Wedesnay  26 January 2000 at 10 a.m.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS A PROVISIONAL VERSION OF THE REPORT OF  THE DEBATE OF 26 JANUARY 2000 AT 10 A.M WHICH MAY STILL BE CORRECTED BY THE SPEAKERS

In this report:

1. Speeches in English are reported in full.

2. Speeches in other languages are summarised.

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

Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

CONTENTS

 

1. Adoption of the minutes
2. Meetings of committees
3. Situation in Belarus (presentation of report by Mr Behrendt, Doc. 8606, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee and opinion by Mr Jansson, Doc. 8605, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights)
4. Communication from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr Schwimmer

Speakers:

Mrs Ojuland (Estonia)

Mr Symonenko (Ukraine)

Mr Solonari (Moldova)

Mr Hornhues (Germany)

Mr Peter Weiss (Slovakia)

Mr Kieres (Poland)

Mr Konoplev (Belarus)

Mr Gylys (Lithuania)

Mr Wielowieyski (Poland)

Mr Lebedko (Belarus)

Mr Frey (Switzerland)

Mr Akçali (Turkey)

Mr Glotov (Russian Federation)

Mr Shaklein (Russian Federation)

Mr Zhirinovsky (Russian Federation)

Mr Blaauw (Netherlands)

Mr Davis (United Kingdom)

Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 as amended, 10, 7, 4 and 5 to the draft recommendation adopted.

Draft recommendation, as amended, adopted.

Draft order, as amended, adopted.

1. Communication from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr Schwimmer
2. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting

 

 

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

 

THE PRESIDENT.- The sitting is open.

 

 

1. Adoption of the minutes

 

The minutes of proceedings of the previous two sittings have been distributed.

 

If there are no objections, I will take the minutes as agreed to.

 

The minutes are adopted.

 

2. Meetings of committees

 

I want to report two changes in the meetings of committees reported in this morning’s notice paper: first, at 2 p.m. the full Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights will meet in Room 8, and not its Sub-Committee on Human Rights; secondly, the Committee on Parliamentary and Public Relations will not meet at 2 p.m. in Room 9, and instead the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities will meet at that time and place.

 

 

3. Situation in Belarus

 

THE PRESIDENT.- The first item of business this morning is the debate on the report on the situation in Belarus presented by Mr Behrendt on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, Document 8606, with an opinion presented by Mr Jansson on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 8605.

 

The list of speakers closed at 7 p.m. on Tuesday 25 January. Twenty names are on the list and eleven amendments have been tabled.

 

In order to finish by about 12 noon to hear from Mr Schwimmer, we must interrupt the list of speakers at about 11.30 a.m. to allow time for the replies and the votes.

 

Are these arrangements agreed?…

 

They are agreed to.

 

I call Mr Behrendt to present his report. He has eight minutes.

 

Mr BEHRENDT (Germany) thanked the President. He reminded his colleagues that the Council of Europe had suspended the special guest status of Belarus in November 1996. He and a colleague had visited Belarus to assess progress made since then towards fulfilling Council of Europe principles.

 

During the past twelve months, a series of positive measures had been taken in Belarus, including a draft agreement on access to the media and a draft of a new constitution. There were still a number of critical issues. Belarus still had the death penalty and political prisoners and opposition politicians were still persecuted. The basic criterion for which he hoped were fair and free elections in Belarus in the following year. It was necessary to secure the co-operation of the opposition, in order for a genuinely fair and free democracy to be put in place. All parties had to have equal access to the media, and the freedom to organise their political campaigns during elections. Traditional democratic procedures had to be followed in parliament.

 

Once all those conditions had been met, it would be possible to say that free and fair elections had taken place. Perhaps then it would be possible first to invite Belarus as a special guest, and then to reinstate its status. That was not yet the case - there were too many contraventions of the principles of the Council of Europe. For example, politicians continued to be persecuted, and there were still political prisoners, some of which were opposition politicians. There was no respect for demonstrations, and an independent judiciary had yet to be established.

 

He thanked his colleagues for the amendments that had been put forward; as rapporteur, he thought that he would be able to agree to most of them. He looked forward to an interesting debate, commensurate with the importance of Belarus, and he hoped to welcome it back into the fold.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Behrendt. I call Mr Jansson to present the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Mr Jansson, you have five minutes.

 

Mr JANSSON (Finland).- On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, I thank the Bureau for allowing us to present this opinion.

 

"Audiatur et altera pars" is an important legal rule: one should not judge a person without listening to him or her. That is why we are pleased that the Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee, Mr Behrendt, visited Belarus, which is such a complicated country.

 

The definition of democracy, as we all know, is government of the people by the people. In the view of the Legal Affairs Committee, the most important task of any democracy is to defend itself. All democracies must defend themselves every day at every level.

 

Another important dimension of democracy is democratic government, which is based on at least two cornerstones. The first is the willingness of the electorate to participate in governing itself, and the second concerns realistic opportunities for the electorate to demonstrate its will in free and fair elections, as my colleague Mr Behrendt said, and, I would add, democratically acceptable elections. My committee fully shares the view expressed in the excellent report by Mr Behrendt. The purpose of my amendments is simply to strengthen the report.

 

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to have a discussion with our former colleague, Adrian Severin, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania and now head of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission in Minsk. He was very clear in his view that Belarus was facing huge problems. I share his view on two main points - internally, the need for a political dialogue between the governing powers and the opposition, even if the opposition is abroad; and externally, the need for organisations such as the Council of Europe, OSCE and the European Union to co-ordinate their efforts to restore parliamentary democracy to Belarus. We must show our commitment to act in a co-ordinated manner to bring about free, fair and internationally acceptable elections in Belarus.

 

Belarus is in the heart of Europe and we must do everything possible to assist in the restoration of parliamentary democracy in that country - but of course not without listening to the views of all sides, as we have done and will continue to do. That is why the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights fully supports what is proposed by the Political Affairs Committee.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Jansson. I now call Mrs Ojuland to speak in the debate on behalf of the Liberal Group.

 

Mrs OJULAND (Estonia).- I have the honour to speak for the Liberal Democrat and Reformers Group, which has had permanent contact with our Belarusian colleagues for some time. We are deeply concerned by recent developments in Belarus. The difficulties raised cross into Belarus’s neighbouring country, Ukraine, and we are equally concerned about developments there.

 

We are concerned about not only the political situation but the economic and social conditions in Belarus. I shall tell you some worrying facts. The minimum salary in Belarus is $3 a month, pensions are $7 a month and the average wage is $30 a month. Last year, the inflation rate was 300%. Members of the Assembly can imagine that people who live in Belarus are in an extremely difficult social and economic position. When one asks how people can live on that money and why they accept the situation, the response from politicians is that Belarusians should be happy because there is no war in their country.

 

The Liberal Group agrees with both rapporteurs. I congratulate Mr Behrendt on his report, and I agree with all that Mr Jansson said on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Negotiations should begin as quickly as possible between opposition and coalition politicians in Belarus. Belarusians from both sides were present at yesterday’s Political Affairs Committee. I did not sense a great readiness to begin negotiations, but we must work on the principle that they will start. The result of those negotiations must be a new election law, followed by new elections, which must be democratic, free and fair.

 

I agree with the rapporteur’s statement that the Belarusian law on access to the mass media must be implemented. That law was signed last November and would allow the opposition access to the public mass media. It has not been implemented and it must be implemented fully as soon as possible. In addition, all political repression must stop immediately. It is not acceptable that members of the Supreme Soviet have been sent to prison for purely political reasons.

 

Finally, free, fair and democratic elections are the only basis for full co-operation with the Belarusian delegation. The Liberal Group looks forward to the return of a Belarusian delegation to the Council of Europe, but that can happen only once there have been elections and the creation of a real parliament with which we can co-operate.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mrs Ojuland. The next speaker is Mr Symonenko of Ukraine, who will speak on behalf of the Unified European Left.

 

Mr SYMONENKO (Ukraine) believed that there was a need to give more consideration to the reasons behind the current situation in Belarus. The draft recommendation was in contradiction with previous declarations of the Council of Europe and ignored recent positive moves by the government in Belarus. He was a frequent visitor to Belarus and his own country was experiencing similar problems. The Council of Europe should not apply different standards to Belarus and Ukraine. The two countries had similar economic situations - recent figures showed that Belarus had a more healthy economy than Ukraine - and increased power had been given to the government. The Council of Europe should consider re-accepting Belarus, as that would make it easier to provide the necessary support.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Symonenko. I call Mr Solonari from Moldova, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

 

Mr SOLONARI (Moldova).- One can only welcome today’s debate on this problem, which is of great importance for the whole of Europe. Is it not a disgrace that Europe is entering the next century with one of its states having a regime that systematically and on a large scale denies its citizens fundamental human rights, organises "disappearances" of leading opposition figures, imprisons on a doubtful basis opponents of the president, prohibits peaceful manifestations of political dissent and restricts freedom of speech, assembly and association? Certainly that is a disgrace; it is a scandal.

