AA13CR34

AS (2013) CR 34

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-fourth sitting

Thursday 3 October 2013 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are reported using the interpretation and are marked with an asterisk.

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 report.

(Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)

THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Urgent debate: The situation in Syria

THE PRESIDENT – The first item of business this morning is a debate under the urgent procedure on the report entitled “The situation in Syria” (Document 13320), presented by Mr von Sydow on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.

We aim to finish the debate at 12 p.m. in order to hear the address from the President of Serbia. I will therefore interrupt the list of speakers at 11.50 a.m. for replies and voting.

May I remind colleagues that speaking time is limited to three minutes?

I call Mr von Sydow, the rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – Dear colleagues, at the meeting of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy at the beginning of September, we faced the immediate escalation of military violence in the Middle East and in Syria. We were very worried. There were different opinions on the potential unilateral use of military weapons by the United States of America and France. We asked to bring the matter to the Chamber as an urgent debate in the first days of October. However, things changed, as we all know. Within a few days of our meeting, representatives of the leaderships of the United States and the Russian Federation found ways to handle the situation within the scope of the United Nations. That was fundamental progress, of course, but many problems still face the Syrians and people outside Syria itself. We therefore decided to issue a report on the situation, which deals first with the use of chemical weapons.

I should stress the background to all our considerations on Syria. There is a feeling of frustration from those of us who, happily, are not in Syria but consider it to be a tragedy that has gone on for more than two and a half years. Children, women and men have been spared nothing, including death. The use of chemical weapons was tragic in itself, but was only a small part of the atrocities that are still occurring. We read in reports and see pictures on television of atrocities every day, and the refugee figures increase day by day. Millions of people are afflicted: they are outside Syria in horrible conditions, even if there is as much generosity as possible from neighbouring countries. International organisations are performing tasks but not enough, and Syria itself is a dreadful place to be.

We are also frustrated. That is underlined by the wording of the recommendation. We started off with the idea that this should be a resolution, of course, giving the view of the Assembly. We are frustrated that our own governments have done very little, if anything, until the past few weeks when the issue of chemical weapons was brought on to the agenda. That led us to emphasise that we want our views expressed through our own governments. Therefore the proposal is a recommendation, which, of course, needs a two-thirds majority among us.

Yes, we want a ceasefire, but I think everyone understands that as things currently stand it is not easy to accomplish. Yes, we want temporary ceasefires; there is a need for them if the chemical weapons monitoring processes are to be implemented. Yes, there is a need for the Geneva conference, but it seems that not all the elements of the opposition movements have agreed to attend at Geneva, so we do not know how many of the political and military interests will be represented there. However, if all these processes succeed in eliminating chemical weapons and there is a Geneva conference to discuss long-running solutions then, yes, the important week at the beginning of September can be viewed as a starting point.

Until now, the response of the international community cannot be said to have been very honourable, but now there is scope for it to play a greater role. The United Nations Security Council leaves out some things that must be on the agenda, however. We must emphasise the fundamental principles of the Council of Europe: human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We must stress that all perpetrators of violence must fall under the Geneva conventions; they must be applied to all perpetrators in the Syria civil war.

The ultimate test will be the ending of the civil war and the emergence of a democratic, inclusive and stable state. To achieve that, pressure must be put not only on the current Syrian regime, but also on the opposition groups. We must help unite those opposition groups that favour democracy and tolerance, and exclude extremist groups, including terrorist ones. We must also address the problems caused by external actors providing financial, military and political support. We must bring all the parties concerned to the negotiating table and make the Geneva 2 peace conference the beginning of a new era.

Colleagues, we should bring our values into the process that started only a few weeks ago. Other international bodies bring in their priorities and obligations, and we should bring in ours: human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. You have four and a half minutes left. I call Mr Walter on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – The use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. It was unacceptable 100 years ago in the First World War. It was ruled illegal in international law in 1925 under the Geneva protocol, and that was reaffirmed in 1949 in the Geneva Convention. We abhorred the use of chemical weapons in Iraq by Saddam Hussein, and we have abhorred their use in Syria, whoever used them. It has, however, concentrated our minds and the minds of all members of the international community.

It has taken too long to get us to this point, where everybody is now determined that we find a political solution to this problem. Some 100 000 people have died in the last two and a half years; 2 million people have fled the country for their lives and have travelled to neighbouring countries; and perhaps 5 million people have been displaced within the country as a result of this war. I believe that regime change by military means is not, and has never been, the right option. That is why I believe my parliament and other parliaments were opposed to military strikes. It is why I have spoken consistently against arming the opposition groups.

Syria is not a straightforward, black-and-white situation. There are many millions of people within Syria who support the Assad regime. If the opposition groups are successful, they are determined to seek retribution against anybody they perceive to have supported the Assad regime; we have heard that from the mouths of their leaders. I believe that if they achieve that, they will probably then start fighting each other, because the one thing they agree on is that they do not agree with each other. Therefore, I believe the only solution is to bring all the parties to the conference table. Geneva 2 is the solution, and everybody must be there, including all the opposition groups, the regime and Iran.

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

Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey) – The UEL welcomes the report in general, and we thank the rapporteur for giving a balanced evaluation of the situation. We regret that the present situation in Syria has confirmed our worry expressed in last year’s debate that it was highly likely that the whole of Syria would soon be reduced to ruins, leading to a humanitarian disaster on the outskirts of Europe, if events continued at their present pace. The figures given by the rapporteur suggest the situation is even worse than was envisaged.

Although the rapporteur says they have led to the process to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons, why are there threats of military strikes? Indeed, the west bears a considerable part of the responsibility for the ongoing tragedy in the country. As was also said in last year’s debate, the peoples of Syria are paying the price for a miscalculated, US-backed proxy war to realign forces in the middle east. Their plight stems not only from the Assad regime’s ruthlessness; it is also an inevitable consequence of a revolt that was apparently encouraged by the United States. That move was miscalculated, and there was no political programme or reliable future leadership in place, never mind any political calculation of a possible outcome.

The Assembly, too, has partly shared the same myopic approach, because in Resolution 1878, adopted in April 2011, it anticipated that Assad’s regime was coming to an end. That perspective, of a near collapse of the regime, inevitably led the West, and particularly Ankara, to turn a blind eye to or to underestimate the atrocities and massacres committed by the so-called moderate Free Syrian Army, at least 50% of which is comprised of the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra and other jihadists. Thus the western military support channelled across Turkey’s borders to the Free Syrian Army to support regime change was inevitably acquired by those forces, which have recently vowed to fight for sharia rule in Syria.

However, as Mr Björn von Sydow has carefully observed in his report, the jihadist presence fuels legitimate fears among the various religious and ethnic minorities about their future in a post-conflict Syria and so pushes the Alawite, Christian, Jewish and secularist minorities, as well as Sunni loyalists, towards Damascus. In that sense, we find the rapporteur’s recommendation to support the emergence of a democratic, inclusive and stable State in Syria which respects human rights and the rights of ethnic, cultural and religious minorities very valuable in placing the Assembly on a new path to play a more constructive role in Syria.

We would also like to draw the Assembly’s attention to Rojava, where Syrian Kurds are building up a functional model for the reunification of a secular, pluralistic, multi-ethnic and democratic Syria, having freed themselves from the Assad dictatorship and the al-Qaeda jihadists.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kürkçü. I call Ms Bakoyannis to speak on behalf of the European People’s Party.

Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr von Sydow, on an excellent report and recommendation, which the European People’s Party will support. In talking about Syria, I feel desperation and shame. I feel desperation for the tragic dimensions that the political and, above all, humanitarian crisis has been allowed to take. As has been said, more than 2 million refugees have already left the country, 6.8 million people are in dire need, 4.25 million people have been displaced and more than 70% of the victims are women and children. In the meantime, 72% of the US funds for the relief of the Syrian people did not reach their intended recipients. I feel shame because Europe, which just a few years ago was ceremoniously signing the Union for the Mediterranean in Paris, has proved to be almost an inefficient third party in this tragedy.

Our party believes that although the situation in Syria continues to be worrying, recent developments leave some room for optimism that a political solution to the crisis is feasible. We believe that the determination displayed by the international community has forced the Assad regime’s promise to place its chemical arsenal under international control and destroy its chemical weapons, but it is imperative that Assad be kept under pressure. It is even more important that these developments contribute to the efforts to achieve a comprehensive political agreement in Syria. We therefore support the launching of a political process in the framework of Geneva 2, with a view to a smooth transition.

As for the Geneva 2 conference, a truly inclusive and representative opposition as the alternative to the Assad rule is needed. Unfortunately we are far from that point. The recent declaration by 13 Islamic opposition groups fighting in Syria that they do not recognise the opposition Syrian National Coalition and the Free Syrian Army as representative bodies and their call to all groups to build a coalition within a clear Islamic framework is far from promising.

Developments on the ground have shown that the more the Syrian conflict drags one, the more radicalised it becomes, with the extremists and jihadists gradually gaining the upper hand. That might prove a time bomb as far as Syria’s long-term prospects as a secular and unified country are concerned.

I will conclude my remarks with three main points. First, the chief perpetrators of all the heinous crimes committed in Syria must one day be brought before the International Court. Secondly, an international conference must soon be held in order to try to present a comprehensive and generous plan for the reconstruction of Syria and the relief of the Syrian people. Last but not least, Europe, as with so many other matters, must find a new common voice that will be her own. The Council of the European Union must sit down and create a European roadmap for Syria and the region. At the end of the day, this is happening in our backyard.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Bakoyannis. I call Lord Anderson to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – The report provides an excellent analysis of the tragedy for Syria and its people. Our rapporteur will have to revisit the tragedy from time to time, because the situation is evolving rapidly. I have three brief reflections on the context, the complexities and the appropriate role for us Europeans.

First, on the context, this is the ultimate souring of the Arab Spring. Peaceful demonstrations turned into carnage in Damascus and elsewhere. When we in the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy met four weeks ago a bombing was imminent. Happily, things are now somewhat better. We have the Russian-US limited agreement and the welcome United Nations Security Council resolution.

Secondly, on the complexities, in the Middle East all things appear to be connected, so the regional dimension is vital. Brought together in Syria are the Shia-Sunni divide, the future of the Kurds, the role of al-Qaeda and Islamist extremists, the regional role of Turkey and Iran and, of course, Syria is Russia’s special friend in the Middle East. We have to ask who the opposition are. Who, if anyone, speaks for the opposition? What about the future of the Assad family? Surely at the end of the process they cannot remain in Syria. How can we ensure a ceasefire if there are so many factions? One commentator argued that 70% of the military opposition, and 90% of the effective military opposition, is Islamist. If sharia law is ultimately imposed, what will the future hold for minorities, including the Christian minority, which is vulnerable there and in most other areas?

Finally, what positive contribution can be expected from us Europeans? We should clearly support the key external players, Russia and the United States, and support territorial integrity. We should offer technical help, if it is requested, for the destruction of chemical weapons and possible help in guaranteeing the safety of the experts. We should encourage a realistic approach to Geneva 2. Surely Iran should be part of the solution. The West’s major contribution will be humanitarian. There are awful stories about the conditions in the camps, particularly for women. We should press for unfettered humanitarian access. Money is vital. I am pleased that my country, the United Kingdom, is already the second largest provider of cash after the United States of America, having given £400 million. As parliamentarians, we should all press our governments to honour the promises of aid and not to ignore Syria’s longer-term reconstruction needs following this tragedy.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Lord Anderson. I call Ms Schuster to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms SCHUSTER (Germany)* – I would like to express our warmest thanks to the rapporteur for the report. Unfortunately, this is not the first time – it certainly will not be the last – that the Parliamentary Assembly has had to get to grips with the crisis in Syria. As has been said, more than 100 000 people have died, more than 2 million have become refugees and several million have been internally displaced. After two and a half years of conflict, there is still no end in sight for the civil war.

We welcome the fact that the UN Security Council has finally managed to reach a common position, culminating in the adoption of its resolution, with a view to destroying all chemical weapons, but we also know that every day the conflict claims further lives. As we are talking now, people are dying. This is why our overriding political goal must be for a ceasefire to be put into place. As has been said, negotiations and discussions must continue. We are placing great hopes in the Geneva 2 conference. We have to devote all our energy and efforts to the political process so that it really can result in a cessation in the civil war.

Even though we welcome the resolution, one thing is missing: the notion of impunity. This should not be tolerated. We are talking about war crimes being committed – crimes against humanity. Regardless of who the perpetrators are, they should be brought before the International Criminal Court. This is vital for the international community. We have to ensure that all perpetrators are hunted down and brought to justice. It is important that the United Nations Human Rights Council creates an investigative committee.

