AA13CR29

AS (2013) CR 29
Addendum 2

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Twenty-ninth sitting

Monday 30 September 2013 at 3 p.m.

ADDENDUM 2

Free debate

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

Mr KORODI (Romania) - As a representative of the Hungarian community from Romania, I find it necessary to talk to you, members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, about the problems my community is facing today. After the elections last December, the governing majority of our country set its mind on implementing some developmental policies, such as a new constitution for the country, the establishment of new administrative regions, the returning of properties taken away by the communist regime and so on.

Most of these measures have not been finalised yet, but the way these have been prepared causes us much concern. For example, in the process of creating new administrative and economic regions, the Hungarian community encountered problems when it could not vindicate its rights. Moreover, in many cases we are facing problems related to the use of our native tongue in the administration, although this is a basic democratic right. The leading Romanian political forces are totally against forming regions where Hungarians are a majority or even present in large numbers. The president, the Prime Minister and the future candidate for the presidency have, on behalf of the governing majority, declared this many times. They have also said that they consider it unacceptable for the Hungarian community to use its native tongue as the second official language in all of the administrative and jurisdictional processes, although it is specified in the Charter for Regional and Minority Languages ratified by Romania in 2007.

Those Hungarian leaders, whether they be mayors, county council presidents, members of parliament or those in any way active in the public sphere, who stand up for our community’s rights are nowadays dragged through the mire by forces that stand behind the government. The last case is the crusade against the mayor of Miercurea-Ciuc-Csikszerada, Ráduly Róbert Kálmán.

The Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania decided to corroborate the Hungarian community’s legitimate demands by using instruments that express the community’s opinion. In the case of the formation of new regions we requested a referendum in six Transylvanian counties. There are three counties where the Hungarian inhabitants form a majority and three others where though not in majority they live in significant numbers. We cannot give a place to assimilation. The economic and developmental studies also show that Szeklerland and Partium should form two different regions.

Romania is now in a place where parliamentary measures are not enough for vindicating the legitimate rights of society. Nowadays, people have to go on to the street – see the case of the gold mine from Rosia Montana or the case of the Székely Mikó High School from Sfantu Gheorghe - Sepsiszentgyörgy – or they have to organize local referendums in order to validate these rights.

We need improvements in academic education in Hungarian – see the case of the Medical University from Targu Mures – Marosvásárhely – in getting medical services in the Hungarian language, in restituting our church properties that were taken away, in the usage of our symbols and in considering our wish to achieve autonomy as a natural desire.

But in order to achieve this, we need our Romanian colleagues and friends to be open-minded and supportive, and we need them to stop harassing our leaders when they express their opinion. This is the only way we can have a developing, modern democratic country.

      Ms GROZDANOVA (Bulgaria) - After the early parliamentary elections in May, a government was formed in Bulgaria supported by the socialists, the liberals and the national-socialist party called "Ataka". My party, GERB, is in opposition, although we won the elections and we are the biggest parliamentary group with 97 places in the parliament. For the first time in our democratic history the elections were won by the former ruling party - GERB.

      Mass protests began on 14 June, because a person was appointed as President of the State Agency of National Security who has a monopoly on the media and has low expertise for this position. People have been on the streets every day since 14 June. There are more and more strange appointments to high state positions. The new triple coalition realises that its power is coming to an end and its aim is to entrench power as much as possible in order to manipulate the forthcoming new elections more easily.

      On 19 September, the GERB party submitted in parliament a vote of no confidence against the government. On 25 September – the day for the debates – the parliamentary sitting failed because 17 MPs did not support their own government - there was no quorum in the plenary. On the next day, the situation was the same - no quorum in the plenary again. This state of affairs provoked the speaker of the national assembly to violate the working rules and to open the sitting without using the electronic system for registration. On Friday there was no plenary sitting again.

      These facts show that Bulgaria is already in a parliamentary crisis and that the work of institutions is frozen. This parliament is illegitimate, and inadmissible for society. People want new elections because they do not accept this weird coalition of parties with totally different platforms.

