AA18CR07

AS (2018) CR 07

2018 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(First part)

REPORT

Seventh sitting

Thursday 25 January 2018 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.

(Mr Amon, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Changes in the membership of committees

      The PRESIDENT – Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in Document Commissions (2018) 01 Addendum 5.

      Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

      They are agreed to.

2. Urgent debate on The Israeli-Palestinian peace process: the role of the Council of Europe

      The PRESIDENT – The first item of business this morning is a debate under urgent procedure on “The Israeli-Palestinian peace process: the role of the Council of Europe”, Document 14484, presented by Mr Titus Corlăţean on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.

      In order to finish by 12 noon, I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 11.40 a.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote. I remind you that there is a three-minute speech limit in this debate.

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

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) - First, let me welcome to our debate our colleagues from the two delegations directly concerned by the subject, the Israeli and Palestinian delegations – Shalom! Salam aleikum!

      As we know, the Assembly decided on Monday to hold an urgent debate on the prospects of the peace process in the Middle East, and the possible contribution of the Council of Europe and of its Parliamentary Assembly, following the statement made by the President of the United States, Donald Trump. That statement is well known. It makes reference on the one hand to the American administration’s decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but it also underlines the fact that the decision on final status issues relies entirely on the two directly concerned parties, and the solution will be accepted by the United States. Usually the second part of the statement is not publicly mentioned. We are perfectly aware of the consequences of that statement: the international reaction, the huge emotions and, unfortunately, the clashes, violence and loss of lives, which we deeply regret.

      In that context, the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy decided to hold a meeting in Paris in December last year, to which it invited both the Israeli and Palestinian delegations. The meeting related to the possibility of relaunching the peace process and, of course, how our Assembly could support that. It was a constructive meeting. I welcome the constructive approach of both the Israeli and Palestinian delegations at that meeting and during our discussions here in Strasbourg and the fact that all participants – members of the committee and the two delegations – wanted not to enter into a contradictory situation and not to condemn, but rather to try to define the lines to generate a constructive approach and a positive contribution to the main goal, which is the peace process and a two-State solution, based on direct negotiations between Israel and Palestine. I welcome that constructive approach.

      The aim was also to confirm the possibility for both parties to stay engaged at our European table, which represents a unique platform for contact and dialogue, particularly in the framework of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy and the Sub-Committee on the Middle East and the Arab World. That interest and engagement were confirmed, which I welcome.

      The lines that we defined together in Paris and this week during two meetings of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy represent the substance of the draft resolution. The draft resolution is tabled at a complex and delicate moment in time, but I want to thank all colleagues who contributed to what I consider the best possible compromise. It confirms once again the Assembly’s commitment to the peace process and a two-State solution, with the people of Israel and Palestine living in peace and security, based on direct negotiations and the possible contribution of the Europeans, the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly.

      The draft resolution makes reference to the Tripartite Forum, including the participation of parliamentarians from Israel and Palestine, which was proposed and promoted by a previous resolution of the Assembly. It also refers to the possible continued use, but with concrete progress this time, of the Sub-Committee on the Middle East and the Arab World, with the participation of both directly concerned delegations.

      I invite colleagues to wisdom. I invite colleagues to support the draft resolution proposed by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, at a time when Europe once again has an important opportunity to make a positive and constructive contribution to the relaunching of the peace process. Believe me, there is a need for the European contribution. Thank you, dear colleagues. I rest at your disposal for the second part of the debate.

      The PRESIDENT – You have seven minutes left. I call first, on behalf of the political groups, Mr Howell. You have three minutes.

      Mr HOWELL (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – The report asks what the Council of Europe can do about the situation in Israel and Palestine, rather than commenting on the continuing conflict in the region. It is important to say that we all wish peace for this part of the world and encourage the Council of Europe to work to that end. However, it would be a lot easier and take a lot of tension out of the situation if we started from a position where the Palestinian side accepted that the State of Israel has a right to exist, and if it did not seek to expunge the country from school textbooks and name schools after terrorists and Nazi sympathisers. Anything the Council of Europe can do to help the situation would be welcomed. We also need to see the disarmament of Hezbollah and Hamas and to prevent the crisis – I use the term advisedly – of miscarriages occurring in southern Israel.

      Most importantly, the Council of Europe could do a lot to promote organisations that are already encouraging peace between Israel and the Palestinian territories. I use as an example a charity that I have visited on a number of occasions in Tel Aviv called Save a Child’s Heart. Israeli doctors undertake detailed heart surgery on Palestinian children and others from around the world, and to see it in operation is a truly emotional experience. There is much going on in similar organisations to promote peace, which the Council of Europe should support.

      That moves us on to the question of what the Council of Europe can do to bring home the point to Israeli officials that the settlement issue is counterproductive. I accept that settlements are not a permanent obstacle to peace, as the issue can be resolved in direct peace talks, which the Council of Europe should encourage. The long-agreed framework for a two-State solution will see Israel retain settlement blocks as part of land swaps. That was agreed by Yasser Arafat, and it is important to make these points to Israeli officials.

      Finally, we heard from the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers earlier in the week that no embassies of mainstream European countries are moving from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. That process has caused huge disruption to the peace process, and the Council of Europe should hold a firm line and say that no more embassies will move. I encourage the normalisation of relations with neighbouring countries, which, as a result of the terrorist situation and the situation in Iran, are emerging across the region.

      Ms MEHL (Norway, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – First, I would like to thank Mr Corlăţean for the report on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has reached increased intensity following the statements of United States President Donald Trump. The rapporteur has taken a balanced approach to how the Council of Europe can play a contributing role to making way for new peace negotiations.

      Recalling previous positions of the Assembly, I believe the Council of Europe and its member States should continue to push towards a two-State solution to the conflict, on the basis of the 1967 borders. It is a matter of great regret that the peace process has not come further in a long time. Only a two-State solution can be the basis for lasting peace between the two parties and for a settlement of the dispute over Jerusalem. That must be the result of mutual and direct negotiations and agreements between Israel and Palestine. All actions that help to work towards such a solution should be welcomed. Acts such as those of President Donald Trump do not help this cause and should not be approved by the Council or its member States.

      President Trump’s statement on moving the United States embassy to Jerusalem is of grave concern, but so is the prospect of the United States discontinuing financial support to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. UNRWA is important in securing fundamental services for Palestinian refugees in the conflict areas and contributes to stability in the region. The humanitarian challenges are severe and call for the Council of Europe to actively work towards a solution as soon as possible.

      The Assembly’s continued support for a two-State solution means that we stand together with strong actors in the international community, such as the United Nations, the European Union and national governments, working towards a peaceful solution. As the report states, the Assembly has a unique role owing to the fact that both Israel and Palestine are represented by delegations in this Chamber. In addition, we have relations with other countries in the area. We should use this position to promote equal and meaningful dialogue between the parties, the re-establishment of negotiations and a peaceful settlement to this conflict, which has now lasted for more than half a century.

      Ms KAVVADIA (Greece, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is one of the emblematic initiatives taken up by the Council of Europe, as it represents a paradigm of human rights issues, which has been current for 50 years now, despite the perpetual efforts of both the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly to address it. Because of the turbulent events of the last few years in the area – where, unfortunately, we have seen the law of the strongest – it seems unlikely that a positive solution can be found in the near future. The peace process has stagnated while, in the last few years, events in the area have escalated negatively. In 2014, the Council of Europe protested against the execution of Palestinians, both by Hamas and by the Israeli Government. Reports have substantiated claims of the gradual and persistent settlement by the Israeli State of territories in the Gaza Strip. In 2017, an Assembly report informed us beyond doubt about the terminal environmental deficit of the Gaza Strip.

      The assumption of the United States presidency by Donald Trump has empowered the conservative point of view in Israel. After the Israeli High Court overruled the so-called regulation bill, there was an attempt by the United States to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by the moving its embassy there. That initiative has not yet been seen through, but it has enflamed passions all the same.

      Against that background, we now see Palestinian protesters convicted and imprisoned with long sentences, even if they are under age. A recent example, which has been exposed through the media, is that of Ahed Tamimi, aged 16. She was arrested in December and is still in prison, facing a military court, for slapping an Israeli soldier during a protest. In the operational framework of the Council of Europe and the Assembly, initiatives and fact-finding visits are once again to be taken to help us to support people in need, to see that authorities operate according to international law and to ensure that human rights are not violated. In that context, the honest exchange of information can begin and eventually the peace process can be re-established in the area.

      No one has the right to remain silent. We all recognise that the solution for peace in the Middle East must be based on a two-State solution, with safety and security for all Israeli and Palestinian citizens and an absolute respect for freedom and human rights. Far-right populism and nationalism have been an obstacle to peace for too long.

      Mr AMORUSO (Italy, Spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group)* – I thank the Free Democrats Group for allowing me to speak in this important debate on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, an organisation that was set up 12 years ago as an international parliamentary platform to ensure co-operation between all member States on an equal footing. Israel and Palestine are both members of the political bureau of the PAM, which is the executive body of the assembly. That equality allows for a constructive dialogue between members of parliament of both countries, even when tensions at government level impede such exchanges.

      Bringing an end to the Palestine-Israel conflict has always been an absolute priority for our assembly. We all appreciate that there can be no military solution to the crisis. Recently, the PAM undertook an important mission in the Middle East, visiting Amman, Ramallah and Jerusalem. During the meetings, it emerged that the peace process is not always considered a priority by the international community. The PAM’s position has always been to support the “two States for two peoples” solution, which it considers the only viable scenario. Our delegates continue to reaffirm that position and have offered the PAM’s help in making available the instrument of parliamentary diplomacy and its privileged channels to the United Nations system.

      Questions relating to Jerusalem, borders, security and water use all need to be tackled urgently and with great clarity. The United States, in deciding to transfer its embassy to Jerusalem, has provoked new tension, which has been a severe blow to the peace process. The PAM has expressed its deep concern about the repercussions of that decision and has urged all parties to continue to pursue dialogue and negotiations to come up with a political solution. We all know what effects that decision has had. Unfortunately, many countries no longer recognise the United States as a neutral and effective mediator.

      The PAM will continue to work towards the two-State solution, which is the only way both peoples can achieve their legitimate aspirations and live within the recognised international borders in peace and security, side by side. The PAM is preparing a series of high-level meetings, which will be held as soon as possible, to help to achieve that objective. All that will be done in co-operation with the Council of Europe and the solutions that it proposes today.

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – The rapporteur was right to say that the peace process is the main goal of our discussion today, not geography, history or something else. I have to confess that, 25 years ago, I studied military diplomacy in the peaceful environment of Geneva in Switzerland. I was taught the difference between war and peace. I was told that if you are going to war, you think about rejection and about replacing one thing with another thing. Your ideas are mostly based on mythology. When you are working for peace, you are trying to bring things together. Your ideas are based on the recognition of reality, not mythology. Therefore, if we are talking about the peace process, we have to bear in mind the reality. We have to think about living together and recognising each other. If we do not, we will not have peace.

      When I meet people from the region, I ask them, “What is the problem? Why can’t you live together?” Their answers are often based on mythology. Some people say, “We can’t live together because 5 000 years ago this thing happened.” I say, “But I’m talking about today.” I get the reply, “No, 2 000 years ago something happened”, or “100 years ago this thing happened.” However, we need to live together today. If our thoughts are based on the mythology of hundreds and thousands of years, we will not have peace. Sometimes people say that the problem is in geography. The city is not in the right place, the sea coast is not in the right place – we cannot be victims of geography. We are living in the 21st century; sometimes we even have to say that Westphalian States are not the solution throughout the world. We have to be inventive and we cannot be the victims of our ideological stereotypes. Living together is based on understanding and love.

      What can the Council of Europe do? It has good opportunities to help the peace process. We have in this place representatives of Israel and representatives of Palestine. We can put these people together in a peaceful manner; we are not in the arena of war. We have people who know how to make people speak to each other. I am proud that the Council of Europe is taking steps for the peace process and I hope that something better will happen.

