AA17CR34
AS (2017) CR 34
2017 ORDINARY SESSION
________________
(Fourth part)
REPORT
Thirty-fourth sitting
Thursday 12 October at 10 a.m.
In this report:
1. Speeches in English are reported in full.
2. Speeches in other languages are reported using the interpretation and are marked with an asterisk
3. 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 Kyriakides, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.10 a.m.)
The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.
1. Changes in the membership of committees
The PRESIDENT – Our first business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in Document, “Commissions (2017) 07 Addendum 4”.
Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to? They are agreed to.
2. Debate under urgent procedure:
The new Ukrainian law on education: a major impediment to the teaching
of national minorities’ mother tongues
The PRESIDENT – The first item of business this morning is a debate under urgent procedure on “The new Ukrainian law on education: a major impediment to the teaching of national minorities’ mother tongues” (Document 14415) presented by Mr Herkel on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media.
We will try to finish this item by 11:30 a.m., so we will interrupt the list of speakers at about 11 a.m. Are these arrangements agreed to? They are agreed to.
I remind you that speaking time is limited to three minutes.
I now call Mr Andres Herkel, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between the presentation of the report and your reply to the debate.
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – As you know, the Assembly made a decision on Monday about having this urgent debate on the education law that was adopted in Ukraine and about the right of minorities to have schooling in their mother tongue. We worked very quickly on this report in the committee. I will highlight some of our key points.
First, if such controversial laws are adopted in national parliaments, then one tool within our capacity is to have the opinion of the Venice Commission. Unfortunately, the commission was not asked before the law was adopted. As rapporteur, I am in a delicate situation because legal findings must be included in the opinion that will come from the Venice Commission, but not until the end of this year. So the Assembly can have some conclusions, but if we go too far now with legal conclusions, we will anticipate the work of the Venice Commission. As is clearly included in the explanatory memorandum – for example, in paragraphs 17 and 18 – in 2011 the Venice Commission already had an opinion on the draft law on the principles of the State language policy in Ukraine. There was a concern about ensuring the pre-eminence of the Ukrainian language as the only State language and taking additional measures to consolidate its role within Ukrainian society. In that respect, having an education law was a step in line with the previous opinion that we have. However, it was probably a step too far, so the concern of Hungarian, Romanian and other colleagues is understandable. As rapporteur, I try to have as balanced an approach as possible in the current situation.
My key points are reflected in the draft resolution in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6. The first principle is that knowledge of the official language of a State is a factor of social cohesion and integration, and it is, without doubt, legitimate for a State to promote the learning of the official language. Secondly, as is stated by the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, language is an essential component of individual identity as well as collective identity, and must therefore be preserved. Thirdly, there is the principle of non-discrimination.
The Ukrainian authorities have a plan to go from monolingual education to education in the State language while still partly having a minority language. That was not done in 20 years, so it is understandable, but I am concerned that it is unrealistic to undergo this very complicated process over three years. The emotions and concerns about the situation among minorities are also therefore understandable. I will use my final minutes at the end of the debate to draw your attention to this point. Apart from the representatives of the political groups, most of the speakers are from the side of Ukraine or, vice versa, from the side of Romania or Hungary, so the task of the rapporteur is to have a balanced approach to a difficult but important issue.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Herkel. You have just over seven minutes left. I call Mr Corlăţean.
Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania, spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – The Parliamentary Assembly is having this debate today following the proposal of the Romanian delegation with the support of the Hungarian delegation and many other colleagues from different political groups. It is an urgent debate about the consequences for the national minorities in Ukraine of the new education act, especially article 7. Our political group is concerned about the drastic limitation of education in the mother tongue for the national minorities in Ukraine and the substantial school closures affecting national minorities.
Our first stand is based on the need for respect by Ukraine for the European standards of the Council of Europe – namely, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages – and for Ukraine’s international, multilateral and bilateral commitments. This is also based on our democratic faith that protecting the national minorities through an inclusive approach is for the benefit and stability of the whole society. We fear that this value is misunderstood in Kiev by the current political leadership. Suddenly all the European actors and Ukraine’s neighbouring countries – which, by the way, strongly supported its territorial integrity and sovereignty, and the European path for it – became enemies and Putin’s agents.
Our stand is not about diminishing the important role of the official language of the State for the country. We understand and support the need for all the citizens of a country to learn and speak the language properly. It is not about creating advantages for the Russian Federation in the conflict with Ukraine. On the contrary, it is about the benefit of stability and good democratic progress for Ukraine, and respecting the right of national minorities to a proper education in their mother tongue, making them feel comfortable in their country. That means an inclusive approach and the wisdom not to offer pretexts to others for separatist movements. This is the request from a petition that was recently sent to the Secretary General of our Organisation and to the Venice Commission president by a number of associations of ethnic Romanians, starting with the inter-regional union of Romanian communities in Ukraine.
The model of monolingual education at Taras Shevchenko high school in Sighetu Marmației in Romania, with monolingual education in the Ukrainian language for all the studied disciplines apart from the Romanian language, starting at pre-school and up to high school, is working well. If the model is working well for 50,000 ethnic Ukrainians in Romania, it should work for the 500,000 ethnic Romanians who are loyal citizens of Ukraine, and for other national minorities, too. Kiev’s very late appeal to the Venice Commission, after the president promulgated the law, is extremely disappointing. Nevertheless, we hope that the Ukrainian authorities will substantially co-operate with this body and other international, European and neighbouring countries for the benefit and modification of this legislation and for the benefit of minorities.
Mr HOWELL (United Kingdom, spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I am genuinely troubled by this debate and the context of the report’s recommendations, and I say that as a friend of Ukraine. On the one hand, we have a government that wants to improve people’s lives and make them fully functioning members of society; on the other hand, we have those who complain that the right to teach in their mother tongue is being undermined.
I am concerned that the matter has been brought to the Council of Europe at all, particularly when we are waiting for a response from the Venice Commission. I am not sure how I would respond if a particular group were to challenge the actions of a democratically elected government in my own country on education or health. There would be genuine outrage.
There is a model for how the situation might be addressed, as can be seen in the European schools. There is one in my constituency, and it teaches different subjects in different languages – science in German, history in French, geography in Italian or Dutch, for example. The school was originally intended for children of people working for the Commission, but so popular has it become that parents of children from the United Kingdom want to send their children there. It is a question of choice, of course, but the schools could be adapted to fit the current circumstances.
I simply do not understand why this should not be the subject of more discussion with Ukraine. Indeed, what the president had to say was quite straightforward. In the United Kingdom, we have already dealt with such a situation in Wales with the Welsh language. I appreciate that Ukraine has a large number of minorities, but it is trying to build a new country. It is a country under threat, and I urge it to find a democratic resolution, particularly when it is faced with more serious problems, such as the threat of Russian activity and the annexation of Crimea.
I pointed out yesterday that this debate does not easily fit within the Venice Commission’s remit. It is a political issue, and I urge the commission, within its rules, to indicate how it would deal with it. If we were to refer every law of every country to the Venice Commission, we would be in a right state.
Ms PALLARÉS (Andorra, spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – I thank Mr Herkel for the explanatory memorandum and his recommendations on the new Ukrainian education act.
I begin by drawing attention to Ukraine’s reforms over the past few years, many of which are in line with the recommendations of the Council of Europe on issues such as judicial reform and the fight against corruption. Making reforms is never easy, and that is even more the case in such a difficult context, but reform is important for member States. Ukraine has taken the decision to modernise and improve its education standards, and we, as liberals, are in favour of such reforms. Education is a cornerstone of building a democratic society. Nevertheless, it is necessary that any reform takes account of the principles of the Council of Europe.
Minorities have raised specific concerns about the implication of article 7 of the new education act. Yesterday, we had the opportunity to listen to President Poroshenko, who said that, contrary to those responses, the aim of the article is to give more opportunity to future generations by promoting the use of Ukrainian in schools by national minorities and indigenous people. In taking account of the diverse opinions on the subject, we congratulate the Ukrainian Government on sending the education act to the Venice Commission to seek its advice on how to balance its implementation. Yesterday, we were also happy to learn that Ukraine will wait for that opinion before approving the law to regulate these secondary school reforms. In the meantime, we agree with the draft resolution that it is necessary to strike an appropriate balance between official languages and the languages of national minorities, and we hope Ukraine achieves that balance.
After the Venice Commission has given its opinion, the Council of Europe should follow developments and encourage Ukraine to continue its efforts. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe sees the future of Ukraine as an open society that values its rich diversity and cherishes freedom, tolerance and democracy. We therefore encourage Ukrainian lawmakers to have that vision of Ukraine in mind when conducting their reforms.
Ms JOHNSSON FORNARVE (Sweden, spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – We understand the major concern raised by Ukraine’s new education law, which is a delicate and sensitive matter in a multi-ethnic, multi-language and multi-culture country. Ukraine is home to almost 130 nationalities, with 22% of its population made up of ethnic minorities. Russians are the largest minority, representing almost 17% of the population.
Taking that into account, we are disappointed that the Venice Commission has not been consulted well in advance for an opinion on such an important question with major implications for Ukrainian society. Nevertheless, we welcome the post factum submission of the text to the Venice Commission. There are many concerns that some provisions of the new law contradict parts of article 10 of Ukraine’s constitution, on the free development, use and protection of Russian and other languages of ethnic minorities.
Discrimination against ethnic minorities and the exclusion of their languages from State affairs, mass media, cinema and especially education is a manifestation of hard assimilation, whereas harmonious integration, as outlined in the framework convention, is the way to build peaceful and diverse societies in which human rights are respected, protected and highly prioritised.
The new education law, in its current form, substantially limits the rights of ethnic minorities. It is therefore necessary to wait for the opinions and reports of the expert bodies of the Council of Europe on whether the new law is in line with the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. We therefore support the Assembly’s demands, which include bringing Ukrainian legislation in line with international law, treaties, and conventions signed by Ukraine, in order to fully comply with its international obligations. It is also important to consider the Venice Commission’s opinion, which will be delivered by the end of 2017.
We welcome the outline of the different concerns expressed in the draft resolution, and the proposals should be taken into account by Ukrainian authorities when following up on the new education law.
Mr FISCHER (Germany, spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party)* – What are we talking about? On the one hand, we are talking about the need to guarantee the rights of minorities in member States, but on the other hand, we are also talking about a country’s right to teach its national language. Specifically, we are talking about the reform of Ukraine’s education law, which has been adopted but not yet ratified. Many colleagues have mentioned that there is a real risk and fear that the rights of national minorities will deteriorate – indeed, Mr Herkel referred to that in his introduction – and that is why we are holding this debate today.
Let me provide an example from Germany. Minorities live in the north of Germany – the East Frisians, the Danes, the Sorbians. Those minorities learn German, but we provide them with the opportunity to speak and learn their own languages and dialects. We even have radio programmes that are supported by State money and broadcast in the languages of those minorities. In Schleswig-Holstein, there were rules that prohibited members of the Danish minority from entering the regional parliament, but those have been scrapped. We have taken steps to help national minorities.