      GERB warns Bulgarian society of the consequences if this government continues its harmful actions - we expect worse political crisis, strikes supported by the trade and industrial unions and the suspension of euro funds. Bulgaria will lose much time to regain European confidence. Bulgaria has no time. We lost a lot of time in our democratic transition to share power between the state and the oligarchy.

      The people in power today work in a totalitarian way. This way of using power is very familiar to my generation but I want the children of Bulgaria to be safe. Seventy per cent of people want this government to resign and new parliamentary elections to be held.

Mr GUTIÉRREZ (Spain) - Europe owes a debt of gratitude to the United States of America. When the totalitarianists attacked the lives and freedom of its citizens, the generous efforts of the United States were decisive in sustaining and bringing to an end Europe’s battle for freedom. This commitment with Europe and the destiny of its nations continued in the aftermath of the Second World War propelling its economic development and joining efforts in the defence of peace and freedom.

The United States military bases in Europe (USAFE) have been part of a common project between friends and allies, and it is especially for this reason that it is essential for USAFE to preserve its purpose through compliance with the labour legislation of the nations where these bases are present, becoming a pillar for the economic growth of the people who live in these areas. This is how it has been for a very long time and we all hope that it will continue to be so.

Unfortunately, recent events reflect that the United States is adapting to the new economic and political context, redefining and redesigning the size and characteristics of its facilities overseas without holding discussions with its allies and counterparts in Europe. The Morón air base in Spain is a good example, sustaining a significant workload increase that has, however, resulted in a great number of Spanish workers being made redundant.

The United States announced, on a public government website, their intention to pay off 144 employees before 30 September 2014, in addition to the closing down of three departments where another 70 Spanish workers are currently employed, without any economic or organisational justification, since this would have been extremely difficult to account for.

How can there be an excess of Spanish workers when the United States military activity in the Morón air base is significantly growing: the workers have done over 4,000 hours of overtime, as the workload has increased by 30%? The redundant workers are currently being replaced by American nationals - civilians, military staff and contractors - and the latter, although residents in Spain, do not pay taxes and social security expenses.

We must make it known to our allies that the model for United States military installations in Europe has to be based on the agreement of mutual co-operation in order to benefit us all, especially the communities in the facilities’ proximity, since they are directly affected by the inconveniences that they cause. Firstly, it is necessary that the fundamental rights, including labour rights, of European employees who work in United States or NATO military installations in Europe be those of their respective national legislations.

Additionally, the agreements between European nations and the United States in regard to military co-operation and the use of military installations on European soil must ensure that labour rights be honored.

As a lawyer, and politician, I always recommend that whenever there are difficulties in regard to the interpretation of a standard or in reaching an agreement, our efforts should focus on remembering its primary meaning: which is the social problem that needs to be resolved? Which was the previous agreement? Referring to the United States bases, the founding meaning, obviously, is a shared defence policy but, also, a commitment to the development of the territories where these bases are located. This is the cornerstone of the defence co-operation between the United States and its European friends and allies that we must preserve if we do not want the bases turning into isolated islands within the community where they are located.

Mr MEDINA (Mexico) - The ancient State, marked by the “supremacy of the strongest”, evolved and transformed itself until achieving the consolidation of public and common interests, expressed in strong demands for the security and protection of its population. These changes, alongside the process of institutionalisation as the working mechanism to manage power, are where the rule of law inevitably flourishes.

The history of nations is, therefore, a history of transformations; throughout our planet we have seen different systems rise and seize power, from the feudal times to the totalitarian and hereditary models, as well as warlords and dictators. All based on clear principles of authoritarianism, and all eventually defeated by vindicating, revolutionary movements, which use insurgence as a means to re-establish order and popular harmony by uniting the particular interests of its different groups to achieve the greater good.

