2009 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Twenty-ninth sitting

Tuesday 29 September 2009 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

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

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

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

Mr de Puig, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.

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

1. Election of Secretary General of the Council of Europe

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – In accordance with our agenda, we now come to the vote for the election of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The list of candidates and biographical notices are to be found in Doc. 11957. Two candidates have been presented by the Committee of Ministers, Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz of Poland and Thorbjørn Jagland of Norway. The election will be held in the area behind the President’s Chair.

At 1.00 p.m. the poll will be closed. As usual, counting will then take place under the supervision of two tellers, whom we must now proceed to choose by lot. I shall now draw by lot the names of the two tellers who will supervise the counting of the votes. The names of Mrs Durrieu and Mrs Bergamini have been drawn. They should go the area behind the President’s Chair just before 1.00 p.m. I expect to announce the results of the election here in the Assembly Chamber at the beginning of this afternoon’s sitting.

I now declare the ballot open.

2. Change in the membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Our next business is to consider the change proposed in the membership of committees. This is set out in Document Commissions (2009) 7, Addendum 2. Is the proposed change in the membership of the Assembly’s Political Affairs Committee agreed to?

      It is agreed to.

3. Environmental messages

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I would like to inform colleagues that throughout the week there will be displays on screens outside the Chamber transmitting the environmental debates taking place this week. They will also show a video message from former US Vice-President Al Gore on the 60th anniversary of the Council of Europe and the pressing issue of climate change, as well as excerpts from the new climate change film, “Age of Stupid”. Please do try to take the time to watch them.

You will also receive a pack which will include a copy of the DVD, presentation notes and a press release, which you may wish to use in your area to raise awareness of the forthcoming Copenhagen summit to be held by the UN in December. The launch of the film “Age of Stupid” has been organised to coincide with the climate change debates taking place this week, and to mark the 60th anniversary of the Council of Europe. The film will be shown at 2.00 p.m. today and tomorrow in the projection room, and you have already been invited to see it.

4. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Today we have a large number of delegates wishing to speak and a great many amendments tabled. I propose that in the debates on “The war between Georgia and Russia: one year after” and on “Cultural education: the promotion of cultural knowledge, creativity and intercultural understanding through education” we limit the time for each speaker to three minutes.

      We will have to interrupt the list of speakers in the debate this morning at 1 p.m. in order to allow time this afternoon for replies to the debate and for votes on the amendments to the draft resolution.

      Are these arrangements agreed?

      They are agreed.

5. Communication from the Committee of Ministers

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We now come to the communication from Mr Samuel Žbogar, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Slovenia and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers. After we have heard from Mr Žbogar there will be an opportunity for members to ask questions.

(The speaker continued in English)

Dear Chairman, it is a real pleasure for me to welcome you to this Chamber again. Your chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers has been a memorable one, I think, both for you and for us in this Assembly. It started with an atmosphere of tension between the two statutory bodies over the election of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, and I remember the hard time that we gave you in Ljubljana, where we discussed the objections of this Assembly to the procedure followed by the Committee of Ministers, but I also remember the determination and the political will that you have shown since the beginning, when you vowed to do your best to solve the problem.

Since then, Mr Chairman, we have travelled a long way together and what an exciting journey it has been. There were five meetings between our Presidential Committee and the Bureau of the Committee of Ministers and many other occasions on which we were discussing together and looking for a way forward. Although we were not able to change the Committee of Ministers’ mind about the current election procedure, we managed to achieve many positive changes and, as you know, the Assembly yesterday adopted the joint proposals for enhanced co-operation with the Committee of Ministers.

      Mr Chairman, I wish to praise your courage and your political far-sightedness. As I said in my opening speech yesterday, you have been a wonderful example of the personal involvement that we expect from all the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if we want this Organisation to fulfil its important mission. Thank you very much for that.

You have the floor.

      Mr ŽBOGAR (Minister of Foreign Affairs of Slovenia and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers). – Dear parliamentarians, I am honoured to address you again in my capacity as the chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Together with the other members of the Bureau of the Committee of Ministers, I have had very intense contacts with your Presidential Committee since we last met at your June session. Over those five months, we have produced a lot of memories. As you said, Mr President, we had a tough start back in Ljubljana in May. During the five meetings, we went on an interesting journey. I can now say that you have a great friend in the Committee of Ministers now that I am the chairman, and that will continue after I leave this post. The whole experience proved how much we need dialogue and communication to solve many different problems, including this one. That has proved to be a recipe for a result. I am very proud of that and I am grateful to the Presidential Committee of the Council of Europe for its work with me and the Committee of Ministers on the important document that you have in front of you on future co-operation between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly. I am very pleased that as a result of our meetings an agreement has been reached on a proposed package of measures to enhance dialogue and co-operation between the two statutory organs of the Council of Europe. I understand that the Parliamentary Assembly approved that package yesterday and I am happy and proud to report that the Committee of Ministers also approved it last week.

The agreement covers a series of measures, including the review of the future election procedures and immediate action for improving dialogue and co-operation in general. It also proposes to task the Secretary General with reporting not later than October 2010 on an array of other suggested measures for enhancing co-operation. As I have said, I have the great pleasure to inform you that the Committee of Ministers examined these proposals on 23 September and expressed its support for them.

The Chairman-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers, who will soon be my Swiss colleague, and the President of the Assembly will continue to meet regularly to monitor progress in this regard. The standard that we set in our past meetings – my Swiss colleague participated in quite a few of them – has set the tone for future co-operation between the two organs.

As I am speaking you are electing the next Secretary General of our Organisation. I have no doubt that either of the two candidates would do an excellent job for the Council of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. Both candidates are able to take up their duties on 1 October and it is therefore our intention to organise a meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies on Thursday afternoon in order that the newly elected Secretary General can be sworn in before the celebration of the 60th anniversary that same evening. I am very happy that we will have a Secretary General in place – it is much needed in these times.

Mr President, I take it that you have all received the written communication of the Slovenian chair, providing you with details on the progress of the Committee’s work over recent months. I will highlight a few points that are of particular importance to us. Last time we met, I emphasised that Slovenia attaches great importance to the developments in south-east Europe. Our chairmanship aims to include south-east Europe in all Council of Europe activities.

The Committee of Ministers recently reviewed the progress made by Bosnia and Herzegovina in the fulfilment of its commitments and obligations to the Council of Europe. It is concerned about the deteriorating political climate in the country and condemned the repeated attempts to challenge the Dayton Agreement, which undermine the functioning of the state institutions. The Committee underlined the importance of bringing the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in line with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Some progress was noted, such as the ratification of the revised European Social Charter and the completion of the appointment procedure of the state ombudsmen. Unfortunately, however, the Committee was again obliged to reiterate its serious concern regarding the increasingly entrenched segregation in the education system. It urged the authorities to take measures to safeguard the multi-ethnic character of the education system. The authorities were also urged to continue full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, including facilitating the arrest and the handing over of all remaining indictees to the tribunal.

I should stress that in parallel to this monitoring procedure, the Ministers’ Deputies approved a co-operation programming document setting out the future lines of the assistance to be provided to Bosnia and Herzegovina. This programme covers the period from 2009 to 2011. The Slovenian chairmanship fully supports Bosnia and Herzegovina in its integration into the European institutions and strongly hopes that, thanks to this support, it will rapidly make further progress in the honouring of its commitments.

Still in south-east Europe, a similar review of the progress made by Montenegro in the fulfilment of its commitments and obligations to the Council of Europe was made in September 2009. At the close of this review, the Ministers’ Deputies welcomed the considerable progress made. They called on the Government and Parliament of Montenegro promptly to ratify those Council of Europe conventions, which were due to be ratified within one or two years after accession, as well as to continue the efforts undertaken, in particular regarding the reform of the justice system, the fight against corruption, as well as the adoption of a number of laws and of measures in favour of the people displaced by the wars in the former Yugoslavia and currently residing in Montenegro.

In a statement on the early parliamentary elections held in Moldova on 29 July, I welcomed the preliminary assessment of the international election observation mission stating that the elections met many international standards and were run professionally and efficiently overall.

      The remaining challenges, such as the lack of trust among the country’s political parties and voters, the accuracy of voters’ lists, the unbalanced media coverage and the lack of clearly defined complaints and appeals procedures, must be overcome in the future.

The implementation of the emergency pre-electoral assistance plan decided by the Committee of Ministers in June has recently been reviewed. The conclusion was that further assistance should be provided for monitoring the updating of electoral rolls and the coverage of election campaigns by the media. Beyond those two specific questions, assistance should continue to be provided by our Organisation to consolidate democratic institutions in Moldova. Proposals to that effect will be submitted to the Committee of Ministers in due course.

The consequences of the conflict of August 2008 in Georgia remain a standing item on the agenda of the meetings of the Ministers’ Deputies. At the beginning of July, the Secretary General submitted a second quarterly report to the Deputies on the human rights situation in the areas affected by the conflict, as well as an updated report on the activities for the promotion of Council of Europe values and standards after the conflict.

The exchange of views which the Ministers’ Deputies had on 9 September with Mrs Corien Jonker, Chairperson of your Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, was a most useful opportunity to exchange views on the critical question of the protection of the fundamental rights of all the individuals who have been affected by the conflict. It confirmed once more the importance of ensuring unhindered access to all those in need of protection and assistance, and I would like to reiterate here the appeal to all the parties concerned to facilitate such access.

The exchange of views with Mrs Jonker was also a good example of a mutually beneficial enhanced dialogue between your Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. We will continue to follow the situation in Georgia closely. I recall that the Committee of Ministers has agreed to review the action taken by the Council of Europe at the handover meeting of the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers on 18 November 2008.

Turning now to the Russian Federation, I have noted that you will have a current affairs debate this week on the situation of human rights defenders and the increasing violence in the North Caucasus region. You will also be examining a motion for the reconsideration of the credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation. I will be following your debates on these issues with particular attention.

