Speeches April 2008

Monday 14 April 2008 at 11.30 a.m.

Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Standing Committee

Mr MELNIKOV (Russian Federation) – on behalf of the group said that the Communist Party had become the second largest in the Russian Parliament following recent elections. Mr Ziuganov, the party’s leader, was present in the Assembly, having come second in the presidential election and having gained considerable support from many sectors of Russian society, including younger voters, those in rural and urban areas, and better-educated electors. In some constituencies, he had received more than 30% of the vote.

Mr Gross had produced a fair report that had given a clear picture of the elections. Delegates would be grateful if the approach set out four years ago before the European Court of Human Rights was reconsidered in the light of its impact on elections.

The Communist Party’s programme sought free, fair and democratic elections, with equal access to the media. During Russia’s election, however, Mr Medvedev had been granted greater access than others to the media, particularly the electronic media. He was also often referred to as the deputy prime minister, which was not an acceptable state of affairs in an election. All candidates, with the exception of the president, should resign their other posts during campaigns.

Debates including all candidates should be held. In Russia, party programmes were published but no debates were held to allow voters to compare programmes. Refusing to participate in such debates should not be acceptable, and they should be held at appropriate times, not very late at night or very early in the morning, as had occurred in Russia.

The Bureau should take seriously the comments from Chechnya about armaments

Monday 14 April 2008 at 3 p.m

Address by Mr Gašparovič, President of the Slovak Republic

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – on behalf of the group – Mr President, you said that the Council of Europe should concentrate on core business, and I agree. Preventing the development of new dividing lines in Europe is surely the core business of this Organisation. Nevertheless, there are plans to install missile shields in your neighbouring countries. That could lead to new tensions and new dividing lines on the continent. Your Prime Minister opposed those plans strongly. Can we expect Slovakia to oppose this dangerous development?

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

Mr GAŠPAROVIČ said that the Prime Minister would never agree to such shields being installed in Slovakia. Slovakia had presented its position at the UN summit in Bucharest and had sided with the Alliance. He reiterated that Slovakia would not vote against NATO or the European Union.

Tuesday 15 April 2008 at 10 a.m.

European Muslim communities confronted with extremism

Mr KESKIN (Germany) – rapporteur - thanked Mr Mota Amaral for his excellent report on European Muslim communities confronted with extremism. The events in recent weeks had yet again shown, in a tragic way, the report’s topicality. In the Netherlands, a film by Geert Wilders had tarred all Muslims with the same brush. Islam was perceived as a threat to liberal values. The debate sparked since the attacks of 9/11 in certain sectors of society saw Islam as a threat, with disastrous consequences. Eighty-three per cent of people questioned in Germany had felt that Islam was a fanatical religion and 90% of those surveyed thought of the oppression of women when they heard the word “Islam”. Some 75% of Germans thought that Islam and western culture were irreconcilable. That picture was seen across western Europe. The climate was therefore good for those wishing to find followers ready to commit acts of violence.

Democracy, human rights, the rule of law and secularism needed defending, and the use of religion for the purposes of people’s own ideologies had to be rejected. There was a misconceived notion of tolerance; all people had to obey the rule of law and the constitution. Muslims had to enjoy all democratic rights so that the loyalty and solidarity of Muslim minorities were guaranteed. Governments and societies had to shoulder their responsibilities, and social exclusion should not create a breeding ground for extremism. Extremism had to be opposed vigorously.

Mr ROSSI (San Marino) – on behalf of the group - thanked Mr Mota Amaral for his excellent work on a delicate subject and congratulated him on the draft resolution and draft recommendations. He noted that three other committees were involved in completing the draft resolutions and draft recommendations.

Islamic extremism was an attractive ideology for young people who were disfranchised in European society. Extremism had to be analysed in a scientific way, and that included examining relationships between religions and developing mechanisms to resolve tensions between communities. It was important to understand the causes of extremism and the lack of integration of some Muslim people in our societies: we should use our values to assist Islamic people in combating fundamentalism. The report, which referred to preventing discrimination, condemning and combating Islamaphobia, taking action against hate speech and ensuring compliance with human rights, showed examples of good practice. He confirmed his support for the draft resolution and draft recommendations and said that the liberals would also support Amendment No. 17.