That is why the ruling principle of every nation and its people must be the obedience and fulfilment of the law, given that it provides the only mechanism that allows us men to live in peace in all contexts, from the basic family unit to the ruling of a State and the concert of all nations. As a basic principle, the State has the inescapable duty to ensure the compliance and positivism of the law, that is, to ensure that the rule of law prevails in all instances of public life, strengthening it in order to guarantee the full enjoyment of the freedoms and human rights to which every person is entitled at birth: a State that applies justice equally to all its citizens.

With this taken into consideration, it is possible not only to aspire to, but to build a strong framework of social certitude that will, without a doubt, contribute to the efforts of development and to national aspirations; a framework that makes the spirit of peace and the principle of peaceful coexistence possible.

The rule of law is the only way to effectively reach and enjoy our legal prerogatives and the fulfilment of our obligations; an almost exact formula to raise a spirit of trust and safety among our people.

Those of us who, today, act as Congressmen, and have the obligation and the privilege to work as legislative labourers, must eradicate all differences between law and everyday life. Let us focus on adjusting our legal systems to the realities, expectations and conditions of our times. We must strive towards transformation. We could define this parliamentary task, in the context of Kelsen’s “Pure Theory of Law”, as our obligation and sensitivity to understand and respect the subjective law in order to create the objective law as a consequence of ideals.

The rule of law aspires to make the law a coexistence norm, that its enforcement generates a culture of legality, of prevention and of action to achieve bigger and better ways of living. Insecurity and violence, in whichever form they might be adopted, undermine and infringe law, giving way to the uncertainty and corrupt practices that diminish the spirit of a legal system.

When the rule of law is broken, instability ensues, resulting in violent actions against the integrity of the individual, breaching their personal guarantees and, consequently, the way the law is applied. Only the law can be above all other things.

We must aspire to assure the symmetry of our programmes and strategies to allow all educative spaces to conceptualise and ingrain the culture of legality, avoiding along the way any sign that points to impunity, given that this is the door, and sometimes highway, to undermining the rule of law, thus risking the guarantees and values that are needed to preserve a peaceful living environment.

Ms HÄGG (Sweden) - Should Europe criminalise jihad trips? The Council of Europe’s member States act with different strategies and some do not have any strategy at all. Radicalisation of young people may result in their becoming terrorists. This is a situation that cannot be entirely dealt with by the security service. But the situation also requires a broader perspective and requires preventive work.

What will young people meet when they leave their homes to go on jihad trips? Some may lose their lives; others will become murderers. A British study found that 60% of terrorist crimes and terrorist plans directed against European targets can be linked to returned jihadists. In Germany, there are programmes for defectors.

Mr Jens Stoltenberg, former Prime Minister of Norway, has said: "To me it's basically the same thing: Extremism is extremism, whatever the purpose may be. Extremists are people who believe they have the right to expose other people to suffering, death and pain and do not respect the democratic rules of the game". In Sweden the debate is, however, sadly apologetic; public funds finance activities and invitations that should be enough to get government to respond.


Should al -Shabaab be defined as terrorists? I believe they should.

Recruitment from European countries continues. Over 500 men from Europe have travelled to Syria to fight with al-Nusra, a radical Islamist group linked to al- Qaeda. Jihadists are often recruited through the internet. YouTube clips in different languages encourage young ​​Europeans to give their lives in jihad. European jihadists are a threat in many ways. In Syria, the jihadists disrupt the popular uprising against the dictator Bashar al-Assad. Al-Nusra’s goal is not democracy but to create a sharia State, which would contribute to an even more disrupted world around us. According to Amnesty International the al-Nusras, as well as the regime, have committed serious abuses against civilians.

In Europe, the widows of perished jihadists and jihadist “veterans” play an important role when it comes to recruiting new jihadists. Among Islamists in Europe, these widows and jihadist “veterans” are perceived as war heroes, which is helpful in the recruitment of new jihadists. When the jihadists return to their home countries they constitute a serious threat. The risk that they will commit terrorist crimes in their home country increases.