 

Mr Behrendt is to be congratulated on his excellent report on this issue. He dealt with it with great courage, insight and tact. One cannot but agree with his conclusions and draft recommendations. However, if I were to advance any criticism, it would be that the report is not worded strongly enough. That shortcoming is corrected by the amendment put forward by Mr Jansson on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which I strongly commend to the Assembly.

The Council of Europe was quick to react to unconstitutional actions by President Lukashenko in autumn 1996, when he organised an unlawful referendum on the basis of which a democratic constitution was abolished and an authoritarian residential regime introduced. The Bureau’s decision to suspend Belarus’s special guest status was correct and necessary. The Political Affairs Committee then closely followed developments in that country and discussed them on several occasions.

 

Nevertheless, for several years, too little was done to help democratic forces in that country to produce genuine change. Only when, last July, President Lukashenko publicly acknowledged the need to improve relations with the west did a window of opportunity appear. Shortly afterwards, a co-ordination group, chaired by Mr Sazonov, political adviser to the President, and comprising representatives of the government and opposition forces, was formed.

It is known that in Istanbul, during the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe summit, President Lukashenko accepted the need for dialogue with the opposition to create conditions for free and fair elections, which will take place this autumn. It is of the utmost importance that this promise is kept and that dialogue results in an agreement between the government and the opposition to hold such elections.

 

Can we be sure, or have we even grounds to hope, that that will be the outcome of the negotiations? I doubt it. I believe that President Lukashenko has had second thoughts about the promise that he made in Istanbul and does not intend to allow negotiations with the opposition on free and fair elections to form a democratic, respected and competent parliament.

The signs are clear. They include continued persecution of opposition figures, unwillingness seriously to consider opposition proposals, the resignation of Mr Sazonov, who was not succeeded by anyone, and public pronouncements by persons in the presidential entourage. My impression is that influential persons in Mr Lukashenko’s entourage are pushing him towards an uncompromising stance and insisting on his breaking off negotiations with the opposition.

 

At this stage, the Belarusian president should receive a clear message from this Assembly that, unless the conditions for free and fair elections are met, the elections will not be recognised as free and fair, and Belarus’s special guest status will not be restored. In addition, negotiations for the country’s accession to the Council of Europe should not be restored. Those conditions for elections include guarantees of free speech and good access by the government and opposition to state-run media, freedom of assembly and association, and pluralistic electoral commissions with equal representation for the opposition.

 

It will not be enough for Belarus to have a good or almost good electoral law if that law is not adequately applied and democratic freedoms are violated. It is also crystal clear that, for the sake of the democratic legitimacy of the would-be elected parliament, the conditions for future elections should be negotiated in good faith with the opposition parties and accepted by them.

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Solonari. The next speaker is Mr Hornhues.

Mr HORNHUES (Germany) congratulated Mr Behrendt on his report, which he supported. Belarus would clearly like to become a member of the Council of Europe. Its special guest status at the Assembly had been suspended for two reasons: the general human rights situation and use of the death penalty, and the way in which the President and his supporters had treated a freely-elected parliament. President Lukashenko was now suggesting that the situation was improving: he had shown a willingness to talk to the opposition, and had guaranteed that free and fair elections would be held. It was hoped that that would indeed happen, and that Belarus’s special guest status would be restored. He supported the idea of the Council of Europe sending a special mission to Belarus to work with OSCE on the development of democratic structures. It would be difficult to decide whether the elections had been free and fair without observing the run-up to polling, so that should be done.

 

The day Belarus re-joined the Assembly would be significant: without Belarus, Europe was not whole. The Council of Europe could not fulfil the conditions laid down for Belarus, but it could provide assistance. He looked forward to the restoration of special guest status to Belarus at the end of the year and believed that it was well worth working towards that goal.

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Hornhues. The next speaker is Mr Peter Weiss.

 

Mr Peter WEISS (Slovakia).- Before I address the problem of Belarus, I want to make two remarks. First, historically there has been no conflict in Slovak-Belarusian relations. The Slovak republic wants to develop friendly relations with the Belarusian people in a new democratic Belarus. Secondly, all Europeans have experiences of irresponsible politics that have lead to their country’s isolation and the self-isolation of its governing political elite. We have seen the mania of those in power, who spy on the people and try to blame their failures on conspiracies by domestic and foreign enemies.

 

Democracy is the best way to ensure stability in Europe. Politicians in central and eastern Europe can no longer be under the illusion that each country can act on its own without taking account of its neighbours. Europe is a coherent unit and it is in the national interest of each country not to run the risk of exclusion from integration.

After the changes in Russia, it is more likely that Alexander Lukashenko will not avoid the democratic elections that Belarus needs. Through common co-ordinated steps, the elections should be a breakthrough in the thinking of Belarusians. We should help the Belarusian people to understand that the democratisation of their country is in their interests and that it is against the interests of only a small group of people. We must explain that the rules respected and advocated by democratic countries are not dangers, but are fundamental to the future prosperity of Belarus. Today's debate is part of our effort to help Belarus eliminate the anti-democratic excesses of authoritarian government. Solidarity in helping others to overcome the limits of national egoism is one of the pillars of modern Europeanism. It contributes to the stability of central and eastern Europe and to our common European aims.

 

I agree with the recommendations and I thank Mr Behrendt for his professional report.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Weiss. The next speaker is Mr Kieres.

 

Mr KIERES (Poland).- I congratulate Mr Behrendt and his working group on the report, which shows the current situation in Belarus. I am familiar with the situation there, because it is a neighbouring country to Poland and I am a member of the congress of local and regional bodies of Europe, so I am involved in monitoring the state of local and regional democracy in other countries.

 

The report clearly shows that the Council of Europe's founding principles relating to international and particularly internal relations in member countries are not fully respected in Belarus. The Council of Europe should clearly state the cases of violation of those principles. The report emphasises that such a situation is unacceptable in modern Europe. We cannot adopt different criteria for judging respect for human rights and freedom of the press, relations between the legislature and the executive and the rules governing the functioning of political parties depending on whether the country in question is a member of the Council of Europe. Those principles and criteria apply to every country, because they are a collective achievement of present-day Europe. If the Council of Europe remains silent in the face of injustice and violation of the rules on public life, it could be interpreted as consent to, or at least implicit approval of, actions that should not be tolerated by the international community.

 

We may be accused of criticising authorities whose power comes from democratic elections. I do not intend to deal with that now or to discuss whether President Lukashenko's mandate is legal. Even if we assume that Belarus is a democratic state because its authorities have been elected by the people, there are further worrying issues to raise. Election to public office does not authorise the elimination of political opponents from public life. Some people who have criticised the President of Belarus have mysteriously disappeared. The concept of freedom of the press is also interpreted in a way that is clearly unacceptable.

 

The Council of Europe has no effective means to persuade the government of Belarus to respect the principles of democracy. We can only point out that the situation in Belarus should be subject to critical assessment. We should tell the authorities that Europe does not accept their actions, which contradict everything that modern civilisation has achieved. We should also tell them that, if they do not respond to what we say, it will be impossible to return to discussions about the conditions for Belarus entering into co-operation with the Council of Europe. That will give the people of Belarus a clear signal that the Council of Europe is not indifferent to the actions of their government when they violate the principles of democracy and human rights. It is not only our right but our duty to make such a stand. The voice of the Council of Europe is the voice of all the people of our continent, who, through their representatives in this Assembly, can spell out the responsibilities of a government serving society.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Kieres. I call Mr Konoplev.

 

Mr KONOPLEV (Belarus) thanked the President for the opportunity to address the Assembly. Expulsion from the Council of Europe had been detrimental to both Belarus and the Council of Europe. He had seen many different reports on Belarus. The Council of Europe had not received enough information on the situation. Belarus felt that the report was not objective and did not present the full picture.

 

Belarusians considered the situation in their country to be stable, there were no religious or ethnic conflicts, and society was calm. But there were difficulties in the economy. An independent survey published on 15 January in a business newspaper showed that 57% of the population of Belarus regarded the situation as peaceful and stable.

 

Moving from the old system under the Soviet Union to a new democratic system was a long journey and it did not help to be condemned from abroad. Belarus needed assistance. Last year, free and fair parliamentary elections had been held, which, according to President Lukashenko, had been carried out under international rules.

