 people are likely not to be able to go back before the winter. There has been progress. In fact, the Georgian Government is building new houses. We visited one area where 2 100 smaller houses were rebuilt for smaller families for them to have a decent home over the winter and perhaps longer.

I support the point that Mrs Jonker made that it is crucial that this does not undermine the fate of the 220 000 IDPs from the previous displacement. We need to ensure that no one is used in this situation of political crisis and that every IDP is given as decent a living as possible. I see moves in that direction, which is positive.

      The third point is demining. There has been quite a lot in the Gori area, mainly with the help of the NGO Halo Trust, which is in contact with the Georgian Government. Demining is almost complete but some more is needed. In the so-called “buffer zone”, the Russian army has picked up 26 500 bombs, unexploded devices and other military material which could endanger the civilian population. The Russians say that the work to demine – as you can imagine, this is a massive problem – is not complete. This is one of the major challenges as the situation changes in the zone. When new monitors come, the demining work must continue. I assume that the Halo Trust will be one of those asked to undertake that important task. The NGOs will need international support.

The major problem with the demining exercise is that there have been no contacts between the two parties when it comes to exchanging maps and other necessary information about what type of bombs were dropped and in what direction at what time. That information is crucial for the final stage of demining. There is a need to find some mechanism at international level to ensure that such information is exchanged between the two parties, and that is a major task.

      The fourth point is to guarantee law and order and stop the criminal attacks against houses and individuals. There are fewer reports about such crimes now than four weeks ago, but there are still incidents where people are threatened, houses are looted and in some cases even torched. That must stop before people can move back in an atmosphere of safety. Again the monitoring of the buffer zone will be crucial.

      The fifth point relates to people who have been detained and prisoners-of-war, people in hiding and people who wanted to leave for the other side but did not dare because of the risks. There has been some important progress. I was involved in that during my first trip and my last trip. A number of people have been exchanged: from the Tskhinvali side slightly more than 170 people have been exchanged and slightly more than 40 people have been exchanged from the Georgian side. Dead bodies have also been exchanged. This week, there will be another exchange after another 10 bodies were found.

That is crucial for the families whose loved ones are missing and who want to know what happened to them. That is an important dimension of human rights. It is also important to build some trust between the two sides when it comes to the humanitarian aspects and to finding reasonable solutions in a reasonable time. I think that it is possible, before the end of November or the middle of December, to have a situation where all those who have been identified as having been detained or taken as hostage can be exchanged, and that the fate of the overwhelming majority of those who have been reported as missing will be clarified. That is good progress. I pay tribute to two negotiators, Givi Targamadze in Tbilisi and David Sanakoev in Tskhinvali, who played an important role in the project.

      The final point relates to an international presence and monitoring. It is a major problem that the humanitarian organisations cannot move freely. There must be an agreement that secures that those organisations that have no purpose other than to assist people in need, have free access to those people. That discussion must continue. For the moment, the United Nations has decided that it will accept the rules on emergency aid set by the de facto government in Tskhinvali and the government in Georgia. That means that aid could get to Tskhinvali from the north only through the tunnel and from the southern side only through Tbilisi. There is a need for further discussion in that respect.

      Monitors are present there. The International Committee of the Red Cross is doing a good job in the northern part of the zone where the problem of violence and insecurity is a real dilemma. The EU monitors should come in and we hope for good co-operation with them. There is also a need for police to come in – that is, of course, the Georgian police – in order to fill the police vacuum. However, there is also a need for professional specialist human rights monitoring. This is not only a question of monitoring the cease-fire but of monitoring the human rights situation. I believe that we have a role to play in that regard, and my office is prepared to do so – given some resources, of course. We do not need much, but some, in order to continue the work that has been started through a couple of visits, which has been appreciated by the two parties.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Commissioner. I call Mr Gabashvili.

Mr GABASHVILI (Georgia) said that this urgent debate was of great importance. The threat to Georgia’s sovereignty was not yet over. There was still the danger of ethnic cleansing. Humanitarian aid had also been hindered and the cease-fire had been broken from the Russian side. It was important that the observer mission from the European Union got to work. It was necessary to make demands of Russia. Georgia was a sovereign country and not merely part of the interests of its neighbouring country. Georgia would confirm in future democratic elections that the invasion was unlawful. There was no justification for changing borders or for annexation. The genocide of the Ossetian population had been used as a justification, but reports of such events were unfounded. All independent reports said that claims of genocide were lies. Furthermore, there were more Ossetians throughout Georgia than in the regions targeted.

Satellite images of Tskhinvali showed how the ethnic cleansing of Georgia had taken place after the cease-fire. Georgia had published evidence to confirm that the invasion had taken place 20 hours before the Georgian response. The war had not begun on 7 August. Shelling had taken place a week before. All attempts at peace had failed. Georgia was prepared to co-operate and investigate details. Russia needed to be willing, too. The Council of Europe needed to make it clear that small countries were not merely part of the sphere of influence of larger powers. The withdrawal of troops was necessary. Winston Churchill had said that unity could not be achieved by throwing small states to the wall.

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

Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation) said that, unlike Mr Gabashvili, he would not be reading from a text but rather speaking from his heart. Many in the Council of Europe said that war between the two states was unacceptable. The Council of Europe would not manage to do anything if it viewed the conflict in isolation and did not consider its roots. The conflict between the Russian Federation and Georgia went back for 200 years. In the early 20th century, 20,000 Ossetians had died as a result of conflict in the Russian Empire and Georgia. Stalin had decided to move South Ossetia into Georgia. When the Soviet Union had fallen apart, again more Ossetians had died. An agreement had finally been signed.

      The Secretary General had said that tension had increased in April. In February, Kosovo had unilaterally declared its independence. It was thus possible for separatist forces to make advances. Peacekeeping could not have prevented the war. Saakashvili had tried to quash the opposition in his own country. It was 70 years since the Munich Agreement, when Europe had tried to stop war by dealing with such dictatorships. Russia had stopped aggression within South Ossetia and had protected this region. It had protected ethnic minorities and the rule of law. It was necessary to send the message to Saakashvili that the use of arms was unacceptable.

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

Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said that the Russian Federation had defended South Ossetia. There were two principles at work: the principle of self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity. The Russian Federation had not questioned the inclusion of South Ossetia in Georgia before August. All previous peace agreements had been violated by Saakashvili. He had violated them for electoral and internal political reasons. It was a misconception that the Russian Federation had used too much force. This force was needed to protect innocents like elderly women and children, who were being killed.

