Speeches September-October session 2008

Address by Mr Jorge SAMPAIO, United Nations High Representative for the Alliance of civilizations

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – May I ask Mr Sampaio whether, if the financial crisis in capitalism develops into a real economic crisis throughout the world, and if the situation of the poor in the world deteriorates, it will lead to less, not more, dialogue between civilisations? What estimate does he make of recent developments?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Sampaio?

Mr SAMPAIO. – Obviously, economic crisis leads to social crisis, and social crisis leads to exclusion. All we want is inclusive societies, so anything that damages the possibility of fostering and enhancing inclusive societies is detrimental to the dialogue that we want, and not only to dialogue but to understanding – the understanding that there is difference and that we have to cope with differences. That is irrespective of any other positions on the crisis. There are currently probably about 100 positions on the crisis, and I will not dwell on them.

One fact is certain. We need stability. Economic and social rights are the basis on which societies make progress. Dialogue is more difficult in times of distress, because people are concerned about survival and it is not a good time for them to try to understand others.

Address by Mr Jorge PIZARRO, President of the Latin American Parliament

Mr JACOBSEN (Norway) noted that, during the last few years, democracy had spread through Latin America. It was no longer possible to be a president there without a democratic mandate. He was interested to know what the impact of this had been upon the practical work of national assemblies.

THE PRESIDENT called Mr Pizarro to reply.

Mr PIZARRO said that the current situation was very different from that of the 1970s and the 1980s, when politics had been dominated by dictatorships and coups. Today, crises were dealt with democratically and this reflected deep structural change in Latin America. There had recently been referendums in Bolivia and Ecuador. Yesterday 60% of people had voted in a referendum for changes to the Ecuadorian Constitution. People who worked in politics or in parliaments had a great responsibility. They had to grapple with challenges such as discrimination and a lack of good quality education. A lack of education meant that the gap between the haves and have nots would increase. It was for politicians to address such economic and social gaps. In Latin America, political leaders had often been corrupt, inefficient and incoherent, and had sought power for its own sake. To correct these problems, the Latin American Parliament needed to consider the distribution of wealth, social development and the tackling of social problems.

Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Standing Committee (Doc. 11720 Parts I and II + Agenda)

Mr MELNIKOV (Russian Federation) said that everybody was concerned about Georgia’s terrible aggression against South Ossetia, but he agreed with the rapporteur that it was probably best to discuss these matters on Tuesday and Thursday. Instead, he drew the attention of the Assembly to the natural disaster that had occurred in Cuba, in which Hurricanes Gustav and Ike had caused $5 billion of damage.

Many states and non-governmental organisations had already reacted, and it was time that the Assembly called on everybody to offer assistance. This request was not politically based, but was a moral imperative. He recalled that the Council of Europe had responded in other, similar situations, such as at the end of the Cold War.

The Helms-Burton Act should be abolished. The Government of the United States of America was ready to grant aid, but had tied this to the usual demands for changes in the Cuban Government. The best form of aid would be to abolish or suspend the Helms-Burton Act for six months, which would allow Cuban businesses to buy food and materials to reconstruct. So far, there had not been a response from Washington.

The Council of Europe was entitled to call for the abolition or the relaxation of the Helms-Burton Act and the abolition or relaxation of United States trade sanctions against Cuba and third countries who traded with Cuba. A response by the Council of Europe would give Cuba much-needed support, and would also help to increase the influence of the Council of Europe.

Debate under urgent procedure: The consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia

Mr KOX (The Netherlands). – While most of us were enjoying our holidays, August in Ossetia and Georgia turned into apocalyptic horror days. During the summer war of 2008, hundreds of people were killed or injured, thousands lost their homes and belongings, tens of thousands fled to either Russia or Georgia, and millions were terrified by the prospect of further escalation of the war. August proved that it takes only a short war to ruin the lives and luck of so many people for ever.

