Speeches, June session 2010

 

Monday 21 June 2010 at 3 p.m.

 

Communication by Mr Antonio Miloshoski, Minister for Foreign Affairs of “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands), on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – With regard to the EU’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, our Secretary General informed us this morning that a working group has been formed with seven members from EU countries and seven from non-EU countries, and that they have started negotiations.

 

The problem is that 47 countries have to sign and ratify the treaty, but the wish of the Secretary General was that the treaty should enter into force immediately after successful negotiations, with countries having three years to object. Can you confirm that that approach will be adopted, because otherwise we will have to wait a long time for the treaty to come into force?

 

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

 

Mr MILOSHOSKI – Thank you, Mr Kox, for this question. The momentum is such that accession to the European Convention on Human Rights will happen and we are prepared for implementation. It will be one of the historic occasions since the formation of this Organisation. Therefore, our chairmanship will continue to pay great attention to this issue.

All options are under consideration. We prefer options that would lead to accession sooner, but it will depend on the domestic procedures for verification and ratification of some of the member states. In that context, on 7 July, we will have an opportunity to discuss the issue openly and directly with Mrs Reding, the Vice-President of the European Commission and we will try our best to explain how important it is to all of us that this process takes place sooner rather than later.

 

Budgets and priorities of the Council of Europe for the year 2011

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands), on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – First, I wish to thank the rapporteur. Thanks to his report, this year we are debating the reform of the Council of Europe. We still have in mind the report written by Mr Wille on the budget, but on a different aspect, and I will return to that later. Today’s debate is on reform, not on money, and it is good that we have had a wake-up call from the Secretary General to the effect that reform of the entire Organisation is needed.

 

At the meeting of the Bureau this morning, the Secretary General said that he was shocked by the total lack of synergy in the Council of Europe and its organs. Fortunately, he told me that it was not a traumatic experience and he was already recovering. Indeed, he is on his way to improving the Organisation. His message to all the organs of the Council of Europe was clear – improve or implode. We should take that message very seriously.

 

It is good that the Assembly reacts positively to the proposals made by the Secretary General to revitalise the Council of Europe. We need to realise that working together is sometimes more fruitful than always working against each other. That is another message from the Secretary General. However, we should take care that we do not accept his proposals too readily. The report frequently states that “we understand” or “we understand completely”, but we must remember that these are proposals from the Secretary General and the Committee of Ministers, and we must secure our own position. Up to this point, the only proposals have been to decrease the budget of the Parliamentary Assembly. That is a dead end for us, and Mr Wille’s report made it clear that such forced anorexia for this Organisation will kill it in the end. We should not forget that.

 

In the past few years, we have realised that having to work with ever less money has reduced our ambition and visibility, as well as our possibilities. It is no accident that the Council of Europe is becoming less important in Europe: it is because our governments do not want to pay for this Organisation, which was set up to promote human rights, the rule of law and democracy. The lack of money was a signal that our governments want to get rid of this Organisation. It is good that we now recognise that we have to change our behaviour, to produce more and better reports and resolutions. At the same time, while this Organisation is based on ideas and ideals, we cannot function without a proper budget. I hope that we will not forget the tone that Mr Wille’s report adopted on the budget, and I hope that we will hear it again next year. I repeat that we should not always be so understanding.

 

Progress report

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands), rapporteur – First, I thank my colleagues in the Bureau for giving me the great honour of presenting this report to the Assembly. I am also grateful that this matter is on the agenda today. Normally, the progress report is discussed in the morning but now we discuss it at the end of the day. I propose that we do not do this any more, however, as the progress report should be the first item on the agenda. I should also like to thank the authorities of “the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia”, including the chairman of the national delegation, the president of the National Assembly and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, for inviting us to come to Skopje for the meetings of the Bureau and the Standing Committee in May. We had an interesting exchange of views on the priorities of the new presidency of the Council of Europe.

 

I will not go into the full details of the progress report, as I imagine that many of you will have read it. I will instead focus on some of the items on which we made progress. The first is the enhanced dialogue between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly. In April, the presidential committee met the Bureau of the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General. That represented a major step forward in providing enhanced co-operation and greater synergy between the different organs of the Council of Europe. We now appear to be moving away from confrontation towards co-operation, which is a very useful development. This shows progress for our Organisation. The new report of the Secretary General elaborates on the enhanced dialogue and co-operation, and we shall discuss these matters further on Thursday this week in the Joint Committee. The Secretary General is making many good proposals, but it is important that we now put them into practice – that will really mean progress.

 

The second item on which I want to elaborate is the composition and participation of the national delegations to the Parliamentary Assembly. On 30 April, the Bureau instructed a rules committee to draw up a report on the fair representation of political parties and groups in the national delegations. Among others, the problems in the Moldovan delegation led to this instruction. The good news is that, although the report is still in preparation, the problem in Moldova has already been solved. That is real progress. Today, we have accepted four new members of the Moldovan delegation who represent the opposition in Moldova. That is the result of parliamentary diplomacy, of which this is a good example. In April, this seemed like a lost cause, but now the problem is solved. But don’t worry, Madam President, enough problems remain, especially in Moldova, and we shall need a lot more parliamentary diplomacy to solve them.

 

Another problem that we could not solve in the past few months is the fact that ever fewer parliaments are allowing substitutes to participate in the work of this Assembly. That is a very dangerous development, and if we allow it to continue, it will lead to the erosion of the Assembly. I therefore hope that we shall see progress in the next progress report and that all substitutes will be allowed to do their work in the Assembly.

 

The third item involves relations with Belarus. In the April part-session, the Assembly decided to suspend its high-level contact with Belarus due to the lack of progress and political will on the part of the Belarusian authorities and Parliament. Nevertheless, in May, the Bureau had to take a decision on a fact-finding mission to Belarus. The Bureau authorised Mrs Hurskainen, in her capacity as rapporteur, to visit the country. That was a wise decision, because our rapporteurs are not our diplomats, but they should be the eyes and ears of the Assembly. They need to do that part of the job in order to make it possible for us to make proper decisions. It was therefore correct to send a rapporteur to Belarus, even though the high-level contacts remain suspended. It is now up to the Belarusian authorities to make progress, but they will have to show more political will.