This summer, I strongly condemned the assassination of Natalia Estemirova, a prominent human rights activist of the non-governmental organisation Memorial, and of two humanitarian workers, Zarema Sadulayeva, and her husband, Alik Djibralov. I called upon the Russian authorities promptly to investigate these murders and I hope that the assassins and their backers will soon be identified and brought to justice. Human rights defenders play an essential role at national level in ensuring effective protection of individual rights and freedoms, and member states have an obligation to protect them. I remain seriously concerned about the increasing number of acts of violence in the North Caucasus.

In July, the Ministers’ Deputies approved a series of new activities of the Council of Europe towards Belarus. These include different information projects through the newly established information point in Minsk, as well as activities for the strengthening of civil society in Belarus. The Council of Europe will also continue to monitor whether access to the information point is freely granted.

Unfortunately, a 30-year-old man was sentenced to death only a few days after the Parliamentary Assembly voted in favour of restoring the Special Guest status to the Parliament of Belarus on condition that Belarus declared a moratorium on the execution of the death penalty. That is very regrettable. I expressed deep concern and reiterated my strong and urgent call on the Belarusian authorities to take all necessary steps to put an end to the death penalty. I strongly hope that such steps will be taken rapidly. Together with the Assembly, the Committee of Ministers will continue to fight for the abolition of the death penalty.

I am convinced that Belarus still needs our help and that is why I am in favour of the realisation of the informal consultations which might bring Belarus closer to accession to some of the conventions of the Council of Europe. I am also in favour of holding a round table discussion in Minsk on the abolition of the death penalty, which was already anticipated by the Ministers’ Deputies and included in the programme of future activities of the Council of Europe in Belarus.

As you are aware, Slovenia gives very high priority to the situation of the European Court of Human Rights. Significant progress towards increasing the effectiveness of the Court was made at the May ministerial session. The Slovenian chairmanship has endeavoured to promote further signatures and ratifications of Protocol No. 14 bis to the European Convention on Human Rights as well as further declarations to accept the provisional application of the procedural elements extracted from Protocol No. 14 in accordance with the Madrid Agreement.

I welcome the fact that Protocol No. 14 bis will enter into force this week, on 1 October. It has now been ratified by seven member states. In addition, nine member states have accepted the provisional application of the procedural provisions of Protocol No. 14 in accordance with the Madrid Agreement. I would like to take this occasion to stress once more that we count on your support to raise the issue of your countries’ plans in this respect in your national parliaments. I should also stress that Slovenia, like the vast majority of member states, would have preferred to see Protocol No. 14 enter into force and still has that goal. I understand that things might be moving in the right direction.

Before I conclude, a few words with respect to co-operation between the Council of Europe and other organisations. Regarding the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, a high-level “2+2” meeting involving the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE and the Secretary Generals of the two organisations will be held at the end of October to review issues of common interest at the political level.

Concerning relations with the European Union, the next quadripartite meeting between the Council of Europe and the European Union will also be held in Luxembourg at the end of October. The “Stockholm programme” concerning the future of EU action in the areas of freedom, security and justice and the new Eastern Partnership initiative of the Union are likely to be on the agenda of that meeting.

The European Day against the Death Penalty on 10 October will be an occasion for the Council of Europe and the European Union to demonstrate their determination to work hand in hand against this inhuman penalty.

On the co-operation with the UN, Slovenia, as Chair of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, and the Spanish authorities have agreed to co-sponsor the launching event of the Joint Council of Europe/United Nations study on trafficking in organs, tissues and cells and trafficking in human beings for the purpose of the removal of organs that will take place on 13 October 2009 in the context of the 64th session of the United Nations General Assembly.

I am convinced that the renewed dialogue we have started between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly will continue under future chairmanships of the Committee. I believe that it is of great importance that the two statutory bodies of our Organisation stand united in the fight for its values and principles. I know that you share this opinion. Your continuing support is crucial.

The Slovenian Prime Minister addressed you at your last session and later this week the President of Slovenia, Danilo Türk, will be with you for the celebration of the 60th anniversary. My country is seriously committed to the Council of Europe and will continue to be so, even after its chairmanship is over. Now, I am looking forward to your questions.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Žbogar, for your interesting statement. We will now proceed to questions.

One written question has been tabled. In keeping with our current practice, it has received a written answer which is annexed to the question and published in Doc. 12029.

Mr Žbogar will now take spontaneous questions from the floor. Fourteen members have indicated that they wish to ask questions. I remind members that we must interrupt the questioning at 11 a.m.

I remind members that questions must be limited to 30 seconds and no more. Colleagues should ask questions and not make speeches.

I call Mr Gross, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – I support the thanks of the President to you, Mr Žbogar. You made a difference in relations because you, as a politician, understood the politicians in the parliament. How will you motivate people in the future? In your experience, do ministers have to engage with parliamentarians more? If they understand each other better, they can make a difference for the Council of Europe.

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

Mr ŽBOGAR. – Thank you. The ministers have learned too. They were not looking forward to the situation in May and June, when the Parliamentary Assembly did not vote, so the whole experience was a lesson for them. The lesson that I and the Committee of Ministers draw from it is that there is a need for better understanding and dialogue between us and the Parliamentary Assembly.

      In the next few months, we will make sure that there is more communication and interaction. At the few meetings that we had, the future chairman, the Foreign Minister of Switzerland, was present too. She committed herself to continue the level of co-operation that I have put in over the past few months. That will set a good example for all chairmanships of the Committee of Ministers. We all realise the importance of this type of dialogue, which was obviously missing or not so concentrated in the past. We will take the lesson from that.

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

      Mr KOX (Netherlands). – Minister, I compliment you on having successfully reached an agreement on the future co-operation between the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. What also urgently needs to improve are relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union. You state in your written communication that access of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights is essential. When do you expect that negotiations on the access of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights can start? Do you have any idea when they will end? Do we have some timetable already proposed for the European Union?

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

      Mr ŽBOGAR. – As I mentioned, we have a quadripartite meeting between the EU and the Council of Europe at the end of October. I hope that it will be an opportunity to exchange views. It will be after the Lisbon Treaty enters into effect, I hope – we should not pre-judge that – and that meeting will also enable discussions on accession to the European Convention on Human Rights to continue. I cannot say more than that. As far as Slovenia is concerned, I can say that we would be in favour; I think there is readiness for that from the member states of the European Union. I hope that we can start immediately after the Lisbon Treaty and we will see when we will end, but it is probably not too far in the future.

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

Mr BETEILLE (France) noted that Mr Žbogar had mentioned Special Guest status for Belarus in the context of the recent sentencing to death of a young man in that country. What had been the reaction of the Belarus authorities to the intervention of the Committee of Ministers? Would there be a moratorium on the use of the death penalty in Belarus?

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

      Mr ŽBOGAR. – We must be careful when dealing with Belarus, as its people are very sensitive. I visited Minsk in June and I saw it up close. They suffered a lot during the Second World War – they lost the most people. They are sensitive about being pushed from outside, as every country probably is. However, I think that they have even more sense of being independent.

      The death penalty seems to have huge popular support in Belarus; it is an important and sensitive issue. The government seems ready to move into discussions about a moratorium – I think that the parliament formed a committee to start discussing that – so there are hints that the government might be willing to go a certain way, but it is careful because public opinion is very supportive of the death penalty.

      Belarus does not react positively to conditions being put to it from outside. We will have to strike a careful balance, from the Council of Europe as well as from the European Union, at the end of the year when the sanctions come up for discussion again. We have to balance very carefully how much we push Belarus and how much we engage it. That is why I, as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, saw the opportunity to engage with Belarus; I thought that was probably the way we should go. I see a way to engage it in certain conventions of the Council of Europe, so that it would accede to them slowly, one by one. In that way, Belarus could be integrated into the system of the Council of Europe. I hoped that it would be given observer status in the Parliamentary Assembly in June, even without conditions. That would be the way to get Belarus in and, through working with it, change it rather than conditioning it, because that does not necessarily get a result.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The next question is from Mrs Blondin.

Mrs BLONDIN (France) said that her question related to concerns expressed by Mr Žbogar in his speech, and in particular to the number of assassinations and attempted assassinations in the Caucasus. What had been the outcome of contacts between the Assembly and the authorities in Russia in re-establishing security and ending violations of human rights in that country?

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

Mr ŽBOGAR. – As I mentioned earlier, as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers I strongly condemned those murders and called upon the Russian authorities promptly to investigate them and bring the assassins and their instigators to justice.

      The issue was discussed by the Ministers’ Deputies in September. Some delegations strongly condemned the murders and urged the Russian Federation to take measures to protect journalists and human rights workers, in line with the declaration adopted to that effect by the Committee of Ministers in February 2008.

      In response, the Russian Federation gave the assurance that the authorities were doing their utmost to identify, arrest and prosecute the authors of the crimes. That is where we are.

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

      Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population had made an appeal for greater action on the part of governments to help deal with cross-border migration problems in southern Europe. He asked whether it was a priority for the Minister to promote greater co-operation in dealing with migration in the Committee of Ministers.

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

      Mr ŽBOGAR. – Lately in the Committee of Ministers, we have not discussed the issue of migration. However, I recall that the eighth Council of Europe Conference of Ministers Responsible for Migration Affairs took place in Kiev in September last year on the themes of economic migration, social cohesion and development towards an integrated approach. The conference, which was also attended by several member states, provided ministers with the opportunity to examine how the core values of the Council of Europe could be strengthened and the issue of co-operation between member states in respect of the themes of the conference.

      The Ministers’ Deputies have finished examining the final declaration adopted by the Ministers, together with a proposed action plan for future work in the field of migration, and have decided on an appropriate follow up. However, in the past month, I do not recall the Committee of Ministers taking any separate action on that.

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

      Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland). – For me, the leitmotif of your intervention was the opinion that we need better co-operation between the different organs of the Council of Europe. With reference to the question asked by Mr Gross, I will ask you more bluntly, what lessons should be learned from the previous crisis between the Committee of Ministers and our Assembly to improve the image of the Council of Europe? The crisis turned out to be detrimental to our Organisation. We should use our 60th anniversary to make a positive breakthrough for the future.