I welcome the fact that the draft legislation under discussion has been submitted to the Venice Commission. The Venice Commission is a tool for the Council of Europe that should be used when there are conflicts and debates such as the one we are having today. Today’s debate is important. The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media is working on a report on minority languages, and it must examine the issues, taking into account what the Venice Commission has to say. There is a difficult balance to be struck. On one hand, we need to protect minority languages, but we must also promote national identity. I believe that, if we can draw on the report drafted by Mr Herkel, and consider the conclusions of the Venice Commission, we will reach a good result. I encourage members of the Assembly to participate actively in the debate.
Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – Dear colleagues, we consider these systematic reforms to be the most important instrument with which to secure our European future. The law adopted by the Ukrainian Parliament uses the best European practices such as competency-based learning, school autonomy and professional freedom for teachers. We have introduced a modern education structure and a modern system of quality assurance, and in line with our European Union association agreement, the law establishes a national qualification framework to ensure transparency and recognition. The law incorporates European values into the education system, including provisions that allow national minorities to learn and study in their language.
Unfortunately, misunderstandings and the political misuse of article 7, which deals with the language of instruction, has overshadowed the laws that are aimed at reform. Our delegation and the Ukrainian Minister of Education and Science have visited the Council of Europe twice in recent weeks. We keep trying to promote guarantees to minorities and to dispel fears, but our efforts unfortunately seem like a lone voice in the wilderness. Nevertheless, we have tried to convince those States that have concerns.
We are seriously disturbed by the situation in those areas densely inhabited by national minorities. For years, we have witnessed schools that teach only in a minority language, with the Ukrainian language being taught for only two hours a week. What is the result? A lack of knowledge and skills in the Ukrainian language creates serious obstacles to people’s further education and employment. All Ukrainian universities mostly use the official State language, and an inability to pass the language test will automatically close the door to further access to higher education and to obtaining a good job. According to official statistics, 60% of students from Hungarian and Romanian minorities who passed independent tests in mathematics and the history of Ukraine in their native language, completely failed the Ukrainian language test that is mandatory to enter universities, so they are out of higher education – 60%!
The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, both of which Ukraine has ratified, contain two main ideas – the right to learn and be taught in one’s mother tongue, but without that prejudicing the learning of the official language. Unfortunately, recent discussions have been more or less based on political grounds, not professional or legal ones.
The Ukrainian side is open to compromise, as we have shown with our readiness to hold discussions with those who have concerns. The Ukrainian Government has submitted the law to the Venice Commission, as that is the best arbiter, and yesterday President Porochenko promised to implement its conclusions. However, thanks to the amendments tabled by some of our colleagues, this debate risks being turned into an attempt to pressure the Venice Commission, which is counterproductive. Only a professional depoliticisation of the negotiation process and a discussion will open the door to compromise. I thank the rapporteur for his work.
Mr BADEA (Romania)* – Dear colleagues, I had prepared a speech, but after listening to what our colleagues have said, I have decided to rip it up and shred it. I am concerned about the Romanian community in Ukraine. This is an issue that I have dealt with for the past 25 years – a quarter of a century – but what is happening now has never happened in the past. We are speaking now about minority rights in this Chamber, but Ukraine should have discussed this issue with the Venice Commission before moving forward with the draft legislation.
Two days before this draft legislation was submitted to the parliament, the Romanian-Ukraine joint parliamentary committee discussed these matters. This issue was raised, but nothing was said about it whatsoever; it was completely covered up – they did not discuss this issue in the joint meeting. Nothing was mentioned about Romanian-speaking students in Ukraine, or any other minority, yet this issue involves a relatively high percentage of individuals in Ukraine.
Years ago, the Presidents of Romania and Ukraine met and held discussions. On that occasion, it became clear that the then President of Ukraine, Mr Kuchma, did not even speak Ukrainian. We are talking about a language that many people in that country do not even speak. Respect must be paid to national minorities. If we are to move forward with provisions on minority languages, there must be some sort of dialogue and discussion. In any case, we cannot speak about a majority language in Ukraine, so talking about minority and majority languages is simply not applicable in this instance.
Right now in the Romanian Parliament we have ex officio representatives from 18 minorities in the country, and they are being included in discussions about language and its use in Romanian schools. A dialogue is taking place with all those different minorities. We must bring minorities into the discussion and not execute policies above people’s heads. What is going on is incomprehensible.
Mr BATRINCEA (Republic of Moldova)* – On behalf of the delegation of the Republic of Moldova I congratulate the rapporteur on the excellent work that has gone into this report.
Yesterday, in this Chamber, Mr Nicoletti said that politics is the art of living together. This is at the heart of all European norms and conventions, including the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the Framework Convention on Protecting the Rights of Minorities and the European Convention on Human Rights itself. All these conventions were violated when the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine decided it would adopt this new law on education.
For hundreds of years now in Ukraine more than 250 000 people whose mother tongue is Romanian have been living in Chernivtsi Oblast. They have never destabilised the situation. They have their own culture, history and ways. Now the Ukrainian State is refusing them the right to education in their own language. European texts say that language is the basis of our identity; the Ukrainian authorities are telling more than 250 000 ethnic Moldovans that they do not have the right to that.
So much is laid down in European norms and principles, such as a menu in a restaurant. Ukraine upholds European norms for things like that, but in other areas they pretend they have not noticed that these norms are not being upheld. In the same way, all European texts state that every ethnic minority has the right to develop and protect its own ethnic culture. In Ukraine, we are now seeing the assimilation of national minorities. We see this overreaching nationalism. What is needed is to retain those norms and standards that allow minorities to retain and develop their identity.
It has been said that this law should be repealed and reviewed. The fact Ukraine has sent it to the Venice Commission is just a ploy to get around public opinion, because everybody understands that if Ukraine was really interested in getting the opinion of the Venice Commission it should have sent this draft law to it in time to get its answer back before it went through Parliament and was adopted. The fact it sent it so late is a way to try to pull the wool over the eyes of European public opinion. The only correct decision would be to recommend that Ukraine repeals the law on education in its new wording.
Mr PREDA (Romania)* – I too had a speech, but having listened to the speaker from Ukraine who supported the law, I shall in the light of those remarks put two questions to all of you.
A head of State – a president – comes before the Assembly and says that he is awaiting the decision of the Venice Commission after the enactment of the law. Is that appropriate? This is something that has never happened here.
President Poroshenko came before this Chamber and spoke in several minority languages but he forgot to speak in an important language for Ukraine – the Tatar language. My second question therefore is: what about the Tatar minority in Ukraine? Mr Poroshenko can never affect their rights, because if you want to be in our Organisation and stay here you have to abide by your commitments. It is therefore our commitment to make sure that minority languages and minority rights are respected. Every country should do whatever it can to make sure it complies with that provision. Countries need to have minorities who are respected in their territory.
Mr USOV (Ukraine) – No matter how far our partners and neighbours go in their aggressive narrative, Ukraine will remain diplomatic and open to them. What surprises me is that there was complete silence from you while we used the horrible Soviet law on education for all those years. There was not a single word from Hungary, Romania, the Republic of Moldova or others who now sing this treacherous song that is so full of lies.
I am proud to be an author of article 7 of the debated law. I perfectly remember the procedure we used to get a compromise in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Not only did we invite representatives of the coalition and the opposition; individual MPs from districts with national minorities were also present, including the highest representative of the Crimean Tatar minority. There was a nice, frank and straight discussion. Nobody was happy but everyone decided that we are okay to work with that. One ethnic Hungarian MP came to me and told me, “Kostiantyn, it’s okay if we keep a solid education in Hungarian in primary school. It’s going to be all right.” We came to a common decision. Everything was right and the new law was passed – a good, modern and European law.
For Ukraine, this law is about education. For others, who now cry so loudly, this law is probably about something else. Should we think that there are some hidden territorial claims? Should we think that you are just prepping for the upcoming elections in your own countries? We have been here before. We have heard the same words about the Crimea and Donbass from the Russian Federation, and about their minority in Ukraine. When foreign soldiers put their feet on our sovereign soil, some politicians, the same as today, said they were defending their ethnic brothers in Ukraine. Do not get me wrong, but we have paid more than 10 000 lives for passing this and many other laws that moved us further from our Soviet ancestry. We are more than ready to move forward in this way.
Again I say to our neighbours: we respect, hear and understand you. We are ready to help you. But listen to your heart: is it your own bid inside you? Is it really how it sounds, or is this just an echo of some Kremlin war drums here in Europe again?
Mr KORODI (Romania) – We are not the voice of the Kremlin. You need to know that. I am a Hungarian committee member from Romania and I made my own studies in my Hungarian mother tongue for 12 years. I learned Romanian very well at school. Why? It is not because I was forced; I was helped. There is a huge difference.
Yesterday, Mr Poroshenko answered my question about the principle behind the education law. It is wrong. Ukraine needs to help minorities to learn the Ukrainian language, not force them to learn it. Sure, young people being helped in this way looks very positive to his country. This is important. Mr Usov mixed a lot of things with the Russian Federation. In everything, the political solution is the best solution, which is dialogue and openness about the principles we have here in the Chamber.
A joint committee between Romania and Ukraine about minorities has been mentioned. We have heard that this joint committee does not work, but force does not work. It is not good. These committees are established to work. Romania did not stop it because it did not work. It does not work because Ukraine has no interest in making this joint committee work.
Dear colleagues, I want to make this clear: our friends in Ukraine need to understand that putting pressure on minorities does not bring positive results and that good relationships with neighbouring countries, including Romania, Hungary, Poland and others, is necessary. We are your bridge to Europe, and putting dynamite under that bridge is an attack on half a million people from minority communities, including young people, who lose the chance to receive schooling in their mother tongue. I hope that this report will show what we think is the right way for a Council of Europe member State to act on education, and education for minority communities.
Mr NÉMETH (Hungary) – I draw your attention to the fact that more than 100 colleagues support this urgent debate. Dear Ukrainian colleagues, this is something to consider seriously. I talk not just as the head of the Hungarian delegation; I was a rapporteur on the Ukrainian accession. I am a friend of your country and I tell you that this Education Act intends to eliminate your country’s minority monolingual language system. You want to destroy a minority education system.
We need to consider that not only do you have a huge Russian community, which is not even a minority in the Ukraine, but that in the west there are Hungarian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Polish and other minority communities in high numbers. These countries, whose minorities are keen friends of them, have supported the Ukraine in the fight for territorial integrity in your process of the European Union and NATO integration in this Council. We remain your supporters, but when you have a problem – a conflict – with the Russian Federation, on which we are behind you, and when Euro-Atlantic integration is basically taking place along those lines, we unfortunately do not understand why you would destabilise your relationship with your western neighbours. Cui prodest? Why do you need that tension between central European countries and the Ukraine? Why do you create instability in the western part of your country? In whose interest is that?
When I come to my conclusions about who is representing the Kremlin’s interest, I ask, is it us? Is that not in fact a joke? Rather, is it not those who have just developed such views? Mr Usov, are you not representing the Kremlin’s interest with the arguments that you have just made?
Dear colleagues, we need to maintain the pressure on our Ukrainian friends to stay on the track of Euro-Atlantic values. The Council of Europe and the Venice Commission are available, as our Secretary General has said very clearly.
