AA12CR16 |
AS (2012) CR 16 |
Provisional edition |
2012 ORDINARY SESSION
________________________
(Second part)
REPORT
Sixteenth Sitting
Thursday 26 April 2012 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 Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The sitting is open.
1. Written declarations
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – In compliance with Article 53 of the Rules of Procedure, the following written declarations have been tabled:
No. 515 on “The progress of democratic reform in the Republic of Moldova”, which has been signed by 87 members, Document 12915.
No. 516 on “Inhuman pressure by the Government of Iraq on residents of Ashraf and Liberty is totally unacceptable”, which has been signed by 32 members, Document 12916.
Any member, substitute or observer may add his or her signature to these written declarations in the Table Office, Room 1083.
2. Debate under urgent procedure: the situation in Syria
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The first item of business this morning is a debate under urgent procedure on the situation in Syria, Document 12906, presented by Mr Pietro Marcenaro, Chairperson of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, with an opinion presented by Mr Giacomo Santini, Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Document 12911.
In order to finish by 1 p.m., we may interrupt the list of speakers at about 12.20 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.
I call Mr Marcenaro. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate. I know that you have a slight health problem; if you wish, you may present your report sitting down.
Mr MARCENARO (Italy) thanked the President and apologised for speaking from his seat. He was not feeling well.
The Syrian crisis was developing all the time. News of new casualties and repression was received every day. During 2011 there were more than 11 000 casualties and hundreds of thousands of people had been internally displaced. The tragedy, however, was far from over, and it required an ongoing evaluation by the international community and the Council of Europe in particular.
The difficult question raised by the report was what could be done by the international community. No one wanted another Srebrenica, where thousands had been massacred while the international community looked on without taking action. But it was unclear whether armed intervention was, in the long run, actually successful.
After a long period when the international community had been divided in its response to the Syrian crisis a degree of consensus was starting to form. The United Nations Security Council had recently agreed to resolutions unanimously authorising the deployment of United Nations unarmed military observers to Syria, in line with the peace plan proposed by Kofi Annan.
The six-point Annan peace plan was a basis on which the international community could move forward together. First and foremost, it was essential that there should be an end to the violence in Syria. The Council of Europe should then make it clear that, while it strongly supported the Annan peace plan, there was no acceptable military solution to the crisis. This should be made clear not only to the international community but to the Assad regime and Syrian opposition. The Assad regime might have military supremacy, but any resolution of the Syrian crisis would ultimately come through a political, rather than military, process.
The report stressed two main themes. The first was action from the international community. The Annan peace plan had to be applied fully, and countries should bring as much pressure to bear on the Assad regime as was possible to ensure its compliance. Secondly, the international community should express its support for the Syrian opposition. If the opposition wanted to be a credible force within Syria, it had to unite its disparate factions and commit to the creation of a pluralist and democratic Syrian state where human rights were respected.
The international community should work towards a political solution, involving all factions in Syria, with the intention of creating a peaceful democratic state. It must not be forgotten that those factions that currently sided with the Assad regime would have to be accommodated in this new state. At the same time, it must not be forgotten either that the Syrian regime was responsible for the crisis. Reconciliation and justice could not be opposed or sacrificed to ensure peace.
The international community had learned from experience that there was no point intervening at too late a stage when any hope of reconciliation between warring factions had vanished. The most important priority was to stop the violence.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Marcenaro. You have three-and-a-half or four minutes remaining.
I remind members that it has been agreed that speaking times in this morning’s debate will be limited to three minutes.
I call Mr Santini to present the opinion of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. You have three minutes.
Mr SANTINI (Italy) thanked the President and thanked his colleague, Mr Marcenaro, for the excellent report and wished him a speedy recovery. The Bureau was also thanked for allowing the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons to table its opinion.
He entirely endorsed the points made by Mr Marcenaro. The committee, through its ad hoc sub-committee on the large-scale arrival of irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees on Europe’s southern shores, had heard directly from refugees and asylum seekers at refugee camps in Turkey. The number of these displaced persons had continued to grow as refugees found it impossible to return to Syria as soon as they had hoped.
Media coverage of the Syrian crisis only scratched the surface of the problems being experienced in the region. A serious humanitarian tragedy was under way. Already some sources suggested that the crisis had created around 40 000 orphans, and casualty and refugee figures continued to be updated daily.
On behalf of the Council of Europe he expressed his thanks to those countries bearing the brunt of the migration arising from the crisis, and to the EU and the international community, which had been working so hard to prevent the situation from deteriorating further.
The committee had tabled two amendments that dealt with living conditions in Syria. He hoped to discuss these in greater detail later in the debate.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you Mr Santini. I remind members that it has been agreed that speaking times in this morning’s debate will be limited to three minutes.
In the debate I call first Mr Leigh, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.
Mr LEIGH (United Kingdom) – It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate and I congratulate the rapporteurs on their very balanced report. I associate myself with everything that has been said so far, and we all condemn the violence of the Assad regime.
In the very short time available to me, I want to deal with the position of minorities. Indeed, at the end of the report, it states that the main challenge ahead of us is what will happen next and how to reassure the population of Syria, including ethnic and religious minorities, that there can be a peaceful future in a post-Assad Syria.
I particularly want to talk about the plight of the Christians. Of course, we should defend all minorities, but we do not want to replace the tyranny of the minority over the majority – the position of the Assad regime – with that of the majority over minorities. I note that paragraph 7 states, “many Christians fear that in a post-Assad Syria, they would risk losing the guarantees of religious tolerance they have enjoyed until now.” The report also states that the regime has given the Christian community guarantees of peaceful cohabitation and even representation in government structures. However, it concerns me that the Christian community in Syria constitutes only about 10% of the population. It is one of the most ancient Christian communities in the world – St Paul was, of course, converted on the road to Damascus. However, in the areas where the Free Syrian Army has taken control, particularly in Homs, there have been reports of some persecution of Christians. For the first time in centuries, this Easter some Easter liturgies could not be celebrated in Homs. There have been reports of people being used as human shields and of bombings in a Franciscan monastery. Many Christians have already fled Iraq to Syria because of persecution following the invasion by the west.
The main point that I want to stress is that there is no possible military solution. The only possible solution is that proposed by Kofi Annan. It is the right solution because we must ensure a future for Syria in which all minorities – the Druze, the Kurds, the Alawis or the Christians – are respected. That will be extremely difficult, but we do not want a repeat of what the west did in Iraq and Libya – wading in with size 10 boots and not understanding the complexities of the local situation. Syria is a highly complex society, and our aim in the Council of Europe should be to speak up for the minorities of Syria and ensure a peaceful co-existence for them all in future.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Leigh. The next speaker is Ms Lundgren, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – On behalf the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent report. As parliamentarians in the Council of Europe, we should be human rights protectors. Our global responsibility is to protect people, but we have failed several times. In Syria, we have failed perhaps through fear or through excuses, good or bad, some connected to Libya.
I hear that there are attempts in the debate to rewrite history, but people started peacefully, demonstrating for their freedom, and they were met with bullets and tanks in the streets or in their homes. That has been going on for more than 400 days. For 403 days, violence has been escalating; for 403 days, Assad has been given many chances. The response is always new promises, but they have all been broken. Assad has continued shelling and killing his people.
It is a shame that the United Nations Security Council has not been able to act and that Russia and China have given al-Assad room for manoeuvre. Finally, with the Annan plan, we have an agreement. At first, some countries questioned it, but now everyone backs it. Let us hope that this will not be a new cover-up and that al-Assad will not be given yet more time to kill his people.
The plan has not been implemented yet. The tanks are still there and the military are still on the streets of Homs and other cities. The observers have not yet been given full freedom of movement. Many aspects of the plan have yet to be implemented. We must put pressure on al-Assad to make the Annan plan fly; otherwise, it will be yet another failure. We need an embargo and, friends, we also need to ensure that there is no impunity in Syria. There have been grave human rights violations and there must be justice for all who have been threatened or killed, or who have suffered. Impunity is not acceptable for anyone who has acted with violence in Syria – let us bring them to court.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Kürkçü, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey) – Thank you, Mr President. The report is balanced and comprehensive, but the Syrian conflict can be better understood if it is placed in the context of the sweeping change caused by the Arab revolutions that started with the uprising in Tunisia on 17 December 2010, extending from the Maghreb to the Mashriq and eventually leading to the collapse of western-backed Arab regimes.
The Arab Spring concocted by the mainstream US and European media in order to separate the social change in north Africa and the Middle East from this revolutionary content is what remained after the Arab people were robbed of their revolution by the major political allies of imperialism in those countries, namely the armed forces and the political establishment. The massive emancipation movement of the workers, the urban poor, students and women has shaken the old regimes and opened the path to elections. Nevertheless, the forces of repression have gained power under the guardianship of the armed forces whose absolute authority has remained intact even after all the civilian popular upheavals.