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – Mr President, the issue that we are debating is of paramount importance, as it deals with a very dangerous, growing phenomenon: the confrontation of European Muslim communities with extremism. In an attempt to address this issue effectively and to combat such dangerous extremist tendencies, one must point out that we should not confuse Islam as a religious faith with those terrorists who happen to be Muslims. Indeed, various terrorist attacks in European countries over the past few years, and the need to prevent other similar attacks from occurring on European soil, opened a Pandora’s box; they created a vicious circle, and a confusion in people’s minds between Islam and Muslim terrorists, whereas as in fact the two are far from being the same.

Dear colleagues, there is no excuse whatever for the phenomenon that we are discussing today. The terrorist acts of some individual Muslims should not result in the victimisation of Muslims in general, and it certainly should not lead to Islamophobia, with its adverse consequences for ordinary Muslims who practise their religion in a peaceful and constructive way. It is therefore of paramount importance that governments of Council of Europe member states address effectively and decisively the root causes of all forms of terrorism and/or extremism, such as discrimination, social exclusion, poverty and maltreatment of all kinds.

European governments should also examine ways of paving the way for citizens of immigrant backgrounds and/or immigrants themselves to play a more active and constructive role in all aspects of public and political life in the countries that they live in or that host them, so that they truly feel part of the society that they live in and do not feel that they are outcasts. We therefore agree with the suggestion that governments of Council of Europe member states should, among other things, act speedily and strongly against all forms of discrimination in all areas of life, combat Islamophobia effectively and promote social cohesion, integration, and the political and civic participation of immigrants and citizens with an immigrant background, so as to address effectively the root causes of the problem.

Equally, it is imperative, as the rapporteur suggests, to encourage European Muslim figures in all areas of society to continue to act with a great sense of responsibility when making public statements and in condemning terrorist attacks. It is also important that they encourage Muslims to participate fully in society, while accepting the secular character of the society in which they live, that they promote the transmission of European values within Muslim communities, and that they ensure the teaching of those European values in Muslim faith schools.

Mr President, our society has undeniably been seriously traumatised over the past few years by terrorist attacks and incidents caused by extremist elements. As a result, we have an even greater duty to guide people in our respective countries not to victimise people of other ethnic and/or religious origins, such as Muslims, when attempting to identify the causes of those acts and to protect themselves against such acts. It is therefore very important that each and every one of us assists to clarify in people’s minds that Islam as a faith should certainly be distinguished from Muslim terrorists or extremists. It is our duty to society to ensure that all people, irrespective of religious or ethnic origin or colour, are equally respected and included at all levels of public life.

Address by Mrs Angela Merkel, Federal Chancellor of Germany

Mr KOX (Netherlands)- on behalf of the group – Madam Federal Chancellor, I fully agree with you that we do not want new dividing lines in Europe, but do you agree with me that if an ever-stronger, and sometimes a bit more arrogant, European Union disputes with Russia over the United States missile shield and the ever-eastward-growing NATO, that might increase the danger of new dividing lines occurring? What can we expect from the German Federal Chancellor to prevent or to tackle that danger?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Merkel to reply.

Mrs MERKEL said that NATO and Russia had discussed the missile shield. NATO was an alliance affording its members mutual protection. It was no longer a geographical alliance, as it had been during the Cold War, but continued to be based on values that the EU and NATO shared. The key concept was tolerance. It was correct to say that NATO and Russia should meet more frequently than every six years. Any country that wished to join NATO should seek to do so.

Tuesday 15 April 2008 at 3 p.m.

Annual activity report 2007 by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands) – on behalf of the group – In a few points on his website, Commissioner Hammarberg underlines the importance of human rights mechanisms proving their value. The annual activity report does exactly that, but it does not raise further questions about the way in which to improve the capacity of such bodies. However, the Commissioner raises some critical matters, for example, sufficient funding for human rights bodies and suggestions for new EU human rights bodies. Would Mr Hammarberg please reflect on the questions that he has himself raised?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Would you like to respond, Mr Hammarberg?