      The Russian Federation understood the principle of territorial integrity but noted that it could result in events such as those in August, including genocide. It was necessary to bring the truth to light. The Council of Europe’s values needed to be protected and only the Russian Federation could protect the Ossetian people from being wiped out. It was a new chapter in Europe. Kosovo had been recognised as independent and it was necessary to take such realities into account. Everyone needed to recognise that we were on the eve of a new world order. South Ossetia needed to be recognised as independent. The Council of Europe could build this new world order.

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

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

      Mrs UKKOLA (Finland). – What are the principles and values of the Council of Europe that all member states have committed themselves to respect? They are democracy, human rights, the rule of law, freedom of the press and, above all, respect for the territorial integrity of all states. Those are the most important principles of all organisations concerned with European co-operation. The attack is a violation of human rights and is definitely against international law. Those principles have been brutally violated. Two member states of the Council of Europe have been in a hot war. It is a war that can have only losers. We all became losers when Russia brutally reintroduced power politics into international politics. It was a shock to realise that Russia has not changed. In the 21st century, Russia still uses weapons. It defends its citizens who live abroad by attacking a sovereign state. Russia speaks of its own sphere of interest, in which it includes its neighbouring states.

      The citizens of Europe have been greatly shocked. The Council of Europe has not been able fully to commit its members to the principles of democracy. The European Union has been naïve with respect to Russia, because it needs Russian energy, but the war has not split the unity of the European Union; instead, the EU stands firmly united. Europe will now begin to diversify its energy supply sources. The West has not forgotten Georgia, and its support has been generous, but the refugees still need humanitarian aid.

      The war has already resulted in economic losses for Russia. Foreign investors already had difficulties before the war, and now investors have started to withdraw from Russia. The stock exchange has crashed and the price of oil has gone down. No country with the exception of Nicaragua has recognised Abkhazia or South Ossetia, not even Serbia. There is one more point to make: Russia may still be charged with ethnic cleansing. The war in Georgia has probably strengthened Russia’s position in the international arena, but it has lost trust, respect and recognition. Suspicion of Russia’s intentions and actions has grown. What will happen next?

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

Mr BADRÉ (France) said that, when considering the Georgian situation, it was worth reflecting that if the Council of Europe had not existed, it would have had to have been created. Unfortunately, the values of the Council of Europe had been brought into question by a war between two of its members. This was unacceptable and constituted a failure of the system. The Council of Europe should not be powerless or confused. It should have had an extraordinary session earlier. The number of victims was rising as each minute went by. The EU under France’s presidency had been involved in action. By 10 October, the buffer zones should be evacuated. If that was not the case, it would be necessary to respond by holding an extraordinary session. The Council of Europe had a role to play. It was important to have debate in the Assembly. When Russia had been admitted, it had made undertakings, which needed to be respected. Assembly members needed to serve and protect human rights. The credibility of the Council of Europe was at stake. It was necessary to serve the ideal of the Council of Europe and meet its expectations.

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

      Mrs HURSKAINEN (Finland). – We all have the same feeling: what has happened in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and the occupation of those areas, is not acceptable. A motion for resolution has been tabled to reconsider the ratified credentials of the Russian delegation. Some members have suggested that the Russian delegation should be kept from the Parliamentary Assembly’s work until the situation is solved. In my opinion, that is not the right way to find an answer to this serious situation. It is extremely important that all the members of the Russian delegation should be able to participate in our discussion. That is essential for the continuation of talks between the Council of Europe and Russia.

      The Council of Europe has already done much. We are holding this urgent debate today, and a report is under way. A special meeting of foreign affairs ministers was convened in New York last week to discuss this question. The work and role of the Council of Europe are different from those of the European Union, but we should not take measures here that contradict the conclusions of the European Council held in Brussels on 1 September. Our decisions and actions should at least follow the same course. The European Council concluded that monitoring, observing and fact finding are important, and that regional co-operation and neighbourhood policy should be emphasised. We too should consider such measures, not sanctions and political isolation. Those have never been ways to promote and strengthen democracy and human rights, which have always been the core of the Council of Europe’s work.

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

Mr OSTROVSKY (Russian Federation) appealed to the Assembly to interpret what the Georgian delegation were saying correctly, as they were trying to spread misinformation. In addition, misinformation was being spread by Mr MacShane, who was seemingly unaware of the geography of South Ossetia.

Prior to the current situation, Georgia and other territories in the region had proclaimed independence on the break-up of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. South Ossetia had not wanted to leave the Russian Federation. There was no basis for Georgia to claim South Ossetia, and any claims were based upon false information.

Russians considered Georgians to be a fraternal people. However, Georgia was now receiving money and arms from western countries to kill innocent bystanders. The United States was arming Saakashhvili, and the Russian Federation could not merely stand by. Nor could Russia stand by while children and people were being killed.

The reaction of the Russian Federation had been misunderstood by the West. The Georgian Government had carried out an act of genocide which had caused disruption in that area and in the world as a whole. He appealed for the matter to be approached with common sense.

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

Mr BÉTEILLE (France) said that the present situation had many similarities to the situation in that area pertaining prior to 1914. The principle of geographical national integrity was valued by many people and, as Georgia had signed up to the values of the Council of Europe, it needed to reflect upon them.

The reaction by the Russian Federation could not have surprised anybody. Moscow was nostalgic and still considered many former satellite states as its dominions and an important part of its sphere of influence. Following its military response, Russia now needed to be prepared to take the next step.

It was not possible for the Council of Europe to remain silent, and the rule of law in Europe needed to be upheld. Military intervention to further a political aim could not be tolerated.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Béteille. I call Mrs Goryacheva.

Mrs GORYACHEVA (Russian Federation) said that war was always a tragedy that was started by politicians and in which innocent people suffered. The Russian Federation had lost 64 peacekeepers as a result of the Georgian aggression.

Careful study of the report revealed that the truth had not been allowed to see the light of day. It was not made clear who the aggressor was, yet in paragraph 27 of the report, both the Russian Federation and Georgia were held to be responsible. This was equivalent to holding France and England responsible for the Second World War together with Hitler.

The war had been started by Georgia. This had been confirmed on television by a Georgian minister. It was the United States and Israel who had armed Georgia, as well as NATO. The Georgian military budget had grown by 30 times in a very short time.