      Mr BYRNE (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group) – This is a welcome and balanced report that allows us to restate our iron-clad commitment to protect the security and prosperity of the State of Israel and to recognise the new threats, which we will oppose, from an expansionist Iran that is determined to build a road to the Mediterranean and to expand its sophisticated manufacture of missiles in south Lebanon. But the report also allows us to recognise the deepening crisis affecting Palestine. It allows us to recognise the illegal settlements across nearly half of Palestinian land; the insecurity of Palestinian access to water, power and mobile phones; and the throttling of Gaza, where our observers were denied access and where we called, in Resolution 2142 (2017), for the lifting of the blockade. It allows us to recognise the scandal of Palestinian children tried in military courts, highlighted for the world to see in the case of Ahed Tamini this week, and to recognise the foolishness of Donald Trump’s decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem and to slash the vital help supplied by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.

      The great risk today is that a new generation of Palestinians are giving up on hope and giving up on the future. We have a special responsibility to rekindle that hope, because this Assembly was born from the same determination to resist any return to the horrors of Nazi Europe as that which gave rise to the State of Israel. We have a particular job to do in helping to renew and redevelop a new generation of leaders on both sides, engaged in politics, civil society and trade unions, but that requires us to remove the barriers to Palestinian organisations flourishing in civil society. It means that we must create new forums for leadership development and, crucially, that we must help develop the role of women’s groups in civil society.

      The tragedy today is that there is a zero-sum game between security for Israel and justice for Palestine. One’s advantage is another’s loss, but in the long run we cannot have a choice between security and justice because we need both.

      In the hills above al-Walaja, security walls cut the land crossed by Mary and Joseph 2 000 years ago on their journey to Bethlehem. Up on those security barriers, someone has sprayed the eternal truth in paint: “All walls fall”. This is the lesson of history. The only questions are always how fast and at what cost. If we want peace and justice, we need those walls to fall and we need to accelerate the business of building bridges. It is now quite clear that America is in retreat, and it is therefore the duty of this Assembly to advance.

      The PRESIDENT – I thank the spokespeople for all the political groups for their statements. The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate, but does Mr Corlăţean wish to respond at this stage? That is not the case. Mr Zingeris and Mr Gutiérrez are not here, so I call Mr Ghiletchi.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I too thank Mr Corlăţean for a very action-oriented report on the recent worrying developments in the peace process between Israel and Palestine. I am grateful that the Assembly decided to hold this urgent debate to clarify the role which the Council of Europe should play in the peace process. Before endorsing and supporting the resolution, I want to mention a few points that I believe are of importance.

      One of the first sentences of the report is the statement condemning the President of the United State of America for declaring that the time has come to recognise Jerusalem officially as the capital of Israel and that the United States would move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I understand that such a decision needs to be evaluated very carefully, but every single President of the United States since 1992, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem. It seems that the report tries to assign more blame to Mr Trump, without mentioning that both Democrat and Republican presidents advocated such a decision. So the only surprise in this decision is the fact that a politician tried to keep his word. Maybe we, as politicians ourselves, should get used to this practice.

      I completely understand the position of the opponents of the move and, if I think rationally myself, the decision to move the embassy should have come as the final piece of the puzzle after extracting concessions from both parties, but sometimes you really need to jolt things up in order to start moving. If there is one thing that Trump achieved, it is a renewed interest in the area and a compelling boost to fostering discussions and a dialogue between all parties interested in finding a solution. Even this debate probably would have not happened without the United States’ decision.

The resolution states: "The role of the United States as a serious broker in the peace process was undoubtedly undermined by the declaration of its President on Jerusalem” and that the Parliamentary Assembly “regrets that the peace process has been discontinued”. To be honest, even before the declaration issued by the United States, the peace process was practically frozen as no significant progress has been recorded for some time. Having said that, I appreciate the fact that the rapporteur asks Europe to play a bigger role in the sponsorship and resumption of the peace process. As I mentioned earlier, Europe has lost interest and even seemed to abandon its efforts to find acceptable compromises between the parties.

      I fully support the calls for peace and confidence-building measures between Israel and Palestine. As I have stated in a previous speech, lasting peace is the only solution for people affected by this conflict.

      Mr ABUSHAHLA (Palestine, Partner for Democracy) – President Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, neglecting the information that it was occupied after 1967 and denying Palestinian rights in Jerusalem as their capital for thousands of years, is a gift to the extremists and has proved that the United States administration is part of the problem rather than the solution. It encourages the extremists to violate international law and resolutions.

      The whole peace process is in danger. After 25 years of negotiation, the adoption of the peace process and the United States of America as a broker or mediator, there have been no results. Occupation continues, settlements on our land increase and there are daily attacks on our people with killing, violence and shoot to kill used on peaceful demonstrations. Ahed Tamimi is in jail because she refused the occupation and defended her house. The siege and blockade at Gaza continue, as does pressure on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to stop education and health care for Palestinian refugees. Lastly, Jerusalem is out of peace negotiations.

      This is the situation. The peace process needs brave resolutions to stop the decline and failure. What is needed now is an international framework for the peace process, with a more political role for the European Union, plus its financial contribution; recognition of the Palestinian State and East Jerusalem as its capital; and the end of the Israeli occupation to save peace and not push our people to lose faith in international law and turn to extremists and violence. Please do not take the olive branch from our hands.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey) – The recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel goes against conscience and history. According to Resolution 476 (1980) of the United Nations Security Council, on the basis of which the United Nations has a right of veto, no country is entitled to have an embassy in Jerusalem. The decision of the United States is a punishment for Palestinians who are keen on the peace process and are party to it. I note that many members of our Assembly have still not recognised the Palestinian State. I invite you to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of the occupied Palestinian State.

      The decision on the issue of Jerusalem has also been accepted by the United Nations by an overwhelming majority. The Trump administration should reverse this unfortunate decision as soon as possible. This is clearly demonstrated by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Recently a draft law on Jerusalem has been adopted by the Israeli Parliament. This law makes it possible for certain Palestinian areas beyond the wall to be placed under a separate municipal body under the sovereignty of Israel. This measure destroys the basis of the peace process and is harmful to stability and peace in the region. These decisions from Israel are contrary to the will of the international community, and these developments in the legal status of Jerusalem are unacceptable.

      We need to look at the final declarations of the extraordinary summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The harm caused by Israel is extremely dangerous and must be rejected by the international community.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – I appreciate the work done by the rapporteur and fully support his proposals. His task was not easy.

      I quote the request for this debate: “The Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories continues to be a major source of instability both in and beyond the region”. Is that indeed the case? The region is torn by many pressing problems, including the Syrian crisis, which has caused many thousands of casualties and millions of refugees; rivalry between major powers of the Islamic world – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt; the problematic aftermath of the Arab Spring; and the rise of Daesh and other terrorist groups. Has Israel anything to do with those and many other crucial problems? Scapegoating Israel on any pretext is misleading and counterproductive.

      In fact, Israel is the only true democracy in the Middle East. It is not perfect, of course. Israel can and should be criticised, for example for the lack of due separation between religion and State. We strongly deplore the continuing expansion of settlements in the occupied territories. In the meantime, with regard to the independence of the judiciary, freedom of the media, gender equality, a vivid civil society and many other aspects, Israel is far ahead of any neighbouring State. Nevertheless, we keep concentrating our criticism on Israel.

      The two-State solution must be implemented. This implies, first, that both States are recognised. How many neighbouring States today recognise Israel? Is the very right of Israel to exist recognised by Hamas, which effectively rules Gaza? Israel has a legitimate right to demand security for its people. In recent years, we in Europe have experienced several tragic terrorist acts and can understand what it means when terrorist attacks happen on virtually a daily basis. Is the Palestinian State able and willing to effectively combat terrorist activities? Developments in Gaza after unilateral disengagement in 2005 do not, unfortunately, provide persuasive evidence for this.

      I sincerely appreciate the presence of our Palestinian friends in the Assembly. I believe that open dialogue and participation are the key to effective solutions. However, the status of “partner for democracy” implies that we discuss democracy first of all within the Palestinian Authority. I have the impression that instead our Palestinian colleagues use their presence in our Assembly for political attacks against Israel.

      To achieve a viable two-State solution, efforts by all parties are needed. Recognition by all of the right of Israel to exist, and a resolute struggle against any terrorist organisations, also by all, are the major necessary prerequisites.

      Mr HEER (Switzerland) – Why does the Council of Europe need to make a report on our role? If this institution was so important, people would come and ask for our help. However, no one really asks the Council of Europe. Why might that be? Is it wise to criticise the decision by the United States President to move the embassy to Jerusalem? If the Council of Europe thinks it can in any way replace the United States, it overestimates its power.

      We in the Council of Europe have enough problems with countries at war and with member States that do not obey the rule of law or have freedom of the media or separation of powers. Interestingly, the Council of Europe criticises the only democracy in the Middle East that knows the rule of law, separation of powers and human rights. What about Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Egypt and so on? What about the Palestinians who are divided between a terrorist leadership in Gaza and an elite in the West Bank presenting themselves as poor victims and collecting billions of dollars in foreign aid to fill their pockets?

      Today, we have the remembrance day of the Holocaust. Our institution should protect Israel, which shares our common values of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Instead of producing a useless report, we should encourage Arab civil society to share our values, but the Council of Europe accepts that anti-Semitism and hatred are part of the programme for schools in Palestine and most Muslim countries.

      I urge colleagues to vote against this report. I remind you that United Nations Resolution 181 on 29 November 1947 on the founding of Israel was accepted by the Jews and was not accepted by the Arabs. They started the war, and the mess we have today is not the fault of Israel. Thank you for voting against this report.

      Mr SCHWABE (Germany)* – Unlike the previous speaker, Mr Heer, I believe that this is our responsibility, particularly vis-à-vis Israel. I say that as a German member. This is a matter of State interest for Germany. Today is a day on which we are remembering the Holocaust, and in that context it is important that we bear in mind our responsibility regarding the existence of the State of Israel.

      We need balanced development in the region. I commend Mr Corlăţean on his balanced, unbiased report, which provides a European answer and a response to the United States position. Obviously, we are not going to supplant the position of the United States – that would be a complete overestimation of our capacity – but it is important that we ensure that States stand by what they say. It is in our mutual interest that institutions in Europe and elsewhere in the world step into the breach and help out.

      We need a two-State solution. I know that is difficult. If you travel around that part of the world, you will see how difficult it will be to bring it about. Nevertheless, if we do not work for such a solution, there can be no way forward. Therefore, there cannot be any more settlements. We have agreed on the principle that we need to move immediately towards a two-State solution, and we cannot delay that. That is the solution we require, and there can be no impediments to it.

      In addition to the political situation, we in the Parliamentary Assembly need to look at the human rights situation. Serious breaches of human rights – attacks and murders – are taking place on the Palestinian side and the Israeli side. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights talked about the excessive use of force, and said that he was shocked by the killing of a Palestinian national at the end of December.

      At the end of the day, we need to address the prospects for the future. Migration has a bearing on us, and if Palestinians are forced to flee to other countries, that has an impact on migration. It is important that we send the right signal to Jerusalem. It is, of course, not right to move the embassy. We need an organisation that can give hope to those millions of Palestinians. We need to support the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in its work, its remit and its responsibilities. We must step up to the plate and help out.

      Ms LAVIE (Observer from Israel) – It is positive that the Parliamentary Assembly has expressed interest in the situation regarding Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The Assembly’s desire to see real progress between the parties is welcome – at face value. At the same time, today’s resolution is, as I have learned in the past two days, another expression of the obsessive preoccupation with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which has further distanced this Assembly from becoming a real partner in promoting dialogue.