In Libya, the central link in the chain of north African countries, where such a mass movement did not occur, the US-led international community – NATO – brought about joint military intervention to push local reactionaries to power and replace Gaddafi’s dictatorial regime. The imperialist domination of the Arab world occurs through various types of intervention and is constant. It is hypocritical and profit-oriented. The Libyan leader Gaddafi was one of the best friends of the Turkish Prime Minister as well as being a friend of Italy, but there was no mercy for him once the US decided to start a military attack on Libya and there were attempts to bring about regime change. In Bahrain, Yemen and Qatar masses of people are out in the streets fighting for democracy but we do not hear about US or Turkish backing for them because those countries are not of strategic importance.
We are, after the Libyan example, totally against US and foreign intervention in Syria. Obviously the Assad regime is a ruthless dictatorship, but it always has been. It was a dictatorship even when the Turkish Prime Minister called him a brother in 2010, so it is hardly convincing when we hear that the major concern of the west is democracy rather than strategic interests. Therefore, we urge that the Council of Europe use its influence to help bring about a peaceful outcome to the Syrian crisis and that Turkey refrain from supporting the Free Syrian Army, which commits human rights violations and crimes against humanity. We urge that the Council of Europe help to bring about a new Syria based on multi-ethnic, multireligious democracy with pluralism, rights for women and labour rights and so that the Syrian people, including the Kurds, can enjoy the right to self-determination.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Hörster, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr HÖRSTER (Germany) thanked the rapporteurs for their work. This was not just a formality – they had undertaken a difficult task. In conflicts, truth was often the first victim. Since the beginning of the violence in Syria, the governing regime had sought to spread disinformation. The report, therefore, went some way towards redressing that.
It was becoming increasingly apparent that the Syrian civilian population was experiencing massive suffering as a result of the civil war in the country. Any resolution adopted by the Assembly would have to reflect the urgent requirement for humanitarian assistance, including the provision of medicine. The UN Security Council had already adopted a resolution on the need for humanitarian relief for the population. There was an urgent need to prevent the supply of weapons into the region.
It was apparent that there was not a uniform position among the Assembly members. It was, nevertheless, vital to uphold the territorial integrity of Syria and the need for religious tolerance. The 300 United Nations peacekeepers should be allowed to enter the country as soon as possible. It was clear that no one wished to see a military solution to the conflict. It was, therefore, hoped that the adoption of the resolution by the Assembly would help provide some guidance for future action by the Security Council.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Schennach, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) paid tribute to the rapporteurs for their work, and noted that recent events had provided further detail on the human rights situation in Syria. The conflict posed complex issues and had vexed the wider world. As the previous speaker had noted, there was a significant risk of a Bosnia-style situation developing with the persecution of religious minorities. However, another speaker had been wrong in saying that there had to date been no persecution of Christians in Syria.
Two years ago, he had met President Assad, and he had never dealt with such a hard-nosed politician. It was increasingly evident that President Assad did not have full control over his regime – he had lost his grip on the reins of power. The regime had had many chances to reform itself, but that window of opportunity had now been closed.
It was important to involve the Arab League in the development of any solution to the conflict. And one needed not to forget the presence already in Syria of a large number of refugees from Palestine and Iraq. One member of the Council of Europe, Turkey, was shouldering a huge burden as refugees sought to cross the border from Syria. Over time it would be necessary to create the conditions for their return. A peaceful solution to the conflict, which preserved the territorial integrity of Syria, was the only option available.
Finally, it was vital to avoid increasing the jeopardy of the ongoing situation in the Golan Heights.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Schennach.
The Rapporteur of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy will reply at the end of the debate, but does Mr Marcenaro wish to respond at this stage?
Mr MARCENARO (Italy) – No.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I call Mr Gardetto.
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) noted that 11 000 people had been killed since the start of the violence in Syria; children had been tortured and raped and many people had been displaced from their homes. The horrors that tormented the Syrian population were clear to all. The international community had outdone itself in its inability to act, with Russia and China in particular causing obstruction. The long-awaited agreement to send unarmed observers to Syria now allowed the international community to sing its own praises. Those who had died were sacrifices on the altar of hypocrisy. There was an obligation to cling to the Kofi Annan plan, which represented the only branch of hope floating on an ocean of desolation. There was an expectation that the international community should be content with the European Union declaration calling on Damascus to abide by the plan, but that might not be sufficient when civil war threatened.
Since the plan had been agreed there had been more deaths. Armed insurrection movements were lurching towards violence, which was clearly unacceptable. All efforts should be made to reinstate human rights in Syria. It was vital to ensure that humanitarian aid reached its destination and that doctors and aid workers could use it without fearing for their own security. Members had to assist with the move towards democracy; they had to be part of the process and assist in catching those responsible for violence and bringing them before the international criminal court.
Victims of the violence in Syria, aid workers and journalists and all those attempting to assist the situation deserved tribute and would be long remembered.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Gardetto. I call Mr Michel.
Mr MICHEL (France) said that the international community was failing. The situation was in flux and neither a Libyan nor an Iranian-style solution could work. Assad still had support within Syria, his father having established substantial power. The Kofi Annan mission had failed. The opposition had to unite, and stop its military provocation, which only allowed the regime to react with violence. It was counter-productive to attack the Turkish Government, which was in a position to put pressure on the regime; Turkish colleagues should be called on to encourage such pressure. Given a choice between an Iranian and a Turkish solution, the Turkish option had to be preferable.
It was clear that some members did not understand the responsibility to protect the rule of law and human rights. These values, which members were obliged to defend, were vital. Colleagues had to exert pressure on their authorities to encourage the Russian Government, in particular, to change its position on Syria. The plight of Syrian refugees and Iranian refugees in Iraq was noted. The Assembly should support efforts to assist those people.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Michel. I call Mr Knyshov.
Mr KNYSHOV (Russian Federation) thanked Mr Marcenaro for his report, which he believed presented a balanced and objective view of the situation in Syria. For more than a year events in Syria had caused concern among the international community. Violence was the main means by which the opposing side in Syria was making itself known. Civilians had died and tens of thousands of refugees were seeking safety. Mutual distrust was making dialogue incredibly difficult. The Kofi Annan plan encouraged all sides to stop the violence and to open dialogue. The reconciliation process had only just begun and the two sides were not irreconcilable. A peaceful means to end the violence had to be sought. Calls for increased support to the opposition in Syria made implementation of the Kofi Annan plan more difficult. Russia believed that the transformation should be peaceful; the Syrian people could determine their own future without outside intervention. A Libyan-style solution could not succeed; members should recall the words of Aldous Huxley, who noted that the essence of history was that people did not learn from it. The international community was obliged to ensure that the Libyan situation did not repeat itself. There was no alternative to peaceful negotiation.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Kubata. He is not here, so I call Ms Bourzai.
Ms BOURZAĎ (France) said that the Arab Spring, for which there had been so much enthusiasm, had never reached Damascus. Instead, it had seen a blood-red autumn, and that colour had not yet changed. Assad was a cynical grand master who exploited the weakness of the international community. It was necessary that the European element represented by the Assembly was of one voice; some dismissed its “soft authority”, but given the absence of a clear voice on Syria, the Assembly could break the silence. Members could not give in to realpolitik: to do so would be to trample over the 11 000 people who had died and to admit that values were relative. In the words of René Char, words could raise more earth than spades ever did.
The Assembly had a new tool in the form of the Partnership for Democracy programme. It could not be said that what was unacceptable in Libya was acceptable in Syria. The values that had been hammered out over many years should be fought for; it was not appropriate to consider those values right for Europeans but only right for others at some later date. No one wanted to see democrats being thought to be just as cynical as others. A unanimous vote by the Assembly would carry significant weight. Members were in Strasbourg to defend human rights.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Schou.
Ms SCHOU (Norway) – The situation in Syria is grave. Civilians are suffering and the Assad regime has lost its legitimacy. However, Syria is not a member of the Council of Europe; it is not a European country. Before coming to Strasbourg, I was asked why we are debating the situation in Syria. My answer was that even if Syria is not in Europe, the situation there is relevant to us. Human rights are being violated and the Syrian conflict is spilling over on its European neighbours. We have seen Syrian forces target refugees on Turkish territory, and Syrian refugees are knocking on European doors. Only the involvement of the international community can contain this conflict. Our debate is therefore relevant and urgent.
I want strongly to emphasise the particular responsibility of the Government of Syria as the principal party. It must meet its responsibilities as set out in the peace plan immediately.
There have been some positive developments. The six-point peace plan negotiated by special envoy Kofi Annan through his mandate from the Arab League is in the early phase of its implementation. However, there have been numerous violations of the cease-fire agreement and Syrian civilians are not safe. The Group of Friends of the Syrian People has described the peace plan as the last hope for avoiding civil war. Let us do what we can to ensure it is fully implemented.
I have seen the news reports about the decision of the United Nations to send 300 troops to observe the cease-fire agreement, and the fact that the UN Security Council was unanimous in its adoption of the resolution is a positive sign. We can only hope that the process of getting observers on the ground is Syria will be speedy. The cease-fire must be respected as we move forward. The Syrian regime must allow the international community, through the United Nations and humanitarian organisations, to come in and distribute the aid that the people of Syria so desperately need. They require food, medicines and other supplies.
