AA16CR03
AS (2016) CR 03
2016 ORDINARY SESSION
________________________
(First part)
REPORT
Third sitting
Tuesday 26 January 2016 at 10.00 a.m.
In this report:
1. Speeches in English are reported in full.
2. Speeches in other languages are reported using the interpretation and are marked with an asterisk.
3. The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website. Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates
4. Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.
5. Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.
The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the report.
(Mr Agramunt, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)
The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.
1. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights
The PRESIDENT – This morning, the agenda calls for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Cyprus.
The list of candidates and biographical notices are to be found in Document 13933 and the committee’s opinion is in Document 13945 addendum 2.
The voting for the election will take place in the area behind the President’s Chair. At 1 p.m. the ballot will be suspended. It will re-open at 3.30 p.m. I shall close the ballot at 5 p.m. As usual, the election will then take place under the supervision of two tellers.
For the election of judges, the names of Ms Françoise Hetto-Gaasch and Mr Filippo Lombardi have been drawn. They should go to the back of the President’s Chair at 5 p.m.
I hope to announce the result of the election before the end of the sitting this afternoon.
I now declare the ballot open.
2. Changes in the membership of committees
The PRESIDENT – Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in document Commissions (2016) 01 addendum 3.
Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?
They are agreed to.
3. Joint debate: Escalation of violence in Nagorno-Karabakh and other occupied territories of Azerbaijan, and Inhabitants of frontier regions of Azerbaijan are deliberately deprived of water
The PRESIDENT – We now come to the joint debate on the reports from the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy and the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development. The first is entitled “Escalation of violence in Nagorno-Karabakh and other occupied territories of Azerbaijan”, Document 13930, and is presented by Mr Mogens Jensen, the second is entitled “Inhabitants of frontier regions of Azerbaijan are deliberately deprived of water”, Document 13931, and is presented by Ms Milica Marković.
We will aim to finish this item by about 12 noon.
May I remind the Assembly that at yesterday afternoon’s sitting it was agreed that speaking time in all debates today be limited to three minutes?
Mr Robert Walter is no longer a member of the Assembly, so I call Mr Jensen to present the first report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and the reply to the debate.
Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – Thank you, Mr President, for giving me the floor. Dear colleagues, as you know, the report by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has been prepared by Mr Robert Walter, who is no longer a member of the Assembly. As chairman of the committee, and in line with long-standing practice, it is therefore my task to present formally the report to the Assembly. I have no intention to enter into the substance of the issue as it is not for me to substitute my role for that of the rapporteur. I will simply limit myself to recalling the origin of the report and to some procedural aspects, especially as they concern the way the report was dealt with by our committee.
The report dates back to June 2014 when members of the Assembly tabled two motions for a resolution concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: a motion on the armed occupation of Azerbaijani territories by Armenia, tabled by Mr Suleymanov; and a motion on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict tabled by Ms Theodora Bakoyannis, former Chairperson of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.
At its meeting in Paris in September 2014, the Bureau of the Assembly decided to refer the two motions to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, to be dealt with jointly in a single report under a title to be decided by the Committee. Taking into account recent developments on the ground, the Bureau “recommended” for the joint report the following title: “Escalation of violence in Nagorno-Karabakh and the other occupied territories of Azerbaijan.”
During the autumn 2014 part-session of the Assembly, the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy discussed the matter and, following proposals by its then chairperson and members, took three votes. First, the committee decided to pursue the preparation of a report on the two motions referred to it by the Bureau, rejecting a proposal not to provide any follow-up. Secondly, it approved the title recommended by the Bureau for the joint report on the two motions, and, thirdly, having to choose between two candidates, it appointed Mr Walter as rapporteur. Both the principle of the report and its title, as well as Mr Walter’s appointment as rapporteur, were harshly criticised by the Armenian delegation to the Assembly.
In his report, Mr Walter explained that he organised a meeting with Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk, the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office on the conflict dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference. He also explained his efforts to undertake visits and the reasons, beyond his will, why he failed to visit Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh region, although he went twice to Azerbaijan.
The draft resolution we will be invited to vote on later today was presented for adoption at the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy during its November 2015 meeting in Paris. At that meeting, the Armenian delegation asked the committee not to adopt the report, and when that was rejected its members refrained from presenting any amendments or participating in any discussion on the preliminary draft resolution. They rather decided to present a dissenting opinion, which is appended to the report. The Committee approved the report and adopted the draft resolution. The report was distributed to all Assembly members more than a month ago, so I am confident you have all had sufficient time to go through Mr Walter’s explanatory memorandum and the draft resolution.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Jensen. You have almost eight minutes remaining.
I call Ms Marković, the rapporteur, to present the second report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and the reply to the debate.
Ms MARKOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina)* – The title of my report concerns the region between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Territorially, it is the region of Azerbaijan, but the fact is it is under the control of Armenia. The history of the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia is well known. Everyone knows about it. Therefore, you have a lot of information in making your contribution to the draft report and to the draft resolution.
The title and the problems I have dealt with in the report concern the Sarsang reservoir, which is used to irrigate the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. There are problems with regard to the use of the water resources. Those problems arise from the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
The subject of my report has been controversial in the past few months because of the issue of the competence of the Minsk Group, which is tasked with finding a potential resolution to the conflict. As we know, that group has been doing its work, but 20 years have passed and it has not found a specific solution, or there is no specific solution so far to the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. However, the political context was not considered; that was not my task. My task was to deal with social questions and humanitarian issues – to deal with issues with regard to the prevention of human progress on all fronts. Therefore, the report deals with the problems I have mentioned.
It is possible that some people will say that this question concerns local problems, but the region of Nagorno-Karabakh has a large number of people – Nagorno-Karabakh has 130 000 inhabitants and there are 400 000 inhabitants in Lower Karabakh. Nagorno-Karabakh is under the control of Armenia and Lower Karabakh is under the control of Azerbaijan. In Lower Karabakh, there are six districts and six cities that have to use the water resources. They have to be provided with water from the Sarsang reservoir. The intention in building the reservoir was to provide the local population with drinking water and to irrigate the region.
The region of Nagorno-Karabakh and Lower Karabakh is made up of plains and arable land which require human intervention – it has to be irrigated.
Today, it is not possible to do that. The Sarsang reservoir’s main channel has two branches, north and south, which provide water for irrigation for the whole region, and drinking water for the population, but 80% of it is under Armenian control.
The report proposes solutions that would send the message that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe understands the problems experienced by member States’ populations – and this is a population that can see no solution to these issues. I disagree with those who think that the Assembly should not examine these problems because it is the Minsk Group’s responsibility to provide solutions. I respect the Minsk Group’s position, but the Assembly cannot close its eyes to the suffering and problems of the region, particularly as we are talking about the people of a member State of the Council of Europe.
The same conflict that has triggered humanitarian and social problems in the region has led to problems with the supply of drinking water to the local population. They do not have the same, normal access to drinking water as everyone else. Other ways are being found to ensure a water supply: for some years, the Azerbaijani authorities have been carrying out a programme of installing water pumps that bring water from underground.
Drinking water is the main problem for the local population, but there is also a lack of water for irrigation. I do not need to explain that without irrigation there can be no crops in the region. The local population are mainly involved in agriculture. There is also the issue of flooding. The Nagorno-Karabakh authorities open the dam floodgates in winter; in summer, when the local population really needs water, the authorities close the floodgates, so that the locals cannot have water. We have to look at how we can resolve that major problem. Water is also very important for biodiversity, the biosphere, and flora and fauna, which would disappear without water; it is as necessary for them as it is for humans.
My intention in drafting the resolution was to suggest ways of resolving the problem. I ask members to support the draft resolution, so that we can send the message that the Parliamentary Assembly is aware of the problem, and that we cannot tolerate the suffering of this large population – there are more than 500 000 inhabitants of the region. Solving the water problems relating to the reservoir would be good for both Armenian and Azerbaijani populations.
Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to go on a fact-finding visit to Armenia. That is not because I did not want to, but because of the behaviour of the Armenian delegation; I mention this in the report. There was no co-operation from the Armenian delegation. I tried several times to get them to help organise a fact-finding visit. I first approached them about organising a visit in October 2014. They said that it would not be possible to do so, because from October to May the mountainous area around the Sarsang reservoir was inaccessible. When May came round, I asked again whether I could organise a fact-finding trip to Armenia, and they said, “No, sorry; we haven’t received an official letter from the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly.” On 3 June 2015, Mr Sawicki, the Secretary General, sent the Armenian delegation an official letter asking them to organise a fact-finding trip to Armenia for me in my capacity as a member of the Council of Europe, but there was no positive response.
When I next asked for the visit to be organised, during a sitting of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, the Armenian delegation said, “No, we can’t organise your visit because we are busy with constitutional reforms. We need plenty of time in 2015 to resolve questions relating to the Armenian constitution, so we are unable to organise your fact-finding visit.” They referred me to the authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh. The chair of the committee stated clearly that members of the Council of Europe are obliged to co-operate with rapporteurs, and that the institutions of the Parliamentary Assembly cannot be referred to authorities that are not recognised by the Parliamentary Assembly or by Armenia.
In November, in Paris, when the committee adopted the draft resolution, the Armenian delegation presented a letter from the authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh saying that it would be possible to visit between December and January – so it is possible to visit the area in winter.
To conclude, I thank the secretariat of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development for its support during the drafting of the report, and I thank in advance all those colleagues who will vote in favour of the draft resolution and the report. Thank you.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Marković. You have one minute remaining.
I call Mr Xuclŕ to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. You have three minutes.
Mr XUCLŔ (Spain)* – Thank you very much, Mr President. Dear colleagues, yesterday we had an extensive debate in the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Party and voted, and my mandate is to put forward two ideas on behalf of the group. The first is that we have to combine efforts and face up to the issue. We need to adopt the two reports and to do the job. Over the last few years, we have had two votes in the Bureau, and we have had votes at the level of the two committees, and it is time that we joined our efforts more effectively. That is the position that we reached yesterday in our group.
The second message that I would like to convey is a question of principle, and we discussed it at length yesterday. Member States have obligations to co-operate in the drawing up of reports. That has not applied with this report because of one of the parties. When a new member State acceded to the Organisation and subsequently failed to comply with its obligations, such as Moldova or Georgia, sanctions were applied. Mr Rouquet was unable to attend one meeting, and there were sanctions. The lack of co-operation among the Armenian authorities, which has also been criticised by part of the Armenian opposition, should give rise to a number of consequences. I think those are discussed at the level of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and International Affairs.
This is not a debate on the self-determination of Nagorno-Karabakh. Mr Alex Salmond is with us this part-session, and he is a good illustration of how an agreement can be reached between different parties that are very much at odds. But we need to be specific: this is a debate on the escalation of violence on the border and its humanitarian and political consequences; it is a debate on the fact that inhabitants are being deprived of water. We spend a lot of time in our parliaments discussing the lack of water as a weapon of war in Africa and central Asia, and we can see it in the report too. We cannot turn the reports into a debate where everything is black and white. That is not the point. Let us be precise and accurate and combine the work on the two reports.