      I am deeply concerned that there are those who will use this resolution to avoid discussing the core issues. First, there is no alternative to real and direct negotiation between the State of Israel and the Palestinians. Secondly, meaningless, one-sided decisions do not advance dialogue. On the contrary, they undermine peace and encourage the Palestinians to keep attacking Israel in international forums. Thirdly, the Palestinian leadership’s ongoing incitement and its continued financing of terrorists and their families preserves and even encourages terrorism.

      If this Assembly is interested in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I hope it does so in a more thorough and constructive manner than through this urgent debate procedure. I suggest beginning with the recognition of some basic facts, such as the ancient ties between the Jewish people and Israel, their homeland, including the capital of Jerusalem. Recent statements by the Palestinian leadership have fallen sadly short in that regard. Instead, it seems to be stoking the coals and inciting public opinion to sabotage any future dialogue. The Palestinian Authority leadership is refusing to return to the negotiating table and has repeatedly announced that it will reject any peace plan proposed by the Trump Government. We strongly hope that European countries will not encourage Palestinian rejectionism and unilateral actions.

      I do not understand why this debate is taking place under the urgent procedure. How can a debate under urgent procedure be tabled two months before the meeting? Where is the urgency? If you really want to help and do not want to waste your time, be creative. This report is not creative.

      Mr THÓRARINSSON (Iceland) – In my previous position with the United Nations in Jerusalem, I had the opportunity to live and work with the Palestinian people, and I made good friends among the Israelis. I lived in East Jerusalem and travelled for work within the West Bank and Gaza. In this short speech, I am not going to talk about the harsh living conditions that the Palestinians face every day because of the Israeli occupation. However, I have to say that I admire the Palestinian people for their steadfastness and their true belief that, one day, they will be free and treated with dignity. In 2014, the former Israeli Mossad chief Efraim Halevy said, “There will never be peace in the Middle East as long as Israelis don’t treat the Palestinians as equals.”

      During my time in the Middle East, I often asked young Palestinians about their views of the conflict, and about how they saw their future. The two-State solution was not a priority for them. They did not believe in it because, after 20 years of on-and-off peace talks, there have been no results. Young Palestinians have the same human desires as everyone else: to get a job, to start a family and to have their own home. They want to live securely and be able to travel without restrictions. The hopes and dreams of young Palestinians are no different from those of other young people all over the world.

      In dealing with this intractable conflict, it is imperative to think outside the box. I asked the young people about their views on the one-State solution. Surprisingly, many of them were in favour of a united State with freedom and human rights for all – freedom of travel, freedom of work, equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis, and security for Israelis and Palestinians. The one-State solution is thinking outside the box in the name of peace. The will of the people must supersede the will of the politicians, who have not accomplished anything in the past 20 years. We must listen to the hopes and dreams of the young people.

      Ms DURANTON (France)* – Although the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has been at a standstill since 2014, it has recently been affected by new worrying and negative developments, with a regular deterioration both in the field and in people’s minds. This process, starting from the end of 2016, had benefited from real engagement from the international community – the Quartet, the United Nations Security Council, which adopted a resolution condemning Israeli settlements, and the international conference on 15 January 2017, which was organised on the initiative of France and led to a united position to preserve the two-State solution.

      The announcement of the Trump administration’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and its intention to move its embassy there is contrary to international law and seems to contradict the declared will to engage in favour of the resolution of the conflict. It considerably complicates the implementation of the two-State solution, which is the only one that can ensure lasting peace. It has therefore been legitimately condemned by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

      Although the decision by the United States administration creates uncertainty, we should not overestimate the consequences. The fact that lasting peace prospects have become more and more remote is something that rests with the political choices of both parties. The Israeli Government, under pressure from extremist groups, is taking an increasingly hard line. The settlements are spreading year after year, and the destruction of houses and infrastructure in occupied Palestinian territory continues, in particular in East Jerusalem. In addition, the Knesset recently voted in favour of an amendment to the fundamental law that makes it possible to change the borders of the municipality of Jerusalem at the expense of the eastern part. The humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is worsening, and security there remains fragile.

      On the Palestinian side, Fatah and Hamas have reached an agreement, which was signed in Cairo in October last year under the aegis of the Egyptian authorities, but how will it be applied? The American decision on Jerusalem has, for the time being, not caused the chaos that was feared, but the Palestinian leaders have called into question Washington’s role as an impartial mediator. The PLO Central Council recently declared itself in favour of suspending its recognition of Israel. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is shifting dangerously. The prospects of a Palestinian State seem more and more remote, and, for the Palestinians, hope is becoming more distant. None of this bodes well.

      Mr KILIÇ (Turkey) – The Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories continues to be a major source of instability both in and beyond the region, as it is widely exploited by extremist groups. An independent and sovereign Palestine within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, is the only way for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace.

      President Trump’s statement on 6 December, recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the United States embassy, is in violation of international law and all the relevant United Nations resolutions. The adoption of the draft resolution at the United Nations General Assembly on 21 December confirmed the invalidity of the United States administration’s decision and the preservation of the historical and legal status of Jerusalem. Turkey convened the extraordinary summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation on 13 December in Istanbul, making a call to the world to recognise East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. We must work to repair the damage inflicted by the United States President’s statement by strengthening international support for the State of Palestine. In this regard, it is important to increase the number of countries that have recognised the State of Palestine beyond the existing 137, and it is of paramount importance that many Council of Europe member States recognise the State of Palestine.

      Unfortunately, we have seen that some Israeli officials now feel encouraged to further intensify their violations of Palestinian rights, including fundamental human rights. The issue of settlements must be addressed. It is inconceivable that the Israeli policy of building more and more settlements can in any way help the future process. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should continue to spare no effort in improving the human rights status of the Palestinian people. We have all seen Israeli military personnel trying to stop Palestinian young people exercising their right to demonstrate. A new approach to the peace process is urgently needed. The current status quo is far from sustainable. We should all take the necessary steps to reactivate the peace process.

      Ms McCARTHY (United Kingdom) – I congratulate my colleague from the United Kingdom Parliament, Mr Liam Byrne, on a characteristically thoughtful, balanced and yet passionate speech on behalf of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group.

      It is more than a decade since I visited Israel and Palestine, in 2005 and again, as an observer of Palestinian Authority elections, in early 2006. I wish I could speak with optimism about the progress that has been made since then, but I cannot. We seem further away than ever from achieving a two-State solution and fulfilling what are described in the report as “two equally legitimate aspirations: Israel’s right to be recognised and live in security, and the Palestinians’ right to have an independent, viable and contiguous State”.

      The continued illegal expansion of Israeli settlements, and the consequent fragmentation of the West Bank, has led many to doubt whether a two-State solution is indeed still viable. In 2005, I visited the settlement of Ma’ale Adumim, just outside Jerusalem, which is now home to more than 40 000 people. Recently, just before Christmas, it became the first illegal settlement to be officially annexed and recognised by the Israeli Parliament. Yes, Israel has a right to protect itself, but the demolition of Palestinian homes and the construction of illegal settlements are not part of that.

      Israel prides itself on being what it describes as the only democracy in the Middle East, but it has consistently been found to be in breach of international law. It was welcome when the Obama administration refused to veto a United Nations resolution on settlements in 2016, but the current United States administration gives us fewer grounds for optimism. President Trump’s ill-conceived, provocative and dangerous decision to move the United States embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv was gesture politics at its worst. It puts at risk the prospect of a two-State solution with Jerusalem as the shared capital.

      Generations of young people have grown up knowing only division and conflict. Too many Palestinian children have been arrested, interrogated and detained. The 2012 independent “Children in Military Custody” report made suggestions for improvements in how the Israeli authorities handle arrest, interrogation, sentencing and the handling of complaints, which should be adopted immediately. As we heard from our colleague from Greece, Ahed Tamimi, a 16-year-old Palestinian girl, has become something of a totemic figure in this debate. There was a recent article in The Guardian in United Kingdom by the journalist Harriet Sherwood, who had interviewed Ahed when she was only 12. She described in the article how Ahed and her father, who was born in 1967, “have known only a life of checkpoints, identity papers, detentions, house demolitions, intimidation, humiliation and violence.” In that article, the 12-year-old spoke of her ambition to be a lawyer, so that she could pursue human rights. Instead, she is now in an Israeli jail. For the sake of the Palestinian children, I support this motion.

      Mr BILDARRATZ (Spain)* – I would say to anybody wondering whether this Assembly has the jurisdiction to discuss this matter that there are many possible responses, but there is one important image I have in my mind. In the summer of 2014, over 2 300 people died and over 100 000 were displaced. If those figures are insufficient to justify this report, then I would like to know what the Council of Europe is really all about.

      I thank the rapporteur and congratulate him on his report. However, we need to ask ourselves about the role Europe is playing in this conflict. For instance, how are we reacting to Trump’s initiatives? As long as there is no genuine political will on the part of the international community to settle this conflict, there will be no solution to it. Israel and Palestine alone cannot solve it, so it is therefore essential to see action and reaction on the part of the international community.

      The report says that we need two States, and we of course entirely agree. However, the United States has recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced the moving of its embassy. The vice-president has been to the Knesset and been applauded. Meanwhile, the wall is 800 km long and 80 metres high, and Israel is still building settlements on the West Bank, which is totally contrary to international law.

      We cannot consider that there is equality in this situation. In the streets of Israel there is no problem; the streets are like those in any other city in the world. However, Palestinians have power cuts and they do not have water. In Gaza, it is a bit like the rationing during the civil war in Spain; people have ration cards so that they can eat. The Assembly needs to react. We need to look at the situation in Gaza.

      Dialogue is all very well – it is a basic ingredient for negotiations – but the international community has to provide something more. The Security Council has to recognise the State of Palestine and encourage all States to do the same. Dialogue and negotiation are of course needed, but the international community has to do something more with this conflict.

      Mr CROWE (Ireland) – I begin by expressing my solidarity with the Palestinian people living under Israeli occupation and the apartheid regime that Israel enforces in Palestine. I completely disagree with the decision of the United States President to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel and to move the United States embassy to the city. That is an extremely dangerous, reckless and worrying move, and a crude attempt to normalise Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, including East Jerusalem.

      That unilateral move by the United States will have grave consequences for the Israel-Palestine peace process, which was already on life support because of Israel’s continued colonisation of Palestine, continued illegal Israeli colonial settlement building and the apartheid regime that Israel enforces in Palestine. I urge all members of the Assembly to reject that move and to pressure their own countries to officially recognise the State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

      The unjust apartheid regime that Israel implements in Palestine has once again been brought under the international spotlight because of the arrest of Ahed Tamimi. Ahed is a child – she is just 16 years of age – and has been in an Israeli military prison since 19 December. She will remain imprisoned for the length of her trial. What horrendous and grievous crime did this child commit? She had the audacity to slap the face of an Israeli soldier outside her family home in the West Bank village of Nabi Salih, which Israel illegally occupies. Ahed is said to have been upset at the time of the confrontation because her 15-year-old cousin had just been shot in the face with a rubber bullet fired by Israeli soldiers. She was arrested three days later, being dragged from her bed at 4 a.m. Her mother was also detained when she went to a police station to inquire after her daughter.

      Ahed’s arrest and trial in a military court highlights that there exist two separate legal systems, depending on whether someone is a Palestinian or an Israeli settler, which goes to the heart of the Israel’s enforced apartheid regime. Ahed is one of at least 1 400 Palestinian children who have been brought before special Israeli military courts over the past three years. Unlike Palestinians, illegal Israeli colonial settlers have the luxury of access to civil courts, with all the legal entitlements and support, if they are deemed to have committed any crime. Human rights groups are very critical of this Israeli dual system, saying it lacks fundamental protections and gives no guarantee of a fair trial for Palestinians.

      Ahed Tamimi’s continued detention and imprisonment is wrong and she should be released immediately. I ask all members of the Assembly to raise their voice in support of the call for the release of Ahed Tamimi and the other 313 Palestinian children imprisoned by Israel.