All people should be involved in ensuring such elections. Belarus had invited OSCE to help. In summer 1999, a draft civil code had been sent to the Council of Europe and OSCE for legal advice. The Council of Europe had decided that it could be implemented without amendment. The Venice Commission had agreed that the electoral code proposed by Belarus could be used. That, among other things, would mean that standards for the media would have to be followed and that would provide a framework in which everyone could work together to achieve a fully functioning parliament.

 

It was true that more dialogue was needed between government and opposition, but that was not totally in the government’s control - if the opposition was not prepared to take part, that could never work. The report had stated that the opposition had said that the government was not prepared to negotiate, but that was not true; in fact, the opposition was making unacceptable proposals.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- You must finish now. Thank you, Mr Konoplev. The next speaker is Mr Gylys.

 

Mr GYLYS (Lithuania).- Thank you, Mr President, dear colleagues and our guest from Belarus. We have clear-cut facts and the Assembly agrees on them. There is a great deficit of democracy in my neighbouring country, Belarus. Our rapporteur, Mr Behrendt, has demonstrated his willingness to understand the situation and to make the process of approaching that country smoother.

 

The facts are obvious, but how did the country get in that situation? The problem was that the political and intellectual élite of Belarus failed to prove that democracy brings stability, prosperity and security to every human being and to society as a whole. Many people began to identify democracy with anarchy and they turned to another political style. The problem was also caused by the failure of the international community; we were so overwhelmed by the problems in Russia and Ukraine that we overlooked what was happening in Belarus. Now we have a vacuum effect in central Europe, where human rights and the principles of democracy are neglected.

 

We must maintain a dialogue. We had a sharp exchange of views in our political group about Chechnya, and some people said that we should stop talking, but we are a parliament and it is in our essence to keep talking and to make decisions. The Council of Europe is an institution that can exert influence through expressing its opinion that European countries must accept general principles and fill the vacuum.

 

I remind the Assembly that the Soviet Union was ruined not by missiles but by words. The Council of Europe has an effective potential weapon in expressing its views and talking to the people of Belarus - not only the political élite, but the intellectuals, industrialists and agrarians. The general philosophy should be to engage with Belarus, not to isolate it. Of course, if some politicians are not ready to adhere to our principles, we should make our decisions on that basis, but we should not fail to make decisions.

 

 

(The speaker continued in Russian)

 

Lithuania and Belarus had lived together for many years. There were thousands of technical details, which were difficult to resolve, but the political decision had been taken to move towards solutions. The President of Lithuania had invited the President of Belarus to hold bilateral talks. He hoped that Lithuania would continue to show its support.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Gylys. The next speaker is Mr Wielowieyski.

 

Mr WIELOWIEYSKI (Poland) said that Belarus was a neighbour of Poland and its population included many ethnic Polish people. He agreed with the report, which referred to the need to support progress to democracy in Belarus, but President Lukashenko was more interested in holding on to power than in making his country more democratic. There was little evidence of change in Belarus, the opposition was marginalised, political prisoners were in jail, the government controlled much of the media and a feudal economy continued to be fostered by the government. Belarus should not be isolated but should be given realistic hope that the necessary reforms would take place.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Wielowieyski. The next speaker is Mr Lebedko. I ask you to limit your speech to five minutes.

 

Mr LEBEDKO (Belarus) believed that Europe had been very patient with Belarus. Some people had turned a blind-eye to certain events. President Lukashenko had taken advantage of what had happened. It was regrettable that negotiations on elections were not taking place. The Council of Europe should set out clear criteria for a proper electoral framework. It was necessary to look at what was happening on the ground - not just laws on paper, but how they were operated in practice. The abuse of presidential power would not be addressed by elections alone. There was an urgent need for proper access to the mass media by all parties. He supported Mr Behrendt’s report.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Lebedko. Thank you also for limiting your speech to five minutes. The next speaker is Mr Frey.

 

Mr FREY (Switzerland) thanked Mr Behrendt for his report, which was perhaps a little too kind. He also congratulated Mr Jansson on his rigorous and realistic report. Belarus had a totalitarian, Stalinist regime, and there was a great gap between appearance and reality. The Assembly had heard from Mr Konoplev, who was an appointed Member of Parliament: in view of that, it was surprising that he had been allowed to address the Assembly. His speech had been full of meaningless platitudes.

 

As the OSCE representative had told the Assembly, an agreement was in place, but its provisions had not been fulfilled; Belarus was still refusing to constitute the electoral commission on pluralist lines. He had been the rapporteur for the admission of Belarus, but lately he had been unemployed, because Belarus had clearly been unable to fulfil the conditions of membership.

 

The gap between appearances and reality was enormous. Mr Sheretsky had been forced to leave the country and had not been allowed to return, even for his mother’s funeral. The situation was deteriorating. He would like Mr Konovlev to return to the country, but he too had been denied entry by President Lukashenko.

 

Dialogue was needed, but there were two preconditions for dialogue. The Organisation had to take a clear and determined approach. It had to call for clear progress, and for deadlines and timetables to be respected. If that did not take place, the Organisation would have been tricked by the Potemkin effect, and appearances would have triumphed over reality.

 

He wanted the Organisation to support dialogue. Mr Lebedko had said that, if the Organisation did not take a rigorous approach, there was no chance of dialogue restarting. Belarus was a rightful member of the Organisation, and he wished that it could return to the fold.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I now call Mr Akçali.

 

Mr AKÇALI (Turkey).- I warmly welcome the thorough report prepared by Mr Behrendt. Unfortunately, as I understand it, the overall political situation in Belarus is still a cause of deep concern. As the present report confirms, like Mr Antretter’s report a year ago, Belarus continues to fall short of Council of Europe standards as regards pluralistic democracy, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

 

It is a pity that, while the Eurasian world is reaffirming its commitment to these principles and, in many cases, taking practical steps to abide by the standards set by the Council of Europe, Belarus continues to fall short of adopting democratic principles. We hope that Belarus will soon opt for the establishment of a free and democratic system.

 

The upcoming parliamentary elections in Belarus are of the utmost importance as a step towards the establishment of a free and democratic climate. With its vast experience in this field, the Council of Europe can extend to Belarus assistance and expertise in holding democratic, free and fair elections.

 

The opening of dialogue and a climate of trust between the government and the opposition are also important steps. The efforts of OSCE should be supported to facilitate such a dialogue, which would have a positive effect on the election process. The independence of the media and equal access thereto are indispensable factors in the holding of fair elections. As the report accurately states, the legitimacy of the Belarus Government can be restored only through fair elections.

 

Belarus is a member of the European family. We support every effort to prepare the ground to have Belarus in our midst. While continuing to distance itself clearly from the current regime in Minsk, the Council of Europe and our Assembly in particular should establish and enhance contacts with democratic circles such as the independent media and civic society in Belarus. That would be beneficial to both the people of Belarus and the Council of Europe. We hope and believe that the Belarus authorities acknowledge that fact and choose to become members of the democratic world, with the early endorsement and implementation of the principles of the Council of Europe.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Akçali. The next speaker is Mr Glotov.

 

Mr GLOTOV (Russian Federation) believed that the positive developments in Belarus should be examined. The government had announced its intention to hold parliamentary elections in 2000, which would conform to the requirements of the Assembly. The authorities in Belarus were willing to work with the Organisation.

 

The party in government had 35% of the popular vote, a figure which the opposition could not match: opposition parties had to participate in the political process to gain popular support. There had been serious and sensible market reform in Belarus. There were no conflicts in Belarus and the Assembly had heard representations from Lithuania and Poland, which supported the economic reforms in Belarus.

 

He questioned the frozen status of Belarus. The Political Affairs Committee was listening to the opposition but not to members of the Belarusian Parliament who had the support of the population. The Council of Europe should reinstate the delegation, re-examine the case for admission and support the new electoral code. He asked members to support his amendments to the report which stated that the Assembly should be prepared to re-examine the status of Belarus after the 2000 elections.

 

Moscow was moving towards implementation of a treaty between Belarus and Russia. He hoped in time the treaty would be discussed in the Assembly.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Glotov. I call Mr Shaklein.

 

Mr SHAKLEIN (Russian Federation) said that he had no grounds to doubt the sincerity of the rapporteurs. He had many friends and relatives in Belarus and the real situation there was different from that portrayed in the report. The report’s conclusions on the president and political powers in Belarus were too severe.