Mr HAMMARBERG. – I am sure that not everybody has read that article, but it combines asking for more support from governments, including those in Europe, so that those bodies and mechanisms can function more effectively, with some self-criticism. I believe that the other mechanisms and I must prove ourselves and show that our work is effective. I hope that governments realise that the Council of Europe is such an important body for promoting human rights that it is worth increasing the financial support for this valuable Organisation.

Abuse of the criminal justice system in Belarus

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – on behalf of the group – This afternoon I met Ambassador Yavlovsky of Belarus. He made it clear that he did not like Mr Pourgourides’s report, but I told him that it was a question not of like or dislike but of take it or leave it. The report more or less expresses the position of a large majority of this Assembly. Belarus should consider that a fact of life; it is no use contesting that too much. If, as the ambassador said, Belarus wants to return to the Council of Europe and wants a dialogue with this Assembly and if it sees itself as part of Europe, it has no choice other than to take major steps in our direction. Belarus chose to isolate itself from the rest of Europe and it is for Belarus to take the decision to begin to end its isolation. It is a matter of realpolitik – whether the Belarus Government likes it or not.

The Group of the Unified European Left sincerely advocates the return of Belarus to Europe, where it belongs, and to this Council and this Assembly. It would be far better if we could discuss with representatives from Belarus how to improve the situation in the country. But such a return is impossible as long as there is no moratorium on the death penalty; it is impossible as long as the criminal justice system is used to discriminate against political opponents; and, as I said to the ambassador, it is impossible as long as the Belarus Government does not take clear steps in our direction. I made it clear to him that we needed clear signals from Belarus, visible changes in its policy and a better interpretation of democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

Today, a Dutch member of this Assembly called Belarus perhaps the worst dictatorship on earth. That was an exaggeration given the governments of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Burma and North Korea, to mention but a few. But not being the worst dictatorship on earth does not make you an acceptable state for the Council of Europe. We have higher standards, higher values and make higher demands and we all agree on them.

We are glad that a large number of political prisoners were recently released in Belarus and we are glad that the Council of Europe information point will soon open in Minsk, as Minister Kubiš said earlier. We are sad that the agreement between the Council of Europe and Belarus had to be cancelled because of a lack of co-operation and that there has been no movement by the party that has to move.

We advise the government and parliament of Belarus not to question every sentence and paragraph in Mr Pourgourides’s report but to open the door to real dialogue and co-operation with the Council of Europe and this Assembly. That is in the interests especially of those who live in Belarus, but it is also in the interests of all countries in Europe. We need Belarus as a member of the European community.

It is a sincere wish of the Group of the Unified European Left that Belarus returns to this Chamber and the Council of Europe and, as Chancellor Merkel said, to the European community. But it is our clear conviction that the Belarus Government has to take significant steps in our direction and gives clear and serious signals that it will change. If it does not, it will continue its isolation. If it does, we will be happy to receive the representatives of Belarus in this Chamber so that we can continue working together. I say to the Government of Belarus, “Start moving and start moving now. You have waited too long. Your place is in Europe but you have to decide to come our way.”

Mr SOBKO (Russian Federation) said that his delegation to the Council of Europe, which was represented in the Assembly by representatives of the Duma, did not support the report. He appealed to the members to think of their families, and to try to understand that Belarusians and Russians were one nation divided by a border. He felt like telling those giving advice to Belarus, especially from the UK, that every house had a skeleton in its cupboard.

He had recently had a very constructive meeting with Mr de Puig in which Mr de Puig had said that he wished that deputies to the Assembly would, in their questions, rise above parochial national problems. The Assembly was now discussing a very specific problem. As a representative of the Russian Parliament, he was discussing the “bad behaviour” of Belarus for the third time – those discussions had twice been held without Belarusian representatives being present. If representatives of the Assembly felt that there was something wrong there, they should recognise that nobody was perfect and he questioned why the Assembly was focusing on some young people spending two weeks in prison. He noted that five Cubans were sitting in United States prisons despite having been found not guilty and that a Thai court had found a man innocent but the United States secret service had asked for him to be re-imprisoned.