      Mr KHADER (Palestine, Partner for Democracy) – There needs to be compromise in order to achieve peace. However, in order for that peace to be just, there needs to be respect for international law and international resolutions. The fact is that Israel illegally occupies territory in the State of Palestine. The fact is that Israel is building those settlements all over the occupied territories, in violation of international law. The fact is that the Israelis undermine and disrespect the human rights of the Palestinian people and subject them to all kinds of repression and humiliation. Those are the main facts.

      We definitely agree with the saying that peace needs to be reached through negotiation and dialogue. We also agree that the two peoples – the Israelis and the Palestinians – should find a way to live together, but how will they do that? To live together means to recognise each other, not that the Palestinians should be repeatedly asked to unconditionally recognise the State of Israel at a time when the State of Israel does not recognise the existence of the Palestinian people, let alone their rights. That is not a formula based on equality.

      It is important for the Council of Europe to call for compromise and dialogue between the two parties, but it is also important for the Council of Europe to uphold the principles of international law. The main function and value of the Council of Europe, as we have been told and as we believe, is upholding human rights and the rule of law. We think here that to uphold international law is one of the beauties of the Council of Europe, and that that should be the line taken by the Assembly. I favour the sentiment that my British colleague Mr Byrne finished his address with: that the United States, as the broker of the peace process, is in retreat, and that it is time for Europe to advance.

      Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – To my knowledge, Israel is the only State that tries children in a military court. Children are systematically imprisoned for supposedly throwing stones at the Israeli military, and they are often tortured and mistreated. They are sentenced on the basis of military decrees that go far beyond the permitted ambit of the Geneva Conventions and that in no way conform to the rule of law. More specifically, these decrees are not accessible to the Palestinian people and they do not apply equally to all persons in the territory; that is to say, they do not apply to Israeli settlers. Finally, these decrees do not include acceptable procedural rights for Palestinians charged with their violation.

      Palestinians have no means of influencing or amending these military decrees, although they shape the whole existence and life of Palestinians living in the West Bank. Their continued application is therefore wholly undemocratic. Continued attacks, arbitrary imprisonment, further illegal settlements and repeated violence enacted against the Palestinian people constitute serious and repeated human rights violations of the Israeli State against the Palestinian people.

      In summary, Israel does not respect the rule of law. Its democratic ideas are discriminatory at best, and it has no respect for the human rights of the Palestinian people, whose land it has occupied for decades. What is the role of the Council of Europe in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? My answer is that we demand that our observer State respects – and starts to cherish and honour – our three basic values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

      Mr PISCO (Portugal) – Donald Trump’s declaration of recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is alarming and could signal a death sentence for the creation of the State of Palestine and the so-called peace process. At least 17 people were killed as a consequence of the announcement, but that does not seem to matter anymore. Conflict and tension have been heightened and the world is more divided.

      Although this report lacks ambition, all declarations, reports and initiatives to solve this cruel and ancient problem are positive steps, but we now need to go further. The Council of Europe must not be afraid of defending human rights and protecting against arbitrary measures. That is our common cause. As individuals and institutions – especially the European Union – we can no longer pretend that we do not see the continued violation of the most basic human rights against the Palestinian people. The recognition of Palestine as a full member of UNESCO and its observer status in the United Nations General Assembly means that the international community is tired of fake hope.

      Israel, of course, has the right to have its own land, but it is our moral duty to help Palestinians to have a viable State. It would be a shame on humanity if, with our complicity, Israelis took all the Palestinian territory for themselves – which is what they have aimed at for more than 100 years – and the Palestinians became a people without land. The Palestinian land shrank to 20% of the initial size of historical Palestine in 1948. In the West Bank and Jerusalem, the illegal settlements are continuously expanding. The Knesset approved a law to confiscate the land retroactively. In reality, Israel despises the United Nations and international law, and we accept and excuse everything.

      We should look at the reality hidden behind the words. There is no peace process, but a never-ending conflict. There is no dialogue and trust because there is too much blood and resentment. Negotiations are always condemned to fail. The two-State solution of living in peace and security seems increasingly to be an illusion to gain time – not to create a Palestinian State, but to make that impossible. Therefore, to be coherent with its mission and values, the Council of Europe must do everything to protect the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, and we should do everything to contribute to the recognition of Palestine as a sovereign State, while there is still time. Tomorrow, it will probably be too late.

      Ms TRISSE (France)* – Peace between Israelis and Palestinians is one of those crucial issues that has preoccupied international organisations for decades. We can but welcome the fact that the international community has been addressing this matter for such a long time. Nevertheless, it is deplorable that after so many years we have still not reached our goal. The United Nations has, of course, taken most of the decisions that have an impact on the resolution of legitimate aspirations on the part of both peoples: their right to security, independence, recognition and dignity.

      Notwithstanding that, the Council of Europe and our Parliamentary Assembly have addressed the very same points. I remind members of Resolution 2142 on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. In that resolution, we drew attention to the very difficult predicament of Palestinians in the region and spoke out against the attacks against Israel.

      In the context of the current deadlock, countries and international institutions that have always defended a balanced position regarding the two-State solution have a role to play as mediators. France was one of the first countries to recognise the State of Israel. We established diplomatic relations with the State of Israel in 1949, and in 1982 we were the first country – through François Mitterrand – to express a point of view before the Knesset regarding the establishment of a Palestinian State. We support proposals that I think also enjoy the support of this Assembly. These include frontiers drawn up along the lines of 1967 with the possible exchange of land in land swaps; security arrangements that would preserve the sovereignty of the Palestinian State and guarantee the security of Israel; a just, fair and agreed solution to the problem of refugees; and an arrangement that would make Jerusalem the capital of both States.

      More than ever before, our Parliamentary Assembly, Europe in general and the United Nations need to remember how important we feel these principles are if we wish to move towards a solution. Our debate this morning is a move in that direction, and I personally welcome it because I really believe that the people of Israel and Palestine deserve to live in peace.

      Mr ALBAKKAR (Jordan, Partner for Democracy) – Jordan supports a two-State solution. The Middle East cannot keep peace and security without a just solution to the Palestinian issue. Certainly, Israeli occupation is not above international law. The violation of international legitimacy will only push the region towards more violence and extremism.

      Our partnership with the Council of Europe means that we believe in the universal values that guarantee human rights, freedom and the rule of law. What is happening today in the Palestinian arena contradicts all moral standards. As people who believe in peace, we cannot keep silent about the arrest and torture of children, the imprisonment of women without trial and the violation of freedom. About 150 racist laws were passed by the Knesset between 2015 and 2017. These laws support the Israeli occupation and settlements, and are discriminatory as they purposefully target Palestinian prisoners and foreign solidarity activists. In other words, Israel strongly opposes the principles and values of the Council of Europe.

      Innocent people in Palestine and the Middle East, especially women and children, still aspire to the role of countries believing and respecting international legitimacy. In that context, I thank the European Union on behalf of Jordanians for its position on the United States’ decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem. The decision will not provide any solutions but will lead to more extremism, terrorism and racism practised by Israel.

      Based on the Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem holy sites, we look for your support. At a time when the United States is becoming part of the conflict, the European position remains supportive of freedom, human rights and international legitimacy. That increases the confidence of our people in a more effective European role, keeping the peace process based on a two-State solution and full compliance with international legitimacy and United Nations resolutions.

      When people express their opinion in the Knesset – the place where democracy and freedom should be practised – do you consider that to be terrorism? That is what Israelis thought when they used security forces to kick out their parliamentary colleagues from the Knesset. That is the freedom that Israelis practise in their Knesset.

      Mr BLAHA (Slovak Republic) – I congratulate the rapporteur on his very balanced and well-grounded report, which I will vote for. To be honest from the start, the Israeli-Palestinian case is not about our sentiments towards any ethnicity. I like both Jews and Arabs. This case is about justice, not about any anti-Semitism either towards Jews or Arabs – both nations are Semites. I express my deep sorrow for the victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I condemn all the violence, all the terrible wars and all the breaches of international law, especially the building of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. The Palestinian people have a right to their land and to national emancipation.

      I am very happy that Slovakia recognises the Palestinian State. I can confirm that the Slovak Republic supports the two-State solution. We condemn the United States’ irresponsible and one-sided decision concerning the status of Jerusalem; the Slovak delegation at the United Nations voted for the condemnation of that decision. I strongly oppose any use of blackmail in international politics. For a superpower to use its financial power to get voting support from developing countries is scandalous. Donald Trump’s decision on Jerusalem is a breach of international treaties and is the next barrier to the peace process. I agree with the report that the United States’ role as a serious broker has absolutely been undermined, which could be an opportunity for Europe to be more active in the peace process. We should replace fire and fury with peace and justice.

      Of course, the security of the Israeli people is a very important issue, but it cannot be an excuse for killings, injustice, economic blockades and wars. I agree with some colleagues that we should also be aware of rising anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe. In my country, I do my best to fight against neo-fascism and right-wing extremism. Fortunately, anti-Jewish sentiment in my country is not growing. I am happy to say that the huge majority of Slovakian society respects and admires the wonderful Jewish culture. However, there is a big difference between the protection of Jews as a minority in Europe and the uncritical protection of Israel in its geopolitics and military politics. To be critical of Israel does not mean being anti-Semitic. That argument, used by some Israeli representatives, is childish.

      In a struggle between Davids and Goliaths, I will always be on the side of the weaker – the side of the Davids. The Palestinian people have suffered a lot. They deserve freedom and social justice. Both Palestinians and Israelis deserve peace, not the Donald Trumps.

      Mr SHEPPARD (United Kingdom) – I wish to support the resolution and make three points. The first concerns the actions and attitudes of the current American administration. The world was rightly dismayed when President Trump made his announcement on Jerusalem before Christmas, but we should understand that it was in the context of other shifts in policy by the American administration. Towards the end of last year, Israel announced an aggressive new phase of settlement building in the occupied territories. Particularly to the east of Jerusalem, these developments will have the effect of cutting the West Bank in two and making it impossible to develop a contiguous Palestinian State in that area. Then, of course, Mr Trump’s new year present to the world was to say that he would withdraw support to Palestinian refugees by cutting funding to UNRWA.

For 50 years the world has looked to America to provide leadership on this most intractable and long-running of political conflicts, but now America has decided to take sides. You cannot be an advocate for one party in a dispute and hope on the other hand to be a mediator, so now that America has ruled itself out of its historic role, it falls to the States of Europe to fill the vacuum. I very much look forward to the Council of Europe and other European States playing a role in global leadership to try to move the process forward.

      My second point concerns the two-State solution. Like most other people, I believe in that concept, but I am finding it difficult. I am holding on to the concept by my fingernails now, because I cannot reconcile it with the political reality on the ground. This is the 51^st year of the occupation of the Palestinian territories. The simple truth is that there cannot be a two-State solution if one of those States is occupying by force the land intended for the other. We must call on Israel to begin negotiations again based on its 1967 boundaries, because no other boundaries will allow for the creation of a Palestinian State.

      Finally, I want to mention something that is often overlooked in this discussion: the role of Israeli public opinion. There are many courageous Israeli citizens in the field of journalism and civil and political activists who are working hard to advocate for human rights in Israel and who seek an accommodation and peace with their Palestinian neighbours. They believe that only an end to the occupation, and the creation of a Palestinian State, will ultimately guarantee the security of Israel and the safety of its citizens. They are correct in that belief, and we should make sure that their voices are heard in this Assembly and in the centres of power of our States.

      The last few years have been ones of despair and desperation in the Holy Land. In 2018, let us make it right for Palestine. Let us be part of a new initiative to get the peace process going again.

      Mr WIECHEL (Sweden) – I welcome this debate on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the attempts of the Council of Europe and our Assembly to contribute to that process. We have good relations with both sides. Israel has enjoyed observer status in the Assembly since 1957 and regularly sends delegations that contribute most actively to our deliberations. For its part, the Palestinian National Authority has enjoyed partnership for democracy status in the Assembly since 2011, and its delegation likewise very much enriches our debates.