All the suffering could have been avoided if politicians had been wiser. Their main duty is to prevent war, not to provoke it. The suffering of so many people began after Georgia started the war with the argument that it was restoring its constitutional order by shelling the capital of Tskhinvali and attacking Russian peacekeepers nearby. Then Russia intervened militarily, with the argument that it had to protect South Ossetian and Russian citizens. Those might sound like reasonable arguments, but when the consequences are so horrible, the arguments must be totally invalid.

I had the chance to meet several people from the war zone last week and I listened to their tragic personal stories. I also met politicians in Moscow, Tbilisi and Tskhinvali. I was struck by the contrast between the people who suffered so tragically and the politicians who tried to explain that it was not their fault and that they acted only in the interests of the people. How cynical!

If a war starts, politicians must have failed, especially if they come from member states of the Council of Europe. Therefore, the Group of the Unified European Left supports the demand for an international independent investigation with the participation of the Council of Europe and the parliaments of the member states involved. What went wrong and why, who is to bear responsibility and who will redress the damage done?

The international investigation should also include an examination of the role that other countries and international organisations played and to what extent they bear at least part of the responsibility for not preventing the war. That includes our own Organisation, as well as the European Union and NATO, not to mention the United States, which paid for and trained the Georgian army, and by doing so prepared it for the war.

We have to find out what happened in order to prevent it from happening again. We have now entered a period in which we have the worst international relations since the end of the Cold War, and we live in dangerous times. Similar conflicts could easily turn into new wars, and it is our duty to prevent that from happening and to address this dangerous development. Our credibility and much more is at stake.

First and foremost, we have to urge Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia to come to some arrangement to give international and national relief organisations ample opportunity to help all victims of this war, to ensure security for those organisations in the former war zone, and to allow internally displaced persons to return home safely. We have to urge all the parties involved to respect international law, not to violate it, and to comply fully to restore the rule of law, respect for human rights and democracy in that part of Europe.

Mr ZIUGANOV (Russian Federation) noted that the war which was being discussed was the fifth war to take place in the Caucasus during recent years. However, this was the first war to have been started by Mr Saakashvili with the support of both NATO and the United States of America. This war was an unparalleled crime: over 500 civilians had been killed and 550 schools had been shelled.

The key question was, who had helped Georgia? A number of United States army generals had accompanied the Georgian army while NATO unleashed forces against Russia. The European Union had just stood by.

 While Russia had been trying to force peace with Saakashvili, the United States had been encouraging him to lie. At the same time, 27 NATO ships had appeared in the Black Sea, apparently providing humanitarian aid to Georgia, but not South Ossetia where much of the suffering had taken place. It may have been that the United States was trying to drive a wedge between Europe and Russia. If this was the case, it would be the biggest crime of the 21st century.

The Georgian population had decreased from 4.6 million to less than 2 million. Those still living in Georgia were Saakashvili’s hostages.

Address by Mr Demetris CHRISTOFIAS, President of the Republic of Cyprus

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – Mr President, you are indeed a brave politician to announce in this Assembly that you do not have the luxury of failing in your mission to reunite your republic. Can you tell us what this Assembly and its members can do to support you in your mission to reunite your republic and what we should not do, in order not to hinder your attempts?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Christofias?

Mr CHRISTOFIAS. – The best way for this body to give me the possibility to breathe and to do my utmost to solve the problem is to continue following the principles of the Council of Europe, of the European Convention on Human Rights and, of course, the United Nations and international law. Otherwise, if for the sake of any interests or avoiding any contradictions, we upgrade the second entity, directly or indirectly, it will be a catastrophe. Of course, I stress my position that I, as a person who wants fanatically the reunification of the country, will never accept that upgrading or the existence of a second state in Cyprus. That is my position, so I request that you follow those principles. That is the best way to help me and Mr Talat. It must be understood that these are the principles, that this is international law, and that these are the values of a united Europe and the Council of Europe. We have to respect that – both of us – in order to have a stable framework for the solution of the problem.