Since the start of the conflict, Norway has supported the Syrian people in their struggle. Targeted sanctions have been imposed and there are six Norwegian officers in the advance UN team that has been deployed in Syria. Only yesterday, the Norwegian Government announced that the value of humanitarian assistance due to be channelled through the UN, the Red Cross, the Red Crescent and other civil bodies has been increased to nearly €7 million. As a parliamentarian, I will do what I can to ensure that we in Norway continue to do all we can to support Syrian during this vulnerable phase. I call on everyone to do the same.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Pushkov.
Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – I fully understand the emotions that are being expressed during this discussion about the situation in Syria. I want to remind members that this is not only a humanitarian situation but a political one that still has to be resolved. In this context, I thank the rapporteur, Mr Marcenaro, for his work. In our opinion, this draft resolution pays much more attention to the complicated nature of the Syrian crisis than did the previous one, which was discussed by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.
Mr Marcenaro has said that there can be no military solution to this crisis, only a political one, and I agree. However, to reach a political solution, we must have an inclusive dialogue with representatives of the regime in Syria. This is a fact of life. Mr Marcenaro has also stressed that any dialogue should include representatives of all the forces operating in Syria. We must understand that the current regime in Syria has a certain level of support. The Kofi Annan plan recognises that the regime should be part of the dialogue.
Can we expect any kind of successful dialogue if we assume that one side is the criminal and should bear full responsibility for this conflict? Such an approach will mean, basically, that there will be more violence. I have to remind members that the path of violence has been chosen more than once in recent years. Violence was used in Iraq. Human Rights Watch estimates that the violence in Iraq led to the deaths of at least 100 000 people. I repeat, some 100 000 Iraqis are now dead as a result of violence in that country. We should therefore ask ourselves this question: do we just want to make a moral statement or do we want to contribute to finding a solution to this crisis and thus prevent further deaths? In our opinion, a number of elements in the draft resolution contradict that goal, and hence we have tabled amendments that we would like to put forward. We are persuaded that they reflect both the essence and the spirit of Kofi Annan’s peace plan.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Pushkov. The next speaker is Mr Bockel.
Mr BOCKEL (France) thanked the President. Indignation had been triggered by the oppression of the Syrian people, but what had been done in Libya should not be done in Syria. Gaddafi had isolated Libya from the international arena. Assad, however, continued the wily democracy of his father. The Syrian regime understood the nature of the current veto being used by Russia and China, and was making use of the situation.
It was important not to underestimate the Kofi Annan plan; the context was complex. It was important to call for the freedom of prisoners and the support of humanitarian aid. However, there was a danger that the Kofi Annan plan would have the perverse effect of allowing the regime to consolidate its power. The opposition was bound to the cease-fire, and at present was left only to count its dead with no means of retaliation. The Annan peace plan might represent a solution, but time would tell. The Council of Europe, meanwhile, in the resolution it was about to adopt, should continue to express support for a peaceful political solution.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Bockel. The next speaker is Mr Biedroń.
Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – I pay tribute to the rapporteur. Every day the Assad regime is committing crimes against civilians in Syria, and every day the Syrian opposition updates the number of casualties. That has been the case since the uprising in Syria began in March last year. By now, it should be obvious that Assad is not the kind of person with whom a reasonable dialogue can be established.
On the one hand, Assad is trying to punish people because they stood for their dignity and on the other he wants to terrify them because he knows that, if people started to be afraid again, they would back off from their demand for freedom and democracy.
The indiscriminate pounding of cities and neighbourhoods and shooting at protesters with live ammunition continue throughout the country. Does the world really need to wait until Rwanda-scale massacres are perpetrated until it realises that the Assads are carrying out a Rwanda-style genocide? There is a clear responsibility to protect here, and world leaders cannot ignore it.
The United Nations Security Council has established a UN supervision mission in Syria; 300 observers are currently touring Syria. Last week, one of the protesters there carried a banner saying, “What will the monitors do – make sure that it is real blood they are seeing and not ketchup?” It should be clear that the real terrorist networks operating inside Syria are actually the pro-Assad militias formed by the security apparatus.
We have to identify opposition leaders and we have to help the Syrian opposition to strengthen civic and democratic values. In that context, on 22 March this year, the Polish Parliament organised an international conference dedicated to Syria called “Free Syria”. It was attended by prominent Syrian opposition leaders from the Syrian National Council, the Syrian Revolution General Commission and other opposition groups. Such initiatives help the Syrian opposition to prepare for the transitional period. They raise our awareness of what is happening in Syria and allow us to assist the Syrian people to achieve their democratic aspirations.
We, the members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, have responsibilities. Syria needs our support now. Syria needs our solidarity now. I do not agree that Syria is not in Europe; today Syria is in our hearts, and I am sure that many of us feel solidarity with the Syrian nation as if it were a European nation.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you Mr Biedroń. The next speaker is Mr Pozzo di Borgo.
Mr POZZO DI BORGO (France) stated that Assad had committed irreparable damage to Syria over the past year and had shown the world that he would stop at nothing to stay in power. He had clearly gone too far since the United Nations Security Council had finally managed to come to an agreement and, in its Resolution 2042, agreed to send observers to Syria.
This was a pyrrhic victory, however, as it had not been effective in stopping the fighting. No heavy artillery had been withdrawn from Syrian cities and United Nations observers were powerless to stop the continuing violence and atrocities. Part of the difficulty was that there was no real consensus on the future of Syria, or on how Assad should be removed from power. International intervention in similar situations in Iraq and Libya had proved divisive in the international community. Even within Syria the opposition was divided with no clear vision for the future.
The situation was complex. For example, Christians had not been persecuted under the Assad regime as they had been in other Muslim countries.
While it should be careful, the Council of Europe should not lag behind other organisations; it should make a clear declaration condemning the human rights abuse taking place in Syria.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Pozzo di Borgo. The next speaker is Mr Díaz Tejera.
Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) said that today was not a day for Christians or for Muslims but a day for human beings. The situation in Syria was a defeat for the international community and for the values of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe worked on values, not on practicalities or political convenience. Delegates should be under no illusion that the Syrian crisis was anything other than a defeat for its core values.
There would be time in future to prosecute those who violated human rights, but at present the son of a dictator was killing innocent civilians in cities with heavy weapons while the international community talked and discussed the wording of resolutions. Colleagues should consider whether they had really done all that they could do to stop the killing. Perhaps they could return home and put more pressure on their governments, particularly those governments with influence in the region, to take action.
The report was to be commended, but it should make all members aware of how powerless they were. There would be time in future for justice and for the prosecution of the guilty, but now was a time at which all efforts should be devoted to stopping the killing.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Díaz Tejera. The next speaker is Mr Kucheida.
Mr KUCHEIDA (France) thanked Mr Marcenaro for the report, which demonstrated how complex the situation was in Syria. Although the seeds of democracy had been sown, it could take a long time for them to bear fruit. Similar revolutions in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries had often suffered initial setbacks only for their aims to be achieved years later. For such a small country, the level of death and destruction had been appalling. While there was now opposition to Assad’s regime it was fractured. The international community meanwhile had found it hard to agree on a course of action. Too many players were trying to intervene in different ways. Russia should take a more active role given its influence in the region. France should also play a major role given its revolutionary history.
Thanks were due to Turkey, which had born so much of the brunt of the side effects of the Syrian conflict; other countries in Europe would do well to follow its example.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Kucheida. I call Mr Muńoz-Alonso.
Mr MUŃOZ-ALONSO (Spain) thanked Mr Marcenaro for the report. It was a sombre read and the constant contravention of human rights in the region was a defeat for the international community. The wider public simply could not understand why international organisations such as the United Nations and regional organisations such as the Arab League were powerless. The United Nations had been ineffective – the Security Council had failed to fulfil its obligations because of the obstructionism of some of its members. The result was thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands displaced and suffering.
The Annan peace plan would not be sufficient and was not being implemented properly in any case. Violence continued and the United Nations observers were powerless to intervene. No progress could be made until the violence was stopped. When considering the future, it was worth bearing it in mind that although this was an asymmetrical civil war it was not simply Assad against the populace; some sections of the civilian population still supported Assad. Any political settlement would therefore have to be both democratic and inclusive. There should be no question, however, but that those guilty of human right abuses should be brought to justice.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Muńoz-Alonso. I call Mr Skinnari.
Mr SKINNARI (Finland) – The situation in Syria cannot continue and that is why this debate is very important. From the start, Finland has supported sanctions directed at those responsible for the violence in Syria as well as groups that support them financially. We have been ready to broaden the scope of sanctions and increase the number of actors affected by them.
It is important to continue to support Kofi Annan’s efforts to find a political solution for Syria. The two Security Council resolutions on initiating a military observation operation and mandating its second phase constitute a positive step. As we are all members of the UN, it is important for us to keep this issue on the agenda in every international forum, including the Council of Europe. We need a joint approach.