On the humanitarian situation, we have received an open letter from Médecins Sans Frontières. It is going to become more and more difficult to secure proper access to provide medical aid, and some areas cannot be reached at all. Once again, we should devote our energies to improving the situation to ensure that proper humanitarian aid can be delivered.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank the neighbouring countries – Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon – for their willingness to take in refugees. However, we also need to be honest and accept that we should do more to take in refugees in our own countries. Let us not forget that during the winter months the situation will become worse. We all need to show more willingness on this, in addition to the financial support that is required for the refugee camps. I call on all of us to support and adopt the report, so that more can be done in our countries to improve the situation in Syria.

THE PRESIDENT – The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate, but does Mr von Sydow wish to respond at this stage?

Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – No.

THE PRESIDENT – I will then continue with the speakers list. The next speaker is Mr Salles from France.

Mr SALLES (France)* – The civil war has plunged Syria into grief for some years now. We must be determined, but also realistic and enlightened. We should steer clear of over-simplifications or solutions that might appear to be logical but which would actually expose civilians – in particular, vulnerable civilians – to even greater danger.

I think we all agree that Bashar al-Assad’s regime cannot continue to lead the country as if nothing at all has happened. Having said that, ousting a regime is one thing, but replacing it is another matter. A few months ago, some western leaders were seen in public with representatives of the Syrian opposition, as though they were respectable people. Some even suggested that we sell weapons to them, so that they could organise against the Syrian regime. However, we have to bear in mind that the Syrian opposition is a very nebulous entity. It is not just made up of democrats or human rights advocates – far from it. Jihadists and representatives of al-Qaeda also form a part of this nebulous entity. They, too, have taken part in the atrocities we have witnessed, and inflicted rare cruelty on their people. The disappearance of the current regime could well pave the way to chaos and the country could fall into the hands of terrorists.

More than ever before, I believe that we need to find a political solution, opening up Syria to the control and eradication of chemical weapons, and opening it up to democratisation. Let us help Syrians on the path towards better governance, but let us not push them into ever greater depths of despair. I applaud the efforts deployed by Russia in the past few months, and the dialogue that now exists between Russia and some western countries, in particular the United States of America. This is the only way of arriving at a satisfactory solution. It is important for the Syrian people, for peace in the Middle East and for the world.

We need to be firm and clear-headed. We need to come out of this crisis. There have been too many victims already. I call on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to join forces with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean and work together to form a part of the peace mission. Hatred must give way to dialogue and war must yield to the pressures of peace.

THE PRESIDENT – The next speaker is Ms Blanco from Spain.

Ms BLANCO (Spain)* – I thank Mr von Sydow for his excellent report. I will focus my comments on Geneva 2 and its implications. We all welcome the UN resolution and the fact that negotiations between the United States of America and Russia have produced some results that have led not to military action, but to political and diplomatic action. We look forward to Geneva 2.

It is important for the humanitarian aspects of the Syrian conflict to be clearly understood, and for the position of the Council of Europe to be absolutely clear. Syria is the first true tragedy of the 21st century, at least in terms of the dimensions of what we are seeing. As has been said, 6 million people have been displaced. There are 2 million refugees in neighbouring countries – not just in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, but in the north of Iraq in Kurdistan, where there are almost 150 000 Syrians. It is the neighbouring countries that have had to bear the main burden of the refugee crisis. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in its meeting of 30 September in Geneva, requested economic assistance and the resettlement of refugees in European countries. Of the 2 million refugees, not even 50 000 have settled in Europe. Some 50% of displaced persons and refugees are women and minors. These are very vulnerable and poor people.

Only the US, Brazil, Austria, Switzerland and Sweden have replied to the call for resettlement. Except for Turkey, which is a member of the Council of Europe and has resettled tens of thousands of refugees, the other countries represented here have done nothing to assist, except, of course, to endorse unequivocally Mr von Sydow’s report, which asks the Assembly to set quotas for resettlement. Future generations will look on us with scorn if we are not able to do anything.

THE PRESIDENT – The next speaker is Ms Allain.

Ms ALLAIN (France)* – The uprising of the Syrian people came in the wake of the Arab Spring. This movement for freedom, dignity and social justice was brutally quashed by the dictatorial Syrian regime. Unless we have evidence to the contrary, we must think that Bashar al-Assad’s regime has used chemical gas against its own population. This last happened on 21 August. This is a breach of international conventions and demonstrates that there has been an escalation in the terror of the civil war.

We welcome the adoption – finally – of a UN resolution, but we also know perfectly well that many belligerents are fighting against human rights, liberty and democracy. They have muscled in on the conflict and are undermining secular efforts.

The fate of the civilian population is very worrying. There is the enormous problem of Syrian refugees, which is of greater urgency than ever. The human cost of the Syrian tragedy is very great: since 2011, there have been 100 000 deaths, with 2 million refugees and several million displaced people, half of them under the age of 17. We face a terrible humanitarian situation, and a strong risk of destabilisation throughout the entire region.

Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq have all shown generosity to their neighbours and, in so doing, they have sacrificed much. As Mr Guterres, head of the UNHCR, said earlier this week, “The Syria conflict is not just a threat to global peace and security, but it results in fundamental, structural problems for the countries of the region. They are going through huge demographic changes following the refugee influx, unsettling their social and economic fabric”. Is it acceptable to let those countries bear the burden alone? Is it acceptable for 17 countries, half of whom are developing countries, to bear the burden of taking all the refugees? I do not think so. European countries must open their borders to Syrian refugees and make commitments about the numbers they will take. In particular, they can help by ensuring that the 2001 European Union directive on temporary protection is properly implemented, which would open our borders. We must do that: this is urgent.

As non-governmental organisations have pointed out, it is so important to ensure that the belligerents respect international humanitarian law and grant unfettered access to humanitarian organisations throughout Syria. We need humanitarian corridors to provide health care and food to the local population.

      Finally, very serious crimes have been committed against the civilian population in Syria, using chemical or conventional arms, and such crimes cannot be committed with impunity. We therefore need to bring those responsible to justice, and to give justice to the thousands of victims. History will judge the Council of Europe on our courage and unity on that.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Ms Allain. I call Ms Zohrabyan.

Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – Dear colleagues, the international community has shown some reluctance, but it is now responding. We all understand why it is important to respond to this situation, and everyone will be affected by the civil war, including those who are in power. It is clear for all to see that a military response will not end the civil war, and that the consequences of such a response might be highly pernicious. The conflict continues unabated, but it is unacceptable for people attempting to impose a regime to get off scot free; the Syrian population must be allowed to determine its own future.

As things stand, the international community still has an opportunity to bring an end to the bloody civil war and the humanitarian crisis that it has sparked. That is possible if our main aim is to secure peace and defend the interests of the Syrian people. The number of casualties and refugees has continued to increase to terrifying proportions: more than 100 000 victims, including children, and several million internally displaced persons and refugees.

      I am very worried about the security of my fellow citizens in Syria. Diplomacy and politics are very important in this situation. A humanitarian crisis is unfolding in Syria. Clashes between national minorities and between religious and ethnic groups can only give rise to total chaos, which poses a serious threat to global stability.

      It is perfectly possible that a new genocide might start in Syria. The current rhetoric and developments should not lead us to think that there will not be one. We must be very careful and attentive to what is happening there. In two years’ time, my country will mark the centenary of the genocide of the Armenians in Ottoman Turkey, and we are fully aware of the consequences of a genocide perpetrated for ethnic reasons. A hundred years ago, many of my compatriots, saving themselves from the massacres, left Turkey to become honourable citizens of Syria. Please let us take the bull by the horns.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Ms Zohrabyan. I call Mr Pushkov.

Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – Many important things have been said today, but I want to point out some truths that we must acknowledge. The Syrian crisis now appears in a very different light than a year or two ago. Initially, it was widely considered to be a fight by the forces of democracy against a dictatorship. It is now clear that that is not the case, and that the situation is much more complicated.

      According to the last report by Jane’s, an independent British consultancy, between 10% and 15% of the fighters are al-Qaeda militants and 35% are radical Islamists. Are they the forces that will establish democracy in Syria? It is strange that some powers fighting radical Islamists and al-Qaeda in Mali and Afghanistan are at the same time supporting those forces in Syria. I find that completely inadmissible.

      It is now clear that what is happening in Syria is not a purely domestic, internal conflict; there is a large element of foreign interference. It is well known that Qatar has spent $3 billion on the war in the past two years, and that Saudi Arabia is financing the war and is willing to pay for strikes by the United States, if President Obama returns to that idea.

      We should support calls against allowing there to be impunity, but it is easy to call for President Assad to be taken to court. What about those who start illegal wars that lead to humanitarian catastrophes and disasters? What about the responsibility of President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and others who started a war in Iraq that is still dragging on? Every month, 1 000 people die in Iraq from terrorist activities. There were no such terrorist activities during the dictatorship in Iraq. More than 200 000 people – that is the minimum figure – have perished in Iraq as a result of the American occupation. Why do we never talk about that?

      Finally, the PACE Bureau meeting in Dubrovnik made a statement saying that the use of military force is not the answer to this crisis. I fully support that statement. The only way forward is Geneva 2 and a compromise. We know that it is not al-Qaeda and radical Islamists who will run the country, because they will not be able to make it governable, so the country will have to be run by others. We cannot consider the conflict simply as one of fighters for democracy against the government, which is not a clear way; the only way is to find a political solution.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Pushkov. I call Ms Arpine Hovhannisyan.

Ms A. HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia) – This is not the first time that I have spoken on this topic, but it is the first time that I have done so about its narrow context. Even though the chemical weapons deal seems to have come to life, the killing on the ground still continues. Contrary to popular belief, the question of whether a government can slaughter its own citizens remains a contested one.

During the Armenian genocide of 1915, thousands of Armenians found refuge in rural areas of Syria that were part of the Ottoman Empire. They were mostly accommodated in the Aleppo area. Aleppo now lies in ruins and its once prosperous citizens, notably the Armenians, are under siege, experiencing sniper fire and targeted attacks, as well as kidnapping, rape and executions. The perpetrators are not government soldiers; the perpetrators are the so-called opposition – the bad guys, the al-Nusra Front – and the so-called good guys, or “moderate opposition”, the Free Syrian Army.

While the government cherishes its ethnic, mainly Christian minorities as the driving force behind Syrian society’s many previous achievements, the rebels are trying to get rid of the non-Muslim, non-Sunni minorities. The famous case of Maaloula town was followed last week by a smaller incident in Raqqa, where the opposition took over the Armenian church, looted it, took down the cross and instead installed the famous black flag. Many members of the Armenian community of Syria have consistently reported that, especially in Aleppo, the rebels have a certain interest towards the Armenians – that of the hunter to its kill. There are serious suspicions that such an interest is fuelled by a powerful neighbour on the borders of Aleppo.

In its turn, Armenia, which now hosts thousands of Armenian-Syrian refugees and offers them ultra-rapid citizenship, will soon face a humanitarian catastrophe, should Aleppo fall. Another genocide will certainly take place and the Armenians who are lucky enough to flee will flood Armenia, which has already been overwhelmed by refugees from Syria. We are trying to cope with these challenges, but it is a small country and it has its economic boundaries. There is great pressure on the social system, although we are currently managing to handle the situation.

      While we in the West choose to arm the opposition and support the Syrian policies of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, we forget to support or even to provide some means of survival – non-lethal or, yes, even lethal – to the true bearers of our values, our shared history and, of course, our religion. We must open our eyes and see that wherever extremist, Wahhabist Sunni teachings prevail, no tolerance or human rights survive. It is time to acknowledge that the Christian communities in the Middle East – in this case, the Armenian community of Syria – are the abandoned orphans of the civilised world, forgotten and left to the mercy of mercenaries. The Christian communities, who were once the catalyst of progress in these ancient lands, are being wiped out.

Unless we acknowledge our responsibilities towards the countries of the Middle East, we will soon see a different Middle East – a Middle East that is free of civilisation, human rights and hope. That will lead to a different Europe and a different world – a world that neither Robert Schuman nor any of us would ever have imagined.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Hovhannisyan. I call Mr Rouquet.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – Resolution 2118, which was adopted on 27 September, was the first sign of hope. The UN Security Council, in line with what France called for, has become the guarantor of the dismantling of chemical weapons. It has called the use of chemical weapons a threat to peace. Damascus has finally made commitments before the international community and they must be honoured.

The headway that has been made on chemical weapons must not cause us to forget that the priority is to create the conditions for a political solution. Only a political solution will bring the crisis to an end. The Geneva communiqué of 30 June 2012, which provides for the establishment of a transitional government with all executive powers, including over the police and intelligence forces, should serve as a basis for the Geneva 2 conference.

One challenge for Geneva 2 is the representation of the Syrian opposition. If Syria is to have a democratic future, it is vital that we strengthen our support for the moderate opposition. That is why it is important for us to get behind the Syrian National Coalition. It requires international support. On Thursday 26 September 2012, France organised a large support meeting for the Syrian National Coalition in New York, centred on its president, Ahmad Jarba.

Dear colleagues, a humanitarian crisis is unfolding before our eyes. We cannot allow the countries that neighbour Syria to shoulder the burden of refugees alone. We cannot abandon displaced persons. Everything possible must be done to ensure that there is immediate, free and unfettered humanitarian access to all people who need it. Mutual assistance requests from Syrian civilian networks that are involved in humanitarian aid, as well as an assistance co-ordination unit, must be supported in the measures that we take.

The UN Security Council resolution and the likelihood of a conference on Syria in mid-November are signs of progress that we should commend. Having said that, we must remain clear-sighted and cautious. Although there is a strong will within the UN Security Council to institute a political dialogue between the parties, we must not forget that the fighting continues to claim victims every day. Let us not forget that, for the time being, chemical weapons stockpiles still exist. We cannot tolerate it if the new Syria does not respect the rights of minorities and women. We must also be attentive to the regional context – I am thinking in particular of the situation in Lebanon, which is of great concern.

Syria is a country in ruins. Bombings have destroyed not only homes, but a unique part of the world’s cultural heritage. We must not forget that, even though it is the protection of civilians through an efficient political solution that is of the utmost urgency today.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Rouquet. I call Ms Virolainen.

Ms VIROLAINEN (Finland) – We are debating Syria in the Council of Europe for 2.1 million reasons. That is the number of Syrians who have fled their homeland to seek refuge abroad. Almost half a million refugees have been received by Turkey, and Syrian refugees make up more than 20% of the total population of Lebanon. Fewer refugees have been received by European Union member States, but the number is still significant. Sweden has decided to grant permanent residence permits to all Syrians.

My distinguished friend and colleague, Mr Bockel, is preparing a report on the humanitarian needs of Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries. The report will be debated here in January. On a recent fact-finding mission to Lebanon and Turkey, he visited some of the refugee camps. As the Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, I want to share some of his observations. He witnessed the difficult and primitive conditions in which people who are fleeing for their lives are living in Lebanon, lacking the most basic of services. At the same time, Lebanon is struggling with its own political and social problems, and the situation is affecting the stability of the country.

The situation in Turkey is better. I thank the Turkish authorities for their constructive and human approach to the refugees. Despite that, Turkey cannot carry the burden alone. Countries that do not have an 800 km border with Syria have a responsibility to show solidarity with the countries that are bearing the heaviest burden. We sit in this Assembly to defend human rights. The situation of refugees and migrants is one of the most pressing human rights issues of the day. People are dying on the doorstep of Europe and we are quarrelling about how many we can help.

Of the 2.1 million Syrian refugees, 53% are children and women. By not helping them, we are denying them a future. If we cannot agree on how to deal with the Syrian regime, let us at least help the women and the children. The best solution is to help them close to home, but if the conditions are as bad as Mr Bockel has witnessed, I would rather that they were taken somewhere safe until they could safely return home, where I am sure they would prefer to be.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Virolainen. I call Mr Schennach.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I thank the British Parliament most warmly for its decision, which prevented a military attack. Some think that an attack in that area would lead to civil war. Others think that a civil war has already begun. Let us consider the situation.

The Kurdish opposition does not think that the attacks are by the normal army. We do not know exactly what is going on. There are 850 000 Armenian, Christian and Chaldean refugees within the country. The country also contains armed bandits, Hezbollah and jihadists. The Free Syrian Army is also completely heterogeneous – it is made up of completely different groups with completely different interests. What we are discussing is therefore not civil war, but something completely different.

      I asked to speak, however, because my responsibility for refugee matters in the Mediterranean took me to Jordan, and what I found to be amazing was the situation of women. They are being raped and sold, and the refugee camps are supermarkets for trafficking in women. The UN is leaving the bandits to run the camps, although they are the ones carrying out all the violence. The UN has asked why there are no toilets for women, or why there are no lights in the toilets, but the bandits do not want any, because they are fighting off the security services and trafficking the women to the brothels. There are already five brothels in the refugee camps.

      I have heard that there is a joke in the cafés of Algeria: if my woman does not do what I want, I will go and buy a Syrian woman instead. People are sometimes married off for three weeks; there are rapes going on in the refugee camps themselves, and that situation is unacceptable and unbelievable. Another joke people make is about their friend who has just bought a Syrian woman and how he has been married now for four weeks. We must do something for these women. We must have a secure camp for women – their own secure camp.

      Furthermore, do not forget that in Syria itself there are still 1.5 million Iraqi refugees, and the situation of their women is even worse. There are also lots of Palestinian refugees in Syria.

For anyone who has got to a refugee camp, that is where the trauma begins for women and girls. From the Turkish refugee camps, 200 000 refugees have returned to Syria. What is going on? We need to look at the situation carefully.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Agramunt.

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) – The Syrian people have been hoping for peace for some three years, but they have met only with repression and massacre carried out by the authoritarian regime of Bashar al-Assad. There has been terrible conflict, leading to civil war, with 100 000 casualties already. This is one of the cruellest civil wars that we have witnessed in the recent past.

      As for the international community, it has not been up to the task of dealing with the crisis. Why? First, countries such as Russia have supported the dictatorial regime of al-Assad and, secondly, other countries have supported the rebels, but they have done so arbitrarily, thereby adding grist to the mill for the extremists in Syria.

      The future of Syria should not be determined by people from outside the country. The future of Syria should depend on the people of Syria. We need proper pressure – by Russia, Iran, Qatar and Saudi Arabia – and we need to ensure that it is exerted so that we get the right results. We do not want pressure only in the geostrategic interests of those countries. The option of military intervention would be a major mistake. It would not guarantee peace; instead, innocent people would be under threat, and it would pave the way for even greater chaos in Syria.

      This week, I have met with representatives of minority groups, such as the Christian minority, whose rights we often discuss in my political group, the Group of the European People’s Party. Those rights are of fundamental importance if we are to overcome the conflict. Thousands have been killed since the beginning of the conflict. All minorities should have the right to protection, including of their freedom of religion.

      We need to analyse events at the level of the UN Security Council and to ensure that Resolution 2118, adopted on 27 December, is implemented fully. We must also call on Syria to give up its stock of chemical weapons. That would be an important step towards a solution to the conflict, but we must ensure that the international community does more and does not only stand on the sidelines. We need to establish dialogue, not take the side of one gang or another and help Syria properly with regard to its future. We must not play into the hands of other interests – above all, we must protect the Syrian people.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Agramunt. I call Mr Garðarson.

      Mr GARÐARSON (Iceland) – The international community has failed the people of Syria, and it clearly cannot handle such a situation meaningfully. Numerous resolutions by international organisations have done nothing for the people of Syria. It took the use of chemical weapons that killed some 1 000 people for the international community to wake up. Before that, over the past three years, more than 100 000 people had lost their lives in Syria, while the international community did nothing but pass resolutions.

      The politicians of the international community only became interested in Syria when the media became interested, which was seldom after the first three months of the conflict. What does that tell us about ourselves? Are we only interested in crimes against humanity, or other crimes for that matter, when the media are interested? Is it only that we hope our statements will get some coverage in the press? How can we politicians look at ourselves in the mirror in the morning knowing that hundreds of people will die in the conflict in Syria that very day and that we are doing nothing? How can we as human beings look the other way while innocent people – women and children – are dying every day in the conflict in Syria? How can we look the other way while basic human rights are being violated every minute in Syria?

      After almost three years of failure and missed opportunities, we still do not know what to do. People are dying at this moment in Syria, and still we only talk and pass resolutions. When chemical weapons are used, we suddenly say, “Stop! This cannot go on. This is a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the fighting must now stop.” Let us put it this way instead: you are not allowed to use chemical weapons to kill your own people, but it is okay to use other methods, including indiscriminate attacks and sexual assaults on civilians. That is the signal that the international community is giving.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Garðarson. The next speaker is Ms Gillan.

      Ms GILLAN (United Kingdom) – The nerve gas attack in east Damascus in August reverberated around the world, and the shock waves have certainly been felt in every country represented here. Let us also remember, however, that we were slow off the mark. Angela Kane, the United Nations High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, said recently that she regrets we did not get access after the chemical weapons attacks in Syria last March, which has brought us to a standstill that has lasted many months.

      I congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent set of recommendations, in particular the ones about not allowing the perpetrators to get away with the use of chemical weapons. However, we need to be realistic about the situation in Syria. The weapons inspectors went in the day before yesterday, and they have 19 weapons sites to visit – already identified by the Syrian Government – seven of which are in combat zones. They are attempting a unique experiment, because it is the first time that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the OPCW, has asked for a country’s chemical weapons to be destroyed during an ongoing war. The complexity of getting safe access for the weapons inspectors relies on local truces. Whereas the Free Syrian Army has said that it will afford safe passage to the inspectors, there are many other combatants, who might have other ideas.

The size of the task is also enormous. Syria has declared more than 1 000 tonnes of sarin and other banned chemicals, including VX. The inspectors must remove and destroy not only the chemicals but the mixing and preparation equipment and delivery mechanisms. The deadlines are tight and may not be achieved. As both Russia and the US should know from the process of destroying their own chemical weapons and arsenals, it could take longer than expected.

In the meantime, Syrian civilians are dying daily and nearly 6 million are internally displaced. Last night, the UN Security Council agreed a statement to highlight those displaced persons and the unacceptable and escalating levels of violence. Aid agencies are reporting that the Syrian Government is hindering their access and trying to limit their operation. I urge us all to support the aid agencies. The United Kingdom has proudly given £500 million in aid. Let us all go from here supporting the report and our own Governments in providing aid and searching for a political solution at Geneva 2.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Guzenina-Richardson.

Ms GUZENINA-RICHARDSON (Finland) – The rapporteur, Mr von Sydow, has done a very good job. The report is a thorough analysis of what is happening in Syria at the moment, and it addresses the many problems that we will need to face in future, while the situation is being resolved. Unfortunately, at the moment, the light on the horizon is dim, but we must keep our hopes up.

I agree with my fellow Finnish delegate Ms Virolainen, who said that we must do everything possible to help the refugees, not only by giving aid to neighbouring countries and refugee camps but by admitting refugees into our own countries. I thank Sweden for the example that it is setting by admitting so many, and for saying that this is not the end – that it will accept even more, and will not turn anybody away who seeks asylum in that country. That should be an example for all of us. In refugee camps in neighbouring countries, the situation is challenging. For example, to put the problem in perspective, in Lebanon, there are more Syrian children than there are seats in school for Lebanese children.

What worries me, to introduce an aspect to the conversation that nobody has yet brought up, is the general spirit in many European countries at the moment due to right-wing extremist and other populist groups that oppose helping refugees, claiming for example that doing so – whether by giving humanitarian aid or admitting them into the country – would jeopardise those countries’ social services and the well-being of their own people. When the arguments move to that level, I urge all of us here to go home to our own countries and put a stop to them. At the moment, it is not very popular to defend helping refugees, but we as members of the Council of Europe must do so. If we do not, we will give in to the rise of populism in Europe, which would be a very bad path for all of us – not only for refugees, but for our own people.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Mota Amaral.

Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) – The crisis in Syria has been a focus of the Assembly for a long time, and several resolutions have been approved concerning the bloody civil war and the tragedy of the refugees and displaced people. This urgent debate was called for when western military intervention looked imminent as a consequence of the mass killing of hundreds of innocent civilians by means of chemical weapons. The international community was profoundly shocked by that horrible crime against humanity. The Presidents of both France and the United States declared strongly that all red lines had been crossed and that sound retaliation should be effected to put a brake on the criminal madness of the Assad regime.

We must keep in mind that in those countries and many others, public opinion, generally speaking has opposed any military intervention in Syria, reasoning, fairly, that it could open a Pandora’s box. Fortunately, a window of opportunity has suddenly appeared. In a bilateral agreement, the US and Russia, presumably acting in co-operation with the Syrian dictatorship, have vowed the destruction of the chemical weapons under international supervision. The United Nations Security Council resolution adopted the same week has ratified that agreement. We cannot ignore the efforts of Pope Francis, who has become increasingly respected around the world, to use his personal authority to avoid any aggravation of the suffering of the Syrian people. That deserves to be commended.

      We are entitled today to celebrate a clear victory of diplomacy, and wish the UN resolution to be implemented fully with as short a delay as is feasible, but as Mr von Sydow, whom I thank and congratulate, bluntly states, our Assembly must go further, calling for an immediate ceasefire and quick agreement on political change in Syria, with the serious and concrete aims of peace, democracy and human rights. A continuation of the Assad regime is simply not acceptable; the Russian leadership should reconsider its position on the subject. Crimes against humanity must also be investigated, and the perpetrators of those monstrosities must be brought to trial under the competent international jurisdiction.

The international community must be mobilised to help the refugees and reconstruct what has been destroyed. Opening our arms to asylum seekers is now mandatory. I refer by analogy to the personal initiative of former President Jorge Sampaio to promote hospitality to young Syrians among Portuguese families and schools. All those considerations and many others are enshrined in the report and draft recommendation which our Swedish colleague Björn von Sydow has presented to us. I am sure that the draft recommendation will receive unanimous approval by our Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Jónasson.

Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – The situation in Syria has become disastrous. Atrocities of war are being committed, and the plight of refugees has become terrible. We all have responsibilities. The world community has a responsibility to protect, in line with UN recommendations from 2005, but how? John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, recently referred to the power of diplomacy, a formulation more promising than the threats of military intervention made a few days earlier by the US administration.

Ever since the establishment of the League of Nations in the wake of the First World War and the creation of the United Nations after the Second World War, the world has grappled with democratising decisions on military intervention in situations where human rights are being violated. We are still burdened with the Security Council, a remnant from the past where powers mustering military might rule the world. We know the experience of interventions made on their premises. On the implied guilt of powerful States, it has been exposed in the press that western powers, including the United Kingdom and Germany, approved as late as 2011 the sale to Syria of chemicals that can be used for military purposes.

The decisions of Obama in the US and Cameron in the UK to refer the question of military intervention to those countries’ respective legislative assemblies are significant political landmarks to be noted. In France, there is public pressure in the same direction. The apartheid regime in South Africa was brought down by internal struggle, but also by concerted external economic pressure and the power of diplomacy.

As for the immediate situation, millions of Syrians are currently suffering terrible hardship. Many refugees do not have enough food, water, shelter or sanitation to deal with basic needs. It is now October, and the coming winter could lead to a humanitarian catastrophe. We should all be aware of the urgent appeal to the European and international community to take quick and decisive humanitarian action to prevent that impending humanitarian catastrophe and accept as many Syrian refugees as possible.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Hawn, Observer from Canada.

Mr HAWN (Canada) – President, colleagues, we have all recently been galvanized by the use of chemical weapons, most likely by the Assad regime, which is completely unacceptable. What should be at least equally unacceptable is the death of over 100 000 people by conventional weapons. Dead is dead and 99 deaths by bullets are no less a crime than one death by Sarin gas.

The logical aim of a Syrian-led transition to a free and pluralistic state abiding by democratic principles seems even further off as we deal with the aftermath of recent events, but maybe, in a most perverse way, those events will finally be the catalyst for the rest of the world to take meaningful action. We applaud recent co-operation between Russia and the United States to forestall military intervention, which would lead only to the condemnation of the intervener, no matter how good their intentions.

Given its influence and historic support of Bashar al-Assad, Russia must be instrumental in accelerating the disarmament process, if at all possible, and be a part of a lasting solution, as must other countries that have specific influence in that area, such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran – if we are to believe its new leader’s recent words.

The collateral damage in all such conflicts is, of course, the displacement of millions of people into drastic living conditions. We must also do our part to look after those who are now homeless through no fault of their own. For our part, Canada has committed $362 million to humanitarian, development and security assistance, as well as re-settling refugees.

We have to do more than talk. We have to find a way to send an enforceable message to Assad and other criminals involved in this atrocity. There are no good guys in the armed conflict in Syria. Canada does not recognise any of the various opposition forces as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, and we remain concerned about the involvement of radical jihadists among the opposition. We do not believe that these groups have any interest in assuring the rights of Syria’s minority communities or that they are ready to abandon extremism.

Somewhere down the road, it is not beyond reason to expect that those responsible for crimes against the people of Syria should be held accountable in a legal forum, such as the International Criminal Court. But for now the priorities must be to stop the fighting, with an enforceable ceasefire, disarmament to the maximum extent possible and relief for the millions of suffering refugees and the neighbouring States that are doing their best to cope with them.

Canada’s interest in this situation stems from our deep-seated values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law and the fact that we have a sizeable Syrian diaspora in Canada, as we have sizeable diasporas from every nation represented here – and probably three times as many beyond these walls.

Ultimately, the Syrian people must be given the opportunity to decide their own future. We cannot do that for them, but we can help create the circumstances in which they can do it for themselves.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Fort.

Ms FORT (France)* – Thank you, President. The adoption of resolution 2118 is an important step to peace after two years of civil war. Radio France International emphasised this week that Syria will be neither Iraq nor Libya. That is the decision of the international community.

This resolution has the merit of having fostered the emergence of an international position on this conflict, whereas for several months the international community had a hard time becoming unified. With the rapprochement between Russians and Americans behind the scenes of the G20 summit in Moscow, we have to recognise the revival of an international conscience. It is unfortunate that Europe did not play a more important role.

This determination of the international community to promote political resolution can only be welcomed, especially since the conclusions of the experts of the United Nations on the chemical attack of 21 August have not designated a clear culprit. One of the major problems in a civil war is identifying those who are responsible; that is a delicate exercise and we have to act carefully. Atrocities are committed by all camps. Hatred and vengeance make civil wars even more despicable, because the civilian populations are the main victims.

The rapporteur emphasised rightly the extent to which Syria is an ethnic and religious cultural mosaic. It is also a secular country. The political solution to this conflict will have to take into account all the Syrians, who will have to draw lessons from the Arab Spring and must not, in the name of freedom, allow enemies of democracy and human rights to gain power. We will have to be particularly vigilant with respect to the rights of minorities – including Christians – and women. There will be no Syrian democracy without this. The issue of refugees and internally displaced persons will also have to be dealt with in a determined fashion, to allow these groups to return to their homes as they wish.

The conference on Syria that should take place in November will be successful only if, in addition to putting a stop to the war, it makes it possible to pacify the country, which is essential to enable the return of a third of the Syrian population that had to leave their homes due to the civil war. There are still many obstacles on the road to Geneva. One key issue is to know who will represent the opposition to the regime. Will they agree to form a transitional government without discussing a priori the future of Bashar al-Assad, who still has many supporters in Syria, as we know? Which countries will be present?

Meanwhile, civilians continue to suffer: children continue to die and women continue to be raped. Geneva 2 has to take place and it is duty bound to produce results through the wise, sensible choice of a political solution rather than a military one.

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

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – President, dear colleagues, in April when a delegation of the Sub-Committee on the Middle East visited the biggest Syrian refugee camp in Jordan, Za’atri, around 100 000 people were living there. Today there are probably twice as many. That reflects the scale of the tragedy of that people – millions of refugees and IDPs, as well as the unimaginable destruction of the whole country. World public opinion was particularly outraged by the use of Sarin in Damascus, which resulted in so many victims.

I welcome Mr von Sydow’s balanced report. In this conflict there are no good guys and bad guys; all the parties are responsible for this chaos, mayhem and human drama. A recent positive step is Syria’s following the six-point Russian-American Geneva agreement, under which it has committed to surrendering its chemical weapons and joining the 1993 treaty banning them.

As a chemical engineer in my first profession, I emphasise that the process of eliminating chemical weapons stockpiles as soon and safely as possible, and its verification, is very complicated, even if we put aside the financial aspect, which is also important. Therefore we should keep in mind the sober lessons of Libya and Iraq in this regard.

The Syrian opposition, composed of hundreds of rebel groups with probably 100 000 fighters, is deeply divided, but the Islamists are gaining strength for sure. Unfortunately, it is likely that, finally, Syria will be dismembered, including a territory carved out by jihadists. We will probably observe a case of Balkanisation in the Middle East.

However, in the last week the situation has allowed some optimism. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons team from The Hague started its job in Syria and 17 countries, mainly from Europe and North Africa, agreed to take 10 000 Syrians at the Geneva United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees meeting. This is a key message for us. We Europeans must not only keep our hearts and wallets open – we must also keep our borders open.

We see a new situation. Bombs were about to fall on Syria, but have been suspended. After months of talk about possible air strikes on Iran, surprisingly we received accounts of information exchanges between President Obama and President Rouhani. I hope that, in respect of this whole strategy, this positive series of events positively influences the relations between the USA, China, Russia, Israel and the United Nations. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Iwiński. I call Mr Neill.

(Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Pourbaix-Lundin.)

      Mr NEILL (United Kingdom) – I congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent and balanced report that does the Council credit. I hope this debate also does us credit, as it has highlighted some important issues.

      The situation in Syria is an enormous humanitarian tragedy. Mrs Gillan correctly highlighted the response that my government and others have taken individually, but as Mr Agramunt pointed out, the situation poses a challenge to the international community, and so far we have not delivered adequately. We have seen blatant cynicism from Russia in its position on the Security Council – we must say that frankly to our Russian friends – but we would be foolish not to recognise that there has been a degree of naiveté in the west among some proponents of the doctrine of liberal intervention in relation to the Syrian opposition. The report is particularly valuable in stressing the mosaic-like nature of Syrian society, which we have to calibrate.

      Mr Hawn made the fair point that any death in civil war is horrific and unacceptable, but the use of chemical weapons by any side is a clear and blatant breach of international law, which we cannot allow to be broken without sanction. None of us wants that to take the form of military force, and we must try to deliver a political solution, which is where I hope the Council of Europe can have a genuine impact on the key players. We all hope that last week’s UN resolution and Geneva 2 will deliver. Inevitably history causes us to be at least a little sceptical about the intentions of some of the actors, but we must continue to apply pressure.

      Finally, any future political solution must recognise the rights of all the communities in Syria. In particular, I want to stress the position of the Christian community, which has been treated barbarically by some elements of the opposition. We should not be naïve about the Islamic nature of many of the opposition fighters. Open Doors UK, a Christian charity, has done much to highlight that situation within my country, but it deserves wider attention. The deliberate attacks on Christian churches, the abduction and murder of priests and bishops and the desecration of Christian sites do not bode well for a genuinely pluralist Syria or middle east. We need a solution that does not result in the Arab Spring turning tragically into a winter of oppression for Christians and women in the Middle East, which is why we must come up with clear conclusions and a clear message in this debate.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Neill. I call Mr Dişli.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteur and the committee for bringing this issue before the Assembly.

      I had prepared a two-page speech about implementation of the UN Security Council’s decisions, the elimination of chemical weapons, a possible ceasefire and the situation in Turkey, but I have been upset by two things in this debate, so I will talk about them instead. The first concerns Mr Schennach’s accusations about the trafficking of women. If he really meant to include Turkey in his accusation, it was a total lie. We consider these refugees to be our guests, and we are fully responsible for them – you must have heard about Turkish hospitality – so I ask you to prove a single such case, if you wish to include Turkey in your accusation.

Secondly, our Armenian friends and others have talked about the Armenian problems. Syrians, whether Muslim, Christian or Armenian, are dying. Syrian children and women are dying. These children do not yet know their religion or their ethnic background, buy they are dying – most of the 100 000 dead were children and women – and we must bring these issues to the Geneva conference. It is important to remember the mosaic of Syria, and of course Christians and Armenians are part of that mosaic and should be preserved, as should the integrity of Syria as a whole. Geneva 2 needs to do two things: bring about an immediate ceasefire and preserve that integrity.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Dişli. Ms Zimmermann does not wish to take the floor, so I call Ms Szél.

Ms SZÉL (Hungary) – As a member of the Hungarian Green party, I see politics differently from some. We have always stood for the peaceful resolution of conflict and the creation of international structures promoting peace and just relations between states. We believe that violence can never be the solution, either to international disputes or conflicts within societies. We are fully aware that civil wars tend to produce the most brutal forms of violence and that once they start, they are the most difficult to bring to a viable and lasting solution. Obviously, it is no different in Syria.

      We have been appalled by the international community’s inability, for two years now, to propose anything resembling a solution. It is an outrage that it takes more than 100 000 deaths before we recognise the gravity of the situation. Nevertheless, we welcome Resolution 2118 of the UN Security Council as the first step in the right direction. We share the concern in the report that the resolution does not address the issue of war crimes and believe that the long-term responsibility finally assumed by the international community cannot end with the oversight of a disarmament process. It is of the utmost importance that we clear Syria of chemical weapons and prevent the recurrence of any attack by any party to the conflict using illegal weapons, but it is even more important that we start a process that might lead to an effective armistice and lasting solution in Syria.

The refugee situation is catastrophic. The international community must stand up for the refugees and asylum seekers, so we fully support the recommendations of the report and would like all governments of the member States of the Council of Europe to do everything in their power to end the civil war. It is our clear moral duty to help in the formation of a peaceful and stable democratic Syria, with the involvement of all democratic forces in the process. We urge you to endorse this report and act according to its final recommendations.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Szél. I call Mr Sasi.

Mr SASI (Finland) – The situation in Syria is very bad – it is perhaps the biggest human catastrophe of our time – with more than 100 000 people murdered by the government and more than 2 million made refugees. We are already passing the figures of Saddam Hussein. When a government murders its own citizens, we have a responsibility to protect those in need, but what has the international community done? Nothing. There has been no unanimity among the great powers to try to protect those people.

      I say to Mr Pushkov that it is true that there are al-Qaeda fighters today in Syria, but if all the big nations had been united at the beginning of the crisis and we had replaced Assad’s government with a coalition government, the opposition would now be much more peaceful and less radicalised and the foreign fighters would not be in Syria. Mistakes have been made and now it is very difficult to repair the damage. Unfortunately it is now difficult to build a government in Syria that will be peaceful.

      The Syrian Government has used chemical weapons against its own population and that is the worst thing that any government can do. We cannot tolerate that but we must not just say it is a bad thing. We also have to act. I praise President Obama who has said that we must stop the use of chemical weapons and that we would retaliate in a limited way. Luckily, that led to the position in which there was unanimity in the Security Council of the United Nations and to the negotiations that forced Syria to give up its chemical weapons. However, we must remember that they have yet to be destroyed and we must be careful to ensure that the resolution is implemented so that there are no chemical weapons in Syria. It is in all our interests that they are never used inside or outside Syria.

      The international community should change the government. Mr Assad has no legitimacy. The longer the crisis continues, the more radical it will become. If there are foreign fighters in the area, our safety – even Russia’s safety – will be in danger. That is why we must try to solve the crisis as soon as possible.

      As has been said, there are more than 2 million refugees and we have to help them. I understand the problems in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan and we will have to accept refugees in our own areas. That is one thing that we should emphasise in this Assembly.

      THE PRESIDENT* - Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Lundgren.

      Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – I also congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report. We all condemn the use of chemical weapons, but we must also condemn war crimes and crimes against humanity. We can be sure that they have occurred in Syria.

      We are asking for everyone to go for a political solution because there is no military solution. That means we must stop sending weapons into the region, and that means all of us. We must start to bring hope of a political solution.

      I thank my United Kingdom colleagues. What they managed to do in the British Parliament was a good example of parliamentarians taking action, scrutinising the government’s arguments and providing transparency on what was happening. It was astonishing to be able to listen to that debate, and I followed it closely. We can all learn lessons from it.

      We in the Council of Europe have to support the United Nations and act together to build support for help from all our countries. The UNHCR has just agreed to provide direct aid to governments and financial help to refugee populations that will enhance resettlement. It is also providing economic and social assistance.

      Syria is a tragedy, but not just for the past three years. It has been a tragedy for longer than that and for the whole region. Let us remember that 87.5% of the refugees under the UNHCR are refugees from Iraq. There are lessons to be learned.

      We all hope that the Geneva 2 conference will be successful but we must build support to make that happen. We must not only open our budgets but our borders in the way that Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt are doing.

      Today we learn that more than 50 people were drowned off the coast of Italy as they tried to reach Europe. On Monday, a further 13 people drowned in the Mediterranean, so we must take responsibility and talk not just about military action. Sweden has tried to do that and we are doing more. This year, the number of refugees from Syria has increased by 127% and we are providing €57 million in humanitarian assistance.

      Let us learn from what has happened. Prevent, react and rebuild so that we make sure that this does not happen again, again and again.

      THE PRESIDENT* - Thank you. The next speaker is Sir Edward Leigh.

      Sir Edward LEIGH (United Kingdom) – I would like to thank Ms Lundgren for what she said about our debate in the British Parliament, in which some of us who are here today took part. It was a good day for parliamentarians in Europe. Before that point, we seemed to be hell-bent on war. There was a pause after that, the British Prime Minister immediately accepted it, President Obama was fairly quick to say that the decision should go to Congress and Secretary of State Kerry – perhaps in a throwaway moment at a press conference – said that if the Syrians were prepared to get rid of all their chemical weapons, there would be no need to intervene militarily. Although we were told again and again that there was no hope of persuading the Russians to negotiate, that is precisely what happened. Progress was made with our Russian friends.

      I follow what Mr Pushkov has said. We have to be realistic. There is no prospect of a successful military solution. The military strike that we were proposing was mild enough perhaps to get it past our own people in our democracies but it was never going to be severe enough to change the regime.

      One of our own generals, Sir Michael Jackson, said of the war in Serbia: “What had the greatest significance in ending the war were the diplomatic efforts we made with Russia to persuade the Russian Government to stop supporting Milošević”. That is what we have to do now. We have to work with the Russian Government and the Americans to try to bring some sort of diplomatic solution to this conflict. I believe that a solution is possible as long as we do not insist on Assad leaving before the negotiations start. That will not happen.

      We have to ask ourselves whether we actually want the rebels, whom we in the west have been supporting for some time, to take power. Do we want the al-Nusra Front to take over in Syria? Mr Neill made the point powerfully a moment ago about all the attacks on minorities in Syria.

      We have to work diplomatically; we cannot solve the problem militarily. I believe that there is a solution and it means involving all the peoples of Syria. That is the only way forward.

      THE PRESIDENT* - Thank you. I do not see Mr Loukaides or Mr Don Davies so the next speaker is Ms Kanelli.

      Ms KANELLI (Greece) – I must admit that it is a balanced report but I must also admit that we are talking about President Obama more than we are talking about our governments, our people and our nations. Of all wars, the most bitter are civil wars. But let us not be hypocritical. Is it a civil war or is it a “useful” war - useful to energy monopolies and big money, as is always the case when we sell the idea of preventing big crimes by committing the bigger crime of selling lives to make money? What is happening in Syria now is a tragedy, but when we talk emotionally about refugees we do not discuss the causes. They are what produce these refugees – these helpless and killed women and children. This is what happens in war.

      Cui bono? Who has profited out of this war? I have heard some comments about respecting the minorities in Syria, yet in here I heard a colleague talking about the Islamic nature. Are we talking about ideas and natures – Islamic nature, Christian nature, Buddhist nature – here in this so-called place of human rights? Are we fighting the nature of bad people, or must we intervene against big interests that for about a decade now have sold the idea of an Arab Spring in order to create a big new Arab market?

Has peace been brought to Iraq? Has peace been brought to Afghanistan? Has peace been brought to Libya? Has peace been brought to Sudan? We first create the causes of war, and then we invent the idea of human catastrophe, which gives the excuse. We ask the European people – our people in our countries – to pay for humanitarian reasons, but before that they have paid fortunes for supporting a war.

Did these guys – these big men of big forces – really want to stop the war, or maybe they could not afford it? This is the question. Let us go back and be parliamentarians, telling our people that if we want to work for peace we should work not to have poor people either in Europe or the Middle East. Our people are not bound to the market; they can decide for themselves, and if they are left to decide for themselves with no imperialistic interventions, they can have a peaceful life.

THE PRESIDENT* - Thank you.        That concludes the list of speakers, so I call the rapporteur, Mr von Sydow. You have about four and a half minutes left.

Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – Colleagues, thank you for having this important debate. It has focused on two issues: the values we promote and how to address the horrors of today’s Syria.

There has been an element of realpolitik, too. I think we all appreciate that at the end of the day the big five, especially the Russian Federation and the United States, found that it was in their interests to take responsibility and take steps, both for their own security and because of deep alliances with other countries in the region. Those steps were taken based on a new situation: the chemical warfare. To people in Syria it might seem very strange that this was what motivated the Security Council, but I think we all agree that it is good that these steps have been taken.

However, the Security Council resolution is basically value-free. It operates on different terms, but our input should be about values. We must urge our Governments to constantly remind the negotiators at Geneva, “You must bring in human rights, democracy and the rule of law. You must bring in more support for the refugees.”

I received a message from Antonio Guterres the other day. He said the refugee issue should be considered from the following perspective. Lebanon, for instance, now has 760 000 refugees. That would be the equivalent of over 11 million refugees in the United Kingdom, 15 million in Germany, 20 million in France and 58 million refugees in the United States of America. That is the situation in Lebanon. We have to bring in more support to such countries, and to the refugee camps, which are receiving ever more refugees. We must finance them properly wherever they are.

We also have to address the issue of how to deal with the perpetrators. Some who have spoken today have suggested our recommendation says nothing about impunity, but it does. Paragraph 3 of the draft recommendation makes it very clear that the Council of Europe must bring that into the general perspective, which would otherwise be more realpolitik in tone. We must continue to remind our governments and the public that we demand that those who have broken the Geneva Protocol must be investigated and brought to justice.

Finally, many of you have been very clear about the Geneva conference. It is still possible that not all the groups – militias or whatever – that are an effective military power will attend, take part in and respect the outcome of the negotiations. That is an alarming situation. We must keep on reminding the Security Council about all of this, and fortunately it has now come round. Now it must continue. It cannot leave this issue with just half a solution.

Thank you all very much, and I look forward to receiving your support for this recommendation.

THE PRESIDENT* - Thank you, Mr von Sydow, for the excellent work you did, and I thank the secretariat of your committee as well. I thank, too, all who have spoken in this debate, which reflects well on the Assembly. The comments made will be taken on board by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the governments as well.

The debate is closed.

The Political Affairs Committee has presented a draft recommendation to which two amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in numerical order. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

I understand that the Vice-Chairperson wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the Political Affairs Committee, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 33.11: Nos. 1 and 2.

Does anyone object?

As there is no objection, I declare that amendments 1 and 2 to the draft resolution have been adopted.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Stefan Schennach, Ms Lise Christoffersen, Ms Gülsün Bilgehan, Ms Anette Trettebergstuen, Ms Carina Hägg, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 2, at the end of the first sentence, after the words “humanitarian assistance”, insert the following sentence: “Also, gender based violence, including rape, the kidnapping and trafficking of women, sexual exploitation and violence, forced prostitution and forced marriages, has become part of a strategy aimed at destabilising the Syrian population.”

Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Carmen Quintanilla, Mr Oleksandr Shevchenko, Ms Melita Mulić, Mr Igor Ivanovski, Mr Ivan Račan, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 14.5, after the words “ensure that”, insert the following words: “the effects of the widespread use of sexual violence and gender based violence against women and”.

I would like to thank you, Mr von Sydow, for having tabled a draft recommendation on this issue, rather than a draft resolution, because it is much stronger.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Doc. 13320, as amended.

The vote is open.

Thank you very much. I am very happy that we have been able to comply with our speaking time.

I apologise to the interpreters for the extension of yesterday evening’s session. The subject under discussion was controversial and difficult and the sub-amendments were complicated.

2. Address by Mr Tomislav Nikolić, President of Serbia

      THE PRESIDENT* – We now have the honour of hearing an address by Mr Tomislav Nikolić, President of Serbia. After his address, Mr Nikolić has kindly agreed to take questions from the floor. Members called will have 30 seconds to ask a question so that the maximum number can speak. I also ask members to ask questions, rather than making declarations.

      Mr President, I am delighted to be able to warmly welcome you to Strasbourg. I am pleased that we were able to have discussions earlier this morning in my office. Those exchanges were an opportunity to take stock of policies concerning the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly in your region. We are here in the house of democracy and human rights. It is a familiar place to you, because you were a member of our Assembly for eight years, so your visit today is completely understandable. I point out that many former members of the Assembly now in positions of high-level responsibility come back to visit us, so this is a very good school of democracy.

      I was lucky enough to make an official visit to your fine country in March this year. I will take this opportunity to thank the Parliamentary Assembly’s Serbian delegation for the wonderful welcome extended to me. I thank everyone for receiving me and for all the interesting discussions I had. I was able to speak before the National Assembly and took the opportunity to point out that I feel very close to your country, through its history and its present, and its present is resolutely European.

Of course, this Assembly has not forgotten the painful and tragic history of conflict in the Balkans. Although that memory is unfortunately still very strong in our minds, we cherish the hope that the political leaders of all countries in south-east Europe are now writing a new page of history for the region, which is at the heart of a Europe that we want to be democratic and predicated on respect for human rights. We want Europe to be rich in its diversity.

      The Parliamentary Assembly would also like to turn towards the future. The recent headway made in relations between Belgrade and Pristina allow us to have hope. We very much commend that positive approach to bringing about long-lasting peace and reconciliation in the region. As I have told you on a number of occasions, Mr President, Serbia is a great country and has an important role to play in stabilisation and co-operation in south-east Europe.

As you know, Mr President, the Parliamentary Assembly fully supports the actions taken by the authorities in your country to carry out reforms with a view to implementing the post-membership commitments that you still need to honour. Our Monitoring Committee is helping Serbia in its efforts to consolidate its judicial system so that it can become truly independent and effective and to strengthen the freedom of the media and step up the fight against corruption and discrimination. As you know, the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission has taken a number of measures to support you.

As a result of a number of reforms that have already been accomplished in close consultation with our Organisation, particularly in relation to the electoral system, the judiciary, the rights of minorities and decentralisation, Serbia has taken a giant step towards joining the European Union, and I congratulate you on that. A number of challenges still need to be met by your country, and our Assembly will always be alongside it to encourage it to rise to those challenges.

      I would also like to warmly welcome the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mrs Gabriella Battaini-Dragoni. We will listen to you with great attention, Mr President, and afterwards a number of members have signed up to ask questions.

      Mr President, you have the floor.

      Mr Tomislav NIKOLIĆ (President of Serbia)* – Mr President, Secretary General, distinguished members of the Parliamentary Assembly, your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for honouring me with the opportunity to address the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I wish you good health and I wish your countries success and progress in every respect. I very much appreciate the opportunity to answer the questions of former colleagues and wish you to have the same opportunity and privilege.

      One feels especially proud of this institution because its role is to defend the basic values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. It is here that the future holders of State offices acquire the necessary knowledge and take the maturity test that will enable them to represent those core values of civilisation. I am proud to have been a member of the Parliamentary Assembly for almost eight years. I did not belong to any parliamentary group, though not by choice, and I was always at the bottom of the list of speakers, so most of my speeches are available only in writing.

It has been 10 years since Serbia became a member of the Council of Europe. This Organisation’s contribution and assistance in developing democracy in Serbia has been valuable. We wish to have more rights as well as responsibilities, because we are committed to continued partnership and co-operation. We would like to combine our efforts in order to achieve a common goal: all citizens of Europe enjoying equally the benefits of the rule of law, human rights and democracy, the only road leading to lasting stability and prosperity on our continent.

Since it joined the Council of Europe, the Republic of Serbia has made significant progress and has almost completely fulfilled the duties and obligations undertaken when it became a member. We have adopted a large number of laws and carried out or initiated comprehensive legal and political reforms. Among other things there is the fight against corruption; judicial reform, a process we are endeavouring to bring to a successful conclusion after certain deadlocks; the prohibition of discrimination against national minorities; regulation of the status of non-governmental organisations; co-operation in the prosecution and condemnation of the crimes committed in Yugoslavia and other activities.

The Republic of Serbia attaches great importance to the rule of law, one of the fundamental principles of the Council of Europe. Over the past few months the Serbian Government’s activities in that area have been focused principally on addressing the pressing issues in our judicial system. The National Assembly has adopted amendments to a number of important judicial laws and there are two national strategies: the judicial reform strategy and the anti-corruption strategy, which were drawn up in co-operation with the Council of Europe.

The reform of the judicial system of the Republic of Serbia is based on the national judicial reform strategy and comprises five key principles: independence, unbiased and quality justice, professionalism, responsibility and efficiency. The overarching goal of the national anti-corruption strategy is to remove, to the greatest extent possible, this obstacle to the economic, social and democratic development of the Republic of Serbia.

The consequences of corruption are not reflected solely in the impoverishment of society and the state, but in the drastic decline in the trust of citizens in democratic institutions. In addition, corruption creates uncertainty and instability in the economy and has a negative impact on the level of investments. The key priority areas defined by the strategy are based on analysis from GRECO. The problems we face are not easy to address. The road to their solution is not smooth and requires time. Most of our efforts are aimed at the adoption of European standards, thorough institutional reform, and, ultimately, the creation of a modern society.

The Republic of Serbia supports the initiative of the Secretary General to improve the Council of Europe’s monitoring mechanisms. We share the view that focus should be placed on their strengthening and better co-ordination, rather than setting up new mechanisms. We also support the proposal to establish a solid system of protection against threat, organised crime, corruption, discrimination, racism, intolerance and hate speech. At the same time, we believe that it is necessary to establish more clear and measurable criteria for finalising the post-accession monitoring of the fulfilment of obligations undertaken.

After more than a year since my election to the office of the President of Serbia and the appointment of the new government, which has rightly been subject to recent reconstruction, I am pleased to confirm that Serbia has unambiguously demonstrated an adherence to European values. I am pleased to note that this commitment by my country has been recognised by our international partners. In other words, Serbia has become a responsible, sincere and reliable partner, endeavouring to perceive problems realistically and approach solutions in a constructive and effective way in the spirit of dialogue and tolerance. We take pride in the visible results that we have achieved, despite the numerous challenges that Serbia has faced in the past.

In the past year, Serbia has made progress in a number of areas. Significant results were achieved in the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, which commenced following the establishment of the Government of Serbia last year. The fight against corruption and organised crime has taken a specific form and genuine efforts are being made to carry out institutional reform. The problem of invigorating our economy will be an important priority in the coming period, without putting aside the other issues to which I have referred. The clear-cut goal that we are aspiring to is to make Serbia a respectable member of the European family of nations, for the benefit of all our people.

The Republic of Serbia attaches great importance and has a constructive approach to the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina that has been conducted in Brussels under the auspices of the European Union, directly and excellently facilitated by Lady Ashton. Pursuant to our initiative, the dialogue has been raised to the highest political level and the agreements reached are binding. The dialogue has thus far resulted in the signing of the first agreement of principles on regulating the normalisation of relations. We believe that this agreement will contribute to overall regional stability and co-operation, and will be essential in assisting Serbia’s European Union integration process. We firmly hold the view that only the solutions that bear an element of compromise – those not based on unilaterally acceptable proposals – will contribute to overcoming all outstanding issues on a lasting basis.

The Republic of Serbia has recently made a constructive approach to the proposal made by Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, regarding the interaction of the Council of Europe with the provisional institutions of self-government in Kosovo and Metohija on a functional basis, with the use of asterisks and footnotes when referring to Kosovo in connection with joint European Union and Council of Europe projects in all official documents of the Organisation. We are deeply convinced that the activities of the Council of Europe in Kosovo and Metohija should be continued to efficiently apply the principles and standards of the Council of Europe in the area of protecting human rights, especially minority rights, the rule of law and cultural heritage. At the same time, I am convinced that the Council will be consistent in its respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of its member States, and thus continue to abide by its position to remain status-neutral, although the majority of its member States have for one reason or another recognised the self-proclaimed and unilateral decision of the majority of citizens of Albanian nationality on the secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia.

Serbia has called on Serbs to take part in the local elections, which are being organised by the provisional institutions of self-government in Pristina. We have done so to ensure for the Serbian community legitimate and legal bodies that are recognised by the international community. The Serbs would then, within the institutions of the system and without intermediaries, be able to present directly their problems and rightfully request the assistance of the whole world in resolving them. That may be a problem for Pristina, but we have taken these steps sincerely at a difficult time when, because of such actions, some of our opponents in Serbia are openly calling us traitors. We now expect sincerity from the other side as well.

The attitude of the Pristina administration towards Serbs who have the right to vote in the elections is impermissible. As a matter of fact, the Pristina electoral committee is ruthlessly erasing Serbs who have the right to vote from the voter lists, and refusing to allow the lists supported by Serbia to have representatives in the electoral committee and in the polling stations. That should arouse the concern of the Council of Europe. Without the participation of Serbia, there will be no development of democracy and co-existence in Kosovo and Metohija. This is the last moment for the Council of Europe to intervene in the monitoring of the electoral process. Unless the organisations that we have addressed respond, it is the first line of defence for democracy to insist that the elections be regular and unbiased, and that is the only way to change the Albanian position. Serbia will reconsider its decision to support the holding of the elections, which it has not organised and whose regularity it cannot affect.

This is about the implementation of democratic principles that cannot be ignored, even by those member States that have recognised the independence of the so-called State of Kosovo. Serbia has transferred the administration of part of its territory to the United Nations, and the implementation of the democratic and regular elections in that part of the territory has nothing to do with recognition or non-recognition of Kosova and Metohija. If you fail to assist us, I would have to say to myself that I have wasted a year of my mandate, which I am truly convinced has created a turning point in the attitude of the entire world towards Serbia. I would have to admit to myself that, in my fight for better relations in Serbia and the Balkans, I was not supported by those who taught me how to implement the principles of the Council of Europe. I do not want to believe that there is selective democracy and selective justice. The example I presented will be a true test that will enter the annals either as the implementation of democratic principles or as an example of departing from the same principles.

Another important issue I would like to refer to is the trafficking of human organs in Kosovo and Metohija. In that respect, we attach special importance to the implementation of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly resolution on the “investigation of allegations of inhuman treatment of people and illicit trafficking in human organs in Kosovo”, based on the 2011 Dick Marty report. The Parliamentary Assembly must be interested in the outcome of its resolution and examine the progress made in shedding light on these crimes, thus preventing it from becoming a dead letter.

The past of the countries of the former Yugoslavia is characterised by disagreements, severe conflicts, the devastation of war, and, worst of all, the sacrifice of human life. The only way to overcome this legacy is to make a decisive step towards dealing with the past to resolve outstanding issues and build mutual trust and co-operation. Serbia is committed to peace in the region and in Europe as a whole, and to the promotion of good neighbourly relations to maintain and enhance stability. The solution of all outstanding problems and disagreements is an important element of our policy on regional relations, and it has already had impressive results. Mutual relations have improved, which has directly contributed to the European perspective of the region. In that process, we must all take part in a patient, active and steady manner.

The National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia adopted a declaration condemning the crime committed in Srebrenica, so confirming its readiness to contribute decisively to the process of reconciliation and the promotion of regional co-operation. The declaration strongly condemns the crime, and also expresses support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is now the turn of others to demonstrate their sentiments towards the crimes committed by persons belonging to their peoples and to say whether they sympathise with the Serbian victims. Regardless of the drop in its popularity rating among the electorate, the Serbian Government is waiting patiently for others to show courage and leadership. We expected that to happen, but at the same time we have worked hard not to let that affect our commitment to peace and good neighbourly relations.

Serbia accordingly supports all countries in the region on the path towards European integration. Everything that is good for the region is also good for Serbia. We are convinced that our the positive political progress and the development of our neighbours will always be beneficial to our citizens. Membership of the European Union is a road to a policy of sustainable development in the region. We are therefore convinced that, by its example, Serbia will also draw towards the European Union the other Balkan countries that are often incorrectly referred to as the “Western Balkans” – the Balkans stretch to the west of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The perception that European Union membership implies a distancing from the Balkans is humiliating. Serbia will remain a Balkan country even when it becomes a European Union member State.

It is not possible to perceive a democratic society that does not have respect for human rights and the equality for citizens in all areas of life. In recent months, Serbia has made significant progress in creating a system to ensure the further development and promotion of equality among all its citizens. The criminal code has been amended, and a new criminal act of hate crime has been introduced which is precisely aimed at strengthening human rights and the fight against any form of discrimination. Furthermore, the libel offence that until recently prevented media freedom has been decriminalised, so contributing significantly to freedom of speech in Serbia.

A few years ago, the Republic of Serbia adopted the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination. In June this year, the Serbian Government adopted the strategy for the prevention of and protection against discrimination. That document’s goal is to ensure respect of the constitutional principle of the prohibition of discrimination. The main elements of the strategy relate to advancing the status of the vulnerable social groups most exposed to discrimination and discriminatory treatment, including women; children; LGBT people; those with disabilities; the elderly; national minorities; refugees; internally displaced persons; other vulnerable migrant groups; people whose health condition may be a basis for discrimination and members of small religious communities or groups.

Serbia should not be judged too harshly because it did not allow, owing to the security threat posed to many of its citizens, an LGBT Pride parade to be held in Belgrade, and that must not be used as a reason for wasting a year and a half’s effort to meet European standards. We will very soon be ready to express such differences freely. You must understand that it would have been inhumane to have anticipated in advance the number of victims, and to have the number of people injured or killed, on whichever side, be the basis on which the decision on whether to hold the parade was or was not justified. Many extremist groups were prepared to use the parade as a pretext for dealing with a situation in Serbia that they do not favour; there are still many xenophobes, false patriots and dangerous criminals. We will co-operate with everyone, including LGBT groups, the media, non-governmental organisations and government agencies, and we will proactively promote equal rights for all. We will change the laws, introduce stricter penalties and prosecute all organisers of orchestrated, brutal showdowns with those who think differently, as such acts must not happen.

      The Republic of Serbia attaches particular attention to improving the status of all our national minorities. We are implementing the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. Minority rights are included in constitutional provisions, which even provide for positive discrimination for any minority that is considered to be lagging behind.

The Law on National Councils of National Minorities has been adopted, and direct elections for those councils have been held. The law defines the activities of national councils; their responsibilities in the fields of education, culture, media and the official use of languages and alphabets; their relations with State bodies, autonomous province authorities and local self-government units; and the election procedures for their national councils and their funding. This enables all minorities to be recognised and to enjoy rights based on valid regulations, as has been confirmed by the advisory committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Our basic position is that the State authorities in the Republic of Serbia cannot influence the declaration of its citizens with regard to their nationality or to the language they speak, as that would constitute a violation of constitutional and legal regulations, as well as such international standards as the framework convention and the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages.

I underline that the Republic of Serbia is firmly committed to continuing to co-operation with the Council of Europe in its engagement for further improving the situation of national minorities in its territory, in accordance with Council of Europe recommendations. At the same time, Serbia expects that all the rights of members of Serbian national minorities living in other countries will be fully respected, in accordance with Council of Europe standards, including the right to use their mother tongue and script.

      Serbia is a step away from a great opportunity, which I assure you we will not miss. We will use all our capacities to make Serbia a European country in every respect, in accordance with the basic values of the Council of Europe – the protection of human rights, the rule of law and democracy. Serbia is firmly committed to continue to co-operate, and to promote its relations, with the Council of Europe to reach such goals for the benefit of its citizens. I trust that we can count on your support along those lines.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Mr President. Members of the Assembly have questions to put to you. The first question is from Mr Agramunt on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – Mr President, this year, Serbia has taken important steps towards combatting corruption. Corruption is quite high in your country, and European authorities have defined measures that you must adopt to improve the situation. Even though the opposition has accused you of political persecution, will you comment on what major challenges you face in relation to corruption?