He understood that Belarus was a “bad place” because it was the only former Soviet state that had a gross domestic product 177% higher than it had been before the USSR broke up. The best dump-trucks in the world were made there and exported, student grants were paid and there had been less destruction than elsewhere.

Belarus would never become the slave of the United States. People had to speak to Russia and Belarus only as equals. He was very ready to understand the desires of others, but said that Belarus should not be offered ultimatums – force would not work.

Wednesday 16 April 2008 at 10 a.m.

Access to safe and legal abortion in Europe

Mrs FRAHM (Denmark) – on behalf of the group – I, too, agree with everything that has been said so far. I start by reminding all my colleagues that all member states of the Council of Europe have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Now is the time to move forward in the struggle against the discrimination against women.

On behalf of the group, I support the report. Some of us remember the days when abortion was illegal in most European countries. I emphasise that making abortion illegal does not mean that it does not happen. We remember the stories about miserable women who lost their lives by the hands of some quack who was never found. We also remember stories about young women who were forced to give away their newborn babies for adoption because they could not handle a child in their current situation. We also remember the women who killed their babies. We remember women who, for the rest of their lives, regretted giving away their babies, and the children who were never loved because they were the result of rape or of a one-night stand with an unknown father. All this happened because some people thought more of possible life after death than the life that we know we have: this life. Just imagine making so many women and children suffer, even though there were alternatives: abortion was possible, just not legal. Suffering and misery occurred for the sake of a moral. Thank God that that is over in most countries.

In most countries today, women have a choice. However, we see tendencies to narrow the possibilities for women. There is growing engagement by the Catholic Church and other religious groups in trying to take away a woman’s most fundamental right – the right to make decisions about her own body.

Let us not go backwards, but move forward. The next step is to adopt and develop further strategies to reduce the number of abortions to a minimum. We need secure access to contraception at a reasonable cost and compulsory relationship and sex education.

I warmly support the report. Let us move forward and not backwards.

Mr ROSSI (San Marino) thanked the rapporteur for her work. An ideological battle was being waged in many countries between those who were pro-life and those who were pro-choice. He allied himself with those who argued that abortion was a personal and private matter. Where countries did not allow abortion, many women went abroad to terminate their pregnancies. Unwanted pregnancy caused great suffering. The argument should be not about whether one was pro or anti-abortion but about women’s health. An abortion should be chosen only as a last resort and each woman in that extreme situation needed support. Procedures should be hygienic and safe. If they were not, more victims would be sacrificed on the altar of ideology.

Address by Mrs Yulia Tymoshenko, Prime Minister of Ukraine

Mr MELNIKOV (Russian Federation) – on behalf of the group said that there were strong divisions in Ukrainian civil society and politics about joining NATO, and that accession to NATO would possibly lead to the country splitting. He asked why the process of joining NATO had been speeded up.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mrs Tymoshenko?

Mrs TYMOSHENKO said that Ukraine was engaged in expanding its co-operation in all areas, including NATO. Ukraine wanted to be more active in discussions with NATO. However, Ukrainian politicians would not go against the will of the Ukrainian people and it was only through a referendum in which all Ukrainians were consulted that a decision would be taken.

Wednesday 16 April 2008 at 3 p.m.

Access to safe and legal abortion in Europe – resumed debate

Mr SIGFÚSSON (Iceland) – on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men – I thank everyone who participated in the debate. Of course, I regret that we do not have more time so that everyone who wished to speak could do so. Most of all, I want to thank our rapporteur, Mrs Wurm, for her great and courageous work. I also thank the members of the Secretariat, and Mrs McCafferty and the Committee on Social, Health and Family Affairs for their valuable contribution to our work.

We all know that the subject is not easy, but it is important. It deals with basic issues that are close to the core values of the Council of Europe. The report is well balanced and soundly based. It deals with a sensitive matter fairly. It was well put at the beginning of the debate that the report is neither pro nor anti-abortion, but definitely pro women’s health, freedom and the right to decide their own destiny. It could be described as a right to self-determination – to rule over one’s own body.