The testimonies of witnesses here in Strasbourg this week tell a horrific story of what is going on in Syria. We therefore need to continue to put pressure on the Syrian Government and critically observe the implementation of the commitments to which it has agreed.
I urge the opposition to focus on a unified approach that is accepted by all. Bridging the wide gaps between groups in Syria is crucial to avoid the blame game. A spirit of vengeance cannot be allowed to flourish.
When planning and carrying out operations in Syria, we must be humble and remember the lessons learned from failures in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. We must respect the achievements of other cultures and civilised states. Our own short-sighted, materialistic way of life, based on greed and excessive debt, has reached a turning point. Let us respect one another as human beings.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Skinnari. The next speaker is Mr Sabella, Partner for Democracy.
Mr SABELLA (Palestinian National Authority) – As Palestinians, we view what is happening in neighbouring Syria with great distress and sadness. As we pray for peace in that dear country, we realise that the solution cannot be military and we call on the regime and the opposition to act accordingly. The bloodshed that has been going on in Syria, with its heavy cost to innocent citizens and civilians regardless of age or gender, calls for us all to say enough is enough.
It is important to respect the human rights of citizens to express themselves as a basis for government. Failure to do so will naturally lead to revolutionary movements that are met with repression, which creates a vicious cycle of human rights violations and suffering, as has been witnessed in different cases in the Arab Spring.
We insist that all citizens of Syria, irrespective of ethnic or religious background, are entitled to the protection of a legal system that does not distinguish between them. Christians in Syria are as much part of their society as any other group, and we should not minoritise Christians or other citizens.
The challenge for Kofi Annan’s mission is keeping the integrity and independence of Syria while supporting the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people by moving away from a military solution as an option.
Mr Marcenaro’s comprehensive, realistic and meticulous report reflects the grave concern of your distinguished Parliamentary Assembly about the situation in Syria. May all efforts converge to make the transformation into a democratic Syria a reality so that all Syrians can enjoy life in a democratic, pluralist and open society. That is not only good for Syria, but good for all of us in the region.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Sabella. The next speaker is Mr Agramunt.
Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) congratulated Mr Marcenaro and Mr Santini on their excellent work. Syria shared a border with a Council of Europe member state, Turkey, which was receiving thousands of refugees. Syria also had a coastline on the Mediterranean, and was therefore linked by sea to a number of other European countries.
It was worth asking whether there were any aspects of the United Nations Convention on Human Rights that had not been infringed by the Syrian regime. The human rights of its citizens had been comprehensively trampled upon. Some 11 000 people were dead, many thousands more had been displaced, and there were reports of widespread torture and disappearances. Overall, the situation was very tragic. The delivery of humanitarian assistance was the most urgent priority, alongside the need to support the Kofi Annan plan, despite its faults.
The emotional speech made by Mr Díaz Tejera had earned general agreement, but his statement that the situation for Christians should be excluded from the Assembly’s resolution could not be agreed to. Syria was a country with great diversity and Christians needed to be considered as a minority group. It was vital that the country did not go from being a personal dictatorship to a religious one.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Agramunt. The next speaker is Mr Çavuşoğlu.
Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey) – We are having this urgent and timely debate on Syria because we believe that the humanitarian crisis there requires prompt and decisive action by the international community. The resolutions of the UN and the League of Arab States have provided the road map to overcome this crisis.
The Syrian Government has failed to fulfil its obligations according to the six-point plan of the joint special envoy and the UN Security Council’s presidential statement. As a result of that failure, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2042 calling for the establishment of a supervision mission. The subsequent Security Council decision to increase the number of observers up to 300 is encouraging, but not sufficient. Many more observers, perhaps numbering thousands, should be sent to Syria to ensure that the UN mission can monitor the entire country.
Reports emerging from the country so far oblige us to be cautious about the implementation and sustainability of the cease-fire, as the shelling of civilian areas and attacks by government forces continue. If Syria does not fully co-operate with the supervision mission, it will be necessary to expect the Security Council to take more serious measures to end the bloodshed once and for all.
The Council of Europe cannot remain indifferent to the flagrant violation on its borders of the very principles for which it stands. We must continue to be vocal in demanding that the Syrian Administration end all violence against the civilian population and co-operate with the international community to overcome the humanitarian crisis.
I believe it is of the utmost importance that we acknowledge the humanitarian consequence of the uprising in Syria. Tens of thousands of Syrians have taken refuge not only in my country, Turkey, but in neighbouring countries – mainly in Jordan, and to some extent in Iraq and Lebanon – as a result of the atrocities committed by government forces. During my presidency of the Assembly, I visited refugee camps in Turkey with colleagues and we witnessed camps of a high standard providing housing, food, health services, social and educational facilities, places for religious worship, translation services and communications facilities. Although such camps provide safe havens for Syrian refugees, we found that they all wanted to return to their home.
Dear colleagues, the future of Syria must be determined by the Syrian people and we must stand firmly by them until their rightful and legitimate aspirations for democracy and freedom are fulfilled.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Çavuşoğlu. I call Ms Blanco.
(Ms Pourbaix-Lundin, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Mignon.)
Ms BLANCO (Spain) thanked the rapporteurs for their excellent work. The Assembly’s members all represented national parliaments, and those present needed to ask themselves what they and their governments could do to alleviate the situation in Syria. As the conflict had developed in that country, Europe had failed to open its borders to the many thousands of refugees fleeing the country, more than 80% of whom were women, elderly or young people. Instead, they were arriving in neighbouring countries, particularly Turkey. Such sizeable exoduses were typical of conflict. Europe’s response should be to establish national quotas for taking in asylum seekers and refugees as it had done in previous conflicts. It was not fair that countries such as Turkey should shoulder the burden when they did not have the infrastructure to deal with such large influxes. To date, the international community’s reaction to the situation had been too slow and a quota system would be a more substantive response.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Dişli.
Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – Thank you, Madam President. I, too, welcome this timely debate and I thank the rapporteurs for their detailed work. Despite the efforts of the international community, the situation in Syria remains a source of grave concern not only from a hard security standpoint but in relation to basic rights and freedoms.
The ongoing escalation of violence in Syria has led to a grave humanitarian crisis and Turkey has adopted an open-door policy for every Syrian fleeing from the atrocities of the regime. Turkey has set up eight different camps that now accommodate about 24 000 Syrians. Indeed, as a result of the ever-increasing numbers of Syrians seeking temporary protection within Turkish territories, new camps have been built and the living conditions in the others have been improved. About $150 million have so far been spent on the daily maintenance of these camps. I must note one issue that is not raised in the report – recognition of the good will and the efforts of countries such as Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq, which are taking the refugees. This should have been mentioned in the report, as Mr Santini and others have said.
The figures I have mentioned indicate two things. First, the continuation of the hospitality provided to the Syrians who have had to flee their homes calls for fair burden-sharing, as many colleagues have said. This is a time for solidarity. We hope to continue providing relief to the Syrians who have taken shelter on our soil, with the support of the UN, the Arab League, the EU and NATO. Secondly, and more importantly, these alarming numbers show the magnitude of the problem we might face if the crisis and violence in the country escalate further. Therefore, this is a time for determination and for speaking loudly with a single voice.
The resolution adopted on 14 April by the UN Security Council sends an important message. The international community should continue to hold the Syrian regime accountable. We need to see visible, verifiable and indisputable signs of change on the ground. For this, a capable monitoring mission with an adequate number of observers is a must, as Mr Çavuşoğlu has said. In order to remedy the situation, a process of political transition must be started immediately. Syrian people should be given a chance to build their own future through a process that embraces all ethnic, religious and political groups in the country. The final objective in Syria should be to achieve a fully democratic system that guarantees fundamental rights.
We have to take a stand against violence and oppression. We have to support the legitimate demands of the people for democracy. May I make one simple point to Mr Kürkçü? If our friends commit deadly crimes, it is a basic humanitarian requirement to be against those friends.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Lord Ahmad.
Lord AHMAD (United Kingdom) – Thank you, Madam President. Syria presents a great challenge not just to our Assembly but far beyond its parameters to the world as a whole. To begin with, therefore, let me pay tribute to Mr Marcenaro and Mr Santini for their contributions.
A human tragedy is unfolding. From Homs to Hama, from Daraa to Damascus, an uprising has turned to protest and then to violence and then to bloodshed. Close to 6 000 people are dead and the situation continues. Colleagues, we are in a state of civil war. The regime led by President Bashar al-Assad remains supported by the military at large. It is clear that the current regime has lost legitimacy. I have listened to colleagues’ contributions, but I maintain that even at this late hour President Bashar al-Assad has a role to play. I say to him, “Do not destroy your country. Help to build its future.” We must strive for a political solution and we should therefore recognise in this Chamber that, having the membership of the likes of Russia, with its political influence, and Turkey, with its strategic positioning, we have a strategic, central and pivotal role to play in finding a resolution in relation to Syria. The solution must bring together all elements of Syria and all parts of society. My colleague Mr Leigh rightly highlighted the situation of minorities.