 

The fourth item is for the first request for partner for democracy status that we have received from the Parliament of Morocco in the past few months. The Bureau has referred it to the Political Affairs Committee for a report. We must remember that a parliament that asks for this special status must declare and show respect for the Council of Europe’s values, hold free and fair elections, work towards the abolition of the death penalty and encourage the balanced participation of men and women in political life. It is now up to the Political Affairs Committee to examine whether the Moroccan Parliament’s request meets those criteria. We also hope to receive a formal request soon from the Palestinian National Council to become part of the democracy of this Assembly. The Assembly has not yet received such a request, but it will probably come soon. That would also show progress.

 

The fifth item involves the rights of temporary staff. We had a discussion about that in the Bureau in Skopje as well as in the Bureau here. The Bureau expressed deep concern at the possible violation of the rights of temporary staff. This morning, we heard an explanation from the Deputy Secretary General and the Secretary General on the issue, and the Bureau accepted the explanation. It realises that, although it is very tough for those who lose their jobs here, this Organisation has to take harsh measures to ensure that we do not go bankrupt. This is not the fault of the Secretary General or the Deputy Secretary General, but a mistake on the part of our governments, who are not good enough at financing this Organisation.

 

The sixth item, which is also the last item, is that in the past month we have made progress with regard to the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. Today, we heard about developments from the Secretary General in the Bureau meeting, and we have heard Minister Miloshoski explaining that there is indeed progress on this level. We should emphasise how important it is that the European Union accedes to the European Convention on Human Rights; that could solve a lot of problems of double standards in Europe, but it could also solve the financial problems of this Organisation if the negotiations are done well.

 

Madam President, we have made some progress as an Assembly in the past month but we have to remember that we have also had terrible setbacks in the same period. We have seen the enormous Greek debt crisis, huge social problems in Spain, Israel’s brutal attack on the humanitarian aid to Gaza, the shameful outbreak of violence in Kyrgyzstan and a new increase in xenophobia in my country, the Netherlands, where a very xenophobic party became the country’s third largest party.

 

Last week, Mr Saramago, the great writer, died. One of his famous sayings was that if conditions influence human beings, let us then do our utmost to promote human conditions. If that was the progress made by this Assembly over the past month then we have done our jobs, and if not then we should reconsider our work.

 

Mr MELNIKOV (Russian Federation), on behalf of the Unified European Left welcomed the report but drew attention to intolerable anti-communist hysteria in a number of countries, including Hungary and Romania. Several countries had adopted laws prohibiting the use of communist symbols and in Lithuania communism had been equated with Nazism. The traditional symbols of the workers’ movement were also symbols of the Soviet Union, and it was necessary to remember all those who had fought for those ideals.

 

Some laws were insulting to great swathes of the population, and to artists. There was also an anti-Russian tendency. Russia had been instrumental in freeing Europe from oppression, but was now being seen as the oppressor.

 

The rehabilitation of Nazism was an insult to the victims of the Nazis. The deepening economic crisis had led to the use of anti-communist sentiments as a distraction. He hoped that the Assembly would take a stand against these developments.

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands), rapporteur – Most speakers agreed with the focus that I gave to various developments in the past few months, so we need not discuss that. Many of the remarks addressed how we do our work here in this Assembly, and I will convey those messages to the Bureau to see what we can do. Michael Hancock mentioned the fact that we need to accommodate the reports better on our agenda, and it has already been pointed out that we should not change our agenda at the last moment. Of course, that is sometimes necessary, but it is wise advice that we should make better accommodation for reports on our agenda.

 

It was also pointed out that we need to discuss the entirety of the work of the Assembly in the near future. As my friend Mr Mignon pointed out, we have a good basis for this report on the future of the Council of Europe. I know that the President of the Assembly is thinking of ways to revitalise the discussions, and we need to reach our own position. It is great that we have proposals from the Secretary General, but we must also make our own proposals. In October, this Assembly will have to come back to that issue.

 

I thank Mrs Err for her conclusions on Azerbaijan. I agree with Michael Hancock that it is necessary for the other committees to react to this report. Perhaps he would be so kind as to send his conclusions to the Monitoring Committee so that it can also react. David Wilshire said correctly that we should address the risks of the accession by the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, and I agree with him. We are not the requesting party – it is the European Union that wants accession – although we both agree that the combination of the most powerful organisation in European with the biggest organisation in Europe is advantageous. It should not be only about money. It would be nice if it brought with it some money, but it is more important that we have one unique system of rights in Europe.

 

Some speakers mentioned the investment in this Hemicycle compared with the lack of money for our temporary staff, but the Secretary General will react to that. Mr Melnikov told us about set-backs in Europe, including the rise of xenophobia and the strange laws that we have seen in Hungary, Poland, Lithuania and Moldova. I hope that the Assembly will pay attention to that, because although we are making progress there are some serious set-backs.

 

I am grateful to everyone for their contributions.

 

Tuesday 22 June 2010 at 10 a.m.

 

Legal remedies for human rights violations in the North Caucasus region

 

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia) on behalf of the Unified European Left Group – The issue of human rights in North Caucasus is so burning and tragic that, once again, it seems somehow inappropriate to congratulate the rapporteur, so I will say only that Dick Marty has maintained his high standard of reporting – the work on the North Caucasus is as thorough as that on secret detention by the CIA.

 

The substance of the report is tragic indeed. In the North Caucasus, lawlessness, terror and impunity rule. The terror is carried out from two sides: the government is killing, abducting and torturing at will, while an insurgency that has been ruthlessly battered for years has itself turned, in its desperation, into ruthless terrorism. However, it is clear that the majority of the horrible crimes in question are committed by the authorities and paramilitary gangs connected to them.

 

The report justly points out that the situation is at its worst in Chechnya – the authorities maintain a climate of fear; judicial and democratic institutions do not function; and human rights activists continue to disappear – but the resurgence of terror in Dagestan is also causing concern. There is some hope for improvement in Ingushetia, but even there assassinations and the disappearances of those critical of the authorities are reported.

 

As usual in these extreme situations, it is women who suffer most. The situation of women’s rights has deteriorated to a horrible extent – “bride abductions” have become commonplace in Chechnya, and that is tolerated by the authorities. Indeed, the infamous Ramzan Kadyrov – the self-styled ruler of Chechnya installed by the federal authorities, the man whose portraits are everywhere in that troubled republic, watching people “Big Brother” style – has said “a woman should be considered as property owned by a man.”