By accepting the report, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will live up to its standards in the best of ways. The report is pro gender equality and full and equal human rights. It is a step forward and the right one to take at this time. I strongly urge members to vote for the report and support it for the sake of a more equal and just Europe – a Europe that promotes women’s rights, freedom and well-being.

Current affairs debate: the consequences of the declaration of independence by the Kosovo Assembly

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus) – on behalf of the group – The situation that has arisen following the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo and its subsequent recognition by some countries is indeed very dangerous. I am not exaggerating when I say that it can be viewed as an act that may deeply endanger peace and security in the wider region.

Overall, our group takes a unanimous stand, although there are differences between us on certain aspects. We strongly believe that the declaration of independence constitutes a violation of international law and order, as well as a violation of the United Nations Charter and the pertinent resolutions of the UN Security Council concerning respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of any country. I should also stress that responsibility for the creation of what is an extremely hazardous situation also lies with countries that encouraged Kosovo to proceed with its declaration, promising that they would support it all the way.

What we must ask ourselves, however, is whether those countries realised that the encouragement and subsequent materialisation of such an act could be interpreted as encouraging other secessionist entities with similar intentions to act likewise. Where should we draw the line when it comes to a possible escalation of such secessionist tendencies? Does any country have the right to manipulate the United Nations Charter according to its own interests, given that the charter was drafted after the Second World War precisely in order to prohibit – among other things – any secessionist acts, so that humanity would not experience a repetition of the tragedy that it experienced during that devastating war? Let us ask ourselves, bearing in mind the similar problems that other European countries face, whether the possibility that our own countries will confront similar circumstances is so remote, especially given the increase in secessionist tendencies not just in Europe but worldwide.

My political group wishes to stress very strongly that this act by Kosovo cannot in any circumstances be considered a precedent. The consequences would be catastrophic, would affect all of us, and would severely damage world order, peace, security and stability. It is therefore of paramount importance for the Council of Europe to take a firm and extremely careful stand which protects the principles on which it bases its very existence. Let us not forget that we now live in an era of regional and global integration, not of partition or dissolution of states.

Mr ZIUGANOV (Russian Federation) said that the Assembly was discussing a key issue for the stability of Europe and the world. A few years ago, near Paris, Kosovars and Serbians had been ready to sign a document that would have involved not just a truce, but peace. Mrs Albright had destroyed that prospect, resulting in the bombing of Yugoslavia. There were about 200 similar situations throughout the world. The ramifications of the declaration of independence were already being felt and would continue. The situation was a time-bomb and would affect Europe and all continents. The only legal basis was Resolution 1244 and it was not too late to implement it.

In recent years, there had been an accumulation of these controversial subjects, starting with the dismemberment of Serbia and the condemnation of the Soviet Union as a Communist dictatorship – although it had saved Europe from Fascism.

No invitation had been issued to Belarus to send representatives to attend the previous day’s debate on that country. Concerns had been expressed about NATO. There had been attacks on the Olympic torch and desecration of the eternal flame in the Baltic Sea area. A new arms race was occurring at a time when families in parts of the world had no access to drinking water. Europeans should understand each other and reach a consensus.

There was no support in Russia for secessionism. It was important not to spread discord or to become a lackey of the United States. Secession would solve no difficulties and would instead threaten the defence of democracy and human rights.

Child and teenage suicide in Europe: a serious public health issue

Mr ROSSI (San Marino)- on behalf of the group – said that, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, he thanked Mr Marquet for his report on a subject that was not treated often enough in politics. It was not possible to know the scale of the problem, particularly because it was often not confronted owing to the painful nature of the subject. Adolescence was a difficult period and was linked to the experiences of leaving the family and coming into conflict with the outside world. Young people experienced new phenomena such as bullying and sexual discrimination. There was a need to do everything possible to find the causes of teenage suicide and to take action to prevent it. The highest levels of suicide were amongst homosexual youngsters faced with unfamiliar behavioural modes. Such youngsters often could not find people to talk to, and also often suffered from a fear of failure. Very frequently, adults could not identify those most at risk. More attention needed to be given to confronting the problem.