 

The polarisation of the situation could only be the wrong course. The report stated that the opposition was always right and President Lukashenko was always wrong. No situation was ever that black and white; mistakes had been made on both sides. The Assembly should not condemn the human rights situation in general in Belarus. Many people were not involved in political life and nothing had been said about the fundamental rights to work, relaxation, health care and food. The situation with those rights was no different from that in other former Soviet Union countries.

 

The Council of Europe did not need to choose between the oligarchy and an opposition which loudly claimed its right to defend the people. That was not the Council’s choice to make. The Council of Europe needed to support and ensure democratic and fair elections; it should not isolate Belarus. The draft recommendation did not settle the issue and he called on his colleagues to support his amendments.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Shaklein. I call Mr Wojcik. He is not here. I call Mr Zhirinovsky.

 

Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation) disagreed with members’ comments on the situation in Belarus. Belarus was a long way from Strasbourg. Russia knew the situation there and both Russian and Belarusian citizens were happy with it.

 

Belarus had a sense of solidity. There was no discrimination on ethnic or religious grounds, no social conflicts and no rich-poor divide. The Belarusian opposition had little support. There were always people who were discontent with the governing party; Germany, France, the United Kingdom and the United States, for example, all had democracies, but they included some people who had cause for complaint.

Belarus had no occupying force. The population was content, and in fact it was a good example of a balanced country. Many people in Belarus had a better standard of living than some people in Strasbourg. To use the rate of exchange with the US dollar was not a fair representation of the situation. Most people in Belarus actually earned a fair wage. Almost everybody supported the regime in power. It was true that there were some victims, but that was no reason not to show the solidarity that had been shown towards Germany after the second world war, in order to prevent there being further unnecessary victims.

 

Keeping Belarus in an ostracised position would lead it towards Russia, and there might even be a United States of Russia and Belarus. Given that that would give Belarus access to the Council of Europe anyway, it was pointless to continue to suspend it. The isolationist policy was not helping Belarus to solve its problems; instead, Belarus should be welcomed into the Council of Europe.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Zhirinovsky. I call Mr Blaauw.

 

Mr BLAAUW (Netherlands) thanked the rapporteur for his informative and readable report. Several rapporteurs had dealt with the situation in Belarus. The consensus had been that it was not constructive to be too harsh or too demanding. Instead of progress, there had been regression. The right way forward was to send a clear message, such as that contained in the draft recommendation. He agreed with Mr Frey, who had said that the text was mildly worded and could perhaps be strengthened. It was important that the standards of the Council of Europe be upheld in all cases, although he noted that they did not cover all the problems in Belarus, and they represented what should be seen as a minimum requirement.

 

He had been at the meeting of the EBRD last week in London, which led him to question whether the EBRD should continue to work with Belarus if the situation there continued. Some people had said that there were signs of change in Belarus, but those changes had been in the wrong direction. He viewed with caution statements made by the president and his appointed representatives in parliament - seeing was believing.

 

The comment that the economic situation in Belarus was better than the situation in the Ukraine was misleading; even if it were true, the fact remained that it was better to be poor and free than rich and enslaved.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Blaauw. We have come to the end of the list of speakers. All those who wanted to speak have been able to do so.

 

I remind you that rapporteurs replying to a debate have a maximum of four minutes to share between them.

 

I call Mr Behrendt, to reply. He and the other rapporteur have four minutes.

 

Mr BEHRENDT (Germany) thanked the President and those who had spoken in the debate. He rejected the claim which had been made that the report had not been objective in its analysis. He thought that the majority agreed that his assessment had been impartial, and in fact he had been at pains to ensure that was the case.

 

Many valuable contributions had been made to the debate, for example, attention had been drawn to the economic situation, which was very important. He had tried in his report and oral statement to consider positive aspects - Mr Glotov had said that was important. It was true that there were one or two signs of encouragement, but that did not negate the need for a clear statement that an electoral code had to be put in place.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Behrendt. I call Mr Jansson.

 

Mr JANSSON (Finland).- In 1996 I was part of a team observing parliamentary elections in Belarus. I have been three times. We have also had fruitful dialogue with the special guest delegation from Belarus.

 

As many speakers have pointed out, the situation is not black and white. The only way to make progress is through political dialogue. I agree with those who have said that the people of Belarus have earned that political dialogue and deserve a future with freedom and responsibilities. As we all know, behind every right there is a responsibility, but without rights there are no functioning responsibilities. We are trying to improve the situation.

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Jansson. I call Mr Davis, the Chairman of the Political Affairs Committee. You have two minutes.

 

Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- I do not want to take up the time of the Assembly. The Political Affairs Committee would wish to be associated with the kind remarks and congratulations that have been made to Mr Behrendt on the report.

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you for being so brief, Mr Davis.

 

The debate is closed.

 

The Political Affairs Committee has presented a draft recommendation, to which ten amendments have been tabled, and a draft order, to which one amendment has been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Notice Paper: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 11, 8, 9, 10, 7, 4 and 5. Amendment No. 6 relates to the draft order. There are also three sub-amendments, which I shall read out when we reach them. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to one minute.

We come to Amendment No. 1, which is in the draft recommendation, paragraph 6, replace the words "freedom of expression and freedom of association" by:

"the freedom of expression, assembly and association".

 

I call Mr Jansson to support Amendment No. 1, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

 

Mr JANSSON (Finland).- I can be brief. Instead of repeating the word "freedom", we want to insert the word "assembly". That reflects the wording in the European Convention on Human Rights and other instruments that protect human rights.

THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?…

 

That is not the case.

 

What is the opinion of the committee?

 

Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- I must explain that the committee did not have time to discuss the amendments, so it was left to the rapporteur, Mr Behrendt, and me to discuss them and advise the Assembly. We are in favour of the amendment.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of hands…

Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

 

We come to Amendment No. 2, which is in the draft recommendation, paragraph 6, replace the words "various methods" by: "other methods".

 

I call Mr Jansson to support Amendment No. 2, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

Mr JANSSON (Finland).- This is another editorial amendment to paragraph 6, which says that there are various methods of restricting certain freedoms. Our proposed change to the wording is more in line with the rest of the text, which says that such methods are not just legal and administrative. We want to cover all possibilities.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?…

 

That is not the case.

 

What is the opinion of the committee?

 

Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The rapporteur and I ask the Assembly to vote for the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of hands…

 

Amendment No. 2 is adopted.

 

We come to Amendment No. 3, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 6, add a new paragraph as follows:

 

"The Assembly is also concerned that neither the independence of the judiciary nor of the Bar is guaranteed. It is particularly worried about reports that certain lawyers are being harassed by the authorities."

I call Mr Jansson to support Amendment No. 3 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

 

Mr JANSSON (Finland).- This is a more material amendment. There is no democracy without an independent judiciary and there is no judiciary without the people involved in that process, including judges, barristers and legal advisers. We want to clarify the importance of an independent judiciary.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

 

I call Mr Symonenko to speak against the amendment.

Mr SYMONENKO (Ukraine) disagreed with the amendment, as he did not think the Assembly should base its views on rumours.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee?

 

Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The rapporteur and I ask the Assembly to vote for the amendment.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of hands…

 

Amendment No. 3 is adopted.

 

We come to Amendment No. 11, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 7, insert the following paragraph:

 

"The Assembly will be ready to consider restoration of special guest status for the Belarusian parliament and resumption of the accession procedure after free, fair and internationally recognised parliamentary elections are held in Belarus in 2000."

 

I call Mr Glotov to support Amendment No. 11.

 

Mr GLOTOV (Russian Federation) said the amendment was most important and agreed that the draft recommendation should be altered. There had to be clear guidance from the Assembly on the conditions necessary to restore special guest status to Belarus. It was important that free and fair elections were held; he had no doubt that that would take place in 2000 and hoped that the opposition would take part.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Glotov. I have received an oral sub-amendment to Amendment No. 11 on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which proposes the deletion of the words "and resumption of the accession procedure after" and to insert the word "if".

 

The oral sub-amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34, paragraph 6. I call Mr Davis to support it on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee.

 

Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- We propose the oral sub-amendment for two reasons.

 

First, we do not think that it would be wise for the Assembly to say that we would consider the restoration of special guest status "after free, fair and internationally recognised parliamentary elections", because we think that the correct word is "if".

 

The second point is that we wish to delete the words "and resumption of the accession procedure". In practice, there is no difference between Mr Glotov and me, because if we took the words out and decided to restore special guest status, that would imply starting to reconsider the accession procedure. Mr Behrendt and I believe that, if we keep the words, that would pre-judge accession, and we do not want to send a signal that might be misunderstood in Belarus. We are prepared to consider the restoration of special guest status, as Mr Glotov asks, and that would involve reconsidering whether Belarus could be admitted. However, we do not think that we should give anybody the idea that, if free, fair and internationally recognised elections are held, that country will be admitted. As anyone who has listened to Mr Behrendt’s report will know, there is much more to be done than that.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?…

 

That is not the case.