I finish on a more personal note. When I received the Minsk Group letter I thought it was a joke or a forgery. If it is not, it is a serious violation of the duty of this Assembly to take appropriate decisions. Thank you very much for your attention.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Xuclŕ. I call Mr Howell to speak on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.
Mr HOWELL (United Kingdom) – Thank you, Mr President. Yesterday, you spoke about the constant upheaval of conflicts in Europe and mentioned Nagorno-Karabakh. You pointed out that Europe would be lost if it remained divided, and so it is with Nagorno-Karabakh. I sympathise with the report’s comments on the apparent slowness of progress over 20 years. The report details the creation of the Minsk process by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), sets out what has been achieved and points to the need to reach a peaceful settlement as soon as possible. We are not here to second-guess what the Minsk process should come up with, or to order what the parties should do to take it further. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and there can be no better place than in the almost sacrosanct nature of the Minsk process. I therefore disagree with the previous speakers: we should allow the process to continue.
I am not sure that the Minsk process is helped by one of its chairs – the Russian Federation – arranging to hold a meeting with the two parties concerned without the presence of the other co-chairs. I am aware that the co-chairs have commented on the interference with the process, however long it may seem to be. It is necessary to let the process work itself out and create the political will in both countries to resolve the issues and bring peace to the region. The wheels of diplomacy turn very slowly. The Minsk Group says that it has seen a promising renewal of dialogue at the highest level. It also calls for constructive, good-faith negotiations resulting in a peaceful agreement.
I too am concerned by the recent escalation of violence on the front line, and I urge all the parties to follow the Minsk process and its basic principle: that a solution based on the Helsinki Final Act of non-use of force and the equal rights of self-determination of peoples goes ahead. A starting point would be the need for confidence building and practical co-operation to manage the water resources of the region jointly, to the benefit of everyone there.
Finally, I urge all delegations to co-operate with our rapporteurs, as that is the only way to get their points across and for the truth to be presented to this Assembly.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Howell. I call Ms Johnsson Fornarve to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Ms JOHNSSON FORNARVE (Sweden) – On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, I strongly recommend that the Council of Europe does not adopt the resolution on escalation of violence in Nagorno-Karabakh and the other occupied territories of Azerbaijan. I underline that the Group of the Unified European Left does not support either party in the conflict – neither Azerbaijan nor Armenia – but we cannot support a report that is not balanced. To do so could harm the credibility of the Council of Europe. The resolution is unbalanced and clearly one-sided in favour of Azerbaijan, and describes Armenia in an overly negative way.
We agree with the concerns expressed in the resolution regarding an increase in tensions along the border of Armenia and Azerbaijan. I deeply regret the suffering that that has caused, not least among civilians. We also note that the people in the region are paying a high price as long as the conflict is frozen. One clear example is the position of the people from both Armenia and Azerbaijan who fled from the region and are still not able to return. The people of Nagorno-Karabakh are living in a black hole where the European Convention on Human Rights is not applicable. I also agree that the conflict has lasted too long and that both sides should undertake all measures necessary to expedite a peaceful settlement. However, the resolution is not going to improve the situation at all. It might instead increase the tension.
The intention of the Council of Europe was that all parties should be involved in the process of the report and that all stakeholders should be heard – Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh. But the rapporteur, Mr Walter, visited only Azerbaijan during the process of the report. He visited neither Armenia nor Nagorno-Karabakh. Another important factor that speaks against the report is that the Minsk Group was not consulted and co-operated with. The Minsk Group is the only internationally recognised structure mandated to deal with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It is also accepted by both parties.
Since August 2015 violence has escalated on the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and heavier weapons have recently been used. That has led to people being killed on both sides, including civilians. To present an all-too one-sided report in that situation could escalate the cycle of violence and conflict further. Instead, the Council of Europe should refer the report to the committee so that it can appoint a new rapporteur with a mission: to write a new balanced report that both parties can accept, and in which of course all parties are heard. Once again, I urge dear colleagues not to adopt this resolution in its entirety.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Johnsson Fornarve. I call Mr Fischer to speak on behalf of the Group of European People’s Party.
Mr FISCHER (Germany)* – Mr President, colleagues, today we are discussing two reports, and our group had controversial discussions on both. That is not surprising, because our group has members from both Azerbaijan and Armenia. I have an urgent request: we must express ourselves carefully, behave fairly and not impute things to people. We must be clear that responsibility for resolving the issue lies with the Minsk Group, not us. Our democratic forum is responsible for discussing human rights and the rule of law. We cannot exhaust the whole range of possibilities. We must consider the situation not only in Armenia and Azerbaijan, but in many other countries as well.
I am from Karlsruhe in nearby Baden and I was the rapporteur on Armenia for many years. On my first trip to Armenia, I attended a dinner. I have great personal respect for the way in which the Germans and the French got together and talked to one another after the Second World War. These people had hated each other, but they tried to find solutions. After that conflict, people thought, “How can things work out positively for future generations?” If we look at the situation today, we will see that they were successful. It is very good that those ladies and gentlemen sat around a table and examined how they could overcome the difficulty of getting people who had previously been enemies to shake hands.
Our generation, however, takes that for granted. Many young people believe it to be self-evident that the Germans are friendly with the French and that they work closely together. I want to see the same thing happening in Armenia and Azerbaijan, so that future generations can reach out to one another, shake hands and build a future.
As a first step, this debate needs to show that, despite our differences, we have respect for one another, that we listen to one another on where the problems might lie, and that we can make progress. I call on speakers to show respect for one another and to have a fair debate.
The PRESIDENT – Danke schön, Mr Fischer. I now call Ms Barnett, on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Ms BARNETT (Germany)* – I concur with and support the previous speaker. We should not vote in favour of the report, but refer it back to the committee. It needs to be discussed further.
There cannot be a military solution to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan – no one is in favour of that – but there is a risk of military escalation. The Parliamentary Assembly concerns itself mainly with human rights. That is our job. Let us not forget that we focus on security. For more than 20 years, the countries of the Minsk Group have been working on the question of de-escalation. It is the only forum recognised by all parties for resolving the conflict. France, Germany and the United States of America are all involved, as are the competing parties, and they have been working on the question for 20 years, but the Walter report tries to create a parallel process.
We must also consider the OSCE and the Madrid principles. We should oppose the report’s proposals, because we must support the Minsk Group. A United Nations resolution adopted in 1993 provided the basis for the work of the Minsk Group, which our Parliamentary Assembly recognised in 1994, but, unfortunately, the Walter report makes no mention of that.
A few weeks ago foreign ministers met in Belgrade to hand over the OSCE chairmanship to Germany. The German Foreign Minister said that he considered it an important task to achieve a solution to the conflict, and he supports the co-chairman’s initiative to find a mechanism to bring about a ceasefire.
We need to do everything possible to produce an unbiased and balanced report. After all, diplomacy must be supported, but we can do that only if we refer the report back to the committee so that it can re-discuss it.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Barnett. The rapporteurs will reply at the end of the debate, but do Mr Jensen or Ms Marcović wish to respond at this stage? They will reply at the end.
In the debate I call Mr Salles.
Mr SALLES (France)* – Our vote on the reports produced by Mr Walter and Ms Marcović will be particularly important for the future of our Assembly, especially its credibility.
Although the Bern summit last December led to a drop in the tensions in the field, with significantly fewer breaches of the ceasefire and less shooting with heavy weapons, and although both Presidents Sargsyan and Aliyev have committed to pursuing dialogue in 2016 and representatives of civil society are doing everything they can to facilitate the peace process, Mr Walter and Ms Marcović have submitted two biased reports that can only further inflame the situation. The reports clearly reflect only one point of view, namely that of Azerbaijan. That is particularly the case with Ms Marcović’s report, which accuses Armenia of environmental aggression. She refused to visit the Sarsang dam, even though she was invited to go there. It is astounding that Mr Walter’s challenge to the Minsk Group and the other proposals in his resolution are exactly in line with the positions defended by the Azerbaijani authorities.
On 15 January, the Azerbaijani Defence Minister, Mr Hasanov, said that it was good that the ceasefire breaches on the border had managed “to prevent Armenian civilians from living in peace on the border”. It is no secret that those Armenians live in fear every day, so that cannot be interpreted as a gesture of goodwill.
I am shocked and saddened by the situation. For many months, Azerbaijan has benefited from preferential treatment by this Assembly’s reports, despite repeated breaches of human rights and the rule of law. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe was the only organisation to visit Baku to observe the parliamentary elections, but the report it submitted was very complacent, despite proven fraud. That is not acceptable. The Assembly should be a forum for dialogue between parliamentarians of both countries, and it should support the Minsk Group’s efforts to mediate between them, but it is creating divisions and exacerbating tensions, which is not its remit. As was the case with Russia, it seems once again that the Council of Europe has isolated the issue.
In December, the Secretary General, Mr Jagland, decided, pursuant to article 52 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to open an investigation into the way in which Azerbaijan is providing for effective implementation of the Convention. It is an extremely rare procedure, and this is the first time that Mr Jagland has resorted to using it. That shows that the Parliamentary Assembly is alone in believing that Azerbaijan is acting in good faith and in compliance with the values of our Organisation. I therefore call on colleagues to reject both resolutions.
The PRESIDENT – The ballot to elect a judge to the European Court of Human Rights is still open. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s Chair. I hope to announce the results of the elections before the end of the sitting this afternoon.
Mr ROUQUET (France)* – I do not know whether Mr Walter had any real co-operation with the OSCE when he was drafting his report, but, judging by the reactions of the Minsk Group, he cannot have taken much account of the comments he received from his interlocutors there. The Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs was the most direct. When speaking of the report on 10 November 2015, he declared that no representative of the international community had assigned the Assembly any such task. On 3 December 2015, an official statement, co-signed by John Kerry on behalf of the United States, Harlem Désir for France and Sergei Lavrov for the Russian Federation, expressed the irritation of the co-chairs of the Minsk Group at the fact that their mission was being called into question.
Setting aside the Minsk Group, is it reasonable to present proposals that are supposed to lead to a return to peace but that are directly confrontational towards no fewer than three members of the United Nations Security Council? We all want to see so-called frozen conflicts settled peacefully and as quickly as possible. We can all see that, alas, we are still very far from that outcome. The only such conflict for which there is any glimpse of hope is that in Cyprus, although we are more than 40 years down the line there. Progress started to emerge only when the Cypriots themselves started to talk, with the support of the international community. Any movement towards peace must start in the place of the conflict, not in New York, Vienna or Strasbourg.
I am sad to have to attest to a report that merely aggravates unnecessary tensions. There is no need to inflame them. Rather than taking a biased stance in favour of one of the camps or trying to supplant the Minsk Group, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe would do better simply to stick to doing everything possible to keep open the informed dialogue between the parties, which is already enough of a challenge. I fear that the Walter report will result only in undermining the credibility of our Assembly internationally. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe initiatives, which are dubitable at the international level, are part of a wider context of excessive complacency when faced with clear violations of human rights and the rule of law by Azerbaijan – a complacency that contrasts strongly with the courageous initiatives undertaken by Mr Jagland and Ms Anne Brasseur on this subject. It goes without saying that I do not approve of a biased report that runs counter to the goals enshrined in this Assembly by the Statute of the Council of Europe.
