AA17CR33ADD1

AS (2017) CR 33
Addendum 1

2017 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-third sitting

Wednesday 11 October 2017 at 3.30 p.m.

Joint debate:

Call for a Council of Europe summit to reaffirm European unity and to defend and promote democratic security in Europe

Defending the acquis of the Council of Europe: preserving 65 years of successful intergovernmental 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.

Ms AHMED-SHEIKH (United Kingdom) – Madame President, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate and I welcome the reports of both Mr Nicoletti and Mr Kox on extremely important subject matters.

Democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and our respect for them, define individuals and institutions. A call for a summit is an important statement of intent: that the Council of Europe intends to continue as a force for good. It presents the opportunity of a space and time for renewal and rejuvenation and a reminder of our founding tenets. The Council of Europe should and must reassert itself. More unites us than divides us, and a statement must be powerfully made that this institution matters.

This is a time of unrest in so many places and for so many citizens who are losing trust and faith in politicians. On the understanding that, I believe, most politicians, regardless of their politics, want what they consider is best for their countries and their citizens, work must be done to restore that lost trust and faith.

We must speak up for the protection of human rights, whenever violations are alleged to have occurred, wherever they occur, even on our doorstep, however uncomfortable that may feel for some. No one will trust this institution if we are selective in deciding who we speak up for. Surely we speak up for all, or we speak up for none.

The forces of evil will always work to divide countries, societies and peoples. That is their job. But our shared humanity should unite and strengthen us all.

Racism, misogyny, prejudice and intolerance continue to raise their ugly heads. Women and minority communities feel that many unexpected and unwelcome world events over the past couple of years mean that equality and human rights protections have taken a regressive step. The platform of a Council of Europe summit can help reassure that hard-fought and hard-won rights will be protected.

It is, above all, an opportunity for this institution to demonstrate that it has found its mojo again.

Mr R. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – To the call for the next summit of the continental leaders for building a more united and more complete Europe, of course, we say "yes". This is a noble attempt as well as a new opportunity to make our common home Europe more beautiful and livable. Nonetheless, we should always move towards every chance that promises good things with a careful and fair analysis of the past.

Ismail Gaspirinski, the prominent politician and educator of the early 20th century, defined a very simple but very striking formula of great unity: " Unity in tongue, opinion and action".

We wish to achieve European unity and establish a common European home, and we consider the Council of Europe as a connecting element in this respect. Indeed, the call for this unity has been one of the main ideas in the tongue and thought of the Council of Europe since its foundation. It has also apparently tried to build up its activities in this direction. However, unfortunately, it was impossible to achieve the expected outcome and as time goes by, this desire seems to be more inaccessible; because it is not enough to call and wish, the unity in action is also necessary.

The Council of Europe has expanded to 47 countries, thus becoming one of the largest global organisations, covering about 900 million people. So why can we not consider it as a guarantor, basis and cornerstone of future European unity? Because there is a difference between words and deeds.

If the members of this family have a policy of encroaching on one another, and if the Council of Europe is unable to prevent it, can it serve as a cornerstone of European union?

We speak about unity; nonetheless, we regularly notice the existence of double standards in the activities of the Council of Europe. We talk about intercultural, inter-religious dialogue, but we also observe the most sophisticated manifestations of Islamophobia and xenophobia. Strong sanctions are imposed on one member State, but excessive softness is demonstrated with respect to other one which acts much more destructively. Is it possible to achieve unity in this case?

To fall into the temptation of undertaking the mission of becoming a guarantor of unity on the whole continent with this kind of activity can be considered merely as an unreal dream.

When thinking about the summit, let us not forget, even for a moment, these bitter truths.

Mr LIASKHO (Ukraine) – Since the collapse of communism and the break-up of the USSR and up to the revolution of dignity and Maidan in 2014, Ukrainians have fought for the future of their country under the slogan "Bringing Ukraine back home to Europe".

What is Europe for all of us? French President Emmanuel Macron recently quite rightly reminded us that Europe is not a supermarket, but a space of values; that is exactly how Europe was perceived by millions of Ukrainians who went out to the Maidan. So, for Ukrainians, "Back to Europe" means, first of all, the restoration of Ukraine’s rightful place within European civilisation. Some of the hard-won, fundamental European values, ​​such as human rights, the rule of law and democracy, form the foundation of this Organisation – the Council of Europe.

However, not all countries on the European continent today prefer values over brute force. Europe is once again divided by a bloodstained frontline between freedom and slavery, right and wrong, truth and lies. And Ukraine, by the will of history, has unexpectedly found herself on the forefront of the battle to protect European civilisation.