 

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

 

Mr GLOTOV (Russian Federation) agreed with the oral sub-amendment.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Glotov. The committee is clearly in favour of the oral sub-amendment.

 

I shall now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote by a show of hands…

 

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

 

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?…

 

I call Mr Frey to speak against the amendment.

 

Mr FREY (Switzerland) wished to reject the measure. The report stated that Belarus could not be readmitted unless there was a change in the situation. If the amendment were accepted, readmission would merely depend on the holding of free and fair elections. He wanted there to be freedom of choice on the issue, and Belarus to take control of its own destiny. The issue of special guest status could be considered once democracy had returned to Belarus.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment, as amended?

 

Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- I should remind you that the committee has not discussed the amendment, as amended, so it was left to Mr Behrendt and me. We told Mr Glotov that we would not support his amendment if it was not amended according to our suggestion. We now feel honour bound to support it and we therefore ask the Assembly to vote for it.

 

Mr BLAAUW (Netherlands).- I wish to voice my distress about what is happening. I do not think that we should influence each other in the way that is happening now. I have nothing against Mr Davis or Mr Behrendt, but it is not right to have an oral sub-amendment to an amendment that is as controversial as hell and then try to persuade the Assembly that the Political Affairs Committee is behind it. Mr Davis said clearly that he was speaking for himself, but he speaks from the front bench and that makes a difference.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Mr Davis is the Chairman of the Political Affairs Committee and he sits in the correct place.

 

I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote by a show of hands…

 

Amendment No. 11, as amended, is rejected.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- We come to Amendment No. 8, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 10, insert the following new paragraph:

 

"The Assembly believes it is vital to get Belarus more involved in the European integration process. It is convinced that the only possible future for Belarus is to become a fully-fledged member of the European family of democratic nations."

 

I call Mr Glotov to support the amendment.

 

Mr GLOTOV (Russian Federation) said that he was not trying to be dishonest and that all members should be able to work honestly. It was important for Belarus to join the European family.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- I call Mr Frey.

 

Mr FREY (Switzerland) said that he was not accusing Mr Glotov of deception. When he said he was being clever, he meant that he was making use of the possibilities open to him.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- I have received an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is to delete "integration process" and insert "co-operation".

 

The oral sub-amendment meets the criteria of Rule 84 (6). I call Mr Davis, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee.

 

Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- As before, Mr President, I remind you that the committee did not have time to discuss the amendment and left it to Mr Behrendt and me. We think that the word "integration" could be misunderstood. We are willing to accept that Belarus should get more involved in European co-operation, but "integration" may in some quarters be taken as referring to the European Union. We want to distinguish between the integration of the European Union and the co-operation involved in other international bodies, including this one.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

 

Mr GLOTOV (Russian Federation) (Translation).- In favour.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the oral-sub amendment to the vote by a show of hands…

 

 

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

 

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?…

 

I call Mr Sinka to speak against the amendment, as amended.

 

Mr SINKA (Latvia).- Earlier, Mr Glotov announced that the instruments of the agreement to create a union between Belarus and Russia had just been exchanged, so this is all useless verbiage. We shall have to see what happens and consider whether Belarus can become a fully fledged member as an independent state or whether we will repeat the experience of the Soviet Union having three seats in the United Nations. The amendment is useless and fruitless and I shall vote against it.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee?

 

Mr BEHRENDT (Germany).- I got the impression that Mr Sinka was talking about a different amendment..

 

THE PRESIDENT.- It was Amendment No. 8, as amended.

 

Are Mr Davis and Mr Behrendt in favour?

 

Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- As I have said several times, the committee did not have time to discuss these amendments. I understand that Mr Blaauw objects to the amendment. Are you asking me, Mr President, for my personal view and that of Mr Behrendt? If so, we are in favour of the amendment, as amended.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I understand that Mr Sinka has a point of order.

 

Mr SINKA (Latvia).- Apparently, I was misunderstood. The oral sub-amendment adds very little to the amendment. You asked whether anyone opposed the amendment - as amended, yes; but, as the oral sub-amendment does not essentially change the amendment, I was speaking against the amendment itself.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote by a show of hands…

 

Amendment No. 8, as amended, is adopted.

 

We come to Amendment No. 9, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 10, insert the following new paragraph:

 

"The Assembly expresses hope that the signing of the Treaty on the Establishment of a Union State of Russia and Belarus, which provides for observance of democratic norms and respect for human rights, will contribute to the restoration of democracy, the rule of law and compliance with the Council of Europe's standards in Belarus."

 

I call Mr Glotov to support the amendment.

 

Mr GLOTOV (Russian Federation) wished to withdraw the amendment. It was an historic day with the union of the authorities of Russia and Belarus, which would benefit the peoples of both countries.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- If you are withdrawing the amendment, you should not be allowed to speak.

 

Amendment No. 9 is withdrawn.

 

We come to Amendment No. 10 which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 10, insert the following new paragraph:

 

"The Assembly welcomes the request of the Belarusian authorities to obtain the opinion of the Venice Commission experts on the draft Electoral Code and emphasises the importance of implementing the experts’ recommendations."

 

I call Mr Glotov to support Amendment No. 10.

 

Mr GLOTOV (Russian Federation) said he believed the conclusions of the Venice Commission on the draft election code were important. He said Belarus would take guidance from Russia on the draft code when dealing with the 2000 elections in Belarus.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?...

 

That is not the case.

 

What is the opinion of the chairman of the committee?

 

Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- You got it right, this time, Mr President. The rapporteur and I will vote for the amendment.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of hands...

 

Amendment No. 10 is adopted.

 

We come to Amendment No. 7, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 11, after the words "Belarusian authorities", add:

 

"to undertake the following, the positive response to which would be taken account of in deciding to review the current suspension of special guest status" .

 

I call Mr Atkinson to support Amendment No. 7.

 

Mr ATKINSON (United Kingdom).- In paragraph 11, we list five initiatives that we want the Belarus authorities to take in response to our concerns, but nowhere do we suggest that a positive response would be in their interests, in terms of the suspension of their special guest status at this Assembly. In other words, we offer no encouragement to Belarus - it is all stick and no carrot. My amendment aims to correct that approach. It states that, when we review our suspension of Belarus’s special guest status, we will take account of Belarus’s response - which we hope will be positive - to what we are urging it to do. I hope that that is self-evident.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?...

 

That is not the case.

 

What is the opinion of the chairman of the committee?

 

Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- Once again, Mr President, the rapporteur and I will vote for the amendment.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of hands...

 

Amendment No. 7 is adopted.

 

We come to Amendment No. 4 which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 11.iii, replace the words "and freedom of association" by:

 

"assembly and association".

 

I call Mr Jansson to support Amendment No. 4 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

 

Mr JANSSON (Finland).- Amendment No. 4 is along the same lines as Amendment No. 1, an editorial amendment, which was adopted. Accordingly, I am in favour of Amendment No. 4.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?...

 

That is not the case.

 

What is the opinion of the chairman of the committee?

 

Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The rapporteur and I will vote for the amendment.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of hands...

 

Amendment No. 4 is adopted.

 

We come to Amendment No. 5, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 11.iii, insert a new sub-paragraph as follows:

 

"to take measures to establish the independence of the judiciary and the bar, and to cease the harassment of lawyers;".

 

I call Mr Jansson to support Amendment No. 5 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

 

Mr JANSSON (Finland).- Amendment No. 5 is along the same lines as Amendment No. 3, which was adopted.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?...

 

That is not the case.

 

What is the opinion of the chairman of the committee?

 

Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The rapporteur and I will vote for Amendment No. 5.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of hands...

 

Amendment No. 5 is adopted.

 

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 8606, as amended.

 

The draft recommendation in Document 8606, as amended, is adopted unanimously.

 

 

We will now consider the draft order, to which there is one amendment, No. 6, which is, in the draft order, after the words "its Political Affairs Committee", insert the following words:

 

"and its Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights".

 

I call Mr Jansson to support Amendment No. 6 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

 

Mr JANSSON (Finland).- The draft order aims at monitoring developments in Belarus. As the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has co-operated with the Political Affairs Committee, and vice versa, up until now, Amendment No. 6 proposes that that co-operation should continue.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- I have received an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which proposes, after the word "and" to insert the words "in co-operation with" in the text offered by Amendment No. 6.

 

The oral sub-amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34, paragraph 6. Is there any opposition to the sub-amendment being debated?…

 

That is not the case.

