AS (2013) CR 05
Addendum 2

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Fifth Sitting

Wednesday 23 January 2013 at 12 a.m.

ADDENDUM 2

Free debate

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

Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) — The major feature of the family is expressed through the opportunity of open speech, not through ignorance of the emerging problem but through its immediate discussion. The Council of Europe is also a huge family which unites us and we should be sincere in all our relationships and in the debates held here. Each of the 47 countries united here is distinct and the unity of this distinction is pleasant in itself. Nevertheless, our intention is not to swell this distinction and variety but to find out more and more common aspects that will bring us together and closer. Unfortunately, some countries, and their parliaments in particular, put forward initiatives that do not correspond to this idea.

The draft law from the French Senate which defines criminal accountability for non-recognition of the Armenian genocide is among such undesirable cases. Defining the punishment for the denial of any thought or idea, even despite that idea being the truth, totally contradicts the fundamental principles of democracy. This approach of inquisition sounds extremely strange in the 21st century and the emergence of such an undemocratic and inhuman proposal in the French Senate is pitiful. Meanwhile, putting the draft law into the agenda following its initial rejection is a cause for great concern. The principle that “The person who doesn’t repeat my words is my enemy” has caused many sorrowful experiences in both recent and remote history, and this draft law reminds us of the bloody pages of Soviet totalitarianism.

It was quite natural that experienced and smart politicians in the French Senate raised their voices when this issue came to the agenda for the first time, thus stating the necessity for rejecting it – and they achieved a positive result. One could suppose that everything then came to an end and that an event not fitting the Senate was left behind. But not at all. Another effort towards putting a draft law on the agenda defining the criminal accountability for non-recognition of the Armenian genocide was put forward. Even if we put aside the assessment that the Armenian genocide is fabricated, we should by no means forget the undemocratic character of such initiatives and their scope to damage the democratic image of France in the world community.

It would be better not to raise this issue in the Senate, which would save half the damage. Even if it is raised, I am confident that the far-sighted and wise majority in the Senate will once again reject a piece of paper which is incompatible with logic, truth and democratic values. The Senate must do that, because the suspicious intentions of individual persons and groups cannot prevail over democracy and the supreme interests of France.

Mr GUTIÉRREZ (Spain) — A few days ago, industrial production data from the eurozone were published, providing disappointing figures and reflecting an inter-annual fall in growth of 3.7%, in stark contrast to the recovery of the United States, where 2012 saw a growth rate of 2.5%.

Part of the explanation for this decline is the economic downturn, which is even affecting Germany, whose economy shrank by 0.5% last quarter. Another element is the expansive monetary policy promoted by the central banks of Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom, a policy that has not been answered on the European side. With this in mind, the greatest contributor to our industrial decline has been the inability to react to industrial relocation phenomena. What is allowing the United States to maintain its leadership today is just that maintenance – and it is worth highlighting this – and the return of part of the industrial production which had been located abroad.

I am the mayor of an industrial city in Andalucía, Alcalá de Guadaira, close to Seville. It is a community which has always been very closely linked to the productive economy and has borne witness to industrial transformations. In 1994, the closure of a profitable factory of the Gillette company was not a unique case in Europe. My city is threatened now with the closure of another profitable company, Roca, a well-founded Spanish multinational company which grew 3.5% last year. When its accounts were announced only a few months ago “no risk to solvency and liquidity despite the difficult economic situation was identified”.

More and more companies are taking such decisions. As a society, we have the right to be informed of the reasons, the benefits they expect to obtain and the cost that the breakdown of our industrial fabric entails. We must compel companies to undertake a transparency policy on the one hand, and detailed accounts on the other. The former demands knowledge of the calculations on which these have been based, while the latter means that we must be aware of how much we have contributed to the development of such companies, and to their growth and expansion. Therefore, both companies and societies must have a clear idea of their contribution to a company’s success. More often than not, a biased account of the facts is given which reflects only part of the data.

We need to redefine the commitment that companies have to their societies, with all those which have taken root in our cities. We are not factors of production, but citizens who contribute to the growth of the company not just as consumers, but also as citizens, through public policies. If for the companies we are just consumers and hired hands, they should know from the beginning how to redefine the relationship, and do so to every extent.

We have a challenge: public policies must be redefined. Europe is a mature territory that will have to base its growth on its own resources, and human and technological capital, in a solid specialisation in products of higher quality and technological intensity.

Projects of European momentum that we need to take on will include that of a genuine industrial policy. We cannot wait any longer to do so. Keynes, in one of his most famous phrases, said that: “long term is an inadequate guide to study current events. In the long term, we are all dead. Economists assume a task too difficult and futile if limited to say that when you pass the storm the sea will be calm in a stormy phase”. That is from the “Brief treatise on monetary reform”. Profitable endeavours are under way today, yet workers are still left without jobs while investments in infrastructure and our efforts in many areas today lose their value. It is necessary to respond now and respond together: companies, trade unions, employers, consumers and governments.

Europe is a society admired the whole world over for having been able to combine economic efficiency, social justice and individual freedom. We shall continue to do so in the future. This is the ambition that Europe needs to continue being one of the most complete societies of the world.

Mr SHIPLEY (Canada) — Canada and the European Union enjoy a vibrant economic relationship, which began with the signing of the Framework Agreement for Commercial and Economic Co-operation in 1976. Today, the European Union remains Canada’s second largest trading partner after the United States and its second most important source of foreign direct investment and destination for Canadian direct investment abroad.

In 2011, Canada’s merchandise exports to the European Union amounted to $40.1 billion, while its imports amounted to $52.1 billion. Meanwhile, the European Union accounted for $160.7 billion in foreign direct investment assets in Canada at the end of 2011, which represented 26.4% of our total foreign direct investment assets. In 2011, Canada’s direct investment assets in the European Union totalled $172.5 billion, representing 25.2% of global Canadian direct investment abroad.