The Europe of values needs to wake up ​​and acknowledge that it is under attack by Putin’s Russian Federation. Putin is waging a “hybrid war” not only against Ukraine, but against the entire civilised world. The Russian Federation is deliberately destroying the modern international legal order, acting from the standpoint of “Might is right”. That means that the Russian Federation is attacking the whole of Europe, which has become a bastion of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Therefore, Ukrainians are defending not only themselves – we are protecting all of you. Helping Ukraine is an expenditure on protection of the entire European continent.

Lessons from European history prove that attempts to appease an aggressor can bring short-term benefits, but strategically, Europe loses, only increasing the risk of a major war.

Cynically and consistently, through intimidation, blackmail, propaganda lies and economic temptation, Putin seeks to fragment Europe, split it from within and undermine European unity and institutions, including the Council of Europe. This respected Organisation must not give in to the Russian Federation’s financial blackmail and start selling indulgences. Forgiveness of Russian sins in exchange for Russian money will put an end to the Council of Europe as a value-based Organisation.

European leaders gathering at the next Council of Europe Summit must give a strong response to the Russian Federation’s challenge to reaffirm European unity and to defend democratic security in Europe. We look forward to the solidarity of democratic European nations.

We will win or lose together – Ukraine and Europe. I believe in our common victory.

Mr SALMOND (United Kingdom) – As I have listened to this debate, my mind has turned to the figure of David Maxwell Fyfe. He was the first rapporteur of the very first legal committee who brought to this Assembly our foundation Convention on Human Rights

What would Maxwell Fyfe have made of our progress over these last 70 years? First, he would be pleased that the foundation Convention has been supplemented by many other conventions over the years; secondly, he would be gratified that the lives of tens of millions of our fellow European citizens have been improved by the exercise of these rights – even if few of them have anything more than a vague awareness of the existence of this body; thirdly, he would be delighted that the number of participating countries has increased from the original 12 to the current 47.

However, Maxwell Fyfe would still have the questions that have preoccupied this debate today and in particular been raised in an excellent report by Mr Tiny Kox: how do we make our high ideals enforceable and how do we therefore make our decisions consistently meaningful?

The proposals made by Mr Kox are entirely sensible. However, there are two other things which are required. The first of these is the clarity of thinking of this Assembly and its officers. Let me give you an example: on Monday, I was really disappointed to see a statement from our Secretary General issued after a meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister in which he stressed the importance of the unity of Spain. The unity of Spain, or indeed the independence of Catalonia, are not matters for this Assembly or its officers. They are a matter for Spain and Catalonia. What is a matter for this Assembly, is the right of Catalans to exercise their rights of free expression under Article 10 of our Convention without being beaten up by the Spanish state police. In that light, I was pleased to see the strong statements from our Human Rights Commissioner and indeed our then acting President, Sir Roger Gale, on Monday.

That brings me to my second point: this Assembly must have the self-regard to speak without fear or favour when these flagrant breaches occur. It is not enough for individuals to have redress through the Strasbourg Court. There has to be a collective and timeous upholding of rights. It does not mean that each and every demonstrable breach of Convention rights should be met with penalty, far less expulsion. What it does mean is that the moral force of this Assembly upholding key European values should be felt by those in state power.

Mr WHALEN (Canada, Observer) – I welcome this opportunity to participate in the discussion of the draft report, “Defending the Acquis of the Council of Europe: Preserving 65 Years of Successful Intergovernmental Co-operation”.

The defence and promotion of the principles of democracy, human rights and rule of law by the Council of Europe has been an inspiration to countries around the world, including my Observer State Canada. For example, the European Convention on Human Rights is one of the international instruments that inspired the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms– and has been referred to on multiple occasions by our highest court.

Given the fundamental importance of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, Canada and its parliamentarians have welcomed this opportunity to work with you on them. The Government of Canada has participated and engaged in Council of Europe activities since the 1960s, and was granted official Observer status in the Committee of Ministers in 1996 and the Parliamentary Assembly 20 years ago this year.

The report outlines the evolution of the work of the Council of Europe over the decades, emphasising its continuing role in three important areas: setting standards through conventions and other instruments; monitoring to ensure implementation of these standards; and technical co-operation to assist member States.

The value of Council of Europe instruments as standards is widely recognised, and Canada has signed and ratified a number of them. The most recent of these was the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, which Canada ratified in 2015. Standards can achieve their full potential only if they are effectively implemented, and so efforts in monitoring and technical co-operation are paramount.

Canada recognises the importance of such work, and it has appreciated the opportunity to co-operate with the Council of Europe over the years, such as in the provision of support to Ukraine. Collaboration between States must go beyond technical co-operation, however.

Of particular interest in the report are the case studies on Ukraine, Spain, the Russian Federation and the European Union. These demonstrate the critical crossroads at which the Council of Europe finds itself, and highlight the need for the recommendation on issues to be addressed by an upcoming Council of Europe Summit.