Ms FINCKH-KRÄMER (Germany)* – I am from Berlin, a city where there are no national minorities in the sense that Axel Fischer meant – in other words, the Frisians in Schleswig-Holstein. The minorities in Berlin are people who have moved there, who domestically, in their family environments, speak another language, which might be Greek, Turkish, Italian, Polish or Russian. For that reason, approximately 20 years ago, Berlin introduced European schools in which bilingual education was a possibility. From year 1 all the way through a child’s school education, they can study in two languages, such as German and Turkish, German and Polish, German and Russian, German and English, and German and French. Of course, we have the tradition of having English and French schools because of the three occupiers in Berlin after the Second World War. Under that system, we have facilitated a situation whereby it is easier for families to have bilingual education for their children.
I say this to my Ukrainian colleagues: irrespective of whether minorities speak Russian, Hungarian or Romanian, your target should be giving children the possibility of bilingual education. Bilingualism in Germany does not mean that one language will be spoken in school and one language spoken domestically. It does not mean that schools offer foreign language education as an additional course. Rather, there is bilingual education. Chemistry or physics might be taught in both languages, or one subject might be taught in one language with the other subject being taught in another one. There is the possibility of different courses being taught in different languages, so there is then real immersion in bilingual education. Students might be offered a semester or year of study somewhere abroad.
That multilingualism really represents our spirit here in the Council of Europe and it must be offered to children throughout the continent. That is what Ukraine ought to focus on. We should look in the direction of making bilingual education possible and with the educational reform law, the model of European schools, such as those in Germany and elsewhere, should be considered. In other words, children should have the possibility of having bilingual education from year 1 to year 12.
Mr BEREZA (Ukraine)* – I want to follow up on what the previous speaker said. She spoke about wanting to see bilingual citizens. That is what we are aiming for. We want Ukrainian citizens to speak two languages as a minimum. We want them to speak three languages. Learning languages is obligatory in Ukraine. If a Ukrainian citizen studies in a Romanian school and then trains to be a doctor, he then needs an interpreter because he cannot do his job in Ukrainian. That is the vital point. Pupils are learning only in Hungarian or only in Romanian. We are trying to change the situation in our country.
I represent the European diaspora, and I represent the Jewish diaspora. I am Jewish and I have mastered the Ukrainian language. People can understand what I am saying in three different languages. I do not have a problem with any one language. In Kiev there are three Hebrew schools, where teaching is in Hebrew and in Ukrainian. The schools provide a good education for pupils and want to see them go on to careers in national institutions. That is how I got to be where I am today; I am an MP. I also had the opportunity to study Russian, and people were learning different languages. In our Parliament, we have representatives of all national minorities but we speak Ukrainian, because it is the State language as assigned by our constitution. In this Assembly and in this Chamber, we are going to have representatives of different national minorities. Perhaps we will have a President of Ukraine who is an ethnic Hungarian or from another national minority. It might happen in future, which is why our national minorities need the opportunity to study in Ukrainian. The State will provide citizens with the opportunity of studying up to the fourth class in their mother tongue. It is only later that they will have to learn in Ukrainian at school.
Today, Ukrainian is studied for just two hours a week in these schools – I would be surprised if you think that is a normal situation. I believe that every citizen of Ukraine must have the right to study in school in their language, but they must have the opportunity, later, to study at university and to follow a career.
The PRESIDENT – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers’ list who have been present during the debate, but have not been able to speak, may be given to the Table Office for publication in the Official Report. I remind colleagues that typewritten texts can be submitted, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted.
I call Mr Herkel to reply. You have seven minutes at your disposal.
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Thank you, Madam President. I thank everybody who participated in this sometimes heated and emotional discussion. I ask what the core of the problem is, and I think that it is how to go from a monolingual education system to a flexible, bilingual model of education. In some areas, there are still schools with an insufficient level of Ukrainian language. The aim is legitimate; the question is how that is implemented.
I have heard certain simplifications during the days when I have been lobbied forcefully by both sides. One is that schools would be closed. I do not think so; schools will not be closed. They will function. It is just a question of how to move from one model to a more flexible one, with more acceptance of the State language.
The second simplification is that some people think it is possible to implement this kind of huge reform over three years. I would say to our Ukrainian colleagues that, if such a language shift is to come into your education system, there is a key educational principle: how to preserve the quality of education and how to have well-prepared teachers. That is not easy, and in reality the implementation would probably take much longer than three years.
The question is how to combine a State language with minority rights. I still think that that is fully possible – there are positive examples. Many speakers referred to the question of the Venice Commission. The fact that President Poroshenko promised to implement the forthcoming recommendations was also mentioned. I really hope that that will be the case, but, as I said, I am in a delicate situation, because we are dealing with the topic without yet having the findings of the Venice Commission.
One colleague – I think it was John Howell – said this is a fully political issue and that we must trust Ukrainian internal politics in this regard. Yes, to some extent, I agree that it is a political issue. Our task is to balance our political conclusions, despite very different and emotional feelings from all sides – from the Hungarian, Romanian and Ukrainian sides. I would also emphasise that some amendments are pushing us to take a strong legal stance. I call on the Assembly to avoid that, because that is exactly what I do not want before the Venice Commission has done its job.
I thank once again all the delegations with whom I have had dialogue. Your views are different, but we have great respect for you all.
The PRESIDENT – Does the vice-chairperson of the committee wish to speak? You have two minutes.
Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – Madam President, the question we have discussed today – the education of persons belonging to national minorities in Ukraine – is certainly not an easy one. We must protect the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as enshrined in our Council of Europe conventions. It is true that the new legislation may have an adverse impact on the lives of minority communities in Ukraine, but we must also take account of the reasons and explanations offered by the Ukrainian authorities, including yesterday by the Ukrainian President, Mr Petro Poroshenko, and of the fact that, as our report stresses, to speak the official language brings people together and helps to form good communities. The education act raises complex legal issues, but those questions will now be dealt with by the Venice Commission and it would be a mistake to anticipate the outcome of its analysis.
With that in mind, I believe that the approach suggested by our rapporteur and endorsed by our committee is the most constructive one. As the report says, let us focus on living together. To that end, the report has put forward proposals that seek to unite the different stakeholders. Of course, legal standards must be observed. The Ukrainian authorities must implement the opinion of the Venice Commission and the recommendations that come from the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. However, the issue cannot be confined to a merely legal dimension and all parties must be open to discuss solutions that are conducive to enhancing living together. That is the broader perspective that the rapporteur and the committee invite you to embrace. We do not want to be one-sided; we must seek to build a process based on the will to live together, not simply on the constraints that result from binding rules. I ask you to support that approach and our proposals.
The PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.
The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has presented a draft resolution to which 14 amendments have been tabled. The amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.
I understand that the Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 1 and 5 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.
Is that so, Lord Dundee?
Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – Yes.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? That is not the case.
As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 1 and 5 to the draft resolution have been agreed.
Amendments 1 and 5 are adopted.
I have received an oral amendment from Mr Ariev, which reads as follows: “In paragraph 1, after the words, ‘is concerned about’, insert the following words: ‘the articles relating to education in minority languages’.”
The President may accept an oral amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.
In my opinion, the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.7.a. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case.
I call Mr Ariev to support the oral amendment. You have 30 seconds.
Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – I support the amendment. The concerns are about the articles regarding minority languages, not the whole law in general. There were no objections to any other articles on the system of education, because the system of education in Ukraine is in full compliance with European standards and the recommendations of the European Union. I ask you to support the oral amendment.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – Unanimously in favour.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
The oral amendment is adopted.
I call Ms Gorghiu to support Amendment 2.
Ms GORGHIU (Romania) – We want to delete the words, “In this respect”, and insert the following sentence: “The Assembly deplores the fact that there was no real consultation with representatives of national minorities in Ukraine on the new version of Article 7 of the Act adopted by the Supreme Rada.”
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Usov.
Mr USOV (Ukraine) – I am against the amendment because it is not true enough. In the initial law that was presented, article 7 contained the words that there would be teaching only in Ukrainian. There was then compromise between everyone. I personally saw the MPs, one of whom was a director of a Romanian national minority school before he was elected, be part of the discussion. Hungarians were part of the discussion. Please, let us agree that the amendment is not true enough.
The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – In favour by seven votes to six.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 2 is adopted.
I call Mr Corlăţean to support Amendment 3.
Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – The vote in the committee was seven against seven. I and my colleagues strongly support this factual reference to a previous resolution of this Assembly earlier this year, which referred to the situation in Ukraine on this topic.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Herkel.
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – I am against the amendment because the reference to the previous report is not an exact quotation. It was not solely about education but went a bit wider. Secondly, and more importantly, as I have said, we do not want to get into the field of the Venice Commission. It is taking a legal position, so I am against the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – It is against by seven votes to seven.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 3 is rejected.
I call Mr Corlăţean to support Amendment 4.
Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – This is a factual reference, but an important one. It states: “The Assembly takes note of serious concerns expressed on a number of legal issues.” It is extremely important to mention this in the report.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Dear colleagues, the amendment is not factual and again goes into the field of the Venice Commission. I am therefore against it.
The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – In favour by eight votes to six.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 4 is adopted.
We come now to Amendment 11, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 4 with the following paragraph: “According to Article 8 of the European Charter for Regional or Minority languages, ratified by Ukraine, the right to learn in a relevant regional or minority language at different levels of the education system has to be assured “without prejudice to the teaching of the official language(s) of the state”.”
I call Ms Kovács to support Amendment 11.
Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – Dear colleagues, I remind you all that the report is not about the official language, but about education in national minority languages. Our suggestion is not only about the principle, but about the legal obligation under Article 8 of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which was ratified by Ukraine. I remind you all that according to the Ukrainian constitution, reducing minority rights that have been acquired is not allowed.
The PRESIDENT – We come now to the oral sub-amendment to Amendment 11, tabled by Mr Herkel, which is, in Amendment 11 after the words “In the draft resolution” to delete the words “replace paragraph 4 with the following paragraph” and insert “add a new paragraph to paragraph 4”.
In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is the case, so the oral sub-amendment will not be debated.
Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 11? I call Mr Herkel to speak against the amendment.
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – I regret that my conciliatory approach in the oral sub-amendment was denied. The amendment would destroy the logic of the report. We must have paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 because they are interconnected. The first point in my approach is about the status of the State language, which must be maintained. The other points are about the rights of national minorities and about language as a tool of identity. I therefore oppose the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – On this, the committee has no opinion.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 11 is rejected.
I call Ms Kovács on a point of order.
Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – To clarify, at the committee meeting this morning when we heard about the oral sub-amendment, the movers of the amendment and the majority of committee members were against the sub-amendment, so the sub-amendment was not carried and then the –
The PRESIDENT – The vote has happened, Ms Kovács. I am sorry, but I cannot allow this. We shall move on.
I call Mr Corlăţean to support Amendment 12.
Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – The amendment is proposed by the Hungarian delegation, so you should invite our Hungarian colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to support the amendment? I call Ms Kovács.
Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – The amendment would delete the last sentence of paragraph 9, which says that “teaching solely in the minority language may disadvantage children of national minorities”. That cannot be true. Educational reform in Ukraine should concentrate on the teaching of Ukrainian to national minorities. We members of national minorities all think and dream in our mother tongue, and that is why we believe that people living in Ukraine should also study in their mother tongue.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Ariev.
Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – The amendment contradicts Article 8 of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which speaks of prejudice to the teaching of the language of the State. The paragraph states that teaching “solely” in the minority language could harm children’s chances in higher education. That is true – you all know that. Those who support the amendment are not for bilingualism but monolingualism. That is against the principles of the European charter.
The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – In favour seven to six. I apologise: it was nine to six.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 12 is adopted.
We now come to Amendment 13. If it is adopted, Amendments 6 and 7 fall. I call Ms Hoffmann to support Amendment 13.
Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – I propose deleting paragraph 10. There is no scientific evidence for determining the different percentages for the different languages. Another reason for the amendment is that Ukraine, in ratifying the charter, enters into certain obligations, not just to enhance bilingual education, but to ensure that education is provided in mother tongues.
The PRESIDENT– Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Herkel.
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – I would prefer to sacrifice the second sentence in paragraph 10 rather than lose the whole paragraph. How can anyone object to the first sentence? It proposes “a flexible model of bilingual education for all persons belonging to national minorities”. I do not understand. I therefore oppose the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Committee?
Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – In favour seven to six.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 13 is adopted.
I call Mr Corlăţean to support Amendment 8, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 13.
Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – Amendment 8 is extremely important. The report is about Ukraine’s language legislation, not other member States. The paragraph is also inaccurate. For example, in my country, we grant the maximum possible amount of monolingual education. We should delete the paragraph.
The PRESIDENT– I have been informed that Mr Herkel wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, which is, in Amendment 8, delete the words “delete paragraph 13” and replace them with, “replace paragraph 13 with the following text – ‘the Assembly recommends that the authorities of other countries, which legitimately call for the protection of their minorities, show readiness to offer to the Ukrainian communities resident in their respective countries similar arrangements to those that they claim for their own minorities.’”
In my opinion the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is the case.
We will therefore now consider the main amendment. Does anyone wish to speak against it? I call Mr Herkel.
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Again, my conciliatory approach has been destroyed by people standing up. I would therefore to prefer to keep the paragraph as it is. Reciprocity is important and I therefore oppose the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Committee?
Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – There was no opinion.
The PRESIDENT– The vote is open.
Amendment 8 is rejected.
I call Mr Corlăţean to support Amendment 9.
Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – The amendment proposes that the Ukrainian legislation should continue to be under the monitoring procedure of the Monitoring Committee.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Ariev.
Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – In adopting previous amendments, we have unbalanced the report. We should not give orders to the Monitoring Committee. Monitoring the situation is already within that committee’s competence and we do not need to include that in the text of the report.
The PRESIDENT– What is the opinion of the Committee?
Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – Against eight to seven.
The PRESIDENT– The vote is open.
Amendment 9 is rejected.
I call Ms Gorghiu to support Amendment 10, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 14, insert the following paragraph: “The Assembly asks the Ukrainian authorities to fully implement the forthcoming recommendations and conclusions of the Venice Commission and to modify the new Education Act accordingly.”
Ms GORGHIU (Romania) – The amendment asks the Ukrainian authorities to “fully implement the forthcoming recommendations and conclusions of the Venice Commission”. The paragraph represents a normal request, made to any member State, to follow the Venice Commission’s recommendations. I regret that Ukraine did not take that step before adopting the Act.
The PRESIDENT– I have been informed that Mr Ariev wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, which is, in Amendment 10, delete the end of the amendment after the words “Venice Commission”.
In my opinion the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? Yes.
We will therefore now consider the main amendment. Does anyone wish to speak against it? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – In favour 10 to seven.
The PRESIDENT– The vote is open.
Amendment 10 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 14, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 14, insert the following paragraph: “The Assembly recommends that Ukraine examines best practice in Council of Europe Member States in the field of teaching official languages, with special learning methods designed for schools using regional or minority languages as the language of education.”
I call Mr Németh to support Amendment 14. You have 30 seconds.
Mr NÉMETH (Hungary) – We support the need to increase the knowledge of Ukraine’s State language, but we do not support the destruction of the minority education system. We do not believe that that system should be destroyed in order to improve education of the State language. The amendment is about teaching the State language in the minority education system in a more professional manner.
The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Mr Herkel wishes to propose Oral Sub-Amendment 1, as follows: in Amendment 14 replace the words “after paragraph 14” with the words “after paragraph 13”.
In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?
That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Herkel to support his oral sub-amendment.
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – This is simply about the logic of the text: the paragraph should not be put at the end of the draft resolution.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – In favour by 11 votes to five.
The PRESIDENT – I will now put Oral Sub-Amendment 1 to the vote.
The vote is open.
Oral Sub-Amendment 1 is adopted.
I have been informed that Mr Ariev wishes to propose Oral Sub-Amendment 2, as follows: in Amendment 14 delete the amendment after “official languages”.
In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?
That is the case, so we will now consider the main amendment, as amended.
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended? I call Mr Ariev to speak against the amendment.
Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – The Committee on Culture, Science and Education is preparing a report that will consider the recommended model for member States. There are a lot of models in Europe and I do not think it is a good idea to recommend that Ukraine uses the current model to teach its State language before the Council of Europe has reached a decision.
The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment, as amended?
Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – No opinion.
The PRESIDENT – I call Ms Kovács on a point of order.
Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – Everybody on the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media saw Oral Sub-Amendment 2 being rejected, which means that the committee accepts Amendment 14.
The PRESIDENT – Does the Earl of Dundee stand by his original position?
Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – The committee’s secretariat has just clarified the position, which is that, while we rejected Mr Ariev’s oral sub-amendment, we were in favour of Mr Herkel’s proposal and of the amendment by 11 votes to five.
The PRESIDENT – The committee was therefore in favour.
I shall now put Amendment 14, as amended, to the vote.
The vote is open.
Amendment 14, as amended, is agreed to.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 14415, as amended.
The vote is open.
The draft resolution in Document 14415, as amended, is adopted, with 82 votes for, 11 against and 17 abstentions.
3. Prosecuting and punishing the crimes against humanity
or even possible genocide committed by Daesh
The PRESIDENT – We now come to the debate on the report titled “Prosecuting and punishing the crimes against humanity or even possible genocide committed by Daesh”, presented by Ms Sotnyk on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, with an opinion presented by Mr Daems on behalf of Ms Ćvarsdóttir, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.
In order to finish by 1 p.m. we must interrupt the list of speakers at about 12.35 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote. Are those arrangements agreed to? They are agreed to.
I remind you that the time limit on speeches this morning is three minutes.
I call Ms Sotnyk. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between your presentation of the report and your reply to the debate.
Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – I will present the report on behalf of my colleague Mr Omtzigt.
Has Daesh committed genocide? If so, what should we do about it? Those are the report’s two main questions. Daesh is well known for its indiscriminate bombing, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and for terrorist acts in cities including Paris, Istanbul, Brussels, London and many others. Until recently, it controlled a large part of land in Syria and Iraq. There is no doubt, and no one disputes, that Daesh has committed those crimes.
The central question addressed by the report is whether Daesh is committing genocide. The bar for genocide is high. Not only does the perpetrator has to attack members of a particular group; he or she must also intend to destroy the group in whole or in part. The report examines whether the crimes committed by Daesh reach the high threshold of genocide.
After careful analysis, we found that Daesh has committed genocide against Yazidi, Christian and non-Sunni Muslim minorities. In doing so, we reiterated the Assembly’s previous findings in January 2016 that Daesh committed genocide. Then, we were less specific about the groups affected. Since then, in June 2016, the United Nations inquiry into Syria also found that Daesh has committed genocide. Other parliamentary bodies, including the European Parliament, have made similar findings.
Why is it important to determine that Daesh has committed genocide? Under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, which all Council of Europe member States have signed, States have a duty to stop any genocide and to punish the perpetrators. Some actors have declined to take a position on that question, arguing that the finding of genocide should be left to a judicial body. The report respectfully disagrees. Waiting for a court, especially an international court, would simply take too long and, in the meantime, States would be left uncertain as to whether to act or how to act. That would render the genocide convention ineffective in practice. To determine whether something is genocide is a political responsibility that parties to the genocide convention must take upon themselves if they are serious about preventing and punishing genocide.
The evidence of genocide is extensive, with many well-documented examples of relevant criminal activity and of Daesh’s genocidal mind set. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights heard from one of the victims, Ms Nadia Murad, to whom the Assembly awarded the 2016 Václav Havel human rights prize. The rapporteur has also spoken directly to people collecting evidence and to those working at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
There are many things that the Assembly and European States should now do. First, we should be worried. There are thousands of Daesh fighters – many of whom are responsible for genocide – who hold passports for Council of Europe member States. This is the first time since the 1940s that so many Europeans have been involved in such crimes.
Secondly, we must punish the perpetrators who are within our jurisdictions: first and foremost, our own citizens. We should seek to punish the crime of genocide in accordance with the obligations under the genocide convention. Only as a last resort should we punish for lesser crimes, such as support for or association with a terrorist group. We should do that if it is necessary, but only as a last resort.
Thirdly, we should screen asylum applicants to ensure that victims are identified and properly protected, and that perpetrators are identified and denied protection and punished.
Fourthly, we must protect our own countries. Daesh fighters have already committed crimes in many European cities. We must ensure that returning fighters are not allowed to repeat such atrocities. Until now, it has been clear that national courts, especially in Iraq and Syria, but also in other countries, cannot or will not act. The draft resolution strongly encourages them all to do more.
In the meantime, we need an international court to intervene. The International Criminal Court is the obvious choice, but it has been prevented from acting under the three grounds of jurisdiction possible under the Rome Statute. First, neither Syria nor Iraq is party to the Rome Statute, and neither is likely to accept the ICC’s jurisdiction voluntarily. The draft resolution calls upon them to ratify the Rome Statute. Secondly, the Russian Federation and China vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that would have referred the situation in Syria to the ICC. The resolution we are debating calls upon all Council of Europe member States not to block future efforts to bring Daesh members to justice. Thirdly, the ICC prosecutor declined to open an investigation into possible crimes committed by Daesh members who are nationals of States party to the Rome Statute. The resolution calls on the prosecutor to reconsider the decision.
The resolution also suggests exploring other instruments, such as special judicial mechanisms. There could be special courts within the Iraqi national judicial system where Iraqi courts are assisted by international legal experts.
All those important recommendations pursue the same fundamental goal: justice for the many victims of Daesh’s terrible crimes. The report will send a signal of our continuing commitment to international justice and the rule of law, the protection of the innocent and the fight against extremism.
(Mr Ghiletchi, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in the place of Ms Kyriakides)
The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Sotnyk. You have six and a half minutes remaining. I call Mr Korodi to present the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. Mr Korodi, you have four minutes.