Mr TILKI (Hungary) – I shall outline Hungary’s position on the frozen conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Hungary definitely and consistently stands by the independence, sovereignty and regional integrity of Azerbaijan. Our interest is in seeing the conflict settled peacefully. Hungary supports the efforts of the Minsk Group of the OSCE to settle the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. In line with the shared view of the European Union, we urge the European Union’s growing participation in supporting the Minsk Group.
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict still plays an important role in the national and international policies of Armenia and Azerbaijan. In Karabakh, Christians and Muslims live side by side. As part of the conflict settlement process, as partner chairmen of the Minsk Group, Russia, France and the United States of America mediate – although so far without success – in accordance with the so-called Madrid principles. Several times the partner chairmen have called on the opposing partners to refrain from military and verbal provocations to avoid further escalation of the conflict. On 26 October 2015, the partner chairmen of the Minsk Group visited the region and negotiated with the Armenian and Azeri presidents, as well as with the de facto authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan condemned the parliamentary election held in Nagorno-Karabakh on 3 May 2015, as well as the governmental elections of 13 September. According to Baku, these acts are truly against international law and the regional integrity of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan criticises the application of a double standard and regards it as unacceptable: the European Union took action against Russia because of the events in Ukraine, but it turns a blind eye to Armenia’s occupational policy in Azerbaijan.
We regret that the Nagorno-Karabakh problem has been side-lined by the other major international crises, and that the daily suffering of the victims of the conflict has been overshadowed by other human tragedies. We would like the Assembly to resolve to continue to work towards the peaceful resolution of the conflict.
Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia)* – As well as having an unacceptable title, the work for the first report was not carried out appropriately. The objective was clearly to tell us the main culprit regarding the repeated breaches of the ceasefire. Heavy weapons have recently been used – weapons manufactured in Turkey – so it is now a case of preparing for war, not for peace. The situation has never been addressed from a perspective of seeking peace. There has never been an investigation into why the ceasefire has been breached. Azerbaijan does not accept the status quo but wants to go back to the status quo before the conflict, which would be possible only by triggering a new war. It is easy to say that the only culprit in this situation is Armenia, while Azerbaijan is doing everything it can to bring about a peaceful settlement. How cynical. But it does not stop there. The rapporteur supports Baku’s official position on the conflict. Even Mr Suleymanov’s proposal seems far more neutral than the report. To prepare such a report, there is clearly no need to listen to the Armenians, or to go to Armenia or Nagorno-Karabakh.
Colleagues, it is up to you to see that the rapporteur has overstepped his mandate and simply repeated the official propaganda of Azerbaijan, whether or not the points are relevant. The worst thing is that the report casts doubt on our Organisation’s credibility and our principle of non-interference, given the existence of the Minsk Group. The reports are unprecedented. It is hard to imagine that we would one day be considering such unilateral and biased reports. They are simply a series of judgments against Armenia: a guilty verdict. I ask the Council of Europe to reject them in the hope that one day we will see some that are more balanced, bearing in mind the fact that the Minsk Group is the only accepted forum for negotiations.
Mr R. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – Claiming that the OSCE Minsk Group is the only body to deal with this issue is unacceptable. The OSCE has its role, but so does the Council of Europe. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan undertook concrete commitments when they acceded to the Council of Europe and, in my view, the existence of such commitments is an unambiguous reply to the question of whether the Council of Europe should interfere in this issue.
Each report that we debate in the Assembly is the outcome of long-term investigations and analysis. The people who present a report on an important subject to such a respected audience should be at a perfect political and academic level. In this respect, Mr Walter and Ms Marković deserved threefold gratitude from Assembly members, as undertaking the mission of being the jury between two conflicting sides and making efforts to prepare a balanced, just and objective report undoubtedly proves the gentle, brave and stubborn personality of both rapporteurs. The reason for the threefold gratitude is that one of the conflicting sides, Armenia, is an occupier, and we are well aware from near and remote history that Armenia is a naughty side that presents white as black. Both Mr Walter and Ms Marković have undertaken serious investigations based purely on the facts. One cannot deny the facts depicted and analysed in the reports.
While we are conducting debates in this place, Armenian military forces are subjecting Azerbaijani civilians to fire along the entire frontier. Armenia is constructing terrorist camps beyond the occupied territories that remain out of any kind of international control, and is also dealing with drug cultivation and trafficking.
Armenia is brutally destroying Azerbaijani forests as well as purposely poisoning the rivers that flow through its territory to Azerbaijan with bacteriological, chemical and nuclear pollutions. It barrages the Sarsang water reservoir like a dragon in the tales, thus turning the lives of hundreds of thousands of humans into tragedy within a year. Both the debated reports reflect only a tiny part of the terrible facts.
Reading the reports, one can easily feel that each phase has been reviewed many times and one can understand that the rapporteurs are on the side of neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan. They act from a position of truth, justice and objectiveness and, through their benevolent investigations, they are in essence alongside both Armenia and Azerbaijan, trying to help both countries. However, Armenia is unwilling to see and hear the truth, having tightly closed its eyes and ears.
I appeal to the rulers of Armenia who have lost their sense of reality: open your eyes to the world and open your ears. This blindfolded behaviour is leading you to the edge, which is very near. When you open your eyes, try to read these reports without passion and with common sense and attention. You will come across many useful points relating to your future destiny.
(Mr Nikoloski, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Agramunt.)
The PRESIDENT – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the list who have been present during the debate but who have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the official report. The texts are to be submitted, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted.
I call Ms Marković to reply to the debate. You have one minute.
Ms MARKOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina)* – I will try to be brief, as I do not have much time left. My report makes it clear that both sides are not challenging the problems. They are not challenging the fact that the Sarsang reservoir exists or that there is a lack of drinking water for the local population. My intention was to see what we could do and how we could propose solutions that could be useful across the board. Three points in my draft resolution are challenged by the Armenian delegation. The first is the terminology, and the reference to the region occupied by Armenia. I am not the first person to use that terminology. A resolution adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly in 2015 also used it. I invite members to support the draft resolution because it will send a message and because it makes a proposal to help the local population, which is the most important and useful thing to do.
The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Mogens Jensen to reply. You have eight minutes.
Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – I will not use my eight minutes, as they are better spent on the discussion of the amendments. I have formally presented the report and have not gone into the substance of it, and I will leave it to the Assembly to decide in the votes on the amendments and on the resolution.
The PRESIDENT – Does the Chairperson of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, Ms Kyriakides, wish to speak? That is not the case.
The debate is closed.
The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution, to which five amendments have been tabled.
I call Mr Rouquet on a point of order.
Mr ROUQUET (France)* – The purpose of our Assembly must be to protect the victims of conflict and to recreate trust between parties to a conflict to prepare for a peaceful settlement. We need to do this with other international organisations with a mandate, in compliance with everyone’s respective remit and with strict neutrality. Unfortunately, Mr Walter’s report complies with none of those standards, and on this complex issue of Nagorno-Karabakh it is very important that we start afresh on a healthy basis with a genuine dialogue with all parties and with the OSCE, bearing in mind the history of the region. Pursuant to Rule 37.1.d, I ask for the report to be referred back to the committee.
The PRESIDENT – There is a proposal that the report from the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy be referred back to the committee. This motion can be agreed on a simple majority. Does anyone wish to speak against the proposal? I call Mr Fischer.
Mr FISHCHER (Germany)* – The point was made that this has been discussed three times in the committee. I do not see any advantage to our discussing it over and over again, so I suggest we put it to the vote today.
The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy?
Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – We have no opinion, because this was not discussed in the committee.
The PRESIDENT – In that case, we will vote on the motion that Document 13930 be referred back to the committee.
I call Mr Destexhe.
Mr DESTEXHE (Belgium) – Will you explain the vote? If we vote yes, will the report go back to the committee? And if we vote no, will it not go back to the committee and will we continue to consider it in plenary? Is that correct?
The PRESIDENT – Yes. Those who vote yes will vote to send it back to the committee, whereas those who vote no will be voting for the debate to stay in the plenary sitting.
The vote is open.
The motion is rejected, with 74 votes for, 83 against and 18 abstentions.
We come to Amendment 1. I call Ms Pashayeva to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.
Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – In solidarity with the Political Affairs Committee and out of respect to the decision it took in Paris in November 2015, I would like to withdraw all of Azerbaijan’s amendments. I call on all colleagues to honour the work of the rapporteur and the committee and to vote in favour of the report.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you. Amendments 1 to 5 are withdrawn.
We will now proceed to a vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13930.
The vote is open.
Twenty-four members have not voted. I ask them to vote now.
The draft resolution in Document 13930 is rejected, with 66 votes for, 70 against and 45 abstentions.
The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development has presented a draft resolution, to which 21 amendments have been tabled.
We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Babaoğlu, Mr Küçükcan, Mr Dişli, Mr Önal and Ms Usta, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, to delete the words “as specified in the 1992 United Nations Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International lakes (“Water Convention”),”.
I call Mr Babaoğlu to support Amendment 1. You have 30 seconds.
Mr BABAOĞLU (Turkey) – In general, I find the report fair and objective. However, we have two amendments. The first paragraph of the report refers to the 1992 United Nations Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. However, it should refer to the United Nations resolution of 2000. That factual mistake should be corrected.
The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that the committee wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, which is, in Amendment 1 replace the words “in the 1992 United Nations Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International lakes (“Water Convention”)” with the words “in accordance with the Helsinki rules of 1966 and the Berlin rules of 2004 on water resources.”
In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order and under our rules. Do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?
That is not the case. The oral sub-amendment can be debated.
I call Mr Schennach to support the oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development. You have 30 seconds.
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – This oral sub-amendment makes it clear that the Helsinki rules of 1996 and the Berlin rules of 2004 can address watercourses that are in different countries. The country that comes afterwards is sometimes helpless. Internationally, the rules can be used to help such countries, as they have in the Jordan valley.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you. Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – The proposed amendment is unacceptable, as the reference to the United Nations convention on the humanitarian aspect of the mutually beneficial use of water safeguards the humanitarian goals of the resolution and ensures it is not merely a politically biased document. It is important to have a clear reference to the 1992 United Nations water convention.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you. What is the opinion of Mr Babaoğlu, who moved the amendment?
Mr BABAOĞLU (Turkey) – I still insist on it.
The PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour, as Mr Schennach said. The vote is open on the oral sub-amendment.
The oral sub-amendment is adopted.
We now come to Amendment 1 as amended. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment as amended? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee on Amendment 1 as amended? The committee is in favour.
The vote is open.
Amendment 1, as amended, is adopted.
The screen showed about 35 to 40 people not voting. I ask everybody to vote.
We come to Amendment 2. I call Mr Babaoğlu to support the amendment.
Mr BABAOĞLU (Turkey) – In paragraph 2 we propose to delete the words, “,which cannot be restricted by the existence of borders,”. The right to water is recognised by the relevant United Nations decisions and should be guaranteed by each State to its citizens. There is no reference to transnational waters.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – This amendment is not acceptable because drinking water can never be restricted by borders. People on both sides of borders have the right to access to water, and this sentence is important and not only for this area. All people in the Karabakh region and Azerbaijan have the right to water. Please do not delete this sentence.