 

I call Mr Davis to support the oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee.

 

Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- No, on behalf of myself. The amendment has not yet been discussed by the Political Affairs Committee. Mr Jansson made my case for me. He used the word "co-operation", and we want to insert that into the text. Mr Behrendt and I take that view, and I was pleased to hear Mr Jansson say that he agrees with the spirit of our amendment.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?...

 

That is not the case.

 

What is the opinion of the mover of the oral sub-amendment?

 

Mr JANSSON (Finland).- I am glad to inform the Assembly that I shall vote in favour of Mr Davis’s proposal.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote by a show of hands.

 

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

 

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?...

 

That is not the case.

 

The committee chairman clearly accepts the amendment, as amended.

 

I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote by a show of hands…

 

Amendment No. 6, as amended, is adopted.

 

We will now proceed to vote on the draft order contained in Document 8606, as amended.

 

The Assembly will vote by a show of hands.

 

 

The draft order contained in Document 8606, as amended, is adopted unanimously.

 

(Lord Russell-Johnston, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Elo.)

 

4. Communication from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe

 

THE PRESIDENT.- We now come to the communication from Mr Walter Schwimmer, Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Dear Walter, it is a great pleasure to welcome you to this Assembly in your new capacity as Secretary General of the Council of Europe. As a very active member of the Political Affairs Committee and of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights - two central committees - you were a rapporteur on many issues, including the right to privacy, revision of the procedure for adoption of the conventions of the Council of Europe, the second summit of heads of state and government, and, last, but not least, you were our conscience on the delicate problems of bio-ethics.

 

You were also a member of the Bureau of the Assembly and you chaired the European People’s Party Group. Dealing with that wide range of subjects was certainly a good preparation for the post of Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Today - four months after you took up your new function - you give us a communication on the state of the Council of Europe, thus implementing for the first time the recommendation made by the Committee of Wise Persons in its report. In the relatively short time during which you have been at the helm of the Council of Europe’s secretariat, you have demonstrated that your promise of politically active office was not empty rhetoric. Knowing you as well as we do, we did not expect anything else.

 

The challenges of the Balkans and the Caucases are forcing the Council of Europe to adapt its approach and working methods. It needs to be more operational and present on the ground more often. That is, of course, expensive; it costs money. You understand this new reality and we can only hope that the Committee of Ministers will soon follow you in that. You can certainly count on full support from the Assembly in ensuring that our organisation will be able to continue successfully and efficiently to carry out its mandates to defend freedom, to defend democracy, and to defend human rights on our continent.

 

I give you the floor.

 

Mr SCHWIMMER (Secretary General of the Council of Europe).- Thank you for those very kind words, Mr President.

 

Exactly a week ago, I was in Kosovo together with the Chairman-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers. We had just come from Sarajevo and were driving from Priština airport to the city when we saw a group of young police cadets, probably including members of both ethnic communities, who were exercising. When I saw those young people who will soon be called upon to help to provide peace and security in that troubled land, it gave me some pride to realise that the Council of Europe was making a major contribution to their training and education. I also realised, however, as we looked at the destroyed houses along the road, like many that we had seen in Sarajevo, that an enormous task still lies ahead for both the international community and the region.

 

I also reflected on the fact that, while we were driving past armoured vehicles protecting people, another Council of Europe delegation, led by you, Mr President, was visiting a region where similar vehicles were engaged in combat. In the course of our stay in Pristina, Mr Bernard Kouchner, head of the United Nations mission in Kosovo, and his colleagues emphasised how important and valuable the Council of Europe’s assistance to reconstruction in Kosovo has been. The message in Sarajevo had been very much the same.

 

Yet when I returned to Strasbourg the next day, I was informed that ministers had not been able to agree to the modest supplementary budget needed to continue our role in Kosovo and for our contribution to the stability pact, and to the opening of offices in Podgorica and Belgrade, which the Assembly has requested. Mr President, is there really a coherent strategy for south-eastern Europe? I make these reflections by way of introduction to my report on the state of the Council of Europe. I intend to present an overview of where we stand as regards our activities in various fields of competence and to share with you my views on the priorities to be set.

 

I have devoted much attention to the ongoing reform of our Organisation, which stems from the recommendations of the Committee of Wise Persons. I am convinced that it is absolutely essential to continue this reform. There is a need for more visibility and for an improved communications policy so that we can achieve more rapid and lasting results and a better cost-benefit outcome. I intend to see that internal reform through to a successful conclusion during my term of office. With effect from 1 October 1999, the secretariat was reorganised around six directorates general. Before the end of February 2000, specific proposals for prioritisation of activities will be made.

 

I shall turn now to specific fields of activities, starting with legal affairs. Initiatives to combat crime and corruption effectively - one of the main problems in today’s society - continue to be key elements of our activities in the legal field. In this context, mention should be made of the criminal law convention on corruption, the Group of States against Corruption - GRECO - partial and enlarged agreement, and the second Octopus programme against corruption and organised crime. Money laundering is being examined by a select committee of experts in order to find ways to combat that scourge. Legal co-operation programmes, a number of which are carried out together with the European Commission, take into account the conclusions of the monitoring procedures, notably those of the Assembly. The Venice Commission is continuing its work on constitutional reform and the effective functioning of democratic institutions. The commission, for instance, is playing an important role in Kosovo.

 

Let me turn to human rights. The European Court of Human Rights continued to be faced with an ever increasing number of applications. The credibility of our unique human rights protection system will ultimately depend on the Court’s being enabled to deal with its caseload within a reasonable time, and on full compliance by member states with its judgments.

 

We continue to work on updating the European Convention on Human Rights through additional protocols to keep pace with the developments of civil society. Draft Protocol No. 12 will provide further guarantees against discrimination. As the Assembly discussed yesterday, the follow-up of the elaboration of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights is of the utmost importance so that we can ensure that the credibility of the European Convention on Human Rights is not undermined. The Deputy Secretary General and a judge of the Court of Human Rights are representing the Council of Europe as observers in the proceedings.

 

New ratifications of the European Social Charter by European states, which began in 1997, are continuing. The Assembly strongly supports that. Twenty-six states are now bound by the charter, or by the revised charter, which entered into force on 1 July 1999. Nine countries have accepted the collective complaints procedure.

 

In the cultural field, cultural co-operation is one of the cornerstones of our organisation’s work. In 1999, we saw not only the 50th anniversary of the Council of Europe, but the anniversary of forty-five years of cultural co-operation. The newly created directorate general IV re-groups the sectors governed by the Council for Cultural Co-operation - education and higher education, cultural and heritage, and youth and sport - as well as a directorate for sustainable development. By this means, we hope better to co-ordinate the work of those sectors, which is often complementary.

 

The exchange and interaction with others challenges traditional concepts and encourages the organisations to develop and grow. I am therefore particularly pleased with the increasing number of projects that are carried out in co-operation with partners such as the European Commission, the World Bank, the European Cultural Foundation and other governmental and non-governmental organisations and agencies.

 

Following decisions taken by the second summit, social cohesion became a key pre-occupation for our work. On the structural level, the European Committee for Social Cohesion became fully active in 1999. Programmes have been set up with the aim of developing policies capable of ensuring effective access to social rights and health care for vulnerable groups.

 

The Council’s campaign on eradication of poverty, presenting a highly operational complement to intergovernmental co-operation in the field of social cohesion, organised a successful global forum on that topic last October. However, the campaign suffers from lack of funds and support at a national level. The Committee of Ministers decided to prolong it until summer 2000, but, despite much appreciated voluntary contributions, for which I would like to thank several member states, I regret that I must inform you that the campaign does not dispose of financial means that would allow it to develop its full potential.

 

Intensive work is continuing with our project on Roma/Gypsies in Europe, with a series of training and information seminars on topics such as relations between Roma/Gypsies and the police, and a training course for lawyers involving in defending Roma/Gypsies in court.

 

Although those activities are successful, they reach only a limited number of people. Overall, progress is not as fast as we would wish. A new project is currently being developed jointly with the European Development Bank.

 

I turn now to political action. The four major areas of our Organisation’s political activities are crisis management and rehabilitation, co-operation with other institutions and organisations, promotion of compliance by member states with their commitments, and promotion of civil society.

 

I have already referred to the work of the Council of Europe in Kosovo. Priority fields of action are the training of judges and local administrators, human rights training, establishment of an ombudsman institution, registration and preparation for a census, and education. During our visit last week, the Committee of Ministers’ Chairman-in-Office and I realised how difficult conditions still are in Kosovo. The Serb community is virtually isolated and can travel only under KFOR escort, apart from in northern Mitrovica, which is a no-go area for ethnic Albanians. Electricity is available for only three hours a day, effectively depriving the population of heating at a time when outside temperatures are well below freezing. The crime rate, including ethnically motivated killings, is soaring and, out of 5 000 international police requested, fewer than 2 000 have arrived.