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

      Mr ŽBOGAR. – The lesson is very clear: united we are stronger. The lesson is that we must talk more and that there should be more communication between ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly. The Committee of Ministers should not rely solely on the Ministers’ Deputies here in Strasbourg; there should also be direct communication between parliament and ministers. That is the main message that we received.

The paper itself deals with some of those issues. It also says a lot about future ministers establishing direct communication with the President of the Assembly and with the Presidential Committee on the issues between the two.

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

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania). – My question relates to the sea border dispute between Slovenia and Croatia. We have had news that the dispute is solved. Will you say in detail what the solution is? Is there a special agreement or a new border? What have your two countries agreed? Let us imagine that one day the European Union will disappear. Would there be renewed conflict or would your solution with Croatia last for ever?

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

      Mr ŽBOGAR. – I can speak and answer as a Slovenia minister, not as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This is not an issue for the Council of Europe.

      Yesterday, we had a marathon sitting of parliament in Ljubljana, which ended at 2 o’clock in the morning. We were discussing this agreement. However, I shall be brief. There is an agreement between Slovenia and Croatia on two separate yet linked issues. One is Croatia’s negotiations with the European Union. They should continue and will do so this Friday. An inter-governmental conference will be convened in Brussels. Croatia will open and close 11 chapters and continue negotiations.

      At the same time, we are negotiating an arbitration tribunal agreement, which will put the border dispute – it involves not just the sea border, but the land and sea borders – in the hands of arbitrators. Those negotiations will run in parallel with Croatia’s negotiations with the EU. Also on Friday, we will convene a meeting to finalise the agreement and to work on the final details.

That is the arrangement that we made. There is understanding between the two sides that the border issue will be solved before Croatia enters the EU. I think both sides agree and our parliament approved it last night. We will have the two meetings on Friday and I think everything will be fine.

THE PRESIDENT. – The next question is from Mr Díaz Tejera.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) thanked the President and said that lawyers worldwide appreciated the jurisprudence of the Council of Human Rights. The current debate over the ratification of Protocol No. 14 had, however, raised serious issues concerning the Council’s operation. He asked what tools the Minister had at his disposal to address these concerns.

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

      Mr ŽBOGAR. – First, in Madrid we adopted Protocol No. 14 bis and the provisional application of some elements of Protocol No. 14. This enables the countries that will sign up to those to work with the Court expeditiously until Protocol No. 14 comes into effect.

      We understand that there is a move within the Russian Federation that might enable it to ratify Protocol No. 14 soon. We are working on some of the details that have to be worked out, but there is hope and optimism that we can find a way to enable Russia to ratify Protocol No. 14. Then the whole of Protocol No. 14 will come into effect.

      At the same time, we are starting the discussion about further reform of the Court of Human Rights. That is the so-called Interlaken process. The future Swiss chairmanship is preparing a conference for February of next year in Interlaken on additional reform of the Court to make it more functional and to reduce the backlog.

      We have begun the preparations for that conference and I think we will hold a preparatory meeting in Slovenia. During our chairmanship we will try to be helpful to the future Swiss chairmanship in relation to those preparations. Then the Swiss will take the matter up. This is the major priority for their chairmanship.

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

      Mr MIGNON (France) thanked the President and said that the Council of Europe was active in a number of areas, to which it brought its skills and a measure of success. These areas included co-operation in the area of organ donation. Europe and the wider world were facing a serious challenge in the form of swine flu. He asked whether the Council of Europe intended to work with the World Health Organization to address this challenge.

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

      Mr ŽBOGAR. – We do not have a meeting planned at the moment. I have in front of me the guiding principles that were adopted by the heads of state at the 3rd Summit in Warsaw a few years ago, and they talk of combining human rights, social cohesion and the health agenda; harmonising member states’ health policies; developing preventative medicine and health education; and promoting patients’ rights. Those are broader aims rather than practical policies, and we have not been in touch with the WHO on this issue, but I can check with my colleagues whether there is something that we can do.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The next question is from Mrs Hajibayli.

      Mrs HAJIBAYLI (Azerbaijan). – My question is about the double standards in the Council of Europe. During this plenary session, the Assembly is discussing the credentials of the Russian delegation. Why is the Council of Europe so tolerant towards the Armenian delegation when that country has for more than 15 years occupied 20% of Azerbaijan’s territory? What are the differences between 1 million suffering Azerbaijani and the refugees and IDPs of other ethnicities and religions?

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

      Mr ŽBOGAR. – I do not think that we have double standards in the Council of Europe. We are monitoring Azerbaijan and Armenia – every member state is monitored the same. Of course, I know about the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh and I know that the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe is in charge of that problem. The Minsk Group is working with the parties and we hope that a solution will be found soon. I had recent discussions with the Azerbaijani Minister in New York, and I hope that the discussions that are being held will lead to a conclusion of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Everybody recognises the importance of the issue, but just because we are not talking about it at the moment does not mean that we have double standards. The problem of the people who were forced to leave Nagorno-Karabakh and the local elections is not something that the Council of Europe can address. Azerbaijan must work on that issue. As in any other case, the refugees and IDPs must return once the issue is settled, and I hope that all the people who had to leave Nagorno-Karabakh will return.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The next question is from Mrs Pashayeva.

      Mrs PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan). – I wish to continue my colleague’s question. Why has the Council of Europe tolerated for so long the severe violation of human rights by Armenia? Why has the Council of Europe not used its mechanisms to put pressure on Armenia to leave the occupied Azerbaijani territories and allow the IDPs to return to their homeland?

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

      Mr ŽBOGAR. – The human rights situation is being monitored by the Council of Europe. Armenia is under the monitoring regime. The problem with Nagorno-Karabakh is a political problem and has to be addressed politically by the two states, with the help of the OSCE and the Minsk Group as the mediator in an attempt to find a solution. I do not think that the Council of Europe has a role in finding a political solution, but it is fulfilling its role in monitoring the human rights situation in Armenia, as well as in Azerbaijan.

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

      Mr IVANOVSKI (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). – Mr Žbogar, you have been leading the Committee of Ministers for six months now and, as usual, there has been a lot of work done by the Court of Human Rights. The number of new appeals is rising, which is a bad sign for respect for human rights and the efficiency and even corruption of native courts. However, some of the Court’s decisions and verdicts have not been implemented, such as several decisions that oblige the Republic of Bulgaria to register the political party of the Macedonian minority. Will you discuss with the Committee of Ministers this disrespect for the principles of the Council of Europe and what can be done about the issue?

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

      Mr ŽBOGAR. – There is an ever-increasing volume of work for the European Court, and I have already mentioned the backlog. The Court is doing many things, including improving its own efforts to increase efficiency. I have mentioned the work on Protocol No. 14 bis, and the Swiss chairmanship is preparing for the important Interlaken conference next year. I hope that that will improve the volume of work that the Court can do. I do not think that the judgments of the Court have not been executed. They are usually executed, but many are executed far too slowly, even making allowances for the political complications involved. As regards the case of the United Macedonian Organisation, Ilinden-Pirin, and others against Bulgaria, I must emphasise that the Committee of Ministers has debated this case for many months, but it has not been brought to a conclusion. Documentation was prepared for the human rights meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, and everything that was debated was made public. That is as much as I can say about those discussions and the execution of the Court’s decision in that case.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Minister. The last question is from Mrs Postanjyan.

      Mrs POSTANJYAN (Armenia). – Minister, the Assembly has repeatedly mentioned that there is a need for a pluralistic media environment in Armenia. I should like to refer to the decision of the Court concerning the granting of a broadcasting licence to the television channel A1 Plus. Is the Committee of Ministers aware that the Republic of Armenia has not completely honoured the above-mentioned decision of the European Court of Human Rights? What actions will the Committee of Ministers take to resolve that issue?

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

      Mr ŽBOGAR. – The Committee of Ministers is aware of the issue. It has been discussed on the Human Rights Committee but no decision has yet been taken on it.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Minister. That brings to an end the questions to Mr Žbogar. I should like once again to thank you, as the current Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, for your statement and for being so kind as to reply to our questions. Most of all, thank you for your personal commitment to this Assembly. I think that it has helped to foster a new atmosphere of co-operation, and a way for our two major institutions in the Council of Europe – the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers – to work together.

      Colleagues, I must remind you that the vote is in progress to elect the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The poll will close at 1 p.m. Those who have not voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s Chair.

6. The war between Georgia and Russia: one year after

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The next item of business this morning is the debate on the report, “The war between Georgia and Russia: one year after”, Doc. 12010, presented by Mr Van den Brande and Mr Eörsi on behalf of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by member states of the Council of Europe, with an opinion presented by Mr Henderson on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population; I refer colleagues to Doc. 12039.

      The sitting will be suspended at 1 p.m. and I suggest that we close the list of speakers then. I see that there are no objections to that proposal. The Monitoring Committee has 13 minutes in total. The co-rapporteurs will divide that time between the presentation of that report and their reply to the debate. I call Mr Van den Brande, co-rapporteur.

      Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium). – Thank you, Mr President. Colleagues, we do not just have to follow up on the war between Georgia and Russia; it is our duty to assess – not just always to speak about sanctions, but in due course to appeal to all member states to comply with the rules and resolutions that we have voted for. In the draft resolution before us, we evidently reaffirm the resolutions that we have already adopted, in which, of course, the territorial integrity of Georgia is the predominant element. We also say that both countries have to implement what we are asking for, not just as they like, but immediately and urgently.

      To be clear, there has been only a little progress made on a few points by the Russian Federation. Overall, a lot of progress has been made by the Georgian state. We have to be fair but clear: we cannot wait indefinitely for compliance with our resolutions. I know that on the Russian side the reaction is to say, in every part-session, “Let us have a debate on what has happened.” Generally speaking – this is my personal approach – the best way to make real progress is to hold a dialogue and sit around the table. Sometimes, it is too easy just to challenge. We have to reflect on how to ensure dialogue so as to make progress.