Let us not forget the history of Syria, colleagues. Since the First World War, we have seen repeated coups. It was only when the Assad regime came in that – dare I say it? – we saw some stability and structure. If that were to end today, what would be left? What organised groups are there on the ground? We must be careful that the void is not filled by those seeking to bring greater destruction and impose their religious ideology on the whole population through coercion and force. That must not and cannot be allowed to happen.
It is important that we see a key transition of power. Kofi Annan’s plans are right, but it is incumbent on all of us in the international community to ensure that they are actioned.
Colleagues, if we do not see that peaceful – one hopes – transition of power from Bashar al-Assad’s regime to a new one that brings together all the communities of Syria, what is the alternative? It is the continued repression of the Assad regime or the installation of a radical and extreme regime with religious bigotry at its heart. We say no to both. It is time to build a future for Syria so that the options and alternatives to the regime will do nothing to destroy stability in Syria, the region and the world. We must work towards a lasting political solution in Syria, for the sake not just of Syrians but of us all.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Fournier.
Mr FOURNIER (France) noted that it had taken more than a year for the United Nations Security Council to adopt a resolution condemning the Syrian regime. It had taken more than a year to overcome the Russian and Chinese veto, despite the deaths of more than 10 000 civilians, and more than a year to draw lessons from the situation. The second resolution that had been made did not seem to be improving the situation, as Damascus continued to flout its position and pit itself against its own citizens. The cease-fire had not lasted more than 48 hours before the massacre was resumed. The Secretary General had appealed for Damascus to show a “maximum degree of restraint”. It was difficult to define what that meant. While it was necessary to create conditions for political dialogue, mere restraint was simply not enough and pressure on Damascus had to be stepped up with the introduction of new sanctions.
There was concern regarding the potential mistreatment of religious minorities, including Christians, in a post-Assad era. There were more than a million Christians in Syria, which was one of the few states in the region in which Christmas was celebrated alongside other religious festivals. There was a danger that Christians would be accused of supporting the regime. While this was not true and many Christians were actively opposing the regime, there was support for the regime’s protection of secularism, and concerns that Christians could be prosecuted in the future were very real. It was therefore vital to ensure the introduction of parliamentary democracy based on freedom and human rights.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Vareikis.
Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – One might say that as Syria is not a member of the Council of Europe, we do not have to deal with it. The resolution talks about a “gross violation of human rights”. There have been crimes against humanity and there is a dictatorial regime. In Syria, there is a war against the Syrian people. Where such a situation occurs in any part of the world, I think the Council of Europe has to react very strongly.
The strong wording in the resolution prepared by our Italian colleagues is very good. I urge my colleagues not to support amendments that would delete those strong words. If we do so, the resolution will become merely a document of moderate opinion and could encourage the dictatorial regime to continue its crimes. Let us keep to the resolution.
I want to say a few words about the Kofi Annan plan, which is supported by many people in many countries. It is a plan for stopping violence and killing, but it is not a lasting solution to the problems of Syria. The plan would not change the regime. We are not just for regime stabilisation; we are for regime change. The resolution says that “the Syrian people” – not the Syrian regime – are free to build their own future. That is very important.
Of course we understand that Syria is a very complicated state and that the solution will not be simple, but giving the regime permission to continue killing people is the wrong way to go. Dictatorship is not a solution; it is an obstacle to development. We have to think seriously about what will come after the regime. We should not only support the resolution but encourage the governments of our respective countries to take a strong position on Syria.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Mota Amaral.
Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) – Our Assembly greeted with enthusiasm the popular revolutions – the Arab Spring – in some of the southern Mediterranean countries. We hoped that the changes claimed by people in the squares of many cities would bring to those countries freedom, democracy and prosperity to replace corrupt and oppressive dictatorships.
In some cases – for example, in Tunisia and Morocco – there are good prospects for democratic progress, but in other cases new threats of a reversion to obscurantism are evident, and the Assembly and the Council of Europe must be vigilant and ready to support personalities and political movements fighting for human rights, democracy and the rule of law in those countries.
In Syria, the Arab Spring also tried to flourish, but the Assad regime reacted with brutal repression, denying political reform and organising bloody carnage across the country. Any government that orders its national armed forces, designed to defend the country from external enemies, to bomb and kill civilian populations involved in peaceful demonstrations totally loses its legitimacy. The Syrian dictatorship does not deserve to be protected. Preventing the institutions of the international community, in the form of the Security Council of the United Nations, from imposing effective sanctions on the Syrian dictatorship is clearly complicit with its criminal behaviour. It should be subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Such an attitude is totally unacceptable in a member country of the Council of Europe. Our Organisation is committed to defending and promoting human rights, and the right to life is the first and most undeniable one of them all.
Human rights are universal. The mass murder of a civilian population is a clear violation of human rights and must be condemned without exception as a crime against humanity. It is sad to note that the international community looks as if it is in a state of paralysis over the Syrian dictatorship and the mass killings it is inflicting on its own people. Who is invoking the responsibility and the right to protect the civilian population in Syria?
Blood is flowing on the streets of Syria and human lives are being destroyed without mercy, including the elderly, women and children. As a forum for human rights, our Assembly must push the alarm button, and it should be heeded by the governments of our member states and the international community as a whole. I join our rapporteur, Mr Marcenaro, whom I thank and congratulate on his report, in welcoming the new signs of compromise seen in the UN Security Council to establish a controlled cease-fire and a Syrian-led solution – but excluding from any future democratic regime, of course, the Assad dynasty and its followers.
I hope that the Annan plan proves to be feasible and that a new and free Syria results from it. That will benefit the Syrian people and help to reinforce stability in this crucial area of the Middle East.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Salles.
Mr SALLES (France) thanked the President. While several individuals had recently been indicted for actions in the region, Damascus continued to flout its international commitments. The city of Hama had been bombed earlier in the week, despite international pressure. The United Nations Secretary General had declared that too many lives had been lost and that the humanitarian situation was worsening every day. But the reaction in Damascus had been to bomb refugee camps in Turkey. This was clearly unacceptable and the regime was manipulating the international community more and more as time went by. Syria had powerful allies in the region, but while there had been some positive signs, such as the visit of opposition delegates to Moscow earlier in the year, there was a risk that the conflict in Syria would spill over and start to affect other neighbouring states. The entire region was in danger of fracturing and imploding – a danger of which the regime was aware and used against the international community. It was well known that there were groups against the regime, and other groups, such as Hizbollah; Israel was clearly threatened by the situation.
The Arab League was meeting today and everyone would look to the outcome of that meeting with great interest. The best way to address the situation was still unclear. The question arose whether the opposition should be armed. The opposition was not united and the various groups were fractured and spread across the country. Military intervention risked conflagration in the region. But a nation was none the less being murdered before the eyes of the world.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Bakir.
Ms BAKIR (Turkey) – I congratulate the rapporteur on this constructive and balanced report. It provides many insights into the current situation in Syria and draws a road map for the steps that the international community should take to stop the violence and maintain some form of stability in Syria. We all condemn the violence of Assad’s regime.
I want to underline the fact that those who express the view that the Syrian crisis is not a European problem, or that the Syrian people can deal with it through their own social dynamic, does not reflect the truth. We cannot isolate ourselves from these ongoing human rights violations. Quite the contrary, the crisis is on our doorstep. Further, there are associated expenses resulting from this instability in the form of providing for an increasing number of refugees. The Turkish-Syrian border is also the Council of Europe’s border with the Middle East. If the atrocities being committed by Syrian military forces on innocent civilians continue, the flow of refugees into Turkey will quickly increase to the hundreds of thousands. So far, Turkey has spent $150 million of its own national resources on sheltering some 24 000 refugees from Syria, and the numbers are constantly rising. The Council of Europe should look at the situation in Syria from a humanitarian point of view. From that angle, it can be seen that it is essential to shoulder the burden along with the other member states of the Council of Europe. That is imperative for the future sustainability of humanitarian aid in order to shelter these refugees.
I also agree with the rapporteur that in order to achieve these goals we should widen the coalition of states that are seeking a resolution, with particular reference to the Group of Friends of the Syrian People. We should use all the remaining channels of communication and promote active diplomacy between the Council of Europe and the Syrian Government to lead Syria to an end to violence and the maintenance of stability. In this context, Russia can play a positive and constructive role by using her influence on the ruling government in Syria and encouraging it to stop all violence and bloodshed. We need to reach a peaceful political solution that includes all the political forces operating in Syria.
The final goal is that of building a pluralistic and democratic society in Syria in which its cultural, ethnic and religious minorities can live side by side in peace and tolerance, along with the provision of full human rights for women. It is essential that the international community is unified in its effort to exert diplomatic pressure on the ruling government in Syria in order to achieve this goal. Syria must end all violence. It must protect its civilians and withdraw all military forces from its population centres. The free movement of journalists and the immediate release of those who have been detained is of paramount importance to the member states of the Council of Europe. Kofi Annan’s peace plan must be implemented in full.