Russia had been charged with using disproportionate force, yet for 15 years Russia had kept the peace in the region under the mandate of the United Nations and the OECD. She hoped that the region would return to peace.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Goryacheva. I call Mr Breen.

      Mr BREEN (Ireland). – We all recall seeing over the month of August the images of war that filled our television screens – two of our member states at war. I thought that something such as that would never again happen to us in the Council of Europe. I remind my colleagues from Russia and Georgia of their aims as members of the Council of Europe. Remember why you joined: to protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law. You have let us down, and this great Organisation.

      Over the last few days, I have listened to my colleagues who visited the conflict zone and heard of their experiences there – they were told of burning villages, looting, ethnic violence and huge damage to infrastructure and communications. There have been heart-breaking stories of displaced persons and refugees. Those people are the real victims of any conflict.

      I support my colleagues in the Group of the European People’s Party in seeking an international investigation carried out by experts. We need to know the real facts, the circumstances that led to the war and why the conflict could not be prevented. Why did both countries fight? Both countries did not do enough to prevent the conflict. Why was so much aggression used by Russia?

      Dialogue must be kept open. The two important words are “dialogue” and “trust”. I come from a small country, Ireland, where we had conflict for 30 years. Those two words bound us together at the end, and they eventually led to peace in Ireland. The same rules apply here. We must have dialogue. We must continue dialogue. We must achieve trust, because it is so important.

      We hope that the six-point EU plan will be respected and we know that on 15 October there is a meeting in Geneva involving Russia, Georgia, the EU and the OSCE. We in the Council of Europe must also act to ensure that there are no more infringements of human rights. I welcome the Secretary General saying this morning that there is a need for new procedures to monitor the situation. If that has to involve a new mission, it should happen.

      We must help the displaced persons. They need us. We must certainly work with the EU to build the infrastructure in the conflict zone.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Breen. I call Mrs Taktakishvili.

Mrs TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) said that it was vital to recognise the facts of the situation. Russia had recognised separatist territories and the Russian army was occupying Georgian territory. Russia was clearly seeking to overthrow the elected Government of Georgia. The Assembly was charged with looking at the consequences. It was not a question of choosing between Georgia and Russia but of condemning the changing of frontiers by military force and condemning ethnic cleansing.

Georgia respected common European values and wanted to act responsibly. It was the Georgian President who had asked for an international investigation and Georgia favoured any inquiry that would lead to the resolution of the unresolved questions. She condemned Russia’s actions, especially ethnic cleansing and its recognition of separatist territories. However, Georgia’s aim was not to exclude Russia from the Council of Europe but to make it a responsible and worthy member of the Council using the methods and basic principles of the founding fathers of European integration. Not to take such action would be to take a step back in our history and would justify Russia’s actions. It was necessary to use the inventory at the Assembly’s disposal to ensure that Russia respected the boundaries at the heart of Europe. The whole of Georgia, and indeed Europe, was waiting for an answer.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Taktakishvili. I call Mr Sudarenkov.

Mr SUDARENKOV (Russian Federation) said that he had heard three key words during the course of the morning’s discussions: investigation, avoidance/prevention and appeasement. In order to plan for a future investigation, it was necessary to have an in-depth understanding of the history of the area and to ask key questions. Why, for example, had there been such a large voluntary outflow of Ossetians from Georgia over the past 15 years? Why had there been a build-up of arms in that country? Who was supplying these arms and what was their purpose?

In order to address the second issue of avoidance/prevention, it was necessary to know what you were seeking to prevent, and ethnic minority issues were the key point there. Both the Ossetians and the Georgians needed to consider the issue of appeasement. There was no doubt that the rights of minorities in Georgia had been thwarted, and that it was necessary to expose those who had implemented, aided and abetted this action. Finally, questions needed to be asked about the role of NATO. He was not suggesting that people should be forced to recognise peace, but the opposite.

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

Mr FADZAEV (Russian Federation) said that he was the only Ossetian present in today’s meeting. He was interested to hear this conflict described as a war between Russia and Georgia, but said that one had only to look back at history to see that this was in fact a war between Georgia and Ossetia. He was surprised to hear members saying that it was not important who had started this conflict and asked them whether they would say that if they had witnessed aggression and the killing of innocent civilians, including women and children. If anything, Russia should have taken steps much sooner to protect Ossetia.

Some 70 000 Ossetians lived in South Ossetia. During the 1920s, an attack from the Georgian aggressor had led to the death of 20 000 Ossetians and, in 1991, 3 000 Ossetians had been killed. Too many people had lost their lives but many members of this audience did not even know where Ossetia was. Many had died as a result of the recent conflict and 300 people were currently missing. How many people had to die before Europe listened? He had attempted to talk about this issue in the Duma, but the Russians were cautious.

What would the civilians of both North and South Ossetia have thought had Russia not come to their aid when Georgian missiles were launched? He had heard lots of discussion in this room about democracy and challenged those present to really think what they meant by this.

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

      Mr BIBERAJ (Albania). – We are discussing a very important issue, which is related to security in Europe and the future of our continent. Two member states of the Council of Europe have been at war. Apart from the questions of who started it and of preparations made before 7 August, we have the fact that Russia has occupied a part of Georgian territory, breaking all international conventions. A lot of people were killed and injured on both sides, ethnic cleansing is happening, and many houses were destroyed. The situation is critical. As the Council of Europe, we must do our best to help to achieve peace in the region. Let me take this opportunity to thank the Secretary General and the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers for their visit when the conflict started, as well as the members of the ad hoc committee for its visit and report.

We have heard, today and previously, comparisons between the case of Kosovo and South Ossetia. I declare that there is nothing similar between Kosovo and South Ossetia. Kosovo became independent after nine years of negotiation and nine years of being under United Nations administration. As we know, Russia used its veto to block a change in the status of Kosovo in the Security Council, and, as we see, is now trying to use the Kosovo case as a justification for events in South Ossetia and the occupation of a part of Georgia. As we remember, NATO intervened in Kosovo after the genocide and ethnic cleansing committed by the Serbian army against Kosovars. That was an international intervention. Kosovo has so far been recognised by more than 46 countries, most of them EU and Council of Europe member states, while South Ossetia, which declared independence in 1991, has so far been recognised by only the Russian Duma and Nicaragua.