The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – The amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 2 is rejected.
The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 5. I call Mr Farmanyan to support the amendment.
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – In the draft resolution we suggest the deletion of paragraph 3 because of the controversial, politicised and groundless assessment made by the rapporteur. We believe that Ms Marković was not in a position to come up with such a conclusion, as she did not visit the whole region and did not see the reservoir for herself.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Huseynov.
Mr V. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – I think that paragraph 3 is very neutral and in line with the general spirit of the document. We think it should stay.
The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – The amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 5 is rejected.
The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 6. I call Mr Farmanyan to support the amendment.
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – We suggest deleting paragraph 4 because the rapporteur clearly goes beyond her mandate and comes up with a politically incorrect statement that has nothing to do with the proposed goal of the report. Moreover, it opens doors for the further politicisation of the humanitarian consequences of the conflict, which are numerous.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – I am against the amendment because paragraph 4 describes what has happened. The humanitarian and environmental crisis has not arrived overnight; it is because of the dam, and in the committee we heard an expert describe how part of the dam was destroyed in the war and still has not been rebuilt. Paragraph 4 describes the reality.
The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – The amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 6 is rejected.
The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 9. I call Mr Farmanyan to support the amendment.
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – We suggest replacing paragraph 4 with words that reflect the facts, because regional co-operation between Nagorno-Karabakh and the Azerbaijan authorities is crucial to solving the water management issue. On numerous occasions, including back in 2011, the authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh have called on the international community with a fully-fledged proposal to help establish co-operation with the Republic of Azerbaijan for the mutually beneficial use of water resources. That proposal was supported by international mediators in a special statement, and it was rejected by Azerbaijan.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – I am against the amendment because in the committee we amended Amendment 7.
The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – The amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 9 is rejected.
The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 8. I call Mr Farmanyan to support the amendment.
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – Again, we suggest replacing paragraph 4 with wording that reflects the facts. As I said earlier, regional co-operation between Nagorno-Karabakh and the Azerbaijan authorities is crucial to solving the issue of water management. The authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh have stated their readiness to do that on numerous occasions, and they have been supported by international mediators, but that was unfortunately rejected by Azerbaijan. This new phrasing works better.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – This is the same issue. We accepted the original paragraph 4, and in Amendment 7, which we amended, we express our hope that that will bring benefit for the region. Amendment 8 is like saying “You are guilty, you are guilty”. Amendment 7 is much better, and we should not accept Amendment 8.
The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – The amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 8 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Farmanyan, Mr Müller, Mr Omtzigt, Ms Ohlsson, Ms Jansson, Mr Kürkçü, Ms Kerestecioğlu Demir and Ms Karapetyan, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 4 with the following paragraph:
"The Assembly recalls that, in their statement of 20 May 2014, the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs expressed their hope that the sides would reach an agreement to jointly manage these water resources to the benefit of the region."
I call Mr Farmanyan to support Amendment 7.
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – The amendment proposes a paragraph that seeks to approach the issue from an exclusively humanitarian point of view, which can pave the way for the broad participation of all interested member States.
The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that the committee wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, as follows: “In amendment 7 leave out “replace paragraph 4 with the following paragraph” and insert “after paragraph 4 insert the following new paragraph 4.1”.
In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?
That is not the case.
I call Mr Schennach to support the oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development.
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – In paragraph 4, the rapporteur describes the situation, but for the people living in the region we need to say that both sides are working together and that the people living on the Azeri side need access to water.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Schennach. Does any wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the mover of Amendment 7 on the oral sub-amendment?
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – I withdraw all the remaining amendments and just wish to say to colleagues that today we have a great and unprecedented challenge –
The PRESIDENT – Sorry, I am asking now what your opinion of this oral sub-amendment is. We are not dealing with the next amendments.
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – We do not speak about the oral sub-amendment.
The PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour.
The vote is open.
The oral sub-amendment is adopted.
Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 7, as amended?
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – The committee is in favour.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 7, as amended, is adopted.
We come to Amendment 11. I call Mr Farmanyan to support the amendment.
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – I wish to withdraw all the remaining amendments, including this one. I wish to say that we all face an unprecedented challenge to the integrity of this Organisation, which is a house for inspiring millions of people across Europe and beyond. That is why I ask you clearly to reject the reports and save the integrity of our House.
The PRESIDENT – As there are many amendments, we will have to take things amendment by amendment and you can tell us which amendments you are withdrawing. Amendment 11 is not moved.
We come to Amendment 3. I call Ms Pashayeva to support the amendment.
Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – We call on colleagues to support the amendment because it deals with an important issue.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
That is not the case
What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – The committee is against.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 3 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 10. I call Mr Farmanyan to support the amendment.
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – I do not wish to press the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – Amendment 10 is not moved.
We come to Amendment 12. I call Ms Karapetyan to support the amendment.
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – I do not wish to press the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – Amendment 12 is not moved.
We come to amendment 13. I call Ms Karapetyan to support the amendment.
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – I do not wish to press the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – Amendment 13 is not moved.
We come to Amendment 14. I call Ms Karapetyan to support the amendment.
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – I do not wish to press the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – Amendment 14 is not moved.
We come to Amendment 15. I call Ms Karapetyan to support the amendment.
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – I do not wish to press the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – Amendment 15 is not moved.
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – There is an oral sub-amendment to Amendment 15.
The PRESIDENT – As the amendment has been withdrawn, we cannot deal with the oral sub-amendment.
We come to Amendment 4. I call Ms Pashayeva to support the amendment.
Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – Again, I call on colleagues to support the amendment because it deals with an important issue.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – The committee is against.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 4 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 17. I call on Mr Farmanyan to support the amendment.
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – I do not wish to press the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – Amendment 17 is not moved.
We come to Amendment 16, tabled by Mr Farmanyan, Ms Nachtmannová, Mr Fronc, Ms Karapetyan, Mr Müller, Ms Ohlsson, Ms Jansson, Mr Rochebloine, Mr Rouquet and Ms Zohrabyan, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 7 with the following paragraph:
"The Assembly calls on all sides concerned to step up their efforts to co-operate closely in the joint management of the resources of Sarsang water reservoir, as such co-operation can constitute a confidence-building measure necessary for the solution of any conflict."
I call Mr Farmanyan to support Amendment 16
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – I do not wish to press the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone else want to support the amendment?
Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I think it is better to move this amendment because it gives the report balance. It is a good amendment and was suggested by our Armenian colleagues, so I want to move it.
The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that the Committee wants to propose an oral sub-amendment as follows: “In amendment 16 leave out ‘replace paragraph 7’ to the end of the amendment and insert the following words ‘insert the following new paragraph 7.1’”.
In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more colleagues object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?
That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Ghiletchi to support the oral sub-amendment.
Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – In the same spirit as Mr Schennach’s earlier proposal, it is important to maintain a balance. Paragraph 7 says that the Assembly “condemns”, but the oral sub-amendment and new paragraph 7.1 say that the Assembly “calls on all sides”. The change would bring good balance to the report.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?
That is not the case.
It is obvious that Mr Ghiletchi and the committee are in favour.
I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The oral sub-amendment is adopted.
Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 16, as amended?
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – The committee is in favour.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 16, as amended, is adopted.
We come to Amendment 19. I call Mr Farmanyan to support the amendment.
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – I do not wish to press the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – Amendment 19 is not moved.
We come to Amendment 21. I call Mr Farmanyan to support the amendment.
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – I do not wish to press the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – Amendment 21 is not moved.
We come to Amendment 20. I call Mr Farmanyan to support the amendment.
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – I do not wish to press the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone else want to support the amendment?
Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – I want the amendment to be considered because the draft resolution’s title is very provocative. In fact, Amendment 3, which proposed to insert the word “deliberate”, was not moved. The title contains “deliberately” so if we want to be consistent, we should amend the title.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone want to speak against the amendment?
Ms MARKOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina)* – I disagree with the amendment because the title was supported by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, and I was appointed rapporteur with that title for the draft resolution. Altering the title at this stage would not be rational, so I am against the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – The committee is against.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 20 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 18. I call Mr Farmanyan to support the amendment.
Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – I do not wish to press the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – Amendment 18 is not moved.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution, as amended, contained in Document 13931.
I call Mr Rustamyan on a point of order.
Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia)* – In this draft resolution, the humanitarian aspects cannot be separated from the political issues. The rapporteur did not see the reservoir and totally ignored the experts among our Assembly, so I suggest that the resolution should be sent back to the committee and redrafted to make it more appropriate.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the document being sent back to the committee?
Mr DESTEXHE (Belgium) – I am surprised. We are at the very end of the process. The report has been through the committee and we have just discussed and voted on all the amendments, so I think we should carry on.
The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – We have not discussed this so we do not have an opinion, but I think that the rapporteur wants to speak.
Ms MARKOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina)* – The proposal is not based on the right arguments. As rapporteur, I insisted that I wanted to visit Armenia, share all the information with our colleagues in the Armenian delegation and come up with the draft resolution’s proposals together. That opportunity never arose and it was not my fault that I was unable to visit Armenia. I sincerely regret that, but it is not the right reason not to adopt the draft resolution.
The PRESIDENT – Before I put the proposal to a vote, I want to make it clear that those who vote yes are voting for Document 13931 to be sent back to the committee and those who vote no are voting for it to stay in the Assembly and to be voted on, as amended.
The vote is open.
The proposal is rejected.
We now proceed to vote on the draft resolution, as amended, contained in Document 13931.
The vote is open.
The draft resolution in Document 13931, as amended, is adopted, with 98 votes for, 71 against and 40 abstentions.
I remind you that the ballot to elect a judge to the European Court of Human Rights is still open. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s Chair. The President hopes to announce the results of the elections before the end of the sitting this afternoon.
(Mr Agramunt, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Nikoloski.)
4. Address by Mr Rosen Plevneliev, President of Bulgaria
The PRESIDENT – We now have the honour of hearing an address by Mr Rosen Plevneliev, President of Bulgaria. It is a true honour for me to welcome you to the Chamber of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which brings together Members of Parliament from all over Europe to support human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We also had the pleasure of holding a meeting of our Standing Committee in Sofia in November last year and of welcoming to our Assembly yesterday Mr Daniel Mitov, Bulgaria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers.
The commitment of the Bulgarian authorities to European ideas is strong and your chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers offers the opportunity to demonstrate and confirm Bulgaria’s European achievements. In the context of the current economic and political challenges and the refugee crisis, the regional co-operation of all our countries, particularly in the Balkans, but also in Europe as a whole, in a spirit of solidarity, is of the utmost importance.
Your country has made progress in many fields, including the economy, the constitution, changes affecting the judiciary, and implementing the European Convention on Human Rights in domestic law. I trust that the reform process will be ongoing, and that there will be full implementation, to ensure the sustainability of the much-needed changes already made. Mr President, you have the floor.