Mr KORODI (Romania) – The opinion of our co-rapporteur Ms Ćvarsdóttir agrees to a large extent with what the rapporteur from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights said. A crime against humanity has occurred. Genocide has taken place against Yazidi, Christian and non-Sunni minority groups. That is all the more intolerable given that the Parliamentary Assembly and its members have repeatedly sounded the alarm about those minority groups. That alarm was sounded back in 2012 in Resolution 2016 following the siege by so-called Islamic State in the Sinjar region. That same year, in his report on the situation in Aleppo, our colleague and former President Jean-Claude Mignon wrote: “The Assembly rightly underlined that persecution of religious and ethnic communities had steadily transformed into a full-scale lethal onslaught.”
Those repeated warnings went unheeded. Genocide took place, but how can justice be obtained? The ideal solution would involve an international court, but that prospect is for the time being impractical. We are left with the universal jurisdiction of national courts. According to an Amnesty International report, some countries have already gone down that path. In Germany and Sweden, individuals have been tried and convicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Syria on the basis of that universal jurisdiction.
In order for that jurisdiction to be exercised in practice, evidence has to be collected. The work that the United Nations’ Independent International Commission of Inquiry has done is important. It is the impartial independent mechanism to look into Syria. The investigative team was set up last September by a United Nations Security Council resolution to look into crimes committed by so-called Islamic State in Iraq. The report explains how important it is to ensure that mechanism and the investigative team are given secure budgetary resources, if possible going beyond the voluntary contributions called for by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights last March.
Furthermore, for justice to be done, it is important that national courts have extensive recourse to anti-terrorist legislation to convict members of so-called Islamic State. That is perfectly understandable given the imperative need to ensure national security. In parallel, they should also take the time to examine possible charges of crimes against humanity or genocide.
Genocide is a crime that strikes at the very heart of humanity. We owe it not only to victims but to ourselves to punish those who demonise their fellow human beings and who kill people whose only crime was to be born. All those considerations have led to the six amendments proposed to the Assembly by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Korodi.
We come now to the speakers’ list. I call first Mr Byrne.
Mr BYRNE (United Kingdom, spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – I rise to support this report. I congratulate the rapporteur and the committee on bringing it to our attention. The report is well timed and well judged, and it is essential that as the Council of Europe we approve it this morning.
We always knew that, as ISIS came under pressure in its heartland, it would lash out against countries abroad. All of us, over the past couple of years, have watched a catalogue of crime on our streets. We have watched, too, the phenomenon of foreign fighters in their thousands leave our countries to go and fight in a battle that then leads to hundreds of thousands of people seeking sanctuary in Europe. The attacks that we have seen on our streets are part of a broader pattern of horror that has been prosecuted in Syria and Iraq. We should call it by its name – its name is genocide. Councils around the world have stood up and insisted that genocide is what we have seen. Motions have been passed in the Council of Europe, in the European Parliament, in the Houses of Congress, and in the national assemblies of Britain, France, Austria, Lithuania, Canada, Australia and many more. The witnesses that have called out this crime include the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic. They have given us incontrovertible evidence of torture, beatings, rape and sexual slavery among the peoples of the Yazidis, Christians, and non-Sunni Muslims. The truth is that ISIS, Daesh – whatever we call it – hates diversity. It is a totalitarian regime that seeks to wipe out the diversity that we treasure here in Europe. It prosecutes this belief with a handbook known as “Management of Savagery”. It is an organised killing machine.
The problem, as the report sensibly sets out, is that we cannot prosecute these crimes in Syria or Iraq because they are not signatories to the Treaty of Rome, but each of us in our own countries could step up the fight by ensuring that we prosecute the foreign fighters who have come home and have now been caught. This is included in the package of measures proposed in this report. We have found ways of prosecuting genocide in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Lebanon, Bosnia, Cambodia, and East Timor. The Council of Europe was founded to stop totalitarian regimes prosecuting genocide, especially those in our common European home, and now that we have this crime on our doorstep, we must act. Some people think that we are caught in some epic clash of civilisations. That is not true. This is a clash between the civilised and a cult. We now need to call out the crime perpetrated by our enemies – the crime of genocide.
Ms GILLAN (United Kingdom, spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – It is a pleasure to follow my colleague from the United Kingdom. I speak on behalf of the European Conservative Group whereas he speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group, but I can honestly say that there is no difference between us in our attitude towards this report and debate. I congratulate the rapporteur and, on behalf of my political group, welcome this report. It is timely and, indeed, overdue. People looking at this Assembly will wonder why we have not been more effective in the past on this issue.
Many countries have made the judgment that whether genocide has occurred is a matter for judicial decision rather than for governments or non-judicial bodies, but it is obvious from all the reports and the evidence that has been taken that genocide has been committed, and we must look for a way to empower our international judicial mechanisms. As Iraq and Syria are not part of the ICC, it is not possible for the ICC even to open an investigation. However, I think we would all be pleased that on 21 September this year the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to adopt Resolution 2379 on Daesh accountability. It was a United Kingdom drafted resolution calling on the Secretary-General to establish an investigative team headed by a special adviser to collect, preserve and store evidence of Daesh crimes in Iraq. The resolution empowers that team to share evidence with any national prosecution authorities, not limited to Iraq, and leaves the door open for evidence-sharing with the ICC or another form of international process, with Iraqi consent. Other countries will be able to ask the team to assist them in due course. I am very pleased that my own government has already contributed Ł1 million in support of the resolution and the establishment of the team, as the rapporteur was concerned about how these matters would be financed. The special adviser will oversee the team, as well as promoting the need to hold Daesh accountable around the world.
There is no doubt that Daesh has been perpetrating a genocidal campaign against the Yazidis, Christians and non-Sunni Muslim minorities, and it has been waiting a long time for the international community to take action. Prosecuting Daesh fighters internationally only for terrorism crimes means that we fail to hold the perpetrators to account for the full range of their crimes. This report and resolution brings the weight of the Council of Europe to this problem. It is crucial that we find a way to bring Daesh to account internationally in a visible, credible and legitimate fashion.
Mr STEVANOVIĆ (Serbia, spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – Whatever ideology we are thinking about, there are some things on which we Europeans all agree. We look around Europe at neighbouring countries and see that heinous crimes have been committed. We have seen gross violations of human rights – in fact, the worst since Pol Pot.
(The speaker continued in English.)
It is time to consider this: did we fail in our neighbourhood? Were we able to do more to stop genocide and save the lives, freedom and property of the multicultural nation of Yazidis, non-Sunni Muslims and Kurds? Could we have acted before the potential start of the slaughter in Kobanî? Could we have rejected the trade with Daesh in the first years of the war? Did we feed the beast in the beginning by not acting against the shame of civilisation and the shame of Islam? Such bestiality understands only the language of military force. In order to prevent such disgusting forms of government in the future anywhere in the world, we have to prosecute the most violent war crimes, especially genocide. Pictures of practices from the middle ages in our backyard are reminders of the fragility of our values in our neighbourhood and a strong incentive to be tough keepers of our values. In addition, we must be honest. We, the core of Europe, but also geographical Europe, reacted late, though fortunately not too late. We must be aware that some of the Daesh beasts are citizens of Europe. It is therefore important to consider the causes of failed integration in some parts of our continent, as well as to understand the fears of a nation unwilling to host migrants. We are looking for a chance to act as geographical Europe empowered by common values.
Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey, spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – On behalf of the UEL, I generally welcome the report and the proposed resolution. I thank the rapporteur for his detailed work in order to discern the nature of the Daesh atrocities and its deliberately designed strategic activity with the final aim of the annihilation of non-Sunni and non-Arab communities and minorities in Syria, in Iraq, and possibly across the globe.
I have deliberately chosen the words “non-Sunni and non-Arab” and enlarged Daesh’s area of activity to possibly encompass the globe partly to detach myself from the report. If we take a closer look at Daesh activity, we see that they justify these atrocities within a narrow concept of jihad that encompasses the annihilation of all who do not bow before the will of their creed. On the other hand, in Syria and Iraq, the Kurds, who are mostly Sunni, have been directly targeted by Daesh for annihilation. They have survived, not because their creed is not targeted by Daesh, but because of their organisation and combat capacity to repel Daesh forces from Rojava – western Kurdistan. We should therefore keep in mind that Daesh’s genocidal aim is not limited to different beliefs but extends to non-Arab ethnicities, particularly the Kurds of Iraq and Syria.
As the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe extends its attention to settling matters with Daesh, and as the war with Daesh draws to a possible end, we should use this opportunity for self-criticism. We must not forget that the peoples of Syria in the hands of Daesh are paying the price of a miscalculated US-backed proxy war to realign forces in the Middle East. Their plight stems not only from Daesh’s ruthlessness but is an inevitable consequence of an Islam-based revolt that was apparently encouraged by the United States with no political programme or reliable leadership, never mind political calculation of the possible outcome.
The Assembly raised the issue as far back as 2013, but it is unfortunately not immune to the same myopic approach – the Assembly anticipated in its April 2012 Resolution 1878 that Assad’s regime was coming to an end. The near collapse of the regime has inevitably led the West, and particularly Ankara, to turn a blind eye to our complicity in the atrocities and massacres committed by the so-called moderate Free Syrian Army, at least 50% of which is comprised of jihadists linked to al-Qaeda, al-Nusra and other groups, who are no different from IS, as the report explicitly depicts. The western military support channel to the Free Syrian Army through Turkey’s border to promote forcible regime change was inevitably acquired by these ruthless reactionaries who have recently worked to unite to fight for the rule of sharia in Syria.
Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan, spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group)* – A while ago, I had the opportunity to talk to refugees from Iraq and Syria who had managed to flee the atrocities of Daesh. Iraqi Turkmen representatives mentioned that Daesh had committed horrifying murders against the Turkmens in Iraq, and they said that international organisations, including the Parliamentary Assembly, had failed to support them. They all called out for your help.
Around 20 days ago, we had the opportunity to talk to refugees who had fled Syria to seek refuge in Turkey. These people, from Türkmen Dağı and Bayirbucak in Syria, were placed in refugee camps in Hatay, close to the Syrian border, and they repeated that international organisations and European countries had failed to play an active role. They reiterated the call for more support from you. All peoples of the region who have suffered from Daesh aggression expect your help. In fact, they have all said that their neighbour, Turkey, has shown the most concrete support, and they have unequivocally thanked Turkey for embracing them.
Daesh is a terrorist organisation, and we could discuss at length which powers and whose interests it is serving. One thing is clear, Daesh is mainly harming Muslims. In Turkey, for example, 304 innocent people have lost their life in 14 different terrorist attacks carried out by Daesh. It is imperative that European countries and European organisations support countries such as Turkey that are fighting Daesh.
We must work collectively to ensure that those who perpetrate these crimes are brought to justice. My country is predominantly Muslim, and it is taking important steps to fight Daesh because Azerbaijan has suffered greatly from terrorist organisations supported by Armenia. Some politicians in Europe are using Daesh as a pretext to campaign against Islam and Muslims. We must firmly reject those efforts. Inciting Islamophobia will have disastrous results. Such irresponsible statements only serve the interests of Daesh.