      Kosovo did not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box was opened in 1990 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Kosovo was the last stone in the dissolution of ex-Yugoslavia. I remember the resolutions that we passed here regarding the future status of Kosovo. It was clearly approved by us that the Kosovo case is unique and can never be used as a precedent.

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

Mr ZIUGANOV (Russian Federation) noted that the war which was being discussed was the fifth war to take place in the Caucasus during recent years, but the first war to have been started by Mr Saakashvili with the support of both NATO and the United States of America. This war was an unparalleled crime: over 500 civilians had been killed and 550 schools had been shelled.

      The key question was, who had helped Georgia? A number of United States army generals had accompanied the Georgian army while NATO unleashed forces against Russia. The European Union had just stood by. While Russia had been trying to force peace with Saakashvili, the United States had been encouraging him to lie. At the same time, 27 NATO ships had appeared in the Black Sea, apparently providing humanitarian aid to Georgia, but not South Ossetia where much of the suffering had taken place. It may have been that the United States was trying to drive a wedge between Europe and Russia. If this was the case, it would be the biggest crime of the 21st century.

      The Georgian population had decreased from 4.6 million to less than 2 million. Those still living in Georgia were Saakashvili’s hostages.

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

Mr BABAKOV (Russian Federation) said that this was an issue of principle. Russia had photographs and evidence to prove that Georgia had acted outside of international law. Both the armed forces and peacekeeping contingent were an aggression against Russia. He therefore found it strange that Russia was being accused of a disproportionate response. So many people had died, especially in the Spring Valley, so how could this be a disproportionate response?

      He wanted an investigation by an international commission in order to expose Georgia’s lies and treachery. There was documentation to prove that Georgia had participated in ethnic cleansing and that Ossetians had suffered at Georgia’s hands.

      Referenda were the most effective expression of the will of the people canvassed. Russia had responded to the expression of the will of the people in two referenda on independence in Ossetia. This was in accordance with the principles and guidelines of the United Nations. The Russian Federation would welcome an investigation.

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

      Mr LIPIŃSKI (Poland) said that voices could be heard asserting a false symmetry. They claimed that there were two equivalent parties. This was not a valid position. What had happened in Georgia in August in the view of international law constituted aggression. It was a breach of the territorial integrity of Georgia. This aggression was undeniable. Georgia had been invaded by Russia. There was no symmetry in this situation. Georgia was the victim and Russia was the invading state.

      It was a peculiar and unprecedented situation. Georgia had been accepted by the Council of Europe with internationally recognised borders. The credibility and reputation of the Council of Europe, its values, its principles, and the sovereignty of its states had all been trampled.

      There were two paths open to the Council of Europe. First, that the Council did nothing. This was the easy option. The Council of Europe would then be useless. Second, that the Council of Europe applied its procedures and rules calling for specific responses to exceptional circumstances. It was important to recall the Munich Agreement that had been signed on 13 September 1938 according to a similar false symmetry.

THE PRESIDENT. – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The debate will resume on Thursday morning.

I must inform the Assembly that the deadline for the tabling of amendments in the debate on the situation of national minorities in Vojvodina and of the Romanian ethnic minority in Serbia, Document 11528, is listed incorrectly in the English version of our agenda.

The deadline for tabling amendments to this debate is 3.30 p.m. today.

      I must remind you that the vote is in progress to elect a judge to the European Court of Human Rights. The poll will be suspended at 1 p.m. and resume this afternoon at 3 p.m.

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

4. Address by Mr Demetris Christofias, President of the Republic of Cyprus

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We now have the honour of hearing an address by Mr Demetris Christofias, President of the Republic of Cyprus. After his address, the President has kindly agreed to take questions from the floor.

Mr President, it is a great pleasure for me to welcome you in our midst.

Europe and the whole world are encouraged by the new beginning in the political process aimed at reunifying the island of Cyprus. It has been divided for too long. We know that this process is very much based on your personal commitment, which you expressed immediately after taking office last February, and on your constructive relations with Mr Talat, who will address this Assembly tomorrow.

The people of Cyprus – both from the south and from the north – would be the first beneficiary of the “dividends of peace” when the island of Cyprus is finally reunited. Yet reaching a just and viable settlement in Cyprus has a much broader international dimension. If you succeed, Cyprus will show an example of solving a frozen conflict. If you fail, it will send an extremely bad signal, with consequences difficult to overestimate. That is why we cannot fail: in the Assembly, we are ready to provide you any help and support that you may require in order to succeed in this endeavour.

Mr President, you have the floor.

      Mr CHRISTOFIAS (President of the Republic of Cyprus) (Translation). – I thank the President of the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr de Puig, for inviting me to address this august body, as well as for his kind introduction.

      It is indeed an honour for me to address the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for the first time since I was elected President of the Republic of Cyprus earlier this year.

      The institution of the Council of Europe, endowed with the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, and its accompanying protocols, is a unique achievement of which every European citizen may justifiably feel proud. Forty-seven European countries have jointly embraced a codified system of values, adopting and implementing procedures, such as the right of individual recourse, which are an important step forward for mankind in the field of safeguarding human rights.

      The competent authorities of the Council of Europe, particularly the Court of Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers, the Commissioner for Human Rights and, of course, the Parliamentary Assembly itself, execute an important mission in a particularly vital field, and I would like from this venue to congratulate them on succeeding in establishing the authority of their decisions throughout Europe.

      The Republic of Cyprus is firmly committed to the principles and values of the Council of Europe and the European Union. It fully appreciates the Council of Europe and recognises the unique role that it plays in accomplishing the noble mission that has been assigned to it. The Parliamentary Assembly constitutes the democratic means for promoting the basic principles of the Council of Europe and, as such, its contribution, through the efforts of its members, is greatly appreciated by the people of Cyprus in particular.

      We would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation for the active interest the Council of Europe has taken in safeguarding the human rights of Cypriots who have suffered as a result of the Turkish invasion and continuing occupation of a large part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus by over 40 000 well-armed Turkish troops

      We deeply appreciate the valuable contribution that the European Court of Human Rights has made to the protection of human rights and the basic freedoms of all Cypriots. Allow me, however, to add that the judgments of the Court must be fully respected and the Committee of Ministers must act so that they are effectively implemented.

      Tomorrow, on 1 October, we celebrate the anniversary of the creation of the independent Republic of Cyprus in 1960, the joint achievement of both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Despite the many difficulties that the Cyprus Republic has been through in its history, its reunification is our vision. A united Cyprus, a functional state with a federal structure where the human rights and freedoms of all Cypriots without exception will be respected, should be our common legacy to children and grandchildren.