      However, we cannot be easygoing. The parties cannot be free not to comply on the issues that we are discussing. I should like to raise several points, and I shall do so in a very sympathetic way. There is continuous tension, even escalation, at the moment; we must note that. There is, of course, some progress in the Geneva discussions, but it is unacceptable that there has been a closure of the borders, and no possibility whatever of observation missions. I appeal to our Russian colleagues and friends to allow free access to the whole area, at least for humanitarian reasons.

      On the humanitarian situation, I must pay tribute to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population and our colleagues involved with it. We ask in the resolution not only for openness but that the humanitarian situation is faced. There is a deep reluctance to investigate the violation of human rights. It is important to note that probably today, or at the latest tomorrow, we will receive the European Union’s inquiry report, which will highlight points to do with what happened on 8 August last year and even before then. We can never accept any ethnic cleansing. We can never accept a denial of part of our basic freedoms – the right to live, and the right to stay where we want. It is not possible to maintain a black hole in our member states where there is lawlessness and no real consolidation of the values that we have to share.

That is why in our resolution we do not put the status question in brackets. We know that there is divergence on the status approach by both countries, but we propose, at least, the affirmation of territorial integrity. Even when there is continuous discussion about the status question, the Russian Federation has to implement several measures that we call for. That is why we are not just appealing for something to be done; it must be done immediately and urgently, and we ask it to be a fair partner in our organisation of common values. That is why we strongly urge the Assembly to take up our proposals in the right way. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Van den Brande. I call Mr Eörsi.

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – Let me start with a strange statement. What is the report not about? In the committee debates, many members wanted to talk about how the war was started in August last year. The report is not about who started the war or about how it happened. Let me remind colleagues that our report on the beginning of the war concluded that the war did not start on 8 August last year. I am sure that we will come back to that, but we are discussing something totally different. We are discussing how we react to the situation a year or more after the war, after we have adopted so many resolutions on it.

Let me highlight the difference with an example. I am a Hungarian, and there is no doubt that in 1943 Hungary attacked the Soviet Union. That was wrong, but I hope that nobody in this Assembly would say that that legitimised the Soviet Union’s staying in my country for 50 years. That is the point. Let us discuss the current situation, and not what happened earlier. Russia signed a cease-fire agreement brokered by President Sarkozy in his capacity as President of the European Council. That cease-fire agreement has not yet been implemented by Russia. We made a number of resolutions about what should be done. Not only did Russia not implement all of them – it did not implement any of them. Russia has not implemented a single of our recommendations and that is a problem. In the committee meeting we had lots of exchanges of views on the importance of dialogue. Who would disagree that dialogue is important? However, what is the purpose of dialogue? It is that what we say is heard and commented on. In the context of what we are seeing now, much as we value dialogue, nothing has been heard and nothing has been done. People ask whether sanctions are a good thing. Of course, nobody likes sanctions, but we are discussing the consequences when a country does not implement any of the recommendations of the Council of Europe. Should there be consequences, or not? That is what is at stake in our discussions.

Colleagues might like to discuss whether the Russian Federation joined the Council of Europe or whether the Council of Europe joined the Russian Federation. We do everything that Russia wants us to, but Russia does not do anything that we want it to do. I hope this will be a good debate, that Russia will hear what the Parliamentary Assembly is saying and that, furthermore, it will implement the provisions that we want it to implement. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Henderson to present the opinion of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. You have four minutes – sorry, I mean three minutes.

Mr HENDERSON (United Kingdom). – I was told three minutes, Mr President, but I am happy to speak for four if you want.

Thank you for calling me, Mr President. I am deputising for Mrs Jonker, who has had to return to the Dutch Parliament today. I congratulate the two rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee on their report. It is all too easy – it happens too often – to forget the aftermath of wars and the resulting break-up of society. The Monitoring Committee should be congratulated on keeping the issue at the fore and in the public eye, making the various parties face up to the responsibilities that they have agreed to in the recent past. I thank the Monitoring Committee for that work.

Our committee wants exclusively to deal with the issue of humanitarian action. I do not think that humanitarian action can take place unless there is a stable political situation and a stable diplomatic situation. Those are pre-conditions for effective humanitarian action. There have been some minor positive developments. Some people have been able to return to their homes in the buffer zone, for instance. However, on many occasions, humanitarian issues have not been addressed. Our committee has identified a number of such humanitarian and human rights issues, which are all access dependent. When Mrs Jonker returned from the area, she said that we cannot address these issues unless we have access, access and access. That means that people know what is going on, that they can monitor what is happening and that they can address shortcomings where they arise.

A number of such shortcomings are identified in our document and relate to the crossing of administrative boundaries and the law on occupied territories in Georgia as regards the prospect of displaced persons returning in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There are still security fears because of the lack of monitoring in the area. Monitoring has not been possible because of the barrier to access posed by various authorities and quasi-authorities, who have failed to allow the OSCE and UNOMIG to undertake their responsibilities.

Some of the amendments that our committee has proposed – I hope that they are acceptable – are intended to address those issues and I look forward to continuing the debate.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Henderson. We will now proceed with the general debate. I remind members that today the Assembly agreed that speaking time in all debates today be limited to three minutes.

In the debate, I call next Mr Wilshire on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – There are two ways of looking at this report. One is to see it as a means of driving Russia out of the Council of Europe, and the other is to see it as an offer of an opportunity to help those who are still suffering and to help speed up progress with the implementation of our resolutions. I regret to have to say to the Assembly that I found the discussions this morning on the amendments tabled by all sorts of people deeply depressing. The committee rejected an amendment that suggested that we should try to help. The rapporteur’s reason for doing so was that if we offered to help that would somehow mean that we were to blame. That seems to me to be a very odd definition of “help”. The committee rejected an amendment that said that dialogue was better than sanctions. The reason given was that if we say that dialogue is better than sanction that means that we are against sanctions. I have never heard such nonsense. We do not rule out sanctions, but surely dialogue is the way to make progress. Both rapporteurs have said this morning that they are in favour of dialogue, yet they both voted against amendments that called for renewed dialogue. I do not understand it.

In the short time available may I perhaps try to make my point by giving a personal example? The events of last August virtually destroyed the European Democrat Group – it could have been the end of us. Why was it not? Because we all said that we did not want that to happen. What we did was to talk, talk, talk to each other. We all – I stress all – learned the lessons and, having learned those lessons, we all changed our views. I believe that the result is a stronger EDG than this Assembly has ever known. If a little group like ours, through talking, can stop itself collapsing, why cannot this Assembly?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Wilshire. I call Mr Michael AastrupJensen, on behalf of Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr M. A. JENSEN (Denmark). – This is not the first time that this Assembly has discussed this important issue. I am sorry about that because I believe that the conflict could have been solved a long time ago. I am referring to the complete failure of the Russian Government to honour the obligations and commitments that have been proposed by this Assembly to bring the conflict to an end.

The Russia-Georgian conflict affects us all. It has been going on for too long. Russia has not shown any signs of being willing to co-operate with the Council or to take the necessary steps to stop the conflict. The Russian Government has taken steps in the opposite direction. An example of that is the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. EU and OSCE monitors have not yet been allowed access to these areas by Russia. The EU-brokered cease-fire agreement is being totally ignored by the Russian Government. Those are just a few of many examples of the Russian Government’s total lack of respect for the international community and the Council of Europe.

I have said before and I will say again that we in this Assembly must not tolerate such aggressive behaviour from the Russian Government. Russia seems to believe that the conventions to which it has committed itself through its membership of the Council do not apply to Russia. However, like all other countries, Russia is obliged to honour the rules and principles on which the Council of Europe is based and to meet those obligations. However, Russia still disregards those obligations and resolutions.

Let us send a clear signal in the year that we celebrate our 60th anniversary that freedom and democracy are still core values of the Council. Let us send a clear signal in adopting this precisely worded report, when we are discussing Russia’s credentials. At one point we have to say enough is enough. Freedom and democracy are not for sale. We must do that, otherwise the Council has no place in respect of the freedom of Europe.

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

Mr LAAKSO (Finland). – I must be critical of the rapporteurs. My first question to them is: why did you not visit the area? You have written your report behind a desk. You have been there before in connection with the first report. So much is happening in the area. We are getting a picture of what is happening outside the area. According to my information, Georgia has nothing against another visit and nor does Russia. I am sure that the de facto authorities in South Ossetia and Abkhazia would have allowed you to visit the area. The presence of the Council of Europe in the area would be an important step.

The problem is that the Council of Europe is not present in the conflict at all. In the draft resolution we are going to agree opinions and statements. The problem is that there are opinions, statements and demands but not relating to us.

For a long time, I have been in favour of the Council of Europe being present in the region. There are ways in which we can be present. The Monitoring Committee is in favour of the Council of Europe having at least observer status at the Geneva talks. It could be involved in the working groups at the talks. Unfortunately, Georgia opposed that proposal in the Monitoring Committee. I am not sure what Russia’s position is on the proposal. If the Council of Europe were present at the talks, it would be a good start. However, it would not be enough.

The Council of Europe should be in the area. Mr Hammarberg has done excellent work, but our Parliamentary Assembly unfortunately is not in the area. That is why perhaps we should make a demand of ourselves. The Council should send observers to the area and start negotiations with Georgia, Russia and the de facto authorities in South Ossetia and Abkhazia on that proposal. Why are we demanding only that the European Union has such a role? Why are we not proposing that the Council of Europe has a presence in the area?

There is no dialogue between the parties and it is up to us to help the process of dialogue. I am sure that the Council of Europe is respected in the two countries and in the whole region, so we could play a role if we propose a role for ourselves.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Laakso. I call Mr Németh on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr NÉMETH (Hungary). – Politics is always a balance between values and pragmatism and that goes for international politics, especially in respect of Russia. This report is a good example of that balance, so congratulations to the rapporteurs.