As a consequence of globalised terrorism, the position of the Council of Europe may be of globalised character as well.

Mr JAPARIDZE (Georgia) – In many Georgian villages, along the line de facto separating South Ossetia from the rest of Georgia, Russian guards have placed a barbed wire fence. This was in June. The kidnapping of a local and bullying followed. Locals naturally worry about their houses and land, not to mention access to a cemetery. Georgia would like to assure the inhabitants of those villages, but also the residents of the other side of the fence, that its first priority is their interests.

Let us be clear. Either the instigators of this policy control troops on the ground, or they do not: if they do, they want “an incident”, if they cannot, then their pretence of running a so-called “State” falls short of the description. “Borderisation” is another attempt to solidify the infringement of Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity; its presence in these territories is the product of force, sustained by force and, always, in violation of international law. That violation contradicts its recent vehement support of national sovereignty elsewhere. In recognising these entities as States, Russia is in violation of the principle of territorial integrity (uti possidetis), which Moscow accepted as a successor state of the USSR. This is ill-advised: you cannot both refer to and violate international law at the same time.

Let us be clear. Georgia’s first priority is the safety of its citizens. For this reason our government’s reaction has been tempered. Our government worked hard on confidence-building measures, apparently a Sisyphean task. Going uphill with unilateral measures, we extend our willingness to co-operate on trade, health services and transport for the benefit of the people whose lives have been so violently cut in half since 2008. Bottom line: “borderisation” puts people at risk and makes their everyday life more difficult.

We consider absurd the notion that the instigators of this policy aim to change the status quo 100 metres at a time. We suspect this is a domestic affair, either motivated by the will to senselessly provoke, or to intimidate people on their own side of the barbed wire, who also see confidence-building measures as positive.

“Borderisation” is in violation of the EU-mediated ceasefire agreement. And a number of IDPs in Georgia have mixed feelings about our government taking positive steps to engage with the very authorities that deny them access to their own homes. Their mass expulsions, it should be recalled, are in their own right a crime against humanity: it is ethnic cleansing, for which Russia is directly or, at the very least, indirectly responsible, in violation of international humanitarian law and, possibly the genocide convention. However, we insist, the population left and right of the emerging barbed wire wall are – all of them – our citizens. Nonetheless, at this point in time, we ask that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe react strongly to this provocation.

Sisyphus was punished by the Gods to toil with the futile task of bringing a rock uphill, only to see it crumbling down as soon as he neared the top. But confidence-building measures are not a futile task. It is our competence, duty and responsibility to our citizens. This is what Georgian sovereignty is about.

Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey) – The Prime Minister of Turkey today declared a new, fifth package for democracy. Obviously, the introduction of the package has been necessitated by the ongoing negotiation process for a peaceful outcome of the Kurdish question, a major obstacle on Turkey’s road to democracy.

The issues raised by the Prime Minister are also within the context of the Assembly Resolution 1830, which urges Turkey to undergo a thorough political reform process on 12 points. But unfortunately, after the declaration of the package, Turkey remains a country with 10 000 prisoners, with the biggest imprisoned journalist population, and with the highest national election barrier of 10%.

Thus, despite its claims of being historical, the package remains far from satisfying the legitimate demands of the citizens of Turkey. The package, if it could be merited for that, provides de jure recognition of the de facto gains by the people which have already overridden the existing restrictive laws, such as the ban on the Kurdish alphabet letters Q, X, W, or the prohibition of political propaganda in languages other than the official Turkish. Recognition of the right to education in the Kurdish language in private schools is progress, but on an unequal footing, which practically deprives the poor, 90% of Turkey’s Kurds, from excercising a basic right – free and universal education in the mother tongue.

On the other hand, the package totally excludes the Alevites, one of the most neglected and oppressed religious minorities of Turkey.

Thus, the Assembly should of course endorse even the slightest progress in the direction of democracy in Turkey, yet continue to urge for a new democratic constitution which provides full equality for all citizens of Turkey in enjoying their rights and freedoms.