Mr NÉMETH (Hungary, spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – Congratulating the rapporteur is usually a formality, but we have to congratulate Pieter Omtzigt openly and loudly on preparing this report, although he cannot be with us today.
The conflict in the Middle East is the most challenging in today’s world. There are hundreds of thousands of victims, and the brutality, sexual exploitation, slavery and total negation of humanity is shameful. Unfortunately, we in the West have not properly reflected on those developments in the 21st century, and it is now our task to respond properly. The report rightly focuses on the Yazidi, Christian and Shia communities, which are the main targets of Daesh. It is high time to speak openly about genocide against those communities.
There is an important conference today in Budapest on the persecution of Christians in the Middle East, Many ask, “Where is Christian solidarity at the beginning of the 21st century?” Others ask, “Is it legitimate to speak about Christian solidarity?” Even liberal members of the church hierarchy tell the public that talking about the persecution of Christians or the positive treatment of Christian refugees in our countries is problematic and discriminatory. Is it discriminatory for our western civilisations to exercise Christian solidarity with persecuted Christians?
Middle East Christians require a united military and political approach to prosecute those who have committed the crime of genocide. They require help to reconstruct their cities, churches, schools and hospitals. That is our historic and moral obligation.
Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – I speak on my own behalf, but my speech continues on from what Mr Németh said. We are learning, and we are teaching our children, about the nature of war. I see what authors write in the handbooks: war is about oil; war is about State borders; perhaps war is about a river – all those things are wrong. One famous political scientist of the 20th and 21st centuries is Zbigniew Brzezinski. He calculated that, in the 20th century approximately 100 million people were killed. However, they were not killed because of oil; they were killed for their beliefs and for their spirit. The biggest wars are about beliefs.
Today, we have finally started to speak, but the problem is that genocide is caused by religious belief. Unfortunately, in Europe – here I agree with Mr Németh – we are used to saying that religion is not important. It is something that happens in people’s houses, and it is not fashionable to talk about it. It is like gardening or fishing. In reality, however, religion is extremely important, and those who come from the Middle East are astonished that we do not understand what is going on. The major wars are about our beliefs. We must radically change our attitude and the essence and nature of war. Without doing that, we will not understand why genocide happens. We are not being asked to go with weapons and kill people; we are being asked to understand what is going on in that region.
I slightly disagree with my British colleague, Mr Byrne, who said that we must fight for diversity. Rather, we will be successful if we can be the peacemakers between different religious beliefs. Fighting for diversity could also involve conflict. My idea is to follow the report and think about how the Council of Europe, which is supposed also to fight for the spiritual side of democracy, can become a peacemaker in these religious conflicts.
Mr MAKHMUDYAN (Armenia)* – I thank the rapporteur for raising this important topic. This issue is of great importance to us all, and particularly to me because I am here in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe not just as a member of the Armenian Parliament, but as a representative of the Yazidi community in Armenia. The Near East is the cradle of many civilisations and religions. What has happened over the past few years in Syria, and particularly in Iraq, has been a crime against humanity and civilisation.
We must not be deluded when speaking about violence against religious minorities that is perpetrated in the name of another religion. Atrocities committed by so-called Islamic State, or Daesh, or by the Al-Nusra Front or other terrorist groups, were crimes against the civilised world. These terrorist groups benefit to a great extent from foreign fighters and funding streams that come from abroad, and they constitute a genuine threat to the existence of entire religious and ethnic communities. The fight against these terrorists should therefore take place within the framework of the prevention of genocide. In this day and age, Christianity in the Near East is also under threat, although violence perpetrated against Christians in that region is no new phenomenon. I am proud that I can represent the Yazidi community of Armenia here in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and that is possible thanks to an irreversible democratic reform.
Armenia spoke out about the heinous crimes perpetrated by the terrorist groups that I have mentioned, including crimes against the Yazidis in northern Iraq. According to a United Nations report, in August 2014 more than 5 000 Yazidis were killed by Daesh, and after that date the number of victims increased. That happened before our eyes in the so-called modern, developed world, and all we did was express “condemnation”, as has happened in cases of genocide over the past century or so.
In that context, it is important to note that, in 2016, the Vŕclav Havel human rights prize was awarded by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to Nadia Murad, who is a survivor of the genocide perpetrated against the Yazidis and a human rights defender. I had the privilege of hearing her story when she came to Armenia. She was there to take part in the Second Global Forum Against the Crime of Genocide, and the leitmotif on that occasion was to hear the living testimonies of those who had experienced genocide.
Nadia said that the genocide against millions of Armenians had caused loss of life and was still spoken about with great pain a century later. I am sure that the events we have witnessed with Daesh, and this form of genocide, are also crimes that we will speak about with pain for many years to come. We need to break this cycle and find a mechanism to put an end to these heinous atrocities.
The PRESIDENT – I remind colleagues that the speaking time today is three minutes.
Ms TOPCU (Turkey) – ISIS, which in Syria, Iraq and other countries, has destroyed a cultural and humanitarian heritage that was more than 1 000 years old, has nothing to do with Islam. Since it targets humanitarian values, it is impossible to legitimise its acts on religious or political grounds. Whether we call it ISIS, Daesh, or IS, it has threatened the lives of each and every person on earth. It is our responsibility to condemn its acts and to co-operate and fight against it. In order to do that properly, we should protect any kind of freedom, and try not to attack terrorism as if it is a specific belief or a group of believers, and we must not give credit to those who try to exploit it as a response to domestic oppression.
Countering terrorism is first and foremost a matter of mentality. Ignoring cruelty is an act of cruelty. Terror is the greatest enemy of humankind, and it does not hold a religious, ethnic, racial, local or regional identity. There is no such thing as the marginalisation of terror or an embarrassment of terrorism. Unless there is a clear intention, a concentrated road map and strong co-operation, we cannot combat terrorism. It is important to take immediate action, and establish an efficient and determined international mechanism in order for humanity and the modern world to survive. All nations should unite, act determinedly, and show a strong will against the threat of terrorism.
Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan) – Unfortunately, crimes against humanity have happened before and are still happening now, despite all the international rules, conventions and so on. Probably every conflict has its own story of horror and loss. I come from Azerbaijan, which has its own history. The brutal extermination of hundreds of peaceful people in Khojaly is one of the bloodiest crimes committed by Armenia on Azerbaijani territory. As a result of that massacre, 613 people were killed just because they were Azeris. Mass murder, scalping and beheadings committed by Armenians in Khojaly have been documented by a number of media representatives. Perhaps if that massacre were given proper and timely legal assessment, and if the world community cared more about the human, rather than the political, aspects of war, and reacted immediately by prosecuting those who are guilty and openly declare themselves so, we would not have Daesh today.
I am sure that all of us have already got accustomed to videos uploaded by Daesh and then enthusiastically spread by the media, in which Daesh soldiers invent new forms of execution. More often, we may observe children in the role of executioners. Children also become soldiers. The soldiers of Islamic State commit terrible acts of sexual violence against women, girls and boys. Daesh kidnaps entire families for sexual violence and turns them into slaves. The number of women and children is increasing among the fighters against Islamic State. From the series of horrific stories that people have had to endure after the bloody attacks of Islamic State, violence against women is perhaps the saddest topic for discussion because they are subject to sexual violence.
Daesh claims itself as an Islamic organisation fighting for the restoration of the caliphate, but its acts have nothing to do with real Islam. It is just another form of war but crueller. Why do we not pay due attention to such crimes against humanity? Such atrocities are not met with a worthy reaction except censure. Why are public executions, murders, rapes, slavery and exploitation treated as secondary issues? Why is all the attention paid to military issues such as attacks, airstrikes and explosions while no proper attention is given to the problems of children and women? They must be seen as another fierce terrorist tactic. The reaction to the violence is limited only by condemnation or justification of terrorist actions.
These issues need to be discussed openly with other aspects of war and conflicts. Violence carried out by the terrorists will have a long-term and destructive impact on women and children who have become victims of violence and survived. Women and children should be protected politically and economically. We should not wait and observe; we have to react in time, otherwise these types of genocide and massacres, and the use of women and children as weapons will become a usual part of war that does not recognise any law, convention or decision.
Mr DIVINA (Italy)* – We are all horrifically struck and our emotions touched by the terrible images we have seen. We do not understand it. It is totally incomprehensible that these particular networks have links even at certain government levels. These are not run-of-the-mill crimes by any stretch of the imagination. They are something much more profound. We are speaking about genocide not only of Yazidis, but Christians, Shiite Muslims and Kurds. Fortunately, the Kurds have been the first to react in a world that has been reduced and fallen on its knees before these horrific events. The Kurdish issue has still not come to an end. Even after the referendum, we still have not discussed this matter in this Chamber to decide what our position is on the Kurdish independence date.
The individuals who are committing these crimes have to be punished and sanctioned. We need to have some sort of mechanism in place to deliver justice and hold these people accountable. Fortunately, we have individuals who are returning and going back home. I am speaking about foreign fighters. People have been coming back to Europe. This is good on the one hand, but on the other we have no proper filtering system to see who these people are and what they have done. No prosecuting authorities have approached these individuals, who are simply filtering back into Europe. In one sense it is good, but in another these people have to be held accountable for what they have done. This is a totally absurd situation. For example, an Italian citizen who commits a slight misdemeanour such as a traffic violation is prosecuted, but an Italian returning from these parts – a foreign fighter – simply slips back into society and continues living normally in society to a certain extent. This is a totally unacceptable situation. We have to have some kind of situation in place. These individuals have to be prosecuted and held accountable for the criminal acts they have committed.
Ms BÎZGAN-GAYRAL (Romania) – Dear colleagues, I salute our joint commitment to prosecute and punish the crimes against humanity and genocide committed by Daesh. The horror of the Daesh regime is enhanced by the treatment applied to women and girls. What women captured by ISIS and kept as slaves endure is way more than just sexual violence. It is a systematic attempt to wipe them out – and, with them, their entire people.
The survivors’ testimonies should make the whole world understand that women seized by ISIS are not merely sex slaves. This term diminishes the trauma. They endure unspeakable brutality at the hands of their captors, who routinely kidnap women and children in modern slavery in ISIS-controlled territories. Women there have all their human rights removed. They are taken away from their homes and their children. Their families are killed or separated. Every aspect of their lives is controlled. ISIS is effectively raping them out of existence, one horrific assault at a time. As more than one researcher, activist or journalist puts it, a major problem is that women’s voices are still not considered legitimate. Women’s war experience is reduced to their sexual treatment. Even so, rape and sexual violence in conflict zones remain crimes that are under-reported and under-discussed.
I remind the Assembly that, since 2008, the United Nations Security Council has indicated that, “rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute a war crime, a crime against humanity, or a constitutive act with respect to genocide". Rape and sexual violence in conflict cannot be treated as insignificant. The impact of the crimes committed by Daesh against girls and women is devastating. Girls and women are subjected to physical and psychological harm. If they survive the attack and the abuse, they will likely struggle with mental and physical injuries. They will also carry the social stigma associated with the sexual nature of the abuse they have suffered.