      Unfortunately, foreign interventions and wrong choices made by certain circles in both communities on the island from the first few years of independence, prevented the development of this homeland for the benefit of all Cypriots. Instead of practical day-to-day co-operation within the framework of the institutions of the new state, which would have been the natural continuation of a long history of harmonious co-existence over centuries, the two communities found themselves opposed to each other, as a result of foreign intervention and the actions of certain chauvinist groups. Foreign interventions in Cyprus’s internal affairs reached a peak with the military coup of the Greek junta and the Turkish invasion in July-August 1974.

      Personally, I am someone who in the past has resisted and fought chauvinism. I am glad to say that in the noble struggle we waged as fighters of the Popular Movement of Cyprus, I fought alongside the present leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, Mehmet Ali Talat, from the beginning of the 1980s. This, more than anything else, gives me hope that we can succeed in finally reaching an agreed solution that will serve the interests of Cypriots and not those of any foreigners.

      I would like to reassure you that I remain committed to the common vision that we worked out together with Mr Talat and his predecessor, the late Ozker Ozgur - whose memory I salute - during the 1990s as leaders of AKEL and the Republican Turkish Party respectively. This vision was expressed in joint decisions and public statements of both communities after meetings between delegations led by the leaders. What does this vision entail? It entails a solution and reunification based on the relevant UN resolutions and the 1977 and 1979 high-level agreements between the leaders of the two communities under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General.

      Together, we envisaged the transformation of the unitary state to a federation through the implementation of the principle of political equality between the two communities, as defined in the UN Security Council resolutions. Together, we envisioned a Cyprus for Cypriots without the presence of foreign troops, without the mass presence of foreign nationals as settlers who would change the demographic composition of the population. We envisioned a federal, united and common homeland, where the differences and identity of each community would be respected.

At the same time, it would would also underline and cultivate the many common traditions and practices in our culture, which both Cypriot communities have developed over centuries of peaceful co-existence and co-operation.

We envisioned a Cyprus where any conflict between the communities will, in the context of a united economy, be replaced by a healthy copmetitiveness and an alignment of interests between the various classes of the population, irrespective of which community they come from.

      Mr President and members of the Assembly, I would like to declare before you my faith in the Cypriot identity that has evolved from centuries of living together and which we must foster and promote. I am a Greek Cypriot and proud of my roots and identity, but equally I fully respect Mr Talat’s right to be different and proud of his roots and his identity. As a politician, however, and as President of the Republic of Cyprus in particular, I have the good of the country as a whole at heart, thinking as a Cypriot who wants to serve all his countrymen and create the right conditions to ensure that an undivided Cyprus, one that is our common homeland, survives.

      All Cypriots have suffered, and we are all victims of the tragedy, or rather the tragedies, that have struck our country. We all need to benefit finally from a return to political normality and the restoration of our human rights, which we have been deprived of for so many decades.

      A new intense effort to solve the Cyprus problem began on 3 September, aimed at overcoming past deadlocks and achieving progress that will lead to the reunification of Cyprus under mutually agreed terms, and to the withdrawal of all foreign troops after 34 years of division and foreign occupation.

These talks are taking place under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General, in the framework of his Good Offices Mission that the UN Security Council gave him through the relevant resolutions. These also set out the legal and political framework in which these negotiations are taking place.

The UN Secretary-General’s Good Offices Mission entails a process of negotiation between the leaders of the two communities, this process being owned by Cypriots themselves. The role of the Secretary-General and the international community is to provide help and support. Good Offices do not mean arbitration. Nor do they mean mediation. Recent experience has shown that any imported plans that do not serve the interests of Cypriots will be rejected by the Cypriot people.

      The framework for a solution outlined by the relevant resolutions foresees a bi-zonal, bicommunal federation with a single international personality, a single indivisible sovereignty and a single citizenship. Federal institutions will embody the principle of political equality as laid out by the relevant UN resolutions. This political equality is defined not as numerical equality but as the effective participation of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities in all the organs of the federal state.

      It is important to remember that such a bi-zonal, bicommunal federation is the only agreed basis for a solution since 1977 and was recently reaffirmed by the leaders of the two communities. This represents a compromise, in actual fact the only possible compromise, on whose foundations a new political arrangement can be built. The relevant UN Security Council resolutions, as well as the Constitution of Cyprus, rule out partition or secession or unification with another country.

      Mr President, I wish to reassure you from this podium that I have the political will needed to do whatever is necessary to solve this problem. I am supported in this statement by my aforementioned actions during the Popular Movement in Cyprus, which is proud of its long history of struggle and sacrifice in support of the friendship, co-operation and peaceful co-existence between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Furthermore, I am also amongst those Cypriots who were directly affected by the 1974 military invasion since my family and I were displaced and became refugees in our own country.

      Allow me at this point and from this podium to make certain specific suggestions which, I believe, will improve the climate surrounding the negotiations and will increase their chances of succeeding.

I would like first of all to say that during my recent meeting with the UN Secretary-General in New York last week, I suggested that he promote an agreement to cancel the annual military exercises that are held each autumn in and around Cyprus. I refer specifically to the Nikiforos exercise, carried out by the Cyprus National Guard, and the Toros exercise, carried out by the Turkish military forces in Cyprus.

      In addition, I propose that measures of military de-escalation also be agreed upon and implemented, such as the disengagement of forces, particularly in the Nicosia region, including the full demilitarisation of the old town of Nicosia within the Venetian walls, the designation of a demilitarised zone, and other measures.

      We are fully aware that the procedure that has started will be difficult. This has been clear from the outset. On our part, we will work as hard as we possibly can and spare no effort to ensure that it has a successful outcome. We do not have the luxury to fail. No solution is not a solution, as some people claim. On the contrary, the lack of a solution, with the problem still pending, will probably lead to the permanent partition of the island, which is the worst possible outcome for both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. The people have voted for us on the basis of promises we have made to do everything possible to achieve progress. We must not disappoint them, or the international community.

      I believe that we can, and that must succeed. This is what guides all my political actions. This is the incentive that led me to seek election as President of the Republic of Cyprus and I hope and believe that it will constitute the pinnacle of my political career.