 

On the other hand, I was glad to notice that, since my last visit in November, rebuilding has progressed considerably. The meeting with Mr Thaqi, member of the Transitional and Administrative Council, also showed a more conciliatory approach than before.

 

As I noted in my introduction, Mr President, while I was visiting Sarajevo and Kosovo, your delegation was addressing the Chechen crisis in Moscow and in the region itself. As I have already informed the Bureau and the Political Affairs Committee, I brought the Chechen issue before the Committee of Ministers during each of my weekly communications, also drawing attention to the positions taken by the Assembly.

 

I also asked the Russian Federation for explanations regarding the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, making use of my powers under Article 52 of the convention. This is the first time that a Secretary General of the Council of Europe has ever used that power towards an individual country. Minister Ivanov’s reply has been made available to you. Tomorrow, I intend to ask Minister Ivanov for further explanations in writing. Of course, I remain fully at the Assembly’s disposal for any additional action that may be deemed useful.

 

The stability pact for south-eastern Europe was set up to give the people of the region hope for a better future. Detailed information on the Council of Europe’s existing and planned contribution to the pact has been made available to you. However, if words are not shortly followed by action, that hope will tend to become disillusionment. In that context, the lack of financial support from our member states for these projects is most worrying. I shall return to that issue at the close of my address.

 

In the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which has no official relation with the Council of Europe, we are supporting civil society and democratic political forces. We also support the administration in Montenegro.

 

I have informed the Committee of Ministers of my intention, which is fully in line with your recommendation, to open offices in Belgrade and Podgorica, and we are currently examining the modalities. However, as I stated in my introduction, the Committee of Ministers, despite the support of a number of delegates, has so far not been able to agree, both for political and, again, financial reasons.

 

In Bosnia and Herzogovina, the Council of Europe is actively pursuing its contribution to institutions established under the Dayton Agreement - mainly the Human Rights Commission, ombudsperson and the Human Rights Chamber - as well as its activities aimed at preparing the country for accession to Council of Europe membership. The report of my visit with the Chairman-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers has been made available to you.

 

For Belarus, which you have just discussed, the Council of Europe continued to provide assistance to activities of the OSCE advisory and monitoring group. Priority is being given to developing further co-operation with the European Union and above all, the European Commission. Political support was expressed at the two quadripartite meetings in 1999.

 

As regards the Council of the European Union, contacts have been maintained, particularly with common foreign and security policy structures. Mr Solana, Secretary General and High Representative of the Council of the European Union, visited me in Strasbourg on 26 October last year.

 

Co-operation with OSCE is making significant progress, in the spirit of the platform for co-operative security, which was included in the security charter adopted at the Istanbul summit on 18 November 1999. Field co-operation, as I was able to see for myself in Sarajevo and Priština, is excellent.

 

Co-operation with the United Nations, which I know to be a matter of concern to the Assembly, is also improving. I met the UN Secretary General, Mr Kofi Annan, during the Istanbul Summit. The Deputy Secretary General, Mr Petrovski, visited me here in Strasbourg, and a tripartite meeting between the UN, the OSCE and Council of Europe is scheduled for the end of February.

 

At this stage, it is not yet possible to determine accurately the impact that the Committee of Ministers’ monitoring procedure has made in member states and beyond, but three main achievements can be identified. First, paragraph 4 of the 1994 Committee of Ministers’ declaration on compliance with commitments by member states, which refers to "cases requiring specific action", was recently used for the first time. After having thoroughly examined the theme of the functioning of democratic institutions, the Committee of Ministers has formally invited the Parliamentary Assembly to undertake an examination of issues surrounding one specific sub-theme: the functioning and banning of political parties.

 

Secondly, as of 1999, one joint committee meeting per year will be dedicated to monitoring compliance with commitments, in addition to the institutionalisation of the informal exchange of views between the Chairman-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers and the Bureau of the Assembly’s Monitoring Committee.

 

Thirdly, although the Committee of Ministers' monitoring procedure - based on persuasion and diplomatic negotiation - will invariably remain confidential, an effort has been made to provide the Parliamentary Assembly with elements of important work undertaken. In February 1999, the Committee of Ministers decided that, in future, all national contributions presented by member states will be declassified.

 

At an OSCE/Council of Europe meeting on monitoring in Vienna on 4 October 1999, barely a month after I became Secretary General of the Council of Europe, I said that I was ready to transmit important information obtained from OSCE sources directly to the Committee of Ministers. I am also ready to transmit important information that I receive from the Parliamentary Assembly independently of the present statutory procedures that mandate the Committee of Ministers to respond to Assembly recommendations.

 

The present Committee of Ministers' monitoring procedure clearly needs improvement. The current Chairman-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers has proposed a major stocktaking of the procedure in March 2000. We should also seize the opportunity to determine whether, and if so how, the Council of Europe's new Human Rights Commissioner should become involved in the Council of Europe's monitoring mechanisms.

 

Our activities for the development and consolidation of democratic stability - the so-called ADACS programme - have been adapted to help member states honour their membership commitments.

 

I should like to dwell for a moment on the means put at the Council of Europe's disposal to carry out the many tasks assigned to it. I have mixed feelings in reporting to you the results of the budgetary discussions for 2000. The ordinary 2000 draft budget proposal prepared during the summer was based on a "zero growth in real terms" option decided by the Committee of Ministers in late spring. When I took office last September, the broad orientations and, to a large extent, the fine print of the draft budget for 2000 had already been defined.

 

At face value, the results of the budgetary discussions are not negative. Thanks to a combination of further internal savings, redeployments of staff and the voluntary decision of a large number of countries to place their share of the financial results of the 1998 ordinary budget at the disposal of the Organisation, it has been possible to meet the separate budgetary increases agreed by the Committee of Ministers. However, going somewhat deeper, the results were less satisfying. In particular, I was negatively struck by the fact that the existing budgetary procedure is excessively cumbersome and bureaucratic. That results in piecemeal decisions without overall coherence.

 

The roles of the Secretary General and the Committee of Ministers have become increasingly blurred. I have proposed to the Committee of Ministers a new and streamlined budgetary procedure aimed at overcoming those problems. Under the new procedure, the Parliamentary Assembly will have an opportunity at its April session to discuss with the Committee of Ministers the strategic choices and priorities that I will propose for the 2001 ordinary budget. I intend to submit the strategic orientations for 2001 using zero real growth as a central option. I shall take advantage of an in-depth analysis of the existing human resources of the Organisation and shall set up clear priorities for the Organisation's activities. However, as far as I am concerned, the commitment to zero real growth applies to 2001 and not necessarily to future years. Furthermore, that commitment presupposes that the Organisation is not given new tasks that cannot be fulfilled from existing resources, given their size and extraordinary nature.

 

Against that background, I should like to return to the preliminary proposals for an ad hoc supplementary budget for the stability pact for south-eastern Europe and Kosovo, to which I referred in my introduction. I first put those proposals forward at the November 1999 session of the Committee of Ministers. As you know, the Council of Europe, alongside the OSCE and the European Union, is a full participant in the stability pact for south-eastern Europe. Its specific contribution to the pact in its priority fields of activity has been acknowledged in the various launching and preparatory meetings of the pact. It is also clear that the Council of Europe's contributions in its fields of expertise are by far the most cost-effective.

 

Following the Sofia conference, the Parliamentary Assembly has submitted proposals for activities that I wholeheartedly support. To carry out its proposed contribution to the pact and to the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo correctly, the Council of Europe should have at its disposal an additional budget guaranteed by a firm commitment to contributions by member states of around 10 million euros. That figure was the target included in the proposals that I presented to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with the statute and relevant provisions of the financial regulations of the Organisation. I made it clear that any resource made available to the various projects through the financing conference of the stability pact or any other possible source, such as voluntary contributions or joint programmes, would be deducted from the total target. However, as I said in my introduction, last week the ministers were not able to agree on the principle, let alone the procedures for an ad hoc supplementary budget for the stability pact. Once again, political commitments are not matched by the necessary budget decisions.

 

The final communiqué from the 105th session held on 3 and 4 November 1999 says: "The ministers decided that the organisation should pursue its contribution to implementation of the Kosovo settlement and the stability pact, and in particular: step up its activities in Kosovo in support of and in co-ordination with the United Nations as well as the OSCE and the European Union, in particular by making its experts available to provide professional training in [a number of] fields. They stressed the importance of an on-the-spot presence of the Council of Europe, including through the office opened in Priština."