In adolescence there was often a lack of awareness of what death was – death was often not interpreted correctly. The Internet contributed to the glorification of death. That had to be confronted through educational programmes, involving the family and the media.

He thanked the rapporteur for his courage in dealing with this very painful subject.

Thursday 17 April 2008 at 10 a.m.

Debate under urgent procedure: The functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia

Mr JACOBSEN (Norway) – on behalf of the group – Thank you, Mr President. I was a member of the pre-election commission, and I also observed the elections in Armenia. By visiting polling stations in the Ararat region on election day with our British colleague, Nigel Evans, I saw with my own eyes that there was a lot of enthusiasm and willingness for the elections on the part of the Armenians. We did not find any irregularities worth mentioning; the failures we saw were not intentional cheating. As you know, I am neither blind nor deaf, so I know about all the irregularities reported by other observers, both during the election and in the post-election period.

Despite that, I believe that, technically seen, the result of the elections reflects the political preference of the majority. If we could return to the pre-election period, we would find that the election was free but not fair. First, there is a lack of journalism in Armenia. Journalism is a profession with standards, but journalists in the media in Armenia find it difficult to meet those standards. There is one exception in the printed media in Yerevan, but it has only 70 000 subscribers. As I saw it, all the other media – both public and private – were run without editorial principles. There were no debates between the candidates on the issues that were important to Armenians even though they could have watched them on television.

Being a member of a pre-election commission gives you the opportunity to ask hard questions of everyone involved in the electoral process, and we did that. In meetings with the opposition and non-governmental organisations, lots of accusations were made, but little evidence of failure came forward. We used that information in our report and in our talks with the authorities. Sometimes, I had the feeling that the NGOs, for example, thought that we, as observers, would be able to do more than we actually could. I had to tell them that it takes courage to change a country and that that has to be done by its own citizens. We can observe and see that standards are followed, but we cannot interfere politically.

As I see it, Armenia has to stick to electoral standards, but the greatest challenge being faced is the fact that politics has become a struggle between political élites and not one between concepts and ideas that try to solve the everyday problems of the enthusiasts I saw both voting in and arranging the elections in the Ararat region on election day.

If my party in Norway sends someone to represent us in a national body, that representative has to be loyal to that democratic institution and not just to his party. I saw a lack of that in Armenia. People were more likely to represent themselves than the independence and integrity of democratic institutions. Are those democratic institutions democratic and do they have integrity? I doubt it. It seems to me that the institutions have been destroyed because those sitting in them do not act independently and with integrity but tend to stick up for those they represent. I wish to cite the German philosopher, Hannah Arendt, who said that being a human being means being able to debate in a public space. I saw a lack of such space for real debates in Armenia and that is something that Armenians will have to create in the future.

Furthermore, politically motivated arrests and forms of repression should stop and those detained should be released. Those who commit crimes should be prosecuted whether they are civilians or the police. There is a need for a credible, transparent investigation into the events of 1 March.

Address by Mr Bernard Kouchner, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France

Mr LECOQ (France) – on behalf of the group - said that the world faced the increasing challenge posed by climate change. He asked the Minister to explain why European governments had increased spending on the arms race had why climate change was considered such a threat.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Kouchner?

Mr KOUCHNER answered that climate change was indeed a big threat which was already causing misery and poverty in parts of the world. The consequences of global warming were evident in some of the world’s poorest countries. It was therefore important for all political parties, and all countries, to agree about the decisions on the way ahead. It was necessary to put aside land for the production of biofuels, but a balance needed to be struck in terms of the land required for food production.

Terrorism, another threat posed to European societies, had recently taken on more extreme forms. The international community had not exhausted all possible avenues in combating the problem. He suggested that a debate on disarmament was necessary, while also acknowledging that those issues were in conflict with each other.

Thursday 17 April 2008 at 3 p.m.

Promoting the teaching of European literature

Mr LECOQ (France) – on behalf of the group - thanked Mr Legrendre for the quality of his report and for his work in preparing it. European literature was about shared linguistic, national and territorial values and was also a celebration of a rich variety of styles and diversity of genres. He fully endorsed the report which, in the light of increasing legal and economic co-operation between European states, celebrated national and regional traditions.