I believe that we do not have any alternative but to call on Russia to withdraw its recognition of the two breakaway regions. We have no alternative but to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia. We expect the honouring of the EU-brokered cease-fire and the withdrawal of the military to the ex ante position. We condemn any form of violence. We must call on Russia to revise its security doctrine asserting the “sphere of influence” principle. In Europe in the 21st century, all countries have the right to decide on their international orientation and political system.

The Russia-Europe relationship is about interdependence. In the 21st century, we will be pushed even more into mutual dependence. There has been a humanitarian catastrophe, especially in the two breakaway regions and involving the Georgian minority. A new Berlin Wall has been erected on the periphery of Russia after 20 years. That is not desirable at all.

To ease the suffering of thousands of people, pragmatism is vital. That is our basic expectation. The freedom of movement for Georgian civilians across the administrative borders is a basic expectation, as is unrestricted access for EU monitors and humanitarian organisations to the breakaway regions and the right of IDPs to return to their properties.

What is the role of the Council of Europe and the international community? First, there must be consequences if members of the Council of Europe do not respect its resolutions. The credibility of the Council of Europe is at stake. Secondly, we must deal with the frozen conflicts. Such conflicts must be taken seriously. There are two key points: autonomy is a precondition of future territorial integrity, and we need to investigate the role of international impartial peacekeeping forces in such conflicts. Thank you for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Németh. I call Lord Tomlinson, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom). – In August 2008, there were undoubtedly provocative acts by President Saakashvili, which were undoubtedly encouraged by mixed signals from the United States of America and the Bush Administration, but no matter how great the provocation was and how complex the background issue, it is inescapable that the Russian response was totally disproportionate to the scale of the problem. Russia remains in less than full compliance with the cease-fire agreement that was brokered between President Sarkozy and President Medvedev. Russian recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia breaches the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity and hampers the efforts to deal with the humanitarian consequences of the war. Where Russia has acted in the past 12 months was in its use of its United Nations Security Council veto to force the closure of the United Nations observation mission in Georgia.

      Let the Russian authorities be in no doubt that their disproportionate response in August 2008 leaves them with more to do than anyone else to regularise the situation. Russia is not doing enough to do so. Its recalcitrance is unacceptable, and will lead neither to a diminution of the demands we make of it nor to a passive acceptance of the status quo by a process of attrition. Russia is seriously in breach of its obligations as a member of the international community and this Parliamentary Assembly.

      Against that background, however, I sound a cautionary note. Russia is also significantly affected by the financial crisis and the global economic downturn. As a Parliamentary Assembly, we need to avoid any risk of pushing Russia towards a policy of economic protectionism. I would rather that we, having stated our expectations of the Russians clearly, encouraged further integration into the global economy by continuing to support Russia’s membership of the World Trade Organization, and by continuing to support an EU-Russia peace and co-operation agreement dealing with important issues such as counter-proliferation, counter-terrorism and climate change. However, that can be based not on a continuation of the status quo but only on acceptance of the criticisms that we have cogently expressed with the Russians, seriously and urgently pursuing remedies to them. To isolate Russia further by our deeds, when it has isolated itself so far, is not the answer to the problem that we have been discussing for too long.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Before going to the list of speakers, another rapporteur has asked for the floor to reply to the statement by the group.

      Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – I feel committed to answering questions asked by Mr Laakso about not being in the area. If Mr Laakso could convince us that if we went there we would learn that Abkhazia and South Ossetia were not recognised by Russia, that EU monitors could freely travel to the break-away regions, or that IDPs were returning, we would be happy to go back there. We are here to discuss the implication of our resolutions. We are happy to go back to monitoring, but not to see whether the resolutions are implemented.

      Mr Wilshire asked why we disagreed with a motion about dialogue being more important than sanctions. Of course we agree with the concept but we do not want to see the resolution for a simple reason: if you put a resolution saying that you are in favour of dialogue and not sanctions, you can never introduce anything if dialogue is unsuccessful. By the way, we have been talking with the Russians for a year now without a single result. I think that the time has come for action, but perhaps you can convince me that you can do better with dialogue; at the moment, I think it is hopeless.

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

      Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation) said that he would focus on three main points. The first was what was happening in the area one year on. There was no longer a war in the region, and people there were no longer dying. There would not be a war in future because no leader would risk a military adventure like the one undertaken last year. The tragedy continued, however, and the region had been wounded. These wounds should not now be disturbed with a blunt political scalpel.

      The second was the report itself: it had two main deficiencies. It said much about the Russian Federation but very little about Georgia. Other states had tried to recover territory by military means but no mention had been made of this.

      The third issue, that of credentials, was an important one. Stripping down the Assembly’s demands to a bare minimum, it had called for Georgia to stop attacking Ossetians. Georgia had stopped its attacks but the Russian Federation thought it right to continue to defend civilians in the area. The initiative to strip Russia of its credentials was a cause for concern. The current border of Georgia had been determined as a result of a crime by Stalin, who had annexed territories against the will of their people. When the Assembly returned to this issue, it was to be feared that those who tried to support Georgia would find themselves constricted by the successors of Stalin.

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

      Mr TSISKARISHVILI (Georgia). – Thank you, Mr President. First, I would like to reflect on what Mr Wilshire had to say about dialogue. Nobody is against dialogue, not the rapporteurs, nor anyone in this Chamber including even the Georgian representation to the Assembly. In our resolutions, we have clearly defined the minimum conditions for a meaningful – I emphasise “meaningful” – dialogue to be resumed or even jump-started between the two sides. Therefore, the rapporteurs have only adhered to the spirit of the resolutions and honoured those resolutions that we have adopted.

      I would like to reply to Mr Kosachev in just a couple of words: Stalin might have been of Georgian descent but he was a Soviet leader, the legacy of which is carried on to the current Russia under Mr Putin.

      By the same token, although we have adopted two explicit resolutions offering a road map for improving the situation in my country, during the year since the Russian aggression the situation has not improved. In fact, it has deteriorated. There are many reasons why that is happening, but I can give the Assembly the most fundamental example: Russian officials have the audacity publicly to claim that they deem it unnecessary to comply with the demands and requirements of the resolutions that we have adopted in this Chamber.

      As a result, military bases are still being constructed, internally displaced persons are not allowed to return, international peacekeepers – or monitors, for that matter – are not granted access and local security is extremely fragile.

      Russia relentlessly pursues its objective to convince potential allies to recognise the independence of Georgia’s breakaway regions. So far, it has succeeded with Nicaragua, Venezuela and Hamas. While Václav Havel, Mr Landsbergis, Bernard Levy and others on behalf of the civilised world still insist on finishing the job of 1989, unfortunately some people still want to embrace and share the political vision of Hugo Chavez.

      Which way will this Assembly decide to go? That is the main question we are facing today. Are we ready to accept or reject the occupation of my country by its northern neighbour? The credibility of this Parliamentary Assembly will erode with time unless we begin to find ways to enforce our decisions within the Organisation. For instance, how will we impose the monitoring procedure on other countries when the most vivid example of non-compliance is being tolerated?

      Dear friends, the new resolution needs to be reinforced with specific actions in case Russia continues to defy its obligations, which are legitimate requirements based on delivering basic human rights, principles of international law and the values of democracy.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Gautier.

Mrs GAUTIER (France) said that a year ago the Assembly had almost unanimously condemned the outbreak of war between two of its member states. The purpose of the Organisation had always been to maintain peace. A year ago the Council had sought to mitigate the crisis in South Ossetia without ostracising either of the combatants. Responsibilities for the conflict were shared between the Russian Federation and Georgia, but the human rights problems arising from closed borders were very real. Legal arguments over the status of the territories were not an excuse for restricting access to those territories by human rights organisations or rapporteurs from the Assembly. A general policy debate would be held later in the week on the future of the Council. Given the series of problems faced in the Caucasus, any delay in taking steps against the Russian Federation would affect the credibility of the Council at a time when a clear statement was needed that member states could not neglect human rights and remain full members.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Durrieu.

Mrs DURRIEU (France) thanked the rapporteurs, and said that their report should be taken in the context of current political ambiguities. Seeking to attribute blame for the direct causes of the war was neither an adequate nor a useful response. However it was clear that the report had lacked the courage to hold the Russian Federation sufficiently to account. The political realities arising from the peace settlement of the previous year were that the Russian Federation had failed to implement any of the seven points which had been agreed with Georgia. Since last year’s Assembly resolution, the Russian Federation had occupied further territory and declared it independent. While the Russian Federation was entitled to have its own geo-political strategy, as was the European Union, its actions had been provocative and in breach of international law on sovereignty. Other countries in the region perceived clear threats from the Russian Federation as a result. There were 10 000 Russian soldiers stationed in Georgia and human rights observers had been denied access. It was noteworthy that the European Union had already spent €14 million in the region. She feared that Georgia served as a model for future Russian defence policy, and that in a year’s time the situation would not have progressed in a positive direction.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Ukkola.

      Mrs UKKOLA (Finland). – The war between Georgia and Russia ended more than a year ago. Georgia has fulfilled almost all the demands of the Assembly whereas Russia has not done anything at all even though most of the demands do not relate to the status of the occupied territories. The main issue is the lack of political will. Russia wants to show all neighbouring countries that it has the power to interfere in the affairs of independent countries and that it has the right to defend its citizens, even with guns, wherever they happen to live. Russia’s return to power politics at the international level is incomprehensible and downright dangerous. The Assembly must strongly urge the Russian authorities to give unrestricted access to European Union monitors in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia; to grant freedom of movement to Georgian civilians across the administrative boundaries of the two regions; and to initiate credible investigations into alleged acts of ethnic cleansing. If no action is taken before the end of this year, something must be done, but the rapporteurs cannot do anything but discuss the issue, so we must hope that the European Union and Angela Merkel can do something.