 

In the light of the absence of a commitment of the Committee of Ministers on the financial needs, I have been obliged to advise our partners in the stability pact that, for the time being, we cannot guarantee any Council of Europe contributions. I shall now present the ministers with three options for our Kosovo operation and specific stability pact projects. The first is to put an end to the activity, which I would deeply regret. The second is to finance it at the expense of other previously agreed activities, which would not be easy. The third is to finance it through additional means. The political credibility of the Committee of Ministers and of the Organisation as a whole is at stake.

 

The past ten years have shown that we cannot have a stable and peaceful Europe without stability and peace in south-eastern Europe. In view of my fresh impressions from Sarajevo and Kosovo, it seems to me that a concerted effort coupled with a coherent strategy for the region is no luxury. However, I am still optimistic. The Organisation has achieved a lot. Yesterday, Mr Prodi praised our achievements during the transition in central and eastern Europe, bringing our new members to EU standards. Thanks in particular to the endeavours of this Assembly, we entered the new millennium as a de facto death penalty-free zone. However, the expectations on us are still high. We can meet another historic challenge or we can disappoint tens of millions of people because of the lack of 5 or 10 million euros. As I have said on many occasions, the costs of preventing crises are negligible compared with the costs of resolving them.

 

I shall do all that is in my power to assist our member governments in finding the necessary funds to bring these endeavours to a fruitful conclusion. I count on the support of the Parliamentary Assembly and its members in their national parliaments.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Secretary General. Six members of the Assembly have expressed a wish to put questions to you. If we are short, clear and sharp, we should be able to get through them all.

 

I would remind members that questions must be limited thirty seconds.

 

The first question is from Mrs Durrieu.

 

Mrs DURRIEU (France) said the Secretary General had given some information, but rumours were circulating about who would be appointed the new Chair of the Working Table on Democratisation and Human Rights. She asked what proposals were on the table and who the representative would be.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Mr Schwimmer, would you like to answer this question?

 

Mr SCHWIMMER.- I received an invitation in a letter addressed to me and to the then Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE, the Foreign Minister of Norway, Mr Vollebaek, to nominate jointly a candidate for Working Group 1, to be appointed by the regional group. I informed the Committee of Ministers that the letter expressed Mr Hombach’s wish to have a female candidate. In conversation, he also asked me to consider a British national, because the United Kingdom and women are under-represented in the structures of the stability pact.

 

Therefore, I first tried to find a female candidate from the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, all three persons we had in mind were unavailable for the job. Secondly, I tried to nominate an eminent female candidate from France, but the person concerned could not agree to the nomination. I therefore decided on a list of three candidates, although, unfortunately, the first was of the same nationality as Mr Hombach. The list was in a clear order, and in first place - because of the preference for a female candidate - was Mrs Fischer, a former President of this Assembly. In second place, after considering proposals from parliamentarians and delegations, was the Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Gil-Robles. In third place, following a proposal by the Austrian Foreign Ministry, was Mr Busek, a former Vice-Chancellor who is an expert on south-eastern Europe. I submitted the list to the Ministers and I wrote to Mr Vollebaek. There was no opposition from any delegation at that time to my letter to Mr Vollebaek. The OSCE then made a choice and proposed that Mr Hombach should appoint Mr Busek as the chairman of Working Group 1. The appointment has not yet been concluded, because the regional group has not met to ratify it.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- I am afraid that we have no time for supplementaries; I wish that it were otherwise.

 

The next question is from Mr López Henares.

 

Mr LÓPEZ HENARES (Spain) said that, once the institution of the Commissioner for Human Rights had been established, it would be necessary to give it the appropriate resources and staff to fulfil its important mission. He asked what action had been taken to achieve that objective.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. Would you like to answer this question, Mr Schwimmer?

 

Mr SCHWIMMER.- The Commissioner for Human Rights took office on 15 October. The financial resources and staff of the office of Commissioner were discussed by the Committee of Ministers before I took office. After my arrival and after I had consulted the Commissioner and the Committee of Ministers, I decided to appoint the head of the office of the Commission at a level well above the national plan in order to reinforce the status of this important institution of the Council of Europe. I also proposed a doubling of the financial resources of the office, and that was accepted. The operational budget of the office stands now at just over 200 000 euros. The first year of operation will tell us whether that was sufficient or whether it needs to be revised. However, we need to bear in mind the fact that there is a zero real growth option for the whole budget. It is not easy to allocate resources to new institutions when there is no new money.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I call Mr Solonari.

 

Mr SOLONARI (Moldova).- I congratulate you, Mr Secretary General, on your first address to this Assembly. Is the secretariat following closely as a matter of urgency the recent constitutional developments in Ukraine?

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Solonari. I invite the Secretary General to reply.

 

Mr SCHWIMMER.- The secretariat is following with great concern the recent developments in Ukraine and I wish to take this opportunity to appeal to all the Ukrainian parties involved to solve the problems democratically and constitutionally, as soon as possible. An urgent decision can be taken by the Ukrainian constitutional court, and the Council of Europe will provide any assistance it can, including the assistance of the Venice Commission, which was involved in drafting the Ukrainian constitution that is in force. I repeat my appeal for a democratic and constitutional solution.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. The next question is from Mr Wójcik.

 

Mr WÓJCIK (Poland).- We have discussed the situation in Belarus and the Committee of Ministers meets representatives from Belarus. What dealings has our organisation had with Belarus on a lower level, especially in the context of ADACS programmes?

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I invite Mr Schwimmer to answer that question.

 

Mr SCHWIMMER.- We are still interested in using any possibility to bring this country on to the path to democracy and the rule of law. After the decision of the Assembly to suspend special guest status, the Committee of Ministers instructed the secretariat to revise the ADACS programmes to conduct only activities in support of civil society and independence of media. Under those guidelines, a number of activities have been implemented, including human rights workshops with NGOs, and the training of journalists. As part of the European Cultural Convention, Belarus still participates in all the convention’s activities. The Council of Europe has not isolated Belarus and the doors remain open. However, to become a member, Belarus must go through the statutory procedure, and the key will be internationally recognised free and fair parliamentary elections.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. The next question is from Mr Cox.

 

Mr COX (United Kingdom).- The Loizidou v. Turkey case involves two member states of this Assembly. A very clear decision has been given by the European Court of Human Rights and the months are passing by. If we are to retain credibility as an Assembly, this surely cannot be allowed to drag on and on. It would not be allowed to do so in many of the states that we come from and I hope that the Council of Europe will act.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Cox. I call Mr Schwimmer to reply.

 

Mr SCHWIMMER.- As I said, full implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is indispensable. The Committee of Ministers adopted an interim resolution on 6 October 1999, stressing the obligation undertaken by all contracted states to abide by the Court’s judgments, in accordance with Article 53 of the convention and strongly urging Turkey to review its position and comply with the order of the Court. I discussed the matter with the Turkish Foreign Minister at the Istanbul summit and stressed that full implementation is necessary as a purely legal matter; it is not a political matter. I gained the impression that a solution is actively being sought. We will discuss the case again when the Ministers meet on 2 and 3 February.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- The last question is from Mr Colvin. No subject has been given.

 

Mr COLVIN (United Kingdom).- Our debate on the Charter of Fundamental Rights yesterday showed how the European Parliament is trying to usurp our supremacy in the field of human rights. Similarly, OSCE is trespassing on our human rights territory. Following the report of the Committee of Wise Persons last year, has the Secretary General given any serious consideration to the merger of the Council of Europe with OSCE; if not, why not? Was the matter discussed at the Istanbul Summit?

 

THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you , Mr Colvin. I call Mr Schwimmer to reply.

 

Mr SCHWIMMER.- The matter was not discussed at Istanbul. I am not aware of willingness on the part of any member country to have such a merger. We still need the Council of Europe, and OSCE has its own specific tasks. They should be complementary, avoid any duplication and assist one another. We are seconding an OSCE mission in Kosovo and the OSCE mission in Minsk is assisting the Council of Europe with information and providing us with necessary contacts, so we are co-operating well.

 

THE PRESIDENT.- We must now conclude the questions to Mr Schwimmer. On behalf of the Assembly, I thank him most warmly both for his statement and for the answers that he gave.

 

 

5. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting

 

THE PRESIDENT.- I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the orders of the day which were approved on Monday 24 January.

 

Are there any objections?…

 

That is not the case.

 

The orders of the day of the next sitting are therefore agreed.

 

The sitting is closed.

 

(The sitting was closed at 1.05 p.m.)