Sanctions are an important factor in forcing Assad to act in accordance with the international community. However, we must be certain that any sanctions that are imposed do not target Syrian civilians. Their human right to self-defence has to be respected.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Schneider.
Mr SCHNEIDER (France) noted that the debate was occurring while Syria was experiencing an upsurge in violence. The Kofi Annan plan was the last chance for peaceful reconciliation. It was a comprehensive plan and all actions should be implemented. About 300 United Nations observers would soon go to the region, and the United Nations peacekeeping authorities had said that 30 observers could be in Syria by the end of the week and 100 by the end of the month. But this was not enough. Syria’s demand that certain nations, including the United Kingdom, France and Saudi Arabia, be excluded from the observation mission was intolerable; Assad could not be allowed to dictate conditions and his behaviour demanded that he must ultimately leave power. Russia had shown that it wanted the resolution implemented. The Assembly should also send a strong message of hope to the Syrian people by adopting the report.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Schneider. The next speaker is Mr Makhmutov.
Mr MAKHMUTOV (Russian Federation) thanked the rapporteur for the huge amount of work that had been done on such a complex issue. Russia had been consistent and insistent in its call for peaceful resolution, with agreement on peace between all parties.
It was important to set up a democratic system for all Syrians regardless of their religion or ethnicity. Such a system could not be imposed on the country from outside, but would have to come from the Syrians themselves.
All combatants in Syria should cease violence immediately and follow the process set out in the Annan peace plan. Those countries with influence with the opposition should encourage them to follow this path, while for its part Russia would put pressure on the Assad regime to do the same.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Makhmutov. That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr Marcenaro, rapporteur, to reply. You have four minutes.
Mr MARCENARO (Italy) noted that one speaker had argued that the Kofi Annan peace plan had already failed. He disagreed. While it was true that violence continued day to day, no one had imagined that the Annan plan would be easily implemented. Until a better plan was available, the Annan peace plan was the benchmark and it should have the full support of the international community.
The Annan peace plan aimed not simply to stop the violence but proposed a political process to lead to a peaceful resolution. It was essential that the Syrian people should have the opportunity to make a choice. At the same time the international community should remember the moral of Aesop’s fable about the wolf and the lamb: any excuse would serve a tyrant, and caution was required in dealings with the Assad regime.
While the situation in Syria seemed clear at first sight, if delegates looked beyond the tears shed for the victims of the Assad regime, they would see that the situation was not simply one of a strong unified dictatorship fighting a fractured weak opposition. The Assad regime was finished. Syria could never revert to its previous state. The only way to find a solution was through peaceful negotiation.
The Council of Europe’s role was to stand for the principle of human rights. The report would give voice to the Assembly’s principles. It should not try to expand its role into the territory of other organisations such as the United Nation Security Council.
Thanks were extended to the Syrian colleagues who contributed to the report, and to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for agreeing the report in such a short space of time. The report was commended to the Assembly.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Marcenaro. Does Mr Gardetto, the Vice-Chair of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, wish to speak?
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that all the points he wished to raise had already been made. The Assembly was in a position to send out a strong view from the people of 47 countries in favour of human rights and democracy. He urged the Assembly to support the report, and hoped that the people of Syria would soon receive help and that their suffering would be alleviated.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gardetto. The debate is closed.
The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution to which 15 amendments have been tabled. We will proceed to consider the amendments in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.
We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Pushkov, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Zhurova, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Sudarenkov and Ms Borzova, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, to replace the words “brutal repression by the Syrian autocratic leadership of an uprising with democratic aspirations” with the following words: “brutal internal conflict”.
I call Mr Pushkov to support Amendment 5.
Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – We think that the wording of the amendment more accurately represents the situation in Syria.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Marcenaro.
Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that he was against this amendment for the simple reason that it put hangman and victim on the same level.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) (Translation) – The committee is against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 5 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Pushkov, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Zhurova, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Sudarenkov and Ms Borzova, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, to delete the words “systematic and gross”.
I call Mr Pushkov to support Amendment 6.
Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – We suggest the amendment because the term “systematic” means “pre-planned and having the specific goal of murdering people.” We do not think that that is the case in Syria.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Lord Tomlinson.
Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – If the human rights violations in Syria are not systematic and gross – the words that the amendment seeks to delete – then language is losing its meaning. As we all know, the violations in Syria are systematic – they are perpetrated as a matter of routine – and they are gross in size and scale. The Council of Europe will have no meaning if it accepts this amendment.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) (Translation) – The committee is against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 6 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Pushkov, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Zhurova, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Sudarenkov and Ms Borzova, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, to delete the words “amounting to crimes against humanity” and “such as: the use of force against civilians, arbitrary executions, the killing and persecution of protesters, enforced disappearances, torture and sexual violence, including of and against children.”
I call Mr Pushkov to support Amendment 7.
Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – The amendment speaks for itself.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Hancock.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – I share Lord Tomlinson’s view about the words that we choose to use. The amendment does not say that people have committed crimes; it says that crimes exist. These people need to be brought before the courts and the allegations that have been made need to be substantiated. The existing wording is correct. To say something different by taking these words out would undermine the credibility of the Council of Europe and, sadly, the credibility of the acts of violence that have been perpetrated against the Syrian people.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) (Translation) – The committee is against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 7 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Pushkov, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Zhurova, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Sudarenkov and Ms Borzova, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, to delete the words “including, as appropriate, before the International Criminal Court”.
THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Pushkov to support Amendment 8.
Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – It is not certain that the threat of the International Criminal Court will definitely help the exercise of Kofi Annan’s mission.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Hancock.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – This amendment, too, may have been moved in an attempt to be helpful, but surely it would have a negative effect. The existing wording is clear in saying that the perpetrators of these crimes need to be brought to book. That is what Kofi Annan is trying to do. His primary responsibility is to try to bring peace, but it is also to seek justice for the people affected by these crimes. It would not be in the interests of the Syrians or Syria to negate that.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) (Translation) – The committee is against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 8 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Herkel, Mr Gardetto, Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Kandelaki, Ms Mateu Pi, Mr Marquet and Mr Blum, which is, in the draft resolution, at the beginning of paragraph 4, to add the following words:
“Two draft resolutions of the United Nations Security Council condemning the violence in Syria were vetoed by Russia and China in October 2011 and March 2012.”
I call Mr Herkel to support Amendment 4.
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – In paragraph 4, we speak about the international community’s failure to take common action and how a common position is now fortunately emerging. In order to be more precise, it would be fair to refer to the vetoed United Nations resolutions.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Pushkov.
Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – The amendment distorts the situation. Russia did not veto the resolution because it was about condemning the violence. If that was what it was about, Russia would have supported it. It did so because the resolution reflected only one side in the conflict and did not talk about the deeds and violence perpetrated by the other side.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) (Translation) – The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 4 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Pushkov, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Zhurova, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Sudarenkov and Ms Borzova, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, to delete the words “and the international community”.
I call Mr Pushkov to support Amendment 9.
Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – We suggest deleting these words when they concern granting observers full freedom of movement and access to the whole territory of the country. The United Nations Security Council resolution states that ensuring such freedom of movement and access should be accomplished by the Syrian authorities, not the international community.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Lord Tomlinson.
Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – When observers are undertaking their mission on behalf of the United Nations, and the United Nations is the body that speaks on behalf of the international community, it is self-evidently an obligation on the international community to ensure that monitors acting on its behalf through the United Nations are given protection. Deleting those words would be an exercise in the rankest hypocrisy.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) (Translation) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 9 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 10, tabled by Mr Pushkov, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Zhurova, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Sudarenkov and Ms Borzova, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, to delete the words: “To facilitate this objective, the Assembly calls on the United Nations Security Council to urgently put in place an embargo on the importation of all weapons and supporting material into Syria.”
I call Mr Pushkov to support Amendment 10.
Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – The amendment speaks for itself.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Marcenaro.
Mr MARCENARO (Italy) noted that the paragraph to which the amendment referred had been introduced in committee following an amendment from Mr Binley, which had been agreed unanimously including by Mr Pushkov himself.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) (Translation) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 10 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 11, tabled by Mr Pushkov, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Zhurova, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Sudarenkov and Ms Borzova, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, to delete the words “, the implementation of which is being co-ordinated by the Group of Friends of the Syrian people”.
I call Mr Pushkov to support Amendment 11.
Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – We believe that the United Nations is the universally recognised organisation for dealing with such crises, not some self-proclaimed “group of friends”.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) (Translation) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 11 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 12, tabled by Mr Pushkov, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Zhurova, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Sudarenkov and Ms Borzova, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 9.
I call Mr Pushkov to support Amendment 12.
Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – We suggest deleting paragraph 9 as it is recognised in the agreement on the Kofi Annan mission – the six-point plan – that the current Syrian regime should be part of the political dialogue that should start in the country. Paragraph 9 contradicts that important aspect.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Marcenaro.
Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that anyone who had read the resolution could see that forces supporting the Syrian regime needed to be involved in the resolution of the conflict, but nevertheless the dictatorship itself had to end.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) (Translation) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 12 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 13, tabled by Mr Pushkov, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Zhurova, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Sudarenkov and Ms Borzova, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10, after the words “and this diversity, together with the” to insert the following words: “sovereignty, independence, unity and”.
I call Mr Pushkov to support Amendment 13.
Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – We make this suggestion because we would like to make a point about Syria being sovereign, independent and united in future.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) (Translation) – The committee is against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 13 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 14, tabled by Mr Pushkov, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Borzova, Ms Zhurova, Mr Sidyakin and Mr Sudarenkov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10, to delete the words “in a future post-Assad Syria”.
I call Mr Pushkov to support Amendment 14.
Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – At this point, when it is plainly stated in the six points of the Annan plan that the Assad government should be part of the solution, it would be counter-productive to stress a “post-Assad Syria” definition.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Lord Tomlinson.
Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – The only future government of Syria that will bring peace to that wretched country is a post-Assad one. In this Assembly, we must be very clear about saying what we mean.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) (Translation) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 14 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 15, tabled by Mr Pushkov, Mr Makhmutov, Ms Borzova, Ms Zhurova, Mr Sidyakin and Mr Sudarenkov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10, to delete the words: “The Assembly calls on the various groups of domestic opposition to unite in order to be considered as a legitimate alternative offering all Syrian citizens, irrespective of their ethnic origin, culture or religion, the prospect of a peaceful, democratic and pluralist Syria.”
I call Mr Pushkov to support Amendment 15.
Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – I have been in Damascus, where I have met representatives of different opposition groups several times, and I think that it is up to them to decide in what form they should unite or present different options when they take part in political dialogue. I think that the amendment reflects their position.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Hancock.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – With the greatest respect to our Russian colleagues, the wording here reflects exactly what the Assembly stands for. We are not telling people what to do; we are calling on them to unite for the benefit of their country, based on the guidelines laid down in paragraph 10. To remove the words specified in Amendment 15 denies what I hope every single member of the Assembly wants to happen. Denying that means that we want a variant on it, which would not be acceptable to the people of Syria or to this Assembly.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) (Translation) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 15 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Leigh, Mr Kandelaki, Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Mayer and Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 10, to add the following words:
“Noting the under-representation of Christians in the Syrian National Council, any post-Assad future must guarantee the religious tolerance that Christians have enjoyed until now.”
I call Mr Leigh to support Amendment 3. You have 30 seconds.
Mr LEIGH (United Kingdom) – My amendment would not delete anything from this excellent report. We do not want a repeat in Syria of what went on in Iraq. Some 10% of the population in that sad country are Christians. The best way of defending them is through high visibility, and adding this amendment would ensure that they receive that visibility and protection.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) (Translation) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 3 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 1, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 14, to insert the following paragraph:
“The Assembly considers it important to move, where appropriate, existing refugee camps further away from the border with Syria so as to allow for the better safety of refugees and ensure the civilian character of the camps.”
I call Mr Santini to support Amendment 1.
Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that the amendment concerned the location of refugee camps, which to date had been situated too close to the Syrian border where Syrian agents were able to cause disruption. It recommended that future camps be placed further into the receiving countries.
THE PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Mr Marcenaro wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in Amendment 1, to insert the proposed new words at the end of paragraph 14, as part of the paragraph, and not as a new paragraph.
In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?
That is not the case. I would call Mr Marcenaro to support his oral sub-amendment, but he has indicated that that is not needed.
Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment, Mr Santini?
Mr SANTINI (Italy) (Translation) – In favour.
THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
The oral sub-amendment is adopted.
I have been informed that Mr Hancock wishes to propose a second oral sub-amendment, which is, in Amendment 1, to replace the proposed new words with the following:
“The Assembly, welcoming the hospitality extended by Turkey and congratulating the Turkish authorities, considers it important to build, where appropriate, possible future refugee camps further away from the border with Syria so as to allow for the better safety of refugees.”
In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?
That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Hancock to support his oral sub-amendment.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – The purpose of the oral sub-amendment is to give credit where it is due. None of us can underestimate the pressure that the movement of people out of Syria into Turkey has put on the Turkish authorities. It is right and proper that as a member state that has offered hospitality, care and protection to so many people in very difficult circumstances Turkey should be congratulated. That should be placed on the record and in the report. Turkey has undertaken a very difficult task and it should be recorded the whole Assembly should be grateful for what it has done.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment, Mr Santini?
Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that the sub-amendment improved and completed his amendment, and therefore the committee was in favour.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy?
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) (Translation) – We have no opinion as we have not had time to consider the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT – I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The oral sub-amendment is adopted.
We will now consider Amendment 1, as amended.
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on the amendment, as amended?
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) (Translation) – No opinion.
THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 1, as amended, to the vote.
The vote is open.
Amendment 1, as amended, is adopted.
We come to Amendment 2, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 15, to insert the following paragraph:
“The Assembly urges all bordering countries to allow persons fleeing Syria access to their territory and access to protection without fear of refoulement and calls all member states of the Council of Europe to provide individual Syrian asylum seekers with appropriate protection, whether this be asylum or subsidiary protection.”
I call Mr Santini to support the amendment.
Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that this amendment was an addition to the text rather than a change to the existing wording. It added at the end of paragraph 15 a call to other bordering countries to allow access to their territory to afford protection to fleeing civilians, and invited all Council of Europe members to look favourably on applications for asylum.
THE PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Mr Marcenaro wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, as follows:
“In Amendment 2, to insert the proposed new words at the end of paragraph 15, as part of the paragraph, and not as a new paragraph.”
In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.
However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.
Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? No.
What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment, Mr Santini?
Mr SANTINI (Italy) (Translation) – In favour.
THE PRESIDENT – I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The oral sub-amendment is adopted.
We will now consider Amendment 2, as amended.
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on the amendment, as amended?
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) (Translation) –No opinion.
THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 2, as amended, to the vote.
The vote is open.
Amendment 2, as amended, is adopted.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 12906, as amended.
The vote is open.
The draft resolution in Document 12906, as amended, is adopted, with 104 votes for, 4 against and 1 abstention.
3. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting
THE PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. with the agenda that has already been agreed.
The sitting is adjourned.
(The sitting was closed at 1.40 p.m.)
CONTENTS
1. Written declaration
2. Debate under the urgent procedure: the situation in Syria
Presentations by Mr Marcenaro of report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Document 12906. and by Mr Santini of report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons (for opinion), Document 12911
Speakers:
Mr Leigh (United Kingdom)
Ms Lundgren (Sweden)
Mr Kürkçü (Turkey)
Mr Hörster (Germany)
Mr Schennach (Austria)
Mr Gardetto (Monaco)
Mr Michel (France)
Mr Knyshov (Russian Federation)
Ms Bourzai (France)
Ms Schou (Norway)
Mr Pushkov (Russian Federation)
Mr Bockel (France)
Mr Biedroń (Poland)
Mr Pozzo di Borgo (France)
Mr Diaz Tejera (Spain)
Mr Kucheida (France)
Mr Muńoz-Alonso (Spain)
Mr Skinnari (Finland)
Mr Sabella (Palestinian National Authority)
Mr Agramunt (Spain)
Mr Çavuşoğlu (Turkey)
Ms Blanco (Spain)
Mr Dişli (Turkey)
Lord Ahmad (United Kingdom)
Mr Fournier (France)
Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)
Mr Mota Amaral (Portugal)
Mr Salles (France)
Ms Bakir (Turkey)
Mr Schneider (France)
Mr Kakhmutov (Russian Federation)
Replies:
Mr Marcenaro (Italy)
Amendments 4, 1, as amended, and 2, as amended, to the draft resolution in Document 12906 adopted
Draft resolution in Document 12891, as amended, adopted
3. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting
APPENDIX
Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of Substitutes who replaced absent Representatives are printed in small letters. The names of those who were absent or apologised for absence are followed by an asterisk.