Address Address by Mr Haris SILAJDZIC, Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Mr JACOBSEN (Norway). – Mr President. Dayton was good for stopping the war, but it was based on ethnic compromises and could not lead to efficient decisions efficiency, owing to political issues and so on. What concrete reforms do you think should be introduced for the best for all people in Bosnia and Herzegovina? In which areas and in what way can the state be strengthened?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Silajdžić?

Mr SILAJDŽIĆ. – I am not a supporter of a centralised state and never have been, but I believe that we should strengthen our state institutions, because the present system, way of voting, and so on make Bosnia and Herzegovina inefficient. I believe that Bosnia and Herzegovina should consist of economic regions, in order to follow the trend that is known to Europe and known to be efficient, rather than following ethnic criteria. Economic criteria should be put at the fore. That is the way to do it.

By the way, the system prevents us from making decisions about very important matters, including our economy. Many of you present may know that Bosnia and Herzegovina is a rich country in terms of human and natural resources. Today, we all know how big the demand for energy is, but 63% of our hydropower is unused. That means that there are thousands and thousands of megawatts that we could put into the European network to contribute to the well being of Europeans. However, we are not using that power because we do not have state planning or the will to do so. That is also the case for other sectors of the economy, such as infrastructure.

I am not against people having the right to say “We are Croats”, “We are Serbs”, or, “We are Bosniacs”, or to protect their vital interests. I am saying that the best for Bosnia and Herzegovina would be to have economic regions. That would give a great boost to our economy, and link those regions with the states and regions in the vicinity and Europe as a whole. That would be the best thing, and as far as I can see, a lot of our citizens agree.

Honouring of obligations and commitments by Bosnia and Herzegovina (Doc. 11700)

Mr JACOBSEN (Norway). – The UEL fully supports the stress that the report places on the need for full constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nationalist and ethnic rhetoric has increased, and that is not for the best. Everyone in that country should consider what will bring them together and what constitutional reforms can be made to ensure that they can deal with their economic problems and their slow and complicated political and administrative culture.

Reform is necessary for the confidence of the state and the termination of the international presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We need to leave Bosnia and Herzegovina to be ruled by its own citizens, and the minority should not block reform. The minority should recognise that it also will benefit from reform. Bosnia and Herzegovina asks for our help, so let us help it in putting reforms into practice.

Situation in Cyprus (Doc. 11699)

Mr LAAKSO (Finland). – Mr Hörster rightly says that there is a new political situation in Cyprus. It is worth defining why that is. There are two new political leaders and that is the basis of the new political situation. As we know, sometimes, personalities can play an important role in history and there is an opportunity for them to play an important role concerning the reunification of Cyprus.

We know that the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr Christofias, has devoted all his life and political career to the reunification of Cyprus. His speech here yesterday was excellent and repeated the initiatives made before the international community, for example, last week in New York. Mr Talat, the leader of the Turkish community in Cyprus, is well known for his constructive attitude towards a solution of the Cyprus problem. However, like the rapporteur, I was a little disappointed by his speech today. I was expecting a response to some of the initiatives made yesterday by President Christofias. Unfortunately, Mr Talat was not able to do that today. I hope that in the near future he will respond to the initiatives that Mr Christofias made.

The political situation in Cyprus is new because there is now a clear commitment to reach a settlement of the Cyprus problem, which the occupation of the northern part of the island created 34 years ago. There is also a new leadership in Turkey. We know that in Turkey, there are political forces that are against the reunification of Cyprus and that, in the army, there are influential sections that oppose a solution. We need more courage from Turkish leaders than they have shown, for example, in relation to Armenia. Turkey now plays a positive role in many questions in the middle east region, and I hope that the new leadership of Turkey will play a constructive role in the negotiations that take place. Naturally, it is Cypriots themselves who have to find the solution. At this stage, it is not necessary that the international community be actively involved in the negotiations. The solution must be based on the UN Security Council resolution, but Cypriots must reach agreement between themselves. Of course, in the final phase we may also need the help of the international community

The OECD and world economy (Doc. 11687)

Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands). – The first time that I read the original draft report, which was written in July, I felt like I was reading a report from a bygone era. It had obviously missed the precariousness of our financial system, which has since become painfully clear.