      This is an urgent debate. Fortunately, however, I do not see the peace process, as such, as being in critical danger. I think the process will resume once the current bump in the road, which we all know about, has been overcome, because both sides realise that peace is in their common ultimate interest. My party – the Sweden Democrats – and I firmly support the two-State solution. Large numbers of Palestinians live and work in Israel proper, while others live in the territories of the Palestinian National Authority outside Israel and cross the Israeli border daily for work.

      Our Assembly stands firmly behind Oslo and the two-State option. We should use our advantage of being able to welcome Israeli and Palestinian delegations into our midst several times a year during our sessions. We could start by discussing more minor issues, such as border procedures, territorial waters or fishing rights. When the opportunity arises, we might move on to tackle larger issues of disagreement between the two sides. Our Assembly has for many years been a champion of parliamentary diplomacy; what nobler object could there be to make a serious attempt to contribute to Israeli-Palestinian peaceful relations.

      Finally, let me refer to the sizable financial support that our Council of Europe member States give to various Palestinian authorities every year. None of that funding should in any circumstances be allowed to find its way to terrorists who are planning attacks on Israelis or be used in any shape or form for anti-Semitic propaganda. As many of you are aware, anti-Semitism is a growing problem in Sweden, and we must fight resolutely against it, not least in order to assist the Israeli-Palestinian peace process more generally.

      The PRESIDENT – I am sorry but 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 Corlăţean, the rapporteur to reply. You have seven minutes.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – I genuinely thank all colleagues who have contributed to this debate. Some chose to be very balanced, many chose to be constructive, some chose to be critical and some chose to condemn. We needed this debate, and what we heard proves very clearly that the collective wisdom of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy and what the rapporteur is proposing through this resolution is entirely right, as I will go on to explain.

      First, let me make a few comments on what we have heard and give a few reactions. Let me start with what my colleague and brother, in our common identity, Mr Ghiletchi from the Republic of Moldova said. We speak the same language, but this time I will speak in English. Unfortunately, you were not present during the discussion in Paris – you are not a member of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. We listened to a wise person who proposed that we should not condemn, criticise and start fighting, but instead try to find ways of taking a positive and constructive approach. This colleague is a parliamentarian, not a European, and he is present in the room. We chose to follow this wise advice not to damage or destroy, but to build. That is the key element and the key proposal of this draft resolution; it is about how we can build and not destroy – it is about how we can propose the positive contribution of the Europeans in this complicated and delicate environment.

      Secondly, I say to both the Israeli and Palestinian delegations that I have listened carefully to their comments, and I fully understand the nuances and merits of each and every position. I say to our Palestinian colleagues that sometimes there is a need for the Europeans and this Assembly to give reminders of some aspects of all of this. When we were asked some years ago to lend a hand in giving back to Palestine the remains of the Palestinian prisoners who died in prisons in Israel, and to give support on such a delicate and important issue as water resources and access, we did it. Our modest contribution added to different approaches, and we had a partner on the Israeli side.

Let me turn to our Israeli colleagues and say – this is the first time we are saying this publicly – that when we have been asked to make a modest contribution on such a delicate and important issue as obtaining the release of Gilad Shalit or on some other delicate items relating to radicalisation on the Palestinian side, we took it on and we did it. We added our modest contribution in a discreet way, and we had a partner on the Palestinian side. I want to thank both of you, as that proves we can work together on the subject.

      That is the most important conclusion, and this shows the most valuable contribution the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly can make. The most important conclusion is on the wisdom that was proposed to us and which we accepted and are now proposing: we need to respect the feelings, emotions and specific interests of both concerned parties. This is about respecting all the opinions that were expressed, once again, in a very diverse way, ranging from the balanced to the condemnatory. If we choose the collective wisdom, we can find ways to make a positive contribution to the most important thing: the peace process and a solution. It is very easy in politics to use the passion and be part of a trend that can destroy the process, but this resolution proposes that we build. That is the essence of the draft resolution; we must use this collective wisdom. That is our offer to both our Israeli and our Palestinian colleagues and friends: let us stay together and use this exceptional and unique European platform of contacts, discussions and exchanges of views, even in the complicated times. I wish to remind you of another important thing. For the peace process to succeed there is a need for courageous people and for wisdom. We have had that in the past, on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides, with the support of friends. We can define those friends, but definitely we are here.

      Let me end on a note that may surprise colleagues, particularly among our Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group. I was inspired by one of my colleagues, Mr Byrne, who, like a good socialist, made reference to a historical fact from 2 000 years ago. He referred to Mary and Joseph crossing the Holy Land in order to give birth to Jesus Christ in Bethlehem. For us European Christians, Jesus is the Messiah, and I was inspired by that reference. So let me say at the end of my contribution, as a European and with this Christian foundation related to both of us, that God is putting everything that is positive in you in blessing you with wisdom and courage to make peace, and we are definitely here to help.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Corlăţean.

      Does the chairperson of the committee wish to speak? That is not the case.

      The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution, to which six amendments have been tabled.

      Each amendment will be taken individually in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      We come to Amendment 1. I call Mr Önal to move the amendment.

      Mr ÖNAL (Turkey) – We discussed this in committee this morning, and we have decided not to move Amendments 1 to 4.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone else wish to move the amendment? That is not the case.

      Amendment 1 is not moved.

      I understand that Mr Kiliç wishes to withdraw Amendment 2. Does anyone else wish to move the amendment? That is not the case.

      Amendment 2 is not moved.

      I understand that Mr Kiliç wishes to withdraw Amendment 3. Does anyone else wish to move the amendment? That is not the case.

      Amendment 3 is not moved.

      We come to Amendment 5.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – For the sake of compromise, I will not move the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone else wish to move the amendment? That is not the case.

      Amendment 5 is not moved.

      I understand that Mr Kiliç wishes to withdraw Amendment 4. Does anyone else wish to move the amendment? That is not the case.

      Amendment 4 is not moved.

      We come to Amendment 6. Mr Cilevičs, you have 30 seconds.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – As we informed the secretariat, we would like to move an oral sub-amendment to the amendment, for the sake of compromise. Paragraph 9.1 makes recommendations to Israel. Paragraph 9.2 calls only for Palestinians to conclude reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas. I strongly believe that our Palestinian friends can do much more. They must first stop any activities that can be and are perceived as an encouragement of terrorism. That is why I suggest adding several words at the end of paragraph 9.2.

      The PRESIDENT – We now come to Amendment 6, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 9.2, to insert the following paragraph:

“calls on the Palestinian leadership to cease all activities that support or encourage terrorism against Israel, including incitement to terrorism through official and unofficial channels and the payment of stipends to the families of terrorists.”

      I understand that Mr Cilevičs wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, which is, in Amendment 6, after the words “in the draft resolution”, delete the existing text and replace with the words:

“In paragraph 9.2, at the end, insert the following words: ‘and cease support for those imprisoned following convictions for terrorist acts and their relatives.’”

      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 call Mr Cilevičs to support his oral sub-amendment.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – As I have already said, I believe that support for terrorists who are duly convicted by a court is interpreted as an encouragement of terrorism. All parties involved, including the Palestinian Authority, should refrain from such activities.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – This is a delicate matter. The proposal would be okay if it said “convictions by civil courts”. Without that reference, it would also include the more than 200 000 verdicts by Israeli military courts. Those military prosecutions fail to meet legal requirements under Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and do not meet the criteria for a fair trial according to the United Nations International Human Rights Organisation, the Red Cross and the president of the Israeli military courts. The Assembly should be very careful not to adopt an amendment that goes against our own European Convention on Human Rights, which grants people the right to a fair trial. I proposed that amendment to Mr Cilevičs, but he did not take it, so unfortunately I have to ask the Assembly to vote against the oral sub-amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – According to our rules, we cannot have a further sub-amendment.

      Mr Cilevičs is obviously in favour.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Dame Cheryl GILLAN (United Kingdom) – The committee voted in favour of the oral sub-amendment by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      We will now consider the main amendment, as amended.

      Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment, as amended?

      Dame Cheryl GILLAN (United Kingdom) – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 6, as amended, to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14484, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

3. Address by Mr Alexander Van der Bellen, President of Austria

      The PRESIDENT – We will now hear an address by Mr Alexander Van der Bellen, President of Austria. After that, Mr Van der Bellen will take questions from the floor.

      Dear President, it is a great honour for me to welcome you today in the Assembly Chamber. I should say “welcome you back”, as you were a member of this Assembly from 2009 to 2012. I hope that you still feel at home in Strasbourg.

      Mr President, we live in a period of transition, when Europe is particularly vulnerable to the dangers of nationalism, intolerance and disregard for the values of mutual understanding and respect. In these difficult times, your election in December 2016 represented a clear message of hope for all those who believe in Europe and firmly hold to our values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

      In your inaugural speech, you spoke about the importance of continuing to believe in Austria as being at the heart of Europe, not just geographically but politically. Your firm attachment to a fence-free Europe, strong and tolerant and united in its diversity, speaks for the path that you would like your country to take. Austria is a vital part of Europe. It is a land of unlimited possibilities, as your experience as a child refugee teaches us. I am sure that, with you at its helm, your country will continue to play its traditional role as a bridge builder between people, cultures and nations.

      (The speaker continued in German.)

      It is a great honour for us to have you here in the Parliamentary Assembly and we very much look forward to hearing your address. It is a great joy for me to give you the floor. Thank you very much.

      Mr Van der BELLEN (President of Austria)* – President, Secretary General, Madam President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities in Europe, honourable members of the Parliamentary Assembly, thank you. I also see that there are many people up in the gallery. I welcome you all.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      President Nicoletti, thank you for inviting me to speak to this Assembly today. Let me start by congratulating you on your election this week as President of the Parliamentary Assembly. Members of the Assembly know you and they trust that you will be able to guide their work during the next two years and to achieve the results that are called for. You and I had a very good and useful exchange of views this morning.

      Dear members of the Assembly, this week you elected the next Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Ms Dunja Mijatović, who will assume office in April. I extend my congratulations to Ms Mijatović and assure her of Austria’s wholehearted support for her in this function. We have had an excellent working relationship with the current Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Nils Muižnieks, who has paid special attention to the concerns and needs of civil society throughout Europe. We look forward to building an equally good relationship with his successor, who hopefully will be able to carry out this function in all member States of the Council of Europe.

      It is a great pleasure for me personally to be back in this Parliamentary Assembly, of which, as the President mentioned, I was a member between 2009 and 2012. As you may know, tomorrow I will have assumed the office of Federal President of Austria exactly one year ago. I take great personal satisfaction in the fact that, during my first year in office, I am able to speak before you here today.

      (The speaker continued in German.)

      Ladies and gentlemen, as you all know, the Council of Europe is the oldest political organisation of European States. It is through the Council of Europe that we saw the political unification of this continent after the Second World War and the Holocaust. It was the first time that we had an embodiment of that idea. Almost all European States now form part of the Council of Europe.

      The history of Europe prior to that was one of ever-recurring conflict and war. Speaking out for human rights – I do not think that that can be emphasised enough – securing democratic basic principles, abiding by the fundamental principles of a State governed by the rule of law, fighting terrorism, promoting economic and social progress, promoting cultural co-operation and promoting the protection of our environment and nature in Europe are the declared missions of the Council of Europe.

      This morning, when I arrived in the Palais de l’Europe, I was asked to write a few words in the golden book of the Council of Europe. I wrote as follows: “The Council of Europe is very important to the country of Austria. We are attached to the Council of Europe, our oldest and most genuine pan-European platform. The European Convention on Human Rights is of constitutional rank in Austria. Democracy, human rights and the rule of law are the very essence of Europe. Without these principles, we cannot have the Europe that we all want. Of course, these principles are principles that we must fight for every day. We must secure them every day.”