Francis AGIUS*
Pedro AGRAMUNT
Arben AHMETAJ*
Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV*
Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ*
José Antonio ALONSO/Delia Blanco
Karin ANDERSEN
Donald ANDERSON*
Florin Serghei ANGHEL*
Khadija ARIB*
Mörđur ÁRNASON
Francisco ASSIS*
Ţuriđur BACKMAN
Daniel BACQUELAINE/Ludo Sannen
Viorel Riceard BADEA*
Gagik BAGHDASARYAN*
Pelin Gündeş BAKIR
Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA*
Doris BARNETT
José Manuel BARREIRO*
Deniz BAYKAL
Marieluise BECK
Alexander van der BELLEN
Anna BELOUSOVOVÁ*
José María BENEYTO*
Deborah BERGAMINI*
Robert BIEDROŃ
Grzegorz BIERECKI/Marek Borowski
Gülsün BİLGEHAN*
Oksana BILOZIR*
Brian BINLEY*
Roland BLUM/Alain Cousin
Jean-Marie BOCKEL
Eric BOCQUET/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo
Olena BONDARENKO*
Olga BORZOVA
Mladen BOSIĆ*
António BRAGA*
Anne BRASSEUR
Márton BRAUN*
Federico BRICOLO*
Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL*
Piet DE BRUYN*
Patrizia BUGNANO*
André BUGNON/Maximilian Reimann
Natalia BURYKINA*
Sylvia CANEL*
Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU
Mikael CEDERBRATT/ Kent Härstedt
Otto CHALOUPKA*
Vannino CHITI/Paolo Corsini
Christopher CHOPE
Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN
Desislav CHUKOLOV*
Lolita ČIGĀNE*
Boriss CILEVIČS
James CLAPPISON*
Ms Deirdre CLUNE*
M. Georges COLOMBIER/André Schneider
Agustín CONDE*
Titus CORLĂŢEAN*
Igor CORMAN
Telmo CORREIA*
Carlos COSTA NEVES*
Cristian DAVID*
Joseph DEBONO GRECH*
Giovanna DEBONO/ Joseph Falzon
Armand De DECKER/Dirk Van Der Maelen
Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA
Peter van DIJK
Klaas DIJKHOFF*
Şaban DİŞLİ
Karl DONABAUER/Edgar Mayer
Daphné DUMERY*
Alexander (The Earl of) DUNDEE
Josette DURRIEU/Bernadette Bourzai
Baroness Diana ECCLES/Lord Tariq Ahmad
József ÉKES*
Tülin ERKAL KARA
Gianni FARINA
Nikolay FEDOROV*
Relu FENECHIU*
Vyacheslav FETISOV*
Doris FIALA/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter
Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*
Axel E. FISCHER*
Jana FISCHEROVÁ/Tomáš Jirsa
Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*
Paul FLYNN/Edward Leigh
Stanislav FOŘT*
Hans FRANKEN
Jean-Claude FRÉCON/Jean-Pierre Michel
Erich Georg FRITZ
Martin FRONC
György FRUNDA*
Giorgi GABASHVILI*
Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ*
Sir Roger GALE*
Jean-Charles GARDETTO
Tamás GAUDI NAGY*
Valeriu GHILETCHI
Sophia GIANNAKA*
Paolo GIARETTA*
Michael GLOS
Obrad GOJKOVIĆ/Snežana Jonica
Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI
Svetlana GORYACHEVA*
Martin GRAF/Martina Schenk
Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou
Andreas GROSS
Arlette GROSSKOST
Dzhema GROZDANOVA*
Attila GRUBER*
Antonio GUTIÉRREZ
Ana GUŢU
Carina HÄGG
Sabir HAJIYEV
Andrzej HALICKI/Adam Rogacki
Mike HANCOCK
Margus HANSON
Davit HARUTYUNYAN/Hermine Naghdalyan
Hĺkon HAUGLI/Anette Trettebergstuen
Norbert HAUPERT
Oliver HEALD
Alfred HEER
Olha HERASYM'YUK
Andres HERKEL
Adam HOFMAN*
Serhiy HOLOVATY
Jim HOOD/Michael Connarty
Joachim HÖRSTER
Anette HÜBINGER*
Andrej HUNKO*
Susanna HUOVINEN
Ali HUSEYNLI*
Rafael HUSEYNOV*
Stanisław HUSKOWSKI*
Shpëtim IDRIZI*
Željko IVANJI*
Igor IVANOVSKI
Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*
Denis JACQUAT/Bernard Fournier
Roman JAKIČ*
Ramón JÁUREGUI*
Michael Aastrup JENSEN
Mats JOHANSSON/Kerstin Lundgren
Birkir Jón JÓNSSON/Gunnar Bragi Sveinsson
Armand JUNG
Antti KAIKKONEN/Jouko Skinnari
Ferenc KALMÁR
Božidar KALMETA*
Mariusz KAMIŃSKI
Michail KATRINIS*
Burhan KAYATÜRK
Bogdan KLICH*
Haluk KOÇ
Igor KOLMAN
Tiny KOX
Marie KRARUP/Sophie Lřhde
Borjana KRIŠTO
Václav KUBATA
Pavol KUBOVIČ*
Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA
Dalia KUODYTĖ
Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ
Athina KYRIAKIDOU
Henrik Sass LARSEN*
Igor LEBEDEV
Jean-Paul LECOQ
Harald LEIBRECHT*
Terry LEYDEN
Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE
Yuliya LIOVOCHKINA*
Lone LOKLINDT/Per Stig Mřller
François LONCLE
Jean-Louis LORRAIN
George LOUKAIDES/Stella Kyriakidou
Younal LOUTFI
Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ
Philippe MAHOUX*
Gennaro MALGIERI*
Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET
Pietro MARCENARO
Milica MARKOVIĆ
Muriel MARLAND-MILITELLO*
Meritxell MATEU PI
Pirkko MATTILA*
Frano MATUŠIĆ*
Liliane MAURY PASQUIER
Michael McNAMARA
Sir Alan MEALE
Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA/Sonja Mirakovska
Evangelos MEIMARAKIS*
Ivan MELNIKOV*
Nursuna MEMECAN
José MENDES BOTA
Dragoljub MIĆUNOVIĆ*
Jean-Claude MIGNON/Christine Marin
Dangutė MIKUTIENĖ
Akaki MINASHVILI*
Krasimir MINCHEV*
Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI*
Andrey MOLCHANOV*
Jerzy MONTAG*
Patrick MORIAU
Joăo Bosco MOTA AMARAL
Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*
Alejandro MUŃOZ-ALONSO
Lydia MUTSCH
Philippe NACHBAR
Adrian NĂSTASE*
Mr Gebhard NEGELE*
Pasquale NESSA*
Fritz NEUGEBAUER
Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*
Elena NIKOLAEVA*
Tomislav NIKOLIĆ*
Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*
Carina OHLSSON
Joseph O'REILLY
Sandra OSBORNE*
Nadia OTTAVIANI
Liliana PALIHOVICI
Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/Elsa Papadimitriou
Eva PARERA
Ganira PASHAYEVA*
Peter PELLEGRINI*
Lajla PERNASKA*
Johannes PFLUG*
Alexander POCHINOK*
Ivan POPESCU
Lisbeth Bech POULSEN*
Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN
Cezar Florin PREDA*
Lord John PRESCOTT/ Jim Dobbin
Jakob PRESEČNIK*
Gabino PUCHE
Alexey PUSHKOV
Valeriy PYSARENKO/Volodymyr Pylypenko
Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ/Zoran Vukčević
Elżbieta RADZISZEWSKA*
Mailis REPS
Andrea RIGONI*
François ROCHEBLOINE/Rudy Salles
Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*
René ROUQUET
Marlene RUPPRECHT*
lir RUSMALI*
Armen RUSTAMYAN*
Branko RUŽIĆ*
Volodymyr RYBAK/Serhii Kivalov
Rovshan RZAYEV*
Džavid ŠABOVIĆ/Ervin Spahić
Giacomo SANTINI
Giuseppe SARO*
Kimmo SASI*
Stefan SCHENNACH
Marina SCHUSTER*
Urs SCHWALLER
Senad ŠEPIĆ
Samad SEYIDOV*
Jim SHERIDAN*
Mykola SHERSHUN/Oleksiy Plotnikov
Adalbi SHKHAGOVEV/Alexey Knyshov
Robert SHLEGEL/Anvar Makhmutov
Ladislav SKOPAL
Leonid SLUTSKY*
Serhiy SOBOLEV
Roberto SORAVILLA*
Maria STAVROSITU
Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ/Egidijus Vareikis
Yanaki STOILOV*
Fiorenzo STOLFI
Christoph STRÄSSER*
Karin STRENZ*
Giacomo STUCCHI*
Valeriy SUDARENKOV
Björn von SYDOW
Petro SYMONENKO*
Vilmos SZABÓ*
Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI/Imre Vejkey
Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI
Giorgi TARGAMADZÉ*
Dragan TODOROVIĆ*
Romana TOMC*
Lord John E. TOMLINSON
Latchezar TOSHEV
Petré TSISKARISHVILI*
Mihai TUDOSE*
Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ
Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ
Konstantinos TZAVARAS*
Tomáš ÚLEHLA*
Ilyas UMAKHANOV*l
Giuseppe VALENTINO/Renato Farina
Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS*
Stefaan VERCAMER*
Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN
Luigi VITALI*
Luca VOLONTČ
Vladimir VORONIN*
Tanja VRBAT/Ivan Račan
Konstantinos VRETTOS*
Klaas de VRIES*
Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*
Piotr WACH
Johann WADEPHUL*
Robert WALTER*
Katrin WERNER*
Renate WOHLWEND*
Karin S. WOLDSETH
Gisela WURM*
Karl ZELLER*
Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO*
Emanuelis ZINGERIS
Guennady ZIUGANOV*
Naira ZOHRABYAN*
Vacant Seat, Cyprus*
ALSO PRESENT
Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:
Reinette KLEVER
Observers:
Aldo GIORDANO
Ms Rosario GREEN MACÍAS
Hervé Pierre GUILLOT
Partners for Democracy
Walid ASSAF
Najat ALASTAL
Qais KHADER
Bernard SABELLA