      It is sad and incomprehensible that two members of the Council of Europe have been at war, and it is incredible that there has been no progress in this matter. What does that say about the Council of Europe? It says that we are a toothless, inefficient and bureaucratic Organisation that is unable to guarantee that its member states fulfil the principles and values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The Council of Europe has lost its authority and respect because of this crisis. Some member states violate our main principles and values every day, and we cannot do anything. Luckily, we have the ECHR, which will soon be the only functional organ of the Council of Europe, if we continue to behave as we have done during this crisis. The main task of the new Secretary General will be to change that situation.

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

Mr UMAKHANOV (Russian Federation) said that a year had passed since the tragic events of August 2008. These events had been tragic for the populations of all states concerned. The resulting pain and suffering had not been given sufficient importance in debate nor had sufficient emphasis been placed on putting things right, or on ensuring that events did not repeat themselves. The resolution which the Assembly had passed the previous year had always been unenforceable. Further demands driven by emotion and political considerations would not be constructive: the less realistic the demand, the less likely it was to be complied with. Because of posturing by Georgia, there had been no opportunity for proper dialogue between the two countries. There could be no ultimatums in the Caucasus. Paragraph 30 of Resolution 1633 imposed preconditions which were entirely unrealistic. It was vital to think more about ordinary people and far less about politicians anxious to prove themselves right.

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

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) thanked the President, and said that the debate was a repeat of the previous year’s experiences in both the Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union. All parliamentarians shared an uneasy feeling that the debate had become an attempt to explain away the inability of both bodies to deal with the crisis. Parliamentarians had used unacceptable expressions, which were not appropriate to the democratic traditions of the Assembly. If the impartial observers had observed human rights abuses in the region, they should be believed. There was now a need to find a sensible way forward and to focus on what the Council of Europe could actually do to deal with these abuses. While the Council had no real power, it had credibility and authority. This was a time for restrained dialogue, not shrill rhetoric.

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

      Mr BADRÉ (France) believed that this was a firm and even-handed report. The occupation of Georgia’s frontier territory by Russia was due to Russian desire to control the oil fields there. Russia had justified its entry into Poland in 1939 by insisting that this was necessary in order to protect the Poles. It was now using the same argument to justify its invasion of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. But it was time for diplomacy to take precedence over the use of force. The Assembly should act to fulfil its responsibilities, and in so doing remind people of the values for which it stood.

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

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Badré. Dear colleagues, if any members still wish to vote in the election of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, they should go to the area behind the President’s Chair. The vote will close at 1 p.m. I call Mrs Circene.

      Mrs CIRCENE (Latvia). – Thank you. Distinguished colleagues, it is already more than one year since the tragic outbreak of war between two Council of Europe member states, Georgia and Russia. Since then, we have had a lot of discussions, meetings, reports and recommendations, but I can today maintain that many of us are concerned about the role and significance of the Parliamentary Assembly.

      How could it happen that one of our member states, Russia, has ignored international agreements and recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly, and pressed on with aggression in the territory of Georgia? I should like to mention just some of the facts that cry out. Russia has not undertaken any steps to allow EU monitors into the occupied territories, and has vetoed extension of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and United Nations missions in Georgia. Russia has not fulfilled the cease-fire agreement, but has stepped up the militarisation of the occupied territories. Construction of two military bases – in Java and in Tskhinvali – has been completed. Two more – a naval base and an airbase – are in progress today. That is a direct violation of the Parliamentary Assembly’s demands.

      Russia has built an airfield on the site of a destroyed Georgian village, Tamarasheni. That shows that Russia has not taken any steps towards establishing a new peacekeeping format. On the contrary, the intention to increase the military presence inside the occupied territories has been announced. Mr Kosachev said that there is no war or conflict in Georgia; he said that it had stopped, but that is not true. Incidents have continued to take place, despite the efforts of the European Union monitoring mission.

Let me give some concrete facts. In total, since the signing of the cease-fire, 12 policemen and 11 civilians have been killed in the occupied Georgian territory, while 27 and 58 respectively have been injured. Some 29 armed attacks took place against civilians, and 47 against the police. There have been 39 cases of explosions registered in the occupied territories. It is war. Russian officials have stated their firm intention not to respect the demands of the Parliamentary Assembly, and that has been proved true. Those facts also affirm why the Parliamentary Assembly urges the Russian authorities to do the following: give EU monitors access to South Ossetia and Abkhazia; grant freedom of movement to Georgian civilians across the administrative boundary lines; and recognise the rights of displaced persons.

      The Council of Europe has an important role to play in rebuilding real dialogue and mutual understanding between its member states, but to establish dialogue we need two partners. That is the biggest problem; with just one partner, it is a monologue. Thank you.

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

      Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said that most of the speakers who had been condemning Russia had not mentioned the terrible events of August 2008. It was Russia, not Saakashvili’s regime, that had saved the people during this period. Saakashvili was now trying to get the Council of Europe’s support. The Council of Europe had played a very helpful role during the crisis in Chechnya, and it would do so again in this crisis. The Council of Europe also had an essential role in ensuring that good neighbourly relations were established between Russia and Georgia, even though the report did not necessarily assist in this matter.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I see that Mr Lipiński is not here, so I call Mr Bender.

      Mr BENDER (Poland). – Georgia, in accordance with Resolutions 1633 and 1647 of our Assembly, should regain her full territorial integrity and the provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, occupied by the armed forces of Russia, should be returned to her. It is already a year after the war and the occupied territories are still pretending to be independent republics.

      I heard here, in Strasbourg, at the Council of Europe, delegates from the former Soviet Union saying that a reintegration of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is practically impossible, as Russia granted them nominal independence. In reality, they are Russian military and political protectorates.

      Distinguished colleagues, during the Second World War, Poland was in a similar situation as a result of the diabolical Ribbentrop-Molotov pact signed by National Socialist Germany and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. Russia considers itself a successor of the Soviet Union. In 1939, acting in close collaboration with the Wehrmacht, Soviet troops took over the eastern part of Poland reaching as far as the outskirts of Ostrołęka, some 100 km from Warsaw. Calling this aggression liberation, the Soviets annexed an area with cities such as Białystok, Łomża, Augustów and Grajewo with a Polish and Jewish population into what they referred to as “independent” Belarusian soviet republic. Poles and Jews were forced to accept Soviet citizenship. Those who refused were imprisoned or sent to Siberia.

      I want to turn to my Russian colleagues here. Do you know that, just like your parents, I was a Soviet citizen between 1939 and 1941? It was not of my free will, nor the will of my parents. It came on the orders of Joseph Stalin’s Communist Government, which, along with his comrade Adolf Hitler, occupied my motherland, Poland. Thank God, I am a citizen of free Poland again. Even Soviet diplomacy after the Second World War could show realism. Polish citizenship was automatically restored to us as some of the occupied Polish lands were returned.

      Dear friends, I hope that the current Russian leadership is no less realistic and that it can fulfil the resolutions of our Assembly and restore the territorial integrity of Georgia.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Ms Vėsaitė.

      Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania). – Thank you, Mr President. For me, no matter who started the war, the question is whether any progress has been made in resolving the conflict. A couple of weeks ago, I managed to be in Georgia and to meet the victims of “ethnic cleansing”, refugees and displaced persons. They are waiting not for another resolution but for concrete action that will allow them to return to their native places, to restore their broken houses and to continue to educate their children. These people lost everything – their farms were abandoned, their houses destroyed as well as their lives. They have no social security, no jobs, and the fragile Georgian economy cannot absorb such a burden of thousands of victims. We should bear in mind that another winter is approaching.

      I do not support heavy sanctions against Russia. Dialogue is better than isolating the country. However, the report should be the final call for Russia to implement the international obligations and agreements. Otherwise, who will believe in the existence of this house, the Parliamentary Assembly, of which Russia is a member?

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

      Mr MINASHVILI (Georgia). – I cannot refrain from responding to Mr Kosachev – you and your bosses will never leave until the Republic of Georgia elects a leader who will agree to be under your spheres of influence. However, it is not about who is leader, but about the choice of the people of Georgia. Do you know why? It is because Russia is a corrupted, authoritarian state, which rearms states such as Venezuela. Russia is a state that kills journalists every day and that exterminated a fourth of the Chechen population. It is a state that left its own marines under the deep blue sea. If you do not care about your citizens, how can you care about others? Let me assure you that very soon the Russian military will leave Georgia, just as the Soviet Union had to leave Finland, Hungary, Poland, East Germany and the Baltic countries.

      Dear colleagues, the only predictable thing about Russia is its unpredictability. As a former adviser to President Putin said, Russia will instigate crises wherever possible. It is occupying Georgia, distributing passports in Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region and in Crimea. Someday, someone might think that Russian citizens need protection elsewhere in Europe. The Russians adopted a law on defence that legitimises the deployment of military forces outside Russia. We have seen this before. Europe has seen ample evidence that Russia disputes Georgia’s sovereignty, which undermines and challenges the whole European order.

      Today it is time to choose. It is time for firm decisions. Tolerating the carving up of the sovereignty of a country with brutal force and “ethnic cleansing” will send out dangerous, negative signals. It will set very dangerous precedents in Europe. The crisis shows us the lack of clarity and the ambiguity, which is perceived by Russia as a green light for further aggression. There are a lot of places in the world where politicians deal with the realpolitik, but the people of Georgia believe that the Council of Europe is a body with values. That is what we believe and what we will believe. Frankly, I do not understand how a country can be a member of this Organisation when the President of that country said, several years ago, that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe. I cannot understand it.

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

      Mr WACH (Poland). – We are discussing this difficult subject for the fourth consecutive time, and I am afraid that we will have to continue to do so. The report is correct but inconclusive. I agree with paragraph 1, which says that “the Parliamentary Assembly reaffirms its resolutions” from 2008 and 2009 and that “The Assembly reaffirms its attachment to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia, as well as the inviolability of its borders.”

