AA16CR24ADD2

AS (2016) CR 24
Addendum 2
Provisional edition

2016 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-fourth sitting

Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 3.30 p.m.

Debate: Reaffirming the role of the Assembly as a pan-European forum for inter-parliamentary dialogue and co-operation

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

Mr VOVK (Ukraine) – The topic of this debate sounds perfectly legitimate and good on the surface. I believe, however, that the distinguished members of this Assembly should be honest and sincere with each other and admit that this debate was, to a large extent, inspired by an attempt to readmit the Russian delegation to this Assembly through the backdoor.

It is evident to any person of goodwill that dialogue and co-operation require two sides; both sides must be willing to talk sincerely and share common values. In the case of modern-day Russia, we face an aggressive regime of a predatory nature that seeks to use dialogue to cheat and gain an advantage over its external opponents.

Unfortunately, some European politicians often engage in wishful thinking and self-deception, perceiving Putin’s Russia as a normal State, and assuming that it will follow rules that work in the civilised world. They are up against a cheater, but for whatever reason, again and again, they naively believe that Russia will play by the rules, when in fact Russia is very good at playing with the rules.

Thus, I presume that one of the main purposes of this debate was to send a wrong message to the Russians: that there might be no opposition to dropping the earlier sanctions and restoring the credentials of the Russian delegation after the elections in September. Make no mistake, this would be the way to undermine and ruin the very foundation of this Organisation which is based on values fully neglected and despised by Russia. I also presume that the very concept of dialogue is being hijacked by some and used as a disguise for the policy of appeasement of the aggressor.

Pursuing peace on the basis of the appeasement of the Russian aggressor may benefit Europeans in the short term, but strategically Europe will lose. This policy only shows weakness and readiness to give in to intimidation, and therefore encourages the aggressor to go further in its actions, fuelling the potential for a greater war in Europe. History has proved that attempts of appeasement do not work; they further provoke the aggressor and lead to the incitement of war.

I call upon this Assembly to stop sliding down this dangerous path under the disguise of calls for dialogue.