 

So, after about 150 years of the more or less universal abolition of slavery, we have a self-styled ruler who openly states that women can be kept as slaves. He is seconded by the so-called ombudsman – is not that ironic? – who openly justifies savage murders of young women by referring to what he calls those who “forget the code of conduct that should be followed by mountain women” – that is, by the victims.

 

On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, let me ask the Russian Government: is that also your view of human rights? How can the head of a regional administration in a Council of Europe member state openly justify gender-based slavery?

 

Saying that this is some sort of deep tradition firmly rooted in Chechnyan culture is rubbish. I cannot recall either of the freely elected presidents of the country – the late Johar Dudajev and the late Aslan Mashadov – stating anything like that.

 

Of course, women do not just suffer passively. It is no coincidence that among the most outspoken critics of these horrible crimes were two women: Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaia, and Chechnya human rights activist, Natalia Estemirova. As we all know, both have been assassinated. As we all remember, the murderers have never been brought to justice. As we all understand, those killings could not have happened without the direct involvement of the authorities.

 

That is all part of what has been called in an open letter signed by many prominent persons – among others, Vaclav Havel, Desmond Tutu and Grigori Yavlinksy – “Killing Justice in Russia”. The authors of the letter asked the Russian Government to protect people in danger and to ensure quick and effective investigations of the murders of human rights activists, journalists and independent-minded jurists. That is the very least that we also can demand – if we are worth our reputation as the champions of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

 

Let us adopt the report, but that is not the end of the matter. If we are indeed what we claim to be – guardians of human rights – we have to continue our work until this horror ends.

 

Address by Mr Milo Đukanović, Prime Minister of Montenegro

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – Prime Minister, the process of European integration also means the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. That process is now finally under way, but it will need ratification from all 47 Council of Europe member states. May we expect Montenegro, as an excellent member of the Council of Europe, to support a short, smooth and efficient process of accession and ratification, as was proposed by our Secretary General, Mr Jagland?

 

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

 

Mr ÐUKANOVIĆ (Translation) – Very briefly, yes.

 

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. That was a very good and short answer.

 

Tuesday 22 June 2010 at 3p.m.

 

The situation in Kosovo and the role of the Council of Europe

 

The Situation of Roma in Europe and relevant activities of the Council of Europe

 

Ms MÓSESDÓTTIR (Iceland) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – Allow me to begin by congratulating the absent rapporteur on his comprehensive and outstanding report on the situation of Roma in Europe.

 

The lack of progress in eliminating discrimination against the largest minority group in Europe can no longer be accepted. In many European countries, ethnic registration is prohibited, while in others official statistics contain no information on ethnicity or self-identification.

 

Lack of ethnically disaggregated statistical information means that the monitoring of various forms of discrimination and abuse, including human trafficking, and the evaluation of the impact of intervention policies are difficult, if not impossible. That has to change.

 

One way to achieve change would be to give EUROSTAT the responsibility to assist statistical offices across Europe in collecting reliable ethnically and gender-disaggregated statistical information. At the same time, we would have to ensure that such data were not used for purposes other than to monitor and improve the situation of minority groups, not least the Roma.

 

Surprisingly, the report hardly mentions the situation of Roma women. I would like to add the gender dimension to our discussion of the situation of Roma in Europe, which I happen to know something about because, together with other European experts, I wrote a report on the situation of Roma women for the European Commission shortly before I became a politician. That was about a year ago.

 

Roma women face double marginalisation as a result of the ethnic and gender-based discrimination. The latter has its roots in the Roma culture and family structure. Unlike most women in minority groups in Europe, Roma women start taking on adult caring roles from the age of 11. They are also expected to marry at a young age and to have many children.

 

Those traditional domestic and family duties induce Roma girls to leave school early and prevent many Roma women from entering the formal labour market. Targeted ethnic minority policies do not always reach the Roma to the same degree as other “more integrated” ethnic minorities. In particular, they tend not to reach Roma women.

 

The poor knowledge of Roma women’s social conditions and of their own views and expectations is reflected in policies that rarely address their specific needs and problems. Thus, the involvement in policy-making of representatives of Roma women should be facilitated. We should also ensure that measures are implemented at local level through Roma women’s associations.

 

Irregular migrants

 

Mrs ANDERSEN (Norway) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – Listening to the rapporteurs and also keeping in mind the political discussions in different European countries, it seems to me timely that the Council of Europe is considering matters relating to obligations on the principles of human rights in respect of these questions.

 

I have not heard anyone here using the wording that I hear in political debate elsewhere. We might be grateful for that, but there are strong voices in many European countries calling for lower standards in our policy on asylum seekers and irregular migrants. The Group of the Unified European Left wants to underline the fact that, especially when dealing with questions relating to such groups, it is important to stick to the principles.

 

We support voluntary return programmes and also accept readmission agreements, which are necessary tools, but regulations have to abide by the obligations and principles of international conventions on human rights, as stated in the text today.

 

Identity politics, both populist and extremist, as well as strong nationalistic rhetoric, has been reinforced in recent years in Europe. Following the latest financial crisis, that phenomenon has become even more challenging in relation to discrimination against migrants – discrimination that manifests itself on many levels and seriously undermines efforts to promote equality and diversity. That tends to create a climate for the suspension of human rights.

 

In spite of the obvious fact that such migrants have not caused the financial crisis, they are put in the position of scapegoats or, as the report says, “hot potatoes”. I want to shine a light on the example from the agreement between Italy and Libya. I want to emphasise the basic principle, whose importance should never be put in jeopardy: the right of the asylum seeker to claim asylum and protection cannot be violated.

 

It is important that we distinguish between assisted voluntary returns for irregular migrants and the return of convicted prisoners. Also, there is a special need with regard to unaccompanied minors. That is a very difficult question, especially when we have return agreements.

 

Lastly, there is a need to safeguard the victims of trafficking. We look forward to the Council of Europe placing stronger emphasis on that specific issue.

 

Wednesday 23 June 2010 at 10 a.m.

 

Islam, Islamism and Islamophobia in Europe

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – I shall not speak on Islam or Islamism, I shall concentrate on the big evil that is called “Islamophobia”. Although I speak on behalf of the UEL, I shall update you on recent developments in my country, the Netherlands. I must give a warning about what I am going to say, because the following quotations will probably shock many of you. However, you must be aware that such quotations are nowadays heard in my country, which is a founding father of the Council of Europe and European Union, and is home to many international institutions, such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

 

The quotations come from prominent members of the so-called Freedom Party, which has been my country’s third biggest party since the elections that took place on 9 June. It took that position from my party, which was the big winner four years ago. That change in voter support demonstrates what is happening in my country – the ever-growing popularity of a party that is an excellent example of the growing Islamophobia in Europe. That, of course, is the subject of Mr Jensen’s report.