      Almost 70 years after its foundation, the Council of Europe has become a constant presence in Europe. This permanence and the fact that we have a premise based on values is what Europe needs today more than ever. We have already spoken about the three pillars of the Council of Europe – democracy, human rights and the rule of law – but, unfortunately, worrying cracks are appearing in those pillars. Democracy, by which I mean genuine pluralism and proper democratic elections that allow a change in government, does not seem to be guaranteed everywhere in Europe. The full exercise of human rights is in jeopardy in some regions of Europe. As for the independence of the judiciary, in several States there are worrying developments and trends.

      It is important that we remember the basic consensus of the past, particularly after the fall of the Iron Curtain. We need to revive that spirit. We are talking about Europe’s ability to take responsibility on the international stage, to show leadership, and to influence other regions, whether they are close or far away. That happens, for example, by opening up Council of Europe conventions for accession by non-European States. We are proud of that. We are proud to set an example in Europe of how to cope with conflicts of interest and still move forward. We must safeguard this ability at all costs.

      Nevertheless, we all know that in Europe there are still tensions, hotspots and points of conflict. This is reflected in the work done by international organisations, including the Council of Europe. In 2017, Austria had the presidency of the OSCE, where together we achieved a great deal. When it came to real hotspots, we had to consider the circumstances as they were and, unfortunately, we concluded that not much progress could be made. The Council of Europe is not the United Nations Security Council, nor is it the OSCE, yet it has important instruments that, if used wisely and properly, contribute to stabilisation and the potential future resolution of conflicts.

      For instance, I refer you to our conventions and the monitoring process for issues such as torture, discrimination against minorities, corruption, and trafficking in human beings. In fulfilling its mandate, the Council of Europe – this is very important – is not dependent on other international organisations. The Council of Europe has tremendous potential and that should be used to the full. All member States should contribute to that. We should be focused and we should work together seamlessly towards that objective.

      If I may, I would like to speak about a particularly painful hotspot in Europe, which emerged in spring 2014. A sustainable solution to the conflict in and around Ukraine can only happen if there is a will for peace and real efforts are made by all parties. For that, we need more dialogue, and we need trust between the different sides. The question of the possible return of the Russian parliamentary delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly is one of the most difficult topics that the Council of Europe must address. I very much hope that in the near future the members of the Parliamentary Assembly will be able to reach some kind of agreed method based on consensus that would bring us together, without any winners or losers. The quest for a solution concerns us all, and it is a matter of urgency.

      I am aware that the Council of Europe faces serious budgetary problems. This stems from the fact that the Russian Federation has suspended its budget contributions since June 2017 and from the decision of the Turkish Government to stop acting as a major contributor to the Council of Europe budget from 2018. I hope that the Russian Federation will review its decision and that it will be possible to arrive at some kind of practical solution with Turkey. Once again, what we need is dialogue, which is the key to any progress and a lasting solution.

       As you know, the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe plays a leading role in constitutional matters. It is often called on by various bodies of the Council of Europe or by member States to give opinions on matters, which are recognised because of the body’s high level of competence, objectivity and impartiality. The opinions are held in high regard. The members of the Venice Commission are independent, even when it comes to the governments that nominated them. However, I note with some concern that the opinions of the Venice Commission are sometimes being attacked or questioned, particularly if they are not in line with the political preference of the government concerned. We must remember that the Venice Commission has always ensured that its arguments and opinions are based on facts and it has always contributed to removing this potential for political conflict from difficult issues. We must continue to support the Venice Commission.

      The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights are a hallmark of Europe and have been for many years. At the core of this institution, you have the protection of citizens – men and women – who sometimes have to confront their own States. Again, I note with some concern that the rulings handed down by the European Court of Human Rights are not always properly implemented, are implemented slowly or are only enforced in a limited way. We must counter these developments. After all, we all have an interest in ensuring the smooth functioning of the European Court of Human Rights. We need to ensure that the Court is and continues to be in a position to deal with its backlog of cases speedily and to the satisfaction of all. I look forward to my talks with President Guido Raimondi to address such matters.

      Let me conclude by saying a few words about my country. As I am sure you are aware, parliamentary elections were held in Austria last October and a new federal government was formed in December. There were various positive, but also critical, comments on this governing coalition in Austria and abroad. It is therefore very important to me to say the following. The overwhelming majority of Austrian men and women – this statement is supported by many surveys – support Austria’s membership of the European Union. In other words, our population is clearly pro-European.

      My first mission as federal president took me to Brussels, quite deliberately, to the European Council and the European Commission, and also brought me to Strasbourg to meet the European Parliament. Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to confirm what I already stated on 14 February 2017 before the European Parliament. We are a continent of the “and”, not of the “either/or”. That is what makes us unique on this planet. By way of an example, I can describe my own identity. For some time now, I have seen myself as a Tyrolean, an Austrian and as a European. One does not exclude the other. My home is Tyrol, Vienna, Austria and Europe. In addition, from a political point of view, I am absolutely convinced that the only way that Austria, which is a relatively small State, can achieve its political, economic and cultural interests is within a united Europe. I want to emphasise this point, because when it came to the formation of the government in Austria, I really set great store by that. I wanted to make sure that our government spoke out about its commitment to Europe. This is very important, as is the continuation of our foreign policy and the fact that we stand by our basic principles, basic rights and basic freedoms. These are non-negotiable principles for us and that is something that is part and parcel of our government agreement.

      As you may be aware, in the second half of 2018, Austria will take over the presidency of the Council of the European Union. We have had talks with our troika partners, Estonia and Bulgaria, and preparations for our presidency are in full swing. I am absolutely convinced that Austria will be looking at the core issues that are of interest both to the Council of Europe and to the European Union, and where the two in fact come together in many respects – for instance, human rights, basic issues regarding the judiciary and democracy. All this will be factored into our planning for the presidency in the second half of 2018.

      In April 1956, Austria was admitted to the Council of Europe, and the European Convention on Human Rights has constitutional status in my country. That is quite unusual, even among member States of the Council of Europe. There are several rulings handed down by the European Court of Human Rights that have contributed demonstrably to the development of the rule of law in Austria, to our status as a country governed by the rule of law. In addition, of course, we joined the European Union in 1995, but our support for the Council of Europe was not in the slightest affected by that event. On the contrary, Austria is determined to continue with this positive commitment to both.

      President and honourable members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I would like to thank you most warmly for your attention and, needless to say, I am at your disposal for any questions you may have.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Van der Bellen, for your most interesting address. Members of the Assembly have questions to put to you.

      I remind them that questions must be limited to 30 seconds and no more. Colleagues should be asking questions and not making speeches. I first call Mr Ariev.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – Thank you, Mr President, for your address to the Assembly. I have two questions. What is your position on the continuing of European Union sanctions against the Russian Federation for ongoing aggression against Ukraine? How can you commend the delivery of a free access lecture in Austria by the Russian Nazi Aleksandr Dugin in which he openly named Ukrainians as a race of degenerates that deserve genocide? It is unacceptable to allow speeches by such a person.

      Mr Van der BELLEN – The first question was about sanctions against the Russian Federation. Austria is fully committed to the position of the European Union and, of course, also participated in the decision last December on the continuation of sanctions. The Minsk Agreement does not show any real development towards a conclusion that the sanctions are superfluous. Economically of course, this is not in Austria’s interests: we have a very close relationship with the Russian Federation in trade and in direct investment, but we still accept the position of the European Union and try to keep the dialogue open on all possible – I do not want to use the word “fronts” – in all possible ways.

      The second question concerned Mr Dugin. I am sorry: I was not in Vienna and I do not know what happened. If what you are saying is true, it is totally unacceptable. That is obvious. I certainly will not defend that in any way. I do not know who invited him or what the context was, but if what you are saying is correct, I can only say that it is unacceptable in every way.

      Ms De SUTTER (Belgium, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group) – I thank you for the firm pro-European stance you just took, but I want to express my deepest concerns about the xenophobic and anti-social plans of the new Austrian Government. Austria is the only western democracy where the extreme right now has made its way into government. The whole of Europe is very concerned about this. As a progressive president, you may well have historic responsibility for making sure that your country upholds its obligations regarding human rights and does not lead to a normalisation of extreme right rhetoric. How will you manage that?

      Mr Van der BELLEN – I know about this opinion, which is not unique to people outside Austria – it is present in Austria too. It is certainly true that, especially among one of the coalition partners, xenophobic tendencies have been present in past, and also critical attitudes towards the European Union and European unity in general. However, that was the rhetoric of an opposition party, and we will see what the government really does.

      When I think back – it was a different situation, but still – in 2000 we had a coalition of the Conservative party and the Freedom party in Austria, and there was strong concern about the new government, even with the reaction of the EU14, as it was at the time, levelling so-called sanctions or measures against Austria. After six months or so, the situation quietened. Why? Because you can distinguish between rhetoric and the concrete measures and new laws that were proposed in parliament. It was a centre-right government, but it did not violate human rights. It took all kinds of actions against – well, I do not want to go into it really – but actions that were directed against the power positions of the Social Democrats, but not human rights as such, even then.

      So personally, I will sit and wait, but use all the opportunities available to a federal president to show you and the people in Austria that civil society is still there. In 2015, Austria had almost 100 000 applicants for asylum. The situation was critical, but it was brought under control with the help of civil society – organisations such as the Catholic Church, other Churches, the Red Cross, non-governmental organisations of all kinds and ordinary people who helped with apartments, food, railway tickets and so on. That is the other part of Austria that you should not forget when you look with concern at the new government. I understand up to a point, but do not forget that you are talking not about Austria but about some political developments, which should be taken seriously but should not cause you to panic.

      Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – We all appreciate and respect the good example that your country has set on migration policy. As you just mentioned, in 2015 you welcomed 90 000 asylum seekers – more per capita than even Germany. First, in that connection, during your country’s forthcoming European Union presidency from July this year, what plans do you have for improving co-ordination among our European States, both for the handling of future asylum seekers and for maintaining high standards for their fair treatment after they have arrived?

      Secondly, taking into account your country’s constructive support for European Union enlargement within the Western Balkans, during your European Union presidency what combined measures will you encourage for that region to advance the necessary reforms and to diminish and control organised crime and corruption?

      Mr Van der BELLEN – I did not hear the second part of your question. The first was on the co-ordination of asylum policy in the European Union, and the second was –

      The Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – The second was: in regard to your positive policies towards European Union enlargement within the Western Balkans, what plans do you have in your European Union presidency to control crime and corruption and help the advancement of the necessary political and constitutional reforms?

      Mr Van der BELLEN – It will not be an easy presidency, that is for sure. The Brexit negotiations are going on – maybe they will come to an end, maybe not. There are certain financial issues relating to the European Union budget, not least because of the Brexit negotiations, and the situation regarding asylum co-ordination is unsatisfactory to say the least. Still, at the moment the situation is under control. It was different in 2015. In Austria, there was a bit of a time lag in people’s reaction to the fact that the situation was out of control, in the sense that at least 1 million people crossed into Austria – some 10% stayed there – without there being border controls or any information about who was coming or going. It was certainly unsatisfactory, to say the least.

      On the other hand, I understand – to a degree, at least – the positions of neighbouring countries that have no tradition of accepting refugees in great numbers. Austria has that history. We had a similar situation after the Second World War, we had 1956 with Hungary, we had 1968 with Czechoslovakia, we had the crisis in Poland in the late ‘90s, and we had Bosnia and Herzegovina. Each time, large numbers of people – 80 000, 100 000 or 200 000 – came to Austria in a very short time, so we basically know how to deal with it. I understand that countries such as Hungary, Slovakia and Poland do not have that experience. However, if this continues in the long run, it is not acceptable, after decisions are made according to the rules of the European Council by majority voting, for member States that do not agree with the rulings to say, “Well, you made a decision, but we won’t go along with it.” If that happens in other cases, the European Union will break up. That is no way to continue on our path. I take that almost as seriously as the fact that the distribution of refugees and asylum seekers across the Union is very difficult indeed. Breaking the rules is more serious in the long run.