      We also agree with paragraph 3, which warns about growing tension in the region, especially along the administrative borders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. What we cannot accept is the refusal of Russia and the de facto authorities in both regions to give access to international monitors from the EU and OSCE. All those facts, together with the construction of military bases and Russia’s growing military presence in both breakaway regions of Georgia are a real threat to the Republic of Georgia.

      The other important dimension of the conflict is a humanitarian one. It is described in the report and widely commented on in the opinion of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population by Mrs Corien Jonker. I will not repeat the description of the harmful effects of the conflict. Little progress has been made on changing that situation. However, we must agree that the political consequences of the war are one problem and the humanitarian consequences are another, which is much more individual, severe and unjust. For us here, the situation is deplorable and unacceptable. For Georgians, the situation is dangerous and threatening for the country. For the people living there, the situation is tragic: it has gone to pieces and they have little hope. In a way, we are also responsible for that, as Council of Europe members with some force and tools to act.

      It seems that there are two different approaches to the problem of how to act. One, represented among others by the rapporteurs, is to describe the situation honestly, to present a report on the lack of progress or even on a regression, but not to press for immediate consequences, probably keeping the pressure on and achieving incremental progress if possible. The other approach, which I represent, as do other signatories of the motion for the withdrawal of the credentials of members of the Russian delegation, is to act now and to have a vote on the motion as soon as possible.

I believe that both groups of Parliamentary Assembly members want the same thing: the fulfilment of our resolutions and a change in the fate of the people of Georgia, especially those who suffer the practical consequences of the conflict in their everyday lives.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Lord Anderson.

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom). – Of course there were provocations by Georgia, but the fact remains that Russia invaded Georgia a year ago. Why is that word not used by our rapporteurs? They use the word “hostilities”. They refer to facts. Russia not only invaded Georgia, but remains in occupation of parts of Georgia. In the last few weeks, Russia has signed a pact with the two breakaway enclaves allowing it to station its forces within those enclaves for 49 years. Russian border guards responsible to the Federal Security Service remain on those borders. Those are the facts.

Equally, Russia has forced the withdrawal of the UN and OSCE monitoring missions – so much for the access that our Russian colleague spoke about – and it has hampered the access of the EU missions. In addition, in many ways, Russia is expanding the naval base there in Abkhazia. That is hardly the conduct of a country that aspires to meet the principles of this Organisation, and it poses a challenge to all Europeans as to how to respond.

The big picture is that we have to work with Russia in areas of mutual interest: terrorism, the financial crisis, non-proliferation, Iran and Afghanistan. We have to seek good working relations with Russia but that should not mean weakening our relations with Georgia. Russia must pay a price. It has isolated itself by its action. No member of the Commonwealth of Independent States has supported Russia in its invasion. Russia has lost trust and confidence over its integrity in other spheres, notably pipeline politics, European energy security – the Nabucco project will be followed more strongly – and its initiative in calling for a new European security architecture. It has blatantly broken key principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty.

In the rest of Europe, we must all assist Georgia financially, as the EU is doing, and in all other fields. If we ignore the invasion, and it is an invasion, and the subsequent conduct of Russia, future generations may see our weak response as a key turning point in post-Soviet relations.

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

      Mrs LUNDGREN (Sweden). – One year ago, we strongly condemned the outbreak of the tragic war between Russia and Georgia. We, the majority in this Assembly, decided to give dialogue a chance. The Assembly formulated a series of concrete demands to both Georgia and Russia. The Assembly reconfirmed its demands in January and now we have a new report on the table.

While Georgia has complied with most demands of the Assembly, Russia has done the opposite. Instead of withdrawing, it is deploying new troops. Instead of co-operating fully with all international monitoring missions, Russia has vetoed the only one that was allowed. Instead of safeguarding the right to return, Russia has safeguarded ethnic cleansing in the breakaway territories. Instead of working towards a new peacekeeping format and internationalising the peacekeeping forces, Russia is militarising the breakaway regions and building new military bases.

      We have made our demands. We have prioritised dialogue. We have given time for that and used our monitoring tools. We have seen the results of our efforts so far – more or less a backlash from the Russian Government and Russian friends.

      If we look to the future of the Council of Europe, the question is how to guarantee the effective promotion and protection of our principles and values. We have to make sure that today we promote them and safeguard them. When we see serious abuses of those principles and values by members of this Assembly, we must act.

      As parliamentarians, back home we have to defend our principles and values when our governments fail to do that. The Assembly has very few tools but today we must make use of those available. I ask my colleagues from Russia to go home and to act for a change. Until now, we have seen nothing. We have seen the activities of our Russian colleagues so far and I think that today we have to be able to challenge the credentials of the Russian delegation.

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

Mr MELNIKOV (Russian Federation) drew attention to the fact that there was no doubt that on the matter of the reaction of the Russian authorities to Georgian aggression there was a consensus among Russians – lacking in respect of other issues – in favour of that reaction. Those who did not take into account this fact and the particular problems associated with the region would not succeed in making progress. An issue of particular importance to the Russian people was that of who started the war. It was also important to understand the role of Russia in the defence of its people. Russians were concerned that in some discussions the aggressor and the defender were wrongly placed on the same footing.

It was also a fact that two new states had emerged from the conflict. From a legal and administrative point of view those states felt entitled to their independence. If the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe was interested in defending human rights, it should engage in dialogue with the de facto authorities of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Assembly should look seriously at the proposal made by Mr Laakso.

At this juncture, it was not feasible to use the approach formerly taken by the Assembly. Only when the facts of the current situation were accepted would the healthiest forces in the Caucasus applaud the actions of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

Does any member still wish to vote in the election of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe? If so, they should go to the area behind the President’s chair. The voting will close at 1 p.m.

I call Mr Kucheida of France.

Mr KUCHEIDA (France) said that he was grateful to the rapporteurs for their work, which had enabled the Assembly to take stock of the conflict one year on. It was to be noted that the Russian Federation, Venezuela and Nicaragua had recognised the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and that Georgia had registered its concern at such recognition. Recognition itself might be seen as a derisory move.

Relations between Russia and Georgia had hardly progressed at all over the course of the year. The Russian position was more delicate than that of Georgia in that the Russian Federation was reluctant for the dispute to be dealt with in international institutions. However, Europe could not allow Georgia to be cut into pieces and must involve Georgia in dialogue.

The humanitarian question was still a worrying one. The disputed territories were practically inaccessible to outside observers and human rights missions. Their populations should not be subjected to suffering. The Russian Federation and Georgia were both represented in the Council of Europe. One could only wonder what they were waiting for before moving forward with discussions. Progress in this area would be a fitting commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the Council of Europe.

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

      Mr TARGAMADZÉ (Georgia). – Thank you, Mr President.

One year after the Russian invasion, the picture is evident: Georgia is fulfilling the majority of the Assembly’s demands formulated in our previous resolutions, and Russia is not. The question today is not about how long it will take Russia to meet the Assembly’s requirements, because we are all aware that Russia will not do anything to fulfil those demands. The Russian delegation is stating openly and directly that Russia will not withdraw from the occupied territories, follow the cease-fire agreement, or respect its neighbour’s sovereignty. What are we waiting for? Why are we tolerating such behaviour from one of the member states? The key question is: what will we do if Russia continues to ignore our resolutions?

Today, we have to decide which way to go – to show to all member states that the resolutions of this institution are empty words, without any impact on big states rich in oil and gas; or to struggle for our values, use the strengths of this Organisation, set concrete deadlines for concrete demands, and stand firm in our decisions. The latter approach is presented in the amendments supported by our delegation, and we urge you to vote in favour of them.

If we demonstrate our weakness – if we are unable to act – we will undermine the credibility of the Council of Europe. Reality is shaped by our tolerance of the total ignoring of every single thing that the Council of Europe has demanded from Russia. Ethnic Georgians who remain in occupied Abkhazia are banned from receiving education in Georgian. Auto da fés are staged in the centre of occupied Tskhinvali and Georgian books, including translations of European classics, are burnt en masse in front of cameras. Terrorisation and forced passportisation of civilians continues. Two wonderful Georgian regions have become gigantic military camps, where only cannons look to the outside world.

I would like to reply to Mr Kosachev’s point about Saakashvili’s behaviour. I represented the opposition and I have a lot of criticisms of our president, but they are not about his personality – they are about Russia’s behaviour. We have had other presidents in Georgia but have had the same situation 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and a century ago when the first independent Democratic Republic of Georgia was invaded and occupied.

We have to act, and we will if you will support our amendments.

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

      Mr FLYNN (United Kingdom). – It is a pleasure to follow Mr Targamadzé, because he speaks as an opponent of his own president and has been critical of him. What has been most depressing about the reaction this morning is that there does not seem to be a single voice of dissent coming from the Duma. It was reminiscent of what happened in Chechnya. I speak with some passion on the subject, as I represent a city in the United Kingdom that has a 25-year-old twinning with the second city of Georgia, Kutaisi. It is a rich twinning; we have exchanged students, academics, doctors and rugby players. We see ourselves as friends of Georgia. But that is not why I speak this morning; I speak because there is a danger of a second Cold War in the world.

Georgia is not the only problem; there are many others. There was Mr Litvinenko, who was killed by polonium-210, for which there is only one source in the world. The culprit was identified by the British police, but the Russians refused to allow him to go to court to face the charge of murder. There was the terrible murder of Anna Politkovskaya, about which we all know very well. Nothing seems to be done to bring the people responsible to justice. In 2007, there was what was probably the first act of cyber-terrorism, which was on Estonia. The country was brought to its knees for a period, because of the overloading of its services by e-mails and other traffic from Russia. So, we have possibly the first act of nuclear terrorism and possibly the first act of cyber-war against a small state.

We must look to the way that big countries behave towards small countries, and we should not be complacent or act as an empty vessel – a body that does not carry out its threats or act on its resolutions and beliefs. Today, we have to take the line that has been advocated with passion by so many here, especially members from the Nordic countries, to take the strongest line possible.