      The will of the Cypriot people for a solution is essential. However, it is not in itself sufficient. Turkey, too, must contribute to the process in a positive way. Turkey maintains over 40 000 troops and tens of thousands of colonists in Cyprus and can undoubtedly determine the outcome of the issues being discussed. We believe that the solution should and will benefit everyone. It will allow all Cypriots – Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots – to live and work together in an independent prosperous country within the family of the European Union, without the presence of foreign troops and illegal settlers, in conditions of safety and where everyone’s identity and rights will be respected. It will also give an impetus to Turkey’s efforts to join the European Union, of which Cyprus is already a full member.

      We expect that Turkey will rise to the occasion and fulfil its obligations to the Republic of Cyprus arising from its efforts to join the EU. In this way, Turkey will contribute positively to the efforts to find a solution that will respect the basic principles of international law, the principles and values of the European Union and of the European Convention on Human Rights.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Christofias for his most interesting address. Many of the issues touched upon were highly relevant to what was happening at present, especially the comments about Cyprus’s path to unification. These were ideas that went beyond speeches.

      A large number of colleagues wished to put questions to Mr Christofias, and speakers were reminded that questions needed to be interrogatory and could not be used to make statements. The first question was from Mr Pourgourides, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – My group has authorised me to express to you, Mr President, our great satisfaction with, and congratulations on, your genuine and tireless efforts for the reunification of Cyprus. In the meantime, my group feels that more could be done to assist the Turkish Cypriot community to raise their standard of living even higher and to integrate with the European Union and the international community generally. What is your position on that issue?

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Christofias?

Mr CHRISTOFIAS said that the Republic of Cyprus was making it possible for Turkish fellow citizens to import and export commodities. What he had just said amounted to an official statement.

(The speaker continued in English)

Every day, 7 000 Turkish Cypriots cross the frontier and work with Greek Cypriots. They receive salaries far higher than they would in the other part of the island. All Turkish Cypriot compatriots have the right, at any time, to visit the public health institutions in the republic to have free treatment. They can also have surgical treatment. Have measures already been implemented that make the lives of the Turkish Cypriots easier? I have to say to Mr Pourgourides that during the past four years the income of the Turkish Cypriots has doubled. Now, the per capita income of a Turkish Cypriot is $12 000.

      We are not, of course, fully satisfied with that. We want more for our Turkish Cypriot compatriots, but there is an obstacle. That obstacle is the occupation. Obstacles come from the fact that, unfortunately, the Turkish leadership insists on the existence of a second state in the great Republic of Cyprus. It is not possible for that to happen, according to UN Security Council Resolutions 541 and 550. There is no state in Cyprus except the legitimate state, the Republic of Cyprus, and there is one legitimate government.

      We need to do our utmost to reunify the country. We need the Republic of Cyprus to evolve into a commonwealth or federation to solve, finally and for ever, all those problems.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Iwiński, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland). – The Socialist Group observes with great sympathy the ongoing dialogue between two communities, Greek and Turkish, the return to negotiation and the increasing chances for reconciliation, as well as reunification of the Republic of Cyprus. However, many of us are concerned about different consequences of several recent international events such as Kosovo’s independence and conflict in the Caucasus. Therefore, can you assure us, Mr President, that such situations will not have a negative impact on the positive processes that are going on in Cyprus?

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Christofias?

      Mr CHRISTOFIAS. – I could turn that question back to the international community and to the Council of Europe. If we follow international legitimacy, the principles of international law, the principles and values of the European Union, and the principles and values of this Council of Europe, such a thing will never happen because the Republic of Cyprus is one. It must be united.

As I mentioned before, according to the treaties on the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus and to the constitution, secession, partition or unity with any other country are prohibited. We want to safeguard that, with Mr Talat, as a result of our agreement. Cyprus is very small to be divided, but it is large enough to contain the whole people of Cyprus – Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots, Maronites, Latins and Armenians.

That is our vision, and as I said before, we will do our utmost to safeguard the union of the country under a federal solution. We did not agree with the secession of Kosovo, and of course we do not agree with the secession of any other country. That is our principled position and we shall continue to follow it.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next question is from Baroness Knight of Collingtree, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Baroness KNIGHT OF COLLINGTREE (United Kingdom). – Regretting that four years have already passed with no improvements being achieved since the referendum, which could have led to an amicable settlement in Cyprus, how soon do you think that the efforts of which you have spoken today will bear fruit?

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Christofias?

      Mr CHRISTOFIAS. – I have already stressed that solutions that come from outside and impose the will of others on the Cypriot people will not be accepted. We are a small country with a small number of people, but we have our dignity. We want to live in peace and freedom without solutions being imposed from outside.

      I am in a hurry. That is why I asked to become President of the Republic. I am against stagnation. I am in a hurry to solve the problem, but, at the same time, to solve the problem we must return to our common language – the Cypriot language, the language of friends, the language of comrades if you like – with Mr Talat, with whom we define principles and progressive common positions towards a solution of the problem.

      A solution depends on the Cypriots, but it also depends on Turkey. In my opinion, the key to a solution does not lie in Nicosia. Nicosia must do its utmost to come together and achieve common and acceptable agreement, but without the assistance of Turkey and without Turkey taking positive positions it will not be possible to solve the problem soon.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Leyden, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr LEYDEN (Ireland). – I welcome you, Mr President, and commend you on your work for Cyprus and its reunification, and your work with Mr Talat. You must take great hope from the solution to the problems in Ireland, which we had for longer than Cyprus has had problems.

      Will you ensure the integrity of properties in northern Cyprus? Will you ensure that those who are buying properties will not get title to them, whether they are in northern Cyprus or are purchasers from the rest of Europe? Will you ensure that those properties are returned to their rightful owners?

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer the question, Mr Christofias?

Mr CHRISTOFIAS. – Thank you for that question. As we all know, the soul of the system in which we live is private property. When you tell the owners of private property that, according to the solution, they are prohibited from returning and using that property and that, because of the war and the invasion, it is no longer theirs, it is not possible for them to accept any solution. That is a matter of fact. Therefore, there is a principle, to be accepted by both communities and by Turkey, that the owners from 1964, when these clashes started, continue to be the real owners of the property. How we will overcome the difficulties on the ground is another matter, which we are going to negotiate.