It is crucial to address the issue of rape and sexual violence in conflict, and the particular atrocities committed by Daesh should be an essential focus of our efforts. Rape and sexual violence are as unacceptable in faraway conflicts as they are in day-to-day life here in Europe. Let us speak up and speak out: no more violence against women and girls.
Mr WHALEN (Canada, Observer) – Fellow parliamentarians, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. I also thank the rapporteur for his detailed report, which fairly and honestly characterises the investigations, issues and challenges relating to the horrific crimes committed by Daesh in Syria and Iraq, and their future prosecution.
As stated in the preamble of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, atrocities committed against children, women and men are a threat to peace, security and the well-being of the world. As such, these serious crimes must not go unpunished. As we saw and continue to see in the media and through government and non-governmental organisations and their reports, Daesh members and their commanders in particular have committed numerous war crimes, crimes against humanity and even crimes of genocide against innocent civilians and religious and ethnic minorities. This is well documented, especially by the United Nations’ Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic. All this is recalled in the report.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, including us observers, is at the forefront in promoting justice and accountability. As one of the first States to be party to the ICC and to incorporate the Rome Statute into its domestic law in 2000, Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act provides for universal jurisdiction for international crimes committed outside Canada, as if the person was present in our country. There is no place to hide.
On 16 June 2016, Canada’s then Foreign Affairs Minister, Stéphane Dion, declared in our parliament that genocide against the Yazidis was ongoing and called on the United Nations Security Council to take urgent action. This genocide has also been recognised by a motion in our parliament. In addition, several of our parliamentary committees have conducted studies of the violence committed by Daesh. In particular, the House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights released a report in April entitled, “The Day After: Planning for the Protection of Religious and Ethnic Minorities in a Post-Daesh Iraq”, which discusses and makes recommendations related to accountability and the prosecution of these crimes. Our Government has also taken action, for example, by seeking to enhance stability, addressing drivers of conflict and promoting accountability for international crimes through the Peace and Stabilisation Operations Programme, and by supporting the Commission for International Justice and Accountability.
As parliamentarians, we have a leadership role to play in leading our respective governments towards ensuring that Daesh members who have committed atrocities are tried before a court of law, that affected civilian populations receive justice and that their cycle of hate is broken.
Ms KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR (Turkey) – I thank rapporteur Mr Omtzigt for bringing this crucial topic before the Council. Four years ago, a terrible tragedy began for the Yazidi community after the Peshmerga forces withdrew from Sinjar in the face of Daesh’s attack. People were massacred systematically only because of their religious belief and nationalities. Yazidi women were raped and women and children enslaved, and little boys were used as soldiers and even as suicide bombers. After the occupation of Sinjar by Daesh, more than 5 000 women and children were forcibly detained and sold in the slave market.
Unfortunately, in the 21st century, humanity once again witnessed genocide and almost the entire world was silent in the face of this terrible atrocity. When Daesh attacked, thousands of Yazidis managed to escape though the corridor that was opened by Kurdish fighters. The danger facing the Yazidi community still persists. Countless women and children are still in the hands of Daesh. Today Yazidis, non-Muslim communities and – regardless of nationality – all women who are exposed to war crimes do not need more meetings or awards ceremonies. They need justice. As Mr Omtzigt said, countries must immediately pave the way for proper judicial investigations against Daesh.
We all know that international jurisdiction is not safe from political and economic interests. For instance, it is known that the leaders and the nationals of NATO member States and their allies will probably never have to answer in an international court. Political leaders who branded Milošević as “The Butcher of Belgrade” and established tribunals for crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda are reluctant to take action for folks in Syria and Iraq today. Perhaps governments are avoiding fighting against crimes against humanity because the conflicts of interest on Iraq and Syria are not over yet and each government is more interested in getting more power in the region than in fighting against genocide.
The need to pave the way for proper judicial investigations against Daesh is urgent. For that reason, any country that ignores the crimes of Daesh or implicitly supports those crimes must answer to international jurisdiction. I strongly support this report. In order to prevent the emergence of new Daeshs, war crimes must be investigated by all means. Otherwise, we might as well rip up the genocide convention as a worthless piece of paper, as Mr Omtzigt suggested.
Mr WIECHEL (Sweden) – As someone who has closely followed the international struggle towards defeating Islamic State, I am deeply grateful to Mr Omtzigt and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for having so thoroughly documented that awful group’s despicable acts against humanity, especially against Yazidis, Christians, Shia Muslims and other Sunni Muslim minorities in the Iraq and Syrian regions, where the group recently held sway but fortunately no longer does.
The rapporteur admirably analyses the complications in concluding formally and internationally what we all feel took place – namely genocide – thereby closing the door to consideration by the International Criminal Court, where the Islamic State atrocities naturally belong. He also deals with how in this situation it is down to our individual countries to decide in favour of calling this genocide and to share any information that could help to bring former Islamic State terrorists to justice not only that basis, but on the basis of the crimes of which they are accused.
As the report points out, we have many Islamic State returnees in our countries, who may have committed horrible crimes but who live their lives unpunished and might even receive benefits paid for by our taxpayers. That is morally wrong and has a devastating, corrosive effect on the fabric of our societies. If our countries, individually or collectively, can agree to label as genocide what Islamic State did to the minorities concerned, we can either expel such people from our territories or put them behind bars and make them pay for their crimes. We must prevent them from carrying out further terrorist attacks and, dear colleagues and friends, they have to be punished.
In this Chamber today, we have to give our full support to this excellent report. We need to remember the terrible truth about Islamic State: not only do they ruthlessly murder at random, but they have done their best to systematically eradicate ethnic or religious groups through genocide, as happened during their recent reign of terror in the Middle-East.
Mr ABUSHAHLA (Palestine, Partner for Democracy) – Thank you to the rapporteur for the comprehensive report and thank you for the amendments, which state that Sunni Muslims, and not just non-Sunni Muslims, are also victims of Daesh.
Daesh is terrorism. Al-Qaeda is terrorism. Killing people in the streets of Europe, Arab countries and Turkey is terrorism. The killing of innocent people in the United States or anywhere by killers with weapons licences is also terrorism. Settlers burning families in Jerusalem, including Mohammed Abu Khdeir, a child, and the Dawabsheh family, is terrorism. Terrorism has no religion. It is the enemy of humanity everywhere. Terrorism has causes, so we have to treat them and eradicate the roots that promote the likes of Daesh, and we have to expand the investigation to find and deal with the roots of terrorism, such as the instability in the Middle East. The continuing, unsolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a major cause of terrorism in our area and its effects are felt all over the world. The international world and especially the Council of Europe should concentrate on finding the roots of terrorism and work on managing and treating them in order to eradicate terrorism.
The PRESIDENT – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate, but have not been able to speak, may be given to the Table Office for publication in the Official Report. I remind colleagues that typewritten texts can be submitted, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted.
I call Ms Sotnyk to reply. You have six minutes and 30 seconds.
Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – Mr President, I am sure that you would agree that one of the main priorities of our member States and our countries is national security. Prosecuting and punishing crimes against humanity and the genocide committed by Daesh is part of that.
Several speakers have mentioned crimes committed by Daesh against Sunni Muslims in Turkey. The report acknowledges those facts and they are reflected in the resolution. The focus of the report is on how to ensure that crimes committed in Syria and Iraq are punished. That is why there is such strong emphasis on genocide. If States recognise genocide against the Yazidi, Christian and non-Sunni Muslim minorities, they will have to act – the Genocide convention obliges that. To maintain that emphasis does not minimise the importance of punishing other crimes; it simply maintains the legal and geographical focus of the report.
The report mentions that we need to work closely with the United Nations to find effective solutions together. Many of you said that the main thing we need to do is to act. That is the main message of the resolution. Yes, there is a challenge in finding a way to make Daesh responsible for the genocide and to make sure that that will be legal and at the same time effective. The resolution also calls upon member States to proceed within their own jurisdictions – to do our homework. That is something we can do now. There are many possible actions we can take to protect our streets and our citizens. We need to not just react, but act. That is what the report is about.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Sotnyk. Would you like to speak on behalf of the committee, Mr Schwabe?
Mr SCHWABE (Germany)* – I thank Mr Omtzigt, who is not here due to his responsibilities in the Netherlands. The report is a very good one and it makes clear the importance of prosecuting and punishing crimes committed by Daesh. We have seen the situation and its consequences in Iraq and the numerous refugees that have resulted.
What became clear in the debate is that there are numerous different issues. We are speaking about Christians, Muslims, Yazidis. Recently, I was at the international court in The Hague. It is clear what sort of pressure exists on the court. We find ourselves in a historic period. After many years and numerous different changes, it is clear that the responsibilities and the remit of the court will have to be redefined. It is also very important for international institutions, such as us, the United Nations and other agencies, to protect human rights. We have to work together. A concerted effort in international co-operation is absolutely imperative to really move forward on the human rights front.
We have had a very important debate that has touched on all those different issues. In committee, we also had lengthy discussion on the various amendments. There are certain aspects not included in the framework of the report because they did not fall within its scope. None the less, we had a very long debate and I feel that the text we have come up with is a successful one.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Schwabe.
The debate is closed.
The Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee has presented a draft resolution to which 12 amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.
I understand that the representative of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 3 to 5 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.
Is that so, Mr Schwabe?
Mr SCHWABE (Germany) – Yes.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? That is not the case.
As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 3 to 5 to the draft resolution have been agreed.
Amendments 3 to 5 are adopted.
We come to Amendment 7.
I do not see Mr Küçükcan. As he is not here, does anyone else wish to move the amendment? That is not the case, which means that the amendment falls.
We come to Amendment 8. Is anyone willing to move the amendment as Mr Küçükcan is not here? That is not the case, which means that the amendment falls.
We come to Amendment 9. Is anyone willing to move the amendment, as Mr Küçükcan is not here? That is not the case, which means that the amendment falls.
We come to Amendment 11. I call Ms Eberle-Strub to support the amendment.
Ms EBERLE-STRUB (Liechtenstein)* – I do not wish to move the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – Does anybody else wish to move the amendment? That is not the case.
Amendment 11 is not moved.
We come to Amendment 12. I call Ms Eberle-Strub to support the amendment.
Ms EBERLE-STRUB (Liechtenstein)* – I do not wish to move the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – Does anybody else wish to move the amendment? That is not the case.
Amendment 12 is not moved.
We come to Amendment 10. Is anybody willing to move the amendment, as Mr Küçükcan is not here? That is not the case, which means that the amendment falls.
We come to Amendment 1. I call Mr Daems to support the amendment on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.
Mr DAEMS (Belgium)* – Paragraph 6.2.1 talks of using universal competences to bring to justice those who are covered by the Rome Statute of the ICC. It so happens that the Swedish and German courts have recently sentenced people for crimes against humanity. The amendment refers to that new development and reinforces paragraph 6.2.1.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr SCHWABE (Germany) – It was approved by a large majority.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 1 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 2. I call Mr Daems to support the amendment on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.
Mr DAEMS (Belgium)* – The amendment concerns the importance of not just relying on anti-terrorist legislation in sentencing people who have been responsible for crimes against humanity and genocide.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr SCHWABE (Germany) – It was approved by a large majority.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 2 is adopted.