In the committee, we had a fruitful discussion on those subjects and in many ways the report is now much more up to date. However, I still have some remarks to make, and I shall even suggest a few amendments that could be made. I also have a couple of questions for Mr Gurría.

For example, what does Mr Gurría think of the big nationalisation schemes in the United States, and what does he think about the world leaders and newspaper commentators who speak of the end of the Washington consensus, the end of neo-liberal ideology, the failure of high finance and perhaps even the collapse of shareholder capitalism? Does he agree that the system is at crisis point and that the Washington consensus, or neo-liberal policies, will not provide solutions for the future?

This is not the time for socialist politicians or parties to gloat about finally being proved right. This is hardly the time to say, “I told you so.” It is in all our interests to join together to find solutions to this systemic crisis, as it is not only the bankers, large shareholders and other fat cats who have profited from the system who will now have to pay. Rather, the banks’ clients, pension holders, taxpayers and so on – in short, ordinary men and women – will foot the bill.

Commentators have frequently pointed to the greed and the perverse rewards and bonuses in the banking sector, which have led to excessive risk-taking, but those rewards and bonuses are merely a result of shareholder capitalism, which centres around quick realisation of shareholder value and short-term profits.

It is high time to strike a new balance between the market and long-term collective objectives – a new Rhineland model, perhaps, or even a new Bretton Woods or new deal.

It is imperative that we begin to re-regulate the financial markets and ensure that something such as what we are witnessing now can never happen again. It is one thing to bail out our financial system, but we also want to regain democratic control over the sector.

We cannot simply take on the losses of the banks after we have let them reap the profits for such a long time. The financial and capital markets need to start serving the real economy again, not the other way round. It is time that governments took back their rightful place in monetary and financial decision making.

I sincerely hope that the financial crisis that is coming down on us with such force is leading to new insights that spur OECD to produce new recommendations on what is needed in the field of structural adjustments. I would be pleased to hear Mr Gurría’s view on that.

My final remarks concern OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. Does Mr Gurría agree that the Wall Street banks have demonstrated little corporate social responsibility in the run-up to this crisis? Does he agree with Sweden’s national contact point that OECD guidelines also apply to banks and other financial institutions?

Reconsideration of previously ratified credentials of the Russian delegation on substantial grounds

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – My group supports the report and draft resolution and the opinion given by the rapporteurs. We thank them for their work at such short notice under such heavy pressure.

My group does not have any problems with the amendments of the rules committee. We will support them, but the opposite goes for the other amendments. I will not speak about the conflict between Georgia and Russia because that will be debated tomorrow.

The original motion that led to this debate was tabled with the argument that it was the only way to ensure that the Assembly did not deal with credentials in an unbalanced way, as it looked easy to challenge the credentials of the new Georgian delegation, but difficult to challenge those of the already accepted Russian delegation. In Moscow, that explanation was given by us in the ad hoc committee and by one of our members, our president, Mr Eőrsi, to the Russian members of the delegation during our fact-finding mission. It was said by him that if the Russian delegation did not challenge the Georgian credentials or advise others to do so, the motion to challenge the Russian credentials would be withdrawn. That was promised. On Monday morning, it appeared that that was not possible formally, although fewer than 20 delegates still wanted the debate to take place.

I think that it is wise to reconsider the procedure in the near future, but rules are rules and should be respected. However, as today’s debate has resulted only from the formal impossibility of withdrawing the motion, and as the Monitoring Committee and rules committee advise us not to challenge the credentials of the Russian delegation, why on earth do we then get six amendments to turn this formal debate into a fully fledged political debate, with six amendments co-signed by several members who also signed the original so-called tactical motion? That does not look like fair play to me. I do not like it.

I doubt whether it is proper that our co-rapporteur on Georgia, Mr Islami, signed all six amendments on the contents, even though he was with us making the same promise to the Russian delegation. I also doubt whether it is wise that the chair of the Political Affairs Committee, also a member of the ad hoc committee fact-finding mission, co-signed three of the amendments.

My group will never question the right of members to move motions or amendments, but having the right to move motions and amendments does not mean that members do not have an obligation to consider the consequences of doing so. We have seen how a motion can bring us to a debate that no one wanted. I hope that we will learn from that.

Politics may often look like a game, but at the moment there is far more at stake. I urge my colleagues not to vote for all these amendments. They should be tabled for tomorrow. We will discuss the contents then. Today, we should only discuss the rules.

Debate under urgent procedure: The consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – My group supports in general the draft recommendation and draft resolution of the Monitoring Committee. Some of its conclusions and proposals should have been more objective, but nevertheless, the most important fact is that it is clear on the main aspects of the matter. These are: first, that Georgia started this war; secondly, that Russia over-reacted; thirdly, that others were neither willing nor able to prevent the escalation of the conflict; and fourthly, that Georgia, South Ossetia and Russia all failed to find a compromise and deliberately prepared for armed confrontation.

The summer war of 2008 was a brutal violation of international law, human rights and the obligations that those countries have towards the Council of Europe. An international investigation must examine all the relevant facts in the proper context, in order to find the truth, which is necessary for reconciliation. This investigation needs the full co-operation of Georgia and Russia, as well as all the other countries that may have been involved, especially some NATO member states responsible for the military build-up of Georgia.

It is obvious that we have to take into account the role played by the United States, which paid and trained the Georgian army and prepared it for this horrible war. First and foremost, Georgia and Russia must restore the rule of law in the war zone. They must guarantee the protection of human rights for the people living there, as well as for the internally displaced persons returning home. They must comply fully with the international investigation and refrain from anything that could reopen the armed conflict.

I support the proposal to investigate how to improve early warning systems in Europe. As I said on Monday, we live in dangerous times. If we want to prevent a new Cold War, we need new international security arrangements, instead of going on with remnants of the past Cold War.

Both Georgia and Russia violated their obligations to the Council of Europe. That cannot be accepted. Therefore, it cannot be business as usual. I ask my Georgian and Russian colleagues to realise that the only way for their governments and them to restore credibility is full compliance, instead of continuous denial of their own responsibility. Let us seek and find new ways for co-operation and leave the dead-end street of confrontation. The heroes of the 21st century will not be those who make war, but those who are brave enough to seek reconciliation.

Mr MELNIKOV (Russian Federation) said that the attacks by Georgia on South Ossetia had not been unexpected. There was a history of statements made by the Georgian authorities that demonstrated their hostility to South Ossetia. For example, the first President of Georgia had said that Georgia should be swept clean of all its “rubbish”.

Georgia had transformed itself into a military power with the help of the United States and the European Union. It was difficult to see how colleagues could be so blind in the face of such a build-up of arms and military material.

The people living in North Ossetia could not have reacted to the killing of their brethren in South Ossetia unless Russia had taken the actions it had.

The conclusions of a recent convention in Tel Aviv of Russian-speaking Jews, had stated that there was sufficient evidence of war crimes committed by the Georgian army.

Mr MARMAZOV (Ukraine) wondered whether there was any territory belonging to the United States that it would not protect if it was being heavily bombed and innocent civilians were being killed by another power. How would France or the United Kingdom react if their peacekeepers were shelled by another state? It was, therefore, not understandable that Russia was not allowed to react in the way it did. What was acceptable for others should be acceptable for Russia.

Catherine II had said that Russia was not a state but a universe. Russia was an ancient civilisation that needed to be respected and which had the right to defend itself. In the past it had been possible to resolve disputes over borders through the United Nations. As a result of the actions of the United States this was no longer possible. A new mechanism should be created which would allow for such conflicts to be resolved.

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia). – We are discussing a tragic event, so even congratulating the rapporteurs on the report seems somehow inappropriate. However, I join my voice to that of those who have said that the rapporteurs have done a good job. My party group, the Group of the Unified European Left, had a heated discussion on the subject, and there was a great deal of disagreement, but we did agree – at least, this is my impression – that the main victims of the war were the civilian population, and that in future the main task is to solve the humanitarian crisis and ensure respect for human rights.

There was also some disagreement within the Estonian delegation, but we agreed on one simple thing: the Russian army’s invasion of Georgia constitutes an act of military aggression. It is also apparent that the aggression has led to significant civilian suffering, as is clear from the report before us. The document put some of the blame on Georgia. Indeed, shelling Tskhinvali has caused civilian suffering. It reminded me, albeit on a smaller scale, of the shelling of Grozny by the Russian army during the two Chechnyan wars.

So far, although the situation needs to be further investigated, it seems that there have been breaches of international humanitarian law by both sides. However, according to the meaning of “international law”, which should govern relations between sovereign nations, it is totally clear that Russia was the aggressor in invading its neighbour. Given the Chechnyan wars, Russia does not have the moral credibility to act as a sort of international saviour.

Given the troubled past, what of the future? First, the peace plan and the resolution before us must be fully implemented, but that is only the first step. As a second step, we need a change to the peacekeeping format. As a party to the war with Georgia, the Russian army has lost its credibility as a peacemaker, so if we are to secure peace in Georgia, the Russian army must go home. There is a clear obligation on the international community to finally come up with a new peacekeeping format, to install a truly neutral peacekeeping force, and to secure full respect for human rights throughout Georgia, including in the rebellious regions. Those steps form the only basis for a peaceful way forward. Lasting peace in Georgia is still far away, and can be achieved only by negotiation between the Georgian authorities and representatives of the Abkhazian and Ossetian peoples, without the meddling of third parties with vested interests. That negotiation should be mediated only by truly neutral third parties, when appropriate. We do not know what peace – the peace that will finally make all international involvement unnecessary – will look like. That is for Georgians, Abkhazians and Ossetians to decide on their own terms.

Address by Mr Fredrik REINFELDT, Prime Minister of Sweden

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – I have two questions about three persons. First, on Carl Bildt, what made the Swedish Government decide not to send him to this part-session after he already failed to go to Moscow in due time? Is there anything behind that? Secondly, I want to ask about two persons who most of us do not know – Mr Agiza and Mr Alzery – who are victims of Swedish rendition and CIA torture in Egypt. Will the Swedish Government, as a fierce promoter of human rights, support an independent investigation into what happened to these two poor people?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Reinfeldt?

Mr REINFELDT. – Thank you for that question. On the two citizens of Egypt, they have received damages payments through a court ruling equivalent to 3 million Swedish crowns each. That decision was taken only a couple of weeks ago. However, the Swedish Government has not decided on that issue.

As well as myself today, many ministers from my Cabinet have been here on, I think, three occasions during our presidency. I can assure you that Foreign Minister Bildt takes the task of chairing the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe very seriously. My government has prepared and carried out a programme of priorities in line with the decision taken at the Warsaw Summit and we strive to achieve concrete results. The Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, Foreign Minister Bildt, actively contributed to a successful ministerial session in June, with good participation at political level. In his capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, he has made declarations on issues of political relevance to the Council of Europe. He has carried out his responsibility as chairman to react to the conflict between the Russian Federation and Georgia and within Georgia. He made declarations sending clear messages on the need for a cease-fire and a peaceful settlement, as well as on other urgent aspects of the conflict, including the humanitarian situation. He also visited Georgia, and he intended to visit Moscow. Furthermore, he took the initiative of holding an unprecedented informal meeting of foreign ministers of Council of Europe member states in order to have a discussion about the conflict at political level and to get guidance on the action to be taken by the Committee of Ministers. The meeting, in New York, was very well attended.