However, there is another principle: to give the owners the free choice to return and use their property. He or she must have the right to do that. What if they say, “I do not want to return and I do not want to use my property any more; I want compensation”? Let us put this possibility on the table and give people the choice. Thirdly, what if the owners say, “I want to exchange my property with the property of Turkish Cypriots”? These are the choices, but a precondition is accepting the principle that the owners are the owners and giving them the choice.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Kox, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – Mr President, you are indeed a brave politician to announce in this Assembly that you do not have the luxury of failing in your mission to reunite your republic. Can you tell us what this Assembly and its members can do to support you in your mission to reunite your republic and what we should not do, in order not to hinder your attempts?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Christofias?

Mr CHRISTOFIAS. – The best way for this body to give me the possibility to breathe and to do my utmost to solve the problem is to continue following the principles of the Council of Europe, of the European Convention on Human Rights and, of course, the United Nations and international law. Otherwise, if for the sake of any interests or avoiding any contradictions, we upgrade the second entity, directly or indirectly, it will be a catastrophe. Of course, I stress my position that I, as a person who wants fanatically the reunification of the country, will never accept that upgrading or the existence of a second state in Cyprus. That is my position, so I request that you follow those principles. That is the best way to help me and Mr Talat. It must be understood that these are the principles, that this is international law, and that these are the values of a united Europe and the Council of Europe. We have to respect that – both of us – in order to have a stable framework for the solution of the problem.

THE PRESIDENT. – The next question is from Mr Çavuşoğlu.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – Mr Christofias, do you also assume that this Assembly is an outsider, just as you called the United Nations outsiders? Secondly, the international contacts of Turkish Cypriots in sport are highly criticised and opposed by the Greek Cypriot public. In this atmosphere, what is your government doing to prepare the Greek Cypriot public to accept a political settlement on the island? Without an awareness-raising campaign, will it not be possible for the Greek Cypriot public to reject an agreement in a referendum, as they did in 2004?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Christofias?

Mr CHRISTOFIAS. – My friend, I think that the Turkish Cypriots have the possibility to promote cultural and sporting activities. The Turkish Cypriot football federation has already agreed with the Cypriot football federation to act under its umbrella, in the national federation. FIFA, too, has agreed. However, there are obstacles. What are the obstacles? It is not possible, because somebody has not given Turkish Cypriots the opportunity to move forward in that direction.

On the other hand – this is the substance of your question – since the very beginning of my term, I have spoken frankly to both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots about having a common state. The Republic of Cyprus will not be a Turkish state and it will not be a Greek state; it will be the state of the Cypriots – the federal united Republic of Cyprus, in which Cypriots will share power together. This was courageous from my side and some criticised me in the Greek Cypriot community.

I made another statement, which received criticism from other forces. I said that I was ready to accept a rotating presidency with the Turkish Cypriots. This does not mean five years for the Greek Cypriots and five years for the Turkish Cypriots, because there is no numerical equality, as I said. We must take into account the fact that political equality does not mean numerical equality, but with the effective participation of both communities, we could come to an agreement on that proposal.

Some people told me that I was moving in a hurry. I said something else – I am not going to mention it now – which was a good offer to the Turkish Cypriots, as well as to Turkey. What is the response? I am waiting for it. These goodwill moves must be reciprocated by Turkey first of all.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Breen.

Mr BREEN (Ireland). – I respect your commitment to the problem that has divided your country for 30 years, Mr President. How have the five border crossings into northern Cyprus that were recently opened worked so far? Have you encouraged your people to go back and forth? Are there more strategic crossings that could be opened to help your people and are there any negotiations with Mr Talat to open more crossings?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Christofias?

Mr CHRISTOFIAS. – Thank you dear friend. It is a fact that, during the first meeting with Mr Talat on 21 March, only 15 or 20 days after my election, we decided to open the crossing point at Ledra Street, which is the heart of Nicosia. The market was there and I grew up there. I know how that street united Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot sectors in Nicosia. We decided to open the street. There were two other aspects to the agreement, including restoring some buildings in the area. I do not know why the Turkish side is not moving in that direction. There is stubbornness on that matter. The other aspect of the agreement relates to disengagement of troops from both sides, with a view to demilitarising the whole region of Nicosia.

We decided on the same day to open another crossing point in the north-west where people have been living since 1964 – both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. To go to Nicosia, it takes three hours but there is a possibility of cutting that to 50 minutes. If we open that crossing point, that will release and free those people.

I also had meetings with Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot villagers who pressed us to move forward. I am sad to say that there is stubbornness from the military forces. We must move forward. I asked those questions at the table. So far we have not been able to resolve those issues. There are other useful measures but up to now Turkey has disagreed or rejected the proposal. Security Council Resolution 550 of 1984 called on Turkey to open the ghost city of Famagusta for its inhabitants, but Turkey has not responded. The previous government of the republic suggested opening Famagusta for its inhabitants and, under the auspices of the EU, at the same time opening the port there for trade with Turkish Cypriots. That was rejected, too.

There are opportunities for confidence-building measures which will make life in both communities better by building more confidence between ordinary human beings. They have contact and home exchange visits. They come together as villagers, they reunify themselves and celebrate, but we need more. We need a solution that will solve all those problems.

THE PRESIDENT. – The next question is from Mr Branger.

Mr BRANGER (France) said that his commitment to women’s rights and to fighting all types of violence against women was well known. Many eastern European women had travelled to Cyprus seeking, or having been promised, work in creative industries, but on arrival had been forced to be prostitutes. The existence of visas for the performing arts, which were easier to obtain, was a loophole that needed to be addressed. The increase in the number of these “cabaret visas” and growing exploitation meant that more and more women were falling into the hands of pimps. While he knew that the Cypriot Government was against this, what specific steps were being taken to stop this practice?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Christofias?

Mr CHRISTOFIAS. – Thank you, dear friend, for that crucial question. As a political personality, I am a fighter for the human rights of all the people of Cyprus, including women, and I would like to move forward. During my presidency, the House has passed important and progressive legislation. That got a very good response from Europe. On the concrete problem, the Minister of the Interior stated 15 days ago that visas for so-called artists will be prohibited because we are against trafficking. We shall take extra measures to end that practice, which is unacceptable and insulting to women. I am keen that we take new measures.

THE PRESIDENT. – The next question is from Ms Keaveney.

Ms KEAVENEY (Ireland). – Like Ireland, Cyprus has known the divisiveness of conflict. What role, if any, does history teaching in your schools play in developing peace and understanding of all peoples in your country? How are the diverse views and interactions of different cultures represented in Cyprus supported in practical and policy terms? I wish you well in your peace process.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Christofias?