 

This populist Freedom Party has publicly stated the following in the Dutch Parliament and press: “Send the Muslims who cause problems out of the country, with their entire families”; “Let us immediately adopt a total immigration stop for people from Muslim countries”; “Why not introduce a tax on headscarves? Then we finally will earn something on what has cost us already so much. I would say, ‘Let the polluter pay’”; “Many fundamental problems, such infrastructure, traffic jams, housing problems and the welfare state are in the end directly related to migrants”; “Every non-western immigrant should sign an assimilation contract. That states exactly what to do and not to do. If you do not live up to that, you have to leave the country”; “Islamic states cannot become part of the European Union”; “These Muslim colonists did not come to integrate, but to take over the country and suppress us”; “The core of the problem is the fascist Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed as written down in the Islamic version of Mein Kampf: The Koran”; and “We are selling ourselves to the devil called Mohammed”.

 

Those are horrible statements, but we must be aware that the Freedom Party is not an isolated party in my country. The biggest Dutch party, the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, a member of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe prefers a coalition government with the Freedom Party above any other possible coalition. The Christian Democrats are still making up their minds on this, but Pieter Omtzigt, who will speak next, will be able to clarify that. Fortunately, all our parties of the left rule out co-operation with the populists of the “Liberty” party, but we did not succeed in keeping voters away from them.

 

I am aware that the sad stories of the Netherlands are not an exception. Similar parties are gaining popularity in an increasing number of member states. Some of these parties are Islamophobic, whereas others are ultra-nationalist or openly racist and fascist. Most of them use Muslims as their scapegoats, but some use migrants, Roma or national minorities instead. Either way, they openly abuse our core values and present a big threat to our societies. They put the blame on groups of citizens for everything that is wrong in our societies. I am sure that if all Muslims in Europe converted themselves to Catholicism, these populist parties would, overnight, invent new arguments to blame the same people. Therefore, the time has come to fight back and to explain how evil and unfruitful this kind of political thinking is and how great the dangers of bringing these parties to power are, not only for our Muslim citizens or other scapegoat groups, but the whole of our societies. As Bob Marley would say, we have to “get up, stand up” for the rights of our fellow citizens and for the sake of a civilised society.

 

Mr GEORGIOU (Cyprus) said that today’s debate had shown that the Council of Europe was correct to discuss this issue. All governments must show determination and resilience to eliminate sources of Islamophobia and it was the role of the Council of Europe and national governments to foster tolerance and respect between religions. It was important to ensure interfaith dialogue and he cited the recent visit of the Pope to Cyprus as an example of successful religious co-existence.

 

He said that it was politicians who created problems, and greater work needed to be done through education. Religions depended on one another. There was no longer any purely national or ethnic religion based purely within state boundaries, so all religions needed to live peacefully alongside one another. Too often, the teachings of churches had been used as a pretext for war, and churches required greater internal democracy. He warned against big countries fostering a climate of fear, and criticised anti-religious policies aimed primarily at the Muslim faith, which had been implemented after 11 September. He said that many countries needed help to become more democratic, and more must be done to ensure the separation of church and state.

 

Cyprus was an example of peaceful, successful co-existence, with different faiths living alongside each other. Before the Turkish invasion and occupation, society and religion lived together peacefully. The problem in Cyprus is a problem of foreign invasion and never had its roots in religion. A proof of this, he continued, is the fact that the vast majority of churches and mosques in Cyprus are within a few meters of one another.

 

Wednesday 23 June 2010 at 3 p.m.

 

The state of democracy in Europe

 

Mrs ANDERSEN (Norway) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – Thank you, Mr President, dear colleagues. There is a need for change. The financial crisis and the democratic crisis are not a natural catastrophe – they are a result of neoliberalist politics. There is massive mistrust now. Democracy has to make a difference and we have to be able to act for the benefit of our populations. We have to act and react, as Mr Touraine said.

 

Neo-liberalism does not work. Millions of workers, poor people and generations of young people now have to pay the bill, and they are angry. It is our responsibility. We can no longer rely on a system where a small elite always takes 95% of the profit and never pays the bill. That is why I think the report on “The political consequences of the economic crisis” is too weak and non-political.

 

Let us look at Iceland – your country, President. It was hit hard because of the lack of regulation of the banking sector, and it has now been shaken by a political earthquake in local elections, where a comedy party won – a comedy party with no programme. People have lost confidence; they voted for someone who got Iceland into big trouble. Now they are putting the blame on every political party, regardless of responsibility for the crisis.

 

What is happening now? International organisations such as the World Bank and the EU demand to re-establish some of the structures and the system that created the problems. The national politicians are told, “Hands off!” They are not being allowed to react and take care of their citizens. Of course, that fuels the anger of a furious population.

 

International bodies are now promoting neo-liberalism and overruling democracy, human rights, social responsibility and other needs. There is a need for a new policy to safeguard our planet’s resources. How do they react to that? They say, “Hands off!” I can understand why people are disappointed in democracy, as Mr Gross also said, and we must enable ourselves to do something.

 

A lot of countries are in deep trouble. What do they do? They launch major programmes for cutting social welfare and public spending. I can understand that this is very difficult and that something has to be done, but such things can promote more unequal societies.

 

I want to draw attention to a survey presented in a book called “The Spirit Level”. A study of 50 countries shows that more equal societies are more stable, more effective and more secure, and they promote social mobility. It is not only a diagnoses for our ills; it provides an invaluable instrument for shifting the balance from self-interested consumerism to a collaborative society. That has to be taken into consideration when countries are dealing with the financial crisis at a national level.

 

Mrs KANELLI (Greece) – Let me ask one question: am I free in Europe? I am 56 years old. I served in the media for 35 years. I decided to run in politics 10 years ago with the Communist Party of my country, without being a member of it. If I wear my party’s badge, I cannot move freely or I may be arrested in some of the European free and democratic countries.

 

Am I free? No, I am not. I am Greek. Everybody says that I destroyed the European economy because I had the Olympic games, because I have sunshine and because I have Plato and Aristotle in my bag.