The chairman has made his report to the meeting today and his summing up of the discussions is available to you, as he wanted to be sure that you were fully informed about his considerations and actions and the outlook for the near future with regard to the Council of Europe. As Mr Bildt had to carry out a high-level obligation in his capacity as Foreign Minister of Sweden earlier this week, it was physically impossible for him to come here at a point that would suit your work. Mr Frank Belfrage, who is State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, gave a full oral report to you on Tuesday and answered your questions. The Minister of Integration and Gender Equality, Mrs Nyamko Sabuni, contributed to your debate yesterday and met members of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. As I have mentioned, several other ministers are taking part in events organised within the framework of the Swedish chairmanship, to which, of course, the Assembly has been invited.

Debate under urgent procedure: The consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia

Ms KONEČNÁ (Czech Republic). – As a representative of the Czech Republic, I object to the fact that the current situation in Georgia is often compared to the events of 21 August 1968 when the troops of the Warsaw Pact member countries invaded our republic. I find such a comparison offensive to the legacy of the Prague Spring.

In 1968, the Czech Republic army did not attack anyone or invade any separatist province or other territory. Moreover, the fate of the representatives of our country, who were free of any nationalism, was much worse than that of the present leaders of Georgia.

To prevent such misunderstandings, the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, of which I am a member, has proposed an impartial and international investigation into who caused the conflict at the beginning of the Caucasian tragedy. Rather than seeking to identify which nations or states are guilty, we should ascertain the names of those politicians who decided to connect the beginning of the Olympic Games with bloody killing. We should not forget those who contributed to the Caucasian disputes. In 2005, and repeatedly in the last year, I personally appealed to the Czech Prime Minister and warned against providing Georgia with weapons and munitions.

Our Assembly should demonstrate the following attitudes. Politicians may express their commitment to the values of democracy and the European tradition over and again, but if they solve the conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia and Abkhazia by military means, they will not belong among us. We are different.

I can understand that Georgians suffer when they hear of the intentions of the Ossetians and Abkhazians to separate from Georgia. It is the politicians who are not able to find a civilised solution to disputes who are to be blamed. It is those politicians who act too hastily to solve long-standing disputes and who have no regard for the tragedy that they have caused by their violent actions. It is those politicians who have helped to trigger an avalanche of separatist activities while encouraging the Albanians in Kosovo to separate from Serbia. It is those politicians who, in contradiction of international law, recognised the independence of Kosovo unilaterally.

Our Assembly should not take any decision based only on information gained from the mass media, as it is partial and full of emotion in most countries. What we need now is discretion. The plan set up by Presidents Sarkozy and Medvedev must be the essence of the solution, as it will help to calm the situation. Negotiation and the renunciation of violence are the most important parts of that plan and that is why we should support that. Thank you for your attention.

Proposed 42-day pre-charge detention in the United Kingdom

Mr JACOBSEN (Norway). – There is no doubt that terrorism creates fear among people. After the London bombings, even people in other countries were fearful for their loved ones who were working in or visiting London. Everyone in the Council of Europe agrees that we must protect people against terrorism, do what we can to avoid acts of terror taking place and bring to justice those who are undoubtedly guilty of terrorism. The Group of the Unified European Left fully supports and shares the doubts of the committee and the rapporteur on whether the proposed 42-day pre-charge detention in the UK will contribute to the efficient combating of terrorism. It can instead create injustice, which breeds terrorism.

We have many proposals and means in respect of how to avoid terrorism from earlier debates in the Council of Europe. Limiting human rights by law was never seen as a good idea. To be a bit ironic, one could ask whether the British police are so bad that they need 42 days of investigation before they go to a judge with evidence that illegal actions have taken place.

The UK is the place where parliamentarianism was born centuries ago. Now it wants a mix between parliament and the courts. In my view, democratic institutions are at stake. The last place that parliamentarianism should end is where it started.

Only this year in a hearing in the US Congress military committee, unacceptable interrogation methods were brought to light. Those methods took place in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prison camps. My point is not to compare that with new UK legislation, but to remind you that that took place in the knowledge of politicians, but against US military judicial advice.

The Group of the Unified European Left supports the view that the UK should wait for the report from the Venice Commission before enacting the draft legislation, as is suggested in Amendment No. 1.