There is a gleam of hope. Certainly there has been provocation and there are two sides in this. There was provocation by Saakashvili. There was gross provocation by President Bush in threatening to put missiles on the border of Russia. We know the reaction of Kennedy when the Russians did a similar thing with Cuba – nuclear war was threatened.

I believe that this was a foolish, provocative act, but we do have hope in the world and that hope is called Obama, who has withdrawn that threat. There has been from the Russian Government an act that seems to be one of compromise and saying that there is another way. There is another way, but if we fail to react against what has happened in Georgia we collaborate with it.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The floor goes to Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin.

      Ms DE POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden). – I wish that we did not have to have this debate today and I wish that Russia had complied with all the demands in the resolutions of this Assembly. Georgia has complied with almost all the demands but Russia has done the opposite – many examples have been given in this debate and the report shows it in black and white.

      Russia is also making smoke, trying to move the focus away, but I tell the Assembly that this is not about who started the war. It is about the situation right now and the fulfilment of our resolutions. The honouring of obligations and commitments by member states of the Council of Europe – those words stand for what they say. Honouring obligations and commitments goes for all member states, including Russia.

      To me, it is not acceptable for a member state totally to ignore our resolutions time after time. This Assembly has to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough. Something has to be done and we are running out of time. The credibility of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is at stake. Actions must be taken against a member state that chooses whether it should follow our resolutions or not.

      Russia is making a joke out of this Assembly and our resolutions. The question to be asked is why Russia is so eager to be a member of the Council of Europe when at the same time it is putting so much effort into ignoring our resolutions. Why is Russia fighting so hard not to play by the rules?

      Dear colleagues, of course we should challenge the credentials of Russia, and we should do it today.

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

      Mr TIMCHENKO (Russian Federation) believed that many speakers had shown a clear wish to punish the Russian Federation. It was quite clear that real importance should, instead, be attached to preventing the events of the previous year from being repeated. The principle of self-determination and the views of those in South Ossetia and Abkhazia had to be taken into account. If Georgia wanted to rebuild a single state incorporating these territories, it would have to admit its mistakes and focus on regaining the trust of the local inhabitants. Georgia had failed to do this in the past. The Russian Federation had taken the only appropriate course of action to protect the inhabitants of the two territories and to support their right to be independent. The Russian Federation was not, and had never been, an aggressor. There was no desire for conflict but Russia could not remain indifferent to human suffering on its borders. Agreement had to be reached on the non-use of violence in relations between Georgia and the two territories. Efforts must be made to consolidate the situation and to improve the lives of everyone living in the region.

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

      Mr BABAKOV (Russian Federation) said that this was the fourth time that the Assembly had discussed tensions between South Ossetia and Georgia. There had been major changes in these discussions over the last year, particularly a growing recognition that Georgia had been the aggressor. The independence of South Ossetia had followed popular expressions of will through a referendum. In August 2008, Russian peacekeepers had been attacked by Georgian forces. It was difficult to understand why other countries in the region had not sought to support these peacekeeping forces, which were suffering casualties, including losses of life. There needed to be a clear recognition on all sides that only one outcome was now realistic: the clock could not be turned back on the recognition of South Ossetia as an independent republic.

The most important issue currently facing the European Union was to build a new architecture of security. The key players in this architecture were the European Union, the United States and the Russian Federation. Excluding any one of these key players would doom attempts to address real strategic challenges. The United States and the Russian Federation had been co-operating well in Afghanistan and in the Middle East process. The Council of Europe should not become obsessed with mutual recriminations but focus on how it could play a role in the construction of this architecture.

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

      Mr ZINGERIS (Lithuania). – I thank the rapporteurs for an excellent report. I shall deviate from my prepared speech to respond to what has been said. Mr Babakov talked of the Saakashvili regime in Tbilisi and said that it should be changed. It is incredible that one member country should try to influence people to get rid of an elected government in another member country. That is a violation of international law. I remember that two years ago the Russian Foreign Affairs Minister referred to the Tbilisi regime. “Regime” is a derogatory word for a government and I protest against that wording. It is more suitable to describe the government of Joseph Stalin, who was the No. 1 all-time enemy of the Russian people and who tried to change the regime in Finland and create a Finnish socialist republic, as well as planning the invasion of other Baltic countries and Poland. So this wording should not be used any more.

      Mr Melnikov said that there was consensus in Russia about their actions in the Caucasus and Georgia. Of course there is consensus in Russia – the mass media there is monopolised by one party. In Yeltsin’s time, there was no consensus about the war in Chechnya, and it was possible to express democratic opinions in the Russian Parliament.

      Yesterday, it was 70 years since the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, when Lithuania was swapped from Adolf Hitler’s area of influence to Russia’s. The Russians do not like to remember that, even though the text does not mention Mr Putin or the current Russia. Our Russian friends should be reminded of the basics of democracy.

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

      Mrs HURSKAINEN (Finland). – The Monitoring Committee’s report describes what has happened since the war between Georgia and Russia broke out in 2008 and since the cease-fire was agreed. I wish to emphasis the importance of international and impartial monitoring and the peacekeeping presence in the area. The situation remains tense and could escalate. Therefore, it is vital that both sides meet the demands for monitoring that the international community has requested of them. Georgia’s willingness to co-operate in that has been strong, but unfortunately Russia’s has not.

      I support the report in strongly urging the Russian authorities to grant unrestricted access to EU monitors to both South Ossetia and Abkhazia before the end of the year. We must also renew the mandates of the OSCE and UN missions in Georgia, and show political will and a constructive attitude towards the international efforts to stabilise the region. Sanctions and political isolation have never been the means to promote and strengthen democracy and human rights, nor will they bring stability to the conflict area. I strongly believe that the continuation of dialogue between the Council of Europe and the parties is extremely important. The Russian and Georgian delegations must take part in the discussion we are having in the Assembly.

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

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania). – Mr Babakov said that we are always discussing Russia. We do not want to discuss Russia: we have many things to do. However, for the fourth time this year, we are discussing Russia. Unfortunately, we have to talk about Russia in every session, and whose fault is that? Is it because we are strange people who only want to discuss Russia? Or is it because there is a Russian problem and we are obliged to discuss it?

It is one year after the war and what has happened? We have said what Russia and Georgia have to do, and Georgia has done it but Russia has not. Who here believes that Russia will do what we say this time? Russia probably will not do what we recommend in the report, and that is the problem of this Organisation.

That Russia has special rights here no one doubts. Russia has the right to be sensitive. Russia has the right to be nervous. It has the right not to do what we say. My country, Lithuania, has no right here to be nervous or sensitive. Some 200 000 of my compatriots died in Siberia, but ours is a small country; we have no right to be nervous or sensitive. Georgia has no right to be nervous or sensitive, but Russia has that right. That is because the Council of Europe has only one approach: we accept into the Organisation countries that are not full democracies, but we think that they will be, or will them to become democracies sooner or later. We monitor them and write reports. In the case of Russia, we are still willing it and asking it to be democratic. We say, “Please behave; be European.”

We do not want to challenge a country’s credentials, but in some parliaments there is a rule for those who have a problem. Let me give the example of my country; if I were subject to a criminal investigation or something like that, I myself would say, “I am suspending my credentials until the investigation is finished.” My advice to Russia is to be gentlemanly: please suspend your credentials yourself, and then we will really believe that you are a gentlemanly, nice and honourable country. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Vareikis. I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The response of the rapporteurs and the votes on the draft resolution and amendments will take place at the end of the sitting this afternoon. The speeches of members on the speakers’ list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the table office for publication in the official report.

      It is now 1 p.m. Does any member still wish to vote in the election of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe? That is not the case.

      The ballot for electing the Secretary General of the Council of Europe is now closed. The counting of votes will take place under the supervision of the tellers, Mrs Durrieu and Mrs Bergamini. I invite them to go at once to meet behind the President’s Chair. The results of the election will be announced at the beginning of this afternoon’s sitting.

7. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

      THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly holds its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the agenda which was approved yesterday.

      Are there any objections? That is not the case.

      The agenda for the next sitting is therefore agreed.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1 p.m.)

CONTENT

1. Election of Secretary General of the Council of Europe

2. Change in the membership of committees

3. Environmental messages

4. Organisation of debates

5. Communication from the Committee of Ministers

Address by Mr Samuel Žbogar, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Slovenia and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

Questions:

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr Béteille (France)

Mrs Blondin (France)

Mr Santini (Italy)

Mr Iwiński (Poland)

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)

Mr Mignon (France)

Mrs Hajibayli (Azerbaijan)

Mrs Pashayeva (Azerbaijan)

Mr Ivanovski (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”)

Mrs Postanjyan (Armenia)

6. The war between Georgia and Russia: one year after

Presentation by Mr Van den Brande and Mr Eörsi of the report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by member states of the Council of Europe, Doc. 12010

Speakers:

Mr Wilshire (United Kingdom)

Mr Michael Aastrup Jensen (Denmark)

Mr Laakso (Finland)

Mr Németh (Hungary)

Lord Tomlinson (United Kingdom)

Mr Kosachev (Russian Federation)

Mr Tsiskarishvili (Georgia)

Mrs Gautier (France)

Mrs Durrieu (France)

Mrs Ukkola (Finland)

Mr Umakhanov (Russian Federation)

Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)

Mr Badré (France)

Mrs Circene (Latvia)

Mr Slutsky (Russian Federation)

Mr Bender (Poland)

Mrs Vėsaitė (Lithuania)

Mr Minashvili (Georgia)

Mr Wach (Poland)

Lord Anderson (United Kingdom)

Mrs Lundgren (Sweden)

Mr Melnikov (Russian Federation)

Mr Kucheida (France)

Mr Targamadzé (Georgia)

Mr Flynn (United Kingdom)

Ms Pourbaix-Lundin (Sweden)

Mr Timchenko (Russian Federation)

Mr Babakov (Russian Federation)

Mr Zingeris (Lithuania)

Mrs Hurskainen (Finland)

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

7. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting