AA15CR14

AS (2015) CR 14

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Fourteenth sitting

Wednesday 22 April 2015 at 10.00 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.       The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website. Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates

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

5.       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 Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)

      The PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Current affairs debate: the political and security situation in Ukraine and its implications

      The PRESIDENT* – The first item of business this morning is a current affairs debate on the political and security situation in Ukraine and its implications.

      Under the Rules of Procedure, current affairs debates may not exceed one and a half hours. I propose, however, that on this occasion the debate continue until 12.15 p.m., when the Assembly is scheduled to hear from Mr Reynders. I will interrupt the list of speakers at that point; Mr Reynders will then answer questions.

      I remind members that it was agreed yesterday to limit speaking times to three minutes for all members. Mr Xuclà is to introduce the debate, but as he is not in the Chamber, I will take the opportunity to thank my predecessor as President of the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr Mignon, for being here. I call Mr Mignon, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr MIGNON (France)* – It is quite a responsibility to open such a sensitive debate. I cannot help but think of our colleague Nadiia Savchenko, who should be with us here today, as she is a member of the Assembly. Admittedly, she was elected after her kidnapping and incarceration, but she is still a parliamentarian. We should not forget that or, indeed, her. I thank each and every member for the initiatives they have taken in their respective countries with a view to bringing about her release. It is a difficult situation, but none of us should abandon or forget her. She is on hunger strike, which is having serious implications for her health. We should all pray that she does not lose her life as a result; that would be a tragedy for her, her family and the values that we all espouse.

      With our colleague Mailis Reps, I went to Ukraine a few days ago, as part of our work as co-rapporteurs for the Monitoring Committee. That visit gave us the opportunity to take a first-hand look at what is happening in Ukraine. The purpose of the debate is to take stock of the situation there, including the security situation. That must be seen in the context of the Minsk Agreement. There is real commitment in Ukraine to ensuring that Minsk II is respected – I say Minsk II because there is already a Minsk I Agreement. The agreement is being respected overall, despite regular – indeed, daily – violations of the ceasefire. We met a series of political leaders, all of whom reiterated their commitment to moving forward with the reform process that has been initiated. The situation is far from easy. Ukraine has to start from scratch. The law on decentralisation was one of the key planks of the Minsk Agreement. There must be investigations and inquiries into acts of violence and crimes committed in Maidan.

      I have just over 20 seconds left. There is so much I would like to say to my friends from Ukraine and from Russia. We cannot do any more than we have so far. That means that they – each and every one of the parties – have to do their utmost to ensure that good faith is shown on all sides, and that there is a move to implement the agreements, which were so difficult to achieve.

      Finally, I ask once again that we think of Nadiia Savchenko.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you for agreeing to kick off the debate, Mr Mignon. In the meantime, Mr Xuclà has joined us. I call Mr Xuclà.

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)*– First and foremost, I offer my humble apologies for not being here at the beginning of the sitting. The group was meeting and unfortunately the bell did not ring. I knew that the sitting was opening at 10 a.m. but nobody from the group was in the Chamber at the time.

      This debate is on the political and security situation in Ukraine, and its consequences. The conflict is highly political. It is at the heart of Europe and could have a knock-on effect on security and stability in our continent. We have discussed Ukraine at all our plenary part-sessions since April last year; we have had regular urgent and current affairs debates.

      I would like to inform delegates of what has happened since the January part-session. The conflict has grown worse – it has increased – particularly in the eastern part of the country. The truce and the ceasefire agreement have been breached. The forces who would like to separate the eastern part of the country have attacked in Mariupol, and there was an attack on Donetsk airport. Debaltseve, a crucial city from the point of view of infrastructure – particularly rail infrastructure, as it is a crossing point – was subject to an intense attack just a few days before the signing of the most important agreement since January, the Minsk II agreement.

      The Minsk II Agreement does not mean that Minsk I is superseded or set aside. It is a broadening of Minsk I. Minsk II was signed on 12 February and came into force on 15 February. It is important to recall that that is the case, because in politics, as in life, things move very quickly. It is important to recall the important role played by President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel in European policy on the area, while the United States Administration has decided to make an effort to arrive at a separate solution.

      Since Minsk II came into force on 15 February 2015, the ceasefire agreement has been breached on both sides. It is important to emphasise that and to monitor the agreement. Some heavy arms have been withdrawn from the Donbas region, but at the same time, intelligence information from various countries – we also have NATO intelligence and objective satellite snapshot data – indicates that Russian troops and forces are present in the eastern part of Ukrainian territory. That is what we see from the data.

      We need to look at the conclusions of the intelligence services. The leaders of the rebel forces in Ukraine have access to arms and sophisticated weaponry that would not be at their disposal were it not for the help of third parties. That is worrying. Most worrying is a statement made recently by Aleksandr Zakharchenko, the leader of the self-declared People’s Republic of Donetsk, who said that he wanted to expand and amplify the republic. That is the situation of the armed conflict and of the third-party influence exercised in the eastern part of the country.

      Today’s debate will touch on other salient points that are part and parcel of the Minsk II agreement. There is agreement between the parties on the necessary reforms, including parliamentary reforms. Legislation is being drafted by the parliament to comply with the Minsk agreement and to arrive at a political solution between the parties that will help us to overcome the conflict.

      Local elections for the whole territory of Ukraine based on Ukrainian legislation are important. That is one of the points included in the agreement. The agreement talks about elections for representatives in areas that are currently outside government control. That is a key process in giving legitimacy to those who represent the people. The elections for town halls and local authorities could yield results in the eastern part of the country that give legitimacy to different political options. Some in Kiev are therefore not particularly keen on moving forward in that respect, because those options are not the ones that they want. Nevertheless, elections should be held throughout the territory of Ukraine, and it is important that they take place on the basis of legislation approved by the Ukrainian Parliament.

      It is difficult for the coalition government to launch the constitutional reform process that is very much needed. First, there has to be agreement within the government, and, secondly, a two thirds parliamentary majority is necessary for constitutional reform. Thirdly – we have spoken about this frankly with our Ukrainian friends – there is the question of decentralisation, which is one of the points in Minsk II, as Mr Mignon knows perfectly well. Indeed, he mentioned it in his initial statement, and in a way it was helpful for me that I arrived late in the Chamber. Importantly, decentralisation has singular status, not special status. The eastern zones of the country would have an asymmetrical status – something that is recommended clearly and openly by the Venice Commission. Professor Buquicchio, the President of the Venice Commission, conveyed that message to the meeting of the Political Affairs Committee when we met in Paris, and also to the Ukrainian delegation.

      The process is far from straightforward. It is not easy to obtain the necessary majority in the Ukrainian Parliament to move forward on decentralisation – asymmetrical decentralisation, as Professor Buquicchio calls it. I have discussed this subject with Mr Gross on several occasions and we have had many debates in Europe on territorial matters. Diversity is key. I see diversity through asymmetry as the way forward, but we know that the dialogue is not always straightforward, and not always so civilised.

      Multi-faceted reforms must take place in the Ukrainian Parliament. For instance, our colleague Olena Sotnyk will return to Kiev tonight because she is going to present her bill on the reform of the police. We are going to turn the page on the old police system and ensure that the rule of law prevails in the police force. Ms Sotnyk, a colleague in this Parliamentary Assembly, has launched another reform in Ukraine – the reform of the judicial system, which is important in combating and eradicating corruption. Corruption was previously a blatant phenomenon in the Ukrainian judiciary.

      Yesterday, I met some young people from Ukraine civil society. We talked about the package of the reforms. At the end of the meeting, I concluded that the future of Ukraine is in the hands of those young people. They have clear ideas, and they want to apply our criteria and principles when it comes to the reform of their country.

      There was a revolution 10 years ago that failed because the right initiatives were not taken at the right time or in time. There was the Maidan Agreement, and because of that we must now take the right decisions. They have to be taken within the country. There is a lot of positive energy to move forward on this necessary package of reforms, and we need to make sure that the international community is there by Ukraine’s side, helping out.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you for introducing the debate, Mr Xuclà, and touching on a number of problems that we need to resolve together. I call Lord Anderson, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – In following Mr Mignon and Mr Xuclà, I thank them for their contributions, and particularly their comments referring to the internal road blocks on the way to real constitutional reform. Those road blocks can be overcome only by a serious consensual effort. Members of the rebel groups have set themselves against decentralisation and there are real problems in taking it further. Even if there were to be an immediate political solution, the loss of life and infrastructural damage would demand a major effort.

      There is some talk of a Marshall Plan, but this comes at a time of austerity in Europe when there are many other clement demands on our resources. There is a difference, of course, between a Marshall Plan for the countries of North Africa and one for Ukraine, which is one of our members and partners, whose problems have largely been caused by another country, Russia. Obviously there is no black and white in politics. Kiev has failed, and anything we do in terms of financial help must be done conditionally. Kiev has made mistakes: it has failed adequately to recognise the cultural differences in eastern Ukraine; it has mentioned its NATO aspirations, which has been a major provocation to Russia. There have been the recent assassinations in Kiev.

      If we look honestly at the crisis, we see that it has been caused overwhelmingly by Russia’s new nationalist, populist, aggressive policy. At first there was the annexation of Crimea. It is significant that Minsk II does not mention Crimea, as if that is a fait accompli. What Mr Putin agreed was well planned – the invasion of Crimea, and the annexation and advance. Then there was the destabilisation of eastern Ukraine, with special forces, troops, heavy armour, and a warning to NATO about hybrid warfare.

      Our response is on two levels. There are sanctions, of course, but sanctions are in danger of unravelling. I appeal to members of the Council of Europe to make sure that we do not give a contrary signal to Russia. The Council of Europe’s soft power response has done reasonably well, and the Venice Commission and good governance have been mentioned. There is an extensive degree of damage in personal relations but we must realise that this issue will come before our Assembly many times in the future. It is not business as usual in Russia and we must all be prepared for the long term: this will not be an immediate solution to a long-standing problem.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Lord Anderson. The next speaker is Ms Zelienková, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms ZELIENKOVÁ (Czech Republic) – The Ukraine crisis can be divided into military and economic aspects; both are crucial for the internal stability of Ukraine and for the development of its civil society. We are seeing a reminder of the downfall of the Soviet empire in its military and economic context. It is also a warning that the post-war division of Europe into antagonistic blocs still lives on in the minds of some people. Russia’s leaders are still convinced about the existence of its sphere of influence and its right to apply the doctrine of limited sovereignty towards its neighbours.

      In practice, this means that we are facing a new round of fighting because Russia is transferring weapons and other equipment on a large scale into the separatist area of Donbas. This means that Russia is effectively taking over military command of this area. A spring offensive would probably lead to the defeat of Ukraine, which is definitely not able to face the unlimited capacity of the Russian army. Should this happen, it would lead to further territory losses and to the further destabilisation of Ukraine. The central government would be destabilised and millions of Ukrainians would feel hopeless and abandoned by the western democratic world. We should therefore consider the influence of the Ukrainian crisis on the whole of Europe. What would a new round of disintegration of the central Ukrainian government, Ukrainian economic collapse and inner unrest mean for Europe?

      Besides supporting Ukraine in general, we should also encourage its efforts to reform its constitution, administrative justice, security sectors and economy. The current government is working on the reforms, but there is still a long way to go. As a rapporteur of the Parliamentary Assembly on the political consequences of the crisis in Ukraine, I have seen that the reforms are just at the beginning; they are sometimes imperfect and hard to enforce. Along with political support, we should help Ukrainians by sending out experts on all these sectors who could help with the reconstruction of the country.

      We should not be naïve. Instead of an endless search for non-existent solutions, we should help Ukraine to end the war and help with the transformation of the country. At the same time, we should demand the full implementation of reforms. We should demonstrate to Russia that its politics are wrong and that it will bear the consequences.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms L’Ovochkina to speak on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Ms L’OVOCHKINA (Ukraine) – The war with Russia is of the greatest concern to all Ukrainians but it is not the only concern. Almost equal in importance to Russian aggression is the fear that our country is drifting away from the basic principles of democracy. As some members know, there has been an extraordinary number of unexplained suicides and unsolved murders among members of the former ruling party. Just this week, a former MP and two journalists were murdered.

      This is not just about the murders, but rather about a continuing regression of freedoms that is truly destroying Ukraine’s chances to build a successful democracy. Maidan was supposed to end corruption but today corruption is as bad as ever. Maidan was supposed to improve people’s lives, but the situation for ordinary people has worsened. Several million of my compatriots are in complete economic isolation, and the government in Kiev has done nothing to help them. Maidan was supposed to be a statement of freedom of expression, but today we have a Ministry of Information judging what is “patriotic” and what is not, and there are more assaults than ever on the independent press. There is daily intimidation of the opposition and of those who have the courage to think differently. Many members of the opposition have been harassed and interrogated. Regional activists have been prosecuted on fake charges.

      What is to be done to achieve a sustainable peace and to stop the deterioration of human and political rights in Ukraine? There is an answer: the same thing that Europe did in post-war Yugoslavia and in the Baltic nations. A high representative should be sent to monitor the implementation of the Minsk Agreement and ask the joint OSCE and Council of Europe mission to evaluate the report on the treatment of ethnic and linguistic minorities, opposition parties and the media. The OSCE spent almost five years monitoring Latvia and Estonia prior to their accession to NATO and the European Union. Why should Ukraine receive less attention?

      The Minsk Agreement now demands that our government reform Ukraine’s constitution to allow decentralised power, to expand regional autonomy, and to protect freedoms of language, culture and religion. None of that is being implemented, which creates grounds for the further escalation of conflict. Why should not the Helsinki Final Act be the guide for the Minsk Agreement, and the standard used to judge compliance with it?

      My colleagues in this room should be the first to understand that at this stage in the democratic development of my country we would welcome the presence of people such as Carl Bildt and Heidi Tagliavini as independent watchdogs, arbiters and guides, and as court of last resort. As difficult as it is to admit, our political class, in which I include my own party, has failed repeatedly since our independence was achieved in 1991, and the current government is not much different. We cannot allow the war to destroy the core European values in Ukraine, and I ask you to give a thought to the ideas I have put forward in this speech.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms L’Ovochkina. The last speaker on behalf of the political groups is Mr Kox, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – My group sincerely deplores what is happening in Ukraine; one of our bigger member States has been in a deep crisis for many years. Part of the country is illegally annexed by Russia and another part, Donbas, does not recognise the legitimacy of the government in Kiev, which ordered unacceptable, harsh military action against the revolt in that region. Thousands of people, many of them civilians, have died, and many more have been injured. Houses, public buildings and infrastructure have been demolished. A ceasefire is fragile; things could explode again. The rest of the country suffers from mass unemployment; a growing gap between very rich and very poor people; endemic corruption; a non-independent judiciary; unbalanced economic and political power of oligarchs; powerful extremist battle groups; political violence; an unstable Government; and a malfunctioning parliament. I know that not everybody likes that description, but I invite colleagues to show facts that would prove I am mistaken. Ukraine is in a deep crisis, and acknowledging that can be the beginning of solving it.

      Let me be clear: my group favours all efforts to help Ukraine overcome all these problems. A stable and functioning Ukraine, where the rule of law is the foundation, democracy works and human rights are respected, is first and foremost in the interest of 45 million citizens of Ukraine. However, it is also in the interests of the rest of a stable Europe. Therefore I salute the efforts of our Secretary General to be more involved in Ukraine; this Council of Europe can do a lot to help Ukraine.

      Too many politicians in Ukraine use the conflict in the east of the country as an excuse to do far too little to address the big catastrophes that ruin the country, and too many politicians in the rest of Europe buy this excuse. They call themselves friends of Ukraine but they act in an irresponsible way. We, here, should say to our Ukrainian colleagues, “Stop hiding behind excuses and start acting as responsible representatives of the electorate. Stop adopting irresponsible laws, such as the banning of one ideology and the denial of the dark aspects of another ideology. Stop attempts to ban one political party and stop allowing other political forces to violate human rights. Stop the wave of political murders in Ukraine and start paying respect to the core values of the Council of Europe, to which you have committed your country.”

      Too many things have got out of hand in the years after Ukraine became independent. The political class is, first and foremost, responsible for that, together with the oligarchs who rule and ruin the country. Foreign intervention in Ukrainian affairs has not helped the country. As I said earlier, Russia, the European Union, NATO and the United States bear a heavy responsibility for what went wrong in Ukraine, and we should acknowledge that. If this Assembly of the Council of Europe wants to be relevant, we should not close our eyes to all that is going wrong in Ukraine. Only with our eyes wide open will we be able to assist the country to a sustainable future, peace and prosperity. My group will support every effort by the Council of Europe and its organs to give peace and prosperity for all in Ukraine a real chance. But it is the Ukrainians themselves who now are responsible and they should act in order to provide a better future for all.

      Ms DURRIEU (France)* – The Minsk II accords were brought about with difficulty – one can still recall the picture of the meeting of Angela Merkel and François Hollande – and it is important that the parties implement them. We hope that they will lead to a ceasefire and the withdrawal of heavy arms, and that is being monitored by the OSCE. The fifth, sixth and seventh points in the accords will be difficult to abide by. The fourth, in respect of Ukraine, concerns political dialogue and the holding of local elections with a view to local self-government. The sixth deals with the withdrawal of illegal groups – we know something about their presence – and the fifth concerns total control of the eastern borders at the end of the process.

We must remember that the political dimension within the Ukrainian Parliament has become somewhat fraught; indeed, it is difficult to hold together a majority within the coalition, as a result of the belief that the Minsk accords can be complied with only if they rest on mutual respect, and the doubts on that score. The law on the convening of local elections has not gone before the parliament in respect of the eastern part of the country, as there is no control over the eastern borders; only at the end of the accords will there be total control over the eastern borders, so arms continue to be delivered into the region. Ukraine has come forward with a certain number of demands that do not figure in the accords, such as political pluralism in the east of the country and the presence of Ukrainian media. That seems normal, but it is not in the agreement, and Ukraine has been criticised for having added it after the signing of the agreement.

      So the situation confronting us is a difficult one indeed and there is no point pouring oil on the flames, talking about Mariupol. One can regret that the Crimea was not included in the accords or the discussion; it needs to be said that this is calling into question internationally recognised borders. We are seeing recourse to new methods and hybrid warfare. Those means or methods had not been employed until then. We need good will on both sides and the ability to shoulder responsibilities, particularly on the Russian side. We will be faced with an ultimate challenge within the international community – within Europe and the United States. Peace is certainly not guaranteed, either in Ukraine or in Europe for the time being.

      Mr NÉMETH (Hungary) – Dear colleagues, two Chambers probably now talk the most about Ukraine – the European Parliament and the Council of Europe. I congratulate all of us on not turning a blind eye to developments in Ukraine, because the most serious danger is that we are getting used to the everyday aggression of Russia in Ukraine. If we are getting used to this frozen conflict, Ukraine is lost. So we should not leave Ukraine off the agenda; we should continuously turn our attention to the situation there, as Ukraine needs Europe very much – by that, I mean not just the Council of Europe, but the European Union.

      We have to ask ourselves: how can we help in this situation? The most important thing at the moment is the Vilnius summit being continued through the Riga summit. The Riga summit of the European Union – the Eastern Partnership summit – is coming up in the middle of May. We can see that Europe is hesitant to offer a clear European perspective to Ukraine, but that is exactly what is needed at the moment. Ukraine has decided that it wants a European future, and if that decision is made by Ukraine we have no right not to say, “Welcome, if you are able to fulfil the conditions.”

      The military question is complicated and controversial. However, Europe can provide a visa facilitation process, for example. Will we open up that practical possibility for Ukrainian citizens?

      I convey my congratulations to the Secretary General, because the Council of Europe is doing its utmost to ensure democratic decentralisation in Ukraine. That is crucial, especially as we are coming up to the local elections, without which the democratic transformation of Ukraine will not be completed.

      Not only does Ukraine need Europe, but we need a successful Ukraine. It fights for Europe, and the success of Europe depends largely on Ukraine’s success today. It is in the interests of our organisation that the Ukrainian issue should remain at the forefront of our activities.

      Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – The conflict in Ukraine continues to worsen. Crimea remains occupied, having been annexed by force – one member State of the Council of Europe taking the territory of another member State by force. The Russian delegation to the Council of Europe has chosen to stay away from the Parliamentary Assembly for the rest of the year, possibly in the vain hope of being left unaccountable.

      On the Ukrainian side, constitutional change and reform is not merely necessary but an obligation, accepted by the Ukrainians as part of the Minsk process. However, progress is slow at best and is not recognisable at all in many areas in which reform is imperative. As Lord Anderson said, neither Ukraine nor the Russian Federation is without blame, but in my opinion the overwhelming responsibility for the causal factors in the current situation rests with Russia for its aggressive expansionism. However, the conduct of government in Ukraine increasingly does not merely give cause for concern but serves to leave the friends of Ukraine in despair. I agree with much of Tiny Kox’s analysis about Ukraine, but the despair of that analysis should not blind us to the greater causal responsibility of the Russian Federation. Meanwhile, members of the Parliamentary Assembly remain in great despair at what, if they share it with me, is an increasing feeling of our own impotence.

      Mr SHERIDAN (United Kingdom) – As rapporteur on the humanitarian situation of Ukrainian refugees and displaced persons, I am following the situation in Ukraine closely, as many colleagues will be. You will probably be aware, Madam President, that there will be a general election in the United Kingdom in the next week or so, and central to the election for people in the United Kingdom is the retention, or not, of Trident weapons. Those who wish to retain them point to Russia’s behaviour, if I can call it that, with regard to Ukraine, which has created fear in people’s minds that what happens in Ukraine could happen in other countries.

      As part of my duties as rapporteur, I have visited both Ukraine and Russia. Some of the circumstances in which I have seen displaced persons living in Ukraine have been somewhat distressing. My visit was at the height of winter, and the conditions that people were living in were criminal. We would not keep animals in some of the centres that they were living in – both old and young people were freezing cold. Although people at the refugee centres are doing their best to help displaced persons from Ukraine, there is no long-term sustainable plan. The people we spoke to simply wanted to go home to Ukraine and their families.

      In our Resolution 2028, adopted in January 2015, we expressed our major concerns about the growing number of people reported missing from all sides of the military conflict in Ukraine. It was somewhat humbling to hear the mothers of Russian soldiers asking whether their youngsters were alive and, if so, where they were.

      One of the most important points in our report was about the wrongful imprisonment of Nadiia Savchenko. We call for her immediate release as a trusted and valued member of this Assembly. Unless and until the Russian authorities make clear what the future of Nadiia Savchenko is, we will continue to campaign for her freedom.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – First, I want to emphasise this point about Putin’s plan to split Ukraine into western and Russian-oriented parts: the plan has failed. Ukraine has shown that it is united in its wish to be back home in Europe after centuries, and that fact makes the Kremlin furious.

      Since last April, more than 6 000 people have died and more than 15 000 been injured in the Donbas conflict. Those are United Nations numbers, and the figure is certainly no lower. Three months have passed since our last discussion of the crisis in Ukraine, and as I predicted then, the conflict has escalated despite the second round of Minsk negotiations in the “Normandy Four” format.

      In the days immediately following the signing of the protocols, Russian-led terrorists launched an all-out attack on Debaltseve. Later, we observed numerous cases of ceasefire violations. The Ukrainian army did its utmost and drew back its heavy weapons, as agreed in Minsk, but the Russian side did not. We no longer have volunteer battalions – all of them have joined the Ukrainian army or the National Guard.

      The OSCE’s special monitoring mission documented many cases of the breaking of the Minsk Protocol on the part of the so-called “Donetsk People’s Republic” and “Luhansk People’s Republic”. On 14 April, the mission reported that a so-called “LPR escort” had refused it permission to proceed along the road to a control checkpoint. It has also reported on numerous incidents of the Russian-led side denying it access that it needed to check the withdrawal of heavy weapons.

      The events of the past week prove that the DPR and LPR, and the Russians, who co-ordinate their activities, have no intention of executing the agreements that have been signed. Cases of heavy artillery shelling from the terrorists’ side have been documented, and neither the Russian-led terrorists nor Russian officials in Moscow show willingness to execute the conditions of the Minsk protocol entirely.

      What possible way is there out of the conflict? To answer this question, it is useful first to look at a few facts. Russia has armed the terrorists on an unprecedented scale; the terrorists’ army is better equipped than the Swedish or Austrian armies, given the number of combatants, tanks and so on. It is also important to remember the fate of past agreements signed by the Russian side about conflicts that are now frozen due to Russian designs: Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia. Let us not forget that Putin has not only avowed personal responsibility for the Crimean annexation but that he told brutal lies one year before.

      All these developments can only lead us to conclude that what is needed is a new peace plan, or at least the incorporation into existing plans of the use of international peacekeeping forces. Perhaps the experience of the United Nations Protection Force and the United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia could be used to solve the Ukrainian conflict.

      Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – Ukraine has the right to its own territorial integrity and to decide its own way forward. Russian interference and aggression, which came on top of the difficult economic situation and flourishing corruption in Ukraine, was carried out on purpose; Russia made use of Ukraine’s fragile situation. We have all heard President Putin telling his story about Ukraine and Crimea. I hope that we will soon also be able to read the report that Boris Nemtsov had prepared about the war.

      Ukraine affects the whole security of Europe; if we wanted to fool ourselves, we could debate Ukraine in such a way as to isolate the crisis as something that could be solved within Ukraine. We support the Minsk Agreement – we all say that – but even here we should learn the lessons from Georgia. We asked the country that had been attacked to fulfil obligations while the aggressor denied any interfering, and we let that pass. Now we are asking Ukraine to fulfil obligations while it does not control its borders and while Crimea is not part of the agreement. We are asking Ukraine to redraft its constitution, which is a battle – an undercover one, I should say – about federalisation.

      The Minsk Agreement is built in such a way as to feed the war and the tensions. We must be aware that the war is still going on; the issue now is the regrouping of forces. The Minsk Agreement should not be a new Potemkin curtain, showing something that we would like to see when we are not really interested in looking beyond it. Let us not fool ourselves like that.

      Finally, I also highlight the need to free Savchenko.

      Mr GOLUB (Ukraine) – Ukraine faces several challenges now. Obviously, the worst challenges are Russian aggression, the annexation of Crimea and the creeping annexation of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. However, the problem that we failed to handle after the Orange Revolution, which has diffused like a cancerous tumour into the economy and political system of Ukraine, is not the least important problem that we face.

      That problem is the so-called oligarchs. The President and Parliament of Ukraine have taken more steps in the past few months to resolve this issue than the previous government had taken in the previous decades. By adopting laws on the free market in gas supply, the public broadcasting service, joint stock companies, judicial reform and prosecution, the proper reforms and the process of ousting the oligarchs has got under way. In particular, free access to the gas supply system is currently being established. Ukraine is gradually gaining control of its State-owned enterprises, which our country did not have before due to the artificial circumstances created by the companies owned by these oligarchs.

      The reforms in the judicial and State-controlled sectors are currently under way, and will allow us to implement irreversible mechanisms of punishment, regardless of who someone is. With the commencement of military reform – namely the transformation of volunteer battalions into the regular army and police – Ukraine will avoid another challenge, such as the creation of private armies by oligarchs.

      It is worth saying that the fight against the so-called oligarchs is not an invitation to change one oligarch for another; it is not about changing alien oligarchs for our own oligarchs. I believe that this fight is about the proper elimination of the oligarch system within Ukrainian society.

      An integrated legal framework should be established in Ukraine to guarantee the unified rules of society, regardless of whether someone is a rich man or just an ordinary citizen of the country. Such people as Mr Kolomoisky, Mr Akhmetov and Mr Firtash, and others, must choose whether to live within this integrated legal system or be deemed to be beyond the law.

      On this occasion, I would like to address my colleagues from the Austrian delegation. Although I understand that you cannot interfere with your judicial system, it remains unclear why resolution of the extradition of the Ukrainian oligarch Mr Firtash, who is suspected of involvement in an international corruption scheme, is still pending after more than a year.

      Thank you very much for your attention.

      Lord BALFE (United Kingdom) – I think this morning’s debate is at last being infused with a sense of realism about this problem. The fact of the matter is that sanctions are probably hurting us – certainly those of us in western Europe, if not those in central Europe – as much as they are hurting Russia. Oil prices have done far more damage to the Russian economy than anything we have done, and certain countries – I am thinking particularly of Finland and Greece – have paid a disproportionately high price for the sanctions.

      However, what we must realise is that there is no great willingness in most of western Europe to go far beyond where we are. There is no willingness to escalate, or to fight, and in Britain there is precious little willingness even to arm either of the two sides, particularly the Ukrainian side. So we have to work from where we are. I suggest that the most important thing that the Ukrainian Government could do is to provide what we call the threat of a good example. In other words, it should make Ukraine the sort of place that Russian citizens look at and think, “Why can’t we live there?” That means implementing the package of measures from Minsk II, particularly on decentralisation. You cannot keep a population in eastern Ukraine constantly feeling that they are second-class citizens; those people must be integrated.

      Earlier, someone mentioned meeting the people who were here yesterday from the RPR. My overall reaction to the discussions I had with the RPR was that the reforms are not proceeding according to plan. They are not working and there is not the willpower behind them that is needed to deliver them. The fact of the matter is that if Ukraine is going to move forward, the government in Kiev has to make far more effort to integrate the reforms foreseen in Minsk into the legislative programme, but too many of the reforms on the list that we were given yesterday are either not being implemented, are stalled or are waiting on the sidelines.

      I hope that by the time we get to the next part-session – I think that a debate such as this will be a regular feature of part-sessions – we will be in a position where our colleagues from Ukraine can say to us that they are moving ahead, and that perhaps they can produce a list of reforms like the one we were given, with an indication of what has actually been achieved and how far forward we have got. Support runs both ways; if we are to give support, we must believe that the Minsk II proposals and the Venice Commission’s proposals are being supported and vigorously pursued.

      Mr LOGVYNSKYI (Ukraine) – As we consider the political and security situation in Ukraine, it is impossible to overlook the catastrophic human rights situation in occupied Crimea. Stalinism has come back to Crimea – arbitrary detention, murders, kidnappings and torture. The deportation of Crimean Tatars has also been taking place. The number of political hostages is rising. Apart from the well known cases of Nadiia Savchenko, Khaiser Jemilev and Nikolai Karpyuk, who remain hostages of Putin despite calls from the international community, there is the more recent case of Alexander Kostenko. Kostenko was kidnapped by Russian security forces and tortured into a confession, and is now being tried for allegedly assaulting a Crimean Berkut officer during the Euromaidan protest in Kiev in 2014.

      Poklonskaya, the so-called prosecutor of Crimea, promised to punish all those who beat Crimeans in the Maidan. The case is a shocking demonstration of the Russian authorities’ deliberate refusal even to pretend that they respect their own constitution, which forbids the retroactive application of criminal law and according to which Russia cannot in principle have jurisdiction over the alleged crime.

      Russia has already clearly demonstrated that it has set itself against the democratic values of this Organisation, international law and common sense. Forget about any illusion of dialogue with the aggressor; dialogue can exist only when partners speak the same language. Unfortunately, our language of democracy, human rights and the rule of law is no longer understood in Russia. I call on my European colleagues to support measures using not only political but legal instruments. Russian criminals such as Prosecutor Poklonskaya and others, whose actions have been found to be in serious violation of Ukraine’s legal order, should be sanctioned in your respective countries. When they travel to your States, these people should be extradited to Ukraine, following the relevant request from the Ukrainian authorities. Property of theirs in your States should be seized in accordance with our courts’ decisions. Strict legal sanctions are the only possible reaction to the complete legal chaos that Russia has created in the middle of Europe. I invite all colleagues to a round table discussion about how to deal with the occupation of Crimea, with the participation of the leader of the Crimean Tatar people. This will take place in Room No. 5 at 1 p.m.

      Mr BEREZA (Ukraine)* – The Ukrainian opposition, which I represent, is constructive. We do not only criticise; we support positive initiatives in Ukraine. I was at the Maidan and am concerned that a year after the shootings there we still have no idea who ordered them. I fully support any attempt to investigate those crimes.

      One of the worst crimes has been the establishment of the so-called Anti-Maidan, a criminal collective that, among other things, was killing people on the Maidan. The Anti-Maidan and the police were part of the killings in Mariinsky Park, when hundreds of Ukrainian patriots were killed or maimed. Oleg Kalashnikov, a main Anti-Maidan organiser, was killed in Kiev immediately after he agreed to co-operate with law enforcement in Ukraine. He promised that he would be a witness against those who created, financed and supported the Anti-Maidan through the Party of the Regions. In return, he asked for his safety to be guaranteed and freedom from prosecution. His becoming a witness came to the attention of those who hired the killers, who just removed him.

      Russia has tried to claim that the killing was political, but that version of events is peddled only on Russian television. The Ukrainian authorities’ investigation showed that Kalashnikov was killed to prevent him from bearing witness. We hope that one day we will find out the names of the criminals who organised these crimes against those at the Maidan meetings. They probably support Yanukovych and Russian propaganda.

      Then there was the killing of the journalist Oles Buzyna, which was reported by the Russian news nine minutes after it happened and announced by Mr Putin; that makes us think that he not only knew what was going to happen, but had been instructed on what he should say and who Oles Buzyna was. Of course that is of great concern to all in Ukraine. As things stand, the political killings that Russia claims are happening are actually criminal acts intended to prevent information on what was happening on the Maidan from getting out – they are in the interests of people now hiding away in Russia. These are crimes against Ukraine. We want the information to come into the public sphere.

      Mr ZINGERIS (Lithuania) – We have spent this morning with the relatives of Ms Savchenko, a member of our parliamentary community who is now in jail. Russia is not reacting to any of our demands, including from Ms Brasseur, to release Ms Savchenko from jail.

      At the beginning of the week, the story of Boris Nemtsov emerged for the first time since he was killed. Boris Nemtsov travelled frequently not only to Maidan but to Kiev, showing how Russian democrats were making a stand with democracy in Ukraine.

      The fundamental issue is about 1996, when Russia was invited to be a member State of our Assembly. The main, official condition, voted for in this Chamber – I remember it well – was that Russia should refrain from treating any countries as zones of special influence. Yet it is precisely such treatment and the drive to turn Ukraine from Europe that are the key basis of the conflict. Ukraine has been punished because she wants to start the process of joining the European Union.

      I was active in the preparations for the Vilnius summit, which, as President Poroshenko has told us in this Chamber, was the beginning of the Maidan. We should now focus on the Riga summit and, using all our political channels, ask our colleagues in the European Union to open borders with Ukraine and at least look positively on Ukraine’s painful chosen direction towards Europe. The European Union should concentrate on economic and political support for Ukraine. Ukraine, I should say, is contributing to possible future democracy in Russia. Ukrainians did well during their fair and free parliamentary elections in not electing a nationalist parliament in Kiev and in having a normal political system. I thank my Ukrainian friends for choosing a moderate European orientation in their political system.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – Dear colleagues, we meet again to speak about the situation in Ukraine. Since our last session we have seen the signature of the Minsk II Agreement, which happened on 12 February – part of a package of measures to implement the Minsk agreements from September 2014.

      The new negotiations have been reasonably successful, with a ceasefire and discussion between the two parties concerning the withdrawal of heavy weapons following the battle of Debaltseve. The situation in Mariupol is still critical and raises the question of the real intentions of the separatists and the risk of the continuation of the fight taking on different forms, such as terrorism. However, it should be pointed out that above and beyond the military aspect and weaponry, the Minsk agreements also contain a political chapter. The law on amnesty has been adopted, but it is not perfect and it does not guarantee all the required human rights standards.

      Constitutional and electoral reform remains an important factor and it must happen if peace is to be re-established in Ukraine. On that, the Rada has set up working parties. I have been to Ukraine to observe elections on several occasions and I have always been struck by the multiplicity of rules applicable to electoral matters. On the constitutional reform that will take effect at the end of 2015, and not before, one of the key elements is decentralisation: taking into account the specific characteristics of some districts in the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.

      As we can see, the internal front in Ukraine is not just a conflict zone, but a legal challenge, bearing in mind that economic reform is required in particular when it comes to fighting the continuing oligarchy-based system. Unfortunately, there has not been much progress on those issues. The Rada has adopted symbolic laws that offend the sensibilities of the Russian-speaking part of the country, which is not helpful when trying to achieve the peaceful dialogue we need to apply the Minsk agreements.

      On Russia, Europe’s position is clear: we have adopted sanctions. Increased militarisation in Crimea and the incursion of Russian military planes into our areas are matters that we cannot take lightly. The presence of foreign mercenaries in the separatist armies is also something to be very concerned about. I welcome the fact that the Red Cross now has access to internal refugees and those in Russia. An improvement in the humanitarian situation will happen only if the Minsk Agreement is fully applied and dialogue is re-established.

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – You will not be surprised if I tell you that, at the moment, Ukraine is equally facing external and internal threats. Numerous terrorist factions operate in our eastern territories. Cities in the eastern part of Ukraine are constantly impeded by potential terrorist attacks and explosions in public places. There is a lack of arms for the effective protection of Ukrainian and European borders from aggression, and the gathering of Russian military forces close to our territory leads to anxiety.

      I must underline that the communication war is not over and our reputation suffers because of continuous, well-funded Russian Federation propaganda. In particular, I want to emphasise and bring your attention to the eastern region issue. The first-order challenge is to reunify the complete Ukrainian nation, but that cannot succeed without media support. Donbas is in a state of media isolation. It has no Ukrainian, nor international independent press. Only Russian channels are newspapers are available in the region and the inhabitants have no access to alternative media sources. We need to consider that problem seriously and ensure that the population has access to non-Russian information sources, because they being separated from Ukraine and they cannot make up their mind about their part in the war.

      Donbas will require heavy investment to re-establish infrastructure and renovate buildings and roads to allow people to have a decent life. I remind you that Donbas was the most populous region of Ukraine and we should ensure the safe return of every person displaced from it back to it.

      Furthermore, I want to bring your attention to the serious cases of torture and murder owing to loyalty to the Ukrainian State on those territories. In a plenary session only yesterday, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted a resolution on a declaration of the Verkhovna Rada about resistance to the armed aggression of the Russian Federation and overcoming its consequences. That resolution is the Ukrainian Parliament’s first consistent document that gives us a clear chronology of Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine. It is also the first legal document that gives the date of the beginning of that Russian war – it is a war, not a conflict.

      Last, but not least, numerous sources including the OSCE monitoring mission confirm that, to this day, Russia has not completed any item in the Minsk agreements. We expect the Council of Europe to exert its pressure not only on Ukraine, but mostly on the Russian Federation. We want to hear a clear and powerful message addressed to Russia to ensure the fulfilment of the Minsk Agreement. I remind you that the security of Ukrainian territory is a matter of European security.

      Ms IONOVA (Ukraine) – I would like to say more about the humanitarian situation and give some numbers. Almost one year on, more than 1 300 000 people are registered as IDPs. According to the latest UN data, 6 000 people have been killed and more than 15 000 have been injured. The humanitarian community estimates that 5 million people are in need of aid and 3.2 million are considered to be most vulnerable, most of them women and children. Women and girls constitute more than 66% of IDPs, and I remind you that 70 children have been killed and 180 have been injured.

      Two and a half million people are being held hostage on occupied territory, so I ask for more attention to be paid to that this year and in particular to the violations of women’s and children’s rights. We are getting very bad signals from the territory about sexual violation. These are our citizens and we must defend them, but we cannot start a dialogue with that territory or hold elections there when more than 400 km of the Ukraine-Russia border is under the control of Russian troops and terrorists. After the second Minsk Agreement, there have been at least 2 565 shellings from the separatist-controlled territory, with 95 people killed and more than 500 injured.

      We have adopted a bill on Donbas’s special status. We will provide elections there, but we need conditions to meet OSCE standards. That is why we need to put pressure on the Russian Federation to remove its arms from the area.

      Before Debaltseve, we were trying to evacuate people and the OSCE agreed to create a humanitarian corridor, with buses running in both directions. Only 30 people went in the Russian direction, but more than 700 people went in the Ukrainian direction, which – like the national referendum – shows where people would like to live.

      We are very concerned about the delivery of humanitarian assistance. I would like to underline that such assistance has to be delivered from Ukrainian territory. We insist on respect for our borders and that also applies to members of the Assembly. Ukraine is a responsible country, and we fulfil our obligations under the Minsk Agreement, but all sides have to implement it too.

      Ms KANELLI (Greece) – I am sorry. I am always sorry when we have debates like this. I come from Greece and, like everyone here, I still seek a viable and just solution to the Cyprus problem – 35 years on. We in the Parliamentary Assembly are still seeking a viable solution for a Palestinian State. We are now trying to find solutions for 45 million Ukrainians. We use our humanitarian reasons to intervene. They cannot solve their problems apparently – they need only the wise people from Europe to help them. They need NATO forces. They need gas from Russia, yet while the populist nationalists of Ukraine and Russia fight each other the Russian and Ukrainian ruling classes do business – and the people of Ukraine and the people of Russia suffer.

      I will give you an example. In eastern Ukraine, social pensions have been cut. People are deprived. What are they? Are they old people, or are they Ukrainians? Do those old people in Ukraine have rights? The Ukrainians present catalogues and so do the Russians, and we open the dictionary at “civil war”. But there is another victim in this situation. Today is 22 April and 145 years ago Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin was born. Will I be burnt for saying his name here? If I was in Ukraine, under recent laws I would be deprived of the right to mention Lenin’s name. If I was in Russia, I would probably hear the same music with different verses. If you change the verses and try to rewrite history with blood and civil war, moving forces all over the world to try to solve the situation, you end up with Greek refugees in Syria: different religions in different places, but business as usual continues with weapons.

      This is the Council of Europe. This is not a bank putting a price on people’s lives. I urge you to leave peace and integrity free to find their own solution without snipers. Otherwise it will be nationalists against the communists and the Russians, who are not here in this Assembly and we are poorer without them.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Tilson, Observer from Canada.

      Mr TILSON (Canada) – Canada has taken numerous steps to support the Ukrainian people as they work to restore political and economic stability in the face of ongoing Russian military aggression and illegal occupation. As our Foreign Affairs Minister declared last month, “Canada will never recognise the illegal annexation of Crimea” and will “continue to call on the Putin regime to cease its destabilisation campaign, fully withdraw from Ukraine and respect its sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

      Our government is committed to supporting Ukraine and collaborating with international partners to apply pressure that will further isolate Russia economically and politically. Since January 2014, Canada has announced more than C$575 million in assistance to Ukraine, including a C$200 million low-interest loan agreement concluded in March.

      Canada has played an active role in NATO reassurance measures, including the deployment of six CF-18 jets and the HMCS Fredericton in the Black Sea. Canada is also working with the NATO Centres of Excellence in the Baltic region on cyber-security, energy security and strategic communication to improve the regional response capacity to this situation. In addition, Canada has provided shipments of non-lethal support equipment and is in the process of procuring additional military equipment for Ukraine. Further, our Minister of National Defence has indicated that “the Government of Canada has signed a memorandum of understanding with Ukraine to provide images obtained from our RADARSAT-2 satellite in various sites of eastern Ukraine that can help the Ukrainian military command identify foreign movements, including heavy equipment, in eastern Ukraine.”

      In March, Canada contributed an additional C$2 million to the Special Monitoring Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. It has also been announced that Canada is participating in a Joint Commission on Defence Reform and Bilateral Co-operation with the United States, the United Kingdom and Ukraine.

      Canada’s Prime Minister visited Ukraine in March and June of last year to show Canadian support for the Ukrainian people. He also made a statement this year on the one-year anniversary of the so-called Crimean referendum to declare that “whether it takes five months or 50 years, Canada will never recognise this annexation as being the genuine will of the Ukrainian people.” On 14 April he announced that Canada will deploy approximately 200 Canadian armed forces personnel to Ukraine until the end of March 2017 to develop and deliver military training and capacity-building programmes for Ukrainian forces personnel.

      To conclude, I shall quote our Prime Minister who, during the G20 Leaders Summit in November last year, told the Russian President to “get out of Ukraine.”

      The PRESIDENT – I do not see Mr Pâslaru, who was the next speaker, so I call Mr Pozzo di Borgo.

      Mr POZZO DI BORGO (France)* – The situation in Ukraine remains difficult, as our friends here can confirm, but the conflict needs to be analysed in terms of compliance with the Minsk accords of 12 February, adopted under the so-called Normandy format, in which France and Germany played a major role. It just so happens that I was on the presidential plane carrying Francois Hollande to Moscow and I can testify to the fact that President Hollande’s role was decisive. Since then, I think the ceasefire is generally being respected, even if tension remains. As my colleague Ms Durrieu has said, the political dimension remains to be implemented – that is to say the revision of the Ukrainian constitution. It looks like being an uphill effort, but the Council of Europe has a major role to play when it comes to assisting Ukraine.

      The Minsk accords and the diplomatic framework that led to them have enabled the Europeans to resume leadership over this issue – which, of course, concerns them first and foremost – thanks to the work of the Franco-German duo. It is time for Europe to invest positively and constructively in an issue that concerns us as Europeans instead of Americans, who perhaps intervene too much in an issue that concerns us first and foremost.

      Perhaps I could touch briefly on the consequences of sanctions. Russia has said that sanctions account for 20% or 25% of the decline in the Russian economy, and that the rest has to do with oil prices and the rouble, but sanctions have an impact on Europe and the European Union too. Economists have calculated that the consequences of sanctions on the European economy correspond to 0.2% of Europe’s GDP. That is €300 billion, which is quite a lot of money. I would have preferred that money to have been given to our Ukrainian friends, with a view to it being injected into its moribund economy. Let us hope that the sanctions will have a positive effect.

      What we need to do now is cast our minds forward. I do not think that Europe can afford to leave matters where they lie. One of the major thrusts of the European Union’s international policy has to lie in the area of the strategic partnership with Russia. Both the European Union and Russia are to a large extent interdependent, particularly in the field of energy. It is in their mutual interest to tackle together the challenges of a multipolar world and to take on the geopolitical considerations of General de Gaulle and François Mitterrand. Similarly, I am convinced that it is possible for the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union to work together. This approach, based on co-operation, should rely on privileged relations between the European Union and Russia, rather than on tension.

      Mr HONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – First, I would like to react to some of the speeches I have heard. The Russian delegation is not in the Chamber, but it sounds to me like there is an echo of the Kremlin in some speeches. It is a pity that our colleague from Greece left us after her speech, because I wanted to respond. I would like to point out that there was no decision in the Ukraine Parliament to ban communism or any other ideology. There was a decision relating to the banning of some symbols that, for Ukrainians, are very hurtful because of the genocide of the 1930s and repression.

      We hear that Ukraine is something like a failed State, with corruption, censorship and so on. That is simply not true. After the Maidan and the revolution, we have already had two national elections: the presidential elections in May last year and the parliamentary elections in October last year. Hundreds of international observers were there. These elections were free, transparent and fair. That was proven by many people and by media from around the world. On our reforms to tackle corruption, corruption is not something that can disappear in a moment or even in one year. Today, however, we are fighting corruption in our country.

      I want to tell you more about one of the reforms that I am personally very much involved in, as the secretary of the parliamentary committee on local governance and regional policy. Five months on from the new parliament, which began at the beginning of December, we have succeeded in adopting a number of laws on decentralisation and regional policy. First, the voluntary amalgamation of communities will give us an opportunity to go from more than 10 000 communities, the majority of which are not financially self-sufficient, to less than 2 000 communities, which will all be financially self-sufficient. We are providing them with a stimulus to unite – they will receive extra funding if they unite in the near future.

      A new law on regional policy has been adopted by our parliament. The legislation has been prepared together with specialists from the European Union. We have adopted a decentralisation of taxes and budgets, so that local communities will take responsibility for more than 26 billion hryvnia – more than €1 billion.

      We have already begun making very important constitutional reforms and a constitutional commission has been set up. The Council of Europe has been a great supporter in this context. In particular, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe has supported our government and parliament on these reforms from the beginning. The Congress is contributing to the revision of the chapter on local self-government in our constitution, notably to anchor the principle of subsidiarity in Ukrainian domestic law. Thank you very much for your support. I am sure that a new European nation is emerging in the eastern part of Europe.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – The current debate is about the European fate of Ukraine – and I want strongly to express my support for the European integration process – but it is also about the consequences of Russia’s aggressive attitude towards Ukraine for the Black Sea region. What we see in the Black Sea region – I include my country, Romania – is the fact that Russia has succeeded in establishing a ring of frozen conflicts. In the Republic of Moldova and Transnistria, there are still Russian troops; in Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are still Russian troops; and in Ukraine, there was the illegal annexation of Crimea with Russian troops. By the way, Crimea is only 300 km across the Black Sea from Sulina on the Romanian border – the most advanced point of the Romanian, the European Union and NATO border.

      Russia has succeeded in changing fundamentally the security paradigm in our region. Please remember that it was only two years ago that we were discussing a strategic partnership between the European Union and Russia. We were discussing concrete projects of co-operation between NATO and Russia in the NATO-Russia Council. Of course, Russia was a full member of the Council of Europe. Today, because of Russia’s aggressive attitude, this situation has changed fundamentally. Last week, high-ranking Russian officials stated that countries such as Poland and Romania have become military targets because – I will underline this – of their self-defence ballistic missile defence projects, as members of NATO. We have the civil right to protect our nations. This is the situation.

      An important topic that we must underline once again is the fact that Russia violated fundamental principles of international law, principles that were considered the foundation of the functioning of international society after the Second World War. Today, we see that borders can be modified and violated through military action. Territorial sovereignty and the integrity of countries is a joke. The free sovereign choice of a nation to choose its own direction is also a joke when military action takes place. We have to state that these principles remain fundamental to us. We have to express support for the European path of Ukraine – Romania is strongly supportive – and the necessary reforms, including support for national minorities, for example, the Romanian minority.

      In conclusion, this debate is about Ukraine and about us, but it is also about fundamental principles of values that are not negotiable.

      Mr DIVINA (Italy)* – When it comes to reading history, we should not look through a distorted lens. We have to see the reality. Ukraine was a country that was quite stable with a democratically elected president, Mr Yanukovych, who was overthrown by a coup d’état. Some people say that that was because of the way he treated the people. In fact, generally the country had regular elections. They did not take place because of the coup d’état and, in all probability, because part of the population did not support the president.

      In the May 2014 referendum, the people of Ukraine decided to join the Russian Federation. This led to all sorts of international accusations about double standards. The international community decided not to recognise the referendum, invoking the principle of the territorial integrity of States. This did not apply to Serbia or Kosovo. For many years, this principle was not applied to Nagorno-Karabakh, or indeed to the Turkish-Cypriot situation, which has been ongoing for 40 years. There are also double standards about information on the way in which dissidents are being treated on both sides. It is all very one sided. It is important to remember all those facts when talking about Ukraine and Russia.

      There have been all sorts of accusations about human rights violations and actions taken by States against the rule of law. When talking about rights we should include citizens’ collective rights – the rights of peoples. Adopting the principle of self-determination would enable us to solve the problem. People in each region could decide where they want to live and with whom. That would be the most democratic way forward for everybody.

      Mr FOURNIER (France)* – More than a year after the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia and with the situation still tense in the Donbas, despite the relative calm since the Minsk II Agreement, the question remains: what is Moscow’s strategy? What was the Kremlin after when it armed and organised separatist groups in east Ukraine and then sent in its own regular troops a few months later? Did it seek the neutralisation of the country or its partition? Was the motive to prove that Ukraine is non-State led by an illegitimate government or to reconquer Russia’s lost empire?

      With hindsight, Russia’s military venture in Ukraine might seem a strategic error. It has placed it under a sanctions regime that has had much more severe consequences than the Kremlin is willing to admit, as well as having repercussions for its geopolitical positioning. Most seriously, the Russian President has dragged his country into a process of radicalisation and self-imposed isolation that he is now unable to get out of.

      Does the situation in Ukraine have implications in Russia, as well? Delays to expected military operations have raised the issue of whether the Kremlin is even capable of defining a clear policy that will be respected by all. What degree of real control do Russian defence staff have over the Donbas separatists? In a situation such as this, the many agencies participating in the military operations – the Ministry of Defence, the Federal Security Service, or FSB, and the GRU, which is Russia’s military intelligence agency – all try to push forward their views and interests. That entails the risk of disorder.

      There is also the human factor. The conflict in Ukraine has seen significant losses, especially now that Ukrainian troops are better equipped and trained, although there is no official total number of Russian victims. How long will civil society continue to put up with a situation in which there is fighting not against a traditional enemy of Russia but between two peoples with so much in common? Remember the commitment of the soldiers’ mothers movement during the Chechen wars. The tragic humanitarian crisis into which the Donbas has been plunged will of course have consequences in Russia. Will Russia come to the aid of the self-proclaimed republic? It is not at all certain whether it has the resources or, more relevantly, the inclination. The risk is that these territories will become lawless areas, ripe for trafficking of all types. That will further accentuate the instability of the Russian border in the region – not something Russia needs.

      Even more worrying are the implications of the Ukrainian conflict for Russia’s domestic political situation. Fundamental freedoms are being revoked. Since the assassination of Boris Nemtsov on 27 February fear has stalked Russia. The climate of emotional national exultation is favourable to nationalists, both imperialist and isolationist, but is diametrically opposed to our values. In a country of so much ethnic and religious diversity, is it a good idea?

(Ms Korenjak Kramar, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Brasseur.)

      Mr REIMANN (Switzerland)* – I start by making a personal statement. I represent a neutral country that wants to make its contribution to a solution to the conflict in Ukraine. We have made a lot of efforts already, but unfortunately, to date, they have not resulted in much. I wish to remain neutral in the debate. My principle is that of neutrality – of not pointing the finger at anyone.

      It is a pity that our Russian colleagues in the Parliamentary Assembly are no longer with us in the Chamber. We take note of that. Our Parliamentary Assembly has, in a way, contributed to a situation whereby even here in Strasbourg we cannot have a conversation between parliamentarians from the two sides, and there can be no common debate. That is, I am afraid, a shortcoming. Direct contact would be good. Although we could have that direct contact with the Kremlin, we are missing it now, which is a great pity. It is not a matter of addressing the Russian President; we need Russian representatives here in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. If he attended these sessions, the Russian President would also know what is being discussed here in Strasbourg. That would contribute to a better and more harmonious solution to the conflict in Ukraine.

      The Committee of Ministers and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities are also pillars of the Council of Europe. We still have a discussion between the different parties in those forums. That is a good thing.

      The Council of Europe is the most suitable platform for talks and negotiations, more so than the OSCE. Why? Here in the Council of Europe we are simply Europeans. We meet as Europeans and can talk about a conflict in Europe, but there is no world police, so to speak, such as the United States of America, which has and pursues its own global interests, thereby complicating the matter further.

      I am keen to see what kind of influence we can exert on the situation in Ukraine. Cases could come before the European Court of Human Rights concerning the annexation of Crimea; I look forward to seeing the outcomes of those cases, which could send an important message to both Moscow and Kiev. We shall see what happens, but cannot know at this juncture. It would be a real litmus test for the Council of Europe itself if a member were to leave the Organisation. That would not be a good omen for future peace, democracy and the rule of law on our continent.

(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Kramar)

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – I remind everyone why we are discussing this topic. In our Resolution 2034 we listed 19 concrete ideas that open up the possibility of the Russian delegation returning to this Chamber. I will stress the main points. First, Russia must reverse its illegal annexation of Crimea. What are we hearing at the moment? There is a serious discussion, at Mr Putin’s level, about whether to place Russian nuclear weapons in Crimea. That is his answer to our resolution.

      Secondly, Russia must stop the violation of the rights of Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians in the Crimean peninsula. There are now hundreds of concrete cases, and such violations are increasing. Next, the violence against Ukrainians in the eastern part of Ukraine must be stopped, and Russian regular troops must be withdrawn from that territory. According to information from official organisations there are now more than 10 000 regular Russian troops in the eastern parts of Donetsk and Luhansk. Nemtsov was killed because he wanted to publish the names of the regular soldiers and officials who have invaded the Ukrainian State. Fourthly, we must solve the problem of our border with the Russian Federation, as 400 km are controlled not by the Ukrainian State but by terrorists and Russian invaders.

      I want to remind delegates of three other items. We should liberate South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which were occupied but are part of the sovereign state of Georgia. Russia should also withdraw the 14th army from Transnistria. Neither of those items has been fulfilled. Besides that, we have a humanitarian problem. More than half of the 4 million people in the eastern part of Ukraine in Donbas and Luhansk are leaving the territory of the Ukraine. Some are registered and some are not. The United Nations official figure is that only 50 000 of them are living in the Russian Federation.

      Last but not least, place 347 in the Chamber is still allocated to Nadiia Savchenko. The leader of the so-called Luhansk Republic, Mr Plotnitsky, was the person who organised Ms Savchenko’s kidnapping from Ukrainian territory. He is now the leader of the Luhansk Republic. We need to analyse those items in order not to make mistakes.

      Ms SCHOU (Norway) – This debate is about the political and security situation in Ukraine and its implications. The hardest and most immediate implication is clearly the destabilisation of Ukraine, and the horrendous sufferings that the people of Ukraine have lived through this past year and that they are still living through. The uncertainty felt throughout Europe and the dramatic change in European security policy are also major implications of the situation in Ukraine.

      The Minsk Agreement is of great importance, and we call on the parties to do their utmost to respect it and follow it up. Norway has a border with Russia. For almost 110 years, we have had a functioning relationship with our neighbour. We have achieved that by being clear and predictable in our actions. That is the basis for Norway’s policy in the current situation. An unwelcome visit to Svalbard does not change that.

      In Ukraine, Russia has violated fundamental principles of intergovernmental relations and is challenging the very basis of the international legal order and international law. Not to respond would be to compromise on the basic values of the Council of Europe, and on precisely those principles on which we all base our foreign policy. Sovereignty and equality are fundamental principles of international law. Russia has not only tried to change Ukraine’s border; it is also preventing the country from shaping its own future. Ultimately, this is a question of Ukraine’s right to self-determination. In Norway, we take our right to self-determination for granted. Ukraine should have the right to do the same. We should therefore continue to call on Russia to change its course, stop supporting the separatists in eastern Ukraine, respect international law, comply with its obligations under the Minsk Agreements, and take steps to rebuild confidence. Equally importantly, we should all do our utmost to support Ukraine in its efforts to reform the country and to build a functioning democracy.

      The international restrictive measures against Russia are a necessary response to Russia’s violation of fundamental international rules. They send a clear signal to Russia that its actions cannot be tolerated and come at a price. It is essential that we continue to stand united on that line when one of our neighbouring countries is undermining European security and creating a dangerous situation in neighbouring areas. The broad international support for the measures gives them legitimacy and makes them more effective. Leaving that agreed political line would undermine the defence of the international legal order on which we all depend.

      Mr VOVK (Ukraine) – I would like to inform colleagues of three fundamental legislative acts adopted by the Parliament of Ukraine in the past few months. First, as proved by a great number of well known facts, Russia’s use of force against Ukraine clearly qualifies as a war of aggression under Article 3 of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314, on the definition of aggression, which was adopted in December 1974. In line with that, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted a resolution recognising the Russian Federation as the aggressor State that supports terrorism and obstructs the activities of the United Nations Security Council, and calling on the international community to recognise Russia as the aggressor State.

      Secondly, according to reports by human rights organisations, mass media and Ukrainian law enforcement bodies, the Russian-controlled terrorists and the personnel of Russian regular armed forces have committed a great number of crimes that are defined by Articles 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute as crimes against humanity and war crimes that give rise to the international criminal responsibility of the individuals involved. Thus, the Ukrainian Parliament has adopted a resolution recognising the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court on crimes against humanity and military crimes committed by senior officials of the Russian Federation and the leaders of the terrorist organisations, DNR and LNR, which led to especially serious consequences and the mass murder of Ukrainian citizens.

      Thirdly, in 1996, our Parliamentary Assembly adopted a resolution on measures to dismantle the heritage of the former communist totalitarian systems. In 2006, it adopted a resolution on the need for international condemnation of the crimes of totalitarian communist regimes, and a resolution combating the resurgence of Nazi ideology. Alongside that, in 2009, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly adopted the Vilnius Declaration condemning any glorification of totalitarian regimes from whatever ideological background. Thus, on 9 April, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted a law on the condemnation of communist and national socialist – Nazi – totalitarian regimes in Ukraine, and the prohibition of propaganda of their symbols, which I emphasise is in full compliance with the above-mentioned international European documents.

      Mr D’ARCY (Ireland) – The Minsk Agreement of 12 February 2015 provided for a ceasefire that came into effect on 14 February, and for a commitment by both sides to withdraw heavy weapons from the front line. The ceasefire has led to a significant reduction in violence. However, violations continue to occur at certain points along the contact line, and tensions remain high. Prisoner exchanges and the withdrawal of heavy weapons have taken place, but concerns remain over the fact that the OSCE monitoring mission does not enjoy full access to areas of the conflict zone.

      In terms of progress on the political elements of the 12 February Minsk agreements, on 17 March, St Patrick’s day, Ukraine’s Parliament granted a special local government status to some parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblast, on the condition that transparent local elections will be held under Ukrainian law. At the European Council on 19 and 20 March, Heads of State and Government decided that European Union sanctions against Russia should be tied to the complete implementation of the Minsk Agreements. I propose that that should also be the benchmark for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in assessing any possible relaxation of our own sanctions on voting rights for the Russian Federation delegation.

      At the same time, the Government of Ukraine should intensify its efforts to rid the country of the endemic corruption that is unfortunately still so prevalent in Ukrainian society. It is important to state, however, that this is no excuse for Russian aggression or expansionist aims. As has been said here many times by many delegates, the territorial integrity and unity of a country must be respected. This is the fundamental principle that must be at the forefront of any consideration and assessment of the current situation in Ukraine, regardless of any other variables.

      Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – We are all worried about the developments in Ukraine. There is a war raging – more than 1 million people have been displaced and millions in the eastern part of the country are without the bare necessities, deprived of basic welfare services and social security payments. The crucial question from a humanitarian point of view is whether this is solely for technical reasons or whether power politics plays some part.

      We should also be alarmed about the ongoing trial concerning the Communist Party in banning ideas, ideologies and symbols. That should be resolved by the electorate and never by the courts. Of course I recognise the importance of history in our evaluations, but crimes have been committed in the past by ideologies and religions. We do not ban Christianity or the crucifix because of the Spanish Inquisition in the middle ages.

      We have reason to be worried about developments in Ukraine but we also have reason to be worried about developments in the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly. I sometimes feel that we are becoming a mini-NATO or mini-European Union, and I say that at the risk of being branded as an echo of the Kremlin. I do not like such rhetoric.

      Jordi Xuclà said, rightly, that decentralisation was needed, fulfilling the Minsk Agreement. I draw attention to the fact that we in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted to the effect that a federalist State in Ukraine was out of the question and voted down an amendment stating that this should not be a concern of this body. This was a question to be resolved outside this Chamber. We must never forget that the Council of Europe is an organisation of the people, often against States. We are the organisation of Pussy Riot and of gays and lesbians against the Russian State.

      The exclusion of Russia from Council of Europe structures will eventually prevent millions of Russians from taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights. I respect the feelings of people who come from countries that were under the Soviet heel, but let us not reinvent the Cold War.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Jónasson. I call Mr Chisu, Observer from Canada.

      Mr CHISU (Canada) – Madam President, I thank you for this opportunity to speak about the political and security situation in Ukraine and its implications.

      In 2014, Ukraine’s economy shrank by approximately 10% and its currency lost approximately half its value against the United States dollar, and inflation is now close to 25%. In response to this difficult economic situation, Ukraine has been deploying considerable efforts to adjust to a more open and transparent market-based economy.

      Canada has supported Ukraine in stabilising its economy and in implementing systemic and wide-ranging policy reforms designed to restore growth. Regrettably, Russia’s aggression in eastern Ukraine and the ensuing conflict are additional obstacles to reaching these goals. I stress that the steps already taken by the Ukrainian Government are positive developments that can lead to lasting change. A rapid implementation of these reforms is crucial, and Canada will continue to support Ukraine in its efforts.

      If the Minsk package of measures agreed to in February represents a first step towards peace in Ukraine, we must remain vigilant and judge Russia and the insurgents by their actions and not by their words. It is important to maintain pressure on Russia to resolve the situation in Ukraine. We will believe that Russia is working towards peace when Russian troops are no longer in Ukraine or along the border, when Russia stops supporting the insurgents and when Ukraine has regained control of the border.

      I shall cite a few examples of Canada’s commitment to supporting Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression and in its efforts to build a democratic, stable and prosperous country. Canada has committed more than C$400 million in assistance to Ukraine for economic stabilisation and reform. It has announced that it is giving more than C$139 million for bilateral development projects to strengthen democracy, the rule of law and sustainable economic growth, and to support the reforms that are necessary for Ukraine’s long-term stability and prosperity. Canada has contributed personnel and financial support to the OSCE missions and election monitoring efforts, provided non-lethal military equipment to the Ukrainian Government to address a number of critical needs and imposed a broad range of sanctions against more than 270 Russian and Ukrainian individuals and entities, and the Prime Minister has committed 200 Canadian armed forces personnel until March 2017 to train and build up the Ukrainian armed forces’ defensive capacity.

      It is important to insist that Canada does not recognise the November elections in the Donetsk and Luhansk so-called people’s republics. We consider that only elections approved by the Ukrainian authorities are legitimate. Russia’s position on these elections is another obstacle to the successful implementation of the Minsk Agreements.

      As Canada wishes for a political solution to the crisis in eastern Ukraine, we are prepared to take further action in co-operation with our allies and partners in order to hold Russia accountable. I can assure this Assembly that Canada will continue standing by Ukraine’s side in its efforts towards peace and prosperity.

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – One year after the illegal annexation of Crimea, the human rights situation in the peninsula is worsening. I strongly believe that the only sustainable solution for the Ukrainian crisis is strengthening the rule of law and democratic mechanism for political dialogue and maintaining the real dialogue between the ethnic communities with a real outcome solution for the long term.

      The only possible answer to the crisis is political. Therefore, real dialogue between the government and the opposition and between the government and different regions must take place at once. But only if the institutions and the democratic mechanisms become more viable and the people trust that the rule of law is functioning will the political dialogue between the parties be effective. The authorities have to find a way to make sure that the voice on the street – the voice of the people – is being heard.

      I recall the role of the Assembly and of diplomacy in providing expertise and assistance in building political dialogue. We must make sure that no country is constrained by economic or any other means to enter international agreements, and neither should any country be forced to take decisions against the will of its people. It is for the Ukrainian people alone to sort out their country’s internal difficulties, choose its constitutional order as well as the international agreement it enters.

      Ukraine is a European country, both by geography and politics. It must follow its European path in an effective manner, beyond mere decoration. As I mentioned, it is for its people to choose its economic and political path. Europe and the European Union have a duty to make sure that offers are appropriate, and that there is consistent support for economic challenges and cultural diversity.

      I call for the full implementation of the agreement reached in Minsk on 12 February 2015 that provides in particular for a ceasefire, an exchange of prisoners and the withdrawal of heavy weapons. I also stress that the Parliamentary Assembly should maintain its position and continue to ask for the release of the Ukrainian pilot Nadiia Savchenko, who is being illegally detained. The protection of civilian lives should remain the main priority for all the parties.

      Mr COZMANCIUC (Romania) – Europe is experiencing Russia’s unacceptable and continuous military aggression in Ukraine, and I am worried about the dire human rights situation in eastern Ukraine, as well as in Crimea. The latest reports from the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the OSCE and other international organisations show that, on the ground, we are far from identifying a solution to the immediate problems of the internally displaced persons and the refugees from Ukraine.

      We have to encourage all parties to work for a solution that is guided by the principles of respecting the rule of law and human rights – this includes respecting Ukraine’s unity and sovereignty. We have to urge all parties to refrain from violence and to commit themselves to de-escalation and inclusive national dialogue in the pursuit of a political and diplomatic solution. A deterioration of the situation will have serious repercussions for the people of Ukraine, the region and beyond. The protection of civilian lives should be the main priority for all the belligerent parties.

      All reforms and new policy measures must be adopted without any spirit of revenge and in a consultative, transparent and inclusive manner. It is crucial to ensure that people do not respond to human rights violations with other human rights violations. Ongoing legislative measures on lustration must fully respect human rights and the rule of law, including the right to individual review and to appeal. I count on all Ukrainians to build this country’s future – its economic and social development, and its peace and security – on the solid foundation of respect for human rights.

      Mr KVATCHANTIRADZE (Georgia) – Of course we are all concerned about the situation in Ukraine and we would all probably support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine with its internationally recognised borders. Everyone in Georgia views Ukraine as a close friend and traditional partner, and we aspire to further deepen co-operation in every field of our mutual interest. We highly value strong support between our two countries, as they both face common challenges. Since the beginning of the crisis, Georgia has taken a number of steps to support Ukraine, providing assistance in the humanitarian field and issuing a number of statements, including through the co-sponsoring of the resolution on territorial integrity in the General Assembly of the United Nations. Of course we will firmly continue to support Ukraine everywhere.

      All of us here condemn the occupation and annexation of Crimea, and Russia’s military aggression in the eastern part of Ukraine. All of us highlight the need for a political resolution of the existing conflict based on the principles of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and its internationally recognised borders. All of us highlight the need for ceasefire agreements to be fully respected, given Georgia’s bitter experience in that regard – I thank my colleagues from Sweden, Romania and Ukraine for mentioning that issue. We believe it is essential to consolidate international pressure on Russia to fulfil the agreement. We support Ukraine’s progress in international politics and the reforms in Ukraine, but I would like to make a humble suggestion: please do your best not to repeat the mistakes we had in Georgia, because these mistakes can be unforgivable.

      Finally, I call on Mr Vladimir Putin to free Nadiia Savchenko and all other political prisoners. It would be very helpful if all of us would appeal directly to Russian society to support her freedom.

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – I subscribe to every word that has just been said by my colleague, and I just wish the position of the Georgian Government was the same. To my embarrassment, our government has refused not only to join the sanctions against Russia but even to endorse them, with the Head of Government speaking against supplying Ukraine with defensive arms. That is a small footnote and a regrettable fact.

      Most people here now agree that what happened in 2008 was not an anomaly, as many wanted to believe, but part of a general trend – the revisionist push by Mr Putin to reverse the result of the cold war and revive the foreign policy ideological basis of the Soviet Union. Most people would also agree about what is actually at stake. If Ukraine fails – if Putin is allowed to keep what he has already grabbed, in Crimea and elsewhere – that will mean more trouble elsewhere in Ukraine and more people dying. We should recall one quote from Winston Churchill: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.”

      If Ukraine succeeds, with our support – with the support of the civilised world – it will disprove the false myth of the impossibility of liberal democracy in the former Soviet Union, which a Russian Foreign Minister once called “common spiritual space”. It will also make the prospect of a normal Russia closer than it has ever been in history, and we should also keep that in mind. For that reason, we should support Ukraine and the reforms it is carrying out in a time of war. These reforms are very courageous and we should support Ukraine as much as we can, because so much depends on it. We Georgians, and my party in particular, are doing everything we can in international forums to support Ukraine. Several Georgian former officials from the team I represent are now working at ministerial or other positions in Ukraine, sharing the experience of Georgian reforms and working towards the common goal of Europe being whole, free and at peace.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Kandelaki. I must now stop our discussion because we need some time also to put questions to the Chair of the Committee of Ministers, whom I welcome now. I thank all the interlocutors who participated and Mr Xuclà for introducing the debate.

      I remind members that at the end of a current affairs debate, the Assembly is not asked to decide upon a text, but the matter may be referred by the Bureau to the responsible committee for a report.

2. Communication from the Committee of Ministers

      The PRESIDENT* – We will now hear an address by Mr Didier Reynders, Minister for Foreign Affairs and European Affairs of Belgium and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers. After his address, Mr Reynders has kindly agreed to take questions from the floor.

      Minister, allow me to welcome you here to our Chamber once again. Yesterday you accompanied His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen of the Belgians, and now you are appearing before us as Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers. We do not have much time, so I will not make a lengthy introduction; rather, I will give you the floor straight away.

      Mr REYNDERS (Minister for Foreign Affairs and European Affairs of Belgium and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers)* – Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to continue today the dialogue that we started at the beginning of our chairmanship – we have held it with you, Madam President, with the Bureau when it visited Brussels at the beginning of November, and with the Assembly here in January.

      May I start by saying how grateful I am for your understanding when I was not able to be here on Monday? A joint meeting of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Ministers of the Interior of the European Union countries was organised as a matter of urgency, following the serious shipwrecks that led to hundreds of deaths in the Mediterranean this weekend, so my presence was required in Luxembourg. There, the European Union established a series of further measures to combat the problem.

      The acute crisis in the Mediterranean is first and foremost a human tragedy, with individuals seeking a better life becoming victims of unscrupulous traffickers. It is a challenge for the countries of origin and the countries of destination, but also for the European organisations, including the Council of Europe. Even though it is part of neither the mission nor the mandate of the Council of Europe to intervene directly to save people who have been shipwrecked, as soon as refugees are on the territory of a European country, they must enjoy the human rights defined in our Convention. The Council of Europe has also always been committed to combating discrimination and to having a particular duty of care for the most vulnerable. The cradle of civilisation and of our democracy must not be allowed to become the cemetery of those who aspire to become part of that civilisation. That would be totally contrary to our vision and values.

      A month from the end of the Belgian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, it would be premature to try to sum up our record. The ministerial session in Brussels on 19 May will be the most appropriate moment to decide how much progress we have managed to make towards the goals that we established for ourselves. As of now, however, we can confirm that along with the Committee of Ministers, the Secretary General and your Assembly, we have succeeded in finding ways to let the Council of Europe better tackle the challenges it faces. You will agree that those challenges are numerous and sizeable.

      Despite certain encouraging developments, the ceasefire in the east of Ukraine remains extremely fragile, and the full implementation by all stakeholders of the package of measures aimed at supporting the Minsk agreement must be accelerated and strengthened. The Belgian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers has been concentrating on co-ordinated initiatives that need to be taken with other organisations, including the OSCE, to tackle the Ukrainian crisis. That is why, right at the start of our chairmanship, I undertook consultations with both Kiev and Moscow. I also undertook consultations in Moscow on 9 April, during which I was again able to speak with my colleague Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs. I explained to him what the Council of Europe expects, given that it remains a place for dialogue, which is particularly important in a period of tension such as this. The Council of Europe also provides the tools needed to strengthen democratic institutions, and in that context I stress the supporting role that it has to play for the Minsk agreements, particularly through the Venice Commission. That is especially true in the context of constitutional reform, decentralisation and the organisation of local elections.

      Human rights monitoring mechanisms in the Council of Europe should play their full part in Crimea and Donbass, but also in the other territories that have escaped effective control by the relevant national governments, including regions such as Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh. I will visit Armenia and Azerbaijan next week, and my main mission will be to promote co-operation between the Council of Europe and each of those two countries. I will also stress my concern about the numerous incidents along the whole line of contact, and I will remind all that there is no possible military solution to their conflict. Dialogue must prevail, through the OSCE’s Minsk Group.

      Other problems of a different nature are also of concern. Even though the worst of the economic crisis seems gradually to be becoming a thing of the past, unemployment, which is a scourge first and foremost for the young, remains at an unacceptable level in many countries. In their state of disillusionment, some young people risk turning their backs on Europe and choosing the siren voices of extremism instead. There are a growing number of cases of intolerance and discrimination; more and more frequent attacks on basic rights; and the phenomenon of radicalisation and extremism. All those things are threatening our societies from within as well as from without, and they often lead to violence.

      As a politician from a small country at the heart of Europe, and as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, I have followed Belgium’s European policy. First and foremost, the basic principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law must guide all our initiatives. Secondly, our programmes and activities must be aimed at the basis of the problems that we face and guided by the values that unite the member States of the Council of Europe. Finally, the international organisations established on the European continent since the Second World War should concentrate on their specialities, which will allow us to strengthen the added value that they provide. In parallel with that, we must also strengthen the synergies between those organisations. As I had the opportunity to say in January, I have been concentrating on that issue in a specific way at operational level. I gave a presentation on the work of the Committee of Ministers, and particularly on the Belgian chairmanship, at the OSCE in March, and I had fruitful talks with the OSCE’s Secretary General and the director of its Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. I intend to pursue those efforts until the day I pass on the flame of the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers to my colleague from Bosnia-Herzegovina, with whom I have already had talks on the subject during a working visit that I made to Sarajevo two weeks ago.

      Given all those clear priorities, the programme of the Belgian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers stressed the need to pursue the process of reform of the Council of Europe, and particularly the work on the efficacy of the European Court of Human Rights. In this context, the high-level conference organised by Belgium in co-operation with the Council of Europe adopted the Brussels Declaration on 27 March, in which member States stressed their responsibility, shared with the Court, for the effective implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights. That meeting showed the scale of the challenges faced by the Court, while stressing the principle of subsidiarity and the primary responsibility of States, either in preventive initiatives, in the implementation of Court decisions, or as a part of our collective responsibility in the Committee of Ministers.

      The social dimension of Europe was highlighted in the Conference on the Future of the Protection

of Social Rights in Europe, which was held in Brussels on 12 and 13 February. The results will be an integral part of the Turin process. Also, the 12th Conference of the European Electoral Administrators, which took place in Brussels at the end of March, concentrated on the role of administrators as guarantors of neutrality, impartiality and transparency in elections. The 2nd European Youth Work Convention will take place from 27 to 30 April.

      Another important issue for our chairmanship was a follow-up to the report from the Secretary General on democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Europe. We are also dealing with various transversal issues, particularly the need to address the requirements of persons with disabilities. The cultural programme was rich and varied.

      The killings in Brussels, Paris and Copenhagen have made the prevention of radicalism and extremism one of the main priorities of our chairmanship. Our goal is to define, in a very specific way, the response that the basic values and mechanisms of the Council of Europe can offer to these phenomena of radicalisation and extremism, which can lead to terrorism. Secretary General Jagland and I decided that we should close the Belgian chairmanship during the 19 May ministerial session with a political declaration and an action plan. The Committee of Ministers is already working hard on those. We also envisage adopting at the Brussels ministerial session an additional protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, with provisions that would make it a crime to be recruited or trained for terrorism, or to finance terrorism.

      As I have already said, the Belgian chairmanship wishes to concentrate on the underlying causes of these problems. The security and law enforcement aspects of combating radicalism are, of course, important, but we must look beyond them and take into account the long-term challenges: the need to foster tolerance and inclusion; and the need to develop tools available to education to combat radicalisation, particularly in prison. The media, be it the classic media or social media, also have a particularly important role to play in this field. In the same way, discrimination at work or racism in private life must be combated in the most vigorous way possible, and initiatives to foster peaceful co-existence should be encouraged and strengthened.

      Faced with long-term issues of this sort, the Council of Europe has the vital tools it needs. That is why I took the initiative to organise a high-level conference entitled “Tolerance is stronger than hatred”. Representatives of civil society, of business, of the academic world and of international organisations, and of course politicians, will participate in this conference, which will be organised in close co-operation with the Council of Europe and will take place in Brussels on 8 May, a symbolic date for the whole of Europe. Young people from all 47 member States of the Council of Europe have been invited and will be an integral part of the work of the conference. I hope to welcome to Brussels the many high-level representatives from your capitals.

      Madam President, distinguished colleagues and ladies and gentlemen, we have our shared values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. I would like to add to those values an openness to the world around us and the tolerance that makes diversity an asset. Tolerance is stronger than terrorism, because terrorism is based on hatred and the rejection of the other.

      I will conclude by stressing Belgium’s commitment to the values that unite us here at the Council of Europe. The importance that Belgium invests in the institutions of the Council of Europe was highlighted even further by the visit of the King and Queen of the Belgians to Strasbourg yesterday, and the statement given by His Majesty the King of the Belgians. Right here, His Majesty highlighted the importance of actively protecting the edifice of democracy and the rule of law that we have so patiently constructed during the past few decades.

      I thank you for your attention, and of course I am ready to reply to any questions.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Minister. I also thank you for your personal commitment to the diplomacy that you have conducted under the auspices of the chairmanship. You have great talent in doing that, but we also know that you are intransigent when it comes to defending our values. I assure you that all of us would like to express our deepest gratitude for that.

      I now open the floor for debate or questions, first to members speaking on behalf of the political groups. Each member will have 30 seconds to ask a question.

      Our first speaker is Mr Conde, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr CONDE (Spain)* – I welcome you, Minister, to this Parliamentary Assembly. We fully agree that one of the most serious problems facing Europe at present is the fact that many hundreds of migrants are drowning while trying to reach our coasts. I agree with your diagnosis of the situation. However, I would like to know what measures you believe should be taken to enable us to deal with the humanitarian disaster facing us.

      Mr REYNDERS* – I thank you for raising once again the question of these disasters that have taken place during the past few days in the Mediterranean, which, of course, have ramifications for the question of immigration in general. Obviously, the first thing I will say is that all our thoughts are with the victims and their families.

      A series of measures have been adopted by the European Union; I shall not dwell on them here and now. I know that the United Nations has not only expressed its concern but made proposals, so I think that we have a twin-track role to play here in Europe. First, we must try to promote economic growth in the countries of origin, but that must go hand in hand with democratisation on the political front. The Council of Europe has a major contribution to make, working hand in hand with neighbourhood countries while at the same time promoting good governance. We must ensure that human rights, as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights, are complied with when these refugees arrive in Europe or when they are removed and sent back to their countries of origin.

      The Council of Europe has created a whole series of legal measures to help us to uphold the rights of migrants and asylum seekers. We in Europe should work together to share the burden of welcoming these refugees, and, as I have said, the guideline must be full respect of human rights. Partnerships concluded with Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia, within the framework of the neighbourhood agreements, provide us with additional tools that will enable us to act elsewhere.

      The PRESIDENT* – I call Ms Korun, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Ms KORUN (Austria)* – The mass deaths in the Mediterranean, which we have witnessed for some time, are not only a humanitarian disaster, but a political one – a scandal. Why do European Union foreign ministers not deal with the reason refugees depend on traffickers to set foot on safe European soil? There are no legal means by which those being persecuted can reach the European Union. Why are European Union foreign ministers not talking about having a safe corridor so that people arrive safely in the European Union? I am talking about the possibility of their entering legally into the European Union so that we can combat the traffickers.

      Mr REYNDERS* – Obviously, I am prepared to go from one Assembly to another and tell you what is being done at an European Union level. Foreign affairs ministers are looking into the situation at each Council meeting. We should stop thinking that sole responsibility for what is happening in the Mediterranean lies with Europeans. I am not talking only about European Union members; there is a real problem in the countries of origin. We have to put an end to armed conflict, ensure that human rights are complied with and improve governance. There is a responsibility as far as trafficking and the unscrupulous individuals behind it are concerned. I will not go into detail about the measures taken to step up controls on traffickers, but they are similar to those being taken in the fight against terrorism, in which our determination is absolute.

      We have to share the burden. Some countries are doing more than others, but we have to take in those entitled to launch applications for asylum. We are doing that for people who have suffered from persecution – the massacres in Syria and elsewhere. The European Council is meeting again this Thursday with a view to ensuring that we can take in greater numbers of refugees or asylum seekers; European Union countries are being called on to do more.

      Citizens, the media and politicians are horrified at terrorism and call for measures to ensure greater border controls, but the next day the same people are horrified at the many lives lost in the Mediterranean and ask us to take in more refugees. It is for those who hold political responsibility to ensure that we can act on both issues – ensuring that our territories are safe and provide safe harbour to those suffering in their own countries. Conflicts have led to violence and discrimination.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Taktakishvili, who speaks on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia)* – Minister, thank you for your appeal to release our colleague Ms Savchenko. You have been to Moscow twice. What progress was made between the two meetings? Was there a different approach during your second visit? As far as we can tell, the authorities turn a deaf ear to our appeals – in fact, they are increasing the pressure instead.

      Mr REYNDERS* – These visits to Moscow can have an important impact provided we can also rely on debates and resolutions from the Council of Europe. The Committee of Ministers has done a lot. The measures have not led to Ms Savchenko’s release, but at least members of her family have been able to see her; visits are possible today. When I met Mr Lavrov, he gave me details of her state of health and the conditions in which she is held. I have asked yet again for her release, although unfortunately there has been no progress on that to date.

      Progress is being made, however, with regard to a number of NGOs active on Russian territory. That is important in the circumstances. The NGO Memorial had been placed on a list of foreign agents, but action has been taken on that matter. In December, I asked for the issue to be dealt with and I raised it again in our last meeting. We have noticed some progress on that case and some others. I have had direct talks with my counterpart on the issue of both Ms Savchenko and the NGOs.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Walter, on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – It is worrying that the international community seems to regard the Russian annexation of Crimea as a fait accompli. Can you assure the Assembly, Minister, that the human rights of the people of Crimea will not be forgotten? Just as the occupying power in Belgium between 1939 and 1945 was held responsible for the human rights abuses there, the occupying power in Crimea will also be held responsible for human rights in that area.

      Mr REYNDERS* – I underline the fact that we have always adopted a clear stance on the issue of Crimea. There is no question whatever of our recognising the annexation of Crimea; the Committee of Ministers has made its position on that very clear on several occasions. We recognise the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine at all those different levels. The Russian Federation must withdraw its troops and refrain from any military intervention. The annexation is clearly characterised as illegal. The first step would be for us to be given access to Crimean territory to verify the human rights situation on the ground. The Venice Commission should continue to work on democratisation and decentralisation in Ukraine, but any text adopted must cover the territory of the whole country, which, of course, means including Crimea. I have done my best to ensure that we sing from the same hymn sheet in all our visits to Kiev and Moscow.

      Ms BLONDIN (France)* – How do things stand, Minister, in the negotiations between our Assembly and the European Union on the draft agreement about the European Union’s acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights? How much room for manoeuvre do we have? Is there a deadline? If so, what is it?

      Mr REYNDERS* – All I can do is confirm that the measure needs full legal justification. The European Commission is preparing its legal analysis of how things stand. Until European institutions other than the Council of Europe give their response, all I can say is that there has been a clear expression of political will in favour of the European Union’s acceding to the Convention. That is particularly true in Belgium, but that will has been expressed in all sorts of European Union institutions. All we need now is to sort out the legal clarifications. I cannot give you a date for when the Commission will come back to us with that, but I can certainly ask the Commission about it.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Mr Sobolev is not here so I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – As Europeans, we have no need to protect ourselves from refugees, who are desperately seeking refuge and a safe haven in dramatic circumstances. The only people who need protection are those who are dying. Everybody else without exception has to face up to their responsibilities. One day, we in the rich countries will have to try to bring about changes in how we co-exist with poor countries. Without repeating what you have already said, Minister, how do you believe we should strive to change development and co-operation policies to ensure that there is no rerun of what has happened? As a previous questioner said, one option is for there to be a safe corridor so that people can come safely to Europe.

      Mr REYNDERS* – Once again, there are two issues that I would like to reiterate. I hear what you said about the humanitarian corridor. I do not think that today’s debate is the right place to call for such measures, but the creation of a corridor in Syria, to name but one example, would require a green light from the UN Security Council, although I have heard that vetoes have been wielded in the cases of such proposals. I therefore do not want to dwell on that question.

      Secondly, on co-operation, once again perhaps other forums are more suitable for talking about the bilateral aid or co-operation extended by member States, or indeed the European Union, which is the world’s biggest player in development co-operation. However, we should clearly focus on economic development and co-operation and, as I said earlier, we should also step up our efforts to promote democracy, good governance and the reinforcing of democratic institutions in these countries.

      On aid and co-operation, the Council of Europe’s work is far from negligible. The agreements concluded with Jordan, Tunisia and Morocco represent a big step. That is a good way to enable the Council of Europe to wield greater influence and to move towards full implementation of decisions taken in the past when it comes to helping neighbouring countries in the neighbourhood zone. I am therefore very much in favour of co-operation with other organisations and hope that we will be able to debate this in the United Nations General Assembly as well as regularly in the European Union Council of Ministers meetings.

      Ms OEHRI (Liechtenstein)* – The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has criticised prison conditions. The judgment criticised conditions in Belgium, but I do not think that the situation there is the worst, compared with other countries. What is the Committee of Ministers doing with a view to improving conditions in prisons in European countries and in particular those in areas of crisis?

      Mr REYNDERS* – As far as the committee’s work in general is concerned, there is a programme of assistance for countries in crisis and there is the ability to provide support measures with a view to improving conditions in prisons. Before talking about detention conditions, however, I should say that in some cases the Committee of Ministers attempts to intervene upstream to prevent detention.

      In certain cases, requests for detainees to be released have been lodged formally, as I said in reply to an earlier question. More broadly, what is important for the Committee of Ministers and the Council of Europe is that we have systematic access to systems so that we can verify detention conditions. In regions of some Council of Europe member States there are difficulties in getting access to verify whether detention conditions comply with human rights.

      You began by referring to the situation in my country, Belgium. We are of course monitoring detention conditions closely and what we are trying to do in Belgium and elsewhere is limit the number of people placed in detention, and preventive detention in particular, and see how we can improve prison conditions by creating new or better detention centres. The Committee of Ministers is trying to do that across the board in all Council of Europe member countries.

      Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey)* – We are all concerned about the withdrawal of the broadcasting licence from ATR, the television channel for Tatars in Crimea. Mr Jagland responded to that and said that media plurality and diversity of content were just as important in Crimea as everywhere else in Europe. What specific measures have you put in place to guarantee media freedom in Europe in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights?

      Mr REYNDERS* – First, let me say that I entirely share the Secretary General’s analysis and approach concerning the restrictive measures taken in Crimea with regard to the ATR television channel. In fact, on several occasions the Committee of Ministers – most recently in the decisions it took last week on the situation in Ukraine – has mentioned the human rights situation of all people in Crimea, and the Tatars in particular, in the context of media diversity and freedom of expression in the media.

      The Secretary General has been invited by the Committee of Ministers to engage in talks with the authorities to ensure that all of those rights can be defended in that country. I have done the same thing in my bilateral talks, in which I have spoken about detention conditions and access in situ. Freedom of expression and freedom of information are anchored in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They are guaranteed by that article and there can be no exception to that; there can be no discrimination.

      Unfortunately there has been some such discrimination in some regions recently, but that is unacceptable. You have to abide by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights to gauge the situation. I would therefore like to take the opportunity to call on all member States to respect the Convention and Article 10 specifically and the case law pertaining to that article on freedom of expression and media freedom, including in Crimea today.

      Mr RZAYEV (Azerbaijan)* – Azerbaijan today is providing for the needs of more than 1 million internally displaced persons and refugees. However, of course the right to participate in municipal elections and to live in one’s own home cannot be provided by the Azerbaijani Government. What can we do together to free the two Azerbaijani citizens who are being held illegally in Nagorno-Karabakh?

      Mr REYNDERS* – I will visit Armenia and Azerbaijan next week. As I said in my statement, it is a matter of particular concern that incidents are still happening all along the line of conflict. Of course, the solution will be not military, but political, through the mediation efforts being organised through the OSCE, which is the lead organisation, and the Council of Europe.

      I have already said that our first concern is to have access to refugees so that we can check exactly what is happening in the field. I call on all governments whose responsibility is either de jure or de facto to give us access to the territory concerned to let us see for ourselves how things stand in terms of human rights for the refugees. Beyond that, several organisations, both European and non-European, can help, and the Council of Europe is the first among them, but next week I will bring up the specific situation of the refugees when I visit Armenia and Azerbaijan.

      Mr MIGNON (France)* – North-South dialogue has become increasingly essential. For some years, the Council of Europe has been conducting an intelligent and essential policy when it comes to promoting democracy through partnership within our neighbourhood policy. I am sure that you know about the North-South Centre, so can you reassure us about the future of that essential organisation?

      Mr REYNDERS* – I must confess that, as with many other bodies and instruments of the Council of Europe, I found out about the North-South Centre in depth only quite recently. However, I can tell you that we are refocusing the work of the North-South Centre to encourage new members to join. The Committee of Ministers has taken note of a provisional statement regarding the action. In 2015, two new countries, Slovenia and Italy, withdrew. Following the accession of Tunisia, the North-South Centre has 16 member States. An independent assessment report has been requested by the Committee of Ministers which will be subject to an internal audit before June 2015. The Committee of Ministers will act on that as quickly as possible, taking into account all relevant information. However, the way forward has been clearly charted out, and I call on all of you strongly to encourage as many States as possible to join.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – Minister, you said you were preparing to travel to Azerbaijan next week. When you meet the Azerbaijani authorities, what is the special message that you will take with you on the position of defenders of human rights in that country? Since the end of the Azerbaijani presidency, they have all been in prison, in exile or, unfortunately, in hospital.

      Mr REYNDERS* – As I have had occasion to say during bilateral talks, I am not going to qualify the link between being received here, by a body that symbolises human rights, and any action to be pursued subsequently. All that I can say is that these matters will be taken up in any steps to be taken and will be present in any talks that we hold. I will be in Azerbaijan in my capacity as Chairman-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers, which has spoken out on the subject on several occasions to express not only its concern but its desire to see certain people released or the conditions of detention of others improved. That approach will be central to the visit organised for next week.

      My impression – and I am perhaps talking about a more long-term vision for future presidencies – is that we can perhaps act more forcefully when it comes to defending the interests of human rights defenders. I hope that the Belgian presidency can leave that message.

      Ms L’OVOCHKINA (Ukraine) – Over the past year, the Committee of Ministers and this Organisation have adopted several decisions on the situation in Ukraine. We have called on the Russian authorities to withdraw from occupied Crimea, stop supporting troops in Donbas and release Ukrainian political prisoners. In many cases, the European Court of Human Rights applied Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court and, for example, indicated to the Russian Government the need to ensure respect for the rights under the convention of Hayser Dzhemilov. To date, Russia has not complied in any respect. What levers of political pressure and law enforcement can the Committee of Ministers apply to make Russian fulfil its commitments?

      Mr REYNDERS* – Allow me to confirm that all the elements you have just reminded us of, which form part of the stance of the Committee of Ministers, are recalled time and again when we speak to or have contact with the authorities of the Russian Federation. All sorts of different pressures are being applied, including political, with regular diplomatic talks. In addition, we have gone further on several occasions. It may not always be possible for the Council of Europe to do that, but there have been European Union sanctions applied. On this occasion, allow me simply to remind you that we will continue to address this issue under our chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers to ensure that throughout the territory of Ukraine, whether in the West, the East or Crimea, we want to make sure that reforms can be implemented, and the Council of Europe has a role to play in that.

      We are playing our role vis-à-vis the Russian Federation and also vis-à-vis the authorities in Kiev. We want to make sure that a reform process is really implemented. Incidentally, there is now preparation for constitutional reform and I am very pleased to see that Council of Europe representatives have been incorporated into the teams preparing for that. I wish to once again make it clear that everything that you have raised is mentioned whenever we have meetings with the Russian Federation, either as the Committee of Ministers or when we meet other international organisations.

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – We all know that in May the meeting of the Committee of Ministers will be held in Brussels. The annual meeting of Foreign Ministers from the 47 member States is a significant political and diplomatic event. I think you will agree that Europe is going through a terrible crisis today because one of the 47 member States has violated all the norms and standards of the Council of Europe. What is your view on including the issue of Ukraine on the agenda for the meeting?

      Mr REYNDERS* – On 19 May, at the ministerial session in Brussels, one of the central themes will be radicalism, extremism and terrorism, because the Secretary General and I decided that as well as a political declaration we need an action plan on this issue. I also mentioned the additional protocol, but I will not add to that.

      Ukraine will not necessarily be on the agenda, but it often erupts on to the agenda, so the issue will be how we organise the debate. If it is about Ukraine, we will have to talk about the role that the Council of Europe can play in support of the Minsk Agreement. Of course, I will bring that up with all partners, including our Russian partners, because the Committee of Ministers, as you know, still has the opportunity to discuss and negotiate with all our Council of Europe partners, including the Russian Federation.

      The PRESIDENT* – Finally I call Mr Corlăţean, who took himself off the list of questions, but I am sure we can all agree to hear from him now.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania)* – Minister, you have already replied to the question I was going to ask about the European Union adhering to the European Convention on Human Rights, but I would also like to say a word about the positive energy in support of the processes of the Council of Europe. I will be publishing an article in a Romanian legal review on the subject.

      Mr REYNDERS* – I will read it with great interest. I have heard a lot of very interesting statements on the subject in the Council of Ministers, and the work done by the President of the European Court of Human Rights means that we have been able to make progress. I am delighted that we are going to be able to make progress by publishing articles as you say.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you for your answers to our questions. I also thank you for all the hard work that you have put in as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers in some difficult contexts. We are facing huge challenges and we can only tackle them together through dialogue. That is the only way we will achieve solutions. We wish you all success as you continue your chairmanship, which faces so many thorny and sensitive issues.

3. Next public business

      The PRESIDENT* – Owing to a meeting of the Joint Committee, the Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at the later time of 4.30 p.m. with the agenda that was approved on Monday morning.

      The sitting is closed.

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

.

CONTENTS

1. Current affairs debate: the political and security situation in Ukraine and its implications

Speakers: Mr Mignon (France), Mr Xuclà (Spain), Lord Anderson (United Kingdom), Ms Zelienková (Czech Republic), Ms L’Ovochkina (Ukraine), Mr Kox (Netherlands), Ms Durrieu (France), Mr Németh (Hungary), lord Tomlinson (united kingdom), Mr Sheridan (United Kingdom), Mr Ariev (Ukraine), Ms Lundgren (Sweden), Mr Golub (Ukraine), Lord Balfe (United Kingdom), Mr Logvynskyi (Ukraine), Mr Bereza (Ukraine), Mr Zingeris (Lithuania), Mr Rouquet (France), Ms Sotnyk (Ukraine), Ms Ionova (Ukraine), Ms Kanelli (Greece), Mr Tilson (Canada), Mr Pozzo Di Borgo (France), Mr Honcharenko (Ukraine), Mr Corlatean (Romania), Mr Divina (Italy), Mr Fournier (France), Mr Reimann (Switzerland) Mr Sobolev (Ukraine), Ms Schou (Norway), Mr Vovk (Ukraine), Mr D’Arcy (Ireland), Mr Jonasson (Iceland), Mr Chisu (Canada), Mr Korodi (Romania), Mr Cozmanciuc (Romania), Mr Kvatchantiradze (Georgia), Mr Kandelaki (Georgia).

2. Communication by the Committee of Ministers

Address by Mr Didier Reynders, Minister for Foreign Affairs and European Affairs of Belgium and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers.

Questions: Mr Conde (Spain), Ms Korun (Austria), Ms Taktakishvili (Georgia), Mr Walter (United Kingdom), Ms Blondin (France),Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain), Ms Oehri (Liechtenstein), Ms Erkal Kara (Turkey), Mr Rzayev (Azerbaijan), Mr Mignon (France), Mr Le Borgn’ (France), Ms L’Ovochkina (Ukraine), Ms Sotnyk (Ukraine), Mr Corlăţean (Romania)

3. Next public business

Appendix I

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

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV*

Brigitte ALLAIN*

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA

Werner AMON

Luise AMTSBERG*

Athanasia ANAGNOSTOPOULOU*

Liv Holm ANDERSEN*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Egemen BAĞIŞ*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS/Liana Kanelli

David BAKRADZE*

Gérard BAPT/ Philippe Bies

Doris BARNETT/Mechthild Rawert

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Gabriela Pecková

José María BENEYTO*

Deborah BERGAMINI/Giuseppe Galati

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI/ Claudio Fazzone

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ/Nellija Kleinberga

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Maryvonne BLONDIN

Jean-Marie BOCKEL/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR/Marc Spautz

Alessandro BRATTI*

Piet De BRUYN

Beata BUBLEWICZ/Michał Stuligrosz

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON/Maximilian Reimann

Natalia BURYKINA*

Nunzia CATALFO

Elena CENTEMERO*

Irakli CHIKOVANI/ Giorgi Kandelaki

Vannino CHITI

Christopher CHOPE*

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Henryk CIOCH

James CLAPPISON

Igor CORMAN

Telmo CORREIA

Paolo CORSINI*

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Yves CRUCHTEN

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN

Katalin CSÖBÖR

Joseph DEBONO GRECH

Reha DENEMEÇ

Alain DESTEXHE*

Manlio DI STEFANO

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK*

Şaban DİŞLİ

Sergio DIVINA

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Namik DOKLE

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY/Hendrik Daems

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Nicole DURANTON/Marie-Christine Dalloz

Josette DURRIEU

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV*

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Franz Leonhard EßL*

Bernd FABRITIUS*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA/Raphaël Comte

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Ivana Dobešová

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER/Gabriela Heinrich

Axel E. FISCHER*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER

Hans FRANKEN

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO/Christian Barilaro

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE/Lord Richard Balfe

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON

Iryna GERASHCHENKO/Mariia Ionova

Tina GHASEMI

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO

Pavol GOGA*

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU/Corneliu Mugurel Cozmanciuc

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI/Khalid Chaouki

Fred de GRAAF*

François GROSDIDIER/Jacques Legendre

Andreas GROSS

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Nazmi GÜR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Maria GUZENINA*

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI*

Sabir HAJIYEV

Margus HANSON/Rait Maruste

Alfred HEER

Michael HENNRICH/Volkmar Vogel

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH/Marcel Oberweis

Oleksii HONCHARENKO

Jim HOOD*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Vitaly IGNATENKO*

Florin IORDACHE/Daniel Florea

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT/Damien Abad

Gediminas JAKAVONIS/Dalia Kuodytė

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ/Ingrid Antičević Marinović

Tedo JAPARIDZE/Guguli Magradze

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN/Hans Fredrik Grøvan

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA/Viorel Riceard Badea

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Josip JURATOVIC*

Antti KAIKKONEN*

Mustafa KARADAYI/Hamid Hamid

Marietta KARAMANLI

Niklas KARLSSON

Andreja KATIČ/Matjaž Hanžek

Vasiliki KATRIVANOU

Ioanneta KAVVADIA*

Charles KENNEDY*

Tinatin KHIDASHELI*

Danail KIRILOV/Kancho Filipov

Bogdan KLICH/Helena Hatka

Haluk KOÇ*

Igor KOLMAN

Željko KOMŠIĆ*

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN

Rom KOSTŘICA

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO

Julia KRONLID*

Marek KRZĄKAŁA/ Killion Munyama

Zviad KVATCHANTIRADZE

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Serhiy LABAZIUK/ Sergiy Vlasenko

Inese LAIZĀNE

Olof LAVESSON/ Kerstin Lundgren

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV*

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI

François LONCLE/Catherine Quéré

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L’OVOCHKINA

Jacob LUND

Trine Pertou MACH*

Philippe MAHOUX

Thierry MARIANI

Soňa MARKOVÁ/Pavel Holík

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Meritxell MATEU PI

Ana MATO

Pirkko MATTILA/Mika Raatikainen

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA/Jim D’arcy

Sir Alan MEALE*

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA/Imer Aliu

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Ana Catarina MENDES*

Attila MESTERHÁZY/Gábor Harangozó

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Philipp MIßFELDER*

Olivia MITCHELL

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Melita MULIĆ

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Hermine NAGHDALYAN*

Piotr NAIMSKI

Sergey NARYSHKIN*

Marian NEACŞU/Titus Corlăţean

Andrei NEGUTA

Zsolt NÉMETH

Miroslav NENUTIL

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Marija OBRADOVIĆ

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O’REILLY

Maciej ORZECHOWSKI/Jagna Marczułajtis-Walczak

Sandra OSBORNE*

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Judith PALLARÉS CORTÉS

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Florin Costin PÂSLARU

Waldemar PAWLAK/Marek Borowski

Vladimir PLIGIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Carmen QUINTANILLA

Mailis REPS*

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE/Frédéric Reiss

Soraya RODRÍGUEZ

Alexander ROMANOVICH*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA

René ROUQUET

Rovshan RZAYEV

Indrek SAAR*

Àlex SÁEZ

Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Maria Edera Spadoni

Milena SANTERINI*

Kimmo SASI*

Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Boryslav Bereza

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE

Urs SCHWALLER

Salvador SEDÓ

Predrag SEKULIĆ

Ömer SELVİ

Aleksandar SENIĆ

Senad ŠEPIĆ*

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Bernd SIEBERT/Franz Josef Jung

Valeri SIMEONOV*

Andrej ŠIRCELJ

Arturas SKARDŽIUS

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Olena SOTNYK

Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Yanaki STOILOV

Karin STRENZ

Ionuţ-Marian STROE*

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Krzysztof SZCZERSKI

Damien THIÉRY

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Antoni TRENCHEV

Goran TUPONJA

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Theodora TZAKRI

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN*

Petrit VASILI*

Imre VEJKEY

Stefaan VERCAMER/Petra De Sutter

Mark VERHEIJEN*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN*

Dimitris VITSAS*

Vladimir VORONIN*

Viktor VOVK

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ/Snežana Jonica

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Tom WATSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER

Morten WOLD/Ingebjørg Godskesen

Gisela WURM*

Maciej WYDRZYŃSKI

Leonid YEMETS/ Vladyslav Golub

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ

Sergey ZHELEZNYAK*

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, ‘‘The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’’*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Agustín CONDE

Andrzej JAWORSKI

Observers

Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA

Corneliu CHISU

Don DAVIES

Percy DOWNE

Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA

Michel RIVARD

David TILSON

Partners for democracy

Hanane ABOULFATH

Mohammed AMEUR

Nezha EL OUAFI

El Mokhtar GHAMBOU

Omar HEJIRA

Mohamed YATIM