Mr PLEVNELIEV (President of Bulgaria) – Mr President, Secretary General, honourable members of the Parliamentary Assembly, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank all of you for the opportunity to address this distinguished audience. Since 1949, this Assembly has become a generator of ideas, a platform for meaningful debate, and a guardian of human rights, democratic values and the rule of law. For more than 65 years, you have been a driving force for positive change, guiding Europe and 800 million Europeans on their path to peace, unity and co-operation.
Bulgaria joined the Council of Europe in 1992. Membership opened new horizons for my country and facilitated the transition from totalitarian communist regime to vibrant democracy. This is a historic achievement for the Bulgarian nation; it is also a historic commitment to European values, on which Bulgarian foreign and domestic policy has been based since then. We are determined to continue to honour and implement our commitment to respecting the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which is at the heart of this great Organisation.
Today, Bulgaria is the proud chair of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This is a very demanding responsibility, given the seriousness of the challenges we all face today. Joint and co-ordinated efforts are needed to preserve and promote our common European values. The 126th session of the Committee of Ministers will be held in Sofia on 18 May 2016. Bulgaria will spare no effort to achieve the results it has set out to accomplish as chair of the Committee of Ministers. We count on the valuable support and co-operation of your respective parliamentarians, from parliaments and governments all over Europe, in achieving those goals.
We welcome the adoption of the Declaration on the Principles of European Unity and Co-operation by the Standing Committee in October 2015, and support the convening of a summit of Heads of State and Government at the highest possible level to reaffirm member States’ commitment to the common values and principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We commend the efforts of the chair of the Bulgarian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly, Madame Dzhema Grozdanova, in making this declaration a reality.
Dear friends, the number of crises around the world, including in Europe, is at a record high. The challenges ahead of us are very serious, and we cannot afford to wait, or to shift them to the next generation. We need to act; we need to take important decisions. A decision can be right or wrong, but sometimes even a wrong decision is better than no decision at all. Mistakes can be fixed, but taking no decision creates a dangerous grey zone of illegitimacy, instability and indifference. Being indifferent today, dear friends, is not an option for any of us.
Let me point out some of the challenges that we need to address. The first challenge relates to the rule of law. Every crisis can be traced back to an initial phase when someone violated the rule of law, but peace can be achieved only when the rules apply to everyone. Without rules, there is no peace. The use of weapons and violation of the rule of law is not an argument; it is clear proof of the absence of arguments. We need to establish and safeguard efficient mechanisms to guarantee the rule of law. Unfortunately, today it is even possible for a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council not to follow the rules and principles of the international order.
The second challenge is the early detection of crises and taking a proactive approach. We see weapons and the use of force in so many places around the world, but use of weapons and violation of the rule of law is clear proof of having no other reasons or arguments. For that reason, we should not wait for weapons and crises to appear on our TV screens before acting. Peace is not just the absence of war. Peace is human rights. Peace is rule of law. We need an early detection system at a European or even global level to warn us, and help us understand, when those universal values are endangered and violated. We need not just to be concerned, and not just to register crises, but to be proactive and solve them.
The third challenge is migration. The ongoing hostilities in several conflict zones have forced millions to leave their homes. Millions are on Europe’s doorstep. Many of them are running away from the devastation of war, asking for nothing but the right to live. Others are simply looking for better economic possibilities. Closing our doors to those fleeing for their lives, denouncing international human rights protections and forgetting Europe’s core values is not an option. Bulgaria follows the rules of the Dublin Regulation and the Schengen agreement. We show solidarity with all refugees and give humanitarian status to those who meet the criteria. Bulgaria supports the establishment of a solidarity scheme that will allow for the fair relocation and resettlement of refugees among all member States. We need to establish a relevant mechanism to distinguish those in need from those just looking for a better life. That does not go against having stricter border controls and security checks.
I reaffirm Bulgaria’s irrevocable position of respecting all the standards of international humanitarian and human rights law for asylum seekers. My country is a responsible member of the international community, a member of the European Union, and a State party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 protocol. As chairman-in-office of the South-East European Cooperation Process, Bulgaria will initiate a joint statement on all the migration challenges that we face, which will be adopted at the second informal meeting of the ministers of foreign affairs, to be held on 2 February 2016 in Sofia.
The fourth challenge is that terrorism and violent extremism transcend national borders. They strike unexpectedly where it hurts most – our values, our way of life. No country can manage on its own. Terrorism is a global threat, so the solution must be global too. United we can win the fight against hate, extremism and destruction. We have to address the causes of that global menace, not just the consequences. It is only a matter of time before the international anti-terrorist coalition, of which Bulgaria is a proud member, wins the fight against Daesh. But the ideology of terrorism cannot be defeated with weapons. We need better ideas, education and tolerant societies.
No one is born a terrorist. Terrorists are created. Social exclusion, inequality and lack of access to basic human rights fuel hatred and division. Many young people have no jobs, no prospects and no goals in life. Radicalisation is just a step away. Marginalisation has no nationality, ethnicity, religion or skin colour. We can prevent the radicalisation of marginalised groups within our own societies only through education and integration.
The role of the Council of Europe as a guardian and promoter of the values of democracy and freedom is essential in shaping a comprehensive democratic response to the terrorism threat. Bulgaria welcomes the Council of Europe’s timely action in response to the increasing manifestations of violent extremism and radicalisation, and commends the adoption by the Council of Europe’s ministerial session in May 2015 of the comprehensive action plan on the fight against violent extremism and radicalisation leading to terrorism.
We welcome the adoption and the opening for signature of the additional protocol to the Council of Europe’s Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism concerning “foreign terrorist fighters”. Bulgaria signed the protocol the very day it took the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. The Bulgarian chairmanship will spare no effort to ensure its full and rapid implementation.
Our fifth challenge is that of global interests versus global principles. Today’s Russia acts based on the ideology of great powers, with their spheres of interest. On the other hand we have the European Union, a unique project for peace where big Germany with 80 million citizens and small Estonia with 1.3 million have the same rights, and where consensus-driven policies make every State important. No State is peripheral or subordinate. Everyone is a partner and everyone matters – big or small, rich or poor. On the world stage, we hope to see global interests that do not oppose but reflect the guiding principles and values of international order.
The sixth challenge is that the West and Russia are opponents once again. Unfortunately, the game in Europe has changed; the Ukrainian crisis is the game changer. We have entered a new phase, which I call cold peace. It is peace, because nobody wants a war or to go back to the Cold War, but it is a cold peace because we are seeing elements of rhetoric and propaganda from Cold War times, unfortunately. Some countries become destabilised through frozen conflicts. The annexation of Crimea was a blatant violation of international law and its principles. Bulgaria stands firmly behind Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. For us, Crimea is Ukraine and Ukraine is Europe.
That brings me to the seventh challenge: frozen conflicts. Their number is rising. Eastern Ukraine could be the next one. Is that what we offer to its people? Will they live better in a frozen conflict area, run by illegitimate groups and their guns? Are people in such areas more free and more prosperous? Who would invest in a frozen conflict area? If we think about the people and their right to live in peace and dignity, we need to oppose the wrong and dangerous strategy of keeping regions and countries unstable and dependent.
Dear friends, our eighth challenge is to note the difference between nationalists and patriots. A wise president, President de Gaulle, once said that patriots are those who love their country and nationalists are those who hate the different. There is a new wave of nationalism in Europe, addressing people’s fears on issues such as migration and high unemployment. Nationalists and populists have a loud voice and are on the rise. Modern patriotism is needed more than ever today, not nationalism. Feeding on people’s fears, nationalistic parties are growing stronger, promoting intolerance, hatred and xenophobia. Sixty-five years since the adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights, they denounce international human rights protection for their own partisan gain. We must remember that the Second World War was made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of dignity, equality and mutual respect. We must never allow such a tragedy to happen again.
Three years ago in the European Parliament a wise and respected president said: “Better economic crisis than moral catastrophe, better economic problems than historic shame”. Those words came from the then President of the State of Israel, Shimon Peres. Together we opened an exhibition in Brussels to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the saving of the Bulgarian Jews. In his words, “Bulgarian people are modest, very quiet and shy, but, at the same time, real heroes”. He called our nation an example of courage and humanity, whose people 70 years ago dared to create a miracle. Those people gave to their children and to the world a lesson for humanity: when the time comes to make the choice of your life, you had better make a decision that you would never doubt and you would never regret. The lesson is that you can believe in human values, defend humanity, be honest and brave, help those in need – your neighbours and your friends, no matter their religion and colour – and stand proudly because of who you are, because you can prove that everyone can change history.
In those dark years of the Second World War, Bulgaria was facing pressure to deport its Jewish community. At that turbulent time in human history it set an extraordinary precedent and saved the lives of all its citizens of Jewish origin. Unfortunately, our country was not in a position to do the same for the Jewish people from northern Greece and parts of Yugoslavia, as they were not Bulgarian citizens. We deeply mourn their loss, as well as that of all the victims of the Holocaust. We will always remember them.
Let us support every initiative against fanaticism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism. Even the worst of evils can be stopped if people with different religious, ethnic, cultural and social backgrounds unite in their diversity and firmly say no to hatred. Today, just across from my office in the very heart of the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, temples of different religions – a well-preserved fourth-century Byzantine church, an Orthodox church, a mosque, a synagogue and a Catholic cathedral – co-exist peacefully. That is a great example of tolerance, wisdom, and respect for diversity.
The ninth challenge relates to national interests versus solidarity. Today, Europe is weakened by the high number of crises it faces. A perception of insecurity and lack of direction is growing stronger among European citizens. We need to restore the long-term perspective, goal and vision of a united and peaceful Europe. Europe’s strength has always been our unity and values. Our strongest weapon has always been integration. Today, more than ever, we need more, not less, Europe. We need leaders who understand that differences should be resolved peacefully. We certainly need strong political leadership and active citizens. We need leaders who uphold, not undermine, the international order. We want to see principles, not interests, prevail on the global stage. We do not want to go back to the time of great powers and their spheres of influence. Many of us have been victims of such policies for centuries.
A united Europe was built through co-operation and learning from wars and conflicts. A united Europe proves to the world that peace is possible only when nations reach such a level of integration and co-operation that future wars are impossible.
The wrong interpretation, and even manipulation, of history, and not learning the lessons of history, create challenges. Seventy years ago, at the end of the Second World War, Europe was in ruins. Tens of millions of people had lost their lives. The determination to never let such devastation happen again gave birth to a united Europe. Enemies became partners and friends, working together for a common future, sharing the same values. Integration and co-operation proved to be the antidote to destabilisation.
We do not want to go back to the time when the great powers allocated their spheres of influence. The Balkans have been victims of such policies for centuries and were considered the powder keg of Europe – a region filled with strife and conflict – but the engine of European Union integration and democratic civil society has driven the region to a historic change. It has changed from a region torn apart by wars, to a region joined together in peace. Today, the Balkan countries work towards a common European future, building bridges of trust and co-operation. But our work is not finished yet: that positive process could be reversed.
The interests-driven policies of great powers and associated peripheries provoke conflict. Closing our eyes to that threat is not a sustainable political solution. That is a bitter reminder that what we have achieved as an international community in recent decades cannot be taken for granted. The principles we have built our world on are not set in stone, and it is up to all of us to respect, promote and protect them.