Mr CHRISTOFIAS. – If you will allow me to clarify, I say “all citizens” of the Republic, or “all communities” of the Republic instead of “peoples”. That is crucial. Some people say that there are two peoples in Cyprus. That is not the case. There is only one united people, a unique people, consisting of two communities: the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. This year, the government committed itself to implementing education reform. We have started that process. That reform includes measures on the teaching of conciliation between the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots. Of course, that does not mean that we are going to keep silent about the external interference and the occupation. We appeal for this year to be a year of conciliation in education. Step by step, we are going to change the history books in our country’s education system in order to teach young people, in an objective way of course, to avoid any hatred towards the Cypriots. We do not hate the Turkish people – the people are always innocent. Only leaderships are guilty, in many cases anyway. We must take concrete measures towards what you asked.

THE PRESIDENT. – The next question is from Mr O’Hara.

Mr O’HARA (United Kingdom). – I would like also to wish President Christofias well in his negotiations. His whole career and integrity have served him well for this culmination and, I hope, success. I simply ask him to reaffirm his commitment to joint action on the conservation of the monuments and treasures of old Famagusta, the restoration of Varosha and the return of the citizens of all communities of that great town to their homes.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Christofias?

Mr CHRISTOFIAS. – I feel that I have already responded to this. It would be a miracle and a very important step forward if the Turkish side – and I mean Turkey – were to respect UN Resolution 550 to give the inhabitants of Famagusta and Varosha the possibility of returning. We are fully ready, of course, to restore the old city of Famagusta where Turkish Cypriots are living. This place could become a place of common and peaceful living and peaceful exchanges – cultural, economic and other trade exchanges between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots. That is a target as well as a vision.

THE PRESIDENT. – The last question is from Mr Çağlar.

Mr ÇAĞLAR (Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community). – We hope and expect the two leaders to take co-religious steps towards reconciliation on the basis of the United Nations parameters and to reach a settlement by the end of 2008 or at the latest by the beginning of 2009. In your opening statement on the first day of fully-fledged negotiations, you stated that the Greek Cypriot side will not be making any further concessions due to the fact that it has already done so 30 years ago by accepting a federal solution. If the Greek Cypriot side considers a federal solution as a concession, does not that mean that the party that is in favour of a federal solution is in fact the Turkish Cypriot side? In that case, why are you trying to portray the Turkish Cypriot side as a party that is seeking recognition?

Mr CHRISTOFIAS. – I thank you, dear compatriot, for that question. We have to be realistic and we have to speak the truth. The Cypriot state established in 1960 is a unitary state with partners, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Why a unitary state? Because for centuries the natural conditions in Cyprus were that the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots lived mixed all over the island, so there is a lack of criteria for federation. The Turkish Cypriots were removed only after the invasion and occupation – the expulsion of people using military force, violating international law and the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus. One third of the population are Turkish Cypriots. They were removed to the northern part. Perhaps my friend is from Paphos or from Limassol – the southern part. Only President Makarios – a very well known, famous politician – had the courage and was popular enough to take such a decision and to say, “Okay, if the Turkish Cypriots are going to feel more secure staying in the northern part of Cyprus, I am going to evaluate the evolution of the unitary state in relation to a common federal state.” So we accepted that this is a commitment on the Greek Cypriot side, and of course it is a historical concession.

I did not say, and I do not say, that there is no space for give and take, but I am not going to give and take on principles. This is my commitment: no give and take on principles but there are such possibilities on secondary things. That is my position. When the Turkish side mentions guarantees on security, that is a red line matter for us. The Turkish side has red lines; the Greek side must have which lines – blue lines? We both have to be reasonable. Turkey must understand that she has to follow principles – to take away military force and to allow for the possibility that Cypriots can live together in peace and security according to their own decisions. There will never be a second state in Cyprus. We must solve the problem and have a united federal republic of Cyprus within which we share the power and the fruits of the development of our own country.

Cyprus is blessed by God and by nature. It could become a paradise on earth. Only human beings stand in the way of the possibility of achieving this goal. Let us together – Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots – create a paradise on earth in order to welcome our friends and to give them the ability, as tourists, to have vacations on this beautiful island – the island of Venus. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Christofias, for your statement, for answering questions, and for the content of those answers. Your speech encourages us to be on your side, in terms of your decision and political will to reunify the islands. Perhaps someday we can go to your country to celebrate the reunification. Thank you very much.

      (The speaker continued in French)

      (Translation). – I remind the Assembly that the poll to elect a judge to the European Court of Human Rights was suspended at 1 p.m. and will be resumed at 3 p.m. At 5 p.m., I shall announce the closing of the poll.

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

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the orders of the day that were approved yesterday.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.10 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights

2. Membership of committees

3. Consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia

Speakers

Mr Van den Brande (Belgium)

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Mr Wilshire (United Kingdom)

Mr Eörsi (Hungary)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr Lindblad (Sweden)

Mr Pangalos (Greece)

Mrs Jonker (Netherlands)

Mr Islami (Albania)

Mr Davis (Secretary General of the Council of Europe)

Mr Hammarberg (Commissioner for Human Rights)

Mr Gabashvili (Georgia)

Mr Kosachev (Russian Federation)

Mr Slutsky (Russian Federation)

Mrs Ukkola (Finland)

Mr Badré (France)

Mrs Hurskainen (Finland)

Mr Ostrovsky (Russian Federation)

Mr Béteille (France)

Mrs Goryacheva (Russian Federation)

Mr Breen (Ireland)

Mrs Taktakishvili (Georgia)

Mr Sudarenkov (Russian Federation)

Mr Fadzaev (Russian Federation)

Mr Biberaj (Albania)

Mr Ziuganov (Russian Federation)

Mr Babakov (Russian Federation)

Mr Lipiński (Poland)

4. Address by Mr Demetris Christofias, President of the Republic of Cyprus

Questions:

Mr Pourgourides (Cyprus)

Mr Iwiński (Poland)

Baroness Knight of Collingtree (United Kingdom)

Mr Leyden (Ireland)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr Çavaşoğlu (Turkey)

Mr Breen (Ireland)

Mr Branger (France)

Ms Keaveney (Ireland)

Mr O’Hara (United Kingdom)

Mr Çağlar (Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community)

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