      The government, Commissioner Hahn and I are convinced that the Western Balkans should be one of the priorities for the policy of the European Union. All the countries of the Western Balkans must have a prospect of joining the Union. If we do not take that seriously, a kind of political vacuum will develop and other countries will move in. We have already seen that happen in Bosnia and Herzegovina, for instance, and that is not in the European interest. Having said that, I think we should not be naive. We are talking about five, six or seven countries in the Western Balkans. Commissioner Hahn optimistically estimated that we could have an agreement by 2023, meaning that they could join in 2024 or 2025.

      This is not just a question of the countries trying to join the European Union doing their homework. It is obvious that they must do that. It is also a question of the homework that we – the old member States – have to do. I do not think that Union’s present institutional framework can cope with six new members, even if the United Kingdom leaves the Union – and I am very sorry about that. It is too many. We have to think about voting rights in the Commission, who will nominate judges and so on. Such questions have to be dealt with in parallel with the application negotiations with those countries. We should take that issue more seriously, because, as someone said, there is a certain Müdigkeit – fatigue – regarding enlargement in the Union. This clearly puts fire in the discussion.

      Mr DAEMS (Belgium, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – Mr President, a member of your government recently stated that asylum seekers should be concentrated in special centres in order to be processed swiftly – foul language. We both know that words can kill. Austrians do not deserve that kind of language, and you did indeed condemn it. My question is the following: what are the real powers invested in you as a president to oppose or block any decisions by the Austrian Government that undermine any basic rights in your country?

      Mr Van der BELLEN – Language is important, you are right, and I have said so in public, although I think the interpretation of that statement by our new minister of the interior was rather far-fetched, but still.

      My powers as a federal president are similar to those of other presidents who do not have real executive powers. I have some influence in how I behave: where, when, on which topic and in what manner I make speeches – that is, influencing the public – and talking to the media, obviously. I have to sign new laws, but I do not have a veto power. I have to check whether the laws were passed with a sufficient majority in parliament. It is very rare for the federal president not to sign a law. I can remember only one case in the last 50 years, which was when President Heinz Fischer was convinced that a small point in the law was contrary to the constitution. It was not terribly important, but still, it was unconstitutional, so he did not sign and parliament had to deal with it again.

      I could talk about this topic for hours, but to make it short, one of the problems – actually, it is not a problem, but a good thing – is that our constitutional court is an institution that you can really have trust in. I say that, even though I was a sort of victim of one of its decisions, when it annulled the result of the May 2016 election, in which I had won, but only by a small margin. In the end, that decision by the constitutional court turned out to be a good thing, because in the subsequent December election I won not by a margin of 50 000 votes, but by 350 000 votes. So as it turned out, it was right again, but that is another story.

      Any law can be challenged before the constitutional court, depending on certain rules – who is allowed to do that, and so on – so even if parliament passes a law that I have my doubts about but I am not sure whether it is really unconstitutional, and that law is then passed, somebody else can fight it before the constitutional court. This is really a serious matter. The constitutional court is not easily open to political influence. It has about 15 members, and this is something that will come across my desk in the next few months, because judges have to leave office when they are 70, and that is the case for three judges at the moment. Again, I have to sign their nominations to the court.

      This is Austria, and that means that the government and I will have discussions – about who the possible candidates are, why they are candidates and why they have been put forward – and usually things like that are discussed before it becomes public that we have different opinions. In this way, I have some influence. They make a proposal, and by law I may take the liberty not to sign, because it is a proposal. That is the fine Austrian language, which says: “The president cannot do many things by himself; he waits for proposals by the government,” but a proposal is a proposal. I can say, “No. Please, next proposal.” You do not do that very often, but you can do it.

      Ms KAVVADIA (Greece, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – I would like to stress the rising far-right trend in many countries, including your own, which is reflected in calls for more border fences, closed borders and a Fortress Europe-type approach to refugees and migrants. This is an agenda that we are seeing adopted by mainstream right-wing parties, including in Austria. Is this not a major danger? I would also like to hear your opinion about the decision by Austria’s Jews to boycott Holocaust commemorations over the rise of the far right.

      Mr Van der BELLEN – You can be assured that I have my own opinions about policies towards foreigners, including refugees. Of course, not every man or woman who crosses the border seeking asylum has sufficient grounds to be granted asylum. We all know that. The difficult question is what to do then, but this is not new. We have had this problem for decades, and not only in Austria but in all European countries, where greater numbers are applying for asylum. Personally, I would not wish to make such decisions, I can tell you. We are talking about families being separated and people having to return after living for years in Austria, and it is the same in Italy and Germany.

      These are difficult questions. On the European level, we should be aware that we have left Greece alone for a long time – too long. We have also left Italy alone for a long time – too long. Up to a point, I could say that Austria should not complain too much, because we are only worried now that we are having to deal with large numbers, but at present the situation in Austria is – how should I put it? – under control. People have a roof over their heads – they have an apartment; they can live somewhere. Their daily needs are fulfilled and there is practically no violence. Yes, there is bad language – let us call it that – in the so-called media, but there is no actual violence against migrants. Statistically, we have not seen an unreasonable increase in crime, either by foreigners or against foreigners. Still, it will accompany us for years. Even if kids are fully integrated and going to kindergarten and school and so on, we have to integrate the people who are 30 or 40 years old, which will be difficult for the labour market. It will not be easy in any case.

      We also have to be careful: when accepting immigrants as refugees, especially from the Near East, we certainly do not want to import anti-Semitism at the same time. I do not want to be naïve: if you grow up in an anti-Israeli environment, which is usually the case for these refugees – and understandable, too – that can easily develop into anti-Semitism, and that is the last thing that we need in Austria or in other countries. The Israelitische Kultusgemeinde in Vienna and in Austria are very careful where they go to commemorate the anniversaries of the liberation of Auschwitz, or the end of the Second World War or the occupation of Austria by Hitler’s Germany. They are very careful about where to show up and where not, and I understand their position.

      Ms FILIPOVSKI (Serbia, Spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group) – For Western Balkan countries, political stability, peace, economic co-operation and resolving all open issues through dialogue are crucial. Bulgaria and Austria will have the presidency of the Council of the European Union, which Western Balkan countries see as opening the possibility of speeding up the European Union’s enlargement policy. How do you see the role of Austria in that process?

      Mr Van der BELLEN – Historically, Austria has had a very good position in the Western Balkans. In Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia – everywhere – we are welcome as negotiators, either for firms investing directly there or in trying to further trade between our countries, including Serbia. I am happy to say that President Vučić will visit me in Vienna next week, where we will discuss those things. As I said before, we have a strong interest in European Union enlargement in the Western Balkans. It is in the interest of the countries there and of the countries of the European Union, and it is particularly in the interests of Austria because of our strong historical personal and economic relations with all those countries, without exception.

      Still, there are some problems, which you will of course know better than me. There is the issue of Kosovo. I mention that because, after Cyprus and the problems between Slovenia and Croatia, the leaders of the European Union are tired of accepting new members that have border problems with other neighbours. Those have to be dealt with before gaining full membership of the European Union. I hope those issues will be dealt with satisfactorily within a couple of years, especially in the case of Serbia. I am fairly optimistic about that.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. We will now come to groups of three questions.

      Mr WASERMAN (France)* – My question is about the role of Austria in Europe. Although we judge the coalition on what it does, and although we have faith in Austria’s democratic institutions, politics is about values and convictions, and it seems obvious to me that some of the values and convictions in Austria now are diametrically opposed to what we are doing here. Do you think Austria can really play a full role in European reconstruction, and can you guarantee that?

      Mr BILDARRATZ (Spain)* – In your address, you emphasised that Europe has to be a continent of inclusion, not exclusion. We agree with that, but thousands of people are dying crossing the Mediterranean, and the European Union has not met the various promises within the framework of its principles. How do you value the European Union-Turkey Agreement right now, with regard to migration?

      Mr CROWE (Ireland) – Like many others, I was shocked and disappointed by the electoral support that the far right Freedom Party of Austria – the FPÖ – received in the general election in your country on 15 October 2017. Although you had a close battle with the FPÖ candidate in 2016, whom you thankfully defeated, we have a situation in which the FPÖ is in coalition with the Austrian People’s Party. I am extremely concerned that such a right-wing party is in government in Western Europe.

      Just two weeks ago, on 11 January, the Austrian Interior Minister, who is from the FPÖ said he wanted the Austrian authorities “to concentrate asylum seekers in one place.” That is a provocative use of “concentrate”. How do you, as an Austrian democrat, respond to that language and extremist approach?

      Mr Van der BELLEN – On the first question, about right-wing parties and the future of the European Union, when I worry about the future of the European Union, I worry about developments across the countries of the Union, not in Austria alone. In the long election campaign in Austria for the federal presidency – it lasted the whole of 2016 – it was, in a sense, interesting and tragic that, in the six months leading up to the second election, I tried to take up European topics in every speech and interview, and there was zero echo. Nobody was interested. That situation changed dramatically after the error of the majority of the British people in voting for Brexit. People, including me, suddenly woke up to the idea that it is a real possibility that this fine institution, the European Union, might break up. That changed the whole atmosphere.

      At the time of Brexit, the Freedom Party made the mistake at first of welcoming the decision of the majority of the British people. After a couple of weeks, it realised that the decision was not popular at all in Austria, so it changed its position. You might call that opportunistic. I am not calling it that. In fact, I think that it is reasonable and laudable. Nevertheless, if I am in a bad mood, I remember an article that was written, I think, by a German journalist at the end of 1933 or the beginning of 1934. The journalist said that Germany had a democracy – Weimar Demokratie – but that it did not have enough democrats. If I have slept badly, I think to myself, “I do not want to wake up one day and say that we had a united Europe, but we did not have enough Europeans.” If this sort of Müdigkeit – fatigue – with and misunderstanding of the necessity of a united Europe exists, this is not just a question of the relative strength of right-wing parties; it concerns us all.

      There was a question about people trying to cross the Mediterranean. The situation in the sea between Greece and Turkey is more or less under control. We are talking about very small numbers of people, and that has been the case for a year or so. Even the situation between Italy and Libya has improved considerably. I really admire the Italian authorities, which, in this terribly complicated and difficult situation, did a great job negotiating with Libya. With whom in Libya? There are no real working political or State institutions there, but the Italian authorities somehow managed to get fewer people on the sea, crossing the sea and drowning in the sea. This brings up a new problem: the people staying in Libya under terrible conditions and the people crossing the southern border into Libya. We have to look at the whole northern part of Africa in order to get the situation there under control. That will cost money, but it is in our interest.

      Mr Crowe’s question was again about the Freedom Party. I am sort of tired of this subject. We have to take these developments seriously, but also with tongue in cheek. In Austria, over at least 100 years, there was always the potential for a clear right-wing party – under different names, of course. That was the case under the monarchy and after the monarchy failed in 1918. I am not here to worry about France, but I was very, very happy that President Macron won the election last year. In German, we would say, “ein Stein fiel mir vom Herzen” – I felt as though a weight had been lifted from my heart. With France, you could worry that father Le Pen got about 20% of the votes against Chirac, and that Madame Le Pen got about 40% of the votes against Macron. What is going on in France? I am happy for you to focus your interest on Austria, but please realise that this political development is not particular to Austria.

      I have thought about this issue. When I won the presidential election about a year ago in December 2016, you could say that there was a coalition of centre-left voters. Hardly a year later, the voters made a centre-right coalition possible. But, if you look closer, that included the same people. Of course, some people voted for me who were not greens, social democrats or liberals, but who were very conservative. They did not like the other candidate so, gritting their teeth and making a fist, they voted for me. Hardly a year later, there is an absolutely legal and legitimate position in parliament making a centre-right coalition possible. That is normal in a democracy. Within a very short period, we had centre-left and centre-right majorities. C’est la vie.