It has been almost 19 years since a Bulgarian President addressed this distinguished audience. Bulgaria has come a long way since then. We, the Balkans and Europe have changed for the better; we have made remarkable progress.
With the fall of the Berlin Wall, communist regimes across Europe collapsed. As citizens of a newly born democracy, Bulgarians believed it would take a couple of years to become a real democracy. Today, we realise that establishing democratic institutions and European laws is not enough. Democracy is a process – a mindset that has to be nurtured and cultivated. It needs time to take root and grow. It requires constant effort and should not be taken for granted. Our democracies are not perfect, but it is democracy that makes us strong and humane. As the former Bulgarian President, Dr Zhelyu Zhelev, said: “You can cure democracy only with more democracy”.
Today, Bulgaria is a proud member of the European Union and NATO. The engine of European integration brought dramatic and positive change. Our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) tripled, as did public funds for education, health care and pensions. Our State debt has been reduced to the third lowest in the European Union. Bulgarians have never been as free as they are today.
Bulgaria is stable. Our economy is developing well. In 2015, we were among the top five best-performing European Union economies. We have an ambitious reform agenda and modernisation plan. Bulgaria is developing the most successful start-up and innovation ecosystem in the region. We became the home of the biggest start-up seed and acceleration funds for the region. I was proud to receive Bulgaria’s award for being the best outsourcing destination in Europe in 2015.
Our foreign policy is balanced and based on clear principles, namely integration, connectivity and good neighbourly relations. Bulgaria is an engine of regional connectivity and integration. We are building highways, railways, bridges and energy networks, to bring people and businesses together. The region is developing and is on the right track, but the past is still strong and the future still does not prevail. There are geopolitical tensions in the region, and there is a clash between entrepreneurs with sound business models and oligarchs who operate networks behind the curtains. There is also a clash between free media that tell the truth and media that serve as propaganda machines. We should accelerate reforms all over the region, especially justice reform, open government policies, anti-corruption and media legislation. We should promote transparency of public procurement and e-government, because when you run public money, there is nothing to hide.
The Balkans should be a region of international co-operation, not geopolitical tensions. We Bulgarians want to see the region at peace, humane and tolerant – a region that can overcome its differences and give the world an example of the peaceful settlement of conflicts and democratic transformation. We want Balkan borders to fall, not be moved. We are working for progress and development, for connectivity and integration, and we are accelerating cross-border co-operation. Co-operation between neighbours is a very powerful instrument, especially in the Balkans. People on both sides of the Iron Curtain have a unique opportunity to get together and build a common future. Now, all of us can see the difference between isolated, forgotten regions and those that co-operate.
Today, Bulgaria is chairman-in-office of the South-East European Cooperation Process. During our chairmanship, we will mark the 20th anniversary of that great initiative, which has become the leading political format for security and stability in the region. We are working on three priority areas: connectivity, security and migration, and strengthening the fundamentals of democracy, including media freedom, promoting access to the Internet and new technologies to support an active civil society.
Having realised the positive impact of European integration for the development of the region, Bulgaria is a strong supporter of the European Union and NATO enlargement process.
Over the years, Bulgaria has become a pillar of stability and an important factor in the region. The Balkans are a truly beautiful and exciting part of Europe. Together with our neighbours, we are working to deepen regional co-operation and promote democratic developments.
Bulgaria has been a member of the Council of Europe for more than 20 years. It was the Council of Europe that first welcomed former communist countries into the democratic family of nations. Thanks to its guidance in the years of transition, we managed to establish a modern democratic State where human rights and the rule of law are held high. We have come a long way since 1992. The recent reforms undertaken by the government in the fields of education, healthcare, security and justice are more proof that Bulgaria has taken its future into its own hands, that we are facing challenges in a responsible way, and that we are making reforms and progress. I urge this distinguished Assembly to lift the post-monitoring dialogue for my country.
It is only through co-operation, respect for the rule of law and value-based policy that we will be able to address the challenges we face. No nation, regardless of its political will and military might, can manage on its own. Co-operation is no longer a matter of choice, but one of necessity. The founding fathers of the European Union made history, but if we stop making history somebody else will make it, so we should continue our journey to a more integrated, peaceful, humane and sustainable European and world order. What do we do in times of difficulty and crisis? We follow not our fears, but our dreams and ideas.
We live in the 21st century, so we need new ideas and we must not look to the wrong ideologies from the past. In the 21st century, States should be strong not because of their armies of soldiers, but because of their armies of well-educated young people. Nations should be strong not because of the size of their territory, but because of the size of their dreams and ambitions. The strength of a nation should be measured not by weapons of mass destruction and propaganda machines, but by the talent, inspiration and culture of its people. The achievements of a country should be measured not by reshaping borders, but by the success of its ordinary people. We need an international order in which everyone is important, regardless of how rich or poor, how strong or weak, or how big or small they are. We need leaders who resolve differences peacefully. Powerful people cannot be a symbol of a successful State. Only democratic institutions that effectively serve the people are a symbol of success.
The important question today is whether the same generation that brought down the Berlin Wall will start to build new walls in the very heart of Europe. The challenges that we face are great, but so is our strength when we stand united. We all share much more than we are separated by. We share the great values of peace, justice, human rights, the rule of law, tolerance and humanism. The modern history of Europe is most of all a history of diplomacy, trade and co-operation, not of wars and conflicts. We must address urgent issues, but the only sustainable solution is the peaceful political solution. The only positive development is the inclusive development that brings opportunities for everyone. Success is to give, not to take. To prevent future crises, we need unity and rules. Success is to solve, not to freeze conflicts. To prevent future crises, we must understand that solidarity is not only important but has to be constant. We cannot have strong solidarity on one issue and no solidarity on another. We are a family of shared values with a shared destiny, not a family based on calculations and interests. In a crisis, a family does not get confused. In difficult times, a family stands together. Today, dear friends, our joint European project needs an extra dose of trust and support. Let us give it.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much for your most interesting address, Mr President. As you know, members of the Assembly have questions to put to you. We will hear the questions in groups of at least three. The first is from Mr Vareikis, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – Thank you, Mr President, for your spiritual speech, which I liked. Bearing in mind your family history and your immigration experience, I have a question about immigration that was not addressed in your speech. Both your country and my country are among the fastest depopulating countries in the European Union. Your people, too, are leaving the country to look for a better life. What do you think of this problem, and what is your country’s strategy for dealing with it?
The PRESIDENT – The second question is from Ms Maij, on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Ms MAIJ (Netherlands) – Thank you, your Excellency, for discussing the challenges facing not only the Bulgarian presidency but Europe. One of the challenges that you rightly mentioned is migration. How do we find a balance between protecting our borders while also protecting the rights of migrants? There is another challenge for Bulgaria that you did not mention: that of signing the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence.
The PRESIDENT – The third question is from Mr Michael Jensen, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. I do not see him, so we shall move on. The next question is from Mr Pritchard, on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.
Mr PRITCHARD (United Kingdom) – Thank you for your address, Mr President, and for your leadership in Bulgaria. We have heard a lot about refugees and migration, not all of which comes from the Middle East; much of it is from North and sub-Saharan Africa. What more can Europe do to ensure that the European Union pan-African free trade agreement is fast-tracked so that we can deal with some of the root causes of migration out of Africa?
Mr PLEVNELIEV – The first question could be split into two: one on migration and another on demographic policies. On demography, yes, Bulgaria has a serious problem. We see a lot of well-educated young people going abroad. They are free to live, learn, study and work in any part of the world. Of course, the numbers raise very worrying demographic concerns. A president stands for long-term planning and for long-term solutions for the country, but, as president, I do not want to create artificial hurdles and to tell young people, “You have to stay at any cost.” It is great that young people are free and that they want to try to take their lives in their own hands. By doing so, they also learn.
I left my country when I was young and lived in Germany for eight years. I learned a lot, I worked very hard and I was truly happy when I came back to my country that we modernised and brought our economy back through better standards and better management practices. I have seen that being free and being an entrepreneur only helps you to make more sense of your life. I encourage all Bulgarians, wherever they are in the world, to try.
The other side of the coin, however, is that I want the Bulgarian State to be close to Bulgarians, wherever they are in the world. Recently, I initiated a referendum for e-voting. We have 1.5 million Bulgarians abroad, and through the e-voting that will be introduced in coming years the Bulgarian State will be close to every one of them. They will be able to use their constitutional right to vote in Bulgaria, they will be close to their motherland and they will be able to shape policies in their own country. I am sure that many of the Bulgarians who live out of the country today will come back and will contribute to the development of the country.
To improve your democratic perspectives, you need to address education, industry, working places and economic development. We can debate being poor, being undeveloped and having no horizons or perspectives, and the need for policies on marginalisation, but the question is how we change things and how we make progress. We do not do that through populism, increasing State debt to the limit or handing on the cost to the next generations. What we do in Bulgaria is different. We keep the deficit low and although we do not like the word that is so famous today in Europe and that relates to financial restrictions, we do like financial discipline. We reform and we try to improve.
For example, we managed in the past two years to create working places for more than 17 000 young talented Bulgarians, all in the computer industry. We managed to address the upcoming industrial revolution by welcoming factories from the automotive sector, which have created another 35 000 jobs. We have seen Bulgarian young people staying in the country because of the outsourcing of industry, which has also shaped new perspectives. There are things that can be done. We are now introducing an additional reform to encourage young people to stay, by learning from the best in Europe on youth unemployment – Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands – who have the so-called duale ausbildung modell, vocational training that brings young people closer to businesses and their needs.
Democracy is a long-term problem and could be solved with wise politics. On migration, Bulgaria is a very interesting example. Let me give you some numbers and share our problems and experiences. Two years ago, Bulgaria was the first to experience the huge migration wave, because we have the biggest land border with countries outside the European Union. We were unprepared and we had problems, but we learned from our mistakes. We co-operated with Frontex, with the United Nations Refugee Agency and with the European Commission. We invested money. What we did is simple.
We keep our borders safe. I do not see any contradiction between having security on your borders and respecting human rights. Our cross-border points are open. Everyone who comes to the cross-border point will be taken care of and registered. They will be interviewed and we have an integration programme. We have improved our facilities, but look what happens: in 2015, altogether, 31 000 illegal refugees came to our country and 95 000 made attempts to cross the border illegally. We keep to the Dublin Regulations and register everyone who comes to our cross-border points and facilities. We give refugee status, and in 2015 we gave it to more than 11 000 people. We take our responsibilities seriously.
As a President, I am proud, because Bulgaria shows solidarity. First, we have agreed on a common European solution. We agreed to the risk distribution formula. We believe that it is very important that the 28 member States in the European Union stay united and find a common solution to the crisis. There is no other way to do that but to have rules that apply to everyone. When Bulgaria keeps to the rules of Dublin and Schengen but other countries in south-east Europe do not, that creates the problem that we share today.
Bulgaria is also contributing by learning that keeping your border safe depends on your neighbours. I want to thank, in front of you all, Turkey, a neighbour with which we have very good co-operation along the border. That is only possible if you work with your neighbours. One of the lessons learned from Bulgaria for the common European solution, which urgently needs to be shaped in the next few days, is to keep your borders safe and to be honest to the people who are coming to Europe. We need to tell them that the numbers cannot be unlimited. We must differentiate those who are in real need and take care of them, because they are running for their lives, but we should also make a distinction between them and those who are just looking for better economic opportunities.