 

You talk about democracy being built in Athens, but only 6 000 people were free, 300 000 slaves, women, children, the old and the poor were excluded. Please can we move on from Athenian imperialism? You are talking about a united Europe, but where does it start? Remember Yugoslavia, where European citizens paid for the destruction of a country that was multi-ethnic and multicultural and people spoke the same language, Serbo-Croat, even if it was learnt by Linguaphone.

 

I come from a country where one of the biggest German companies, Siemens, has bought both political parties. It is a big scandal. Now we owe Germany. We have a German airport and a German public interest telephone company that has been privatised. We have Spanish roads and French bridges – we have sold our country and still we owe. Whom do we owe? Have you seen what happens to smaller countries when the IMF steps in? When you have, then you can talk about freedom in Europe.

 

We must not forget that just 20 or 30 years ago having one job that could give you a decent life was a right, not a privilege. Now it is a matter of chance, or opportunity. Somebody has to give you the opportunity. This crisis is not a physical phenomenon, it is a crisis of capitalism and a profit crisis. Banks do not make the profits that they made in the 40 years after the Second World War. It is not only a crisis of values but of the difference between surviving and living. These are two different values. To live is a matter of quality and it should not belong only to the rich. If you have a media that can buy teams and if globalisation can move capital all over the world, you cannot claim democracy in Europe.

 

As a Greek, I can be proud that we have the third largest commercial shipping fleet in the world, but Greek citizens have to pay for protection in the area off Somalia because of the problems with pirates. And not even one in 100 000 Greek sailors works in those ships, because they use globalised, cheap workers from the Philippines, Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is not democracy when money prevails.

 

The state of democracy in Europe and the progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure

 

Mr PETRENCO (Moldova), on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – President, dear colleagues, first of all I thank the rapporteur and all those who contributed to this report for their meaningful work.

 

Can we assert that during the last reporting period, over the past year, the general state of democracy in Europe has improved? I doubt it. Moreover, we are increasingly witnessing restrictions on human rights and freedoms, violations of the opposition’s rights, intolerance, xenophobia and restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly and so on. Such examples, unfortunately, are found in many member states of the Council of Europe, both in the countries that are under close monitoring or post-monitoring and in others that are often referred to as ‘old democracies’.

 

A conspicuous example of such violations of democratic norms and standards in Europe today, unfortunately, is my country, the Republic of Moldova, the country under monitoring by the Council of Europe. The country’s official authorities destroy democracy and, by their actions, discredit the entire process of European integration, turning European aspirations into idle chatter and trying to conceal behind pro-European rhetoric their serious violations of human rights, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

 

These are not just words. Here are a few illustrative examples. The Moldovan TV channel, NIT, with wide national coverage, currently the only broadcaster critical of the authorities, was forced a few months ago by the so-called democratic authorities of the country to vacate its premises, and at the moment its studio is located in the garage of a private house. I draw your attention to the fact that one of the most popular TV channels in the country broadcasts from a garage. Then there is the continuing harassment of other unwanted media with ongoing attacks and intimidations. In recent months two newspapers, ‘Moldova Suverana’ and ‘Nezavisimaya Moldova’, have been nationalised; a number of radio stations have been deprived of their broadcast frequencies; it has been decided to suspend the broadcasting of the Russian radio station, Silver Rain; a news broadcast on the channel, REN-TV, was shut down; and a person who attacked a group of reporters from the Omega news agency was acquitted on every charge.

 

For the first time in the history of modern Moldova, during a peaceful political demonstration on 1 May a wire fence for protesters, a cage over 2 metres high, was set up in the central square. For the first time in the history of modern Moldova, the authorities resorted to the disgraceful practice of interviewing children in police custody because of their membership of the Pioneer organisation. Today, Moldova’s ruling coalition seeks to ban the largest political party in the country, its name and its symbols. In reality, this is a desire to crack down on the opposition and not to allow their political opponents to run for election. This is a garage democracy – a democracy whose symbol in modern Moldova is a cage.

 

Those facts should worry us all and give us food for thought. In which direction is Moldova moving? Is this regime democratic or not? Today I allow myself to criticise the co-rapporteurs to Moldova, Mrs Durrieu and Mr Vareikis, who have unfortunately turned a blind eye to what has been happening in the past 10 months and to the events taking place today. The ample evidence provided is enough to raise concerns and the response must be immediate. Today, the Moldovan leadership violates not only human rights and freedoms but the Moldovan constitution. Contrary to the constitution, the Moldovan authorities have not dissolved the parliament, having no grounds to do so.

 

This Parliamentary Assembly has to respond. A precedent should not be created. Otherwise European democracy can be included in the red book of endangered systems.

 

Thursday 24 June 2010 at 10 a.m.

 

Debate under urgent procedure: flare-up of tension in the Middle East

 

Mr LAAKSO (Finland) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – First, I thank the rapporteur. The report is excellent and the Group of the United European Left supports its conclusions.

 

Usually, conclusions are to be drawn at the end of a speech, but I intend to do things the other way round because it is time for a conclusion to be reached at the beginning of a speech. This conclusion is very serious.

 

It seems that there is now a government in Israel – perhaps for the first time in the history of that country – that is interested neither in continuing the peace process, nor in finding a just solution to this complicated and aggravated situation. The Israeli leadership seems to be fully satisfied with the current situation – no lasting peace and constant confrontations.

 

As a friend of Israel, I find it horrifying to reach such a conclusion. We always hope that we are wrong, but, unfortunately, I have to say that, evidently, my conclusion is correct and shared by the most respected experts on the situation in the Middle East.

 

It is high time that we looked at the policy of Israel, which has observer status in the Council of Europe, in the same way that we look at the activities of other countries. We cannot look through our fingers at the illegal actions of the Israeli Government and its military forces. Israel is continuing the occupation of a big part of Palestine and the blockade of Gaza, which has been called the biggest prison in the world.

 

The international community cannot afford to give the United States the privilege of defining what is right and wrong in the Middle East. The United States has shown that it is not capable – and not even willing, whoever is president – of leading the peace process. It is time for Europe to take the lead so as to get the peace process back on the rails.

 

Isolating Hamas after its election victory was a big mistake. For instance, my country, Finland, and the Nobel Peace Laureate, Martti Ahtisaari, noted that mistake at the very beginning and warned of the consequences of such a policy. Unfortunately, the major European Union countries were ready to follow United States and Israeli policy towards Hamas.