      I will do my best to keep my many promises to my voters. Among them was that I want to be a president for all Austrians. I have to ensure that I really do keep the interests of all Austrians in mind, not only my voters – although they are, of course, in my heart; the others are in my head.

      The PRESIDENT – We must now conclude the questions to Mr Van der Bellen.

      (The speaker continued in German.)

      Mr President, I am very grateful for the strong message of unity and trust that you have delivered to the Parliamentary Assembly. In closing, I would like to mention a famous South Tyrolean who dedicated his life to the values of co-existence and dialogue. Alexander Langer was a builder of bridges between people, cultures and ideas. He felt that there was no alternative to co-operation between cultures and had a determined vision for a multi-ethnic society. He wrote an article calling for the following: “No to exclusion and to forced inclusion. Yes to human co-existence that accepts complications and differences, and that tolerates imperfection.” For all that, it is absolutely necessary to pay attention to small groups and their experiences. Thank you.

      (The speaker continued in English)

      I remind colleagues that the Holocaust remembrance ceremony will take place now in the forecourt of the Palais de l’Europe. You are all invited to participate.

4. Next public business

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

      The sitting is closed.

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

CONTENTS

1.        Changes in the membership of committees

2.        Urgent debate on The Israeli-Palestinian peace process: the role of the Council of Europe

Presentation by Mr Corlăţean of report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy in Document 14484

Speakers: Mr Howell, Ms Mehl, Ms Kavvadia, Mr Amoruso, Mr Vareikis, Mr Byrne, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Abushahla, Ms Yaşar, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Heer, Mr Schwabe, Ms Lavie, Mr Thórarinsson, Ms Duranton, Mr Kiliç, Ms McCarthy, Mr Bildarratz, Mr Crowe, Mr Khader, Ms Ævarsdóttir, Mr Pisco, Ms Trisse, Mr Albakkar, Mr Blaha, Mr Sheppard and Mr Wiechel

Reply: Mr Corlăţean

Amendment 6, as amended, adopted

Draft resolution in Document 14484, as amended, adopted

3.        Address by Mr Alexander Van der Bellen, President of Austria

Questions: Mr Ariev, Ms De Sutter, Earl of Dundee, Mr Daems, Ms Kavvadia, Ms Filipovski, Mr Waserman, Mr Bildarratz and Mr Crowe

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 à l’article 12.2 du Règlement.Le nom des personnes remplacées suit celui des Membres remplaçant, entre parenthèses.

ÅBERG, Boriana [Ms]

ÆVARSDÓTTIR, Thorhildur Sunna [Ms]

AKTAY, Yasin [Mr]

AMON, Werner [Mr]

AMORUSO, Francesco Maria [Mr] (CENTEMERO, Elena [Ms])

ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]

BADEA, Viorel Riceard [M.] (BRĂILOIU, Tit-Liviu [Mr])

BALÁŽ, Radovan [Mr] (PAŠKA, Jaroslav [M.])

BALFE, Richard [Lord] (ECCLES, Diana [Lady])

BARNETT, Doris [Ms]

BATRINCEA, Vlad [Mr]

BECHT, Olivier [M.]

BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr]

BERNHARD, Marc [Mr]

BEUS RICHEMBERGH, Goran [Mr]

BILDARRATZ, Jokin [Mr]

BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]

BLAHA, Ľuboš [Mr]

BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]

BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme]

BRUIJN-WEZEMAN, Reina de [Ms] (MULDER, Anne [Mr])

BRUYN, Piet De [Mr]

BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR, Rósa Björk [Ms]

BYRNE, Liam [Mr]

ĆATOVIĆ, Marija Maja [Ms]

CERİTOĞLU KURT, Lütfiye İlksen [Ms] (ŞAHİN USTA, Leyla [Ms])

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]

CILEVIČS, Boriss [Mr] (LAIZĀNE, Inese [Ms])

COMTE, Raphaël [M.] (FIALA, Doris [Mme])

CORLĂŢEAN, Titus [Mr]

COURSON, Yolaine de [Mme] (GAILLOT, Albane [Mme])

CROWE, Seán [Mr]

CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]

DAEMS, Hendrik [Mr] (DUMERY, Daphné [Ms])

DALLOZ, Marie-Christine [Mme]

DAVIES, David [Mr] (GALE, Roger [Sir])

DE TEMMERMAN, Jennifer [Mme]

DESTREBECQ, Olivier [M.]

DIVINA, Sergio [Mr]

DUNDEE, Alexander [The Earl of] [ ]

DURANTON, Nicole [Mme]

EIDE, Petter [Mr] (EIDE, Espen Barth [Mr])

ENGIN, Didem [Ms] (BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr])

ESTRELA, Edite [Mme] (ROSETA, Helena [Mme])

FILIPOVSKI, Dubravka [Ms] (PANTIĆ PILJA, Biljana [Ms])

FOULKES, George [Lord] (PRESCOTT, John [Mr])

FOURNIER, Bernard [M.]

FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]

GARCÍA ALBIOL, Xavier [Mr]

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GILLAN, Cheryl [Dame]

GOGA, Pavol [M.] (KRESÁK, Peter [Mr])

GOLUB, Vladyslav [Mr] (GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme])

GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.]

GRAF, Martin [Mr]

GRIN, Jean-Pierre [M.] (LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.])

GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr]

HAIDER, Roman [Mr]

HAJDUKOVIĆ, Domagoj [Mr]

HEBNER, Martin [Mr] (KLEINWAECHTER, Norbert [Mr])

HEER, Alfred [Mr]

HEINRICH, Gabriela [Ms]

HOWELL, John [Mr]

HUNKO, Andrej [Mr]

HUSEYNOV, Vusal [Mr] (HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr])

JENIŠTA, Luděk [Mr]

JENSEN, Gyde [Ms]

JONES, Susan Elan [Ms]

JORDANA, Carles [Mr]

JURATOVIC, Josip [Mr] (SCHÄFER, Axel [Mr])

KALMARI, Anne [Ms]

KAMMENOS, Dimitrios [Mr] (TZAVARAS, Konstantinos [M.])

KAPUR, Mudassar [Mr] (WOLD, Morten [Mr])

KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr]

KASSEGGER, Axel [Mr] (BURES, Doris [Ms])

KATSARAVA, Sofio [Ms]

KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]

KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR, Filiz [Ms]

KERN, Claude [M.] (SORRE, Bertrand [M.])

KESİCİ, İlhan [Mr]

KILIÇ, Akif Çağatay [Mr]

KIRAL, Serhii [Mr] (SOTNYK, Olena [Ms])

KITEV, Betian [Mr]

KLICH, Bogdan [Mr]

KOBZA, Jiři [Mr] (BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr])

KOÇ, Haluk [M.]

KOPŘIVA, František [Mr]

KOX, Tiny [Mr]

KRIŠTO, Borjana [Ms]

KRONBICHLER, Florian [Mr]

KUHLE, Konstantin [Mr]

KYTÝR, Jaroslav [Mr]

LACROIX, Christophe [M.]

LAMBERT, Jérôme [M.]

LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.]

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

LOPUSHANSKYI, Andrii [Mr] (DZHEMILIEV, Mustafa [Mr])

LOUHELAINEN, Anne [Ms] (PACKALÉN, Tom [Mr])

LUNDGREN, Kerstin [Ms] (SVENSSON, Michael [Mr])

MARKOVIĆ, Milica [Mme]

MAROSZ, Ján [Mr]

MARQUES, Duarte [Mr]

MASIULIS, Kęstutis [Mr] (BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr])

MASSEY, Doreen [Baroness]

MAVROTAS, Georgios [Mr] (KASIMATI, Nina [Ms])

McCARTHY, Kerry [Ms]

MEHL, Emilie Enger [Ms]

MEIMARAKIS, Evangelos [Mr]

MENDES, Ana Catarina [Mme]

MERGEN, Martine [Mme] (HETTO-GAASCH, Françoise [Mme])

MIKKO, Marianne [Ms]

MÜHLWERTH, Monika [Ms] (ESSL, Franz Leonhard [Mr])

MULLEN, Rónán [Mr] (COWEN, Barry [Mr])

MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr]

MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr] (TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr])

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr]

NICK, Andreas [Mr]

NORDQVIST, Rasmus [Mr] (JENSEN, Mogens [Mr])

OBREMSKI, Jarosław [Mr] (ARENT, Iwona [Ms])

OHLSSON, Carina [Ms]

ÖNAL, Suat [Mr]

O’REILLY, Joseph [Mr]

PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms] (NAUDI ZAMORA, Víctor [M.])

PISCO, Paulo [M.]

POLIAČIK, Martin [Mr] (KAŠČÁKOVÁ, Renáta [Ms])

PREDA, Cezar Florin [M.]

PRUNĂ, Cristina-Mădălina [Ms]

PSYCHOGIOS, Georgios [Mr] (ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Athanasia [Ms])

RIGONI, Andrea [Mr]

RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]

SANTA ANA, María Concepción de [Ms]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]

SEKULIĆ, Predrag [Mr]

ŠEPIĆ, Senad [Mr]

SEYIDOV, Samad [Mr]

SHARMA, Virendra [Mr]

SHEPPARD, Tommy [Mr] (BARDELL, Hannah [Ms])

SILVA, Adão [M.]

ŠIRCELJ, Andrej [Mr]

SMITH, Angela [Ms]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

STANĚK, Pavel [Mr]

STIER, Davor Ivo [Mr]

ŞUPAC, Inna [Ms]

SUTTER, Petra De [Ms] (VERCAMER, Stefaan [M.])

TAMAŠUNIENĖ, Rita [Ms]

THIÉRY, Damien [M.]

THÓRARINSSON, Birgir [Mr] (ÓLASON, Bergþór [Mr])

TOPCU, Zühal [Ms]

TORNARE, Manuel [M.] (MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme])

TRISSE, Nicole [Mme]

TÜRKEŞ, Yıldırım Tuğrul [Mr]

ULLRICH, Volker [Mr]

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]

VARVITSIOTIS, Miltiadis [Mr] (BAKOYANNIS, Theodora [Ms])

VEJKEY, Imre [Mr]

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

VLASENKO, Sergiy [Mr] (BILOVOL, Oleksandr [Mr])

VOVK, Viktor [Mr] (LIASHKO, Oleh [Mr])

WASERMAN, Sylvain [M.]

WIECHEL, Markus [Mr] (NISSINEN, Johan [Mr])

WILSON, Phil [Mr]

WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr]

YAŞAR, Serap [Mme]

YEMETS, Leonid [Mr]

ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr]

Also signed the register / Ont également signé le registre

Representatives or Substitutes not authorised to vote / Représentants ou suppléants non autorisés à voter

BESELIA, Eka [Ms]

CORREIA, Telmo [M.]

GERMANN, Hannes [Mr]

GOGUADZE, Nino [Ms]

KANDELAKI, Giorgi [Mr]

MAKHMUDYAN, Rustam [Mr]

REISS, Frédéric [M.]

RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme]

RUSSELL, Simon [Lord]

TOUHIG, Don [Lord]

UCA, Feleknas [Ms]

WHITFIELD, Martin [Mr]

Observers / Observateurs

GÁNDARA CAMOU, Ernesto [Mr]

LAVIE, Aliza [Ms]

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie

ABUSHAHLA, Mohammedfaisal [Mr]

ALAZZAM, Riad [Mr]

ALBAKKAR, Khaled [Mr]

ALQAWASMI, Sahar [Ms]

AMRAOUI, Allal [M.]

CHAGAF, Aziza [Mme]

KHADER, Qais [Mr]

LABLAK, Aicha [Mme]

MUFLIH, Haya [Ms]

SABELLA, Bernard [Mr]

ZAYADIN, Kais [Mr]