We need to strengthen our borders and we need a common approach. We need a distribution formula and we need to co-operate with Turkey, but who else other than Europe can hammer on the table and say “Stop that bloody war”? We understand Northern Africa and the Middle East. Who else but us, the Europeans, has the right to hammer on the table of the United Nations Security Council? We face dramatic situations. Ten years ago, there was the Iraq crisis and it was possible for the United Nations Security Council to allow the distribution of medicines and medical help to those in need within a couple of hours. They got together and took a responsible decision that saved the lives of hundreds of people. Today, 10 years later, the same United Nations Security Council has for five years not been in a position to create safe humanitarian corridors for Syria. That is the situation and it is up to us, as Europeans devoted to peace, to say that the only sustainable solution is to go to the heart of the problem, to address it, to be proactive and to solve it.
Of course, you have been asking about the balance between human rights and keeping your borders safe. I can tell you more about that, if you want. On the Istanbul Convention, I want to say loudly in front of you that Bulgaria will sign the declaration during our time in office in this great Organisation. Our Minister for Foreign Affairs yesterday made a very clear commitment to that. The Middle East, North Africa and Africa as a whole, especially given the refugee crisis we face, are an interesting case. Today, we need only to look at the facts. We know that a record number of people were displaced from their homes in the year 2015 and that the situation is even worse than during the Second World War. Even in the time of the Second World War, we had fewer displaced people than we had in 2015. That is the situation today. United Nations statistics show that 60 million people are displaced, of whom only 1 million came to Europe, and the latest figures show that 11 times more people crossed the external borders of the European Union in the first weeks of 2016 than in the first weeks of 2015.
How can you prevent young people from being mobile? How can you tell them that they are not allowed to travel and that they need to stay where they are? We are at the beginning of a period of human mobility, so we need to adapt our European approach to this issue in a sustainable way. I will work with all of you to set out an honest approach. We need to know our limits while maintaining the best possible standards of protection and defending human rights.
The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Villumsen, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – We all agree that we must end the refugee crisis, and the most effective way to do so is to end the current wars and prevent new conflicts and civil wars from occurring. Mr President, what should the Council of Europe do proactively to stop the civil war that has resumed in Turkey and restart peace negotiations so we can find a peaceful solution to the Kurdish issue?
The PRESIDENT – Ms Sylvie Goy-Chavent from France is not here, so I call Mr Viorel Riceard Badea from Romania.
Mr BADEA (Romania)* – Distinguished President, what is the situation with regard to teaching the Romanian language as a mother tongue to the Romanian minority in Bulgaria?
Ms CSÖBÖR (Hungary)* – How can we accelerate the legislative process, and what role does the Council of Europe have in fighting human traffickers? What will be done in that respect under the Bulgarian chairmanship? I am also thinking of illegal migration, which has grown in recent years.
Mr PLEVNELIEV – The Council of Europe is an exciting Organisation that has frequently shown how adaptive it is and how effective we are when we act together to solve issues. We have a lot of international organisations and institutions, so how should we co-ordinate our efforts to achieve positive results for the international order? That is a very complicated issue, but the Council of Europe knows what to do and what not to do.
The Council of Europe is a platform for helping nations to become more democratic and keep to the highest standards of rule of law and human rights. I really mean that it is a platform. It is not good for democracy if somebody else installs the system, because people need ownership of the process. We will not find a good solution to the problems we face today if people are not given ownership of the process. Every State has to act boldly to solve its problems. The Council of Europe is a platform for giving a hand, but it is up to nations to use it in the best possible way. Sustainable solutions to conflicts cannot be achieved through terrorist activity, bombing and tensions; they can be achieved only through dialogue and debate. Solutions to conflicts will be sustainable only if they are based on an acceptance of human rights and the country’s constitutional rules.
Many of the problems that we have faced for decades are still with us. As the President of Bulgaria and a proud European, I hope that we can solve at least one of them sustainably and be proud that we solved it. The Council of Europe has achieved many things in its history. I do not say that it has to change, because I believe it is one of the few absolutely predictable institutions and platforms. People know how to get help from the Council of Europe, but of course it depends on the national authorities, because if someone wants help they have to ask for it.
Teaching mother tongues is a clear part of the Bulgarian constitution. We are proud that not only our constitution but the many thousands of laws and regulations that we have adopted in my country are completely synchronised with European legislation. Everybody in my country is free to learn and use their mother tongue. We have such courses, and everybody is free to make their own decision.
When I was speaking to the presidents of the Balkan countries, we realised something. The information we received from security sources showed that illegal human trafficking has become bigger than even drug trafficking and other criminal activities. It is big, dangerous and profitable. Millions of people have been trafficked. Bulgaria has adopted strict regulations on the issue, and there have been a number of serious police operations aimed at anyone involved in such activity. We were shocked to learn the size of that criminal activity and the huge impact of what is going on in Europe.
Human trafficking is a very dangerous criminal activity today, and I say clearly in front of you who represent this great Organisation of 47 countries and 800 million people, that no matter what crisis we face today – whether the crisis in Ukraine, the migration problem, economic problems, or whatever we point to – it can be solved only through a common European approach. No one among us is capable of solving those problems alone. Terrorism is a global threat. Human trafficking is a global activity that is creating huge problems for millions of people, and we need a common approach. Bulgaria is taking serious steps, and we have introduced a new package into Bulgarian legislation to support national security institutions. We co-operate with all our partners in NATO and a united Europe, and we share information. We act across borders, because the dangers are cross-border.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr President. We must now conclude the questions, and on behalf of the Assembly I thank you warmly for your service and for the answers that you gave to the questions.
The ballot for electing the judge in respect of Cyprus to the European Court of Human Rights is now suspended until this afternoon’s sitting.
Voting will reopen at 3.30 p.m., and close at 5 p.m.
5. Next public business
The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. with the agenda that was approved on Monday morning.
The sitting is closed.
(This sitting was closed at 1.05 p.m.)
CONTENTS
1. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights
2. Changes in the membership of committees
3. Joint debate: escalation of violence in Nagorno-Karabakh and other occupied territories of Azerbaijan and inhabitants of frontier regions of Azerbaijan are deliberately deprived of water
Presentation by Mr Mogens Jensen of the report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Document 13930
Presentation by Ms Marković of the report of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, Document 13931
Speakers: Mr Xuclŕ, Mr Howell, Ms Johnsson Fornarve, Mr Fischer, Ms Barnett, Mr Salles, Mr Rouquet, Mr Tilki, Mr Rustamayan, Mr R. Huseynov
Draft resolution in Document 13930 adopted
Amendments 1, 7 and 16, as amended, adopted
Draft resolution in Document 13931, as amended, adopted
4. Address by Mr Rosen Plevneliec, President of Bulgaria
Questions: Mr Vareikis, Ms Maij, Mr Pritchard, Mr Vilumsen, Mr Badea, Ms Csöbör
5. Next public business
Appendix I
Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of Substitutes who replaced absent Representatives are printed in small letters. The names of those who were absent or apologised for absence are followed by an asterisk
Pedro AGRAMUNT
Tasmina AHMED-SHEIKH
Brigitte ALLAIN/ Anne-Yvonne Le Dain
Jean-Charles ALLAVENA
Werner AMON/Eduard Köck
Luise AMTSBERG*
Lord Donald ANDERSON
Paride ANDREOLI
Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA
Ben-Oni ARDELEAN
Iwona ARENT
Khadija ARIB/Pieter Omtzigt
Volodymyr ARIEV/Andrii Lopushanskyi
Anna ASCANI/Tamara Blazina
Mehmet BABAOĞLU
Theodora BAKOYANNIS
David BAKRADZE*
Gérard BAPT
Doris BARNETT
José Manuel BARREIRO*
Deniz BAYKAL
Guto BEBB*
Marieluise BECK
Ondřej BENEŠIK/Jana Fischerová
Levan BERDZENISHVILI
Deborah BERGAMINI*
Sali BERISHA*
Włodzimierz BERNACKI
Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone
Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*
Andris BĒRZINŠ
Gülsün BİLGEHAN
Tobias BILLSTRÖM
Oleksandr BILOVOL
Ľuboš BLAHA
Philippe BLANCHART
Maryvonne BLONDIN
Tilde BORK/Christina Egelund
Mladen BOSIĆ
Anne BRASSEUR
Piet De BRUYN
Margareta BUDNER
Utku ÇAKIRÖZER*
Nunzia CATALFO*
Elena CENTEMERO
Irakli CHIKOVANI
Vannino CHITI
Anastasia CHRISTODOULOPOULOU
Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN
Paolo CORSINI
David CRAUSBY/Lord George Foulkes
Yves CRUCHTEN
Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN/Attila Tilki
Katalin CSÖBÖR
Geraint DAVIES*