 

There is a need for major revision of European policy towards the Middle East crisis. Making a new policy needs new people, not people like Mr Blair. Nobody – not even inside the so-called Quartet – seems to know what he is doing in the Middle East. He comes and goes without adequate contact with the relevant authorities and people in the conflict area. As one of those who inspired the Iraq war, he is to be blamed for the further aggravation of the crisis. His place is definitely somewhere else, not in the peace talks.

 

I thank Turkey for its resolute actions and new Middle East policy. I pay tribute to those activists who were killed by Israeli armed forces.

 

Address by by Gjorgje Ivanov, President of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

 

Mrs PAPADIMITRIOU (Greece) – Welcome to our plenary session, Mr Ivanov. I truly hope to be in a position soon to welcome you to all EU and European institutions. A few years ago, in this very Chamber, one of your predecessors, Mr Bučkovski, reassured almost the same audience of your country’s true wish to close with Greece the continuing issue of a commonly accepted name. What is the progress in that direction and what is your contribution?

 

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

 

Mr IVANOV said that he was very pleased with recent developments in relations between Macedonia and Greece. There had been another meeting between the Moldovan and Greek Prime Ministers yesterday. This was the sixth meeting in a short time. It signalled a return in the confidence in relations between leaders of the countries. He was very keen to meet the Greek President, Mr Populias. While it had not yet been possible to arrange a meeting, they were corresponding and had written to each other three times. He wanted there to be no tension in relations between the two countries. He wanted his citizens again to visit Greece for their holidays, and for Greek businessmen to make profits in Moldova and Macedonia.

 

In restaurants in Macedonia could be found Greek salad on the menu, and people drinking ouzo. Greek music was played at Macedonian weddings. This sort of thing showed that there was no problem between the citizens of the countries; the problem had been between the elites. He was confident that relations between the prime ministers would intensify, and that a solution could be found under the guidance of the UN Ambassador.

 

Thursday 24 June 2010 at 3 p.m.

 

Current affairs debate: the situation in Kyrgyzstan

 

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – First, let me thank everybody who has helped me to gather information on the situation in Kyrgyzstan, including several of you. Quick fact finding would not have been possible without the help of several individuals, some of whom responded to my urgent phone calls and requests for information from the centre of the events. Let us consider the situation on the ground as it appears on the basis of those sources.

 

The estimates of the death toll of the recent ethnic violence vary. Although the official death toll from the clashes stood at 214 last time I checked, interim government leader Roza Otunbayeva is reported to have said that 10 times as many people – that is 2 000, as others have said – have been killed. It is estimated that there are more than 100 000 refugees and some sources put the figure as high as 400 000. Again, there is huge variance in the estimates and little knowledge of what is going on.

 

Assessments of who is guilty are even vaguer. Apparently, the Uzbeks blame the Kyrgyz for starting the violence and vice versa. That is not surprising. All that can be said for sure is that, whoever started the violence, the Uzbeks have suffered most. Most of the casualties and refugees are Uzbeks. Different conspiracy theories abound about who organised the initial attacks, and some might even be true. They vary from blaming the former president and his family members – who of course deny any involvement – to claiming that rogue elements in the police, army or other security forces have organised the whole thing.

 

The good news is that mob violence has subsided, some refugees have started to return home and the police and army are largely in control of the situation. However, there is bad news within the good news in that those forces are specifically targeting the Uzbek population by searching houses in what they claim is an effort to restore law and order. There is further news that police officers are destroying documents of the Uzbeks in what seems to be an effort to stop them from voting in the constitutional referendum scheduled for Sunday. There are also reports of abductions and heavy beatings by the security forces, which come from those in the middle of the situation. Again, it has mostly been Uzbeks who have been the victims. The police and army officers in charge locally are ethnic Kyrgyz from the conflict region who, according to some sources, have a biased view of the situation. Furthermore, the provisional government, which is also ethnically Kyrgyz, has no strong ties to the region and might not be in control of its armed forces there. So, a pessimistic view could be that mob violence has simply been replaced by the misuse of the armed forces.

 

The international community has been a bit slow to react but it seems that things are getting on the move. The OSCE is there, but its presence probably needs to be strengthened. The USA and Russia have provided some humanitarian relief and the OSCE, EU and UN are working on planning common actions in Kyrgyzstan. The question for us is what we, as the Council of Europe in general and as the Parliamentary Assembly in particular, can do. It is clearly the obligation of the interim government to solve the crisis as soon as possible but can we be of any help? Can we contribute more to solving the humanitarian crisis now or to building democratic society in the future? Do we need a more active role in Kyrgyzstan? We have recently been successful in conflict resolution in some of our member states, but can we help there? The region clearly needs help in conflict resolution and the hard task of rebuilding trust between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks. Do we have resources for that? We should look into it and see whether we can help, because help is needed.

 

The handling of the H1N1 pandemic: more transparency needed

 

Mr HUNKO (Germany) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left thanked Mr Wodarg for the original initiative and Mr Flynn for his work on the report. The H1N1 virus had turned out to be very mild. In Germany between April 2009 and April 2010, there were only 200 cases, a small number in comparison with the number of deaths from normal influenza.

 

Predictions of the seriousness of the outbreak and its designation as a Phase 6 pandemic were based on a limited range of scientific opinion. Billions of dollars had been spent on the vaccine and it was necessary to clarify what had happened to avoid future repetition of the problems. The WHO had changed the criteria for a Phase 6 pandemic, basing it on this outbreak. There had been no clear answer from the WHO as to why that had happened. He had received a secret report, placed on the internet by a whistleblower, concerning what had transpired between the German state and the pharmaceutical industry.

 

Some very deft marketing by the pharmaceutical industry had resulted in huge costs for states. The German people had lost trust in the WHO as a result. The WHO was under pressure from private interests, and steps had to be taken to ensure its independence as there were many other diseases which could lead to similar problems.

 

Mrs ANDERSEN (Norway) – The handling of the swine flu outbreak has harmed our trust in the World Health Organization, as many of my colleagues have said. It scared our populations, resulting in a risk that, the next time we tell them to take a vaccine, they will say no. That could be dangerous. We have allocated a lot of money to a minor problem, leaving help for those hit by the big killers in the world unfinanced. In Norway, people were almost fighting each other in the queues for the vaccine, and accusing us politicians – almost to the point of threatening to kill us – because there was not enough to go round.