In considering the work of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education on promoting the teaching of European literature, the question which came to mind was whether knowledge of European literature could lead to European citizenship. Literature, like art, knew no boundaries and was the product of European consciousness and values. It brought people together and was deeply intertwined with political, social, economic and cultural values. The report called for the promotion of the teaching of European literature and increased accessibility of literature for people as a whole. He questioned whether the use of new technologies could contribute to increased accessibility. He considered how universities and educational institutions generally could promote European literature and how knowledge could be shared through common teaching programmes and methodologies. Inevitably, that would depend on the desire of stakeholders and the availability of resources. He thanked the rapporteur and also thanked Mr Maalouf for his comments on the world we live in.

The accession of the European Union/European Community to the European Convention on Human Rights

Mrs POSTOICO (Moldova) – on behalf of the group - thanked the rapporteur for her detailed report on the problem and extended her thanks to Mr Kox and colleagues. The issue of the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights had been under discussion for about 30 years and the Assembly had regularly called for accession. It was now a top priority. That had been emphasised in the Lisbon Treaty and the Warsaw Declaration, which had recognised common interests among European countries in human rights, democracy and the rule of law. It was important to make headway. The Treaty of Lisbon, amending the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community now provided the legal basis for EU accession to the ECHR. The political will for accession existed both within the EU and ECHR and the legal situation now permitted it.

Intent should now give way to putting such accession into practice. Citizens of Europe had to look to the ECHR to guarantee the defence of their human rights. The content of the report was of interest to all countries and all governments should step up and accelerate efforts to EU accession. The Council of Europe had to unite and pool its efforts in order for accession to take place.

Friday 18 April 2008 at 10 a.m.

Immigration from sub-Saharan Africa

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – on behalf of the group - said that the report was very interesting and important. Its proposals would help and assist the population of sub-Saharan Africa, and he congratulated Mr Branger.

(The speaker continued in English) As I said earlier, the report is interesting, and it is important that we are able to debate it today. The main question for my group, however, is, “Why do so many people from sub-Saharan Africa try to reach European shores at almost any price, and why do so few people from Europe go to sub-Saharan Africa? Why are we not eager to reach those shores except, perhaps, as tourists who will look around, spend our money and then return home safely to Europe? Bill Clinton would say, “It’s the economy, stupid.” The contrast between our wealth – our prosperity – and the poverty of those in sub-Saharan Africa is the engine that drives those huge human flows from south to north. If we do not adjust that engine, it will continue to produce such waves of immigration.

In general, our countries are not willing to open their borders to poor people from elsewhere, especially those from sub-Saharan Africa. Most African immigrants can find their way to us only via illegal channels, which makes most of them extremely vulnerable to criminal networks that offer transport and illegal entry, but with no guarantee and no quality. That leads to dramatic events, some of which we can see live on our televisions. Most of them involve anonymity, but that can produce even more dramatic results.

Many immigrants fail to reach the land of milk and honey; many die in the waves of the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. If they reach Europe, they are often victims of barbaric exploitation by companies that are not interested in people and very interested in profit. If they do reach a European country, conflicts arise with those who already live there and who feel that Europe belongs to them rather than to the new arrivals. That makes the immigrants’ lives very problematic.

My group supports the report in general. As I have said, it makes a good analysis and contains good proposals. However, we suggest that the Assembly and the rapporteur should see it as only a beginning. We need a follow-up, examining in more depth the economic mechanism that causes people to leave home and family for an unknown and often not particularly friendly Fortress Europe. It could also examine in more depth the efforts that some governments have already made, and the results of their policies, to establish whether those results are good enough to serve as an example to other countries and governments. We need to know more about the attempts that have been made to change the economic relationship between the south and the north that makes those from the south come to us and prevents us from going to them. The follow-up report could evaluate existing policy and propose future policy to governments and parliaments in our part of the world, and also those in other parts of the world.

We congratulate the rapporteur and, as I have said, we will support the report in general, but I ask the Assembly to accept that this is only the beginning of the debate, and that much more must be done to change the economic mechanism that brings the immigrants to us not of their own free will, but because they have no choice.