Joseph DEBONO GRECH
Renata DESKOSKA
Alain DESTEXHE
Manlio DI STEFANO
Şaban DİŞLİ
Sergio DIVINA/Giuseppe Galati
Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ
Namik DOKLE
Jeffrey DONALDSON
Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß
Daphné DUMERY*
Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*
Nicole DURANTON
Josette DURRIEU
Mustafa DZHEMILIEV
Mikuláš DZURINDA/Darina Gabániová
Lady Diana ECCLES
Markar ESEYAN
Franz Leonhard EẞL*
Nigel EVANS
Samvel FARMANYAN
Joseph FENECH ADAMI*
Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU
Doris FIALA/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter
Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Ivana Dobešová
Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER
Axel E. FISCHER
Bernard FOURNIER
Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO
Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ
Martin FRONC
Sahiba GAFAROVA
Sir Roger GALE
Adele GAMBARO*
Karl GARĐARSSON
Iryna GERASHCHENKO
Tina GHASEMI
Valeriu GHILETCHI
Francesco Maria GIRO
Pavol GOGA
Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES
Oleksii GONCHARENKO
Rainer GOPP
Alina Ștefania GORGHIU*
Sylvie GOY-CHAVENT
François GROSDIDIER/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo
Dzhema GROZDANOVA
Gergely GULYÁS/István Hollik
Emine Nur GÜNAY
Jonas GUNNARSSON/Lotta Johnsson Fornarve
Antonio GUTIÉRREZ
Maria GUZENINA/Olli-Poika Parviainen
Márton GYÖNGYÖSI
Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva
Andrzej HALICKI*
Alfred HEER
Gabriela HEINRICH
Michael HENNRICH/Bernd Fabritius
Martin HENRIKSEN/Rasmus Nordqvist
Françoise HETTO-GAASCH
John HOWELL
Anette HÜBINGER
Johannes HÜBNER/Barbara Rosenkranz
Andrej HUNKO
Rafael HUSEYNOV
Ekmeleddin Mehmet İHSANOĞLU
Florin IORDACHE*
Denis JACQUAT/Frédéric Reiss
Gediminas JAKAVONIS/Dalia Kuodytė
Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ*
Tedo JAPARIDZE
Andrzej JAWORSKI/Jacek Osuch
Michael Aastrup JENSEN*
Mogens JENSEN
Frank J. JENSSEN
Florina-Ruxandra JIPA/Viorel Riceard Badea
Ögmundur JÓNASSON
Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ/Dejan Kovačević
Anne KALMARI
Erkan KANDEMIR
Mustafa KARADAYI/Hamid Hamid
Marietta KARAMANLI/Pascale Crozon
Niklas KARLSSON
Nina KASIMATI/Evangelos Venizelos
Vasiliki KATRIVANOU
Ioanneta KAVVADIA
Filiz KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR
İlhan KESİCİ
Danail KIRILOV
Bogdan KLICH/Aleksander Pociej
Manana KOBAKHIDZE*
Haluk KOÇ/Metin Lütfi Baydar
Željko KOMŠIĆ/Saša Magazinović
Unnur Brá KONRÁĐSDÓTTIR/Brynjar Níelsson
Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR
Attila KORODI
Alev KORUN*
Rom KOSTŘICA/Gabriela Pecková
Elvira KOVÁCS
Tiny KOX
Borjana KRIŠTO*
Florian KRONBICHLER*
Julia KRONLID
Eerik-Niiles KROSS/Jaak Madison
Talip KÜÇÜKCAN
Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ
Athina KYRIAKIDOU*
Inese LAIZĀNE
Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’
Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT/Jean-Claude Frécon
Luís LEITE RAMOS
Valentina LESKAJ
Terry LEYDEN
Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE
Ian LIDDELL-GRAINGER*
Georgii LOGVYNSKYI*
Filippo LOMBARDI
François LONCLE/Catherine Quéré
George LOUKAIDES
Yuliya L’OVOCHKINA*
Philippe MAHOUX
Muslum MAMMADOV/Rovshan Rzayev
Thierry MARIANI
Soňa MARKOVÁ/Pavel Holík
Milica MARKOVIĆ
Duarte MARQUES*
Alberto MARTINS*
Meritxell MATEU
Liliane MAURY PASQUIER
Michael McNAMARA*
Sir Alan MEALE
Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA
Evangelos MEIMARAKIS
Ana Catarina MENDES*
Attila MESTERHÁZY*
Jean-Claude MIGNON/Rudy Salles
Marianne MIKKO
Olivia MITCHELL
Arkadiusz MULARCZYK/Daniel Milewski
Thomas MÜLLER
Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ
Hermine NAGHDALYAN
Marian NEACȘU/Titus Corlăţean
Andrei NEGUTA
Zsolt NÉMETH*
Miroslav NENUTIL
Michele NICOLETTI
Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI
Julia OBERMEIER/Volkmar Vogel
Marija OBRADOVIĆ
Žarko OBRADOVIĆ
Judith OEHRI
Carina OHLSSON
Suat ÖNAL
Ria OOMEN-RUIJTEN
Joseph O’REILLY/ Rónán Mullen
Kate OSAMOR*
Tom PACKALÉN/Anne Louhelainen
Liliana PALIHOVICI
Judith PALLARÉS
Ganira PASHAYEVA
Florin Costin PÂSLARU*
Jaana PELKONEN
Agnieszka POMASKA/Killion Munyama
Cezar Florin PREDA
John PRESCOTT
Mark PRITCHARD
Gabino PUCHE
Lia QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO/Sandra Zampa
Carmen QUINTANILLA
Kerstin RADOMSKI
Christina REES/Baroness Doreen Massey
Mailis REPS
Andrea RIGONI
François ROCHEBLOINE
Soraya RODRÍGUEZ
Helena ROSETA
René ROUQUET
Alex SALMOND*
Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Maria Edera Spadoni
Milena SANTERINI*
Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Boryslav Bereza
Deborah SCHEMBRI/Joseph Sammut
Stefan SCHENNACH
Paul SCHNABEL
Ingjerd SCHOU
Koos SCHOUWENAAR
Nico SCHRIJVER
Frank SCHWABE
Predrag SEKULIĆ*
Aleksandar SENIĆ
Senad ŠEPIĆ
Samad SEYIDOV*
Bernd SIEBERT
Adăo SILVA
Valeri SIMEONOV*
Andrej ŠIRCELJ
Arturas SKARDŽIUS
Jan ŠKOBERNE/Anže Logar
Serhiy SOBOLEV
Olena SOTNYK
Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli
Yanaki STOILOV
Karin STRENZ
Ionuț-Marian STROE
Dominik TARCZYŃSKI
Damien THIÉRY
Antoni TRENCHEV*
Krzysztof TRUSKOLASKI
Goran TUPONJA/Snežana Jonica
İbrahim Mustafa TURHAN/Burhanettin Uysal
Konstantinos TZAVARAS
Leyla Şahin USTA
Dana VÁHALOVÁ
Snorre Serigstad VALEN/Ingebjřrg Godskesen
Petrit VASILI
Imre VEJKEY
Stefaan VERCAMER
Birutė VĖSAITĖ
Nikolaj VILLUMSEN
Vladimir VORONIN*
Viktor VOVK
Nataša VUČKOVIĆ
Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*
Karl-Georg WELLMANN
Katrin WERNER/Annette Groth
Jacek WILK
Andrzej WOJTYŁA
Morten WOLD
Bas van ‘t WOUT*
Gisela WURM*
Serap YAŞAR
Leonid YEMETS
Tobias ZECH
Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ
Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN/Marie-Christine Dalloz
Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Egidijus Vareikis
Naira ZOHRABYAN/Armen Rustamyan
Levon ZOURABIAN
Vacant Seat, Croatia*
Vacant Seat, Croatia*
Vacant Seat, Croatia*
Vacant Seat, Croatia*
Vacant Seat, Cyprus*
Vacant Seat, Spain/Pedro Azpiazu
Vacant Seat, Spain/José María Chiquillo
Vacant Seat, Spain*
Vacant Seat, Spain*
Vacant Seat, Spain*
Vacant Seat, Spain*
Vacant Seat, Republic of Moldova/Valentina Buliga
ALSO PRESENT
Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote
Boriana ĹBERG
Kerstin LUNDGREN
Marit MAIJ
Manuel TORNARE
Jordi XUCLŔ
Pavlo UNGURYAN
Observers
Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA
Armando LUNA CANALES
Ulises RAMÍREZ NÚŃEZ
Partners for democracy
Hamidine ABDELALI
Mme Hanane ABOULFATH
Najat AL-ALSTAL
M. Mohammed AMEUR
Hassan ARIF
Nezha EL OUAFI
Omar HEJIRA
Mohamed YATIM
Appendix II
Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of the judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Cyprus
Jean-Charles ALLAVENA
Werner AMON/Eduard Köck
Lord Donald ANDERSON
Paride ANDREOLI
Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA
Ben-Oni ARDELEAN
Iwona ARENT
Khadija ARIB/Pieter Omtzigt
Volodymyr ARIEV/Andrii Lopushanskyi
Anna ASCANI/Tamara Blazina
Theodora BAKOYANNIS
Doris BARNETT
Guto BEBB
Ondřej BENEŠIK/Jana Fischerová
Włodzimierz BERNACKI
Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone
Maria Teresa BERTUZZI/Carlo Lucherini
Andris BĒRZINŠ
Gülsün BİLGEHAN
Tobias BILLSTRÖM
Maryvonne BLONDIN
Mladen BOSIĆ
Piet De BRUYN
Margareta BUDNER
Elena CENTEMERO
Vannino CHITI
Anastasia CHRISTODOULOPOULOU
Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN
Paolo CORSINI
David CRAUSBY/Lord George Foulkes
Yves CRUCHTEN
Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN/Attila Tilki
Katalin CSÖBÖR
Joseph DEBONO GRECH
Renata DESKOSKA
Sergio DIVINA/Giuseppe Galati
Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ
Namik DOKLE
Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß
Josette DURRIEU
Mikuláš DZURINDA/Darina Gabániová
Nigel EVANS
Joseph FENECH ADAMI
Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Ivana Dobešová
Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER
Axel E. FISCHER
Bernard FOURNIER
Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO
Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ
Martin FRONC
Sir Roger GALE
Tina GHASEMI
Valeriu GHILETCHI
Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES
Sylvie GOY-CHAVENT
François GROSDIDIER/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo
Gergely GULYÁS/István Hollik
Maria GUZENINA/Olli-Poika Parviainen
Márton GYÖNGYÖSI
Andrzej HALICKI/Tomasz Cimoszewicz
Alfred HEER
Gabriela HEINRICH
Michael HENNRICH/Bernd Fabritius
Martin HENRIKSEN/Rasmus Nordqvist
Françoise HETTO-GAASCH
Anette HÜBINGER
Andrej HUNKO
Denis JACQUAT/Frédéric Reiss
Andrzej JAWORSKI/Jacek Osuch
Frank J. JENSSEN
Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ/Dejan Kovačević
Niklas KARLSSON
Nina KASIMATI/Evangelos Venizelos
Vasiliki KATRIVANOU
Ioanneta KAVVADIA
Rom KOSTŘICA/Gabriela Pecková
Elvira KOVÁCS
Tiny KOX
Florian KRONBICHLER
Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Stella Kyriakides
Inese LAIZĀNE
Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’
Valentina LESKAJ
Terry LEYDEN
Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE
Ian LIDDELL-GRAINGER
George LOUKAIDES
Philippe MAHOUX
Thierry MARIANI
Soňa MARKOVÁ/Pavel Holík
Duarte MARQUES
Meritxell MATEU
Liliane MAURY PASQUIER
Sir Alan MEALE
Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA
Evangelos MEIMARAKIS
Jean-Claude MIGNON/Rudy Salles
Marianne MIKKO
Olivia MITCHELL
Arkadiusz MULARCZYK/Daniel Milewski
Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ
Andrei NEGUTA
Miroslav NENUTIL
Michele NICOLETTI
Julia OBERMEIER/Volkmar Vogel
Marija OBRADOVIĆ
Judith OEHRI
Carina OHLSSON
Ria OOMEN-RUIJTEN
Joseph O’REILLY/Rónán Mullen
Tom PACKALÉN/Anne Louhelainen
Liliana PALIHOVICI
Judith PALLARÉS
Jaana PELKONEN
Agnieszka POMASKA/Killion Munyama
Cezar Florin PREDA
John PRESCOTT
Mark PRITCHARD
Gabino PUCHE
Lia QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO/Sandra Zampa
Kerstin RADOMSKI
Christina REES/Baroness Doreen Massey
Mailis REPS
Andrea RIGONI
Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Boryslav Bereza
Deborah SCHEMBRI/Joseph Sammut
Stefan SCHENNACH
Aleksandar SENIĆ
Adăo SILVA
Andrej ŠIRCELJ
Jan ŠKOBERNE/Anže Logar
Serhiy SOBOLEV
Olena SOTNYK
Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli
Dominik TARCZYŃSKI
Dana VÁHALOVÁ
Petrit VASILI
Imre VEJKEY
Stefaan VERCAMER
Birutė VĖSAITĖ
Viktor VOVK
Jacek WILK
Andrzej WOJTYŁA
Morten WOLD
Leonid YEMETS
Vacant Seat, Spain/ Jordi Xuclŕ
Vacant Seat, Republic of Moldova/Valentina Buliga