Mr NIKOLIĆ* – Serbia is a country in which corruption is intense, as has been the case for more than 10 years. There has been no real change among the authorities that could have been a basis for a fight against crime and corruption. Corruption is visible in the administration and in everyday life, as it is involved in people’s dealings with doctors, lawyers and people in the administration. We have started our fight against corruption, but it is difficult to find a case of corruption that does not involve someone who was previously engaged in such activities.

The European Union warned us about 24 criminal privatisations that involved state officials and civil servants. Now that we are investigating such affairs, we are discovering the involvement of people who held high political positions in Serbia in the past. However, this is not a political issue. I used to be a political prisoner and I know how difficult it is to be in prison just because somebody who is in power does not find you convenient.

I assure you that we will continue to fight crime, even if the people involved belong to my house or my former party, or are my acquaintances. Whether they are a member of the opposition or of the authorities, people will be investigated in the appropriate way. Things have changed. Custody is now much shorter than it was. Our legislation – particularly the criminal law – has been aligned with the recommendations of the Council of Europe. I can only praise the efforts of the government in its fight against crime.

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

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – I would like to take up one of the points that you mentioned in your speech. For the third time in a row, the LGBT Pride parade could not happen. Do you know what it means when a state gives in to small groups that threaten people and their rights in an extreme and violent way? You said on Monday, in anticipating this question, that you would prepare for the next event. Will that involve investigating who has threatened the event and punishing them?

      Mr NIKOLIĆ* – Thank you for that question. I am surely more aware of the acts of the government than you. All my political activities of the past year have been aimed at ensuring that in December, there is no further reason for the negotiations with the EU to not start. I was afraid that such an event might jeopardise that, whether it took place and there were victims, or whether it did not take place. On the security level, Serbia was not ready. It was not ready to enable the parade to take place without any consequences. We have identified the organisers. We will find out how organised they were and the public will be informed about that.

As I have announced, we will begin preparations for next year’s event. Next year, we will hold it. I thought that we would be ready this year, but our country is in a difficult economic situation. We are doing our best to stabilise the situation in Kosovo and Metohija.

The event is not well received by many people. Many people do not think that members of the LGBT population should have an opportunity to present their position. People want to prove publicly that they are not members of that group. We also have to deal with football fans and such groups. This is not only about the LGBT parade; the situation in Serbia remains insecure when it comes to big gatherings, including those revolving around football and sports. We will do our best to prevent such occurrences.

I am convinced that by working with all the people I have mentioned, we will be able to prepare Serbia for the fact that it will be just a normal day on which people who are the same among themselves, but different from the rest of the population, take to the streets. As is the case throughout the world, nobody should be mistreated because of that. I promise that there will be no need for you to ask that question next year.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Xuclà to ask a question on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – President Nikolić, I welcome you on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. I encourage your country to adopt the convention on minority languages as soon as possible. What measures are you implementing to protect minority cultural rights, particularly in the field of education? To what extent does the Pristina government respect the linguistic and cultural rights of minorities?

Mr NIKOLIĆ* – The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities has been incorporated into our constitution and laws, and those laws are being implemented. The members of national minorities may even write PhD theses in their own language. From the most basic level of the school system to the level of a PhD, people may use their own language. The use of one’s own language and script is guaranteed.

We have had some problems regarding textbooks for the Bulgarian minority. Bulgarian State officials have reacted to that. The manuals have not yet arrived and I do not know why. However, we have had no other complaints in that regard.

People from 30 national minorities live in Serbia. That is nothing new to us. Those minorities have lived in the country for centuries and have established their own relations. The State only has to support them. In Serbia, the official language is Serbian. The minority languages are spoken in the areas where the minorities live. The official script of Serbia is Cyrillic. The scripts of the minorities are used in the places where they live.

We have no right to force our national minorities to express themselves as Serbs or anything else. We protect their difference. Positive discrimination is possible under the constitution. If a minority lags behind in respect of the protection of its heritage, language and script, the state has the right to give it more support than the others. We do apply that practice. The representatives of national minorities have taken over powerful competences in their regions.

Kosovo has two parts. In one part, the provisional Pristina administration is fully in control, but in four Serbian municipalities in the north of Kosovo the authority of the Pristina administration has never run. For centuries, Albanians have never lived in the latter area – it was always Serbian territory, and the only language used has been Serbian.

      On the influence of Serbia, we have no influence on how the Albanian institutions conduct and organise the core system. We might send school textbooks to the Serbian villages, or help them to find teachers or to fund electricity and everything else that schools need, including premises, but the situation is confusing, because in some areas co-operation is possible and in others not.

      The authorities in Pristina now adopt decisions without consulting Belgrade. We have tried to accommodate them in our legislation, but they did not foresee the specifics of the life of the Albanian and Serbian population in Kosovo and Metohija. That is where the Council of Europe can be of help: if you want to co-operate with the administration in Pristina, you will see a number of obligations that have yet to be respected, in order for it to be able to say that it respects the principles of the Council of Europe. That is not shameful – it was also the case for my country 10 years ago, when we realised that we were lagging behind in terms of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now call the Earl of Dundee, to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      The Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – Following the entry of Croatia to the European Union, do you consider that the practical consequences for Serbia so far have been well handled? Such include border crossings, technical standards harmonisation and trade arrangements. Will the change nevertheless cause difficulties in certain aspects? Conversely, are there also now fresh opportunities to improve further the relationship between Belgrade and Zagreb?

      Mr NIKOLIĆ – Relations between all the Balkan countries, not only those of the former Yugoslavia, are determined by the relationship between Croatia and Serbia. In the past few months, we have done everything in our power to put those relations on a sound foundation. The forthcoming visit of the President of Croatia will testify that we have done things in the right way.

      Before Croatia joined the European Union, we all belonged to the Central European Free Trade Agreement, which provided for free trade between its members. Croatia, given its European Union membership, is losing its CEFTA rights, and we now have some disputes to which to find answers, such as in the tobacco trade. Croatia is asking us to apply the free trade agreement, but given our own accords with the European Union, that is not possible.

      In the Council of Europe, Serbia strongly promoted and advocated Croatian membership, because as long as Croatia’s European Union negotiations were in progress, we could not start our own. Therefore, everything that we want to solve now, we did not speak about when Croatia’s membership negotiations were ongoing. We knew that after Croatia became a member, we would be able to follow suit. All the other countries with candidate status, or which are about to start negotiations, will have thriving relations with Croatia. We will have access to markets, but we do not have products for those markets, so we will have to unite – Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia – in order to be competent in the open market, not only in the European Union, but in other traditionally friendly countries.

      My policy is to leave history to historians. It can remind us of mistakes, but it should be left in the past. We should look to the future. We have waged too many wars, and we deserve the right to live in a better way. We have taken part in wars, but no one is right and even the winners have their victims. Therefore, I am looking forward to future relations with Croatia and with other countries in the Balkans. I have visited all the Balkan states – not only the countries of the former Yugoslavia, but all our other neighbours – and we have established good relations, with no disputes or issues. Our only problem is how to heal our countries and to provide our citizens with better living conditions. That can be obtained by mutual co-operation in the Balkans.

      I wish you had asked me your question in a month’s time, therefore, when all these agreements in preparation will be finalised and initialled on the visit that will happen at the end of the month.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you for answering that question. I call Mr Papadimoulis, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr PAPADIMOULIS (Greece)* – I noted with great interest, President Nikolić, the content of everything that you have said and, in particular, its tone. You talked about the need for dialogue between Serbia and all its neighbours in order to find the same line of approach. What might your initiatives be and what is your agenda for relations with the European Union? What do you expect to do to improve your relations with Kosovo?

      Mr NIKOLIĆ – Unfortunately, I did not hear the first part of the question, although you were probably referring to positive relations with everyone. We have a sincere and open relationship with the European Union – Serbia belongs to Europe and it is part of Europe, although it is not part of the European Union.

I hope that the negotiations will not last too long, because our country is prepared. We started preparations earlier, and we have harmonised our legislation with the European acquis. We are not members of the European Union, but we have faced the economic crisis in the same way as member states. There is no one to help us, however; we are trying to find solutions on our own. Unfortunately, we have had to take out major loans and, since our partners assess our country as one that is not safe for investment, we have to pay much more than others do. Our loans and debts are huge, therefore, and we are endangering future generations with them. However, the European Union is our partner. We have nowhere else to go, and we should not be left behind. It would be a sign to non-member countries that they too will be left behind if no one wants them.

      I believe that the only problem in our relationship with the European Union has been Kosovo and Metohija. Maybe it was a problem until the election last year, but now it should not be a problem. Maybe there are countries friendly to us that were forced to recognise Kosovo’s independence. Today, no one has to recognise Kosovo’s independence, because Serbia is making major concessions. We are negotiating, and we have adopted and approved the responsibilities and competences of Pristina in many fields.

All United Nations high representatives have promoted and determined the independence of Kosovo. In 1999, we let the United Nations govern and manage part of our country, but the situation on the ground has changed since then. It does not look like what was set out in UN Security Council resolution 1244, but we are still looking for additional answers. Do not expect us to recognise Kosovo – we will never do so – but we want people to live better. We want the territory that Albanians call independent to be promoted in the world and to belong to many organisations, although not all; many organisations require countries to be sovereign. You have to think about the Kosovo and Metohija issue as though it were your problem. If it happened in your country, what would you do?

No one thinks of the war, only of negotiations. We try daily to improve relations, so we are hurt by being tricked occasionally. We tried, but 10 days after allowing police forces into northern Kosovo, there were military forces. Things must be agreed through dialogue. We are talking about health care and education, not military forces. Albania and the new military force in Kosovo have agreed to co-operate. To fight whom? Serbia has never attacked anyone and will never do so. That is in the past. Serbia is surrounded by NATO member States. Who would attack us, and whom would we attack? The only thing that we should do is negotiate and plan for a better life in future.

One day, who knows how we in the European Union will differentiate among ourselves? We will mention borders only as something belonging to history. There will be free movement of people, capital and goods. Migration will be constant. Poor people will go to well-off countries to work, and no one will have anything to say against it. That is the aim. That is the goal towards which we strive: open borders for everyone. Therefore, we want to be in the European Union and to demonstrate that we belong, we are equal and we share the same values, but I must remind you that you do not have the problem that we have. We are trying intensively to solve it.

There are people in Serbia who say that we should not address the issue – that we should leave it – but as I mentioned in my speech earlier, I do not mind what the electorate will say or whether I will lose popularity. I am a politician. I have to be a leader, and not just to consider what is appropriate in the moment. I must consider the future, because there are commitments, obligations and duties that I have undertaken. We will therefore continue to negotiate with Kosovo and develop good relations in future. I refer again to the problems that we will face in organising the forthcoming elections, but if Serbs do not participate, nothing will change. They must participate. We want forces in the north legitimately and legally to see what kind of problems it faces. They must understand that they are not alone. They feel very lonely, as though we have left them. On the other side, Pristina is preventing them from taking part in the process.

I understand the principles of the Council of Europe, maybe less well than some of you and maybe better than some of you. I would like to see them applied to all territories and regions in the world. They are the only principles that we can live with.

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

Mr MICHEL (France)* – President, on 19 April last year, your country signed an historic agreement with Kosovo to normalise your ties. The concrete substance of that agreement represents an important signal for the entire region. However, I have noted that this courageous approach of yours to creating peace in the Balkans has caused a number of people in Tirana to start talking about a Greater Albania. How are your relations with Albania? Albania, of course, must try to ensure peace in the Balkans as well.

Mr NIKOLIĆ – We have not had any contact. I have not had personal contact with representatives of Albania. I have had private contact with the President of Albania and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but we have had no high-level official meetings, apart from the meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs. Albania has guaranteed to the European Union that it will not insist on creating a unified State of Albanians living in the Balkan territories, even though in its parliamentary elections there were candidates who stated their dream of forming a unified Albanian State in the Balkans. That is unacceptable not only for Serbia but for Europe. Serbia cannot influence what others do, but we lean on international organisations and the European Union.

I think a lot of populist politicians in Albania dream of a Greater Albania, but real politicians know what reality is. That would not be good for Europe. It is already a precedent in some European States to recognise the independence of a seceded country. If they allowed something like the creation of a Greater Albania, who knows how things would develop? There are Albanians living in Macedonia and Montenegro. Why would only Albanians from Serbia be granted the right? I am not a prophet, but I know that some will try to achieve that. Therefore, you must be cautious. It is not a minority right to break away from a foreign country; that is proscribed by international law, and we must obey the law. Where would it take us if every movement in the world were granted the right to create its own country? Think about it. What would you do if it happened in your country? Think about the people who live there. I have witnessed conflicts and war – my family members as well, and my colleagues – and would not want anyone else to see this. I would not wish such an experience on anyone. The total number of our citizens used to equal the German population, but now we only have a few millions.