 

Everyone is still confused about what happened. I was confident that the decisions had been taken on a solid basis until I attended the hearing here in Strasbourg in January. However, we are still not hearing good answers to our questions about the change of the definition of a pandemic, and about whether there were secure rules on the connections between the pharmaceutical industry and the WHO to ensure that no biased advice was given during the process. That is all mentioned in the report, and I was really disturbed to read it. The months have passed since January, and there has been enough time to clarify those important issues. That has not happened, however. That is why I am quite convinced that we have to take this action, and why I strongly support the report and the resolution.

 

There are big killers in the world: AIDS, malaria, malnutrition, famine and diahorrea are just some of them. They affect poor people and poor countries, and perhaps that is why they are not so interesting to the pharmaceutical industry. They ought to be our concern, however. We ought to be spending more money on them, as well as on the other health problems affecting our populations. As many of my colleagues have said, however, there are many problems involved. No government, or individual politician can say that it will not take the advice of the WHO if it says that a pandemic is likely to occur. That is why it is crucial that we clarify the definition of a pandemic, to determine whether it will be dangerous. We must also have transparency over the connections between the WHO and the pharmaceutical industry, to ensure that we can trust the advice that we receive. This is a signal that we need financing for the important health matters throughout the world.

 

Mrs FRAHM (Denmark) – I am last but, I hope, not least. First, I want to congratulate the reporter on his splendid report. He has done a splendid job. Perhaps we should also celebrate the fact that the pandemic was not so bad, and that relatively few people were hit by the flu or died from it. Exactly a year ago, newspapers and other media in Europe had one big item on the agenda: the flu. People all over Europe were afraid to travel. People here in this building stopped giving each other friendly kisses, and small bottles of sterilising gel were sold and used everywhere. These were all good examples of how people took responsibility for not spreading the H1N1 virus.

 

Now, a year later, we can see that the threat from the virus was exaggerated, and the rapporteur, Mr Flynn, has made it clear that we have some cleaning up to do after the experience of the so-called H1N1 pandemic. It seems that the exaggeration of the pandemic was perhaps neither a mistake nor a coincidence. The pharmaceutical industries that earned a fortune from the pandemic had their people in the WHO, which had the power to declare the pandemic and thereby oblige a number of countries to buy large supplies of products from those industries.

 

The WHO and health authorities at European and national level broke with the principles in the European code of conduct in their handling of the situation. They thereby forced countries to spend billions on unnecessary supplies of medicine, as well as scaring the public all over Europe and the rest of the world. After a year, they are now willing to evaluate the process, but we need them to do more if we are to prevent health authorities from repeating the mistakes.

 

Organisations such as the WHO and the European health authorities need to be transparent and to publish information on the connections and economic interests of people in committees or other bodies who have an influence on decision making in these matters. The Assembly must support the line in the recommendation and call on the Committee of Ministers to instruct the European Health Committee and related bodies to promote good governance and to live up to the standards in the European code of conduct on lobbying.

 

Also, the Committee of Ministers must urge member states to put pressure on the WHO in order to secure an open and thorough evaluation of the process followed by a change towards good governance and a clear policy on lobbying. If it does not, the loss of faith in these institutions may be disastrous if – or when – a real pandemic threatens the lives of people in Europe and all over the world.

 

The functioning of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan

 

Mr LAAKSO (Finland) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – I thank the rapporteurs for the excellent work that they have done. I had an opportunity to visit Azerbaijan recently, and it has been 30 years since my last visit. I visited Azerbaijan when it was part of the Soviet Union. President Kekkonen of Finland made his last official visit to the Soviet Union and I was part of his delegation. It was very interesting to see the development that has taken place during that time. I could hardly recognise the capital, because it was so different to 30 years ago.

 

As we know, there will be parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan in November. This report is meant to help the political parties, the politicians and the relevant authorities. The report is a road map for fair and free elections. It is based on experiences drawn from previous elections in Azerbaijan, both parliamentary and presidential. Its main message is clear: electoral fraud must not be tolerated in any form. My political group – the Group of the Unified European Left – agrees with the conclusion of the report: considerable progress has taken place in Azerbaijan, especially during the last presidential election in 2008, in meeting European standards of free and fair elections.

 

There has been intensive co-operation between the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Azerbaijan authorities and also quite effective co-operation with the Venice Commission. However, we must regret that there was no prior request to the Venice Commission for an opinion on the proposed constitutional amendments in 2009.

 

There is a clear tendency in many member countries of the Council of Europe to “forget” the Venice Commission when dealing with difficult issues – I am not now talking just about Azerbaijan. We must not allow this to continue. It is even more dangerous, if we in the Assembly or in the side of the Committee of Ministers “forget” that the Venice Commission has an opinion on many important matters, which should be taken into consideration and followed.

 

Naturally, problems, both big and small, still exist in Azerbaijan, such as the election law. When we follow up, we must monitor election law very carefully, because the electoral code is very complex, as it is in many countries. There are complicated processes in the registration of candidates and in financing election campaigns, as well as slightly curious limitations on the content of election campaign material.

 

Friday 25 June 2010 at 10 a.m.

 

Prohibiting the marketing and use of the Mosquito youth dispersal device

 

Mr HUNKO (Germany) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left thanked the President and praised Mr Wach for taking up an initiative first pioneered by the European Youth Forum. Many people had never heard of the Mosquito youth dispersal device and knew nothing of its existence. Unfortunately, the devices did exist and were found mainly in the UK, Germany and Switzerland.

 

An advertisement for one device claimed it was “a way of getting rid of young people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time”. Clearly, the device was being marketed as a harmless solution to a societal problem, but this was not the case. In Germany, tests had proved that the high-pitched sounds the devices emitted were not harmless. Tests had recorded sounds as loud as 104 decibels, which was louder than the manufacturers claimed and which could damage to the inner ear. The use of such devices went against the European Convention on Human Rights. More simply, what sort of society chased away its children?

 

Combating sexist stereotypes in the media

 

Mrs FRAHM (Denmark) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – Thank you, dear colleagues, for holding this debate and thank you, Mrs Stump, for presenting your report today. Just imagine what would happen if disabled people or sexual minorities were described in the media in the same way as women are described, or if the media presented religious or ethnic minorities in that way. I am sure that if things were different, a report on this subject would not be presented to the Council of Europe Assembly on a Friday, and that we would give it a higher priority. Having been here for a while, and having been the Chair of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men for a few months, I believe that we partly have ourselves to blame if things are not moving in the right direction.

 

In my country, there is a new line in advertising that involves making jokes about women. For example, during the football world cup, an advert for our national lottery system and for betting on football games has featured a blonde woman who knows nothing about anything. This is presented as a joke, but I wonder whether any other group would accept being depicted in the way that she is being depicted. Jokes are healthy; humour is one of the healthiest things in the world. If we can laugh at ourselves, that is the healthiest thing of all. However, if the jokes turn into mockery and this becomes part of a pattern, we should do something about it. We should react.

 

As Mrs Stump said, this report is not against motherhood. However, I believe that we hear too little in the media about fatherhood. Any new minister in my country who happens to be a woman is always asked, “How can you do this job? You have children to take care of.” She then has to explain, “I am not a bad mother. My mother takes care of my children, and my husband is also very good with them.” I have never heard such a question being asked of a male minister. This happens because the journalists have made it into a pattern. As Mrs Stump said at the end of her presentation, taking this up with journalists and dealing with it in journalistic education in our countries would be a splendid idea.

 

Decent pensions for women

 

Mrs FRAHM (Denmark) – Thank you, Mr President. I thank the rapporteur for a splendid report on a very important subject. This is not the first time that we have discussed economic discrimination against women, and I am afraid that it will not be the last. I am also afraid that the only times that we will discuss it will be on Friday mornings in Strasbourg. Let us hope that we can do something together to change the system.

 

It is important not only to change the way that women act but to change the way that our societies work. I shall give you an example. In Denmark, we have ratified all the conventions and made laws to ensure that women are not discriminated against, and to secure equal treatment and equal opportunities. More than 50% of students in our universities are women, and they get higher results when they graduate. But still we have a wage gap of more than 15%, and we know that it is growing. It is even worse when you get to retirement age.

 

This tells me that women are trying to do all the right things in order to catch up and close the wage gap, but have not been able to do so. We have a pensions system that clearly benefits the working patterns of men, while we know that it discriminates against the working patterns of women. Women depend on a strong public sector and a strong welfare system. As my colleague from Iceland said, many women have to leave the labour market or work part time when their children are very young, under the age of two, because we do not have enough day care places.

 

This is the way that society discriminates against women. It depends on women to spend time with their children instead of working in the labour market. If society wants that to happen, it should also be ready to let women benefit economically from doing what society expects of them.

 

We should change the system now. We have had so many strategies to change the way that women work. We had the strategy on women’s education and a strategy for women to take men’s jobs in order to be as well paid as men. We have had many strategies to try to change the way that women choose their education and their career, the way that they plan their family and the way that they take care of their children.

 

Now it is time for us to look at how the system works and how it benefits the way that women act. We should change it so that we have the right to a pension and parental leave. We should skip the phrase “maternal leave” and use the phrase “parental leave” in order to demand equal treatment with regard to the question of how to take care of our children. We should have the right to a pension when we take care of elderly relatives, such as our parents. We should have the right to a pension if we go into part-time work in order to take care of family affairs.

 

Thank you for the report. It is time to change.

 

Forests: the future of our planet

 

Mrs ANDERSEN (Norway) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – Thank you, Mr President. This draft resolution is about nothing less than protecting the basic conditions for life on earth, so, of course, the Group of the Unified European Left supports it. The protection of tropical forests is rapidly gaining recognition as one of the most readily available measures to reduce global warming. However, paragraph 10.7 of the draft resolution should have been changed or deleted because it criminalises on the basis of a diagnosis, not an act, and that contradicts human rights.

 

I shall use the time available to me to discuss climate change, not biodiversity. Tackling climate change is different from other political issues, because we can compromise or change our policies in other areas – we can do things over again – but when climate change happens it is too late. We cannot say to nature, “Hey, wait a moment. We are not ready to compromise yet.” So this is a different issue and we just have to tackle it before it is too late.

 

Is it right that we are discussing this question, but we also need to highlight the fact that vital international work on these issues needs to be done under the UN umbrella and that developed countries need to do their duty. We must also recognise that the most important thing we can do is protect biodiversity and rain forests in developing countries. That is why the Norwegian Government launched the international climate and forest initiative during the climate change negotiations in Bali in December 2007 – this is internationally known as REDD+. This initiative is working for the inclusion of REDD+ under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. On 27 May, representatives of more than 50 countries gathered in Oslo to establish an global partnership on climate and forests, which will improve transparency and the co-ordination of financing in this field – that is very important.

 

We believe that multilateral channels are the best and most efficient way to organise international efforts to reduce the loss of tropical forest. We need to utilise the competence and capacities of the UN, the World Bank and the African Development Bank, but we need some changes in these organisations in order to ensure that they value this large asset and the importance of preserving tropical rain forests.

 

I also wish to underline the importance of co-operating with non-governmental organisations, especially at the local level, when dealing with this issue. This is not only about climate change and biodiversity; it is about the lives of indigenous people and the many others living in these areas. If we are to deal with this properly, we need to co-operate with NGOs and people on the ground.

 

Today we have no way of putting an economic value on living trees that accurately reflects their actual value for the well-being of this planet. That is a problem, because everything today is counted in money.

 

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia), Chair of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs – On behalf of the committee, I thank all my colleagues who are still here, especially those who have participated in the debate. It is nice to hear that the main findings of the report are endorsed by all who participated. I am also grateful for the minor criticisms and suggestions for improvement that have been made. They are well grounded; I agree to them.

 

However, it is vital that the report, in a way, follows in the footsteps of the report on biodiversity and climate change that we approved at the end of the previous session, because this issue is relevant to both those subjects. Forests are carbon sinks and stores, so they are important as mitigators of climate change. They are also significant habitats that are essential to biodiversity.

 

It is important that our Assembly discusses those issues because we are the only pan-European body to deal with them. The European Union is doing some work, but it does not represent the whole of Europe. The discussions in the United Nations, which are taken in many formats, are not, at this moment, well co-ordinated enough. We are the only ones to provide a pan-European perspective, so we need to discuss the issues here.

 

Thank you, colleagues, for taking part in the debate. I thank the rapporteur and our fantastic staff, without whom none of this would have been possible.