I call Mr Daems to support Amendment 6 on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.
Mr DAEMS (Belgium)* – The amendment would co-ordinate things and update the draft resolution. It refers to the investigative team in Iraq, which was set up after the drafting of the opinion by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr SCHWABE (Germany) – The amendment was approved by a large majority.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 6 is adopted.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 14402, as amended.
The vote is open.
The draft resolution in Document 14402, as amended, is adopted, with 67 votes for, none against and four abstentions.
I congratulate Mr Omtzigt, the rapporteur of the committee, on his excellent work. [Applause.] Yes, you may applaud. The report deserves our applause.
4. Next public business
The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 4.30 p.m. with the agenda that was approved on Monday.
The sitting is closed.
(The sitting was closed at 12.50 p.m.)
CONTENTS
1. Changes in the membership of committees
2. Debate under urgent procedure: The new Ukrainian law on education: a major impediment to the teaching of national minorities’ mother tongues
Presentation by Mr Herkel of the report the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Document 14415.
Speakers: Mr Corlăţean, Mr Howell, Ms Pallarés, Ms Johnsson Fornarve, Mr Fischer, Mr Ariev, Mr Badea, Mr Batrincea, Mr Preda, Mr Usov, Mr Korodi, Mr Németh, Ms Finckh-Krämer, Mr Bereza
Draft resolution in Document 14415, as amended, adopted
3. Prosecuting and punishing the crimes against humanity or even possible genocide committed by Daesh
Presentation by Ms Sotnyk of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 14402
Presentation by Mr Daems of the opinion of the Committee Political Affairs and Democracy, Document 14418
Speakers: Mr Byrne, Ms Gillan, Mr Stevanović, Mr Kürkçü, Ms Pashayeva, Mr Németh, Mr Vareikis, Mr Makhmudyan, Ms Topcu, Ms Fataliyeva, Mr Divina, Ms Bîzgan-Gayral, Mr Whalen, Ms Kerestecioğlu Demir, Mr Wiechel, Mr Abushahla
Draft resolution in Document 14402, as amended, adopted
4. Next public business
Appendix / Annexe
Representatives or Substitutes who signed the register of attendance in accordance with Rule 12.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of members substituted follow (in brackets) the names of participating members.
Liste des représentants ou suppléants ayant signé le registre de présence, conformément ŕ l’article 12.2 du Rčglement. Le nom des personnes remplacées suit celui des Membres remplaçant, entre parenthčses.
ĹBERG, Boriana [Ms]
ALEKSANDROV, Nikolay [Mr] (BOGDANOV, Krasimir [Mr])
ANDERSON, Donald [Lord]
ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]
ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]
BADEA, Viorel Riceard [M.] (BRĂILOIU, Tit-Liviu [Mr])
BARTOS, Mónika [Ms] (CSÖBÖR, Katalin [Mme])
BATRINCEA, Vlad [Mr]
BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr]
BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr]
BEUS RICHEMBERGH, Goran [Mr]
BILDARRATZ, Jokin [Mr]
BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]
BÎZGAN-GAYRAL, Oana-Mioara [Ms] (PRUNĂ, Cristina-Mădălina [Ms])
BOSIĆ, Mladen [Mr]
BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme]
BRUIJN-WEZEMAN, Reina de [Ms] (MULDER, Anne [Mr])
BUDNER, Margareta [Ms]
BUSTINDUY, Pablo [Mr] (BALLESTER, Ángela [Ms])
BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr]
CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]
CORLĂŢEAN, Titus [Mr]
DAEMS, Hendrik [Mr] (BLANCHART, Philippe [M.])
D’AMBROSIO, Vanessa [Ms]
DAMYANOVA, Milena [Mme]
DAVIES, Geraint [Mr]
DE TEMMERMAN, Jennifer [Mme]
DEMETER, Márta [Ms] (GYÖNGYÖSI, Márton [Mr])
DESTREBECQ, Olivier [M.]
DIVINA, Sergio [Mr]
DURANTON, Nicole [Mme]
DZHEMILIEV, Mustafa [Mr]
EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]
ESTRELA, Edite [Mme] (ROSETA, Helena [Mme])
FATALIYEVA, Sevinj [Ms] (MAMMADOV, Muslum [M.])
FILIPOVSKI, Dubravka [Ms] (ZZ...)
FINCKH-KRÄMER, Ute [Ms]
FISCHER, Axel [Mr]
FOULKES, George [Lord] (CRAUSBY, David [Mr])
GAILLOT, Albane [Mme]
GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme]
GERMANN, Hannes [Mr] (FIALA, Doris [Mme])
GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]
GILLAN, Cheryl [Ms]
GIRO, Francesco Maria [Mr]
GODSKESEN, Ingebjřrg [Ms] (WOLD, Morten [Mr])
GOLUB, Vladyslav [Mr] (LABAZIUK, Serhiy [Mr])
GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.]
GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms]
GRECH, Etienne [Mr] (CUTAJAR, Rosianne [Ms])
GRIN, Jean-Pierre [M.] (MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr])
GÜNAY, Emine Nur [Ms]
GUZENINA, Maria [Ms]
HAJDUKOVIĆ, Domagoj [Mr]
HAMID, Hamid [Mr]
HANŽEK, Matjaž [Mr] (ŠKOBERNE, Jan [Mr])
HEER, Alfred [Mr]
HERKEL, Andres [Mr] (NOVIKOV, Andrei [Mr])
HOFFMANN, Rózsa [Mme] (VEJKEY, Imre [Mr])
HONKONEN, Petri [Mr] (ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms])
HOPKINS, Maura [Ms]
HOWELL, John [Mr]
HUSEYNOV, Vusal [Mr] (HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr])
JANSSON, Eva-Lena [Ms] (GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr])
JOHNSSON FORNARVE, Lotta [Ms] (KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr])
KALMARI, Anne [Ms]
KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR, Filiz [Ms]
KESİCİ, İlhan [Mr]
KOÇ, Haluk [M.]
KORODI, Attila [Mr]
KOVÁCS, Elvira [Ms]
KOX, Tiny [Mr]
KRIŠTO, Borjana [Ms]
KÜÇÜKCAN, Talip [Mr]
KÜRKÇÜ, Ertuğrul [Mr]
LAMBERT, Jérôme [M.]
LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.]
LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]
LOUIS, Alexandra [Mme]
LUCHERINI, Carlo [Mr] (BERTUZZI, Maria Teresa [Ms])
LUPU, Marian [Mr] (BULIGA, Valentina [Mme])
MAHOUX, Philippe [M.]
MAIRE, Jacques [M.]
MAKHMUDYAN, Rustam [Mr] (FARMANYAN, Samvel [Mr])
MALLIA, Emanuel [Mr]
MARKOVIĆ, Milica [Mme]
MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme]
MEIMARAKIS, Evangelos [Mr]
MERGEN, Martine [Mme] (HETTO-GAASCH, Françoise [Mme])
MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr] (HALICKI, Andrzej [Mr])
NĚMCOVÁ, Miroslava [Ms] (ZELIENKOVÁ, Kristýna [Ms])
NÉMETH, Zsolt [Mr]
OHLSSON, Carina [Ms]
ÖNAL, Suat [Mr]
O’REILLY, Joseph [Mr]
PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms]
PANTIĆ PILJA, Biljana [Ms]
PARVIAINEN, Olli-Poika [Mr] (PELKONEN, Jaana Maarit [Ms])
PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms]
PECKOVÁ, Gabriela [Ms] (KOSTŘICA, Rom [Mr])
POCIEJ, Aleksander [M.] (KLICH, Bogdan [Mr])
POPA, Ion [M.] (PLEȘOIANU, Liviu Ioan Adrian [Mr])
POSTOICO, Maria [Mme] (VORONIN, Vladimir [M.])
PREDA, Cezar Florin [M.]
PSYCHOGIOS, Georgios [Mr] (KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms])
RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme] (JORDANA, Carles [M.])
RIGONI, Andrea [Mr]
ROCA, Jordi [Mr] (BARREIRO, José Manuel [Mr])
RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Melisa [Ms]
RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Soraya [Mme]
RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]
SANDBĆK, Ulla [Ms] (JENSEN, Mogens [Mr])
SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]
SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER, Elisabeth [Mme] (LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.])
SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]
SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]
ŠEPIĆ, Senad [Mr]
SEYIDOV, Samad [Mr]
SHARMA, Virendra [Mr]
SILVA, Adăo [M.]
ŠIRCELJ, Andrej [Mr]
SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]
SOTNYK, Olena [Ms]
ȘTEFAN, Corneliu [Mr]
STELLINI, David [Mr]
STEVANOVIĆ, Aleksandar [Mr]
STROE, Ionuț-Marian [Mr]
SUTTER, Petra De [Ms] (THIÉRY, Damien [M.])
TAQUET, Adrien [M.] (SORRE, Bertrand [M.])
TILKI, Attila [Mr] (CSENGER-ZALÁN, Zsolt [Mr])
TOPCU, Zühal [Ms]
TORNARE, Manuel [M.] (FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.])
TRISSE, Nicole [Mme]
TUȘA, Adriana Diana [Ms]
USOV, Kostiantyn [Mr] (GONCHARENKO, Oleksii [Mr])
VÁHALOVÁ, Dana [Ms]
VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]
VARVITSIOTIS, Miltiadis [Mr] (BAKOYANNIS, Theodora [Ms])
VEN, Mart van de [Mr]
VOVK, Viktor [Mr] (LIASHKO, Oleh [Mr])
WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]
WIECHEL, Markus [Mr] (NISSINEN, Johan [Mr])
WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr]
YEMETS, Leonid [Mr]
ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr]
ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme]
Also signed the register / Ont également signé le registre
Representatives or Substitutes not authorised to vote / Représentants ou suppléants non autorisés ŕ voter
BYRNE, Liam [Mr]
CORREIA, Telmo [M.]
HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr]
LOPUSHANSKYI, Andrii [Mr]
LOUHELAINEN, Anne [Ms]
MARUKYAN, Edmon [Mr]
MELKUMYAN, Mikayel [M.]
MURRAY, Ian [Mr]
NAGHDALYAN, Hermine [Ms]
NAUDI ZAMORA, Víctor [M.]
THIÉRY, Damien [M.]
Observers / Observateurs
LARIOS CÓRDOVA, Héctor [Mr]
RAMÍREZ NÚŃEZ, Ulises [Mr]
SANTANA GARCÍA, José de Jesús [Mr]
SIMMS, Scott [Mr]
TILSON, David [Mr]
WELLS, David M. [Mr]
WHALEN, Nick [Mr]
Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie
ABUSHAHLA, Mohammedfaisal [Mr]
AMRAOUI, Allal [M.]
BOUANOU, Abdellah [M.]
CHAGAF, Aziza [Mme]
EL MOKRIE EL IDRISSI, Abouzaid [M.]
SABELLA, Bernard [Mr]
Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of
the Parliamentary Assembly)/ Représentants de la communauté chypriote turque
(Conformément ŕ la Résolution 1376 (2004) de l’Assemblée parlementaire)
Mehmet ÇAĞLAR
Erdal ÖZCENK