In an effort to deepen and broaden this important commercial relationship, Canada and the European Union agreed to launch negotiations towards a comprehensive economic and trade agreement in May 2009. The CETA negotiation agenda remains broad and ambitious and includes areas such as market access for goods and services, mobility of business persons, investment provisions and regulatory co-operation. It is estimated that the agreement will provide considerable benefits to both sides. According to the 2008 European Union-Canada joint study, full trade liberalisation could bring a potential 20% increase in bilateral trade. According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, significant progress has been made in negotiations and the text of the agreement is well advanced. Both sides continue to work collaboratively to conclude the remaining chapters.

CETA also marks the first time that the provinces and territories in Canada are engaged in negotiations of an international trade agreement in areas that fall under their jurisdiction. They are fully supportive of an enhanced economic partnership between Canada and the European Union. In addition, the Government of Canada has also ensured that Canadians remain informed. I must tell you that the private sector continues to voice strong support for the conclusion of an ambitious agreement and has been actively involved.

Finally, Canadian parliamentarians have also been actively engaged in studying the implications of CETA through the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade. The committee examined a broad range of issues currently under negotiation, such as labour mobility, government procurement, intellectual property and agriculture and concluded again that CETA would be of overall net benefit to Canada and the European Union. It is also important for Canadian parliamentarians to continue to participate in discussions with parliamentarians from the national parliaments of individual European Union member States, who will also be debating the merits of CETA, as part of their respective ratification processes.

I therefore welcome this opportunity to share Canadian perspectives on CETA and open a dialogue with you on this agreement.

Mr ZOURABIAN (Armenia) — On 18 February, presidential elections will take place in Armenia. The result of the elections is predetermined: the incumbent will be declared the winner. We live in a country where elections are a farce and no change of power can be achieved through elections.

The reason is simple: the ruling regime has created a horrific machine of election falsification. Electoral lists are inflated. While the number of eligible voters residing in Armenia is only 1.8 million, the electoral list includes more than 2.5 million voters. The elections in Armenia have degenerated into a state-organised campaign of multiple voting, as well as voter bribing and coercion into voting in favour of the ruling party. The falsified votes amount to 500 000 to 700 000, just enough to ensure that the ruling party wins in any elections.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and OSCE/ODIHR have previously urged the Armenian authorities, the last time being after the 2012 parliamentary elections, to ensure the accuracy of voter lists and to reform the electoral system to ensure fair conduct of elections and build the trust of the public in elections. The authorities have done next to nothing to meet those demands.

Then the opposition took the initiative. A legislative package was offered, envisaging cleaning voter lists, inking voters’ fingers, establishing video cameras in the precincts and so on, which was supported by four out of six factions in the parliament. The opposition exerted its constitutional right to convene an extraordinary session of the parliament through collecting more than one third of the signatures of parliamentarians. In violation of this constitutional right, the majority boycotted and aborted the session.

It is now obvious that the Armenian authorities cannot survive any free and fair election and that they put their hope on preserving the machine of falsification at any cost. The three biggest oppositional political forces of the country: the Armenian National Congress, Prosperous Armenia and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation have refused to participate in the upcoming presidential elections. Those three forces, even according to falsified 6 May parliamentary elections, account for 650 000 votes––in fact, for the majority of real Armenian voters. Their decision not to participate effectively means that the incumbent Serzh Sargsyan is left to compete only with marginal political forces.

That also means that instead of an improvement of the electoral system that we have been speaking about for decades, we have now a complete failure of the country’s electoral institutions as a means for the Armenian people to elect its own government.

Mr JAPARIDZE (Georgia) — Today’s session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is dedicated to the human rights considerations arising from the 2008 Russian-Georgian war and we are grateful to Ms Acketoft for the excellent report. I have come prepared to describe how the new Georgian Government intends to approach the many difficult issues that remain from this unfortunate conflict.

Before 2012, Georgia had never experienced a party in power losing an election. But the 2012 elections were also far from free, fair and competitive.

There remains much anger and resentment in our society and the overwhelming victory of the Georgian Dream can be understood most clearly, if we remember the depth of anger that continues to be felt about past governments, including those of President Saakashvili. Fortunately, these elections were much more than the mechanics of democracy – polls, votes, losers and winners. Before the 2012 elections, Georgia was an ordinary post-Soviet State but after them, we took the first humble step to becoming an ordinary European State.

Prime Minister Ivanishvili and his ministers are democrats who are dedicated to building freedom and justice in Georgia. They have many tasks to accomplish in a short time including our economy, health and education. We also have to support our neglected agricultural heartland, to build from the reduced corruption and petty criminality brought about in recent years while addressing the systems of cartels and cronyism that often came in their place, and to get to grips with the occupation of our country by foreign forces.

Above all, we need to re-establish a transparent justice system, based on the rule of law, that inspires confidence and supports the development and growth of our country. In this respect, I would like to highlight that our Justice Minister worked for eight years at the Council of Europe and I can think of no better training for the important tasks ahead.

In turn, we ask for a commitment from Europe to give consideration and support to Georgia that goes beyond geopolitical reflection and party politics. To succeed, Georgia needs to engage with the people within its zones of protracted conflict. We need to be able to experiment with modes of governance that have been pursued in Europe to address ethnic and religious cleavages. We need the breathing space to design meaningful domestic policy agendas that go beyond the choices of foreign policy.

Our prime responsibility is to those who elect us. We must take a moment to reflect on this responsibility. To reflect, we need breathing room and space. Only thus can we fully advance our human rights and democratisation agenda and become a strong and like-minded partner for Europe.