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

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – I ask you, President, to ensure that all colleagues have the opportunity to pose questions, because it is about 1 p.m. and we are officially over time. But maybe Mr Nikolić is open to answering all questions, because we are keen to hear his answers. It is important that we hear his views. I hope that Mr Nikolić will answer questions relating to Hungarians in Vojvodina, for example, and say what is going on there and why the autonomy of that territory is not being assured.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gaudi Nagy, although that is a not a point of order, as such. Parliamentarians have signed up to the list of speakers, based on the rules of the Parliamentary Assembly. I have to stick to the order of speakers, which is the order to which you signed up, and await President Nikolić’s answers. I know that it may be a little bit frustrating for some of you, but I have no other way of doing this. Some 38 people have signed up, and let us not forget that we have interpreters and we have to respect working times for everyone. I can go for an extra five minutes, but I am sorry that I cannot do any more than that.

Before I call Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Nikolić has indicated that he is willing to respond to that point, but this will be with the consent of Mr Díaz Tejera. Then I will call Ms Djurović.

Mr NIKOLIĆ* – Maybe you are not following the developments between Serbia and Hungary. A month ago, at a historical event, the President of Hungary and I unveiled two monuments, one to the Serbian victims and one to Hungarian victims of the Second World War. We have forged everlasting friendship between Hungary and Serbia. We have closed one chapter and we should not live in the past.

Not a single Hungarian is in danger in Vojvodina. The Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians is in power in the province of Vojvodina. It did not want to participate at national level in government, although it had the opportunity to do so.

You are not telling the truth. All that we have to say about the relationship with Hungarians in our country can be confirmed by the Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians in Serbia. You could have said these things about 20 years ago, but you are not unaware of what has happened since then. You have to be honest and say that things are moving forward and there is nothing to worry about.

The Hungarian population in Vojvodina is living in the same conditions as Serbs. They live in poverty, as Serbs do – that is the only problem. Try to help them in another way; try to bring in more investments and develop new businesses and try to send a message to Hungarians to join the military and police forces. They can become part of the police forces whenever they want. They can be integrated within all authorities, if they like.

Thank you for asking me this question, which at least illustrates how different we are.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Mr Díaz Tejera, thank you for bearing with us.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – The first impression about this question is that it might be delicate, but I do not want to change my question, in spite of this incident that we have just experienced.

There is no rule of law without the judiciary and no judiciary unless judges are independent. The difference between a civil servant and a judge is that a civil servant is subject to a hierarchy, whereas a judge is independent – free – and does not obey orders from the public authorities, and is only subject to the law. That is one criterion for becoming a judge and having a career, etc.

My question is as follows. In the legal reforms that you are undertaking, and particularly in implementing them, are you moving towards the goal of independence? To what extent can we help you to ensure that you have an independent judiciary with independent judges, rather than having judges who have a culture of being functionaries or civil servants? Thank you for waiting to answer my question.

Mr NIKOLIĆ* – We have done a lot. More than 600 judges were removed simply because they were not members of the political party that was in power at the time. Most of these judges were reinstated by us, although some retired and others changed profession in the meantime.

Today, judges are elected by an independent judiciary body. For someone to exercise the functions of a judge, it is no longer enough for the person to finish their law studies, have some experience and pass a judiciary exam. Now, they have to pass a two-year course, in accordance with European Union norms.

We have not removed any judge because he was appointed while other political parties were in power, and we will not do it. The only basis for removal of a judge from his functions is if he does his work wrongly. The Executive authorities do not participate any more in the election of judges. You are right; they have to be independent. The Executive powers must have no influence on them. Even the legislative authorities have withdrawn to a great extent. I think that we have adopted the European norms in that respect and that the judiciary will remain absolutely independent in respect of how judges behave. There are other European mechanisms regulating that.

In our country, the function of a judge is permanent, so that power cannot play with a judge, but it is possible to be removed from that position because of errors, whether through acting or not acting. Unfortunately, many judges were slowing down the fight against corruption and crime and participating in the criminal privatisations. We must solve that problem before we continue dealing with the chapter on the judiciary in our discussions with the European Union. It is easier for our party to fight decisively the judges and others involved in criminal activities, simply because it was not previously in power.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. To ask the very last question, I call Ms Djurović. I apologise to the other speakers.

      Ms DJUROVIĆ (Serbia)* – It gives me great honour to welcome you on behalf of the Serbian delegation, Mr President. Nearly three years after this distinguished Assembly adopted Dick Marty’s resolution on the illegal trafficking of human organs in Kosovo, why has the investigation not progressed and why has no one been held accountable for these vicious crimes? How will the truth be told?

      Mr NIKOLIĆ* – I came here to find that out, and I also tried to find the answer at the United Nations. It is for the Council of Europe alone to decide when we get an answer, but we have not received any information for a long time. It could perhaps be dealt with more efficiently by the world judiciary at the United Nations. I do not want to influence anyone, but this should not remain a dead letter, as I said in my speech.

Many people tended to see the Serbs as the only criminals and other peoples as the victims and to minimise Serbian suffering. That this crime happened was established here – I did not invent it – when the Assembly voted on it. When you vote on something, you must follow it with other measures. Serbia expects you to find someone as brave as Senator Dick Marty who will go further in this fight against a crime that is unprecedented in Europe. Do not ask why the State intervened in Kosovo and Metohija – that people were kidnapped for their organs was the basis of the hate between the two peoples. Do not close your eyes to that; investigate it.

Serbia trusts the Council of Europe and will never reproach you for not solving this crime, but you are a model for all Europe, and the countries of Europe expect your help. Here, in this temple, you know everything about democracy and human rights, and if you send out the wrong message, what will people outside do? Serbia opened up everything to investigation and co-operated with the war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. We extradited presidents of state, assembly presidents and even chiefs of secret services. No other country has ever done the same. Please, do what is necessary and see that this crime is investigated. Without answers, there can be no durable peace and stability in Serbia.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr President, and thank you, colleagues, for how you have conducted this debate.

3. Next public business

      THE PRESIDENT* – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. with the agenda which was approved on Monday morning.

      The sitting is closed.

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

CONTENTS

1. Urgent debate: The situation in Syria

Presentation by Mr von Sydow of report, Document 13320, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy

Speakers: Mr Walter, Mr Kürkçü, Ms Bakoyannis, Lord Anderson, Ms Schuster, Mr Salles, Ms Blanco, Ms Allain, Ms Zohrabyan, Mr Pushkov, Ms Armine Hovhannisyan, Mr Rouquet, Ms Virolainen, Mr Schennach, Mr Agramunt, Mr Gardarson, Ms Gillan, Ms Guzenina-Richardson, Mr Mota Amaral, Mr Jónasson, Mr Hawn, Ms Fort, Mr Iwiński, Mr Neill, Mr Dişli, Ms Szél, Mr Sasi, Ms Lundgren, Sir Edward Leigh, Ms Kanelli

Amendments 1 and 2 adopted.

Draft recommendation contained in Document 13320, as amended, adopted.

2. Address by Mr Tomislav Nicolić, President of Serbia

Questions: Mr Agramunt, Mr Gross, Mr Xuclà, Earl of Dundee, Mr Papadimoulis, Mr Michel, Mr

Gaudi Nagy, Mr Díaz Tejera, Ms Djurović

3. Next public business

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

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*

Karin ANDERSEN*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI/ Brigitte Allain

Daniel BACQUELAINE/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

David BAKRADZE*

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Silvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI*

Teresa BERTUZZI*

Robert BIEDROŃ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY/Edward Leigh

Ľuboš BLAHA/Darina Gabániová

Philippe BLANCHART*

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

Eric BOCQUET*

Mladen BOJANIĆ/Snežana Jonica

Olga BORZOVA/Anvar Makhmutov

Mladen BOSIĆ/Nermina Kapetanović

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR

Alessandro BRATTI*

Márton BRAUN

Gerold BÜCHEL*

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA

Sylvia CANEL*

Nunzia CATALFO

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU*

Mikael CEDERBRATT/Tina Acketoft

Özlem CEKIC*

Elena CENTEMERO*

Lorenzo CESA*

Otto CHALOUPKA/Pavel Lebeda

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU*

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE*

Boriss CILEVIČS*

Henryk CIOCH*

James CLAPPISON

Deirdre CLUNE*

Agustín CONDE

Telmo CORREIA*

Paolo CORSINI

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Celeste COSTANTINO/Ferdinando Aiello

Jonny CROSIO*

Katalin CSÖBÖR/Bernadett Szél

Milena DAMYANOVA*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand De DECKER/Fatiha Saïdi

Roel DESEYN

Manlio DI STEFANO*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK

Şaban DİŞLİ

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Jim DOBBIN*

Karl DONABAUER*

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS

Damian DRĂGHICI*

Daphné DUMERY

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA

Baroness Diana ECCLES/Cheryl Gillan

Tülin ERKAL KARA*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA/Raphaël Comte

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER

Jana FISCHEROVÁ*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON/Jean-Pierre Michel

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Erich Georg FRITZ

Martin FRONC

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO*

Karl GARÐARSON

Ruslan GATTAROV*

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Nadezda GERASIMOVA

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO*

Michael GLOS*

Pavol GOGA

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI*

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI*

Fred de GRAAF*

Martin GRAF*

Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou

Patrick De GROOTE*

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST/Marie-Louise Fort

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER

Gergely GULYÁS*

Pelin GÜNDEŞ BAKIR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Ana GUŢU

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI/Marek Borowski

Hamid HAMID

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Håkon HAUGLI/Anette Trettebergstuen

Norbert HAUPERT

Alfred HEER/Maximilian Reimann

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Andres HERKEL

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD/Robert Neill

Joachim HÖRSTER

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV/Sahiba Gafarova

Vladimir ILIĆ

Florin IORDACHE

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT/André Schneider

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Stella JANTUAN

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Ramón JÁUREGUI

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN*

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ/Svetislava Bulajić

Antti KAIKKONEN

Ferenc KALMÁR*

Božidar KALMETA/Ivan Račan

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Deniza KARADJOVA*

Marietta KARAMANLI/Pascale Crozon

Ulrika KARLSSON/Kerstin Lundgren

Burhan KAYATÜRK*

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH*

Serhiy KLYUEV*

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Unnur Bra KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN*

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO/Ismeta Dervoz

Dmitry KRYVITSKY*

Václav KUBATA/Miroslav Krejča

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV*

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Orinta LEIPUTĖ

Christophe LÉONARD*

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE*

Lone LOKLINDT*

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES*

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX*

Thierry MARIANI*

Epameinondas MARIAS

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA/Jaana Pelkonen

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Ivan MELNIKOV/Tamerlan Aguzarov

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Marie-Jo Zimmermann

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Jerzy MONTAG*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES/Carmen Quintanilla

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Melita MULIĆ

Lydia MUTSCH*

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ

Marian NEACŞU

Fritz NEUGEBAUER*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/Charles Kennedy

Michele NICOLETTI*

Elena NIKOLAEVA*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Mirosława NYKIEL*

Judith OEHRI*

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY*

Lesia OROBETS

Sandra OSBORNE*

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Eva PARERA/Jordi Xuclà

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Johannes PFLUG*

Foteini PIPILI/Liana Kanelli

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT

Jakob PRESEČNIK

Gabino PUCHE

Alexey PUSHKOV

Mailis REPS/Maret Maripuu

Eva RICHTROVÁ

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE/Rudy Salles

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Marlene RUPPRECHT*

Pavlo RYABIKIN

Rovshan RZAYEV*

Vincenzo SANTANGELO

Kimmo SASI

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER

Urs SCHWALLER

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Boris SHPIGEL*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Algis Kašėta

Ladislav SKOPAL*

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI

Yanaki STOILOV*

Christoph STRÄSSER*

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI*

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO*

Romana TOMC*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Mihai TUDOSE/Daniel Florea

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Theodora TZAKRI*

Konstantinos TZAVARAS

Tomáš ÚLEHLA*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Petrit VASILI*

Volodymyr VECHERKO/ Larysa Melnychuk

Mark VERHEIJEN/Marjolein Faber-Van De Klashorst

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Vladimir VORONIN*

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ/Damir Šehović

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Katrin WERNER/Annette Groth

Karin S. WOLDSETH*

Gisela WURM

Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS*

Guennady ZIUGANOV/Robert Shlegel

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Maria GIANNAKAKI

Spyridon TALIADOUROS

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly)

Mehmet ÇAĞLAR

Observers

Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA

Ernesto GÁNDARA CAMOU

Laurie HAWN

Michel RIVARD

Miguel ROMO MEDINA

Bev SHIPLEY

Partners for Democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Mohammed Mehdi BENSAID

Nezha EL OUAFI

Omar HEJIRA

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM